Hemet City Council
May 14, 2024

23.B

NUMBEROFPARCELS=2GROSSACREAGE=2.30NETACREAGE=2.09 INTHECITYOFHEMET,COUNTYOFRIVERSIDE,STATEOFCALIFORNIAPARCELMAPNO.37794BEINGASUBDIVISIONOFAPORTIONOFTHENORTH30ACRESOFTHEEAST60ACRESOFFARMLOT193OFTHELANDSOFTHESANJACINTOLANDASSOCIATION,ASSHOWNBYMAPINBOOK8,PAGE357OFMAPS,RECORDSOFSANDIEGOCOUNTY ,CALIFORNIA,LYINGINTOWNSHIP5SOUTH,RANGE1WEST,SECTION2,S.B.M.THETHOMSENCOM/MN};INC.

NOTARYACKNOWLEDGMENTANOTARYPUBLICOROTHEROFFICERCOMPLETINGTHISCERTIFICATEVERIFIESONLYTHEIDENTITYOFTHEINDIVIDUALWHOSIGNEDTHEDOCUMENTTOWHICHTHISCERTIFICATEISATTACHED,ANDNOTTHETRUTHFULNESS,ACCURACY ,ORV ALIDITYOFTHATDOCUMENT.STATEOFCALIFORNIACOUNTYOFOWBEFOREMEWANOTARYPUBLIC(INSERTNAME)PERSONALLYAPPEAREO\WHOPROVEDTOMEONTHEBASISOFSATISFACTORYEVIDENCETOBETHEPERSONWHOSENAME@ISRSUUBSCRIBEDTOTHEWITHININSTENTANDACKNOWLEDGEDRiIHEIBTOMETHATHE/SHEEXECUTEDTSAMEINHIS/HEAUTHORIZEDCAPACITY®,ANDTHATBYHIS/HERm.IGONATUREQHEINSTRUMENTTHEPERSONQ®ORTHEENTITYUPONBEHAWHICHTHEPERSOI‘@ACTED,EXECUTEDTHEINSTRUMENTICERTIFYUNDERPENALTYOFPERJURYUNDERTHELAWSOFTHESTATEOFCALIFORNIATHATTHEFOREGOINGPARAGRAPHISTRUEANDCORRECT.

PRINTNAMEMYCOMMISSIONEXPIRES0ND{.C[1.22:5MYPRINCIPALPLACEOFBUSINESSISWCOUNTY .MYCOMMISSIONNUMBERIS3?S3'7 JANUARY2021

NOTARYACKNOWLEDGMENTANOTARYPUBLICOROTHEROFFICERCOMPLETINGTHISCERTIFICATEVERIFIESONLYTHEIDENTITYOFTHEINDIVIDUALWHOTHEDOCUMENTTOWHICHTHISCERTIFICATEISATTACHED,ANDNOTTHETRUTHFULNESS, ACCURACY ,ORV ALIDITYOFTHATDOCUMENT.STATEOFCALIFORNIA)COUNTYOFChange)ONJuneI5“,211258EFOREME[mfmfmE.Zalsu?'g,NAME)PERSONALLYAPPEARED——WHOPROVEDTOMEONTHEBASISOFSATISFACTORYEVIDENCETOBETHEPERSONQY)WHOSENAMEIS/AR‘ESUBSCRIBEDTOTHEINSTRUMENTANDACKNOWLEDGEDTOMETHAT/S-I-I-E#FHE~YEXECUTEDTHESAMEINHIS/HERI‘T'I'I'EI'RAUTHORIZEDCAPACITY(IE'S‘),ANDTHATBYHIS/HERFFHE‘I‘RONTHEINSTRUMENTTHEPERSONOS'),ORTHEENTITYUPONBEHALFOFTHEPERSONMACTED,EXECUTEDTHEINSTRUMENT.

ANOTARYPUBLIC
ICERTIFYUNDERPENALTYOFPERJURYUNDERTHELAWSOFTHESTATEOFCALIFORNIATHATTHEFOREGOINGPARAGRAPHISTRUEANDCORRECT.WITNHAND SIMeaning£.aKQHQPRINTNAMEMYCOMMISSIONEXPIRESON:3“.15’2023 .MYPRINCIPALPLACEOFBUSINESSIS:(mast
COUNTY .MYCOMMISSIONNUMBERIS2.7515315 MIDW AYA VE.
(66S}CITYLIMITSE<OI—Zo<‘1z<0)

CITYLIMITSMENLOA VENUEVICINITYMAPNOTTOSCALE

GIRARDSTREET
SHEET2OF4SHEETS

CITYLIMITS
SEC.2,T.5S.,R.1.W.,SBM

23.B

A VENUE
INTHECITYOFHEMET,COUNTYOFRIVERSIDE,STATEOFCALIFORNIAPARCELMAPNO.37794[N] 0'50'100'200'300'400‘GRAPHICSCALEINFEET1"=100'
MIDW AYSTREET—.__—.—————_____._——.______.——._._W__QMN89°52’21"W1323.30'(1320'EAST—R8) BEINGASUBDIVISIONOFAPORTIONOFTHENORTH30LANDSOFTHESANJACINTOLANDASSOCIATION,ASOFSANDIEGOCOUNTY ,CALIFORNIA,LYINGINT7'[IETHOMSENCOM/PAN};INC.

ACRESOFTHEEAST60ACRESOFFARMLOT193OFTHESHOWNBYMAPINBOOK8,PAGE357OFMAPS,RECORDSOWNSHIP5SOUTH,RANGE1WEST,SECTION2,S.B.M.JANUAI?Y2021 ~Z‘PROCEDUREOFSURVEY: E(4;?THENORTHHALFOFLOT193MAPBOOK8/357S.D.W ASFOUNDTOBE30.0928AC.THE ‘65FARMLOTISAPPROXIMATELYTHREEFEETWIDER(EAST-WEST)THANSHOWNONTHE 2 5;ORIGINALMAP.THEDEED,FORTHESUBJECTPROPERTY ,CALLSTHESOUTHLINEAS 353BEINGTHESOUTHLINEOFTHENORTH30ACRES.THISCREATESAROUGHLYTHREE O(24/FOOTGAPBETWEENTHESOUTHLINEOFTHENORTH30ACRESANDTHENORTHLINEOFTHESOUTHHALF.TOA VOIDTHEGAP,WEHELDWHATISCALLEDTHENORTHLINEOFCONVERGENCEANGLEAT"TCIBASE"THESOUTHHALFPERR.S.58/90ASBEINGTHESOUTHLINEOFTHENORTH30ACRES=—002313.45"(ALSOMATCHESTHELINESOFOCCUPATION(BLOCKW ALLSANDFENCES).ITISTHEOPINIONOFTHESURVEYORTHATTHISSURVEY ,ANDTHEBOUNDARYESTABLISHMENTSHOWNHEREON,PERPETUATESTHEORIGINALINTENTOFTHEDEEDSFORTHISLOT.

RECORDDATA SFNM 331-76‘CAI—CPERDEEDNORTHERN—838% SOUTHERLY274.92'PERDEED \ °° 17m ( \3 I___ '9—\g ESf\ ///g 331:: SEEDETAIL"A“ONSHT4 92g10‘“\\//< 2 <9)"/LI»—\ P0P.PARA (If3.3385//\//¢®\@° I. SENPB/ (313*A\\(($65 P Sa//?x§®°\M/OLDR/WLINE(E.LINE)OFSANJAC.A VE.ATTIMEDEEDW ASWRITTEN@?éx0 /DEEDRECORDED0928,2018AS?33'IZ///W%o«%,Tor) .0 m,_,,,./EX|ST-R/WLINE (699& INST.No.2018-038745381/ \Xo ”T189A, V© PAR1 ED Q“(8&9*44 ‘8 E 57,975.95S.F.NET2D: 3%)14—30 ®@v 83,744.82S.F.GROSS33.< 0.3%,.\ / ?g 3\(EXISTINGSW ALE,SEENOTE17ATRIGHTDJmL1H(JJ $0/>/L8 IL“)33‘ISPERDEED////._,I14—44'ACCEPTEDASTHENORTHLINEOFTHESOUTH1/2LOT193PER(R2). 2+—~—+———BK.1389P67“,/ / /ALSOACCEPTEDASTHESOUTHERLYLINEOFTHENORTH30ACRES.SEEDETAIL"B"ONSHT.4 PAR2 / / X 33145-42SF.NET a/0“/
,,,,, , / 36,445.42S.F.GROSSA/85<0//\N895511w929.50(PERDEED) , ~ / / C8434/ \
- . CITYOFSANJACINTO END9/ \\
T ._
OFHMET
T T """""""
T
x __I/6¢///N89°55'11"W1323.99(N89°43'43"E1324.15—R3). / /<POB0FDEED~— . 2- / / \@' ,L \\IIDI
MR4 g I SEEDETAIL"C"ONSHT.4933’{52 \PAIR5 , @f 35. \
__ _ ,9 @ I N©TAPART9F 3%1T8\/T gg R).PM.888758=550,; \ / gill:K93 \\PAID3Egg$8 MENLOQA VENUE0 oPAR2 IEIIQ2PAR‘1 I0I I [
SHEET3OF4SHEETSNOTES:FD.1"LP,DN.20",NOTAG,FILLEDWITHCONCRETE,NOTACCEPTEDASTHES.W.CORNEROFPARCEL4PERRS.42/64(R1).FD.1"LP.,DN.12"NOTAG,FILLEDWITHCONCRETE,NOTACCEPTEDASAPOINTONLINESHOWNASTHEN.LINEOFTHE8.1/2OFLOT193(R2).FD.1"IR,FLUSH,TAGGED"LS.4297",PER(R3).

I
FD.60DNAILFLUSHONCLATCORRECTDISTANCEFROMNECORNEROFFARMLOT193.ALSOFD.1"LP,DN.12”,NAILINCONC.,NOTAG,NOREF.NOTACCEPTED,N05°11'47"W0.25’FROM60DNAIL.FD.2"LP,DN.24",NOTAG,N.E.COR.OFFARMLOT193,PER(R2)(R1).SETLS7200TAG.FD.3/4"|.P.,F,L.,TAGGEDRCFCWCD,PER(R5),INLIEUOF1"LP.TAGGEDRCFCWCDPER(R4).FD.1”LP,DN.7",TAGGEDLS.2831,PER(R2)(R7).FD.3/4"I.P.,DN.25",TAGGEDLS.3365,REF.(R2),(R3)&(R7)SE.COR.OFFARMLOT193.FD.1”LP,DN6",TAGISILLEGIBLE,PER(R2)ACCEPTEDASCENERLINEOFCAJONDRIVE.

NOTES:THEBASISOFBEARINGSFORTHISMAPISTHECALIFORNIASTATEPLANECOORDINATESYSTEM,CC883,ZONE6,BASEDLOCALLYONCONTROLSTATIONS"MLFP","BILL"AND"P584"NAD83(2011)(EPOCH2010.0000)ASSHOWNHEREON.ALLBEARINGSONTHISMAPAREGRID.QUOTEDBEARINGSANDDISTANCESARESHOWNPERTHATRECORDREFERENCE.ALLDISTANCESAREGROUNDDISTANCESUNLESSOTHERWISESPECIFIED.GRIDDISTANCESMAYBEOBTAINEDBYMULTIPLYINGTHEGROUNDDISTANCESBYACOMBINATIONFACTOROF0.9999818677.CALCULATIONSAREMADEATMONUMENTNo.3ASSHOWNABOVEWITHCOORDINATESOF:N:2221335457E:6347579992USINGANELEV ATION(ORTHOMETRICHEIGHT)OF1604.66'(NA VD88,COMPUTEDUSINGGEOID18).R1INDICATESRECORDDATAPERRS.42/64.‘ R2INDICATESRECORDDATAPERRS.58/90.R3INDICATESRECORDDATAPERPM.141/53-55.R4INDICATESRECORDDATAPERC.R.17—0820.R5INDICATESRECORDDATAPERC.R.15—0429.R6INDICATESRECORDDATAPERM.B.21/74—76.R7INDICATESRECORDDATAPERRS.66/40.R8INDICATESRECORDDATAPERMAPINBOOK8,PAGE357RECORDSOFSANDIEGOCOUNTY ,CALIFORNIA."S.F.N.”INDICATESMONUMENTSSEARCHEDFORBUTFOUNDNOTHING,SETNOTHING,UNLESSNOTEDOTHERWISE(U.N.O.)ALLCORNERSOFSUBJECTPARCELLABELEDTOBERESETHA VEBEENSEARCHEDFORANDIFFOUND,NOTACCEPTED..INDICATESFOUNDMONUMENTASNOTED.OINDICATESSET1"LP.TAGGED"LS7200”FLUSH.AINDICATESSETCOPPERWELDSTAMPED"LS7200"FLUSH.AGPSCORSPOINTASNOTED(NOTE16NOTUSED)EXISTINGSW ALESHALLBEKEPTFREEOFBUILDINGSANDOBSTRUCTIONS.AHYDROLOGYSTUDYISREQUIREDFORANYFURTHERSUBDIVISIONOFPARCEL2.MONUMENTSSETPERRIVERSIDECOUNTYORD.NO.461.9THISMAPCONTAINS2.0919AC.NET.THISMAPCONTAINS2PARCELS.INDICATESRECORDDATAPERRECORDLISTEDIN(). @mNP’f—I‘PP’NA.0

11.12.13.14.15.17. 18.19.20.21.

EASEMENT
NOTE:ANEASEMENTGRANTEDTO"CALIFORNIAELECTRICPOWERCOMPANY"FORTRANSMISSIONOFELECTRICENERGYANDINCIDENTALPURPOSESPERDOCUMENTRECORDEDFEBRUARY5,1946INBOOK708,PAGE221,OFOFFICIALRECORDS.ANEASEMENTGRANTEDTO"CALIFORNIAELECTRICPOWERCOMPANY"FORTRANSMISSIONOFELECTRICENERGYFORANYANDALLPURPOSESPERDOCUMENTRECORDEDJULY23,1946INBOOK767.PAGE99,OFOFFICIALRECORDS(NOTPLOTTABLE).ABLANKETDRAINAGEEASEMENTOVERPARCEL2FORTHEBENEFITOFPARCEL1ASSHOWNHEREON(&SEESHEET1).

23.B

"MLFP"PID#DH7093N=2279468.1851xE=6237668.0339
[NJNOTTOSCALE
INTHECITYOFHEMET,COUNTYOFRIVERSIDE,STATEOFCALIFORNIAPARCELMAPN0.37794BEINGASUBDIVISIONOFAPORTIONOFTHENORTH30ACRESOFTHEEAST60ACRESOFFARMLOT193OFTHELANDSOFTHESANJACINTOLANDASSOCIATION,ASSHOWNBYMAPINBOOK8,PAGE357OFMAPS,RECORDSOFSANDIEGOCOUNTY ,CALIFORNIA,LYINGINTOWNSHIP5SOUTH,RANGE1WEST,SECTION2,S.B.M.THETHOMSENCOMPANKINC.N84°41'O7"W111,549.47’(GRID) ?SANJACINTOA VE.

MIDW AYST.Q
"BILL”PID#AF9684N=2154994.9790E=6313564.1704
GIRARDST.
”P584"
N=2222325.256E=6347581.48O
NOO°05'38"E1979.14‘
N=2220346.123E=6347578236
JANUAI?Y2021PID#DG9740N=2269135.9759E=6348737.9677
N01°24'55"E46,825.00‘(GRID)
<—-—-- N01°21‘42“E48,803.63'(GRID)
LINES.1/2LOT193
®FORMONUMENTNOTES,SEES3SEESHEET3FORBASISOFBEARINGS
N48°17'31"E020'
SWCORNERPARCEL4RS.42/64
<—929.50‘
C.L.GIRARDST.

C.L.MIDW AYST.

SHLOBOOOON
DETAIL"A"NOTTOSCALE

EMOBOOOON
N89°55‘11"W(PERDEED)SWCORNER
N16°26’26"E0.19'N89°55'11"W33149—”P08.DEED
DETAIL"B"NOTTOSCALE
N89°55'11"W

3.89.90000N
@/
(12.61'-R2)&MEAS.CAJON
SHEET4OF4SHEETS
ANI
N89°55'11"E0.13‘
AIN]
DRIVE((2——DETAIL"C"NOTTOSCALE
GIRARDST.470.00‘N00°05‘38"E(470.00'NOO°16'35"W-R1)
DETAIL"D"NOTTOSCALE

23.B

City of Hemet
City Council Meeting

STAFF REPORT

Meeting: City Council Meeting - May 14 2024
Department: Public Works
Submitted by: Mark Prestwich, City Manager
Jilleen Ferris, Deputy Public Works Director/Assistant 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 (DIF) Credit and Reimbursement Agreement for Facility Construction By and Between the City of Hemet and Richland Ventures, Inc. Associated with Specific Improvements Identified in the Agreement Related to Specific Plan 12-001 and Authorize the City Manager to Execute the Credit and Reimbursement Agreement as Approved in Final Form and Format by the City Attorney

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

It is respectfully recommended that the City Council:

Adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Hemet, California, Approving the Development Impact Fee (DIF) Credit and Reimbursement Agreement for Facility Construction By and Between the City of Hemet and Richland Ventures, Inc. Associated with Specific Improvements Identified in the Agreement Related to Specific Plan 12-001 and Authorize the City Manager to Execute the Credit and Reimbursement Agreement as Approved in Final Form and Format by the City Attorney.

BACKGROUND:

City of Hemet Municipal Code Section 58.61 established 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.

23.C

On June 10, 2014, City Council adopted an 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), east of Warren Road and west of Myers Street. The vacant parcel consists of approximately 203 gross acres of land and is relatively flat due to prior agricultural uses.

ANALYSIS:

Richland Ventures, Inc. is the current owner of the property identified in SP 12-001. As a condition of approval for this project, the Developer is required to construct certain public improvements described in the attached Credit Agreement, which are part of the Development Impact Fee Study (City Council Resolution No. 3981).

All of the identified improvements that are 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 and/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 the amount of the DIF credit for this Agreement is $13,135,011.

DISCUSSION:

The improvements associated with this Agreement have not been constructed at this time, and this Agreement is for future improvements constructed by the developer for amounts not to exceed either the estimated costs (included in Exhibit E of the Agreement) or the allowable amounts indicated in the DIF Study, whichever is less. The amounts based upon the DIF Study in comparison to the estimated construction costs are listed below:

Type Improvement Estimated
Construction Cost
DIF Study
Road Devonshire Ave,
Various Segments
$1,461,148 $2,472,784
Road Myers, Florida to
Devonshire
$1,014,259 $769,600
Road Rose, Myers to
(Celeste Menlo
Road)
$662,987 $504,000
Signal Devonshire at Myers $457,600 $150,000
Drainage Retention Basin,
Devonshire
$3,829,859 $2,879,593
Drainage 2A - Aqueduct Drain $2,379,866 $1,664,242
Parks & Rec
Facilities
Spine Park,
Trails/OS
$3,329,292 $2,328,176.35

The final amount allowable per the DIF Study will be determined based upon the extent of the improvements, and whether the improvements are the full buildout of the proposed facility.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION:

June 10 2014 – City Council adopted Ordinance No. 14-018 approving Specific Plan 12-001.

23.C

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.

Objective 2: Explore and implement homelessness solutions for the City of Hemet.

Objective 3: Increase Public Safety visibility and response.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There are no impacts to the General Fund.

ALTERNATIVE(S):

1.Do not approve Credit/Reimbursement Agreement.

2.Provide alternative direction to the City Manager.

REVIEWED BY LEGAL:

☒ Staff report ☒ Resolution
☐ Ordinance ☒ Agreement

ATTACHMENT(S):

Attachment 1 - Resolution - Approving the DIF Credit_Reimbursement Agreement Attachment 2 - Draft DIF Credit/Reimbursement Agreement Attachment 3 - DIF Study

23.C

CITY OF HEMET RESOLUTION NO. 2024-XXX 1
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

HEMET, CALIFORNIA
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-xxx

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY

OF HEMET, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DEVELOPMENT

IMPACT FEE (DIF) CREDIT AND REIMBURSEMENT

AGREEMENT FOR FACILITY CONSTRUCTION BY AND

BETWEEN THE CITY OF HEMET AND RICHLAND
VENTURES, INC. ASSOCIATED WITH SPECIFIC

IMPROVEMENTS IDENTIFIED IN THE AGREEMENT
RELATED TO SPECIFIC PLAN 12-001 AND AUTHORIZE

THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE CREDIT AND

REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT AS APPROVED IN

FINAL FORM AND FORMAT BY THE CITY ATTORNEY
The City Council of the City of Hemet, California (hereafter referred to as the “City Council”) does resolve as follows:

WHEREAS, THE City Council adopted Resolution No. 3837 setting fees for development projects (“Development Impact Fee”) with 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 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 the recalculation of Development Impact Fees; and
WHEREAS, on January 23, 2006, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 3981 amending the Development Impact Fees for Residential Development; and

23.C

CITY OF HEMET RESOLUTION NO. 2024-XXX 2
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
WHEREAS, Richland Ventures, Inc. is the owner of the land identified as Specific Plan No 12-001 in which is subject to the latest adopted Development Impact Fees; and
WHEREAS, the City and Developer now desire to enter into this Credit and Reimbursement Agreement for the purpose of constructing certain public improvements which are identified in the City of Hemet Development Impact Fee Study.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HEMET FINDS, DETERMINES, ORDERS AND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1.FINDINGS - The recitals set forth above are hereby adopted as findings in support of this Resolution.

SECTION 2. AGREEMENT - The City Council hereby approves the Development Impact Fee Credit and Reimbursement Agreement for Facility Construction by and between the City of Hemet and Richland Ventures, Inc. associated with the specific improvements identified in the agreement related to Specific Plan No. 12-001 as approved in the final form and format by the City Attorney.

SECTION 3.AUTHORIZATION - The City Council hereby authorizes the City Manager to execute the attached Development Impact Fee Credit and Reimbursement Agreement for Facility Construction by and Between the City of Hemet and Richland Ventures, Inc. associated with future street, drainage, and park improvements as approved in final form and format by the City Attorney.

SECTION 4.EFFECTIVE DATE - The resolution shall be effective upon adoption by the City Council.

23.C

CITY OF HEMET RESOLUTION NO. 2024-XXX 3
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
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 14th day of May, 2024. ____________________________
Joe Males, Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
John Paul Maier, City Clerk

23.C

CITY OF HEMET RESOLUTION NO. 2024-XXX 4
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
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 14 th day of May, 2024, and was passed by the following vote:

AYES: Council Members:

NOES: Council Members:

ABSTAIN: Council Members:

ABSENT: Council Members:
_____________________________
John Paul Maier, City Clerk

23.C

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 , 2023, between the CITY OF HEMET, a Californi a 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 pr operty located within the City, which property has received approval s from the City for the Ra mona Creek Specific Plan No. 12-001 (the “Development Review”). A legal description of the property is attached as Exhibit A (the “Property”).

B. To the extent requir ed by the applicable conditions of approval for the Property, as part of Ramona Creek Tent ative Tract Map No. 36510 (City Council Resolution No. 4578) 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 improvem ents and estimated costs are attached as Exhibit E (the “Improvements”).

C. The Hemet Municipal Code require s 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 public improvements, upon reasonable terms and conditions.

D. Developer has assumed all rights, re sponsibilities and obligations, to the extent required by the applicable condition s of approval, including the design and construction of certain Improvements related to the specified Specific Plans 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.

E. City and Developer have agreed that the costs for the right-of-way, design and construction of the qualified 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 t he mutual promises contained herein, it is agreed as follows:

23.C

2 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, whet her 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 l and or interest therein required for the operation of an Improvement. Notwithst anding 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 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 Cit y 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. Not withstanding 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, t hen 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.

“Credit Request” means a document, substantially in the form of Exhibit C, to be used by Developer in requesting DIF Cr edits with respect to one or more Improvements.

23.C

3 “Days” shall mean business days unless otherwise stated.

“Developer Contract” means a contract between the Developer and a qualified contractor awarded to the qualified cont ractor 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 adopt ed 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 Proper ty. Developer’s DIF Obligation shall be as provided in Exhibit D.

“Effective Date” means the date set fo rth 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 limit ed to, costs of grading) of such Improvement, (ii) costs directly relat ed to the construction and/or acquisition of the Improvement, such as cost s 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 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 eval uations 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, admi nistration and supervision (but only up to five percent (5%) of the costs described in clause (i) above) incurred for the construction of such Improvem ent, (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 constructi on contracts. The maximum amount of Eligible Costs described in clauses (iv) through (vii) sh all 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.

23.C

4 “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 t he City as it may be modified, supplemented or superseded from time to time. The Pr ogram Cost to be applied shall be the Program Cost in effect at the time t he 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 accordanc e 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 th e Improvement(s), Developer shall proceed expeditiously with the constructi on of the Improvement(s) under the terms herein.

(b) For the purposes of this Agreement, commencement of the Improvements shall mean w hen 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 awarded, all contracts for t he 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 wit h respect to the construction of the Improvements in a good, work manlike 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 accordanc e 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 Cr edit Amount is less than the actual cost of the Improvements.

(e) If Developer is unable or unwilling to proceed with, and

23.C

5 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, ho wever, 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, insta ll, 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 terminat ion, whereupon neither party will have any further obligations under this Agreement.

2. Inspection and Acceptance of Comp leted Improvement by City. City shall make or shall cause to be made per iodic site inspections of Developer’s construction work. The Acceptance Date for each Improvement constructed by Developer shall be no later t han twenty (20) Days following t he last to occur of the following requirements:

(a) the City Engineer’s determinati on the Improvement is Complete;

(b) the City Engineer’s determinat ion 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, ce rtified 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 li ens have been recorded by or on behalf of any such person, firm or corporati on. Alternatively, ra ther 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 Im provement 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 ma intain 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 hol ds 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.

4. Maintenance and Warranties to be provided to City. Developer shall

23.C

6 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 perfo rming any required maintenance on the Improvement. On or before the Acceptance Date of t he Improvement, Developer shall assign to the City all of Develope r’s rights in any warranties, guarantees, maintenance obligations or provide other evidence of cont ingent obligations of third persons with respect to such Improvem ent. 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 Improvem ent, Developer shall warrant that the Improvement is free fr om defects in material s and construction defects (and shall correct or cause to be corrected any such defects at Developer’s expense) for a period of one year fr om 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 def ects that appear within said period will be repaired, replaced or corrected by Developer, at its own cost and expense, to the reasonable satisfac tion of the City M anager. 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 right-of-way. During the Warranty Period, Deve loper 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 doe s not repair, replace or correct defects after such written notice, in addi tion to the provisions of Section 16 below, City may repair, replace or corre ct the defects in the Improvement and charge the Developer for the cost of such repair, replacement or correction plus City staff time and ov erhead; provided, however, City shall mitigate its costs through enforcement of any warr anty or guaranty which names City as a beneficiary to the ext ent 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).

23.C

7 6. Limitations on the Issuance of DI F 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 Improvem ent 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 DI F Credit Request is submitted to the City.

7. Issuance of a DIF Cred it Certificate. When an Improvement is Complete, Developer shall submit a DIF Credit Request to City with all supporting documentation evidencing the total actual El igible Costs of the Improvement at the time of submittal. The City Manager sha ll 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 tw enty (20) Days followi ng receipt of the completed DIF Credit Request.

8. DIF Program Modifications. The estimated cost in the City’s DIF Program for DIF Improvements (or defin ed 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 am ount 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 fu nds 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 refl ects the complete understanding of the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof.

23.C

8 15. Prevailing Wages. Developer is awar e 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 Californi a Code of Regulations, Title 8, Section 1600, et seq. and Labor Code Sections 18 10, 1811, 1813, 1814; (collectively, the "Prevailing Wage Laws"), which require the payment of prevailing wage rates and the performance of other require ments on "public works" and "maintenance" projects.

The Bid Documents and each Developer’s Contract shall require all contractors for the construction of Improvements to regi ster with the Departm ent 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 vol unteers 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 consti tutes a default by such party under this Agreement. The party alleged to be in defaul t 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 th e 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 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 ob ligation 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, insurre ction, strikes, lock-outs, riots, floods, earthquakes, fires, casualties, ac ts of God, acts of the public enemy, epidemics and pandemics, quarantine restri ctions, freight embargoes, lack of transportation, governmental restrictions or priority, litigation brought by a third party, unusually severe weather, reasonably unfor eseeable property conditions (that is, property conditions which were unknown and either hidden, concealed, or latent

23.C

9 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 extens ion of time to perfo rm (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 co mmence 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) da ys of knowledge of the commencement of the cause, or from the date of the notice if provided afte r 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, t he date the event commenced, and the estimated delay resulting t herefrom. Any party claiming an Excusable Delay shall make a good faith effort to deliver such wr itten notice within thirty (30) Days after it obtains actual knowledge of the event or, in the ca se of the COVID-19 pandemic, then within thirty (30) days after a change in circumstances in connection with the COVID-19 pandemic begins inte rfering 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 th e specific cause of the delay and the estimated time of delay resulting th erefrom. The Partie s 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 ma y 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 ex pressly assumes the risk that changes in general economic conditions or changes in such economic assumptions relating to the terms and covenants of this Agreem ent 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 fo rce majeure event and does not excuse the performance by such Party of its obl igations 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 co nstruction lender for the improvement of the Property or to satisfy any other condi tion 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 f ees and charges to the City or other

23.C

10 governmental agency to obtain any land us e 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 protec t, 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 employ ees, 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 t heir sole active negligence or sole willful misconduct. The parties acknowledge and agree t hat the Developer shall be released from the indemnity, defense and hold harmless obligations set forth herein upon the acceptance of the Comp leted Improvements by the City and completion of the Warranty Period for such Improvements.

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 ve nturer with City. T he City shall have no responsibility for payment to any contra ctor, subcontractor or supplier of the Developer. Accordingly, this Agreement does not constitute a debt or liability of the City. The City shall not be ob ligated to advance any of it s 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 breac h 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 cont ained 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

23.C

11 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 co venant to be performed by it under any lien or encumbrance, instrument, declara tion, covenant, condition, restriction, license, order, or other agreement, the nonper formance of which could reasonably be expected to materially and adversely a ffect the design, acquisition, construction and installation of the Improvements. Th is Agreement is not, and shall not be construed as, a statutory development agr eement as authorized by Government Code sections 65864 et seq., and this Agreement shall not be interpreted as limiting the authority of t he City to adopt and am end 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.

21. Binding on Successors and Assigns. Ex cept as set forth in Section 10 or Section 25 hereof, neither this Agreemen t nor the duties and obligations of the Developer hereunder may be assigned to any per son 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 agr eements 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 t hat 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, includi ng 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 Ag reement 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 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.

23.C

12 25. No Third-Party Beneficiaries. No per son or entity, othe r 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 encum ber and assign its rights and interests hereunder to the lenders prov iding such financing as security for such financing without the consent of the City and without complying wit h Section 10 hereof. City acknowledges that the l enders providing such financ ing 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 interpretati on or modification. City will not unreasonably withhold its consent to any such requested interpretation or modification provided such interpretation or modification is cons istent 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 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 Cit y of any default by Developer in the performance of Developer’s obligations under this Agreement.

(c) If City timely receives a r equest from a mortgagee requesting a copy of any notice of default given to Deve loper 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 defaul t 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 ot her provision of this Agreement to the contrary, no mortgagee shall have an obligat ion 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

23.C

13 that any covenant to be performed by Deve loper is a condition precedent to the performance of a covenant by City, the per formance thereof sha ll 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, st atement, demand, consent approval, authorization, offer, desig nation, request or other communication to be given hereunder shall be given to the party entitled thereto at it s 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.

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 el ectronic 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 Stat es 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 t he Developer agrees that a final and non-appealabl e judgment in any such ac tion or proceeding shall be conclusive and may be enforced in other juri sdictions by suit on the judgment or in any other manner provided by law.

29. Attorneys’ Fees. If any action is inst ituted to interpret or enforce any of

23.C

14 the provisions of this Agreement, the prevailing party in such action shall be entitled to recover from the other party thereto reasonable attorney’s fees and costs of such suit (including both prejudgment and post ju dgment 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 us ed 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 th e 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. T he Exhibits attached hereto and the Recitals of this Agreement are hereby in corporated by reference as though fully set forth herein:

[Signatures On Next Page]

23.C

15 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:

Mark Prestwich
City Manager

ATTEST:

By:

City Clerk

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

COLE HUBER, LLP

By:

City Attorney

23.C

16 “DEVELOPER”

RICHLAND VENTURES, INC.

By:

Its:

Dated:

23.C

17 EXHIBIT A

LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY

Ramona Creek

23.C

18 EXHIBIT B

FORM OF CERTIFICATE OF DIF CREDIT

Pursuant to Section 6 of the Developm ent 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 incorporat ed 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: ________________

23.C

19 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 office r 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 t he 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 credi t 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 repr esentations and warranties are true and connect.

DEVELOPER:

_____________________
By: __________________
Its: __________________
Dated: _______________

CITY:

By: __________________
Its: __________________
Dated: _______________

23.C

20 ATTACHMENT 1

FORM TO DIF CREDIT REQUEST

SUMMARY OF IMPROVEMENTS AND REQUESTED DIF CREDITS

IMPROVEMENT ELIGIBLE COST S DIF CREDIT REQUESTED

[List here all Improvement s for which credit is
requested, and attached support documentation]

23.C

21 EXHIBIT D
DEVELOPER’S CREDIT ELIGIBLE DIF OBLIGATION

Richland Ventures DIF Obligation
Category SFD TOWNS COMM SFD TOWNS COMM TOTAL
Bridges Signals and Throughfares 2,948 1,805 2.010 1,485,792 1,034,265 1,527,670 4,047,727 Parks & Recreation Facilities 1,736 1,315 - 874,944 753,495 - 1,628,439 Retention Basin Capacity Fee (per Ac) 1,900 1,900 1,900 118,712 64,372 81,187 264,271 Storm Drainage Facilities 1,405 1,013 0.402 708,120 580,449 305,534 1,594,103 Total Credit Eligible DIF Obligation 3,187,568 2,432,581 1,914,391 7,534,540 Ramona Creek Units/SF 504 573 760,035
Ramona Creek Acres 62.48 33.88 42.73
USE Ramona Creek SP

23.C

22 EXHIBIT E

DIF CREDIT ELIGIBLE IMPROVEMENTS

AND ESTIMATED COSTS

.

TYPE  IMPROVEMENT  Cost $
Road  Devonshire Ave, Various Segments

1,461,148
Road  Myers, Florida to Devonshire

1,014,259
Road  Rose, Myers to Menlo (Celest Road)

662,987
Signal  Devonshire at Myers

457,600
Drainage  Retention Basin, Devonshire

3,829,859
Drainage  2A ‐ Aqueduct Drain

2,379,866

*Parks & Rec Facilities  Spine Park, Trails/OS  3,329,292 TOTAL

13,135,011

All information is from “The City of Hemet – Development Impact Fee Study”, adopted per Resolution No. 3981.

*Breakdown of Parks & Rec Facilities Allowable Cost

Parks Acres Adj %
Acquisition
$ per Acre
Improvements
$ per Acre
Total Allowable
Cost
Basin - Trails / OS 23.83 25% 100,000 $ 28,291.85$ 764,298.70$ MWD Spine Park 12.19 100% 100,000 $ 28,291.85$ 1,563,877.65$ 2,328,176.35$

23.C

?\ooo\xoxu-4:mI\>>—‘
CITYOFHEMETHemet,CaliforniaRESOLUTIONNO.3981
ARESOLUTIONOFTHECITYCOUNCILOFTHECITYOFHEMET,CALIFORNIA,AMENDINGDEVELOPMENT10111213141516171819202122232425

FORRESIDENTIALDEVELOPMENT
WHEREAS,theCityCounciladoptedResolutionNo.3837settingfeesfordevelopmentprojects(“DevelopmentimpactFees”)withinthemeaningoftheCaliforniaMitigationFeeAct(“Act")(GovernmentCodeSections66000etseq);and, WHEREAS,theCityhasrecentlycompletedarevisedstudyofcapitalfacilitiesandotherinformationrequiredbyGovernmentCodeSection66001(“NexusStudy”).TheNexusStudywaspreparedbyTisch|erBise,Fiscal,EconomicandPlanningConsultants.TheNexusStudyjustifiesarecalculationofDevelopmentImpactFees;and, WHEREAS,theNexusStudydefinesamethodwherebyfutureresidentialandcommercialdevelopmentwithintheCitywillbearthereasonablecostofpublicfacilitiesidentifiedintheNexusStudywhichfacilitiesarerequiredtoservethesedevelopmentsandmitigatetheirimpactsonthecommunity;and,262728293031323334353637383940 WHEREAS,atadulynoticedpublichearingheldonJanuary23,2006,theCityCouncilconsideredtheNexusStudy,includingallattachments,thepublicfacilitiesidentifiedintheNexusStudy,andthefeerecommendedtherein,togetherwithpublictestimonyhadatthehearing;and, NOW,THEREFORE,theCityCounciloftheCityofHemetdoesherebyresolve:1) TheNexusStudyentitled“DevelopmentImpactFeeStudyfortheCityofHemet,CaliforniabyTisch|erBise,Fiscal,EconomicandPlanningConsultants"datedJanuary3,2006isherebyapprovedandadoptedandincorporatedbyreference.AfullandcompletecopyoftheNexusStudyisonfilewiththeOf?ceoftheCityClerklocatedat445EastFloridaAvenue,HemetCalifornia92543.2) TheCityCouncilfindsthattheNexusStudyadequatelyprovidesalloftheinformationrequiredundertheAct424344454647484950 butnotlimitedto:(i)anidentificationofthepurposeofthefees,(ii)anidentificationoftheusetowhichthefeesaretobeput;(iii)adeterminationthatthereisareasonablerelationshipbetweenthefee'suseandthetypeofdevelopmentprojectsonwhichthefeesaretobeimposed;(iv)adeterminationofhowthereisareasonablerelationshipbetweentheneedforthepublicfacilitiesidentifiedintheNexusStudyandthetypeofdevelopmentprojectsonwhichthefeesaretobeimposed;and(v)adeterminationthatthereisareasonablerelationshipbetweentheamountofthefeestobeimposedandthecostofthepublicfacilitiesidenti?edintheNexusStudy.

CITYCOUNCILRESOLUTIONNO.3981DEVELOPMENTIIMPACTFEES

23.C

._.O\OOO\lO\U1-l>U~3l\)’-‘
3)
4)
5)
DevelopmentimpactFeesforResidentialDevelopmentshallhereinafterbeimposedandcollectedpertheattachedschedules(ExhibitA).

ResolutionNo.3837isamendedasitrelatestoDevelopmentImpactFeesforResidentialDevelopmentProjects,providedhowever,theCityCouncilshallreviewtheamountofsuchfeeswithineighteen(18)monthsorupontheadoptionofthecurrentupdatetotheGeneralPlan,whicheveristhe?rsttooccur.TheCityCouncilshall,byseparateandsubsequentlynoticedaction,consider11121314151617181920212223242526 adjustmentstoDevelopmentimpactFeesforCommercialand/orIndustrialProjects. 6) PursuanttoGovernmentCodeSection66017,theadjustedfeesdescribedinthisresolutionshallnotbeimposedandcollectedsoonerthansixty(60)followingtheadoptionofthisresolution.

PASSED,APPROVEDANDADOPTEDbytheCityCouncilthis23rddayofJanuary,2006.

C.R0inLowe,APPROVEDASTOFORM:ATTEST:
27293031
333435363738394041
/ 4Eri.ail,CityAttorney
4243444546474849
CITYCOUNCILRESOLUTIONNO.3981DEVELOPMENTZIMPACTFEES

23.C

;\DO0\lO\UI-bU3l\)v-
StateofCalifornia)CountyofRiverside)CityofHemet )
I,SarahMcComas,DeputyCityClerkoftheCityofHemet,doherebycertifythattheforegoingResolutionistheactualResolutionadoptedbytheCityCounciloftheCityofHemet ,-_ ._,,_,_u ..|_._._._-;:.... 4|... 0')_; _-..
1U1112131415161718192021
andwasthefollowingvote:

AYES:NOES:ABSTAIN:ABSENT:
passeuataregularmeetingUIUIULillyUUUIIUIIUllLIIUUllyUlJ?llualyL0,LUUUDy CouncilMembersChristie,andVanArsdaIe,ViceMayorSearlandMayorLoweCouncilMemberMeadows (3701/L/‘410SarahMccomas,DeputyCityClerk

23.C

EXHIBITA
CITYOFHEMETDEVELOPMENTIMPACTFEES- RESIDENTIALJanuary23,2006 ResidentialSingleFamilyDetachedTownhouse/DuplexMultiFamilyMobileHome General TotalNewPolice Fire RoadsDrainageParks Govt. LibraryFee 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 5,393OLDFEEPERHOUSINGUNITGeneral TotalOldPoliceFire RoadsDrainageParks Govt. LibraryFeeResidentialSingleFamilyDetached 258 330 1,275 1,119 518 658 467 4,625Townhouse/Duplex258 330 1,275 724 518 658 467 4,230MultiFamily 337 325 890 366 482 627 375 3,402MobileHome 74 91 709 819 356 642 420 3,111 AdministrativeProcessingFeeis3%ofTotalImpactFees.

23.C

SurveyofSingleFamilyResidentialDevelopmentImpactFees
ExhibitB
WithReducedParkFee
Detached CoronaHemetMurrieta TemeculaMorenoValleySanJacintoLakeElsinorePerrisRiversideCo.DescriptionLawEnforcementFacilities/Equipment$ 471.00$ 158.00$ 17.00$ 25.00$ 198.00 119.00FireFaci|iliesIEquipment 349.00$ 560.00$ 457.00$ 514.00$ 252.00$ 212.00 $ 431.00 438.00Streets/MinorBridgeslculverts 4,047.00$ 2,948.00$ 535.003 1,495.00$ 1,275.00$ 1,517.00 $ 2,190.002,362.00Traf?cSignals/Controllers $ 91.00$ 212.00$ 421.00$ 256.00$ 1,369.00 310.00StormDrainageFacilities 1,176.00$ 1,405.00$ 1,047.00GeneralFacilitiesNehicles/Equipment$ 780.00$ 184.00$ 405.00 $ 408.00$ 2,481.00 777.00MajorBridge,FreewayOverpass,Ramps $ 1,301.00OpenSpaceAcquisition $ 362.00LandscapeImprovementFee 1,391.00 $ 1,600.00Parks&RecreationFacilities $ 1,736.00$ 2,619.00$ 2,469.00$ 2,557.00 $ 1,870.00430.002,903.00 $ 720.00$ $ 255.00ParkLandandOpenSpace 573.003,010.00CommunityCtr/PublicMeetingFacilities$ 58.00 44.00 575.00$ 630.00 $ 579.00LibraryFacilities/Collection$ 479.00$ 735.00144.00$ 657.00 668.00 $ 150.00$ 146.00$ 261.00 TOTAL S10,841.00$ 8,635.007,042.005 6,689.006,447.00$ 6,231.00S 5,600.00$ 5,335.00S 4,833.00 MSHCP $ 1,651.00$ 1,651.001,651.00$ 1,651.001,651.00$ 1,651.00$ 1,651.00$ 1,651.00$ 1,651.00TUMF $ 7,248.00$ 7,248.007,248.00$ 7,248.007,248.00$ 7,248.00$ 7,248.00$ 7,248.00$ 7,248.00

23.C

EXHIBITC
DIFComparison2005SingleFamilyResidentialFeesWithReducedParkFee 12,000
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
RiversidePerrisLakeSanMorenoTemeculaMurrietaHemetCoronaCo. ElsinoreJacintoValley

23.C

RREEVVIISSEEDD DDRRAAFFTT
DDeevveellooppmmeenntt IImmppaacctt FFeeee SSttuuddyy Prepared for:

City of Hemet, California
January 3, 2006

Prepared by:

23.C

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.................................................................................................................2 5 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

23.C

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..........................................................................................................................4 8 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........................................................5 3 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

23.C

CITY OF HEMET, CALIFORNIA – DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY

1 Executive Summary
The City of Hemet has retained Ti schlerBise to prepare a development impact fee study. This report documents the data, methodology, and re sults of the development impact fee study.

Development impact fees are one-time payments use d 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 intende d to satisfy all legal re quirements governing such fees, including provisions of the U. S. Constitu tion, the California Constitu tion, 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 wri tten analysis of each development impact fee methodology and the cash flow analysis, establis h 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 n ewly developed properties are entitled to various types of credits to avoid potential double paymen t of capital costs. Specifically, the development impact fees categories contained in this report include the following infrastructure categories:
ƒ Police
ƒ Fire/EMS
ƒ Drainage
ƒ Roads
ƒ Parks and Recreation
ƒ General Government
ƒ Libraries

LEGAL FRAMEWORK
U. S. Constitution. Like all land use regu lations, 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 ha ve 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 co mply 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.

23.C

CITY OF HEMET, CALIFORNIA – DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY

2 There is little federal case law specifically dealin g with impact fees, althou gh other rulings on other types of exactions (e.g. land dedication requirement s) 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 ne xus" 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 la nd 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 capi tal 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 need ed to serve new development. If that were the case, then the fees would also run afoul of th e U. S. Constitution and th e Mitigation Fee Act.

Articles XIIIC and XIIID, added by Proposition 21 8 in 1996, require voter approval for some “property-related fees,” but exempt “the impositi on of fees or charges as a condition of property development.”
The Mitigation Fee Act . California’s impact fee statute orig inated in Assembly Bill 1600 during the 1987 session of the Legislat ure, 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 ti tled 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 incl ude "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 Secti on 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 a pproval of a development project for the purpose of defraying all or a portion of the cost of public facilities re lated 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 es tablishing, increasing and imposing impact fees.

They are summarized below. It also contains pr ovisions that govern the collection and expenditure

23.C

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 Im plementation Chapter of this report. Certain fees or charges related to development are exem pted from the requirement s 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 es tablishing, 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 Pu rpose 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 deter ioration in public services that would result from additional development if impact fee revenues were not availa ble 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 ar e 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 capi tal 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;

23.C

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 use d to characterize the standard by which courts evaluate the validity of development impact fees under the U. S. Cons titution, 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 hi gher 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 elem ents of the nexus standard are discussed further in the following paragraphs.

Demonstrating an Impact. All new development in a commu nity 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 use d 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 rela tionships between various types of development and the demand for specific facilities, based on applic able level-of-service standards. This report contains all information needed to demonstrate this element of the nexus.

Demonstrating a Benefit . A sufficient benefit relationship re quires 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 th e 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 f ee 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 devel opments benefit from th e impact fees they are required to pay. Thus, an adequate showing of benefit must address procedural as well as substantive issues.

23.C

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 calcula te impact fees for various types of facilities and categories of development. In this study, the dema nd for facilities is measured in terms of relevant and measurable attributes of development. Fo r example, the need for road improvements is measured by the number of vehicle trips generated by development.

In calculating impact fees, costs for development-re lated facilities are allocated in proportion to the service needs created by different types and qua ntities of development. The following section describes methods used to allocate facility costs an d 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 facilit ies 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 use d to calculate development impact fees. The choice of a particular method depends primarily on the service character istics 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 calc ulating 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 pr actice, though, the calculation of impact fees can become quite complicated because of the many va riables 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 devel opment. 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 to tal 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

23.C

CITY OF HEMET, CALIFORNIA – DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY

6 sense that it is based on the relationship between a pa rticular 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 in surance 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 w ill be assessed per housing unit. For nonresidential development, fees will be assessed per thousand square feet of fl oor area. The City may ad opt 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 S F $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

23.C

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 co st estimates change significantly, the fees should be recalculated.

23.C

CITY OF HEMET, CALIFORNIA – DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY

8 Development and Demand Data
Both existing and planned development must be addr essed 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 developmen t to provide a framework for the impact fee analysis contained in subsequent chapters of the re port. 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, Clarit as, 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 approx imately 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 younge r 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 main tain existing levels of service. The City’s economy is based primarily on service to the se nior 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 devel opment used in this study represents the amount of additional development expected in the study area th rough 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 occu r sooner or later than projected, but the rate and timing of development do not affect the fee calcul ations 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.

23.C

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, to wnhouse/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 b etween facility needs and development must be quantified in cost allocation formulas. Certai n 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 speci fic public services and facilities. Demand variables are selected either because they directl y 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 appr opriate 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-fam ily residential development are 2.41 persons per dwelling unit. Other land use categories would ha ve different impact factors. Some of the impact factors used in this study are based on widely-accep ted 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-resident ial land uses is zero.

The best data currently available to calculate th is differentiation is the US Census Summary File 3 sample dataset. According to the 2000 Cen sus 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.

23.C

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 resident ial 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, an d 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 impa ct 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 emplo yee multipliers. The multipliers shown in Figure 3 are derived from national data published by th e 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 em ployment sector. Office and institutional development in Hemet is typically located in sca ttered, 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 offi ce 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.

23.C

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 ar ea 1,000 Sq Ft 86.56 na 2.86 350 820 100K gross leasable ar ea 1,000 Sq Ft 67.91 na 2.50 400 820 200K gross leasable ar ea 1,000 Sq Ft 53.28 na 2.22 450 820 400K gross leasable ar ea 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 Develo
pment 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 an d 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 20 05 and 2020. This two percent annual growth rate reflects the annual growth rate experienced du ring 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 yea r 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.

23.C

CITY OF HEMET, CALIFORNIA – DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY

12 Figure 4: City of Hemet Growth Indicators
2005 2010 2015 2020
Employment
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 averag ed 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 increasing ly larger proportion of the City’s housing stock during the 2005 to 2020 period.

23.C

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 A nnual 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.

23.C

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 ( x 0 ) 51 01 5
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 pu blic 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.

23.C

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
1Source: City of Hemet Population-Business Facts Daytime Employment 2003. Based on information provided by Claritas (July 6, 2004)
Employment data for subsequent yea rs was derived by maintaining the 2003 jobs to housing ratio constant at .68 jobs per housing unit. Based on th is jobs to housing ratio, Figure A7 shows the employment estimate for 2004 and a 2020 employ ment 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). Ba sed 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.

23.C

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.

23.C

CITY OF HEMET, CALIFORNIA – DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY

17 Figure 9: Future Development Data

23.C

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

23.C

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 th e City Hall building that provides office space for general government functions, including city administ ration, finance, and pla nning. Other facilities include space utilized by the Office of Code Compliance. General government vehicles and equipment consists of vehicles and heavy equipm ent 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 residentia l development, the proportionate share factor is based on estimated person hours of non-working resi dents, 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

23.C

CITY OF HEMET, CALIFORNIA – DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY

20 workers. Based on 2000 census data, Hemet’s popula tion 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 wo rk (i.e., 8 hours) is allocated to nonresidential development. In 2000, the U.S. Census Bureau estima ted 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 alloca tion for residential development is 89% while nonresidential development accounts for 11% of th e 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.

23.C

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 serv ice standards are based on the amount of existing building floor area and land area devoted to ge neral 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 co st 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 propor tionate share factors for each type of land use and then divided by the respective demands for ea ch. 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 41,883 $11,427,240
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 31,239 $6,247,800
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

23.C

CITY OF HEMET, CALIFORNIA – DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY

22 VEHICLE AND EQUIPMENT INCREMENTAL EXPANSION COMPONENT Figure 13 documents the City Hemet’s existing in ventory 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 equipmen t 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 de rive 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 ex ample, 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 incr emental expansion approach, there is no need to include a credit calculation in the methodology to offset any possibili ty of potential double payment by fee payers.

23.C

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 la nd 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 Developmen t 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 go vernment impact fees for Hemet. For residential land uses, persons per housing unit (2.68 for a si ngle family-detached unit) are multiplied by the capital cost per person ($291.19), fo r 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 pe r 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.

23.C

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

23.C

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 stan dards. Facilities included in the impact fee include fire stations, training facilities, land and apparatus. The de velopment 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 purcha sed in anticipation of new development. As illustrated in Figure 16, capital costs are allocated to residential development and nonresidential development. Residential factors are calcula ted 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 emplo yees 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. Fo r residential development, the proportionate share factor is based on estimated person hours of non-wo rking 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

23.C

CITY OF HEMET, CALIFORNIA – DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY

26 resident workers. Based on 20 00 census data, Hemet’s population is heavily weighted to residents who do not work versus residents that do. For resi dent 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 estima ted 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 alloca tion 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 fa cilities supporting fire functions in Hemet. The level of service standa rds are based on the amount of existing building floor area and land area devoted to fire functions in the City. Cost esti mates on a per square foot (including land) have been used to estimate the cost of providing this level of service. As discussed

23.C

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 shar e factors for each type of land use and then divided by the respective demands fo r 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
28,681 $10,611,970
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 co st 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 mult iplied 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.

23.C

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. Ther efore, 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.

23.C

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 im pact fees for fire facilities. For residential land uses, persons per housing unit (2.6 8 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 squa re 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.

23.C

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

23.C

CITY OF HEMET, CALIFORNIA – DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY

31 Parks and Recreation

METHODOLOGY
The development impact fees for park and recrea tion 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 ac res. 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 $1 00,000. To determine the cost per demand unit to be used in the development impact fee, the cost pe r acre ($100,000) is mult iplied 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

23.C

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 inventor y 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.

23.C

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 00 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 im provements. 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 incr emental expansion approach, there is no need to include a credit calculation in the methodology to offset any possibili ty 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.

23.C

CITY OF HEMET, CALIFORNIA – DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY

34 Development impact fees are calculated for resident ial 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 Ci ty’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 recreati on 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

23.C

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 th e cost of maintaining the City’s current level of service to residential and nonresidential devel opment. This approach will allow the police department to address the need fo r additional facilities, vehicles, and equipment that will be needed to support the greater demand for law enforcem ent 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, Tischl erBise recommends using nonresidential vehicle trips as the best demand indicator for police depa rtment facilities and equi pment. Trip generation rates are used for nonresidential development b ecause 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 t oo 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.

23.C

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 determi ne 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

23.C

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, 31 3 or 17 percent were to nonresidential properties while 1,531 calls or 83 pe rcent 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 am ount by type of housing unit, based on average persons per housing unit. Since the breakdown of nonr esidential calls for service is not by specific nonresidential use (i.e. retail, office, indust rial, etc.), we recommend using average daily nonresidential vehicle trips on a week day 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/inst itutional trip rates fall between the other two categories. This ranking of trip rates is cons istent with the relative demand for police protection from nonresidential development. Other possi ble 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 fr om 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 cen ter 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 tr ip 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, appropria te 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.

23.C

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 estima ted 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 fo r 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

23.C

CITY OF HEMET, CALIFORNIA – DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY

39 average daily nonresidential vehicle trips (111,412), for a cost per demand un it 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
Share
3 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 th e cost of replacing existing vehicles and/or equipment in the department’s inventory. As s hown 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 divide d by the current estimate of average daily nonresidential vehicle trips (111,412), for a cost per demand unit of $4.41 per vehicle trip.

23.C

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 Price1 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. Th erefore, a credit for existing bond financing is not applicable to this development impact f ee. And since the development impact fee was calculated using an incremental expansion approach, there is no need to incl ude a credit calculation in the methodology to offset any possibility of potential double payment by fee payers.

23.C

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 resident ial 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 pe r unit of $471. For nonresidential land uses,

23.C

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 ca pital 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

23.C

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 purc hased to maintain current levels of service for new growth. As shown in Figure 32, 100% of th e 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 sys tem 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

23.C

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 shou ld 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 co llection 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 coll ection items per person. According to information provided by City staff, the current cost of purc hasing a “typical” collection item is estimated at $30.00. Therefore, the asset value of the coll ection 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 co llection 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

23.C

CITY OF HEMET, CALIFORNIA – DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY

45 CREDITS
The City of Hemet is currently r etiring bonds used to construct the current library. Therefore, in order to avoid potential double payment situat ion, where a fee payer will pay once through a development impact fee and again through property ta x, a debt service credit is included in the development impact fee methodology. As shown be low in Figure 35, annual debt service payments are divided by the projected number of persons re siding in Hemet through the year 2020 to yield a debt service payment per person. A net present va lue 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 199 9 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 pers on. To calculate the fee, persons per household (2.68 for a single family unit) is multiplied by th e net capital cost per demand unit ($274.77), for a development impact fee per unit of $735.

23.C

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

23.C

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 20 05 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 primar ily a function of vehicle trips. Therefore, transportation development fees by type of deve lopment are based on average weekday vehicle trip generation rates and adjustment factors publishe d 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 devel opment (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

23.C

CITY OF HEMET, CALIFORNIA – DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY

48 calculate impact fees, trip generation rates are adjus ted to avoid double counting each trip at both the origin and destination points. For all nonres idential 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. (S ee 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 coll ector 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 f eet of floor area, the ITE manual indicates that on average 48 percen t of the vehicles that enter are passing by on their way to some other primary destination. The remaining 52 percen t 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 th e development impact fee methodology is based on capacity improvements identified by City staff. It is important to note that the capital facility plan

23.C

CITY OF HEMET, CALIFORNIA – DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY

49 excludes improvements to local roads and renewa l/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 tr ip 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 outstandin g 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 ex isting streets, therefore a future revenue credit is not required for this funding source.

23.C

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 ar e 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 s hown 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 use s, the capital cost per unit of trip capacity ($648.22) is multiplied by average weekday vehicle tr ips (9.57 for a single family-detached unit) and trip adjustment factor (50%), for a development impa ct fee per unit of $3,102 . A similar calculation is made for nonresidential land uses.

23.C

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.

23.C

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 pe r 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

23.C

CITY OF HEMET, CALIFORNIA – DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY

53 PROPORTIONATE SHARE FACTORS
Figure 43 shows the proportionate share factors use d 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 es timate of ultimate land use acreage and impervious surface factors from the Colorado Urban Draina ge 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** Acrea geS h a r e
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 acrea
ge 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 st aff. The specific projects included in the development impact fee calculation, as well as th e 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 wh ich 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 improvem ents 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.

23.C

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** Acrea geS h a r e
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 outstand ing bonded debt related to the construction of drainage facilities. Therefore, a credit for ex isting bond financing is not applicable to this development impact fee.

MAXIMUM SUPPORTABLE DRAINAGE DEVELOPMENT FEE
Figure 45 provides a summary of the level of se rvice standards used to calculate development fees for drainage facilities and improvements. Drai nage development fees are calculated for both residential and nonresidential land uses. Resident ial development impact fees per housing unit are based on average lot sizes, expresse d in acres per unit. For single family-detached units, the average density for new development is 3.5 units per gross ac re. 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.

23.C

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 devel opment impact fees for drainage facilities and improvements. For residential land uses, the capi tal cost per acre ($4,917 for a single family- detached unit) is multiplied by the gross acreage per unit (.286), for a development impact fee per unit of $1,405. For nonresidential land uses, suc h 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

23.C

CITY OF HEMET, CALIFORNIA – DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY

56 Implementation and Administration
This section of the report contains recommend ations for adoption and administration of a development impact fee program based on this stud y, and for the interpretation and application of impact fees recommended herein. Statutory requi rements 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 he aring requirements, are specified in Government Code Section 66016. Such fees do not become e ffective until 60 days after final action by the Governing body. Actions establishing or increasi ng fees subject to the Mitigation Fee Act require certain findings, as set forth in Government Cod e Section 66001 and discussed in Section 1 of this report summarized below.

ADMINISTRATION
Several requirements of the California Mitiga tion 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.,

23.C

CITY OF HEMET, CALIFORNIA – DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY

57 above) may be specified in a capital improvement pl an, 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 speci fic development project, "... shall identify the public improvement that the fee will be used to fina nce." For each type of fee calculated in this report, the improvements to be funded by the im pact fees are identified. Consequently, this report provides a basis for the notification required by th e 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 ag ency 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, "u tility service fees" (not defined) may be collected upon application for utility service. In a resident ial 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 fo r improvements or facilities for which money has been appropriated. The agency must also have ad opted 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 citi es routinely collect impact fees for all facilities at the time building permits are issued, and builders of ten 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 ow ner 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 facilit ies 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 th e 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 dema nd for City facilities, as measured by the demand variables used in this study. Since residential se rvice 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 in crease 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.

23.C

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 an d 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 pl aced in the capital account and used for the same purpose.

The language of the law is not clear as to wh ether depositing fees "with other fees for the improvement" refers to a specific capital improv ement 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 constr uct 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 sign als, 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 lo cal 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 Governme nt Code amendments contained in SB 1693, a local agency collecting impact fees was requi red to expend or commit the fee revenue within five years or make findings to justify a continue d need for the money. Otherwise, those funds had to be refunded. SB 1693 changed that requirement in material ways.

23.C

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 ever y 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 wi th 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 revenu e is to be used, it m ust, 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 implementi ng 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 pr ojects, accounting for fee revenues and expenditures, preparing required annual reports, updating the fees, and pr eparing 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 bod y at a noticed public hearing. The alternative is to identify improvements in other public docu ments. 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 th is 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 resoluti on 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.

23.C

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 findin gs to impose the fees, for collecting the fees, and for explaining them to the public, understand bot h 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 accounti ng, 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 th is 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 cost s 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 fi ve 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 pub lic 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.

23.C

CITY OF HEMET, CALIFORNIA – DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY

61 Expected Revenue
This analysis of expected development impact f ee 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 th e 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 rapidl y growing communities such as Hemet review and recalibrate their fees every three yea rs. 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 th ese 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 ( C u r r e n t $ i n t h o u s a n d s ) 123456 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

23.C

CITY OF HEMET, CALIFORNIA – DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY

62 Appendix
This Appendix provides a detailed listing of th e 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 M eridian, 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 Pa lm, 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 Sobo ba, 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 St etson, Railroad to Cawston $456,401 Hemet, Various Segments $1,500,000 Thorn ton, 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 Righ t 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

23.C

CITY OF HEMET, CALIFORNIA – DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY

63 Figure 49: Signalization Capital Improvement Plan Through Buildout Improvement Cost Improvement Cost
Traffic Signal Update Program $500,000 Traffic Signal, Hemet at Florida $210,000 Traffic Signal, State at Devonshire $145,000 Traffic Signal, Devonshire at Myers $150,000 Traffic Signal, State at Whittier $145,000 Traffic Signal, Cawston at Florida $215,001 Traffic Signal, Lyon at Devonshire $145,000 Traffic Signal, Cawston at Devonshire $145,000 Traffic Signal, Kirby at Devonshire $145,000 Traffic Signal, Sanderson at Eaton $145,000 Traffic Signal, Lyon at Menlo $145,000 Traffic Signal, Sanderson at Fruitvale $145,000 Traffic Signal, Acacia at Palm $145,000 Traffic Signal, State at Fruitvale $145,000 Traffic Signal, Kirby at Menlo $145,000 Traffic Signal, State at Mayberry $145,000 Traffic Signal, State at Johnston $145,000 Traffic Signal, Santa Fe at Acacia $145,000 Traffic Signal, Sanderson at Johnston $145,000 Traffic Signal, Santa Fe at Devonshire $145,000 Traffic Signal, Kirby at Johnston $145,000 Traffic Signal, San Jacinto at Acacia $145,000 Traffic Signal, California at Florida $215,001 Traffic Signal, Soboba at Mountain $145,000 Traffic Signal, Palm at Menlo $145,000 Traffic Signal, Florida at Lake $210,000 Traffic Signal, Santa Fe at Stetson $145,000 Traffic Signal, Sanderson at Wentworth $145,000 Traffic Signal, Warren at Devonshire $150,000 Traffic Signal, Palm at Devonshire $145,000 Traffic Signal, Warren at Stetson $145,000 Traffic Signal, State at Thornton $145,000 Traffic Signal, Fisher at Stetson $145,000 Future Traffic Signalization $500,000 Traffic Signal, Sanderson at Harrison $145,000 Hemet Street Bridge over Charlton $79,201 Traffic Signal, Cawston at Harrison $145,000 H ighway 79 Bridge over Devonshire $862,690 Traffic Signal, Fisher at Harrison $145,00 0 Highway 79 Bridge over Stetson $862,960 Traffic Signal, Dartmouth at Florida $210,000 TOTAL $8,369,853

Figure 50: Drainage Capital Improvement Plan Through Buildout Growth-Related Growth-Related
Improvement Cost Percentage Cost
Salt Creek, Lyon to Newport $5,463,266 100% $5,463,266
Retention Basin, Devonshire $2,879,593 100% $2,879,593
Retention Basin, Eaton $1,695,020 100% $1,695,020
Line 1A, Florida Avenue $484,815 100% $484,815
Line 1A, Hemet Channel $7,095,247 100% $7,095,247
Line 1A-2, Cawton Ave., N/O Hemet Channel $456,006 100% $456,006 Line 1A-3, Acacia/Kirby $1,051,066 100% $1,051,066
Line 1A-3b, Florida Avenue $235,794 100% $235,794
Line 1B, Acacia Avenue $3,062,797 100% $3,062,797
Line 1B-1, Buena Vista Steet $204,978 100% $204,978
Line 1B-2, San Jacinto Steet $324,179 100% $324,179
Line 1C, Whittier Storm Drain $2,688,944 100% $2,688,944 Line 1C-1, Palm Avenue $413,559 100% $413,559
Line 1C-2, Columbia Avenue $261,085 100% $261,085
Line 1C-3, Yale Street $220,544 100% $220,544
Line 1D-1, Buena Vista/Johnston $1,098,859 100% $1,098,859 Line 1D-2, Yale Street $89,234 100% $89,234
Line 1D-3, Cornell Street $122,936 100% $122,936
Line 1D-4 and 1D-5, Stanford Street $356,698 100% $356,698 Line 1D-6, Gilbert Street $222,197 100% $222,197
Line 1D-9, State Street $154,018 100% $154,018
Line 2A, Aqueduct Drain $1,664,242 100% $1,664,242
Line 2C, Menlo Avenue $1,459,886 100% $1,459,886

23.C

CITY OF HEMET, CALIFORNIA – DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY

64 Growth-Related Growth-Related
Improvement Cost Percentage Cost
Line 2C-1, Menlo Avenue $1,732,416 100% $1,732,416
Line 2C-2, Palm Avenue $510,016 100% $510,016
Line 2C-3, Lyon/Devonshire $2,364,510 100% $2,364,510
Line 2C-4, Gilbert Street $100,082 100% $100,082
Line 2C-5, Lyon Avenue $98,892 100% $98,892
Line 2C-6, Oakland Avenue $121,161 100% $121,161
Line 2C-7, Kirby Street $509,278 100% $509,278
Line 2C-8, Menlo/Cawston $365,605 100% $365,605
Line 2D, Devonshire $1,425,887 100% $1,425,887
Line 2E, Whittier/Cawston $1,961,611 100% $1,961,611
Line 2E-1, Florida/Acacia $627,973 100% $627,973
Line 3A, Thornton Avenue $522,491 45% $235,121
Line 3A-1, Fisher Avenue $535,617 0% $0
Line 3A-3 and 3A-4, Warren Road and Fisher Street $95,978 50% $47,989 Line 3B, Aqueduct, S/O Harrison $1,021,776 100% $1,021,776 Lines 3B-3 through 3B-6, Aqueduct, S/O Harrison $287,338 100% $287,338 Line 3C, Warren/Harrison $649,967 100% $649,967
Line 3D, Harrison/Cawston $473,815 0% $0
Line 3E, Sanderson, S/O Stetson $164,414 100% $164,414
Line 3F through 3L, Salt Creek Feeders $1,033,228 100% $1,033,228 Line 3M through 3P-1, Salt Creek Feeders $992,634 90% $893,371 Line 4A, Cactus Valley Channel $1,161,081 100% $1,161,081 Line 4B, Avery Canyon $2,734,368 75% $2,050,776
Line 4C, Pepper Creek $5,248,166 95% $4,985,758
Lines 5A through 5A-3, Columbia/Florida $2,156,986 60% $1,294,192 Lines 5B & 5B-1, San Jacinto/Menlo $1,444,435 40% $577,774 Lines 5C & 5C-4, Santa Fe/Midway $3,812,094 85% $3,240,280 Lines 5C-1, Park Hill North $725,283 50% $362,642
Lines 5C-2 & 5C-3, Washington/Park Hill $158,752 75% $119,064 Line 5C-5 Santa Fe/Commonwealth $100,384 100% $100,384
Line 5E-2 State Street Storm Drain $1,184,252 75% $888,189 Lines 5F & 5F-1, Washington/Hewitt $255,485 100% $255,485 Line 6A-1, Lake Street $198,975 70% $139,283
Line 6A-2, Soboba $223,112 50% $111,556
Line 6A-3, Hemet Street $387,044 20% $77,409
Line 6B-1, Whittier Avenue $878,223 40% $351,289
Lines 6B-1a,2,3,4, Hemet/Mayberry/Acacia/Florida $1,357,365 50% $678,683 Line 6C, Charlton Avenue $907,818 25% $226,955
Line 6C-1, Hemet Street $184,143 20% $36,829
Line 6D, Lincoln Avenue $631,585 25% $157,896
Line 6D-1, Soboba Street $193,009 15% $28,951
Line 6E, Florida Avenue $631,445 50% $315,723
Line 6F, Acacia Avenue $838,208 20% $167,642
Line 6G, Lake Street $1,358,288 60% $814,973
Line 6H, Pleasant Street $476,287 80% $381,030
Lines 6J-1 &6J-2, Mountain/Whittier/Florida $322,336 80% $257,869 Line 6K, Lake Street $77,614 100% $77,614
Line 6L, Stetson/Fairway $303,711 100% $303,711
Line 7A-1, Schultz Avenue $939,055 90% $845,150

23.C

CITY OF HEMET, CALIFORNIA – DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY

65 Growth-Related Growth-Related
Improvement Cost Percentage Cost
Line 7A-2, Acacia/Grant $151,444 100% $151,444
Line 7B, Lincoln Avenue $1,172,603 90% $1,055,343
Line 7B-1 & 7B-2, Florida E/O Fairway $871,273 90% $784,146 Line 7B-3, Palm Avenue W/O Lincoln $137,658 80% $110,126 Line 7B-4, Palm Avenue W/O Lincoln $375,570 75% $281,678 Line 7C-1, Whittier Avenue $925,620 100% $925,620
Line 7C-2, Mayberry Avenue $462,312 100% $462,312
Line 7C-3, Palm Avenue $475,635 75% $356,726
Line 7C-4, Cedar Avenue $305,245 90% $274,721
Line 8B-1, Eaton Basin Inlet $152,901 70% $107,031
Line 8B-1, Kirby/Eaton $1,745,169 70% $1,221,618
Line 8B-2, Palm/Eaton $507,042 90% $456,338
Line 8B-3, Lyon/Eaton $472,339 75% $354,254
Line 8B-5, Kirby S/O Kirby $225,845 50% $112,923
Line 8B-4, Eaton S/O Kirby $247,020 25% $61,755
Park Hill Retention Basin Culvert under Columbia $105,600 100% $105,600 Avery Creek Culvert under State $180,000 100% $180,000
Piper Creek Culvert under State $180,000 100% $180,000
Lyon Street Bridge over Salt Creek $1,581,250 100% $1,581,250 Sanderson Bridge over Salt Creek $948,780 100% $948,780 TOTAL $87,412,462 $75,575,444

23.C

City of Hemet
City Council Meeting

STAFF REPORT

Meeting: City Council Meeting - May 14 2024
Department: Public Works
Submitted by: Mark Prestwich, City Manager
Noah Rau, Public Works Director/City Engineer;

☐ Receive and File ☒ Consent Calendar ☐ Business Item ☐ Public Hearing

TITLE:

A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Hemet, California, Rejecting all Bids for the Hemet Auto Mall Pavement Rehabilitation Project, CIP 5761 and Authorizing the City Manager to Re-advertise the Project for Bids

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

It is respectfully recommended that the City Council:

Adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Hemet, California, Rejecting all Bids for the Hemet Auto Mall Pavement Rehabilitation Project, CIP 5761, and Authorizing the City Manager to Re-advertise the Project for Bids.

BACKGROUND:

The City Council authorized the Hemet Auto Mall pavement rehabilitation project, CIP 5761, with the fiscal year 2023/2024 budget and with the approval of the annual Capital Improvement Plan adoption on August 8, 2023.

Cozad & Fox finished the project design, and the City Engineer prepared and approved the bid package on March 20, 2024. On March 25, 2024, the bid package was uploaded to PlanetBids, the City’s bid solicitation service provider, where 399 vendors were notified and interested bidders could obtain the complete bid package. On March 28, 2024, the Notice Inviting Bids was published in the Press-Enterprise.

ANALYSIS:

On March 25, 2024, prior to posting the bids, Procurement added language to the notice inviting bids asking for sealed bids and electronic bids.

On April 23, 2024, the purchasing office received bids for the project. Unfortunately, at this time it was discovered that there was some confusion in the advertisement for bids with regard to how the

23.D

bids must be submitted. Some bids were received in hard copy form only, some were received only electronically, while others were submitted both in hard copy and electronic format.

On April 24, 2024, one of the bidders, All American Asphalt, sent a formal request for clarification and rebid of the project via their legal counsel due to this confusion. This request is attached for reference.

On April 25, 2024, the City Attorney's Office concurred that the City could reject all bids and re- advertise following City Council authorization.

DISCUSSION:

Staff recommends that the City Council reject all bids received on April 23, 2024, for CIP 5761 and authorize the City Manager to re-advertise the project for new bids with a singular method of bid submittal.

STRATEGIC PLAN INTEGRATION:

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.

Objective 2: Evaluate existing practices to ensure continuity with industry best practices.

Objective 3: Provide Council with policies that are consistent while lessening liabilities.

Objective 4: Increase employee retention by training and creating a positive workplace.

Objective 5: Streamline fire prevention coordination efforts.

FISCAL IMPACT:

A significant fiscal impact is not anticipated from this recommended action.

ALTERNATIVE(S):

1. Do not reject all bids for CIP 5761.

2. Provide alternative direction to the City Manager.

ATTACHMENT(S):

Attachment 1 - Resolution Rejecting All Bids CIP 5761
Attachment 2 - Letter from AAA dated April 24, 2024

23.D

CITY OF HEMET RESOLUTION NO. 2024-XXX 1

CITY OF HEMET

HEMET, CALIFORNIA
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-xxx

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY

OF HEMET, CALIFORNIA, REJECTING ALL BIDS FOR

THE HEMET AUTO MALL PAVEMENT REHABILITATION
PROJECT, CIP 5761 AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY

MANAGER TO RE-ADVERTISE THE PROJECT FOR BIDS
The City Council of the City of Hemet, California (hereafter referred to as the “City Council”) does resolve as follows:

WHEREAS, the Hemet Auto Mall Pavement Rehabilitation Project, CIP 5761, was approved by the City Council in the annual CIP update on August 8, 2023; and WHEREAS, the project design was completed and a bid package was compiled and approved by the City Engineer on March 20, 2024; and WHEREAS, on March 25, 2024, Procurement uploaded the bid package to PlanetBids, the City’s bid solicitation service provider, where 399 vendors were notified and interested bidders could obtain the complete bid package.; and WHEREAS, prior to posting the bid package to PlanetBids, Procurement added language to the notice inviting bids asking for sealed bids and electronic bids; and WHEREAS, on March 28, 2024, the notice inviting bids was published in the Press-Enterprise newspaper; and
WHEREAS, On April 23, 2024, the purchasing office received bids for the project and it was discovered that there was confusion related to the language asking for sealed and electronic bids.; and

23.D

CITY OF HEMET RESOLUTION NO. 2024-XXX 1
WHEREAS, on April 24, 2024, a formal request from All American Asphalt’s legal counsel was received asking for clarification regarding the bid submittal methods and that the project be rebid due to the confusion; and
WHEREAS, Due to the confusion caused by the notice inviting bids, staff recommends that the City Council reject all bids received on April 23, 2024 for CIP 5761 and authorize the City Manager to re-advertise the project for new bids with a singular method of bid submittal.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HEMET FINDS, DETERMINES, ORDERS AND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1.FINDINGS - The recitals set forth above are true and correct and hereby adopted as findings in support of this Resolution.

SECTION 2.BID REJECTION – The City Council directs staff to reject all bids received for CIP 5761 on April 23, 2024.

SECTION 3.RE-ADVERTISE PROJECT – The City Council authorizes staff to re-advertise CIP 5761 for bids with a singular method of bid submittal.

SECTION 4.EFFECTIVE DATE - The resolution shall be effective upon adoption by the City Council.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 14th day of May, 2024. ____________________________
Joe Males, Mayor

23.D

CITY OF HEMET RESOLUTION NO. 2024-XXX 1
ATTEST:
_____________________________
John Paul Maier, City Clerk

23.D

CITY OF HEMET RESOLUTION NO. 2024-XXX 1
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 14 th day of May, 2024, and was passed by the following vote:

AYES: Council Members:

NOES: Council Members:

ABSTAIN: Council Members:

ABSENT: Council Members:
_____________________________
John Paul Maier, City Clerk

23.D

THE MOUZIS LAW FIRM

A P R OFES S IONAL CO RPO RATI O N

3020 OLD RANC H PAR K WAY
SU I TE 300
SEAL BEAC H , CALI FO RNI A 90740
TELEPH O NE (657) 600-8505
FAC S I MI LE (657) 600-8515
GE R A L D W. MO U Z I S

P A R T NE R
A M A N D A L. V O I V E D I C H

O F C O U NS E L
GERALD W. MOUZIS
GMOUZIS @MOUZISLAW .COM

April 24, 2024

VIA EMAIL ONLY
[email protected]

Candace Sunds
Purchasing Agent
City of Hemet
445 East Florida Avenue
Hemet, CA 92543

Re: Project: City of Hemet Street Rehabilitation Project, CIP No. 5761 Location: The Hemet Auto Mall

Request for Clarification and for Re-Bid of Project

Dear Ms. Sunds:

Please be advised that The Mouzis Law Firm, APC serves as legal counsel for All American Asphalt (hereinafter “AAA”) in connection with bids submitted to the City of Hemet (hereinafter the “City”) in connection with the City of Hemet Street Rehabilitation Project, CIP No. 5761 (hereinafter the “Project”).

Please do not consider this letter to constitute a formal bid protest as per the Notice of Inviting Bids (hereinafter the “Notice”). At this juncture, the purpose of this letter is to seek clarification as to the means and methods employed by contractors who bid the Project for the submission of bids and, in light of an inherent ambiguity in the Notice, to recommend that the City reject all bids and re-bid the Project with one uniform system for bid submission in place.

The Notice of Inviting Bids provides in part as follows:

“PUBLIC NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City of Hemet hereinafter referred to as the Agency, invites sealed and electronic bids for the above stated Project and will receive such bids in the offices of the Agency. . .” (Italics added.)

The logical and reasonable interpretation of the italicized language in the Notice is that bidding contractors must perform two tasks relative to bid submission to be responsive to the call

23.D

Ms. Sunds
RE: City of Hemet Street Rehabilitation Project, CIP No. 5761 April 24, 2024

for bids: (1) deliver a sealed bid to the office of the City designated in the Notice; and (2) submit the same bid in electronic format. Otherwise, the Notice would have provided bidding contractors with an option, i.e., either to submit a bid in person at the City’s office or submit the same bid electronically.

Bids were due yesterday, April 23, 2024, no later than 3:00 p.m. AAA submitted its bid by both delivering the bid in person to the City’s designated office and submitting the bid in electronic format, consistent with the language of the Notice. Vance Corp. was the apparent low bidder at $2,169,241.28. AAA was the second low bidder at $2,598,598.00. Vance Corp., however, did not submit its bid both in person and electronically. Additionally, our understanding is that another contractor used both methods of submission, and that the remaining bidding contractors only used one of the two methods. Therefore, it appears that confusion was somewhat widespread among bidding contractors as to the required method for submitting bids.

As you know, AAA has been in business for a long time and has performed thousands of public works jobs for various public agencies. AAA anticipates that it will have the opportunity to submit competitive bids for future work with the City. However, at this juncture, our concern is that a bidding contractor who elects to submit a bid only in person may have access to electronically submitted bids a short time before delivering its sealed envelope. This could provide a bidder with a competitive advantage over other bidders if electronic access was available, even for only a few short minutes before hand delivery of a sealed bid. In all candor, we are still investigating this possibility and do not have evidence yet that this occurred on this bid. However, it remains a concern.

AAA appreciates that the apparent low bid is approximately 20% lower in cost than the bid of AAA and Hardy & Harper, the latter of whom is the third low bidder. Out of an abundance of caution and to protect potentially the integrity of the bidding process, however, we respectfully request that the City reject all bids and re-bid the Project, with the Notice clarifying whether both hand delivery and electronic submission is mandated or optional for bidding contractors.

AAA values its business relationships with all public agencies, including the City. We look forward to your prompt reply.

GWM/cf

23.D

City of Hemet
City Council Meeting

STAFF REPORT

Meeting: City Council Meeting - May 14 2024
Department: Public Works
Submitted by: Mark Prestwich, City Manager
Jilleen Ferris, Deputy Public Works Director/Assistant City Engineer;

☐ Receive and File ☒ Consent Calendar ☐ Business Item ☐ Public Hearing

TITLE:

A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Hemet, California Accepting a Dedication for Public Use for Street and Public Utility Purposes (Aqueduct Road)

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

It is respectfully recommended that the City Council:

Adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Hemet, California, Accepting a Dedication for Public Use for Street and Public Utility Purposes (Aqueduct Road).

BACKGROUND:

Tentative Tract Map 36841 and related Extension of Time 23-001 (Rancho Diamante) is a proposed development located just south of the Hemet Channel, west of Warren Road. The Development is required, per Condition of Approval Number 193 of the extension, to construct the Line B Master Drainage Plan Storm Drain that collects flows from Tract 36841 and flows from existing residential tracts to the east. To properly construct the drainage improvements and ultimately develop the site, acceptance of Lot “B” of Parcel Map 11761 is needed.

Parcel Map 11761 was approved and accepted by the County of Riverside on or about November 1, 1978. Lot “B” was dedicated to the County for 110 feet of road purposes, designated as Aqueduct Road. During the City’s review of documentation for the Development, it was noted that the County of Riverside never formally accepted the full 110 feet of Lot “B." Per the Assessor’s Parcel Map, the westerly half of Lot “B” is currently an existing Metropolitan Water District (MWD) right-of-way.

Although the westerly half of Lot “B” is being used as MWD right-of-way, adoption of this Resolution would accept the entirety of Lot "B" (“Subject Dedication”).

ANALYSIS:

Government Code Section 66477.2(a) provides in part that an offer of dedication shall remain open and that the City Council may, by resolution at any later date and without further action of the property

23.E

owner, accept and open the road for public use, subject to Civil Code Section 771.010. Per the Civil Code Section 771.010, the proposed dedication was not accepted if all of the following conditions are satisfied:

1. The proposal was made by filing a map only.

2. No acceptance of the dedication was made and recorded within 25 years after the map was filed.

3. The real property was not used for the purpose for which the dedication was proposed within 25 years after the map was filed.

4. The real property was sold to a third person after the map was filed and used as if free of the dedication.

Here, it would appear that the Subject Dedication has been used for the purpose for which the Subject Dedication was proposed for several years as evidenced by photos showing vehicle travel as early as at least 2011 (See attached photo).

DISCUSSION:

Staff recommends that the City Council Adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Hemet, California Accepting a Dedication for Public Road Purposes (Aqueduct Road).

PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION:

There have been no previous Council items.

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.

Objective 2: Explore and implement homelessness solutions for the City of Hemet.

Objective 3: Increase Public Safety visibility and response.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There are no impacts to the General Fund.

ALTERNATIVE(S):

1. Do not accept the dedication.

2. Provide alternative direction to the City Manager.

ATTACHMENT(S):

Attachment 1 - Resolution Aqueduct Road Dedication
Attachment 2 - Parcel Map 11761
Attachment 3 - Assessor's Map
Attachment 4 - Exhibit 1: Road Images

23.E

Attachment 5 - Exhibit 2: Aqueduct Road Dedication-Notification Letter

23.E

CITY OF HEMET RESOLUTION NO. 2024-XXX 1
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

HEMET, CALIFORNIA
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-xxx

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY

OF HEMET, CALIFORNIA ACCEPTING A DEDICATION

FOR PUBLIC USE FOR STREET AND PUBLIC UTILITY

PURPOSES (AQUEDUCT ROAD)
The City Council of the City of Hemet, California (hereafter referred to as the “City Council”) does resolve as follows:

WHEREAS, Tentative Tract Map 36841 and related Extension of Time 23-001 is a proposed development that is located just south of Hemet Channel and west of Warren Road (“Development”); and
WHEREAS, the Development is required, per Condition of Approval Number 193 of the extension, to construct the Line B Master Drainage Plan Storm Drain that collects flows from Tract 36841 as well as flows from existing residential tracts to the east; and WHEREAS, in order to properly construct the drainage improvements and ultimately develop the site, the acceptance of Lot “B” of Parcel Map 11761 is necessary; and
WHEREAS, Parcel Map 11761 was approved and accepted by the County of Riverside on or about November 1, 1978, and
WHEREAS, Lot “B” was dedicated to the County for 110 feet of road purposes, which road is called Aqueduct Road; and

23.E

CITY OF HEMET RESOLUTION NO. 2024-XXX 2
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
WHEREAS, during the City’s review of documentation for the Development, it was noted that the full 110 feet of Lot “B” was never formally accepted by the County of Riverside; and
WHEREAS, per the Assessor’s Parcel Number map, the westerly half of Lot “B” is currently an existing Metropolitan Water District (MWD) right-of-way; and WHEREAS, although the westerly half of Lot “B” is being used as MWD right-of- way, adoption of this Resolution would accept the entirety of Lot “B”, which the entirety of Lot “B” shall be referred to herein as the “Subject Dedication”; and WHEREAS, Government Code Section 66477.2(a) provides in part that an offer of dedication shall remain open and that the City Council may, by resolution at any later date and without further action of the property owner, accept and open the road for public use, subject to Civil Code Section 771.010; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Civil Code Section 771.010(c), the Subject Dedication has been used for the purpose for which the Subject Dedication was proposed for several years as evidenced by photos showing vehicle travel as early as at least 2011 (See Exhibit 1); and
WHEREAS, Staff provided notice to the underlying property owner of the anticipated acceptance of the Subject Dedication (Exhibit 2); and WHEREAS, Staff has not received any communication, objection, or otherwise from the underlying property owner on the anticipated acceptance of the Subject Dedication.

23.E

CITY OF HEMET RESOLUTION NO. 2024-XXX 3
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

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HEMET FINDS, DETERMINES, ORDERS AND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1.FINDINGS - The recitals set forth above are hereby adopted as findings in support of this Resolution.

SECTION 2.ACCEPTANCE OF DEDICATION - The City Council hereby accepts the offer to dedicate for public use for street and public utility purposes Lot “B” identified on Parcel Map 11761.

SECTION 3.EFFECTIVE DATE - This Resolution shall become effective upon adoption.

23.E

CITY OF HEMET RESOLUTION NO. 2024-XXX 4
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
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 14th day of May, 2024. ____________________________
Joe Males, Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
John Paul Maier, City Clerk

23.E

CITY OF HEMET RESOLUTION NO. 2024-XXX 5
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
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 14 th day of May, 2024, and was passed by the following vote:

AYES: Council Members:

NOES: Council Members:

ABSTAIN: Council Members:

ABSENT: Council Members:
_____________________________
John Paul Maier, City Clerk

23.E

23.E

23.E

37.13 AC
PAR 1
30'
60 N89-29-02W 1151.39
LOT D
30'636
LOT B
300.22

3.09 AC ML

8.43 AC ML
100'
ROAD
S00-03-00W 2647.60
50'

1.31 AC ML
LOT C
LOT A
LOT A
L=565.34
EX
POR PAR 2

74.65 AC ML
30'
44'
EX
40 60125
30'
PM 147/61654.27
595.73

33.70 214.96
15 EX
318.37

SECOND SAN DIEGO
EX

6.97 AC
ML
50 R.2W
.

R.1W
1023.97
393.46
PM 56/78
55'
S88-56-00E 2665.30
TRA 071-003
30'
N89-06-30W
635.85
202.30
POR PAR 2
70'
FIRST
125
710.10
L=367.21

14.81 AC ML

AQUEDUCT
329.16
LOT B
LOT C
391.82

79.08 AC ML
TRA 071-056
30'
60'
40 55'
N89-30-28W 1331.99
PAR 1
MWD 4243-3

9.55 AC NT
654.27

SAN DIEGO

AQUEDUCT R/W
70'
75'
EX

AVENUECALIFORNIA LOT D

AQUEDUCT CANAL
1213.14

SIMPSON
PM 56/78

ROADWARREN
S89-04-18E 2663.15
AVENUE
(05 (14
(16
(02
(09
(19
(13
(18
(20 (17
(07
25 465-13
ASSESSOR'S MAP BK465 PG.13
Riverside County, Calif. May 2009J Morgan
SEC. 25 T.5S R.2W TRA 071-003
071-056
22-16
Pg 13
Pg 14
Pg 11
Bk 454
Pg 02
Pg 12
Pg 17
Pg 15
Pg 16
Bk 454
Pg 03
©
23 24
26 25
1 " = 400 '
THIS MAP WAS PREPARED FOR ASSESSMENT PURPOSES ONLY. NO LIABILITY IS ASSUMED FOR THE ACCURACY OF THE DATA SHOWN. ASSESSOR'S PARCEL MAY NOT COMPLY WITH LOCAL LOT-SPLIT OR BUILDING SITE ORDINANCES.

Date Old Number New Number
8/1/1979 803 8
2/1/1988 1 9,10
2/1/1995 4 11,12
2/1/1995 8,12 13
2/1/1995 6 14,15
7/1/1999 11 16,17
3/1/2000 15 18,ST
4/30/2009 10 19,20
Ty Rec S Re D Re Description
PM 56 / 78 - 79 PARCEL MAP NO 11761
PM 147 / 61 - 62 PARCEL MAP NO 19170
24 19
25 30
Data
RS 9/13
S.D.A. DWG. 5-25
S.D.A. C-4
RS 73/78-82
RS 106/11-29
RS 107/3-4
RS 109/28-59

23.E

23.E

Esri Community Maps Contributors, Loma Linda University, County of Riverside, California State Parks, © OpenStreetMap, Microsoft, Esri, TomTom, Garmin, SafeGraph, Geo…Powered by Esri Microsoft (UC-G) image captured on May24, 2010 as shown in the 2014-02-20version of the World Imagery map.

Resolution: Pixels in the source imagerepresent a ground distance of 0.3 meters.

Accuracy: Objects displayed in this image
are within 2.72 meters of true location.

reference label overlayFind address or place 


ESRI | World Imagery Wayback
2016 2018 2020 2022 2024
Only versions with local changes
Selected release
2014-02-20 Click map forimagery details
2023-06-13
2022-10-12
2021-12-21
2021-04-28
2020-06-10
2019-06-26
2018-01-08
2017-05-31
2014-02-20

23.E

445 E. Florida Ave., Hemet, Ca 92543 | 951-765-2360 | FAX (951) 765-3878

March 28, 2024

To: Mr. Hsin Hung Chen and Mr. Chi Wen Chen
1230 Mahogany Court
Walnut/Diamond Bar, CA 91789

RE: Aqueduct Road – Lot “B” Offer of Dedication

Mr. Chen and Mr. Chen:

A property located at 35480 Simpson Road, APN 465-130-016, is owned by you, and was subdivided as part of Parcel Map 11761. The parcel map identified several lots, including Lot “B”, that were offers of dedication to public use for street and utility purposes. At the time of annexation into the City of Hemet, the County of Riverside had not yet accept the Lot “B” dedication shown on Parcel Map 11761. Per the APN Map, the west 55’ of Lot “B” for Aqueduct Road was accepted and is currently existing right-of-way, and per the APN Map and Title Report of APN 465-130-016, the east 55’ of Lot “B” is still an open Offer of Dedication.

The City will be moving forward with the acceptance of Lot “B” for roadway purposes, based upon the outstanding Offer of Dedication, at the City Council meeting on May 14, 2024.

Should you have any questions related to this, please do not hesitate to contact me at 951-765- 3847 or via email at [email protected].

Sincerely,

Jilleen L. Ferris, Deputy Public Works Director/Assistant City Engineer City of Hemet

Public Works Department – Engineering Division

23.E

City of Hemet
City Council Meeting

STAFF REPORT

Meeting: City Council Meeting - May 14 2024
Department: Public Works
Submitted by: Mark Prestwich, City Manager
Noah Rau, Public Works Director/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 City of Hemet's Five- Year Measure 'A' Local Streets and Roads Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for Fiscal Year 2024- 2025 through Fiscal Year 2028-2029 for the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) Measure 'A' Local Funds Program

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

It is respectfully recommended that the City Council:

Adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Hemet, California, Approving the City of Hemet's Five-Year Measure 'A' Local Streets and Roads Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for Fiscal Year 2024-2025 through Fiscal Year 2028-2029 for the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) Measure 'A' Local Funds Program

BACKGROUND:

The Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) Ordinance No. 02-001 (Transportation Expenditure Plan and Retail Transaction and Use Tax Ordinance), as enacted pursuant to Division 25 of the Public Utilities Code, specifies that local cities and the county must annually submit a Five-year Measure 'A' CIP to receive Measure 'A' funds. The program is subject to amendment by the RCTC.

ANALYSIS:

Staff has prepared the City of Hemet's Measure 'A' Local Streets and Roads Five-Year Capital Improvement Program for FY 2024-2025 through FY 2028-2029 (included in Attachment 2).

Shown below is the RCTC's estimated allocation to the City of Hemet for each of the next five years:

YEAR ESTIMATED AMOUNT
FY 2024 - 2025 $2,778,000
FY 2025 - 2026 $2,834,000

23.F

FY 2026 - 2027 $2,891,000
FY 2027 - 2028 $2,949,000
FY 2028 - 2029 $3,008,000

DISCUSSION:

The City Engineer has prepared a five-year Measure 'A' CIP proposed project list that includes the various categories of work that meets the objectives for street maintenance, rehabilitation, city-wide safe streets plan preparation, and pedestrian improvements.

Measure 'A' funds can only be used for transportation-related purposed and may be used to provide required City matching funds for other federal and state transportation grants. All of the projects are incorporated into the City's 5-year CIP that is also updated annually.

The projects included in the City's five-year Measure 'A' CIP satisfy the requirements of the RCTC Ordinance No. 02-001 and meet all criteria for Measure 'A' funding.

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:

There is no General Fund impact related to this item.

ALTERNATIVE(S):

1. Do not adopt the resolution approving the Measure A five-year CIP

2. Provide alternative direction to the City Manager.

REVIEWED BY LEGAL:

☒ Staff report ☒ Resolution
☐ Ordinance ☐ Agreement

ATTACHMENT(S):

Attachment 1 - Resolution Measure _A_ Annual 5-Year Update FY 24-25 Attachment 2 - Measure_A_Hemet_24-25_CIP

23.F

23.F

CITY OF HEMET RESOLUTION NO. 2024-XXX 1
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

HEMET, CALIFORNIA
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-xxx

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY

OF HEMET, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE CITY OF
HEMET’S FIVE-YEAR MEASURE ‘A’ LOCAL STREETS

AND ROADS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN (CIP) FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2024-2025 THROUGH FISCAL YEAR 2028-
2029 FOR THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION
COMMISSION (RCTC) MEASURE ‘A’ LOCAL FUNDS

PROGRAM
The City Council of the City of Hemet, California (hereafter referred to as the “City Council”) does resolve as follows:

WHEREAS, the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) Ordinance No. 02-001 (Transportation Expenditure Plan and Retail Transaction and Use Tax Ordinance), as enacted pursuant to Division 25 of the Public Utilities Code, specifies that local cities and the county must annually submit a 5-year Measure 'A' CIP to receive Measure 'A' funds. The program is subject to amendment by the RCTC; and WHEREAS, the City Engineer has prepared a five-year Measure ‘A’ CIP proposed project list and the City of Hemet will receive an estimated $2,778,000 in Measure ‘A’ funding in Fiscal Year 2024-2025; and
WHEREAS, the projects in the City’s five-year Measure ‘A’ CIP satisfy the requirements of the RCTC Ordinance No. 02-001 and meet all criteria for Measure ‘A’ funding; and

23.F

CITY OF HEMET RESOLUTION NO. 2024-XXX 2
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
WHEREAS, Measure ‘A’ funds can only be used for transportation-related purposed and may be used to provide required City matching funds for other federal and state transportation grants; and
WHEREAS, the funding from Measure ‘A’ will help the City facilitate new or on- going projects throughout the City this year and in the future; and WHEREAS, the Measure ‘A’ 5-year CIP projects are incorporated into the City’s 5-year CIP which is also updated annually.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HEMET FINDS, DETERMINES, ORDERS AND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1.FINDINGS - The recitals set forth above are hereby adopted as findings in support of this Resolution.

SECTION 2. APPROVAL - The attached five-year Measure ‘A’ CIP for fiscal year 2024-2025 through 2028-2029 will be funded in part or solely with Measure ‘A’ revenues.

SECTION 3.EFFECTIVE DATE – The Resolution shall be effective upon adoption.

23.F

CITY OF HEMET RESOLUTION NO. 2024-XXX 3
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
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 14th day of May, 2024. ____________________________
Joe Males, Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
John Paul Maier, City Clerk

23.F

CITY OF HEMET RESOLUTION NO. 2024-XXX 4
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
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 14 th day of May, 2024, and was passed by the following vote:

AYES: Council Members:

NOES: Council Members:

ABSTAIN: Council Members:

ABSENT: Council Members:
_____________________________
John Paul Maier, City Clerk

23.F

Item No. Project Name/Limits Project Type
Total Project
Cost
Measure A
Funds
2025-01 2024/25 Citywide Crack Fill & Slurry Seal, Locations TBD
Rehabilitation & Maintenance $900,000 $900,000
2025-02 Traffic Striping Maintenance Striping Maintenance $75,000 $75,000 2025-03 2024/25 Citywide Pavement Rehabilitation, Locations TBD
Rehabilitation $1,900,000 $1,900,000
2025-04 FY 23/24 Various Street Pedestrian Improvements Pedestrian Improvement(s) $920,000 $383,214 2025-05 Citywide Roadway Safety Improvement Plan - SS4A Study $800,000 $160,000 2025-06 CIP 5709 - Annual Partner Road Rehab and
Maintenance Project
Rehabilitation & Maintenance $250,000 $250,000
2025-07 Hemet Valley Bikeway Non-Infrastructure Project Other: ATP cycle 3 grant non-infrastructure outreach project
$179,000 $179,000
Total: $5,024,000 $3,847,214
FY 2024/25
Agency:

Prepared by:

Phone #:

Date:

Hemet
Noah Rau
(951) 765-2360
3/24/2024
FY 2022/23 Audited Measure A Balance: $4,734,366
FY 2023/24 Measure A Revenue $2,791,000
Less: FY 2023/24 Project Status Report Expenses: $6,392,481 Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: $1,132,885
Estimated FY 2024/25 Measure A Allocation: $2,778,000
Estimated Measure A Available for FY 2024/25 Projects: $3,910,885

23.F

Item No. Project Name/Limits Project Type Total Project Cost Measure A Funds 2026-01 2025/26 Citywide Slurry Seal, Locations TBD Rehabilitation & Maintenance $800,000 $800,000 2026-02 Traffic Striping Maintenance Striping Maintenance $75,000 $75,000 2026-03 2025/26 Citywide Pavement Rehabilitation, Locations TBD Rehabilitation & Maintenance $1,900,000 $1,900,000 2026-04 Pavement Management Program Update Study $90,000 $90,000 Total: $2,865,000 $2,865,000
FY 2025/26
Agency:

Prepared by:

Phone #:

Date:

Hemet
Noah Rau
(951) 765-2360
3/24/2024
Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: $63,671
Estimated FY 2025/26 Measure A Allocation: $2,834,000
Estimated Measure A Available for FY 2025/26 Projects: $2,897,671

23.F

Item No. Project Name/Limits Project Type Total Project Cost Measure A Funds 2027-01 2026/27 Citywide Crack Fill & Slurry Seal, Locations TBD Street/Road Maintenance/Improvement $840,000 $840,000 2027-02 Traffic Striping Maintenance Striping Maintenance $75,000 $75,000 2027-03 2026/27 Citywide Pavement Rehabilitation, Locations TBD Pavement Rehab $2,000,000 $2,000,000 Total: $2,915,000 $2,915,000
FY 2026/27
Agency:

Prepared by:

Phone #:

Date:

Hemet
Noah Rau
(951) 765-2360
3/24/2024
Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: $32,671
Estimated FY 2026/27 Measure A Allocation: $2,891,000
Estimated Measure A Available for FY 2026/27 Projects: $2,923,671

23.F

Item No. Project Name/Limits Project Type Total Project Cost Measure A Funds 2028-01 2027/28 Citywide Crack Fill & Slurry Seal, Locations TBD Street/Road Maintenance/Improvement $1,000,000 $1,000,000 2028-02 Traffic Striping Maintenance Striping Maintenance $50,000 $50,000 2028-03 2026/27 Citywide Pavement Rehabilitation, Locations TBD Rehabilitation & Maintenance $1,900,000 $1,900,000 Total: $2,950,000 $2,950,000
FY 2027/28
Agency:

Prepared by:

Phone #:

Date:

Hemet
Noah Rau
(951) 765-2360
3/24/2024
Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: $8,671
Estimated FY 2027/28 Measure A Allocation: $2,949,000
Estimated Measure A Available for FY 2027/28 Projects: $2,957,671

23.F

Item No. Project Name/Limits Project Type Total Project Cost Measure A Funds 2029-01 2028/29 Citywide Crack Fill & Slurry Seal, Locations TBD Street/Road Maintenance/Improvement $950,000 $950,000 2029-02 Traffic Striping Maintenance Striping Maintenance $50,000 $50,000 2029-03 2028/29 Citywide Pavement Rehabilitation, Locations TBD Rehabilitation & Maintenance $2,000,000 $2,000,000 Total: $3,000,000 $3,000,000
FY 2028/29
Agency:

Prepared by:

Phone #:

Date:

Hemet
Noah Rau
(951) 765-2360
3/24/2024
Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: $7,671
Estimated FY 2028/29 Measure A Allocation: $3,008,000
Estimated Measure A Available for FY 2028/29 Projects: $3,015,671

23.F

Item No. Project Name/Limits Project Type Total Cost
Anticipated Measure A
Funds Expended (Est thru
06/30/2024)
Estimated/Actual
Completion Status
2024-01 2023-24 Citywide Crack Fill & Slurry Seal, Locations TBD
Rehabilitation &
Maintenance
$900,000 $900,000 10/31/2024 PS&E Phase
2024-02 Traffic Striping Maintenance Striping
Maintenance
$50,000 $50,000 6/28/2024 Project
Advertised
2024-03 2023/24 CitywidePavement Rehabilitation, Locations TBD
Rehabilitation $1,900,000 $1,900,000 2/28/2025 PA&ED Phase 2024-04 CHANGED Hemet Valley Bikeway, Palm Ave -
Johnston to Esplanade, Whitteri Ave - Palm to
Gilbert, Johntson Ave - Palm to Gilbert, Gilbert St -
Chambers to Whitter, Chambers St - Gilbert to State
Bikeway
Improvement(s)
$3,547,000 $132,000 3/18/2024 Project Closeout
Underway
2024-05 CHANGED 2022/23 Citywide Pavement
Rehabilitation, Locations TBD
Rehabilitation $5,000,000 $3,000,000 4/30/2025 PS&E Phase 2024-06 DELETED Menlo Ave FY 23/24 Pedestrian
Improvements
Pedestrian
Improvement(s)
$814,000 $229,333
2024-07 CHANGED 2020/21 Citywide Pavement
Rehabilitation, Locations TBD
Rehabilitation &
Maintenance
$370,000 $100,000 6/28/2024 Project Closeout
Underway
2024-08 ADDED CIP 5729 - Sewer Main Replacement Kirby
St and Florida Ave
Street Resurfacing $1,648,800 $79,800 6/28/2024 Construction Phase
2024-09 ADDED CIP 5722 - Accessible Sidewalk and ADA
Ramps
ADA Improvement(s) $461,851 $210,235 2/24/2023 Completed 2024-10 ADDED State Street Sidewalk - CIP 5728 Pedestrian Improvement(s)
$212,826 $20,446 6/8/2023 Completed
Total: $6,392,481
PROJECT STATUS REPORT FY 2023/24
Agency:

Prepared by:

Phone #:

Date:

Hemet
Noah Rau
(951) 765-2360
3/24/2024

23.F

City of Hemet
City Council Meeting

STAFF REPORT

Meeting: City Council Meeting - May 14 2024
Department: Administration
Submitted by: Mark Prestwich, City Manager
John Maier, City Clerk;

☐ Receive and File ☒ Consent Calendar ☐ Business Item ☐ Public Hearing

TITLE:

Approval of the City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of April 9, 2024

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

It is respectfully recommended that the City Council:

Approve the City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of April 9, 2024.

STRATEGIC PLAN INTEGRATION:

GOAL THREE: COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
To connect and participate in a constant dialogue between members of the community, City staff, and elected officials to promote togetherness and positivity.

Objective 1: Deliver messaging to the Community that connects, is consistent, and relevant.

Objective 2: Increase transparency for the public.

ATTACHMENT(S):

City Council Meeting - Apr 09 2024 - Minutes (1)

23.G

MINUTES
City Council Meeting
City of Hemet
City Council Chamber
Tuesday, April 9, 2024

1. CLOSED SESSION – 4:00 P.M.

2. CALL TO ORDER
The City Council of the City of Hemet met this date in a Closed Session at 4:04 p.m. in the City Council Chamber, 450 E. Latham Avenue, Hemet, California with Mayor Males presiding.

3. ROLL CALL
City Clerk Maier provided the Roll Call as follows:

Present: Mayor Males
Mayor Pro Tem Peterson
Council Members Kendrick*, Krupa, Lilienthal
Staff Present:

City Manager:

City Attorney:

City Clerk:

Mark Prestwich
Steven Graham
John Paul Maier
*City Clerk Maier announced that Council Member Kendrick requested to participate remotely under the Just Cause provisions under AB 2449 and noted that Council Member Kendrick is appearing remotely due to a need to travel while on official business of the legislative body or another state or local agency. City Clerk Maier noted that Council Member Kendrick is traveling on official business of her work, which met the definition.

Council Member Kendrick noted that there is no one present in the room with her during participation of the City Council Meeting.

MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER KRUPA, SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER LILIENTHAL, CARRIED 4-0, to accept Council Member Kendrick’s request to participate remotely under the provisions of AB 2449.

23.G

4. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD - RULES OF DECORUM, RESOLUTION NO. 4545 Mayor Males asked for Public Comments; no one spoke.

Council recessed into Closed Session at 4:07 p.m.

5. DISCUSSION ITEMS

5.A CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6
Agency Designated Representative: Mark Prestwich, City Manager or Designee
All Employee Groups: HFFA, HMMA, HPMA, HPOA, and Unrepresented Employees

5.B CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Significant Exposure to Litigation
Pursuant to Paragraph (2) of Subdivision (d) of Section 54956.9 Number of Cases (2)

5.C CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8
Property: APNS: 443-232-007, 443-232-008, 443-232-009, 443-232-010, 443- 232-016, 443-232-017, 443-233-002, 443-233-003, 443-233-004, 443-233-005, 443-233-019, 443-233-020, 443-233-021, 443-233-025, 450-200-004, 454- 100-008, 450-200-007, 450-200-009, 450-200-010, 450-200-013, 450-200-014, 450-200-015, 450-200-018, 450-200-019, 450-200-020, 450-210-008, 450- 210-02, 454-090-013, 454-110-006
Agency Negotiator: Mark Prestwich, City Manager or Designee Negotiating Parties: City of Hemet and Undetermined
Under negotiation: Price and Terms

5.D PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957
Title of Position: City Manager

6. ADJOURNMENT OF CLOSED SESSION
Closed Session was adjourned at 7:00 P.M.

7. REGULAR MEETING - 7:00 P.M.

8. CALL TO ORDER
The City Council of the City of Hemet met this date in a Regular Session at 7:07 P.M. in the City Council Chamber, 450 E. Latham Avenue, Hemet, California with Mayor Males presiding.

23.G

9. ROLL CALL
City Clerk Maier provided the Roll Call as follows:

Present: Mayor Males
Mayor Pro Tem Peterson
Council Members Kendrick*, Krupa, Lilienthal
Staff Present:

City Manager:

City Attorney:

City Clerk:

Mark Prestwich
Steven Graham
John Paul Maier
*Council Member Kendrick participated remotely under the Just Cause provisions under AB 2449.

10. INVOCATION
Invocation was given by Council Member Lilienthal.

11. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Mayor Pro Tem Peterson.

12. CITY ATTORNEY CLOSED SESSION REPORT
City Attorney Graham stated there were no reportable actions from the 4:00 p.m. Closed Session.

12.A City Attorney’s Report regarding Closed Session

13. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC
Mayor Males asked for Public Comments, the following citizen spoke: Sally Mason, Stella Johnson, and Martha Bazan.

13.A Public Comment for Items Listed on the Agenda: Consent and Discussion Items

13.B Public Comment for Items Not Listed on the Agenda, but within Jurisdictional Matter

14. PRESENTATIONS
Mayor Pro Tem Peterson presented the Proclamation for Earth Day to Nancy Austin of the Green Coalition.

14.A Proclamation for Earth Day

23.G

23.G

Council Member Krupa presented the Proclamation for National Library Workers Day to Senior Librarian Kathye Caines.

14.B Proclamation for National Library Workers Day
Mayor Males and the City Council presented a Proclamation, Honoring Public Works Operations Manager Charles Russell for Years of Service.

14.C Honoring Public Works Operations Manager Charles Russell for Years of Service

15. RECEIVE AND FILE

15.A The City of Hemet Warrant Registers Dated February 22, 2024, in the amount of $1,082,100.52, and March 7, 2024, in the amount of $1,707,468.05. The Payroll Periods of February 5, 2024 – February 18, 2024, in the amount of $880,421.39, and February 19, 2024 – March 3, 2024, in the amount of $994,817.03
Action:

By consensus, the City Council received and filed the City of Hemet Warrant Registers.

15.B Quarterly Grant Report for the Quarter Ending March 31, 2024 Action:

By consensus, the City Council received and filed the Quarterly Grant Report for the period ending March 31, 2024.

16. CONSENT CALENDAR

MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER LILIENTHAL, SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER KRUPA, CARRIED 5-0, to approve the Consent Calendar.

16.A Approval of the Regular City Council Meeting Minutes of March 26, 2024 Action:

MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER LILIENTHAL, SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER KRUPA, CARRIED 5-0, to approve the Regular City Council Meeting Minutes of March 26, 2024.

16.B Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance 2032, An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Hemet, California, Adding Article VII to Chapter 46 of the Hemet Municipal Code Related to Catalytic Converters
Action:

23.G

MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER LILIENTHAL, SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER KRUPA, CARRIED 5-0, to waive further reading and adopt Ordinance 2032, An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Hemet, California, Adding Article VII to Chapter 46 of the Hemet Municipal Code Related to Catalytic Converters.

16.C A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Hemet, California, Accepting the Final As-Builts for CIP 5718, the Gibbel Skate Plaza
Action:

MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER LILIENTHAL, SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER KRUPA, CARRIED 5-0, to adopt a Resolution 2024-043 of the City Council of the City of Hemet, California, Accepting the Final As-Builts for CIP 5718, the Gibbel Skate Plaza.

16.D A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Hemet, California, Approving a Series of Administrative Amendments to the City’s Classification and Compensation Plan for Employee Salary Ranges
Action:

MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER LILIENTHAL, SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER KRUPA, CARRIED 5-0, to adopt a Resolution 2024-044 of the City Council of the City of Hemet, California, approving a series of administrative amendments to the City’s Classification and Compensation Plan for Employee Salary Ranges.

16.E A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Hemet, California, Approving a Professional Services Agreement between the City of Hemet and Harris & Associates, Inc., to Provide Both Special Assessment Districts Administrative Services and New District Formation and Annexation Services for a Three (3) Year Term and the Option for Two (2) Additional One (1) Year Extension Periods with a Not-to-Exceed Amount of $491,881 for the Administrative Services Portion and Authorizing the City Manager to Execute All Documents Related to the Agreement
Action:

MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER LILIENTHAL, SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER KRUPA, CARRIED 5-0, to adopt a Resolution 2024-045 of the City Council of the City of Hemet, California, Approving a Professional Services Agreement between the City of Hemet and Harris & Associates, Inc., to Provide both Special Assessment Districts Administrative Services and New District Formation and Annexation Services for a Three (3) Year Term and the Option for Two (2) Additional One (1) Year Extension Periods with a Not-to-Exceed Amount of $491,881 for the Administrative Services Portion and Authorizing the City Manager to Execute All Documents Related to the Agreement.

17. DISCUSSION - ACTION ITEM

23.G

17.A Quarter Three Update on Progress of Fiscal Year 2023-24 Strategic Plan Action Item Tasks
Action:

By consensus, the City Council received and filed the Quarter Three Update on progress associated with City Council Fiscal Year 2023-24 Strategic Plan Action Item tasks.

17. CITY COUNCIL AND STAFF REPORTS
Mayor Males asked for Council Comments. Council Member Kendrick, Council Member Krupa, Council Member Lilienthal, Mayor Pro Tem Peterson, and Mayor Males gave reports.

CITY MANAGER MARK PRESTWICH

18. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Males adjourned the meeting at 8:12 p.m. The next Regular City Council Meeting will be at 7:00 p.m. on April 23, 2024.

APPROVAL: ATTEST:

_______________________________
Joe Males

_____________________________
John P. Maier, MBA, MMC
Mayor City Clerk

23.G

City of Hemet
City Council Meeting

STAFF REPORT

Meeting: City Council Meeting - May 14 2024
Department: Community Development
Submitted by: Mark Prestwich, City Manager
Benigno Sandoval, Economic Development Manager;

☐ Receive and File ☒ Consent Calendar ☐ Business Item ☐ Public Hearing

TITLE:

Waive the City of Hemet Permitting Fees for the Planned June 23, 2024 Summer Valley Kickoff Festival

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

It is respectfully recommended that the City Council:

Pass a Motion waiving City of Hemet permitting fees of $1,660.66, for the inaugural June 23, 2024 Summer Valley Kickoff Festival presented by the City of Hemet in Partnership with Neighborhood Link and the Hemet-San Jacinto Chamber of Commerce at the Hemet Public Library.

BACKGROUND:

The City of Hemet partnered with Neighborhood Link to create an event where Hemet residents of all ages could attend and enjoy a day full of entertainment at no cost. Neighborhood Link is a marketing company that connects new residents to the Hemet areas with local businesses and services. In addition, they empower residents to celebrate and support their neighborhood’s unique identity while driving economic growth.

The Summer Valley Kickoff event will have a variety of entertainment areas to select from. They event expects over 60+ vendors giving away promotional items, tickets, swag, food coupons, and much more. A Car Show component is planned as well with over 50+ cars expected to attend. In addition, a Kid’s Zone will be available with a variety of children's games, over 10+ food trucks, and a Business Resource event to assist local businesses with business solutions at no cost. Lastly, a music stage will provide live music entertainment throughout the day.

The event will be taking place behind the Hemet City Library on Sunday, June 23rd from 11:00 am- 5:00 pm. North Harvard Street would be closed off for only the duration of the event along with a few hours before/after for set-up and clean-up.

ANALYSIS:

23.H

City of Hemet Summer Valley Kickoff permitting fees are as follows:

* PLANNING FEES 2695-120-0224
- BUILDING PERMIT PLAN REVIEW BY PLANNING 2695-120-0224 = $100.00

* MICROFILM REPRODUCTION FEE 2636-120-0636
- MICROFILM 11 X 17 OR LESS 2636-120-0636 = $5.00

* FIRE PLAN REVIEW 2631-110-0631
- GENERATOR FIRE PLAN REVIEW 2631-110-0631 = $92.00
- SPECIAL EVENT FIRE PLAN REVIEW 2631-110-0631 = $184.00

* FIRE DEPARTMENT PERMITS 5630-110-0632
- GENERATOR FIRE PERMIT 5630-110-0632 = $96.46
- SPECIAL EVENT FIRE PERMIT 5630-110-0632 = $59.00

* ELECTRICAL PLAN REVIEW 2630-120-0630
- GENERATOR 10KW OR LESS PLAN REVIEW 2630-120-0630 = $184.00

* ELECTRICAL PERMIT FEES 2630-120-0630
- GENERATOR UNDER 10 KW PERMIT 2630-120-0630 = $276.00

* BUILDING PROCESSING FEE 2221-120-0221
- PERMIT PROCESSING FEE BUILDING/FIRE/PLANNING 2221-120-0221 = $92.00

* BUILDING PLAN REVIEW 2630-120-0630
- CARNIVAL OR FOOD TRUCK EVENT PLAN REVIEW 2630-120-0630 = $184.00

* BUILDING PERMITS 2221-120-0221
* CARNIVAL OR FOOD TRUCK BUILDING PERMIT 2221-120-0221 = $368.00

* BUILDING STANDARDS FEE 2895-120-2019 = $1.00
* PLAN STORAGE 2635-120-0635 = $3.60
* SEISMIC FEE COMMERCIAL 2651-110-2039 = $5.60
* TECHNOLOGY FEE - BUILDING 2291-120-0291 = $4.00
* TRAINING FEE 2694-120-0223 = $6.00

Total = $1,660.66

PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION:

This is a first time community event.

STRATEGIC PLAN INTEGRATION:

23.H

GOAL TWO: ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY
To ensure that Hemet is a hub, with access to quality jobs, shopping options, and a varied and sustained tax base.

Objective 1: Develop business practices that welcome new development by streamlining processes.

Objective 2: Provide resources for new businesses to enhance the customer service experience.

GOAL THREE: COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
To connect and participate in a constant dialogue between members of the community, City staff, and elected officials to promote togetherness and positivity.

Objective 1: Deliver messaging to the Community that connects, is consistent, and relevant.

Objective 2: Increase transparency for the public.

Objective 3: Increase the community's pride within the City.

GOAL FOUR: PARTNERSHIP & COLLABORATION
To pursue partnerships that will increase the opportunities available to the community, including our businesses, unemployed, and youth populations.

Objective 2: Develop concepts and programs to enhance the quality of life services.

FISCAL IMPACT:

If the waiver is approved, the City will not collect fees of $1,660.66 to cover the cost of services.

However, the economic stimulus from this community event is expected to significantly or entirely offset waived permit fees.

ALTERNATIVE(S):

N/A

ATTACHMENT(S):

Attachment 1 - City of Hemet - Summer Valley Kickoff City Fees (pdf) Attachment 2 - Summer Valley Kickoff Map (pdf)
Attachment 3 - Hemet Valley Summer Kickoff (tif)