1

Christopher Gray

Director of Transportation

WRCOG Fee Comparison Study – Lessons Learned

2

Why did WRCOG conduct a Fee Comparison Study?

• Explore the typical composition of development impact fees among WRCOG member jurisdictions

• Understand the scale of TUMF relative to other development impact fees

• Consider the development impact fees among WRCOG member jurisdictions relative to neighboring jurisdictions

• Provide baseline information for WRCOG jurisdiction fee considerations

– Fee comparisons were not project specific.

3

Fee Comparison Study Methodology

• Selection of Jurisdictions

• Land Use and Development Prototypes

• Service Provider/ Subarea Selection

• Organization of Fee Information/ Categories

4

Which jurisdictions to analyze and compare?

Coachella Valley

San Bernardino County Other

Banning Murrieta Indio Fontana Beaumont

Canyon Lake Norco Palm Desert Yucaipa

Calimesa Perris Palm Springs San Bernardino

Corona Riverside Ontario

Eastvale San Jacinto Chino

Hemet Temecula Rialto

Jurupa Valley Wildomar

Lake Elsinore Temescal Valley

Menifee Winchester

Morona Valley March JPA

WRCOG Jurisdictions

5

What kind of developments did we calculate fees for?

• Single-Family Development: 50 units composed of 2,700 square foot homes on 7,200 square foot lots

• Multi-Family Development: 200 units in 260,000 square feet of building space

• Industrial Development (High-Cube Industrial): 265,000 square foot building

• Retail Development: 10,000 square foot building

• Office Development: 20,000 square foot building

Additional assumptions include water meter size, number of water meters, lot depth/width/acreage, floor area ratio (FAR), number of stories, and roof area.

6

Lesson 1: Calculating fees for one jurisdiction can be complex! • In some cities, there were multiple service providers providing

the same type of facilities in different parts of the City.

• For the purposes of the fee comparison one set of service providers was assumed based on the following approach: – Suggestions from the City.

– Commonality of service provider.

– Scale/nature of service areas was also considered.

– Area specific providers are based on future growth.

7

Complexity Example #1 Jurisdiction Selected Water Provider

Banning City of Banning

Calimesa Yucaipa Valley Water District

Canyon Lake Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District

Corona City of Corona

Eastvale Jurupa Community Services District

Hemet Eastern Municipal Water District

Jurupa Valley Jurupa Community Services District

Lake Elsinore Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District

Menifee Eastern Municipal Water District

Moreno Valley Eastern Municipal Water District

Murrieta Eastern Municipal Water District

Norco City of Norco

Perris Eastern Municipal Water District

Riverside City of Riverside

San Jacinto Eastern Municipal Water District

Temecula Eastern Municipal Water District

Wildomar Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District

Temescal Valley County of Riverside

Winchester Eastern Municipal Water District

March JPA Western Municipal Water District

8

Complexity Example #2

9

Lesson 2: Understand fees if conducting a comparison

• WRCOG Fee Study organized fees accordingly:

– Regional Transportation Fees

– Water/Sewer Connection and Capacity Fees

– City/County Capital Facilities Fees

– School Development Impact Fees

– Other Area/Regional Fees

Local Transportation General Government/ Administrative Parks and Recreation Public Nuisance

Streets and Traffic City Hall and Public Facilities Park Capital Improvement Fund Radio Communication

Signalization Improvement Government Facilities Trails Criminal Justice Public Facilities

Car Pool Mitigation Animal Shelter Facilities Park Improvements Affordable Housing

Bikeways Corporation Yard Landscape Improvements DIF Program

Bridge Crossing Emergency Preparedness Community Centers Child Care Facilities

Traffic Signal Fire Aquatic Center Storm Drain

Quimby Fees Police/Law Enforcement Marina Facilities Flood Control

Parkland Animal Control Library/Library Construction Retention Basin Capacity

Example: City/County Capital Facilities Fees

10

Lesson 3: Facts/findings can become narratives

• New development in Western Riverside County pays a wide range of one-time infrastructure/ capital facilities associated with a number of different public agencies. – Total fees by development type are generally uniform throughout

the region for that development type (i.e. single family residential is similar throughout region)

– Many fees on new development are outside of the direct control of the jurisdictions (TUMF, School, Water, MSHCP, etc.)

11

Fee Comparison for Single-Family Detached

$0

$10,000

$20,000

$30,000

$40,000

$50,000

$60,000

Banning Canyon Lake Calimesa Corona Eastvale Hemet Jurupa Valley Lake Elsinore Menifee Moreno Valley Murrieta Norco Perris Riverside San Jacinto Temecula Wildomar UnincorporatedRiverside County

(TemescalValley)

UnincorporatedRiverside County

(Winchester)

March JPA

Regional Transportation Fees (TUMF) Water and Sewer Fees Other City Fees School Fees Other Area/Regional Fees (1) Average

* Fee estimates for specified development prototypes as of July 2016. Actual fees will vary based on project specifics and any fee updates.(1) "Other Area Fees/ Regional Fees" include, but are not limited to, regional parks, trails, multiservice center fees, area specific fees, and habitat mitigation fees.

12

How do fees in the WRCOG subregion compare to surrounding areas?

13

Narrative – TUMF vs. total fees comparison

$0

$5,000

$10,000

$15,000

$20,000

$25,000

$30,000

$35,000

$40,000

$45,000

$50,000

WRCOG Average City of Beaumont Coachella Valley Average San Bernardino County Average

Regional Transportation Fees Water and Sewer Fees Other City Fees School Fees Other Area/Regional Fees

36%

20%

18%

20%

5%

17%

41%

33%

21%

6%

41%

20%

29%

4%

3%

34%

46%

6%

14

Lesson 4: Understand Development Cost

• Important to be aware of relationship between development impact fees and development costs: – Used development prototypes and illustrative costs to provide

general insights into impact fees and costs

– Helpful to understand how fees adds cost to development and how changes in different fees can affect overall development costs

– Note: prototypes cannot be project-specific. Every project needs own analysis

15

Lesson 5: How do your fees factor into Development Cost? • Must be aware of how fees can be utilized for narratives to counter

• Development impact fees represent between 4.1 percent and 9.5 percent of total costs/ returns, with highest proportions for residential uses

• TUMF represents between 0.8 percent and 3.5 percent of total costs/ returns, with residential uses at about 2.0 percent

• It would take a substantial increase in TUMF to increase overall development costs/ returns by 1.0 percent or more

• Additional logistics fee of $0.50 per building square foot would increase total industrial development costs/ returns by less than 0.5 percent