Agenda packet — Beaumont City Council, November 5, 2024 (part 6 of 8)

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: Qty 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 $4317 million through buildout, net of existing unreserved impact fee fund balances.

WILLDAN
Financial Services
41

Page 742 of 1100 ends

City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Table 5.3: Planned Fire Facilities
Quantity Units Unit Cost Cost
Fire Station 66 Plumbing System Improvement Project
Fire Station 66 Apparatus Bay Improvements
$ 108,000
162,000
New Station: N of 1-10/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 $18,765,148
Less Existing Fund Balance 5,799,822
Net Cost of Planned Facilities $12,965,326
Source: aty of Beaumont FY24 Capital Improvement Ran.

Quantity Units Unit Cost Cost
New Station: N of I -10/E of Beaumont A v
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 1-10/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: aty of Beaumont FY25 Capital Improvement Flan; City of Beaumont.

WILLDAN
Financial Services
42

Page 743 of 1100 ends

City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 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
$ 17,263,662
60,358
$ 286
$ 286
Facility Standard per Worker' 197
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 sestprojected per capita needed to fully fund the plaaaedinvestment in recreation facilities. The level of service indicated by the planned facilities is lower than the existing standard. at the planning horizon. This level of service drives the fee calculation. This value is calculated by dividing the -cost of existing and planned facilities by the increase in service population. The resulting cost per capita drives the fee calculation. at the planning horizon..

Table 5.5: Fire Protection Facilities �'�dSystem Plan
Facilities Standard
Net Cost of Planned Facilities
Growth in Service Population (2023 to Buildout)
Cost per Capita
$ 12,965,326
56,029
$ 231
Cost Allocation per Resident
Cost Allocation per Worker 160
$ 231
Based on the w eighing factor of 0.69.

Sources: Tables 5.1 and 5.3.

WILLDAN
Financial services
43

Page 744 of 1100 ends

City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 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 Rcvcnuc ProjectionFunding Required
The City plans to use fire protection facilities fee revenue to construct improvements and acquire capital facilities and equipment to add to the system of fire protection facilities to serve new development. The City plans to acquire the facilities in Table 5.3. By using the planned facilities, reven o for this fon'rfii eateg
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.
tr„DAN
F1113fIG121 SBfVIC68
44

Page 745 of 1100 ends

City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Table 5.6: Revenue Projection - Svstem Plan Standard
Cost per Capita $ 294
Growth in Service Population (2023 to Buildout) 56,029
$ 16,472,432
Net Cost of Planned Facilities 17,007,587
Non -Fee Revenue To Be Identified $ 535,155
Fee Revenue
Sources: Tables 5.1, 5.3 and 5.5.

Fee Schedule
The total fee includes a one percent (1%) administrative charge to fund costs that include: (1) costs including revenue collection, rcvcnuc, and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and this assumption.

Table 5.6Table 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
Residential Duelling Unit
A 8
Cost Per
Capita Density
$ 231 3.22
Nonresidential - per 1,000 Sq. Ft.

Commercial $ 160 2.12
Industrial/Business Park 160 3.08
Industrial/High-Cube Warehouse 160 0.88
C=AxB D=Cx0.01
Admin
Base Feet Charger' 2
$ 745 $ 7
$ 339 $ 3
493 5
141 1
E=C+D F=E/Average
Fee per
Total Fee Sq. Ft.
$ 752 $ 0.28
$ 342 $ 0.34
498 0.50
142 0.14
1 Fee per average sized dw elling unit or per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential building space. 2 Adntinistrative charge of 1.0 percent for (1) legal, accounting, and other administrative support and (2) impact fee program adrrinistrative 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 5.5.
t'WILLDAN
Financial Services
45 - Formatted: Font: Bold

Page 746 of 1100 ends

Land Use
Residential Duelling Unit
A B
Cost Per
Capita Density
$ 294 3.22
Nonresidential - per 1,000 Sq. Ft.

Commercial $ 203 2.12
Industrial/Business Park 203 3.08
Industrial/High-Cube Warehouse 203 0.88
C=AxB D=CxO.01
Admin
Base Fee' Charge1' 2
$ 947 $ 9
$ 430 $ 4
625 6
179 2
E=C+D F=E/Average
Fee per
Total Fee Sq. Ft.
$ 956 $ 0.36
$ 434 $ 0.43
631 0.63
181 0.18
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) 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.

Sources: Tables 2.2 and 5.5.

WILLDAN
Financial Services
46

Page 747 of 1100 ends

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.

WWILLDAN
Financial Services
47

Page 748 of 1100 ends

City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Table 6.1: Police 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

0.31 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.

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. TheThe 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.

WILLDAN
Financial Services
48 Formatted: French (France)
Formatted: French (France)

Page 749 of 1100 ends

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
Police Department Annex Building - 1580 E. 8th Street
Subtotal

1.94 acres

0.08 acres
$218,600 $ 424,084
218,600 16,837
$ 440,921
Buildings I
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
Prius
27 vehicles $ 49,186 $ 1,328,022
1 vehicles 42,525 42,525
Tahoe
Escape
Model Y
Model 3
Ray 4
Sienna
M2
F150
Malibu
Subtotal
Total Value - Existing Facilities
7 2
1 1
2 1
1 1
5 50
vehicles
vehicles
vehicles
vehicles
vehicles
vehicles
vehicles
vehicles
vehicles
44,922
26,360
55,290
41,290
32,526
50,800
52,500
50,427
21,051
314,454
52,720
55,290
41,290
65,052
50,800
52,500
50,427
105.255
$ 2,188,335
$ 2,629,256
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.
trWI LLDAN
Financial Services
49

Page 750 of 1100 ends

City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 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 aty purchase of 30 acres for $3.8 million. tight 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 $73.252.3 million through buildout, net of existing unreserved impact fee fund balances.

WILLDAN
Financial Services
50

Page 751 of 1100 ends

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

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 PriorYear(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.

WILLDAN
Financial Services
51

Page 752 of 1100 ends

City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Table 6.4: Existing Level of Service
Value of Existing Facilities
Existing Service Population
Cost per Capita
$ 2,629,256
57,997
$ 45
Facility Standard per Resident
Facility Standard per Worker 14
$ 45
1 Based on a w eighing factor of 0.31.

Sources: Tables 6.1 and 6.3.

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.

WILLDAN
Financial Services
52

Page 753 of 1100 ends

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)
$ 2,629,256

73.182.221
$ 75,811,477
Future Sendce Population (Buildout) 105,790
Cost per Capita
Cost Allocation per Resident
Cost Allocation per Worker' 222
$ 717
$ 717
Based on a weighting factor of 0.31.

Sources: Tables 6.1, 6.2 and 6.3.

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
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 $38:927 million in non -fee funding will be needed to complete the planned police facilities.

WILLDAN
Financial Services
53

Page 754 of 1100 ends

City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update The City will need to use alternative funding sources to fund existing development's share of the planned 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 $ 717
Growth in Service Population (2023 to Buildout) 47,793
Fee Revenue $ 34,267,352
Net Cost of Planned Facilities
Non -Fee Revenue To Be Identified
73,182,221
$ (38,914,869)
Sources: Tables 6.1, 6.3 and 6.4.

Cost per Capita $ 529
Growth in Service Population (2023 to Buildout) 47,793
Fee Revenue
Net Cost of Planned Facilities
Non -Fee Rexenue To Be Identified
$ 25,282,328
52,292,457
$ (27,010,129)
Sources: Tables 6.1, 6.3 and 6.4.

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

Table 6.7Table 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.

Page 755 of 1100 ends

City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Table 6.7: Police Facilities Fee Schedule
Land Use
Residential Duelling Unit
A B
Cost Per
Capita Density
$ 717 3.22
Nonresidential - per 1,000 Sq. Ft.

Commercial $ 222 2.12
Industrial/Business Park 222 3.08
Industrial/High-Cube Warehouse 222 0.88
C=AxB D=Cx0.01
Admin
Base Feel Charge1'2
$ 2,309 $ 23
$ 471 $ 5
684 7
195 2
E=C+D F=E/Average
Fee per
Total Fee Sq. Ft.
$ 2,332 $ 0.87
$ 476 $ 0.48
691 0.69
197 0.20
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) inpact 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 6.5.

AAIWILLDAN
Flnanclai `n� �"�
55

Page 756 of 1100 ends

Land Use
Residential Dwelling Unit
A B
Cost Per
Capita Density
$ 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
C=AxB D=Cx0.01
Admin
Base Feel Char gel' 2
$ 1,703 $ 17
$ 348 $ 3
505 5
144 1
E=C+D F=E/Average
Fee per
Total Fee Sa. Ft.
$ 1,720 $ 0.64
$ 351 $ 0.35
510 0.51
145 0.15
'Fee per average sized dwelling unit or per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential building space. 'Administrative charge of 1.0 percent for (1) legal, accounting, and other administrative support and (2) in -pact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.
3Assumes an average of 2,687 square feet per dwelling unit based on an analysis of building permits issued in Beaumont from 2018 to 2023.

Sources: Tables 2.2 and 6.5.

WWILLDAN
Financial Services
56

Page 757 of 1100 ends

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.

WWILLDAN
Financial Services
57

Page 758 of 1100 ends

City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Table 7.1: Public 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

0.31 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.

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
58

Page 759 of 1100 ends

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

4.22 acres $218,600 $ 922,492

0.01 acres 218,600 2,186

4.23 $ 924,678
23,283 sq. ft. $
324 sq. ft.
4,241 sq. ft.
3,606 sq. ft.
1,750 sq. ft.
2,240 sq. ft.
35,444
Total Value - Existing Facilities $ 924,678
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 $23.39 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 1,703,433
Net Cost of Planned Facilities $ 23,345,367
Unit cost from 2017 Development Imppct 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.

McWI LLDAN
Financial Services
59

Page 760 of 1100 ends

City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 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
1 Unit cost from 2017 Development Imppct Fee Study, adjusted for inflation using the Engineering News Record's Building Cost Index.

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

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

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.

McWI LLDAN
Financial Services
60

Page 761 of 1100 ends

City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Table 7.5: Public Facilities System Standard
Value of Existing Facilities
Value of Planned Facilities
Total System Value (Buildout)
$ 924,678

23.345.367
$24,270,045
Future Service Population (Buildout) 105,790
Cost per Capita
Cost Allocation per Resident
Cost Allocation per Worker
$ 229
$ 229
71 Based on a w eighting factor of 0.31.

Sources: Tables 7.1, 7.2 and 7.3.

Value of Existing Facilities
Value of Planned Facilities
Total System Value (Buildout)
$ 924,678

23.889, 646
$24,814,324
Future Service Population (Buildout) 105,790
Cost per Capita $ 235
Cost Allocation per Resident $ 235
Cost Allocation per Worker' 73
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 $12.47 million in non -fee funding will be needed to complete the planned public facilities.

WILLDAN
Financial Services
61

Page 762 of 1100 ends

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

Table 7.6: Revenue Projection - System Standard
Cost per Capita $ 229
Growth in Service Population (2023 to Buildout) 47,793
Fee Revenue
Net Cost of Planned Facilities
Non -Fee Revenue to be Identified
$ 10,944,524
23,345,367
$ (12,400,843)
Sources: Tables 7.1, 7.3 and 7.4.

Cost per Capita $ 235
Growth in Service Population (2023 to Buildout) 47,793
Fee Revenue
Net Cost of Planned Facilities
Non -Fee Rexenue to be Identified
$ 11,231,280
23,889,646
$ (12,658,366)
Sources: Tables 7.1, 7.3 and 7.4.

Tablc 7.7Table 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.

Page 763 of 1100 ends

City of Beaumont
Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update
Table 7.7: Public Facilities Fee Schedule
Land Use
A B
Cost Per
Capita Densi
ty
C=AxB D=Cx0.01
Admin
Base Feel Charger' 2
E=C+D F=E/Average
Fee per
Total Fee Sq. Ft.

Residential Dwelling Unit $ 229 3.22 $ 737 $ 7 $ 744 $ 0.28 Nonresidential - per 1.000 Sq. Ft.

Commercial $ 71 2.12 $ 151 $ 2 $ 153 $ 0.15
Industrial/Business Park 71 3.08 219 2 221 0.22
Industrial/High-Cube Warehouse 71 0.88 62 1 63 0.06
1 Fee per average sized dw elling unit or per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential building space. 2 Adninistrative charge of 1.0 percent for (1) legal, accounting, and other administrative support and (2) in -pact fee program adrrinistrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.
3 Assumes an average of 2,687 square feet per dw elling unit based on an analysis of building permits issued in Beaumont from 2018 to 2023.

Sources: Tables 2.2 and 7.5.

Land Use
Residential Dwelling Unit
Nonresidential - per 1.000 Sq. Ft.

Commercial $ 73 2.12 $ 155 $ 2 $ 157 $ 0.16
Industrial/Business Park 73 3.08 225 2 227 0.23
Industrial/High-Cube Warehouse 73 0.88 64 1 65 0.07
A B
Cost Per
Capita Densi
ty
$ 235 3.22
C=AxB D=Cx0.01
Admin
Base Feet Charge' 2
$ 757 $ 8
E=C+D F=E/Average
Fee per
Total Fee Sq. Ft.
$ 765 $ 0.28
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 adrrinistrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.
'Assumes an average of 2,687 square feet per dw elling unit based on an analysis of building permits issued in Beaumont from 2018 to 2023.

Sources: Tables 2.2 and 7.5.

WILLDAN
Financial Services
63

Page 764 of 1100 ends

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.

L �'WILDAN
F1113fIL12� SBfVIC68
64

Page 765 of 1100 ends

City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Table 8.1: Trip Demand Factors
Residential - per Dwelling Unit
Single Family
Multifamily
Nonresidential - per 1,000 Sq. Ft.

Commercial
Industrial/Business Park
Industrial/High-Cube Warehouse3
ITE Category
Single Family Housing (210)
PM Peak
Pass -by Hour Adjusted
Trips1 Trips2 Trip Rate
A B C=(1-A)xB
0% 0.99 0.99
Multifamily Housing (Low -Rise) (220) 0% 0.57 0.57
Shopping Center (820) 34% 4.09 2.70
Business Park (770) 0% 1.22 1.22
High -Cube Transload, Fulfilment
Center, Parcel Hub, Cold Storage 0% 0.32 0.32
Warehouse (154, 155, 156, 157)
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 network. Assumption based on ITETrip Generation Handbook data.
3 Trips per dw elling unit or per 1,000 building square feet. a 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.

Residential - per Dwelling Unit
Single Family
Multifamily
Nonresidential - per 1,000 So. Ft.

Commercial
Industrial/Business Park
Industrial/High-Cube Warehouse3
Transload and Short -Term Storage Warehouse
Fulfillment Center Warehouse - Non -Sort
Parcel Hub Warehouse
Cold Storage Warehouse
ITE Category
Single Family Housing (210)
Multifamily Housing (Low -Rise) (220)
Shopping Center (820)
Business Park (770)
Average
High -Cube Transload and Short -Term
Storage Warehouse (154)
High -Cube Fulfillment Center Warehouse -
Non -Sort (155)
High -Cube Parcel Hub Warehouse (156)
High -Cube Cold Storage Warehouse (157)
Pass -by
Trips'
PM Peak
Hour
Trips
Adjusted
Trip Rate
A 8 C=(1-A),B
0% 0.94 0.94
0% 0.51 0.51
34% 3.40 2.24
0% 1.22 1.22
0% 0.26 0.26
0% 0.10 0.10
0% 0.16 0.16
0% 0.64 0.64
0% 0.12 0.12
Percent of total trips. A pass -by trip is made as an intermediate stop on the way from an origin to a primary trip destination without a route diversion. Pass -by trips are not considered to add traffic to the road network. Assurrption based on nE Trip Generation Handbook data. x Weekday Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic (One Fbur Between 4 and 6 p.m) trips per dwelling unit or per 1,000 building square feet.

Average trip rate for all high -cube warehouse uses identified in nETrip 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.

WILLDAN
Financial Services
65

Page 766 of 1100 ends

City of Beaumont
Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update
Table 8.2: Land Use Scenario and Total Trips
Land Use
Trip 2023
Demand Units/
Factor 1,000 SF Trips
Buildout
Units /
1,000 SF Trips
Total - Buildout
Units /
1,000 SF Trips
Residential - per Dwelling Unit
Single Family
Multifamily
Subtotal
Nonrasidentialp r 1 000 Sq. Ft.

Commercial 2.70 1,792 4,840
Industrial/Business Park 1.22 352 430
Industrial/High-Cube Warehouse 0.32 1,511 484
Subtotal

0.99 16,583 16,417

0.57 2,136 1,218
18,719 17,635
3,656 5,754
Total 23,389

45.6%
6,498 6,433
5,804 3,308
12,302 9,741
5,304 14,320
532 649
9,991 3,197
15,827 18,166
27,907

54.4%
23,081 22,850
7,940 4,526
31,021 27,376
7,096 19,160
884 1,079
11,502 3,681
19,483 23,920
51,296
100%
Sources: Tables 2.1 and 8.1.

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
Multifamily
Subtotal
Nonresidential - per 1.000 So. Ft.

Commercial 2.24 1,792 4,015 5,304 11,881 7,096 15,896
Industrial/Business Park 1.22 352 430 532 649 884 1,079 Industrial/High-Cube Warehouse 0.26 1,511 393 9,991 2,598 11,502 2,991 Subtotal 3,656 4,838 15,827 15,128 19,483 19,966

0.94 16,583 15,588 6,498 6,108 23,081 21,696

0.51 2,136 1,089 5,804 2,960 7,940 4,049
18,719 16,677 12,302 9,068 31,021 25,745
Total
21,515 24,196 45,711

47.1% 52.9% 100%
Sources: Tables 2.1 and 8.1.

Project Costs
Cost estimates are summarized in Table 8.3 and were sourced from the City's CIP. Any funding that has been identified for these projects is netted out of the total cost. The net costs are allocated to new development proportionally to new development's share of trip demand at the planning horizon as calculated in Table 8.2 (54-452.9%). 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.

WILLDAN
Financial Services
66

Page 767 of 1100 ends

City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Table 8.3: Planned Facilities
Project No. Project Title
Less Allocation to Cost Allocated to
Total Project Alternative Net Project New New
Cost Funding Cost Development Development
Streets and Budges
R-01 Oak Valley Pkwy Expansion 110 -Desert Lawn Phase 2 $ 600,000 $ $ 600,000 54.4% $ 326,400 R-12 2nd Street Extension Construction 4,800,000 4,800,000 54.4% 2,611,200 2017-027 Oak Valley/I-10 Interchange Design 85,000,000 11,660,000 73,340,000 54.4% 39,896,960 2017-001 Pennsylvania Interchange 85,000,000 85,000,000 54.4% 46,240,000 R-37 Beaumont Avenue/1-10 Interchange Project 125,000,000 5,869,000 119,131,000 54.4% 64,807,264 Highland Springs (Beaumont Share) 60,000,000 30,000,000 30,000,000 54.4% 16,320,000 R-02 Citywide Traffic Signal Upgrade & Capacity Improvement Phase 1 150,000 - 150,000 54.4% 81,600 R-11 Citywide Traffic Signal Upgrade & Capacity Improvement Phase 2 150,000 150,000 54.4% 81,600 R-13 Citywide Traffic Signal Upgrade & Capacity Improvement Phase 3 274,400 274,400 54.4% 149,274 R25-03 Citywide Traffic Signal Upgrade & Capacity Improvement FY25 150,000 150,000 54.4% 81,600 R26-03 Citywide Traffic Signal Upgrade & Capacity Improvement FY26 150,000 150,000 54.4% 81,600 R27 03 Citywidc Traffic Signal Upgradc & Capacity Improvcmcnt FY27 160,000 160,000 5'1.4% 81,600 R28-03 Citywide Traffic Signal Upgrade & Capacity Improvement FY28 150,000 150,000 54.4% 81,600 R-34 Citywide Traffic Signal Upgrade & Capacity Improvement FY24 150,000 150,000 54.4% 81,600 Traffic Signal Installation at Future Location 600,000 600,000 54.4% 326,400 Traffic Signal Installation at Future Location 600,000 600,000 54.4% 326,400 Traffic Signal Installation at Future Location 600,000 600,000 54.4% 326,400 Citywide Traffic Signal System Upgrade 2,000,000 2,000,000 54.4% 1,088,000 Subtotal $ 365,524,400 $ 47,529,000 $ 317,995,400 $ 172,989,498 Railroad
2017-012 Pennsylvania Ave/UPR Grade Separation
Califomia URP Grade Separation'
Subtotal
$ 73,700,000 $ 8,678,556 $ 65,021,444
100,000,000 70,000,000 30,000,000
$ 173,700,000 $ 78,678,556 $ 95,021,444

54.4% $ 35,371,666

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

Source: City of Beaumont Master CIP, Table 8.2, Willdan Financial Services. /WILLDAN
Financial Services
67

Page 768 of 1100 ends

City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Project No. Project Title
Less Allocation to Cost Allocated to
Total Project Alternative Net Project New New
Cost Funding Cost Development Development
Streets and Bridges
2017-027 Oak Valley/I-10 Interchange Design $ 85,000,000 $ 6,412,113 $ 78,587,887 52.9% $ 41,572,992 2017-001 Pennsylvania Interchange 80,000,000 80,000,000 52.9% 42,320,000 R-37 Beaumont Avenue/ 1-10 Interchange Project 125,000,000 5,869,000 119,131,000 52.9% 63,020,299 FUTO7 Highland Springs (Beaumont Share) 60,000,000 30,000,000 30,000,000 52.9% 15,870,000 R25-07 Traffic Signal at OVP and Palm Avenue' 600,000 300,000 300,000 52.9% 158,700 R26-03 Citywide Traffic Signal Upgrade & Capacity Improvement FY26 150,000 - 150,000 52.9% 79,350 R27-03 Citywide Traffic Signal Upgrade & Capacity Improvement FY27 150,000 150,000 52.9% 79,350 R28-03 Citywide Traffic Signal Upgrade & Capacity Improvement FY28 150,000 150,000 52.9% 79,350 R29-03 Citywide Traffic Signal Upgrade & Capacity Improvement FY29 150,000 150,000 52.9% 79,350 R26-04 Traffic Signal Installation at Future Location 600,000 600,000 52.9% 317,400 R27-04 Traffic Signal Installation at Future Location 600,000 600,000 52.9% 317,400 R28-04 Traffic Signal Installation at Future Location 600,000 600,000 52.9% 317,400 R26-05 Citywide Traffic Signal System Upgrade 2,000,000 2,000,000 52.9% 1,058,000 Subtotal $355,000,000 $ 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 52.9% $ 31,751,344 California URP Grade Separation2 100,000,000 70,000,000 30,000,000 52.9% 15,870,000 Subtotal $ 173,700,000 $ 83,678,556 $ 90,021,444 $ 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 ill be funded w ith grants.

Source: City of Beaumont FY25 Capital Improvement Flan; Qty of Beaumont; Table 8.2, Willdan Financial Services. /WILLDAN
Financial Services
68

Page 769 of 1100 ends

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

Table 8.4 calculates the cost the cost per trip demand unit by dividing the total project costs attributable to new development by transportation fee category summarized in Table 8.3, by the total growth in trips calculated in Table 8.2.

Table 8.4: Cost per Trip to Accommodate Growth
Streets and Railroad
Bridges 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
$ 172,989,498 $
13,462,129
$ 159,527,369 $
27,907
$ 5,716 $
51,691,666
2,809,846
48,881,819
27,907
1,752
1 Fund balance show n for streets and bridges fee includes $12,090,363 from the streets and bridges impact fee fund and $1,371,766 from the traffic signals impact fee fund. These fund balances must be spent on the purpose they w ere collected for. Going forward 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.

Streets and
Bridges Railroad Crossings
Costs Allocated to New Deeelopment
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
'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.

WWILLDAN
Financial Services
69

Page 770 of 1100 ends

City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 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.

Table 8.5: Transportation Facilities Impact Fee Schedule Land Use
Streets and Bridges
Residential Dtnelling Unit
A B C=AxB D=Cx0.01 E=C+D E/1,000
Trip Fee
Cost Per Demand Admin per Sq.

Trip Factor Base Feel Charger' 2 Total Feel Ft.
$ 5,716 0.79
Nonresidential - per 1.000 Sq. Ft.

Commercial $ 5,716 2.70
Industrial/Business Park 5,716 1.22
Industrial/High-Cube Warehouse 5,716 0.32
Railroad Crossings
Rcsidcntial Dwcllinq Unit $ 1,752 0.79
Nonresidential - per 1.000 Sq. Ft.

Commercial $ 1,752 2.70
Industrial/Business Park 1,752 1.22
Industrial/High-Cube Warehouse 1,752 0.32
$ 4,516 $ 45
$ 15,433 $ 154
6,974 70
1,829 18
$ 4,730 $ 47
2,137 21
561 6
$ 4,561 $ 1.70
$ 15,587 $ 15.59
7,044 7.04
1,847 1.85
$ 4,777 $ 4.78
2,158 2.16
567 0.57
' Fee per average sized dw elling unit or per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential. 2 Adninistrative charge of 2.0 percent for (1) legal, accounting, and other administrative support and (2) impact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification 'Assumes an average of 2,687 square feet per dw elling unit based on an analysis of building permits issued in Beaumont from 2018 to 2023.
° Average trip demand factor per residential dwelling unit weighted by projected single family and multifarrily development.

Sources: Tables 8.1 and 8.4.

WILLDAN
Financial Services
70

Page 771 of 1100 ends

City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Land Use
Streets and Bridges
Residential Dwelling Unit'
A B
Tri p
Cost Per Demand
Trip Factor
$ 6,654 0.74
Nonresidential - per 1.000 Sq. Ft.

Commercial $ 6,654 2.24
Industrial/Business Park 6,654 1.22
Industrial/High-Cube Warehouse
Transload and Short -Term Storage Warehouse $ 6,654 0.10 Fulfillment Center Warehouse - Non -Sort 6,654 0.16
Parcel Hub Warehouse 6,654 0.64
Cold Storage Warehouse 6,654 0.12
Railroad Crossings
Residential Dwelling Unit4 $ 1,873 0.74
Nonresidential - per 1.000 So. Ft.

Commercial $ 1,873 2.24
Industrial/Business Park 1,873 1.22
Industrial/High-Cube Warehouse
Transload and Short -Term Storage Warehouse $ 1,873 0.10 Fulfillment Center Warehouse - Non -Sort 1,873 0.16
Parcel Hub Warehouse 1,873 0.64
Cold Storage Warehouse 1,873 0.12
C=AxB D=Cx0.01 E=C+D E/1,000
Fee
Admin per Sq.

Base Feet Char.e1' 2 Total Fee' Ft.
$ 4,924 $ 49
$ 14,905 $ 149
8,118 81
$ 665 $ 7
1,065 11
4,259 43
798 8
$ 1,386 $ 14
$ 4,196 $ 42
2,285 23
$ 187 $ 2
300 3
1,199 12
225 2
$ 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
$ 4,238 $ 4.24
2,308 2.31
$ 189 $ 0.19
303 0.30
1,211 1.21
227 0.23
1 Fee per average sized dw elling unit or per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential. z Administrative charge of 2.0 percent for (1) legal, accounting, and other administrative support and (2) impact fee prog am administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses. 'Assumes an average of 2,687 square feet per dw elling unit based on an analysis of building permits issued in Beaumont from 2018 to 2023. ° Average trip demand factor per residential dw elling unit w eighted by projected single family and muttilamily devebpment.

Sources: Tables 8.1 and 8.4

WWILLDAN
Financial Services
71

Page 772 of 1100 ends

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
Average Flow
Generation per Equivalent
Flow DU or 1,000 Sq. Dwelling Unit
Land Use Type Generation' Density2 Ft. (EDU)
Residential Dulling Unit
Single Family
Multifamily
2,609 17.00
235.00 1.00
153.47 0.65
Commercial 1,175 32.67 35.97 0.15
Industrial/Business Park 1,175 43.56 26.97 0.11
Industrial/High-Cube Warehouse 1,763 32.67 53.96 0.23
1 Gallons per acre per day.
2 Units per acre for residential or 1,000 square feet per acre for nonresidential. Residential and nonresidential densities are based on typical densities for each land use from the General Flan. Nonresidential densities are based on floor -area -ratios of 0.75 for commercial, 1.0 for industrial/business park and 0.75 for industriaVw arehouse.

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

WWILLDAN
Financial Services
72

Page 773 of 1100 ends

City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Land Use Type
Average Flow
Generation per Equivalent
Flow DU or 1,000 Sq. Dwelling Unit
Generation' Density2 Ft. (EDU)
Residential Dwelling Unit
Single Family 235.00 1.00
Multifamily 2,609 17.00 153.47 0.65
Nonresidential - per 1.000 Sq. Ft.

Commercial 1,175 32.67 35.97 0.15
Industrial/Business Park 1,763 30.49 57.82 0.25
Industrial/High-Cube Warehouse 1,763 30.49 57.82 0.25
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 industriaVbusiness park and industriaVw arehouse uses.

Sources: Table 3.3, Beaumont Wastew ater Master Ran, 2021; Willdan Financial Services.

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 13,422697 new EDUs through buildout, comprising 41-:942.3% 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
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 - er 1 000 S . Ft.

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

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

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

McWI LLDAN
Financial Services
73

Page 774 of 1100 ends

City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Land Use
2023
EDU Units/
Factor 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%
Sources: Tables 2.1 and 9.1.

Growth 2023 to Buildout
Units /
1,000 SF EDUs
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%
Total - Buildout
Units/
1,000 SF EDUs
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%
Facility Needs and Costs
Table 9.3 identifies the planned sewer facilities to be funded by the fee. The new sewer facilities were all identified in the City's 2021 Wastewater Master Plan. Since (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 adiusted 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 willthat benefit both existing development and new development, rapacity cxpanding projcctGcosts 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.
�WILLDAN
Financial Services
74

Page 775 of 1100 ends

City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Table 9.3: Sewer Facilities Allocation to New Development Type of
Improv. No. Improvement
Lover Oak Valley Lift Station Tributary Area
LOV-P1 Future Capacity Increase
LOV-LS Lift Station Replacement
Subtotal
Tukwet Canyon (Nei) 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
Existing
Diameter
(in)
New/
Replace
15 Replace
- Replace
New
New
New
Capital
Improvement
Cost ($)
$ 202,500
2,003,600
$ 2,206,100
$ 2,578,300
2,578,300
1,404,000
$ 6,560,600
8 Replace $ 109,200
Allocation to
Dew
Development
Cost Allocated Cost Allocated
to Existing to New
Development Development
100% $
- $ 202,500
0% 2,003,600 -
$ 2,003,600 $ 202,500
100% $
100%
100%
- $ 2,578,300
2,578,300
1,404,000
100% $
- $ 6,560,600
- $ 109,200
UOV-P3 Future Capacity Increase
UOV-LS Lift Station Replacement
Subtotal
Olivewood Lift Station Tributary Area
O -P1 Future Capacity Increase
O -LS Lift Station Replacement
FM -1 Oak ValleyBled Embankment Stabilization
Subtotal
Brookside Avenue (Nevi Lift Station Tributary Area
BR -P1 New Capacity
BR-FM1 New Force Main
BR -LS New Lift Station
Subtotal
12 Replace
- Replace
10 Replace
- Replace
New
New
New
898,300
5,449,800
$ 6,554,700
$ 170,300
1,540,800
780,000
$ 2,491,100
$ 656,400
951,500
1,005,300
$ 2,613,200
100%
0% 5,449,800
898,300
$ 5,547, 200 $ 1,007,500
100% $
0%
0%
- $ 170,300
1,540,800
780,000
$ 2,320,800
100% $
100%
100%
$ 170,300
$ 656,400
951,500
1,005,300
- $ 2,613,200
Sources: Qty of Beaumont Wastewater Master Ran, 2021; Qty of Beaumont. �WILLDAN
Financial Services
75

Page 776 of 1100 ends

City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Table 9.3: Sewer Facilities Projects and Allocation to New Development Continued Existing Capital Allocation to Cost Allocated Cost Allocated Type of Diameter New/ Improvement Dew to Existing to New Improv. No. Improvement (in) Replace Cost ($) Development Development Development Beaumont Mesa Lift Station Tributary Area
BM -P1 New Capacity New $ 768,200 100% $ - $ 768,200
BM -P2 New Capacity New 498,700 100% 498,700
BM -P3 New Capacity New 844,400 100% 844,400
BM-FM1 Force Main Design and Pump Design New 450,000 100% 450,000 BM-FM1 New Force Main New 4,000,000 100% 4,000,000
BM -LS Pump Replacement/Addition Construction New 750,000 100% 750,000 BM -WW Wet Well Design New 400,000 100% 400,000
BM -WW New Wet Well New 4,000,000 100% 4,000,000
Subtotal $ 11,711,300 $ $ 11,711,300
Beaumont Crossroads (Nea 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 Wastewater Master an, 2021; City of Beaumont.

WWILLDAN
Financial Services
76

Page 777 of 1100 ends

City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Table 9.3: Sewer Facilities Projects and Allocation to New Development Continued Type of
Improv. No. Improvement
Wastewater Treatment Plant
WWTP-P1 Future Capacity Increase
WWTP-P2 Existing Capacity Deficiency
WWTP-P3 Future Capacity Increase
WWTP-P4 Future Capacity Increase
WWTP-P5 Future Capacity Increase
WWTP-P18 Future Capacity Increase
WWTP-P19 Future Capacity Increase
WWTP-P2- Future Capacity Increase
WWTP-P21 Future Capacity Increase
Aeration Basin No. 5 Future Capacity Increase
Fine Screens Basin Facility Future Capacity Increase
Centrifuge Future Capacity Increase
Membrane Future Capacity Increase
RIO Rack Future Capacity Increase
OCSD Capacity Fee Increase
Future Storage Building
Subtotal
Four Seasons Lift Station Tributary Area
FS -P1 Future Capacity Increase
FS -P2 Future Capacity Increase
FS -P3 Future Capacity Increase
FS -P4 Pipe Slope Reconstruction
FS -P5 Future Capacity Increase
FS -P6 Future Capacity Increase
FS -LS Lift Station Replacement
Subtotal
Existing
Diameter
(in)
12 12
12 24
30 10
10 12
24 10
10 12
12 15
10 New/
Replace
Replace $
Replace
Replace
Replace
Replace
Replace
Replace
Replace
Replace
New
New
New
New
New
New
New
Replace $
Replace
Replace
Replace
Replace
Replace
Replace
Capital Allocation to Cost Allocated
Improvement Dew to Existing
Cost ($) Development Development
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
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

41.9% 261,450 188,550
$ 468,150 $ 11,948, 050
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 Wastewater Master Flan, 2021; City of Beaumont.

WWILLDAN
Financial Services
77

Page 778 of 1100 ends

City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Table 9.3: Sewer Facilities Projects and Allocation to New Development Continued Type of
Improv. No. Improvement
Gravity Portion of Wastewater Collection System
S. Beaumont Ave South Future Gravity Mr
S. Califomia Ave South Future Gravity Mai
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) Fi
E. Desert Lawn Future Gravity Main
ubtota
Existing
Diameter New/
(in) Replace
21 12
12 12
12 15
15 12
8 New
New
New
New
Replace
New
New
New
New
Capital
Improvement
Cost ($)
$ 350,000
250,000
150,000
75,000
100,000
140,000
300,000
150,000
50,000
Allocation to Cost Allocated Cost Allocated
Dew to Existing to New
Development Development Development
100% $
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
350,000
250,000
150,000
75,000
100,000
140,000
300,000
150,000
50,000
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
New $ 750,000
New 60,000
$ 810,000
$ 3,600,000
300,000
4,800,000
2,000,000
1,500,000
$ 12,200,000
Total $ 70,382,100
100% $ - $ 750,000
100% - 60,000
$ - $ 810,000
0% $ 3,600,000 $
0% 300,000
0% 4,800,000
0% 2,000,000
0% 1,500,000
$ 12,200,000 $
$ 30,849,850 $ 39,532,250
Sources: aty of Beaumont Wastewater Master Plan, 2021; aty of Beaumont.

WWILLDAN
Financial Services
78

Page 779 of 1100 ends

City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Type of
Improv. No. Improvement
Lover Oak Valley Lift Station Tributary Area
LOV-P1 Future Capacity Increase
LOV-LS Lift Station Replacement
Subtotal
Tukvet Canyon (Nev) 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
Subtotal
Olivevood Lift Station Tributary Area
O -P1 Future Capacity Increase
O -LS Lift Station Replacement
FM -1 Oak ValleyBlul Embankment Stabilization
Subtotal
Brookside Avenue (New) Lift Station Tributary Area
BR -P1 New Capacity
BR-FM1 New Force Main
BR -LS New Lift Station
Subtotal
Lift Station Replacement
Existing
Diameter
(in)
Capital Allocation to Cost Allocated Cost Allocated
New/ Improvement Dew to Existing to New
Replace Cost ($) Development Development Development
15 Replace $ 202,500 100% $ - $ 202,500
- Replace 2,003,600 0% 2,003,600 -
$ 2,206,100 $ 2,003,600 $ 202,500
- New $ 2,578,300 100% $ - $ 2,578,300
- New 2,578,300 100% - 2,578,300
New 1,404,000 100% 1,404,000
$ 6,560,600 $ - $ 6,560,600
8 Replace $ 109,200 100% $ - $ 109,200
8 Replace 97,400 0% 97,400 -
12 Replace 898,300 100% 898,300
Replace 5,449,800 0% 5,449,800 -
$ 6,554,700 $ 5,547,200 $ 1,007,500
10 Replace $ 170,300 100% $ $ 170,300
- Replace 1,540,800 0% 1,540,800
780,000 0% 780,000
$ 2,491,100 $ 2,320,800 $ 170,300
New $ 656,400 100% $ - $ 656,400
New 951,500 100% - 951,500
New 1,005,300 100% 1,005,300
$ 2,613,200 $ - $ 2,613,200
Sources: Qty of Beaumont Wastewater Master Ran, 2021; Qty of Beaumont.

WWILLDAN
Financial Services
79

Page 780 of 1100 ends

City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Table 9.3: Sewer Facilities Projects and Allocation to New Development Continued Existing Capital Allocation to Cost Allocated Cost Allocated Type of Diameter New/ Improvement Dew to Existing to New Improv. No. Improvement (in) Replace Cost ($) Development Development Development Beaumont Mesa Lift Station Tributary Area
BM -P1 New Capacity New $ 768,200 100% $ - $ 768,200
BM -P2 New Capacity New 498,700 100% - 498,700
BM -P3 New Capacity New 844,400 100% - 844,400
BM-FM1 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 (Nea 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 Wastewater Master an, 2021; City of Beaumont.

WWILLDAN
Financial Services
80

Page 781 of 1100 ends

City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Table 9.3: Sewer Facilities Projects and Allocation to New Development Continued Type of
Improv. No. Improvement
Wastewater Treatment Plant
WWTP-P1 Existing Capacity Deficiency
WWTP-P2 Existing Capacity Deficiency
WWTP-P3 Future Capacity Increase
WWTP-P4 Future Capacity Increase
WWTP-P5 Future Capacity Increase
WWTP-P18 Future Capacity Increase
WWTP-P19 Future Capacity Increase
WWTP-P2- Future Capacity Increase
WWTP-P21 Future Capacity Increase
Aeration Basin No. 5 Future Capacity Increase
Fine Screens Basin Facility Future Capacity Increase
Centrifuge Future Capacity Increase
Membrane Future Capacity Increase
RIO Rack Future Capacity Increase
OCSD Capacity Fee Increase
Future Storage Building
Subtotal
Four Seasons Lift Station Tributary Area
FS -P1 Future Capacity Increase
FS -P2 Future Capacity Increase
FS -P3 Future Capacity Increase
FS -P4 Pipe Slope Reconstruction
FS -P5 Future Capacity Increase
FS -P6 Future Capacity Increase
FS -LS Lift Station Replacement
Subtotal
Existing
Diameter
(in)
12 12
12 24
30 10
10 12
24 10
10 12
12 15
10 New/
Replace
Replace $
Replace
Replace
Replace
Replace
Replace
Replace
Replace
Replace
New
New
New
New
New
New
New
Replace $
Replace
Replace
Replace
Replace
Replace
Replace
Capital Allocation to Cost Allocated
Improvement Dew to Existing
Cost ($) Development Development
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
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: a ty of Beaumont Wastew ater Master Ran, 2021; Qty of Beaumont.

WWI LLDAN
Financial Services
81

Page 782 of 1100 ends

City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Table 9.3: Sewer Facilities Projects and Allocation to New Development Continued Existing Capital Allocation to Cost Allocated Cost Allocated Type of Diameter New/ Improvement Dew to Existing to New Improv. No. Improvement (in) Replace Cost ($) Development Development Development Gravity Portion of Wastewater Collection System
S. Beaumont Ave South Future Gravity Mr 21 New $ 350,000 100% $ - $ 350,000 S. Califomia Ave South Future Gravity Mai 12 New 250,000 100% 250,000 S. Veile Ave Future Gravity Main 12 New 150,000 100% - 150,000 S. Olive Ave Future Gravity Main 12 New 75,000 100% 75,000 Oak Valley Parkway Gravity Main Capacit 12 Replace 100,000 100% - 100,000 Orange St Future Gravity Main 15 New 140,000 100% 140,000 Brookside Ave Future Gravity Main 15 New 300,000 100% 300,000 Oak Valley Pkwy (11-10 to Desert Lawn) Fi 12 New 150,000 100% - 150,000 E. Desert Lawn Future Gravity Main 8 New 50,000 100% - 50,000 Subtotal $ 1,565,000 $ - $ 1,565,000
Mobile Equipment
Combination Vacuum Truck with Overhead Boom New $ 750,000 100% $ - $ 750,000 Chase pickup truck outfitted with underground equipmer New 60,000 100% - 60,000 Subtotal $ 810,000 $ - $ 810,000
Other Wastewater System Improvements
Lift Station Condition Assessment $ 3,600,000 0% $ 3,600,000 $ CCTV Program 300,000 0% 300,000
On -going Pipeline Replacement Program 4,800,000 0% 4,800,000 Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements 2,000,000 0% 2,000,000 Future WWTP Energy Cost Reduction Program 1,500,000 0% 1,500,000 - Subtotal $ 12,200,000 $ 12,200,000 $
Total $ 70,382,100 $ 40,448,050 $ 29,934,050
Sources: aty of Beaumont Wastewater Master Plan, 2021; aty of Beaumont.

WWILLDAN
Financial Services
82

Page 783 of 1100 ends

City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Cost per EDU
The cost of planned facilities allocated to new development in Table 9.3, 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 $ 39,532,250
Growth in EDUs (2023 to Buildout) 13,422
Cost per EDU $ 2,945
Sources: Tables 9.2 and 9.3.

Cost Allocated to New Development $ 29,934,050
Less Existing Fund Balances 1,596,277
Net Cost Allocated to New Development $ 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
administrative support and (2) impact fcc program administrative costs including revenue Table 9.5.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.

WWILLDAN
Financial Services
83 Formatted: Font: Not Bold

Page 784 of 1100 ends

City of Beaumont
Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update
Table 9.5: Maximum Justified Sewer Facilities Fee Schedule A B C=AxB D=Cx0.01 E=C+D E/Average
Cost Per EDU Base Admin Fee per
EDU Factor Fee1 Charger' 2 Total Fee1 Sq. Ft.3
Residential Dtnelling Unit4 $ 2,945 0.83 $ 2,444 $ 24 $ 2,468 $ 0.92 Nonresidential - per 1,000 Sq. Ft.

Commercial $ 2,945 0.15 $ 442 $ 4 $ 446 $ 0.45
Industrial/Business Park 2,945 0.11 324 3 327 0.33
677 7
Industrial/High Cube Ware 2.945 0.23
684 0.68
1 Fee per average sized dw elling unit or per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential building space. 2 Administrative charge of 1.0 percent for (1) legal, accounting, and other administrative support and (2) impact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.
3Assumes an average of 2,687 square feet per dwelling unit based on an analysis of building permits issued in Beaumont from 2018 to 2023.
"Average ®U factor per residential dw elling unit w eighted by projected single family and multifamily development.

Sources: Tables 9.1 and 9.4.

Residential Deelling Unit4
A B
Cost Per EDU
EDU Factor
$ 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
C=AxB D=Cx0.01
Base Admin
Feel Charger, 2
$ 1,717 $ 17
$ 310 $ 3
517 5
517 5
E=C+D E/ Average
Fee per
Total Fee' Sq. Ft.3
$ 1,734 $ 0.65
$ 313 $ 0.31
522 0.52
522 0.52
1 Fee per average sized dwelling unit or per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential building space. 2 Administrative charge of 1.0 percent for (1) legal, accounting, and other administrative support and (2) impact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.
'Assumes an average of 2,687 square feet per dw elling unit based on an analysis of building permits issued in Beaumont from 2018 to 2023.

Average ®U factor per residential dwelling unit w eighted by projected single family and multifamily development.

Sources: Tables 9.1 and 9.4.
�'WILcialLDAN
Finan Services
84

Page 785 of 1100 ends

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
Awrage per Day (MG)

3.87 3.86 3.61 4.01
Source: aty 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 WWILL7AN
Financial Services
85

Page 786 of 1100 ends

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

Original Cost Less
Replacement Cost
Asset Function Original Cost Depreciation Replacement Cost Less Depreciation Treatment
General
Land
Total
$ 254,104,711
28,690,611
2,002,560
$ 284,797,882
$ 225,417,691
23,118,124
2,002,560
$ 250,538,375
$ 294,170,308 $
36,007,492
2,278,393
246,207,054
24,906,543
2,278,393
$ 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
$ 403,180, 096
79,060,000
Net Valuation $ 324,120,096
Sources: City of Beaumont Table 10.2, Willdan Financial Services.

IVVILLDAN
Financial Services
86

Page 787 of 1100 ends

City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Asset Valuation
Outstanding Debt Principal
Net Valuation
$ 273,391,990
79,060,000
$ 194,331,990
Sources: aty of Beaumont; Table 10.2, VYilldan 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 $5'1.0232.39. This amount is multiplied by the assumption of 235 gallons per day per EDU to determine the capacity fee per average sized unit, which is divided by the average square feet per unit to determine the capacity fee per residential square foot.

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

WILLDAN
Financial Services
87

Page 788 of 1100 ends

City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Total Adjusted System Value $ 194,331,990
System Flow Capacity (Gallons per Day) 6,000,000
Fee per GPD $ 32.39
GPD per EDU 235
Capacity Fee per Aeerage 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.
�WILLDAN I
Financial Services
88

Page 789 of 1100 ends

City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Table 10.5: Nonresidential Sewer Capacity Fee Schedule
I Fee per 1,000
$IEDU Flow (gpd) BOD (Mg/I) TSS (Mg/I) Sq. Ft.

Capacity Fee per EDU A $ 12,695
Standard EDU Effluent (per SFR)
B 235 gpd 235 gpd 250 Mg/I 250 Mg/I
Commercial Low Strength
Effluent Values C 35.97 gpd 140 Mg/I 115 Mg/I
Calculated Strength Factor (= C / B) D 0.15 0.56 0.46
Calculated Proportional EDU's E 1.00 60% 20% 20%
Calculated EDU's (= D x E x D(Feo„Eou)) F 0.09 0.02 0.01 Total Capacity Fee $1,166 $218 $179
Commercial Medium Strength
Effluent Values C 35.97 gpd 235 Mg/I 175 Mg/I
Calculated Strength Factor (= C / B) D 0.15 0.94 0.70
Calculated Proportional EDU's E 1.00 60% 20% 20%
Calculated EDU's (= D x E x DIFlowEoul) F 0.09 0.03 0.02 Total Capacity Fee $1,166 $365 $272
Commercial High Strength
Effluent Values
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 DIFiow Eou)) F 0.09 0.11 0.08 Total Capacity Fee $1,166 $1,450 $1,037
C

35.97 gpd
933 Mg/I 667 Mg/I
$1,562
$1,803
Industrial Low Strength
Effluent Values C 53.96 gpd 106 Mg/I 127 Mg/I
Calculated Strength Factor (= C / B) D 0.23 0.42 0.51
Calculated Proportional EDU's E 1.00 60% 20% 20%
Calculated EDU's (= D x E x Dpplow Eou)) F 0.14 0.02 0.02 Total Capacity Fee $1,749 $247 $296
Industrial Hiah Strength
Effluent Values C 26.97 gpd 1598 Mg/I 506 Mg/I
Calculated Strength Factor (= C / B) D 0.11 6.39 2.02
Calculated Proportional EDU's E 1.00 60% 20% 20%
Calculated EDU's (= D x E s D1Fiow Eou)) F 0.07 0.15 0.05 Total Capacity Fee $874 $1,863 $590
$3,653
$2,292
$3,327
Sources: Tables 9.1 and 10.4.
trWI LLDAN
Financial Services
89

Page 790 of 1100 ends

City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Capacity Fee per EDU
Standard EDU Effluent (per SFR)
$IEDU Flow (gpd) BOD (Mg/I) TSS (Mg/I)
A $ 7,612
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 Diriow eoul) 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 D(Fmw Eou)) F 0.09 0.03 0.02 Total Capacity Fee $699 $219 $163
Commercial High Strength
Effluent Values C 35.97 gpd 933 Mg/I 667 Mg/I
Calculated Strength Factor (= C / B) D 0.15 3.73 2.67
Calculated Proportional EDU's E 1.00 60% 20% 20%
Calculated EDU's (= D x E x DpFu,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 DIFiow 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 DiFlow soul) 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.
t'WILLDAN
Financial Services
90

Page 791 of 1100 ends

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

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

Planned Facilities
Table 11.1 details the City's planned recycled water facilities to be funded by the recycled water facilities impact fee. The identified facilities will cost $29.30.7 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 (Altematiw 3) $ 6,483,100 Todd Groundwater Recycled Water 26,338,600
Adaptive Management and Mitigation Plan study (Phases 2 and 3) 730,000 Total $ 33,551,700
Less Existing Fund Balance 4.119.073
Net Cost of Planned Facilities $ 29,432,627
Sources: Draft Recycled Water Reuse Strategy Analysis Report, 2021; City of Beaumont — Recycled Water Storage Basin Engineering Feasibility Technical Memorandum, 2020; ENRCCI; Willdan Financial Services.

WWILLDAN
Financial Services
91

Page 792 of 1100 ends

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

Table 11.2: Cost per EDU
Total Cost of Recycled Water Projects $ 29,432,627
Total EDUs at Buildout 32,049
Cost per EDU $ 918
New Development EDUs 13,422
Projected Fee Revenue $ 12,321,396
Sources: Tables 9.2 and 11.1.

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.
friya DAN
Financial Services
92

Page 793 of 1100 ends

City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 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.

Table 11.3: Recycled Water Facilities Fee Schedule
Residential Dwelling Unit 4
Nonresidential - per 1,000 Sq. Ft.

Commercial $ 918 0.15 $ 138 $ 1 $ 139 $ 0.14
Industrial/Business Park 918 0.11 101 1 102 0.10
Industrial/High-Cube Warehouse 918 0.23 - - 213 0.21
A B
Cost Per EDU
EDU Factor
$ 918 0.83
C=AxB D=Cx0.01
Base Admin
Feet Charge'' 2
$ 762 $ 8
E=C +D E/ Average
Fee per
Total Fee' Sq. Ft.3
$ 770 $ 0.29
Fee per average sized dw elling unit or per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential building space. 2 Administrative charge of 1.0 percent for (1) legal, accounting, and other administrative support and (2) impact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.
'Assumes an average of 2,687 square feet per dw elling unit based on an analysis of building permits issued in Beaumont from 2018 to 2023.
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.
'WILLDAN
Financial Services
93

Page 794 of 1100 ends

City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Residential Dwelling Unit 4
A B
Cost Per EDU
EDU Factor
$ 949 0.83
Nonresidential - per 1.000 Sq. Ft.

Commercial $ 949 0.15
Industrial/Business Park 949 0.25
Industrial/High-Cube Warehouse 949 0.25
C=AxB D=Cx0.01
Base Admin
Feel Charge1' 2
$ 788 $ 8
$ 142 $ 1
237 2
237 2
E=C+D E/ Average
Fee per
Total Feel Sq. Ft.3
$ 796 $ 0.30
$ 143 $ 0.14
239 0.24
239 0.24
1 Fee per average sized dw elling unit or per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential building space. 2 Administrative charge of 1.0 percent for (1) legal, accounting, and other administrative support and (2) impact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.
'Assumes an average of 2,687 square feet per dw elling unit based on an analysis of building pernits 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 11.2.
'WILLDA,N
94

Page 795 of 1100 ends

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.

WWILLDAN
Financial Services
95

Page 796 of 1100 ends

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

1.00 56,070
New Development 41,074

1.00 41,074
Total (Buildout) 97,144
97,144
Workers
Existing (2023) 6,215

0.31 1,927
New Development 21,675

0.31 6.719
Total (Buildout) 27,890
8,646
Combined Residents and Weighted Workers
Existing (2023)
57,997
New Development
47,793
Total (Buildout)
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.

A
Persons
B
Weighting
Factor
AxB=C
Service
Population
Residents
Existing (2023)
New Development
Total (Buildout)
Workers
Existing (2023)
New Development
Total (Buildout)
56,070 1.00
41,074 1.00
97,144
6,215 0.31
21,675 0.31
27,890
56,070
41,074
97,144
1,927
6,719
8,646
Combined Residents and Weighted Workers
Existing (2023)
New Development
Total (Buildout)
57,997
47,793
105,790
1 Workers are w eighted at 0.31 of residents based on a 40 hour w ork w eek out of a possible 128 non -w ork hours in a w eek (40/128 = 0.31)
Sources: Table 2.1; Willdan Financial Services.
mr-WILLDAN
F1113fIG12� SBfVIC68
96

Page 797 of 1100 ends

City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Planned Costs
Table 12.2 lists the City's anticipated General Plan updates and related study costs within the 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.

Table 12.2: General Plan Costs
Quantity Units Unit Cost Cost
General Plan Update' 1 Update $ 989,400 $ 989,400
Zoning Code Update2 1 Update 370,000 370,000
Housing Element Update3 2 Updates 297,000 594,000
Total $ 1,953,400
Less Existing Fund Balance 231,129
Net Cost $ 1,722,271
'Assumed cost based on cost of General Plan Update completed in 2020, adjusted for inflation using the CPI -U Index to December, 2023.
2 Cost based on Qty contract awarded in 2023.
3 Cost based on Housing Dement 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.

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
'Assumed cost based on cost of General Plan Update completed in 2020, adjusted for inflation using the CPI -U Index to December, 2023.
2 Cost based on Qty contract awarded in 2023.
3 Cost based on Housing Dement 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

WILLDAN
Financial Services
97

Page 798 of 1100 ends

City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 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: Advanced olannin^General Plan — System Standard Cost of Planning Studies $ 1,722,271
Future Service Population (Buildout) 105,790
Cost per Capita $ 16
Cost Allocation per Resident
Cost Allocation per Worker 5
$ 16
Based on a w eighting factor of 0.31.

Sources: Tables 12.1 and 12.2.

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
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 $957588926.567 in non -fee funding will be needed to complete the studies.

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

WILLDAN
Financial Services
98

Page 799 of 1100 ends

City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 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 1,722,271
Non -Fee Revenue To Be Identified $ (957,588)
Sources: Tables 12.1, 12.2 and 12.3.

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.

Table 12.5Table 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.

WILLDAN
Financial Services
99 Formatted: Font: Not Bold

Page 800 of 1100 ends

City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Table 12.5: ^dvanccd Planning Maximum u tifiedGeneral Plan Impact Fee Schedule
Land Use
A 8
Cost Per
Capita Density
C=AxB D=Cx0.01
Admin
Base Feet Charge"
E=C+D F=E/Average
Fee per
Total Fee Sq. Ft.

Residential Dwelling Unit
$ 16 3.22
Nonresidential - per 1.000 Sq. Ft.

Commercial $ 5 2.12
Industrial/Business Park 5 3.08
Industrial/High-Cube Warehouse 5 0.88
$ 52 $ 1
4 -
$ 53 $ 0.02
$ 11 $ 0.01
15 0.02
4 0.004
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 adrrinistrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.
'Assumes an average of 2,687 square feet per dw elling unit based on an analysis of building permits issued in Beaumont from 2018 to 2023.

Sources: Tables 2.2 and 12.3.

Land Use
Residential Dwelling Unit
A 8
Cost Per
Capita Density
C=AxB D=Cx0.01
Admin
Base Feet Charger' 2
E=C+D F=E/Average
Fee per
Total Fee Sq. Ft.
$ 16 3.22 $ 52 $ 1 $ 53 $ 0.02
Nonresidential - per 1.000 Sq. Ft.

Commercial $ 5 2.12 $ 11 $
Industrial/Business Park 5 3.08 15
Industrial/High-Cube Warehouse 5 0.88 4
$ 11 $ 0.01
15 0.02
4 0.004
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 adrrinistrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.
'Assumes an average of 2,687 square feet per dw elling unit based on an analysis of building permits issued in Beaumont from 2018 to 2023.

Sources: Tables 2.2 and 12.3.
�WILLDAN
Financial Services
100

Page 801 of 1100 ends

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 Residents
Beaumont Outside of City Library District
Residents Limits' Total
Existing (2023) 56,070 9,455 65,525
New Development 41.074 6.926 48.000
Total (Buildout) 97,144 16,381 113,525
1 Residents outside of aty 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 aty Limits. Projection assumes same ratio of residents within 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.

WWILLDAN
Financial Services
101

Page 802 of 1100 ends

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
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 recreation facilities level of service in terms of an existing cost per capita. This cost per capita drives the fee calculation. Fees implemented at this level would allow the District to maintain the existing level of service.

WILLDAN
Financial Services
102

Page 803 of 1100 ends

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

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

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

Table 13.5: Library Impact Fee Revenue
Projection
Cost per Capita $ 121
Growth in Service Population in District
(2023 to Buildout) 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.

WILLDAN
Financial Services
103

Page 804 of 1100 ends

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

Sources: Tables 2.2 and 13.4.

WILLDA,N
�
Flnanclak
104

Page 805 of 1100 ends

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.

WWILLDAN
Financial Services
105

Page 806 of 1100 ends

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

0.31 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 approximately $695,000$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 806,387
Net Cost of Planned Facilities $ 695,153
Source: City of Beaumont.
w LLDAN
Financial Services
106

Page 807 of 1100 ends

City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 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.

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
Total System Value (Buildout)
Future Service Population (Buildout)
-Lost per Capita
Cost Allocation per Resident
$ 695.153
$ 695,153
105,790
-7--
7 Cost Allocation per Worker' 2
Based on a w eighting factor of 0.31.

Sources: Tables 14.1 and 14.2.
,WILLDAN
Financial Services
107

Page 808 of 1100 ends

City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 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
Cost Allocation per Worker' 1
$ 4
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, $360,60'1181,240 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.

Table 14.4: Revenue Projection - System Standard
Cost per Capita $ 7
Growth in Service Population (2023 to Buildout) 47,793
Fee Reeenue
$ 334,549
Net Cost of Planned Facilities 695,153
Non -Fee Reeenue To Be Identified $ (360,604)
Sources: Tables 14.1, 14.2 and 14.3.

ErWILLDAN
Financial Services
108

Page 809 of 1100 ends

City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Cost per Capita $ 4
Growth in Service Population (2023 to Buildout) 47,793
Fee Re\enue
Net Cost of Planned Facilities
$ 191,171
372,411
Non -Fee Revenue To Be Identified $ (181,240)
Sources: Tables 14.1, 14.2 and 14.3.

Fee Schedule
The total fee includes a one percent (1%) administrative charge to fund costs that include: (1) legal, accounting, and other administrative support and (2) impact fee program administrative this assumption.

Table 1/1.5Table 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.

Table 14.5: Emergency Preparedness Facilities Impact Fee Schedule Land Use
Residential Dtaellinq Unit
Nonresidential - per 1,000 So. Ft.

Commercial $ 2 2.12 $ 4 $ $ 4 0.004
Industrial/Business Park 2 3.08 6 6 0.006
Industrial/High-Cube Warehouse 2 0.88 2 2 0.002
A B
Cost Per
Capita Densi
tY
C=AxB D=Cx0.01
Admin
Base Fee' Charge'' 2
E=C+D F=E/Average
Fee per
Total Fee Sq. Ft.
$ 7 3.22 $ 23 $ - $ 23 $ 0.01
' 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) 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 pernits issued in Beaumont from 2018 to 2023.

Sources: Tables 2.2 and 14.3.
t'WILLDAN
Financial Services
109

Page 810 of 1100 ends

City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Land Use
A 8
Cost Per
Capita Density
Residential Dwelling Unit $ 4 3.22
Nonresidential - per 1.000 So. Ft.

Commercial $ 1 2.12
Industrial/Business Park 1 3.08
Industrial/High-Cube Warehouse 1 0.88
C=AxB D=CxO.01
Admin
Base Feet Charge1' 2
$ 13 $
$ 2 $
3 1
E=C+D F=E/Average
Fee per
Total Fee Sq. Ft.
$ 13 $ 0.013
$ 2 $ 0.002
3 0.003
1 0.001
'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 feejustification analyses.
'Assumes an average of 2,687 square feet per dw elling unit based on an analysis of building permits issued in Beaumont from 2018 to 2023.

Sources: Tables 2.2 and 14.3.

WILLDA,N
Flnanclak
110

Page 811 of 1100 ends

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 Land Use Type
Residential Dwelling Unit
Single Family
Multifamily
DU or
KSF per
acre
Impervious Equivalent
Surface Dwelling Unit
Coefficient (EDU)

4.00 0.50 1.00

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

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

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

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

WWILLDAN
Financial Services
111

Page 812 of 1100 ends

City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Land Use Type
Residential Duelling Unit
Single Family
Multifamily
DU or
KSF per
acre
Impervious Equivalent
Surface Dwelling Unit
Coefficient (EDU)

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 industriaVwarehouse uses.

Sources: Rate D-5.6 from the Riverside County Rood 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 11,752989 new EDUs, representing 39.59 percent of total storm drain demand at buildout.

Table 15.2: Storm Drain Demand Projections
Land Use
2023
EDU Units /
Factor 1,000 SF EDUs
Buildout Total - Buildout
Units / Units/
1,000 SF EDUs 1,000 SF EDUs
Residential - per atelling Unit
Single Family 1.00 16,583 16,583
Multifamily 0.31 2,136 662
Subtotal 18,719 17,245
Nonresidential - er 1 000 S . Ft.
6,498 6,498 23,081 23,081
5,804 1,799
7,940 2,461
12,302 8,297 31,021 25,542
Commercial 0.22 1,792 394 5,304 1,167 7,096 1,561
Office 0.17 352 60 532 90 884 150
Industrial 0.22 1,511 333 9,991 2,198 11,502 2,531
Subtotal 3,656 787 15,827 3,455 19,483 4,242
Total 18,032 11,752 29,784

60.5% 39.5% 100%
Sources: Tables 2.1 and 15.1.
�'WI LLDAN
Financial Services
112

Page 813 of 1100 ends

City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 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 6,498 6,498 23,081 23,081 Multifamily 0.31 2,136 662 5,804 1,799 7,940 2,461
Subtotal 18,719 17,245 12,302 8,297 31,021 25,542
Nonresidential - per 1.000 Sq. Ft.

Commercial 0.22 1,792 394 5,304 1,167 7,096 1,561
Office 0.24 352 85 532 127 884 212
Industrial 0.24 1,511 363 9,991 2,398 11,502 2,761
Subtotal 3,656 842 15,827 3,692 19,483 4,534
Total
18,087 11,989 30,076

60.1% 39.9% 100%
Sources: Tables 2.1 and 15.1.

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

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

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

Planned Facilities
Table 15.4 identifyidentifies the preliminary planned storm drain facilities from. In this case the City's CIP. Note that additionalCity plans to conduct a storm drain facilities ^" h,. -^ t^ bo identified throughmaster plan to identify future capacity -expanding storm drain facilities needed to serve the planning horizon to maintain the City's existing level of service.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. �WILLDAN
Financial Services
113

Page 814 of 1100 ends

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

Description
Total Project
Cost
Citywide Storm Drain Master Plan $ 1,000,000
Total
$ 1,000,000
Source: aty 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
Existing EDUs
$ 78,628,659
18,032
Cost per EDU
$ 4,361
Sources: Tables 15.2 and 15.3.

Existing In entory Replacement Cost $ 78,628,659
Existing EDUs 18,087
Cost per EDU $ 4,347
Sources: Tables 15.2 and 15.3.

SP'WILLDAN
Financial Services
114

Page 815 of 1100 ends

City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 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 protected 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
Table 15.6 displays a projection of fee revenue based on the cost per EDU from Table 15.5 and Table 15.6: Projected Fcc Revenue
Cost per EDU $ 4,361
Projected Growth in EDUs 11,752
Projected Fee Revenue $ 51,250,472
Preliminary Planned Facility Costs $ 6,513,000
Additional Facilities To Be Identified $ 44,737,472
Sources: Tables 15.2 and 15.5.

Under the planned facilities approach, the projected fee revenue is equal to the cost of the planned facilities identified in Table 15.4,
Fee Schedule
percent (1%) administrative charge to fund cost^
administrative support and (2) impact fee program administrative costs including revenue Table 15.7.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.

WbVILLDAN
115

Page 816 of 1100 ends

City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 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
Residential Dtnelling Unit 4
A B
Cost Per EDU
EDU Factor
$ 4,361 0.67
Nonresidential - per 1,000 Sq. Ft.

Commercial $ 4,361 0.22
Industrial/Business Park 4,361 0.17
Industrial/High-Cube Warehouse 4.361 0.22
C=AxB D=Cx0.01
Base Admin
Feet Charget'2
$ 2,922 $ 29
$ 959 $ 10
741 7
QriQ 1 n
E=C+D E/ Average
Fee per
Total Feel Sq. Ft.3
$ 2,951 $ 1.10
$ 969 $ 0.97
748 0.75
969 0.97
Fee per average sized dw elling unit or per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential building space. 2 Adrrinistrative 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.
4 Average EDU factor per residential dw elling unit weighted by projected single family and multifamily development.

Sources: Tables 15.1 and 15.4.

Residential Dtseelling Unit 4
A B
Cost Per EDU
EDU Factor
$ 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=AxB D=Cx0.01
Base Admin
Feet Charget'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 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 suppor 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.
4 Average EDU factor per residential dwelling unit weighted by projected single family and multifamily development.

Sources: Tables 15.1 and 15.6.
agrWILLDAN
Financial services
116

Page 817 of 1100 ends

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 j60: 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
117
Formatted: French (France)
Formatted: French (France)

Page 818 of 1100 ends

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.

WW[LLDAN
Flnanaar Services
118

Page 819 of 1100 ends

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
this assumption.

Table 16.6Table 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

WWILLDAN I
vandal Services
119
Formatted: Font: Bold

Page 820 of 1100 ends

City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update dwelling). The fee per average sized dwelling unit is converted into a fee per square foot by dividing the fee per dwelling unit by the assumed average square footage of a dwelling unit.

Table 16.6: Trail.,Trail Facilities Fee Schedule
Land Use
A B
Cost Per
Capita Densit
Residential Dwelling Unit $ 8 3.22
C=AxB D=Cx0.01
Admin
Base Feet Char.el' 2
$ 24 $
E=C+D F=E/Average
Fee per
Total Fee S . . Ft.
$ 24 $ 0.01
1 Fee per average sized dw elling unit.
2 Administrative charge of 1.0 percent for (1) legal, accounting, and other administrative support and (2) impact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.
'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 16.4.
trWI LLDA,N
Flnanclak
120

Page 821 of 1100 ends

17. Maintenance Equipment
Facilities
needed to serve new development. A maximum justified fee is presented based on the planned meet those service demands. The fees arc roughly proportional to demand because they ensure that new development will pay no more than its proportionate share of the identified planned the number of residents occupying a new dwelling unit, or the number of jobs associated with nonresidential land uses.

Service Population
Maintenance equipment serves both residents and businesses. Therefore, demand for services and associated facilities arc based on the City's service population including residents and workers.
to demand by businesses (per worker) for this service, it is reasonable to assume that demand for these services is loss for one employee compared to one resident, because nonresidential nonresidential land uses. The 0.31 weighting factor for workers is based on a hour workweek divided by the total number of non work hours in a week (128) and reflects the degree to which consequently create a lesser demand for facilities.

WWILLDAN
Financial Services
121

Page 822 of 1100 ends

City of Beaumont
Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update
Table 17.1: Maintenance Eauipmcnt Service Population
A
Persons
B
Weighting
Factor
AxB=C
Service
Population
Residents
Existing (2023) 56,070

1.00 56,070
New Development 41,074

1.00 41,074
Total (Buildout) 97,144
97,144
Workers
Existing (2023) 6,215

0.31 1,927
New Development 21,675

Facilit ven oriel and Standards
This section decnribec the City's public facility in entory and facility ctandardc Existing Inventory
This study uccs the system plan methodology to calculate fees for maintenance equipment. assts arc used to maintain the City's existing infrastructure.

METWILLDAN
Financial Services
/22

Page 823 of 1100 ends

City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Table d7 2: Existing Maintenance Equipment Inventory
Replacement
Unit No. Description Cost
1705 2017 FORD F150 $ 45,000
1810 2018 FORD F150 45,000
1919 2020 FORD FUSION 32,007
2002 2020 FORD F150 24,143
1811 2018 FORD F350 52,000
2220 2022 FORD F150 45,476
2221 2022 FORD F250 (Scelzi) 62,597
1812 2018 FREIGHTLINER PATCH TRUCK - M2 ASHPHALT RIG 170,514 2206 2022 FORD F550 - BUCKET TRUCK 137,219
2406 1983 FORD F700 75,000
1914 2018 FREIGHTLINER M2 70,000
Total Value - Existing Facilities $ 758,957
Sources: aty of Beaumont; Willdan Financial Services.

Planned FaciliticG
Table 17.3 summarizes the planned maintenance equipment identified in the City's CIP. New maintenance equipment costs are estimated to total $193,000.

Table 47 3: Planned Maintenance Cnuinment
Project
No. Description Cost
R-27 Purchase Skid Steer Grader Attachment $ 40,000
R-29 Purchase Tandem Vibratory Roller 58,000
R-30 Purchase Thermoplastic Equipment 195,000
R-31 Purchase 12 -Yard Dump Truck 200,000
Total $ 493,000
Source: aty of Beaumont Development Master Capital Improvement Flan.

Cost A Iloc tinn
Existing Level of Service
Table 17.4 expresses the City's current maintenance equipment level of service in terms of art cxisting cost per capita. This cost per capita is not uscd in the fcc calculation, rather it is shown here for informational purposes only.
i'WILLDAN
Financial Services
123

Page 824 of 1100 ends

City of Beaumont
Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update
Table 17.4: Existing Level of Service
Value of Existing Facilities
Existing Service Population
$ 758,957

57.997
Cost per Capita
$ 13
Facility Standard per Resident
Facility Standard per Worker 4
$ 13
Based on a w eighing factor of 0.31.

Sources: Tables 17.1 and 17.3.

Future Level of Service
of service drives thc fee calculation. This value is calculated by dividing thc cost of planned Table 17 5: Maintenance Eguip rent Planned
Cost of Planned Facilities $ 493,000
Growth in Service Population (2023 to Buildout) 47,793
Cost per Capita
$ 10
Cost Allocation per Resident
Cost Allocation per Worker 3
$ 10
Based on a w eighting factor of 0.31.

Sources: Tables 17.1 and 17.3.

Usc of Fcc Rcvcnuc
The City can use maintenance equipment fee revenues for the acquisition of vehicles and maintcnancc equipment that arc part of thc system of maintcnancc cquipmcnt serving new development. A list of planned facilities is included in Table 17.3.

Fcc Rcvcnuc Projcction
The City plans to use maintenance equipment facilities fcc revenue to construct improvements serve new development. The City plans to acquire the facilities in Table 17.3. By using the planned facilities cost allocation method, the cost of the planned facilities is equal to the projected

WILLDAN
Financial Services
124

Page 825 of 1100 ends

City of Beaumont
Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update
Fcc Schedule
costs including revenue collection, revenue, and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and this assumption.
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 fcc per avcragc sizcd dwelling unit is convcrtcd into a fcc per squarc 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) Icgal, accounting, and other administrativc support and (2) impact fcc program adminictrativo costs including revenue collection, revenue, and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and this assumption.

Table 17 G. Maintenance Fguipment Fee Schedule
Land Use
A B
Cost Per
Capita Density
Residential Dtnelling Unit $ 10 3.22
Nonresidential - per 1.000 So. Ft.

Commercial $ 3 2.12
Industrial/Business Park 3 3.08
Industrial/High-Cube Warehouse 3 0.88
C=AxB D=Cx0.01
Admin
Base Feet Charge' 2
$ 33 $
$ 6 $
9 -
3 -
E=C+D F=E/Average
Fee per
Total Fee Sq. Ft.
$ 33 $ 0.01
$ 6 $ 0.01
9 0.01
3 0.003
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 adrrinistrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and feejustification analyses.
'Assumes an average of 2,687 square feet per dw elling unit based on an analysis of building permits issued in Beaumont from 2018 to 2023.

Sources: Tables 2.2 and 17.4.
trWI LLDAN
Financial Services
125

Page 826 of 1100 ends

18.17. 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, and storm drainage facilities. The existing level service in terms of the existing facility investment per capita is shown in each corresponding chapter.

2. For fees calculated under the planned facilities methodology, the fees are calculated to ensure that the level of service does not fall to unacceptable levels. The fees calculated under this approach are the transportation -related, sewer facilities, firestorm drain facilities, maintenance 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 fire, maintenance facilities and trails fees, the planned facilities represent a lower level of service than current exists, so new development can fully fund the identified facilities. The sewer facilities needed to serve new development were identified in the City's Wastewater Master Plan as necessary to serve new development at an acceptable level of service.

3. For the fees calculated under the system standard methodology, the maximum justified fees represent an increase in the facility level of service. The fees calculated under this methodology are the recreation, fire, police, recycled water, general plan, emergency preparedness, road maintenance and public facility fees. The increased level of service is required to fund new development's fair share of facilities identified either in the City's most recent CIP, or the City's prior development impact fee studies. New development will not fund the entirety of the increase in level of service, rather, it will fund a share of the increased level of service represented by the planned facilities. The City will have to

WILLDAN
Financial Services
126

Page 827 of 1100 ends

City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update fund existing development's share of the increased level of service through any other funding source. Each chapter for facility fee categories that are increasing the level of service includes a table that shows the existing level of service and future level of service in terms of facility investment per capita.
66016.5. (a) (4) - Review of Original Fee Assumptions
Willdan extensively reviewed the City's prior impact fee studies while conducting this fee analysis.

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

1. This study uses a planning horizon of 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.

WW
I
Financial Services
127

Page 828 of 1100 ends

X18. 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
128

Page 829 of 1100 ends

20.19. 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). 1WPWILLDAN
Financial Services
A-129,
Formatted: Font: Not Bold

Page 830 of 1100 ends

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.

WI LLDAN
Financial Services
130

Page 831 of 1100 ends

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.

Formatted: Font: Not Bold
Formatted: Font: Not Bold

WWILLDAN
Financial Services

Page 832 of 1100 ends

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

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

The Nexus Study provides the analytical basis and calculations for fifteen development impact fees that will help fund public facilities and related capital assets needed by the City to provide its municipal services:
• Park Facilities • Police Facilities
• Recreation Facilities • Public Facilities (City Hall, Corp. Yard, etc.) • Fire Protection Facilities • Transportation Facilities Urban Futures, Inc. • 1470 Maria Lane, Suite 315 • Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 478-7450 page.&3a3ifpfule1Q®.com • Fax: (925) 478-7697

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

Page 2 ends

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

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

1. The purpose of the fee is identified.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page 834 of 1100 ends

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

Page 3 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

UFI
Financial Sululina

Page 835 of 1100 ends

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

Page 4 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page 836 of 1100 ends

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

Page 5 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

UFI
Financial SUllllIna

Page 837 of 1100 ends

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

Page 6 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

UFI
Financial Solution~

Page 838 of 1100 ends

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

Page 7 ends

August 6, 2024

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page 839 of 1100 ends

Financial Soh i'

Option 1: Four Year Phase In
Table 1: Residential Development Impact Fee Schedule - Four Year Phase In Land Use
Park Land In Lieu (Subdivisions)2
Park Land Acquisition (Non Subdivisions)3
Community Park Improvements
Neighborhood Park Improvements
Recreation Facilities
Fire Protection Facilities
Police Facilities
Public Facilities
Streets & Bridges Impact Fee
Traffic Signal Impact Fee
Railroad Crossing Impact Fee
Sewer Facilities4
Sewer Capacity
Recycled Water
General Plan
Library District
Emergency Preparedness Facilities 729.63
Storm Drain
Trails
Current Fee
Schedule (per
Single Family
Unit)
Total (Subdivisions)
Total (Infill)
Assumes 2,687 square feet per dwelling unit.
2 Fee in lieu of parkland dedication charged under the Quimby Act. 3 Fee for parkland acquisition charged under the Mitigation Fee Act. 4 Current fee show n is average fee per EDU for Area of Benefit sewer fees.

Current
Equivalent Fee
Schedule (per
Square Foot)1
$ 2,175.53 $
2,175.53
2,086.17
1,606.57
811.17
706.18
609.77
519.84
2,779.52
305.29
328.08
495.00
6,467.97
786.64

50.00 Year 1
Year 2

0.81 $ 0.79 $ 0.79 $

0.81 0.76 0.76

0.78 0.49 0.49

0.60 0.60 0.60

0.30 0.46 0.62

0.26 0.29 0.32

0.23 0.33 0.43

0.19 0.21 0.23

1.03 1.24 1.45

0.11 -

0.12 0.22 0.32

0.18 0.30 0.42

2.41 2.52 2.63

0.29 0.29 0.29

0.02 0.02 0.02
- 0.04 0.08

0.27 0.013 0.013

0.01 0.02
$ 20,457.36 $
$ 20,457.36 $
Year 3
Year 4
(Maximum
Justified Fee
Schedule)

0.79 $ 0.79

0.76 0.76

0.49 0.49

0.60 0.60

0.78 0.93

0.35 0.36

0.53 0.64

0.25 0.28

1.66 1.85

0.42 0.52

0.54 0.65

2.74 2.83

0.29 0.30

0.02 0.02

0.12 0.15

0.013 0.013

0.03 0.02

0.01 7.60 $ 7.82 $ 8.72 $

7.60 $ 7.79 $ 8.69 $

9.62 $ 10.45

9.59 $ 10.42
October 31, 2024
11Page

Page 840 of 1100 ends

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

0.26 $ 0.30 $ 0.33 $ 0.36 $ 0.43

0.14 0.19 0.23 0.27 0.35

0.12 0.13 0.14 0.15 0.16

3.43 6.34 8.52 10.70 15.05

0.38 0.41 1.37 2.09 2.81 4.24

0.15 0.19 0.22 0.25 0.31

0.24 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14

0.80 0.84 0.87 0.90 0.94

0.92 0.96 0.99 1.02 1.08

1.86 1.94 2.00 2.06 2.19

0.05 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01

0.22 0.002 - - 0.002

0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02

6.20 $ 9.52 $ 12.56 $ 15.60 $ 21.65

6.32 $ 9.64 $ 12.68 $ 15.72 $ 21.79

7.26 $ 10.62 $ 13.69 $ 16.76 $ 22.90
1 Current equivalent fee per square foot assumes 10 EDUs per acre, average area of benefit fee of $495 per EDU and FAR of 0.75. 2 Current equivalent fee per square foot assumes 10 EDUs per acre, fee of $786.64 per EDU and FAR of 0.75. 3 Current capacity fees are calculated on a case by case basis. Current fees show n are based on effluent strength assumptions from 2024 nexus study, and current capacity fee per EDU.

October 31, 2024
2IPage

Page 841 of 1100 ends

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

0.22 $ 0.32 $ 0.40 $ 0.48 $ 0.63

0.09 0.20 0.28 0.36 0.51

0.08 0.12 0.15 0.18 0.23

2.36 3.82 4.92 6.02 8.20

0.26 0.28 0.79 1.17 1.55 2.31

0.16 0.25 0.32 0.39 0.52

0.26 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24

1.25 1.31 1.35 1.39 1.47

3.63 3.79 3.91 4.03 4.28

0.05 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02

0.22 0.003 - 0.003

0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02

5.23 $ 7.08 $ 8.86 $ 10.64 $ 14.15

7.61 $ 9.56 $ 11.42 $ 13.28 $ 16.96
1 Current equivalent fee per square foot assumes 10 EDUs per acre, average area of benefit fee of $495 per EDU and FAR of 0.7. 2 Current equivalent fee per square foot assumes 10 EDUs per acre, fee of $786.64 per EDU and FAR of 0.7. 3 Current capacity fees are calculated on a case by case basis. Current fees show n are based on effluent strength assumptions from 2024 nexus study, and current capacity fee per EDU.

October 31, 2024
3IPage

Page 842 of 1100 ends

Table 4: Transload and Short -Term Storage Warehouse Development Impact Fee Schedule - Four Year Ph Current Fee Industrial/
Schedule (per High -Cube
Land Use Square Foot) Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Warehouse
Fire Protection Facilities $ 0.16 $ 0.17 $ 0.17 $ 0.17 $ 0.18 Police Facilities 0.05 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.15
Public Facilities 0.05 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.07
Streets & Bridges Impact Fee 0.33 0.42 0.48 0.54 0.67
Traffic Signal Impact Fee 0.04
Railroad Crossing Impact Fee 0.04 0.08 0.11 0.14 0.19
Sewer Facilities 0.15 0.24 0.31 0.38 0.52
Recycled Water2 0.26 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24
Sewer Capacity (Industrial Low Strength)3 1.25 1.31 1.35 1.39 1.47 Sewer Capacity (Industrial High Strength)3 3.63 3.79 3.91 4.03 4.28 General Plan 0.05 0.004 - 0.004
Emergency Preparedness Facilities 0.22 0.001 - 0.001
Storm Drain 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02
Total (with Low Strength Sewer Capacity Fee) $ 2.60 $ 2.62 $ 2.83 $ 3.05 $ 3.52 Total (with High Strength Sewer Capacity Fee) $ 4.98 $ 5.10 $ 5.39 $ 5.69 $ 6.33 1 Current equivalent fee per square foot assumes 10 EDUs per acre, average area of benefit fee of $495 per EDU and FAR of 0.70. 2 Current equivalent fee per square foot assumes 10 EDUs per acre, fee of $786.64 per EDU and FAR of 0.70. 3 Current capacity fees are calculated on a case by case basis. Current fees show n are based on effluent strength assumptions from 2024 nexus study, and current capacity fee per EDU.

October 31, 2024
4IPage

Page 843 of 1100 ends

Table 5: Fulfillment Center Warehouse - Non -Sort Development Impact Current Fee
Schedule (per
Land Use Square Foot) Year 1
Fee Schedule - Four Year Phase In
Year 2
Industrial/
High -Cube
Year 3 Warehouse
Fire Protection Facilities
Police Facilities
Public Facilities
Streets & Bridges Impact Fee
Traffic Signal Impact Fee
Railroad Crossing Impact Fee
Sewer Facilities
Recycled Water2
Sewer Capacity (Industrial Low Strength)3
Sewer Capacity (Industrial High Strength)3
General Plan
Emergency Preparedness Facilities
Storm Drain
Total (with Low Strength Sewer Capacity Fee)
Total (with High Strength Sewer Capacity Fee)

0.16 $ 0.17 $ 0.17 $

0.05 0.08 0.10

0.05 0.06 0.06

0.33 0.52 0.66

0.04 0.04 0.11 0.16

0.15 0.24 0.31

0.26 0.24 0.24

1.25 1.31 1.35

3.63 3.79 3.91

0.05 0.004

0.22 0.001

0.01 0.01

0.17 $

0.12 0.06

0.80 0.21

0.38 0.24

1.39 4.03

0.01 2.60 $ 2.75 $ 3.06 $

4.98 $ 5.23 $ 5.62 $

0.18 0.15

0.07 1.08

0.30 0.52

0.24 1.47

4.28 0.004

0.001

0.02 3.38 $ 4.04

6.02 $ 6.85
1 Current equivalent fee per square foot assumes 10 EDUs per acre, average area of benefit fee of $495 per EDU and FAR of 0.70. 2 Current equivalent fee per square foot assumes 10 EDUs per acre, fee of $786.64 per EDU and FAR of 0.70. 3 Current capacity fees are calculated on a case by case basis. Current fees show n are based on effluent strength assumptions from 2024 nexus study, and current capacity fee per EDU.

October 31, 2024
5IPage

Page 844 of 1100 ends

Table 6: Parcel Hub Warehouse Development Impact Fee Schedule - Four Year Phase In Land Use
Current Fee
Schedule (per
Square Foot)
Year 1 Year 2
Industrial/
High -Cube
Year 3 Warehouse
Fire Protection Facilities
Police Facilities
Public Facilities
Streets & Bridges Impact Fee
Traffic Signal Impact Fee
Railroad Crossing Impact Fee
Sewer Facilities
Recycled Water2
Sewer Capacity (Industrial Low Strength)3
Sewer Capacity (Industrial High Strength)3
General Plan
Emergency Preparedness Facilities
Storm Drain
Total (with Low Strength Sewer Capacity Fee)
Total (with High Strength Sewer Capacity Fee)

0.16 $ 0.17 $ 0.17 $

0.05 0.08 0.10

0.05 0.06 0.06

0.33 1.32 2.07

0.04 0.04 0.33 0.55

0.15 0.24 0.31

0.26 0.24 0.24

1.25 1.31 1.35

3.63 3.79 3.91

0.05 0.004

0.22 0.001

0.01 0.01

0.17 $

0.12 0.06

2.82 0.77

0.38 0.24

1.39 4.03

0.01 2.60 $ 3.77 $ 4.86 $

4.98 $ 6.25 $ 7.42 $

0.18 0.15

0.07 4.30

1.21 0.52

0.24 1.47

4.28 0.004

0.001

0.02 5.96 $

8.60 $

8.17 10.98
1 Current equivalent fee per square foot assumes 10 EDUs per acre, average area of benefit fee of $495 per EDU and FAR of 0.70. 2 Current equivalent fee per square foot assumes 10 EDUs per acre, fee of $786.64 per EDU and FAR of 0.70. 3 Current capacity fees are calculated on a case by case basis. Current fees show n are based on effluent strength assumptions from 2024 nexus study, and current capacity fee per EDU.

October 31, 2024
Wage

Page 845 of 1100 ends

Table 7: Cold Storage Warehouse Development Impact Fee Schedule - Four Year Phase In Land Use
Current Fee
Schedule (per
Square Foot)
Year 1 Year 2
Industrial/
High -Cube
Year 3 Warehouse
Fire Protection Facilities
Police Facilities
Public Facilities
Streets & Bridges Impact Fee
Traffic Signal Impact Fee
Railroad Crossing Impact Fee
Sewer Facilities
Recycled Water2
Sewer Capacity (Industrial Low Strength)3
Sewer Capacity (Industrial High Strength)3
General Plan
Emergency Preparedness Facilities
Storm Drain
Total (with Low Strength Sewer Capacity Fee)
Total (with High Strength Sewer Capacity Fee)

0.16 $ 0.17 $

0.05 0.08

0.05 0.06

0.33 0.45

0.04 0.04 0.09

0.15 0.24

0.26 0.24

1.25 1.31

3.63 3.79

0.05 0.004

0.22 0.001

0.01 2.60 $

4.98 $

0.17 $

0.10 0.06

0.54 0.13

0.31 0.24

1.35 3.91

0.17 $

0.12 0.06

0.63 0.17

0.38 0.24

1.39 4.03

0.01 0.01

2.66 $ 2.91 $

5.14 $ 5.47 $

0.18 0.15

0.07 0.81

0.23 0.52

0.24 1.47

4.28 0.004

0.001

0.02 3.17 $ 3.70

5.81 $ 6.51
1 Current equivalent fee per square foot assumes 10 EDUs per acre, average area of benefit fee of $495 per EDU and FAR of 0.70. 2 Current equivalent fee per square foot assumes 10 EDUs per acre, fee of $786.64 per EDU and FAR of 0.70. 3 Current capacity fees are calculated on a case by case basis. Current fees show n are based on effluent strength assumptions from 2024 nexus study, and current capacity fee per EDU.

October 31, 2024
7IPage

Page 846 of 1100 ends

Table 8: Estimated Loss of Revenue From Four Year Phase In Annual
Square Feet Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Total
Residential Square Feet per Year' 1,016,000
Fee per Square Foot $ 7.82 $ 8.72 $ 9.62 $ 10.45
100% Fee Revenue $10,620,248 $10,620,248 $10,620,248 $10,620,248 $42,480,992 Phase In Fee Revenue 7,948,168 8,862,568 9,776,968 10,620,248 37,207,952 Nonresidential2
Commercial 161,000
Fee per Square Foot3 $ 9.64 $ 12.68 $ 15.72 $ 21.79
100% Fee Revenue $ 3,508,512 $ 3,508,512 $ 3,508,512 $ 3,508,512 $14,034,048 Phase In Fee Revenue 1,552,362 2,041,480 2,530,920 3,508,512 9,633,274 Industrial/Business Park 16,100
Fee per Square Foot4 $ 9.56 $ 11.42 $ 13.28 $ 16.96
100% Fee Revenue $ 273,104 $ 273,104 $ 273,104 $ 273,104 $ 1,092,417 Phase In Fee Revenue 153,964 183,862 213,808 273,104 824,739 Industrial/High-Cube Warehouse 302,800
Fee per Square Foot5 $ 2.75 $ 3.06 $ 3.38 $ 4.04
100% Fee Revenue $ 1,221,798 $ 1,221,798 $ 1,221,798 $ 1,221,798 $ 4,887,192 Phase In Fee Revenue 831,186 926,568 1,023,464 1,221,798 4,003,016 Total - 100% Fee Revenue $15,623,662 $15,623,662 $15,623,662 $15,623,662 $62,494,649 Total - Phase in Fee Revenue 10,485,680 12,014,478 13,545,160 15,623,662 51,668,981 Difference $ 5,137, 982 $ 3,609,184 $ 2,078,502 $ - $10, 825, 669 1 Assumes 378 units per year based on average annual units built between 2020 and 2024, and 2,687 average square feet per unit. 2 Assumes buildout in 33 years, and equal amounts of growth per year. 3 Assumes medium strength commercial sew er capacity fee. 4 Assumes high strength industrial sewer capacity fee.
5 Assumes Fulfillment Center Warehouse - Non -Sort traffic fees and low strength industrial sew er capacity fee.

October 31, 2024
Wage

Page 847 of 1100 ends

Option 2: Two Year Phase In
Table 1: Residential Development Impact Fee Schedule - Two Year Phase In Land Use
Park Land In Lieu (Subdivisions)2
Park Land Acquisition (Non Subdivisions)3
Community Park Improvements
Neighborhood Park Improvements
Recreation Facilities
Fire Protection Facilities
Police Facilities
Public Facilities
Streets & Bridges Impact Fee
Traffic Signal Impact Fee
Railroad Crossing Impact Fee
Sewer Facilities4
Sewer Capacity
Recycled Water
General Plan
Library District
Emergency Preparedness Facilities
Storm Drain
Trails
Total (Subdivisions)
Total (Inn)
'Assumes 2,687 square feet per dw elling unit.
2 Fee in lieu of parkland dedication charged under the Quimby Act. 3 Fee for parkland acquisition charged under the Mitigation Fee Act. 4 Current fee show n is average fee per EDU for Area of Benefit sew er fees.

Current Fee
Schedule (per
Single Family
Unit)
Current
Equivalent Fee
Schedule (per
Square Foot)1
Year 1
Year 2
(Recommended
Fee Schedule)
$ 2,175.53 $ 0.81 $ 0.79 $
2,175.53 0.81 0.76
2,086.17 0.78 0.49
1,606.57 0.60 0.60
811.17 0.30 0.62
706.18 0.26 0.31
609.77 0.23 0.44
519.84 0.19 0.24
2,779.52 1.03 1.44
305.29 0.11
328.08 0.12
495.00 0.18
6,467.97 2.41
786.64 0.29

50.00 0.02
729.63 0.27
$ 20,457.36 $
$ 20,457.36 $

0.32 0.42

2.62 0.30

0.02 0.08

0.013

0.01 0.01

7.60 $

8.72 8.69

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
October 31, 2024
9IPage

Page 848 of 1100 ends

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

0.26 $ 0.35 $

0.14 0.25

0.12 0.14

3.43 9.24

0.38 0.41 2.33

0.15 0.23

0.24 0.14

0.80 0.87

0.92 1.00

1.86 2.03

0.05 0.01

0.22 0.002

0.01 0.43

0.35 0.16

15.05 4.24

0.31 0.14

0.94 1.08

2.19 0.01

0.002

0.02 6.20 $ 13.57 $

6.32 $ 13.70 $

7.26 $ 14.73 $

21.65 21.79

22.90 1 Current equivalent fee per square foot assumes 10 EDUs per acre, average area of benefit fee of $495 per EDU and FAR of 0.75. 2 Current equivalent fee per square foot assumes 10 EDUs per acre, fee of $786.64 per EDU and FAR of 0.75. 3 Current capacity fees are calculated on a case by case basis. Current fees show n are based on effluent strength assumptions from 2024 nexus study, and current capacity fee per EDU.

October 31, 2024
101 Page

Page 849 of 1100 ends

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

0.22 $ 0.43 $

0.09 0.30

0.08 0.16

2.36 5.28

0.26 0.28 1.30

0.16 0.34

0.26 0.24

1.25 1.36

3.63 3.96

0.05 0.02

0.220 0.003

0.01 0.63

0.51 0.23

8.20 2.31

0.52 0.24

1.47 4.28

0.02 0.003

0.02 5.23 $ 9.44 $

7.61 $ 12.04 $

14.15 16.96
1 Current equivalent fee per square foot assumes 10 EDUs per acre, average area of benefit fee of $495 per EDU and FAR of 0.7. 2 Current equivalent fee per square foot assumes 10 EDUs per acre, fee of $786.64 per EDU and FAR of 0.7. 3 Current capacity fees are calculated on a case by case basis. Current fees show n are based on effluent strength assumptions from 2024 nexus study, and current capacity fee per EDU.

October 31, 2024
111Page

Page 850 of 1100 ends

Table 4: Transload and Short -Term Storage Warehouse Development Impact Fee Schedule - Two Year Phase In
Land Use
Current Fee
Schedule (per
Square Foot)
Year 1
Year 2
(Recommended
Fee Schedule)
Fire Protection Facilities
Police Facilities
Public Facilities
Streets & Bridges Impact Fee
Traffic Signal Impact Fee
Railroad Crossing Impact Fee
Sewer Facilities
Recycled Water2
Sewer Capacity (Industrial Low Strength)3
Sewer Capacity (Industrial High Strength)3
General Plan
Emergency Preparedness Facilities
Storm Drain
Total (with Low Strength Sewer Capacity Fee)
Total (with High Strength Sewer Capacity Fee)

0.16 $ 0.17 $

0.05 0.10

0.05 0.06

0.33 0.50

0.04 0.04 0.12

0.15 0.34

0.26 0.24

1.25 1.36

3.63 3.96

0.05 0.004

0.220 0.001

0.01 0.18

0.15 0.07

0.67 0.19

0.52 0.24

1.47 4.28

0.004

0.001

0.02 2.50 $ 2.91 $

3.02 $ 5.51 $

3.52 6.33
1 Current equivalent fee per square foot assumes 10 EDUs per acre, average area of benefit fee of $495 per EDU and FAR of 0.70. 2 Current equivalent fee per square foot assumes 10 EDUs per acre, fee of $786.64 per EDU and FAR of 0.70. 3 Current capacity fees are calculated on a case by case basis. Current fees show n are based on effluent strength assumptions from 2024 nexus study, and current capacity fee per EDU.

October 31, 2024
121 Page

Page 851 of 1100 ends

Table 5: Fulfillment Center Warehouse - Non -Sort Development Impact Fee Schedule - Two Year Phase In
Land Use
Current Fee
Schedule (per
Square Foot)
Year 1
Year 2
(Recommended
Fee Schedule)
Fire Protection Facilities
Police Facilities
Public Facilities
Streets & Bridges Impact Fee
Traffic Signal Impact Fee
Railroad Crossing Impact Fee
Sewer Facilities
Recycled Water2
Sewer Capacity (Industrial Low Strength)3
Sewer Capacity (Industrial High Strength)3
General Plan
Emergency Preparedness Facilities
Storm Drain
Total (with Low Strength Sewer Capacity Fee)
Total (with High Strength Sewer Capacity Fee)

0.16 $

0.05 0.05

0.33 0.04

0.04 0.15

0.26 1.25

3.63 0.05

0.220

0.17 $

0.10 0.06

0.71 0.17

0.34 0.24

1.36 3.96

0.004

0.001

0.01 2.60 $

4.98 $

0.18 0.15

0.07 1.08

0.30 0.52

0.24 1.47

4.28 0.004

0.001

0.02 3.17 $

5.77 $

4.04 6.85
1 Current equivalent fee per square foot assumes 10 EDUs per acre, average area of benefit fee of $495 per EDU and FAR of 0.70. 2 Current equivalent fee per square foot assumes 10 EDUs per acre, fee of $786.64 per EDU and FAR of 0.70. 3 Current capacity fees are calculated on a case by case basis. Current fees show n are based on effluent strength assumptions from 2024 nexus study, and current capacity fee per EDU.

October 31, 2024
131 Page

Page 852 of 1100 ends

Table 6: Parcel Hub Warehouse Development Impact Fee Schedule - Two Year Phase In
Land Use
Current Fee
Schedule (per
Square Foot)
Year 1
Year 2
(Recommended
Fee Schedule)
Fire Protection Facilities
Police Facilities
Public Facilities
Streets & Bridges Impact Fee
Traffic Signal Impact Fee
Railroad Crossing Impact Fee
Sewer Facilities
Recycled Water2
Sewer Capacity (Industrial Low Strength)3
Sewer Capacity (Industrial High Strength)3
General Plan
Emergency Preparedness Facilities
Storm Drain
Total (with Low Strength Sewer Capacity Fee)
Total (with High Strength Sewer Capacity Fee)

0.16 $

0.05 0.05

0.33 0.04

0.04 0.15

0.26 1.25

3.63 0.05

0.220

0.17 $

0.10 0.06

2.32 0.63

0.34 0.24

1.36 3.96

0.004

0.001

0.01 2.60 $ 5.24

4.98 $ 7.84

0.18 0.15

0.07 4.30

1.21 0.52

0.24 1.47

4.28 0.004

0.001

0.02 8.17

10.98 1 Current equivalent fee per square foot assumes 10 EDUs per acre, average area of benefit fee of $495 per EDU and FAR of 0.70. 2 Current equivalent fee per square foot assumes 10 EDUs per acre, fee of $786.64 per EDU and FAR of 0.70. 3 Current capacity fees are calculated on a case by case basis. Current fees show n are based on effluent strength assumptions from 2024 nexus study, and current capacity fee per EDU.

October 31, 2024
141 Page

Page 853 of 1100 ends

Table 7: Cold Storage Warehouse Development Impact Fee Schedule - Two Year Phase In
Land Use
Current Fee
Schedule (per
Square Foot)
Year 1
Year 2
(Recommended
Fee Schedule)
Fire Protection Facilities
Police Facilities
Public Facilities
Streets & Bridges Impact Fee
Traffic Signal Impact Fee
Railroad Crossing Impact Fee
Sewer Facilities
Recycled Water2
Sewer Capacity (Industrial Low Strength)3
Sewer Capacity (Industrial High Strength)3
General Plan
Emergency Preparedness Facilities
Storm Drain
Total (with Low Strength Sewer Capacity Fee)
Total (with High Strength Sewer Capacity Fee)

0.16 $ 0.17 $

0.05 0.10

0.05 0.06

0.33 0.57

0.04 0.04 0.14

0.15 0.34

0.26 0.24

1.25 1.36

3.63 3.96

0.05 0.004

0.220 0.001

0.01 0.18

0.15 0.07

0.81 0.23

0.52 0.24

1.47 4.28

0.004

0.001

0.02 2.60 $ 3.00 $

4.98 $ 5.60 $

3.70 6.51
1 Current equivalent fee per square foot assumes 10 EDUs per acre, average area of benefit fee of $495 per EDU and FAR of 0.70. 2 Current equivalent fee per square foot assumes 10 EDUs per acre, fee of $786.64 per EDU and FAR of 0.70. 3 Current capacity fees are calculated on a case by case basis. Current fees show n are based on effluent strength assumptions from 2024 nexus study, and current capacity fee per EDU.

October 31, 2024
151 Page

Page 854 of 1100 ends

Table 8: Estimated Loss of Revenue From Two Year Phase In Annual Square
Feet
Year 1
Year 2
Total
Residential Square Feet per Year'
Fee per Square Foot
100% Fee Revenue
Phase In Fee Revenue
Nonresidential2
Commercial
Fee per Square Foot3
100% Fee Revenue
Phase In Fee Revenue
Industrial/Business Park
Fee per Square Foot4
100% Fee Revenue
Phase In Fee Revenue
Industrial/High-Cube Warehouse
Fee per Square Foot5
100% Fee Revenue
Phase In Fee Revenue
1,016,000
$ 8.72 $ 10.45
$ 10,620,248 $10,620,248 $ 21,240,496
8,862,568 10, 620, 248 19, 482, 816
161,000
16,100
302,800

13.70 $ 21.79
3,508,512 $ 3,508,512 $ 7,017,024
2,206,022 3,508,512 5,714,534

12.04 $ 16.96
273,104 $ 273,104 $ 546,209
193,892 273,104 466,997

3.17 $ 4.04
1,221,798 $ 1,221,798 $ 2,443,596
958,362 1,221,798 2,180,160
Total - 100% Fee Revenue $ 15,623,662 $15,623,662 $ 31,247,325 Total - Phase in Fee Revenue 12,220,844 15,623,662 27,844,507 Difference $ 3,402,818 $ - $ 3,402,818
1 Assumes 378 units per year based on average annual units built betw een 2020 and 2024, and 2,687 average square feet per unit. 2 Assumes buildout in 33 years, and equal amounts of growth per year. 3 Assumes medium strength commercial sew er capacity fee. ' Assumes high strength industrial sew er capacity fee. 5 Assumes Fulfillment Center Warehouse - Non -Sort traffic fees and low strength industrial sew er capacity fee.

October 31, 2024
161 Page

Page 855 of 1100 ends

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

Table 8.3: Transportation Project List
Project No. Project Title
Streets and Bridges
2017-027 Oak Valley/I-10 Interchange Design
2017-001 Pennsylvania Interchange
R-37 Beaumont Avenue/1-10 Interchange Project
FUTO7 Highland Springs (Beaumont Share)
R25-07 Traffic Signal at OVP and Palm Avenue
R26-03 Citywide Traffic Signal Upgrade & Capacity
R27-03 Citywide Traffic Signal Upgrade & Capacity
R28-03 Citywide Traffic Signal Upgrade & Capacity
R29-03 Citywide Traffic Signal Upgrade & Capacity
R26-04 Traffic Signal Installation at Future Location
R27-04 Traffic Signal Installation at Future Location
R28-04 Traffic Signal Installation at Future Location
R26-05 Citywide Traffic Signal System Upgrade
Subtotal
Railroad
2017-012 Pennsylvania Ave/UPR Grade Separation
California URP Grade Separation2
Subtotal
Improvement FY26
Improvement FY27
Improvement FY28
Improvement FY29
Total Project
Cost
Less
Alternative
Funding
Net Project
Cost
$ 85,000,000 $ 6,412,113 $ 78,587,887
80,000,000 - 80,000,000
125,000,000 5,869,000 119,131,000
60,000,000 30,000,000 30,000,000
600,000 300,000 300,000
150,000 - 150,000
150,000 - 150,000
150,000 - 150,000
150,000 - 150,000
600,000 600,000
600,000 - 600,000
600,000 600,000
2,000,000 - 2,000,000
$ 355,000,000 $ 42,581,113 $ 312,418,887
$ 73,700,000 $ 13,678,556 $ 60,021,444
100,000,000 70,000,000 30,000,000
$ 173,700,000 $ 83,678,556 $ 90,021,444
Allocation to Cost Allocated to
New New
Development Development

52.9% $ 41,572,992

52.9% 42,320,000

52.9% 63,020,299

52.9% 15,870,000

52.9% 158,700

52.9% 79,350

52.9% 317,400

52.9% 1,058,000
$ 165,269,591

52.9% $ 31,751,344

52.9% 15,870,000
$ 47,621,344
Priority
Priority
Priority
Priority
Priority
Priority
1Alternative funding show n is $300,000 of traffic signals DIF fund balances progrartii 2Assumes 70% of this project w i l l be funded w ith grants. d to this project in 2025.

Source: City of Beaumont FY25 Capital Improvement Plan; City of Beaumont; Table 8.2, Willdan Financial Services.

October 31, 2024
1IPage

Page 856 of 1100 ends

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

Additional Funding Required
All Projects Priority Projects
Project Cost $ 395,870,162 $ 272,039,162
Projected Fee Revenue 206,320,766 140,814,167
Additional Funding Required $ 189,549,396 $ 131,224,995 1 Net of identified alternative funding and existing fund balances.

October 31, 2024
2'Page

Page 857 of 1100 ends

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

Table 8.4: Cost per Trip to Accommodate Growth - Priority Projects Road and
Bridge Railroad Crossings
Costs Allocated to New Development
Les Existing Fund Balance
Net Costs Allocated to New Development
Growth in Trip Demand (2023 to Buildout)
Cost per Trip
$ 99,762,992 $ 47,621,344
4,265,275 2,304,894
$ 95, 497, 718 $ 45, 316, 450
24,196 24,196
$ 3,947 $
1,873
Sources: Tables 8.2 and 8.3.

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

October 31, 2024
3IPage

Page 858 of 1100 ends

Table 8.5: Maximum Justified Transportation Impact Fee Schedule - Priority Projects Land Use
Streets and Bridges
Residential Dwelling Unit
A B
Trip
Cost Per Demand
Trip Factor
$ 3,947 0.74
Nonresidential - per 1,000 Sq. Ft.

Commercial $ 3,947
Industrial/Business Park 3,947
Industrial/High-Cube Warehouse
Transload and Short -Term Storage Warehouse $ 3,947
Fulfillment Center Warehouse - Non -Sort 3,947
Parcel Hub Warehouse 3,947
Cold Storage Warehouse 3,947
Railroad Crossings
Residential Dwelling Unit $ 1,873
Nonresidential - per 1,000 Sq. Ft.

Commercial $ 1,873
Industrial/Business Park 1,873
Industrial/High-Cube Warehouse
Transload and Short -Term Storage Warehouse $ 1,873
Fulfillment Center Warehouse - Non -Sort 1,873
Parcel Hub Warehouse 1,873
Cold Storage Warehouse 1,873

2.24 1.22

0.10 0.16

0.64 0.12

0.74 2.24

1.22 0.10

0.16 0.64

0.12 C=AxB D=Cx0.01
Admin
Base Feet Charge1' 2
$ 2,921 $ 29
$ 8,841 $ 88
4,815 48
$ 395 $ 4
632 6
2,526 25
474 5
$ 1,386 $ 14
$ 4,196 $ 42
2,285 23
$ 187 $ 2
300 3
1,199 12
225 2
E=C+D E/1,000
Fee
per Sq.

Total Feel Ft.
$ 2,950 $ 1.10
$ 8,929 $ 8.93
4,863 4.86
$ 399 $ 0.40
638 0.64
2,551 2.55
479 0.48
$ 1,400 $ 0.52
$ 4,238 $ 4.24
2,308 2.31
$ 189 $ 0.19
303 0.30
1,211 1.21
227 0.23
1 Fee per average sized dw elling unit or per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential. 2 Administrative charge of 2.0 percent for (1) legal, accounting, and other administrative support and (2) impact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses. 'Assumes an average of 2,687 square feet per dw elling unit based on an analysis of building permits issued in Beaumont from 2018 to 2023.

Average trip demand factor per residential dw elling unit w eighted by projected single family and multifamily development.

Sources: Tables 8.1 and 8.4.

October 31, 2024
4IPage

Page 859 of 1100 ends

Willdan Response to DPFG Comments
The following summarizes and responds the DPFG's October 16, 2024 Comments on The Nexus Study

1. The Willdan Consultant stated that the growth projections are no longer based on a specific year and are instead just "buildout" projections. However, the data source for these projections is Table 3.2b from page 46 of the General Plan.

Response: The General Plan is somewhat ambiguous in that does refer to the year 2040 as the planning horizon for the document, but also indicates that Table 3.2b includes the development potential within the City limits. Willdan reviewed the General Plan EIR which confirmed that that Table 3.2b included a buildout of potential development within City limits. The updated nexus study will continue to refer to the planning horizon of the document as "buildout."

2. The Willdan Consultant stated it is not true that approximately $8.8 million in planned sewer facilities labeled as an "Existing Deficiency" in the City's 2021 Wastewater Master Plan are being allocated at 100% to new development.

Response: In review, the WWMP is inconsistent. In one map certain facilities are identified as deficient, but in Table 8.3 (the CIP table which identifies project costs) those facilities are not noted as correcting deficiencies. City staff contacted the WWMP consultant who reviewed the issue and confirmed that the projects in question are in fact deficient. Willdan has removed those project costs from allocation to new development in the fee calculations.

3. In response to comments on the cost of the new Police Station being estimated at $71.8 million in the revised study when the FY 2025-2029 CIP shows a construction budget of $50 million with $1 million of funding already identified, the Willdan Consultant stated they reviewed the unit costs of the anticipated construction and updated it based on other city's experience.

Response: City staff directed Willdan to revise the project costs for the new police station, which are now assumed to be $56,400,000.

4. During the meeting it was stated that the Storm Drain fee was revised.

Response: After discussing the storm drain fee issues with the stakeholders, the nexus study has been revised to only include the cost of a storm drain master plan in the fee calculation. Since there are no projects to mitigate drainage impacts, developers will be October 30, 2024

Page 860 of 1100 ends

responsible for mitigating all project impacts on a case -by -case basis, until the master plan is completed and a revised storm drain impact fee is implemented by the City.

5. The Willdan Consultant stated that the High -Cube Warehouse trip rate of 0.32 is an average of average of four different industrial trip rate factors, and that utilizing a blended rate in a fee study is typical when it makes sense for particular local circumstances.

Response: After discussing the HCW trip rate concerns with the stakeholders it was agreed that the average HCW trip rate would be used to estimate existing and future trips, and the individual trip rates for the four HCW categories would be charged based on the individual project characteristics. Any 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.

6. The Sewer Capacity fee results in new development paying for approximately 52.5% of the $324,120,096 in Net System Value ($12,695 per EDU x 13,422 EDUs = $170,392,290) when new development will only represent approximately 41.9% of EDUs at buildout.

7. Taking the Sewer Capacity cost per EDU times the total EDUs at buildout results in revenues larger than the Adjusted System Value of the sewer treatment plant for which the City desires to collect revenues for ($12,695 per EDU x 32,049 EDUs = $406,862,055). Should the Sewer Capacity fee be $10,113 per EDU? ($324,120,096 / 32,049 EDUs = $10,113)
Response to Questions 6 and 7: The commentor misunderstands the premise of the capacity fee. The fee allows new development to buy into the WWTPs excess capacity.

Once that capacity is used, then the fee can no longer be collected. The WWTP does not have sufficient capacity to accommodate the entire projected growth to buildout, so that fee would not generate the figures cited above.

8. What is the source for the $125,000,000 cost estimate for Beaumont Avenue /1-10 Interchange Project (R-37)? There seems to be a large discrepancy between the Capital Improvement Program budget and the budget in the revised study.

Response: City staff provided the figures for project R-37. The CIP only includes design costs, which in addition to other alternative funding have been netted out of the total cost of the project allocated to the fee program.

9. Will projects ultimately be charged by EDU for Sewer Facilities, Sewer Capacity, and Recycled Water fees or will fees be calculated by square footage? Response: All projects will be charged per square foot based on the characteristics of each project.

October 30, 2024

Page 861 of 1100 ends

10. Multiple projects identified in the planned facilities list for various fees appear to already have funding from prior years through impact fees, grants, or the general fund, per the Capital Improvement Program (see attached Exhibit D), yet all or a portion of their costs are still being allocated to new development. How is this justified and is this not effectively "double dipping" or over collecting of fee revenue by the City? Response: City staff provided Willdan with the latest CIP, dated October 15, 2024. The nexus study has been revised to exclude fully funded projects, and net out prior funding.

Further, City staff has provided Willdan with the latest impact fee fund balances, which have been used to further reduce the cost of facilities allocated to the impact fee program.

11. The Sewer Capacity Fee's Current System Asset Valuation includes replacement costs for Lift Stations and Collection and Conveyance assets. There are also existing lift stations and collection systems that will need to be replaced or upsized in the facilities list for the Sewer Facilities Fee. Is there an overlap between these that might cause new development to pay twice for the same facility? Can backup be provided for what these assets are?
Response: the capacity fee has been revised to exclude portions of the adjusted system value associated with lift stations, collections and conveyance, which are being funded through the sewer facilities fee.

October 30, 2024

Page 862 of 1100 ends

THE PRESS -ENTERPRISE

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

Ad Order Number:

Customer's Reference/PO Number:

Publication:

Publication Dates:

Total Amount:

Payment Amount:

Amount Due:

Notice ID:

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

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

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

Dated: September 17, 2024

Page 863 of 1100 ends

DIF Nexus Study 2 - Page 1 of 1

THE PRESS -ENTERPRISE

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

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

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

Date: September 20, 2024.

At: Riverside, California
Signature

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

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

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

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

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

2. In person public comments.

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

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

Comments can be submitted any time prior to the meeting as well as during the meeting until the end of the corresponding Item. ❑ated: September 17, 2024
The Press -Enterprise
Published: 9/20/24

Page 864 of 1100 ends

DIF Nexus Study 2 - Page 1 of 1

THE PRESS -ENTERPRISE

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

Ad Order Number:

Customer's Reference/PO Number:

Publication:

Publication Dates:

Total Amount:

Payment Amount:

Amount Due:

Notice ID:

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

Page 865 of 1100 ends

DIF Nexus Study - Page 1 of 1

THE PRESS -ENTERPRISE

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

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

Date: September 1, 2024.

At: Riverside, California
Signature

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

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

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

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

2. In person public comments.

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

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

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

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

Page 866 of 1100 ends

DIF Nexus Study - Page 1 of 1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. In person public comments.

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

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

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

Page 867 of 1100 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. In person public comments.

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

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

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

Page 868 of 1100 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. In person public comments.

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

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

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

Page 869 of 1100 ends

City of Beaumont
Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update
November 5, 2024
"IWVVILLDAN

City Council Direction from October 1 Public Hearing

1. Work with development community stakeholders to revise study

2. Add big box retail prototype fee comparison

Page 871 of 1100 ends

2 Changes Since Prior Report
■ Aligned project lists through out study with October 15, 2024 CIP ■ Updated analysis to use most current unreserved impact fee fund balances as of June 30, 2024
■ Verified and removed existing deficiencies from sewer facilities fee ■ Transportation Facilities
Adjusted trip rates to use PM Peak hour (one hour between 4 and 6pm) throughout, as opposed to peak hour of generator (which may not occur between 4 and 6pm)
Uses blended trip rate to estimate existing and projected trips for HCW.

Uses individual rates to calculate fees for each HCW category. If a project intensifies use (ie tenant improvements), then it will pay the fees at the new rate, and get a credit for fees paid

Page 872 of 1100 ends

3 Changes Since Prior Report
■ Storm drain fee
Calculated to fund only Storm Drain Master Plan study
Development is responsible for mitigating all storm drain impacts on a case -by - case basis until master plan has been completed and storm drain impact fees have been implemented
■ Sewer capacity fee — removed lift stations and conveyance facilities from the replacement cost of facilities that new development is buying in to, since those facilities are covered by the sewer conveyance facilities fee ■ Road maintenance equipment fee - Removed from study since there are no unfunded projects in the CIP

Page 873 of 1100 ends

4 SB 937
■ Payment Timing for Fees: Fees for residential development projects cannot be collected until the final inspection or the certificate of occupancy is issued, whichever occurs first, unless certain conditions are met. ■ Performance Bonds and Letters of Credit: Developers guarantee the payment of certain fees by posting a performance bond or a letter of credit. If not posted, local agencies can collect unpaid fees according to established procedures. ■ Building Permit Conditions: If fees are unpaid, a local agency can require the property owner to execute a contract to pay the fees as a condition of issuing a building permit.

Page 874 of 1100 ends

5 Transportation Fee Alternatives
Table 8.3: Transportation Project List
Prioritized Project List
Project No. Project Title
Total Project
Cost
Less
Alternative
Funding
Net Project
Cost
Allocation to Cost Allocated to
New New
Development Development Priority
Streets and Bridges
2017-027 Oak Valley/I-10 Interchange Design
2017-001 Pennsylvania Interchange
$ 85,000,000 $ 6,412,113 $ 78,587,887
80, 000, 000 - 80, 000, 000

52.9% $

52.9%
41,572,992 Priority
42,320,000 Priority
R-37 Beaumont Avenue/ 1-10 Interchange Project
FUTO7 Highland Springs (Beaumont Share)
125,000,000 5,869,000 119,131,000

52.9%
63, 020, 299
60, 000, 000 30, 000, 000 30, 000, 000

52.9%
15,870,000 Priority
R25-07
R26-03
R27-03
R28-03
R29-03
R26-04
R27-04
R28-04
R26-05
Subtotal
Railroad
Traffic Signal at OVP and Palm Avenue
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 FY26
Improvement FY27
Improvement FY28
Improvement FY29
600,000
150,000
150,000
150,000
150,000
600,000
600,000
600,000
2,000,000
$ 355, 000, 000
300,000 300,000
150,000
150,000
150,000
150,000
600,000
600,000
600,000
2,000,000
$ 42, 581,113 $ 312, 418, 887

52.9% 158,700

52.9% 79,350

52.9% 317,400

52.9% 1,058,000
$ 165, 269, 591
2017-012 Pennsylvania Ave/UPR Grade Separation
California URP Grade Separation2
$ 73, 700, 000 $ 13, 678, 556 $ 60, 021, 444
100, 000, 000 70, 000, 000 30, 000, 000

52.9% $

52.9%
31,751,344 Priority
15,870,000 Priority
Subtotal $ 173,700,000 $ 83,678,556 $ 90,021,444
Total All Projects
Total Priority Projects
$ 528, 700, 000 $ 126, 259, 669 $ 402, 440, 331
$ 398, 700, 000 $ 120, 090, 669 $ 278, 609, 331
$ 47,621,344
$ 212, 890, 935
$ 147, 384, 336
'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 ill be funded w ith grants.

Source: City of Beaumont FY25 Capital Improvement Plan; City of Beaumont; Table 8.2, Willdan Financial Services.

Page 875 of 1100 ends

6 Transportation Fee Alternatives
All Projects Priority Projects
Streets and Bridges
Residential
Nonresidential
Commercial
Industrial/Business Park
Industrial/High-Cube Warehouse
Transload and Short -Term Storage Warehouse
Fulfillment Center Warehouse - Non -Sort
Parcel Hub Warehouse
Cold Storage Warehouse
Railroad Crossings
Residential
Nonresidential
Commercial
Industrial/Business Park
Industrial/High-Cube Warehouse
Transload and Short -Term Storage Warehouse
Fulfillment Center Warehouse - Non -Sort
Parcel Hub Warehouse
Cold Storage Warehouse
$ 1.85 $ 1.10
$ 15.05

8.20 $ 0.67

1.08 4.30

0.81 $ 0.52
$ 4.24

2.31 $ 0.19

0.30 1.21

0.23 $ 8.93

4.86 $ 0.40

0.64 2.55

0.48 $ 0.52
$ 4.24

2.31 $ 0.19

0.30 1.21

0.23

Page 876 of 1100 ends

7 Maximum Justified Fee Schedule
Fee Category

HCW HCW
Transload and Fulfillment
Short -Term Center HCW HCW
Residential Industrial/ Storage Warehouse Parcel Hub Cold Storage Dwelling Unit Commercial Business Park Warehouse Non -Sort Warehouse Warehouse Park Land In Lieu (Subdivisions)1
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 (Infill)
September 9th Revised Draft
Total (Subdivisions)
Total (Infill)
1 Fee in lieu of parkland dedication charged under the Quimby Act. 2 Fee for parkland acquisition charged under the Mitigation Fee Act. 3 "Commercial medium strength" fee shown for commercial. "Industrial high strength" fee shown for industrial/business Dark."industrial law strength" fee shown for industrial/high cube warehouse. Refer to Table 10.5 for full sewer capacity nonresidential fee schedule. rage o t / ot I ""
$ 0.79 $ - $ -

0.76 - -

0.49 - -

0.60 -

0.93 -

0.36 0.43 0.63

0.64 0.35 0.51

0.28 0.16 0.23

1.85 15.05 8.20

0.52 4.24 2.31

0.65 0.31 0.52

2.83 1.08 4.28

0.30 0.14 0.24

0.02 0.01 0.02

0.15 -

0.013 0.002 0.003

0.02 0.02 0.02

0.01 0.18 0.18 0.18

0.15 0.15 0.15

0.07 0.07 0.07

0.67 1.08 4.30

0.19 0.30 1.21

0.52 0.52 0.52

1.47 1.47 1.47

0.24 0.24 0.24

0.004 0.004 0.004

0.18 0.15

0.07 0.81

0.23 0.52

1.47 0.24

0.004

0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001

0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
$ 10.45 $ 21.79 $ 16.96 $ 3.52
$ 10.42 $ 21.79 $ 16.96 $ 3.52
$ 13.72 $ 24.72 $ 15.16 $ 6.98
$ 13.72 $ 24.72 $ 15.16 $ 6.98

4.04 4.04

6.98 6.98

8.17 8.17

6.98 6.98

3.70 3.70

6.98 6.98
8 Fee Comparison: Single Family Unit
One Single Family Unit - 2,687 Square Feet
Fee Category
Beaumont
Current
(Low)1
Beaumont
Current
(High)1
Maximum
Justified
Beaumont2
Banning
Calimesa3
Moreno
Valley
(Low)4
Moreno
Valley
(High)4
Ontario
(Low)5
Ontario
(High)5
Rancho
Cucamonga6
Animal Shelter
$ - $ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 134
$ 134
$ - $ -
$ 169
Corporation Yard
-
-
-
-
-
1,547
1,547
-
-
-
General Government/Public Facilities/City Hall
520
520
752
521
3,024
644
644
2,159
4,216
2,481
General Plan
50 50
54 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
Emergency Preparedness Facilities
730
730
35 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
Fire Facilities
706
706
967
746
837
2,152
2,152
523
1,102
-
Library
-
-
403
-
794
1,052
1,052
1,302
1,302
891
Parks
-
-
2,123
3,840
6,456
10,217
10,217
-
-
4,744
Parks - Neighborhood Parks
3,213
3,213
1,612
-
-
-
-
15,198
15,198
-
Parks - Community Parks
2,655
2,655
1,317
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Police Facilities
610
610
1,720
1,200
224
1,418
1,418
509
509
376
Recreation Facilities
811
811
2,499
-
-
1,275
1,275
112
112
4,583
Recycled Water Facilities
787
787
806
-
5,510
403
403
-
-
Road Maintenance Equipment
-
-
-
-
-
316
316
-
-
-
Sewer Capacity/Connection/Impact Fee
6,493
6,493
7,604
5,061
8,221
10,065
22,152
1,223
1,443
-
Sewer Area of Benefit / Conveyance
90 997
1,747
-
-
-
-
58 903
2,070
Storm Drain
-
-
54 -
3,682
-
-
2,563
3,744
-
Trails
-
-
27 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
Transportation Related
3,413
3,413
6,368
3,410
3,852
16,568
16,568
2,224
4,986
12,708
Water Capacity/Connection/Impact Fee
10,122
10,122
10,122
9,744
5,796
13,441
17,755
3,113
9,711
10,558
Workforce Development Facilities
-
-
-
-
-
403
-
-
-
-
Total - per Prototype
$ 30,200
$ 31,106
$ 38,209
$ 24,522
$ 38,396
$ 59,634
$ 75,632
$ 28,984
$ 43,226
$ 38,580
1 Water and Sew er fees for Beaumont are paid to the Beaumont -Cherry Water District. Current Sew er Fees vary depending upon location. 2 Recommended storm drain fee show n are 50% of Maximum Justified, based on direction from City staff. 3 Water and Sew er Fees for Calimesa are paid to the Yucaipa Valley Water District 4 Water and Sew er Fees for Moreno Valley vary depending upon location and are paid to the Eastern Municipal Water District 5 Regional Water and Sew er Fees for Ontario are paid to the Cucamonga Valley Water District. Some Fees for Ontario vary depending upon location. 6 Water and Sew er Fees for Rancho Cucamonga are paid to the Cucamonga Valley Water Distlage 878 of 1100 9 Fee Comparison: Single Family Unit
$80,000
$70,000
$60,000
$50,000
$40,000
$30,000
$20,000
$10,000
$-
Banning Ontario Beaumont Beaumont Proposed Calimesa Rancho Ontario Moreno Moreno (Low) Current Current Beaumont Cucamonga (High) Valley (Low) Valley (High) (Low) (High)

Page 879 of 1100 ends

10 Fee Comparison: 20 Multifamily Units
20 Multifamily Units -20,000 Square Feet
Fee Category
Beaumont
Current
(Low)1
Beaumont
Current
(High)1
Maximum
Justified
Beaumont
Banning
Calimesa2
Moreno
Valley
(Low)3
Moreno
Valley
(High)3
Ontario
(Low)4
Ontario
(High)4
Rancho
Cucamonga5
Animal Shelter
$ - $ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 996
$ 996
$ - $ -
$ 2,320
Corporation Yard
-
-
-
-
-
11,514
11,514
-
-
-
General Government/Public Facilities/City Hall
8,747
8,747
5,600
8,520
57,400
4,792
4,792
35,040
76,180
33,860
General Plan
1,000
1,000
400
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Emergency Preparedness Facilities
14,593
14,593
260
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Fire Facilities
4,520
4,520
7,200
12,200
22,441
16,018
16,018
9,580
20,140
-
Library
-
-
3,000
-
14,460
7,833
7,833
23,080
23,080
12,160
Parks
-
-
15,800
62,840
117,640
76,048
76,048
-
-
64,780
Parks - Neighborhood Parks
54,062
54,062
12,000
-
-
-
-
269,400
269,400
-
Parks - Community Parks
44,674
44,674
9,800
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Police Facilities
10,260
10,260
12,800
19,640
4,260
10,552
10,552
10,040
10,040
5,940
Recreation Facilities
13,648
13,648
18,600
-
-
9,492
9,492
2,000
2,000
62,580
Recycled Water Facilities
15,733
15,733
6,000
-
71,632
10,720
10,720
-
-
Road Maintenance Equipment
-
-
-
-
-
2,349
2,349
-
-
-
Sewer Capacity/Connection/Impact Fee
129,359
129,359
56,600
101,220
106,873
267,729
589,243
21,280
23,400
-
Sewer Area of Benefit / Conveyance
1,803
19,931
13,000
-
-
-
-
1,020
13,700
41,400
Storm Drain
-
-
400
-
7,640
-
-
16,520
28,440
-
Trails
-
-
200
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Transportation Related
45,859
45,859
47,400
68,202
47,060
123,317
123,317
29,700
66,580
152,500
Water Capacity/Connection/Impact Fee
121,460
121,460
121,460
194,880
75,342
357,531
472,283
42,620
106,640
211,160
Workforce Development Facilities
-
-
-
-
-
3,000
3,000
-
-
-
Total - per Prototype
$ 465,718
$ 483,846
$ 330,520
$ 467,502
$ 524,748
$ 901,892
$ 1,338,159
$ 460,280
$ 639,600
$ 586,700
1 Water and Sew er fees for Beaumont are paid to the Beaumont -Cherry Water District. Current Sew er Fees vary depending upon location. 2 Water and Sew er Fees for Calimesa are paid to the Yucaipa Valley Water District. Assumes multifamily units are 0.65 EDUs 3 Water and Sew er Fees for Moreno Valley vary depending upon location and are paid to the Eastern Municipal Water District 4 Regional Water and Sew er Fees for Ontario are paid to the Cucamonga Valley Water District. Some Fees for Ontario vary depending upon location. 5 Water and Sewer Fees for Rancho Cucamonga are paid to the Cucamonga Valley Water District

Page 880 of 1100 ends

11 Fee Comparison: 20 Multifamily Units, 20,000 Square Feet $1,600,000
$1,400,000
$1,200,000
$1,000,000
$800,000
$600,000
$400,000
$200,000
$-
I
Proposed Ontario Beaumont Banning Beaumont Calimesa Rancho Ontario Moreno Moreno Beaumont (Low) Current Current Cucamonga (High) Valley (Low) Valley (Low) (High) (High)

Page 881 of 1100 ends

12 Fee Comparison: Commercial/Retail - 950 Square Feet
Commercial/Retail - 950 Sq. Ft.

Fee Category
Beaumont Beaumont
Current Current
(Low)1 (High)1
Maximum
Justified
Beaumont
Banning
Calimesa2
Moreno
Valley
(Low)3
Moreno
Valley
(High)3
Ontario Ontario
(Low)4 (High)4
Rancho
Cucamonga5
Animal Shelter
$ - $ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
-
$ - $ -
$ -
Corporation Yard
- -
-
-
-
223
223
- -
-
General Government/Public Facilities/City Hall
103 103
152
468
181
100
100
200 1,562
-
General Plan
48 48
10 -
-
-
-
- -
-
Emergency Preparedness Facilities
209 209
2 -
-
-
-
- -
-
Fire Facilities
232 232
409
462
52 624
624
378 805
-
Library
- -
-
-
-
36 36
- -
-
Parks
- -
-
-
-
550
550
- -
-
Parks - Neighborhood Parks
- -
-
-
-
-
-
- -
-
Parks - Community Parks
- -
-
-
-
-
-
- -
-
Police Facilities
121 121
333
333
149
226
226
677 677
1,125
Recreation Facilities
- -
-
-
-
47 47
- -
-
Recycled Water Facilities
6,672 6,672
133
-
4,281
536
536
- -
14,796
Road Maintenance Equipment
- -
-
-
-
48 48
- -
-
Sewer Capacity/Connection/Impact Fee
1,506 1,506
1,026
1,779
4,463
13,386
29,462
679 582
-
Sewer Area of Benefit / Facilities
F 32 350
295
-
-
-
-
25 156
2,070
Storm Drain
- -
19 -
523
-
-
15,015 31,000
-
Trails
- -
-
-
-
-
-
- -
-
Transportation Related
3,868 3,868
18,326
7,902
6,424
29,926
29,926
4,269 9,571
18,109
Water Capacity/Connection/Impact Fee
7,693 7,693
7,693
6,897
5,969
17,877
23,614
1,454 3,029
10,558
Workforce Development Facilities
- -
-
-
-
249
249
- -
-
Total - per Prototype
$ 20,483 $ 20,802
$ 28,395
$ 17,842
$ 22,043
$ 63,827
$ 85,641
$ 22,698 $ 47,382
$ 46,658
1 Water and Sewer fees for Beaumont are paid to the Beaumont -Cherry Water District. Current Sewer Fees vary depending upon location. 2 Water and Sew er Fees for Calimesa are paid to the Yucaipa Valley Water District. Assumes 5.5 EDUs. Water and recycled w ater fees assume 15.5 fixture units. Sew er fee assumes 19 fixture units. 3 Water and Sew er Fees for Moreno Valley vary depending upon location and are paid to the Eastern Municipal Water District 4 Regional Water and Sew er Fees for Ontario are paid to the Cucamonga Valley Water District. Some Fees for Ontario vary depending upon location. 5 Water and Sew er Fees for Rancho Cucamonga are paid to the Cucamonga Valley Water District age
13 Fee Comparison: Commercial/Retail - 950 Square Feet
$90,000
$80,000
$70,000
$60,000
$50,000
$40,000
$30,000
$20,000
$10,000
$-
I
Banning Beaumont Current Beaumont Current Calimesa Ontario (Low) (Low) (High)
Proposed Rancho Cucamonga Ontario (High) Moreno Valley Moreno Valley Beaumont (Low) (High)

Page 883 of 1100 ends

14 Fee Comparison: Big Box Retail - 147,000 Square Feet Big Box Retail -147,000 Square Feet
Fee Category
Beaumont Beaumont
Current Current
(Low)1 (High)1
Maximum
Justified
Beaumont
Banning
Calimesa2
Moreno Moreno
Valley Valley
(Low)3 (High)3
Ontario
(Low)¢
Ontario
(High)4
Rancho
Cucamonga5
Animal Shelter
$ - $ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ - $ -
$ - $ -
$ -
Corporation Yard
- -
-
-
-
34,545 34,545
-
-
-
General Government/Public Facilities/City Hall
16,981 16,981
23,520
72,471
28,077
15,490 15,490
30,870
241,668
-
General Plan
7,350 7,350
1,470
-
-
- -
-
-
-
Emergency Preparedness Facilities
32,340 32,340
294
-
-
- -
-
-
-
Fire Facilities
38,129 38,129
63,210
71,442
8,085
96,506 96,506
58,506
124,509
-
Library
- -
-
-
-
5,623 5,623
-
-
-
Parks
- -
-
-
-
20,856 20,856
-
-
-
Parks - Neighborhood Parks
- -
-
-
-
- -
-
-
-
Parks - Community Parks
- -
-
-
-
- -
-
-
-
Police Facilities
19,920 19,920
51,450
51,597
23,079
34,986 34,986
104,811
104,811
174,048
Recreation Facilities
- -
-
-
-
7,277 7,277
-
-
-
Recycled Water Facilities
29,499 29,499
20,580
-
9,115
2,015 2,015
-
-
29,592
Road Maintenance Equipment
- -
-
-
-
7,350 7,350
-
-
-
Sewer Capacity/Connection/Impact Fee
192,129 192,129
158,760
275,268
6,577
50,325 110,760
105,105
30,650
-
Sewer Area of Benefit / Facilities
4,903 54,202
45,570
-
-
- -
3,822
24,108
4,127
Storm Drain
- -
2,940
-
23,079
- -
425
1,642
-
Trails
- -
-
-
-
- -
-
-
-
Transportation Related
59,482 59,482
2,835,630
1,223,530
23,079
4,625,484 4,625,484
660,618
1,481,025
2,802,114
Water Capacity/Connection/Impact Fee
212,562 212,562
223,190
1,067,261
12,708
67,205 88,775
225,057
468,636
35,192
Workforce Development Facilities
- -
-
-
-
38,588 38,588
-
-
-
Total - per Prototype
$ 613,296 $ 662,595
$ 3,426,614
$2,761,568
$ 133,798
$ 5,006,248 $ 5,088,253
$1,189,214
$2,477,049
$ 3,045,073
1 Water and Sew er fees for Beaumont are paid to the Beaumont -Cherry Water District. Current Sew er Fees vary depending upon location. 2 Water and Sewer Fees for Calimesa are paid to the Yucaipa Valley Water District. Assumes 110 EDUs. Water and recycled water fees assume 720 fixture units. Sewer fee assumes 560 fixture units. 3 Water and Sew er Fees for Moreno Valley vary depending upon location and are paid to the Eastern Municipal Water District ' Regional Water and Sewer Fees for Ontario are paid to the Cucamonga Valley Water District. Some Fees for Ontario vary depending upon location. 5 Water and Sew er Fees for Rancho Cucamonga are paid to the Cucamonga Valley Water District

Page 884 of 1100 ends

15 Fee Comparison: Big Box Retail - 147,000 Square Feet $6,000,000
$5,000,000
$4,000,000
$3,000,000
$2,000,000
$1,000,000
$-
■ 1
1 Calimesa Beaumont Beaumont Ontario Ontario Banning Rancho Proposed Moreno Moreno Current Current (Low) (High)
(Low) (High)
Cucamonga Beaumont Valley (Low) Valley (High)

Page 885 of 1100 ends

16 Fee Comparison: Commercial - Industrial/Business Park - 50,000 Square Feet
Industrial/Business Park - 50,000 Square Feet
Fee Category
Beaumont
Current
(Low)1
Beaumont Maximum
Current , Justified
(High)1 ; Beaumont
Banning
Calimesa2
Moreno
Valley
(Low)3
Moreno
Valley
(High)3
Ontario
(Low)4
Ontario
(High)4
Rancho
Cucamonga5
Animal Shelter
$ - $ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ - $ -
$ - $ -
$ -
Corporation Yard
-
-
-
-
-
5,738
5,738
-
-
-
General Government/Public Facilities/City Hall
4,043
4,043 11,500
11,950
9,550
2,888
2,888
5,250
60,450
-
General Plan
2,500
2,500 1,000
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Emergency Preparedness Facilities
11,000
11,000
150
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Fire Facilities
10,809
10,809
31,500
11,800
1,900
17,038
17,038
1,800
3,600
-
Library
-
-
-
-
-
1,000
1,000
-
-
-
Parks
-
-
-
-
-
14,044
14,044
-
-
-
Parks - Neighborhood Parks
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Parks - Community Parks
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Police Facilities
4,743
4,743
25,500
8,500
1,050
5,775
5,775
2,200
2,200
18,550
Recreation Facilities
-
-
-
-
-
1,175
1,175
-
-
-
Recycled Water Facilities
393,320
393,320
12,000
-
9,943
806
806
-
-
14,796
Road Maintenance Equipment
-
-
-
-
-
1,000
1,000
-
-
-
Sewer Capacity/Connection/Impact Fee
148,101
148,101
214,000
192,318
6,577
20,130
44,304
18,250
19,850
-
Sewer Area of Benefit / Facilities
4,508
49,828
26,000
-
-
-
-
700
9,700
2,070
Storm Drain
-
-
1,000
-
21,150
-
-
64,850
74,550
-
Trails
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Transportation Related
144,997
144,997
525,500
224,679
136,700
284,469
284,469
133,600
299,550
762,500
Water Capacity/Connection/Impact Fee
126,525
126,525 126,525
66,871
13,863
26,882
35,510
30,850
124,150
17,596
Workforce Development Facilities
-
- -
-
-
6,250
6,250
-
-
-
Total - per Prototype
$ 850,545
$ 895,865 $ 974,675
$ 516,118
$200,733
$ 387,193
$419,995
$ 257,500
$594,050
$ 815,512
'Water and Sew er fees for Beaumont are paid to the Beaumont -Cherry Water District. Current Sew er Fees vary depending upon location. 2 Water and Sewer Fees for Calimesa are paid to the Yucaipa Valley Water District. Assumes 5.5 EDUs. Water and recycled water fees assume 36 fixture units. Sewer fee assumes 24 fixture units. 3 Water and Sew er Fees for Moreno Valley vary depending upon location and are paid to the Eastern Municipal Water District 4 Regional Water and Sew er Fees for Ontario are paid to the Cucamonga Valley Water District. Some Fees for Ontario vary depending upon location. 5 Water and Sew er Fees for Rancho Cucamonga are paid to the Cucamonga Valley Water District

Page 886 of 1100 ends

17 Fee Comparison: Commercial - Industrial/Business Park - 50,000 Square Feet
$1,200,000
$1,000,000
$800,000
$600,000
$400,000
$200,000
$-
I
I
Calimesa Ontario (Low) Moreno Valley Moreno Valley Banning Ontario (High) Rancho (Low) (High) Cucamonga
Beaumont Current Beaumont Current
(Low) (High)
Proposed
Beaumont

Page 887 of 1100 ends

18 Fee Comparison: Industrial/High Cube Warehouse - 100,000 Square Feet Industrial/High Cube Warehouse -100,000 Square Feet
Fee Category
Beaumont Beaumont
Current Current
(Low)1 (High)1
Maximum
Justified
Beaumont
Banning
Calimesa2
Moreno
Valley
(Low)3
Moreno
Valley
(High)3
Ontario
(Low)4
Ontario
(High)4
Rancho
Cucamonga5
Animal Shelter
$ - $
- $ -
$ -
$ -
$ - $ -
$ - $ -
$ -
Corporation Yard
-
- I -
-
-
7,075
7,075
-
-
-
General Government/Public Facilities/City Hall
4,621
4,621 ;
7,000
23,900
19,100
1,975
1,975
5,400
77,100
-
General Plan
5,000
5,000
400
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Emergency Preparedness Facilities
22,000
22,000 I
100
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Fire Facilities
16,212
16,212
18,000
23,600
3,800
21,100
21,100
2,500
5,100
-
Library
-
-
-
-
-
1,200
1,200
-
-
-
Parks
-
-
-
-
-
17,450
17,450
-
-
-
Parks - Neighborhood Parks
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Parks - Community Parks
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Police Facilities
5,419
5,419
15,000
17,000
2,100
7,050
7,050
2,900
2,900
5,400
Recreation Facilities
-
-
-
-
-
1,606
1,606
-
-
-
Recycled Water Facilities
24,071
24,071 ;
24,000
-
19,886
2,015
2,015
-
-
29,592
Road Maintenance Equipment
-
-
-
-
-
2,000
2,000
-
-
-
Sewer Capacity/Connection/Impact Fee
130,700
130,700 I
147,000
70,854
13,154
50,325
110,760
18,100
32,500
-
Sewer Area of Benefit / Facilities
276
3,049
52,000
-
-
-
-
600
23,700
4,127
Storm Drain
-
-
2,000
-
42,300
-
-
113,200
148,200
-
Trails
-
- ;
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Transportation Related
40,464
40,464
108,000
449,357
273,400
160,088
160,088
137,700
308,800
635,400
Water Capacity/Connection/Impact Fee
111,342
111,342 I
111,342
133,742
27,726
67,205
88,775
16,500
256,900
35,192
Workforce Development Facilities
-
- ;
-
-
-
8,000
8,000
-
-
-
Total - per Prototype
$ 360,105 $ 362,878
$ 484,842
$718,453
$401,466
$ 347,089
$ 429,094
$ 296,900
$855,200
$ 709,711
1 Water and Sewer fees for Beaumont are paid to the Beaumont -Cherry Water District. Current Sewer Fees vary depending upon location. 2 Water and Sew er Fees for Calimesa are paid to the Yucaipa Valley Water District. Assumes 11 EDUs. Water and recycled w ater fees assume 72 fixture units. Sew er fee assumes 56 fixture units. 3 Water and Sew er Fees for Moreno Valley vary depending upon location and are paid to the Eastern Municipal Water District 4 Regional Water and Sew er Fees for Ontario are paid to the Cucamonga Valley Water District. Some Fees for Ontario vary depending upon location. 5 Water and Sew er Fees for Rancho Cucamonga are paid to the Cucamonga Valley Water District 19 Fee Comparison: Industrial/High Cube Warehouse - 100,000 Square Feet $900,000
$800,000
$700,000
$600,000
$500,000
$400,000
$300,000
$200,000
$100,000
$-
Ontario (Low) Moreno Valley Beaumont Beaumont Calimesa Moreno Valley Proposed Rancho Banning Ontario (High) (Low) Current (Low) Current (High) (High) Beaumont Cucamonga

Page 889 of 1100 ends

20 Staff Recommendations
■ City staff recommends adopting the maximum justified fee amounts ■ City staff does not recommend a phased in implementation, although two-year ad four-year phase in scenarios have been included in the agenda packet

Page 890 of 1100 ends

Questions

Page 891 of 1100 ends

Planned Facilities Total Cost Summary
Fee Category
Park Land
Net Project Cost
Development Fee Additional
Revenue Funding Required
$ 25,858,194
$ 25,858,194 $ -
Community Park Improvements
16,526,000
16,526,000 -
Neighborhood Park Improvements
20,242,000
20,242,000 -
Recreation Facilities
62,506,334
31,462,439 31,043,895
Fire Protection Facilities
17,007,587
16,472,432 535,155
Police Facilities
52,292,457
25,282,328 27,010,129
Public Facilities
23,889,646
11,231,280 12,658,366
Streets and Bridges
308,153,612
161,004,317 147,149,296
Railroad Crossings
87,716,550
45,316,450 42,400,100
Sewer Facilities
70,382,100
28,337,773 42,044,327
Sewer Capacity'
-
- -
Recycled Water
30,742,438
12,998,453 17,743,985
General Plan
1,691,250
764,683 926,567
Library District
5,807,961
5,807,961 -
Emergency Preparedness Facilities
372,411
191,171 181,240
Storm Drain
1,000,000
1,000,000
Trails
312,000
312,000 -
Total
$724,500,541
$402,807,480 $321,693,061
1 No project costs shown. Capacity fee revenue is used to pay back City for excess capacity used to serve new development at WWTP.

Page 892 of 1100 ends

23 What is a Development Impact Fee?
One-time charge
Imposed at building permit stage
Imposed on all development projects
within a defined geographic area
Funds facilities to serve new development
Of
al
II
II
II
II
II

Page 893 of 1100 ends

Impact Fee Categories
■ Community Parks
• Neighborhood Parks
■ Recreation Facilities
• Fire Protection
Facilities
■ Police Facilities
• Public Facilities
■ Transportation
Facilities
■ Sewer Facilities
• Sewer Capacity
■ Recycled Water
■ General Plan
• Emergency
Preparedness
Facilities
• Library District
■ Storm Drain
■ Trails

Page 894 of 1100 ends

Mitigation Fee Act Findings (Govt. Code §66001)
• Key findings
Need: Development creates need for facilities
Benefit: Development use of revenue
Rough Proportionality: Fee amount development's
share of facility costs (i.e. proportional to demand)
• Other findings
Purpose of fee
Use of fee revenue
le)

Page 895 of 1100 ends

Impact Fees -Basic Methodology

ESTI MATE

EXISTING

DEVELOPMENT

AND FUTURE
GROWTH

IDENTIFY FACILITY

DETERMINE NEW

STANDARDS FACILITY NEEDS

AND COSTS

IDENTIFY

ALTERNATIVE

FUNDING NEEDS

CALCULATE FEE BY

ALLOCATING

COSTS PER UNIT
OF NEW

DEVELOPMENT

ALLOCATE SHARE
TO

ACCOMMODATE
GROWTH

Page 896 of 1100 ends

27 Major Planned Facilities
Neighborhood and Community Parks
■ Land and improvements to maintain standards
Recreation
■ Community Center
■ Gym
■ Splash pads
Fire
■ Two new stations
Police
■ New Police Station
Public Facilities
■ New City Hall
■ New Corporation Yard
Transportation
■ Pennsylvania and California UPR Grade Separations
■ Potrero, Oak Valley, Pennsylvania Interchanges
Sewer Facilities
■ Identified capacity expanding projects from WWMP
Recycled Water
■ Todd Groundwater Recycled Water
■ Recycled Water Storage Basins
General Plan Updates
■ GP, Zoning Code and Housing Element Updates
Library District
■ Facilities to maintain existing level of service
Emergency Preparedness
■ Emergency Operations Center
Storm Drain
■ Facilities to maintain existing level of service
Trails
■ Edison easement trail

Page 897 of 1100 ends

Cost Allocation Methods:

WHAT Facilities Serve WHO
BUY IN
Existing Facilities
Total Capacity
II

SYSTEM PLAN
Existing 1- Planned Facilities
Existing + New Demand

EXISTING INVENTORY
Existing Facilities
Existing Demand
J

PLANNED FACILITIES
Planned Facilities
New Demand

Page 898 of 1100 ends

Fee Program Methodologies
Existing
Standard
Parks
Library District
Storm Drainage
System IIII
Recreation
Fire Protection
Police
Recycled Water
General Plan
Emergency
Preparedness
Public Facilities
Planned il
Facilities 1
Transportation
Sewer Facilities
Trails
F Buy InI
Sewer Capacity

Page 899 of 1100 ends

BAUME ONTA -C A L I F O R N I
Staff Report
TO: City Council
FROM: Elizabeth Gibbs, City Manager
DATE November 5, 2024
SUBJECT: Continuation of a Public Hearing of Request to Appeal Notice of Finding Under Development Agreement
Description Tri Pointe Homes has requested an appeal of the City Manager's Notice of Finding Under Development Agreement dated August 17, 2004.

Background and Analysis:

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

Fiscal Impact:

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

Recommended Action:

Hold a Public Hearing;
If necessary, continue the Request to Appeal Notice of Finding Under Development Agreement dated August 17, 2004 to the City Council Meeting of December 3, 2024.

Page 900 of 1100 ends

BEAUMONTA O R N I
Staff Report
TO: City Council
FROM: Robert Vestal, Public Works Director
DATE: November 5, 2024
SUBJECT: Public Hearing Vacating a Portion of Euclid Avenue and a Portion of Third Street
Description Consideration of a resolution vacating a portion of Euclid Avenue between Third Street and 560 feet south of Third Street and a portion of Third Street between Euclid Avenue and 300 feet east of Euclid Avenue.

Background and Analysis:

On October 1, 2024, City Council accepted the Notice of Intent (NOI) to vacate a portion of Euclid Avenue between Third Street and 560 feet south of Third Street and a portion of Third Street between Euclid Avenue and 300 feet east of Euclid Avenue. The street vacation is in conjunction with the Plot Plan PP2022-0458 for the 84 Lumber project. To conform to the Local Street and cul-de-sac standards, the project is proposing portions of the existing right-of-way to be vacated.

T.P.O.B. THIRD STREET
P.O.C.
{N 89°43'42" E 324.96')
— L1 — '1 .61
-�
rjI co
a
S 89°43'42" W 145.33' — Ci
W
z
W
w
SEE PAGE 2
(S o- 1r. 27"E v u )
RS 158/88 RIV_ CO. PAREL'A'
5,737 SO. FT.
5 5 4 3 I 2
FOR. BLOCK 144
MB 6i 16&17 ,8.0°.

J
Figure 1 — Third Street Portion to Vacate
L5
BEAUMONT AVENUE (HWY 79)

Page 901 of 1100 ends

P.o.C.

T P O_B -L1 JT
L
1 THIRD STREET
N 89'43.'42' E
SEE PAGE 1
aL9
I
6 15 1 4 I 3` 2
3a' I I
An I
—s,190 so. Fr.- — _L — — L —
8 I I 7
1 71 -RS 15d/59 RIV, CO.- — —
a w
7 'g 10 I I 9
— —POR. BLOCK 144- — —
' 1 12 k 11
- --MR 6/166&17 S.B.CO.-
14 I I 13
16 I I 15
I____

SECOND STREET
(VACATED)
10 Figure 2 — Euclid Avenue Portion to Vacate
Requirements to Vacate
BEAUMONT AVENUE (HWY 79)
Section 8320(2) of the Streets and Highways Code (SHC) requires the City to publish the Notice of Hearing for the proposed street vacation at least fifteen (15) days before the hearing date.
• City staff published a Notice of Hearing in the Press -Enterprise on October 18, 2024.

Section 8322(a) of the SHC requires the legislative body to publish the Notice of Hearing for the proposed street vacation in a daily, semi-weekly, or weekly newspaper published and circulated in the City.
• City staff published a Notice of Hearing in the Press -Enterprise on October 18, 2024. Refer to Attachment C for proof of publication.

Page 902 of 1100 ends

Beaumont City CouncilNovember 5, 2024

Beaumont City Council
November 5, 2024