1 Christopher Gray Director of Transportation WRCOG Fee Comparison Study – Lessons Learned
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