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

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
This page intentionally left blank.
i

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
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
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
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
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. This 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 fiveyear 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 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 based 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).

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.

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
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.

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 current available growth forecasts and the City’s most recently adopted Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) to update the City’s existing fee program to ensure that the fee 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, buildings, 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.

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 development.

This is often 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 longrange 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
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
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 projection for 2035 was calculated based on the total single family and multifamily units identified in Table 3-15 of the 2035 General Plan Land Use Element, multiplied by estimates of 3.25 residents per single family unit and 2.07 residents per multifamily unit calculated from the 2022 American Community Survey data for Murrieta.

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 projection 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.

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.
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.

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.

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.

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.

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 Fee1 Charge1, 2 Total Fee1 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.
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.

City of Murrieta Development Impact Fee Study Update
22 Table 4.2: Existing Fire Facilities Land and Building Inventory Inventory Units Unit Cost Value1
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.

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 Apparatus 3
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.

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 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 Fee1 Charge1, 2 Total Fee1 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. 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.

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.

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 Growth 2023 to 2035 Total - 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.

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)
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)
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.

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.

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 Signal2
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.

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 Signal2
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.

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.

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 Fee1
Admin
Charge1, 2 Total Fee1
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.
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.

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 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.

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.

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 Fee1
Admin
Charge1, 2 Total Fee1
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.
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. The 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
acre1
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 32.3 percent of total storm drain demand in 2035.

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.

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 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 Fee1
Admin
Charge1, 2 Total Fee1
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. 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.

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 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.

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).

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 Fee1 Charge1, 2 Total Fee1 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.
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.

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.

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.

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 Bars2
5 750,000 3,750,000
Exercise Equipment 11 9,000 99,000
Dressing Room31 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.

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 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 standards 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.

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.

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.

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 Fee1 Charge1, 2 Total Fee1 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. 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.

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 shed 3,200 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.

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.

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 Fee1 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.
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.

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 an expansion to the library building, new book lockers and a new mobile library. In all, the projects 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.

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 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 Fee1 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. 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.

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. 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 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.
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 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 relationship 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.

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
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.

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.

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 FordF-250 4X4 (Batt- 6305). M. Ramos. S4 2015 98,500 15-077 FordF-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
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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 ends

2 Current impact fee program includes 2% administrative charge. 3

Page 31 ends

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

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).

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.

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.

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.

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
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.

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
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
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.

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
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.

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
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.

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
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.

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
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.

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
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
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
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
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.

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
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
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.

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
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
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
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
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.

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
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
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.

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
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.

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

Murrieta City CouncilOctober 20, 2026

Murrieta City Council
October 20, 2026