15.G
Lake Elsinore Project Alternatives
Fishery Management O&M Allocation
rMS4Co-Pemtittees?
Riverside County_
V City of Beaumont
City of Canyon Lake
City of Hemet
City9?Lakeisinore
City of Moreno Val|e_y___
CityofMurrletgriw
City of Perris
City of Riverside
City of San Jacinto
_>
K '
l
City of Menifee
City of Wildomaf
Elsinore Valley Municipal WaterDistrict(EV_M!vD)
San Jacinto Agricultural Operators
San Jaclnto Dairy 8. CAFO Operators
CALTRANS - freeway
CA DF&(_i- San Jacinta Wetlands
Eastern Municipal VllgterDistrict ‘‘‘‘
*7 March Air Reserve Base Jointiowers Authority
4» US Air Force {MarchAir Rese ve Basel
Funding Required
Canyon Lake Project Alternatives
A/um Addition
AllocationAllocatio n
Allocation
MS4 Co-Permittees
Riverside County
,,3!,3,".~."_".‘.’
60,51 4
497.000
75,004
407.000
75,004_
City of Beaumont 7,206 8,887 8.887
jmf??kg?,
, 6.274 7,739 7,739
7 City_ofHemet 41.928 51.711 51,711
City of Lake Elsinore 22 .284 27,464 27,454
City of Moreno Valley 97.025 119,854
City of Murrieta
City of Perris 30,630 37,777
mesa‘
37,777
City of Riverside 5.477 6.755 6,755
City of San Jacinto
_ City of Menifee
City of Wildomar
25.367 25,357
46.612 46.612
Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District (E\LMWD)
San Jacinto Agricultural Operators
San Jagirlto Daig?-, QAFQ°9e,ra_t,9i
,, CALTRANS - freeway
CArDF&G- San Jacinto Wetlands
Eastern Municipal Water District
March Air Reserve Base Joint Power;Authority
US Air Force ‘MarchAir Reserve Basel
407,000
$ 407,000
15.G
Task Force Agency Contributions Detailed Tables
Allocation Allocation Allocation
M54 Co-Permittees (Total) $ 450,000 $ 810,059 $ 810,059 Task Force RegulatorylAornl_nlstrativeExpenses $ 99,000 5 165,000 $ 105,000 TMDLCompliance Monitoring Expenses
77 ___ _ _ Wate7rsi7ied-wide N7t]irient Moniioring7 ?agram 7 7 7 7 7 777 777 777 7757 7 51,000 5 51.000 is 51,000 Lake Elsinore Nutrient MonitoringProgranl
7 ____‘ _ 7 V__ i V S » S _ 90.0003% 7_ 90.000
77 7 75anyonLakeN7[llrient Monitoring Program
7 3
7 7 777- 57 7 97,059 $ 97.059
Lake Elsinore Project Alternatives
Aeration 3. Desirati?caiion System O&M
7 7 3 -
?
s » 5 -
Fishery Management O&M A A 5 - S — $ —
Canyon Lake Project Alternatives 77 7 3 330,000 3 407,000 0 407,000 Riverside Eounty 73,314 $ 109,327 E$ 109,327
Task Force Regulatory/Administrative Expenses
7 _ 5
_ 8.250 as 13,750 $ 13.750
TMDL compliance Monitoring Expenses
7 Watershed-wide Nutrient Monitoring Program K V i 7 777 $ 4.250 $ 4.250 $ 4.250 Lake Elsinore Nutrient Monitoring Program
7 7 7 5 ~ 5 7,500 $ 7,500
Canyon Lake Nutrie?ii?onitoringProgram $ - $ 8.824 $ 8.824 Lake Elsinore Project Alternatives
_ Aeration & Destraii?cationSystem O&M $ - $ - $ r
Fishery Management O&M $ ~ X3 - $ -
Canyon Lake Project Alternatives $ 60,314 3 75,004 as 75,004 City of Beaumont 19,706 3 $ 43,211 $ 43,211
Task Force ReguIatorylAdrninistrativs Expenses $ 8.250 $ 13,750 $ 13.750‘ TMDLCoi_noiiant;_eMonitoring Expenses
Waiershed—wlde Nutrient Monitoring Program I $ 4.250 s
W \ 4,250 0 4.250
Lake Elsinore Nuilient Monitoring Program ' $ -
7 $ 7.500 $ 7.500
Canyon Lake Nutrient Monitoring Program i i S - $ 8.524 S 8.824 Lake Elsinore Project Alternatives
777
Aeration at Destratiricationsystern_o&M mi W_ 3 ~ 3: - $ - Fishery Management O&M $ - 35 - _§____ -
canyon Lake Project Alternatives 70 7.206 ?
7 7 7 5.05757$ 5,557
city of canyon Lake __ ,_ $ 18,774 $ 42,062 42,062
Task Force Regulalorymdministrative Expenses is 8,250 $ 13.750 13.750 TMDLCompliance Monitoring Expenses
V Watershed-wide Nutrient Monitoring Program
7 77 7 77 5 4,250 5 4,250 $ 4.250
7 _7 ng Program $ - $ 7,500 3 7,500
Canyon Lake Nutrient Monitoring Program $ - _$ _ V $ 8,824 i _LakeElsinore Project Alternatives
77 7
Aeration 8. Destraii?cationSystem 0&M
7 $
7 - $ - $ »
Fishery Management O&M
7 £7
7 - s - 0 -
Canyon Lake Project Alternatives
__V 5 6,274 5 7,739 5 7.739
l 1
——
City of Hemet 55 86,035 $ 86,035
Task Force Regulatorylmlministrative Expenses 5 13,750 5 13.750 TMDLCompliance Monitoring Expenses
Watershed-wide Nutrient Monitoring Program 3 4.250 $ 4.250 0 4,250 Lake Elsinore Nutrient Monitoring Program I s — $ 7.500 5 7.500 canyonLake Nutrient Monitoring Program7 5 $ - 5 _a_.&245 _ _ _>___2i.7sg
Lake ElsinoreProject Alternatives 5
77 Aeration &Destraiiiication system 08M 1 S — $ » S -
Fishery Management 08M 757’ -777 5 — $ -
Canyon Lake Projet:lAiternatives I 5 41,928 $ 51,711 3 51,711
15.G
gm/_of_t7_akeEisinore ___ ____ W‘ $ 61,808
Task Force Regulatorymdministrative Expenses 5
_ 13.750 TMDL Compliance Monitoring Expenses
7 7 7 777
7 Watershed~wide Nutrient Monitoring Program
7 7
77777 77
7 4.2567
Lake Elsinore NutrientMonitorinZg7P7rogram 777 7
7.500
Canyon Lake NutrientMonitoringProgram 8.824 Lake Elsinore Project Alternatives 77'
77 77 7
7 77777
Aeration &7tiestratincation systern7oIé7li7l77 7
$ -
Fishery Management 0&M
77 7 3 — Canyon Lake Project Alternatives
__77v___
7 $ 27W347
City of Moreno Valley $ 109,525 5 153,988 $ 153,938
Task F?rceRegulatorylA7ol7n7iEistratiye Expenses
77 73777 77778727507 $
7 12,73 5 i3,7757o7
TMDLCompliance Monitoring Expenses
77777
Watershed-wide Nutrient Monitoring Program r $ 4.250 3 4257073: 4250 Lake Eisinore Nutrient Monitoring Program 7 77777 33 - 5 7.500 3 7,500
Canyon Lake NutrientMonitoringPro_grain
777
7 3 r $ 8,824 77LakeElsinore Pro|ecl Alternatives
777 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 '
7 Aeration at Destrati?cation system om
'7
$ 77 s
7 - $ -
Fishery Management 0&M
M is . s — is 77- '7
Canyon Lake Project Aitematives
7 Mk
7 7 7 7 7 as 97,025 3 119.654 $ 119.664
City of Murrieta
_¥_ $ __»1_2,500 5 34,324 $ 34,324
Task Force Regulatorymdministratiire Expenses 377 8.250 5 13,750 5 13,750 L E 7 ,a_,L,;""7:7 u L,_-_, Watershed-wide Nutrient Monitoring Program S 4250 8 4250 S 4,250 Lake Elsinore NutrientMonitoringProgram 7777 3 '5 7,500 $ 7_,5oo
canyonLake Nutrient Monitoring Program
777
77 73» —
77 A
7 e,s247 S s,é2£:77
Lake Elsinore Project Alternatives
77 77
7777777
7 Aeration 8. Destratirication System D&M _
77 5 - 73777 - 3
Fishery Management 0&M
7 77 s — 3. - $ - Canyon Lake Project Alternatives
77 ___
7 _
77777 s . 3 — 3; <7
E y oi7P7e7rris
Task Force RegnIatorylAdministrative Expenses
TMDL Compliance Monitoring Expenses
Watershed-wide Nutrient MonitoringProgram 4.250 Lake Elsinore Nutrient Monitoring Program 7777
7,500
canyon Lake Nutrient Monitoring Program
77 7.8247 7l.aiteElsinore Project Alternatives
7 777 Aeration B.Destrati?cation system O8.M7777
’_
7 7
$ .
7 $ — s .
Fishery Management o3.M
77 $ $ - $
7 -
canyon Lake Project Alternatives H_
7 77 7 777 77 $ $
7 33,777 $777737,777
no
City of Riverside $ 17,977 $ 41,079 i 41,079
Task Force Regulatoryikdministrative Expenses
7 3 8,250 $ i3.75o_ $ 13,750
TMDLCompliance Monitoring Expenses__
7 7__ 777]/atershed-wide Nutrient MonitoringProgram
77 7 7 777777 7
7 7 777 777777 S
7 4,%T $77 7 7,7250$ 4,2756
Lake Eislnore Nutrient Monitoring Program 7
777 s . 3 7.500 s
7 7 7,500
I:7anyon77L 7eNutrient Monitoring>7ro7g7r7a7rri7 7777
7 7 7 777 777 777 77 7 777 7 7 7
'5 7 77 I
7 7$777791524757777 7
a_a24 Lake Elsinore Projectmtematlves 77 77 777 7 77
7 7 77 77 77
Aeration & Deslratmcation System o&M
77 $
7 . $7 _ 5 .
Fishery Management O&M
7 777
I 3 7 $ - $
7 77
- Canyon Lake Project Alternatives
?_#
7 _ ‘.5 5,477 3 6,755 $ 6.755
t_:_ityof saynqacinto ,_ __
W
"
__
77 ‘ s 33,067 $ _5_gs9o $ 59,690
Task Force RegulatoryIAdm|nistrative Expenses 3 8,250 K: 13,750 $ 13,750 TMDL Compliance Monitoring Expenses 7777
77 7 7
Watershed-wide Nutrient Monitoring Program
777
7777 77777
i 577 4356 4,250 5
7 7
Lake Elsinore Nutrient Monitoring Program
7 7 s - 7.500 5
canyonLake Nutrient Monitoring Program
77777 5
7 . 5,824 5 Lake77E7l7sii1ore Project Alternatives 7 77 Aeration 3. Destrati?cation System cm s - $ - $ —
Fishery Management o&_ivl___
7 7
$ » it
777
-
canyon Lake Project Alternatives
15.G
re 2
City of Menifee 7 77 7 77$777780,936 5 80,936
Task Force ReguIatoryIAdministrative Expenses i 3 8,250 $ 13,750 $ 3750 TMDLCompliance Monitoring Expenses
Watershed—wideNutrient Monitoring Program
7 77 3 4,250 is 4,250 5 4,250
Lake Elsinore Nutrient Monitoring Program $ r $ 7,500 5 7,500 7 oa7r7iyon Lake Nutrient MonitoringProgram 3 - $ 8,824 5 3,524 Lake Elsinore Project Alternatives
7 7
;
Aeration & Destrati?cationSystem ()&M
7 7 7 7 7 7 7 S - $ - 5 -
7 Fishery Management O&M
7 77 $ — 3 - S -
Canyon Lake Project Alternatives $ 37.794 $ 46,612 $ 46,612 City of Wildomar $ 12,500 $ 25,500 $ 25,500 ‘
Task Force Rsgu|atorylAdministratlve Expenses is 8,250 3 13,750 $ 13.750 ‘ Compliance Monitoring Expenses l Watershed-wide Nutrient Monitoring Program 8 4,250 5 4,250 8 4,250 Lake Elsinore Nutrient Monitoring Program 7 7
l s 7 $ 7,500 $5 7,500 ;
Canyon Lake NutrientMonitoring Program
777 7
$ ~ S - 3 r
Lake Elsinore Project Alternatives
Aeration 8tDestrati?cation System 08M 3 - $ - 5 -
Fishery Management 08M 3 - $ A S —
Canyon Lake Project Alternatives $ —
7 7 77 7-7 | $ -
,__j—— i:
Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District (EVMWD) $ 12,500 $ 25,500 $ 25,500 Task Force Regulatory/Administrative Expenses
77 7 $ 8,250 3 13,750 $ 13.750
TMDLCompliance Monitoring Expenses
7 7
Watershed-w_ide7N* 7ntMonitoring Program
7 $ 4,250 as 4.250 $ 4,250
Lake Elsinore Nutn Monitoring Program $ -7 3 7,500 3 7.500 Canyon Lake Nutrient Monitoring Program S r $ ~ 19 -
Lake Elsinore Project Alternatives
7 Aeration& Destrati?cation System ()&M $
_77 7 7
7 $ - $ -
Fisnery Management O&M 7 777 7 7 7 7 $ - $
-77 $ V7 Canyon Lake Project Alternatives $ - $ - $ - e 5...
San Jacinto Agricultural Operators $ 12,500 $ 34,324 $ 34,324 Task Force Ragulatorymdministrative Expenses $
77 3,250 3 13,750 $ 13,7507
TMDL Compliance Monitoring Expenses
Watershed—wideNutrientMonitoring Program $ $ 4.250 $ 4.250 Lake Elsinore Nutrient Monitoring Program
77 7$77 7
- 5 7,500 $ 7.500
Canyon Lake Nutrient Monitoring Program $ - 735 8.824 $ 8,824 Lake Elsinore Pro]ectAlterna es
Aeration 8. Destrati?cation System O&M $ - S - $ -
Fishery Management O&M $ - S
77 7777
- $
7 77 77
Canyon Lake Project Alternatives
7 S — $
7 - $ -
i San Jacinto Dairy & CAFO Operators
7 777 i $
Task Force Regulatoryl?tdministrative Expenses i $
777'rM§7LCompliance 7lv7lonltarln7g7l7:xpen§a37 7777 77 7 7 7 7 Watershedwlde Nutrient Monitoring Program ‘ $ Lake Elsinore Nutrient Monitoring Program s
7 T:anyon77Lake Nutrient Monitoring Program
7777 77 7777
7 7 7 7 7
is
Lake Elsinore Project Alternatives
Aeration 8. Destratificatiorl System O&M 5
Fishery Management O&M
7 7 7 77 7 7 77
is
CanyonLak_e7Pr7o}sct Alternatives
77 s
i
CALTRANS - freeway i $ 12,500 $ 34,324 i $ 34,324
Task Force ReguIatoryIAdmlnlstrative Expenses $ 8,250 $ 13,750 $ 13,750 TMDLCompliance Monitoring Expenses , Watershed-wide Nutrient Monitoring Program 5 4.250 3 4,250 $ 4,250 Lake Elsinore Nutrient Monitoring Program $ - 3 7,500 3» 7,500 7 canyon Lake NutrientMonit7ol7'lng7Program 77 5 - 7s a.e24 3. 3.524 Lake Elsinore Project Alternatives Aeéliori& Dastrati?catlon System 08M 5 - 5 - $ - Fishery Management 08M 5 - _ 3 — S »
Canyon Lake Project Alternatives
7 7 $7
- $ - $ -
as
15.G
7CADF&G — San Jacinto Wetlands
___ _ _§ _ir 12,500 $ 34,324 $
W 34,324
Task Force ReguiatoryiAam_inislr {Expenses _$ 3.250 $ 13,750 TMl)7LCo7rripIlance7MonItoring xpenses 7 777 watersneiwirle Nutrient Monitoring Program
?? 35 4,250 3
7 4,25o_ 3; 774,250 7 Lake Elsinore Nutrient Monitoring Program_:7 7 7 $
7 - S 7500*$ 7.500
_ Canyon Lake Nutrient Monitoring Program __ _7_
7 37 H; i 5.324 3 a,o24
i Lake Elsinore Project /ilI_ematlves
7 if # F W Aeration & Destrati?cation system O&M___ M _ ____ __ $ - 5 - _ s - _ Fishery Management O&M _ ?_M_ s . s _ $ .
Canyon Lake Project Alternatives
7 $ - 3 -
7 :5 -
Eastern Municipal Water District
1 $ H__1_2,500$ 25,500 $ 25,500
Task Force RegulalorymdrninistragreExpens
7 VVVV 7
__ $ 8,250 3 13.750 is 13,7§9_ TMDL Compliance Monitoring Expenses 7 _ _” 4_
W Watershed-wide Nutrient Monitoring Prograrn___ 3 4,250 $ 7 4,250 $ 717,350
Lake Elsinore NutrierilMonitoring Program $
7 — $ 7500 1 7,500
Canyon Lake Nutrient Monitoring PFOQEWV 77 $
7 — $
‘N
- $
7 7
-
Lake Elsinore Project Alternatives
__ _
7 Aeration & Destratification system oi3.M
7 _$__ - ? — V$__ ~
Fishery Management 08M 77 _ A $ __
— 5 - $ -
canyon Lake Project Alternatives 3 - s » ls -
March Air Reserve Base Joint Powers Authority _ Task Force Regulatorymdmlnlslrativa Expens_es JMDLCompli?tce Monitoring Expenses Watershed-wide Nutrient Monitoring Program 7 Lake Elsinore Nutrient Monitoring Program
Canyon Lake Nutrient Monitoring Program
Lake Elsinore Project Alternatives
Aeration & Destrali?cation System 0&_M
Fishery Management O&M
Canyon Lake Project Alternatives
us Air Force (ivlarc rr ReseweBase)
7 Task Force Regulalorylkdmlnistratlve Expenses
777
TMDL Compliance Monitoring Expenses__
77 77 7 7 7
Watershed-wide Nutrient Monitoring Program
77 7 3 4,2507$
7 7 A250 55 47,2? 77 Lake Elsinore Nutrient Monitoring Program 7 77 3 - 3 7.5007757 7 7,500
Canyon Lake Nutrient Monitoring Program
77 K - :3 8,824 S 5.824
Lake Elsinore Project Alternatives
7 V
7 7
Aeration & Destrati?cation System O&M
777 77 3 - S - $ »
W Fishery Management os._M _
7 3
77 — s - s .
canyon Lake l=roieEJlt7ernatives 7
M
77 777 7 ii" . 5 —_
Total: $ 580,000 $ 1,067,000 $ 1,057,000
15.G
DRAFT FY 2013-14 Budget: Lake Elsinore 8. Canyon Lake TMDLTask Force Summary Task Force Expenditures :°“1‘f_’f;
Part A: Task Force RegulatoryIAdmlnistrative Budget
7777 777 777 777 Task Force Administration
7 7 7 7 __ 77777_ 5 50,ooo_75 50,000 5 7 50,060
ilaskl-‘orceAdministrator (_LESJWA) 7
77 "MM"
7 ‘
Annual Water7Qu§|it7y Rep<7)rli7n7g7and DaiabeseManag?rpent 77 V M
7 77 ?? V 7: 7 @n—r§%7F_o7rceAgreement
7777 7 77 77 7 77 77 777777 77 __
77 *7
7Gran1Prep7a7ration __7_ 7
77 7
77 _ 7 l
V 7
TMDLcompliance Expert
777
7 5 50,000 3 50,000 70 750,000 T?i_sk§c1a£<*=%_?j,
, _ , _ , , Update of Watershed and In-Lake Nutrient Models $ - s 100.000 0 100.000 Watershed Modeling“- :
7 W W 7 7 “H " A _ 9 3 100,000 0 *7"#100,000
7in-lakeModeling 77
77 —-7"
7 7
7- ‘ A V
777 77 7
(7
‘ReviewEndRevisionof Water Quality Objectii/7e7s7
7 _
7 s 502037757 25,000 3
7 DO Target Adjustment7777 __
7 7 7 7
7 0 25,000 $ 25,00? "contingency _
7 5 15,000 5 50,000 5 50,000
TMDLTask Force Regulatory/Administrative Erfgét” $ 105,000 $ 275,000 5 275,000 Part B: TMDLimplementation Project Budget
TMDLCompliance Monitoring
Watershed-wide Nutrient Monitoring l7’7rgg_7r7qrrg777 7 777 7_7 $77 05,000 0 85,000 77$ 55,000 ' Watershed«wld§ Nutrient M<7J7ni_toring 27;Bgpon Prepgrggion_(WesionSolutlclnsl 7 7 7 7 777}0 ' 70,000 0 70,000 0 7300?
Wet Year Watershed-vv7ic7ie Monitoring (weather dependant) {RC7FC&_VxC7D) 757777 $ - La7bAnalysis, Watershed-wide Monit97rylg7(RCFC&Wt':7D) 7777 77777 3 0 15,000
Stream gauge O&M (RCFC&WCD) 75 77 $
777
-
‘ Z5 ?EnT% r§5*_ ' M“ V ’
‘E 0 150,000
Lake ElsinoreNutrient Monitoring & Lab Ana7T§7s7is (EVl\_/l7\/\_Ig)7_77 7 is H 150.0007]
Canyorlggke Nutrient Moni(gir1_;;_l7ljr5>7g7;77r7.3m7
7 77 __7 7 s 150,000
Canyon Lake NutrientMonitoring & Lab Analysis (7EVMWD)
7 $ 150,000 Laie Elsinore Project Alternatives ' 7 7" 7' V '7 K W __/-\era_tlarv7_:7§_Qe§tratificationSystem O&M (to be handled by segggate agreement) 7 7 5 - O&M S - Pollutant T7ra7d|ngAdministration(3"7A3 of O&M7CosTs)7: '7' *7 7 777 77 ‘ 7’ $
77 7-7_ 7 5
.
777 _____7
7 7 7 7 __ 7 7___ 3» - Pol1u7tant Trading Admir?gtration(3j’/o77o7f O&MCosts) 7 $ - Canyon Lake Project Altert?tives? 77M ”V7
7 7 N H W 7 § w:i'3’0,000'
’ Chemical Additions J?um Dosing (2 app|icatEn?annualiy)" A A7 W V WM" 7% ’ 7 7 '4 Consulting Support
"'
7BWT '"'—# WT" 77
N Detai|ed_D§sign 77 7 7mA 77:'''' A‘
Construction 7 7
'7 ‘
7 Effectivene7s7s_7i1§7c>nltEing 77777777 7 N"
7 ’_____o&M 7 7 7
‘ f 0
’
—
Pr ‘eat Administration (170% of budgetedexpenses)
W 7'"T__7‘?’# ‘M V 5'W
7 7 ant Trading Administration 3% of O&M Costs) 3 $ - is » ' TMDLTask Force Implementation Budget 5 415,000 $ 792,000 S 792,000 TMDLTask Force Budget : S 580,000 $ 1,067,000 $ 1,067,000
15.G
Task Force Agency Contributions Summaw fo“."3‘_’f;
Task Force Agency Allocation ___ __ Total Total Total
MS4 Co-Permittees (Total) _ s 4so,0oo_] 5 a1o,059 s 010.059 Riverside County 3; 73,314 $ 109,327 5 100.327
City of Beaumont i $ 19,706 s 43,211 $ 43,211
City_ofCanyon Lake 5 13.774 0 42,062 $ 42,062
City of Hemet ___
| 8 54,420 3 86,035 as 86.035
City of Lake Elsinore s 34,784 $ 01.805 s 61,805
Cityof Moreno Valley _ r___ _ $ 109.525 $ 153,988 3 153.980 i City of Murrieta _ $ 12,500 3 34.324 5:: 34,324 I
‘ City of Penis
A
3 43.130 3 72.100 3; 72,10?
1 Cityof Riverside $ 17,977 5 41,079 $ 41.079
i_ Cityof San Jacinto $ 33,067 3 59.690 3 59,690
‘
7 City of Menifee __ I _ 5 50,294 $ 80,950 $ 80,936
City of Wildomar 5 12,500 5 25,500 s 25.500
Elsinore Valley Muni ipal Water District (EVMWD) 5 12.500 5 25,500 3 25,500 San Jacinto Agricultural Operators , _ s 12,500 s 34,324 5 34.324 San Jacintggairy & CAFO Operators ‘ 5 12.500 5 34.324 s _ _ 34,324 CALTRANS- freeway 3 12,500 3 34,324 5 34,324
CA DF&G - San Jacinto Wetlands , 5 12,500 $ 34.324 s 34,324 Eastern Municipal Water District S 12,500 5 25,500 3 25,500 March Air Reserve Base Joint Powers Authority __ _ __V_ s 12,500 i 5 34,324 5 34,324 US Air Force March Air Reserve Base 5 12.500 25 34.324 3 34,324 ! Total Funding Required $ 580,000 $ 1,067,000 $ 1,067,000 Prop 84 Round 2 IRWM Funding §o“1“3‘ff;
7 V»
f0“1‘;‘ffé
Can on Lake H brid Treatment rocess - Phase 1 $ - 5 250,000 S 250 00 Total Grant Funding $ - S 250,000 $ 250,000
Notes:
Task Force Administration
a. Organize and facilitate TMDLTASK FORCE and TAC meetings, b, Perform secretarial, clerical and administrative services, including providing meeting summaries to TMDLTASK FORCE members.
C. Manage TMDLTASK FORCE lunds and prepare annual reports of TMDLTASK FORCE assets and expenditures, (1. Serve as the contracting party, fnrthe bene?t of the TMDLTASK FORCE. forcontracts with all consultants, contractors. vendors and other entities. e. Seek lunding grants to assist with achieving goals and objectives dime TMDLTASK FORCE. i Coordinate with other agencies and organizations as necessary to facilitate TMDLTASK FORCE work.
9. Administerthe preparation of quarterly and annual reports, as required by the TMDLImplementation Plan, and submit them as required by the TMDL Implementation Plan on behall of the TMDLTASK FORCE.
ii. Possible administrator of luture pollutant trading (water quality trading) agreements.
TMDLCompliance Expert
a. Support Task Force Agency as a Regulatory Strategist and Compliance Expert.
0. Develop implementation strategy to address TMDLcompliance with nutrient targets
0. Plan and prepare Basin Plan Amendment for TMDL
d. Sub-contract out pollutant trading agreement preparation by consultant
15.G
IN WITNESSWHEREOF, the PARTIEShereto have executed this Agreement on the dates shown adjacent their respective signatures. This Agreement becomes effective as of the date of the latest signature page received.
LAKEELSINOREAND SAN JACINTOWATERSHEDSAUTHORITY
BY
/ ;?.,W/z 7”L;rt
TITLE (xx/A A\,a‘\/Kor':+\/ _/\z)\rv\‘-/\»‘3“\’r‘r.“‘L)r 2/27,/I3 DATE
APPROVEDASTO FORM
BY ?r 5;. Auuc:
Attorney
CAL|FORN/ DEP ENT OF TRANSPORTATION
BY
TITLE D5$hn'c/+Dirco+0i// Dis+ViaL8
DATE 2*/Z9//5
APPROVEDAU //7 /
, «;..~ ’ // BY / {J/z/s--~\Q
Attorney I ‘J I
15.G
Lake Elsinorelcanyun Lake TMDL Task Force Agreement
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
FISH AND GAME
BY
DATE
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
BY
DATE
CITY OF BEAUMONT
BY
Mayor
E g
DATE [2—‘*/'li
CITY OF CANYON LAKE
BY
Mayor
DATE
CITY OF HEMET
BY
Mayor
DATE
CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE
BY
Mayor
DATE
CITY OF MENIFEE
BY
Mayor
DATE
11 CITY OF MORENO VALLEY
BY
Mayor
DATE:
CITY OF MURRIETA
BY
Mayor
DATE
CITY OF PERRIS
BY
Mayor
DATE
CITY OF RIVERSIDE
BY
Mayor
DATE
CITY OF SAN JACINTO
BY
Mayor
DATE
CITY OF WILDOMAR
BY
Mayor
DATE
15.G
Lake Elsinore/Canyon Lake TMDL Task Force Agrcemcm
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
FISH AND GAME
BY
DATE
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
BY
DATE
CITY OF BEAUMONT
BY
Mayor
DATE
CITY OF CANYON LAKE
CITY OF HEMET
BY
Mayor
DATE
CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE
BY
Mayor
DATE
CITY OF MENIFEE
BY
Mayor
DATE
11 CITY OF MORENO VALLEY
BY
Mayor
DATE:
CITY OF MURRIETA
BY
Mayor
DATE
CITY OF PERRIS
BY
Mayor
DATE
CITY OF RIVERSIDE
BY
Mayor
DATE
CITY OF SAN JACINTO
BY
Mayor
DATE
CITY OF WILDOMAR
BY
Mayor
DATE
15.G
Lake Elsinore/Canyon Lake TMDL Task Farce Agreement
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
FISH AND GAME
BY
DATE
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
BY
DATE
CITY OF BEAUMONT
BY
Mayor
DATE
CITY OF CANYON LAKE
BY
Mayor
DATE
CIw T / 41/ "
CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE
BY
Mayor
DATE
CITY OF MENIFEE
BY
Mayor
DATE
II
CITY OF MORENO VALLEY
BY
Mayor
DATE:
CITY OF MURRIETA
BY
Mayor
DATE
CITY OF PERRIS
BY
Mayor
DATE
CITY OF RIVERSIDE
BY
Mayor
DATE
CITY OF SAN JACINTO
BY
Mayor
DATE
CITY OF WILDOMAR
BY
Mayor
DATE
15.G
Lake Elsinore/Canyon Lake TMDL Task Furcc Agreement
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
FISH AND GAME
BY
DATE
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
BY
DATE
CITY OF BEAUMONT
BY
Mayor
DATE
CITY OF CANYON LAKE
BY
Mayor
DATE
CITY OF HEMET
BY
Mayor
DATE
CITY OF MENIFEE
BY
Mayor
DATE
11 CITY OF MORENO VALLEY
BY
Mayor
DATE:
CITY OF MURRIETA
BY
Mayor
DATE
CITY OF PERRIS
BY
Mayor
DATE
CITY OF RIVERSIDE
BY
Mayor
DATE
CITY OF SAN JACINTO
BY
Mayor
DATE
CITY OF WILDOMAR
BY
Mayor
DATE
15.G
Lake Elsinore/Canyon Lake TMDL Task Force Agreemcnl
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
FISH AND GAME
BY
DATE
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
BY
DATE
CITY OF BEAUMONT
BY
Mayor
DATE
CITY OF CANYON LAKE
BY
Mayor
DATE
CITY OF HEMET
BY
Mayor
DATE
CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE
BY
Mayor
DATE
CITY OF MORENO VALLEY
BY
Mayor
DATE:
CITY OF MURRIETA
BY
Mayor
DATE
CITY OF PERRIS
BY
Mayor
DATE
CITY OF RIVERSIDE
BY
Mayor
DATE
CITY OF SAN JACINTO
BY
Mayor
DATE
CITY OF WILDOMAR
BY
Mayor
DATE
-1’ 1),»
.FIétche1§Cit‘y'Fftomey
15.G
Lake Elsinore/Canyon Lake TMDL Task Force Agreement
CITY OF MOR O VALLEY
BY \ / /
Mayor
DATE ‘yo ,7
BY
Cit Ck: ‘
DATE q k\o[g7/
APPROVED AS TO FORM
11
15.G
Lake Elsinore/Canyon Lake TMDL Task Farce Agreement
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENTOF CITY OF MORENO VALLEY HSHANDGAME BY BY
n?ayor
DATE DATE
CALIFORNIADEPARTMENTOF CITY OF MURRIETA
TRANSPORTATION
BY
DATE
CITY OF BEAUMONT CITY OF PERRIS
BY BY
hdayor hdayor
DATE DATE
CITY OF CANYON LAKE CITY OF RIVERSIDE
BY BY
Mayor Mayor
DATE DATE
CITY OF HEMET CITY OF SAN JACINTO
BY BY
hdayor h?ayor
DATE DATE
CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE CITY OF WILDOMAR
BY BY
Mayor Mayor
DATE
K DATE
CITY OF MENIFEE
BY
hdayor
DATE
H
15.G
Lake Elsinore/Canyon Lake TMDL Task Force Agreement
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
FISH AND GAME
BY
DATE
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
BY
DATE
CITY OF BEAUMONT
BY
Mayor
DATE
CITY OF CANYON LAKE
BY
Mayor
DATE
CITY OF HEMET
BY
Mayor
DATE
CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE
BY
Mayor
DATE
CITY OF MEN] FEE
BY
Mayor
DATE
11 CITY OF MORENO VALLEY
BY
Mayor
DATE:
CITY OF MURRIETA
Mayor
CITY OF RIVERSIDE
BY
Mayor
DATE
CITY OF SAN JACINTO
BY
Mayor
DATE
CITY OF WILDOMAR
BY
Mayor
DATE
15.G
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Agreement entitled “AGREEMENT TO FORM THE LAKE ELSINORE AND CANYON LAKE TMDL TASK FORCE”
CITY OF RIVERSIDE
BY I/J91/vw-\
ity Manager&
DATE July 17, 2013
“W5 C
Clark
APPROVED AS TO FORM
By
Cii31AIn9méy
CERTIFIEDASTOFUNDSA\lAlU\B|LlTY:
15.G
Lake Elsinore/Canyon Lake TMDL Task Farce Agreement
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
FISH AND GAME
DATE
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
BY
DATE
CITY OF BEAUMONT
BY
Mayor
DATE
CITY OF CANYON LAKE
BY
Mayor
DATE
CITY OF HEMET
BY
Mayor
DATE
CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE
BY
Mayor
DATE" _ H% V_
CITY OF MENIFEE
BY
Mayor
DATE
11 CITY OF MORENO VALLEY
BY
Mayor
DATE: _
CITY OF MURRIETA
BY
Mayor
DATETT _j___
CITY OF PERRIS
BY
Mayor
DATE
CITY OF RIVERSIDE
BY
Mayor
DATE
CITY OF SAN JACINTO
BY 0.;/4-‘ Mayo
DATE 7“5?—/Q
CITY OF WILDOMAR
BY
Mayor
DATE
15.G
Lake Elsinore/Canyon Lake TMDL Task Force Agreement
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
FISH AND GAME
BY
DATE
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
BY
DATE
CITY OF BEAUMONT
BY
Mayor
DATE
CITY OF CANYON LAKE
BY
Mayor
DATE
CITY OF HEMET
BY
Mayor
DATE
CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE
BY
Mayor
DATE
CITY OF MENIFEE
BY
iMayor
DATE
I 1
CITY OF MORENO VALLEY
BY
Mayor
DATE:
CITY OF MURRIETA
BY
Mayor
DATE
CITY OF PERRIS
BY
Mayor
DATE
CITY OF RIVERSIDE
BY
Mayor
DATE
CITY OF SAN JACINTO
BY
Mayor
DAT E_N
CITY OF WILDOMAR
15.G
Lake Elsinore/Canyon Lake TMDL Task Force Agreement
COUNTY OF RIVERS E U.S. AIR FORCE
2’ (MARCH AIR RESERVE BASE)
BY
DATE
EASTERN MUNICII’AL WATER DISTRICT WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY
AGRIGULTURE COALITION
BY BY
DATE DATE
ELSINORE VALLEY MUNICIPAL SANTA ANA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY
WATER DISTIRCT CONTROL BOARD
BY BY
DATE DATE
MARCH JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY
BY
DATE
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL
AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
BY
DATE
15.G
Lake Elsinore/Canyon Lake TMDL Task Force Agreement
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE U.S. AIR FORCE
(MARCH AIR RESERVE BASE)
BY BY
DATE DATE
EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY
AGRICULTURE COALITION
BY 1 BY
DATE ‘ I ' 7 ' l v DATE
ELSINORE VALLEY MUNICIPAL SANTA ANA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY
WATER DISTIRCT CONTROL BOARD
BY BY
DATE DATE
MARCH JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY
BY
DATE
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL
AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
BY
DATE
12
15.G
Lake Elsinore/Canyon Lake TMDL Task Forcc Agrccment
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
BY
DATE
EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT
MARCH JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY
BY
DATE
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL
AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
BY
DATE
U.S. AIR FORCE
(MARCH AIR RESERVE BASE)
BY
DATE
WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY
AGRIGULTURE COALITION
BY
DATE
SANTA ANA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY
CONTROL BOARD
BY
DATE
15.G
I/ake Elsinore/Canyon Lake TMDL Task Force Agreement
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE U.S. AIR FORCE
(MARCH AIR RESERVE BASE)
BY BY
DATE DATE
EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY
AGRIGULTURE COALITION
BY BY
DATE DATE
ELSINORE VALLEY MUNICIPAL SANTA ANA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY
WATER DISTIRCT CONTROL BOARD
BY BY
DATE DATE
MARCH JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY
4 ( . ,4 (,¢(*/,2;
/ DATE jg [[ 4
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL
AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
BY
DATE
15.G
11 12
148926
RIVERSIDECOUNTY FLOOD CONTROL
RECOMMENDED,-"FOR APPROVAL: 2’ ANDWATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT /‘ P‘.
WARREN D. WILLIAMS
General Manager-Chief Engineer
..
ARION SHLEY, Chairman
Riverside County Flood Control and
Water Conservation District
Board of Supervisors
APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST:
PAMELA J. WALLS
‘ KECIA HARPER-IHEM
County Co el Clerkof the Board
By By A
NE
A KIPNIS I Y VA‘ Detputy A
Dep County Counsel
(SEAL)
Agreement to Form the Lake Elsinore
and Canyon Lake TMDL Task Force
9/l 1/12
KEC:blj
15.G
Lake Elsinore/Canyon Lake TMDL Task Force Agreement
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
BY
DATE
EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT
BY
DATE:
ELSINORE VALLEY MUNICIPAL
QUALITY WATER DISTIRCT
BY
DATE:
MARCH JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY
(LESJWA)
BY
DATE:
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL
AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
BY
DATE:
U.S. AIR FORCE
(MARCH AIR RESERVE BASE)
BY§’.—{ c
SAMUEL c. MAHANT,Co1,USAFR
Commander, 452d Air Mobility Wing
DATE: /J?ec/2»-
WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY
AGRIGULTURE COALITION
BY
DATE:
SANTA ANA REGIONAL WATER
CONTROL BOARD
BY
DATE:
LAKE ELSINORE & SAN JACINTO
WATERSHEDS AUTHORITY
BY
DATE:
15.G
Lake Elsinore/Canyon Lakt TMDL Task Force Agrccment
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
BY
DATE
EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT
BY
DATE
ELSINORE VALLEY MUNICIPAL
WATER DISTIRCT
BY
DATE
MARCH JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY
BY
DATE
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL
AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
BY
DATE
U.S. AIR FORCE
(MARCH AIR RESERVE BASE)
BY
DATE
WESTERN RIVERSIDE co NTY
AGRIGULT COALI N
BY #5,/,24 40%
DATE 52 ~ / ‘ca/é
SANTA ANA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY
CONTROL BOARD
BY
DATE
15.G
Lake Elsinore/Canyon Lake TMDL Task Force Agreement
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
BY
DATE
EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT
BY
DATE
ELSINORE VALLEY MUNICIPAL
WATER DISTIRCT
BY
DATE
MARCH JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY
BY
DATE
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL
AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
BY
DATE
U.S. AIR FORCE
(MARCH AIR RESERVE BASE)
BY
DATE
WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY
AGRIGULTURE COALITION
BY
DATE
SANTA ANA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY
CONTROL BOARD
BY Zj3[- E
DATE Q/IEH7,
15.G
Lake Elsinore/Canyon Lake TMDL Task Force Agreement
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
BY
DATE
EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT
BY
DATE
ELSINORE VALLEY MUNICIPAL
WATER DISTIRCT
BY
DATE
MARCH JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY
BY
DATE
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL
AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
BY
DATE
U.S. AIR FORCE
(MARCH AIR RESERVE BASE)
BY
DATE
WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY
AGRIGULTURE COALITION
BY
DATE
SANTA ANA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY
CONTROL BOARD
BY
DATE
LAKE ELSINORE & SAN JACINTO
WATERSHEDS AUTHORITY (LESJWA)
BY '7/Lou/9, 5‘. //1,»/way
DATE 7- L59 2»/,*L
15.G
18-Apr-22
Revised Draft
Budget
2022-23
1. $ 80,000
$ 80,000
$ -
2. $ 70,000
$ 70,000
3. $ 233,675
$ 72,270
$ 92,135
$ 69,270
4. $ 153,100
$ -
$ 30,000
$ -
$ 123,100
$ -
$ -
5. $ -
$ 536,775
6. $ 124,200
$ 124,200
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
7. $ 240,676
$ 230,676
$ 10,000
$ -
$ 364,876
$ 901,651
TMDL Compliance Expert
Tess Dunham / Kahn, Soares & Conway
TMDL Compliance Monitoring
Watershed-wide Nutrient Monitoring Program
Lake Elsinore Nutrient Monitoring Program (includes TMDL Compliance report support) Draft FY 2022-23 Budget: Lake Elsinore & Canyon Lake TMDL Task Force Summary Task Force Expenditures
Part A: TMDL Task Force Budget
Task Force Administration
Task Force Administrator (LESJWA)
Grant Preparation/Administration
TMDL Update / Approval Process
Additional Implementation Projects
Aerial Land Use Surveys (every 5 years)
Contingency
Part A: TMDL Task Force Budget:
Canyon Lake Nutrient Monitoring Program
TMDL Compliance Reporting & Modeling
2020 TMDL Compliance Report
TMDL Support Services
Lake Simulation Models
Carp Removal Program (Fishery Management O&M)
Project Administration
Canyon Lake Project Alternatives
Chemical Additions - Alum Dosing
Project Administration
Project Contingency
Part B: TMDL Project Budget
Lake Elsinore Project Alternatives
Lake Elsinore Aeration and Mixing System (LEAMS) Offset Credit Purchase
LEAMS O&M
Fishery Management
Fishery Survey
TMDL Task Force Part B Implementation Budget
LE&CL TMDL Implementation Budget:
Task Force Administration
- Organize and facilitate TMDL TASK FORCE meetings,
- Perform secretarial, clerical and administrative services, including providing meeting summaries to TMDL TASK FORCE - Manage TMDL TASK FORCE funds and prepare annual reports of TMDL TASK FORCE assets and expenditures, - Act as the contracting party, for the benefit of the TMDL TASK FORCE, for contracts with all consultants, contractors, vendors and other entities,
- Seek funding grants to assist with achieving the work of the TMDL TASK FORCE and other goals and objectives of the
TMDL TASK FORCE,
- Coordinate with other agencies and organizations as necessary to facilitate TMDL TASK FORCE work, - Administer the preparation of quarterly and annual reports, as required by the TMDL Implementation Plan, and submit them as required by the TMDL Implementation Plan on behalf of the TMDL TASK FORCE, - Coordinate and facilitate the addition of other Monitoring Programs to the Task Force, TMDL Compliance Expert
- Serve as regulatory strategist and compliance expert for the Task Force TMDL Support Services
- Support Task Force in tracking individual nutrient load allocations/reductions - Support LEAMS effectiveness demonstration
- Provide TMDL TASK FORCE members an opportunity to comment and approve any reports or other work product developed.
- Support Canyon Lake Alum Project (evaluate need / calculate dose) - Conduct Technical Analyses as requested by the Task Force
15.G
Task Force Agency Contributions Summary
Draft
Budget
2022-23
1. Task Force Agency Allocation Total
MS4 Co-Permittees (Total) $ 664,235
Riverside County $ 114,610
City of Beaumont $ 32,082
City of Canyon Lake $ 40,888
City of Hemet $ 51,039
City of Lake Elsinore $ 35,769
City of Moreno Valley $ 92,615
City of Murrieta $ 38,299
City of Perris $ 56,829
City of Riverside $ 32,082
City of San Jacinto $ 32,082
City of Menifee $ 105,562
City of Wildomar $ 32,376
Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District (EVMWD) $ 30,610 San Jacinto Agricultural Operators (WRCAC) $ 28,380
San Jacinto Dairy & CAFO Operators * $ 3,000
CA Department of Transportation $ 40,046
CA DF&W - San Jacinto Wetlands $ 29,082
Eastern Municipal Water District $ 29,082
March Air Reserve Base Joint Powers Authority $ 38,268
US Air Force (March Air Reserve Base) $ 38,948
Total Funding Required 901,651 $
Note: * San Jacinto Dairy & CAFO Operators contributions to the LE&CL TMDL Task Force are made through WRCAC 2 Draft
Budget
2022-23
MS4 Co-Permittees $ 109,800
Riverside County partner
City of Beaumont $ 3,000
City of Canyon Lake $ 3,900
City of Hemet $ 8,400
City of Lake Elsinore partner
City of Moreno Valley $ 31,800
City of Murrieta $ 3,000
City of Perris $ 15,900
City of Riverside $ 3,000
City of San Jacinto $ 3,000
City of Menifee $ 30,600
City of Wildomar $ 7,200
Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District (EVMWD) partner San Jacinto Agricultural Operators (WRCAC) $ -
San Jacinto Dairy & CAFO Operators $ 3,000
CALTRANS - freeway $ 5,100
CA DF&W - San Jacinto Wetlands $ -
Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD) $ -
March Air Reserve Base Joint Powers Authority $ 3,000
US Air Force (March Air Reserve Base) $ 3,300
Funding Required 124,200 $
Lake Elsinore Aeration and Mixing System (LEAMS) Offset Credit Allocation (to be handled by separate agreement)
Notes: LEAMS Excess Offset Credits are based upon modeling conducted by Dr. Alex Horne (Horne Dec. 2012 and Horne Mar. 2015). Credit Allocations are estimated as the num Page 111 of 121ber of credits to bring stakeholder into compliance (CDM Smith 2020).
15.G
Task Force Agency Contributions Detailed Tables
Draft
Budget
2022-23
Task Force Regulatory/Administrative Expenses Allocation MS4 Co-Permittees $ 96,095
Riverside County $ 8,008
City of Beaumont $ 8,008
City of Canyon Lake $ 8,008
City of Hemet $ 8,008
City of Lake Elsinore $ 8,008
City of Moreno Valley $ 8,008
City of Murrieta $ 8,008
City of Perris $ 8,008
City of Riverside $ 8,008
City of San Jacinto $ 8,008
City of Menifee $ 8,008
City of Wildomar $ 8,008
Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District (EVMWD) $ 8,008 San Jacinto Agricultural Operators (WRCAC) $ 5,857
San Jacinto Dairy & CAFO Operators * $ -
CALTRANS - freeway $ 8,008
CA DF&W - San Jacinto Wetlands $ 8,008
Eastern Municipal Water District $ 8,008
March Air Reserve Base Joint Powers Authority $ 8,008
US Air Force (March Air Reserve Base) $ 8,008
Funding Required 150,000 $
Note: * San Jacinto Dairy & CAFO Operators contributions to the LE&CL TMDL Task Force are made through WRCAC Watershed-wide Nutrient Monitoring Program Allocation
MS4 Co-Permittees $ 48,909
Riverside County $ 4,076
City of Beaumont $ 4,076
City of Canyon Lake $ 4,076
City of Hemet $ 4,076
City of Lake Elsinore $ 4,076
City of Moreno Valley $ 4,076
City of Murrieta $ 4,076
City of Perris $ 4,076
City of Riverside $ 4,076
City of San Jacinto $ 4,076
City of Menifee $ 4,076
City of Wildomar $ 4,076
Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District (EVMWD) -naSan Jacinto Agricultural Operators (WRCAC) $ 2,982 San Jacinto Dairy & CAFO Operators * $ -
CALTRANS - freeway $ 4,076
CA DF&W - San Jacinto Wetlands $ 4,076
Eastern Municipal Water District $ 4,076
March Air Reserve Base Joint Powers Authority $ 4,076
US Air Force (March Air Reserve Base) $ 4,076
Funding Required 72,270 $
Note: * San Jacinto Dairy & CAFO Operators contributions to the LE&CL TMDL Task Force are made through WRCAC Part A: Task Force Regulatory/Administrative Budget
TMDL Compliance Monitoring Expenses
15.G
Lake Elsinore Nutrient Monitoring Program Allocation
MS4 Co-Permittees $ 59,025
Riverside County $ 4,919
City of Beaumont $ 4,919
City of Canyon Lake $ 4,919
City of Hemet $ 4,919
City of Lake Elsinore $ 4,919
City of Moreno Valley $ 4,919
City of Murrieta $ 4,919
City of Perris $ 4,919
City of Riverside $ 4,919
City of San Jacinto $ 4,919
City of Menifee $ 4,919
City of Wildomar $ 4,919
Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District (EVMWD) $ 4,919 San Jacinto Agricultural Operators (WRCAC) $ 3,598
San Jacinto Dairy & CAFO Operators * $ -
CALTRANS - freeway $ 4,919
CA DF&W - San Jacinto Wetlands $ 4,919
Eastern Municipal Water District $ 4,919
March Air Reserve Base Joint Powers Authority $ 4,919
US Air Force (March Air Reserve Base) $ 4,919
Funding Required 92,135 $
Note: * San Jacinto Dairy & CAFO Operators contributions to the LE&CL TMDL Task Force are made through WRCAC Canyon Lake Nutrient Monitoring Program Allocation
MS4 Co-Permittees $ 42,972
Riverside County $ 3,907
City of Beaumont $ 3,907
City of Canyon Lake $ 3,907
City of Hemet $ 3,907
City of Lake Elsinore $ 3,907
City of Moreno Valley $ 3,907
City of Murrieta $ 3,907
City of Perris $ 3,907
City of Riverside $ 3,907
City of San Jacinto $ 3,907
City of Menifee $ 3,907
City of Wildomar -naElsinore Valley Municipal Water District (EVMWD) $ 3,907 San Jacinto Agricultural Operators (WRCAC) $ 2,858
San Jacinto Dairy & CAFO Operators * $ -
CALTRANS - freeway $ 3,907
CA DF&W - San Jacinto Wetlands $ 3,907
Eastern Municipal Water District $ 3,907
March Air Reserve Base Joint Powers Authority $ 3,907
US Air Force (March Air Reserve Base) $ 3,907
Funding Required 69,270 $
Note: * San Jacinto Dairy & CAFO Operators contributions to the LE&CL TMDL Task Force are made through WRCAC
15.G
Fishery Management O&M ** Allocation
MS4 Co-Permittees $ -
Riverside County $ -
City of Beaumont $ -
City of Canyon Lake $ -
City of Hemet $ -
City of Lake Elsinore $ -
City of Moreno Valley $ -
City of Murrieta $ -
City of Perris $ -
City of Riverside $ -
City of San Jacinto $ -
City of Menifee $ -
City of Wildomar $ -
Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District (EVMWD) $ -
San Jacinto Agricultural Operators (WRCAC) $ -
San Jacinto Dairy & CAFO Operators * $ -
CALTRANS - freeway $ -
CA DF&W - San Jacinto Wetlands $ -
Eastern Municipal Water District -naMarch Air Reserve Base Joint Powers Authority $ - US Air Force (March Air Reserve Base) $ -
Funding Required - $
Note: * San Jacinto Dairy & CAFO Operators contributions to the LE&CL TMDL Task Force are made through WRCAC Canyon Lake Project Alternatives
Alum Addition Allocation
MS4 Co-Permittees $ 209,352
Riverside County $ 85,528
City of Beaumont -na-
City of Canyon Lake $ 7,906
City of Hemet $ 13,557
City of Lake Elsinore $ 6,686
City of Moreno Valley $ 31,732
City of Murrieta $ 6,217
City of Perris $ 11,847
City of Riverside -na-
City of San Jacinto -na-
City of Menifee $ 45,880
City of Wildomar -naElsinore Valley Municipal Water District (EVMWD) $ 5,603 San Jacinto Agricultural Operators * $ 7,107
San Jacinto Dairy & CAFO Operators -naCALTRANS - freeway $ 5,863 CA DF&W - San Jacinto Wetlands -naEastern Municipal Water District -naMarch Air Reserve Base Joint Powers Authority $ 6,186 US Air Force (March Air Reserve Base) $ 6,565
Funding Required 240,676 $
Notes: * San Jacinto Dairy & CAFO Operators contributions to the LE&CL TMDL Task Force are made through WRCAC 1) Offset demand estimates for TP; TN data not used in this allocation 2) Jurisdictions with zero offset demand are designated as not applicable "-na-" 3) Allocations include a factor of 2, this "doubling" of alum is to serve as a contingency for an additional alum application Part B: TMDL Implementation Project Budget
Lake Elsinore Project Alternatives
15.G
TMDL Compliance Reporting & Modeling
Allocation
MS4 Co-Permittees $ 98,081
Riverside County $ 8,173
City of Beaumont $ 8,173
City of Canyon Lake $ 8,173
City of Hemet $ 8,173
City of Lake Elsinore $ 8,173
City of Moreno Valley $ 8,173
City of Murrieta $ 8,173
City of Perris $ 8,173
City of Riverside $ 8,173
City of San Jacinto $ 8,173
City of Menifee $ 8,173
City of Wildomar $ 8,173
Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District (EVMWD) $ 8,173 San Jacinto Agricultural Operators (WRCAC) $ 5,978
San Jacinto Dairy & CAFO Operators * $ -
CALTRANS - freeway $ 8,173
CA DF&W - San Jacinto Wetlands $ 8,173
Eastern Municipal Water District $ 8,173
March Air Reserve Base Joint Powers Authority $ 8,173
US Air Force (March Air Reserve Base) $ 8,173
Funding Required 153,100 $
Note: * San Jacinto Dairy & CAFO Operators contributions to the LE&CL TMDL Task Force are made through WRCAC Contingency Contingency
MS4 Co-Permittees $ -
Riverside County $ -
City of Beaumont $ -
City of Canyon Lake $ -
City of Hemet $ -
City of Lake Elsinore $ -
City of Moreno Valley $ -
City of Murrieta $ -
City of Perris $ -
City of Riverside $ -
City of San Jacinto $ -
City of Menifee $ -
City of Wildomar $ -
Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District (EVMWD) $ -
San Jacinto Agricultural Operators $ -
San Jacinto Dairy & CAFO Operators $ -
CALTRANS - freeway $ -
CA DF&W - San Jacinto Wetlands $ -
Eastern Municipal Water District $ -
March Air Reserve Base Joint Powers Authority $ -
US Air Force (March Air Reserve Base) $ -
Total Amount Reimbursed - $
TMDL Compliance Support
15.G
Reimbursement from Cash Reserve 0
MS4 Co-Permittees $ -
Riverside County $ -
City of Beaumont $ -
City of Canyon Lake $ -
City of Hemet $ -
City of Lake Elsinore $ -
City of Moreno Valley $ -
City of Murrieta $ -
City of Perris $ -
City of Riverside $ -
City of San Jacinto $ -
City of Menifee $ -
City of Wildomar $ -
Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District (EVMWD) $ -
San Jacinto Agricultural Operators $ -
San Jacinto Dairy & CAFO Operators $ -
CALTRANS - freeway $ -
CA DF&W - San Jacinto Wetlands $ -
Eastern Municipal Water District $ -
March Air Reserve Base Joint Powers Authority $ -
US Air Force (March Air Reserve Base) $ -
Total Amount Reimbursed - $
Task Force Agency Contributions Detailed Tables
Draft
Budget
2022-23
Allocation
MS4 Co-Permittees (Total) $ 664,235
Task Force Regulatory/Administrative Expenses $ 96,095
TMDL Compliance Monitoring Expenses
Watershed-wide Nutrient Monitoring Program $ 48,909
Lake Elsinore Nutrient Monitoring Program $ 59,025
Canyon Lake Nutrient Monitoring Program $ 42,972
Lake Elsinore Project Alternatives
Fishery Management O&M $ -
Canyon Lake Project Alternatives $ 209,352
TMDL Update $ 98,081
Reimbursement from Cash Reserve $ -
Other Contributions:
Lake Elsinore Aeration Management System O&M (LEAMS) 109,800 $ Riverside County * $ 114,610
Task Force Regulatory/Administrative Expenses $ 8,008
TMDL Compliance Monitoring Expenses
Watershed-wide Nutrient Monitoring Program $ 4,076
Lake Elsinore Nutrient Monitoring Program $ 4,919
Canyon Lake Nutrient Monitoring Program $ 3,907
Lake Elsinore Project Alternatives
Fishery Management O&M $ -
Canyon Lake Project Alternatives $ 85,528
TMDL Update $ 8,173
Reimbursement from Cash Reserve $ -
Other Contributions:
Lake Elsinore Aeration Management System O&M (LEAMS) partner
15.G
City of Beaumont * $ 32,082
Task Force Regulatory/Administrative Expenses $ 8,008
TMDL Compliance Monitoring Expenses
Watershed-wide Nutrient Monitoring Program $ 4,076
Lake Elsinore Nutrient Monitoring Program $ 4,919
Canyon Lake Nutrient Monitoring Program $ 3,907
Lake Elsinore Project Alternatives
Fishery Management O&M $ -
Canyon Lake Project Alternatives -naTMDL Update $ 8,173 Reimbursement from Cash Reserve $ -
Other Contributions:
Lake Elsinore Aeration Management System O&M (LEAMS) 3,000 $ City of Canyon Lake * $ 40,888
Task Force Regulatory/Administrative Expenses $ 8,008
TMDL Compliance Monitoring Expenses
Watershed-wide Nutrient Monitoring Program $ 4,076
Lake Elsinore Nutrient Monitoring Program $ 4,919
Canyon Lake Nutrient Monitoring Program $ 3,907
Lake Elsinore Project Alternatives
Fishery Management O&M $ -
Canyon Lake Project Alternatives $ 7,906
TMDL Update $ 8,173
Reimbursement from Cash Reserve $ -
Other Contributions:
Lake Elsinore Aeration Management System O&M (LEAMS) 3,900 $ City of Hemet * $ 51,039
Task Force Regulatory/Administrative Expenses $ 8,008
TMDL Compliance Monitoring Expenses
Watershed-wide Nutrient Monitoring Program $ 4,076
Lake Elsinore Nutrient Monitoring Program $ 4,919
Canyon Lake Nutrient Monitoring Program $ 3,907
Lake Elsinore Project Alternatives
Fishery Management O&M $ -
Canyon Lake Project Alternatives $ 13,557
TMDL Update $ 8,173
Reimbursement from Cash Reserve $ -
Other Contributions:
Lake Elsinore Aeration Management System O&M (LEAMS) 8,400 $ City of Lake Elsinore * $ 35,769
Task Force Regulatory/Administrative Expenses $ 8,008
TMDL Compliance Monitoring Expenses
Watershed-wide Nutrient Monitoring Program $ 4,076
Lake Elsinore Nutrient Monitoring Program $ 4,919
Canyon Lake Nutrient Monitoring Program $ 3,907
Lake Elsinore Project Alternatives
Fishery Management O&M $ -
Canyon Lake Project Alternatives $ 6,686
TMDL Update $ 8,173
Reimbursement from Cash Reserve $ -
Other Contributions:
Lake Elsinore Aeration Management System O&M (LEAMS) partner
15.G
City of Moreno Valley * $ 92,615
Task Force Regulatory/Administrative Expenses $ 8,008
TMDL Compliance Monitoring Expenses
Watershed-wide Nutrient Monitoring Program $ 4,076
Lake Elsinore Nutrient Monitoring Program $ 4,919
Canyon Lake Nutrient Monitoring Program $ 3,907
Lake Elsinore Project Alternatives
Fishery Management O&M $ -
Canyon Lake Project Alternatives $ 31,732
TMDL Update $ 8,173
Reimbursement from Cash Reserve $ -
Other Contributions:
Lake Elsinore Aeration Management System O&M (LEAMS) 31,800 $ City of Murrieta * $ 38,299
Task Force Regulatory/Administrative Expenses $ 8,008
TMDL Compliance Monitoring Expenses
Watershed-wide Nutrient Monitoring Program $ 4,076
Lake Elsinore Nutrient Monitoring Program $ 4,919
Canyon Lake Nutrient Monitoring Program $ 3,907
Lake Elsinore Project Alternatives
Fishery Management O&M $ -
Canyon Lake Project Alternatives $ 6,217
TMDL Update $ 8,173
Reimbursement from Cash Reserve $ -
Other Contributions:
Lake Elsinore Aeration Management System O&M (LEAMS) 3,000 $ City of Perris * $ 56,829
Task Force Regulatory/Administrative Expenses $ 8,008
TMDL Compliance Monitoring Expenses
Watershed-wide Nutrient Monitoring Program $ 4,076
Lake Elsinore Nutrient Monitoring Program $ 4,919
Canyon Lake Nutrient Monitoring Program $ 3,907
Lake Elsinore Project Alternatives
Fishery Management O&M $ -
Canyon Lake Project Alternatives $ 11,847
TMDL Update $ 8,173
Reimbursement from Cash Reserve $ -
Other Contributions:
Lake Elsinore Aeration Management System O&M (LEAMS) 15,900 $ City of Riverside * $ 32,082
Task Force Regulatory/Administrative Expenses $ 8,008
TMDL Compliance Monitoring Expenses
Watershed-wide Nutrient Monitoring Program $ 4,076
Lake Elsinore Nutrient Monitoring Program $ 4,919
Canyon Lake Nutrient Monitoring Program $ 3,907
Lake Elsinore Project Alternatives
Fishery Management O&M $ -
Canyon Lake Project Alternatives -naTMDL Update $ 8,173 Reimbursement from Cash Reserve $ -
Other Contributions:
Lake Elsinore Aeration Management System O&M (LEAMS) 3,000 $
15.G
City of San Jacinto * $ 32,082
Task Force Regulatory/Administrative Expenses $ 8,008
TMDL Compliance Monitoring Expenses
Watershed-wide Nutrient Monitoring Program $ 4,076
Lake Elsinore Nutrient Monitoring Program $ 4,919
Canyon Lake Nutrient Monitoring Program $ 3,907
Lake Elsinore Project Alternatives
Fishery Management O&M $ -
Canyon Lake Project Alternatives -naTMDL Update $ 8,173 Reimbursement from Cash Reserve $ -
Other Contributions:
Lake Elsinore Aeration Management System O&M (LEAMS) 3,000 $ City of Menifee * $ 105,562
Task Force Regulatory/Administrative Expenses $ 8,008
TMDL Compliance Monitoring Expenses
Watershed-wide Nutrient Monitoring Program $ 4,076
Lake Elsinore Nutrient Monitoring Program $ 4,919
Canyon Lake Nutrient Monitoring Program $ 3,907
Lake Elsinore Project Alternatives
Fishery Management O&M $ -
Canyon Lake Project Alternatives $ 45,880
TMDL Update $ 8,173
Reimbursement from Cash Reserve $ -
Other Contributions:
Lake Elsinore Aeration Management System O&M (LEAMS) 30,600 $ City of Wildomar * $ 32,376
Task Force Regulatory/Administrative Expenses $ 8,008
TMDL Compliance Monitoring Expenses
Watershed-wide Nutrient Monitoring Program $ 4,076
Lake Elsinore Nutrient Monitoring Program $ 4,919
Canyon Lake Nutrient Monitoring Program -naLake Elsinore Project Alternatives Fishery Management O&M $ -
Canyon Lake Project Alternatives -naTMDL Update $ 8,173 Reimbursement from Cash Reserve $ -
Other Contributions:
Lake Elsinore Aeration Management System O&M (LEAMS) 7,200 $ Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District (EVMWD) $ 30,610 Task Force Regulatory/Administrative Expenses $ 8,008
TMDL Compliance Monitoring Expenses
Watershed-wide Nutrient Monitoring Program -naLake Elsinore Nutrient Monitoring Program $ 4,919 Canyon Lake Nutrient Monitoring Program $ 3,907
Lake Elsinore Project Alternatives
Fishery Management O&M $ -
Canyon Lake Project Alternatives $ 5,603
TMDL Update $ 8,173
Reimbursement from Cash Reserve $ -
Other Contributions:
Lake Elsinore Aeration Management System O&M (LEAMS) partner
15.G
San Jacinto Agricultural Operators 28,380 $
Task Force Regulatory/Administrative Expenses $ 5,857
TMDL Compliance Monitoring Expenses
Watershed-wide Nutrient Monitoring Program $ 2,982
Lake Elsinore Nutrient Monitoring Program $ 3,598
Canyon Lake Nutrient Monitoring Program $ 2,858
Lake Elsinore Project Alternatives
Fishery Management O&M $ -
Canyon Lake Project Alternatives $ 7,107
TMDL Update $ 5,978
Reimbursement from Cash Reserve $ -
Other Contributions:
Lake Elsinore Aeration Management System O&M (LEAMS) $ - San Jacinto Dairy & CAFO Operators 3,000 $
Task Force Regulatory/Administrative Expenses $ -
TMDL Compliance Monitoring Expenses
Watershed-wide Nutrient Monitoring Program $ -
Lake Elsinore Nutrient Monitoring Program $ -
Canyon Lake Nutrient Monitoring Program $ -
Lake Elsinore Project Alternatives
Fishery Management O&M $ -
Canyon Lake Project Alternatives -naTMDL Update $ -
Reimbursement from Cash Reserve $ -
Other Contributions:
Lake Elsinore Aeration Management System O&M (LEAMS) 3,000 $ CALTRANS - freeway $ 40,046
Task Force Regulatory/Administrative Expenses $ 8,008
TMDL Compliance Monitoring Expenses
Watershed-wide Nutrient Monitoring Program $ 4,076
Lake Elsinore Nutrient Monitoring Program $ 4,919
Canyon Lake Nutrient Monitoring Program $ 3,907
Lake Elsinore Project Alternatives
Fishery Management O&M $ -
Canyon Lake Project Alternatives $ 5,863
TMDL Update $ 8,173
Reimbursement from Cash Reserve $ -
Other Contributions:
Lake Elsinore Aeration Management System O&M (LEAMS) 5,100 $ CA DF&W - San Jacinto Wetlands 29,082 $
Task Force Regulatory/Administrative Expenses $ 8,008
TMDL Compliance Monitoring Expenses
Watershed-wide Nutrient Monitoring Program $ 4,076
Lake Elsinore Nutrient Monitoring Program $ 4,919
Canyon Lake Nutrient Monitoring Program $ 3,907
Lake Elsinore Project Alternatives
Fishery Management O&M $ -
Canyon Lake Project Alternatives -naTMDL Update $ 8,173 Reimbursement from Cash Reserve $ -
Other Contributions:
Lake Elsinore Aeration Management System O&M (LEAMS) $ -
15.G
Eastern Municipal Water District 29,082 $
Task Force Regulatory/Administrative Expenses $ 8,008
TMDL Compliance Monitoring Expenses
Watershed-wide Nutrient Monitoring Program $ 4,076
Lake Elsinore Nutrient Monitoring Program $ 4,919
Canyon Lake Nutrient Monitoring Program $ 3,907
Lake Elsinore Project Alternatives
Fishery Management O&M -naCanyon Lake Project Alternatives -naTMDL Update $ 8,173 Reimbursement from Cash Reserve $ -
Other Contributions:
Lake Elsinore Aeration Management System O&M (LEAMS) $ - March Air Reserve Base Joint Powers Authority $ 38,268
Task Force Regulatory/Administrative Expenses $ 8,008
TMDL Compliance Monitoring Expenses
Watershed-wide Nutrient Monitoring Program $ 4,076
Lake Elsinore Nutrient Monitoring Program $ 4,919
Canyon Lake Nutrient Monitoring Program $ 3,907
Lake Elsinore Project Alternatives
Fishery Management O&M $ -
Canyon Lake Project Alternatives $ 6,186
TMDL Update $ 8,173
Reimbursement from Cash Reserve $ -
Other Contributions:
Lake Elsinore Aeration Management System O&M (LEAMS) 3,000 $ US Air Force (March Air Reserve Base) $ 38,948
Task Force Regulatory/Administrative Expenses $ 8,008
TMDL Compliance Monitoring Expenses
Watershed-wide Nutrient Monitoring Program $ 4,076
Lake Elsinore Nutrient Monitoring Program $ 4,919
Canyon Lake Nutrient Monitoring Program $ 3,907
Lake Elsinore Project Alternatives
Fishery Management O&M $ -
Canyon Lake Project Alternatives $ 6,565
TMDL Update $ 8,173
Reimbursement from Cash Reserve $ -
Other Contributions:
Lake Elsinore Aeration Management System O&M (LEAMS) 3,300 $ Total: 901,651 $
footnote: (*) designates MS4 co-permittees
15.G
City of Hemet
City Council Meeting
STAFF REPORT
Meeting: City Council Meeting - Jun 14 2022
Department: Public Works
Submitted by: Eddie Pust, Acting City Manager
Charles Russell, Public Works Operations Manager;
☐ Receive and File ☒ Consent Calendar ☐ Business Item ☐ Public Hearing TITLE:
A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Hemet, California, Accepting the Funding Award in the Amount of $21,179 from the State of California, Department of Recycling Resources and Recovery, through the 2021/2022 City/County Payment Program; and Authorize the Finance Director to Record Revenues to the Miscellaneous Recyclables (Account 110-0454) in the amount of $21,179, and Record a Supplemental Appropriation of $21,179 in the Public Works Park Fund 110-4250-2801 for Eligible Funding Expenditures
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
It is respectfully recommended that the City Council:
Adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Hemet, California, accepting the funding award in the amount of $21,179 from the State of California, Department of Recycling Resources and Recovery, through the 2021/2022 City/County Payment Program; and authorize the Finance Director to record revenues to the Miscellaneous Recyclables (Account 110-0454) in the amount of $21,179, and record a supplemental appropriation of $21,179 in the Public Works Park Fund 110-4250-2801 for eligible funding expenditures.
BACKGROUND:
The State of California Department of Recycling Resources and Recovery provides annual funding to cities and counties specifically for use in beverage container recycling and litter abatement activities.
For the Fiscal Year 2021/2022, funding distributions will be on a per capita basis calculated on January 1, 2022, based on population statistics from the California Department of Finance. To receive this funding, the State of California Department of Recycling Resources and Recovery requires each city/county to submit a Funding Request Detail (FRD) identifying the proposed use of funds and current agency contacts.
The City of Hemet FRD was submitted on January 13, 2022, and the funding award of $21,179 was received on May 5, 2022.
ANALYSIS:
15.H
The funding that was received for the Fiscal Year 2020/2021 period was used to hire two temporary part-time employees that performed litter clean-up at Weston Park, Simpson Park, Gibbel Park, Mary Henley Park, and Brubaker Park. The employees were provided with gloves, safety vests and litter grabbers that were purchased with the funding.
DISCUSSION:
Through the application process, staff proposed to use this funding for compensating temporary parttime employees to assist with litter abatement in City parks and public right-of-ways, to purchase supplies such as gloves, safety vests, and litter grabbers, and purchase recycling bins for office and home use. All of the proposed activities qualify for funding through this program.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION:
An identical grant was accepted by the City on December 14, 2021.
STRATEGIC PLAN INTEGRATION:
GOAL ONE: QUALITY OF LIFE:
To ensure that Hemet is safe, clean, attractive and comfortable for all who live, work, and visit.
Objective 1: Enhance the visual appearance of the community to make it attractive and reduce blight.
GOAL FIVE: ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
To identify the work needed inside the City organization to effectively provide services to the community and ensure financial stability.
Objective 1: Operate in a financially sustainable manner.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The award will be deposited into the General Fund for use by the Parks Division. The Fiscal Year 2021/2022 allocation of $21,179 will offset costs associated with compensating temporary part-time employees, purchasing home and office recycling bins, and supporting litter clean-up efforts at City parks and in public right-of-ways. There is no requirement for a City match of funds for this program.
ALTERNATIVE(S):
Provide alternative direction to staff for use of funds.
ATTACHMENT(S):
Attachment 1 - Resolution
Attachment 1_ Resolution Recycles
15.H
City of Hemet Resolution No. 2022-xxx
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 CITY OF HEMET
HEMET, CALIFORNIA
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-____
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
HEMET, CALIFORNIA ACCEPTING THE FUNDING AWARD IN
THE AMOUNT OF $21,179 FROM THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF RECYCLING RESOURCES
AND RECOVERY, THROUGH THE 2021/2022 CITY/COUNTY
PAYMENT PROGRAM; AND AUTHORIZING THE FINANCE
DIRECTOR TO RECORD REVENUES TO THE
MISCELLANEOUS RECYCLABLES (ACCOUNT 110-0454) IN
THE AMOUNT OF $21,179, AND TO RECORD A
SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATION OF $21,179 IN THE
PUBLIC WORKS PARKS FUND 110-4250-2801 FOR ELIGIBLE
FUNDING EXPENDITURES.
The City Council of the City of Hemet, California (hereafter referred to as the “City Council”) does resolve as follows:
WHEREAS, the State of California Department of Recycling Resources and Recovery provides annual funding to cities and counties specifically for use in beverage container recycling and litter abatement activities.
WHEREAS, to receive this funding, the State of California, Department of Recycling Resources and Recovery, requires each city/county to submit a Funding Request Detail (FRD) identifying the proposed use of funds and current agency contacts.
WHEREAS, the City proposes to use the funding to hire temporary part-time employees to pick up litter in public parks and right-of-ways and to purchase supplies and home and office recycling bins.
15.H
City of Hemet Resolution No. 2022-xxx
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 WHEREAS, the City of Hemet FRD was submitted on January 13, 2022 and the funding award of $21,179 was received on May 5, 2022.
WHEREAS, staff is requesting that the City Council accept the funding in the amount of $21,179.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HEMET DOES HEREBY FIND AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWED:
SECTION 1. Incorporation of Recitals, The City of Hemet finds and determines that the above referenced recitals are true and correct and the material to this Resolution.
SECTION 2. City Council Actions.
a) The City Council accept the funding award in the amount of $21,179 from the State of California, Department of Recycling Resources and Recovery through the 2021/2022 City County Payment Program.
b) The Finance Director, or her designee, is authorized and directed to record revenues to the Miscellaneous Recyclables (Account 110-0454) in the amount of $21,179, and record a supplemental appropriation of $21,179 in the Public Works Park Fund 110-4250-2801 for eligible funding expenditures.
SECTION 4. EFFECTIVE DATE - This Resolution shall become effective on June 14, 2022.
15.H
City of Hemet Resolution No. 2022-xxx
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 14th day of June, 2022.
Malcolm Lilienthal, Mayor
ATTEST:
John Paul Maier, City Clerk
15.H
City of Hemet Resolution No. 2022-xxx
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 State of California )
County of Riverside )
City of Hemet )
I, John Paul Maier, City Clerk of the City of Hemet, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted by the Hemet City Council on the 14th day of June, 2022, and was passed by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members: Krupa, Brown, Males, Mayor Pro Tem Meyer, Mayor Lilienthal
NOES: Council Members:
ABSTAIN: Council Members:
ABSENT: Council Members:
_____________________________
John Paul Maier, City Clerk
15.H
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2022-____
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23
15.H
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
City of Hemet Resolution No. 2022-XXX
CITY OF HEMET
HEMET, CALIFORNIA
RESOLUTION NO. 2022- XXXX
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF HEMET, CALIFORNIA ACCEPTING THE FUNDING
AWARD IN THE AMOUNT OF $21,179 FROM THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF
RECYCLING RESOURCES AND RECOVERY,
THROUGH THE 2021/2022 CITY/COUNTY PAYMENT
PROGRAM; AND AUTHORIZING THE FINANCE
DIRECTOR TO RECORD REVENUES TO THE
MISCELLANEOUS RECYCLABLES (ACCOUNT 110-
0454) IN THE AMOUNT OF $21,179, AND TO RECORD
A SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATION OF $21,179 IN
THE PUBLIC WORKS PARKS FUND 110-4250-2801
FOR ELIGIBLE FUNDING EXPENDITURES
The City Council of the City of Hemet, California (hereafter referred to as the “City Council”) does resolve as follows:
WHEREAS, the State of California Department of Recycling Resources and Recovery provides annual funding to cities and counties specifically for use in beverage
container recycling and litter abatement activities.
WHEREAS, to receive this funding, the State of California, Department of Recycling Resources and Recovery, requires each city/county to submit a Funding Request Detail (FRD) identifying the proposed use of funds and current agency contacts.
WHEREAS, the City proposes to use the funding to hire temporary part-time
15.H
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
City of Hemet Resolution No. 2022-XXX
employees to pick up litter in public parks and right-of-ways and to purchase supplies and
home and office recycling bins.
WHEREAS, the City of Hemet FRD was submitted on January 13, 2022 and the
funding award of $21,179 was received on May 5, 2022.
WHEREAS, staff is requesting that the City Council accept the funding in the amount of $21,179.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HEMET DOES HEREBY FIND AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Incorporation of Recitals, The City Council of the City of Hemet finds and determines that the above referenced recitals are true and correct and the material to this Resolution.
SECTION 2. City Council Actions.
a) The City Council accepts the funding award in the amount of $21,179 from the State of California, Department of Recycling Resources and Recovery through the 2021/2022 City County Payment Program.
b) The Finance Director, or her designee, is authorized and directed to record revenues to the Miscellaneous Recyclables (Account 110-0454) in the amount of $21,179, and record a supplemental appropriation of $21,179 in the Public Works Park Fund 110-4250-2801 for eligible funding expenditures.
____________________________
Malcolm Lilienthal, Mayor
ATTEST:
15.H
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
City of Hemet Resolution No. 2022-XXX
_____________________________
John Paul Maier, City Clerk
15.H
15.H
City of Hemet
City Council Meeting
STAFF REPORT
Meeting: City Council Meeting - Jun 14 2022
Department: Public Works
Submitted by: Christopher Lopez, City Manager
Steve Loriso, City Engineer;
☐ Receive and File ☒ Consent Calendar ☐ Business Item ☐ Public Hearing TITLE:
A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Hemet, California, Approving the Development Impact Fee Credit/Reimbursement Agreement for Facility Construction ("Credit Agreement") by and Between the City of Hemet and Richland Ventures, Inc. Associated with the Ramona Creek Specific Plan No. 12-001 and Tres Cerritos East Specific Plan No. 06-001; and, Authorize the City Manager to Execute the Credit Agreement in the Final Form and Format as Approved by the City Attorney RECOMMENDED ACTION:
It is respectfully requested that the City Council:
Adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Hemet, California, Approving the Development Impact Fee Credit/Reimbursement Agreement for Facility Construction ("Credit Agreement") by and between the City of Hemet and Richland Ventures, Inc. associated with the Ramona Creek Specific Plan No. 12-001 and Tres Cerritos East Specific Plan No. 06-001; and, Authorize the City Manager to execute the Credit Agreement in the final form and format as approved by the City Attorney.
BACKGROUND:
City of Hemet Municipal Code Section 58.61 establishes Development Impact Fees ("DIF") that developers are required to pay for their fair share of the costs to construct the infrastructure that will be necessary to accommodate and mitigate the impacts and burdens on the public generally generated by new development and that are necessary to protect the safety, health, and welfare of people in the City. DIF is collected as a condition of the development of land prior to the issuance of building permits.
The rate of each category of DIF is established by the City of Hemet Development Impact Fee Study ("DIF Study"), which was adopted by the City Council on January 23, 2006. The improvements which are components of the Capital Improvement Plan constructed pursuant to the Development Impact Fee Credit/Reimbursement Agreement ("Credit Agreement") are identified in the DIF Study as improvements that are to be funded with the fees collected under the DIF program, and thus, are eligible for DIF credit and/or reimbursement.
15.I
In January 2011, City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1726, approving Amendment No. 3 ("SPA 06- 001") for Tres Cerritos East. The Tres Cerritos East property is located north of Devonshire Avenue, south of Menlo Avenue, and west of Cawston Avenue, encompassing approximately 163 gross acres of land.
On June 10, 2014, City Council adopted Ordinance Bill No. 14-018 approving Specific Plan No 12-001 ("SP 12-001") Ramona Creek. The Ramona Creek property is located north of Florida Avenue, south of Celeste Road (future), and between Warren Road to the west and Myers Street to the east. The vacant parcel consists of approximately 203 gross acres of land and is relatively flat due to prior agricultural uses.
ANALYSIS:
Richland Ventures, Inc. ("Developer") is the current owner of both pieces of land identified by SP 12- 001 and SPA 06-001. As a condition of approval for each of these projects, the Developer is required to construct certain public improvements described in the attached, Credit Agreement, which are adjacent to and a part of the Hemet Capital Improvement Plan (City Council Resolution No. 3981).
Some or all of the improvements to be constructed by the Developer are identified in the DIF Study and are eligible for credit and/or reimbursement. The total amount of the credit or reimbursement cannot exceed the maximum value of the improvements as determined by the DIF Study, or the actual costs, whichever is less. The estimated not to exceed amount of the DIF credit for this Agreement is $17,940,000.
DISCUSSION:
Approval of the DIF credit agreement ensures the City that certain facilities will be constructed in a timely manner and will not be placed on hold until all remaining DIF is collected.
STRATEGIC PLAN INTEGRATION:
GOAL ONE: QUALITY OF LIFE:
To ensure that Hemet is safe, clean, attractive and comfortable for all who live, work, and visit.
Enhance the visual appearance of the community to make it attractive and reduce blight through continual rehabilitation of City infrastructure.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no General Fund impact associated with this action. The agreement provides for credit and/or reimbursement of DIF consistent with the DIF Study.
ALTERNATIVE(S):
1. Do not approve the Resolution/Agreement.
2. Provide alternate directions to staff.
15.I
REVIEWED BY LEGAL:
☒ Staff report ☒ Resolution
☐ Ordinance ☒ Agreement
ATTACHMENT(S):
Attachment 1 Reso Fee Credit 06142022
Hemet DIF Credit Agreement - Ramona TCE FINAL
Hemet City Reso 3981 Impact Fee Nexus
15.I
City Council Resolution No. 2022-xxx
CITY OF HEMET
Hemet, California
CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-XX
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
HEMET, CALIFORNIA,
APPROVING THE
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE
CREDIT/REIMBURSEMENT
AGREEMENT FOR FACITLITY
CONSTRUCTION (“CREDIT
AGREEMENT”) BY AND
BETWEEN THE CITY OF
HEMET AND RICHLAND
VENTURES, INC. ASSOCIATED
WITH THE RAMONA CREEK
SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 12-001
AND TRES CERRITOS EAST
SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 06-001
AND AUTHORIZE THE CITY
MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE
CREDIT AGREEMENT IN THE
FINAL FORM AND FORMAT AS
APPROVED BY THE CITY
ATTORNEY
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No.
3837 setting fees for development projects (“Development Impact Fee”) within the meaning of the California Mitigation Fee Act (“ACT”) (Government Code Sections 66000 et seq); and
WHEREAS, the City completed a revised study of the
capital facilities and other information required by
15.I
City Council Resolution No. 2022-xxx
Government Code Section 66001 (“Nexus Study”). The
Nexus Study dated January 3, 2006 was prepared by
TischlerBise, Fiscal, Economic and Planning Consultants.
The Nexus study justified a recalculation of Development Impact Fees; and
WHEREAS, the Nexus Study defined a method
whereby future residential and commercial development
within the City will bear the reasonable cost of public facilities identified in the Nexus Study which facilities are required to serve these developments and mitigate their impacts on the community; and
WHEREAS, on January 23, 2006, the City Council
adopted Resolution No. 3981 amending the Development
Impact Fees for Residential Development; and
WHEREAS, Richland Ventures, Inc. (“Developer”) is
the owner of the land identified by SP 12-001 (“Ramona
Creek”) and SPA 06-001 (“Tres Cerritos East”) in which are subject to the latest adopted Development Impact Fees
rates; and
WHEREAS, Developer owns approximately 203
acres of land related to Ramona Creek and approximately 163 acres of land associated with Tres Cerritos East; and WHEREAS, the City and Developer now desire to
enter into this Credit Agreement for the purpose of
15.I
City Council Resolution No. 2022-xxx
constructing certain public improvements which are
components of the Capital Improvement Plan identified in the City of Hemet Development Impact Fee Study.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HEMET AS FOLLOWS:
1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct.
2. The City Council hereby authorizes the City
Manager to execute the attached the
Development Impact Fee Credit/Reimbursement
Agreement for Facility Construction by and
between the City of Hemet and Richland
Ventures, Inc.
3. The City Manager is authorized to execute such
documents as may be necessary to implement
this Resolution
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 14th day
of June 2022
Malcolm Lilienthal,
Mayor
ATTEST:
15.I
City Council Resolution No. 2022-xxx
John Paul Maier, City Clerk
15.I
City Council Resolution No. 2022-xxx
State of California )
County of Riverside )
City of Hemet )
I, John Paul Maier, City Clerk of the City of Hemet, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted by the Hemet City Council on the 14th of June, 2022 and was passed by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members:
NOES:Council Member:
ABSTAIN: Council Member:
ABSENT: Council Member:
John Paul Maier, City Clerk
15.I
1 DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE CREDIT /
REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT
FOR FACILITY CONSTRUCTION BY AND
BETWEEN
THE CITY OF HEMET AND RICHLAND
VENTURES, INC.
This DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE CREDIT
AND REIMBURSMENT AGREEMENT (“Fee Credit
Agreement”), entered into this day of , 2022,
between the CITY OF HEMET, a California
municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as the
“City,” and RICHLAND VENTURES, INC,
hereinafter referred to as the “Developer.”
RECITALS
A. Developer is the developer of property
located within the City, which property has received
approvals from the City, including the Ramona
Creek Specific Plan No. 12-001 and Tres Cerritos
East Specific Plan No. 06-001 (the “Development
Review”). A legal description of the property is
attached as Exhibit A (the “Property”).
B. To the extent required by the
applicable conditions of approval for the Property,
as part of Ramona Creek Tentative Tract Map No.
36510 (City Council Resolution No. 4578) and Tres
Cerritos East Tentative Tract Map No. 36759 (City
Council Resolution No. 4491), the Developer is
required to construct certain public improvements
which are adjacent and a part of the Hemet Capital
Improvement Plan (City Council Resolution No.
3981) and “Hemet Master Flood Control and
Drainage Plan”. A description of eligible
improvements and estimated costs are attached as
Exhibit E (the “Improvements”).
C. The Hemet Municipal Code requires
certain development impact fees (“DIF Fees”) to be
paid as a condition to the issuance of certain
entitlements within the City. The City Council is
authorized to execute agreements on behalf of the
City with applicants in order to provide a credit to
the applicant against certain DIF Fees in exchange
for the applicant’s construction and dedication of
15.I
1 public improvements, upon reasonable terms and
conditions.
D. Developer has assumed all rights,
responsibilities and obligations, to the extent
required by the applicable conditions of approval,
including the design and construction of certain
Improvements above and such improvements are
included in the City’s Development Impact Fee (DIF)
Program as a project, or a portion of a project and
eligible for credit against DIF Fees.
E. City and Developer have agreed that
the costs for the right-of-way, design and
construction of the Improvements shall be eligible
for DIF Credit and Reimbursement.
AGREEMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable
consideration, the receipt of which is hereby
acknowledged, and the mutual promises contained
herein, it is agreed as follows:
Definitions. For purposes of this
Agreement, the terms below shall be defined as
follows:
“Acceptable Title” means title to land or an
interest therein required for the construction,
operation and maintenance of an
Improvement, in form acceptable to the City
Manager, free and clear of all liens, taxes,
assessments, leases, easements and
encumbrances, whether or not recorded, but
subject to any exceptions determined by the
City Manager as not materially interfering
with the actual or intended use of the land or
interest therein required for the operation of
an Improvement. Notwithstanding the
foregoing, an irrevocable offer of dedication
may constitute “Acceptable Title.”
“Acceptance Date” means the earlier of (i)
date the City Manager or his/her designee
takes final action, in writing, to accept
dedication or transfer of an Improvement or
(ii) the date determined pursuant to Section 3
15.I
1 below.
“Bid Documents” means all designs, bid
documents, construction plans and
specifications, system layout drawings and
other construction documents and permits
approved by the City relating to an
Improvement.
“Certificate of DIF Credit” means a City
certificate for the issuance of DIF Credit to
Developer in the form attached hereto as
Exhibit B.
“City DIF Program and Policies” or “DIF
Program” means any provision in the Hemet
Municipal Code, as it may be amended from
time to time and as DIF Fees and the capital
improvement projects and public
infrastructure identified therein may be
revised by resolution.
“City Manager” means the City Manager of
the City or his or her designee.
“City Engineer” means the City’s City
Engineer or his or her designee.
“Completed”, “Complete” and “Completion”
with respect to an Improvement mean that
such Improvement has been completed in
accordance with its Bid Documents, including
any final “punch list” items, as approved in
writing by the City Engineer, which approval
shall not be unreasonably withheld, and that
such Improvement is Usable.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, if an
Improvement which Developer is obligated to
construct pursuant to the applicable
conditions of approval for a portion of the
Property is only a portion of a larger work of
improvement, then a determination of
“Completed” or “Completion” with respect to
that Improvement shall be made only as to
that Improvement and not with respect to the
larger work of improvement of which it is a
portion.
15.I
1 “Credit Request” means a document,
substantially in the form of Exhibit C, to be
used by Developer in requesting DIF Credits
with respect to one or more Improvements.
“Days” shall mean business days unless
otherwise stated.
“Developer Contract” means a contract
between the Developer and a qualified
contractor awarded to the qualified contractor
for the construction of the Improvements at
the direction of Developer.
“DIF” or “DIF Fees” means the development
impact fees imposed within the City of Hemet
pursuant to the Hemet Municipal Code and
any subsequent City ordinances and
resolutions lawfully adopted by the City
Council to update or modify such
development impact fees.
“DIF Credit” means credits earned against
the payment of DIF pursuant to this
Agreement.
“DIF Obligation” means the amount of
Developer’s total obligation for Development
Impact Fees for the Property. Developer’s
DIF Obligation shall be as provided in Exhibit
D.
“Effective Date” means the date set forth in
the first paragraph of this Agreement.
“Eligible Cost” means the substantiated cost
of an Improvement to be used in calculating
DIF Credit amounts, which costs may
include: (i) the costs for the construction
(including, but not limited to, costs of grading)
of such Improvement, (ii) costs directly
related to the construction and/or acquisition
of the Improvement, such as costs of
payment, performance and/or maintenance
bonds, the professional costs of material
testing, and insurance costs (including costs
of any title insurance required); (iii) the cost
of acquiring any real property or interest
15.I
1 therein in order to construct or operate the
Improvement, (iv) the costs incurred in
preparing Bid Documents and the related
costs of geotechnical and environmental
evaluations of the Improvement, (v) the fees
paid to the City and any other governmental
agencies for, and all other costs incurred in
connection with obtaining permits, licenses or
other governmental approvals for such
Improvement, (vi) costs of construction and
project management, administration and
supervision (but only up to five percent (5%)
of the costs described in clause (i) above)
incurred for the construction of such
Improvement, (vii) professional costs
associated with such Improvement, such as
design, engineering, accounting, inspection,
construction staking, and similar professional
services including legal services related to
the review of construction contracts. The
maximum amount of Eligible Costs described
in clauses (iv) through (vii) shall be limited to
a total of twenty percent (20%) of the costs
described in clause (i).
“Improvement” or “Improvements” means the
public improvements required to support the
development of the Property as described
above in Recital B to the extent required by
the applicable conditions of approval.
15.I
1 “Development Review” has the meaning set
forth in Recital A above.
“Program Cost” or “DIF Program Cost”
means the estimated cost of an Improvement
identified the City as it may be modified,
supplemented or superseded from time to
time. The Program Cost to be applied shall
be the Program Cost in effect at the time the
DIF Credit Request is submitted to the City.
“Usable” shall mean that, with respect to any
particular Improvement, the Improvement is
actually usable for its intended purposes.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, if an
Improvement which Developer is obligated to
construct is only a portion of a larger work of
improvement, then a determination by the
City Engineer of whether that Improvement is
“Usable” shall be made only with respect to
that Improvement and not with respect to the
larger work of improvement of which it is a
portion.
1. Construction and Funding of
Improvements by Developer.
(a) Construction of Improvements
by Developer. Developer shall commence
each Improvement in accordance with the
terms of the conditions of approval,
Development Review, including any extension
thereof. In the event of any conflict between
these documents, the soonest date of
commencement shall apply. Upon
commencement of the Improvement(s),
Developer shall proceed expeditiously with
the construction of the Improvement(s) under
the terms herein.
(b) For the purposes of this
Agreement, commencement of the
Improvements shall mean when Developer
receives the first permit from City for any
grading of the Property.
(c) City and Developer agree that
Developer shall award, or cause to be
15.I
1 awarded, all contracts for the construction and
Completion of the Improvements as
necessary to assure the timely and
satisfactory completion of such
Improvements. The Developer shall perform
all of its obligations hereunder and shall
conduct all operations with respect to the
construction of the Improvements in a good,
workmanlike and commercially reasonable
manner, with the standard of diligence and care
normally employed by duly qualified persons
utilizing commercially reasonable efforts in the
performance of comparable work and in
accordance with generally accepted practices
appropriate to the activities undertaken.
(d) The Developer shall not be
relieved of its obligation to construct the
Improvements and shall cause title to the
Improvements to be conveyed to the City
even if the DIF Credit Amount is less than the
actual cost of the Improvements.
(e) If Developer is unable or
unwilling to proceed with, and Complete, the
construction of the Improvement(s) for any
reason, and subject to the provisions in
Section 16 below, Developer shall be
considered to be in default of this Agreement;
provided, however, if Developer is unable to
commence the construction due to the
inability to obtain from all owners of the
affected property the necessary rights to
construct, install, and thereafter maintain,
repair and replace the Improvements,
Developer shall not be deemed to be in
default and may instead elect to terminate this
Agreement by providing City with written
notice of such termination, whereupon neither
party will have any further obligations under
this Agreement.
2. Inspection and Acceptance of
Completed Improvement by City. City shall make or
shall cause to be made periodic site inspections of
Developer’s construction work. The Acceptance
Date for each Improvement constructed by
Developer shall be no later than twenty (20) Days
15.I
1 following the last to occur of the following
requirements:
(a) the City Engineer’s
determination the Improvement is Complete;
(b) the City Engineer’s
determination that Acceptable Title with respect
to the Improvement is available for acceptance;
(c) Developer’s provision of one (1)
set of “as-built” or record drawings or plans for
the Improvement, certified and reflecting the
condition of the Improvement as constructed; and
(d) Developer’s provision of such
evidence or proof as the City Manager shall
require that all persons, firms and corporations
supplying work, labor, materials, supplies and
equipment to the construction of the
Improvement have been paid and that no
claims or liens have been recorded by or on
behalf of any such person, firm or corporation.
Alternatively, rather than await the expiration of
the time for the recording of claims of liens,
Developer may elect to provide a title insurance
policy or other security acceptable to the City
Manager guaranteeing that no such claims of
liens will be recorded or become a lien upon
any of the real property required for the
Improvement.
3. Conveyance of Acceptable Title to City.
Acceptable Title to all property on, in or over which
the Improvement is located, shall, prior to and as a
condition precedent to the City’s acceptance of any
Improvement, either (i) be conveyed to City by way
of dedication of such property or by a separate
recorded instrument, to permit the City to properly
own, operate and maintain such Improvement or (ii)
acknowledged as already held by the City in the
case of property owned by the City in fee or for
which the City already holds an easement covering
the Improvement. Developer shall assist the City in
obtaining such documents as are required to obtain
Acceptable Title. Completion of the transfer of
Acceptable Title shall be evidenced by recordation
of the acceptance thereof by the City Engineer.
15.I
1 4. Maintenance and Warranties to be
provided to City. Developer shall maintain the
Improvement in good and safe condition until the
Acceptance Date of the Improvement. Prior to the
Acceptance Date, Developer shall, at its sole cost
and expense, be responsible for performing any
required maintenance on the Improvement. On or
before the Acceptance Date of the Improvement,
Developer shall assign to the City all of Developer’s
rights in any warranties, guarantees, maintenance
obligations or provide other evidence of contingent
obligations of third persons with respect to such
Improvement. For purposes of the foregoing, City
acknowledges that this requirement may be satisfied
by Developer by causing City to be named as an
additional beneficiary in such warranties or guarantees.
All warranties, guarantees or other evidences of
contingent obligations of third persons with respect to the Improvement shall be delivered to the City Engineer, in writing, as part of the transfer of title.
(a) After the Acceptance Date, City
shall be solely responsible for maintenance
of the Improvement.
(b) With respect to the
Improvement, Developer shall warrant that
the Improvement is free from defects in
materials and construction defects (and
shall correct or cause to be corrected any
such defects at Developer’s expense) for a
period of one year from the Acceptance
Date thereof (the “Warranty Period”) and
Developer shall provide a bond or other
security reasonably acceptable in form and
substance to the City for such period and
such purpose to insure that such defects
that appear within said period will be
repaired, replaced or corrected by
Developer, at its own cost and expense, to
the reasonable satisfaction of the City
Manager. For the purposes of the
foregoing, compliance with the terms and
conditions of any Encroachment Permit
issued by the City of Hemet shall constitute
security reasonably acceptable to the City
for any Improvement constructed within the
15.I
1 right-of-way. During the Warranty Period,
Developer shall continue to repair, replace
or correct any such defects within thirty (30)
Days after written notice thereof by the City
Engineer to Developer, and shall complete
such repairs, replacement or correction as
soon as practicable.
(c) In the event that Developer does
not repair, replace or correct defects after
such written notice, in addition to the
provisions of Section 16 below, City may
repair, replace or correct the defects in the
Improvement and charge the Developer for
the cost of such repair, replacement or
correction plus City staff time and
overhead; provided, however, City shall
mitigate its costs through enforcement of
any warranty or guaranty which names City
as a beneficiary to the extent that such
warranty or guaranty is applicable to the
repair, replacement or correction.
5. Issuance of DIF Credit to Developer.
Developer shall receive DIF Credits based upon the
verified Eligible Costs of the Improvement (or
accepted portion of the Improvement).
6. Limitations on the Issuance of DIF
Credit to Developer upon Completion of an
Improvement. The amount of DIF Credit to be
issued by City shall be limited to the amount of the
DIF Program Costs for the Improvement or segment
cost for the percentage of the Program Costs
proportional to the segment of improvement
constructed or accepted. The DIF Program Costs
identified in the City’s DIF Program shall be subject
to change, from time to time, as part of the
continuing update of the City’s DIF Program. The
DIF Program Costs for the Improvement (or
accepted portion of the Improvement) shall be those
in effect at the time the DIF Credit Request is
submitted to the City.
7. Issuance of a DIF Credit Certificate.
When an Improvement is Complete, Developer shall
submit a DIF Credit Request to City with all
15.I
1 supporting documentation evidencing the total
actual Eligible Costs of the Improvement at the time
of submittal. The City Manager shall determine the
completeness of the DIF Credit Request and notify
Developer of whether the DIF Credit Request is
considered complete or if additional information is
needed from Developer. Once the DIF Credit
Request is considered complete, the City Manager
shall use his or her best efforts to determine the
total actual Eligible Costs of the Improvements and
provide Developer with a Certificate of DIF Credit
within twenty (20) Days following receipt of the
completed DIF Credit Request.
8. DIF Program Modifications. The
estimated cost in the City’s DIF Program for DIF
Improvements (or defined portions of DIF
Improvements) and Developer’s total DIF Obligation
amount may be modified from time to time based on
modifications to the City’s DIF Program.
9. Assignment of DIF Credits. Developer
shall have the right to transfer or assign DIF Credits
provided for herein.
10. DIF Reimbursement. If the dollar
amount of the Eligible Costs exceeds the
Developer’s DIF obligation for the Project,
Developer will be deemed to have fully satisfied the
DIF obligation for the Project and may apply for a
reimbursement of remaining DIF Eligible Costs.
Developer shall have no right to receive payment of
the Reimbursement unless the City has funds
available for payment of the Reimbursement from
the appropriate DIF fund. In no case shall the City
be obligated to reimburse Developer from the City’s
General Fund or any non-DIF fund.
11. Reserved.
12. Reserved.
13. Additional Documents/Actions. The
City Manager is authorized to approve and execute
any documents and to take any actions necessary
to effectuate the purposes of this Agreement.
14. Integration. This Agreement reflects the
15.I
1 complete understanding of the parties with respect
to the subject matter hereof.
15. Prevailing Wages. Developer is aware
of the requirements of California Labor Code
Section 1720, et seq. (as amended by Stats 2001
ch. 938 § 2 (S.B. 975)), through 1770, et seq., as
well as California Code of Regulations, Title 8,
Section 1600, et seq. and Labor Code Sections
1810, 1811, 1813, 1814; (collectively, the
"Prevailing Wage Laws"), which require the
payment of prevailing wage rates and the
performance of other requirements on "public
works" and "maintenance" projects. The Bid
Documents and each Developer’s Contract shall
require all contractors for the construction of
Improvements to register with the Department of
Industrial Relations and to pay and report prevailing
wages in accordance with the applicable provisions
of the Labor Code. Developer shall obtain from the
City and make copies of the prevailing rates of per
diem wages for each craft, classification or type of
worker needed to execute the services available to
interested parties upon request, and shall post
copies at the Developer's principal place of
business and at the project site. Developer shall
defend, indemnify and hold the City, its officials,
officers, employees, agents, contractors, attorneys
and volunteers free and harmless from any fine,
penalty claim or liability of any kind arising out of
any failure or alleged failure to comply with the
Prevailing Wage Laws.
16. Default and Force Majeure.
(a) Default. Failure or delay by
Developer or City to perform any of its obligations
under this Agreement constitutes a default by such
party under this Agreement. The party alleged to be
in default shall have thirty (30) Days after the date
of the written notice by the other party to commence
to cure such default. The party alleged to be in
default shall diligently pursue such cure to
completion within a reasonable timeframe as established in the written notice provided by the party asserting the default. If the party alleged to be in default has not cured its default within the cure period set forth therein, the defaulting party shall be deemed in breach. Any failure
15.I
1 or delay in giving such notice or in asserting any rights and remedies as to any default shall not constitute a
waiver of any default, nor shall it change the time of
default, nor shall it deprive the party not in default of its rights to institute and maintain any actions or proceeding which it may deem necessary to protect, assert or
enforce any of its rights or remedies. If any default by Developer is not cured within the time period provided by the City, City shall be entitled to terminate this
Agreement in its entirety and thereafter, the City shall be under no obligation to perform any of City's obligations hereunder, including, but not limited to, the issuance of DIF Credits that Developer may claim.
(b) Force Majeure. Notwithstanding
the provisions contained in the foregoing paragraph,
performance by either party hereunder shall not be
deemed to be in default where delay or defaults are
due to war, insurrection, strikes, lock-outs, riots,
floods, earthquakes, fires, casualties, acts of God,
acts of the public enemy, epidemics and
pandemics, quarantine restrictions, freight
embargoes, lack of transportation, governmental
restrictions or priority, litigation brought by a third party, unusually severe weather, reasonably
unforeseeable property conditions (that is, property
conditions which were unknown and either hidden,
concealed, or latent physical conditions
encountered that differ materially from the
reasonably anticipated conditions), acts of the other
party, acts or failure to act of the other party or any other public or governmental agency or entity, or
any causes beyond the control or without the fault of
the party claiming an extension of time to perform (a
“Force Majeure Event”). An extension of time for
any such cause (an "Excusable Delay") shall be for
the time period of the delay and shall commence to
run from the time of the commencement of the
cause, if notice by the party claiming such extension
is sent to the other party within thirty (30) days of
knowledge of the commencement of the cause, or
from the date of the notice if provided after such
thirty-day period. Notwithstanding the foregoing,
none of the foregoing events shall constitute an
Excusable Delay unless and until the party claiming
such delay and interference delivers to the other party written notice describing the event, its cause, when and how such party obtained knowledge, the date the event
commenced, and the estimated delay resulting
15.I
1 therefrom. Any party claiming an Excusable Delay shall make a good faith effort to deliver such written notice within thirty (30) Days after it obtains actual knowledge of the event or, in the case of the COVID-19 pandemic,
then within thirty (30) days after a change in
circumstances in connection with the COVID-19
pandemic begins interfering with the party’s ability to perform its obligations under this Agreement. Times of
performance under this Agreement may also be
extended in writing by City and Developer; provided,
however, in the case of delays arising as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, City agrees to grant Developer an
extension for the duration of the delay upon Developer’s request for such extension, which request shall include the specific cause of the delay and the estimated time of delay resulting therefrom. The Parties hereto expressly acknowledge and agree that changes in either general
economic conditions or changes in the economic
assumptions of any of them (unless such conditions
were caused by a Force Majeure Event) that may have
provided a basis for entering into this Agreement and
that occur at any time after the execution of this
Agreement are not Force Majeure Events and do not
provide any Party with grounds for asserting the
existence of a delay in the performance of any covenant or undertaking that may arise under this Agreement.
Each Party expressly assumes the risk that changes in
general economic conditions or changes in such
economic assumptions relating to the terms and
covenants of this Agreement could impose an
inconvenience or hardship on the continued performance
of such Party under this Agreement, but that such
inconvenience or hardship is not a force majeure event
and does not excuse the performance by such Party of
its obligations under this Agreement. Without limiting the nature of the foregoing, the parties agree that the
inability of Developer to obtain a satisfactory
commitment from a construction lender for the
improvement of the Property or to satisfy any other
condition of this Agreement relating to the development of the Property shall not be deemed to be a force
majeure event or otherwise provide grounds for the
assertion of the existence of a delay under this Section
1. 17. Licenses and Permits. The Developer
shall secure (or shall cause to be secured) any and
all permits that may be required by the City or any
other governmental agency for the construction of
the Improvements. The Developer shall be
responsible for paying all applicable fees and
charges to the City or other governmental agency to
15.I
1 obtain any land use entitlements and permits that
are necessary to construct the Improvements,
although a portion of such costs may be
recoverable as DIF credits.
18. Indemnification. The Developer shall
protect, indemnify, defend and hold the City, and its
respective officials, officers, employees, agents,
contractors, attorneys and volunteers, and each of
them, harmless from and against any and all claims,
losses, expenses, suits, actions, fines, penalties
decrees, judgments, awards, attorney’s fees (to
Counsel chosen by City and reasonably approved
by Developer), expert and court costs (collectively
“Damages”)that the City, or its respective officers,
officials, employees, agents, contractors and
volunteers or any combination thereof, may suffer or
that may be sought against or recovered or
obtained from the City, or its respective officers,
officials employees, agents, contractors, attorneys
or volunteers or any combination thereof, as a result
of or by reason of or arising out of or in
consequence of (a) the acquisition, construction, or
installation of the Improvements; (b) the untruth or
inaccuracy of any representation or warranty made
by the Developer in this Agreement or in any
certifications delivered by the Developer hereunder;
or (c) any act or omission of the Developer or any of
its subcontractors, or their respective officers,
employees, agents, or contractors in connection
with the Improvements. If the Developer fails to do
so, the City shall have the right, but not the
obligation, to defend the same and charge all of the
direct, indirect and incidental costs of such defense,
including any reasonable attorney fees expert or
court costs, to and recover the same from the
Developer. Notwithstanding the foregoing, neither
the City nor its respective officers, officials
employees, agents, contractors, attorneys or
volunteers shall be indemnified, defended or held
harmless against such Damages to the extent that
such Damages have been caused by their sole active
negligence or sole willful misconduct. The parties
acknowledge and agree that the Developer shall be
released from the indemnity, defense and hold harmless
obligations set forth herein upon the acceptance of the Completed Improvements by the City and completion of
the Warranty Period for such Improvements.
15.I
1 19. Developer as a Private Developer. In
performing under this Agreement, it is mutually
understood that the Developer is acting as a private
developer, and not as an agent of the City or as a
joint venturer with City. The City shall have no
responsibility for payment to any contractor,
subcontractor or supplier of the Developer.
Accordingly, this Agreement does not constitute a
debt or liability of the City. The City shall not be
obligated to advance any of its own funds or any
other costs incurred in connection with the Project.
No member, official, employee, agent, contractor,
attorney or volunteer of the City shall be personally
liable to the Developer, or any successor in interest,
in the event of any default or breach by the City or
for any amount that may become due to the
Developer or its successors, or on any obligations
under the terms of this Agreement.
20. Other Obligations. Nothing contained
herein shall be construed as affecting the
Developer’s respective duty to perform its
respective obligations under other agreements, land
use regulations or subdivision requirements
applicable to the development of the Property,
which obligations are and shall remain independent
of the Developer’s rights and obligations, and the
City’s rights and obligations, under this Agreement;
provided, however, that the Developer shall use its
reasonable and diligent efforts to perform each and
every covenant to be performed by it under any lien
or encumbrance, instrument, declaration, covenant,
condition, restriction, license, order, or other
agreement, the nonperformance of which could
reasonably be expected to materially and adversely
affect the design, acquisition, construction and
installation of the Improvements. This Agreement is
not, and shall not be construed as, a statutory
development agreement as authorized by
Government Code sections 65864 et seq., and this
Agreement shall not be interpreted as limiting the
authority of the City to adopt and amend
regulations concerning permitted uses of property, the
density or intensity of use, the maximum height and size of proposed buildings, provisions for the reservation or dedication of land or the payment of impact fees for
public purposes.
15.I
1 21. Binding on Successors and Assigns.
Except as set forth in Section 10 or Section 25
hereof, neither this Agreement nor the duties and
obligations of the Developer hereunder may be
assigned to any person or legal entity other than an
affiliate of the Developer without the prior written
consent of the City, which consent shall not be
unreasonably withheld or delayed. Neither this
Agreement nor the duties and obligations of the City
hereunder may be assigned to any person or legal
entity, without the written consent of the Developer,
which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld or
delayed. The agreements and covenants included
herein shall be binding on and inure to the benefit of
any partners, permitted and accepted assigns, and
successors-in-interest of the parties hereto.
22. Assignment. Developer may, as set
forth herein, assign all or a portion of its rights
pursuant to this Agreement to a purchaser of a
portion or portions of the Property ("Assignment").
Developer and such purchaser and assignee
("Assignee") shall provide to City such reasonable
proof as it may require that Assignee is the
purchaser of such portions of the Property. Any
assignment pursuant to this Section shall not be
effective unless and until Developer and Assignee
have executed an assignment agreement with City
in a form reasonably acceptable to City, whereby
Developer and Assignee agree, except as may be
otherwise specifically provided therein, to the
following: (1) that Assignee shall receive all or a
portion of Developer's rights pursuant to this
Agreement, including such credit as is determined
to be applicable to the portion of the Property
purchased by Assignee pursuant to this Agreement,
and (2) that Assignee shall be bound by all
applicable provisions of this Agreement.
23. Amendments. This Agreement can only
be amended by an instrument in writing executed
and delivered by the City and the Developer.
24. Waivers. No waiver of, or consent with
respect to, any provision of this Agreement by a
party hereto shall in any event be effective unless
the same shall be in writing and signed by such
15.I
1 party, and then such waiver or consent shall be
effective only in the specific instance and for the
specific purpose for which it was given.
25. No Third Party Beneficiaries. No
person or entity, other than the City,shall be
deemed to be a third party beneficiary hereof, and
nothing in this Agreement (either express or
implied) is intended to confer upon any person or
entity, other than the City and the Developer (and
their respective successors and assigns), any
rights, remedies, obligations or liabilities under or by reason of this Agreement.
26. Mortgagee Protection. The parties
hereto agree that this Agreement shall not prevent
or limit Developer, at Developer’s sole discretion,
from encumbering the Property or any portion
thereof or any improvement thereon by any
mortgage, deed of trust or other security device
securing financing with respect to the Property.
Developer shall have the right to encumber and
assign its rights and interests hereunder to the
lenders providing such financing as security for
such financing without the consent of the City and
without complying with Section 10 hereof. City
acknowledges that the lenders providing such
financing may require certain Agreement
interpretations and modifications and agrees upon
request, from time to time, to meet with Developer
and representatives of such lenders to negotiate in
good faith any such request for interpretation or
modification. City will not unreasonably withhold its
consent to any such requested interpretation or
modification provided such interpretation or
modification is consistent with the intent and
purposes of this Agreement. A mortgagee of the
Property shall be entitled to the following rights and
privileges:
(a) Neither entering into this
Agreement nor a breach of this Agreement shall
defeat, render invalid, diminish or impair the lien of
any mortgage or deed of trust on the Property made
in good faith and for value, unless otherwise
required by law.
(b) The mortgagee of any mortgage
15.I
1 or deed of trust encumbering the Property, or any
part thereof, which mortgagee has submitted a
request in writing to the City in the manner specified
herein for giving notices, shall be entitled to receive written notification from City of any default by
Developer in the performance of Developer’s
obligations under this Agreement.
(c) If City timely receives a request
from a mortgagee requesting a copy of any notice of
default given to Developer under the terms of this
Agreement, City shall provide a copy of that notice
to the mortgagee within ten (10) Days following the
sending of the notice of default to Developer. The
mortgagee shall have the right, but not the
obligation, to cure the default during the remaining
cure period allowed such party under this
Agreement.
(d) Any mortgagee who comes into
possession of the Property, or any part thereof,
pursuant to foreclosure of the mortgage or deed of trust, or deed in lieu of such foreclosure, shall take the
Property, or part thereof, subject to the terms of this Agreement. Notwithstanding any other provision of this
Agreement to the contrary, no mortgagee shall have an
obligation or duty under this Agreement to perform any
of Developer’s obligations or other affirmative covenants of Developer hereunder, or to guarantee such
performance; provided, however, that to the extent that any covenant to be performed by Developer is a
condition precedent to the performance of a covenant by City, the performance thereof shall continue to be a
condition precedent to City’s performance hereunder,
and further provided that any sale, transfer or
assignment by any mortgagee in possession shall be
subject to the provisions of Section 10 of this Agreement.
27. Notices. Any written notice, statement,
demand, consent approval, authorization, offer,
designation, request or other communication to be
given hereunder shall be given to the party entitled
thereto at its address set forth below, or at such
other address as such party may provide to the
other party in writing from time to time, namely:
Developer:
RICHLAND VENTURES, INC.
15.I
1 RAMONA CREEK
3161 Michelson Drive, Suite 425
Irvine, CA 92612
City:
CITY OF HEMET
445 E Florida Avenue
Hemet, CA 92543
Each such notice, statement, demand,
consent, approval, authorization, offer, designation,
request or other communication hereunder shall be
deemed delivered to the party to whom it is
addressed (a) if personally served or delivered,
upon delivery; (b) if given by electronic
communication, whether by telex, or telecopy, upon
the sender’s receipt of an appropriate answerback
or other written acknowledgment; (c) if given by
registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, deposited with the United States mail postage
prepaid, then upon the date evidenced by the
return receipt; or (d) if given by overnight courier,
with courier charges prepaid, then upon delivery as
evidenced by electronic delivery data.
28. Jurisdiction and Venue. City and the
Developer (a) agree that any suit, action or other
legal proceeding arising out of or relating to this
Agreement shall be brought in state or local court in
the County of Riverside or in the Courts of the
United States of America in the district in which the
City is located, (b) each consents to the jurisdiction
of each such court in any suit, action or proceeding,
and (c) each waives any objection that it may have
to the venue or any suit, action or proceeding in any
of such courts and any claim that any such suit,
action or proceeding has been brought in an
inconvenient forum. Each of the City and the
Developer agrees that a final and non-appealable
judgment in any such action or proceeding shall be
conclusive and may be enforced in other
jurisdictions by suit on the judgment or in any other
manner provided by law.
29. Attorneys’ Fees. If any action is
instituted to interpret or enforce any of the
provisions of this Agreement, the prevailing party in
such action shall be entitled to recover from the
15.I
1 other party thereto reasonable attorney’s fees and
costs of such suit (including both prejudgment and
post judgment fees and costs) as determined by the
court as part of the judgment.
30. Governing Law. This Agreement and
any dispute arising hereunder shall be governed by
and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the
State of California.
31. Usage of Words. As used herein, the
singular of any word includes the plural, and terms
in the masculine gender shall include the feminine
and the non-gender specific.
32. Counterparts. This Agreement may be
executed in counterparts, each of which shall be
deemed an original.
33. Severability. If any section, sentence,
clause or phrase of this Agreement or the
application thereof to any entity, person or circumstance is held for any reason to be invalid or unconstitutional, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect other provisions or applications of this Agreement that can be given effect without the invalid provision of application, and to this end the provisions of this Agreement are
severable. The City Council hereby declares that they
would have adopted this Agreement and each section,
sentence, clause or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more section, subsections,
sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid or
unconstitutional.
34. Incorporation by Reference. The
Exhibits attached hereto and the Recitals of this
Agreement are hereby incorporated by reference as
though fully set forth herein:
[Signatures On Next Page]
15.I
1 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have
executed this Agreement as of the respective dates
set forth below.
“CITY”
CITY OF HEMET, a
California municipal corporation
Dated:
By:
Chris Lopez
City Manager
ATTEST:
15.I
1 By:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
COLE HUBER, LLP
By:
City Attorney
15.I
1 “DEVELOPER”
RICHLAND VENTURES, INC.
By:
Its:
Dated:
15.I
1 EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY
Ramona Creek
Tres Cerritos East
15.I
1
15.I
1 EXHIBIT B
FORM OF CERTIFICATE OF DIF CREDIT
Pursuant to Section 6 of the Development
Impact Fee Credit and Reimbursement Agreement
for Facility Construction by and between the City of
Hemet and __________________ dated
_______________, 20__, the terms and definitions
of which are hereby incorporated herein by this
reference and hereinafter called the "Fee Credit
Agreement" , the City of Hemet hereby certifies that
Developer is entitled to the following amount and
nature of DIF Credits:
Amount of Credit:
$_____________________
Infrastructure Category of DIF:
______________________
By: ___________________
City Manager
Dated: ________________
15.I
1 EXHIBIT C
FORM OF DIF CREDIT REQUEST
DIF Project Name and Number:
The undersigned (the “Developer”), hereby
requests DIF Credits in the DIF categories and
amounts specified in Attachment 1 hereto, attached
and incorporated. In connection with this Credit
Request, the undersigned hereby represents and
warrants to the City as follows:
1. He (she) is a duly authorized
officer or representative of the Developer,
qualified to execute this Credit Request on
behalf of the Developer and is
knowledgeable as to the matters set forth
herein.
2. All costs of the Improvements
for which credit is requested hereby are
Eligible Costs (as defined in the Fee Credit
Agreement) and have not been inflated in
any respect. The Eligible Costs for which
credit is requested have not been the subject
of any prior credit request submitted to the
City.
3. Supporting documentation
(such as the applicable Developer Contract,
third party invoices, lien releases and
cancelled checks or other evidence of
payment) is attached with respect to each
cost for which credit is requested.
4. The Improvement for which
credit is requested was constructed in
accordance with the requirements of the Fee
Credit Agreement.
5. Please issue a Certificate of
DIF Credit to the Developer in the amount
requested.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the above
representations and warranties are true and
connect.
DEVELOPER:
15.I
1 _____________________
By: __________________
Its: __________________
Dated: _______________
CITY:
By: __________________
Its: __________________
Dated: _______________
15.I
1 ATTACHMENT 1
FORM TO DIF CREDIT REQUEST
SUMMARY OF IMPROVEMENTS AND
REQUESTED DIF CREDITS
IMPROVEMENT ELIGIBLE COSTS DIF
CREDIT REQUESTED
[List here all
Improvements for
which credit is
requested, and
attached support
documentation]
15.I
1 EXHIBIT D
DEVELOPER’S DIF OBLIGATION
15.I
1 EXHIBIT E
DIF CREDIT ELIGIBLE IMPROVEMENTS
AND ESTIMATED COSTS
.
TYPE IMPROVEMENT IMPROVEMENT
Road Cawston Ave, Various Segments
2,323,600
Road Devonshire Ave, Various Segments
2,472,784
Road Menlo, Rose to Cawston
432,000
Road Menlo, Various Segments
2,279,200
Road Myers, Florida to Devonshire
769,600
Road Rose, Myers to Menlo
504,000
Road Right of Way Acquisition
1,000,000
Signal Devonshire at Myers
150,000
Signal California at Florida
215,001
Drainage Retention Basin, Devonshire
2,879,593
Drainage 2A - Acqueduct Drain
1,664,242
Drainage 2C - Menlo Ave
1,459,886
Drainage 2C-8, Menlo/Cawston
365,605
Drainage 2D - Devonshire
1,425,887
TOTAL
17,941,398
This information is from “The City of Hemet –
Development Impact Fee Study”, adopted per
Resolution No. 3981.
15.I
?\ooo\xoxu-4: m I\>>—‘
CITY OF HEMET
Hemet, California
RESOLUTION NO. 3981
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF HEMET, CALIFORNIA,
AMENDING DEVELOPMENT
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 3837 setting fees for development projects (“Development impact Fees”) within the meaning of the California Mitigation Fee Act (“Act") (Government Code Sections 66000 et seq); and,
WHEREAS, the City has recently completed a revised study of capital facilities and other information required by Government Code Section 66001 (“Nexus Study”). The Nexus Study was prepared by Tisch|erBise, Fiscal, Economic and Planning Consultants. The Nexus Study justifies a recalculation of Development Impact Fees; and, WHEREAS, the Nexus Study defines a method whereby future residential and commercial development within the City will bear the reasonable cost of public facilities identified in the Nexus Study which facilities are required to serve these developments and mitigate their impacts on the community; and,
26 27
28 29
30 31
32 33
34 35
36 37
38 39
40 WHEREAS, at a duly noticed public hearing held on January 23, 2006, the City Council considered the Nexus Study, including all attachments, the public facilities identified in the Nexus Study, and the fee recommended therein, together with public testimony had at the hearing; and,
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Hemet does hereby resolve:
1) The Nexus Study entitled “Development Impact Fee Study for the City of Hemet, California by Tisch|erBise, Fiscal, Economic and Planning Consultants" dated January 3, 2006 is hereby approved and adopted and incorporated by reference.
A full and complete copy of the Nexus Study is on file with the Of?ce of the City Clerk located at 445 East Florida Avenue, Hemet California 92543. 2) The City Council finds that the Nexus Study adequately provides all of the information required under the Act
42 43
44 45
46 47
48 49
50 but not limited to: (i) an identification of the purpose of the fees, (ii) an identification of the use to which the fees are to be put; (iii) a determination that there is a reasonable relationship between the fee's use and the type of development projects on which the fees are to be imposed; (iv) a determination of how there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the public facilities identified in the Nexus Study and the type of development projects on which the fees are to be imposed; and (v) a determination that there is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fees to be imposed and the cost of the public facilities identi?ed in the Nexus Study.
CITYCOUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 3981
DEVELOPMENTIIMPACT FEES
15.I
._. O\OOO\lO\U1-l>U~3l\)’-‘
3)
4)
5)
Development impact Fees for Residential Development shall hereinafter be imposed and collected per the attached schedules (Exhibit A).
Resolution No. 3837 is amended as it relates to Development Impact Fees for Residential Development Projects, provided however, the City Council shall review the amount ofsuch fees within eighteen (18) months or upon the adoption of the current update to the General Plan, whichever is the ?rst to occur.
The City Council shall, by separate and subsequently noticed action, consider 11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
adjustments to Development impact Fees for Commercial and/or Industrial Projects.
6) Pursuant to Government Code Section 66017, the adjusted fees described in this resolution shall not be imposed and collected sooner than sixty (60) following the adoption of this resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council this 23rd day of January, 2006.
C. R0 in Lowe,
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
27 29
30 31
33 34
35 36
37 38
39 40
41 / 4
Eri .ail,CityAttorney
42 43
44 45
46 47
48 49
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 3981
DEVELOPMENTZIMPACT FEES
15.I
;\DO0\lO\UI-bU3l\)vState of California )
County of Riverside )
City of Hemet )
I, Sarah McComas, Deputy City Clerk of the City of Hemet, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution isthe actual Resolution adopted by the CityCouncil of the City of Hemet ,-_ ._,,_,_u _; _-.. ..|_._._._-;:.... 4|... 0') 1U
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 and was
the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
passeu at a regular meeting UI UIU Lilly UUUIIUII Ull LIIU Ully Ul J?llualy L0, LUUU Dy Council Members Christie, and VanArsdaIe, Vice Mayor Searl and Mayor Lowe
Council Member Meadows
(3701/L/‘ 410
Sarah Mccomas, Deputy City Clerk
15.I
EXHIBIT
A
CITY OF HEMET
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES - RESIDENTIAL
January 23, 2006
Residential
Single Family DetachedTownhouse/Duplex
Multi FamilyMobile Home
General Total New
Police Fire Roads Drainage Parks Govt. Library Fee
471 560 2,948 1,405 1,736 780 735 8,635357 424 1,805 1,013 1,315 591 557 6,062404 480 2,030 474 1,490 669 631 6,178298 354 1,537 1,147 1,099 493 465 5,393
OLD FEE PER HOUSINGUNIT
General Total Old
Police Fire Roads Drainage Parks Govt. Library Fee
Residential
Single Family Detached 258 330 1,275 1,119 518 658 467 4,625 Townhouse/Duplex 258 330 1,275 724 518 658 467 4,230
MultiFamily 337 325 890 366 482 627 375 3,402Mobile Home 74 91 709 819 356 642 420 3,111 Administrative Processing Fee is 3% of Total Impact Fees.
15.I
Survey of Single Family Residential Development Impact Fees Exhibit
B
With Reduced Park Fee
Detached Corona Hemet
Murri eta Temecula Moreno Valley San Jacinto Lake Elsinore Perris Riverside Co.
Description
Law Enforcement Facilities/Equipment $ 471 .00 $ 158.00 $ 17.00 $ 25.00 $ 198.00 119.00Fire Faci|iliesIEquipment 349.00 $ 560.00 $ 457.00 $ 514.00 $ 252.00 $ 212.00 $ 431.00 438.00 Streets/Minor Bridgeslculverts 4,047.00 $ 2,948.00 $ 535.00 3 1,495.00 $ 1,275.00 $ 1,517.00 $ 2,190.00 2,362.00Traf?c Signals/Controllers $ 91.00 $ 212.00 $ 421.00 $ 256.00 $ 1,369.00 310.00 Storm Drainage Facilities 1,176.00 $ 1,405.00 $ 1,047.00General FacilitiesNehicles/Equipment $ 780.00 $ 184.00 $ 405.00 $ 408.00 $ 2,481 .00 777.00Major Bridge, Freeway Overpass, Ramps $ 1,301.00Open Space Acquisition $ 362.00Landscape Improvement Fee 1,391.00 $ 1,600.00 Parks
& Recreation Facilities $ 1,736.00 $ 2,619.00 $ 2,469.00 $ 2,557.00 $ 1,870.00 430.00 Park Land and Open Space 2,903.00 $ 720.00 $ 573.00 $ 3,010.00 255.00 Community Ctr/Public Meeting Facilities $ 58.00 44.00 575.00 $ 630.00 $ 579.00Library Facilities/Collection $ 479.00 $ 735.00 144.00 $ 657.00 668.00 $ 150.00 $ 146.00 $ 261.00 TOTAL S 10,841.00 $ 8,635.00 7,042.00 5 6,689.00 6,447.00 $ 6,231.00 S 5,600.00 $ 5,335.00 S 4,833.00 MSHCP $ 1,651 .00 $ 1,651.00 1,651.00 $ 1,651.00 1,651.00 $ 1,651.00 $ 1,651.00 $ 1,651.00 $ 1,651.00 TUMF $ 7,248.00 $ 7,248.00 7,248.00 $ 7,248.00 7,248.00 $ 7,248.00 $ 7,248.00 $ 7,248.00 $ 7,248.00
15.I
EXHIBIT
C
DIF Comparison 2005
Single Family Residential Fees With Reduced Park Fee
12,000
10,000
8,000
6,0004,0002,000
Riverside Perris Lake San Moreno Temecula Murrieta Hemet Corona Co. Elsinore Jacinto Valley
15.I
REVISED DRAFT
Development Impact Fee Study
Prepared for:
City of Hemet, California
January 3, 2006
Prepared by:
15.I
CITY OF HEMET, CALIFORNIA – DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY ii
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY........................................................................................................... 1 LEGAL FRAMEWORK ...................................................................................................................................1 IMPACT FEE CALCULATION METHODOLOGY ................................................................................5 Figure 1: Schedule of Maximum Supportable Development Impact Fees...............................................................6 DEVELOPMENT AND DEMAND DATA...............................................................................8 BACKGROUND AND SETTING.................................................................................................................8 STUDY AREA AND TIME FRAME .............................................................................................................8 DATA SOURCES...............................................................................................................................................9 DEMAND VARIABLES AND IMPACT FACTORS .................................................................................9 Figure 2: Persons Per Housing Unit .................................................................................................................10 Figure 3: Employee Building Area Ratios and Trip Generation Data ...............................................................11 CURRENT AND FUTURE CITY DEVELOPMENT BASE .................................................................11 Figure 4: City of Hemet Growth Indicators .......................................................................................................12 Figure 5: Residential Building Permits ..............................................................................................................13 Figure 6: Alternative Housing Unit Projections.................................................................................................14 Figure 7: Current and Future Employment.......................................................................................................15 Figure 8: Employment and Floor Area Estimates.............................................................................................16 Figure 9: Future Development Data .................................................................................................................17 GENERAL GOVERNMENT................................................................................................... 18 METHODOLOGY..........................................................................................................................................19 Figure 10: General Government Development Impact Fee Methodology Chart....................................................19 PROPORTIONATE SHARE FACTORS....................................................................................................19 Figure 11 – Proportionate Share Factors for General Government .....................................................................20 LEVEL-OF-SERVICE ....................................................................................................................................21 Figure 12: General Government Land and Buildings LOS Factors...................................................................21 Figure 13 – General Government Vehicles Impact Fee Factors..........................................................................22 CREDITS...........................................................................................................................................................22 MAXIMUM SUPPORTABLE GENERAL GOVERNMENT IMPACT FEE .....................................23 Figure 14: General Government Development Impact Fee Level-of-Service Standard Summary...........................23 Figure 15: General Government Development Impact Fee Schedule....................................................................24 FIRE AND RESCUE................................................................................................................. 25 METHODOLOGY..........................................................................................................................................25 Figure 16: Fire Impact Fee Methodology ...........................................................................................................25 PROPORTIONATE SHARE FACTORS....................................................................................................25 Figure 17 – Proportionate Share Factors for Fire..............................................................................................26 LEVEL-OF-SERVICE ....................................................................................................................................26 Figure 18: Fire Land and Facilities LOS Factors ............................................................................................27 Figure 19 – Fire Vehicle and Apparatus Impact Fee Factors ...........................................................................28 CREDITS...........................................................................................................................................................28 MAXIMUM SUPPORTABLE FIRE DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE...............................................28 Figure 20: Fire Development Impact Fee Level-of-Service Standard Summary...................................................29 Figure 21: Fire Development Impact Fee Schedule............................................................................................30 PARKS, RECREATION AND TRAILS ................................................................................... 31 METHODOLOGY..........................................................................................................................................31 Figure 22: Parks and Recreation Development Impact Fee Methodology.............................................................31 LEVEL-OF-SERVICE ....................................................................................................................................31 Figure 23: Park Land Incremental Expansion Cost Component.......................................................................32 Figure 24: Park and Recreation Improvements Incremental Expansion Cost Component....................................33
15.I
CITY OF HEMET, CALIFORNIA – DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY iii
CREDITS...........................................................................................................................................................33 MAXIMUM SUPPORTABLE PARKS AND RECREATION IMPACT FEE .....................................33 Figure 25: Maximum Supportable Parks and Recreation Development Impact Fee Schedule.............................34 POLICE...................................................................................................................................... 35 METHODOLOGY..........................................................................................................................................35 Figure 26: Police Development Impact Fee Methodology.....................................................................................36 PROPORTIONATE SHARE FACTORS....................................................................................................36 Figure 27: Average Daily Vehicle Trip Factors for Nonresidential Development................................................38 LEVEL-OF-SERVICE ....................................................................................................................................38 Figure 28: Police Facility Incremental Expansion Component............................................................................39 Figure 29: Police Vehicle and Equipment Incremental Expansion Component...................................................40 CREDITS...........................................................................................................................................................40 MAXIMUM SUPPORTABLE POLICE DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE.........................................41 Figure 30: Police Development Impact Fee LOS Standards Summary..............................................................41 Figure 31: Police Development Impact Fee Schedule...........................................................................................42 LIBRARY.................................................................................................................................... 43 METHODOLOGY..........................................................................................................................................43 Figure 32: Library Development Impact Fee Methodology ................................................................................43 LEVEL-OF-SERVICE ....................................................................................................................................43 Figure 33: Library Space Cost Recovery Component..........................................................................................44 Figure 34: Library Collection Incremental Expansion Cost Component.............................................................44 CREDITS...........................................................................................................................................................45 Figure 35: Debt Service Payment Credit for Library Bonds ...............................................................................45 MAXIMUM SUPPORTABLE LIBRARY DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE ......................................45 Figure 36: Maximum Supportable Library Development Impact Fee Schedule..................................................46 ROADS ....................................................................................................................................... 47 METHODOLOGY..........................................................................................................................................47 Figure 37: Road Development Impact Fee Methodology Chart...........................................................................47 ROAD DEMAND (TRIP GENERATION)................................................................................................47 Figure 38: Average Weekday Vehicle Trip Factors and Pass-By Adjustments...................................................48 CAPITAL FACILITY PLAN..........................................................................................................................48 Figure 39: Summary of Road Capital Facilities Plan........................................................................................49 CREDITS...........................................................................................................................................................49 MAXIMUM SUPPORTABLE ROAD DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE............................................50 Figure 40: Road Development Impact Fee Level-of-Service Standard Summary.................................................50 Figure 41: Road Development Impact Fee Schedule...........................................................................................51 DRAINAGE ............................................................................................................................... 52 METHODOLOGY..........................................................................................................................................52 Figure 42: Drainage Development Impact Fee Methodology ...............................................................................52 PROPORTIONATE SHARE FACTORS....................................................................................................53 Figure 43: Drainage Development Impact Fee Proportionate Share Factors........................................................53 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN ............................................................................................................53 Figure 44: Summary of Drainage Capital Facility Plan ....................................................................................54 CREDITS...........................................................................................................................................................54 MAXIMUM SUPPORTABLE DRAINAGE DEVELOPMENT FEE ......................................................54 Figure 45: Drainage Development Impact Fee Level of Service Standard Summary...........................................55 Figure 46: Drainage Development Impact Fee Schedule....................................................................................55 IMPLEMENTATION AND ADMINISTRATION................................................................ 56 ADOPTION......................................................................................................................................................56 ADMINISTRATION ......................................................................................................................................56 TRAINING AND PUBLIC INFORMATION...........................................................................................60 RECOVERY OF STUDY COST...................................................................................................................60
15.I
CITY OF HEMET, CALIFORNIA – DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY
1 Executive Summary
The City of Hemet has retained TischlerBise to prepare a development impact fee study. This report documents the data, methodology, and results of the development impact fee study.
Development impact fees are one-time payments used to fund system improvements needed to accommodate development. As documented in this report, the methods used to calculate development impact fees in this study are intended to satisfy all legal requirements governing such fees, including provisions of the U. S. Constitution, the California Constitution, and the California Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code Sections 66000 et seq.).
Development impact fees for Hemet are proportionate and reasonably related to the capital facility service demands of new development. The written analysis of each development impact fee methodology and the cash flow analysis, establish that impact fees are necessary to achieve an equitable allocation of costs in comparison to the benefits received. Development impact fee methodologies also identify the extent to which newly developed properties are entitled to various types of credits to avoid potential double payment of capital costs. Specifically, the development impact fees categories contained in this report include the following infrastructure categories:
Police
Fire/EMS
Drainage
Roads
Parks and Recreation
General Government
Libraries
LEGAL FRAMEWORK
U. S. Constitution. Like all land use regulations, development exactions, including impact fees, are subject to the Fifth Amendment prohibition on taking of private property for public use without just compensation. Both state and federal courts have recognized the imposition of impact fees on development as a legitimate form of land use regulation, provided the fees meet standards intended to protect against regulatory takings. To comply with the Fifth Amendment, development regulations must be shown to substantially advance a legitimate governmental interest. In the case of impact fees, that interest is in the protection of public health, safety, and welfare by ensuring that development is not detrimental to the quality of essential public services.
15.I
CITY OF HEMET, CALIFORNIA – DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY
2 There is little federal case law specifically dealing with impact fees, although other rulings on other types of exactions (e.g. land dedication requirements) are relevant. In one of the most important exaction cases, the U. S. Supreme Court found that a government agency imposing exactions on development must demonstrate an "essential nexus" between the exaction and the interest being protected (See Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, 1987). In a more recent case (Dolan v. City of Tigard, OR, 1994), the Court ruled that an exaction also must be "roughly proportional" to the burden created by development. However, the Dolan decision appeared to set a higher standard of review for mandatory dedications of land than for monetary exactions such as impact fees.
Constitutional issues related to impact fees will be discussed in more detail below.
California Constitution. The California Constitution grants broad police power to local governments, including the authority to regulate land use and development. That police power is the source of authority for a wide range of regulations, including the authority to impose impact fees on development to pay for infrastructure and capital facilities. Some impact fees have been challenged on grounds that they are special taxes imposed without voter approval in violation of Article XIIIA, which was added by Proposition 13 in 1978. That objection is valid only if the fees exceed the cost of providing capital facilities needed to serve new development. If that were the case, then the fees would also run afoul of the U. S. Constitution and the Mitigation Fee Act.
Articles XIIIC and XIIID, added by Proposition 218 in 1996, require voter approval for some “property-related fees,” but exempt “the imposition of fees or charges as a condition of property development.”
The Mitigation Fee Act. California’s impact fee statute originated in Assembly Bill 1600 during the 1987 session of the Legislature, and took effect in January, 1989. AB 1600 added several sections to the Government Code, beginning with Section 66000. Since that time the impact fee statute has been amended from time to time, and in 1997 was officially titled the “Mitigation Fee Act.” Unless otherwise noted, code sections referenced in this report are from the Government Code.
The Act does not limit the types of capital improvements for which impact fees may be charged. It defines public facilities very broadly to include "public improvements, public services and community amenities." Although the issue is not specifically addressed in the Mitigation Fee Act, other provisions of the Government Code (see Section 65913.8) prohibit the use of impact fees for maintenance or operating costs. Consequently, the fees calculated in this report are based on capital costs only.
The Mitigation Fee Act does not use the term “mitigation fee” except in its official title. Nor does it use the more common term “impact fee.” The Act simply uses the word “fee,” which is defined as “a monetary exaction, other than a tax or special assessment, … that is charged by a local agency to the applicant in connection with approval of a development project for the purpose of defraying all or a portion of the cost of public facilities related to the development project ….” To avoid confusion with other types of fees, this report uses the widely-accepted term “impact fee,” which should be understood to mean “fee” as defined in the Mitigation Fee Act.
The Mitigation Fee Act contains requirements for establishing, increasing and imposing impact fees.
They are summarized below. It also contains provisions that govern the collection and expenditure
15.I
CITY OF HEMET, CALIFORNIA – DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY
3 of fees, and require annual reports and periodic re-evaluation of impact fee programs. Those administrative requirements are discussed in the Implementation Chapter of this report. Certain fees or charges related to development are exempted from the requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act. Among them are fees in lieu of park land dedication as authorized by the Quimby Act (Section 66477), fees collected pursuant to a reimbursement agreement or developer agreement, and fees for processing development applications.
Required Findings. Section 66001 requires that an agency establishing, increasing or imposing impact fees, must make findings to:
Identify the purpose of the fee;
2. Identify the use of the fee; and,
3. Determine that there is a reasonable relationship between:
a. The use of the fee and the development type on which it is imposed; b. The need for the facility and the type of development on which the fee is imposed; and
c. The amount of the fee and the facility cost attributable to the development project. (Applies only upon imposition of fees.)
Each of those requirements is discussed in more detail below.
Identifying the Purpose of the Fees. The broad purpose of impact fees is to protect the public health, safety and general welfare by providing for adequate public facilities. The specific purpose of the fees calculated in this study is to fund the construction of certain capital improvements identified in this report. Those improvements are needed to mitigate the impacts of additional development in the City, and thereby prevent deterioration in public services that would result from additional development if impact fee revenues were not available to fund such improvements. Findings with respect to the purpose of a fee should state the purpose of the fees as financing development-related public facilities in a broad category, such as street improvements or water supply system improvements.
Identifying the Use of the Fees. According to Section 66001, if a fee is used to finance public facilities, those facilities must be identified. A capital improvement plan may be used for that purpose, but is not mandatory if the facilities are identified in the General Plan, a Specific Plan, or in other public documents. If a capital improvement plan is used to identify the use of the fees, it must be updated annually by resolution of the governing body at a noticed public hearing. Impact fees calculated in this study are based on specific capital facilities identified in this report. We recommend that this report be designated as the public document identifying the use of the fees.
Reasonable Relationship Requirement. As discussed above, Section 66001 requires that, for fees subject to its provisions, a "reasonable relationship" must be demonstrated between:
1. the use of the fee and the type of development on which it is imposed;
15.I
CITY OF HEMET, CALIFORNIA – DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY
4 2. the need for a public facility and the type of development on which a fee is imposed; and,
3. the amount of the fee and the facility cost attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed.
These three reasonable relationship requirements as defined in the statute are closely related to “rational nexus” or “reasonable relationship” requirements enunciated by a number of state courts.
Although the term “dual rational nexus” is often used to characterize the standard by which courts evaluate the validity of development impact fees under the U. S. Constitution, we prefer a formulation that recognizes three elements: “impact or need” “benefit,” and “proportionality.” The dual rational nexus test explicitly addresses only the first two, although proportionality is reasonably implied, and was specifically mentioned by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Dolan case.
The reasonable relationship language of the statute is considered less strict than the rational nexus standard used by many courts. Of course, the higher standard controls. We will use the nexus terminology in this report for two reasons: because it is more concise and descriptive, and also to signify that the methods used to calculate impact fees in this study are intended to satisfy the more demanding constitutional standard. Individual elements of the nexus standard are discussed further in the following paragraphs.
Demonstrating an Impact. All new development in a community creates additional demands on some, or all, public facilities provided by local government. If the supply of facilities is not increased to satisfy that additional demand, the quality or availability of public services for the entire community will deteriorate. Impact fees may be used to recover the cost of development-related facilities, but only to the extent that the need for facilities is a consequence of development that is subject to the fees. The Nollan decision reinforced the principle that development exactions may be used only to mitigate conditions created by the developments upon which they are imposed. That principle clearly applies to impact fees. In this study, the impact of development on improvement needs is analyzed in terms of quantifiable relationships between various types of development and the demand for specific facilities, based on applicable level-of-service standards. This report contains all information needed to demonstrate this element of the nexus.
Demonstrating a Benefit. A sufficient benefit relationship requires that impact fee revenues be segregated from other funds and expended only on the facilities for which the fees were charged.
Fees must be expended in a timely manner and the facilities funded by the fees must serve the development paying the fees. Nothing in the U.S. Constitution or California law requires that facilities paid for with impact fee revenues be available exclusively to development paying the fees.
Procedures for earmarking and expenditure of fee revenues are mandated by the Mitigation Fees Act, as are procedures to ensure that the fees are expended expeditiously or refunded. All of those requirements are intended to ensure that developments benefit from the impact fees they are required to pay. Thus, an adequate showing of benefit must address procedural as well as substantive issues.
15.I
CITY OF HEMET, CALIFORNIA – DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY
5 Demonstrating Proportionality. The requirement that exactions be proportional to the impacts of development was clearly stated by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Dolan case (although the relevance of that decision to impact fees has been debated) and is logically necessary to establish a proper nexus. Proportionality is established through the procedures used to identify development-related facility costs, and in the methods used to calculate impact fees for various types of facilities and categories of development. In this study, the demand for facilities is measured in terms of relevant and measurable attributes of development. For example, the need for road improvements is measured by the number of vehicle trips generated by development.
In calculating impact fees, costs for development-related facilities are allocated in proportion to the service needs created by different types and quantities of development. The following section describes methods used to allocate facility costs and calculate impact fees in ways that meet the proportionality standard.
Impact Fees for Existing Facilities. It is important to note that impact fees may be used to pay for existing facilities, provided that those facilities are needed to serve additional development and have the capacity to do so. In other words, such fees must satisfy the same nexus requirements as any other impact fee.
IMPACT FEE CALCULATION METHODOLOGY
Any one of several legitimate methods may be used to calculate development impact fees. The choice of a particular method depends primarily on the service characteristics and planning requirements for the facility type being addressed. Each method has advantages and disadvantages in a particular situation, and to some extent they are interchangeable, because they all allocate facility costs in proportion to the needs created by development.
Reduced to its simplest terms, the process of calculating development impact fees involves only two steps: determining the cost of development-related capital improvements, and allocating those costs equitably to various types of development. In practice, though, the calculation of impact fees can become quite complicated because of the many variables involved in defining the relationship between development and the need for facilities. The following paragraphs discuss three basic methods for calculating impact fees and how those methods can be applied.
Plan-Based Impact Fee Calculation. The plan-based method allocates costs for a specified set of improvements to a specified amount of development. The improvements are identified by a facility plan and the development is identified by a land use plan. In this method, the total cost of relevant facilities is divided by total demand to calculate a cost per unit of demand. Then, the cost per unit of demand is multiplied by the amount of demand per unit of development (e.g. dwelling units or square feet of building area) in each category to arrive at a cost per unit of development.
The plan-based method is often the most workable approach where actual service usage is difficult to measure (as is the case with administrative facilities), or does not directly drive the need for added facilities (as is the case with fire stations). It is also useful for facilities, such as streets, where capacity cannot always be matched closely to demand. This method is relatively inflexible in the
15.I
CITY OF HEMET, CALIFORNIA – DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY
6 sense that it is based on the relationship between a particular facility plan and a particular land use plan. If either plan changes significantly, the fees should be recalculated.
Cost Recovery Impact Fee Calculation. The rationale for the cost recovery approach is that new development is paying for its share of the useful life and remaining capacity of facilities from which new growth will benefit. To calculate an impact fee using the cost recovery approach, facility cost is divided by ultimate number of demand units the facility will serve.
Incremental Expansion Impact Fee Calculation. The incremental expansion method documents the current level-of-service (LOS) for each type of public facility in both quantitative and qualitative measures, based on an existing service standard such as square feet per capita or park acres per capita. The level-of-service standards are determined in a manner similar to the current replacement cost approach used by property insurance companies. However, in contrast to insurance practices, Hemet will not use the funds for renewal and/or replacement of existing facilities. Rather, the City will use the impact fee revenue to expand or provide additional facilities, as needed, to accommodate new development. An incremental expansion cost method is best suited for public facilities that will be expanded in regular increments, with LOS standards based on current conditions in the community.
Figure 1 provides a schedule of the maximum supportable development impact fees for Hemet. For residential development, fees will be assessed per housing unit. For nonresidential development, fees will be assessed per thousand square feet of floor area. The City may adopt fees that are less than the amounts shown. However, a reduction in impact fee revenue will necessitate an increase in other revenues, a decrease in planned capital expenditures and/or a decrease in the City’s LOS standards.
Figure 1: Schedule of Maximum Supportable Development Impact Fees Police Fire Roads Drainage Parks General
Government Library TOTAL
Residential
Single Family Detached $471 $560 $3,102 $1,405 $2,993 $780 $735 $10,045 Townhouse/Duplex $357 $424 $1,899 $1,013 $2,268 $591 $557 $7,110 Mult-Family $404 $480 $2,136 $474 $2,569 $669 $631 $7,363 Mobile Home $298 $354 $1,617 $1,147 $1,894 $493 $465 $6,268 Nonresidential
820 Com / Shop Ctr 50,000 SF or less $487 $228 $14,589 $873 $317 $16,494 820 Com / Shop Ctr 50,001-100,000 SF $426 $199 $12,766 $873 $277 $14,541 820 Com / Shop Ctr 100,001-200,000 SF $369 $177 $11,052 $873 $246 $12,717 820 Com / Shop Ctr over 200,000 SF $316 $159 $9,484 $873 $222 $11,054 710 Office / Inst 25,000 SF or less $198 $330 $5,947 $873 $460 $7,809 710 Office / Inst 25,001-50,000 SF $169 $311 $5,072 $873 $434 $6,859 710 Office / Inst 50,001-100,000 SF $144 $294 $4,324 $873 $409 $6,044 720 Medical-Dental Office $391 $322 $11,710 $873 $449 $13,746 610 Hospital $190 $269 $5,695 $873 $375 $7,402
770 Business Park $138 $251 $4,136 $763 $350 $5,638
110 Light Industrial $75 $184 $2,259 $763 $256 $3,537
140 Manufacturing $41 $142 $1,238 $763 $199 $2,383
150 Warehousing $53 $102 $1,608 $763 $142 $2,667
Per 1,000 Square Feet
Per Housing Unit
15.I
CITY OF HEMET, CALIFORNIA – DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY
7 All costs in the development fee calculations are given in current dollars with no assumed inflation rate over time. Necessary cost adjustments can be made as part of the recommended annual evaluation and update of impact fees. One approach is to adjust for inflation in construction costs by means of an index like the one published by Engineering News Record (ENR). This index could be applied against the calculated impact fees. If cost estimates change significantly, the fees should be recalculated.
15.I
CITY OF HEMET, CALIFORNIA – DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY
8 Development and Demand Data
Both existing and planned development must be addressed as part of the nexus analysis required to support the establishment of impact fees. This chapter of the report organizes and correlates information on existing and planned development to provide a framework for the impact fee analysis contained in subsequent chapters of the report. The information in this chapter forms a basis for establishing levels of service, analyzing facility needs, and allocating the cost of capital facilities between existing and future development and among various types of new development.
Data on land use employed in this study are based on information obtained from the City of Hemet.
Demographic data used in this study are based on information obtained from the 2000 U.S. Census, State of California Department of Finance, Claritas, Institute of Transportation Engineers and the Urban Land Institute.
BACKGROUND AND SETTING
Hemet is a growing community of nearly 70,000 located in Riverside County. The City is approximately 26 square miles and is located approximately 85 southeast of Los Angeles. In the 1960’s, the City of Hemet became well known as a retirement community with the development of Sierra Dawn, the country's first "mobile home subdivision" in which individual lots were sold. Other mobile home parks and retirement housing developments soon followed.
The City has enjoyed modest growth in past years and continues to retain much of its retirement orientation. However, in recent years the City’s growth rate has been increasing as they City becomes a home to significant numbers of younger families who provide services to the senior population or who are simply fleeing the more urbanized areas of Southern California. This growth has placed tremendous pressure on City’s ability to maintain existing levels of service. The City’s economy is based primarily on service to the senior community and ancillary services such as financial institutions and the health care professions.
STUDY AREA AND TIME FRAME
The study area for the impact fee analysis is the existing City, as well as areas anticipated for annexation in the future. Data on future development used in this study represents the amount of additional development expected in the study area through 2020. The impact fees calculated in this study are based on the amount and type of projected development and the fees are calculated in terms of current dollars. Development may occur sooner or later than projected, but the rate and timing of development do not affect the fee calculations except in rare cases where fee revenue will be used to repay debt issued to fund capital facilities. If that situation arises in this study, it will be discussed in the fee analysis for a particular type of facility.
15.I
CITY OF HEMET, CALIFORNIA – DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY
9 DATA SOURCES
Data on existing and future development available for use in this study are:
• Dwelling units by type (single-family, townhouse/duplex, multi-family and mobile home/other)
• Population
• Employment
• Nonresidential building area
• Average daily weekday vehicle trips
DEMAND VARIABLES AND IMPACT FACTORS
In calculating impact fees, the relationship between facility needs and development must be quantified in cost allocation formulas. Certain measurable attributes of development (e.g., population) are used in those formulas as “demand variables” that reflect the impact of different types and amounts of development on the demand for specific public services and facilities. Demand variables are selected either because they directly measure service demand or because they are reasonably correlated with that demand.
For example, the service standard for parks in a community is typically defined as a ratio of park acreage to population. As population grows, more parks are needed to maintain the desired standard. Logically, then, population is an appropriate yardstick for measuring the impacts of development on the need for additional parks.
Each demand variable has a specific value per unit of development for each land use category.
Those values may be referred to as demand factors or impact factors. For example, on average, one single-family dwelling unit generates an average of 2.41 persons (US Census data). Consequently, the persons per housing unit factor for single-family residential development are 2.41 persons per dwelling unit. Other land use categories would have different impact factors. Some of the impact factors used in this study are based on widely-accepted standards (e.g., trip generation rates), while others are based on local conditions (e.g., population).
The specific demand variables used in this study are discussed below.
Population per Unit of Development. Persons per housing unit are an important demographic factor that helps account for variations in service demand by type of housing. Because population is tied to residential development, the value of this variable for all non-residential land uses is zero.
The best data currently available to calculate this differentiation is the US Census Summary File 3 sample dataset. According to the 2000 Census data, Hemet had 28,474 housing units (shown in Figure 2). Census data also indicates a total of 56,464 persons residing in these housing units in 2000. This results in an average, for all housing types, of 2.27 persons per housing unit. This is shown in Figure 2 below.
15.I
CITY OF HEMET, CALIFORNIA – DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY
10 After reviewing the detailed persons per housing unit data, TischlerBise recommends using the following four residential categories in the impact fee calculations: 1) Single Family Detached; 2) Single Family Attached (Townhouse) 3) Multifamily, and 4) Mobile Homes. A differentiation by type of housing is necessary to make residential development fees proportionate and reasonably related to the demand for public facilities.
Figure 2: Persons Per Housing Unit
Total Occupied Vacant Persons Distrib
Housing Housing Housing Per Vacancy of Housing
Dwelling Unit Type Units Units Units Population Hsld. Rate Types Single Family Detached 11,883 10,679 1,204 28,599 2.68 10.1% 41.7% Single Family Attached 1,752 1,570 182 3,187 2.03 10.4% 6.2% Multi - Family 6,565 5,522 1,043 12,694 2.30 15.9% 23.1% Mobile Homes 8,274 7,072 1,202 11,984 1.69 14.5% 29.1%
28,474 24,843 3,631 56,464 2.27 12.8% 100.0%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau; 2000 STF 3; Tables H30, H32, and H33. Table does not include 990 housing units classified as RV's, boats and other units.
Employment Building Area Ratios and Trip Generation Rates. In addition to data on residential development, the calculation of impact fees requires data on nonresidential construction in Hemet. To convert projections to gross floor area of nonresidential development in employment, TischlerBise will use average square feet per employee multipliers. The multipliers shown in Figure 3 are derived from national data published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) and the Urban Land Institute (ULI).
In Hemet, the Light Industrial category (@433 square feet per employee) is an appropriate prototype for jobs in the production and distribution employment sector. Office and institutional development in Hemet is typically located in scattered, small-scale buildings. Therefore, a general office building, averaging 10,000 square feet of floor area, is a suitable prototype for future office and institutional development. This size office building has an average of 223 square feet per employee. For retail jobs, a prototypical future development is expected to be a shopping center that has less than 50,000 square feet of floor area. A commercial development of this size will typically have approximately 350 square feet per employee.
15.I
CITY OF HEMET, CALIFORNIA – DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY
11 Figure 3: Employee Building Area Ratios and Trip Generation Data ITE Demand Wkdy Trip Ends Wkdy Trip Ends Emp Per Sq Ft
Code Land Use/Size Unit Per Dmd Unit* Per Employee* Dmd Unit** Per Emp (2) Commercial / Shopping Ctr
820 25K gross leasable area 1,000 Sq Ft 110.32 na 3.33 300 820 50K gross leasable area 1,000 Sq Ft 86.56 na 2.86 350 820 100K gross leasable area 1,000 Sq Ft 67.91 na 2.50 400 820 200K gross leasable area 1,000 Sq Ft 53.28 na 2.22 450 820 400K gross leasable area 1,000 Sq Ft 41.80 na 2.00 500 General Office
710 10K gross floor area 1,000 Sq Ft 22.66 5.06 4.48 223 710 25K gross floor area 1,000 Sq Ft 18.35 4.43 4.14 241 710 50K gross floor area 1,000 Sq Ft 15.65 4.00 3.91 256 710 100K gross floor area 1,000 Sq Ft 13.34 3.61 3.70 271 Industrial
770 Business Park (770)*** 1,000 Sq Ft 12.76 4.04 3.16 317 151 Mini-Warehouse (151) 1,000 Sq Ft 2.50 56.28 0.04 22,512 110 Light Industrial (110) 1,000 Sq Ft 6.97 3.02 2.31 433 150 Warehousing (150) 1,000 Sq Ft 4.96 3.89 1.28 784
140 Manufacturing (140) 1,000 Sq Ft 3.82 2.13 1.79 558
Other Nonresidential
720 Medical/Dental Office 1,000 Sq Ft 36.13 8.91 4.05 247 620 Nursing Home bed 2.37 6.55 0.36 na
610 Hospital 1,000 Sq Ft 17.57 5.20 3.38 296
565 Day Care student 4.48 28.13 0.16 na
310 Hotel room 8.92 14.34 0.90 1,111
320 Motel room 9.11 12.81 0.71 1,406
* Trip Generation, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2003. ** Square feet per employee calculated from trip rates except for Shopping Center data, which are derived from the Urban Land Institute's Development Handbook and Dollars and Cents of Shopping Centers. *** According to ITE, a Business Park is a group of flex-type buildings served by a common roadway system.
The tenant space includes an average mix of 20-30% office/commercial and 70-80% industrial/warehousing.
CURRENT AND FUTURE CITY DEVELOPMENT BASE
Figure 4 presents projected population, housing and employment growth through the year 2020.
The foundation for the growth projections is that the City will experience a two percent annual increase in the number of housing units between 2005 and 2020. This two percent annual growth rate reflects the annual growth rate experienced during the 2000 to 2004 period based on the 3,108 residential building permits issued by the City during this time. This level of growth would result— on average—in about 762 new housing units per year during the 2005-2020 period. Though this represents a substantial level of residential development, overall growth is moderate when compared to the housing projections associated with 2020 household projections obtained from the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). A comparison of alternative housing projection scenarios is shown later in this section in Figure 6.
15.I
CITY OF HEMET, CALIFORNIA – DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY
12 Figure 4: City of Hemet Growth Indicators
2005 2010 2015 2020Employment
Housing Units
Population
0 10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
90,000
100,000
RECENT RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION
Figure 5 provides calendar year 2000 through 2004 residential building permit data for the City of Hemet. Annual residential construction has averaged 622 housing units over the past five years.
Since nearly all the building permits were for single family detached units, the impact fee study assumes that such units will become an increasingly larger proportion of the City’s housing stock during the 2005 to 2020 period.
15.I
CITY OF HEMET, CALIFORNIA – DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY
13 Figure 5: Residential Building Permits
SFD* Other Total
Total Housing Units (Jan. 1, 2000)** 11,858 17,543 29,401 2000 559 71 630
2001 459 0 459
2002 385 0 385
2003 798 0 798
2004 781 55 836
New Housing Units 2,982 126 3,108
Total Units on January 1, 2005 32,509
* Single-Family Detached
Source: Building permit data obtained from the U.S. Census Bureau ** Source: State of California, Department of Finance, E-5 City/County Population and Housing Estimates, Revised 2001-2003, with 2000 DRU Benchmark. Sacramento, California, May 2004.
Residential Units Permitted in the City of Hemet, CA
0 100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
SFD* Other Total
Average = 622 units per year
HOUSING UNIT FORECAST
Based on California Department of Finance (DOF) housing data and residential construction activity between 2000 and 2004, Figure 6 shows four alternative housing unit projections prepared for the study. TischlerBise recommends the Annual Growth Rate Projection shown in Figure 6, which projects future residential development based on a two percent annual increase in the number of housing units. This growth rate reflects the growth rate during the 2000 to 2004 period.
15.I
CITY OF HEMET, CALIFORNIA – DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY
14 Figure 6: Alternative Housing Unit Projections
Hemet, California Avg Anl
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2010 2015 2020 Increase
estimates => projection years (x) => 2005-2020
Alternative (x0) 5 10 15
Avg. Number of Bldg Permits Projection (1) 29,401 30,031 30,490 30,875 31,673 32,509 35,617 38,725 41,833 622 Annual Growth Rate Projection (2) 29,401 30,031 30,490 30,875 31,673 32,509 35,945 39,745 43,946 762 Potential Residential Buildout (3) 29,401 30,031 30,490 30,875 31,673 32,509 39,620 48,288 58,851 1,756 SCAG Projection (4) 29,401 30,031 30,490 30,875 31,673 32,509 40,841 51,309 64,460 2,130 Annual Increase=> 630 459 385 798 836
2 Compounded annual growth rate of 2 percent based on 2000 to 2005 housing increase. 1 Linear projection based on 622 new housing units per year, which is the annual number of residential building permits during the 2000 to 2004 period.
3 The 2001 Housing Element of the Hemet General Plan projected that undeveloped residential land could support an additional 29,450 housing units. The 29,450 figure was added to the 2000 DOF housing unit figure of 29,401 units to project a total potential buildout capacity of 58,851 units.
4 Based on Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) projection of 61,237 households in Hemet in 2020, 64,640 units are projected for the City assuming a 5 percent vacancy rate.
Five-Year Increments
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Avg. Number of Bldg Permits Projection (1)
Annual Growth Rate Projection (2)
Potential Residential Buildout (3)
SCAG Projection (4)
0 10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
City of Hemet Housing Units
EMPLOYMENT AND NONRESIDENTIAL BUILDING AREA
Figure 7 shows 2003 estimates of both private and public sector jobs located in the City of Hemet, as reported by Claritas, Inc. The report indicated that there were 21,137 jobs in Hemet in 2003, with retail trade and the service sector accounting for over 75 percent of all jobs located in the City.
15.I
CITY OF HEMET, CALIFORNIA – DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY
15 Figure 7: Current and Future Employment
2003 2003 2004 2020
Jobs1 Distribution Jobs Jobs
Agriculture 265 1.3% 272 377
Construction 757 3.6% 777 1,077
Manufacturing 1,042 4.9% 1,069 1,483
Trans, Comm, & Utilities 584 2.8% 599 831
Wholesale Trade 468 2.2% 480 666
Retail Trade 6,268 29.7% 6,430 8,922
Finance, Ins, & Real Estate 1,266 6.0% 1,299 1,802
Services 9,723 46.0% 9,974 13,839
Government 764 3.6% 784 1,087
Total 21,137 100.0% 21,683 30,085
Housing Units 30,875 31,673 43,946
0.68 0.68 0.68
1 Source: City of Hemet Population-Business Facts Daytime Employment 2003. Based on information provided by Claritas (July 6, 2004)
Employment data for subsequent years was derived by maintaining the 2003 jobs to housing ratio constant at .68 jobs per housing unit. Based on this jobs to housing ratio, Figure A7 shows the employment estimate for 2004 and a 2020 employment projection for the City. The impact fee study assumes the current job mix remains constant over time.
Figure 8 shows the allocation of employment to the four prototypes (retail/ commercial, office, institutional, and industrial/warehousing). Based on this distribution of employment, Figure 8 estimates that there was 6.80 million square feet of nonresidential space in Hemet in 2003. Applying the multipliers to the 2004 employment estimate yields an estimate of 6.98 million square feet of nonresidential space in the City.
15.I
CITY OF HEMET, CALIFORNIA – DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY
16 Figure 8: Employment and Floor Area Estimates
2003 2004
2003 Percent of Sq Ft NR Floor Area NR Floor Area
Employment Employment Per Emp2 Hemet3 Hemet4
Retail/Commerical
Retail Trade 6,268
Services (50%) 4,862
Subtotal 11,130 52.7% 350 3,895,325 3,996,004
Office
Finance/Ins./Real Estate 1,266
Services (50%) 4,862
Subtotal 6,128 29.0% 223 1,366,433 1,401,750
Public Sector
Government 764
Subtotal 764 3.6% 256 195,584 200,639
Goods Production
Agriculture 265
Construction 757
Manufacturing 1,042
Wholesale Trade 468
Comm, Trans, & Utilities 584
Subtotal 3,116 14.7% 433 1,349,228 1,384,100
Total 21,137 100.0% 6,806,570 6,982,493
2 Trip Generation, Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), 2003. 1 Employment based on data in Figure 3.
3 NR=nonresidential. NR Floor Area determined by multiplying employment estimate for City of Hemet by ITE ratio of average number of square feet of nonresidential floor space per employee. 4 NR=nonresidential. NR Floor Area for 2004 based on 2004 employment estimate.
DETAILED DEVELOPMENT PROJECTIONS
The development data shown in Figure 9 summarize the information presented in this memorandum and highlight the key inputs that will be used to prepare the impact fee study.
15.I
CITY OF HEMET, CALIFORNIA – DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY
17 Figure 9: Future Development Data
15.I
CITY OF HEMET, CALIFORNIA – DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY
18 Future Average
Growth Annual
Demand Factor 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2015 2020 2005-2020 Change Population1
Population in Group Quarters 1,679 1,679 1,679 1,679 1,679 1,679 1,679 1,679 1,679 0 0 Population in Occupied Units 63,209 65,195 66,736 68,308 69,913 71,551 73,221 82,097 91,909 26,714 1,781 Total Population 64,888 66,874 68,415 69,987 71,592 73,230 74,900 83,776 93,588 26,714 1,781 Housing Units1
Single Family Detached 14,059 14,840 15,401 15,973 16,557 17,153 17,761 20,991 24,562 9,722 648 Townhouse/Duplex 1,748 1,748 1,748 1,748 1,748 1,748 1,748 1,748 1,748 - - Multi-Family 6,622 6,677 6,776 6,877 6,980 7,085 7,192 7,762 8,392 1,715 114 Mobile Home 9,244 9,244 9,244 9,244 9,244 9,244 9,244 9,244 9,244 - - Total Housing Units 31,673 32,509 33,169 33,842 34,529 35,230 35,945 39,745 43,946 11,437 762 Employment2
Employment 21,683 22,256 22,707 23,168 23,639 24,118 24,608 27,209 30,085 7,830 522 Nonresidential Space3
Retail/Com (000s) 3,996 4,101 4,185 4,270 4,356 4,445 4,535 5,014 5,544 1,443 96 Office (000s) 1,402 1,439 1,468 1,498 1,528 1,559 1,591 1,759 1,945 506 34 Institutional (000s) 201 201 203 208 212 216 220 244 270 69 5 Goods Production (000s) 1,384 1,421 1,449 1,479 1,509 1,540 1,571 1,737 1,920 500 33 Total (000s) 6,982 7,162 7,306 7,454 7,605 7,760 7,917 8,754 9,679 2,517 168 Peak Hour Vehicles Trips 4
Single Family Detached 7,170 7,568 7,855 8,146 8,444 8,748 9,058 10,705 12,527 4,958 331 Single Family Attached 454 454 454 454 454 454 454 454 454 - - Multi-Family 2,218 2,237 2,270 2,304 2,338 2,373 2,409 2,600 2,811 575 38 Mobile Home 2,773 2,773 2,773 2,773 2,773 2,773 2,773 2,773 2,773 - - Subtotal Residential 12,616 13,033 13,352 13,678 14,010 14,349 14,695 16,533 18,566 5,533 369 Retail/Com (000s) 7,254 7,446 7,597 7,751 7,908 8,069 8,233 9,103 10,065 2,620 175 Office (000s) 1,892 1,942 1,982 2,022 2,063 2,105 2,148 2,375 2,626 683 46 Institutional (000s) 271 271 275 280 286 292 298 329 364 93 6 Goods Production (000s) 747 767 783 799 815 831 848 938 1,037 270 18 Subtotal Nonresidential 10,165 10,427 10,636 10,852 11,072 11,297 11,526 12,745 14,092 3,665 244 Total Peak Hour Trips 22,781 23,459 23,988 24,530 25,082 25,646 26,221 29,278 32,658 9,198 613 Avg. Daily Vehicles Trips 4
Single Family Detached 67,272 71,009 73,694 76,431 79,225 82,077 84,986 100,442 117,529 46,520 3,101 Single Family Attached 5,122 5,122 5,122 5,122 5,122 5,122 5,122 5,122 5,122 - - Multi-Family 22,250 22,435 22,767 23,107 23,453 23,806 24,165 26,080 28,197 5,762 384 Mobile Home 23,064 23,064 23,064 23,064 23,064 23,064 23,064 23,064 23,064 - - Subtotal Residential 117,708 121,630 124,647 127,723 130,863 134,068 137,337 154,708 173,912 52,282 3,485 Retail/Com (000s) 78,697 80,774 82,414 84,086 85,793 87,535 89,311 98,753 109,191 28,417 1,894 Office (000s) 10,969 11,258 11,487 11,720 11,958 12,201 12,448 13,764 15,219 3,961 264 Institutional (000s) 1,570 1,573 1,592 1,624 1,657 1,691 1,725 1,908 2,109 537 36 Goods Production (000s) 4,824 4,951 5,051 5,154 5,259 5,365 5,474 6,053 6,693 1,742 116 Subtotal Nonresidential 96,059 98,556 100,544 102,584 104,667 106,792 108,959 120,478 133,212 34,656 2,310 Total Average Daily Trips 213,767 220,186 225,191 230,307 235,530 240,860 246,296 275,186 307,124 86,938 5,796 4 Peak hour and average daily trip rates published by Institute for Transportation Engineers in Trip Generation (2003) 1 Source: California Department of Finance 2004 E5 City/County population and housing estimate for population and housing data. Housing projection based on average number of new residential units during the 2000 to 2004 period, which was 500 units per year. Distribution of housing changes during the 2004 to 2020 period to reflect that nearly all new units constructed during the 2000 to 2004 period were either single family detached or multi-family units (480 single family detached units and 20 multi-family units per year). Population projections based on applying 2000 U.S. Census data on number of persons per housing unit by housing unit type. 2 Employment estimate provided by InfoUSA, Omaha NE Copyright 2002, all rights reserved. Projection determined by holding jobs to housing ratio constant over study period. 3 Nonresidential space estimate based on distribution of jobs reported by the City of Hemet and employees per 1,000 square foot ratios published by the Institute for Transportation Engineers in Trip Generation (2003).
General Government
15.I
CITY OF HEMET, CALIFORNIA – DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY
19 METHODOLOGY
The City of Hemet provides various facilities and equipment that are used for the general administration of the City. Facilities include the City Hall building that provides office space for general government functions, including city administration, finance, and planning. Other facilities include space utilized by the Office of Code Compliance. General government vehicles and equipment consists of vehicles and heavy equipment used by city functions such as public works, engineering, code compliance, and permits and inspections.
Development impact fees for general government are based on the incremental expansion cost approach, using existing level of service standards. As illustrated in Figure 10, capital costs are allocated to residential development and nonresidential development. Residential factors are calculated on a per person basis, and converted to a development impact fee amount per housing unit using average persons per housing unit type. Nonresidential development impact fees are based on a capital cost per employee, where such costs are typically multiplied by the number of employees per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential floor area.
Figure 10: General Government Development Impact Fee Methodology Chart
PROPORTIONATE SHARE FACTORS
The proportionate share factors shown in Figure 11 are used to allocate capital costs to residential and nonresidential development. For residential development, the proportionate share factor is based on estimated person hours of non-working residents, plus the non-working hours of resident New Development
Residential Units Nonresidential Floor Area
Persons Per Housing Unit
multiplied by Net Capital Cost
Per Person
General Government Facilities
Component
General Government Vehicles
Component
Employees Per 1,000 Square
Feet of Floor Area
multiplied by Net Capital Cost
Per Employee
General Government Facilities
Component
General Government Vehicles
Component
15.I
CITY OF HEMET, CALIFORNIA – DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY
20 workers. Based on 2000 census data, Hemet’s population is heavily weighted to residents who do not work versus residents that do. For resident workers, two-thirds of a day (i.e., 16 hours) is allocated to residential demand. Time spent at work (i.e., 8 hours) is allocated to nonresidential development. In 2000, the U.S. Census Bureau estimated that 7,783 residents worked in the City.
Therefore, total jobs include 13,901 non-resident workers that commute into Hemet for work.
Based on estimated person hours, the cost allocation for residential development is 89% while nonresidential development accounts for 11% of the demand for general government facilities and equipment.
Figure 11 – Proportionate Share Factors for General Government Demand Person
Residential Demand Units in 2004 Hours/Day Hours
Resident Population (2004) 64,888
Residents Not Working1 47,032 24 1,128,765
Workers Living in Hemet 17,856
City Residents Working in Hemet.2 7,783 16 124,521
City Residents Working outside of Hemet 10,073 16 161,175 Residential Subtotal 1,414,461
89%
Nonresidential
Jobs Located in Hemet 3 21,683
City Residents Working in Hemet.2 7,783 8 62,260
Non-Resident Workers 13,901 8 111,206
Nonresidential Subtotal 173,466
11%
TOTAL 1,587,927
1 Source: City of Hemet Population Facts: Demographic Snapshot provided by Claritas (July 6, 2004) 3 Employment estimate for 2004 based on 2003 jobs to housing ratio of .68 and applied to 2004 population estimate. Employment provided by City of Hemet. 2 Source: City residents working in Hemet based on data in Table P27 from STF3, Census 2000 detailing the proportion of residents working in the City. Data presented in figure based on applying 2000 proportion of City residents working in the City to 2004 employment data.
15.I
CITY OF HEMET, CALIFORNIA – DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY
21 LEVEL-OF-SERVICE
GENERAL GOVERNMENT FACILITIES INCREMENTAL EXPANSION COMPONENT Figure 12 documents the current level of service standards for land and buildings supporting general government functions in Hemet. The level of service standards are based on the amount of existing building floor area and land area devoted to general government functions in the City. Cost estimates on a per square foot (including land) have been used to estimate the cost of providing this level of service. As discussed above, the total cost of the general government infrastructure has been allocated to residential and nonresidential development.
The bottom of Figure 12 shows the cost per demand unit—on a per person or per employee basis—for general government facilities and sites. To derive the cost per demand unit, the current asset value ($17,675,040) is multiplied by the proportionate share factors for each type of land use and then divided by the respective demands for each. For example, the cost per person of $234.57 is derived by multiplying the current asset value ($17,675,040) by 89%, then dividing by the current population estimate (66,874). A similar calculation is used for nonresidential development.
Figure 12: General Government Land and Buildings LOS Factors Square Cost Per Total
Office Space Feet Square Foot* Cost
City Hall (less water, sewer, and refuse d 26,455 $280 $7,407,400 City Yard Administrative Office 2,074 $280 $580,720
City Yard Engineering Modular 2,850 $280 $798,000
Public Works Administration Building 10,000 $250 $2,500,000 City Yard Supervisors Trailer 504 $280 $141,120
$11,427,240 41,883
Square Cost Per Total
Shop and Storage Space Feet Square Foot* Cost
Central Stores 6,256 $200 $1,251,200
Equipment Maintenance 20,153 $200 $4,030,600
City Yard Paint Shop 2,415 $200 $483,000
City Yard Street Division 2,415 $200 $483,000
$6,247,800 31,239
TOTAL 73,122 $17,675,040
Proportionate 2005 Cost per
Share Demand Units Demand Unit
Residential 89% 66,874 Population $234.57
Nonresidential 11% 22,256 Jobs $89.34
* Includes land
15.I
CITY OF HEMET, CALIFORNIA – DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY
22 VEHICLE AND EQUIPMENT INCREMENTAL EXPANSION COMPONENT Figure 13 documents the City Hemet’s existing inventory of vehicles and equipment used by the City’s public works, engineering, code compliance, general government and building departments.
The inventory and cost of the vehicles and equipment represent the City’s current level of service.
Proportionate share factors noted previously in Figure 11 are used to assign costs between residential and nonresidential development. To derive the cost per demand unit, the current asset value ($4,266,350) is multiplied by the proportionate share factors for each type of land use and then divided by the respective demands for each. For example, the cost per person of $56.62 is derived by multiplying the current asset value ($4,266,350) by 89%, then dividing by the current population estimate (66,874). A similar calculation is used for nonresidential development.
Figure 13 – General Government Vehicles Impact Fee Factors Department Unit Count 1 Purchase Value 1
Building Department 7 130,961
Code Enforcement 4 80,468
L&LMD 18 797,852
Public Works - Street Sweeping 3 526,033
MIS 1 30,609
General Government - Pool 3 69,174
Public Works - Paint Department 3 334,845
Public Works - Street Department 38 1,830,948
Public Works - City Yard 3 69,450
Public Works - Equipment Maintenance 4 75,087
Public Works - Facilities Maintenance 8 301,578
Public Works - Administration 1 19,345
TOTAL 93 $4,266,350
Proportionate 2005 Cost per
Share Demand Units Demand Unit
Residential 89% 66,874 Population $56.62
Nonresidential 11% 22,256 Jobs $21.56
1 Source: City of Hemet Vehicle Listing for 2004/2005 Budget
CREDITS
At present, the City of Hemet does not have any outstanding bonded debt related to the construction of general government facilities and improvements. Therefore, a credit for existing bond financing is not applicable to this development impact fee. And since the development impact fee was calculated using an incremental expansion approach, there is no need to include a credit calculation in the methodology to offset any possibility of potential double payment by fee payers.
15.I
CITY OF HEMET, CALIFORNIA – DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY
23 MAXIMUM SUPPORTABLE GENERAL GOVERNMENT IMPACT FEE
Figure 14 provides a summary of the level of service standards used to calculate the general government development impact fees. As discussed previously, general government impact fees are calculated for both residential and nonresidential land uses. As shown in the bottom of Figure 14, the capital costs per demand unit are $291.19 per person and $110.91 per employee.
Figure 14: General Government Development Impact Fee Level-of-Service Standard Summary
Residential and Nonresidential Demand Indicators Standards:
Persons Per Household
Single Family Detached 2.68
Townhouse/Duplex 2.03
Mult-Family 2.30
Mobile Home 1.69
Employees Per 1,000 Square Feet
820 Com / Shop Ctr 50,000 SF or less 2.86
820 Com / Shop Ctr 50,001-100,000 SF 2.50
820 Com / Shop Ctr 100,001-200,000 SF 2.22
820 Com / Shop Ctr over 200,000 SF 2.00
710 Office / Inst 25,000 SF or less 4.15
710 Office / Inst 25,001-50,000 SF 3.91
710 Office / Inst 50,001-100,000 SF 3.69
720 Medical-Dental Office 4.05
610 Hospital 3.38
770 Business Park 3.16
110 Light Industrial 2.31
140 Manufacturing 1.79
150 Warehousing 1.28
Demand Unit Cost Factors Per Person Per Employee
General Government Space Cost $234.57 $89.34
Gen. Gov. Vehicles Cost $56.62 $21.56
Capital Cost per Demand Unit $291.19 $110.91
Figure 15 contains a schedule of the general government impact fees for Hemet. For residential land uses, persons per housing unit (2.68 for a single family-detached unit) are multiplied by the capital cost per person ($291.19), for an impact fee per unit of $780. For nonresidential land uses, such as a commercial shopping center greater than 50,000 square feet, but less than 100,000 square feet, the number of employees per 1,000 square feet (2.50) is multiplied by the capital cost per employee ($110.91), for a development impact fee of $277 per 1,000 square feet.
15.I
CITY OF HEMET, CALIFORNIA – DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY
24 Figure 15: General Government Development Impact Fee Schedule Maximum Supportable Development Impact Fee
Residential Per Housing Unit
Single Family Detached $780
Townhouse/Duplex $591
Multi-Family $669
Mobile Home $493
Nonresidential Per 1,000 Sq Ft
Com / Shop Ctr 50,000 SF or less $317
Com / Shop Ctr 50,001-100,000 SF $277
Com / Shop Ctr 100,001-200,000 SF $246
Com / Shop Ctr over 200,000 SF $222
Office / Inst 25,000 SF or less $460
Office / Inst 25,001-50,000 SF $434
Office / Inst 50,001-100,000 SF $409
Medical-Dental Office $449
Hospital $375
Business Park $350
Light Industrial $256
Manufacturing $199
Warehousing $142
15.I
CITY OF HEMET, CALIFORNIA – DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY
25 Fire and Rescue
METHODOLOGY
The fire development impact fees have been calculated using an incremental expansion methodology using existing level of service standards. Facilities included in the impact fee include fire stations, training facilities, land and apparatus. The development impact fee methodology will allow the City to incrementally expand stations and purchase additional apparatus as a result of new growth, as well as recoup costs for two recent apparatus purchased in anticipation of new development. As illustrated in Figure 16, capital costs are allocated to residential development and nonresidential development. Residential factors are calculated on a per person basis, and converted to a development impact fee amount per housing unit using average persons per housing unit type.
Nonresidential development impact fees are based on a capital cost per employee, where such costs are typically multiplied by the number of employees per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential floor area.
Figure 16: Fire Impact Fee Methodology
PROPORTIONATE SHARE FACTORS
The proportionate share factors shown in Figure 17 are used to allocate fire capital costs to residential and nonresidential development. For residential development, the proportionate share factor is based on estimated person hours of non-working residents, plus the non-working hours of New Development
Residential Units Nonresidential Floor Area
Persons Per Housing Unit
multiplied by Net Capital
Cost Per Person
Fire Station/Facilities
Component
Fire Apparatus Components
Employee Per 1,000 Square
Feet of Floor Area
multiplied by Net Capital
Cost Per PM-Peak Trip
Fire Station/Facilities
Component
Fire Apparatus Components
15.I
CITY OF HEMET, CALIFORNIA – DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY
26 resident workers. Based on 2000 census data, Hemet’s population is heavily weighted to residents who do not work versus residents that do. For resident workers, two-thirds of a day (i.e., 16 hours) is allocated to residential demand. Time spent at work (i.e., 8 hours) is allocated to nonresidential development. In 2000, the U.S. Census Bureau estimated that 7,783 residents worked in the City.
Therefore, total jobs include 13,901 non-resident workers that commute into Hemet for work.
Based on estimated person hours, the cost allocation for residential development is 89% while nonresidential development accounts for 11% of the demand for fire facilities and equipment.
Figure 17 – Proportionate Share Factors for Fire
Demand Person
Residential Demand Units in 2004 Hours/Day Hours
Resident Population (2004) 64,888
Residents Not Working1 47,032 24 1,128,765
Workers Living in Hemet 17,856
City Residents Working in Hemet.2 7,783 16 124,521
City Residents Working outside of Hemet 10,073 16 161,175 Residential Subtotal 1,414,461
89%
Nonresidential
Jobs Located in Hemet 3 21,683
City Residents Working in Hemet.2 7,783 8 62,260
Non-Resident Workers 13,901 8 111,206
Nonresidential Subtotal 173,466
11%
TOTAL 1,587,927
1 Source: City of Hemet Population Facts: Demographic Snapshot provided by Claritas (July 6, 2004) 3 Employment estimate for 2004 based on 2003 jobs to housing ratio of .68 and applied to 2004 population estimate. Employment provided by City of Hemet. 2 Source: City residents working in Hemet based on data in Table P27 from STF3, Census 2000 detailing the proportion of residents working in the City. Data presented in figure based on applying 2000 proportion of City residents working in the City to 2004 employment data.
LEVEL-OF-SERVICE
FIRE FACILITIES INCREMENTAL EXPANSION COMPONENT
Figure 18 documents the current level of service standards for land and facilities supporting fire functions in Hemet. The level of service standards are based on the amount of existing building floor area and land area devoted to fire functions in the City. Cost estimates on a per square foot (including land) have been used to estimate the cost of providing this level of service. As discussed
15.I
CITY OF HEMET, CALIFORNIA – DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY
27 above, the total cost of the fire infrastructure has been allocated to residential and nonresidential development.
The bottom of Figure 18 shows the cost per demand unit—on a per person or per employee basis—for fire facilities and sites. To derive the cost per demand unit, the current asset value ($10,611,970) is multiplied by the proportionate share factors for each type of land use and then divided by the respective demands for each. For example, the cost per person of $140.83 is derived by multiplying the current asset value ($10,611,970) by 89%, then dividing by the current population estimate (66,874). A similar calculation is used for nonresidential development.
Figure 18: Fire Land and Facilities LOS Factors
Square Cost Per Total
Fire Stations and Facilities Feet Square Foot* Cost
Fire Station #1 8,295 $370 $3,069,150
Fire Station #2 4,647 $370 $1,719,390
Fire Station #3 5,274 $370 $1,951,380
Fire Station #4 9,000 $370 $3,330,000
Fire Training Center 1,465 $370 $542,050
$10,611,970 28,681
Proportionate 2005 Cost per
Share Demand Units Demand Unit
Residential 89% 66,874 Population $140.83
Nonresidential 11% 22,256 Jobs $53.64
*Includes land
Source: City of Hemet / Facilities Maintenance Division. Current Square Footage and Allocation of City Owned Buildings (January 12, 2004)
VEHICLE AND APPARATUS INCREMENTAL EXPANSION COMPONENT
Figure 19 documents the City of Hemet’s existing inventory of fire apparatus and vehicles used by the City’s Fire Department. The inventory and cost of the vehicles and apparatus represent the City’s current level of service. Proportionate share factors noted previously in Figure 17 are used to assign costs between residential and nonresidential development. To derive the cost per demand unit, the current asset value ($5,131,000) is multiplied by the proportionate share factors for each type of land use and then divided by the respective demands for each. For example, the cost per person of $68.09 is derived by multiplying the current asset value ($5,131,000) by 89%, then dividing by the current population estimate (66,874). A similar calculation is used for nonresidential development.
15.I
CITY OF HEMET, CALIFORNIA – DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY
28 Figure 19 – Fire Vehicle and Apparatus Impact Fee Factors Type of Units in Unit Replacement
Vehicle Service 1 Cost 1 Cost
2000 Ford Crown Victoria 1 $38,000 $38,000
81 Ford Rescue Truck 1 $120,000 $120,000
2000 Ford F-550 Rescue Squad Crew 2 $120,000 $240,000
Pumpers 9 $390,000 $3,510,000
90 Grumman Aerial Ladder Truck 1 $800,000 $800,000
91 GMC Suburban Command Unit 1 $85,000 $85,000
92 Ford Explorer 1 $38,000 $38,000
96 Wells Cargo Hazmat Unit 1 $45,000 $45,000
98 Ford 250 Exteneded Cab 4X4 1 $42,000 $42,000
76 International Type III Truck 1 $185,000 $185,000
2001 Ford CNG F150 Pick Up 1 $28,000 $28,000
20 $5,131,000
Proportionate 2005 Cost per
Share Demand Units Demand Unit
Residential 89% 66,874 Population $68.09
Nonresidential 11% 22,256 Jobs $25.94
1 Source: City of Hemet Vehicle Listing for 2004/2005 Budget
CREDITS
At present, the City of Hemet does not have any outstanding bonded debt related to the construction of fire facilities and apparatus. Therefore, a credit for existing bond financing is not applicable to this development impact fee. And since the development impact fee was calculated using an incremental expansion approach, there is no need to include a credit calculation in the methodology to offset any possibility of potential double payment by fee payers.
MAXIMUM SUPPORTABLE FIRE DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE
Figure 20 provides a summary of the level of service standards used to calculate development impact fees for fire facilities. Fire development impact fees are calculated for both residential and nonresidential land uses. As shown in the bottom of Figure 20, the capital costs per demand unit are $208.93 per person and $79.57 per employee.
15.I
CITY OF HEMET, CALIFORNIA – DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY
29 Figure 20: Fire Development Impact Fee Level-of-Service Standard Summary Residential and Nonresidential Demand Indicators Standards:
Persons Per Household
Single Family Detached 2.68
Townhouse/Duplex 2.03
Mult-Family 2.30
Mobile Home 1.69
Employees Per 1,000 Square Feet
820 Com / Shop Ctr 50,000 SF or less 2.86
820 Com / Shop Ctr 50,001-100,000 SF 2.50
820 Com / Shop Ctr 100,001-200,000 SF 2.22
820 Com / Shop Ctr over 200,000 SF 2.00
710 Office / Inst 25,000 SF or less 4.15
710 Office / Inst 25,001-50,000 SF 3.91
710 Office / Inst 50,001-100,000 SF 3.69
720 Medical-Dental Office 4.05
610 Hospital 3.38
770 Business Park 3.16
110 Light Industrial 2.31
140 Manufacturing 1.79
150 Warehousing 1.28
Demand Unit Cost Factors Per Person Per Employee
Fire Stations and Facilities Cost $140.83 $53.64
Vehicle and Apparatus Cost $68.09 $25.94
Capital Cost per Demand Unit $208.93 $79.57
Figure 21 contains a schedule of the development impact fees for fire facilities. For residential land uses, persons per housing unit (2.68 for a single family-detached unit) are multiplied by the capital cost per person ($208.93), for an impact fee per unit of $560. For nonresidential land uses, such as a commercial shopping center greater than 50,000 square feet, but less than 100,000 square feet, the number of employees per 1,000 square feet (2.50) is multiplied by the capital cost per trip ($79.57), for a fee of $199 per 1,000 square feet.
15.I
CITY OF HEMET, CALIFORNIA – DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY
30 Figure 21: Fire Development Impact Fee Schedule
Maximum Supportable Development Impact Fee
Residential Per Housing Unit
Single Family Detached $560
Townhouse/Duplex $424
Multi-Family $480
Mobile Home $354
Nonresidential Per 1,000 Sq Ft
Com / Shop Ctr 50,000 SF or less $228
Com / Shop Ctr 50,001-100,000 SF $199
Com / Shop Ctr 100,001-200,000 SF $177
Com / Shop Ctr over 200,000 SF $159
Office / Inst 25,000 SF or less $330
Office / Inst 25,001-50,000 SF $311
Office / Inst 50,001-100,000 SF $294
Medical-Dental Office $322
Hospital $269
Business Park $251
Light Industrial $184
Manufacturing $142
Warehousing $102
15.I
CITY OF HEMET, CALIFORNIA – DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY
31 Parks and Recreation
METHODOLOGY
The development impact fees for park and recreation were derived using an incremental expansion methodology. As shown in Figure 22, cost components were allocated 100% to residential development and include park land as well as parks and recreation improvements. This methodology will enable the City of Hemet to maintain the current level of service as the City grows.
Development impact fee revenue collected using this methodology may not be used to replace or rehabilitate existing improvements. It is the City’s intention to use much of the development impact fee revenue generated to fund land and improvements associated with Valleywide Park.
Figure 22: Parks and Recreation Development Impact Fee Methodology
LEVEL-OF-SERVICE
PARK LAND INCREMENTAL EXPANSION COMPONENT
Figure 23 lists the current inventory of parks in the City of Hemet. As Figure 23 indicates, the City currently has a park land inventory totaling 582.5 acres. When the current inventory (582.5 acres) is compared to the current population estimate (66,874), the resulting level of service standard is .0087 acres per person. According to information provided by City staff, the current cost of purchasing a “typical” acre of land for parks is estimated at $100,000. To determine the cost per demand unit to be used in the development impact fee, the cost per acre ($100,000) is multiplied by the park acres per person level of service standard (.0087) for a cost per demand unit of $871.04 per person.
Residential Development
Persons Per Household
multiplied by Capital Cost Per Person
Park Land Parks and Recreation Improvements
15.I
CITY OF HEMET, CALIFORNIA – DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY
32 Figure 23: Park Land Incremental Expansion Cost Component Type of Acquisition
Site Acres Park Cost
Welch Memorial Green 0.3 Pocket 32,000 $
Rodigier Green 0.2 Pocket 20,000 $
Gibbel Park 11.0 Community 1,100,000 $
Weston Park 4.0 Neighborhood 400,000 $
Mary Henley Park 16.0 Community 1,600,000 $
Spencer Park 0.5 Pocket 50,000 $
Brubaker Park 60.0 Regional 6,000,000 $
Simpson Park 483.5 Regional 48,348,000 $
Cawston / Devonshire 1.0 Pocket 100,000 $
Cawston / Fruitvale 6.0 Pocket 600,000 $
Total / Average 582.5 58,250,000 $
Population Estimate (2005) 66,874
Park Acres per Person 0.0087
Cost per Acre $100,000
Cost per Person $871.04
PARK AND RECREATION IMPROVEMENTS INCREMENTAL EXPANSION
COMPONENT
Figure 24 lists current improvements at City of Hemet parks, which total $16,480,000. The total value of park improvements is based on the inventory of park improvements provided by City staff.
As discussed above, the value of park improvements is allocated 100% to residential development.
Dividing the total improvement value ($16,480,000) by the current population estimate (66,874) results in a cost per demand unit of $246.43 per person.
15.I
CITY OF HEMET, CALIFORNIA – DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY
33 Figure 24: Park and Recreation Improvements Incremental Expansion Cost Component Park
Baseball/
Softball Fields
Basketball
Courts
Tennis
Courts
Practice
Fields Restrooms Pool Tot Lots
Picnic
Facilities
Misc. Park
Improvements*
Welch Memorial Green 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $100,000
Rodigier Green 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $125,000
Gibbel Park 1 1 2 2 1 0 1 2.5 $1,500,000
Weston Park 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1.5 $800,000
Mary Henley Park 0 1 0 8 0.5 0 1 4 $1,500,000
Spencer Park 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 $150,000
Brubaker Park 12 1 0 1 1.5 0 1 2.5 $1,250,000
Simpson Park 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 $750,000
Valleywide Park 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 $0
Cawston / Devonshire 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 $250,000
Cawston / Fruitvale 0 2 0 4 0 0 0 2 $1,500,000
Total 13 7 2 15 5 1 5 17.5 $7,925,000
Unit Price $200,000 $40,000 $150,000 $200,000 $100,000 $500,000 $100,000 $50,000 N/A Cost of Improvements $2,600,000 $280,000 $300,000 $3,000,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $875,000 $8,555,000 Total Value of Improvements# $16,480,000
Population in 2005 66,874
Park Improvements Cost per Acre $28,291.85
Park Improvements Cost per Person $246.43
#Includes miscellaneous improvements.
* Miscellaneous improvements include costs for parking lots, landscaping, lighting, and irrigation for the total park site.
CREDITS
At present, the City of Hemet does not have any outstanding bonded debt related to the construction of parks and recreation facilities and improvements. Therefore, a credit for existing bond financing is not applicable to this development impact fee. And since the development impact fee was calculated using an incremental expansion approach, there is no need to include a credit calculation in the methodology to offset any possibility of potential double payment by fee payers.
MAXIMUM SUPPORTABLE PARKS AND RECREATION IMPACT FEE
Figure 25 provides a summary of the level-of-service standards used to calculate development impact fees for parks and recreation, as well as a schedule of the development impact fees.
15.I
CITY OF HEMET, CALIFORNIA – DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY
34 Development impact fees are calculated for residential land uses only. As shown in the bottom of Figure 25, the capital cost per demand unit is $1,117.47 per person. To calculate the fee, persons per household (2.68 for a single family unit) is multiplied by the capital cost per demand unit ($1,117.47), for a development impact fee per unit of $2,993.
As indicated earlier in this chapter, it is the City’s intention to use a good portion of the parks and recreation development fee for purchasing land and constructing improvements associated with the City’s share of Valleywide Park at Diamond Valley Lake. This includes 85 acres of land at 100,000 an acre ($8,500,000) and incremental recreation improvements estimated at approximately $3,653,000.
Figure 25: Maximum Supportable Parks and Recreation Development Impact Fee Schedule Residential Demand Indicators Standards:
Persons Per Household
Single Family Detached 2.68
Townhouse/Duplex 2.03
Mult-Family 2.30
Mobile Home 1.69
Demand Unit Cost Factors
Park Land Cost Per Person $871.04
Park Improvement Cost Per Person $246.43
Capital Cost Per Demand Unit $1,117.47
Maximum Supportable Impact Fee per Housing Unit
Single Family Detached $2,993
Townhouse/Duplex $2,268
Mult-Family $2,569
Mobile Home $1,894
15.I
CITY OF HEMET, CALIFORNIA – DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY
35 Police
METHODOLOGY
The development impact fee for police is derived using the incremental expansion methodology, meaning that the impact fee is calculated based on the cost of maintaining the City’s current level of service to residential and nonresidential development. This approach will allow the police department to address the need for additional facilities, vehicles, and equipment that will be needed to support the greater demand for law enforcement services due to future residential and nonresidential development in Hemet.
Figure 26 shows the methodology chart used for the police department development impact fee.
The methodology chart shows that police department impact fees use different demand indicators for residential and nonresidential development. Residential impact fees are calculated on a per capita basis and then converted to a proportionate fee amount by type of housing, based on the number of persons per housing unit.
For nonresidential development impact fees, TischlerBise recommends using nonresidential vehicle trips as the best demand indicator for police department facilities and equipment. Trip generation rates are used for nonresidential development because vehicle trips are highest for commercial developments, such as shopping centers, and lowest for industrial/warehouse development. Office and institutional trip rates fall between the other two categories. This ranking of trip rates is consistent with the relative demand for public safety from nonresidential development. Other possible nonresidential demand indicators, such as employment or floor area, will not accurately reflect the demand for service. For example, if employees per thousand square feet were used as the demand indicator, police impact fees would be too high for office and institutional development because offices typically have more employees per 1,000 square feet than retail uses. If floor area were used as the demand indicator, police impact fees would be too high for industrial development.
15.I
CITY OF HEMET, CALIFORNIA – DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY
36 Figure 26: Police Development Impact Fee Methodology
PROPORTIONATE SHARE FACTORS
To allocate police department capital costs, local calls for police department services for a two week period in August 2004 were analyzed to determine the residential and nonresidential proportionate share factors for the police department impact fees. Between August 1st and August 15th, the Hemet New Development
Residential Units Nonresidential Floor Area
Persons Per Housing Unit
multiplied by Capital Cost Per
Person
Police Facilities Incremental
Expansion Cost
Vehicles and Equipment
Incremental Expansion Cost
Avg. Daily Net Vehicle Trips
Per 1,000 Square Feet
multiplied by Capital Cost Per
Vehicle Trip
Police Facilities Incremental
Expansion Cost
Vehicles and Equipment
Incremental Expansion Cost
15.I
CITY OF HEMET, CALIFORNIA – DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY
37 Police Department handled 2,637 incidents; of which 1,844 were tied to a residential or nonresidential address (793 calls were traffic related). Of the 1,844 calls, 313 or 17 percent were to nonresidential properties while 1,531 calls or 83 percent were to residential properties. This call distribution indicates a 17 percent/83 percent split between nonresidential and residential uses. For the impact fee analysis, this 17/83 call distribution is used to allocate police department capital costs between nonresidential and residential uses.
The proportionate share of costs attributable to residential development will be allocated to population and then converted to an appropriate amount by type of housing unit, based on average persons per housing unit. Since the breakdown of nonresidential calls for service is not by specific nonresidential use (i.e. retail, office, industrial, etc.), we recommend using average daily nonresidential vehicle trips on a weekday as the best demand indicator for police facilities. Trip generation rates are highest for commercial development, such as a shopping center, and lowest for industrial/warehouse development. Office/institutional trip rates fall between the other two categories. This ranking of trip rates is consistent with the relative demand for police protection from nonresidential development. Other possible nonresidential demand indicators, such as employment or floor area, do not accurately reflect the demand for police services. If employees per 1,000 square feet of building area were used as the demand indicator, police impact fees would be too high for office/institutional development.
Average weekday vehicle trip ends are from the reference book, Trip Generation, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE, 2003). A "trip end" represents a vehicle either entering or exiting a development (as if a traffic counter were placed across a driveway). Trip generation rates are adjusted to avoid double counting each trip at both the origin and destination points. For all types of nonresidential development except commercial, the trip adjustment factor is 50%. For commercial / shopping center development, the trip adjustment factor ranges from 22-32% depending on the floor area of the development. The trip adjustment factor is less than 50% because retail uses attract vehicles as they pass by on arterial and collector roads. For example, when someone stops at a convenience store on the way home from work, the convenience store is not the primary destination. For a small-size shopping center of 50,000 square feet of floor area, the ITE manual indicates that on average 48% of the vehicles that enter are passing by on their way to some other primary destination. The remaining 52% of attraction trips have the shopping center as their primary destination. Because attraction trips are half of all trips, the trip adjustment factor is 52% multiplied by 50%, or approximately 26% of the trip ends. The data contained in Trip Generation (see Table VII-1 of the 5th edition, 1991) indicates there is an inverse relationship between shopping center size and pass-by trips. Therefore, appropriate trip adjustment factors have been calculated for each category of shopping center size used in the police development impact fee calculations.
Figure 27 below summarizes average nonresidential weekday vehicle trip factors, as well as the persons per household factors for residential development.
15.I
CITY OF HEMET, CALIFORNIA – DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY
38 Figure 27: Persons per Household and Avg. Daily Vehicle Trip Factors for Nonresidential Development
Residential and Nonresidential Demand Indicators Standards:
Persons Per Household
Single Family Detached 2.68
Townhouse/Duplex 2.03
Mult-Family 2.30
Mobile Home 1.69
Average Weekday Vehicle Trip Ends per 1,000 Sq Ft
820 Com / Shop Ctr 50,000 SF or less 86.56
820 Com / Shop Ctr 50,001-100,000 SF 67.91
820 Com / Shop Ctr 100,001-200,000 SF 53.28
820 Com / Shop Ctr over 200,000 SF 41.80
710 Office / Inst 25,000 SF or less 18.35
710 Office / Inst 25,001-50,000 SF 15.65
710 Office / Inst 50,001-100,000 SF 13.34
720 Medical-Dental Office 36.13
610 Hospital 17.57
770 Business Park 12.76
110 Light Industrial 6.97
140 Manufacturing 3.82
150 Warehousing 4.96
Trip Adjustment Factors
Com / Shop Ctr 50,000 SF or less 26%
Com / Shop Ctr 50,001-100,000 SF 29%
Com / Shop Ctr 100,001-200,000 SF 32%
Com / Shop Ctr over 200,000 SF 35%
All Other Nonresidential 50%
LEVEL-OF-SERVICE
POLICE FACILITY INCREMENTAL EXPANSION COMPONENT
Existing facilities owned by the City and used by the Hemet Police Department are shown in Figure
28. These facilities include the main station, three sub-stations, storage space, and the department’s gun trailer. The cost for each facility was estimated by multiplying a representative cost per square foot for each facility. Based on this approach, the total estimated replacement cost of the police facilities is $11,299,091.
In order to determine the cost per demand unit for Police facilities, the total estimated replacement cost ($11,299,091) is multiplied by the residential and nonresidential proportionate share factors.
The resulting residential proportionate share factor ($9,378,246) is then divided by the current population estimate (66,874) for a cost per demand unit of $140.23 per person. For nonresidential development, the proportionate share factor ($1,920,845) is divided by the current estimate of
15.I
CITY OF HEMET, CALIFORNIA – DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY
39 average daily nonresidential vehicle trips (111,412), for a cost per demand unit of $17.24 per vehicle trip.
Figure 28: Police Facility Incremental Expansion Component Square Cost Per Total
Site Feet 1 Square Foot 2 Cost
Police Department 24,401 $320 $7,808,320
Police Sub Station East 1,245 $320 $398,400
Police Sub Station West 1,240 $320 $396,800
Police Storage Building (Sisk Bldg) 4,575 $250 $1,143,750 City Yard Police Storage 3,000 $200 $600,000
Police Gun Trailer 525 $280 $147,000
Communications System N/A N/A $804,821
Total 34,986 $323 $11,299,091
Proportionate 2005 Cost per
Share3 Demand Units Demand Unit
Residential 83% 66,874 persons $140.23
Nonresidential 17% 111,412 nonres veh trips $17.24
1 Source: City of Hemet Public Works / Facilities Maintenance Division 2 Source: Cost per square foot estimate provided by the City of Hemet Police Department 3 Proportional share based on distribution of calls for service during two week sample period, August 1, 2004 to August 15, 2004.
POLICE VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT INCREMENTAL EXPANSION COMPONENT The cost per demand unit for police vehicles and equipment is derived using the same approach as that used for police department facilities. Vehicle and equipment costs shown at the top of Figure 29 are based on information provided by the City on the cost of replacing existing vehicles and/or equipment in the department’s inventory. As shown in Figure 29, the estimated replacement costs totals $2,894,900.
In order to determine the cost per demand unit for Police vehicles, the total estimated replacement cost ($2,894,900) is multiplied by the residential and nonresidential proportionate share factors. The resulting residential proportionate share factor ($2,402,767) is then divided by the current population estimate (66,874) for a cost per demand unit of $35.92 per person. For nonresidential development, the proportionate share factor ($492,133) is divided by the current estimate of average daily nonresidential vehicle trips (111,412), for a cost per demand unit of $4.41 per vehicle trip.
15.I
CITY OF HEMET, CALIFORNIA – DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY
40 Figure 29: Police Vehicle and Equipment Incremental Expansion Component Type of Units in Unit Replacement
Vehicle Service 1 Price 1 Cost
Marked Patrol Cars 42 $40,000 $1,680,000
Marked Trucks (Vans and Pick-Ups) 4 $30,000 $120,000
Full-Size Sedans (Detectives) 12 $32,000 $384,000
Mid-Size Sedans (Detectives) 16 $16,000 $256,000
Sedans (Administrative) 6 $22,000 $132,000
Motorcycles 7 $11,200 $78,400
Dare Car 1 $20,000 $20,000
PAL Truck 1 $22,000 $22,000
SOU Armorer Truck 1 $4,000 $4,000
Explorers Trailer 1 $3,000 $3,000
PAL Trailer 1 $6,000 $6,000
EOC Trailer 1 $20,000 $20,000
DUI Trailer 1 $12,000 $12,000
Speedguard Radar Trailer 1 $15,000 $15,000
Smart Radar Trailer 1 $11,500 $11,500
PAL Bus 1 $3,000 $3,000
Volunteer Cars 3 $32,000 $96,000
ACO Truck 1 $32,000 $32,000
Total 101 $2,894,900
Proportionate 2005 Cost per
Share2 Demand Units Demand Unit
Residential 83% 66,874 persons $35.92
Nonresidential 17% 111,412 nonres veh trips $4.41
Vehicles per 1,000 Persons 1.25
Vehicles Per 1,000 Nonres Veh Trips 0.15
1 Source: City of Hemet Police Department
2 Proportional share based on distribution of calls for service during two week sample period, August 1, 2004 to August 15, 2004.
CREDITS
At present, the City of Hemet does not have any outstanding bonded debt related to the construction of Police facilities and/or vehicles. Therefore, a credit for existing bond financing is not applicable to this development impact fee. And since the development impact fee was calculated using an incremental expansion approach, there is no need to include a credit calculation in the methodology to offset any possibility of potential double payment by fee payers.
15.I
CITY OF HEMET, CALIFORNIA – DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY
41 MAXIMUM SUPPORTABLE POLICE DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE
Figure 30 provides a summary of the level-of-service standards used to calculate the police development impact fees. As discussed previously, police development impact fees are calculated for both residential and nonresidential land uses. As shown in the bottom of Figure 30, the capital cost per demand unit for residential land uses is $176.15 per person. The cost per demand unit for residential units is $21.65 per nonresidential vehicle trip.
Figure 30: Police Development Impact Fee LOS Standards Summary Residential and Nonresidential Demand Indicators Standards:
Persons Per Household
Single Family Detached 2.68
Townhouse/Duplex 2.03
Mult-Family 2.30
Mobile Home 1.69
Average Weekday Vehicle Trip Ends per 1,000 Sq Ft
820 Com / Shop Ctr 50,000 SF or less 86.56
820 Com / Shop Ctr 50,001-100,000 SF 67.91
820 Com / Shop Ctr 100,001-200,000 SF 53.28
820 Com / Shop Ctr over 200,000 SF 41.80
710 Office / Inst 25,000 SF or less 18.35
710 Office / Inst 25,001-50,000 SF 15.65
710 Office / Inst 50,001-100,000 SF 13.34
720 Medical-Dental Office 36.13
610 Hospital 17.57
770 Business Park 12.76
110 Light Industrial 6.97
140 Manufacturing 3.82
150 Warehousing 4.96
Trip Adjustment Factors
Com / Shop Ctr 50,000 SF or less 26%
Com / Shop Ctr 50,001-100,000 SF 29%
Com / Shop Ctr 100,001-200,000 SF 32%
Com / Shop Ctr over 200,000 SF 35%
All Other Nonresidential 50%
Demand Unit Cost Factors Per Person Per Trip
Police Building and Facility Cost $140.23 $17.24
Police Vehicle and Equipment Cost $35.92 $4.41
Capital Cost Per Demand Unit $176.15 $21.65
Figure 31 contains a schedule of the development impact fees for police. For residential land uses, persons per housing unit (2.68 for a single family-detached unit) are multiplied by the capital cost per person ($176.15), for a development impact fee per unit of $471. For nonresidential land uses,
15.I
CITY OF HEMET, CALIFORNIA – DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY
42 such as a commercial shopping center greater than 50,000 square feet, but less than 100,000 square feet, the number of average daily vehicle trips per 1,000 square feet (67.91) are multiplied by the trip adjustment factor (29%) and the capital cost per vehicle trip ($21.65), for a development impact fee of $426 per 1,000 square feet.
Figure 31: Police Development Impact Fee Schedule
Maximum Supportable Development Impact Fee
Residential Per Housing Unit
Single Family Detached $471
Townhouse/Duplex $357
Mult-Family $404
Mobile Home $298
Nonresidential Per 1,000 Sq Ft
820 Com / Shop Ctr 50,000 SF or less $487
820 Com / Shop Ctr 50,001-100,000 SF $426
820 Com / Shop Ctr 100,001-200,000 SF $369
820 Com / Shop Ctr over 200,000 SF $316
710 Office / Inst 25,000 SF or less $198
710 Office / Inst 25,001-50,000 SF $169
710 Office / Inst 50,001-100,000 SF $144
720 Medical-Dental Office $391
610 Hospital $190
770 Business Park $138
110 Light Industrial $75
140 Manufacturing $41
150 Warehousing $53
15.I
CITY OF HEMET, CALIFORNIA – DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY
43 Library
METHODOLOGY
The library development impact fee was calculated using a combination of the cost recovery and incremental expansion methodologies. First, a cost recovery approach is used for the oversizing of the library system to accommodate future growth. Second, an incremental expansion approach is used for collection materials that will need to be purchased to maintain current levels of service for new growth. As shown in Figure 32, 100% of the costs are allocated to residential development.
The development impact fees are calculated on a per capita basis and then converted to an appropriate amount by type of housing unit based on household size.
Figure 32: Library Development Impact Fee Methodology
LEVEL-OF-SERVICE
LIBRARY SPACE COST RECOVERY COMPONENT
As indicated in Figure 33, the current library system is comprised of 51,010 square feet of space.
However, the second floor of the main library (21,889 square feet) is presently not being utilized for library activities, as this space was constructed in order for the library system to expand as needed to Residential Development
Persons Per Household
multiplied by Net Capital Cost Per Person
Cost Recovery Component for Library Space Incremental Expansion Component for Collection Items
less Credit for Future Principal Payments
15.I
CITY OF HEMET, CALIFORNIA – DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY
44 accommodate future development in the city. Therefore, the library development impact fee methodology contains a cost recovery component for existing facilities. Figure 33 indicates that the current asset value of the existing library facilities is $32,846,442. The current asset value is based on the recent construction costs for the library. According to conversations with City of Hemet staff, it is anticipated that the current library system should be sufficient to serve new growth through the year 2015. Therefore, the current value ($32,846,442) is divided by the projected number of persons in 2015 (83,776), for a cost per demand unit of $392.07 per person.
Figure 33: Library Space Cost Recovery Component
Square Current Current
Feet Value/SF* Value
Library (ground floor) 24,255 $364 $8,828,820
Library (second floor)** 21,899 $364 $7,971,236
Volunteer Training Center 2,356 $285 $671,460
Middletown Branch 2,500 $285 $712,500
Interest Costs on Bond N/A N/A $14,662,426
51,010 $285 $32,846,442
Residential 2015 Cost per
Share Demand Units Demand Unit
100% 83,776 Population $392.07
* Source: City of Hemet Public Works / Facilities Maintenance Division. Includes land. **Undeveloped
LIBRARY COLLECTION INCREMENTAL EXPANSION COMPONENT
Figure 34 lists the current inventory of collection items in the City of Hemet library system. As Figure 34 indicates, the City currently has a collection inventory totaling 70,000 items. When the current inventory (70,000 items) is compared to the current population estimate (66,874), the resulting level of service standard is 1.05 collection items per person. According to information provided by City staff, the current cost of purchasing a “typical” collection item is estimated at $30.00. Therefore, the asset value of the collection inventory is estimated at $2,100,000 (70,000 collection items multiplied by $30.00). To determine the cost per demand unit to be used in the development impact fee, the asset value of the collection inventory ($2,100,000) is divided by the current population estimate (66,874), for a cost per demand unit of $31.40 per person.
Figure 34: Library Collection Incremental Expansion Cost Component # of units Unit Price Current Cost
Collection Items 70,000 $30.00 $2,100,000
TOTAL 70,000 $30.00 $2,100,000
Residential 2005 Cost per
Share Demand Units Demand Unit
100% 66,874 Population $31.40
Materials Per Person 1.05
15.I
CITY OF HEMET, CALIFORNIA – DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY
45 CREDITS
The City of Hemet is currently retiring bonds used to construct the current library. Therefore, in order to avoid potential double payment situation, where a fee payer will pay once through a development impact fee and again through property tax, a debt service credit is included in the development impact fee methodology. As shown below in Figure 35, annual debt service payments are divided by the projected number of persons residing in Hemet through the year 2020 to yield a debt service payment per person. A net present value adjustment was used to account for the time value of money.
Figure 35: Debt Service Payment Credit for Library Bonds Debt Service Debt Service
FY Payments Payments Credit
Series 2002A Series 1999 Persons Per Person
2006 $624,505 $461,545 68,415 $15.87
2007 $625,305 $457,695 69,987 $15.47
2008 $625,583 $458,845 71,592 $15.15
2009 $625,205 $459,820 73,230 $14.82
2010 $624,153 $460,500 74,900 $14.48
2011 $622,474 $460,750 76,603 $14.14
2012 $620,223 $460,550 78,343 $13.80
2013 $622,278 $465,015 80,118 $13.57
2014 $623,515 $463,925 81,928 $13.27
2015 $619,034 $457,475 83,776 $12.85
2016 $618,820 $465,725 85,661 $12.66
2017 $617,391 $463,094 87,583 $12.34
2018 $619,689 $465,019 89,545 $12.11
2019 $621,016 $466,244 91,547 $11.88
2020 $616,444 $461,744 93,588 $11.52
Total $9,325,635 $6,927,946 $203.93
Discount Rate 4.5%
Net Present Value $148.70
MAXIMUM SUPPORTABLE LIBRARY DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE
Figure 36 provides a summary of the level-of-service standards used to calculate development impact fees for libraries, as well as a schedule of the development impact fees. Development impact fees are calculated for residential land uses only. As shown in the bottom of Figure 36, the net capital cost per demand unit is $146.81 per person. To calculate the fee, persons per household (2.68 for a single family unit) is multiplied by the net capital cost per demand unit ($274.77), for a development impact fee per unit of $735.
15.I
CITY OF HEMET, CALIFORNIA – DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY
46 Figure 36: Maximum Supportable Library Development Impact Fee Schedule Residential Demand Indicators Standards:
Persons Per Household
Single Family Detached 2.68
Townhouse/Duplex 2.03
Mult-Family 2.30
Mobile Home 1.69
Demand Unit Cost Factors Per Person
Library Facility Cost Per Person $392.07
Collection Cost Per Person $31.40
Debt Service Payment Credit Per Person ($148.70)
Net Capital Cost Per Demand Unit $274.77
Maximum Supportable Development Fee
Residential Per Housing Unit
Single Family Detached $735
Townhouse/Duplex $557
Mult-Family $631
Mobile Home $465
15.I
CITY OF HEMET, CALIFORNIA – DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY
47 Roads
METHODOLOGY
The road development impact fees are derived using a plan-based methodology, which incorporates capacity and signalization improvements for the 2005 to 2020 time-period contained in the City’s Master Facilities Plan. As shown in Figure 37, road development impact fees will be assessed against both residential and nonresidential development.
Figure 37: Road Development Impact Fee Methodology Chart
ROAD DEMAND (TRIP GENERATION)
The demand for additional road capacity is primarily a function of vehicle trips. Therefore, transportation development fees by type of development are based on average weekday vehicle trip generation rates and adjustment factors published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). Adjustment factors are necessary to avoid double counting the same trip at both the origin and destination points.
Average weekday vehicle trips are from the reference book, Trip Generation, 7TH Edition, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) in 2003. A vehicle trip end represents a vehicle either entering or exiting a development (as if a traffic counter were placed across a driveway). To Average Weekday Vehicle Trips by Type of
Development
multiplied by Trip Adjustment Factors
multiplied by Capital Cost Per Unit of Trip
Capacity
Growth-Related Road Projects Growth-Related Signalization Projects
15.I
CITY OF HEMET, CALIFORNIA – DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY
48 calculate impact fees, trip generation rates are adjusted to avoid double counting each trip at both the origin and destination points. For all nonresidential development except commercial/shopping center development, the trip adjustment factor is 50 percent. As documented in the Fifth Edition of Trip Generation (see Table VII-1 of the 5th edition, 1991), there is an inverse relationship between shopping center size and pass-by trips. Therefore, appropriate trip adjustment factors have been calculated according to shopping center size. (See Figure 38.) For commercial/shopping center development (ITE code 820), the trip adjustment factor is less than 50 percent because retail uses attract vehicles as they pass by on arterial and collector roads. For example, when someone stops at a convenience store on the way home from work, the convenience store is not the primary destination. For a small-size shopping center of 50,000 square feet of floor area, the ITE manual indicates that on average 48 percent of the vehicles that enter are passing by on their way to some other primary destination. The remaining 52 percent of attraction trips have the shopping center as their primary destination. Because attraction trips are half of all trips, the trip adjustment factor is 52 percent multiplied by 50 percent, or approximately 26 percent of the trip ends.
Figure 38: Average Weekday Vehicle Trip Factors and Pass-By Adjustments Commercial/ Other
Residential and Nonresidential Demand Indicators Residential Shopping Ctrs Nonresidential Average Weekday Vehicle Trip Ends Per Unit
Single Family-Detached 9.57
Townhouse/Duplex 5.86
Multifamily 6.59
Mobile Home/Other 4.99
Avg Weekday Vehicle Trip Ends Per 1,000 Sq Ft
820 Com / Shop Ctr 50,000 SF or less 86.56
820 Com / Shop Ctr 50,001-100,000 SF 67.91
820 Com / Shop Ctr 100,001-200,000 SF 53.28
820 Com / Shop Ctr over 200,000 SF 41.80
710 Office / Inst 25,000 SF or less 18.35
710 Office / Inst 25,001-50,000 SF 15.65
710 Office / Inst 50,001-100,000 SF 13.34
720 Medical-Dental Office 36.13
610 Hospital 17.57
770 Business Park 12.76
110 Light Industrial 6.97
140 Manufacturing 3.82
150 Warehousing 4.96
Trip Adjustment Factors
Residential 50%
Com / Shop Ctr 50,000 SF or less 26%
Com / Shop Ctr 50,001-100,000 SF 29%
Com / Shop Ctr 100,001-200,000 SF 32%
Com / Shop Ctr over 200,000 SF 35%
All Other Nonresidential 50%
CAPITAL FACILITY PLAN
The road capital improvements included in the development impact fee methodology is based on capacity improvements identified by City staff. It is important to note that the capital facility plan
15.I
CITY OF HEMET, CALIFORNIA – DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY
49 excludes improvements to local roads and renewal/replacement type projects, such as putting a new asphalt surface on an existing road, or replacing a bridge that has reached the end of its useful life.
As shown in Figure 39, road capacity projects benefiting new growth total $47,985,485. To determine the cost per unit of trip capacity, the road improvement cost ($47,985,485) is divided by the projected net increase in growth-related average weekday vehicle trip ends through the year 2020 (86,938) to yield a weighted average cost per unit of trip capacity of $551.95. Figure 39 also indicates that growth-related signalization projects total $8,369,853. When this cost is compared to the net increase in growth-related average weekday vehicle trip ends (86,938), the cost per unit of trip capacity is $96.27.
Figure 39: Summary of Road Capital Facilities Plan
Cost*
Summary of Road Improvements from CIP $47,985,485
Total Demand Units Served
Increase in Average Wkdy Vehicle Trip Ends 2005-2020 86,938 Cost Per Demand Unit
Cost Per Unit of Trip Capacity $551.95
Cost*
Summary of Signalization Improvements from CIP $8,369,853 Total Demand Units Served
Increase in Average Wkdy Vehicle Trip Ends 2005-2020 86,938 Cost Per Demand Unit
Cost Per Unit of Trip Capacity $96.27
*Summarized from City's road improvement plan contained in the Appendix
CREDITS
At present, the City does not have any outstanding bonded debt related to the construction of road improvements. Therefore, a credit for existing bond financing is not applicable to this impact fee.
TischlerBise also evaluated the need for a credit to avoid potential double payment for future road improvements. In the case of road funds the City receives from the State of California, these funds will be dedicated to the maintenance and repair of existing streets, therefore a future revenue credit is not required for this funding source.
15.I
CITY OF HEMET, CALIFORNIA – DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY
50 MAXIMUM SUPPORTABLE ROAD DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE
Figure 40 provides a summary of the level of service standards used to calculate development impact fees for roads. Road development impact fees are calculated for both residential and nonresidential land uses and are based on average weekday vehicle trip generation rates, trip adjustment rates and the capital cost per unit of trip capacity. As shown in the bottom of Figure 40, the capital cost per demand unit is $648.22 per vehicle trip.
Figure 40: Road Development Impact Fee Level-of-Service Standard Summary Commercial/ Other
Residential and Nonresidential Demand Indicators Residential Shopping Ctrs Nonresidential Average Weekday Vehicle Trip Ends Per Unit
Single Family-Detached 9.57
Townhouse/Duplex 5.86
Multifamily 6.59
Mobile Home/Other 4.99
Avg Weekday Vehicle Trip Ends Per 1,000 Sq Ft
820 Com / Shop Ctr 50,000 SF or less 86.56
820 Com / Shop Ctr 50,001-100,000 SF 67.91
820 Com / Shop Ctr 100,001-200,000 SF 53.28
820 Com / Shop Ctr over 200,000 SF 41.80
710 Office / Inst 25,000 SF or less 18.35
710 Office / Inst 25,001-50,000 SF 15.65
710 Office / Inst 50,001-100,000 SF 13.34
720 Medical-Dental Office 36.13
610 Hospital 17.57
770 Business Park 12.76
110 Light Industrial 6.97
140 Manufacturing 3.82
150 Warehousing 4.96
Trip Adjustment Factors
Residential 50%
Com / Shop Ctr 50,000 SF or less 26%
Com / Shop Ctr 50,001-100,000 SF 29%
Com / Shop Ctr 100,001-200,000 SF 32%
Com / Shop Ctr over 200,000 SF 35%
All Other Nonresidential 50%
Demand Unit Factors
Road Improvement CIP Cost $551.95 $551.95 $551.95
Signalization Improvement CIP Cost $96.27 $96.27 $96.27 Capital Cost Per Unit of Trip Capacity $648.22 $648.22 $648.22 Figure 41 contains a schedule of the development impact fees for road improvements for the City of Hemet. For residential and nonresidential land uses, the capital cost per unit of trip capacity ($648.22) is multiplied by average weekday vehicle trips (9.57 for a single family-detached unit) and trip adjustment factor (50%), for a development impact fee per unit of $3,102. A similar calculation is made for nonresidential land uses.
15.I
CITY OF HEMET, CALIFORNIA – DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY
51 Figure 41: Road Development Impact Fee Schedule
Maximum Supportable Impact Fee
Residential Per Housing Unit
Single Family-Detached $3,102
Townhouse/Duplex $1,899
Multifamily $2,136
Mobile Home/Other $1,617
Nonresidential
Com / Shop Ctr 50,000 SF or less $14,589
Com / Shop Ctr 50,001-100,000 SF $12,766
Com / Shop Ctr 100,001-200,000 SF $11,052
Com / Shop Ctr over 200,000 SF $9,484
Office / Inst 25,000 SF or less $5,947
Office / Inst 25,001-50,000 SF $5,072
Office / Inst 50,001-100,000 SF $4,324
Medical-Dental Office $11,710
Hospital $5,695
Business Park $4,136
Light Industrial $2,259
Manufacturing $1,238
Warehousing $1,608
Per 1,000 Sq. Ft.
15.I
CITY OF HEMET, CALIFORNIA – DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY
52 Drainage
METHODOLOGY
The drainage development impact fees are derived using a plan-based methodology. A build out analysis with ultimate land use acreage was used to calculate the development impact fees. The specific projects included in the development impact fee calculation, as well as the project costs are based upon information contained in the City’s Master Facilities Plan. As shown in Figure 42, the capital cost of improvements was multiplied by proportionate share factors for each type of land use, and then divided by the amount of land area by type of land use. Residential fees per housing unit are based on average gross densities by housing unit type. The capital cost per acre for nonresidential land uses was converted to a fee per 1,000 square feet (KSF) using an average floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.25. It is preferable to base the nonresidential fees on floor area rather than per acre because the fee will increase or decrease according to the intensity of an individual project.
Figure 42: Drainage Development Impact Fee Methodology
New Development
Residential Development Nonresidential Development
Average Lot Size
multiplied by Capital Cost Per
Acre
Capital Cost of Drainage
Improvements
multiplied by Proportionate
Share Factor
Divided by 43.56 multiplied by
FAR of .25
multiplied by Capital Cost Per
Acre
Capital Cost of Drainage
Improvements
multiplied by Proportionate
Share Factor
divided by Acreage to be
Developed
divided by acreage to be
developed
15.I
CITY OF HEMET, CALIFORNIA – DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY
53 PROPORTIONATE SHARE FACTORS
Figure 43 shows the proportionate share factors used in the calculation of drainage development impact fees. The proportionate share factors were determined by first ascertaining what the ultimate land use acreage is projected to be in the City of Hemet (by land use type), which is estimated at 11,608 acres. Based on the estimate of ultimate land use acreage and impervious surface factors from the Colorado Urban Drainage District Criteria Manual, impervious acres were determined for each land use, which totals 6,916 for the entire City. Impervious acres are then used to determine the proportionate share for each land use type.
Figure 43: Drainage Development Impact Fee Proportionate Share Factors Proportionate Share Ultimate Land Run-off Impervious Proportionate Use Acreage* Coefficient** Acreage Share
Single Family-Detached 5,906 0.45 2,658 38%
Single Family-Attached 914 0.65 594 9%
Multifamily Residential 531 0.65 345 5%
Mobile Home 1,474 0.70 1,032 15%
Commercial/Office 1,560 0.87 1,357 20%
Industrial 1,224 0.76 930 13%
TOTAL 11,608 6,916 100%
*Land use acreage based on City Hemet Comprehensive Plan **From Colorado Urban Drainage District Criteria Manual.
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
The drainage capital improvements included in the development impact fee methodology are based on capacity improvements identified by City staff. The specific projects included in the development impact fee calculation, as well as the project costs, are based on information contained in the City’s Master Facilities Plan. It is important to note that the projects included in this plan will provide additional drainage capacity Citywide from which new growth will benefit. Projects that involve replacement of an existing drainage structure or improvement are included in this plan if the replacement will provide additional capacity from which new growth will benefit, and City staff has provided an estimate of the percentage of the improvement that is growth-related.
Figure 44 summarizes planned drainage improvements through buildout for Hemet. The complete listing of drainage projects can be found in the Appendix. As indicated in Figure 44, the total cost of drainage improvements benefiting new growth total $75,575,444. In order to determine the capital cost per acre for each land use type, the growth-related capital costs ($75,575,444) was multiplied by the proportionate share factor for each land use, and divided by the acreage to be developed.
15.I
CITY OF HEMET, CALIFORNIA – DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY
54 Figure 44: Summary of Drainage Capital Facility Plan Capital Cost of Drainage Facilities $75,575,444
Proportionate Share Ultimate Land Run-off Impervious Proportionate Use Acreage* Coefficient** Acreage Share
Single Family-Detached 5,906 0.45 2,658 38%
Single Family-Attached 914 0.65 594 9%
Multifamily Residential 531 0.65 345 5%
Mobile Home 1,474 0.7 1,032 15%
Commercial/Office 1,560 0.87 1,357 20%
Industrial 1,224 0.76 930 13%
TOTAL 11,608 6,916 100%
Capital Cost Per Acre***
Single Family-Detached $4,918
Single Family-Attached $7,103
Multifamily Residential $7,103
Mobile Home $7,650
Commercial/Office $9,507
Industrial $8,305
*Land use acreage based on City Hemet Comprehensive Plan **From Colorado Urban Drainage District Criteria Manual. ***The level of service standard for each type of land use (expressed in terms of capital cost per acre) is equal to the total basin capital cost multiplied by the proportionate share factor, divided by the acreage to be developed.
CREDITS
At present, the City does not have any outstanding bonded debt related to the construction of drainage facilities. Therefore, a credit for existing bond financing is not applicable to this development impact fee.
MAXIMUM SUPPORTABLE DRAINAGE DEVELOPMENT FEE
Figure 45 provides a summary of the level of service standards used to calculate development fees for drainage facilities and improvements. Drainage development fees are calculated for both residential and nonresidential land uses. Residential development impact fees per housing unit are based on average lot sizes, expressed in acres per unit. For single family-detached units, the average density for new development is 3.5 units per gross acre. For single family-attached units the average density is 7.01 units per gross acre, multifamily is 15 units per gross acre and mobile homes is 6.67 units per gross acre. The development fee for nonresidential land uses is based on a floor area ratio of .25.
15.I
CITY OF HEMET, CALIFORNIA – DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY
55 Figure 45: Drainage Development Impact Fee Level of Service Standard Summary Residential Demand Indicators (Gross Acreage Per Unit)
Single Family-Detached 0.286
Single Family-Attached 0.143
Multifamily Residential 0.067
Mobile Home 0.150
Nonresidential Demand Indicators (Floor Area Ratio)
Commercial/Office 0.25
Industrial 0.25
Demand Unit Cost Factors (Capital Cost Per Acre)
Single Family-Detached $4,918
Single Family-Attached $7,103
Multifamily Residential $7,103
Mobile Home $7,650
Commercial/Office $9,507
Industrial $8,305
Figure 46 contains a schedule of the development impact fees for drainage facilities and improvements. For residential land uses, the capital cost per acre ($4,917 for a single familydetached unit) is multiplied by the gross acreage per unit (.286), for a development impact fee per unit of $1,405. For nonresidential land uses, such as a commercial shopping center, the capital cost per acre ($9,507) is converted to square feet using an average floor area ratio of .25 and multiplied by 1,000 square feet, for a development fee of $873 per 1,000 square feet.
Figure 46: Drainage Development Impact Fee Schedule
Maximum Supportable Development Impact Fee Per Housing Unit Single Family-Detached $1,405
Single Family-Attached $1,013
Multifamily Residential $474
Mobile Home $1,147
Per 1,000 Square Feet
Commercial/Office $873
Industrial $763
15.I
CITY OF HEMET, CALIFORNIA – DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY
56 Implementation and Administration
This section of the report contains recommendations for adoption and administration of a development impact fee program based on this study, and for the interpretation and application of impact fees recommended herein. Statutory requirements for the adoption and administration of fees imposed as a condition of development approval are found in the Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code Sections 66000 et seq.).
ADOPTION
The form in which development impact fees are adopted, whether by ordinance or resolution, should be determined by the City Attorney. Typically, it is desirable that specific fee schedules be set by resolution to facilitate periodic adjustments. Procedures for adoption of fees subject to the Mitigation Fee Act, including notice and public hearing requirements, are specified in Government Code Section 66016. Such fees do not become effective until 60 days after final action by the Governing body. Actions establishing or increasing fees subject to the Mitigation Fee Act require certain findings, as set forth in Government Code Section 66001 and discussed in Section 1 of this report summarized below.
ADMINISTRATION
Several requirements of the California Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code Sections 66000 et seq.) address the administration of impact fee programs, including collection and accounting procedures, refunds, updates and reporting. References to code sections in the following paragraphs pertain to the California Government Code.
Imposition of Fees. Pursuant to the Mitigation Fee Act, when the City imposes an impact fee upon a specific development project, it must make findings to :
1. Identify the purpose of the fee;
2. Identify the use of the fee; and
3. Determine that there is a reasonable relationship between:
a. The use of the fee and the development type on
which it is imposed;
b. The need for the facility and the type of development on which the fee is imposed; and c. The amount of the fee and the facility cost
attributable to the development project.
Most of those findings would normally be based on an impact fee study, and this study is intended to provide a basis for all of the required findings. According to the statute, the use of the fee (2.,
15.I
CITY OF HEMET, CALIFORNIA – DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY
57 above) may be specified in a capital improvement plan, the General Plan, or other public document.
This study is intended to serve as a public document identifying the use of the fees.
In addition, Section 66006, as amended by SB 1693, provides that a local agency, at the time it imposes a fee for public improvements on a specific development project, "... shall identify the public improvement that the fee will be used to finance." For each type of fee calculated in this report, the improvements to be funded by the impact fees are identified. Consequently, this report provides a basis for the notification required by the statute. The City Attorney should be consulted as to the specific method of notification to be provided.
Collection of Fees. Section 66007, provides that a local agency shall not require payment of fees by developers of residential projects prior to the date of final inspection, or issuance of a certificate of occupancy, whichever occurs first. However, "utility service fees" (not defined) may be collected upon application for utility service. In a residential development project of more than one dwelling unit, the agency may choose to collect fees either for individual units or for phases upon final inspection, or for the entire project upon final inspection of the first dwelling unit completed.
An important exception allows fees to be collected at an earlier time if they will be used to reimburse the agency for expenditures previously made, or for improvements or facilities for which money has been appropriated. The agency must also have adopted a construction schedule or plan for the improvement. These restrictions on the time of collection do not apply to non-residential development.
Notwithstanding the foregoing restrictions, many cities routinely collect impact fees for all facilities at the time building permits are issued, and builders often find it convenient to pay the fees at that time. In cases where the fees are not collected upon issuance of building permits, Section 66007 provides that the city may require the property owner to execute a contract to pay the fee, and to record that contract as a lien against the property until the fees are paid.
Credit for Improvements provided by Developers. If the City requires a developer, as a condition of project approval, to construct facilities or improvements for which impact fees have been, or will be, charged, the impact fee imposed on that development project, for that type of facility, should be adjusted to reflect a credit for the cost of those facilities or improvements. If the reimbursement would exceed the amount of the fee to be paid by the development for that type of facility, the City may wish to negotiate a reimbursement agreement with the developer.
Credit for Existing Development. If a project involves replacement, redevelopment or intensification of previously existing development, impact fees should be applied only to the portion of the project which represents an increase in demand for City facilities, as measured by the demand variables used in this study. Since residential service demand is normally estimated on the basis of demand per dwelling unit, an addition to a single family dwelling unit typically would not be subject to an impact fee if it does not increase the number of dwelling units in the structure. If a dwelling unit is added to an existing structure, no impact fee would be charged for the previously existing units. A similar approach can be used for other types of development.
15.I
CITY OF HEMET, CALIFORNIA – DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY
58 Earmarking of Fee Revenue. Section 66006 specifies that fees shall be deposited with other fees for the improvement in a separate capital facilities account or fund in a manner to avoid any commingling of the fees with other revenues and funds of the local agency, except for temporary investments. Fees must be expended solely for the purpose for which the fee was collected.
Interest earned on the fee revenues must also be placed in the capital account and used for the same purpose.
The language of the law is not clear as to whether depositing fees "with other fees for the improvement" refers to a specific capital improvement or a class of improvements (e.g., street improvements). We are not aware of any city that has interpreted that language to mean that funds must be segregated by individual projects. As a practical matter, that would make it exceedingly difficult to accumulate enough funds to construct any improvements funded by impact fees.
Common practice is to maintain separate funds or accounts for impact fee revenues by facility category (i.e., streets, traffic signals, or park improvements), but not for individual projects. We recommend that approach.
Reporting. As amended by SB 1693 in 1996, Section 66006 requires that once each year, within 180 days of the close of the fiscal year, the local agency must make available to the public the following information for each separate account established to receive impact fee revenues:
1. The amount of the fee;
2. The beginning and ending balance of the account or fund;
3. The amount of the fees collected and interest earned;
4. Identification of each public improvement on which fees were expended and the amount of the expenditures on each improvement, including the percentage of the cost of the public improvement that was funded with fees;
5. Identification of the approximate date by which the construction of a public improvement will commence, if the City determines sufficient funds have been collected to complete financing of an incomplete public improvement;
6. A description of each inter-fund transfer or loan made from the account or fund, including interest rates, repayment dates, and a description of the improvement on which the transfer or loan will be expended;
7. The amount of any refunds or allocations made pursuant to Section 66001, paragraphs (e) and (f).
That information must be reviewed by the City Council at its next regularly scheduled public meeting, but not less than 15 days after the statements are made public.
Findings and Refunds. Prior to the adoption of Government Code amendments contained in SB 1693, a local agency collecting impact fees was required to expend or commit the fee revenue within five years or make findings to justify a continued need for the money. Otherwise, those funds had to be refunded. SB 1693 changed that requirement in material ways.
15.I
CITY OF HEMET, CALIFORNIA – DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY
59 Now, Section 66001 requires that, for the fifth fiscal year following the first deposit of any impact fee revenue into an account or fund as required by Section 66006, and every five years thereafter, the local agency shall make all of the following findings for any fee revenue that remains unexpended, whether committed or uncommitted:
1. Identify the purpose to which the fee will be put;
2. Demonstrate the reasonable relationship between the fee and the purpose for which it is charged;
3. Identify all sources and amounts of funding anticipated to complete financing of incomplete improvements for which impact fees are to be used;
4. Designate the approximate dates on which the funding necessary to complete financing of those improvements will be deposited into the appropriate account or fund.
Those findings are to be made in conjunction with the annual reports discussed above. If such findings are not made as required by Section 66001, the local agency must refund the moneys in the account or fund. Once the agency determines that sufficient funds have been collected to complete an incomplete improvement for which impact fee revenue is to be used, it must, within 180 days of that determination, identify an approximate date by which construction of the public improvement will be commenced. If the agency fails to comply with that requirement, it must refund impact fee revenue in the account according to procedures specified in the statute.
Costs of Implementation. The ongoing cost of implementing the impact fee program is not included in the fees themselves. Implementation costs would include the staff time involved in applying the fees to specific projects, accounting for fee revenues and expenditures, preparing required annual reports, updating the fees, and preparing forms and public information handouts.
We recommend that those costs be included in user fees charged to applicants for processing development applications.
Annual Update of the Capital Improvement Plan. Section 66002 provides that if a local agency adopts a capital improvement plan to identify the use of impact fees, that plan must be adopted and annually updated by a resolution of the governing body at a noticed public hearing. The alternative is to identify improvements in other public documents. Since impact fee calculations in this study include costs for future facilities to be funded by impact fees, we believe it is to the City’s advantage to use this report as the public document in which the use of impact fees is identified. In that event, we believe the City would not be required to update its CIP annually to satisfy Section 66002.
Indexing of Impact Fee Rates. The fees recommended in this report are stated in current dollars. Fees should be adjusted annually to account for construction cost escalation. The Engineering News Record Building Cost Index is recommended as the basis for indexing the cost of yet to be constructed projects. It is desirable that the ordinance or resolution establishing the fees include provisions for annual escalation.
Updates of This Study. Generally, impact fees should be reviewed and updated about every five years, unless significant changes in land use or facility plans make it necessary to update the fees more often.
15.I
CITY OF HEMET, CALIFORNIA – DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY
60 TRAINING AND PUBLIC INFORMATION
Administering an impact fee program effectively requires considerable preparation and training. It is important that those responsible for writing findings to impose the fees, for collecting the fees, and for explaining them to the public, understand both the details of the fee program and its supporting rationale. Before fees are imposed, a staff training workshop is highly desirable if more than a handful of employees will be involved in collecting or accounting for fees.
It is also useful to pay close attention to handouts which provide information to the public regarding impact fees. Impact fees should be clearly distinguished from user fees, such as application and plan review fees, and the purpose and use of particular impact fees should be made clear.
Finally, anyone who is responsible for accounting, capital budgeting, or project management for projects involving impact fees must be fully aware of the restrictions placed on the expenditure of impact fee revenues. The fees recommended in this report are tied to specific improvements and cost estimates. Fees must be expended accordingly and the City must be able to show that funds have been properly expended.
RECOVERY OF STUDY COST
We do not recommend adding an administrative fee to impact fees to cover the costs of administering the impact fee program. Those costs should be included in the processing fees charged to developers and builders. However, it is reasonable for the City to recover the cost of this study through the impact fee program. Once the City Council decides what impact fees to impose, it is a relatively simple matter to calculate an adjustment to cover the cost of the study.
Assuming the impact fee study will be updated every five years or so, the cost of this study can be divided by the amount of revenue projected over the next five years to determine the percentage by which fees should be increased to cover the cost of the study. That percentage typically represents a very small increase in the fees. For example, if the study costs amount to $25,000 and the City expects to collect $2,500,000 in public safety impact fees over the next five years, the fees calculated in this study would be have to be increased by 1% to recover the cost of the study over five years [25,000 / 2,500,000 = 0.01]. The necessary adjustment should be made before the fees are actually adopted by the City Council.
15.I
CITY OF HEMET, CALIFORNIA – DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY
61 Expected Revenue
This analysis of expected development impact fee revenue is based on the assumption that the maximum supportable development impact fees are adopted and the demographic and development projections in contained in the Development and Demand Data section of this development impact fee report. FY2006 (beginning July 1, 2005) is the first projection year (note: all figures are in thousands of dollars).
To the extent the development projections change, the revenue projections will change correspondingly. Also, the revenue projections are based on the proposed fees over a six-year time frame. TischlerBise recommends that rapidly growing communities such as Hemet review and recalibrate their fees every three years. Thus, it is likely the fee amounts, LOS, and methodologies will change over the course of the six year cash flow analysis.
The summary of projected revenue shown in Figure 47 indicates a cumulative total of $57.9 million over the next 6 years. As discussed previously, the City can only use these fees for capacity expansions and may not use them to replace or maintain its current facilities.
Figure 47: Summary of Estimated Development Impact Fee Revenue City of Hemet - Projected Revenue From Development Impact Fees (Current $ in thousands) 1 2 3 4 5 6 Cumulative Average Fiscal Year => 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Total Annual
REVENUE BY FEE CATEGORY
General Government $725.5 $567.6 $579.6 $591.6 $603.7 $615.8 $3,683.7 $614.0 Police $481.8 $377.1 $384.8 $392.8 $400.8 $408.8 $2,446.1 $407.7 Fire $520.6 $407.3 $415.8 $424.5 $433.1 $441.8 $2,643.1 $440.5 Library $608.7 $474.8 $484.2 $494.2 $504.3 $514.4 $3,080.6 $513.4 Parks $2,478.6 $1,933.2 $1,971.3 $2,012.3 $2,053.4 $2,094.4 $12,543.1 $2,090.5 Roads $5,289.1 $4,134.8 $4,225.9 $4,313.9 $4,401.9 $4,489.9 $26,855.4 $4,475.9 Drainage $1,351.0 $1,016.7 $1,038.1 $1,059.8 $1,081.5 $1,103.2 $6,650.4 $1,108.4 TOTAL $11,455 $8,912 $9,100 $9,289 $9,479 $9,668 $57,902 $9,650
15.I
CITY OF HEMET, CALIFORNIA – DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY
62 Appendix
This Appendix provides a detailed listing of the projects included in the road and drainage development impact fees.
Figure 48: Road Improvement Capital Improvement Plan Through Buildout Improvement Cost Improvement Cost
Acacia, Florida to Kirby $720,000 Los Rancharias, Florida to Devonshire $600,000 Berkeley, Hemet to Lake $480,000 Lyon, Various Segments $3,019,200 Buena Vista, Various Segments $600,000 Menlo, Rose to Cawston $432,000 California, Florida to Devonshire $917,600 Menlo, Various Street Segments $2,279,200 California, Devonshire to Menlo $313,100 Meridian, Various Street Segments $488,400 Cawston, Various Segments $2,323,600 Mountain, Hemet to Cedar $1,300,000 Chambers, Lyon to State $792,000 Myers, Florida to Devonshire $769,600 Charlton, Various Segments $552,000 New Stetson, Warren to Stetson $1,243,199 Columbia, Various Segments $473,600 Newport, West City Limits to State $863,900 Devonshire, Various Segments $2,472,784 Old Stetson, Warren to the Realignment $672,000 Eaton, Various Segments $1,983,200 Palm, Esplanade to Courtney $1,287,600 Fisher, Various Segments $828,800 Park, Various Segments $2,279,200 Fruitvale, Various Segments $1,716,000 Rose, Myers to Menlo $504,000 Future East/West Street #1 $911,999 San Jacinto, Florida to South City Limits $1,036,001 Future East/West Street #2 $1,296,001 Santa Fe, Various Segments $816,000 Girard, Devonshire to Florida $384,800 Soboba, Florida to North City Limits $876,000 Girard, Various Segments $264,000 State, Dominion Parkway to Newport $2,600,000 Harrison, Various Segments $947,200 Stetson, Railroad to Cawston $456,401 Hemet, Various Segments $1,500,000 Thornton, Various Collector Segments $384,000 Hewitt, North City Limits to Park $44,400 Whittier, Warren to Florida $2,249,600 Hyatt, Florida to Devonshire $600,000 Yale, Various Segments $504,000 Kirby, Various Segments $606,800 Right of Way Acquisition $1,000,000 Lake, Various Segments $333,300 Miscellaneous Intersection Improvements $500,000 Lincoln, Various Segments $264,000 Downtown Street Improvements $500,000 TOTAL $47,985,485