Norco City Council
May 6, 2026

AGENDA
City Council
Wednesday, May 6, 2026
City Council Chamber – Norco City Hall
2820 Clark Avenue, Norco, CA 92860
CALL TO ORDER 4:30 PM
ROLL CALL Robin Grundmeyer, Mayor
Gregory Bowen, Mayor Pro Tem
Kevin Bash, Council Member
Greg Newton, Council Member
Fia Sullivan, Council Member

BUDGET WORKSHOP
A. Discussion of Proposed Development Impact Fee Study
RECOMMENDATION:

Provide feedback to staff.

Staff Report - Pdf

CLOSED SESSION

CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS
Pursuant to Government Code section 54957.6
Agency Designated Representatives: City Manager and City Attorney Employee Organization: Norco General Employees Association (NGEA) CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL—EXISTING LITIGATION
(Paragraph (1) of subdivision (d) of Section 54956.9)
Name of case: City of Norco inspection warrant, Riverside County Superior Court, Case No. CVCO2600512
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL—ANTICIPATED LITIGATION
Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section 54956.9: (2 potential cases)
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL—ANTICIPATED LITIGATION
Initiation of litigation pursuant to paragraph (4) of subdivision (d) of Section 54956.9: (2 potential cases)
RECONVENE PUBLIC SESSION 7:00 PM

REPORT OF ACTION(S) TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION
City Council Agenda - May 6, 2026
INVOCATION Chaplain Vincent Ball
Riverside County Sheriff's Office
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Council Member Kevin Bash

1. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS ON REGIONAL BOARDS

2. PUBLIC COMMENTS
This is the time when persons wishing to address the presiding governmental body regarding the Consent Calendar or other items within the subject matter jurisdiction of the legislative body, but not separately agendized, may be heard. Please submit a speaker card to the Meeting Clerk.

Please limit comments to three minutes or less. The Ralph M. Brown Act limits the governmental body’s ability to respond to comments on non-agendized matters at the time such comments are made. The governmental body shall not discuss or act relative to any public comments on nonagendized matters.

3. CONSENT CALENDAR
All items listed under the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and may be enacted by one motion. Prior to the motion to consider any action by the presiding governmental body, any public comments on any of the Consent Items will be heard under Item No. 2 of the Agenda.

There will be no discussion on matters on the Consent Calendar unless an item is pulled for discussion by a member of the governmental body. Items pulled for discussion from the Consent Calendar will be separately considered under Item No. 4 of the Agenda.

3.A. Waive Reading of All Ordinance Adoptions on this Agenda and Read by Title Only
RECOMMENDATION:

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

Staff Report - Pdf

3.B. Approval of City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
RECOMMENDATION:

Approve the City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of April 15, 2026.

Staff Report - Pdf

City Council Agenda - May 6, 2026

3.C. Quarterly Investment Report for Quarter Ended March 31, 2026 RECOMMENDATION:

Receive and file the Quarterly Investment Report for the Quarter Ended March 31, 2026.

Staff Report - Pdf

3.D. Acceptance of the Moreno Arena LED Lighting Upgrades as Complete (Project No. 54111.5)
RECOMMENDATION:

Accept the Moreno Arena LED Lighting Upgrades as Complete (Project No. 54111.5), and Authorize the City Clerk to file a Notice of Completion with the County of Riverside.

Staff Report - Pdf

3.E. Acceptance of the Kips Korner Park Improvement Project as Complete (Project No. 54300.2)
RECOMMENDATION:

Accept the Kips Korner Park Improvement Project as Complete (Project No. 54300.2), and Authorize the City Clerk to file a Notice of Completion with the County of Riverside.

Staff Report - Pdf

3.F. Approval of One-Year License Agreement with Legendary Cowgirls for Use of Ingalls Event Center Arenas
RECOMMENDATION:

Approve one-year License Agreement between the City of Norco and the Legendary Cowgirls for the use of Moreno Arena and Clark Arena at the Ingalls Event Center.

Staff Report - Pdf

3.G. Adopt Resolution No. 2026-24 Reaffirming the Ownership Structure of the Block 77 Cooperative Water Company, Inc.

RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt Resolution No. 2026-24 reaffirming the ownership structure of the Block 77 Cooperative Water Company, Inc.

Staff Report - Pdf

City Council Agenda - May 6, 2026

3.H. Amended Cooperative Funding Agreement between the City of Norco and the Riverside County Flood Control & Water Conservation District for the South Norco Channel Stage 2 Storm Drain Project
RECOMMENDATION:

Approve the Cooperative Funding Agreement Amendment with Riverside County Flood Control & Water Conservation District (RCFC&WCD) to design and construct the South Norco Channel Stage 2 Storm Drain Project, subject to non-substantive changes and approval by the Riverside County Board of Supervisors; and authorize the Mayor to execute the agreement.

Staff Report - Pdf

3.I. Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance No. 1141, Code Amendment 2026-01, An Ordinance of the City of Norco amending Norco Municipal Code Chapter 3.50 to update participation in the Western Riverside County Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Program, and Resolution 2026-20, a resolution to adopt the TUMF schedule to establish Construction Cost Index adjustments.

RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt Ordinance No. 1141, amending and updating the City’s TUMF Ordinance.

Staff Report - Pdf

4. ITEM(S) PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR

5. CITY COUNCIL / STAFF COMMUNICATIONS

6. ADJOURNMENT
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, any person who requires a modification or accommodation in order to participate in this meeting is encouraged to contact the City Clerk’s Office at (951) 270-5623 or [email protected] at least 48 hours prior to the meeting so that reasonable arrangements can be made to ensure accessibility. Staff reports are on file in the City Clerk’s Office.

Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the presiding governmental body regarding any item on this agenda will be available for public inspection at the City Clerk’s Office during normal business hours at Norco City Hall, located at 2870 Clark Avenue in Norco. The meeting is recorded.

City Council

STAFF REPORT
Date: May 6, 2026 Agenda Item:

A.

To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
From: Joshua Calhoun, Finance Director
Prepared By: Joshua Calhoun, Finance Director
Department: Finance
SUBJECT:

Discussion of Proposed Development Impact Fee Study
RECOMMENDATION:

Provide feedback to staff.

SUMMARY:

The City has completed a Development Impact Fee (DIF) Study for City Council’s review. The last comprehensive Development Impact Fee Study was adopted twelve years ago in 2014.

Preparation of the updated Development Impact Fee is consistent with the City Council's goal of maintaining long-term financial stability through the identification of sustainable revenue sources and the continued practice of prudent fiscal management.

The updated study reflects current growth projections, infrastructure needs, and construction costs.

Staff recommends that, following City Council review and input, the Development Impact Fee Study be advanced to a duly noticed public hearing for consideration of adoption.

BACKGROUND:

On the April 17, 2024 City Council approved a Professional Services Agreement with Willdan Financial Services to prepare a comprehensive update to the City's Development Impact Fee program.

The goal of a development impact fee program is to ensure that new development pays contributes its fair share toward the cost of public facilities and infrastructure required to support growth. This approach helps prevent the financial burden of new development

from being placed on existing residents and businesses, and ensures compliance with the requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act.

The City currently has DIF's in place for streets, parks, fire, facilities, trails, water, wastewater, animal control and storm drains. The updated DIF Study evaluates these categories based on current service standards, projected development, and anticipated capital improvement needs.

FISCAL IMPACT:

This agenda item will not result in a fiscal impact.

RELATIONSHIP TO STRATEGIC PLAN:

This item is consistent with Strategic Plan Direction No. 3 "Economic Development and Financial Stability" and Strategic Plan Action Item 3.6 - "Review development impact fees to neighboring cities/agencies".

REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:

Certified as to Availability of Funds: Joshua Calhoun, Finance Director Approved by: Lisette Free, City Manager
Approved as to Form: Harper and Burns, LLP, City Attorney ATTACHMENT(S):

Proposed Development Impact Fee Nexus Study (Attachment A)

CITY OF NORCO

DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE NEXUS

STUDY UPDATE

FINAL DRAFT
APRIL 28, 2026
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 .......................................................................... 1 Background and Study Objectives 1
Facility Standards and Costs 1
Use of Fee Revenues 2
Development Impact Fee Schedule Summary 2
Other Funding Needed 3

1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................... 5 Public Facilities Financing in California 5
Study Objectives 5
Fee Program Maintenance 6
Study Methodology 6
Types of Facility Standards 7
New Development Facility Needs and Costs 7
Organization of the Report 8

2. GROWTH FORECASTS ................................................................. 9 Land Use Types 9
Existing and Future Development 9
Occupant Densities 11

3. ANIMAL CONTROL FACILITIES..................................................... 12 Service Population 12
Existing Facility Inventory 13
Planned Facilities 14
Cost Allocation 15
Existing Level of Service 15
Future Level of Service 15
Use of Fee Revenue 16
Fee Revenue Projection 16
Fee Schedule 17

4. FIRE PROTECTION FACILITIES .................................................... 19 Service Population 19
Existing Inventory 20
Planned Facilities 21
Cost Allocation 22
Existing Level of Service 22
Future Level of Service 22
Use of Fee Revenue 23
Fee Revenue Projection 23
Fee Schedule 23

5. CIRCULATION FACILITIES ........................................................... 25

City of Norco Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update ii
Trip Demand 25
Trip Growth 26
Project Costs 26
Fee per Trip Demand Unit 27
Smart Growth and VMT Efficient Housing Discounts 28
Fee Schedule 29

6. STORM DRAINAGE FACILITIES .................................................... 31 Storm Drain Demand 31
EDU Generation by New Development 32
Planned Facilities 32
Cost per Equivalent Dwelling Unit 34
Fee Schedule 34

7. WATER FACILITIES.................................................................... 36 Water Demand 36
EDU Generation by New Development 37
Facility Needs and Costs 37
Cost per EDU 39
Fee Schedule 39

8. WASTEWATER FACILITIES .......................................................... 41 Wastewater Demand 41
EDU Generation by New Development 42
Facility Needs and Costs 42
Cost per EDU 44
Fee Schedule 44

9. RECYCLED WATER FACILITIES ................................................... 46 Recycled Water Demand 46
Planned Facilities 46
Cost per EDU 46
Fee Schedule 47

10. GENERAL GOVERNMENT FACILITIES............................................ 49 Service Population 49
Existing Inventory 50
Planned Facilities 51
Cost Allocation 52
Existing Level of Service 52
Future Level of Service 53
Use of Fee Revenue 53
Fee Revenue Projection 53
Fee Schedule 54

11. PARKS AND OPEN SPACE FACILITIES .......................................... 56 Service Population 56

City of Norco Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update iii
Existing Parkland and Park Facilities Inventory 57
Parkland and Park Facilities Unit Costs 58
Parkland and Park Facility Standards 59
Mitigation Fee Act 59
Quimby Act 59
City of Norco Parkland and Park Facilities Standards 60 Facilities Needed to Accommodate New Development 60
Park Facilities Cost per Capita 62
Use of Fee Revenue 62
Fee Schedule 62

12. AB 602 REQUIREMENTS............................................................ 64 Compliance with AB 602 64
66016.5. (a) (2) - Level of Service 64
66016.5. (a) (4) – Review of Original Fee Assumptions 65 66016.5. (a) (5) – Residential Fees per Square Foot 65
66016.5. (a) (6) – Capital Improvement Plan 65

13. IMPLEMENTATION...................................................................... 66 Impact Fee Program Adoption Process 66
Inflation Adjustment 66
Reporting Requirements 66
Programming Revenues and Projects with the CIP 66

14. MITIGATION FEE ACT FINDINGS.................................................. 67 Purpose of Fee 67
Use of Fee Revenues 67
Benefit Relationship 67
Burden Relationship 68
Proportionality 68
APPENDIX ......................................................................................... 69

1 Executive Summary
This report summarizes an analysis of development impact fees needed to support future development in the City of Norco through the planning horizon of 2050. 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:
• Animal Control
• Fire
• Circulation
• Storm Drain
• Water
• Wastewater
• Recycled Water
• General Government
• Parks and Open Space
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.

The Mitigation Fee Act findings required to implement impact fees in California demonstrate the essential nexus between new development and a fee to fund facilities needed to serve that development. The term essential nexus refers to the relationship between new development and the need for facilities (and corresponding impact fees) to serve that development. The findings also require that this study demonstrates rough proportionality of the fees - meaning that the amount of the exactions must roughly correspond to the burden placed on the government, resulting from the proposed development project. To ensure that fees are roughly proportional to demand for facilities from new development, this study first allocates facilities costs to new development using the allocation methods described below, then to individual units of new development based on the demand characteristics of each unit, by land use type. This is described in detail in each chapter and summarized in Chapter 14.

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 several 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 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

City of Norco Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 2 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 animal control and general government 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 a previously undeveloped area. This approach is used for the circulation, storm drain facilities, water facilities, wastewater, recycled water, and fire facilities fees in this report.

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 to calculate the parks and open space 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 Norco Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 3 Table E.1: Maximum Justified Development Impact Fee Schedule Fee Category
Residential
Dwelling
Unit1 Commercial1 Office1Industrial1
Commercial
Lodging2
Animal Control $ 0.20 $ 0.07 $ 0.07 $ 0.02 $ 17
Fire 0.40 0.38 0.41 0.12 101
Circulation 2.38 17.54 6.35 2.64 1,560
Storm Drain 2.93 2.63 2.63 3.01 962
Water 4.21 2.51 2.51 2.87 896
Wastewater 1.14 0.85 0.90 0.80 291
Recycled Water 0.10 0.08 0.08 0.07 25
General Government 1.80 0.77 0.84 0.25 206
Parks and Open Space3

10.16 0.47 0.51 0.15 125
Total $ 23.32 $ 25.30 $ 14.30 $ 9.93 $ 4,183
1 Fee per square foot.
2 Fee per room.

Sources: Tables 3.6, 4.6, 5.5, 6.5, 7.5, 8.5, 9.3, 10.7, and 11.8. 3 Fee in lieu of parkland dedication charged under the Quimby Act to residential subdivisions. Fees for parks and open space charged under the Mitigation Fee Act to non-subdivisions.

Other Funding Needed
Impact fees may only fund the share of public facilities related to new development in Norco.

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 $44.9 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.

City of Norco Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 4 Table E.2: Non-Impact Fee Funding Required
Fee Category
Net Project
Cost
Development
Fee Revenue
Additional
Funding
Required
Animal Control $ 1,347,928 $ 674,048 $ 673,880
Fire 10,449,206 10,449,206 -
Circulation 56,492,407 37,306,784 19,185,623
Storm Drain 26,877,052 25,609,292 1,267,760
Water 33,250,789 27,182,841 6,067,948
Wastewater 23,426,462 13,009,056 10,417,406
Recycled Water 6,469,063 1,145,024 5,324,039
General Government 8,879,406 6,947,732 1,931,674
Parks 15,668,289 15,668,289 -
Open Space 6,589,754 6,589,754 -
Total $ 189,450,356 $ 144,582,026 $ 44,868,330
Sources: Tables 3.5, 4.5, 5.3, 6.3, 7.3, 8.3, 9.1, 10.6, 11.5, and 11.6.

5 1. Introduction
This report presents an analysis of the need for public facilities to accommodate new development in the City of Norco. 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 2.4.1e of the City’s General Plan states “The City shall promote the development of high quality commercial and public facilities requiring landscaping, maintenance, and permanent upkeep on all new development.” Policy 2.5.3d states: “All new residential construction shall include the necessary infrastructure to provide services concurrent with City standards, including a lateral connection to the City's sewer system for each single lot that is developed with a home.

The primary purpose of this report is to update the City’s impact fees based on the most current available facility plans and growth projections. The proposed fees will enable the City to expand its inventory of public facilities as new development leads to increases in service demands. This report supports the General Plan policies stated above.

The City imposes public facilities fees under authority granted by the Mitigation Fee Act (the Act), contained in California Government Code Sections 66000 et seq. This report provides the

City of Norco Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 6 necessary findings required by the Act to demonstrate the essential nexus between new development and the impact fees needed to support that development. The findings demonstrate that the fees are proportional to demand for facilities from new development and are necessary to allow the City to adopt the fee schedules presented in this report.

Norco is forecast to have moderate growth through this study’s planning horizon of 2050. This growth will create an increase in demand for public services and the facilities required to deliver them. Given the revenue challenges described above, Norco 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 capital facilities planning documents 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.

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 Norco Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 7 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 public meeting/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 system plan method, the planned facilities method, and the existing inventory method. The formula used by each approach and the advantages and disadvantages of each method is summarized below:

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 animal control and general government facilities fees in this report. = $/unit of demand

City of Norco Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 8 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. Future facilities to serve growth are identified through an annual capital improvement plan and budget process. This approach is to calculate the parks and open space 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
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 circulation, storm drain facilities, water facilities, wastewater, recycled water, and fire facilities 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:
• Animal Control
• Fire Protection
• Circulation
• Storm Drain
• Water
• Wastewater
• Recycled Water
• General Government
• Parks and Open Space
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
= $/unit of demand

9 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 2025 base year and a planning horizon of 2050.

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 2025 is used as an indicator of existing facility demand and to determine existing facility standards. • The estimate of total development in 2050 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 2025 through 2050 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, except, per state statutes, impact fees cannot be charged to ADUs less than 750 square feet. Residential fees are charged per square foot of living space.
• Commercial: All commercial, retail, educational, and service development excepting commercial lodging.
• Office: All general and medical office development.
• Industrial: All manufacturing, warehouses and other industrial development. • Commercial lodging: All hotel/motel 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 Norco, both in 2025 and 2050. The base year estimates of residents and dwelling units come from the California Department of Finance. The projection of number of residents in 2050 is based on data from Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) 2024 Connect SoCal Growth Forecast. The total number of residents in 2050 is then used to estimate

City of Norco Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 10 dwelling units in 2050 by applying the percentage increase in residents to dwelling units, assuming the same ratio of residents to dwelling units that currently exists.

Base year employees were estimated based on data obtained from the U.S. Census Bureau’s OnTheMap Application. The projection for total employees in 2050 comes from the SCAG projection and assumes the existing ratio of employment between the land uses will be maintained. Estimated building square feet in 2025 was calculated based on the projected employment count and density factors in Table 2.2.

Table 2.1: Existing and New Development
Growth
2025 (2025 - 2050) 2050
Residents 1 21,892 3,033 24,925
Dwelling Units 2
Single Family 7,022 905 7,927
Multifamily 260 34 294
Total 7,282 939 8,221
Employment 3
Commercial 7,172 5,059 12,231
Office 2,243 1,582 3,825
Industrial 3,779 2,665 6,444
Total 13,194 9,306 22,500
Building Square Feet (000s) 4
Commercial 3,432 2,420 5,852
Office 984 694 1,678
Industrial 5,557 3,919 9,476
Total 9,973 7,033 17,006
1 Current household population from California Department of Finance (DOF). Projection based on Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) forecast.
² Current values from DOF. Projection based on SCAG forecast of households, adjusted to all housing units using current DOF reported vacancy of 2.7%. Assumes same ratio of single family to multifamily w ill be maintained as development occurs.
4 Equivalent building square feet calculated based on employee density assumptions in Table 2.2.

Sources: California Department of Finance (DOF), Table E-5, 2025; Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Connect SoCal Demographics and Grow th Forecast, 2024; U.S. Census Bureau, OnTheMap Application, http://onthemap.ces.census.gov; Table 2.2, Willdan Financial Services.
3 Current estimates of primary jobs from the US Census' OnTheMap.

Projection based on SCAG forecast. Assumes current ratio among land uses w ill be maintained.

City of Norco Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 11 Occupant Densities
All fees in this report are calculated based on dwelling units, building square feet or the number of commercial lodging rooms. 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. The densities ensure that the fee per unit of new development is roughly proportional to the demand for facilities from various types of development.

Occupant densities (residents per dwelling unit, workers per 1,000 building square feet, or workers per room of commercial lodging) 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 factors used in this report are shown in Table 2.2. The residential density factor was calculated using the most recent data from the American Community Survey specifically for the City of Norco. The nonresidential occupancy factors are derived from data from the Institute of Traffic Engineers Trip Generation Manual, 12th Edition.

Table 2.2: Occupant Density
Residential - All Units 3.23 Residents per dwelling unit Nonresidential
Commercial 2.09 Employees per 1,000 square feet
Office 2.28 Employees per 1,000 square feet
Industrial 0.68 Employees per 1,000 square feet
Commercial Lodging 0.56 Employees per Room
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau 2024 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Tables B25024 and B25033; ITE Trip Generation Manual, 12th Edition.

12 3. Animal Control Facilities
The purpose of the animal control impact fee is to fund the animal control facilities needed to serve new development. A maximum justified fee schedule is presented based on the system facilities standard of animal control facilities per capita. The essential nexus for this facility category is between the demand for new animal control facilities from the projected increase in service population and the additional animal control facilities needed to meet those service demands. The fees are roughly proportional to demand because they ensure that new development will pay no more than its proportionate share of the identified planned facilities needed to serve the City through the planning horizon, and the fees are scaled based on the number of residents occupying a new dwelling unit, or the number of jobs associated with nonresidential land uses.

Service Population
Animal control facilities are used to provide services to both residents and businesses. The service population used to determine the demand for animal control facilities includes both residents and workers. Table 3.1 shows the current animal control facilities service population and the estimated service population at the planning horizon of 2050.

To calculate service population for animal control facilities, residents are weighted at 1.00. A worker is weighted at 0.24 of one resident to reflect the lower per capita need for animal control services associated with businesses. Workers are weighted relative to residents based on an analysis of animal control facilities call data from the City's prior nexus study.

City of Norco Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 13 Table 3.1: Animal Control Facilities Service Population A B A x B = C
Persons
Weighting
Factor1
Service
Population2
Residents
Existing (2025) 21,892 1.00 21,892
Growth (2025 to 2050) 3,033 1.00 3,033
Total (2050) 24,925 24,925
Workers 1
Existing (2025) 13,194 0.24 3,167
Growth (2025 to 2050) 9,306 0.24 2,233
Total (2050) 22,500 5,400
Combined Residents and Weighted Workers
Existing (2025) 25,059
Growth (2025 to 2050) 5,266
Total (2050) 30,325
2 Figures are rounded to the nearest w hole number.
1 Workers are w eighted relative to residents based on an analysis of animal control facilities call data from the 2014 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report.

Sources: City of Norco Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report, 2014; Table 2.1, Willdan Financial Services.

Existing Facility Inventory
Table 3.2 summarizes the City’s current inventory of land, buildings, building contents, and vehicles. The assumption for land value per acre is based on the weighted average cost per acre for land sales in Norco over the last five years, as reported by CoStar. The quantities and replacement cost of owned buildings and building contents come from the City’s existing asset inventory. Appendix Table A.1 includes information about the City’s owned fleet inventory. In total, the City owns $2.5 million worth of animal control facilities.

City of Norco Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 14 Table 3.2: Existing Animal Control Facilities Land and Building Inventory
Quantity Units Unit Cost2
Replacement
Cost
Land (acres) 1
Animal Shelter 3.62 acres $ 142,900 $ 517,298
Buildings (square feet)
Admin Building 2,400 sq. ft. $ 272 $ 652,200
Dog Quarantine 392 sq. ft. 366 143,400
Storage/Tool Conex 320 sq. ft. 165 52,800
North Horse Canopy 803 sq. ft. 67 53,800
West Horse Canopy 700 sq. ft. 67 46,900
Small Dog Kennel 1,512 sq. ft. 154 233,500
Walk-In Freezer - Cooler 80 sq. ft. 305 24,400
Dog Shelter Canopy 1,012 sq. ft. 54 54,300
Large Dog Shelter 1,710 sq. ft. 154 263,900
Subtotal - Buildings 8,929 $ 1,525,200
Contents
Admin Building $ 72,000
Dog Quarantine 18,000
Storage/Tool Conex 10,300
Subtotal - Contents $ 100,300
Vehicles and Equipment 12 units $ 31,493 $ 377,913
Total Value - Existing Facilities $ 2,520,711
1 Land value calculated using land sales w ithin the past five years as reported by CoStar.

Sources: City of Norco Asset Inventory; CoStar Group; Willdan Financial Services, Appendix A.1. 2 Unit costs displayed are rounded to the nearest dollar. Calculated by dividing total replacement cost by quantities.

Planned Facilities
Table 3.3 summarizes the planned animal control facilities. The city is still pursuing projects from the prior nexus study. Those project costs have been adjusted for inflation. In total the City is planning $1.3 million worth of capacity expanding animal control facilities.

City of Norco Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 15 Table 3.3: Planned Animal Control Facilities
Project Number Project Title Net Cost
AC-01 Animal Control Facilities $ 981,233
AC-02 Animal Control Vehicle 70,123
AC-03 Animal Control Specialty Equipment 11,699
AC-04 Vehicle Storage And Maintenance Facility 284,873
Total - Animal Control $ 1,347,928
Sources: City of Norco Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report, 2014; ENR Construction Cost Index.

Cost Allocation
Existing Level of Service
Table 3.4 expresses the City’s current animal control 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 only.

Once the planned facilities have been constructed and new development has increased the City’s service population the resulting facility cost per capita will be higher than the cost per capita shown in Table 3.4. The increased facility standard is needed to ensure that the City can fund the planned recreation facilities identified in Table 3.3.

Table 3.4: Animal Control Facilities Existing Standard
Value of Existing Facilities $ 2,520,711
Existing Service Population 25,059
Cost per Capita $ 101
Facility Standard per Resident $ 101
Facility Standard per Worker1 24
Note: Figures rounded to the nearest w hole number.
1 Based on a w eighting factor of 0.24
Sources: Tables 3.1 and 3.2.

Future Level of Service
Table 3.5 shows new development’s projected per capita investment in animal control facilities at the planning horizon. This level of service drives the fee calculation. This value is calculated by dividing cost of existing and planned facilities by the service population at the planning horizon.

The value per capita is multiplied by the worker weighting factor of 0.24 to determine the value per worker.

City of Norco Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 16 Table 3.5: Animal Control Facilities System Standard Value of Existing Facilities $ 2,520,711
Value of Planned Facilities 1,347,928
Total System Value (2050) $ 3,868,639
Future Service Population (2050) 30,325
Cost per Capita $ 128
Cost Allocation per Resident $ 128
Cost Allocation per Worker1 31
Note: Figures rounded to the nearest w hole number.
1 Based on a w eighting factor of 0.24
Sources: Tables 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3.

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

3.3. Fee Revenue Projection
The City plans to use animal control facilities fee revenue to construct improvements and acquire capital facilities and equipment to add to the system of animal control facilities to serve new development. The City plans to acquire the facilities in Table 3.3.

Table 3.6 details a projection of fee revenue, based on the service population growth increment identified in Table 3.1. The City should program fee revenue to specific projects annually through its CIP and budget process. After accounting for the projected future impact fee revenue, $673,880 in non-fee funding will be needed to fully fund the facilities.

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

City of Norco Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 17 Table 3.6: Projected Fee Revenue
Cost per Capita $ 128
Growth in Service Population (2025 to 2050) 5,266
Fee Revenue $ 674,048
Net Cost of Planned Facilities 1,347,928
Non-Fee Funding Required $ (673,880)
Sources: Tables 3.1, 3.3 and 3.4.

Fee Schedule
Table 3.7 below shows the maximum justified impact fee schedule. The City can charge any fee up to this amount.

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, employees per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential building space, or employees per room of commercial lodging). The fee per dwelling unit is converted into a fee per square foot by dividing the fee per dwelling unit by the assumed average square footage of a dwelling unit.

The total fee includes a one percent (1%) administrative charge to fund costs that include: (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.

In Willdan’s experience with impact fee programs, one percent of the base fee adequately covers the cost of fee program administration. Impact fee program costs typically range from one percent to two percent of collected fee revenue. To be conservative, and to align with the City’s current practice, this study uses one percent to calculate the administrative charge.

City of Norco Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 18 Table 3.7: Maximum Justified Animal Control 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 Dwelling Unit $ 128 3.23 $ 413 $ 4 $ 417 $ 0.20 Nonresidential - per 1,000 Sq. Ft.

Commercial $ 31 2.09 $ 65 $ 1 $ 66 $ 0.07
Office 31 2.28 71 1 72 0.07
Industrial 31 0.68 21 - 21 0.02
Lodging - per Room
Commercial Lodging $ 31 0.56 $ 17 $ - $ 17 N/A
Sources: Tables 2.2 and 3.5.
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 an average of 2,126 square feet per dw elling unit based on the average square footage of homes in the City of Norco. Amount rounded to the nearest cent.
1 Fee per average sized dw elling unit, per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential building space, or per commercial lodging room. Amounts rounded to the nearest dollar. Page 29 of 173 19 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 facilities standard of fire facilities per capita. The essential nexus for this facility category is between the demand for new fire protection facilities from the projected increase in service population and the additional fire protection facilities needed to meet those service demands. The fees are roughly proportional to demand because they ensure that new development will pay no more than its proportionate share of the identified planned facilities needed to serve the City through the planning horizon, and the fees are scaled based on the number of residents occupying a new dwelling unit, or the number of jobs associated with nonresidential land uses.

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 2050.

Because employees do not use City facilities while off duty, the workers’ service population is smaller than the total number of workers. To calculate service population for fire protection facilities, residents are weighted at 1.00. A worker is weighted at 0.69 of one resident to reflect the lower per capita need for fire services associated with businesses. The 0.69 factor is consistent with the factor used by Riverside County in its development impact fee study, as the City of Norco is part of the Riverside County fire protection service area. The worker weighting factor used in the Riverside County study was based on an analysis of call data response by land use type, which indicated varying levels of demand for fire protection services between residential and nonresidential land uses.

City of Norco Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 20 Table 4.1: Fire Facilities Service Population
A B A x B = C
Persons
Weighting
Factor1
Service
Population2
Residents
Existing (2025) 21,892 1.00 21,892
Growth (2025 to 2050) 24,925 1.00 24,925
Total (2050) 46,817 46,817
Workers 1
Existing (2025) 13,194 0.69 9,104
Growth (2025 to 2050) 22,500 0.69 15,525
Total (2050) 35,694 24,629
Combined Residents and Weighted Workers
Existing (2025) 30,996
Growth (2025 to 2050) 40,450
Total (2050) 71,446
2 Figures are rounded to the nearest w hole number.

Sources: Table 2.1, Willdan Financial Services.
1 Workers are w eighted at 0.69 of residents to be consistent w ith Riverside County's development impact fee analysis.

Existing Inventory
Table 4.2 summarizes the City’s current inventory of land, apparatus and vehicles. Fire protection services are provided from two stations located in the City. The assumed cost of land acquisition of $142,900 per acre is based on land sales comparisons from the past five years, as reported by CoStar and is used consistently through this report to value land acquisition for each impact fee category. The quantities and replacement cost of owned buildings and building contents come from the City’s existing asset inventory. Appendix Table A.1 includes information about the City’s owned fleet inventory. In total, the City owns $8.7 million worth of fire protection facilities.

City of Norco Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 21 Table 4.2: Existing Fire Facilities Inventory
Quantity Units Unit Cost2
Replacement
Cost
Land (acres) 1
Fire Station 21-57 1.16 acres $ 142,900 $ 165,764
Fire Station 22-47 1.93 acres 142,900 275,797
Subtotal - Land 3.09 $ 441,561
Buildings (square feet) and Contents
Fire Station 21-57
Fire Station 21-57 6,370 sq. ft. $ 340 $ 2,165,600
Storage Building 279 sq. ft. 116 32,300
Vehicle Canopy 520 sq. ft. 33 17,300
Fire Station 22-47
Fire Station 22-47 16,652 sq. ft. 322 5,358,300
Storage Building 792 sq. ft. 104 82,600
Drill Tower 13,552 sq. ft. 25 342,200
180Kw Diesel Generator 139,500
Subtotal - Buildings 38,165 sq. ft. $ 8,137,800
Vehicles and Equipment 8 units $ 23,880 $ 191,038
Total Value - Existing Facilities $ 8,770,399
1 Land value calculated using land sales w ithin the past five years as reported by CoStar.

Sources: City of Norco Asset Inventory; CoStar Group; Willdan Financial Services, Appendix A.1. 2 Unit costs displayed are rounded to the nearest dollar. Calculated by dividing total replacement cost by quantities.

Planned Facilities
Table 4.3 summarizes the planned facilities needed to serve the City through 2050, consistent with the City’s prior development impact fee study. Primarily, the City plans to build a new fire station and acquire several new, capacity-expanding apparatus. New facilities costs are estimated to total approximately $10.4 million through 2050.

City of Norco Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 22 Table 4.3: Planned Fire Facilities
Project Number Project Title Net Cost
132-NEW Heli-Hydrant $ 250,000
132.910.43115 Fire Station 47 Pump Upgrade - Backlot 100,000 FD-001 Third Fire Station 7,020,389
FD-002 Two Fully Equipped Engine/Pumpers 1,606,974
FD-003 Fully Equipped Aerial Lift Truck 1,205,231
FD-004 Utility Pick-Up Vehicle 47,479
FD-005 Vehicle Exhaust Capture Systems 219,133
Net Cost of Planned Facilities $ 10,449,206
Sources: City of Norco Proposed Capital Improvement Program 2026-2030; City of Norco Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report, 2014; ENR Construction Cost Index.

Cost Allocation
Existing Level of Service
Table 4.4 expresses the City’s current fire protection 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 only.

Once the planned facilities have been constructed and new development has increased the City’s service population the resulting facility cost per capita will be higher than the cost per capita shown in Table 4.4. The increased facility standard is needed to ensure that the City can fund the planned facilities identified in Table 4.3.

Table 4.4: Fire Facilities Existing Standard
Value of Existing Facilities $ 8,770,399
Existing Service Population 30,996
Cost per Capita $ 283
Facility Standard per Resident $ 283
Facility Standard per Worker1 195
Note: Figures rounded to the nearest w hole number.
1 Based on a w eighting factor of 0.69.

Sources: Tables 4.1 and 4.2.

Future Level of Service
Table 4.5 shows new development’s cost per capita needed to fully fund the planned facilities.

The level of service indicated by the planned facility is lower than the existing standard. This level

City of Norco Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 23 of service drives the fee calculation. This value is calculated by dividing the cost of planned facilities by the increase in service population.

Table 4.5: Fire Facilities Planned Facilities Standard
Cost of Planned Facilities $ 10,449,206
Growth in Service Population (2025 to 2050) 40,450
Cost per Capita $ 258
Cost Allocation per Resident $ 258
Cost Allocation per Worker1
178
Note: Figures rounded to the nearest w hole number.
1 Based on a w eighting factor of 0.69.

Sources: Tables 4.1 and 4.3.

Use of Fee Revenue
The City can use fire protection facilities fee revenues for the construction or purchase of buildings, land, vehicles, apparatus and fire protection equipment that are part of the system of fire facilities serving new development. A list of planned facilities is included in Table 4.3.

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. The City plans to acquire the facilities in Table 4.3. Under the planned facilities approach, the fee revenue is equal to the cost of the planned facilities. Since the future level of service is lower than the existing level of service, new development can fully fund the identified facilities and no additional revenue is needed.

Fee Schedule
Table 4.6 below shows the maximum justified impact fee schedule. The City can adopt any fee up to this amount.

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, employees per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential building space, or employees per room of commercial lodging). The fee per dwelling unit is converted into a fee per square foot by dividing the fee per dwelling unit by the assumed average square footage of a dwelling unit.

The total fee includes a one percent (1%) administrative charge to fund costs that include: (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.

In Willdan’s experience with impact fee programs, one percent of the base fee adequately covers the cost of fee program administration. Impact fee program costs typically range from one percent to two percent of collected fee revenue. To be conservative, and to align with the City’s current practice, this study uses one percent to calculate the administrative charge.

City of Norco Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 24 Table 4.6: Maximum Justified Fire 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 Dwelling Unit $ 258 3.23 $ 833 $ 8 $ 841 $ 0.40 Nonresidential - per 1,000 Sq. Ft.

Commercial $ 178 2.09 $ 372 $ 4 $ 376 $ 0.38
Office 178 2.28 406 4 410 0.41
Industrial 178 0.68 121 1 122 0.12
Lodging - Per Room
Commercial Lodging $ 178 0.56 $ 100 $ 1 $ 101 N/A
Sources: Tables 2.2 and 4.4.
1 Fee per average sized dw elling unit, per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential building space, or per commercial lodging room. Amounts rounded to the nearest dollar.
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 an average of 2,126 square feet per dw elling unit based on the average square footage of homes in the City of Norco. Amount rounded to the nearest cent.

25 5. Circulation Facilities
This chapter summarizes an analysis of the need for various circulation facilities to accommodate new development. The essential nexus for this facility category is between the demand for new traffic circulation facilities from the projected increase in vehicle trips and the additional facilities needed to meet those service demands. The fees are roughly proportional to demand because they ensure that new development will pay no more than its proportionate share of the identified planned facilities needed to serve the City through the planning horizon, and the fees are scaled based on the number trips generated by residential and nonresidential land uses.

Trip Demand
The need for circulation facilities is based on the trip demand placed on the system by development. A reasonable measure of demand is the number of PM peak hour vehicle trips, adjusted for pass-by trips. Vehicle trip generation rates are a reasonable measure of demand on the City’s system of transportation facilities across all modes because alternate modes (transit, bicycle, pedestrian) often substitute for vehicle trips. 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.

Table 5.1 shows the calculation of trip demand factors by land use category based on the passby trip adjustment described above. The data for trip rates, and the pass-by trip assumption all come from the latest data available from the Institute of Traffic Engineers.

Table 5.1: Trip Demand Factors
Land Use Type
Passby
Trips1
Primary
and
Diverted
Trips
Average
Trip
Length2
Adjustment
Factor3ITE Category
PM
Peak
Hour
Trips4
Trip
Demand
Factor5
A B = 1 - A C D = B x
C / Avg.

E F = D x E
Residential - per Dwelling Unit
Single Family 3% 97% 7.9 1.02 Single Family Housing (210) 0.93 0.95 Multifamily 3% 97% 7.9 1.02 Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise) (220) 0.52 0.53 Nonresidential - per 1,000 Sq. Ft.

Commercial 22% 78% 3.6 0.37 Shopping Center (820) 3.26 1.21 Office 4% 96% 8.8 1.13 General Office (710) 1.18 1.33
Industrial 2% 98% 9.0 1.18 General Light Industrial (110) 0.49 0.58 Commercial Lodging - per room
Per Room 4% 96% 7.6 0.97 Motel (320) 0.30 0.29
Sources: Institute of Traffic Engineers, Trip Generation Manual, 12th Edition; San Diego Association of Governments, Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates for the San Diego Region, April 2002; Willdan Financial Services. 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 7.5 miles.
1 Percent of total trips. A pass-by trip is made as an intermediate stop on the w ay from an origin to a primary trip destination w ithout a route diversion. Pass-by trips are not considered to add traffic to the road netw ork. Based on SANDAG data. 2 In miles. Based on SANDAG data.
4 Trips per dw elling unit, per 1,000 building square feet or commercial lodging room. 5 The trip demand factor is the product of the trip adjustment factor and the trip rate.

City of Norco Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 26 Trip Growth
The planning horizon for this analysis is 2050. Table 5.2 lists the 2025 and 2050 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 to determine the increase in trips caused by new development.

Table 5.2: Land Use Scenario and Trip Demand
Land Use
Trip
Demand
Factor
Units,
1,000 SF
or Rooms Trips
Units,
1,000 SF
or Rooms Trips
Units,
1,000 SF
or Rooms Trips
Residential - per Dwelling Unit
Single Family 0.95 7,022 6,671 905 860 7,927 7,531
Multifamily 0.53 260 138 34 18 294 156
Subtotal 7,282 6,809 939 878 8,221 7,687
Nonresidential - per 1,000 Sq. Ft.

Commercial 1.21 3,432 4,153 2,420 2,928 5,852 7,081
Office 1.33 984 1,309 694 923 1,678 2,232
Industrial 0.58 5,557 3,223 3,919 2,273 9,476 5,496
Subtotal 9,973 8,685 7,033 6,124 17,006 14,809
Total 15,494 7,002 22,496

68.9% 31.1% 100%
Sources: Tables 2.1 and 5.1.
2025 Growth 2025 to 2050 Total - 2050
Project Costs
Cost estimates are summarized in Table 5.3 and were sourced from the City’s current CIP and unbuilt projects from the City’s 2013 nexus study, which have been adjusted for inflation for use in this analysis. Any funding that has been identified for these projects is netted out of the total cost.

For projects that are new to the fee program, or were originally needed to meet demand from existing and new development, the costs are allocated to new development proportionally to new development’s share of trip demand at the planning horizon as calculated in Table 5.2 (31.0%).

Legacy projects that were allocated 100% to new development in the prior nexus study are still allocated 100% to new development in this analysis.

City of Norco Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 27 Table 5.3: Planned Circulation Facilities
Project
No. Project Title
Net Project
Cost
% Allocation
to New
Development
Cost Allocated
to New
Development
54900 Fifth St - Temescal Ave to I-15 Fwy $ 2,062,000 31.1% $ 641,282 54900 Norco Park-N-Ride 41,500 31.1% 12,907
54900 Traffic Signal Management & Safety Upgrade 330,000 31.1% 102,630 ST-002 Traffic Signal Upgrade At 5th St/Hamner Ave 2,116,458 100.0% 2,116,458 ST-003 Traffic Signal Upgrade At 4th St/Hamner Ave 415,805 100.0% 415,805 ST-005 Traffic Signal At Sixth Street And Pedley Avenue 462,005 100.0% 462,005 ST-006 Traffic Signal Synchronization Project - 6th St 554,406 100.0% 554,406 ST-011 Widening Of Hamner Avenue 8,659,400 100.0% 8,659,400 ST-012 Miscellaneous Street Widening 3,502,474 100.0% 3,502,474 ST-013 Fourth Street Access/Egress Ramps At 1-15 22,468,423 31.1% 6,987,680 ST-014 Additional Access To Norco College Campus 2,943,685 31.1% 915,486 ST-016 Widen First Street From Hamner To Parkridge 2,217,625 100.0% 2,217,625 ST-017 City-Wide Bus System 2,217,625 100.0% 2,217,625
ST-019 Third Street Parkway/Trail Improvements 138,602 100.0% 138,602 ST-021 Hillside Ave (Fourth/1,000 South) Improvements 51,745 100.0% 51,745 ST-022 Valley View Avenue Parkway/Trail Improvements 206,978 100.0% 206,978 ST-023 Hillside Ave (Third/First) Improvements 206,978 100.0% 206,978 ST-024 Norconian Drive Parkway/Trail Improvements 206,978 100.0% 206,978 ST-025 Bluff Street Parkway/Trail Improvements 72,445 100.0% 72,445 ST-026 Reservoir Drive Parkway/Trail Improvements 72,445 100.0% 72,445 ST-027 Community-Wide Parkway/Trail Improvements 3,333,040 100.0% 3,333,040 ST-028 River Drive Parkway/Trail Improvements 495,269 100.0% 495,269 ST-029 North Drive Parkway/Trail Improvements 369,794 100.0% 369,794 ST-030 Corona Avenue Parkway/Trail Improvements 924,010 100.0% 924,010 ST-031 Parkridge Avenue Parkway/Trail Improvements 73,848 100.0% 73,848 ST-032 Circulation/Trails Master Plan Update 438,266 100.0% 438,266 ST-033 Circulation System Maintenance Vehicles 214,386 100.0% 214,386 ST-034 Share of Maintenance Yard Improvements 1,696,217 100.0% 1,696,217 Total $56,492,407 $ 37,306,784
Note: All costs rounded to the nearest dollar.

Sources: City of Norco, Proposed Capital Improvement Program 2026-2030; City of Norco Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report, 2014; ENR Construction Cost Index; Table 5.2, Willdan Financial Services.

Fee per Trip Demand Unit
Every impact fee consists of a dollar amount, or the cost of projects that can be funded by a fee, divided by a 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 or employees per room of commercial lodging) by multiplying the cost per trip by the trip generation rate for each land use category.

These amounts become the fee schedule.

Table 5.4 calculates the cost per trip demand unit by dividing the total project costs attributable to new development by the total growth in trips calculated in Table 5.2.

City of Norco Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 28 Table 5.4: Cost per Trip to Accommodate Growth
Costs Allocated to New Development $ 37,306,784
Growth in Trip Demand (2025 to 2050) 7,002
Cost per Trip $ 5,328
Note: Cost per trip rounded to the nearest dollar.

Sources: Tables 5.2 and 5.3.

Smart Growth and VMT Efficient Housing Discounts
Housing development projects that meet certain smart growth or VMT (Vehicle Miles Traveled) efficient criteria must be charged a lower impact fee to reflect lower levels of demand for transportation facilities.
2 The Smart Growth criteria are:

1. The housing development is located within one-half mile of a transit station and there is direct access between the housing development and the transit station along a barrierfree walkable pathway not exceeding one-half mile in length.

2. The housing development is located within one-half mile from three or more of the following:
a. A supermarket or grocery store.
b. A public park.
c. A community center.
d. A pharmacy or drugstore.
e. A medical clinic or hospital.
f. A public library.
g. A school that maintains a kindergarten or any of grades 1 to 12, inclusive. h. A licensed childcare facility.
i. A restaurant.

3. The housing development provides no more than one onsite parking space for zero- to two-bedroom units, and two onsite parking spaces for three or more bedroom units.

Eligible housing projects that meet the criteria would receive a 15% discount on the transportation impact fees based on Smart Growth Trip Generation Study (SANDAG, June 2010). The average reduction in trip generation from the SANDAG Study was shown to be approximately 15% relative to the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) based trip generation factors for housing developments without these characteristics.

As used in this section, "housing development" means a development project with common ownership and financing consisting of residential use or mixed use where not less than 50 percent of the floor space is for residential use.
2 Government Code, section 66005.1

City of Norco Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 29 For the purposes of this section, "transit station" has the meaning set forth in paragraph (4) of subdivision (b) of Section 65460.1. "Transit station" includes planned transit stations otherwise meeting this definition whose construction is programmed to be completed prior to the scheduled completion and occupancy of the housing development. Transit headway criteria of 10 minutes or less at a transit hub served by three or more transit service lines is defined as cumulative headway versus individual service line headways.

The applicant/developer will be responsible for conducting the initial analysis of the relationship of the new project to the criteria to consider eligibility for the discount. The City will need to verify accuracy for final determination of project’s eligibility for the discount.

Fee Schedule
Table 5.5 shows the maximum justified transportation fee schedule. The City can adopt any fee up to this amount. The maximum justified fees are based on the cost per trip shown in Table 5.4.

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 dwelling unit is converted into a fee per square foot by dividing the fee per dwelling unit by the assumed average square footage of a dwelling unit.

The total fee includes a one percent (1%) administrative charge to fund costs that include: (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.

In Willdan’s experience with impact fee programs, one percent of the base fee adequately covers the cost of fee program administration. Impact fee program costs typically range from one percent to two percent of collected fee revenue. To be conservative, and to align with the City’s current practice, this study uses one percent to calculate the administrative charge.

City of Norco Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 30 Table 5.5: Circulation Facilities Impact Fee Schedule A B C = A x B D = C x 0.01 E = C + D E / Average
Land Use
Cost Per
Trip
Trip
Demand
Factor Base Fee1
Admin
Charge1, 2 Total Fee1
Fee per
Sq. Ft.3
Residential Dwelling Unit 4$ 5,328 0.94 $ 5,008 $ 50 $ 5,058 $ 2.38 Smart Growth Residential 5
$ 2.02
Nonresidential - per 1,000 Sq. Ft.

Commercial $ 5,328 3.26 $ 17,369 $ 174 $ 17,543 $ 17.54 Office 5,328 1.18 6,287 63 6,350 6.35
Industrial 5,328 0.49 2,611 26 2,637 2.64
Lodging - per Room
Commercial Lodging $ 5,328 0.29 $ 1,545 $ 15 $ 1,560 N/A 4 Average trip demand factor per residential dw elling unit w eighted by projected single family and multifamily development. 5 Discount of 15% for smart grow th and VMT efficient housing projects.

Sources: Tables 5.2 and 5.4.
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 an average of 2,126 square feet per dw elling unit based on the average square footage of homes in the City of Norco. Amount rounded to the nearest cent..
1 Fee per average sized dw elling unit, per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential building space, or per commercial lodging room. Amounts rounded to the nearest dollar. Page 41 of 173 31 6. Storm Drainage Facilities
This chapter summarizes an analysis of the need for storm drain facilities to accommodate growth within the City of Norco. This chapter documents a reasonable relationship between new development, and a storm drain fee calculated using the planned facilities standard approach to fund storm drain facilities that serve new development. The essential nexus for this facility category is between the demand for storm drainage facilities from the projected increase in impervious surface generated by new development and the additional storm drains needed to meet those service demands. The fees are roughly proportional to demand because they ensure that new development can maintain the City’s existing ratio of storm drainage facilities to impervious surface, and the fees are scaled based on the amount of impervious surface generated by different types of 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 6.1 shows the calculation of equivalent dwelling unit (EDU) demand factors based on impervious surface coefficient by land use category. The impervious surface coefficients are based on data from Riverside County Flood Control Hydrology Manual. EDU factors relate demand for storm drain facilities in terms of the demand created by a single-family dwelling unit. Use of EDU factors to estimate demand and allocate fees ensures that the fees are roughly proportional to the impervious surface generated by each unit of new development.

Table 6.1: Storm Drain Facilities Equivalent Dwelling Units Land Use Type
DU, KSF or
Rooms per
acre1
Impervious
Surface
Coefficient
Equivalent
Dwelling Unit
(EDU)
Residential Dwelling Unit
Single Family 4.00 0.50 1.00
Multifamily 17.00 0.65 0.31
Nonresidential - per 1,000 Sq. Ft. or Commercial Lodging Room Commercial 17.42 0.90 0.41
Office 17.42 0.90 0.41
Industrial 15.25 0.90 0.47
Commercial Lodging 49.22 0.90 0.15
1 Units per acre for residential or 1,000 square feet per acre for nonresidential. Densities are based on typical densities for each land use. Nonresidential densities are based on floor-arearatios of 0.40 for commercial and office, 0.35 for industrial and existing density for lodging.

Sources: Plate D-5.6 from the Riverside County Flood Control Hydrology Manual; Riverside County Assessor-County Clerk-Recorder; Willdan Financial Services.

City of Norco Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 32 EDU Generation by New Development
Table 6.2 shows the estimated EDU generation from new development through 2050. New development will generate approximately 4,034 new EDUs, representing 25.9 percent of total storm drain demand in 2050.

Table 6.2: Storm Drain Demand Projections
Land Use EDU Factor
Units,
1,000 SF
or Rooms EDUs
Units,
1,000 SF
or Rooms EDUs
Units,
1,000 SF
or Rooms EDUs
Residential - per Dwelling Unit
Single Family 1.00 7,022 7,022 905 905 7,927 7,927
Multifamily 0.31 260 81 34 10 294 91
Subtotal 7,282 7,103 939 915 8,221 8,018
Nonresidential - per 1,000 Sq. Ft.

Commercial 0.41 3,432 1,407 2,420 992 5,852 2,399
Office 0.41 984 403 694 285 1,678 688
Industrial 0.47 5,557 2,612 3,919 1,842 9,476 4,454
Subtotal 9,973 4,422 7,033 3,119 17,006 7,541
Total 11,525 4,034 15,559

74.1% 25.9% 100%
Sources: Tables 2.1 and 6.1.
2025 Growth 2025 to Growth Total - 2050
Planned Facilities
Table 6.3 identifies the preliminary planned storm drain facilities. Projects were sourced from the City’s current CIP and unbuilt projects from the City’s 2013 nexus study, which have been adjusted for inflation for use in this analysis. Any funding that has been identified for these projects is netted out of the total cost. For projects that are new to the fee program, or were originally needed to meet demand from existing and new development, the costs are allocated to new development proportionally to new development’s share of drainage demand at the planning horizon as calculated in Table 6.2 (25.9%). Legacy projects that were allocated 100% to new development in the prior nexus study are still allocated 100% to new development in this analysis.

City of Norco Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 33 Table 6.3: Preliminary Planned Storm Drain Facilities Project
Number Project Title Net Project Cost
Allocation to
New
Development
Cost Allocated to
New
Development
4808.2 WRCRWA Capital Improvements $ 1,500,000 31.1% $ 466,500 New Underground Storm Drain Line 340,000 31.1% 105,740
SD-004 Storm Drainage Line S-3 1,108,812 100.0% 1,108,812 SD-005 Storm Drainage Line S-4 794,649 100.0% 794,649
SD-009 Storm Drainage Line NA-1A 415,805 100.0% 415,805 SD-013 Storm Drainage Line N-1-E 277,203 100.0% 277,203 SD-014 North Norco Channel (NNC) 2,772,031 100.0% 2,772,031 SD-016 Storm Drainage Line N-2 1,386,015 100.0% 1,386,015 SD-017 North Norco Channel (NNC) 6,468,072 100.0% 6,468,072 SD-022 Storm Drainage Line N-6B 434,285 100.0% 434,285
SD-023 South Norco Channel (SNC) 5,174,457 100.0% 5,174,457 SD-025 North Norco Channel (NNC) 2,402,427 100.0% 2,402,427 SD-026 Storm Drainage Line N-10 1,212,301 100.0% 1,212,301 SD-027 West Norco Channel (WNC) 462,005 100.0% 462,005
SD-028 Minor Storm Drainage Improvements 462,005 100.0% 462,005 SD-029 Relocation of Utilities Conflicting With Storm Projects 1,386,015 100.0% 1,386,015 SD-030 Storm Drainage Maintenance Vehicles 31,527 100.0% 31,527 SD-031 Share of Maintenance Yard Improvements 249,443 100.0% 249,443 Total $ 26,877,052 $ 25,609,292
Note: All costs rounded to the nearest dollar.

Sources: City of Norco Proposed Capital Improvement Program 2026-2030; City of Norco Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report, 2014; ENR Construction Cost Index; Table 6.2, Willdan Financial Services. Page 44 of 173 City of Norco Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 34 Cost per Equivalent Dwelling Unit
This chapter uses the existing standard approach to calculate the storm drain facilities cost standard. The net cost of planned facilities is divided by the growth in EDUs to determine a cost standard per EDU. Table 6.4 shows the facility cost standard for storm drain facilities.

Table 6.4: Cost per EDU
Net Cost of Planned Facilities $ 25,609,292
Growth in EDUs (2025 to 2050) 4,034
Cost per EDU $ 6,348
Note: Cost per EDU rounded to the nearest dollar.

Sources: Tables 6.2 and 6.3.

Fee Schedule
The maximum justified fee for storm drain facilities is shown in Table 6.5. The City can adopt any fee up to this amount. The cost per EDU from Table 6.4 is converted to a fee per unit of new development based on the EDU factors shown in Table 6.1.

The total fee includes a one percent (1.0%) 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 and mandated public reporting.

In Willdan’s experience with impact fee programs, one percent of the base fee adequately covers the cost of fee program administration. Impact fee program costs typically range from one percent to two percent of collected fee revenue. To be conservative, and to align with the City’s current practice, this study uses one percent to calculate the administrative charge.

City of Norco Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 35 Table 6.5: Storm Drain Facilities Impact Fee Schedule A B C = A x B D = C x 0.01 E = C + D E / Average
Cost Per
EDU
EDU
Factor
Base
Fee1
Admin
Charge1, 2 Total Fee1
Fee per
Sq. Ft.3
Residential Dwelling Unit 4$ 6,348 0.97 $ 6,158 $ 62 $ 6,220 $ 2.93 Nonresidential - per 1,000 Sq. Ft.

Commercial $ 6,348 0.41 $ 2,603 $ 26 $ 2,629 $ 2.63
Office 6,348 0.41 2,603 26 2,629 2.63
Industrial 6,348 0.47 2,984 30 3,014 3.01
Lodging - per Room
Commercial Lodging $ 6,348 0.15 $ 952 $ 10 $ 962 N/A
Sources: Tables 6.2 and 6.4.
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, 4 Average EDU factor per residential dw elling unit w eighted by projected single family and multifamily development. 3 Assumes an average of 2,126 square feet per dw elling unit based on the average square footage of homes in the City of Norco. Amount rounded to the nearest cent.
1 Fee per average sized dw elling unit, per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential building space, or per commercial lodging room. Amounts rounded to the nearest dollar. Page 46 of 173 36 7. Water Facilities
This chapter details an analysis of the need for water capacity to accommodate growth within the City of Norco. The essential nexus for this facility category is between the demand for water facilities from the projected increase water flow and the additional water infrastructure needed to provide water service to new development. The fees are roughly proportional to demand because they ensure that new development will pay no more than its proportionate share of the identified planned facilities needed to serve the City through the planning horizon, and the fees are scaled based on the amount of water flow generated by residential and nonresidential land uses.

Water Demand
Estimates of new development and its consequent increased water demand provide the basis for calculating the water facilities fee. The need for water facilities improvements is based on the water demand placed on the system by development. A typical measure of demand is a flow generation rate, expressed as the number of gallons per day generated by a specific type of land use. Flow generation rates are a reasonable measure of demand on the City’s system of water improvements because they represent the average rate of demand that will be placed on the system per land use designation.

Table 7.1 shows the calculation of equivalent dwelling unit (EDU) demand factors based on flow generation by land use category. The flow generation estimates based on data from the City’s Water Facilities Master Plan. EDU factors express water flow from each land use in terms of the flow generated by a residential dwelling unit. Use of EDU factors to estimate demand and allocate fees ensures that the fees are roughly proportional to the water demand generated by each unit of new development.

Table 7.1: Water Demand by Land Use
Land Use Type
Flow
Generation1 Density2
Average Flow
Generation
per DU, KSF,
or Lodging
Room
Equivalent
Dwelling
Unit (EDU)
Residential Dwelling Unit 273 1.00
Nonresidential - per 1,000 Sq. Ft. or Commercial Lodging Room Commercial 1,340 17.42 77 0.28
Office 1,340 17.42 77 0.28
Industrial 1,340 15.25 88 0.32
Commercial Lodging 1,340 47.83 28 0.10
Source: City of Norco Water Facilities Master Plan 2016, Appendix A; Willdan Financial Services. 1 Gallons per acre per day. Derived from data from the 2016 Water Facilities Master Plan 2 Units per acre for residential. 1,000 square feet per acre or commercial lodging rooms per acre for nonresidential. Densities are based on typical densities for each land use of 0.40 for commercial and office, and 0.35 for industrial.

City of Norco Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 37 EDU Generation by New Development
Table 7.2 shows the estimated EDU generation from new development through 2050. The EDU factors from Table 7.1 are multiplied by the land use assumptions from Table 2.1 to estimate total EDUs in the base year, at the planning horizon and for new development. New development will generate approximately 3,065 new EDUs through 2050, comprising 22.9% of water demand in the City at that time.

Table 7.2: EDU Generation by New Development
Land Use
EDU
Factor
Units,
1,000 SF
or Rooms EDUs
Units,
1,000 SF
or Rooms EDUs
Units,
1,000 SF
or Rooms EDUs
Residential 1.00 7,282 7,282 939 939 8,221 8,221
Nonresidential - per 1,000 Sq. Ft.

Commercial 0.28 3,432 961 2,420 678 5,852 1,639
Office 0.28 984 276 694 194 1,678 470
Industrial 0.32 5,557 1,778 3,919 1,254 9,476 3,032
Subtotal 9,973 3,015 7,033 2,126 17,006 5,141
Total 10,297 3,065 13,362

77.1% 22.9% 100%
Sources: Tables 2.1 and 7.1.
2025 Growth 2025 to 2050 Total - 2050
Facility Needs and Costs
Table 7.3 below, identifies the planned water facilities to be funded by the fee. Projects were sourced from the City’s current CIP and unbuilt projects from the City’s 2014 nexus study, which have been adjusted for inflation for use in this analysis. Any funding that has been identified for these projects is netted out of the total cost. For projects that are new to the fee program, or were originally needed to meet demand from existing and new development, the costs are allocated to new development proportionally to new development’s share of water demand at the planning horizon as calculated in Table 7.2 (22.9%). Legacy projects that were allocated 100% to new development in the prior nexus study are still allocated 100% to new development in this analysis.

City of Norco Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 38 Table 7.3: Planned Water Facilities
Project
Number Project Title Total Cost
Allocation to
New
Development
Cost Allocated
to New
Development
New North Dr Transmission Mainline Project $ 850,000 22.9% $ 194,650 4709.9 PFAS Treatment System 700,000 22.9% 160,300
WT-002 16" Transmission Pipeline, Bluff-Bronco/Corydon 739,208 100.0% 739,208 WT-007 Reservoir No. 2 Rebuild 2,356,226 22.9% 539,576
WT-008 Reservoir Interior And Exterior Maintenance 1,940,422 22.9% 444,357 WT-011 Corona Avenue Pipeline Replacement/Upgrade, 4th/6th 905,530 22.9% 207,366 WT-012 Fortuna Road Pipeline Replacement/Upgrade 840,849 22.9% 192,554 WT-013 Hamner Avenue Pipeline Replacement/Upgrade, 1st/2nd 905,530 100.0% 905,530 WT-016 California Avenue Pipeline Replacement/Upgrade, North/6th 2,200,992 100.0% 2,200,992 WT-017 Crestview Drive Pipeline Replacement/Upgrade, North/6th 1,552,337 100.0% 1,552,337 WT-018 Sixth Street Pipeline Replacement/Upgrade, California/Sierra 2,561,356 100.0% 2,561,356 WT-019 Reservoir No. 3 Booster Station Replacement Upgrade 277,203 22.9% 63,479 WT-020 Additional 2.0 MG Reservoir Storage Facility, No. 10 3,502,474 100.0% 3,502,474 WT-021 Additional Well, No. 16 2,286,286 100.0% 2,286,286 WT-022 Temescal Avenue Pipeline Replacement/Upgrade, Fourth/Sixth 896,290 100.0% 896,290 WT-024 Fourth Street Pipeline Replacement/Upgrade, Fourth/West End 924,010 100.0% 924,010 WT-025 Third St. Pipeline Replacement/Upgrade, Hamner/Valley View 831,609 100.0% 831,609 WT-026 Alhambra St. Pipeline Replacement/Upgrade, Cedar/Norco Dr. 1,367,535 100.0% 1,367,535 WT-027 Corydon Avenue Pipeline Replacement/Upgrade, Cedar/Norco Dr. 1,367,535 100.0% 1,367,535 WT-028 Hillside Avenue Pipeline Replacement/Upgrade, 2nd/3rd 1,570,817 100.0% 1,570,817 WT-029 Third St. Pipeline Replacement/Upgrade, Valley View/Temescal 1,016,411 100.0% 1,016,411 WT-030 Valley View Pipeline Replacement/Upgrade, 1st/2nd 831,609 100.0% 831,609 WT-031 Water System Maintenance Vehicles 308,969 100.0% 308,969 WT-032 Water Master Plan Update 73,044 100.0% 73,044
WT-033 Share Of Common City Maintenance Yard Improvements 2,444,547 100.0% 2,444,547 Total $ 33,250,789 $ 27,182,841
Note: All costs rounded to the nearest dollar.

Sources: City of Norco Proposed Capital Improvement Program 2026-2030; City of Norco Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report, 2014; ENR Construction Cost Index; Table 7.2, Willdan Financial Services. Page 49 of 173 City of Norco Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 39 Cost per EDU
The cost of planned facilities allocated to new development, is divided by the total growth in EDUs to determine a cost per EDU, which drives planned facilities component of the water capacity fee. Table 7.4 displays this calculation.

Table 7.4: Cost per EDU
Cost Allocated to New Development $ 27,182,841
Growth in EDUs (2025 to 2050) 3,065
Cost per EDU $ 8,869
Note: Cost per EDU rounded to the nearest dollar.

Sources: Tables 7.2 and 7.3.

Fee Schedule
The maximum justified fee for water facilities is shown in Table 7.5. The City can adopt any fee up to this amount. The cost per EDU is converted to a fee per unit of new development based on the EDU factors shown in Table 8.1. The fee per average dwelling unit is converted into a fee per square foot by dividing the fee per dwelling unit by the assumed average square footage of a dwelling unit.

The total fee includes an administrative charge to fund costs that include: (1) a standard overhead charge applied to all City programs for legal, accounting, and other departmental and administrative support, (2) capital planning, programming, project management costs associated with the share of projects funded by the facilities fee, and (3) fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.

In Willdan’s experience with impact fee programs, one percent of the base fee adequately covers the cost of fee program administration. Impact fee program costs typically range from one percent to two percent of collected fee revenue. To be conservative, and to align with the City’s current practice, this study uses one percent to calculate the administrative charge.

City of Norco Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 40 Table 7.5: Maximum Justified Water Facilities Fee Schedule A B C = A x B D = C x 0.01 E = C + D E / Average
Cost Per
EDU
EDU
Factor
Base
Fee1
Admin
Charge1, 2 Total Fee1
Fee per
Sq. Ft.3
Residential Dwelling Unit $ 8,869 1.00 $ 8,869 $ 89 $ 8,958 $ 4.21 Nonresidential - per 1,000 Sq. Ft.

Commercial $ 8,869 0.28 $ 2,483 $ 25 $ 2,508 $ 2.51
Office 8,869 0.28 2,483 25 2,508 2.51
Industrial 8,869 0.32 2,838 28 2,866 2.87
Lodging - per Room
Commercial Lodging $ 8,869 0.10 $ 887 $ 9 $ 896 N/A
Sources: Tables 7.1 and 7.4.
1 Fee per average sized dw elling unit, per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential building space, or per commercial lodging room. Amounts rounded to the nearest dollar.
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 an average of 2,126 square feet per dw elling unit based on the average square footage of homes in the City of Norco. Amount rounded to the nearest cent.

41 8. Wastewater Facilities
This chapter details an analysis of the need for wastewater facilities to accommodate growth within the City of Norco. The projects and associated costs in this chapter were identified in the City’s Water Facilities Master Plan (2016). The essential nexus for this facility category is between the demand for wastewater facilities from the projected increase in wastewater flow and the additional wastewater facilities needed to meet those convey that flow to the City’s wastewater treatment plant. The fees are roughly proportional to demand because they ensure that new development will pay no more than its proportionate share of the identified planned facilities needed to serve the City through the planning horizon, and the fees are scaled based on the amount of wastewater flow generated by residential and nonresidential land uses.

Wastewater Demand
Estimates of new development and its consequent increased wastewater demand provide the basis for calculating the wastewater facilities fee. The need for wastewater facilities improvements is based on the wastewater demand placed on the system by development. A typical measure of demand is a flow generation rate, expressed as the number of gallons per day generated by a specific type of land use. Flow generation rates are a reasonable measure of demand on the City’s system of wastewater improvements because they represent the average rate of demand that will be placed on the system per land use designation.

Table 8.1 shows the calculation of equivalent dwelling unit (EDU) demand factors based on flow generation by land use category. The flow generation estimates based on data from the City’s Water Facilities Master Plan, adjusted using a sewer flow factor to reflect the amount of water that is returned to the sewer. EDU factors express flow from each land use in terms of the flow generated by a residential dwelling unit. Use of EDU factors to estimate demand and allocate fees ensures that the fees are roughly proportional to the wastewater demand generated by each unit of new development.

Table 8.1: Wastewater Demand by Land Use
Land Use Type
Water Flow
Generation
Factor1
Water Sewer
Flow Factor2
Average Flow
Generation per
DU or 1,000 Sq.

Ft.

Equivalent
Dwelling
Unit (EDU)
Residential Dwelling Unit 273 0.66 180.18 1.00
Nonresidential - per 1,000 Sq. Ft.

Commercial 77 0.81 62.37 0.35
Office 77 0.87 66.99 0.37
Industrial 88 0.67 58.96 0.33
Commercial Lodging 27 0.81 21.87 0.12
2 Assumed percentage of water flow generation that is ultimately returned to the sewer system.

Sources: City of Norco Water Facilities Master Plan 2016, Appendix A; Table 7.1, Willdan Financial Services. 1 Gallons per unit per day for residential. Gallons per 1,000 building square feet or per commercial lodging room per day for nonresidential.

City of Norco Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 42 EDU Generation by New Development
Table 8.2 shows the estimated EDU generation from new development through 2050. The EDU factors from Table 8.1 are multiplied by the land use assumptions from Table 2.1 to estimate total EDUs in the base year, at the planning horizon and for new development. New development will generate approximately 5,430 new EDUs through 2050, comprising 17.7% of wastewater demand in the City at that time.

Table 8.2: Wastewater Facilities Equivalent Dwelling Units Land Use
Units,
1,000 SF
or Rooms EDUs
Units,
1,000 SF
or Rooms EDUs
Units,
1,000 SF
or Rooms EDUs
Residential - per Dwelling Unit 1.00 21,892 21,892 3,033 3,033 24,925 24,925 Nonresidential - per 1,000 Sq. Ft.

Commercial 0.35 3,432 1,201 2,420 847 5,852 2,048
Office 0.37 984 364 694 257 1,678 621
Industrial 0.33 5,557 1,834 3,919 1,293 9,476 3,127
Subtotal 9,973 3,399 7,033 2,397 17,006 5,796
Total 25,291 5,430 30,721

82.3% 17.7% 100%
Sources: Tables 2.1 and 8.1.
2025 Growth 2025 to 2050 Total - 2050
EDU
Factor
Facility Needs and Costs
Table 8.3 identifies the planned wastewater facilities to be funded by the fee. Projects were sourced from the City’s current CIP and unbuilt projects from the City’s 2013 nexus study, which have been adjusted for inflation for use in this analysis. Any funding that has been identified for these projects is netted out of the total cost. For projects that are new to the fee program, or were originally needed to meet demand from existing and new development, the costs are allocated to new development proportionally to new development’s share of wastewater demand at the planning horizon as calculated in Table 8.2 (17.7%). Legacy projects that were allocated 100% to new development in the prior nexus study are still allocated 100% to new development in this analysis.

City of Norco Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 43 Table 8.3: Wastewater Facilities Projects and Allocation to New Development Project
No. Type of Improvement
Capital
Improvement
Cost ($)
Allocation to
New
Development
Cost Allocated
to New
Development
WC-001 27" Pipeline Under 1-15 Freeway- Second/Third $ 2,921,772 17.7% $ 517,154 WC-002 18" Pipeline Under 1-15 Freeway- First/Second 2,921,772 17.7% 517,154 WC-003 12" Pipeline Hamner - Sixth/Third 1,314,797 17.7% 232,719 WC-006 Large Syphon Rehabilitation 365,221 17.7% 64,644 WC-008 Various Pipelines Upsizing/Upgrading 5,134,283 17.7% 908,768 WC-009 Third Street To Second/Corona Intersection 854,618 100.0% 854,618 WC-010 Second Street To Second/Corona Intersection 854,618 100.0% 854,618 WC-011 Second/Corona Intersection To First Street 1,716,541 100.0% 1,716,541 WC-012 Hamner- Hidden Valley Parkway To Parkridge 493,049 100.0% 493,049 WC-013 Third/WO 1-15 TO 24" Pipeline 1,149,717 100.0% 1,149,717 WC-014 Second/Western To River Road 723,138 100.0% 723,138 WC-015 Sixth/Hamner To Third 2,235,155 100.0% 2,235,155 WC-016 FifthMne/Del Mar 2,300,895 100.0% 2,300,895
WC-019 Wastewater Master Plan Update 365,221 100.0% 365,221 WC-020 Collection System Maintenance Vehicles 75,665 100.0% 75,665 Total $ 23,426,462 $ 13,009,056
Note: All costs rounded to the nearest dollar.

Sources: City of Norco Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report, 2014; ENR Construction Cost Index, Table 9.2, Willdan Financial Services.

City of Norco Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 44 Cost per EDU
The cost of planned facilities allocated to new development in Table 8.3 is divided by the total growth in EDUs to determine a cost per EDU. Table 8.4 displays this calculation.

Table 8.4: Cost per EDU
Cost Allocated to New Development $ 13,009,056
Growth in EDUs (2025 to 2050) 5,430
Cost per EDU $ 2,396
Note: Cost per EDU rounded to the nearest dollar.

Sources: Tables 8.2 and 8.3.

Fee Schedule
The maximum justified fee for wastewater facilities is shown in Table 8.5. The City can adopt any fee up to this amount. The cost per EDU is converted to a fee per unit of new development based on the EDU factors shown in Table 8.1. The fee per average dwelling unit is converted into a fee per square foot by dividing the fee per dwelling unit by the assumed average square footage of a dwelling unit.

The total fee includes a one percent (1%) administrative charge to fund costs that include: (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.

In Willdan’s experience with impact fee programs, one percent of the base fee adequately covers the cost of fee program administration. Impact fee program costs typically range from one percent to two percent of collected fee revenue. To be conservative, and to align with the City’s current practice, this study uses one percent to calculate the administrative charge.

City of Norco Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 45 Table 8.5: Maximum Justified Wastewater Facilities Fee Schedule A B C = A x B D = C x 0.01 E = C + D E / Average
Cost Per
EDU
EDU
Factor
Base
Fee1
Admin
Charge1, 2 Total Fee1
Fee per
Sq. Ft.3
Residential Dwelling Unit $ 2,396 1.00 $ 2,396 $ 24 $ 2,420 $ 1.14 Nonresidential - per 1,000 Sq. Ft.

Commercial $ 2,396 0.35 $ 839 $ 8 $ 847 $ 0.85
Office 2,396 0.37 887 9 896 0.90
Industrial 2,396 0.33 791 8 799 0.80
Lodging - per Room
Commercial Lodging $ 2,396 0.12 $ 288 $ 3 $ 291 N/A
Sources: Tables 8.1 and 8.4.
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 an average of 2,126 square feet per dw elling unit based on the average square footage of homes in the City of Norco. Amount rounded to the nearest cent.
1 Fee per average sized dw elling unit, per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential building space, or per commercial lodging room. Amounts rounded to the nearest dollar. Page 56 of 173 46 9. Recycled Water Facilities
This chapter details an analysis of the need for recycled water facilities to accommodate growth within the City of Norco. The projects and associated costs in this chapter were identified in various planning document and provided by City staff for use in this analysis. The essential nexus for this facility category is between the demand for recycled water facilities from the projected increase in wastewater flow that can be treated to produce recycled water and the additional facilities needed to treat the effluent from the City’s wastewater treatment plant. The fees are roughly proportional to demand because they ensure that new development will pay no more than its proportionate share of the identified planned facilities needed to serve the City through the planning horizon, and the fees are scaled based on the amount of wastewater flow generated by residential and nonresidential land uses.

Recycled Water Demand
Wastewater treatment plants treat municipal wastewater to standards that protect the beneficial uses of the waters into which the treated wastewater is discharged. Recycled water facilities allow the treatment of wastewater to a level such that it can be used for irrigation and other purposes safely. Consequently, the need for treatment of recycled water is based on the amount of wastewater that is conveyed to a wastewater treatment plan, so demand is equal to wastewater flows. This chapter uses the EDU factors and estimates of EDUs from Chapter 8 as measure of demand for recycled water facilities. Use of EDU factors to estimate demand and allocate fees ensures that the fees are roughly proportional to the demand generated by each unit of new development.

Planned Facilities
Table 9.1 details the City’s planned recycled water facilities to be funded by the recycled water facilities impact fee. The identified facilities will cost a total of $6.5 million, with $1.1 million being allocated to new development through this impact fee.

Table 9.1: Recycled Water Facilities Projects and Allocation to New Development
Project
No. Type of Improvement
Capital
Improvement
Cost ($)
Allocation to
New
Development
Cost Allocated
to New
Development
5100.1 Recycled Water Booster Station $ 2,456,254 17.7% $ 434,757 5100.2 Recycled Water Reservoir 1,012,809 17.7% 179,267 New Recycled Water Booster Station Phase 2 3,000,000 17.7% 531,000 Total $ 6,469,063 $ 1,145,024
Note: All costs rounded to the nearest dollar.

Sources: City of Norco Proposed Capital Improvement Program 2026-2030; Table 8.2, Willdan Financial Services.

Cost per EDU
The allocated cost of planned facilities in Table 9.1 is divided by the increase in EDUs to determine the cost per EDU. Table 9.2 displays this calculation.

City of Norco Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 47 Table 9.2: Recycled Water Facilities Cost
per EDU
Cost Allocated to New Development $ 1,145,024
Growth in EDUs (2025 to 2050) 5,430
Cost per EDU $ 211
Note: Cost per EDU rounded to the nearest dollar.

Sources: Tables 8.2 and 9.1.

Fee Schedule
The maximum justified fee for recycled water facilities is shown in Table 9.3. The City can adopt any fee up to this amount. The cost per EDU is converted to a fee per unit of new development based on the EDU factors shown in Table 8.1. The fee per average dwelling unit is converted into a fee per square foot by dividing the fee per dwelling unit by the assumed average square footage of a dwelling unit.

The total fee includes a one percent (1%) administrative charge to fund costs that include: (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.

In Willdan’s experience with impact fee programs, one percent of the base fee adequately covers the cost of fee program administration. Impact fee program costs typically range from one percent to two percent of collected fee revenue. To be conservative, and to align with the City’s current practice, this study uses one percent to calculate the administrative charge.

City of Norco Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 48 Table 9.3: Maximum Justified Recycled Water Facilities Fee Schedule A B C = A x B D = C x 0.01 E = C + D E / Average
Cost Per
EDU
EDU
Factor
Base
Fee1
Admin
Charge1, 2 Total Fee1
Fee per
Sq. Ft.3
Residential Dwelling Unit $ 211 1.00 $ 211 $ 2 $ 213 $ 0.10 Nonresidential - per 1,000 Sq. Ft.

Commercial $ 211 0.35 $ 74 $ 1 $ 75 $ 0.08
Office 211 0.37 78 1 79 0.08
Industrial 211 0.33 70 1 71 0.07
Lodging - per Room
Commercial Lodging $ 211 0.12 $ 25 $ - $ 25 N/A
Sources: Tables 8.1 and 9.2.
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. 1 Fee per average sized dw elling unit, per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential building space, or per commercial lodging room. Amounts rounded to the nearest dollar. 3 Assumes an average of 2,126 square feet per dw elling unit based on the average square footage of homes in the City of Norco. Amount rounded to the nearest cent.

49 10. General Government Facilities
The purpose of the general government facilities impact fee is to fund the general government facilities needed to serve new development. A maximum justified fee is presented based on the system standard of general government facilities per capita. The essential nexus for this facility category is between the demand for new general government facilities from the projected increase in service population and the additional general government facilities needed to meet those service demands. The fees are roughly proportional to demand because they ensure that new development will pay no more than its proportionate share of the identified planned facilities needed to serve the City through the planning horizon, and the fees are scaled based on the number of residents occupying a new dwelling unit, or the number of jobs associated with nonresidential land uses.

Service Population
General government 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 10.1 shows the existing and future projected service population for general government 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. This study makes use of a worker weighting factor to estimate different levels of demand between residential and nonresidential land uses. 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 non-residential development are typically occupied less intensively than dwelling units and consequently create a lesser demand for facilities.

City of Norco Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 50 Table 10.1: General Government Facilities
Service Population
A B A x B = C
Persons
Weighting
Factor1
Service
Population2
Residents
Existing (2025) 21,892 1.00 21,892
Growth (2025 to 2050) 3,033 1.00 3,033
Total (2050) 24,925 24,925
Workers 1
Existing (2025) 13,194 0.31 4,090
Growth (2025 to 2050) 9,306 0.31 2,885
Total (2050) 22,500 6,975
Combined Residents and Weighted Workers
Existing (2025) 25,982
Growth (2025 to 2050) 5,918
Total (2050) 31,900
2 Figures are rounded to the nearest w hole number.

Sources: Table 2.1, Willdan Financial Services.
1 Workers are w eighted at 0.31 of residents based on a 40 hour w ork w eek out of a possible 128 non-w ork hours in a w eek (40/128 = 0.31) Existing Inventory
The City’s public facility inventory consists of City Hall and Annex and the Public Works various buildings. Table 10.2 summarizes the City’s current inventory of public land, buildings, building contents, and vehicles. The quantities and replacement cost of owned buildings and building contents come from the City’s existing asset inventory. Appendix Table A.1 includes information about the City’s owned fleet inventory. Note that the inventory data provided did not include a replacement cost for the City Hall. The number shown was used in the prior impact fee study and adjusted for inflation for use in this analysis. The assumed cost of land acquisition of $142,900 per acre is based on land sales comparisons from the previous five years, as reported by CoStar and is used consistently through this report to value land acquisition for each impact fee category.

City of Norco Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 51 Table 10.2: Existing General Government Facilities Inventory Quantity Units Unit Cost2
Replacement
Cost
Land (acres) 1
City Hall Facilities and Annex 6.80 acres $142,900 $ 971,720 Public Works Yard 2.00 acres 142,900 285,800
Subtotal - Land 8.80 acres $ 1,257,520
Buildings (square feet)
City Hall Facilities and Annex2 36,400 sq. ft. $ 600 $ 21,840,358 Public Works Main Building 3,402 sq. ft. 260 886,000
Public Works Warehouse 4,000 sq. ft. 99 394,700
Public Works Pre-Fab Warehouse 4,000 sq. ft. 74 296,700 Public Works Picnic Shelter 100 sq. ft. 72 7,200
Subtotal - Buildings 47,902 sq. ft. $ 23,424,958
Contents
Public Works Main Building 3,402 sq. ft. $ 60 $ 204,200 Public Works Warehouse 4,000 sq. ft. 59 235,000
Public Works Pre-Fab Warehouse 4,000 sq. ft. 38 150,000 Subtotal - Contents 11,402 sq. ft. $ 589,200
Vehicles and Equipment
Facilities Maintenance 4 vehicles $ 34,076 $ 136,305
Code Enforcement 3 vehicles 36,981 110,942
Public Works 49 vehicles 62,274 3,051,435
Subtotal - Vehicles and Equipment 56 vehicles $ 3,298,682 Total Value - Existing Facilities $ 28,570,360
1 Land value calculated using land sales w ithin the past five years as reported by CoStar.

Sources: City of Norco Asset Inventory; Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report For the City of Norco, California, 2014; CoStar Group; Willdan Financial Services, Appendix A.1. 3 Assumed replacement cost of City Hall and Annex identified in prior impact fee study, and adjusted for inflation.
2 Unit costs displayed are rounded to the nearest dollar. Calculated by dividing total replacement cost by quantities.

Planned Facilities
Table 10.3 summarizes the planned general government facilities needed to serve the City through 2050. New facilities costs are estimated to total approximately $8.9 million through 2050.

City of Norco Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 52 Table 10.3: Planned General Government Facilities
Project
Number Uses of Funds
Capital
Improvement
Cost ($)
54303.1 City Hall Remodel - Efficiency Assessment $ 485,000 54303.2 City Hall Security and Lobby Improvements 75,000 54303.6 Nellie Weaver Hall Parking Lot Improvements 600,000 New ERP/Financial System Assessment 60,000
54303.12 Security System Upgrade 440,000
54303.19 Structured Connectivity System 510,000
New Telephone System Upgrade and Migration 80,000
GF-001 City Hall Parking Expansion 3,018,742
GF-002 Electronic Systems Capacity/Capabilities Expansion 1,095,664 GF-003 Growth-related Building Reconfiguration 2,515,000 Net Cost of Planned Facilities $ 8,879,406
Sources: City of Norco Proposed Capital Improvement Program 2025-2029; City of Norco Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report, 2014; ENR Construction Cost Index; Willdan Financial Services.

Cost Allocation
Existing Level of Service
Table 10.4 expresses the City’s current general government facilities level of service in terms of the existing cost per capita. This cost per resident is not used in the fee calculation, rather it is shown here for informational purposes only.

Table 10.4: General Government Facilities
Existing Standard
Value of Existing Facilities $28,570,360
Existing Service Population 25,982
Cost per Capita $ 1,100
Facility Standard per Resident $ 1,100
Facility Standard per Worker1
341
Note: Standards rounded to the nearest dollar.
1 Based on a w eighting factor of 0.31.

Sources: Tables 10.1 and 10.2.

City of Norco Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 53 Future Level of Service
Table 10.5 shows new development’s projected per capita investment in general government facilities at the planning horizon. This level of service drives the fee calculation. This value is calculated by dividing cost of existing and planned facilities by the service population at the planning horizon. The value per capita is multiplied by the worker weighting factor of 0.31 to determine the cost per worker.

Table 10.5: General Government Facilities
System Standard
Value of Existing Facilities $28,570,360
Cost of Planned Facilities 8,879,406
Total System Value (2050) $37,449,766
Future Service Population (2050) 31,900
Cost per Capita $ 1,174
Cost Allocation per Resident $ 1,174
Cost Allocation per Worker1 364
Note: Standards rounded to the nearest dollar.
1 Based on a w eighting factor of 0.31.

Sources: Tables 10.1, 10.2 and 10.3.

Use of Fee Revenue
The City can use general government facilities fee revenues for the construction or purchase of buildings, land, and equipment that are part of the system of general government facilities serving new development. A list of planned facilities is included in Table 10.3.

Fee Revenue Projection
The City plans to use general government facilities fee revenue to construct improvements and acquire capital facilities and equipment to add to the system of general government facilities to serve new development. The City plans to acquire the facilities in Table 10.3.

Table 10.6 details a projection of fee revenue, based on the service population growth increment identified in Table 10.1. The City should program fee revenue to specific projects annually through its CIP and budget process. After accounting for the projected future impact fee revenue, $1.9 million in non-fee funding will be needed to fully fund the facilities.

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

City of Norco Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 54 Table 10.6: Revenue Projection
Cost per Capita $ 1,174
Growth in Service Population (2025 to 2050) 5,918
Fee Revenue $ 6,947,732
Net Cost of Planned Facilities 8,879,406
Non-Fee Revenue to be Identified $ (1,931,674)
Sources: Tables 10.1, 10.3 and 10.4.

Fee Schedule
Table 10.7 below, shows the maximum justified impact fees. The City can adopt any fee up to this amount.

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, employees per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential building space or employees per room of commercial lodging). The fee per average sized dwelling unit is converted into a fee per square foot by dividing the fee per dwelling unit by the assumed average square footage of a dwelling 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.

In Willdan’s experience with impact fee programs, one percent of the base fee adequately covers the cost of fee program administration. Impact fee program costs typically range from one percent to two percent of collected fee revenue. To be conservative, and to align with the City’s current practice, this study uses one percent to calculate the administrative charge.

City of Norco Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 55 Table 10.7: Maximum Justified General Government 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 Dwelling Unit $ 1,174 3.23 $ 3,792 $ 38 $ 3,830 $ 1.80 Nonresidential - per 1,000 Sq. Ft.

Commercial $ 364 2.09 $ 761 $ 8 $ 769 $ 0.77
Office 364 2.28 830 8 838 0.84
Industrial 364 0.68 248 2 250 0.25
Lodging - per Room
Commercial Lodging $ 364 0.56 $ 204 $ 2 $ 206 N/A
Sources: Tables 2.2 and 10.5.
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.
1 Fee per average sized dw elling unit, per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential building space, or per commercial 3 Assumes an average of 2,126 square feet per dw elling unit.

56 11. Parks and Open Space
Facilities
The purpose of the parks and open space facilities impact fee is to fund the parks and open space facilities needed to serve new development. The maximum justified impact fee is presented based on the existing standard of park facilities per capita. Fee revenue would be used to expand the provision of parks and open space to meet demand from future development. The essential nexus for this facility category is between the demand for City parks and open space from the projected increase in residents and the additional parks and open space needed to meet those service demands. The fees are roughly proportional to demand because they ensure that new development can maintain the City’s existing ratio of park acres to residents, and the fees are scaled based on the number of residents occupying a new dwelling unit. A fee in-lieu of parkland dedication charged under the Quimby Act is also included in this chapter.

Service Population
Parks and open space facilities in Norco primarily serve residents. Therefore, demand for services and associated facilities is based on the City’s residential population. Table 11.1 shows the existing and future projected service population for parks and open space facilities.

City of Norco Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 57 Table 11.1: Parks and Open Space Facilities Service
Population
A B A x B = C
Persons
Weighting
Factor1
Service
Population2
Total (Census 2020) 26,316
Residents
Existing (2025) 21,892 1.00 21,892
Growth (2025 to 2050) 3,033 1.00 3,033
Total (2050) 24,925 24,925
Workers 1
Existing (2025) 13,194 0.149 1,966
Growth (2025 to 2050) 9,306 0.149 1,387
Total (2050) 22,500 3,353
Combined Residents and Weighted Workers
Existing (2025) 23,858
Growth (2025 to 2050) 4,420
Total (2050) 28,278
2 Figures are rounded to the nearest w hole number.

Sources: Census 2020; Table 2.1, Willdan Financial Services. 1 Weighting factor based on data from Riverside County Parks and Open Space District "Intercept Survey Frequencies" December 16, 2016.

Existing Parkland and Park Facilities Inventory
The City of Norco maintains several parks throughout the city. Table 11.2 summarizes the City’s existing parkland inventory in 2025. All facilities are owned by the City. In total, the inventory includes a total of 896.13 acres of City-owned parkland.

City of Norco Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 58 Table 11.2: Parks and Open Space Land
Inventory
Park Name Acres
Community Parks
Basin Park 8.75
Clark Field 2.00
Community Center 10.50
Corydon Staging Area 5.80
Ingalls Event Center 97.00
Hawks Crest Park 1.18
Kips Korner Park 2.00
Makin/Shearer Sports Complex 22.00
Neal Snipes Park 15.00
Norco Hills Park 1.80
Norco Ridge Ranch Park 3.00
Pacer Park 1.70
Parmenter Park 5.00
Pikes Peak Park 8.40
Sundance Park 1.50
Ted Brooks Park 2.00
Subtotal Community Parks 187.63
Open Space (Undeveloped)
LMD 4 Wetlands 16.70
Lot F Vortex Hill 5.00
Norco Hills Conservancy Area 384.30
River Trails Park 277.00
Shadow Cyn/Alhambra Bluff Open Space 12.00
Western Ave Trail Parkway 13.50
Subtotal Open Space 708.50
Total Parkland Acres 896.13
Source: City of Norco.

Parkland and Park Facilities Unit Costs
Table 11.3 displays the unit costs necessary to develop parks and open space in Norco. The cost of improving an acre of community parkland with standard park improvements is based on the Pikes Peak Park Playground replacement project from the City’s CIP. The assumed cost of land acquisition of $142,900 per acre for community parks is based on land sales comparisons from the previous five years, as reported by CoStar and is used consistently through this report to value land acquisition for each impact fee category. The assumed cost of land acquisition of $50,200 for open space is based on land sales comparisons of agricultural land from the previous five years, as reported by CoStar. In total, this analysis assumes that it costs $1,032,847 to acquire and develop an acre of community parkland and $50,200 to acquire and develop an acre of open space, respectively, in Norco.

City of Norco Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 59 Table 11.3: Parks and Open Space Facilities Unit Costs Parkland Open Space
Standard Park Improvements1
$ 882,500 $ -
Vehicles and Equipment2
7,447 -
Land Acquisition3
142,900 50,200
Total Cost per Acre $ 1,032,847 $ 50,200
2 Total replacement cost of park vehicles divided over all improved park acres.

Sources: City of Norco; CoStar Group; Willdan Financial Services 1 Assumed cost per acre for standard park improvements based on Pikes Peak Park Playground replacement project from City CIP.
3 Parkland unit cost based on land sales comparisons for land in Norco over the past five years as reported by CoStar. Open space unit cost based on agricultural land sales comparisons in Norco over the past five years as reported by CoStar.

Parkland and Park Facility Standards
Park facility standards establish a reasonable relationship between new development and the need for expanded parkland and park facilities. Information regarding the City’s existing inventory of existing parks facilities was obtained from City staff.

The most common measure in calculating new development’s demand for parks and open space 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 parkland 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 dedication standard established by the Quimby Act. 3 In this case, the City will
use the Mitigation Fee Act to impose park impact fees for development not occurring in subdivisions and will use the Quimby Act for development occurring in subdivisions.

Mitigation Fee Act
The Mitigation Fee Act does not 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.4 In this case, the fees will be set to maintain the City’s existing parkland standard of acres per 1,000 residents.

Quimby Act
The Quimby Act specifies that the dedication requirement must be a minimum of 3.0 acres and a maximum of 5.0 acres per 1,000 residents. A jurisdiction can require residential developers to dedicate above the three-acre minimum if the jurisdiction’s existing park standard at the time it adopted its Quimby Act ordinance justifies the higher level (up to five acres per 1,000 residents).

The standard used must also conform to the jurisdiction’s adopted general or specific plan standards.
3 California Government Code §66477.
4 See the Benefit and Burden findings in Background Report.

City of Norco Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 60 The Quimby Act only applies to land subdivisions. The Quimby Act would not apply to residential development on future approved projects on single parcels, such as apartment complexes and other multifamily development.

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

The Quimby Act allows use of in-lieu fee revenue for any park or recreation facility purpose.

Allowable uses of this revenue include land acquisition, park improvements, and rehabilitation of existing parks.

City of Norco Parkland and Park Facilities Standards
Table 11.4 shows the existing standard for improved park acreage per 1,000 residents based on the type of parkland. The City has achieved an existing parkland standard of 8.57 acres per 1,000 residents, which is more than the maximum Quimby standard of 5.0 acres per 1,000 residents.

The impact fee analysis in this report will be based on implementing the maximum Quimby standard of 5.0 acres per 1,000 residents as new development adds demand for parks in Norco.

For open space, the standard is calculated using the weighted service population, including residents and weighted number of workers. The resulting open space standard is 29.70 acres per 1,000 service population.

Table 11.4: Parks and Open Space Standards
Parkland Open Space
Park Acres 187.63 708.50
Existing Service Population (2025)¹ 21,892 23,858
Existing Standard (Acres per 1,000 Service Population) 8.57 29.70 Maximum Quimby Act Standard
(Acres per 1,000 Residents) 5.00
Sources: Tables 11.1 and 11.2.
1 Parkland service population only includes residents. Open space service population includes residents plus w eighted w orkers
Facilities Needed to Accommodate New Development
Table 11.5 shows the park improvements needed to accommodate new development at the existing acre per 1,000 resident standard. To achieve the standard by the planning horizon, new residential development must fund the improvement of 15.17 acres of community park acres at a total cost of $13.5 million.

City of Norco Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 61 Table 11.5: Parks and Open Space Improvements to
Accommodate New Development
Calculation Parks
Park Improvements (Mitigation Fee Act)
Facility Standard (acres/1,000 capita) A 5.0
Growth in Service Population (2025 to 2050) B 3,033
Facility Needs (acres) C = A x B/1000 15.17
Average Unit Cost (per acre) D $ 889,947
Total E = C x D $13,500,496
Note: Dollar amounts rounded to the nearest integer.

Sources: Tables 11.1, 11.3, and 11.4.

Table 11.6 shows the parkland needed to accommodate new development. To achieve the standard by the planning horizon, new development must fund the acquisition of 15.17 community park acres, at a cost of $2.2 million, and 131.27 open space acres at a cost of $6.6 million.

Table 11.6: Park Land to Accommodate New Development
Calculation
Parkland Acquisition
Parkland Dedication In-Lieu (Quimby Act) or Parkland Acquisition (Mitigation Fee Act) Facility Standard (acres/1,000 capita) A 5.00
Growth in Service Population (2025 to 2050) B 3,033
Facility Needs (acres) C = A x B/1000 15.17
Average Cost of Land (per acre) D $ 142,900
Total E = C x D $ 2,167,793
Open Space
Facility Standard (acres/1,000 capita) A 29.70
Growth in Service Population (2025 to 2050) B 4,420
Facility Needs (acres) C = A x B/1000 131.27
Average Cost of Land (per acre) D $ 50,200
Total E = C x D $ 6,589,754
Sources: Tables 11.1, 11.3, and 11.4.

City of Norco Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 62 Park Facilities Cost per Capita
Table 11.7 shows the cost per capita of providing new parkland and park facilities at the existing facility standard, and at the Quimby standard. The cost per capita is shown separately for land and improvements. The cost per capita is shown separately for land and improvements. The costs per capita in this table will serve as the basis of four fees:
• A Quimby Act Fee in-lieu of land dedication. This fee is payable by residential development occurring in subdivisions.
• A Mitigation Fee Act Fee for land acquisition. This fee is payable by residential and nonresidential development not occurring in subdivisions. • A Mitigation Fee Act Fee for park improvements. This fee is payable by all development. • A Mitigation Fee Act Fee for open space. This fee is payable by all development.

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

Table 11.7: Park Facilities Cost per Capita
Improvements Open Space
Quimby
Fee
OR Mitigation
Act Fee

AND Parkland

AND Mitigation
Act Fee
Parkland Investment (per acre) A $142,900 $ 142,900 $ 882,500 $ 50,200 Facility Standard (acres per 1,000 capita) B 5.00 5.00 5.00 29.70 Total Cost per 1,000 capita $714,500 $ 714,500 $ 4,412,500 $ 1,490,940 Cost per Resident $ 715 $ 715 $ 4,413 $ 1,491
Worker Weighting Factor E 0.149
Cost per Worker $ 222
Note: Costs per resident and w orker are rounded to nearest dollar.

Sources: Tables 11.3 and 11.4.

Park Land
Calculation
C = A x B
F = D x E
D = C / 1,000
Use of Fee Revenue
The City plans to use parkland and park facilities fee revenue to purchase parkland 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 11.7) are cost per capita based on the unit cost estimates and facility standards. The fee per average sized dwelling unit is converted into a fee per square foot by dividing the fee per dwelling unit by the assumed average square footage of a dwelling unit.

Table 11.8 shows the maximum justified parks and open space fees based on the Quimby Act standard and based on the existing park standards under the Mitigation Fee Act, respectively.

The City can adopt any fee up to this amount.

City of Norco Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 63 The total fee includes a one percent (1%) administrative charge to fund costs that include: (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.

In Willdan’s experience with impact fee programs, one percent of the base fee adequately covers the cost of fee program administration. Impact fee program costs typically range from one percent to two percent of collected fee revenue. To be conservative, and to align with the City’s current practice, this study uses one percent to calculate the administrative charge.

Table 11.8: Parks and Open Space 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
Capita Density Fee1 Charge1, 2 Total Fee1 Sq. Ft. 3
Residential
Quimby Act (Subdivisions)
Parkland $ 715 3.23 $ 2,309 $ 23 $ 2,332 $ 1.10
Park Improvements 4,413 3.23 14,254 143 14,397 6.77
Open Space 1,491 3.23 4,816 48 4,864 2.29
Total $ 6,619 $21,379 $ 214 $ 21,593 $ 10.16
Mitigation Act (Non-Subdivisions)
Parkland $ 715 3.23 $ 2,309 $ 23 $ 2,332 $ 1.10
Park Improvements 4,413 3.23 14,254 143 14,397 6.77
Open Space 1,491 3.23 4,816 48 4,864 2.29
Total $ 6,619 $21,379 $ 214 $ 21,593 $ 10.16
Nonresidential (Open Space Only)
Per 1,000 Sq. Ft.

Commercial $ 222 2.09 $ 464 $ 5 $ 469 $ 0.47
Office 222 2.28 506 5 511 0.51
Industrial 222 0.68 151 2 153 0.15
Lodging - per Room
Commercial Lodging $ 222 0.56 $ 124 $ 1 $ 125 N/A
Sources: Tables 2.2 and 11.7.
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 an average of 2,126 square feet per dw elling unit based on the average square footage of homes in the City of Norco. Amount rounded to the nearest cent.
1 Fee per average sized dw elling unit, per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential building space, or per commercial lodging room. Amounts rounded to the nearest dollar.

64 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: parks and open space and public meeting/library facilities. The existing level of 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 circulation, wastewater, water, recycled water, maintenance storm drain and general government facility fees. Circulation projects included in these fees met the City’s congestion level of service standards at the time they were added to the impact fee program. Impact fees charged under this program will serve to ensure that the LOS does not fall to unacceptable levels. For the general government facility fees, the planned facilities represent a lower level of service than current exists, so new development can fully fund the identified facilities.

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 animal control and fire protection facility fees. The increased level of service is required to fund new development’s fair share of facilities identified either in the City’s most recent CIP, or the City’s prior development impact fee studies. 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 increased level of service through any other funding source. Each chapter for facility fee categories that are increasing the

City of Norco Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 65 level of service includes a table that shows the existing level of service and future level of service in terms of facility investment per capita.
66016.5. (a) (4) – Review of Original Fee Assumptions
Willdan extensively reviewed the City’s prior impact fee studies while conducting this fee analysis.

Notably this study differs from the 2013/14 study in several ways:

1. This study uses a planning horizon of 2050.

2. Cost assumptions have been updated to current dollars. The costs in the 2013-2014 study were considerably lower than current market costs for construction of new facilities and the acquisition of land.

3. This study made use of the most current project lists and inventories of existing facilities where relevant.

Table 12.1 displays an accounting of annual revenue collected over the last five fiscal years for the impact fees included in this analysis.

Table 12.1: Annual Collected Impact Fee Revenue
Facility Category
6/30/2021
Year-ToDate
Actual
6/30/2022
Year-To-Date
Actual
6/30/2023
Year-To-Date
Actual
6/30/2024
Year-To-Date
Actual
6/30/2025
Year-To-Date
Actual Total
Animal Control $ 548 $ 24,207 $ 5,595 $ 3,092 $ 82,299 $ 115,741 Fire 2,998 129,411 60,592 13,185 330,899 537,085
Circulation 18,408 2,441,602 113,711 258,255 812,580 3,644,556 Storm Drain 7,395 374,600 15,083 17,426 90,108 504,612
Water 12,599 1,817,075 170,421 256,742 801,162 3,057,999 Wastewater 20,769 2,101,979 164,695 699,317 1,897,330 4,884,090 General Government 2,704 153,076 29,460 13,731 43,440 242,411 Public Meeting Facilities/Library 6,504 14,524 64,336 36,196 893,957 1,015,517 Parks 25,941 604,183 271,721 135,215 3,252,029 4,289,089 Total $ 97,866 $ 7,660,657 $ 895,614 $ 1,433,159 $ 8,203,804 $18,291,100 Source: City of Norco.
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, master plans and other relevant documents. Adoption of this nexus study would approve the planned facilities identified herein as the Capital Improvement Plan for this nexus study.

66 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. The impact fee nexus study must first be adopted at a public hearing to comply with AB 602. That public hearing must be noticed at least 30 days in advance.

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.

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 complies with the annual and five-year reporting requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act.

For facilities to be funded by a combination of public fees and other revenues, identification of the source and amount of these non-fee revenues is essential. Identification of the timing of receipt of other revenues to fund the facilities is also important.

Programming Revenues and Projects with the CIP
The City maintains a 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.

67 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 Mitigation Fee Act findings required to implement impact fees in California demonstrate the essential nexus between new development and a fee to fund facilities needed to serve that development. The term essential nexus refers to the relationship between new development and the need for facilities (and corresponding impact fees) to serve that development. The findings also require that this study demonstrates rough proportionality of the fees- meaning that the amount of the exaction must roughly correspond to the burden placed on the government, resulting from the proposed development project. To ensure that fees are roughly proportional to from new development, this study first allocates facilities costs to new development using the allocation methods described in the preceding chapters, then to individual units of new development based on the demand characteristics of each unit.

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 serve 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: animal control, fire protection, circulation, storm drain, water, wastewater, recycled water general government, public meeting/library, parks and open space.

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).

City of Norco Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 68 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 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 circulation facilities demand standards are based on trip generation by various categories of new development. For storm drainage facilities demand is based on impervious surface generated by development. For wastewater and recycled water facilities demand is based on increased wastewater flow generated by new development. For water facilities demand is based on increased water flow generated by new development.

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, 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.

69 Appendix
Appendix Table A.1: Vehicle Inventory
Department Count
Average Cost
per Vehicle
Total
Replacement
Cost
Animal Control 12 $ 31,493 $ 377,913
Code Enforcement 3 36,981 110,942
Facilities Maintenance 4 34,076 136,305
Fire 8 23,880 191,038
Ingalls Event Center 21 52,093 1,093,955
Parks 11 27,574 303,313
Public Works 49 62,274 3,051,435
Recreation 1 59,434 59,434
Seniors 3 52,032 156,096
Total 112 $ 5,480,431
Note: Average cost per vehicle rounded to the nearest dollar.

Source: City of Norco.

City Council

STAFF REPORT
Date: May 6, 2026 Agenda Item:

3.A.

To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
From: Lisette Free, City Manager
Prepared By: Janet Martinez, Interim City Clerk
Department: City Clerk
SUBJECT:

Waive Reading of All Ordinance Adoptions on this Agenda and Read by Title Only RECOMMENDATION:

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

REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:

Approved by: Lisette Free, City Manager
Approved as to Form: Harper and Burns, LLP, City Attorney

City Council

STAFF REPORT
Date: May 6, 2026 Agenda Item:

3.B.

To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
From: Lisette Free, City Manager
Prepared By: Janet Martinez, Interim City Clerk
Department: City Clerk
SUBJECT:

Approval of City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
RECOMMENDATION:

Approve the City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of April 15, 2026.

REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:

Approved by: Lisette Free, City Manager
Approved as to Form: Harper and Burns, LLP, City Attorney ATTACHMENT(S):

City Council and Successor Agency - Apr 15 2026 - DRAFT Minutes

DRAFT MINUTES
City Council
Successor Agency of the Norco
Community Redevelopment
Agency
Wednesday, April 15, 2026
City Council Chamber – Norco City Hall
2820 Clark Avenue, Norco, CA 92860
CALL TO ORDER 6:00 PM
ROLL CALL Robin Grundmeyer, Mayor
Gregory Bowen, Mayor Pro Tem
Kevin Bash, Council Member
Greg Newton, Council Member
Fia Sullivan, Council Member

CLOSED SESSION
City Attorney Burns read the closed session items into the record.

Mayor Grundmeyer recessed the meeting at 6:00 p.m.

CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL—ANTICIPATED LITIGATION
Initiation of litigation pursuant to paragraph (4) of subdivision (d) of Section 54956.9: (1 potential case)
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL—ANTICIPATED LITIGATION
Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section 54956.9: (1 potential case)
RECONVENE PUBLIC SESSION 7:00 PM

REPORT OF ACTION(S) TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION
Mayor Grundmeyer reconvened the Public Session at 7:00 p.m.

City Attorney Burns reported that one item was not discussed, and for the second item, there is no reportable action.

INVOCATION Invocation was led by Spencer Parish,
Youth Pastor
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Pro Tem Bowen led the pledge of allegiance.

City Council Minutes - April 15, 2026
PRESENTATIONS CPRS Awards Presentation

1. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS ON REGIONAL BOARDS
The City Council provided reports on their recent individual participation in committees, commissions, reginal boards, and community organizations.

2. PUBLIC COMMENTS
Bonnie Slagger announced a memorial event for Glenn Hedges scheduled for May 2, 2026 at 2pm at the American Legion.

3. CONSENT CALENDAR
Council Member Bash requested for item 3.D. to be pulled for discussion.

3.A. Waive Reading of All Ordinance Adoptions on this Agenda and Read by Title Only
M/S NEWTON/SULLIVAN to waive reading, by title only, of all Ordinances and Resolutions. Said Ordinances and Resolutions which appear on the agenda shall be determined to have been read by title and further reading waived. The Motion was carried by the following roll call vote:

AYES: GRUNDMEYER, BOWEN, BASH, NEWTON, AND SULLIVAN
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE

3.B. Approval of City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
Action: To approve the City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of April 1, 2026.

3.C. Quarterly Purchase Orders Listing Between $25,000 to $49,999 Action: Receive and file the Quarterly Purchase Orders Listing for the Quarter Ended

City Council Minutes - April 15, 2026
March 31, 2026.

3.E. City Council of the City of Norco and the Successor Agency of the Norco Redevelopment Agency's approval of the transfer of ownership interests in Heritage Park Norco, LLC, a California limited liability company (“Owner”), pursuant to the May 22, 2007 Regulatory Agreement between Owner’s predecessor in interest and the City of Norco as the Successor Agency of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Norco, as assigned to Owner as of October 27, 2025.

Action: to approve (1) the transfer of ownership interests in Heritage Park Norco, LLC, a California limited liability company, (2) the refinancing of Heritage Park Apartments with a new Fannie Mae mortgage loan, and (3) the City entering into a Subordination Agreement subordinating the City’s Regulatory Agreement to the Fannie Mae loan.

3.F. Recap of Actions Taken by the Planning Commission at its Meeting Held on April 8, 2026
Action: Receive and file the recap of actions taken by the Planning Commission at its meeting held on April 8, 2026.

4. ITEM(S) PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR

3.D. 2025 Housing Element Annual Progress Report (APR) for submittal to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) and to the Governor’s Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation (LCI).

Council Member Bash discussed the Housing Element Annual Progress Report and asked about compliance with state housing mandates.

Staff provided an overview of RHNA requirements and progress toward housing goals.

M/S BASH/BOWEN To receive and file. The Motion was carried by the following roll call vote:

AYES: GRUNDMEYER, BOWEN, BASH, NEWTON, AND SULLIVAN
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE

City Council Minutes - April 15, 2026

5. PUBLIC HEARING(S)

5.A. First Reading: Ordinance No. 1141, Code Amendment 2026-01, An Ordinance of the City of Norco amending Norco Municipal Code Chapter 3.50 to update participation in the Western Riverside County Transportation Uniform Mitigation (TUMF) Program, and Resolution 2026-20, a resolution to adopt the TUMF schedule to establish Construction Cost Index adjustments.

Director Cataldi presented the staff report on file, and the presentation was available for all.

Council Member Newton asked Cameron from WRCOG about the cost of construction and how the fee breakdown will be increased. Cameron explained how fees will be updated and assessed over time.

Mayor Pro Tem Bowen had questions about possible reductions if there is a recession, Cameron stated that yes, WRCOG would adjust fees, and fees for contracts would remain.

Council Member Bash questioned if any contractors pushed back on the increase on fees, Cameron noted no pushback was received.

M/S BASH/BOWEN to adopt First Reading of Ordinance No. 1141, amending and updating the City’s TUMF Ordinance. The Motion was carried by the following roll call vote:

AYES: GRUNDMEYER, BOWEN, BASH, NEWTON, AND SULLIVAN
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE
M/S GRUNDMEYER/SULLIVAN to adopt Resolution No. 2026-20, adopting a TUMF schedule. The Motion was carried by the following roll call vote:

AYES: GRUNDMEYER, BOWEN, BASH, NEWTON, AND SULLIVAN
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE

5.B. Amendments to the City’s General Fee Schedule for Fiscal Year 2026-27 Director Calhoun presented the staff report on file.

City Council Minutes - April 15, 2026
Mayor Pro Tem Bowen questioned what is the definition of a wild animal, Animal Control Superintendent Davis was unsure on the proper definition and would update Mayor Pro Tem Bowen at a later date.

Council Member Newton questioned staff about the rounding of fees and no recovery of the fees, Director Calhoun explained the process for recovery.

Council Member Newton questioned staff about the in-lieu fees, Director Cataldi explained the process that a developer would use and that fees will be adjusted annually.

Bill Naylor noted some issues with the facility fees for application fees and rental fees.

Mayor Grundmeyer thanked staff for doing research for pricing in regards to the Animal Control fees.

Council Member Newton thanked staff for all the hard work.

Mayor Pro Tem Bowen questioned staff about the bovine fee and the size of the cattle, staff explained.

Council Member Bash thanked staff for all the work.

M/S BASH/SULLIVAN to adopt Resolution No. 2026-21 updating the City’s General Fee Schedule for Fiscal Year 2026-27 with the noted administrative changes.

The Motion was carried by the following roll call vote:

AYES: GRUNDMEYER, BOWEN, BASH, NEWTON, AND SULLIVAN
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE

5.C. Reconsideration of the City Council's Approval of the Bluff Street Annexation #27, General Plan Amendment 2023-01, and Zone Change (Pre-Zone) 2023-01 on July 16, 2025
Director Cataldi presented the staff report on file.

Mayor Pro Tem Bowen questioned staff about the sewer connections, Director Nelson explained the sewer connection fee process.

Council Member Newton questioned staff about the sewer monthly fee and noted the minutes from past meetings do not reflect that statement, City

City Council Minutes - April 15, 2026
Attorney Burns explained the added condition would need to be noted again.

Director Calhoun noted that the fee can not be waived as it would be a gift of public funds, City Attorney Burns explained the process and the legality.

Mayor Grundmeyer asked staff to explain the shared aide between cities and counties, Director Calhoun explained in detail.

Roger Vanderlaan opposes the project, values the block's independence.

Andrew James opposes the project, explained there are too many remining questions, higher costs and more restrictions, current construction requirements and the process once the annexation takes place for current construction and existing construction.

Joe Brown opposes the project. He thanked the Council for revisiting the item.

If it doesn't have to be done, then don't do it.

Luc DeLey opposes the project, asked to please listen to residents that this will effect.

Inger DeLey opposed the project, she is part of 20 families on the block, future construction fees and costs are a burden.

Ray Currie opposed the project, he thanked council for revisiting the item. He stated that the block opposes the annexation.

Mark Brodersen opposed the project, the block is its own community, its like an island and would like it to remain that way.

Mary Roberts opposed the project, explained the reasons for the City not to annex the properties.

Mayor Grundmeyer asked about the permit process, Director Cataldi explained in detail.

Council Member Newton asked about the wells, Director Nelson said the wells will remind and the city will not take them over.

Council Member Bash explained in detail the need for the annexation and the process.

Mayor Grundmeyer agrees with Council Member Bash and explained in detail the process of the annexation and the necessity of it.

City Council Minutes - April 15, 2026
Council Member Newton asked City Attorney Burns to explain the fees for the sewer non-connect fees, City Attorney Burns elaborated on the process.

Council Member Bash explained the zoning and the protection it would provide for the larger lots, Director Catadli explained the process and the details of previous meetings.

Mayor Grundmeyer explained in detail that the Annexation will still move forward and the two items that will come back to City Council for review in the future.

M/S GRUNDMEYER/BASH for staff to create a resolution for the protection of the wells/water company that are in the area of the Bluff Street Annexation #27. The Motion was carried by the following roll call vote:

AYES: GRUNDMEYER, BOWEN, BASH, NEWTON, AND SULLIVAN
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE
M/S BOWEN/BASH for staff to agendize direction for the sewer laterals assistance program for the Bluff Steet Annexation #27. The Motion was carried by the following roll call vote:

AYES: GRUNDMEYER, BOWEN, BASH, AND SULLIVAN
NOES: NEWTON
ABSENT: NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE

6. CITY COUNCIL / STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
Director Hamilton noted that Sixth Street will be closed for parade on Saturday April 18, 2026.

Council Member Sullivan thanked staff for all the effort for the easter egg hunt.

7. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Grundmeyer adjourned the meeting at 9:20 p.m.
_________________________________
City Clerk

City Council

STAFF REPORT
Date: May 6, 2026 Agenda Item:

3.C.

To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
From: Joshua Calhoun, Finance Director
Prepared By: Joshua Calhoun, Finance Director
Department: Finance
SUBJECT:

Quarterly Investment Report for Quarter Ended March 31, 2026 RECOMMENDATION:

Receive and file the Quarterly Investment Report for the Quarter Ended March 31, 2026.

SUMMARY:

This report has been prepared to meet the requirements of the City’s Investment Policy and applicable sections of the State of California Government Code.

BACKGROUND:

The City’s Investment Policy requires the Treasurer to render a quarterly report to the legislative body. The report is to be prepared in accordance with Government Code Section 53646(b)(1) and should contain detailed information on all securities, investments, and monies of the local agency; a statement of compliance of the portfolio with the Statement of Investment Policy; and a statement of the City’s ability to meet its cash flow requirements for the next three months. This report, which is for the quarter ended March 31, 2026, meets the requirements of the Investment Policy and Government Code. It covers funds of the City and the Successor Agency to the former Norco Redevelopment Agency.

The attached schedules (Attachments A through D) have been prepared to meet the detailed requirements of the Government Code and the City’s Investment Policy as approved by the Council on April 1, 2026. It is to be noted that the Investment Policy excludes certain investments (bond proceeds) from these requirements. This means that bond proceeds are invested in accordance with the provisions of the bond indentures rather than the provisions of the Investment Policy. Consequently, in determining whether the operating portfolio holdings are in compliance with the

Government Code and the approved Investment Policy, investments of bond proceeds have been excluded.

Attachment A provides a summary schedule of the City’s operating portfolio holdings by type as of March 31, 2026. This summary also provides information on whether or not each investment category complies with the limitations imposed by State law and the City’s Investment Policy. Investments that are subject to the Statement of Investment Policy are operating or idle funds invested by the Treasurer within the provisions of the approved Investment Policy. During the quarter ended March 31, 2026, the operating portfolio increased by a net amount of $7.6 million from $96.7 million to $104.3 million.

Revenues exceeded disbursements for expenditures for this quarter due to property tax, vehicle license fees, sales tax and Measure R sales and use tax received.

A summary of investments not subject to the provisions of the Investment Policy (bond proceeds and debt service reserve funds) is also shown on Attachment A. These funds are invested in accordance with applicable bond indenture provisions. During the quarter ended March 31, 2026, bond proceeds and debt service reserve fund portfolio increased by a net amount of $0.7 million from $7.1 million to $7.8 million due to the transfer from operating funds for the April 1, 2026 debt service payments.

Attachment B provides a graphical breakdown of the operating portfolio holdings by investment type as of March 31, 2026. This chart is for investments that are subject to the Investment Policy. The operating portfolio consisted of 31.27% investment in the State of California Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF), 37.73% in the California Asset Management Program (CAMP), 14.79% in US Agency Securities and the remaining

16.21% in cash and cash equivalents.

Attachment C provides a detailed listing of the City’s portfolio holdings as required by the Government Code. In this listing, “N/A” is used to denote that the information is either not available or not applicable. Agency Securities issued by United States Government Sponsored Entities (GSEs) are rated “AA+” by Moody’s rating service and “AAA” by Fitch rating service.

Attachment D indicates cash balances by fund as additional information to complement the schedule of investment holdings. For the Operating Funds, the cash balance provides an indication of the financial health of each fund.

Attachment E: Based on cash balances as of March 31, 2026 and anticipated cash receipts for the next six months, staff estimates that there will be sufficient cash to cover disbursements for the City and Successor Agency for the next six months ending September 30, 2026.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Not applicable for this item.

RELATIONSHIP TO STRATEGIC PLAN:

The Quarterly Investment Report is consistent with Strategic Direction #3 “Economic Development & Financial Stability."

REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:

Certified as to Availability of Funds: Joshua Calhoun, Finance Director Approved by: Lisette Free, City Manager
Approved as to Form: Harper and Burns, LLP, City Attorney ATTACHMENT(S):

Portfolio Summary (Attachment A)
Summary Charts (Attachment B)
Portfolio Detail (Attachment C)
Detail by Fund (Attachment D)
Certification (Attachment E)

Attachment A
City of Norco, California
Portfolio Summary
As of March 31, 2026
City Investments Subject to Investment Policy Market Value Percentage Policy Maximum ComplianceCash 16,907,396 $ 16.21% NA In ComplianceLocal Agency Investment Fund 32,622,629 31.27% 100% In ComplianceCAMP 39,359,762 37.73% 100% In ComplianceU.S. Government Agency Securities 15,430,422 14.79% 100% In Compliance Total 104,320,209 $ 100.00%

3.290%
City Investments Not Subject to Investment Policy Market Value PercentageCommunity Facilities Districts 1,832,310 $ 23.47%Sewer and Water System 703,766 9.02%Refunding Tax Allocation Bonds 5,269,537 67.51% Total 7,805,613 $ 100.00%

0.786%
Estimated Portfolio YieldEstimated Portfolio Yield

Attachment B

BEGINNING AND ENDING VALUES BREAKDOWN OF INVESTMENTS
Beg. Market Values Ending Market Values
Breakdown 12/31/2025 3/31/2026 Investments Subject to Investment Policy Portfolio % RatingCash 5,512,690 16,907,396 Local Agency Investment Fund 32,622,629 31.27% Not Rated Local Agency Investment Fund 27,841,208 32,622,629 Federal Home Loan Banks 9,234,431 8.85% AA+ California Asset Management Plan 36,876,097 39,359,762 Federal Farm Credit 6,195,991 5.94% AA+ U.S. Government Agency Securities 26,514,416 15,430,422 CA Asset Management Plan 39,359,762 37.73% Not Rated Total Market Value 96,744,410 104,320,209 Wells Fargo Checking Account 5,531,007 5.30% Not Rated US Bank Principal Cash 11,376,389 10.91% Not RatedTOTAL 104,320,209 100%

SUMMARY OF CITY OF NORCO'S PORTFOLIO

INVESTMENTS SUBJECT TO INVESTMENT POLICY
Not Rated
85%
Rated
15%
By Rating
Local Agency
Investment
Fund
31%
Federal Home
Loan Banks
9%
CA Asset
Management
Plan
38%
Cash and Cash
Equivalents
16%
By Type
< 1 year
94%
1-3 years
3%
> 3 years
3%
By Maturity (Years)

Attachment C Page 1
City of Norco, California
Portfolio Details
As of March 31, 2026
Investments Subject to Policy
Cash & Cash EquivalentsPurchase Date Maturity Date CUSIP # Description of Security Investment
Policy Account Rating
Coupon
Rate
Yield to
Maturity Face Value Cost Market Value
N/A N/A N/A Checking Accounts N/A Wells Fargo N/A N/A 0.00% N/A 5,531,007 5,531,007 N/A N/A N/A Principal Cash N/A US Bank N/A N/A 0.00% N/A 11,376,389 11,376,389 Subtotal 16,907,396 16,907,396
Local Agency Investment Fund
Purchase Date Maturity Date CUSIP # Description of Security Investment
Policy Account Rating
Coupon
Rate
Yield to
Maturity Face Value Cost Market Value
N/A N/A N/A Local Agency Investment Fund XI.15 State of California N/A N/A N/A N/A 32,551,618 32,622,629 Subtotal 32,622,629 32,551,618
California Asset Management Plan
Purchase Date Maturity Date CUSIP # Description of Security Investment
Policy Account Rating
Coupon
Rate
Yield to
Maturity Face Value Cost Market Value
N/A N/A N/A California Asset Management Plan XI.13 CA Joint Powers Authority N/A N/A N/A N/A 35,000,000 39,359,762 Subtotal 39,359,762 35,000,000
US Bank Custodial Account
08/20/24 8/10/2029 3130B2FW0 Federal Home Loan Banks XI.5 US Bank AA+ 4.250% 4.263% 3,400,000 3,400,000 3,392,418 10/29/25 10/16/2030 3130B8E65 Federal Home Loan Banks XI.5 US Bank AA+ 4.000% 4.050% 5,365,000 5,365,000 5,306,468 04/09/25 4/9/2030 3133ETCF2 Federal Farm Credit XI.5 US Bank AA+ 4.520% 4.532% 3,133,000 3,133,000 3,127,580 10/28/25 10/28/2030 3133ETK89 Federal Farm Credit XI.5 US Bank AA+ 3.730% 3.775% 3,100,000 3,100,000 3,068,411 12/16/25 12/16/2030 3134HCHM4 FHLMC XI.5 US Bank AA+ 4.000% 4.039% 540,000 540,000 535,545 15,430,422 15,538,000
Total Investments Subject to Policy 104,320,209 99,997,014

Attachment C Page 2
City of Norco, California
Portfolio Details
As of March 31, 2026
Investments Not Subject to Policy (Bond Proceeds)Community Facilities Districts Cash and Cash EquivalentsPurchase Date Maturity Date CUSIP # Description of Security Investment
Policy Account Rating
Coupon
Rate
Yield to
Maturity Face Value Cost Market Value
N/A N/A 9AMMF05B2 US Bank Money Market XI.11 US Bank N/A N/A 0.005% N/A 209,090 209,090 N/A N/A 9AMMF05B2 US Bank Money Market XI.11 US Bank N/A N/A 0.005% N/A 180 180N/A N/A 9AMMF05B2 US Bank Money Market XI.11 US Bank N/A N/A 0.005% N/A 1,277,756 1,277,756N/A N/A 9AMMF05B2 US Bank Money Market XI.11 US Bank N/A N/A 0.005% N/A 112 112N/A N/A 31846V203 First American Government XI.11 US Bank N/A N/A 3.271% N/A 31,766 31,766 N/A N/A 31846V203 First American Government XI.11 US Bank N/A N/A 3.271% N/A 31,364 31,364 N/A N/A 31846V203 First American Government XI.11 US Bank N/A N/A 3.271% N/A 216,441 216,441 Subtotal 1,766,709 1,766,709
Local Agency Investment Fund
Purchase Date Maturity Date CUSIP # Description of Security Investment
Policy Account Rating
Coupon
Rate
Yield to
Maturity Face Value Cost Market Value
N/A N/A N/A Local Agency Investment Fund (CFD 2002-1) XI.15 State of California N/A N/A N/A N/A 65,458 65,601 Subtotal 65,601 65,458
Investments Not Subject to Policy (Bond Proceeds)Sewer and Water System Cash and Cash EquivalentsPurchase Date Maturity Date CUSIP # Description of Security Investment
Policy Account Rating
Coupon
Rate
Yield to
Maturity Face Value Cost Market Value
N/A N/A 31846V203 First American Government XI.11 US Bank N/A N/A 3.271% N/A 305 305N/A N/A 31846V203 First American Government XI.11 US Bank N/A N/A 3.271% N/A 700,918 700,918 N/A N/A 31846V203 First American Government XI.11 US Bank N/A N/A 3.271% N/A 2,536 2,536 N/A N/A 31846V203 First American Government XI.11 US Bank N/A N/A 3.271% N/A 7 7 Subtotal 703,766 703,766
Total Sewer and Water System 703,766 703,766

Attachment C Page 3
City of Norco, California
Portfolio Details
As of March 31, 2026
Investments Not Subject to Policy (Bond Proceeds)Refunding Tax Allocation Bonds Cash & Cash EquivalentsPurchase Date Maturity Date CUSIP # Description of Security Investment
Policy Account Rating
Coupon
Rate
Yield to
Maturity Face Value Cost Market Value
N/A N/A 31846V401 First American Government Obligation XI.11 US Bank N/A N/A 3.121% N/A 135,251 135,251N/A N/A 31846V401 First American Government Obligation XI.11 US Bank N/A N/A 3.121% N/A 14,722 14,722N/A N/A 31846V401 First American Government Obligation XI.11 US Bank N/A N/A 3.121% N/A 62,724 62,724N/A N/A 31846V401 First American Government Obligation XI.11 US Bank N/A N/A 3.121% N/A 1,839 1,839N/A N/A 9AMMF05B2 US Bank Money Market XI.11 US Bank N/A N/A 0.005% N/A 4,044 4,044 N/A N/A 9AMMF05B2 US Bank Money Market XI.11 US Bank N/A N/A 0.005% N/A 40,968 40,968N/A N/A 9AMMF05B2 US Bank Money Market XI.11 US Bank N/A N/A 0.005% N/A 29 29N/A N/A 9AMMF05B2 US Bank Money Market XI.11 US Bank N/A N/A 0.005% N/A 56,353 56,353N/A N/A 9AMMF05B2 US Bank Money Market XI.11 US Bank N/A N/A 0.005% N/A 13 13N/A N/A 9AMMF05B2 US Bank Money Market XI.11 US Bank N/A N/A 0.005% N/A 15 15N/A N/A 9AMMF05B2 US Bank Money Market XI.11 US Bank N/A N/A 0.005% N/A 49,830 49,830N/A N/A 9AMMF05B2 US Bank Money Market XI.11 US Bank N/A N/A 0.005% N/A 107,432 107,432N/A N/A 9AMMF05B2 US Bank Money Market XI.11 US Bank N/A N/A 0.005% N/A 80 80N/A N/A 9AMMF05B2 US Bank Money Market XI.11 US Bank N/A N/A 0.005% N/A 77 77N/A N/A 9AMMF05B2 US Bank Money Market XI.11 US Bank N/A N/A 0.005% N/A 1,973,218 1,973,218 Subtotal 2,446,596 2,446,596
Local Agency Investment Fund
Purchase Date Maturity Date CUSIP # Description of Security Investment
Policy Account Rating
Coupon
Rate
Yield to
Maturity Face Value Cost Market Value
N/A N/A N/A Local Agency Investment Fund (2010 TABs) XI.15 State of California N/A N/A N/A N/A 27,510 27,570N/A N/A N/A Local Agency Investment Fund (2003 TABs) XI.15 State of California N/A N/A N/A N/A 125,042 125,315 Subtotal 152,884 152,552
U.S. and Agency Securities
Purchase Date Maturity Date CUSIP # Description of Security Investment
Policy Account Rating
Coupon
Rate
Yield to
Maturity Face Value Cost Market Value
05/26/21 05/26/26 3130AMG63 Federal Home Loan Banks XI.5 US Bank AA+ 0.500% 0.502% N/A 1,040,000 1,036,142 05/26/21 05/26/26 3130AMG63 Federal Home Loan Banks XI.5 US Bank AA+ 0.500% 0.502% N/A 1,055,000 1,051,086 05/26/21 05/26/26 3130AMG63 Federal Home Loan Banks XI.5 US Bank AA+ 0.500% 0.502% N/A 585,000 582,830 Subtotal 2,670,057 2,680,000
Total Refunding Tax Allocation Bonds 5,269,537 5,279,147 Total Investments Not Subject to Policy 7,805,613 7,815,081

Attachment D
City of Norco, California
Portfolio Details by Fund
As of March 31, 2026
Investments Subject to Policy Qtr ended
03/31/26
Fund Description Balance
012 Successor Agency Project Fund 2,012
016 Cal Home Grant Fund 264,305
017 Successor Agency Fund 179,190
018 Housing Fund 9,037,136
121 General Fund 28,281,694
122 Miscellaneous Grants Fund 120,138
124 Water Fund 6,749,400
126 Sewer Fund 2,396,310
127/132 Measure R Fund 13,923,180
128 Equipment Replacement Fund 4,754,944
129 Storm Drain Fund 1,468,303
131 Nancy Newman Fund 16,430
133 Gas Tax Fund 16,436
134 Benefits and Insurance Fund 645,469
135 Information Technology Fund 1,479,474
136 SB1 Road Maintenance & Rehab. Fund 1,400,786
137 Measure A Fund 3,100,278
139 NPDES Fund 33,925
140 General Govt Improvement Fund 236,924
141 Park Improvement Fund 3,891,871
142 Fire Improvement Fund 1,071,798
143 Trail Improvement Fund 253,429
144 Water Capital Fund 4,039,317
146 Public Meeting Facilities Fund 1,182,899
147 Sewer Facilities Fund 11,393,979
149 Street Improvement Fund 1,547,618
151 Animal Control Fund 88,839
152 Facility Improvement Fund 138,635
154 Trust Deposit Fund 792,681
156 AQMD Fund 46,151
158 Waste Management Fund (116,907)
159 Recyled Water Capital Fund -
162 Supplemental Law Grant Fund 33,333
166 Recyled Water Fund 1,275,024
181 CFD 97-1 419,200
182 CFD 2001-1 1,876,647
183 CFD 2002-1 126,769
179 LMD #1 (7,635)
176 LMD #2 10,182
177 LMD #3 13,640
186 LMD #4 295,281
187 LMD #5 87,361
Subtotal - General Ledger 102,566,450
Various Outstanding Checks/Deposits in Transit 1,753,759 Total Cash and Investments 104,320,209

Attachment E
Quarterly Investment Portfolio
For the Quarter Ended March 31, 2026
As required by the Government Code, the Treasurer certifies that the investments reported in the accompanying schedules (Attachments A through D) comply with the City of Norco Investment Policy and that suƯicient liquidity along with anticipated revenues are available to meet the City and Successor Agency budgeted expenditure requirements for the next six months ending September 30, 2026.
____________________________________ May 6, 2026
Joshua Calhoun, Finance Director Date

City Council

STAFF REPORT
Date: May 6, 2026 Agenda Item:

3.D.

To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
From: Amanda Hamilton, Deputy City Manager /
Community Operations Director
Prepared By: Amanda Hamilton, Deputy City Manager /
Community Operations Director
Department: Community Operations
SUBJECT:

Acceptance of the Moreno Arena LED Lighting Upgrades as Complete (Project No. 54111.5)
RECOMMENDATION:

Accept the Moreno Arena LED Lighting Upgrades as Complete (Project No. 54111.5), and Authorize the City Clerk to file a Notice of Completion with the County of Riverside.

SUMMARY:

The Moreno Arena Lighting Project is now complete for the total contract amount of $451,745 with no change orders required. The project included replacing existing highbay lighting with new LED fixtures that enhance illumination, provide programmable color displays and dynamic lighting effects, and feature a user-friendly touchscreen control system with dimming capabilities to improve energy efficiency. Improvements also included the installation of three new electrical pedestals on the south side of Moreno Arena. The project has been inspected by the Facilities Superintendent and the Building Inspector and found to be in accordance with the approved plans and specifications.

BACKGROUND:

On September 3, 2025, the City Council awarded a construction contract to RG General Engineering Inc. in the amount of $451,745 for the Moreno Arena LED Lighting Upgrade Project and authorized the City Manager to approve contract change orders up to 10% of the original contract amount. Construction began in November 2025 and was completed in March 2026. The project included the removal of existing high-bay lighting fixtures and replacement with new LED high-bay fixtures throughout Moreno Arena.

The new LED lighting system significantly improves illumination within the arena and introduces enhanced features, including programmable color displays and dynamic lighting effects that elevate the overall event experience. The system also includes a new touchscreen lighting control interface that is user-friendly, provides dimming capabilities, and contributes to reduced energy consumption and operational costs.

In addition to lighting upgrades, the project included the installation of three (3) new electrical pedestals on the south side of Moreno Arena. Each pedestal is equipped with two (2) 50-amp outlets and two (2) 20-amp GFCI outlets, providing reliable and accessible power for events.

The Moreno Arena LED Lighting Upgrade Project has been completed in accordance with the approved project plans and specifications in the amount of $451,745 with no contract change orders required. The improvements provide enhanced lighting quality, increased energy efficiency, expanded event capabilities, and safer, more reliable electrical infrastructure. This project has been inspected by the Facilities Superintendent and the Building Inspector and has been found to be in accordance with the plans and specifications for the project.

FISCAL IMPACT:

This agenda item will not result in a fiscal impact.

RELATIONSHIP TO STRATEGIC PLAN:

This item is consistent with Strategic Direction No. 5, "Infrastructure and Asset Management."
REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:

Certified as to Availability of Funds: Joshua Calhoun, Finance Director Approved by: Lisette Free, City Manager
Approved as to Form: Harper and Burns, LLP, City Attorney ATTACHMENT(S):

Project Pictures - Moreno Arena LED Lighting Upgrades
Notice of Completion - Moreno Arena LED Lighting Upgrades

NOTICE OF COMPLETION

MORENO ARENA LED LIGHTING UPGRADES
PROJECT NO. 54111.5

RECORDING REQUESTED BY: THIS DOCUMENT IS FILED AT THE REQUEST

REQUEST CITY OF NORCO OF THE CITY OF NORCO PURSUANT TO
WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: SECTION 6103 OF THE GOVERNMENT
2870 CLARK AVENUE CODE. NO FEE IS CHARGED THEREFORE.

NORCO, CA 92860
ATTN: CITY CLERK

NOTICE OF COMPLETION

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN BY THE CITY OF NORCO, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, STATE OF CALIFORNIA THAT THE WORK DESCRIBED AS MORENO ARENA LED LIGHTING UPGRADES (PROJECT NO. 54111.5) IN THE CITY OF NORCO

IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS AND WRITTEN CONTRACT DATED BETWEEN THE CITY OF NORCO AND RG GENERAL ENGINEERING, INC. WAS COMPLETED AND ACCEPTED BY THE CITY OF NORCO ON THE SIXTH DAY OF MAY, 2026.

THE WORK DONE: THE REMOVAL OF EXISTING HIGH-BAY LIGHTING FIXTURES AND REPLACEMENT WITH NEW LED HIGH-BAY FIXTURES THROUGHOUT MORENO ARENA. (PROJECT NO. 54111.5) THAT THE CITY OF NORCO, A PUBLIC BODY, CORPORATE AND POLITIC, WHOSE ADDRESS IS 2870 CLARK AVENUE, NORCO, CALIFORNIA, 92860 IS THE OWNER OF SAID IMPROVEMENT WORK; AND THAT SAID WORK WAS PERFORMED BEGINNING NOVEMBER 23, 2025, IN THE CITY OF NORCO. THE NATURE OF INTEREST IS VENDEE UNDER CONTRACT.

THAT SAID WORK OF IMPROVEMENT WAS SO PERFORMED BY RG GENERAL ENGINEERING, INC. IN ACCORDANCE WITH SAID WRITTEN AGREEMENT DATED SEPTEMBER 3, 2025, AND THE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS WHICH WERE A PART OF SAID CONTRACT.

THIS NOTICE OF COMPLETION IS GIVEN BY THE CITY OF NORCO PURSUANT TO THE APPROPRIATE PROVISIONS OF TITLE XV, PART IV, DIVISION 1 OF THE CIVIL CODE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND UPON ORDER OF THE CITY OF NORCO.

MAY 6, 2026
DATED:

CITY OF NORCO

A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
BY: __________________________

JANET MARTINEZ, CMC

INTERIM CITY CLERK
VERIFICATION FOR NON-INDIVIDUAL OWNER:

I, THE UNDERSIGNED, DECLARE UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THAT I AM THE CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF NORCO; THAT I HAVE SIGNED THE SAID NOTICE, THAT I KNOW AND UNDERSTAND THE CONTENTS THEREOF, AND THAT THE FACTS STATED THEREIN ARE TRUE AND CORRECT.

MAY 6, 2026 ______________________________

DATE JANET MARTINEZ, CMC

INTERIM CITY CLERK

CITY OF NORCO

City Council

STAFF REPORT
Date: May 6, 2026 Agenda Item:

3.E.

To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
From: Amanda Hamilton, Deputy City Manager /
Community Operations Director
Prepared By: Amanda Hamilton, Deputy City Manager /
Community Operations Director
Department: Community Operations
SUBJECT:

Acceptance of the Kips Korner Park Improvement Project as Complete (Project No. 54300.2)
RECOMMENDATION:

Accept the Kips Korner Park Improvement Project as Complete (Project No. 54300.2), and Authorize the City Clerk to file a Notice of Completion with the County of Riverside.

SUMMARY:

The Kips Korner Park Improvements Project is now complete. The project scope included ADA upgrades, ramp and stair construction, fencing, irrigation and electrical improvements, paving, signage, and related site work. Construction began in January 2026 and reached substantial completion in April 2026, with change orders issued for unforeseen conditions, resulting in a final contract amount of $163,325. The Parks Superintendent and City Engineer have inspected and approved the work, and staff recommends accepting the project as complete (Project No. 54300.2) and authorizing the City Clerk to file a Notice of Completion with the County of Riverside.

BACKGROUND:

On November 19, 2025, the City Council awarded the Kips Korner Park Improvements Project to TVR Construction Engineering, LLC in the amount of $150,075 and authorized the City Manager to approve contract change orders in an amount not to exceed ten percent (10%) of the original contract amount.

The approved scope of work included, but was not limited to, the installation of Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliant on-street parking; construction of a new concrete stairway and ADA-accessible ramp with metal handrails; construction of curb and gutter; installation of a wheelchair-accessible picnic table; installation of equestrian

trail fencing; electrical improvements; installation of an irrigation valve and associated electrical components; asphalt concrete pavement repair; and installation of signage and pavement striping, together with all ancillary and appurtenant work necessary to complete the project.

Construction activities commenced in January 2026 and reached substantial completion in April 2026. The project required coordination with Southern California Edison for the installation of a new electrical service pedestal to support the irrigation system.

During the course of construction, two (2) contract change orders were issued to address unforeseen field conditions and to ensure full ADA compliance. The change orders included the construction of a retaining wall adjacent to the ramp and the installation of additional ADA-compliant pavement striping and truncated domes. The final contract amount, inclusive of all approved change orders, is $163,325.

In addition to the original scope, the project incorporated supplemental landscaping improvements, enhancing the overall aesthetics and functionality of the park. These improvements have contributed to a broader park beautification effort and have been well received by the community.

TVR Construction Engineering, LLC completed the project within the contract time. The Parks Superintendent and City Engineer have inspected the completed work and determined that all improvements have been constructed in accordance with the approved plans, specifications, and applicable standards.

FISCAL IMPACT:

This agenda item will not result in a fiscal impact.

RELATIONSHIP TO STRATEGIC PLAN:

This item is consistent with Strategic Direction No. 5, "Infrastructure and Asset Management."
REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:

Certified as to Availability of Funds: Joshua Calhoun, Finance Director Approved by: Lisette Free, City Manager
Approved as to Form: Harper and Burns, LLP, City Attorney ATTACHMENT(S):

Project Pictures - Kips Korner Park Improvement Project Notice of Completion Kips Korner Park Improvement Project

NOTICE OF COMPLETION

KIPS KORNER PARK IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
PROJECT NO. 54300.2

RECORDING REQUESTED BY: THIS DOCUMENT IS FILED AT THE REQUEST

REQUEST CITY OF NORCO OF THE CITY OF NORCO PURSUANT TO
WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: SECTION 6103 OF THE GOVERNMENT
2870 CLARK AVENUE CODE. NO FEE IS CHARGED THEREFORE.

NORCO, CA 92860
ATTN: CITY CLERK

NOTICE OF COMPLETION

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN BY THE CITY OF NORCO, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, STATE OF CALIFORNIA THAT THE WORK DESCRIBED AS KIPS KORNER PARK IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (PROJECT NO. 54300.2) IN THE CITY OF

NORCO IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS AND WRITTEN CONTRACT DATED BETWEEN THE CITY OF NORCO AND TVR CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING, LLC. WAS COMPLETED AND ACCEPTED BY THE CITY OF NORCO ON THE SIXTH DAY OF MAY, 2026.

THE WORK DONE: CONSISTED OF THE INSTALLATION OF AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA)-COMPLIANT ON-STREET PARKING; CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW CONCRETE STAIRWAY AND ADA-ACCESSIBLE RAMP WITH METAL HANDRAILS; CONSTRUCTION OF CURB AND GUTTER; INSTALLATION OF A WHEELCHAIR-ACCESSIBLE PICNIC TABLE; INSTALLATION OF EQUESTRIAN TRAIL FENCING; ELECTRICAL IMPROVEMENTS; INSTALLATION OF AN IRRIGATION VALVE AND ASSOCIATED ELECTRICAL COMPONENTS. (PROJECT NO. 54300.2) THAT THE CITY OF NORCO, A PUBLIC BODY, CORPORATE AND POLITIC, WHOSE ADDRESS IS 2870 CLARK AVENUE, NORCO, CALIFORNIA, 92860 IS THE OWNER OF SAID IMPROVEMENT WORK; AND THAT SAID WORK WAS PERFORMED BEGINNING JANUARY 9, 2026, IN THE CITY OF NORCO. THE NATURE OF INTEREST IS VENDEE UNDER CONTRACT.

THAT SAID WORK OF IMPROVEMENT WAS SO PERFORMED BY TVR CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING, LLC. IN ACCORDANCE WITH SAID WRITTEN AGREEMENT DATED NOVEMBER 19, 2025, AND THE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS WHICH WERE A PART OF SAID CONTRACT.

THIS NOTICE OF COMPLETION IS GIVEN BY THE CITY OF NORCO PURSUANT TO THE APPROPRIATE PROVISIONS OF TITLE XV, PART IV, DIVISION 1 OF THE CIVIL CODE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND UPON ORDER OF THE CITY OF NORCO.

MAY 6, 2026
DATED:

CITY OF NORCO

A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
BY: __________________________

JANET MARTINEZ, CMC

INTERIM CITY CLERK
VERIFICATION FOR NON-INDIVIDUAL OWNER:

I, THE UNDERSIGNED, DECLARE UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THAT I AM THE CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF NORCO; THAT I HAVE SIGNED THE SAID NOTICE, THAT I KNOW AND UNDERSTAND THE CONTENTS THEREOF, AND THAT THE FACTS STATED THEREIN ARE TRUE AND CORRECT.

MAY 6, 2026 ______________________________

DATE JANET MARTINEZ, CMC

INTERIM CITY CLERK

CITY OF NORCO

City Council

STAFF REPORT
Date: May 6, 2026 Agenda Item:

3.F.

To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
From: Amanda Hamilton, Deputy City Manager /
Community Operations Director
Prepared By: Amanda Hamilton, Deputy City Manager /
Community Operations Director
Department: Community Operations
SUBJECT:

Approval of One-Year License Agreement with Legendary Cowgirls for Use of Ingalls Event Center Arenas
RECOMMENDATION:

Approve one-year License Agreement between the City of Norco and the Legendary Cowgirls for the use of Moreno Arena and Clark Arena at the Ingalls Event Center.

SUMMARY:

This is an agreement between the City of Norco and the Legendary Cowgirls to establish a one-year partnership focused on enhancing the City’s equestrian presence through organized programming and increased visibility. Under the agreement, the organization may hold up to 31 practice sessions at the Ingalls Event Center, while providing community benefits such as four annual trail rides and promotional support for City animal adoption efforts. The City retains full control over scheduling and operations, receives a nominal annual fee, and can evaluate the partnership’s success before considering any long-term commitment.

BACKGROUND:

In February 2026, City staff met with representatives of the Legendary Cowgirls, who presented a proposal outlining a strategic vision to collaborate with the City of Norco.

The proposal emphasized a partnership model designed not simply to host equestrian events, but to develop signature equestrian experiences that enhance the City’s identity.

This initiative is consistent with the City’s core values while expanding recreational opportunities for residents and visitors.

The Legendary Cowgirls are a nationally recognized, media-driven equestrian organization with a substantial and measurable digital presence. The organization

reports a combined social media audience exceeding 2.5 million followers, more than

1.8 million Instagram profile views, and multi-million platform visibility across TikTok and other platforms. This level of exposure presents a unique opportunity for the City to expand its visibility, promote equestrian programming, enhance recreational offerings, and support local economic activity through increased visitation and community engagement.

The proposed License Agreement establishes a structured, one-year introductory partnership between the City of Norco (“Licensor”) and the Legendary Cowgirls (“Licensee”) for organized equestrian drill team practices and related community-benefit activities at the Ingalls Event Center. The agreement is designed to formalize facility use while ensuring measurable community engagement, operational accountability, and protection of City interests. The one-year term also allows the City to evaluate the effectiveness of the partnership prior to considering any long-term arrangement.

Importantly, the agreement includes community-focused programming in the form of organized trail rides, which are intended to enhance the City’s recreational offerings while actively promoting and preserving Norco’s equestrian lifestyle.

In addition, the Licensee will support the City’s animal welfare initiatives through coordinated promotional efforts benefiting the Norco Animal Shelter. This component of the partnership is intended to increase visibility for adoptable animals and improve adoption outcomes through strategic use of the Licensee’s digital platforms.

KEY TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT
Term and Renewal
The License Agreement is for a one-year term commencing May 6, 2026, through May 6, 2027. Any continuation beyond the initial term is subject to an annual review and approval by the City Council.

Facility Use and Scheduling
The Licensee is authorized to conduct up to thirty-one (31) practice sessions annually between the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m. at Moreno Arena or Clark Arena. All use is subject to facility availability and the City’s established scheduling priority. The City retains full discretion to modify, reschedule, or cancel reservations as necessary to accommodate higher-priority uses or operational needs.

Community Benefit Requirements
In lieu of traditional rental arrangements, the Licensee is required to co-sponsor a minimum of four (4) community trail rides annually, conducted on a quarterly basis.

These events are intended to expand recreational opportunities and reinforce the City’s commitment to its equestrian heritage. The trail rides must:
 Incorporate seasonal or agricultural themes;
 Be reviewed and approved by the City prior to promotion;  Be operated at no cost to the City; and
 Limit participant fees to cost recovery only.

Animal Shelter Support and Promotion
The Licensee shall actively support the City in the promotion and facilitation of animal adoptions, as requested by the City. In furtherance of this obligation, the Licensee shall develop and publish social media content featuring adoptable animals from the Norco Animal Shelter; provided, however, that all such content shall be submitted to the City for prior review and written approval before publication, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed.

The Licensee shall provide to the City detailed analytics for each approved post within twenty-four (24) to forty-eight (48) hours following publication for purposes of immediate impact assessment. The Licensee shall also furnish ongoing analytics reports on a weekly or monthly basis, as directed by the City, to support long-term performance evaluation and strategic planning efforts related to animal adoption initiatives.

Fees
The Licensee shall pay an annual booking and asset replacement fee in the amount of $558.00 for the term. This fee is subject to future adjustments based on CPI as determined by the City Council.

The proposed one-year introductory License Agreement establishes clear expectations, safeguards City resources, and provides measurable community benefits through structured programming, enhanced recreational opportunities, animal adoption support, promotional outreach, and strategic collaboration. The agreement further supports one of the City’s core values by actively protecting and promoting Norco’s equestrian lifestyle, while allowing the City to evaluate the effectiveness of this partnership and its potential to strengthen Norco’s position as a leading equestrian destination.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The agreement generates a nominal annual fee of $558.00 and offsets facility use costs through required community programming and promotional services. No direct General Fund impact is anticipated.

RELATIONSHIP TO STRATEGIC PLAN:

This agenda item is consistent with Strategic Direction No. 4, "Communication and Stakeholder Experience"
REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:

Certified as to Availability of Funds: Joshua Calhoun, Finance Director Approved by: Lisette Free, City Manager
Approved as to Form: Harper and Burns, LLP, City Attorney ATTACHMENT(S):

Legendary Cowgirls License Agreement 2026

1 | Page

CITY OF NORCO

LICENSE AGREEMENT
THIS INDENTURE OF LICENSE is made and entered into on the day as set forth below, by and between the CITY OF NORCO, a municipal corporation of the State of California, hereinafter called “LICENSOR”, and the LEGENDARY COWGIRLS of the City of Norco, hereinafter called “LICENSEE”.

W I T N E S S E T H:

LICENSOR, subject to the covenants and agreement hereinafter contained by the LICENSEE to be kept and performed, grants a license unto said Licensee, and Licensee does accept such license from Licensor, for the use of certain premises in the City of Norco, County of Riverside, State of California, described as follows:

The facility known as Moreno Arena and Clark Arena located at the Ingalls Event Center, 3737 Crestview Drive, to have and to hold unto said Licensee on the following terms and conditions:

1. TERMS
This License covers a one-year period from May 6, 2026, through May 6, 2027. An annual review of the terms and conditions of this License shall occur prior to any renewal and subject to Norco City Council approval.

The drill team practice use of the Ingalls Event Center includes the use of Moreno Arena or Clark Arena on selected days from 6 PM to 9 PM for a total of thirty-one (31) practice dates. Practice dates are subject to Arena availability and shall be allocated to Licensee following the City’s scheduling priority order.

In consideration for the use of the arenas, the Legendary Cowgirls Drill Team (“Licensee”) shall co-sponsor a minimum of four (4) community trail rides annually, to be conducted on a quarterly basis. Each such trail ride shall incorporate seasonal equestrian or agricultural themes and shall be subject to the prior written review and approval of the City of Norco (“City”) prior to any public announcement, advertisement, or dissemination.

The Licensee shall be solely responsible for the timely, adequate, and professional promotion and marketing of each trail ride through its social media platforms and other customary outreach methods. The Licensee shall also submit to the City, for prior written review and approval, a proposed schedule of participant fees for each trail ride; such fees shall be nominal in amount and strictly limited to the recovery of the Licensee’s direct, reasonable, and documented costs associated with the event.

2 | Page
All social media marketing materials related to the trail rides must be submitted to the City no fewer than four (4) business days in advance for review and approval. The City reserves the right to approve, deny, or require revisions to any submitted materials in its sole and absolute discretion. The City may, at its sole and absolute discretion, elect to provide supplemental marketing and promotional support for the trail rides through its social media platforms, official website, or other official communication channels.

All co-sponsored trail rides and any related promotional activities shall be conducted at no cost or expense to the City; provided, however, that the City shall be responsible for providing insurance coverage for each individual trail ride, as determined appropriate by the City.

The Licensee shall actively support the City’s efforts to promote and facilitate animal adoptions, as reasonably requested by the City. In furtherance of this obligation, the Licensee shall develop and publish social media content featuring adoptable animals from the Norco Animal Shelter. All such content must be submitted to the City no fewer than four (4) business days in advance for prior review and written approval. The City’s approval shall not be unreasonably withheld, conditioned, or delayed.

The Licensee shall provide to the City detailed analytics for each approved post within twenty-four (24) to forty-eight (48) hours following publication, for purposes of immediate impact assessment. The Licensee shall also furnish ongoing analytics reports on a weekly or monthly basis, as directed by the City, to support long-term performance evaluation and strategic planning efforts related to animal adoption initiatives.

The Licensee shall provide attendance figures for all participants in each City co-sponsored trail ride within forty-eight (48) hours following the conclusion of the applicable event, or by the next business day, as applicable.

The Licensee shall, at all times during the term of this License, conduct its activities, operations, and public communications in a professional manner that reflects favorably upon and promotes the City’s public image. The Licensee shall not engage in any act, omission, or communication that could reasonably be expected to bring discredit, reputational harm, or negative publicity to the City.

All members of the Legendary Cowgirls shall be registered volunteers with the City of Norco Volunteer Program and shall be required to complete all applicable documentation, background checks, and receive formal approval from the City prior to participating in any activities pursuant to this License.

The Licensee shall promptly notify the City of any anticipated or actual media presence at any drill team practice, trail ride, or related activity. Such

3 | Page
notification shall be provided in writing no less than forty-eight (48) hours in advance of the scheduled media attendance, unless such presence is unplanned, in which case the Licensee shall notify the City as soon as practicable.

The City, as Licensor, reserves the right, in its sole and absolute discretion, to cancel, reschedule, or modify practice dates and facility reservations at any time. The City further reserves the right to preempt scheduled practices or events to accommodate City-priority uses, maintenance requirements, or unforeseen circumstances.

2. CONDITIONS OF LICENSE
In lieu of a facility rental fee, Licensee agrees to pay the Licensor an annual booking fee and asset replacement fee. Booking fees are subject to CPI increases yearly by the Norco City Council. The annual booking fee for the 2026–2027 term shall be $558.00

3. INDEMNIFICATION AND INSURANCE
To the fullest extent permitted by law, Licensee shall hold harmless, defend at its own expense, and indemnify the City of Norco and its officers, employees, agents, and volunteers against any and all liability, claims, losses, damages, or expenses, including reasonable attorney’s fees, arising from all acts or omissions of Licensee or its officers, agents, or employees in rendering services under this license; excluding, however, such liability, claims, losses, damages, or expenses arising from the City of Norco’s sole negligence or willful acts. This obligation is independent of, and shall not in any way be limited by, the minimum Insurance obligations contained in this license. These obligations shall survive the completion or termination of this license.

Licensee further agrees to deliver to Licensor upon the execution of this license 60 day prior to its event two executed copies of a continuing Commercial General Liability Insurance Policy, to include the use of the Ingalls Event Center to include any and all activities associated to Legendary Cowgirls Drill Team Practices satisfactory to Licensor, indemnifying and holding Licensor, its officers, agents, City Council members, City employees and Riverside County Sheriff’s Department personnel harmless against any and all claims, in an amount as stated below:
a. Licensee’s general liability policies shall be primary and non-contributory and be endorsed using Insurance Services Office form CG 20 10 (or equivalent) to provide that City of Norco and its officers, officials, employees, and agents shall be additional insureds, waiver of subrogation and primary and non-contributory endorsements under such policies. No alcohol is to be served or sold during practices. The insurance requirements also apply to anyone hired for the event practices.

4 | Page
b. The City of Norco reserves the right to increase/decrease, change or eliminate the insurance requirements at any time.

General Aggregate $2,000,000
Personal & Advertising Injury $1,000,000
Each Occurrence $1,000,000
c. This coverage may be provided under one policy or a combination of several policies, including excess or an umbrella policy, and shall keep the same in full effect and force during the term of this License.

4. REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE
Licensee represents that it has inspected and examined the premises and accepts them in their present condition at each and all practice dates.

Licensee agrees that Licensor shall not be required to make any improvements whatsoever in or upon the premises hereby licensed or any part thereof. Licensor agrees to make any repairs deemed necessary to place the facility in a safe operating condition prior to the start of the annual term. Licensee agrees to make all necessary repairs to said premises during its permitted use if repairs are a direct result of the event.

Licensee further agrees to keep said premises safe, and in good condition and order during the term, and at the end of each annual term or at any sooner termination thereof, the Licensee will quit and surrender possession of said premises quietly and peaceably and in as good order and condition as the same at the commencement hereof, reasonable wear, tear and damage by the elements excepted. Licensee further agrees to keep said premises free from all nuisance and dangerous and defective conditions.

Licensee further covenants and agrees to keep at its own expense any and all building grounds and structures clean and free of garbage, refuse and debris. Said cleaning operations shall be properly supervised and subject to the continuing approval of Licensor.

5. PROHIBITION AS TO ASSIGNMENT AND SUB-LICENSING
Neither the licensed premises nor any portion thereof shall be sub-licensed, nor shall this Licensee, or any interest therein, be assigned, hypothecated, or mortgaged by Licensee and any such attempt shall be of no force or effect and shall confer no rights upon any assignee, sub-licensee, mortgagee, or pledge.

6. COMPLIANCE WITH THE LAW

5 | Page
Licensee shall comply with all federal, state and local laws, policies and ordinances pertaining to the operations and activity to be conducted upon said described premises by Licensee and shall not commit or allow violation of any law or ordinance on said premises.

7. LIABILITY FOR INJURIES TO PERSONAL PROPERTY
Licensor shall not be liable to Licensee or Licensee’s officers, agents, employees, members, or guests for any damage caused to their persons or property by water, rain, fire storms and accidents, or by breakage, stoppage, or leakage of water, gas, heating, and sewer pipes or plumbing upon, about or adjacent to said premises.

8. LIABILITY FOR PROPERTY DAMAGE TO LICENSOR’S FACILITIES Licensee agrees to pay for any and all damages beyond the lump sum payment caused to any facilities, buildings, structures, equipment, and improvements of Licensor on said described property, if said damages are a direct result of Licensee’s use of the described premises during the license term. Said payment shall be made within 45 days, or as agreed upon, after receipt from Licensor of an itemized invoice delineating the damage and cost to repair such.

9. INSPECTION BY LICENSOR
Licensor’s duly authorized representatives shall have the right at all times to inspect said licensed premises to determine whether or not the provisions of the License are being complied with by Licensee.

10. RETURN OF PREMISES
Licensee shall return to Licensor the said described premises and all structures and improvements thereon in the same condition as they were at the time of the execution of this License, normal wear and tear excepted.

11. TERMINATION BY LICENSOR
Licensor may terminate this License at any time should it be determined by the City Manager that the public peace, health, safety, and welfare requires cancellation by serving upon Licensee in the manner hereinafter provided, a written notice to terminate, which notice shall be served at least 24 hours prior to the date for termination.

6 | Page

12. DEFAULT
If Licensee shall be in default or fail to perform any of the terms or conditions herein agreed to be kept and performed by the Licensee, Licensor may terminate and end this License forthwith, and Licensor may enter upon said premises and remove all persons and property therefrom. Licensee shall not be entitled to any money paid hereunder or any part thereof.

13. WAIVERS
Licensee shall provide the Licensor with signed waivers (See Appendix “A” and Appendix “B”) for all participants in Legendary Cowgirls Drill Team practice sessions and trail rides.

The Licensee shall obtain signed liability waivers from all participants prior to their involvement in any activities. The Licensee shall verify each participant’s legal identification to ensure the appropriate waiver is executed for minors and adults.

All completed waivers shall be submitted to the Deputy City Manager within fortyeight (48) hours following the conclusion of the activity.

Any equine animal rider who is under eighteen (18) years of age must wear a helmet that meets the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) standards (or any other nationally recognized standard for equine helmets) which is properly fitted and fastened securely upon the rider’s head by a strap, when riding in a public area. This requirement applies regardless of whether a rider is controlling the equine animal.

The City of Norco hereby advises all horse owners transporting or presenting horses at equine events that the commingling of animals of unknown or unverified health status inherently presents a risk of infectious disease transmission.

Accordingly, the City strongly recommends that all participants implement and adhere to appropriate biosecurity protocols while attending or participating in any equine event. Compliance with established biosecurity practices is a critical component in mitigating the risk of exposure to, and spread of, contagious equine diseases.

Recommended biosecurity measures include, but are not limited to, the following:
minimizing direct horse-to-horse contact; reducing indirect transmission by limiting horse-to-human-to-horse interactions; avoiding the use of shared or communal water sources; refraining from sharing equipment unless such equipment has been thoroughly cleaned and properly disinfected between uses; and continuously monitoring horses for clinical signs of illness. Any horse exhibiting a temperature exceeding 102°F or other indications of disease should be promptly reported to, and evaluated by, a licensed equine veterinarian.

14. ATTORNEY’S FEES

7 | Page
In an action brought under this License, the parties shall bear their own attorney’s fees.

15. TIME OF PERFORMANCE
All covenants must be performed promptly. If any default shall be made in any of the covenants on the part of the Licensee, Licensor may declare said license terminated and may enter upon the premises and repossess the same, for which purpose the consent of Licensee is hereby expressly given.

16. CONDUCT OF RODEO PERFORMANCE AND OTHER ANIMAL

RELATED ACTIVITIES
All drill practices and activities shall abide by Norco Animal Control requirements and state, federal, and local laws. Licensee agrees to abide by the Norco Municipal Code Ordinance 1090, Chapter 8.09, Working Animal Protection Act.

17. NOTICES
Any notices that are required hereunder or which either Licensor or Licensee may desire to serve upon the other shall be writing and shall be deemed served when delivered personally or when deposited in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows:

To: City of Norco
Attn: Amanda Hamilton
2870 Clark Avenue
Norco, California 92860
To: Legendary Cowgirls
Attn: Ivette Saucedo, Captain
2567 Reservoir Drive
Norco, California 92860

18. SUCCESSORS OF THE PARTIES
This License shall bind the successors of the parties hereto unless notice of termination as hereinabove agreed upon is given. Either Party has the right to terminate this license by written notice 180 days prior to the event. Written notice must be sent by Certified Mail.

8 | Page
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this License Agreement to be executed.

CITY OF NORCO, CALIFORNIA
A Municipal Corporation
By:
________________________
Robin Grundmeyer, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________
Janet Martinez, Interim City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
________________________
Harper & Burns, LLP, City Attorney

LEGENDARY COWGIRLS
By:
________________________
President/Representative
By:
_____________________________
Secretary Date

APPENDIX A
Legendary Cowgirls Drill Team & Events
WAIVER/RELEASE FOR EVENT AND COMMUNICABLE DISEASES INCLUDING COVID-19

ASSUMPTION OF RISK / WAIVER OF LIABILITY / INDEMNIFICATION AGREEMENT In consideration of being allowed to participate in the City of Norco Ingalls Event Center facility rentals, programs, related events and activities, the undersigned acknowledges, appreciates, and agrees that:

1. I fully understand that my participation in Legendary Cowgirls Practices and Events (hereinafter "events/classes") includes but is not limited to horseback riding, horse and demonstration clinics, trail rides, drill performances, practices, and Animal Shelter promotions which exposes me to the risk of personal injury, death or property damage. I hereby acknowledge that I am voluntarily participating in this event/class and agree to assume any such risks.

2. I hereby release, discharge, hold harmless and agree not to sue the Legendary Cowgirls and the City of Norco for any injury, death or damage to or loss of personal property arising out of, or in connection with, my participation in the events/classes from whatever cause, including the active or passive negligence of the Legendary Cowgirls and the City of Norco or any other participants in the events/classes.

3. In consideration for being permitted to participate in the event/classes, I hereby agree, for myself, my heirs, administrators, executors and assigns, that I shall indemnify and hold harmless the Legendary Cowgirls and the City of Norco from any and all claims, demands actions or suits arising out of or in connection with my participation in the events/classes.

4. Participation includes possible exposure to and illness from infectious diseases including but not limited to MRSA, influenza, and COVID-19. While particular rules and personal discipline may reduce this risk, the risk of serious illness and death does exist; and,

5. I KNOWINGLY AND FREELY ASSUME ALL SUCH RISKS, both known and unknown, EVEN IF ARISING FROM THE NEGLIGENCE OF THE RELEASEES or others, and assume full responsibility for my participation; and,

6. I willingly agree to comply with the stated and customary terms and conditions for participation as regards protection against infectious diseases. If, however, I observe and any unusual or significant hazard during my presence or participation, I will remove myself from participation and bring such to the attention of the nearest official immediately; and,

7. I, for myself and on behalf of my heirs, assigns, personal representatives and next of kin, HEREBY RELEASE AND HOLD HARMLESS Legendary Cowgirls and the City of Norco, Ingalls Event Center their officers, officials, agents, and/or employees, other participants, sponsoring agencies, sponsors, advertisers, and if applicable, owners and lessors of premises used to conduct the event (“RELEASEES”), WITH RESPECT TO ANY AND ALL ILLNESS, DISABILITY, DEATH, or loss or damage to person or property, WHETHER ARISING FROM THE NEGLIGENCE OF RELEASEES OR OTHERWISE, to the fullest extent permitted by law.

I HAVE READ THIS RELEASE OF LIABILITY AND ASSUMPTION OF RISK AGREEMENT, FULLY UNDERSTAND ITS

TERMS, UNDERSTAND THAT I HAVE GIVEN UP SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS BY SIGNING IT, AND SIGN IT FREELY AND VOLUNTARILY WITHOUT ANY INDUCEMENT.

Name of participant: _____________________________________________ Participant signature: _____________________________________________ Date signed: ________________________
FOR PARENTS/GUARDIANS OF PARTICIPANTS OF MINORITY AGE (UNDER AGE 18 AT TIME OF REGISTRATION) This is to certify that I, as parent/guardian with legal responsibility for this participant, do consent and agree to his/her release as provided about of all the Releasees, and, for myself, my child and our heirs, assigns, and next of kin, I release and agree to indemnify and hold harmless the Releasees from any and all liabilities incident to my minor child’s involvement or participation in these programs as provided about, EVEN IF ARISING FROM THE NEGLIGENCE OF THE RELEASEES, to the fullest extent permitted by law.

X_____________________________ _________________________________ Parent/Guardian’s Signature (print name)
Date signed: ________________________

APPENDIX B

HEALTHLY HORSE STATEMENT, HOLD HARMLESS

AND WAIVER OF LIABILITY FOR PARTICIPATION AT

CITY OF NORCO- EQUINE FACILITIES

PARTICIPANT INFORMATION
Horse Name: __________________________________________________________________________________ Color: _______________________________________________________________________________________ Markings: ____________________________________________________________________________________ Age: __________________________________Breed: _________________________________________________ Has your horse had a fever in the past 72 hours or been in contact with a known ill horse in the past 14 days? ❏ Yes ❏ No

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PARTICIPANTS AT EQUINE EVENTS
City of Norco Animal Control Officials are continuously monitoring for equine disease cases. The City of Norco reminds horse owners traveling with horses to participate in an equine event, that there is always disease risk when horses of unknown health status are commingled for a show or competition. The City strongly recommends that horse owners practice proper biosecurity when attending an equine event. Compliance with basic biosecurity practices is an important factor in reducing risk of exposure to all contagious equine diseases. Follow basic biosecurity measures to decrease potential disease spread at equine events, including:

Limit horse-to-horse contact. Limit horse-to-human-to-horse contact. Avoid use of communal water sources.

Avoid sharing of equipment unless thoroughly cleaned and disinfected between uses. Monitor your horse for clinical signs of disease and report any temperature over 102°F to a veterinarian. I have read the above information and recommendations. (Initial)

AGREEMENT
To the best of my knowledge, the animal listed above is healthy and able to participate in City of Norco-sponsored equine events. I understand there is always a disease risk when horses of unknown health status are commingled for a show or competition. I hereby waive any claim for liability for any equine disease contracted by the above animal and agree to defend and hold harmless the City of Norco, its officers, employees, agents and volunteers, and all other participants in this equine event from claims or liability of any kind arising out of any equine disease allegedly contracted or arising from participation in this equine event.

Printed Name: ________________________________________________________________________________ Signature: __________________________________Date: ____________________________________________ Phone Number: _______________________________________________________________________________ Email Address: _______________________________________________________________________________

City Council

STAFF REPORT
Date: May 6, 2026 Agenda Item:

3.G.

To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
From: Colby Cataldi, Community Development Director
Prepared By: Erika Woods-Diaz, Associate Planner
Department: Community Development
SUBJECT:

Adopt Resolution No. 2026-24 Reaffirming the Ownership Structure of the Block 77 Cooperative Water Company, Inc.

RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt Resolution No. 2026-24 reaffirming the ownership structure of the Block 77 Cooperative Water Company, Inc.

SUMMARY:

In July 2025, the City Council held a public hearing and approved the Bluff Street Annexation #27 by considering and passing Resolution No. 2025-51, Resolution No. 2025-52, and Ordinance No. 1132. In April 2026, the City Council requested that an additional Resolution be prepared to reaffirm that the Block 77 Cooperative Water Company, Inc., which is a privately owned and operated water provider that serves the annexed properties, will maintain its current ownership structure as a general cooperative business entity and will not be controlled by the City of Norco.

BACKGROUND:

On July 16, 2025, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the Bluff Street Annexation #27, General Plan Amendment 2023-01, and Zone Change (Pre-Zone) 2023-01, and considered and passed Resolution No. 2025-51, Resolution No. 2025-52, and Ordinance No. 1132.

On April 15, 2026, the City Council held a public hearing to reconsider the Bluff Street Annexation #27 and re-evaluate the approvals granted in 2025 before any annexation proceedings were initiated with the Riverside Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO). After the consideration of all written and oral evidence, the City Council upheld the previously approved Bluff Street Annexation #27 and requested an additional Resolution be prepared to reaffirm the ownership structure of the Block 77 Cooperative Water Company, Inc., which is a privately owned and operated water provider that

serves the annexed properties. Originally filed on May 11, 1987, the water company operates as a California General Cooperative and remains in active status.

The prepared Resolution (Attachment A) reaffirms that the Block 77 Cooperative Water Company, Inc. will maintain its current ownership structure as a general cooperative business entity and will not be controlled by the City of Norco.

FISCAL IMPACT:

This agenda item will not result in a fiscal impact.

RELATIONSHIP TO STRATEGIC PLAN:

This agenda item is consistent with Strategic Plan Direction No. 3, "Economic Development and Financial Stability."
REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:

Certified as to Availability of Funds: Joshua Calhoun, Finance Director Approved by: Lisette Free, City Manager
Approved as to Form: Harper and Burns, LLP, City Attorney ATTACHMENT(S):

Attachment A - Resolution No. 2026-24

RESOLUTION NO. 2026-24

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

NORCO REAFFIRIMNG THE PRIVATE OWNERSHIP
STRUCTURE OF THE BLOCK 77 COOPERATIVE WATER
COMPANY, INC.

WHEREAS, Block 77 Cooperative Water Company, Inc., established on May 11, 1987 as a California General Cooperative, is a privately operated water provider serving a small, long-standing neighborhood in the Bluff Street area; and WHEREAS, in July and August of 2025, the City Council held a public hearing and approved the Bluff Street Annexation #27 by considering and passing Resolution No. 2025-51, Resolution No. 2025-52, and Ordinance No. 1132; and WHEREAS, on April 15, 2026, the City Council held a public hearing to reconsider the Bluff Street Annexation #27 and the approvals granted in 2025 before any annexation proceedings were initiated with the Riverside Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO); and
WHEREAS, the City Council upheld the previously approved Bluff Street Annexation #27 and requested an additional Resolution be prepared to reaffirm the private ownership structure and operation of the Block 77 Cooperative Water Company, Inc.

NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Norco, California, does hereby RESOLVE:

The Block 77 Cooperative Water Company, Inc. will maintain its current ownership structure as a general cooperative business entity and will not be controlled by the City of Norco.

Resolution No. 2026-24

May 6, 2026
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Norco, California, at a regular meeting held on May 6, 2026.
___________________________
Robin Grundmeyer, Mayor
City of Norco, California
ATTEST:
__________________________
Interim City Clerk
City of Norco, California
I, Janet Martinez, CMC, Interim City Clerk of the City of Norco, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was introduced and adopted by the City Council of the City of Norco, California, at a regular meeting thereof held on May 6, 2026 by the following vote of the City Council:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City of Norco, California, on May 6, 2026.
________________________
Interim City Clerk
City of Norco, California

City Council

STAFF REPORT
Date: May 6, 2026 Agenda Item:

3.H.

To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
From: Sam Nelson, Public Works Director
Prepared By: Sam Nelson, Public Works Director
Department: Public Works
SUBJECT:

Amended Cooperative Funding Agreement between the City of Norco and the Riverside County Flood Control & Water Conservation District for the South Norco Channel Stage 2 Storm Drain Project
RECOMMENDATION:

Approve the Cooperative Funding Agreement Amendment with Riverside County Flood Control & Water Conservation District (RCFC&WCD) to design and construct the South Norco Channel Stage 2 Storm Drain Project, subject to non-substantive changes and approval by the Riverside County Board of Supervisors; and authorize the Mayor to execute the agreement.

SUMMARY:

Due to escalating project costs the City of Norco and RCFC&WCD have amended the Cooperative Funding Agreement to increase the contribution from the County for the project.

BACKGROUND:

The purpose of the Cooperative Funding Agreement Amendment is to memorialize the mutual understanding between both parties with respect to construction, ownership, operation and maintenance, including the funding contribution.

RCFC & WCD has agreed to contribute one hundred percent (100%) funding of the design contract bid price, twenty percent (20%) for administration of the design, one hundred percent (100%) of costs associated with environmental permitting, one hundred percent (100%) of costs associated with right-of-way acquisition, one hundred percent (100%) of costs associated with construction, ten percent (10%) for change order costs and ten percent (10%) for construction administration resulting in a not-toexceed contribution amount of $25,265,950.

City Council previously approved the Funding Agreement for this project on October 7, 2020 in the amount of $7,340,286 (See Original Agreement). Due to increased construction costs an amended Funding Agreement was required by RCFC & WCD for Council approval in order to increase the funding for the project.

Per the agreement, the City is responsible to prepare the design, specifications, plans, bid advertisement, inspection and project management during construction. However, the City staff has requested that RCFC&WCD provide construction management and survey services in lieu of the City given that the facility will be maintained by the County and not the City.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The South Norco Channel Stage 2 Storm Drain Project was approved as a Capital Improvement Project (CIP) for Fiscal Year 2025-26. Funds in the amount of $500,000; Project No. 4214.27, Account Nos. 129.935.43180 & 129.935.43180.30) have been appropriated for the project which is not sufficient to fund the project design and construction costs including the 10% contingency.

Per the Cooperative Funding Agreement RCFC&WCD will reimburse the City for a total project cost of $25,265,950. Staff will update this cost during the FY 2026-27 CIP Budget as construction is expected to commence in FY 2026-27.

RELATIONSHIP TO STRATEGIC PLAN:

This item is consistent with Strategic Direction No. 5 – "Infrastructure and Asset Management."
REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:

Certified as to Availability of Funds: Joshua Calhoun, Finance Director Approved by: Lisette Free, City Manager
Approved as to Form: Harper and Burns, LLP, City Attorney ATTACHMENT(S):

South Norco Channel, Stage 2 - Original Cooperative Agreement South Norco Channel, Stage 2 - First Amendment to Cooperative Agreement

COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT
South Norco Channel, Stage 2
Project No. 2-0-00150
233779
This Cooperative Agreement ("Agreement"), dated as of hlov~ tO , 2020, is entered into by the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, a body politic, ("DISTRICT"), and the City of Norco, a municipal corporation, ("CITY").

RECITALS
A. DISTRICT and CITY wish to work collaboratively to expedite the construction of South Norco Channel, Stage 2 to provide the necessary flood contro l and drainage improvements for the immediate adjacent areas and help reduce the floodplain limits within the City of Norco; and
B. South Norco Channel, Stage 2, hereinafter called "STAGE 2", as identified in DISTRICT's Norco Master Drainage Plan ("MOP") and as shown on DISTRICT's Drawing No. 2-0490, consists of drainage improvements from Hamner A venue to the confluence with South Norco Channel Line SB or to the South Norco Channe l, as shown on DISTRICT's Drawing No. 2-0302, just east of River Road. Location of STAGE 2 connection to the existing facility will be determined by CITY. STAGE 2 will be sized to contain the 100-year storm event as shown in concept on EXHIBIT "A", attached hereto, and made a part hereof; and C. Associated with the construction of STAGE 2 is the construction of certain lateral storm drains that are thirty-six inches (36") or less in diameter, various catch basins, inlets and connector pipes located within CITY rights of way ("APPURTENANCES"). STAGE 2 and APPURTENANCES are hereinafter altogether called "PROJECT" ; and D. DISTRICT and CITY wish to work collaboratively to expedite the construction of PROJECT, therefore desire to have one agency take a lead role in the development and implementation of PROJECT; and
- 1 -
NOV 1 tJ020 \l. ~ Page 128 of 173
23 3779
E. CITY is wil ling to assume the lead role for the PROJECT, and therefore will provide the administrative, technical, managerial, and support services necessary to plan, design, and construct PROJECT; and
F. Due to mutual interests in this PROJECT, DISTRICT wishes to support CITY's efforts by providing a financial contribution to implement PROJECT; and G. DISTRICT's contributions shall be as follows, subject to the not to exceed amount provided in Recital H below:

1. One hundred percent (100%) of DISTRICT approved CITY's costs associated with, engineering, and other typical anci ll ary costs related to the preparation of the necessary plans and specifications to construct PROJECT ("DESIGN CONTRIBUTION"). In the event that CITY chooses to hire an engineering consulting firm to prepare the necessary plans and specifications to construct PROJECT, DISTRICT is also wi lling to contribute an additional twenty percent (20%) of the DESIGN CONTRIBUTION to offset CITY's adm inistrative costs associated with contract admi nistration ("DESIGN ADMINISTRATION CONTRIBUTION").

Together, DESIGN CONTRIBUTION and DESIGN ADMINISTRATION CONTRIBUTION are hereinafter called "TOTAL DESIGN CONTRIBUTION" ;
11 . One hundred percent (100%) of all costs associated with the preparation, application and obtaining the environmental clearance and permits required for PROJECT ("CEQA/ENVIRONMENTAL PERMITS CONTRIBUTION");
111. One hundred percent (100%) of the actual costs (not to exceed appraised value and estimated escrow and closing costs) for right of way acquisition, rights of entry and temporary construction easements ("ACQU ISITION COST"); 1v. One hundred percent (100%) of the lowest responsible bid contract price ("CONSTRUCTION CONTRIBUTION"), plus an additional ten percent (10%) of the - 2 -

233779
lowest responsible bid price to offset CITY's administrative costs associated with construction contract administration and other typical anci I lary costs related to the delivery of a flood control facility ("CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION CONTRIBUTlON"), plus an additional ten percent (10%) for construction contract change orders ("CONSTRUCTION CHANGE ORDERS CONTRIBUTION"). Together, CONSTRUCTION CONTRIBUTION, CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION CONTRIBUTION and CONSTRUCTION CHANGE ORDERS CONTRIBUTION are hereinafter called "TOTAL CONSTRUCTION CONTRIBUTION" ; and H. Altogether, TOTAL DESIGN CONTRIBUTION,
CEQA/ENVJRONMENTAL PERMITS CONTRIBUTION, ACQUISITION COST, and TOTAL CONSTRUCTION CONTRIBUTION are hereinafter called "DISTRICT TOTAL CONTRIBUTION". DISTRICT TOTAL CONTRIBUTION shall not exceed a total sum of Seven Million Three Hundred Forty Thousand Two Hundred Eighty-Six Dollars ($7,340,286); and
I. DISTRICT and ClTY, acknowledges it is in the best interest of the public to proceed with the construction of PROJECT at the earliest possible date; and J. The purpose of this Agreement is to memorialize the mutual understandings by and between DISTRICT and CITY with respect to funding, design, construction, inspection, ownership, operation and maintenance and DISTRICT's financial contribution towards PROJECT.

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the preceding recitals and the mutual covenants hereinafter contained, the parties hereto mutually agree as follows:
- 3 -

233779

SECTION I
CITY shall:

1. Accept the above recitals as true and correct and incorporated into the terms of this Agreement.

2. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), act as Lead Agency and assume responsibility for preparation, circulation and adoption of all necessary and appropriate CEQA documents pertaining to the construction, operation and maintenance of PROJECT.

3. Endeavor to award a public works construction contract for PROJECT and begin construction within twenty-four (24) months of execution of this Agreement.

4. Upon execution of this Agreement, issue a first invoice to DISTRICT (Attn:

Chief of Planning Division) for fifty percent (50%) of DESIGN CONTRIBUTION and CEQA/ENVIRONMENTAL PERMITS CONTRIBUTION, as set forth herein. DISTRICT TOTAL CONTRIBUTION shall not exceed the total amount of Seven Million Three Hundred Forty Thousand Two Hundred Eighty-Six Dollars ($7,340,286).

5. Retain and manage qualified professionals (CONSULTANTS) to perform the services that are deemed necessary to plan, design and construct PROJECT. These services include, but are not limited to, Engineering, Environmental, Construction Inspection, Construction Survey/Staking and all other miscellaneous services associated with PROJECT.

6. Prepare or cause to be prepared, the necessary plans and specifications for PROJECT, hereinafter called "IMPROVEMENT PLANS" , in accordance with the applicable DISTRICT and CITY standards, and submit to DISTRICT (Attention: Special Projects) for its review and approval prior to advertising PROJECT for construction bids. - 4 -

233779

7. Prior to commencing construction, obtain and comply with all necessary permits, approvals, or agreements req uired by any federal, state and local resource or regulatory agencies pertaining to the construction, operation and maintenance of PROJECT. Such documents, hereinafter called "REGULATORY PERMITS" , may include, but are not limited to, a Section 404 permit issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engi neers, a Section 401 Water Quality Certification issued by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (CRWQCB), a Section 1602 Stream bed Alteration Agreement issued by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit issued by the State Water Resources Control Board or CR WQCB and Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority. Allow DISTRICT to review, comment on and approve all REGULATORY PERMITS applications prior to submitting the applications to the applicable regulatory agencies.

8. Keep an accurate accounting of all (i) design costs associated with the preparation of plans and specifications for PROJECT, in conformance with DISTRICT approved CITY's engineering design cost proposal; (ii) costs associated with obtaining environmental permits; and (iii) costs associated with obtaining all rights of way to construct, operate and maintain PROJECT. This accounting should be included when invoicing DISTRICT for payment of DESIGN CONTRIBUTION, DES IGN ADMTNISTRA TION CONTRIBUTION, CEQA/ENVIRONMENTAL PERMITS CONTRIBUTION and ACQUISITION COST, as set forth in Sections I.9 and I.1 2.

9. Issue a second in voice to DISTRICT (Attention : Chief of Planning Division) for remainder of DESIGN CONTRIBUTION, DES IGN ADM IN ISTRATION CONTRIBUTION and CEQA/ENVIRONMENTAL PERMITS CONTRIBUTION fo llowing (i) signing of IMPROVEMENT PLANS by all parties and (ii) upon rece ipt of FEMA Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR).
-s -

233779
I 0. Imp lement or cause to be impl emented, a ll environmenta l mitigation requ ired in association with the co nstruction, operation and ma intenance of PROJECT, except for the fees associated with the Western Ri verside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan ("MSHCP").
11 . Obtain a ll necessary permits, licenses, agreements, approvals, ri ghts of way, rights of entry and temporary construction easements as may be needed to inspect, construct, operate and maintain PROJECT; and consult with DISTRICT regarding existing dedications, proposed legal and pl ats, inc luding any requests fo r waivers and variances from polic ies.

12. Issue a third invo ice to DISTRICT (Attention: Chi ef of Planning Division) for ACQU ISITION COST incurred by CITY fo llowing awa rd of constructi on contract for PROJECT. However, the total amount invoiced to DISTRICT for ACQU ISITION COST sha ll not exceed one hundred percent (I 00%) of DISTRICT's appraised values for all acquired parcels plus customary escrow and closing costs.

13. Prior to advertising PROJECT for publi c works construction contract, prov ide DISTRICT an opportunity to review and make a determination on all REGULATORY PERMITS and rights of way documents. DISTRICT approval of IMPROVEMENT PLANS may be withhe ld when, in the sole judgment of DISTRICT's General Manager - Chi ef Engineer, the REGULA TORY PERMITS or rights of way documents unreasonably constrains, inhib its or impairs DISTRICT's abil ity to operate and maintain STAGE 2.

14. Assume sole responsibility for compliance with the requirements of a ll REGULATORY PERMITS, including any amendments thereto, pertaining to the construction, operation and ma intenance of PROJECT.

15. Ensure that REGULATORY PERMITS, including any subsequent renewa l or amendments thereto, will not (i) unreasonab ly impede DISTRICT's ab ility to perform a ll - 6 -

233779
necessary operation and maintenance acti vities for STAGE 2 as determined by DISTRICT, or (ii) include any stipul ations that would result in additional mitigati on obligati ons being placed upon DISTRICT for maintenance operations within STAGE 2 right of way.

16. Prior to awarding a public works construction contract fo r PROJECT, provide DISTRICT seven (7) calendar days fo ll owing construction bid opening to review and approve or reject bids for construction of PROJECT. DISTRICT may only reject bids found by DISTRICT to be unreasonably high.

17. Advertise, award and administer a publi c works construction contract for PROJECT at its sole cost and expense.

18. Provide DISTRICT with written notice (Attention: Construction Management Section) th at CITY has awarded a publi c works construction contract for PROJECT.

The written notice shall include the Contractor's actual bid amounts for PROJECT, setting fo rth the lowest responsible bid contract amount.

19. Prior to commencing PROJECT construction, furnish DISTRJCT with fin al mylar PROJECT plans and assign ownership of PROJ ECT plans to DISTRICT.

20. Issue a fourth invoice to DISTRICT (Attention: Chief of Planning Division) for the payment of CONSTRUCTION CONTRIBUTION and CONTRACT ADMJN ISTRA TION CONTRIBUTION at the time of prov iding written notice of the award of a construction contract as set forth in Section 1.18, subj ect to and provided that DISTRJCT TOTAL CONTRIB UTION shall not exceed the total amount of Seven Million Three Hundred Forty Thousand Two Hundred Eighty-Six Dollars ($7,340,286). If the award of a construction contract exceeds DISTRICT's TOTAL CONSTRUCTION CONTRJBUTION, CITY will have the option to seek additional fun ding from DISTRICT fo r construction of PROJ ECT. In the event that DISTRICT is unabl e to provide additional fundin g, CITY may elect to reject all bids and abandon - 7 -

233779
PROJECT. 21. Prior to commencing PROJECT construction, schedu le and conduct a mandatory pre-construction meeting between CITY, CITY's construction manager, CITY's construction contractor(s), DISTRICT and other affected entities. CITY shall notify DISTRICT (Attention: Construction Management Section) in writing at least twenty (20) days prior to conducting the pre-construction meeting.

22. Furnish DISTRICT, at the time of providing written notice of intent to start construction as set forth in Section 1.2 1, with a construction schedule which shall show the order and dates in which CITY or CITY's contractor proposes to carry on the various parts of work, including estimated start and completion dates.

23. Construct or cause to be constructed, PROJECT pursuant to a CITY administered construction contract, in accordance with IMPROVEMENT PLANS approved by DISTRICT and CITY, and pay all costs associated therewith.

24. Inspect, or cause to be inspected, construction of PROJECT, and pay all costs associated therewith. ln the event CITY wishes to utilize DISTRICT's construction inspection, materials testing and construction survey services, CITY shall provide DlSTRICT with a written request (Attn : Special Projects) for such services. However, CITY will continue to serve as construction contract manager.

25. Grant DISTRICT, by execution of this Agreement, the right to enter upon property owned or controlled by CITY where necessary and convenient for the purpose of gaining access to, and performi ng inspection service and operation and maintenance of PROJ ECT.

26. Relocate or cause to be relocated, at its sole cost and expense, all conflicting CITY owned utilities. CITY shall also order the relocation of all other utilities installed by permit or franchise within ClTY rights of way which conflict with the construction of PROJECT and which could be relocated at the utility company's expense. - 8 -

233779

27. Not permit any change to, or modification of, DISTRICT and CITY approved IMPROVEMENT PLANS that would resu lt in a change of fun ctionality or mainta inability of PROJECT without DISTRICT's prior written permission and consent. Fa ilu re to do so sha ll be deemed a material breach of this Agreement and shall authorize and constitute authority for DISTRICT, at its sole discretion, to prov ide written notice to CITY that DISTRICT is unab le to: a) perform its obligations hereunder, and b) to accept responsibility for ownership, operation and maintenance of STAGE 2 due, either in whole or in part, to said breach of th is Agreement.

28. Procure or caused to be procured insurance coverages during the term of this Agreement. CITY sha ll require its PROJECT construction contractor(s) to furnish origina l certificate(s) of insurance and original certified co pies of endorsements and if requested, certified original poli cies of insurance including all endorsements and any and all other attachments. Prior to CITY issuing a Notice to Proceed to its construction contractor(s) to begin construction of PROJECT, an original certificate of insurance evidencing the required insurance coverage shall be provided to DISTRICT. At minimum, the procured insurance coverages should adhere to DISTRICT1
s required insurance prov ided in EXHIBIT "B", attached hereto and made a part hereof.

29. Require its construction contractor(s) to comply with all Cal/OSHA safety regu lations inc luding regulations concerning confined space and maintain a safe working environment fo r a ll CITY and DISTRICT employees on the site.

30. Require its construction contractor(s) to furnish DISTRICT (Attention:

Contract Management Secti on) with a confined space procedure specific to PROJECT. The procedu re shall comply with req uirements conta ined in Californ ia Code of Regulations, Title 8, Section 5158, Other Confi ned Space Operations, Section 5157, Perm it Required Confi ned Space - 9 -

233779
and District confined Space Procedures, SOM-18. The procedure shall be provided to DISTRICT no less than twenty (20) days prior to requesting that DISTRICT perform a final inspection for acceptance of PROJECT. The procedure shall be reviewed and approved by DISTRICT prior to conducting the final inspection.

31. Assume ownership and sole responsibility for the operation and maintenance of PROJECT until such time as DISTRICT accepts ownership and responsibility for the operation and maintenance of STAGE 2 and CITY continues to accept ownership and sole responsibility for the operation and maintenance of APPURTENANCES as set forth herein .

32. Within two (2) weeks of completing PROJECT construction, provide DISTRICT with written notice (Attention: Construction Management Section) that PROJECT construction is substantial ly complete and requesting that DISTRICT conduct a final inspection of STAGE 2.

33. Upon completion of PROJECT construction and settlement of any outstanding claims, provide DISTRICT with a copy of CITY's Notice of Completion.

34. Upon completion of PROJECT construction but prior to DISTRICT's acceptance of STAGE 2 for ownership, operation and maintenance, provide or cause its construction manager to provide DISTRICT with appropriate engineering documentation necessary to establish that STAGE 2 were constructed in accordance with DISTRICT and CITY approved IMPROVEMENT PLANS.

35. Upon completion of PROJECT construction but pnor to DISTRICT's acceptance of STAGE 2 for ownership, operation and maintenance, provide or cause its civil engineer of record or construction civil engineer of record, duly registered in the State of California, to provide DISTRICT with redlined "record drawings" of PROJECT plans. After DISTRICT approval of the redlined "record drawings", CITY's engineer shall schedule with - 10 -

233779
DI STRICT a time to transfer the red lined changes into DISTRICT's original mylars at DISTRICT's office, after which the engin eer shall review, stamp and sign mylars "record drawings" .

36. Keep an accurate acco unting of all PROJECT costs and provide this accounting to DISTRICT with CITY's Notice of Completion, as set forth in Section 1.33. The final accounting of construction costs shall include a deta iled breakdown of all costs, including, but not limited to, payment vouchers, CITY approved change orders and other such construction contract documents as may be necessary, to establish the actual cost of construction for DISTRICT and CITY approved IMPROVEMENT PLANS. If applicable, invoice DISTRICT for CONSTRUCTION CHANGE ORDERS CONTRlBUTION, subject to and provided that DISTRICT CONTRIBUTION shall not exceed Seven Million Three Hundred Forty Thousand Two Hundred Eighty-Six Dollars ($7,340,286).

37. Upon completion of PROJECT construction but prior to DISTRICT acceptance of STAGE 2 for ownership, operation and maintenance, convey, or cause to be conveyed, to DISTRICT all rights of way and easements deemed necessary by DISTRICT for the operation and maintenance of STAGE 2. DISTRICT's interest in said property shall be free and clear of all I iens, encumbrances, assessments, easements, taxes and leases (recorded or unrecorded), and except those which, in the sole discretion of DISTRICT, are acceptable.

38. Indemnify, defend and hold harmless and requ ire its construction contractor(s) to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the Riverside County Flood Contro l and Water Conservation District, County of Riverside, its Agencies, Districts, Special Distri cts and Departments, th eir respective directors, offi cers, Board of Supervisors, elected and appointed officials, employees, agents and representatives (indi vidual ly and collectively herei nafter referred to as lndemnitees) from any li ability whatsoever, based or asserted upon any acts, omissions or - 11 -

233779
services of CITY or CITY's construction contractor(s), its officers, employees, subcontractors, agents or representatives arising out of or in any way relati ng to this Agreement, inclu ding, but not lim ited to, property damage, bodily injury, or death or any other e lement of any kind or nature whatsoever arising from the performance of CITY or CITY's constru ction contractor(s), its offi cers, employees, subcontractors, agents or representatives ("lndemnitors") from this Agreement. CITY or CITY's construction contractor(s) shall defend, at its sole expense, all costs and fees inc luding, but not limited to, attorney fees, cost of investigation, defense and settlements or awards, the lndemnitees in any cla im or action based upon such alleged acts or omissions.

With respect to any action or claim subj ect to indemnification herein by CITY or CITY's construction contractor(s), CITY or CITY's construction contractor(s) shall, at their sole cost, have the right to use counsel of their own choice and shall have the right to adj ust, settle, or compromise any such action or cla im without the prior consent of DISTRJCT and the County of Ri verside; provided, however, that any such adj ustment, settlement or compromise in no manner whatsoever limits or c ircumscribes CITY or CITY's construction contractor(s) indemnification to Indemnitees as set forth herein.

CITY or CITY's construction contractor(s) obligation hereunder shall be satisfied when CITY or CITY's construction contractor(s) has provided to DISTRICT and the Cou nty of Riverside the appropri ate fo rm of dismissal re lieving DISTRICT and the County of Riverside from any li ability for the action or c laim invo lved.

The specified insurance limits required in this Agreement shall in no way limit or c ircumscribe CITY or CITY's constructi on contractor(s) obligations to indemnify and hold harmless the Indemnitees herei n from third party cla ims.

In the event there is conflict between this clause and California Civil Code Section 2782, this clause shall be interpreted to comply with Civil Code 2782. Such interpretation - 12 -

233779
shall not relieve CITY or CITY's construction contractor(s) from indemnifying the Indemnitees to the fullest extent all owed by law.

39. Upon DISTRICT acceptance of PROJECT construction as being complete, accept sole responsibility for the adjustment of all PROJECT manhole rings and covers located within CITY rights of way which must be performed at such time(s) that the finished grade along and above the underground portions of PROJECT are improved, repaired, replaced or changed.

It being further understood and agreed that any such adjustments shal l be performed at no cost to DISTRICT.

40. Refu nd to DISTRICT, at the time of providing a Notice of Completion as set forth in Sections 1.33 and 1.36, any unexpended portions of STAGE 2.

SECTION II
DI STRICT shall :

1. Accept the above recitals as true and correct and incorporated into the terms of this Agreement.
2 Act as a Responsible Agency under CEQA, taking all necessary and appropriate action to comply with CEQA.

3. Upon execution of this Agreement, and within thirty (30) days after receipt of CJTY's first invoice, pay fifty percent (50%) of DESIGN CONTRIBUTION and CEQA/ENVIRONMENTAL PERM ITS CONTRIBUTION, as set forth in Section I.4.

DISTRICT TOTAL CONTRIBUTION shall not exceed the total sum amount of Seven Million Three Hundred Forty Thousand Two Hundred Eighty-Six Dollars ($7,340,286).

4. At its sole cost and expense, review, comment and approve IMPROVEMENT PLANS prior to CITY's advertising PROJECT for construction bids. - 13 -

233779

5. Prepare, or cause to be prepared, aerial topography and survey control, deemed necessary for the construction, operation and maintenance of PROJECT, and provide to CITY.

6. At its sole cost and expense, review and comment on legal and plats descriptions, existing dedications including any requests for waivers and variances from policies, provided by CITY.

7. Pay CITY, within thirty (30) days after receipt of CITY's second invoice, for remainder of DESIGN CONTRIBUTION, DESIGN ADMINISTRATION CONTRIBUTION and CEQA/ENVIRONMENTAL PERMITS CONTRIBUTION, as set forth in Sections 1.8 and

1.9. 8. At its sole cost and expense, review, comment and make a determination on, as appropriate, all necessary (i) REGULA TORY PERMITS and permit applications, and (ii) rights of way documents prior to CITY advertising PROJECT for bids. DISTRICT may withhold approval of IMPROVEMENT PLANS when, in the sole judgment of DISTRICT's General Manager- Chief Engineer, REGULATORY PERMITS or rights of way documents unreasonably constrains, inhibits or impairs DISTRICT's ability to operate and maintain STAGE 2.

9. Pay CITY, within thirty (30) days after receipt of CITY's third invoice for ACQUISITION COST, subject to and provided that ACQUISITION COST shall not exceed one hundred percent (100%) of DISTRICT's appraised values for all acquired parcels plus customary escrow and closing costs.

10. Within thirty (30) days of CITY awarding PROJECT construction contract, pay Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA) the costs associated with MSHCP, which is the lesser of (i) three percent (3%) of the lowest responsible bid; or ii) three - 14 -

233779
percent (3%) of lowest responsib le bid contract price, less the value of any applicable project specific mitigation.
11 . Pay CITY, within thirty (30) days after receipt of CITY's fourth invoice for CONSTRUCTION CONTRIBUTION and CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION
CONTRIBUTION as set forth in Section 1.20, subject to and provided that DISTRICT TOTAL CONTRIBUTION shall not exceed the total amount of Seven Million Three Hundred Forty Thousand Two Hundred Eighty-Six Dollars ($7,340,286). If the award of a construction contract exceeds DISTRICT's TOTAL CONSTRUCTION CONTRIBUTION, CITY will have the option to seek additional funding from DISTRICT for construction of the PROJECT. ln the event that DISTRICT is unable to provide additional funding, CITY may elect to reject all bids and abandon PROJECT.

12. Within seven (7) calendar days following ClTY's public works construction bid opening, review and approve or reject bids for construction of PROJECT. DISTRICT may only reject bids found by DISTRICT to be unreasonably high. DISTRICT shall not unreasonably withhold approval of contract.

13. Conduct periodic inspections of STAGE 2 construction for quality control purposes at its sole cost and provide any comments to CITY's designated PROJECT construction inspector.

14. In the event CITY wishes to utilize DISTRJCT's construction inspection, materials testing and construction survey services, and CITY provides DISTRICT with a written request for such services, DISTRICT shall provide a timely response whether or not they have the resources to perform such services. If DISTRICT wishes to provide such services, DISTRICT shall provide all necessary construction inspection, materials testing and construction survey services for PROJECT and assist CITY as needed with the administration of PROJECT's - I 5 -

233779
construction contract. DISTRICT hereby agrees to pay all DISTRICT costs associated with the inspection of PROJECT construction, as set forth herein.

15. If app licable, pay CITY with in thirty (30) days after receipt of CITY's appropriate invoice, for CONSTRUCTION CHANGE ORDERS CONTRIBUTION as set forth in Section 1.36, provided that (i) DISTRICT TOTAL CONTRIBUTION shall not exceed a total sum of Seven Million Three Hundred Forty Thousand Two Hundred Eighty-Six Dollars ($7,340,286).

16. Upon receipt of CITY's written notice that PROJECT construction 1s substantially complete, conduct a final inspection of STAGE 2.

17. Accept ownership and responsibility for the operation and maintenance of STAGE 2 upon (i) DISTRICT inspection of STAGE 2 in accordance with Section 1.32, (ii) DISTRICT acceptance of STAGE 2 as being complete, (iii) DISTRICT receipt of CJTY's recorded Notice of Completion as set forth in Section 1.33, (iv) DISTRICT receipt of appropriate engineering documentation as set forth in Section 1.34, (v) DISTRlCT receipt of stamped and signed "record drawing" of PROJECT plans as set forth in Section 1.35, (vi) DlSTRICT's acceptance of all necessary rights of way and/or easements as set forth in Section 1.37, and (vii) DISTRICT's sole determination that STAGE 2 is in a satisfactorily maintained condition.

SECTION III
It is further mutually agreed:

I. DISTRICT TOTAL CONTRIBUTION shall not exceed a total sum of Seven Million Three Hundred Forty Thousand Two Hundred Eighty-Six Dollars ($7,340,286) and shall be used by CITY solely for the purpose of designing and constructing, right-of way acquisition and obtaining the environmental permits for PROJECT as set forth herein. - I 6 -

233779

2. Except as otherwise provided herein, all construction work involved with PROJECT shall be inspected by CITY, or its construction manager, and shall not be deemed complete until approved and accepted as complete by CITY.

3. Any waiver by DISTRICT or by CITY of any breach of any one or more of the terms of this Agreement shall not be construed to be a waiver of any subsequent or other breach of the same or of any other term hereof. Failure on the part of DISTRICT or CITY to require exact, full and complete compliance with any terms of this Agreement shall not be construed as in any manner changing the terms hereof, or estopping DISTRICT or CITY from enforcement hereof.

4. This Agreement is to be construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California.

5. Any and all notices sent or required to be sent to the parties of this Agreement will be mailed by first class mail, postage prepaid, to the following addresses:

RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL

AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
1995 Market Street
Riverside, CA 92501
Attn: Special Projects Section

CITY OF NORCO
2870 Clark Avenue
Norco, CA 92860
Attn: Chad Blais
Public Works Director

6. If any provision in this Agreement is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, void or unenforceable, the remaining provisions will nevertheless continue in full force without being impaired or invalidated in any way.

7. This Agreement is the result of negotiations between the parties hereto, and the advice and assistance of their respective counsel. The fact that this Agreement was prepared as a matter of convenience by DISTRICT shall have no import or significance. Any uncertainty or ambiguity in this Agreement shall not be construed against DISTRICT because DISTRICT prepared this Agreement in its final form.
- 17 -

233779

8. This Agreement is made and entered into for the sole protecti on and benefit of the parties hereto. No other person or entity shall have any right or action based upon the prov isions of this Agreement.

9. Any action at law or in equity brought by any of the parties hereto for the purpose of enforcing a right or ri ghts prov ided for by the Agreement, shall be tried in a court of competent jurisdiction in the County of Riverside, State of Califo rnia, and the parti es hereto waive all prov isions of law prov iding for a change of venue in such proceedings to any other county.

I 0. Time is of the essence in prosecuting the work contemplated under this Agreement. At any time during the term of this Agreement, DJSTRICT may terminate this Agreement for cause, including, but not limited to, CITY's fa ilure to proceed with the work in a timely manner, upon providing CITY thirty (30) days written notice stating the extent and effective date of termination.
11 . The obligation(s) of DISTRICT are limited by and contingent upon the availability of DISTRICT fund s for DJSTRICT's fin anc ial contribution towards PROJECT as set forth herein. In the event that such fund s are not forth coming fo r any reason, DISTRICT shall immediate ly notify CITY in writing.

12. This Agreement is intended by the parties hereto as a fin al expression of the ir understanding with respect to the subject matter hereof and as a complete and exclusive statement of the terms and conditions thereof and supersedes any and all prior and contemporaneous agreements and understandings, oral and written, in connecti on therewith. This Agreement may be changed or modified only upon the written consent of the parti es hereto.

13. This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which will be an original, but a ll of which together will constitute one instrument. Each party of this Agreement agrees to the use of electronic signatures, such as digital signatures that meet the - 18 -

233 779
requirements of the Californi a Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (("CUETA") Ca l. Civ. Code § § 1633 .1 to 1633 .17), for executing this Agreement. The parties further agree that the electroni c signatures of the parties included in this Agreement are intended to authenticate this writing and to have the same force and effect as manual signatures. Electronic signature means an electronic sound, symbol, or process attached to or logically assoc iated with an electronic record and executed or adopted by a person with the intent to sign the electronic record pursuant to the CUETA as amended from time to time. The CUETA authorizes use of an electronic signature for transactions and contracts among parties in Califo rnia, including a government agency. Digital signature means an electronic identifier, created by computer, intended by the party using it to have the same force and effect as the use of a manual signature, and shall be reasonably relied upon by the parties. For purposes of this section, a di gital signature is a type of "electronic signature" as defined in subdivision (i) of Section 1633 .2 of the Civil Code.

II
II
- 19 -

233779
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on Novtml:t:r to,1'.DW . (to be filled in by Clerk of the Board) RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL:

By ...,c::....-1--=- --=---l-~~~~~
JAS
Gen
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

GREGORY P. PRIAMOS
County Counsel

RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL

AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
By
KAREN
K~.s.~ SPIEGEL, ChaifWOIIlall
Riverside County Flood Control and Water
Conservation District Board of Supervisors
ATTEST:

KECIA HARPER
Clerk of the Board
By ~Yh.l'! /1 <J,wd By r/llit'&Jifl. ~ tz) S~THIA M. GUNZEL Deputy Chief Deputy County Counsel
Cooperative Agreement: City of Norco
South Norco Channel, Stage 2
Project No. 2-0-00150
09/23/2020
AMR:blm
(SEAL)
- 20 -

RECOMMENDED FOR AP PROV AL:

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Cooperative Agreement: City of Norco
South Norco Channel, Stage 2
Project No. 2-0-00150
09/23/2020
AMR:blm

CITY OF NORCO
By {J~/~ BERWJN HANNA
Mayor
k By ---IJ-__,,,,_,,=--~~~~~~~~~

ANA ROA,CMC
City Clerk
(SEAL)
- 21 -
233779

ElCisting Channel
Proposed Basin Location
Lot For Sale
Upstream Tie-In Location
Downstream Tie-In Location
County Parcels
0 Alignment 1 - Original Channel Alignment

Existing Olannel
Proposed Channel Alignment
Proposed Basin Location
lot For Sale
Upstream Tle-In Locatioo
Downstream Tie--In location
County Parcels

SOUTH NORCO CHANNELALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVES
0 Alignment 2 - Mountain Avenue

Proposed Basin Location
Lot For Sale
Upstream Tie-In Locatkxl
Downstream Tie--In Location
County Parcels

SOUTH NORCO CHANNEL ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVES
0 Alignment 3 - Parkridge Avenue

EXHIBITB
DISTRICT's Insurance Requirements are as fo llows:

CITY's construction contractor(s) shall not commence operations unti l DISTRICT has been furn ished with original certificate(s) of insurance and original certified copies of endorsements and if requested, certified original policies of insurance including all endorsements and any and all other attachments as required in this Section.

Without limiting or diminishing CITY's construction contractor(s) obligation to indemnify or hold DISTRICT harmless, CITY's constructi on contractor(s) shall procure and maintain or cause to be maintained, at its sole cost and expense, the following insurance coverage's during the term of this Agreement. As respects to the insurance section only, the DISTRICT here in refers to the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservati on District, County of Riverside, its Agencies, Districts, Special Districts, and Departments, their respective directors, officers, Board of Supervisors, employees, elected or appointed officials, agents or representatives as Additional Insured:

A. Workers' Compensation :

If CITY's construction contractor(s) has employees as defined by the State of California, CITY's construction contractor(s) shall maintain statutory Workers' Compensation Insurance (Coverage A) as prescribed by the laws of the State of California. Policy shall include Employers' Liability (Coverage B) including Occupational Disease with limits not less than $1,000,000 per person per accident. Policy shall be endorsed to waive subrogation in favor of DISTRICT.

COO PERATIVE AGREEMENT
South Norco Channel, Stage 2
Project No. 2-0-001 50
Page I of8

EXHIBITB
B. Commercial Genera l Liability:

Commercial General Liability insurance coverage, including, but not limited to, premises liability, unmodified contractual liability, products and completed operations liability, personal and advertising injury, and cross liability coverage, covering claims which may arise from or out of CITY's construction contractor(s) performance of its obligations hereunder. Policy shall name the DISTRICT as Additional Insured. Policy's limit of liability shall not be less than $2,000,000 per occurrence combined single limit. If such insurance contains a general aggregate limit, it shall apply separately to this Agreement or be no less than two (2) times the occurrence limit.

C. Vehicle Liability:

If CITY's construction contractor(s) vehicles or mobile eq uipment are used in the performance of the obi igations under this Agreement, then CITY's construction contractor(s) shall maintain liability insurance for all owned, non-owned or hired vehicles so used in an amount not less than $2,000,000 per occurrence combined si ngle limit. If such insurance contains a general aggregate limit, it shall apply separately to this Agreement or be no less than two (2) times the occurrence limit.

Policy shall name the DISTRICT as Add itional Insured.

D. Pollution and Asbestos Liability:

COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT
South Norco Channel, Stage 2
Project No. 2-0-00 l 50

EXHIBITB
CITY's construction contractor(s) shall obta in, at its sole expense and keep in effect during the term of the contract, Pollution Legal Liability and/or Asbestos Legal Liability and/or Errors and Omissions (if project invo lves environmental hazards) coveri ng CTTY's construction contractor(s) li ability for a third party bodily injury and property damage arising from pollution conditions caused by the CTTY's construction contractor(s) while perform ing their operations under the contract. The insurance coverage shall apply to sudden and accidental pollution events. Any coverage restriction as to time limit for discovery of a po llution inc ident and/or a time limit for notice to the insurer must be accepted by the DISTRICT. The insurance coverage shall also respond to c leanup cost. This coverage may be written in combination with the commercial general liability insurance or professional liabi lity insurance.

CTTY's construction contractor(s) shall maintain Pollution Legal Liability and/or Asbestos Legal Liability and/or Errors and Omissions with limits no less than $ 1,000,000 per occurrence or claim, and $2,000,000 policy aggregate. The policy shall be endorsed to state that the general aggregate limit of liab ility shall apply separate ly to this contract. Any self-insured retention/deductible amount shall be submitted to the DISTRICT for review and approval. If CTTY's construction contractor(s) maintains broader coverage and/or higher limits than the minimums shown above, the DI STRICT requires and shall be entitled to the broader

COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT
South Norco Channel, Stage 2
Project No. 2-0-00150

EXHIBITB
coverage and/or higher limits maintained by CITY's construction contractor(s).

Any available insurance proceeds in excess of the specified minimum limits of insurance and coverage shall be available to the DISTRICT.

In the event, CITY's construction contractor(s) encounters materials on the site that is believed to be asbestos or polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) which has not been rendered harmless, CITY's construction contractor(s) shall immediately stop work in the area affected and report the condition to the DISTRICT in writing.

The work in the affected area shall not thereafter be resumed except by written agreement of the DISTRICT and CITY, if in fact the material is asbestos or polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) and has not been rendered harmless. The work in the affected area shall be resumed in the absence of asbestos or polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB), or when it has been rendered harmless, by written agreement of the DISTRICT and CITY.

CITY's construction contractor(s) shall not be required to perform without consent any work relating to asbestos or polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB).

E. Professional Liability:

CITY's construction contractor(s) shall cause any architect or engineer retained by CITY's construction contractor(s) in connection with the perfonnance of CITY's construction contractor(s) obligations under this Agreement to maintain Professional Liability Insurance providing coverage for the performance of their

COOPERATIVE AGREEME T
South Norco Channel, Stage 2
Project No. 2-0-001 50

EXHIBITB
work included within this Agreement, with a limit of liability of not less than $2,000,000 per occurrence and $4,000,000 ann ual aggregate. ff CJTY's constructi on contractor(s) sha ll req uire that, if such Professional Liability Insurance is written on a c laims made basis rather than an occurrence basis, such insurance shall continue through the term of th is Agreement and that such architect or engi neer shall purchase at such architect or engineer's sole expense either I) an Extended Reporting Endorsement (also known as Tail Coverage); or 2) Prior Dates Coverage from a new insurer with a retroactive date back to the date of, or prior to, the inception of this Agreement; or 3) demonstrate through Certificates of Insurance that such architect or engineer has maintained continuous coverage with the same or original insurer. Coverage provided under items: I), 2) or 3) will continue as long as the law all ows.

F. General Insurance Provisions -All Lines:
a. Any insurance carrier providing insurance coverage hereunder shall be admitted to the State of California and have an A.M. BEST rating of not less than an A: VIII (A: 8) unless such requirements are waived, in writing, by the DISTRICT Risk Manager. If the DISTRICT's Risk Manager waives a requirement for a particu lar insurer such wa iver is only valid for that specific insurer and only for one policy term.

COO PERA Tl V E A GREEM ENT
South Norco Channel, Stage 2
Project No. 2-0-00 150

EXHIBITB
b. The CITY's construction contractor(s) must declare its insurance selfinsured retention for each coverage required herein. If any such selfinsured retention exceeds $500,000 per occurrence each such retention shall have the prior written consent of the DISTRlCT Risk Manager before the commencement of operations under this Agreement. Upon notification of self-i nsured retention deemed unacceptable to the DISTRICT, and at the election of the DISTRICT's Risk Manager, CITY's construction contractor(s) carriers shall either: I) reduce or eliminate such self-insured retention with respect to this Agreement with DISTRICT, or 2) procure a bond which guarantees payment of losses and related investigations, claims administration, and defense costs and expenses.
c. CITY's construction contractor(s) shall cause their insurance carri er(s) to furnish DISTRICT with 1) a properly executed original certificate(s) of insurance and certified original copies of endorsements effecting coverage as required herein; and 2) if requested to do so orally or in writing by the DISTRICT Risk Manager, provide original certified copies of policies including all endorsements and all attachments thereto, showing such insurance is in full force and effect. Further, said certificate(s) and policies of insurance shall contai n the covenant of the insurance carrier(s) that a minimum of thirty (30) days written notice shall be given to the

COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT
South Norco Channel, Stage 2
Project No. 2-0-001 50

EXHIBITB
DISTRICT prior to any material mod ification, cancellation, expiration or redu ction in coverage of such insurance. If CITY's construction contractor(s) insurance carrier(s) polic ies does not meet the minimum notice requirement fo und here in, CITY's construction contractor(s) shall cause CITY's construction contractor(s) insurance carrier(s) to furnish a 30 day Notice of Cancell ation Endorsement.
d. In the event of a material modification, cancellati on, expiration or reduction in coverage, this Agreement sha ll terminate forthwith, unless DISTRICT receives, prior to such effective date, another properly executed origina l certifi cate of insurance and ori gi nal copies of endorsements or certified original policies, including all endorsements and attachments thereto, evidencing coverages set forth herein and the insurance required herein is in full force and effect. An individual authorized by the insurance carrier to do so on its behalf shall sign the origina l endorsements fo r each policy and the certificate of insurance.
e. It is understood and agreed by the parties hereto that CITY's construction contractor(s) insurance shall be construed as primary insurance, and DISTRICT's insurance and/or deductibles and/or self-insured retentions or self- insured programs shall not be construed as contributory.

COOPERATIVE AGREEM ENT
South Norco Channel, Stage 2
Project No. 2-0-00 150

EXHIBITB
f. If, during the term of this Agreement or any extension thereof, there is a material change in the scope of services or there is a material change in the equipment to be used in the performance of the scope of work which will add additional exposures (such as the use of aircraft, watercraft, cranes, etc.); or the term of this Agreement, including any extensions thereof, exceeds five (5) years, DISTRICT reserves the right to adjust the types of insurance required under this Agreement and the monetary limits of liability for the insurance coverages currently required herein, if, in the DISTRICT Risk Manager's reasonable judgment, the amount or type of insurance carried by CITY's construction contractor(s) has become inadequate. g. CITY's construction contractor(s) shall pass down the insurance obligations contained herein to all tiers of subcontractors working under this Agreement.
h. The insurance requirements contained in this Agreement may be met with a program(s) of self-insurance acceptable to DISTRICT.

1. CITY's construction contractor(s) agrees to notify DISTRICT of any claim by a third party or any incident or event that may give rise to a claim arising from the performance of this Agreement.

COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT
South Norco Channel, Stage 2
Project No. 2-0-001 50