Agenda packet — Murrieta City Council, February 20, 2024 (part 1 of 4)

The City of Murrieta intends to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Persons with special needs should call the City Clerk Department at (951) 461-6031 or email at [email protected] at least 72 hours in advance. Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the City Council regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection at the public counter at City Hall located at 1 Town Square, Murrieta, CA during normal business hours.

Any presentation requiring the use of the City of Murrieta’s equipment must be submitted to the City Clerk ’s department 24 hours prior to the scheduled City Council meeting at City Hall located at 1 Town Square, Murrieta, CA; via email at [email protected] or call (951) 461-6031. Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the City Council regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection at the public counter at City Hall located at 1 Town Square, Murrieta, CA during normal business hours.

Lori Stone
Mayor
Cindy Warren Lisa DeForest Mayor Pro Tem Council Member Jon Levell Ron Holliday Council Member Council Member Kim Summers, City Manager
Tiffany Israel, City Attorney
Cristal McDonald, City Clerk

MURRIETA CITY COUNCIL (CC)

MURRIETA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT (CSD)

MURRIETA FIRE DISTRICT (FD)

MURRIETA LIBRARY BOARD (LB)

MURRIETA REDEVELOPMENT SUCCESSOR AGENCY (RSA)

MURRIETA HOUSING AUTHORITY (HA)

MURRIETA FINANCING AUTHORITY (FA)
YOU MAY VIEW THE MEETING LIVESTREAMED VIA THE CITY’S WEBSITE AT https://murrieta.legistar.com/Calendar.aspx

CITY OF MURRIETA
1 TOWN SQUARE

MURRIETA, CA
Tuesday, February 20, 2024
3:45 PM CLOSED SESSION
5:00 PM WORKSHOP
6:00 PM REGULAR MEETING
1 City Council Meeting Agenda February 20, 2024
3:45 PM CLOSED SESSION

CALL TO ORDER

ROLL CALL

PUBLIC COMMENTS - CLOSED SESSION ITEMS ONLY

ANNOUNCEMENT OF CLOSED SESSION ITEMS

CLOSED SESSION
CS1. Conference with Legal Counsel – Anticipated Litigation The City Council will conduct a closed session, pursuant to Government Code section 54956.9(d)(4), because the City is considering whether to initiate litigation in two cases.

CS2. Conference with Real Property Negotiator
The City Council will conduct a closed session, pursuant to Government Code section 54956.8, to enable the City Council to consider negotiations and to give direction to its negotiators regarding that certain real property, at the intersection of Kalmia and Jefferson, APN 906-080-041, 906-080-042, and 906-080-033 with Bold Communities, Fidelis Advisors, and Urban Pacific & Shopoff. The City’s real property negotiators, the City Manager, Assistant City Managers, Development Services Director, and City Attorney, will seek direction from the City Council regarding the price and terms for this property.

CS3. Conference with Legal Counsel – Anticipated Litigation The City Council will conduct a closed session, pursuant to Government Code sections 54956.9(d)(2), because there is a significant exposure to litigation in two cases.

RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION
5:00 WORKSHOP

CALL TO ORDER

ROLL CALL
WS1. Development Impact Fee Nexus Study and Fee Update Workshop Recommended Action:

Receive agenda report and presentation on the Development Impact Fee Nexus Study and Fee Update and provide direction to staff regarding the updated fee schedule. 6:00 PM REGULAR MEETING

CALL TO ORDER

Page 1 of 6 ends

2 City Council Meeting Agenda February 20, 2024

ANNOUNCEMENT OF CLOSED SESSION ACTION

ROLL CALL

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

INVOCATION

PRESENTATIONS

APPROVAL OF AGENDA

CITY MANAGER - ADMINISTRATIVE UPDATE
Community Services Department: Town Square Park Amphitheater Line-Up, Assistant City Manager Kristen Crane
Public Information Officer: City Updates, Interim Public Information Officer, Cristina Davies Received After Agenda Printed - Interim PIO Updates
Received After Agenda Printed - NHG Amphitheater Events

GOVERNING BODY COMMISSION/COMMITTEE/BOARD (CCB) REPORTS Governing Body CCB Reports is the opportunity for the City Council to provide a brief report on conferences, seminars, and Commission, Committees, and /or Boards meeting attendance.

Reports shall not exceed three minutes. The City Clerk will use the computerized timer.

Received After Agenda Printed - GBR

PUBLIC COMMENTS (NON-AGENDA)
At this time any person may address the governing bodies on any subject pertaining to City business, which does not relate to any item listed on the printed agenda. Normally no action may be considered or taken by the governing bodies on any matter not listed on the agenda .

Each speaker will be limited to three minutes.

Received After Agenda Printed - Public Comment (Non-Agenda) CONSENT CALENDAR - APPROVAL OF ITEMS 1 – 10
All matters listed on the Consent Calendar are to be considered routine by the governing bodies, and will be enacted by one motion in the form listed. There will be no discussion of these items unless, before the governing body votes on the motion to adopt, specific items are removed from the Consent Calendar for separate motions.

Page 2 of 6 ends

3 City Council Meeting Agenda February 20, 2024

1. Waive Reading of All Ordinance Adoptions on the Agenda and Read by Title Only Recommended Action:

Waive reading, by title only, of all Ordinances and Resolutions. Said Ordinances and Resolutions which appear on the public agenda shall be determined to have been read by title and further reading waived.

2. Minutes
Recommended Action:

Approve the minutes of the January 11, 2024 Special Workshop and the February 6, 2024, City Council Regular Meeting.

3. Cisco SmartNet Software License and Support Services Recommended Action:

Authorize the use of Cooperative Agreement #2018011 -02 to purchase SmartNet services and authorize SHI International Group (SHI) to administer the agreement; Authorize the use of the Cisco Master Agreement; and
Approve the contract in an amount not to exceed $76,088.35 for Fiscal Year 2023/24.

4. First Amendment to the Agreement with CivicPlus
Recommended Action:

Approve the First Amendment to the Agreement with CivicPlus and authorize the City Manager to execute the Agreement and related documents;
Approve one -time service fees in the amount of $6,578 and an annual software fee of $12,133.80 in year two, for a total contract amount not to exceed $18,711.80; and Amend the IT Operating Budget for Fiscal Years (FY) 2023/24 and 2024/25 to cover the cost of this agreement.

5. Lunch at the Library Grant - Increased Award Amount
Recommended Action:

Authorize the City Manager to accept additional grant funds from the California State Library for the 2024 Lunch at the Library program;
Amend the Fiscal Year 2023/24 Operating Budget based on the actual award amount; and Authorize the City Manager to sign any documents or undertake related actions necessary to accept and implement the grant.

Page 3 of 6 ends

4 City Council Meeting Agenda February 20, 2024

6. Memorandum of Understanding with the City of Wildomar for Homeless Services Recommended Action:

Approve a six -month Memorandum of Understanding with the City of Wildomar for homeless services for a maximum reimbursement to the City of Murrieta of $20,039.21 per month; Establish a revenue budget for reimbursement of costs from the City of Wildomar in the Fiscal Years 2023/24 and 2024/25 Operating Budgets for the six-month pilot period; and Authorize the City Manager to execute the Memorandum of Understanding and to utilize existing grant funding to support the collaboration between the cities of Murrieta and Wildomar.

7. On-Call Public Works and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Inspection Services - Anser Advisory
Recommended Action:

Approve a purchase order with Anser Advisory Management, LLC, dba Anser Advisory for on-call inspection services for Fiscal Year 2023/24 for an amount not to exceed $280,000 from the Engineering General Fund;
Appropriate $216,000 from General Fund Unassigned Fund Balance into Engineering account 1106120-60640; and
Authorize the City Manager to execute the purchase order.

8. Acceptance of Public Improvements in Tract Map 30953 Recommended Action:

Accept the Public Improvements in Tract Map 30953 located south of Magnolia Street on the east side of Washington Avenue; and
Direct the Public Works Department to perform continued maintenance on the aforementioned public improvements in conformity with the City of Murrieta’s maintenance standard.

9. Amendment No. 2 to Madison Avenue Improvement Project Agreement with Rick Engineering Company
Recommended Action:

Approve Amendment No. 2 to the Madison Avenue Improvement Project from Guava Street to Elm Street, CIP 8357 design agreement with Rick Engineering Company for additional engineering services in the amount of $87,128.34; and
Authorize the City Manager or her designee to execute the Amendment upon approval as to form by the City Attorney.

Page 4 of 6 ends

5 City Council Meeting Agenda February 20, 2024

10. On-Call Plan Check Engineering Services - Bureau Veritas North America, Inc. and Michael Baker International, Inc.

Recommended Action:

Approve a purchase order with Bureau Veritas for on -call plan check services for Fiscal Year 2023/24 for an amount not to exceed $210,000 from the Engineering General Fund; Approve a purchase order with Michael Baker International, Inc. for on -call plan check services for FY 2023/24 for an amount not to exceed $276,000 from the Engineering General Fund; and Authorize the City Manager to execute the purchase orders.

PULLED CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS

Page 5 of 6 ends

6 City Council Meeting Agenda February 20, 2024

PUBLIC HEARINGS

11. Establishment of Medicinal Cannabis Delivery Location and Operational Standards and Miscellaneous Updates to Existing Cannabis Standards (MCA- 2023-00008) to amend Sections 16.08.010, 16.10.010, 16.11.010, 16.12.010, 16.13.010, 16.14.010, and

16.44.250 of the Murrieta Development Code and adoption of a Categorical Exemption pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act
Recommended Action:

Hold a Public Hearing;
Find that the action is consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines in accordance with Section §15060(c)(2) and Section §15061(b)(3); and Introduce Ordinance No. 602 -24 entitled: An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Murrieta, California, Amending Title 16 of the Murrieta Development Code to Revise Sections

16.08.010, 16.10.010, 16.11.010, 16.12.010, 16.13.010, 16.14.010, and 16.44.250 for the Establishment of Medicinal Cannabis Delivery Location and Operational Standards and Miscellaneous Updates to Existing Cannabis Standards.

GOVERNING BODY ANNOUNCEMENTS
Governing Body Announcements is the opportunity for the City Council to provide miscellaneous reports and announcements. Announcements shall not exceed two minutes .

The City Clerk will use the computerized timer.

Received After Agenda Printed - GBA

COUNCIL MEMBER REQUESTS TO ADD ITEMS TO FUTURE AGENDAS

ADJOURNMENT
Received After Agenda Printed - Martha Washington

Page 6 of 6 ends

7 CITY OF MURRIETA
City Council Meeting Agenda
Report
2/20/2024
Agenda Item No. WS1.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Javier Carcamo, Director of Finance
PREPARED BY: Paige Hartman-Salazar, Management Analyst - Special Projects SUBJECT: Development Impact Fee Nexus Study and Fee Update Workshop

RECOMMENDATION
Receive agenda report and presentation on the Development Impact Fee Nexus Study and Fee Update and provide direction to staff regarding the updated fee schedule.

PRIOR ACTION/VOTE
On December 1, 2015, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 15-3477, approving an amendment to the Agreement with Willdan Financial Services to conduct a Master Facilities Plan Update and Development Impact Fee Calculation Study in an amount not to exceed $14,970, and amending the 2015/16 Capital Improvement Plan by appropriating funding in the amount of $14,970 in available Development Impact Fee funds (Vote: 5-0).

On April 19, 2016, staff presented a status update on Development Impact Fees to the City Council in a Workshop.

On June 21, 2016, a public hearing was conducted and considered all written and oral reports of staff, public testimony on the matter and pushed for another meeting in the future.

On July 19, 2016, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 16-3602, replacing Resolution No. 98-612 and establishing a new Development Impact Fee Schedule, and imposing a phased-in approach for some residential and office development in the form of those with entitlement no later than December 31, 2016 (Vote:4-1).

On May 17, 2023, the City Council approved an Agreement with Willdan Financial Services to conduct a Development Impact Fee Nexus Study in the amount of $86,520.

CITY COUNCIL GOAL
Maintain a high performing organization that values fiscal sustainability, transparency, accountability and organizational efficiency.

CITY OF MURRIETA Printed on 2/15/2024Page 1 of 5
powered by Legistar™
8 2/20/2024
Agenda Item No. WS1.

BACKGROUND
History
A development impact fee (DIF) is a monetary exaction charged by the local government to a developer in connection with the implementation of an approved development project. A DIF can vary widely from one jurisdiction to the next because of differing facility needs. With the passage of Assembly Bill 1600, known as the 1987 Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code Section 66000 and following), the State of California recognized the burden on local governments from the rising costs associated with needed infrastructure and population increases associated with new development. The Mitigation Fee Act secured a system for identifying and collecting specific fees, dedications, reservations, and other exactions that local jurisdictions could regularly impose when properties are developed.

In October 1998, the City of Murrieta (City) first established the DIF program to fund improvements to public facilities and purchase equipment related to providing essential services based on the demands created by new growth and development. The City prepared a Master Facility Plan to identify the equipment and infrastructure needs required to meet the service demand of the increased residential population and business community (service population).

In 2013, the City Council approved an Agreement with Willdan to prepare an updated Master Facility Plan and an updated Development Impact Fee study. The Master Facility Plan reflects the combination of equipment, infrastructure, and facilities needed to support the build-out of the General Plan and Parks Master Plan.

In 2015, the City Council approved an Agreement with Willdan Financial Services to conduct a Master Facilities Plan Update and Development Impact Fee Calculation Study, and staff presented a status update on Development Impact Fees to the City Council in a Workshop in April 2016. Two public hearings were held, one in June and one in July. On July 19, 2016, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 16-3602, which replaced Resolution No. 98-612 and established a new Development Impact Fee Schedule. A phased-in approach was used for residential and office development for those issued entitlement no later than December 31, 2016.

Current Study
A Request for Proposal (RFP) for a Comprehensive Development Impact Fee Study was advertised on February 10, 2023, with a submittal date of March 7, 2023. Willdan was awarded the agreement to conduct a new Development Impact Fee Nexus study to ensure the City complied with new legislation, Assembly Bill 602 (AB 602).

With the addition of AB 602, Government Code Sections 65940.1 and 66019 were amended and Section 66016.5 was added. AB 602 went into effect on January 1, 2022, and requires a nexus impact fee study to be completed at a minimum every eight years and new requirements for specific justifications on how fees are calculated. AB 602 also requires the use of a square footage-based fee for residential rather than the current per-unit charge.

The following infrastructure categories are included in the DIF program:
• Law Enforcement
• Fire Protection
• Streets, Minor Bridges and Culverts
• Traffic Signals
• Storm Drainage
• General Facilities
CITY OF MURRIETA Printed on 2/15/2024Page 2 of 5
powered by Legistar™
9 2/20/2024
Agenda Item No. WS1.
• Park Facilities
• Community Centers
• Public Library
Development Impact Fees are imposed one-time, on new residential and non-residential development only.

According to the California Mitigation Fee Act, local agencies must prepare and consider a study documenting the following when adopting impact fees:
• Identify the purpose of the fee;
• Identify the use of fee revenues;
• Determine a reasonable relationship between the fee’s use and the type of development paying the fee;
• Determine a reasonable relationship between the need for the fee and the type of development paying the fee; and
• Determine a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the facility attributable to development paying the fee.

Methodology
In preparing for this Nexus Study, each department reviewed its facility, equipment, and service level needs to determine comparable facility and service needs for the anticipated population growth and related new development.

The Nexus Study uses one of three approaches to calculate facility standards and allocate the costs of planned facilities to accommodate growth in compliance with the Mitigation Fee Act requirements for each fee category included in the study.

The planned facilities approach allocates costs based on the ratio of planned facilities that serve new development to the increased demand associated with new development. This approach is appropriate when specific planned facilities that only benefit new development can be identified or when the specific share of facilities benefiting new development can be identified. This approach was used to calculate the Streets, Minor Bridges and Culverts, Storm Drainage facilities, and Traffic Signal fees.

The system plan approach is based on a master facility plan in situations where specific needed facilities serve both existing and new development. This approach allocates existing and planned facilities across existing and new development to determine new development’sfair share of facility needs. This approach is used when it is not possible to differentiate the benefits of new facilities between new and existing development. This approach was used to calculate the Library facilities fees.

Recommendation
Since the last study was conducted in 2016, various components of the DIF schedule do not accurately reflect the current construction costs for planned facilities. Between 2016 and 2023, fees for the DIF program were never adjusted to account for inflation-related construction cost increases, which, according to the CA Construction Cost Index, increased by 47.7%.

Staff proposes a combination of approaches to reflect best the facility needs and services required by the City CITY OF MURRIETA Printed on 2/15/2024Page 3 of 5
powered by Legistar™
10 2/20/2024
Agenda Item No. WS1.

Staff proposes a combination of approaches to reflect best the facility needs and services required by the City for future growth. Attachment 3 Table E.1 represents the new proposed fees.

For comparison purposes, Attachment 3 Table E.2 shows the current DIF amounts for prototypical square footage for each of the five category types, potential phasing options for Industrial and Office categories, and a representative example of fees from two neighboring jurisdictions.

Staff is also proposing two provisions in addition to the phasing option shown above. First, is a grandfathering provision whereby projects with applications that have been “deemed complete” before the effective date of the new, proposed fees, will be able to pay the fee in effect at the time their application was “deemed complete.” The second provision, if approved, would be used instead of phasing for Industrial and Office projects. Although the details still need to be worked out, Industrial and Office projects would be eligible for a sliding scale fee reduction based on the number of jobs they bring to Murrieta. This incentive-based provision would encourage job-creating projects to locate in Murrieta.

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Adopting a nexus study and fee schedules does not constitute a “project”under CEQA pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(4) because these actions involve the creation of a government funding mechanism which does not involve any commitment to any specific project which may result in a potentially significant physical impact on the environment.

Conclusion
Development Impact fees are a vital funding source needed to ensure that new development pays its fair share of infrastructure and facility costs on a pay-as-you-go basis to avoid creating impacts on the existing City’s infrastructure, service levels, and residents.

Note that even with collecting these fees, other funding will be required to fund the improvements identified in the Nexus Study fully. This is due to impact mitigation fees not covering the costs of existing deficiencies - only the additional impacts on the new development system.

It is important to note that the City Council can adopt a lower fee than the maximum fee calculated in the Nexus Study. However, doing so would mean that the General Fund would need to subsidize the remaining costs to construct needed facilities and maintain service levels. In other words, the residents of the City of Murrieta would be paying for a portion of the costs rather than the development that is generating the impact.

The detailed presentation of the results of the nexus study and the impact fees proposed here will assist in discussing the appropriateness of the recommended fees. The City’sconsultants will be available to the City Council for any questions regarding the study and fee update.

FISCAL IMPACT
The work completed by our consultants was previously approved and budgeted in the FY 2022/23 operating budget. The proposed development impact fee schedule update will increase projected revenues within the multiple DIF funds.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Draft Development Impact Fee Study Update

2. Current DIF Fee Schedule Summary
CITY OF MURRIETA Printed on 2/15/2024Page 4 of 5
powered by Legistar™
11 2/20/2024
Agenda Item No. WS1.

3. Tables E.1 and E.2
CITY OF MURRIETA Printed on 2/15/2024Page 5 of 5
powered by Legistar™
12 CITY OF MURRIETA

DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY
UPDATE

ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT

FEBRUARY 12, 2024

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

13 This page intentionally left blank.

14 i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................... 4 Background and Study Objectives 4
Facility Standards and Costs 4
Use of Fee Revenues 5
Development Impact Fee Schedule Summary 5
Other Funding Needed 7

1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................... 8 Public Facilities Financing in California 8
Study Objectives 8
Fee Program Maintenance 9
Study Methodology 9
Types of Facility Standards 10
New Development Facility Needs and Costs 10
Organization of the Report 11

2. GROWTH FORECASTS ............................................................... 12 Land Use Types 12
Existing and Future Development 12
Occupant Densities 14

3. LAW ENFORCEMENT FACILITIES ................................................. 15 Service Population 15
Existing Facility Inventory 15
Planned Facilities 16
Cost Allocation 17
Use of Fee Revenue 17
Fee Revenue Projection 17
Fee Schedule 18

4. FIRE PROTECTION FACILITIES .................................................... 20 Service Population 20
Existing Facility Inventory 20
Planned Facilities 21
Cost Allocation 22
Fee Revenue Projection 23
Fee Schedule 23

5. STREETS, MINOR BRIDGES & CULVERTS ..................................... 25 Trip Demand 25
Trip Growth 27
Level of Service 27
Project Costs 30
15 City of Murrieta Development Impact Fee Study Update ii

Fee per Trip Demand Unit 34
Fee Schedule 34

6. TRAFFIC SIGNALS ..................................................................... 36 Project Costs and Cost Allocation 36
Fee per Trip Demand Unit 39
Fee Schedule 39

7. STORM DRAIN FACILITIES .......................................................... 41 Storm Drain Demand 41
EDU Generation by New Development 41
Planned Facilities 42
Cost per Equivalent Dwelling Unit 43
Fee Schedule 43

8. GENERAL FACILITIES ................................................................. 45 Service Population 45
Existing Facility Inventory 45
Planned Facilities 46
Cost Allocation 47
Fee Revenue Projection 47
Fee Schedule 48

9. PARK FACILITIES ....................................................................... 50 Service Population 50
Existing Park Facilities Inventory 50
Park Facilities Unit Costs 53
Preliminary Planned Park Improvements 54
Park Facility Standards 54
Mitigation Fee Act 55
City of Murrieta Park Facilities Standards 55
Facilities Needed to Accommodate New Development 55
Parks Cost per Capita 56
Use of Fee Revenue 57
Fee Schedule 57

10. COMMUNITY CENTER FACILITIES ................................................ 59 Service Population 59
Existing Facility Inventory 59
Planned Facilities 60
Cost Allocation 61
Fee Revenue Projection 61
Fee Schedule 62

11. LIBRARY FACILITIES .................................................................. 63 Service Population 63
Existing Facility Inventory 63
16 City of Murrieta Development Impact Fee Study Update iii

Planned Facilities 64
Cost Allocation 64
Existing Level of Service 64
Future Level of Service 64
Use of Fee Revenue 65
Fee Revenue Projection 65
Fee Schedule 65

12. AB 602 REQUIREMENTS ............................................................ 67 Compliance with AB 602 67
66016.5. (a) (2) - Level of Service 67
66016.5. (a) (4) – Review of Original Fee Assumptions 67 66016.5. (a) (6) – Capital Improvement Plan 68

13. IMPLEMENTATION ...................................................................... 69 Impact Fee Program Adoption Process 69
Inflation Adjustment 69
Reporting Requirements 69
Programming Revenues and Projects with the CIP 69
Reimbursements 69

14. MITIGATION FEE ACT FINDINGS .................................................. 71 Purpose of Fee 71
Use of Fee Revenues 71
Benefit Relationship 71
Burden Relationship 71
Proportionality 72
APPENDIX ........................................................................................... 1 17 4
Executive Summary
This report summarizes an analysis of development impact fees needed to support future development in The C ity of Murrieta through 2035. 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:
• Law Enforcement
• Fire Protection
• Streets, Minor Bridges & Culverts
• Traffic Signals
• Storm Drainage
• General Facilities
• Park Facilities
• Community Centers
• Public Library
Background and Study Objectives
The primary policy object ive of a development imp act 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 findin gs 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 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 fe es are identified in the fee study. Futu re facilities to serve growth will be identified thr ough the City’s annual capit al improvement pl an and budget pro cess and/or completion of a new facil ity master plan. This approach is to calculate th e law enforcement, fire protection, parks, community center and general facilities 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 s pecific 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 include street improvements to avoid deficient levels of service or a sewer trunk line extension to 18 City of Murrieta Development Impact Fee Study Update 5 a previously undeveloped area. This approach is used for the streets, minor bridges & culverts, traffic signal, and storm drain facility fees.

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 alloca tes existing and planned facilities across existing and n ew developme nt to determ ine 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 fi nd non -impact fee revenue sources to fund existing development’s fair share of planned fac ilities. This approach is us ed for the public library facility 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 f acilities, the facilities shall be identified. That ide ntification may, but need not, be made by r eference to a capital improvement plan as s pecified 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 i dentify the public fac ilities for wh ich the f ee is charged. ”1 Each chapter in this report identifi es the appropriate use of impact fee revenu es for each parti cular impact fee category.

Impact fee revenue must be spent on ne w facilities or expansion of current facilities to serve new development. Facilities can be generally defined as capital acquisitio n items wi th 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 acq uisition of vehicles or equ ipment, inform ation technology, software li censes and equipment.

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

1 California Government Code §66001 (a) (2).
19 City of Murrieta Development Impact Fee Study Update

6 Table E.1: Maximum Justified Impact Facilities Fee Summary Land Use
Law
Enforcement
Fire
Protection
Streets,
Minor
Bridges &
Culverts
Traffic
Signals
Storm
Drainage
General
Facilities
Parkland
Facilities
Community
Centers
Public
Library Total
Residential - Fee per Square Foot
Single Family 0.40$ 0.28$ 2.38$ 0.35$ 0.15$ 0.45$ 4.89$ 0.12$ 0.17$ 9.19$ Multifamily 0.54 0.38 3.63 0.54 0.29 0.61 3.12 0.16 0.23 9.50 Nonresidential - Fee per Square Foot
Commercial 1.20$ 1.85$ 8.82$ 1.30$ 0.20$ 0.21$ -$ -$ -$ 13.58$ Office 1.93 2.98 7.69 1.13 0.10 0.34 - - - 14.18 Industrial 0.64 0.99 2.51 0.37 0.25 0.11 - - - 4.87 Sources: Tables 3.6, 4.6, 5.6, 6.4, 7.5, 8.6, 9.9, 10.6 and 11.7. 20 City of Murrieta Development Impact Fee Study Update

7 Other Funding Needed
Impact fees may only fund the share o f public facilit ies related to new development in Murrieta.

They may not be used to fund the share of facility needs generated by existing development or by development outside of the City. A s shown in Table E.2, approximately $ 104.5 million in additional funding wil l be needed to complete the facility projects the City currently p lans to develop. The “ Additional Funding Require d” column shows non-impact fee funding required to fund a share of the improvements partially funded by impact fees. Non-fee f unding is needed because these facilities are needed partially to remedy existing deficiencies and partly to accommodate new development.

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

Fee Category
Total Project
Cost
Projected
Impact Fee
Revenue
Additional
Funding Required
Law Enforcement 59,670,000$ 59,670,000$ -$
Fire Protection 85,521,000 85,521,000 -
Streets, Minor Bridges & Culverts 355,740,973 286,035,438 69,705,535 Traffic Signals 67,872,382 41,977,526 25,894,856 Storm Drainage 12,983,598 7,850,999 5,132,599 General Facilities 18,131,000 18,131,000 - Parkland Facilities 97,204,000 97,204,000 - Community Centers 2,288,000 2,288,000 - Public Library 7,100,000 3,325,104 3,774,896 Total 706,510,953$ 602,003,068$ 104,507,886$
Sources: Tables 3.5, 4.5, 5.4, 5.5, 6.2, 6.3, 7.3, 7.4, 8.5, 9.7, 10.5, 11.3 and 11.6.

Table E.2: Non-Impact Fee Funding Required
21 8

1. Introduction
This report presen ts an anal ysis of the need for public facilities to accommod ate new development in the City of Murrieta. This chapter provides background for the study and expl ains 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 du ring the pas t 45 years ha s stead ily undercut the financial capacity of local governments to fund infrastructure. Four dominant trends stand out:
• The passage of a string of tax limitation measures, starting with Proposition 13 in 1978 and continuing through the passage of Proposition 218 in 1996; • Declining popular support for bond measures to finance infrastructure for the next generation of residents and businesses;
• Unfunded state and federal mandates; and,
• Steep reductions in federal and state assistance.

Faced with these trends, many cities and counties have had to adopt a policy of “growth pays its own way.” This poli cy shift s the burden of funding infrastructure expansion from exist ing ratepayers and taxpayers onto new devel opment. This funding shift has been acco mplished 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 facilities are directly related to the developing property. Development impact fees, on the other hand, are an approp riate fu nding source for facilities that benefit all dev elopment 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 LU-1.7 of the City’s General Plan states “Ensure necessary capital improvements are in place prior to new development or completed concurrently.” Policy LU-1.8 of the City’s General Plan states “Ensure that fiscal impacts associated with growth and change are evaluated to ensure the City’s ability to provide vital services is not compromised. ” The primary purpose of this repo rt is to update the City’s impact fees based on the most current available facility plans and growth projections. The proposed fees will enable the City to expand its inventory of publ ic facilities as new development leads to increases in service demands. This report supports the General Plan policies 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 repo rt provide s the necessary findings required by the Act for adoption of the fees prese nted in t he fee sched ules presented in this report.
22 City of Murrieta Development Impact Fee Study Update

9 Murrieta is forecast to significant growth through this study’s pl anning horizon o f 2035. This growth will crea te an increas e in demand fo r public services and the fac ilities required to del iver them. Given t he revenue c hallenges described above, Murrieta has decided t o 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 the City’s most recently adopted Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) to update the City’s existing fee program to ensure that the fee p rogram accurately repr esents the facility needs resulting from new development.

Fee Program Maintenance
Once a fee program has been adopted it must be properly maintained to ensure that the revenue collected adequately funds the facilities needed by new development. To avoid 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 fo r each facility includ ed in the invent ories (land, building s, and equipment), such as the Engineering News-Record, is neces sary to accu rately adjust the impact fees. For a list of recommended indices, see Chapter 13.

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 13.

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 development: Estimate the total amount of planned facilities, and identify the share required to accommodate new development;

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

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

6. Identify 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. 23 City of Murrieta Development Impact Fee Study Update

10 Types of Facility Standards
There are three separate components of facility standards:
 Demand standards determine the amou nt of fac ilities required to accommodate growth, for example, park acres per thousand residents, square feet of library space per capita, or gallons of water per day. Demand standards may also reflect a level of service such as the vehicle volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratio used in traffic planning.  Design sta ndards determine how a facility should be designed to meet expected demand, for example, par k improvement requirements and technology infrastructure for City office space. Design standards are typically not explicitly evaluated as part of an impact fee analysis but can have a significant impact on the cost of facilities. Our approach incorporates the cost of 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 costs: the existing inventory method, the planned facilities method, and the system plan method. The formula used by each approach and the adva ntages and d isadvantages of each method is summarized below:

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

Current Value of Existing Facilities
Existing Development Demand
Under this method new development will fund the e xpansion of facilities at the same standard currently serving existing development. By definition the existing inv entory method results in no facility deficiencies attributable to existing developmen t. This method is often used when a long - range plan for n ew facilities is not availa ble. 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 calculate th e law enforcement, fire protection, parks, community center and general 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 = $/unit of demand
= $/unit of demand
24 City of Murrieta Development Impact Fee Study Update

11 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 pre viously undeveloped 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 st andards used in th e a pplicable planning documents . This approach is used for the streets, minor bridges & culverts, traffic signal, and storm drain facility fees.

System Plan Method
This method calculates the fee ba sed on the value of existing facilitie s 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 analy zed as part of a system that benefits both existing an d new development. It is difficult, for exam ple, to a llocate 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 d evelopment does n ot pay for e xisting deficiencies.

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 imp act fee . This approach is used for the public library facility fees in this report.

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

Chapters 3 through 11 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:
• Law Enforcement
• Fire Protection
• Streets, Minor Bridges & Culverts
• Traffic Signals
• Storm Drainage
• General Facilities
• Park Facilities
• Community Centers
• Public Library
Chapter 12 describes how this study complies with the requirements of AB 602.

Chapter 13 details the procedures that the City must follow when implementing a developm ent impact fee program. Impact fee program adoption procedures are found in California Government Code Sections 66016 through 66018.

The five statutor y f indings r equired for adoption of the proposed public facilities fees in accordance with the Mitigation Fee Act are documented in Chapter 14. = $/unit of demand
25 12

2. Growth Forecasts
Growth projections are us ed as indicators of demand to determine facility n eeds and allocate those needs between existing and new development. This chapter explains the source for the growth projections used in this study based on a 2023 base year and a planning horizon of 2035.

Estimates of existing development and pr ojections of future growth ar e critical assumptions used throughout this report. These estimates are used as follows:
• The estimate of existing development in 2023 is used as an indicator of existing facility demand and to determine existing facility standards. • The e stimate of total deve lopment a t the 2035 planning horizon is used as an indicator of future demand to determine total facil ities needed to accom modate growth and remedy existing facility deficiencies, if any. • Estimates of growth from 2023 through 2035 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 betwee n different land use types. The land use types that impact fees have been calculated for are defined below. • Residential: All residential dwelling units. Fees charged per square foot of living space.
• Commercial: All commercial, retail, educational, and hotel/motel development. • Office: All general, professional, and medical office development. • Industrial: All manufacturing, warehousing, and other industrial development.

Some developments may in clude more than one land use typ e, such as a mixed-use development with both residential 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 Murrieta, both in 2023 and in 2035. The base year estimates of residents and dwelling units comes from t he California Department of Finance . The population projection for 2035 was calculated based on the total single family and multifamily units identified in Table 3-15 of the 2035 General Plan Land Use Element, multiplied by estimates of 3.25 residents per single family unit and 2.07 residents per multifamily u nit calculated from the 2022 American Community Survey data for Murrieta.
26 City of Murrieta Development Impact Fee Study Update

13 Base year employees were estimated based on data obtained from the U.S. Census Bureau ’s OnTheMap Application . The p rojection of employees is based on the total building square feet identified in Table 3 -15 of the 2035 General Plan Land Use Element, multiplied by employment densities from Table 2.2. Estimated building square feet in 2023 is based on existing building square feet in 2009 General Plan EIR, increased by new construction s ince 2009 as reported by CoStar. Building square feet at buildout identified in Table 3 -15 of the 2035 General Plan Land Use Element.

Table 2.1: Demographic Assumptions
2023 2035 Increase
Residents1 109,998 135,774 25,776
Dwelling Units2
Single Family 28,817 30,872 2,055
Multifamily 8,388 17,121 8,733
Total 37,205 47,993 10,788
Employment3
Commercial 11,561 38,383 26,822
Office 10,238 70,234 59,996
Industrial 4,441 2,663 (1,778)
Total 26,240 111,280 85,040
Building Square Feet (000s)4
Commercial 6,443 19,887 13,444
Office 6,315 22,583 16,268
Industrial 3,425 2,585 (839)
Total 16,183 45,056 28,873
Note: Figures have been rounded to the hundreds.
3 Current estimates of primary jobs from the US Census' OnTheMap. Projection based on total building square feet identified in Table 3-15 of the 2035 General Plan Land Use Element, multiplied by employment densities from Table 2.2. 4 Estimated building square feet in 2023 based on existing building square feet in 2009 EIR, increased by new construction since 2009 as reported by CoStar.

Building square feet at buildout identified in Table 3-15 of the 2035 General Plan Land Use Element.
1 Current population from California Department of Finance (DOF). Projection for 2035 calculated based on total single family and multifamily units in 2035 identified in Table 3-15 of the 2035 General Plan Land Use Element, multiplied by estimates of 3.25 residents per single family unit and 2.07 residents per multifamily unit calculated from the 2022 American Community Survey data for Murrieta.
2 Existing dw elling units in 2023 identified in CA DOF Table E-5. Total 2035 dw elling units identified in Table 3-15 of the 2035 General Plan Land Use Element Sources: California Department of Finance (DOF), Table E-5, 2023; Murrieta General Plan EIR and Murrieta General Plan Update; US Census Bureau OnTheMap Application; CoStar; Willdan Financial Services.

27 City of Murrieta Development Impact Fee Study Update

14 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 occ upant density factor used in this report is shown in Table 2.2. The residential density factors are based on data for Murrieta from the 2022 U.S. Census’ American Community Survey (Tables B25024 and B25033). Table B25024 provides total housing units by type of unit Table B25033 documents the total population residing in occupied housing by type of unit. Total residents are divided by total units to estimate average persons per dwelling unit Citywide by type of unit . The nonresidential occupancy factors are calculated based on data from the City ’s General Plan EIR.

Table 2.2: Occupant Density
Residential
Single Family 3.25 Residents per dwelling unit
Multifamily 2.07 Residents per dwelling unit
Nonresidential
Commercial 1.93 Employees per 1,000 square feet Office 3.11 Employees per 1,000 square feet
Industrial 1.03 Employees per 1,000 square feet Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2022 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Tables B25024 and B25033; City of Murrieta General Plan Update and EIR; Willdan Financial Services.

28 15

3. Law Enforcement Facilities
The purpose of the law enforcement impact fee is to fund the law enforcement facilities needed to serve new development. Murrieta currently provides law enforcement services from a single law enforcement station. A maximum justified fee is presented based on the existing standard of law enforcement facilities per capita.

Service Population
Law enforcement facilities serve both residents and busine sses. Therefore, demand for services and associated facilities ar e based on the City ’s service population including residents and workers.

Table 3.1 shows the existing and futu re p rojected service population for law enforcement facilities. To calculate the service population for law enforcement facilities, residents are weighted at 1.00. The u se of a worker demand fa ctor o f 1.99 for w orkers in Murrieta is bas ed on an analysis of police department call data , categorized by land use, in the City from 2022. Annual calls for service at residential land uses were divided by t he residential p opulation to yield an annual calls-per-capita factor. Dividing annual calls for service at nonresidential areas by annual employment in the City yielded a comparable per-capita factor. The ratio of the worker per c apita factor to the resident per capita factor is t he worker demand factor used in the analysis. See Appendix Table A.1 for a detailed worker weighting analysis.

Table 3.1: Law Enforcement Facilities Service Population Residents Workers
Service
Population
Existing (2023) 109,998 26,240 162,200
New Development (2023-2035) 25,776 85,040 195,000 Total (2035) 135,774 111,280 357,200
Weighting factor1 1.00 1.99
Source: Tables 2.1 and A.1.
1 Workers are w eighted at 1.99 of residents based on an an analysis of calls for service w ithin the City. Refer to Table A.1 for further detail.

Existing Facility Inventory
This study uses the existing standard methodology to calculate fees for law enforcement facilities.

Law enforcement services in the City of Murrieta are presently based out of one main facility.

Table 3.2 summarizes the City’s current inventory of law enforcement land, buildings, and vehicles. The unit cost for the land value assumption of $510,200 per acre was based on an analysis of recent land sales comparisons as reported by Costar since 2021 . Unit c ost assumptions for the replacement cost of buildings were provided by City staff. 29 City of Murrieta Development Impact Fee Study Update 16 Table 3.2: Existing Law Enforcement Facilities Inventory Inventory Unit Cost Value
Land (acres)
Police Station 5.95 $510,200 3,035,700$
Buildings (square feet)
Police Headquarters 28,800 950$ 27,360,000$
Storage Building 7,158 550 3,936,900
Subtotal 31,296,900$
Vehicles (See Appendix Table A.2) 12,065,000$
Equipment
Telecommunications Equipment 2,000,000$
Police Headquarters Furniture and Equipment 950,000
Police Storage Furniture and Equipment 200,000
Subtotal 3,150,000$
Canines 4 15,000$ 60,000$
Total Value of Existing Facilities 49,607,600$
Sources: City of Murrieta; Appendix Table A.2, Willdan Financial Services.

Planned Facilities
Table 3.3 summarizes the preliminary planned law enforcement facilities needed to serve the City through 2035. The City plans a expansion of its police station and a regional training center that will be share with the fire department . New facil ities costs are est imated to total approximately $25.9 million, after accounting for the existing fund balance.

Table 3.3: Planned Law Enforcement Facilities
Inventory Unit Cost Value
Buildings (square feet)
Police Station Expansion 10,000 1,500$ 15,000,000$ Regional Training Center (RTC) 12,500,000
Subtotal 27,500,000$
(Less: Existing Fund Balance) (1,622,147)
Net Cost of Planned Facilities 25,877,853$
Sources: Capital Improvement Plan FY 2022-23 to FY 2026-27, City of Murrieta, California; Willdan Financial Services.

30 City of Murrieta Development Impact Fee Study Update 17 Cost Allocation
Table 3.4 expresses the City’s current law enforcement facilities level of se rvice in terms o f an existing cost per capita , by dividing the replacement cost of the City ’s existing facilitie s by the existing service population. The resulting cost per capita drives the fee calculation. The cost per capita is multiplied by the worker weighting factor to determine the cost per worker.

Table 3.4: Existing Level of Service
Value of Existing Facilities 49,607,600$
Existing Service Population 162,200
Cost per Capita 306$
Facility Standard per Resident 306$
Facility Standard per Worker1 609
1 Based on a w eighting factor of 1.99.

Sources: Tables 3.1 and 3.2; City of Murrieta; Willdan Financial Services.

Use of Fee Revenue
The City can u se law enforcement facilities fee revenues for the constr uction or purch ase of buildings, land, and equipment that are part of the system of law enforcement facilities serving new development. A list of preliminary planned facilities is included in Table 3.3.

Fee Revenue Projection
The City plans to use police facilities fee revenue to construct improvements and acquire capital facilities and equipment to add to the system of police facilities to serve new development. Table

3.5 details a pro jection of fee r evenue, ba sed on the servic e population grow th increment identified in Table 3.1. When setting fees to maintain the existing level of service, the resulting fee revenue will fully fund the identified planned facilities, and the City will need to identify additional fa cilities to maintain the level of service as new development add s demand for law enforcement services and facilities through the planning horizon. 31 City of Murrieta Development Impact Fee Study Update 18 Table 3.5: Revenue Projection - Existing Standard
Cost per Capita 306$
Growth in Service Population (2023 - 2035) 195,000
Fee Revenue 59,670,000$
Net Cost of Planned Facilities 25,877,853
Additional Facilities to be Identified 33,792,147$
Sources: Tables 3.1, 3.3 and 3.4.

Fee Schedule
Table 3.6 shows the maximum justified law enforcement 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 nonresidential building space). The fee per average sized single family, and multifamily dwelling unit is converted into a fee per square foot by dividing the fee per dwelling unit by the assumed average square footage of each type of unit.

The total fee incl udes a two percent (2%) adm inistrative cha rge to fund cos ts that include: a standard overhea d charge a pplied to all City programs for legal, accounting, a nd other departmental and administrative support, and fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated publ ic repo rting, and fee justificatio n analyses.

In Willdan’s experience with impact fee programs, two percent of the base fee adequately covers the cost of fee p rogram admin istration. The administrativ e charge should be reviewed and adjusted d uring comprehen sive im pact fee u pdates to ensure t hat revenu e g enerated from the charge sufficiently covers, but does not exc eed, the administrative costs a ssociated with the fee program.
32 City of Murrieta Development Impact Fee Study Update 19 Table 3.6: Law Enforcement Facilities Fee Schedule
A B C = A x B D = C x 0.02 E = C + D F = E / Average
Cost Per Admin Fee per
Land Use Capita Density Base Fee 1 Charge1, 2 Total Fee 1 Sq. Ft.3 Residential
Single Family 306$ 3.25 995$ 20$ 1,015$ 0.40$ Multifamily 306 2.07 633 13 646 0.54 Nonresidential
Commercial 609$ 1.93 1,175$ 24$ 1,199$ 1.20$ Office 609 3.11 1,894 38 1,932 1.93 Industrial 609 1.03 627 13 640 0.64 1 Fee per average sized dw elling unit, per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential.

Sources: Tables 2.2 and 3.4; Willdan Financial Services. 3 Assumes 2,555 square feet per average sized single family unit, and 1,198 square feet per average sized multifamily unit in Murrieta based on an analysis of building permits issued betw een January 2022 and September 2023. 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.
33 20

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

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

Service Population
Fire facilit ies 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 4.1 shows the current fire facilities service population and the estimated service population at the planning horizon of 2035.

To calculate the service population for fire protection facilities, r esidents a re weighted at 1.00.

The use of a worker demand fa ctor of 4.31 for workers in Murrieta is based on an analysis of fire department call data, categorized by land use, in the City from 2022. Average annual incidents at residential land uses were divided by t he residential p opulation to yield an average annual incidents-per-capita factor. Dividing average annual incidents at nonresidential areas by average annual employment in the City yielded a comparable per-capita factor. The ratio of the worker per capita factor to the resident per capita factor is t he worker demand factor used in the analysis.

See Appendix Table A.3 for a detailed worker weighting analysis.

Table 4.1: Fire Facilities Service Population
Residents Workers1
Service
Population
Existing (2023) 109,998 26,240 223,100
New Development (2023-2035) 25,776 85,040 392,300 Total (2035) 135,774 111,280 615,400
Weighting factor1 1.00 4.31
Source: Tables 2.1 and A.3.
1 Workers are w eighted at 4.31 of residents based on an analysis of calls for service w ithin the City. Refer to Table A.3 for further detail.

Existing Facility Inventory
Table 4.2 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 $510,200 per acre was based on an analysis of recent land sales comparisons as reported by Costar since 2021 , and consistent with other chap ters in this report.

Building valuations were provided by the City . A summary of the value of vehicle s, fire protection equipment, and apparatuses can be found in Appendix Table A.4. 34 City of Murrieta Development Impact Fee Study Update 21 Table 4.2: Existing Fire Facilities Land and Building Inventory Inventory Units Unit Cost Value 1
Land (acres)
Station 1 and Admin 1.89 acres $510,200 964,300$ Station 2 1.76 acres 510,200 898,000
Station 3 2.30 acres 510,200 1,173,500
Station 4 3.99 acres 510,200 2,035,700
Station 5 1.45 acres 510,200 739,800
Subtotal 11.39 acres 5,811,300$
Buildings (square feet) 1,2
Fire Station 1 14,332 Sq. Ft. $466 6,678,200$
Administration Building 7,970 Sq. Ft. 475 3,787,300 Shop Maintenance 6,110 Sq. Ft. 221 1,347,600 Training Building 2,266 Sq. Ft. 306 694,400 Shelter 1,160 Sq. Ft. 35 40,500
Exercise Room 660 Sq. Ft. 194 127,800 Fire Station 2 10,200 Sq. Ft. 439 4,477,100 Fire Station 3 7,572 Sq. Ft. 474 3,586,200 Fire Station 4 9,500 Sq. Ft. 765 7,263,000 Fire Station 5 - Building 1 (Temp)3 1,400 Sq. Ft. - - Fire Station 5 - Building 2 (Temp)3
2,000 Sq. Ft. - -
Subtotal 28,002,100$
Vehicles and Apparatus (See Appendix Table A.4) 14,772,600$ Total Value of Existing Facilities 48,586,000$
2 Value includes building cost and contents (furnishings and equipment) specific to each building. 3 No value show n for these facilities because they w ill be replaced by planned Station #5. 1 Unit costs w ere evaluated using replacement values supplied by the Murrieta Fire & Rescue 2020 FAIRA insurance valuation as the base. 14% escalation added per year to achieve 2023 structural values.

Sources: 2020 FAIRA Insurance Renew al Valuation for the Murrieta Fire & Rescue; Willdan Financial Services.

Planned Facilities
Table 4.3 summarizes the planned facilities needed to serve the City through 2035, as identified by the City . The Cit y plans to build a two new fire stations and purchase several engines an d apparatus, in addition t o a new Regional Training Center that will be shared with the police department. In total $30.1 million worth of new facilities has been identified. 35 City of Murrieta Development Impact Fee Study Update 22 Table 4.3: Planned Fire Facilities
Facility / Asset Inventory Unit Cost Value
New Fire Stations and Facilities (square feet)
Regional Training Center (RTC) 12,500,000$
Replace Fire Station 5 (S5) on Vineyard Parkway1 12,680 670$ 8,500,000 New Fire Station 6 (S6) and garage bay2 12,680 670 8,500,000 Subtotal 29,500,000$
New Apparatus3
S6 Pierce Type 1 Engine. Upfitting included 1,470,000$
S6 Rescue Truck for Medic Patrol. Upfitting included 485,000 S6 All-Terrain Polaris. Upfitting included 48,000
S6 Pierce Type 3 Brush Truck. Upfitting included 675,000 Subtotal 2,678,000$
Total Cost - Planned Facilities 32,178,000$
Less: Existing Fund Balance 2,078,791
Net Cost of Planned Facilities 30,099,209$

Sources: Capital Improvement Plan FY24, City of Murrieta, Murrieta Fire & Rescue. 1 Replace S5 temporary modular building at the current location w ith a 2-story building, install a carport, low - maintenance landscaping. Existing garage bay w ill remain. 2 New S6 includes station building approximately 12,500/sf w ith Police substation, separate garage bay 3-door tandem w ith bi-fold doors, carport for BC vehicles, community and training room, patio space, greenbelt and landscaping, solar system, data infrastructure, station alerting system, PPE extractors, deionized w ater treatment system.
3 S6 topography w ill need the follow ing fleet: 1) Type 3-Brush Engine that has a pumper unit. 2) Type 1 Engine. 3) Rescue Truck. 4) All-Terrain Polaris

Cost Allocation
Table 4.4 expresses the City ’s current fire protection facilities level of serv ice in terms of a n existing cost per capita , by dividing the replacement cost of the City ’s existing facilitie s by the existing service population. The resulting cost per capita drives the fee calculation. The cost per capita is multiplied by the worker weighting factor to determine the cost per worker. 36 City of Murrieta Development Impact Fee Study Update 23 Table 4.4: Existing Level of Service
Value of Existing Facilities 48,586,000$
Existing Service Population 223,100
Cost per Capita 218$
Facility Standard per Resident 218$
Facility Standard per Worker1 940
1 Based on a w eighting factor of 4.31
Sources: Tables 4.1 and 4.2; City of Murrieta; Willdan Financial Services.

Fee Revenue Projection
The City plans to use fire protection facilities fee revenue to construct improvements and acquire capital facil ities an d equipment to add to the system of fire protection facilities to serve new development. Table 4.5 details a pro jection of fee r evenue, ba sed on the servic e population growth increment ident ified in Table 4.1. When setting fees to maintain the existing level of service, the resulting fee revenue will fully fund the identified planned facilities, and the City will need to identify additional fa cilities to maintain the level of service as new development add s demand for fire protection services and facilities through the planning horizon.

Table 4.5: Revenue Projection - Existing Standard
Cost per Capita 218$
Growth in Service Population (2023 - 2035) 392,300
Fee Revenue 85,521,000$
Net Cost of Planned Facilities 30,099,209
Value of Facilities To Be Identified 55,421,791$
Sources: Tables 4.1, 4.3 and 4.4.

Fee Schedule
Table 4.6 shows the maximum justified fire protection facilities fee schedule. The cost per capita is converted t o 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 nonresidential building space). The fee per average sized single family, and multifamily dwelling unit is converted into a fee per square foot by dividing the fee per dwelling unit by the assumed average square footage of each type of unit.

The total fee incl udes a two percent (2%) adm inistrative cha rge to fund cos ts that include: a standard overhea d charge a pplied to all City programs for legal, accounting, a nd other departmental and administrative support, and fee program administrative costs including revenue 37 City of Murrieta Development Impact Fee Study Update 24 collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated publ ic repo rting, and fee justificatio n analyses.

Table 4.6: Fire Protection Facilities Fee Schedule
A B C = A x B D = C x 0.02 E = C + D F = E / Average
Cost Per Admin Fee per
Land Use Capita Density Base Fee 1 Charge1, 2 Total Fee 1 Sq. Ft.

Residential
Single Family 218$ 3.25 709$ 14$ 723$ 0.28$ Multifamily 218 2.07 451 9 460 0.38 Nonresidential
Commercial 940$ 1.93 1,814$ 36$ 1,850$ 1.85$ Office 940 3.11 2,923 58 2,981 2.98 Industrial 940 1.03 968 19 987 0.99 1 Fee per average sized dw elling unit, per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential.

Sources: Tables 2.2 and 4.4; 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.
3 Assumes 2,555 square feet per average sized single family unit, and 1,198 square feet per average sized multifamily unit in Murrieta based on an analysis of building permits issued betw een January 2022 and September 2023. 38 25

5. Streets, Minor Bridges &
Culverts
This chapter summarizes an analysis of the need for streets, minor bridges, and culverts, to accommodate new development. The chapter documents a reasonable relationship between new development and the impact fee for funding 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 alt ernate modes (transi t, bicycle, pedestrian) often substitute for vehicle trips.

The two types of trips adjustments made to trip ge neration rates to 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 n o 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 category compared to the average length of all tr ips on the street system.

Table 5.1 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 Murrieta, the use of this data is appr opriate as a means of allocating t rips acr oss 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 the City of Murrieta.

39 City of Murrieta Development Impact Fee Study Update

26 Table 5.1: Trip Rate Adjustment Factors
Primary
Trips1
Diverted
Trips1
Total
Excluding
Pass-by1
Average
Trip
Length2
Adjust-ment
Factor3 ITE Category
Average
Daily
Trips4
Trip
Demand
Factor5
A B C = A + B D E = C x D / 6.9 F G = E x F
Residential
Single Family 86% 11% 97% 7.9 1.11 Single Family Housing (210) 9.43 10.47 Multifamily 86% 11% 97% 7.9 1.11 Apartment (220) 6.74 7.48 Nonresidential
Commercial 47% 31% 78% 3.6 0.41 Shopping Center (820) 37.01 15.17 Office 77% 19% 96% 8.8 1.22 General Office Building (710) 10.84 13.22 Industrial 79% 19% 98% 9.0 1.28 Industrial Park (130) 3.37 4.31 2 In miles.
6 Assumes 2.26 average daily trips per resident, multiplied by residents per dw elling unit assumptions from Table 2.2. 3 The trip adjustment factor equals the percent of non-pass-by trips multiplied by the average trip length and divided by the systemw ide average trip length of 6.9 miles. 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, July 1998; Institute of Traffic Engineers, Trip Generation, 11th Edition; 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. 40 City of Murrieta Development Impact Fee Study Update

27 Trip Growth
The planning horizon for this analysis i s 2035. Table 5.2 lists the 2023 and 2035 land use assumptions used in this study. The trip d emand factors calculated in Table 5.1 are multiplied by the existing and future d welling units and building square feet from Table 2.1 to determine the increase in trip demand associated with new development.

Table 5.2: 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 28,817 301,714 2,055 21,516 30,872 323,230 Multifamily 7.48 8,388 62,742 8,733 65,323 17,121 128,065 Subtotal 37,205 364,456 10,788 86,839 47,993 451,295 Nonresidential
Commercial 15.17 6,443 97,744 13,444 203,949 19,887 301,693 Office 13.22 6,315 83,484 16,268 215,067 22,583 298,551 Industrial 4.31 3,425 14,760 (839) (3,617) 2,585 11,143 Subtotal 16,183 195,988 28,873 415,399 45,056 611,387 Total 560,444 502,238 1,062,682

52.7% 47.3% 100%
Sources: Tables 2.1 and 5.1; Willdan Financial Services 2023 Total - 2035Growth 2023 to 2035

Level of Service
This impact fee study is an update to the City ’s 2016 development impact fee update study. The streets, mi nor bridges, and culverts fee in that analysis was based on the circu lation element policy of maintaining an average daily traffic (ADT) Level of Service (LOS) “C” or better for all roadway segments. This update relies on the same transportation modeling that was used in the 2016 study. Segments that have been completed have been removed from the project list. The remaining segments are needed to ensure that new development does not degrade the LOS to unacceptable levels. In some cases, even with mitigation the LOS cannot be fully mitigated ba ck to an acceptable LOS.

Projects that were allocated 100% to new development in the prior study are still allocated 100% to the impact fee. Projects that are needed to serve both existing demand and future demand are allocated to the impact fee based on new development ’s share of total trips at the planning horizon (47.3%) identified in Table 5.2.
41 City of Murrieta Development Impact Fee Study Update

28 Table 5.3: Existing and Future Roadway Segment Level of Service Allocation
Project Roadway Classification
No. of
Lanes
Existing
V/C
Existing
LOS
Bike
Lane Future
No. of
Lanes
Future
V/C
Future
LOS Bike Lane
To New
Development
ST-07 - A-B Jefferson Avenue Secondary 2 0.86 D Class II Arterial 6 1.01 F Class II 100% ST-07 - C Jefferson Avenue Arterial 3 0.86 D Class II Arterial 6 1.01 F Class II 100% ST-08 - A Jefferson Avenue Arterial 2 0.22 A Class II Arterial 6 0.40 A Class II 100% ST-08 - B-C Jefferson Avenue Arterial 2 0.22 A - Arterial 6 0.50 A Class II 100% ST-15 - G Washington Avenue --- 4 0.55 A - Secondary 4 0.56 A Class II 100% ST-15 - L Washington Avenue --- - - - - Collector 2 0.11 A MP Trail 47.3% ST-16 - A Washington Avenue Industrial Collector 2 0.05 A - Industrial Collector 2 0.25 A MP Trail 100% ST 17/18 - A Guava Street --- 2 0.02 A - Major 4 0.46 A Class II 100% ST 17/18 - E Guava Street --- 2 0.09 A - Collector 2 0.49 A Class II 100% ST-19 - A- B Adams Avenue 2 0.18 A - Secondary 4 0.13 A - 100% ST-20 - B Ivy Street 2 0.33 A - Major 4 0.26 A Class II 100% ST-26 - A Kalmia Street Collector 2 1.18 F - Collector 2 0.63 B Class II / MP Trail 47.3% ST-27/28 - A Kalmia Street Major 3 0.99 E - Arterial 6 0.91 E Class II 100% ST-27/28 - B Kalmia Street Major 3 1.26 F - Major 4 0.83 D Class II 47.3% ST-29 - A Lemon Street Secondary 2 0.32 A - Secondary 4 0.16 A Class II 100% ST-30 - A Nutmeg Street Secondary 2 0.44 A - Secondary 4 0.77 C Class II 100% ST-31 - A-B Nutmeg Street Secondary 2 0.45 A - Secondary 4 0.49 A Class II 100% ST-33 - B Monroe Avenue Major - - - - Major 4 0.67 B Class II 100% ST-35 - A Jackson Avenue Collector 3 0.51 A - Secondary 4 0.39 A Class II 100% ST-36 - A Whitewood Road Major - - - - Major 4 0.62 B MP Trail 100% ST-37 - B Vineyard Parkway Collector - - - - Collector 2 0.21 A Class II 100% ST-40/41 - A McElwain Road Secondary 2 - Secondary 4 - - Class II 47% ST-40/41 - B McElwain Road Secondary 3 - Secondary 4 0.77 C Class II 47% ST-42 - A Linnel Lane Secondary 2 - Secondary 4 0.93 E Class II 47% ST-46 - B Whitewood Road Major 3 0.24 A Class II Major 4 0.79 C MP Trail 100% Source: Kimley Horn and Associates.

Existing Conditions (2013) Future Conditions (2035)

42 City of Murrieta Development Impact Fee Study Update 29 Table 5.3: Existing and Future Roadway Segment LOS (Continued) Allocation
Project Roadway
Existing
Classification
No. of
Lanes
Existing
V/C
Existing
LOS
Bike
Lane
Future
Classification
No. of
Lanes
Future
V/C
Future
LOS Bike Lane
To New
Development
ST-46/47 - A New Antelope Road --- - - - - Major 4 1.06 F Class II 100% ST-49 - A I-215 & Keller Road Interchange --- - - - - Interchange - - - - 47.3% ST-50 - A Elm Street Major 2 0.19 A - Major 4 0.53 A Class II 100% ST-51 - A Madison Avenue Major 2 0.26 A - Major 4 0.11 A Class II 100% ST-51 - B Madison Avenue --- - - - - 0.14 A Class II 100% ST-51 - C Madison Avenue Major 2 0.26 A - 0.53 A Class II 47.3% ST-52 - A Monroe Avenue --- - - - - Major 4 0.06 A Class II 100% ST-54 - A Murrieta Hot Springs Road Arterial 4 0.59 A - Urban Arterial 6 0.86 D Class II 100% ST-57 - A Hayes Avenue Collector 2 0.05 A - Collector 2 0.59 A MP Trail 100% ST-59 - A Fig Street --- - - - - Industrial Collector 2 0.34 A - 100% ST-60 - A Larchmont Lane --- - - - - Industrial Collector 2 0.50 A - 100% ST-64 - A Porth Road --- - - - - Collector 2 - 47.3%
ST-65 - A Liberty Road --- - - - - Collector 2 0.30 A - 100% ST-66 - A Antelope Industrial Collector 2 - Industrial Collector 2 0.41 A - 47.3% ST-67 - A Keller Road Arterial 3 Class II Arterial 6 0.79 C Class II, MP Trail 47.3% ST-68 - A Mitchell Road --- - - - - Secondary 4 0.47 A - 100% ST-70 - A Adams Avenue Collector 2 0.52 A Class II Collector 2 1.01 F Class II 100% ST-71 - A Hawthorne --- - - - - Collector 2 0.12 A Class II 100% ST-72 - A Ivy Street Collector 2 0.58 A Class II Collector 2 0.06 A Class II 100% ST-73 - A Adams Avenue Collector 2 0.15 A - Secondary 4 0.45 A Class II 100% ST-75 - A Lemon Street Secondary 2 0.52 A - Secondary 4 0.47 A Class II 100% ST-76 - A Vista Murrieta --- - - - - Collector 2 0.12 A - 100% ST-78 - A Fig Street Industrial Collector 2 0.19 A - Industrial Collector 2 0.06 A - 100% ST-81 - A Los Alamos Collector 2 0.36 A - Collector 2 0.28 A Class II 100% ST-82 - A Lincoln Collector 2 0.3 A - Collector 2 0.22 A Class III 100% Source: Kimley Horn and Associates.

Existing Conditions (2013) Future Conditions (2035)
43 City of Murrieta Development Impact Fee Study Update

30 Project Costs
Cost estimates and the allocated to new development are summarized in Table 5.4. The project costs from the 2016 study were prepared in 2013. Those costs were adjusted for inflation to 2024 using the Engineering News Record ’s Construction Cost Index. The table al so shows the allocation to new development. The majority of the projects included in the fee program were not deficient at the ti me the fee program was created. For projects that were not deficient as of the last analysis, the full cost of the improvements is needed to remedy unacc eptable level of service decreases caused by the increase in trips from new development. For projects that were deficient at th at time, an the mitigation does not allow the LOS to degrade fu rther, the full cost of the improvement is allocated to new development. For projects that the only improvement that could be made increases the LOS, a proportional share of responsibility is allocated to new development and to existing development.
44 City of Murrieta Development Impact Fee Study Update

31 Table 5.4: Roadway Segment Facilities Costs and Allocation to New Development Project Roadway Description Lane Feet Signal
Total Cost
(2023)
Allocation To
New
Development
Cost
Allocated To
New
Development
ST-07 - A-B Jefferson Avenue
Widen 2200 LF on the west side Lemon to N/O
Kalmia (A). Widen 1000 LF on the east side N/O
Kalmia to Centerpointe (B). Construct additional
23 LF, 4 lane span bridge to cross canal at
$575,000.
2,200 $ 6,085,185 100% $ 6,085,185
ST-07 - C1 Jefferson Avenue Widen 350 LF on the east side Kalmia to canal 350 Intersection #44 at Kalmia in intersection estimates 942,681 100% 942,681
ST-08 - A Jefferson Avenue Widen 900 LF on the east side Gateway to City Limits 900 2,656,896 100% 2,656,896 ST-08 - B-C Jefferson Avenue Widen 500 LF on the eas side S/O Gateway (B) and 1100 LF on the west side S/O Gateway (C). 1,100 3,247,317 100% 3,247,317 ST-15 - G Washington Avenue Widen 700 LF on the east side S/O Calle de Oso Oro. Add two bike lanes and a sidewalk. 700 852,124 100% 852,124 ST-15 - L Washington Avenue Reconstruct a new 2 lane collector. 2,620 5,711,987 47.3% 2,701,770 ST-16 - A Washington Avenue Construct between Elm and Guava at 5280 LF 5,280 11,339,482 100.0% 11,339,482 ST 17/18 - A Guava Street 1320 LF widening on north side and 820 LF widening on south side Jefferson to Monroe 2,280 5,615,450 100% 5,615,450 ST 17/18 - E Guava Street Widen 5400 LF Washington to W/O John Wayne 5,400 9,406,022 100% 9,406,022 ST-19 - A- B Adams Avenue
Widen 1300 LF on the west side Brown to Guava
(A) and widen 2800 LF on the east side Guava to
Hawthorn (B).
2,800 7,228,702 100% 7,228,702
ST-20 - B1 Ivy Street Widen 1320 LF on the north side Adams to Washington 1,320 1,448,229 100% 1,448,229 ST-26 - A Kalmia Street Widen/Construct 2640 LF W. City Limits to Washington 2,640 5,061,336 47.3% 2,394,012 ST-27/28 - A1 Kalmia Street
Widen 690 LF on the north side Village Walk to
Jefferson which includes narrowing travel lanes,
relocating the median, and constructing a through
lane and SW.
690 Intersection #44 at Jefferson in intersection
estimates 1,575,517 100% 1,575,517
ST-27/28 - B Kalmia Street Widen 2200 LF on the northside W/O Jefferson to Washington 2,200 Intersection #44 at Jefferson in intersection estimates 4,251,995 47.3% 2,011,194
Notes:
1 Cost estimated by the City of Murrieta. Contingencies w ere added to the initial estimates.

Sources: City of Murrieta; Kimley Horn and Associates.
-Streetlight and dry utility costs are included in cost/LF. Streetlights are estimated at one streetlight every 250' at $16,000 each, dry utilities are estimated as $40,000 every 2500'. -The costs for a one lane bridge span is estimated at $6,250/LF.

45 City of Murrieta Development Impact Fee Study Update 32 Table 5.4: Roadway Segment Facilities Costs and Allocation to New Development Continued Project Roadway Description Lane Feet Signal 2
Total Cost
(2023)
Allocation To
New
Development
Cost
Allocated To
New
Development
ST-29 - A Lemon Street Widen 2000 LF on the north side of Washington to E/O Hayes. 2,000
Relocate existing signal/streetlight at
Washington on the west leg. In intersection
estimate
$ 3,888,071 100% $ 3,888,071
ST-30 - A Nutmeg Street
Widen appx 480 LF along bridge on Calle de Oso
Oro. Construct additional two lane span bridge at
$6M.
480 9,416,202 100% 9,416,202
ST-31 - A-B Nutmeg Street
Widen 1700 LF on the south side Washington to
Adams (A) and widen 700 LF on the north side
W/O Adams to Washington (B).
1,700 3,304,861 100% 3,304,861
ST-33 - B Monroe Avenue Construct 3800 LF Los Almos to Murrieta Hot Springs. 3,800 Intersection at los alamos rd intersection #27 $ 11,604,833 100% $ 11,604,833
ST-35 - A Jackson Avenue Widen 1300 LF on the east side Nutmeg St to S/O Robards 1,300 1,775,505 100% 1,775,505 ST-36 - A Whitewood Road Construct 4600 LF Jackson to Murrieta Hot Springs 4,600 Intersection #57 at Murrieta Hot Springs Rd in intersection estimates 10,106,723 100% 10,106,723 ST-37 - B Vineyard Parkway Construct 2500 LF S/O Calle Del Oso Oro to future Calle Rambla Orienta 2,500 5,450,369 100% 5,450,369 ST-40/41 - A McElwain Road Widen/Construct 3000 LF Linnel Ln to N. City Limit 3,000 7,363,300 47.3% 3,482,841 ST-40/41 - B McElwain Road Construct 650 LF S/O Linnel Ln on west side 650 887,753 47.3% 419,907 ST-42 - A Linnel Lane Widen 1100 LF on the north side W/O I-215 1,100 2,138,439 47.3% 1,011,482 ST-46 - B Whitewood Road Widen 4800 LF on the east side Hunter to Clinton Keith 4,800 9,277,080 100% 9,277,080 ST-46/47 - A Warm Springs Parkway
Construct appx 14800 LF of New Antelope Rd
Clinton Keith to Scott. Construct new signal at
Clinton Keith (Intersection #21). Signal & 1200 LF
Built
13,600 Intersection #21 at clinton keith in
intersection estimates. *Completed* 37,283,070 100% 37,283,070 ST-49 - A I-215 & Keller Road InterchangeConstruct interchange - 47,000,000 47.3% 22,231,000 ST-50 - A Elm Street Jefferson Avenue to Monroe Avenue 2,100 5,172,125 100% 5,172,125 Notes:
1 Cost estimated by the City of Murrieta. Contingencies w ere added to the initial estimates.

46 City of Murrieta Development Impact Fee Study Update 33 Table 5.4: Roadway Segment Facilities Costs and Allocation to New Development Continued Project Roadway Description Lane Feet Signal 2
Total Cost
(2023)
Allocation To
New
Development
Cost
Allocated To
New
Development
ST-51 - A Madison Avenue Nick Ln to Date St 1,290 $ 3,177,162 100% $ 3,177,162 ST-51 - B Madison Avenue Golden Gate Cir to Nick Ln 700 2,137,732 100% 2,137,732 ST-51 - C Madison Avenue Murrieta Hot Springs Rd to Golden Gate Cir 5,830 17,804,256 47.3% 8,421,413 ST-52 - A Monroe Avenue Guava St to Larchmont 4,000 12,215,613 100% 12,215,613 ST-54 - A Murrieta Hot Springs Road Madison Ave to Jefferson Ave 1,320 1,935,326 100% 1,935,326 ST-55 - A Murrieta Hot Springs Road Jefferson Ave to Adams Ave 1,320 4,975,487 100% 4,975,487 ST-57 - A Hayes Avenue Kalmia St to Guava St 8,000 13,934,848 100% 13,934,848 ST-59 - A Fig Street Jefferson Ave to Monroe Avenue 2,400 6,715,194 100% 6,715,194 ST-60 - A Larchmont Lane Jefferson Ave to Monroe 2,100 5,875,795 100% 5,875,795 ST-64 - A Porth Road Liberty Rd to Clinton Keith 2,700 5,886,399 47.3% 2,784,267 ST-65 - A Liberty Road Porth Rd to City Limit 1,320 2,877,795 100% 2,877,795 ST-66 - A Antelope Stepp Rd to Brians Way 7,000 12,192,992 47.3% 5,767,285 ST-67 - A Keller Road I-215 to Menifee Rd 1,700 3,331,300 47.3% 1,575,705 ST-68 - A Mitchell Road McElwain to Clinton Keith 2,300 5,937,863 100% 5,937,863 ST-70 - A Adams Avenue Lemon to Kalmia 2,640 4,598,500 100% 4,598,500 ST-71 - A Hawthorne Adams to Washington 1,320 2,877,795 100% 2,877,795 ST-72 - A Ivy Street Washington to Hayes 1,900 3,309,526 100% 3,309,526 ST-73 - A Adams Avenue Guava St to Cherry 9,300 9,598,588 100% 9,598,588 ST-75 - A Lemon Street Washington to Jefferson 2,640 5,132,254 100% 5,132,254 ST-76 - A Vista Murrieta Los Alamos to Monroe 2,900 6,322,428 100% 6,322,428 ST-78 - A Fig Street Adams to Jefferson 700 1,503,340 100% 1,503,340 ST-81 - A Los Alamos Via Santee to Ruth Ellen 900 1,567,670 100% 1,567,670 ST-82 - A Lincoln Juniper to Los Alamos 1,000 1,741,856 100% 1,741,856 Total $355,740,973 $ 296,912,091
Notes:
1 Cost estimated by the City of Murrieta. Contingencies w ere added to the initial estimates.

Sources: City of Murrieta; Kimley Horn and Associates.

Streetlight and dry utility costs are included in cost/LF. Streetlights are estimated at one streetlight every 250' at $16,000 each, dry utilities are estimated as $40,000 every 2500'.

The costs for a one lane bridge span is estimated at $6,250/LF. 47 City of Murrieta Development Impact Fee Study Update

34 Fee per Trip Demand Unit
Every impact fee consists of a dollar amount , or the cost of projects that can be funded by a fee, divided by a measure of development. In this case, all fees are first calculated as a cost 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 5.5 calculates the cost the cost per trip demand unit by dividing the project c osts attributable to new development, net of existing fund balances, from Table 5.4, by the total growth in trips calculated in Table 5.2.

Table 5.5: Cost per Trip to Accommodate Growth
Project Costs
Fee Program Share of Planned Facilities Costs 296,912,091$ Less Existing Fund Balance (10,876,653)
Net Costs 286,035,438$
Growth in Daily Trips 502,238
Cost per Trip 570$
Sources: Tables 5.2 and 5.4; Willdan Financial Services.

Fee Schedule
Table 5.6 shows the maximum justified arterial streets fee schedule. The maximum justified fees are based on the costs per trip shown in Table 5.5. The cost per trip is multiplied by the trip demand factors in Table 5.1 to determine a fee per unit of new development. The fee per average sized single family, and multifamily dwelling unit is converted into a fee per square foot by dividing the fee per dwelling unit by the assumed average square footage of each type of unit.

The total fee includes a two percent ( 2%) administr ative charg e to fund costs that include: a standard ove rhead cha rge applied to all City programs for lega l, acco unting, and ot her departmental and administrative support, and fee program adm inistrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost a ccounting, mandated public repo rting, and fee justifica tion analyses.

48 City of Murrieta Development Impact Fee Study Update 35 Table 5.6: Streets, Minor Bridges & Culverts Impact Fee A B C = A x B D = C x 0.02 E = C + D F = E / Average
Trip
Land Use
Cost Per
Trip
Demand
Factor Base Fee 1
Admin
Charge1, 2 Total Fee 1
Fee per Sq.

Ft.

Residential
Single Family 570$ 10.47 5,968$ 119$ 6,087$ 2.38$ Multifamily 570 7.48 4,264 85 4,349 3.63 Nonresidential
Commercial 570$ 15.17 8,647$ 173$ 8,820$ 8.82$ Office 570 13.22 7,535 151 7,686 7.69 Industrial 570 4.31 2,457 49 2,506 2.51 1 Fee per average sized dw elling unit, per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential.

Sources: Tables 5.1 and 5.5; 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.
3 Assumes 2,555 square feet per average sized single family unit, and 1,198 square feet per average sized multifamily unit in Murrieta based on an analysis of building permits issued betw een January 2022 and September 2023.

49 36

6. 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

5.1, and the trip growth projections calculated in Table 5.2 will also be used in this chapter.

Project Costs and Cost Allocation
Intersection locations needed to serve n ew development are summarized in Table 6.1. The table also shows the allocation to new development. None of the interse ctions included in the fee program were deficient at the ti me the fee program was created. For projects that were not deficient as of the last analysis, the full cost of the improvements is needed to remedy LOS decreases caused by the increase in trips fr om new development. For proje cts where the only improvement that could be made increases the LOS, a proportional share of responsibility is allocated to new development and to existing development.

Project costs are summarized in Table 6.2. The project costs from the 2016 study were prepared in 2013. Those costs were adjusted for inflation to 2024 using the Engineering News Record ’s Construction Cost Index. The allocation to new development from Table 6.1 is multiplied by the cost estimate to determine the costs allocated to new development. 50 City of Murrieta Development Impact Fee Study Update

37 Table 6.1: Traffic Signal and Intersection Level of Service (LOS) Allocation
to
GP Int
No. Intersections Control
Delay
(s/veh) LOS
Delay
(s/veh) LOS
Delay
(s/veh) LOS
Delay
(s/veh) LOS
Contro
l
Delay
(s/veh) LOS
Delay
(s/veh) LOS
New
Development
9 New Antelope Rd / Baxter Rd Signal - - - - 25.2 C 89.2 F Signal - - - - 100% 14 New Antelope Rd / Linnel Lane TWSC - - - - 22.1 C 28.5 C Signal 21.4 C 23.4 C 100% 27 Monroe Ave / Los Alamos Rd Signal 15 B 12.4 B 24.5 C 27.5 C Signal - - - - 100% 28 Jefferson Ave / Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Signal 21.2 C 20.7 C 133.3 F 206.4 F Signal 56.1 E 115.8 F 100% 39 Washington Ave / Calle Del Oso Oro - Nutmeg St Signal 29.2 C 26.8 C 27.6 C 27.5 C Signal - - - - 100% 42 Jefferson Ave / Magnolia St AWSC 18.2 C 21.2 C 10.7 B 9.4 A Signal - - - - 47% 44 Jefferson Ave / Kalmia St Signal 26.2 C 26.7 C 59.3 E 159.9 F Signal 60.3 E 158.5 F 100% 49 Monroe Ave / Murrieta Hot Springs Rd TWSC 15.8 C 23.8 C 8.0 A 16.2 B Signal - - - - 47% 57 Whitewood Rd / Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Signal 12.6 B 9.7 A 28.3 C 88.7 F Signal 28.4 C 51.6 D 100% 58 Adams Ave / Guava St AWSC 8.6 A 9.3 A 12.2 B 143.0 B Signal - - - - 100% Washington Ave / Lemon St Signal - - - - - - - - Signal - - - - 47% Jackson Ave / Nutmeg St Signal - - - - - - - - Signal - - - - 47% Adams St / Ivy St AWSC - - - - - - - - Signal - - - - 47% Jefferson Ave / Elm St Signal - - - - - - - - Signal - - - - 47% Hayes Ave / De Luz Rd - Guava St TWSC - - - - - - - - Signal - - - - 47% Madison Ave / Elm St AWSC - - - - - - - - Signal - - - - 47% Linnel Ln / McElwain Rd AWSC - - - - - - - - Signal - - - - 47% Jefferson Ave / Fig St Signal - - - - - - - - Signal - - - - 47% Madison Ave / Fig St AWSC - - - - - - - - Signal - - - - 47% Jefferson Ave / Centerpointe Ct Signal - - - - - - - - Signal - - - - 47% DNE - Indicates intersections that do not exist.

Source: Kimley Horn and Associates.

Existing Conditions 2035 No Improvement 2035 + Recommended Improvement AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour

51 City of Murrieta Development Impact Fee Study Update 38 Table 6.2: Traffic Signal Costs and Allocation to New Development GP Int
No. Intersection
Estimated
Construction
Costs (2013)
Estimated
Construction
Costs (2023)
Project
Specifications
and
Engineering
(PS+E) for
Design (15%)
Traffic
Control (5%)
Stormwater
Management
(5%)
Contingencies
(15%) Grand Total
Allocation to
New
Development
Total Cost
Allocated to
New
Development
9 New Antelope Rd / Baxter Rd1 689,063$ 974,227$ 103,359$ 34,453$ 34,453$ 103,359$ 1,938,915$ 100% 1,938,915$ 14 New Antelope Rd / Linnel Lane 3,612,500 5,107,512 541,875 180,625 180,625 541,875 10,165,012 100% 10,165,012 27 Monroe Ave / Los Alamos Rd1 364,063 514,728 54,609 18,203 18,203 54,609 1,024,416 100% 1,024,416 28 Jefferson Ave / Murrieta Hot Springs Rd1 827,313 1,169,691 124,097 41,366 41,366 124,097 2,327,929 100% 2,327,929 39 Washington Ave / Calle Del Oso Oro - Nutmeg St 750,000 1,060,383 112,500 37,500 37,500 112,500 2,110,383 100% 2,110,383 42 Jefferson Ave / Magnolia St 1,601,000 2,263,564 240,150 80,050 80,050 240,150 4,504,964 47.3% 2,130,848 44 Jefferson Ave / Kalmia St 750,000 1,060,383 112,500 37,500 37,500 112,500 2,110,383 100% 2,110,383 49 Monroe Ave / Murrieta Hot Springs Rd 2,058,000 2,909,691 308,700 102,900 102,900 308,700 5,790,891 47.3% 2,739,091 57 Whitewood Rd / Murrieta Hot Springs Rd 751,750 1,062,857 112,763 37,588 37,588 112,763 2,115,307 100% 2,115,307 58 Adams Ave / Guava St 1,170,000 1,654,198 175,500 58,500 58,500 175,500 3,292,198 100% 3,292,198 Washington Ave / Lemon St 1,000,000 1,413,844 150,000 50,000 50,000 150,000 2,813,844 47.3% 1,330,948 Jackson Ave / Nutmeg St 500,000 706,922 75,000 25,000 25,000 75,000 1,406,922 47.3% 665,474 Adams St / Ivy St 750,000 1,060,383 112,500 37,500 37,500 112,500 2,110,383 47.3% 998,211 Jefferson Ave / Elm St1 275,000 388,807 41,250 13,750 13,750 41,250 773,807 47.3% 366,011 Hayes Ave / De Luz Rd - Guava St 1,472,750 2,082,239 220,913 73,638 73,638 220,913 4,144,089 47.3% 1,960,154 Madison Ave / Elm St 2,357,000 3,332,431 353,550 117,850 117,850 353,550 6,632,231 47.3% 3,137,045 Linnel Ln / McElwain Rd 2,132,750 3,015,376 319,913 106,638 106,638 319,913 6,001,226 47.3% 2,838,580 Jefferson Ave / Fig St1 290,250 410,368 43,538 14,513 14,513 43,538 816,718 47.3% 386,308 Madison Ave / Fig St 2,594,000 3,667,512 389,100 129,700 129,700 389,100 7,299,112 47.3% 3,452,480 Jefferson Ave / Centerpointe Ct1 175,438 248,041 26,316 8,772 8,772 26,316 493,654 47.3% 233,498 Total 24,120,875$ 34,103,157$ 3,618,131$ 1,206,044$ 1,206,044$ 3,618,131$ 67,872,382$ 45,323,190$ Notes: 2013 costs adjusted to 2023 using the Engineering New s Record's Construction Cost Index. 1 Costs assumed three legs of signal completed.

Source: Kimley Horn Associates.

52 City of Murrieta Development Impact Fee Study Update

39 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 cas e, 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 6.3 calculates the cost the cos t per trip demand unit by dividing the total proje ct costs attributable to new development summarized in Table 6.2, net of the existing fund balance, by the total growth in trips calculated in Table 5.2.

Table 6.3: Cost per Trip to Accommodate Growth
Fee Program Share of Planned Facilities Costs 45,323,190$ Less Existing Fund Balance (3,345,664)
Net Costs 41,977,526$
Growth in Daily Trips 502,238
Cost per Trip 84$
Sources: Tables 5.2 and 6.2; Willdan Financial Services.

Fee Schedule
Table 6.4 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 6.3. The cost per trip is multiplied by the trip demand factors in Table 5.1 to determine a fee per unit of new development. The fee per average sized single family, and multifamily dwelling unit is converted into a fee per square foot by dividing the fee per dwelling unit by the assumed average square footage of each type of unit.

The to tal fee i ncludes a two percent (2%) admini strative c harge to fund costs tha t include: a standard overhead charge applied to all City programs for legal, accounting, and ot her departmental and administrative support, and fee program administrative c osts including revenue collection, revenue and cos t accounti ng, mandated public reporting, and fee j ustification analyses.

Ft.

Residential
Single Family 84$ 10.47 879$ 18$ 897$ 0.35$ Multifamily 84 7.48 628 13 641 0.54 Nonresidential
Commercial 84$ 15.17 1,274$ 25$ 1,299$ 1.30$ Office 84 13.22 1,110 22 1,132 1.13 Industrial 84 4.31 362 7 369 0.37 1 Fee per average sized dw elling unit, per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential.

Sources: Tables 5.1 and 6.3; 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.
3 Assumes 2,555 square feet per average sized single family unit, and 1,198 square feet per average sized multifamily unit in Murrieta based on an analysis of building permits issued betw een January 2022 and September 2023.
54 41

7. Storm Drain Facilities
This chapter summarizes an analys is of the need fo r storm drain facilities to accommoda te growth with in the C ity of Pomona. This projects and asso ciated costs in this c hapter were identified it the City’s prior impact fee study . This chapter documents a reasonable rela tionship between new developmen t and a st orm drain fee to f und storm drain f acilities that serve new development.

Storm Drain Demand
Most new development generates storm water ru noff that must be controlled through storm drain facilities by increasing the amount of land that is impervi ous to precipitation. Table 7.1 shows the calculation of equivalent d welling unit (EDU) demand factors based on impe rvious surface coefficient by la nd u se category. The average impervious surf ace assumptions are consistent with the City’s prior impact fee study. EDU factors relate demand for storm drain facilities in terms of the demand created by a single-family dwelling unit.

Table 7.1: Storm Drain Facilities Equivalent Dwelling Units DU or
KSF per
acre 1
Average
Percent
Impervious
Impervious
Square Feet
per Unit
Equivalent
Dwelling
Unit (EDU)2
Residential
Single Family 5.00 40% 3,485 1.00
Multifamily 10.00 73% 3,158 0.91
Nonresidential
Commercial 21.78 90% 1,800 0.52
Office 41.38 90% 947 0.27
Industrial 17.42 90% 2,250 0.65
1 Dw elling units for residential and thousand building square feet for non-residential. Density based on estimated development and acreage for each land use type in the General Plan . Nonresidential densities are based on floor-area-ratios of 0.5 for commercial, 0.95 for office, and 0.40 for industrial, derived from the ranges in Table 3-18 of the General Plan Land Use Element. 2 EDUs per dw elling unit for residential development and per thousand square feet for nonresidential development.

Sources: Murrieta General Plan Land Use Element, Table 3-18. Willdan Financial Services.

EDU Generation by New Development
Table 7.2 shows t he estimated EDU generation from new development t hrough 2040. New development will generate approximately 20,839 new EDUs , represe nting 32.3 percent of total storm drain demand in 2035.
55 42
Table 7.2: Storm Drain Facilities Equivalent Dwelling Units EDU
Factor1
Existing
(DU/KSF)
Projected
Growth
(DU/KSF)
Total
(DU/KSF)
Existing
EDUs
Growth in
EDUs Total
Residential
Single Family 1.00 28,817 2,055 30,872 28,817 2,055 30,872 Multifamily 0.91 8,388 8,733 17,121 7,633 7,947 15,580 Subtotal 37,205 10,788 47,993 36,450 10,002 46,452 Nonresidential
Commercial 0.52 6,443 13,444 19,887 3,350 6,991 10,341 Office 0.27 6,315 16,268 22,583 1,705 4,392 6,097 Industrial 0.65 3,425 (839) 2,585 2,226 (546) 1,680 Subtotal 16,183 28,873 45,056 7,282 10,837 18,119 Total 43,732 20,839 64,571
Share 67.7% 32.3%
1 Per dw elling unit (residential) or thousand building square feet (nonresidential).

Sources: Table 2.1 and 7.1; Willdan Financial Services

Planned Facilities
Table 7.3 identifies the planned storm dra in facilities to be funde d by the fee. The new storm drain facilities were all identified in the City ’s prior impact fee study . Projects that have been completed since that study was published were rem oved from the project list. The project costs from that study were estimated in 2013 and are adjusted here for inflation to 2023 dollars using the Engineering News record’s Construction Cost Index. Since drainage projects will benefit both existing development an d new development, capacity expanding pr ojects a re allocated to new development based on new development’s share of storm drain demand at the planning horizon. 56 43
Table 7.3: Storm Drain Capital Improvements
Project
Number Description
Total Cost
(2013)1
Total Cost
(2023)1
Allocation to
New
Development
Costs
Allocated to
New
Development
SD-01 Construct Storm Drainage Line D 6,998,454$ 9,413,545$ 32.27% 3,038,034$ SD-11 Construct Storm Drainage Line L 2,436,171 3,276,867 32.27% 1,057,543 SD-12 Construct Storm Drainage Line L-1 201,784 271,417 32.27% 87,594 SD-13 Construct Storm Drainage Line M 592,227 796,599 32.27% 257,086 SD-14 Construct Storm Drainage Line M-1 319,901 430,296 32.27% 138,869 SD-15 Construct Storm Drainage Line N 1,737,310 2,336,836 32.27% 754,167 SD-16 Construct Storm Drainage N/O Larchmont, Jefferson to Murrieta Creek 1,171,331 1,575,544 32.27% 508,475 SD-17 Construct Storm Drainage N/O Fuex Wa, Jefferson to Murrieta Creek 592,227 796,599 32.27% 257,086 SD-19 Construct Storm Drainage Line, Kalmia Street, Historic Murrieta Area 185,703 249,788 32.27% 80,614 SD-20 Construct Storm Drainage Line, "B" Street, Historic Murrieta area 146,498 197,053 32.27% 63,595 SD-21 Construct Storm Drainage Line, Juniper Street, Historic Murrieta area - - 32.27% - SD-22 Construct Storm Drainage Line, Jefferson Street, Historic Murrieta area 108,602 146,080 32.27% 47,144 SD-23 Construct Storm Drainage Line, Adams Street, Historic Murrieta area 203,424 273,624 32.27% 88,307 SD-25 Construct Storm Drainage Line, Ivy Street, Historic Murrieta area - - 32.27% - SD-26 Construct Storm Drainage Line, New Clay Street, Historic Murrieta area 188,824 253,985 32.27% 81,969 SD-27 Storm Drainage Master Plan 500,000 672,545 32.27% 217,050 8059 Guava: Jefferson to Murrieta Creek Road 208,398 280,314 32.27% 90,466 8157 Line D and D1‐Madison to Jefferson 30,246 40,684 32.27% 13,130 8202 Line E Storm Drain 74,725 100,512 32.27% 32,438 8345 Murrieta Creek Design 268,461 361,104 32.27% 116,539 10016 Development Impact Fee Nexus Study 4,900 6,591 32.27% 2,127 N/A Line F at Murrieta Creek 1,940,000 2,609,473 32.27% 842,155 N/A Construct Line G - Adams to Murrieta Creek 2,000,000 2,690,178 32.27% 868,201 SD-18 Construct Murrieta Creek Flood Control Channel 10,000,000 13,450,892 32.27% 4,341,007 Total 29,909,187$ 40,230,526$ 12,983,598$
(Less Existing Fund Balances) (5,132,599)$
Net Cost of Planned Facilities (Including Murrieta Creek) 7,850,999$ Sources: City of Murrieta; Engineering New s Record; Willdan Financial Services. 1 Project costs from 2016 impact fee study have been adjusted for inflation to 2023 using the Engineering New s Record's Construction Cost Index.

Cost per Equivalent Dwelling Unit
This c hapter uses the planned facilities approach to calculate the storm drain facilities cost standard. The net cost of planned facilities allocated to new development is divided by the growth in EDUs t o determine a c ost standard per E DU. Table 7.4 shows the facility cost standard for storm drain facilities.

Table 7.4: Cost per Equivalent Dwelling Unit
Net Cost of Planned Facilities for New Development 7,850,999$ Growth in EDUs 20,839
Cost per EDU 377$
Sources: Tables 7.2 and 7.3; Willdan Financial Services.

Fee Schedule
The maximum justified fee for sto rm drain facilities is shown in Table 7.5. The City can adopt any fee up to this amount. The cost per EDU from Table 7.4 is converted to a fee per u nit of new development b ased on the EDU factors shown in Table 7.1. The fee per average sized single 57 44
family, and multifamily dwelling unit is converted into a fee per square foot by dividing the fee per dwelling unit by the assumed average square footage of each type of unit.

The total fee includes a two percent (2.0%) admin istrative charge to fund c osts tha t include: a standard overhead charge applied to all Cit y programs for legal, ac counting, and other departmental and administrative support, and fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting and mandated public reporting.

Table 7.5: Storm Drain Facilities Impact Fee Schedule
A B C = A x B D = C x 0.02 E = C + D F = E / Average
Cost Per
EDU
EDU
Factor Base Fee 1
Admin
Charge1, 2 Total Fee 1
Fee per Sq.

Ft.

Residential
Single Family 377$ 1.00 377$ 8$ 384$ 0.15$ Multifamily 377 0.91 343 7 350 0.29 Nonresidential
Commercial 377$ 0.52 196$ 4$ 200$ 0.20$ Office 377 0.27 102 2 104 0.10 Industrial 377 0.65 245 5 250 0.25 1 Fee per average sized dw elling unit, per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential.

Sources: Tables 7.1 and 7.4; 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.
3 Assumes 2,555 square feet per average sized single family unit, and 1,198 square feet per average sized multifamily unit in Murrieta based on an analysis of building permits issued betw een January 2022 and September 2023.

58 45

8. General Facilities
The purpose of the fee is to ensure that new deve lopment funds its fair share of general facilities.

A fee s chedule is presented based on th e existing facilities standard of general facilities in the City of Murrieta to ensure that new development provides adequate funding to meet its needs.

Service Population
General 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 8.1 shows the existing and future projecte d service population for general 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 dwell ing units. T he 0. 31-weighting fac tor 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 degr ee to which nonresidential development yields a lesser dema nd for general facilities.

Table 8.1: General Facilities Service Population
Residents Workers
Service
Population
Existing (2023) 109,998 26,240 118,100
New Development (2023-2035) 25,776 85,040 52,100 Total (2035) 135,774 111,280 170,200
Weighting factor 1.00 0.31
Source: Table 2.1; Willdan Financial Services.

Existing Facility Inventory
This stud y uses the existing standard methodology to calculate fees for general facilities. The general facilities inventory is comprised of several properties: new city hall, the Murrieta Innovation Center (MIC), Los Alamos Hills office and the City Maintenance Yard . Additionally, the City owns vehicles and equipment . The unit cost for the land value assumption of $510,200 per acre was based on an analysis of recent land sales comparison s as reported by Costar since 2021. City staff provided the replacement costs for the owned buildings, vehicles and equipment.

In total, the City owns approximately $41.1 million worth of general facilities. 59 46
Table 8.2: General Facilities Inventory
Inventory Unit Cost1 Value
Land (acres)
New City Hall 4.04 510,200$ 2,061,200$
MIC (Old City Hall) 0.95 510,200 484,700
Los Alamos Hills Office 19.13 510,200 9,760,100 Maintenance Yard 6.90 510,200 3,520,400
Subtotal 31.02 15,826,400$
Buildings (square feet)
New City Hall 35,000 285$ 9,975,000$
MIC (Old City Hall) 14,815 198 2,808,630 Public Works Modular Office 1,440 150 216,000 Shop Bldg 4,284 91 390,000
Storage Shed # 1 640 23 15,000
Storage Shed # 2 640 23 15,000
Equipment Shelter #1 2,520 36 90,000
Equipment Shelter #2 2,520 36 90,000
Equipment Shelter #3 2,520 36 90,000
Equipment Shelter #4 2,520 36 90,000
Subtotal 66,899 13,779,630$
Vehicles (Appendix Table A.5) 1,542,850$
Equipment (Appendix Table A.6) 7,070,425$
Building Contents
Old City Hall n/a n/a 700,000$
Public Works Modular Office n/a n/a 40,000
Shop Bldg n/a n/a 65,000
Storage Shed # 1 n/a n/a 10,000
Storage Shed # 2 n/a n/a 10,000
Equipment Shelter #1 n/a n/a 25,000
Equipment Shelter #2 n/a n/a 25,000
Equipment Shelter #3 n/a n/a 25,000
Equipment Shelter #4 n/a n/a 25,000
New City Hall n/a n/a 2,000,000
Subtotal - 2,925,000$
Total Value of Existing Facilities 41,144,305$
1 Unit costs are replacement valuations supplied by the City of Murrieta.

Sources: City of Murrieta; Appendix Tables A.1 and A.2, Willdan Financial Services.

Planned Facilities
Table 8.3 displays the preliminary planned facilities. The City plans to acquire land to expand the maintenance yard and to construct an additional maintenance yard building. The City also plans 60 47
to pursue a North Murrieta Technology Corridor Master P lan to further identify additional general facilities to maintain its existing level of service.

Table 8.3: Planned Facilities
Amount Units Unit Cost Total
Maintenance Yard 13 Acres $ 510,200 6,632,600$ Public Works Maintenance Building 10,000 Sq. Ft. 500$ 5,000,000 North Murrieta Technology Corridor Master Plan n/a 150,000 Subtotal 11,782,600$
(Less Existing Fund Balance) (119,709)
Net Cost of Planned Facilities 11,662,891$
Sources: City of Murrieta; Willdan Financial Services.

Cost Allocation
Table 8.4 shows the calculation of the existing cost per capi ta facili ty 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 general 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 8.4: General Facilities Existing Standard
Value of Existing Facilities 41,144,305$
Existing Service Population 118,100
Cost per Capita 348$
Facility Standard per Resident 348$
Facility Standard per Worker1 108
1 Based on a w eighting factor of 0.31.

Sources: Tables 8.1 and 8.2.

Fee Revenue Projection
The City plans to use general facilities fee revenue to construct impr ovements to add to the system of general and administrative f acilities to serve ne w development. Table 8.5 details a projection of fee revenue, bas ed on the service populatio n growth increment identified in Table

8.1. The City will have to identify and additional $6.5 million worth of general facilities beyond the preliminary list of planned facilities in Table 8.3 to ensure that the existing standard is maintained through the planning horizon as new development increases demand for general facilities. 61 48
Table 8.5: Revenue Projection - Existing Standard
Cost per Capita 348$
Growth in Service Population (2023 - 2035) 52,100
Fee Revenue 18,131,000$
Net Cost of Planned Facilities 11,662,891
Facilities To Be Identified 6,468,109$
Sources: Tables 8.1, 8.3 and 8.4.

Fee Schedule
Table 8.6 shows the maximum justified general facilities fee schedule. The cost per capita is converted to a fee per unit of new development based on dwelling unit and employment densities (persons per dwelling unit o r employees per 1,000 square feet of nonresiden tial building sp ace).

The fee per average sized single family, and multifamily dwelling unit is converted into a fee per square foot by dividing the fee per dwelling unit by the assumed average square footage of each type of unit.

The total fee incl udes a t wo percent (2%) administrative ch arge to f und costs that in clude: a standard overhead charge applied to City programs for legal, accounting, and other departmental and administrative support, and fee program administrative c osts incl uding revenue c ollection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.

Residential
Single Family 348$ 3.25 1,131$ 23$ 1,154$ 0.45$ Multifamily 348 2.07 720 14 734 0.61 Nonresidential
Commercial 108$ 1.93 208$ 4$ 212$ 0.21$ Office 108 3.11 336 7 343 0.34 Industrial 108 1.03 111 2 113 0.11 1 Fee per average sized dw elling unit, per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential.

Sources: Tables 2.2 and 8.4; 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.
3 Assumes 2,555 square feet per average sized single family unit, and 1,198 square feet per average sized multifamily unit in Murrieta based on an analysis of building permits issued betw een January 2022 and September 2023.

63 50

9. Park Facilities
The purpose of the park facilities impact fee is to fun d the acquisition and improvement of park facilities neede d to serv e new development. The maximum justified impact fee i s presented based on maintaining a 5.0-acre standard of park land per 1,000 residents and maintaining the existing standard of park improvements facilities per resident.

Service Population
Park facilities in Murrieta primarily serve resi dents. Therefore, demand for serv ices and associated facilities is based on the City’s residential po pulation. Table 9.1 shows the existing and future projected residential population for park facilities.

Table 9.1: Park Facilities Service
Population
Residents
Existing (2023) 109,998
New Development (2023-2035) 25,776
Total (2035) 135,774
Source: Table 2.1.

Existing Park Facilities Inventory
The City of Murrieta maintains several park and recre ation facilities throughout the city. Table 9.2 summarizes the City’s existin g park land inventory in 2023. All facilities are owned by the City.

The invento ry also includes undeveloped raw land and distinguishes the acr eage accordingly.

Parks are divid ed into several categories d epending on common characterist ics. In total, the inventory includes a total of 506.19 acres of City-owned park land. 64 City of Murrieta Development Impact Fee Study Update 51 Table 9.2: Park Land Inventory

Developed
Acreage
Undeveloped
Acreage
Neighborhood Parks
Barratt Park 8.30 -
Firefighters Park 3.21 -
Grizzly Ridge Park 0.50 -
Mapleton Park 9.30 -
Mountain Pride Park 9.64 -
Murrieta Elementary School 4.26 -
Northstar Park 3.08 -
Rancho Acacia Park 10.11 -
Second Avenue Park 0.75 5.35
Shady Maple Park 4.79 -
Valley Vista Park 6.50 -
Vintage Reserve Park 3.83 -
Subtotal 64.27 5.35
Neighborhood Play Areas
Antelope Hills Park - Active 5.31 -
Antigua Park 2.26 -
Blackmore Ranch Park 1.14 -
Calle Cipres Park 1.80 -
Calle Estancia Park 2.83 -
Carson Park 0.69 -
Century Park 3.90 -
Creekside Village Green 4.00 -
Crystal Aire Park 1.11 -
Eastgate Park 1.50 -
Echo Canyon Park 3.07 -
Golden Cities/Alderwood 8.00
Meadowridge Park 4.29 -
Montafino Park 0.76 -
Monte Vista Park 1.06 -
Oak Terrace Park 0.20 -
Oak Tree Park 0.32 -
Palomar Park 1.75 -
Rosewood Park 0.41 -
Springbrook Park 0.29 -
Sycamore Park 2.66 -
Whitewood Park 1.84 -
Subtotal 49.19
Source: City of Murrieta.

65 City of Murrieta Development Impact Fee Study Update 52 Table 9.2: Park Land Inventory - Continued
Developed
Acreage
Undeveloped
Acreage
Citywide Parks
Los Alamos Hills Sports Park 45.00 40.00 Community Parks
Alta Murrieta Sports Park 9.76 -
B Street Station 0.30 -
California Oaks Sports Park 19.99 -
Copper Canyon Park 20.94 -
Glen Arbor Park 18.92 -
Hunt Field/Community Center 4.72 -
Mira Mosa Park 8.10 -
Pond Park 14.59 -
Torrey Pines Park 8.00 -
Subtotal 105.32 -
Special Use Parks
Equestrian Park 21.27 -
Sykes Ranch Park 9.03 -
Town Square Park 4.22 -
Subtotal 34.52
Nature Parks
Bear Valley Park 1 20.14 -
Bear Valley Park 2 3.97 -
Cole Canyon Park 140.00 -
Falcon's View Park 14.00 -
Oak Mesa P ark 5.98 -
Warm Springs Park 23.80 -
Subtotal 207.89 -
Total - Existing Parkland 506.19 45.35
Source: City of Murrieta.

Table 9.3 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. Estimated replacement costs were provided by City staff for use in this analysis.
66 City of Murrieta Development Impact Fee Study Update 53 Table 9.3: Park Facility Inventory
Quantity
Estimated Cost
per Unit
Total
Replacement
Cost
Playground Equipment
Small 14 100,000$ 1,400,000$
Medium 11 200,000 2,200,000
Large 12 300,000 3,600,000
California Oaks Sports Park Pool Building
Building 1: Admin Office & Irrigation/Lighting Room 1 100,000 100,000 Building 2: Lifeguard Office 1 50,000 50,000 Building 3: Pump Room, Storage, Restrooms, etc. 1 1,200,000 1,200,000 Copper Canyon Park Little Ones Buidling 1 500,000 500,000 Picnic Shelters 31 150,000 4,650,000
Trash Enclosures 16 50,000 800,000
Stand Alone Restrooms1 7 650,000 4,550,000
Restroom/Snack Bars 2 5 750,000 3,750,000
Exercise Equipment 11 9,000 99,000
Dressing Room3 1 500,000 500,000
Storage3 1 500,000 500,000
Mechanical Enclosure (LAHSP) 1 100,000 100,000 Park Maintenance Office 0 - -
House & Garage 1 900,000 900,000
Barn 1 180,000 180,000
Pump Station (LAHSP) 1 250,000 250,000
Total 25,329,000$
Acres of Parkland 506.19
Cost per Acre 50,039$
1 13 restrooms total, but accounting for COSP restroom separately 3 Additional rooms w ithin the Tow n Square Park Amphitheatre building Source: City of Murrieta.
2 Snack bars are joined w ith restrooms/other buildings and go beyond solely replacing the snack bar in the instance of replacement

Park Facilities Unit Costs
Table 9.4 displays the unit costs nec essary to acquire and improve park land in Murrieta. The buildings, equipment and special facilities cost per acre from Table 9.3 is added to the cost of an acre of standard par k improvements to determine the total improvement cost per acre. The cost per acre of standard park improvements from the City’s prior impact fee study was adjusted for inflation into current dollars using the Engineering News Record ’s Construction Cost Index. The unit cost for the land value assumption of $510,200 per acre was based on an analysis of recent land sales comparisons as reported by Costar since 2021 . In t otal, this analysis assumes that it costs $775,439 to acquire and develop an acre of park land in Murrieta. 67 City of Murrieta Development Impact Fee Study Update 54 Table 9.4: Park Facilities Unit Costs
Cost
Per Acre Share
Land Acquisition 510,200$ 66%
Park Improvements
Standard Park Improvements 215,200$
Special Use Facilities 50,039
Improvements Cost per Acre 265,239$ 34%
Total Cost per Acre 775,439$ 66%
Sources: Tables 9.2 and 9.3.

Preliminary Planned Park Improvements
Table 9.5 lists the Cit y’s preliminarily planned park improveme nts. Costs were provided by City staff. Note that the City will need to identify additio nal improvements and land acquisition to maintain the existing facility standards through the planning horizon.

Table 9.5: Preliminary Planned Park Improvements
Facility Total Cost
NorthStar Park Tot Lot (new) 256,740$
Mira Mosa Park Tot Lot (new) 151,468
Pioneer Park Phase 2 (Infrastructure, Design, etc.) 450,000 Pioneer Park Phase 3 (Pump Track, etc.) ~37,500 sq. ft. 2,500,000 Equestrian Park (implementing master plan) 10,000,000
Total 13,358,208$
Source: City of Murrieta.

Park Facility Standards
Park facility s tandards establish a reasonable relat ionship between new development and the need for expanded park land 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 standards may be based on the Mitigation Fee Act (using a city’s existing inventory of park land and park facilities), or an adopte d policy standard contained in a master facility plan or general plan. Facility standards may also be based on a land 68 City of Murrieta Development Impact Fee Study Update 55 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 within the City.

Mitigation Fee Act
The Mitigation Fee Act does not dic tate use of a particular type or level of fac ility standard for public facilities fees. To comply with the findings required under the law, facility standards must not burden new development with any cost ass ociated w ith facility deficiencies attributable to existing development.3 In this case, the fees will be set at a 5.0 acre per 1,000 resident standard for park land acquisition, consistent with the C ity’s General Plan. The park improvements component of the fees will be set at the existing improved park land standard.

City of Murrieta Park Facilities Standards
Table 9.6 shows the existing standard s of park land and park improvements per 1,000 residents.

In total the City has an existing park land standard of 5.01 acres per 1,000 residents of land, and

4.60 acres per 1,000 residents of park improvements. The fees will be set at a 5.0 acre per 1,000 resident standard for park land acquisition, consistent with the C ity’s General Plan. The park improvements component of the fees will be set at the existing improved park land standard.

Table 9.6: Existing Park Standards
Land Improvements
Park Acreage 551.54 506.19
Service Population (2023) 109,998 109,998
Existing Standard (Acres per 1,000 Residents) 5.01 4.60 Sources: Tables 9.1, 9.2 and 9.5.

Facilities Needed to Accommodate New Development
Table 9.7 shows the park land acquisition needed to accommodate new development at the 5.0 acre per 1,000 resident standard , and park improvements needed to maintain the existing improvement standard through the planning horizon. To achieve these standards by the planning horizon, new residential development must fund the purchase of 128.88 acres, and improvement of 11.857 park land acres, at a total cost of $97.2 million.

2 California Government Code §66477.
3 See the Benefit and Burden findings in Background Report. 69 City of Murrieta Development Impact Fee Study Update 56 Table 9.7: Park Facilities to Accommodate New Development Calculation
Parkland
Facility Standard (acres/1,000 residents) A 5.00
Growth in Service Population (2023 - 2035) B 25,776
Facility Needs (acres) C = (B / 1,000) x A 128.88
Average Unit Cost (per acre) D 510,200$
Total Cost of Parkland To Serve New Development E = C x D 65,754,600$ Improvements
Facility Standard (acres/1,000 residents) A 4.60
Growth in Service Population (2023 - 2035) B 25,776
Facility Needs (acres) C = (B / 1,000) x A 118.57
Average Unit Cost (per acre) H 265,239$
Total Cost of Park Improvements To Serve New Development I = C x H 31,449,400$ Total Cost of Land and Improvements J = G + I 97,204,000$ Sources: Tables 9.1, 9.4, and 9.6; City of Murrieta.

Parks Cost per Capita
Table 9.8 shows the cost per capita of providing new park land and park facilities at the 5.0 acres land acquisition standard and the existing park improvement facility standard. The cost per capita is shown separately for land and improvements. The cost per capita is shown separately for land and improvements.
70 City of Murrieta Development Impact Fee Study Update 57 Table 9.8: Cost per Capita - Existing Level of Service Calculation
Parkland
Parkland Investment (per acre) A 510,200$
Facility Standard (acres per 1,000 residents) B 5.00
Total Cost Per 1,000 capita C = A x B 2,551,000$
Cost Per Resident D = C / 1,000 2,551$
Improvements
Parkland Investment (per acre) E 265,239$
Facility Standard (acres per 1,000 residents) B 4.60
Total Cost Per 1,000 capita F = E x B 1,220,000$
Cost Per Resident G = F / 1,000) 1,220$
Sources: Tables 9.3, 9.4 and 9.7; Willdan Financial Services.

Use of Fee Revenue
The City plans to use park facilities fee revenue to purchase park land or construct improvements to add to the system of park facilities that serves new development. The City may only use impact fee revenue to provide facilities and i ntensify usage of existing facilities needed to serve new development.

Fee Schedule
To calculate fees by land use type, the investment in park fa cilities is determined on a per capita basis for both land acquisition and improvement. These cost factors (shown in Table 9.8) are cost per capita base d on the unit cost estim ates and facili ty standards. The fee per average sized single family, and multifamily dwelling unit is converted into a fee per square foot by dividing the fee per dwelling unit by the assumed average square footage of each type of unit.

Table 9.9 shows the maximum justified park f acilities fee schedule based on the analysis described above. The total fee includ es an administrative charge to fund costs th at include: (1) legal, accounting , and ot her administrat ive support and (2) impact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounti ng, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.
71 City of Murrieta Development Impact Fee Study Update 58 Table 9.9: Park Facilities Fee Schedule
A B C = A x B D = C x 0.02 E = C + D F = E / Average
Cost Per Base Admin Fee per
Land Use Capita Density Fee 1 Charge1, 2 Total Fee 1 Sq. Ft.3 Single Family
Parkland 2,551$ 3.25 8,291$ 166$ 8,457$ 3.31$ Improvements 1,220 3.25 3,965 79 4,044 1.58 Total 12,501$ 4.89$
Multifamily
Parkland 2,551$ 2.07 5,281$ 106$ 5,387$ 2.11$ Improvements 1,220 2.07 2,525 51 2,576 1.01 Total 7,963$ 3.12$
1 Fee per average sized dw elling unit.

Sources: Tables 2.2 and 9.8; 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.
3 Assumes 2,555 square feet per average sized single family unit, and 1,198 square feet per average sized multifamily unit in Murrieta based on an analysis of building permits issued betw een January 2022 and September 2023.

72 59

10. Community Center Facilities
The following chapter documents the nexus analysis, demonstrating the need for new community center facilities demanded by new development.

Service Population
Park facilities in Murrieta primarily serve resi dents. Therefore, demand for serv ices and associated facilities is based on the City’s residential populati on. Table 10.1 shows the existing and future projected service population for community center facilities.

Table 10.1: Community Center Facilities
Service Population
Residents
Existing (2023) 109,998
New Development (2023-2035) 25,776
Total (2035) 135,774
Source: Table 2.1.

Existing Facility Inventory
The City of Murrieta maintains several recreation and community center facilities. Table 10.2 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 $ 9.8 million in recreation and community center facilities.
73 City of Murrieta Development Impact Fee Study Update 60 Table 10.2: Existing Community Centers
Inventory Units Unit Cost1 Value
Land
Community Center 4.72 acres 510,200$ 2,408,100$ Teen Center 3.09 acres 510,200 1,576,500 Senior Center 2.14 acres 510,200 1,091,800 Subtotal 9.95 acres 5,076,400$
Buildings
Community Center 8,866 sq. ft. 192$ 1,700,000$ Classrooms 842 sq. ft. 154 130,000 Community Ctr Modular Office 1,440 sq. ft. 110 158,200 Senior Center 9,000 sq. ft. 222 2,000,000 Hay barn, maintenance garage and utility shed3,200 sq. ft. 100 320,000 Equestrian Center Building 1,621 sq. ft. 100 162,100 Equestrian Center Building 1,430 sq. ft. 100 143,000 Equestrian Center Building 754 sq. ft. 100 75,400 Subtotal 4,688,700$
Total Value - Existing Community Centers 9,765,100$
Sources: City of Murrieta; Willdan Financial Services.

Planned Facilities
The C ity has planned several recreation and community center facilities to serve new development. Incl uded in t he pl ans are both expansions to ex isting facil ities and th e new construction of facilities. The City has identified $69.4 million of recreation and community center facilities to serve existing and new development net of existing fund balances. Table 10.3 details the City’s planned recreation and community center facilities. 74 City of Murrieta Development Impact Fee Study Update 61 Table 10.3: Planned Recreation Facilities
Amount Units Unit Cost Total
Community Room Addition 9,000 Sq. Ft. 748$ 6,733,351$ Youth Center Expansion 6,500 Sq. Ft. 748 4,862,976 Community Center 30,000 Sq. Ft. 748 22,444,504 Aquatic Center (Los Alamos) 25,000 Sq. Ft. 748 18,703,753 Aquatic Center (Cal Oaks) 18,000 Sq. Ft. 748 13,466,702 Equestrian Park (implementing master plan) 5,000,000
Subtotal 71,211,286$
(Less Existing Fund Balance) (1,807,685)
Net Cost of Planned Facilities 69,403,601$
Source: City of Murrieta.

Cost Allocation
Table 10.4 expresses the City’s current recreation facilities level of service in terms of an existing cost per capita , by dividing the replacement cost of the City ’s existing facilitie s by the existing service population. The resulting cost per capita drives the fee calculation.

Table 10.4: Existing Level of Service
Value of Existing Facilities 9,765,100$
Existing Service Population 109,998
Facility Standard per Resident 89$
Sources: Tables 10.1 and 10.2; Willdan Financial Services.

Fee Revenue Projection
The City pl ans 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 fa cilities that serves existing and new development. The list of facilities to be funded by the fee is detailed above in Table 10.3. Table 10.5 details a projection of fee revenu e, based on the service pop ulation growth increment identified in Table 10.1. The projected fee revenue will not fully fun d the identified planned facilities. However, so long as the fee revenue is spent of capacity expanding facilities that serve new development, then the fee revenue will have been spent appropriately.

The City plans to update its parks and recreation facilities master plan in the sort term, at which point it should consider revising this impact fee to accommodate the facility plans identified in that document.
75 City of Murrieta Development Impact Fee Study Update 62 Table 10.5: Revenue Projection - Existing Standard
Cost per Capita 89$
Growth in Service Population (2023 - 2035) 25,776
Fee Revenue 2,288,000$
Sources: Tables 10.1 and 10.4.

Fee Schedule
Table 10.6 shows the maximum justified recreation facilities fee schedule. The cost per capita is converted to a fee per unit of new develo pment based on dwellin g unit densities (residents per dwelling unit). The fee per average sized single family, and multifamily dwelling unit is converted into a fee per square foot by dividing the fee per dwelling unit by the assumed average square footage of each type of unit.

The total fee includes a two -percent (2% ) admi nistrative char ge to fun d costs t hat include: a standard overhead charge applied to City programs for legal, accounting, and other departmental and administrative support, and fee program a dministrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.

Table 10.6: Community Center Facilities Fee - Existing Standard A B C = A x B D = C x 0.02 E = C + D F = E / Average
Cost Per Base Admin Fee per
Land Use Capita Density Fee 1 Charge1, 2 Total Fee Sq. Ft.3 Residential
Single Family 89$ 3.25 289$ 6$ 295$ 0.12$ Multifamily 89 2.07 184 4 188 0.16 1 Fee per average sized dw elling unit.

Sources: Tables 2.2 and 10.4.
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. 3 Assumes 2,555 square feet per average sized single family unit, and 1,198 square feet per average sized multifamily unit in Murrieta based on an analysis of building permits issued betw een January 2022 and September 2023.

76 63

11. Library Facilities
The following chapter documents the nexus analysis based on a system plan standard approach, demonstrating the need for new library facilities to serve by new development.

Service Population
Library facilities in Murrieta primarily serve residents. Therefore, demand for servic es and associated facilities are based on the City’s residential population. Table 11.1 shows the existing and future projected service population for library facilities.

Table 11.1: Library Facilities Service Population
Residents
Existing (2023) 109,998
New Development (2023-2035) 25,776
Total (2035) 135,774
Source:Table 2.1; Willdan Financial Services.

Existing Facility Inventory
Table 11.2 summarizes the City’s existing librar y facility invent ory. Only facilities ow ned by t he City are included in the inventory. The unit cost for the land value assumption of $510,200 per acre was based on an analysis of recent land sales comparisons as reported by Costar since 2021. Unit cost assumptions for the replacement cost of buildings, and the estimated replacement cost of collections were provided by City staff.

Table 11.2: Existing Library Facilities
Inventory Units Unit Cost1 Value
Existing Library
Land (acres) 2.64 acres 510,200$ 1,346,900$ Building 23,375 square feet 325 7,600,000 Library HVAC building 1,581 square feet 117 185,000 Collection na items 3,900,000
Total Value - Existing Library Facilities 13,031,900$
1 Unit costs based on actual construction costs for existing library. Cost per item based on data from similar jurisdictions. 2 Planned increases in collection based on maintaining ratio of building space to items.

Sources: City of Murrieta; Willdan Financial Services.

77 City of Murrieta Development Impact Fee Study Update 64 Planned Facilities
Table 11.3 summarizes the planned library facility needed to serve the City through 2035. The City plans to construct a n expansion to the library building, new book lockers and a new mobile library. In all, the project s are estimated to cost approximately $ 4.5 million, net of existing f und balances and identified grant funding.

Table 11.3: Planned Library Facilities
Value
Building - Children's Library Expansion 6,000,000$
Book Lockers 1,000,000
Mobile Library 100,000
Cost of Planned Facilities 7,100,000$
Less Existing Fund Balance (1,055,113)
Less Grant Funding (1,500,000)
Net Cost of Planned Facilities 4,544,887$
Sources: City of Murrieta; 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 include an explanation of why the new level of service is appro priate.” Table 11.4 expresses the City’s current law enforcement facilities level of service in terms of an existing cost per capita. This cost per capita is not used i n the fee calculation, rather it is shown here for informational purposes to comply with AB 602.

Table 11.4: Existing Facilities Standard
Value of Existing Facilities 13,031,900$
Existing Service Population 109,998
Facility Standard per Resident 118$
Sources: Tables 11.1 and 11.2.

Future Level of Service
Table 11.5 shows new development’s projected per capita investment in library facilities at the planning horizon. This value is calculated by dividing the cost of existing and planned facilities by the service population at the planning horizon.
78 City of Murrieta Development Impact Fee Study Update 65 Table 11.5: Library Facilities System Standard
Value of Existing Facilities 13,031,900$
Cost of Planned Facilities 4,544,887
Total System Value (2035) 17,576,787$
Future Service Population (2035) 135,774
Cost Allocation per Capita 129$
Sources: Tables 11.1, 11.2 and 11.3.

Use of Fee Revenue
The City can use library facilities fee revenues for the construction or purchase of buildings, land, vehicles and collections that are part of the system of library facilities serving new development. A list of planned facilities is included in Table 11.3.

Fee Revenue Projection
The City plans to use library facilities fee revenue to construct improvements to add to the system of library facilities that serves new development. The list of facilities to be funded by the fee is detailed above in Table 11.3. Table 11.6 details a projection of fee revenue, based on the service population growth increment identified in Table 11.1. The cost of the planned facilities not funded by fee revenue represents existing development’s share of the facilities and can be funded by any revenue source other than impact fees.

Table 11.6: Library Impact Fee Revenue
Projection
Cost per Resident 129$
Growth in Service Population 25,776
Projected Impact Fee Revenue 3,325,104$
Total Cost of Planned Facilities 4,544,887$
Funding Required From Other Sources 1,219,783$
Sources: Tables 11.1, 11.4 and 11.5.

Fee Schedule
Table 11.7 shows the maximum justified library f acilities fee schedule. The cost per capita is converted to a fee per unit of new devel opment based on dwelling unit densities (persons pe r dwelling). The fee per average sized single family, and multifamily dwelling unit is converted into 79 City of Murrieta Development Impact Fee Study Update 66 a fee per square foot by dividing the fee per dwelling unit by the assumed average square footage of each type of unit.

The total fee includes a 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 admi nistrative support, and fee program administra tive costs incl uding revenue collec tion, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.

Table 11.7: Library Facilities Fee Schedule
A B C = A x B D = C x 0.02 E = C + D F = E / Average
Cost Per Admin Fee per
Land Use Capita Density Base Fee 1 Charge1, 2 Total Fee Sq. Ft.3 Residential
Single Family 129$ 3.25 419$ 8$ 427$ 0.17$ Multifamily 129 2.07 267 5 272 0.23 1 Fee per average sized dw elling unit.

Sources: Tables 2.2 and 11.5.
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.
3 Assumes 2,555 square feet per average sized single family unit, and 1,198 square feet per average sized multifamily unit in Murrieta based on an analysis of building permits issued betw een January 2022 and September 2023.

80 67

12. 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, a nd include an explan ation of why the new level of service is appropriate.
66016.5. (a) (4) If a ne xus 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 stan dard methodology, the fees are calculated such that new development funds facilities at the existing level of service. These fee categories are: law enforcement, fire protection, parks, community centers and general 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 fa cilities 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 streets, minor bridges and culverts fee, the traffic signals fee, and the storm drain facilities fees. Impact fees charged under thi s program will serve to ensure that the level of service will not fall to unacceptable levels.

3. For the fees calculated under the sy stem standard m ethodology, the maximum justified fees represent an increase in the f acility level of ser vice. The fees calculated under this methodology are the library facilities fees. The increased level of service is required to fund new development ’s fair share of facilities identifi ed and by City. New develo pment 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 h ave to fund existing development’s share of the inc rease level of service through any other funding source. The lib rary facilities fee chapter includes tables that show the existin g level of service and future level of service in terms of facility investment per capita. 66016.5. (a) (4) – Review of Original Fee Assumptions
Table 13.1 reviews the assumptions from the 2016 study in terms of the resulting fee revenue generated by each impact fee and compares the projected fee revenue to this study. 81 City of Murrieta Development Impact Fee Study Update 68 Table 12.1: Review of 2016 Study
Facility Category
2016 Study Costs
Allocated to New
Development
2024 Study Costs
Allocated to New
Development
Law Enforcement 8,567,000$ 59,670,000$
Fire Protection 16,701,426 85,521,000
Streets, Minor Bridges & Culverts 315,035,646 286,035,438 Traffic Signals 60,137,717 41,977,526
Storm Drainage 6,758,778 7,850,999
General Facilities 3,443,582 18,131,000 Parkland Facilities 19,891,200 97,204,000 Community Centers 3,482,000 2,288,000
Public Library 1,764,900 3,325,104
Total 435,782,250$ 602,003,068$
Sources: City of Murrieta; Table E.2, Willdan Financial Services.

Table 13.2 presents an accounting of impact fee revenue collec ted since FY2015 , and displays the average annual amount collected, by impact fee fund during this time period.

Table 12.2: Annual Collected Fee Revenue
FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 Average Law Enforcement 196,171$ 130,274$ 133,704$ 155,365$ 167,703$ 115,446$ 119,479$ 164,312$ 147,807$ Fire Protection 620,634 338,656 255,794 173,149 232,445 137,219 152,318 253,660 270,484 Streets, Minor Bridges & Culverts 465,471 1,012,146 845,722 1,371,320 2,476,905 851,036 807,714 804,234 1,079,318 Traffic Signals 79,486 203,762 159,303 262,964 512,204 226,716 284,674 746,755 309,483 Storm Drainage 449,152 559,545 204,997 89,919 145,089 90,568 156,643 156,164 231,510 General Facilities 142,729 83,015 82,302 61,725 75,852 47,342 51,401 72,062 77,053 Parkland Facilities 1,431,025 857,986 1,149,368 1,096,247 1,134,393 792,765 796,988 963,069 1,027,730 Community Centers 79,396 48,954 137,327 191,684 198,567 138,744 143,981 198,838 142,186 Public Library 84,190 48,951 84,236 97,512 100,786 70,404 72,999 85,296 80,547 City of Murrieta.

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 and other City documents. Adoption of this nexus study would approve the planned facilities identified herein as the Capital Improvement Plan for this nexus study. 82 69

13. Implementation
Impact Fee Program Adoption Process
Impact fee program adop tion procedures are foun d in the California Go vernment Code section 66016. Adoption of an impact fee program requires the City Council to follow certain procedures 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 r equirements as well as advi ce 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 can keep its impact fee program up to date by periodically adjusting the fees for inflation.

Such adjustments should be c ompleted regularly to ensure that new development will fully fund its share of needed facilities. We recommend that the California Construction Cost In dex (CCCI) be used for adjusting fees for inflation.

While fee upda tes using inflation indices are approp riate for periodic updates to ensure that fee revenues keep up with increases in the costs of public facilities, the City will also need to conduct more extensive updates of the fee documentation and calculation (such as this study) when significant new data on growth forecasts and/or facility plans become available.

Reporting Requirements
The City will comply with the annual and five -year reporting req uirements of the Mitigation Fee Act. For facilities to be funded by a combination of public fees and other rev enues, identification of the so urce 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 identifie s costs and phasing for speci fic capital pro jects. The use 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 cost of facilities varies from the total cost used as a ba sis for t he fees, the City should consider revising the fees accordingly.

Reimbursements
For some facility ca tegories, parti cularly p ark facilities, dev elopers occasionally dedicate park land and construct f acilities in lieu of payi ng the developmen t impact fee. If a developer buil ds park land 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 reco mmend 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 83 City of Murrieta Development Impact Fee Study Update 70 development not occurred. By following these guidelines , the City will not be un fairly burdened with unanticipated costs.
84 71

14. 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 As sembly 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 documented in this report are presented in this chapter and supported in detail by the preceding chapters . All statutory references are to the Act.

Purpose of Fee
 Identify the purpose of the fee (§66001(a)(1) of the Act).

Development impact fees are desi gned to e nsure that new development will not b urden 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: streets, minor bridges & culverts, traffic signals, fire protection facilities, law enforcement facilities, parks, library facilities, recreation facilities, general facilities, corporation yard facilities, and storm drainage 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, furni shings, v ehicles, and services used to serv e new development. Facilities funded by the fees are expect ed 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 intended 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 85 City of Murrieta Development Impact Fee Study Update 72 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 repr esents the demand g enerated by new development fo r 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 associat ed with residential develop ment and the number of workers associated with non -residential development. To calculate a s ingle, per capita standar d, one worker is we ighted less than one resident based on an analysis of the relative use demand between residential and non-residential development. For transportation related facilities, the cost standard is calculated per trip. For storm drainage facilities th e standard is calculated per measure of impervious surface.

The standards used to identify growth needs are also used to determine if planne d facilities will partially serve the existing service population by correctin g existing deficiencies. This approach ensures that new dev elopment will only be responsible for its fair share of planned facilities, and that the fees w ill not unfairly burden new development with the cost of facilities associated with serving the existing service population.

Chapter 2, Growth Forecasts provides a description of how se rvice popu lation and g rowth forecasts are calculated. Facility standa rds are des cribed 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 project are based on the project’s size. Larger new development projects can result in a higher se rvice population resulting in higher fee reve nue than smaller projects in the s ame land use c lassification. Thus, th e fees ensure a reasonable relationship between a specific new development project a nd 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 c ategory cha pter for a description of how service populations or other factors are determined for different types of land uses. See the Fee Schedule section of each facility category chapter for a presentation of the proposed facilities fees. 86 A-1
Appendix

Category Calls for Service
Population or
Employees
Calls per
Capita
Residential 34,058 109,998 0.31 Nonresidential 16,183 26,240 0.62 Other 2,087
Worker Weighting Factor1 1.99
1 Nonresidential calls per capita / residential calls per capita.

Sources: Murrieta Police Department; Willdan Financial Services.

Appendix Table A.1: Police Facilities Worker
Weighting Factor

87 City of Murrieta Development Impact Fee Study Update

A-2
Appendix Table A.2: Police Vehicle Inventory
Description
Average
Unit Cost Units Total Value
1996 Toyota Camry 36,000$ 1 36,000$
1997 Ford F350 Van 55,000 1 55,000
2001 Ford F-150 45,000 1 45,000
2002 Jeep Liberty 36,000 1 36,000
2003 Ford Expedition 61,000 1 61,000
2005 Ford Expedition 61,000 1 61,000
2005 Freightliner Motorhome 500,000 1 500,000
2006 Dodge Durango 58,000 1 58,000
2006 F-350 4X4 65,000 1 65,000
2006 Ford Expedition 61,000 1 61,000
2006 Ford F-150 45,000 2 90,000
2006 Ford F-450 70,000 2 140,000
2007 Ford Crown Victoria 56,000 1 56,000
2007 Ford Ranger P/U 4X4 66,000 2 132,000
2008 Dodge Charger 51,000 3 153,000
2008 Dodge Durango 58,000 1 58,000
2008 Ford Ranger P/U 56,000 2 112,000
2009 BMW R 1200 RT 37,000 2 74,000
2010 Honda Accord 32,000 1 32,000
2010 Honda Odyssey 42,000 1 42,000
2011 Chevy Tahoe 57,000 1 57,000
2011 Dodge Charger 71,000 4 284,000
2011 Ford Crown Victoria 56,000 1 56,000
2012 Chevy Tahoe 72,000 3 216,000
2012 Chevy Tahoe 57,000 2 114,000
2012 Ford F250 55,000 1 55,000
2013 Chevy Tahoe 57,000 1 57,000
2013 Chevy Tahoe 72,000 2 144,000
2014 Dodge Charger 71,000 3 213,000
2014 Ford Explorer 56,000 4 224,000
2015 BMW R 1200 RT 37,000 1 37,000
2015 Dodge Durango 58,000 1 58,000
2015 Ford Explorer 58,000 3 174,000
2015 Ford Explorer 95,000 6 570,000
2015 Ford Taurus 36,000 2 72,000
2016 BMW R 1200 RT 37,000 2 74,000
2016 Ford Explorer 95,000 10 950,000
2016 Ford F-550 BearCat 350,000 1 350,000
2016 Nissan Frontier P/U 35,000 2 70,000
2017 BMW R1200 RT 37,000 1 37,000
2017 Dodge Durango 58,000 1 58,000
2017 Ford Explorer 95,000 5 475,000
2017 Ford Explorer K9 98,000 2 196,000
2017 Ford T350 Van 55,000 1 55,000
2017 Honda Accord 30,000 1 30,000
2017 Nissan Frontier P/U 35,000 1 35,000
2018 Ford Explorer 95,000 4 380,000
2019 BMW R1200 RT 37,000 2 74,000
2019 Dodge Charger 82,000 7 574,000
2019 Dodge Durango 58,000 4 232,000
2019 Ford Explorer 95,000 5 475,000
2019 Ford F-150 45,000 1 45,000
2019 KTM Off-Road M/C 14,000 2 28,000
2020 BMW R1200 RT 37,000 2 37,000
2020 Dodge Durango 58,000 3 174,000
2020 Ford Explorer 95,000 5 475,000
2021 BMWR1250RT 37,000 2 74,000
2021 Cheverlot Tahoe 72,000 2 144,000
2021 Ford Explorer 95,000 6 570,000
2021 Jeep Grand Cherokee 53,000 1 53,000
2022 Dodge Durango 58,000 2 116,000
2022 Ford Explorer 58,000 2 116,000
2022 Ford Explorer 95,000 10 950,000
2022 Ford Ranger 66,000 2 132,000
2023 Ford Explorer 95,000 6 570,000
2023 Ford Explorer K9 98,000 2 196,000
2023 Ford Ranger 66,000 1 66,000
Total Existing Value 12,065,000$

Source: City of Murrieta.

88 City of Murrieta Development Impact Fee Study Update A-3

Appendix Table A.3: Fire Facilities Worker Weighting Factor Category
Calls for
Service
Population or
Employees
Calls per
Capita
Residential 2,943 109,998 0.03
Nonresidential 3,028 26,240 0.12
Other 5,223
Worker Weighting Factor1 4.31
1 Nonresidential calls per capita / residential calls per capita.

Sources: Murrieta Fire Department; Willdan Financial Services.

89 City of Murrieta Development Impact Fee Study Update A-4
Appendix Table A.4: Existing Fire Apparatus Inventory CY 2023 Inventory ID Unit Name Model Year
Replacement
Value
Existing Inventory - Heavy Apparatus - Location
41-001 International/Bean Pumper (training vehicle) S1 1941 $ 1,200 23-028 Seagraves (parade vehicle) Shop Garage 1923 8,500 01-037
Freightliner/Weststates - used to deploy swift water
rescue trailer unit. S1 2001 260,000
03-043 E-One Quint (T-1) S1 2003 1,380,000 05-049 E-One Pumper (E-3) Shop Garage 2005 1,055,600 05-050 E-One Pumper (E-4) S4 2005 1,055,600
05-051 International/E-1 (B-5). S5 2005 550,000 08-063 Pierce Pumper (E-2) S1 2006 1,055,600 07-059 International/Pierce (B-1) S1 2007 650,000 07-058 E-One Pumper (E-5) Shop Garage 2007 1,055,600 15-078 Pierce Quint Ladder Truck. S2 2015 1,400,000 15-095 2015 International 4X4 OES 6311 Type 3. S1 2015 675,000 18-082 2018 Pierce Pumper E5. S5 2018 1,055,600 18-083 2018 Pierce Pumper E4. S4 2018 1,055,600 20-089 2020 Pierce Pumper E3. S3 2020 1,055,600 20-092 2021 BMS Water Tender. S1 2021 435,000 20-093 2020 Ford F-550 OES Type 1. S3 2020 175,000 20-090 2020 Dodge 5500 - MP 2. S2 2020 188,000 20-091 2020 Dodge 5500 - MP 3. S3 2020 188,000 Subtotal $ 13,299,900
Existing Inventory - Light Duty Vehicles
06-052 Ford F-350 (Repair-1) Shop Truck 2006 $ 97,000 08-060 Ford F-350 (MP Unit Reserve) 2008 55,500 08-061 Ford F-250 (BC-6306) S. Kean. S4 2008 98,500 14-073 Polaris Ranger XP (Ranger 5) S5 2014 38,000 15-076 Ford F-250 4X4 (Batt- 6305). M. Ramos. S4 2015 98,500 15-077 Ford F-250 4X4 (Batt-6301) D. Perez. S4 2015 98,500 16-079 2016 Ford F-150 4X4 Training Captain S1 2016 94,000 16-080 2016 Ford F-150 Deputy Fire Marshal S1 2016 77,000 16-081 2016 Ford Transit Van - Admin 2016 62,000 16-082 2016 Ford Focus Sedan - FP-4 2016 32,000 16-083 2016 Ford Focus Sedan - Admin 2016 32,000 17-084 2017 Ford Explorer SUV - EMS Antonucci S1 2017 44,000 18-084 2018 Ford Explorer Fire Marshal S1 2018 44,000 18-085 2018 Ford Explorer Pool Fire Admin S1 2018 44,000 20-086 2020 Ford F-150 FP 3 - S1 2020 77,000 20-087 2020 Ford F-150 FP 2 - S1 2020 77,000 20-088 2020 Ford F-150 FP 1 - S1 2020 77,000 22-096 2022 Chevrolet Tahoe 4X4 Deputy Chief Lopez S1 2022 70,500 22-097 2022 Chevrolet Tahoe 4X4 Fire Chief Molloy S1 2022 70,500 Subtotal $ 1,287,000
Sources: 1) Murrieta Fire & Rescue Vehicle Replacement Schedule 2023 (Municipal Fleet Consultants). 2) Murrieta Fire & Rescue Vehicle Inventory April 2023 3) w w w .kbb.com. 4) Johnson Controls Equipment costs. 5) w w w .firetruckmall. 6) w w w .ford.com. 7) w w w .chevrolet.com

90 City of Murrieta Development Impact Fee Study Update A-5
Appendix Table A.4: Existing Fire Apparatus Inventory Continued Inventory ID Unit Name Model Year
Replacement
Value
Existing Inventory - Trailers
02-041 Wells 2 Axel Trailer S2 (TRU-1) Heavy Rescue 2002 $ 11,100 07-053 Az-Tex 2 Axel Trailer (Explorers) S1 2007 9,500 12-070 2012 Haul Mark Trailer (Mass/Care 1) S1 2012 13,200 12-071 2012 Haul Mark Trailer (Mass/Care 2) S1 2012 13,200 07-056 Wells 2 Axel Trailer (Cert-S3) 2007 9,500 07-057 Scott/Liberty Light Air (LA/S1) 2007 40,000 08-072 Wells 2 Axel Trailer (Cert-1) S1 2008 9,500 08-066 Wells 2 Axel Trailer (Cert-2) S2 2008 9,500 08-068 Wells 2 Axel Trailer (Cert-4) S4 2008 9,500 10-067 Wells 2 Axel Trailer (Cert-5) S5 2009 9,500 14-074 Powerlite Trailer (EMSTRL-1) S5 2014 38,000 22-094 2022 Continental Trailer - EOC 2022 13,200 Subtotal 185,700$
Total Value - Existing Inventory 14,772,600$

Sources: 1) Murrieta Fire & Rescue Vehicle Replacement Schedule (Municipal Fleet Consultants). 2) Murrieta Fire & Rescue Vehicle Inventory April 2023.

91 City of Murrieta Development Impact Fee Study Update A-6
Appendix Table A.5: General Government Vehicle Inventory Description Department Replacement
Value
2002 Ford F-750 Dump Truck PW 125,000$
2003 Ford F-150 CSD 57,800
2003 Ford F-150 PW 57,800
2003 Ford F-150 PW 57,800
2003 Ford F-150 PW 57,800
2005 Dodge 2500 PW 57,800
2005 Global Electric Motor CSD 15,250
2005 Global Electric Motor CSD 15,250
2005 Global Electric Motor IS 15,250
2006 Ford Ranger CH Pool 38,000
2007 Ford F-150 PW 57,800
2007 Ford F-750 Dump Truck PW 125,000
2008 Ford F-150 PW 57,800
2009 Ford F-750 Dump Truck PW 125,000
2016 Ford F-250 PW 75,000
2016 Ford F-250 PW 75,000
2016 Ford F-250 PW 75,000
2016 Ford F-250 PW 75,000
2016 Ford F-250 PW 75,000
2017 Chevrolet Volt CH Pool 28,000
2017 Chevrolet Volt CH Pool 28,000
2017 Chevrolet Silverado CSD 57,800
2018 Ford F-150 PW 57,800
2018 Ford F-150 CH Pool 57,800
2018 Ford F-150 CH Pool 57,800
2019 Club Car CH Pool 17,300
Total 1,542,850$
PW = Public Works
CH POOL = City Hall Pool
DSD = Development Services
CSD = Community Services District.

ECON = Economic Development
Source: City of Murrieta.

92 City of Murrieta Development Impact Fee Study Update A-7
Appendix Table A.6: Equipment Inventory
Total Cost
Router Enclosure 6,553$
ESRI GIS Software 4,899
Blade Enclosure 53,243
HP SAN/EVA4400 26,821
GEOXT 512 W/ Terrasync Pro 6,368
HP BL20PG2 XEON- Server 18,288
SAN Array 100 13,712
ArcSDE 9.0 Software 10,783
HP Server BLadeProliant BL20 6,552
Precision Workstation 670 5,528
Xplore PC Tablet 5,143
Dell Precision Workstation 670 13,520
NEO 2000 Tabe Backup 11,191
Data Repository 29,582
HP ProLiant DL585 Server 54,802
MSA 1000 SAN Starter Kit 14,038
Xplore PC Tablet 6,574
ArcInfo Software 11,176
HP DeskJet Z6100 42" Plotter 9,805
Production Line Tool Set Soft 5,395
Nexan SATABoy Disk Backup 15,427
Backup Software 7,290
1995 Vibration Roller Trailer 14,169
1995 Extend a Hoe Backhoe 60,746
1995 Motor Grader 122,754
Compressor Trailer 9,000
Thermal Imager 13,389
Audio Log Digital Recorder 911 29,318
Computer Aided Dispatch System 206,741
Dispatch Radio Console Pos. 121,258
Pass Thru Evidence Storage 21,681
Movable Shelving Unit 63,528
Electric Door Access System 48,000
CCTV Surveillance Cam Sys 68,330
Tack Trailer 8,000
Auto Extraction Unit+ 15,000
Layton H500B Paver 22,095
Auto Extraction Power Unit 6,500
18KVA UPS Battery Backup 25,000
2005 Single Axle Trailer 9,765
Forensic Recovery of Evidence Device 6,614
Movable Shelving Unit 11,586
DSM Lockers Pass Thru 21,682
2005 Backhoe Loader 59,801
Transmit Combiner 11,818
Source: City of Murrieta.

93 City of Murrieta Development Impact Fee Study Update A-8
Appendix Table A.6: Equpiment Inventory (Continued)
Total Cost
Astro-Trac Receiver 22,500$
Astro-Trac Reciever 34,254
Netclock GPS Master Clock 8,457
Channel 2 Repeater 10,000
Spectra-Tac Comprato 30,000
Channel 3 Digitac Comparator 16,556
Channel 1 Quantar Repeater 54,000
Channel 3 Quantar Repeater 34,402
Emergency Generator 3456DITA 97,680
Central Electronics Bank Gold 29,924
Central Electronics CardCages 6,765
Gold Series Windows NT Server 5,204
MDB System Message Switch 5,625
MDB Client 28,350
Automatic Vehicle Location 8,985
Looking Glass Dispatch 20,000
Looking Glass Mobile Map 25,970
Looking Glass Crimes 10,000
Cotton Velour Traveler Curtain 5,841
Multi Media-Digital Scanner 12,221
Forensic Computer 6,149
Tactical Blanket 9,300
Auto Extraction Unit DPU3100 17,000
Auto Extraction Unit Engine 3 17,000
Auto Extraction Unit PPU1202 17,000
Tactical Throw Telephone 10,506
CAD Primary 40,000
Light Air Unit 78,000
Waxie 20" 1500 RPM Burnisher 5,390
Grand Piano 15,000
Video Conference Center 106,928
34 Mobile Data Bases 426,514
Dyna Vac Jet N Vac Pumper 44,995
ADT Alarm System 86,881
Alert AM Satelite Radio 111,621
2008 John Deere 310SJ Loader 84,495
Xplore PC Tablet W ArcPad 6,662
Autopulse Platform Resuscitati 92,217
Autopulse Platform Resuscitati 13,435
Portable Co-Oximeter Masimo 38,758
Hydro Tek Pressur Washer 9,013
Portable Computers 35,265
DUI Checkpoint Trailer 30,000
Tic Evolution 5200 8,297
Source: City of Murrieta.

94 City of Murrieta Development Impact Fee Study Update A-9
Appendix Table A.6: Equpiment Inventory (Continued)
Total Cost
Road Force Trailer 8x16 6,910$
Station 2 Heating & Air Units 16,524
Property & Evidence Shelving 5,175
Dispatch Console #5 5,630
False Alarm Tracking Software 4,849
Falcon's View Park Fencing 23,152
Photo ID Machine/Camera 6,006
Con-Space CSI-2000 Rescue 1 6,419
Uninteruptable Power Supply 24,342
CCTV System-40600 Cal Oaks 13,921
Thermal Imaging Camera 5000 25,860
Fujitsu Scanner 6,331
Universal Fit Test System 10,956
Fire Alarm Sprinkler System 8,375
City Hall Card Access System 9,513
Training Room Epson Projector 5,261
Air Cleaning System Fire Stn 110,449
IP Communications System 871,548
Entry Gate System 8,587
Frequency 858.23750/813.23750 25,000
HP Proliant DL380 Server 17,154
Eagle Pincher Forklift 11,853
Fujitsu M4097D Duplex Scanner 4,854
EVO 500 Thermal Imaging Camera 8,775
CFAB Capital Budget Software 7,500
Xplore Tablet XPL 01-10830 11,067
Panasonic Tuffbook Dual XP 11,974
Fire Station #4 Radio Equip 14,552
Liberty Software 91,590
File Tracking Software 43,737
Fire Station #4 Phone System 13,570
System Expansion Hard Drives 5,926
Media Manager Software 11,881
HP Proliant DL380 - Fire 6,517
Security Gate @ Station 2 29,707
Security Gate @ Station 1 11,307
HP Designjet 820 MFP 19,298
Brake Lathe with Bench 5,398
Pool Cover & Reels 5,142
Closed Circuit TV 37,603
HP Designjet 820 MFP 19,298
TeleStaff Software 12,122
IBM i5 Model 9406-520 CAD 20,144
CAD Software 10,721
Vehicle Exhaust System 9,323
CAD 400 Redundancy 16,971
Smartnet Phone System 16,315
KR Nida Satellite Phone 14,552
Uninteruptable Power System 11,164
Tuffstuff AP4500 4 Station Gym 15,142
3M Detection System Model 8802 23,612
3M RefID Handheld Tracker 6,633
3M Selfcheck System 8410 19,689
3M Selfcheck System 8410 49,473
Source: City of Murrieta.

95 City of Murrieta Development Impact Fee Study Update A-10
Appendix Table A.6: Equpiment Inventory (Continued)
Total Cost
Radar Speed Display Trailer 16,031$
1520 DC Speed Display Unit 12,133
Optical Library System 18,664
HP DL 380G5 Server 9,107
Team Budget Software 8,700
2007 Wells Cargo Road Force 6,620
Commercial Range 9,198
Tile Concrete Spray Turtle 7,524
IBMx3650 Series Server 11,206
TIC Evolution 5200 8,189
DVR for CCTV 10,909
Fujitsu B&W/Color Scanner 6,460
Holmatro PPU15 Personal Power 20,994
Holmatro DPU31 Pump 8,388
Holmatro 4050 NCT Cutter Core 31,918
Holmatro 4242 Spreader 28,979
Holmatro PPU15 Personal Power 5,249
Holmatro 4242 Spreader 5,737
LaserFiche Standard Server Sin 10,042
Fujitsu 5750C VRS Scanner 7,650
16 Channel DVR Flat Panel Moni 8,494
Cisco 2811 ISR Router 6,127
Midland Tech III Base Station 10,364
Midland Base Tech III Repeater 10,364
EZ6 Jeter Mobile System 95,622
Uninteruptable Power Source 95,898
Tangent Voting System 9,676
Voting Software 28,425
Fiber Optic Connect 65,934
Router & Phone System Station5 18,040
Budget Custom Reports Upgrade 5,175
Portable Aquatic Lift 6,997
Learning Express Software 5,379
Laserfiche Advanced Audit 11,982
Team Budget Planning Report 5,400
Wells Cargo 16x8 Road Force 7,224
Video Investigator 4.0 6,934
Heavy Truck Wheel Lift 40,000
Automotive Car/Truck Lift 8,000
Auto Extraction unit 7,500
Electric Auto Extraction Unit 16,700
HP Scanner Plotter 19,298
Wells 2 Axel Trailer 5,578
2007 Az Tex 2 Axel Trailer 6,620
DUI Trailer-Mighty Mover Tralr 11,000
Solar Speed Limit Sign 14,198
Source: City of Murrieta.

96 City of Murrieta Development Impact Fee Study Update A-11
Appendix Table A.6: Equpiment Inventory (Continued)
Total Cost
Fire Supression System 88,985$
Centracom Elite Series Console 20,431
Vision Communication Console 27,187
Electric Hydraulic Expander 7,358
Security Cameras-Labor & Matls 12,968
Ingersoll-Rand Asphalt Compact 29,654
Zieman Carrier-Trailer 5,724
Dispatcher Wall Monitor 4,199
Audiolog, Max-Pro 3000 35,840
Library Automatic Doors 7,621
Audio/Visual Equipment FS# 4 Training 9,483
Traffic Management Audio/Video 79,476
Traffic Mgmt Video Server 11,744
IFAS Financial Software 570,054
Intelligent Return plus Library Sorter 256,701
2010 Wells Cargo RF8162 6,888
Auto Scrubber 5,981
Midland VHF Radio 21,161
Dispatch Console #6 47,454
23952.67 - Police Dept AMLP System 23,953
33142.32 - LP15 - Monitor/Defibrillator/Modem 364,566
Upgrade to GeoBlade Platform 10,332
Tactical Camera System 16,598
Network Storage Equipt 15,210
A/C Unit-City Hall's Video Rm 10,500
Remote surveillance unit 5,400
AC Units - Comm Center 32,180
SWAT handheld Unit 8,845
7,070,425$
Source: City of Murrieta.

97 Final
July 21, 2016 1
City of Murrieta Development Impact Fee 2016 Update – Final Attachment 2
98 Final
July 21, 2016 2
Table E.2 shows the additional funding required to fully fund the planned facilities.

Fee Category
Net Project
Cost
Projected
Impact Fee
Revenue
Additional
Funding
Required
Law Enforcement DIF 9,786,567$ 8,567,000$ 1,219,567$ Fire DIF 16,701,426 16,701,426 -
Street DIF 350,851,903 315,035,646 35,816,256
Traffic Signal DIF 76,332,546 60,137,717 16,194,829 Storm Drain DIF 26,699,234 6,758,778 19,940,455 General Facility DIF 3,443,582 3,443,582 -
Parks & Recreation DIF 19,891,200 19,891,200 -
Community Center DIF 20,562,118 3,482,000 17,080,118 Library DIF 1,764,900 1,764,900 -
Total 526,033,476$ 435,782,250$ 90,251,225$
Sources: Tables 3.3, 3.6, 4.3, 5.4, 5.5, 6.2, 6.3, 7.3, 8.3, 10.7, 11.3, 11.6, and 12.4; Willdan Financial Services.

Table E.2: Non-Impact Fee Funding Required
99 Final
July 21, 2016 3
Table 2.1 presents the growth projections used in each section of the study. Each section will calculate a service population for facility type based on this information.

Table 2.1: Demographic Assumptions
2015 2035 Increase
Residents1 112,100 128,000 15,900
Dwelling Units2
Single Family 28,100 34,500 6,400
Multi-family 7,700 9,500 1,800
Total 35,800 44,000 8,200
Building Square Feet (000s)3
Commercial 5,573 19,637 14,064
Office 5,868 27,869 22,001
Industrial4
2,536 1,498 (1,037)
Total 13,977 49,005 35,028
Employment5
Commercial 8,100 38,200 30,100
Office 7,200 88,600 81,400
Industrial4
2,800 1,500 (1,300)
Total 18,100 128,300 110,200
Note: Figures have been rounded to the hundreds.

Sources: California Department of Finance (DOF), Table E-5, 2015; Murrieta General Plan EIR,Tables 5.2-3, 4 and 7; CA Employment Development Department Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages, 3rd Quarter, 2012; Willdan Financial Services.
1 Current population from California Department of Finance (DOF). Projection for 2035 based on 2035 General Plan EIR.
2 Current values from DOF. Total future dw elling units from 2035 General Plan EIR, allocated to single and multi family based on current proportions. 5 Existing estimates based on data from CA EDD. Excludes government employees.

Future employees from 2035 General Plan EIR
3 Existing estimates and future employees from 2035 General Plan EIR 4 The City has rezoned some existing and future land uses as office. 100

Final
July 21, 2016 4
Table 2.2 displays the occupancy density factors used to allocate the fees in the fee schedule for each facility category.

Law Enforcement Facilities
Table 3.1 displays the service population for law enforcement facilities.

Table 2.2: Occupant Density
Residential
Single Family 3.42 Residents Per Dwelling Unit
Multifamily 2.39 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 Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2014 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.

Table 3.1: Law Enforcement Facilities Service Population Residents Workers
Service
Population
Existing (2015) 112,100 18,100 117,700
New Development (2015-2035) 15,900 110,200 50,100 Total (2035) 128,000 128,300 167,800
Weighting factor 1.00 0.31
Source: Table 2.1; Willdan Financial Services.
101

Final
July 21, 2016 5
Tables 3.2 displays the City’s inventory of existing facilities law enforcement facilities.

Table 3.3 displays the City’s planned law enforcement facilities. The existing fund balance is subtracted from the total cost of planned facilities to determine the net cost of planned facilities.

Table 3.2: Law Enforcement Existing Facilities Inventory Inventory Unit Cost Value
Land (acres)
Police Station 5.95 280,000$ 1,666,000$
Buildings (square feet)
Police Headquarters 28,800 281$ 8,100,000$
Storage Building 7,158 168 1,200,000
Parking Shelter 3,852 29 110,000
Subtotal 9,410,000$
Vehicles (See Appendix Table A.1) 5,648,000$
Equipment
Telecommunications Equipment 1,220,000$
Police Headquarters Furniture and Equipment 700,000
Police Storage Furniture and Equipment 150,000
Subtotal 2,070,000$
Canines 5 15,000$ 75,000$
Total Value of Existing Facilities 18,869,000$
Sources: City of Murrieta; Appendix Table A.1,Willdan Financial Services. 102

Final
July 21, 2016 6

Table 3.4 below shows the system standard calculation (existing + future facility value / future service population). Under the system standard the non-fee funding identified must be paid by the planning horizon, or new development has paid too high a fee.

Table 3.5 below shows the maximum justified impact fees resulting from using the system standard.

The City can charge any fee up to this amount.

Table 3.3 Planned Law Enforcement Facilities
Value
Buildings
Police Station Expansion 10,000,000$
(Less: Existing Fund Balance) (213,433)
Net Cost of Planned Facilities 9,786,567$
Sources: Capital Improvement Plan FY 2013-14 to FY 2017-18, City of Murrieta, California; Willdan Financial Services.

Table 3.4: Law Enforcement Facilities System Standard
Value of Existing Facilities 18,869,000$
Value of Planned Facilities 9,786,567
Total System Value (2035) 28,655,567$
Future Service Population (2035) 167,800
Cost per Capita 171$
Facility Standard per Resident 171$
Facility Standard per Worker1 53
1 Based on a w eighing factor of 0.31.

Sources: Tables 3.1 and 3.2; City of Murrieta; Willdan Financial Services. 103

Final
July 21, 2016 7

Table 3.6 below shows the fee revenue resulting from using the system standard methodology. Under the system standard, the City must fund the remaining $1.2 million with a funding source other than impact fees, or new development will have paid too high a fee.

Table 3.5: Law Enforcement 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
Single Family 171$ 3.42 585$ 12$ 597$ Multi-family 171 2.39 409 8 417 Nonresidential
Commercial 53$ 2.39 127$ 3$ 130$ 0.13$ Office 53 3.12 165 3 168 0.17 Industrial 53 1.16 61 1 62 0.06 Sources: Tables 2.2 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.

Table 3.6: Revenue Projection - System Standard
Cost per Capita 171$
Growth in Service Population (2015 - 2035) 50,100
Fee Revenue 8,567,000$
Cost of Planned Facilities 9,786,567
Non-Fee Revenue to Be Identified (1,219,567)$
Sources: Tables 3.1, 3.3 and 3.4.
104

Final
July 21, 2016 8

Appendix Table A.1: Police Vehicle Inventory
Description
Average
Unit Cost Units Total Value
1992 Ford Crown Victoria 56,000$ 1 56,000$ 2000 Dodge Dakota Pickup 25,000 1 25,000 2001 Ford Crown Victoria 56,000 3 168,000 2001 Ford Expedition 41,000 1 41,000 2001 Ford F150 41,000 1 41,000
2001 Ford Taurus 25,000 1 25,000
2003 Ford Expedition 41,000 1 41,000 2005 Ford Crown Victoria 56,000 1 56,000 2005 Ford Expedition 41,000 2 82,000 2005 Ford F150 41,000 1 41,000
2005 Ford F350 65,000 1 65,000
2005 Ford Taurus 25,000 1 25,000
2005 Freightliner Motorhome 300,000 1 300,000 2006 BMW 1200 35,000 1 35,000
2006 Dodge Charger 37,000 1 37,000
2006 Dodge Durango 35,000 2 70,000
2006 Ford Expedition 41,000 1 41,000 2006 Ford F150 41,000 3 123,000
2006 Ford F350 65,000 1 65,000
2007 BMW 1200 35,000 1 35,000
2007 Dodge Charger 37,000 1 37,000
2007 Ford Crown Victoria 56,000 1 56,000 2007 Ford F450 70,000 2 140,000
2007 Ford Ranger 25,000 3 75,000
2008 Dodge 1500 Pickup 41,000 1 41,000 2008 Dodge Charger 56,000 9 504,000
2008 Dodge Durango 35,000 3 105,000
2008 Dodge Ram Quad Cab 41,000 1 41,000 2008 Ford Ranger 25,000 2 50,000
2009 BMW 1200 35,000 4 140,000
2009 Suzuki Dirtbike 10,000 2 20,000 2010 Honda Accord 25,000 1 25,000
2010 Honda Odyssey 35,000 1 35,000
2011 Chevy Tahoe 56,000 1 56,000
2011 Dodge Charger 56,000 6 336,000
2011 Ford Crown Victoria 56,000 1 56,000 2011 Ford F150 41,000 2 82,000
2012 Chevy Tahoe 56,000 6 336,000
2012 Ford F250 55,000 1 55,000
2013 Chevy Tahoe 56,000 4 224,000
2014 Chevy Tahoe 56,000 1 56,000
2014 Dodge Charger 56,000 4 224,000
2014 Ford Explorer 56,000 6 336,000
2015 BMW 1200 35,000 1 35,000
2015 Dodge Durango 35,000 1 35,000
2015 Ford Explorer 56,000 12 672,000
2016 Ford Explorer 56,000 9 504,000
Total Existing Value 5,648,000$
Source: City of Murrieta.
105

Final
July 21, 2016 9
Fire Protection Facilities
Table 4.1 displays the service population for fire protection facilities.

Tables 4.2 displays the City’s inventory of existing facilities fire protection facilities.

Table 4.1: Fire Facilities Service Population
Residents Workers1
Service
Population
Existing (2015) 112,100 18,100 124,600
New Development (2015-2035) 15,900 110,200 91,900 Total (2035) 128,000 128,300 216,500
Weighting factor 1.00 0.69
Source: Table 2.1; City of Phoenix, AZ.

Note: Service population w eighting factors based on 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. 106

Final
July 21, 2016 10

Table 4.3 displays the City’s planned fire protection facilities. The existing fund balance is subtracted from the total cost of planned facilities to determine the net cost of planned facilities.

Table 4.2: Existing Fire Facilities Land and Building Inventory Inventory Units Unit Cost Value 1
Land (acres)
Station 1 and Admin 1.89 acres 280,000$ 529,200$ Station 2 1.76 acres 280,000 492,800
Station 3 2.30 acres 280,000 644,000
Station 4 3.99 acres 280,000 1,117,200
Station 5 1.45 acres 280,000 406,000
Subtotal 11.39 acres 3,189,200$
Buildings (square feet) 2
Fire Station 1 14,332 Sq. Ft. 347$ 4,972,200$ Administration Building 3,000 Sq. Ft. 687 2,060,000 Shop Maintenance 6,110 Sq. Ft. 134 819,200 Training Building 2,266 Sq. Ft. 132 298,300 Shelter 1,160 Sq. Ft. 11 13,300
Storage / Shop 660 Sq. Ft. 89 59,000 Fire Station 2 10,200 Sq. Ft. 270 2,749,900 Fire Station 3 7,572 Sq. Ft. 284 2,152,800 Fire Station 4 9,500 Sq. Ft. 533 5,067,600 Fire Station 5 - Building 1 (Temp)3 1,400 Sq. Ft. - - Fire Station 5 - Building 2 (Temp)3
1,800 Sq. Ft. - -
Subtotal 18,192,300$
Vehicles and Apparatus (See Appendix Table A.2) 9,608,500$ Total Value of Existing Facilities 30,990,000$
1 Unit costs are replacement values supplied by the City of Murrieta based on insurance valuation.

Sources: 2013-2014 Renew al Questionnaire Application, City of Murietta; Willdan Financial Services. 2 Total cost includes building cost and contents (furnishings and equipment) specific to each building. 3 No value show n for these facilities because they w ill be replaced by planned Station #5. 107

Final
July 21, 2016 11

Table 4.4 below shows the calculation of the planned facilities standard (planned facility value / growth in service population). Under the planned facilities standard the fee revenue perfectly matches the cost of planned facilities.

Table 4.3: Planned Fire Protection Facilities
Value
New Fire Stations
Training Center 3,061,500$
Fire Station #5 at Vineyard Parkway 6,445,000
Fire Station #6 6,445,000
Subtotal 15,951,500$
New Apparatus
Two (2) Type 1 Engines - $675,000 each 1,350,000$
Type 3 Engine 425,000
Subtotal 1,775,000$
Total Cost - Planned Facilities 17,726,500$
(Less: Existing Fund Balance) (1,025,074)
Net Cost of Planned Facilities 16,701,426$
Sources: Capital Improvement Plan FY 2013-14 to FY 2017-18, City of Murrieta, California; Willdan Financial Services.

Table 4.4: Fire Protection Facilities Planned Facilities Standard Net Value of Planned Facilities 16,701,426$
Service Population Growth (2015 to 2035) 91,900
Cost per Capita 182$
Facility Standard per Resident 182$
Facility Standard per Worker1 126
1 Based on a w eighing factor of 0.69.

Sources: Tables 4.1 and 4.2; City of Murrieta; Willdan Financial Services. 108

Final
July 21, 2016 12
Table 4.5 below shows the maximum justified impact fees resulting from using the planned facilities standard. The City can charge any fee up to this amount. Note that using the planned facilities methodology recovers the exact amount of planned facilities costs identified in Table 4.3.

Table 4.5: Fire Protection Facilities Fee
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
Single Family 182$ 3.42 622$ 12$ 634$ Multi-family 182 2.39 435 9 444 Nonresidential
Commercial 126$ 2.39 301$ 6$ 307$ 0.31$ Office 126 3.12 393 8 401 0.40 Industrial 126 1.16 146 3 149 0.15 Sources: Tables 2.2 and 4.4; 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.
1 Persons per dw elling unit or per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential. 109

Final
July 21, 2016 13

Appendix Table A.2: Existing Fire Apparatus Inventory
Inventory ID Unit Name Model Year
Replacement
Value
Existing Inventory - Heavy Apparatus
41-001 International/Bean Pumper 1941 $ 500 23-028 Seagraves (Parade Unit) 1923 2,500 84-012 E-One Pumper (E-23 Explorers) 1984 120,000 87-075 Ford F-700 Stake Side Utility (OES) 1987 50,000 88-018 E-One Pumper (E-22) 1988 675,000 01-037 Freightliner/Weststates (B-2) 2001 550,000 01-038 American LaFrance Pumper (E-21) 2001 675,000 03-043 E-One Quint (T-1) 2003 1,200,000 04-047 International (WT-1) 2004 90,000 05-049 E-One Pumper (E-3) 2005 675,000 05-050 E-One Pumper (E-4) 2005 675,000
05-051 International/E-1 (B-5) 2005 425,000 08-063 Pierce Pumper (E-2) 2006 675,000 07-059 International/Peirce (B-3) 2007 425,000 07-058 E-One Pumper (E-5) 2007 675,000 08-069 International/Rosenbauer OES 8634 2007 425,000 15-078 Pierce Quint Ladder Truck 2015 1,200,000 Subtotal $ 8,538,000
Existing Inventory - Light Duty Vehicles
97-035 Ford Expedition 4X4 (SWAT) 1997 $ 65,000 98-034 Chevy 4X4 P/U ( TRU Tow Vehicle) 1998 35,000 98-036 Dodge 4X4 P/U (DC-6301) 1998 38,000 01-039 Ford Taurus 2001 35,000 01-040 Ford Crown Victoria 2001 35,000 03-044 Ford F-150 P/U (Training) 2003 40,000 02-042 Ford F-150 4X4 P/U (Disaster-1) 2003 43,000 04-045 Ford F-150 P/U (Prevention 2) 2004 40,000 04-046 Ford F-150 P/U (EMS-1 ) 2004 40,000 04-048 Chevrolet 2500 4X4 P/U (Batt-6305) 2004 65,000 06-052 Ford F-350 (Repair-1) 2006 85,000 07-054 Chevy Avalanche 2007 40,000 07-055 Chevy Tahoe 2007 65,000 08-060 Ford F-350 (LA/1 Tow Vehicle) 2008 37,000 08-061 Ford F-250 (Batt-6306) 2008 65,000 08-062 Chevy Suburban (Batt-6307) 2008 65,000 14-073 Polaris Ranger XP (Ranger 5) 2014 15,000 15-076 Ford F-250 4X4 (Batt- 6305) 2015 65,000 15-077 Ford F-250 4X4 (DFC-6301) 2015 65,000 Subtotal $ 938,000
Source: City of Murrieta.
110

Final
July 21, 2016 14

Streets, Minor Bridges and Culverts Impact Fee
Table 5.1 calculates the trip rate adjustment factors used to estimate trip demand and allocate fee responsibility. This table will also be used in the traffic signals fee.

Appendix Table A.2: Existing Fire Apparatus Inventory Continued Inventory ID Unit Name Model Year
Replacement
Value
Existing Inventory - Trailers
02-041 Wells 2 Axel Trailer (TRU-1) 2002 $ 9,500 07-053 Az-Tex 2 Axel Trailer (Explorers) 2007 9,500 07-056 Wells 2 axel Trailer (Cert-3) 2007 9,500 07-057 Scott/Liberty Light Air (LA/1) 2007 40,000 08-072 Wells 2 axel trailer (Cert-1) 2008 9,500 08-066 Wells 2 axel trailer (Cert-2) 2008 9,500 08-068 Wells 2 axel trailer (Cert-4) 2008 9,500 10-067 Wells 2 axel trailer (Cert-5) 2009 9,500 Polaris Ranger XP trailer 26,000
Subtotal $ 132,500
Total Value - Existing Inventory $ 9,608,500
Source: City of Murrieta.
111

Final
July 21, 2016 15

Table 5.2 estimates trip demand in 2015 and 2035. The trip demand factor from Table 5.1 is multiplied by estimates of existing and future development from Table 2.1 to determine existing and future demand for traffic facilities. This table will also be used in the traffic signals fee. 112

Final
July 21, 2016 16

Table 5.3 displays existing and future level of service for the Streets, Minor Bridges & Culverts Impact Fee projects.

Table 5.2: 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 10.62 28,100 298,422 6,400 67,968 34,500 366,390 Multi-family 7.38 7,700 56,826 1,800 13,284 9,500 70,110 Subtotal 35,800 355,248 8,200 81,252 44,000 436,500 Nonresidential
Commercial 17.61 5,573 98,145 14,064 247,669 19,637 345,814 Office 13.43 5,868 78,807 22,001 295,475 27,869 374,282 Industrial 1.92 2,536 4,868 (1,037) (1,991) 1,498 2,877 Subtotal 13,977 181,820 35,028 541,153 49,005 722,973 Total 537,068 622,405 1,159,473
46% 54% 100%
Sources: Tables 2.1 and 5.1; Willdan Financial Services 2015 Total - 2035Growth 2015 to 2035
113

Final
July 21, 2016 17

Table 5.3: Existing and Future Roadway Segment LOS
Allocation
Project Roadway Classification
No. of
Lanes
Existing
V/C
Existing
LOS
Bike
Lane Future
No. of
Lanes
Future
V/C
Future
LOS Bike Lane
To New
Development
ST-07 - A-B Jefferson Avenue Secondary 2 0.86 D Class II Arterial 6 1.01 F Class II 100% ST-07 - C Jefferson Avenue Arterial 3 0.86 D Class II Arterial 6 1.01 F Class II 100% ST-07 - D Jefferson Avenue Arterial 2 0.77 C - Arterial 6 0.73 C Class II 100% ST-08 - A Jefferson Avenue Arterial 2 0.22 A Class II Arterial 6 0.40 A Class II 100% ST-08 - B-C Jefferson Avenue Arterial 2 0.22 A - Arterial 6 0.50 A Class II 100% ST-14 - C Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Multi-Modal TC 4 1.11 F - Arterial 6 1.23 F Class II 100% ST-15 - B Washington Avenue --- 4 0.38 A - Secondary 4 0.36 A Class II 100% ST-15 - D Washington Avenue --- 3 0.49 A Class II Secondary 4 0.48 A Class II 100% ST-15 - E Washington Avenue --- 3 0.49 A Class II Secondary 4 0.48 A Class II 100% ST-15 - G Washington Avenue --- 4 0.55 A - Secondary 4 0.56 A Class II 100% ST-15 - L Washington Avenue --- - - - - Collector 2 0.11 A MP Trail 54% ST-16 - A Washington Avenue Industrial Collector 2 0.05 A - Industrial Collector 2 0.25 A MP Trail 100% ST-16 - B Washington Avenue Industrial Collector - - - - Industrial Collector 2 0.10 A MP Trail 100% ST 17/18 - A Guava Street --- 2 0.02 A - Major 4 0.46 A Class II 100% ST 17/18 - E Guava Street --- 2 0.09 A - Collector 2 0.49 A Class II 100% ST-19 - A- B Adams Avenue 2 0.18 A - Secondary 4 0.13 A - 100% ST-20 - A Ivy Street Major 2 0.73 C - Major 4 0.41 A Class II 54% ST-20 - B Ivy Street 2 0.33 A - Major 4 0.26 A Class II 100% ST-26 - A Kalmia Street Collector 2 1.18 F - Collector 2 0.63 B Class II / MP Trail 100% ST-27/28 - A Kalmia Street Major 3 0.99 E - Arterial 6 0.91 E Class II 100% ST-27/28 - B Kalmia Street Major 3 1.26 F - Major 4 0.83 D Class II 54% ST-29 - A Lemon Street Secondary 2 0.32 A - Secondary 4 0.16 A Class II 100% ST-30 - A Nutmeg Street Secondary 2 0.44 A - Secondary 4 0.77 C Class II 100% ST-31 - A-B Nutmeg Street Secondary 2 0.45 A - Secondary 4 0.49 A Class II 100% Source: Kimley Horn and Associates.

Existing Conditions (2013) Future Conditions (2035)
114

Final
July 21, 2016 18

Table 5.3: Existing and Future Roadway Segment LOS (Continued) Allocation
Project Roadway
Existing
Classification
No. of
Lanes
Existing
V/C
Existing
LOS
Bike
Lane
Future
Classification
No. of
Lanes
Future
V/C
Future
LOS Bike Lane
To New
Development
ST-33 - B Monroe Avenue Major - - - - Major 4 0.67 B Class II 100% ST-35 - A Jackson Avenue Collector 3 0.51 A - Secondary 4 0.39 A Class II 100% ST-36 - A Whitewood Road Major - - - - Major 4 0.62 B MP Trail 100% ST-40/41 - A McElwain Road Secondary 2 - Secondary 4 - - Class II 54% ST-40/41 - B McElwain Road Secondary 3 - Secondary 4 0.77 C Class II 54% ST-42 - A Linnel Lane Secondary 2 - Secondary 4 0.93 E Class II 54% ST-42 - B Lee Lane Secondary - - - - Secondary 4 0.57 A - 100% ST-46 - B Whitewood Road Major 3 0.24 A Class II Major 4 0.79 C MP Trail 100% ST-46/47 - A New Antelope Road --- - - - - Major 4 1.06 F Class II 100% ST-48 - A Baxter Road --- - - - - Secondary 4 0.01 A MP Trail 100% ST-49 - A I-215 & Keller Road Interchange --- - - - - Interchange - - - - 54% ST-50 - A Elm Street Major 2 0.19 A - Major 4 0.53 A Class II 100% ST-51 - A Madison Avenue Major 2 0.26 A - Major 4 0.11 A Class II 100% ST-51 - B Madison Avenue --- - - - - 0.14 A Class II 100% ST-51 - C Madison Avenue Major 2 0.26 A - 0.53 A Class II 54% ST-52 - A Monroe Avenue --- - - - - Major 4 0.06 A Class II 100% ST-54 - A Murrieta Hot Springs Road Arterial 4 0.59 A - Urban Arterial 6 0.86 D Class II 100% ST-55 - A Murrieta Hot Springs Road --- - - - - Arterial 6 0.09 A Class II 100% ST-56 - A Date Street --- - - - - Major 4 0.58 A Class II 100% ST-57 - A Hayes Avenue Collector 2 0.05 A - Collector 2 0.59 A MP Trail 100% ST-58 - A Douglas Avenue Collector 2 0.1 A - Collector 2 0.22 A - 100% ST-59 - A Fig Street --- - - - - Industrial Collector 2 0.34 A - 100% ST-60 - A Larchmont Lane --- - - - - Industrial Collector 2 0.50 A - 100% Source: Kimley Horn and Associates.

Existing Conditions (2013) Future Conditions (2035)
115

Final
July 21, 2016 19
Table 5.3: Existing and Future Roadway Segment LOS (Continued) Allocation
Project Roadway
Existing
Classification
No. of
Lanes
Existing
V/C
Existing
LOS
Bike
Lane
Future
Classification
No. of
Lanes
Future
V/C
Future
LOS Bike Lane
To New
Development
ST-61 - A Clinton Keith Road --- - - - - Arterial 6 1.11 F MP Trail 100% ST-62 - A SR 79 Expressway 4 0.55 A Class II Expressway 6 0.31 A Class II 100% ST-62 - B SR 79 Expressway 4 0.55 A Class II Expressway 6 1.15 F Class II 100% ST-64 - A Porth Road --- - - - - Collector 2 - 54%
ST-65 - A Liberty Road --- - - - - Collector 2 0.30 A - 100% ST-66 - A Antelope Industrial Collector 2 - Industrial Collector 2 0.41 A - 54% ST-67 - A Keller Road Arterial 3 Class II Arterial 6 0.79 C Class II, MP Trail 54% ST-68 - A Mitchell Road --- - - - - Secondary 4 0.47 A - 100% ST-69 - A Gateway Road --- - - - - Collector 2 0.40 A - 100% ST-70 - A Adams Avenue Collector 2 0.52 A Class II Collector 2 1.01 F Class II 100% ST-71 - A Hawthorne --- - - - - Collector 2 0.12 A Class II 100% ST-72 - A Ivy Street Collector 2 0.58 A Class II Collector 2 0.06 A Class II 100% ST-73 - A Adams Avenue Collector 2 0.15 A - Secondary 4 0.45 A Class II 100% ST-74 - A Elm Street Secondary 2 0.19 A - Secondary 4 0.04 A - 100% ST-75 - A Lemon Street Secondary 2 0.52 A - Secondary 4 0.47 A Class II 100% ST-76 - A Vista Murrieta --- - - - - Collector 2 0.12 A - 100% ST-78 - A Fig Street Industrial Collector 2 0.19 A - Industrial Collector 2 0.06 A - 100% ST-80 - A Elm Street Major 2 0.3 A - Major 4 0.08 A Class II 100% ST-81 - A Los Alamos Collector 2 0.36 A - Collector 2 0.28 A Class II 100% ST-82 - A Lincoln Collector 2 0.3 A - Collector 2 0.22 A Class III 100% Source: Kimley Horn and Associates.

Existing Conditions (2013) Future Conditions (2035)
116

Final
July 21, 2016 20
Table 5.4 displays the cost estimates of the projects included in the Streets, Minor Bridges & Culverts Impact Fee.

Table 5.4: Roadway Segment Facilities Costs
Project Roadway Description Lane Feet Total Cost
Allocation To
New
Development
Cost
Allocated To
New
Development
ST-07 - A-B Jefferson Avenue
Widen 2200 LF on the west side Lemon to N/O
Kalmia (A). Widen 1000 LF on the east side N/O
Kalmia to Centerpointe (B). Construct additional
23 LF, 4 lane span bridge to cross canal at
$575,000.
2,200 $ 5,063,701 100% $ 5,063,701
ST-07 - C1 Jefferson Avenue Widen 350 LF on the east side Kalmia to canal 350 787,500 100% 787,500 ST-07 - D Jefferson Avenue Widen 1700 LF on the east side Lemon to S/O Lily. 1,700 3,838,445 100% 3,838,445 ST-08 - A Jefferson Avenue Widen 900 LF on the east side Gateway to City Limits 900 2,190,047 100% 2,190,047 ST-08 - B-C Jefferson Avenue Widen 500 LF on the eas side S/O Gateway (B) and 1100 LF on the west side S/O Gateway (C). 1,100 2,676,724 100% 2,676,724 ST-14 - C1 Murrieta Hot Springs RdWiden 5300 LF on the south side Margartia Rd to Winchester 5,300 10,000,000 100% 10,000,000 ST-15 - B Washington Avenue Widen 1000 LF on the east side Nutmeg to S/O N. City Limit. Add two bike lanes and a sidewalk. 1,000 1,206,328 100% 1,206,328 ST-15 - D Washington Avenue Widen 800 LF on the east side Lemon to Davenport (D). 800 1,048,648 100% 1,048,648 ST-15 - E Washington Avenue Widen 1700 LF on the east side Fullerton to Magnolia 1,700 2,228,378 100% 2,228,378 ST-15 - G Washington Avenue Widen 700 LF on the east side S/O Calle de Oso Oro. Add two bike lanes and a sidewalk. 700 844,430 100% 844,430 ST-15 - L Washington Avenue Reconstruct a new 2 lane collector. 2,620 4,945,128 54% 2,670,369 Notes:
1 Cost estimated by the City of Murrieta. Contingencies w ere added to the initial estimates.

Final
July 21, 2016 21

Table 5.4: Roadway Segment Facilities Costs Continued
Project Roadway Description Lane Feet Total Cost
Allocation To
New
Development
Cost
Allocated To
New
Development
ST-16 - A Washington Avenue Construct between Elm and Guava at 5280 LF 5,280 $ 9,842,444 100% $ 9,842,444 ST-16 - B Washington Avenue Construct 3900 LF S. City Limit to Elm 3,900 9,062,693 100% 9,062,693 ST 17/18 - A Guava Street 1320 LF widening on north side and 820 LF widening on south side Jefferson to Monroe 2,280 4,757,748 100% 4,757,748 ST 17/18 - E Guava Street Widen 5400 LF Washington to W/O John Wayne 5,400 8,516,159 100% 8,516,159 ST-19 - A- B Adams Avenue
Widen 1300 LF on the west side Brown to Guava
(A) and widen 2800 LF on the east side Guava to
Hawthorn (B).
2,800 6,078,134 100% 6,078,134
ST-20 - A1 Ivy Street Widen 1320 LF on the north side Jefferson to Adams 1,320 1,480,000 54% 799,200 ST-20 - B1 Ivy Street Widen 1320 LF on the north side Adams to Washington 1,320 1,480,000 100% 1,480,000 ST-26 - A Kalmia Street Widen/Construct 2640 LF W. City Limits to Washington 2,640 4,491,224 100% 4,491,224 ST-27/28 - A1 Kalmia Street
Widen 690 LF on the north side Village Walk to
Jefferson which includes narrowing travel lanes,
relocating the median, and constructing a through
lane and SW.
690 1,352,500 100% 1,352,500
ST-27/28 - B Kalmia Street Widen 2200 LF on the northside W/O Jefferson to Washington 2,200 3,767,350 54% 2,034,369 ST-29 - A Lemon Street Widen 2000 LF on the north side of Washington to E/O Hayes. 2,000 3,440,458 100% 3,440,458 ST-30 - A Nutmeg Street
Widen appx 480 LF along bridge on Calle de Oso
Oro. Construct additional two lane span bridge at
$6M.
480 6,825,710 100% 6,825,710
ST-31 - A-B Nutmeg Street
Widen 1700 LF on the south side Washington to
Adams (A) and widen 700 LF on the north side
W/O Adams to Washington (B).
1,700 2,924,389 100% 2,924,389
Notes:
1 Cost estimated by the City of Murrieta. Contingencies w ere added to the initial estimates.

Final
July 21, 2016 22

Table 5.4: Roadway Segment Facilities Costs Continued
Project Roadway Description Lane Feet Total Cost
Allocation To
New
Development
Cost
Allocated To
New
Development
ST-33 - B Monroe Avenue Construct 3800 LF Los Almos to Murrieta Hot Springs. 3,800 $ 9,518,640 100% $ 9,518,640 ST-35 - A Jackson Avenue Widen 1300 LF on the east side Nutmeg St to S/O Robards 1,300 1,704,053 100% 1,704,053 ST-36 - A Whitewood Road Construct 4600 LF Jackson to Murrieta Hot Springs 4,600 8,733,923 100% 8,733,923 ST-40/41 - A McElwain Road Widen/Construct 3000 LF Linnel Ln to N. City Limit 3,000 6,241,967 54% 3,370,662 ST-40/41 - B McElwain Road Construct 650 LF S/O Linnel Ln on west side 650 852,027 54% 460,094 ST-42 - A Linnel Lane Widen 1100 LF on the north side W/O I-215 1,100 1,892,252 54% 1,021,816 ST-42 - B Lee Lane Construct 2640 LF of new roadway on the north side Menifee to Whitewood 2,640 5,730,812 100% 5,730,812 ST-46 - B Whitewood Road Widen 4800 LF on the east side Hunter to Clinton Keith 4,800 2,500,000 100% 2,500,000 ST-46/47 - A New Antelope Road
Construct appx 16000 LF of New Antelope Rd
Clinton Keith to Scott. Construct new signal at
Clinton Keith (Intersection #21).
16,000 40,078,485 100% 40,078,485
ST-48 - A Baxter Road Widen/Construct 2600 LF on the south side Whitewood to Menifee (E. City Limit) 2,600 6,512,754 100% 6,512,754 ST-49 - A I-215 & Keller Road InterchangeConstruct interchange - 25,000,000 54% 13,500,000 ST-50 - A Elm Street Jefferson Avenue to Monroe Avenue 2,100 4,382,136 100% 4,382,136 Notes:
1 Cost estimated by the City of Murrieta. Contingencies w ere added to the initial estimates.

Final
July 21, 2016 23

Table 5.4: Roadway Segment Facilities Costs Continued
Project Roadway Description Lane Feet Total Cost
Allocation To
New
Development
Cost
Allocated To
New
Development
ST-51 - A Madison Avenue Nick Ln to Date St 1,290 $ 2,691,884 100% $ 2,691,884 ST-51 - B Madison Avenue Golden Gate Cir to Nick Ln 700 1,753,434 100% 1,753,434 ST-51 - C Madison Avenue Murrieta Hot Springs Rd to Golden Gate Cir 5,830 14,603,598 54% 7,885,943 ST-52 - A Monroe Avenue Guava St to Larchmont 4,000 10,019,621 100% 10,019,621 ST-54 - A Murrieta Hot Springs RoadMadison Ave to Jefferson Ave 1,320 1,823,821 100% 1,823,821 ST-55 - A Murrieta Hot Springs RoadJefferson Ave to Adams Ave 1,320 3,974,032 100% 3,974,032 ST-56 - A Date Street Winchester Creek Rd to Murrieta Hot Springs Rd 1,320 3,306,475 100% 3,306,475 ST-57 - A Hayes Avenue Kalmia St to Guava St 8,000 12,616,531 100% 12,616,531 ST-58 - A Douglas Avenue Guava St to Elm St 5,280 8,326,911 100% 8,326,911 ST-59 - A Fig Street Jefferson Ave to Monroe Avenue 2,400 5,577,042 100% 5,577,042 ST-60 - A Larchmont Lane Jefferson Ave to Monroe 2,100 4,879,911 100% 4,879,911 ST-61 - A Clinton Keith Road Whitewood Rd to Arendt Ln along Regency frontage 1,320 5,227,000 100% 5,227,000 ST-62 - A SR 79 Max Gillis Blvd to Benton Rd 2,900 1,575,921 100% 1,575,921 ST-62 - B SR 79 Benton Rd to Briggs Rd 900 489,079 100% 489,079 ST-64 - A Porth Road Liberty Rd to Clinton Keith 2,700 5,096,124 54% 2,751,907 ST-65 - A Liberty Road Porth Rd to City Limit 1,320 2,491,438 100% 2,491,438 ST-66 - A Antelope Stepp Rd to Brians Way 7,000 11,039,465 54% 5,961,311 ST-67 - A Keller Road I-215 to Menifee Rd 1,700 2,943,517 54% 1,589,499 ST-68 - A Mitchell Road McElwain to Clinton Keith 2,300 4,992,753 100% 4,992,753 ST-69 - A Gateway Road Jefferson to City Limit 650 1,226,845 100% 1,226,845 ST-70 - A Adams Avenue Lemon to Kalmia 2,640 4,163,455 100% 4,163,455 ST-71 - A Hawthorne Adams to Washington 1,320 2,491,438 100% 2,491,438 ST-72 - A Ivy Street Washington to Hayes 1,900 2,996,426 100% 2,996,426 ST-73 - A Adams Avenue Guava St to Cherry 9,300 10,000,000 100% 10,000,000 ST-74 - A Elm Street Washington to Douglas 1,320 2,270,702 100% 2,270,702 ST-75 - A Lemon Street Washington to Jefferson 2,640 4,541,405 100% 4,541,405 ST-76 - A Vista Murrieta Los Alamos to Monroe 2,900 5,473,615 100% 5,473,615 ST-78 - A Fig Street Adams to Jefferson 700 1,304,870 100% 1,304,870 ST-80 - A Elm Street Adams to Jefferson 1,300 2,712,751 100% 2,712,751 ST-81 - A Los Alamos Via Santee to Ruth Ellen 900 1,419,360 100% 1,419,360 ST-82 - A Lincoln Juniper to Los Alamos 1,000 1,577,066 100% 1,577,066 Total $ 355,601,677 $319,785,420
Notes:
1 Cost estimated by the City of Murrieta. Contingencies w ere added to the initial estimates.

Sources: City of Murrieta; Kimley Horn and Associates.

Streetlight and dry utility costs are included in cost/LF. Streetlights are estimated at one streetlight every 250' at $16,000 each, dry utilities are estimated as $40,000 every 2500'.

The costs for a one lane bridge span is estimated at $6,250/LF. 120

Final
July 21, 2016 24
In Table 5.5 the net cost of the planned facilities allocated to new development is divided by the growth in trips to determine the cost per trip.

Table 5.6 multiplies the cost per trip from Table 5.5 by the trip demand factors in Table 5.1 to calculate a fee per land use.

Table 5.5: Cost per Trip to Accommodate Growth
Project Costs
Fee Program Share of Planned Facilities Costs 319,785,420$ Less Existing Fund Balance (4,749,774)
Net Costs 315,035,646$
Growth in Daily Trips 622,405
Cost per Trip 506$
Sources: Tables 5.2 and 5.4; Willdan Financial Services.

Table 5.6: Streets, Minor Bridges & Culverts 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
Single Family 506$ 10.62 5,374$ 107$ 5,481$ Multi-family 506 7.38 3,734 75 3,809 Nonresidential
Commercial 506$ 17.61 8,911$ 178$ 9,089$ 9.09$ Office 506 13.43 6,796 136 6,932 6.93 Industrial 506 1.92 972 19 991 0.99 Sources: Tables 5.1 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.
121

Final
July 21, 2016 25
Traffic Signal Fee
Table 6.1 displays the level of service (LOS) data for the projects included in the traffic signal fee. 122

Final
July 21, 2016 26

Table 6.1: Traffic Signal and Intersection Level of Service (LOS) Allocation
to
GP Int
No. Intersections Control
Delay
(s/veh) LOS
Delay
(s/veh) LOS
Delay
(s/veh) LOS
Delay
(s/veh) LOS
Contro
l
Delay
(s/veh) LOS
Delay
(s/veh) LOS
New
Development
9 New Antelope Rd / Baxter Rd Signal - - - - 25.2 C 89.2 F Signal - - - - 100% 14 New Antelope Rd / Linnel Lane TWSC - - - - 22.1 C 28.5 C Signal 21.4 C 23.4 C 100% 15 Whitewood Rd / Linnel Lane Signal - - - - 26.0 C 43.7 D Signal 24.6 C 38.7 D 100% 21 Clinton Keith Rd / New Antelope Rd TWSC - - - - 5.1 A 4.5 A Signal - - - - 100% 22 Whitewood Rd / Clinton Keith Rd Signal 10.5 B 13.4 B 145.9 F 121.7 F Signal - - - - 100% 25 Winchester Rd (SR-79) / Clinton Keith Rd Signal 14.4 B 21.2 C 38.8 D 53.7 D Signal - - - - 100% 27 Monroe Ave / Los Alamos Rd Signal 15 B 12.4 B 24.5 C 27.5 C Signal - - - - 100% 28 Jefferson Ave / Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Signal 21.2 C 20.7 C 133.3 F 206.4 F Signal 56.1 E 115.8 F 100% 29 Madison Ave / Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Signal 25.3 C 34.2 C 26.6 C 129.6 F Signal 23.5 C 51.1 D 100% 31 I-15 NB Off Ramp / Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Signal 11.8 B 15.3 B 5.7 A 7.9 A Ramp - - - - 54% 36 French Valley - Date St / Murrieta Hot Springs Rd DNE DNE DNE DNE DNE 12.9 B 18.4 B Signal - - - - 100% 37 Jefferson Ave / Guava St Signal 2 A 1.4 A 9.4 A 7.9 A Signal - - - - 100% 39 Washington Ave / Calle Del Oso Oro - Nutmeg St Signal 29.2 C 26.8 C 27.6 C 27.5 C Signal - - - - 100% 41 Jefferson Ave / Nutmeg St Signal 13.2 B 12.9 B 51.1 D 36.0 D Signal - - - - 100% 42 Jefferson Ave / Magnolia St AWSC 18.2 C 21.2 C 10.7 B 9.4 A Signal - - - - 54% 43 Jefferson Ave / Lemon St Signal 10.9 B 6.6 A 28.2 C 18.3 B Signal - - - - 100% 44 Jefferson Ave / Kalmia St Signal 26.2 C 26.7 C 59.3 E 159.9 F Signal 60.3 E 158.5 F 100% 49 Monroe Ave / Murrieta Hot Springs Rd TWSC 15.8 C 23.8 C 8.0 A 16.2 B Signal - - - - 54% 57 Whitewood Rd / Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Signal 12.6 B 9.7 A 28.3 C 88.7 F Signal 28.4 C 51.6 D 100% 58 Adams Ave / Guava St AWSC 8.6 A 9.3 A 12.2 B 143.0 B Signal - - - - 100% 60 Linnel Rd Ext (Mitchell Rd) / Clinton Keith Rd Signal 14.5 B 5.8 A 20.4 C 120.7 F Signal 18.7 B 29.6 C 100% Washington Ave / Lemon St Signal - - - - - - - - Signal - - - - 54% Jackson Ave / Nutmeg St Signal - - - - - - - - Signal - - - - 54% Adams St / Kalmia St Signal - - - - - - - - Signal - - - - 54% Adams St / Ivy St AWSC - - - - - - - - Signal - - - - 54% Jefferson Ave / Elm St Signal - - - - - - - - Signal - - - - 54% Hayes Ave / De Luz Rd - Guava St TWSC - - - - - - - - Signal - - - - 54% Madison Ave / Elm St AWSC - - - - - - - - Signal - - - - 54% Clinton Keith Rd / McElwain Rd Signal - - - - - - - - Signal - - - - 54% Linnel Ln / McElwain Rd AWSC - - - - - - - - Signal - - - - 54% Jefferson Ave / Fig St Signal - - - - - - - - Signal - - - - 54% Madison Ave / Fig St AWSC - - - - - - - - Signal - - - - 54% Jefferson Ave / Centerpointe Ct Signal - - - - - - - - Signal - - - - 54% Washington Ave / Fullerton Rd Signal - - - - - - - - Signal - - - - 54% Villagewalk / Centerpointe Ct Signal - - - - - - - - Signal - - - - 54% Villagewalk / Kalmia Rd Signal - - - - - - - - Signal - - - - 54% Murrieta Hot Springs Rd / Via Princessa E Signal - - - - - - - - Signal - - - - 54% DNE - Indicates intersections that do not exist.

Source: Kimley Horn and Associates.

Existing Conditions 2035 No Improvement 2035 + Recommended Improvement AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour 123

Final
July 21, 2016 27
Table 6.2 displays the cost estimates for the traffic signal improvement projects.

Table 6.2: Traffic Signal and Intersection - Improvement Costs GP Int
No. Intersection
Estimated
Construction
Costs
Project
Specifications
and
Engineering
(PS+E) for
Design (15%)
Traffic
Control (5%)
Stormwater
Management
(5%)
Contingencies
(15%) Grand Total
Allocation to
New
Development
Total Cost
Allocated to
New
Development
9 New Antelope Rd / Baxter Rd 2,756,250$ 413,438$ 137,813$ 137,813$ 413,438$ 3,858,750$ 100% 3,858,750$ 14 New Antelope Rd / Linnel Lane 3,612,500 541,875 180,625 180,625 541,875 5,057,500 100% 5,057,500 15 Whitewood Rd / Linnel Lane 1,622,750 243,413 81,138 81,138 243,413 2,271,850 100% 2,271,850 21 Clinton Keith Rd / New Antelope Rd 1,556,250 233,438 77,813 77,813 233,438 2,178,750 100% 2,178,750 22 Whitewood Rd / Clinton Keith Rd 2,620,250 393,038 131,013 131,013 393,038 3,668,350 100% 3,668,350 25 Winchester Rd (SR-79) / Clinton Keith Rd 3,215,000 482,250 160,750 160,750 482,250 4,501,000 100% 4,501,000 27 Monroe Ave / Los Alamos Rd 1,456,250 218,438 72,813 72,813 218,438 2,038,750 100% 2,038,750 28 Jefferson Ave / Murrieta Hot Springs Rd 3,309,250 496,388 165,463 165,463 496,388 4,632,950 100% 4,632,950 29 Madison Ave / Murrieta Hot Springs Rd 250,000 37,500 12,500 12,500 37,500 350,000 100% 350,000 31 I-15 NB Off Ramp / Murrieta Hot Springs Rd 2,000,000 300,000 100,000 100,000 300,000 2,800,000 54% 1,512,000 36 French Valley - Date St / Murrieta Hot Springs Rd 1,556,250 233,438 77,813 77,813 233,438 2,178,750 100% 2,178,750 37 Jefferson Ave / Guava St 500,000 75,000 25,000 25,000 75,000 700,000 100% 700,000 39 Washington Ave / Calle Del Oso Oro - Nutmeg St 750,000 112,500 37,500 37,500 112,500 1,050,000 100% 1,050,000 41 Jefferson Ave / Nutmeg St 901,000 135,150 45,050 45,050 135,150 1,261,400 100% 1,261,400 42 Jefferson Ave / Magnolia St 1,601,000 240,150 80,050 80,050 240,150 2,241,400 54% 1,210,356 43 Jefferson Ave / Lemon St 1,088,500 163,275 54,425 54,425 163,275 1,523,900 100% 1,523,900 44 Jefferson Ave / Kalmia St 750,000 112,500 37,500 37,500 112,500 1,050,000 100% 1,050,000 49 Monroe Ave / Murrieta Hot Springs Rd 2,058,000 308,700 102,900 102,900 308,700 2,881,200 54% 1,555,848 57 Whitewood Rd / Murrieta Hot Springs Rd 751,750 112,763 37,588 37,588 112,763 1,052,450 100% 1,052,450 58 Adams Ave / Guava St 1,170,000 175,500 58,500 58,500 175,500 1,638,000 100% 1,638,000 60 Linnel Rd Ext (Mitchell Rd) / Clinton Keith Rd 1,622,750 243,413 81,138 81,138 243,413 2,271,850 100% 2,271,850 Washington Ave / Lemon St 1,000,000 150,000 50,000 50,000 150,000 1,400,000 54% 756,000 Jackson Ave / Nutmeg St 500,000 75,000 25,000 25,000 75,000 700,000 54% 378,000 Adams St / Kalmia St 750,000 112,500 37,500 37,500 112,500 1,050,000 54% 567,000 Notes: All costs in current 2013 dollars.

Cost Assumptions:

Left Hand Turn Lane: $350,000
Right Hand Turn Lane: $250,000
New Signal: $350,000
Signal Modification (e.g., adding a phase) : $250,000
Source: Kimley Horn Associates.
124

Final
July 21, 2016 28

Table 6.2: Traffic Signal and Intersection - Improvement Costs Continued GP Int
No. Intersection
Estimated
Construction
Costs
Project
Specifications
and
Engineering
(PS+E) for
Design (15%)
Traffic
Control (5%)
Stormwater
Management
(5%)
Contingencies
(15%) Grand Total
Allocation to
New
Development
Total Cost
Allocated to
New
Development
Adams St / Ivy St 750,000$ 112,500$ 37,500$ 37,500$ 112,500$ 1,050,000$ 54% 567,000$ Jefferson Ave / Elm St 1,100,000 165,000 55,000 55,000 165,000 1,540,000 54% 831,600 Hayes Ave / De Luz Rd - Guava St 1,472,750 220,913 73,638 73,638 220,913 2,061,850 54% 1,113,399 Madison Ave / Elm St 2,357,000 353,550 117,850 117,850 353,550 3,299,800 54% 1,781,892 Clinton Keith Rd / McElwain Rd 1,260,000 189,000 63,000 63,000 189,000 1,764,000 54% 952,560 Linnel Ln / McElwain Rd 2,132,750 319,913 106,638 106,638 319,913 2,985,850 54% 1,612,359 Jefferson Ave / Fig St 1,161,000 174,150 58,050 58,050 174,150 1,625,400 54% 877,716 Madison Ave / Fig St 2,594,000 389,100 129,700 129,700 389,100 3,631,600 54% 1,961,064 Jefferson Ave / Centerpointe Ct 701,750 105,263 35,088 35,088 105,263 982,450 54% 530,523 Washington Ave / Fullerton Rd 811,000 121,650 40,550 40,550 121,650 1,135,400 54% 613,116 Villagewalk / Centerpointe Ct 998,500 149,775 49,925 49,925 149,775 1,397,900 54% 754,866 Villagewalk / Kalmia Rd 998,500 149,775 49,925 49,925 149,775 1,397,900 54% 754,866 Murrieta Hot Springs Rd / Via Princessa E 901,000 135,150 45,050 45,050 135,150 1,261,400 54% 681,156 Total 54,636,000$ 8,195,400$ 2,731,800$ 2,731,800$ 8,195,400$ 76,490,400$ 60,295,571$ Notes: All costs in current 2013 dollars.

Cost Assumptions:

Left Hand Turn Lane: $350,000
Right Hand Turn Lane: $250,000
New Signal: $350,000
Signal Modification (e.g., adding a phase) : $250,000
Source: Kimley Horn Associates.
125

Final
July 21, 2016 29
In Table 6.3 the net cost of the planned facilities allocated to new development is divided by the growth in trips to determine the cost per trip.

Table 6.4 multiplies the cost per trip from Table 6.3 by the trip demand factors in Table 5.1 to calculate a fee per land use.

Table 6.3: Cost per Trip to Accommodate Growth
Fee Program Share of Planned Facilities Costs 60,295,571$ Less Existing Fund Balance (157,854)
Net Costs 60,137,717$
Growth in Daily Trips 622,405
Cost per Trip 97$
Sources: Tables 5.2 and 6.2; Willdan Financial Services.

Table 6.4: Traffic Signals and Controlers 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
Single Family 97$ 10.62 1,030$ 21$ 1,051$ Multi-family 97 7.38 716 14 730 Nonresidential
Commercial 97$ 17.61 1,708$ 34$ 1,742$ 1.74$ Office 97 13.43 1,303 26 1,329 1.33 Industrial 97 1.92 186 4 190 0.19 Sources: Tables 5.1 and 6.3; 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.
126

Final
July 21, 2016 30
Storm Drainage Facilities Fee
Table 7.1 calculates the equivalent demand units for the different land uses included in the study.

Table 7.2 estimates storm drain demand in 2015 and 2035. The EDU factor from Table 7.1 is multiplied by estimates of existing and future development from Table 2.1 to determine existing and future demand for storm drain facilities.

Table 7.1: Equivalent Dwelling Units
DU or
KSF per
acre 1
Average
Percent
Impervious
Equivalent
Dwelling
Unit (EDU)2
Residential
Single Family 5.00 40% 1.00
Multi-Family 10.00 73% 0.91
Nonresidential
Commercial 21.78 90% 0.52
Office 41.38 90% 0.27
Industrial 17.42 90% 0.65
1 Dw elling units for residential and thousand building square feet for non-residential.

Density based on estimated development and acreage for each land use type in the General Plan . Nonresidential densities are based on floor-area-ratios of 0.5 for commercial, 0.95 for office, and 0.40 for industrial, derived from the ranges in Table 3-18 of the General Plan Land Use Element.
2 EDUs per dw elling unit for residential development and per thousand square feet for nonresidential development.

Sources: Murrieta General Plan Land Use Element, Table 3-18. Willdan Financial Services.
127

Final
July 21, 2016 31

Table 7.3 displays the costs of storm drain facilities allocated to new development.

Table 7.2: Storm Drain Facilities Equivalent Dwelling Units EDU
Factor1
Existing
(DU/KSF)
Projected
Growth
(DU/KSF)
Total
(DU/KSF)
Existing
EDUs
Growth in
EDUs Total
Existing City
Residential
Single Family 1.00 28,100 6,400 34,500 28,100 6,400 34,500 Multi-Family 0.91 7,700 1,800 9,500 7,007 1,638 8,645 Subtotal 35,800 8,200 44,000 35,107 8,038 43,145 Nonresidential
Commercial 0.52 5,573 14,064 19,637 2,898 7,313 10,211 Office 0.27 5,868 22,001 27,869 1,584 5,940 7,524 Industrial 0.65 2,536 (1,037) 1,498 1,648 (674) 974 Subtotal 13,977 35,028 49,005 6,131 12,579 18,709 Total 41,238 20,617 61,854
Share 66.7% 33.3%
1 Per dw elling unit (residential) or thousand building square feet (nonresidential).

Sources: Table 2.1 and 7.1; Willdan Financial Services
128

Final
July 21, 2016 32

Project
Number Description Total Cost1
Allocation to
New
Development 2
Costs
Allocated to
New
Development
SD-01 Construct Storm Drainage Line D 6,998,454$ 33.33% 2,332,585$ SD-11 Construct Storm Drainage Line L 2,436,171 33.33% 811,976 SD-12 Construct Storm Drainage Line L-1 201,784 33.33% 67,255 SD-13 Construct Storm Drainage Line M 592,227 33.33% 197,389 SD-14 Construct Storm Drainage Line M-1 319,901 33.33% 106,623 SD-15 Construct Storm Drainage Line N 1,737,310 33.33% 579,045 SD-16 Construct Storm Drainage N/O Larchmont, Jefferson to Murrieta Creek 1,171,331 33.33% 390,404 SD-17 Construct Storm Drainage N/O Fuex Wa, Jefferson to Murrieta Creek 592,227 33.33% 197,389 SD-19 Construct Storm Drainage Line, Kalmia Street, Historic Murrieta Area 185,703 33.33% 61,895 SD-20 Construct Storm Drainage Line, "B" Street, Historic Murrieta area 146,498 33.33% 48,828 SD-21 Construct Storm Drainage Line, Juniper Street, Historic Murrieta area - 33.33% - SD-22 Construct Storm Drainage Line, Jefferson Street, Historic Murrieta area 108,602 33.33% 36,197 SD-23 Construct Storm Drainage Line, Adams Street, Historic Murrieta area 203,424 33.33% 67,801 SD-25 Construct Storm Drainage Line, Ivy Street, Historic Murrieta area - 33.33% - SD-26 Construct Storm Drainage Line, New Clay Street, Historic Murrieta area 188,824 33.33% 62,935 SD-27 Storm Drainage Master Plan 500,000 33.33% 166,650 8059 Guava: Jefferson to Murrieta Creek Road 208,398 33.33% 69,459 8157 Line D and D1‐Madison to Jefferson 30,246 33.33% 10,081 8202 Line E Storm Drain 74,725 33.33% 24,906
8345 Murrieta Creek Design 268,461 33.33% 89,478
10016 Development Impact Fee Nexus Study 4,900 33.33% 1,633 N/A Line F at Murrieta Creek 1,940,000 33.33% 646,602 N/A Construct Line G - Adams to Murrieta Creek 2,000,000 33.33% 666,600 SD-18 Construct Murrieta Creek Flood Control Channel 10,000,000 33.33% 3,333,000 Total 29,909,187$ 9,968,732$
(Less Existing Fund Balances) (3,209,954)$
Net Cost of Planned Facilities (Including Murrieta Creek) 6,758,778$ 2 Allocation is consistent w ith 1998 storm drain impact fee analysis.

Sources: City of Murrieta; Engineering New s Record; Willdan Financial Services. 1 Projects numbers beginning w ith "SD-" have been adjusted for inflation from August 1998 to November 2015, using Engineering New s Record's Building Cost Index, w ith the exception of SD-27.

Table 7.3: Total Cost of Facilities Needed to Serve New Development 129

Final
July 21, 2016 33
Table 7.4 divides the new planned facility costs by the growth in EDUs to determine a cost per EDU.

Table 7.5 multiples the cost per EDU by the EDU factors in Table 7.1 to determine a fee per dwelling unit or per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential space.

Net Cost of Planned Facilities for New Development 3,425,778$ Growth in EDUs 20,617
Cost per EDU 166$
Sources: Tables 7.2 and 7.3; Willdan Financial Services.

Table 7.4: Storm Drain Planned Facility Standard
Table 7.5: Storm Drainage Facilities Impact Fee
A B C = A x B D = C x 0.02 E = C + D E / 1,000
Cost Per
EDU
EDU
Factor Base Fee 1
Admin
Charge1, 2 Total Fee 1
Fee per Sq.

Ft.

Residential
Single Family 328$ 1.00 328$ 7$ 334$ Multi-family 328 0.91 298 6 304 Nonresidential
Commercial 328$ 0.52 170$ 3$ 173$ 0.17$ Office 328 0.27 89 2 90 0.09 Industrial 328 0.65 213 4 217 0.22 Sources: Tables 7.1 and 7.4; 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.
130

Final
July 21, 2016 34
General Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment
Table 8.1 displays the existing and future service population for general facilities.

Residents Workers
Service
Population
Existing (2015) 112,100 18,100 117,700
New Development (2015-2035) 15,900 110,200 50,100 Total (2035) 128,000 128,300 167,800
Weighting factor 1.00 0.31
Source: Table 2.1; Willdan Financial Services.

Table 8.1: General Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment
Service Population
131

Final
July 21, 2016 35
Table 8.2 displays the general facilities inventory.

Table 8.2: General Facilties Inventory
Inventory Unit Cost1 Value
Land (acres)
New City Hall 4.04 280,000$ 1,131,200$
Old City Hall 0.95 280,000 266,000
Los Alamos Hills Office 19.13 280,000 5,356,400 Stretch Form Building 4.31 280,000 1,206,800 Maintenance Yard 6.90 280,000 1,932,000
Subtotal 35.33 9,892,400$
Buildings (square feet)
New City Hall 35,000 285$ 9,975,000$
Old City Hall 13,683 205 2,800,000
Public Works Modular Office 1,440 150 216,000 Shop Bldg 4,284 91 390,000
Storage Shed # 1 640 23 15,000
Storage Shed # 2 640 23 15,000
Equipment Shelter 2,520 36 90,000
Subtotal 58,207 13,501,000$
Vehicles (Appendix Table A.3) 2,007,536$
Equipment (Appendix Table A.4) 7,070,000$
Building Contents
Old City Hall n/a n/a 700,000$
Public Works Modular Office n/a n/a 40,000
Shop Bldg n/a n/a 65,000
Storage Shed # 1 n/a n/a 10,000
Storage Shed # 2 n/a n/a 10,000
Equipment Shelter n/a n/a 25,000
New City Hall n/a n/a 2,000,000
Subtotal - 2,850,000$
Total Value of Existing Facilities 35,320,936$
1 Unit costs are replacement valuations supplied by the City of Murrieta.

Sources: City of Murrieta; Appendix Tables A.1 and A.2, Willdan Financial Services. 132

Final
July 21, 2016 36
Table 8.3 displays the planned general facilities.

Table 8.4 below shows the calculation of the planned facilities standard (planned facility value / growth in service population). Under the planned facilities standard the fee revenue perfectly matches the cost of planned facilities.

Amount Units Unit Cost Total
Public Works Maintenance Building 10,000 Sq. Ft. 285$ 2,850,000$ North Murrieta Technology Corridor Master Plan n/a 150,000 Permitting Software 800,000
Subtotal 3,800,000$
(Less Existing Fund Balance) (356,418)
Net Cost of Planned Facilities 3,443,582$
Table 8.3: Planned Facilities
Sources: Capital Improvement Plan FY 2013-14 to FY 2017-18, City of Murrieta, California; Willdan Financial Services.

Net Value of Planned Facilities 3,443,582$
Service Population Growth (2015 to 2035) 50,100
Cost per Capita 69$
Facility Standard per Resident 69$
Facility Standard per Worker 1 21
1 Based on a w eighing factor of 0.31.

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

Table 8.4: General Facilities, Vehicles and
Equipment Planned Facilities Standard
133

Final
July 21, 2016 37
Table 8.5 below shows the maximum justified impact fees resulting from using the planned facilities standard. The City can charge any fee up to this amount. Note that using the planned facilities methodology recovers the exact amount of planned facilities costs identified in Table 8.3.

Table 8.5: General Government Facilities Fee - Planned Facilities Standard 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
Single Family Unit 69$ 3.42 236$ 5$ 241$ Multi-family Unit 69 2.39 165 3 168 Nonresidential
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 1 Fee per dw elling unit (residential) or per 1,000 square feet (nonresidential).

Final
July 21, 2016 38

Appendix Table A.3: General Government Vehicle Inventory Description Department
Replacement
Value
1999 Crown Victoria CH Pool 35,000$
2000 Ford Explorer 4WD CH Pool 45,000
2001 Ford F-150 PW 35,000
2002 Chevrolet 1500 PW 35,000
2002 Ford Diesel Dump Truck PW 95,000
2003 Ford F-150 B&S 35,000
2003 Ford F-150 B&S 35,000
2003 Ford F-150 CSD 35,000
2003 Ford F-150 PW 35,000
2003 Ford F-150 PW 35,000
2003 Ford F-150 PW 35,000
2003 Ford F-150 PW 35,000
2003 Ford F-150 PW 35,000
2004 Ford F-150 B&S 35,000
2004 Ford F-150 CSD 35,000
2004 Ford F-150 CSD 35,000
2004 Ford F-150 CSD 35,000
2004 Ford F-150 PW 35,000
2005 Chevy1500 Extended Cab PW 35,000
2005 Dodge 1500 Pickup B&S 35,000
2005 Dodge 1500 Pickup B&S 35,000
2005 Dodge 1500 Pickup B&S 35,000
2005 Dodge 2500 PW 40,000
2005 Global Electric Motor CSD 9,287
2005 Global Electric Motor CSD 9,287
2005 Global Electric Motor IS 9,287
2006 Chevrolet Cargo Van CSD 42,600
2006 Chevy Trailblazer B&S 41,075
2006 Ford Ranger CH Pool 26,100
PW = Public Works
CH POOL = City Hall Pool
B&S = Building and Safety
CSD = Community Services District.

Source: City of Murrieta.
135

Final
July 21, 2016 39

Appendix Table A.3: General Government Vehicle Inventory Description Department
Replacement
Value
2006 Ford Ranger CH Pool 26,100
2006 Ford Ranger CH Pool 26,100
2006 Ford Ranger CH Pool 26,100
2006 Ford Ranger CSD 26,100
2006 Ford Ranger CSD 26,100
2006 Ford Ranger CSD 26,100
2006 Ford Ranger PW 26,100
2006 GMC Sierra PW 35,000
2007 Ford E-350 CSD 50,000
2007 Ford Explorer XLT CSD 44,050
2007 Ford F-150 CSD 35,000
2007 Ford F-150 PW 35,000
2007 Ford F-750 Dump Truck PW 103,000
2008 Ford F-150 CSD 35,000
2008 Ford F-150 CSD 35,000
2008 Ford F-150 CSD 35,000
2008 Ford F-150 CSD 35,000
2008 Ford F-150 PW 35,000
2008 Ford F-150 PW 35,000
2009 Ford Escape CSD 37,575
2009 Ford Escape CSD 37,575
2009 Ford F-150 4x2 Supercab CSD 40,000
2009 Ford F-150 4x2 Supercab CSD 40,000
2009 Ford F-750 PW 110,000
Kubota Tractor with loader CSD 30,000
Total Value - General Government Vehicles 2,007,536$
PW = Public Works
CH POOL = City Hall Pool
B&S = Building and Safety
CSD = Community Services District.

Source: City of Murrieta.
136

Final
July 21, 2016 40

Appendix Table A.4: Equpiment Inventory
Total Cost
Router Enclosure 6,553$
ESRI GIS Software 4,899
Blade Enclosure 53,243
HP SAN/EVA4400 26,821
GEOXT 512 W/ Terrasync Pro 6,368
HP BL20PG2 XEON- Server 18,288
SAN Array 100 13,712
ArcSDE 9.0 Software 10,783
HP Server BLadeProliant BL20 6,552
Precision Workstation 670 5,528
Xplore PC Tablet 5,143
Dell Precision Workstation 670 13,520
NEO 2000 Tabe Backup 11,191
Data Repository 29,582
HP ProLiant DL585 Server 54,802
MSA 1000 SAN Starter Kit 14,038
Xplore PC Tablet 6,574
ArcInfo Software 11,176
HP DeskJet Z6100 42" Plotter 9,805
Production Line Tool Set Soft 5,395
Nexan SATABoy Disk Backup 15,427
Backup Software 7,290
1995 Vibration Roller Trailer 14,169
1995 Extend a Hoe Backhoe 60,746
1995 Motor Grader 122,754
Compressor Trailer 9,000
Thermal Imager 13,389
Audio Log Digital Recorder 911 29,318
Computer Aided Dispatch System 206,741
Dispatch Radio Console Pos. 121,258
Pass Thru Evidence Storage 21,681
Movable Shelving Unit 63,528
Electric Door Access System 48,000
CCTV Surveillance Cam Sys 68,330
Tack Trailer 8,000
Auto Extraction Unit+ 15,000
Layton H500B Paver 22,095
Auto Extraction Power Unit 6,500
18KVA UPS Battery Backup 25,000
2005 Single Axle Trailer 9,765
Forensic Recovery of Evidence Device 6,614
Movable Shelving Unit 11,586
DSM Lockers Pass Thru 21,682
EOC Mobile Command Post 334,751
2005 Backhoe Loader 59,801
Transmit Combiner 11,818
Source: City of Murrieta.
137

Final
July 21, 2016 41

Appendix Table A.4: Equpiment Inventory (Continued)
Total Cost
Astro-Trac Receiver 22,500$
Astro-Trac Reciever 34,254
Netclock GPS Master Clock 8,457
Channel 2 Repeater 10,000
Spectra-Tac Comprato 30,000
Channel 3 Digitac Comparator 16,556
Channel 1 Quantar Repeater 54,000
Channel 3 Quantar Repeater 34,402
Emergency Generator 3456DITA 97,680
Central Electronics Bank Gold 29,924
Central Electronics CardCages 6,765
Gold Series Windows NT Server 5,204
MDB System Message Switch 5,625
MDB Client 28,350
Automatic Vehicle Location 8,985
Looking Glass Dispatch 20,000
Looking Glass Mobile Map 25,970
Looking Glass Crimes 10,000
Cotton Velour Traveler Curtain 5,841
Multi Media-Digital Scanner 12,221
Forensic Computer 6,149
Tactical Blanket 9,300
Auto Extraction Unit DPU3100 17,000
Auto Extraction Unit Engine 3 17,000
Auto Extraction Unit PPU1202 17,000
Tactical Throw Telephone 10,506
CAD Primary 40,000
Light Air Unit 78,000
Waxie 20" 1500 RPM Burnisher 5,390
Grand Piano 15,000
Video Conference Center 106,928
34 Mobile Data Bases 426,514
Dyna Vac Jet N Vac Pumper 44,995
ADT Alarm System 86,881
Alert AM Satelite Radio 111,621
2008 John Deere 310SJ Loader 84,495
Xplore PC Tablet W ArcPad 6,662
Autopulse Platform Resuscitati 92,217
Autopulse Platform Resuscitati 13,435
Portable Co-Oximeter Masimo 38,758
Hydro Tek Pressur Washer 9,013
Portable Computers 35,265
DUI Checkpoint Trailer 30,000
Tic Evolution 5200 8,297
Source: City of Murrieta.
138

Final
July 21, 2016 42

Appendix Table A.4: Equpiment Inventory (Continued)
Total Cost
Road Force Trailer 8x16 6,910$
Station 2 Heating & Air Units 16,524
Property & Evidence Shelving 5,175
Dispatch Console #5 5,630
False Alarm Tracking Software 4,849
Falcon's View Park Fencing 23,152
Photo ID Machine/Camera 6,006
Con-Space CSI-2000 Rescue 1 6,419
Uninteruptable Power Supply 24,342
CCTV System-40600 Cal Oaks 13,921
Thermal Imaging Camera 5000 25,860
Fujitsu Scanner 6,331
Universal Fit Test System 10,956
Fire Alarm Sprinkler System 8,375
City Hall Card Access System 9,513
Training Room Epson Projector 5,261
Air Cleaning System Fire Stn 110,449
IP Communications System 871,548
Entry Gate System 8,587
Frequency 858.23750/813.23750 25,000
HP Proliant DL380 Server 17,154
Eagle Pincher Forklift 11,853
Fujitsu M4097D Duplex Scanner 4,854
EVO 500 Thermal Imaging Camera 8,775
CFAB Capital Budget Software 7,500
Xplore Tablet XPL 01-10830 11,067
Panasonic Tuffbook Dual XP 11,974
Fire Station #4 Radio Equip 14,552
Liberty Software 91,590
File Tracking Software 43,737
Fire Station #4 Phone System 13,570
System Expansion Hard Drives 5,926
Media Manager Software 11,881
HP Proliant DL380 - Fire 6,517
Security Gate @ Station 2 29,707
Security Gate @ Station 1 11,307
HP Designjet 820 MFP 19,298
Brake Lathe with Bench 5,398
Pool Cover & Reels 5,142
Closed Circuit TV 37,603
HP Designjet 820 MFP 19,298
TeleStaff Software 12,122
IBM i5 Model 9406-520 CAD 20,144
CAD Software 10,721
Vehicle Exhaust System 9,323
CAD 400 Redundancy 16,971
Smartnet Phone System 16,315
KR Nida Satellite Phone 14,552
Uninteruptable Power System 11,164
Tuffstuff AP4500 4 Station Gym 15,142
3M Detection System Model 8802 23,612
3M RefID Handheld Tracker 6,633
3M Selfcheck System 8410 19,689
3M Selfcheck System 8410 49,473
Source: City of Murrieta.
139

Final
July 21, 2016 43

Appendix Table A.4: Equpiment Inventory (Continued)
Total Cost
Radar Speed Display Trailer 16,031$
1520 DC Speed Display Unit 12,133
Optical Library System 18,664
HP DL 380G5 Server 9,107
Team Budget Software 8,700
2007 Wells Cargo Road Force 6,620
Commercial Range 9,198
Tile Concrete Spray Turtle 7,524
IBMx3650 Series Server 11,206
TIC Evolution 5200 8,189
DVR for CCTV 10,909
Fujitsu B&W/Color Scanner 6,460
Holmatro PPU15 Personal Power 20,994
Holmatro DPU31 Pump 8,388
Holmatro 4050 NCT Cutter Core 31,918
Holmatro 4242 Spreader 28,979
Holmatro PPU15 Personal Power 5,249
Holmatro 4242 Spreader 5,737
LaserFiche Standard Server Sin 10,042
Fujitsu 5750C VRS Scanner 7,650
16 Channel DVR Flat Panel Moni 8,494
Cisco 2811 ISR Router 6,127
Midland Tech III Base Station 10,364
Midland Base Tech III Repeater 10,364
EZ6 Jeter Mobile System 95,622
Uninteruptable Power Source 95,898
Tangent Voting System 9,676
Voting Software 28,425
Fiber Optic Connect 65,934
Router & Phone System Station5 18,040
Budget Custom Reports Upgrade 5,175
Portable Aquatic Lift 6,997
Learning Express Software 5,379
Laserfiche Advanced Audit 11,982
Team Budget Planning Report 5,400
Wells Cargo 16x8 Road Force 7,224
Video Investigator 4.0 6,934
Heavy Truck Wheel Lift 40,000
Automotive Car/Truck Lift 8,000
Auto Extraction unit 7,500
Electric Auto Extraction Unit 16,700
HP Scanner Plotter 19,298
Wells 2 Axel Trailer 5,578
2007 Az Tex 2 Axel Trailer 6,620
DUI Trailer-Mighty Mover Tralr 11,000
Solar Speed Limit Sign 14,198
Source: City of Murrieta.
140

Final
July 21, 2016 44

Appendix Table A.4: Equpiment Inventory (Continued)
Total Cost
Fire Supression System 88,985$
Centracom Elite Series Console 20,431
Vision Communication Console 27,187
Electric Hydraulic Expander 7,358
Security Cameras-Labor & Matls 12,968
Ingersoll-Rand Asphalt Compact 29,654
Zieman Carrier-Trailer 5,724
Dispatcher Wall Monitor 4,199
Audiolog, Max-Pro 3000 35,840
Library Automatic Doors 7,621
Audio/Visual Equipment FS# 4 Training 9,483
Traffic Management Audio/Video 79,476
Traffic Mgmt Video Server 11,744
IFAS Financial Software 570,054
Intelligent Return plus Library Sorter 256,701
2010 Wells Cargo RF8162 6,888
Auto Scrubber 5,981
Midland VHF Radio 21,161
Dispatch Console #6 47,454
23952.67 - Police Dept AMLP System 23,953
33142.32 - LP15 - Monitor/Defibrillator/Modem 364,566
Upgrade to GeoBlade Platform 10,332
Tactical Camera System 16,598
Network Storage Equipt 15,210
A/C Unit-City Hall's Video Rm 10,500
Remote surveillance unit 5,400
AC Units - Comm Center 32,180
SWAT handheld Unit 8,845
7,405,176$
Source: City of Murrieta.
141

Final
July 21, 2016 45
Open Space - EXCLUDED

Park Facilities
Table 10.1 displays the park facilities service population.

Table 10.2 displays the City’s existing inventory of parkland.

Table 10.1: Parks Service Population
Residents
Existing (2015) 112,100
Growth (2015 - 2035) 15,900
Total (2035) 128,000
Source: Table 2.1.
142

Final
July 21, 2016 46

Table 10.2: Park Land Inventory
Developed
Acreage
Undeveloped
Acreage
Neighborhood Parks
Barratt Park 8.30 -
Firefighters Park 3.21 -
Grizzly Ridge Park 0.50 -
Mapleton Park 9.30 -
Mountain Pride Park 9.64 -
Murrieta Elementary School 4.26 -
Northstar Park 3.08 -
Rancho Acacia Park 10.11 -
Second Avenue Park - 6.10
Shady Maple Park 4.79 -
Valley Vista Park 6.50 -
Vintage Reserve Park 3.83 -
Subtotal 63.52 6.10
Neighborhood Play Areas
Antelope Hills Park - Active 5.31 -
Antigua Park 2.26 -
Blackmore Ranch Park 1.14 -
Calle Cipres Park 1.80 -
Calle Estancia Park 2.83 -
Carson Park 0.69 -
Century Park 3.90 -
Creekside Village Green 4.00 -
Crystal Aire Park 1.11 -
Eastgate Park 1.50 -
Echo Canyon Park 3.07 -
Golden Cities/Alderwood1 8.00
Meadowridge Park 4.29 -
Montafino Park 0.76 -
Monte Vista Park 1.06 -
Oak Terrace Park 0.20 -
Oak Tree Park 0.32 -
Palomar Park 1.75 -
Rosewood Park 0.41 -
Springbrook Park 0.29 -
Sycamore Park 2.66 -
Vineyard Park1 9.30
Whitewood Park 1.84 -
Subtotal 58.49
1 These parks are conditioned to be built by developers. Will be completed in the near future.

Source: City of Murrieta.
143

Final
July 21, 2016 47

Table 10.3 displays the City’s inventory of special park facilities.

Table 10.2: Park Land Inventory - Continued
Developed
Acreage
Undeveloped
Acreage
Citywide Parks
Los Alamos Hills Sports Park 45.00 40.00 Community Parks
Alta Murrieta Sports Park 9.76 -
California Oaks Sports Park 19.99 -
Copper Canyon Park 20.94 -
Glen Arbor Park 18.92 -
Hunt Park 4.72 -
Mira Mosa Park 8.10 -
Pond Park 14.59 -
Torrey Pines Park 8.00 -
Subtotal 105.02 -
Special Use Parks
Equestrian Park 21.27 -
Sykes Ranch Park 2.61 -
Town Square Park 4.22 -
Subtotal 28.10
Nature Parks
Antelope Hills Park - -
Bear Valley Park 1 20.14 -
Bear Valley Park 2 3.97 -
Cole Canyon Park 140.00 -
Falcon's View Park 14.00 -
Oak Mesa P ark 5.98 -
Warm Springs Park 23.80 -
Subtotal 207.89 -
Total - Existing Parkland 508.02 46.10
Source: City of Murrieta.
144

Final
July 21, 2016 48

Table 10.4 displays the cost to acquire and develop parkland in Murrieta.

Table 10.3: Existing Park Facility Inventory
Facility Inventory Units Unit Cost Total Cost
California Oaks Sports Park Admin & Life Guards Office 640 Sq. Ft. 203$ 130,000$ Park Restrooms 1,728 Sq. Ft. 174 300,000 Shelter 751 Sq. Ft. 40 30,000 Alta Murrieta Sports Park Restroom / Snack Bar 772 Sq. Ft. 194 150,000 Copper Canyon Park Office / Rec Room 2,128 Sq. Ft. 141 300,000 Pump House 1,054 Sq. Ft. 142 150,000 Restroom 404 Sq. Ft. 173 70,000 Trash Enclosure 180 Sq. Ft. 56 10,000 Shelter 260 Sq. Ft. 38 10,000 Los Alamos Sports Park Restroom / Snack Bar # 1 500 Sq. Ft. 190 95,000 Restroom / Snack Bar # 2 500 Sq. Ft. 190 95,000 Restroom / Snack Bar # 3 500 Sq. Ft. 190 95,000 Restrooms 264 Sq. Ft. 189 50,000 Trash Enclosure 180 Sq. Ft. 56 10,000 Trash Enclosure (Mechanical) 620 Sq. Ft. 32 20,000 Los Alamos Sports Park Trash Enclosure # 2 180 Sq. Ft. 56 10,000 Trash Enclosure # 3 180 Sq. Ft. 56 10,000 Shelter 260 Sq. Ft. 38 10,000 Trash Enclosure # 4 180 Sq. Ft. 56 10,000 Trash Enclosure # 5 180 Sq. Ft. 56 10,000 Shelter # 2 260 Sq. Ft. 38 10,000 Los Alamos Sports Park Shelter # 3 2,035 Sq. Ft. 25 50,000 Play Ground Shelter # 1 2,037 Sq. Ft. 25 50,000 Play Ground Shelter # 2 4,225 Sq. Ft. 26 110,000 Trash Enclosure # 6 180 Sq. Ft. 56 10,000 Park Maint. Dept Office 4,517 Sq. Ft. 161 725,000 Storage / Office 2,907 Sq. Ft. 81 235,000 Total Facility Investment 2,755,000$
Acres of Parkland 508.02
Cost per Acre 5,423$
Source: City of Murrieta.
145

Final
July 21, 2016 49

Table 10.5 converts undeveloped parkland to an equivalent amount of developed parkland based on the value of an undeveloped acre of land relative to the value of an improved acre of parkland.

Table 10.6 calculates the City’s existing parkland standard per 1,000 capita.

Table 10.4: Park Facilities Unit Costs
Cost
Per Acre Share
Land Acquisition 280,000$ 63%
Park Improvements
Standard Park Improvements 160,000$
Special Use Facilities 5,000
Improvements Cost per Acre 165,000$ 37%
Total Cost per Acre 445,000$ 63%
Sources: Tables 10.2 and 10.3.

Table 10.5: Undeveloped Parkland Equivalent
Type
Cost per
Acre Acres
Parkland Improved 445,000$
Undeveloped Land 280,000
Undeveloped Land Costs 62.92%
Percentage of Parkland costs
Undeveloped Acres 46.10
Equivalent Improved Acres 29.01
Sources: Tables 6.2 and 6.3; Willdan Financial Services. 146

Final
July 21, 2016 50

Table 10.7 calculates the amount and value of facilities needed to serve new development at the existing standard. Through buildout, new development will require 76.16 acres totaling approximately $19.9 million.

Table 10.6: Existing Parkland Standard
Developed Park Acreage 508.02
Undeveloped Equivalent Improved Acreage 29.01
537.03
Service Population (2015) 112,100
Existing Standard (Acres per 1,000 Residents) 4.79
Sources: Tables 10.1, 10.2 and 10;5; Willdan Financial Services.

Table 10.7: Park Facilities to Accommodate New Development Calculation
Parkland
Facility Standard (acres/1,000 residents) A 4.79
Resident Growth (2015-2035) B 15,900
Facility Needs (acres) C = (B / 1,000) x A 76.16
Less Existing Acres D (50.00)
Needed Acreage E = C - D 26.16
Average Unit Cost (per acre) F 280,000$
Total Cost of Parkland To Serve New Development G = E x F 7,324,800$ Improvements
Facility Standard (acres/1,000 residents) A 4.79
Resident Growth (2015-2035) B 15,900
Facility Needs (acres) C = (B / 1,000) x A 76.16
Average Unit Cost (per acre) H 165,000$
Total Cost of Park Improvements To Serve New Development I = C x H 12,566,400$ Total Cost of Land and Improvements J = G + I 19,891,200$ Sources: Tables 10.1, 10.4, and 10.6; City of Murrieta. 147

Final
July 21, 2016 51
Table 10.8 calculates the cost per capita of new parkland facilities.

Table 10.9 displays the park facilities fee schedule.

Table 10.8: Cost Per Capita Standard
Calculation
Parkland
Parkland Investment (per acre) A 280,000$
Facility Standard (acres per 1,000 residents) B 1.65
Total Cost Per 1,000 capita C = A x B 460,700$
Cost Per Resident D = C / 1,000 461$
Improvements
Parkland Investment (per acre) E 165,000$
Facility Standard (acres per 1,000 residents) B 4.79
Total Cost Per 1,000 capita F = E x B 790,000$
Cost Per Resident G = F / 1,000) 790$
Sources: Tables 10.3, 10.4 and 10.7; Willdan Financial Services.

Table 10.9: Park Facilities Fee Schedule
A B C = A x B D = C x 0.02 E = C + D
Cost Per Base Admin
Land Use Capita Density Fee 1 Charge1, 2 Total Fee 1
Single Family
Parkland 461$ 3.42 1,576$ 32$ 1,607$ Improvements 790 3.42 2,702$ 54$ 2,756 Total 4,363$
Multifamily Family
Parkland 461$ 2.39 1,101$ 22$ 1,123$ Improvements 790 2.39 1,888 38 1,926 Total 3,049$
Sources: Tables 2.2 and 10.8; 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.
148

Final
July 21, 2016 52
Community Centers
Table 11.1 displays the community centers facilities service population.

Table 11.2 displays the City’s existing inventory of community center facilities.

Residents
Existing (2015) 112,100
Growth (2015 - 2035) 15,900
Total (2035) 128,000
Source: Table 2.1.

Table 11.1: Community Centers
Service Population
Table 11.2: Existing Community Centers
Inventory Units Unit Cost1 Value
Land
Community Center 4.72 acres 280,000$ 1,321,600$ Teen Center 3.09 acres 280,000 865,200 Senior Center 2.14 acres 280,000 599,200 Subtotal 9.95 acres 2,786,000$
Buildings
Community Center 8,866 sq. ft. 192$ 1,700,000$ Classrooms 842 sq. ft. 154 130,000 Community Ctr Modular Office 1,440 sq. ft. 110 158,200 Senior Center 9,000 sq. ft. 222 2,000,000 Hay barn, maintenance garage and utility shed3,200 sq. ft. 100 320,000 Equestrian Center Building 1,621 sq. ft. 100 162,100 Equestrian Center Building 1,430 sq. ft. 100 143,000 Equestrian Center Building 754 sq. ft. 100 75,400 Subtotal 4,688,700$
Total Value - Existing Community Centers 7,474,700$
Sources: City of Murrieta; Willdan Financial Services.
149

Final
July 21, 2016 53
Table 11.3 displays the net cost of planned community centers.

Table 11.4 below shows the calculation of the system standard (existing + future facility value / future service population). Under the system standard the non-fee funding identified must be paid by the planning horizon, or new development has paid too high a fee.

Table 11.5 below shows the maximum justified impact fees resulting from using the system standard.

The City can charge any fee up to this amount.

Amount Units Unit Cost Total
Community Room Addition 9,000 Sq. Ft. 344$ 3,096,000$ Youth Center 6,500 Sq. Ft. 344 2,236,000
Community Center 30,000 Sq. Ft. 344 10,320,000 Aquatic Center (Los Alamos) Pool / Splash Pad 5,000,000 Subtotal 20,652,000$
(Less Existing Fund Balance) (89,882)
Net Cost of Planned Facilities 20,562,118$
Table 11.3: Planned Community Center Facilities
Sources: Capital Improvement Plan FY 2013-14 to FY 2017-18, City of Murrieta, California; Willdan Financial Services.

Table 11.4: Community Center Facilities System Standard Value of Existing Facilities 7,474,700$
Cost of Planned Facilities 20,562,118
Total System Value (2035) 28,036,818$
Future Service Population (2035) 128,000
Cost Allocation per Capita 219$
Sources: Tables 11.1 and 11.2; Willdan Financial Services. 150

Final
July 21, 2016 54

Table 11.6 below shows the fee revenue resulting from using the system standard methodology. Under the system standard, the City must fund the remaining $17.1 million with a funding source other than impact fees, or new development will have paid too high a fee.

Library Facilities
Table 12.1 displays the existing and future library facilities service population.

Table 11.5: Community Centers Facilities Fee
A B C = A x B D = C x 0.02 E = C + D
Cost Per Base Admin
Land Use Capita Density Fee 1 Charge1, 2 Total Fee
Residential
Single Family 219$ 3.42 749$ 15$ 764$ Multi-family 219 2.39 523 10 533 Sources: Tables 2.2 and 11.3.
1 Fee per dw elling unit.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 Table 11.6: Revenue Projection - System Standard
Cost per Capita 219$
Growth in Service Population (2015 - 2035) 15,900
Fee Revenue 3,482,000$
Cost of Planned Facilities 20,562,118
Non-Fee Revenue to Be Identified (17,080,118)$
Sources: Tables 11.1, 11.3 and 11.4.
151

Final
July 21, 2016 55

Table 12.2 displays the existing inventory of library facilities.

Table 12.3 displays the existing facility standard per resident for library facilities.

Table 12.1: Library Facilities Service Population
Residents
Existing Service Population (2015) 112,100
New Development (2015-2035) 15,900
Total (2035) 128,000
Source:Table 2.1; Willdan Financial Services.

Table 12.2: Existing Library Facilities
Inventory Units Unit Cost1 Value
Existing Library
Land (acres) 2.64 acres 280,000$ 739,200$ Building 23,375 square feet - 7,600,000 Mechanical Building 1,581 square feet 185,000 Collection na items 3,900,000
Total Value - Existing Library Facilities 12,424,200$
1 Unit costs based on actual construction costs for existing library. Cost per item based on data from similar jurisdictions. 2 Planned increases in collection based on maintaining ratio of building space to items.

Sources: City of Murrieta; Willdan Financial Services.
152

Final
July 21, 2016 56

Table 12.4 calculates the impact fee revenue needed to maintain the existing standard of library facilities.

Table 12.5 displays the library facilities fee schedule.

Table 12.3: Library Facilities Existing Standard
Value of Existing Facilities 12,424,200$
Existing Service Population 112,100
Facility Standard per Resident 111$
Sources: Tables 12.1 and 12.2; Willdan Financial Services.

Table 12.4: Library Impact Fee Revenue
Cost per Resident 111$
Growth in Service Population 15,900
Projected Impact Fee Revenue 1,764,900$
Sources: Tables 12.1 and 12.3; Willdan Financial Services.

Table 12.5: Library Facilities Fee
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 Residential
Single Family 111$ 3.42 380$ 8$ 388$ Multi-family 111 2.39 265 5 270 Sources: Tables 2.2 and 12.3.
1 Fee per dw elling unit.
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 153

Table E.2: Current DIF Amounts

154
Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
& Fee Update Workshop
February 20, 2024, City Council Workshop
Presented by
Ivan Holler, Assistant City Manager
Javier Carcamo, Finance Director
Paige Hartman, Management Analyst
Willdan Financial Consultants:

James Edison – Managing Principal
Carlos Villarreal – Project Manager
Received After Agenda Printed
2/20/2024 - Workshop
Item WS1 - Staff Presentation
155
2 • Kick-off Meeting – June 23, 2023
 Citywide representation
• Evaluated each department’s facilities needs
• Created planned project lists based on priority
• Draft Nexus Study Published – February 17, 2024
• Workshop – February 20, 2024
• Nexus Study & Fee Update Adoption – March 19, 2024
Project Timeline
156
3 Purpose
• New Legislation – Assembly Bill 602
• Inflation (CCCI – 47.7% since 2016)
• Planned Projects
157
4 Fire Department
• Regional Training Center
• Police Station Expansion
Police Department
• Regional Training Center
• Fire Station 5
• Fire Station 6 and garage bay
- S6 Engine & upfitting
- S6 Rescue Truck & upfitting
- S6 Polaris & upfitting
- S6 Brush Truck & upfitting
Community Services Department
• CSD Offices
• Library expansion, book lockers, and
mobile library
Planned Projects
158
Development Impact Fee Update Study
City of Murrieta
February 20, 2024
159
What is a Development Impact Fee?
1One-time charge
Imposed at building permit stage
Imposed on all development projects
within a defined geographic area
Funds facilities to serve new development
160
Mitigation Fee Act Findings (Govt. Code §66001)
• Key findings
– Need: Development ≈ Need for facilities
– Benefit: Development ≈ Use of revenue
– Rough proportionality: Fee amount ≈ development’s share of facility costs
• Other findings
– Purpose of fee
– Use of fee revenue
161
 Requires local jurisdictions to make certain
information available on website:
 Current impact fee schedule
 Nexus studies
 Annual AB1600 reports
 Five-Year AB1600 reports
 Changes to impact fee adoption process:
 Prior to adoption of development fees,
an impact fee nexus study needs to be
adopted with 30 days notice
 Technical changes:
 Residential fees should be charged
per square foot, unless findings are
supported that justify another
metric
 Large jurisdictions shall adopt a
capital improvement plan as a part
of the nexus study
 Nexus study should identify level of
service
 If fees are increasing, review the
assumptions of the original nexus
study and evaluate the amount of
fees collected under the original fee
AB 602
162
Impact Fees – Basic Methodology

ESTIMATE

EXISTING

DEVELOPMENT

AND FUTURE
GROWTH

IDENTIFY FACILITY

STANDARDS

DETERMINE NEW

FACILITY NEEDS

AND COSTS

ALLOCATE SHARE
TO

ACCOMMODATE
GROWTH

IDENTIFY

ALTERNATIVE

FUNDING NEEDS

CALCULATE FEE BY

ALLOCATING

COSTS PER UNIT
OF NEW

DEVELOPMENT
163
Impact Fee Categories
Law Enforcement
Fire Protection
Streets, Minor Bridges &
Culverts
Traffic Signals
Storm Drainage
General Facilities
Park Facilities
Community Centers
Public Library
164
Growth Projections
2023 2035 Increase
Residents 109,998 135,774 25,776
Dwelling Units 37,205 47,993 10,788
Employment 26,240 111,280 85,040
Sources: CA DOF; OnTheMap; American Community Survey; Murrieta General Plan. 165
Cost Allocation Methods:

WHAT Facilities Serve WHO

PLANNED FACILITIES
Planned Facilities
New Demand

SYSTEM PLAN
Existing + Planned Facilities
Existing + New Demand

EXISTING INVENTORY
Existing Facilities
Existing Demand
166
Fee Program Methodologies
Law Enforcement
Fire Protection
Open Space
Park Facilities
Community Centers
General Facilities
Existing Standard
Library Facilities
System Plan
Streets, Minor Bridges &
Culverts
Traffic Signals
Storm Drain
Planned Facilities
167
Projected Impact Fee Revenue
Fee Category Total Project Cost
Projected Impact
Fee Revenue
Additional Funding
Required
Law Enforcement $ 59,670,000 $ 59,670,000 $ - Fire Protection 85,521,000 85,521,000 -
Streets, Minor Bridges & Culverts 355,740,973 286,035,438 69,705,535 Traffic Signals 67,872,382 41,977,526 25,894,856
Storm Drainage 12,983,598 7,850,999 5,132,599
General Facilities 18,131,000 18,131,000 -
Park Facilities 97,204,000 97,204,000 -
Community Centers 2,288,000 2,288,000 -
Public Library 7,100,000 3,325,104 3,774,896
Total $ 706,510,953 $ 602,003,068 $ 104,507,886 168
Current vs Proposed Fees
2016 Fee Schedule
2024 Proposed Fee Schedule
Table E.1: Maximim Justified Impact Facilities Fee Summary Land Use
Law
Enforcement
Fire
Protection
Streets,
Minor
Bridges &
Culverts
Traffic
Signals
Storm
Drainage
General
Facilities
Parkland
Facilities
Community
Centers
Public
Library
Grand
Total
Residential - Fee Per Dwelling Unit
Single Family 597$ 634$ 5,481$ 1,051$ 334$ 241$ 4,363$ 764$ 388$ 13,853$ Multifamily 417 444 3,809 730 304 168 3,049 533 270 9,724 Equivalent Fee per Square Foot
Single Family 0.23$ 0.25$ 2.15$ 0.41$ 0.13$ 0.09$ 1.71$ 0.30$ 0.15$ 5.42$ Multifamily 0.35 0.37 3.18 0.61 0.25 0.14 2.55 0.44 0.23 8.12 Nonresidential - Fee per 1,000 Square Feet
Commercial 130$ 307$ 9,089$ 1,742$ 173$ 51$ -$ -$ -$ 11,492$ Office 168 401 6,932 1,329 90 67 - - - 8,987 Industrial 62 149 991 190 217 24 - - - 1,633 Equivalent Fee per Square Foot
Commercial 0.13$ 0.31$ 9.09$ 1.74$ 0.17$ 0.05$ -$ -$ -$ 11.49$ Office 0.17 0.40 6.93 1.33 0.09 0.07 - - - 8.99$ Industrial 0.06 0.15 0.99 0.19 0.22 0.02 - - - 1.63$ Table E.1: Maximum Justified Impact Facilities Fee Summary Land Use
Law
Enforcement
Fire
Protection
Streets,
Minor
Bridges &
Culverts
Traffic
Signals
Storm
Drainage
General
Facilities
Parkland
Facilities
Community
Centers
Public
Library Total
Residential - Fee per Square Foot
Single Family 0.40$ 0.28$ 2.38$ 0.35$ 0.15$ 0.45$ 4.89$ 0.12$ 0.17$ 9.19$ Multifamily 0.54 0.38 3.63 0.54 0.29 0.61 6.65 0.16 0.23 13.03 Nonresidential - Fee per Square Foot
Commercial 1.20$ 1.85$ 8.82$ 1.30$ 0.20$ 0.21$ -$ -$ -$ 13.58$ Office 1.93 2.98 7.69 1.13 0.10 0.34 - - - 14.18 Industrial 0.64 0.99 2.51 0.37 0.25 0.11 - - - 4.87 169
Proposed Fees vs Local Jurisdictions
Single Family
Single Family Residential - 2,555 Square Feet
Fee Category
Murrieta
(Current)
DRAFT
Murrieta
Lake
Elsinore
(Low)
Lake
Elsinore
(High)
Menifee
(Low)
Menifee
(High)
Moreno
Valley
Temecula
(Low)
Temecula
(High)
City Hall & Public Works - 809 809 - - 450 - - Community Rec Center 764 307 545 545 - - 753 - - Developer Impact Fees - - - - - - - 12,628 12,628 Fire Facilities 634 715 751 751 647 647 1,314 - - General Government 241 1,150 - - 1,176 1,176 - - - Lakeside Facilities - - 779 779 - - - - - Library 388 434 150 150 - - 569 - - Maintenance Equipment - - - - - - 240 - - Parks 4,363 8,457 1,600 1,600 1,723 1,723 5,867 4,627 4,627 Police 597 1,022 - - 925 925 910 - - Public Art - - - - - - 4,233 323 323 Railroad Canyon Road Fee - - - 505 - - - - - Storm Drain 334 383 - 868 139 9,995 - - - Streets, Minor Bridges & Culverts 5481 6,081 - - - - 5,674 - - Traffic Signals and Controllers 1051 894 - - - - 748 - - Transportation/Traffic/Interchange - - 1,369 1,369 7,097 7,097 2,584 - - Workforce Development - - - - - - 332 - - Uptown Temecula New Streets - - - - - - - - 6,923 Total 13,853$ 19,444$ 6,351$ 7,723$ 11,801$ 21,657$ 24,567$ 17,578$ 24,501$ 170
Proposed Fees vs Local Jurisdictions
Multifamily
Multifamily Residential - 1,198 Square Feet
Fee Category
Murrieta
(Current)
DRAFT
Murrieta
Lake
Elsinore
(Low)
Lake
Elsinore
(High)
Menifee
(Low)
Menifee
(High)
Moreno
Valley
Temecula
(Low)
Temecula
(High)
Animal Shelter -$ -$ 174$ 299$ 74$ 74$ 49$ -$ -$ City Hall & Public Works - - 404 696 - - 245 - - Community Rec Center 533 192 272 469 - - 478 - - Corporate Yard - - - - - - 397 - - Developer Impact Fees - - - - - - - 9,041 9,041 Fire Facilities 444 455 612 612 506 506 611 - - General Government 168 731 - - 920 920 - - - Lakeside Facilities - - 389 671 - - - - - Library 270 276 150 150 - - 406 - - Maintenance Equipment - - - - - - 117 - - Parks 3,049 5,391 1,400 1,500 1,348 1,348 4,100 3,805 3,805 Police 417 647 - - 724 724 503 - - Public Art - - - - - - 1,849 85 85 Railroad Canyon Road Fee - - - 353 - - - - - Storm Drain 304 347 - 607 50 3,621 - - - Streets, Minor Bridges & Culverts 3,809 4,349 - - - - 4,043 - - Traffic Signals and Controllers 730 647 - - - - 534 - - Transportation/Traffic/Interchange - - 959 959 3,585 3,585 1,841 - - Workforce Development - - - - - - 156 - - Uptown Temecula New Streets - - - - - - - - 6,923 Total 9,724$ 13,034$ 4,360$ 6,316$ 7,207$ 10,778$ 15,326$ 12,931$ 19,854$ 171
Proposed Fees vs Local Jurisdictions
Commercial
Commercial - 1,000 Square Feet
Fee Category
Murrieta
(Current)
DRAFT
Murrieta
Lake
Elsinore
(Low)
Lake
Elsinore
(High)
Menifee
(Low)
Menifee
(High)
Moreno
Valley
(General)
Moreno
Valley
(Regional)
Temecula
(Low)
Temecula
(High)
City Hall & Public Works - - 108 108 - - 101 101 - - Community Rec Center - - - - - - 16 16 - - Corporate Yard - - - - - - 170 170 - - Developer Impact Fees - - - - - - - - 9,540 13,740 Fire Facilities 307 1,850 489 489 850 850 502 502 - - General Government 51 210 - - 680 680 - - - - Library - - - - - - 21 21 - - Maintenance Equipment - - - - - - 51 51 - - Parks - - 100 100 - - 318 318 - - Police 130 1,200 - - 470 470 1,032 1,032 - - Public Art - - - - - - 1,849 1,849 85 85 Railroad Canyon Road Fee - - - 454 - - - - - - Storm Drain 173 200 - 781 - 8,360 - - - - Streets, Minor Bridges & Culverts 9,089 8,820 - - - - 11,650 12,592 - - Traffic Signals and Controllers 1,742 1,300 - - - - 1,337 1,262 - - Transportation/Traffic/Interchange - - 3,840 3,840 17,290 17,290 9,008 8,938 - - Workforce Development - - - - - - 230 230 - - Uptown Temecula New Streets - - - - - - - - - 11,180 Total 11,492$ 13,580$ 4,537$ 5,772$ 19,290$ 27,650$ 26,284$ 27,080$ 9,625$ 25,005$ 172
Proposed Fees vs Local Jurisdictions
Industrial
Industrial - 1,000 Square Feet
Fee Category
Murrieta
(Current)
DRAFT
Murrieta
Lake
Elsinore
(Low)
Lake
Elsinore
(High)
Menifee
(Low)
Menifee
(High)
Moreno
Valley
Temecula
(Low)
Temecula
(High)
City Hall & Public Works - - 360 360 - - 57 - - Community Rec Center - - - - - - 8 - - Corporate Yard - - - - - - 83 - - Developer Impact Fees - - - - - - 4,910 4,910 Fire Facilities 149 990 159 159 320 320 271 - - General Government 24 110 - - 250 250 - - - Library - - - - - - 10 - - Maintenance Equipment - - - - - - 24 - - Parks - - 100 100 - - 155 - - Police 62 640 - - 170 170 104 - - Public Art - - - - - - 1,174 17 17 Railroad Canyon Road Fee - - - 303 - - - - - Storm Drain 217 250 - 521 - 310 - - - Streets, Minor Bridges & Culverts 991 2,510 - - - - 2,720 - - Traffic Signals and Controllers 190 370 - - - - 341 - - Transportation/Traffic/Interchange - - 810 810 4,660 4,660 1,392 - - Workforce Development - - - - - - 110 - - Uptown Temecula New Streets - - - - - - - - 3,150 Total 1,633$ 4,870$ 1,429$ 2,252$ 5,400$ 5,710$ 6,448$ 4,927$ 8,077$ 173
Proposed Fees vs Local Jurisdictions
Office
Office - 1,000 Square Feet
Fee Category
Murrieta
(Current)
DRAFT
Murrieta
Lake
Elsinore
(Low)
Lake
Elsinore
(High)
Menifee
(Low)
Menifee
(High)
Moreno
Valley
Temecula
(Low)
Temecula
(High)
City Hall & Public Works - - 180 180 - - 112 - - Community Rec Center - - - - - - 21 - - Corporate Yard - - - - - - 214 - - Developer Impact Fees - - - - - - - 7,920 7,920 Fire Facilities 401 2,980 337 337 2,360 2,360 550 - - General Government 67 340 - - 1,870 1,870 - - - Library - - - - - - 28 - - Maintenance Equipment - - - - - - 63 - - Parks - - 100 100 - - 416 - - Police 168 1,930 - - 1,320 1,320 281 - - Public Art - - - - - - 2,419 142 142 Railroad Canyon Road Fee - - - 202 - - - - - Storm Drain 90 104 - 347 - 2,610 - - - Streets, Minor Bridges & Culverts 6,932 7,690 - - - - 5,582 - - Traffic Signals and Controllers 1,329 1,130 - - - - 744 - - Transportation/Traffic/Interchange - - 1,450 1,450 8,240 8,240 2,866 - - Workforce Development - - - - - - 300 - - Uptown Temecula New Streets - - - - - - - - 4,580 Total 8,987$ 14,174$ 2,067$ 2,616$ 13,790$ 16,400$ 13,593$ 8,062$ 12,642$ 174
21 Implementation Scenarios
Multiple Year Phasing
Type SQ FT Current DIF Fees 5-Year 4-Year 3-Year Proposed Fee Commercial 9,900 113,751$ 134,442$ Industrial 136,837 223,044$ 89,218$ 110,838$ 147,784$ 669,133$ Single Family 2,500 13,853$ 19,025$ Multi Family 1,450 9,724$ 15,776$ Office 60,674 545,459$ 62,858$ 78,573$ 104,764$ 859,751$ Increases Per Year
Potential Phasing Plans
175
22 Implementation Scenarios
Employee Incentive Program –
Industrial & Office
Option 1
• Defer DIF until
occupancy issuance
• Discount based on
number of jobs
generated
• Each employee $1k
reduction in DIF
Option 2
• DIF reduction during permit
process
• Discount based on estimated
range number of jobs
• Range of jobs:
- 0-10 Jobs = $25K credit
- 11-25 Jobs = $50K credit
176
23 Implementation Scenarios
Incentive Programs
Examples:

Stanislaus County – Industrial Incentive Program: minimum square footage of 150K, additional size discount, percentage discount, and point generated system.

City of Chowchilla – Business Incentive Program: Retail and Commercial waive of sewer DIF, DIF deferred until certificate of occupancy is issued, waiver of building permit fees, and certain zones waiver of all DIF.

City of San Diego – Fee Payment Incentive Program: Based on full- time jobs created, sales tax revenue generated, and/or capital investment, reimbursements up to $10,000 can be issued. 177
Public Hearing for adoption on March 19, 2024
178

CITY OF MURRIETA
City Council Meeting Agenda
Report
2/20/2024
Agenda Item No.

Subject:

Received After Agenda Printed - Interim PIO Updates
CITY OF MURRIETA Printed on 3/19/2024Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
179
What’s going on i n
Murri
eta!
Cristina Davies, Acting Public Information Officer
February 20, 2024
Received After Agenda Printed
2/20/2024 - Regular Meeting
City Manager - Administrative Update
180
2 Events
Upcoming…
• Parks & Rec Master Plan Workshop: March 19
• Trails Master Plan Workshop: March 28
Coffee with the City
• February 27, 2024
• Ask city leaders your questions
• Location: 26442 Beckman Court. Murrieta, CA
92562
181
3 News
Adopt-A-Street Program
• Help maintain Murrieta streets
• https://www.murrietaca.gov/260/Adopt-A-Street
Jobs
• Management Analyst
• Police Officer
• Police Services Technician
• Senior Planner 182
4 Stay Connected
https://www.murrietaca.gov/Jobs
https://www.murrietaca.gov/Connect
183

CITY OF MURRIETA
City Council Meeting Agenda
Report
2/20/2024
Agenda Item No.

Subject:

Received After Agenda Printed - NHG Amphitheater Events CITY OF MURRIETA Printed on 3/19/2024Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
184
2024 NHG Events at
Town Square Park Amphitheater
February 20, 2024
Received After Agenda Printed
02/20/2024 - Regular Meeting
City Manager - Administrative Update
185
2 • April 20 & 21- Jazz & Blue Festival
• June 22 & 23 – Old Town Music Festival
• August 17 – End of Summer “Summer Sunset”
• October 19 - Rocktoberfest
2024 NHG Events
186
187
188
189
190
7 Ticket Options
191
8 Tickets available at:

MurrietaAmphitheater.com
192

CITY OF MURRIETA
City Council Meeting Agenda
Report
2/20/2024
Agenda Item No.

Subject:

Received After Agenda Printed - GBR
CITY OF MURRIETA Printed on 3/19/2024Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
193

MURRIETA CITY COUNCIL
Governing Body Reports:

Mayor Pro Tem Warren
February 20, 2024
Received After Agenda Printed
02/20/2024 - Regular Meeting
Presentation (GBR)
194
Governing Body Reports:

Mayor Pro Tem Warren
[email protected]
February 14, 2024
Attended the Riverside County Transportation Commission Board Meeting The following was approved by unanimous vote:

Phase 2: Plans, and Specifications for the I-15 New Franklin Street On/Off Ramps in Lake Elsinore RCTC will be the lead agency for this project.

Phase 1 was the Railroad Canyon On/Off Ramp improvements Awarded Agreement No. 24-72-028-00 to HDR Engineering Inc. for plans, specifications, & estimates (PS&E) for the Interstate 15 Franklin Street Interchange Project in the amount of $8,759,405, plus a contingency amount of $875,941, for a total amount not to exceed $9,635,346; 2) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to finalize and execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; and 3) Authorize the Executive Director or designee, to approve contingency work up to the total not to exceed amount as required for these services. 195

MURRIETA CITY COUNCIL
Governing Body Reports:

Council Member Levell
February 20, 2024
Received After Agenda Printed
02/20/2024 - Regular Meeting
Presentation (GBR)
196
Governing Body Reports:

Council Member Levell
[email protected]
February 8, 2024
Attended the Riverside County Habitat Conservation Agency Committee meeting as the alternate.
197

CITY OF MURRIETA
City Council Meeting Agenda
Report
2/20/2024
Agenda Item No.

Subject:

Received After Agenda Printed - Public Comment (Non-Agenda) CITY OF MURRIETA Printed on 4/12/2024Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205

CITY OF MURRIETA
City Council Meeting Agenda
Report
6/4/2024
Agenda Item No. 1.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Cristal McDonald, City Clerk
PREPARED BY: Kimberly Ramirez, Deputy City Clerk
SUBJECT:

Waive Reading of All Ordinance Adoptions on the Agenda and Read by Title Only

RECOMMENDATION
Waive reading, by title only, of all Ordinances and Resolutions. Said Ordinances and Resolutions which appear on the public agenda shall be determined to have been read by title and further reading waived.

CITY OF MURRIETA Printed on 5/30/2024Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
206

CITY OF MURRIETA
City Council Meeting Agenda
Report
2/20/2024
Agenda Item No. 2.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Cristal McDonald, City Clerk
PREPARED BY: Kimberly Ramirez, Deputy City Clerk
SUBJECT:

Minutes

RECOMMENDATION
Approve the minutes of the January 11, 2024 Special Workshop and the February 6, 2024, City Council Regular Meeting.

ATTACHMENTS

1. January 11, 2024 Minutes

2. February 6, 2024 Minutes
CITY OF MURRIETA Printed on 2/15/2024Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
207

CITY OF MURRIETA
Courtyard by Marriott,
Ballroom Meeting Room
25419 Madison Avenue
Murrieta, CA 92562

JANUARY 11, 2024
8:00 AM SPECIAL MEETING

MINUTES

NOTICE AND CALL OF SPECIAL MEETING

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on January 11, 2024, the Mayor of the City of Murrieta has called a Special Meeting of the Murrieta City Council at the time and place listed below to consider the following matters: /s/ Cristal McDonald, City Clerk

Any presentation requiring the use of the City of Murrieta’s equipment must be submitted to the City Clerk’s department 24 hours prior to the scheduled City Council meeting at City Hall located at 1 Town Square, Murrieta, CA; via email at [email protected] or call (951) 461-6031. Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the City Council regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection at the public counter at City Hall located at 1 Town Square, Murrieta, CA during normal business hours.

NOTICE AND CALL OF SPECIAL MEETING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on December 21, 2023, the Mayor of the City of Murrieta has called a Special Meeting of the Murrieta City Council to consider the following matters at the time and place listed on the agenda. /s/ Cristal McDonald, City Clerk

Lori Stone
Mayor

Cindy Warren Lisa DeForest Mayor Pro Tem Council Member

Jon Levell Ron Holliday Council Member Council Member

Kim Summers, City Manager
Tiffany Israel, City Attorney
Cristal McDonald, City Clerk

MURRIETA CITY COUNCIL (CC)

MURRIETA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT (CSD)

MURRIETA FIRE DISTRICT (FD)

MURRIETA LIBRARY BOARD (LB)

MURRIETA REDEVELOPMENT SUCCESSOR AGENCY (RSA)

MURRIETA HOUSING AUTHORITY (HA)

MURRIETA FINANCING AUTHORITY (FA)

*** The City is utilizing a new agenda management system. If you have any questions, please reach out to the City Clerk Department at (951) 461-6030 or via email at [email protected].

208
2 City Council Meeting Agenda January 11, 2024

8:00 AM SPECIAL WORKSHOP

CALL TO ORDER 8:00 AM

ROLL CALL

Present: Council Member Lisa DeForest
Council Member Jon Levell
Council Member Ron Holliday
Mayor Pro Tem Warren
Mayor Lori Stone

Absent: None

Also Present: City Manager Kim Summers
Assistant City Manager Ivan Holler
Assistant City Manager Kristen Crane
City Attorney Tiffany Israel
Assistant City Attorney Paul Early
Police Chief Anthony Conrad
Fire Chief Bernard Molloy
Economic Development Director Scott Agajanian (Arrived late) Community Services Director Brian Ambrose
Finance Director Javier Carcamo
Development Services Director David Chantarangsu
Administrative Services Director Diego Chavez
City Engineer Jeff Hitch
City Clerk Cristal McDonald
Baker Tilly Facilitator Carol Jacobs
Baker Tilly Facilitator Steve Mermell

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Stone

PUBLIC COMMENT - AGENDIZED ITEMS ONLY

Kassen Klein: Spoke on his view of the City’s vision and general plan, noting the agenda looking more like a list of projects than goals. Also spoke on general concerns and inquired about the timeline and completion for Keller interchange.

WORKSHOP

WS1. City Council Annual Workshop – Vision & Goals

City Manager Kim Summers provided opening comments and introduced the Baker Tilly Facilitators.

Mayor Stone shared that the theme for 2024 is “Planning for Tomorrow” and announced that there will be changes, such as the transparency of events and presentations the Mayor is attending.

Facilitator Carol Jacobs spoke on Objectives – Governance, Council Priorities, Teamwork, and outlined the workshop ground rules.

209
3 City Council Meeting Agenda January 11, 2024

Facilitator Steve Mermell conducted an icebreaker to explore City Council Member commonalities.

Facilitator Jacobs discussed what makes a City Council work well and highlighted the importance of the City Manager’s role. Facilitator Jacobs provided a refresher on the roles of the Council Members, City Manager, and City Attorney.

Facilitator Mermell spoke on the Code of Conduct and asked the City Council for feedback. The City Council agreed that it would benefit from a general update to include consequences.

The City Council took a break at 9:21 a.m. and reconvened at 9:34 a.m.

Facilitator Mermell asked the City Council to provide key accomplishments by the City. Mayor Pro Tem Warren spoke on Economic Development, such as incoming hotels. Mayor Stone spoke on progress regarding the Triangle property as well as the Murrieta Hot Springs Resort.

Facilitator Mermell spoke on priority setting with projects in relation to resources and day-to-day operations. Facilitator Mermell provided a breakdown of City staffing and the projects currently in progress.

Finance Director Javier Carcamo provided a PowerPoint presentation on the City’s financial outlook, which included a snapshot of the current budget, a General Fund/Measure T long-term forecast, and covered debt affordability analysis scenarios and bond assumptions. The City Council inquired about different projects in the works, such as the Parks Master Plan, Public Safety Regional Training Center, Development Impact Fees, bond repayment, and the impact they would have with different scenarios; City Manager Kim Summers provided insight on approaches.

Facilitator Jacobs reviewed the current City Council goals and asked the City Council if there are any proposed changes. After discussion there were no changes to the goals.

The City Council took a break at 10:33 a.m. and reconvened at 10:46 a.m.

Facilitator Jacobs guided the City Council to discuss the proposed strategies for the following projects under the City Council goals:
 Provide a high level of innovative public safety
o Construct new Fire Station 6 (estimated cost/range: $15-18 million) o Expand current Police Station (estimated cost/range: $10 million) o Construct Public Safety Training Facility (estimated cost/range: $25-30 million)  Aggressively pursue economic development
o Develop properties around City Hall
o Amphitheater Parking Lot (estimated cost/range: $1.8-2.1 million) o Downtown Parking Structure (estimated cost/range: $16-20 million) o Assist the Triangle to Ribbon Cutting
o Continue recruitment of medical and research facilities and jobs (Innovation Center) o Continue to attract new hotels and revenue drivers
 Maintain a high performing organization that values fiscal sustainability, transparency, accountability and organizational efficiency
o City Hall Expansion (estimated cost/range: $15-20 million) o Expand existing City Public Works Yard office/operations (estimated cost/range: $5 million)
 Plan, program and create infrastructure development o 215/Keller Interchange (estimated cost/range: $47 million) o ADA Transition program
210
4 City Council Meeting Agenda January 11, 2024

o Assist water districts when feasible
 Coordinate and deliver responsive, effective community services o Complete Library Expansion (estimated cost/range: $6-6.5 million) o Construct new Cal Oaks Sports Park Pool (estimated cost/range: $10-13 million) o Soccer Complex (estimated cost/range: $10 million)
o Develop new public amenities
o Pickleball Courts (estimated cost/range: $50-75k, per court, depending on existing site conditions (grading/drainage)
o Pump Track (estimated cost/range: $250-500k, depending on features and materials)
o Equestrian Park (estimated cost/range: $10 million, based on 2017 proposed design, current cost will vary)
 Foster and promote an engaged, connected and caring community o Continue programs and complete initiatives already under way while improving communications
o Website Redesign

Facilitator Mermell conducted a dots priority exercise, requesting Council Members prioritize the projects.

The City Council recessed to lunch at 11:20 a.m and reconvened at 12:04 p.m.

ROLL CALL

Present: Council Member Lisa DeForest
Council Member Jon Levell
Council Member Ron Holliday
Mayor Pro Tem Warren
Mayor Lori Stone

Absent: None

WORKSHOP (Continued)

Facilitator Mermell reviewed the dots priority list created by the City Council. Based on the priority order provided:

1. Fire Station No. 6

2. Amphitheater Parking and Soccer Complex

3. Keller Road Interchange

Facilitator Mermell spoke on options on how to pursue different strategies when navigating these projects, including regular reporting, and holding off on new initiatives. In addition, noting the possibility of Federal/State funding or multi-agency opportunities to offset costs.

City Manager Summers provided closing comments.

Council Members DeForest, Levell, Holliday, Mayor Pro Tem Warren, and Mayor Stone provided their closing comments citing clarity and insight provided.

Facilitators Jacobs and Mermell provided closing comments. 211
5 City Council Meeting Agenda January 11, 2024

The City Council adjourned at 12:19 p.m. and reconvened at 12:33 p.m. to clarify on the prioritization of the projects.

ROLL CALL

Present: Council Member Lisa DeForest
Council Member Jon Levell
Council Member Ron Holliday
Mayor Pro Tem Warren
Mayor Lori Stone

Absent: None

The facilitators guided a thorough discussion on the dot prioritization exercise results:

Fire Chief Bernard Molloy provided an overview of the Proposed Fire Station No. 6 project and was available for questions from the City Council. The City Council inquired about feasible steps in the interim, capital costs, and timelines.

Assistant City Manager Ivan Holler provided an update on the status of the Los Alamos Soccer Complex project, noting the current challenges with intergovernmental agencies due to the overdevelopment of the area. The City Council inquired about intergovernmental agencies involved, possible revenue that will be generated, and timeline.

Mayor Pro Tem Warren inquired about projects on the list that were in the process of being accomplished within the next two years.

A brief update on the Library Expansion project was provided by Project Manager Brian Crawford, noting the schematic designs will be done by Summer 2024 and can be ready to go out to bid by the end of the year.

Council Member Holliday inquired about the Police Station expansion, noting the slabs are already in place. Police Chief Conrad noted that the timeline is years out.

City Manager Summers stated the Amphitheater parking lot is already designed. City Engineer Jeff Hitch provided details on the project including location, amount of spaces that will be created and costs. City Attorney Tiffany Israel spoke on the American with Disabilities Act compliance in relation to the parking lot.

The City Council discussed the feasibility of the projects, reviewing the timelines and costs associated with each. Facilitator Jacobs guided the City Council and proposed that by narrowing the priorities list City Manager Summers can provide a mini strategic plan.

The City Council after discussing the projects the City Council reprioritized the projects:

1. Fire Station No. 6

2. Library Expansion

3. Amphitheater Parking Lot (ADA Compliance)

4. Los Alamos Sports Park

Facilitator Jacobs provided closing comments, noting the City Manager will work on a strategic plan based on the input provided by the City Council.

ADJOURNMENT 1:22 p.m.
212

Page 1 of 7 ends

Murrieta City CouncilFebruary 20, 2024

Murrieta City Council
February 20, 2024