HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025/04/02 - Regular Meeting Agenda PacketCITY COUNCIL VISION STATEMENT
“Our Vision is to create an equitable, sustainable, and vibrant city, rich in opportunity for
all to thrive by building on our foundation and success as a world class community.”
Page 1
Mayor
L. Dennis Michael
Mayor Pro Tem
Lynne B. Kennedy
Members of the City
Council:
Ryan A. Hutchison
Kristine D. Scott
Ashley Stickler
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
April 2, 2025
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT BOARD – CITY COUNCIL
HOUSING SUCCESSOR AGENCY- SUCCESSOR AGENCY –
PUBLIC FINANCE AUTHORITY
CLOSED SESSION
REGULAR MEETINGS
TAPIA CONFERENCE ROOM
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
4:30 P.M.
7:00 P.M.
The City Council meets regularly on the first and third Wednesday of the month at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers
located at 10500 Civic Center Drive. It is the intent to conclude the meeting by 10:00 p.m. unless extended by the
concurrence of the City Council. Agendas, minutes, and recordings of meetings can be found
at https://www.cityofrc.us/your-government/city-council-agendas or by contacting the City Clerk Services Department
at 909-774-2023. Live Broadcast available on Channel 3 (RCTV-3). For City Council Rules of Decorum refer to
Resolution No. 2023-086.
Any documents distributed to a majority of the City Council regarding any item on this agenda after distribution of the
agenda packet will be made available in the City Clerk Services Department during normal business hours at City Hall
located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730. In addition, such documents will be posted on
the City’s website at https://www.cityofrc.us/your-government/city-council-agendas.
CLOSED SESSION – 4:30 P.M.
TAPIA CONFERENCE ROOM
ROLL CALL: Mayor Michael
Mayor Pro Tem Kennedy
Council Members Hutchison, Scott and Stickler
A.ANNOUNCEMENT OF CLOSED SESSION ITEM(S)
B.PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS ON CLOSED SESSION ITEM(S)
C.CITY MANAGER ANNOUNCEMENTS
CITY COUNCIL VISION STATEMENT
“Our Vision is to create an equitable, sustainable, and vibrant city, rich in opportunity for
all to thrive by building on our foundation and success as a world class community.”
Page 2
D.CONDUCT OF CLOSED SESSION
D1. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS ROBERT NEIUBER, SENIOR HUMAN RESOURCES
DIRECTOR, PETER CASTRO, DEPUTY CITY MANAGER/ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, MATT BURRIS,
DEPUTY CITY MANAGER/ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JEVIN KAYE, FINANCE
DIRECTOR; PER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54954.2 REGARDING LABOR NEGOTIATIONS WITH
THE FIRE SUPPORT SERVICES ASSOCIATION AND TEAMSTERS LOCAL 1932. (CITY)
D2. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS PER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.8
FOR PROPERTY IDENTIFIED AS PARCEL NUMBER 0229-012-08-0000 COMMONLY KNOWN AS
ADDRESS 8434 ROCHESTER AVENUE, RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730; NEGOTIATING PARTIES
MATT MARQUEZ, DIRECTOR OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, REPRESENTING THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, AND RICHARD LEE, REPRESENTING CBRE GROUP, INC., REGARDING PRICE AND
TERMS. (CITY)
E.RECESS
CITY COUNCIL VISION STATEMENT
“Our Vision is to create an equitable, sustainable, and vibrant city, rich in opportunity for
all to thrive by building on our foundation and success as a world class community.”
Page 3
REGULAR MEETING – 7:00 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL: Mayor Michael
Mayor Pro Tem Kennedy
Council Members Hutchison, Scott and Stickler
A.AMENDMENTS TO THE AGENDA
B.ANNOUNCEMENTS / PRESENTATIONS
B1. Presentation of a Proclamation to OneLegacy Declaring the Month of April 2025 as Donate Life Month.
C.PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS
This is the time and place for the general public to address the Fire Protection District, Housing
Successor Agency, Successor Agency, Public Financing Authority Board, and City Council on any
item listed or not listed on the agenda. State law prohibits us from addressing any issue not on the
Agenda. Testimony may be received and referred to staff or scheduled for a future meeting.
Comments are to be limited to three (3) minutes per individual. All communications are to be addressed
directly to the Fire Board, Agencies, Successor Agency, Authority Board, or City Council not to the members
of the audience. This is a professional business meeting and courtesy and decorum are expected. Please
refrain from any debate between audience and speaker, disorderly or boisterous conduct that disturbs,
disrupts, or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of the meeting. For more information, refer to the City
Council Rules of Decorum and Order (Resolution No. 2023-086) located in the back of the Council
Chambers.
The public communications period will not exceed one hour prior to the commencement of the
business portion of the agenda. During this one hour period, all those who wish to speak on a topic
contained in the business portion of the agenda will be given priority, and no further speaker cards for these
business items (with the exception of public hearing items) will be accepted once the business portion of the
agenda commences. Any other public communications which have not concluded during this one hour period
may resume after the regular business portion of the agenda has been completed.
---
CITY COUNCIL VISION STATEMENT
“Our Vision is to create an equitable, sustainable, and vibrant city, rich in opportunity for
all to thrive by building on our foundation and success as a world class community.”
Page 4
CONSENT CALENDARS:
The following Consent Calendar items are expected to be routine and noncontroversial. They will be acted upon
without discussion unless an item is removed by Council Member for discussion.
Members of the City Council also sit as the Fire Board, Housing Successor Agency, Successor Agency, and
Public Finance Authority and may act on the consent calendar for those bodies as part of a single motion with
the City Council consent calendar.
D.CONSENT CALENDAR
D1. Consideration to Approve the Minutes of the Special and Regular Meetings of March 19, 2025.
D2. Consideration to Approve City and Fire District Bi-Weekly Payroll in the Total Amount of $2,389,108.47 and City
and Fire District Weekly Check Registers (Excluding Checks Issued to Southern California Gas Company) in
the Total Amount of $3,770,492.59 Dated March 10, 2025, Through March 25, 2025. (CITY/FIRE)
D3. Consideration to Approve Fire District Weekly Check Registers for Checks Issued to Southern California Gas
Company in the Total Amount of $330.23 Dated March 10, 2025, Through March 25, 2025. (FIRE)
D4. Consideration to Receive and File Current Investment Schedules as of February 28, 2025 for the City of
Rancho Cucamonga and the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District. (CITY/FIRE)
D5. Consideration of Amendment No. 001 to the Professional Services Agreement with On Duty Health, PLLC for
Health and Fitness Assessments in the Amount of $32,790 Annually. (FIRE)
D6. Consideration to Approve a Four-Year Agreement with Sidepath Inc. in the Amount of $620,760 for Network
Equipment License and Support. (CITY/FIRE)
D7. Consideration of the Cooperative Purchase of One (1) PB Loader B-6 Asphalt Patcher via the Sourcewell
Contract Number 080521-PBL from Nixon-Egli Equipment Co. in the Amount of $441,243.88. (CITY)
D8. Consideration to Approve an Improvement Agreement and Improvement Securities for Public Improvements, to
Approve the Plans and Specifications for the Related Public Improvements, and to Approve a Resolution
Ordering the Annexation into Landscape Maintenance District No. 7 Related to Case No. DRC2020-00438,
Located on the Southeast Corner of East Avenue and Banyan Street (Project). The Project Has Been
Determined by Staff to Be Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines Section 15303 – New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures. (RESOLUTION NO. 2025-
011)(CITY)
E.CONSENT CALENDAR ORDINANCE(S) - SECOND READING/ADOPTION
E1. Consideration of Second Reading and Adoption of the Following:
ORDINANCE NO. 1037
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ADDING CHAPTER 9.38 TO
TITLE 9 OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE CONCERNING THE PROHIBITION AGAINST
CAMPING ON PUBLIC PROPERTY OR INTERFERENCE WITH THE USE OF PUBLIC PROPERTY
INCLUDING PUBLIC ACCESS
6
14
33
35
110
112
116
121
129
CITY COUNCIL VISION STATEMENT
“Our Vision is to create an equitable, sustainable, and vibrant city, rich in opportunity for
all to thrive by building on our foundation and success as a world class community.”
Page 5
F.ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING ITEM(S)
G.ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS ITEM(S) - CITY/FIRE DISTRICT
G1. Public Hearing for Consideration of Resolution No. 2025-010, A Resolution of the City Council of Rancho
Cucamonga, California, Approving Development Impact Fee Nexus Studies, Adopting Capital Improvement
Programs as Part of the Nexus Studies, Updating and Establishing the Fee Amounts for the City’s Development
Impact Fees, and Making a Determination of Exemption Under CEQA and Consideration of First Reading of
Ordinance No. 1038, to be Read by Title Only and Waive Further Reading, An Ordinance of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga, Adding Chapter 3.80 to the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code, Establishing a Development
Impact Fee for Fire Impacts of Residential and Business Development, Amending Chapter 3.68 to Remove
References to Quimby Act in Lieu Fees, and Making a Determination of Exemption from the California
Environmental Quality Act. (RESOLUTION NO. 2025-010 ) (ORDINANCE NO. 1038 ) (CITY)
H.CITY MANAGER'S STAFF REPORT(S)
H1. Consideration to Receive and File the Midyear Financial Update for the Fiscal Year 2024/25 and Approve
Various Appropriations and Related Actions. (CITY/FIRE)
I.COUNCIL BUSINESS
I1. COUNCIL ANNOUNCEMENTS
(Comments to be limited to three minutes per Council Member.)
I2. INTERAGENCY UPDATES
(Update by the City Council to the community on the meetings that were attended.)
J.CITY ATTORNEY ITEMS
K.IDENTIFICATION OF ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING
L.ADJOURNMENT
CERTIFICATION
I, Linda A. Troyan, MMC, City Clerk Services Director of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, or my designee, hereby certify under penalty
of perjury that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted at least seventy-two (72) hours prior to the meeting per
Government Code 54954.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California and on the City's website.
LINDA A. TROYAN, MMC
CITY CLERK SERVICES DIRECTOR
If you need special assistance or accommodations to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk
Services Department at (909) 774-2023. Notification of 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make
reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility. Listening devices are available for the hearing impaired.
137
138
---
---
Page 5
Page 6
Page 7
Page 8
Page 9
Page 10
Page 11
Page 12
DATE:April 2, 2025
TO:Mayor and Members of the City Council
President and Members of the Board of Directors
FROM:John R. Gillison, City Manager
INITIATED BY:Jevin Kaye, Finance Director
Veronica Lopez, Accounts Payable Supervisor
SUBJECT:Consideration to Approve City and Fire District Bi-Weekly Payroll in the
Total Amount of $2,389,108.47 and City and Fire District Weekly Check
Registers (Excluding Checks Issued to Southern California Gas
Company) in the Total Amount of $3,770,492.59 Dated March 10, 2025,
Through March 25, 2025. (CITY/FIRE)
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends City Council/Board of Directors of the Fire Protection District approve payment
of demands as presented. Bi-weekly payroll is $1,001,528.29 and $1,387,580.18 for the City and
the Fire District, respectively. Weekly check register amounts are $3,579,941.23 and
$190,551.36 for the City and the Fire District, respectively.
BACKGROUND:
N/A
ANALYSIS:
N/A
FISCAL IMPACT:
Adequate budgeted funds are available for the payment of demands per the attached listing.
COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / GOAL(S) ADDRESSED:
N/A
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment 1 - Weekly Check Register
Page 13
Page 14
Page 15
Page 16
Page 17
Page 18
Page 19
Page 20
Page 21
Page 22
Page 23
Page 24
Page 25
Page 26
Page 27
Page 28
Page 29
Page 30
Page 31
DATE:April 2, 2025
TO:Mayor and Members of the City Council
President and Members of the Board of Directors
FROM:John R. Gillison, City Manager
INITIATED BY:Jevin Kaye, Finance Director
Veronica Lopez, Accounts Payable Supervisor
SUBJECT:Consideration to Approve Fire District Weekly Check Registers for
Checks Issued to Southern California Gas Company in the Total Amount
of $330.23 Dated March 10, 2025, Through March 25, 2025. (FIRE)
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends City Council/Board of Directors of the Fire Protection District approve payment
of demands as presented. Weekly check register amounts are $330.23 the Fire District,
respectively.
BACKGROUND:
N/A
ANALYSIS:
N/A
FISCAL IMPACT:
Adequate budgeted funds are available for the payment of demands per the attached listing.
COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / GOAL(S) ADDRESSED:
N/A
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment 1 - Weekly Check Register
Page 32
Page 33
DATE:April 2, 2025
TO:Mayor and Members of the City Council
President and Members of the Board of Directors
FROM:John R. Gillison, City Manager
INITIATED BY:Jevin Kaye, Finance Director
Rick Flinchum, Finance Manager
SUBJECT:Consideration to Receive and File Current Investment Schedules as of
February 28, 2025 for the City of Rancho Cucamonga and the Rancho
Cucamonga Fire Protection District. (CITY/FIRE)
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council/Board of Directors of the Fire Protection District receive
and file the attached current investment schedules for the City of Rancho Cucamonga (City) and
the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District (District) as of February 28, 2025.
BACKGROUND:
The attached investment schedules as of February 28, 2025, reflect cash and investments
managed by the Finance Department/Revenue Management Division and are in conformity with
the requirements of California Government Code Section 53601 and the City of Rancho
Cucamonga’s and the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District’s adopted Investment Policies
as approved on June 27, 2024.
ANALYSIS:
The City’s and District’s Treasurers are each required to submit a quarterly investment report to
the City Council and the Fire Board, respectively, in accordance with California Government Code
Section 53646. The quarterly investment report is required to be submitted within 30 days
following the end of the quarter covered by the report. However, the City and District Treasurers
have each elected to provide this report on a monthly basis.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / GOAL(S) ADDRESSED:
The monthly investment schedule supports the City Council’s core value of providing and
nurturing a high quality of life for all by demonstrating the active, prudent fiscal management of
the City’s investment portfolio to ensure that financial resources are available to support the
various services the city provides to all Rancho Cucamonga stakeholders.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment 1 – Investment Schedules as of February 28, 2025 (City)
Attachment 2 – Investment Schedules as of February 28, 2025 (Fire)
Page 34
Page 35
Page 36
Page 37
Page 38
Page 39
Page 40
Page 41
Page 42
Page 43
Page 44
Page 45
Page 46
Page 47
Page 48
Page 49
Page 50
Page 51
Page 52
Page 53
Page 54
Page 55
Page 56
Page 57
Page 58
Page 59
Page 60
Page 61
Page 62
Page 63
Page 64
Page 65
Page 66
Page 67
Page 68
Page 69
Page 70
Page 71
Page 72
Page 73
Page 74
Page 75
Page 76
Page 77
Page 78
Page 79
Page 80
Page 81
Page 82
Page 83
Page 84
Page 85
Page 86
Page 87
Page 88
Page 89
Page 90
Page 91
Page 92
Page 93
Page 94
Page 95
Page 96
Page 97
Page 98
Page 99
Page 100
Page 101
Page 102
Page 103
Page 104
Page 105
Page 106
Page 107
Page 108
DATE:April 2, 2025
TO:President and Members of the Board of Directors
FROM:John R. Gillison, City Manager
INITIATED BY:Mike McCliman, Fire Chief
Ty Harris, Deputy Fire Chief
Darci Vogel, Fire Business Manager
SUBJECT:Consideration of Amendment No. 001 to the Professional Services
Agreement with On Duty Health, PLLC for Health and Fitness
Assessments in the Amount of $32,790 Annually. (FIRE)
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Fire Board approve Amendment No. 001 to the Professional Services
Agreement with On Duty Health, PLLC in the amount of $32,790 annually for health and fitness
assessments.
BACKGROUND:
The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) develops and publishes codes and standards
related to fire safety. This includes establishing requirements to protect fire personnel from the
hazards encountered while performing firefighting and lifesaving operations. NFPA 1582,
Standard on Comprehensive Occupational Medical Program for Fire Departments, outlines an
occupational medical program to reduce risks and provide for the health, safety, and effectiveness
of fire fighters operating to protect civilian life and property. The purpose of NFPA 1582 is to
reduce the likelihood of fire personnel from suffering a preventable line-of-duty death. It provides
a baseline health assessment to determine whether or not employees are likely to incur a
debilitating injury or medical event in the course of performing their duties as a first responder.
On August 21, 2025, the Fire District and On Duty Health, PLLC (ODH) entered into a Professional
Services Agreement (PSA), CO# FD 2024-006, for health and fitness assessments in the amount
of $222,210.
ANALYSIS:
The Fire District has determined the need to expand the scope of services to include additional
male and female health assessments, as well as lung cancer screening. In order to streamline
the hiring process, the Fire District has also determined the need to include pre-employment
physical exams in the scope of services.
Staff recommends that the Fire Board approve Amendment No. 001 to CO# FD 2024-006 with
ODH to incorporate the following:
1. Expanded Consultant Services: Section 1 is amended to include Pre-Employment
Physicals, Male and Female Health Assessments, and Low Dose CT Lung Cancer
Page 109
Page 2
2
7
6
7
Screening.
2. Agreement Term Extension: Section 2 is amended to extend the Agreement for an
additional two (2) years, covering the period from August 21, 2025 through August 20,
2027.
3. Updated Compensation: Section 3 is amended to adjust the total annual not-to-exceed
compensation from a maximum amount of $222,508 to a new maximum amount of
$255,000.
All other Terms and Conditions of the original Agreement CO# FD 2024-006, will remain in full
effect.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The total cost of the amendment is $32,790. Sufficient funds are available in the Fire Fund under
account F281 CC501 SC2106 ((Fire Administration - Contract Services) for this amendment.
COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / GOAL(S) ADDRESSED:
This item brings together portions of the Council’s vision and core value by providing a sustainable
City and promoting a safe and healthy community for all. This is accomplished by enhancing the
Fire District’s occupational medical program to reduce risks and provide for the health, safety,
and effectiveness of personnel operating to protect civilian life and property.
ATTACHMENTS:
None.
Page 110
DATE:April 2, 2025
TO:Mayor and Members of the City Council
President and Members of the Board of Directors
FROM:John R. Gillison, City Manager
INITIATED BY:Shelly Munson, Director of Innovation & Technology
Mike McCliman, Fire Chief
Lilyan Villarreal, Deputy Director of Innovation &Technology
Tanya Trieu-Bui, Management Analyst I
SUBJECT:Consideration to Approve a Four-Year Agreement with Sidepath Inc. in
the Amount of $620,760 for Network Equipment License and Support.
(CITY/FIRE)
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the City Council / Fire Board approve a four-year agreement with Sidepath
Inc. in the amount of $620,760 for Network Equipment License and Support.
BACKGROUND:
The City's IT infrastructure incorporates a virtualized environment, leveraging advanced
virtualization software to host and manage virtual machines and resources, enabling efficient
resource allocation, scalability, and high availability. Additionally, it reduces costs by minimizing
the need for physical machines and servers. The virtualized environment enhances security by
enabling features such as access control and application isolation. It also simplifies disaster
recovery, allowing for faster restoration compared to resolving hardware failures. Additionally,
having a virtual environment allows the Department of Innovation and Technology (DoIT) the
flexibility to quickly scale up or down to meet the City and Fire District’s needs. On October 18,
2023, the City Council approved a five-year Enterprise Licensing Agreement (ELA), however the
integrated storage license was not purchased as part of the ELA. DoIT requires an additional
license to be added to the ELA, which is required for the management and support of storage for
the virtual machines.
ANALYSIS:
The Virtualization Software Enterprise Licensing Agreement (ELA) will be co-termed with the
existing agreement which is set to expire in October of 2028. During FY 2023/24 the Network
Equipment License and Support was not previously included in the ELA but is now a required
component.
Due to increased cybersecurity threats, DoIT and Procurement opted to forego a formal bid
process for the original ELA, as sensitive information would need to be disclosed to obtain a public
request for bid response. As an alternative, DoIT obtained a proposal from Sidepath, a Certified
Principal Partner and Dell recommended vendor, as a single source vendor. A Certified Principal
Partner is an organization that has earned “Master Services Competencies” that demonstrates
Page 111
Page 2
2
7
6
8
expertise in the virtualization software. The added license and support will be purchased from the
same vendor.
Fiscal Year City Share (50%)Fire District Share (50%)Total Cost
FY 2024/25 $88,680 $88,680 $177,360
FY 2025/26 $88,680 $88,680 $177,360
FY 2026/27 $88,680 $88,680 $177,360
FY 2027/28 $44,340 $44,340 $ 88,680
Total:$310,380 $310,380 $620,760
FISCAL IMPACT:
The cost for the current FY 2024-25 is $177,360, and the total cost of the four-year agreement is
$620,760. Sufficient funds are available for the current FY 2024-25 budget in Fire Fund account
F288|CC501|SC2107 (Contract Services-Software) and General Fund account
F001|CC209|SC2107 (Contract Services-Software). Future costs will be included in annual
budget development for both the City and Fire District.
COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / GOAL(S) ADDRESSED:
This item addresses the City Council’s Core Value of intentionally embracing and anticipating our
future.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment 1 - Sidepath Quotation
Page 112
Page 113
Page 114
DATE:April 2, 2025
TO:Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM:John R. Gillison, City Manager
INITIATED BY:Neil Plummer, Public Works Services Director
Richard Favela, Streets, Storm Drains, and Fleet Superintendent
Albert Lopez, Fleet Supervisor
Paige Eberle, Management Analyst I
SUBJECT:Consideration of the Cooperative Purchase of One (1) PB Loader B-6
Asphalt Patcher via the Sourcewell Contract Number 080521-PBL from
Nixon-Egli Equipment Co. in the Amount of $441,243.88. (CITY)
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the City Council approve the cooperative purchase of one (1) PB Loader B-6
Asphalt Patcher via the Sourcewell Contract Number 080521-PBL from Nixon-Egli Equipment Co.
in the Amount of $441,243.88 to be funded from the equipment/vehicle replacement fund.
BACKGROUND:
The Public Works Services Department (PWSD) Streets Division maintains critical infrastructure
within the city, including repairing asphalt related to utility excavations for the Cucamonga Valley
Water District. An asphalt patcher is an essential piece of equipment used for the repair of
roadways. After a comprehensive review by PWSD staff, the selected PB Loader B-6 Asphalt
Patcher is being recommended for purchase. Funding for the PB Loader B-6 Asphalt Patcher was
included in the Adopted FY 2024/25 Budget.
During equipment research, staff identified a Sourcewell contract with Nixon-Elgi Equipment Co.
for the procurement of heavy-duty construction equipment. Sourcewell is a purchasing platform
for public agencies that pre-screens vendors and gives the member organizations a cooperative
purchase advantage. By procuring this equipment through an already competitively bid and
awarded Sourcewell contract, the City will reduce staff time to bid the purchase, resulting in higher
efficiency and cost savings.
ANALYSIS:
Sourcewell offers a cooperative purchasing model that streamlines the procurement process for
cities by eliminating the requirement for individual bidding and negotiation. Such collaboration
guarantees that cities receive quality products through competitively bid Sourcewell contracts,
which not only saves time but also guarantees a discount of 18% per unit.
If approved, PWSD will procure one (1) PB Loader B-6 Asphalt Patcher via the Sourcewell
Contract Number 080521-PBL from Nixon-Egli Equipment Co., a necessary piece of equipment
to maintain roadways.
Page 115
Page 2
2
7
5
4
FISCAL IMPACT:
The Adopted FY 2024/25 Budget included the replacement of unit 2652 2013 Freightliner Patch
Truck Skid Steer Unit 664 in the equipment/vehicle replacement fund F712 CC001 7000 SC7002.
COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / VALUE(S) ADDRESSED:
This item addresses the City Council’s core values of providing and nurturing a high quality of life
for all and promoting and enhancing a safe and healthy community for all.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment 1 – Nixon-Egli Equipment Co. Proposal
Page 116
Page 117
Page 118
Page 119
DATE:April 2, 2025
TO:Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM:John R. Gillison, City Manager
INITIATED BY:Jason C. Welday, Director of Engineering Services/City Engineer
James Lo, Assistant Engineer
SUBJECT:Consideration to Approve an Improvement Agreement and Improvement
Securities for Public Improvements, to Approve the Plans and
Specifications for the Related Public Improvements, and to Approve a
Resolution Ordering the Annexation into Landscape Maintenance
District No. 7 Related to Case No. DRC2020-00438, Located on the
Southeast Corner of East Avenue and Banyan Street (Project). The
Project Has Been Determined by Staff to Be Exempt from the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines
Section 15303 – New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures.
(RESOLUTION NO. 2025-011) (CITY)
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the City Council:
1.Approve an Improvement Agreement for related public improvements to the Project and
authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to sign said Agreement;
2.Accept security in the form of bonds for completion of the related public improvements;
3.Approve the plans and specifications for the related public improvements on file with the
City Engineer; and
4.Adopt the attached resolution ordering the annexation to Landscape Maintenance District
No.7.
BACKGROUND:
On June 22, 2021, the Planning Commission approved Case No. DRC2020-00438 for the
development of a 2,641 square-foot single family residence with an attached 751.75 square-foot
three (3) car garage located on the southeast corner of East Avenue and Banyan Street.
Case No. DRC2020-00438 was approved with a condition that certain public improvements be
constructed including street improvements, curb and gutter, driveway approaches, street trees,
and that the land be annexed into the appropriate special districts.
ANALYSIS:
The developer, Diane Romo has submitted an Improvement Agreement and securities to
guarantee construction of the off-site public improvements in the following amounts:
Page 120
Page 2
2
7
5
8
Faithful Performance Bond $39,000 Bond #4460578
Labor and Material Bond $39,000 Bond #4460578
Approval of these items by the Council would approve the Improvement Agreements, accept the
securities for the construction of certain public improvements, and adopt the attached resolution
ordering the annexation to Landscape Maintenance District No. 7. Copies of the Improvement
Agreement and annexation form are on file in the City Clerk’s office.
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS:
Pursuant to the California Environmental Act (CEQA) and the City’s local CEQA Guidelines, the
Planning Director determined that the Project qualifies as a Class 3 exemption under state CEQA
Guidelines Section 15303 – New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures which covers
the construction of single-family residences in a residential zone.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The proposed annexation would satisfy the conditions of approval for the development and supply
additional annual revenue into the landscape maintenance district in the following amount:
Landscape Maintenance District No. 7: $307.05
The developer will be installing four (4) new street trees that will be maintained by the City.
COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / VALUE(S) ADDRESSED:
This item addresses the City Council’s vision to build on our success as a world class community,
to create an equitable, sustainable, and vibrant city, rich in opportunity for all to thrive through the
construction of high-quality public improvements.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment 1 – Vicinity Map
Attachment 2 – Resolution Ordering Annexation LMD No. 7
Page 121
Page 122
Page 123
Page 124
Page 125
Page 126
Page 127
DATE:April 2, 2025
TO:Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM:John R. Gillison, City Manager
INITIATED BY:Erika Lewis-Huntley, Management Analyst III
SUBJECT:Consideration of Second Reading and Adoption of the Following:
ORDINANCE NO. 1037
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA,
CALIFORNIA, ADDING CHAPTER 9.38 TO TITLE 9 OF THE RANCHO
CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE CONCERNING THE PROHIBITION
AGAINST CAMPING ON PUBLIC PROPERTY OR INTERFERENCE
WITH THE USE OF PUBLIC PROPERTY INCLUDING PUBLIC
ACCESS
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the City Council waive full reading and adopt Ordinance No. 1037.
BACKGROUND:
The introduction and first reading of the above-entitled Ordinance was conducted at the Regular
City Council meeting of March 19, 2025.
Votes at first reading: AYES: Hutchison, Scott, Stickler. ABSENT: Michael, Kennedy.
ANALYSIS:
Please refer to the March 19, 2025 City Council staff report.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Please refer to the March 19, 2025 City Council staff report.
COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / VALUE(S) ADDRESSED:
Please refer to the March 19, 2025 City Council staff report.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment 1 – Ordinance No. 1037
Page 128
Ordinance No. 1037 - Page 1 of 7
ORDINANCE NO. 1037
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA,
ADDING CHAPTER 9.38 TO TITLE 9 OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL
CODE CONCERNING THE PROHIBITION AGAINST CAMPING ON PUBLIC
PROPERTY OR INTERFERENCE WITH THE USE OF PUBLIC PROPERTY
INCLUDING PUBLIC ACCESS
WHEREAS, the City of Rancho Cucamonga (“City”) is committed to ensuring the safety,
health, and welfare of all its residents, visitors, and businesses;
WHEREAS, it is the obligation of the City to keep the public rights-of-way and public
spaces clean and available for public use and to ensure access by the public to all property,
both public and private, by the disabled, elderly, families, children, and visitors to Rancho
Cucamonga;
WHEREAS, the public has expressed concern that access to public and private property is
being impeded or prevented by the storage of personal items on public property, by people
camping on public property, and by people using the public rights- of-way to sit, sleep and lie
down;
WHEREAS, public spaces, including parks, streets, and sidewalks are intended for the use
and enjoyment of all members of the community and should be maintained in a safe and accessible
condition;
WHEREAS, the storage of unattended personal property on public property creates a
safety and security risk to the public because, among other things, it can create a tripping
hazard, impact a person's line-of-sight, and divert limited public resources to evaluate
suspicious packages;
WHEREAS, unauthorized camping in public spaces, including the use of vehicles for
human habitation, can create health and safety risks related to the accumulation of trash, food
waste, human waste, and contaminated medical waste;
WHEREAS, the use of public property for camping and vehicles for human habitation has
led to an increase in calls for police, fire, and emergency medical services, thereby straining
municipal resources and diverting them from other critical areas of need;
WHEREAS, the presence of unauthorized encampments has been associated with
increased criminal activity, including theft, vandalism, damage to property, noise violations,
littering, prowling, trespassing, and drug-related offenses, thereby undermining public safety;
WHEREAS, maintaining clean and safe public spaces is essential for the economic
vitality of Rancho Cucamonga, as it is a regional destination and encourages tourism, business
development, and community events;
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to continue to protect the public health, safety and ATTACHMENT 1
Page 129
Ordinance No. 1037 - Page 3 of 7
welfare including, but not limited to, the City's parks, streets, and other public places by
regulating the use of public property.
NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does ordain
as follows:
SECTION 1: Chapter 9.38 is hereby added to Title 9 of the Rancho Cucamonga
Municipal Code to read as follows:
“Chapter 9.38 – PROHIBITION AGAINST CAMPING ON PUBLIC PROPERTY OR
INTERFERENCE WITH THE USE OF PUBLIC PROPERTY INCLUDING PUBLIC ACCESS
9.38.010 – Definitions.
For the purposes of this chapter, the following words and phrases shall have the meaning set
forth in this section:
“Camp” or “Camping” means use of space on public places for living accommodation purposes
such as sleeping activities, or making preparations to sleep (including the laying down of bedding,
cots, beds, sleeping bags, mattresses, or couches for the purpose of sleeping), or storing personal
belongings, or using any tents, tarps, hammocks, camp stoves, cooking equipment, buckets,
dressers, furniture, shelter or other structure or vehicle for sleeping. The above-listed activities
constitute camping when it reasonably appears, in light of all the circumstances, that the
participants, in conducting these activities, are using the area as a living accommodation regardless
of the nature of any other activities in which they may also be engaging. A person shall be
considered to be using a vehicle for human habitation if: the person admits they are using the
vehicle to camp; or, based on the totality of the circumstances, it is established that a person
is using the vehicle to live, dwell or reside, which is exemplified by the person continuously
remaining inside the vehicle at the same location for two hours or more; the person sleeping in
the vehicle; the inability of a person outside the vehicle to view through two or more windows
because the view is limited or blocked; the inability to use seating in the vehicle because a
large volume of personal belongings, trash, rubbish, or garbage is stored in the vehicle; the
person preparing or cooking meals inside or on the vehicle; the person bathing or grooming
inside the vehicle.
"Camp facility" or "camp facilities" means any or a combination of the following a tent, hut, other
temporary physical structure or shelter, cot, bed, or hammock.
"Child care facility" means a facility installed, operated, and maintained for the nonresidential
care of children as defined under applicable state licensing requirements for the facility. Such
facilities include, but are not limited to, infant centers, preschools, extended day care facilities,
school-age child care centers, or family day care homes.
“College” means an institution of higher education, including a community or junior college, college
or university including, but not limited to, Chaffey Community College.
Page 130
Ordinance No. 1037 - Page 4 of 7
"Personal Property" means any tangible property, and includes, but is not limited to, goods,
materials, merchandise, tents, huts, temporary shelters, tarps, bedding, sleeping bags,
hammocks, sheds, structures, mattresses, couches, chairs, other furniture, appliances, and
personal items such as household goods, luggage, backpacks, and clothing. Personal property
does not include property that is secured inside of a motor vehicle; items expressly authorized
by a public entity to be on public property owned or controlled by the public entity; or items
authorized to be on public property pursuant to this Code, a license, or permit issued by the
City.
"Prohibited public place" means any public property that is not designated for camping by
resolution of the City Council or other governmental entity having jurisdiction over the property.
“Public plaza” means an open public area that is owned or controlled by the State, the County, the
City, or other public entity that has been physically improved and where people can gather.
"Public property" means all property owned or controlled by the State, the County, the City, or
other public entity including, but not limited to, any publicly owned or controlled building,
structure, restroom, bridges, parking garage, parking lot, passageway, public rights-of-way,
public plaza, driveway, landscaped area, parkway, median, greenbelt, open space, public park,
or park facility.
"Public rights-of-way" or "public right-of-way" means the area or areas on, below, or above a
public roadway, public highway, public street, public sidewalk, public path, public trail, public
plaza, public bike lane or path, public boardwalk, public alleyway, or a utility easement in which the
City has interest.
"School" means an institution of learning, whether public or private, which offers in-person
instruction in grades K through twelve (12) in those courses of study required by the California
Education Code and is licensed by the State Board of Education. This definition includes all
kindergarten, elementary, junior high, senior high or any special institution of learning under the
jurisdiction of the State Department of Education.
"Store", "Stored", "Storing" or "Storage" means to put personal property aside, to accumulate
for use when needed or to put for safekeeping. Moving personal property to another location
on public property or returning personal property within 1,000 feet from a location where a
person previously received a citation for violation of Section 9.38.020 within a thirty (30)
day period shall be considered storing personal property and shall not be considered to be
removing the personal property from public property.
"Tent" means any tarp, cover, hut, structure, enclosure or shelter, made of any material that is
not open on all sides and which hinders an unobstructed view behind or into the area
surrounded by the tarp, cover, hut, structure, enclosure, or shelter. A tent does not include any
shade covering used in accordance with Section 11.08.020.
Page 131
Ordinance No. 1037 - Page 5 of 7
"Unattended" means no person is present with the personal property who asserts or claims
ownership over the personal property. Personal property left outside of a building or shelter at
a public park shall not be considered "unattended" unless there is no person present who
asserts or claims ownership over the personal property for one (1) hour or more.
"Vehicle" means a "motor vehicle" as defined by Cal. Veh. Code Section 415, a "recreational
vehicle" as defined by Cal. Health & Safety. Code Section 18010(a), a "camper trailer" as
defined in Cal. Veh. Code Section 242, a "house car" as defined in Cal. Veh. Code Section 362
or a "trailer coach" as defined in Cal. Veh. Code Section 635.
9.38.020 Sitting, Lying, or Sleeping or Storing, Using, or Maintaining or
Placing Personal Property in the Public Rights-of-Way
A.No person shall fix in place, store, maintain or leave personal property that is
unattended on public property.
B.No person shall set up, make use of, fix in place, store, locate, maintain, or leave behind
a tent on public property.
C.No person shall sleep, lay down, or lodge in a public restroom.
D.No person shall sleep or lay down on a public bench, bus stop/shelter or adjacent
landscape planter.
E.No person shall remain upon a public plaza between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00
a.m. the following morning, except, it shall not be a violation of this subsection for a person to
traverse a public plaza without stopping.
F.No person shall sit, lie, or sleep or store, use, maintain, or place personal property
on a public median, public parkway, or landscaped area, except for individual’s engaged in
lawful commercial activity.
G.No person shall obstruct public or private access by sitting, lying, or sleeping on public
property or by storing, using, maintaining, or placing personal property on public property:
1.In a manner that obstructs or impedes passage, as provided by the Americans
with Disabilities Act;
2.On or within twenty (20) feet of any operational or utilizable driveway, ramp, or
loading dock;
3.On or within twenty (20) feet of any fire hydrant, fire plug or other connection
used by the Fire Department;
Page 132
Ordinance No. 1037 - Page 6 of 7
4.Within twenty (20) feet of the entrance to a public restroom, public park, public
trail or public path;
5.Within fifty (50) feet of an operational and utilizable entrance or exit to any
building, establishment, retail store, restaurant, office building or other place into which the
public is invited;
6.Within ten (10) feet of an automatic teller machine or any door that
provides access to the automatic teller machine;
7.Within ten (10) feet of an electric vehicle charging station, parking pay
station or parking meter;
8.Within ten (10) feet of a sidewalk ramp, or the corner where any street,
roadway, highway, or alley intersect.
9.In a manner that unreasonably interferes with the use of the public right- of-
way by motor vehicles, pedestrians or bicycles; or
10.Within five hundred (500) feet of a college, school, o r child care facility.
It shall not be a violation of Subsection (G) for a person to sit for purposes of viewing a legally
conducted parade.
H.No person shall sit or stand on or at the entrance of any church, place of worship, hall,
theatre, post office, community center, or other place of public assemblage in any manner
that violates Municipal Code § 9.26.020 (Loitering in front of building prohibited).
9.38.030 Molesting Pedestrians.
No person, whether engaged in solicitation or not, shall willfully, intentionally, or maliciously molest,
annoy, obstruct, or hinder any other person passing along any public rights-of-way.
9.38.040 Camping in Prohibited Public Places.
A.No person shall camp in a prohibited public place.
B.No person shall start, build, or use a fire in a prohibited public place for any purpose
including, but not limited to, warming or cooking, unless authorized or permitted to do so by formal
action of the City Council, the written consent of the City Manager, or the provisions of this Code.
9 .38.050 Prohibited Conduct.
It is unlawful for any person to conduct, perform or participate in any of the following activities
at any park or park facility:
Page 133
Ordinance No. 1037 - Page 7 of 7
A.Use any public fountain, public drinking faucet, public restroom sink or public sprinkler
to wash dishes, clothing or garments, to bathe, or conduct personal hygiene (such as washing
hair or body with or without soap, shampoo or similar personal hygiene products; shaving with
or without shaving cream or similar personal hygiene products; oral care including using
mouthwash or brushing teeth with or without toothpaste or similar personal hygiene products;
cleaning any injury, wound, lesion, gash or abrasion in any manner with or without medical
products, cleaning products or similar personal hygiene products; using any medical or other
personal hygiene product to rid the body of lice or any disease, infection or growth). This
prohibition does not apply to basic hygiene activities such as handwashing, attending to child
hygiene needs such as diaper changes, and attending to emergency situations involving minor
injuries.
B.Cut, break, injure, or disturb any City tree, shrub, plant, rock, building, cage, pen,
monument, fence, bench or other structure, apparatus, or property.”
SECTION 2: Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion
of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unenforceable by a court of competent
jurisdiction, the remaining portions of this Ordinance shall nonetheless remain in full force and
effect. The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby declares that it would have
adopted each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance,
irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases, or
portions of this Ordinance be declared invalid or unenforceable.
SECTION 3: CEQA. The City Council finds that the adoption of this Ordinance is not
subject to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") pursuant to CEQA Guidelines
Section 15060(c)(2) because there is no potential that the regulations of camping in prohibited
places will result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the
environment. In addition, this Ordinance is not subject to CEQA under of the CEQA Guidelines
Section 15060(c)(3) because the Ordinance is an activity that is not a project as defined in
CEQA Guidelines Section 15378.
SECTION 5: Publication. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance
and shall cause the same to be published in the manner prescribed by law.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 2nd day of April, 2025.
Page 134
Ordinance No. 1037 - Page 8 of 7
_____________________________
L. Dennis Michael, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________________
Kim Sevy, City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO ) ss
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA )
I, Kim Sevy, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, do hereby certify
that the foregoing Ordinance was introduced at a Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of
Rancho Cucamonga held on the 19th day of March 2025, and was passed at a Regular Meeting of
the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held on the 2nd day of April, 2025.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAINED:
Executed this 3rd day of April 2025, at Rancho Cucamonga, California.
____________________________________
Kim Sevy, City Clerk
Page 135
DATE:April 2, 2025
TO:Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM:John R. Gillison, City Manager
INITIATED BY:Matt Burris, Deputy City Manager
Zack Neighbors, Director of Building and Safety Services
Jason Welday, Director of Engineering Services
SUBJECT:Public Hearing for Consideration of Resolution No. 2025-010, A
Resolution of the City Council of Rancho Cucamonga, California,
Approving Development Impact Fee Nexus Studies, Adopting Capital
Improvement Programs as Part of the Nexus Studies, Updating and
Establishing the Fee Amounts for the City’s Development Impact Fees,
and Making a Determination of Exemption Under CEQA and
Consideration of First Reading of Ordinance No. 1038, to be Read by Title
Only and Waive Further Reading, An Ordinance of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga, Adding Chapter 3.80 to the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal
Code, Establishing a Development Impact Fee for Fire Impacts of
Residential and Business Development, Amending Chapter 3.68 to
Remove References to Quimby Act in Lieu Fees, and Making a
Determination of Exemption from the California Environmental Quality
Act. (RESOLUTION NO. 2025-010 ) (ORDINANCE NO. 1038 ) (CITY)
REVISION:
As part of the City’s outreach on this item, the staff met with representatives of the Building
Industry Association (BIA) and their members who are actively working in the City. BIA has asked
for additional time to clarify information, questions and responses related to the proposed
adjustments to the Transportation Development Impact Fee schedule, the Non-Transportation
Development Impact Fees, and Nexus Studies. In order to fully address these questions and allow
for timely professional discourse, staff is recommending that the public hearing for the Non-
Transportation Development Impact Fees and Nexus Study be continued to April 16, 2025, at
7:00 p.m. and that the Transportation Development Impact Fees and Nexus Study be continued
to May 7, 2025, at 7:00 p.m. The discussion points for Non-Transportation Development Impact
Fees are modest in nature and should be vetted out within the next 7-10 days. The discussion
points for Transportation Development Impact Fees are greater in number and more complex in
nature, however, staff is committed to a series of regular hour-long meetings over the course of
the month of April to also work through these matters.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff Recommends that that the public hearing for the Non- Transportation Development Impact
Fees and Nexus Study be continued to April 16, 2025, at 7:00 p.m. and that the Transportation
Development Impact Fees and Nexus Study be continued to May 7, 2025, at 7:00 p.m.
ATTACHMENTS:
None.
Page 136
2025 BOARD OF DIRECTORS PRESIDENT Paul Mahoney, PMA Advertising Inmzediate Past President Todd Hooks Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians (Ret.) 1'1 VICE PRESIDENTTom Dubose Dubose Design Group, Inc. SECRETARY/TREASURER
VICE PRESIDENT
OF ASSOCIATES Allan Levin Allan Levin & Associates CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER Gretchen Gutierrez DIRECTORS Fred BelV 2025 PAC CltairmauNobell Energy Solutions Brian Benedetti Brian Benedetti Construction Mark Benedetti Cheryl Gonzales GHA Companies Mario Gonzales -Presidents Council GHA Companies Joe Hayes -Presidents Council Jeremy Roos Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians Dave Lippert Lippe1t Construction, Inc Bruce Maize Orr Builders Russ Martin Mission Springs Water District Deborah McGarrey Southern California Gas Company Alan Pace Petra GeoSciences John Powell, Jr. Coachella Valley Water District Phil Smith -Presidents Council Sunrise Company Alissa Vatter Fidelity National Title Michelle Witherspoon MSA Consulting desert valleys builders association
March 25, 2025
City of Rancho Cucamonga
John R. Gillison, City Manager
c/o Jasmin Oriel, CMC, CRMC
c/o Zack Neighbors, CASp, CBO
Director of Building and Safety Services
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730-3801
Re: Transportation Development
Impact Fee Nexus Study
Dear Mr. Gillison,
Thank you for providing the Desert Valleys Builders Association (DVBA)
with the opportunity to examine and comment on the City of Ran cho
Cucamonga Transportation Development Impact Fee Nexus Study, dated
February 11, 2025.
This again is an ambitious list of projects that will cost new. construction one
of the highest fees in southern California. It is hard to imagine such a fee
added onto the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee from WRCOG thus
increasing the costs to the range of nearly $30,000 per residential door in just
combined transportation fees before a stick is put in the ground.
Our review supports the consistency of data points and costs. Th ere is
nothing we noticed that is out of line with the legislated requirements of a
'nexus' study. We are concerned that the costs will be prohibitive. However,
the housing market in Rancho Cucamonga may be able to absorb these costs.
The Desert Valleys Builders Association is satisfied that the City of Rancho
Cucamonga has met its obligations in establishing a 'nexus' between the
needs of future development and the costs of supporting future infrastructure.
,,_ ., " Gretcl\_en Gytierrez
--,���eutive Officer
550 Oleander Road • Palm Springs, CA • 92262
(760)776-7001 office • (760) 776-7002 fax
www.TheDVBA.org
2025/04/02 – REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING - ITEM G1 –CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED 3/25/2025
2025/04/02 – REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING - ITEM G1 –CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED 4/02/2025
From: Carlos Rodriguez
Sent: Wednesday, April 2, 2025 5:01 AM
To: Gillison, John <John.Gillison@cityofrc.us>
Subject: BIA Comment - Item G1
Good morning John,
I hope all is well.
I’m currently in Washington D.C. conducting Congressional briefings. Please note, BIA supports the staff
recommendation below under Item G1. Please extend my regret in missing the opportunity to provide a public
comment due to my schedule conflict. I appreciate you passing along this communication to the City Council.
Thank you!
Staff Recommends that that the public hearing for the Non- Transportation Development Impact Fees and
Nexus Study be continued to April 16, 2025, at 7:00 p.m. and that the Transportation Development Impact
Fees and Nexus Study be continued to May 7, 2025, at 7:00 p.m.
ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS ITEM(S) - CITY/FIRE DISTRICT
G1. Public Hearing for Consideration of Resolution No. 2025-010, A Resolution of the City Council of Rancho
Cucamonga, California, Approving Development Impact Fee Nexus Studies, Adopting Capital Improvement
Programs as Part of the Nexus Studies, Updating and Establishing the Fee Amounts for the City’s
Development Impact Fees, and Making a Determination of Exemption Under CEQA and Consideration of
First Reading of Ordinance No. 1038, to be Read by Title Only and Waive Further Reading, An Ordinance of
the City of Rancho Cucamonga, Adding Chapter 3.80 to the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code,
Establishing a Development Impact Fee for Fire Impacts of Residential and Business Development,
Amending Chapter 3.68 to Remove References to Quimby Act in Lieu Fees, and Making a Determination of
Exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act. (RESOLUTION NO. 2025-010 ) (ORDINANCE NO.
1038 ) (CITY)
Carlos Rodriguez
Chief Policy Officer
Building Industry Association of Southern California, Inc.
crodriguez@biasc.org
ph: (909) 641-4630 w: biasc.org
Mailing Address: 17192 Murphy Ave., #14445, Irvine, CA
92623
Los Angeles/Ventura • Orange County • San Bernardino
County • Riverside County • Coachella Valley
2025/04/02 – REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING - ITEM G1 –CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED 4/02/2025
From: Carlos Rodriguez <crodriguez@biasc.org>
Sent: Wednesday, April 2, 2025 8:39:34 AM
To: Gillison, John <John.Gillison@cityofrc.us>
Cc: Oriel, Jasmin <Jasmin.Oriel@cityofrc.us>; Troyan, Linda <Linda.Troyan@cityofrc.us>
Subject: RE: BIA Comment - Item G1
CAUTION: This email is from outside our Corporate network. Do not click links or open attachments unless
you recognize the sender and can confirm the content is safe.
PS
Please pass along these previous BIA comments related to the proposed DIF to the City Council. We support the
staff recommendation under Item G1 to allow for more time to discuss these issues – thank you!
Carlos Rodriguez
Chief Policy Officer
Building Industry Association of Southern California, Inc.
crodriguez@biasc.org
ph: (909) 641-4630 w: biasc.org
Mailing Address: 17192 Murphy Ave., #14445, Irvine, CA
92623
Los Angeles/Ventura • Orange County • San Bernardino
County • Riverside County • Coachella Valley
From: Carlos Rodriguez
Sent: Wednesday, April 2, 2025 5:01 AM
To: Gillison, John <John.Gillison@cityofrc.us>
Subject: BIA Comment - Item G1
Good morning John,
I hope all is well.
I’m currently in Washington D.C. conducting Congressional briefings. Please note, BIA supports the staff
recommendation below under Item G1. Please extend my regret in missing the opportunity to provide a public
comment due to my schedule conflict. I appreciate you passing along this communication to the City Council.
Thank you!
Some people who received this message don't often get email from crodriguez@biasc.org. Learn why this is
important
Staff Recommends that that the public hearing for the Non- Transportation Development Impact Fees and
Nexus Study be continued to April 16, 2025, at 7:00 p.m. and that the Transportation Development Impact
Fees and Nexus Study be continued to May 7, 2025, at 7:00 p.m.
ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS ITEM(S) - CITY/FIRE DISTRICT
G1. Public Hearing for Consideration of Resolution No. 2025-010, A Resolution of the City Council of Rancho
Cucamonga, California, Approving Development Impact Fee Nexus Studies, Adopting Capital Improvement
Programs as Part of the Nexus Studies, Updating and Establishing the Fee Amounts for the City’s
Development Impact Fees, and Making a Determination of Exemption Under CEQA and Consideration of
First Reading of Ordinance No. 1038, to be Read by Title Only and Waive Further Reading, An Ordinance of
the City of Rancho Cucamonga, Adding Chapter 3.80 to the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code,
Establishing a Development Impact Fee for Fire Impacts of Residential and Business Development,
Amending Chapter 3.68 to Remove References to Quimby Act in Lieu Fees, and Making a Determination of
Exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act. (RESOLUTION NO. 2025-010 ) (ORDINANCE NO.
1038 ) (CITY)
Carlos Rodriguez
Chief Policy Officer
Building Industry Association of Southern California, Inc.
crodriguez@biasc.org
ph: (909) 641-4630 w: biasc.org
Mailing Address: 17192 Murphy Ave., #14445, Irvine, CA
92623
Los Angeles/Ventura • Orange County • San Bernardino
County • Riverside County • Coachella Valley
NBS Non-Transportation DIF Study
1. Based on the projected number of new residential units in the NBS study, a total of 75 acres of park
land is required. According to Table 3.1 of the NBS study, the City has 68 acres, potentially 94 acres
(see # 5 below) of undeveloped park land in inventory, yet the NBS study proposes the city charge new
development $102,000,000 in fees to acquire 75 acres of new park land. Please explain why the new
park land is required when the City has sufficient undeveloped park land in inventory to fully satisfy the
park land requirements for new development.
2. The February 2025 NBS study arbitrarily removed 26 unimproved acres from inventory at Central Park
citing the land was for non-public purposes. We believe these acres should be included in inventory as
Central Park was dedicated to the City for public purposes.
3. As of June 2023, the City had over $26,000,000 of non-transportation development impact fee funds
on hand. The Fehr & Peers study deducted the transportation funds on hand from the proposed
transportation improvements, NBS did not. Government Code Section 66016.5 (a) (4) requires a
municipality to evaluate the amount of fees collected under the original fee. Please explain why the
non-transportation funds on hand are not being considered as a reduction when calculating the
proposed fees.
4. The cost per acre ($989,000) of improving the dog park at central park was used to calculate the park
improvement fees. This cost is far in excess of the typical improvements for a public park, potentially
by as much as $350,000 per acre resulting in the park land improvement fee to potentially overstated
by $26,250,000. Please provide reasonable evidence supporting the proposed cost of future park
development.
5. The Resort project will be contributing 1.75 acres of land plus $11,000,000 to the City for construction
of a Joint Use Public Facility. The total value of the contribution is approximately $13,100,000. Should
the Community and Recreation Center Fee not be reduced by a like amount?
Fehr & Peers Transportation DIF Study
1. Before implementing a new development fee (AB 602) Government Code Section 66016.5 (a) (1)
requires a municipality to prepare and adopt a nexus study. Section 66016.5 (a) (2) requires the nexus
study to identify the existing level of service for each public facility, identify the proposed new level of
service and explain of why the new level of service is appropriate. Based on our review of the Fehr &
Peers study, it appears these requirements have not been met. Please explain.
2. Government Code Section 66016.5 (a) (6) requires a large municipality adopt a Capital Improvement
Plan as part of the nexus study. The City ’s Major Projects Program (CIP) does not include a majority of
the improvements proposed in the Fehr & Peers study. The Fehr & Peers study references the City has
prepared a draft amendment to the CIP. Please provide a copy of the proposed CIP amendment which
includes all of the projects in the Fehr & Peers study.
3. The Fehr & Peers study uses Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) to calculate the impacts of new
development. VMT is not recognized as an appropriate metric in the context of an impact fee analysis,
only for greenhouse gas and other environmental impacts. Please explain reliance on VMT as an
appropriate metric for the transportation fee study.
4. A new concept in the February 11, 2025, Fehr & Peers report is the zonal approach to assessing fees
based on estimated trip interactions between zones. This novel approach creates an unfair burden on
the central and south zones with fees that are 58% higher than the north zone. Residential
development in the central and south zones are being allocated a disproportionate 78% share of the
cost of improvements to the industrial area east of Interstate 15 without any corresponding benefit. We
do not concur with this approach.
5. The total project cost estimates in Appendix C of the Fehr & Peers study are not consistent with Table 1
of the study, the City’s Active Transportation Plan (Connect RC) and the City’s Major Projects Plan.
Please explain why the project cost estimates in Appendix C, used to calculate the Transportation Fees
have been substantially inflated over the referenced documents.
6. In 2022 the City hired Kosmont to form an Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District (“EIFD”) with the
expectation the City would raise over $255,000,000 over the life of the EIFD. The stated purpose of the
EIFD is to fund, among other things, the cost of bridges, streets, parking facilities, parks and
recreational facilities, sidewalks, streetscape improvements and bicycle lanes identified in the General
Plan. The Kosmont report specifically identified the Foothill Corridor and the Cucamonga Station,
Haven / Arrow focus area as potential priority projects at a cost of up to $100,000,000. Please explain
why the future EIFD funds have not been taken into consideration when calculating the proposed
transportation fees.
7. The City’s Connect RC, Active Transportation Plan (ATP) targets multiple regional, state and federal
funding sources to address the financial needs of the projects identified in the ATP, yet none of these
outside funding sources were considered in determining the proposed Transportation Fee. Please
explain why these funding sources were not considered in calculating the proposed transportation fee.
8. In 2018 the City proposed the Etiwanda Grade Separation project to Etiwanda to invest in infrastructure
specifically for the promotion and marketability of the industrial sector of the City. Etiwanda Avenue, at
the site of the proposed Etiwanda Grade Separation currently operates at a level of service “F” per the
City’s Project Baseline Agreement with the California Department of Transportation. This area of the
City is known for vehicular collisions with trains and multiple traffic fatalities. The City has applied for
and has been awarded significant SB1-TCEP construction funding ($60,000,000 or more) for the project.
Interstate 15 separates the project from residential areas of the city, yet the Fehr & Peers study
proposes new residential development pay for the majority of the cost of the proposed improvement
without any direct benefit. Please explain why the Etiwanda Grade Separation project is proposed to be
included in the Transportation DIF and disproportionately assessed to residential development when it
has historically been excluded?
9. The Signal Interconnect System in the Fehr & Peers Study is proposed to be allocated 100% to new
development. In addition, the cost of the signal interconnect system was increased over 600% from
$10.6 MM to $75.0 MM. Please explain the justification for the cost increase and allocating 100% to
new development when the Signal Interconnect System has community wide benefits for existing
residents and businesses.
10. The Fehr & Peers study limits the fee reduction for housing developments located within one-half mile
of a transit priority area to multi-family (low-rise) and multi-family (mid-rise) units. Government Code
Section 66005.1 applies to a “Housing Development”, not specific types of units, thus all housing
developments meeting the criteria of Section 66005.1 shall be eligible for a fee reduction based on
automobile trip generation rates. Request the Fehr & Peers study be revised accordingly.
Page 1 of 2
Memorandum
To: Carlos Rodriguez, BIA Southern California Chapter
From: Peter Piller
Date: March 17, 2025
Subject: High Level Review of the Rancho Cucamonga Development Impact Fee
Study (Non-Transportation DIF)
CC: Nick Belshe
Carlos,
Per your request, we have prepared this memo summarizing our findings and results of our high-
level review of the February 20, 2025, Development Impact Fee Nexus Study (“Revised DIF
Study”) prepared by NBS (“NBS”) for the City of Rancho Cucamonga (“City”). The purpose of
the review of the Revised DIF Study is to verify and confirm the assumptions and calculations
used in the study, and to make comments as necessary. The primary tasks for our high-level
review of the study include the following:
• Confirm mathematical accuracy of schedules in the Revised DIF Study.
• Identify initial issues and comments within the Revised DIF Study.
• Prepare initial bullet point findings and present to BIA and stakeholders.
The observations and results of the tasks performed, and findings are outlined below.
1. DPFG has reviewed the mathematical calculations in the Revised DIF Study along with
the changes made by the City and NBS in response to the comments originally provided.
While many of the comments were addressed, there are still some outstanding concerns.
A few examples of the changes are:
o Fees are now converted to a per square foot amount assuming an average single
family home of 2,500 SF and an average multifamily home of 1,700 SF.
o Total improved park acreage was reduced by approximately 22 acres. We have
confirmed that the new park acreage estimates are reasonable.
o Existing Impact Fee Fund Balances have been removed from the fee calculation.
o Cost of Land Acquisition has been reduced from $1,333,000 per acre to
$1,176,197 per acre.
The outstanding concerns are detailed on the following page:
Page 1 of 3
Memorandum
To: Carlos Rodriguez, BIA Southern California Chapter
From: Peter Piller
Date: March 17, 2025
Subject: High Level Review of the Revised Rancho Cucamonga Transportation
Development Impact Fee Study
CC: Nick Belshe
Carlos,
Per your request, we have prepared this memo summarizing our findings and results of our high-
level review of the February 11, 2025, Revised Transportation Development Impact Fee Nexus
Study (“Revised Transportation DIF Study”) prepared by Fehr & Peers for the City of Rancho
Cucamonga (“City”). The purpose of the review of the Revised Transportation DIF Study is to
verify and confirm the assumptions and calculations used in the study, and to make comments as
necessary. The primary tasks for our high-level review of the study include the following:
• Confirm mathematical accuracy of schedules in the Revised Transportation DIF Study.
• Identify initial issues and comments within the Revised Transportation DIF Study.
• Prepare initial bullet point findings and present to BIA and stakeholders.
The observations and results of the tasks performed, and findings are outlined below.
1. Can backup be provided for how the total future trips of 183,433 (from Table 15) was
calculated?
2. How can it be justified that new development is required to pay for 46.3% of the
$819,668,000 in program costs (excluding DIF Account Balance) when new development
only represents 29.6% of the service population at buildout? It seems many of the
projects allocated to new development at 100% are either to mitigate an existing
deficiency or are not increasing capacity or mitigating new development’s impacts and
instead are for beautification or promoting the City’s desire to increase non-vehicle
transportation (active transportation).
o As an example, aside from future grant funding, new development is effectively
being required to pay for 100% of the Etiwanda Grade Separation Project ($111
million). Within the Revised Transportation DIF Study itself, there is text stating:
“The proposed grade separation of the railroad tracks at Etiwanda has been
planned by the City for years. Additionally, it is identified in General Plan Policy
Page 2 of 3
MA-4.5 which states, “Support the construction of grade separations of roadways
and trails from rail lines.” This grade separation is needed to support the
continuation of land use growth and associated traffic impacts, especially in the
Southeast Industrial Quadrant (SEIQ), to maintain LOS goals in the area.”
o If this is a project that has been in the works for years, how can it be fully
attributed to new development? This project was initially anticipated to be
completed by 2022, and while construction hasn’t started, it is still in process.
This seems to indicate that the project would be built even if no further
development were to occur. Additionally, this improvement will especially
benefit the SEIQ area as defined above, so why is residential development paying
into it at the same rate as non-residential?
o Per a Project Baseline Agreement entered into between the City and the California
Department of Transportation it is stated that as of July 2018 Etiwanda had a level
of service rating of “F” and an ADT of 21,000 vehicles, and there had been 7
train/vehicular accidents resulting in 2 fatalities and injuries. Based on this, it
seems like there is an existing need for this Grade Separation so how can the cost
be allocated fully to new development?
o It is also our understanding that $60 million in State funding has already been
acquired for this project, which doesn’t appear to be reflected in the study. The
study also reflects approximately $74 million in “future grant funding”. Should
the total grant funding be $134 million?
o Why is Project INT 20 (Citywide Traffic Signal Communication Improvements)
being allocated fully to new development when it is a Citywide improvement that
would benefit all residents and employees? At most, this project should be
allocated to new development at 29.6%. Additionally, how were the costs for this
project allocated to each zone?
o Are roundabouts, trail crossings, and buffered bike lanes mitigating the impacts of
new development or are these improvements just for beautification and promoting
active transportation?
3. It is our understanding that the City formed an EIFD to fund parking infrastructure and
related improvements between Haven Ave and Day Creek Blvd along Foothill Corridor
and transportation connectivity improvements linking Cucamonga Station and
Haven/Arrow focus area in the amount of approximately $60-$100 million in 2022
dollars. Should there be a reduction/adjustment to the project costs to account for this
funding? Specifically, projects DTRC1, CC1, CC1.1, and RH6, all of which are related to
active transportation on Foothill and Haven
4. How is it possible that of the $819,668,000 in program costs, only $3,943,600 is
considered an existing deficiency?
o As an example, and as referenced above, Etiwanda Avenue had a level of service
rating of “F” in 2018. There are multiple projects along Etiwanda which leads us
to believe that not only should the existing deficiency amount be higher, but that
Page 3 of 3
it is likely there are also additional roadways that are below the desired level of
service.
5. Would it make sense to add an additional Eastern zone for the industrial area east of the
I-15?
o It is unlikely that residents living in the Southern zone will frequently travel east
of the I-15 into the industrial area, yet the Southern zone is being allocated most
of the costs for projects east of the I-15.
6.Per Table 10, there will be a reduction in quantity of facilities per 1,000 service
population when compared to the existing standard for Roadways, Trails, and Sidewalk
Facilities, with Bike Lanes being the only facility to see an increase.
o How can it be justified that the proposed improvements are solely mitigating the
impacts of new development and not just furthering the goals of the City to
promote active transportation when most of the facilities are seeing a decrease
compared to the existing standard?
7. Many of the project costs are inconsistent with estimates previously approved by the City
and appear to have been largely inflated. Additionally, there is a disconnect in project
costs between Table 1 and Appendix B.
8.Is the Grove Ave/4th Street at I-10 Freeway project already complete? (Project ID F1)
9. If a new development project constructs one of the DIF improvements, how can it be
guaranteed that the developer will receive credits/be reimbursed for the full cost of work?
We recently ran into a situation where a jurisdiction is claiming they will only
credit/reimburse a developer for the percentage of the project costs allocated to new
development (29.6% in this case) as they won’t have the funds to reimburse for the
remaining percentage of costs that are allocated to existing development, and if they were
to do so, they would be taking credits away from other future projects. This effectively
told us the jurisdiction is not funding existing development’s share as was stated they
would do in the nexus study.
Page 2 of 2
2.General questions and comments:
o How will credits for each of the fee types be determined if a project provides a
park, recreational facility, public safety facility, etc. if there are no facility lists?
o Is there any overlap between the Park Improvements cost of $989,000 per acre
and the Replacement Cost assumed in the Recreation Centers Fee? For example,
the Heritage Park Equestrian Center and Lewis/Brulte Community/Sr. Center are
included in both, and while land value is excluded in the Recreational Center Fee
calculation, the replacement cost is not. This was a prior comment that didn’t
seem to be addressed in the Revised DIF Study.
o Additionally, is the $989,000 per acre in Park Improvement cost realistic? Based
on conversations with builders, this amount is higher than actual costs for a
typical park.
o Should the approximately 68 acres of unimproved park land be taken into
consideration to reduce the required acres of park land that needs to be acquired?
This would result in approximately $79.9 million in park land that does not need
to be acquired.
o The study excludes approximately 26 unimproved acres of Central Park and states
that this land is for non-public facilities. However, approximately 4 acres of this
land is for a future parking lot, of which acreage for parking lots was included in
all the other parks. Additionally, approximately 9 acres were removed for land
that is being leased out by the City for a Vineyard. Since this lease isn’t
permanent, should this acreage be included?
o It is our understanding that Lewis Management Corp. will be donating 1.75 acres
of land and $11,000,000 to the City for community and recreation center
facilities. Should this be accounted for in the study to reduce the amount of
revenues required by new development?
o Will the City’s EIFD be funding any of the fire facilities anticipated to be funded
through the DIF program? Should there be a reduction/adjustment for anticipated
EIFD funding?
MEMORANDUM
To: Mr. Carlos Rodriguez
Business Industry Association
of Southern California, Inc.
Date: March 17, 2025
From: Keil D. Maberry, P.E., Principal
LLG Engineers
LLG Ref: 2.24.4893.1
Subject: Peer Review of the Transportation Development Impact Fee (DIF)
Program Nexus Study, Rancho Cucamonga
As requested, Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers (LLG) is pleased to provide our
review comments of the Transportation Development Impact Fee (DIF) Program
Nexus Study prepared by Fehr & Peers dated February 11, 2025. In particular, this
review focuses to the appropriateness and reasonableness of the DIF Project List and
Project Cost Estimates contained in Appendix C of the DIF Study and the resultant
DIF Program Cost Total presented in Table 14 on Page 26 of the DIF Study. It should
be noted, similar to our review of the October 23, 2024 Transportation Development
Impact Fee (DIF) Program Nexus Study prepared by Fehr & Peers, it is our finding
that this study provides no detailed quantitative nexus analyses associated with the
list of DIF improvements contained in Appendix C, which is required by the
Mitigation Fee Act.
Based on our detailed review of the DIF Study, we have the following comments
with regards to the DIF Project List and Project Cost Estimates and resultant DIF
Program Cost Total:
Active Transportation (AT) related improvements by definition do not
specifically improve level of service and do not measurably improve congestion
levels to mitigate the impact of new development, which is a necessary nexus
required for DIF improvements to be included in the DIF calculation process.
Conversely, the DIF Study does indicate that Active Transportation
improvements improve vehicle miles traveled (VMT) within the City as a
correlation for applicability to the DIF calculation. However, the relative measure
of VMT in the DIF study was calculated for the entire City and not specifically
for new development, which is contrary to the DIF requirement. Nonetheless,
while it is likely that AT improvements would benefit existing and future
development, the application of a fair share value would be reasonable in our
assertion. With that said, based on the information provided in Table 12 of the
DIF study, AT improvements will provide a 0.1% Citywide VMT reduction upon
implementation between 2024 and the 2040 Buildout condition commensurate
with new development. Therefore, we would recommend that only a 0.1% fair
share of the AT improvements be applicable to the DIF calculation. Nonetheless,
it is our understanding that the City approved an Enhanced Infrastructure
Financing District (EIFD) in 2022, which was intended to cover, among other
Mr. Carlos Rodriguez
March 17, 2025
Page 2
things, the proposed AT improvements along Foothill Boulevard and Haven
Avenue, such that these AT improvements should be eliminated from the DIF list.
Improvements related to safety, such as railroad crossing improvements/grade
separations, buffered bike lanes, pedestrian enhancements, curb extensions, traffic
signal left-turn phasing improvements, and road diets are not applicable to the
traffic impact of new development as the traffic generated by new development
does not directly impact traffic safety conditions, such that a nexus finding cannot
be made between new development and these safety-related improvements and
therefore should be removed from the DIF Study analysis.
The applicability between the proposed bridge widening improvements and
enhanced capacity/improved level of service (LOS) therein must be presented in
order for a nexus finding to be made, such that merely improving a bridge
structure does not improve traffic conditions for new development.
With regards to roundabout improvements, it is not clear whether there is a
enhanced capacity/improved level of service (LOS) improvement compared to the
existing geometry, such that a nexus finding must be made in order for the
proposed roundabout improvements to be applicable.
The proposed new traffic signal improvements (four locations) are located at
intersections with local side street roadways within built out areas, such that the
presumed improved level of service from constructing the traffic new signals will
not likely benefit new development and it is not clear whether the proposed traffic
signals are even warranted under existing or future conditions. In the event that
the City provides additional evidence to justify the possible inclusion of Traffic
Signals in the “fair share” cost allocation, in our experience the cost estimate for a
new traffic signal appears excessive at $750,000, and would recommend a cost of
$500,000.
Improvements related to trail enhancements and trail crossings are not applicable
to the traffic impact of new development as the traffic generated by new
development does not directly impact traffic safety conditions, such that a nexus
finding cannot be made between new development and these safety-related
improvements and therefore should be removed from the DIF Study analysis.
The DIF roadway extension improvements are not supported by any nexus
analysis within the DIF study, such that it is not clear that any of the roadway
extension improvements listed mitigate new development impacts solely because
they provide additional roadway capacity within the City. Another factor to
consider regarding the applicability of roadway extensions, is the fact that because
Mr. Carlos Rodriguez
March 17, 2025
Page 3
the proposed roadway extensions are through or adjacent to undeveloped land,
new development will be required to construct these roadway extension
improvements as Project Features, thus eliminating the need to include them as
DIF improvements. As a result, if not eliminated, at most these roadway extension
improvement costs should be calculated at the 29.6% new development service
population increase based on Table 3 in the DIF study.
The Signal Interconnect System improvement designated as a Citywide traffic
signal communication improvements, in our experience, has shown to marginally
improve congestion levels, but is not substantiated in the DIF study.
* * * * * * * * * * *
We appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments. Please call us at (949)
825-6175 if you have any questions.
DATE:April 2, 2025
TO:Mayor and Members of the City Council
President and Members of the Board of Directors
FROM:John R. Gillison, City Manager
INITIATED BY:Peter Castro, Deputy City Manager, Administrative Services
Jevin Kaye, Finance Director
Rick Flinchum, Finance Manager
SUBJECT:Consideration to Receive and File the Midyear Financial Update for the
Fiscal Year 2024/25 and Approve Various Appropriations and Related
Actions. (CITY/FIRE)
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the City Council and Fire Board of the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection
District receive and file the Midyear Financial Update for the Fiscal Year 2024/25 and approve
various appropriations and related actions.
BACKGROUND:
Quarterly, the City Manager's Office and Finance Department provide the City Council and Fire
Board with a brief update on the financial performance of the City's operating funds, consisting of
the General Fund, Library Fund, and Fire District. The report also includes economic factors for
the City Council.
City staff also provides the City Council and Fire Board with a midyear budget analysis, providing
an overview and preliminary revenues and expenditures projections for the remainder of the fiscal
year. At this time, certain budgetary appropriations are also requested prior to the conclusion of
the midyear amended budget cycle in May to avoid any operational issues.
ANALYSIS:
The Midyear Financial Updates provide the unaudited financial results at midyear and the most
recent economic data and indicators available. With just over half of the fiscal year completed,
the revenues and expenditures for the General Fund, Library Fund, and Fire District are generally
within expected ranges.
Similar to the first quarter report, operational and professional service expenditures will generally
surpass the benchmark due to encumbrances made at the start of the fiscal year for departmental
operations. These encumbrances are a means for budget management and prevent
overspending. The usage of these encumbrances is analyzed within the attached report.
Meanwhile, with personnel expenditures, the majority of departments are within an expected
range overall, except the Animal Care and Services Department along with the Finance
Department. There are vacancies throughout most departments, but these two departments have
been more heavily impacted by vacancies this year. When viable, Departments have utilized
Page 137
Page 2
2
7
7
3
budget savings from personnel services to increase contract services to ensure consistent service
delivery.
The major revenue sources for the General Fund, Library Fund, and Fire District are, for the most
part, within expectations through midyear. Sales tax revenues are trending as expected, as are
other revenues, such as licenses and permits, fines and forfeitures, and charges for services.
The report includes an analysis of the most recent economic data and indicators available.
As of December 2024, the City's unemployment rate was 3.7%, which is equal to the
previous year's unemployment rate. This is a very low rate when compared to other cities
throughout our local region.
The year-over-year consumer price index for January 2025 in the Riverside-San
Bernardino-Ontario area was 2.94%, indicating a return to normal ranges.
As of the end of calendar year 2024, the median home price for detached single-family
homes was up 5% from the previous year to $861,020, although volume of available
properties remains very low.
Sales tax remained flat (-.02%) in the 3rd quarter of 2024 compared to 2023 receipts.
The Midyear Budget Analysis provides budget and year-to-date actuals of revenues and
expenditures for the City's operating funds, the Library Fund, and the Fire District’s operating
funds.
Below are summary-level notes and considerations to aid the report's review.
General Fund
As of midyear, General Fund revenues are expected to remain at levels consistent with the
budgeted projections for this Fiscal Year. Finance is recommending maintaining budgeted figures
for property and sales tax revenues based on current receipts and projections. As further funds
are received by the City, and as further forecasts are received after the end of the third quarter,
Finance will closely monitor performance to ensure any necessary adjustments are reflected in
the final budget projections after the end of the third quarter.
As part of their midyear revision, the Community Services Department has projected an increase
in their revenue projections of $275,140, largely increased based on actuals being slightly higher
than anticipated in Contract Classes and ticket sales at the Victoria Gardens Cultural Center.
Expenditures are projected to increase by $1,351,446, or 1.1%, from the amended budget. This
is a net increase reflecting decreases in personnel services due to full-time and part-time
vacancies and offset with increases in professional services across several departments, primarily
Animal Care and Services, Finance, Engineering, and Public Works. Furthermore, $738,115 of
the costs being requested were associated with the January 2025 Wind Event, which caused
significant damage and required additional costs for debris removal, fuel, and equipment rental.
Library Fund
Library expenditures are projected to increase by $6,880 and revenues are expected to decrease
by $52,930 from the adopted budget. The library has made some appropriation requests related
to utility charges for the Second Story and Beyond facility, but those have been slightly offset by
the deferral of some equipment replacement efforts that have been rescheduled for next fiscal
year.
Page 138
Page 3
2
7
7
3
Second Story ticket sales and revenues are significantly below forecasts. Instead of a small
surplus in this fiscal year, the Second Story facility is projecting a small deficit. Library Fund
revenues are projected to decrease primarily due to the reduction in service hours for Passport
Services, as hours have not expanded as was previously anticipated in the development of this
year’s budget.
Fire District
The Fire District is not anticipating any major changes to revenue forecasts as a part of this
midyear process. Expenditures, meanwhile, have been projected to decrease by $44,355 in the
Fire General Fund (Fund 281), $597,990 in Fire CFD 85-1 (Fund 282), $13,840 in Fire CFD 88-1
(Fund 283), and $4,325,365 in the Fire Capital Fund (Fund 288). These reductions are primarily
due to moving some projects and equipment purchases to FY 2025-26 due to capacity as well as
a necessary reclass of project expenses related to the completion of Fire Station 178.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Additional appropriations are being requested prior to the amended budget presentation in May.
City staff requests that the City Council and Fire Board authorize the additional appropriations
outlined in Attachments 2, 3, 4, and 5 describing the amounts and purposes of the requested
appropriations.
For clarity, the City (including the General Fund) is presented in Attachment 2 separate from the
Community Services Department, which is summarized on Attachment 3. This is due to the usage
of additional account strings in the Community Services Department, so their adjustments are
listed separately.
COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / GOAL(S) ADDRESSED:
Providing regular financial updates supports the City Council's goals of intentionally embracing
and anticipating the future by receiving timely financial information upon which they can base their
current and future decisions.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment 1 – Midyear Financial Update Through January 31, 2025
Attachment 2 – FY 2024/25 Appropriation/Adjustment Requests (City)
Attachment 3 – FY 2024/25 Appropriation/Adjustment Requests (City – Community Services)
Attachment 4 – FY 2024/25 Appropriation/Adjustment Requests (Library)
Attachment 5 – FY 2024/25 Appropriation/Adjustment Requests (Fire)
Page 139
Mid-Year Financial Update
Fiscal Year 2024-25
April 2, 2025
INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City Manager’s Office and Finance Department is
providing this financial update to the City Council as a
high-level overview of the City's financial status halfway
through the fiscal year, and an overview of economic
indicators that can influence the City's revenues and
expenditures.
This report has several components:
1.Financial Update: This report includes budget to
actual variance analysis for revenues and
expenditures for July 1, 2024, through January 31,
2025. The financial update details the City General
Fund, Fire District Operating Funds, and Library Fund.
2.Economic Brief: This report compiles economic
information and indicators, such as employment data,
ATTACHMENT 1
Page 140
3
sales tax data, and other local and regional economic
news.
At mid-year, the City’s financial status remains in line
with expectations. Significant accounts and notable
variances are presented in this financial report,
reflecting just over half of the fiscal year.
The tables in this report compare budgeted to actual
amounts for the General Fund, Fire District, and Library.
The year-to-date (YTD) financials are unaudited actuals
and presented with encumbrances requested. The revised
budget includes budget adjustments, encumbrance
carryovers from the prior fiscal year, and any
supplemental appropriations approved by the City
Council through midyear. The percent of the budget
(% Bud) is the percentage received/spent of the budget.
The prior year-to-date (PYTD) financials show comparable
information from the same period of the prior fiscal year.
The report uses colored icons to illustrate how well the
category is doing financially. Green means everything is
reasonable, yellow means that something is being
monitored closely, and red indicates a budget line
requiring review due to potential overages.
Note about the City’s New Financial ERP System
The City and Fire District went live with its new Workday
ERP system on July 1, 2024. As a result of the new features
and abilities provided by Workday, some financial
practices have been modified to maintain alignment with
current financial standards and best practices. Therefore,
some revenue and expenditure data may appear to
deviate from trends noted in prior years. Where these
trends deviate, they will be highlighted and explained
throughout the report.
GENERAL FUND OVERVIEW
The City’s General Fund is the primary fund used to pay
for a variety of programs and services that are provided to
people and businesses in Rancho Cucamonga. This
includes programs and services offered by different
departments of the City. Overall, the revenues (amount of
money coming in) and expenditures (going out) of the
General Fund are within the expected range, accounting
for items like seasonal changes and ongoing expenses.
Currently, the amount of money spent from the General
Fund is 66% of the total budget for the year. This includes
both general expenses that benefit the whole city, as well
as the costs of running individual departments. This report
will focus on analyzing the expenses for each department
within the General Fund.
The table above includes departmental and non-departmental
spending. Non-departmental expenditures are excluded from the
operating departmental analysis section.
General Fund Revenues
Primary revenue sources for the General Fund are
property tax, sales tax, franchise fees, and transient
occupancy tax. Collectively, these comprise about 81% of
the annual budget.
Property Tax. The first major apportionment of property
tax occurred in December 2024. The City partners with a
Page 141
4
property tax consultant to continually monitor and
project property tax revenues for the City. The budget
represents a forecasted 4.0% growth in assessed
valuation from the prior fiscal year. The increase is
favorable for revenue forecasts in the fiscal year, but
these projections are being monitored for potential
revision later in this fiscal year due to economic
uncertainty.
Property taxes include property tax in lieu of vehicle
license fees budgeted for $26.4 million and residual
property tax for the form RDA budgeted for $3.5 million.
At mid-year, the City has received approximately 50% of
this allocated funding, with the remaining 50%
anticipated in the second half of the year.
Sales Tax. Sales tax is the largest single source of revenue
for the City. As such, City staff and consultants monitor
how much sales tax is coming in closely. The sales tax
received to date reflects an increase over prior year to
date. This is largely due to timing of receipts which have
been more consistent this year, and results are as
expected. As the city heads into the second half of the
year, performance is as expected, but close monitoring
will occur to evaluate whether adjustments are necessary.
We are still waiting for final holiday season numbers;
however, sales tax receipts to-date indicate the City will
end the year close to expectation.
Franchise Fees/Transient Occupancy Taxes. Transient
Occupancy Taxes (TOT) and Franchise Fees comprise 17%
of the taxes received by the General Fund. Franchisees
remit payment to the City on recurring schedules, but not
in the first quarter of the year. Gas and electric franchise
fees are received in the year's final quarter. TOT is
remitted by hotels to the City monthly. The budget
estimate projects growth of approximately 9% from the
prior year's budget, based on the opening of the Tapestry
Hotel during the fiscal year and forecasted room
occupancy and revenue per available room for existing
hotels. The new Tapestry hotel opened later than
expected, and performance is being monitored closely in
case adjustments prove necessary later this year.
Licenses and Permits. Halfway through the year, revenues
received are at 63% of budget. Results have been steady
through the year, and with the resolution of prior ERP
delays mentioned in the previous update, recording of
these receipts is current through January 2024.
Fines and Forfeitures. This category includes vehicle and
parking fines and citations, which comprise 62% of the
fines and forfeitures budget, and other general fines and
forfeitures. This category includes vehicle code fines
collected by San Bernardino County and remitted to the
City. At midyear, the receipts for fines and forfeitures are
meeting expectations.
Charges for Services. Charges for services refer to the
amounts collected for specific services provided by the
departments. It includes various community development
fees, such as plan check, planning, and engineering fees,
which comprise 70% of the budget, and recreation fees
make up 20%. As of mid-year, recreation fees, and ticket
sales are exceeding their budget. Community
development is in line with expectations.
Intergovernmental. The bulk of this category includes
motor vehicle in-lieu fees and homeowners property tax
relief revenues from the County, which are received later
in the fiscal year.
Transfers In. Transfers represent the transfers of
resources from other funds to the General Fund. Due to
changes in financial processes with the ERP, booking of
transfers will occur as part of this year’s closing process,
which begins in March 2025.
Other Revenues. Includes interest earned on invested
funds, rental and lease income, reimbursements, and
miscellaneous revenues. Reimbursements represent 32%
of this category. Revenues fluctuate heavily in this
category due to timing of receipts but are within
expectations for those reimbursements expected by
midyear.
General Fund Departmental Expenditures
Expenditures for the General Fund can vary because of
the timing of vendor payments, carryover of purchase
orders from the prior year, and the changes in operations
during the year. Therefore, even if expenditures are above
or below the benchmark of 50%, departments could be
within the expected ranges due to their need to issue
Page 142
5
purchase orders and blanket encumbrances at the start of
each fiscal year for operations.
Changes in Accounting Process:
As noted in the 1st Quarter update, some changes, in line
with our new financial ERP system, have allowed the
Finance department to adjust some accounting practices
according to best practices, which may result in some
variances between current year actuals and prior year-to-
date actuals.
Personnel:
The City previously allocated the full year of fringe
benefits costs for employees to the various departments
in July of every fiscal year; however, with the new system,
we are now able to charge those costs in real time as they
are incurred. As such, personnel costs appear lower than
previous year-to-date figures. The new method reflects
timelier posting of actual spending, and thus results in a
more accurate report of real expenses throughout the
year. Personnel expenses are tracking as expected, with
some recognized salary savings across the City currently
being utilized for contract services accounts due to
staffing shortages.
Cost Allocations
Departments that provide services that benefit the City
have their budgets reduced to reflect the allocation of the
cost of those services to the benefiting departments. This
is the Cost Allocation category within the department’s
budget.
Due to the ERP conversion, allocations for the year will be
booked as part of our closing process for the year,
beginning in March. As a result, Cost Allocation costs (and
their respective offsets to the departments) do not yet
figure into the totals for midyear. All cost allocations are
expected to meet the budgeted totals, and are not
anticipated to change at this time.
Operations and maintenance are at the benchmark for
Administrative Services but are not significant costs
overall. Operations and maintenance are lower in the
current year due to the timing of conferences and travel,
which can vary depending on scheduled conferences.
These expenditures usually do not even out for at least
three full quarters of the fiscal year.
Professional services for the Animal Center are over total
budget at 165% for the year. Those budgets have been
more heavily relied upon due to significant staffing
shortages at the Animal Center driven by the departure of
staff to the new Ontario/Chino joint powers authority.
This mid-year report contains an appropriation request to
provide this funding to the Animal Center, which is
anticipated to resolve this overage. This funding will
utilize cost savings from personnel, so this will not result
in increased appropriations overall.
Professional services are higher than expected for
Building and Safety at 98% due to fully encumbered
contracts with consultants to assist with building
examinations and plan check services to aid in operations.
This is in line with expectations for the department.
Overall operations and professional services for the City
Clerk are within expected ranges for midyear as variances
from the prior year reflect services, such as records
Page 143
6
management consulting, which are not budgeted for this
fiscal year.
Due to expenses associated with the 2024 election, the
professional services budget is higher than non-election
years.
Operations and maintenance expenses for the City
Council can vary as they primarily consist of travel and
meetings. Higher spending is expected due to high activity
levels and will adjust as further travel is scheduled.
Professional services for the City Manager’s Office are at
60% of the budget and are on par with spending at this
time last year, with contracts typically encumbered earlier
on in the year.
Professional services expenses for Community
Improvement, which primarily include legal fees for
abatements, civil litigation, and other necessary services,
are at 80% of the budget.
The budget is higher than in previous fiscal years due to
last year’s movement of the Business License division
from Finance to Community Improvement. Business
License expenses are also within expected ranges for
midyear.
Operations and maintenance and professional services for
Community Services are near the benchmark, at 51% and
58% of their respective budgets. Operations and
maintenance and professional services can vary
depending on the timing of events. In the current fiscal
year, significant expenditures represent special event
programming and consulting for the Victoria Gardens
Cultural Center, as well as planned spending related to
improvement projects for the Lewis Family Playhouse and
Second Story and Beyond®.
Capital Outlay includes spending and encumbrances for
portable radios, a sound system, and camera equipment
for the Victoria Gardens Cultural Center.
Operations and maintenance for Community
Development is near the benchmark at 48% of the budget.
The current fiscal year spending is lower than the prior
year due to the timing of bills to vendors but is within the
expected ranges overall.
Professional services are at 103% of budget due to a
coding error in some purchase orders as well as some
additional funding needs. The department has already
begun addressing those errors, and an appropriation
request is included in this midyear report. Professional services for Engineering are at 96% of
budget, which includes spending on engineering on-call
plan check services and other land development services
to aid in reviewing large projects. The variance from the
Page 144
7
prior year is due to the timing of encumbrances which had
previously posted after midyear in last year’s report.
Professional services for Finance are at 95% of the budget,
which included necessary costs for consultant services
associated with staff turnover at the beginning of the
year. Finance is anticipating additional professional
services needs because of ongoing staff vacancies. An
appropriation request for those services is included in this
midyear report.
Operations and maintenance and Professional Services
for Human Resources are at the benchmark at 34% and
75% of the budget, respectively. Risk management has
rolled over a $50,000 encumbrance for Class A driver's
license training, which is necessary for specific operations
within public works.
Operations and maintenance for DoIT are around the
benchmark at 21% of the budget. Professional services
are at 79% of the budget due to software subscriptions
and support services. These are encumbered at the
beginning of the year and include some support costs for
new systems implemented in support of the Workday ERP
implementation.
Professional services for Planning are near the benchmark
at 69% due to contracts encumbered for the full fiscal year
for CEQA services, environmental review services, and
other planning services. Several of these costs are
reimbursable to the City and are only utilized if
development activity is ongoing.
Operations and maintenance costs are slightly higher for
Police than the benchmark at 67% due to spending in
supplies and materials as well as some increased
equipment repair costs. Monitoring will be ongoing with
the police department to ensure spending stays within
budget and to determine if any adjustments need to be
made with the mid-year adjustment. Operations and
maintenance also cover events, training, and other crime
prevention activities. Professional services primarily are
the contract with the San Bernardino County Sheriff for
policing services in the City and this meets expectations
for midyear.
Operations and maintenance for Public Works are at the
benchmark at 60% of budget, mainly due to internal
service user fees for vehicle and equipment charges from
the City’s Equipment and Vehicle Replacement Fund at
the beginning of the fiscal year. This fee accounts for the
immediate and long-term capital replacement needs for
the City’s vehicles and equipment. It is charged at the start
of the year.
Professional services are at 106% of the budget due to
encumbrances for maintenance contracts made at the
Page 145
8
beginning of the fiscal year, including park, vehicle,
equipment, and street maintenance. This overage was
also a result of the January 2025 Wind Event, which
caused significant damage around the City which Public
Works promptly responded to. This midyear report
includes funding requests for these accounts.
Capital outlay expenditures are for the recurring citywide
concrete repair project. In the current fiscal year,
$475,000 was budgeted, and another $25,000 was carried
over from the prior year. The project is ongoing and is
being done in segments.
LIBRARY FUND OVERVIEW
The Library Fund has spent 52% of its total budget for the
year, while the revenues are at 55% of the total budget.
Library Revenues
Property Tax. The Library Fund receives a portion of the
property taxes collected by the City. The first major
apportionment of property tax occurs in December each
year. As mentioned in the City’s analysis, preliminary
assessed valuation reports suggest that growth may be
slightly more than expected when the adopted budget
was forecasted. Also included in the property tax revenue
category is a total of $2.5 million in statutory and residual
payments from the dissolution of the former
redevelopment agency, of which half have been received
to date.
Library Expenditures.
Operations and maintenance spending are above the
benchmark at 80% of the budget, but this is because of
encumbrances of printed and digital books, materials, and
supplies for the two libraries made at the start of each
fiscal year.
Professional services spending is at 86% of the budget,
which is similar to the prior year, and due to
encumbrances for security services, cataloging services,
and other materials at both libraries.
FIRE DISTRICT OVERVIEW
The Fire District is responsible for keeping the community
safe by providing fire prevention and suppression
services. It includes the Fire General Fund and two
Community Facilities Districts (CFD) 85-1 and 88-1. The
City has eight fire stations that are currently operational.
The Fire District’s expenditures are at 47% of the budget,
while revenues are at 50% of the budget.
Page 146
9
Fire District Revenues
Property Tax. The first major apportionment of property
tax occurred in December 2024. As mentioned in the
City’s analysis, preliminary assessed valuation reports
suggest that growth might be a bit more than expected
when the adopted budget was forecasted. These
forecasts are being monitored for potential adjustment
later this year.
The property tax revenue budget includes $21.5 million
for statutory payments from the dissolution of the former
redevelopment agency, which are received later in the
year.
CFDs 85-1 and 88-1 levy special taxes for funding
administration, personnel services, maintenance, and
operations within the CFDs' boundaries. Combined, the
CFDs will collect $7.9 million and receive a $5.6 million
contribution of resources from the Fire District’s General
Fund to subsidize operations. The budget contribution is
shown as a Transfer In (revenue) to the CFDs and
Transfers Out (expenditure) from the Fire District in the
summary, revenue, and expenditure tables for the Fire
District. As mentioned for the City, transfers will be
booked as part of the year end close beginning in March.
Other Revenues. Other revenue includes interest earned
on invested funds, rental and lease income,
reimbursements, and miscellaneous revenues.
Reimbursements from the Other Post-Employment
Benefits (OPEB) Trust for the retiree healthcare costs
comprise 48% and other non-abated reimbursements,
which primarily consist of CalOES, comprise 20% of the
budget. Finance requests reimbursements from the OPEB
Trust for retiree healthcare costs near the end of each
fiscal year, and reimbursement from CalOES for fire
support depends on the timing of reimbursement receipts
processing by the state agency. At midyear, these results
are within expectations for this time of the year.
Fire District Expenditures
Personnel services are higher than prior year, but near the
benchmark of 62% of budget. The increase is due to the
increased staffing that had been approved by the Fire
District Board in Fiscal Year 2023/24.
Operations and maintenance are at 58% of the budget
which is in line with expectations for midyear.
Professional services are at 60% of the budget due to
spending and encumbrances for various contract services
necessary for fire administration, communications, and
facilities maintenance, and is comparable with the prior
year.
Debt service accounts for any interfund loans between
the Fire District and the General Fund. There is no activity
Page 147
10
in this fiscal year as the prior loan was fully repaid in
October 2023.
Cost allocation represents the estimated service costs
that City departments expend to support the Fire District.
As mentioned in the City’s analysis, these allocations will
be booked in the closing process for the fiscal year,
beginning in March 2025.
ECONOMIC OVERVIEW
The economic brief provides information on economic indicators that can be used to measure and track economic
activity at a local level. The economy is a combination of individual, business, and government spending or
investment at the national, regional, and local levels. Governments of all levels keep an eye on these economic
factors to assess the strength of the economy. This section of the brief focuses on indicators that can help track
aspects of the local economy.
Statewide, Regional and Local Labor Market
According to preliminary December 2024 figures, San Bernardino County had an unemployment rate of 4.8%,
which is lower than the unemployment rate for the State of California of 5.5%.
The graph below shows the unemployment rates (not seasonally adjusted) for the largest Counties and
Metropolitan Areas statewide for December 2024:
Source: Employment Development Department, State of California
At a local level, the City’s unemployment rate for December 2024 was 3.7%. The City’s unemployment rate is
lower than the County and State unemployment, although changes generally mirror the County and State. The
City’s unemployment rate is also favorable when compared to other comparable cities in San Bernardino County.
Page 148
11
Source: Employment Development Department, State of California
Source: Employment Development Department, State of California
Page 149
13
Consumer Price Index
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics
The Bureau of Labor Statistics for January 2025 indicates that the Consumer Price Index (CPI) in the U.S. for all
items experienced a non-seasonally adjusted increase of .5% for January. From January 2024 to January 2025, the
CPI-U for all items increased by 3.0%.
For the Riverside area, the CPI has shown up and down movements over recent months. As of January 2025, the
CPI was up by 2.94% from the year before. This annual increase is driven by higher prices in various categories,
such as shelter, education, communication, and apparel. Additionally, food prices increased by 2.5%, and energy
prices increased by 1%.
Page 150
13
Home Sales and Prices
Source: HdL Companies
At the end of the calendar year 2024, median home prices for detached single-family homes decreased slightly by
.6% for the quarter. For the year, median home prices increased 2%. At the same time, the total sales volume is
still low compared to the record volume in 2021. For 2024, the total sales fell to 848 from 893 in the prior year, a
decline of 5%. The current sales volume is normalized with the fourth quarter of 2022, indicating a new baseline
compared to the large volume of sales in 2020 and 2021 when interest rates were at historical lows.
Sales Tax
Sales tax revenue is a critical source of revenue for the City from retail and business activity. City staff closely
monitors sales tax for major financial impacts.
Historically, the largest sectors by the amount of sales tax to the City are general consumer goods, business and
industry, restaurants and hotels, and the State and County pools. Per the Q3 2024 report on statewide trends and
City sales tax data from HdL Companies, these sectors displayed various trends that might impact the City’s overall
taxable sales:
Rancho Cucamonga’s receipts from July through September were 10.9% below the third sales period in
2023 (a one-time occurrence). Negative audit corrections and an unusually large number of statewide
missing taxpayer payments combined to suppress cash comparisons. Excluding reporting aberrations,
actual sales were down 0.4%.
Page 151
14
Brisk sales activity for electrical equipment, medical/biotech products and other specialized
merchandise created a 12% surge from the business-industry group.
Building-construction had a 1% gain primarily from material supplies.
Patrons continued to pay more for higher priced menu items, both casual dining and quick service
restaurants improved revenues over the prior year quarter.
Service stations had smaller filings, prompted by less consumption and price contractions from one year
ago levels; the City’s 8% decline was less than county, state trends.
General consumer goods decreased 4%, showing that consumers steered clear of discretionary
purchases; specialty; sporting goods stores posted lower returns. Further, retailers that sell fuel also
pulled totals down within this category.
Net of aberrations, taxable sales for all of San Bernardino County were flat over the comparable time
period; the Southern California region was down 2.3%.
The chart below depicts a breakdown of business sectors that generate sales tax for the City as of the most recent
sales tax data available.
Page 152
Page 153
Page 154
Page 155
Page 156
Page 157
Page 158
Page 159
Page 160
Page 161
Page 162
Page 163
Page 164
Page 165
Page 166
Page 167
Page 168
Page 169
Page 170
Fiscal Year 2024/25
Midyear Financial Update
April 2, 2025
•Note about Changes in Financial Reporting
•Overview of Mid Year Financials
•Expenditure Analysis
•Economic Indicators
•Appropriation Considerations
Overview
Midyear Financial Overview
Overall
Results Revenue Results Expenditures Results
General Fund
Aligning with
expectations
through
midyear
Revenue cycles for
major sources have
received half of the
year’s allocations on
average.
•Sales Tax: Receipts
meeting projections,
but remain subject to
adjustments and
allocation adjustments.
•TOT: Passage of TOT
measure as well as new
hotel may result in
receipts starting in Q3.
Q1 spending appears
above benchmarks due
to early fiscal year
encumbrances for
departmental
operations, a budget
management practice
to prevent
overspending.
•Increased activity in
contract/professional
services accounts as a
result of staff vacancies,
resulting in shift of
salary savings across
some departments.
Library •Revenues aligning with
expectations
•Expenditures are
consistent with prior
year.
Fire District
•Revenues aligning with
expectations.
•Expenditures are
consistent with the
prior year considering
timing of payments
varied slightly.
General Fund: Preliminary Projected
Year-End Results
•Expenditures increase due to last year’s
encumbrance carryovers (utilize fund
balance).
•Planned Use of Fund Balances is
determined after the adoption of the
budget during the fiscal year close-out.
•Revenues are being received as
anticipated.
Library Fund: Preliminary Projected Year-End
Results
•Expenditures increase due to
encumbrances of printed and digital
books, materials and supplies.
•Revenues are coming in as
anticipated.
Fire District: Preliminary Projected Year-End
Results
•Expenditures are coming in as
anticipated.
•Revenues have decreased slightly
due to lower budget
contributions from CFD 85-1 and
CFD 88-1.
•This will be trued up at year-end
to ensure budget is balanced.
Economic Indicators
•Although unemployment is down, there is a lot of
uncertainty in the economy moving into next fiscal year
•Tariffs
•Foreign policy changes
•Sales tax and property values remain flat.
•Interest rates will subdue new construction and home
sales; will remain subdued until rates decrease
Economic Indicators: Unemployment
decreased and CPI rises.
Economic Indicators: home sales and median
home prices are down and flat.
Recommended City Council and
Fire Board Actions
Various appropriations are requested for department operations.
Shifting of salary savings for Animal Services, Community Services, and
Finance departments for use in contract services.
Contract services related to the City’s 50th Anniversary activities in the
Economic and Community Development Department.
Expenses associated with the January 2025 Wind Event.
Equipment purchases and carry over purchase orders for the Fire District.
Recommended City Council and
Fire Board Actions
1.Receive and File the Mid Year Financial Analysis
2.Approve recommended appropriation requests.
Questions ?