Agenda packet — Murrieta City Council, April 16, 2024 (part 3 of 3)

5 1
Suspension or Debarment Instructions
Instructions for Certification:

1. By answering yes to the next Attribute question below, the vendor and prospective lower tier participant is providing certification set out herein in accordance with these instructions.

2. The certification in this clause is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was placed when this transa was entered into. If it is later determined that the prospective lower tier participant knowingly rendered an erroneous certification in addition to other remedies available to the federal government, the department or agency with which t h
transaction originated may pursue available remedies, including suspension and / or debarment.

3. The prospective lower tier participant shall provide immediate written notice to the person to which this proposal is submitted if at any time the prospective lower tier participant learns that its certification was erroneous when submitt e has become erroneous by reason of changed circumstances. . 7he WerPs ³coYereG WransacWion,´ ³GeEarreG,´ ³sXspenGeG,´ ³ineligiEle,´ ³loZer Wier coYereG WransacWion,´ ³parWicipa n ³person,´ ³priPar\ coYereG WransacWion,´ ³principal,´ ³proposal´ anG ³YolXnWaril\ e[clXGeG,´ as XseG in Whis claXse, ha Y meanings set out in the Definitions and Coverage sections of rules implementing Executive Order 12549. You may c o the person to which this proposal is submitted for assistance in obtaining a copy of those regulations.

5. The prospective lower tier participant agrees by submitting this form that, should the proposed covered transactio n
entered into, it shall not knowingly enter into any lower tier covered transaction with a person who is debarred, susp e declared ineligible or voluntarily excluded from participation in this covered transaction, unless authorized by the department or agency with which this transaction originated.

6. The prospective lower tier participant further agrees by submitting this form that it will include this clause titled ³&erWiIicaWion 5egarGing DeEarPenW, 6Xspension, IneligiEiliW\ anG 9olXnWar\ ([clXsionLoZer 7ier &oYereG 7ransacWio without modification in all lower tier covered transactions and in all solicitations for lower tier covered transactions.

7. A participant in a covered transaction may rely upon a certification of a prospective participant in a lower tier cove r
transaction that it is not debarred, suspended, ineligible or voluntarily excluded from the covered transaction, unless knows that the certification is erroneous. A participant may decide the method and frequency by which it determines t eligibility of its principals. Each participant may, but is not required to, check the Nonprocurement List.

8. Nothing contained in the foregoing shall be construed to require establishment of a system of records in order to r in good faith the certification required by this clause. The knowledge and information of a participant is not required t exceed that which is normally possessed by a prudent person in the ordinary course of business dealings.

9. Except for transactions authorized under paragraph 5 of these instructions, if a participant in a covered transactio n
knowingly enters into a lower tier covered transaction with a person who is suspended, debarred, ineligible or volunt a excluded from participation in this transaction, in addition to other remedies available to the federal government, the department or agency with which this transaction originated may pursue available remedies, including suspension a n debarment.
5 2
Suspension or Debarment Certification
By answering yes, you certify that no federal suspension or debarment is in place, which would preclude receiving a federally funded contract as described above.

Yes

Page 13 of 30 ends

5 3
Non-Discrimination Statement and Certification
In accordance with Federal civil rights law, all U.S. Departments, including the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, office s, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, g identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, dis ability, age, marital status, family/parental status, incom e derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in an y program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filin g deadlines vary by program or incident.

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of comm unication for program information (e.g., Braille, large audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the res ponsible Agency or USDA's TARGET Center at (20 2 2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than Engli sh.

To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, fou online at How to File a Program Discrimination Complaint and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA provide in the letter all of the information requested in the f orm. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 6 3 9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail : U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assist a Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washi ngton, D.C. 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-7442; email: [email protected].
(Title VI of the Education Amendments of 1972; Section 504 of t he Rehabilitation Act of 1973; the Age Discrimination 1975; Title 7 CFR Parts 15, 15a, and 15b; the Americans with Di sabilities Act; and FNS Instruction 113-1, Civil Rights &oPpliance anG (nIorcePenW ± 1XWriWion PrograPs anG $cWiYiWies

All U.S. Departments, including the USDA are equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

Not a negotiable term. Failure to agree by answering YES will r ender your proposal non-responsive and it will not be considered. I certify that in the performance of a contract wit h TIPS or its members, that our company will conform to t foregoing anti-discrimination statement and comply with the cit ed and all other applicable laws and regulations.

Yes, I certify (Yes)
5 4
2 CFR PART 200 Contract Provisions Explanation
Required Federal contract provisions of Federal Regulations for Contracts for contracts with ESC Region 8 and TIP S Members:

The following provisions are required to be in place and agreed if the procurement is funded in any part with federal f The ESC Region 8 and TIPS Members are the subgrantee or Subreci pient by definition. Most of the provisions are l o in &)5 P$57 $ppenGi[ II Wo ParW ²&onWracW ProYisions Ior 1on)eGeral (nWiW\ &onWracWs 8nGer )eGeral $ Z at 2 CFR PART 200. Others are included within 2 CFR part 200 et al.

In addition to other provisions required by the Federal agency or non-Federal entity, all contracts made by the non- F entity under the Federal award must contain provisions covering the following, as applicable.

Page 14 of 30 ends

5 5
2 CFR PART 200 Contracts
Contracts for more than the simplified acquisition threshold cu rrently set at $250,000, which is the inflation adjusted a determined by the Civilian Agency Acquisition Council and the D efense Acquisition Regulations Council (Councils) a s authorized by 41 U.S.C. 1908, must address administrative, cont ractual, or legal remedies in instances where contra c violate or breach contract terms, and provide for such sanction s and penalties as appropriate.

Notice: Pursuant to the above, when federal funds are expended by ESC Region 8 and TIPS Members, ESC Region TIPS Members reserves all rights and privileges under the appli cable laws and regulations with respect to this procu r in the event of breach of contract by either party.

Does vendor agree?
Yes
5 6
2 CFR PART 200 Termination
Termination for cause and for convenience by the grantee or sub grantee including the manner by which it will be eff e and the basis for settlement. (All contracts in excess of $10,0 00) Pursuant to the above, when federal funds are expended by ESC R egion 8 and TIPS Members, ESC Region 8 and T Members reserves the right to terminate any agreement in excess of $10,000 resulting from this procurement process for cause af ter giving the vendor an appropriate opportunity and 30 days, to cure the causal breach of terms and conditions. ESC Region 8 and TIPS Members reserves the right to terminate any agreement in e xcess of $10,000 resulting from this procurement p for convenience with 30 days notice in writing to the awarded v endor. The vendor would be compensated for work performed and goods procured as o f the termination date if for convenience of the E
Region 8 and TIPS Members. Any award under this procurement pro cess is not exclusive and the ESC Region 8 and reserves the right to purchase goods and services from other ve ndors when it is in the best interest of the ESC Regi o and TIPS.

Does vendor agree?
Yes
5 7
2 CFR PART 200 Clean Air Act
&lean $ir $cW
8.6.&. T.
anG Whe )eGeral :aWer Pol lXWion &onWrol $cW
8.6.&.
, as aPe
Contracts and subgrants of amounts in excess of $150,000 must c ontain a provision that requires the non-Federal a w agree to comply with all applicable standards, orders or regula tions issued pursuant to the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C 7671q) and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act as amended ( 33 U.S.C. 1251-1387). Violations must be reporte d Federal awarding agency and the Regional Office of the Environm ental Protection Agency (EPA).

Pursuant to the Clean Air Act, et al above, when federal funds are expended by ESC Region 8 and TIPS Membe r Region 8 and TIPS Members requires that the proposer certify th at during the term of an award by the ESC Region 8 and TIPS Members resulting from th is procurement process the vendor agrees to with all of the above regulations, including all of the terms l isted and referenced therein.

Does vendor agree?
Yes

Page 15 of 30 ends

5 8
2 CFR PART 200 Byrd Anti-Lobbying Amendment
%\rG $nWiLoEE\ing $PenGPenW
8.6.&.
²&onWracWors WhaW appl\ or EiG Ior an aZarG e[ceeGing , P the required certification. Each tier certifies to the tier abo ve that it will not and has not used Federal appropriated fu n pay any person or organization for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a me m Congress, officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a member of Congress in connection with obtaining a Federal contract, grant or any other award covered by 31 U.S.C. 1352. Each tier must also disclose any lobbying wit h Federal funds that takes place in connection with obtaining any Federal award. Such disclosures are forwarded from tier up to the non-Federal award.

Pursuant to the above, when federal funds are expended by ESC R egion 8 and TIPS Members, ESC Region 8 and T Members requires the proposer certify that during the term and during the life of any contract with ESC Region 8 and Members resulting from this procurement process the vendor cert ifies to the terms included or referenced herein.

Does vendor agree?
Yes
5 9
2 CFR PART 200 Federal Rule
Compliance with all applicable standards, orders, or requiremen ts issued under section 306 of the Clean Air Act (42 U 1857(h)), section 508 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1368), Executive Order 11738, and Environmental Protectio n Agency regulations (40 CFR part 15). (Contracts, subcontracts, and subgrants of amounts in excess of $250,000) Pursuant to the above, when federal funds are expended by ESC R egion 8 and TIPS Members, ESC Region 8 and T Members requires the proposer certify that in performance of th e contracts, subcontracts, and subgrants of amounts excess of $250,000, the vendor will be in compliance with all a pplicable standards, orders, or requirements issued u n section 306 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 1857(h)), section 5 08 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1368), Executiv e 11738, and Environmental Protection Agency regulations (40 CFR part 15).

Does vendor certify that it is in compliance with the Clean Air Act? Yes
6 0
2 CFR PART 200 Procurement of Recovered Materials
A non-Federal entity that is a state agency or agency of a poli tical subdivision of a state and its contractors must co m with section 6002 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended b y the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. Th requirements of Section 6002 include procuring only items desig nated in guidelines of the Environmental Protection A (EPA) at 40 CFR part 247 that contain the highest percentage of recovered materials practicable, consistent with maintaining a satisfactory level of competition, where the purc hase price of the item exceeds $10,000 or the value of quantity acquired during the preceding fiscal year exceeded $10 ,000; procuring solid waste management services in manner that maximizes energy and resource recovery; and establi shing an affirmative procurement program for procurement of recovered materials identified in the EPA guidel ines.

Does vendor certify that it is in compliance with the Solid Was te Disposal Act as described above? Yes

Page 16 of 30 ends

6 1
2 CFR PART 200 Rights to Inventions
II Whe )eGeral aZarG PeeWs Whe GeIiniWion oI ³IXnGing agreePenW ´ XnGer &)5 . a
anG Whe recipienW or sXEr e
wishes to enter into a contract with a small business firm or n onprofit organization regarding the substitution of p assignPenW or perIorPance oI e[periPenWal, GeYelopPenWal, or re search ZorN XnGer WhaW ³IXnGing agreePenW,´ Whe r e or sXErecipienW PXsW coPpl\ ZiWh Whe reTXirePenWs oI &)5 Par W , ³5ighWs Wo InYenWions 0aGe E\ 1 o 2rgani]aWions anG 6Pall %Xsiness )irPs 8nGer *oYernPenW *ranWs, &onWracWs anG &ooperaWiYe $greePenWs,´ a implementing regulations issued by the awarding agency.

Pursuant to the above, when the foregoing applies to ESC Region 8 and TIPS Members, Vendor certifies that du r term of an award resulting from this procurement process, Vendo r agrees to comply with all applicable requirem e referenced in the Federal rule above.

Does vendor agree?
Yes
6 2
2 CFR PART 200 Domestic Preferences for Procurements
As appropriate and to the extent consistent with law, the non-F ederal entity should, to the greatest extent practicabl e a Federal award, provide a preference for the purchase, acquisi tion, or use of goods, products, or materials prod u the United States (including but not limited to iron, aluminum, steel, cement, and other manufactured product s requirements of this section must be included in all subawards including all contracts and purchase orders for w proGXcWs XnGer Whis aZarG. )or pXrposes oI &)5 ParW ., ³ProGXceG in Whe 8niWeG 6WaWes´ Peans, Ior iron a n products, that all manufacturing processes, from the initial me lting stag through the application of coatings, occurre d 8niWeG 6WaWes. 0oreoYer, Ior pXrposes oI &)5 ParW ., ³0 anXIacWXreG proGXcWs´ Peans iWePs anG cons W materials composed in whole or in part of non-ferrous metals su ch as aluminum, plastics and polymer-based produc as polyvinyl chloride pipe, aggregates such as concrete, glass, including optical fiber, and lumber.

Pursuant to the above, when federal funds are expended by ESC R egion 8 and TIPS Members, Vendor certifies th a greatest extent practicable Vendor will provide a preference fo r the purchase, acquisition, or use of goods, prod u materials produced in the United States (including but not limi ted to iron, aluminum, steel, cement, and other manuf a products).

Does vendor agree?
Yes
6 3
2 CFR PART 200 Ban on Foreign Telecommunications
)eGeral granW IXnGs Pa\ noW Ee XseG Wo pXrchase eTXipPenW, serY ices, or s\sWePs WhaW Xse ³coYereG WelecoPPXni c equipment or services as a substantial or essential component o f any system, or as critical technology as part s\sWeP. ³&oYereG WelecoPPXnicaWions´ Peans pXrchases IroP +XaZe i 7echnologies &oPpan\ or =7( &orporaWion subsidiary or affiliate of such entities), and video surveillan ce and telecommunications equipment produced by Communications Corporation, Hangzhou Hikvision Digital Technolo gy Company, or Dahua Technology Company subsidiary or affiliate of such entities).

Pursuant to the above, when federal funds are expended by ESC R egion 8 and TIPS Members, Vendor certifi 9enGor Zill noW pXrchase eTXipPenW, serYices, or s\sWePs WhaW X se ³coYereG WelecoPPXnicaWions´, as GeIineG E\ . eTXipPenW or serYices as a sXEsWanWial or essenWial co PponenW oI an\ s\sWeP, or as criWical Wechnolog\ as any system.

Does vendor agree?
Yes

Page 17 of 30 ends

6 4
2 CFR PART 200 Contract Cost & Price
For contracts more than the simplified acquisition threshold currently set at $250,000, a TIPS Member may, in v e circumstances, be required to negotiate profit as a separate element of the price pursuant to 2 C.F.R. 200.324(b). those circumstances, Vendor agrees to provide information and negotiate with the TIPS Member regarding pro separate element of the price. However, Vendor certifies that the total price charged by the Vendor shall not exc e
9enGor¶s 7IP6 pricing anG pricing WerPs proposeG.

Does Vendor Agree?
Yes
6 5
FEMA Fund Certifications
6XEPission oI Whis proposal is 9enGor¶s cerWiIicaWion WhaW 9enGor agrees Wo Whis WerP. 9enGor cerWiIies WhaW IF an d Vendor accepts a TIPS purchase paid for in full or part with FEMA funds, Vendor certifies that:
(1) Vendor agrees to provide the TIPS Member, the FEMA Administrator, the Comptroller General of the United St a any of their authorized representatives access to and rights to reproduce any books, documents, papers, and re c the Contractor which are directly pertinent to this contract for the purposes of making audits, examinations, excer p transcriptions. The Vendor agrees to provide the FEMA Administrator or an authorized representatives ac c construction or other work sites pertaining to the work being completed under the contract. Vendor acknowledg agrees that no language in this contract or the contract with the TIPS Member is intended to prohibit audits or i reviews by the FEMA Administrator or the Comptroller General of the United States.

7he 9enGor shall noW Xse Whe DeparWPenW oI +oPelanG 6ecXriW\¶s seal s
, logos, cresWs, or reproGXcWions oI
I
likenesses of DHS agency officials without specific FEMA pre-approval. (3) The Vendor will comply with all applicable Federal law, regulations, executive orders, FEMA policies, procedur e directives.
(4) The Federal Government is not a party to this contract and is not subject to any obligations or liabilities to t h
Federal entity, contractor, or any other party pertaining to any matter resulting from the contract. (5) The Vendor acknowledges that 31 U.S.C. Chap. 38 (Administrative Remedies for False Claims and Statements) Wo Whe 9enGor¶s acWions perWaining Wo Whis conWracW.
6 6
Certification of Compliance with the Energy Policy and Conservation Act When appropriate and to the extent consistent with the law, Vendor certifies that it will comply with the Energy Pol Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6321 et seq; 49 C.F.R. Part 18) and any mandatory standards and policies relating to efficiency which are contained in applicable state energy conservation plans issued in compliance with the Act.

Does Vendor agree?
Yes

Page 18 of 30 ends

6 7
Certification Regarding Lobbying
Applicable to Grants, Subgrants, Cooperative Agreements, and Contracts Exceeding $100,000 in Federal Funds Submission of this certification is a prerequisite for making or entering into this transaction and is imposed by section Title 31, U.S. Code. This certification is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was placed when this transaction was made or entered into. Any person who fails to file the required certification shall be subject to a civil p
of not less than $10,000 and not more than $100,000 for each such failure.

The undersigned certifies, to the best of his or her knowledge and belief, that:
(1) No Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid by or on behalf of the undersigned, to any person f influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or em p of congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with the awarding of a Federal contract, the ma a Federal grant, the making of a Federal loan, the entering into a cooperative agreement, and the extension, contin u renewal, amendment, or modification of a Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement. (2) If any funds other than Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid to any person for influencing o r attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of cong or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with this Federal grant or cooperative agreement, the under s shall coPpleWe anG sXEPiW 6WanGarG )orPLLL, ³GisclosXre )orP Wo 5eporW LoEE\ing,´ in accorGance ZiWh iWs insWrXcWi (3) The undersigned shall require that the language of this certification be included in the award documents for all c o
subawards exceeding $100,000 in Federal funds at all appropriate tiers and that all subrecipients shall certify and di s accordingly.

I HAVE NOT Lobbied per above
6 8
If you answered "I HAVE lobbied" to the above Attribute Question If you answered "I HAVE lobbied" to the above Attribute question, you must download the Lobbying Report "Standard LLL, disclosure Form to Report Lobbying" which includes instruction on completing the form, complete and submit it i Response Attachments section as a report of the lobbying activities you performed or paid others to perform. 6 9
Subcontracting with Small and Minority Businesses, Women's Business Enterprises, and Labor Surplus A Firms.

Do you ever anticipate the possibility of subcontracting any of your work under this award if you are successful? IF NO, DO NOT ANSWER THE NEXT ATTRIBUTE QUESTION. . IF YES, and ONLY IF YES, you must answer the next question YES if you want a TIPS Member to be authorized to spend Federal Grant Funds for Procurement.

Page 19 of 30 ends

7 0
ONLY IF YES TO THE PREVIOUS QUESTION OR if you ever do subcontract any part of your performanc under the TIPS Agreement, do you agree to comply with the following federal requirements? ONLY IF YES TO THE PREVIOUS QUESTION OR if you ever do subcontract any part of your performance under the Agreement,
do you agree to comply with the following federal requirements? )eGeral 5egXlaWion &)5 . &onWracWing ZiWh sPall anG PinoriW\ EXsinesses, ZoPen s EXsiness enWerprises,
labor surplus area firms. (a)The non-Federal entity must take all necessary affirmative steps to assure that minority businesses, women's business enterprises, and labor surplus area firms are used when possible. (b) Affirmative steps must include:
(1) Placing qualified small and minority businesses and women's business enterprises on solicitation lists; (2) Assuring that small and minority businesses, and women's business enterprises are solicited whenever they are potential sources;
(3) Dividing total requirements, when economically feasible, into smaller tasks or quantities to permit maximum partici by small and minority businesses, and women's business enterprises; (4) Establishing delivery schedules, where the requirement permits, which encourage participation by small and mino businesses, and women's business enterprises;
(5) Using the services and assistance, as appropriate, of such organizations as the Small Business Administration a n
Minority Business Development Agency of the Department of Commerce ; and (6) Requiring the prime contractor, if subcontracts are to be let, to take the affirmative steps listed in paragraphs(1) t (5) of this section.

No response
7 1
Indemnification
The ESC Region 8 and TIPS is a Texas Political Subdivision and a local governmental entity; therefore, is prohibited f indemnifying third parties pursuant to the Texas Constitution (Article 3, Section 52) except as specifically provided by as
ordered by a court of competent jurisdiction. A provision in a contract to indemnify or hold a party harmless is a prom pay for
any expenses the indemnified party incurs, if a specified event occurs, such as breaching the terms of the contract o negligently
performing duties under the contract. Article III, Section 49 of the Texas Constitution states that "no debt shall be cre a
or on
behalf of the State ... " The Attorney General has counseled that a contractually imposed obligation of indemnity cre a
"debt" in
the constitutional sense. Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. No. MW-475 (1982). Contract clauses which require the System or instit u
to
indemnify must be deleted or qualified with ''to the extent permitted by the Constitution and Laws of the State of Texa s
Liquidated
damages, attorney's fees, waiver of vendor's liability, and waiver of statutes of limitations clauses should also be del e
qualified
with "to the extent permitted by the Constitution and laws of State of Texas." Not a negotiable term. Failure to agree will render your proposal non-responsive and it will not be considered. Do yo u
agree
to these terms?
Yes, I Agree (Yes)

Page 20 of 30 ends

7 2
Remedies
The parties shall be entitled to exercise any right or remedy a vailable to it either at law or in equity, subject to the ch o law, venue
and service of process clauses limitations agreed herein. Nothi ng in this agreement shall commit the TIPS to an arbit r resolution
of any disagreement under any circumstances. Any Claim arising out of or related to the Contract, except for those specifically waived
under the terms of the Contract, may, after denial of the Board of Directors, be subject to mediation at the request o f
party. Any
issues not resolved hereunder MAY be referred to non-binding me diation to be conducted by a mutually agreed upo n
mediator as a
prereTXisiWe Wo Whe Iiling oI an\ laZsXiW oYer sXch issXe s
. 7 he parWies shall share Whe PeGiaWor¶s Iee anG an\ associ a filing fee
equally. Mediation shall be held in Camp or Titus County, Texas . Agreements reached in mediation shall be reduced t writing, and
will be subject to the approval by the District's Board of Dire ctors, signed by the Parties if approved by the Board of Directors, and, if
signed, shall thereafter be enforceable as provided by the laws of the State of Texas.

Do you agree to these terms?
Yes, I Agree
7 3
Remedies Explanation of No Answer
No response
7 4
Choice of Law
The agreement between the Vendor and TIPS/ESC Region 8 and any addenda or other additions resulting from this procurement process, however described, shall be governed by, c onstrued and enforced in accordance with the law s State of Texas, regardless of any conflict of laws principles.

THIS DOES NOT APPLY to a vendor's agreement entered into with a TIPS Member, as the Member may be located o Texas.

Do you agree to these terms?
Agreed
7 5
Venue, Jurisdiction and Service of Process
Any proceeding, involving Region 8 ESC or TIPS, arising out of or relating to this procurement process or any contra issued by TIPS resulting from or any contemplated transaction s hall be brought in a court of competent jurisdiction in County, Texas and each of the parties irrevocably submits to th e exclusive jurisdiction of said court in any such proc e waives any objection it may now or hereafter have to venue or t o convenience of forum, agrees that all claims in res p the Proceeding shall be heard and determined only in any such c ourt, and agrees not to bring any proceeding arisin of or relating to this procurement process or any contract resu lting from or any contemplated transaction in any othe r The parties agree that either or both of them may file a copy o f this paragraph with any court as written evidence of t knowing, voluntary and freely bargained for agreement between t he parties irrevocably to waive any objections to ve to convenience of forum. Process in any Proceeding referred to in the first sentence of this Section may be served o n party anywhere in the world. Any dispute resolution process oth er than litigation shall have venue in Camp County o r County Texas.

Do you agree to these terms?
Agreed

Page 21 of 30 ends

7 6
Infringement(s)
The successful vendor will be expected to indemnify and hold ha rmless the TIPS and its employees, officers, agents, representatives, contractors, assignees and designees from any and all third party claims and judgments involving infringement of patent, copyright, trade secrets, trade or serv ice marks, and any other intellectual or intangible prop e righWs aWWriEXWeG Wo or claiPs EaseG on Whe 9enGor
s proposal o r 9enGor¶s perIorPance oI conWracWs aZarGeG anG ap p Do you agree to these terms?
Yes, I Agree
7 7
Infringement(s) Explanation of No Answer
No response
7 8
Contract Governance
Any contract made or entered into by the TIPS is subject to and is to be governed by Section 271.151 et seq, Tex Lo Code. Otherwise, TIPS does not waive its governmental immunities from suit or liability except to the extent expressly by other applicable laws in clear and unambiguous language.

Yes, I Agree (Yes)
7 9
Payment Terms and Funding Out Clause
Payment Terms:

TIPS or TIPS Members shall not be liable for interest or late p ayment fees on past-due balances at a rate higher tha n permitted by the laws or regulations of the jurisdiction of the TIPS Member.

Funding Out Clause:
9enGor agrees Wo aEiGe E\ Whe laZs anG regXlaWions, inclXGing 7 e[as Local *oYernPenW &oGe . , or an\ sWaW
X
or regulatory limitations of the jurisdiction of any TIPS Membe r which governs contracts entered into by the Vendor a n TIPS or a TIPS Member that requires all contracts approved by T IPS or a TIPS Member are subject to the budgeting appropriation of currently available funds by the entity or its governing body.

See statute(s) for specifics or consult your legal counsel.

Not a negotiable term. Failure to agree will render your propos al non-responsive and it will not be considered.

Do you agree to these terms?
Yes, I Agree (Yes)

Page 22 of 30 ends

8 0
Insurance and Fingerprint Requirements Information
Insurance
If applicable and your staff will be on TIPS member premises for delivery, training or installation etc. and/or with an automobile, you must carry automobile insurance as required by law. You may be asked to provide proof of insurance.

Fingerprint
It is possible that a vendor may be subject to Chapter 22 of the Texas Education Code. The Texas Education Code, C 22, Section 22.0834 & 22.08341. Statutory language may be found at: http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/ If the vendor has staff that meet both of these criterion:
(1) will have continuing duties related to the contracted services; and (2) has or will have direct contact with students
7hen \oX haYe ´coYereG´ ePplo\ees Ior pXrposes oI coPpleWing Whe aWWacheG IorP.

TIPS recommends all vendors consult their legal counsel for guidance in compliance with this law. If you have questi o
how to comply, see below. If you have questions on compliance with this code section, contact the Texas Department Public Safety Non-Criminal Justice Unit, Access and Dissemination Bureau, FAST-FACT at [email protected] and you should send an email identifying you as a contractor to a Texas Independent Schoo District or ESC Region 8 and TIPS. Texas DPS phone number is (512) 424-2474.

See form in the next attribute to complete entitled:

Texas Education Code Chapter 22 Contractor Certification for Contractor Employees

Page 23 of 30 ends

8 1
Texas Education Code Chapter 22 Contractor Certification for Contractor Employees Introduction: Texas Education Code Chapter 22 requires entities that contract with school districts to provide service s obtain criminal history record information regarding covered employees. Contractors must certify to the district that t h have complied. Covered employees with disqualifying criminal histories are prohibited from serving at a school distri c Definitions: Covered employees: Employees of a contractor or subcontractor who have or will have continuing duties related to the service to be performed at the District and have or will have direct contact with students. The District w i the final arbiter of what constitutes direct contact with students. Disqualifying criminal history: Any conviction or other criminal history information designated by the District, or one of the following offenses, if at the time of the offense, t h
victim was under 18 or enrolled in a public school:
(a) a felony offense under Title 5, Texas Penal Code; (b) an offense for which a defendant is required to register as a offender under Chapter 62, Texas Code of Criminal Procedure; or (c) an equivalent offense under federal law or the another state.

I certify that:

NONE (Section A) of the employees of Contractor and any subcontractors are covered employees, as defined abo v
this box is checked, I further certify that Contractor has taken precautions or imposed conditions to ensure that the employees of Contractor and any subcontractor will not become covered employees. Contractor will maintain these precautions or conditions throughout the time the contracted services are provided.

OR
SOME (Section B) or all of the employees of Contractor and any subcontractor are covered employees. If this box i s checked, I further certify that:
(1) Contractor has obtained all required criminal history record information regarding its covered employees. None o f covered employees has a disqualifying criminal history. (2) If Contractor receives information that a covered employee subsequently has a reported criminal history, Contrac t
immediately remove the covered employee from contract duties and notify the District in writing within 3 business da y (3) Upon request, Contractor will provide the District with the name and any other requested information of covered employees so that the District may obtain criminal history record information on the covered employees. (4) If the District objects to the assignment of a covered employee on the basis of the covered employee's criminal hi record information, Contractor agrees to discontinue using that covered employee to provide services at the District.

Noncompliance or misrepresentation regarding this certification may be grounds for contract termination.

None
8 2
Texas Business and Commerce Code § 272 Requirements as of 9-1-2017 SB 807 prohibits construction contracts to have provisions requiring the contract to be subject to the laws of another to be required to litigate the contract in another state, or to require arbitration in another state. A contract with such proYisions is YoiGaEle. 8nGer Whis neZ sWaWXWe, a ³consWrXcWion conWracW´ inclXGes conWracWs, sXEconWracWs, or agreeP e
with (among others) architects, engineers, contractors, construction managers, equipment lessors, or materials supp ³&onsWrXcWion conWracWs´ are Ior Whe Gesign, consWrXcWion, alWe raWion, renoYaWion, rePoGeling, or repair oI an\ EXilGing improvement to real property, or for furnishing materials or eq uipment for the project. The term also includes moving ,
demolition, or excavation. BY RESPONDING TO THIS SOLICITATION, AND WHEN APPLICABLE, THE PROPOSER AG 72 &20PL< :I7+ 7+( 7(;$6 %86I1(66 $1D &200(5&( &2D( :+(1 (;(&87I1* &2175$&76 :I7+ 7 MEMBERS THAT ARE TEXAS GOVERNMENT ENTITIES.

Page 24 of 30 ends

8 3
Texas Government Code 2270 & 2271 Verification Form
Texas Government Code 2270 & 2271 Verification Form
If (a) Vendor is not a sole proprietorship; (b) Vendor has ten (10) or more full-time employees; and (c) this Agreeme n value of $100,000 or more, the following certification shall apply; otherwise, this certification is not required. Pur s Chapter 2271 of the Texas Government Code, the Vendor hereby certifies and verifies that neither the Vendor, n affiliate, subsidiary, or parent company of the Vendor, if any (the "Vendor Companies"), boycotts Israel, and the V agrees that the Vendor and Vendor Companies will not boycott Israel during the term of this Agreement. For purp o this Agreement, the term "boycott" shall mean and include refusing to deal with, terminating business activities w otherwise taking any action that is intended to penalize, inflict economic harm on, or limit commercial relations with I s with a person or entity doing business in Israel or in an Israeli-controlled territory, but does not include an action m ordinary business purposes.

Our entity further certifies that it is is not listed on and we do not do business with companies prohibited by Government Code 2270 or that are on the Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts list of Designated Foreign Te Organizations per Texas Gov't Code 2270.0153 found at https://comptroller.texas.gov/purchasing/docs/foreign-terror I swear and affirm that the above is true and correct.

YES
8 4
Logos and other company marks
Please upload your company logo to be added to your individual profile page on the TIPS website. If any particular specifications are required for use of your company logo, please upload that information under the "Logo and Other &oPpan\ 0arNs secWion XnGer Whe ³5esponse $WWachPenW´ WaE. Preferred Logo Format: 300 x 225 px - .png, .eps, .j p
preferred
Potential uses of company logo:
* Your Vendor Profile Page of TIPS website
* Potentially on TIPS website scroll bar for Top Performing Vendors * TIPS Quarterly eNewsletter sent to TIPS Members
* Co-branding Flyers and or email blasts to our TIPS Members (Permission and approval will be obtained before pub l
8 5
Solicitation Deviation/Compliance
Does the vendor agree with the General Conditions Standard Terms and Conditions or Item Specifications listed in this proposal invitation? Yes

Page 25 of 30 ends

8 6
Solicitation Exceptions/Deviations Explanation
If the bidder intends to deviate from the General Conditions Standard Terms and Conditions or Item Specifications lis t this proposal invitation, all such deviations must be listed on this attribute, with complete and detailed conditions and information included or attached.

TIPS will consider any deviations in its proposal award decisions, and TIPS reserves the right to accept or reject any based upon any deviations indicated below or in any attachments or inclusions.

In the absence of any deviation entry on this attribute, the proposer assures TIPS of their full compliance with the St a
Terms and Conditions, Item Specifications, and all other information contained in this Solicitation.

No response
8 7
Agreement Deviation/Compliance
Does the vendor agree with the language in the Vendor Agreement ? Yes
8 8
Agreement Exceptions/Deviations Explanation
If the proposing Vendor desires to deviate form the Vendor Agreement language, all such deviations must be listed o attribute, with complete and detailed conditions and information included. TIPS will consider any deviations in its pro p award decisions, and TIPS reserves the right to accept or reject any proposal based upon any deviations indicated b e In the absence of any deviation entry on this attribute, the proposer assures TIPS of their full compliance with the Ve n Agreement.

No response
8 9
Felony Conviction Notice
7e[as (GXcaWion &oGe, 6ecWion ., 1oWiIicaWion oI &riPinal +isWor\, 6XEsecWion a
, sWaWes ³a person or EXsiness e
that enters into a contract with a school district must give advance notice to the district if the person or an owner or operator of the business entity has been convicted of a felony. The notice must include a general description of the c resXlWing in Whe conYicWion oI a Ielon\.´ 6XEsecWion
E
sWaWes ³a school GisWricW Pa\ WerPinaWe a conWracW ZiWh a person business entity if the district determines that the person or business entity failed to give notice as required by Subse c
(a) or misrepresented the conduct resulting in the conviction. The district must compensate the person or business e Ior serYices perIorPeG EeIore Whe WerPinaWion oI Whe conWracW.´ c
This section does not apply to a publicly held corp o
The person completing this proposal certifies that they are authorized to provide the answer to this question.

Select A., B. or C.

A. My firm is a publicly held corporation; therefore, this reporting requirement is not applicable.

OR B.My firm is not owned nor operated by anyone who has been convicted of a felony, OR C. My firm is owned or operated by the following individual(s) who has/have been convicted of a felony. (if you answe below, you are required to provide information in the next attribute.

B. Firm not owned nor operated by felon; per above
9 0
If you answered C. My Firm is owned or operated by a felon to the previous question, you are REQUIRED ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS.

If you answered C. My Firm is owned or operated by a felon to t he previous question, you must provide the following information.

1. Name of Felon(s)

2. The named person's role in the firm, and

3. Details of Conviction(s).

No response

Page 26 of 30 ends

9 1
Required Confidentiality Claim Form
Required Confidentiality Claim Form
This completed form is required by TIPS. By submitting a respon se to this solicitation you agree to download from th e ³$WWachPenWs´ secWion, coPpleWe accorGing Wo Whe insWrXcWions o n Whe IorP, When XploaG Whe coPpleWeG IorP, ZiWh an\ conIiGenWial aWWachPenWs, iI applicaEle, Wo Whe ³5esponse $WWac hPenWs´ secWion WiWleG ³&onIiGenWialiW\ )orP´ in orGer Wo proYiGe Wo 7IP6 Whe coPpleWeG IorP WiWleG, ³&21)ID(17I$LI7< &L$I0 )250´. THIS REQUIRED PROCESS IS THE O

WAY TO DEEM PROPOSAL DOCUMENTATION CONFIDENTIAL ANY OTHER CONFIDENTIAL DESIGNATION WILL BE DISREGARDED UNLESS THE DOCUMENT IS IDENTIFIED BY AND ATTACHED TO THE REQUIRED FORM. By comp this process, you provide us with the information we require to comply with the open record laws of the State of Texa s they may apply to your proposal submission. If you do not prov ide the form with your proposal, an award will not be m your proposal is qualified for an award, until TIPS has an accu rate, completed form from you.

Read the form carefully before completing and if you have any q uestions, email [email protected]. 9 2
Member Access to Vendor Proposal
Notwithstanding any other information provided in this solicita tion or Vendor designation of certain documenta conIiGenWial or proprieWar\, 9enGor¶s accepWance oI Whis 7IP6 & onWracW consWiWXWes 9enGor¶s consenW Wo Whe Gisclo 9enGor¶s coPprehensiYe proposal, inclXGing an\ inIorPaWion GeeP eG conIiGenWial or proprieWar\, to TIPS Membe r proposing Vendor agrees that TIPS shall not be responsible or l iable for any use or distribution of inform a documentation by TIPS Members or any other party. By submitting this proposal, Vendor certifies the foregoing. 9 3
Choice of Law clauses with TIPS Members
If the vendor is awarded a contract with TIPS under this solici tation, the vendor agrees to make any Choice of Law cl a in any contract or agreement entered into between the awarded v endor and with a TIPS member entity to read as fol l "Choice of law shall be the laws of the state where the custome r resides" or words to that effect.

Agreed
9 4
Venue of dispute resolution with a TIPS Member
In the event of litigation or use of any dispute resolution mod el when resolving disputes with a TIPS member entity as result of a transaction between the vendor and TIPS or the TIPS member entity, the Venue for any litigation or other a upon model shall be in the state and county where the customer resides unless otherwise agreed by the parties at th the dispute resolution model is decided by the parties.

Agreed
9 5
Automatic renewal of contracts or agreements with TIPS or a TIPS member entity This clause DOES NOT prohibit multiyear contracts or agreements with TIPS member en tities.

Because TIPS and TIPS members are governmental entities subjec t to laws that control appropriations of funds duri n their fiscal years for contracts and agreements to provide good s and services, does the Vendor agree to limit any au t renewal clauses of a contract or agreement executed as a result of this TIPS solicitation award to not longer than "m o month" and at the TIPS contracted rate.

Agreed
9 6
Indemnity Limitation with TIPS Members
Texas and other states restrict by law or state Constitution th e ability of a governmental entity to indemnify others. TI P requires that any contract entered into between a vendor and TI PS or a TIPS Member as a result of an award under Solicitation limit the requirement that the Customer indemnify the Vendor by either eliminating any such indemnity requirement clauses in any agreements, contracts or other bindi ng documents OR by prefacing all indemnity clause s required of TIPS or the TIPS Member entity with the following: "To the extent permitted by the laws or the Constitutio n state where the customer resides, ".

Agreement is a required condition to award of a contract result ing from this Solicitation.

Agreed

Page 27 of 30 ends

9 7
Arbitration Clauses
Except for certain circumstances, TIPS forbids a mandatory arbi tration clause in any contract or agreement entered i between the awarded vendor with TIPS or a TIPS member entity. D oes the vendor agree to exclude any arbitration requirement in any contracts or agreement entered into between TIPS or a TIPS member entity through an awarded contract with TIPS?
Agreed
9 8
Required Vendor Sales Reporting
By responding to this Solicitation, you agree to report to TIPS all sales made under any awarded Agreement with TIPS. Vendor is required to report all sales under the TIPS contract to TIPS. If the TIPS Member entity requesting a p from the awarded Vendor requests the TIPS contract, Vendor must include the TIPS Contract number on any communications with the TIPS Member entity. If awarded, you will be provided access to the Vendor Portal. To report login Wo Whe 7IP6 9enGor PorWal anG clicN on Whe P2¶s anG Pa\Pe nWs WaE. Pages oI Whe Vendor Portal User Guide w walk you through the process of reporting sales to TIPS. Please refer to the TIPS $ccoXnWing )$4¶s for more informa about reporting sales and if you have further questions, contac t the Accounting Team at [email protected]. T Vendor or vendor assigned dealers are responsible for keeping r ecord of all sales that go through the TIPS Agreem e submitting same to TIPS.
9 9
Upload of Current W-9 Required
Please note that you are required by TIPS to upload a current W -9 Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Tax Form for you r entity. This form will be utilized by TIPS to properly identify your entity. 1 0
0 CERTIFICATION REGARDING BOYCOTTING CERTAIN ENERGY COMPANIES (Texas law as of Septembe 2021)
By submitting a proposal to this Solicitation, you certify that you agree, when it is applicable, to the follo w required by Texas law as of September 1, 2021:

If (a) company is not a sole proprietorship; (b) company has te n (10) or more full-time employees; and (c) this contra c a value of $100,000 or more that is to be paid wholly or partly from public funds, the following certification shall apply oWherZise, Whis cerWiIicaWion is noW reTXireG. PXrsXanW Wo 7e[. *oY¶W &oGe &h. oI 6% th session), the compa
hereby certifies and verifies that the company, or any wholly o wned subsidiary, majority-owned subsidiary, parent co m or affiliate of these entities or business associations, if any , does not boycott energy companies and will not boycott e coPpanies GXring Whe WerP oI Whe conWracW. )or pXrposes oI Whis conWracW, Whe WerP ³coPpan\´ shall Pean an organi] a association, corporation, partnership, joint venture, limited p artnership, limited liability partnership, or limited liability coPpan\, WhaW e[isWs Wo PaNe a proIiW. 7he WerP ³Eo\coWW energ\ coPpan\´ shall Pean ³ZiWhoXW an orGinar\ EXsiness purpose, refusing to deal with, terminating business activities with, or otherwise taking any action intended to penaliz e economic harm on, or limit commercial relations with a company because the company (a) engages in the exploratio n production, utilization, transportation, sale, or manufacturing of fossil fuel-based energy and does not commit or pled meet environmental standards beyond applicable federal and stat e law, or (b) does business with a company descri b paragraph
a
.´ See 7e[. *oY¶W &oGe 809.001(1).

Page 28 of 30 ends

1 0
1 CERTIFICATION PROHIBITING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST FIREARM AND AMMUNITION INDUSTRIES (T law as of September 1, 2021)
By submitting a proposal to this Solicitation, you certify that you agree, when it is applicable, to the follo w required by Texas law as of September 1, 2021:

If (a) company is not a sole proprietorship; (b) company has at least ten (10) full-time employees; (c) this contract ha s YalXe oI aW leasW , WhaW is paiG Zholl\ or parWl\ IroP p XElic IXnGs

G
Whe conWracW is noW e[cepWeG XnGer 7e[. *
Code 2274.003 of SB 19 (87 th leg.); and (e) governmental entity has determined that company is not a sole-sourc e provider or governmental entity has not received any bids from a company that is able to provide this written verifica t Whe IolloZing cerWiIicaWion shall appl\
oWherZise, Whis cerWiI icaWion is noW reTXireG. PXrsXanW Wo 7e[. *oY¶W &oGe &h. SB 19 (87th session), the company hereby certifies and verifies that the c ompany, or association, corporation, partn e joint venture, limited partnership, limited liability partnersh ip, or limited liability company, including a wholly owned su b majority-owned subsidiary parent company, or affiliate of these entities or associations, that exists to make a profit, d o have a practice, policy, guidance, or directive that discrimina tes against a firearm entity or firearm trade association a not discriminate during the term of this contract against a fir earm entity or firearm trade association. For purposes of conWracW, ³GiscriPinaWe againsW a IirearP enWiW\ or IirearP Wra Ge associaWion´ shall Pean, ZiWh respecW Wo Whe enWiW\ or associaWion, Wo
³

reIXse Wo engage in Whe WraGe oI an\ gooG s or serYices ZiWh Whe enWiW\ or associaWion EaseG solel \ status as a firearm entity or firearm trade association; (2) re frain from continuing an existing business relationship wi t entity or association based solely on its status as a firearm e ntity or firearm trade association; or (3) terminate an exi s business relationship with the entity or association based sole ly on its status as a firearm entity or firearm trade association. See 7e[. *oY¶W &oGe .

oI 6%
. ³DiscriPinaWion againsW a IirearP enWiW\ or IirearP WraGe associaWion´ Goes noW inclXGe
³

Whe esWaElisheG policies oI a PerchanW, reWail seller, or plaWIorP WhaW resWricW or pro h lisWing or selling oI aPPXniWion, IirearPs, or IirearP accessor ies anG

a coPpan\¶s reIXsal Wo engage in Whe WraGe o
goods or services, decision to refrain from continuing an exist ing business relationship, or decision to terminate an e x business relationship to comply with federal, state, or local l aw, policy, or regulations or a directive by a regulatory ag or for any traditional business reason that is specific to the customer or potential customer and not based solely on a enWiW\¶s or associaWion¶s sWaWXs as a IirearP enWiW\ or IirearP WraGe associaWion.´ See 7e[. *oY¶W &oGe 2274.001(3) o

19. 1
0 2

CERTIFICATION REGARDING CERTAIN FOREIGN-OWNED COMPANIES IN CONNECTION WITH CRITICA INFRASTRUCTURE (Texas law as of September 1, 2021)
By submitting a proposal to this Solicitation, you certify that you agree to the following required by Texas as of September 1, 2021:

Proposing Company is prohibited from entering into a contract o r other agreement relating to critical infrastructure th would grant to the company direct or remote access to or contro l of critical infrastructure in this state, excluding acce s
specifically allowed by the Proposing Company for product warra nty and support purposes. Company, certifies that n it nor its parent company nor any affiliate of company or its p arent company, is (1) owned by or the majority of stock o other ownership interest of the company is held or controlled b y individuals who are citizens of China, Iran, North Kor Russia, or a designated country; (2) a company or other entity, including governmental entity, that is owned or contr o citizens of or is directly controlled by the government of Chin a, Iran, North Korea, Russia, or a designated country; o r heaGTXarWereG in &hina, Iran, 1orWh .orea, 5Xssia, or a Gesigna WeG coXnWr\. )or pXrposes oI Whis conWracW, ³criWical inIrasWrXcWXre´ Peans ³a coPPXnicaWion inIrasWrXcWXre s\sWeP, c \EersecXriW\ s\sWeP, elecWric griG, ha]arGoXs ZasWe WreaWPenW s\sWeP, or ZaWer WreaWPenW IaciliW\.´ See 7e[. *oY¶W &oGe 2274.0101(2) of SB 1226 (87 th leg.). The com p verifies and certifies that company will not grant direct or re mote access to or control of critical infrastructure, except f product warranty and support purposes, to prohibited individual s, companies, or entities, including governmental ent i owned, controlled, or headquartered in China, Iran, North Korea , Russia, or a designated country, as determined by t Governor.
1 0
3 Acknowledgement
By submitting this proposal, Vendor certifies that it has read, examined, and understands all portions of this soli c including but not limited to all attribute questions, attachmen ts, solicitation documents, bid notes, and the V Agreement(s). Vendor certifies that, if found to be necessary by the proposing vendor, vendor has sought the a d counsel in understanding all portions of the solicitation.

Page 29 of 30 ends

Page 30 of 30 ends

REFERENCES
Please provide three (3) references
from three different entities,
preferably from school districts or
other governmental entities who
have used your services within
the last three years. Additional
references may be required. DO

NOT INCLUDE TIPS EMPLOYEES AS A
REFERENCE.

Verify your references emails are
deliverable and that they agree to
provide a reference. Failure to do
this may delay the evaluation
process.

You may provide more than three (3) references.

Entity Name Contact Person VALID EMAIL IS REQUIRED Phone NM State Police Dennis Gold [email protected] 505-629-5348 Bernalillo County Sheriffs Office Ray Perea [email protected] 505-659-9343 Navajo Nation Martin Page [email protected] 928-637-5891 TIPS RFP 220304 Transportation Vehicles
480
481
d/W^Z&Wη

ZĞƋƵŝƌĞĚŽŶĨŝĚĞŶƚŝĂů/ŶĨŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶ^ƚĂƚƵƐ&Žƌŵ

EĂŵĞŽĨĐŽŵƉĂŶǇ

WƌŝŶƚĞĚEĂŵĞĂŶĚdŝƚůĞŽĨƵƚŚŽƌŝǌĞĚŽŵƉĂŶǇKĨĨŝĐĞƌĚĞĐůĂƌŝŶŐďĞůŽǁƚŚĞĐŽŶĨŝĚĞŶƚŝĂůƐƚĂƚƵƐŽĨŵĂƚĞƌŝĂů

ĚĚƌĞƐƐ ŝƚǇ ^ƚĂƚĞ /W WŚŽŶĞ
>>s
EKZ^Dh^dKDW>
d
d,
Ks
^
d/KE

KE&/
Ed/>/E&KZDd/KE^hD/dd
/EZ
^WKE^
dKKDW
d/d/s
WZKhZ
D
EdZ
Yh
^d^K&
hd/KE^
Zs/

Ed
ZZ
'/KEϴEd/W^
;
^ϴͿ/^'Ks
ZE
zd
y^'Ks
ZED
EdK
͕,Wd
ZϱϱϮ

/ĨǇŽƵĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌĂŶǇƉŽƌƚŝŽŶŽĨǇŽƵƌƉƌŽƉŽƐĂůƚŽďĞĐŽŶĨŝĚĞŶƚŝĂů ĂŶĚŶŽƚƐƵďũĞĐƚƚŽƉƵďůŝĐĚŝƐĐůŽƐƵƌĞƉƵƌƐƵĂŶƚƚŽŚĂƉƚĞƌϱϱϮd ĞǆĂƐ'Žǀ͛ƚŽĚĞŽƌŽƚŚĞƌůĂǁ;ƐͿ͕ ǇŽƵŵƵƐƚĂƚƚĂĐŚĂĐŽƉǇŽĨĂůůĐůĂŝŵĞĚĐŽŶĨŝĚĞŶƚŝĂůŵĂƚĞƌŝĂůƐƚŽ ƚŚŝƐKDW> d
ĨŽƌŵ͕ŶĂŵĞƚŚĞĐŽŵďŝŶĞĚW&ĚŽĐƵŵĞŶƚƐ͞KE&/
E d/>͕͟ĂŶĚƵƉůŽĂĚ
ƚŚĞĐŽŵďŝŶĞĚ͕ĐŽŶĨŝĚĞŶƚŝĂůĚŽĐƵŵĞŶƚƐǁŝƚŚǇŽƵƌƉƌŽƉŽƐĂůƐƵďŵŝƐƐŝŽŶ͘/ĨĂĚŽĐƵŵĞŶƚŝƐŶŽƚĂƚƚĂĐŚĞĚ͕ŝƚǁŝůůŶŽƚďĞĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌĞĚĐŽŶĨŝĚĞŶƚŝĂů͘dŚĞĐŽƉǇƵƉůŽĂĚĞĚ ǁŝůůďĞƚŚĞƐŽůĞŝŶĚŝĐĂƚŽƌŽĨǁŚŝĐŚŵĂƚĞƌŝĂůŝŶǇŽƵƌƉƌŽƉŽƐĂů͕ŝĨĂŶǇ͕ǇŽƵĚĞĞŵĐŽŶĨŝĚĞŶƚŝĂůŝŶƚŚĞĞǀĞŶƚd/W^ͬ ^ϴƌĞĐĞŝǀĞƐĂWƵďůŝĐ/ŶĨŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶZĞƋƵĞƐƚ͘/Ĩ
^
ϴƌĞĐĞŝǀĞƐĂƌĞƋƵĞƐƚ͕ĂŶǇƌĞƐƉŽŶƐŝǀĞĚŽĐƵŵĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶŶŽƚĚĞĞŵĞĚĐ ŽŶĨŝĚĞŶƚŝĂůďǇǇŽƵŝŶƚŚŝƐŵĂŶŶĞƌǁŝůůďĞĂƵƚŽŵĂƚŝĐĂůůǇƌĞůĞĂƐĞ Ě͘&ŽƌĚŽĐƵŵĞŶƚƐĚĞĞŵĞĚ ĐŽŶĨŝĚĞŶƚŝĂůďǇǇŽƵŝŶƚŚŝƐŵĂŶŶĞƌ͕
^ϴĂŶĚd/W^ǁŝůůĨŽůůŽǁƉ ƌŽĐĞĚƵƌĞƐŽĨĐŽŶƚƌŽůůŝŶŐƐƚĂƚƵƚĞ;ƐͿƌĞŐĂƌĚŝŶŐĂŶǇĐůĂŝŵŽĨĐŽŶĨ ŝĚĞŶƚŝĂůŝƚǇĂŶĚƐŚĂůůŶŽƚďĞůŝĂďůĞ ĨŽƌĂŶǇƌĞůĞĂƐĞŽĨŝŶĨŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĚďǇůĂǁ͕ŝŶĐůƵĚŝŶŐƚƚŽƌŶĞǇ'ĞŶĞƌĂůĚĞƚĞƌŵŝŶĂƚŝŽŶ͘EŽƚǁŝƚŚƐƚĂŶĚŝŶŐĂŶǇŽƚŚĞƌŝŶĨŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĚŝŶƚŚŝƐƐŽůŝĐŝƚĂƚŝŽŶ Žƌ sĞŶĚŽƌ ĚĞƐŝŐŶĂƚŝŽŶ ŽĨ ĐĞƌƚĂŝŶ ĚŽĐƵŵĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶ ĂƐ ĐŽŶĨŝĚĞŶƚŝĂůŽƌ ƉƌŽƉƌŝĞƚĂƌǇ͕ sĞŶĚŽƌ͛Ɛ ĂĐĐĞƉƚĂŶĐĞ ŽĨ ƚŚŝƐ d/W^ sĞŶĚŽƌ ŐƌĞĞŵĞŶƚ ĐŽŶƐƚŝƚƵƚĞƐ sĞŶĚŽƌ͛Ɛ ĐŽŶƐĞŶƚƚŽƚŚĞĚŝƐĐůŽƐƵƌĞŽĨsĞŶĚŽƌ͛ƐĐŽŵƉƌĞŚĞŶƐŝǀĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĂů͕ŝŶĐůƵĚŝŶŐĂŶǇŝŶĨŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶĚĞĞŵĞĚĐŽŶĨŝĚĞŶƚŝĂůŽƌƉƌŽƉƌŝĞƚĂƌǇ͕ƚŽd/W^DĞŵďĞƌƐ͘dŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƐŝŶŐ sĞŶĚŽƌĂŐƌĞĞƐƚŚĂƚd/W^ƐŚĂůůŶŽƚďĞƌĞƐƉŽŶƐŝďůĞŽƌůŝĂďůĞĨŽƌĂŶǇƵƐĞŽƌĚŝƐƚƌŝďƵƚŝŽŶŽĨŝŶĨŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶŽƌĚŽĐƵŵĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶďǇd/W^DĞŵďĞƌƐŽƌĂŶǇŽƚŚĞƌƉĂƌƚǇ͘ >>s
EKZ^Dh^dKDW>
d
KE
K&d,
dtKKWd/KE^
>Kt

KWd/KEϭ͗
/ K >/D ƉĂƌƚƐ ŽĨ ŵǇ ƉƌŽƉŽƐĂů ƚŽďĞ ĐŽŶĨŝĚĞŶƚŝĂůĂŶĚKEKdĚĞƐŝƌĞƚŽĞǆƉƌĞƐƐůǇǁĂŝǀĞ ĂĐůĂŝŵŽĨĐŽŶĨŝĚĞŶƚŝĂůŝƚǇŽĨ ĂůůŝŶĨŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶĐŽŶƚĂŝŶĞĚǁŝƚŚŝŶŽƵƌƌĞƐƉŽŶƐĞƚŽƚŚĞƐŽůŝĐŝƚĂƚŝ ŽŶ͘dŚĞĂƚƚĂĐŚĞĚĐŽŶƚĂŝŶƐŵĂƚĞƌŝĂůĨƌŽŵŽƵƌƉƌŽƉŽƐĂůƚŚĂƚ/ ĐůĂƐƐŝĨǇ ĂŶĚ ĚĞĞŵ ĐŽŶĨŝĚĞŶƚŝĂůƵŶĚĞƌ dĞǆĂƐ 'ŽǀΖƚ ŽĚĞ ^ĞĐ͘ ϱϱϮ Žƌ ŽƚŚĞƌ ůĂǁ;ƐͿ ĂŶĚ / ŝŶǀŽŬĞ ŵǇ ƐƚĂƚƵƚŽƌǇ ƌŝŐŚƚƐƚŽ ĐŽŶĨŝĚĞŶƚŝĂůƚƌĞĂƚŵĞŶƚŽĨƚŚĞĞŶĐůŽƐĞĚŵĂƚĞƌŝĂůƐ͘
/& >/D/E'WZd^ K& zKhZ WZKWK^>KE&/
Ed/>͕zKh Dh^d dd, d,
^,

d^ dK d,/^&KZDE>/^dd,

EhD
ZKddKd>W'
^d,dZ
KE&/
Ed/>͘

dd,
Z
KW/
^K& W'
^ K& >/D
KE&/
Ed/>Dd
Z/>&ZKD KhZ WZKWK^>d,d
t

DdK
EKdWh>//E&KZDd/KEEt/>>
&
Ed,d>/DdKd,
d
y^ddKZE
z'
E
Z>/&Z
Yh
^d

t,
EWh>//E&KZDd/KEZ
Yh
^d/^D
&KZKhZWZKWK^>͘

^ŝŐŶĂƚƵƌĞ ĂƚĞ

ͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲ KZͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲ KWd/KEϮ͗
/KEKd>/D ĂŶǇŽĨŵǇƉƌŽƉŽƐĂůƚŽďĞĐŽŶĨŝĚĞŶƚŝĂů͕ĐŽŵƉůĞƚĞƚŚĞƐĞĐƚŝŽŶďĞůŽǁ͘

ǆƉƌĞƐƐtĂŝǀĞƌ͗/ĚĞƐŝƌĞƚŽĞǆƉƌĞƐƐůǇǁĂŝǀĞ ĂŶǇĐůĂŝŵŽĨĐŽŶĨŝĚĞŶƚŝĂůŝƚǇĂƐƚŽĂŶǇĂŶĚĂůůŝŶĨŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶĐŽŶƚ ĂŝŶĞĚǁŝƚŚŝŶ ŽƵƌ ƌĞƐƉŽŶƐĞƚŽƚŚĞĐŽŵƉĞƚŝƚŝǀĞƉƌŽĐƵƌĞŵĞŶƚƉƌŽĐĞƐƐ;Ğ͘Ő͘Z&W͕^W͕ ŝĚ͕Z&Y͕ĞƚĐ͘ͿďǇĐŽŵƉůĞƚŝŶŐƚŚĞ ĨŽůůŽǁŝŶŐĂŶĚƐƵďŵŝƚƚŝŶŐ ƚŚŝƐƐŚĞĞƚǁŝƚŚŽƵƌƌĞƐƉŽŶƐĞƚŽ
ĚƵĐĂƚŝŽŶ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞĞŶƚĞƌZĞŐŝŽŶϴĂŶĚd/W^͘

^ŝŐŶĂƚƵƌĞ ĂƚĞ

ŽŶĨŝĚĞŶƚŝĂůŝƚǇůĂŝŵ&ŽƌŵZĞǀϭϬϮϵϮϬϮϭ^Z
3KLO /RQJ 'HDOHUVKLSV ,QF
5KHWW 0 %XWOHU
: 7XIWV $YH /LWWOHWRQ &2
5KHWW0%XWOHU
'LJLWDOO\VLJQHGE\5KHWW0%XWOHU
'DWH

482
All Factory Warranties as provided by each Manufacturer. Exact factory warranty will be provided with quote.
483
1Jan 26, 2024
Jan 26, 2024
Qty.

Ord. Item / Vendor Part Number Description Unit Price Extended Price Reference PO Number Customer No. Salesperson Order Date Ship Via Terms Sold To: Ship To:

Quotation Date Page
Order Number
2023-24 Patrol Utility MUR11102 PT NET30
QTE0037088
AEP California
10729 Wheatlands Ave. Suite C
Santee, CA 92071
(619) 596-1925Phone:
(619) 596-1909Fax:

Murrieta Police Department
2 Town Square
email invoices to: [email protected]
Murrieta, California 92562
Murrieta Police Department
2 Town Square
email invoices to: [email protected]
Murrieta, California, 92562
Make ModelYear Color
2023/24 Ford Utility
State Contract #
NA
Tax
Agency Contact: Lt Don Weller
***Siren/ Lightbar Package***

1.00 LBAR03993 SoundOff mPower 55" Lightbar, R/B/W Front, R/B/A Rear, 20+ P
2,673.1700 2,673.17EMPLB00V9R-2EC/ Y
- EMPLB00ZLR-033 SO Quote # QSF007736

1.00 SIRE00632 500 Series bluePRINT Siren, Remote Push Button, 200-Watts
1,042.8000 1,042.80ENGSA5200RSP/ Y

1.00 VACC02609 bluePRINT Link Micro Module 2021 PIU 343.2000 343.20ENGLMK008/ Y

2.00 SPEA00253 100 Watt Composite Siren Speaker with Universal Bail Bracket
248.5000 497.00ETSS100J5/ Y

2.00 BKRT00082 Soundoff ETSS100N behind grille mounting brkt for 2020+ PI-S

43.4300 86.86ETSSVBK01/ Y

1.00 BKRT00092 Electronics Mounting Plate SOS, DRV 1/4 Panel, 20+ Utility
135.0000 135.00PIU20-EQUIP-001/ Y

1.00 BKRT00093 Radio T/R Mounting Bracket, OEM Cubby Pocket, 20+ Utility

40.0000 40.00PIU20-RADIO-KIT/ Y

1.00 VACC02945 StarTech.com 3 ft Panel Mount USB Cable B to B - F/M - Panel

15.0000 15.00B00FSYBKPM/ Y
Quotation continued on next page ...

PB#INFO EmailPB#Assign EmailTo, [email protected] 484 2Jan 26, 2024
Jan 26, 2024
Qty.

Ord. Item / Vendor Part Number Description Unit Price Extended Price Reference PO Number Customer No. Salesperson Order Date Ship Via Terms Sold To: Ship To:

Quotation Date Page
Order Number
2023-24 Patrol Utility MUR11102 PT NET30
QTE0037088
AEP California
10729 Wheatlands Ave. Suite C
Santee, CA 92071
(619) 596-1925Phone:
(619) 596-1909Fax:

1.00 SIRE00566 bluePRINT SYNC Module with Antenna 279.0000 279.00ENGSYMD01/ Y ***Driver/Passenger Bumper/Grill Mounted Lighting***

1.00 LEDS04374 3-Wire mPower 3" Facia Quick Mount LED, 12-LED, Red/White
104.6300 104.63EMPSCG1QMS3D/ Y

1.00 LEDS04375 3-Wire mPower 3" Facia Quick Mount LED, 12-LED, Blue/White
104.6300 104.63EMPSCG1QMS3E/ Y

1.00 LEDS04175 3-Wire mPower Fascia LED, Stud Mount, 12-LED, Red/White
134.7500 134.75EMPSCG2STS4D/ Y

1.00 LEDS03901 3-Wire mPower Fascia LED, Stud Mount, 12-LED, Blue/White
134.7500 134.75EMPSCG2STS4E/ Y

1.00 PATC00288 Bumper Harness, bluePRINT 500 w/3-Wire Dual, Universal
116.0000 116.00FT-UNV-SOB5-BUM-02/ Y

1.00 PATC00290 bluePRINT 500 w/3-Wire LED Extension Dual, Universal 64.0000 64.00FT-UNV-SOB5-3WR-01/ Y

1.00 PATC00289 Speaker Harness, SoundOff, Universal 24.0000 24.00FT-UNV-SOB5-SPK-01/ Y ***Headlight Housing LED's***

1.00 LEDS03676 Universal Under Cover LED Insert, 5-Wire, Red/White 91.3000 91.30ELUC3H010D/ Y (Driver side headlight assemble)
Quotation continued on next page ...

PB#INFO EmailPB#Assign EmailTo, [email protected] 485 3Jan 26, 2024
Jan 26, 2024
Qty.

Ord. Item / Vendor Part Number Description Unit Price Extended Price Reference PO Number Customer No. Salesperson Order Date Ship Via Terms Sold To: Ship To:

Quotation Date Page
Order Number
2023-24 Patrol Utility MUR11102 PT NET30
QTE0037088
AEP California
10729 Wheatlands Ave. Suite C
Santee, CA 92071
(619) 596-1925Phone:
(619) 596-1909Fax:

1.00 LEDS03657 Universal Under Cover LED Insert, 5-Wire, Blue/White 91.3000 91.30ELUC3H010E/ Y (Passenger side headlight assemble)

2.00 LEDS02981 Twist-In UC LED Collar Kit 3.3000 6.60PLUCTCL1/ Y (Twist Locks for UC LED's)
Note: Wig/Wag Flash Via bluePRINT and FasTech
Harness
***Under Mirror LED's***

1.00 LEDS04175 3-Wire mPower Fascia LED, Stud Mount, 12-LED, Red/White
134.7500 134.75EMPSCG2STS4D/ Y

1.00 LEDS03901 3-Wire mPower Fascia LED, Stud Mount, 12-LED, Blue/White
134.7500 134.75EMPSCG2STS4E/ Y

2.00 BKRT00113 Under Mirror Bracket, mPower/Intersector, 20+ Utility, Each

22.5000 45.00PMP2BKUMB4/ Y

2.00 VACC02904 bluePRINT 500 w/3-Wire LED Extension Single (Mirror), Univer

22.4000 44.80FT-UNV-SOB5-3WR-02/ Y
***Rear 1/4 Window LED's***

1.00 LEDS04175 3-Wire mPower Fascia LED, Stud Mount, 12-LED, Red/White
134.7500 134.75EMPSCG2STS4D/ Y
Quotation continued on next page ...

PB#INFO EmailPB#Assign EmailTo, [email protected] 486 4Jan 26, 2024
Jan 26, 2024
Qty.

Ord. Item / Vendor Part Number Description Unit Price Extended Price Reference PO Number Customer No. Salesperson Order Date Ship Via Terms Sold To: Ship To:

Quotation Date Page
Order Number
2023-24 Patrol Utility MUR11102 PT NET30
QTE0037088
AEP California
10729 Wheatlands Ave. Suite C
Santee, CA 92071
(619) 596-1925Phone:
(619) 596-1909Fax:

1.00 LEDS03901 3-Wire mPower Fascia LED, Stud Mount, 12-LED, Blue/White
134.7500 134.75EMPSCG2STS4E/ Y

2.00 LEDS03567 4" mPower 25-90 degree Glass Mount/Shroud, Black 22.5000 45.00PMP2WSSSB/ Y Qtr Glass Mount

2.00 PATC00311 bluePRINT 500 w/3-Wire LED Extension, 24", Universal 51.2000 102.40FT-UNV-SOB5-3WR-03/ Y ***Rear License Plate and Gate Open LED's***

2.00 LEDS04369 3-Wire mPower 4" Fascia LED, QM, 18-LED, Red/Blue/White
149.6000 299.20EMPSCG2QMS5RBW/ Y

2.00 LEDS04370 3-Wire mPower 3" Fascia LED, SM, 8-LED, Red/Blue 120.4000 240.80EMPSCG1SLS3J/ Y

1.00 PATC00292 Liftgate Harness, bluePRINT 500 w/3-Wire, 20+ Utility 184.0000 184.00FT-F01-SOB5-LFT-01/ Y ***Tail Light LED's***

2.00 LEDS03674 Universal Under Cover LED Insert, 5-Wire, Blue 91.3000 182.60ELUC3H010B/ Y

2.00 LEDS02981 Twist-In UC LED Collar Kit 3.3000 6.60PLUCTCL1/ Y Note: Tail Light Flash Via bluePRINT and FasTech
Harness
***Rear Under Spoiler LED's***
Quotation continued on next page ...

PB#INFO EmailPB#Assign EmailTo, [email protected] 487 5Jan 26, 2024
Jan 26, 2024
Qty.

Ord. Item / Vendor Part Number Description Unit Price Extended Price Reference PO Number Customer No. Salesperson Order Date Ship Via Terms Sold To: Ship To:

Quotation Date Page
Order Number
2023-24 Patrol Utility MUR11102 PT NET30
QTE0037088
AEP California
10729 Wheatlands Ave. Suite C
Santee, CA 92071
(619) 596-1925Phone:
(619) 596-1909Fax:

2.00 LEDS03996 3-Wire mPower Fascia LED, Stud Mount, 18-LED, Red/Blue/White
149.6000 299.20EMPSCG2STS5RBW/ Y

1.00 BKRT00074 Under Spoiler mPower Bracket, 1-Module, 2020 Utility 44.5000 44.50PMP2RS101/ Y

1.00 PATC00294 2-Mod Spoiler Harness, bluePRINT 500 w/3-Wire, 20+ Utility

89.6000 89.60FT-F01-SOB5-SPO-02/ Y
***FasTech Harness/ Electrical System***

1.00 PATC00287 Primary Harness, bluePRINT 500 w/3-Wire, 20+ Utility 1,488.0000 1,488.00FT-F01-SOB5-PRI-02/ Y

1.00 PATC00291 Underhood Harness, bluePRINT 500 w/3-Wire, 20+ Utility
196.5000 196.50FT-F01-SOB5-UND-02/ Y

1.00 VACC02241 RJ45 Splitter, 1-Male to 3-Female, Use for BP

SYNC/LINK/CP

24.7000 24.70B07PPLK8L4/ Y

1.00 VACC01714 Switch, Idle Security, Off-On 15.3000 15.30AEP-SW-IDLE/ Y

1.00 VACC00342 Toggle Switch, Off-On, SPST.. 12.0000 12.0013-100/ Y

1.00 VACC01453 Switch Label Plaque, "Cargo Dome, Door-Off" 9.0000 9.00AEP-LABEL-CARGO-DOME/ Y

1.00 LIGH00331 6" LED Dome Light, Red/White, 110 Lumens (Rear Lift Gate)

57.4000 57.40M84434RW-A/ Y
Quotation continued on next page ...

PB#INFO EmailPB#Assign EmailTo, [email protected] 488 6Jan 26, 2024
Jan 26, 2024
Qty.

Ord. Item / Vendor Part Number Description Unit Price Extended Price Reference PO Number Customer No. Salesperson Order Date Ship Via Terms Sold To: Ship To:

Quotation Date Page
Order Number
2023-24 Patrol Utility MUR11102 PT NET30
QTE0037088
AEP California
10729 Wheatlands Ave. Suite C
Santee, CA 92071
(619) 596-1925Phone:
(619) 596-1909Fax:

1.00 CONS01598 "Short" Console Package w/ Cup, 10"/4.5", 20+ Utility 490.0000 490.007170-0735-00/ Y

1.00 FACE00845 Console Faceplate for SoundOff 500-Series Remote Siren, 3.5"

0.0000 0.0020032/ N

1.00 FACE00177 FP- Motorola APX8500, 3" 0.0000 0.007160-0322/ N PL 2013-05-15

1.00 FACE00735 Console Faceplate w/ (6) Switch Knock-Outs, 2" 0.0000 0.0015083/ N

1.00 FACE00794 Console Filler Plate, 1.5" 0.0000 0.0018492/ N

1.00 CONS00354 Arm Rest, Adjustable 180.0000 180.00C-ARM-104/ Y PB 2012-09-01

1.00 VACC01539 Dual USB 2.4A Charger for Contura SW Cut-Out 18.0000 18.0011019/ Y

1.00 VACC01101 DC Power Port 3.0500 3.0511010/ Y

1.00 VACC01102 DC Power Port Cap 0.6800 0.6811011/ Y

2.00 CONS01276 Magnetic Microphone Mount 37.9500 75.90MMBP-25/ Y Quotation continued on next page ...

PB#INFO EmailPB#Assign EmailTo, [email protected] 489 7Jan 26, 2024
Jan 26, 2024
Qty.

Ord. Item / Vendor Part Number Description Unit Price Extended Price Reference PO Number Customer No. Salesperson Order Date Ship Via Terms Sold To: Ship To:

Quotation Date Page
Order Number
2023-24 Patrol Utility MUR11102 PT NET30
QTE0037088
AEP California
10729 Wheatlands Ave. Suite C
Santee, CA 92071
(619) 596-1925Phone:
(619) 596-1909Fax:

1.00 LIGH00331 6" LED Dome Light, Red/White, 110 Lumens 57.4000 57.40M84434RW-A/ Y ***Computer Mount***

1.00 COMP01579 Docking Station for Getac V110, No RF 925.0000 925.007160-0515-00/ Y

1.00 COMP02020 7300-0463 Lind 90W Automobile Power Adapter for Getac
130.0000 130.007300-0463/ Y

1.00 CONS01686 On-Dash Mount w/ 3" Ext Arm, 2020+ Ford Utility 340.0000 340.007160-1346-01/ Y

1.00 COMP01598 KeyboardTray, Low Profile, Quick Release 138.6000 138.607160-0857/ Y

1.00 CONS01634 Mongoose XLE 9" Motion Attachment 392.0000 392.007160-1216-09/ Y

1.00 COMP01749 TG3 Mobile Keyboard w/ Touch Pad, USB Coiled Cord 267.6900 267.69KBA-BLTX-UCNNR-US/ Y

1.00 INST05717 Cat7 Double Shielded Ethernet Cable, Black, 25' (CP-DK)

22.0000 22.0031361/ Y
***Data Antenna Cadlepoint R1900 Router***

1.00 ANTE01141 Panorama 7-in-1 (5G) Dual Sharkee 483.8900 483.89GP-IN2680/ Y

1.00 ANTE01135 Ribbed Roof mounting kit for GPSD4 Dual Sharkee, Silicone fo

41.9000 41.90SAB-324-2/ Y
Quotation continued on next page ...

PB#INFO EmailPB#Assign EmailTo, [email protected] 490 8Jan 26, 2024
Jan 26, 2024
Qty.

Ord. Item / Vendor Part Number Description Unit Price Extended Price Reference PO Number Customer No. Salesperson Order Date Ship Via Terms Sold To: Ship To:

Quotation Date Page
Order Number
2023-24 Patrol Utility MUR11102 PT NET30
QTE0037088
AEP California
10729 Wheatlands Ave. Suite C
Santee, CA 92071
(619) 596-1925Phone:
(619) 596-1909Fax:

1.00 ANTE01142 2.5/5.6 Dual Bnd 2dBi 1/2 Wave Portable Ant w/Reverse SMA

24.7800 24.78PSKN3-24/55RS/ Y
***Radio Antenna APX8500***

1.00 ANTE01088 Sharkee Antenna for Motorola APX-8500 Tri-Band w/ QMA
400.0000 400.00GPSBAX-TRI-MOT-5/ Y

1.00 VACC00721 Motorola XTL/APX Radio Control Head Cable, (Blue Ring), 5M

99.0000 99.00HKN6169B/ Y
***Prisoner Transport***

1.00 PRIS01937 10XL C2 Partition, Recessed, Poly Sliding, TM, 2020 Utility
940.7200 940.72PK1186ITU20-TM/ Y

1.00 PRIS01938 Transport Seat w/Poly Partition, Center Belts, 2020 Utility
1,407.1200 1,407.12QK0566ITU20/ Y

1.00 PRIS01939 Window Barriers, Steel Horizontal Bars, 2020 Utility 289.5200 289.52WK0514ITU20H/ Y

2.00 DOME00054 Silho-X 4 Round Neutral White/Red Light SS Trim Ring 35.8700 71.74E06-LS0R-1/ Y

1.00 VACC01661 Rear Dome Light Color Select Switch, On-On, V-Series 15.3000 15.30AEP-SW-DOME3/ Y

1.00 VACC01450 Switch, Rear Dome Light, On-Door-Off 15.3000 15.30AEP-SW-DOME1/ Y Quotation continued on next page ...

PB#INFO EmailPB#Assign EmailTo, [email protected] 491 9Jan 26, 2024
Jan 26, 2024
Qty.

Ord. Item / Vendor Part Number Description Unit Price Extended Price Reference PO Number Customer No. Salesperson Order Date Ship Via Terms Sold To: Ship To:

Quotation Date Page
Order Number
2023-24 Patrol Utility MUR11102 PT NET30
QTE0037088
AEP California
10729 Wheatlands Ave. Suite C
Santee, CA 92071
(619) 596-1925Phone:
(619) 596-1909Fax:

Murrieta Police Department
2 Town Square
email invoices to: [email protected]
Murrieta, California 92562
Murrieta Police Department
2 Town Square
email invoices to: [email protected]
Murrieta, California, 92562
Make ModelYear Color
2023/24 Ford Utility
State Contract #
NA
Tax
Note: Vehicle Equipped with OEM rear door block-off
plates
***Front Weapon Mount***

1.00 GUNM00747 Gun Rack Partition Mount, SC6 w/Barrel / SC1, #2 Key, 32"
648.0000 648.00GRPXXX6B1X232/ Y

1.00 GUNM00513 AR-15 Takedown Pin Guard 193.6000 193.60GUNMARTDPGRDBOM/ Y

2.00 VACC01684 Miniature Push Button Switch, Off-(on), 12V/5A 5.0000 10.0015-102/ Y

1.00 GUNM00616 Flash Light Charger Mounting Bracket (Gun Rack Mounted)

48.0000 48.00GRA-FLB1/ Y

1.00 FLGH00040 Streamlight SL20 Charge Sleeve 12.0000 12.0022052/ Y

1.00 FLGH00042 Streamlight Charge Cord, 12VDC 13.2000 13.2022051/ Y ***Rear Cargo Cover***

1.00 VACC02123 Setina 2 Drawer, Sliding, Top Combo Lock, Elevated, 2020 PIU
1,750.3200 1,750.32TK0841ITU20/ Y

1.00 PRIS02000 Window Barrier, VS, Rear Hatch and Side Windows, 2020 Utilit
430.3200 430.32WK0040ITU20/ Y
Quotation continued on next page ...

PB#INFO EmailPB#Assign EmailTo, [email protected] 492 10Jan 26, 2024
Jan 26, 2024
Qty.

Ord. Item / Vendor Part Number Description Unit Price Extended Price Reference PO Number Customer No. Salesperson Order Date Ship Via Terms Sold To: Ship To:

Quotation Date Page
Order Number
2023-24 Patrol Utility MUR11102 PT NET30
QTE0037088
AEP California
10729 Wheatlands Ave. Suite C
Santee, CA 92071
(619) 596-1925Phone:
(619) 596-1909Fax:

1.00 UTIL01516 Fire Extinguisher, 5lb ABC Dry Chem, Vehicle Mounting Bracke

58.0000 58.0025614/ Y

1.00 VACC01552 Heavy Duty Fire Extinguisher Mounting Bracket, Rubber Straps

55.0000 55.00862/ Y
***Radio Charger***

1.00 RADI00912 Endura Single Unit Radio Charger w/ Harris XG-100P 78.0000 78.00EC1M-HA2LI/ Y Endura Charger POD, Harris XG-100P Li-Ion or LiPo
Only

1.00 RADI00758 Hard Wire Power Kit for TWC1M Charger 30.0000 30.00TWC6M-HW/ Y Note: Install on Driver 1/4 Panel in Cargo Area
***Brake and Reverse Kill System (Black-Out)***

1.00 VACC02559 Covert Patrol for use with FasTech Harness, Ford Utility 495.0000 495.00COVP-PIUBP-KIT/ Y ***Graphics Package***

1.00 GRAP90001 Murrieta Police Graphics 425.0000 425.00Graphics/ Y ***Installation/ Freight***
Quotation continued on next page ...

PB#INFO EmailPB#Assign EmailTo, [email protected] 493 11Jan 26, 2024
Jan 26, 2024
Qty.

Ord. Item / Vendor Part Number Description Unit Price Extended Price Reference PO Number Customer No. Salesperson Order Date Ship Via Terms Sold To: Ship To:

Quotation Date Page
Order Number
2023-24 Patrol Utility MUR11102 PT NET30
QTE0037088
AEP California
10729 Wheatlands Ave. Suite C
Santee, CA 92071
(619) 596-1925Phone:
(619) 596-1909Fax:

50.00 LABO90001 Installation Labor Services 95.0000 4,750.00AEP INSTALL/ Y EVT-Certified Technician Labor

1.00 SHOP90006 Installation Materials / Shop Supplies 175.0000 175.00Shop Supplies/ Y ***Vehicle Transport and Freight/Shipping***
Vehicle Shipping to Murrieta PD ($190.00 per vehicle) 190.00N Parts Shipping Cost 250.00N
***Customer Supplied Equipment***

1.00 INST05685 Motorola APX-8500 Remote Radio 0.0000 0.00CSM/ N 28,617.80
26,350.62
2,267.18
Subtotal
Total sales tax
Total order
Order Discount 0.00
Parts
Labor / Services
Thank you for the opportunity to earn your business
Terms & Conditions:
· ESTIMATES VALID FOR 30 DAYS
· Orders will be invoiced upon notification of completion · Returns subject to 25% restocking fee. No returns on special order items.
· Credit Card payments accepted for payments of orders/invoicing totaling $10,000 or less only.

SIGNATURE (not required if PO/contract is issued)
PB#INFO EmailPB#Assign EmailTo, [email protected]
Trans / Trip / Fee
20,735.62
5,175.00
Shipping 440.00

0.00 494

CITY OF MURRIETA
City Council Meeting Agenda
Report
4/16/2024
Agenda Item No. 7.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Javier Carcamo, Finance Director
PREPARED BY: Paige Hartman-Salazar, Management Analyst - Special Projects SUBJECT:

Adoption of Development Impact Fees and Nexus Study

RECOMMENDATION
Conduct a Public Hearing related to updating the City’s Development Impact Fees; Adopt Resolution No. 24-4733 entitled: A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Murrieta, California, Approving an Update of the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee Schedule and Amending the City’s Fee Schedule; and
Adopt Resolution No. 24-4734 entitled: A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Murrieta, California, Adopting a Development Impact Fee Nexus Study, which Includes the Five-Year Fee Report (AB1600) for the Fiscal Year 2022/23 and Making Findings Required by the Mitigation Fee Act.

PRIOR ACTION/VOTE
On April 19, 2016, staff presented a status update on Development Impact Fees to the City Council in a Workshop (Non-Action).

On June 21, 2016, a public hearing was conducted where the City Council considered all reports, and public testimony on the matter and continued the item to the July 19, 2016 Regular Meeting (Vote:5-0).

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 for projects with entitlements no later than December 31, 2016 (Vote: 4-1).

On May 16, 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 (Vote: 5-0).

On February 20, 2024, staff presented a new Development Impact Fee Nexus Study and updated fee schedule to the City Council in a Workshop (Non-Action).

CITY OF MURRIETA Printed on 4/11/2024Page 1 of 8
powered by Legistar™
495
4/16/2024
Agenda Item No. 7.

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

BACKGROUND
History
A development impact fee (DIF) is a monetary exaction charged by a local government to a developer in connection with the implementation of an approved development project. DIFs can vary widely between jurisdictions 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 its DIF program to fund new public facilities and purchase equipment required to provide essential services required by the demands of new growth and development. As a part of this process 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 Financial Services (Willdan) to prepare an updated Master Facility Plan and an updated DIF 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 to conduct a Master Facilities Plan Update and Development Impact Fee Calculation Study. Staff presented a status update on DIF 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 DIF Schedule. Due to the cost increase, a phased-in approach was used for residential and office development for those issued entitlements no later than December 31, 2016.

Current Study
A Request for Proposals (RFP) for a Comprehensive DIF Study was advertised on February 10, 2023, with a submittal date of March 7, 2023. Willdan was awarded the agreement to conduct a new DIF 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, which went into effect on January 1, 2022, requires a nexus impact fee study to be completed at a minimum of every eight years and imposes new requirements for specific justifications on how fees are calculated. One of the new requirements in AB 602 is the use of a square footage-based fee for residential development rather than the current per-unit charge.

The following infrastructure categories are included in the City’s DIF program:

CITY OF MURRIETA Printed on 4/11/2024Page 2 of 8
powered by Legistar™
496
4/16/2024
Agenda Item No. 7.
• Law Enforcement
• Fire Protection
• Streets, Minor Bridges and Culverts
• Traffic Signals
• Storm Drainage
• General Facilities
• 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’suse 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 future 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 existing inventory approach is based on a facility standard derived from the City’sexisting level of facilities and existing demand for services. This approach results in no facility deficiencies attributable to existing development and was used to calculate the Fire Protection, Law Enforcement, General Facilities, Parks, and Community Center facilities fees.

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 facilities are needed to serve both existing and new developments. This approach allocates existing and planned facilities across existing and new developments to determine a 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.

CITY OF MURRIETA Printed on 4/11/2024Page 3 of 8
powered by Legistar™
497
4/16/2024
Agenda Item No. 7.

Workshop
On February 20, 2024, staff presented a report and presentation on the DIF Study and fee update to the City Council in a workshop and received public comments and direction from the City Council. Before the workshop, the City Clerk's Department notified interested parties with an active notice on file. Subsequent to the workshop, City staff received a letter of comment from the Desert Valley Builder Association, which can be found in Attachment 6. The City’s formal response addressing their observation can be found in Attachment 7.

Recommendation
Since the last study was conducted in 2016, various components of the DIF schedule no longer 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 California Construction Cost Index, increased by 47.7%.

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

For comparison purposes, Attachment 3 shows the current DIF amounts versus the updated proposed fees and the delta between the two in a fee per-square-foot measurement.

Staff also recommends several policy provisions, including a phase-in schedule for industrial and office DIF, grandfathering of fees for defined projects, and an annual inflation adjustment. During the DIF workshop, DIF credit policy was discussed as an alternative to a phase-in approach. At this moment, City staff does not recommend a DIF credit policy.

Grandfathering/Phasing
Staff is recommending a three-year phased-in plan for industrial and office fee types. Effective July 1, 2024, the industrial DIF will increase $1.017 per square foot per fiscal year until July 1, 2026. At that time, the industrial DIF will be established at the maximum justified fee of $4.68 per square foot. Similarly, the office DIF will increase $1.537 per square foot per fiscal year until July 1, 2026. At that time, the office DIF will be established at the maximum justified fee of $13.60 per square foot. The table below summarizes the proposed fee per fiscal year.

CITY OF MURRIETA Printed on 4/11/2024Page 4 of 8
powered by Legistar™
498
4/16/2024
Agenda Item No. 7.

In addition to the phasing plan, staff is proposing a grandfathering clause that allows for projects that meet the following criteria, to be allowed to pay the current DIF fees as established by the 2016 DIF Nexus Study. For projects that are currently in the plan check review phase with the Building and Safety Division by June 30, 2024, the developer/owner will be allowed to pay or prepay the Development Impact Fees until June 30, 2025.

Projects that are not in plan check review by June 30, 2024, are subject to pay the updated DIF in accordance with the 2024 DIF Nexus Study (Attachment 1). The updated fees will go into effect July 1, 2024, if approved by the City Council. Below is a snippet of Attachment 8 of this report which details the criteria for the grandfathering provision.

Residential Land Uses
Residential - Single Family (SF) · All projects that are in the plan check review phase with the Building & Safety Division, on or before 06/30/2024, may pay the Current (Adopted FY 2016/17) Fee. These projects will have until 06/30/2025, or upon the issuance of a building permit
(whichever occurs first), to pay/prepay their DIF fees. All projects that qualify will be notified. · Projects that are not in plan check review on or before 6/30/2024 or that have not paid/prepaid their DIF fees by 06/30/2025 are subject to paying the Updated Fee. · There will be no phasing for Single Family Residential projects.

Residential - Multi-Family (MF) · All projects that are in the plan check review phase with the Building & Safety Division, on or before 06/30/2024, may pay the Current (Adopted FY 2016/17) Fee. These projects will have until 06/30/2025, or upon the issuance of a building permit
(whichever occurs first), to pay/prepay their DIF fees. All projects that qualify will be notified. · Projects that are not in plan check review on or before 6/30/2024 or that have not paid/prepaid their DIF fees by 06/30/2025 are subject to paying the Updated Fee. · There will be no phasing for Multi-Family Residential projects.

SB 330 Residential Projects · Projects that follow the provisions of SB330 relative to fees for residential projects, that have filed a zoning application that was determined to be complete, have their development fees frozen for 30 months from the date of final approval.

Non-Residential Land Use
Commercial · All projects that are in the plan check review phase with the Building & Safety Division, on or before 06/30/2024, may pay the Current (Adopted FY 2016/17) Fee. These projects will have until 06/30/2025, or upon the issuance of a building permit
(whichever occurs first), to pay/prepay their DIF fees. All projects that qualify will be notified. · Projects that are not in plan check review on or before 6/30/2024 or that have not paid/prepaid their DIF fees by 06/30/2025 are subject to paying the Updated Fee. · There will be no phasing for Commercial projects.

Office · All projects that are in the plan check review phase with the Building & Safety Division, on or before 06/30/2024, may pay the Current (Adopted FY 2016/17) Fee. These projects will have until 06/30/2025, or upon the issuance of a building permit
(whichever occurs first), to pay/prepay their DIF fees. All projects that qualify will be notified. · Projects that are not in plan check review on or before 6/30/2024 or that have not paid/prepaid their DIF fees by 06/30/2025 are subject to paying the Updated Fee subject to the phase-in provisions below: · On 07/01/2024, *Phase 1 of the Updated Fee will be in effect (33.3% of the increase). · On 07/01/2025, *Phase 2 of the Updated Fee will be in effect (33.3% of the increase), with the potential for an inflation adjustment. · On 07/01/2026, *Phase 3 of the Updated Fee will be in effect (33.3% of the increase). This will be the final phase, with the potential for an inflation adjustment.

Industrial · All projects that are in the plan check review phase with the Building & Safety Division, on or before 06/30/2024, may pay the Current (Adopted FY 2016/17) Fee. These projects will have until 06/30/2025, or upon the issuance of a building permit
(whichever occurs first), to pay/prepay their DIF fees. All projects that qualify will be notified. · Projects that are not in plan check review on or before 6/30/2024 or that have not paid/prepaid their DIF fees by 06/30/2025 are subject to paying the Updated Fee subject to the phase-in provisions below: · On 07/01/2024, *Phase 1 of the Updated Fee will be in effect (33.3% of the increase). · On 07/01/2025, *Phase 2 of the Updated Fee will be in effect (33.3% of the increase), with the potential for an inflation adjustment. · On 07/01/2026, *Phase 3 of the Updated Fee will be in effect (33.3% of the increase). This will be the final phase, with the potential for an inflation adjustment.

CITY OF MURRIETA Printed on 4/11/2024Page 5 of 8
powered by Legistar™
499
4/16/2024
Agenda Item No. 7.

For residential projects that meet the requirements of the Housing Crisis Act, Senate Bill 330 (SB 330), these projects must follow the provisions of SB 330 relative to fees. SB 330 pertains to only residential projects and applicants must submit a preliminary application to lock in the current fees. Residential projects that have filed a preliminary application have 180 days to submit a full zoning application. Once the Planning Division has deemed the full application packet as complete fees will be frozen and applicants have 30 months from the date of final approval to begin construction. A detailed Information Bulletin, IB-215 on the Housing Crisis Act, SB 330, and IB-225, Pre-Application Process for SB 330, are available on the Planning Division’s webpage.

Inflation Adjustment
Going forward, the City Council will need to update the City’sfee schedule on an annual basis based on the California Construction Cost Index (CCCI). The change in the cost index will be evaluated on a January-to- January basis, as time is needed for the CCCI to be updated, taken to the City Council for approval, and the sixty-day requirement waiting period before an increase in fees can be implemented. City staff also recommends that the annual inflation adjustment be capped at a four (4) percent increase; therefore, the CITY OF MURRIETA Printed on 4/11/2024Page 6 of 8
powered by Legistar™
500
4/16/2024
Agenda Item No. 7.
recommends that the annual inflation adjustment be capped at a four (4) percent increase; therefore, the resulting inflation adjustment will either be the change in the recommended inflation index or four (4) percent, whichever is lower.

Public Notice and Notifications
A public notice was published on March 16, 2024, in the Press Enterprise and was made available for public review on March 18, 2024. The City Clerk's Department notified interested parties with an active notice on file.

A public notice was published on March 31, 2024, in the Press Enterprise and was made available for public review on April 1, 2024. The City Clerk's Department notified interested parties with an active notice on file.

In addition, on January 25, 2024 the Director of Finance delivered a presentation to the Development Advisory Group (DAG) on the DIF Study.

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 that 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.

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

It is also 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 further subsidize the remaining costs to construct needed facilities and maintain service levels. In other words, all of 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
There is no fiscal impact associated with the delivery and presentation of this report. The consulting work described was previously approved and budgeted in the FY 2022/23 operating budget. Adjusting the DIFs toward full cost recovery will positively impact the City’sCapital Improvement Budget revenue in order to have funding to complete the necessary projects, with the amount dependent on the level of development impact and type of project.

CITY OF MURRIETA Printed on 4/11/2024Page 7 of 8
powered by Legistar™
501
4/16/2024
Agenda Item No. 7.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Final Development Impact Fee Nexus Study (including 5-Year report)

2. Proposed New Development Impact Fee Schedule

3. Comparison Chart of Current and Proposed Fees with Difference

4. Notice for the Public Hearing to Adopt a new DIF Nexus Study

5. Notice for the DIF Schedule

6. Desert Valley Builder Association (DVBA) letter

7. City’s Formal Response to DVBA

8. Grandfathering/Phasing Schedule

9. Resolution No. 24-4733

10. Resolution No. 24-4734
CITY OF MURRIETA Printed on 4/11/2024Page 8 of 8
powered by Legistar™
502

CITY OF MURRIETA

DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY
UPDATE

FINAL

REVISED APRIL 5, 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

503

This page intentionally left blank.

504

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

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

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

3. LAW ENFORCEMENT FACILITIES ................................................. 16 Service Population 16
Existing Facility Inventory 16
Planned Facilities 17
Cost Allocation 18
Use of Fee Revenue 18
Fee Revenue Projection 18
Fee Schedule 19

4. FIRE PROTECTION FACILITIES .................................................... 21 Service Population 21
Existing Facility Inventory 21
Planned Facilities 22
Cost Allocation 23
Fee Revenue Projection 24
Fee Schedule 24

5. STREETS, MINOR BRIDGES & CULVERTS ..................................... 26 Trip Demand 26
Trip Growth 28
Level of Service 28
Project Costs 31
505
City of Murrieta Development Impact Fee Study Update
ii

Fee per Trip Demand Unit 35
Fee Schedule 35

6. TRAFFIC SIGNALS ..................................................................... 37 Project Costs and Cost Allocation 37
Fee per Trip Demand Unit 40
Fee Schedule 40

7. STORM DRAIN FACILITIES .......................................................... 42 Storm Drain Demand 42
EDU Generation by New Development 42
Planned Facilities 43
Cost per Equivalent Dwelling Unit 44
Fee Schedule 44

8. GENERAL FACILITIES ................................................................. 46 Service Population 46
Existing Facility Inventory 46
Planned Facilities 47
Cost Allocation 48
Fee Revenue Projection 48
Fee Schedule 49

9. PARK FACILITIES ....................................................................... 51 Service Population 51
Existing Park Facilities Inventory 51
Park Facilities Unit Costs 54
Preliminary Planned Park Improvements 55
Park Facility Standards 55
Mitigation Fee Act 56
City of Murrieta Park Facilities Standards 56
Facilities Needed to Accommodate New Development 56
Parks Cost per Capita 57
Use of Fee Revenue 58
Fee Schedule 58

10. COMMUNITY CENTER FACILITIES ................................................ 60 Service Population 60
Existing Facility Inventory 60
Planned Facilities 61
Cost Allocation 62
Fee Revenue Projection 62
Fee Schedule 63

11. LIBRARY FACILITIES .................................................................. 64 Service Population 64
Existing Facility Inventory 64
506
City of Murrieta Development Impact Fee Study Update
iii

Planned Facilities 65
Cost Allocation 65
Existing Level of Service 65
Future Level of Service 65
Use of Fee Revenue 66
Fee Revenue Projection 66
Fee Schedule 66

12. AB 602 REQUIREMENTS ............................................................ 68 Compliance with AB 602 68
66016.5. (a) (2) - Level of Service 68
66016.5. (a) (4) – Review of Original Fee Assumptions 69 66016.5. (a) (5) – Residential Fees per Square Foot 69
66016.5. (a) (6) – Capital Improvement Plan 69

13. IMPLEMENTATION ...................................................................... 70 Impact Fee Program Adoption Process 70
Inflation Adjustment 70
Reporting Requirements 70
Programming Revenues and Projects with the CIP 70
Reimbursements 70

14. MITIGATION FEE ACT FINDINGS .................................................. 72 Purpose of Fee 72
Use of Fee Revenues 72
Benefit Relationship 72
Burden Relationship 72
Proportionality 73
APPENDIX A ..................................................................................... A-1 APPENDIX B: FIVE YEAR MITIGATION FEE ACT FINDINGS ...................... B-1 Introduction B-1
Methodology B-1
Fund Balances B-2
Fire Protection Development Impact Fee B-4
Finding: Purpose of the Fee B-4
Finding: Reasonable Relationship B-4
Findings: Alternative Funding Sources and Timings B-4
Freeway Facilities Impact Fee B-6
Finding: Purpose of the Fee B-6
Finding: Reasonable Relationship B-6
Findings: Alternative Funding Sources and Timings B-6
General Facilities Impact Fee B-9
Finding: Purpose of the Fee B-9
Finding: Reasonable Relationship B-9
Findings: Alternative Funding Sources and Timings B-9
Law Enforcement Development Impact Fee B-11
Finding: Purpose of the Fee B-11
Finding: Reasonable Relationship B-11
507
City of Murrieta Development Impact Fee Study Update
iv

Findings: Alternative Funding Sources and Timings B-11
Library Facilities Impact Fee B-13
Finding: Purpose of the Fee B-13
Finding: Reasonable Relationship B-13
Findings: Alternative Funding Sources and Timings B-13
Open Space Impact Fee B-15
Finding: Purpose of the Fee B-15
Finding: Reasonable Relationship B-15
Findings: Alternative Funding Sources and Timings B-15
Parks Development Impact Fee B-17
Finding: Purpose of the Fee B-17
Finding: Reasonable Relationship B-17
Findings: Alternative Funding Sources and Timings B-17
Storm Drain Impact Fee B-22
Finding: Purpose of the Fee B-22
Finding: Reasonable Relationship B-22
Findings: Alternative Funding Sources and Timings B-22
Streets Impact Fee B-25
Finding: Purpose of the Fee B-25
Finding: Reasonable Relationship B-25
Findings: Alternative Funding Sources and Timings B-25
Traffic Signals Development Impact Fee B-30
Finding: Purpose of the Fee B-30
Finding: Reasonable Relationship B-30
Findings: Alternative Funding Sources and Timings B-30
Community Centers Impact Fee B-33
Finding: Purpose of the Fee B-33
Finding: Reasonable Relationship B-33
Findings: Alternative Funding Sources and Timings B-33
Freeways, Streets and Bridges Impact Fee B-35
Finding: Purpose of the Fee B-35
Finding: Reasonable Relationship B-35
Findings: Alternative Funding Sources and Timings B-35
508

5 Executive Summary
This report summarizes an analysis of development impact fees needed to support future development in The City 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 this analysis are 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 objective of a development impact fee program is to ensure that new development pays the capital costs associated with growth. The primary purpose of this report is to calculate and present fees that will enable the City to expand its inventory of public facilities, as new development creates increases in service demands.

The City imposes public facilities fees under authority granted by the Mitigation Fee Act (the Act), contained in California Government Code Sections 66000 et seq . Th is report provides the necessary findings required by the Act for adoption of the fees presented in the fee 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 can help the City identify and direct its fee revenue to public facilities projects that will accommodate future growth. By programming fee 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 the Mitigation Fee 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 services. This approach results in no facility deficiencies attributable to existing development. This approach is often used when a long -range plan for new facilities is not available. Only the initial facilities to be funded with fees are identified in the fee study. Future facilities to serve growth will be identified through the City’s annual capital improvement plan and budget process and/or completion of a new facility master plan. This approach is to calculate the 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 increase in demand associated with new development. This approach is appropriate when specific planned facilities that only benefit new development can be identified, or when the specific share of facilities benefiting new development can be identified. Examples include street improvements to avoid deficient levels of service or a sewer trunk line extension to 509
City of Murrieta Development Impact Fee Study Update
6 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 allocates existing and planned facilities across existing and new development to determine new development’s fair 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. Often the system plan is based on increasing facility standards, so the City must find non -impact fee revenue sources to fund existing development’s fair share of planned facilities. This approach is used 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 facilities, the facilities shall be identified. That identification may, but need not, be made by reference to a capital improvement plan as specified in Section 65403 or 66002, may be made in applicable general or specific plan requirements, or may be made in other public documents that identify the public facilities for which the fee is charged. ”1 Each chapter in this report identifies the appropriate use of impact fee revenues for each particular impact fee category.

Impact fee revenue must be spent on new facilities or expansion of current facilities to serve new development. Facilities can be generally defined as capital acquisition items with a useful life greater than five years. Impact fee revenue can be spent on capital facilities to serve new development, including but not limited to land acquisition, construction of buildings, infrastructure, the acquisition of vehicles or equipment , information technology, software licenses and equipment.

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

1 California Government Code §66001 (a) (2).
510
City of Murrieta Development Impact Fee Study Update

7 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 Parks
Community
Centers
Public
Library Total
Residential - Fee per Square Foot
Single Family 0.39$ 0.28$ 2.36$ 0.21$ 0.15$ 0.45$ 4.85$ 0.11$ 0.17$ 8.97$ Multifamily 0.53 0.38 3.60 0.33 0.29 0.61 6.58 0.16 0.23 12.71 Nonresidential - Fee per Square Foot
Commercial 1.19$ 1.83$ 8.73$ 0.80$ 0.20$ 0.21$ -$ -$ -$ 12.96$ Office 1.91 2.95 7.61 0.69 0.10 0.34 - - - 13.60 Industrial 0.63 0.98 2.48 0.23 0.25 0.11 - - - 4.68 Sources: Tables 3.6, 4.6, 5.6, 6.4, 7.5, 8.6, 9.9, 10.6 and 11.7. 511
City of Murrieta Development Impact Fee Study Update

8 Other Funding Needed
Impact fees may only fund the share of public facilities 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. As shown in Table E.2, approximately $96.5 million in additional funding will be needed to complete the facility projects the City currently plans to develop. The “Additional Funding Required” column shows non-impact fee funding required to fund a share of the improvements partially funded by impact fees. Non-fee funding 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 sources 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 43,751,507 25,870,312 17,881,195 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 682,390,078$ 585,895,853$ 96,494,225$
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
512

9 1. Introduction
This report presents an analysis of the need for public facilities to accommodate new development in the City of Murrieta. This chapter provides background for the study and explains the study approach under the following sections:
• Public Facilities Financing in California;
• Study Objectives;
• Fee Program Maintenance;
• Study Methodology; and,
• Organization of the Report.

Public Facilities Financing in California
The changing fiscal landscape in California during the past 45 years has steadily 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 policy shifts the burden of funding infrastructure expansion from existing ratepayers and taxpayers onto new development. This funding shift has been accomplished primarily through the imposition of assessments, special taxes, and development impact fees also known as public facilities fees. Assessments and special taxes require the approval 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 appropriate funding source for facilities that benefit all development jurisdiction -wide. Development impact fees need only a majority vote of the legislative body for adoption.

Study Objectives
The primary policy objective of a public facilities fee program is to ensure that new development pays the capital costs associated with 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 report 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 public 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 report provides the necessary findings required by the Act for adoption of the fees presented in the fee schedules presented in this report.
513
City of Murrieta Development Impact Fee Study Update

10 Murrieta is forecast to significant growth through this study’s planning horizon of 2035. This growth will create an increase in demand for public services and the facilities required to deliver them. Given the revenue challenges described above, Murrieta has decided to use a development impact fee program to ensure that new development funds the share of facility costs associated with growth. This report makes use of the most cur rent 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 program accurately represents 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 collecting inadequate revenue, the inventories of existing facilities and costs for planned facilities must be updated periodically for inflation, and the fees recalculated to reflect the higher costs. The use of established indices for each facility included in the inventories (land, building s, and equipment), such as the California Construction Cost Index, is necessary to accurately 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 keep up with increases in the costs of public facilities, it is recommended 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. 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 existing development and future growth: Identify a base year for existing development and a growth forecast that reflects increased demand for public facilities;

2. Identify facility standards: Determine the facility 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 facilities 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 alternative 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 facility standards (step #2, above). Facility standards document a reasonable relationship between new development and the need for new facilities. Standards ensure that new development does not fund deficiencies associated with existing development. 514
City of Murrieta Development Impact Fee Study Update

11 Types of Facility Standards
There are three separate components of facility standards:
 Demand standards determine the amount of facilities 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 standards determine how a facility should be designed to meet expected demand, for example, park 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 planned facilities built to satisfy the City’s facility design standards.
 Cost standards are an alternate method for determining the amount of facilities required to accommodate growth based on facility costs per unit of demand. Cost standards are useful when demand standards were not explicitly developed 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 single fee program. Examples include facility 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 serve new developmen t.

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

There are 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 advantages and disadvantages of each method is summarized below:

Existing Inventory Method
The existing inventory method allocates costs based on the 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 expansion of facilities at the same standard currently serving existing development. By definition the existing inventory method results in no facility deficiencies attributable to existing development. This method is often used when a long - range plan for new facilities is not available. Only the initial facilities to be funded with fees are identified in the fee study. Future facilities to serve growth are identified through an annual capital improvement plan and budget process, possibly after completion of a new facility master plan.

This approach is to calculate the law enforcement, fire protection, parks, community center and general facilities fees in this report.

Planned Facilities Method
The planned facilities method allocates costs based on the ratio of planned facility costs to demand from new development as follows:

Cost of Planned Facilities
New Development Demand = $/unit of demand
= $/unit of demand
515
City of Murrieta Development Impact Fee Study Update

12 This method is appropriate when planned facilities will entirely serve new development, or when a fair share allocation of planned facilities to new development can be estimated. An example of the former is a Wastewater trunk line extension to a previously undeveloped area. An example of the latter is a portion of a roadway that has been identified as necessary to mitigate the impact from new development through traffic modeling analysis. Under this method new development will fund the expansion of facilities at the standards used in the applicable 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 based on the value of existing facilities plus the cost of planned facilities, divided by demand from existing plus new development:

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

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

Often facility standards based on policies such as those found in General Plans are higher than the existing facility standards. This method enables the calculation of the existing deficiency required to bring existing development up to the policy -based standard. The local agency must secure non-fee funding for that portion of planned facilities required to correct the deficiency to ensure that new development receives the level of service funded by the impact fee. This approach is used for the public library facility fees in this report.

Organization of the Report
The determination of a public facilities fee begins with the selection of a planning horizon and development of growth projections for population and employment. These projections are used throughout the analysis of different facility categories and are summarized in Chapter 2.

Chapters 3 through 11 identify facility standards and planned facilities, allocate the cost of planned facilities between new development and other development, and identify 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 development impact fee program. Impact fee program adoption procedures are found in California Government Code Sections 66016 through 66018.

The five statutory findings required for adoption of the proposed public facilities fees in accordance with the Mitigation Fee Act are documented in Chapter 14. = $/unit of demand
516

13 2. Growth Forecasts
Growth projections are used as indicators of demand to determine facility needs 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 projections of future growth are 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 estimate of total development at the 2035 planning horizon is used as an indicator of future demand to determine total facilities needed to accommodate 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 based 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 projections distinguish between 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 include more than one land use type, such as a mixed-use development with both residential and commercial uses. Another similar situation would be a warehousing facility 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 use type best reflects a development 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 the estimated number of residents, dwelling units, employees, and building square feet in Murrieta, both in 2023 and in 2035. The base year estimates of residents and dwelling units comes from the California Department of Finance . The population p rojection 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 unit calculated from the 2022 American Community Survey data for Murrieta.
517
City of Murrieta Development Impact Fee Study Update

14 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 since 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
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.

518
City of Murrieta Development Impact Fee Study Update

15 Occupant Densities
All fees in this report are calculated based on dwelling units or building square 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 per dwelling unit or workers per building square foot) are the most appropriate characteristics to use for most impact fees. The fee imposed should be based on the land use type that most closely represents the probable occupant density of the development.

The average occupant 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.

519

16 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 businesses. Therefore, demand for services and associated facilities are based on the City’s service population including residents and workers.

Table 3.1 shows the existing and future projected service population for law enforcement facilities. To calculate the service population for law enforcement facilities, residents are weighted at 1.00. The use of a worker demand factor of 1.99 for workers in Murrieta is based 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 the residential population 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 capita factor to the resident per capita factor is the 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 cost assumptions for the replacement cost of buildings were provided by City staff. 520
City of Murrieta Development Impact Fee Study Update
17 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 facilities costs are estimated 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.

521
City of Murrieta Development Impact Fee Study Update
18 Cost Allocation
Table 3.4 expresses the City’s current law enforcement facilities level of service in terms of an existing cost per capita, by dividing the replacement cost of the City’s existing facilities 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 use law enforcement facilities fee revenues for the construction or purchase 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 projection of fee revenue, based on the service population growth 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 facilities to maintain the level of service as new development adds demand for law enforcement services and facilities through the planning horizon. 522
City of Murrieta Development Impact Fee Study Update
19 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 dwelling unit and employment densities (persons per dwelling unit or employees per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential building space). The fee per average sized single family, and multifamily dwelling unit is converted into a fee per square foot by dividing the fee per dwelling unit by the assumed average square footage of each type of unit.

The total fee includes a one percent ( 1%) administrative charge to fund costs that include: a standard overhead charge applied to all City programs for legal, accounting, and other departmental and administrative support, and fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses. One percent of fee revenue is a conservative estimate. An analysis of the City’s recent administrative costs contained in Appendix Table A.7 indicates that administrative costs are approximately 1.5% of annual collected fee revenue.
523
City of Murrieta Development Impact Fee Study Update
20 Table 3.6: Law Enforcement Facilities Fee Schedule
A B C = A x B D = C x 0.01 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$ 10$ 1,005$ 0.39$ Multifamily 306 2.07 633 6 639 0.53 Nonresidential
Commercial 609$ 1.93 1,175$ 12$ 1,187$ 1.19$ Office 609 3.11 1,894 19 1,913 1.91 Industrial 609 1.03 627 6 633 0.63 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 1.0 percent for (1) legal, accounting, and other administrative support and (2) impact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.
524

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

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

Service Population
Fire facilities are used to provide services to both residents and businesses. The service population used to determine the demand 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, residents are weighted at 1.00.

The use of a worker demand factor 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 the residential population 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 the 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 chapters in this report.

Building valuations were provided by the City. A summary of the value of vehicles, fire protection equipment, and apparatuses can be found in Appendix Table A.4. 525
City of Murrieta Development Impact Fee Study Update
22 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 City plans to build a two new fire stations and purchase several engines and apparatus, in addition to a new Regional Training Center that will be shared with the police department. In total $30.1 million worth of new facilities has been identified . 526
City of Murrieta Development Impact Fee Study Update
23 Table 4.3: Planned Fire Facilities
Facility / Asset Inventory Unit Cost Value
New Fire Stations and Facilities (square feet)
Regional Training Center (RTC) 12,500,000$
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 service in terms of an existing cost per capita, by dividing the replacement cost of the City’s existing facilities 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. 527
City of Murrieta Development Impact Fee Study Update
24 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 facilities and equipment to add to the system of fire protection facilities to serve new development. Table 4.5 details a projection of fee revenue, based on the service population growth increment identified 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 facilities to maintain the level of service as new development adds 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
The total fee includes a one percent (1%) administrative charge to fund costs that include: a standard overhead charge applied to all City programs for legal, accounting, and other departmental and administrative support, and fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses. One percent of fee revenue is a conservative estimate. An analysis of the City’s recent administrative costs contained in Appendix Table A.7 indicates that administrative costs are approximately 1.5% of annual collected fee revenue.

Table 4.6 shows the maximum justified fire protection facilities fee schedule. The cost per capita is converted to a fee per unit of new development based on dwelling unit and employment 528
City of Murrieta Development Impact Fee Study Update
25 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.

Table 4.6: Fire Protection Facilities Fee Schedule
A B C = A x B D = C x 0.01 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$ 7$ 716$ 0.28$ Multifamily 218 2.07 451 5 456 0.38 Nonresidential
Commercial 940$ 1.93 1,814$ 18$ 1,832$ 1.83$ Office 940 3.11 2,923 29 2,952 2.95 Industrial 940 1.03 968 10 978 0.98 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 1.0 percent for (1) legal, accounting, and other administrative support and (2) impact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.
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. 529

26 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 improvements is based on the trip demand placed on the system by development. A reasonable measure of demand is the number 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 system of street improvements across all modes because alternate modes (transit, bicycle, pedestrian) often substitute for vehicle trips.

The two types of trips adjustments made to trip generation rates to calculate trip demand are described below:
• Pass-by trips are deducted from the trip generation rate. Pass -by trips are intermediates stops between an origin and a final destination that require no diversion from the route, such as stopping to get gas on the way to work. • 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 trips on the street system.

Table 5.1 shows the calculation of trip demand factors by land use 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 Association of Governments. The surveys provide one of the most comprehensive databases available of trip generation rates, pass -by trips factors, and average trip length for a wide range of land uses. Though urban development patterns differ between San Diego and the City of Murrieta, the use of this data is appropriate as a means of allocating trips across multiple land use categories. It should be noted that the projections of current and future trip generation in this report are based on data specific to the City of Murrieta.

530
City of Murrieta Development Impact Fee Study Update

27 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. 531
City of Murrieta Development Impact Fee Study Update

28 Trip Growth
The planning horizon for this analysis is 2035. Table 5.2 lists the 2023 and 2035 land use assumptions used in this study. The trip demand factors calculated in Table 5.1 are multiplied by the existing and future dwelling 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, minor bridges, and culverts fee in that analysis was based on the circulation 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 back 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.
532
City of Murrieta Development Impact Fee Study Update

29 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)

533
City of Murrieta Development Impact Fee Study Update
30 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)
534
City of Murrieta Development Impact Fee Study Update

31 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 also shows the allocation to new development. The majority of the projects included in the fee program were not deficient at the time 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 unacceptable level of service decreases caused by the increase in trips from new development. For projects that were deficient at that time, an the mitigation does not allow the LOS to degrade further, 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.
535
City of Murrieta Development Impact Fee Study Update

32 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.

536
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-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.

537
City of Murrieta Development Impact Fee Study Update
34 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. 538
City of Murrieta Development Impact Fee Study Update

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

Table 5.5 calculates the cost the cost per trip demand unit by dividing the project costs 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.

539
City of Murrieta Development Impact Fee Study Update
36 Table 5.6: Streets, Minor Bridges & Culverts Impact Fee A B C = A x B D = C x 0.01 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$ 60$ 6,028$ 2.36$ Multifamily 570 7.48 4,264 43 4,307 3.60 Nonresidential
Commercial 570$ 15.17 8,647$ 86$ 8,733$ 8.73$ Office 570 13.22 7,535 75 7,610 7.61 Industrial 570 4.31 2,457 25 2,482 2.48 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 1.0 percent for (1) legal, accounting, and other administrative support and (2) impact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.
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.

540

37 6. Traffic Signals
This chapter summarizes an analysis of the need for traffic signals to accommodate new development. The chapter documents a reasonable relationship between new development and the impact fee for funding of these facilities. Note that the trip demand factors calculated 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 new development are summarized in Table 6.1. The table also shows the allocation to new development. None of the intersections included in the fee program were deficient at the time 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 from new development. For projects 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. 541
City of Murrieta Development Impact Fee Study Update

38 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

542
City of Murrieta Development Impact Fee Study Update
39 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$ 1,249,852$ 100% 1,249,852$ 14 New Antelope Rd / Linnel Lane 3,612,500 5,107,512 541,875 180,625 180,625 541,875 6,552,512 100% 6,552,512 27 Monroe Ave / Los Alamos Rd1 364,063 514,728 54,609 18,203 18,203 54,609 660,353 100% 660,353 28 Jefferson Ave / Murrieta Hot Springs Rd1 827,313 1,169,691 124,097 41,366 41,366 124,097 1,500,616 100% 1,500,616 39 Washington Ave / Calle Del Oso Oro - Nutmeg St 750,000 1,060,383 112,500 37,500 37,500 112,500 1,360,383 100% 1,360,383 42 Jefferson Ave / Magnolia St 1,601,000 2,263,564 240,150 80,050 80,050 240,150 2,903,964 47.3% 1,373,575 44 Jefferson Ave / Kalmia St 750,000 1,060,383 112,500 37,500 37,500 112,500 1,360,383 100% 1,360,383 49 Monroe Ave / Murrieta Hot Springs Rd 2,058,000 2,909,691 308,700 102,900 102,900 308,700 3,732,891 47.3% 1,765,657 57 Whitewood Rd / Murrieta Hot Springs Rd 751,750 1,062,857 112,763 37,588 37,588 112,763 1,363,557 100% 1,363,557 58 Adams Ave / Guava St 1,170,000 1,654,198 175,500 58,500 58,500 175,500 2,122,198 100% 2,122,198 Washington Ave / Lemon St 1,000,000 1,413,844 150,000 50,000 50,000 150,000 1,813,844 47.3% 857,948 Jackson Ave / Nutmeg St 500,000 706,922 75,000 25,000 25,000 75,000 906,922 47.3% 428,974 Adams St / Ivy St 750,000 1,060,383 112,500 37,500 37,500 112,500 1,360,383 47.3% 643,461 Jefferson Ave / Elm St1 275,000 388,807 41,250 13,750 13,750 41,250 498,807 47.3% 235,936 Hayes Ave / De Luz Rd - Guava St 1,472,750 2,082,239 220,913 73,638 73,638 220,913 2,671,339 47.3% 1,263,543 Madison Ave / Elm St 2,357,000 3,332,431 353,550 117,850 117,850 353,550 4,275,231 47.3% 2,022,184 Linnel Ln / McElwain Rd 2,132,750 3,015,376 319,913 106,638 106,638 319,913 3,868,476 47.3% 1,829,789 Jefferson Ave / Fig St1 290,250 410,368 43,538 14,513 14,513 43,538 526,468 47.3% 249,019 Madison Ave / Fig St 2,594,000 3,667,512 389,100 129,700 129,700 389,100 4,705,112 47.3% 2,225,518 Jefferson Ave / Centerpointe Ct1 175,438 248,041 26,316 8,772 8,772 26,316 318,216 47.3% 150,516 Total 24,120,875$ 34,103,157$ 3,618,131$ 1,206,044$ 1,206,044$ 3,618,131$ 43,751,507$ 29,215,976$ 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.

543
City of Murrieta Development Impact Fee Study Update

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

Table 6.3 calculates the cost the cost per trip demand unit by dividing the total project 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 29,215,976$ Less Existing Fund Balance (3,345,664)
Net Costs 25,870,312$
Growth in Daily Trips 502,238
Cost per Trip 52$
Sources: Tables 5.2 and 6.2; Willdan Financial Services.

Table 6.4 shows the maximum justified traffic signals facilities fee schedule. The maximum justified fees are based on the 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 total fee includes a one percent (1%) administrative charge to fund costs that include: a standard overhead charge applied to all City programs for legal, accounting, and other departmental and administrative support, and fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses. One percent of fee revenue is a conservative estimate. An analysis of the City’s recent administrative costs contained in Appendix Table A.7 indicates that administrative costs are approximately 1.5% of annual collected fee revenue.
544
City of Murrieta Development Impact Fee Study Update
41 Table 6.4: Traffic Signals Impact Fee
A B C = A x B D = C x 0.01 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 52$ 10.47 544$ 5$ 549$ 0.21$ Multifamily 52 7.48 389 4 393 0.33 Nonresidential
Commercial 52$ 15.17 789$ 8$ 797$ 0.80$ Office 52 13.22 687 7 694 0.69 Industrial 52 4.31 224 2 226 0.23 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 1.0 percent for (1) legal, accounting, and other administrative support and (2) impact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.
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.
545

42 7. Storm Drain Facilities
This chapter summarizes an analysis of the need for storm drain facilities to accommodate growth within the City of Murrieta. Th e projects and associated costs in this chapter were identified it the City’s prior impact fee study . This chapter documents a reasonable relationship between new development and a storm drain fee to fund storm drain facilities that serve new development.

Storm Drain Demand
Most new development generates storm water runoff that must be controlled through storm drain facilities by increasing the amount of land that is impervious to precipitation. Table 7.1 shows the calculation of equivalent dwelling unit (EDU) demand factors based on impervious surface coefficient by land use category. The average impervious surface 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 the estimated EDU generation from new development through 2040. New development will generate approximately 20,839 new EDUs, representing 3 2.3 percent of total storm drain demand in 2035.
546
City of Murrieta Development Impact Fee Study Update
43 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 drain facilities to be funded 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 removed 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 and new development, capacity expanding projects are allocated to new development based on new development’s share of storm drain demand at the planning horizon. 547
City of Murrieta Development Impact Fee Study Update
44 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 chapter 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 to determine a cost standard per EDU. 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 storm drain facilities is shown in The total fee includes a one percent (1%) administrative charge to fund costs that include: a standard overhead charge applied to all City programs for legal, accounting, and other departmental and administrative 548
City of Murrieta Development Impact Fee Study Update
45 support, and fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses. One percent of fee revenue is a conservative estimate. An analysis of the City’s recent administrative costs contained in Appendix Table A.7 indicates that administrative costs are approximately 1.5% of annual collected fee revenue.

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 unit of new development based on the EDU factors shown in Table 7.1.

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 7.5: Storm Drain Facilities Impact Fee Schedule
A B C = A x B D = C x 0.01 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$ 4$ 381$ 0.15$ Multifamily 377 0.91 343 3 346 0.29 Nonresidential
Commercial 377$ 0.52 196$ 2$ 198$ 0.20$ Office 377 0.27 102 1 103 0.10 Industrial 377 0.65 245 2 247 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 1.0 percent for (1) legal, accounting, and other administrative support and (2) impact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.
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.

549

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

A fee schedule is presented based on the 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 both residents and businesses. Therefore, demand for services and associated facilities are based on the City’s service population including residents and workers.

Table 8.1 shows the existing and future projected service population for general facilities. While specific data is not available to estimate the actual ratio of demand per resident to demand by businesses (per worker) for this service, it is reasonable to assume that demand for these services is less for one employee compared to one resident, because nonresidential buildings are typically occupied less intensively than dwelling units. The 0.31 -weighting factor for workers is based on a 40-hour workweek divided by the total number of non -work hours in a week (128) and reflects the degree to which nonresidential development yields a lesser demand 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 study 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 comparisons 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 $41.1 million worth of general facilities. 550
City of Murrieta Development Impact Fee Study Update
47 Table 8.2: General Facilities Inventory
Inventory Unit Cost1 Value
Land (acres)
New City Hall 4.04 510,200$ 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) 14,815 190 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 551
City of Murrieta Development Impact Fee Study Update
48 to pursue a North Murrieta Technology Corridor Master Plan 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 capita facility standard by dividing the value of the existing facilities inventory by the existing service population. The resulting cost per capita is the basis of the impact fee. Funding facilities at this level will ensure that as development occurs, new development will contribute to general facilities at the same standard 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 improvements to add to the system of general and administrative facilities to serve new development. Table 8.5 details a projection of fee revenue, based on the service population growth increment identified in Table

8.1. The City will have to identify and additional $6.5 million worth of general facilities beyond the preliminary list of planned facilities in Table 8.3 to ensure that the existing standard is maintained through the planning horizon as new development increases demand for general facilities. 552
City of Murrieta Development Impact Fee Study Update
49 Table 8.5: Revenue Projection - Existing Standard
Cost per Capita 348$
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.

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 or employees per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential building space).

The total fee includes a one percent (1%) administrative charge to fund costs that include: a standard overhead charge applied to all City programs for legal, accounting, and other departmental and administrative support, and fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses. One percent of fee revenue is a conservative estimate. An analysis of the City’s recent administrative costs contained in Appendix Table A.7 indicates that administrative costs are approximately 1.5% of annual collected fee revenue.
553
City of Murrieta Development Impact Fee Study Update
50 Table 8.6: General Facilities Fee Schedule
A B C = A x B D = C x 0.01 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 348$ 3.25 1,131$ 11$ 1,142$ 0.45$ Multifamily 348 2.07 720 7 727 0.61 Nonresidential
Commercial 108$ 1.93 208$ 2$ 210$ 0.21$ Office 108 3.11 336 3 339 0.34 Industrial 108 1.03 111 1 112 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 1.0 percent for (1) legal, accounting, and other administrative support and (2) impact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.
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.

554

51 9. Park Facilities
The purpose of the park facilities impact fee is to fund the acquisition and improvement of park facilities needed to serve new development. The maximum justified impact fee is 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 residents. Therefore, demand for services and associated facilities is based on the City’s residential population. 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 recreation facilities throughout the city. Table 9.2 summarizes the City’s existing park land inventory in 2023. All facilities are owned by the City.

The inventory also includes undeveloped raw land and distinguishes the acreage accordingly.

Parks are divided into several categories depending on common characteristics. In total, the inventory includes a total of 506.19 acres of City-owned park land. 555
City of Murrieta Development Impact Fee Study Update
52 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.

556
City of Murrieta Development Impact Fee Study Update
53 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 special 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.
557
City of Murrieta Development Impact Fee Study Update
54 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 necessary 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 park 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 total, this analysis assumes that it costs $775,439 to acquire and develop an acre of park land in Murrieta. 558
City of Murrieta Development Impact Fee Study Update
55 Table 9.4: Park Facilities Unit Costs
Cost
Per Acre
Land Acquisition 510,200$
Park Improvements
Standard Park Improvements 215,200$
Special Use Facilities 50,039
Improvements Cost per Acre 265,239$
Total Cost per Acre 775,439$
Sources: Tables 9.2 and 9.3.

Preliminary Planned Park Improvements
Table 9.5 lists the City’s preliminarily planned park improvements. Costs were provided by City staff. Note that the City will need to identify additional 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 standards establish a reasonable relationship 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 common measure in calculating new development’s demand for parks is the ratio of park acres per resident. In general, facility standards may be based on the Mitigation Fee Act (using a city’s existing inventory of park land and park facilities), or an adopted policy standard contained in a master facility plan or general plan. Facility standards may also be based on a land 559
City of Murrieta Development Impact Fee Study Update
56 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 dictate use of a particular type or level of facility standard for public facilities fees. To comply with the findings required under the law, facility standards must not burden new development with any cost associated with 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 City’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 City’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. 560
City of Murrieta Development Impact Fee Study Update
57 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.
561
City of Murrieta Development Impact Fee Study Update
58 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 intensify usage of existing facilities needed to serve new development.

Fee Schedule
To calculate fees by land use type, the investment in park facilities 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 based on the unit cost estimates and facility 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 facilities fee schedule based on the analysis described above. The total fee includes a one percent (1%) administrative charge to fund costs that include: a standard overhead charge applied to all City programs for legal, accounting, and other departmental and administrative support, and fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses. One percent of fee revenue is a conservative estimate. An analysis of the City’s recent administrative costs contained in Appendix Table A.7 indicates that administrative costs are approximately 1.5% of annual collected fee revenue.

562
City of Murrieta Development Impact Fee Study Update
59 Table 9.9: Park Facilities Fee Schedule
A B C = A x B D = C x 0.01 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$ 83$ 8,374$ 3.28$ Improvements 1,220 3.25 3,965 40 4,005 1.57 Total 12,379$ 4.85$
Multifamily
Parkland 2,551$ 2.07 5,281$ 53$ 5,334$ 4.45$ Improvements 1,220 2.07 2,525 25 2,550 2.13 Total 7,884$ 6.58$
1 Fee per average sized dw elling unit.

Sources: Tables 2.2 and 9.8; Willdan Financial Services. 2 Administrative charge of 1.0 percent for (1) legal, accounting, and other administrative support and (2) impact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.
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.

563

60 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 residents. Therefore, demand for services and associated facilities is based on the City’s residential population. 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.
564
City of Murrieta Development Impact Fee Study Update
61 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 City has planned several recreation and community center facilities to serve new development. Included in the plans are both expansions to existing facilities and the 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. 565
City of Murrieta Development Impact Fee Study Update
62 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 facilities 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 plans to use recreation and community center facilities fee revenue to construct improvements to add to the system of recreation and community center facilities 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 revenue, based on the service population growth increment identified in Table 10.1. The projected fee revenue will not fully fund 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.
566
City of Murrieta Development Impact Fee Study Update
63 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.

Table 10.6 shows the maximum justified recreation facilities fee schedule. The cost per capita is converted to a fee per unit of new development based on dwelling 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.

Table 10.6: Community Center Facilities Fee - Existing Standard A B C = A x B D = C x 0.01 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$ 3$ 292$ 0.11$ Multifamily 89 2.07 184 2 186 0.16 1 Fee per average sized dw elling unit.

Sources: Tables 2.2 and 10.4.
2 Administrative charge of 1.0 percent for (1) legal, accounting, and other administrative support and (2) impact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses. 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.

567

64 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 services 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 library facility inventory. Only facilities owned by the 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.

568
City of Murrieta Development Impact Fee Study Update
65 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 fund 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 appropriate. ” 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 in 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.
569
City of Murrieta Development Impact Fee Study Update
66 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
The total fee includes a one percent (1%) administrative charge to fund costs that include: a standard overhead charge applied to all City programs for legal, accounting, and other departmental and administrative support, and fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification 570
City of Murrieta Development Impact Fee Study Update
67 analyses. One percent of fee revenue is a conservative estimate. An analysis of the City’s recent administrative costs contained in Appendix Table A.7 indicates that administrative costs are approximately 1.5% of annual collected fee revenue.

Table 11.7 shows the maximum justified library facilities fee schedule. The cost per capita is converted to a fee per unit of new development based on dwelling unit densities (persons per dwelling). The fee per average sized 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 11.7: Library Facilities Fee Schedule
A B C = A x B D = C x 0.01 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$ 4$ 423$ 0.17$ Multifamily 129 2.07 267 3 270 0.23 1 Fee per average sized dw elling unit.

Sources: Tables 2.2 and 11.5.
2 Administrative charge of 1.0 percent for (1) legal, accounting, and other administrative support and (2) impact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.
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.

571

68 12. AB 602 Requirements
On January 1, 2022, new requirements went into effect for California jurisdictions implementing impact fees. Among other changes, AB 602 added Section 66016.5 to the Government Code , which set guidelines for impact fee nexus studies. Four key requirements from that section which concern the nexus study are reproduced here:
66016.5. (a) (2) When applicable, the nexus study shall identify the existing level of service for each public facility, identify the proposed new level of service, and include an explanation of why the new level of service is appropriate.
66016.5. (a) (4) If a nexus study supports the increase of an existing fee, the local agency shall review the assumptions of the nexus study supporting the original fee and evaluate the amount of fees collected under the original fee.
66016.5. (a) (5) A nexus study adopted after July 1, 2022, shall calculate a fee imposed on a housing development project proportionately to the square footage of proposed units of the development. A local agency that imposes a fee proportionately to the square footage of the proposed units of the development shall be deemed to have used a valid method to establish a reasonable relationship between the fee charged and the burden posed by the development. 66016.5. (a) (6) Large jurisdictions shall adopt a capital improvement plan as a part of the nexus study.

Compliance with AB 602
The following sections describe this study’s compliance with the new requirements of AB 602. 66016.5. (a) (2) - Level of Service

1. For fees calculated under the existing standard methodology, the fees are calculated such that new development funds facilities at the existing level of service. These fee categories are: 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 facilities methodology, the fees are calculated to ensure that the level of service does not fall to unacceptable levels. The fees calculated under this approach are the streets, minor bridges and culverts fee, the traffic signals fee, and the storm drain facilities fees. Impact fees charged under this program will serve to ensure that the level of service will not fall to unacceptable levels.

3. For the fees calculated under the system standard methodology, the maximum justified fees represent an increase in the facility level of service. The fees calculated under this methodology are the library facilities fees. The increased level of service is required to fund new development’s fair share of facilities identified and by City . New development will not fund the entirety of the increase in level of service, rather, it will fund a share of the increased level of service represented by the planned facilities. The City will have to fund existing development’s share of the increase level of service through any other funding source. The library facilities fee chapter includes tables that show the existing level of service and future level of service in terms of facility investment per capita. 572
City of Murrieta Development Impact Fee Study Update
69 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.

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 collected 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) (5) – Residential Fees per Square Foot
Impact fees for residential land uses are calculated per square foot for all fee categories and comply with AB 602.
66016.5. (a) (6) – Capital Improvement Plan
The Capital Improvement Plan for this nexus study is comprised of the identified planned facilities within each facility fee chapter. Planned facilities identified in this document are sourced from the City’s current adopted CIP 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. 573

70 13. Implementation
Impact Fee Program Adoption Process
Impact fee program adoption procedures are found in the California Government Code section 66016. Adoption of an impact fee program requires the City Council to follow certain procedures including holding a public hearing. Data, such as an impact fee report, must be made available at least 10 days prior to the public hearing. The City’s legal counsel should be consulted for any other procedural requirements as well as advice regarding adoption of an enabling ordinance and/or a resolution. After adoption there is a mandatory 60 -day waiting period before the fees go into effect.

Inflation Adjustment
The City can keep its impact fee program up to date by periodically adjusting the fees for inflation.

Such adjustments should be completed regularly to ensure that new development will fully fund its share of needed facilities. We recommend that the California Construction Cost Index (CCCI) be used for adjusting fees for inflation . The change in the cost index should be evaluated at the same month from year to year.

City staff is recommending that the annual inflation adjustment be capped at a 4 -percent increase. So, the resulting inflation adjustment will either be the change in the recommended inflation index, or 4-percent, whichever is lower.

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

Reporting Requirements
The City will comply with the annual and five -year reporting requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act. For facilities to be funded by a combination of public fees and other revenues, identification of the source and amount of these non -fee revenues is essential. Identification of the timing of receipt of other revenues to fund the facilities is also important.

Programming Revenues and Projects with the CIP
The City maintains a five-year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) to plan for future infrastructure needs. The CIP identifies costs and phasing for specific capital projects. The use of the CIP in this manner documents a reasonable relationship between new development and the use of those revenues.

The City may decide to alter the scope of the planned projects or to substitute new projects as long as those new projects continue to represent an expansion of the City’s facilities. If the total cost of facilities varies from the total cost used as a basis for the fees, the City should consider revising the fees accordingly.

Reimbursements
For some facility categories, particularly park facilities, developers occasionally dedicate park land and construct facilities in lieu of paying the development impact fee. If a developer builds 574
City of Murrieta Development Impact Fee Study Update
71 park land that exceeds the development’s share of needed facilities, that developer should be reimbursed for the amount of facilities created above and beyond that development’s impact.

However, we recommend that the City’ reimburse the difference based on a) the costs identified in the most recent CIP, and b) at the time that the City would be building the improvement had the development not occurred. By following these guidelines, the City will not be unfairly burdened with unanticipated costs.
575

72 14. Mitigation Fee Act Findings
Public facilities fees are one -time fees typically paid when a building permit is issued and imposed on development projects by local agencies responsible for regulating land use (cities and counties). To guide the widespread imposition of public facilities fees the State Legislature adopted the Mitigation Fee Act (the Act) with Assembly Bill 1600 in 1987 and subsequent amendments. The Act, contained in California Government Code Sections 66000 through 66025 , establishes requirements on local agencies for the imposition and administration of fee programs.

The Act requires local agencies to document five findings when adopting a fee.

The five statutory findings required for adoption of the public facilities fees documented in this report are presented in this chapter and supported in detail by the preceding chapters . All statutory references are to the Act.

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

Development impact fees are designed to ensure that new development will not burden the existing service population with the cost of facilities required to accommodate growth. The purpose of the fees proposed by this report is to provide a funding source from new development for capital improvements to serve that development. The fees advance a legitimate City interest by enabling the City to provide public facilities to 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 purchase of related equipment, furnishings, vehicles, and services used to serve new development. Facilities funded by the fees are expected to provide a citywide network of facilities accessible to the additional residents and workers associated with new development. Under the Act, fees are not intended to fund planned facilities needed to correct existing deficiencies. Thus, a reasonable relationship can be shown between the use of fee revenue and the new development residential and non-residential use classifications that will pay the fees.

Burden Relationship
 Determine the reasonable relationship between the need for the public facilities and 576
City of Murrieta Development Impact Fee Study Update
73 the types of development on which the fees are imposed (§66001(a)(4) of the Act).

Facilities need is based on a facility standard that represents the demand generated by new development for those facilities. For each facility category, demand is measured by a single facility standard that can be applied across land use types to ensure a reasonable relationsh ip to the type of development. For most facility categories service population standards are calculated based upon the number of residents associated with residential development and the number of workers associated with non -residential development. To calculate a single, per capita standard, one worker is weighted less than one resident based on an analysis of the relative use demand between residential and non-residential development. For transportation-related facilities, the cost standard is calculated per trip. For storm drainage facilities the standard is calculated per measure of impervious surface.

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

Chapter 2, Growth Forecasts provides a description of how service population and growth forecasts are calculated. Facility standards are described in the Facility Standards sections of each facility category chapter.

Proportionality
 Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the fees amount and the cost of the facilities or portion of the facilities attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed (§66001(b) of the Act).

The reasonable relationship between each facilities fee for a specific new development project and the cost of the facilities attributable to that project is based on the estimated new development growth the project will accommodate. Fees for a specific project are based on the project’s size. Larger new development projects can result in a higher service population resulting in higher fee revenue than smaller projects in the same land use classification. Thus, the fees ensure a reasonable relationship between a specific new development project and the cost of the facilities attributable to that project.

See Chapter 2, Growth Forecasts and Unit Costs , or the Service Population sections in each facility category chapter for a description of how service populations or other factors are determined for different types of land uses. See the Fee Schedule section of each facility category chapter for a presentation of the proposed facilities fees. 577

A-1
Appendix A

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

578
City of Murrieta Appendix A
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.

579
City of Murrieta Appendix A
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.

580
City of Murrieta Appendix A
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

581
City of Murrieta Appendix A
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.

582
City of Murrieta Appendix A
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.

583
City of Murrieta Appendix A
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.

584
City of Murrieta Appendix A
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.

585
City of Murrieta Appendix A
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.

586
City of Murrieta Appendix A
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.

587
City of Murrieta Appendix A
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.

588
City of Murrieta Appendix A
A-12
Appendix Table A.7: Administrative Costs
Projected DIF Revenue FY20231 13,263,069$
Projected Revenue Less Administrative Charge2 13,003,009$ DIF Program FY2023 Estimated Operating Expenditures3 197,549 Operating Expenditures as % of Projected Revenue 1.52%
Administrative Charge - 2024 DIF Update 1.00%
1 Page 30, City of Murrieta Adopted Capital Improvement Plan, FY23-24 to FY27-28. 2 Current impact fee program includes 2% administrative charge. 3 Page 31, City of Murrieta Adopted Capital Improvement Plan, FY23-24 to FY27-28.

Source: City of Murrieta Adopted Capital Improvement Plan, FY23-24 to FY27-28. 589

B-1
Appendix B: Five Year Mitigation
Fee Act Findings
Introduction
The purpose of this appendix is to support the findings required by the Mitigation Fee Act (MFA) that local agencies shall make every five years for each development impact fee that an agency imposes on development projects. This report provides the information and analysis required to make these findings for the following City of Murrieta (City) development impact fees:
• Fire Protection DIF – Fund 128
• Freeway DIF – Fund 128
• General Facility DIF Fund 129
• Law Enforcement DIF – Fund 130
• Public Library DIF – Fund 131
• Open Space DIF – Fund 132
• Parks & Recreation DIF – Fund 133
• Storm Drain DIF – Fund 134
• Street DIF – Fund 135
• Traffic Signal DIF – Fund 136
• Community Center DIF – Fund 137
• Freeway, Streets & Bridges – Fund 138
The five-year findings required by the MFA are shown below:

For the fifth fiscal year following the first deposit into the account or fund, and every five years thereafter, the local agency shall make all of the following findings with respect to that portion of the account or fund remaining unexpended, whether committed or uncommitted: 4 (A) Identify the purpose to which the fee is to be put. (B) Demonstrate a reasonable relationship between the fee and the purpose for which it is charged.
(C) Identify all sources and amounts of funding anticipated to complete financing in incomplete improvements identified in paragraph (2) of subdivision (a). (D) Designate the approximate dates on which the funding referred to in subparagraph (C) is expected to be deposited into the appropriate account or fund.

Methodology
To make the findings required above, this study relies on the City’s current impact fee study, adopted in 2016, the City’s prior impact fee study from 1998, the City’s freeway DIF study amendment to the 1998 study from 2000, the City’s 2024 impact fee study update (of which this appendix is a part of),

4 California Government Code, sections 66000 through 66025, specifically section 66001(d)(1). 590
City of Murrieta Appendix B
B-2
and the City’s latest five-year capital improvement plan (CIP). The prior impact fee studies identify the relationship between the fees charged and the planned facilities funded by the fees. The CIP identifies the funding needed to complete the projects and the approximate dates that the funding will be deposited into each account.

The MFA findings stated above are to be made “with respect to that portion of the account or fund remaining unexpended, whether committed or uncommitted.” For the purposes of this report those funds are the FY 2022-23 ending fund balance for each fee account as provided by the City.

To comply with the reasonable relationship finding stated above (paragraph B of section 66001(d)(1)), this report examines the programming of the FY 2022 -23 ending fund balance for each fee account to specific capital projects. First, CIP project descriptions are evaluated to ensure that the projects represent acceptable uses of impact fee revenue, as identified in the nexus studies. Second, total expenditures over the five-year CIP period (thus excluding expenditures to date) are compared to the fund balance. If expenditures are greater or equal to the fund balance, there remains a reasonable relationship between the fee and the purpose for which it is charged because funds are not being held for unidentified uses.

This report also uses the capital project information in the CIP to comply with the findings regarding alternative funding (paragraphs C and D of section 66001(d)(1)). The CIP identifies non -impact fee funding if needed to fully fund a capital project that is also funded by impact fees, and the timing of that funding.

Several CIP projects include undetermined funding when the City fully anticipates sufficient funding for a capital project, but specific sources have yet to be authorized. This approach is not unusual in capital improvement planning for two reasons:
• The large time horizon for the planning, permitting, environmental compliance, and construction of public capital projects requires initiation of the project before a complete funding plan is developed. Otherwise, many potential projects would be deferred indefinitely. • The time needed to access specific funding sources, particularly intergovernmental grants, other intergovernmental funding programs, and private donations, as well as the time it takes to plan for the issuance of long-term debt to fund large capital projects, limits a local agency’s ability to include then in a funding plan until authorization for the funding source has occurred.

Project funding will be updated in the CIP and future five -year development impact fee program reports as specific sources are identified.

Fund Balances
Table B.1 displays the City’s development impact fee program fund balances as of June 30, 2023.

These fund balances must be accounted for in this five -year report. Note that the City no longer collects impact fees for open space (Fund 132), streets (Fund 135) or freeways (Fund 128). The streets and freeways impact fees were consolidated into a single impact fee in the 2016 study :
“freeway, streets and bridges ” (Fund 138). Consequently funds 128, 132, and 135 will be discontinued once existing fund balances have been exhausted. 591
City of Murrieta Appendix B
B-3
Table B.1: Impact Fee Fund Balances (June 30, 2023)
Funding Source
6/30/2023
Balance
Forward
127 Fire Protection DIF 2,072,746$
128 Freeway DIF 8,638,197
129 General Facility DIF 121,233
130 Law Enforcement DIF 1,630,010
131 Public Library DIF 1,488,434
132 Open Space DIF 1,819,093
133 Parks & Recreation DIF 6,080,862
134 Storm Drain DIF 5,160,817
135 Street DIF 10,938,495
136 Traffic Signal DIF 3,362,486
137 Community Center DIF 1,816,237
138 Freeway Streets & Bridges 9,880,811
Total 53,009,422$
Source: City of Murrieta.

592
City of Murrieta Appendix B

B-4
Fire Protection Development Impact Fee
Finding: Purpose of the Fee
The Fire Protection Development Impact Fee was calculated in 2016 to fund two capacity expanding fire stations, a training center, and several fire protection apparatuses. The methodology in the 2016 study allocated 100% of the costs to new development through the impact fee.

Finding: Reasonable Relationship
The Fire Protection Development Impact Fee bears a reasonable relationship to the purpose for which it is charged for the reasons explained below. These findings are based on the current CIP and additional information provided by city staff.
• The CIP programs the fee account fund balance and other future funding sources to projects identified in the 2016 study, that remain incomplete.
• The CIP shows that the fee funds no more than the maximum funding share of each capacity expanding project based on the nexus methodology described above. • The CIP shows that fee program expenditures over the five -year horizon are greater than the FY 2022 -23 ending fee account fund balance, indicating that fee revenues are not being accumulated for unidentified purposes.

Findings: Alternative Funding Sources and Timings
See Table B.2 for the identified funding sources needed to complete each project and the timing of those sources. Sources of funds are differentiated by source and year. 593
City of Murrieta Appendix B

B-5
Table B.2: Fire Protection Facilities (Fund 127) Development Impact Fee Project Sources and Uses 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 2026-27 2027-28 Future Years 8232 Murrieta Fire & Rescue Training Facility and Primary City EOC Site Funding Sources:
127 DIF-Fire 11,003$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 11,003$ 151 Fire 15,000 1,067 (1,067) - - - - - 13,933 N/A - - - - - - - 26,055,500 26,055,500 Total Funding Sources 26,003$ 1,067$ (1,067)$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 26,055,500$ 26,080,436$ Total Project Uses 26,003$ 1,067$ (1,067)$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 26,055,500$ 26,080,436$ 21033 Fire Station #6 Planning and Development Project
Funding Sources:
111 Measure T -$ -$ 100,000$ 105,000$ 45,000$ 65,000$ -$ -$ 315,000$ 127 DIF-Fire - - - - - 7,279,500 - - 7,279,500 Total Funding Sources -$ -$ 100,000$ 105,000$ 45,000$ 7,344,500$ -$ -$ 7,594,500$ Total Project Uses -$ -$ 100,000$ 105,000$ 45,000$ 7,344,500$ -$ -$ 7,594,500$ 10024 Pierce Type-1 Fire Truck #2
Funding Sources:
127 DIF-Fire 703,334$ 34,359$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 703,334$ 151 Fire 146,433 (170,678) 170,678 - - - - - 317,111 Total Funding Sources 849,767$ (136,319)$ 170,678$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1,020,445$ Total Project Uses 849,767$ (136,319)$ 170,678$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1,020,445$ 10029 Fire Station Alerting System
Funding Sources:
127 DIF-Fire 103,242$ 103,242$ (103,242)$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 151 Fire 425,610 - - - - - - - 425,610 Total Funding Sources 528,852$ 103,242$ (103,242)$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 425,610$ Total Project Uses 528,852$ 103,242$ (103,242)$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 425,610$ Fire Protection Facilities Development Impact Fee Account Beginning Fund Balance 2,072,746$ 1,935,145$ 2,038,387$ 2,038,387$ 2,038,387$ (5,241,113)$ (5,241,113)$ 2,072,746$ Balance Remaining (137,601) - - - - - - (137,601) Expenditures - 103,242 - - (7,279,500) - - (7,176,258) Ending Fund Balance 1,935,145$ 2,038,387$ 2,038,387$ 2,038,387$ (5,241,113)$ (5,241,113)$ (5,241,113)$ (5,241,113)$ Inception to
Date Budget
Total Project
Cost
Balance
Remaining

594
City of Murrieta Appendix B

B-6
Freeway Facilities Impact Fee
Finding: Purpose of the Fee
The Freeway Facilities Development Impact Fee was calculated to fund capacity expanding freeway overpasses and access ramp improvements in a 2000 amendment to the City’s 1998 development impact fee study. That study allocated 75.1% of project costs to new development through the impact fee.

Finding: Reasonable Relationship
The Freeway Facilities Development Impact Fee bears a reasonable relationship to the purpose for which it is charged for the reasons explained below. These findings are based on the current CIP and additional information provided by city staff.
• The CIP programs the fee account fund balance and other future funding sources to projects identified in the prior study, that remain incomplete.
• The CIP shows that the fee funds no more than the program -wide maximum funding share of

75.1% of total project costs, based on review of the impact fee study used to establish the fee. The CIP indicates that the Freeway DIF balances will fund approximately 11.9% of the identified project costs.
• The CIP shows that fee program expenditures over the five -year horizon are greater than the FY 2022 -23 ending fee account fund balance, indicating that fee revenues are not being accumulated for unidentified purposes.

Findings: Alternative Funding Sources and Timings
See Table B.3 for the identified funding sources needed to complete each project and the timing of those sources. Sources of funds are differentiated by source and year.

Note that portions of the Keller Road interchange and the I -15 at Murrieta Hot Springs projects are listed as unfunded. It is anticipated that these projects will be partially funded with future impact fee revenues from Fund 138, Federal, State, and other local funding sources as they become available.

Given the large time horizon for the planning, permitting, environmental compliance, and construction of projects of this magnitude it is reasonable to designate known funding sources before a funding plan is finalized.

Also note that $623,384 of Freeway DIF project fund balances have been allocated to Fund 138 for project 8449. This is acceptable because the ending fund balance for Fund 128 would be negative, and Fund 138 can also fund the same project.
595
City of Murrieta Appendix B

B-7
Table B.3: Freeway (Fund 128) Development Impact Fee Continued Project Sources and Uses 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 2026-27 2027-28 Future Years 8303 I-215 Interchange at Clinton Keith Road
Funding Sources:
128 DIF-Freeway 266,653$ 440$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 266,653$ 135 DIF-Streets 241,962 2,034 - - - - - - 241,962 141 SWRBBD 575,068 - - - - - - - 575,068 161 TUMF 7,000,000 - - - - - - - 7,000,000 302 Measure A 51,777 - - - - - - - 51,777 319 Reimbursement Agreement 274,970 - - - - - - - 274,970 331 SB1266 Prop 1B 2,968,645 - - - - - - - 2,968,645 378 Federal Stimulus 9,999,451 - - - - - - - 9,999,451 502 2005 Tax Allocation Bond 2,681,682 - - - - - - - 2,681,682 503 2007 Tax Allocation Bond 90,144 - - - - - - - 90,144 513 RDA Tax Allocation Bond 3,700,000 196,864 - - - - - - 3,700,000 Total Funding Sources 27,850,352$ 199,338$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 27,850,352$ Total Project Uses 27,850,352$ 199,338$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 27,850,352$ 8311 I-15 Overcrossing at Los Alamos Road
Funding Sources:
128 DIF-Freeway 2,782,000$ 535,759$ (535,759)$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 2,246,241$ 302 Measure A 800,000 - - - - - - - 800,000 319 Reimbursement Agreement 103,779 1 (1) - - - - - 103,778 331 SB1266 Prop 1B 3,500,000 - - - - - - - 3,500,000 359 RCTC Grant 2,900,000 - - - - - - - 2,900,000 502 2005 Tax Allocation Bond 308,094 - - - - - - - 308,094 503 2007 Tax Allocation Bond 773,334 - - - - - - - 773,334 513 RDA Tax Allocation Bond 141,100 - - - - - - - 141,100 Total Funding Sources 11,308,307$ 535,760$ (535,760)$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 10,772,547$ Total Project Uses 11,308,307$ 535,760$ (535,760)$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 10,772,547$ Inception to
Date Budget
Balance
Remaining
Total Project
Cost

596
City of Murrieta Appendix B

B-8
Table B.3: Freeway (Fund 128) Development Impact Fee Continued Project Sources and Uses 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 2026-27 2027-28 Future Years 8323 Guava Bridge over Murrieta Creek
Funding Sources:
128 DIF-Freeway 187,607$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 187,607$ 135 DIF-Streets 208,038 204,924 - - - - - - 208,038 302 Measure A 48,803 - - - - - - - 48,803 319 Reimbursement Agreement 106,000 45,000 - - - - - - 106,000 352 Cal Trans HBP 6,503,210 727,781 - - - - - - 6,503,210 371 Toll Credits 23,198 6,264 - - - - - - 23,198 551 Area Drainage 1,817,005 460,459 - - - - - - 1,817,005 Total Funding Sources 8,893,861$ 1,444,428$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 8,893,861$ Total Project Uses 8,893,861$ 1,444,428$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 8,893,861$ 8411 I-15 at Murrieta Hot Springs Modification
Funding Sources:
128 DIF-Freeway 2,600,000$ 1,849,699$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 2,600,000$ 513 RDA Tax Allocation Bond - - - - - - - - - Unfunded - - - - - - 4,203,310 4,203,310 Total Funding Sources 2,600,000$ 1,849,699$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 4,203,310$ 6,803,310$ Total Project Uses 2,600,000$ 1,849,699$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 4,203,310$ 6,803,310$ 8449 Keller Road at I-215 Interchange
Funding Sources:
112 General Fund Capital -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 128 DIF-Freeway 10,045,832$ 5,933,708$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 10,045,832$ 138 DIF-Streets & Bridges 3,857,427 4,480,811 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 - 8,857,427 161 TUMF 2,250,000 2,074,233 - - - - - - 2,250,000 380 State Trans Imprv Prog 1,602,360 1,600,545 - - - - - - 1,602,360 513 RDA Tax Allocation Bond 1,500,000 118,857 - - - - - - 1,500,000 377 Federal Grants - - - - - - - 2,600,000 2,600,000 Unfunded - - - - - - - 25,750,000 25,750,000 Total Funding Sources 19,255,619$ 14,208,154$ 1,000,000$ 1,000,000$ 1,000,000$ 1,000,000$ 1,000,000$ 28,350,000$ 52,605,619$ Total Project Uses 19,255,619$ 14,208,154$ 1,000,000$ 1,000,000$ 1,000,000$ 1,000,000$ 1,000,000$ 28,350,000$ 52,605,619$ Freeway Development Impact Fee Account
Beginning Fund Balance 8,638,197$ 318,592$ (217,167)$ (217,167)$ (217,167)$ (217,167)$ (217,167)$ 8,638,197$ Balance Remaining (8,319,606) - - - - - - (8,319,606) Expenditures - (535,759) - - - - - (535,759) Ending Fund Balance 318,592$ (217,167)$ (217,167)$ (217,167)$ (217,167)$ (217,167)$ (217,167)$ (217,167)$ Inception to
Date Budget
Balance
Remaining
Total Project
Cost

597
City of Murrieta Appendix B

B-9
General Facilities Impact Fee
Finding: Purpose of the Fee
The General Facilities Development Impact Fee was calculated in 2016 to fund the Public Works Maintenance Building, planning documents and the acquisition of permitting software. The methodology in the 2016 study allocated 100% of the costs to new development through the impact fee.

Finding: Reasonable Relationship
The General Facilities Development Impact Fee bears a reasonable relationship to the purpose for which it is charged for the reasons explained below. These findings are based on the current CIP and additional information provided by city staff.
• The CIP programs the fee account fund balance and other future funding sources a project identified in the 2016 study, that remains incomplete.
• Since alternate funding was used to fund the planning documents and permitting software, General Facilities fee revenue became available for other uses. This revenue is programmed to other general facilities purposes that expand capacity and benefit new development. • The CIP shows that the fee funds no more than the maximum funding share of each capacity expanding project based on the nexus methodology described above. • The CIP shows that fee program expenditures over the five -year horizon are greater than the FY 2022 -23 ending fee account fund balance, indicating that fee revenues are not being accumulated for unidentified purposes.

Findings: Alternative Funding Sources and Timings
See Table B.4 for the identified funding sources needed to complete each project and the timing of those sources. Sources of funds are differentiated by source and year. 598
City of Murrieta Appendix B

B-10
Table B.4: General Facilities (Fund 129) Development Impact Fee Project Sources and Uses 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 2026-27 2027-28 Future Years 8414 Town Square Signage
Funding Sources:
129 DIF-Gen Facility 52,575$ 41,285$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 52,575$ Total Funding Sources 52,575$ 41,285$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 52,575$ Total Project Uses 52,575$ 41,285$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 52,575$ 21018 Public Works Facility
Funding Sources:
129 DIF-Gen Facility -$ -$ -$ 220,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 220,000$ 111 Measure T 780,000 731,427 - - - - - - 780,000 Total Funding Sources 780,000$ 731,427$ -$ 220,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1,000,000$ Total Project Uses 780,000$ 731,427$ -$ 220,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1,000,000$ General Facilities Development Impact Fee Account
Beginning Fund Balance 121,233$ 79,948$ 79,948$ (140,052)$ (140,052)$ (140,052)$ (140,052)$ 121,233$ Balance Remaining (41,285) - - - - - - (41,285) Expenditures - - (220,000) - - - - (220,000) Ending Fund Balance 79,948$ 79,948$ (140,052)$ (140,052)$ (140,052)$ (140,052)$ (140,052)$ (140,052)$ Inception to
Date Budget
Total Project
Cost
Balance
Remaining

599
City of Murrieta Appendix B

B-11
Law Enforcement Development Impact Fee
Finding: Purpose of the Fee
The Law Enforcement Development Impact Fee was calculated in 2016 to fund an expansion of the police station. The methodology in the 2016 study allocated a share of future facility costs of that project to new development through the impact fee.

Finding: Reasonable Relationship
The Law Enforcement Development Impact Fee bears a reasonable relationship to the purpose for which it is charged for the reasons explained below. These findings are based on the current CIP and additional information provided by city staff.
• The CIP programs the fee account fund balance and other future funding sources to projects identified in the 2016 study, that remain incomplete.
• One project which was not contemplated in the 2016 study, is programmed to be funded with impact fee revenue. This project (mobile command center) represents an increase of facilities capacity and is funded though impact fees at an allocation that is lower than new development’s fair share allocation of facility costs in the 2016 study. • The revised nexus study for 2024 justifies 100% of future fee revenue can used for capacity expanding projects. These future revenues will fund the remainder of the CIP costs. • The CIP shows that fee program expenditures over the five -year horizon are greater than the FY 2022 -23 ending fee account fund balance, indicating that fee revenues are not being accumulated for unidentified purposes.

Findings: Alternative Funding Sources and Timings
See Table B.5 for the identified funding sources needed to complete each project and the timing of those sources. Sources of funds are differentiated by source and year. 600
City of Murrieta Appendix B
B-12
Table B.5: Law Enforcement Facilities (Fund 130) Development Impact Fee Project Sources and Uses 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 2026-27 2027-28 Future Years 21022 Mobile Command Center
Funding Sources:
111 Measure T -$ -$ 60,000$ 60,000$ 60,000$ 60,000$ 60,000$ -$ 300,000$ 130 DIF-Law Enforcement - - 180,000 180,000 180,000 180,000 180,000 - 900,000 Total Funding Sources -$ -$ 240,000$ 240,000$ 240,000$ 240,000$ 240,000$ -$ 1,200,000$ Total Project Uses -$ -$ 240,000$ 240,000$ 240,000$ 240,000$ 240,000$ -$ 1,200,000$ 21042 Police Department Building Expansion
Funding Sources:
130 DIF-Law Enforcement - - - - - - - 15,000,000$ 15,000,000$ Total Funding Sources -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 15,000,000$ 15,000,000$ Total Project Uses -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 15,000,000$ 15,000,000$ Law Enforcement Facilities Development Impact Fee Account Beginning Fund Balance 1,630,010$ 1,630,010$ 1,450,010$ 1,270,010$ 1,090,010$ 910,010$ 730,010$ 1,630,010$ Balance Remaining - - - - - - - - Expenditures - (180,000) (180,000) (180,000) (180,000) (180,000) (15,000,000) (15,900,000) Ending Fund Balance 1,630,010$ 1,450,010$ 1,270,010$ 1,090,010$ 910,010$ 730,010$ (14,269,990)$ (14,269,990)$ Inception to
Date Budget
Total Project
Cost
Balance
Remaining

601
City of Murrieta Appendix B

B-13
Library Facilities Impact Fee
Finding: Purpose of the Fee
The Library Facilities Impact Fee was calculated in 2016 to fund expanded library facilities at the existing level of service. Using this methodology 100% of capacity expanding facility costs can be funded through impact fee revenue.

Finding: Reasonable Relationship
The Library Facilities Development Impact Fee bears a reasonable relationship to the purpose for which it is charged for the reasons explained below. These findings are based on the current CIP and additional information provided by city staff.
• The CIP programs the fee account fund balance and other future funding sources to a project that expands the capacity of library facilities to serve new development . Up to 100% of the project costs are eligible to be funded through impact fees. • The CIP shows that fee program expenditures over the five -year horizon are equal to the FY 2022-23 ending fee account fund balance, indicating that fee revenues are not being accumulated for unidentified purposes.

Findings: Alternative Funding Sources and Timings
See Table B.6 for the identified funding sources needed to complete each project and the timing of those sources. Sources of funds are differentiated by source and year. 602
City of Murrieta Appendix B

B-14
Table B.6: Library Facilities (Fund 131) Development Impact Fee Project Sources and Uses 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 2026-27 2027-28 Future Years 21027 Library Storytime Room
Funding Sources:
131 DIF-Library -$ -$ 1,186,134$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1,186,134$ 131 DIF-Library (Non-Matching Funds) - - 302,300 - - - - - 302,300 357 Library Grants - - 1,505,625 - - - - - 1,505,625 Total Funding Sources -$ -$ 2,994,059$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 2,994,059$ Total Project Uses -$ -$ 2,994,059$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 2,994,059$ Library Facilities Development Impact Fee Account
Beginning Fund Balance 1,488,434$ 1,488,434$ 0$ 0$ 0$ 0$ 0$ 1,488,434$ Balance Remaining - - - - - - - - Expenditures - (1,488,434) - - - - - (1,488,434) Ending Fund Balance 1,488,434$ 0$ 0$ 0$ 0$ 0$ 0$ 0$ Inception to
Date Budget
Total Project
Cost
Balance
Remaining

603
City of Murrieta Appendix B

B-15
Open Space Impact Fee
Finding: Purpose of the Fee
The Open Space Impact Fee was calculated in 1998 to fund open space acquisition. The methodology in the 1998 study allocated 100% of the costs to new development through the impact fee. Since that time the City discontinued collection of the open space impact fee. The City has identified future improvements to existing open space needed to make the land accessible for passive use, namely hiking trails. The City has programmed the remaining open space impact fee fund balance to these capacity-expanding open space uses.

Finding: Reasonable Relationship
The Open Space Development Impact Fee bears a reasonable relationship to the purpose for which it is charged for the reasons explained below. These findings are based on the current CIP and additional information provided by city staff.
• The CIP programs the fee account fund balance and other future funding sources to capacity expanding open space uses, that remain incomplete.
• The CIP shows that the fee funds no more than the maximum funding share of each capacity expanding project based on the nexus methodology described above. • The CIP shows that fee program expenditures over the five -year horizon are equal to the FY 2022-23 ending fee account fund balance, indicating that fee revenues are not being accumulated for unidentified purposes.

Findings: Alternative Funding Sources and Timings
See Table B.7 for the identified funding sources needed to complete each project and the timing of those sources. Sources of funds are differentiated by source and year.

604
City of Murrieta Appendix B
B-16
Table B.7: Open Space (Fund 132) Development Impact Fee Project Sources and Uses 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 2026-27 2027-28 Future Years 10038 Comprehensive update to the City's Trails Master Plan Funding Sources:
132 DIF-Open Space 450,000$ 450,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 450,000$ Total Funding Sources 450,000$ 450,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 450,000$ Total Project Uses 450,000$ 450,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 450,000$ NEW Murrieta Creek Trail
Funding Sources:
132 DIF-Open Space -$ -$ -$ -$ 350,000$ -$ -$ 1,019,093$ 1,369,093$ UNF Unfunded - - - - - - - 3,630,907 3,630,907 Total Funding Sources -$ -$ -$ -$ 350,000$ -$ -$ 4,650,000$ 5,000,000$ Total Project Uses -$ -$ -$ -$ 350,000$ -$ -$ 4,650,000$ 5,000,000$ Open Space Facilities Development Impact Fee Account
Beginning Fund Balance 1,819,093$ 1,369,093$ 1,369,093$ 1,369,093$ 1,019,093$ 1,019,093$ 1,019,093$ 1,819,093$ Balance Remaining (450,000) - - - - - - (450,000) Expenditures - - - (350,000) - - (1,019,093) (1,369,093) Ending Fund Balance 1,369,093$ 1,369,093$ 1,369,093$ 1,019,093$ 1,019,093$ 1,019,093$ 0$ 0$ Inception to
Date Budget
Total Project
Cost
Balance
Remaining
605
City of Murrieta Appendix B

B-17
Parks Development Impact Fee
Finding: Purpose of the Fee
The Park Development Impact Fee was calculated in 2016 to maintain the existing level of service in terms of park acres per 1,000 residents. Using this methodology 100% of capacity expanding park facilities and land acquisition can be funded through the impact fee. The City has programmed fee revenue to capacity expanding park facilities through its CIP.

Finding: Reasonable Relationship
The Park Development Impact Fee bears a reasonable relationship to the purpose for which it is charged for the reasons explained below. These findings are based on the current CIP and additional information provided by city staff.
• The CIP programs the fee account fund balance and other future funding sources to capacity expanding park facilities that remain incomplete.
• Certain projects in the CIP have facilities rehabilitation components. Those components are not programmed to the impact fee, rather, they are programmed to other funding sources.

City staff reviewed the planned facilities to ensure that only capacity expanding elements are funded with impact fee fund balances.
• The CIP shows that fee program expenditures over the five -year horizon are greater than the FY 2022 -23 ending fee account fund balance, indicating that fee revenues are not being accumulated for unidentified purposes.

Findings: Alternative Funding Sources and Timings
See Table B.8 for the identified funding sources needed to complete each project and the timing of those sources. Sources of funds are differentiated by source and year. 606
City of Murrieta Appendix B
B-18
Table B.8: Park (Fund 133) Development Impact Fee
Post
Project Sources and Uses Adoption 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 2026-27 2027-28 Future Years 8094 Second Avenue/Pioneer Park
Funding Sources:
112 General Capital 10,070$ 9,443$ (9,443)$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 627$ 133 Park DIF 550,694 58,471 (52,659) - - - - - - 498,035 Total Funding Sources 560,764$ 67,914$ (62,102)$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 498,662$ Total Project Uses 560,764$ 67,914$ (62,102)$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 8195 Los Alamos Hills Sports Park - Phase I
Funding Sources:
133 Park DIF 14,972,157$ 32,100$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 14,972,157$ 135 DIF-Streets 3,500 - - - - - - - - 3,500 306 Gas Tax 250,000 - - - - - - - - 250,000 Total Funding Sources 15,225,657$ 32,100$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 15,225,657$ Total Project Uses 15,225,657$ 32,100$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 15,225,657$ 8273 Glen Arbor Park Improvements
Funding Sources:
133 Park DIF 677,234$ 616,493$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 677,234$ 335 Prop 68 Grant Fund 247,627 247,627 - - - - - - - 247,627 Total Funding Sources 924,861$ 864,120$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 924,861$ Total Project Uses 924,861$ 864,120$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 924,861$ 8349 Town Square Park - Phase I
Funding Sources:
112 General Capital 219,965$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 219,965$ 133 Park DIF 1,919,287 14,480 - - - - - - - 1,919,287 502 2005 Tax Allocation Bond 2,846,223 - - - - - - - - 2,846,223 503 2007 Tax Allocation Bond 76,605 - - - - - - - - 76,605 512 RDA Tax Allocation Bond 50,115 - - - - - - - - 50,115 Total Funding Sources 5,112,195$ 14,480$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 5,112,195$ Total Project Uses 5,112,195$ 14,480$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 5,112,195$ 8513 Veteran's Memorial at Town Square Park
Funding Sources:
112 General Capital 920,993$ 447,443$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 920,993$ 133 Park DIF 200,121 - 367,682 - 600,000 - - - 1,200,000 2,000,121$ Total Funding Sources 1,121,114$ 447,443$ -$ -$ 600,000$ -$ -$ -$ 1,200,000$ 2,921,114$ Total Project Uses 1,121,114$ 447,443$ -$ -$ 600,000$ -$ -$ -$ 1,200,000$ 2,921,114$ 22011 California Oaks Sports Park Renovations
Funding Sources:
133 Park DIF 242,703$ 151,019$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 242,703$ Total Funding Sources 242,703$ 151,019$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 242,703$ Total Project Uses 242,703$ 151,019$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 242,703$ Inception to Date
Budget
Balance
Remaining
Total Project
Cost

607
City of Murrieta Appendix B
B-19
Table B.8: Park (Fund 133) Development Impact Fee Continued Post
Project Sources and Uses Adoption 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 2026-27 2027-28 Future Years 22016 Community Center Court Lighting
Funding Sources:
133 Park DIF 81,000$ 80,672$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 81,000$ Total Funding Sources 81,000$ 80,672$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 81,000$ Total Project Uses 81,000$ 80,672$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 81,000$ 22017 Cal Oaks Sports Park Lighting
Funding Sources:
133 Park DIF 186,500$ 186,345$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 186,500$ Total Funding Sources 186,500$ 186,345$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 186,500$ Total Project Uses 186,500$ 186,345$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 186,500$ 22019 Town Square Park - Phase II
Funding Sources:
112 General Fund Capital 864,755$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 864,755$ 133 Park DIF 2,326,093 (4,613) - - - - - - - 2,326,093 512 RDA Tax Allocation Bond 2,052,610 6 - - - - - - - 2,052,610 Total Funding Sources 5,243,457$ (4,608)$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 5,243,457$ Total Project Uses 5,243,457$ (4,608)$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 5,243,457$ 22029 Alta Murrieta Sports Park Tot Lot
Funding Sources:
111 Measure T 53,663$ 53,663$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 53,663$ 133 Park DIF - - - 50,000 - - - - - 50,000 Total Funding Sources 53,663$ 53,663$ -$ 50,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 103,663$ Total Project Uses 53,663$ 53,663$ -$ 50,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 103,663$ 22030 Eastgate Park Tot Lot
Funding Sources:
111 Measure T 94,095$ 94,095$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 94,095$ 133 Park DIF - - - 50,000 - - - - - 50,000 Total Funding Sources 94,095$ 94,095$ -$ 50,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 144,095$ Total Project Uses 94,095$ 94,095$ -$ 50,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 144,095$ 22031 Rancho Acacias Park Tot Lot
Funding Sources:
111 Measure T 156,825$ 156,825$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 156,825$ 133 Park DIF - - - 100,000 - - - - - 100,000 Total Funding Sources 156,825$ 156,825$ -$ 100,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 256,825$ Total Project Uses 156,825$ 156,825$ -$ 100,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 256,825$ Inception to Date
Budget
Balance
Remaining
Total Project
Cost

608
City of Murrieta Appendix B
B-20
Table B.8: Park (Fund 133) Development Impact Fee Continued Post
Project Sources and Uses Adoption 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 2026-27 2027-28 Future Years 22040 Firefighters Park Tot Lot
Funding Sources:
133 Park DIF -$ -$ -$ 50,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 50,000$ 171 Community Services District -$ -$ -$ 58,400$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 58,400$ Total Funding Sources -$ -$ -$ 108,400$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 108,400$ Total Project Uses -$ -$ -$ 108,400$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 108,400$ 10018 Water Conservation Projects
Funding Sources:
133 Park DIF 350,000$ 345,793$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 350,000$ UNF Unfunded - - - - - - - - 3,500,000 3,500,000 Total Funding Sources 350,000$ 345,793$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 3,500,000$ 3,850,000$ Total Project Uses 350,000$ 345,793$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 3,500,000$ 3,850,000$ 22010 Sykes Ranch Park Windmill
Funding Sources:
133 Park DIF 270,051$ 182,150$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 270,051$ 218 LLD 18 Vineyards 100,000 46,376 - - - - - - - 100,000 Total Funding Sources 370,051$ 228,526$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 370,051$ Total Project Uses 370,051$ 228,526$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 370,051$ 22020 Town Square Park - Phase III
Funding Sources:
112 General Fund Capital 135,985$ (353)$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 135,985$ 133 Park DIF 117,609 5,753 - - - - - - - 117,609 512 RDA Tax Allocation Bond 747,827 - - - - - - - - 747,827 Total Funding Sources 1,001,420$ 5,400$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1,001,420$ Total Project Uses 1,001,420$ 5,400$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1,001,420$ Inception to Date
Budget
Balance
Remaining
Total Project
Cost

609
City of Murrieta Appendix B
B-21
Table B.8: Park (Fund 133) Development Impact Fee Continued Post
Project Sources and Uses Adoption 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 2026-27 2027-28 Future Years 22044 Pioneer Park Master Plan Design and Construction
Funding Sources:
133 Park DIF -$ -$ -$ -$ 250,000$ -$ -$ -$ 694,350$ 944,350$ UNF Unfunded - - - - - - - - 320,650 320,650 Total Funding Sources -$ -$ -$ -$ 250,000$ -$ -$ -$ 1,015,000$ 1,265,000$ Total Project Uses -$ -$ -$ -$ 250,000$ -$ -$ -$ 1,015,000$ 1,265,000$ 22045 Vintage Reserve Restroom
Funding Sources:
133 Park DIF -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 500,000$ -$ -$ -$ 500,000$ Total Funding Sources -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 500,000$ -$ -$ -$ 500,000$ Total Project Uses -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 500,000$ -$ -$ -$ 500,000$ 22032 Sycamore Park Tot Lot
Funding Sources:
133 Park DIF -$ -$ -$ 100,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 100,000$ 111 Measure T -$ -$ -$ 162,325$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 162,325$ Total Funding Sources -$ -$ -$ 262,325$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 262,325$ Total Project Uses -$ -$ -$ 262,325$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 262,325$ 22046 Alderwood Park Splashpad
Funding Sources:
133 Park DIF -$ -$ -$ 450,000$ 550,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1,000,000$ 225 LLD 25 Golden Cities - - - 125,000 - - - - - 125,000 Total Funding Sources -$ -$ -$ 575,000$ 550,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1,125,000$ Total Project Uses -$ -$ -$ 575,000$ 550,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1,125,000$ Parks Development Impact Fee Account
Beginning Fund Balance 6,080,862$ 4,097,176$ 3,297,176$ 1,897,176$ 1,397,176$ 1,397,176$ 1,397,176$ 6,080,862$ Balance Remaining (1,983,686) - - - - - - (1,983,686) Expenditures - (800,000) (1,400,000) (500,000) - - (1,894,350) (4,594,350) Ending Fund Balance 4,097,176$ 3,297,176$ 1,897,176$ 1,397,176$ 1,397,176$ 1,397,176$ (497,174)$ (497,174)$ Inception to Date
Budget
Balance
Remaining
Total Project
Cost
610
City of Murrieta Appendix B

B-22
Storm Drain Impact Fee
Finding: Purpose of the Fee
The Storm Drain Development Impact Fee was calculated in 2016 to fund new development’s share of capacity expanding storm drain projects. The methodology in the 2016 study allocated 33.3% of the costs to new development through the impact fee.

Finding: Reasonable Relationship
The Storm Drain Development Impact Fee bears a reasonable relationship to the purpose for which it is charged for the reasons explained below. These findings are based on the current CIP and additional information provided by city staff.
• The CIP programs the fee account fund balance and other future funding sources to projects identified in the 2016 study, that remain incomplete.
• The CIP shows that the fee funds no more than the program -wide maximum funding share of

33.33% of total project costs, based on review of the impact fee study used to establish the fee. The CIP indicates that the Storm Drain DIF balances will fund approximately 25.3% of the identified projects from the 2016 study.
• The CIP shows that fee program expenditures over the five -year horizon are greater than the FY 2022 -23 ending fee account fund balance, indicating that fee revenues are not being accumulated for unidentified purposes.

Findings: Alternative Funding Sources and Timings
See Table B.9 for the identified funding sources needed to complete each project and the timing of those sources. Sources of funds are differentiated by source and year.

Note that two projects identified in the 2016 study (Storm Drainage Line D and Murrieta Creek Flood Control Channel) are listed as unfunded. It is anticipated that these projects will be partially funded with future impact fee revenues and from other funding sources as they become available. Given the large time horizon for the planning, permitting, environmental compliance, and construction of projects of this magnitude it is reasonable to designate known funding sources before a funding plan is finalized. The City will ensure that no more than the program -wide allocation to new development will be allocated to impact fee fund balances through the planning horizon. 611
City of Murrieta Appendix B
B-23
Table B.9: Storm Drain (Fund 134) Development Impact Fee Project Sources and Uses 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 2026-27 2027-28 Future Years 8157 Line D and D1 - Madison to Jefferson
Funding Sources:
134 DIF-Storm Drain 3,500,000$ 1,437$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 3,500,000$ 551 Area Drainage 2,725,000 227,823 - - - - - - 2,725,000 Total Funding Sources 6,225,000$ 229,260$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 6,225,000$ Total Project Uses 6,225,000$ 229,260$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 6,225,000$ 8202 Line E Storm Drain
Funding Sources:
134 DIF-Storm Drain 5,316,064$ 74,662$ -$ 500,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 5,316,064$ 502 2005 Tax Allocation Bond 875,000 - - - - - - - 875,000 551 Area Drainage 250,000 250,000 - - - - - - 250,000 Total Funding Sources 6,441,064$ 324,662$ -$ 500,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 6,441,064$ Total Project Uses 6,441,064$ 324,662$ -$ 500,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 6,441,064$ 8345 Murrieta Creek Design
Funding Sources:
134 DIF-Storm Drain 425,028$ 268,381$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 720,000$ 425,028$ 319 Reimbursement Agreement 22,500 - - - - - - - 22,500 Total Funding Sources 447,528$ 268,381$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 720,000$ 447,528$ Total Project Uses 447,528$ 268,381$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 700,000$ 447,528$ 19002 Storm Drain Master Plan
Funding Sources:
134 DIF-Storm Drain 250,000$ 250,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 250,000$ Total Funding Sources 250,000$ 250,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 250,000$ Total Project Uses 250,000$ 250,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 250,000$ 19004 Storm Drain Trash Interceptor Program
Funding Sources:
134 DIF-Storm Drain 450,000$ 450,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 450,000$ Total Funding Sources 450,000$ 450,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 450,000$ Total Project Uses 450,000$ 450,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 450,000$ 19006 Storm Drain Trash Interceptor Program
Funding Sources:
134 DIF-Storm Drain -$ -$ 80,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 80,000$ Total Funding Sources -$ -$ 80,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 80,000$ Total Project Uses -$ -$ 80,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 80,000$ Inception to
Date Budget
Total Project
Cost
Balance
Remaining

612
City of Murrieta Appendix B
B-24
Table B.9: Storm Drain (Fund 134) Development Impact Fee Continued Project Sources and Uses 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 2026-27 2027-28 Future Years TBD Storm Drain Trash Interceptor Program
Funding Sources:
134 DIF-Storm Drain -$ -$ -$ 80,000$ 80,000$ 80,000$ 80,000$ -$ 320,000$ Total Funding Sources -$ -$ -$ 80,000$ 80,000$ 80,000$ 80,000$ -$ 320,000$ Total Project Uses -$ -$ -$ 80,000$ 80,000$ 80,000$ 80,000$ -$ 320,000$ 8059 Guava Street: Jefferson to Murrieta Creek
Funding Sources:
134 DIF-Storm Drain 590,925$ 20,039$ (20,039)$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 570,886$ 135 DIF-Streets 461,925 37,908 (37,908) - - - - - 424,017 319 Reimbursement Agreement 1,540,740 0 - - - - - - 1,540,740 331 SB1266 Prop 1B 447,588 0 - - - - - - 447,588 551 Area Drainage 3,420,000 116,902 (116,902) - - - - - 3,303,098 Total Funding Sources 6,461,178$ 174,849$ (174,849)$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 6,286,329$ Total Project Uses 6,461,178$ 174,849$ (174,849)$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 6,286,329$ 19008 Line D Box Culvert at Murrieta Hot Springs Road
Funding Sources:
134 DIF-Storm Drain -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 750,000$ 750,000$ Total Funding Sources -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 750,000$ 750,000$ Total Project Uses -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 750,000$ 750,000$ 19009 Line G Adams to Murrieta Creek
Funding Sources:
134 DIF-Storm Drain -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 900,000$ 900,000$ Total Funding Sources -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 900,000$ 900,000$ Total Project Uses -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 900,000$ 900,000$ 13059 Line F at Murrieta Creek
Funding Sources:
134 DIF-Storm Drain -$ -$ 850,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 850,000$ 551 Area Drainage - - 200,000 - - - - - 200,000 UNF Unfunded - - - - - - - 6,950,000 6,950,000 Total Funding Sources -$ -$ 1,050,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 6,950,000$ 8,000,000$ Total Project Uses -$ -$ 1,050,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 6,950,000$ 8,000,000$ NEW Construct Storm Drainage Line D
Funding Sources:

UNF Unfunded -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 9,413,545$ 9,413,545$ Total Funding Sources -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 9,413,545$ 9,413,545$ Total Project Uses -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 9,413,545$ 9,413,545$ NEW Construct Murrieta Creek Flood Control Channel
Funding Sources:

UNF Unfunded -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 13,450,892$ 13,450,892$ Total Funding Sources -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 13,450,892$ 13,450,892$ Total Project Uses -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 13,450,892$ 13,450,892$ Storm Drain Development Impact Fee Account
Beginning Fund Balance 5,160,817$ 4,096,298$ 3,186,337$ 2,606,337$ 2,526,337$ 2,446,337$ 2,366,337$ 5,160,817$ Balance Remaining (1,064,519) - - - - - - (1,064,519) Expenditures - (909,961) (580,000) (80,000) (80,000) (80,000) (2,370,000) (4,099,961) Ending Fund Balance 4,096,298 3,186,337$ 2,606,337$ 2,526,337$ 2,446,337$ 2,366,337$ (3,663)$ (3,663)$ Inception to
Date Budget
Balance
Remaining
Total Project
Cost

613
City of Murrieta Appendix B

B-25
Streets Impact Fee
Finding: Purpose of the Fee
The Streets Development Impact Fee fund, (titled “Streets, Minor Bridges, and Culverts in the 1998 development impact fee study) was discontinued in 2016, when the legacy projects were combined into the “Freeways, Streets and Bridges Fee (Fund 138). Thus, the existing streets fee fund balance must be spent in accordance with the 1998 nexus. The methodology in the 1998 nexus study allowed for contributions towards a project list of capacity expanding street projects, but also towards replacement of existing streets, with a component of the fee essentially operating as a “buy -in” fee.

Finding: Reasonable Relationship
The Streets Development Impact Fee bears a reasonable relationship to the purpose for which it is charged for the reasons explained below. These findings are based on the current CIP and additional information provided by city staff.
• The CIP programs the fee account fund balance and other future funding sources to capacity expanding streets projects , that remain incomplete. Certain projects have been substituted for other capacity expanding projects from the original fee study. • The impact fee was calculated to fund approximately 68.8% of eligible project costs in the 1998 study. The CIP shows that the fee funds approximately 11.9% of eligible project costs, which is considerably less than the allowable allocation across the fee fund. • A small amount of funding (approximately 3.7% of the existing fund balance) has been allocated to reconstruction projects, which typically cannot be funded through impact fees.

However, this is acceptable because the 1998 fee study allocated approximately 6.7% of costs for new development to essentially “buy in” to existing transportation facilities equity and identified a portion of each fee “available for replacement fund.” • The CIP shows that fee program expenditures over the five -year horizon are greater than the FY 2022 -23 ending fee account fund balance, indicating that fee revenues are not being accumulated for unidentified purposes.

Findings: Alternative Funding Sources and Timings
See Table B.10 for the identified funding sources needed to complete each project and the timing of those sources. Sources of funds are differentiated by source and year. 614
City of Murrieta Appendix B
B-26
Table B.10: Streets (Fund 135) Development Impact Fee
Project Sources and Uses 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 2026-27 2027-28 Future Years 8303 I-215 Interchange at Clinton Keith Road
Funding Sources:
128 DIF-Freeway 266,653$ 440$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 266,653$ 135 DIF-Streets 241,962 2,034 - - - - - - 241,962 141 SWRBBD 575,068 - - - - - - - 575,068 161 TUMF 7,000,000 - - - - - - - 7,000,000 302 Measure A 51,777 - - - - - - - 51,777 319 Reimbursement Agreement 274,970 - - - - - - - 274,970 331 SB1266 Prop 1B 2,968,645 - - - - - - - 2,968,645 378 Federal Stimulus 9,999,451 - - - - - - - 9,999,451 502 2005 Tax Allocation Bond 2,681,682 - - - - - - - 2,681,682 503 2007 Tax Allocation Bond 90,144 - - - - - - - 90,144 513 RDA Tax Allocation Bond 3,700,000 196,864 - - - - - - 3,700,000 Total Funding Sources 27,850,352$ 199,338$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 27,850,352$ Total Project Uses 27,850,352$ 199,338$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 27,850,352$ 8323 Guava Bridge over Murrieta Creek
Funding Sources:
128 DIF-Freeway 187,607$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 187,607$ 135 DIF-Streets 208,038 204,924 - - - - - - 208,038 302 Measure A 48,803 - - - - - - - 48,803 319 Reimbursement Agreement 106,000 45,000 - - - - - - 106,000 352 Cal Trans HBP 6,503,210 727,781 - - - - - - 6,503,210 371 Toll Credits 23,198 6,264 - - - - - - 23,198 551 Area Drainage 1,817,005 460,459 - - - - - - 1,817,005 Total Funding Sources 8,893,861$ 1,444,428$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 8,893,861$ Total Project Uses 8,893,861$ 1,444,428$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 8,893,861$ 8040 Date Street Improvements: Margarita Road to Murrieta Hot Springs Road Funding Sources:
135 DIF-Streets 1,257,335$ 790,868$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1,257,335$ N/A Unfunded - - - - - - - 1,660,000 1,660,000 Total Funding Sources 1,257,335$ 790,868$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1,660,000$ 2,917,335$ Total Project Uses 1,257,335$ 790,868$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1,660,000$ 2,917,335$ Inception to
Date Budget
Total Project
Cost
Balance
Remaining

615
City of Murrieta Appendix B
B-27
Table B.10: Streets (Fund 135) Development Impact Fee Continued Project Sources and Uses 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 2026-27 2027-28 Future Years 8059 Guava Street: Jefferson to Murrieta Creek
Funding Sources:
134 DIF-Storm Drain 590,925$ 20,039$ (20,039)$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 570,886$ 135 DIF-Streets 461,925 37,908 (37,908) - - - - - 424,017 319 Reimbursement Agreement 1,540,740 0 - - - - - - 1,540,740 331 SB1266 Prop 1B 447,588 0 - - - - - - 447,588 551 Area Drainage 3,420,000 116,902 (116,902) - - - - - 3,303,098 Total Funding Sources 6,461,178$ 174,849$ (174,849)$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 6,286,329$ Total Project Uses 6,461,178$ 174,849$ (174,849)$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 6,286,329$ 8079 Murrieta Hot Springs Road Widening: Margarita to Winchester Road Funding Sources:
112 General Capital 1,000,000$ 900,725$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1,000,000$ 135 DIF-Streets 2,451,719 2,433,075 - - - - - - 2,451,719 161 TUMF - - 2,700,000 - - - - - 2,700,000 302 Measure A 5,984,534 5,263,636 - - - - - - 5,984,534 306 Gas Tax 600,000 552,439 - (552,439) - - - - 47,561 319 Reimbursement Agreement 173,470 154,020 - - - - - - 173,470 359 RCTC Grant - - - 3,000,000 - - - - 3,000,000 Total Funding Sources 10,209,723$ 9,303,896$ 2,700,000$ 2,447,561$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 15,357,284$ Total Project Uses 10,209,723$ 9,303,896$ 2,700,000$ 2,447,561$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 15,357,284$ 8137 Pavement Resurfacing - Slurry Seal
Funding Sources:
111 Measure T 278,530$ 54,953$ (54,953)$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 223,577$ 135 DIF-Streets 362,801 0 - - - - - - 362,801 140 RSA 10,200 - - - - - - - 10,200 171 Community Services District 56,415 1 (1) - - - - - 56,414 210 Community Facilities District 3,824 - - - - - - - 3,824 212 Community Facilities District 19,723 2,573 (2,573) - - - - - 17,150 215 Community Facilities District 2,858 373 (373) - - - - - 2,485 216 Community Facilities District 3,180 415 (415) - - - - - 2,765 218 Community Facilities District 1,409 184 (184) - - - - - 1,225 302 Measure A 7,475,188 1,150,234 - - - - - - 7,475,188 306 Gas Tax 3,617,523 527,641 - - - - - - 3,617,523 311 Library District 14,490 4,342 (4,342) - - - - - 10,148 336 AQMD 70,000 - - - - - - - 70,000 Total Funding Sources 11,916,140$ 1,740,715$ (62,840)$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 11,853,300$ Total Project Uses 11,916,140$ 1,740,715$ (62,841)$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 11,853,299$ Inception to
Date Budget
Balance
Remaining
Total Project
Cost

616
City of Murrieta Appendix B
B-28

Table B.10: Streets (Fund 135) Development Impact Fee Continued Project Sources and Uses 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 2026-27 2027-28 Future Years 8293 Sidewalk Replacement - Citywide
Funding Sources: -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 135 DIF-Streets 44,078 - - - - - - - 44,078 302 Measure A 642,220 619,798 - - - - - - 642,220 306 Gas Tax 397,889 - - - - - - - 397,889 Total Funding Sources 1,084,187$ 619,798$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1,084,187$ Total Project Uses 1,084,187$ 619,798$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1,084,187$ 8357 Madison: Murrieta Hot Springs Road to Elm Street
Funding Sources:
135 DIF-Streets 750,252$ 697,524$ -$ -$ 3,000,000 -$ -$ -$ 3,750,252$ 136 DIF-Traffic Signals - - 1,370,000 - - - - 1,370,000 306 Gas Tax 3,400,533 3,136,788 - - - - - - 3,400,533 316 Developer Agreement 526,713 - - - - - - - 526,713 319 Reimbursement Agreement 654,395 185,388 - - - - - - 654,395 513 RDA Tax Allocation Bond 6,203,981 1,650,756 - - - - - - 6,203,981 551 Area Drainage 1,250,000 1,162,780 - - - - - - 1,250,000 601 RDA Tax Increment 84,233 - - - - - - - 84,233 602 Successor Debt Service Fund 133,373 - - - - - - - 133,373 Total Funding Sources 13,003,480$ 6,833,236$ -$ 1,370,000$ 3,000,000$ -$ -$ -$ 17,373,480$ Total Project Uses 13,003,480$ 6,833,236$ -$ 1,370,000$ 3,000,000$ -$ -$ -$ 17,373,480$ 8380 Jefferson Widening at Ballesteros Road
Funding Sources:
135 DIF-Streets 808,200$ 700,000$ -$ -$ 800,000$ -$ -$ -$ 1,608,200$ 302 Measure A 1,122 (0) - - - - - - 1,122 306 Gas Tax 137,178 120,623 - - - - - - 137,178 N/A Unfunded - - - - - - - 700,000 700,000 Total Funding Sources 946,500$ 820,622$ -$ -$ 800,000$ -$ -$ 700,000$ 2,446,500$ Total Project Uses 946,500$ 820,622$ -$ -$ 800,000$ -$ -$ 700,000$ 2,446,500$ 8381 Hancock Widening at Walsh Center Drive
Funding Sources:
135 DIF-Streets 422,842$ 413,039$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 422,842$ N/A Unfunded - - - - - - - 1,200,000 1,200,000 Total Funding Sources 422,842$ 413,039$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1,200,000$ 1,622,842$ Total Project Uses 422,842$ 413,039$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1,200,000$ 1,622,842$ Inception to
Date Budget
Balance
Remaining
Total Project
Cost

617
City of Murrieta Appendix B
B-29

Table B.10: Streets (Fund 135) Development Impact Fee Continued Project Sources and Uses 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 2026-27 2027-28 Future Years 8389 Whitewood Widening: Hunter to Clinton Keith (East) Funding Sources:
135 DIF-Streets 160,000$ 125,482$ -$ -$ 1,350,000$ -$ -$ -$ 1,510,000$ 302 Measure A 85,000 85,000 - - - - - - 85,000 N/A Unfunded - - - - - - - 1,000,000 1,000,000 Total Funding Sources 245,000$ 210,482$ -$ -$ 1,350,000$ -$ -$ 1,000,000$ 2,595,000$ Total Project Uses 245,000$ 210,482$ -$ -$ 1,350,000$ -$ -$ 1,000,000$ 2,595,000$ 8448 Meadowlark Lane Improvements
Funding Sources:
135 DIF-Streets 398,698$ 40,163$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 398,698$ 161 TUMF 3,000,000 - - - - - - - 3,000,000 302 Measure A 999,906 84,539 - - - - - - 999,906 306 Gas Tax 676,496 9 - - - - - - 676,496 316 Developer Agreement 29,000 - - - - - - - 29,000 503 2007 Tax Allocation Bond 2,532,384 0 - - - - - - 2,532,384 511 Obligation Pmt Fund - - - - - - - - - 513 RDA Tax Allocation Bond 3,134,347 6,448 - - - - - - 3,134,347 Total Funding Sources 10,770,831$ 131,159$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 10,770,831$ Total Project Uses 10,770,831$ 131,159$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 10,770,831$ 13031 Warm Springs Parkway- 1,200 Foot Segment North of Clinton Keith Road Funding Sources:
112 General Capital 1,720,000$ 116,224$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1,720,000$ 135 DIF-Streets 1,200,000 396,501 - - - - - - 1,200,000 302 Measure A 3,180,000 59,635 - - - - - - 3,180,000 306 Gas Tax 1,300,000 29,107 - - - - - - 1,300,000 Total Funding Sources 7,400,000$ 601,468$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 7,400,000$ Total Project Uses 7,400,000$ 601,468$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 7,400,000$ Streets Development Impact Fee Account
Beginning Fund Balance 10,938,495$ 5,096,977$ 5,134,885$ 5,134,885$ (15,115)$ (15,115)$ (15,115)$ 10,938,495$ Balance Remaining (5,841,518) - - - - - - (5,841,518) Expenditures - 37,908 - (5,150,000) - - - (5,112,092) Ending Fund Balance 5,096,977$ 5,134,885$ 5,134,885$ (15,115)$ (15,115)$ (15,115)$ (15,115)$ (15,115)$ Inception to
Date Budget
Balance
Remaining
Total Project
Cost
618
City of Murrieta Appendix B

B-30
Traffic Signals Development Impact Fee
Finding: Purpose of the Fee
The Traffic Signals Development Impact Fee was calculated in 2016 to fund capacity expanding traffic signals. The methodology in the 2016 study allocated approximately 78.8% of the costs to new development through the impact fee.

Finding: Reasonable Relationship
The Traffic Signals Development Impact Fee bears a reasonable relationship to the purpose for which it is charged for the reasons explained below. These findings are based on the current CIP and additional information provided by city staff.
• The CIP programs the fee account fund balance and other future funding sources to projects identified in the 2016 study, that remain incomplete.
• One project that was not included in the 2016 fee study was the traffic striping modifications project. However, traffic striping modifications are often needed when upgrading traffic signals, so it is reasonable to fund these tangential costs with traffic signal impact fee revenue.
• The CIP shows that the traffic signals impact fee fund balances are allocated to significantly less than the program wide 78.8% impact fee allocation of costs from the 2016 fee study.

Approximately 11.1% of costs across traffic signals projects are allocated to the impact fee. • The CIP shows that fee program expenditures over the five -year horizon are greater than the FY 2022 -23 ending fee account fund balance, indicating that fee revenues are not being accumulated for unidentified purposes.

Findings: Alternative Funding Sources and Timings
See Table B.11 for the identified funding sources needed to complete each project and the timing of those sources. Sources of funds are differentiated by source and year. 619
City of Murrieta Appendix B
B-31
Table B.11: Traffic Signals (Fund 136) Development Impact Fee Project Sources and Uses 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 2026-27 2027-28 Future Years 8283 Traffic Striping Modifications - Citywide
Funding Sources:
136 DIF-Traffic Signals 60,956$ 0$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 60,956$ 302 Measure A 80,000 29,912 (29,912) - - - - - 50,088 306 Gas Tax 547,766 243,011 (243,011) - - - - - 304,755 Total Funding Sources 688,722$ 272,924$ (272,924)$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 415,798$ Total Project Uses 688,722$ 272,924$ (272,924)$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 415,798$ 8095 Historic Downtown Traffic Signal Modifications
Funding Sources:
136 DIF-Traffic Signals 155,619$ (0)$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 155,619$ 140 RSA 288,721 187,535 - - - - - - 288,721 306 Gas Tax 50,000 43,156 - - - - - - 50,000 Total Funding Sources 494,340$ 230,691$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 494,340$ Total Project Uses 494,340$ 230,691$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 494,340$ 8257 Citywide Signal Modifications
Funding Sources:
136 DIF-Traffic Signals 283,092$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 283,092$ 302 Measure A 1,407,616 379,291 - - - - - - 1,407,616 306 Gas Tax 1,490,326 180,679 - - - - - - 1,490,326 316 Developer Agreement 80,000 - - - - - - - 80,000 Total Funding Sources 3,261,034$ 559,970$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 3,261,034$ Total Project Uses 3,261,034$ 559,970$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 3,261,034$ 8438 Priority Traffic Signal
Funding Sources:
136 DIF-Traffic Signals 522,961$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 522,961$ 302 Measure A 71,000 - - - - - - - 71,000 306 Gas Tax 1,558,039 754,885 - - - - - - 1,558,039 336 AQMD 70,000 - - - - - - - 70,000 Total Funding Sources 2,222,000$ 754,885$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 2,222,000$ Total Project Uses 2,222,000$ 754,885$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 2,222,000$ Inception to
Date Budget
Total Project
Cost
Balance
Remaining

620
City of Murrieta Appendix B
B-32
Table B.11: Traffic Signals (Fund 136) Development Impact Fee Continued Project Sources and Uses 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 2026-27 2027-28 Future Years 13070 Citywide Signal Modifications
Funding Sources:
136 DIF-Traffic Signals -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 302 Measure A - - - 75,000 - - - - 75,000 306 Gas Tax - - - 75,000 - - - - 75,000 316 Developer Agreement - - - - - - - - - Total Funding Sources -$ -$ -$ 150,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 150,000$ Total Project Uses -$ -$ -$ 150,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 150,000$ 13049 Jefferson Avenue & Magnolia Street Traffic Signal Funding Sources:
136 DIF-Traffic Signals -$ -$ -$ 1,000,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1,000,000$ Total Funding Sources -$ -$ -$ 1,000,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1,000,000$ Total Project Uses -$ -$ -$ 1,000,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1,000,000$ 13058 Monroe Avenue
Funding Sources:
138 DIF - Freeway, Street & Bridge -$ -$ 200,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 200,000$ 136 DIF-Traffic Signals - - - - - - - 1,000,000 1,000,000 UNF Unfunded - - - - - - - 10,300,000 10,300,000 Total Funding Sources -$ -$ 200,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 11,300,000$ 11,500,000$ Total Project Uses -$ -$ 200,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 11,300,000$ 11,500,000$ 8357 Madison: Murrieta Hot Springs Road to Elm Street
Funding Sources:
135 DIF-Streets 750,252$ 697,524$ -$ -$ 3,000,000$ -$ -$ -$ 3,750,252$ 136 DIF-Traffic Signals - - - 1,370,000 - - - - 1,370,000 306 Gas Tax 3,400,533 3,136,788 - - - - - - 3,400,533 316 Developer Agreement 526,713 - - - - - - - 526,713 319 Reimbursement Agreement 654,395 185,388 - - - - - - 654,395 513 RDA Tax Allocation Bond 6,203,981 1,650,756 - - - - - - 6,203,981 551 Area Drainage 1,250,000 1,162,780 - - - - - - 1,250,000 601 RDA Tax Increment 84,233 - - - - - - - 84,233 602 Successor Debt Service Fund 133,373 - - - - - - - 133,373 Total Funding Sources 13,003,480$ 6,833,236$ -$ 1,370,000$ 3,000,000$ -$ -$ -$ 17,373,480$ Total Project Uses 13,003,480$ 6,833,236$ -$ 1,370,000$ 3,000,000$ -$ -$ -$ 17,373,480$ Traffic Signal Development Impact Fee Account
Beginning Fund Balance 3,362,486$ 3,362,486$ 3,362,486$ 992,486$ 992,486$ 992,486$ 992,486$ 3,362,486$ Balance Remaining 0 - - - - - - 0 Expenditures - - (2,370,000) - - - (1,000,000) (3,370,000) Ending Fund Balance 3,362,486$ 3,362,486$ 992,486$ 992,486$ 992,486$ 992,486$ (7,514)$ (7,514)$ Inception to
Date Budget
Balance
Remaining
Total Project
Cost

621
City of Murrieta Appendix B

B-33
Community Centers Impact Fee
Finding: Purpose of the Fee
The Community Center Facilities Impact Fee was calculated in 2016 to fund new development’s share of a Youth Center, Community Center, Aquatic Center , and Community Room Addition. The methodology in the 2016 study allocated 16.9% of the costs to new development through the impact fee.

Finding: Reasonable Relationship
The Community Center Facilities Development Impact Fee bears a reasonable relationship to the purpose for which it is charged for the reasons explained below. These findings are based on the current CIP and additional information provided by city staff. • The CIP programs the fee account fund balance and other future funding sources to projects identified in the 2016 study, that remain incomplete.
• Since 2016 estimated project costs have increased dramatically. The four projects from the 2016 study have not yet been completed, and are not estimated to cost $52.7 million, compared to $20.6 million in the 2016 study. The programmed fund balance will fund approximately 3% of the escalated fee program project costs. • The CIP shows that fee program expenditures over the five -year horizon are equal to the FY 2022-23 ending fee account fund balance, indicating that fee revenues are not being accumulated for unidentified purposes.

Findings: Alternative Funding Sources and Timings
See Table B.12 for the identified funding sources needed to complete each project and the timing of those sources. Sources of funds are differentiated by source and year. 622
City of Murrieta Appendix B
B-34
Table B.12: Community Center (Fund 137) Development Impact Fee Project Sources and Uses 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 2026-27 2027-28 Future Years 21043 Youth Center Phase II
Funding Sources:
137 Community Center DIF -$ -$ -$ 250,000$ -$ -$ -$ 1,566,237$ 1,816,237$ UNF Unfunded - - - - - - - 8,183,763 8,183,763 Total Funding Sources -$ -$ -$ 250,000$ -$ -$ -$ 9,750,000$ 10,000,000$ Total Project Uses -$ -$ -$ 250,000$ -$ -$ -$ 9,750,000$ 10,000,000$ Community Center Development Impact Fee Account
Beginning Fund Balance 1,816,237$ 1,816,237$ 1,816,237$ 1,566,237$ 1,566,237$ 1,566,237$ 1,566,237$ 1,816,237$ Balance Remaining - - - - - - - - Expenditures - - (250,000) - - - (1,566,237) (1,816,237) Ending Fund Balance 1,816,237$ 1,816,237$ 1,566,237$ 1,566,237$ 1,566,237$ 1,566,237$ (0)$ (0)$ Inception to
Date
Balance
Remaining
Total Project
Cost

623
City of Murrieta Appendix B
B-35
Freeways, Streets and Bridges Impact Fee
Finding: Purpose of the Fee
The Freeways, Streets and Bridges Impact Fee was calculated in 2016 to fund a list of capacity expanding freeways, streets, and bridges. The methodology in the 2016 study allocated 88.5% of the costs to new development through the impact fee.

Finding: Reasonable Relationship
The Freeways, Streets and Bridges Impact Fee bears a reasonable relationship to the purpose for which it is charged for the reasons explained below. These findings are based on the current CIP and additional information provided by city staff.
• The CIP programs the fee account fund balance and other future funding sources to projects identified in the 2016 study, that remain incomplete.
• The CIP shows that the impact fee fund balances are allocated to significantly less than the program wide 88.5% impact fee allocation of costs from the 2016 fee study. Approximately

13.6% of costs across all projects are allocated to the impact fee. • The CIP shows that fee program expenditures over the five -year horizon are equal to the FY 2022-23 ending fee account fund balance, indicating that fee revenues are not being accumulated for unidentified purposes.

Findings: Alternative Funding Sources and Timings
See Table B.13 for the identified funding sources needed to complete each project and the timing of those sources. Sources of funds are differentiated by source and year.

Note that $623,384 of Freeway DIF project fund balances have been allocated to Fund 138 for project 8449. This is acceptable because the ending fund balance for Fund 128 would be negative, and Fund 138 can also fund the same project.
624
City of Murrieta Appendix B
B-36
Table B.13: Freeways, Streets, and Bridges (Fund 138) Development Impact Fee Project Sources and Uses 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 2026-27 2027-28 Future Years 8449 Keller Road at I-215 Interchange
Funding Sources:
112 General Fund Capital -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 128 DIF-Freeway 10,045,832 5,933,708 - - - - - - 10,045,832 138 DIF - Streets, Bridges & Freeways 3,857,427 4,480,811 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 - 8,857,427 161 TUMF 2,250,000 2,074,233 - - - - - - 2,250,000 380 State Trans Imprv Prog 1,602,360 1,600,545 - - - - - - 1,602,360 513 RDA Tax Allocation Bond 1,500,000 118,857 - - - - - - 1,500,000 377 Federal Grants - - - - - - - 2,600,000 2,600,000 Unfunded - - - - - - - 25,750,000 25,750,000 Total Funding Sources 19,255,619$ 14,208,154$ 1,000,000$ 1,000,000$ 1,000,000$ 1,000,000$ 1,000,000$ 28,350,000$ 52,605,619$ Total Project Uses 19,255,619$ 14,208,154$ 1,000,000$ 1,000,000$ 1,000,000$ 1,000,000$ 1,000,000$ 28,350,000$ 52,605,619$ 13057 Vista Murrieta Road
Funding Sources:
138 DIF - Streets, Bridges & Freeways -$ -$ 200,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 200,000$ UNF Unfunded - - - - - - - 3,800,000 3,800,000 Total Funding Sources -$ -$ 200,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 3,800,000$ 4,000,000$ Total Project Uses -$ -$ 200,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 3,800,000$ 4,000,000$ 13058 Monroe Avenue
Funding Sources:
138 DIF - Freeway, Street & Bridge -$ -$ 200,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 200,000$ 136 DIF-Traffic Signals - - - - - - - 1,000,000 1,000,000 UNF Unfunded - - - - - - - 10,300,000 10,300,000 Total Funding Sources -$ -$ 200,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 11,300,000$ 11,500,000$ Total Project Uses -$ -$ 200,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 11,300,000$ 11,500,000$ Streets, Bridges & Freeways Development Impact Fee Account Beginning Fund Balance 9,880,811$ 5,400,000$ 4,000,000$ 3,000,000$ 2,000,000$ 1,000,000$ (0)$ 9,880,811$ Balance Remaining (4,480,811) - - - - - - (4,480,811) Expenditures - (1,400,000) (1,000,000) (1,000,000) (1,000,000) (1,000,000) - (5,400,000) Ending Fund Balance 5,400,000$ 4,000,000$ 3,000,000$ 2,000,000$ 1,000,000$ (0)$ (0)$ (0)$ Inception to
Date Budget
Balance
Remaining
Total Project
Cost

625
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
Park
Land
Park
Improvements
Community
Centers
Public
Library Total
Residential - Fee per Square Foot
Single Family 0.39$ 0.28 $ 2.36 $ 0.21 $ 0.15 $ 0.45 $ 3.28 $ 1.57 $ 0.11 $ 0.17 $ 8.97$ Multifamily 0.53 0.38 3.60 0.33 0.29 0.61 4.45 2.13 0.16 0.23 12.71 Nonresidential - Fee per Square Foot
Commercial 1.19$ 1.83 $ 8.73 $ 0.80 $ 0.20 $ 0.21 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 12.96$ Office 1.91 2.95 7.61 0.69 0.10 0.34 - - - - 13.60 Industrial 0.63 0.98 2.48 0.23 0.25 0.11 - - - - 4.68 Sources: Tables 3.6, 4.6, 5.6, 6.4, 7.5, 8.6, 9.9, 10.6 and 11.7. 626
Attachment 3
Table 1: Current Fee Schedule - Adopted 2016
Land Use
Law
Enforcem
ent
Fire
Protection
Streets,
Minor
Bridges &
Culverts
Traffic
Signals
Storm
Drainage
General
Facilities
Parkland
Facilities
Community
Centers
Public
Library
Grand
Total
Residential - Fee Per Dwelling Unit1
Single Family Unit 597$ 634 $ 5,481 $ 1,051 $ 334 $ 241 $ 4,363$ 764 $ 388 $ 13,853$ Multi-family Unit 417 444 3,809 730 304 168 3,049 533 270 9,724 Residential - Equivalent Fee per Square Foot
Single Family Unit2 0.23$ 0.25 $ 2.15 $ 0.41 $ 0.13 $ 0.09 $ 1.71 $ 0.30 $ 0.15 $ 5.42$ Multi-family Unit3 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 Nonresidential - 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 1 These are the currently adopted fees, chraged per dwelling unit regardless of size of unit. 2 Equivalent fees per square foot assume 2,555 square feet per average sized single family unit. 3 Equivalent fees per square foot assume 1,198 square feet per average sized multifamily unit. 627
Table 2: Maximum Justified Impact Facilities Fee Summary - April 3, 2024 Report Land Use
Law
Enforcem
ent
Fire
Protection
Streets,
Minor
Bridges &
Culverts
Traffic
Signals
Storm
Drainage
General
Facilities Parks
Community
Centers
Public
Library Total
Residential - Fee per Square Foot
Single Family 0.39 $ 0.28 $ 2.36 $ 0.21 $ 0.15 $ 0.45 $ 4.85 $ 0.11 $ 0.17 $ 8.97$ Multifamily 0.53 0.38 3.60 0.33 0.29 0.61 6.58 0.16 0.23 12.71 Nonresidential - Fee per Square Foot
Commercial 1.19 $ 1.83 $ 8.73 $ 0.80 $ 0.20 $ 0.21 $ - $ - $ - $ 12.96$ Office 1.91 2.95 7.61 0.69 0.10 0.34 - - - 13.60 Industrial 0.63 0.98 2.48 0.23 0.25 0.11 - - - 4.68 Table 3: Difference
Land Use
Law
Enforcem
ent
Fire
Protection
Streets,
Minor
Bridges &
Culverts
Traffic
Signals
Storm
Drainage
General
Facilities Parks
Community
Centers
Public
Library Total
Residential - Fee per Square Foot
Single Family 0.16 $ 0.03 $ 0.21 $ (0.20) $ 0.02 $ 0.36 $ 3.14 $ (0.19) $ 0.02 $ 3.55$ Multifamily 0.18 0.01 0.42 (0.28) 0.04 0.47 4.03 (0.28) - 4.59 Nonresidential - Fee per Square Foot
Commercial 1.06 $ 1.52 $ (0.36) $ (0.94) $ 0.03 $ 0.16 $ - $ - $ - $ 1.47$ Office 1.74 2.55 0.68 (0.64) 0.01 0.27 - - - 4.62 Industrial 0.57 0.83 1.49 0.04 0.03 0.09 - - - 3.04 628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
1 Town Square, Murrieta, CA 92562 ● (951) 304 -CITY (2489) ● www.MurrietaCA.gov

CITY OF MURRIETA
TO:

FROM:

SUBJECT:

DATE:

Mr. Brownyard
Attn: Gretchen Gutierrez
Desert Valleys Builder Association
City of Murrieta
Development Impact Fee Review
Comments
April 8, 2024
Dear Mr. Brownyard:

We appreciate you taking the time to review the Development Impact Fee Study and providing your observations over for the specific items addressed in your letter. We have worked with our consultants, Willdan Financial Services, and believe each of your concerns are addressed appropriately. Please review the following attachment from Willdan Financial Services.

Thank you,
Javier Carcamo,
Finance Director
636

Memorandum

To: Javier Carcamo, City of Murrieta
From: Carlos Villarreal, Willdan Financial Services
Date: April 5, 2024
Re: Response to DVBA: Limited Review of the City of Murrieta’s Development Impact Fee Study Letter

The following are Willdan’s responses to DVBA’s March 6, 2024 letter regarding the City’s Administrative Draft Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update, dated February 12, 2024. The comments are summarized and responded to.

Comment 1: The study suggests that an administrative charge of 2% for miscellaneous costs attributed to the collection and maintenance of a Development Impact Fee Program is perfectly acceptable. It is NOT!

Response: The administrative fee can be spent on all aspects related to the administration of an impact fee program beyond mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.

The administrative fee can fund but is not limited to: legal costs, revenue collection costs, revenue and cost accounting, staff time spent on capital project administration related to growth-driven projects and other impact fee program related administrative costs.

We have reviewed the City’s CIP and based on an analysis of the FY2023 impact fee program operating expenditures found that administrative costs were approximately 1.52%.

To be conservative we have revised the study to use a 1% administrative charge. Appendix Table A.7 has been added to the report showing this administrative charge calculation.

Comment 2: Page 38, Table 6.2: Traffic signal costs and Allocation to New Development: This table erroneously adds the 2013 construction cost to fee calculation.

Response: This has been corrected in the latest version of the report.

Comment 3: Page 41, Storm Drain Facilities: The second line speaks of Pomona, not Murrieta.

Response: This has been corrected in the latest version of the report.

Comment 4: Page 46, Table 82.: General Facilities Inventory- The calculation of the cost per square foot for MIC is incorrect. There are several items included in Appendix Table A.6 that one might expect to be included in the construction costs of various building types.
637

Response: The cost per square foot for the MIC has been corrected in the latest version of the report.

City staff reviewed the unit costs for the included buildings and equipment included in Table A.6 and determined that the equipment and tenant improvements listed in Table A.6 are not included in the replacement costs for the buildings. No adjustments are needed.

Comment 5: Page 47, Table 8.3: Planned Facilities: The unit cost of $500 per square foot seems high for a Public Works Maintenace Building. Is there an example of a completed maintenance building with similar cost.

Response: The City has not completed a public works building recently. However, the City has received cost estimates for several buildings, site improvements and tenant improvements to existing buildings, which all indicate that $500 per square foot is a conservative cost assumption for estimating the cost of the future Public Works Maintenance Building. Further, the cost of the planned facility does not drive the fee calculation, rather, the fees are driven by the existing facility standard for this fee category.

Comment: Page 54, Table 9.4: Park Facilities Unit Costs: The percentage shares established in the right column are confusing.

Response: Agreed. We have removed the percentage shares from the table, as they are not used in the calculation.

Comment: Page 58, Table 9.9: Park Facilities Fee Schedule: The multifamily square foot calculations use the incorrect denominator.

Response: This has been corrected in the latest version of the report.

638

Grandfathering/Phasing Schedule Attachment 8
Residential Land Uses

Residential - Single Family (SF)
• All projects that are in the plan check review phase with the Building & Safety Division, on or before 06/30/2024, may pay the Current (Adopted FY 2016/17) Fee.

These projects will have until 06/30/2025, or upon the issuance of a building permit (whichever occurs first), to pay/prepay their DIF fees. All projects that qualify will be notified .
• Projects that are not in plan check review on or before 6/30/2024 or that have not paid/prepaid their DIF fees by 06/30/2025 are subject to paying the Updated Fee. • There will be no phasing for Single Family Residential projects.

Residential - Multi-Family (MF)
• All projects that are in the plan check review phase with the Building & Safety Division, on or before 06/30/2024, may pay the Current (Adopted FY 2016 /17) Fee. These projects will have until 06/30/2025, or upon the issuance of a building permit (whichever occurs first), to pay/prepay their DIF fees. All projects that qualify will be notified .
• Projects that are not in plan check review on or before 6/30/2024 or that have not paid/prepaid their DIF fees by 06/30/2025 are subject to paying the Updated Fee. • There will be no phasing for Multi-Family Residential projects.

SB 330 Residential Projects • Projects that follow the provisions of SB330 relative to fees for residential projects, that have filed a zoning application that was determined to be complete, have their development fees frozen for 30 months from the date of final approval.

Non-Residential Land Use

Commercial
• All projects that are in the plan check review phase with the Building & Safety Division, on or before 06/30/2024, may pay the Current (Adopted FY 2016 /17) Fee. These projects will have until 06/30/2025, or upon the issuance of a building permit (whichever occurs first), to pay/prepay their DIF fees. All projects that qualify will be notified .
• Projects that are not in plan check review on or before 6/30/2024 or that have not paid/prepaid their DIF fees by 06/30/2025 are subject to paying the Updated Fee. • There will be no phasing for Commercial projects.

Office
• All projects that are in the plan check review phase with the Building & Safety Division, on or before 06/30/2024, may pay the Current (Adopted FY 2016 /17) Fee. These projects will have until 06/30/2025, or upon the issuance of a building permit (whichever occurs first), to pay/prepay their DIF fees. All projects that qualify will be notified .
• Projects that are not in plan check review on or before 6/30/2024 or that have not paid/prepaid their DIF fees by 06/30/2025 are subject to paying the Updated Fee subject to the phase -in provisions below :
• On 07/01/2024, *Phase 1 of the Updated Fee will be in effect (33.3% of the increase).
• On 07/01/2025, *Phase 2 of the Updated Fee will be in effect (33.3% of the increase), with the potential for an inflation adjustment. • On 07/01/2026, *Phase 3 of the Updated Fee will be in effect (33.3% of the increase). This will be the final phase, with the potential for an inflation adjustment.

Industrial
• All projects that are in the plan check review phase with the Building & Safety Division, on or before 06/30/2024, may pay the Current (Adopted FY 2016 /17) Fee. These projects will have until 06/30/2025, or upon the issuance of a building permit (whichever occurs first), to pay/prepay their DIF fees. All projects that qualify will be notified .
• Projects that are not in plan check review on or before 6/30/2024 or that have not paid/prepaid their DIF fees by 06/30/2025 are subject to paying the Updated Fee subject to the phase-in provisions below :
• On 07/01/2024, *Phase 1 of the Updated Fee will be in effect (33.3% of the increase).
• On 07/01/2025, *Phase 2 of the Updated Fee will be in effect (33.3% of the increase), with the potential for an inflation adjustment. • On 07/01/2026, *Phase 3 of the Updated Fee will be in effect (33.3% of the increase). This will be the final phase, with the potential for an inflation adjustment.

639

Fee Type
Current DIF
Fees (per sq ft)
Proposed Fee
(per sqft)
3-year plan
Per year
increase
Industrial 1.63$ 4.68$ 1.017$
Office 8.99$ 13.60$ 1.537$
Fee Type
Current DIF
Fees (per sq ft)
*Phase 1
Effective
7/1/24
*Phase 2
Effective
7/1/25
*Phase 3
Effective
7/1/26
Industrial 1.63 2.64 3.66 4.68
Office 8.99 10.53 12.06 13.60
Phasing Plan
640
RESOLUTION 24-4733

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MURRIETA,

CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN UPDATE OF THE PUBLIC FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE SCHEDULE AND AMENDING THE CITY’S

FEE SCHEDULE

WHEREAS, on October 6, 1998, City Council adopted Resolution No. 98 -612 establishing and imposing a Public Facilities Development Impact Fee ("DIF"); and

WHEREAS, Exhibit B to Resolution No. 98 -612 set forth the initial public facili ties development impact fee schedule; and

WHEREAS, the purpose of the DIF is to ensure that new development mitigates the impact that a new development has on the City's public facilities and essential services; and WHEREAS, Murrieta Municipal Code 16.36 provides that the amount of the DIF fee shall be established by resolution; and

WHEREAS, the amount of the DIF fee was last revised by the City Council on July 19, 2016, by Resolution 16-3602; and

WHEREAS, the Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code sections 66000-66025) requires that a city which increases the DIF must establish that there is a reasonable relationship between the specific amount of the fee imposed as a condition of approval and the cost of the public facility attributable to that project; and

WHEREAS, the City has engaged Willdan Financial Services to conduct a Master Facility Plan Update and Development Impact Fee Calculation study ("DIF Study") to meet the requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act; and

WHEREAS, based upon the DIF Study, City staff has recommended an update of the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee Schedule as set forth in Exhibit A to this Resolution; and

WHEREAS, the City Council considered a three-year phase-in plan for industrial and office Development Impact Fees as set forth in Exhibit B to this Resolution: and

WHEREAS, the City Council considered a grandfathering of fees for all Development Impact Fee as set for in Exhibit B to this Resolution; and

WHEREAS, the City Council considered an annual Development Impact Fee adjustment based on the California Construction Cost Index (CCCI); and

WHEREAS, a workshop was duly noticed for the City Council meeting of February 20, 2024, by publishing the notice in "The Press-Enterprise" newspaper on February 17, 2024; and

WHEREAS, a public hearing was duly noticed for the City Coun cil meeting of April 16, 2024, by publishing the notice in "The Press-Enterprise" newspaper on March 31, 2024; and

641

WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the information and public testimony presented in the public hearing and in the proposed documents and staff report, all of which are included in the public record and incorporated herein by reference.

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

Section 1. That the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee Schedule, attached hereto as Exhibit A, is hereby adopted and shall replace the revised Public Facilities Development impact fee schedule adopted by Resolution 16-3602 on 07/01/2024.

Section 2. That the new Public Facilities Development Impact Fee Schedule established by this Resolution be grandfathered and phased in, in accordance with the Grandfathering/Phasing Schedule attached hereto as Exhibit B for all project types.

Section 3. That the new Public Facilities Development Impact Fee Schedule be updated on an annual basis based on the California Construction Cost Index (CCCI) and evaluate the change in the index from January-to-January timeframe or four (4) percent, whichever is lower.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 16th day of April 2024.

Lori Stone, Mayor

ATTEST:

Cristal McDonald, City Clerk

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Tiffany J. Israel, City Attorney

642

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE )§

CITY OF MURRIETA )

I, Cristal McDonald, City Clerk of the City of Murrieta, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2 4-4733 was duly passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Murrieta at the regular meeting thereof, held on the 16th day of April 2024, and was signed by the Mayor of the said City, and that the same was passed and adopted by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Cristal McDonald, City Clerk

643

644

Exhibit B
Grandfathering/Phasing Schedule
Residential Land Uses

Residential - Single Family (SF)
 All projects that are in the plan check review phase with the Building & Safety Division, on or before 06/30/2024, may pay the Current (Adopted FY 2016/17) Fee.

These projects will have until 06/30/2025, or upon the issuance of a building permit (whichever occurs first), to pay/prepay their DIF fees. All projects that qualify will be notified .
 Projects that are not in plan check review on or before 6/30/2024 or that have not paid/prepaid their DIF fees by 06/30/2025 are subject to paying the Updated Fee.  There will be no phasing for Single Family Residential projects.

Residential - Multi-Family (MF)
 All projects that are in the plan check review phase with the Building & Safety Division, on or before 06/30/2024, may pay the Current (Adopted FY 2016 /17) Fee. These projects will have until 06/30/2025, or upon the issuance of a building permit (whichever occurs first), to pay/prepay their DIF fees. All projects that qualify will be notified .
 Projects that are not in plan check review on or before 6/30/2024 or that have not paid/prepaid their DIF fees by 06/30/2025 are subject to paying the Updated Fee.  There will be no phasing for Multi-Family Residential projects.

SB 330 Residential Projects  Projects that follow the provisions of SB330 relative to fees for residential projects, that have filed a zoning application that was determined to be complete, have their development fees frozen for 30 months from the date of final approval.

Non-Residential Land Use

Commercial
 All projects that are in the plan check review phase with the Building & Safety Division, on or before 06/30/2024, may pay the Current (Adopted FY 2016 /17) Fee. These projects will have until 06/30/2025, or upon the issuance of a building permit (whichever occurs first), to pay/prepay their DIF fees. All projects that qualify will be notified .
 Projects that are not in plan check review on or before 6/30/2024 or that have not paid/prepaid their DIF fees by 06/30/2025 are subject to paying the Updated Fee.  There will be no phasing for Commercial projects.

Office
 All projects that are in the plan check review phase with the Building & Safety Division, on or before 06/30/2024, may pay the Current (Adopted FY 2016 /17) Fee. These projects will have until 06/30/2025, or upon the issuance of a building permit (whichever occurs first), to pay/prepay their DIF fees. All projects that qualify will be notified .
 Projects that are not in plan check review on or before 6/30/2024 or that have not paid/prepaid their DIF fees by 06/30/2025 are subject to paying the Updated Fee subject to the phase-in provisions below :
 On 07/01/2024, *Phase 1 of the Updated Fee will be in effect (33.3% of the increase).
 On 07/01/2025, *Phase 2 of the Updated Fee will be in effect (33.3% of the increase), with the potential for an inflation adjustment.  On 07/01/2026, *Phase 3 of the Updated Fee will be in effect (33.3% of the increase). This will be the final phase, with the potential for an inflation adjustment.

Industrial
 All projects that are in the plan check review phase with the Building & Safety Division, on or before 06/30/2024, may pay the Current (Adopted FY 2016 /17) Fee. These projects will have until 06/30/2025, or upon the issuance of a building permit (whichever occurs first), to pay/prepay their DIF fees. All projects that qualify will be notified .
 Projects that are not in plan check review on or before 6/30/2024 or that have not paid/prepaid their DIF fees by 06/30/2025 are subject to paying the Updated Fee subject to the phase-in provisions below :
 On 07/01/2024, *Phase 1 of the Updated Fee will be in effect (33.3% of the increase).
 On 07/01/2025, *Phase 2 of the Updated Fee will be in effect (33.3% of the increase), with the potential for an inflation adjustment.  On 07/01/2026, *Phase 3 of the Updated Fee will be in effect (33.3% of the increase). This will be the final phase, with the potential for an inflation adjustment. 645

RESOLUTION 24-4734

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MURRIETA,

CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE NEXUS
STUDY WHICH INCLUDES THE FIVE-YEAR FEE REPORT (AB1600) FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022/23 AND MAKING FINDINGS REQUIRED BY THE

MITIGATION FEE ACT

WHEREAS, on October 6, 1998, City Council adopted Resolution No. 98 -612 establishing and imposing a Public Facilities Development Impact Fee ("DIF"); and

WHEREAS, Exhibit B to Resolution No. 98-612 set forth the initial public facilities development impact fee schedule; and

WHEREAS, the purpose of the DIF is to ensure that new development mitigates the impact that a new development has on the City's public facilities and essential services; and

WHEREAS, pursuant to the Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code Section 66000, et seq.) certain findings are required to be made regarding unexpended development impact fees in connection with consideration of the annual development impact fee report; and

WHEREAS, the Mitigation Fee Act (specifically Government Code section 66001, subdivision (d)) requires local agencies to adopt “five-year findings ” accounting for development impact fee proceeds held unexpended for more than five years; and

WHEREAS, in 2021, Assembly Bill 602 (“AB 602”) amended the Mitigation Fee Act of the California Government Code, which governs Development Impact Fees; and

WHEREAS, AB 602 emphasized the need to adopt a Development Impact Fee Nexus Study at a public hearing prior to the adoption of any new or increased Development Impact Fees; and

WHEREAS, AB 602 requires in part that the Development Impact Fee Nexus Study identify the existing level of service for each public facility, identify new levels of ser vice, include an explanation of why the new levels of service are more appropriate, and include information to support the required findings for adoption of new or increased Development Impact Fees; and

WHEREAS, the Development Impact Fee Nexus Study provides a quantified basis for support of each Development Impact Fee and the legal support for the required findings that must be made to justify the amount of each Development Impact Fee, based on existing deficiencies of certain public facilities and t he projected burdens on those facilities caused by prospective development in the City; and

WHEREAS, the City’s last Development Impact Fee Nexus Study took place in 20 16, and since that time, the City has approved multiple Capital Improvement Plan Budgets and has seen significant development activity in recent years; and

WHEREAS, the City retained the professional services of Willdan Financial Services to prepare the City of Murrieta Development Impact Fee Study Update (the “DIF Study”); and

WHEREAS, the DIF Study is incorporated herein by this reference and provides the requisite 647

findings related to the City’s DIF Fees; and

WHEREAS, the City of Murrieta Capital Improvement Plan for Fiscal Years 202 4/25 through 2028/29 after adopted , will indicate the approximate location, size, time of availability, and estimates of cost for all facilities or improvements to be financed with the City’s Development Impact Fees; and

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

1. That the DIF Study is adopted and shall replace the 2016 Development Impact Fee Nexus Study adopted by Council on July 19, 2016. That pursuant to the Study, the Council hereby finds as follows.

i. That the purpose of the impact fees has been identified; ii. That the use of the fees have been identified;
iii. That there is a reasonable relationship between the use and the type of project on which it is imposed; and
iv. That there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the public improvement and the type of project on which it is imposed.

2. That the Five-Year Fee Report contained in the DIF Study is approved by Council and finds the following as required by Government Code Section 66001(d):

i. That the purpose of the development impact fees has been identified; ii. That there is a continued need for the improvements and that there is a reasonable relationship between the fees and the impacts for development for which the fees are collected;
iii. The sources and amounts of funding anticipated to complete the financing of improvements have been identified; and
iv. The approximate dates for funding improvements are included in the Capital Improvements Plan Budget for FY 2023/24 – 2027/28 unless the improvements are longer-term projects.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 16th day of April 2024.

Lori Stone, Mayor

ATTEST:

Cristal McDonald, City Clerk

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Tiffany J. Israel, City Attorney
648

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE )§

CITY OF MURRIETA )

I, Cristal McDonald, City Clerk of the City of Murrieta, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2 4-4734 was duly passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Murrieta at the regular meeting thereof, held on the 16th day of April 2024, and was signed by the Mayor of the said City, and that the same was passed and adopted by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Cristal McDonald, City Clerk
649
650
651
652
653
Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
& Fee Update Public Hearing
April 16, 2024, City Council - Public Hearing
Presented by
Javier Carcamo, Finance Director
David Chantarangsu, Development Services Director
Paige Hartman, Management Analyst
Willdan Financial Consultants:

James Edison – Managing Principal
Carlos Villarreal – Project Manager
Received After Agenda Printed
04/16/2024 - Regular Meeting
Item 7 - Staff Presentation
654
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 – April 16, 2024
Project Timeline
655
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
656
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
657
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
658
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
659
Impact Fee Categories
Law Enforcement
Fire Protection
Streets, Minor Bridges &
Culverts
Traffic Signals
Storm Drainage
General Facilities
Park Facilities
Community Centers
Public Library
660
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. 661
9 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
• New parks and increased services at
existing parks
• Library expansion, book lockers, and
mobile library
• CSD Offices
Planned Projects
662
Response to DVBA Comments
 Provided analysis of actual administrative costs. Revised administrative charge to 1%
 Addressed multifamily park impact fee calculation
 Addressed traffic signals fee calculation
 Comments requiring no changes:
 $500 per square foot is a reasonable estimate of future Public Works Maintenance yard
 Tenant improvements listed in appendix tables are
duplicative of replacement cost per square foot
663
Changes Since Draft Report
 Corrected an issue with the traffic signals fee,
which resulted in a lower fee schedule
 Corrected issue in multifamily park impact fee
calculation
 Reduced administrative charge from 2% to 1%
664
Current vs Proposed Fees
Table 1: Current Fee Schedule - Adopted 2016
Land Use
Law
Enforce
ment
Fire
Protection
Streets,
Minor
Bridges &
Culverts
Traffic
Signals
Storm
Drainage
General
Facilities
Parkland
Facilities
Community
Centers
Public
Library
Grand
Total
Residential - Fee Per Dwelling Unit1
Single Family Unit 597$ 634$ 5,481$ 1,051$ 334$ 241$ 4,363$ 764$ 388$ 13,853$ Multi-family Unit 417 444 3,809 730 304 168 3,049 533 270 9,724 Residential - Equivalent Fee per Square Foot
Single Family Unit2 0.23$ 0.25$ 2.15$ 0.41$ 0.13$ 0.09$ 1.71$ 0.30$ 0.15$ 5.42$ Multi-family Unit3 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 Nonresidential - 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 1 These are the currently adopted fees, charged per dw elling unit regardless of size of unit. 2 Equivalent fees per square foot assume 2,555 square feet per average sized single family unit. 3 Equivalent fees per square foot assume 1,198 square feet per average sized multifamily unit. 665
Current vs Proposed Fees
Table 2: Maximum Justified Impact Facilities Fee Summary Land Use
Law
Enforce
ment
Fire
Protection
Streets,
Minor
Bridges &
Culverts
Traffic
Signals
Storm
Drainage
General
Facilities Parks
Community
Centers
Public
Library Total
Residential - Fee per Square Foot
Single Family 0.39$ 0.28$ 2.36$ 0.21$ 0.15$ 0.45$ 4.85$ 0.11$ 0.17$ 8.97$ Multifamily 0.53 0.38 3.60 0.33 0.29 0.61 6.58 0.16 0.23 12.71 Nonresidential - Fee per Square Foot
Commercial 1.19$ 1.83$ 8.73$ 0.80$ 0.20$ 0.21$ -$ -$ -$ 12.96$ Office 1.91 2.95 7.61 0.69 0.10 0.34 - - - 13.60 Industrial 0.63 0.98 2.48 0.23 0.25 0.11 - - - 4.68 Table 3: Difference
Land Use
Law
Enforce
ment
Fire
Protection
Streets,
Minor
Bridges &
Culverts
Traffic
Signals
Storm
Drainage
General
Facilities Parks
Community
Centers
Public
Library Total
Residential - Fee per Square Foot
Single Family 0.16$ 0.03$ 0.21$ (0.20)$ 0.02$ 0.36$ 3.14$ (0.19)$ 0.02$ 3.55$ Multifamily 0.18 0.01 0.42 (0.28) 0.04 0.47 4.03 (0.28) - 4.59 Nonresidential - Fee per Square Foot
Commercial 1.06$ 1.52$ (0.36)$ (0.94)$ 0.03$ 0.16$ -$ -$ -$ 1.47$ Office 1.74 2.55 0.68 (0.64) 0.01 0.27 - - - 4.62 Industrial 0.57 0.83 1.49 0.04 0.03 0.09 - - - 3.04 666
DIF Administrative Policy
• Grandfathering/Phasing Schedule
 Phasing only applies to Industrial and Office permit types  Grandfathering applies to all permit types
• Inflation Adjustment
 Inflation adjustment will apply to all permit types including those being phased-in
 California Construction Cost Index (CCCI) or 4%, whichever is lower
667
Grandfathering
Criteria for all Project Types:
• Projects in plan check review phase, on or before 06/30/2024 • Pre-pay their DIF fees until 06/30/2025, or upon the issuance of a building permit (whichever occurs first.

Current Impacted Projects:
• Total Projects currently affected - 15 Commercial, 4 SF Residential, and 2 MF Residential Projects (~679 units)
• Revenue reduction ~ $6,794,115
Industrial and Office:

These project types will follow the same grandfathering guidelines as other project types but will also include the phasing-in schedule.

SB 330:

Projects that follow the provisions of SB330 relative to fees for residential projects, that have filed a zoning application that was determined to be complete, have their development fees frozen for 30 months from the date of final approval.
668
16 Phase -In
3-Year Phasing
Fee Type
Current DIF
Fees (per sq ft)
Proposed Fee
(per sqft)
3-year plan
Per year
increase

plan
Per year
increase
Industrial 1.63$ 4.68$ 1.017$ 0.76$ Office 8.99$ 13.60$ 1.537$ 1.15$ Fee Type
Current DIF
Fees (per sq ft)
Effective
7/1/24
Effective
7/1/25
Effective
7/1/26
Industrial 1.63 2.64 3.66 4.68
Office 8.99 10.53 12.06 13.60
Proposed Phasing Plan
669
Annual Adjustment
• Update the City’s fee schedule on an annual basis based on the California Construction Cost Index (CCCI).
• The change in the cost index will be evaluated on a January-to- January calendar year
• Annual inflation adjustment be capped at a four (4) percent increase
*CCCI has increased 47.7% since 2016*
670
18 Staff Recommendations
• Adopt Resolution No. 24-4733 entitled: A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Murrieta, California, Approving an Update of the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee Schedule and Amending the City’s Fee Schedule; and
• Adopt Resolution No. 24-4734 entitled: A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Murrieta, California, Adopting a Development Impact Fee Nexus Study, which Includes the Five-Year Fee Report (AB1600) for the Fiscal Year 2022/23 and Making Findings Required by the Mitigation Fee Act.
• Policy Considerations:
 Grandfathering/Phase-in Schedule
 Inflation Adjustment
671
672
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
673
Cost Allocation Methodologies
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Facility Demand Facility Needs
Existing
Demand
Future
Demand
Existing Inventory Method
New
Facilities
Existing
Facilities
Fee $
System Plan Method
(Increase Service Level)
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
110
120
130
140
150
Future
Demand
Growth
Share
Existing
Deficiency
Existing
Demand
Existing
Facilities
Facility Needs
New
Facilities
Facility Demand
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
110
120
130
140
150
Future
Demand
New
Facilities
Demand Facility Needs
Allocated to New
Development
Planned Facilities
674
Fee Program Methodologies
Law Enforcement
Fire Protection
Open Space
Parks
Community Centers
General Facilities
Existing Standard
Library Facilities
System Plan
Streets, Minor Bridges &
Culverts
Traffic Signals
Storm Drain
Planned Facilities
675
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 43,751,507 25,870,312 17,881,195
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 $ 682,390,078 $ 585,895,853 $ 96,494,225 676
Fee Comparison: Single Family Unit, 2,555
Square Feet
$-
$5,000
$10,000
$15,000
$20,000
$25,000
$30,000
$35,000
$40,000
Murrieta (Current) Maximum Justified
Murrieta
Lake Elsinore (Low) Lake Elsinore (High) Menifee (Low) Menifee (High) Moreno Valley Temecula (Low) Temecula (High) 677
Fee Comparison: Multifamily Unit, 1,198
Square Feet
$-
$5,000
$10,000
$15,000
$20,000
$25,000
Murrieta (Current) Maximum Justified
Murrieta
Lake Elsinore (Low) Lake Elsinore (High) Menifee (Low) Menifee (High) Moreno Valley Temecula (Low) Temecula (High) 678
Fee Comparison: Commercial – 1,000
Square Feet
$-
$5,000
$10,000
$15,000
$20,000
$25,000
$30,000
$35,000
$40,000
Murrieta (Current) Maximum Justified
Murrieta
Lake Elsinore (Low) Lake Elsinore (High) Menifee (Low) Menifee (High) Moreno Valley (General)
Moreno Valley
(Regional)
Temecula (Low) Temecula (High)
679
Fee Comparison: Office, 1,000 Square Feet
$-
$2,000
$4,000
$6,000
$8,000
$10,000
$12,000
$14,000
$16,000
$18,000
Murrieta (Current) Maximum Justified
Murrieta
Lake Elsinore (Low) Lake Elsinore (High) Menifee (Low) Menifee (High) Moreno Valley Temecula (Low) Temecula (High) 680
Fee Comparison: Industrial – 1,000 Square
Feet
$-
$1,000
$2,000
$3,000
$4,000
$5,000
$6,000
$7,000
$8,000
$9,000
Murrieta (Current) Maximum Justified
Murrieta
Lake Elsinore (Low) Lake Elsinore (High) Menifee (Low) Menifee (High) Moreno Valley Temecula (Low) Temecula (High) 681

CITY OF MURRIETA
City Council Meeting Agenda
Report
4/16/2024
Agenda Item No.

Subject:

Received After Agenda Printed - GBA
CITY OF MURRIETA Printed on 4/23/2024Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
682

MURRIETA CITY COUNCIL
Governing Body Announcements:

Council Member Levell
April 16, 2024
Received After Agenda Printed
04/16/2024 - Regular Meeting
Presentation (GBA)
683
Governing Body Announcements:

Council Member Levell
[email protected]
April 4, 2024 Attended the Loma Linda Children’s Hospital saddle up for miracles, gala with Mayor Stone and Council Member Holliday.

April 6, 2024 Attended the Tour de Murrieta Bike Race with the rest of Council. I also won the Council race.

April 13, 2024 Attended the Murrieta Firefighters Barbecue. 684

MURRIETA CITY COUNCIL
Governing Body Announcements:

Mayor Stone
April 16, 2024
Received After Agenda Printed
04/16/2024 - Regular Meeting
Presentation (GBA)
685
Governing Body Announcements:

Mayor Stone
[email protected]
April 2, 2024 Attended the Touch A Truck event.

April 6, 2024 Attended the Tour De Murrieta event.
686
Governing Body Announcements:

Mayor Stone
[email protected]
April 9, 2024 Attended the Southwest Riverside County Association of Realtors luncheon. 687
Governing Body Announcements:

Mayor Stone
[email protected]
April 13, 2024 Attended the Firefighters BBQ.
688
Governing Body Announcements:

Mayor Stone
[email protected]
Various Dates
Had dinner with Fire Stations 4 & 5.

Attended the Loma Linda Children’s Foundation fundraiser.

Attended the Stat Sanctuary fundraiser.

Met with a Developer about the Vineyard project.

Attended the Chamber breakfast mixer.

Met with a Developer about Development Impact Fees.

Attended the Southwest Legislative luncheon.
689

MURRIETA CITY COUNCIL
Governing Body Announcements:

Mayor Pro Tem Warren
April 16, 2024
Received After Agenda Printed
04/16/2024 - Regular Meeting
Presentation (GBA)
690
Governing Body Announcements:

Mayor Pro Tem Warren
[email protected]
April 2, 2024 Attended the Touch A Truck Event.

April 4, 2024 Attended the Professional Women’s Round Table General Meeting.

April 4, 2024 Attended the Murrieta/Wildomar Chamber of Commerce Mixer at Murrieta Hot Springs Resort.
691
Governing Body Announcements:

Mayor Pro Tem Warren
[email protected]
April 5, 2024 Attended the Tour de Murrieta Shakeout Ride.

April 5, 2024 Attended the Physician’s Social at the Murrieta Hot Springs Resort. 692
Governing Body Announcements:

Mayor Pro Tem Warren
[email protected]
April 6, 2024 Attended the Tour de Murrieta Grand Prix Race and Expo. 693
Governing Body Announcements:

Mayor Pro Tem Warren
[email protected]
April 8, 2024 Attended the Murrieta Rotary Lunch.

April 10, 2024 Attended the Economic Development Update Quarterly Meeting with Scott Agajanian.

April 11, 2024 Attended the Murrieta/Wildomar Chamber of Commerce Networking Breakfast. 694
Governing Body Announcements:

Mayor Pro Tem Warren
[email protected]
April 13, 2024 Attended and Served at the 77th Annual Murrieta Fire and Rescue BBQ.

April 15, 2024 Attended a Fundraiser Dinner for Michelle’s Place Non-Profit Organization. 695

MURRIETA CITY COUNCIL
Governing Body Announcements:

Council Member DeForest
April 16, 2024
Received After Agenda Printed
04/16/2024 - Regular Meeting
Presentation (GBA)
696
Governing Body Announcements:

Council Member DeForest
[email protected]
March 14, 2024 Attended the Murrieta/Wildomar Chamber Breakfast.

March 18, 2024 Met with the new Assistant City Manager Justin Clifton.

March 20, 2024 Met with Supervisor Washington about the Higher Education Coalition.

March 20, 2024 Met with Council Member Levell and David Chantarangsu about the Hillside Ordinance.

March 23, 2024 Attended the Spring EGGstravangaza at Town Square Park.

March 26, 2024 Attended the Monthly Coffee with the City/Chamber.

March 26, 2024 Chaired the Higher Education Coalition at the Library. 697
Governing Body Announcements:

Council Member DeForest
[email protected]
April 4, 2024 Met with David Chantarangsu about the Hillside Ordinance.

April 11, 2024 Attended the Murrieta/Wildomar Chamber Breakfast.

April 12, 2024 Met with Planning about continuing community concerns and questions.

April 13, 2024 Attended the 77th Firefighters BBQ.

April 16, 2024 Attended the Murrieta Temecula Group closed meeting at Sizzler.

Various Dates Met with several community members about issues and concerns. 698
Governing Body Announcements:

Council Member DeForest
[email protected]
If you need to reach me, please feel free to contact
me via email at [email protected]
or for faster response call or text me at
(951) 323-8497
699

MURRIETA CITY COUNCIL
Governing Body Announcements:

Council Member Holliday
April 16, 2024
Received After Agenda Printed
04/16/2024 - Regular Meeting
Presentation (GBA)
700
Governing Body Announcements:

Council Member Holliday
[email protected]
April 5, 2024 Attended the Loma Linda Children's Hospital Gala.

April 5, 2024 Enjoyed the presentation from Aaron Hake, Deputy Executive Director of Riverside County Transportation Commission, at the Murrieta Temecula Group monthly meeting.

April 5, 2024 Greeted the dedicated group of cyclists that rode from Paradise Chevrolet to Murrieta City Hall in the freezing, pouring rain.

April 5, 2024 Represented Murrieta at the Physician's Social at the Murrieta Hot Springs Resort. 701
Governing Body Announcements:

Council Member Holliday
[email protected]
April 6, 2024 Enjoyed the Tour de Murrieta. Especially the kids races along with a trip around the course on Gas bikes with my colleagues.

April 13, 2024 Thoroughly enjoyed serving residents at the 77th Annual Firefighters BBQ. Thankfully, the weather was great.
702

CITY OF MURRIETA
City Council Meeting Agenda
Report
4/16/2024
Agenda Item No.

Subject:

Received After Agenda Printed - Adjournment Slide
CITY OF MURRIETA Printed on 4/23/2024Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
703
Mayor Stone - Adjournment
April 16, 2024
“You cannot get through a single day without
having an impact on the world around you.”
― Jane Goodall
Received After Agenda Printed
04/16/2024 - Regular Meeting
Adjournment - Presentation
704
705

Murrieta City CouncilApril 16, 2024

Murrieta City Council
April 16, 2024