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

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?

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

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

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

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

13. Narrative – TUMF vs. total fees comparison

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 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