Agenda packet, regular meeting — Moreno Valley City Council, February 15, 2022

TELECONFERENCED MEETING
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING – 6:00 PM
FEBRUARY 15, 2022
-1-

NEW LAW

Pursuant to Assembly Bill No. 361

Effective September 16, 2021

There Will be the Ability to Teleconference into the Meeting

The Public May Observe the Meeting and Offer Public Comment As Follows:

STEP 1

Install the Free Zoom App or Visit the Free Zoom Website at <https://zoom.us/>

STEP 2

Get Meeting ID Number and Password by emailing [email protected] or calling (951) 413- 3001, no later than 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, February 15, 2022

STEP 3

Select Audio Source

Computer Speakers/Microphone
or
Telephone

STEP 3

Public Comments May be Made Via Zoom

During the Meeting, the Mayor Will Explain the Process for Submitting Public Comments

ALTERNATIVE

If you do not wish to make public comments, you can view the m eeting on Channel MVTV- 3, the City’s website at www.moval.org or YouTube
-2-

AGENDA

CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MORENO VALLEY

MORENO VALLEY COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT

CITY AS SUCCESSOR AGENCY FOR THE

COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF

THE CITY OF MORENO VALLEY

MORENO VALLEY HOUSING AUTHORITY

MORENO VALLEY PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY

BOARD OF LIBRARY TRUSTEES

February 15, 2022

REGULAR MEETING – 6:00 PM

City Council Study Sessions
Second Tuesday of each month – 6:00 p.m.

City Council Meetings
Special Presentations – 5:30 P.M.

First & Third Tuesday of each month – 6:00 p.m.

City Council Closed Sessions
Will be scheduled as needed at 4:30 p.m.

City Hall Council Chamber – 14177 Frederick Street

Upon request, this agenda will be made available in ap propriate alternative formats to persons with disabilities, in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. Any person with a disability who requires a modification or accommodation in order to participate in a meeting should direct such request to the ADA Coordinator, at 951.413.3120 at least 72 hours before the meeting. The 72 -hour notification will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting.

Dr. Yxstian A. Gutierrez, Mayor

Ulises Cabrera, Council Member David Marquez, Council Member

Edward A. Delgado, Council Member

-3-
..

AGENDA

CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MORENO VALLEY
February 15, 2022

CALL TO ORDER - 5:30 PM

SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS

1. Recognition of the Beautify MoVal Level 3 Sponsors, the (6) Sponsors are:
1) SRG Commercial
2) United Material Handling
3) Porvene Doors
4) Southern California Gas Company
5) Heacock Commerce Center
6) Amazon

2. Recognition of Beautify MoVal Level 3 Participants, the (4) Adopters are:
1) Family of Jackie and LaDonna Jempson
2) Moreno Valley Mavericks
3) Inland United Soccer Club
4) Heritage Hauling.
-4-
.AGENDA

JOINT MEETING OF THE

CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MORENO VALLEY

MORENO VALLEY COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT

CITY AS SUCCESSOR AGENCY FOR THE

COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE

CITY OF MORENO VALLEY

MORENO VALLEY HOUSING AUTHORITY

MORENO VALLEY PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY

AND THE BOARD OF LIBRARY TRUSTEES

*THE CITY COUNCIL RECEIVES A SEPARATE STIPEND FOR CSD
MEETINGS*

REGULAR MEETING – 6:00 PM
FEBRUARY 15, 2022

CALL TO ORDER
Joint Meeting of the City Council, Community Services District, City as Successor Agency for the Community Redevelopment Agency, Housing Authority and the Board of Library Trustees - actions taken at the Joint M eeting are those of the Agency indicated on each Agenda item.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

ROLL CALL

INTRODUCTIONS

PUBLIC COMMENTS ON A NY SUBJECT ON OR NOT ON THE AGENDA UNDER

THE JURISDICTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL

JOINT CONSENT CALENDARS (SECTIONS A-E)
All items listed under the Consent Calendars, Sections A, B, C, D, and E are considered to be routine and non -controversial, and may be enacted by one motion unless a member of the City Council, Community Services District, City as Successor Agency for the Community R edevelopment Agency, Housing Authority or the Board of Library Trustees requests that an item be removed for separate action. The motion to adopt the Consent Calendars is deemed to be a separate motion by each Agency and shall be so recorded by the City C lerk. Items withdrawn for report or discussion will be heard after public hearing items.

A. CONSENT CALENDAR-CITY COUNCIL
A.1. ORDINANCES - READING BY TITLE ONLY - THE MOTION TO ADOPT AN

ORDINANCE LISTED ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR INCLUDES WAIVER OF FULL READING OF THE ORDINANCE.

Recommendation: Waive reading of all Ordinances.
-5-
A.2. MAYORAL APPOINTMENT TO THE ARTS COMMISSION (Report of: City Clerk)
Recommendation:

1. Receive and confirm the slate of Mayoral appointments as follows:

ARTS COMMISSION

Name Position Term
Cheylynda Barnard Member Ending 06/30/2023

A.3. APPROVAL OF SECOND AMENDMENTS TO AGREEMENTS WITH CSG CONSULTANTS, INC. AND INTERWEST CONSULTING GROUP, INC. FOR

PLANNING CONSULTANT SERVICES ON AN AS NEEDED BASIS (AGMTS NO. 2021-160 AND 2021-161) (Report of: Community Development) Recommendations:

1. Approve the Second Amendment to Agreement for Planning Consultant Services on an As Needed Basis with CSG Consultants, Inc. and authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute the Amendment subject to the approval of the City Attorney.

2. Authorize an increase of $200,000.00 to the not -to-exceed amount of the Agreement with CSG Consultants, Inc., to $250,000.00, funded by fees paid by project applicants. Authorize the Purchasing Division Manager to approve a change order to increase Purchase Order #2022-373 to CSG Consultants, Inc. from $50,000.00 up to $250,000.00 for Fiscal Year 21/22.

3. Approve the Second Amendment to Agreement for Planning Consultant Services on an As Needed Basis with In terwest Consulting Group, Inc. and authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute the Amendment subject to the approval of the City Attorney.

4. Authorize an increase of $200,000.00 to the not -to-exceed amount of the Agreement with Interwest Consult ing Group, Inc., to $250,000.00, funded by fees paid by project applicants. Authorize the Purchasing Division Manager to approve a change order to increase Purchase Order #2022-399 to Interwest Consulting Group, Inc. from $50,000.00 up to $250,000.00 for Fiscal Year 21/22.

5. Authorize the Chief Financial Officer, or his designee, to make the appropriate budget adjustments as set forth in the Fiscal Impact section of this report.

-6-
A.4. APPROVAL OF BID AWARD TO REVVED ENERGY FOR THE PURCHASE OF PORTABLE GENERATORS (Report of: Public Works)
Recommendation:

1. Approval of bid award for $243,464.30 to Revved Energy for RFQ #2022-043 for Portable Generators, funded by a CalOES Grant (Fund 2300).

2. Authorize the issuance of a Purchase Order to Revved Energy for the amount of $243,464.30.

3. Authorize the Chief Financial Officer, or his designee, to make the appropriate budget adjustments as set forth in the Fiscal Impact section of this report.

A.5. LIST OF PERSONNEL CHANGES (Report of: Financial & Management Services)
Recommendation:

1. Ratify the list of personnel changes as described.

A.6. ADOPT A RESOLUTION SETTING THE LOCAL MORENO VALLEY

COMMERCIAL CANNABIS ACTIVITY TAX RATE FOR DISTRIBUTION ACTIVITY TYPE ONLY PURSUANT TO MUNICIPAL CODE 3.28.030
(Report of: Financial & Management Services)
Recommendation:

1. Adopt Resolution No. 2022-XX, a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Moreno Valley, California, setting the Local Moreno Valley Commercial Cannabis Activity Tax rate for Distribution Activity Type a t 3% of gross revenues. All other cannabis rates by type will remain unchanged at this time.

A.7. ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING A NOTIFICATION OF INTENT TO

COMPLY WITH THE NEW ORGANICS WASTE REGULATIONS,
PURSUANT TO SB 619 (RESO NO. 2022 -XX) (Report of: Financial & Management Services)
Recommendation:

Adopt Resolution No. 2022 -XX of the City Council of the City of Moreno Valley, adopting a Notification of Intent to Comply with the organics waste recycling mandates.

-7-
B. CONSENT CALENDAR-COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
B.1. ORDINANCES - READING BY TITLE ONLY - THE MOTION TO ADOPT AN

ORDINANCE LISTED ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR INCLUDES WAIVER OF FULL READING OF THE ORDINANCE.

Recommendation: Waive reading of all Ordinances.

B.2. APPROVE NAMING OF MORENO VALLE Y EQUESTRIAN PARK AND NATURE CENTER TRAILS (Report of: Parks & Community Services) Recommendation:

1. Adopt the trail names as recommended and submitted by the Parks, Community Services and Trails Committee for the Equestrian Park and Nature Center.

B.3. APPROVAL OF SPECIAL EVENTS CALENDAR 2022 (Report of: Parks & Community Services)
Recommendation:

1. Approve the Special Events Calendar 2022.

C. CONSENT CALENDAR - HOUSING AUTHORITY
C.1. ORDINANCES - READING BY TITLE ONLY - THE MOTION TO ADOPT AN

ORDINANCE LISTED ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR INCLUDES WAIVER OF FULL READING OF THE ORDINANCE.

Recommendation: Waive reading of all Ordinances.

D. CONSENT CALENDAR - BOARD OF LIBRARY TRUSTEES
D.1. ORDINANCES - READING BY TITLE ONLY - THE MOTION TO ADOPT AN

ORDINANCE LISTED ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR INCLUDES WAIVER OF FULL READING OF THE ORDINANCE.

Recommendation: Waive reading of all Ordinances.

E. CONSENT CALENDAR - PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY
E.1. ORDINANCES - READING BY TITLE ONLY - THE MOTION TO ADOPT AN

ORDINANCE LISTED ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR INCLUDES WAIVER OF FULL READING OF THE ORDINANCE.

Recommendation: Waive reading of all Ordinances.
-8-
F. PUBLIC HEARINGS
Questions or comments from the public on a Public Hearing matter are limited to five minutes per individual and must pertain to the subject under consideration.

Those wishing to speak should complete and submit a GOLDENROD speaker slip to the Sergeant-at-Arms.

F.1. SECOND PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING THE DECENNIAL CITY

COUNCIL REDISTRICTING PROCESS BASED ON RECENTLY RELEASED 2020 US CENSUS POPULATION DATA FOR THE CITY OF MORENO
VALLEY (Report of: City Attorney)
Recommendations: That the City Council:

1. Conduct the second of four public hearings regarding the adjustment of City Council District boundaries in lig ht of the 2020 Census, pursuant to Elections Code Sections 21601-21609; and

2. Provide feedback, if any, regarding Communities of Interest or other considerations relating to the process.

F.2. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND RESOLUTIONS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE

CITY OF MORENO VALLEY, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING THE

DEVELOPMENT IMPACT NEXUS FEE STUDY UPDATE AND ADJUSTING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES (Report of: Public Works)
Recommendations: That the City Council:

1. Conduct a Public Hearing for the adoption of the Development Imp act Nexus Fee Study Update (Dated January 28, 2022) and adoption of the Capital Improvement Plan;

2. Adopt Resolution No. 2022 -XX adopting the Development Impact Nexus Fee Study Update and Capital Improvement Plan, and finding the action is exempt from CEQA;

3. Conduct a Public Hearing for the adjustment of the City of Moreno Valley Development Impact Fees; and

4. Adopt Resolution No. 2022 -XX adjusting the Development Impact Fees, and finding the action is exempt from CEQA.

G. GENERAL BUSINESS - NONE
H. ITEMS R EMOVED FROM CONSENT CALENDARS FOR DISCUS SION OR

SEPARATE ACTION
-9-
I. REPORTS
I.1. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS
(Informational Oral Presentation - not for Council action) March Joint Powers Commission (JPC)
Riverside County Habitat Conservation Agency (RCHCA)
Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC)
Riverside Transit Agency (RTA)
Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG)
Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA) School District/City Joint Task Force
I.2. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT
(Informational Oral Presentation - not for Council action)

CLOSING COMMENTS AND /OR REPORTS OF THE C ITY COUNCIL, COMMUNI TY

SERVICES DISTRICT, C ITY AS SUCCESSOR AGE NCY FOR THE COMMUNIT Y

REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY , HOUSING AUTHORITY, PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY, AND THE BOARD OF LIBRARY TRUSTEES.

ADJOURNMENT

PUBLIC INSPECTION
The contents of the agenda packet are available for public inspection on the City’s website at www.moval.org and in the City Clerk’s office at 14177 Frederick Street during normal business hours.

Any written information related to an open session agenda item that is known by the City to have been distributed to all or a majority of the City Council less than 72 hours prior to this meeting will be made available for public inspecti on on the City’s website at www.moval.org and in the City Clerk’s office at 14177 Frederick Street during normal business hours.
..
-10-

CERTIFICATION
I, Pat Jacquez-Nares, City Clerk of the City of Moreno Valley, California, certify that 72 hours prior to thi s Regular Meeting, the City Council Agenda was posted on the City’s website at: www.moval.org and in the following three public places pursuant to City of Moreno Valley Resolution No. 2007-40:

City Hall, City of Moreno Valley
14177 Frederick Street

Moreno Valley Library
25480 Alessandro Boulevard

Moreno Valley Senior/Community Center
25075 Fir Avenue

Pat Jacquez-Nares, CMC & CERA
City Clerk

Date Posted: February 10, 2022
ID#5713 Page 1
TO:

FROM: Jasmin Rivera,

AGENDA DATE: February 15, 2022

TITLE: RECOGNITION OF THE B EAUTIFY MOVAL LEVEL 3
SPONSORS THE (6) SPO NSORS ARE: SRG

COMMERCIAL UNITED MA TERIAL HANDLING PORV ENE

DOORS SOUTHERN CALIF ORNIA GAS COMPANY

HEACOCK COMMERCE CENTER AMAZON

RECOMMENDED ACTION

CITY COUNCIL GOALS
None

CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PRIORITIES

1. Economic Development

2. Public Safety

3. Library

4. Infrastructure

5. Beautification, Community Engagement, and Quality of Life

6. Youth Programs

ATTACHMENTS
To view large attachmen ts, please click your “bookmarks” on the left hand side of this document for the necessary attachment.

None

APPROVALS
1 Packet Pg. 11
ID#5709 Page 1
TO:

FROM: Jasmin Rivera,

AGENDA DATE: February 15, 2022

TITLE: RECOGNITION OF BEAUT IFY MOVAL LEVEL 3
PARTICIPANTS THE (4) ADOPTERS ARE: FAMIL Y OF

JACKIE AND LADONNA J EMPSON MORENO VALLEY

MAVERICKS INLAND UNITED SOCCER CLUB HERI TAGE

HAULING

RECOMMENDED ACTION

CITY COUNCIL GOALS
None

CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PRIORITIES

1. Economic Development

2. Public Safety

3. Library

4. Infrastructure

5. Beautification, Community Engagement, and Quality of Life

6. Youth Programs

ATTACHMENTS
To view large attachments, please cl ick your “bookmarks” on the left hand side of this document for the necessary attachment.

None

APPROVALS
2 Packet Pg. 12

Report to City Council

ID#5712 Page 1
TO: Mayor and City Council

FROM: Pat Jacquez-Nares, City Clerk

AGENDA DATE: February 15, 2022

TITLE: MAYORAL APPOINTMENT TO THE ARTS COMMISSION

RECOMMENDED ACTION
Recommendation:

1. Receive and confirm the slate of Mayoral appointments as follows:

ARTS COMMISSION

Name Position Term
Cheylynda Barnard Member Ending 06/30/2023

CITY COUNCIL GOALS
Advocacy. Develop cooperative intergovernmental relationships and be a forceful advocate of City policies, objectives, and goals to appropriate external governments, agencies and corporations.

CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PRIORITIES

1. Economic Development

2. Public Safety

3. Library

4. Infrastructure

5. Beautification, Community Engagement, and Quality of Life

6. Youth Programs

A.2
Packet Pg. 13

Page 2 ends

ATTACHMENTS
To view large attachments, please click your “bookmarks” on the left hand side of this document for the necessary attachment.

1. Cheylynda Barnard_Redacted

APPROVALS

Budget Officer Approval  Approved . 2/09/22 9:46 AM City Attorney Approval  Approved .

City Manager Approval  Approved . 2/09/22 9:54 AM A.2
Packet Pg. 14
A.2.a
Packet Pg. 15
Attachment: Cheylynda Barnard_Redacted (5712 : MAYORAL APPOINTMENT TO THE ARTS COMMISSION) A.2.a
Packet Pg. 16
Attachment: Cheylynda Barnard_Redacted (5712 : MAYORAL APPOINTMENT TO THE ARTS COMMISSION)

Report to City Council

ID#5689 Page 1
TO: Mayor and City Council

FROM: Manuel A. Mancha, Community Development Director

AGENDA DATE: February 15, 2022

TITLE: APPROVAL OF SECOND A MENDMENTS TO
AGREEMENTS WITH CSG CONSULTANTS, INC. AN D
INTERWEST CONSULTING GROUP, INC. FOR

PLANNING CONSULTANT SERVICES ON AN AS
NEEDED BASIS (AGMTS NO. 2021-160 AND 2021-161)

RECOMMENDED ACTION
Recommendations:

2. Authorize an increase of $200,000.00 to the not -to-exceed amount of the Agreement with CSG Consultants, Inc., to $250,000.00 , funded by fees paid by project appl icants. A uthorize the Purchasing Division Manager to approve a change order to increase Purchase Order #2022 -373 to CSG Consultants, Inc. from $50,000.00 up to $250,000.00 for Fiscal Year 21/22.

3. Approve the Second Amendment to Agreement for Planning Consu ltant Services on an As Needed Basis with Interwest Consulting Group, Inc. and authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute the Amendment subject to the approval of the City Attorney.

4. Authorize an increase of $200,000.00 to the not -to-exceed am ount of the Agreement with Interwest Consulting Group, Inc., to $250,000.00, funded by fees paid by project applicants. A uthorize the Purchasing Division Manager to approve a change order to increase Purchase Order #2022 -399 to Interwest Consulting Group, Inc. from $50,000.00 up to $250,000.00 for Fiscal Year 21/22.

A.3
Packet Pg. 17

Page 2 ends

5. Authorize the Chief Financial Officer, or his designee, to make the appropriate budget adjustments as set forth in the Fiscal Impact section of this report.

SUMMARY

This report recommends ap proval of the Second Amendments to the Agreements for Planning Consultant Services on an As Needed Basis with CSG Consultants, Inc., and Interwest Consulting Group, Inc.

The Amendments will increase the not -to-exceed amounts of the City’s Agreement and Purchase Order by $200,000.00 up to $250,000.00 for CSG Consultants, Inc. and by $200,000.00 up to $250,000.00 for Interwest Consulting Group, Inc., and allow for continued use of consultant services through the end of FY22/23.

The new not -to-exceed amount s of th ese Agreements will increase the existing Purchase Orders, as needed, to cover the external planning entitlement and plan check service consultant costs.

DISCUSSION

The Planning Division initially entered into not -to-exceed $50,000 .00 contracts wit h CSG Consulting, Inc. and Interwest Consulting Group, Inc. for assistance with entitlement activities as the Division is seeing the largest number of new applications being submitted in well over a decade. External planning entitlement and plan check services are necessary as the continued, high demand for application processing plan check services is expected to continue over the term of the Agreements.

Consultant services in the Planning Division are used to augment internal staffing resources, particu larly during heavy workload periods, to ensure timely entitlement application processing, environmental review, and overall customer service.

The requested $400,000 increase and budget adjustment is to cover increased entitlement and plan check services, and will allow the Division to meet current and projected expenditure and revenue levels through FY22/23. Funds allocated are recovered from fees paid by project applicants.

ALTERNATIVES

1. Approve the recommended actions as presented in this staff report . This alternate is recommended by staff as it continues the existing level of professional and timely development services to deliver high-quality development projects.

2. Do not approve the recommended actions as presented in this staff report . This alternative is not recommended by staff and would cause delays at all levels of the entitlement process for development projects.

A.3
Packet Pg. 18

Page 3 ends

FISCAL IMPACT

There is no additional impact projected for the General Fund. Additional consultant costs will be fully offset by fees collected on applications.

The following sets forth the recommended revenue and expenditure budget adjustments:

Description Fund GL Account
Project Number Type
FY21/22
Amended
Budget
FY21/22
Proposed
Adjustment
FY21/22
Revised
Budget
Planning Fees General
Fund
1010-20-27-20211-525000 REV $1,600,000 $ 400,000 $2,000,000 Contractual Svcs - Other General
Fund
1010-20-27-20211-625099 EXP $270,000 $ 400,000 $ 670,000

NOTIFICATION

Publication of the Agenda.

PREPARATION OF STAFF REPORT

Prepared By: Department Head Approval:

Sean Kelleher Manuel A. Mancha
Planning Official Community Development Director

CITY COUNCIL GOALS
Revenue Diversification and Preservation. Develop a variety of City revenue sources and policies to create a stable revenue base and fiscal policies to support essential City services, regardless of economic climate.

Positive Environment. Create a positive environment for the development of Moreno Valley's future.

Community Image, Neighborhood Pride and Cleanliness . Promote a sense of community pride and foster an excellent image about our City by developing and executing programs which will result in quality development, enhanced neighborhood preservation efforts, including home rehabilitation and neighborhood restoration.

CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PRIORITIES

1. Economic Development

2. Public Safety

3. Library

4. Infrastructure
A.3
Packet Pg. 19

Page 4 ends

5. Beautification, Community Engagement, and Quality of Life

6. Youth Programs

ATTACHMENTS
To view large attachments, please click your “bookmarks” on the left ha nd side of this document for the necessary attachment.

1. Second Amendment To Agreement CSG

2. Second Amendment To Agreement INTERWEST

APPROVALS

Budget Officer Approval  Approved . 2/09/22 8:49 AM City Attorney Approval  Approved .

City Manager Approval  Approved . 2/09/22 9:09 AM A.3
Packet Pg. 20

SECOND AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT

FOR ON-SITE AND/OR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES (DESIGN PROFESSIONAL SERVICES)

The Second Amendment to Agreement is by and between the CITY OF MORENO VALLEY, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as “City,” and CSG CONSULTANTS, INC., hereinafter referred to as “Consultant.” This Second Amendment to Agreement is made and entered into effective on the date the City signs this Amendment.

RECITALS:

Whereas, the City and Consultant entered into an Agreement entitled “AGREEMENT FOR ON-SITE AND/OR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES (DESIGN PROFESSIONAL SERVICES) ” hereinafter referred to as “Agreement,” dated August 9, 2021; Whereas the Agreement was modified by a First Amendment entitled “ FIRST

AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT FOR ON-SITE AND/O R PROFESSIONAL SERVICES (DESIGN PROFESSIONAL SERVICES),” dated October 5, 2021; Whereas, the Consultant is providing Planning consultant services on an as -needed basis.

Whereas, it is desirable to amend the Agreement to extend the term of the Agreement and increase the Consultant’s “not-exceed” fee as is more particularly described in Section 1 of this Second Amendment.

SECTION 1 AMENDMENT TO ORIGINAL AGREEMENT:

1.1 The Agreement termination date of June 30, 2022 is extended by this Amendment to June 30, 2023.

1.2 The total “Not-to-Exceed” fee for this contract is $250,000.00 ($50,000.00 for the original Agreement plus $200,000 for this Second Amendment) pursuant to Exhibit “C” of the original agreement.

A.3.a
Packet Pg. 21
Attachment: Second Amendment To Agreement CSG (5689 : APPROVAL OF SECOND AMENDMENTS TO AGREEMENTS WITH CSG

SECOND AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT FOR ON-SITE AND/OR

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES (DESIGN PROFESSIONAL SERVICES)

SECTION 2

2.1 Except as otherwise specifically provided in this Amendment, all other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.

SECTION 3

3.1 In the event any action, suit or proceeding is brought for the enforcement of, or the declaration of any right or obligation pursuant to this Amendment or as a result of any alleged breach of any provision of this Amendment, the prevailing party in such suit or proceeding shall be entitled to recover its costs and expenses, including reasonable attorney's fees, and any judgment or decree rendered in such a proceeding shall include an award thereof.

SECTION 4

4.1 This Amendment may be executed in several counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original and shall constitute one and the same instrument and shall become binding upon the Parties when at least a copy hereof shall have been signed by the Parties hereto.

All electronic signatures shall be deemed to be one and the same as original signatures.

SECTION 5

5.1 In the event there exists any conflicts betw een the terms of this Amendment and the Agreement, the terms of this Amendment shall be superseding.

SIGNATURE PAGE TO FOLLOW
A.3.a
Packet Pg. 22
Attachment: Second Amendment To Agreement CSG (5689 : APPROVAL OF SECOND AMENDMENTS TO AGREEMENTS WITH CSG

SECOND AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT FOR ON-SITE AND/OR

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES (DESIGN PROFESSIONAL SERVICES)

IN WITNESS HEREOF, the parties have each caused their authorized representative to execute this Agreement.

City of Moreno Valley CSG CONSULTANTS, INC.

By: ____________________________ By: __________________________ Mike Lee, City Manager
Title: _________________________
Date: ______________________ (President of Vice President) Date: _________________________

By: __________________________

Title: _________________________
(Corporate Secretary)
Date: ________________________

INTERNAL USE ONLY
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___________________________
City Attorney

___________________________
Date

RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL:
___________________________
Department Head

___________________________
Date

A.3.a
Packet Pg. 23
Attachment: Second Amendment To Agreement CSG (5689 : APPROVAL OF SECOND AMENDMENTS TO AGREEMENTS WITH CSG

SECOND AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT

FOR ON-SITE AND/OR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES (DESIGN PROFESSIONAL SERVICES)

The Second Amendment to Agreement is by and between the CITY OF MORENO VALLEY, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as “City,” and INTERWEST CONSULTING GROUP, INC., hereinafter referred to as “Consultant.” This Second Amendment to Agreement is made and entered into effective on the date the City signs this Amendment.

RECITALS:

AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT FO R ON-SITE AND/OR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES (DESIGN PROFESSIONAL SERVICES),” dated October 11, 2021; Whereas, the Consultant is providing Planning consultant services on an as -needed basis.

SECTION 1 AMENDMENT TO ORIGINAL AGREEMENT:

1.1 The Agreement termination date of June 30, 2022 is extended by this Amendment to June 30, 2023.

A.3.b
Packet Pg. 24
Attachment: Second Amendment To Agreement INTERWEST (5689 : APPROVAL OF SECOND AMENDMENTS TO AGREEMENTS WITH CSG

SECOND AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT FOR ON-SITE AND/OR

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES (DESIGN PROFESSIONAL SERVICES)

SECTION 2

2.1 Except as otherwise specifically provided in this Amendment, all other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.

SECTION 3

3.1 In the event any action, suit or proceeding is brought for the enforcement of, or the declaration of any right or obligation pursuant to this Amendment or as a result of any alleged breach of any provision of this Amendment, the prevailing party in such suit or proceeding shall be entitled to recover its costs and expenses, including reason able attorney's fees, and any judgment or decree rendered in such a proceeding shall include an award thereof.

SECTION 4

All electronic signatures shall be deemed to be one and the same as original signatures.

SECTION 5

5.1 In the event there exists any conflicts between the terms of this Amendment and the Agreement, the terms of this Amendment shall be superseding.

SIGNATURE PAGE TO FOLLOW
A.3.b
Packet Pg. 25
Attachment: Second Amendment To Agreement INTERWEST (5689 : APPROVAL OF SECOND AMENDMENTS TO AGREEMENTS WITH CSG

SECOND AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT FOR ON-SITE AND/OR

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES (DESIGN PROFESSIONAL SERVICES)

IN WITNESS HEREOF, the parties have each caused their authorized representative to execute this Agreement.

City of Moreno Valley INTERWEST CONSULTING GROUP, INC.

By: __________________________

Title: _________________________
(Corporate Secretary)
Date: ________________________

INTERNAL USE ONLY
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___________________________
City Attorney

___________________________
Date

RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL:
___________________________
Department Head

___________________________
Date

A.3.b
Packet Pg. 26
Attachment: Second Amendment To Agreement INTERWEST (5689 : APPROVAL OF SECOND AMENDMENTS TO AGREEMENTS WITH CSG

Report to City Council

ID#5675 Page 1
TO: Mayor and City Council

FROM: Michael Lloyd, Public Works Director/City Engineer

AGENDA DATE: February 15, 2022

TITLE: APPROVAL OF BID AWAR D TO REVVED ENERGY F OR

THE PURCHASE OF PORTABLE GENERATORS

RECOMMENDED ACTION
Recommendation:

1. Approval of bid award for $243,464.30 to Revved Energy for RFQ #2022-043 for Portable Generators, funded by a CalOES Grant (Fund 2300).

2. Authorize the issuance of a Purchase Order to Revved Energy for the amount of $243,464.30.

3. Authorize the Chief Financial Officer, or his designee, to make the appropriate budget adjustments as set forth in the Fiscal Impact section of this report.

SUMMARY

This report recommends the approval of bid award of $243,464.30 to Revved Energy for RFQ #2022-043 for Portable Generators. This equipment purchase is funded through a California Office of Emergency Services Community Power Resiliency grant allocation to the City of Moreno Valley.

DISCUSSION

Moreno Valley Utility (MVU) received a Community Power Resiliency grant in the amount of $289 ,000 from the California Office of Emergency Services (CalOES) on 03/12/2021. The grant funds are conditioned for use to improve electrical service reliability during power outage events. MVU staff , in collaboration with the City of Moreno Valley M aintenance and Operations Division i dentified a need for current generation portable electric generator units to provide emergency back -up power for critical facilities in the event of an extended power outage. Portable generation units A.4
Packet Pg. 27

Page 2 ends

provide MVU with f lexibility to deploy the assets where needed based on outage location. Current generation electrical generators will allow the City to be in compliance with current Air Quality Management District emission standards. This equipment will also allow MVU to further mitigate any impacts to our customer s from Southern California Edison initiated Public Safety Power Shutoff events.

The purpose of the Community Power Resiliency Allocation to Cities Program is to support Cities in preparing for and responding t o power outage events such as Public Safety Power Shutoffs. For Fiscal Year 2020/2021, a total of $13,000,000 was available to the Program; a maximum award of $300,000 to each applicant was allowed. There is no match requirement, and funds must be spent by March 31, 2022. These funds are restricted in use to the following:

 Equipment-
Funds may be used for the procurement of:
o Generators and generator connections for essential facilities, with an emphasis on clean energy and green solutions where possible o r other alternative backup power sources;
o Generator fuel and fuel storage;
o Redundant emergency communications (e.g., battery-powered radios); o Portable vehicle-mounted charging stations;
o Portable battery-powered and rechargeable radio repeater and transmission equipment.
 Plans-
Funds may be used for the development/update of:
o Continuity plans;
o Contingency plans for electrical disruptions that include considerations such as protecting individuals with access and functional needs, medical baseline and socially vulnerable populations, transportation, emergency public information, and preservation of essential functions;
o Risk assessments for critical infrastructure and lifelines; o Post-event reports that identify lessons learned and corrective actions.  Public education materials or supplies focused on individual family preparedness for electric disruptions.
 One-time costs associated with identifying and equipping resource centers for the public to access during electrical disruptions.

To procure bids for the elect rical generator equipment RFQ #2022 -034 was posted to the City’s digital bid management system, PlanetBids on 01/05/2022. 22 Prospective bidders reviewed the bid documents. The RFQ closed on 01/28/2022 with 5 bids received. Of the 5 bids received, Revved Energy was determined to be the lowest responsive, responsible bidder. Revved Energy’s lead time on delivery of the equipment is 7 -8 weeks from receipt of order. Therefore, staff recommends approving the bid award to Revved Energy in the total amount of $243,464.30.

ALTERNATIVES

A.4
Packet Pg. 28

Page 3 ends

1. Award the bid of $ 243,464.30 to Revved Energy for the purchase of portable electrical generator units. Staff recommends this alternative as it improves MVU’s ability mitigate power outage events.

2. Do not approve the bid award . This would limit MVU’s ability to effectively respond to power outage events. Denying the bid award would also cause the forfeiture of $289,000 in CalOES grant funding, thus requiring the City to develop an alternative funding plan to procure the needed portable electrical generating units. Staff does not recommend this alternative.

FISCAL IMPACT

This bid award will utilize CalOES grant funds referenced below. The remaining balance of grant funds will be utilized to purchase two towable solar light towe r units, as submitted in the Cal OES Community Power Resiliency grant application.

Description Fund GL Account No. Type
(Rev/Exp)
FY 2021/22
Amended
Budget
Proposed
Adjustment
FY 2021/22
Amended
Budget
CalOES Grant 2300 2300-70-80-45510-486000 Rev $0 $289,000 $289,000 CalOES Grant 2300 2300-70-80-45510-660310 Rev $0 $289,000 $289,000

PREPARATION OF STAFF REPORT

Prepared By: Department Head Approval:

Dean R. Ayer Michael Lloyd
Senior Management Analyst Public Works Director/City Engineer

Concurred By:

Jeannette Olko
Electric Utility Division Manager

CITY COUNCIL GOALS
Positive Environment. Create a positive environment for the development of Moreno Valley's future.

CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PRIORITIES

1. Economic Development

2. Public Safety

3. Library

4. Infrastructure

5. Beautification, Community Engagement, and Quality of Life

6. Youth Programs

Objective 4.1: Develop a Moreno Valley Utility Strategic Plan to prepare for the 20 22 expiration of the ENCO Utility Systems agreement.

A.4
Packet Pg. 29

Page 4 ends

ATTACHMENTS
To view large attachments, please click your “bookmarks” on the left hand side of this document for the necessary attachment.

1. CalOES Comm Power Resiliency Signed

2. SR Cal OES Grant

3. Moreno Valley Utility Portable Generators Bid Req 2022-043 - EPX Group Response

1.28.22 4. Line Items - Revved Engery (002)

APPROVALS

Budget Officer Approval  Approved . 2/08/22 11:39 AM City Attorney Approval  Approved .

City Manager Approval  Approved . 2/08/22 1:04 PM A.4
Packet Pg. 30
GAV|N NEWSoM
GovERNoR

MARKS GHLARDUCCI

D RECTOR
C″OES
00V●●
"On s o,「
,cc
oF F関[彙●[HCV SERりiCES
Morch 12′2021
Mike Lee
City Monoger
Ciiy of Moreno Volley
14177 Frederick Sireet
Moreno Volley, CA 92553-9014
SUBJECT: NOTIFICATION OFSUBRECtPtENTALLOCATION
Fiscol Yeor (FY) 2020 Communiiy Power Resiliency Allocotion to Cities Progrom
Period of Performonce: )uly 1,2020, to October 3,l, 2021 Deor Mr. Lee:

The Colifornio Governor's Office of Emergency Services (Col OES) opproved your FY 2020-21 Community Power Resiliency ollocotion in the omount of $289,000. Cities ore encouroged to support one or more of the Community Power Resiliency oreos: schools, food storoge reserves, ond/or COVID-19 testing sites. Eligible oclivities under ihis ollocoiion ore limited to:
. Equipment-
Funds moy be used for ihe procurement of:
o Generotors ond generotor connections for essentiol focilities, with on emphosis on cleon energy ond green solutions where possible or other olternotive bockup power sources;
o Generotor fuel ond fuel storoge;
o Redundont emergency communicotions (e.g., bottery-powered rodios);
o Portoblevehicle-mounted chorging stotions;
o Portoble bottery-powered ond rechorgeoble rodio repeoier ond tronsmission equipment.
3550 ScHRIEVER AVENUE, MATHER, CA 95655
(916) 845-8859 TELEPHoNE (915) 845-851 I Fex
www.ColOES.co.oov
A.4.a
Packet Pg. 31
Attachment: CalOES Comm Power Resiliency Signed (5675 : Approval of bid award to Revved Energy for the purchase of portable generators) City of Moreno Volley
Morch 12,2021
Poge 2 of 3
o Plons-
Funds moy be used for the development/updoie of:
o Coniinuity plons;
o Contingency plons for electricol disruptions thot include considerotions such os protecting individuols with occess ond functionol needs, medicol boseline ond sociolly
vulneroble populoiions, tronsportotion, emergency public informotion, ond preservotion of essentiol functions;
o Risk ossessments for criiicol infrostructure ond lifelines; o Posi-event reports ihot identify lessons leorned ond conective octions.
o Public educotion moteriols or supplies focused on individuol fomily preporedness for electric disruplions.
r One-time costs ossocioted with identifying ond equipping resource cenlers for the public to occess during electricol disruptions.

The following octivities ore nol ollowed:
o These funds sholl not be used to secure, compensote, or bockfill professionol services controcts.
. Response costs ossocioted wiih electric disruption events including ony sloffing or new positions, Emergency Operotions Center stoffing, security, low or fire response, or other overiime chorges.

All octivities funded with this ollocotion must be completed within the Gront Suboword period of performonce. Additionolly, the subrecipient is subject to ihe following requiremenls:
o As o condition of receiving funding, cities will be required to colloborote with their counties wiihin their jurisdiciion to support criiicol infrostructure ond resiliency county-wide with o porticulor focus on public sofety, vulneroble communities, ond individuols with occess ond functionol needs.
o Must ensure they ond their principols ore not presenfly deborred, suspended, proposed for deborment, or declored ineligible.o Must provide o Progress Report on the expenditures of the funds. The Progress Report is due no loier thon November 90,2021. This progress Report sholl identify how the funds hove been used, including ideniifying eoch project or ociivity undertoken, locol entity thot undertook theproject or octivity, ihe omount of funding provided to the project or ociivity, ond o description of eoch project or octivity. The report sholl olso A.4.a
Packet Pg. 32
Attachment: CalOES Comm Power Resiliency Signed (5675 : Approval of bid award to Revved Energy for the purchase of portable generators) City of Moreno Volley
Morch 12,2021
Poge 3 of 3
identify the specific outcomes ochieved by eoch project or oclivity, including whether lhe proiect or octivity wos completed ond wheiher it wos used during power outoges.

Musi coordinote with their city or couniy plonning ogency to ensure thol the projeci is in complionce wiih the Colifornio Environmentol Quolity Act (CEaA) Public Resource Code, Seciion 21000 et seq.

Comply with the Colifornio Public Records Act, Government Code Section 5250 et seg.
. Must procure goods ond services in complionce with opplicoble stote ond locol lows, ordinonces, rules, regulotions, ond policies.

The undersigned represenls lhol he/she is oulhorized to enler into lhis ogreemenl for ond on beholf of lhe Applicont.

Subrecipienl: Cn
Signoture of Authorized Agent:

Printed Nome of Authorized Agen Nire ム′′
3-/∫―ユ′
Your doled signolure ond obove l∥oble informolon is requred On lhis No∥ico∥on of Subrecipienl A∥oco∥on Pleose sign ond relurn requesled informo∥on lo PSPS@ColOES cg,gΩy w lhin 20 colendcr doys upOn receipl ond keep o copy fOr yOurrecords Forfurlher ossislonce,pleose emo∥Cindy Lo9on cl PSPS@Co OES cc:gov
Sincerely′
膨ぐ
MARKS CHIL∧RDUCCI
Direclor
Title: C"t-9 MAN A4.zL Dote:

A.4.a
Packet Pg. 33
Attachment: CalOES Comm Power Resiliency Signed (5675 : Approval of bid award to Revved Energy for the purchase of portable generators) TO:

FROM:

AGENDA DATE:

Report to City Council
Mayor and City Council
Michael L. Wolfe P.E., Assistant City Manager
May 18, 2021
TITLE: COMMUNITY POWER RESILIENCY ALLOCATION TO

CITIES PROGRAM - GRANT ACCEPTANCE

RECOMMENDED ACTION
Recommendation:

1. Accept the grant award from the California Governor's Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES) in the amount of $289,000 to support the City's efforts in preparing for and responding to power outage events.

SUMMARY
This report recommends acceptance of a $289,000 grant award from Cal OES. Funds will be used to procure backup generators for essential facilities and public education materials and supplies to help the City prepare for power outages.

DISCUSSION
The purpose of the Community Power Resiliency Allocation to Cities Program is to support Cities in preparing for and responding to power outage events such as Public Safety Power Shutoffs. For Fiscal Year 2020/2021, a total of $13,000,000 was available to the Program; a maximum award of $300,000 to each applicant was allowed. There is no match requirement, and funds must be spent by March 31, 2022.

Funds received can only be used for the following activities:
• Purchase of generators and generator connections for essential facilities, with an emphasis on clean energy and green solutions where possible; • Generator fuel and fuel storage;
• Redundant emergency communications;
• Portable vehicle-mounted charging stations;
1D#4402 Page 1
A.13
I Packet Pg. 356
A.4.b
Packet Pg. 34
Attachment: SR Cal OES Grant (5675 : Approval of bid award to Revved Energy for the purchase of portable generators) • Portable battery-powered and rechargeable radio repeater and transmission equipment;
• Development/update of
o Continuity plans
o Contingency plans for electric interruptions that include consideration for socially vulnerable populations, transportation, emergency public information, and preservation of essential functions
o Risk assessments for critical infrastructure and lifelines o Post-event reports that identify lessons learned and corrective actions • Public education materials or supplies
• One-time costs associated with identifying and equipping resource centers for the public during power outages
Moreno Valley Utility submitted a grant application to CAL OES in October 2020, requesting funds for generators, educational materials for the community, towable solar powered light towers, and a storage unit for the equipment. All items will be used to support essential facilities during power outages such as Public Safety Power Shutoff events.

ALTERNATIVES

1. Accept the grant award of $289,000 and approve the revenue and expense budget adjustments. Staff recommends this alternative as it will help to support the community during power outage events such as Public Safety Power Shutoffs.

2. Do not accept the grant award of $289,000. Staff does not recommend this alternative.

FISCAL IMPACT
If accepted, the grant award in the amount of $289,000 will be placed as identified below:

A.13
Type FY 20/21 Proposed FY 20/21
Description Fund GL Account No.

Receipt of Grant 2300 2300-70-80-45510-486000
Equipment 2300 2300-70-80-45510-660310
Administration 2300 2300-70-80-45510-611110

NOTIFICATION
Publication of Agenda.

PREPARATION OF STAFF REPORT
Prepared By:

Jeannette Olko
Electric Utility Division Manager
(Rev/Exp)
Rev
Exp
Exp
Budget Adjustments
$0 $289,000
$0 $279,000
$0 $ 10,000
Department Head Approval:

Michael L. Wolfe, P.E.

Assistant City Manager
Amended Budget
$289,000
$279,000
$ 10,000

Page 2 ends

I Packet Pg. 357
A.4.b
Packet Pg. 35
Attachment: SR Cal OES Grant (5675 : Approval of bid award to Revved Energy for the purchase of portable generators) A.4.b
Packet Pg. 36
Attachment: SR Cal OES Grant (5675 : Approval of bid award to Revved Energy for the purchase of portable generators) A.4.b
Packet Pg. 37
Attachment: SR Cal OES Grant (5675 : Approval of bid award to Revved Energy for the purchase of portable generators) A.4.b
Packet Pg. 38
Attachment: SR Cal OES Grant (5675 : Approval of bid award to Revved Energy for the purchase of portable generators) A.4.b
Packet Pg. 39
Attachment: SR Cal OES Grant (5675 : Approval of bid award to Revved Energy for the purchase of portable generators) Quotation Response by
Joe Remillet
Director of Corporate Partnerships
EPX Group
www.epxgrp.com
(951) 331-3070
43223 Business Park Dr
Temecula, CA 92590
On behalf of
A.4.c
Packet Pg. 40
Attachment: Moreno Valley Utility Portable Generators Bid Req 2022-043 - EPX Group Response 1.28.22 (5675 : Approval of bid A.4.c
Packet Pg. 41
Attachment: Moreno Valley Utility Portable Generators Bid Req 2022-043 - EPX Group Response 1.28.22 (5675 : Approval of bid Delivery Location:

Moreno Valley Corporate Yard
25180 Santiago Dr. Moreno Valley, CA 92551.

Notification: Call 951-486-6780 at least 24 hours prior to deliveries.

Delivery hours: Mon–Thursday 8:00am to 2:30pm.

A.4.c
Packet Pg. 42
Attachment: Moreno Valley Utility Portable Generators Bid Req 2022-043 - EPX Group Response 1.28.22 (5675 : Approval of bid Pricing and Terms:

QTY (1) MDG150FD4 – 150KVA (120KW)………………………………........…$98,195.13 • 10A Battery Charger
• Cam Locks
• Fire Extenquisher
• 2 5/16” Adjustable Ball Hitch
• Spare Tire
QTY (2) MDG75FD4 – 75KVA (60KW)…………………………………….…...$113,311.66 • 10A Battery Charger
• Cam Locks
• Fire Extenquisher
• 2 5/16” Adjustable Ball Hitch
• Spare Tire
QTY (3) GP15000 Portable Gen 120/240V…………………..………………...$9,945.00 Delivery and Handling …………………………………………………………...$4,850.00 Total (pre-tax): $226,301.79
Terms / Start Up / Delivery:

Generac Dealer Startup (for Generator) - Inspection for warranty, load bank. This includes one roundtrip within 200 miles of the Generac dealers facility during normal business hours; additional mileage and/or testing can be quoted separately. Additional trips required due to incomplete site preparation will be invoiced to the customer at the dealers prevailing service rate.

Lead Times:
• MDG150FD4 = 7 weeks from receipt of purchase order
• MDG75DF4 = 7 weeks from receipt of purchase order
• GP1500 = 8 weeks from receipt of purchase order
FOB Factory – Delivery and Taxes are excluded and added at invoice. Offloading is not included and is the responsibility of the purchaser.

Terms: Quoted prices are valid for 30 days from the quote date and do not include any present or future sales tax, excise tax or duty of any nature. Terms of payment will be 30 days from invoice date assuming established and satisfactory credit. Warranty is invalid without factory start up.

A.4.c
Packet Pg. 43
Attachment: Moreno Valley Utility Portable Generators Bid Req 2022-043 - EPX Group Response 1.28.22 (5675 : Approval of bid City of Moreno Valley
Portable Generator (2022-043), bidding on 01/28/2022 2:00 PM (PST)

Page 1 of 3 ends

Printed 01/28/2022
PlanetBids, Inc.

A.4.d
Packet Pg. 44
Attachment: Line Items - Revved Engery (002) (5675 : Approval of bid award to Revved Energy for the purchase of portable generators) City of Moreno Valley
Portable Generator (2022-043), bidding on 01/28/2022 2:00 PM (PST)

Page 2 of 3 ends

Printed 01/28/2022
PlanetBids, Inc.

A.4.d
Packet Pg. 45
Attachment: Line Items - Revved Engery (002) (5675 : Approval of bid award to Revved Energy for the purchase of portable generators) City of Moreno Valley
Portable Generator (2022-043), bidding on 01/28/2022 2:00 PM (PST)

Page 3 of 3 ends

Printed 01/28/2022
PlanetBids, Inc.

A.4.d
Packet Pg. 46
Attachment: Line Items - Revved Engery (002) (5675 : Approval of bid award to Revved Energy for the purchase of portable generators)

Report to City Council

ID#5698 Page 1
TO: Mayor and City Council

FROM: Brian Mohan, Assistant City Manager

AGENDA DATE: February 15, 2022

TITLE: LIST OF PERSONNEL CHANGES

RECOMMENDED ACTION
Recommendation:

1. Ratify the list of personnel changes as described.

DISCUSSION

The attached list of personnel changes scheduled since the last City Council meeting is presented for City Council ratification.

Staffing of City positions ensures assignment of highly qualified and trained personnel to achieve Momentum MoVal priorities, objectives and initiatives.

FISCAL IMPACT

All position changes are consistent with appropriations previously approved by the City Council.

PREPARATION OF STAFF REPORT

Prepared By: Department Head Approval:

Janelle Bizzle Brian Mohan
Management Aide Assistant City Manager
Chief Financial Officer/City Treasurer

CITY COUNCIL GOALS
None

A.5
Packet Pg. 47

Page 2 ends

CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PRIORITIES

1. Economic Development

2. Public Safety

3. Library

4. Infrastructure

5. Beautification, Community Engagement, and Quality of Life

6. Youth Programs

ATTACHMENTS
To view large attachments, please click your “bookmarks” on the left hand side of this document for the necessary attachment.

1. Personnel Changes for Staff Report02.15.2022Rev

APPROVALS

Budget Officer Approval  Approved . 2/09/22 9:11 AM City Attorney Approval  Approved .

City Manager Approval  Approved . 2/09/22 9:13 AM A.5
Packet Pg. 48
City of Moreno Valley
Personnel Changes –1/1/2022 to 1/31/2022
February 15, 2022

New Hires

Stephanie Cabrera, Animal Control Officer, Animal Services, Community Development Department

Joe Reyes, Animal Control Officer, Animal Services, Community Development Department

Bianca Escoto, Senior Office Assistant, Community Enhancement, Community Development Department

Sarah Lower, Sr Administrative Assistant, Administration, Financial & Management Services

Marisol Lopez, Senior Management Analyst, Economic Development Department

Ayisha Burks, Community Enhancement Officer I, Community Development Department

Promotions

Kimberly Ganimian
From: Senior Management Analyst, Special Districts, Financial & Management Services To: Special Districts Division Manager, Special Districts, Financial & Management Services

Angel Gutierrez
From: Senior Management Analyst, Economic Development Department To: Deputy City Manager, City Manager

Transfers

Regina Flores
From: Senior Deputy City Clerk, City Clerk’s Office
To: Executive Assistant I, Financial & Management Services

Vicente Girón
From: Associate Engineer, Land Development, Public Works Department To: Associate Engineer, Capital Projects, Public Works Department

Separations

Jacqueline Melendez, Deputy City Manager, City Manager

Lee Withers, Senior Management Analyst, Parks & Community Services Department

A.5.a
Packet Pg. 49
Attachment: Personnel Changes for Staff Report02.15.2022Rev [Revision 2] (5698 : LIST OF PERSONNEL CHANGES)

Report to City Council

ID#5694 Page 1
TO: Mayor and City Council

FROM: Brian Mohan, Assistant City Manager

AGENDA DATE: February 15, 2022

TITLE: ADOPT A RESOLUTION S ETTING THE LOCAL MOR ENO

VALLEY COMMERCIAL CA NNABIS ACTIVITY TAX RATE

FOR DISTRIBUTION AC TIVITY TYPE ONLY PUR SUANT
TO MUNICIPAL CODE 3.28.030

RECOMMENDED ACTION
Recommendation:

1. Adopt Resolution N o. 20 22-XX, a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Moreno Valley, California, setting the Local Moreno Valley Commercial Cannabis Activity Tax rate for Distribution Activity Type at 3% of gross revenues. All other cannabis rates by type will remain unchanged at this time.

SUMMARY

Based on industry trends, the Distribution activity has a very small profit margin.

Therefore, staff requests setting the Local Moreno Valley C ommercial Cannabis Activity Tax rate for Distribution activity at 3%.

DISCUSSION

On November 6, 2018, the voters of the City of Moreno Valley approved the Local Moreno Valley Commercial Cannabis Activity Tax with a maximum tax rate of 8% of gross revenues, 1% of gross revenues for Testing facilities and $15.00 per square foot for cultivation.

Based on industry trends, the Distribution activity has a very small profit margin.

Therefore, staff requests setting the rate for Distribution activity at 3%.

ALTERNATIVES

A.6
Packet Pg. 50

Page 2 ends

1. Recommend approval of proposed Recommended Actions as set forth in this staff report. Staff recommends this alternative.

2. Do not recommend approval of proposed Recommended Actions as set forth in this staff report. Staff does not recommend this alternative.

FISCAL IMPACT

The setting of the Local Moreno Valley Commercial Cannabis Activity Tax rate for Distribution activity will have a minimal impact to the General Fund , but be able to assist the legally permitted businesses in continuing operation in the City. This revenue is to be used for any lawful expenditure, including but not limited to, maintaining 9 -1-1 emergency response times; maintaining robbery and burglary suppression programs; maintaining safe and clean public areas; repairi ng potholes, local streets, and roads; and enhancing recreation and youth programs and facilities.

NOTIFICATION

Agenda was posted in accordance with the Brown Act

PREPARATION OF STAFF REPORT

Prepared By: Department Head Approval:

Launa Jimenez Brian Mohan
Financial Resources Division Manager Assistant City Manager/Chief Financial Officer

CITY COUNCIL GOALS
Revenue Diversification and Preservation. Develop a variety of City revenue sources and policies to create a stable revenue base and fis cal policies to support essential City services, regardless of economic climate.

CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PRIORITIES

1. Economic Development

2. Public Safety

3. Library

4. Infrastructure

5. Beautification, Community Engagement, and Quality of Life

6. Youth Programs

ATTACHMENTS
To view large attachments, please click your “bookmarks” on the left hand side of this document for the necessary attachment.

A.6
Packet Pg. 51

Page 3 ends

1. Reso

APPROVALS

Budget Officer Approval  Approved . 2/09/22 9:46 AM City Attorney Approval  Approved .

City Manager Approval  Approved . 2/09/22 9:55 AM A.6
Packet Pg. 52
Resolution No. 2022-
Adopted: February 15, 2022

RESOLUTION NO. 2022-

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

MORENO VALLEY, CALIFORNIA, SETTING THE LOCAL

MORENO VALLEY COMMERCIAL CANNABIS ACTIVITY TAX
RATE FOR DISTRIBUTION ACTIVITY TYPE AT 3% OF
GROSS REVENUES.

WHEREAS, On June 19, 2018, City Council adopted Resolution 2018-62 submitting a Local Moreno Valley Commercial Cannabis Activity Tax to the voters (Measure M); and

WHEREAS, On November 6, 2018 , the voters approved Measure M by over 74% ; and

WHEREAS, On December 11, 2018, City Council cert ified the election results and approved the Ordinance (No. 946) thus formalizing the addition of Chapter 3.28 “Commercial Cannabis Activity Tax” to the Moreno Valley Municipal Code to reflect the new Local Moreno Valley Commercial Cannabis Activity Tax for the City; and

WHEREAS, Chapter 3.28.030 Tax Imposed states “For the privilege of operating a Commercial Cannabis Business in the City of Moreno Valley such business shall pay a tax in the maximum amount of eight (8%) percent of the gross receipts of the business and or in the case of a cannabis business engaged in cultivation, fifteen dollars ($15.00) for every square foot of canopy cultivated”; and

WHEREAS, City Council has authority to set the tax rate at any rate up to the maximum with the approval of a resolution.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MORENO VALLEY, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

1. Set the Distribution Activity Tax rate at 3% of gross revenues.

2. The Distribution Activity Tax rate period will sunset June 30, 2024 and the rate will revert to the maximum rate stated in Chapter 3.28.030.

3. That this resolution shall be effective immediately upon passage and adoption.

A.6.a
Packet Pg. 53
Attachment: Reso (5694 : ADOPT A RESOLUTION SETTING THE LOCAL MORENO VALLEY COMMERCIAL CANNABIS ACTIVITY TAX RATE Resolution No. 2022-
Adopted: February 15, 2022

APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 15th day of February, 2022.

___________________________
Mayor of the City of Moreno Valley

ATTEST:

____________________________
City Clerk

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

____________________________
City Attorney

A.6.a
Packet Pg. 54
Attachment: Reso (5694 : ADOPT A RESOLUTION SETTING THE LOCAL MORENO VALLEY COMMERCIAL CANNABIS ACTIVITY TAX RATE Resolution No. 2022-
Adopted: February 15, 2022

RESOLUTION JURAT

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss.

CITY OF MORENO VALLEY )

I, Pat Jacquez-Nares, City Clerk of the City of Moreno Valley, California, do hereby certify that Resolution No. 2019 -XX was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Moreno Valley at a regular meeting thereof held on the 15th day of February, 2022 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

(Council Members, Mayor Pro Tem and Mayor)

___________________________________

CITY CLERK

(SEAL)

A.6.a
Packet Pg. 55
Attachment: Reso (5694 : ADOPT A RESOLUTION SETTING THE LOCAL MORENO VALLEY COMMERCIAL CANNABIS ACTIVITY TAX RATE

Report to City Council

ID#5725 Page 1
TO: Mayor and City Council

FROM: Brian Mohan, Assistant City Manager

AGENDA DATE: February 15, 2022

TITLE: ADOPT A RESOLUTION A PPROVING A NOTIFICAT ION

OF INTENT TO COMPLY WITH THE NEW ORGANIC S
WASTE REGULATIONS, P URSUANT TO SB 619 (R ESO
NO. 2022-XX)

RECOMMENDED ACTION
Recommendation:

Adopt Resolution No. 2022-XX of the City Council of the City of Moreno Valley, adopting a Notification of Intent to Comply with the organics waste recycling mandates.

SUMMARY

The California Department of Resources Re cycling and Recovery ("CalRecycle") adopted regulations to implement organics waste recycling in order to achieve organic waste reduction goals established in Health and Safety Code Section 39730.6 through a 50 percent reduction in the level of the statewi de disposal of organic waste from the 2014 level by 2020 and a 75 percent reduction in the level of the statewide disposal of organic waste from the 2014 level by 2025. Organics waste recycling took effect January 1, 2022, and jurisdictions that are determ ined to be out of compliance are potentially subject to administrative civil penalties of up to $10,000.00 per day.

SB 619 amended the Public Resources Code to create a mechanism called a Notification of Intent to Comply, through which a local jurisdictio n may secure administrative civil penalty relief from any continuing violations of the organics waste recycling Regulations for the 2022 calendar year, as well as eligibility for a potential broader, longer -term regulatory compliance path through a correct ive action plan, including suspended administrative civil penalties.

SB 619 provides that CalRecycle shall approve a Notification of Intent to Comply that is duly adopted by the City by a formal written resolution that meets its requirements.

A.7
Packet Pg. 56

Page 2 ends

DISCUSSION

The City is or expects to be facing continuing violations of the organics waste recycling mandates during the 2022 calendar year. Such continuing violations risk the imposition of significant administrative civil penalties under the organics waste recycling mandate.

By adopting a Resolution approving the attached Notification of Intent to Comply, the City will represent and certify that it will implement the proposed actions therein to remedy its violation(s) of the organics waste recycling according to the proposed schedule as approved by CalRecycle and in accordance with SB 619 and the organics waste recycling. In so doing, the City will agree to comply with any maximum compliance deadline in any corrective action plan that CalRecycle, in its sole discr etion, determines to be necessary and appropriate under the circumstances for the correction of any violation(s) of the organics waste recycling identified in the City's Notification of Intent to Comply.

The attached Resolution, if adopted, will establish the City's approval of the attached Notification of Intent to Comply in a form agreeable to CalRecycle pursuant to SB 619.

ALTERNATIVES

1. City Council approves and authorizes the adoption of the attached Ordinance No. 2022-XX adopting a Notification of Inte nt to Comply with the organics waste recycling mandates. Staff recommends this alternative as it will allow the City of Moreno Valley to be in compliance with SB 1383.

2. City Council does not approve the recommended actions as presented in this staff report. Staff does not recommend this alternative as the City will not be in compliance of organics waste recycling mandates and would be subject to State fines. If City of Moreno Valley fails to comply with state mandates, the City will be subject to a $10,000 fine per day by CalRecycle for noncompliance.

FISCAL IMPACT

No fiscal impact.

NOTIFICATION
Publication of Agenda

PREPARATION OF STAFF REPORT

Prepared By: Department Head Approval:

Felicia London Brian Mohan
A.7
Packet Pg. 57

Page 3 ends

Purchasing & Sustainability Division Manager Assistant City Manager

CITY COUNCIL GOALS
None

CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PRIORITIES

1. Economic Development

2. Public Safety

3. Library

4. Infrastructure

5. Beautification, Community Engagement, and Quality of Life

6. Youth Programs

ATTACHMENTS
To view large attachments, please click your “bookmarks” on the left hand side of this document for the necessary attachment.

1. Resolution City of Moreno Valley -Notification of Intent to Comply with Organics Waste Regulations

2. Moreno Valley_NOI_2022

APPROVALS

Budget Officer Approval  Approved . 2/10/22 1:49 PM City Attorney Approval  Approved .

City Manager Approval  Approved . 2/10/22 1:54 PM A.7
Packet Pg. 58
RESOLUTION NO. 2022- ____

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE

CITY OF MORENO VALLEY, CALIFORNIA,

ADOPTING A NOTIFICATION OF INTENT TO
COMPLY WITH THE SB 1383 REGULATIONS
WHEREAS, the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (“CalRecycle”) adopted regulations to implement Senate Bill 1383 (Lara, Statutes of 2016) (“SB 1383 Regulations”), to achieve organic waste reduction goals established in Health and Safety Code Section 39730.6 through a 50 percent reduction in the level of the statewide disposal of organic waste from the 2014 level by 2020 and a 75 percent reduction in the level of the statewide disposal of organic waste from the 2014 level by 2025; and
WHEREAS, the City of Moreno Valley (“City”) is a local jurisdiction required to comply with the SB 1383 Regulations; and
WHEREAS, the City is or expects to be facing continuing violations of the SB 1383 Regulations during the 2022 calendar year; and
WHEREAS, Senate Bill 619 (Laird, Statutes of 2021) amended Public Resources Code Section 42652.5, created a mechanism called a Notification of Intent to Comply through which a local jurisdiction may secure administrative civil penalty relief from any continuing violations of the SB 1383 Regulations for the 2022 calendar year and may be eligible for a broader and longer-term regulatory compliance path, including suspended administrative civil penalties, through a corrective action plan; and WHEREAS, the City is a loca l jurisdiction authorized b y SB 619 to submit a Notification of Intent to Comply for CalRecycle approval; and WHEREAS, CalRecycle shall approve a Notification of Intent to Comply that is duly adopted by the jurisdiction by formal written resolution and meets the requirements of SB 619;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Moreno Valley, California, as follows:

Section 1. The City Council hereby adopts the Notification of Intent to Comply attached as Exhibit “A” and authorizes and directs the Purchasing and Sustainability Manager to submit the Notification of Intent to Comply to CalRecycle for approval.

Section 2. By submitting the Notification of Intent to Comply pursuant to SB 619, the City represents and certifies that it will implement the proposed actions to remedy the violations according to the proposed schedule as approved by CalRecycle and in accordance with SB 619 and the SB 1383 Regulations.

A.7.a
Packet Pg. 59
Attachment: Resolution City of Moreno Valley -Notification of Intent to Comply with Organics Waste Regulations [Revision 1] (5725 : ADOPT A Section 3. The City agrees to comply with any maximum compliance deadline in any corrective action plan that CalRecycle, in its sole discretion, determines to be necessary and appropriate under the circumstances for the correction of any violation(s) of the SB 1383 Regulations identified in its Notification of Intent to Comply.

APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 15th day of February, 2022.

READ AND APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
____________________________________
City Attorney
I, Pat Jacquez-Nares , City Clerk and Ex-Officio Clerk of the City of Moreno Valley, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution is the actual Resolution duly and regularly adopted by the City Council at a regular meeting of said City Council on the 15 th day of February, 2022, by the following to-wit:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

City Clerk of the City of Moreno Valley
Mayor of the City of Moreno Valley
ATTEST:

City Clerk
A.7.a
Packet Pg. 60
Attachment: Resolution City of Moreno Valley -Notification of Intent to Comply with Organics Waste Regulations [Revision 1] (5725 : ADOPT A Notification of Intent to Comply
CalRecycle is providing this optional form as a convenience to assist jurisdictions (counties, cities, a county and city, or special districts providing solid waste collection services) for purposes of submitting a notification of intent to comply to CalRecycle [see Public Resources Code (PRC) section 42652.5(c)].

A jurisdiction may submit a notification of intent to comply if it is facing continuing violations of the Short-lived Climate Pollutants: Organic Waste Reductions requirements in Title 14 California Code of Regulations (14 CCR). The written notification of intent to comply, adopted by resolution of the jurisdiction’s governing body, shall be sent to CalRecycle no later than March 1, 2022, to [email protected].

A jurisdiction shall, at minimum, include the following in its notification:

1. A description, with specificity, of the continuing violations.

2. A detailed explanation of the reasons, supported by documentation, why the local jurisdiction is unable to comply.

3. A description of the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on compliance.

4. A description of the proposed actions the local jurisdiction will take to remedy the violations within the timelines established in 14 CCR section 18996.2 with a proposed schedule for doing so. The proposed actions shall be tailored to remedy the violations in a timely manner.

Upon approval by CalRecycle of a jurisdiction’s notification and implementation of the intent to comply, a jurisdiction may be eligible for both of the following:

1. Administrative civil penalty relief for the 2022 calendar year pursuant to PRC section 42652.5(d).

2. A corrective action plan pursuant to 14 CCR section 18996.2. a. CalRecycle may address through a corrective action plan any violations disclosed in a jurisdiction’s notification that will take more than 180 days to correct. In this situation, the proposed actions and schedule in the jurisdiction’s approved notification will be in effect until a corrective action plan is issued.

CalRecycle will respond in writing to a jurisdiction within 45 business days of receiving its notification with an approval, disapproval, request for additional information, or timeline for a decision on approval or disapproval. CalRecycle will include details about why a jurisdiction did not meet the requirements for a Notification of Intent to Comply when disapproving the jurisdiction’s notification.

A.7.b
Packet Pg. 61
Attachment: Moreno Valley_NOI_2022 (5725 : ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING A NOTIFICATION OF INTENT TO COMPLY WITH THE NEW Please clearly print or type responses. Attach additional pages as necessary.

Jurisdiction Name: City of Moreno Valley County: Riverside Person Completing the Form:

First Name: Felicia Last Name: London
Title: Purchasing & Sustainability Division Manager
Mailing Address: 14177 Frederick Street
City: Moreno Valley Zip Code: 92553
Email Address: [email protected]
Phone Number: 951.413.3190

1. Select using the check boxes below or write in the continuing violations for each applicable regulatory section. For each selection, please describe the specific violations related to the regulatory section.

Example:
☒ (B) 14 CCR section 18984.1 Three-Container Organic Waste Collection Services i. Not implementing mandatory residential foodwaste collection for all residents. Note:

City already provides mandatory greenwaste collection to all residents ii. Not implementing mandatory commercial organics collection for all businesses under 2 cubic yards. Note: City already provides mandatory commercial organics collection to all businesses 2 cubic yard or more.

Disclaimer: The list of possible continuing violations below is not inclusive of all potential violations of the regulations.

(A) 14 CCR section 18984 Combined Organic Waste Collection Services. This requirement is not included since the requirements are further specified in sections 18984.1-18984.11. (B) 14 CCR section 18984.1 Three-Container Organic Waste Collection Services (C) 14 CCR section 18984.2 Two-Container Organic Waste Collection Services (D) 14 CCR section 18984.3 Unsegregated Single Container Collection Services (E) 14 CCR section 18984.4 Recordkeeping Requirements for Compliance with Organic Waste Collection Services
(F) 14 CCR section 18984.5 Container Contamination Minimization (G) 14 CCR section 18984.6 Recordkeeping Requirements for Container Contamination Minimization
(H) 14 CCR section 18984.7 Container Color Requirements (I) 14 CCR section 18984.8 Container Labeling Requirements (J) 14 CCR section 18984.11 Waivers Granted by a Jurisdiction (K) 14 CCR section 18985.1. Organic Waste Recovery Education and Outreach. (L) 14 CCR section 18985.2. Edible Food Recovery Education and Outreach (M) 14 CCR section 18985.3. Recordkeeping Requirements for a Jurisdiction’s Compliance with Education and Outreach Requirements
(N) 14 CCR section 18988.1. Jurisdiction Approval of Haulers and Self-Haulers (O) 14 CCR section 18988.3. Self-haulers of Organic Waste (P) 14 CCR section 18988.4. Recordkeeping Requirements for Compliance with Jurisdiction Hauler Program
(Q) 14 CCR section 18989.1. CALGreen Building Codes
(R) 14 CCR section 18989.2 Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance A.7.b
Packet Pg. 62
Attachment: Moreno Valley_NOI_2022 (5725 : ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING A NOTIFICATION OF INTENT TO COMPLY WITH THE NEW (S) 14 CCR section 18991.1. Jurisdiction Edible Food Recovery Program (T) 14 CCR section 18991.2. Recordkeeping Requirements for Jurisdiction Edible Food Recovery Program
(U) 14 CCR section 18992.1. Organic Waste Recycling Capacity Planning (V) 14 CCR section 18992.2. Edible Food Recovery Capacity (W) 14 CCR section 18993.1. Recovered Organic Waste Product Procurement Target (X) 14 CCR section 18993.2. Recordkeeping Requirements for Recovered Organic Waste Procurement Target
(Y) 14 CCR section 18993.3. Recycled Content Paper Procurement Requirements (Z) 14 CCR section 18993.4. Recordkeeping Requirements for Recycled Content Paper Procurement
(AA) 14 CCR section 18994.2. Jurisdiction Annual Reporting Note: This requirement is not included since jurisdictions are still expected to report to CalRecycle.
(BB) 14 CCR section 18995.1. Jurisdiction Inspection Requirements Note: Section 18995.1(a)(1) should not be included because a jurisdiction should already be completing this action due to the requirements of PRC Chapter 12.9 (commencing with Section 42649.8)
(CC) 14 CCR section 18995.2. Implementation Record and Recordkeeping Requirements (DD) 14 CCR section 18995.3. Jurisdiction Investigation of Complaints of Alleged Violations Note: This requirement is not included since jurisdictions are still expected to investigate complaints.
(EE) 14 CCR section 18995.4. Enforcement by a Jurisdiction

Use the check box(es) below to write in the continuing violations for any regulatory section(s) not reflected above and describe the specific violations related to the regulatory section.

Example:
☒ (1) (Type regulatory section number) (Type regulatory section title) i. Describe the specific violations related to the regulatory section (1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)

2. A detailed explanation of the reasons why the jurisdiction is unable to comply, supported by documentation, if applicable.

The City Council has approved the SB 1383 enforceable ordinance on December 7, 2021, however, the City is currently in negotiations with Waste Management (WM) to provide organic waste collection services, which include the specific SB 1383 obligations WM will perform.

Once City Staff and WM reach an agreement, Staff will present the amended agreement to City Council for approval. City staff is currently working on developing a plan to implement the Organic Waste Recovery Education and Outreach. Staff will conduct outreach to educate the residential and business community on how to properly dispose of organic waste.

3. A description of the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on compliance.

To meet requirements outlined in the SB 1383 mandate, this will require process changes by our waste hauler. Those process changes will have costs that will be pushed out to the residents and businesses owners within the community. Since city residents and businesses have been financially impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, and this has made it challenging to introduce new collection services and increased rates when residents and businesses may have financial hardships resulting from the impacts of the pandemic.

A.7.b
Packet Pg. 63
Attachment: Moreno Valley_NOI_2022 (5725 : ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING A NOTIFICATION OF INTENT TO COMPLY WITH THE NEW

4. Provide a description of the proposed actions the jurisdiction will take to remedy the violations with a proposed schedule for completing each action. The proposed actions shall be tailored to remedy the violations in a timely manner. See optional format below.

The City is in current negotiations to amend the current waste hauler franchise agreement, which would take considerable time by City Staff and WM to update. The revised agreement will also include needed cost increases needed to implement SB 1383. Once that rates are are approved, our waste hauler will have the needed funding to make the needed changes outlined in the mandate, getting us closer to full compliance. City staff is also developing a plan to start the outreach and educational component for the Organics Waste Recovery program. Staff plans to work with WM to provide outreach and education to the business and residential communities on ways to dispose of organic waste.

A.7.b
Packet Pg. 64
Attachment: Moreno Valley_NOI_2022 (5725 : ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING A NOTIFICATION OF INTENT TO COMPLY WITH THE NEW I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information provided herein is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.

------------------------------
Signature
Felicia London
------------------------------
Printed Name
Purchasing &
Sustainability Division
Manager
------------------------------
Title

2/10/2022
----------------------------
Date

A.7.b
Packet Pg. 65
Attachment: Moreno Valley_NOI_2022 (5725 : ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING A NOTIFICATION OF INTENT TO COMPLY WITH THE NEW Description of the proposed actions with proposed schedules the jurisdiction will take to remedy the violations. The proposed actions shall be tailored to remedy the violations in a timely manner.

Regulatory Requirement and Description
Action Proposed Schedule
TASK 1: Negotiate amendments to Franchise Agreement with Waste Management to implement SB 1383 organic waste
collection
Date to be completed:

May 2022
TASK 2: Organic Waste Recovery Education and Outreach Date to be completed:

April 2022
TASK 3: Date to be completed:

Regulatory Requirement and Description
Action Proposed Schedule
TASK 1: Date to be completed:

TASK 2: Date to be completed:

EXAMPLE
Regulatory Requirement: (B.i.) 14 CCR section 18984.1 Three-Container Organic Waste Collection Services
Description: Not implementing mandatory residential foodwaste collection for all residents. Note:

City already provides mandatory greenwaste collection to all residents Action Proposed Schedule
TASK 1: Purchase two additional collection trucks and modify collection routes
Date to be completed:
4/7/2022
TASK 2: The city will work with its hauler to find a facility to accept mixed organic waste.

Date to be completed:
4/14/2022

Regulatory Requirement: (B.ii.) 14 CCR section 18984.1 Three-Container Organic Waste Collection Services
Description: Not implementing mandatory commercial organics collection for all businesses under 2 cubic yards. Note: City already provides mandatory commercial organics collection to all businesses 2 cubic yard or more.

Action: Proposed Schedule
TASK 1: Purchase two additional collection trucks and modify collection routes
Date to be completed:
4/21/2022
TASK 2: The city will work with its hauler to acquire and distribute appropriate containers to all commercial accounts. The city will obtain monthly reports from the hauler to monitor full distribution of carts.

Date to be completed:
4/28/2022

A.7.b
Packet Pg. 66
Attachment: Moreno Valley_NOI_2022 (5725 : ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING A NOTIFICATION OF INTENT TO COMPLY WITH THE NEW

Report to City Council

ID#5715 Page 1
TO: Mayor and City Council
Mayor and City Council Acting in its Capacity as
President and Members of the Board of Directors of the
Moreno Valley Community Services District (CSD)

FROM: Jeremy Bubnick, Parks & Community Services Director

AGENDA DATE: February 15, 2022

TITLE: APPROVE NAMING OF MO RENO VALLEY EQUESTRI AN

PARK AND NATURE CENTER TRAILS

RECOMMENDED ACTION
Recommendation:

1. Adopt the trail names as recommended and submitted by the Parks, Community Services and Trails Committee for the Equestrian Park and Nature Center.

SUMMARY

At their regular meeting on January 13, 2022, the Parks, Community Services and Trails Committee, by unanimous vote by the members present, recommended to the Parks and Community Services Subcommittee to name the Moren o Valley Equestrian Park and Nature Center trails as indicated below:

Proposed Sign Names
 Pony Playground
 Peppertree Gulch
 Hoofbeat Lane
 Coyote Canyon
 Chaparral Spur
 Horseshoe Meadow
 Hoof & Hound Highway
 Buckwheat Grade
 Barkley Circle

B.2
Packet Pg. 67

Page 2 ends

Future Proposed Trails/Names
 Arrowhead Loop
 Wild Horse Basin
 Quail Canyon
 Ridge View

At the regular meeting on February 1, 2022 of the Parks and Community Services Subcommittee, a motion was carried to present the proposed trail names to the City Council.

DISCUSSION

Located at 11150 Redlands Boulevard, the Moreno Valley Equestrian Park and Nature Center includes a horse arena, the Hound Town Dog Park, off -street parking, and multi- use trails.

The City of Moreno Valley partners with the Moreno Valley Trailseekers, a non -profit organization, who adopted the Moreno Valley Equestrian Park and Nature Center through the Beautify MoVal program and assists in its maintenance. The Trailseekers organization proposed the trail names and will assist in maintaining the trails within the park. The naming of the trails will clearly identify them for safety as well as recreational use by the community.

ALTERNATIVES

1. Adopt the trail names as recommended and submitted by the Parks, Community Services and Trails Committee. Staff recomm ends this alternative to clearly identify trails within the Moreno Valley Equestrian Park and Nature Center.

2. Do not adopt the trail names as recommended and submitted by the Parks, Community Services and Trails Committee and provide staff with addition al direction. Staff does not recommend this alternative since this will result in a lack of identifiable trails within the Moreno Valley Equestrian Park and Nature Center.

FISCAL IMPACT

Cost for materials and labor to install the signs is estimated to be $3,500 and funded through Zone A Parks District. There is no General Fund impact.

NOTIFICATION

Posting of the agenda.

PREPARATION OF STAFF REPORT

Prepared By: Department Head Approval:

Jeremy Bubnick Jeremy Bubnick
Parks & Community Services Director Parks & Community Services Director B.2
Packet Pg. 68

Page 3 ends

CITY COUNCIL GOALS
Public Safety. Provide a safe and secure environment for people and property in the community, control the number and severity of fire and hazardous material incidents, and provide protection for citizens who live, work and visit the City of Moreno Valley.

Positive Environment. Create a positive environment for the development of Moreno Valley's future.

Community Image, Neighborhood Pride and Cleanliness . Promote a sense of community prid e and foster an excellent image about our City by developing and executing programs which will result in quality development, enhanced neighborhood preservation efforts, including home rehabilitation and neighborhood restoration.

CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PRIORITIES

1. Economic Development

2. Public Safety

3. Library

4. Infrastructure

5. Beautification, Community Engagement, and Quality of Life

6. Youth Programs

Objective 5.1: Establish partnerships and volunteer programs with residents, business groups and service clubs to beautify our community.

Objective 5.2: Promote the installation and maintenance of cost effective, low maintenance landscape, hardscape and other improvements which create a clean, inviting community.

Objective 5.5: Promote a healthy community and lifestyle.

Objective 5.6: Enhance community outreach, partnership opportunities, and stakeholder ownership of the City’s parks and recreation services, programs and events.

Objective 6.2: Improve health, wellness and fitness for Moreno Valley youth throu gh recreation and sports programs.

ATTACHMENTS
To view large attachments, please click your “bookmarks” on the left hand side of this document for the necessary attachment.

B.2
Packet Pg. 69

Page 4 ends

1. Equestrian Park and Nature Center Trail Naming Map

APPROVALS

Budget Officer Approval  Approved . 2/07/22 7:22 AM City Attorney Approval  Approved .

City Manager Approval  Approved . 2/08/22 1:07 PM B.2
Packet Pg. 70
Revised: January 4, 2022
B.2.a
Packet Pg. 71
Attachment: Equestrian Park and Nature Center Trail Naming Map (5715 : APPROVE NAMING OF

Report to City Council

ID#5714 Page 1
TO: Mayor and City Council
Mayor and City Council Acting in its Capacity as
President and Members of the Board of Directors of the
Moreno Valley Community Services District (CSD)

FROM: Jeremy Bubnick, Parks & Community Services Director

AGENDA DATE: February 15, 2022

TITLE: APPROVAL OF SPECIAL EVENTS CALENDAR 2022

RECOMMENDED ACTION
Recommendation:

1. Approve the Special Events Calendar 2022.

SUMMARY

This report recommends that the City Council approve the Special Events Calendar 2022.

DISCUSSION

To keep Council best informed of citywide events, staff has prepared a Special Events calendar and will begin the planning stages for year 2022. At their regular meeting on February 1, 2022, the Parks and Community Subcommittee motioned to carry forward to the City Council the Special Events Calendar 2022 for approval.

ALTERNATIVES

1. Approve the recommended action as presented in this staff report.

2. Do not approve the recommended action as presented and provide direction to staff.

FISCAL IMPACT

B.3
Packet Pg. 72

Page 2 ends

Special Events budget was established in the Council approved Adopted FY 2021/22 and 2022/23 Community Services District Budget. There is no fiscal impact to the General Fund.

NOTIFICATION

Posting of the agenda.

PREPARATION OF STAFF REPORT

Prepared By: Department Head Approval:

Socorro G Huerta Jeremy Bubnick
Community Services Superintendent Parks and Community Services Director

CITY COUNCIL GOALS
Positive Environment. Create a positive environment for the development of Moreno Valley's future.

CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PRIORITIES

1. Economic Development

2. Public Safety

3. Library

4. Infrastructure

5. Beautification, Community Engagement, and Quality of Life

6. Youth Programs

Objective 5.5: Promote a healthy community and lifestyle.

Objective 5.6: Enhance community outreach, partnership opportunities, and stakeholder ownership of the City’s parks and recreation services, programs and events.

Objective 6.2: Improve health, wellness and fitness for Moreno Va lley youth through recreation and sports programs.

ATTACHMENTS
B.3
Packet Pg. 73

Page 3 ends

To view large attachments, please click your “bookmarks” on the left hand side of this document for the necessary attachment.

1. Special Event 2022 Calendar

APPROVALS

Budget Officer Approval  Approved . 2/07/22 7:30 AM City Attorney Approval  Approved .

City Manager Approval  Approved . 2/08/22 1:59 PM B.3
Packet Pg. 74
Events Event Type Day Date Time Location Address
Demonstration Garden Dedication Citywide Wednesday 23-Feb-22 2pm-3pm Demonstration Garden 14075 Frederick St.

Springtastic Citywide Saturday 2-Apr-22 9am-11:30am Sunnymead Park 12655 Perris Blvd.

Public Safety Expo Citywide Saturday 21-May-22 10am-2pm Calle San Juan Los Lagos Calle San Juan Los Lagos
Juneteenth Citywide Sunday 18-Jun-22 2-5pm (Tentative) Civic Center Amphitheater 14075 Frederick St. 4th of July Parade Citywide Monday 4-Jul-22 9:30am
4th of July FunFest Citywide Monday 4-Jul-22 2pm-9:30pm Civic Center Amphitheater 14075 Frederick St.

MoVal Rocks-Summer Concert Series Citywide Thursday 7-Jul-22 7pm-9pm Civic Center Amphitheater 14075 Frederick St.

MoVal Movies-Summer Movie Series Citywide Friday 8-Jul-22 7pm -10pm Civic Center Amphitheater 14075 Frederick St.

MoVal Rocks-Summer Concert Series Citywide Thursday 14-Jul-22 7pm-9pm Civic Center Amphitheater 14075 Frederick St.

MoVal Movies-Summer Movie Series Citywide Friday 15-Jul-22 7pm -10pm Civic Center Amphitheater 14075 Frederick St.

MoVal Rocks-Summer Concert Series Citywide Thursday 21-Jul-22 7pm-9pm Civic Center Amphitheater 14075 Frederick St.

MoVal Movies-Summer Movie Series Citywide Friday 22-Jul-22 7pm -10pm Civic Center Amphitheater 14075 Frederick St.

MoVal Rocks -Summer Concert Series Citywide Thursday 28-Jul-22 7pm-9pm Civic Center Amphitheater 14075 Frederick St.

MoVal Movies-Summer Movie Series Citywide Friday 29-Jul-22 7pm -10pm Civic Center Amphitheater 14075 Frederick St.

National Night Out Citywide Tuesday 2-Aug-22 4pm-8pm Celebration Park (Tentative) 14965 Morgan Ave.

MoVal Rocks -Summer Concert Series Citywide Thursday 4-Aug-22 7pm-9pm Civic Center Amphitheater 14075 Frederick St.

MoVal Movies-Summer Movie Series Citywide Friday 5-Aug-22 7pm-10pm Civic Center Amphitheater 14075 Frederick St.

El Grito Citywide Thursday 15-Sep-22 6pm-10pm Civic Center Amphitheater 14075 Frederick St.

Day of the Dead Citywide Friday 28-Oct-22 6pm-9pm Civic Center Amphitheater 14075 Frederick St.

Snow Day Citywide Saturday 3-Dec-22 9am-4:45pm Civic Center Amphitheater 14075 Frederick St.

Holiday Tree Lighting Citywide Saturday 3-Dec-22 5:30pm City Hall 14177 Frederick St.

North on Frederick St. beginning at Alessandro Blvd.
then west on Towngate Blvd.

B.3.a
Packet Pg. 75
Attachment: Special Event 2022 Calendar [Revision 1] (5714 : APPROVAL OF SPECIAL EVENTS

Report to City Council

ID#5719 Page 1
TO: Mayor and City Council

FROM: Steve Quintanilla, Interim City Attorney

AGENDA DATE: February 15, 2022

TITLE: SECOND PUBLIC HEARIN G REGARDING THE

DECENNIAL CITY COUNC IL REDISTRICTING PRO CESS
BASED ON RECENTLY RE LEASED 2020 US CENSU S

POPULATION DATA FOR THE CITY OF MORE NO
VALLEY

RECOMMENDED ACTION
Recommendations: That the City Council:

1. Conduct the second of four public hearings regarding the adjustment of City Council District boundaries in light of the 2020 Census, pursuant to Elections Code Sections 21601-21609; and

2. Provide feedback, if any, regarding Communities of Interest or other considerations relating to the process.

SUMMARY

Members of the Moreno Valley City Council are elected using “by -district” elections, meaning elections in which a candidate for the Council may only run for office in the district in which he or she resides and is elected only by the voters in that district.

State law (Elections Code §§ 21600-21609) requires that any city using district elections readjust its boundar ies in the year following the release of each U.S. Census, to rebalance the population in accordance with federal equal population requirements.

That rebalancing must be done in accordance with the federal Voting Rights Act, the Equal Protection Clause, and applicable State law.

This is the second of four public hearings related to the Redistricting Process that are intended to provide the public with a meaningful opportunity to comment and to submit maps related to the Redistricting Process for consideration by the City Council.

F.1
Packet Pg. 76

Page 2 ends

BACKGROUND

In 2019, the State Legislature enacted AB 849 and AB 1276, which substantially re - wrote the State law provisions governing the Redistricting Process as it relates to cities.

The new law requires a significantly more det ailed public process, including requirements for more public hearings; new notice and public outreach requirements; translation requirements; the creation and maintenance (for ten years) of a redistricting website, etc. The City has already established the required website at redistrictmoval.org.

The new law also limits the discretion that city councils previously had in determining the redistricting criteria to be applied under State law, and instead prescribes specific criteria that the City Council must follow and sets the priority to be given to each criterion.

DISCUSSION

A. Substantive Requirements
The official adjusted1 2020 population of Moreno Valley is 209,667, and the ideal district size is 52,417 total persons. The populations of the current dis tricts as reflected in the adjusted Census data are as follows:

District 1: 50,844
District 2: 51,719
District 3: 53,474
District 4: 53,630
The Supreme Court has held that there does not have to be perfect equality amongst the district populations, but a plan with a “total deviation” exceeding 10% is presumed to be unconstitutionally malapportioned. The “total deviation” is calculated by determining the difference in population between the largest and smallest districts and then dividing by the ideal population.

Applying that formula, we subtract the population of District 1 (the least populated,

3.00% below the ideal) from the population of District 4 (the most populated, 2.31% above the ideal) to get a range of 2,786. Dividing that range by the ideal popu lation of 52,417, the “total deviation” of the City’s current district plan is 5.32% —which is way within the permissible 10% range.

However, under State law there are additional criteria that must be complied with. State law requires that the districts conform to the following:

1 Pursuant to State law, the population as reflected in the Census must be adjusted to redistribute incarcerated prisoners back to their last known place of pre -incarceration residence. See Elec. Code § 21601(a). Those are the data addressed herein.

F.1
Packet Pg. 77

Page 3 ends

1) The districts must be “substantially equal in population” as defined by the Supreme Court (i.e., within the 10% range discussed above). 2) The districts must comply with the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965 (52 U.S.C. Sec. 10301 et seq.).
3) The districts must comply with constitutional restrictions on “racial gerrymandering.
4) Subject to the constitutional and federal law requirements noted in paragraphs (1) – (3), voting districts must be established according to four statutory criteria, ranked in order of priority:
 To the extent practicable, council districts shall be geographically contiguous. Areas that meet only at the points of adjoining corners are not contiguous. Areas that are separated by water and not connected by a bridge, tunnel, or regular ferry service are not contiguous.  To the extent practicable, the geographic integrity of any local neighborhood or local Community of Interest shall be respected in a manner that minimizes its division. A “Community of Interest” is a population that shares common social or economic interests that should be included within a single district for purposes of its effective and fair representation. Communities of Interest do not include relationships with political parties, incumbents, or political candidates.  Council district boundaries should be easily identifiable and understandable by residents. To the extent practicable, council districts shall be bounded by natural and artificial barriers, by streets, or by the boundaries of the City.

 To the extent practicable, and where it does not conflict with the preceding criteria in this subdivision, council districts shall be drawn to encourage geographical compactness in a manner that nearby areas of population are not bypassed in favor of more distant populations.

B. Process

Under the pertinent State laws as amended by AB 849 and AB 1276 (in 2019), the City Council is required conduct at least four public hearings prior to adopting an updated district boundary map. At least one such hearing must be he ld prior to the drafting of possible mapping alternatives, and at least two must be held after the drafting of possible mapping options.

This is the second of the required public hearings, with the remaining hearings to be conducted on March 1, 2022 and March 15, 2022. The legal deadline to complete this process is April 17, 2022. The first of the required public hearings was held on February 1, 2022.

F.1
Packet Pg. 78

Page 4 ends

Per State law, the hearings must be conducted at a specific time; this hearing is noticed to begin at 6:00 p.m. The chief purpose of these mapping hearings is to obtain feedback from the public regarding possible changes to the districts, in particular Communities of Interest.

ALTERNATIVES

The City Council has the following alternatives:

1. Conduct the public hearing. This alternative will comply with State law and allow the City Council and the City’s consultants to receive feedback from the public regarding the adjustment of district boundaries in light of the 2020 Census.

2. Do not conduct the public hearing . If the process required by State law is not completed by the legal deadline, responsibility for redrawing the council districts shifts to the Riverside County Superior Court.

FISCAL IMPACT

None

NOTIFICATION

The Public Hearing Notice was published in the Press Enterprise Newspaper at least ten days in advance of the Public Hearing. Notices of the Public Hearing were also posted at City Hall, Senior Center, City’s Website and at the City’s three Library Branches.

PREPARATION OF STAFF REPORT

Prepared By: Concurred By:

Steven B. Quintanilla Mike Lee
Interim City Attorney City Manager

Christopher Skinnell Pat Jacquez-Nares
Special Redistricting Counsel City Clerk

CITY COUNCIL GOALS
None

CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PRIORITIES

1. Economic Development

2. Public Safety

3. Library

4. Infrastructure
F.1
Packet Pg. 79

Page 5 ends

5. Beautification, Community Engagement, and Quality of Life

6. Youth Programs

ATTACHMENTS
To view large attachments, please click your “bookmarks” on the left hand side of this document for the necessary attachment.

None

APPROVALS

Budget Officer Approval  Approved . 2/10/22 2:19 PM City Attorney Approval  Approved .

City Manager Approval  Approved . 2/10/22 2:21 PM F.1
Packet Pg. 80

Report to City Council

ID#5633 Page 1
TO: Mayor and City Council

FROM: Michael Lloyd, Public Works Director/City Engineer Brian Mohan, Assistant City Manager

AGENDA DATE: February 15, 2022

TITLE: PUBLIC HEARINGS AND RESOLUTIONS OF THE C ITY

COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MORENO VALLEY,

CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING THE DEVEL OPMENT IMPACT

NEXUS FEE STUDY UPDA TE AND ADJUSTING

DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES

RECOMMENDED ACTION
Recommendations: That the City Council:

1. Conduct a Public Hearing for the adoption of the Development Impact Nexus Fee Study Update (Dated January 28, 2022 ) and adoption of the Capital Improvement Plan;

2. Adopt Resolution No. 2022 -XX adopting the Development Impact Nexus Fee Study Update and Capital Improvement Plan , and finding the action is exempt from CEQA;

3. Conduct a Public Hearing for the adjustment of the City of Moreno Valley Development Impact Fees; and

4. Adopt Resolution No. 202 2-XX adjusting the Development Impact Fees , and finding the action is exempt from CEQA.

SUMMARY

This report recommends that the Council convene two Public Hearings. The first Public Hearing is to consider the adoption of the Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update and Capital Improvement Plan. The second Public Hearing is to consider staff recommendations to adopt a Resolution that adjusts the Development Im pact Fees for residential and commercial/industrial development based upon the 202 2 Nexus Study F.2
Packet Pg. 81

Page 2 ends

findings. The maximum DIF rate as recommended by the Nexus Study shall be phased in over an eight-year period with an increase every two years with an automatic inflationary adjustment per the Engineering News Record’s Building Cost Index (BCI) , but in no event shall any adjustment exceed the costs associated with the fee program .

Fee revenues will support the future pursuit of the items included in the Nexus Study.

BACKGROUND

The City of Moreno Valley adopted its Development Impact Fee (DIF) program in 2000 in full compliance with AB 1600. For the DIF, Moreno Valley adopted two Ordinances codifying Chapter 3.38 Residential Development Impact Fees and Chapter 3.42 Commercial and Industrial Impact Fees. The two chapters of the City’s Municipal Code , in accordance with applicable law, including without limitation the Mitigation Fee Act, as set forth in Government Code Sections 66000 et seq., permit Moreno Valle y to collect Development Impact Fees based upon the impacts of future development on capital facilities and infrastructure in the community. Since the original adoption, the fees have been updated periodically. A critical document to justify DIF adjustme nts is a Nexus Study, which, as of January 1, 2022, the City Council must adopt prior to adopting/increasing any DIF. The Nexus Study is used to determine the fair distribution of DIF costs based upon identified future infrastructure needs of the communit y, the cost of future infrastructure, and to account for that infrastructure that has been constructed since the date of the last DIF Nexus Study. The last Nexus Study prepared for the DIF was in 2012. Since that time, the City has approved a General Pla n Update, approved many Capital Improvement Plans (CIP) with the most recent being the FY 21/22 & 22/23 CIP, and seen significant development activity in the recent years. The 2022 Nexus Study Update accounts for these recent activities.

DISCUSSION

At t he February 16, 2021 , City Council meeting, Council directed staff to finalize an update to the 2012 DIF Nexus Study. Since that time, staff has worked with its consultant Willdan Financial Services to finalize an updated DIF Nexus Study to account for re cent activities and program changes that affected the fee calculations.

Those changes include a General Plan Update, CIP updates, as well as recently completed projects.

The updated DIF Nexus Study includes a section -by-section breakdown of the DIF facility categories along with the necessary calculations to measure the demand that future development will have on those facility service levels. The submitted DIF Nexus Study for 202 2 demonstrates the proportionality between the amount charged to the residential and commercial /industrial development community for the type and amount of facilities and infrastructure demand generated by that type of development project.

Additionally, the updated 2022 Nexus Study provides a reasonable connection between the use of fees and the benefits produced for the development paying the fees . As a point of reference, Attachment 1 provides comparisons of fees across the region based upon type of development. As can be seen, the current DIF for the City is among the lowest in the region while the proposed adjustments per the updated Nexus Study F.2
Packet Pg. 82

Page 3 ends

would bring the City in line with other jurisdiction fees.

The 2022 Nexus Study Update and proposed adoption of Development Impact Fees complies with Assembly Bill 602 (“AB 602”). In relevant part, AB 602 added Section 66016.5 to the Government Code, requiring the City to conduct an impact fee study before the adoption of an associated development fee, added new requirements to such nexus studies, and requires the City adopt a capit al improvement plan as part of the nexus study. The 2022 Nexus Study Update addresses such newly added requirements.

Respecting the requirement that a capital improvement plan be adopted as a part of the nexus study (Government Code 66016.5(a)(6)), the first attached Resolution adopts the requisite Nexus study and Capital Improvement Plan. As noted above, the Capital Improvement Plan was previously adopted by the City Council, and no modifications are hereby recommended to the latest Capital Improvement Plan, but because of the new requirement imparted via AB 602, the capital improvement plan is presented to the City Council for its adoption to strictly comply with AB 602’s requirements.

The second attached Resolution would adopt the Development Impact Fees and implementation schedule, which will not be effective until 60 days after adoption of the Resolution ( April 18 , 2022) , in accordance with applicable law . While the City is authorized by law to immediately increase fees to capture one -hundred percent of new development’s share of facility costs , staff instead recommends providing a gradual implementation schedule with automatic adjustment to such fees every two years, commencing in April 2022, with the final adjustment commencing in January 2028, as set forth in more detail in the Resolution, with automatic adjustments in the years 2024, 2026, and 2028 to account for the escalation in construction costs, based upon the figures published in the Engineering New Record’s Building Cost Index – 20 Cities Annual Average, but that in no event shall any adjustment exceed the costs associated with the fee program.

Additionally, staff recommends that a temporary reduction be put place for Affordable Residential Single -Family, Residential Multi -Family and Resid ential Mobile/Senior categories until such time as the City Council deems it appropriate to amend the resolution and applicable development impact fees further. Such reduction is reflected in the DIF fee table and schedule set forth in the attached applica ble Resolution. The continued availability of this rate will assist in the City’s housing element compliance.

CEQA ANALYSIS

This action has been reviewed by staff in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and the CEQA Guideline s and the actions are exempt from CEQA pursuant to Sections 15061(b)(2), 15061(b)(3), and Statutory Exemption set forth in 15306 of the CEQA Guidelines, 15273(a)(4) (Rates, Tolls, Fares and Charges), as set forth in more detail in each Resolution.

F.2
Packet Pg. 83

Page 4 ends

ALTERNATIVES

1. Approve the recommended actions as presented in this staff report and as set forth in the proposed Resolution. Staff recommends this alternative as it will allow for planning, design, and construction of necessary infrastructure improvements to mitigate the impact of development on the community.

2. Do not approve the recommended actions as presented in this staff report and as set forth in the proposed Resolution. Staff does not recommend this alternative as it will delay or stop the planning, design, and construction of necessary infrastructure improvements to mitigate the impact of development on the community.

FISCAL IMPACT

The updated DIF Nexus Study supports a maximum future revenue stream of nearly $740 million through build out of More no Valley. Below are the maximum projected revenues for the DIF categories:

 Arterial Streets: $333,809,510
 Traffic Signals: $25,095,738
 Fire Facilities: $21,447,000
 Police Facilities: $17,210,000
 Parkland/Quimby: $102,737,574
 Recreation Centers: $9,540,000
 Libraries: $8,926,800
 City Hall: $9,635,000
 Corporate Yard: $13,756,000
 Maintenance Equipment: $4,121,000
 Interchange Improvements: $193,685,450
 Animal Shelter: $659,000

TOTAL MAXIMUM PROJECTED DIF REVENUE: $740,623,072

NOTIFICATION

A notice was publ ished in the Press Enter prise on January 15, 2022 for the Public Hearing to adopt the Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update. A notice was published in the Press Enterprise on February 5 , 202 2, and again on February 10, 2022, for the Public Hearing to adjust the Development Impact Fees. The City currently does not have any active request on file for any additional notifications pursuant to the Government Code. The City made available to the public the Nexus Study at least ten days before this meeting, in accordance with Government Code Section 66016.

PREPARATION OF STAFF REPORT

Prepared By: Concurred By:

F.2
Packet Pg. 84

Page 5 ends

Michael Lloyd, P.E. Brian Mohan
Public Works Director/City Engineer Assistant City Manager/Chief Financial Officer/City Treasurer

Public Safety. Provide a saf e and secure environment for people and property in the community, control the number and severity of fire and hazardous material incidents, and provide protection for citizens who live, work and visit the City of Moreno Valley.

Public Facilities and Capi tal Projects. Ensure that needed public facilities, roadway improvements, and other infrastructure improvements are constructed and maintained.

CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PRIORITIES

1. Economic Development

2. Public Safety

3. Library

4. Infrastructure

5. Beautification, Community Engagement, and Quality of Life

6. Youth Programs

Objective 4.2: Develop and maintain a comprehensive Infrastructure Plan to invest in and deliver City infrastructure.

ATTACHMENTS
To view large attachments, please click your “bookmarks” on the left hand side of this document for the necessary attachment.

1. DIF Comparison Charts

2. NEXUS STUDY ADOPTION RESOLUTION final

3. DIF ADJUSTMENT RESOLUTION

APPROVALS

Budget Officer Approval  Approved . 2/09/22 9:07 AM F.2
Packet Pg. 85

Page 6 ends

City Attorney Approval  Approved .

City Manager Approval  Approved . 2/09/22 9:12 AM F.2
Packet Pg. 86
DIF Comparison Charts
F.2.a
Packet Pg. 87
Attachment: DIF Comparison Charts (5633 : DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES NEXUS STUDY AND FEE ADJUSTMENT) Resolution No. 2022-XX
Date Adopted: ______ __, 2022

RESOLUTION NO. 2022-____

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

MORENO VALLEY, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING DEVELOPMENT

IMPACT FEES

WHEREAS, the City of Moreno Valley (“City”) previously recognized that there was insufficient funding to address the impacts of new development on certain capital facilities in the City (the “City System”); and

WHEREAS, in order to address this shortfall, the Ci ty formulated a plan whereby a development impact fee would be assessed on new development and would be used to fund the necessary improvements for the City System; and

WHEREAS, in furtherance of this plan, the City Council adopted the “Development Impact Fee Update Study”, dated October 11, 2005 (the “2005 DIF Nexus Study”); and

WHEREAS, based on the 2005 DIF Nexus Study, the City amended Chapter 3.38 (Residential Development Impact Fees) and 3.42 (Commercial and Industrial Development Impact Fees) of th e Moreno Valley Municipal Code as adopted by Ordinance No. 695 on October 11, 2005, pursuant to California Government Code sections 66000 et seq. authorizing the City to impose the Development Impact Fee (“DIF”) upon new development; and

WHEREAS, in Octob er 2012, the City conducted a Public Hearing, updated the Development Impact Fee Nexus Study, and adjusted the Development Impacts Fees for Residential and Commercial & Industrial Development; and

WHEREAS, Section 3.38.160 of Chapter 3.38 and Section 3.42.130 of Chapter

3.42 authorizes the City Council to periodically review and adjust to the applicable DIF via resolution, in accordance with the procedures and based upon the findings set forth in the Mitigation Fee Act, as set forth in Government Code sections 66000-66024; and

WHEREAS, Section 3.38.160 and 3.42.130 further authorizes the City Council to provide annual adjustments to the applicable DIF via resolution to account for the escalation in construction costs, based upon the figures published in the Engineering News Record’s Building Cost Index—20 Cities Annual Average; and

WHEREAS, the Mitigation Fee Act standardizes the procedures for the imposition of development impact fees by certain public agencies; and

WHEREAS, the Mitigation Fee Act was passed "in response to concerns among developers that local agencies were imposing development fees for purposes unrelated to F.2.c
Packet Pg. 88
Attachment: DIF ADJUSTMENT RESOLUTION (5633 : DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES NEXUS STUDY AND FEE ADJUSTMENT) Resolution No. 2022-XX
Date Adopted: ______ __, 2022

development projects," as held in Ehrlich v City of Culver City (1996) 12 C4th 854, 864; and

WHEREAS, the Mitigation Fee Act applies to "fees" imposed by the City on “development projects” to fund “public facilities,” as these terms are defined in Government Code section 66000; and

WHEREAS, the Mitigation Fee Act defines "fee[ s]" as "monetary exaction[s] other than a tax or spec ial assessment, whether established for a broad class of projects by legislation of general applicability or imposed on a specific project on an ad hoc basis" that are imposed by a local agency as a condition of approval of a development project for the purpose of defraying costs of public facilities related to the development project, but does not include fees for building inspections , as held in Barratt Am., Inc. v City of Rancho Cucamonga (2005) 37 C4th 685; and

WHEREAS, the Mitigation Fee Act defines a "development project" as any “project undertaken for the purpose of development”; and

WHEREAS, the Mitigation Fee Act broadly defines "public facilities" to include "public improvements, public services, and community amenities" (Government Code section 66000); and

WHEREAS, the Mitigation Fee Act requires that the City make a determination, supported by evidence, that there is a “reasonable relationship” between the impact of a project and the development impact fee imposed (Government Code 66001); and

WHEREAS, the California Supreme Court has interpreted the Mitigation Fee Act's "reasonable relationship" standard as "embodying the standard of review formulated by the [United States Supreme Court] in its Nollan and D olan opinions," as set forth in Ehrlich v City of Culver City (1996) 12 C4th 854 at 860; and

WHEREAS, in light of the foregoing, the Mitigation Fee Act requires that there be a reasonable relationship between: (1) a development impact fee’s use and the ty pe of development project on which the development impact fee is imposed; (2) the need for the public facility funded by the development impact fee and the type of development project on which the development impact fee is imposed; and (3) the amount of the development impact fee and the cost of the public facility attributable to the development on which the development impact fee is imposed; and

WHEREAS, Assembly Bill No. 602 (“AB 602”) was approved by the Governor in September of 2021. In relevant part, it added Government Code Section 66016.5, which requires that as of January 1, 2022, an impact fee nexus study must be adopted before the adoption of an associated development fee, and delineates certain requirements respecting the nexus study; and

F.2.c
Packet Pg. 89
Attachment: DIF ADJUSTMENT RESOLUTION (5633 : DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES NEXUS STUDY AND FEE ADJUSTMENT) Resolution No. 2022-XX
Date Adopted: ______ __, 2022

WHEREAS, the City retained the professional services of Willdan Financial Services to prepare a nexus study in accordance with AB 602, attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein by this reference, the 2022 Development Impact Fee Study Update, dated January 20, 2022 (the “Nexus Study”), for the purpose of identifying the purpose of each development impact fee and the use to which each development impact fee is to be put; and

WHEREAS, in accordance with AB 602, on February 15, 2022, after a duly held public hearing, the City adopted the Nexus Study, including the capital improvement plan as part of the Nexus Study; and

WHEREAS, the DIF Nexus Analysis also provides the requisite evidence to support the findings and conclusions that a reasonable relationship exists between: (1) each development impact fee’s use and the type of development project on which the development impact fee is imposed; (2) the need for the public facility funded by each development impact fee and the type of development project on which the development impact fee is imposed; and (3) the amount of each development impact fee and the cost of the public facility attributable to the development on which the development impact fee is imposed; and

WHEREAS, Government Code Section 66017 (a) provides that any action adopting a fee or increasing a fee, upon a development project, as defined in Section 66000, which applies to the filing, accepting, reviewing, approving, or issuing of an application, permit, or entitlement to use, may be enacted only after a noticed public hearing and any such new or increased fees may not become effective any sooner than 60 days following the final action on the adoption of the new fee or fee increase, unless the City Council by a f our-fifths (4/5ths) vote adopts an urgency measure to protect the public health, welfare and safety ; and

WHEREAS, the fees collected pursuant to this Resolution shall be used to finance the City System as described or identified in the Nexus Study; and

WHEREAS, the Nexus Study demonstrates a need for City to increase fees to sufficiently cover, but not exceed, the costs associated with the fee program; and

WHEREAS, while the City is authorized by law to immediately increase such fees to capture one-hundred percent of its facility costs demanded by new development , the City desires instead to provide a gradual implementation schedule with automatic adjustment to such fees every two years , commencing in April 2022, with the final adjustment commencing in J anuary 2028, as set forth in more detail herein, and that in no event does any adjustment exceed the costs associated with the fee program; and

WHEREAS, this levying of development impact fees has been reviewed by the City Council and staff in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and the CEQA Guidelines and it has been determined that the adoption of this F.2.c
Packet Pg. 90
Attachment: DIF ADJUSTMENT RESOLUTION (5633 : DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES NEXUS STUDY AND FEE ADJUSTMENT) Resolution No. 2022-XX
Date Adopted: ______ __, 2022

resolution is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Sections 15061(b)(2) and 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines.

NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Moreno Valley does hereby resolve as follows:

Section 1. Recitals

That the recitals set forth above are true and correct, and are hereby incorporated herein by this reference, and adopted as findings in support of this Resolution.

Section 2. Exhibits

That the exhibits attached to this Resolution and all documents referenced herein are hereby incorporated herein by this reference, including without limitation the Nexus Study.

Section 3. CEQA Review – Categorical Exemption

The City Council hereby finds that in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and the CEQA Guidelines , the adoption of this Resolution is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Sections 15061(b)(3) and 15061(b)(2) because the adoption of this Resolution is statutorily exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15273(a) (4) (Rates, Tolls, Fares and Charges for obtaining funds for capital projects necessary to maintain service within existing service area) in that development impacts fees per the Mitigation Fee Act and Chapters 3.38 and 4.42 of the Moreno Valley Municipal Code are imposed by the City as a condition of approval of future development projects for the purpose of defraying and/or recovering from each new residential and nonres idential construction project a reasonable and proportional share of the cost of certain project-related public facilities and infrastructure improvements which are either exempt from CEQA review or which have already been evaluated under CEQA and imposed as mitigation measures in previously certified environmental impact reports and/or adopted mitigated negative declarations.

Section 4. Definitions

The terms of this Resolution shall have the same meaning ascribed to them in Sections 3.38 and 3.42 of the Moreno Valley Municipal Code, unless otherwise set forth herein.

Section 5. Affordable Housing

That a temporary reduction shall be in place for Affordable Residential Single- Family, Residential Multi-Family and Residential Mobile/Senior categories until such time as the City Council deems it appropriate to amend the resolution and applicable development impact fees further. Such reduction is reflected in the DIF fee table and F.2.c
Packet Pg. 91
Attachment: DIF ADJUSTMENT RESOLUTION (5633 : DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES NEXUS STUDY AND FEE ADJUSTMENT) Resolution No. 2022-XX
Date Adopted: ______ __, 2022

schedule set forth herein. The continued availability of this rate will assist in the City’s housing element compliance. To qualify, an affordable housing project must:
• Comply with the required Area Median Income levels to ensure affordability qualification; and
• Record appropriate affordability covenants.

Section 6. DIF Fee Table
That in accordance with Section 3.38.160 of Chapter 3.38 and Section 3.42.130 of Chapter 3.42 of the Moreno Valley Municipal Code, there is hereby adopted the revised DIF Fee Table, attached hereto as Exhibit B , which replaces the summary of Development impact fees within the City’s Schedule of City Fees, Charges and Rates, summarized below as the total DIF:
(1) $29,466.00 per DU for Residential Single-Family (Subdivisions) (2) $28,572.00 per DU for Residential Single-Family (Infill) (3) $14,733.00 per DU for Affordable Residential Single-Family (Subdivisions)
(4) $14,286.00 per DU for Affordable Residential Single-Family (Infill) (5) $19,912.00 per DU for Residential Multi-Family (Subdivisions) (6) $19,343.00 per DU for Residential Multi-Family (Infill) (7) $9,956.00 per DU for Affordable Residential Multi-Family (Subdivisions) (8) $9,671.50 per DU for Affordable Residential Multi-Family (Infill) (9) $12,094.00 per DU for Residential Mobile/Senior (Subdivisions) (10) $11,666.00 per DU for Residential Mobile/Senior (Infill) (11) $6,047.00 per DU for Affordable Residential Mobile/Senior (Subdivisions)
(12) $5,833.00 per DU for Affordable Residential Mobile/Senior (Infill) (13) $41,808.00 per 1,000 square foot of a General Commercial project (14) $44,076.00 per 1,000 square foot of a Regional Commercial project (15) $7,998.00 per 1,000 square foot of a General Industrial project (16) $2,586.00 per 1,000 square foot of a High Cube Commercial project (17) $18,007.00 per 1,000 square foot of an Office project

That the fees shall be automatically adjusted on January 1, for the years 2024, and 2026 to reflect any changes in costs for those certain capital improvements using the Council approved figures published in the Engineering News Record’s Building Cost Index –20 Cities Annual Average , but in no event shall such fees exceed the costs associated with the fee program. Note that all fees include a 2% administrative charge to fund future nexus updates and other fee program administrative costs.

Section 7. DIF Schedule
That the total DIF shall be implemented and increased automatically, with no further F.2.c
Packet Pg. 92
Attachment: DIF ADJUSTMENT RESOLUTION (5633 : DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES NEXUS STUDY AND FEE ADJUSTMENT) Resolution No. 2022-XX
Date Adopted: ______ __, 2022

action by the City, on the following schedule at the associated rates, with a breakdown by category in Exhibit B ; provided, however, the rates set forth for the years 2024 and 2026 include set adjustments to raise the fees to gradually capture its facility costs demanded by new development, but the listed fees for such years are not final and shall be automatically adjusted to account for the escalation in construction costs, based upon the figures published in the Engineering News Record’s Building Cost Index —20 Cities Annual Average, but in no event shall any adjustment exceed the costs associated with the fee program.

April 18, 2022:
(1) $15,269.50 per DU for Residential Single-Family (Subdivisions) (2) $15,046.00 per DU for Residential Single-Family (Infill) (3) $7,634.75 per DU for Affordable Residential Single-Family (Subdivisions) (4) $7,523.00 per DU for Affordable Residential Single-Family (Infill) (5) $10,025.50 per DU for Residential Multi-Family (Subdivisions) (6) $9,883.25 per DU for Residential Multi-Family (Infill) (7) $5,012.75 per DU for Affordable Residential Multi-Family (Subdivisions) (8) $4,941.62 per DU for Affordable Residential Multi-Family (Infill) (9) $6,178.75 per DU for Residential Mobile/Senior (Subdivisions) (10) $6,071.75 per DU for Residential Mobile/Senior (Infill) (11) $3,089.37 per DU for Affordable Residential Mobile/Senior (Subdivisions)
(12) $3,035.87 per DU for Affordable Residential Mobile/Senior (Infill) (13) $14,339.00 per 1,000 square foot of a General Commercial project (14) $14,516.00 per 1,000 square foot of a Regional Commercial project (15) $3,760.50 per 1,000 square foot of a General Industrial project (16) $1,227.00 per 1,000 square foot of a High Cube Commercial project (17) $7,340.25 per 1,000 square foot of an Office project

January 1, 2024:
(1) $20,002.00 per DU for Residential Single-Family (Subdivisions) (2) $19,555.00 per DU for Residential Single-Family (Infill) (3) $10,001.00 per DU for Affordable Residential Single-Family (Subdivisions)
(4) $9,777.50 per DU for Affordable Residential Single-Family (Infill) (5) $13,321.00 per DU for Residential Multi-Family (Subdivisions) (6) $13,036.50 per DU for Residential Multi-Family (Infill) (7) $6,660.50 per DU for Affordable Residential Multi-Family (Subdivisions) (8) $6,518.25 per DU for Affordable Residential Multi-Family (Infill) (9) $8,144.50 per DU for Residential Mobile/Senior (Subdivisions) (10) $7,930.50 per DU for Residential Mobile/Senior (Infill) (11) $4,072.25 per DU for Affordable Residential Mobile/Senior F.2.c
Packet Pg. 93
Attachment: DIF ADJUSTMENT RESOLUTION (5633 : DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES NEXUS STUDY AND FEE ADJUSTMENT) Resolution No. 2022-XX
Date Adopted: ______ __, 2022

(Subdivisions)
(12) $3,965.25 per DU for Affordable Residential Mobile/Senior (Infill) (13) $24,205.00 per 1,000 square foot of a General Commercial project (14) $25,001.25 per 1,000 square foot of a Regional Commercial project (15) $5,164.00 per 1,000 square foot of a General Industrial project (16) $1,652.25 per 1,000 square foot of a High Cube Commercial project (17) $10,874.50 per 1,000 square foot of an Office project

January 1, 2026
(1) $24,734.50 per DU for Residential Single-Family (Subdivisions) (2) $24,064.00 per DU for Residential Single-Family (Infill) (3) $12,367.12 per DU for Affordable Residential Single-Family (Subdivisions)
(4) $12,031.96 per DU for Affordable Residential Single-Family (Infill) (5) $16,616.50 per DU for Residential Multi-Family (Subdivisions) (6) $16,189.75 per DU for Residential Multi-Family (Infill) (7) $8,308.22 per DU for Affordable Residential Multi-Family (Subdivisions) (8) $8,094.85 per DU for Affordable Residential Multi-Family (Infill) (9) $10,122.25 per DU for Residential Mobile/Senior (Subdivisions) (10) $9,801.25 per DU for Residential Mobile/Senior (Infill) (11) $5,061.10 per DU for Affordable Residential Mobile/Senior (Subdivisions)
(12) $4,900.60 per DU for Affordable Residential Mobile/Senior (Infill) (13) $32,651.00 per 1,000 square foot of a General Commercial project (14) $34,222.00 per 1,000 square foot of a Regional Commercial project (15) $6,585.50 per 1,000 square foot of a General Industrial project (16) $2,133.00 per 1,000 square foot of a High Cube Commercial project (17) $14,450.75 per 1,000 square foot of an Office project

January 1, 2028
(1) $29,466.00 per DU for Residential Single-Family (Subdivisions) (2) $28,572.00 per DU for Residential Single-Family (Infill) (3) $14,733.00 per DU for Affordable Residential Single-Family (Subdivisions)
(4) $14,286.00 per DU for Affordable Residential Single-Family (Infill) (5) $19,912.00 per DU for Residential Multi-Family (Subdivisions) (6) $19,343.00 per DU for Residential Multi-Family (Infill) (7) $9,956.00 per DU for Affordable Residential Multi-Family (Subdivisions) (8) $9,671.50 per DU for Affordable Residential Multi-Family (Infill) (9) $12,094.00 per DU for Residential Mobile/Senior (Subdivisions) (10) $11,666.00 per DU for Residential Mobile/Senior (Infill) (11) $6,047.00 per DU for Affordable Residential Mobile/Senior F.2.c
Packet Pg. 94
Attachment: DIF ADJUSTMENT RESOLUTION (5633 : DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES NEXUS STUDY AND FEE ADJUSTMENT) Resolution No. 2022-XX
Date Adopted: ______ __, 2022

(Subdivisions)
(12) $5,833.00 per DU for Affordable Residential Mobile/Senior (Infill) (13) $41,808.00 per 1,000 square foot of a General Commercial project (14) $44,076.00 per 1,000 square foot of a Regional Commercial project (15) $7,998.00 per 1,000 square foot of a General Industrial project (16) $2,586.00 per 1,000 square foot of a High Cube Commercial project (17) $18,0007.00 per 1,000 square foot of an Office project

Section 8. DIF PAYMENT

Payment of such fees may be made at any time once a permit application has been submitted to the City for processing and is consistent with applicable Municipal Code Sections, and must be made timely in accordance with applicable law, including without limitation the Moreno Valley Municipal Code.

Section 9. Findings

That the City Council hereby makes the requisite findings as set forth in S ection 16 of the Nexus Study , as presented in said chapter and supported in detail by the Nexus Study.

Section 10. Effective Date

That pursuant to Section 66017 of the Government Code, the development impact fees herein shall not take effect until sixty (60) following adoption of this Resolution.

Section 11. Severability

That should any provision, section, paragraph, sentence or word of this Resolution or Nexus Study be rendered or declared invalid by any final court action in a court of competent jurisdiction or by reason of any preemptive legislation, the remaining provisions, sections, paragraphs, sentences or words of this Resolution and/or Nexus Study as hereby adopted shall remain in full force and effect.

Section 12. Repeal of Conflicting Provisions

That all the provisions heretofore adopted by the City Council that are in conflict with the provisions of this Resolution are hereby repealed.

Section 13. Certification

That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution and enter it into the book of original resolutions.

F.2.c
Packet Pg. 95
Attachment: DIF ADJUSTMENT RESOLUTION (5633 : DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES NEXUS STUDY AND FEE ADJUSTMENT) Resolution No. 2022-XX
Date Adopted: ______ __, 2022

APPROVED AND ADOPTED this ___ day of _____, 2022.

Mayor
ATTEST:

City Clerk

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

City Attorney
F.2.c
Packet Pg. 96
Attachment: DIF ADJUSTMENT RESOLUTION (5633 : DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES NEXUS STUDY AND FEE ADJUSTMENT) Resolution No. 2022-XX
Date Adopted: _______ __, 2022

RESOLUTION JURAT

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )

COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss.

CITY OF MORENO VALLEY )

I, , City Clerk of the City of Moreno Valley, California, do hereby certify that Resolution No. was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Moreno Valley at a regular meeting thereof held on the day of , by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

(Council Members, Mayor Pro Tem and Mayor)

CITY CLERK

(SEAL)
F.2.c
Packet Pg. 97
Attachment: DIF ADJUSTMENT RESOLUTION (5633 : DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES NEXUS STUDY AND FEE ADJUSTMENT) Resolution No. 2022-XX
Date Adopted: _______ __, 2022

EXHIBIT “A”

2022 DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY UPDATE

[SEE ATTACHED]
F.2.c
Packet Pg. 98
Attachment: DIF ADJUSTMENT RESOLUTION (5633 : DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES NEXUS STUDY AND FEE ADJUSTMENT)

CITY OF MORENO VALLEY

DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY
UPDATE

FINAL DRAFT

JANUARY 28, 2022

Oakland Office Corporate Office Other Regional Offices
66 Franklin Street 27368 Via Industria Aurora, CO
Suite 300 Suite 200 Orlando, FL
Oakland, CA 94607 Temecula, CA 92590 Phoenix, AZ
Tel: (510) 832-0899 Tel: (800) 755-6864 Plano, TX
Fax: (888) 326-6864 Seattle, WA
Washington, DC
www.willdan.com

F.2.c
Packet Pg. 99
Attachment: DIF ADJUSTMENT RESOLUTION (5633 : DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES NEXUS STUDY AND FEE ADJUSTMENT)

This page intentionally left blank.

F.2.c
Packet Pg. 100
Attachment: DIF ADJUSTMENT RESOLUTION (5633 : DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES NEXUS STUDY AND FEE ADJUSTMENT)

TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................... 5 Background and Study Objectives 5
Facility Standards and Costs 5
Use of Fee Revenues 6
Development Impact Fee Schedule Summary 6
Other Funding Needed 8

1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................... 9 Public Facilities Financing in California 9
Study Objectives 9
Fee Program Maintenance 10
Study Methodology 10
Types of Facility Standards 10
New Development Facility Needs and Costs 11
Organization of the Report 12

2. GROWTH FORECASTS ............................................................... 13 Land Use Types 13
Existing and Future Development 13
Occupant Densities 15

3. ARTERIAL STREETS................................................................... 16 Trip Demand 16
Trip Growth 18
Project Costs 18
Fee per Trip Demand Unit 19
Fee Schedule 19

4. TRAFFIC SIGNALS ..................................................................... 21 Project Costs and Cost Allocation 21
Fee per Trip Demand Unit 21
Fee Schedule 22

5. FIRE FACILITIES ........................................................................ 23 Service Population 23
Facility Inventories and Standards 23
Existing Inventory 23
Planned Facilities 24
Cost Allocation 25
Existing Level of Service 25
Future Level of Service 26
Use of Fee Revenue 26
Non-Fee Funding Required 27
F.2.c
Packet Pg. 101
Attachment: DIF ADJUSTMENT RESOLUTION (5633 : DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES NEXUS STUDY AND FEE ADJUSTMENT) City of Moreno Valley Development Impact Fee Study Update ii

Fee Schedule 27

6. POLICE FACILITIES .................................................................... 29 Service Population 29
Facility Inventories and Standards 29
Existing Inventory 29
Planned Facilities 30
Cost Allocation 30
Existing Level of Service 30
Future Level of Service 31
Use of Fee Revenue 31
Non-Fee Funding Required 32
Fee Schedule 32

7. PARK FACILITIES ....................................................................... 34 Service Population 34
Existing Parkland and Park Facilities Inventory 34
Parkland and Park Facilities Unit Costs 40
Improved Parkland Equivalent 40
Parkland and Park Facility Standards 41
Mitigation Fee Act 41
Quimby Act 41
City of Moreno Valley Parkland and Park Facilities Standards 41 Facilities Needed to Accommodate New Development 42
Parks Cost per Capita 43
Use of Fee Revenue 44
Fee Schedule 44

8. RECREATION FACILITIES ............................................................ 47 Service Population 47
Existing Recreation and Community Center Facilities Inventory 47 Planned Recreation and Community Center Facilities 48
Cost Allocation 49
Existing Level of Service 49
Future Level of Service 49
Use of Fee Revenue 50
Fee Revenue Projection 50
Fee Schedule 51

9. LIBRARY FACILITIES .................................................................. 52 Service Population 52
Existing Library Facilities 52
Planned Facilities 53
Cost Allocation 53
Existing Level of Service 53
Future Level of Service 54
Use of Fee Revenue 54
Fee Revenue Projection 54
F.2.c
Packet Pg. 102
Attachment: DIF ADJUSTMENT RESOLUTION (5633 : DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES NEXUS STUDY AND FEE ADJUSTMENT) City of Moreno Valley Development Impact Fee Study Update iii

Fee Schedule 55

10. CITY HALL FACILITIES................................................................ 57 Service Population 57
Facility Inventories and Standards 57
Existing Inventory 57
Cost Allocation 58
Fee Revenue Projection 59
Fee Schedule 59

11. CORPORATION YARD FACILITIES ................................................ 61 Service Population 61
Facility Inventories and Standards 61
Existing Inventory 61
Planned Facilities 62
Cost Allocation 62
Existing Level of Service 62
Future Level of Service 63
Use of Fee Revenue 63
Non-Fee Funding Required 64
Fee Schedule 64

12. MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT FACILITIES ........................................ 66 Service Population 66
Facility Inventories and Standards 66
Existing Inventory 66
Cost Allocation 67
Fee Revenue Projection 67
Fee Schedule 68

13. FREEWAY INTERCHANGES ......................................................... 69 Trip Demand 69
Trip Demand Growth 69
Project Costs 70
Fee per Trip Demand Unit 71
Fee Schedule 71

14. ANIMAL SHELTER FACILITIES ...................................................... 73 Service Population 73
Facility Inventories and Standards 73
Existing Inventory 73
Cost Allocation 74
Use of Fee Revenue 74
Fee Revenue Projection 74
Fee Schedule 75

15. AB 602 REQUIREMENTS ............................................................ 76 F.2.c
Packet Pg. 103
Attachment: DIF ADJUSTMENT RESOLUTION (5633 : DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES NEXUS STUDY AND FEE ADJUSTMENT) City of Moreno Valley Development Impact Fee Study Update iv

Compliance with AB 602 76
66016.5. (a) (2) - Level of Service 76
66016.5. (a) (4) – Review of Original Fee Assumptions 76 66016.5. (a) (6) – Capital Improvement Plan 77

16. IMPLEMENTATION ...................................................................... 78 Impact Fee Program Adoption Process 78
Inflation Adjustment 78
Reporting Requirements 78
Programming Revenues and Projects with the CIP 78
Reimbursements 79

17. MITIGATION FEE ACT FINDINGS .................................................. 80 Purpose of Fee 80
Use of Fee Revenues 80
Benefit Relationship 80
Burden Relationship 80
Proportionality 81
APPENDIX ........................................................................................... 1 F.2.c
Packet Pg. 104
Attachment: DIF ADJUSTMENT RESOLUTION (5633 : DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES NEXUS STUDY AND FEE ADJUSTMENT)

5 Executive Summary
This report summarizes an analysis of development impact fees needed to support future development in The C ity of Moreno Valley through 2040. It is the City’s intent that the costs representing future development’s share of public facilities and capital improvements be imposed on that development in the form of a development impact fee, also known as a public facilities fee. The public facilities and improvements included in th is analysis ar e divided into the fee categories listed below:
▪ Arterial Streets;  Library Facilities;
▪ Traffic Signals;  City Hall Facilities;
▪ Fire Facilities;  Corporation Yard Facilities; ▪ Police Facilities;  Maintenance Equipment Facilities; ▪ Parks;  Freeway Interchanges; and,
▪ Recreation Facilities;  Animal Shelter Facilities.

Background and Study Objectives
The primary policy object ive of a development impact fee program is to ensure that new development pays the capital costs associated with growth. The primary purpose of this repor t is to calculate and present fees that will enable the City to expand its inventory of public facilities, as new development creates increases in service demands.

The City imposes public facilities fees under authority granted by the Mitigation Fee Act (the Act), contained in California Government Code Sections 66000 et seq . Th is report provides the necessary findings required by the Act for adoption of the fees presented in the f ee schedules contained herein.

All development impact fee-funded capital projects should be programmed through the City’s five- year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). Using a CIP c an help the City identify and direct its fee revenue to public facilities proj ects that will accommodate future growth. By pro gramming fe e revenues to specific capital projects, the City can help ensure a reasonable relationship between new development and the use of fee revenues as required by the Mitigation Fee Act.

Facility Standards and Costs
There are three approaches typically used to calculate facilities standards and allocate the costs of planned facilities to accommodate growth in compliance with t he Mitigation F ee Act requirements.

The system plan approach is bas ed on a master facility plan in situations where the needed facilities serve both existing and new development. This approach allocates existing and planned facilities across existing and n ew development to determine new development’s fair share of facility needs. Th is approach is used when it is not possible to d ifferentiate the benefits of new facilities between new and existing development. Often the system plan is based on increasing facility standards , so the City must find non -impact fee revenue sources to fund existing development’s fair share of planned fac ilities. This approach is used for the fire, police, recreation center, library, and corporation yard facility fees in this report.

The planned facilities approach allocates costs based on the ratio of planned facilities that serve new development to the i ncrease in demand associated with new development. This approach is appropriate when specific planned facilities that only benefit new development can be identified , or when the specific share of facilities b enefiting new development can be identified . Examples F.2.c
Packet Pg. 105
Attachment: DIF ADJUSTMENT RESOLUTION (5633 : DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES NEXUS STUDY AND FEE ADJUSTMENT) City of Moreno Valley Development Impact Fee Study Update 6 include street improvements to avoid deficient levels of service or a sewer trunk line extension to a previously undeveloped area. This app roach is used for the arterial street, traffic signal, and freeway interchange facility fees.

The existing inventory approach is based on a facility standard derived from the City’s existing level of facilities and existing demand for servic es. This approach results in no facility deficiencies attributable to existing development. This approach is often used when a long-range plan for new facilities is not available. Only the initial facilities to be funded with fees are identified in the fee study. Future facilities to serve growth will be identified through the City’s annual capit al improvement plan and budget pro cess and/or completion of a new facil ity master plan. This approach is to calculate the parks, city hall, maintenance equipment an d animal shelter facilities fees in this report.

Use of Fee Revenues
The Mitigation Fee Act requires that this analysis “Identify the use to which the fee is to be put . If the use is financing public facilities, the facilities shall be identified. That ide ntification may, but need not, be made by r eference to a capital improvement plan as specif ied in Section 65403 or 66002, may be made in applicable gener al or specific plan requirements, or may be made in other public documents that identify the public fac ilities for wh ich the fee is charged. ” 1 Each chapter in this report identifi es the appropriate use of impact fee revenues for each parti cular impact fee category.

Impact fee revenue must be spent on new facilities or e xpansion of current facilities to serve new development. Facilities can be generally defined as capital acquisitio n items with a useful life greater than five years. Impact f ee revenue can b e spent on capital facilities to serve new development, including but not limited to land acquisition, construction of buildings, infrastructure, the acquisition of vehicles or equ ipment, inform ation technology, software licenses and equipment.

Development Impact Fee Schedule Summary
Table E.1 summarizes the development impact fees that meet the City’s identified needs and comply with the requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act.

1 California Government Code §66001 (a) (2).

F.2.c
Packet Pg. 106
Attachment: DIF ADJUSTMENT RESOLUTION (5633 : DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES NEXUS STUDY AND FEE ADJUSTMENT) City of Moreno Valley Development Impact Fee Study Update

7 Table E.1: Development Impact Facilities Fee Summary
Land Use
Arterial
Streets
Traffic
Signals Fire Police
Park
Fee 1
Quimby In-
Lieu Fee 1
Recreation
Centers Libraries City Hall
Corporate
Yard
Maintenance
Equipment
Interchange
Improvements
Animal
Shelter
Total -
Subdivisions
Total - Non
Subdivisions
Residential - Fee Per Dwelling Unit
Single Family Unit 9,953$ 748$ 1,412$ 1,208$ 7,460$ 8,354$ 753$ 731$ 676$ 966$ 290$ 4,299$ 77$ 29,466$ 28,572$ Multifamily Unit 7,110 534 898 768 4,741 5,310 478 465 429 614 184 3,073 49 19,912 19,343 Senior Housing 3,422 257 677 579 3,579 4,007 361 351 324 463 139 1,477 37 12,094 11,666 Nonresidential - Fee per 1,000 Square Feet
Regional Commercial 23,576$ 1,771$ 558$ 214$ 636$ -$ 64$ 42$ 119$ 170$ 51$ 16,874$ -$ 44,076$ 44,076$ General Commercial 21,466 1,613 558 214 636 - 64 42 119 170 51 16,874 - 41,808 41,808 Office 9,896 744 728 281 831 - 84 55 156 222 67 4,942 - 18,007 18,007 Industrial 4,535 341 271 104 309 - 32 20 58 83 24 2,221 - 7,998 7,998 High Cube Warehouse 1,293 97 168 64 192 - 19 12 36 51 15 639 - 2,586 2,586 1 A development project either pays the park fee or the Quimby fee, not both. Development not occurring in subdivisions is subject to the park fee. Development in subdivisions is subject to the Quimby fee.

Sources: Tables 3.5, 4.3, 5.6, 6.6, 7.9, 8.6, 9.6, 10.5, 11.6, 12.5, 13.5 and 14.5.

F.2.c
Packet Pg. 107
Attachment: DIF ADJUSTMENT RESOLUTION (5633 : DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES NEXUS STUDY AND City of Moreno Valley Development Impact Fee Study Update

8 Other Funding Needed
Impact fees may only fund the share o f public facilit ies related to new development in Moreno Valley. Th ey may not be u sed to fund the share of facili ty needs generated b y existing development or by development outside of the City. A s shown in Table E.2, approximately $377.9 million in additional funding wil l be needed to complete the facility projects the City currently p lans to develop. The “ Additional Funding Required ” column shows non-impact fee funding required to fund a share of the improveme nts partially funded by impact fees. Non-fee funding is needed because these facilities are needed partially to r emedy existing deficiencies and partly to accommodate new development.

The City will need to develop alternative funding sources to fund existing development’s share of the planned facilit ies. Potential s ources of revenue include but are not limited to existing or new general fund revenues, existing or new taxes, special assessments, and grants.

Table E.2: Non-Impact Fee Funding Required
Fee Category
Net Project
Cost
Projected
Impact Fee
Revenue
Additional
Funding
Required
Arterial Streets1 385,270,822$ 333,809,510$ 51,461,312$ Traffic Signals1 28,960,858 25,095,738 3,865,120 Fire Facilities 1 64,400,909 21,447,000 42,953,909 Police Facilities 2 68,090,997 17,210,000 55,606,378 Parkland/Quimby3 102,737,574 102,737,574 -
Recreation Centers 20,353,072 9,540,000 10,813,072 Libraries 29,976,239 8,926,800 21,049,439
City Hall4 9,635,000 9,635,000 -
Corporate Yard 52,191,185 13,756,000 38,435,185 Maintenance Equipment4 4,121,000 4,121,000 - Interchange Improvements1 347,377,002 193,685,450 153,691,552 Animal Shelter4
659,000 659,000 -
Total 1,113,773,657$ 740,623,072$ 377,875,966$
2 Additional funding required also necessary to cover negative fund balance.

Sources: Tables 3.3, 3.4, 4.1, 4.2, 5.3, 5.5, 6.5, 7.7, 8.5, 9.5, 10.4, 11.5, 12.4, 13.3, 13.4 and 14.4. 3 If all residential development is subject to Quimby, then the fee w ill generate the figure show n. If no residential development is subject to Quimby, then the fee w ill generate $94,502,804. 4 These categories w ere calculated using the existing standard methodology. Under this methodology the fee revenue is equal to new development's share of project costs. 1 TUMF funding and/or existing fund balances w ill fund some of the alternative funding requirements.

F.2.c
Packet Pg. 108
Attachment: DIF ADJUSTMENT RESOLUTION (5633 : DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES NEXUS STUDY AND FEE ADJUSTMENT)

9 1. Introduction
This report presen ts an anal ysis of the need for public facilities to accommod ate new development in the City of Moreno Valley . This chapter provides backg round for the study and explains the study approach under the following sections:
• Public Facilities Financing in California;
• Study Objectives;
• Fee Program Maintenance;
• Study Methodology; and,
• Organization of the Report.

Public Facilities Financing in California
The changing fiscal landscape in California durin g the past 40 years ha s steadily undercut the financial capacity of local governments to fund infrastructure. Three dominant trends stand out:
• The passage of a string of tax limitation m easures, starting with Proposition 13 in 1978 and continuing through the passage of Proposition 218 in 1996; • Declining popular support for bond measures to finance infrastructure for the next generation of residents and businesses;
• Unfunded state and federal mandates; and,
• Steep reductions in federal and state assistance.

Faced with these trend s, many cities and counties have had to adopt a policy of “growth pays its own way.” This policy shift s the burden of funding infrastructure expansion from exist ing ratepayers and taxpayers onto new devel opment. This funding shift has been accomplished primarily through the imposition of assessments, special taxes, and development impact fees also known as public facilities fees. Assessments and special taxes requ ire the appro val of property owners and are appropriate when the funded fa cilities are directly related t o the developing property. Development impact fees, on the other hand, are an appropriate fu nding source for facilities that benefit all development ju risdiction-wide. Development impact fees n eed only a majority vote of the legislative body for adoption.

Study Objectives
The primary policy objective of a public facilities fee program is to ensur e that new devel opment pays the capital costs associated w ith growth. Policy 2.14.1 of the City’s General Plan states “Conduct period ic review of public f acilities impact mitigation fees in accordance with state statutes to ensure that the charges are cons istent with the costs of improvements .” The primary purpose of this repo rt is to update the City’s im pact fees based on the most curr ent available facility plans an d growth projections. The proposed fees will enable the City to expand its inventory of publ ic facilities as new development leads to increases in ser vice demands. This report supports the General Plan policy stated above.

The City imposes public facilities fees under authority granted by the Mitigation Fee Act (the Act) , contained in California Government Code Sections 66000 et seq. Th is report provide s the necessary findings required by the Act for adoption of the fees prese nted in the fee sched ules presented in this report.

F.2.c
Packet Pg. 109
Attachment: DIF ADJUSTMENT RESOLUTION (5633 : DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES NEXUS STUDY AND FEE ADJUSTMENT) City of Moreno Valley Development Impact Fee Study Update

10 Moreno Valley is forecast to significant growth through this study’s planning horizon of 2040. This growth will create an increas e in demand fo r public services and the fac ilities required to deliver them. Given the revenue c hallenges described above, Moreno Valley has decided to use a development impact fee program to ensure that new development funds the share of facility costs associated with growth. This report makes use of the most current available growth forecasts and facility plans to update the City’s existing fee program to ensure that the fee program accurately represents the facility needs resulting from new development.

Fee Program Maintenance
Once a fee program has been adopted it must be pro perly maintained to ensure that the revenue collected adequately funds the facilities needed by new development. To avoid c ollecting inadequate revenue, the inventories of existing facilities and costs for planned facilities must be updated periodically for inflation, and the fees recalculated to reflect the higher costs. The use of established indices for each facility includ ed in the invent ories (land, building s, and equipment), such as the Engineering News-Record, is neces sary to accurately adjust the im pact fees. For a list of recommended indices, see Chapter 15.

While fee updates using inflation indices are appropriate for annual or periodic updates to ensure that fee revenues ke ep up with inc reases in the costs of public facilities, it is recommended t o conduct more extens ive update s of the fee documentation and calculation (such as this study) when significant new data on growth forecasts and/or facility plans become available. For further detail on fee program implementation, see Chapter 15.

Study Methodology
Development impact fees are calculated to fund the cost of facilities required to accommodate growth. The six steps followed in this development impact fee study include:

1. Estimate existi ng development and future gro wth: Identify a base year for existing development and a growth forecast that reflects increased demand for public facilities;

2. Identify facility standards: Determine the f acility standards used to plan for new and expanded facilities;

3. Determine facilities required to serve new developmen t: Estimate the total amount of planned facilities, and identify the share required to accommodate new development;

4. Determine the cost of facilities required to serve new development: Estimate the total amount and the share of the cost of planned faciliti es required to accomm odate new development;

5. Calculate fee schedule: Allocate facilities costs per unit of new development to calculate the development impact fee schedule; and

6. Identify alternati ve funding requirements: Determine if any non -fee funding is required to complete projects.

The key public policy issue in development impact fee studies is the identification of faci lity standards (step #2, above). Facility standards docume nt a reasonabl e relationship between new development and the need for new f acilities. Standards ensure that new development does not fund deficiencies associated with existing development.

Types of Facility Standards
There are three separate components of facility standards:

F.2.c
Packet Pg. 110
Attachment: DIF ADJUSTMENT RESOLUTION (5633 : DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES NEXUS STUDY AND FEE ADJUSTMENT) City of Moreno Valley Development Impact Fee Study Update

11  Demand standards determine the amount of facilities req uired to accommodate growth, for example, park acres per thousand residents, square feet of library space per capita, or gallons of water per day. Demand standards may also reflect a level of service such as the vehicle volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratio used in traffic planning.  Design sta ndards determine how a facility should be designed to meet expected demand, for example, par k improvement re quirements and technology infrastructure for City office space. Design standards are typically not explicitly evaluated as part of an impact fee analysis but can have a significant impact on the cost of facilities. Our approach incorporates the cost of pla nned facilities built to satisfy the City’s facility design standards.
 Cost standards are an alternate method for det ermining the amount o f faciliti es required to accommodate growth based on facility costs per unit of demand. Cost standards are useful when demand standards were not explicitly deve loped for the facility planning process. Cost standards also enable different types of facilities to be analyzed based on a single measure (cost or value ) and are useful when different facilities are funded by a si ngle fee program. Examples include facili ty costs per capita, cost per vehicle trip, or cost per gallon of water per day.

New Development Facility Needs and Costs
A number of approaches are used to identify facility needs and costs to ser ve new development.

This is o ften a two -step process: (1) identify total facility needs, and (2) all ocate to new development its fair share of those needs.

There a re three common methods for determining new development’s fair share of planned facilities c osts: the system plan method , the planned facilities meth od, and the existing inventory method. The formula used by each approach and the advantages and d isadvantages of each method is summarized below:

System Plan Method
This method calculates the fee ba sed on the value of existing facilities plus the cost of planned facilities, divided by demand from existing plus new development:

Value of Existing Facilities + Cost of Planned Facilities Existing + New Development Demand
This method is useful when planned faciliti es need to be analyzed as part of a system that benefits both existing and new development. It is difficult, for exam ple, to allocate a ne w f ire station solely to new development when that station will operate as part of an integrated syste m of fire stations that together achieve the desired level of service.

The system plan method ensures that new development does not pay for existing defi ciencies.

Often facility standards based on po licies such as those found in General Plans are higher t han the existing facility standards. This method enables the calculation of the existing deficiency required to bring existing develo pment up to the polic y-based standard. The local agency must secure non-fee funding for that portion of planned facilities required to corr ect the deficiency to ensure that new development receiv es the level of service funded by the impact fee . This approach is used for the fire, police, recreation center, library, and corporation yard facility fees in this report.

Existing Inventory Method
The existing inventory method allocates costs based on th e ratio of existing facilities to demand from existing development as follows:

= $/unit of demand
F.2.c
Packet Pg. 111
Attachment: DIF ADJUSTMENT RESOLUTION (5633 : DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES NEXUS STUDY AND FEE ADJUSTMENT) City of Moreno Valley Development Impact Fee Study Update

12 Current Value of Existing Facilities
Existing Development Demand
Under this method new development will fund the e xpansion of facilities at the same standard currently serving existing development. By definition the existing invent ory method results in no facility deficiencies attributable to existing development. This method is often used when a long - range plan for n ew facilities is not available. Only the initial faciliti es to be funded with fees are identified in the fee study. Future facilities to serve growth are identified through an annual capital improvement plan and budge t process, possibly aft er completion of a new facility master plan.

This approach is to calculat e the parks, city hall, maintenance equipment and animal she lter facilities fees in this report.

Planned Facilities Method
The planned fac ilities method allocates costs based on the r atio of planned facility costs to demand from new development as follows:

Cost of Planned Facilities
New Development Demand
This method is appropriate when planned facilities will entirely serve new development, or when a fair share allocation of planned facilities to new development can be estimated. An example of the former is a Wastewater trunk line extension to a previously un developed area. An example of the latter is a portion of a roadway that has been identified as necessary to mitigate the im pact from new development through traffic modeling analysis. Under this method new development will fund the ex pansion of facilities at the standards used in th e a pplicable planning documents . This approach is used for the arterial street, traffic signal, and freeway interchange facility fees.

Organization of the Report
The d etermination of a public facilities fee begins with the select ion of a planning ho rizon a nd development of growth projections for population and employment. These projections are used throughout the analysis of different facility categories and are summarized in Chapter 2.

Chapters 3 through 14 identify fa cility stan dards and planned fa cilities, allocate the cost of planned facilities between new development and other development, and id entify the appropriate development impact fee for each of the following facility categories:
▪ Arterial Streets;  Library Facilities;
▪ Traffic Signals;  City Hall Facilities;
▪ Fire Facilities;  Corporation Yard Facilities; ▪ Police Facilities;  Maintenance Equipment Facilities; ▪ Parks;  Freeway Interchanges; and,
▪ Recreation Facilities;  Animal Shelter Facilities.

Chapter 15 details the procedures that the City must follow when implementing a development impact fee program. Impact fee program adoption procedures are found in California Government Code Sections 66016 through 66018.

The five statutory f indings require d for adoption of the proposed public facilities fees in accordance with the Mitigation Fee Act are documented in Chapter 16. = $/unit of demand
= $/unit of demand
F.2.c
Packet Pg. 112
Attachment: DIF ADJUSTMENT RESOLUTION (5633 : DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES NEXUS STUDY AND FEE ADJUSTMENT)

13 2. Growth Forecasts
Growth projections are us ed as indicators of demand to determine facility n eeds and allocate those needs betwee n existing and new development. This chapter explains the source for the growth projections used in this study based on a 2021 base year and a planning horizon of 2040.

Estimates of existing development and pr ojections of future growth are c ritical assumptions used throughout this report. These estimates are used as follows:
• The estimate of existing development in 2021 is used as an indicator of existing facility demand and to determine existing facility standards. • The e stimate of total deve lopment at the 2040 planning horizon is used as an indicator of future demand to determine total facilities needed to accom modate growth and remedy existing facility deficiencies, if any. • Estimates of growth from 2021 through 2040 are used to (1) allocate facility costs between new development and existing development, and (2) estimate total fee revenues.

The demand for public facilities is b ased on the service population , dwelling units or nonresidential development creating the need for the facilities.

Land Use Types
To ensure a reasonable relationship between each fee and the type of development paying the fee, growth proje ctions distingui sh between different land use types. The land use types that impact fees have been calculated for are defined below. • Single family: Detached and attached one-unit dwellings. • Multifamily: All attached multifamily dwellings including duplexes, apartments, and condominiums.
• Senior Housing: All age-restricted multifamily dwellings. • Commercial: All commercial, retail, educational, and hotel/motel development. • Office: All general, professional, and medical office development. • Industrial: All manufacturing and other industrial development. • Warehousing: All warehouse development
Some developments may in clude more than one lan d use type, such as a mixed-use development with both multifamily and commercial uses. Another similar situation would be a warehousing fac ility that contains office space. In those cases, the facilities fee would be calculated separately for each land use type included within the building.

The City has the discretion to determine which land us e t ype best reflects a developmen t project’s characteristics for purposes of imposing an impact fee and may adjust fees for special or unique uses to reflect the impact characteristics of the use.

Existing and Future Development
Table 2.1 shows th e estima ted number of residents, dwelling units, employees, a nd building square feet in Moreno Valley, both in 2021 and in 2040. The base year estimates of residents and dwelling units comes from the California Department of Finance. Future resident and dwelling unit F.2.c
Packet Pg. 113
Attachment: DIF ADJUSTMENT RESOLUTION (5633 : DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES NEXUS STUDY AND FEE ADJUSTMENT) City of Moreno Valley Development Impact Fee Study Update

14 are based on draft Growth Figures from SCAG's Int egrated Growth Forecast from the 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP).

Base year employees were estimated based on data obtained from the U.S. Census Bureau ’s OnTheMap Application. Total future employees were also estimated based on SCAG Integrated Growth Forecast, allocated to the nonresidential land use categories ba sed on current proportions, except for the warehousing land use category. The increase in warehousing jobs is based on an i ncrease of 40.6 million building square feet identified in approved development agreements.

Table 2.1: Demographic Assumptions
2021 2040 Increase
Residents1 208,900 256,600 47,700
Dwelling Units2
Single Family 47,700 57,300 9,600
Multifamily 10,000 15,700 5,700
Total 57,700 73,000 15,300
Employment3
Commercial 16,200 32,400 16,200
Office 11,600 23,200 11,600
Industrial 2,000 4,000 2,000
Warehousing 11,800 23,600 11,800
Total 41,600 83,200 41,600
Building Square Feet (000s)4
Commercial 6,778 13,556 6,778
Office 3,718 7,436 3,718
Industrial 1,724 3,448 1,724
Warehousing 16,389 56,989 40,600
Total 28,609 81,430 52,820
Note: Figures have been rounded to the hundreds.
1 Current population from California Department of Finance (DOF). Projection for 2040 based on Draft Grow th Figures from SCAG's Integrated Grow th Forecast for the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS.
2 Current values from DOF. Total future dw elling units from SCAG Draft Integrated Grow th Forecast.
3 Existing estimates based on data from OnTheMap. Excludes local government employees. Future employees from SCAG Forecast allocated to land use categories based on current proportions.
4 Estimated based on employment and employment density factors in Table 2.2, except for w arehousing. Increase in w arehousing is based on an increase of 40.6 million building square feet identified in existing development agreements.

Sources: California Department of Finance (DOF), Table E-5, 2021; Draft Grow th Figures from SCAG's Integrated Grow th Forecast for the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS; U.S.

Census Bureau, OnTheMap Application and LEHD Origin-Destination Employment Statistics (2019); City of Moreno Valley; World Logistics Center Specific Plan (2015); Willdan Financial Services.

F.2.c
Packet Pg. 114
Attachment: DIF ADJUSTMENT RESOLUTION (5633 : DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES NEXUS STUDY AND FEE ADJUSTMENT) City of Moreno Valley Development Impact Fee Study Update

15 Occupant Densities
All fees in this report are calculated based on dwelling uni ts or building s quare feet. Occupant density assumptions ensure a reasonable relationship between the size of a development project, the increase in service population associated with the project, and the amount of the fee.

Occupant densities (residents p er dwelling unit or workers per building square foot) are the most appropriate characteristics to use for most impact fees. The fee i mposed should be based on the land use type that most closely represents the probable occupant density of the development.

The average occupant density factors used in this report are shown in Table 2.2. The residential density factors are based on data for Moreno Valley from the 2019 U.S. Census’ American Community Survey, the most recent data available.

The nonresidential occupancy factors are based on occupancy factors found in the Employment Density Study Summary Report , prepared for the Southern California Association of Governments by The Natelson Company. Though not specific to Moreno Valley , t he Natelson study covered employment density over a wide array of land use and development types, mak ing it reasonable to apply these factors to other areas. The specific factors used in this report are for developing suburban areas, as defined by the Natelson study.

Table 2.2: Occupant Density
Residential
Single Family 4.17 Residents Per Dwelling Unit
Multifamily 2.65 Residents Per Dwelling Unit
Senior Housing 2.00 Residents Per Dwelling Unit
Nonresidential
Commercial 2.39 Employees per 1,000 square feet Office 3.12 Employees per 1,000 square feet
Industrial 1.16 Employees per 1,000 square feet High Cube Warehouse 0.72 Employees per 1,000 square feet Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2019 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Tables B25024 and B25033; The Natelson Company, Inc., Employment Density Study Summary Report, prepared for the Southern California Association of Governments, October 31, 2001, SCAG region data; Willdan Financial Services.

F.2.c
Packet Pg. 115
Attachment: DIF ADJUSTMENT RESOLUTION (5633 : DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES NEXUS STUDY AND FEE ADJUSTMENT)

16 3. Arterial Streets
This chapter summarizes an analysis of the need for arterial streets, including roadway segments and intersection improvements, to a ccommodate new d evelopment. The chapter documen ts a reasonable relationship between new development and the impact fee for fundin g of these facilities.

Trip Demand
The need for street im provements is based on the trip demand placed on the system by development. A reasona ble measure of demand is the n umber of average daily vehicle trips, adjusted for the type of trip. Vehicle trip generation rates are a reasonable measure of demand on the City’s sys tem of street improvements across all modes because alterna te modes (transi t, bicycle, pedestrian) often substitute for vehicle trips.

The two types of trips adjustments made to trip ge neration rates t o calculate trip demand are described below:
• Pass-by trips are deducted from the trip generation rate. Pass -by tr ips are intermediates stops between an origin and a final destination that require no diversion from the route, such as stopping to get gas on the way to work. • The trip generation rate is adjusted by the average length of trips for a specific land use cate gory compared to the average length of all tr ips on the street system.

Table 3.1 shows the c alculation of trip demand factors b y land u se category based on the adjustments described above. Data is based on extensive and detailed trip surveys conducted in the San Diego region by the San Diego Associat ion of Governments. The surveys provide one of the most comprehensive databases av ailable of trip generation rates, pass -by trips factors, a nd average trip length for a w ide range of lan d uses. Though urban development patterns differ between San Diego and the City of Moreno Valley, the use of this dat a is appropriate as a means of allocating trips across multiple land use categories. It shoul d be noted that the projection s of current and future trip generation in this report are based on data specific to t he City of Moreno Valley.

F.2.c
Packet Pg. 116
Attachment: DIF ADJUSTMENT RESOLUTION (5633 : DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES NEXUS STUDY AND FEE ADJUSTMENT) City of Moreno Valley Development Impact Fee Study Update

17 Table 3.1: Trip Rate Adjustment Factors
Primary
Trips1
Diverted
Trips1
Adjustment
Factor for
Non-Pass-
by Trips1
Average
Trip
Length2
Adjust-
ment
Factor3 ITE Category
Average
Daily
Trips4
Trip
Demand
Factor5
A B C = A + B D E = C x D F G = E x F
Residential
Single Family 86% 11% 97% 1.14 1.11 Single Family Housing (210) 9.43 10.47 Multi-family 86% 11% 97% 1.14 1.11 Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise) (220) 6.74 7.48 Senior Housing 86% 11% 97% 1.14 1.11 Senior Adult Housing- Attached (252) 3.24 3.60 Nonresidential
Regional Commercial 54% 35% 89% 0.75 0.67 Shopping Center (820) 37.01 24.80 General Commercial 45% 40% 85% 0.72 0.61 Shopping Center (820) 37.01 22.58 Office 77% 19% 96% 1.00 0.96 General Office Building (710) 10.84 10.41 Industrial 79% 19% 98% 1.00 0.98 General Light Industrial (110) 4.87 4.77 High Cube Warehouse 92% 5% 97% 1.00 0.97 High-Cube / Short-Term Storage Warehouse (154) 1.40 1.36 2 From Table 5, "Derivation of Trip-Length Adjustments for Arterial Development Impact Fee." Distance to Jurisdictional Limit. 3 The trip adjustment factor equals the percent of non-pass-by trips multiplied by the average trip length. 4 Trips per dw elling unit or per employee.
5 The trip demand factor is the product of the trip adjustment factor and the average daily trips.

Sources: San Diego Association of Governments, Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates for the San Diego Region, April 2002; Institute of Traffic Engineers, Trip Generation, 11th Edition; City of Moreno Valley, "Derivation of Trip-Length Adjustments for Arterial Development Impact Fee;" Willdan Financial Services. 1 Percent of total trips. Primary trips are trips w ith no midw ay stops, or "links". Diverted trips are linked trips w hose distance adds at least one mile to the primary trip. Pass-by trips are links that do not add more than one mile to the total trip.

F.2.c
Packet Pg. 117
Attachment: DIF ADJUSTMENT RESOLUTION (5633 : DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES NEXUS STUDY AND City of Moreno Valley Development Impact Fee Study Update

18 Trip Growth
The planning horizon for this analysis i s 2040. Table 3.2 lists the 2021 and 2040 land use assumptions used in this study. The trip d emand factors calculated in Table 3.1 are multiplied by the existing and future d welling units and building square feet to determine the increase in trips caused by new development.

Table 3.2: Land Use Scenario and Total Trips
Land Use
Trip
Demand
Factor
Units /
1,000 SF Trips
Units /
1,000 SF Trips
Units /
1,000 SF Trips
Residential
Single Family 10.47 47,700 499,419 9,600 100,512 57,300 599,931 Multi-family 7.48 10,000 74,800 5,700 42,636 15,700 117,436 Subtotal 57,700 574,219 15,300 143,148 73,000 717,367 Nonresidential
Commercial 24.8 6,778 168,100 6,778 168,101 13,556 336,201 Office 10.41 3,718 38,704 3,718 38,704 7,436 77,408 Industrial 4.77 1,724 8,224 1,724 8,224 3,448 16,448 Warehousing 1.36 16,389 22,289 40,600 55,216 56,989 77,505 Subtotal 28,609 237,317 52,820 270,245 81,430 507,562 Total 811,536 413,393 1,224,929

66.3% 33.7% 100.0%
Sources: Tables 2.1 and 3.1; Willdan Financial Services 2021 Total - 2040Growth 2021 to 2040

Project Costs
Cost estimates are s ummarized i n Table 3.3, and displayed in detail in Appendix Table A.1 .

None of the projects included in the fee program were deficient at the time the fee program was created. As such, the full cost of the improvements is needed to remedy unacc eptable level of service decre ases caused by the increase in trips fr om new development. The City’s traffic engineers prepared the cost estimates, using cost estimating meth odology consistent with the estimating methodology used in recent WRCOG’s Nexus St udy. TUM F credits are identifie d in the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Nexus Study (2016 Update).

The City may decide to alter the scope of t he planned projects or to substitute new projects if those new projects continue to represent an expansion o f the City’s facilities. If the total cost of facilities varies from th e total cost used as a basis for the fees, the City should consider revising the fees accordingly.

F.2.c
Packet Pg. 118
Attachment: DIF ADJUSTMENT RESOLUTION (5633 : DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES NEXUS STUDY AND FEE ADJUSTMENT) City of Moreno Valley Development Impact Fee Study Update 19 Table 3.3: Planned Facilities
No. Roadway Total Cost
1 Total DIF Cost for East-West Arterial Streets 185,659,072$ 2 Total DIF Cost for North-South Arterial Streets 238,039,008 3 Non-Master Planned Storm Drain Projects in CIP 5,000,000 4 Freeway Overpasses (non-interchange) 31,976,721
5 Nason-Dracaea (Letterman) Booster Bump Station 1,900,000 6 Citywide Bridges 16,915,070
10 Share of Debt Service Costs - See Appendix Table A.21 999,943
Subtotal 480,489,813$
Less TUMF Credit for Backbone Arterial Streets (46,828,000)$ Less TUMF Credit for Secondary Arterial Streets (44,279,000) Less Existing Fund Balance (4,111,991)
Total DIF Project Cost - 2021 385,270,822$
1 New development's share of debt costs is equal to the present value of the interest multiplied by new development's share of total trips identified in Table 3.2 (33.7% x $2,967,189).

Sources: "Summary Of DIF Cost For Arterial Streets," 2021, City of Moreno Valley; Appendix Tables A.1 and A.2, Willdan Financial Services.

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

Table 3.4 calculates the cost the cost per trip demand unit by dividing the total project c osts attributable to new development summarized in Table 3.3, by the total growth in trips calculated in Table 3.2.

Table 3.4: Cost per Trip to Accommodate Growth
Fee Program Share of Planned Facilities Costs 385,270,822$ Growth in Daily Trips 413,393
Cost per Trip 932$
Sources: Tables 3.2 and 3.3; Willdan Financial Services.

Fee Schedule
Table 3.5 shows the maximum justified arterial streets fee schedule. The maximum justified fees are based on the costs per trip shown in Table 3.4. The cost per trip is multiplied by the trip demand factors in Table 3.1 to deter mine a fee per unit of ne w development. The total fee F.2.c
Packet Pg. 119
Attachment: DIF ADJUSTMENT RESOLUTION (5633 : DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES NEXUS STUDY AND FEE ADJUSTMENT) City of Moreno Valley Development Impact Fee Study Update 20 includes a two percent (2%) administrative charge to fund costs that include: a standard overhead charge applied to all City programs for lega l, accountin g, and other departmental and administrative sup port, and fee program adm inistrative costs including revenue coll ection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.

In Willdan’s experience with impact fee programs, two percent of the base fee adequ ately covers the cost of fee program administration. The administrative charg e should be reviewed and adjusted during comprehensive im pact fee updates to ensu re that r evenue generated from the charge sufficiently covers, but does not excee d, the administra tive costs associated with the fee program.

Table 3.5: Arterial Streets Impact Fee
A B C = A x B D = C x 0.02 E = C + D E / 1,000
Trip
Land Use
Cost Per
Trip
Demand
Factor Base Fee 1
Admin
Charge1, 2 Total Fee 1
Fee per
Sq. Ft.

Residential - per Dwelling Unit
Single Family 932$ 10.47 9,758$ 195$ 9,953$ Multi-family 932 7.48 6,971 139 7,110 Senior Housing 932 3.60 3,355 67 3,422 Nonresidential - per 1,000 Sq. Ft.

Regional Commercial 932$ 24.80 23,114$ 462$ 23,576$ 23.58$ General Commercial 932 22.58 21,045 421 21,466 21.47 Office 932 10.41 9,702 194 9,896 9.90 Industrial 932 4.77 4,446 89 4,535 4.54 High Cube Warehouse 932 1.36 1,268 25 1,293 1.29 Sources: Tablse 3.1 and 3.4; Willdan Financial Services. 1 Persons per dw elling unit or per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential. 2 Administrative charge of 2.0 percent for (1) legal, accounting, and other administrative support and (2) impact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.

F.2.c
Packet Pg. 120
Attachment: DIF ADJUSTMENT RESOLUTION (5633 : DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES NEXUS STUDY AND FEE ADJUSTMENT)

21 4. Traffic Signals
This chapt er summarizes an analysis of the need for traffic signals to accommodate new development. The chapter documents a reasonable relatio nship between new development and the impact fee for funding of these facilities. Note that the trip demand factors calcula ted in Table

3.1, and the trip growth projections calculated in Table 3.2 will also be used in this chapter.

Project Costs and Cost Allocation
Cost est imates for traffic signals and related facilities needed to serve n ew development are summarized in Table 4.1. A list of signal controller locations and new signals are shown in Appendix Tables A.3 and A.4. The City will require 96 new signals to serve new development.

The City will also require upgrades to 39 existing signal controllers to accommodate the increase in trip dema nd. The cost for new signals is alloc ated completely to new development. However, the controller upgrades and communications ducts are needed as a result of existing demand and future demand. As such, a shar e of the cost of controller upgrades and commun ication ducts is allocated to new deve lopment proportional to new development ’s share of tota l trips at the planning horizon.

Table 4.1: Traffic Signal Costs
Component Amount Units Unit Cost Total Cost
Allocation to
New
Development 1
Cost Allocated
to New
Development
Traffic signals 96 Signals 274,100$ 26,313,600$ 100.0% 26,313,600$ Future communication duct2 87 Miles 132,000 11,484,000 33.7% 3,870,108 Traffic signal controller upgrades 39 Signal Controllers 10,000 390,000 33.7% 131,430 Total DIF Project Cost 38,187,600$ 30,315,138$
Less Existing Fund Balance (1,354,280)
Net DIF Cost 28,960,858$
1 For controller upgrades and communication ducts, new development's fair share is equal to its share of trips at buildout, as show n in Table 4.2. 2 $25 per lane foot.

Source: "Development Impact Fee Update: Traffic Signals Component," City of Moreno Valley, 2021; Table 3.2, Willdan Financial Services.

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

Table 4.2 calculates the cost the cos t per trip demand unit by dividing the total proje ct costs attributable to new development summarized in Table 4.1, by the total growth in trips calculated in Table 3.2.

F.2.c
Packet Pg. 121
Attachment: DIF ADJUSTMENT RESOLUTION (5633 : DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES NEXUS STUDY AND FEE ADJUSTMENT) City of Moreno Valley Development Impact Fee Study Update 22 Table 4.2: Cost per Trip to Accommodate Growth
Fee Program Share of Planned Facilities Costs 28,960,858$ Growth in Daily Trips 413,393
Cost per Trip 70$
Sources: Tables 3.2 and 4.1; Willdan Financial Services.

Fee Schedule
Table 4.3 shows the maximum justified traffic signals facilities fee s chedule. The maximum justified fees are based on t he costs per trip shown in Table 4.2. The cost per trip is multiplied by the trip demand factors in Table 3.1 to determine a fee per unit of new development. The total fee includes a two percent (2%) administrative charge to fund costs that include: a standard overhead charge applied to all City programs for legal, accounting, and ot her de partmental and administrative support, and fee program administrative costs inc luding reve nue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.

In Willdan’s experience with impact fee programs, two pe rcent of the base fee adequately covers the c ost of fee program administration. The a dministrative charge should be reviewed an d adjusted during comprehensive impact fee updates to ensure that revenue generated from the charge sufficiently covers, but does not exceed, the administrat ive costs associa ted with the fee program.

Table 4.3: Traffic Signals Impact Fee
A B C = A x B D = C x 0.02 E = C + D E / 1,000
Trip
Land Use
Cost Per
Trip
Demand
Factor Base Fee 1
Admin
Charge1, 2 Total Fee 1
Fee per
Sq. Ft.

Residential - per Dwelling Unit
Single Family 70$ 10.47 733$ 15$ 748$ Multi-family 70 7.48 524 10 534 Senior Housing 70 3.60 252 5 257 Nonresidential - per 1,000 Sq. Ft.

Regional Commercial 70$ 24.80 1,736$ 35$ 1,771$ 1.77$ General Commercial 70 22.58 1,581 32 1,613 1.61 Office 70 10.41 729 15 744 0.74 Industrial 70 4.77 334 7 341 0.34 High Cube Warehouse 70 1.36 95 2 97 0.10 Sources: Tablse 3.1 and 4.2; Willdan Financial Services. 1 Persons per dw elling unit or per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential. 2 Administrative charge of 2.0 percent for (1) legal, accounting, and other administrative support and (2) impact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.

F.2.c
Packet Pg. 122
Attachment: DIF ADJUSTMENT RESOLUTION (5633 : DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES NEXUS STUDY AND FEE ADJUSTMENT)

23 5. Fire Facilities
The purpose of the fire impact fee is to fund the fire facilities needed to serve ne w development.

A proposed fee is presented based on the system plan standard of fire facilities per capita.

Service Population
Fire facilities are used to provide services to both residents and businesses. The servi ce population used to d etermine the dema nd for fire facilities includes both residents and workers.

Table 5.1 shows the current fire facilities service population a nd the estimated service population at the planning horizon of 2040.

To calculate service p opulation for fire prot ection facilities , residents are weighted at 1.00. A worker is weighted at 0.69 of one resident to reflect the lower per capita need for fire services associated with businesses.

The specific 0.69 p er worker weighting used here is de rived from an extensive study carried ou t by planning staff in the City of Phoenix . Data from that study is used to cal culate a per capita factor that is independen t of land use patterns. It is reasonable to assume that r elative demand for fire s ervice between residents and work ers does not vary substantially on a per capita basis across communities, enabling the use of th is data in other communities in the documenta tion of a fire facilities impact fee.

Table 5.1: Fire Facilities Service Population
Residents Workers1
Service
Population
Existing (2021) 208,900 41,600 237,600
New Development (2021-2040) 47,700 41,600 76,400 Total (2040) 256,600 83,200 314,000
Weighting factor 1.00 0.69
Source: Tables 2.1; City of Phoenix, AZ.
1 Service population w eighting factors based on study of City of Phoenix service call data w eighted by the relative proportions of residential and nonresidential land use in the City, allow ing the results of this survey to be applied in other areas.

Facility Inventories and Standards
This section describes the City’s fire facility inventory and facility standards.

Existing Inventory
Table 5.2 summarizes the City’s current inventory of land, apparatus and vehicles. Fire protection services are provided from seven stations located throughout the City. The unit cost for the land value assumption of $ 167,000 per acre was based on an analysis of recent sales compa risons, and consistent with other chap ters in this report. Building valuations come from a risk F.2.c
Packet Pg. 123
Attachment: DIF ADJUSTMENT RESOLUTION (5633 : DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES NEXUS STUDY AND FEE ADJUSTMENT) City of Moreno Valley Development Impact Fee Study Update 24 management valuation of the City’s building inv entory. A summary of the value of vehicle s, fire protection equipment, and apparatuses can be found in Appendix Table A.5.

Table 5.2: Existing Fire Facilities Land and Building Inventory Address Inventory Units Unit Cost Value
Land (acres)
Fire Station #2 24935 Hemlock Avenue 1.72 acres 167,000$ 287,200$ Fire Station #6 22250 Eucalyptus Avenue 1.25 acres 167,000 208,800 Fire Station #48 10511 Village Road 0.90 acres 167,000 150,300 Fire Station #58 28040 Eucalyptus Avenue 3.59 acres 167,000 599,500 Fire Station #65 15111 Indian Street 0.72 acres 167,000 120,200 Fire Station #91 16110 Lasselle Street 5.00 acres 167,000 835,000 Fire Station #99 13700 Morrison Street 1.40 acres 167,000 233,800 Subtotal 14.58 2,434,800$
Buildings (square feet) 1
Fire Station #2 24935 Hemlock Avenue 8,848 Sq. Ft. 525$ 4,645,200$ Fire Station #6 22250 Eucalyptus Avenue 9,490 Sq. Ft. 525 4,982,250 Fire Station #48 10511 Village Road 4,754 Sq. Ft. 525 2,495,850 Fire Station #58 28040 Eucalyptus Avenue 10,320 Sq. Ft. 525 5,418,000 Fire Station #65 15111 Indian Street 5,022 Sq. Ft. 525 2,636,550 Fire Station #91 16110 Lasselle Street 8,848 Sq. Ft. 525 4,645,200 Fire Station #99 13700 Morrison Street 10,348 Sq. Ft. 525 5,432,700 Subtotal 57,630 Sq. Ft. 30,255,750$
Vehicles and Apparatus (See Appendix Tables A.5) 2,302,700$ Total Value of Existing Facilities 34,993,250$
Sources: City of Moreno Valley; Appendix Table A.5, Willdan Financial Services.

Planned Facilities
Table 5.3 summarizes the planned facilities needed to serve the City through 2040, as ide ntified by City’s 2021-2026 Capital Improvement Plan . The City plans to build several new fire stations and purchase several engines and apparatus, in addition to upgrading facilities to add capacity at several locations. Additionally, a share of the debt service costs for f ire facilities is also allocated to new d evelopment. The va lue of the future payments is discounted into 2021 dollars. See Appendix Table A.2 for additional detail. New facilities costs are estimated to total approximately $69.4 million through 2040.

F.2.c
Packet Pg. 124
Attachment: DIF ADJUSTMENT RESOLUTION (5633 : DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES NEXUS STUDY AND FEE ADJUSTMENT) City of Moreno Valley Development Impact Fee Study Update 25 Table 5.3: Planned Fire Facilities
Description Cost
Industrial Fire Station 12,150,000$
Redlands Boulevard Fire Station 8,553,600
Photovoltaic System for Fire Station 2 and Fire Station 6 492,000 Northeast Fire Station 9,283,000
Fire Station 65 Relocation 8,553,600
Cottonwood Park Fire Station 8,213,500
Fire Station (Future) Land Acquisition 897,900
Fire Station (Future, infill) 7,575,000
Gilman Fire Station 7,575,000
Engine - Type 1 (Industrial Station) 640,000
Engine - Type 1 (Redlands Blvd. Station) 640,000
Engine - Type 1 (Northeast Station) 640,000
Engine - Type 1 (Cottonwood Park Station) 640,000
Engine - Type 1 (Future Station) 640,000
Light Truck - Quint - (Gilman Station) 960,000
Heavy Truck - Tiller 1,200,000
Fire Prevention Staff Vehicle (2) 63,500
Debt Service Costs1 675,794
Total Cost - Planned Facilities 69,392,894$
1 See Appendix Table A.2.

Sources: City of Moreno Valley Fire Department, Capital Improvement Plan, FY 2021- 2026 and Beyond; Appendix Table A.2, Willdan Financial Services.

Cost Allocation
Existing Level of Service
Per the new nexus study requirements that went into effect of January 1, 2022, a nexus study “shall identify the existing level of service for each public facility, identify the proposed new lev el of service, and include an explanation of why the new level of service is appropriate. ” Table 5.4 expresses the City ’s current fire facilities level of serv ice in terms of a n existing cost per capita.

This cost p er capita is not us ed in the fee calculation, rather it is shown here for informational purposes only.

F.2.c
Packet Pg. 125
Attachment: DIF ADJUSTMENT RESOLUTION (5633 : DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES NEXUS STUDY AND FEE ADJUSTMENT) City of Moreno Valley Development Impact Fee Study Update 26 Table 5.4: Existing Level of Service
Value of Existing Facilities 34,993,250$
Existing Fund Balance 4,991,985
Total 39,985,235$
Existing Service Population 237,600
Cost per Capita 168$
Facility Standard per Resident 168$
Facility Standard per Worker1 116
1 Based on a w eighing factor of 0.69.

Sources: Tables 5.1 and 5.2; Willdan Financial Services.

Future Level of Service
Table 5.5 shows new development’s projected per capita i nvestment in fire protection facilities at the planning horizon. This level of ser vice drives the fee calculation. This value is calculated by dividing cost of existing and planned fac ilities by the service population at the planning h orizon.

The value per capita is multiplie d by the worker weighting fact or of 0.69 to determine the value per worker.

Table 5.5: Fire Protection Facilities System Standard
Value of Existing Facilities 34,993,250$
Value of Planned Facilities 69,392,894
Total System Value (2040) 104,386,144$
Future Service Population (2040) 314,000
Cost per Capita 332$
Facility Standard per Resident 332$
Facility Standard per Worker1 229
1 Based on a w eighing factor of 0.69.

Sources: Tables 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3; Willdan Financial Services.

Use of Fee Revenue
The City c an use fire facilities fee revenues for the construction or purchase of buildings, l and, vehicles, apparat us and fire protect ion equipment that are part of the system of fire fa cilities serving new development. A list of planned facilities is included in Table 5.3.

F.2.c
Packet Pg. 126
Attachment: DIF ADJUSTMENT RESOLUTION (5633 : DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES NEXUS STUDY AND FEE ADJUSTMENT) City of Moreno Valley Development Impact Fee Study Update 27 Non-Fee Funding Required
Completing the planned facilities will provide a higher value of facilities per capita than is currently provided in Moreno Valley. Impact fee revenue may not be used to increase the level of service provided to existing development. Therefore, impact fee revenue will not fully f und the planned fire protection facilities and some non-fee funding will be required. Table 5.6 shows the projected fee revenue and the non -fee funding required through 2040. After accounting for the projected future impact fee revenue, approximately $ 43 million in non -fee fun ding w ill be needed to complete the planned fire protection facilities. The City will need to use alternative funding sources to fund existing development’s share of the planned fire prote ction facilities. Potential sources of revenue include but are not limited to existing or ne w general fund revenues, existing or new taxes, special assessments, and grants.

Table 5.6: Revenue Projection - System Standard
Cost per Capita 332$
Growth in Service Population (2021 - 2040)1
64,600
Fee Revenue 21,447,000$
Cost of Planned Facilities 69,392,894$
Less Fee Revenue 21,447,000
Less Existing Fund Balance 4,991,985
Non-Fee Revenue to Be Identified 42,953,909$
Sources: Tables 5.1, 5.3 and 5.5.
1 Excludes grow th from the approved development agreements, w hich are exempt from paying this impact fee in exchange for building and dedicating a fire station.

Fee Schedule
Table 5.7 shows the maximum justified fire facilities f ee schedule . The cost per capita is converted to a fee per unit of new de velopment based on dwelling unit and employment densities (persons per dwelling unit or employees per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential building space).

The total fee includes a two percent (2 %) administrative charge to fund costs that include: a standard overhead c harge applied to a ll City programs for legal, accounti ng, a nd other departmental and administrative support, and fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue, and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee just ification analyses.

In Willdan’s experience with impact fee progra ms, two percent of the base fee adequate ly covers the cost of fee program administration. The administrative charge s hould b e re viewed and adjusted during comprehensive impact fee updates to ensur e that revenue generated from t he charge sufficiently covers , but does not exceed, the administrat ive costs associated with the fee program.

F.2.c
Packet Pg. 127
Attachment: DIF ADJUSTMENT RESOLUTION (5633 : DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES NEXUS STUDY AND FEE ADJUSTMENT) City of Moreno Valley Development Impact Fee Study Update 28 Table 5.7: Fire Protection Facilities Fee Schedule
A B C = A x B D = C x 0.02 E = C + D F = E / 1,000
Cost Per Admin Fee per
Land Use Capita Density Base Fee 1 Charge1, 2 Total Fee 1 Sq. Ft.

Residential - per Dwelling Unit
Single Family 332$ 4.17 1,384$ 28$ 1,412$ Multifamily 332 2.65 880 18 898 Senior Housing 332 2.00 664 13 677 Nonresidential - per 1,000 Sq. Ft.

Commercial 229$ 2.39 547$ 11$ 558$ 0.56$ Office 229 3.12 714 14 728 0.73 Industrial 229 1.16 266 5 271 0.27 High Cube Warehouse 229 0.72 165 3 168 0.17 Sources: Tables 2.2 and 5.5; Willdan Financial Services. 1 Persons per dw elling unit or per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential. 2 Administrative charge of 2.0 percent for (1) legal, accounting, and other administrative support and (2) impact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.

F.2.c
Packet Pg. 128
Attachment: DIF ADJUSTMENT RESOLUTION (5633 : DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES NEXUS STUDY AND FEE ADJUSTMENT)

29 6. Police Facilities
The purpose of the pol ice impact fee is to fund the poli ce facilities needed to serve new development. Moren o Valley current ly provides police services fro m a single police station. A proposed fee is presented based on the system plan standard of police facilities pe r capita.

Service Population
Police faciliti es serve both residents and busine sses. Therefore, d emand for servic es and associated facilities are based on the City’s service population including residents and workers.

Table 6.1 shows the existing and futu re p rojected service population for police f acilities. While specific data is n ot available to es timate the actua l ratio of demand p er resident to demand by businesses (per worker) for this service, it is reasonable to assume that demand for these services is less for one employee compared to one resident, because nonresidential buildings are typically occupied less intensively than dw elling units . The 0.31 -weighting factor for workers is based on a 40-hour workweek divided by the total number of non -work hours in a week (128) and reflects the degree to which nonresidential developmen t yiel ds a lesser demand for police facilities.

Table 6.1: Police Facilities Service Population
Residents Workers
Service
Population
Existing (2021) 208,900 41,600 221,800
New Development (2021-2040) 47,700 41,600 60,600
Total (2040) 256,600 83,200 282,400
Weighting factor 1.00 0.31
Source: Table 2.1; Willdan Financial Services.

Facility Inventories and Standards
This section describes the City’s police facility inventory and facility standards.

Existing Inventory
This study uses the system plan methodology to calculate fees for police facilities. Police services in the City of Moreno Valley are presently based out of one facility. Table 6.2 summarizes the City’s current inventory of police land, bui ldings and ve hicles. The unit cost for the land value assumption of $ 167,000 per acre w as based on an ana lysis of recent sales c omparisons. Unit cost assumptions for the replacement cost of buildings were provided by City staff.

F.2.c
Packet Pg. 129
Attachment: DIF ADJUSTMENT RESOLUTION (5633 : DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES NEXUS STUDY AND FEE ADJUSTMENT) City of Moreno Valley Development Impact Fee Study Update 30 Table 6.2: Existing Police Facilities Inventory
Facility Inventory Units Unit Cost1 Value
Public Safety Facility -22850 Calle San Juan de Los Lagos Land 5.69 acres 167,000$ 950,230$ Police Building 44,700 sq. ft. 220 9,850,500 Subtotal 10,800,730$
Vehicles and Equipment 1,261,192$
Total Value of Existing Facilities 12,061,922$
Sources: City of Moreno Valley; Appendix Table A.5, Willdan Financial Services.

Planned Facilities
Table 6.3 summarizes the planned poli ce facilities needed to serv e the City through 2040. The City plans a major upgrade to its Public Safety Buildi ng. Additionally, a share of the debt service costs for police facilities is also allocated to new develo pment. The value of the future payments is discounted into 2021 dollars. See Appendix Table A.2 for additional detail. New facilities costs are estimated to total approximately $68.1 million through 2040.

Table 6.3: Planned Police Facilities
Description Value
Public Safety Building Conversions 66,297,700$
Debt Service Costs1 1,793,297
Subtotal 68,090,997$
1 See Appendix Table A.2.

Sources: City of Moreno Valley, Capital Improvement Plan, FY 2021-2026 and Beyond; Appendix Table A.2, Willdan Financial Services.

Cost Allocation
Existing Level of Service
Per the new nexus study requirements that went into effect of January 1, 2022, a nexus study “shall identify the existing level of service for each public facility, identify the proposed new level of service, and includ e an explanation of why the new level of service is appropriate. ” Table 6.4 expresses the City’s current police facilities level of service in terms of an existing cost per capita.

This cost per capita is not us ed in the fee calculation, rather it is shown here for informational purposes only.

Once the planned facilities have been constructed and new development has increased the City’s service population the resulting facility cost per capita will be high er than the cost per capita shown in Table 6.4. The increased facility standard is needed to ensure that the City has an F.2.c
Packet Pg. 130
Attachment: DIF ADJUSTMENT RESOLUTION (5633 : DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES NEXUS STUDY AND FEE ADJUSTMENT) City of Moreno Valley Development Impact Fee Study Update 31 adequate facility to provide police services to the City. The planned facility was identified and approved by the City Council in the City’s most recent CIP.

Table 6.4: Existing Level of Service
Value of Existing Facilities 12,061,922$
Existing Service Population 221,800
Cost per Capita 54$
Facility Standard per Resident 54$
Facility Standard per Worker1 17
1 Based on a w eighing factor of 0.31.

Sources: Tables 6.1 and 6.2; Willdan Financial Services.

Future Level of Service
Table 6.5 shows new development’s pr ojected p er capita investment in police facilities at the planning horizon. This level of ser vice drives the fee calculation. This value i s calculated by dividing cost of existin g and planned facilities by the service population at the planning horizon.

The value per capita is multipl ied by the worker wei ghting factor of 0.31 to determine the value per worker.

Table 6.5: Police Facilities System Standard
Value of Existing Facilities 12,061,922$
Value of Planned Facilities 68,090,997
Total System Value (2040) 80,152,918$
Future Service Population (2040) 282,400
Facility Standard per Resident 284$
Facility Standard per Worker1 88
1 Based on a w eighing factor of 0.31.

Sources: Tables 6.1, 6.2 and 6.3; Willdan Financial Services.

Use of Fee Revenue
The City can use police facilities fee revenues for the constr uction or purchase of buildings, land, and equipment that are part of the system of police fa cilities serving new developme nt. A list of planned facilities is included in Table 6.3.

F.2.c
Packet Pg. 131
Attachment: DIF ADJUSTMENT RESOLUTION (5633 : DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES NEXUS STUDY AND FEE ADJUSTMENT) City of Moreno Valley Development Impact Fee Study Update 32 Non-Fee Funding Required
Completing the planned facilities will provide a higher value of facilities per capita than is currently provided in Moreno Valley. Impact fee revenue may not be used to in crease the level of service provided to existing development. Therefore, impact fee r evenue will not f ully fund th e planned police facilities and some non -fee funding will be required. Table 6.6 shows the projected fee revenue and the non-fee funding required through 2040. After accounting for the projec ted future impact fee revenue, appro ximately $55.6 million in non-fee funding will b e needed to complete the planned police facilities.

The City will need to use alternat ive funding sources to fund existin g development’s share of the planned police protection fa cilities. Potentia l sources of reven ue include but are not limited to existing or new general fund revenues, existing or new taxes, special assessments, and grants.

Table 6.6: Revenue Projection - System Standard
Cost per Capita 284$
Growth in Service Population (2021 - 2040) 60,600
Fee Revenue 17,210,000$
Net Cost of Planned Facilities 68,090,997$
Less Fee Revenue 17,210,000
Less Existing Fund Balance 1
(4,725,381)
Non-Fee Revenue to Be Identified (55,606,378)$
1 Negative fund balance.

Sources: Tables 6.1, 6.3 and 6.5.

Fee Schedule
Table 6.7 shows the maximum justified police facilities fee schedule. The cost per capita is converted to a fee per unit of new development based on dwe lling unit and employment densities (persons per dwelling unit or employees per 1,000 square feet of nonresiden tial building space).

The total fee includes a two percent (2%) adm inistrative charge to fund cos ts that include: a standard overhead charge appl ied to all City programs for legal, accounting, and other departmental and administrative support, and fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated publ ic repo rting, and fee justification analyses.

In Willdan’s experience with impact fee programs, two percent of the base fee adeq uately covers the cost of fee p rogram admin istration. The administrative charge should be reviewed and adjusted during comprehen sive im pact fee u pdates to ensure that revenue g enerated from the charge sufficiently covers, but does not exc eed, the administr ative costs a ssociated with the fee program.

F.2.c
Packet Pg. 132
Attachment: DIF ADJUSTMENT RESOLUTION (5633 : DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES NEXUS STUDY AND FEE ADJUSTMENT) City of Moreno Valley Development Impact Fee Study Update 33 Table 6.7: Police Facilities Fee Schedule
A B C = A x B D = C x 0.02 E = C + D F = E / 1,000
Cost Per Admin Fee per
Land Use Capita Density Base Fee 1 Charge1, 2 Total Fee 1 Sq. Ft.

Residential - per Dwelling Unit
Single Family 284$ 4.17 1,184$ 24$ 1,208$ Multifamily 284 2.65 753 15 768 Senior Housing 284 2.00 568 11 579 Nonresidential - per 1,000 Sq. Ft.

Commercial 88$ 2.39 210$ 4$ 214$ 0.21$ Office 88 3.12 275 6 281 0.28 Industrial 88 1.16 102 2 104 0.10 High Cube Warehouse 88 0.72 63 1 64 0.06 Sources: Tables 2.2 and 6.5; Willdan Financial Services. 1 Persons per dw elling unit or per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential. 2 Administrative charge of 2.0 percent for (1) legal, accounting, and other administrative support and (2) impact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.

F.2.c
Packet Pg. 133
Attachment: DIF ADJUSTMENT RESOLUTION (5633 : DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES NEXUS STUDY AND FEE ADJUSTMENT)

34 7. Park Facilities
The purpose of the parkland and park facilities impact fee is to fun d the park fa cilities needed to serve new development. The maximum justified impact fee is presented based on the existing plan standard of parkland and park facilities per capita.

Service Population
Park facilities in Moreno Valley serve both residents a nd businesses . The refore, demand for services and associated facilities are based on the City’s service population including residents and workers.

Table 7.1 shows the existing and future projecte d service population f or park facili ties. While specific data is not ava ilable to estimate the actua l ratio of demand per resident to demand by businesses (per worker) for this servi ce, it is r easonable to assume that deman d for these services is far less for one employee compared to one resident, because nonresidential buildings are typically occupied l ess intensively than dwelling units . This study assumes worker demand at

0.149 relative to a resident based on a survey conducted by Riverside County of trail use by workers. Since trails are a type of recreational facilities the results of the survey can reasonably be used as a proxy for assumed levels of nonresidential park demand.

Table 7.1: Park Facilities Service Population
Residents Workers
Service
Population
Census (2020) 208,634
Existing (2021) 208,900 41,600 215,100
New Development (2021-2040) 47,700 41,600 53,900 Total (2040) 256,600 83,200 269,000
Weighting factor 1.00 0.149
Source: Table 2.1.

Existing Parkland and Park Facilities Inventory
The City of Moreno Valley maintains several park and recre ation facilities throughout the city.

Table 7.2 summarizes the City’s existin g parkland inventory in 2021. All facilities are owned by the City , or the City has a joint use agreement for their use. The invento ry also includes undeveloped raw land and distinguishes the acr eage accordingly. Parks are divided into several categories depending on common characteristics. In total, the inventory includes a total of 670.21 acres of parkland.

F.2.c
Packet Pg. 134
Attachment: DIF ADJUSTMENT RESOLUTION (5633 : DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES NEXUS STUDY AND FEE ADJUSTMENT) City of Moreno Valley Development Impact Fee Study Update 35 Table 7.2: Park Land Inventory

Developed
Acreage
Undeveloped
Acreage
Total
Acreage
Existing Parkland
Adrienne Mitchell Memorial Park 4.43 - 4.43 Aqueduct Bike Trail (Elsworth to Lasselle) 25.33 3.73 29.06 Bayside Park 2.04 - 2.04 Bethune Park 6.00 - 6.00 Celebration Park 6.65 - 6.65 Cold Creek Staging Area 0.64 - 0.64 Cottonwood Equestrian Station 0.40 - 0.40 Cottonwood Golf Center 15.83 - 15.83 El Potrero Park 15.00 - 15.00 Fairway Park 5.50 - 5.50 Gateway Park 7.67 - 7.67 Hidden Springs Park 7.00 - 7.00 Hidden Springs Park Regional 17.00 - 17.00 John F. Kennedy Park 7.69 - 7.69 Lasselle Sports Park Complex 12.75 - 12.75 March Field Park (Valley Skate Park) 10.00 75.32 85.32 Markborough Property - 43.17 43.17 Moreno Valley Community Park 15.58 - 15.58 MV Conference & Recreation Center 10.00 - 10.00 Moreno Valley Equestrian Center and Dog Park 10.00 35.00 45.00 Morrison Park (incl 8 undev) 14.01 8.00 22.01 Parque Amistad 4.24 - 4.24 Patriot Park 0.50 - 0.50 Pedrorena Park 5.50 - 5.50 Poormans Reservoir - 125.00 125.00 Rancho Verde Park 3.50 3.50 7.00 Rancho Verde Equestrian Staging Area 1.30 - 1.30 Ridge Crest Park 5.00 - 5.00 Rock Ridge Park 1.93 - 1.93 Senior Community Center 1.75 - 1.75 Shadow Mountain Park 10.00 - 10.00 Sunnymead Equestrian Station 0.50 - 0.50 Sunnymead Park 15.53 - 15.53 Sunnymead Ranch Linear Park 5.50 - 5.50 Towngate Memorial Park 16.97 - 16.97 Victoriano Park 5.00 - 5.00 Vista Lomas Park 4.00 - 4.00 Westbluff Park 5.00 - 5.00 Weston Park 4.14 - 4.14 Woodland Park 9.11 - 9.11 Subtotal 292.99 293.72 586.71
Multi-Use/Equestrian Trails - 58.50 58.50 Joint Use Agreements
College Park 18.00 7.00 25.00 Total - Existing Parkland 310.99 359.22 670.21 Source: City of Moreno Valley.

F.2.c
Packet Pg. 135
Attachment: DIF ADJUSTMENT RESOLUTION (5633 : DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES NEXUS STUDY AND FEE ADJUSTMENT) City of Moreno Valley Development Impact Fee Study Update 36 Table 7.3 summarizes the City’s inventory of park buildings, equipment and sp ecial facilities. The total value of these facilities is divided by the total developed park acres to determine the value of existing park buildings, equipment and special facilities per acre.

F.2.c
Packet Pg. 136
Attachment: DIF ADJUSTMENT RESOLUTION (5633 : DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES NEXUS STUDY AND FEE ADJUSTMENT) City of Moreno Valley Development Impact Fee Study Update 37 Table 7.3: Park Building Inventory
Facility Address
Square
Feet
Replacement
Cost
Adrienne Mitchell Memorial Park
Park Shelter 22631 Bay Avenue 842 63,150$
Bayside Park
Park Shelter 24435 Bay Avenue 270 16,200$
Bethune Park
Restroom 1,305 717,750$
Shelter 1 16745 Kitching Street 576 34,560
Shelter 2 16746 Kitching Street 576 34,560
Shelter 3 16747 Kitching Street 576 34,560
Shelter 4 16748 Kitching Street 576 34,560
Celebration Park
Restroom 14965 Morgan Avenue 1,600 880,000$
Shelter 1 14965 Morgan Avenue 2,498 187,350
Shelter 2 14965 Morgan Avenue 260 15,600
Shelter 3 14965 Morgan Avenue 260 15,600
Civic Center Amphitheater 2,013,313$
Cottonwood Equestrian Staging Area
Shelter 28590 Cottonwood Ave 400 18,000$
El Potrero Park
Restroom 1 16901 Lasselle Street 350 192,500$ Restroom 2 16901 Lasselle Street 350 192,500
Shelter 16901 Lasselle Street 375 28,125
Fairway Park
Restroom 27891 John F Kennedy Drive 336 184,800$ Shelter 27891 John F Kennedy Drive 224 13,440 Gateway Park
Restroom 23975 Manzanita Avenue 360 198,000$
Shelter 1 23975 Manzanita Avenue 108 4,860
Shelter 2 23975 Manzanita Avenue 108 4,860
Shelter 3 23975 Manzanita Avenue 108 4,860
Shelter 4 23975 Manzanita Avenue 108 4,860
Shelter 5 23975 Manzanita Avenue 108 4,860
Shelter 6 23975 Manzanita Avenue 108 4,860
Shelter 7 23975 Manzanita Avenue 108 4,860
Shelter 8 23975 Manzanita Avenue 108 4,860
Source: City of Moreno Valley.

F.2.c
Packet Pg. 137
Attachment: DIF ADJUSTMENT RESOLUTION (5633 : DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES NEXUS STUDY AND FEE ADJUSTMENT) City of Moreno Valley Development Impact Fee Study Update 38 Table 7.3: Park Building Inventory - Continued
Facility Address
Square
Feet
Replacement
Cost
Hidden Springs Park
Shelter 9675 Hidden Springs Drive 224 8,960$
JFK Park
Restroom 15115 Indian Street 696 348,000$
Shelter 1 15115 Indian Street 144 8,640
Shelter 2 15115 Indian Street 144 8,640
Shelter 3 15115 Indian Street 546 43,200
Lassele Sports Park
Restroom/Concession/Storage 17155 Lasselle St 2,480 1,426,000$ Shelter 1 17155 Lasselle St 1,824 186,800
Shelter 2 17155 Lasselle St 1,200 120,000
Moreno Valley Community Park
Restroom / Concession 13380 Frederick Street 1,800 1,035,000$ Shelter 1 13380 Frederick Street 180 7,200
Shelter 2 13380 Frederick Street 180 7,200
Shelter 3 13380 Frederick Street 180 7,200
Shelter 4 13380 Frederick Street 144 8,640
Morrison Park
Restroom 26667 Dracaea Avenue 540 297,000$
Storage Building 26667 Dracaea Avenue 374 74,800 Concession Stand 26667 Dracaea Avenue 625 250,000 Shelter 1 26667 Dracaea Avenue 144 8,640
Shelter 2 26667 Dracaea Avenue 144 8,640
Shelter 3 26667 Dracaea Avenue 400 18,000
Parque Amistad
Shelter 26160 Gentian Avenue 1,040 78,000$
Pedrorena Park
Restroom 16009 Rancho Del Lago 540 297,000$
Shelter 16009 Rancho Del Lago 224 8,960
Ridgecrest Park
Restroom 28506 John F Kennedy Drive 336 184,800$ Shelter 1 28506 John F Kennedy Drive 144 6,480 Shelter 2 28506 John F Kennedy Drive 375 22,500 Shelter 3 28506 John F Kennedy Drive 375 22,500 Rock Ridge Park
Shelter 1 27119 Waterford Way 740 55,500$
Shelter 2 27119 Waterford Way 740 55,500
Source: City of Moreno Valley.

F.2.c
Packet Pg. 138
Attachment: DIF ADJUSTMENT RESOLUTION (5633 : DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES NEXUS STUDY AND FEE ADJUSTMENT) City of Moreno Valley Development Impact Fee Study Update 39 Table 7.3: Park Building Inventory - Continued
Facility Address
Square
Feet
Replacement
Cost
Sunnymead Park
Concession/Restroom 12655 Perris Blvd 1,864 1,071,800$ Shelter 1 12655 Perris Blvd 208 9,360
Shelter 2 12655 Perris Blvd 208 9,360
Town Gate Memorial Park
Restroom 13051 Elsworth Street 470 258,500$
Shelter 1 13051 Elsworth Street 750 56,250
Shelter 2 13051 Elsworth Street 665 49,875
Shelter 3 13051 Elsworth Street 259 15,540
Valley Skate Park
Restroom / Concession 15415 6th Street 936 374,400$ Victoriano Park
Restroom 25730 Los Cabos Drive 350 192,500$
Shelter 25730 Los Cabos Drive 224 10,080
West Bluff Park
Restroom 10750 Pigeon Pass Road 240 132,000$
Shelter 10750 Pigeon Pass Road 260 15,600
Weston Park
Restroom 13170 Lasselle Avenue 375 206,250$
Shelter 1 13170 Lasselle Avenue 144 8,640
Shelter 2 13170 Lasselle Avenue 216 12,960
Shelter 3 13170 Lasselle Avenue 216 12,960
Shelter 4 13170 Lasselle Avenue 216 12,960
Woodland Park
Restroom 25705 Cactus Avenue 540 297,000$
Shelter 1 25705 Cactus Avenue 738 33,210
Shelter 2 25705 Cactus Avenue 300 13,500
Shadow Mountain Park
Shelter 23239 Presidio Hills Dr. 1,146 85,950$
Restroom 23239 Presidio Hills Dr. 271 176,150 Vista Lomas Park
Shelter 26700 Iris Avenue 696 52,200$
Total Replacement Cost - Park Buildings 12,624,293$
Developed Park Acres 310.99
Park Buildings Cost per Acre (rounded) 40,600$
Source: City of Moreno Valley.

F.2.c
Packet Pg. 139
Attachment: DIF ADJUSTMENT RESOLUTION (5633 : DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES NEXUS STUDY AND FEE ADJUSTMENT) City of Moreno Valley Development Impact Fee Study Update 40 Parkland and Park Facilities Unit Costs
Table 7.4 displays the unit costs necess ary to develop parkland in Moreno Valley. The buildings, equipment and special facilities cost per acre from Table 7.3 is added to the cost of an acre of standard par k improvem ents to determine the total improvement cost per acre. A value of $167,000 per acre for land is also included and is consistent with other land assumptions used in this analysis. In t otal, this analys is assumes that it costs $ 1,007,600 to acquire and develo p an acre of parkland in Moreno Valley.

Table 7.4: Park Facilities Unit Costs
Cost
Per Acre Share
Improvements
Standard Park Improvements1 800,000$
Park Buildings 40,600
Subtotal 840,600$ 83.4%
Land Acquisition 167,000$ 16.6%
Total Cost per Acre 1,007,600$ 100.0%
Sources: City of Moreno Valley; Willdan Financial Services. 1 Based on the implied cost of improving 7 acres at Cottonw ood Park from the Parks Master Plan. Excludes structures, ball fields and community center costs.

Improved Parkland Equivalent
Before calculating the existing parkland standard , unimproved parkland owned by the City must be converted to an equiv alent amount of improved parkland. Table 7.5 details this convers ion.

The conversion is based on the rati o of the cost of a n improved acre of land (including land and improvements) relative to an acre of unimproved parkland (only land). The estimate o f the value of unimproved park and the cost of park improvements are detailed above in Table 7.4.

Table 7.5: Improved Parkland Equivalent
Unimproved Acreage 359.22
Unimproved Acre Relative to Improved Acre 16.6%
Equivalent Improved Acres 59.54
Soures: Tables 7.2 and 7.4.

F.2.c
Packet Pg. 140
Attachment: DIF ADJUSTMENT RESOLUTION (5633 : DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES NEXUS STUDY AND FEE ADJUSTMENT) City of Moreno Valley Development Impact Fee Study Update 41 Parkland and Park Facility Standards
Park facility s tandards establish a reasonable relat ionship between new development and the need for expanded parkland and park facilities. Information regarding the City’s existing inventory of existing parks facilities was obtained from City staff.

The most c ommon measure in c alculating new development’s demand for parks is the ratio of park acres per resident. In ge neral, facility st andards may be based on the Mitigation Fee Act (using a city’s existing inventory of parkland and park facilities), or an adopte d po licy standard contained in a master facility plan or general plan. Facility standards may also be based on a land dedication standard established by the Quimby Act .2 In this case, the City will use the Mitigation Fee Act to impose park impact fees for development not occurring in subdivisions and will use the Quimby Act for development occurring in subdivisions.

Mitigation Fee Act
The Mitigation Fee Act does not dic tate use of a particular type or level of facility standard for public facilities fees. To comply with the findings required under the law, facility standards must not burden new development with any cost assoc iated w ith facility deficiencies attributable to existing development.3 A simple and clearly defensible approach to calculating a facil ity standard is to use the City’s existing r atio of park acreage per 1,000 residents. Under this approach, ne w development is re quired to fund new parkland and park facilities a t the same level as existing residents have provided those same types of facilities to date.

Quimby Act
The Quimby Act specifies that the dedication requirement must be a minimum of 3.0 ac res and a maximum o f 5.0 acres per 1,000 residents. A ju risdiction c an require residential developers to dedicate above the three -acre minimum if t he jurisdiction’s existing park standard at the time it adopted its Quimby Act ordinance justifies the highe r level (up to five acres per 1,000 residents).

The stand ard used mus t also conform to the jurisdiction’s adopted general or specific plan standards.

The Quimby Act only applies to land subdi visions. The Quimby Act would not apply to residential development on futur e approved projects on single parcels, such as apartment co mplexes and other multifamily development.

The Quimby Act allows payment of a fee in lieu of land dedication. The fee is calculated to fund acquisition of the same amount of land that would have been dedicated.

The Quimby Act allows use of i n-lieu fee r evenue for any park or recreation facility purpose.

Allowable uses of this reven ue include land acquisition, park improvem ents including recreation facilities, and rehabilitation of existing park and recreation facilities.

City of Moreno Valley Parkland and Park Facilities Standards Table 7.6 shows the existing standard for improved pa rk acreage per 1,000 residents based on the type of parkland. In total the City has an existing parkland standard of 1.74 acres per 1,000 residents, which allows the City to charge at 3.0 acres per 1,000 residents under the Quimby Act.

For development no t subject to the Quimby Act, t he fee anal ysis in this report will be b ased on

2 California Government Code §66477.
3 See the Benefit and Burden findings in Background Report.

F.2.c
Packet Pg. 141
Attachment: DIF ADJUSTMENT RESOLUTION (5633 : DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES NEXUS STUDY AND FEE ADJUSTMENT) City of Moreno Valley Development Impact Fee Study Update 42 maintaining a 1.74 acre per 1,000 service population standard as new development adds demand for parks in Moreno Valley.

Table 7.6: Park Standards
Developed Park Acreage 310.99
Undeveloped Equivalent Improved Acreage 59.54
Fund Balance Equivalent1 4.49
Total Developed Parkland 375.02
Service Population (2021) 215,100
Existing Standard (Acres per 1,000 Capita) 1.74
Quimby Standard (Acres per 1,000 Residents) 3.00
Sources: Tables 7.1, 7.2 and 7.5.
1 Existing fund balabce of $4,524,542 converted to equivalent amount of park acres based on assumptions in Table 7.4.

Facilities Needed to Accommodate New Development
Table 7.7 shows t he park facilities needed to accommodate new development at the existing standard and the Quimby standa rd, respectively. To achieve the standard by th e planning horizon, depending on the amount of dev elopment subject t o the Quimby Act, new dev elopment must fund the purchase and impro vement of between 93.79 and 143.1 parkland acres, at a total cost ranging between $94.5 million and $102.7 million.

The facility standards and resulting fees under the Quim by Act are higher, because development will be c harged to provide 3.0 acres of parkla nd per 1,000 residents, and 1.74 acres of improvements, where as development not subject to the Quimby Act will be charged to provide only 1.74 acres of parkland per 1,000 service population, and 1.74 acres of improvements. Since the exact amount of develo pment that will be subject to the Quimby fees is unknown at this time, Table 7.7 presents the range of total facility cost s that may be incurred depending on the amount of development occurring in subdivisions.

F.2.c
Packet Pg. 142
Attachment: DIF ADJUSTMENT RESOLUTION (5633 : DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES NEXUS STUDY AND FEE ADJUSTMENT) City of Moreno Valley Development Impact Fee Study Update 43 Table 7.7: Park Facilities to Accommodate New Development Calculation Parkland Improvements Total Range 1
Parkland (Quimby Act), Improvements (Mitigation Fee Act) 2 Facility Standard (acres/1,000 residents) A 3.00 1.74 Service Population Growth (2021-2040) B 47,700 53,900 Facility Needs (acres) C = (B / 1,000) x A 143.10 93.79 Average Unit Cost (per acre) D 167,000$ 840,600$
Cost of Parkland To Serve Development E = C x D 23,897,700$ 78,839,874$ 102,737,574$ Parkland and Improvements - Mitigation Fee Act 3
Facility Standard (acres/1,000 residents) F 1.74 1.74 Service Population Growth (2021-2040) G 53,900 53,900 Facility Needs (acres) H = (G / 1,000) / F 93.79 93.79 Average Unit Cost (per acre) D 167,000$ 840,600$
Cost of Parkland To Serve Development I = H x D 15,662,930$ 78,839,874$ 94,502,804$ Note: Totals rounded to the thousands.

Sources: Tables 7.1, 7.4 and 7.6.
3 Cost of parkland to serve new development show n if all development is subject to the Mitigation Fee Act. Parkland and improvements are charged at the existing standard.
1 Values in this column show the range of the cost of parkland acquisition and development should all development be either subject to the Quimby Act, or to the Mitigation Fee Act, respectively. 2 Cost of parkland to serve new development show n if all development is subject to the Quimby Act (Subdivisions of 50 units or more). Parkland charged at 3.0 acres per 1,000 residents; improvements charged at the existing standard.

Parks Cost per Capita
Table 7.8 shows the cost per capita of p roviding new parkland and park facilities a t the existing facility standard, and at the Quimby standa rd. The cost per capita is shown separately for land and improvements. The cost per capita is shown separ ately for land and improvemen ts. The costs per capita in this table will serve as the basis of three fees:
• A Quimby Act Fee in -lieu of land dedication. This fee is payable by res idential development occurring in subdivisions.
• A Mitigation Fee A ct Fee for la nd acquisition. This fee is payable by residentia l development not occurring in subdivisions.
• A Mitigation Fee Act Fee for parkland improvements. This fee is payable by all residential development.

A development project pays either the Quimby Act Fee in-lieu of land dedication, or the Mitigation Fee Act Fee for land acquisition , not both. All development projects pay the Mitigation Fee Act Fee for park improvements.

F.2.c
Packet Pg. 143
Attachment: DIF ADJUSTMENT RESOLUTION (5633 : DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES NEXUS STUDY AND FEE ADJUSTMENT) City of Moreno Valley Development Impact Fee Study Update 44 Table 7.8: Cost per Capita - Existing Level of Service Improvements
Calculation Quimby Fee Impact Fee Impact Fee
Parkland Investment (per acre) A 167,000$ 167,000$ 840,600$ Existing Level of Service (acres per 1,000 capita) B 3.00 1.74 1.74 Total Cost Per 1,000 capita C = A x B 501,000$ 290,600$ 1,462,600$ Cost Per Resident D = C / 1,000 501$ 291$ 1,463$ Cost per Worker E = D x 0.149 N/A 43 218
Sources: Tables 7.5 and 7.6.

Land

Use of Fee Revenue
The City plans to use parkland and park facilities fee r evenue to pur chase parkland or construct improvements to add to the system of park facilit ies that serves new development. The City may only use impact fee revenue to provide facilities and intens ify usage of existing facilities needed to serve new development.

Fee Schedule
In order to calculate fees by land use type, the investment in park fa cilities is determined on a per resident basis for both land acquisition and improvement. These investmen t fac tors (shown in Table 7.8) are investment per capita based on the unit cost estimates and facility standards.

Table 7.9 and Table 7.10 show the park f acilities fee base d on the minimum Q uimby standard and the existing standa rd, respectively. The City woul d collect the fee based on only one of th e two approaches as appropriate. Each fee includes a component for park improvements based on the City’s existing standard. The investment per capita is converted to a fee per dwelling unit.

The total fee includ es an administrative charge to fund costs th at include: (1) lega l, accounting, and ot her administrat ive support and (2) impact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee ju stification analyses.

F.2.c
Packet Pg. 144
Attachment: DIF ADJUSTMENT RESOLUTION (5633 : DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES NEXUS STUDY AND FEE ADJUSTMENT) City of Moreno Valley Development Impact Fee Study Update 45 Table 7.9: Park Facilities Fee Schedule - Quimby Act A B C = A x B D = C x 0.02 E = C + D
Cost Per Base Admin
Land Use Capita Density Fee Charge1 Total Fee
Single Family
Parkland 501$ 4.17 2,089$ 42$ 2,131$ Improvements 1,463 4.17 6,101 122 6,223 Total 1,964$ 8,190$ 8,354$
Multifamily Family
Parkland 501$ 2.65 1,328$ 27$ 1,355$ Improvements 1,463 2.65 3,877 78 3,955 Total 1,964$ 5,205$ 5,310$
Senior Housing
Parkland 501$ 2.00 1,002$ 20$ 1,022$ Improvements 1,463 2.00 2,926 59 2,985 Total 1,964$ 3,928$ 4,007$
Sources: Tables 2.2 and 7.8.
1 Administrative charge of 2.0 percent for (1) legal, accounting, and other administrative support and (2) impact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.

F.2.c
Packet Pg. 145
Attachment: DIF ADJUSTMENT RESOLUTION (5633 : DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES NEXUS STUDY AND FEE ADJUSTMENT) City of Moreno Valley Development Impact Fee Study Update 46 Table 7.10: Park Facilities Fee Schedule - Mitigation Fee Act A B C = A x B D = C x 0.02 E = C + D
Cost Per Base Admin
Land Use Capita Density Fee Charge1 Total Fee
Single Family
Parkland 291$ 4.17 1,213$ 24$ 1,237$ Improvements 1,463 4.17 6,101 122 6,223 Total 1,754$ 7,314$ 7,460$
Multifamily Family
Parkland 291$ 2.65 771$ 15$ 786$ Improvements 1,463 2.65 3,877 78 3,955 Total 1,754$ 4,648$ 4,741$
Senior Housing
Parkland 291$ 2.00 582$ 12$ 594$ Improvements 1,463 2.00 2,926 59 2,985 Total 1,754$ 3,508$ 3,579$
Commercial
Parkland 43$ 2.39 103$ 2$ 105$ Improvements 218 2.39 521 10 531 Total 261$ 624$ 636$
Office
Parkland 43$ 3.12 134$ 3$ 137$ Improvements 218 3.12 680 14 694 Total 261$ 814$ 831$
Industrial
Parkland 43$ 1.16 50$ 1$ 51$ Improvements 218 1.16 253 5 258 Total 261$ 303$ 309$
High Cube Warehouse
Parkland 43$ 0.72 31$ 1$ 32$ Improvements 218 0.72 157 3 160 Total 261$ 188$ 192$
Sources: Tables 2.2 and 7.8.
1 Administrative charge of 2.0 percent for (1) legal, accounting, and other administrative support and (2) impact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.

F.2.c
Packet Pg. 146
Attachment: DIF ADJUSTMENT RESOLUTION (5633 : DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES NEXUS STUDY AND FEE ADJUSTMENT)

47 8. Recreation Facilities
The following chapter docu ments the nexus analysis, demonstrating the need for new recreation and community center facilities demanded by new development.

Service Population
Recreation facilities in M oreno Valley serve both residents and businesses. Therefore, dem and for services and associated f acilities are based on the City’s service population including residents and workers.

Table 8.1 shows the existing and future pro jected service population for recreation facilities.

While specific data is not avail able to estimate the actual ratio of demand per resident to demand by businesses (per worker) for this service , it is reasonable to assume th at demand for these services is far less for one employee c ompared to one resident, because nonresidential building s are typically occupied less intensively than dwelling units. This study assumes worker demand at

0.149 relative to a resident based on a survey conducted by Riverside Co unty of trail use by workers. Since trails are a type of recreational facilities the results of the survey can reasonably be used as a proxy for assumed levels of nonresidential park demand.

Table 8.1: Recreation Facilities Service Population
Residents Workers
Service
Population
Existing (2021) 208,900 41,600 215,100
New Development (2021-2040) 47,700 41,600 53,900 Total (2040) 256,600 83,200 269,000
Weighting factor 1.00 0.149
Source: Table 2.1; Willdan Financial Services.

Existing Recreation and Community Center Facilities
Inventory
The City of Moreno Valley maintains several recreation and community center facilities. Table 8.2 summarizes the City’s existing recreation and community center facilities inventory. All facilities are located within the City limits. In total, the City owns approximately $ 26.6 million in recreation and community center facilities.

F.2.c
Packet Pg. 147
Attachment: DIF ADJUSTMENT RESOLUTION (5633 : DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES NEXUS STUDY AND FEE ADJUSTMENT) City of Moreno Valley Development Impact Fee Study Update 48 Table 8.2: Existing Recreation Facilities
Facility Address Amount Units Unit Cost Value
Land
Senior Center1 25075 Fir Avenue - acres 167,000$ -$ March Field Park Community Center 15325 5th Street 938 0.50 acres 167,000 83,500 Equestrian Center 11150 Redlands Blvd 43.87 acres 167,000 7,326,300 Moreno Valley Recreation & Conference Center 14075 Frederick Street 18.64 acres 167,000 3,112,900 Town Gate Community Center1
13100 Arbor Park Lane - acres 167,000 -
Subtotal 63.01 acres 10,522,700$
Buildings
Senior Center 25075 Fir Avenue 14,700 sq. ft. 183$ 2,686,600$ March Field Park Community Center 15325 5th Street 938 14,524 sq. ft. 180 2,613,200 Equestrian Center 11150 Redlands Blvd 1,200 sq. ft. 94 113,200 Moreno Valley Recreation & Conference Center 14075 Frederick Street 42,413 sq. ft. 220 9,330,860 Town Gate Community Center 13100 Arbor Park Lane 4,000 sq. ft. 220 880,000 March Field Hobby Shop1 941 Short Street 2,000 sq. ft. 169 337,200 Civic Center Amphitheater2 n/a 157,625
Subtotal 78,837 sq. ft. 16,118,685$
Total 26,641,385$
2 Recreation facilities DIF contribution to amphitheater show n here. 1 Land acreage included in the parks section. Excluded here to avoid double counting.

Sources: City of Moreno Valley; Willdan Financial Services.

Planned Recreation and Community Center Facilities
The City has planned several recreation and community center facilities to serve new development. Included in t he pl ans are both expansions to ex isting facilities and the new construction of facilities. In total, the City has identified $21.1 million of recreation and community center facilities to serve new development . Table 8.3 details the City’s planned recreation and community center facilities.

Table 8.3: Planned Recreation Facilities
Amount Units Unit Cost Total
Moreno Valley Equestrian Center1 1,000 Sq. Ft. 790$ 790,000$ Enhance March Community Teen Center 14,524 Sq. Ft. 115 1,670,260 Recreation Center - Brodiaea Ave. and Redlands Blvd. 7,000 Sq. Ft. 600 4,200,000 Parks Community Recreation Buildings 24,000 Sq. Ft. 600 14,400,000 Subtotal 21,060,260$
1 Restroom and Information Center.

Sources: City of Moreno Valley, Capital Improvement Plan, FY 2021-2026 and Beyond; Willdan Financial Services.

F.2.c
Packet Pg. 148
Attachment: DIF ADJUSTMENT RESOLUTION (5633 : DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES NEXUS STUDY AND FEE ADJUSTMENT) City of Moreno Valley Development Impact Fee Study Update 49 Cost Allocation
Existing Level of Service
Per the new nexus study r equirements that went into effect of January 1, 2022, a nexus study “shall identify the existing level of service for each public facility, identify the proposed new level of service, and include an explanation of why the new level of service is appropriat e.” Table 8.4 expresses the City ’s current recreation facilities level of serv ice in terms of a n existing cost per capita. This cost per capita is not us ed in the fee calculation, rather it is shown here for informational purposes only.

Table 8.4: Existing Level of Service
Value of Existing Facilities 26,641,385$
Existing Fund Balance 707,188
Total 27,348,573$
Existing Service Population 215,100
Facility Standard per Resident 127$
Facility Standard per Worker1 19
1 Based on a w eighing factor of 0.149.

Sources: Tables 8.1 and 8.2; Willdan Financial Services.

Future Level of Service
Table 8.5 shows new development’s projected per capita investment in recreation facilities at the planning horizon. This level of ser vice drives the fee calcu lation. This value i s calculated by dividing cost of existing and planned facilities by the s ervice population at the plan ning horizon.

The value per capita is multiplied by th e worker w eighting factor of 0.149 to determine the value per worker.

F.2.c
Packet Pg. 149
Attachment: DIF ADJUSTMENT RESOLUTION (5633 : DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES NEXUS STUDY AND FEE ADJUSTMENT) City of Moreno Valley Development Impact Fee Study Update 50 Table 8.5: Recreation Facilities System Standard
Value of Existing Facilities 26,641,385$
Cost of Planned Facilities 21,060,260
Total System Value (2040) 47,701,645$
Future Service Population (2040) 269,000
Facility Standard per Resident 177$
Facility Standard per Worker1 26
1 Based on a w eighing factor of 0.149.

Sources: Tables 8.1, 8.2 and 8.3; Willdan Financial Services.

Use of Fee Revenue
The City c an use recreation facilities fee revenues for the construct ion or purchase of buildings, land, vehicles and equipment that are par t of the system of recreation facilities serving new development. A list of planned facilities is included in Table 8.3.

Fee Revenue Projection
The City plan s t o use recreation and community cente r facilities fee revenue to construct improvements to add to the system of recreation and co mmunity center facilities that serves new development. The preliminary list of facilities to be funded by the fee is detailed above in Table

8.3. Table 8.6 details a projection of fee revenu e, based on the service pop ulation growth increment identified in Table 8.1. The cost of the planned fa cilities not funded by fee revenue represents existing development ’s sha re of th e facilities and can be funded by any revenue source other than impact fees.

Table 8.6: Revenue Projection - System Standard
Cost per Capita 177$
Growth in Service Population (2021 - 2040) 53,900
Fee Revenue 9,540,000$
Cost of Planned Facilities 21,060,260$
Fee Revenue 9,540,000
Less Existing Fund Balance 707,188
Non-Fee Revenue to Be Identified 10,813,072$
Sources: Tables 8.1, 8.3 and 8.5.

F.2.c
Packet Pg. 150
Attachment: DIF ADJUSTMENT RESOLUTION (5633 : DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES NEXUS STUDY AND FEE ADJUSTMENT) City of Moreno Valley Development Impact Fee Study Update 51 Fee Schedule
Table 8.7 shows the maximum justified recreation and communit y center facil ities fee schedule.

The cost per capita is converted to a fee per unit of new develo pment based on dwelling unit densities (persons per dwelling). The total fee includes a two -percent (2%) administrative charge to fund costs t hat include: a s tandard overhe ad char ge applie d to City programs for legal, accounting, and other departmental and administrative support, and fee program adm inistrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public repor ting, and fee justification analyses.

In Willdan’s experience with impact fee programs, two percent of the base fee adequately covers the cost of fee program administration. The administrative charge should be reviewe d and adjusted during comprehensive imp act fee updates to ensure that revenue generat ed from th e charge sufficiently covers, but does not exceed, the administrat ive costs associated with the fee program.

Table 8.7: Recreation Facilities Fee - System Standard
A B C = A x B D = C x 0.02 E = C + D F = E / 1,000
Cost Per Admin Fee per
Land Use Capita Density Base Fee 1 Charge1, 2 Total Fee 1 Sq. Ft.

Residential - per Dwelling Unit
Single Family 177$ 4.17 738$ 15$ 753$ Multifamily 177 2.65 469 9 478 Senior Housing 177 2.00 354 7 361 Nonresidential - per 1,000 Sq. Ft.

Commercial 26$ 2.39 63$ 1$ 64$ 0.06$ Office 26 3.12 82 2 84 0.08 Industrial 26 1.16 31 1 32 0.03 High Cube Warehouse 26 0.72 19 - 19 0.02 Sources: Tables 2.2 and 8.5; Willdan Financial Services. 1 Persons per dw elling unit or per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential. 2 Administrative charge of 2.0 percent for (1) legal, accounting, and other administrative support and (2) impact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.

F.2.c
Packet Pg. 151
Attachment: DIF ADJUSTMENT RESOLUTION (5633 : DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES NEXUS STUDY AND FEE ADJUSTMENT)

52 9. Library Facilities
The following chapter documents the nexus analysis, demonstra ting the need for n ew library facilities to serve by new development.

Service Population
Library facilities in Moreno Valley serve both reside nts and businesses. Therefore, demand for services and associated facilit ies are based on the City’s service pop ulation including r esidents and workers.

Table 9.1 shows the e xisting and future projected service pop ulation for library facilities. While specific data is not a vailable to estimate the actual ratio of demand per re sident to demand by businesses (per wor ker) for this servi ce, it is reasonab le to ass ume that demand f or these services is far less for one em ployee compared to one resident, because nonresi dential buildings are typically occupied less intensively than dwe lling units. While specific worker dema nd factors for Moreno Valley are not available, this study conservatively assumes worker demand at 0.10 relative to a resident.

Table 9.1: Library Facilities Service Population
Residents Workers
Service
Population
Existing (2021) 208,900 41,600 213,100
New Development (2021-2040) 47,700 41,600 51,900 Total (2040) 256,600 83,200 265,000
Weighting factor 1.00 0.10
Source: Table 2.1; Willdan Financial Services.

Existing Library Facilities
The amount of existing li brary facilities that the City owns will be used to inform the facility standards in this analysis. The City currently operates one 14,000 square foot library sited on

1.46 acres of land . The City also has two satellite library facilities. Table 9.2 summarizes the City’s existing librar y facili ty inventory. Only facilities ow ned by the City are included in the inventory.

F.2.c
Packet Pg. 152
Attachment: DIF ADJUSTMENT RESOLUTION (5633 : DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES NEXUS STUDY AND FEE ADJUSTMENT) City of Moreno Valley Development Impact Fee Study Update 53 Table 9.2: Existing Library Facilities
Inventory Units Unit Cost Value
Public Library - 25480 Alessandro Blvd
Land 1.46 Acres 167,000$ 243,820$
Library 14,000 Sq. Ft. 268 3,754,900
Subtotal 3,998,720$
Satellite Library Facilities
Moreno Valley Mall (Tenant Improvements) 4,788 Sq. Ft. 150 718,200$ Southeast Satellite Library1 4,000 Sq. Ft. 188 750,000 Subtotal 8,788 1,468,200$
Total Value of Existing Facilities 5,466,920$
1 Funded project.

Sources: City of Moreno Valley.

Planned Facilities
Table 9.3 summarizes the planned library facility needed to serve the City through 2040. The City plans to construct a 70,300 square feet of library facilities to serve all residents of the City. In all, the project is estimated to cost approximately $40.1 million.

Table 9.3: Planned Library Facilities
Amount Units Unit Cost Total
Future Central Library 70,300 Sq. Ft. 570$ 40,071,000$ Sources: City of Moreno Valley, Capital Improvement Plan, FY 2021-2026 and Beyond; Willdan Financial Services.

Cost Allocation
Existing Level of Service
Per the new nexus study requirements that went into effect of January 1, 2022, a nexus study “shall identify the existing level of service for eac h public facility, identify the proposed new level of service, and include an explanation of why the new level of service is appropriate. ” Table 9.4 expresses the City ’s current recreation facilities level of serv ice in terms of a n existing cost per capita. This cost per capita is not us ed in the fee calculation, rather it is shown here for informational purposes only.

F.2.c
Packet Pg. 153
Attachment: DIF ADJUSTMENT RESOLUTION (5633 : DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES NEXUS STUDY AND FEE ADJUSTMENT) City of Moreno Valley Development Impact Fee Study Update 54 Table 9.4: Existing Level of Service
Value of Existing Facilities 5,466,920$
Existing Fund Balance 5,422,380
Total 10,889,300$
Existing Service Population 213,100
Facility Standard per Resident 51$
Facility Standard per Worker1 5
1 Based on a w eighing factor of 0.10.

Sources: Tables 9.1 and 9.2; Willdan Financial Services.

Future Level of Service
Table 9.5 shows new develo pment’s projected per cap ita invest ment in library facilities at the planning horizon. This value is calculated by dividing cost of existing and planned facilities by the service population at the planning horizon. The value per capita is multiplied by the worker weighting factor of 0.10 to determine the value per worker.

Table 9.5: Library Facilities System Standard
Value of Existing Facilities 5,466,920$
Cost of Planned Facilities 40,071,000
Total System Value (2030) 45,537,920$
Future Service Population (2030) 265,000
Facility Standard per Resident 172$
Facility Standard per Worker1 17
1 Based on a w eighing factor of 0.10.

Sources: Tables 9.1, 9.2 and 9.3; Willdan Financial Services.

Use of Fee Revenue
The City can use library facilities fee revenues for the construction or purchase of buildings, land, vehicles and collections that are part of the system of library facilities serving new development. A list of planned facilities is included in Table 9.3.

Fee Revenue Projection
The City plan s to use rec reation and library facilities fee revenue to construct improvements to add to the system of library facilities that serves new development. The prelim inary list of facilities to be funded by the fee is detailed above in Table 9.3. Table 9.6 details a projection o f fee F.2.c
Packet Pg. 154
Attachment: DIF ADJUSTMENT RESOLUTION (5633 : DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES NEXUS STUDY AND FEE ADJUSTMENT) City of Moreno Valley Development Impact Fee Study Update 55 revenue, based on the service population growth increment identified in Table 9.1. The cost of the planned facilities not funded by fee r evenue represe nts existing development ’s sha re of the facilities and can be funded by any revenue source other than impact fees.

Table 9.6: Library Impact Fee Revenue Projection
Cost per Capita 172$
Growth in Service Population 51,900
Projected Impact Fee Revenue 8,926,800$
Cost of Planned Facilities 34,648,620$
Projected Impact Fee Revenue 8,926,800
Less Existing Fund Balance 1
4,672,380
Non-Fee Revenue to Be Identified 21,049,439$
1 Excludes $750,000 dedicated funding to satellite library project.

Sources: Tables 9.1, 9.3 and 9.5; Willdan Financial Services.

Fee Schedule
Table 9.7 shows the maximum justified library facilities fee schedule. The cost per capita is converted to a fee per unit of new devel opment based on dwelling unit densities (persons per dwelling). The total fee includes a two -percent (2%) admi nistrative charge to fun d c osts that include: a standard overhead charge applied to City programs for legal, accounting, and other departmental and administrative support, and fee program administra tive costs including revenue collection, reven ue and cost accounting, mandated pub lic reporting, and fee justification analyses.

In Willdan’s experience with impact fee programs, two percent of the base fee adequately covers the cost of fee program adminis tration. The adm inistrative charge should be reviewe d and adjusted during comprehe nsive impact fee updates to ensure that revenue generated from the charge sufficiently covers, b ut does not exceed, t he administrative costs associated with the fee program.

F.2.c
Packet Pg. 155
Attachment: DIF ADJUSTMENT RESOLUTION (5633 : DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES NEXUS STUDY AND FEE ADJUSTMENT) City of Moreno Valley Development Impact Fee Study Update 56 Table 9.7: Library Facilities Fee Schedule
A B C = A x B D = C x 0.02 E = C + D F = E / 1,000
Cost Per Admin Fee per
Land Use Capita Density Base Fee 1 Charge1, 2 Total Fee 1 Sq. Ft.

Residential - per Dwelling Unit
Single Family 172$ 4.17 717$ 14$ 731$ Multifamily 172 2.65 456 9 465 Senior Housing 172 2.00 344 7 351 Nonresidential - per 1,000 Sq. Ft.

Commercial 17$ 2.39 41$ 1$ 42$ 0.04$ Office 17 3.12 54 1 55 0.06 Industrial 17 1.16 20 - 20 0.02 High Cube Warehouse 17 0.72 12 - 12 0.01 Sources: Tables 2.2 and 9.5; Willdan Financial Services. 1 Persons per dw elling unit or per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential. 2 Administrative charge of 2.0 percent for (1) legal, accounting, and other administrative support and (2) impact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.

F.2.c
Packet Pg. 156
Attachment: DIF ADJUSTMENT RESOLUTION (5633 : DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES NEXUS STUDY AND FEE ADJUSTMENT)

57 10. City Hall Facilities
The purpose of the fee is to ensure that new deve lopment funds its fair share of city hall facilities.

A fee s chedule is presented based on th e planned facilities standard of city hall facilities in the City of Moreno Va lley to ensure th at new development provi des adequat e funding to meet its needs.

Service Population
City hall facilities serve b oth residents and businesses. Therefore, demand fo r services and associated facilities are based on the City’s service population including residents and workers.

Table 10.1 shows the existing and future projecte d service population for city hall facilities. While specific data is not available to estima te the actual ratio of demand per res ident to demand by businesses (per worker ) for this servic e, it is reasonable to a ssume that demand for these services is less for one employee compared to one resident, because nonresiden tial buildings are typically oc cupied less i ntensively than dwelling units. The 0.31 -weighting factor for wor kers is based on a 40-hour workweek divided by the total number of non-work hours in a week (128) and reflects the degree to which nonresidential d evelopment yields a lesser dema nd for city h all facilities.

Table 10.1: City Hall Facilities Service Population
Residents Workers
Service
Population
Existing (2021) 208,900 41,600 221,800
New Development (2021-2040) 47,700 41,600 60,600 Total (2040) 256,600 83,200 282,400
Weighting factor 1.00 0.31
Source: Table 2.1; Willdan Financial Services.

Facility Inventories and Standards
This section describes the City’s police facility inventory and facility standards.

Existing Inventory
This study uses the existing standard methodology to calculate fees for city hall facilities. The city hall inventory is comprised of three properties: city hall, the city hall annex and the civic center. In total, the City owns approximately $34.5 million in city hall and administrative facilities.

F.2.c
Packet Pg. 157
Attachment: DIF ADJUSTMENT RESOLUTION (5633 : DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES NEXUS STUDY AND FEE ADJUSTMENT) City of Moreno Valley Development Impact Fee Study Update 58 Table 10.2: City Hall Facilities Inventory
Inventory Unit Cost Value
Land (acres)
City Hall 3.33 167,000$ 556,100$
City Hall Annex 1.02 167,000 170,300
Civic Center 59.22 167,000 9,889,700
Subtotal 63.57 10,616,100$
Buildings (square feet)
City Hall 57,600 284$ 16,358,400$
Annex Complex 12,120 194 2,352,300
Subtotal 69,720 18,710,700$
City Hall Parking Lots 2,760,691$
Vehicles and Equipment 2,460,980$
Total Value of Existing Facilities 34,548,471$
Sources: City of Moreno Valley; Appendix Table A.5, Willdan Financial Services.

Cost Allocation
Table 10.3 shows the calculation of the existing cost per capi ta facility standard by dividing the value of th e existing facili ties inventory by the ex isting service population. The resulting cos t per capita is the basis of the impact fee. Funding facilities at this level will ensure that as development occurs, new d evelopment will contribu te to city hall facilities at the same st andard that existing development has contributed thus far. Using the existing standard methodology does not result in existing deficiencies.

Table 10.3: City Hall Facilities Existing Standard
Value of Existing Facilities 34,548,471$
Existing Fund Balance 822,435
Total 35,370,906$
Existing Service Population 221,800
Cost per Capita 159$
Facility Standard per Resident 159$
Facility Standard per Worker 1 49
1 Based on a w eighing factor of 0.31.

Sources: Tables 10.1 and 10.2; Willdan Financial Services.

F.2.c
Packet Pg. 158
Attachment: DIF ADJUSTMENT RESOLUTION (5633 : DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES NEXUS STUDY AND FEE ADJUSTMENT) City of Moreno Valley Development Impact Fee Study Update 59 Fee Revenue Projection
The City plans to use city hall facilities fee revenue to construct impr ovements to add to the system of city ha ll and administrative facilities to serve ne w development. Table 10.4 details a projection of fee revenue, bas ed on the service populatio n growth increment identified in Table

10.1. The City will have to identify $ 9.6 million worth o f city hall facilities i n order to ensure that the existing standard is maintained through the planning horizon.

Table 10.4: Revenue Projection - Existing Standard
Cost per Capita 159$
Growth in Service Population (2021 - 2040) 60,600
Fee Revenue 9,635,000$
Sources: Tables 10.1 and 10.3.

Fee Schedule
Table 10.5 shows the maximum justified city hall fee schedule. The cost per capita is converted to a fee pe r unit of new dev elopment based on dwelli ng unit and employment densities (persons per dwelling unit o r employees per 1,000 square feet of nonresiden tial building sp ace). The total fee incl udes a two percent (2%) administrative charge to fund costs that in clude: a standard overhead charge applied to City pr ograms fo r legal, accounting, an d other department al and administrative support, and fee program administrative c osts includi ng revenue c ollection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.

In Willdan’s experience with impact fee programs, tw o percent of the base fee adequately covers the cost of fee progr am administratio n. The admin istrative ch arge should be reviewed and adjusted during comprehensive impact fe e updates to ensu re that revenue generate d from the charge sufficiently covers, but does not exceed, the administrat ive costs associated with the fee program.

F.2.c
Packet Pg. 159
Attachment: DIF ADJUSTMENT RESOLUTION (5633 : DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES NEXUS STUDY AND FEE ADJUSTMENT) City of Moreno Valley Development Impact Fee Study Update 60 Table 10.5: City Hall Facilities Fee Schedule
A B C = A x B D = C x 0.02 E = C + D E / 1,000
Cost Per Admin Fee per
Land Use Capita Density Base Fee 1 Charge1, 2 Total Fee 1 Sq. Ft.

Residential - per Dwelling Unit
Single Family 159$ 4.17 663$ 13$ 676$ Multi-family 159 2.65 421 8 429 Senior Housing 159 2.00 318 6 324 Nonresidential - per 1,000 Sq. Ft.

Commercial 49$ 2.39 117$ 2$ 119$ 0.12$ Office 49 3.12 153 3 156 0.16 Industrial 49 1.16 57 1 58 0.06 High Cube Warehouse 49 0.72 35 1 36 0.04 1 Fee per dw elling unit (residential) or per 1,000 square feet (nonresidential).

Sources: Tables 2.2 and 10.3; Willdan Financial Services 2 Administrative charge of 2.0 percent for (1) legal, accounting, and other administrative support and (2) impact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.

F.2.c
Packet Pg. 160
Attachment: DIF ADJUSTMENT RESOLUTION (5633 : DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES NEXUS STUDY AND FEE ADJUSTMENT)

61 11. Corporation Yard Facilities
The purpose of the corporation yard facilities impact fee is to fund the corporation yard facilities needed to serve new develo pment. A p roposed fee is presented based on th e system plan standard of corporation yard facilities per capita.

Service Population
Corporation yard facilities se rve both residents and businesses. Therefore , demand for services and as sociated facilities ar e based on the City’s service popu lation including re sidents and workers.

Table 11.1 shows the existing and fu ture proje cted service population for corporation yard facilities. While specific data is not available to estimate the actual ratio of demand per resident to demand by businesses (per worker) for this service, it is reasonable to assume that demand for these servic es is less for one employee compared to one resident, because nonresidential buildings are typically occupied less intensively than dwelling units. The 0.31 -weighting factor f or workers is based on a 40 -hour workweek divided by the total number o f non -work hours in a week (128) and reflects the degree to which nonresidential development yie lds a lesser demand for corporation yard facilities.

Table 11.1: Corporation Yard Facilities Service Population Residents Workers
Service
Population
Existing (2021) 208,900 41,600 221,800
New Development (2021-2040) 47,700 41,600 60,600 Total (2040) 256,600 83,200 282,400
Weighting factor 1.00 0.31
Source: Table 2.1; Willdan Financial Services.

Facility Inventories and Standards
This section describes the City’s corporation yard facility inventory and facility standards.

Existing Inventory
Table 11.2 summarizes the City’s current inventory of l and, buildings and v ehicles. The City currently operates out of one maintenance yard , with three buildings for shops and sto rage. In total, the City owns $6.7 million in corporation yard facilities.

F.2.c
Packet Pg. 161
Attachment: DIF ADJUSTMENT RESOLUTION (5633 : DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES NEXUS STUDY AND FEE ADJUSTMENT) City of Moreno Valley Development Impact Fee Study Update 62 Table 11.2: Corporation Yard Facilities Existing Inventory Inventory Unit Cost Value
Land (acres)
Maintenance Yard 18.14 167,000$ 3,029,400$ Subtotal 18.14 3,029,400$
Buildings (square feet)
Public Works Maintenance Storage 57,876 57 3,326,400$ Signs & Signal Shop 1,440 63 90,200 Public Works Vehicle Storage 7,500 34 252,000 Subtotal 66,816 3,668,600$
Total Value of Existing Facilities 6,698,000$
Sources: City of Moreno Valley; Willdan Financial Services.

Planned Facilities
Table 11.3 summarizes the planned facility: a new corpor ation yard. The facility will serve both existing and new development and is estimated to cost $57.5 million.

Table 11.3: Planned Corporation Yard Facilities
Total
Corporate Yard Facility 57,518,000$
Sources: City of Moreno Valley, Capital Improvement Plan, FY 2014-2021 and Beyond.

Cost Allocation
Existing Level of Service
Per the new nexus study requirements that went into effect of January 1, 2022, a nexus study “shall identify the existing level of service for each public facility, identify the proposed new level of service, and include an explanation of why the new level of service is appropriate. ” Table 11.4 expresses the City ’s current recreation facilities level of serv ice in terms of a n existing cost per capita. This cost per capita is not u sed in the fee calculation, rather it is shown here for informational purposes only.

F.2.c
Packet Pg. 162
Attachment: DIF ADJUSTMENT RESOLUTION (5633 : DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES NEXUS STUDY AND FEE ADJUSTMENT) City of Moreno Valley Development Impact Fee Study Update 63 Table 11.4: Existing Level of Service
Value of Existing Facilities 6,698,000$
Existing Fund Balance 2,663,408
Total 9,361,408$
Existing Service Population 221,800
Cost per Capita 42$
Facility Standard per Resident 42$
Facility Standard per Worker 1 13
1 Based on a w eighing factor of 0.31.

Sources: Tables 11.1 and 11.2; Willdan Financial Services.

Future Level of Service
Table 11.5 shows new development’s projected per capita investment in corporation yard protection facilities at the planning horizon. This value i s calculated by dividing cost of existi ng and planned facilities by the service po pulation at the planning hor izon. The value per capita is multiplied by the worker weighting factor of 0.31 to determine the value per worker.

Table 11.5: Corporation Yard Facilities - System
Standard
Value of Existing Facilities 6,698,000$
Value of Planned Facilities 57,518,000
Total System Value (2040) 64,216,000$
Future Service Population (2040) 282,400
Cost per Capita 227$
Facility Standard per Resident 227$
Facility Standard per Worker 1 70
1 Based on a w eighing factor of 0.31.

Sources: Tables 11.1, 11.2 and 11.3; Willdan Financial Services.

Use of Fee Revenue
The City can use corporation yard facilities fe e revenues for the construction or purchase of buildings, land, and equipment that are part of the system of corporation yard facilities serving new development. The City intends to build a new corporation yard.

F.2.c
Packet Pg. 163
Attachment: DIF ADJUSTMENT RESOLUTION (5633 : DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES NEXUS STUDY AND FEE ADJUSTMENT) City of Moreno Valley Development Impact Fee Study Update 64 Non-Fee Funding Required
Completing the planned facilities will provide a higher value of facilities per capita than is currently provided in Moreno Valley. Impact fee revenue may not be used to increase the level of service provided to ex isting development. Th erefore, impact fee revenue will not fu lly fund the p lanned corporation yard protection facilities and some non-fee funding will be required. Table 11.6 shows the projected fee revenue and the non-fee funding required through 2040. After accounting for the projected future impact fee revenue, a pproximately $38.4 million in non -fee funding will be needed to complete the planned corporation yard protection facilities.

The City will need to use alt ernative funding sources to fund existing development’s share o f the planned corporation yard protection facilities . Potential s ources of revenue include but are not limited to existing or new general fund revenues, existing or new taxes, special assessmen ts, and grants.

Table 11.6: Revenue Projection - System Standard
Cost per Capita 227$
Growth in Service Population (2021 - 2040) 60,600
Fee Revenue 13,756,000$
Cost of Planned Facilities 54,854,592$
Fee Revenue 13,756,000
Less Existing Fund Balance 2,663,408
Non-Fee Revenue to Be Identified 38,435,185$
Sources: Tables 11.1, 11.3 and 11.5.

Fee Schedule
Table 11.7 shows the maximum ju stified corporation yard facilities fee schedule. Th e cos t per capita is converted to a fee per unit of new de velopment based on dwelling unit and employment densities (persons per dwelling unit or employees per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential building space). The total fee includes a two percent (2%) administrative charge to fund costs that include:
a standar d overhead charge applied to all City programs for legal, acco unting, and o ther departmental and administrative support, and fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue an d cos t accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee just ification analyses.

In Willdan’s experience with impact fee pr ograms, two percent of the base fee adequately covers the cost of fee program admini stration. The administrative charge sho uld be re viewed an d adjusted during comprehensive impact fee updates to ensure that revenue generated from the charge sufficiently co vers, but doe s not exceed, the admi nistrative costs associated with the fee program.

F.2.c
Packet Pg. 164
Attachment: DIF ADJUSTMENT RESOLUTION (5633 : DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES NEXUS STUDY AND FEE ADJUSTMENT) City of Moreno Valley Development Impact Fee Study Update 65 Table 11.7: Corporation Yard Facilities Impact Fee Schedule A B C = A x B D = C x 0.02 E = C + D E / 1,000
Cost Per Admin Fee per
Land Use Capita Density Base Fee 1 Charge1, 2 Total Fee 1 Sq. Ft.

Residential - per Dwelling Unit
Single Family 227$ 4.17 947$ 19$ 966$ Multifamily 227 2.65 602 12 614 Senior Housing 227 2.00 454 9 463 Nonresidential - per 1,000 Sq. Ft.

Commercial 70$ 2.39 167$ 3$ 170$ 0.17$ Office 70 3.12 218 4 222 0.22 Industrial 70 1.16 81 2 83 0.08 High Cube Warehouse 70 0.72 50 1 51 0.05 1 Fee per dw elling unit (residential) or per 1,000 square feet (nonresidential).

Sources: Tables 2.2 and 11.5; Willdan Financial Services 2 Administrative charge of 2.0 percent for (1) legal, accounting, and other administrative support and (2) impact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.

F.2.c
Packet Pg. 165
Attachment: DIF ADJUSTMENT RESOLUTION (5633 : DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES NEXUS STUDY AND FEE ADJUSTMENT)

66 12. Maintenance Equipment
Facilities
The purpose of the maintenance equipm ent impact fee is to fund t he maintenance equipment facilities needed to serve new development. Note that impact fees cannot fund road maintenance itself. T hese fees are int ended to fund the capital fac ilities equipment needed to maintain the City’s roads. Maintenance equipment includes vehicles, heavy equipment, tractors and other various items.

Service Population
Table 12.1 shows the existing and future p rojected service po pulation for road mainte nance facilities. While specific data is not available to estimate the actual ratio of demand per resident to demand by businesses (per worker) fo r this service, it is reas onable to a ssume that demand for these se rvices is less for one employee compared to one resident, bec ause nonresidential buildings are typically occupied less intensivel y than dwelling units. The 0.31 -weighting factor for workers is based on a 40 -hour wor kweek divid ed by the total number of non -work hours in a week (128) and reflects the degree to which n onresidential development yields a lesser demand for road maintenance facilities.

Table 12.1: Maintenance Equipment Facilities Service
Population
Residents Workers
Service
Population
Existing (2021) 208,900 41,600 221,800
New Development (2021-2040) 47,700 41,600 60,600 Total (2040) 256,600 83,200 282,400
Weighting factor 1.00 0.31
Source: Table 2.1; Willdan Financial Services.

Facility Inventories and Standards
This section describes the City’s maintenance equipment facility inventory, facility standards, and cost of planned facilities.

Existing Inventory
Table 12.2 summarizes the City’s current inventory of maintenance equipment facilities. The estimated value shown for maintenance equipment vehicles was provided by the City.

F.2.c
Packet Pg. 166
Attachment: DIF ADJUSTMENT RESOLUTION (5633 : DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES NEXUS STUDY AND FEE ADJUSTMENT) City of Moreno Valley Development Impact Fee Study Update 67 Table 12.2: Maintenance
Equipment Facilities Inventory
Value
Heavy Duty Trucks 4,416,476$
Light Duty Trucks 4,473,212
Machinery & Equipment 4,892,662
Total 13,782,350$
Source: City of Moreno Valley.

Cost Allocation
Table 12.3 shows the existing standard cost per capita for maintenance equipment facilities, which is the per capita investment in maintenance equipment facilities that new deve lopment must make to maintain the ex isting s tandards. This value is calculated by di viding the cost of existing maintenance equipment facilities by the existing service population.

Table 12.3: Maintenance Equipment Facilities
Existing Standard
Value of Existing Facilities 13,782,350$
Existing Fund Balance 1,213,562
Total 14,995,911$
Existing Service Population 221,800
Cost per Capita 68$
Facility Standard per Resident 68$
Facility Standard per Worker 1 21
1 Based on a w eighing factor of 0.31.

Sources: Tables 12.1 and 12.2; Willdan Financial Services.

Fee Revenue Projection
Non-fee funding will not be required because the fee simply maintains the existing standard. The impact revenue gen erated by t he fee will fully fund the fa cilities to serve new development .

Additional planned facilities will need to be identified to maintain the existing standard. Table 12.4 identifies the amount of maintenance equipment facilities that will need to b e acquired by 2040 to maintain the existing standard.

F.2.c
Packet Pg. 167
Attachment: DIF ADJUSTMENT RESOLUTION (5633 : DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES NEXUS STUDY AND FEE ADJUSTMENT) City of Moreno Valley Development Impact Fee Study Update 68 Table 12.4: Revenue Projection - Existing Standard
Cost per Capita 68$
Growth in Service Population (2021 - 2040) 60,600
Fee Revenue 4,121,000$
Sources: Tables 12.1 and 12.3.

Fee Schedule
Table 12.5 shows the maximum justified maintenance equipment facilities fee schedule. The cost per capi ta is converted to a fee per unit of new dev elopment based o n dwelling un it and employment densities (persons per dwelling unit or employees per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential building space). The total fee includes a two percent (2%) administrative charge to fund costs that include: a standard overhead charge applied to a ll City programs for legal, accounting, and other departmental and Citywide administrative support, and fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.

In Willdan’s experience with impact fee programs, two percent of the base fee adequately covers the cost of fee program administr ation. The administrative charge should be reviewed and adjusted during comprehensive impact fee updates t o ensure that revenue generated from the charge sufficiently covers, but does not exceed, the administrat ive costs associated with the fe e program.

Table 12.5: Maintenance Equipment Facilities Fee Schedule A B C = A x B D = C x 0.02 E = C + D E / 1,000
Cost Per Admin Fee per
Land Use Capita Density Base Fee 1 Charge1, 2 Total Fee 1 Sq. Ft.

Residential - per Dwelling Unit
Single Family 68$ 4.17 284$ 6$ 290$ Multi-family 68 2.65 180 4 184 Senior Housing 68 2.00 136 3 139 Nonresidential - per 1,000 Sq. Ft.

Commercial 21$ 2.39 50$ 1$ 51$ 0.05$ Office 21 3.12 66 1 67 0.07 Industrial 21 1.16 24 0 24 0.02 High Cube Warehouse 21 0.72 15 0 15 0.02 1 Fee per dw elling unit (residential) or per 1,000 square feet (nonresidential).

Sources: Tables 2.2 and 12.3; Willdan Financial Services 2 Administrative charge of 2.0 percent for (1) legal, accounting, and other administrative support and (2) impact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.

F.2.c
Packet Pg. 168
Attachment: DIF ADJUSTMENT RESOLUTION (5633 : DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES NEXUS STUDY AND FEE ADJUSTMENT)

69 13. Freeway Interchanges
This chapter summarizes an analysis of the need for freeway interchanges to accommodate new development. The c hapter documents a reasonable relationship between new development and the impact fee for funding of these facilities.

Trip Demand
The need for freeway interchanges is bas ed on the trip demand placed on the system by development. A reasonable measure of d emand is the num ber of average daily vehicle trips .

Unlike the arterial streets fee and the traffic signal fee, trip demand fo r freeway interchanges is not adjusted by pass-by trips, or trip length. Table 13.1 shows the trip rates used in the analysis.

Table 13.1: Trip Generation Rates
ITE Category
Average
Daily
Trips
Residential - per Dwelling Unit
Single Family Single Family Housing (210) 9.43
Multi-family Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise) (220) 6.74
Senior Housing Senior Adult Housing- Attached (252) 3.24 Nonresidential - per 1,000 Sq. Ft.

Regional Commercial Shopping Center (820) 37.01
General Commercial Shopping Center (820) 37.01
Office General Office Building (710) 10.84
Industrial General Light Industrial (110) 4.87
High Cube Warehouse High-Cube / Short-Term Storage Warehouse (154) 1.40 Source: ITE Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition.

Trip Demand Growth
The pl anning horizon for this analysis is 2040. Table 13.2 lists the 2021 and 2040 land use assumptions us ed in this study. The trip rates identified in Table 13.1 are multiplied by t he existing a nd futu re dwelling units and building sq uare feet to det ermine the increase in trips caused by new development.

F.2.c
Packet Pg. 169
Attachment: DIF ADJUSTMENT RESOLUTION (5633 : DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES NEXUS STUDY AND FEE ADJUSTMENT) City of Moreno Valley Development Impact Fee Study Update 70 Table 13.2: Land Use Scenario and Total Trips
Land Use Trip Rate
Units /
1,000 SF Trips
Units /
1,000 SF Trips
Units /
1,000 SF Trips
Residential
Single Family 9.43 47,700 449,811 9,600 90,528 57,300 540,339 Multi-family 6.74 10,000 67,400 5,700 38,418 15,700 105,818 Subtotal 57,700 517,211 15,300 128,946 73,000 646,157 Nonresidential
Commercial 37.01 6,778 250,863 6,778 250,863 13,556 501,726 Office 10.84 3,718 40,303 3,718 40,302 7,436 80,605 Industrial 4.87 1,724 8,397 1,724 8,396 3,448 16,793 High Cube Warehouse 1.40 16,389 22,944 40,600 56,840 56,989 79,784 Subtotal 28,609 322,507 52,820 356,401 81,430 678,908 Total 839,718 485,347 1,325,065
63% 37% 100%
Sources: Tables 2.1 and 13.1; Willdan Financial Services 2021 Growth 2021 to 2040 Total - 2040

Project Costs
Cost estimates are s ummarized in Table 13.3. The City’s traffic engineers prepared the cost estimates, using cost estimating methodology consistent with the estimating methodology used in recent WRCOG’s Nexus Study. TUMF credits are ide ntified in th e Transportation Un iform Mitigation Fee Nexus Study (2016 Update).

Table 13.3: Interchange Improvement Costs
Interchange Location
Total Project
Cost
2016 TUMF Cost
Maximum Share City DIF Share
60/Day 17,897,000$ 17,897,000$ -$
60/Frederick - - - 60/Heacock - - - 60/Perris 15,390,000 - 15,390,000 60/Nason - - - 60/Moreno Bch Dr. (Ph. 1) - - - 60/Moreno Bch Dr. (Ph. 2) 5,000,000 - 5,000,000 60/Redlands 63,953,441 37,060,000 26,893,441 60/Theodore 88,600,000 19,096,000 69,504,000 60/Gilman Springs 86,091,171 17,897,000 68,194,171 215/Cactus 64,445,391 37,060,000 27,385,391 Studies/Misc. Improvements 6,000,000 - 6,000,000 Total 347,377,002$ 129,010,000$ 218,367,002$ Sources: City of Moreno Valley; WRCOG TUMF 2016 Nexus Update.

F.2.c
Packet Pg. 170
Attachment: DIF ADJUSTMENT RESOLUTION (5633 : DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES NEXUS STUDY AND FEE ADJUSTMENT) City of Moreno Valley Development Impact Fee Study Update 71 Fee per Trip Demand Unit
Every impact fee consists of a dollar amoun t, or the cost o f projects that can be funded by a fee, divided by a measure of development. In this case, all fees are first calculate d as a cost per trip demand unit. Then these amounts are translated into housing unit (cost per unit) and employment space (cost per 1,000 square feet ) by multiplying t he cost per trip by the trip generation rate for each land use category. These amounts become the fee schedule.

Table 13.4 calculates the cost the cost per trip demand uni t by dividing the total pr oject costs attributable to new development summarized in Table 13.3, by t he total growth in trips shown in Table 13.2.

Table 13.4: Cost per Trip to Accommodate Growth
Fee Program Share of Planned Facilities Costs 218,367,002$ Less Existing Fund Balance 1,282,015
Net Facility Costs 217,084,987$
Growth in Daily Trips 485,347
Cost per Trip 447$
Sources: Tables 13.1 and 13.3.

Fee Schedule
Table 13.5 shows the maximum justified freeway interchanges facilities fee schedule. The fees are based on the costs per trip shown in Table 13.4. The co st per trip i s multi plied by the tri p demand factors in Table 13.1 to determine a fee per unit of new development. The t otal fee includes a two percent (2%) administrative charge to fund costs that include: a standard overhead charge applied t o all City pr ograms for le gal, ac counting, and ot her departmental and administrative support, and fee program administrative costs in cluding revenue colle ction, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.

In Willdan’s experience with impact fee programs, two percent of the base fee adequately covers the cost of fee program administration. The administrative charge should be reviewed and adjusted during comprehensi ve impact fee updates to ensure that revenue genera ted from the charge sufficiently covers, but does not exceed, the administrat ive costs associated with the fee program.

F.2.c
Packet Pg. 171
Attachment: DIF ADJUSTMENT RESOLUTION (5633 : DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES NEXUS STUDY AND FEE ADJUSTMENT) City of Moreno Valley Development Impact Fee Study Update 72 Table 13.5: Interchange Improvements Impact Fee Schedule A B C = A x B D = C x 0.02 E = C + D E / 1,000
Trip
Land Use
Cost Per
Trip
Demand
Factor Base Fee 1
Admin
Charge1, 2 Total Fee 1
Fee per
Sq. Ft.

Residential - per Dwelling Unit
Single Family 447$ 9.43 4,215$ 84$ 4,299$ Multi-family 447 6.74 3,013 60 3,073 Senior Housing 447 3.24 1,448 29 1,477 Nonresidential - per 1,000 Sq. Ft.

Regional Commercial 447$ 37.01 16,543$ 331$ 16,874$ 16.87$ General Commercial 447 37.01 16,543 331 16,874 16.87 Office 447 10.84 4,845 97 4,942 4.94 Industrial 447 4.87 2,177 44 2,221 2.22 High Cube Warehouse 447 1.40 626 13 639 0.64 Sources: Tables 13.1 and 13.4; Willdan Financial Services. 1 Persons per dw elling unit or per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential. 2 Administrative charge of 2.0 percent for (1) legal, accounting, and other administrative support and (2) impact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.

F.2.c
Packet Pg. 172
Attachment: DIF ADJUSTMENT RESOLUTION (5633 : DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES NEXUS STUDY AND FEE ADJUSTMENT)

73 14. Animal Shelter Facilities
The purpose of t he fee is to ensure that new deve lopment funds its fair share of animal shelter facilities. A fee schedule is presen ted based o n the planned facilities standard of animal shelter facilities in the City of Moreno Valley to ensure that new develo pment provides adequate funding to meet its needs.

Service Population
Animal shelter facilities primarily serve residents. Therefore, demand for services and associated facilities are based on the City’s residential service population. Table 14.1 shows the existing and future projected service population for animal shelter facilities.

Table 14.1: Animal Shelter Facilities
Service Population
Residents
Existing (2021) 208,900
New Development (2021-2040) 47,700
Total (2040) 256,600
Source: Table 2.1; Willdan Financial Services.

Facility Inventories and Standards
This section describes the City’s animal shelter facility inventory and facility standards.

Existing Inventory
This study uses the existing stan dard methodology to calculate fees for animal shelter facilities.

The City’s inventory o f animal shelter facilities is displayed in Table 14.2. The City owns and operates one 16,000 square foot animal shelter. In all, the City owns approximately $3.4 million in animal shelter facilities.

Table 14.2: Animal Shelter Facilities Inventory
Amount Units Unit Cost Value
Animal Shelter - 14041 Elsworth Street
Land 2.83 Acres 167,000$ 472,600$
Animal Shelter Building 16,000 Sq. Ft. 185 2,953,200 Total 3,425,800$
Sources: City of Moreno Valley; City of Moreno Valley Public Entity Risk Management Authority, Building Detail Report - 2009; Willdan Financial Services.

F.2.c
Packet Pg. 173
Attachment: DIF ADJUSTMENT RESOLUTION (5633 : DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES NEXUS STUDY AND FEE ADJUSTMENT) City of Moreno Valley Development Impact Fee Study Update

74 Cost Allocation
Table 14.3 calculates the existing cost per capita facility standard by div iding the value of the existing facilities inventory by the existing service po pulation. The resulting cost per capita is the basis of the impact fee. Funding facilities at this level will ensure that as development occurs, new development will contribute to animal shelter facilities at the same standard that exi sting development has contributed thus far. Using the existing standard methodology does not result in existing deficiencies.

Table 14.3: Animal Shelter Facilities Existing Standard Value of Existing Facilities 3,425,800$
Existing Fund Balance 261,951
Total 3,687,751$
Existing Service Population 208,900
Cost per Capita 18$
Facility Standard per Resident 18$
Sources: Tables 14.1 and 14.2; Willdan Financial Services.

Use of Fee Revenue
The Cit y c an u se animal she lter facilities fee re venues for the construction or purchase of buildings, land, vehicles and equipment that are par t of the sy stem of animal shelter facilities serving new development.

Fee Revenue Projection
The City plans to use animal shelter facilities fee revenue to construct improvements to add to the system of animal shelter facilities to s erve new d evelopment. Table 14.4 details a projection of fee revenue, based on the servi ce population growth increment identified in Table 14.1. The City will have to identify $ 859,000 worth of animal shelter facilities in order to ensure t hat the existing standard is maintained through the planning horizon.

Table 14.4: Revenue Projection - Existing Standard
Cost per Capita 18$
Growth in Service Population (2021 - 2040) 47,700
Fee Revenue 859,000$
Sources: Tables 14.1 and 14.3.

F.2.c
Packet Pg. 174
Attachment: DIF ADJUSTMENT RESOLUTION (5633 : DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES NEXUS STUDY AND FEE ADJUSTMENT) City of Moreno Valley Development Impact Fee Study Update

75 Fee Schedule
Table 14.5 shows the maximum justified animal shelter fee sche dule. T he cost per capita is converted to a fee p er unit of new deve lopment based on dwelling unit densities (persons per dwelling unit). The total fee includes a two percent (2%) administrative charge to fund costs that include: a standard o verhead charge applied to City programs for legal, accounting, and other departmental and administrative support, and fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated publ ic reporting, and fee justificati on analyses.

In Willdan’s experience with impact fee programs, two percent of the base fee adequately covers the cost of fe e program administra tion. The administrative charge should be reviewed and adjusted during comprehen sive impact fee updates to ensure that revenue generated from the charge sufficiently covers, bu t does not exceed, the administrative costs associated with the fee program.

Table 14.5: Animal Shelter Facilities Impact Fee Schedule A B C = A x B D = C x 0.02 E = C + D
Cost Per Admin
Land Use Capita Density Base Fee 1 Charge1, 2 Total Fee 1 Residential
Single Family Unit 18$ 4.17 75$ 2$ 77$ Multi-family Unit 18 2.65 48 1 49 Senior Housing 18 2.00 36 1 37 1 Fee per dw elling unit (residential).

Sources: Tables 2.2 and 14.4; Willdan Financial Services 2 Administrative charge of 2.0 percent for (1) legal, accounting, and other administrative support and (2) impact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.

F.2.c
Packet Pg. 175
Attachment: DIF ADJUSTMENT RESOLUTION (5633 : DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES NEXUS STUDY AND FEE ADJUSTMENT)

76 15. AB 602 Requirements
On January 1, 2022, new requirements went into effect for California jurisdictions implementing impact fees. Among other c hanges, AB 602 added Section 66016.5 to the Government Code , which set guidelines for impact fee nexus studies. Three k ey requirements from that section which concern the nexus study are reproduced here:
66016.5. (a) (2) When applicable, the nexus study shall identify the existing level of service for each public facility, identify the proposed new level of service, an d include an explanation of why the new level of service is appropriate.
66016.5. (a) (4) If a nexus study supports the increase of an existing fee, the local agency shall review the assumptions of the nexus study supporting the original fee and evaluate the amount of fees collected under the original fee.
66016.5. (a) (6) Large jurisdictions shall adopt a capital improvement plan as a part of the nexus study.

Compliance with AB 602
The following sections describe this study’s compliance with the new requirements of AB 602. 66016.5. (a) (2) - Level of Service

1. For fees calculated under the exi sting standard methodology, the fees are calculated such that new development funds facilities at the existing level of service. These fee categories are: parks, city hall, maintenance equipment an d animal shelter facilities. The existing level service in terms of the existing facility investment per capita is shown in each corresponding chapter.

2. For fees calculated under the planned facilities methodology, the fees are calculated to ensure that the level of ser vice does not fall to unacceptable levels. The fees calculated under this approach are the arterial streets fee, the traffic signals fee, and the interchange improvements fees. All project s included in these fees met the City ’s congestion level of service standards of LOS C or LOS D at the time they were added to the impact fee program. Impact fees charged under this program will serve to ensure that the LOS does not fall below LOS D.

3. For the fees calculated under the sy stem standard methodology, the maximum justified fees represent an increase in the f acility level of service. The fees calculated under this methodology are the fire, police, recreation ce nter, library, and corporation yard facility fees. The increased level of service is required to fund new development ’s fair share of facilities identified and approved by the City Council in the City ’s most recent CIP. New development will not fund the entirety of the increase in level of service, rather, it will fund a share of the increased level of serv ice represented b y the planned facilities. The City will have to fund existing development’s share of the inc rease level of service through any other funding source. Each chapter for facility fee categories that are increas ing the level of service include a table that shows the existing level of service a nd future level of service in terms of facility investment per capita.
66016.5. (a) (4) – Review of Original Fee Assumptions
Table 15.1 reviews the assumptions from the 2012 study in terms of the resulting fee revenue generated by each impact fee. The actual fee revenue collected from 2012 through 202 1 is then listed. These figures are then compared to the projected fee revenue from this 2022 nexus study.

F.2.c
Packet Pg. 176
Attachment: DIF ADJUSTMENT RESOLUTION (5633 : DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES NEXUS STUDY AND FEE ADJUSTMENT) City of Moreno Valley Development Impact Fee Study Update

77 Note that the two studies use different planning horizons. The 2012 study assessed impacts through buildout, which the 2022 study assess the impacts through 2040.

Table 15.1: Review of 2012 Study
2012 Study Fee Revenue 2022 Study
Facility Category
Cost Allocated to New
Development
Collected (2012
through Current)
Cost Allocated to New
Development
Arterial Streets 75,058,190$ 13,128,789$ 333,809,510$ Traffic Signals 51,002,024 3,566,836 25,095,738 Fire 34,316,512 7,116,503 21,447,000 Police 25,428,267 3,571,907 17,210,000 Park Fee / Quimby 79,354,572 6,426,190 102,737,574 Recreation Centers 20,192,228 1,722,845 9,540,000 Libraries 9,536,579 816,618 8,926,800 City Hall 6,314,181 1,416,996 9,635,000 Corporate Yard 19,004,475 3,872,067 13,756,000 Maintenance Equipment 5,332,010 1,080,466 4,121,000 Interchange Improvements 46,751,783 4,555,840 193,685,450 Animal Shelter 5,721,848 465,960 659,000 Total 378,012,669$ 47,741,016$ 740,623,072$ 1 2012 through Buildout.
2 2021 through 2040.

Sources: City of Moreno Valley; City of Moreno Valley 2012 Development Impact Fee Study Final Draft Report October 1, 2012; Table E.2 Willdan Financial Services.

66016.5. (a) (6) – Capital Improvement Plan
The Capital Improvement Plan for this nexus study is comprised of the identified planned facilities within each facility fee chapter. Planned facilities identified in this document are sourced from the City’s current adopted CIP. Adoption of this nexus s tudy would approve the planned facilities identified herein as the Capital Improvement Plan for this nexus study.

F.2.c
Packet Pg. 177
Attachment: DIF ADJUSTMENT RESOLUTION (5633 : DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES NEXUS STUDY AND FEE ADJUSTMENT)

78 16. Implementation
Impact Fee Program Adoption Process
Impact fee program adoption procedures are found in the California Go vernment Code section 66016. Adoption of an impact fee program requires the City Council to follow certain pro cedures including holding a public hearing. Data, such as an impact fee report, must be made available at least 10 days prior to the public hearing. The City’s legal counsel should be consulted for an y other procedural requir ements as well as advice regard ing adoption of an enabling ordinance and/or a resolution. After adoption there is a mandatory 60 -day waiting period before the fees go into effect.

Inflation Adjustment
The City has kept its impact fee program up to date by periodically adjusting the fees for inflation.

Such adjustments should be completed regularly to ensure that new development will fully fund its share of needed facilities. We recommend that the following indices be used for adjusting fees for inflation:
 Buildings – Engineering News-Record’s Building Cost Index (BCI)  Equipment – Consumer Price Index, All Items, 1982 -84=100 for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U)
The indices recommended can be found for local jurisdictions (state, region), and for the nation.

With the exception of land, we recommend that the national indices be used to adjust for inflation, as the national indices are not subject to frequent dramatic flu ctuations that the localized indices are subject to.

Due to the highly v ariable nature of land co sts, there is no particular ind ex that captures fluctuations in land values. We recommend that the City adjust land values based on recent land purchases, sales or appraisals at the time of the update.

While fee updates using infla tion indices are appropri ate for period ic updates to ens ure that fee revenues keep up with increases in the costs of public facilities, the City will also need to conduct more extensiv e up dates of the f ee docu mentation and calculation (such as this study) when significant new data on growth forecasts and/or facility plans become available.

Reporting Requirements
The City complies with the annual and five -year reporting requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act.

For facilities to be funded by a combination of public fees and other revenues, identification of the source and amount of these non-fee revenues is essential. Identification of the timing of receipt of other revenues to fund the facilities is also important.

Programming Revenues and Projects with the CIP
The City maintains a five-year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) to plan for future infrastructure needs. The CIP identifies costs and phasing for specific capital projects. The us e of the CIP in this man ner documents a reasonable relationship between new development and the use of those revenues.

The City may decide to al ter the scope of the planned projects or to substitute new projects as long as those new projects continue to r epresent an expa nsion of the City’s facilities. If the total F.2.c
Packet Pg. 178
Attachment: DIF ADJUSTMENT RESOLUTION (5633 : DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES NEXUS STUDY AND FEE ADJUSTMENT) City of Moreno Valley Development Impact Fee Study Update

79 cost of facilities varies from th e total cost used as a basis for t he fees, the City should consider revising the fees accordingly.

Reimbursements
For some facility categories, particularly park facilities, developers occasionally dedicate parkland and construct f acilities in lieu of payi ng the developmen t impact fee. If a developer buil ds parkland that exceeds the development’s share of needed facilities, that developer should be reimbursed for t he amount of fa cilities created above and beyond that development’s i mpact.

However, we recomm end that the City’ reimburse the d ifference based on a) the costs identified in the most recent CIP, and b) at the time that the City would be building the improvement had the development not occurred. By following these guidelines , the City will not be un fairly burdened with unanticipated costs.

F.2.c
Packet Pg. 179
Attachment: DIF ADJUSTMENT RESOLUTION (5633 : DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES NEXUS STUDY AND FEE ADJUSTMENT)

80 17. Mitigation Fee Act Findings
Public facilities fees are one -time fees typically paid when a building permit is issu ed a nd imposed on dev elopment projects by local agencies responsible f or regulating land use (cities and counties). To guide the wid espread imposition of public facilities fees the State Legislature adopted the Mitigation Fee Act (the Act) with Assembly Bi ll 1 600 in 198 7 and s ubsequent amendments. The Act, contained in California Government Code Sections 66000 through 66025, establishes requirements on local agencies for the imposition and administration of fee programs.

The Act requires local agencies to document five findings when adopting a fee.

The five statutory finding s required for adoption of the public facilit ies fees document ed in this report are presented in this chapter and supported in detail by the preceding chapters . All statutory references are to the Act.

Purpose of Fee
 Identify the purpose of the fee (§66001(a)(1) of the Act).

Development impact fees are designed to e nsure that new development will not burden the existing service population with the cost of facilities required to accommoda te g rowth. The purpose of the fees proposed by this report is to provide a funding source from new development for capital improvements to serv e that development. The fees advance a legitimate City interest by enabling the City to provide public facilities to new development.

Use of Fee Revenues
 Identify the use to which the fees will be put. If the use is financing facilities, the facilities shall be identified. That identification may, but need not, be made by reference to a capital improvement plan as specified in §65403 or §66002, may be made in applicable general or specific plan requirements, or may be made in other public documents that identify the facilities for which the fees are charged (§66001(a)(2) of the Act).

Fees proposed in this report, if enacted by the City, would be used to fund expanded facilities to serve new development. Facilities funded by these fees are designated to be located within the City’s sphere of influence. Fees addressed in this report have been identified by the City to be restricted to funding the following facility categories: arterial streets, traffic signals, fire facilities, police facilities, parks, library facilities, recreation facilities, city hall facilities, corporation yard facilities, maintenance equipment facilities freeway interchanges; and animal shelter facilities.

Benefit Relationship
 Determine the reasonable relationship between the fees' use and the type of development project on which the fees are imposed (§66001(a)(3) of the Act).

The City will restrict fee revenue to the acquisition of land, construction of facilities and buildings, and pur chase of related equipmen t, furnishings, v ehicles, and services used to serve new development. Facilities funded by the fees are expected to provide a citywide network of facilities accessible to the additional residents and workers associated with new dev elopment. Under the Act, fees are not inte nded to fund planned facilities needed to correct existing deficiencies. Thus, a reasonable relationship can be shown be tween th e use o f fee r evenue and the new development residential and non-residential use classifications that will pay the fees.

Burden Relationship
 Determine the reasonable relationship between the need for the public facilities and F.2.c
Packet Pg. 180
Attachment: DIF ADJUSTMENT RESOLUTION (5633 : DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES NEXUS STUDY AND FEE ADJUSTMENT) City of Moreno Valley Development Impact Fee Study Update

81 the types of development on which the fees are imposed (§66001(a)(4) of the Act).

Facilities need is based on a fac ility standard that repres ents the demand g enerated by new development for those facilities. For each facility category, demand is measured by a single facility standard that can be applied across land use types to ensure a reasonabl e relationship to the type of development. For most facility categories service population standards are calculated based upon the number of residents associated with residential develop ment and the number of workers associated with non -residential development. To calculate a s ingle, per capita standard, one worker is we ighted less than one resident based on an analysis of the relative use demand between residential and non-residential development.

The standards used to identify growth needs are also used to determine if planne d facilities will partially serve the existi ng service population by correcting existing deficiencies. This approach ensures that new development will only be res ponsible for its fair share of planned facilities, and that the fees w ill not unfairly burden new development with the co st of facilities associated with serving the existing service population.

Chapter 2, Growth Forecasts provides a description of how se rvice popu lation and g rowth forecasts are calculated. Facility standa rds are described in th e Facility Standards sections of each facility category chapter.

Proportionality
 Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the fees amount and the cost of the facilities or portion of the facilities attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed (§66001(b) of the Act).

The reasonable relationship between each facilities fee for a specific new development project and the cost of the facil ities attri butable to that project is based on the estimated new development growth the proje ct will accommodate. Fees for a specific proje ct are based on the project’s size. Larger new development projects can result in a higher service population result ing in higher fee reve nue than smaller projects in the same land use c lassification. Thus, th e fees ensure a reasonable relationship between a specific new development project and the cost of the facilities attributable to that project.

See Chapter 2, Grow th Forecasts and Unit Costs, or the Service Population sections in eac h facility category cha pter for a description of how service populatio ns or other factors are determined for different types of land uses. See the Fee Schedule section of each facility category chapter for a presentation of the proposed facilities fees.

F.2.c
Packet Pg. 181
Attachment: DIF ADJUSTMENT RESOLUTION (5633 : DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES NEXUS STUDY AND FEE ADJUSTMENT)

A-1
Appendix
F.2.c
Packet Pg. 182
Attachment: DIF ADJUSTMENT RESOLUTION (5633 : DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES NEXUS STUDY AND City of Moreno Valley Development Impact Fee Study Update A-2
Appendix Table A.1: Arteral Costs
Dir Street Name From To
New
ROW
Cost
Construction Cost
(New Lane/
Unimproved
Segment/ Median)
Planning
Cost (5% Of
Construction
Cost)
Design
Engineering
Cost (25% Of
Construction
Cost)
Construction
Engineering
And Admin.

Cost (10% Of
Construction
Cost) Total Cost

EAST - WEST ARTERIALS
EB Alessandro Bl I-215 Day St -$ 23,258$ 1,163$ 5,814$ 2,326$ 32,561$ WB Alessandro Bl I-215 Day St 674,016 596,144 29,807 149,036 59,614 1,508,618 WB Alessandro Bl Day St Grant St 691,362 587,630 29,381 146,907 58,763 1,514,044 EB Alessandro Bl Frederick St Chagall Ct 510,468 433,877 21,694 108,469 43,388 1,117,896 EB Alessandro Bl Chagall Ct Graham St 654,192 556,037 27,802 139,009 55,604 1,432,644 EB Alessandro Bl Graham St Alessandro Plaza 334,530 284,337 14,217 71,084 28,434 732,602 EB Alessandro Bl Alessandro Plaza Heacock St 652,210 554,352 27,718 138,588 55,435 1,428,302 EB Alessandro Bl Heacock St 1/4 mi E. of Heacock St - 31,868 1,593 7,967 3,187 44,616 WB Alessandro Bl Heacock St 1/4 mi E. of Heacock St - 31,868 1,593 7,967 3,187 44,616 EB Alessandro Bl 1/4 mi E. of Heacock St Indian St - 31,868 1,593 7,967 3,187 44,616 WB Alessandro Bl 1/4 mi E. of Heacock St Indian St - 31,868 1,593 7,967 3,187 44,616 EB Alessandro Bl Perris Bl 1/4 mi E. of Perris Bl 421,260 389,230 19,461 97,307 38,923 966,181 WB Alessandro Bl Perris Bl 1/4 mi E. of Perris Bl - 31,176 1,559 7,794 3,118 43,646 EB Alessandro Bl Kitching St 1/4 mi E. of Kitching St 584,808 680,383 34,019 170,096 68,038 1,537,345 WB Alessandro Bl Kitching St 1/4 mi E. of Kitching St 500,556 591,773 29,589 147,943 59,177 1,329,038 EB Alessandro Bl 1/4 mi E. of Kitching St Lasselle St 92,400 753,357 37,668 188,339 75,336 1,147,100 WB Alessandro Bl 1/4 mi E. of Kitching St Lasselle St 52,150 453,644 22,682 113,411 45,364 687,252 EB Alessandro Bl Lasselle St 1/4 mi E. of Lasselle St 92,400 753,357 37,668 188,339 75,336 1,147,100 WB Alessandro Bl Lasselle St 1/4 mi E. of Lasselle St 92,400 753,357 37,668 188,339 75,336 1,147,100 EB Alessandro Bl 1/4 mi E. of Lasselle St Morrison St 92,400 688,037 34,402 172,009 68,804 1,055,652 EB Alessandro Bl Morrison St 1/4 mi E. of Morrison St 81,480 640,373 32,019 160,093 64,037 978,002 WB Alessandro Bl Morrison St 1/4 mi E. of Morrison St 48,300 393,305 19,665 98,326 39,331 598,928 EB Alessandro Bl 1/4 mi E. of Morrison St Nason St 92,400 753,357 37,668 188,339 75,336 1,147,100 WB Alessandro Bl 1/4 mi E. of Morrison St Nason St 92,400 753,357 37,668 188,339 75,336 1,147,100 EB Alessandro Bl Nason St 1/4 mi E. of Nason St 92,400 621,357 31,068 155,339 62,136 962,300 WB Alessandro Bl Nason St 1/4 mi E. of Nason St 92,400 621,357 31,068 155,339 62,136 962,300 EB Alessandro Bl 1/4 mi E. of Nason St Oliver St 92,400 621,357 31,068 155,339 62,136 962,300 WB Alessandro Bl 1/4 mi E. of Nason St Oliver St 92,400 621,357 31,068 155,339 62,136 962,300 EB Alessandro Bl Oliver St 1/4 mi E. of Oliver St 45,500 339,126 16,956 84,782 33,913 520,277 WB Alessandro Bl Oliver St 1/4 mi E. of Oliver St 92,400 621,357 31,068 155,339 62,136 962,300 EB Alessandro Bl 1/4 mi E. of Oliver St Moreno Beach Drive 92,400 621,357 31,068 155,339 62,136 962,300 WB Alessandro Bl 1/4 mi E. of Oliver St Moreno Beach Drive 92,400 621,357 31,068 155,339 62,136 962,300 EB Alessandro Bl Moreno Beach Drive 1/4 mi E. of Moreno Beach Drive 92,400 621,357 31,068 155,339 62,136 962,300 WB Alessandro Bl Moreno Beach Drive 1/4 mi E. of Moreno Beach Drive 92,400 621,357 31,068 155,339 62,136 962,300 EB Alessandro Bl 1/4 mi E. of Moreno Beach Drive 1/2 mi E. of Moreno Beach Drive 92,400 621,357 31,068 155,339 62,136 962,300 WB Alessandro Bl 1/4 mi E. of Moreno Beach Drive 1/2 mi E. of Moreno Beach Drive 92,400 621,357 31,068 155,339 62,136 962,300 EB Alessandro Bl 1/2 mi E. of Moreno Beach Drive Wilmot St 92,400 621,357 31,068 155,339 62,136 962,300 WB Alessandro Bl 1/2 mi E. of Moreno Beach Drive Wilmot St 92,400 621,357 31,068 155,339 62,136 962,300 EB Alessandro Bl Wilmot St Redlands Bl 312,312 621,357 31,068 155,339 62,136 1,182,212 WB Alessandro Bl Wilmot St Redlands Bl 312,312 621,357 31,068 155,339 62,136 1,182,212 EB Alessandro Bl Merwin St Sinclair St - 65,320 3,266 16,330 6,532 91,448 WB Alessandro Bl Merwin St Sinclair St - 65,320 3,266 16,330 6,532 91,448 EB Alessandro Bl Sinclair St 1/4 mi E. of Sinclair St - 65,320 3,266 16,330 6,532 91,448 WB Alessandro Bl Sinclair St 1/4 mi E. of Sinclair St - 65,320 3,266 16,330 6,532 91,448 EB Alessandro Bl 1/4 mi E. of Sinclair St World Logistics Center Pkwy - 65,320 3,266 16,330 6,532 91,448 WB Alessandro Bl 1/4 mi E. of Sinclair St World Logistics Center Pkwy - 65,320 3,266 16,330 6,532 91,448 EB Alessandro Bl World Logistics Center Pkwy 1/4 mi E. of World Logistics Center Pkwy 92,400 753,357 37,668 188,339 75,336 1,147,100 WB Alessandro Bl World Logistics Center Pkwy 1/4 mi E. of World Logistics Center Pkwy 92,400 753,357 37,668 188,339 75,336 1,147,100 EB Alessandro Bl 1/4 mi E. of World Logistics Center Pkwy 1/2 mi E. of World Logistics Center Pkwy 92,400 753,357 37,668 188,339 75,336 1,147,100 WB Alessandro Bl 1/4 mi E. of World Logistics Center Pkwy 1/2 mi E. of World Logistics Center Pkwy 92,400 753,357 37,668 188,339 75,336 1,147,100 EB Alessandro Bl 1/2 mi E. of World Logistics Center Pkwy 3/4 mi E. of World Logistics Center Pkwy 92,400 753,357 37,668 188,339 75,336 1,147,100 WB Alessandro Bl 1/2 mi E. of World Logistics Center Pkwy 3/4 mi E. of World Logistics Center Pkwy 92,400 753,357 37,668 188,339 75,336 1,147,100

F.2.c
Packet Pg. 183
Attachment: DIF ADJUSTMENT RESOLUTION (5633 : DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES NEXUS STUDY AND City of Moreno Valley Development Impact Fee Study Update A-3
Appendix Table A.1: Arteral Costs Continued
Dir Street Name From To
New
ROW
Cost
Construction Cost
(New Lane/
Unimproved
Segment/ Median)
Planning
Cost (5% Of
Construction
Cost)
Design
Engineering
Cost (25% Of
Construction
Cost)
Construction
Engineering
And Admin.

Cost (10% Of
Construction
Cost) Total Cost
EB Alessandro Bl 3/4 mi E. of World Logistics Center Pkwy 1 mi E. of World Logistics Center Pkwy 92,400 753,357 37,668 188,339 75,336 1,147,100$ WB Alessandro Bl 3/4 mi E. of World Logistics Center Pkwy 1 mi E. of World Logistics Center Pkwy 92,400 753,357 37,668 188,339 75,336 1,147,100 EB Alessandro Bl 1 mi E. of World Logistics Center Pkwy 1-1/4 mi E. of World Logistics Center Pkwy 92,400 753,357 37,668 188,339 75,336 1,147,100 WB Alessandro Bl 1 mi E. of World Logistics Center Pkwy 1-1/4 mi E. of World Logistics Center Pkwy 92,400 753,357 37,668 188,339 75,336 1,147,100 EB Alessandro Bl 1-1/4 mi E. of World Logistics Center Pkwy 1-1/2 mi E. of World Logistics Center Pkwy 92,400 753,357 37,668 188,339 75,336 1,147,100 WB Alessandro Bl 1-1/4 mi E. of World Logistics Center Pkwy 1-1/2 mi E. of World Logistics Center Pkwy 92,400 753,357 37,668 188,339 75,336 1,147,100 EB Alessandro Bl 1-1/2 mi E. of World Logistics Center Pkwy 1-3/4 mi E. of World Logistics Center Pkwy 92,400 753,357 37,668 188,339 75,336 1,147,100 WB Alessandro Bl 1-1/2 mi E. of World Logistics Center Pkwy 1-3/4 mi E. of World Logistics Center Pkwy 92,400 753,357 37,668 188,339 75,336 1,147,100 EB Alessandro Bl 1-3/4 mi E. of World Logistics Center Pkwy 2 mi E. of World Logistics Center Pkwy 92,400 753,357 37,668 188,339 75,336 1,147,100 WB Alessandro Bl 1-3/4 mi E. of World Logistics Center Pkwy 2 mi E. of World Logistics Center Pkwy 92,400 753,357 37,668 188,339 75,336 1,147,100 EB Alessandro Bl 2 mi E. of World Logistics Center Pkwy 2-1/4 mi E. of World Logistics Center Pkwy - 65,320 3,266 16,330 6,532 91,448 WB Alessandro Bl 2 mi E. of World Logistics Center Pkwy 2-1/4 mi E. of World Logistics Center Pkwy - 65,320 3,266 16,330 6,532 91,448 EB Alessandro Bl 2-1/4 mi E. of World Logistics Center Pkwy 2-1/2 mi E. of World Logistics Center Pkwy - 65,320 3,266 16,330 6,532 91,448 WB Alessandro Bl 2-1/4 mi E. of World Logistics Center Pkwy 2-1/2 mi E. of World Logistics Center Pkwy - 65,320 3,266 16,330 6,532 91,448 EB Alessandro Bl 2-1/2 mi E. of World Logistics Center Pkwy 2-3/4 mi E. of World Logistics Center Pkwy - 65,320 3,266 16,330 6,532 91,448 WB Alessandro Bl 2-1/2 mi E. of World Logistics Center Pkwy 2-3/4 mi E. of World Logistics Center Pkwy - 65,320 3,266 16,330 6,532 91,448 EB Alessandro Bl 2-3/4 mi E. of World Logistics Center Pkwy 3 mi E. of World Logistics Center Pkwy - 65,320 3,266 16,330 6,532 91,448 WB Alessandro Bl 2-3/4 mi E. of World Logistics Center Pkwy 3 mi E. of World Logistics Center Pkwy - 65,320 3,266 16,330 6,532 91,448 EB Alessandro Bl 3 mi E. of World Logistics Center Pkwy 3-1/4 mi E. of World Logistics Center Pkwy - 65,320 3,266 16,330 6,532 91,448 WB Alessandro Bl 3 mi E. of World Logistics Center Pkwy 3-1/4 mi E. of World Logistics Center Pkwy - 65,320 3,266 16,330 6,532 91,448 EB Alessandro Bl 3-1/4mi E. of World Logistics Center Pkwy 3-1/2 mi E. of World Logistics Center Pkwy - 65,320 3,266 16,330 6,532 91,448 WB Alessandro Bl 3-1/4mi E. of World Logistics Center Pkwy 3-1/2 mi E. of World Logistics Center Pkwy - 65,320 3,266 16,330 6,532 91,448 EB Alessandro Bl 3-1/2 mi E. of World Logistics Center Pkwy Gilman Springs Rd - 65,320 3,266 16,330 6,532 91,448 WB Alessandro Bl 3-1/2 mi E. of World Logistics Center Pkwy Gilman Springs Rd - 65,320 3,266 16,330 6,532 91,448 EB Box Springs Rd 1/4 mi E. of Morton Rd Clark St 230,454 195,877 9,794 48,969 19,588 504,681 EB Box Springs Rd Clark St 1/4 mi E. of Clark St 46,900 282,231 14,112 70,558 28,223 442,023 EB Cactus Av W. City boundary Commerce Dr 124,740 838,832 41,942 209,708 83,883 1,299,105 WB Cactus Av W. City boundary Commerce Dr 124,740 838,832 41,942 209,708 83,883 1,299,105 EB Cactus Av Commerce Dr Elsworth St - 27,811 1,391 6,953 2,781 38,935 WB Cactus Av Commerce Dr Elsworth St 87,920 556,888 27,844 139,222 55,689 867,563 EB Cactus Av Nason St 1/4 mi E. of Nason St 222,404 395,966 19,798 98,991 39,597 776,756 WB Cactus Av Nason St 1/4 mi E. of Nason St 312,312 556,037 27,802 139,009 55,604 1,090,764 WB Cactus Av 1/4 mi E. of Nason St Oliver St 312,312 556,037 27,802 139,009 55,604 1,090,764 WB Cactus Av Moreno Beach Drive 1/4 mi E. of Moreno Beach Drive 312,312 556,037 27,802 139,009 55,604 1,090,764 WB Cactus Av Quincy St Wilmot St 92,400 556,037 27,802 139,009 55,604 870,852 WB Cactus Av Wilmot St Redlands Bl 92,400 747,186 37,359 186,797 74,719 1,138,460 EB Cottonwood Av W. City Boundary Edgemont St 212,940 379,116 18,956 94,779 37,912 743,702 WB Cottonwood Av W. City Boundary Edgemont St 212,940 379,116 18,956 94,779 37,912 743,702 EB Cottonwood Av Edgemont St Day St 327,691 583,417 29,171 145,854 58,342 1,144,475 WB Cottonwood Av Edgemont St Day St 327,691 583,417 29,171 145,854 58,342 1,144,475 EB Cottonwood Av Day St 1/4 mi E. of Day St 314,915 560,670 28,034 140,168 56,067 1,099,853 WB Cottonwood Av Day St 1/4 mi E. of Day St 314,915 560,670 28,034 140,168 56,067 1,099,853 EB Cottonwood Av 1/4 mi E. of Day St Elsworth St 314,915 560,670 28,034 140,168 56,067 1,099,853 WB Cottonwood Av 1/4 mi E. of Day St Elsworth St 314,915 560,670 28,034 140,168 56,067 1,099,853 EB Cottonwood Av Elsworth St 1/4 mi E. of Elsworth St 312,312 556,037 27,802 139,009 55,604 1,090,764 WB Cottonwood Av Elsworth St 1/4 mi E. of Elsworth St 307,580 547,612 27,381 136,903 54,761 1,074,237 EB Cottonwood Av 1/4 mi E. of Elsworth St Frederick St 312,312 556,037 27,802 139,009 55,604 1,090,764 WB Cottonwood Av 1/4 mi E. of Elsworth St Frederick St 312,312 556,037 27,802 139,009 55,604 1,090,764 EB Cottonwood Av Frederick St 1/4 mi E. of Frederick St 312,312 556,037 27,802 139,009 55,604 1,090,764 WB Cottonwood Av Frederick St 1/4 mi E. of Frederick St 312,312 556,037 27,802 139,009 55,604 1,090,764 EB Cottonwood Av 1/4 mi E. of Frederick St Graham St 312,312 556,037 27,802 139,009 55,604 1,090,764 WB Cottonwood Av 1/4 mi E. of Frederick St Graham St 312,312 556,037 27,802 139,009 55,604 1,090,764 EB Cottonwood Av Graham St 1/4 mi E. of Graham St 312,312 556,037 27,802 139,009 55,604 1,090,764

F.2.c
Packet Pg. 184
Attachment: DIF ADJUSTMENT RESOLUTION (5633 : DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES NEXUS STUDY AND City of Moreno Valley Development Impact Fee Study Update A-4
Appendix Table A.1: Arteral Costs Continued
Dir Street Name From To
New
ROW
Cost
Construction Cost
(New Lane/
Unimproved
Segment/ Median)
Planning
Cost (5% Of
Construction
Cost)
Design
Engineering
Cost (25% Of
Construction
Cost)
Construction
Engineering
And Admin.

Cost (10% Of
Construction
Cost) Total Cost
WB Cottonwood Av Graham St 1/4 mi E. of Graham St 312,312 556,037 27,802 139,009 55,604 1,090,764$ EB Cottonwood Av 1/4 mi E. of Graham St Heacock St 357,266 636,072 31,804 159,018 63,607 1,247,767 WB Cottonwood Av 1/4 mi E. of Graham St Heacock St 357,266 636,072 31,804 159,018 63,607 1,247,767 EB Cottonwood Av Perris Bl 1/4 mi E. of Perris Bl 156,156 278,018 13,901 69,505 27,802 545,382 WB Cottonwood Av Perris Bl 1/4 mi E. of Perris Bl 312,312 556,037 27,802 139,009 55,604 1,090,764 EB Cottonwood Av 1/4 mi E. of Perris Bl Kitching St 44,954 80,036 4,002 20,009 8,004 157,004 EB Cottonwood Av 1/4 mi E. of Kitching St Lasselle St 158,522 282,231 14,112 70,558 28,223 553,645 EB Cottonwood Av Lasselle St 1/4 mi E. of Lasselle St 158,522 282,231 14,112 70,558 28,223 553,645 EB Cottonwood Av 1/4 mi E. of Lasselle St Morrison St 158,522 282,231 14,112 70,558 28,223 553,645 EB Cottonwood Av 1/4 mi E. of Morrison St Nason St 312,312 556,037 27,802 139,009 55,604 1,090,764 EB Cottonwood Av Nason St 1/4 mi E. of Nason St 312,312 556,037 27,802 139,009 55,604 1,090,764 WB Cottonwood Av Nason St 1/4 mi E. of Nason St 312,312 556,037 27,802 139,009 55,604 1,090,764 EB Cottonwood Av 1/4 mi E. of Nason St 1/2 mi E. of Nason St 45,500 273,806 13,690 68,452 27,381 428,828 WB Cottonwood Av 1/4 mi E. of Nason St 1/2 mi E. of Nason St 92,400 556,037 27,802 139,009 55,604 870,852 EB Cottonwood Av 1/2 mi E. of Nason St Oliver St 212,940 379,116 18,956 94,779 37,912 743,702 WB Cottonwood Av 1/2 mi E. of Nason St Oliver St 212,940 379,116 18,956 94,779 37,912 743,702 EB Cottonwood Av Oliver St 665 ft E. of Oliver 157,339 346,625 17,331 86,656 34,662 642,613 WB Cottonwood Av Oliver St 665 ft E. of Oliver 157,339 346,625 17,331 86,656 34,662 642,613 EB Cottonwood Av 550 ft E. of Oliver St Moreno Beach Drive 307,580 547,612 27,381 136,903 54,761 1,074,237 WB Cottonwood Av 550 ft E. of Oliver St Moreno Beach Drive 307,580 547,612 27,381 136,903 54,761 1,074,237 WB Cottonwood Av Moreno Beach Drive 1/4 mi E. of Moreno Beach Drive 92,400 556,037 27,802 139,009 55,604 870,852 WB Cottonwood Av 1/4 mi E. of Moreno Beach Drive Quincy St 92,400 556,037 27,802 139,009 55,604 870,852 EB Cottonwood Av Quincy St Wilmot St 50,400 303,293 15,165 75,823 30,329 475,010 EB Encelia Av Moreno Beach Dr 1/4 mi E. of Moreno Beach Dr 92,400 688,037 34,402 172,009 68,804 1,055,652 WB Encelia Av Moreno Beach Dr 1/4 mi E. of Moreno Beach Dr 92,400 688,037 34,402 172,009 68,804 1,055,652 EB Encelia Av 1/4 mi E. of Moreno Beach Dr Quincy St 96,250 716,705 35,835 179,176 71,671 1,099,637 WB Encelia Av 1/4 mi E. of Moreno Beach Dr Quincy St 96,250 716,705 35,835 179,176 71,671 1,099,637 EB Encelia Av Quincy St Mozart Wy 93,100 693,249 34,662 173,312 69,325 1,063,649 WB Encelia Av Quincy St Mozart Wy 93,100 693,249 34,662 173,312 69,325 1,063,649 EB Encelia Av Mozart Wy Redlands Bl 11,154 688,037 34,402 172,009 68,804 974,406 WB Encelia Av Mozart Wy Redlands Bl 92,400 688,037 34,402 172,009 68,804 1,055,652 EB Eucalyptus Av W. City Boundary Old Hwy 215 64,750 435,371 21,769 108,843 43,537 674,270 WB Eucalyptus Av W. City Boundary Old Hwy 215 28,000 214,220 10,711 53,555 21,422 327,908 EB Eucalyptus Av Old Hwy 215 Edgemont St 6,126 305,399 15,270 76,350 30,540 433,685 WB Eucalyptus Av Old Hwy 215 Edgemont St 6,126 305,399 15,270 76,350 30,540 433,685 EB Eucalyptus Av Edgemont St Day St 685,910 635,450 31,773 158,863 63,545 1,575,541 WB Eucalyptus Av Edgemont St Day St 685,910 635,450 31,773 158,863 63,545 1,575,541 EB Eucalyptus Av Day St Arbor Park Ln 9,929 494,957 24,748 123,739 49,496 702,869 WB Eucalyptus Av Day St Arbor Park Ln 581,339 494,115 24,706 123,529 49,411 1,273,099 EB Eucalyptus Av Arbor Park Ln Towngate Bl 8,796 438,511 21,926 109,628 43,851 622,712 WB Eucalyptus Av Arbor Park Ln Towngate Bl 515,920 438,511 21,926 109,628 43,851 1,129,835 EB Eucalyptus Av Heacock St 1/4 mi E. of Heacock St 11,162 556,458 27,823 139,115 55,646 790,204 WB Eucalyptus Av Heacock St 1/4 mi E. of Heacock St 11,162 556,458 27,823 139,115 55,646 790,204 EB Eucalyptus Av 1/4 mi E. of Heacock St Indian St 11,162 556,458 27,823 139,115 55,646 790,204 WB Eucalyptus Av 1/4 mi E. of Heacock St Indian St 11,162 556,458 27,823 139,115 55,646 790,204 EB Eucalyptus Av Indian St 1/4 mi E. of Indian St 11,154 556,037 27,802 139,009 55,604 789,606 WB Eucalyptus Av Indian St 1/4 mi E. of Indian St 11,154 556,037 27,802 139,009 55,604 789,606 EB Eucalyptus Av 1/4 mi E. of Indian St Perris Bl 9,042 450,727 22,536 112,682 45,073 640,059 WB Eucalyptus Av 1/4 mi E. of Indian St Perris Bl 9,042 450,727 22,536 112,682 45,073 640,059 EB Eucalyptus Av Perris Bl 1/8 mi E. of Perris Bl 5,577 278,018 13,901 69,505 27,802 394,803 EB Eucalyptus Av 1/8 mi E. of Perris Bl 1/4 mi E. of Perris Bl 5,577 278,018 13,901 69,505 27,802 394,803 EB Eucalyptus Av 1/4 mi E. of Perris Bl 3/8 mi E. of Perris Bl 5,577 278,018 13,901 69,505 27,802 394,803 EB Eucalyptus Av 3/8 mi E. of Perris Bl Kitching St 5,366 267,487 13,374 66,872 26,749 379,848

F.2.c
Packet Pg. 185
Attachment: DIF ADJUSTMENT RESOLUTION (5633 : DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES NEXUS STUDY AND City of Moreno Valley Development Impact Fee Study Update A-5
Appendix Table A.1: Arteral Costs Continued
Dir Street Name From To
New
ROW
Cost
Construction Cost
(New Lane/
Unimproved
Segment/ Median)
Planning
Cost (5% Of
Construction
Cost)
Design
Engineering
Cost (25% Of
Construction
Cost)
Construction
Engineering
And Admin.

Cost (10% Of
Construction
Cost) Total Cost
EB Eucalyptus Av Redlands Bl 1/4 mi E. of Redlands Bl - 65,320 3,266 16,330 6,532 91,448$ WB Eucalyptus Av Redlands Bl 1/4 mi E. of Redlands Bl - 65,320 3,266 16,330 6,532 91,448 EB Eucalyptus Av 1/4 mi E. of Redlands Bl Sinclair St - 65,320 3,266 16,330 6,532 91,448 WB Eucalyptus Av 1/4 mi E. of Redlands Bl Sinclair St - 65,320 3,266 16,330 6,532 91,448 EB Eucalyptus Av Sinclair St 1/4 mi E. of Sinclair St - 65,320 3,266 16,330 6,532 91,448 WB Eucalyptus Av Sinclair St 1/4 mi E. of Sinclair St - 65,320 3,266 16,330 6,532 91,448 EB Eucalyptus Av 1/4 mi E. of Sinclair St Theodore St - 65,320 3,266 16,330 6,532 91,448 WB Eucalyptus Av 1/4 mi E. of Sinclair St Theodore St - 65,320 3,266 16,330 6,532 91,448 EB Eucalyptus Av 1/2 mi E. of Virginia St Gilman Springs Rd 310,800 2,314,306 115,715 578,576 231,431 3,550,828 WB Eucalyptus Av 1/2 mi E. of Virginia St Gilman Springs Rd 310,800 2,314,306 115,715 578,576 231,431 3,550,828 EB Gentian Av Heacock Av Canyon Stone Dr 78,470 472,210 23,611 118,053 47,221 739,564 EB Gentian Av Canyon Stone Dr Indian St 11,620 69,926 3,496 17,481 6,993 109,516 EB Iris Av Indian St Emma Ln 92,400 556,037 27,802 139,009 55,604 870,852 EB Iris Av Emma Ln Perris Blvd 23,240 139,852 6,993 34,963 13,985 219,032 WB Ironwood Av Slawson Av Lasselle St 3,760 187,452 9,373 46,863 18,745 266,193 WB Ironwood Av Lasselle St Vista De Cerros Dr 10,013 499,169 24,958 124,792 49,917 708,850 EB Ironwood Av Vista De Cerros Dr 1/4 mi E. of Vista De Cerros Dr 9,295 622,655 31,133 155,664 62,266 881,012 WB Ironwood Av Vista De Cerros Dr 1/4 mi E. of Vista De Cerros Dr 9,295 622,655 31,133 155,664 62,266 881,012 EB Ironwood Av 1/4 mi E. of Vista De Cerros Dr 1/2 mi E. of Vista De Cerros Dr 11,154 747,186 37,359 186,797 74,719 1,057,214 WB Ironwood Av 1/4 mi E. of Vista De Cerros Dr 1/2 mi E. of Vista De Cerros Dr 11,154 747,186 37,359 186,797 74,719 1,057,214 EB Ironwood Av 1/2 mi E. of Vista De Cerros Dr 3/4 mi E. of Vista De Cerros Dr 11,154 747,186 37,359 186,797 74,719 1,057,214 WB Ironwood Av 1/2 mi E. of Vista De Cerros Dr 3/4 mi E. of Vista De Cerros Dr 11,154 747,186 37,359 186,797 74,719 1,057,214 EB Ironwood Av 3/4 mi E. of Vista De Cerros Dr Nason St 49,000 294,868 14,743 73,717 29,487 461,815 WB Ironwood Av 3/4 mi E. of Vista De Cerros Dr Nason St 49,000 294,868 14,743 73,717 29,487 461,815 EB Ironwood Av Nason St 1/4 mi E. of Nason St 11,154 556,037 27,802 139,009 55,604 789,606 WB Ironwood Av Nason St 1/4 mi E. of Nason St 92,400 556,037 27,802 139,009 55,604 870,852 EB Ironwood Av 1/4 mi E. of Nason St Oliver St 11,154 556,037 27,802 139,009 55,604 789,606 WB Ironwood Av 1/4 mi E. of Nason St Oliver St 92,400 556,037 27,802 139,009 55,604 870,852 EB Ironwood Av Oliver St Moreno Beach Drive 92,820 558,564 27,928 139,641 55,856 874,810 WB Ironwood Av Oliver St Moreno Beach Drive 92,820 558,564 27,928 139,641 55,856 874,810 EB Ironwood Av Moreno Beach Drive Petit St 92,400 556,037 27,802 139,009 55,604 870,852 WB Ironwood Av Moreno Beach Drive Petit St 92,400 556,037 27,802 139,009 55,604 870,852 WB Ironwood Av Petit St 1/4 mi E. of Petit St 46,200 278,018 13,901 69,505 27,802 435,426 EB Ironwood Av 1/4 mi E. of Petit St Quincy St 92,400 556,037 27,802 139,009 55,604 870,852 WB Ironwood Av 1/4 mi E. of Petit St Quincy St 92,400 556,037 27,802 139,009 55,604 870,852 EB Ironwood Av Quincy St 1/4 mi E. of Quincy St 92,400 556,037 27,802 139,009 55,604 870,852 WB Ironwood Av Quincy St 1/4 mi E. of Quincy St 92,400 556,037 27,802 139,009 55,604 870,852 EB Ironwood Av 1/4 mi E. of Quincy St Redlands Bl 92,400 556,037 27,802 139,009 55,604 870,852 WB Ironwood Av 1/4 mi E. of Quincy St Redlands Bl 92,400 556,037 27,802 139,009 55,604 870,852 EB Ironwood Av Redlands Bl 1/4 mi E. of Redlands Bl 46,200 278,018 13,901 69,505 27,802 435,426 WB Ironwood Av Redlands Bl 1/4 mi E. of Redlands Bl 92,400 556,037 27,802 139,009 55,604 870,852 EB Ironwood Av 1/4 mi E. of Redlands Bl 1/2 mi E. of Redlands Bl 46,200 278,018 13,901 69,505 27,802 435,426 WB Ironwood Av 1/4 mi E. of Redlands Bl 1/2 mi E. of Redlands Bl 92,400 556,037 27,802 139,009 55,604 870,852 EB Ironwood Av 1/2 mi E. of Redlands Bl Highland Bl 105,000 631,860 31,593 157,965 63,186 989,604 WB Ironwood Av 1/2 mi E. of Redlands Bl Highland Bl 105,000 631,860 31,593 157,965 63,186 989,604 EB Ironwood Av Highland Bl Theodore St 91,000 547,612 27,381 136,903 54,761 857,657 WB Ironwood Av Highland Bl Theodore St 91,000 547,612 27,381 136,903 54,761 857,657 EB John F Kennedy Dr Heacock St Pepper Ct 9,413 469,261 23,463 117,315 46,926 666,379 EB John F Kennedy Dr Pepper Ct Indian St 1,563 77,929 3,896 19,482 7,793 110,664 EB Krameria Av Emma Ln Perris Blvd 92,400 648,437 32,422 162,109 64,844 1,000,212 EB Nandina Av Indian St Perris Blvd 186200 1,306,698 65,335 326,675 130,670 2,015,578 EB Reche Canyon Rd Moreno Beach Drive 1/4 mi W. of Moreno Beach Drive 92,400 648,437 32,422 162,109 64,844 1,000,212 WB Reche Canyon Rd Moreno Beach Drive 1/4 mi W. of Moreno Beach Drive 92,400 648,437 32,422 162,109 64,844 1,000,212

F.2.c
Packet Pg. 186
Attachment: DIF ADJUSTMENT RESOLUTION (5633 : DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES NEXUS STUDY AND City of Moreno Valley Development Impact Fee Study Update A-6
Appendix Table A.1: Arteral Costs Continued
Dir Street Name From To
New
ROW
Cost
Construction Cost
(New Lane/
Unimproved
Segment/ Median)
Planning
Cost (5% Of
Construction
Cost)
Design
Engineering
Cost (25% Of
Construction
Cost)
Construction
Engineering
And Admin.

Cost (10% Of
Construction
Cost) Total Cost
EB Reche Canyon Rd 1/4 mi W. of Moreno Beach Drive N. City Boundary 201,600 1,414,771 70,739 353,693 141,477 2,182,280$ WB Reche Canyon Rd 1/4 mi W. of Moreno Beach Drive N. City Boundary 201,600 1,414,771 70,739 353,693 141,477 2,182,280 WB San Michelle Av Indian St Perris Blvd 97,300 682,824 34,141 170,706 68,282 1,053,253 EB Sunnymead Bl Perris Bl 1/4 mi E. of Perris Bl 662,617 1,225,815 61,291 306,454 122,582 2,378,758 WB Sunnymead Bl Perris Bl 1/4 mi E. of Perris Bl 662,617 1,225,815 61,291 306,454 122,582 2,378,758 EB Sunnymead Bl 1/4 mi E. of Perris Bl Kitching St 662,617 1,225,815 61,291 306,454 122,582 2,378,758 WB Sunnymead Bl 1/4 mi E. of Perris Bl Kitching St 662,617 1,225,815 61,291 306,454 122,582 2,378,758 Total - East - West Arterials 185,659,072$
NORTH_SOUTH ARTERIALS
SB Day St Old 215 Frontage Rd 820' N/O Old 215 Frontage Rd 406392 345,417 34,542 86,354 34,542 907,246$ SB Day St 820' N/O Old 215 Frontage Rd Alessandro Blvd 530292 450,727 45,073 112,682 45,073 1,183,846 NB Day St Cottonwood Av Dracaea Av 0 65,320 6,532 16,330 6,532 94,714 SB Day St Cottonwood Av Dracaea Av 0 65,320 6,532 16,330 6,532 94,714 NB Day St Dracaea Av Eucalyptus Av 0 65,320 6,532 16,330 6,532 94,714 SB Day St Dracaea Av Eucalyptus Av 0 65,320 6,532 16,330 6,532 94,714 NB Day St Eucalyptus Av Gateway Dr. 0 32,363 3,236 8,091 3,236 46,927 SB Day St Eucalyptus Av Gateway Dr. 0 32,363 3,236 8,091 3,236 46,927 NB Day St EB SR 60 Fwy On/Off Ramps WB SR 60 Fwy On/Off Ramps 0 47,506 4,751 11,876 4,751 68,883 SB Day St EB SR 60 Fwy On/Off Ramps WB SR 60 Fwy On/Off Ramps 0 47,506 4,751 11,876 4,751 68,883 SB Elsworth St Bay Av Cottonwood Av 343070 610,798 61,080 152,700 61,080 1,228,727 NB Gilman Spring Rd EB SR60 Fwy On/Off Ramps Eucalyptus Av 52500 390,930 39,093 97,733 39,093 619,349 SB Gilman Spring Rd EB SR60 Fwy On/ogg Ramps Eucalyptus Av 52500 390,930 39,093 97,733 39,093 619,349 NB Gilman Spring Rd Eucalyptus Av Virginia St 129500 964,294 96,429 241,074 96,429 1,527,726 SB Gilman Spring Rd Eucalyptus Av Virginia St 129500 964,294 96,429 241,074 96,429 1,527,726 NB Gilman Spring Rd Virginia St 160 FT N. of Kevin Rd 175000 1,303,100 130,310 325,775 130,310 2,064,495 SB Gilman Spring Rd Virginia St 160 FT N. of Kevin Rd 175000 1,303,100 130,310 325,775 130,310 2,064,495 NB Gilman Spring Rd 160 FT N. of Kevin Rd S. City Limits 1591800 11,852,998 1,185,300 2,963,249 1,185,300 18,778,647 SB Gilman Spring Rd 160 FT N. of Kevin Rd S. City Limits 1591800 11,852,998 1,185,300 2,963,249 1,185,300 18,778,647 SB Graham St Cactus Av Alessandro Blvd 74200 446,514 44,651 111,629 44,651 721,646 NB Graham St Sunnymead Av Hemlock Av 324142 577,099 57,710 144,275 57,710 1,160,935 SB Graham St Sunnymead Av Hemlock Av 324142 577,099 57,710 144,275 57,710 1,160,935 NB Graham St Hemlock Ave Ironwood Av 340230.8 605,743 60,574 151,436 60,574 1,218,558 SB Graham St Hemlock Ave Ironwood Av 177450 315,930 31,593 78,983 31,593 635,549 NB Heacock St Harley Knox Blvd San Michelle Rd 291900 1,756,571 175,657 439,143 175,657 2,838,928 SB Heacock St Harley Knox Blvd San Michelle Rd 291900 1,756,571 175,657 439,143 175,657 2,838,928 NB Heacock St Dracaea Av Eucalyptus Av 87542 155,859 15,586 38,965 15,586 313,537 NB Heacock St Eucalyptus Av Fir Av 312312 556,037 55,604 139,009 55,604 1,118,565 NB Heacock St Ironwood Av Gregory Ln 160888 286,443 28,644 71,611 28,644 576,231 SB Heacock St Lake Summit Dr Meander Ct 414050 737,170 73,717 184,293 73,717 1,482,947 NB Heacock St Meander Ct Reche Vista Rd 158995.2 283,073 28,307 70,768 28,307 569,451 SB Heacock St Meander Ct Reche Vista Rd 483847 861,436 86,144 215,359 86,144 1,732,929 NB Indian St. Harley Knox Bl Nandina St. 149800 901,454 90,145 225,363 90,145 1,456,908 SB Indian St. Harley Knox Bl Nandina St. 170590 1,026,562 102,656 256,640 102,656 1,659,105 NB Indian St. Nandina St. San Michele Rd 88900 534,975 53,497 133,744 53,497 864,613 SB Indian St. Nandina St. San Michele Rd 88900 534,975 53,497 133,744 53,497 864,613 NB Indian St. San Michele Rd Superior Av 63700 383,328 38,333 95,832 38,333 619,526 SB Indian St. San Michele Rd Superior Av 151340 910,721 91,072 227,680 91,072 1,471,885 NB Indian St. Superior Av Krameria Av 76895 136,903 13,690 34,226 13,690 275,404 SB Indian St. Superior Av Krameria Av 438656.4 780,979 78,098 195,245 78,098 1,571,076 NB Indian St. Krameria Av Goya Av 65240 392,596 39,260 98,149 39,260 634,504 SB Indian St. Krameria Av Goya Av 92400 556,037 55,604 139,009 55,604 898,653 NB Indian St. Goya Av Iris Av 93940 565,304 56,530 141,326 56,530 913,631 F.2.c
Packet Pg. 187
Attachment: DIF ADJUSTMENT RESOLUTION (5633 : DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES NEXUS STUDY AND City of Moreno Valley Development Impact Fee Study Update A-7
Appendix Table A.1: Arteral Costs Continued
Dir Street Name From To
New
ROW
Cost
Construction Cost
(New Lane/
Unimproved
Segment/ Median)
Planning
Cost (5% Of
Construction
Cost)
Design
Engineering
Cost (25% Of
Construction
Cost)
Construction
Engineering
And Admin.

Cost (10% Of
Construction
Cost) Total Cost
NB Indian St. Wildwood St Gentian Av 89180 536,660 53,666 134,165 53,666 867,337$ NB Indian St. Gentian Av Filaree Av 156156 278,018 27,802 69,505 27,802 559,283 NB Indian St. Cottonwood Av Dracaea Av 203476 362,266 36,227 90,567 36,227 728,762 SB Indian St. Cottonwood Av Dracaea Av 165620 294,868 29,487 73,717 29,487 593,179 NB Indian St. Dracaea Av Eucalyptus Av 312312 556,037 55,604 139,009 55,604 1,118,565 SB Indian St. Dracaea Av Eucalyptus Av 312312 556,037 55,604 139,009 55,604 1,118,565 NB Indian St. Eucalyptus Av Fir Av 312312 556,037 55,604 139,009 55,604 1,118,565 SB Indian St. Eucalyptus Av Fir Av 312312 556,037 55,604 139,009 55,604 1,118,565 NB Indian St. Fir Av Sunnymead Blvd 312312 556,037 55,604 139,009 55,604 1,118,565 SB Indian St. Fir Av Sunnymead Blvd 153790 273,806 27,381 68,452 27,381 550,809 NB Indian St. Sunnymead Blvd Hemlock Av 654192 556,037 55,604 139,009 55,604 1,460,445 SB Indian St. Sunnymead Blvd Hemlock Av 654192 556,037 55,604 139,009 55,604 1,460,445 NB Indian St. Hemlock Av Ironwood Av 334552.4 595,633 59,563 148,908 59,563 1,198,221 SB Indian St. Hemlock Av Ironwood Av 334552.4 595,633 59,563 148,908 59,563 1,198,221 NB Indian St. Ironwood Av Treasure Dr 192829 343,311 34,331 85,828 34,331 690,629 SB Indian St. Ironwood Av Treasure Dr 117117 208,514 20,851 52,128 20,851 419,462 SB Indian St. Sundial Wy Sunnyridge Dr 175557.2 312,560 31,256 78,140 31,256 628,769 NB Kitching St Harley Knox Bl Globe St 97650 587,630 58,763 146,907 58,763 949,713 NB Kitching St Globe St Nandina Av 92400 556,037 55,604 139,009 55,604 898,653 SB Kitching St Globe St Nandina Av 46200 278,018 27,802 69,505 27,802 449,327 NB Kitching St Nandina Av Mariposa Av 624624 1,112,074 111,207 278,018 111,207 2,237,131 SB Kitching St Nandina Av Mariposa Av 624624 1,112,074 111,207 278,018 111,207 2,237,131 NB Kitching St Mariposa Av Krameria Av 89434.8 159,229 15,923 39,807 15,923 320,316 SB Kitching St Iris Av Gentian Av 624150.8 1,111,231 111,123 277,808 111,123 2,235,436 SB Kitching St Gentian Av Margaret Av 350641.2 624,278 62,428 156,069 62,428 1,255,844 SB Kitching St Margaret Av John F Kennedy Dr 312312 556,037 55,604 139,009 55,604 1,118,565 SB Kitching St John F Kennedy Dr Delphinium Av 312312 556,037 55,604 139,009 55,604 1,118,565 SB Kitching St Delphinium Av Cactus Av 312312 556,037 55,604 139,009 55,604 1,118,565 SB Kitching St Eucalyptus Av Fir Av 165620 294,868 29,487 73,717 29,487 593,179 SB Kitching St Fir Av Sunnymead Bl 153790 273,806 27,381 68,452 27,381 550,809 NB Lasselle St Alessandro Blvd Timo St 46900 282,231 28,223 70,558 28,223 456,135 SB Lasselle St Alessandro Blvd Timo St 158522 282,231 28,223 70,558 28,223 567,757 NB Lasselle St Timo St Bay Av 45500 273,806 27,381 68,452 27,381 442,519 NB Lasselle St Bay Av Cottonwood Av 312312 556,037 55,604 139,009 55,604 1,118,565 SB Lasselle St Bay Av Cottonwood Av 312312 556,037 55,604 139,009 55,604 1,118,565 NB Lasselle St Cottonwood Av Dracaea Av 235653.6 419,555 41,956 104,889 41,956 844,008 SB Lasselle St Cottonwood Av Dracaea Av 235653.6 419,555 41,956 104,889 41,956 844,008 NB Moreno Beach Dr Cactus Av Brodiaea Av 92400 688,037 68,804 172,009 68,804 1,090,053 NB Moreno Beach Dr Brodiaea Av Alessandro Bl 92400 688,037 68,804 172,009 68,804 1,090,053 SB Moreno Beach Dr Brodiaea Av Alessandro Bl 92400 688,037 68,804 172,009 68,804 1,090,053 NB Moreno Beach Dr Alessandro Bl Bay Av 92400 688,037 68,804 172,009 68,804 1,090,053 SB Moreno Beach Dr Alessandro Bl Bay Av 92400 688,037 68,804 172,009 68,804 1,090,053 NB Moreno Beach Dr Bay Av Cottonwood Av 101500 755,798 75,580 188,950 75,580 1,197,407 SB Moreno Beach Dr Bay Av Cottonwood Av 101500 755,798 75,580 188,950 75,580 1,197,407 NB Moreno Beach Dr Cottonwood Av 1/4m N Cottonwood Av 92400 688,037 68,804 172,009 68,804 1,090,053 SB Moreno Beach Dr Cottonwood Av 1/4m N Cottonwood Av 92400 688,037 68,804 172,009 68,804 1,090,053 NB Moreno Beach Dr 1/4m N Cottonwood Av 1/2m N Cottonwood Av 92400 688,037 68,804 172,009 68,804 1,090,053 SB Moreno Beach Dr 1/4m N Cottonwood Av 1/2m N Cottonwood Av 92400 688,037 68,804 172,009 68,804 1,090,053 NB Moreno Beach Dr Eucalyptus Av 1/4m N Eucalyptus Av 184800 1,112,074 111,207 278,018 111,207 1,797,307 SB Moreno Beach Dr Eucalyptus Av 1/4m N Eucalyptus Av 184800 1,112,074 111,207 278,018 111,207 1,797,307 NB Moreno Beach Dr 1/4m N Eucalyptus Av 1/2m N Eucalyptus Av 92400 556,037 55,604 139,009 55,604 898,653 SB Moreno Beach Dr 1/4m N Eucalyptus Av 1/2m N Eucalyptus Av 92400 556,037 55,604 139,009 55,604 898,653 NB Moreno Beach Dr 1/2m N Eucalyptus Av Ironwood Av 46200 278,018 27,802 69,505 27,802 449,327 F.2.c
Packet Pg. 188
Attachment: DIF ADJUSTMENT RESOLUTION (5633 : DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES NEXUS STUDY AND City of Moreno Valley Development Impact Fee Study Update A-8
Appendix Table A.1: Arteral Costs Continued
Dir Street Name From To
New
ROW
Cost
Construction Cost
(New Lane/
Unimproved
Segment/ Median)
Planning
Cost (5% Of
Construction
Cost)
Design
Engineering
Cost (25% Of
Construction
Cost)
Construction
Engineering
And Admin.

Cost (10% Of
Construction
Cost) Total Cost
SB Moreno Beach Dr 1/2m N Eucalyptus Av Ironwood Av 46200 278,018 27,802 69,505 27,802 449,327$ NB Moreno Beach Dr Ironwood Av Juniper Av 92610 557,301 55,730 139,325 55,730 900,696 SB Moreno Beach Dr Ironwood Av Juniper Av 92610 557,301 55,730 139,325 55,730 900,696 SB Moreno Beach Dr Juniper Av Kalmia Av 92540 556,879 55,688 139,220 55,688 900,015 NB Moreno Beach Dr Kalmia Av Locust Av 92610 581,311 58,131 145,328 58,131 935,511 SB Moreno Beach Dr Kalmia Av Locust Av 92610 581,311 58,131 145,328 58,131 935,511 NB Morrison St Cactus Av Brodiaea Av 96600 665,102 66,510 166,276 66,510 1,060,998 SB Morrison St Cactus Av Brodiaea Av 96600 665,102 66,510 166,276 66,510 1,060,998 NB Morrison St Brodiaea Av Alessandro Blvd 0 688,037 68,804 172,009 68,804 997,653 SB Morrison St Brodiaea Av Alessandro Blvd 0 688,037 68,804 172,009 68,804 997,653 NB Morrison St Alessandro Blvd Bay Av 89320 - - - - 89,320 SB Morrison St Alessandro Blvd Bay Av 89320 - - - - 89,320 NB Morrison St Bay Av Cottonwood Av 92400 - - - - 92,400 SB Morrison St Bay Av Cottonwood Av 92400 - - - - 92,400 SB Nason St SR-60fwy WB Exit Ironwood Av 108500 652,922 65,292 163,231 65,292 1,055,237 SB Oliver St Iris Ave 1/4m N. Iris Ave 92400 688,037 68,804 172,009 68,804 1,090,053 SB Oliver St 1/4m N. Iris Ave John F Kennedy Dr 101500 755,798 75,580 188,950 75,580 1,197,407 SB Oliver St John F Kennedy Dr Rockwood Av 92400 - - - - 92,400 SB Oliver St Rockwood Av Cactus Av 101500 - - - - 101,500 NB Oliver St Cactus Av Brodiaea Ave 0 556,037 55,604 139,009 55,604 806,253 SB Oliver St Cactus Av Brodiaea Ave 0 556,037 55,604 139,009 55,604 806,253 NB Oliver St Brodiaea Ave Alessandro Blvd 0 278,018 27,802 69,505 27,802 403,127 SB Oliver St Brodiaea Ave Alessandro Blvd 0 556,037 55,604 139,009 55,604 806,253 NB Old 215 Eucalyptus Ave Dracaea Ave 402220 716,108 71,611 179,027 71,611 1,440,577 SB Old 215 Eucalyptus Ave Dracaea Ave 402220 716,108 71,611 179,027 71,611 1,440,577 NB Old 215 Dracaea Ave Alessandro Blvd 989461.2 1,761,626 176,163 440,406 176,163 3,543,818 NB Old 215 Alessandro Blvd Cactus Av 773682 1,377,455 137,745 344,364 137,745 2,770,991 SB Old 215 Alessandro Blvd Cactus Av 773682 1,377,455 137,745 344,364 137,745 2,770,991 NB Perris Blvd Harley Knox Bl Globe St 46200 - - - - 46,200 SB Perris Blvd Harley Knox Bl Globe St 92400 - - - - 92,400 NB Perris Blvd Globe St Nandina Av 490 - - - - 490 NB Perris Blvd San Michele Rd Slate Creek Dr 0 41,567 4,157 10,392 4,157 60,273 SB Perris Blvd San Michele Rd Slate Creek Dr 0 41,567 4,157 10,392 4,157 60,273 NB Perris Blvd Slate Creek Dr Northern Dancer Dr 0 64,331 6,433 16,083 6,433 93,279 SB Perris Blvd Slate Creek Dr Northern Dancer Dr 0 64,331 6,433 16,083 6,433 93,279 NB Perris Blvd Northern Dancer Dr Krameria Av 0 56,413 5,641 14,103 5,641 81,799 SB Perris Blvd Northern Dancer Dr Krameria Av 0 56,413 5,641 14,103 5,641 81,799 NB Perris Blvd Iris Av Santiago Dr 0 20,784 2,078 5,196 2,078 30,136 SB Perris Blvd Iris Av Santiago Dr 0 20,784 2,078 5,196 2,078 30,136 NB Perris Blvd Santiago Dr Gentian Av 0 64,331 6,433 16,083 6,433 93,279 SB Perris Blvd Santiago Dr Gentian Av 0 64,331 6,433 16,083 6,433 93,279 NB Perris Blvd Gentian Av Filaree Av 0 56,908 5,691 14,227 5,691 82,516 SB Perris Blvd Gentian Av Filaree Av 0 56,908 5,691 14,227 5,691 82,516 NB Perris Blvd John F Kennedy Dr Delphinium Av 0 65,320 6,532 16,330 6,532 94,714 SB Perris Blvd John F Kennedy Dr Delphinium Av 0 65,320 6,532 16,330 6,532 94,714 NB Perris Blvd Delphinium Av Cactus 0 65,320 6,532 16,330 6,532 94,714 SB Perris Blvd Delphinium Av Cactus 0 65,320 6,532 16,330 6,532 94,714 NB Perris Blvd Cactus Brodiaea Av 0 65,320 6,532 16,330 6,532 94,714 SB Perris Blvd Cactus Brodiaea Av 0 65,320 6,532 16,330 6,532 94,714 NB Perris Blvd Brodiaea Av Alessandro Blvd 327096 310,679 31,068 77,670 31,068 777,580 SB Perris Blvd Brodiaea Av Alessandro Blvd 0 32,660 3,266 8,165 3,266 47,357 NB Perris Blvd Bay Av Cottonwood Av 166026 187,631 18,763 46,908 18,763 438,091 SB Perris Blvd Bay Av Cottonwood Av 0 46,516 4,652 11,629 4,652 67,448 F.2.c
Packet Pg. 189
Attachment: DIF ADJUSTMENT RESOLUTION (5633 : DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES NEXUS STUDY AND City of Moreno Valley Development Impact Fee Study Update A-9
Appendix Table A.1: Arteral Costs Continued
Dir Street Name From To
New
ROW
Cost
Construction Cost
(New Lane/
Unimproved
Segment/ Median)
Planning
Cost (5% Of
Construction
Cost)
Design
Engineering
Cost (25% Of
Construction
Cost)
Construction
Engineering
And Admin.

Cost (10% Of
Construction
Cost) Total Cost
NB Perris Blvd Cottonwood Av Dracaea Av 312312 621,357 62,136 155,339 62,136 1,213,280$ SB Perris Blvd Cottonwood Av Dracaea Av 0 65,320 6,532 16,330 6,532 94,714 NB Perris Blvd Dracaea Av Eucalyptus Av 0 65,320 6,532 16,330 6,532 94,714 SB Perris Blvd Dracaea Av Eucalyptus Av 0 65,320 6,532 16,330 6,532 94,714 NB Perris Blvd Eucalyptus Av Fir Av 0 38,598 3,860 9,650 3,860 55,968 SB Perris Blvd Eucalyptus Av Fir Av 0 38,598 3,860 9,650 3,860 55,968 NB Perris Blvd Fir Av Sunnymead Blvd 307272 295,808 29,581 73,952 29,581 736,194 SB Perris Blvd Fir Av Sunnymead Blvd 307272 295,808 29,581 73,952 29,581 736,194 NB Perris Blvd Sunnymead Blvd Hemlock Av 649236 616,155 61,615 154,039 61,615 1,542,661 SB Perris Blvd Sunnymead Blvd Hemlock Av 649236 616,155 61,615 154,039 61,615 1,542,661 NB Perris Blvd Hemlock Av Ironwood Av 0 32,264 3,226 8,066 3,226 46,783 SB Perris Blvd Hemlock Av Ironwood Av 0 32,264 3,226 8,066 3,226 46,783 NB Perris Blvd Ironwood Av Via Von Batsch 0 43,943 4,394 10,986 4,394 63,717 SB Perris Blvd Ironwood Av Via Von Batsch 0 43,943 4,394 10,986 4,394 63,717 NB Perris Blvd 1480' N/O Robin Ln Manzanita AVE 0 53,939 5,394 13,485 5,394 78,211 SB Perris Blvd 1480' N/O Robin Ln Manzanita AVE 0 53,939 5,394 13,485 5,394 78,211 NB Perris Blvd Manzanita Av Sunnymead Ranch Pkwy 0 83,927 8,393 20,982 8,393 121,694 SB Perris Blvd Manzanita Av Sunnymead Ranch Pkwy 0 83,927 8,393 20,982 8,393 121,694 NB Perris Blvd Sunnymead Ranch Pkwy Canyon Vista Rd 123268.6 301,809 30,181 75,452 30,181 560,892 SB Perris Blvd Sunnymead Ranch Pkwy Canyon Vista Rd 0 82,343 8,234 20,586 8,234 119,397 NB Perris Blvd Canyon Vista Rd Heacock St 85050 571,980 57,198 142,995 57,198 914,422 SB Perris Blvd Canyon Vista Rd Heacock St 0 60,174 6,017 15,043 6,017 87,252 NB Reche Vista Rd Heacock St Northerly City Limit 165200 1,452,663 145,266 363,166 145,266 2,271,561 SB Reche Vista Rd Heacock St Northerly City Limit 165200 1,452,663 145,266 363,166 145,266 2,271,561 NB Redlands Blvd Cactus Av Brodiaea Av 92400 621,357 62,136 155,339 62,136 993,368 SB Redlands Blvd Cactus Av Brodiaea Av 92400 621,357 62,136 155,339 62,136 993,368 NB Redlands Blvd Brodiaea Av Alessandro Blvd 312312 621,357 62,136 155,339 62,136 1,213,280 SB Redlands Blvd Brodiaea Av Alessandro Blvd 312312 621,357 62,136 155,339 62,136 1,213,280 NB Redlands Blvd Alessandro Blvd Bay Av 312312 621,357 62,136 155,339 62,136 1,213,280 SB Redlands Blvd Alessandro Blvd Bay Av 312312 621,357 62,136 155,339 62,136 1,213,280 NB Redlands Blvd Bay Av Cottonwood Av 92400 588,697 58,870 147,174 58,870 946,011 SB Redlands Blvd Bay Av Cottonwood Av 156629.2 311,521 31,152 77,880 31,152 608,335 NB Redlands Blvd Cottonwood Av Dracaea Av 92400 556,037 55,604 139,009 55,604 898,653 NB Redlands Blvd Dracaea Av Eucalyptus Av 92400 621,357 62,136 155,339 62,136 993,368 SB Redlands Blvd Dracaea Av Eucalyptus Av 92400 621,357 62,136 155,339 62,136 993,368 NB Redlands Blvd Eucalyptus Av Fir Av 92400 621,357 62,136 155,339 62,136 993,368 SB Redlands Blvd Eucalyptus Av Fir Av 92400 621,357 62,136 155,339 62,136 993,368 NB Redlands Blvd Fir Av EB SR60 Fwy On/Off Ramps 40810 274,284 27,428 68,571 27,428 438,522 SB Redlands Blvd Fir Av EB SR60 Fwy On/Off Ramps 40810 274,284 27,428 68,571 27,428 438,522 NB Redlands Blvd WB SR 60 Fwy On/Off Ramps Hemlock Av 34090 229,293 22,929 57,323 22,929 366,564 SB Redlands Blvd WB SR 60 Fwy On/Off Ramps Hemlock Av 34090 229,293 22,929 57,323 22,929 366,564 NB Redlands Blvd Hemlock Av Ironwood Av 92400 621,357 62,136 155,339 62,136 993,368 SB Redlands Blvd Hemlock Av Ironwood Av 92400 621,357 62,136 155,339 62,136 993,368 NB Redlands Blvd Ironwood Av Juniper Av 92820 623,884 62,388 155,971 62,388 997,452 SB Redlands Blvd Ironwood Av Juniper Av 92820 623,884 62,388 155,971 62,388 997,452 NB Redlands Blvd Juniper Av Kalmia Av 96600 646,631 64,663 161,658 64,663 1,034,216 SB Redlands Blvd Juniper Av Kalmia Av 84000 570,808 57,081 142,702 57,081 911,672 NB Redlands Blvd Kalmia Av Locust Av 92400 621,357 62,136 155,339 62,136 993,368 SB Redlands Blvd Kalmia Av Locust Av 92400 621,357 62,136 155,339 62,136 993,368 NB Redlands Blvd Locust Av Northern City Limits 104860 705,146 70,515 176,287 70,515 1,127,322 SB Redlands Blvd Locust Av Northern City Limits 104860 705,146 70,515 176,287 70,515 1,127,322 NB Street E Loop around WLC Pkwy CW 0 742000 5,525,144 552,514 1,381,286 552,514 8,753,459 SB Street E Loop around WLC Pkwy CCW 0 742000 5,525,144 552,514 1,381,286 552,514 8,753,459 F.2.c
Packet Pg. 190
Attachment: DIF ADJUSTMENT RESOLUTION (5633 : DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES NEXUS STUDY AND City of Moreno Valley Development Impact Fee Study Update A-10
Appendix Table A.1: Arteral Costs Continued
Dir Street Name From To
New
ROW
Cost
Construction Cost
(New Lane/
Unimproved
Segment/ Median)
Planning
Cost (5% Of
Construction
Cost)
Design
Engineering
Cost (25% Of
Construction
Cost)
Construction
Engineering
And Admin.

Cost (10% Of
Construction
Cost) Total Cost
NB World Logistics Ctr Pkwy Alessandro Blvd Bay Av 89880 540,872 54,087 135,218 54,087 874,145$ SB World Logistics Ctr Pkwy Alessandro Blvd Bay Av 89880 540,872 54,087 135,218 54,087 874,145 NB World Logistics Ctr Pkwy Bay Av Cottonwood Av 92960 559,407 55,941 139,852 55,941 904,100 SB World Logistics Ctr Pkwy Bay Av Cottonwood Av 92960 559,407 55,941 139,852 55,941 904,100 NB World Logistics Ctr Pkwy Cottonwood Av Dracaea Av 91700 551,824 55,182 137,956 55,182 891,845 SB World Logistics Ctr Pkwy Cottonwood Av Dracaea Av 91700 551,824 55,182 137,956 55,182 891,845 NB World Logistics Ctr Pkwy Dracaea Av Eucalyptus Av 184100 1,107,861 110,786 276,965 110,786 1,790,499 SB World Logistics Ctr Pkwy Dracaea Av Eucalyptus Av 184100 1,107,861 110,786 276,965 110,786 1,790,499 NB World Logistics Ctr Pkwy Eucalyptus Ave Fir Av (Future Eucalyptus) 187600 1,128,923 112,892 282,231 112,892 1,824,539 SB World Logistics Ctr Pkwy Eucalyptus Ave Fir Av (Future Eucalyptus) 187600 1,128,923 112,892 282,231 112,892 1,824,539 NB World Logistics Ctr Pkwy Fir Av (Future Eucalyptus) EB SR60 Fwy On/Off Ramps 84000 505,488 50,549 126,372 50,549 816,958 SB World Logistics Ctr Pkwy Fir Av (Future Eucalyptus) EB SR60 Fwy On/Off Ramps 84000 505,488 50,549 126,372 50,549 816,958 NB World Logistics Ctr Pkwy WB SR60 On/Off Ramps Hemlock Av 145180 873,652 87,365 218,413 87,365 1,411,975 SB World Logistics Ctr Pkwy WB SR60 On/Off Ramps Hemlock Av 145180 873,652 87,365 218,413 87,365 1,411,975 NB World Logistics Ctr Pkwy Hemlock Av Ironwood Av 92750 558,143 55,814 139,536 55,814 902,057 SB World Logistics Ctr Pkwy Hemlock Av Ironwood Av 92750 558,143 55,814 139,536 55,814 902,057 TOTAL COST FOR North-South ARTERIAL STREETS: 238,039,008$ Source: City of Moreno Valley.

F.2.c
Packet Pg. 191
Attachment: DIF ADJUSTMENT RESOLUTION (5633 : DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES NEXUS STUDY AND City of Moreno Valley Development Impact Fee Study Update A-11
Table A.2: Lease Revenue Bond - Discounted Debt Service Costs Payment (Nominal Dollars) Discount Payment (Real Dollars) Month Year Arterial DIF Police DIF Fire DIF Factor1 Arterial DIF Police DIF Fire DIF 2014 Lease Revenue Bonds Refunding
May 2022 213,014$ 128,733$ 48,515$ 0.966 205,811$ 124,380$ 46,874$ Nov 2022 213,014 128,733 48,515 0.966 205,811 124,380 46,874 May 2023 213,014 128,733 48,515 0.934 198,851 120,174 45,289 Nov 2023 213,014 128,733 48,515 0.934 198,851 120,174 45,289 May 2024 199,326 120,460 45,397 0.902 179,781 108,648 40,945 Nov 2024 199,326 120,460 45,397 0.902 179,781 108,648 40,945 May 2025 185,024 111,818 42,140 0.871 161,238 97,443 36,723 Nov 2025 185,024 111,818 42,140 0.871 161,238 97,443 36,723 May 2026 169,967 102,719 38,710 0.842 143,108 86,487 32,593 Nov 2026 169,967 102,719 38,710 0.842 143,108 86,487 32,593 May 2027 154,250 93,220 35,131 0.814 125,482 75,835 28,579 Nov 2027 154,250 93,220 35,131 0.814 125,482 75,835 28,579 May 2028 137,635 83,179 31,347 0.786 108,180 65,378 24,638 Nov 2028 137,635 83,179 31,347 0.786 108,180 65,378 24,638 May 2029 120,218 72,653 27,380 0.759 91,295 55,174 20,793 Nov 2029 120,218 72,653 27,380 0.759 91,295 55,174 20,793 May 2030 101,952 61,614 23,220 0.734 74,805 45,208 17,037 Nov 2030 101,952 61,614 23,220 0.734 74,805 45,208 17,037 May 2031 86,584 52,326 19,720 0.709 61,381 37,095 13,980 Nov 2031 86,584 52,326 19,720 0.709 61,381 37,095 13,980 May 2032 70,573 42,651 16,073 0.685 48,339 29,214 11,009 Nov 2032 70,573 42,651 16,073 0.685 48,339 29,214 11,009 May 2033 53,959 32,610 12,289 0.662 35,709 21,581 8,133 Nov 2033 53,959 32,610 12,289 0.662 35,709 21,581 8,133 May 2034 36,703 22,181 8,359 0.639 23,468 14,183 5,345 Nov 2034 36,703 22,181 8,359 0.639 23,468 14,183 5,345 May 2035 18,729 11,319 4,266 0.618 11,570 6,993 2,635 Nov 2035 18,729 11,319 4,266 0.618 11,570 6,993 2,635 Total 3,521,896$ 2,128,432$ 802,124$ 2,938,035$ 1,775,579$ 669,148$ 2013 Lease Revenue Bonds Refunding
May 2022 15,087$ 9,169$ 3,440$ 0.966 14,577$ 8,859$ 3,323$ Nov 2022 15,087 9,169 3,440 0.966 14,577 8,859 3,323 Total 30,174$ 18,338$ 6,879$ 29,154$ 17,717$ 6,647$ Total 3,552,070$ 2,146,770$ 809,003$ 2,967,189$ 1,793,297$ 675,794$ 1Discount rate assumed to be 3.5% per year.

Source: Moreno Valley Public Finance Authority - 2014 Partial Refunding of 2005 Lease Revenue Bonds; Willdan Financial Services.

F.2.c
Packet Pg. 192
Attachment: DIF ADJUSTMENT RESOLUTION (5633 : DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES NEXUS STUDY AND City of Moreno Valley Development Impact Fee Study Update

A-12
Appendix Table A.3: DIF Controller Upgrades
North-South Street East-West Street
Graham St Sunnymead Bl
Moreno Valley Plza Sunnymead Bl
Valley Springs Pkwy Eucalyptus Av
Day St Eucalyptus Av
Day St Ironwood Av
Barclay Dr Ironwood Av
Sunnymead Ranch Pkwy Old Lake Dr
Sunnymead Ranch Pkwy Village Rd
Heacock St Sunnymead Ranch Pkwy
Heacock St Manzanita Av
Heacock St Gregory Ln
Back Wy Sunnymead Bl
Kitching St Ironwood Av
Slawson Av Ironwood Av
Kitching St Iris Av
Kitching St Alessandro Bl
Lasselle St Alessandro Bl
Heacock St John F. Kennedy Dr
Indian St San Michele Rd
Heacock St San Michele Rd
Perris Bl Sunnymead Ranch Pkwy
Indian St Iris Av
Heacock St Parkland Av
Los Cabos Dr Iris Av
Moreno Beach Dr Cottonwood Av
Morton Rd Box Spring Rd
Perris Bl Manzanita Av
Morrison St Alessandro Bl
Moreno Beach Dr Ironwood Av
Nason St Ironwood Av
Moreno Beach Dr Trail Ridge Wy
Apple Blossom Alessandro Bl
Elsworth St Eucalyptus Av
Fir Av Eucalyptus Av
Stoneridge Town Ct Fir Av
Day St Dracaea Av
Morrison St Eucalyptus Av
Redlands Bl Cottonwood Av
Stoneridge Towne Ctr Eucalyptus Ave
Source: City of Moreno Valley - Development Impact Fee Update: Traffic Signals Component, October 25, 2021

F.2.c
Packet Pg. 193
Attachment: DIF ADJUSTMENT RESOLUTION (5633 : DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES NEXUS STUDY AND FEE ADJUSTMENT) City of Moreno Valley Development Impact Fee Study Update A-13
Appendix Table A.4: Future DIF Signal Locations
North-South Street East-West Street
Brandt Dr/Via Vargas Alessandro Bl
Chara St Alessandro Bl
Civic Center Dr Alessandro Bl
btw. Lasselle & Morri Alessandro Bl
btw Morrison & Quincy Alessandro Bl
btw Nason & Oliver Alessandro Bl
Wilmot St Alessandro Bl
Kitching St Elder Av
Lasselle St Elder Av
Morrison St Elder Av
Alona St Eucalyptus Av
btw. Morrison & Nason Eucalyptus Av
Pan Am Bl Eucalyptus Av
Pepperbush Dr Eucalyptus Av
Quincy St Eucalyptus Av
Shirebourn Rd Eucalyptus Av
Sunnymeadows Dr Eucalyptus Av
Wichita Wy Eucalyptus Av
Heacock St Cardinal Av
Heacock St Delphinium Av
Heacock St Meander Ct
Heacock St Poppystone Dr
Emma Ln Iris Av
Wedow Dr Iris Av
Morrison/Avocado Ironwood Av
Oliver St Ironwood Av
Quincy St Ironwood Av
Rio Grande Dr John F. Kennedy Dr
Legendary Dr John F. Kennedy Dr
Vinehill St John F. Kennedy Dr
Pepper Ct John F. Kennedy Dr
Lasselle St Brodiaea Av
Lasselle St Delphinium Av
Lasselle St Dracaea Av
Lasselle St Fir Av
Quincy St Locust St
Redlands Bl Locust St
Moreno Beach Dr Encilia Ave
Moreno Beach Dr Dracaea Av
Moreno Beach Dr Juniper Av
Moreno Beach Dr Kalmia Av
Nason St Archie Av
Nason St Bay Av
Nason St Delphinium Av
Old 215 Frontage Rd Bay Av
Old 215 Frontage Rd Dracaea Av

F.2.c
Packet Pg. 194
Attachment: DIF ADJUSTMENT RESOLUTION (5633 : DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES NEXUS STUDY AND FEE ADJUSTMENT) City of Moreno Valley Development Impact Fee Study Update A-14
Appendix Table A.4: Future DIF Signal Locations Continued North-South Street East-West Street
Perris Bl Canyon Vista Rd
Quincy St Encilia Ave
Redlands Bl Bay Av
Redlands Bl Brodiaea Av
Redlands Bl Dracaea Av
Redlands Bl Juniper Av
Redlands Bl Kalmia Av
Old Country Rd (East) Sunnymead Ranch Pw
Old Country Rd (West) Sunnymead Ranch Pw
Oliver St Alessandro Bl
Quincy St Alessandro Bl
Redlands Bl Alessandro Bl
Morrison St Cactus Av
Quincy St Cactus Av
Elsworth St Cottonwood Av
Old 215 Frontage Rd Cottonwood Av
Quincy St Cottonwood Av
Day St Bay Av
Kitching St Eucalyptus Av
Lasselle St Eucalyptus Av
Indian St Gentian Av
Kitching St Gentian Av
Heacock St Lake Summit Dr
Heacock St Nandina Ave
Indian St Eucalyptus Av
Indian St Sundial Wy
Lasselle St Ironwood Av
Oliver St John F. Kennedy Dr
Redlands Bl John F. Kennedy Dr
Indian St Krameria Av
Moreno Beach Dr Locust St
Indian St Manzanita Av
Moreno Beach Dr Bay Av
Moreno Beach Dr Brodiaea Av
Moreno Beach Dr Hemlock Av
Moreno Beach Dr Auburn Ln
Old 215 Frontage Rd Day St
Redlands Bl Encilia Ave
Kitching St Sunnymead Bl
Pigeon Pass Rd Sunnymead Ranch Pw
Lake Vista Rd Sunnymead Ranch Pw
Hubbard St Ironwood Ave
Oliver St Delphinium Av
Sinclair St Ironwood Av
Pigeon Pass Rd Hidden Springs Dr (N)
Moreno Beach Dr Championship Dr
Hospital Cactus Ave
Indian St Grove View
Gilman Springs Rd Eucalyptus Ave
Gilman Springs Rd Alessandro Bl
Source: City of Moreno Valley - Development Impact Fee Update: Traffic Signals Component, October 25, 2021

F.2.c
Packet Pg. 195
Attachment: DIF ADJUSTMENT RESOLUTION (5633 : DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES NEXUS STUDY AND FEE ADJUSTMENT) City of Moreno Valley Development Impact Fee Study Update A-15
Appendix Table A.5: Vehicles and Equipment Inventory
Fee Category Replacement Value
City Hall
City Clerk 323,176$
City Manager 733,620
Human Resources 467,967
Community Development 121,198
Financial & Management Svcs 815,019
Subtotal 2,460,980$
Fire
Heavy Duty Trucks 1,749,480$
Machinery & Equipment 553,248
Subtotal 2,302,728$
Police
Heavy Duty Trucks 45,782$
Light Duty Trucks 461,531
Machinery & Equipment 753,879
Subtotal 1,261,192$
Source: City of Moreno Valley.

F.2.c
Packet Pg. 196
Attachment: DIF ADJUSTMENT RESOLUTION (5633 : DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES NEXUS STUDY AND FEE ADJUSTMENT) Resolution No. 2022-XX
Date Adopted: _______ __, 2022

EXHIBIT “B”

DIF FEE TABLE

[SEE ATTACHED]

F.2.c
Packet Pg. 197
Attachment: DIF ADJUSTMENT RESOLUTION (5633 : DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES NEXUS STUDY AND FEE ADJUSTMENT)

DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
April 18, 2022 Single Family Single Family-Affordable Multifamily Multifamily-Affordable Mobile/Senior Mobile/Senior Affordable Commercial General Commercial Regional Industrial High Cube Office Police 760.25$ 380.13$ 369.75$ 184.88$ 261.75$ 130.88$ 214.00$ 214.00$ 104.00$ 64.00$ 281.00$ Fire 1,264.25$ 632.13$ 467.50$ 233.75$ 533.75$ 266.88$ 474.00$ 474.00$ 271.00$ 168.00$ 461.00$ Libraries 487.25$ 243.63$ 376.50$ 188.25$ 207.00$ 103.50$ 10.50$ 10.50$ 5.00$ 3.00$ 13.75$ Rec Centers 753.00$ 376.50$ 478.00$ 239.00$ 343.00$ 171.50$ 16.00$ 16.00$ 8.00$ 4.75$ 21.00$ Arterial Streets 3,533.75$ 1,766.88$ 2,508.75$ 1,254.38$ 1,325.75$ 662.88$ 6,741.25$ 7,099.25$ 1,811.75$ 481.50$ 3,424.25$ Traffic Signals 748.00$ 374.00$ 534.00$ 267.00$ 257.00$ 128.50$ 1,337.00$ 1,261.75$ 341.00$ 97.00$ 744.00$ Interchange 1,725.75$ 862.88$ 1,224.25$ 612.13$ 662.50$ 331.25$ 5,075.00$ 4,969.25$ 977.50$ 258.75$ 1,827.25$ City Hall 337.00$ 168.50$ 152.25$ 76.13$ 147.75$ 73.88$ 91.25$ 91.25$ 58.00$ 36.00$ 90.00$ Animal Shelter 77.00$ 38.50$ 49.00$ 24.50$ 37.00$ 18.50$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Corporate Yard 746.25$ 373.13$ 287.75$ 143.88$ 317.50$ 158.75$ 170.00$ 170.00$ 83.00$ 51.00$ 210.00$ Maintenance Equipment 214.25$ 107.13$ 83.50$ 41.75$ 91.75$ 45.88$ 51.00$ 51.00$ 24.00$ 15.00$ 60.25$ Parks - Subdivisions 4,622.75$ 2,311.38$ 3,494.25$ 1,747.13$ 1,994.00$ 997.00$ 159.00$ 159.00$ 77.25$ 48.00$ 207.75$ TOTAL-SUBDIVISIONS 15,269.50$ 7,634.75$ 10,025.50$ 5,012.75$ 6,178.75$ 3,089.38$ 14,339.00$ 14,516.00$ 3,760.50$ 1,227.00$ 7,340.25$ Parks - Infill 4,399.25$ 2,199.63$ 3,352.00$ 1,676.00$ 1,887.00$ 943.50$ 159.00$ 159.00$ 77.25$ 48.00$ 207.75$ TOTAL-INFILL 15,046.00$ 7,523.00$ 9,883.25$ 4,941.63$ 6,071.75$ 3,035.88$ 14,339.00$ 14,516.00$ 3,760.50$ 1,227.00$ 7,340.25$ January 1, 2024 Single Family Single Family-Affordable Multifamily Multifamily-Affordable Mobile/Senior Mobile/Senior Affordable Commercial General Commercial Regional Industrial High Cube Office Police 909.50$ 454.75$ 502.50$ 251.25$ 367.50$ 183.75$ 1,032.00$ 1,032.00$ 104.00$ 64.00$ 281.00$ Fire 1,313.50$ 656.75$ 611.00$ 305.50$ 581.50$ 290.75$ 502.00$ 502.00$ 271.00$ 168.00$ 550.00$ Libraries 568.50$ 284.25$ 406.00$ 203.00$ 255.00$ 127.50$ 21.00$ 21.00$ 10.00$ 6.00$ 27.50$ Rec Centers 753.00$ 376.50$ 478.00$ 239.00$ 343.00$ 171.50$ 16.00$ 16.00$ 8.00$ 4.75$ 21.00$ Arterial Streets 5,673.50$ 2,836.75$ 4,042.50$ 2,021.25$ 2,024.50$ 1,012.25$ 11,649.50$ 12,591.50$ 2,719.50$ 752.00$ 5,581.50$ Traffic Signals 748.00$ 374.00$ 534.00$ 267.00$ 257.00$ 128.50$ 1,337.00$ 1,261.75$ 341.00$ 97.00$ 744.00$ Interchange 2,583.50$ 1,291.75$ 1,840.50$ 920.25$ 934.00$ 467.00$ 9,008.00$ 8,937.50$ 1,392.00$ 385.50$ 2,865.50$ City Hall 450.00$ 225.00$ 244.50$ 122.25$ 206.50$ 103.25$ 100.50$ 100.50$ 57.00$ 13.00$ 112.00$ Animal Shelter 77.00$ 38.50$ 49.00$ 24.50$ 37.00$ 18.50$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Corporate Yard 819.50$ 409.75$ 396.50$ 198.25$ 366.00$ 183.00$ 170.00$ 170.00$ 83.00$ 51.00$ 214.00$ Maintenance Equipment 239.50$ 119.75$ 117.00$ 58.50$ 107.50$ 53.75$ 51.00$ 51.00$ 24.00$ 15.00$ 62.50$ Parks - Subdivisions 5,866.50$ 2,933.25$ 4,099.50$ 2,049.75$ 2,665.00$ 1,332.50$ 318.00$ 318.00$ 154.50$ 96.00$ 415.50$ TOTAL - SUBDIVISIONS 20,002.00$ 10,001.00$ 13,321.00$ 6,660.50$ 8,144.50$ 4,072.25$ 24,205.00$ 25,001.25$ 5,164.00$ 1,652.25$ 10,874.50$ Parks - Infill 5,419.50$ 2,709.75$ 3,815.00$ 1,907.50$ 2,451.00$ 1,225.50$ 318.00$ 318.00$ 154.50$ 96.00$ 415.50$ TOTAL - INFILL 19,555.00$ 9,777.50$ 13,036.50$ 6,518.25$ 7,930.50$ 3,965.25$ 24,205.00$ 25,001.25$ 5,164.00$ 1,652.25$ 10,874.50$ The fees shall be automatically adjusted on January 1, for the years 2024, 2026, and 2028 to reflect any changes in costs for those certain capital improvements using the Council approved figures published in the Engineering News Record’s Building Cost Index –20 Cities Annual Average

EXHIBIT B
F.2.c
Packet Pg. 198
Attachment: DIF ADJUSTMENT RESOLUTION (5633 : DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES NEXUS STUDY AND

DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
January 1, 2026 Single FamilySingle Family-AffordableMultifamilyMultifamily-AffordableMobile/SeniorMobile/Senior AffordableCommercial GeneralCommercial RegionalIndustrialHigh Cube Office Police 1,058.75$ 529.37$ 635.25$ 317.62$ 473.25$ 236.62$ 214.00$ 214.00$ 104.00$ 64.00$ 281.00$ Fire 1,362.75$ 681.37$ 754.50$ 377.25$ 629.25$ 314.62$ 530.00$ 530.00$ 271.00$ 168.00$ 639.00$ Libraries 649.75$ 324.87$ 435.50$ 217.75$ 303.00$ 151.50$ 31.50$ 31.50$ 15.00$ 9.00$ 41.25$ Rec Centers 753.00$ 376.50$ 478.00$ 239.00$ 355.00$ 177.50$ 48.00$ 48.00$ 24.00$ 14.25$ 63.00$ Arterial Streets 7,813.25$ 3,906.62$ 5,576.25$ 2,788.12$ 2,723.25$ 1,361.62$ 16,557.75$ 18,083.75$ 3,627.25$ 1,022.50$ 7,738.75$ Traffic Signals 748.00$ 374.00$ 534.00$ 267.00$ 257.00$ 128.50$ 1,521.00$ 1,601.25$ 341.00$ 97.00$ 744.00$ Interchange 3,441.25$ 1,720.62$ 2,456.75$ 1,228.37$ 1,205.50$ 602.75$ 12,941.00$ 12,905.75$ 1,806.50$ 512.25$ 3,903.75$ City Hall 563.00$ 281.50$ 336.75$ 168.37$ 265.25$ 132.62$ 109.75$ 109.75$ 58.00$ 36.00$ 134.00$ Animal Shelter 77.00$ 38.50$ 49.00$ 24.50$ 37.00$ 18.50$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Corporate Yard 892.75$ 446.37$ 505.25$ 252.62$ 414.50$ 207.25$ 170.00$ 170.00$ 83.00$ 51.00$ 218.00$ Maintenance Equipment 264.75$ 132.37$ 150.50$ 75.25$ 123.25$ 61.62$ 51.00$ 51.00$ 24.00$ 15.00$ 64.75$ Parks - Subdivisions 7,110.25$ 3,555.12$ 4,704.75$ 2,352.37$ 3,336.00$ 1,668.00$ 477.00$ 477.00$ 231.75$ 144.00$ 623.25$ TOTAL - SUBDIVISION 24,734.50$ 12,367.21$ 16,616.50$ 8,308.22$ 10,122.25$ 5,061.10$ 32,651.00$ 34,222.00$ 6,585.50$ 2,133.00$ 14,450.75$ Parks - Infill 6,439.75$ 3,219.87$ 4,278.00$ 2,139.00$ 3,015.00$ 1,507.50$ 477.00$ 477.00$ 231.75$ 144.00$ 623.25$ TOTAL - INFILL 24,064.00$ 12,031.96$ 16,189.75$ 8,094.85$ 9,801.25$ 4,900.60$ 32,651.00$ 34,222.00$ 6,585.50$ 2,133.00$ 14,450.75$ January 1, 2028 Single FamilySingle Family-AffordableMultifamilyMultifamily-AffordableMobile/SeniorMobile/Senior AffordableCommercial GeneralCommercial RegionalIndustrialHigh Cube Office Police 1,208.00$ 604.00$ 768.00$ 384.00$ 579.00$ 289.50$ 214.00$ 214.00$ 104.00$ 64.00$ 281.00$ Fire 1,412.00$ 706.00$ 898.00$ 449.00$ 677.00$ 338.50$ 558.00$ 558.00$ 271.00$ 168.00$ 728.00$ Libraries 731.00$ 365.50$ 465.00$ 232.50$ 351.00$ 175.50$ 42.00$ 42.00$ 20.00$ 12.00$ 55.00$ Rec Centers 753.00$ 376.50$ 478.00$ 239.00$ 361.00$ 180.50$ 64.00$ 64.00$ 32.00$ 19.00$ 84.00$ Arterial Streets 9,953.00$ 4,976.50$ 7,110.00$ 3,555.00$ 3,422.00$ 1,711.00$ 21,466.00$ 23,576.00$ 4,535.00$ 1,293.00$ 9,896.00$ Traffic Signals 748.00$ 374.00$ 534.00$ 267.00$ 257.00$ 128.50$ 1,613.00$ 1,771.00$ 341.00$ 97.00$ 744.00$ Interchange 4,298.00$ 2,149.00$ 3,073.00$ 1,536.50$ 1,477.00$ 738.50$ 16,874.00$ 16,874.00$ 2,221.00$ 639.00$ 4,942.00$ City Hall 676.00$ 338.00$ 429.00$ 214.50$ 324.00$ 162.00$ 119.00$ 119.00$ 58.00$ 36.00$ 156.00$ Animal Shelter 77.00$ 38.50$ 49.00$ 24.50$ 37.00$ 18.50$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Corporate Yard 966.00$ 483.00$ 614.00$ 307.00$ 463.00$ 231.50$ 170.00$ 170.00$ 83.00$ 51.00$ 222.00$ Maintenance Equipment 290.00$ 145.00$ 184.00$ 92.00$ 139.00$ 69.50$ 51.00$ 51.00$ 24.00$ 15.00$ 67.00$ Parks - Subdivisions 8,354.00$ 4,177.00$ 5,310.00$ 2,655.00$ 4,007.00$ 2,003.50$ 636.00$ 636.00$ 309.00$ 192.00$ 831.00$ TOTAL - SUBDIVISION 29,466.00$ 14,733.00$ 19,912.00$ 9,956.00$ 12,094.00$ 6,047.00$ 41,807.00$ 44,075.00$ 7,998.00$ 2,586.00$ 18,006.00$ Parks - Infill 7,460.00$ 3,730.00$ 4,741.00$ 2,370.50$ 3,579.00$ 1,789.50$ 636.00$ 636.00$ 309.00$ 192.00$ 831.00$ TOTAL - INFILL 28,572.00$ 14,286.00$ 19,343.00$ 9,671.50$ 11,666.00$ 5,833.00$ 41,807.00$ 44,075.00$ 7,998.00$ 2,586.00$ 18,006.00$ The fees shall be automatically adjusted on January 1, for the years 2024, 2026, and 2028 to reflect any changes in costs for those certain capital improvements using the Council approved figures published in the Engineering News Record’s Building Cost Index –20 Cities Annual Average

EXHIBIT B
F.2.c
Packet Pg. 199
Attachment: DIF ADJUSTMENT RESOLUTION (5633 : DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES NEXUS STUDY AND

Moreno Valley City CouncilFebruary 15, 2022

Moreno Valley City Council
February 15, 2022