The URL can be used to link to this page

17-656CITY OF MENIFEE DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE NEXUS ANALYSIS FINAL NOVEMBER 30, 2017 Oakland Office Division Headquarters Other Regional Offices 1939 Harrison Street 27368 Via Industria Aurora, CO Suite 430 Suite 200 Phoenix, AZ Oakland, CA 94612 Temecula, CA 92590 Plano, TX Tel: (510) 832-0899 Tel: (800) 755-6864 Orlando, FL Fax: (510) 832-0898 Fax: (888) 326-6864 www.willdan.com Exhibt A This page intentionally left blank. i TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................... 4 Background and Study Objectives 4 Facility Standards and Costs 4 Use of Fee Revenues 5 Development Impact Fee Schedule Summary 5 Other Funding Needed 7 1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................ 8 Public Facilities Financing in California 8 Study Objectives 8 Fee Program Maintenance 9 Study Methodology 9 Types of Facility Standards 9 New Development Facility Needs and Costs 10 Organization of the report 11 2. GROWTH FORECASTS ..................................................................... 12 Land Use Types 12 Existing and Future Development 12 Occupant Densities 13 3. LAW ENFORCEMENT FACILITIES ....................................................... 15 Service Population 15 Facility Inventories and Standards 15 Existing Inventory 15 Planned Facilities 16 Cost Allocation 16 Use of Fee Revenue 16 Fee Schedule 17 Non-Fee Funding Required 17 4. FIRE FACILITIES .............................................................................. 19 Service Population 19 Facility Inventories and Standards 19 Existing Inventory 19 Planned Facilities 20 Cost Allocation 21 Use of Fee Revenue 21 Fee Schedule 21 Non-Fee Funding Required 22 5. CIRCULATION FACILITIES ................................................................. 24 Trip Demand 24 Trip Growth 25 Project Costs 25 City of Menifee Development Impact Fee Study Update ii Total Costs Allocated to New Development 35 Fee per Trip Demand Unit 35 Fee Schedule 36 6. STORM DRAIN FACILITIES ...................................................................... 37 Storm Drain Demand 37 EDU Generation by New Development 37 Planned Facilities 39 Cost per Equivalent Dwelling Unit 40 Fee Schedule 41 7. ANIMAL SHELTER FACILITIES ............................................................ 42 Service Population 42 Facility Inventories and Standards 42 Cost Allocation 43 Fee Schedule 43 Fee Revenue Projection 44 8. GENERAL GOVERNMENT FACILITIES ................................................. 45 Service Population 45 Facility Inventories and Standards 45 Existing Inventory 45 Planned Facilities 46 Cost Allocation 48 Fee Schedule 48 Fee Revenue Projection 49 9. PUBLIC USE FACILITIES ................................................................... 50 Service Population 50 Existing Public Use Facilities Inventory 50 Cost Allocation 50 Fee Schedule 51 Fee Revenue Projection 51 10. PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES............................................... 53 Service Population 53 Existing Parkland and Park Facilities Inventory 53 Parkland and Park Facilities Unit Costs 54 Parkland and Park Facility Standards 54 Mitigation Fee Act 54 City of Menifee Parkland and Park Facilities Standards 54 Facilities Needed to Accommodate New Development 55 Parks Cost per Capita 55 Use of Fee Revenue 56 Fee Schedule 56 11. MASTER PLANNING & NEXUS ANALYSES ......................................... 58 Service Population 58 Planned Analyses 58 City of Menifee Development Impact Fee Study Update iii Cost Allocation 59 Fee Schedule 59 12. LIBRARY FACILITIES ...................................................................... 61 Service Population 61 Existing Library Facilities 61 Cost Allocation 61 Fee Revenue Projection 62 Fee Schedule 62 13. IMPLEMENTATION ......................................................................... 64 Impact Fee Program Adoption Process 64 Inflation Adjustment 64 Reporting Requirements 65 Programming Revenues and Projects with the CIP 67 Credits and Reimbursements 67 Recommendations 68 14. MITIGATION FEE ACT FINDINGS ..................................................... 70 Purpose of Fee 70 Use of Fee Revenues 70 Benefit Relationship 70 Burden Relationship 70 Proportionality 71 APPENDIX A ..................................................................................... A-1 4 Executive Summary This report summarizes an analysis of development impact fees needed to support future development in the City of Menifee through 2040. It is the City’s intent that the costs representing future development’s share of public facilities and capital improvements be imposed on that development in the form of a development impact fee, also known as a public facilities fee. The public facilities and improvements included in this analysis are divided into the fee categories listed below:  Law Enforcement Facilities;  General Government Facilities;  Fire Facilities;  Public Use Facilities;  Circulation Facilities;  Parks and Recreation Facilities;  Storm Drainage Facilities;  Library Facilities; and,  Animal Shelter;  Master Planning and Nexus Analyses. 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. Although growth also imposes operating costs, there is not a similar system to generate revenue from new development for services. The primary purpose of this report is to calculate and present fees that will enable the City to expand its inventory of public facilities, as new development creates increases in service demands. The City imposes public facilities fees under authority granted by the Mitigation Fee Act (the Act), contained in California Government Code Sections 66000 et seq. This report provides the necessary findings required by the Act for adoption of the fees presented in the fee schedules contained herein. All development impact fee-funded capital projects should be programmed through the City’s five- year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). Using a CIP can help the City identify and direct its fee revenue to public facilities projects that will accommodate future growth. By programming fee revenues to specific capital projects, the City can help ensure a reasonable relationship between new development and the use of fee revenues as required by the Mitigation Fee Act. Facility Standards and Costs There are three approaches typically used to calculate facilities standards and allocate the costs of planned facilities to accommodate growth in compliance with the Mitigation Fee Act requirements. The system plan approach is based on a master facilities plan in situations where the needed facilities serve both existing and new development. This approach allocates existing and planned facilities across existing and new development to determine new development’s fair share of facility needs. This approach is used when it is not possible to differentiate the benefits of new facilities between new and existing development. Often the system plan is based on increasing facility standards, so the City must find non-impact fee revenue sources to fund existing development’s fair share of planned facilities. In this report, this approach is used for the law enforcement, fire, animal services and general government facility fees. 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 City of Menifee Development Impact Fee Study Update 5 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 drainage, and master planning and nexus analyses 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 often used when a long-range plan for new facilities is not available. Only the initial facilities to be funded with fees are identified in the fee study. Future facilities to serve growth will be identified through the City’s annual capital improvement plan and budget process and/or completion of a new facility master plan. This approach is to calculate the public use facilities, parks, and library facilities fees in this report. Use of Fee Revenues 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, 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. City of Menifee Development Impact Fee Study Update 6 Table E.1: Maximum Justified Impact Fee Summary Land Use Law Enforcement Fire Circulation Storm Drainage1 Animal Shelter General Government Public Use Facilities Parks - Land Acquisition Parks - Improvements Master Planning and Nexus Analyses Library Facilities Total - Maximum Justified Residential - Fee per Dwelling Unit Single Family Unit 231$ 614$ 4,670$ 2,286$ 148$ 1,021$ 154$ 215$ 661$ 23$ 66$ 10,089$ Multi-family Unit 169 452 3,261 1,258 109 752 113 159 487 17 48 6,825 Accessory Dwelling Unit 120 320 1,878 1,258 77 532 80 113 344 12 34 4,768 Senior / Assisted Living 89 239 1,802 1,258 57 398 59 84 257 9 26 4,278 Nonresidential - Fee per 1,000 Sq. Ft. Commercial / Retail 58$ 428$ 7,736$ 1,623$ 123$ 262$ -$ -$ -$ 5$ -$ 10,235$ Commercial / Service / Office 77 560 5,946 571 160 342 - - - 6 - 7,662 Industrial / Business Park 29 208 3,941 937 59 127 - - - 2 - 5,303 1 Fee shown for MDP South Benefit Area. See Table 6.5 for Encanto Benefit Area fees. Sources: Tables 3.4, 4.5, 5.7, 6.5, 7.4, 8.5, 9.4, 10.7, 11.4 and 12.5. City of Menifee Development Impact Fee Study Update 7 Other Funding Needed Impact fees may only fund the share of public facilities related to new development in Menifee. 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 $196.6 million in additional funding will be needed to complete the facility projects the City currently plans to develop. The “Additional Funding Required” column shows non-impact fee funding required to fund a share of the improvements partially funded by impact fees. Non-fee funding is needed because these facilities are needed partially to remedy existing deficiencies and partly to accommodate new development. The City will need to develop alternative funding sources to fund existing development’s share of the planned facilities. Potential sources of revenue include, but are not limited to: existing or new general fund revenues, existing or new taxes, special assessments, and grants. Fee Category Net Project Cost Projected Impact Fee Revenue Other Identified Funding Additional Funding Required Law Enforcement 10,000,000$ 2,683,000$ -$ 7,317,000$ Fire1 25,045,910 8,479,000 4,211,631 12,355,279 Circulation2 301,926,663 96,277,157 $76,943,782 128,705,724 Storm Drainage 40,189,660 24,481,412 - 15,708,248 Animal Shelter 6,478,445 1,720,000 - 4,758,445 General Government1 43,755,080 11,902,000 4,283,553 27,569,527 Public Use Facilities 1,593,000 1,593,000 - - Parks and Recreation 9,106,650 9,106,650 - - Nexus Analysis 500,000 280,374 - 219,626 Library Facilities 675,768 675,768 - - Total 439,271,176$ 157,198,361$ 85,438,966$ 196,633,849$ 1 Other funding includes existing impact fee fund balances. Sources: Tables 3.2, 3.5, 4.4, 4.6, 5.3, 5.6, 6.3, 7.2, 7.5, 8.3, 8.6, 9.5, 10.5, 11.2, 11.3 and 12.4. Table E.2: Non-Impact Fee Funding Required 2 Other funding includes TUMF funding, existing impact fee fund balances, and segments conditioned to be built be developers. 8 1. Introduction This report presents an analysis of the need for public facilities to accommodate new development in the City of Menifee. 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 30 years has steadily undercut the financial capacity of local governments to fund infrastructure. Three 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; 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 C-1.2 of the City’s General Plan states “Require development to mitigate its traffic impacts and achieve a peak hour Level of Service (LOS) D or better at intersections, except at constrained intersections at close proximity to the I-215 where LOS E may be permitted.” The primary purpose of this report is to establish 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 policy stated above. The City imposes public facilities fees under authority granted by the Mitigation Fee Act (the Act), contained in California Government Code Sections 66000 et seq. This report provides the necessary findings required by the Act for adoption of the fees presented in the fee schedules presented in this report. Menifee is forecast to significant growth through this study’s planning horizon of 2040. This growth will create an increase in demand for public services and the facilities required to deliver them. Given the revenue challenges described above, Menifee has decided to use a development impact fee program to ensure that new development funds the share of facility costs associated with growth. This report makes use of the most current available growth forecasts and facility plans to update the City’s existing fee program to ensure that the fee program accurately represents the facility needs resulting from new development. City of Menifee Development Impact Fee Study Update 9 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 Engineering News-Record, is necessary to accurately adjust the impact fees. For a list of recommended indices, see Chapter 14. 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 14. 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. Types of Facility Standards There are three separate components of facility standards:  Demand standards determine the amount of facilities required to accommodate growth, for example, park acres per thousand residents, square feet of library space per capita, or gallons of water per day. Demand standards may also reflect a level of service such as the vehicle volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratio used in traffic planning.  Design standards determine how a facility should be designed to meet expected demand, for example, park improvement requirements and technology infrastructure for City office space. Design standards are typically not explicitly evaluated as part of an impact fee analysis but can have a significant impact on the cost of facilities. Our approach incorporates the cost of planned facilities built to satisfy the City’s facility design standards.  Cost standards are an alternate method for determining the amount of facilities required to accommodate growth based on facility costs per unit of demand. Cost standards are useful when demand standards were not explicitly developed for the facility planning process. Cost standards also enable different types of facilities to be analyzed based on a single measure City of Menifee Development Impact Fee Study Update 10 (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. Often the method selected depends on the degree to which the community has engaged in comprehensive facility master planning to identify facility needs. 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. In this report, this approach is used for the law enforcement, fire, animal services and general government facility fees. 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 funds the expansion of facilities at the same standard currently serving existing development. By definition the existing inventory method results in no facility deficiencies attributable to existing development. This method is often used when a long-range plan for new facilities is not available. Only the initial facilities to be funded with fees are identified in the fee study. Future facilities to serve growth are identified through an annual capital improvement plan and budget process, possibly after completion of a new facility master plan. This approach is to calculate the public use facilities, parks, and library fees in this report. Planned Facilities Method The planned facilities method allocates costs based on the ratio of planned facility costs to demand from new development as follows: Cost of Planned Facilities New Development Demand = $/unit of demand = $/unit of demand = $/unit of demand City of Menifee Development Impact Fee Study Update 11 This method is appropriate when planned facilities will entirely serve new development, or when a fair share allocation of planned facilities to new development can be estimated. An example of the former is a Wastewater trunk line extension to a previously undeveloped area. An example of the latter is expansion of an existing library building and book collection, which will be needed only if new development occurs, but which, if built, will in part benefit existing development, as well. Under this method new development funds the expansion of facilities at the standards used in the applicable planning documents. This approach is used for the circulation, storm drainage and master planning and nexus analyses 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 12 identify facility standards and planned facilities, allocate the cost of planned facilities between new development and other development, and identify the appropriate development impact fee for each of the following facility categories:  Law Enforcement Facilities;  General Government Facilities;  Fire Facilities;  Public Use Facilities;  Circulation Facilities;  Parks and Recreation Facilities;  Storm Drainage Facilities;  Library Facilities; and,  Animal Shelter;  Master Planning and Nexus Analyses. 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. 12 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 2017 base year and a planning horizon of 2040. 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 2017 is used as an indicator of existing facility demand and to determine existing facility standards.  The estimate of total development at the 2040 planning horizon is used as an indicator of future demand to determine total facilities needed to accommodate growth and remedy existing facility deficiencies, if any.  Estimates of growth from 2017 through 2040 are used to (1) allocate facility costs between new development and existing development, and (2) estimate total fee revenues. The demand for public facilities is 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.  Single family: Detached and attached one-unit dwellings on individually owned lots.  Multi-family: All attached multi-family dwellings including duplexes and condominiums.  Accessory Dwelling Units: Secondary dwelling unit with complete independent living facilities for one or more persons.  Senior / Assisted Living: All age restricted housing units. Also includes housing for elderly or disabled people that provides care and other necessary services for residents.  Commercial / Retail: All commercial and retail development.  Commercial / Service / Office: All educational, hotel/motel and general, professional, and medical office development.  Industrial / Business Park: All business park, manufacturing and other industrial development. Some developments may include more than one land use type, such as a mixed-use development with both multi-family and commercial uses. In those cases, the facilities fee would be calculated separately for each land use type. 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 Menifee, both in 2017 and in 2040. The base year estimates of residents and dwelling units comes from the California Department of Finance. Future resident and dwelling unit are based on draft Growth Figures from SCAG's Integrated Growth Forecast from the 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). City of Menifee Development Impact Fee Study Update 13 Base year employees, less local government (public administration) workers identified by the U.S. Census Bureau, OnTheMap Application for 2015, the latest data available. Total projected workers in 2040 identified by SCAG, allocated to land use categories using current proportions. 2017 2040 Increase Residents1 90,472 121,100 30,628 Dwelling Units2 Single Family 29,193 42,200 13,007 Multi-family 4,114 5,900 1,786 Total 33,307 48,100 14,793 Building Square Feet (000s)3 Commercial / Retail 1,500 3,085 1,584 Commercial / Service / Office 1,671 3,434 1,764 Industrial / Business Park 2,270 4,666 2,397 Total 5,441 11,185 5,744 Employment4 Commercial / Retail 3,586 7,372 3,786 Commercial / Service / Office 5,212 10,715 5,503 Industrial / Business Park 2,633 5,413 2,780 Total 11,431 23,500 12,069 Note: Figures have been rounded to the hundreds. 1 Current population from California Department of Finance (DOF). 2040 projection from SCAG. 2 Current values from DOF. Projection total for 2040 from the SCAG 2016 projections allocated to single and multifamily based on existing shares. Table 2.1: Demographic Assumptions 4 Total, less local government (public administration) workers identified by the U.S. Census Bureau, OnTheMap Application, http://onthemap.ces.census.gov for 2015, the latest data available. Total projected workers in 2040 identified by SCAG, allocated to land use categories using current proportions. Sources: California Department of Finance (DOF), Table E-5, 2017; 2016-2040 RTP/SCS Final Growth Forecast by Jurisdiction; U.S. Census Bureau, OnTheMap Application, http://onthemap.ces.census.gov; Willdan Financial Services. 3 Equivalent building square footage estimated by dividing employees by occupancy density factors. Occupant Densities All fees in this report are calculated based on dwelling units, building square feet. Occupant density assumptions ensure a reasonable relationship between the size of a development project, the increase in service population associated with the project, and the amount of the fee. Occupant densities (residents per dwelling unit or workers per building square foot) are the most appropriate characteristics to use for most impact fees. The fee imposed should be based on the land use type that most closely represents the probable occupant density of the development. The average occupant density factors used in this report are shown in Table 2.2. The residential occupant density factors for both the various types of dwelling units were calculated using the most recently available data from US Census’ American Community Survey specific to the City of Menifee. Table B25033 identifies the estimated population, by type of dwelling unit. Table B25024 identifies the total City of Menifee Development Impact Fee Study Update 14 amount of dwelling units, by type. The occupant densities resulting from dividing the population by the corresponding dwelling unit type is shown in Table 2.2. The ACS does not provide sufficient data to calculate the occupant density for senior / assisted living dwelling units. Instead of ACS data, this analysis relies on data from an Energy Star Benchmarking study for a Senior Care Facility. That study estimated the total number of senior supportive units in the US and the estimate number of residents in those units. The resulting occupancy density factor is shown in Table 2.2. The nonresidential occupancy factors are based on occupancy factors found in the Employment Density Study Summary Report, prepared for the Southern California Association of Governments by The Natelson Company. Though not specific to Menifee, the Natelson study covered employment density over a wide array of land use and development types, making it reasonable to apply these factors to other areas. The specific factors used in this report are for developing suburban areas, as defined by the Natelson study. Table 2.2: Occupant Density Residential Single Family 2.88 Residents Per Dwelling Unit Multifamily 2.12 Residents Per Dwelling Unit Accessory Dwelling Unit1 1.50 Residents Per Dwelling Unit Senior / Assisted Living 1.12 Residents Per Dwelling Unit Nonresidential Commercial / Retail 2.39 Employees per 1,000 square feet Commercial / Service / Office 3.12 Employees per 1,000 square feet Industrial / Business Park 1.16 Employees per 1,000 square feet 1 Occupancy density based on expected range of ADU types and resulting residential density. Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010-2014 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Tables B25024 and B25033; The Natelson Company, Inc., Employment Density Study Summary Report, prepared for the Southern California Association of Governments, October 31, 2001, SCAG region data; Commission on affordable housing and health facility needs for seniors in the 21st century, 2002; Energy Star Benchmarking For Senior Care Facility, 2010;Willdan Financial Services. 15 3. Law Enforcement Facilities The purpose of the law enforcement impact fee is to fund the law enforcement facilities needed to serve new development. Menifee currently receives law enforcement services from a sheriff station in the City of Perris. A proposed fee is presented based on the system plan standard of law enforcement facilities per capita. Service Population Law enforcement facilities serve both residents and businesses. Therefore, demand for services and associated facilities are based on the City’s service population including residents and workers. Table 3.1 shows the existing and future projected service population for law enforcement facilities. While specific data is not available to estimate the actual ratio of demand per resident to demand by businesses (per worker) for this service, it is reasonable to assume that demand for these services is less for one employee compared to one resident, because nonresidential buildings are typically occupied less intensively than dwelling units. The 0.31-weighting factor for workers is based on a 40-hour workweek divided by the total number of non-work hours in a week (128) and reflects the degree to which nonresidential development yields a lesser demand for law enforcement facilities. Table 3.1: Law Enforcement Facilities Service Population A B C = A + (B x 0.31) Residents Workers Service Population Existing (2017)90,472 11,431 94,000 New Development (2017-2040)30,628 12,069 34,400 Total (2040)121,100 23,500 128,400 Weighting factor1 1.00 0.31 Source: Table 2.1; Willdan Financial Services. 1 Workers are weighted at 0.31 of residents based on a 40 hour work week out of a possible 128 non-work hours in a week (40/128 = 0.31) Facility Inventories and Standards This section describes the City’s law enforcement facility inventory and facility standards. Existing Inventory The City is currently served by a County Sheriff station in the City of Perris. Menifee does not currently own any law enforcement facilities. As such, no inventory of existing facilities is included in this analysis, and the impact fees will be based on funding the construction of a new facility to serve Menifee itself. City of Menifee Development Impact Fee Study Update 16 Planned Facilities Table 3.2 summarizes the cost of the planned law enforcement facility needed to serve the City through 2040. The City plans to construct a new law enforcement building. While the facility is likely to cost far more than the figure listed below, this analysis assumes a total cost of $10 million to be conservative. Future impact fee updates may increase this assumption as more information and planning becomes available. Table 3.2: Planned Law Enforcement Facilties Project Name Total Project Cost Law Enforcement Facility 10,000,000$ Source: City of Menifee. Cost Allocation Table 3.3 shows new development’s projected per capita investment in law enforcement facilities at the planning horizon. This value is calculated by dividing cost of existing and planned facilities by the service population at the planning horizon. The value per capita is multiplied by the worker weighting factor of 0.31 to determine the value per worker. Table 3.3: Law Enforcement Facilities System Standard Value of Existing Facilities1 -$ Value of Planned Facilities 10,000,000 Total System Value (2040)10,000,000$ Future Service Population (2040)128,400 Cost per Capita 78$ Facility Standard per Resident 78$ Facility Standard per Worker2 24 2 Based on a weighing factor of 0.31. Sources: Tables 3.1, 3.2; City of Menifee; Willdan Financial Services. 1 Menifee is currently served by a Sheriff station in Peris under contract with the Riverside County Sheriff's Department. Use of Fee Revenue The City can use law enforcement facilities fee revenues for the construction or purchase of buildings, land, and equipment that are part of the system of law enforcement facilities serving new development. At this time the City intends to build a new law enforcement facility, as summarized in Table 3.2. City of Menifee Development Impact Fee Study Update 17 Fee Schedule Table 3.4 shows the proposed law enforcement facilities fee schedule. The cost per capita is converted to a fee per unit of new development based on dwelling unit and employment densities (persons per dwelling unit or employees per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential building space). The total fee includes a two and a half percent (2.5%) 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, two and a half percent of the base fee adequately covers the cost of fee program administration. It should be reviewed and adjusted during comprehensive impact fee updates to ensure that revenue generated from the charge sufficiently covers, but does not exceed, the administrative costs associated with the fee program. Table 3.4: Law Enforcement Facilities Fee - System Standard A B C = A x B D = C x 2.5%E = C + D F = E / 1,000 Cost Per Admin Fee per Land Use Capita Density Base Fee1 Charge1, 2 Total Fee1 Sq. Ft. Residential Single Family 78$ 2.88 225$ 6$ 231$ Multi-family 78 2.12 165 4 169 Accessory Dwelling Unit 78 1.50 117 3 120 Senior / Assisted Living 78 1.12 87 2 89 Nonresidential Commercial / Retail 24$ 2.39 57$ 1$ 58$ 0.06$ Commercial / Service / Office 24 3.12 75 2 77 0.08 Industrial / Business Park 24 1.16 28 1 29 0.03 Sources: Tables 2.2 and 3.3; Willdan Financial Services. 1 Fee per dwelling unit or per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential. 2 Administrative charge of 2.5 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. Non-Fee Funding Required Completing the planned facilities will provide a higher value of facilities per capita than is currently provided in Menifee. Impact fee revenue may not be used to increase the level of service provided to existing development. Therefore, impact fee revenue will not fully fund the planned law enforcement facilities and some non-fee funding will be required. Table 3.5 shows the projected fee revenue and the non-fee funding required through 2040. After accounting for the projected future impact fee revenue, approximately $7.3 in non-fee funding will be needed to complete the planned law enforcement facilities. The City will need to use alternative funding sources to fund existing development’s share of the planned law enforcement protection facilities. Potential sources of revenue include, but are not limited to existing or new general fund revenues, existing or new taxes, special assessments, and grants. City of Menifee Development Impact Fee Study Update 18 Cost per Capita 78$ Growth in Service Population (2017- 2040)34,400 Fee Revenue 2,683,000$ Net Cost of Planned Facilities 10,000,000 Non-Fee Revenue to Be Identified (7,317,000)$ Sources: Tables 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3. Table 3.5: Law Enforcement Facilities Revenue Projection - System Standard 19 4. Fire Facilities The purpose of the fire impact fee is to fund the fire facilities needed to serve new development. A proposed fee is presented based on the system plan standard of fire facilities per capita. Service Population Fire facilities are used to provide services to both residents and businesses. The 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 2040. To calculate service population for fire protection facilities, residents are weighted at 1.00. A worker is weighted at 0.84 of one resident to reflect the lower per capita need for fire services associated with businesses. The specific 0.84 per worker weighting used here is derived data specific to the City of Menifee for the 2014 calendar year. Call for service to residential and nonresidential properties were examined to determine the relative demand for fire services for a worker, relative to a resident. Table 4.1: Fire Facilities Service Population A B C = A + (B x 0.69) Residents Workers Service Population Existing (2017)90,472 11,431 100,074 New Development (2017-2040)30,628 12,069 40,766 Total (2040)121,100 23,500 140,800 Weighting factor1 1.00 0.84 Source: Table 2.1; City of Menifee; Willdan Financial Services. 1 Service population weighting factor based on an analysis of calls for service to residential versus nonresidential properties within Menifee in the 2014 calendar year. Facility Inventories and Standards This section describes the City’s fire facility inventory and facility standards. Existing Inventory Table 4.2 summarizes the City’s current inventory of land, apparatus and vehicles. Fire protection services are provided from seven stations located throughout the City. The unit cost for the land value assumption of $131,000 per acre was based on recent sales comparisons in the City provided by Loopnet.com. Building valuations are conservatively estimated at $300 per square foot. In total, the City owns approximately $5.5 million in fire protection facilities. City of Menifee Development Impact Fee Study Update 20 Table 4.2: Existing Fire Facilities Land and Building Inventory Inventory Units Unit Cost Value Land (acres) Quail Valley Fire Station - #51 0.46 acres 131,000$ -$ Sun City Fire Station - #7 1.21 acres 131,000 158,510 Menifee Fire Station - #76 1.80 acres 131,000 235,800 Menifee Lakes Fire Station/Headquarters - #68 2.17 acres 131,000 284,270 Subtotal 5.64 678,580$ Buildings (square feet) Quail Valley Fire Station - #51 3,986 Sq. Ft.-$ -$ Sun City Fire Station - #7 4,112 Sq. Ft.300 1,233,600 Menifee Fire Station - #76 4,800 Sq. Ft.300 1,440,000 Menifee Lakes Fire Station/Headquarters - #68 7,090 Sq. Ft.300 2,127,000 Subtotal 19,988 Sq. Ft.4,800,600$ Total Value of Existing Facilities 5,479,180$ 1 No value for these buildings is included as the City plans to relocate them to better serve new development. Source: Loopnet.com; City of Menifee; Willdan Financial Services. Planned Facilities Table 4.3 summarizes the planned facilities needed to serve the City through 2040, as identified by the City. The City plans to relocate several existing stations in order to better serve new development and existing development. The City also plans to construct two brand new fire stations and a training facility. Facilities costs are estimated to total approximately $25 million through 2040. Table 4.3 Planned Fire Facilities No.Description Value FD-002 Relocate Quail Valley Fire Station (2 X 2)5,534,470$ FD-003 5th Fire Station Northerly Area (2 X 2)5,528,320 FD-004 Standard Response Engine - Northerly Station 550,000 FD-005 Utility Pick-Up Truck - Northerly Station 37,500 FD-006 Central Fire Station (4 X 2)11,200,620 FD-007 Standard Response Engine - Central Station 550,000 FD-008 Quint Aerial/Engine - Central Station 975,000 FD-009 Squad Vehicle - Central Station 67,500 FD-010 Utility Pick-Up Truck - Central Station 37,500 FD-011 Battalion Chief Response Vehicle 65,000 FD-012 Lighting/Air Bottling/Canteen Support Vehicle 500,000 Total Cost - Planned Facilities 25,045,910$ Sources: City Of Menifee Master Facilities Plan; Willdan Financial Services. City of Menifee Development Impact Fee Study Update 21 Cost Allocation Table 4.4 shows new development’s projected per capita investment in fire protection facilities at the planning horizon. This value is calculated by dividing cost of existing and planned facilities by the service population at the planning horizon. The value per capita is multiplied by the worker weighting factor of 0.69 to determine the value per worker. Table 4.4: Fire Protection Facilities System Standard Value of Existing Facilities1 4,245,580$ Value of Planned Facilities 25,045,910 Total System Value (2040)29,291,490$ Future Service Population (2040)140,800 Cost per Capita 208$ Facility Standard per Resident 208$ Facility Standard per Worker2 175 1 Excludes value of stations buildings being relocated. 2 Based on a weighing factor of 0.84. Sources: Tables 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3; Willdan Financial Services. Use of Fee Revenue The City can use fire 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 Schedule Table 4.5 shows the proposed fire facilities fee schedule. The cost per capita is converted to a fee per unit of new development based on dwelling unit and employment densities (persons per dwelling unit or employees per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential building space). The total fee includes a two and a half percent (2.5%) 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, two and a half percent of the base fee adequately covers the cost of fee program administration. It should be reviewed and adjusted during comprehensive impact fee updates to ensure that revenue generated from the charge sufficiently covers, but does not exceed, the administrative costs associated with the fee program. City of Menifee Development Impact Fee Study Update 22 Table 4.5: Fire Protection Facilities Fee - System Standard A B C = A x B D = C x 2.5%E = C + D F = E / 1,000 Cost Per Admin Fee per Land Use Capita Density Base Fee1 Charge1, 2 Total Fee1 Sq. Ft. Residential Single Family 208$ 2.88 599$ 15$ 614$ Multi-family 208 2.12 441 11 452 Accessory Dwelling Unit 208 1.50 312 8 320 Senior / Assisted Living 208 1.12 233 6 239 Nonresidential Commercial / Retail 175$ 2.39 418$ 10$ 428$ 0.43$ Commercial / Service / Office 175 3.12 546 14 560 0.56 Industrial / Business Park 175 1.16 203 5 208 0.21 Sources: Tables 2.2 and 4.4; Willdan Financial Services. 1 Persons per dwelling unit or per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential. 2 Administrative charge of 2.5 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. Non-Fee Funding Required Completing the planned facilities will provide a higher value of facilities per capita than is currently provided in Menifee. Impact fee revenue may not be used to increase the level of service provided to existing development. Therefore, impact fee revenue will not fully fund the planned fire protection facilities and some non-fee funding will be required. Table 4.6 shows the projected fee revenue and the non-fee funding required through 2040. After accounting for the projected future impact fee revenue and existing fund balances approximately $12.4 million in non-fee funding will be needed to complete the planned fire protection facilities. The City will need to use alternative funding sources to fund existing development’s share of the planned fire protection facilities. Potential sources of revenue include, but are not limited to existing or new general fund revenues, existing or new taxes, special assessments, and grants. City of Menifee Development Impact Fee Study Update 23 Table 4.6: Revenue Projection - System Standard Cost per Capita 208$ Growth in Service Population (2017 - 2040)40,766 Fee Revenue 8,479,000$ Cost of Planned Facilities 25,045,910$ (Less: Fee Revenue)8,479,000 (Less: Existing Fund Balance)4,211,631 Non-Fee Revenue to Be Identified 12,355,279$ Sources: Tables 4.1, 4.3 and 4.4. 24 5. Circulation Facilities This chapter summarizes an analysis of the need for arterial streets, including roadway segments and intersection improvements, to accommodate new development. The chapter documents a reasonable relationship between new development and the impact fee for funding of these facilities. Trip Demand The need for street improvements is based on the trip demand placed on the system by development. A reasonable measure of demand is the number of average daily vehicle trips, adjusted for the type of trip. Vehicle trip generation rates are a reasonable measure of demand on the City’s system of street improvements across all modes because alternate modes (transit, bicycle, pedestrian) often substitute for vehicle trips. The two types of trips adjustments made to trip generation rates to calculate trip demand are described below:  Pass-by trips are deducted from the trip generation rate. Pass-by trips are intermediates stops between an origin and a final destination that require no diversion from the route, such as stopping to get gas on the way to work.  The trip generation rate is adjusted by the average length of trips for a specific land use category compared to the average length of all trips on the street system. Table 5.1 shows the calculation of trip demand factors by land use category based on the adjustments described above. Data is based on extensive and detailed trip surveys conducted in the San Diego region by the San Diego Association of Governments. The surveys provide one of the most comprehensive databases available of trip generation rates, pass-by trips factors, and average trip length for a wide range of land uses. Though urban development patterns differ between San Diego and the City of Menifee, the use of this data is appropriate as a means of allocating trips across multiple land use categories. It should be noted that the projections of current and future trip generation in this report are based on data specific to the City of Menifee. Table 5.1: Trip Rate Adjustment Factors Primary Trips1 Diverted Trips1 Total Excluding Pass-by1 Average Trip Length2 Adjust- ment Factor3 ITE Category Average Daily Trips4 Trip Demand Factor5 A B C = A + B D E = C x D F G = E x F Residential Single Family 86%11%97%7.9 1.11 Single Family Housing (210)9.52 10.57 Multi-family 86%11%97%7.9 1.11 Apartment (220)6.65 7.38 Accessory Dwelling Unit 86%11%97%7.9 1.11 Single Family Housing (210)6 3.83 4.25 Senior / Assisted Living 86%11%97%7.9 1.11 Senior Adult Housing-Detached (251)3.68 4.08 Nonresidential Commercial / Retail 47%31%78%3.6 0.41 Shopping Center (820)42.70 17.51 Commercial / Service / Office 77%19%96%8.8 1.22 General Office Building (710)11.03 13.46 Industrial / Business Park 79%19%98%9.0 1.28 General Light Industrial (110)6.97 8.92 6 ADU trip rate calculated by multiplying the single family trip rate per person (3.68), by 1.5 residents per ADU. 1 Percent of total trips. Primary trips are trips with no midway stops, or "links". Diverted trips are linked trips whose distance adds at least one mile to the primary trip. Pass- 3 The trip adjustment factor equals the percent of non-pass-by trips multiplied by the average trip length and divided by the systemwide average trip length of 6.9 miles. 4 Trips per dwelling unit or per 1,000 building square feet. 5 The trip demand factor is the product of the trip adjustment factor and the trip rate. Sources: San Diego Association of Governments, Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates for the San Diego Region, April 2002, Institute of Traffic Engineers, Trip Generation, 9th Edition; Willdan Financial Services. 2 In miles. Based on SANDAG data. City of Menifee Development Impact Fee Study Update 25 Trip Growth The planning horizon for this analysis is 2040. Table 5.2 lists the 2017 and 2040 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 Total Trips Land Use Trip Demand Factor Units / 1,000 SF Trips Units / 1,000 SF Trips Units / 1,000 SF Trips Residential Single Family 10.57 29,193 308,570 42,200 446,054 13,007 137,484 Multi-family 7.38 4,114 30,361 5,900 43,542 1,786 13,181 Subtotal 33,307 338,931 48,100 489,596 14,793 150,665 Nonresidential Commercial 17.51 1,500 26,272 3,085 54,010 1,584 27,738 Office 13.46 1,671 22,485 3,434 46,226 1,764 23,741 Industrial 8.92 2,270 20,247 4,666 41,624 2,397 21,377 Subtotal 5,441 69,004 11,185 141,860 5,744 72,856 Total 407,935 631,456 223,521 Share 64.6%100.0%35.4% Sources: Tables 2.1 and 5.1; Willdan Financial Services 2017 2040 Growth 2017 to 2040 Project Costs Cost estimates for roadway capacity projects are summarized in Table 5.3. The City’s traffic engineers provided information regarding the dimensions of each project to be funded by the DIF (segment length, width, need for ROW acquisition, etc.). Willdan Engineering identified unit costs reflecting current costs to build roads in Menifee, including frontage improvements and right of way acquisition. A share of responsibility is allocated to new development, based on new development’s share of trip demand at the planning horizon, as identified in Table 5.2. Certain projects have been conditioned to be built be developers. Those projects are not allocated to this impact fee. In some cases, conditioned projects are small share of a larger segment. In those cases, new development will fund it share of the larger segment. Projects conditioned to be built by developers have been identified and footnoted accordingly in Table 5.3. allocated to new development based on new development’s share of trip demand at the planning horizon, as identified in Table 5.2. Table 5.4 documents the cost of signals included in the impact fee program. Similarly, to the roadway capacity projects, a share of responsibility is allocated to new development, based on new development’s share of trip demand at the planning horizon, as identified in Table 5.2 (35.4%). Note that frontage improvements for all projects funded through the TUMF or road and bridge district benefit fees fee are the responsibility of developers, and not funded through this impact fee. City of Menifee Development Impact Fee Study Update 26 Table 5.3: Traffic Project List Segment From : To Segment Length (FT) ∆ Curb to Curb (FT) Estimated Right-of-Way Cost Estimated Construction Cost Design Cost (10%) Project Management (5%) Construction Management (10%) Total Project Cost Percent Allocated to DIF Net DIF Allocation Antelope Road Craig Ave to Scott Rd 3,460,000$ 35.4%1,224,840$ Antelope Road Mapes Rd to Watson Rd 2,680 50 332,350$ 1,675,000$ 167,500$ 83,750$ 167,500$ 2,426,100 35.4%858,839 Antelope Road Ethanac Rd to McLaughlin Rd 2,592 32 57,050 1,036,800 103,680 51,840 103,680 1,353,050 35.4%478,980 Antelope Road1 McLaughlin Rd to Rouse Rd 2,900 72 - 2,610,000 261,000 130,500 261,000 3,262,500 35.4%1,154,925 Antelope Road Rouse Rd to McCall Blvd 4,200 76 - 3,990,000 399,000 199,500 399,000 4,987,500 35.4%1,765,575 Antelope Road Aldergate Dr to Palm Villa Dr 2,200 14 83,600 385,000 38,500 19,250 38,500 564,850 35.4%199,957 Antelope Road La Piedra Rd to Albion Ln 1,712 5 150,700 107,000 10,700 5,350 10,700 284,450 35.4%100,695 Antelope Road Holland Rd to Craig Ave 2,627 12 388,800 394,100 39,410 19,705 39,410 881,425 35.4%312,024 Barnett Road Ethanac Rd to Patricia Ln 625 44 - 343,800 34,380 17,190 34,380 429,750 35.4%152,132 Barnett Road Patricia Ln to McLaughlin Rd 1,939 72 - 1,745,100 174,510 87,255 174,510 2,181,375 35.4%772,207 Barnett Road McLaughlin Rd to Plum Dr 1,370 43 109,600 736,400 73,640 36,820 73,640 1,030,100 35.4%364,655 Barnett Road Plum Dr to Phyllis Rd 740 41 51,800 379,300 37,930 18,965 37,930 525,925 35.4%186,177 Barnett Road Phyllis Rd to Rouse Rd 567 12 30,650 85,100 8,510 4,255 8,510 137,025 35.4%48,507 Bradley Road Bridge over Salt Creek 10,930,000 35.4%3,869,220 Bradley Road Rio Vista Dr to Park Ave 1,258 8 62,900 125,800 12,580 6,290 12,580 220,150 35.4%77,933 Bradley Road Park Ave to Newport Rd 1,006 28 50,300 352,100 35,210 17,605 35,210 490,425 35.4%173,610 Bradley Road Holland Rd to Coroson Ave 1,324 49 - 811,000 81,100 40,550 81,100 1,013,750 35.4%358,868 Bradley Road Coroson Ave to Craig Ave 1,270 40 83,850 635,000 63,500 31,750 63,500 877,600 35.4%310,670 Bradley Road Craig Ave to Tupelo Rd 1,343 56 48,350 940,100 94,010 47,005 94,010 1,223,475 35.4%433,110 Bradley Road Tupelo Rd to Garbani Rd 698 76 - 663,100 66,310 33,155 66,310 828,875 35.4%293,422 Briggs Road Mapes Rd to Alicante Dr 1,300 23 46,800 373,800 37,380 18,690 37,380 514,050 35.4%181,974 Briggs Road Alicante Dr to Watson Rd 1,325 41 10,600 679,100 67,910 33,955 67,910 859,475 35.4%304,254 Briggs Road Watson Rd to School South 1,415 21 - 371,500 37,150 18,575 37,150 464,375 35.4%164,389 Briggs Road School South to Hwy 74 1,215 42 - 637,900 63,790 31,895 63,790 797,375 35.4%282,271 Briggs Road Hwy 74 to McLaughlin Rd 1,215 22 - 334,200 33,420 16,710 33,420 417,750 35.4%147,884 Briggs Road McLaughlin to Meadow Oaks St 1,825 76 - 1,733,800 173,380 86,690 173,380 2,167,250 35.4%767,207 Briggs Road Meadow Oaks St to Matthews Rd 3,345 43 - 1,798,000 179,800 89,900 179,800 2,247,500 35.4%795,615 Notes: R/W Cost per SF:4.00 Construction Cost per SF:12.50 1 A portion of this project (Airstream to Rouse, ~1,600 linear feet) is conditioned to be built by developers. The DIF will fund new development's fair share of the remainder of the project. Sources: Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Nexus Study 2016 Update, City of Menifee; Willdan Engineering; Willdan Financial Services. City of Menifee Development Impact Fee Study Update 27 Table 5.3: Traffic Project List Segment From : To Segment Length (FT) ∆ Curb to Curb (FT) Estimated Right-of-Way Cost Estimated Construction Cost Design Cost (10%) Project Management (5%) Construction Management (10%) Total Project Cost Percent Allocated to DIF Net DIF Allocation Briggs Road Simpson Rd to N. Olive Ave 2,142 76 - 2,034,900 203,490 101,745 203,490 2,543,625 35.4%900,443 Briggs Road N. Olive Ave to S. Olive Ave 572 76 - 543,400 54,340 27,170 54,340 679,250 35.4%240,455 Briggs Road S. Olive Ave to Domenigoni Pkwy 2,357 76 - 2,239,200 223,920 111,960 223,920 2,799,000 35.4%990,846 Briggs Road Domenigoni Pkwy to Angler Ln 2,080 76 - 1,976,000 197,600 98,800 197,600 2,470,000 35.4%874,380 Briggs Road Angler Ln to Old Newport Rd 1,314 52 - 854,100 85,410 42,705 85,410 1,067,625 35.4%377,939 Briggs Road Scott Rd to Golden J. Ln 2,643 52 50,225 1,718,000 171,800 85,900 171,800 2,197,725 35.4%777,995 Byers Road1 Ethanac Rd to Rosue Rd 5,368 44 - 2,952,400 295,240 147,620 295,240 3,690,500 35.4%1,306,437 Chambers Avenue Valley Bl to Connie Way 750 8 30,000 75,000 7,500 3,750 7,500 123,750 35.4%43,808 Chambers Avenue Connie Way to Murrieta Dr 1,404 44 28,100 386,100 38,610 19,305 38,610 510,725 35.4%180,797 Chambers Avenue I215 to School 1,525 72 - 1,372,500 137,250 68,625 137,250 1,715,625 35.4%607,331 Chambers Avenue School to Sherman Rd 1,035 34 - 439,900 43,990 21,995 43,990 549,875 35.4%194,656 Chambers Avenue Sherman Rd to Chatham Ln 1,968 40 19,700 984,000 98,400 49,200 98,400 1,249,700 35.4%442,394 Chambers Avenue Chatham Ln to Antelope Rd 646 72 - 581,400 58,140 29,070 58,140 726,750 35.4%257,270 Craig Ave Evans Rd to Bradley Rd 2,639 12 - 395,900 39,590 19,795 39,590 494,875 35.4%175,186 Craig Ave Bradley Rd to Linda Lee Dr 2,639 44 - 1,451,500 145,150 72,575 145,150 1,814,375 35.4%642,289 Craig Ave Linda Lee Dr to Pleasant Valley Rd 745 44 - 409,800 40,980 20,490 40,980 512,250 35.4%181,337 Craig Ave Pleasant Valley Rd to Haun Rd 2,316 44 - 1,273,800 127,380 63,690 127,380 1,592,250 35.4%563,657 Encanto Drive McCall to McLaughlin 2,901,000 35.4%1,026,954 Evans Road Ethanac Rd to McLaughlin Rd 2,648 44 - 1,456,400 145,640 72,820 145,640 1,820,500 35.4%644,457 Evans Road McLaughlin Rd to Nova Ln 651 12 - 97,700 9,770 4,885 9,770 122,125 35.4%43,232 Evans Road Nova Ln to Rouse Rd 1,930 44 - 1,061,500 106,150 53,075 106,150 1,326,875 35.4%469,714 Evans Road La Piedra Rd to Holland Rd 2,373 72 - 2,135,700 213,570 106,785 213,570 2,669,625 35.4%945,047 Evans Road Holland Rd to Craig Ave 2,610 39 10,450 1,272,400 127,240 63,620 127,240 1,600,950 35.4%566,736 Evans Road Garbani Rd to Wickerd Rd 2,680 44 - 1,474,000 147,400 73,700 147,400 1,842,500 35.4%652,245 Garbani Rd School East Driveway to Evans Rd 1,136 20 - 284,000 28,400 14,200 28,400 355,000 35.4%125,670 Garbani Rd Daniel Rd to Country Haven Ln 1,799 8 - 179,900 17,990 8,995 17,990 224,875 35.4%79,606 Garbani Rd Country Haven Ln to Bradley Rd 670 44 - 368,500 36,850 18,425 36,850 460,625 35.4%163,061 Garbani Rd Menifee Rd to Briggs Rd 5,267 52 168,550 3,423,600 342,360 171,180 342,360 4,448,050 35.4%1,574,610 Garbani Road I-215 to Menifee 2,328,600 35.4%824,324 Garbani Road I-215 to Bradley 3,864,575 35.4%1,368,060 Goetz Rd Ethanac Rd to Goldenrod Ave 2,667 30 74,700 1,000,200 100,020 50,010 100,020 1,324,950 35.4%469,032 Haun Road Holland Rd to Scott Rd 6,317,000 35.4%2,236,218 Haun Road La Piedra Rd to Holland Rd 2,617 26 - 850,600 85,060 42,530 85,060 1,063,250 35.4%376,391 Haun Road Scott Rd to Shopping Center 1,161 7 83,600 101,600 10,160 5,080 10,160 210,600 35.4%74,552 Haun Road Shopping Center to Annie Cir 2,711 76 70,500 2,575,500 257,550 128,775 257,550 3,289,875 35.4%1,164,616 Haun Road Annie Cir to Keller Rd 1,394 44 80,875 766,700 76,670 38,335 76,670 1,039,250 35.4%367,895 Heritage Lake Drive2 Lindenberger Trd to McCall Blvd 5,618 22 - 1,545,000 154,500 77,250 154,500 1,931,250 0.0%- Heritage Lake Drive2 Lindenberger Trd to Grand Ave 3,172 20 - 793,000 79,300 39,650 79,300 991,250 0.0%- Notes: R/W Cost per SF:4.00 Construction Cost per SF:12.50 1 A portion of this project (Ethanac to Corsica, west half ~3,450 linear feet) is conditioned to be built by developers. The DIF will fund new development's fair share of the remainder of the project. 2 These projects are conditioned to be built by developers. Sources: Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Nexus Study 2016 Update, City of Menifee; Willdan Engineering; Willdan Financial Services. City of Menifee Development Impact Fee Study Update 28 Table 5.3: Traffic Project List Segment From : To Segment Length (FT) ∆ Curb to Curb (FT) Estimated Right-of-Way Cost Estimated Construction Cost Design Cost (10%) Project Management (5%) Construction Management (10%) Total Project Cost Percent Allocated to DIF Net DIF Allocation Heritage Lake Drive1 McCall Blvd to Heritage Lake Dr (N)1,356 76 - 1,288,200 128,820 64,410 128,820 1,610,250 0.0%- Heritage Lake Drive Palomar St to Menifee Rd 2,664 76 - 2,530,800 253,080 126,540 253,080 3,163,500 35.4%1,119,879 Holland Road Anna Ln to Murrieta Rd 2,942 52 423,650 1,912,300 191,230 95,615 191,230 2,814,025 35.4%996,165 Holland Road Hanover Ln to Palomar Rd 1,336 36 - 601,200 60,120 30,060 60,120 751,500 35.4%266,031 Holland Road Holland Rd to Scott Rd 3,416,000 35.4%1,209,264 Holland Road1 Southshore Dr to Briggs Rd 2,664 40 - 1,332,000 133,200 66,600 133,200 1,665,000 0.0%- Howard Way Wickerd Rd to Scott Rd 2,652 44 339,500 1,458,600 145,860 72,930 145,860 2,162,750 35.4%765,614 Howard Way Scott Rd to Ciccotti St 2,641 44 84,600 1,452,600 145,260 72,630 145,260 1,900,350 35.4%672,724 Keller Road Zeiders Rd to I215 1,288 44 - 708,400 70,840 35,420 70,840 885,500 35.4%313,467 La Piedra Rd1 Murrieta Rd to White Fir Dr 1,494 40 - 747,000 74,700 37,350 74,700 933,750 0.0%- La Piedra Rd1 White Fir Dr to Evans Rd 1,306 8 - 130,600 13,060 6,530 13,060 163,250 0.0%- La Piedra Rd1 Evans Rd to Pine Creek Dr 1,452 8 - 145,200 14,520 7,260 14,520 181,500 0.0%- La Piedra Rd Stern Dr to Sherman Rd 1,340 72 - 1,206,000 120,600 60,300 120,600 1,507,500 35.4%533,655 Leon Road Scott Rd to Keller Rd 5,287 46 296,100 3,040,100 304,010 152,005 304,010 4,096,225 35.4%1,450,064 Lindenberger Road Camino De Los Caballos to Obsidian Ct 2,633 28 - 921,600 92,160 46,080 92,160 1,152,000 35.4%407,808 Lindenberger Road Obsidian Ct to Scott Rd 2,072 11 24,900 284,900 28,490 14,245 28,490 381,025 35.4%134,883 Lindenberger Road Chaparral Dr to Cresta Dr 2,343 31 164,050 908,000 90,800 45,400 90,800 1,299,050 35.4%459,864 Lindenberger Road Cresta Dr to Silver Summit Rd 353 8 - 35,300 3,530 1,765 3,530 44,125 35.4%15,620 Lindenberger Road Silver Summit Rd to Trailhead Dr 1,674 38 - 795,200 79,520 39,760 79,520 994,000 35.4%351,876 Lindenberger Road Trailhead Dr to Simpson Rd 600 2 - 15,000 1,500 750 1,500 18,750 35.4%6,638 Notes: R/W Cost per SF:4.00 Construction Cost per SF:12.50 1 These projects are conditioned to be built by developers. Sources: Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Nexus Study 2016 Update, City of Menifee; Willdan Engineering; Willdan Financial Services. City of Menifee Development Impact Fee Study Update 29 Table 5.3: Traffic Project List Segment From : To Segment Length (FT) ∆ Curb to Curb (FT) Estimated Right-of-Way Cost Estimated Construction Cost Design Cost (10%) Project Management (5%) Construction Management (10%) Total Project Cost Percent Allocated to DIF Net DIF Allocation Malaga Road Mapes Rd to Citation Ave 2,020 44 - 1,111,000 111,100 55,550 111,100 1,388,750 35.4%491,618 Malaga Road Citation Ave to Varela Ln 1,970 44 - 1,083,500 108,350 54,175 108,350 1,354,375 35.4%479,449 Malaga Road Varela Ln to Sr 74 1,339 44 - 736,500 73,650 36,825 73,650 920,625 35.4%325,901 Mapes Road Trumble Rd to Sherman Rd 1,310 26 146,750 425,800 42,580 21,290 42,580 679,000 35.4%240,366 Mapes Road Sherman Rd to Dawson Rd 1,305 28 109,650 456,800 45,680 22,840 45,680 680,650 35.4%240,950 Mapes Road Dawson Rd to Menifee Rd 6,680 26 587,850 2,171,000 217,100 108,550 217,100 3,301,600 35.4%1,168,766 Mapes Road Menifee Rd to Briggs Rd 5,358 26 157,200 1,741,400 174,140 87,070 174,140 2,333,950 35.4%826,218 McCall Blvd Valley Blvd to Radford Dr 825 44 82,500 453,800 45,380 22,690 45,380 649,750 35.4%230,012 McLaughlin Rd Goetz Rd to Byers Rd 2,520 72 - 2,268,000 226,800 113,400 226,800 2,835,000 35.4%1,003,590 McLaughlin Rd Byers Rd to Murrieta Rd 2,600 72 10,400 2,340,000 234,000 117,000 234,000 2,935,400 35.4%1,039,132 McLaughlin Rd Murrieta Rd to Hull Rd 1,308 40 5,250 654,000 65,400 32,700 65,400 822,750 35.4%291,254 McLaughlin Rd Hull Rd to Evans Rd 1,326 39 - 646,500 64,650 32,325 64,650 808,125 35.4%286,076 McLaughlin Rd Evans Rd to Barnett Rd 1,330 72 - 1,197,000 119,700 59,850 119,700 1,496,250 35.4%529,673 McLaughlin Rd Encanto Dr to Alta Ave 736 11 - 101,200 10,120 5,060 10,120 126,500 35.4%44,781 McLaughlin Rd Alta Ave to Trumble Rd 510 11 - 70,200 7,020 3,510 7,020 87,750 35.4%31,064 McLaughlin Rd Trumble Rd to Sherman Rd 1,330 44 - 731,500 73,150 36,575 73,150 914,375 35.4%323,689 McLaughlin Rd Sherman Rd to Antelope Rd 2,596 44 - 1,427,800 142,780 71,390 142,780 1,784,750 35.4%631,802 McLaughlin Rd Antelope Rd to Matthews Rd 2,728 44 - 1,500,400 150,040 75,020 150,040 1,875,500 35.4%663,927 McLaughlin Rd Matthews Rd to Menifee Rd 1,255 44 37,080 690,300 69,030 34,515 69,030 899,955 35.4%318,584 McLaughlin Rd1 Menifee Rd to Briggs Rd 5,334 44 - 2,933,700 293,370 146,685 293,370 3,667,125 0.0%- Menifee Rd Mapes Rd to Watson Rd 2,620 86 52,400 2,816,500 281,650 140,825 281,650 3,573,025 35.4%1,264,851 Menifee Rd Watson Rd to SR 74 2,640 86 52,800 2,838,000 283,800 141,900 283,800 3,600,300 35.4%1,274,506 Normandy Road La Ladera Rd to Berea Rd 2,595 14 - 454,200 45,420 22,710 45,420 567,750 35.4%200,984 Palomar Rd Mapes Rd to Watson Rd 2,640 18 - 594,000 59,400 29,700 59,400 742,500 35.4%262,845 Palomar Rd Cider St to SR 74 1,503 14 - 263,100 26,310 13,155 26,310 328,875 35.4%116,422 Palomar Rd Matthews Rd to Rouse Rd 3,556 44 - 1,955,800 195,580 97,790 195,580 2,444,750 35.4%865,442 Palomar Rd Rouse Rd to Heritage Lake Dr 1,352 44 - 743,600 74,360 37,180 74,360 929,500 35.4%329,043 Palomar Rd Holland Rd to Overland Ct 699 12 11,200 104,900 10,490 5,245 10,490 142,325 35.4%50,383 Palomar Rd Craig Ave to Tupelo Rd 1,325 7 47,700 116,000 11,600 5,800 11,600 192,700 35.4%68,216 Palomar Rd Garbani Rd to Scott Rd 5,280 44 - 2,904,000 290,400 145,200 290,400 3,630,000 35.4%1,285,020 Notes: R/W Cost per SF:4.00 Construction Cost per SF:12.50 1 This project is conditioned to be built by developers. Sources: Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Nexus Study 2016 Update, City of Menifee; Willdan Engineering; Willdan Financial Services. City of Menifee Development Impact Fee Study Update 30 Table 5.3: Traffic Project List Segment From : To Segment Length (FT) ∆ Curb to Curb (FT) Estimated Right-of-Way Cost Estimated Construction Cost Design Cost (10%) Project Management (5%) Construction Management (10%) Total Project Cost Percent Allocated to DIF Net DIF Allocation Rouse Road Valley Blvd to Byers Rd 700 76 - 665,000 66,500 33,250 66,500 831,250 35.4%294,263 Rouse Road Byers Rd to Geary St 1,335 37 58,750 617,500 61,750 30,875 61,750 830,625 35.4%294,041 Rouse Road Hull Rd to Barnett Rd 1,425 47 79,800 837,200 83,720 41,860 83,720 1,126,300 35.4%398,710 Rouse Road Encanto Dr to Myles Ct 719 43 66,150 386,500 38,650 19,325 38,650 549,275 35.4%194,443 Rouse Road Myles Ct to Dawson Rd 3,128 40 - 1,564,000 156,400 78,200 156,400 1,955,000 35.4%692,070 Rouse Road Dawson Rd to Antelope Rd 1,539 72 - 1,385,100 138,510 69,255 138,510 1,731,375 35.4%612,907 Rouse Road1 Antelope Rd to Menifee Rd 5,610 76 - 5,329,500 532,950 266,475 532,950 6,661,875 0.0%- Scott/Bundy Canyon2 Briggs Rd to El Centro Ln 4,000 42 106,667 2,100,000 210,000 105,000 210,000 2,731,667 0.0%- Scott/Bundy Canyon2 El Centro Ln to Leon Rd 4,002 100 - 5,002,500 500,250 250,125 500,250 6,253,125 0.0%- Sherman Road Sr 74 to Jackson Ave 280 2 29,200 7,000 700 350 700 37,950 35.4%13,434 Sherman Road Jackson Ave to Harrison Ave 744 22 125,000 204,600 20,460 10,230 20,460 380,750 35.4%134,786 Sherman Road Harrison Ave to Ethanac Rd 1,100 57 127,600 783,800 78,380 39,190 78,380 1,107,350 35.4%392,002 Sherman Road Ethanac Rd to McLaughlin Rd 2,626 76 336,200 2,494,700 249,470 124,735 249,470 3,454,575 35.4%1,222,920 Sherman Road McLaughlin Rd to Airstream Way 1,010 76 40,400 959,500 95,950 47,975 95,950 1,239,775 35.4%438,880 Sherman Road Airstream Way to Vanilla Ct 1,214 43 204,000 652,600 65,260 32,630 65,260 1,019,750 35.4%360,992 Sherman Road Rouse Rd to Chambers Ave 2,692 76 - 2,557,400 255,740 127,870 255,740 3,196,750 35.4%1,131,650 Sherman Road Shadel Rd to McCall Blvd 672 24 69,900 201,600 20,160 10,080 20,160 321,900 35.4%113,953 Sherman Road McCall Blvd to Alta Vista Way 774 12 15,500 116,100 11,610 5,805 11,610 160,625 35.4%56,861 Sherman Road El Molina Viejo to Holland Rd 1,315 10 - 164,400 16,440 8,220 16,440 205,500 35.4%72,747 Sherman Road Craig Ave to Tupelo St 1,312 44 - 721,600 72,160 36,080 72,160 902,000 35.4%319,308 Sherman Road Garbani Rd to Diego Way 1,330 44 - 731,500 73,150 36,575 73,150 914,375 35.4%323,689 Sherman Road Diego Way to Wickerd Rd 1,289 44 - 709,000 70,900 35,450 70,900 886,250 35.4%313,733 Simpson Road Lindenberger Rd to Briggs Rd 1,980 14 - 346,500 34,650 17,325 34,650 433,125 35.4%153,326 Tres Lagos Drive South Shore Dr to Briggs Rd 2,596 72 519,200 2,336,400 233,640 116,820 233,640 3,439,700 35.4%1,217,654 Trumble Road Watson Rd to Illionis Ave 1,335 4 - 66,800 6,680 3,340 6,680 83,500 35.4%29,559 Trumble Road Illionis Ave to Ethanac Rd 1,341 4 - 67,100 6,710 3,355 6,710 83,875 35.4%29,692 Trumble Road Ethanac Rd to McLaughlin Rd 2,658 44 - 730,950 73,095 36,548 73,095 913,688 35.4%323,445 Trumble Road McLaughlin Rd to Almaden Ln 2,195 12 175,600 329,300 32,930 16,465 32,930 587,225 35.4%207,878 Notes: R/W Cost per SF:4.00 Construction Cost per SF:12.50 1 These projects are conditioned to be built by developers. 2 These projects are funded through the Scott Road and Bridge Benefit District. Sources: Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Nexus Study 2016 Update, City of Menifee; Willdan Engineering; Willdan Financial Services. City of Menifee Development Impact Fee Study Update 31 Table 5.3: Traffic Project List Segment From : To Segment Length (FT) ∆ Curb to Curb (FT) Estimated Right-of-Way Cost Estimated Construction Cost Design Cost (10%) Project Management (5%) Construction Management (10%) Total Project Cost Percent Allocated to DIF Net DIF Allocation Valley Blvd1 Goldenrod Ave to Troy Ln 2,357 86 - 2,533,800 253,380 126,690 253,380 3,167,250 0.0%- Valley Blvd2 Troy Ln to Thornton Ave 2,500 86 - 2,687,500 268,750 134,375 268,750 3,359,375 35.4%1,189,219 Valley Blvd Thornton Ave to Chambers Ave 1,320 54 68,650 891,000 89,100 44,550 89,100 1,182,400 35.4%418,570 Valley Blvd Missing Link 1 2,461,120 35.4%871,236 Valley Blvd Missing Link 2 5,606,716 35.4%1,984,777 Watson Road SR 74 to Sherman Rd 600 72 - 540,000 54,000 27,000 54,000 675,000 35.4%238,950 Watson Road Sherman Rd to Antelope Rd 2,623 48 272,800 1,573,800 157,380 78,690 157,380 2,240,050 35.4%792,978 Watson Road Antelope Rd to Palomar Rd 2,693 27 237,000 908,900 90,890 45,445 90,890 1,373,125 35.4%486,086 Watson Road Palomar Rd to Menifee Rd 2,690 43 193,700 1,445,900 144,590 72,295 144,590 2,001,075 35.4%708,381 Watson Road Menifee Rd to Cumming Ave 1,333 48 196,240 799,800 79,980 39,990 79,980 1,195,990 35.4%423,380 Watson Road Cumming Ave to Briggs Rd 4,014 50 295,440 2,508,800 250,880 125,440 250,880 3,431,440 35.4%1,214,730 Wickerd Road Ascot Way to Howard Rd 1,300 44 - 715,000 71,500 35,750 71,500 893,750 35.4%316,388 Wickerd Road Howard Rd to Haun Rd 1,318 14 - 115,350 11,535 5,768 11,535 144,188 35.4%51,042 Wickerd Road Antelope Rd to Haleblain Rd 3,685 44 - 2,026,800 202,680 101,340 202,680 2,533,500 35.4%896,859 Wickerd Road Haleblain Rd to Menifee Rd 1,308 44 - 719,400 71,940 35,970 71,940 899,250 35.4%318,335 Total 7,975,427$ 166,594,900$ 16,659,490$ 8,329,745$ 16,659,490$ 257,504,063$ 80,551,557$ Notes: R/W Cost per SF:4.00 Construction Cost per SF:12.50 1 This project is conditioned to be built by developers. 2 A portion of this project (Troy to Rouse, ~880 linear feet) is conditioned to be built by developers. The DIF will fund new development's fair share of the remainder of the project. Sources: Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Nexus Study 2016 Update, City of Menifee; Willdan Engineering; Willdan Financial Services. City of Menifee Development Impact Fee Study Update 32 Table 5.4: Traffic Signal Project List Estimated Street Name Classification Street Name Classification Cost Antelope Road Major Rouse Road Secondary 350,000$ Antelope Road Secondary Mclaughlin Road Collector 350,000 Antelope Road Major Watson Road Secondary 350,000 Antelope Road Major Wickerd Road Collector 350,000 Antelope Road Major Albion Lane Collector 350,000 Antelope Road Major Chambers Ave Secondary 350,000 Bradley Road Major Garbani Road Major 350,000 Bradley Road Major Rim Creek Path Collector 350,000 Bradley Road Secondary Lazy Creek Road Collector 350,000 Bradley Road Secondary Rio Vista Drive Collector 350,000 Bradley Road Secondary Pebble Beach Drive Collector 350,000 Bradley Road Secondary Cherry Hills Blvd Secondary 350,000 Briggs Road Major Watson Road Secondary 350,000 Briggs Road Major Simpson Road Secondary 350,000 Briggs Road Major Tres Lagos Drive Secondary 350,000 Briggs Road Major Old Newport Road Collector 350,000 Briggs Road Major Grand Ave Collector 350,000 Briggs Road Major Mclaughlin Road Collector 350,000 Bundy Canyon Road Urban Arterial Murrieta Road Arterial 350,000 Bundy Canyon Road Urban Arterial Sunset Ave 350,000 Chambers Ave Secondary Gross Pointe Drive Collector 350,000 Cherry Hills Blvd Secondary Pebble Beach Drive Collector 350,000 Encanto Drive Major Chambers Ave Secondary 350,000 Encanto Drive Major Rouse Road Secondary 350,000 Ethanac Road Expressway Sherman Road Major 350,000 Ethanac Road Expressway Malaga Road Collector 350,000 Ethanac Road Expressway Murrieta Road Arterial 350,000 Ethanac Road Expressway Byers Road Collector 350,000 Ethanac Road Expressway Evans Road Collector 350,000 Evans Road Secondary Bradley Major 350,000 Evans Road Secondary Craig Ave Collector 350,000 Evans Road Secondary Rim Creek Path Collector 350,000 Garbani Road Major Haun Road Major 350,000 Garbani Road Major Palomar Road Collector 350,000 Garbani Road Major Briggs Road Major 350,000 Garbani Road Major Sherman Road Collector 350,000 Garbani Road Collector Evans Road Secondary 350,000 Goetz Road Arterial Mclaughlin Road Secondary 350,000 Goetz Road Major Ave Roble Collector 350,000 Goetz Road Major Vista Way Collector 350,000 Sources: City of Menifee; Table 5.2, Willdan Financial Services. -------------------- Major ---------------------------------------- Minor -------------------- City of Menifee Development Impact Fee Study Update 33 Table 5.4: Traffic Signal Project List Continued Estimated Street Name Classification Street Name Classification Cost Goetz Road Major Unnamed Road Collector 350,000$ Goetz Road Major Juanita Drive Collector 350,000 Goetz Road Major Paseo La Plaza Collector 350,000 Goetz Road Major Kabian Park Collector 350,000 Haun Road Major Holland Road Major 350,000 Haun Road Major Wickerd Road Collector 350,000 Haun Road Major Craig Ave Collector 350,000 HSIP7 Traffic Signal Interconnect West 571,700 HSIP7 Traffic Signal Interconnect East 569,900 Holland Road Major Evans Road Secondary 350,000 Holland Road Major Hanover Lane Collector 350,000 Holland Road Major Pleasant Valley Blvd Collector 350,000 Holland Road Major Sherman Road Collector 350,000 Holland Road Major Palomar Road Collector 350,000 Holland Road Major Briggs Road Major 350,000 Honeyrun Road Secondary La Ladera Road Collector 350,000 Keller Road Major Zeiders Road Major 350,000 La Piedra Road Secondary Sherman Road Collector 350,000 Mapes Road Major Trumble Road Major 350,000 Mapes Road Major Antelope Road Major 350,000 Mapes Road Major Briggs Road Major 350,000 Mapes Road Major Sherman Road Collector 350,000 Mapes Road Major Palomar Road Collector 350,000 Mapes Road Major Malaga Road Collector 350,000 Matthews Road Major Antelope Road Major 350,000 McCall Blvd Urban Arterial Antelope Road Major 350,000 McCall Blvd Urban Arterial Aqua 350,000 McCall Blvd Urban Arterial Oakhurst Major 350,000 McCall Blvd Urban Arterial Hospital Dwy Major 350,000 McCall Blvd Major Gross Pointe Drive Collector 350,000 McCall Blvd Major Pebble Beach Drive Collector 350,000 Mclaughlin Road Secondary Byers Road Collector 350,000 Mclaughlin Road Secondary Murrieta Road Secondary 350,000 Mclaughlin Road Secondary Evans Road Collector 350,000 Mclaughlin Road Secondary Barnett Road Secondary 350,000 Menifee Road Arterial Garbani Road Major 350,000 Menifee Road Arterial Holland Road Major 350,000 Menifee Road Urban Arterial Mclaughlin Road Collector 350,000 Menifee Road Urban Arterial Watson Road Secondary 350,000 Menifee Road Urban Arterial Mapes Road Major 350,000 Menifee Road Arterial La Piedra Road Secondary 350,000 Menifee Road Arterial Wickerd Road Collector 350,000 Menifee Road Arterial Craig Ave Collector 350,000 Murrieta Road Arterial Lazy Creek Road Collector 350,000 Murrieta Road Secondary Sun City Blvd Collector 350,000 Sources: City of Menifee; Table 5.2, Willdan Financial Services. -------------------- Major ---------------------------------------- Minor -------------------- City of Menifee Development Impact Fee Study Update 34 Table 5.4: Traffic Signal Project List Continued Estimated Street Name Classification Street Name Classification Cost Murrieta Road Secondary Chambers Ave Secondary 350,000$ Murrieta Road Secondary Craig Collector 350,000 Murrieta Road Arterial La Piedra Road Secondary 350,000 Murrieta Road Secondary Garbani Major 350,000 Murrieta Road Arterial Holland Road Major 350,000 Murrieta Road Secondary Thornton Ave Collector 350,000 Newport Road Urban Arterial Briggs Road Major 350,000 Rouse Road Major Murrieta Road Secondary 350,000 Rouse Road Major Presley Street Collector 350,000 Rouse Road Major Barnett Road Secondary 350,000 Rouse Road Major Antelope Road Secondary 350,000 Rouse Road Major Palomar Road Collector 350,000 Rouse Road Major Byers Road Collector 350,000 Rouse Road Secondary Trumble Road Collector 350,000 Scott Road Urban Arterial Howard Way Collector 350,000 Scott Road Urban Arterial Haleblain Road Collector 350,000 Scott Road Urban Arterial Palomar Road Collector 350,000 Scott Road Urban Arterial Meritt Road Collector 350,000 Scott Road Urban Arterial Murrieta Road Arterial 581,000 Scott Road Urban Arterial Leon Road Major 350,000 Sherman Road Major Chambers Ave Secondary 350,000 Sherman Road Major Mclaughlin Road Collector 350,000 Sherman Road Major Rouse Road Secondary 350,000 SR 74 Major Watson Road Collector 350,000 Sun City Blvd Secondary Chambers Ave Secondary 350,000 Sun City Blvd Secondary Presley Street Collector 350,000 Tres Lagos Drive Secondary Laguna Vista Drive Collector 350,000 Valley Blvd Arterial Honeyrun Road Secondary 350,000 Valley Blvd Arterial Ridgemoor Road Collector 350,000 Valley Blvd Arterial Sun City Blvd Collector 350,000 Valley Blvd Arterial Mccall Blvd Major 350,000 Valley Blvd Arterial Chambers Ave Secondary 350,000 Valley Blvd Arterial Rouse Road Major 350,000 Valley Blvd Arterial Goetz Road Major 350,000 Valley Blvd Arterial Murrieta Road Arterial 350,000 Valley Blvd Arterial Cherry Hills Blvd Collector 350,000 Sources: City of Menifee; Table 5.2, Willdan Financial Services. -------------------- Major ---------------------------------------- Minor -------------------- City of Menifee Development Impact Fee Study Update 35 Table 5.4: Traffic Signal Project List Continued Estimated Street Name Classification Street Name Classification Cost Valley Blvd Arterial Thorton Ave Collector 350,000$ Watson Road Secondary Palomar Road Collector 350,000 Watson Road Secondary Malaga Road Collector 350,000 Watson Road Secondary Sherman Road Collector 350,000 Total DIF Signal Cost 44,422,600$ Allocation to New Development 35.4% Cost Allocated to New Development 15,725,600$ Sources: City of Menifee; Table 5.2, Willdan Financial Services. -------------------- Major ---------------------------------------- Minor -------------------- Total Costs Allocated to New Development Table 5.5 summarizes the total cost of circulation projects allocated to new development. In total, this impact fee will fund $96.3 million in circulation projects to serve new development in Menifee through 2040. Table 5.5: Allocation to New Development Project Type Traffic Project Allocation To New Development 80,551,557$ Signals Allocated To New Development 15,725,600 Total Cost Allocated to New Development 96,277,157$ Source: Tables 5.3 and 5.4. 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 ($/unit) and employment space ($/1,000 square feet) by multiplying the cost per trip by the trip generation rate for each land use category. These amounts become the fee schedule. Table 5.6 calculates the cost the cost per trip by dividing the total project costs attributable to new development summarized in Table 5.5, by the total growth in trips calculated in Table 5.2. City of Menifee Development Impact Fee Study Update 36 Table 5.6: Cost per Trip to Accommodate Growth Net Cost of Projects Allocated to New Development 96,277,157$ Growth in Daily Trips 223,521 Cost per Trip 431$ Sources: Tables 5.2 and 5.5; Willdan Financial Services. Fee Schedule Table 5.7 shows the proposed circulation facilities fee schedule. The proposed fees are based on the costs per trip shown in Table 5.6. 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 total fee includes a two and a half percent (2.5%) 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, two and a half percent of the base fee adequately covers the cost of fee program administration. It should be reviewed and adjusted during comprehensive impact fee updates to ensure that revenue generated from the charge sufficiently covers, but does not exceed, the administrative costs associated with the fee program. Table 5.7: Circulation Facilities Impact Fee A B C = A x B D = C x 2.5%E = C + D E / 1,000 Trip Land Use Cost Per Trip Demand Factor Base Fee1 Admin Charge1, 2 Total Fee1 Fee per Sq. Ft. Residential Single Family 431$ 10.57 4,556$ 114$ 4,670$ Multi-family 431 7.38 3,181 80 3,261 Accessory Dwelling Unit 431 4.25 1,832 46 1,878 Senior / Assisted Living 431 4.08 1,758 44 1,802 Nonresidential Commercial / Retail 431$ 17.51 7,547$ 189$ 7,736$ 7.74$ Commercial / Service / Office 431 13.46 5,801 145 5,946 5.95 Industrial / Business Park 431 8.92 3,845 96 3,941 3.94 Sources: Tables 5.1 and 5.6; Willdan Financial Services. 1 Persons per dwelling unit or per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential. 2 Administrative charge of 2.5 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. 37 6. Storm Drain Facilities This chapter summarizes an analysis of the need for storm drain facilities to accommodate growth within the City of Menifee. This projects and associated costs in this chapter were identified by City staff. This chapter documents a reasonable relationship between new development and a storm drain fee to fund storm drain facilities that serve new development. Storm Drain Demand Most new development generates storm water runoff that must be controlled through storm drain facilities by increasing the amount of land that is impervious to precipitation. Table 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 the Riverside County Flood Control Hydrology Manual. Table 6.1: Equivalent Dwelling Units DU or KSF per acre1 Impervious Surface Coefficient Equivalent Dwelling Unit (EDU)2 Residential Single Family 6.00 0.50 1.00 Multi-Family 14.10 0.65 0.55 Accessory Dwelling Unit 20.00 0.80 0.48 Nonresidential Commercial / Retail 15.25 0.90 0.71 Commercial / Service / Office 43.56 0.90 0.25 Industrial / Business Park 26.14 0.90 0.41 1 Dwelling units for residential and thousand building square feet for non-residential. Density based on estimated development and acreage for each land use type in the City's land use element. Nonresidential densities are based on maximum floor-area- ratios of 0.35 for commercial/retail, 1.0 for commercial/office and 0.6 industrial/business park. 2 EDUs per dwelling unit for residential development and per thousand square feet for nonresidential development. Sources: City of Menifee General Plan Land Use Element, Exhibit LU-3; Plate D-5.6 from the Riverside County Flood Control Hydrology Manual; Willdan Financial Services. EDU Generation by New Development Projects identified later in this chapter will only serve two distinct areas of the City: the Master drainage Plan South Area (MDP South) and the Encanto Drive Benefit Area. Figure 1 displays the various storm drain zones in the City. Legend County Fee Zone Boundaries MDP South Benefit Zone Encanto Drive Zone Salt Creek Channel Zone No Fee Zone Murrieta Creek Warm Springs Valley Zone Homeland / Romoland Line A - Zone Figure 1: Menifee Storm Drain Fee Zones City of Menifee Development Impact Fee Study Update 39 Table 6.2 shows estimates of existing development and projected growth in dwelling units and 1,000 square feet of nonresidential land uses for the MDP South and the Encanto Drive benefit areas. The projection is based on full buildout of all undeveloped properties within the benefit areas, since all properties within those areas will benefit from the improvements. The growth in units and square feet is multiplied by the EDU factors from Table 6.1 to determine the growth in EDUs. EDU Factor1 Units or KSF EDUs Units or KSF EDUs Units or KSF EDUs MDP South Benefit Area Residential Single Family 1.00 5,129 5,129 6,333 6,333 1,204 1,204 Multi-Family 0.55 - - 779 428 779 428 Subtotal 5,129 5,129 7,112 6,761 1,983 1,632 Nonresidential Commercial / Retail 0.71 810 575 1,405 998 595 422 Commercial / Service / Office 0.25 - - - - - - Industrial / Business Park 0.41 2,131 874 20,841 8,545 18,710 7,671 Subtotal 2,941 1,449 22,246 9,543 19,305 8,093 Total 6,578 16,304 9,726 Share 40.3%100.0%59.7% Encanto Drive Benefit Area Residential Single Family 1.00 312 312 1,523 1,523 1,211 1,211 Multi-Family 0.55 607 334 786 432 179 98 Subtotal 919 646 2,309 1,955 1,390 1,309 Nonresidential Commercial / Retail 0.71 290 206 954 677 664 471 Commercial / Service / Office 0.25 354 89 738 185 384 96 Industrial / Business Park 0.41 23 9 1,899 779 1,876 769 Subtotal 667 304 3,591 1,641 2,924 1,336 Total 950 3,596 2,645 Share 26.4%100.0%73.6% 1 Per dwelling unit (residential) or thousand building square feet (nonresidential). Sources: Table 2.1 and 6.1; Willdan Financial Services 2 Existing and projected dwelling units and building square feet estimated based on GIS analysis of developed and vacant parcels and General Plan zoning density assumptions. General Plan land use layer provided by the City of Menifee. Table 6.2: Storm Drain Facilities Equivalent Dwelling Units 2017 2040 Growth 2017 to 2040 Planned Facilities City staff identified storm drainage projects that are needed as a result of projected growth in Menifee. Table 6.3 summarizes the storm drainage projects that will serve development within each benefit area. The cost of the facilities listed in these tables is the basis for the storm drainage impact fee for new development in the City. Since new development and existing development will both benefit from the planned facilities, new development will fund its proportional share of facility costs, as identified in Table 6.2 for each of the benefit areas. City of Menifee Development Impact Fee Study Update 40 Table 6.3: Total Cost of Facilities Needed to Serve New Development Description Total Cost Allocation to New Development Costs Allocated to New Development Menifee MDP South - Storm Drainage Line A 2,063,590$ 59.7%1,230,959$ Menifee MDP South - Storm Drainage Line B 8,976,725 59.7%5,354,734 Menifee MDP South - Storm Drainage Line Lateral 8-1 769,415 59.7%458,966 Menifee MDP South - Storm Drainage Line Lateral 8-2 5,390,695 59.7%3,215,620 Menifee MDP South - Storm Drainage line C 8,751,785 59.7%5,220,555 Menifee MDP South - Storm Drainage line Lateral C-11 4,082,000 59.7%2,434,967 Menifee MDP South - Storm Drainage line Lateral C-2 3,699,702 59.7%2,206,921 Menifee MDP South - Storm Drainage line Lateral C-3 1,296,048 59.7%773,110 Menifee MDP South - Minor Storm Drainage Improvements 1,005,000 59.7%599,496 Relocation of Utilities Conflicting With Storm Projects 502,500 59.7%299,748 Total - MDP South 36,537,460$ 21,795,074$ Encanto Drive - Alternative 1 - Jack & Bore Under 215 Fwy2 3,652,200$ 73.6%2,686,337$ Sources: City of Menifee, Table 6.2, Willdan Financial Services. 1 Prorated for share within City boundaries. 2 Includes 20% contingency costs. Cost per Equivalent Dwelling Unit This chapter uses the planned facilities approach to calculate the storm drainage cost standard. The cost of planned facilities allocated to new development is divided by the growth in EDUs to determine a cost standard per EDU for each benefit area. Table 6.4 shows the facility cost standard for storm drain facilities for each benefit area. MDP South Benefit Area Net Cost of Planned Facilities for New Development 21,795,074$ Growth in EDUs 9,726 Cost per EDU 2,241$ Encanto Drive Benefit Area Net Cost of Planned Facilities for New Development 2,686,337$ Growth in EDUs 2,645 Cost per EDU 1,016$ Sources: Tables 6.2 and 6.3; Willdan Financial Services. Table 6.4: Storm Drain Planned Facility Standard City of Menifee Development Impact Fee Study Update 41 Fee Schedule The maximum justified fee for storm drain facilities in the MDP South and Encanto Drive Benefit areas, respectively, is shown in Table 6.5. 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 two and a half percent (2.5%) 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, two and a half percent of the base fee adequately covers the cost of fee program administration. It should be reviewed and adjusted during comprehensive impact fee updates to ensure that revenue generated from the charge sufficiently covers, but does not exceed, the administrative costs associated with the fee program. Table 6.5: Storm Drainage Facilities Impact Fee A B C = A x B D = C x 0.25 E = C + D E / 1,000 Cost Per EDU EDU Factor Base Fee1 Admin Charge1, 2 Total Fee1 Fee per Sq. Ft. MDP South Benefit Area Residential Single Family 2,241$ 1.00 2,241$ 45$ 2,286$ Multi-family 2,241 0.55 1,233 25 1,258 Accessory Dwelling Unit 2,241 0.55 1,233 25 1,258 Senior / Assisted Living 2,241 0.55 1,233 25 1,258 Nonresidential Commercial / Retail 2,241$ 0.71 1,591$ 32$ 1,623$ 1.623$ Commercial / Service / Office 2,241 0.25 560 11 571 0.571 Industrial / Business Park 2,241 0.41 919 18 937 0.937 Encanto Drive Benefit Area Residential Single Family 1,016$ 1.00 1,016$ 20$ 1,036$ Multi-family 1,016 0.55 559 11 570 Accessory Dwelling Unit 1,016 0.55 559 11 570 Senior / Assisted Living 1,016 0.55 559 11 570 Nonresidential Commercial / Retail 1,016$ 0.71 721$ 14$ 735$ 0.735$ Commercial / Service / Office 1,016 0.25 254 5 259 0.259 Industrial / Business Park 1,016 0.41 417 8 425 0.425 Sources: Tables 6.1 and 6.4; Willdan Financial Services. 1 Persons per dwelling unit or per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential. 2 Administrative charge of 2.0 percent for (1) legal, accounting, and other administrative support and (2) impact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses. 42 7. Animal Shelter Facilities The purpose of the fee is to ensure that new development funds its fair share of animal shelter facilities. A fee schedule is presented based on the planned facilities standard of animal shelter facilities in the City of Menifee to ensure that new development provides adequate funding to meet its needs. Service Population Animal shelter 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 7.1 shows the existing and future projected service population for animal shelter facilities. While specific data is not available to estimate the actual ratio of demand per resident to demand by businesses (per worker) for this service, it is reasonable to assume that demand for these services is less for one employee compared to one resident, because nonresidential buildings are typically occupied less intensively than dwelling units. The 0.31-weighting factor for workers is based on a 40-hour workweek divided by the total number of non-work hours in a week (128) and reflects the degree to which nonresidential development yields a lesser demand for animal shelter facilities. Table 7.1: Animal Services Facilities Service Population A B C = A + (B x 0.31) Residents Workers Service Population Existing (2017)90,472 11,431 94,000 New Development (2017-2040)30,628 12,069 34,400 Total (2040)121,100 23,500 128,400 Weighting factor1 1.00 0.31 Source: Table 2.1; Willdan Financial Services. 1 Workers are weighted at 0.31 of residents based on a 40 hour work week out of a possible 128 non-work hours in a week (40/128 = 0.31) Facility Inventories and Standards Table 7.2 summarizes the cost of the planned animal services facility needed to serve the City through 2040. The City plans a major upgrade to its construct a new animal services building, vehicles and equipment. This analysis assumes a total cost of $6.5 million in animal services facilities to serve existing and new development. City of Menifee Development Impact Fee Study Update 43 Table 7.2: Planned Animal Shelter Facilities No.Description Value AC-001 Animal Care And Control Facilities 6,213,445$ AC-002 Animal Care And Control Response Vehicles 200,000 AC-003 Animal Care And Control Specialty Equipment 65,000 Total Cost of Planned Facilities 6,478,445$ Source: City of Menifee; Willdan Financial Services. Cost Allocation Table 7.3 shows new development’s projected per capita investment in animal services facilities at the planning horizon. This value is calculated by dividing cost of existing and planned facilities by the service population at the planning horizon. The value per capita is multiplied by the worker weighting factor of 0.31 to determine the value per worker. Table 7.3: Animal Shelter Facilities System Standard Value of Existing Facilities -$ Cost of Planned Facilities 6,478,445 Total System Value (2040)6,478,445$ Future Service Population (2040)128,400 Cost Allocation per Resident 50$ Cost Allocation per Worker 16 Sources: Tables 7.1 and 7.2; Willdan Financial Services. Fee Schedule Table 7.4 shows the proposed animal shelter fee schedule. The cost per capita is converted to a fee per unit of new development based on dwelling unit and employment densities (persons per dwelling unit or employees per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential building space). The total fee includes a two and a half percent (2.5%) administrative charge to fund costs that include: a standard overhead charge applied to City programs for legal, accounting, and other departmental and administrative support, and fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting and mandated public reporting. In Willdan’s experience with impact fee programs, two and a half percent of the base fee adequately covers the cost of fee program administration. It should be reviewed and adjusted during comprehensive impact fee updates to ensure that revenue generated from the charge sufficiently covers, but does not exceed, the administrative costs associated with the fee program. City of Menifee Development Impact Fee Study Update 44 Table 7.4: Animal Shelter Facilities Fee - System Standard A B C = A x B D = C x 2.5%E = C + D F = E / 1,000 Cost Per Admin Fee per Land Use Capita Density1 Base Fee Charge2 Total Fee Sq. Ft. Residential Single Family 50$ 2.88 144$ 4$ 148$ Multi-family 50 2.12 106 3 109 Accessory Dwelling Unit 50 1.50 75 2 77 Senior / Assisted Living 50 1.12 56 1 57 Nonresidential Commercial / Retail 50$ 2.39 120$ 3$ 123$ 0.12$ Commercial / Service / Office 50 3.12 156 4 160 0.16 Industrial / Business Park 50 1.16 58 1 59 0.06 Sources: Tables 2.2 and 7.3. 2 Administrative charge of 2.5 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 1 Persons per dwelling unit or per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential. Fee Revenue Projection The City plans to use animal shelter facilities fee revenue to construct improvements to add to the system of animal shelter facilities to serve new development. Table 7.5 details a projection of fee revenue, based on the service population growth increment identified in Table 7.1. The City will have to identify $4.8 million worth of additional animal shelter facilities in order to ensure that the existing standard is maintained through the planning horizon. Table 7.5: Animal Shelter Facilities Impact Fee Revenue Cost per Resident 50$ Growth in Service Population 34,400 Projected Impact Fee Revenue 1,720,000$ Total Cost of Planned Facilities 6,478,445$ (Less: Fee Revenue)1,720,000 Funding Required From Other Sources 4,758,445$ Sources: Tables 7.1 and 7.3; Willdan Financial Services. 45 8. General Government Facilities The purpose of the fee is to ensure that new development funds its fair share of general government facilities. A fee schedule is presented based on the planned facilities standard of general government facilities in the City of Menifee to ensure that new development provides adequate funding to meet its needs. 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 8.1 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. The 0.31-weighting factor for workers is based on a 40-hour workweek divided by the total number of non-work hours in a week (128) and reflects the degree to which nonresidential development yields a lesser demand for general government facilities. Table 8.1: General Government Facilties Service Population A B C = A + (B x 0.31) Residents Workers Service Population Existing (2017)90,472 11,431 94,000 New Development (2017-2040)30,628 12,069 34,400 Total (2040)121,100 23,500 128,400 Weighting factor1 1.00 0.31 Source: Table 2.1; Willdan Financial Services. 1 Workers are weighted at 0.31 of residents based on a 40 hour work week out of a possible 128 non-work hours in a week (40/128 = 0.31) Facility Inventories and Standards This section describes the City’s general government facility inventory and facility standards. Existing Inventory This study uses the system standard methodology to calculate fees for general government facilities. The general government inventory is inly comprised of vehicles and equipment at this time. The total value of the inventory is summarized in Table 8.2. Detail can be found in Appendix Table A.1. City of Menifee Development Impact Fee Study Update 46 Table 8.2: General Government Facilities Inventory Description Total Value Vehicles and Equipment (Appendix Table A.1)692,525$ Source: Appendix Table A.1. Planned Facilities Table 8.3 summarizes the planned general government facilities needed to serve the City through 2040, as identified by the City. The City plans to construct a new city hall, an emergency operations center and a corporation yard. The City also plans to expand its fleet of general government and public works vehicles. New facilities costs are estimated to total approximately $43.8 million through 2040. City of Menifee Development Impact Fee Study Update 47 DIF No.Project Name Quantity Unit Cost 2016 Total Project Cost Public Facilities GF-001 City Hall / EOC Facility 28,886,080$ GF-002 Electronic Systems Capacity/Capabilities Expansion 1,250,000 GF-003 Public Works Corporation Yard 10,000,000 Paloma Wash Pedestrian Bridge 500,000 Subtotal 40,636,080$ Vehicles F-450 Diesel 4x4 Dually Flatbed (PW)1 60,000$ 60,000$ F-250 Gas 4x4 Supercab Service Body (PW)7 45,000 315,000 F-250 Gas 4x4 Reg (PW Supervisor)1 40,000 40,000 F-250 Gas 4x4 Supercab Service Body (Parks)5 45,000 225,000 F-250 Gas 4x4 Reg (Parks Supervisor)1 40,000 40,000 F-150 Gas 4x4 Supercab (Inspector)3 35,000 105,000 Hybird SUV 1 55,000 55,000 Hybrid Pool Car 1 30,000 30,000 F-150 Gas 4x4 Crewcab 1 35,000 35,000 Subtotal 21 905,000$ Equipment Road Motor Crader 1 300,000$ 300,000$ Asphalt Patch Truck 1 220,000 220,000 Asphalt Roller 1 50,000 50,000 Asphalt Crack Sealer 1 50,000 50,000 Water Truck 1 120,000 120,000 Water Buffalo Trailer 1 10,000 10,000 Diesel Dump Truck (5-7 CY)1 150,000 150,000 Diesel Dump Truck (3-4 CY)1 120,000 120,000 Skip Loader 1 140,000 140,000 Backhoe 1 150,000 150,000 Bobcat Skip-Steer 1 75,000 75,000 Attachments 5 6,000 30,000 Bobcat Mini Excavator 1 55,000 55,000 Towable Air Compressors + Tools 1 30,000 30,000 Towable Light Towers 2 20,000 40,000 Cement Bullet Mixer 1 10,000 10,000 Street Sweeper 1 285,000 285,000 Bucket Truck 1 100,000 100,000 Wood Chipper and Box Truck 1 80,000 80,000 Herdicide Spray Trailer 1 15,000 15,000 Paint Striper Truck 1 125,000 125,000 Pressure Washer 1 20,000 20,000 Trailer - Tilt Heavy Equipment 1 8,000 8,000 Trailer - Heavy Equipment 1 10,000 10,000 Trailer - Small Equipment 1 4,000 4,000 Trailer - Emergency Road Closure Equipment 1 7,000 7,000 Trailer - Dump 1 10,000 10,000 Subtotal 2,214,000$ Total Cost of Planned Facilities 43,755,080$ Sources: City of Menifee; Willdan Financial Services. Table 8.3: Planned General Governments City of Menifee Development Impact Fee Study Update 48 Cost Allocation Table 8.4 shows new development’s projected per capita investment in general government facilities at the planning horizon. This value is calculated by dividing cost of existing and planned facilities by the service population at the planning horizon. The value per capita is multiplied by the worker weighting factor of 0.31 to determine the value per worker. Table 8.4: General Government Facilities System Standard Value of Existing Facilities 692,525$ Net Value of Planned Facilities 43,755,080 Total System Value (2040)44,447,605$ Future Service Population (2040)128,400 Cost per Capita 346$ Facility Standard per Resident 346$ Facility Standard per Worker1 107 1 Based on a weighing factor of 0.31. Sources: Tables 8.1 and 8.2, Willdan Financial Services. Fee Schedule Table 8.5 shows the proposed general government fee schedule. The cost per capita is converted to a fee per unit of new development based on dwelling unit and employment densities (persons per dwelling unit or employees per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential building space). The total fee includes a two and a half percent (2.5%) administrative charge to fund costs that include: a standard overhead charge applied to City programs for legal, accounting, and other departmental and administrative support, and fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting and mandated public reporting. In Willdan’s experience with impact fee programs, two and a half percent of the base fee adequately covers the cost of fee program administration. It should be reviewed and adjusted during comprehensive impact fee updates to ensure that revenue generated from the charge sufficiently covers, but does not exceed, the administrative costs associated with the fee program. City of Menifee Development Impact Fee Study Update 49 Table 8.5: General Government Facilities Fee - System Standard A B C = A x B D = C x 2.5%E = C + D E / 1,000 Cost Per Admin Fee per Land Use Capita Density Base Fee1 Charge1, 2 Total Fee1 Sq. Ft. Residential Single Family Unit 346$ 2.88 996$ 25$ 1,021$ Multi-family Unit 346 2.12 734 18 752 Accessory Dwelling Unit 346 1.50 519 13 532 Senior / Assisted Living 346 1.12 388 10 398 Nonresidential Commercial / Retail 107$ 2.39 256$ 6$ 262$ 0.26$ Commercial / Service / Office 107 3.12 334 8 342 0.34 Industrial / Business Park 107 1.16 124 3 127 0.13 1 Fee per dwelling unit (residential) or per 1,000 square feet (nonresidential). Sources: Tables 2.2 and 8.4; Willdan Financial Services 2 Administrative charge of 2.5 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. Fee Revenue Projection The City plans to use general government facilities fee revenue to construct improvements to add to the system of administrative and public works facilities to serve new development. Table 8.6 details a projection of fee revenue, based on the service population growth increment identified in Table 8.1. The City will have to identify $27.6 million worth of general government to fund existing development’s share of the planned facilities through the planning horizon. Table 8.6: Revenue Projection - System Standard Cost per Capita 346$ Growth in Service Population (2017- 2040)34,400 Fee Revenue 11,902,000$ Cost of Planned Facilities 43,755,080$ (Less: Fee Revenue)11,902,000 (Less: Existing Fund Balances 4,283,553 Non-Fee Revenue to Be Identified 27,569,527$ Sources: Tables 8.1, 8.3 and 8.8. 50 9. Public Use Facilities The following chapter documents the nexus analysis, demonstrating the need for new public use and community center facilities demanded by new development. Service Population Public use facilities in Menifee primarily serve residents. Therefore, demand for services and associated facilities is based on the City’s residential population. Table 9.1 shows the existing and future projected service population for public use facilities. Residents Existing Service Population (2017)90,472 New Development (2017-2040)30,628 Total (2040)121,100 Source: Table 2.1; Willdan Financial Services. Table 9.1: Public Use Facilties Service Population Existing Public Use Facilities Inventory The City of Menifee maintains two public use and community center facilities. Table 9.2 summarizes the City’s existing public use and community center facilities inventory. All facilities are located within the City limits. In total, the City owns approximately $4.7 million in public use and community center facilities. Table 9.2: Public Use Facilities Inventory Description Quantity Units Unit Cost Total Value Lazy Creek Recreation Center 1,750 Sq. Ft.300$ 525,000$ Kay Ceniceros Senior Center 13,824 Sq. Ft.300 4,147,200 Total Value - Public Meeting Facilities 15,574 Sq. Ft.4,672,200$ Sources: City of Menifee; Willdan Financial Services. Cost Allocation Table 9.3 calculates the existing cost per capita facility standard by dividing the value of the existing facilities inventory by the existing service population. The resulting cost per capita is the basis of the impact fee. Funding facilities at this level will ensure that as development occurs, new development will contribute to public use center facilities at the same standard that existing development has contributed thus far. By definition, using the existing standard methodology does not result in existing deficiencies. City of Menifee Development Impact Fee Study Update 51 Table 9.3: Public Use Facilities Existing Standard Value of Existing Facilities 4,672,200$ Existing Service Population 90,472 Cost per Capita 52$ Facility Standard per Resident 52$ Sources: Tables 9.1 and 9.2, Willdan Financial Services. Fee Schedule Table 9.4 shows the proposed public use facilities fee schedule. The cost per capita is converted to a fee per unit of new development based on dwelling unit densities (persons per dwelling). The total fee includes a two and a half-percent (2.5%) administrative charge to fund costs that include: a standard overhead charge applied to City programs for legal, accounting, and other departmental and administrative support, and fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting and mandated public reporting. In Willdan’s experience with impact fee programs, two and a half-percent of the base fee adequately covers the cost of fee program administration. It should be reviewed and adjusted during comprehensive impact fee updates to ensure that revenue generated from the charge sufficiently covers, but does not exceed, the administrative costs associated with the fee program. Table 9.4: Public Use Facilities Fee - Existing Standard A B C = A x B D = C x 2.5%E = C + D Cost Per Admin Land Use Capita Density Base Fee1 Charge1, 2 Total Fee1 Residential Single Family Unit 52$ 2.88 150$ 4$ 154$ Multi-family Unit 52 2.12 110 3 113 Accessory Dwelling Unit 52 1.50 78 2 80 Senior / Assisted Living 52 1.12 58 1 59 1 Fee per dwelling unit (residential) or per 1,000 square feet (nonresidential). Sources: Tables 2.2 and 9.3; Willdan Financial Services 2 Administrative charge of 2.5 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. Fee Revenue Projection The City plans to use public use and community center facilities fee revenue to construct improvements to add to the system of public use and community center facilities that serves new development. Table 9.5 details a projection of fee revenue, based on the service population growth increment identified in Table 9.1. City of Menifee Development Impact Fee Study Update 52 Table 9.5: Revenue Projection - Existing Standard Cost per Capita 52$ Growth in Service Population (2017- 2040)30,628 Fee Revenue 1,593,000$ Sources: Tables 9.1 and 9.3. 53 10. Parks and Recreation Facilities The purpose of the parkland and park facilities impact fee is to fund the park facilities needed to serve new development. The maximum justified impact fee is presented based on the existing plan standard of parkland and park facilities per capita. Service Population Park and recreation facilities in Menifee primarily serve residents. Therefore, demand for services and associated facilities is based on the City’s residential population. Table 10.1 shows the existing and future projected service population for park and recreation facilities. Table 10.1: Parks Service Population Residents Existing (2017)90,472 Growth (2017 - 2040)30,628 Total (2040)121,100 Source: Table 2.1. Existing Parkland and Park Facilities Inventory The City of Menifee maintains several park and recreation facilities throughout the city. Table 10.2 summarizes the City’s existing parkland inventory in 2017. All facilities are located within the City limits. In total, the inventory includes a total of 47.83 acres of developed parkland. Table 10.2: Park Land Inventory Name Acreage Audie Murphy Ranch Sports Park 11.29 E.L. Peterson Park 4.81 La Ladera Park 8.30 Lazy Creek Park & Recreation Center 3.36 Lyle Marsh Park 6.07 Nova Park 3.35 Rancho Ramona Park 1.87 Spirit Park 8.78 Total - Parkland 47.83 Source: City of Menifee. City of Menifee Development Impact Fee Study Update 54 Parkland and Park Facilities Unit Costs Table 10.3 displays the unit costs necessary to develop parkland in Menifee. The City estimates that it costs $400,000 per acre to develop an acre of parkland in Menifee. A value of $131,000 per acre for land is also included, and is consistent with other land assumptions used in this analysis. In total, this analysis assumes that it costs $531,000 to acquire and develop an acre of parkland in Menifee. Table 10.3: Park Facilities Unit Costs Cost Per Acre Share of Total Costs Land Acquisition 131,000$ 25% Improvements 400,000 75% Total Cost per Acre 531,000$ 100% Sources: City of Menifee; Loopnet.com; Willdan Financial Services. 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 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.1 In this case, land acquisition fees calculated in this report are applicable to development not subject to the Quimby Act. Development subject to Quimby will dedicate land, or pay fees in lieu of dedication under the City’s existing Quimby ordinance. Development subject to Quimby will not have to pay the fee in this analysis for land dedication, but will still be responsible for the park improvement portion of these fees. 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.2 A simple and clearly defensible approach to calculating a facility standard is to use the City’s existing ratio of park acreage per 1,000 residents. Under this approach, new development is required to fund new parkland and park facilities at the same level as existing residents have provided those same types of facilities to date. City of Menifee Parkland and Park Facilities Standards Table 10.4 shows the existing standard for improved park acreage per 1,000 residents based on the type of parkland. In total the City has an existing parkland standard of 0.56 acres per 1,000 residents. The fee 1 California Government Code §66477. 2 See the Benefit and Burden findings in Background Report. City of Menifee Development Impact Fee Study Update 55 analysis in this report will be based on maintaining a 0.56 acre per 1,000 service population standard as new development adds demand for parks in Menifee. Table 10.4: Existing Parkland Standard Total Park Acreage 47.83 Equivalent Fund Balance1 3.06 Total Park Acreage 50.89 Service Population (2017)90,472 Existing Standard (Acres per 1,000 Residents)0.56 Sources: Tables 10.1 and 10.2; Willdan Financial Services. 1 Fund balance of $1,623,655 divided by cost per park acre of $531,000 = 2.71 equivalent acres. Facilities Needed to Accommodate New Development Table 10.5 shows the park facilities needed to accommodate new development at the existing standard. To maintain the standard by the planning horizon new development must fund the purchase and improvement of 17.15 parkland acres, at a total cost of $9.1 million. Table 10.5: Park Facilities to Accommodate New Development Land Improvements Total Facility Needs Facility Standard (acres/1,000 capita)A 0.56 0.56 0.56 Service Population Growth (2017-2040)B 30,628 30,628 30,628 Facility Needs (acres)C =(B/1,000) x A 17.15 17.15 17.15 Parkland Average Unit Cost (per acre)D 131,000$ 400,000$ 531,000$ Total Cost of Facilities E = C x D 2,246,650$ 6,860,000$ 9,106,650$ Note: Totals have been rounded to the thousands. Sources: Tables 10.1, 10.3, and 10.4; Willdan Financial Services. Parks Cost per Capita Table 10.6 shows the cost per capita of providing new parkland and park facilities at the existing facility standard. The cost per capita is shown separately for land and improvements. First, the per acre unit costs are multiplied by the acreage standards to determine the total amount of costs needed to serve City of Menifee Development Impact Fee Study Update 56 1,000 residents for each type of parkland, respectively. Then, those costs are divided by 1,000 to determine the cost needed to serve one resident. Table 10.6: Park Facilities Investment Per Capita Land Improvements Total Parkland Investment (per acre)131,000$ 400,000$ 531,000$ Facility Standard (acres per 1,000 capita)0.56 0.56 0.56 Total Investment Per 1,000 capita 73,000$ 224,000$ 297,000$ 1,000 1,000 1,000 Investment Per Capita 73$ 224$ 297$ Sources: Tables 10.3, and 10.5; Willdan Financial Services. 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 In order to calculate fees by land use type, the investment in park facilities is determined on a per resident basis for both land acquisition and improvements. These investment factors (shown in Table 10.6) are investment per capita based on the unit cost estimates and facility standards. Tables 10.7 shows the park facilities fees for land and improvements based on the existing standard. The investment per capita is converted to a fee per dwelling unit based on the occupancy density factors in Table 2.2. The total fee includes an 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 and mandated public reporting. City of Menifee Development Impact Fee Study Update 57 Table 10.7: Park and Recreation Facilities Impact Fee A B C = A x B D = C x 2.5%E = C + D Cost Per Base Admin Land Use Capita Density Fee1 Charge1, 2 Total Fee1 Residential - Mitigation Fee Act - Land Single Family 73$ 2.88 210$ 5$ 215$ Multifamily 73 2.12 155 4 159 Accessory Dwelling Unit 73 1.50 110 3 113 Senior / Assisted Living 73 1.12 82 2 84 Residential - Mitigation Fee Act - Improvements Single Family 224$ 2.88 645$ 16$ 661$ Multifamily 224 2.12 475 12 487 Accessory Dwelling Unit 224 1.50 336 8 344 Senior / Assisted Living 224 1.12 251 6 257 Total - Land and Improvements Single Family 297$ 2.88 855$ 21$ 876$ Multifamily 297 2.12 630 16 646 Accessory Dwelling Unit 297 1.50 446 11 457 Senior / Assisted Living 297 1.12 333 8 341 1 Fee per dwelling unit. 2 Administrative charge of 2.5 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. Sources: Tables 2.2 and 10.6; Willdan Financial Services. 58 11. Master Planning & Nexus Analyses The following chapter documents the nexus analysis demonstrating the need for future master planning and comprehensive nexus analyses updates needed to update impact fees necessary to build facilities to serve new development. Service Population Nexus analyses and facility master planning to update impact fees in Menifee serve both residents and businesses. Therefore, demand for these analyses based on the City’s service population including residents and workers. Table 11.1 shows the existing and future projected service population for nexus analyses and facility master planning. While specific data is not available to estimate the actual ratio of demand per resident to demand by businesses (per worker) for these analyses, it is reasonable to assume that demand for these services is far less for one employee compared to one resident, because nonresidential buildings are typically occupied less intensively than dwelling units. While specific worker demand factors for Menifee are not available, this study assumes a worker demand at 0.31 relative to a resident. A B C = A + (B x 0.31) Residents Workers Service Population Existing (2017)90,472 11,431 94,000 New Development (2017-2040)30,628 12,069 34,400 Total (2040)121,100 23,500 128,400 Weighting factor1 1.00 0.31 Source: Table 2.1; Willdan Financial Services. 1 Workers are weighted at 0.31 of residents based on a 40 hour work week out of a possible 128 non-work hours in a week (40/128 = 0.31) Table 11.1: Master Planning and Nexus Analyses - Service Population Planned Analyses Table 11.2 summarizes the City’s planned nexus analyses. The City plans to comprehensively update the analysis every five years at a cost of $50,000 per update. In addition, the City plans to complete a Citywide storm-drainage master plan to identify facilities to serve existing and new development within the City. The total costs of the nexus analyses are allocated to new development. However, since the storm drain master planning will serve existing and new development, only a proportional share of the storm drain master plan is allocated to new development. In total, $280,000 of analyses are allocated to new development. City of Menifee Development Impact Fee Study Update 59 Table 11.2: Planned Analyses Project Name Total Project Cost Allocation To New Development Total Cost Allocated to New Development Citywide Storm Drain Master Plan1 300,000$ 26.8%80,374$ Comprehensive Nexus Analysis Update - 2020 50,000 100.0%50,000 Comprehensive Nexus Analysis Update - 2025 50,000 100.0%50,000 Comprehensive Nexus Analysis Update - 2030 50,000 100.0%50,000 Comprehensive Nexus Analysis Update - 2035 50,000 100.0%50,000 Total 500,000$ 280,374$ 1 Allocation to new development based on new development's share of service population at the planning horizon. Sources: City of Menifee; Table 11.1, Willdan Financial Services. Cost Allocation Table 11.3 calculates the planned standard per 1,000 service population. The cost per capita facility standard is calculated by dividing cost of the analyses by the increase in service population through 2040. The resulting cost per capita is the basis of the impact fee. Funding facilities at this level will ensure that as development occurs, new development will contribute fully fund the nexus analysis updates needed to pay for its fair share of planned facilities. Table 11.3: Planned Facilities Standard Costs Allocated to New Development 280,374$ Service Population Growth (2017 to 2040) 34,400 Cost per Capita 8$ Facility Standard per Resident 8$ Facility Standard per Worker1 2 1 Based on a weighing factor of 0.31. Sources: Tables 11.1 and 11.2, Willdan Financial Services. Fee Schedule Table 11.4 shows the maximum justified master planning and nexus analyses fee schedule. The cost per capita is converted to a fee per unit of new development based on dwelling unit densities (persons per dwelling). City of Menifee Development Impact Fee Study Update 60 Table 11.4: Master Planning and Nexus Analyses Fee A B C = A x B D = C x 2.5%E = C + D E / 1,000 Cost Per Admin Fee per Land Use Capita Density Base Fee1 Charge1, 2 Total Fee1 Sq. Ft. Residential Single Family Unit 8$ 2.88 23$ 1$ 24$ Multi-family Unit 8 2.12 17 0 17 Accessory Dwelling Unit 8 1.50 12 0 12 Senior / Assisted Living 8 1.12 9 0 9 Nonresidential Commercial / Retail 2$ 2.39 5$ 0$ 5$ 0.01$ Commercial / Service / Office 2 3.12 6 0 6 0.01 Industrial / Business Park 2 1.16 2 0 2 0.00 1 Fee per dwelling unit (residential) or per 1,000 square feet (nonresidential). Sources: Tables 2.2 and 11.3; Willdan Financial Services 61 12. Library Facilities The following chapter documents the nexus analysis, demonstrating the need for new library facilities to serve by new development. Service Population Library facilities in Menifee primarily serve residents. Therefore, demand for services and associated facilities are based on the City’s residential population. Table 12.1 shows the existing and future projected service population for library facilities. Table 12.1: Library Facilities Service Population Residents Existing Service Population (2017)90,472 New Development (2017-2040)30,628 Total (2040)121,100 Source:Table 2.1; Willdan Financial Services. Existing Library Facilities The amount of existing library facilities that the City owns will be used to inform the facility standards in this analysis. Table 12.2 summarizes the City’s existing library facility inventory. Only facilities owned by the City are included in the inventory. Table 12.2: Existing Library Facilities Amount Units Unit Cost Value Library Collections 79,846 items 25$ 1,996,150$ Total Value of Existing Facilities 1,996,150$ Sources: City of Menifee; Willdan Financial Services. Cost Allocation Table 12.3 calculates the existing cost per capita facility standard by dividing the value of the existing facilities inventory by the existing service population. The resulting cost per capita is the basis of the impact fee. Funding facilities at this level will ensure that as development occurs, new development will contribute to library facilities at the same standard that existing development has contributed thus far. By definition, using the existing standard methodology does not result in existing deficiencies. City of Menifee Development Impact Fee Study Update 62 Table 12.3: Library Facilities Existing Standard Value of Existing Facilities 1,996,150$ Existing Service Population 90,472 Facility Standard per Resident 22$ Sources: Tables 12.1 and 12.2; Willdan Financial Services. Fee Revenue Projection Table 12.4 shows the projected fee revenue. The fee will generate $675,768 through 2040. Table 12.4: Library Facilities Impact Fee Revenue Cost per Resident 22$ Growth in Service Population 30,628 Projected Impact Fee Revenue 675,768$ Sources: Tables 12.1 and 12.3. Fee Schedule Table 12.5 shows the proposed library facilities fee schedule. The cost per capita is converted to a fee per unit of new development based on dwelling unit densities (persons per dwelling). The total fee includes a two and a half-percent (2.5%) administrative charge to fund costs that include: a standard overhead charge applied to City programs for legal, accounting, and other departmental and administrative support, and fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses. In Willdan’s experience with impact fee programs, two and a half-percent of the base fee adequately covers the cost of fee program administration. The administrative charge is not an impact fee; rather, it is a user fee. It should be reviewed and adjusted during comprehensive impact fee updates to ensure that revenue generated from the charge sufficiently covers, but does not exceed, the administrative costs associated with the fee program. City of Menifee Development Impact Fee Study Update 63 Table 12.5: Library Facilities Fee - Existing Standard A B C = A x B D = C x 0.025 E = C + D Cost Per Admin Land Use Capita Density Base Fee1 Charge1, 2 Total Fee Residential Single Family 22$ 2.88 64$ 2$ 66$ Multifamily 22 2.12 47 1 48 Accessory Dwelling Unit 22 1.50 33 1 34 Senior / Assisted Living 22 1.12 25 1 26 Sources: Tables 2.2 and 12.3. 1 Fee per dwelling unit. 2 Administrative charge of 2.5 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 64 13. Implementation Impact Fee Program Adoption Process Impact fee program adoption procedures are found in the California Government Code section 66016. Adoption of an impact fee program requires the City Council to follow certain procedures including holding a public hearing. Data, such as an impact fee report, must be made available at least 10 days prior to the public hearing. The City’s legal counsel should be consulted for any other procedural requirements as well as advice regarding adoption of an enabling ordinance and/or a resolution. After adoption there is a mandatory 60-day waiting period before the fees go into effect. Inflation Adjustment The City has kept its impact fee program up to date by periodically adjusting the fees for inflation. Such adjustments should be completed regularly to ensure that new development will fully fund its share of needed facilities. There are no automatic inflation adjustments – the City Council must act to adopt inflation adjustments by resolution. We recommend the following:  The City’s impact fee ordinance should annually calculate an inflation adjustment to the fees based on changes in inflation indices (see recommended indices below).  The City Council should annually review the adjusted impact fees and adopt the adjustments to ensure the fee program adequately recovers new development’s fair share of facilities. We recommend that the following indices be used for adjusting fees for inflation:  Buildings – Engineering News-Record’s Construction Cost Index (CCI)  Equipment – Consumer Price Index, All Items, 1982-84=100 for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) The indices recommended can be found for local jurisdictions (state, region), and for the nation. With the exception of land, we recommend that the national indices be used to adjust for inflation, as the national indices are not subject to frequent dramatic fluctuations that the localized indices are subject to. Due to the highly variable nature of land costs, there is no particular index that captures fluctuations in land values. We recommend that the City adjust land values based on recent land purchases, sales or appraisals at the time of the update. While fee updates using 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. The steps necessary to update fees for inflation are explained below: For all of the fee categories except the park facilities fees, the steps are as follows: 1. For each facility type (land, buildings, equipment), identify the percent change in facility value since the last update, based on changes in each inflation index or for each type of land. 2. Modify the value of each facility, existing and planned (if applicable) by the percent change identified in Step 1. City of Menifee Development Impact Fee Study Update 65 3. Depending on fee methodology for each particular fee category calculate the total value of existing facilities (existing inventory method), or the value of existing facilities plus planned facilities (system plan method) using the updated figures from Step 2. 4. Recalculate the cost per capita for each fee category by dividing the results of Step 3 by either the existing service population if the fee is calculated using the existing inventory method, or by the future service population is the fee is calculated using the system plan methodology. Both the existing and future service populations are identified in the first table of every chapter in this report. 5. Calculate the cost per worker (if applicable) for fee categories that are charged to nonresidential development. The cost per worker is equal to the cost per capita calculated in Step 4 multiplied by the worker weighting factor identified in each chapter. 6. Update the fee schedule by multiplying the cost per capita and the cost per worker calculated in Step 5 by the density factors listed in Table 2.2 to determine the base fee for each land use. To update the park facility fees for inflation, the steps are as follows: 1. For each facility type (land, improvements), identify the percent change in facility value since the last update, based on changes in each inflation index or for each type of land. 2. Modify the value of land acquisition and improvements shown in Table 10.6 by the percent change identified in Step 1. 3. Using Table 10.6 as a guide, recalculate the cost per resident using the adjusted values for land acquisition and improvements calculated in Step 2 4. Update the fee schedule by multiplying the costs per capita calculated in Step 3 by the density factors listed in Table 2.2 to determine the base fee for each land use. The total fee for a given land use is equal to the cost per capita for land (from step three) multiplied by the occupant density, added to the cost per capita for improvements (also from step three) multiplied by the occupant density. See Table 10.7 for reference. Once all of the fees have been inflated, multiply the sum of all the fees, per land use, by two and a half percent (2.5%) to determine the administrative charge. Future updates to the fee program should review the administrative fee to ensure that it fully covers the cost of administering the fee program. Reporting Requirements The City should comply with the annual and five-year reporting requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act. For facilities to be funded by a combination of public fees and other revenues, identification of the source and amount of these non-fee revenues is essential. Identification of the timing of receipt of other revenues to fund the facilities is also important. Table 13.1 summarizes the annual and five-year requirements of the Act. City of Menifee Development Impact Fee Study Update 66 Table 13.1: Mitigation Fee Act - Annual and Five-year Administrative Requirements CA Gov't Code Section Timing Reporting Requirements1 Recommended Fee Adjustment 66001.(d) The fifth fiscal year following the first deposit into the account or fund, and every five years thereafter (A) Identify the purpose to which the fee is to be put. (B) Demonstrate a reasonable relationship between the fee and the purpose for which it is charged. (C) Identify all sources and amounts of funding anticipated to complete financing in incomplete improvements. (D) Designate the approximate dates on which supplemental funding is expected to be deposited into the appropriate account or fund. Comprehensive Update 66006. (b) Within 180 days after the last day of each fiscal year (A) A brief description of the type of fee in the account or fund. (B) The amount of the fee. (C) The beginning and ending balance of the account or fund. (D) The amount of the fees collected and the interest earned. (E) An identification of each public improvement on which fees were expended including share funded by fees. (F) An identification of an approximate date by which the construction of the public improvement will commence. (G) A description of any potential interfund transfers. (H) The amount of refunds made (if any). Inflationary Adjustment 1 Edited for brevity. Refer to the government code for full description. Sources: CA Government Code sections 66001.(d) and 66006.(b). City of Menifee Development Impact Fee Study Update 67 Programming Revenues and Projects with the CIP The City maintains a five-year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) to plan for future infrastructure needs. The CIP identifies costs and phasing for specific capital projects. The use of the CIP in this manner documents a reasonable relationship between new development and the use of those revenues. The City may decide to alter the scope of the planned projects or to substitute new projects as long as those new projects continue to represent an expansion of the City’s facilities. If the total cost of facilities varies from the total cost used as a basis for the fees, the City should consider revising the fees accordingly. Credits and Reimbursements This section discusses recommended credit and reimbursement policies and procedures. Credits and reimbursements are granted to developers that build and dedicate facilities included in one of the City’s fee programs. Credits are given for the cost of dedicated facilities up to the amount of the developer’s impact fee obligation. If the cost of the dedicated facilities is greater than the fee obligation, then the developer can be reimbursed for that additional amount from future fee revenues generated by other development projects. Cities often do not scrutinize credit and reimbursement policies and procedures prior to implementation of an impact fee program. Cities often evolve this component of a fee program in an ad hoc manner as development projects are approved that include dedicated public facilities that otherwise would have been funded by the fee program. Many cities do not explicitly analyze the tradeoffs between competing policy objectives in this area of implementation. The spectrum of policy choices facing a city can be framed as “accommodating market forces” on the one end to “achieving CIP policy goals” on the other:  Accommodating market forces grants a high priority to the infrastructure needs of current development projects. This results in the immediate granting of credits against a developer’s fee obligation, and funding reimbursements as soon as possible with existing fund balances or future fee revenues generated by subsequent development projects.  Achieving CIP policy goals subordinates the funding of credit and reimbursements to the phasing of capital projects as adopted in the current CIP. The funding of credits and reimbursements is delayed until the public facilities dedicated by developers are scheduled to be constructed according to the CIP. As a fee program evolves through implementation most cities implement credit and reimbursement policies that fall somewhere between the two ends of the framework described above. This framework is shown in Figure 2 on the following page. City of Menifee Development Impact Fee Study Update 68 Figure 2: Credit and Reimbursement Policy Framework Recommendations The City should adopt administrative guidelines to memorialize credit and reimbursement procedures. Based on Willdan’s experience with impact fee programs in other jurisdictions, we recommend the following with regards to credits and reimbursements policies:  Fund credits and reimbursements based on CIP priorities - An approach used successfully by other agencies is to fund credits and/or reimbursements based on the phasing of projects in the most recently adopted CIP. If a CIP project proposed to be built and dedicated by a developer is scheduled to be constructed within, say, 12 to 24 months of the credit or reimbursement application then the request would be funded immediately because the City was planning to complete the project in the short term. If the CIP project is scheduled at a later date, then the credit and/or reimbursement would be funded at that time. A less stringent policy would have credits funded during the fiscal year when the application was made while reimbursements are subject to the CIP phasing constraint described above.  Allow credits against a developer’s fee obligation as long as the request is submitted at least 90 days prior to issuance of the building permit.  The City will fund reimbursements only as part of the annual budget process.  An application for reimbursement must be submitted by December 1 to be eligible for funding in the following fiscal year.  The value of credits and reimbursements shall be based on the cost of the facility as estimated in the most recent technical report upon which the fee is calculated. Balance Current Development Needs with Other CIP Objectives Balance needs of current development with other CIP policy objectives Maximize Support for Citywide CIP Objectives CIP project priorities based on citywide infrastructure needs Focus CIP on Infrastructure to Serve Current Development Projects CIP project priorities driven by developer & landowner decisions  Full credit granted against all impact fee obligations  Reimbursements funded with first available fee revenues  Credits given high priority, e.g. fund immediately  Reimbursements funded based on budgeted fee revenues  Developers pay all fees regardless of CIP projects built and dedicated  Credits and reimburse- ments funded based on (1) phasing of capital projects in CIP, and (2) available fee revenues Related Credit & Reimbursement Procedures Policy Impacts Accommodate Achieve CIP Market Forces Policy Goals Policy Objective City of Menifee Development Impact Fee Study Update 69  Credits are only granted against, and reimbursements are only funded by, that component of the overall fee that is allocated to the type of capital project being built and dedicated.  No interest is paid on credits or reimbursements. 70 14. Mitigation Fee Act Findings Public facilities fees are one-time fees typically paid when a building permit is issued and imposed on development projects by local agencies responsible for regulating land use (cities and counties). To guide the widespread imposition of public facilities fees the State Legislature adopted the Mitigation Fee Act (the Act) with Assembly Bill 1600 in 1987 and subsequent amendments. The Act, contained in California Government Code Sections 66000 through 66025, establishes requirements on local agencies for the imposition and administration of fee programs. The Act requires local agencies to document five findings when adopting a fee. The five statutory findings required for adoption of the public facilities fees documented in this report are presented in this chapter and supported in detail by the preceding chapters. All statutory references are to the Act. Purpose of Fee  Identify the purpose of the fee (§66001(a)(1) of the Act). Development impact fees are designed to ensure that new development will not burden the existing service population with the cost of facilities required to accommodate growth. The purpose of the fees proposed by this report is to provide a funding source from new development for capital improvements to serve that development. The fees advance a legitimate City interest by enabling the City to provide public facilities to new development. Use of Fee Revenues  Identify the use to which the fees will be put. If the use is financing facilities, the facilities shall be identified. That identification may, but need not, be made by reference to a capital improvement plan as specified in §65403 or §66002, may be made in applicable general or specific plan requirements, or may be made in other public documents that identify the facilities for which the fees are charged (§66001(a)(2) of the Act). Fees proposed in this report, if enacted by the City, would be used to fund expanded facilities to serve new development. Facilities funded by these fees are designated to be located within the City’s sphere of influence. Fees addressed in this report have been identified by the City to be restricted to funding the following facility categories: law enforcement facilities, fire facilities, circulation facilities, storm drainage facilities, animal shelter facilities, general government facilities, public use facilities, parks and master planning and nexus analyses. Benefit Relationship  Determine the reasonable relationship between the fees' use and the type of development project on which the fees are imposed (§66001(a)(3) of the Act). The City will restrict fee revenue to the acquisition of land, construction of facilities and buildings, and purchase of related equipment, furnishings, vehicles, and services used to serve new development. Facilities funded by the fees are expected to provide a citywide network of facilities accessible to the additional residents and workers associated with new development. Under the Act, fees are not intended to fund planned facilities needed to correct existing deficiencies. Thus, a reasonable relationship can be shown between the use of fee revenue and the new development residential and non-residential use classifications that will pay the fees. Burden Relationship  Determine the reasonable relationship between the need for the public facilities and the types of development on which the fees are imposed (§66001(a)(4) of the Act). City of Menifee Development Impact Fee Study Update 71 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. The standards used to identify growth needs are also used to determine if planned facilities will partially serve the existing service population by correcting existing deficiencies. This approach ensures that new development will only be responsible for its fair share of planned facilities, and that the fees will not unfairly burden new development with the cost of facilities associated with serving the existing service population. Chapter 2, Growth Forecasts provides a description of how service population and growth forecasts are calculated. Facility standards are described in the Facility Standards sections of each facility category chapter. Proportionality  Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the fees amount and the cost of the facilities or portion of the facilities attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed (§66001(b) of the Act). The reasonable relationship between each facilities fee for a specific new development project and the cost of the facilities attributable to that project is based on the estimated new development growth the project will accommodate. Fees for a specific project are based on the project’s size. Larger new development projects can result in a higher service population resulting in higher fee revenue than smaller projects in the same land use classification. Thus, the fees ensure a reasonable relationship between a specific new development project and the cost of the facilities attributable to that project. See Chapter 2, Growth Forecasts and Unit Costs, or the Service Population sections in each facility category chapter for a description of how service populations or other factors are determined for different types of land uses. See the Fee Schedule section of each facility category chapter for a presentation of the proposed facilities fees. A-1 Appendix A Appendix Table A.1: City Owned Vehicles Unit Number Year Make Model Total Replacement Cost Code Enforcement 3202 2013 Toyota Highlander 40,685$ 3203 2015 Toyota Highlander 48,287 3204 2015 Toyota Highlander 48,287 Subtotal 137,259$ Building 3201 2013 Toyota Highlander 40,685$ 3101 2013 Toyota Highlander 40,685 3102 2013 Toyota Highlander 40,685 3103 2014 Toyota Highlander 40,735 3104 2014 Toyota Highlander 40,735 Subtotal 203,527$ Public Works 101 2008 Ford Explorer 23,239$ 102 2008 Ford Explorer 22,494 201 2008 Ford F-150 24,816 202 2014 Toyota Highlander 40,735 203 2014 Ford F-150 23,491 204 2015 Ford Fusion 26,293 205 2008 Ford F-450 Diesel 25,920 206 2016 Ford F-250 Supercab 25,349 207 2014 Big Tex Utility Trailer 7,952 209 2016 Ford F-350 - 210 2015 Big Tx Utility Trailer 3,991 Subtotal 224,280$ Admin 401 2014 Ford Fusion 26,392$ Subtotal 26,392$ OEM 502 2012 Haulmark Trailer -$ 11 2013 Haulmark Trailer 16,800 Subtotal 16,800$ Community Services 601 2014 Ford F-150 21,850$ 602 2007 Ford Van E-350 13,598 606 2016 Toyota Highlander 48,819 Subtotal 84,267$ Total Value - Vehicles and Equipment 692,525$ Source: City of Menifee.