Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2024/12/04 - Regular Meeting Agenda Packet
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 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 December 4, 2024 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 JENIFER PHILLIPS, DIRECTOR OF HUMAN RESOURCES, MATT BURRIS, DEPUTY CITY MANAGER/ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JULIE SOWLES, DEPUTY CITY MANAGER/CIVIC AND CULTURAL SERVICES; PER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54954.2 REGARDING LABOR NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY EMPLOYEES’ ASSOCIATION (RCCEA). (CITY) D2. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS PER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.8 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 12467 BASE LINE ROAD IDENTIFIED AS PARCEL NUMBERS 1090-331-03- 0000, 1090-331-04-0000, 1089-581-04-0000; NEGOTIATING PARTIES JOHN GILLISON, CITY MANAGER REPRESENTING THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, JOSEPH FILIPPI, JOSEPH FILIPPI WINERY AND VINEYARDS, AND MICHAEL RUANE, NATIONAL COMMUNITY RENAISSANCE OF CALIFORNIA; REGARDING PRICE AND TERMS OF PAYMENT. (CITY) D3. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS PER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.8 FOR A UTILITY EASEMENT GENERALLY LOCATED WITHIN THE CUCAMONGA STATION PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF MILLIKEN AVENUE AND AZUSA COURT (APN: 0209-272- 11 & -22) AND WITHIN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY OF ROCHESTER AVENUE BETWEEN 8TH STREET AND JERSEY BOULEVARD, JERSEY BOULEVARD BETWEEN ROCHESTER AVENUE AND WHITE OAK AVENUE, AND WHITE OAK AVENUE SOUTH OF JERSEY BOULEVARD; NEGOTIATING PARTIES: JOHN GILLISON, CITY MANAGER, REPRESENTING THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA; SARAH WATERSON, PRESIDENT, REPRESENTING DESERTXPRESS ENTERPRISES, LLC, DBA BRIGHTLINE WEST; AND JENNIFER FARLEY, SENIOR SPECIALIST, REAL ESTATE AND FACILITIES, REPRESENTING SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON; UNDER NEGOTIATION: PRICE AND TERMS OF PAYMENT. (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 Certificate of Sympathy in Honor of Wilma Steeve. 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 Regular Meetings of November 20, 2024. D2. Consideration to Approve City and Fire District Bi-Weekly Payroll in the Total Amount of $4,601,826.18 and City and Fire District Weekly Check Registers (Excluding Checks Issued to Southern California Gas Company) in the Total Amount of $12,626,366.59 Dated October 24, 2024, Through November 24, 2024. (CITY/FIRE) D3. Consideration to Approve City and Fire District Weekly Check Registers for Checks Issued to Southern California Gas Company in the Total Amount of $16,321.10 Dated October 24, 2024, Through November 24, 2024. (CITY/FIRE) D4. Consideration to Cancel and Reschedule the February 5, 2025 Regular Meetings of the Fire Protection District, Successor Agency, Public Financing Authority, and City Council to February 4, 2025. (CITY/FIRE) D5. Consideration to Accept and Allocate Grant Revenue in the Amount of $3,825 Awarded by the California State Library for Zip Books Services. (CITY) D6. Consideration of Approval and Execution of an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement (ENA) Between the City of Rancho Cucamonga and JRC Real Estate Investments for Property Generally Located on the Northwest Corner of Civic Center Drive and Haven Avenue. (CITY) D7. Consideration of a Contract with Marjani Builders, Inc. for the Family Resource Center Rehabilitation Project in the Amount of $679,000, Plus a Contingency in the Amount of $96,000. (CITY) D8. Consideration to Approve and Adopt Resolution Certifying the Results of an Election and Adding Annexation No. 2024-16 to Community Facilities District No. 2022-01 (Street Lighting Services) of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. (RESOLUTION NO. 2024-106) (CITY) E. CONSENT CALENDAR ORDINANCE(S) - SECOND READING/ADOPTION E1. Consideration of Second Reading and Adoption of the Following: ORDINANCE NO. 1033 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTION 10.52.025 OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADD THE 6TH STREET PAID PARKING ZONE, THE WEST FOOTHILL BOULEVARD PAID PARKING ZONE AND MAKING A FINDING OF EXEMPTION UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CITY) F. ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING ITEM(S) 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 G. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS ITEM(S) - CITY/FIRE DISTRICT G1. Public Hearing to Consider Establishing, Repealing, and Amending Certain Service and User Fee Adjustments for Various Departments (Animal Services, Community Services, Engineering Services, and Planning and Economic Development), and Consider a Resolution Approving Such New Service and User Fees. (RESOLUTION NO. 2024-105) (CITY) G2. Public Hearing for Consideration of Resolution No. 2024-104, a Resolution of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, Establishing the Rates for the Impact Fees Associated with Fire Protection, Park, Community and Recreation Center, Library, Animal Center, Police, and Transportation Facilities; Adopting the Impact Fee Nexus Studies in Support of the Foregoing Impact Fees, Including Adopting Capital Improvement Programs as part of the Nexus Studies, and Making a Determination of Exemption Under CEQA; and Consideration of First Reading of Ordinance No. 1034, to be Read by Title Only and Waive Further Reading, Adding Chapter 3.80 to the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code, Establishing a Development Impact Fee for Fire Impacts of Residential and Business Development, and Making a Determination of Exemption under CEQA. (RESOLUTION NO. 2024-104) (ORDINANCE NO. 1034) (CITY/FIRE) G3. Public Hearing for Consideration of First Reading of Ordinance No. 1035, to be Read by Title Only and Waive Further Reading, Amending Chapter 17.62 of Article IV of Title 17 (Development Code) of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code to Amend Nonconforming Use Provisions Concerning the Discontinuance of Nonconforming Uses. This Project is Exempt from Environmental Review Pursuant to Section 15161(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines. (ORDINANCE NO. 1035) (CITY) H. CITY MANAGER'S STAFF REPORT(S) H1. Consideration to Approve the Implementation of Medic Squad 178. (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 L1. Adjournment in Memory of Wilma Steeve. 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 6 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. *DRAFT* November 20, 2024 | Fire Protection District, Housing Successor Agency, Successor Agency, Public Finance Authority and City Council Regular Meetings Minutes City of Rancho Cucamonga | Page 1 of 6 November 20, 2024 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT, HOUSING SUCCESSOR AGENCY, SUCCESSOR AGENCY, PUBLIC FINANCE AUTHORITY AND CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETINGS MINUTES The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held a Closed Session on Wednesday, November 20, 2024, in the Tapia Conference Room at the Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Mayor Michael called the meeting to order at 5:00 PM. Present were Council Members: Ryan Hutchison, Kristine Scott, Ashley Stickler, Mayor Pro Tem Lynne Kennedy and Mayor L. Dennis Michael. Also present were: John Gillison, City Manager; Elisa Cox, Assistant City Manager; Nicholas Ghirelli, City Attorney; Matt Burris, Deputy City Manager/Economic and Community Development and Julie Sowles, Deputy City Manager/Civic and Cultural Services. A. ANNOUNCEMENT OF CLOSED SESSION ITEM(S) B. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS ON CLOSED SESSION ITEM(S) C. CITY MANAGER ANNOUNCEMENTS D. CONDUCT OF CLOSED SESSION D1. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS JENIFER PHILLIPS, DIRECTOR OF HUMAN RESOURCES, MATT BURRIS, DEPUTY CITY MANAGER/ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JULIE SOWLES, DEPUTY CITY MANAGER/CIVIC AND CULTURAL SERVICES; PER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54954.2 REGARDING LABOR NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY EMPLOYEES’ ASSOCIATION (RCCEA). (CITY) E. RECESS The closed session recessed at 5:32 p.m. Page 7 *DRAFT* November 20, 2024 | Fire Protection District, Housing Successor Agency, Successor Agency, Public Finance Authority and City Council Regular Meetings Minutes City of Rancho Cucamonga | Page 2 of 6 REGULAR MEETING – 7:00 PM CALL TO ORDER – COUNCIL CHAMBERS The Regular meetings of the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, Housing Successor Agency, Successor Agency, Public Finance Authority, and the City of Rancho Cucamonga City Council were held on November 20, 2024, in the Council Chambers at City Hall, located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Mayor Michael called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. Present were Council Members: Ryan Hutchison, Kristine Scott, Ashley Stickler, Mayor Pro Tem Lynne Kennedy and Mayor L. Dennis Michael. Also present were: John Gillison, City Manager; Nicholas Ghirelli, City Attorney; and Linda A. Troyan, MMC, City Clerk Services Director. Council Member Ryan Hutchison led the Pledge of Allegiance. A. AMENDMENTS TO THE AGENDA None. B. ANNOUNCEMENTS / PRESENTATIONS B1. Presentation of a Proclamation Honoring Michael Krouse, Regional Vice President of Convention Centers West for ASM Global and President and CEO – GOCAL, Toyota Arena, Ontario Convention Center, California Welcome Center, Recipient of the Anastasia K. Mann Award Presented by the Travel & Tourism Marketing Association (TTMA). Mayor Michael and Members of the City Council presented Michael Krouse, Regional Vice President of Convention Centers West for ASM Global and President and CEO – GOCAL, Toyota Arena, Ontario Convention Center, California Welcome Center, with a Proclamation. C. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS Bond Mendez, spoke about item D1 on Closed Session regarding labor negotiations with the Rancho Cucamonga City Employees’ Association (RCCEA). She spoke in support of RCCEA members and asked the City Council for a fair and equitable negotiation process and agreement. Lastly, she requested the City Council reflect the City’s Mission, Vision and Core Values in compensation and benefits for city staff. Husam Suleiman, requested the City divest from companies who support or are complicit with international crimes and requested a meeting with the Mayor and City Council to discuss an Investment Policy addendum. Janel Ruiz, Southern California Gas Company, Public Affairs Manager, introduced herself as the new Southern California Gas Company representative. Page 8 *DRAFT* November 20, 2024 | Fire Protection District, Housing Successor Agency, Successor Agency, Public Finance Authority and City Council Regular Meetings Minutes City of Rancho Cucamonga | Page 3 of 6 D. CONSENT CALENDAR Council Member Scott announced that she will need to abstain on item D3, due to a potential conflict of interest as her employer is Southern California Gas Company. D1. Consideration to Approve the Minutes of the Regular Meetings of November 6, 2024. D2. Consideration to Approve City and Fire District Bi-Weekly Payroll in the Total Amount of $2,370,850.27 and City and Fire District Weekly Check Registers (Excluding Checks Issued to Southern California Gas Company) in the Total Amount of $3,973,744.92 Dated October 24, 2024, Through November 06, 2024. (CITY/FIRE) D3. Consideration to Approve City and Fire District Weekly Check Registers for Checks Issued to Southern California Gas Company in the Total Amount of $15,847.92 Dated October 24, 2024, Through November 06, 2024. (CITY/FIRE) D4. Consideration of Consent to Change in Registered Investment Advisory Services with PFM Asset Management LLC Accounts Under its Parent, U.S. Bancorp Asset Management, Inc. (CITY/FIRE) D5. Consideration to Accept Grant Revenue in the Amount of $1,500,000 Awarded by the San Bernardino County Second District Supervisor Jesse Armendarez; and Authorization of an Appropriation in the Amount of $1,500,000 for the Victoria Gardens Civic Plaza Project. (CITY) D6. Consideration of a Communications Facility Lease Agreement Between Vertical Bridge and the City of Rancho Cucamonga for the Purpose of an Upgraded Wireless Communication Facility at Heritage Park Located at 5546 Beryl Street. (CITY) D7. Consideration to Approve the Purchase and First Year Subscription in the Amount of $92,739.00 for the Purchase and First Year Subscription of “GWiz” a Gray Quarter Inc. Software Enhancement Specifically Designed to Improve the Functionality and Service Levels of our Existing Accela Automation Civic Platform. (CITY) D8. Consideration to Approve and Adopt a Resolution Certifying the Results of an Election and Adding Annexation No. 2024-11 to Community Facilities District No. 2022-01 (Street Lighting Services) of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. (RESOLUTION NO. 2024-102) (CITY) D9. Consideration to Approve and Adopt Resolution Certifying the Results of an Election and Adding Annexation No. 2024-1 to Community Facilities District No. 2022-02 (Industrial Area Services) of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. (RESOLUTION NO. 2024-103) (CITY) MOTION: Moved by Council Member Stickler, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Kennedy, to approve Consent Calendar Items D1 through D19, with Council Member Scott abstaining on item D3, due to her employment with Southern California Gas Company. Motion carried 5-0. E. CONSENT CALENDAR ORDINANCE(S) - SECOND READING/ADOPTION None. Page 9 *DRAFT* November 20, 2024 | Fire Protection District, Housing Successor Agency, Successor Agency, Public Finance Authority and City Council Regular Meetings Minutes City of Rancho Cucamonga | Page 4 of 6 F. ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING ITEM(S) None. G. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS ITEM(S) - CITY/FIRE DISTRICT G1. Public Hearing for Consideration of First Reading of Ordinance No. 1033, to be Read by Title Only and Waive Further Reading, Amending the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code (RCMC) Section 10.52.025 Paid Parking Zones Establishing the 6th Street Paid Parking Zone and the West Foothill Boulevard Paid Parking Zone. (ORDINANCE NO. 1033) (CITY) City Manager Gillison introduced Alberto Felix, Traffic Engineer, who gave a staff report along with a PowerPoint presentation. In response to Council Member Hutchison, Traffic Engineer Felix provided the boundaries the proposed Paid Parking District zone and who would be eligible to purchase parking permits. Mayor Michael asked if the Paid Parking Zones would only be enforced from 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m., and any time outside of that would not require a Parking Permit. In response to Mayor Michael, Traffic Engineer Felix replied, yes. Mayor Michael opened the Public Hearing. William (unknown last name), spoke in opposition to item G1 and asked if a public hearing notice was published, if a letter was sent to residents affected by the proposed Paid Parking Zones, why the proposed areas were selected, why the fee structure is not similar to the Cucamonga Canyon paid parking zone, how the City identified the two areas and if a traffic study was completed for the proposed parking zones. In response to William’s question about public noticing, Mayor Michael affirmed a notice of a Public Hearing was published in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper, letters were not mailed to individual residents within the proposed parking zones. City Manager Gillison clarified the Cucamonga Canyon Paid Parking Zone was created to address an issue where the City had non-residents parking in residential neighborhoods to go hiking. He noted the proposed parking districts are a completely different situation where enforcement is not all day such as Cucamonga Canyon. He clarified Paid Parking Zones in commercial corridors are different to encourage turnover for businesses during the day and enforcement solely at night. He informed that although a traffic study was not done for the proposed paid parking zones, selection of the area is based on the City’s experience on other areas with new developments with on-street parking. Lastly, he noted the decision was made to be proactive in avoiding issues before they occur for residents and business owners. Ruben Navarro, shared traffic concerns regarding the reduction in lanes to accommodate a new bike lane and pedestrian safety. Mayor Michael closed the Public Hearing. MOTION: Moved by Mayor Pro Tem Kennedy, seconded by Council Member Stickler, to approve staff’s recommendation and introduce the First Reading of Ordinance No. 1033 by title only, and waive further reading. Linda Troyan, MMC, City Clerk Services Director, read the title of Ordinance No. 1033 by title only. Page 10 *DRAFT* November 20, 2024 | Fire Protection District, Housing Successor Agency, Successor Agency, Public Finance Authority and City Council Regular Meetings Minutes City of Rancho Cucamonga | Page 5 of 6 ORDINANCE NO. 1033 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTION 10.52.025 OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADD THE 6 th STREET PAID PARKING ZONE, THE WEST FOOTHILL BOULEVARD PAID PARKING ZONE AND MAKING A FINDING OF EXEMPTION UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT VOTES NOW CAST ON MOTION: Moved by Mayor Pro Tem Kennedy, seconded by Council Member Stickler, to approve staff’s recommendation and introduce the First Reading of Ordinance No. 1033 by title only, and waive further reading. Motion carried 5-0. H.CITY MANAGER'S STAFF REPORT(S) H1. Consideration to Receive and File the First Quarter Financial Update for the Fiscal Year 2024/25 and to Approve Additional Appropriations in the Amount of $5,233,890. (CITY/FIRE) City Manager Gillison introduced Rick Flinchum, Finance Manager, who gave a staff report along with a PowerPoint presentation. MOTION: Moved by Council Member Scott, seconded by Council Member Hutchison, to receive and file the First Quarter Financial Update for the Fiscal Year 2024/25 and to approve additional appropriations in the amount of $5,233,890. Motion carried 5-0. H2. Consideration of Resolution No. SA 2024-002 of the Successor Agency to the Rancho Cucamonga Redevelopment Agency Confirming the Issuance of Tax Allocation Refunding Bonds Pursuant to a Seventh Supplemental Indenture Approving Preliminary and Final Official Statements, Bond Purchase Agreements, and Providing Other Matters Relating Thereto. (RESOLUTION NO. SA 2024-002) (CITY/SA) City Manager Gillison introduced Jevin Kaye, Finance Director, who gave a staff report along with a PowerPoint presentation. MOTION: Moved by Council Member Stickler, seconded by Council Member Scott, to adopt Successor Agency Resolution No. 2024-002, approving the issuance of Refunding Bonds in order to refund certain of its outstanding bonds, confirming the issuance of Tax Allocation Refunding Bonds pursuant to a Seventh Supplemental Indenture approving preliminary and final official Statements, Bond Purchase Agreements, and providing other matters relating thereto. Motion carried 5-0. I.COUNCIL BUSINESS I1. COUNCIL ANNOUNCEMENTS Council Member Scott shared that she recently had the opportunity to thank veteran Ramon Martinez for his service to our country, and wish him a Happy 100th Birthday. She presented him a certificate on behalf of the Mayor and City Council and asked him what’s the secret to living to 100. I2. INTERAGENCY UPDATES None. Page 11 *DRAFT* November 20, 2024 | Fire Protection District, Housing Successor Agency, Successor Agency, Public Finance Authority and City Council Regular Meetings Minutes City of Rancho Cucamonga | Page 6 of 6 J. CITY ATTORNEY ITEMS City Attorney Ghirelli noted that there was no reportable action taken during Closed Session held earlier that evening. K. IDENTIFICATION OF ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING None. L. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Michael adjourned the Council Meeting at 7:50 p.m. Approved: Linda A. Troyan, MMC City Clerk Services Director Page 12 DATE:December 4, 2024 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 $4,601,826.18 and City and Fire District Weekly Check Registers (Excluding Checks Issued to Southern California Gas Company) in the Total Amount of $12,626,366.59 Dated October 24, 2024, Through November 24, 2024. (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 $2,655,613.51 and $1,946,212.67 for the City and the Fire District, respectively. Weekly check register amounts are $9,873,782.81 and $2,752,583.78 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 Council Meeting Check Register - without SoCal Gas 08:15 AM 11/25/2024 Page 1 of 49 Company: City of Rancho Cucamonga Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Payment Date On or After: 10/24/2024 Payment Date On or Before: 11/24/2024 Supplier Payment Company Check Number Check Date Supplier Name City of Rancho Cucamonga Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Payment Amount for Reporting Transaction Supplier Payment: Fuel Serv: 10/24/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448396 10/24/2024 Fuel Serv 5,725.43 0 5,725.43 Supplier Payment: Michael R Post: 10/24/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 10/24/2024 Michael R Post 0 2,136.72 2,136.72 Supplier Payment: Wilbur Crossland: 10/24/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 10/24/2024 Wilbur Crossland 0 492.58 492.58 Supplier Payment: Victoria Bantau: 10/24/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 10/24/2024 Victoria Bantau 0 658.62 658.62 Supplier Payment: White Cap Lp: 10/24/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448436 10/24/2024 White Cap Lp 2,502.43 0 2,502.43 Supplier Payment: Ivan M Rojer: 10/24/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 10/24/2024 Ivan M Rojer 0 2,093.07 2,093.07 Supplier Payment: Willdan Group: 10/24/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448437 10/24/2024 Willdan Group 38,190.00 0 38,190.00 Supplier Payment: Jeffrey Roeder: 10/24/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 10/24/2024 Jeffrey Roeder 0 739.30 739.30 Supplier Payment: Such A Voice Llc: 10/24/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448422 10/24/2024 Such A Voice Llc 21.00 0 21.00 Supplier Payment: Bmla Inc: 10/24/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448380 10/24/2024 Bmla Inc 535.00 0 535.00 Supplier Payment: Grainger: 10/24/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448398 10/24/2024 Grainger 384.79 0 384.79 Supplier Payment: Beverly Mackall: 10/24/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 10/24/2024 Beverly Mackall 0 167.79 167.79 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 14 Council Meeting Check Register - without SoCal Gas 08:15 AM 11/25/2024 Page 2 of 49 Supplier Payment Company Check Number Check Date Supplier Name City of Rancho Cucamonga Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Payment Amount for Reporting Transaction Supplier Payment: Uline: 10/24/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448425 10/24/2024 Uline 543.01 0 543.01 Supplier Payment: Golden Oaks Vet Hospital: 10/24/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448397 10/24/2024 Golden Oaks Vet Hospital 300.00 0 300.00 Supplier Payment: Ascent Environmental Inc: 10/24/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448378 10/24/2024 Ascent Environmental Inc 46,982.53 0 46,982.53 Supplier Payment: Anthony Varney: 10/24/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 10/24/2024 Anthony Varney 0 739.30 739.30 Supplier Payment: Bw Printworks: 10/24/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 448383 10/24/2024 Bw Printworks 0 639.35 639.35 Supplier Payment: Brent Roberts: 10/24/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 10/24/2024 Brent Roberts 0 989.86 989.86 Supplier Payment: Kenneth Mcneil: 10/24/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 10/24/2024 Kenneth Mcneil 0 739.30 739.30 Supplier Payment: James Dague: 10/24/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 10/24/2024 James Dague 0 739.30 739.30 Supplier Payment: Stephen Kilmer: 10/24/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 10/24/2024 Stephen Kilmer 0 1,573.82 1,573.82 Supplier Payment: Boot Barn Inc: 10/24/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448381 10/24/2024 Boot Barn Inc 564.08 0 564.08 Supplier Payment: Scott D Sorensen: 10/24/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 10/24/2024 Scott D Sorensen 0 1,438.01 1,438.01 Supplier Payment: William M Kirkpatrick: 10/24/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 10/24/2024 William M Kirkpatrick 0 855.67 855.67 Supplier Payment: John Mckee: 10/24/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 10/24/2024 John Mckee 0 739.30 739.30 Page 15 Council Meeting Check Register - without SoCal Gas 08:15 AM 11/25/2024 Page 3 of 49 Supplier Payment Company Check Number Check Date Supplier Name City of Rancho Cucamonga Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Payment Amount for Reporting Transaction Supplier Payment: Michael Nauman: 10/24/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 10/24/2024 Michael Nauman 0 492.58 492.58 Supplier Payment: University Enterprises Corporation: 10/24/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448427 10/24/2024 University Enterprises Corporation 6,250.00 0 6,250.00 Supplier Payment: Alexander R Ahumada: 10/24/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 10/24/2024 Alexander R Ahumada 0 739.30 739.30 Supplier Payment: L. Dennis Michael: 10/24/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 10/24/2024 L. Dennis Michael 0 739.30 739.30 Supplier Payment: Chief Electric Inc: 10/24/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448386 10/24/2024 Chief Electric Inc 16,762.00 0 16,762.00 Supplier Payment: Kenneth Carnes: 10/24/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 10/24/2024 Kenneth Carnes 0 167.79 167.79 Supplier Payment: Byron Morgan: 10/24/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 10/24/2024 Byron Morgan 0 479.86 479.86 Supplier Payment: Ron Mayfield: 10/24/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 10/24/2024 Ron Mayfield 0 739.30 739.30 Supplier Payment: Dgo Auto Detailing: 10/24/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448394 10/24/2024 Dgo Auto Detailing 750.00 0 750.00 Supplier Payment: Data Ticket Inc: 10/24/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 10/24/2024 Data Ticket Inc 2,863.44 0 2,863.44 Supplier Payment: Michael Redmond: 10/24/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 10/24/2024 Michael Redmond 0 739.30 739.30 Supplier Payment: West End Material Supply: 10/24/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448435 10/24/2024 West End Material Supply 96.54 0 96.54 Supplier Payment: Robert Eggers: 10/24/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 10/24/2024 Robert Eggers 0 739.30 739.30 Page 16 Council Meeting Check Register - without SoCal Gas 08:15 AM 11/25/2024 Page 4 of 49 Supplier Payment Company Check Number Check Date Supplier Name City of Rancho Cucamonga Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Payment Amount for Reporting Transaction Supplier Payment: Mary Jane Nelson: 10/24/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 10/24/2024 Mary Jane Nelson 0 167.79 167.79 Supplier Payment: Dennis M Costello: 10/24/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 10/24/2024 Dennis M Costello 0 2,824.84 2,824.84 Supplier Payment: Ronak Desai: 10/24/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448411 10/24/2024 Ronak Desai 8,040.00 0 8,040.00 Supplier Payment: Kenneth Walker: 10/24/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 448401 10/24/2024 Kenneth Walker 0 291.15 291.15 Supplier Payment: West Coast Arborists Inc: 10/24/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448434 10/24/2024 West Coast Arborists Inc 42,547.61 0 42,547.61 Supplier Payment: Positive Promotions Inc: 10/24/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 448408 10/24/2024 Positive Promotions Inc 0 1,051.72 1,051.72 Supplier Payment: Susan De Antonio: 10/24/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 10/24/2024 Susan De Antonio 0 974.47 974.47 Supplier Payment: Ralph Crane: 10/24/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 10/24/2024 Ralph Crane 0 739.30 739.30 Supplier Payment: Michael L Bell: 10/24/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 10/24/2024 Michael L Bell 0 2,105.94 2,105.94 Supplier Payment: Jay Davenport: 10/24/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 10/24/2024 Jay Davenport 0 2,824.84 2,824.84 Supplier Payment: Charlene Dominick: 10/24/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 448385 10/24/2024 Charlene Dominick 0 291.15 291.15 Supplier Payment: Pfm Asset Management Llc: 10/24/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 10/24/2024 Pfm Asset Management Llc 19,416.55 0 19,416.55 Page 17 Council Meeting Check Register - without SoCal Gas 08:15 AM 11/25/2024 Page 5 of 49 Supplier Payment Company Check Number Check Date Supplier Name City of Rancho Cucamonga Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Payment Amount for Reporting Transaction Supplier Payment: Timothy A Yowell: 10/24/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 10/24/2024 Timothy A Yowell 0 739.30 739.30 Supplier Payment: San Bernardino County: 10/24/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448414 10/24/2024 San Bernardino County 50.00 0 50.00 Supplier Payment: Ids Group Inc: 10/24/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448400 10/24/2024 Ids Group Inc 15,158.00 0 15,158.00 Supplier Payment: Tim Fejeran: 10/24/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 10/24/2024 Tim Fejeran 0 2,093.07 2,093.07 Supplier Payment: Theresa Lee Consulting Llc: 10/24/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448424 10/24/2024 Theresa Lee Consulting Llc 5,843.75 0 5,843.75 Supplier Payment: Donald Heyde: 10/24/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 10/24/2024 Donald Heyde 0 739.30 739.30 Supplier Payment: Richard Toll: 10/24/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 10/24/2024 Richard Toll 0 2,784.82 2,784.82 Supplier Payment: Richard Clabby: 10/24/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 10/24/2024 Richard Clabby 0 654.66 654.66 Supplier Payment: Armada Towing Service: 10/24/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448377 10/24/2024 Armada Towing Service 75.00 0 75.00 Supplier Payment: Terry Tuley: 10/24/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 10/24/2024 Terry Tuley 0 2,105.94 2,105.94 Supplier Payment: Safety-Kleen Systems Inc: 10/24/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 10/24/2024 Safety-Kleen Systems Inc 0 0.00 0.00 Supplier Payment: Modern Marketing: 10/24/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 448406 10/24/2024 Modern Marketing 0 442.56 442.56 Supplier Payment: Cheryl L Roberts: 10/24/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 10/24/2024 Cheryl L Roberts 0 2,824.84 2,824.84 Page 18 Council Meeting Check Register - without SoCal Gas 08:15 AM 11/25/2024 Page 6 of 49 Supplier Payment Company Check Number Check Date Supplier Name City of Rancho Cucamonga Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Payment Amount for Reporting Transaction Supplier Payment: Kevin Walton: 10/24/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 10/24/2024 Kevin Walton 0 1,135.35 1,135.35 Supplier Payment: Rbm Lock & Key Service: 10/24/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448410 10/24/2024 Rbm Lock & Key Service 16.31 0 16.31 Supplier Payment: The Remy Corporation: 10/24/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448423 10/24/2024 The Remy Corporation 6,435.00 0 6,435.00 Supplier Payment: Environment Planning Dvmt Solutions: 10/24/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448395 10/24/2024 Environment Planning Dvmt Solutions 4,560.00 0 4,560.00 Supplier Payment: Michael J Ploung: 10/24/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 10/24/2024 Michael J Ploung 0 739.30 739.30 Supplier Payment: Jorry Keith: 10/24/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 10/24/2024 Jorry Keith 1,050.00 0 1,050.00 Supplier Payment: Lloyd Almand: 10/24/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 10/24/2024 Lloyd Almand 0 291.15 291.15 Supplier Payment: Steven Campbell: 10/24/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 10/24/2024 Steven Campbell 0 739.30 739.30 Supplier Payment: John D Fritchey: 10/24/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 10/24/2024 John D Fritchey 0 616.10 616.10 Supplier Payment: South Coast Aqmd: 10/24/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448419 10/24/2024 South Coast Aqmd 159.92 0 159.92 Supplier Payment: Tom O'Brien: 10/24/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 10/24/2024 Tom O'Brien 0 2,105.94 2,105.94 Supplier Payment: Donald R Cloughesy: 10/24/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 10/24/2024 Donald R Cloughesy 0 2,105.94 2,105.94 Supplier Payment: Joe Longo: 10/24/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 10/24/2024 Joe Longo 0 167.79 167.79 Supplier Payment: Creative Talent Partners: 10/24/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448390 10/24/2024 Creative Talent Partners 2,500.00 0 2,500.00 Page 19 Council Meeting Check Register - without SoCal Gas 08:15 AM 11/25/2024 Page 7 of 49 Supplier Payment Company Check Number Check Date Supplier Name City of Rancho Cucamonga Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Payment Amount for Reporting Transaction Supplier Payment: Jackie Deans: 10/24/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 10/24/2024 Jackie Deans 0 291.15 291.15 Supplier Payment: Philip Loncar: 10/24/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 10/24/2024 Philip Loncar 0 2,136.72 2,136.72 Supplier Payment: Darrell Luttrull: 10/24/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 10/24/2024 Darrell Luttrull 0 492.58 492.58 Supplier Payment: Karl Cox: 10/24/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 10/24/2024 Karl Cox 0 739.30 739.30 Supplier Payment: Wilson & Bell Auto Service: 10/24/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448438 10/24/2024 Wilson & Bell Auto Service 899.64 0 899.64 Supplier Payment: Robert Anthony Corcoran: 10/24/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 10/24/2024 Robert Anthony Corcoran 0 974.47 974.47 Supplier Payment: Patrick Proulx: 10/24/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 10/24/2024 Patrick Proulx 0 1,422.62 1,422.62 Supplier Payment: James Curatalo: 10/24/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 10/24/2024 James Curatalo 0 739.30 739.30 Supplier Payment: Viola Spagnolo: 10/24/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 448431 10/24/2024 Viola Spagnolo 0 248.83 248.83 Supplier Payment: San Bernardino County: 10/24/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448413 10/24/2024 San Bernardino County 31,671.68 0 31,671.68 Supplier Payment: Nbs: 10/24/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448407 10/24/2024 Nbs 125.00 0 125.00 Supplier Payment: Dependable Break Room Solutions Inc: 10/24/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448393 10/24/2024 Dependable Break Room Solutions Inc 50.91 0 50.91 Supplier Payment: Champion Awards & Specialties: 10/24/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448384 10/24/2024 Champion Awards & Specialties 43.10 0 43.10 Page 20 Council Meeting Check Register - without SoCal Gas 08:15 AM 11/25/2024 Page 8 of 49 Supplier Payment Company Check Number Check Date Supplier Name City of Rancho Cucamonga Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Payment Amount for Reporting Transaction Supplier Payment: Francis Vanderkallen: 10/24/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 10/24/2024 Francis Vanderkallen 0 739.30 739.30 Supplier Payment: Volvo Construction Equipment And Services: 10/24/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448432 10/24/2024 Volvo Construction Equipment And Services 20.74 0 20.74 Supplier Payment: Peter Magnuson: 10/24/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 10/24/2024 Peter Magnuson 0 2,146.00 2,146.00 Supplier Payment: San Bernardino County: 10/24/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 448412 10/24/2024 San Bernardino County 0 17,062.56 17,062.56 Supplier Payment: Haven Car Wash: 10/24/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448399 10/24/2024 Haven Car Wash 4,500.00 0 4,500.00 Supplier Payment: David W Larkin: 10/24/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 10/24/2024 David W Larkin 0 708.41 708.41 Supplier Payment: Ronald Smith: 10/24/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 10/24/2024 Ronald Smith 0 492.58 492.58 Supplier Payment: Michael Eagleson: 10/24/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 10/24/2024 Michael Eagleson 0 2,166.78 2,166.78 Supplier Payment: Paul E Lenze: 10/24/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 10/24/2024 Paul E Lenze 0 739.30 739.30 Supplier Payment: Dapeer Rosenblit & Litvak Llp: 10/24/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448391 10/24/2024 Dapeer Rosenblit & Litvak Llp 13,686.77 0 13,686.77 Supplier Payment: Thomas Salisbury: 10/24/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 10/24/2024 Thomas Salisbury 0 739.30 739.30 Supplier Payment: Pacific Utility Installation Inc: 10/24/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 10/24/2024 Pacific Utility Installation Inc 231,358.05 0 231,358.05 Supplier Payment: William Lane: 10/24/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 10/24/2024 William Lane 0 739.30 739.30 Page 21 Council Meeting Check Register - without SoCal Gas 08:15 AM 11/25/2024 Page 9 of 49 Supplier Payment Company Check Number Check Date Supplier Name City of Rancho Cucamonga Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Payment Amount for Reporting Transaction Supplier Payment: Rosalyn Interlicchia: 10/24/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 10/24/2024 Rosalyn Interlicchia 0 291.15 291.15 Supplier Payment: United Site Services: 10/24/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448426 10/24/2024 United Site Services 305.29 0 305.29 Supplier Payment: Aquabio Environmental Technologies Inc: 10/24/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448376 10/24/2024 Aquabio Environmental Technologies Inc 1,742.94 0 1,742.94 Supplier Payment: Waxie Sanitary Supply: 10/24/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448433 10/24/2024 Waxie Sanitary Supply 44.73 0 44.73 Supplier Payment: Victor Rodriguez: 10/24/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 448430 10/24/2024 Victor Rodriguez 0 739.30 739.30 Supplier Payment: Gerald Campbell: 10/24/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 10/24/2024 Gerald Campbell 0 492.58 492.58 Supplier Payment: Eric Noreen: 10/24/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 10/24/2024 Eric Noreen 0 2,784.82 2,784.82 Supplier Payment: Soca Arts: 10/24/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448415 10/24/2024 Soca Arts 1,814.40 0 1,814.40 Supplier Payment: So Cal Sandbags Inc: 10/24/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448418 10/24/2024 So Cal Sandbags Inc 3,262.50 0 3,262.50 Supplier Payment: Collins & Collins Llp: 10/24/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448388 10/24/2024 Collins & Collins Llp 2,189.95 0 2,189.95 Supplier Payment: William Spain: 10/24/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 10/24/2024 William Spain 0 492.58 492.58 Supplier Payment: David Berry: 10/24/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 10/24/2024 David Berry 0 739.30 739.30 Supplier Payment: Rancho Cucamonga Chamber Of Commerce: 10/24/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448409 10/24/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Chamber Of Commerce 10,000.00 0 10,000.00 Supplier Payment: Auto & Rv Specialists Inc: 10/24/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448379 10/24/2024 Auto & Rv Specialists Inc 71.61 0 71.61 Page 22 Council Meeting Check Register - without SoCal Gas 08:15 AM 11/25/2024 Page 10 of 49 Supplier Payment Company Check Number Check Date Supplier Name City of Rancho Cucamonga Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Payment Amount for Reporting Transaction Supplier Payment: Allan J Lee: 10/24/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 10/24/2024 Allan J Lee 0 291.15 291.15 Supplier Payment: Collaborative Solutions Llc: 10/24/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 10/24/2024 Collaborative Solutions Llc 266,271.00 0 266,271.00 Supplier Payment: Mig Inc: 10/24/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448405 10/24/2024 Mig Inc 69,868.55 0 69,868.55 Supplier Payment: Via Actuarial Solutions: 10/24/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 448429 10/24/2024 Via Actuarial Solutions 0 2,000.00 2,000.00 Supplier Payment: James Sullivan: 10/24/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 10/24/2024 James Sullivan 0 492.58 492.58 Supplier Payment: Steven Taylor: 10/24/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 10/24/2024 Steven Taylor 0 2,105.94 2,105.94 Supplier Payment: US Builders & Consultants: 10/24/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448428 10/24/2024 US Builders & Consultants 235,862.41 0 235,862.41 Supplier Payment: Advanced Chemical Transport Inc: 10/24/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448375 10/24/2024 Advanced Chemical Transport Inc 675.50 0 675.50 Supplier Payment: Lowes Companies Inc: 10/24/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448403 10/24/2024 Lowes Companies Inc 10,734.31 0 10,734.31 Supplier Payment: Sterling Coffee Service: 10/24/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 448421 10/24/2024 Sterling Coffee Service 0 364.10 364.10 Supplier Payment: Bernell Hydraulics Inc: 10/24/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 10/24/2024 Bernell Hydraulics Inc 0 112.80 112.80 Supplier Payment: Lozano Smith Llp: 10/24/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448404 10/24/2024 Lozano Smith Llp 1,816.50 0 1,816.50 Supplier Payment: Susan Bazal: 10/24/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 10/24/2024 Susan Bazal 0 291.15 291.15 Supplier Payment: Danny G Holt: 10/24/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 10/24/2024 Danny G Holt 0 1,652.90 1,652.90 Page 23 Council Meeting Check Register - without SoCal Gas 08:15 AM 11/25/2024 Page 11 of 49 Supplier Payment Company Check Number Check Date Supplier Name City of Rancho Cucamonga Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Payment Amount for Reporting Transaction Supplier Payment: Robin Brock: 10/24/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 10/24/2024 Robin Brock 0 739.30 739.30 Supplier Payment: Patrick Jerkins: 10/24/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 10/24/2024 Patrick Jerkins 0 1,573.82 1,573.82 Supplier Payment: Stephanie Contreras: 10/24/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448420 10/24/2024 Stephanie Contreras 1,437.50 0 1,437.50 Supplier Payment: Michael Baker International Inc: 10/24/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 10/24/2024 Michael Baker International Inc 13,211.70 0 13,211.70 Supplier Payment: Dennis Myskow: 10/24/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 10/24/2024 Dennis Myskow 0 1,573.82 1,573.82 Supplier Payment: Lowes Companies Inc: 10/24/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 448402 10/24/2024 Lowes Companies Inc 0 1,991.18 1,991.18 Supplier Payment: Cintas Corporation: 10/24/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448387 10/24/2024 Cintas Corporation 3,725.73 0 3,725.73 Supplier Payment: Constant Contact, Inc: 10/24/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448389 10/24/2024 Constant Contact, Inc 5,866.00 0 5,866.00 Supplier Payment: Braun Blaising & Wynne Pc: 10/24/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448382 10/24/2024 Braun Blaising & Wynne Pc 468.64 0 468.64 Supplier Payment: Dawn Triche Bisek: 10/24/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448392 10/24/2024 Dawn Triche Bisek 210.00 0 210.00 Supplier Payment: Midwest Veterinary Supply Inc: 10/29/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448476 10/29/2024 Midwest Veterinary Supply Inc 519.67 0 519.67 Supplier Payment: HILLCREST CONTRACTING INC: 10/29/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448468 10/29/2024 HILLCREST CONTRACTING INC 409,996.09 0 409,996.09 Supplier Payment: Cardio Partners Inc: 10/29/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 448455 10/29/2024 Cardio Partners Inc 0 850.37 850.37 Supplier Payment: Data Ticket Inc: 10/29/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 10/29/2024 Data Ticket Inc 1,922.52 0 1,922.52 Supplier Payment: Rialto Animal Hospital: 10/29/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448484 10/29/2024 Rialto Animal Hospital 200.00 0 200.00 Supplier Payment: Nv5 Inc: 10/29/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448480 10/29/2024 Nv5 Inc 18,093.75 0 18,093.75 Supplier Payment: Auto & Rv Specialists Inc: 10/29/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448452 10/29/2024 Auto & Rv Specialists Inc 123.01 0 123.01 Page 24 Council Meeting Check Register - without SoCal Gas 08:15 AM 11/25/2024 Page 12 of 49 Supplier Payment Company Check Number Check Date Supplier Name City of Rancho Cucamonga Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Payment Amount for Reporting Transaction Supplier Payment: Ccs Orange County Janitorial Inc: 10/29/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448456 10/29/2024 Ccs Orange County Janitorial Inc 703.36 0 703.36 Supplier Payment: Odp Business Solutions Llc: 10/29/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448482 10/29/2024 Odp Business Solutions Llc 1,415.37 0 1,415.37 Supplier Payment: Occupational Health Centers Of Ca: 10/29/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448481 10/29/2024 Occupational Health Centers Of Ca 282.00 0 282.00 Supplier Payment: Napa Auto Parts: 10/29/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 10/29/2024 Napa Auto Parts 0 756.32 756.32 Supplier Payment: Mesa Energy Systems Inc: 10/29/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448475 10/29/2024 Mesa Energy Systems Inc 19,250.00 0 19,250.00 Supplier Payment: Express Brake Supply Inc: 10/29/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448462 10/29/2024 Express Brake Supply Inc 677.96 0 677.96 Supplier Payment: Enterprise Rent-A- Car: 10/29/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 448461 10/29/2024 Enterprise Rent-A-Car 0 116.93 116.93 Supplier Payment: Cintas Corporation: 10/29/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448457 10/29/2024 Cintas Corporation 98.46 0 98.46 Supplier Payment: Frontier Comm: 10/29/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 448465 10/29/2024 Frontier Comm 0 1,807.57 1,807.57 Supplier Payment: Idexx Distribution Inc: 10/29/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448472 10/29/2024 Idexx Distribution Inc 174.12 0 174.12 Supplier Payment: Coast Fitness Repair Shop: 10/29/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448459 10/29/2024 Coast Fitness Repair Shop 300.00 0 300.00 Supplier Payment: Hi-Way Safety Inc: 10/29/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448469 10/29/2024 Hi-Way Safety Inc 1,030.00 0 1,030.00 Supplier Payment: Holliday Rock Co Inc: 10/29/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448470 10/29/2024 Holliday Rock Co Inc 244.59 0 244.59 Supplier Payment: Federal Express Corp: 10/29/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448463 10/29/2024 Federal Express Corp 53.85 0 53.85 Supplier Payment: Advance Auto Parts: 10/29/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448450 10/29/2024 Advance Auto Parts 259.72 0 259.72 Supplier Payment: Vortex Industries Llc: 10/29/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448496 10/29/2024 Vortex Industries Llc 962.80 0 962.80 Supplier Payment: Coast Recreation Inc: 10/29/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448460 10/29/2024 Coast Recreation Inc 672.93 0 672.93 Supplier Payment: All City Management Services Inc: 10/29/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 10/29/2024 All City Management Services Inc 17,858.51 0 17,858.51 Page 25 Council Meeting Check Register - without SoCal Gas 08:15 AM 11/25/2024 Page 13 of 49 Supplier Payment Company Check Number Check Date Supplier Name City of Rancho Cucamonga Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Payment Amount for Reporting Transaction Supplier Payment: Airgas Usa Llc: 10/29/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448451 10/29/2024 Airgas Usa Llc 949.58 0 949.58 Supplier Payment: Frontier Comm: 10/29/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448464 10/29/2024 Frontier Comm 6,509.48 0 6,509.48 Supplier Payment: Happyornot Americas Inc: 10/29/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448466 10/29/2024 Happyornot Americas Inc 175.23 0 175.23 Supplier Payment: Citrus Motors Ontario Inc: 10/29/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448458 10/29/2024 Citrus Motors Ontario Inc 1,499.27 0 1,499.27 Supplier Payment: Waxie Sanitary Supply: 10/29/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 448499 10/29/2024 Waxie Sanitary Supply 0 54.31 54.31 Supplier Payment: Inland Overhead Door Company: 10/29/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448473 10/29/2024 Inland Overhead Door Company 1,038.75 0 1,038.75 Supplier Payment: West End Material Supply: 10/29/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448500 10/29/2024 West End Material Supply 47.51 0 47.51 Supplier Payment: Hill'S Pet Nutrition Sales Inc: 10/29/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448467 10/29/2024 Hill'S Pet Nutrition Sales Inc 827.39 0 827.39 Supplier Payment: Shred Pros: 10/29/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448485 10/29/2024 Shred Pros 65.00 0 65.00 Supplier Payment: Able Building Maintenance: 10/29/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448449 10/29/2024 Able Building Maintenance 396.00 0 396.00 Supplier Payment: Calpers Long-Term Care Program: 10/29/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448454 10/29/2024 Calpers Long-Term Care Program 221.35 0 221.35 Supplier Payment: Sonsray Machinery Llc: 10/29/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448488 10/29/2024 Sonsray Machinery Llc 9,680.17 0 9,680.17 Supplier Payment: Merrimac Petroleum Inc: 10/29/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 10/29/2024 Merrimac Petroleum Inc 1,555.77 0 1,555.77 Supplier Payment: Waxie Sanitary Supply: 10/29/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448498 10/29/2024 Waxie Sanitary Supply 2,136.60 0 2,136.60 Supplier Payment: Napa Auto Parts: 10/29/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 10/29/2024 Napa Auto Parts 150.91 0 150.91 Supplier Payment: Mariposa Landscapes Inc: 10/29/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 10/29/2024 Mariposa Landscapes Inc 24,283.41 0 24,283.41 Supplier Payment: Pfm Asset Management Llc: 10/29/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 10/29/2024 Pfm Asset Management Llc 20,099.91 0 20,099.91 Supplier Payment: Mediwaste Disposal Llc: 10/29/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448474 10/29/2024 Mediwaste Disposal Llc 41.21 0 41.21 Supplier Payment: Zones It Solutions Inc: 10/29/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 10/29/2024 Zones It Solutions Inc 360.72 0 360.72 Page 26 Council Meeting Check Register - without SoCal Gas 08:15 AM 11/25/2024 Page 14 of 49 Supplier Payment Company Check Number Check Date Supplier Name City of Rancho Cucamonga Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Payment Amount for Reporting Transaction Supplier Payment: Motorola Solutions Inc: 10/29/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 448477 10/29/2024 Motorola Solutions Inc 0 1,402.73 1,402.73 Supplier Payment: The Remy Corporation: 10/29/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448493 10/29/2024 The Remy Corporation 4,785.00 0 4,785.00 Supplier Payment: Rancho Baseball, LLC: 10/29/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448483 10/29/2024 Rancho Baseball, LLC 676,288.89 0 676,288.89 Supplier Payment: Vulcan Materials Company: 10/29/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448497 10/29/2024 Vulcan Materials Company 353.44 0 353.44 Supplier Payment: Teleflex Llc: 10/29/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 448492 10/29/2024 Teleflex Llc 0 1,200.75 1,200.75 Supplier Payment: Yunex Llc: 10/29/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 10/29/2024 Yunex Llc 657.00 0 657.00 Supplier Payment: Bmla Inc: 10/29/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448453 10/29/2024 Bmla Inc 14,710.00 0 14,710.00 Supplier Payment: Ups: 10/29/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448495 10/29/2024 Ups 313.24 0 313.24 Supplier Payment: Abc Locksmiths Inc: 10/29/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 10/29/2024 Abc Locksmiths Inc 416.07 0 416.07 Supplier Payment: Wilson & Bell Auto Service: 10/29/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448502 10/29/2024 Wilson & Bell Auto Service 1,216.41 0 1,216.41 Supplier Payment: Uline: 10/29/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448494 10/29/2024 Uline 449.98 0 449.98 Supplier Payment: Mc Avoy & Markham Engineering and Sales CO: 10/29/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 10/29/2024 Mc Avoy & Markham Engineering and Sales CO 1,271.21 0 1,271.21 Supplier Payment: National Cng & Fleet Service: 10/29/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448478 10/29/2024 National Cng & Fleet Service 500.00 0 500.00 Supplier Payment: Hose-Man Inc: 10/29/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448471 10/29/2024 Hose-Man Inc 221.07 0 221.07 Supplier Payment: Sterling Coffee Service: 10/29/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448491 10/29/2024 Sterling Coffee Service 2,243.36 0 2,243.36 Supplier Payment: Nbs: 10/29/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448479 10/29/2024 Nbs 11,595.00 0 11,595.00 Supplier Payment: Willdan Group: 10/29/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448501 10/29/2024 Willdan Group 32,969.97 0 32,969.97 Supplier Payment: Southern California Edison - Remit-To: RCMU: 10/29/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448490 10/29/2024 Southern California Edison 2,467.07 0 2,467.07 Supplier Payment: Southern California Edison - Remit-To: RCMU: 10/29/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448489 10/29/2024 Southern California Edison 483.18 0 483.18 Page 27 Council Meeting Check Register - without SoCal Gas 08:15 AM 11/25/2024 Page 15 of 49 Supplier Payment Company Check Number Check Date Supplier Name City of Rancho Cucamonga Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Payment Amount for Reporting Transaction Supplier Payment: ZONDA ADVISORY: 10/31/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448541 10/31/2024 ZONDA ADVISORY 8,648.95 0 8,648.95 Supplier Payment: Assi Security: 10/31/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 10/31/2024 Assi Security 273,538.89 0 273,538.89 Supplier Payment: Serviam By Wright Llp: 10/31/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448531 10/31/2024 Serviam By Wright Llp 37,415.39 0 37,415.39 Supplier Payment: Odp Business Solutions Llc: 10/31/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448524 10/31/2024 Odp Business Solutions Llc 1,872.53 0 1,872.53 Supplier Payment: Big Events Inc: 10/31/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448512 10/31/2024 Big Events Inc 2,973.25 0 2,973.25 Supplier Payment: Golden State Risk Management Authority: 10/31/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 10/31/2024 Golden State Risk Management Authority 161,461.00 0 161,461.00 Supplier Payment: Federal Express Corp: 10/31/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448515 10/31/2024 Federal Express Corp 54.77 0 54.77 Supplier Payment: Kaiser Foundation Health Plan Inc: 10/31/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448521 10/31/2024 Kaiser Foundation Health Plan Inc 243,208.14 0 243,208.14 Supplier Payment: Sun Badge Co: 10/31/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 448533 10/31/2024 Sun Badge Co 0 423.68 423.68 Supplier Payment: Willdan Group: 10/31/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448540 10/31/2024 Willdan Group 9,680.50 0 9,680.50 Supplier Payment: Psa Print Group: 10/31/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 10/31/2024 Psa Print Group 107.00 0 107.00 Supplier Payment: National Utility Locators Llc: 10/31/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 10/31/2024 National Utility Locators Llc 450.00 0 450.00 Supplier Payment: Waxie Sanitary Supply: 10/31/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448539 10/31/2024 Waxie Sanitary Supply 3,032.20 0 3,032.20 Supplier Payment: Victoria Animal Hospital: 10/31/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448536 10/31/2024 Victoria Animal Hospital 200.00 0 200.00 Supplier Payment: T&B Planning Inc: 10/31/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448534 10/31/2024 T&B Planning Inc 8,823.75 0 8,823.75 Supplier Payment: Rancho Smog Center: 10/31/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448527 10/31/2024 Rancho Smog Center 449.55 0 449.55 Supplier Payment: Vulcan Materials Company: 10/31/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448537 10/31/2024 Vulcan Materials Company 118.52 0 118.52 Supplier Payment: San Bernardino County Sheriffs Dept: 10/31/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448530 10/31/2024 San Bernardino County Sheriffs Dept 2,389.25 0 2,389.25 Supplier Payment: Boot Barn Inc: 10/31/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448513 10/31/2024 Boot Barn Inc 355.00 0 355.00 Supplier Payment: Unity Courier Service Inc: 10/31/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448535 10/31/2024 Unity Courier Service Inc 660.46 0 660.46 Page 28 Council Meeting Check Register - without SoCal Gas 08:15 AM 11/25/2024 Page 16 of 49 Supplier Payment Company Check Number Check Date Supplier Name City of Rancho Cucamonga Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Payment Amount for Reporting Transaction Supplier Payment: Sterling Coffee Service: 10/31/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448532 10/31/2024 Sterling Coffee Service 319.50 0 319.50 Supplier Payment: Mwi Animal Health: 10/31/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448522 10/31/2024 Mwi Animal Health 647.34 0 647.34 Supplier Payment: Yunex Llc: 10/31/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 10/31/2024 Yunex Llc 25,467.89 0 25,467.89 Supplier Payment: Hill'S Pet Nutrition Sales Inc: 10/31/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448518 10/31/2024 Hill'S Pet Nutrition Sales Inc 2,774.41 0 2,774.41 Supplier Payment: Walters Wholesale Electric Co: 10/31/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448538 10/31/2024 Walters Wholesale Electric Co 550.82 0 550.82 Supplier Payment: Parkhouse Tire Inc: 10/31/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448526 10/31/2024 Parkhouse Tire Inc 1,325.03 0 1,325.03 Supplier Payment: Graphics Factory Printing Inc: 10/31/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448517 10/31/2024 Graphics Factory Printing Inc 317.86 0 317.86 Supplier Payment: Safeway Sign Company: 10/31/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448529 10/31/2024 Safeway Sign Company 356.40 0 356.40 Supplier Payment: Paymentus Corporation: 10/31/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 10/31/2024 Paymentus Corporation 1,208.00 0 1,208.00 Supplier Payment: Ignite Culture Inc: 10/31/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 448519 10/31/2024 Ignite Culture Inc 0 3,075.84 3,075.84 Supplier Payment: Odp Business Solutions Llc: 10/31/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 448525 10/31/2024 Odp Business Solutions Llc 0 7,001.46 7,001.46 Supplier Payment: Inyo Networks Inc: 10/31/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448520 10/31/2024 Inyo Networks Inc 22,239.00 0 22,239.00 Supplier Payment: Four Points By Sheraton: 10/31/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448516 10/31/2024 Four Points By Sheraton 314.68 0 314.68 Supplier Payment: Richards Watson & Gershon: 10/31/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 10/31/2024 Richards Watson & Gershon 28,626.94 0 28,626.94 Supplier Payment: Champion Fire Systems Inc: 10/31/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 10/31/2024 Champion Fire Systems Inc 2,980.00 0 2,980.00 Supplier Payment: Newco Distributors Inc: 10/31/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448523 10/31/2024 Newco Distributors Inc 1,386.53 0 1,386.53 Supplier Payment: Charter Communications: 10/31/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448514 10/31/2024 Charter Communications 8,348.08 0 8,348.08 Supplier Payment: Safeguard Business Systems Inc: 10/31/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448528 10/31/2024 Safeguard Business Systems Inc 1,430.72 0 1,430.72 Supplier Payment: Alta Loma School District: 11/04/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448548 11/04/2024 Alta Loma School District 488.00 0 488.00 Page 29 Council Meeting Check Register - without SoCal Gas 08:15 AM 11/25/2024 Page 17 of 49 Supplier Payment Company Check Number Check Date Supplier Name City of Rancho Cucamonga Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Payment Amount for Reporting Transaction Supplier Payment: Patton Sales Corp: 11/05/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448577 11/05/2024 Patton Sales Corp 193.37 0 193.37 Supplier Payment: Waxie Sanitary Supply: 11/05/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448594 11/05/2024 Waxie Sanitary Supply 3,147.50 0 3,147.50 Supplier Payment: Golden Oaks Vet Hospital: 11/05/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448559 11/05/2024 Golden Oaks Vet Hospital 400.00 0 400.00 Supplier Payment: Vca California Veterinary Specialists: 11/05/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448588 11/05/2024 Vca California Veterinary Specialists 179.48 0 179.48 Supplier Payment: Ruben'S Auto Collision Center Inc: 11/05/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448582 11/05/2024 Ruben'S Auto Collision Center Inc 3,187.61 0 3,187.61 Supplier Payment: Am-Tec Total Security Inc: 11/05/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448550 11/05/2024 Am-Tec Total Security Inc 6,396.00 0 6,396.00 Supplier Payment: Vulcan Materials Company: 11/05/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448592 11/05/2024 Vulcan Materials Company 117.46 0 117.46 Supplier Payment: Alliant Insurance Services Inc: 11/05/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 11/05/2024 Alliant Insurance Services Inc 1,182.00 0 1,182.00 Supplier Payment: Aufbau Corporation: 11/05/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448552 11/05/2024 Aufbau Corporation 19,620.00 0 19,620.00 Supplier Payment: Motive Energy Llc: 11/05/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448572 11/05/2024 Motive Energy Llc 881.48 0 881.48 Supplier Payment: Richards Watson & Gershon: 11/05/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 11/05/2024 Richards Watson & Gershon 5,228.10 0 5,228.10 Supplier Payment: Rancho Smog Center: 11/05/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448580 11/05/2024 Rancho Smog Center 49.95 0 49.95 Supplier Payment: Black Box Safety Inc: 11/05/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448553 11/05/2024 Black Box Safety Inc 24,685.61 0 24,685.61 Supplier Payment: Renne Public Law Group: 11/05/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448581 11/05/2024 Renne Public Law Group 28,500.00 0 28,500.00 Supplier Payment: Diamond Environmental Services: 11/05/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 11/05/2024 Diamond Environmental Services 2,103.73 0 2,103.73 Supplier Payment: Qless Inc: 11/05/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 11/05/2024 Qless Inc 21,196.38 0 21,196.38 Supplier Payment: Midwest Veterinary Supply Inc: 11/05/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448570 11/05/2024 Midwest Veterinary Supply Inc 248.76 0 248.76 Supplier Payment: Kaiser Foundation Health Plan Inc: 11/05/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448564 11/05/2024 Kaiser Foundation Health Plan Inc 313,592.04 0 313,592.04 Supplier Payment: Odp Business Solutions Llc: 11/05/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448574 11/05/2024 Odp Business Solutions Llc 2,513.92 0 2,513.92 Supplier Payment: Archibald Flowers: 11/05/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448551 11/05/2024 Archibald Flowers 950.00 0 950.00 Supplier Payment: Pre-Paid Legal Services Inc: 11/05/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448579 11/05/2024 Pre-Paid Legal Services Inc 317.68 0 317.68 Page 30 Council Meeting Check Register - without SoCal Gas 08:15 AM 11/25/2024 Page 18 of 49 Supplier Payment Company Check Number Check Date Supplier Name City of Rancho Cucamonga Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Payment Amount for Reporting Transaction Supplier Payment: Lilburn Corporation: 11/05/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448567 11/05/2024 Lilburn Corporation 10,000.00 0 10,000.00 Supplier Payment: Fuel Serv: 11/05/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448557 11/05/2024 Fuel Serv 1,735.78 0 1,735.78 Supplier Payment: Medline Industries Lp: 11/05/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448569 11/05/2024 Medline Industries Lp 1,187.72 0 1,187.72 Supplier Payment: Onward Engineering: 11/05/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448575 11/05/2024 Onward Engineering 18,797.50 0 18,797.50 Supplier Payment: Hinderliter De Llamas & Associates: 11/05/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448563 11/05/2024 Hinderliter De Llamas & Associates 16,727.92 0 16,727.92 Supplier Payment: Southern California News Group: 11/05/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448583 11/05/2024 Southern California News Group 8,089.72 0 8,089.72 Supplier Payment: Ccs Orange County Janitorial Inc: 11/05/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448554 11/05/2024 Ccs Orange County Janitorial Inc 5,836.47 0 5,836.47 Supplier Payment: Parkhouse Tire Inc: 11/05/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448576 11/05/2024 Parkhouse Tire Inc 425.50 0 425.50 Supplier Payment: Johnny Allen Tennis Academy: 11/05/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 11/05/2024 Johnny Allen Tennis Academy 2,781.60 0 2,781.60 Supplier Payment: Hdl Coren & Cone: 11/05/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448562 11/05/2024 Hdl Coren & Cone 5,272.50 0 5,272.50 Supplier Payment: Uline: 11/05/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448586 11/05/2024 Uline 243.59 0 243.59 Supplier Payment: Cengage Learning Inc / Gale: 11/05/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448555 11/05/2024 Cengage Learning Inc / Gale 3,670.05 0 3,670.05 Supplier Payment: Victoria Animal Hospital: 11/05/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448589 11/05/2024 Victoria Animal Hospital 400.00 0 400.00 Supplier Payment: Walters Wholesale Electric Co: 11/05/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448593 11/05/2024 Walters Wholesale Electric Co 1,437.29 0 1,437.29 Supplier Payment: Stanley Pest Control: 11/05/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448584 11/05/2024 Stanley Pest Control 4,160.00 0 4,160.00 Supplier Payment: Globalstar Usa: 11/05/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448558 11/05/2024 Globalstar Usa 182.82 0 182.82 Supplier Payment: Victor Medical Company: 11/05/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448590 11/05/2024 Victor Medical Company 1,199.25 0 1,199.25 Supplier Payment: Tirehub Llc: 11/05/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448585 11/05/2024 Tirehub Llc 1,176.38 0 1,176.38 Supplier Payment: Mmasc: 11/05/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448571 11/05/2024 Mmasc 125.00 0 125.00 Supplier Payment: Nancy L Sample: 11/05/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448573 11/05/2024 Nancy L Sample 462.00 0 462.00 Supplier Payment: Jorry Keith: 11/05/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 11/05/2024 Jorry Keith 96.00 0 96.00 Page 31 Council Meeting Check Register - without SoCal Gas 08:15 AM 11/25/2024 Page 19 of 49 Supplier Payment Company Check Number Check Date Supplier Name City of Rancho Cucamonga Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Payment Amount for Reporting Transaction Supplier Payment: Vinyl Mayhem: 11/05/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448591 11/05/2024 Vinyl Mayhem 105.60 0 105.60 Supplier Payment: Nationwide Premium Holding: 11/05/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 11/05/2024 Nationwide Premium Holding 2,141.93 0 2,141.93 Supplier Payment: Lakeview Consulting LLC: 11/05/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448565 11/05/2024 Lakeview Consulting LLC 17,200.00 0 17,200.00 Supplier Payment: Pip Printing: 11/05/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448578 11/05/2024 Pip Printing 1,163.70 0 1,163.70 Supplier Payment: Level 3 Communications Llc: 11/05/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448566 11/05/2024 Level 3 Communications Llc 8,121.78 0 8,121.78 Supplier Payment: Main Street Signs: 11/05/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448568 11/05/2024 Main Street Signs 2,169.56 0 2,169.56 Supplier Payment: Alphagraphics: 11/05/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448549 11/05/2024 Alphagraphics 375.06 0 375.06 Supplier Payment: Covetrus North America: 11/05/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448556 11/05/2024 Covetrus North America 542.21 0 542.21 Supplier Payment: Green Rocket Security Inc.: 11/05/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448561 11/05/2024 Green Rocket Security Inc.1,552.50 0 1,552.50 Supplier Payment: Graphics Factory Printing Inc: 11/05/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448560 11/05/2024 Graphics Factory Printing Inc 911.57 0 911.57 Supplier Payment: National Utility Locators Llc: 11/05/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 11/05/2024 National Utility Locators Llc 9,300.00 0 9,300.00 Supplier Payment: Chaffey Joint Union High School District: 11/05/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 11/05/2024 Chaffey Joint Union High School District 1,965.24 0 1,965.24 Supplier Payment: Ups: 11/05/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448587 11/05/2024 Ups 69.65 0 69.65 Supplier Payment: Southern California Edison: 11/07/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448666 11/07/2024 Southern California Edison 141,608.47 0 141,608.47 Supplier Payment: Amg & Associates Inc: 11/07/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 11/07/2024 Amg & Associates Inc 0 628,572.40 628,572.40 Supplier Payment: Verizon Wireless - La: 11/07/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448644 11/07/2024 Verizon Wireless - La 254.07 0 254.07 Supplier Payment: Palmer Consulting: 11/07/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 11/07/2024 Palmer Consulting 5,460.00 0 5,460.00 Supplier Payment: Federal Express Corp: 11/07/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448611 11/07/2024 Federal Express Corp 91.10 0 91.10 Supplier Payment: Calif Underground Fac Safe Excavation Board: 11/07/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448603 11/07/2024 Calif Underground Fac Safe Excavation Board 56.32 0 56.32 Supplier Payment: Vulcan Materials Company: 11/07/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448647 11/07/2024 Vulcan Materials Company 288.20 0 288.20 Page 32 Council Meeting Check Register - without SoCal Gas 08:15 AM 11/25/2024 Page 20 of 49 Supplier Payment Company Check Number Check Date Supplier Name City of Rancho Cucamonga Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Payment Amount for Reporting Transaction Supplier Payment: Richards Watson & Gershon: 11/07/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 11/07/2024 Richards Watson & Gershon 4,337.00 0 4,337.00 Supplier Payment: Music Tree: 11/07/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 11/07/2024 Music Tree 1,116.00 0 1,116.00 Supplier Payment: Aflac: 11/07/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448600 11/07/2024 Aflac 3,878.16 0 3,878.16 Supplier Payment: Willdan Group: 11/07/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448650 11/07/2024 Willdan Group 2,017.91 0 2,017.91 Supplier Payment: Swank Motion Pictures Inc: 11/07/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448638 11/07/2024 Swank Motion Pictures Inc 730.00 0 730.00 Supplier Payment: Alta Rancho Pet & Bird Hospital: 11/07/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448601 11/07/2024 Alta Rancho Pet & Bird Hospital 200.00 0 200.00 Supplier Payment: Hernandez Group Llc: 11/07/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448616 11/07/2024 Hernandez Group Llc 263.90 0 263.90 Supplier Payment: Ccs Orange County Janitorial Inc: 11/07/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448605 11/07/2024 Ccs Orange County Janitorial Inc 2,253.53 0 2,253.53 Supplier Payment: Grainger: 11/07/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448614 11/07/2024 Grainger 1,695.33 0 1,695.33 Supplier Payment: On Duty Health, PLLC: 11/07/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 448629 11/07/2024 On Duty Health, PLLC 0 198,470.00 198,470.00 Supplier Payment: Lu'S Lighthouse Inc: 11/07/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448619 11/07/2024 Lu'S Lighthouse Inc 4,204.54 0 4,204.54 Supplier Payment: Cintas Corporation: 11/07/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448607 11/07/2024 Cintas Corporation 205.64 0 205.64 Supplier Payment: Two Cups of TLC, LLC: 11/07/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448642 11/07/2024 Two Cups of TLC, LLC 4,000.00 0 4,000.00 Supplier Payment: Directv: 11/07/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448610 11/07/2024 Directv 271.61 0 271.61 Supplier Payment: Remmi Construction Inc: 11/07/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448634 11/07/2024 Remmi Construction Inc 2,506.95 0 2,506.95 Supplier Payment: Pacific Utility Installation Inc: 11/07/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 11/07/2024 Pacific Utility Installation Inc 716,472.39 0 716,472.39 Supplier Payment: North Net Fire Training Center: 11/07/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 448627 11/07/2024 North Net Fire Training Center 0 10,400.00 10,400.00 Supplier Payment: Maria Elena Alvarez: 11/07/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448622 11/07/2024 Maria Elena Alvarez 648.00 0 648.00 Supplier Payment: Mesa Energy Systems Inc: 11/07/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448624 11/07/2024 Mesa Energy Systems Inc 2,975.00 0 2,975.00 Page 33 Council Meeting Check Register - without SoCal Gas 08:15 AM 11/25/2024 Page 21 of 49 Supplier Payment Company Check Number Check Date Supplier Name City of Rancho Cucamonga Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Payment Amount for Reporting Transaction Supplier Payment: The Bank Of New York Mellon: 11/07/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 448639 11/07/2024 The Bank Of New York Mellon 0 2,525.00 2,525.00 Supplier Payment: Wilson Fiallos: 11/07/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448652 11/07/2024 Wilson Fiallos 1,377.00 0 1,377.00 Supplier Payment: Onward Engineering: 11/07/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448632 11/07/2024 Onward Engineering 4,765.00 0 4,765.00 Supplier Payment: Absolute Security International Inc: 11/07/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 11/07/2024 Absolute Security International Inc 4,616.92 0 4,616.92 Supplier Payment: Props & Measures Strategic Communications: 11/07/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448633 11/07/2024 Props & Measures Strategic Communications 5,500.00 0 5,500.00 Supplier Payment: Wilson & Bell Auto Service: 11/07/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448651 11/07/2024 Wilson & Bell Auto Service 11,278.87 0 11,278.87 Supplier Payment: Brightview Landscape Services Inc: 11/07/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 11/07/2024 Brightview Landscape Services Inc 21,750.00 0 21,750.00 Supplier Payment: Siteone Landscape Supply Llc: 11/07/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448635 11/07/2024 Siteone Landscape Supply Llc 7,215.09 0 7,215.09 Supplier Payment: Fuel Serv: 11/07/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448612 11/07/2024 Fuel Serv 1,790.00 0 1,790.00 Supplier Payment: Netfile Inc: 11/07/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448625 11/07/2024 Netfile Inc 16,100.00 0 16,100.00 Supplier Payment: Ontario Spay & Neuter Inc: 11/07/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448631 11/07/2024 Ontario Spay & Neuter Inc 770.00 0 770.00 Supplier Payment: Bauer Compressors Inc: 11/07/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 11/07/2024 Bauer Compressors Inc 0 1,571.00 1,571.00 Supplier Payment: Cintas Corporation: 11/07/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 448608 11/07/2024 Cintas Corporation 0 1,200.11 1,200.11 Supplier Payment: Tirehub Llc: 11/07/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448641 11/07/2024 Tirehub Llc 1,171.76 0 1,171.76 Supplier Payment: Underground Service Alert/Sc: 11/07/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448643 11/07/2024 Underground Service Alert/Sc 180.20 0 180.20 Supplier Payment: Special Services Group Llc: 11/07/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448636 11/07/2024 Special Services Group Llc 3,000.00 0 3,000.00 Supplier Payment: Westbound Communications Inc: 11/07/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448649 11/07/2024 Westbound Communications Inc 2,347.50 0 2,347.50 Supplier Payment: San Bernardino County: 11/07/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 11/07/2024 San Bernardino County 96.00 0 96.00 Page 34 Council Meeting Check Register - without SoCal Gas 08:15 AM 11/25/2024 Page 22 of 49 Supplier Payment Company Check Number Check Date Supplier Name City of Rancho Cucamonga Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Payment Amount for Reporting Transaction Supplier Payment: Tint City Window Tinting: 11/07/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448640 11/07/2024 Tint City Window Tinting 60.00 0 60.00 Supplier Payment: Stargazer Productions Of Orange: 11/07/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448637 11/07/2024 Stargazer Productions Of Orange 17,000.00 0 17,000.00 Supplier Payment: Vortex Industries Llc: 11/07/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448646 11/07/2024 Vortex Industries Llc 2,507.35 0 2,507.35 Supplier Payment: Certified Towing Inc: 11/07/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448606 11/07/2024 Certified Towing Inc 275.00 0 275.00 Supplier Payment: Triden Group Corp: 11/07/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 11/07/2024 Triden Group Corp 2,115.00 0 2,115.00 Supplier Payment: Idexx Distribution Inc: 11/07/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448617 11/07/2024 Idexx Distribution Inc 111.51 0 111.51 Supplier Payment: Waxie Sanitary Supply: 11/07/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448648 11/07/2024 Waxie Sanitary Supply 868.33 0 868.33 Supplier Payment: Growth Signals, LLC: 11/07/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448615 11/07/2024 Growth Signals, LLC 2,500.00 0 2,500.00 Supplier Payment: California Animal Health and Food Safety Laboratory System: 11/07/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448602 11/07/2024 California Animal Health and Food Safety Laboratory System 615.00 0 615.00 Supplier Payment: Us Department Of Energy: 11/07/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 11/07/2024 Us Department Of Energy 8,430.25 0 8,430.25 Supplier Payment: Odp Business Solutions Llc: 11/07/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448628 11/07/2024 Odp Business Solutions Llc 1,494.49 0 1,494.49 Supplier Payment: Victor Medical Company: 11/07/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448645 11/07/2024 Victor Medical Company 754.38 0 754.38 Supplier Payment: Claremont Lincoln University: 11/07/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448609 11/07/2024 Claremont Lincoln University 7,500.00 0 7,500.00 Supplier Payment: Yunex Llc: 11/07/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 11/07/2024 Yunex Llc 12,476.00 0 12,476.00 Supplier Payment: Marianna Giordano: 11/07/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448623 11/07/2024 Marianna Giordano 165.75 0 165.75 Supplier Payment: Sovic Creative: 11/07/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 11/07/2024 Sovic Creative 4,500.00 0 4,500.00 Supplier Payment: Karen Clark: 11/07/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448618 11/07/2024 Karen Clark 1,200.00 0 1,200.00 Supplier Payment: Merrimac Petroleum Inc: 11/07/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 11/07/2024 Merrimac Petroleum Inc 30,157.91 0 30,157.91 Supplier Payment: Newco Distributors Inc: 11/07/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448626 11/07/2024 Newco Distributors Inc 2,864.35 0 2,864.35 Supplier Payment: Manmade Entertainment Productions, Inc.: 11/07/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448620 11/07/2024 Manmade Entertainment Productions, Inc. 4,000.00 0 4,000.00 Page 35 Council Meeting Check Register - without SoCal Gas 08:15 AM 11/25/2024 Page 23 of 49 Supplier Payment Company Check Number Check Date Supplier Name City of Rancho Cucamonga Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Payment Amount for Reporting Transaction Supplier Payment: Only Cremations For Pets Inc: 11/07/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448630 11/07/2024 Only Cremations For Pets Inc 1,723.00 0 1,723.00 Supplier Payment: Mariposa Landscapes Inc: 11/07/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 11/07/2024 Mariposa Landscapes Inc 58,696.78 0 58,696.78 Supplier Payment: Carahsoft Technology Corp: 11/07/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448604 11/07/2024 Carahsoft Technology Corp 6,770.95 0 6,770.95 Supplier Payment: Gateway Pet Cemetery & Crematory: 11/07/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448613 11/07/2024 Gateway Pet Cemetery & Crematory 3,025.00 0 3,025.00 Supplier Payment: Anderson'S Playschool: 11/07/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 11/07/2024 Anderson'S Playschool 3,165.00 0 3,165.00 Supplier Payment: Marc Little: 11/07/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448621 11/07/2024 Marc Little 844.80 0 844.80 Supplier Payment: Rehabwest Inc: 11/12/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448747 11/12/2024 Rehabwest Inc 361.00 0 361.00 Supplier Payment: Hometown America - Ramona Villa Mhp: 11/12/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448733 11/12/2024 Hometown America - Ramona Villa Mhp 300.00 0 300.00 Supplier Payment: Alma Arocho: 11/12/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448714 11/12/2024 Alma Arocho 1,152.00 0 1,152.00 Supplier Payment: Absolute Security International Inc: 11/12/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 11/12/2024 Absolute Security International Inc 8,675.04 0 8,675.04 Supplier Payment: Haaker Equipment Company: 11/12/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 11/12/2024 Haaker Equipment Company 4,067.24 0 4,067.24 Supplier Payment: Cintas Corporation: 11/12/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 448726 11/12/2024 Cintas Corporation 0 92.70 92.70 Supplier Payment: Graphics Factory Printing Inc: 11/12/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448732 11/12/2024 Graphics Factory Printing Inc 942.81 0 942.81 Supplier Payment: Elecnor Belco Electric Inc: 11/12/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 11/12/2024 Elecnor Belco Electric Inc 2,607.17 0 2,607.17 Supplier Payment: Client First Consulting Group Llc: 11/12/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448727 11/12/2024 Client First Consulting Group Llc 375.00 0 375.00 Supplier Payment: Humane Society Of San Bernardino Valley: 11/12/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448734 11/12/2024 Humane Society Of San Bernardino Valley 369.00 0 369.00 Supplier Payment: Chaparral Heights Mobile Home Park: 11/12/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448725 11/12/2024 Chaparral Heights Mobile Home Park 200.00 0 200.00 Supplier Payment: Hampton Living: 11/12/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 11/12/2024 Hampton Living 206.10 0 206.10 Supplier Payment: Rancho Smog Center: 11/12/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448746 11/12/2024 Rancho Smog Center 49.95 0 49.95 Supplier Payment: Language Network Inc: 11/12/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448738 11/12/2024 Language Network Inc 193.50 0 193.50 Page 36 Council Meeting Check Register - without SoCal Gas 08:15 AM 11/25/2024 Page 24 of 49 Supplier Payment Company Check Number Check Date Supplier Name City of Rancho Cucamonga Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Payment Amount for Reporting Transaction Supplier Payment: Calpers Long-Term Care Program: 11/12/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448723 11/12/2024 Calpers Long-Term Care Program 221.35 0 221.35 Supplier Payment: Midwest Veterinary Supply Inc: 11/12/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448740 11/12/2024 Midwest Veterinary Supply Inc 1,275.47 0 1,275.47 Supplier Payment: Scott Mcleod Plumbing Inc: 11/12/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448749 11/12/2024 Scott Mcleod Plumbing Inc 2,852.00 0 2,852.00 Supplier Payment: Delta Dental Of California: 11/12/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 11/12/2024 Delta Dental Of California 48,341.23 0 48,341.23 Supplier Payment: Odp Business Solutions Llc: 11/12/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448743 11/12/2024 Odp Business Solutions Llc 1,310.69 0 1,310.69 Supplier Payment: Constellation Energy Generation Llc: 11/12/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 11/12/2024 Constellation Energy Generation Llc 673,595.90 0 673,595.90 Supplier Payment: Animal Health Diagnostic Center: 11/12/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448718 11/12/2024 Animal Health Diagnostic Center 433.50 0 433.50 Supplier Payment: Sycamore Villa Mobile Home Park: 11/12/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448752 11/12/2024 Sycamore Villa Mobile Home Park 200.00 0 200.00 Supplier Payment: Carol Jean Bourland: 11/12/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 11/12/2024 Carol Jean Bourland 420.00 0 420.00 Supplier Payment: Auntie M Creative Consultants Inc: 11/12/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448720 11/12/2024 Auntie M Creative Consultants Inc 2,170.00 0 2,170.00 Supplier Payment: Alta Vista Mobile Home Park: 11/12/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448716 11/12/2024 Alta Vista Mobile Home Park 288.60 0 288.60 Supplier Payment: Animal Blood Resources International: 11/12/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448717 11/12/2024 Animal Blood Resources International 938.51 0 938.51 Supplier Payment: Icma: 11/12/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448735 11/12/2024 Icma 2,400.00 0 2,400.00 Supplier Payment: Waxie Sanitary Supply: 11/12/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 448757 11/12/2024 Waxie Sanitary Supply 0 73.70 73.70 Supplier Payment: Brent Parker: 11/12/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448722 11/12/2024 Brent Parker 2,000.00 0 2,000.00 Supplier Payment: Cameron-Daniel Pc: 11/12/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448724 11/12/2024 Cameron-Daniel Pc 39.60 0 39.60 Supplier Payment: The Groves On Foothill: 11/12/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448755 11/12/2024 The Groves On Foothill 200.00 0 200.00 Supplier Payment: Southern California Edison: 11/12/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448751 11/12/2024 Southern California Edison 417.62 0 417.62 Supplier Payment: Postal Perfect: 11/12/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448745 11/12/2024 Postal Perfect 180.00 0 180.00 Supplier Payment: Psa Print Group: 11/12/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 11/12/2024 Psa Print Group 107.88 0 107.88 Page 37 Council Meeting Check Register - without SoCal Gas 08:15 AM 11/25/2024 Page 25 of 49 Supplier Payment Company Check Number Check Date Supplier Name City of Rancho Cucamonga Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Payment Amount for Reporting Transaction Supplier Payment: Mwi Animal Health: 11/12/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448741 11/12/2024 Mwi Animal Health 1,172.66 0 1,172.66 Supplier Payment: Gail Materials: 11/12/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448730 11/12/2024 Gail Materials 2,797.03 0 2,797.03 Supplier Payment: City Of Riverside: 11/12/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 11/12/2024 City Of Riverside 6,909.00 0 6,909.00 Supplier Payment: Occupational Health Centers Of Ca: 11/12/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448742 11/12/2024 Occupational Health Centers Of Ca 9,587.00 0 9,587.00 Supplier Payment: Adobe Animal Hospital: 11/12/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448713 11/12/2024 Adobe Animal Hospital 100.00 0 100.00 Supplier Payment: Dunn-Edwards Corporation: 11/12/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 11/12/2024 Dunn-Edwards Corporation 369.21 0 369.21 Supplier Payment: Victoria Animal Hospital: 11/12/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448756 11/12/2024 Victoria Animal Hospital 200.00 0 200.00 Supplier Payment: Pro-West & Associates Inc: 11/12/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 11/12/2024 Pro-West & Associates Inc 745.34 0 745.34 Supplier Payment: The Bank Of New York Mellon: 11/12/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448754 11/12/2024 The Bank Of New York Mellon 1,875.00 0 1,875.00 Supplier Payment: Jade Michael Anne Sigurdson: 11/12/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448736 11/12/2024 Jade Michael Anne Sigurdson 495.00 0 495.00 Supplier Payment: Brightview Landscape Services Inc: 11/12/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 11/12/2024 Brightview Landscape Services Inc 1,177.41 0 1,177.41 Supplier Payment: Ginger Dollarhide: 11/12/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448731 11/12/2024 Ginger Dollarhide 334.92 0 334.92 Supplier Payment: Graybar Electric Company Inc: 11/12/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 11/12/2024 Graybar Electric Company Inc 1,361.49 0 1,361.49 Supplier Payment: Siteone Landscape Supply Llc: 11/12/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448750 11/12/2024 Siteone Landscape Supply Llc 449.09 0 449.09 Supplier Payment: T&B Planning Inc: 11/12/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448753 11/12/2024 T&B Planning Inc 1,197.00 0 1,197.00 Supplier Payment: Peloton Interactive Inc: 11/12/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448744 11/12/2024 Peloton Interactive Inc 528.00 0 528.00 Supplier Payment: Wilson Fiallos: 11/12/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448758 11/12/2024 Wilson Fiallos 972.00 0 972.00 Supplier Payment: Diane Carty: 11/12/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448729 11/12/2024 Diane Carty 228.60 0 228.60 Supplier Payment: Alta Laguna Mobile Home Park - Ca Llc: 11/12/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448715 11/12/2024 Alta Laguna Mobile Home Park - Ca Llc 400.00 0 400.00 Supplier Payment: Sharon Ott: 11/12/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 11/12/2024 Sharon Ott 865.20 0 865.20 Supplier Payment: Karolyn Bast: 11/12/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448737 11/12/2024 Karolyn Bast 704.40 0 704.40 Page 38 Council Meeting Check Register - without SoCal Gas 08:15 AM 11/25/2024 Page 26 of 49 Supplier Payment Company Check Number Check Date Supplier Name City of Rancho Cucamonga Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Payment Amount for Reporting Transaction Supplier Payment: Golden State Risk Management Authority: 11/12/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 11/12/2024 Golden State Risk Management Authority 141,861.00 0 141,861.00 Supplier Payment: Anthony Maxwell: 11/12/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448719 11/12/2024 Anthony Maxwell 72.00 0 72.00 Supplier Payment: M2 Image Solutions Inc: 11/12/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448739 11/12/2024 M2 Image Solutions Inc 4,241.23 0 4,241.23 Supplier Payment: Barbara'S Answering Service: 11/12/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448721 11/12/2024 Barbara'S Answering Service 552.00 0 552.00 Supplier Payment: Creative West: 11/12/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448728 11/12/2024 Creative West 250.00 0 250.00 Supplier Payment: Robert Morales: 11/12/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448748 11/12/2024 Robert Morales 227.50 0 227.50 Supplier Payment: Waxie Sanitary Supply: 11/14/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448891 11/14/2024 Waxie Sanitary Supply 1,812.56 0 1,812.56 Supplier Payment: Brightview Landscape Services Inc: 11/14/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 11/14/2024 Brightview Landscape Services Inc 21,750.00 0 21,750.00 Supplier Payment: Tirehub Llc: 11/14/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 448870 11/14/2024 Tirehub Llc 0 333.98 333.98 Supplier Payment: Cintas Corporation: 11/14/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448821 11/14/2024 Cintas Corporation 2,026.46 0 2,026.46 Supplier Payment: Westrux International Inc: 11/14/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448882 11/14/2024 Westrux International Inc 337.77 0 337.77 Supplier Payment: Fontana Radiator Service: 11/14/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 448832 11/14/2024 Fontana Radiator Service 0 2,912.75 2,912.75 Supplier Payment: Mariposa Landscapes Inc: 11/14/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 11/14/2024 Mariposa Landscapes Inc 6,974.54 0 6,974.54 Supplier Payment: Odp Business Solutions Llc: 11/14/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448847 11/14/2024 Odp Business Solutions Llc 3,995.43 0 3,995.43 Supplier Payment: Ninyo & Moore: 11/14/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 11/14/2024 Ninyo & Moore 5,854.50 0 5,854.50 Supplier Payment: Yamada Enterprises: 11/14/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448884 11/14/2024 Yamada Enterprises 45,371.55 0 45,371.55 Supplier Payment: Velocity Truck Centers: 11/14/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448873 11/14/2024 Velocity Truck Centers 569.95 0 569.95 Supplier Payment: Ups: 11/14/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448872 11/14/2024 Ups 57.44 0 57.44 Supplier Payment: Rydin: 11/14/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448858 11/14/2024 Rydin 646.28 0 646.28 Page 39 Council Meeting Check Register - without SoCal Gas 08:15 AM 11/25/2024 Page 27 of 49 Supplier Payment Company Check Number Check Date Supplier Name City of Rancho Cucamonga Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Payment Amount for Reporting Transaction Supplier Payment: Liebert Cassidy Whitmore: 11/14/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448842 11/14/2024 Liebert Cassidy Whitmore 2,531.50 0 2,531.50 Supplier Payment: Zoetis Us Llc: 11/14/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448885 11/14/2024 Zoetis Us Llc 81.02 0 81.02 Supplier Payment: Rialto Animal Hospital: 11/14/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448856 11/14/2024 Rialto Animal Hospital 400.00 0 400.00 Supplier Payment: Truepoint Solutions: 11/14/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 11/14/2024 Truepoint Solutions 247.50 0 247.50 Supplier Payment: Alma Arocho: 11/14/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448813 11/14/2024 Alma Arocho 571.20 0 571.20 Supplier Payment: Yunex Llc: 11/14/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 11/14/2024 Yunex Llc 25,840.98 0 25,840.98 Supplier Payment: Re Astoria 2 Llc: 11/14/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 11/14/2024 Re Astoria 2 Llc 115,955.20 0 115,955.20 Supplier Payment: Odp Business Solutions Llc: 11/14/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 448846 11/14/2024 Odp Business Solutions Llc 0 879.10 879.10 Supplier Payment: Cintas Corporation: 11/14/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 448820 11/14/2024 Cintas Corporation 0 46.35 46.35 Supplier Payment: 49Er Communications Inc: 11/14/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 448809 11/14/2024 49Er Communications Inc 0 2,495.00 2,495.00 Supplier Payment: D & K Concrete Company: 11/14/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448826 11/14/2024 D & K Concrete Company 1,340.41 0 1,340.41 Supplier Payment: Aufbau Corporation: 11/14/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448816 11/14/2024 Aufbau Corporation 56,526.25 0 56,526.25 Supplier Payment: Wilson Fiallos: 11/14/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448883 11/14/2024 Wilson Fiallos 567.00 0 567.00 Supplier Payment: Brinks Incorporated: 11/14/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 11/14/2024 Brinks Incorporated 538.42 0 538.42 Supplier Payment: South Coast Aqmd: 11/14/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 448865 11/14/2024 South Coast Aqmd 0 1,573.92 1,573.92 Supplier Payment: Ninyo & Moore: 11/14/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 11/14/2024 Ninyo & Moore 0 9,620.25 9,620.25 Page 40 Council Meeting Check Register - without SoCal Gas 08:15 AM 11/25/2024 Page 28 of 49 Supplier Payment Company Check Number Check Date Supplier Name City of Rancho Cucamonga Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Payment Amount for Reporting Transaction Supplier Payment: Powerwerx Inc: 11/14/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 448852 11/14/2024 Powerwerx Inc 0 48.61 48.61 Supplier Payment: Waxie Sanitary Supply: 11/14/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448880 11/14/2024 Waxie Sanitary Supply 7,140.88 0 7,140.88 Supplier Payment: Colts Landscape Inc: 11/14/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448823 11/14/2024 Colts Landscape Inc 45,851.03 0 45,851.03 Supplier Payment: Napa Auto Parts: 11/14/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 11/14/2024 Napa Auto Parts 0 423.53 423.53 Supplier Payment: Anthony Feliciano: 11/14/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448815 11/14/2024 Anthony Feliciano 153.00 0 153.00 Supplier Payment: Promotions Tees & More: 11/14/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 11/14/2024 Promotions Tees & More 860.80 0 860.80 Supplier Payment: Corodata Media Storage Inc: 11/14/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448824 11/14/2024 Corodata Media Storage Inc 90.10 0 90.10 Supplier Payment: Siteone Landscape Supply Llc: 11/14/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448863 11/14/2024 Siteone Landscape Supply Llc 1,113.72 0 1,113.72 Supplier Payment: San Bernardino County: 11/14/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 448860 11/14/2024 San Bernardino County 0 17,480.70 17,480.70 Supplier Payment: Velocity Truck Centers: 11/14/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 448874 11/14/2024 Velocity Truck Centers 0 127.12 127.12 Supplier Payment: Napa Auto Parts: 11/14/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 11/14/2024 Napa Auto Parts 632.36 0 632.36 Supplier Payment: Graphics Factory Printing Inc: 11/14/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448836 11/14/2024 Graphics Factory Printing Inc 703.61 0 703.61 Supplier Payment: Interwest Consulting Group Inc: 11/14/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 11/14/2024 Interwest Consulting Group Inc 19,301.43 0 19,301.43 Supplier Payment: Able Building Maintenance: 11/14/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448810 11/14/2024 Able Building Maintenance 10,429.00 0 10,429.00 Supplier Payment: Ruhl, Inc: 11/14/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448857 11/14/2024 Ruhl, Inc 4,820.32 0 4,820.32 Supplier Payment: Dunn-Edwards Corporation: 11/14/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 11/14/2024 Dunn-Edwards Corporation 826.49 0 826.49 Supplier Payment: Kingdom Calibrations Inc: 11/14/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 448841 11/14/2024 Kingdom Calibrations Inc 0 210.00 210.00 Page 41 Council Meeting Check Register - without SoCal Gas 08:15 AM 11/25/2024 Page 29 of 49 Supplier Payment Company Check Number Check Date Supplier Name City of Rancho Cucamonga Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Payment Amount for Reporting Transaction Supplier Payment: Universal Fleet Supply: 11/14/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 448871 11/14/2024 Universal Fleet Supply 0 62.43 62.43 Supplier Payment: Ontario Ice Skating Center: 11/14/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448849 11/14/2024 Ontario Ice Skating Center 504.00 0 504.00 Supplier Payment: Bordin Semmer Llp: 11/14/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448817 11/14/2024 Bordin Semmer Llp 2,286.16 0 2,286.16 Supplier Payment: Richards Watson & Gershon: 11/14/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 11/14/2024 Richards Watson & Gershon 4,676.00 0 4,676.00 Supplier Payment: Rancho Smog Center: 11/14/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448854 11/14/2024 Rancho Smog Center 349.65 0 349.65 Supplier Payment: South Coast Aqmd: 11/14/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448864 11/14/2024 South Coast Aqmd 805.64 0 805.64 Supplier Payment: Sun Badge Co: 11/14/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 448869 11/14/2024 Sun Badge Co 0 5,787.84 5,787.84 Supplier Payment: Intelesys: 11/14/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448840 11/14/2024 Intelesys 723.38 0 723.38 Supplier Payment: Sharon Ott: 11/14/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 11/14/2024 Sharon Ott 630.30 0 630.30 Supplier Payment: Waxie Sanitary Supply: 11/14/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 448879 11/14/2024 Waxie Sanitary Supply 0 3,832.60 3,832.60 Supplier Payment: Best Best & Krieger Llp: 11/14/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 11/14/2024 Best Best & Krieger Llp 2,043.50 0 2,043.50 Supplier Payment: San Bernardino Co Auditor Cont: 11/14/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448859 11/14/2024 San Bernardino Co Auditor Cont 27,897.51 0 27,897.51 Supplier Payment: Nuance Productions, Inc.: 11/14/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 11/14/2024 Nuance Productions, Inc.5,000.00 0 5,000.00 Supplier Payment: Vsa Inc: 11/14/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448876 11/14/2024 Vsa Inc 3,920.00 0 3,920.00 Supplier Payment: Holliday Rock Co Inc: 11/14/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448838 11/14/2024 Holliday Rock Co Inc 1,024.71 0 1,024.71 Supplier Payment: Life-Assist Inc: 11/14/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 11/14/2024 Life-Assist Inc 0 1,380.99 1,380.99 Supplier Payment: Ccs Orange County Janitorial Inc: 11/14/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448819 11/14/2024 Ccs Orange County Janitorial Inc 71,072.89 0 71,072.89 Page 42 Council Meeting Check Register - without SoCal Gas 08:15 AM 11/25/2024 Page 30 of 49 Supplier Payment Company Check Number Check Date Supplier Name City of Rancho Cucamonga Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Payment Amount for Reporting Transaction Supplier Payment: Hdl Coren & Cone: 11/14/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448837 11/14/2024 Hdl Coren & Cone 5,272.50 0 5,272.50 Supplier Payment: Advanced Chemical Transport Inc: 11/14/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448811 11/14/2024 Advanced Chemical Transport Inc 1,737.00 0 1,737.00 Supplier Payment: Firefighters' Safety Center Inc: 11/14/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 448830 11/14/2024 Firefighters' Safety Center Inc 0 4,693.14 4,693.14 Supplier Payment: Graybar Electric Company Inc: 11/14/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 11/14/2024 Graybar Electric Company Inc 675.59 0 675.59 Supplier Payment: Verizon Wireless - La: 11/14/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 448875 11/14/2024 Verizon Wireless - La 0 4,878.57 4,878.57 Supplier Payment: Bpr Consulting Group Llc: 11/14/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448818 11/14/2024 Bpr Consulting Group Llc 35,854.80 0 35,854.80 Supplier Payment: Enko Systems Inc: 11/14/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448829 11/14/2024 Enko Systems Inc 1,725.00 0 1,725.00 Supplier Payment: Civic Solutions Inc: 11/14/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 11/14/2024 Civic Solutions Inc 11,380.00 0 11,380.00 Supplier Payment: Country Estate Fence Co Inc: 11/14/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448825 11/14/2024 Country Estate Fence Co Inc 15,547.61 0 15,547.61 Supplier Payment: Pristine Uniforms Llc: 11/14/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 448853 11/14/2024 Pristine Uniforms Llc 0 628.16 628.16 Supplier Payment: Antelope Expansion 3B Llc: 11/14/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448814 11/14/2024 Antelope Expansion 3B Llc 12,742.97 0 12,742.97 Supplier Payment: Omega Environmental Services Inc: 11/14/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448848 11/14/2024 Omega Environmental Services Inc 4,245.00 0 4,245.00 Supplier Payment: Nbs: 11/14/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448844 11/14/2024 Nbs 9,870.00 0 9,870.00 Supplier Payment: Walters Wholesale Electric Co: 11/14/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448878 11/14/2024 Walters Wholesale Electric Co 380.85 0 380.85 Supplier Payment: Dog Waste Depot: 11/14/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448828 11/14/2024 Dog Waste Depot 2,899.55 0 2,899.55 Supplier Payment: AED Professionals: 11/14/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 448812 11/14/2024 AED Professionals 0 5,255.05 5,255.05 Supplier Payment: Southern Tire Mart LLC: 11/14/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448867 11/14/2024 Southern Tire Mart LLC 662.20 0 662.20 Page 43 Council Meeting Check Register - without SoCal Gas 08:15 AM 11/25/2024 Page 31 of 49 Supplier Payment Company Check Number Check Date Supplier Name City of Rancho Cucamonga Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Payment Amount for Reporting Transaction Supplier Payment: Patton Sales Corp: 11/14/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448851 11/14/2024 Patton Sales Corp 79.99 0 79.99 Supplier Payment: National Utility Locators Llc: 11/14/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 11/14/2024 National Utility Locators Llc 2,175.00 0 2,175.00 Supplier Payment: Rancho West Animal Hospital: 11/14/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448855 11/14/2024 Rancho West Animal Hospital 100.00 0 100.00 Supplier Payment: Occupational Health Centers Of Ca: 11/14/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 448845 11/14/2024 Occupational Health Centers Of Ca 0 88.00 88.00 Supplier Payment: Shred Pros: 11/14/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 448862 11/14/2024 Shred Pros 0 70.00 70.00 Supplier Payment: Fehr & Peers: 11/14/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 11/14/2024 Fehr & Peers 35,965.00 0 35,965.00 Supplier Payment: Grainger: 11/14/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448835 11/14/2024 Grainger 570.71 0 570.71 Supplier Payment: Four Points By Sheraton: 11/14/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448833 11/14/2024 Four Points By Sheraton 1,573.40 0 1,573.40 Supplier Payment: Stotz Equipment: 11/14/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448868 11/14/2024 Stotz Equipment 22.24 0 22.24 Supplier Payment: Best Outdoor Power Inland Llc: 11/14/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 11/14/2024 Best Outdoor Power Inland Llc 151.90 0 151.90 Supplier Payment: Consolidated Electrical Distr Inc: 11/14/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 11/14/2024 Consolidated Electrical Distr Inc 1,476.83 0 1,476.83 Supplier Payment: Frs Environmental: 11/14/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448834 11/14/2024 Frs Environmental 583.20 0 583.20 Supplier Payment: Citrus Motors Ontario Inc: 11/14/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448822 11/14/2024 Citrus Motors Ontario Inc 534.80 0 534.80 Supplier Payment: Fleetpride: 11/14/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 448831 11/14/2024 Fleetpride 0 268.58 268.58 Supplier Payment: Inland Valley Dance Academy: 11/14/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448839 11/14/2024 Inland Valley Dance Academy 510.00 0 510.00 Supplier Payment: San Bernardino County Sheriff'S Dept: 11/14/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 448861 11/14/2024 San Bernardino County Sheriff'S Dept 0 870.00 870.00 Supplier Payment: Vulcan Materials Company: 11/14/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448877 11/14/2024 Vulcan Materials Company 406.72 0 406.72 Page 44 Council Meeting Check Register - without SoCal Gas 08:15 AM 11/25/2024 Page 32 of 49 Supplier Payment Company Check Number Check Date Supplier Name City of Rancho Cucamonga Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Payment Amount for Reporting Transaction Supplier Payment: Ln Curtis & Sons: 11/14/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 448843 11/14/2024 Ln Curtis & Sons 0 196.08 196.08 Supplier Payment: Psa Print Group: 11/14/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 11/14/2024 Psa Print Group 97.00 0 97.00 Supplier Payment: Dance Terrific: 11/14/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448827 11/14/2024 Dance Terrific 970.20 0 970.20 Supplier Payment: Gentry Brothers Inc: 11/14/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 11/14/2024 Gentry Brothers Inc 1,165,030.07 0 1,165,030.07 Supplier Payment: Hampton Living: 11/14/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 11/14/2024 Hampton Living 325.80 0 325.80 Supplier Payment: Onyx Paving Company Inc: 11/14/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448850 11/14/2024 Onyx Paving Company Inc 161,172.25 0 161,172.25 Supplier Payment: Moffatt & Nichol: 11/14/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 11/14/2024 Moffatt & Nichol 27,322.45 0 27,322.45 Supplier Payment: G/M Business Interiors: 11/14/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 11/14/2024 G/M Business Interiors 73.82 0 73.82 Supplier Payment: Western States Transmissions: 11/14/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 448881 11/14/2024 Western States Transmissions 0 12,254.59 12,254.59 Supplier Payment: Ida Tyus: 11/14/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 11/14/2024 Ida Tyus 1,035.00 0 1,035.00 Supplier Payment: Southern California Edison - Remit-To: RCMU: 11/14/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448866 11/14/2024 Southern California Edison 135,000.00 0 135,000.00 Supplier Payment: Ups: 11/14/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448889 11/14/2024 Ups 32.90 0 32.90 Supplier Payment: C V W D: 11/14/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448887 11/14/2024 C V W D 124,462.03 0 124,462.03 Supplier Payment: C V W D: 11/14/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 448886 11/14/2024 C V W D 0 378.65 378.65 Supplier Payment: Southern California Edison: 11/14/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448888 11/14/2024 Southern California Edison 78,243.40 0 78,243.40 Supplier Payment: Sovic Creative: 11/14/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 11/14/2024 Sovic Creative 4,500.00 0 4,500.00 Supplier Payment: Inland Library System: 11/20/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448951 11/20/2024 Inland Library System 1,909.00 0 1,909.00 Page 45 Council Meeting Check Register - without SoCal Gas 08:15 AM 11/25/2024 Page 33 of 49 Supplier Payment Company Check Number Check Date Supplier Name City of Rancho Cucamonga Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Payment Amount for Reporting Transaction Supplier Payment: Michael Eagleson: 11/20/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 11/20/2024 Michael Eagleson 0 2,136.72 2,136.72 Supplier Payment: Karl Cox: 11/20/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 11/20/2024 Karl Cox 0 739.30 739.30 Supplier Payment: Marisa Maverhan- Lane: 11/20/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448960 11/20/2024 Marisa Maverhan-Lane 1,400.00 0 1,400.00 Supplier Payment: Baker & Taylor Llc: 11/20/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448906 11/20/2024 Baker & Taylor Llc 21.31 0 21.31 Supplier Payment: Inland Overhead Door Company: 11/20/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448952 11/20/2024 Inland Overhead Door Company 3,678.00 0 3,678.00 Supplier Payment: Bordin Semmer Llp: 11/20/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448909 11/20/2024 Bordin Semmer Llp 1,706.13 0 1,706.13 Supplier Payment: Newco Distributors Inc: 11/20/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448969 11/20/2024 Newco Distributors Inc 1,386.53 0 1,386.53 Supplier Payment: G/M Business Interiors: 11/20/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 11/20/2024 G/M Business Interiors 94.16 0 94.16 Supplier Payment: Pedrag V. Pecic: 11/20/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 11/20/2024 Pedrag V. Pecic 3,000.00 0 3,000.00 Supplier Payment: Bmla Inc: 11/20/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448908 11/20/2024 Bmla Inc 250.00 0 250.00 Supplier Payment: Bound Tree Medical Llc: 11/20/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 448910 11/20/2024 Bound Tree Medical Llc 0 2,387.67 2,387.67 Supplier Payment: Steven Taylor: 11/20/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 11/20/2024 Steven Taylor 0 2,105.94 2,105.94 Supplier Payment: Citrus Motors Ontario Inc: 11/20/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448917 11/20/2024 Citrus Motors Ontario Inc 3,097.88 0 3,097.88 Supplier Payment: Cobra Professionals, INC.: 11/20/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 11/20/2024 Cobra Professionals, INC.0 145.40 145.40 Supplier Payment: Hose-Man Inc: 11/20/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448947 11/20/2024 Hose-Man Inc 1,529.73 0 1,529.73 Supplier Payment: Robert Anthony Corcoran: 11/20/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 11/20/2024 Robert Anthony Corcoran 0 974.47 974.47 Page 46 Council Meeting Check Register - without SoCal Gas 08:15 AM 11/25/2024 Page 34 of 49 Supplier Payment Company Check Number Check Date Supplier Name City of Rancho Cucamonga Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Payment Amount for Reporting Transaction Supplier Payment: Just Say So Llc: 11/20/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448955 11/20/2024 Just Say So Llc 3,000.00 0 3,000.00 Supplier Payment: James Sullivan: 11/20/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 11/20/2024 James Sullivan 0 492.58 492.58 Supplier Payment: Darrell Luttrull: 11/20/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 11/20/2024 Darrell Luttrull 0 492.58 492.58 Supplier Payment: Timothy A Yowell: 11/20/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 11/20/2024 Timothy A Yowell 0 739.30 739.30 Supplier Payment: Am-Tec Total Security Inc: 11/20/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448900 11/20/2024 Am-Tec Total Security Inc 4,668.00 0 4,668.00 Supplier Payment: Richards Watson & Gershon: 11/20/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 11/20/2024 Richards Watson & Gershon 61,020.03 0 61,020.03 Supplier Payment: Occupational Health Centers Of Ca: 11/20/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 448974 11/20/2024 Occupational Health Centers Of Ca 0 590.00 590.00 Supplier Payment: Terry Tuley: 11/20/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 11/20/2024 Terry Tuley 0 2,105.94 2,105.94 Supplier Payment: Thomson Reuters - West: 11/20/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 449000 11/20/2024 Thomson Reuters - West 387.00 0 387.00 Supplier Payment: Verizon Wireless - La: 11/20/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 449010 11/20/2024 Verizon Wireless - La 3,183.10 0 3,183.10 Supplier Payment: Ana's Face Painting and Airbrush Tattoo: 11/20/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448901 11/20/2024 Ana's Face Painting and Airbrush Tattoo 330.00 0 330.00 Supplier Payment: Kevin Walton: 11/20/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 11/20/2024 Kevin Walton 0 1,135.35 1,135.35 Supplier Payment: Occupational Health Centers Of Ca: 11/20/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448973 11/20/2024 Occupational Health Centers Of Ca 487.00 0 487.00 Supplier Payment: Mwi Animal Health: 11/20/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448967 11/20/2024 Mwi Animal Health 186.84 0 186.84 Supplier Payment: William Spain: 11/20/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 11/20/2024 William Spain 0 492.58 492.58 Page 47 Council Meeting Check Register - without SoCal Gas 08:15 AM 11/25/2024 Page 35 of 49 Supplier Payment Company Check Number Check Date Supplier Name City of Rancho Cucamonga Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Payment Amount for Reporting Transaction Supplier Payment: Absolute Security International Inc: 11/20/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 11/20/2024 Absolute Security International Inc 16,763.61 0 16,763.61 Supplier Payment: Philip Loncar: 11/20/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 11/20/2024 Philip Loncar 0 2,136.72 2,136.72 Supplier Payment: Crafstman Label: 11/20/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 448923 11/20/2024 Crafstman Label 0 788.91 788.91 Supplier Payment: Lloyd Almand: 11/20/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 11/20/2024 Lloyd Almand 0 291.15 291.15 Supplier Payment: Transtech Engineers Inc: 11/20/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 449002 11/20/2024 Transtech Engineers Inc 1,540.00 0 1,540.00 Supplier Payment: Steven Campbell: 11/20/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 11/20/2024 Steven Campbell 0 739.30 739.30 Supplier Payment: James Curatalo: 11/20/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 11/20/2024 James Curatalo 0 739.30 739.30 Supplier Payment: Braun Blaising & Wynne Pc: 11/20/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448911 11/20/2024 Braun Blaising & Wynne Pc 506.31 0 506.31 Supplier Payment: Allied Universal Security Services: 11/20/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448898 11/20/2024 Allied Universal Security Services 15,664.11 0 15,664.11 Supplier Payment: Jay Davenport: 11/20/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 11/20/2024 Jay Davenport 0 2,824.84 2,824.84 Supplier Payment: Reach Media Network: 11/20/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448983 11/20/2024 Reach Media Network 1,050.00 0 1,050.00 Supplier Payment: United Site Services: 11/20/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 449004 11/20/2024 United Site Services 305.29 0 305.29 Supplier Payment: Michael Redmond: 11/20/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 11/20/2024 Michael Redmond 0 739.30 739.30 Supplier Payment: Tirehub Llc: 11/20/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 449001 11/20/2024 Tirehub Llc 0 936.83 936.83 Page 48 Council Meeting Check Register - without SoCal Gas 08:15 AM 11/25/2024 Page 36 of 49 Supplier Payment Company Check Number Check Date Supplier Name City of Rancho Cucamonga Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Payment Amount for Reporting Transaction Supplier Payment: Rosenbauer Minnesota Llc: 11/20/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 11/20/2024 Rosenbauer Minnesota Llc 0 931,750.71 931,750.71 Supplier Payment: Victor Rodriguez: 11/20/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 449012 11/20/2024 Victor Rodriguez 0 739.30 739.30 Supplier Payment: James Dague: 11/20/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 11/20/2024 James Dague 0 739.30 739.30 Supplier Payment: Quinn Company: 11/20/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 448981 11/20/2024 Quinn Company 0 52.52 52.52 Supplier Payment: Robin Brock: 11/20/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 11/20/2024 Robin Brock 0 739.30 739.30 Supplier Payment: Whittier Fertilizer: 11/20/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 449023 11/20/2024 Whittier Fertilizer 1,099.05 0 1,099.05 Supplier Payment: Richard Clabby: 11/20/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 11/20/2024 Richard Clabby 0 654.66 654.66 Supplier Payment: Assi Security: 11/20/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 11/20/2024 Assi Security 1,200.00 0 1,200.00 Supplier Payment: Motive Energy Llc: 11/20/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448966 11/20/2024 Motive Energy Llc 348.82 0 348.82 Supplier Payment: Eric Noreen: 11/20/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 11/20/2024 Eric Noreen 0 2,784.82 2,784.82 Supplier Payment: Data Ticket Inc: 11/20/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 11/20/2024 Data Ticket Inc 770.00 0 770.00 Supplier Payment: Fuel Serv: 11/20/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448935 11/20/2024 Fuel Serv 502.88 0 502.88 Supplier Payment: Ronald Smith: 11/20/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 11/20/2024 Ronald Smith 0 492.58 492.58 Supplier Payment: Hlp Inc: 11/20/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448945 11/20/2024 Hlp Inc 31,680.00 0 31,680.00 Page 49 Council Meeting Check Register - without SoCal Gas 08:15 AM 11/25/2024 Page 37 of 49 Supplier Payment Company Check Number Check Date Supplier Name City of Rancho Cucamonga Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Payment Amount for Reporting Transaction Supplier Payment: Cintas Corporation: 11/20/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 448916 11/20/2024 Cintas Corporation 0 2,221.17 2,221.17 Supplier Payment: Byron Morgan: 11/20/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 11/20/2024 Byron Morgan 0 479.86 479.86 Supplier Payment: Stabilizer Solutions Inc: 11/20/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448996 11/20/2024 Stabilizer Solutions Inc 1,496.17 0 1,496.17 Supplier Payment: Ascent Environmental Inc: 11/20/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448902 11/20/2024 Ascent Environmental Inc 46,221.23 0 46,221.23 Supplier Payment: Joe Longo: 11/20/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 11/20/2024 Joe Longo 0 167.79 167.79 Supplier Payment: Francis Vanderkallen: 11/20/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 11/20/2024 Francis Vanderkallen 0 739.30 739.30 Supplier Payment: Patrick Proulx: 11/20/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 11/20/2024 Patrick Proulx 0 1,422.62 1,422.62 Supplier Payment: Richard Toll: 11/20/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 11/20/2024 Richard Toll 0 2,784.82 2,784.82 Supplier Payment: John D Fritchey: 11/20/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 11/20/2024 John D Fritchey 0 616.10 616.10 Supplier Payment: Gerald Campbell: 11/20/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 11/20/2024 Gerald Campbell 0 492.58 492.58 Supplier Payment: Winzer Corporation: 11/20/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 449025 11/20/2024 Winzer Corporation 0 240.31 240.31 Supplier Payment: Vision Communications Co: 11/20/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 449014 11/20/2024 Vision Communications Co 2,277.18 0 2,277.18 Supplier Payment: Napa Auto Parts: 11/20/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 11/20/2024 Napa Auto Parts 837.86 0 837.86 Page 50 Council Meeting Check Register - without SoCal Gas 08:15 AM 11/25/2024 Page 38 of 49 Supplier Payment Company Check Number Check Date Supplier Name City of Rancho Cucamonga Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Payment Amount for Reporting Transaction Supplier Payment: Alta Loma Animal Hospital: 11/20/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448899 11/20/2024 Alta Loma Animal Hospital 200.00 0 200.00 Supplier Payment: Merrimac Petroleum Inc: 11/20/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 11/20/2024 Merrimac Petroleum Inc 0 30,713.66 30,713.66 Supplier Payment: Waxie Sanitary Supply: 11/20/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 449019 11/20/2024 Waxie Sanitary Supply 5,454.83 0 5,454.83 Supplier Payment: San Bernardino County: 11/20/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 11/20/2024 San Bernardino County 83.00 0 83.00 Supplier Payment: David W Larkin: 11/20/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 11/20/2024 David W Larkin 0 708.41 708.41 Supplier Payment: Kenneth Mcneil: 11/20/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 11/20/2024 Kenneth Mcneil 0 739.30 739.30 Supplier Payment: Susan De Antonio: 11/20/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 11/20/2024 Susan De Antonio 0 974.47 974.47 Supplier Payment: Colts Landscape Inc: 11/20/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448921 11/20/2024 Colts Landscape Inc 53,491.81 0 53,491.81 Supplier Payment: Victoria Animal Hospital: 11/20/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 449011 11/20/2024 Victoria Animal Hospital 200.00 0 200.00 Supplier Payment: Humane Society Of San Bernardino Valley: 11/20/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448948 11/20/2024 Humane Society Of San Bernardino Valley 344.00 0 344.00 Supplier Payment: Napa Auto Parts: 11/20/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 11/20/2024 Napa Auto Parts 0 601.48 601.48 Supplier Payment: Waxie Sanitary Supply: 11/20/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 449018 11/20/2024 Waxie Sanitary Supply 0 1,580.62 1,580.62 Supplier Payment: Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC: 11/20/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 448954 11/20/2024 Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC 0 2,674.31 2,674.31 Supplier Payment: Stephen Kilmer: 11/20/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 11/20/2024 Stephen Kilmer 0 1,573.82 1,573.82 Page 51 Council Meeting Check Register - without SoCal Gas 08:15 AM 11/25/2024 Page 39 of 49 Supplier Payment Company Check Number Check Date Supplier Name City of Rancho Cucamonga Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Payment Amount for Reporting Transaction Supplier Payment: Governmentjobs.Com Inc: 11/20/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448938 11/20/2024 Governmentjobs.Com Inc 51,732.60 0 51,732.60 Supplier Payment: Mary Jane Nelson: 11/20/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 11/20/2024 Mary Jane Nelson 0 167.79 167.79 Supplier Payment: Michael Nauman: 11/20/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 11/20/2024 Michael Nauman 0 492.58 492.58 Supplier Payment: Express Brake Supply Inc: 11/20/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448931 11/20/2024 Express Brake Supply Inc 492.39 0 492.39 Supplier Payment: Iland Internet Solutions: 11/20/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 11/20/2024 Iland Internet Solutions 7,868.15 0 7,868.15 Supplier Payment: Donald Heyde: 11/20/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 11/20/2024 Donald Heyde 0 739.30 739.30 Supplier Payment: Gateway Pet Cemetery & Crematory: 11/20/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448936 11/20/2024 Gateway Pet Cemetery & Crematory 1,130.00 0 1,130.00 Supplier Payment: New Urban Realty Advisors Inc: 11/20/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448971 11/20/2024 New Urban Realty Advisors Inc 3,887.69 0 3,887.69 Supplier Payment: EN Engineering, LLC: 11/20/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448930 11/20/2024 EN Engineering, LLC 15,075.00 0 15,075.00 Supplier Payment: Midwest Veterinary Supply Inc: 11/20/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448964 11/20/2024 Midwest Veterinary Supply Inc 1,239.44 0 1,239.44 Supplier Payment: Westnet Inc: 11/20/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 449022 11/20/2024 Westnet Inc 0 105,371.70 105,371.70 Supplier Payment: Collaborative Solutions Llc: 11/20/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 11/20/2024 Collaborative Solutions Llc 1,948.00 0 1,948.00 Supplier Payment: Coast Fitness Repair Shop: 11/20/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448920 11/20/2024 Coast Fitness Repair Shop 2,472.86 0 2,472.86 Supplier Payment: Psa Print Group: 11/20/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 11/20/2024 Psa Print Group 178.13 0 178.13 Supplier Payment: Gentry Brothers Inc: 11/20/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 11/20/2024 Gentry Brothers Inc 48,253.96 0 48,253.96 Supplier Payment: 49Er Communications Inc: 11/20/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 448892 11/20/2024 49Er Communications Inc 0 3,076.04 3,076.04 Page 52 Council Meeting Check Register - without SoCal Gas 08:15 AM 11/25/2024 Page 40 of 49 Supplier Payment Company Check Number Check Date Supplier Name City of Rancho Cucamonga Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Payment Amount for Reporting Transaction Supplier Payment: William M Kirkpatrick: 11/20/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 11/20/2024 William M Kirkpatrick 0 855.67 855.67 Supplier Payment: Roy Allan Slurry Seal Inc: 11/20/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448986 11/20/2024 Roy Allan Slurry Seal Inc 16,170.84 0 16,170.84 Supplier Payment: Scott D Sorensen: 11/20/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 11/20/2024 Scott D Sorensen 0 1,438.01 1,438.01 Supplier Payment: Tim Fejeran: 11/20/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 11/20/2024 Tim Fejeran 0 2,093.07 2,093.07 Supplier Payment: Gentry General Engineering Inc: 11/20/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 11/20/2024 Gentry General Engineering Inc 28,324.46 0 28,324.46 Supplier Payment: Oclc Inc: 11/20/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448975 11/20/2024 Oclc Inc 13,087.60 0 13,087.60 Supplier Payment: Velocity Truck Centers: 11/20/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 449009 11/20/2024 Velocity Truck Centers 0 8,531.42 8,531.42 Supplier Payment: Monet Construction, Inc.: 11/20/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448965 11/20/2024 Monet Construction, Inc.401,280.09 0 401,280.09 Supplier Payment: Auto & Rv Specialists Inc: 11/20/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448904 11/20/2024 Auto & Rv Specialists Inc 82.96 0 82.96 Supplier Payment: Tom O'Brien: 11/20/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 11/20/2024 Tom O'Brien 0 2,105.94 2,105.94 Supplier Payment: Michael L Bell: 11/20/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 11/20/2024 Michael L Bell 0 2,105.94 2,105.94 Supplier Payment: Michael J Ploung: 11/20/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 11/20/2024 Michael J Ploung 0 739.30 739.30 Supplier Payment: ADP, Inc.: 11/20/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448894 11/20/2024 ADP, Inc.4,288.00 0 4,288.00 Supplier Payment: D & K Concrete Company: 11/20/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448926 11/20/2024 D & K Concrete Company 9,197.57 0 9,197.57 Supplier Payment: Sam'S Club / Synchrony Bank: 11/20/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448987 11/20/2024 Sam'S Club / Synchrony Bank 2,620.39 0 2,620.39 Page 53 Council Meeting Check Register - without SoCal Gas 08:15 AM 11/25/2024 Page 41 of 49 Supplier Payment Company Check Number Check Date Supplier Name City of Rancho Cucamonga Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Payment Amount for Reporting Transaction Supplier Payment: L. Dennis Michael: 11/20/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 11/20/2024 L. Dennis Michael 0 739.30 739.30 Supplier Payment: Life-Assist Inc: 11/20/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 11/20/2024 Life-Assist Inc 0 2,050.18 2,050.18 Supplier Payment: Graphics Factory Printing Inc: 11/20/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448940 11/20/2024 Graphics Factory Printing Inc 129.30 0 129.30 Supplier Payment: Robert Eggers: 11/20/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 11/20/2024 Robert Eggers 0 739.30 739.30 Supplier Payment: Odp Business Solutions Llc: 11/20/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448976 11/20/2024 Odp Business Solutions Llc 2,158.43 0 2,158.43 Supplier Payment: John Mckee: 11/20/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 11/20/2024 John Mckee 0 739.30 739.30 Supplier Payment: Casa Volante Estates: 11/20/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448912 11/20/2024 Casa Volante Estates 400.00 0 400.00 Supplier Payment: Cheryl L Roberts: 11/20/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 11/20/2024 Cheryl L Roberts 0 2,824.84 2,824.84 Supplier Payment: Dennis M Costello: 11/20/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 11/20/2024 Dennis M Costello 0 2,824.84 2,824.84 Supplier Payment: Michael R Post: 11/20/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 11/20/2024 Michael R Post 0 2,136.72 2,136.72 Supplier Payment: California Ppe Recon Inc: 11/20/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 11/20/2024 California Ppe Recon Inc 0 12,184.75 12,184.75 Supplier Payment: Unity Courier Service Inc: 11/20/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 449005 11/20/2024 Unity Courier Service Inc 658.90 0 658.90 Supplier Payment: Pro-West & Associates Inc: 11/20/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 11/20/2024 Pro-West & Associates Inc 1,353.66 0 1,353.66 Page 54 Council Meeting Check Register - without SoCal Gas 08:15 AM 11/25/2024 Page 42 of 49 Supplier Payment Company Check Number Check Date Supplier Name City of Rancho Cucamonga Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Payment Amount for Reporting Transaction Supplier Payment: Beverly Mackall: 11/20/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 11/20/2024 Beverly Mackall 0 167.79 167.79 Supplier Payment: Mcmaster-Carr Supply Company: 11/20/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448962 11/20/2024 Mcmaster-Carr Supply Company 577.46 0 577.46 Supplier Payment: Citrus Motors Ontario Inc: 11/20/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 448918 11/20/2024 Citrus Motors Ontario Inc 0 89.74 89.74 Supplier Payment: Kvac Environmental Services Inc: 11/20/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448958 11/20/2024 Kvac Environmental Services Inc 3,903.64 0 3,903.64 Supplier Payment: Helix Environmental Planning Inc: 11/20/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448941 11/20/2024 Helix Environmental Planning Inc 371.25 0 371.25 Supplier Payment: Ids Group Inc: 11/20/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448950 11/20/2024 Ids Group Inc 1,653.60 0 1,653.60 Supplier Payment: Upland Animal Hospital: 11/20/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 449007 11/20/2024 Upland Animal Hospital 500.00 0 500.00 Supplier Payment: Cobra Professionals, INC.: 11/20/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 11/20/2024 Cobra Professionals, INC.325.70 0 325.70 Supplier Payment: 360 Deep Cleaning Llc: 11/20/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 11/20/2024 360 Deep Cleaning Llc 0 8,830.00 8,830.00 Supplier Payment: Dennis Myskow: 11/20/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 11/20/2024 Dennis Myskow 0 1,573.82 1,573.82 Supplier Payment: Ontario Spay & Neuter Inc: 11/20/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448978 11/20/2024 Ontario Spay & Neuter Inc 3,900.00 0 3,900.00 Supplier Payment: Factory Motor Parts: 11/20/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 448932 11/20/2024 Factory Motor Parts 0 2,222.48 2,222.48 Supplier Payment: Dependable Break Room Solutions Inc: 11/20/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448928 11/20/2024 Dependable Break Room Solutions Inc 16.16 0 16.16 Supplier Payment: Gravity Learning LLC: 11/20/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 11/20/2024 Gravity Learning LLC 11,000.00 0 11,000.00 Supplier Payment: Nbs: 11/20/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448968 11/20/2024 Nbs 15,831.80 0 15,831.80 Supplier Payment: Shoeteria Inc: 11/20/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 11/20/2024 Shoeteria Inc 129.40 0 129.40 Page 55 Council Meeting Check Register - without SoCal Gas 08:15 AM 11/25/2024 Page 43 of 49 Supplier Payment Company Check Number Check Date Supplier Name City of Rancho Cucamonga Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Payment Amount for Reporting Transaction Supplier Payment: Alexander R Ahumada: 11/20/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 11/20/2024 Alexander R Ahumada 0 739.30 739.30 Supplier Payment: Brendon Fung: 11/20/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 11/20/2024 Brendon Fung 8,627.50 0 8,627.50 Supplier Payment: Cr&A Custom Inc: 11/20/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448922 11/20/2024 Cr&A Custom Inc 3,387.02 0 3,387.02 Supplier Payment: Hinderliter De Llamas & Associates: 11/20/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448944 11/20/2024 Hinderliter De Llamas & Associates 695.00 0 695.00 Supplier Payment: Merrimac Petroleum Inc: 11/20/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 11/20/2024 Merrimac Petroleum Inc 3,627.84 0 3,627.84 Supplier Payment: Airgas Usa Llc: 11/20/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 448897 11/20/2024 Airgas Usa Llc 0 487.33 487.33 Supplier Payment: Nationwide Premium Holding: 11/20/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 11/20/2024 Nationwide Premium Holding 841.12 0 841.12 Supplier Payment: Sovic Creative: 11/20/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 11/20/2024 Sovic Creative 1,500.00 0 1,500.00 Supplier Payment: Hill'S Pet Nutrition Sales Inc: 11/20/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448943 11/20/2024 Hill'S Pet Nutrition Sales Inc 1,051.31 0 1,051.31 Supplier Payment: Abc Locksmiths Inc: 11/20/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 11/20/2024 Abc Locksmiths Inc 26.94 0 26.94 Supplier Payment: Herc Rentals Inc: 11/20/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 11/20/2024 Herc Rentals Inc 5,677.21 0 5,677.21 Supplier Payment: Mediwaste Disposal Llc: 11/20/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448963 11/20/2024 Mediwaste Disposal Llc 162.40 0 162.40 Supplier Payment: Allan J Lee: 11/20/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 11/20/2024 Allan J Lee 0 291.15 291.15 Supplier Payment: Ivan M Rojer: 11/20/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 11/20/2024 Ivan M Rojer 0 2,093.07 2,093.07 Supplier Payment: Econolite Systems Inc: 11/20/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448929 11/20/2024 Econolite Systems Inc 13,671.00 0 13,671.00 Supplier Payment: Southern California News Group: 11/20/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448995 11/20/2024 Southern California News Group 6,154.55 0 6,154.55 Supplier Payment: Viola Spagnolo: 11/20/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 449013 11/20/2024 Viola Spagnolo 0 248.83 248.83 Page 56 Council Meeting Check Register - without SoCal Gas 08:15 AM 11/25/2024 Page 44 of 49 Supplier Payment Company Check Number Check Date Supplier Name City of Rancho Cucamonga Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Payment Amount for Reporting Transaction Supplier Payment: Brent Roberts: 11/20/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 11/20/2024 Brent Roberts 0 989.86 989.86 Supplier Payment: Fehr & Peers: 11/20/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 11/20/2024 Fehr & Peers 6,490.00 0 6,490.00 Supplier Payment: Nv5 Inc: 11/20/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448972 11/20/2024 Nv5 Inc 14,513.38 0 14,513.38 Supplier Payment: Anthony Varney: 11/20/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 11/20/2024 Anthony Varney 0 739.30 739.30 Supplier Payment: Universal Fleet Supply: 11/20/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 449006 11/20/2024 Universal Fleet Supply 0 337.39 337.39 Supplier Payment: Ralph Crane: 11/20/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 11/20/2024 Ralph Crane 0 739.30 739.30 Supplier Payment: Backflow Parts Usa: 11/20/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448905 11/20/2024 Backflow Parts Usa 953.17 0 953.17 Supplier Payment: Berlitz Languages Inc: 11/20/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448907 11/20/2024 Berlitz Languages Inc 450.00 0 450.00 Supplier Payment: Ln Curtis & Sons: 11/20/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 448959 11/20/2024 Ln Curtis & Sons 0 3,261.67 3,261.67 Supplier Payment: Aflac: 11/20/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448896 11/20/2024 Aflac 8,001.96 0 8,001.96 Supplier Payment: Midwest Tape Llc: 11/20/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 11/20/2024 Midwest Tape Llc 8,858.63 0 8,858.63 Supplier Payment: Rosalyn Interlicchia: 11/20/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 11/20/2024 Rosalyn Interlicchia 0 291.15 291.15 Supplier Payment: Siteone Landscape Supply Llc: 11/20/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448990 11/20/2024 Siteone Landscape Supply Llc 13,066.38 0 13,066.38 Supplier Payment: Jeffrey Roeder: 11/20/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 11/20/2024 Jeffrey Roeder 0 739.30 739.30 Supplier Payment: Ferguson Enterprises Llc #1350: 11/20/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448933 11/20/2024 Ferguson Enterprises Llc #1350 47.96 0 47.96 Page 57 Council Meeting Check Register - without SoCal Gas 08:15 AM 11/25/2024 Page 45 of 49 Supplier Payment Company Check Number Check Date Supplier Name City of Rancho Cucamonga Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Payment Amount for Reporting Transaction Supplier Payment: New Color Silk Screen: 11/20/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448970 11/20/2024 New Color Silk Screen 936.64 0 936.64 Supplier Payment: Kingdom Calibrations Inc: 11/20/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 448957 11/20/2024 Kingdom Calibrations Inc 0 479.40 479.40 Supplier Payment: Ontario Ice Skating Center: 11/20/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448977 11/20/2024 Ontario Ice Skating Center 448.00 0 448.00 Supplier Payment: Wilson & Bell Auto Service: 11/20/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 449024 11/20/2024 Wilson & Bell Auto Service 3,034.95 0 3,034.95 Supplier Payment: Cyber Security Source: 11/20/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448925 11/20/2024 Cyber Security Source 1,200.00 0 1,200.00 Supplier Payment: Onward Engineering: 11/20/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448979 11/20/2024 Onward Engineering 1,320.00 0 1,320.00 Supplier Payment: Ron Mayfield: 11/20/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 11/20/2024 Ron Mayfield 0 739.30 739.30 Supplier Payment: Kenneth Carnes: 11/20/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 11/20/2024 Kenneth Carnes 0 167.79 167.79 Supplier Payment: Mcfadden-Dale Hardware: 11/20/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448961 11/20/2024 Mcfadden-Dale Hardware 61.44 0 61.44 Supplier Payment: Confire Jpa: 11/20/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 11/20/2024 Confire Jpa 0 272,966.75 272,966.75 Supplier Payment: Wt Construction Services Inc: 11/20/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 449026 11/20/2024 Wt Construction Services Inc 8,473.52 0 8,473.52 Supplier Payment: Champion Fire Systems Inc: 11/20/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 11/20/2024 Champion Fire Systems Inc 2,409.94 0 2,409.94 Supplier Payment: Civica Law Group Apc: 11/20/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 448919 11/20/2024 Civica Law Group Apc 0 594.00 594.00 Supplier Payment: Walters Wholesale Electric Co: 11/20/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 449017 11/20/2024 Walters Wholesale Electric Co 257.72 0 257.72 Supplier Payment: Robert Wollenzier: 11/20/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448985 11/20/2024 Robert Wollenzier 1,800.00 0 1,800.00 Supplier Payment: Abound Food Care: 11/20/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448893 11/20/2024 Abound Food Care 3,656.59 0 3,656.59 Page 58 Council Meeting Check Register - without SoCal Gas 08:15 AM 11/25/2024 Page 46 of 49 Supplier Payment Company Check Number Check Date Supplier Name City of Rancho Cucamonga Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Payment Amount for Reporting Transaction Supplier Payment: Patrick Jerkins: 11/20/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 11/20/2024 Patrick Jerkins 0 1,573.82 1,573.82 Supplier Payment: Charlene Dominick: 11/20/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 448914 11/20/2024 Charlene Dominick 0 291.15 291.15 Supplier Payment: Van Scoyoc Associates Inc: 11/20/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 449008 11/20/2024 Van Scoyoc Associates Inc 4,000.00 0 4,000.00 Supplier Payment: Champion Awards & Specialties: 11/20/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448913 11/20/2024 Champion Awards & Specialties 21.55 0 21.55 Supplier Payment: Victoria Bantau: 11/20/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 11/20/2024 Victoria Bantau 0 658.62 658.62 Supplier Payment: Thomas Salisbury: 11/20/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 11/20/2024 Thomas Salisbury 0 739.30 739.30 Supplier Payment: Wilbur Crossland: 11/20/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 11/20/2024 Wilbur Crossland 0 492.58 492.58 Supplier Payment: Henry Schein Inc: 11/20/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 448942 11/20/2024 Henry Schein Inc 0 2,645.53 2,645.53 Supplier Payment: Brightview Landscape Services Inc: 11/20/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 11/20/2024 Brightview Landscape Services Inc 24,741.31 0 24,741.31 Supplier Payment: William Lane: 11/20/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 11/20/2024 William Lane 0 739.30 739.30 Supplier Payment: United Rentals North America Inc: 11/20/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 449003 11/20/2024 United Rentals North America Inc 3,009.91 0 3,009.91 Supplier Payment: R3 Consulting Group Inc: 11/20/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448982 11/20/2024 R3 Consulting Group Inc 963.75 0 963.75 Supplier Payment: Amazon Web Services Inc: 11/20/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 11/20/2024 Amazon Web Services Inc 3,280.08 0 3,280.08 Supplier Payment: Susan Bazal: 11/20/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 11/20/2024 Susan Bazal 0 291.15 291.15 Page 59 Council Meeting Check Register - without SoCal Gas 08:15 AM 11/25/2024 Page 47 of 49 Supplier Payment Company Check Number Check Date Supplier Name City of Rancho Cucamonga Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Payment Amount for Reporting Transaction Supplier Payment: Red Wing Business Advantage Account: 11/20/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448984 11/20/2024 Red Wing Business Advantage Account 355.00 0 355.00 Supplier Payment: Peter Magnuson: 11/20/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 11/20/2024 Peter Magnuson 0 2,146.00 2,146.00 Supplier Payment: Idexx Distribution Inc: 11/20/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448949 11/20/2024 Idexx Distribution Inc 3,529.51 0 3,529.51 Supplier Payment: West End Material Supply: 11/20/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 449021 11/20/2024 West End Material Supply 954.88 0 954.88 Supplier Payment: Kenneth Walker: 11/20/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 448956 11/20/2024 Kenneth Walker 0 291.15 291.15 Supplier Payment: Shred Pros: 11/20/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448989 11/20/2024 Shred Pros 195.00 0 195.00 Supplier Payment: Sbctoa: 11/20/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 448988 11/20/2024 Sbctoa 0 50.00 50.00 Supplier Payment: Westbound Communications Inc: 11/20/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 449020 11/20/2024 Westbound Communications Inc 24,241.23 0 24,241.23 Supplier Payment: Danny G Holt: 11/20/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 11/20/2024 Danny G Holt 0 1,652.90 1,652.90 Supplier Payment: Crisp Imaging: 11/20/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448924 11/20/2024 Crisp Imaging 12,073.22 0 12,073.22 Supplier Payment: AED Professionals: 11/20/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 448895 11/20/2024 AED Professionals 0 210.00 210.00 Supplier Payment: Aufbau Corporation: 11/20/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 448903 11/20/2024 Aufbau Corporation 0 53,440.00 53,440.00 Supplier Payment: Jackie Deans: 11/20/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 11/20/2024 Jackie Deans 0 291.15 291.15 Supplier Payment: Itron Inc: 11/20/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448953 11/20/2024 Itron Inc 11,121.20 0 11,121.20 Supplier Payment: The Kindred Corporation: 11/20/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448999 11/20/2024 The Kindred Corporation 1,999.76 0 1,999.76 Page 60 Council Meeting Check Register - without SoCal Gas 08:15 AM 11/25/2024 Page 48 of 49 Supplier Payment Company Check Number Check Date Supplier Name City of Rancho Cucamonga Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Payment Amount for Reporting Transaction Supplier Payment: Social Vocational Services: 11/20/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448993 11/20/2024 Social Vocational Services 4,968.00 0 4,968.00 Supplier Payment: Southern California Edison: 11/20/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448994 11/20/2024 Southern California Edison 16,173.78 0 16,173.78 Supplier Payment: State Fire Training: 11/20/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 448997 11/20/2024 State Fire Training 0 125.00 125.00 Supplier Payment: Vision Service Plan Ca: 11/20/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 449015 11/20/2024 Vision Service Plan Ca 230.30 0 230.30 Supplier Payment: Mariposa Landscapes Inc: 11/20/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 11/20/2024 Mariposa Landscapes Inc 321,510.33 0 321,510.33 Supplier Payment: David Berry: 11/20/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 11/20/2024 David Berry 0 739.30 739.30 Supplier Payment: Holliday Rock Co Inc: 11/20/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448946 11/20/2024 Holliday Rock Co Inc 2,239.05 0 2,239.05 Supplier Payment: Donald R Cloughesy: 11/20/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 11/20/2024 Donald R Cloughesy 0 2,105.94 2,105.94 Supplier Payment: Delta Dental Insurance Company: 11/20/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 11/20/2024 Delta Dental Insurance Company 1,861.92 0 1,861.92 Supplier Payment: Paul E Lenze: 11/20/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 11/20/2024 Paul E Lenze 0 739.30 739.30 Supplier Payment: Quadient Finance Usa Inc: 11/20/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448980 11/20/2024 Quadient Finance Usa Inc 5,000.00 0 5,000.00 Supplier Payment: Grainger: 11/20/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448939 11/20/2024 Grainger 2,059.33 0 2,059.33 Supplier Payment: Golden Oaks Vet Hospital: 11/20/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448937 11/20/2024 Golden Oaks Vet Hospital 1,500.00 0 1,500.00 Supplier Payment: Cintas Corporation: 11/20/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448915 11/20/2024 Cintas Corporation 5,578.61 0 5,578.61 Supplier Payment: Fleetpride: 11/20/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 448934 11/20/2024 Fleetpride 0 420.36 420.36 Supplier Payment: Stephanie Contreras: 11/20/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448998 11/20/2024 Stephanie Contreras 2,875.00 0 2,875.00 Supplier Payment: Damon Marks Llc: 11/20/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448927 11/20/2024 Damon Marks Llc 3,952.50 0 3,952.50 Page 61 Council Meeting Check Register - without SoCal Gas 08:15 AM 11/25/2024 Page 49 of 49 Supplier Payment Company Check Number Check Date Supplier Name City of Rancho Cucamonga Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Payment Amount for Reporting Transaction Supplier Payment: Brinks Incorporated: 11/20/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 11/20/2024 Brinks Incorporated 2,502.07 0 2,502.07 Supplier Payment: Vulcan Materials Company: 11/20/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 449016 11/20/2024 Vulcan Materials Company 526.31 0 526.31 Supplier Payment: Midwest Tape Llc: 11/20/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 11/20/2024 Midwest Tape Llc 112.18 0 112.18 Supplier Payment: Sargent Town Planning Inc: 11/20/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 11/20/2024 Sargent Town Planning Inc 21,850.00 0 21,850.00 Supplier Payment: Yamada Enterprises: 11/20/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 449030 11/20/2024 Yamada Enterprises 11,588.01 0 11,588.01 Supplier Payment: Mesa Energy Systems Inc: 11/20/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 449029 11/20/2024 Mesa Energy Systems Inc 32,179.25 0 32,179.25 Supplier Payment: Frontier Comm: 11/20/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 449028 11/20/2024 Frontier Comm 4,827.83 0 4,827.83 Supplier Payment: Frontier Comm: 11/20/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 449027 11/20/2024 Frontier Comm 0 2,771.01 2,771.01 Supplier Payment: Amg & Associates Inc: 11/20/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 11/20/2024 Amg & Associates Inc 0 180,174.41 180,174.41 9,873,782.81 2,752,583.78 12,626,366.59 Page 62 DATE:December 4, 2024 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 Weekly Check Registers for Checks Issued to Southern California Gas Company in the Total Amount of $16,321.10 Dated October 24, 2024, Through November 24, 2024. (CITY/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 $14,975.89 and $1,345.21 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 63 Council Meeting Check Register - SoCal Gas 08:32 AM 11/25/2024 Page 1 of 1 Company: City of Rancho Cucamonga Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Payment Date On or After: 10/24/2024 Payment Date On or Before: 11/24/2024 Supplier Payment Company Check Number Check Date Supplier Name City of Rancho Cucamonga Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Payment Amount for Reporting Transaction Supplier Payment: Socal Gas: 10/24/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 448417 10/24/2024 Socal Gas 0 631.95 631.95 Supplier Payment: Socal Gas: 10/24/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448416 10/24/2024 Socal Gas 13,970.76 0 13,970.76 Supplier Payment: Socal Gas: 10/29/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448487 10/29/2024 Socal Gas 982.25 0 982.25 Supplier Payment: Socal Gas: 10/29/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 448486 10/29/2024 Socal Gas 0 262.96 262.96 Supplier Payment: Socal Gas: 11/20/2024 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District 448992 11/20/2024 Socal Gas 0 450.30 450.30 Supplier Payment: Socal Gas: 11/20/2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga 448991 11/20/2024 Socal Gas 22.88 0 22.88 14,975.89 1,345.21 16,321.10 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 64 DATE:December 4, 2024 TO:Mayor and Members of the City Council President and Members of the Board of Directors FROM:John R. Gillison, City Manager INITIATED BY:Julie A. Sowles, Deputy City Manager/Civic and Cultural Services Linda A. Troyan, MMC, City Clerk Services Director SUBJECT:Consideration to Cancel and Reschedule the February 5, 2025 Regular Meetings of the Fire Protection District, Successor Agency, Public Financing Authority, and City Council to February 4, 2025. (CITY/FIRE) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the City Council cancel and reschedule the February 5, 2025 Regular Meetings of the Fire Protection District, Successor Agency, Public Financing Authority, and City Council to February 4, 2025. BACKGROUND: The City Council serves as the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Board, Housing Successor Agency, Successor Agency, and Public Financing Authority. Its Regular Meetings are held on the first and third Wednesdays of each month. ANALYSIS: Due to a League of California Cities event, staff recommends the City Council cancel and reschedule the February 5, 2025, Regular Meetings to February 4, 2024. The City Clerk Services Department will provide the appropriate legal notifications of changes. FISCAL IMPACT: None. COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / GOAL(S) ADDRESSED: This item maintains organizational efficiency and planning to help advance the quality of life for the community through inclusive decision-making. ATTACHMENTS: None. Page 65 DATE:December 4, 2024 TO:Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM:John R. Gillison, City Manager INITIATED BY:Julie Sowles, Deputy City Manager/Civic and Cultural Services Wess Garcia, Library Director Cara Vera, Deputy Director of Library Services SUBJECT:Consideration to Accept and Allocate Grant Revenue in the Amount of $3,825 Awarded by the California State Library for Zip Books Services. (CITY) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the City Council approve and allocate $3,825 awarded by the California State Library to directly support Zip Books Services through the purchase of additional materials. BACKGROUND: The Zip Books program supports multiple goals of the Library Services Department by providing cardholders with unique and popular titles in a timely manner, increasing opportunities for patron- driven acquisitions, and meeting the community's demand for diverse and inclusive collections. A patron simply requests an item of interest through the Library’s purchase request form, the library assigns it for purchase from the approved vendor, and the book is shipped directly to the patron’s home. When finished, the patron returns it to the Library, and the Library may add it to the materials collection. Because Zip Books is a user-driven program, the library collection becomes more closely matched to the needs of the local community. ANALYSIS: Approval of these grant funds will help pay for the acquisition of additional library collection materials and cover the related direct-to-patron shipping expenses. This is the fourth consecutive year that Rancho Cucamonga Library Services has received Zip Books funding support through the California State Library. FISCAL IMPACT: This grant provides $3,825 in additional funds from the California State Library to supplement the Library's materials budget and have been added as additional revenue to the FY 2024-2025 Budget. This grant does not require any additional City matching funding. $3,825 from this grant will be placed into Library revenue account F291|CC602|RC5102 and appropriated into Library expenditure accounts in the following manner: F291|CC602|SC1404|GR000081 Operations & Maintenance $3,675 F291|CC602|SC2106|GR000081 Contract Services $150 Page 66 Page 2 2 6 3 0 COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / VALUE(S) ADDRESSED: Providing superior library services to Rancho Cucamonga residents contributes to providing and nurturing a high quality of life for all. ATTACHMENTS: None. Page 67 DATE:December 4, 2024 TO:Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM:John R. Gillison, City Manager INITIATED BY:Matthew Burris, AICP, Deputy City Manager Matt Marquez, Director of Planning & Economic Development SUBJECT:Consideration of Approval and Execution of an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement (ENA) Between the City of Rancho Cucamonga and JRC Real Estate Investments for Property Generally Located on the Northwest Corner of Civic Center Drive and Haven Avenue. (CITY) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council approve and execute an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement (ENA) between the City of Rancho Cucamonga and JRC Real Estate Investments (JRC) for property generally located on the northwest corner of Civic Center Drive and Haven Avenue. Staff also recommends the Council allow the City Manager to make administrative corrections to the ENA as necessary. BACKGROUND: In September 2023, the City released an RFQ inviting interested and experienced developers to submit proposals for an opportunity to develop the city-owned property at the northwest corner of Civic Center Drive and Haven Avenue. The site measures approximately 7.1 acres, and the City envisions a mix of uses across the property, including residential and commercial buildings, a hotel, and restaurants. After reviewing each of the proposals submitted, and interviewing interested parties, JRC’s proposal received the highest ranking. Thereafter, staff began preparation of an ENA to facilitate the negotiation of terms for the possible sale and development of the property. ANALYSIS: The ENA defines the roles and responsibilities of the City and the Developer for the exclusive negotiation of those terms and conditions. The term of the ENA is eighteen (18) months which can be extended by the mutual written agreement of the Developer and the City for up to two additional six (6) month periods. Subsequent to the ENA period, it is anticipated that the City will enter into a Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) with JRC for the disposition, entitlement, construction, and operation of the development project. Page 68 Page 2 2 6 0 9 FISCAL IMPACT: None COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / VALUE(S) ADDRESSED: This action helps achieve the City Council’s vision of creating an equitable, sustainable, and vibrant city, rich in opportunity for all to thrive by facilitating the opportunity for new housing, businesses, and jobs in the Civic Center area. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1 - Exclusive Negotiating Agreement Page 69 EXCLUSIVE NEGOTIATING AGREEMENT This EXCLUSIVE NEGOTIATING AGREEMENT (“ENA”) is dated as of January 13, 2025 (“Effective Date”), and is entered into by and between the CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, a California municipal corporation (the “City”) and JRC REAL ESTATE INVESTMENTS, (“JRC” or the “Developer”). The City and the Developer are sometimes individually referred to herein as a “Party” and are sometimes collectively referred to herein as the “Parties.” R E C I T A L S A.The City owns the land in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California described on Exhibit “A” (the “Property”). B.Developer has requested that City agree to negotiate with Developer on an exclusive basis to establish the terms and conditions of a disposition and development agreement (“DDA”) to achieve development of the Property with a mixed-use commercial/residential/hotel project including the elements/features described on Exhibit “B” (“Project”) for which JRC would be the commercial, residential, and public space developer. The DDA would also set forth the process by which JRC would select a third-party hotel developer reasonably acceptable to the City and to thereafter enter into and enforce agreements with such entity. C.During the term of this ENA, City staff and consultants and attorneys of the City will devote substantial time and effort in meeting with the Developer and its representatives, reviewing proposals, plans and reports, negotiating and preparing the DDA document, possibly obtaining consultant advice and reports, and complying with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) so that the negotiated DDA can be completed, approved and executed. NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties hereto agree as follows: 1.The term of this ENA shall commence on the date hereof (the Effective Date) and shall end on the earlier of: (i) the date that is eighteen (18) months thereafter, as such period may be extended as set forth below under this Section 1, or (ii) the date on which this ENA is terminated pursuant to Section 2 below (the “ENA Period”). Provided this ENA has not been terminated pursuant to Section 2 below, the ENA Period may be extended by the mutual written agreement of Developer and the City Manager for up to two (2) additional periods of up to six (6) months each. 2.The City Manager may terminate this ENA if the Developer should fail to comply with or perform any provisions of this ENA following (i) the City’s delivery to Developer of a written notice setting forth in reasonable detail the noncompliance or item of nonperformance, and (ii) the lapse of a thirty (30) day cure period; provided that if the noncompliance or item of nonperformance is not reasonably capable of cure within thirty (30) days, then the cure period shall be extended for the time reasonably necessary to complete the cure provided Developer commences to cure within such thirty (30) day period and diligently prosecutes such cure to completion. City of Rancho Cucamonga CONTRACT NUMBER 2024-211 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 70 3. The Developer may terminate this ENA (a) at any time if Developer determines, in its reasonable discretion, that the Project is not financially feasible, by giving written notice to the City, which written notice shall be accompanied by documentation supporting Developer’s determination of financial infeasibility, and (b) if the City should fail to comply with or perform any provisions of this ENA following (i) the Developer’s delivery to City of a written notice setting forth in reasonable detail the noncompliance or item of nonperformance, and (ii) the lapse of a thirty (30) day cure period; provided that if the noncompliance or item of nonperformance is not reasonably capable of cure within thirty (30) days, then the cure period shall be extended for the time reasonably necessary to complete the cure provided City commences to cure within such thirty (30) day period and diligently prosecutes such cure to completion. 4. During the ENA Period, the City shall negotiate exclusively with Developer concerning the proposed acquisition of the Property, but all terms of the DDA shall be subject to approval by the Parties’ in their sole and absolute discretion. The Developer and City shall perform the tasks set forth on Exhibits “C” and “D” respectively, by any applicable deadlines in those Exhibits. 5. The City and Developer acknowledge that all applicable requirements of CEQA must be met in order for City to approve a Project and enter into a DDA, and that this may require reports and analyses for CEQA purposes (collectively, the “CEQA Documents”). The Developer will, at its cost, reasonably cooperate with the City in the City’s preparation of the CEQA Documents. 6. The Parties acknowledge that neither Party is under any obligation whatsoever to enter into a DDA or participate in the Project, and that notwithstanding their approval of this ENA, each Party shall have the right to disapprove any proposed DDA in its sole and absolute discretion, and in that regard, each Party hereby expressly agrees that the City and Developer shall not be bound by any implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in connection with such approval or disapproval of any proposed DDA. In the event of the expiration or earlier termination of this ENA pursuant to Section 2 above, the City shall be free to negotiate with any persons or entities with respect to the Property. 7. The Developer shall indemnify, defend, and hold the City and City’s officers, directors, members, employees, agents, contractors, and affiliated entities (collectively, the “City Representatives”) harmless from any and all third-party litigation challenging this ENA or the DDA (based on CEQA or otherwise). The Developer’s obligations under the preceding sentence arising prior to the expiration or earlier termination of this ENA (as applicable) shall survive the expiration or earlier termination of this ENA. In order to limit the cost of its defense and indemnification under this paragraph, in the event of any such litigation, if and when requested to do so in writing by Developer, City agrees to cancel and rescind the ENA, DDA and/or any other agreement or approval challenged in the litigation. 8. The Developer represents and warrants that its undertakings pursuant to this ENA are for the purpose of development of the Property and not for speculation in land, and the Developer recognizes that, in view of the importance of the development of the Property to the general welfare of the community, the qualifications and identity of the Developer and its principals are of particular concern to City; therefore, this ENA may not be assigned by the Page 71 Developer without the prior express written consent of the City Manager in his sole and absolute discretion. However, the City acknowledges that the Developer may intend to form one or more new entities to be the developer(s) that will be party to the DDA that is controlled by the parties comprising the Developer. 9. Any notice, request, approval, or other communication to be provided by one Party to the other shall be in writing and provided by certified mail, return receipt requested, or a reputable overnight delivery service (such as Federal Express) and addressed as follows: If to the Developer: JRC Real Estate Investments 14930 Alondra Blvd. La Mirada, CA 90638 Attn: Jeff Bischofberger If to the City: City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Attn: John R. Gillison, City Manager Notices shall be deemed delivered: (i) if sent by certified mail, then upon the date of delivery or attempted delivery shown on the return receipt; or (ii) if delivered by reputable overnight delivery service that provides a receipt with the time and date of delivery, then one (1) business day after delivery to the service as shown by records of the service. 10. This ENA constitutes the entire agreement of the Parties hereto with respect to the subject matter hereof. There are no agreements or understandings between the Parties and no representations by either Party to the other as an inducement to enter into this ENA, except as may be expressly set forth herein, and any and all prior discussions and negotiations between the Parties are superseded by this ENA. 11. The exhibits attached to this ENA are each incorporated herein by this reference. 12. This ENA may not be altered, amended, or modified except by a writing duly authorized and executed by all Parties. The City Manager shall have the authority to implement this ENA, including, without limitation, to issue in writing waivers and/or approvals required to be obtained by the City hereunder, so long as those approvals are within the authority of the City Manager, and to enter into amendments of this ENA on behalf of the City which extend deadlines for Developer tasks, provided they are in writing and signed by the City Manager and Developer. 13. No provision of this ENA may be waived except by an express written waiver duly authorized and executed by the waiving Party. Page 72 14. If any Party should bring any legal action or proceeding relating to this agreement or to enforce any provision hereof, or if the Parties agree to arbitration or mediation relating to this ENA, the Party in whose favor a judgment or decision is rendered shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses from the other. The Parties agree that any legal action or proceeding or agreed-upon arbitration or mediation shall be filed in and shall occur in the County of San Bernardino. 15. The interpretation and enforcement of this ENA shall be governed by the laws of the State of California. 16. Time is of the essence of each and every provision hereof in which time is a factor. 17. This ENA may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same ENA. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have executed this ENA as of the day and year first written above. CITY: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA By: __________________________ L. Dennis Michael, Mayor Attest: ___________________________ Kim Sevy, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: __________________________ Nicholas Ghirelli, City Attorney DEVELOPER: Chris Hyun, JRC Real Estate Investments By: Print Name: Chris Hyun_________________ Title: Page 73 EXHIBIT “A” DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY THE LAND IN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: PARCEL 1: PARCEL “A” OF CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE NO. LLA2023-00006 FOR LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT, IN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, RECORDED ON NOVEMBER 30, 2023 AS DOCUMENT #2023- 0294815 OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: PARCEL B AS SHOWN ON CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE NO. 599 FOR LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT, IN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, RECORDED DECEMBER 8, 2006 AS DOC NO. 2006-0848028, OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, EXCEPTING THEREFROM THE PORTION DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE EASTERLY LINE OF SECTION 11, TOWNSHIP 1 SOUTH, RANGE 7 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO MERIDIAN, AND THE CENTERLINE OF CIVIC CENTER DRIVE AS SHOWN ON TRACT NO. 16179, RECORDED IN BOOK 301, PAGES 34 THROUGH 39 INCLUSIVE, OF MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE NORTH 00°27'54" WEST 454.00 FEET ALONG SAID EASTERLY SECTION LINE TO THE INTERSECTION OF SAID EASTERLY SECTION LINE AND THE WESTERLY PROLONGATION OF THE NORTHERLY LINE OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THE DOCUMENT ENTITLED "COUNTY-CITY LAND SALE AGREEMENT", RECORDED AS INSTRUMENT NO. 82-086526, OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE SOUTH 89°32'06" WEST 33.00 FEET ALONG SAID PROLONGATION TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL B, AND THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID PROLONGATION SOUTH 89°32'06" WEST 441.73 FEET TO THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL B, ALSO BEING THE BEGINNING OF A NON-TANGENT CURVE, CONCAVE EASTERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 613.00 FEET, A RADIAL LINE TO SAID BEGINNING BEARS NORTH 77°46'49" WEST; THENCE SOUTHERLY 86.26 FEET ALONG SAID CURVE AND SAID WESTERLY LINE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 08°03'44" TO THE SOUTHWESTERLY CORNER OF SAID PARCEL B; THENCE NORTH 90°00'00" EAST 278.36 FEET ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID PARCEL B TO AN ANGLE POINT; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE SOUTH 73°58'56" EAST 76.10 FEET TO AN ANGLE POINT; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE NORTH 90°00'00" EAST " EAST 103.38 FEET TO THE SOUTHEASTERLY CORNER OF SAID PARCEL B; THENCE NORTH 00°27'54" WEST 109.89 FEET ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE OF PARCEL B TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; CONTAINING AN AREA OF 125,596 SQUARE FEET (2.883 ACRES), MORE OR LESS. Page 74 PARCEL 2: PARCEL “B” OF CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE NO. LLA2023-00006 FOR LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT, IN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, RECORDED ON NOVEMBER 30, 2023 AS DOCUMENT #2023- 0294815 OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: LOT 2 OF TRACT NO. 16179, IN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, RECORDED IN BOOK 301, PAGES 34 THROUGH 39, INCLUSIVE, OF MAPS IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, TOGETHER WITH A PORTION OF PARCEL B AS SHOWN ON CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE NO. 599 FOR LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT, RECORDED DECEMBER 8, 2006 AS DOC NO. 2006- 0848028, OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, SAID PORTION OF PARCEL B DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE EASTERLY LINE OF SECTION 11, TOWNSHIP 1 SOUTH, RANGE 7 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO MERIDIAN, AND THE CENTERLINE OF CIVIC CENTER DRIVE AS SHOWN ON SAID TRACT MAP; THENCE NORTH 00°27'54" WEST 454.00 FEET ALONG SAID EASTERLY SECTION LINE TO THE INTERSECTION OF SAID EASTERLY SECTION LINE AND THE WESTERLY PROLONGATION OF THE NORTHERLY LINE OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THE DOCUMENT ENTITLED "COUNTY-CITY LAND SALE AGREEMENT" RECORDED AS INSTRUMENT NO. 82-086526, OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE SOUTH 89°32'06" WEST 33.00 FEET ALONG SAID PROLONGATION TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL B, AND THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID PROLONGATION SOUTH 89°32'06" WEST 441.73 FEET TO THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL B, ALSO BEING THE BEGINNING OF A NON-TANGENT CURVE, CONCAVE EASTERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 613.00 FEET, A RADIAL LINE TO SAID BEGINNING BEARS NORTH 77°46'49" WEST; THENCE SOUTHERLY 86.26 FEET ALONG SAID CURVE AND SAID WESTERLY LINE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 08°03'44" TO THE SOUTHWESTERLY CORNER OF SAID PARCEL B; THENCE NORTH 90°00'00" EAST 278.36 FEET ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID PARCEL B TO AN ANGLE POINT; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE SOUTH 73°58'56" EAST 76.10 FEET TO AN ANGLE POINT; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE NORTH 90°00'00" EAST 103.38 FEET TO THE SOUTHEASTERLY CORNER OF SAID PARCEL B; THENCE NORTH 00°27'54" WEST 109.89 FEET ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE OF PARCEL B TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; CONTAINING AN AREA OF 184,947 SQUARE FEET (4.26 ACRES), MORE OR LESS. Page 75 EXHIBIT “B” REQUIRED PROJECT FEATURES/ELEMENTS The Property is a key piece of the City’s Civic Center Focus Area. Development of the Property shall help meet the City’s vision for an active, mixed use civic heart of the City. The Project shall help fill in the gap between the City/County government center, adjoining commercial centers, and adjoining apartments to create a high-quality center that activates the district. As such, the Project will prioritize the pedestrian experience, with buildings and spaces designed to be inviting to pedestrians, cyclists, and motorists. The City desires a project that is consistent with the vision and intent of PlanRC, the City’s General Plan, a copy of which will be provided to the Developer. Characteristics of the Development necessary to be consistent with PlanRC include but are not limited to the following: • Design that is urban in character with buildings at or near the sidewalk. • Ground floor retail and residential uses along Haven Avenue. • Four to seven story buildings. • Completion of a street network and streetscape per the PlanRC, including reconfiguring the Haven Avenue frontage in accordance with PlanRC. • Completion of a new street running in generally an east-west direction through the Property. An outdoor plaza flanking the street. In addition, the street linking employees and visitors from the Civic Center directly across Haven Avenue to a plaza at the heart of the project. The plaza will be a space for both active and passive programming. • Open space pursuant to the requirements of PlanRC and the City’s Development Code. Affordable housing consistent with covenants and HCD requirements under the Surplus Land Act. • 49 to 60 dwelling units per acre. • Full-service luxury hotel with 75 to 125 keys and a minimum square footage of 64,000. • At least 26,300 square feet of additional non-residential square footage (separate from hotel square footage). • A unique restaurant offering or offerings, that are in the fast casual to fine dining categories. Page 76 EXHIBIT “C” SPECIFIC CITY TASKS 1. Within 30 calendar days after the Effective Date, City shall provide to Developer copies of all currently existing non-confidential plans. studies and other written or digital information regarding the Property in its possession, to the extent not previously delivered to Developer and to the extent not subject to any attorney client or attorney work product privilege or other applicable privilege. 2. Within thirty (30) calendar days following the commencement of each calendar quarter during the Term (i.e., by each January 30th, April 30th, July 30th, and October 30th) the City shall provide Developer with an accounting of the City’s out-of-pocket costs incurred during the immediately preceding calendar quarter (or portion thereof with respect to the first and last such accounting) and paid or reimbursed from the “Deposit” (as defined in Exhibit “D”), along with documentary evidence of such costs (collectively, a “Deposit Accounting”). Within thirty (30) calendar days following the earlier of (a) the date this Agreement expires or is terminated or (b) the date the Parties enter into a DDA, the City shall deliver to Developer all remaining and unexpended Deposit funds, along with a Deposit Accounting. 3. At Developer's sole cost, City shall use good faith efforts to prepare and process the required CEQA documents as soon as reasonably possible after submission by Developer of a complete development application and payment of applicable fees/deposits. 4. City staff will work in good faith with Developer staff to create the nonbinding terms sheet for the DDA that is described in Exhibit “D”. 5. After such terms sheet shall have been informally approved by the respective staffs of the Parties, and City shall have received the items described in Sections 2, 3 and 6 of the attached Exhibit “D”, then the City shall provide an initial draft of the disposition and development agreement to Developer and shall thereafter negotiate in good faith with the Developer to reach final agreement on the disposition and development agreement. Page 77 EXHIBIT “D” SPECIFIC DEVELOPER TASKS 1. Developer’s staff shall work with City staff to create a nonbinding terms sheet for the DDA. Within 30 days after the Effective Date, Developer shall deposit the sum of $50,000 (the “Deposit”) with City, which City will use towards payment of its out-of- pocket costs incurred by City in negotiating and preparing the DDA and undertaking other City obligations under this Agreement. 2. Within 30 days after the Effective Date, Developer will order a preliminary title report for the Property and arrange to have it delivered to both City and Developer. For purposes of delivery to City, Developer shall email the preliminary title report to Matt Marquez at matt.marquez@cityofrc.us (with hyperlinks to title exception documents). 3. Within 60 days after the Effective Date, Developer shall deliver to City staff for staff review a preliminary project description, preliminary site plan, preliminary/estimated Project budget, preliminary description of sources and uses of funds for the Project, and a preliminary closing date with post-closing construction schedule. 4. Within 60 days after the Effective Date, Developer shall conduct initial due diligence investigations at is sole cost and expense. Due diligence shall include obtaining an appraisal for the property and may also include environmental studies, geotechnical studies, and civil engineering studies. If this ENA is terminated, any and all studies conducted by Developer during the Term hereof shall be assigned to and thereafter become the property of the City, but without any representation or warranty of any kind. Developer shall obtain the written consent of the consultants prior to providing any such assignments. 5. In connection with Developer’s due diligence investigations, Developer, and Developer’s affiliates, agents, engineers, contractors, consultants, and employees (collectively, the “Developer and the Developer Entities”), are hereby granted a license to enter upon the Property in order to conduct any and all inspections, investigations, tests and studies (including, without limitation, architectural inspections, engineering tests, soils, seismic and geologic reports and environmental testing) with respect to the Property (“Due Diligence Investigations”) as Developer desires to make, all at Developer’s sole cost and expense; provided, however, that Developer shall obtain the prior written consent of the City Manager prior to conducting any invasive tests on the Property, which written consent shall not be unreasonably withheld, conditioned, or delayed. Developer shall notify the City Manager, in writing, not less than 24 hours prior to Developer’s initial entry on the Property and shall provide to the City Manager a written description of the Due Diligence Investigations Developer proposes to make during said initial entry and any subsequent entries (provided, that if Developer desires to conduct any Due Diligence Investigations that were not described in Developer’s written submittal to the City, Developer shall provide to the City Manager a written Page 78 description of any such additional Due Diligence Investigations not less than 24 hours’ prior to the first entry onto the Property to conduct such additional Due Diligence Investigations). All Due Diligence Investigations performed on the Property shall be undertaken in conformance with all the requirements of all applicable laws and regulations. 6. Within 120 days after the Effective Date, Developer shall submit a more detailed Project description to City, which will include a site plan and architectural concept drawings identifying the location, building envelopes, general configuration, uses of the buildings and site, parking and traffic circulation, and proposed design characteristics of the Project. This will also include a conceptual development program for the Project that includes a breakdown of the proposed scope of development including a range of building square footage by land use and range of square footage and number of parking spaces, approximate number and mix of residential units, proposed public amenities, circulation, and other general uses. 7. Within 60 days after delivery to Developer of the City Manager’s comments on the items described in Section 6 above, Developer shall submit a revised Project description to City staff addressing such comments. 8. Within 60 days after City Manager's delivery to Developer of the City Manager’s nonbinding approval in writing of such revised Project description, Developer shall submit to City staff a revised estimated Project budget, revised description of financing methods/sources and uses, revised schedule, and revised estimate of the revenues and expenses anticipated to be incurred by Developer during Project construction and operation. 9. Within 30 days after the items in Section 8 above are submitted, Developer shall submit formal development applications to the City. The Parties will reasonably cooperate to conclude negotiations and drafting of a draft of the DDA by this time. Page 79 DATE:December 4, 2024 TO:Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM:John R. Gillison, City Manager INITIATED BY:Matt Burris, Deputy City Manager/Community Development Neil Plummer, Deputy Director of Public Works Andy Miller, Facilities Superintendent Kenneth Fung, Associate Engineer Fily Reyes, Assistant Engineer SUBJECT:Consideration of a Contract with Marjani Builders, Inc. for the Family Resource Center Rehabilitation Project in the Amount of $679,000, Plus a Contingency in the Amount of $96,000. (CITY) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the City Council: 1. Approve the plans and specifications for the Family Resource Center Rehabilitation Project. 2. Accept the bids received for the Project. 3. Award and authorize the execution of a contract in the amount of $679,000 to the lowest responsive bidder, Marjani Builders, Inc. of Mission Viejo, CA. 4. Authorize the expenditure of a contingency in the amount of $96,000. BACKGROUND: During its July 20, 2022, meeting, the City Council authorized the City Manager to execute an Agreement with San Bernardino County for the Rehabilitation of the Family Resource Center using American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (SLFRF) Program. The Agreement awarded $775,000 to the City for the rehabilitation work. The Family Resouce Center has served as a hub for social services, recreation classes, family gatherings and community special events for many years. However, this facility was constructed before the City was incorporated and is now out-of-date. The much-needed improvements include heating and air conditioning equipment replacement, repainting of the interior, flooring replacement, lighting replacement to meet Title 24 requirements, kitchen improvements and upgrading the restrooms to meet Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements. The rehabilitation work will ensure that this vital community resource will continue to serve the community. ANALYSIS: Five (5) bids for this project were opened at 2:00 p.m. on Tuesday, November 5, 2024 (see attached Bid Summary). Staff has completed the required background investigation and finds that the lowest responsive bidder, Marjani Builders, Inc. of Mission Viejo, CA, has met the requirements of the bid documents. Page 80 Page 2 2 6 2 5 The project is scheduled to be completed within ninety (90) working days. FISCAL IMPACT: During its July 20, 2022, meeting, Council authorized the transfer of $775,000 (included in the Adopted Fiscal Year 2022/23 Budget) from the City Capital Reserve Fund (F025 CC0001 SC7003 PID-2107-025) to the City’s Federal Grants Fund (F275 CC208 SC7000 PED-2107-275 GR-) and revenue reimbursements to Federal Grants Fund (F275 CC000 RC PID-2107-275 GR-). COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / VALUE(S) ADDRESSED: This project supports the City Council’s vision of building on our success as a world class community guided by the values of promoting and enhancing a safe and healthy community, intentionally embracing, and anticipating the future, and working towards equitable prosperity for all. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1 – Bid Summary Page 81 No.Name of Bidder Bid Proposal Amount 1 Marjani Builders Inc.$679,000 2 Modern General Contrctor, Inc.$827,000 3 Zuma Construction Group $977,000 4 NKS Mechanical Contracting, Inc.$1,069,000 5 MLC Constructors, Inc.$1,172,997 BID SUMMARY NOVEMBER 5, 2024 BID OPENING ATTACHMENT 1 FAMILY RESOURCE CENTER REHABILITATION PROJECT Page 82 DATE:December 4, 2024 TO:Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM:John R. Gillison, City Manager INITIATED BY:Jevin Kaye, Finance Director Rick Flinchum, Finance Manager Kelly Guerra, Special Districts Analyst SUBJECT:Consideration to Approve and Adopt Resolution Certifying the Results of an Election and Adding Annexation No. 2024-16 to Community Facilities District No. 2022-01 (Street Lighting Services) of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. (RESOLUTION NO. 2024-106) (CITY) RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council approve and adopt the Resolution Certifying the Results of an Election and Adding Annexation No. 2024-16 to Community Facilities District No. 2022-01. BACKGROUND: The City Council approved Resolution No. 2022-063 (the “Resolution Authorizing Future Annexation”) authorizing the future annexation of territory to Community Facilities District No. 2022-01 (Street Lighting Services) (the “CFD 2022-01”) to provide maintenance and services to streetlights, traffic signals, and appurtenant facilities for new development. The City conditions property owners to annex such properties into the existing CFD 2022-01 to fund street light service and maintenance. On November 13, 2024, the Property Owners signed an Annexation Proceeding Deposit Agreement to initiate the annexation process. ANALYSIS: On November 20, 2024, the Property Owner submitted their Consent and Waivers and Official Ballot, to the City Clerk’s Office Election Official. The Election Official has canvassed the ballot and completed their statement of votes cast (See Exhibit “A” of the Resolution). The Property Owners cast their vote unanimously in favor of the special tax levy for CFD 2022-01. Adoption of this Resolution constitutes the City Council’s formal action certifying the election results and adding the Annexation Territory to CFD 2022-01 and directs the recordation of an amendment to the existing Notice of Special Tax Lien. By recordation of this amendment, prospective purchasers of the property within the Annexation Territory will have notice of the special tax obligation affecting such property. A map showing the property is included in the Resolution. Page 83 Page 2 2 6 3 6 FISCAL IMPACT: CFD 2022-01 was formed to be financially self-sufficient, meaning the revenues generated by the District offset the costs of providing services and can be adjusted annually based on changes in the overall operating costs of streetlights. COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / VALUE(S) ADDRESSED: This item addresses the City Council’s core value of intentionally embracing and anticipating our future by ensuring that new development is fiscally sustainable. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1 – Resolution Certifying the Results of an Election and Adding Annexation 2024-16 Page 84 Resolution 2024-XXX Page 1 of 3 ATTACHMENT 1 RESOLUTION NO. 2024-XXX RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING THE RESULTS OF AN ELECTION AND ADDING TERRITORY TO COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2022-01 (STREET LIGHTING SERVICES) OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, ANNEXATION NO. 2024-16. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California (the “City Council”) has previously formed Community Facilities District No. 2022-01 (Street Lighting Services) of the City of Rancho Cucamonga (“CFD No. 2022-01”) pursuant to the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982 (the “Act”), as amended, for the purpose of financing certain municipal maintenance services; and WHEREAS, acting pursuant to the Act, the City Council also authorized by the adoption of Resolution No. 2022-063 (the “Resolution Authorizing Future Annexation”) the annexation in the future of territory to CFD No. 2022-01, such territory designated as Future Annexation Area, Community Facilities District No. 2022-01 (the “Future Annexation Area”); and WHEREAS, at this time the unanimous consent to the annexation of certain territory located within the Future Annexation Area to CFD No. 2022-01 has been received from the property owner of such territory, and such territory has been designated as ANNEXATION NO. 2024-16 (the "Territory"); and WHEREAS, less than twelve (12) registered voters have resided within the Territory for each of the ninety (90) days preceding the election date established for the Territory, therefore, pursuant to the Act the qualified elector of the Territory shall be the "landowner," as such term is defined in Government Code Section 53317(f), of such Territory and such landowner who is the owner of record as of the applicable election date, or the authorized representative thereof, shall have one vote for each acre or portion of an acre of the parcel of land that landowner owns within such Territory; and WHEREAS, the time limit specified by the Act for conducting an election to submit the levy of the special taxes on the Territory to the qualified elector thereof and the requirements for impartial analysis and ballot arguments have been waived with the unanimous consent of the qualified elector of the Territory; and WHEREAS, the City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga has caused a ballot to be distributed to the qualified elector of the Territory, has received and canvassed such ballot and made a report to the City Council regarding the results of such canvass, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit “A” hereto and incorporated herein by this reference; and Page 85 Resolution 2024-XXX Page 2 of 3 5 1 8 5 WHEREAS, at this time the measure voted upon and such measure did receive the favorable vote of the qualified elector of the Territory, and the City Council desires to declare the results of the election; and WHEREAS, a map showing the Territory and designated as Annexation Map No. 2024-16 (the "Annexation Map"), a copy of which is attached as Exhibit “B” hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, has been submitted to this legislative body. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, acting as the legislative body of Community Facilities District No. 2022-01, as follows: Section 1. Recitals. The above recitals are true and correct. Section 2. Findings. This legislative body does hereby further determine as follows: A. The unanimous consent as described in the recitals hereto to the annexation of the Territory to CFD No. 2022-01 has been given by the owner of the Territory and such consent shall be kept on file in the Office of the City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. B. Less than twelve (12) registered voters have resided within the Territory for each of the ninety (90) days preceding the election date established for the each of the parcels located within the Territory, therefore, pursuant to the Act the qualified elector for the Territory shall be the "landowner" of the Territory as such term is defined in Government Code Section 53317(f). C. The qualified elector of the Territory has voted in favor of the levy of special taxes on the Territory upon its annexation to CFD No. 2022-01. Section 3. Territory. The boundaries and parcels of property within the Territory and on which special taxes will be levied in order to pay for the costs and expenses of authorized municipal maintenance services are shown on the Annexation Map as submitted to and hereby approved by this legislative body. Section 4. Declaration of Annexation. This legislative body does hereby determine and declare that the Territory, and each parcel therein, is now added to and becomes a part of CFD No. 2022-01. The City Council, acting as the legislative body of CFD No. 2022-01, is hereby empowered to levy the authorized special tax within the Territory. Section 5. Notice. Immediately upon adoption of this Resolution, notice shall be given as follows: Page 86 Resolution 2024-XXX Page 3 of 3 5 1 8 5 A. A copy of the Annexation Map as approved shall be filed in the Office of the County Recorder no later than fifteen (15) days after the date of adoption of this Resolution. B. An Amendment to the Notice of Special Tax Lien (Notice of Annexation) shall be recorded in the Office of the County Recorder no later than fifteen (15) days after the date of adoption of this Resolution. Section 6. Effective Date. This Resolution shall become effective upon its adoption. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this ________ day of ______________ 2024. Page 87 A - 1 EXHIBIT “A” CERTIFICATE OF ELECTION OFFICIAL AND STATEMENT OF VOTES CAST Page 88 B - 1 EXHIBIT “B” ANNEXATION MAP Page 89 DATE:December 4, 2024 TO:Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM:John R. Gillison, City Manager INITIATED BY:Matt Burris, Deputy City Manager/Community Development Jason C. Welday, Director of Engineering Services/City Engineer Alberto Felix, Traffic Engineer SUBJECT:Consideration of Second Reading and Adoption of the Following: ORDINANCE NO. 1033 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTION 10.52.025 OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADD THE 6TH STREET PAID PARKING ZONE, THE WEST FOOTHILL BOULEVARD PAID PARKING ZONE AND MAKING A FINDING OF EXEMPTION UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CITY) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the City Council waive full reading and adopt Ordinance No. 1033 BACKGROUND: The introduction and first reading of the above-entitled Ordinance was conducted at the Regular Council meeting of November 20, 2024. Votes at first reading: AYES: Michael, Kennedy, Hutchison, Scott, Stickler. ANALYSIS: Please refer to the November 20, 2024, City Council staff report. FISCAL IMPACT: Please refer to the November 20, 2024, City Council staff report. COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / VALUE(S) ADDRESSED: Please refer to the November 20, 2024, City Council staff report. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1 – Ordinance No. 1033 Page 90 Ordinance No. 1033 – Page 1 of 4 5 2 1 6 ORDINANCE NO. 1033 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTION 10.52.025 OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADD THE 6th STREET PAID PARKING ZONE, THE WEST FOOTHILL BOULEVARD PAID PARKING ZONE AND MAKING A FINDING OF EXEMPTION UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does ordain as follows: SECTION 1. Section 10.52.025 (“Paid Parking Zones”) of Chapter 10.52 (“Stopping, Standing or Parking Restrictions”) of Title 10 (“Vehicles and Traffic”) of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: “10.52.025 Paid parking zones. A. Paid parking zones are those streets and portions of streets in the city where persons parking vehicles shall be required to pay a specified rate during regulated hours. Upon designation of these zones, proper signs shall be erected giving notice thereof. Parking restrictions in a paid parking zone shall not go into effect until such signage is posted. Parking spaces in the zone may be designated with white lines painted on the street. B. No person shall park in any paid parking zone without paying the required parking rate. C. If the parking spaces in any paid parking zone have been delineated, no person shall park a single vehicle in more than one such parking space. D. The Cucamonga Canyon Paid Parking Zone is located on both sides of Almond Street between Sapphire Street and a point located 150 feet west of Henry Street. The hours of enforcement are from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. The parking rate schedule shall be as follows: Off-peak schedule (October 1 through April 30) Nonresidents Residents Monday through Thursday $15.00/day $0.00/day Friday through Sunday $20.00/day $0.00/day Peak schedule (May 1 through September 30) Nonresidents Residents Monday through Thursday $20.00/day $0.00/day Friday through Sunday $25.00/day $0.00/day ATTACHMENT 1 Page 91 Ordinance No. 1033 – Page 2 of 4 5 2 1 6 For these purposes, a resident is any person who resides in the city and who can provide valid proof of residency. E. The Hermosa Foothill Paid Parking Zone is located on the east side of Hermosa Avenue between Foothill Boulevard and Norwick Street. The hours of enforcement are from 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. Parking permits authorizing parking during the hours of enforcement are available to residents and merchants located between Cambridge Avenue to the west, Norwick to the north, Center Avenue to the east, and Devon Street to the south. The parking permit fee rate shall be as follows: F. The East Avenue Paid Parking Zone is located on the west side of East Avenue between Foothill Boulevard and Marshall Court, and the north side of Foothill Boulevard, west of East Avenue. The hours of enforcement are from 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. Parking permits authorizing parking during the hours of enforcement are available to residents and merchants located between East Avenue on the east, Foothill Boulevard on the south, a line parallel with and 750 feet west of East Avenue on the west, and the westerly prolongation of Marshal Court. The parking permit fee rate shall be as follows: G. The 6th Street Parking Zone is located along the north and south side of 6th Street between Cleveland Avenue to the west and Milliken Avenue to the east. The hours of enforcement are from 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. Parking permits authorizing parking during the hours of enforcement are available to residents and merchants located between Cleveland Avenue to the west, Milliken Avenue to the east, the rail tracks to the north and 4th Street to the south. The parking permit fee rate shall be as follows: H. The West Foothill Boulevard Paid Parking Zone is located on the north side of Foothill Boulevard between Grove Avenue and Red Hill Country Club Drive. The hours of enforcement are from 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. Parking permits authorizing parking during the hours of enforcement are available to residents and merchants located Parking Permit Fee Per Parking Space Monday through Sunday $290.00/year Parking Permit Fee Per Parking Space Monday through Sunday $290.00/year Parking Permit Fee Per Parking Space Monday through Sunday $290.00/year Page 92 Ordinance No. 1033 – Page 3 of 4 5 2 1 6 between Grove Avenue to the west Red Hill Country Club Drive to the east, five hundred (500) feet north of Foothill Boulevard, and San Bernardino Road to the south. The parking permit fee rate shall be as follows: I. The city manager or designee may adopt any measures he or she deems necessary or convenient to enforce any paid parking zone. J. Beginning on July 1, 2025 and annually thereafter, the City Manager may update the Paid Parking Zone parking permit fees based on annual percentage change in the all-urban Consumer Price Index for Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA (CPI). Any other changes to the fee may be accomplished by resolution of the City Council. SECTION 2. The City Council herby directs City staff to provide notice of newly created Paid Parking Zones to the property managers of the residential complexes within the areas described in Section 1 above. SECTION 3. The City Council hereby finds that adoption of this Ordinance does not constitute a “project” within the meaning of CEQA Guidelines Section 15060(c)(2) because there is no potential that the regulations of vehicle parking imposed under this Ordinance will result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. Even if the Ordinance comprises a project under CEQA, it falls within the “common sense” CEQA exemption set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), excluding projects where “it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment.” This is because the Ordinance does not itself result in any development or increase or decrease in the number of parking spaces within the City. SECTION 4. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court or any competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would passed this Ordinance, and each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of the Ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION 5. 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 _____ day of _______, 2024 _____________________________________ L. Dennis Michael, Mayor Parking Permit Fee Per Parking Space Monday through Sunday $290.00/year Page 93 Ordinance No. 1033 – Page 4 of 4 5 2 1 6 ATTEST:__ ____________________________ Janice C. Reynolds, Clerk I, JANICE C. REYNOLDS, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, 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 20th day of November, 2024, and was finally passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held on the ___ day of ____, 2024, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSTAINED: COUNCILMEMBERS: Page 94 DATE:December 4, 2024 TO:Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM:John R. Gillison, City Manager INITIATED BY:Peter Castro, Deputy City Manager Administrative Services Jevin Kaye, Finance Director Heather Bolton, Deputy Director of Animal Services Fred Lyn, Deputy Director of Engineering Jennifer Nakamura, Deputy Director of Planning Nathan Hunt, Community Services Superintendent Darrell Richardson, Management Analyst II Ryan Samples, Community Services Supervisor Aracely Estrada, Management Analyst I SUBJECT:Public Hearing to Consider Establishing, Repealing, and Amending Certain Service and User Fee Adjustments for Various Departments (Animal Services, Community Services, Engineering Services, and Planning and Economic Development), and Consider a Resolution Approving Such New Service and User Fees. (RESOLUTION NO. 2024- 105) (CITY) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the City Council take the following actions: 1.Conduct a public hearing on the proposed new and amended fees; 2.Adopt a Resolution to establish new fees, repeal outdated fees, and amend certain existing fees for Citywide service and user fees. BACKGROUND: The City can impose fees under the authority granted by California Government Code Section 66000 et. seq. Fees are allowed to be imposed to recover costs associated with the provision of specific services benefiting the user, thereby reducing the use of General Fund monies for such purposes. To impose fees, the City must hold at least one public hearing as part of a regularly scheduled meeting to allow for public comment on the proposed fees. The City of Rancho Cucamonga has established fees by authority of the Municipal Code, City Ordinances, City Resolutions, City development/funding agreements, and State and Federal statutes. As a matter of routine, City departments typically revisit fees at least once per year to ensure that small adjustments can be made over time to keep up with operational and construction costs. Additionally, to reduce the number of fees brought before the City Council annually, certain fees are adjusted annually by applying a fee escalator approved by prior resolutions. Further, the City Council has by longstanding practice sought to recover from new development, as close to 100% of actual costs, through fees, as is practical. Page 95 Page 2 2 6 3 1 This report covers requests for revisions to fees for the following departments: Animal Services, Community Services, Engineering, and Planning and Economic Development. ANALYSIS: It is necessary for the City to periodically update its user fees to ensure that fees charged are commensurate to the estimated cost of providing individualized services. Fee studies are conducted to justify modifications to fees as needed. For many years the City has (except for Development Impact Fees which represent actual construction costs) used a time (hours of labor) and wages (cost per hour) methodology to ensure it provides accurate cost recovery without exceeding actual costs. The following user fee adjustments are detailed in the first proposed Resolution (Attachment 1): ANIMAL SERVICES Animal Services proposes fee adjustments across several categories to better align with rising operational costs and to ensure a sustainable funding model. These changes reflect the increased expenses associated with animal care, medical services, and administrative processing. Key updates include aligning adoption fees with medical care costs, revising licensing fees to cover regulatory services, and introducing new fee structures based on the specialized needs of certain animals. Additionally, adjustments are made to better recover costs for pet surrenders and other services, with fees tailored to specific service requirements. Together, these adjustments support the department’s goal of maintaining high-quality services amidst growing demand and financial pressures. Animal Services Number of Increased Fees Number of Decreased Fees Number of New Fees 14 0 3 COMMUNITY SERVICES The Community Services Department remains committed to enhancing service offerings in response to the evolving needs of our valued customers. As part of this effort, staff have proposed User Fee adjustments designed to offer increased flexibility for our patrons and reflect the current marketplace. To align with the current business model, staff has recommended the elimination and/or combination of other fees that are no longer applicable. Furthermore, staff has identified minor language adjustments to ensure the accurate application of the fees and improve customer service. The fees were carefully evaluated to ensure that the Department’s fees reflect the needs and preferences of the community. Community Services Number of Increased Fees Number of Decreased Fees Number of New Fees 18 3 16 Engineering Services Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Utility proposes three new fees related to telecommunications leases and site modifications. These fees aim to ensure the city recoups costs for staff time and City Attorney fees associated with reviewing site plans, verifying lease compliance, assessing market value, and coordinating onsite logistics. The proposed charges are based on the Page 96 Page 3 2 6 3 1 estimated time required to complete each type of request, including minor site modifications, contract amendments, and new cell tower installations, as the current flat or hourly fees are insufficient to cover actual costs. These updates will better align fees with the resources needed to manage these projects effectively. Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Utility Number of Increased Fees Number of Decreased Fees Number of New Fees 0 0 3 PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT The Planning and Economic Development Department proposes minor updates to improve clarity and accuracy in its fee structure. These adjustments include a name change to better reflect the purpose of an existing fee, an increase in the General Plan Maintenance fee to support cost recovery, and corrections to footnotes and terminology for consistency. These updates ensure the fee schedule is clear, accurate, and aligned with the department’s cost- recovery goals, while maintaining transparency for the public. Planning & Economic Development Number of Increased Fees Number of Decreased Fees Number of New Fees 1 0 0 EFFECTIVE DATE OF FEES: Fees approved through the adoption of the attached Resolution and incorporated into the Master Fee Schedule would be effective January 1, 2025, for the Animal Services Department except for licensing fees. For Engineering Services, Planning and Economic Development, and the Animal Services Department’s licensing fees, the fees would be effective 60 days from the adoption of the Resolution, consistent with State law. The Community Services Department’s fees would be effective July 1, 2025. As previously approved by City Council, the annual fee adjustments would be effective on the first day of each fiscal year, July 1, as set forth in the fee resolutions, and staff would update the Master Fee Schedule accordingly. PUBLIC NOTICE: Pursuant to Government Code Section 65090, this item was advertised fifteen (15) days in advance as a public hearing (1/8-page ad) in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper. FISCAL IMPACT: By consistently examining user fees annually, these user fee updates provide additional revenue per fiscal year to offset the City's costs. COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / VALUE(S) ADDRESSED: This action supports the Council's Core Value of intentionally embracing and anticipating the future by ensuring fees remain aligned with actual costs over time. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1 - Resolution No. 2024-105 Page 97 Resolution No. 2024-XXX - Page 1 of 12 5 2 2 2 RESOLUTION NO. 2024-XXXX A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING, REPEALING, REVISING, AND UPDATING VARIOUS FEES APPLICABLE TO ANIMAL SERVIVES, COMMUNITY SERVICES, ENGINEERING SERVICES, AND PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENTS A. Recitals. 1.The California Government Code allows the City to establish fees and charges for municipal services, provided such fees and charges do not exceed the estimated reasonable cost to the City in providing the service to which the fee or charge applies. 2.Data indicating the estimated or actual cost to provide each service, for which the fees and charges set forth herein apply, was made available to the public at least ten (10) days prior to the date of the public hearing. 3.On December 4, 2024, City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the amendment. 4.All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga finds and resolves as follows: SECTION 1: The City Council hereby specifically finds that all the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. SECTION 2; The City has conducted a study of new or increasing fees/fee categories and analyzed costs incurred in providing services, including, but not limited to, salary and benefits, maintenance, and administrative costs. SECTION 3: The City Council hereby specifically finds that the fees and charges set forth do not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of providing the service for which the fee or charge be levied. SECTION 4: The City Council hereby authorizes the City Manager, or designee, to make annual adjustments to certain fees based on an inflationary factor established by the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, where designated, effective July 1 of each year. ATTACHMENT 1 Page 98 Resolution No. 2024-XXX - Page 2 of 12 5 2 2 2 SECTION 5: Animal Services Department a.The City hereby amends Resolutions 06-142, 08-210, and 20-120, and adopts the following fees for services performed by the Animal Services Department effective January 1, 2025 except for licensing fees which will be effective 60 days from the adoption of this resolution: Title Summary of Change Current Fee New Fee % Change Dog - Unaltered Fee Increase.$75 $100 33% Dog - Spayed/Neutered Fee Increase.$20 $25 25% License Transfer (from another city into RC, same owner) Fee Increase.$3 $5 67% Replacement Tag Fee Increase.$3 $5 67% Cat Fee Increase.$45 $60 33% Kitten Fee Increase.$60 $75 25% Rabbit Fee Increase.$40 $50 25% Reptile Changing name from “Small Reptile” to “Reptile” and fee change. $20 Species Market Price N/A Medium Reptile Prior “Reptile” fees based on size. Merged into 1 new species-based fee. $60 Delete N/A Large Reptile Prior “Reptile” fees based on size. Merged into 1 new species-based fee. $100 Delete N/A Bird Changing name from “Small Birds” to “Bird” and fee change.$10 Species Market Price N/A Page 99 Resolution No. 2024-XXX - Page 3 of 12 5 2 2 2 Medium Birds Prior “Birds” fees based on size. Merged into 1 new species- based fee. $20 Delete N/A Large Birds Prior “Birds” fees based on size. Merged into 1 new species- based fee. $100 Delete N/A Attorney Fees New fee.Actual Cost N/A Cardboard Carrier Fee Change.$2 Actual Cost N/A Dead Animal Disposal Fee Change.$20 Actual cost ($1 per lb)N/A Feral Cat Trap - Deposit Fee Change.$75 Actual Cost N/A Feral Cat Box - Deposit Fee Change.$85 Actual Cost N/A Feral Cat Transfer Cage - Deposit Fee Change.$0 Actual Cost N/A Owner Request for Euthanasia - Dogs Title and Fee Change.$35 $50 43% Owner Request for Euthanasia - Cats Title and Fee Change.$25 $50 100% Pet Surrender - Dog Fee Increase.$40 $90 125% Pet Surrender - Cat or Rabbit Fee Increase.$30 $90 200% Pet Surrender – Small Animal Fee for all small pets (guinea pig, hamster, mouse, rat, etc.) will be merged and the same fee charged for each species. $5 $20 300% Page 100 Resolution No. 2024-XXX - Page 4 of 12 5 2 2 2 Pet Surrender - Exotic, Livestock New Fee. N/A Variable (dependent on cost of care) N/A Impound Fee - 1st impound within a year Fee Increase.$42 $50 19% Impound Fee - 3rd impound within a year Fee Increase.$98 $105 7% Non-resident Fees New Fee. N/A $10 N/A Emergency Veterinary Fees New Fee.N/A Actual Cost N/A SECTION 6: Community Services Department a.The City hereby amends Resolutions 19-092, 21-129, and 2023-121 effective July 1, 2025, a n d adopts the following fees which will further have Employment Cost Index adjustments applied as applicable, for services performed by the Community Services Department: Title Summary of Change Current Fee New Fee % Change Television (portable) New fee. Section 1.6.7 Customer Convenience Rental Options (All Locations) N/A $50 ea./day New Fee Microphone (Banquet/Event Hall) Renamed and moved existing fee to apply to all facilities. Section 1.6.7 Customer Convenience Rental Options (All Locations) $25 ea./day max $75/week $25 ea./day max $75/week 0% Folding Chair Existing fee moved to apply to all facilities. Section 1.6.7 Customer Convenience Rental Options (All Locations) $3 ea./day $3 ea./day 0% Podium / Lectern Renamed existing fee and moved to apply to all facilities. Section 1.6.7 Customer Convenience Rental Options (All Locations) $25 ea./day $25 ea./day 0% Outdoor Portable Heater (with propane) Existing fee moved to apply to all facilities. Section 1.6.7 Customer Convenience Rental Options (All Locations) $75 ea./day $75 ea./day 0% Page 101 Resolution No. 2024-XXX - Page 5 of 12 5 2 2 2 Projector (portable) Existing fee moved to apply to all facilities. Section 1.6.7 Customer Convenience Rental Options (All Locations) $50 ea./day max $150/week $50 ea./day max $150/week 0% Projector (mounted) with Built-in Screen Existing fee moved to apply to all facilities. Section 1.6.7 Customer Convenience Rental Options (All Locations) $75 ea./day max $225/week $75 ea./day max $225/week 0% Parking Lot A [Without Stadium Rental] Increase from $700.00/day to $1,000.00/day. Section 1.8.2 Epicenter Parking and Special Event Area Rental Fees $700/day $1,000/day 43% Parking Lot B [Without Stadium Rental] Increase from $700.00/day to $1,000.00/day. Section 1.8.2 Epicenter Parking and Special Event Area Rental Fees $700/day $1,000/day 43% Parking Lot C [Without Stadium Rental] Increase from $700.00/day to $1,000.00/day. Section 1.8.2 Epicenter Parking and Special Event Area Rental Fees $700/day $1,000/day 43% Parking Lot G [Without Stadium Rental] Increase from $700.00/day to $1,000.00/day. Section 1.8.2 Epicenter Parking and Special Event Area Rental Fees $700/day $1,000/day 43% Parking Lot H [Without Stadium Rental] New fee. RC Sports Center Parking Lot. $1,000.00/day. Section 1.8.2 Epicenter Parking and Special Event Area Rental Fees N/A $1,000/day New Fee Parking Lot D [Without Stadium Rental] Increase from $500.00/day to $750.00/day. Section 1.8.2 Epicenter Parking and Special Event Area Rental Fees $500 $750/day 50% Parking Lot A [With Stadium Rental] Increase from $300.00/day to $750.00/day. Section 1.8.2 Epicenter Parking and Special Event Area Rental Fees $300 $750/day 150% Parking Lot B [With Stadium Rental] Increase from $300.00/day to $750.00/day. Section 1.8.2 Epicenter Parking and Special Event Area Rental Fees $300 $750/day 150% Parking Lot C [With Stadium Rental] Increase from $300.00/day to $750.00/day. Section 1.8.2 Epicenter Parking and Special Event Area Rental Fees $300 $750/day 150% Parking Lot G [With Stadium Rental] Increase from $300.00/day to $750.00/day. Section 1.8.2 Epicenter Parking and Special Event Area Rental Fees $300 $750/day 150% Parking Lot H [With Stadium Rental] New fee. RC Sports Center Parking Lot. $750.00/day. Section 1.8.2 Epicenter Parking and Special Event Area Rental Fees N/A $750/day New Fee Page 102 Resolution No. 2024-XXX - Page 6 of 12 5 2 2 2 Parking Lot D [With Stadium Rental] Increase from $200.00/day to $570.00/day. Section 1.8.2 Epicenter Parking and Special Event Area Rental Fees $200 $570/day 185% Field Rental [Group 4 – Base Rate] Changing from time block and all-day fees to hourly charge. Section 1.8.3 Epicenter Sports Fields Rental Fees; Weekday and Weekend Hours; Group 4 (Base Rate) $174 (0-2 Hours) $288 (2-4 hours) $403 (all day) $50/hour -43% *2 hr Comparison -31% *4 hr Comparison 24% *10 hr Comparison Field Rental [Group 1] Changing from time block to No Use. Section 1.8.3 Epicenter Sports Fields Rental Fees; Weekday and Weekend Hours; Group 1 $59 (0-2 Hours) $117 (2-4 hours) $232 (all day) No Use N/A Field Rental [Group 2] Changing from time block and all-day fees to hourly charge. Section 1.8.3 Epicenter Sports Fields Rental Fees; Weekday and Weekend Hours; Group 2 $59 (0-2 Hours) $117 (2-4 hours) $232 (all day) $40/hour 36% *2 hr Comparison 37% *4 hr Comparison 72% *10 hr Comparison Field Rental [Group 3] Changing from time block and all-day fees to hourly charge. Section 1.8.3 Epicenter Sports Fields Rental Fees; Weekday and Weekend Hours; Group 3 $174 (0-2 Hours) $288 (2-4 hours) $403 (all day) $45/hour -48% *2 hr Comparison -38% *4 hr Comparison 12% *10 hr Comparison Field Rental [Group 5] Changing from time block and all-day fees to hourly charge. Section 1.8.3 Epicenter Sports Fields Rental Fees; Weekday and Weekend Hours; Group 5 $174 (0-2 Hours) $288 (2-4 hours) $403 (all day) $63/hour -28% *2 hr Comparison -13% *4 hr Comparison 56% *10 hr Comparison Field Rental [Group 4 – City Holiday Hours] Changing from time block and all-day fees to hourly charge. Section 1.8.3 Epicenter Sports Fields Rental Fees; City Holiday Hours; Group 4 (Base Rate) $260 (0-2 Hours) $431 (2-4 hours) $605 (all day) $75/hour -42% *2 hr Comparison -30% *4 hr Comparison 24% *10 hr Comparison Field Rental [Group 1 – City Holiday Hours] Changing from time block and all-day fees to hourly charge. Section 1.8.3 Epicenter Sports Fields Rental Fees; City Holiday Hours; Group 1 $86 (0-2 Hours) $173 (2-4 hours) $347 (all day) No Use N/A Page 103 Resolution No. 2024-XXX - Page 7 of 12 5 2 2 2 Field Rental [Group 2 – City Holiday Hours] Changing from time block and all-day fees to hourly charge. Section 1.8.3 Epicenter Sports Fields Rental Fees; City Holiday Hours; Group 2 $86 (0-2 Hours) $173 (2-4 hours) $347 (all day) $60/hour 40% *2 hr Comparison 39% *4 hr Comparison 73% *10 hr Comparison Field Rental [Group 3 - City Holiday Hours] Changing from time block and all-day fees to hourly charge. Section 1.8.3 Epicenter Sports Fields Rental Fees; City Holiday Hours; Group 3 $260 (0-2 Hours) $431 (2-4 hours) $605 (all day) $68/hour -48% *2 hr Comparison -37% *4 hr Comparison 12% *10 hr Comparison Field Rental [Group 5 - City Holiday Hours] Changing from time block and all-day fees to hourly charge. Section 1.8.3 Epicenter Sports Fields Rental Fees; City Holiday Hours; Group 5 $260 (0-2 Hours) $431 (2-4 hours) $605 (all day) $95/hour -27% *2 hr Comparison -12% *4 hr Comparison 57% *10 hr Comparison Parks, Special Event Areas [Group 5] Increase fee from $8.00 to $10.00. Section 1.7.3 Park Maintenance Fee; Group 5 $8 $10 25% Sports Fields [Group 5] Increase fee from $44.00 to $55.00. Section 1.7.3 Park Maintenance Fee; Group 5 $44 $55 25% Red Hill Community Park [Group 5] Increase fee from $173.00 to $217.00. Section 1.7.5 Special Event Area Rental Fee; Group 5 $173/hour $217/hour 25% Heritage Community Park [Group 5] Increase fee from $117.00 to $147.00. Section 1.7.5 Special Event Area Rental Fee; Group 5 $117/hour $147/hour 26% Central Park Grass Bowl [Group 5] Increase fee from $173.00 to $217.00. Section 1.7.5 Special Event Area Rental Fee; Group 5 $173/hour $217/hour 25% Central Park Bridge [Group 5] Increase fee from $86.00 to $108.00. Section 1.7.5 Special Event Area Rental Fee; Group 5 $86/hour $108/hour 26% Central Park Pavilion [Group 5] Increase fee from $65.00 to $82.00. Section 1.7.5 Special Event Area Rental Fee; Group 5 $65/hour $82/hour 26% PET Staging Area [Group 5] Increase fee from $117.00 to $147.00. Section 1.7.5 Special Event Area Rental Fee; Group 5 $117/hour $147/hour 26% Page 104 Resolution No. 2024-XXX - Page 8 of 12 5 2 2 2 Field Rental [Group 5] Increase fee from $37.00 to $40.00. Section 1.7.1 Community Ball Field and Soccer Field Rental; Group 5 $37/hour $40/hour 8% Large Shelter (3 hour) Anomaly Correction. Section 1.7.4 Park Shelter Rental Fees; Group 4 $43/hour $103/hour 140% Stanchions New fee. Victoria Gardens Cultural Center. Section 1.6.6 Facility Equipment Use Fees (Victoria Gardens Cultural Center) N/A $10/set/day New Fee Expendables - Playhouse New fee. Victoria Gardens Cultural Center. Section 1.6.6 Facility Equipment Use Fees (Victoria Gardens Cultural Center) N/A Cost +17%New Fee Marley Flooring New fee. Victoria Gardens Cultural Center. Section 1.6.6 Facility Equipment Use Fees (Victoria Gardens Cultural Center) N/A $750/event New Fee Projector LFP (Weeklong) New fee. Victoria Gardens Cultural Center. Section 1.6.6 Facility Equipment Use Fees (Victoria Gardens Cultural Center) N/A $800 ea./week New Fee Red Carpet (large runner) New fee. Victoria Gardens Cultural Center. Section 1.6.6 Facility Equipment Use Fees (Victoria Gardens Cultural Center) N/A $125 ea./day New Fee Red Carpet (small runner) New fee. Victoria Gardens Cultural Center. Section 1.6.6 Facility Equipment Use Fees (Victoria Gardens Cultural Center) N/A $75 ea./day New Fee Red Rope Stanchions New fee. Victoria Gardens Cultural Center. Section 1.6.6 Facility Equipment Use Fees (Victoria Gardens Cultural Center) N/A $27/set/day New Fee Wireless Microphone – Bodypack Transmitters (LFP Only) New fee. Victoria Gardens Cultural Center. Section 1.6.6 Facility Equipment Use Fees (Victoria Gardens Cultural Center) N/A $50 ea./day New Fee Wireless Microphone – Bodypack Transmitters (LFP Only) (Weeklong) New fee. Victoria Gardens Cultural Center. Section 1.6.6 Facility Equipment Use Fees (Victoria Gardens Cultural Center) N/A $150 ea./week New Fee Page 105 Resolution No. 2024-XXX - Page 9 of 12 5 2 2 2 Custom Riser Decks New fee. Victoria Gardens Cultural Center. Section 1.6.6 Facility Equipment Use Fees (Victoria Gardens Cultural Center) N/A $50 ea./day (min. 2)New Fee Rolling Riser Decks New fee. Victoria Gardens Cultural Center. Section 1.6.6 Facility Equipment Use Fees (Victoria Gardens Cultural Center) N/A $500/event New Fee Basic Lighting Package Decrease fee from $1,779 to $750.00. Victoria Gardens Cultural Center. Section 1.6.8 Packages $1,779/event $750/event -58% Gobo Package Rename and decrease fee from $299.00 to $150.00. Victoria Gardens Cultural Center. Section 1.6.8 Packages $299/event $150/event -50% VGCC Lecture Package New fee. Victoria Gardens Cultural Center. Section 1.6.8 Packages N/A $350/event New Fee Microphone (wireless) Remove, no longer applicable. Section 1.6.6 Facility Equipment Use Fees (Victoria Gardens Cultural Center) N/A Delete N/A Projector (mounted) with Built-in Screen Remove, no longer applicable. Section 1.6.6 Facility Equipment Use Fees (Victoria Gardens Cultural Center) N/A Delete N/A Field Rental [0 to 2 hours] Remove, fee no longer applicable. Section 1.8.3 Epicenter Sports Fields Rental Fees; Weekday and Weekend Hours N/A Delete N/A Field Rental [2 to 4 hours] Remove, fee no longer applicable. Section 1.8.3 Epicenter Sports Fields Rental Fees; Weekday and Weekend Hours N/A Delete N/A Field Rental [All day] Remove, fee no longer applicable. Section 1.8.3 Epicenter Sports Fields Rental Fees; Weekday and Weekend Hours N/A Delete N/A Field Rental [0 to 2 hours – City Holiday Hours] Remove, fee no longer applicable. Section 1.8.3 Epicenter Sports Fields Rental Fees N/A Delete N/A Page 106 Resolution No. 2024-XXX - Page 10 of 12 5 2 2 2 Field Rental [2 to 4 hours – City Holiday Hours] Remove, fee no longer applicable. Section 1.8.3 Epicenter Sports Fields Rental Fees N/A Delete N/A Field Rental [All day – City Holiday Hours] Remove, fee no longer applicable. Section 1.8.3 Epicenter Sports Fields Rental Fees N/A Delete N/A Single Lighting Fixture Remove, fee no longer applicable. Section 1.6.6 Facility Equipment Use Fees (Victoria Gardens Cultural Center) N/A Delete N/A Standard Facility Audio/Visual Remove, fee no longer applicable. Section 1.6.6 Facility Equipment Use Fees (Victoria Gardens Cultural Center) N/A Delete N/A VGCC Wedding Ceremony Package Remove, fee no longer applicable. Victoria Gardens Cultural Center. Section 1.6.8 Packages N/A Delete N/A b.The fee set forth in section 6a, with the exception of deposit-based fees, shall be adjusted annually, commencing on July 1, 2025, and each year thereafter, without further action of the City Council, based on the Employment Cost Index for State and Local Government Employees, Total Compensation, during the 12-month period ending on December 31 of the immediately preceding year, as released by the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics and rounded to the nearest whole dollar. If this index is discontinued, a replacement index, as determined by the City Council, shall be utilized. SECTION 7: Engineering Services Department a. The City hereby adopts the following fees, effective 60 days from the adoption of this resolution, in accordance with state law, for services provided by Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Utility. Title Summary of Change Current Fee New Fee % Change Call Site Modification (Hourly)New Flat Fee.N/A $2,500 N/A New Cell Tower or Contract New Deposit Fee.N/A $10,000 N/A Cell Site Contract Amendment New Flat fee.N/A $5,000 N/A Page 107 Resolution No. 2024-XXX - Page 11 of 12 5 2 2 2 SECTION 8: Planning and Economic Development a.The City hereby amends Resolution 23-121 effective 60 days from the adoption of this resolution consistent with State Law and adopts the following fees for services performed by the Planning and Economic Development Department. Title Summary of Change Current Fee New Fee % Change Public Art in Lieu Fee Changing name from “Public Art Fee” to Public Art in Lieu Fee”. N/A N/A N/A General Plan Maintenance Fee Fee Increase.10%15.9%6% SECTION 9: The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. Page 108 Resolution No. 2024-XXX - Page 12 of 12 5 2 2 2 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this day of 2024 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAINED: __________________________________ L. Dennis Michael, Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________________ Janice C. Reynolds, City Clerk I, JANICE C. REYNOLDS, CITY CLERK of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly passed, approved and adopted by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, at a Regular Meeting of said City Council held on the __ 2024. Executed this ___ day of_______, 2024 at Rancho Cucamonga, California _________________________________ Janice C. Reynolds, City Clerk Page 109 ***COMPLETE ALL FIELDS COLORED TAN, AS APPLICABLE, FOR YOUR FEE*** Fund Account 001 CC104 Description of service, demand, recommended subsidy (if any), and other comments: Personnel Costs Straight Time Labor Rate Fringe Benefit Rate Total Direct Labor Cost Dept/Div Overhead Fully Burdened Cost (per hour) Hours by Position (per unit) Total Labor Cost (per unit) -$ 10% -$ -$ -$ 10% -$ -$ -$ 10% -$ -$ -$ 10% -$ -$ -$ 10% -$ -$ -$ Cost (each) Quantity required Total Cost -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Cost (each) Quantity required Total Cost -$ -$ -$ Total Service Direct Cost:-$ City Admin (CAP) Overhead Rate:0% Total Service Cost/Unit:-$ Comparison Agency Fee Dollars % Corona $0.00 #DIV/0!Current Fee Amount: Fontana $0.00 #DIV/0! Fullerton -$ #DIV/0!Recommended Fee Amount:Actual Cost Irvine -$ #DIV/0!Recommended Fee Subsidy:#VALUE! Moreno Valley *does not include spay/neuter fees -$ #DIV/0! Ontario -$ #DIV/0! Orange -$ #DIV/0!Fee Change:#VALUE! Pomona -$ #DIV/0! Riverside -$ #DIV/0! San Bernardino -$ #DIV/0! Upland -$ #DIV/0! West Covina -$ #DIV/0! Revised: 08/30/2023 Completed By: Date: Total other costs per unit of service: Comparisons to Proposed Fee Fee Difference Total burdened personnel cost per unit of service: Material and Rental Costs Description Total materials/rental costs per unit of service: Other Costs Description USER FEE COST ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Department/Division User Fee Description Animal Services Attorney Fees The Animal Services Department is responsible for providing field services for the city and oversees animal related cases including neglect, cruelty, and bite cases that require legal assistance resulting in attorney fees for each case. This fee will be charged to the responsible party involved in a field case. The charge for attorney services will be based on the actual cost of the services provided. This is a new fee being added to the schedule. Labor Rates Position ***COMPLETE ALL FIELDS COLORED TAN, AS APPLICABLE, FOR YOUR FEE*** Fund Account 001 CC104 Description of service, demand, recommended subsidy (if any), and other comments: Personnel Costs Straight Time Labor Rate Fringe Benefit Rate Total Direct Labor Cost Dept/Div Overhead Fully Burdened Cost (per hour) Hours by Position (per unit) Total Labor Cost (per unit) -$ 10% -$ -$ -$ 10% -$ -$ -$ 10% -$ -$ -$ 10% -$ -$ -$ 10% -$ -$ -$ Cost (each) Quantity required Total Cost -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Cost (each) Quantity required Total Cost -$ -$ -$ Total Service Direct Cost:-$ City Admin (CAP) Overhead Rate:0% Total Service Cost/Unit:-$ Comparison Agency Fee Dollars % Corona Variable #VALUE! #VALUE!Current Fee Amount: Fontana No adoption services #VALUE! #VALUE! Fullerton $ 50.00 50.00$ #DIV/0!Recommended Fee Amount:Variable/Market Irvine Variable #VALUE! #VALUE!Recommended Fee Subsidy:#VALUE! Moreno Valley *does not include spay/neuter fees -$ #DIV/0! Ontario 20+ #VALUE! #VALUE! Orange $ 50.00 50.00$ #DIV/0!Fee Change:#VALUE! Pomona 20+ #VALUE! #VALUE! Riverside -$ #DIV/0! San Bernardino -$ #DIV/0! Upland -$ #DIV/0! West Covina Market #VALUE! #VALUE! Revised: 08/30/2023 Completed By: Date: Total other costs per unit of service: Comparisons to Proposed Fee Fee Difference Total burdened personnel cost per unit of service: Material and Rental Costs Description Total materials/rental costs per unit of service: Other Costs Description USER FEE COST ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Department/Division User Fee Description Animal Services Animal Adoption Fee - Bird Fee is charged to those who choose to adopt a bird from the Rancho Cucamonga Animal Center. Avian/Bird care is specialized dependent on species, age, and other factors. Adoption fees will be based on the market value of the animal. This category includes birds of all sizes and combines the adoption fees for small, medium, and large reptiles, as it was difficult to classify the size of the animals to a general size. It will include animals such as Parakeets, Finches, Cockatiels, Macaws, Aftrican Greys, Chickens, Roosters, etc. Prior adoption fees were listed as: Small = $10, Medium = $20, Large = $100. For new animals, staff will conduct market research on the animal to determine to going market rate for an animal of that species, age, coloration, etc. Adoption fee will be set to that price or lower. Labor Rates Position ***COMPLETE ALL FIELDS COLORED TAN, AS APPLICABLE, FOR YOUR FEE*** Fund Account 001 CC104 Description of service, demand, recommended subsidy (if any), and other comments: Personnel Costs Straight Time Labor Rate Fringe Benefit Rate Total Direct Labor Cost Dept/Div Overhead Fully Burdened Cost (per hour) Hours by Position (per unit) Total Labor Cost (per unit) -$ 10% -$ -$ -$ 10% -$ -$ -$ 10% -$ -$ -$ 10% -$ -$ -$ 10% -$ -$ -$ Cost (each) Quantity required Total Cost -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Cost (each) Quantity required Total Cost -$ -$ -$ Total Service Direct Cost:-$ City Admin (CAP) Overhead Rate:0% Total Service Cost/Unit:-$ Comparison Agency Fee Dollars % Corona 110.00$ $65.00 144%Current Fee Amount:45.00$ Fontana No adoption services #VALUE! #VALUE! Fullerton $ 147.00 102.00$ 227%Recommended Fee Amount:60.00$ Irvine 135.00$ 90.00$ 200%Recommended Fee Subsidy:($60.00) Moreno Valley *does not include spay/neuter fees 47.00$ 2.00$ 4% Ontario $ 100.00 55.00$ 122% Orange $ 125.00 80.00$ 178%Fee Change:$15.00 Pomona $ 100.00 55.00$ 122% Riverside $ 25.00 (20.00)$ -44% San Bernardino $ 25.00 (20.00)$ -44% Upland $ 115.00 70.00$ 156% West Covina $ 97.50 52.50$ 117% Revised: 08/30/2023 Completed By: Date: USER FEE COST ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Department/Division User Fee Description Animal Services Animal Adoption Fee - Cat Fee is charged to those who choose to adopt a cat (6 months of age or older) from the Rancho Cucamonga Animal Center. Adoption fee includes the spay or neuter, microchip, flea & tick prevention, and all age appropriate vaccines. The price increase is requested due to the rising cost of medical services provided as part of the adoption fee including vaccinations, microchip, and spay/neuter services. Labor Rates Position Total burdened personnel cost per unit of service: Material and Rental Costs Description Total materials/rental costs per unit of service: Other Costs Description Total other costs per unit of service: Comparisons to Proposed Fee Fee Difference ***COMPLETE ALL FIELDS COLORED TAN, AS APPLICABLE, FOR YOUR FEE*** Fund Account 001 CC104 Description of service, demand, recommended subsidy (if any), and other comments: Personnel Costs Straight Time Labor Rate Fringe Benefit Rate Total Direct Labor Cost Dept/Div Overhead Fully Burdened Cost (per hour) Hours by Position (per unit) Total Labor Cost (per unit) -$ 10% -$ -$ -$ 10% -$ -$ -$ 10% -$ -$ -$ 10% -$ -$ -$ 10% -$ -$ -$ Cost (each) Quantity required Total Cost -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Cost (each) Quantity required Total Cost -$ -$ -$ Total Service Direct Cost:-$ City Admin (CAP) Overhead Rate:0% Total Service Cost/Unit:-$ Comparison Agency Fee Dollars % Corona 110.00$ $50.00 83%Current Fee Amount:60.00$ Fontana No adoption services #VALUE! #VALUE! Fullerton $ 147.00 87.00$ 145%Recommended Fee Amount:75.00$ Irvine 170.00$ 110.00$ 183%Recommended Fee Subsidy:($75.00) Moreno Valley *does not include spay/neuter fees 47.00$ (13.00)$ -22% Ontario $ 150.00 90.00$ 150% Orange $ 175.00 115.00$ 192%Fee Change:$15.00 Pomona $ 150.00 90.00$ 150% Riverside $ 65.00 5.00$ 8% San Bernardino $ 25.00 (35.00)$ -58% Upland $ 125.00 65.00$ 108% West Covina $ 97.50 37.50$ 63% Revised: 08/30/2023 Completed By: Date: Total other costs per unit of service: Comparisons to Proposed Fee Fee Difference Total burdened personnel cost per unit of service: Material and Rental Costs Description Total materials/rental costs per unit of service: Other Costs Description USER FEE COST ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Department/Division User Fee Description Animal Services Animal Adoption Fee - Kitten Fee is charged to those who choose to adopt a Kitten (8 weeks - 6 months of age) from the Rancho Cucamonga Animal Center. Adoption fee includes the spay or neuter, microchip, flea & tick prevention, and all age appropriate vaccines. The price increase is requested due to the rising cost of medical services provided as part of the adoption fee including vaccinations, microchip, and spay/neuter services. Labor Rates Position ***COMPLETE ALL FIELDS COLORED TAN, AS APPLICABLE, FOR YOUR FEE*** Fund Account 001 CC104 Description of service, demand, recommended subsidy (if any), and other comments: Personnel Costs Straight Time Labor Rate Fringe Benefit Rate Total Direct Labor Cost Dept/Div Overhead Fully Burdened Cost (per hour) Hours by Position (per unit) Total Labor Cost (per unit) -$ 10% -$ -$ -$ 10% -$ -$ -$ 10% -$ -$ -$ 10% -$ -$ -$ 10% -$ -$ -$ Cost (each) Quantity required Total Cost -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Cost (each) Quantity required Total Cost -$ -$ -$ Total Service Direct Cost:-$ City Admin (CAP) Overhead Rate:0% Total Service Cost/Unit:-$ Comparison Agency Fee Dollars % Corona Variable #VALUE! #VALUE!Current Fee Amount:40.00$ Fontana No adoption services #VALUE! #VALUE! Fullerton (40.00)$ -100%Recommended Fee Amount:50.00$ Irvine 30.00$ (10.00)$ -25%Recommended Fee Subsidy:($50.00) Moreno Valley *does not include spay/neuter fees (40.00)$ -100% Ontario (40.00)$ -100% Orange $ 90.00 50.00$ 125%Fee Change:$10.00 Pomona (40.00)$ -100% Riverside (40.00)$ -100% San Bernardino (40.00)$ -100% Upland $ 35.00 (5.00)$ -13% West Covina $ 15.00 (25.00)$ -63% Revised: 08/30/2023 Completed By: Date: USER FEE COST ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Department/Division User Fee Description Animal Services Animal Adoption Fee - Rabbit Fee is charged to those who choose to adopt a Rabbit from the Rancho Cucamonga Animal Center. Adoption fee includes the spay or neuter & microchip. The price increase is requested due to the rising cost of medical services provided as part of the adoption fee including microchip and spay/neuter services. Labor Rates Position Total burdened personnel cost per unit of service: Material and Rental Costs Description Total materials/rental costs per unit of service: Other Costs Description Total other costs per unit of service: Comparisons to Proposed Fee Fee Difference ***COMPLETE ALL FIELDS COLORED TAN, AS APPLICABLE, FOR YOUR FEE*** Fund Account 001 CC104 Description of service, demand, recommended subsidy (if any), and other comments: Personnel Costs Straight Time Labor Rate Fringe Benefit Rate Total Direct Labor Cost Dept/Div Overhead Fully Burdened Cost (per hour) Hours by Position (per unit) Total Labor Cost (per unit) -$ 10% -$ -$ -$ 10% -$ -$ -$ 10% -$ -$ -$ 10% -$ -$ -$ 10% -$ -$ -$ Cost (each) Quantity required Total Cost -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Cost (each) Quantity required Total Cost -$ -$ -$ Total Service Direct Cost:-$ City Admin (CAP) Overhead Rate:0% Total Service Cost/Unit:-$ Comparison Agency Fee Dollars % Corona Variable #VALUE! #VALUE!Current Fee Amount: Fontana No adoption services #VALUE! #VALUE! Fullerton $ 50.00 50.00$ #DIV/0!Recommended Fee Amount:Variable/Market Irvine Variable #VALUE! #VALUE!Recommended Fee Subsidy:#VALUE! Moreno Valley *does not include spay/neuter fees -$ #DIV/0! Ontario 25+ #VALUE! #VALUE! Orange $ 50.00 50.00$ #DIV/0!Fee Change:#VALUE! Pomona 25+ #VALUE! #VALUE! Riverside -$ #DIV/0! San Bernardino -$ #DIV/0! Upland -$ #DIV/0! West Covina Variable #VALUE! #VALUE! Revised: 08/30/2023 Completed By: Date: USER FEE COST ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Department/Division User Fee Description Animal Services Animal Adoption Fee - Reptile Fee is charged to those who choose to adopt a reptile from the Rancho Cucamonga Animal Center. Reptile care is specialized dependent on species, age, and other factors. Adoption fees will be based on the market value of the animal. This category includes reptiles of all sizes and combines the adoption fees for small, medium, and large reptiles, as it was difficult to classify the size of the animals to a general size. It will include animals such as snakes, lizards, turles, tortoises, etc. Prior adoption fees were listed as: Small = $20, Medium = $60, Large = $100. For new animals, staff will conduct market research on the animal to determine to going market rate for an animal of that species, age, coloration, etc. Adoption fee will be set to that price or lower. Labor Rates Position Total burdened personnel cost per unit of service: Material and Rental Costs Description Total materials/rental costs per unit of service: Other Costs Description Total other costs per unit of service: Comparisons to Proposed Fee Fee Difference ***COMPLETE ALL FIELDS COLORED TAN, AS APPLICABLE, FOR YOUR FEE*** Fund Account 001 CC104 Description of service, demand, recommended subsidy (if any), and other comments: Personnel Costs Straight Time Labor Rate Fringe Benefit Rate Total Direct Labor Cost Dept/Div Overhead Fully Burdened Cost (per hour) Hours by Position (per unit) Total Labor Cost (per unit) -$ 10% -$ -$ -$ 10% -$ -$ -$ 10% -$ -$ -$ 10% -$ -$ -$ 10% -$ -$ -$ Cost (each) Quantity required Total Cost -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Cost (each) Quantity required Total Cost -$ -$ -$ Total Service Direct Cost:-$ City Admin (CAP) Overhead Rate:0% Total Service Cost/Unit:-$ Comparison Agency Fee Dollars % Corona 15.00$ ($5.00)-25%Current Fee Amount:20.00$ Fontana 22.00$ $2.00 10% Fullerton $ 51.00 31.00$ 155%Recommended Fee Amount:25.00$ Irvine 25.00$ 5.00$ 25%Recommended Fee Subsidy:($25.00) Moreno Valley 15.00$ (5.00)$ -25% Ontario $ 25.00 5.00$ 25% Orange $ 42.00 22.00$ 110%Fee Change:$5.00 Pomona $ 30.00 10.00$ 50% Riverside $ 26.75 6.75$ 34% San Bernardino $ 24.00 4.00$ 20% Upland $ 24.00 4.00$ 20% West Covina $ 22.00 2.00$ 10% Revised: 08/30/2023 Completed By: Date: Total other costs per unit of service: Comparisons to Proposed Fee Fee Difference Total burdened personnel cost per unit of service: Material and Rental Costs Description Total materials/rental costs per unit of service: Other Costs Description USER FEE COST ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Department/Division User Fee Description Animal Services Animal License Fee - Dog - Altered Fee is charged to Rancho Cucamonga residents when purchasing an annual dog license for their altered (sterilized) dog. The City provides a discounted price to altered pets to encourage residents to spay/neuter their pets. Dog licensing is required for all residents with dogs 4 months of age or old as part of the cities Rabies control program. Price increase is to aide in covering the rising cost of processing licensing and rabies control services. Labor Rates Position ***COMPLETE ALL FIELDS COLORED TAN, AS APPLICABLE, FOR YOUR FEE*** Fund Account 001 CC104 Description of service, demand, recommended subsidy (if any), and other comments: Personnel Costs Straight Time Labor Rate Fringe Benefit Rate Total Direct Labor Cost Dept/Div Overhead Fully Burdened Cost (per hour) Hours by Position (per unit) Total Labor Cost (per unit) -$ 10% -$ -$ -$ 10% -$ -$ -$ 10% -$ -$ -$ 10% -$ -$ -$ 10% -$ -$ -$ Cost (each) Quantity required Total Cost -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Cost (each) Quantity required Total Cost -$ -$ -$ Total Service Direct Cost:-$ City Admin (CAP) Overhead Rate:0% Total Service Cost/Unit:-$ Comparison Agency Fee Dollars % Corona 100.00$ $25.00 33%Current Fee Amount:75.00$ Fontana 81.00$ $6.00 8% Fullerton $ 159.00 84.00$ 112%Recommended Fee Amount:100.00$ Irvine 55.00$ (20.00)$ -27%Recommended Fee Subsidy:($100.00) Moreno Valley 54.00$ (21.00)$ -28% Ontario $ 100.00 25.00$ 33% Orange $ 159.00 84.00$ 112%Fee Change:$25.00 Pomona $ 100.00 25.00$ 33% Riverside $ 125.00 50.00$ 67% San Bernardino $ 96.00 21.00$ 28% Upland $ 50.00 (25.00)$ -33% West Covina $ 60.00 (15.00)$ -20% Revised: 08/30/2023 Completed By: Date: Total other costs per unit of service: Comparisons to Proposed Fee Fee Difference Total burdened personnel cost per unit of service: Material and Rental Costs Description Total materials/rental costs per unit of service: Other Costs Description USER FEE COST ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Department/Division User Fee Description Animal Services Animal License Fee - Dog - Unaltered Fee is charged to Rancho Cucamonga residents when purchasing an annual dog license for their unaltered (unsterilized) dog. Dog licensing is required for all residents with dogs 4 months of age or old as part of the cities Rabies control program. Price increase is to aide in covering the rising cost of processing licensing and rabies control services. Labor Rates Position ***COMPLETE ALL FIELDS COLORED TAN, AS APPLICABLE, FOR YOUR FEE*** Fund Account 001 CC104 Description of service, demand, recommended subsidy (if any), and other comments: Personnel Costs Straight Time Labor Rate Fringe Benefit Rate Total Direct Labor Cost Dept/Div Overhead Fully Burdened Cost (per hour) Hours by Position (per unit) Total Labor Cost (per unit) -$ 10% -$ -$ -$ 10% -$ -$ -$ 10% -$ -$ -$ 10% -$ -$ -$ 10% -$ -$ -$ Cost (each) Quantity required Total Cost -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Cost (each) Quantity required Total Cost -$ -$ -$ Total Service Direct Cost:-$ City Admin (CAP) Overhead Rate:0% Total Service Cost/Unit:-$ Comparison Agency Fee Dollars % Corona Not Offered #VALUE! #VALUE!Current Fee Amount:3.00$ Fontana 5.00$ $2.00 67% Fullerton $ 9.00 6.00$ 200%Recommended Fee Amount:5.00$ Irvine Not Offered #VALUE! #VALUE!Recommended Fee Subsidy:($5.00) Moreno Valley 6.00$ 3.00$ 100% Ontario Not Offered #VALUE! #VALUE! Orange $ 9.00 6.00$ 200%Fee Change:$2.00 Pomona Not Offered #VALUE! #VALUE! Riverside Not Offered #VALUE! #VALUE! San Bernardino Not Offered #VALUE! #VALUE! Upland Not Offered #VALUE! #VALUE! West Covina Not Offered #VALUE! #VALUE! Revised: 08/30/2023 Completed By: Date: Total other costs per unit of service: Comparisons to Proposed Fee Fee Difference Total burdened personnel cost per unit of service: Material and Rental Costs Description Total materials/rental costs per unit of service: Other Costs Description USER FEE COST ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Department/Division User Fee Description Animal Services Animal License Fee - License Transfer Fee is charged to Rancho Cucamonga residents who are transferring a current pet license from another city (generally as a result of moving into Rancho Cucamonga). This only applies to current pet licenses with the same owner. The transfer fee will honor their current dog license for the remainder of the license period (up to 1 year). Dog licensing is required for all residents with dogs 4 months of age or old as part of the cities Rabies control program. This discount encourages new residents to ensure their pets are licensed within the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Many cities surveyed do no offer this discount to new incoming residents. Price increase is to aide in covering the rising cost of processing licensing and rabies control services. Labor Rates Position ***COMPLETE ALL FIELDS COLORED TAN, AS APPLICABLE, FOR YOUR FEE*** Fund Account 001 CC104 Description of service, demand, recommended subsidy (if any), and other comments: Personnel Costs Straight Time Labor Rate Fringe Benefit Rate Total Direct Labor Cost Dept/Div Overhead Fully Burdened Cost (per hour) Hours by Position (per unit) Total Labor Cost (per unit) -$ 10% -$ -$ -$ 10% -$ -$ -$ 10% -$ -$ -$ 10% -$ -$ -$ 10% -$ -$ -$ Cost (each) Quantity required Total Cost -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Cost (each) Quantity required Total Cost -$ -$ -$ Total Service Direct Cost:-$ City Admin (CAP) Overhead Rate:0% Total Service Cost/Unit:-$ Comparison Agency Fee Dollars % Corona 5.00$ $2.00 67%Current Fee Amount:3.00$ Fontana 5.00$ $2.00 67% Fullerton $ 9.00 6.00$ 200%Recommended Fee Amount:5.00$ Irvine 10.00$ 7.00$ 233%Recommended Fee Subsidy:($5.00) Moreno Valley 6.00$ 3.00$ 100% Ontario $ 5.00 2.00$ 67% Orange $ 9.00 6.00$ 200%Fee Change:$2.00 Pomona $ 5.00 2.00$ 67% Riverside $ 6.00 3.00$ 100% San Bernardino $ 6.00 3.00$ 100% Upland Not Offered #VALUE! #VALUE! West Covina Not Offered #VALUE! #VALUE! Revised: 08/30/2023 Completed By: Date: Total other costs per unit of service: Comparisons to Proposed Fee Fee Difference Total burdened personnel cost per unit of service: Material and Rental Costs Description Total materials/rental costs per unit of service: Other Costs Description USER FEE COST ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Department/Division User Fee Description Animal Services Animal License Fee - Replacement Tag Fee is charged to Rancho Cucamonga residents whose pets license tag is lost or damaged. They are able to purchase a replacement tag. Tags are good for the life of the pet. Dog licensing is required for all residents with dogs 4 months of age or old as part of the cities Rabies control program. Price increase is to aide in covering the rising cost of processing licensing and rabies control services. Labor Rates Position ***COMPLETE ALL FIELDS COLORED TAN, AS APPLICABLE, FOR YOUR FEE*** Fund Account 001 CC104 Description of service, demand, recommended subsidy (if any), and other comments: Personnel Costs Straight Time Labor Rate Fringe Benefit Rate Total Direct Labor Cost Dept/Div Overhead Fully Burdened Cost (per hour) Hours by Position (per unit) Total Labor Cost (per unit) -$ 10% -$ -$ -$ 10% -$ -$ -$ 10% -$ -$ -$ 10% -$ -$ -$ 10% -$ -$ -$ Cost (each) Quantity required Total Cost -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Cost (each) Quantity required Total Cost -$ -$ -$ Total Service Direct Cost:-$ City Admin (CAP) Overhead Rate:0% Total Service Cost/Unit:-$ Comparison Agency Fee Dollars % Corona ($20.00)-100%Current Fee Amount:20.00$ Fontana ($20.00)-100% Fullerton (20.00)$ -100%Recommended Fee Amount:$1 per lb. Irvine (20.00)$ -100%Recommended Fee Subsidy:#VALUE! Moreno Valley *does not include spay/neuter fees (20.00)$ -100% Ontario (20.00)$ -100% Orange (20.00)$ -100%Fee Change:#VALUE! Pomona (20.00)$ -100% Riverside (20.00)$ -100% San Bernardino (20.00)$ -100% Upland (20.00)$ -100% West Covina (20.00)$ -100% Revised: 08/30/2023 Completed By: Date: Total other costs per unit of service: Comparisons to Proposed Fee Fee Difference Total burdened personnel cost per unit of service: Material and Rental Costs Description Total materials/rental costs per unit of service: Other Costs Description USER FEE COST ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Department/Division User Fee Description Animal Services Dead Animal Disposal Fee This fee is charged for the disposal of deceased owned animals, where the owner does not choose to utilize private cremation services. The Animal Center's current cost for this service is directly related to the weight of an animal and is charged at $1 per lb. The current fee for residents is a set fee of $20, which means the residnet needing this service for a 5lb cat is charged the same as a resident with a 100 lb Mastiff. Fee is changing from a set price to the actual cost for the service, based on the animal's estimated weight as provided by the owner. Labor Rates Position ***COMPLETE ALL FIELDS COLORED TAN, AS APPLICABLE, FOR YOUR FEE*** Fund Account 001 CC104 Description of service, demand, recommended subsidy (if any), and other comments: Personnel Costs Straight Time Labor Rate Fringe Benefit Rate Total Direct Labor Cost Dept/Div Overhead Fully Burdened Cost (per hour) Hours by Position (per unit) Total Labor Cost (per unit) -$ 10% -$ -$ -$ 10% -$ -$ -$ 10% -$ -$ -$ 10% -$ -$ -$ 10% -$ -$ -$ Cost (each) Quantity required Total Cost -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Cost (each) Quantity required Total Cost -$ -$ -$ Total Service Direct Cost:-$ City Admin (CAP) Overhead Rate:0% Total Service Cost/Unit:-$ Comparison Agency Fee Dollars % Corona $0.00 #DIV/0!Current Fee Amount: Fontana $0.00 #DIV/0! Fullerton -$ #DIV/0!Recommended Fee Amount:Actual Cost Irvine -$ #DIV/0!Recommended Fee Subsidy:#VALUE! Moreno Valley *does not include spay/neuter fees -$ #DIV/0! Ontario -$ #DIV/0! Orange -$ #DIV/0!Fee Change:#VALUE! Pomona -$ #DIV/0! Riverside -$ #DIV/0! San Bernardino -$ #DIV/0! Upland -$ #DIV/0! West Covina -$ #DIV/0! Revised: 08/30/2023 Completed By: Date: USER FEE COST ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Department/Division User Fee Description Animal Services Emergency Veterinary Services Fee The Animal Services Department is responsible for providing veterinary care to incoming animals displaying signs of illness or injury. When this occurs after hours or at a time when a staff veterinarian is not on the premise, animals may be sent to an offsite veterinary hospital when the require urgent medical care that cannot be managed by support. This fee will be charged to the responsible party/animal owner at the time of reclamation (when the animal is picked up by their owner). The charge for veterinary services will be based on the actual cost of the services provided by the offsite hospital. This is a new fee being added to the schedule. Labor Rates Position Total burdened personnel cost per unit of service: Material and Rental Costs Description Total materials/rental costs per unit of service: Other Costs Description Total other costs per unit of service: Comparisons to Proposed Fee Fee Difference ***COMPLETE ALL FIELDS COLORED TAN, AS APPLICABLE, FOR YOUR FEE*** Fund Account 001 CC104 Description of service, demand, recommended subsidy (if any), and other comments: Personnel Costs Straight Time Labor Rate Fringe Benefit Rate Total Direct Labor Cost Dept/Div Overhead Fully Burdened Cost (per hour) Hours by Position (per unit) Total Labor Cost (per unit) -$ 10% -$ -$ -$ 10% -$ -$ -$ 10% -$ -$ -$ 10% -$ -$ -$ 10% -$ -$ -$ Cost (each) Quantity required Total Cost -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Cost (each) Quantity required Total Cost -$ -$ -$ Total Service Direct Cost:-$ City Admin (CAP) Overhead Rate:0% Total Service Cost/Unit:-$ Comparison Agency Fee Dollars % Corona ($2.00)-100%Current Fee Amount:2.00$ Fontana ($2.00)-100% Fullerton (2.00)$ -100%Recommended Fee Amount:Market Value Irvine (2.00)$ -100%Recommended Fee Subsidy:#VALUE! Moreno Valley *does not include spay/neuter fees (2.00)$ -100% Ontario (2.00)$ -100% Orange (2.00)$ -100%Fee Change:#VALUE! Pomona (2.00)$ -100% Riverside (2.00)$ -100% San Bernardino (2.00)$ -100% Upland (2.00)$ -100% West Covina (2.00)$ -100% Revised: 08/30/2023 Completed By: Date: USER FEE COST ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Department/Division User Fee Description Animal Services Cardboard Carrier Fee This fee is charged for the purchase of a cardboard carrier to transport adopted or reclaimed small animals (including cats, kittens, rabbits, guinea pigs, etc). This supply is purchased through an Animal Care and Equipment vendor. The fee is being updated to charge the actual cost of the item. Labor Rates Position Total burdened personnel cost per unit of service: Material and Rental Costs Description Total materials/rental costs per unit of service: Other Costs Description Total other costs per unit of service: Comparisons to Proposed Fee Fee Difference ***COMPLETE ALL FIELDS COLORED TAN, AS APPLICABLE, FOR YOUR FEE*** Fund Account 001 CC104 Description of service, demand, recommended subsidy (if any), and other comments: Personnel Costs Straight Time Labor Rate Fringe Benefit Rate Total Direct Labor Cost Dept/Div Overhead Fully Burdened Cost (per hour) Hours by Position (per unit) Total Labor Cost (per unit) -$ 10% -$ -$ -$ 10% -$ -$ -$ 10% -$ -$ -$ 10% -$ -$ -$ 10% -$ -$ -$ Cost (each) Quantity required Total Cost -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Cost (each) Quantity required Total Cost -$ -$ -$ Total Service Direct Cost:-$ City Admin (CAP) Overhead Rate:0% Total Service Cost/Unit:-$ Comparison Agency Fee Dollars % Corona ($2.00)-100%Current Fee Amount:2.00$ Fontana ($2.00)-100% Fullerton (2.00)$ -100%Recommended Fee Amount:Market Value Irvine (2.00)$ -100%Recommended Fee Subsidy:#VALUE! Moreno Valley *does not include spay/neuter fees (2.00)$ -100% Ontario (2.00)$ -100% Orange (2.00)$ -100%Fee Change:#VALUE! Pomona (2.00)$ -100% Riverside (2.00)$ -100% San Bernardino (2.00)$ -100% Upland (2.00)$ -100% West Covina (2.00)$ -100% Revised: 08/30/2023 Completed By: Date: USER FEE COST ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Department/Division User Fee Description Animal Services Feral Cat Box - Deposit Thru the TNR program, participants may be loaned supplies as needed. This fee is a deposit left in the event that the supply is not returned and replacement is needed. This supply is purchased through an Animal Care and Equipment vendor. The fee is being updated to charge the actual cost of the item. Labor Rates Position Total burdened personnel cost per unit of service: Material and Rental Costs Description Total materials/rental costs per unit of service: Other Costs Description Total other costs per unit of service: Comparisons to Proposed Fee Fee Difference ***COMPLETE ALL FIELDS COLORED TAN, AS APPLICABLE, FOR YOUR FEE*** Fund Account 001 CC104 Description of service, demand, recommended subsidy (if any), and other comments: Personnel Costs Straight Time Labor Rate Fringe Benefit Rate Total Direct Labor Cost Dept/Div Overhead Fully Burdened Cost (per hour) Hours by Position (per unit) Total Labor Cost (per unit) -$ 10% -$ -$ -$ 10% -$ -$ -$ 10% -$ -$ -$ 10% -$ -$ -$ 10% -$ -$ -$ Cost (each) Quantity required Total Cost -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Cost (each) Quantity required Total Cost -$ -$ -$ Total Service Direct Cost:-$ City Admin (CAP) Overhead Rate:0% Total Service Cost/Unit:-$ Comparison Agency Fee Dollars % Corona ($2.00)-100%Current Fee Amount:2.00$ Fontana ($2.00)-100% Fullerton (2.00)$ -100%Recommended Fee Amount:Market Value Irvine (2.00)$ -100%Recommended Fee Subsidy:#VALUE! Moreno Valley *does not include spay/neuter fees (2.00)$ -100% Ontario (2.00)$ -100% Orange (2.00)$ -100%Fee Change:#VALUE! Pomona (2.00)$ -100% Riverside (2.00)$ -100% San Bernardino (2.00)$ -100% Upland (2.00)$ -100% West Covina (2.00)$ -100% Revised: 08/30/2023 Completed By: Date: USER FEE COST ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Department/Division User Fee Description Animal Services Feral Cat Transfer Cage - Deposit Thru the TNR program, participants may be loaned supplies as needed. This fee is a deposit left in the event that the supply is not returned and replacement is needed. This supply is purchased through an Animal Care and Equipment vendor. The fee is being updated to charge the actual cost of the item. Labor Rates Position Total burdened personnel cost per unit of service: Material and Rental Costs Description Total materials/rental costs per unit of service: Other Costs Description Total other costs per unit of service: Comparisons to Proposed Fee Fee Difference ***COMPLETE ALL FIELDS COLORED TAN, AS APPLICABLE, FOR YOUR FEE*** Fund Account 001 CC104 Description of service, demand, recommended subsidy (if any), and other comments: Personnel Costs Straight Time Labor Rate Fringe Benefit Rate Total Direct Labor Cost Dept/Div Overhead Fully Burdened Cost (per hour) Hours by Position (per unit) Total Labor Cost (per unit) -$ 10% -$ -$ -$ 10% -$ -$ -$ 10% -$ -$ -$ 10% -$ -$ -$ 10% -$ -$ -$ Cost (each) Quantity required Total Cost -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Cost (each) Quantity required Total Cost -$ -$ -$ Total Service Direct Cost:-$ City Admin (CAP) Overhead Rate:0% Total Service Cost/Unit:-$ Comparison Agency Fee Dollars % Corona ($2.00)-100%Current Fee Amount:2.00$ Fontana ($2.00)-100% Fullerton (2.00)$ -100%Recommended Fee Amount:Market Value Irvine (2.00)$ -100%Recommended Fee Subsidy:#VALUE! Moreno Valley *does not include spay/neuter fees (2.00)$ -100% Ontario (2.00)$ -100% Orange (2.00)$ -100%Fee Change:#VALUE! Pomona (2.00)$ -100% Riverside (2.00)$ -100% San Bernardino (2.00)$ -100% Upland (2.00)$ -100% West Covina (2.00)$ -100% Revised: 08/30/2023 Completed By: Date: USER FEE COST ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Department/Division User Fee Description Animal Services Feral Cat Trap - Deposit Thru the TNR program, participants may be loaned supplies as needed. This fee is a deposit left in the event that the supply is not returned and replacement is needed. This supply is purchased through an Animal Care and Equipment vendor. The fee is being updated to charge the actual cost of the item. Labor Rates Position Total burdened personnel cost per unit of service: Material and Rental Costs Description Total materials/rental costs per unit of service: Other Costs Description Total other costs per unit of service: Comparisons to Proposed Fee Fee Difference ***COMPLETE ALL FIELDS COLORED TAN, AS APPLICABLE, FOR YOUR FEE*** Fund Account 001 CC104 Description of service, demand, recommended subsidy (if any), and other comments: Personnel Costs Straight Time Labor Rate Fringe Benefit Rate Total Direct Labor Cost Dept/Div Overhead Fully Burdened Cost (per hour) Hours by Position (per unit) Total Labor Cost (per unit) -$ 10% -$ -$ -$ 10% -$ -$ -$ 10% -$ -$ -$ 10% -$ -$ -$ 10% -$ -$ -$ Cost (each) Quantity required Total Cost -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Cost (each) Quantity required Total Cost -$ -$ -$ Total Service Direct Cost:-$ City Admin (CAP) Overhead Rate:0% Total Service Cost/Unit:-$ Comparison Agency Fee Dollars % Corona Not published #VALUE! #VALUE!Current Fee Amount:42.00$ Fontana 50.00$ $8.00 19% Fullerton $ 134.00 92.00$ 219%Recommended Fee Amount:50.00$ Irvine Not published #VALUE! #VALUE!Recommended Fee Subsidy:($50.00) Moreno Valley Not published #VALUE! #VALUE! Ontario Not published #VALUE! #VALUE! Orange $ 134.00 92.00$ 219%Fee Change:$8.00 Pomona Not published #VALUE! #VALUE! Riverside Not published #VALUE! #VALUE! San Bernardino Not published #VALUE! #VALUE! Upland $ 110.00 68.00$ 162% West Covina $ 20.00 (22.00)$ -52% Revised: 08/30/2023 Completed By: Date: Total other costs per unit of service: Comparisons to Proposed Fee Fee Difference Total burdened personnel cost per unit of service: Material and Rental Costs Description Total materials/rental costs per unit of service: Other Costs Description USER FEE COST ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Department/Division User Fee Description Animal Services Impound Fee - 1st occurrence within a year Fee is charged to owners reclaiming their pet from the Animal Center after the pets first impoundment withi- a year period. Animal impound fee includes staff time processing the incoming animal, setting up appropriate housing, a basic medical exam, flea & tick prevention, and age appropriate vaccines before discharge. This fee has not been increased since resolution 08-210 in November 2008. Cost of the supplies used and services performed by staff have increased since that time. Labor Rates Position ***COMPLETE ALL FIELDS COLORED TAN, AS APPLICABLE, FOR YOUR FEE*** Fund Account 001 CC104 Description of service, demand, recommended subsidy (if any), and other comments: Personnel Costs Straight Time Labor Rate Fringe Benefit Rate Total Direct Labor Cost Dept/Div Overhead Fully Burdened Cost (per hour) Hours by Position (per unit) Total Labor Cost (per unit) -$ 10% -$ -$ -$ 10% -$ -$ -$ 10% -$ -$ -$ 10% -$ -$ -$ 10% -$ -$ -$ Cost (each) Quantity required Total Cost -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Cost (each) Quantity required Total Cost -$ -$ -$ Total Service Direct Cost:-$ City Admin (CAP) Overhead Rate:0% Total Service Cost/Unit:-$ Comparison Agency Fee Dollars % Corona Not published #VALUE! #VALUE!Current Fee Amount:98.00$ Fontana Not published #VALUE! #VALUE! Fullerton Not published #VALUE! #VALUE!Recommended Fee Amount:105.00$ Irvine Not published #VALUE! #VALUE!Recommended Fee Subsidy:($105.00) Moreno Valley Not published #VALUE! #VALUE! Ontario Not published #VALUE! #VALUE! Orange Not published #VALUE! #VALUE!Fee Change:$7.00 Pomona Not published #VALUE! #VALUE! Riverside Not published #VALUE! #VALUE! San Bernardino Not published #VALUE! #VALUE! Upland $ 110.00 12.00$ 12% West Covina $ 60.00 (38.00)$ -39% Revised: 08/30/2023 Completed By: Date: USER FEE COST ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Department/Division User Fee Description Animal Services Impound Fee - 3rd occurrence within a year Fee is charged to owners reclaiming their pet from the Animal Center after the pets third impoundment within a year period. This progressive fee increases each time an animal enters the Animal Center within a 1 year period. Animal impound fee includes staff time processing the incoming animal, setting up appropriate housing, a basic medical exam, flea & tick prevention, and age appropriate vaccines before discharge. This fee has not been increased since resolution 14-223 effective July 1, 2015. Cost of the supplies used and services performed by staff have increased since that time. Labor Rates Position Total burdened personnel cost per unit of service: Material and Rental Costs Description Total materials/rental costs per unit of service: Other Costs Description Total other costs per unit of service: Comparisons to Proposed Fee Fee Difference ***COMPLETE ALL FIELDS COLORED TAN, AS APPLICABLE, FOR YOUR FEE*** Fund Account 001 CC104 Description of service, demand, recommended subsidy (if any), and other comments: Personnel Costs Straight Time Labor Rate Fringe Benefit Rate Total Direct Labor Cost Dept/Div Overhead Fully Burdened Cost (per hour) Hours by Position (per unit) Total Labor Cost (per unit) -$ 10% -$ -$ -$ 10% -$ -$ -$ 10% -$ -$ -$ 10% -$ -$ -$ 10% -$ -$ -$ Cost (each) Quantity required Total Cost -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Cost (each) Quantity required Total Cost -$ -$ -$ Total Service Direct Cost:-$ City Admin (CAP) Overhead Rate:0% Total Service Cost/Unit:-$ Comparison Agency Fee Dollars % Corona $0.00 #DIV/0!Current Fee Amount:-$ Fontana $0.00 #DIV/0! Fullerton -$ #DIV/0!Recommended Fee Amount:10.00$ Irvine -$ #DIV/0!Recommended Fee Subsidy:($10.00) Moreno Valley -$ #DIV/0! Ontario -$ #DIV/0! Orange -$ #DIV/0!Fee Change:$10.00 Pomona -$ #DIV/0! Riverside -$ #DIV/0! San Bernardino -$ #DIV/0! Upland -$ #DIV/0! West Covina -$ #DIV/0! Revised: 08/30/2023 Completed By: Date: USER FEE COST ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Department/Division User Fee Description Animal Services Non-Resident Service Fee Animal Services has seen an increase in the number of non-residents utilizing services. This fee would be charged to non-Rancho Cucamonga residents requesting to use services, such as brining in stray animals, microchipping, deceased pet disposal, etc. This fee is similar to the non-resident fee charged by other departments to participate in events and programs. Labor Rates Position Total burdened personnel cost per unit of service: Material and Rental Costs Description Total materials/rental costs per unit of service: Other Costs Description Total other costs per unit of service: Comparisons to Proposed Fee Fee Difference ***COMPLETE ALL FIELDS COLORED TAN, AS APPLICABLE, FOR YOUR FEE*** Fund Account 001 CC104 Description of service, demand, recommended subsidy (if any), and other comments: Personnel Costs Straight Time Labor Rate Fringe Benefit Rate Total Direct Labor Cost Dept/Div Overhead Fully Burdened Cost (per hour) Hours by Position (per unit) Total Labor Cost (per unit) -$ 10% -$ -$ -$ 10% -$ -$ -$ 10% -$ -$ -$ 10% -$ -$ -$ 10% -$ -$ -$ Cost (each) Quantity required Total Cost -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Cost (each) Quantity required Total Cost -$ -$ -$ Total Service Direct Cost:-$ City Admin (CAP) Overhead Rate:0% Total Service Cost/Unit:-$ Comparison Agency Fee Dollars % Corona Service Not Offered #VALUE! #VALUE!Current Fee Amount:35.00$ Fontana 50.00$ $15.00 43% Fullerton $ 147.00 112.00$ 320%Recommended Fee Amount:50.00$ Irvine Service Not Offered #VALUE! #VALUE!Recommended Fee Subsidy:($50.00) Moreno Valley *does not include spay/neuter fees Service Not Offered #VALUE! #VALUE! Ontario Service Not Offered #VALUE! #VALUE! Orange $ 132.00 97.00$ 277%Fee Change:$15.00 Pomona Service Not Offered #VALUE! #VALUE! Riverside $ 50.00 15.00$ 43% San Bernardino Service Not Offered #VALUE! #VALUE! Upland Service Not Offered #VALUE! #VALUE! West Covina Service Not Offered #VALUE! #VALUE! Revised: 08/30/2023 Completed By: Date: Total other costs per unit of service: Comparisons to Proposed Fee Fee Difference Total burdened personnel cost per unit of service: Material and Rental Costs Description Total materials/rental costs per unit of service: Other Costs Description USER FEE COST ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Department/Division User Fee Description Animal Services Owner Request for Euthanasia Fee is charged to those who are requesting humane euthanasia be performed at the Rancho Cucamonga Animal Center. This service is provided for Rancho Cucamonga residents whose pet is experiencing a medical condition that requires humane euthanasia or where euthanasia is necessary due to a fatal diagnosis. Price increase is due to the rising cost of performing this service for all animals (including dogs, cats, rabbits, and other animals as requested). Most cities surveyed do not offer this service to their residents. This fee has been in place since Resolution 06-142; however it is missing from the current fee list. This fee was currently separated by Dog ($35) and Cat ($25); however the cost to perform the service is the same regardless of species. The department recommends combining the fee into one fee for the service. Labor Rates Position ***COMPLETE ALL FIELDS COLORED TAN, AS APPLICABLE, FOR YOUR FEE*** Fund Account 001 CC104 Description of service, demand, recommended subsidy (if any), and other comments: Personnel Costs Straight Time Labor Rate Fringe Benefit Rate Total Direct Labor Cost Dept/Div Overhead Fully Burdened Cost (per hour) Hours by Position (per unit) Total Labor Cost (per unit) -$ 10% -$ -$ -$ 10% -$ -$ -$ 10% -$ -$ -$ 10% -$ -$ -$ 10% -$ -$ -$ Cost (each) Quantity required Total Cost -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Cost (each) Quantity required Total Cost -$ -$ -$ Total Service Direct Cost:-$ City Admin (CAP) Overhead Rate:0% Total Service Cost/Unit:-$ Comparison Agency Fee Dollars % Corona Service Not Offered #VALUE! #VALUE!Current Fee Amount:40.00$ Fontana Service Not Offered #VALUE! #VALUE! Fullerton $ 134.00 94.00$ 235%Recommended Fee Amount:90.00$ Irvine *Sliding scale from 100 - 250 depending on vaccine/sterlization 100.00$ 60.00$ 150%Recommended Fee Subsidy:($90.00) Moreno Valley Service Not Offered #VALUE! #VALUE! Ontario Service Not Offered #VALUE! #VALUE! Orange Service Not Offered #VALUE! #VALUE!Fee Change:$50.00 Pomona Service Not Offered #VALUE! #VALUE! Riverside $ 220.00 180.00$ 450% San Bernardino Service Not Offered #VALUE! #VALUE! Upland *Increase to $175 for unaltered/unvaccinated 100.00$ 60.00$ 150% West Covina *Increased based on if delivered to shelter or picked up. Up to $50 10.00$ (30.00)$ -75% Revised: 08/30/2023 Completed By: Date: Total other costs per unit of service: Comparisons to Proposed Fee Fee Difference Total burdened personnel cost per unit of service: Material and Rental Costs Description Total materials/rental costs per unit of service: Other Costs Description USER FEE COST ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Department/Division User Fee Description Animal Services Pet Surrender - Dog, Cat, Rabbit Fee is charged to those who are requesting to surrender their dog, cat, or rabbit to the Rancho Cucamonga Animal Center. This service is provided for Rancho Cucamonga residents who can no longer keep their pet and are unable to rehome them on their own. The pet is then house, fed & watered, provided enrichment and medical care for the time period in which it takes to find that animal a new adoptable home, rescue placement, or other outcome decision that may be needed due to behavior or medical condition. The fee is being increased to cover 5 days boarding fee, which is the minimum amount of time most animals are house. More often, their length of stay is much longer. Most cities surveyed do not offer this service to their residents. This fee was currently separated by Dog ($40) and Cat or Rabbit ($30); however the cost of care and boarding is the same amongst these species. The department recommends combining the fee into one fee for the service. Labor Rates Position ***COMPLETE ALL FIELDS COLORED TAN, AS APPLICABLE, FOR YOUR FEE*** Fund Account 001 CC104 Description of service, demand, recommended subsidy (if any), and other comments: Personnel Costs Straight Time Labor Rate Fringe Benefit Rate Total Direct Labor Cost Dept/Div Overhead Fully Burdened Cost (per hour) Hours by Position (per unit) Total Labor Cost (per unit) -$ 10% -$ -$ -$ 10% -$ -$ -$ 10% -$ -$ -$ 10% -$ -$ -$ 10% -$ -$ -$ Cost (each) Quantity required Total Cost -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Cost (each) Quantity required Total Cost -$ -$ -$ Total Service Direct Cost:-$ City Admin (CAP) Overhead Rate:0% Total Service Cost/Unit:-$ Comparison Agency Fee Dollars % Corona Service Not Offered #VALUE! #VALUE!Current Fee Amount: Fontana Service Not Offered #VALUE! #VALUE! Fullerton Service Not Offered #VALUE! #VALUE!Recommended Fee Amount:Variable Irvine Service Not Offered #VALUE! #VALUE!Recommended Fee Subsidy:#VALUE! Moreno Valley Service Not Offered #VALUE! #VALUE! Ontario Service Not Offered #VALUE! #VALUE! Orange Service Not Offered #VALUE! #VALUE!Fee Change:#VALUE! Pomona Service Not Offered #VALUE! #VALUE! Riverside Service Not Offered #VALUE! #VALUE! San Bernardino Service Not Offered #VALUE! #VALUE! Upland Service Not Offered #VALUE! #VALUE! West Covina Service Not Offered #VALUE! #VALUE! Revised: 08/30/2023 Completed By: Date: USER FEE COST ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Department/Division User Fee Description Animal Services Pet Surrender - Exotic, Livestock Fee is charged to those who are requesting to surrender exotic or livestock the Rancho Cucamonga Animal Center. This service is provided for Rancho Cucamonga residents who can no longer keep their pet and are unable to rehome them on their own. The pet is then house, fed & watered, provided enrichment and medical care for the time period in which it takes to find that animal a new adoptable home, rescue placement, or other outcome decision that may be needed due to behavior or medical condition. This fee is new and will vary dependent on the tipe of animal and cost of care required for that animal. Exotic and livestock species require specialized care and housing that is dependent on species, age, and other factors. Most cities surveyed do not offer this service to their residents. Labor Rates Position Total burdened personnel cost per unit of service: Material and Rental Costs Description Total materials/rental costs per unit of service: Other Costs Description Total other costs per unit of service: Comparisons to Proposed Fee Fee Difference ***COMPLETE ALL FIELDS COLORED TAN, AS APPLICABLE, FOR YOUR FEE*** Fund Account 001 CC104 Description of service, demand, recommended subsidy (if any), and other comments: Personnel Costs Straight Time Labor Rate Fringe Benefit Rate Total Direct Labor Cost Dept/Div Overhead Fully Burdened Cost (per hour) Hours by Position (per unit) Total Labor Cost (per unit) -$ 10% -$ -$ -$ 10% -$ -$ -$ 10% -$ -$ -$ 10% -$ -$ -$ 10% -$ -$ -$ Cost (each) Quantity required Total Cost -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Cost (each) Quantity required Total Cost -$ -$ -$ Total Service Direct Cost:-$ City Admin (CAP) Overhead Rate:0% Total Service Cost/Unit:-$ Comparison Agency Fee Dollars % Corona Service Not Offered #VALUE! #VALUE!Current Fee Amount:5.00$ Fontana Service Not Offered #VALUE! #VALUE! Fullerton Varies if intake is approved by staff #VALUE! #VALUE!Recommended Fee Amount:20.00$ Irvine Service Not Offered #VALUE! #VALUE!Recommended Fee Subsidy:($20.00) Moreno Valley Service Not Offered #VALUE! #VALUE! Ontario Service Not Offered #VALUE! #VALUE! Orange Service Not Offered #VALUE! #VALUE!Fee Change:$15.00 Pomona Service Not Offered #VALUE! #VALUE! Riverside $ 20.00 15.00$ 300% San Bernardino Service Not Offered #VALUE! #VALUE! Upland Service Not Offered #VALUE! #VALUE! West Covina *Increased based on if delivered to shelter or picked up. Up to $50 10.00$ 5.00$ 100% Revised: 08/30/2023 Completed By: Date: Total other costs per unit of service: Comparisons to Proposed Fee Fee Difference Total burdened personnel cost per unit of service: Material and Rental Costs Description Total materials/rental costs per unit of service: Other Costs Description USER FEE COST ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Department/Division User Fee Description Animal Services Pet Surrender - Small Animal Fee is charged to those who are requesting to surrender their small animal (guinea pig, hamster, mouse, rat, etc.) to the Rancho Cucamonga Animal Center. This service is provided for Rancho Cucamonga residents who can no longer keep their pet and are unable to rehome them on their own. The pet is then house, fed & watered, provided enrichment and medical care for the time period in which it takes to find that animal a new adoptable home, rescue placement, or other outcome decision that may be needed due to behavior or medical condition. The fee is being increased to cover 5 days boarding fee, which is the minimum amount of time most animals are house. More often, their length of stay is much longer. Most cities surveyed do not offer this service to their residents. This fee was currently separated by Guinea Pig ($20) and Hamster, Mouse, Rat ($5); however the cost of care and boarding is the same amongst these species. The department recommends combining the fee into one fee for the service. Labor Rates Position ***COMPLETE ALL FIELDS COLORED TAN, AS APPLICABLE, FOR YOUR FEE*** Fund Account 001 402 Description of service, demand, recommended subsidy (if any), and other comments: Personnel Costs Straight Time Labor Rate Fringe Benefit Rate Total Direct Labor Cost Dept/Div Overhead Fully Burdened Cost (per hour) Hours by Position (per unit) Total Labor Cost (per unit) 18.62$ 1.45% 18.89$ 10% 20.78$ 0.5 10.39$ 20.98$ 30.22% 27.32$ 10% 30.05$ 0.25 7.51$ 34.70$ 50.00% 52.05$ 10% 57.26$ 0.25 14.31$ 37.03$ 50.00% 55.55$ 10% 61.10$ 0.25 15.27$ -$ 10% -$ -$ 47.49$ Cost (each) Quantity required Total Cost -$ 0 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Cost (each) Quantity required Total Cost -$ -$ -$ Total Service Direct Cost:47.49$ City Admin (CAP) Overhead Rate:0% Total Service Cost/Unit:47.49$ Comparison Agency Fee Dollars % Chino Hills 50.00$ -$ 0%Current Fee Amount: Corona 50.00$ -$ 0% Diamond Bar $ 120.00 70.00$ 140%Recommended Fee Amount:50.00$ Fontana Included w/Rental Fee Recommended Fee Subsidy:($2.51) Irvine $ 50.00 -$ 0% Fee Change:$50.00 Revised: 08/30/2023 Completed By: Date: 12/19/2023LaChelle Sutphen Total other costs per unit of service: Comparisons to Proposed Fee Fee Difference Total burdened personnel cost per unit of service: Material and Rental Costs Description Total materials/rental costs per unit of service: Other Costs Description CS Coordinator USER FEE COST ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Department/Division User Fee Description CSD/CP and VGCC Rentals Division Facility Equipment - Portable TVs Portable television screens will be used to enhance events requiring visual and/or auditory presentations. TVs are favored by clients for their user-friendly interface and their capability to deliver improved audio quality for video presentations. Unlike traditional portable projectors, which necessitate a significant reduction in usable event space and the addition of separate audio systems, portable TVs offer a seamless and efficient solution for presentation needs. Labor Rates Position Recreation Leader II CS Specialist CS Tech ***COMPLETE ALL FIELDS COLORED TAN, AS APPLICABLE, FOR YOUR FEE*** Fund Account 1 407 Description of service, demand, recommended subsidy (if any), and other comments: Personnel Costs Straight Time Labor Rate Fringe Benefit Rate Total Direct Labor Cost Dept/Div. Overhead Fully Burdened Cost (per hour) Hours by Position (per unit) Total Labor Cost (per unit) 18.62$ 1.46% 18.89$ 10% 20.78$ 0.25 5.20$ 21.73$ 30.22% 28.30$ 10% 31.13$ 0.25 7.78$ -$ 10% -$ -$ -$ 10% -$ -$ -$ 10% -$ -$ 12.98$ Cost (each) Quantity required Total Cost 3.30$ 1 3.30$ -$ -$ -$ 3.30$ Cost (each) Quantity required Total Cost 17% N/A 2.77$ -$ -$ 2.77$ Total Service Direct Cost:19.04$ City Admin (CAP) Overhead Rate:0% Total Service Cost/Unit:19.04$ Comparison Agency Fee Dollars % Rock N Roll Rentals: $374 per weekend - 4 handhelds w/ receiver 46.75$ 21.75$ 87%Current Fee Amount:50.00$ Flag Systems Inc.75.00$ 50.00$ 200% Rentex - 1 handheld, 1 lavalier with receiver $ 95.00 70.00$ 280%Recommended Fee Amount:25.00$ Central Park - Shure ULXD 25.00$ -$ 0%Recommended Fee Subsidy:($5.96) Fee Change:($25.00) Revised: 08/30/2023 Completed By: Date: 12/13/2023 Total materials/rental costs per unit of service: Other Costs Description CSD Admin Overhead (charged to personnel/material/rental costs) Facility Overhead (Charge included with rental fee) Total other costs per unit of service: Comparisons to Proposed Fee Fee Difference Johnette Maddox Labor Rates Position Part-time nons-PERSable Part-time PERSable Total burdened personnel cost per unit of service: Material and Rental Costs Description 9-volt battery Wireless handheld or lavalier microphones are available for rent in Celebration Hall, Studio Rehearsal Hall, and Imagination Courtyard. The equipment currently available for rent is a Share ULXP4 which is no longer produced. Central Park offers the latest Shure ULXD model for just $25 each. To maintain competitive pricing that reflects both equipment quality and operational costs, a fee reduction is recommended to align with Central Park's pricing. This would ensure coverage of staff time for reservation handling, setup, and materials, while also allowing for future equipment upgrades. To Be combined with all CSD facilities in the appropriate section. USER FEE COST ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Department/Division User Fee Description CSD/Cultural Arts Microphone (Wireless) ***COMPLETE ALL FIELDS COLORED TAN, AS APPLICABLE, FOR YOUR FEE*** Fund Account 001 406 Description of service, demand, recommended subsidy (if any), and other comments: Personnel Costs Straight Time Labor Rate Fringe Benefit Rate Total Direct Labor Cost Dept/Div Overhead Fully Burdened Cost (per hour) Hours by Position (per unit) Total Labor Cost (per unit) 37.02$ 50.00% 55.53$ 10% 61.08$ 3 183.25$ 18.62$ 1.45% 18.89$ 10% 20.78$ 8 166.23$ -$ 10% -$ -$ -$ 10% -$ -$ -$ 10% -$ -$ 349.48$ Cost (each) Quantity required Total Cost -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Cost (each) Quantity required Total Cost 17% N/A 59.41$ 0.35$ 2 0.70$ 60.11$ Total Service Direct Cost:409.59$ City Admin (CAP) Overhead Rate:0% Total Service Cost/Unit:409.59$ Comparison Agency Fee Dollars % LA County (Rate regardless of sq ft)2,735.00$ 1,735.00$ 174%Current Fee Amount:700.00$ OC Fair Grounds (Rate regardless of sq ft): 98k sq ft - 417k sq ft 2,150.00$ 1,150.00$ 115% Gilbert HS Anaheim $ 627.00 (373.00)$ -37%Recommended Fee Amount:1,000.00$ 0%Recommended Fee Subsidy:($590.41) 0% 0% 0%Fee Change:$300.00 0% Revised: 08/30/2023 Completed By: Date: 12.14.23 Facility Overhead Total other costs per unit of service: Comparisons to Proposed Fee Fee Difference Jenny Hanlon CSD Admin Overhead (charged to personnel/material/rental costs) Total burdened personnel cost per unit of service: Material and Rental Costs Description Total materials/rental costs per unit of service: Other Costs Description USER FEE COST ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Department/Division User Fee Description CSD/Special Events Parking Lot A, B, C, G, H Renting parking lots at the Epicenter provides an efficient solution for large-scale events. The recommended rate is per day per lot and would be for a rental without the Stadium. This breakdown includes staff time for reservation handling, communication, and coverage of the event. There are limited comparable options found in research. Comparisons were made with Anaheim's Gilbert HS, OC Fairgrounds, and LA County. This form reflects the uniform pricing for Lots A, B, C, G, and H, all ranging from 72,000 to 90,000 square feet. Adding Parking Lot H (sports center) to this list is proposed due to its comparable size and pricing structure. If the stadium is rented in conjunction with any parking lot, the price would be reduced by 25%. Labor Rates Position CS Coordinator Recreation Leader II ***COMPLETE ALL FIELDS COLORED TAN, AS APPLICABLE, FOR YOUR FEE*** Fund Account 001 406 Description of service, demand, recommended subsidy (if any), and other comments: Personnel Costs Straight Time Labor Rate Fringe Benefit Rate Total Direct Labor Cost Dept/Div Overhead Fully Burdened Cost (per hour) Hours by Position (per unit) Total Labor Cost (per unit) 37.02$ 50.00% 55.53$ 10% 61.08$ 3 183.25$ 18.62$ 1.45% 18.89$ 10% 20.78$ 8 166.23$ -$ 10% -$ -$ -$ 10% -$ -$ -$ 10% -$ -$ 349.48$ Cost (each) Quantity required Total Cost -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Cost (each) Quantity required Total Cost 17% N/A 59.41$ 0.35$ 1 0.35$ 59.76$ Total Service Direct Cost:409.24$ City Admin (CAP) Overhead Rate:0% Total Service Cost/Unit:409.24$ Comparison Agency Fee Dollars % LA County (Rate regardless of sq ft)2,735.00$ $2,235.00 298%Current Fee Amount:500.00$ OC Fair Grounds (Rate regardless of sq ft): 98k sq ft - 417k sq ft 2,150.00$ $1,650.00 220% Gilbert HS Anaheim $ 627.00 $127.00 17%Recommended Fee Amount:750.00$ Recommended Fee Subsidy:($340.76) Fee Change:$250.00 Revised: 08/30/2023 Completed By: Date: 12.14.23 Facility Overhead Total other costs per unit of service: Comparisons to Proposed Fee Fee Difference Jenny Hanlon CSD Admin Overhead (charged to personnel/material/rental costs) Total burdened personnel cost per unit of service: Material and Rental Costs Description Total materials/rental costs per unit of service: Other Costs Description USER FEE COST ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Department/Division User Fee Description CSD/Special Events Parking Lot D Renting parking lots at the Epicenter provides an efficient solution for large-scale events. Parking lot D is approximately 1/2 the size of lots A, B, C, G and H. The recommended rate is per day per lot and would be for a rental without the Stadium. This breakdown includes staff time for reservation handling, communication, and coverage of the event. There are limited comparable options found in research. Comparisons were made with Anaheim's Gilbert HS, OC Fairgrounds, and LA County. This lot has always been at a lower rate. If the stadium is rented in conjunction with the parking lot, the price would be reduced by 25%. Labor Rates Position CS Coordinator Recreation Leader II ***COMPLETE ALL FIELDS COLORED TAN, AS APPLICABLE, FOR YOUR FEE*** Fund Account 001 405 Description of service, demand, recommended subsidy (if any), and other comments: Personnel Costs Straight Time Labor Rate Fringe Benefit Rate Total Direct Labor Cost Dept/Div Overhead Fully Burdened Cost (per hour) Hours by Position (per unit) Total Labor Cost (per unit) 21.73$ 30.22% 28.30$ 10% 31.13$ 1 31.13$ 37.02$ 50.00% 55.53$ 10% 61.08$ 1 61.08$ -$ 10% -$ -$ -$ 10% -$ -$ -$ 10% -$ -$ 92.21$ Cost (each) Quantity required Total Cost -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Cost (each) Quantity required Total Cost 17% N/A 15.68$ 5.22$ 1.5 7.83$ 23.51$ Total Service Direct Cost:115.72$ City Admin (CAP) Overhead Rate:0% Total Service Cost/Unit:115.72$ Comparison Agency Fee Dollars % Chino Hills 40.00$ (10.00)$ -20%Current Fee Amount:40.30$ Lake Elsinore 45.00$ (5.00)$ -10% Corona $ 45.00 (5.00)$ -10%Recommended Fee Amount:50.00$ Upland 180.00$ 130.00$ 260%Recommended Fee Subsidy:$65.72 Irvine $ 75.00 25.00$ 50% Fee Change:$9.70 Revised: 08/30/2023 Completed By: Date: 12/14/2023 USER FEE COST ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Department/Division User Fee Description CSD/Special Events Epicenter Sports Field Rental The Epicenter sports fields are different than the other sports fields in the City. These fields are regularly maintained by the Public Works Department and have a higher rental rate due to the standard of upkeep and quality of fields. This breakdown includes staff time for reservation handling, communication, and pre-rental preparation. The department currently offers block rates for the fields and is recommending to move to an hourly rate. An all-day rental at $367/10hrs (the average length of a tournament) is $36.70 an hour. The official recommendation is to change to a $45 hourly rate and remove the City Holiday rate. Removing the City Holiday rates is necessary due to impacts to Public Works. (R.S.) This is the base rate (Group 4). Other group rates calculated according to methodology for other Community Fields. (For Groups 2 & 3 Weekday and Weekend rates, $5.00/$10.00 subtracted from Group 4 Base Rate; for Groups 2 & 3 City Holiday Hours 1.5 times Weekday and Weekend rates; All Group 5 calculated at 125% of Group 4 - Base Rate). "No Use" for Group 1; Group 1 customers must pay Group 2 rates. Labor Rates Position CS Specialist CS Coordinator CSD Admin Overhead (charged to personnel/material/rental costs) Total burdened personnel cost per unit of service: Material and Rental Costs Description Total materials/rental costs per unit of service: Other Costs Description Facility Overhead Total other costs per unit of service: Comparisons to Proposed Fee Fee Difference Jenny Hanlon ***COMPLETE ALL FIELDS COLORED TAN, AS APPLICABLE, FOR YOUR FEE*** Fund Account 001 405 Description of service, demand, recommended subsidy (if any), and other comments: Personnel Costs Straight Time Labor Rate Fringe Benefit Rate Total Direct Labor Cost Dept/Div Overhead Fully Burdened Cost (per hour) Hours by Position (per unit) Total Labor Cost (per unit) 21.73$ 30.22% 28.30$ 10% 31.13$ 1 31.13$ 37.02$ 50.00% 55.53$ 10% 61.08$ 1 61.08$ -$ 10% -$ -$ -$ 10% -$ -$ -$ 10% -$ -$ 92.21$ Cost (each) Quantity required Total Cost -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Cost (each) Quantity required Total Cost 17% N/A 15.68$ 5.22$ 1.5 7.83$ 23.51$ Total Service Direct Cost:115.72$ City Admin (CAP) Overhead Rate:0% Total Service Cost/Unit:115.72$ Comparison Agency Fee Dollars % Chino Hills 40.00$ (35.00)$ -47%Current Fee Amount:60.50$ Lake Elsinore 45.00$ (30.00)$ -40% Corona $ 45.00 (30.00)$ -40%Recommended Fee Amount:75.00$ Upland 180.00$ 105.00$ 140%Recommended Fee Subsidy:$40.72 Irvine $ 75.00 -$ 0% Fee Change:$14.50 Revised: 08/30/2023 Completed By: Date: 10/09/2024 Facility Overhead Total other costs per unit of service: Comparisons to Proposed Fee Fee Difference Ryan Samples CSD Admin Overhead (charged to personnel/material/rental costs) Total burdened personnel cost per unit of service: Material and Rental Costs Description Total materials/rental costs per unit of service: Other Costs Description USER FEE COST ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Department/Division User Fee Description CSD/Special Events Epicenter Sports Field Rental - City Holiday Hours The Epicenter sports fields are different than the other sports fields in the City. These fields are regularly maintained by the Public Works Department and have a higher rental rate due to the standard of upkeep and quality of fields. This breakdown includes staff time for reservation handling, communication, and pre-rental preparation. The department currently offers block rates for the fields and is recommending to move to an hourly rate. An all-day rental at $367/10hrs (the average length of a tournament) is $36.70 an hour. The official recommendation is to change to a $45 hourly rate (base rate) and change the Holiday Hours base rate to 1.5 times the Weekday and Weekend Hours baserate, $68.00/hour, to be consistent with current pricing structure. Fees for the other groups would be calculated with the same formula. Group 2/3/5 Epicenter Sports Field Rental rates x 1.5 = City Holiday Rate. No Use for Group 1; Group 1 customers must pay Group 2 rates. +Any additional staff required to manage/supervise the rental will be in addition to the hourly rental rate. Labor Rates Position CS Specialist CS Coordinator ***COMPLETE ALL FIELDS COLORED TAN, AS APPLICABLE, FOR YOUR FEE*** Fund Account 001 407 Description of service, demand, recommended subsidy (if any), and other comments: Personnel Costs Straight Time Labor Rate Fringe Benefit Rate Total Direct Labor Cost Dept/Div Overhead Fully Burdened Cost (per hour) Hours by Position (per unit) Total Labor Cost (per unit) 18.62$ 1.45% 18.89$ 10% 20.78$ 1 20.78$ 21.73$ 30.22% 28.30$ 10% 31.13$ 0.25 7.78$ -$ 10% -$ -$ -$ 10% -$ -$ -$ 10% -$ -$ 28.56$ Cost (each) Quantity required Total Cost 5.00$ 1 5.00$ -$ -$ -$ 5.00$ Cost (each) Quantity required Total Cost 17% N/A 5.71$ -$ -$ 5.71$ Total Service Direct Cost:39.27$ City Admin (CAP) Overhead Rate:0% Total Service Cost/Unit:39.27$ Comparison Agency Fee Dollars % Classe Party Rentals 50.00$ 40.00$ 400%Current Fee Amount: All Seasons Party Rentals 22.00$ 12.00$ 120% All Occasion Rentals $ 20.00 10.00$ 100%Recommended Fee Amount:10.00$ Recommended Fee Subsidy:$29.27 Fee Change:$10.00 Revised: 08/30/2023 Completed By: Date: 01/09/2024 Facility Overhead (Charge included with rental fee) Total other costs per unit of service: Comparisons to Proposed Fee Fee Difference Katy Cox CSD Admin Overhead (charged to personnel/material/rental costs) Total burdened personnel cost per unit of service: Material and Rental Costs Description Rope Cleaner ($25 bottle gives 5 uses) Total materials/rental costs per unit of service: Other Costs Description USER FEE COST ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Department/Division User Fee Description CSD - Front of House (VGCC)Black Stanchions Reservations can be made for black rope stanchions, offering a versatile crowd-control solution for events. The accompanying flat fee covers staff setup and ongoing maintenance. Each rental is charged by rope and includes stanchion poles. Any additional rope rented incurs a separate flat fee. Labor Rates Position Rec Leader II Specialist ***COMPLETE ALL FIELDS COLORED TAN, AS APPLICABLE, FOR YOUR FEE*** Fund Account 1 407 Description of service, demand, recommended subsidy (if any), and other comments: Personnel Costs Straight Time Labor Rate Fringe Benefit Rate Total Direct Labor Cost Dept/Div. Overhead Fully Burdened Cost (per hour) Hours by Position (per unit) Total Labor Cost (per unit) 19.77$ 0.00% 19.77$ 10% 21.75$ 1 21.75$ 21.73$ 0.00% 21.73$ 10% 23.90$ 1 23.90$ 18.62$ 1.45% 18.89$ 10% 20.78$ 1 20.78$ 21.73$ 30.22% 28.30$ 10% 31.13$ 1 31.13$ -$ 0.00% -$ 10% -$ 0 -$ 97.56$ Cost (each) Quantity required Total Cost 13.00$ 1 13.00$ 22.00$ 1 22.00$ 15.00$ 0 -$ -$ 0 -$ 35.00$ Cost (each) Quantity required Total Cost 17% N/A 22.53$ -$ -$ 22.53$ Total Service Direct Cost:155.09$ City Admin (CAP) Overhead Rate:0% Total Service Cost/Unit:155.09$ Comparison Agency Fee Dollars % Cerritos Center for Performing Arts Does not charge a fee because their rental fees are on the higher end to cover these costs. -$ -100%Current Fee Amount:-$ Old Town Temecula Community Theatre Does not charge a fee for this. -$ -100% Pasadena Playhouse Does not charge a fee for this. -$ #DIV/0!Recommended Fee Amount: Actual Cost+17% (CSD Admin Overhead) #DIV/0!Recommended Fee Subsidy:#VALUE! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0!Fee Change:#VALUE! #DIV/0! Revised: 08/30/2023 Completed By: Date: 12/13/2023 Expendables are charged per show anytime a public performance occurs inside the Lewis Family Playhouse. Expendables cover the cost of items used during the time the rental is on-site. Expendables could include gel, gaffers tape, hospitality items such as mints, hygiene products, etc. These items are either used in the execution of each show or during the client's time onsite to ensure their comfort. Expendables could also include excessive clean up of confetti, snow, etc. USER FEE COST ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Department/Division User Fee Description CSD/ Cultural Arts NEW - Expendables - Playhouse Gaffers' Tape Labor Rates Position Tech I Tech II Rec Leader II Specialist Total burdened personnel cost per unit of service: Material and Rental Costs Description Sheet of Gel: Range from $11-$15 per sheet Johnette Maddox Hospitality Items: Cough Drops, Mints, Toothbrushes, Toothpaste, Toothpicks, Toilet Spray, Lotion, Chapstick, Personal Hygiene, Feminine Prod. Total materials/rental costs per unit of service: Other Costs Description CSD Admin Overhead (charged to personnel/material/rental costs) Facility Overhead (Charge included with rental fee) Total other costs per unit of service: Comparisons to Proposed Fee Fee Difference ***COMPLETE ALL FIELDS COLORED TAN, AS APPLICABLE, FOR YOUR FEE*** Fund Account 1 407 Description of service, demand, recommended subsidy (if any), and other comments: Personnel Costs Straight Time Labor Rate Fringe Benefit Rate Total Direct Labor Cost Dept/Div. Overhead Fully Burdened Cost (per hour) Hours by Position (per unit) Total Labor Cost (per unit) 19.77$ 1.45% 20.06$ 10% 22.06$ 8 176.50$ 21.73$ 30.22% 28.30$ 10% 31.13$ 4 124.51$ 32.36$ 50.00% 48.54$ 10% 53.39$ 2 106.79$ 37.02$ 50.00% 55.53$ 10% 61.08$ 0.25 15.27$ -$ 10% -$ -$ 423.06$ Cost (each) Quantity required Total Cost 22.00$ 3 66.00$ -$ -$ -$ 66.00$ Cost (each) Quantity required Total Cost 17% N/A 83.14$ -$ -$ 83.14$ Total Service Direct Cost:572.20$ City Admin (CAP) Overhead Rate:0% Total Service Cost/Unit:572.20$ Comparison Agency Fee Dollars % Mister Marley $250.00 per week, 40'x6'= 240 sq. ft.1,250.00$ 500.00$ 67%Current Fee Amount: Great Mats 40'x32' = 1,280 sq. ft. $ 6,400.00 5,650.00$ 753% Mala Shock Dance, per week $50 per week, 5'x44' = 220 sq. ft.300.00$ (450.00)$ -60%Recommended Fee Amount:750.00$ Recommended Fee Subsidy:($177.80) Fee Change:$750.00 Revised: 08/30/2023 Completed By: Date: 12/13/2023 Director Comments Response Full-time: Community Services Coordinator USER FEE COST ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Department/Division User Fee Description CSD/ Cultural Arts NEW - Marley Flooring Marley flooring installation (40' x 32' or 1,280 sq ft.) is available for rental, providing a safe and controlled surface that is ideal for dance performances. This preferred performance vinyl optimizes technique and allows for improved control during turns and movements. The flat fee encompasses staff time for reservation handling, setup, teardown, on-site labor, and all necessary materials. Labor Rates Position Part-time nons-PERSable: Theatre Technician I x4 Part-time PERSable: Theatre Technician II x2 Full-time: Theatre Technician III x1 CSD Admin Overhead (charged to personnel/material/rental costs) Total burdened personnel cost per unit of service: Material and Rental Costs Description Gaffers Tape, per roll Total materials/rental costs per unit of service: Other Costs Description The comparison pricing did not include labor. The City's proposed cost does include labor. Facility Overhead (Charge included with rental fee) Total other costs per unit of service: Comparisons to Proposed Fee Fee Difference Johnette Maddox Does this include labor for other? [Comparison fees] ***COMPLETE ALL FIELDS COLORED TAN, AS APPLICABLE, FOR YOUR FEE*** Fund Account 1 407 Description of service, demand, recommended subsidy (if any), and other comments: Personnel Costs Straight Time Labor Rate Fringe Benefit Rate Total Direct Labor Cost Dept/Div. Overhead Fully Burdened Cost (per hour) Hours by Position (per unit) Total Labor Cost (per unit) 19.77$ 1.45% 20.06$ 10% 22.06$ 1.5 33.09$ 21.73$ 30.22% 28.30$ 10% 31.13$ 1.5 46.69$ 37.02$ 50.00% 55.53$ 10% 61.08$ 0.75 45.81$ -$ 10% -$ -$ -$ 10% -$ -$ 125.60$ Cost (each) Quantity required Total Cost -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Cost (each) Quantity required Total Cost 17% N/A 21.35$ -$ -$ 21.35$ Total Service Direct Cost:146.95$ City Admin (CAP) Overhead Rate:0% Total Service Cost/Unit:146.95$ Comparison Agency Fee Dollars % Rentex 20k Lumen Projector: $1,400/day or $2,800 per week 2,800.00$ 2,000.00$ 250%Current Fee Amount: Wyatt Group Barco 20k Lumen (per week)1,000.00$ 200.00$ 25% Recommended Fee Amount:800.00$ Recommended Fee Subsidy:($653.05) Fee Change:$800.00 Revised: 08/30/2023 Completed By: Date: 12/13/2023 Director Comments Response USER FEE COST ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Department/Division User Fee Description CSD/ Cultural Arts Projector (LFP) (Weeklong) The Lewis Family Playhouse offers a built-in projector rental to elevate events. The rental fee includes staff time for reservation handling, on-site event labor, and ongoing maintenance. This cost is per unit, with a maximum of two (2) days of rental charges per industry standard. Industry standard for a weeklong rental is charging the rental fee for a maximum of three days. This is typically because the use would be over a weekend, pickup Friday and return on Monday. Labor Rates Position Part-time nons-PERSable: Theatre Technician I Part-time PERSable: Theatre Technician II Full-time: Community Services Coordinator CSD Admin Overhead (charged to personnel/material/rental costs) Total burdened personnel cost per unit of service: Material and Rental Costs Description Total materials/rental costs per unit of service: Other Costs Description Yes, staff will be reminded that this fee includes staff time. Facility Overhead (Charge included with rental fee) Total other costs per unit of service: Comparisons to Proposed Fee Fee Difference Johnette Maddox Reminder to staff [Circled "includes staff time" in description} ***COMPLETE ALL FIELDS COLORED TAN, AS APPLICABLE, FOR YOUR FEE*** Fund Account 001 407 Description of service, demand, recommended subsidy (if any), and other comments: Personnel Costs Straight Time Labor Rate Fringe Benefit Rate Total Direct Labor Cost Dept/Div Overhead Fully Burdened Cost (per hour) Hours by Position (per unit) Total Labor Cost (per unit) 18.62$ 1.45% 18.89$ 10% 20.78$ 1 20.78$ 18.62$ 1.45% 18.89$ 10% 20.78$ 1 20.78$ 21.73$ 30.22% 28.30$ 10% 31.13$ 0.25 7.78$ -$ 10% -$ -$ -$ 10% -$ -$ 49.34$ Cost (each) Quantity required Total Cost 2.00$ 1 2.00$ -$ -$ -$ 2.00$ Cost (each) Quantity required Total Cost 17% N/A 8.73$ -$ -$ 8.73$ Total Service Direct Cost:60.07$ City Admin (CAP) Overhead Rate:0% Total Service Cost/Unit:60.07$ Comparison Agency Fee Dollars % All Seasons Party Rentals 75.00$ (50.00)$ -40%Current Fee Amount: Recommended Fee Amount:125.00$ Recommended Fee Subsidy:($64.93) Fee Change:$125.00 Revised: 08/30/2023 Completed By: Date: 01/09/2024 Facility Overhead (Charge included with rental fee) Total other costs per unit of service: Comparisons to Proposed Fee Fee Difference Katy Cox CSD Admin Overhead (charged to personnel/material/rental costs) Total burdened personnel cost per unit of service: Material and Rental Costs Description Carpet Spot Cleaning Products ($12 bottle gives 6 uses) Total materials/rental costs per unit of service: Other Costs Description USER FEE COST ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Department/Division User Fee Description CSD - Front of House (VGCC)Red Carpet (large) Reservations can be made for a large red carpet runner (8’ x 25’) for events. A seamless rental experience is ensured by a flat fee that encompasses staff storage, setup, and ongoing maintenance. Labor Rates Position Rec Leader II (See description for details) Rec Leader II (See description for details) Specialist ***COMPLETE ALL FIELDS COLORED TAN, AS APPLICABLE, FOR YOUR FEE*** Fund Account 001 407 Description of service, demand, recommended subsidy (if any), and other comments: Personnel Costs Straight Time Labor Rate Fringe Benefit Rate Total Direct Labor Cost Dept/Div Overhead Fully Burdened Cost (per hour) Hours by Position (per unit) Total Labor Cost (per unit) 18.62$ 1.45% 18.89$ 10% 20.78$ 1 20.78$ 18.62$ 1.45% 18.89$ 10% 20.78$ 1 20.78$ 21.73$ 30.22% 28.30$ 10% 31.13$ 0.25 7.78$ -$ 10% -$ -$ -$ 10% -$ -$ 49.34$ Cost (each) Quantity required Total Cost 2.00$ 1 2.00$ -$ -$ -$ 2.00$ Cost (each) Quantity required Total Cost 17% N/A 8.73$ -$ -$ 8.73$ Total Service Direct Cost:60.07$ City Admin (CAP) Overhead Rate:0% Total Service Cost/Unit:60.07$ Comparison Agency Fee Dollars % Pull Up A Chair Event Rentals 75.00$ -$ 0%Current Fee Amount: All Seasons Party Rentals 40.00$ (35.00)$ -47% Sullivan Party Rentals $ 125.00 50.00$ 67%Recommended Fee Amount:75.00$ -$ Recommended Fee Subsidy:($14.93) -$ $ - $ - Fee Change:$75.00 $ - Revised: 08/30/2023 Completed By: Date: 01/09/2024 Facility Overhead (Charge included with rental fee) Total other costs per unit of service: Comparisons to Proposed Fee Fee Difference Katy Cox CSD Admin Overhead (charged to personnel/material/rental costs) Total burdened personnel cost per unit of service: Material and Rental Costs Description Carpet Spot Cleaning Products ($12 bottle gives 6 uses) Total materials/rental costs per unit of service: Other Costs Description USER FEE COST ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Department/Division User Fee Description CSD - Front of House (VGCC)Red Carpet (small runner) Reservations can be made for a small red carpet runner (3' x 8') for events. A seamless rental experience is ensured by a flat fee that encompasses staff storage, setup, and ongoing maintenance. Labor Rates Position Rec Leader II (See description for details) Rec Leader II (See description for details) Specialist ***COMPLETE ALL FIELDS COLORED TAN, AS APPLICABLE, FOR YOUR FEE*** Fund Account 001 407 Description of service, demand, recommended subsidy (if any), and other comments: Personnel Costs Straight Time Labor Rate Fringe Benefit Rate Total Direct Labor Cost Dept/Div Overhead Fully Burdened Cost (per hour) Hours by Position (per unit) Total Labor Cost (per unit) 18.62$ 1.45% 18.89$ 10% 20.78$ 1 20.78$ 21.73$ 30.22% 28.30$ 10% 31.13$ 0.25 7.78$ -$ 10% -$ -$ -$ 10% -$ -$ -$ 10% -$ -$ 28.56$ Cost (each) Quantity required Total Cost 5.00$ 1 5.00$ -$ -$ -$ 5.00$ Cost (each) Quantity required Total Cost 17% N/A 5.71$ -$ -$ 5.71$ Total Service Direct Cost:39.27$ City Admin (CAP) Overhead Rate:0% Total Service Cost/Unit:39.27$ Comparison Agency Fee Dollars % Classe Party Rentals 50.00$ 23.00$ 85%Current Fee Amount: All Seasons Party Rentals 32.00$ 5.00$ 19% All Occasion Rentals $ 20.00 (7.00)$ -26%Recommended Fee Amount:27.00$ Recommended Fee Subsidy:$12.27 Fee Change:$27.00 Revised: 08/30/2023 Completed By: Date: 01/09/2024 Facility Overhead (Charge included with rental fee) Total other costs per unit of service: Comparisons to Proposed Fee Fee Difference Katy Cox CSD Admin Overhead (charged to personnel/material/rental costs) Total burdened personnel cost per unit of service: Material and Rental Costs Description Rope Cleaner ($25 bottle gives 5 uses) Total materials/rental costs per unit of service: Other Costs Description USER FEE COST ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Department/Division User Fee Description CSD - Front of House (VGCC)Red Rope Stanchions Reservations can be made for red rope stanchions, offering a versatile crowd-control solution for events. The accompanying flat fee covers staff setup and ongoing maintenance. Each rental is charged by rope and includes stanchion poles. Any additional rope rented incurs a separate flat fee. Labor Rates Position Rec Leader II Specialist ***COMPLETE ALL FIELDS COLORED TAN, AS APPLICABLE, FOR YOUR FEE*** Fund Account 1 407 Description of service, demand, recommended subsidy (if any), and other comments: Personnel Costs Straight Time Labor Rate Fringe Benefit Rate Total Direct Labor Cost Dept/Div. Overhead Fully Burdened Cost (per hour) Hours by Position (per unit) Total Labor Cost (per unit) 19.77$ 1.46% 20.06$ 10% 22.06$ 0.5 11.03$ 21.73$ 30.22% 28.30$ 10% 31.13$ 0.5 15.56$ 37.02$ 50.00% 55.53$ 10% 61.08$ 0.3 18.32$ -$ 10% -$ -$ -$ 10% -$ -$ 44.92$ Cost (each) Quantity required Total Cost Condom - Equipment Protection 0.19$ 1 0.19$ 0.40$ 1 0.40$ -$ -$ 0.59$ Cost (each) Quantity required Total Cost 17% N/A 7.74$ -$ -$ 7.74$ Total Service Direct Cost:53.25$ City Admin (CAP) Overhead Rate:0% Total Service Cost/Unit:53.25$ Comparison Agency Fee Dollars % Rock N Roll Rentals: $25 per weekend (Provide as many as they have)12.50$ (37.50)$ -75%Current Fee Amount: Flag Systems Inc. - (Provide as many as they have and the price is the same regardless of rental length.)150.00$ 100.00$ 200% Rentex - 1 handheld, 1 lavalier with receiver $95/day or $130/week $ 95.00 45.00$ 90%Recommended Fee Amount:50.00$ Recommended Fee Subsidy:$3.25 Fee Change:$50.00 Revised: 08/30/2023 Completed By: Date: 12/13/2023 Total materials/rental costs per unit of service: Other Costs Description CSD Admin Overhead (charged to personnel/material/rental costs) Facility Overhead (Charge included with rental fee) Total other costs per unit of service: Comparisons to Proposed Fee Fee Difference Johnette Maddox Labor Rates Position Part-time nons-PERSable: Theatre Technician I Part-time PERSable: Theatre Technician II Full-time: Community Services Coordinator Total burdened personnel cost per unit of service: Material and Rental Costs Description Face tape, if applicable Per-day wireless microphone rental packages at the Lewis Family Playhouse include up to eight wireless microphones, aligning with industry standards for local venues. This flat rental fee encompasses staff time for handling reservations, setup, and any additional wireless microphones the renter requires after the eight initial microphones that are included in the rental of the Playhouse. USER FEE COST ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Department/Division User Fee Description CSD/Cultural Arts Wireless Microphone - Bodypack Transmitters (Per Day) (LFP Only) ***COMPLETE ALL FIELDS COLORED TAN, AS APPLICABLE, FOR YOUR FEE*** Fund Account 1 407 Description of service, demand, recommended subsidy (if any), and other comments: Personnel Costs Straight Time Labor Rate Fringe Benefit Rate Total Direct Labor Cost Dept/Div. Overhead Fully Burdened Cost (per hour) Hours by Position (per unit) Total Labor Cost (per unit) 19.77$ 1.46% 20.06$ 10% 22.06$ 1.5 33.10$ 21.73$ 30.22% 28.30$ 10% 31.13$ 1.5 46.69$ 37.02$ 50.00% 55.53$ 10% 61.08$ 0.9 54.97$ -$ 10% -$ -$ -$ 10% -$ -$ 134.76$ Cost (each) Quantity required Total Cost Condom - Equipment Protection 0.19$ 3 0.57$ 0.40$ 3 1.20$ -$ -$ 1.77$ Cost (each) Quantity required Total Cost 17% N/A 23.21$ -$ -$ 23.21$ Total Service Direct Cost:159.74$ City Admin (CAP) Overhead Rate:0% Total Service Cost/Unit:159.74$ Comparison Agency Fee Dollars % Rock N Roll Rentals: $25 per weekend (Provide as many as they have)25.00$ (125.00)$ -83%Current Fee Amount: Flag Systems Inc. (Provide as many as they have and the price is the same regardless of rental length)150.00$ -$ 0% Rentex 1 handheld, 1 lavalier with receiver $95/day or $130/week $ 130.00 (20.00)$ -13%Recommended Fee Amount:150.00$ Recommended Fee Subsidy:$9.74 Fee Change:$150.00 Revised: 08/30/2023 Completed By: Date: 12/13/2023 Total materials/rental costs per unit of service: Other Costs Description CSD Admin Overhead (charged to personnel/material/rental costs) Facility Overhead (Charge included with rental fee) Total other costs per unit of service: Comparisons to Proposed Fee Fee Difference Johnette Maddox Labor Rates Position Part-time nons-PERSable: Theatre Technician I Part-time PERSable: Theatre Technician II Full-time: Community Services Coordinator Total burdened personnel cost per unit of service: Material and Rental Costs Description Face tape, if applicable Weeklong rentals (3 days or more) for the Lewis Family Playhouse include up to eight wireless microphones, aligning with industry standards for local venues. This flat rental fee encompasses staff time for handling reservations, setup, and any additional wireless microphones the renter requires after the eight initial microphones that are included in the rental of the Playhouse. USER FEE COST ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Department/Division User Fee Description CSD/Cultural Arts NEW - Wireless Microphone - Bodypack Transmitters (Weeklong) (LFP ONLY) ***COMPLETE ALL FIELDS COLORED TAN, AS APPLICABLE, FOR YOUR FEE*** Fund Account 001 Description of service, demand, recommended subsidy (if any), and other comments: Personnel Costs Position Straight Time Labor Rate Fringe Benefit Rate Total Direct Labor Cost Dept/Div Overhead Fully Burdened Cost (per hour) Hours by Position (per unit) Total Labor Cost (per unit) Recreation Leader II 18.62$ 1.45% 18.89$ 10% 20.78$ 1 20.78$ Tech I 19.77$ 1.45% 20.06$ 10% 22.06$ 1 22.06$ Coordinator 37.02$ 50.00% 55.53$ 10% 61.08$ 0.25 15.27$ Specialist 21.73$ 30.22% 28.30$ 10% 31.13$ 0.25 7.78$ -$ 0.00% -$ 10% -$ 0 -$ 65.89$ Cost (each) Quantity required Total Cost 50.00$ 2 100.00$ 5.00$ 2 10.00$ 5.00$ 1 5.00$ -$ 115.00$ Cost (each) Quantity required Total Cost 17% 0 30.75$ -$ 0 -$ 30.75$ Total Service Direct Cost:211.65$ City Admin (CAP) Overhead Rate:0% Total Service Cost/Unit:211.65$ Fee Dollars % 60.00$ 10.00$ 20%Current Fee Amount:25.00$ 125.00$ 75.00$ 150% $ 50.00 -$ 0%Recommended Fee Amount:50.00$ 110.00$ 60.00$ 120%Recommended Fee Subsidy:$161.65 60.00$ 10.00$ 20% Fee Change:$25.00 Revised: 08/30/2023 Completed By: Date: 07/22/2024Katy Cox Comparison Agency Classe Party Rentals (price per 4' x 8' deck. No additional equipment provided. No labor fees included.) BeDazzle My Events (price per 4' x 8' deck. No additional equipment provided. Labor fees included.) All Occasion Rentals (price per 4' x 8' deck. No additional equipment provided. No labor fees included.) Pull Up A Chair Party Rentals (price per 4' x 8' deck. No additional equipment provided. Labor fees included.) Pico Party Event Rentals (price per 4' x 8' deck. No additional equipment provided. No labor fees included.) CSD Admin Overhead (charged to personnel/material/rental costs) Facility Overhead Rate1 Total other costs per unit of service: Comparisons to Proposed Fee Fee Difference Description Labor Rates Total burdened personnel cost per unit of service: Material and Rental Costs Description Each custom riser deck (4' x 8') + four (4) legs at cusomizable heights (estimated rental cost) C-clamps each (for multiple decks) Black gaffers tape Total materials/rental costs per unit of service: Other Costs Each custom rise deck is 4' x 8' and can be arranged in multiple ways to accommodate a client's needs. The decks come with four (4) legs that can be either 8", 16", 24" high. Labor costs are charged seperately and are be determined by client's needs and the configuration of the decks. We would like to increase the price of each customizable deck to be more in line with industry standards while still being at a discounted rate to serve our clients. A minimum of two decks are required. USER FEE COST ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Department/Division User Fee Description CSD/VGCC Rentals Custom Riser Decks ***COMPLETE ALL FIELDS COLORED TAN, AS APPLICABLE, FOR YOUR FEE*** Fund Account 001 Description of service, demand, recommended subsidy (if any), and other comments: Personnel Costs Position Straight Time Labor Rate Fringe Benefit Rate Total Direct Labor Cost Dept/Div Overhead Fully Burdened Cost (per hour) Hours by Position (per unit) Total Labor Cost (per unit) Tech I 19.77$ 1.45% 20.06$ 10% 22.06$ 1 22.06$ Tech II 21.73$ 1.45% 22.05$ 10% 24.25$ 1 24.25$ Coordinator 37.02$ 50.00% 55.53$ 10% 61.08$ 0.25 15.27$ Specialist 21.73$ 30.22% 28.30$ 10% 31.13$ 0.25 7.78$ -$ 0.00% -$ 10% -$ 0 -$ 69.36$ Cost (each) Quantity required Total Cost 50.00$ 4 200.00$ 5.00$ 4 20.00$ 5.00$ 1 5.00$ -$ 0 -$ 225.00$ Cost (each) Quantity required Total Cost 17% N/A 50.04$ -$ 0 -$ 50.04$ Total Service Direct Cost:344.41$ City Admin (CAP) Overhead Rate:0% Total Service Cost/Unit:344.41$ Fee Dollars % 700.00$ 200.00$ 40%Current Fee Amount:-$ 600.00$ 100.00$ 20% $ 428.00 (72.00)$ -14%Recommended Fee Amount:500.00$ Recommended Fee Subsidy:($155.59) Fee Change:$500.00 Revised: 08/30/2023 Completed By: Date: 07/22/2024Katy Cox Comparison Agency CrossFire AV (2 decks, 6 legs, 6 castors/set) - $350 Comparable cost calculation: 2 sets x $350.00 = $700.00 Canal Sounds and Light (2 decks, 6 legs, 6 castors/set) - $300 Comparable cost calculation: 2 sets x $300.00 = $600.00 Zero Brothers (2 decks, 6 legs, 6 castors/set) - $214 Comparable cost calculation: 2 sets x $214.00 = $428.00 CSD Admin Overhead (charged to personnel/material/rental costs) Facility Overhead Rate Total other costs per unit of service: Comparisons to Proposed Fee Fee Difference Description Labor Rates Total burdened personnel cost per unit of service: Material and Rental Costs Description 4' x 8' custom riser deck (estimated rental cost) C-clamps each (for multiple decks) Black gaffers tape Total materials/rental costs per unit of service: Other Costs New Fee: The price is for an 8' x 8' rolling riser deck and is based on the outsourced materials and labor needed to build the decks. The rolling risers in the comparison pricing vendors are 2 decks, 6 legs, and 6 castors. However, the type of decking we own in-house would require 4 decks and 12 casters to create a secure platform. The decks quoted above also do not use c-clamps because of a key lock system our own decks do not feature, adding more pieces to the build. Additionally, wear and tear are factored in with this pricing because of the drilling it requires to install the decks with the castors. This is a complete custom build for the Playhouse and may require outsourced materials. USER FEE COST ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Department/Division User Fee Description CSD/VGCC Rentals Rolling Riser Decks ***COMPLETE ALL FIELDS COLORED TAN, AS APPLICABLE, FOR YOUR FEE*** Fund Account 001 Description of service, demand, recommended subsidy (if any), and other comments: Personnel Costs Position Straight Time Labor Rate Fringe Benefit Rate Total Direct Labor Cost Dept/Div Overhead Fully Burdened Cost (per hour) Hours by Position (per unit) Total Labor Cost (per unit) Tech I 19.77$ 1.45% 20.06$ 10% 22.06$ 1 22.06$ Tech II 21.73$ 1.45% 22.05$ 10% 24.25$ 1 24.25$ Coordinator 37.02$ 50.00% 55.53$ 10% 61.08$ 0.25 15.27$ Specialist 21.73$ 30.22% 28.30$ 10% 31.13$ 0.25 7.78$ -$ -$ 10% -$ -$ 69.36$ Cost (each) Quantity required Total Cost 750.00$ 1 750.00$ 1-$ 1-$ -$ 750.00$ Cost (each) Quantity required Total Cost 17% 0 139.29$ -$ 0 -$ 139.29$ Total Service Direct Cost:958.66$ City Admin (CAP) Overhead Rate:0% Total Service Cost/Unit:958.66$ Fee Dollars % $ 1,440.00 $ 690.00 92% Current Fee Amount: $ 1,779.00 700.00$ (50.00)$ -7% 900.00$ 150.00$ 20%Recommended Fee Amount:750.00$ Recommended Fee Subsidy:$208.66 $ 600.00 (150.00)$ -20% $ 600.00 (150.00)$ -20% $ - 0%Fee Change:($1,029.00) $ - Revised: 08/30/2023 Completed By: Date: 07/22/2024 Standard ellipsoidal light - Budget Video Rentals - $25 Comparable cost calculation: 24 lights x $25.00 = $600.00 Katy Cox Comparison Agency Standard wash - CrossFire AV (must be rented in groups of 8) - $300 Comparable cost calculation: 2 sets of 8 lights x $300.00 = $600.00 Standard ellipsoidal light - CrossFirre AV - $35 Comparable cost calculation: 24 lights x $35.00 = $840.00 Standard wash - Canal Sounds & Lighting (must be rented in groups of 4) - $175 Comparable cost calculation: 4 sets of 4 lights x $175.00 = $600.00 Standard wash - ETC Rent (Must be rented in groups of 6) - $300 Comparable cost calculation: 3 sets of 6 lights x $300.00 = $600.00 Standard ellipsoidal light - Red Star Pictures - $25 Comparable cost calculation: 24 lights x $25.00 = $600.00 CSD Admin Overhead (charged to personnel/material/rental costs) Facility Overhead Rate Total other costs per unit of service: Comparisons to Proposed Fee Fee Difference Description Labor Rates Total burdened personnel cost per unit of service: Material and Rental Costs Description 18 wash fixture uplights, 24 focusable ellipsoidal lights and staff installation (estimated rental cost) Total materials/rental costs per unit of service: Other Costs Requesting to have the fee reduced to $750.00 due to the age of the lighting fixtures. Ellipsoidal and Leko lights are already installed and are permanent fixtures to the space which cuts down on the labor/installation. The labor is also determined by the needs of the client. By decreasing the price, we're hoping to appeal to a broader range of clientele. The updated Basic Lighting Package will include: 18 wash fixture uplights, 24 focasable ellipsoidal lights and staff expesnses for installation. Custom lighting packages can be requested for Celebration Hall and the LFP and the pricing will be determined by the clients needs. USER FEE COST ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Department/Division User Fee Description CSD/VGCC Rentals Basic Lighting Package ***COMPLETE ALL FIELDS COLORED TAN, AS APPLICABLE, FOR YOUR FEE*** Fund Account 001 Description of service, demand, recommended subsidy (if any), and other comments: Personnel Costs Position Straight Time Labor Rate Fringe Benefit Rate Total Direct Labor Cost Dept/Div Overhead Fully Burdened Cost (per hour) Hours by Position (per unit) Total Labor Cost (per unit) Theatre Tech I 19.77$ 1.45% 20.06$ 10% 22.06$ 1 22.06$ Theatre Tech II 21.73$ 1.45% 22.05$ 10% 24.25$ 1 24.25$ Coordinator 37.02$ 50.00% 55.53$ 10% 61.08$ 0.25 15.27$ Specialist 21.73$ 30.22% 28.30$ 10% 31.13$ 0.25 7.78$ -$ 0.00% -$ 10% -$ 0 -$ 69.36$ Cost (each) Quantity required Total Cost 60.00$ 1 60.00$ -$ -$ -$ 60.00$ Cost (each) Quantity required Total Cost 17% 0 21.99$ -$ 0 -$ 21.99$ Total Service Direct Cost:151.36$ City Admin (CAP) Overhead Rate:0% Total Service Cost/Unit:151.36$ Fee Dollars % 105.00$ (45.00)$ -30%Current Fee Amount:299.00$ 95.00$ (55.00)$ -37% $ 95.00 (55.00)$ -37%Recommended Fee Amount:150.00$ Recommended Fee Subsidy:$1.36 Fee Change:($149.00) Revised: 08/30/2023 Completed By: Date: 07/22/2024Katy Cox Comparison Agency CrossFire AV (per ellipsoidal light) - $35 Estimated installation labor - $70 Red Star Pictures Rentals (per ellipsoidal light) - $25 Estimated installation labor - $70 Budget Video Rentals (per ellipsoidal light) - $25 Estimated installation labor - $70 CSD Admin Overhead (charged to personnel/material/rental costs) Facility Overhead Rate Total other costs per unit of service: Comparisons to Proposed Fee Fee Difference Description Labor Rates Total burdened personnel cost per unit of service: Material and Rental Costs Description Lighting fixture (estimated rental cost) Total materials/rental costs per unit of service: Other Costs Requesting to have the name of the package changed to "Gobo Package" and the price reduced to $150.00. The package will include: the lighting instrument, labor associated with the installation and focus of the gobo. Basic in-stock gobos are included with the package. Any customized gobo(s) must be provided by the client. Comparison Agency information does not include the cost of labor. USER FEE COST ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Department/Division User Fee Description CSD/VGCC Rentals Gobo Package ***COMPLETE ALL FIELDS COLORED TAN, AS APPLICABLE, FOR YOUR FEE*** Fund Account 001 Description of service, demand, recommended subsidy (if any), and other comments: Personnel Costs Position Straight Time Labor Rate Fringe Benefit Rate Total Direct Labor Cost Dept/Div Overhead Fully Burdened Cost (per hour) Hours by Position (per unit) Total Labor Cost (per unit) Recreation Leader II 18.62$ 1.45% 18.89$ 10% 20.78$ 2 41.56$ Coordinator 37.02$ 50.00% 55.53$ 10% 61.08$ 0.25 15.27$ Specialist 21.73$ 30.22% 28.30$ 10% 31.13$ 0.25 7.78$ -$ 10% -$ -$ -$ 10% -$ -$ 64.61$ Cost (each) Quantity required Total Cost 200.00$ 1 200.00$ 100.00$ 1 100.00$ 65" TV with HDMI cords and adaptors (cost if rented individually)50.00$ 1 50.00$ 280.00$ 1 280.00$ 25.00$ 1 25.00$ 655.00$ Cost (each) Quantity required Total Cost 17% N/A 122.33$ -$ 0 -$ 122.33$ Total Service Direct Cost:841.94$ City Admin (CAP) Overhead Rate:0% Total Service Cost/Unit:841.94$ Fee Dollars % 530.00$ 180.00$ 51%Current Fee Amount:-$ $ 905.00 555.00$ 159% $ 765.00 415.00$ 119%Recommended Fee Amount:350.00$ -$ 0%Recommended Fee Subsidy:$491.94 -$ 0% $ - 0% $ - 0%Fee Change:$350.00 $ - 0% Revised: 08/30/2023 Completed By: Date: 07/25/2024Katy Cox Comparison Agency Classe Party Rentals (see attachment for breakdown of fees) A1 Party Rental (see attachment for breakdown of fees) All Occasion Rentals (see attachment for breakdown of fees) CSD Admin Overhead (charged to personnel/material/rental costs) Facility Overhead Rate Total other costs per unit of service: Comparisons to Proposed Fee Fee Difference Description Labor Rates Total burdened personnel cost per unit of service: Material and Rental Costs Description Projector with screen (cost if rented individually) Two wireless microphones (cost if rented individually) One (1) hour of rental room costs (Celebration Hall, Group 3, Extended Hours) (cost if rented individually) Lectern / Podium (cost if rented individually) Total materials/rental costs per unit of service: Other Costs This is a new package. The proposed package will include: one (1) projector with screen, two (2) wireless microphones, one (1) 65" TV with HDMI cords and adaptors, a lectern, and up to 1 hr. for rehearsal and/or AV check, based on room availability. The proposed package will be an add-on to a rental of Celebration Hall, Mainstreet Lobby or Studio Rehearsal Hall. The proposed package will be similar to the Central Park Wedding Ceremony / Lecture Package. The proposed package will include the staffing fees for setup/tear down. Our proposed fee is higher than the comparison agencies because of the high quality of equipment we offer, staffing fees for setup/tear down are included, and we're including one hour of rehearsal/AV check with the fee when the other comparison agencies don't. In addition, by going with our proposed package, clients won't have to spend money and time renting equipment from party rental vendors. USER FEE COST ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Department/Division User Fee Description CSD/VGCC Rentals VGCC Lecture Package ***COMPLETE ALL FIELDS COLORED TAN, AS APPLICABLE, FOR YOUR FEE*** Fund Account 001 409 Description of service, demand, recommended subsidy (if any), and other comments: Personnel Costs Straight Time Labor Rate Fringe Benefit Rate Total Direct Labor Cost Dept/Div Overhead Fully Burdened Cost (per hour) Hours by Position (per unit) Total Labor Cost (per unit) -$ 0.00% -$ 10% -$ -$ -$ 0.00% -$ 10% -$ -$ -$ 10% -$ -$ -$ 10% -$ -$ -$ 10% -$ -$ -$ Cost (each) Quantity required Total Cost -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Cost (each) Quantity required Total Cost 17% N/A -$ 0.35$ -$ -$ Total Service Direct Cost:-$ City Admin (CAP) Overhead Rate:0% Total Service Cost/Unit:-$ Comparison Agency Fee Dollars % -$ -$ #DIV/0!Current Fee Amount:-$ -$ -$ #DIV/0! $ - -$ #DIV/0!Recommended Fee Amount:-$ -$ -$ #DIV/0!Recommended Fee Subsidy:$0.00 -$ -$ #DIV/0! $ - -$ #DIV/0! $ - -$ #DIV/0!Fee Change:$0.00 $ - -$ #DIV/0! Revised: 08/30/2023 Completed By: Date: 11/06/2024 Director Comments Response USER FEE COST ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Department/Division User Fee Description CSD/Parks Group 5 Group 5 rates for the following are currently (as of 07.01.24) being charged the Group 4 rates: Parks, Special Event Areas, Sports Fields, Red Hill Community Park, Heritage Community Park, Central Park Grass Bowl, Central Park Bridge, Central Park Pavilion, PET Staging Area, Field Rental (Community Ball Field and Soccer Field Rental). Group 5 rate for all outdoor facilities is being applied. Using the methodology of starting with the Group 4 rate (base rate) and increasing it by 25% (rounded) to establish the Group 5 rate. Parks & Special Event Areas Park Maintenance Fee ($8.00), Sports Fields Park Maintenance Fee ($50.00), Red Hill Community Park ($197.00/hour), Heritage Community Park ($132.00/hour, Central Park Grass Bowl ($197.00/hour), Central Park Bridge ($98.00/hour), Central Park Pavilion ($74.00/hour), PET Staging Area ($132.00/hour), Field Rental (Community Ball Field and Soccer Field Rental) ($38.00/hour). Labor Rates Position CSD Admin Overhead (charged to personnel/material/rental costs) Total burdened personnel cost per unit of service: Material and Rental Costs Description Total materials/rental costs per unit of service: Other Costs Description Facility Overhead Total other costs per unit of service: Comparisons to Proposed Fee Fee Difference Ryan Samples ***COMPLETE ALL FIELDS COLORED TAN, AS APPLICABLE, FOR YOUR FEE*** Fund Account 001 407 Description of service, demand, recommended subsidy (if any), and other comments: Personnel Costs Straight Time Labor Rate Fringe Benefit Rate Total Direct Labor Cost Dept/Div Overhead Fully Burdened Cost (per hour) Hours by Position (per unit) Total Labor Cost (per unit) 18.62$ 1.45% 18.89$ 10% 20.78$ 0.25 5.19$ 18.62$ 1.45% 18.89$ 10% 20.78$ 0.25 5.19$ 21.73$ 30.22% 28.30$ 10% 31.13$ 1 31.13$ -$ 10% -$ -$ -$ 10% -$ -$ 41.52$ Cost (each) Quantity required Total Cost 17.00$ 1 17.00$ -$ -$ -$ 17.00$ Cost (each) Quantity required Total Cost 17% N/A 9.95$ -$ -$ 9.95$ Total Service Direct Cost:68.46$ City Admin (CAP) Overhead Rate:0% Total Service Cost/Unit:68.46$ Comparison Agency Fee Dollars % Sullivan Party Rentals (Per Heater)85.00$ 10.00$ 13%Current Fee Amount: Pull Up A Chair Party Rentals (Per Heater)80.00$ 5.00$ 7% All Seasons Party Rentals (Per Heater) $ 89.00 14.00$ 19%Recommended Fee Amount:75.00$ Recommended Fee Subsidy:($6.54) Fee Change:$75.00 Revised: 08/30/2023 Completed By: Date: 01/09/2024 Director Comments Response USER FEE COST ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Department/Division User Fee Description CSD - Front of House (VGCC)Patio Heaters Patio heater rentals are available for reservation, ensuring warmth and comfort for outdoor events. The flat fee associated with one patio heater rental encompasses all aspects of the service including the provision of a single heater and an initial supply of propane to guarantee immediate functionality upon delivery. Additionally, the fee covers secure storage of the heater when not in use, professional setup by dedicated staff, and ongoing maintenance services including propane tank refills. Labor Rates Position Rec Leader II (See description for details) Rec Leader II (See description for details) Specialist CSD Admin Overhead (charged to personnel/material/rental costs) Total burdened personnel cost per unit of service: Material and Rental Costs Description Refill of propane $4.25 per gallon. ($4.25 x 4 gallon tanks) Total materials/rental costs per unit of service: Other Costs Description That is correct. Staff will be reminded that equipment sourced from a third party by the City will be charged costs plus 17%. Facility Overhead (Charge included with rental fee) Total other costs per unit of service: Comparisons to Proposed Fee Fee Difference Katy Cox Fee applies only to City property [rental] of heaters, NOT rental equipment. ***COMPLETE ALL FIELDS COLORED TAN, AS APPLICABLE, FOR YOUR FEE*** Fund Account 1 407 Description of service, demand, recommended subsidy (if any), and other comments: Personnel Costs Straight Time Labor Rate Fringe Benefit Rate Total Direct Labor Cost Dept/Div. Overhead Fully Burdened Cost (per hour) Hours by Position (per unit) Total Labor Cost (per unit) 19.77$ 1.45% 20.06$ 10% 22.06$ 0.5 11.03$ 21.73$ 30.22% 28.30$ 10% 31.13$ 0.5 15.56$ 37.02$ 50.00% 55.53$ 10% 61.08$ 0.25 15.27$ -$ 10% -$ -$ -$ 10% -$ -$ 41.87$ Cost (each) Quantity required Total Cost -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Cost (each) Quantity required Total Cost 17% N/A 7.12$ -$ -$ 7.12$ Total Service Direct Cost:48.98$ City Admin (CAP) Overhead Rate:0% Total Service Cost/Unit:48.98$ Comparison Agency Fee Dollars % Rentex 20k Lumen Projector: $1,400/day or $2,800 per week 1,400.00$ 1,100.00$ 367%Current Fee Amount:300.00$ Wyatt Group Barco 20k Lumen (per week)1,000.00$ 700.00$ 233% City of Fontana $197 res. / $282 non-res. ($240 avg.)240.00$ (60.00)$ -20%Recommended Fee Amount:300.00$ Diamond Bar 125.00$ (175.00)$ -58%Recommended Fee Subsidy:($251.02) Cerritos 500.00$ 200.00$ 67% Fee Change:$0.00 Revised: 08/30/2023 Completed By: Date: 12/13/2023 Director Comments Response USER FEE COST ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Department/Division User Fee Description CSD/ Cultural Arts Projector (LFP) The Lewis Family Playhouse offers a built-in projector rental to elevate events. The daily rate applies per projector. The rental fee includes staff time for reservation handling, on-site event labor, and ongoing maintenance. Not: Industry standard for a weeklong rental is charging the rental fee for a maximum of three days. This is typically because the use would be over a weekend, pickup Friday and return on Monday. Labor Rates Position Part-time nons-PERSable: Theatre Technician I Part-time PERSable: Theatre Technician II Full-time: Community Services Coordinator CSD Admin Overhead (charged to personnel/material/rental costs) Total burdened personnel cost per unit of service: Material and Rental Costs Description Total materials/rental costs per unit of service: Other Costs Description Added City of Fontana, Diamond Bar & Cerritos. Facility Overhead (Charge included with rental fee) Total other costs per unit of service: Comparisons to Proposed Fee Fee Difference Johnette Maddox Not comparables [noted private Comparison Agencies]. Need agency refernce since built in. ***COMPLETE ALL FIELDS COLORED TAN, AS APPLICABLE, FOR YOUR FEE*** Fund Account 001 409 Description of service, demand, recommended subsidy (if any), and other comments: Personnel Costs Straight Time Labor Rate Fringe Benefit Rate Total Direct Labor Cost Dept/Div Overhead Fully Burdened Cost (per hour) Hours by Position (per unit) Total Labor Cost (per unit) 37.02$ 50.00% 55.53$ 10% 61.08$ 1 61.08$ 18.62$ 1.45% 18.89$ 10% 20.78$ 2 41.56$ -$ 10% -$ -$ -$ 10% -$ -$ -$ 10% -$ -$ 102.64$ Cost (each) Quantity required Total Cost -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Cost (each) Quantity required Total Cost 17% N/A 17.45$ 0.35$ 1 0.35$ 17.80$ Total Service Direct Cost:120.44$ City Admin (CAP) Overhead Rate:0% Total Service Cost/Unit:120.44$ Comparison Agency Fee Dollars % Fontana 54.00$ (194.00)$ -78%Current Fee Amount:248.00$ Ontario 60.00$ (188.00)$ -76% Corona $ 60.00 (188.00)$ -76%Recommended Fee Amount:248.00$ Upland 30.00$ (218.00)$ -88%Recommended Fee Subsidy:($127.56) Claremont 75.00$ (173.00)$ -70% Chino $ 115.00 (133.00)$ -54% La Verne $ 100.00 (148.00)$ -60%Fee Change:$0.00 Irvine $ 200.00 (48.00)$ -19% Revised: 08/30/2023 Completed By: Date: 12/13/2023 Director Comments Response USER FEE COST ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Department/Division User Fee Description CSD/Parks Large Shelter (All Day) Park shelter rentals cover all-day access to the large shelter, including one hour of Coordinator time for reservation handling and communication, and two hours of Recreation Leader II time for pre-rental preparation like trash removal and signage. As a result of this analysis, and with the Department's fees for Park Shelters higher than many surrounding cities, there is no request to change park shelter fees. Labor Rates Position CS Coordinator CS Leader II CSD Admin Overhead (charged to personnel/material/rental costs) Total burdened personnel cost per unit of service: Material and Rental Costs Description Total materials/rental costs per unit of service: Other Costs Description This fee does reflect all-day access. User fee description changed changed to reflect actual fee name. Facility Overhead Total other costs per unit of service: Comparisons to Proposed Fee Fee Difference Jenny Hanlon [Circled "all-day access" in the desciption] ***COMPLETE ALL FIELDS COLORED TAN, AS APPLICABLE, FOR YOUR FEE*** Fund Account 001 409 Description of service, demand, recommended subsidy (if any), and other comments: Personnel Costs Straight Time Labor Rate Fringe Benefit Rate Total Direct Labor Cost Dept/Div Overhead Fully Burdened Cost (per hour) Hours by Position (per unit) Total Labor Cost (per unit) 37.02$ 50.00% 55.53$ 10% 61.08$ 1 61.08$ 18.62$ 1.45% 18.89$ 10% 20.78$ 1 20.78$ -$ 10% -$ -$ -$ 10% -$ -$ -$ 10% -$ -$ 81.86$ Cost (each) Quantity required Total Cost -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Cost (each) Quantity required Total Cost 17% N/A 13.92$ 0.35$ 1 0.35$ 14.27$ Total Service Direct Cost:96.13$ City Admin (CAP) Overhead Rate:0% Total Service Cost/Unit:96.13$ Comparison Agency Fee Dollars % Ontario 300.00$ 143.00$ 91%Current Fee Amount:157.00$ Corona $ 34.00 (123.00)$ -78% Claremont 93.75$ (63.25)$ -40%Recommended Fee Amount:157.00$ La Verne 18.75$ (138.25)$ -88%Recommended Fee Subsidy:($60.87) Irvine $ 90.00 (67.00)$ -43% Fee Change:$0.00 Revised: 08/30/2023 Completed By: Date: 12/13/2023 Director Comments Response USER FEE COST ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Department/Division User Fee Description CSD/Parks Special Event Area at Red Hill Park Large grass area at Red Hill Community Park can be rented for hourly fees. These areas are suitable for large-scale events that exceed the capacity of park shelters and include dedicated staff support to ensure a smooth experience. This breakdown includes staff time for reservation handling, communication, and pre-rental preparation. Notably, many comparable cities lack similar fees. Claremont's hourly special event rate is derived by dividing their daily fee by 8 hours. Irvine's fee applies to their amphitheater and surrounding area, comparable to Red Hill Park. La Verne's special event area offers a flat $150 daily rate, equating to an $18.75 hourly rate ($150 divided by 8 hours). No proposal is being made to alter this fee. Labor Rates Position Coordinator Recreation Leader II CSD Admin Overhead (charged to personnel/material/rental costs) Total burdened personnel cost per unit of service: Material and Rental Costs Description Total materials/rental costs per unit of service: Other Costs Description N/A Facility Overhead Total other costs per unit of service: Comparisons to Proposed Fee Fee Difference Jenny Hanlon Future Updates: Break out fee description from other [undiscernible] ***COMPLETE ALL FIELDS COLORED TAN, AS APPLICABLE, FOR YOUR FEE*** Fund Account 001 409 Description of service, demand, recommended subsidy (if any), and other comments: Personnel Costs Straight Time Labor Rate Fringe Benefit Rate Total Direct Labor Cost Dept/Div Overhead Fully Burdened Cost (per hour) Hours by Position (per unit) Total Labor Cost (per unit) 37.02$ 50.00% 55.53$ 10% 61.08$ 1 61.08$ 18.62$ 1.45% 18.89$ 10% 20.78$ 1 20.78$ -$ 10% -$ -$ -$ 10% -$ -$ -$ 10% -$ -$ 81.86$ Cost (each) Quantity required Total Cost -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Cost (each) Quantity required Total Cost 17% N/A 13.92$ 0.35$ 1 0.35$ 14.27$ Total Service Direct Cost:96.13$ City Admin (CAP) Overhead Rate:0% Total Service Cost/Unit:96.13$ Comparison Agency Fee Dollars % Ontario 300.00$ 195.00$ 186%Current Fee Amount:105.00$ Corona $ 34.00 (71.00)$ -68% Claremont 93.75$ (11.25)$ -11%Recommended Fee Amount:105.00$ La Verne 18.75$ (86.25)$ -82%Recommended Fee Subsidy:($8.87) Irvine $ 90.00 (15.00)$ -14% Fee Change:$0.00 Revised: 08/30/2023 Completed By: Date: 12/13/2023 Director Comments Response USER FEE COST ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Department/Division User Fee Description CSD/Parks Special Event Area at Heritage Park Large grass area at Heritage Community Park can be rented for hourly fees. These areas are suitable for large-scale events that exceed the capacity of park shelters and include dedicated staff support to ensure a smooth experience. This breakdown includes staff time for reservation handling, communication, and pre-rental preparation. Notably, many comparable cities lack similar fees. Claremont's hourly special event rate is derived by dividing their daily fee by 8 hours. Irvine's fee applies to their amphitheater and surrounding area, comparable to Red Hill Park. La Verne's special event area offers a flat $150 daily rate, equating to an $18.75 hourly rate ($150 divided by 8 hours). No proposal is being made to alter this fee. Labor Rates Position Coordinator Recreation Leader II CSD Admin Overhead (charged to personnel/material/rental costs) Total burdened personnel cost per unit of service: Material and Rental Costs Description Total materials/rental costs per unit of service: Other Costs Description N/A Facility Overhead Total other costs per unit of service: Comparisons to Proposed Fee Fee Difference Jenny Hanlon Hourly fee for renter does not this staff impact. Futre - include PW esp. for use of spaces per hour. ***COMPLETE ALL FIELDS COLORED TAN, AS APPLICABLE, FOR YOUR FEE*** Fund Account 001 406 Description of service, demand, recommended subsidy (if any), and other comments: Personnel Costs Straight Time Labor Rate Fringe Benefit Rate Total Direct Labor Cost Dept/Div Overhead Fully Burdened Cost (per hour) Hours by Position (per unit) Total Labor Cost (per unit) 37.02$ 50.00% 55.53$ 10% 61.08$ 1 61.08$ 18.62$ 1.45% 18.89$ 10% 20.78$ 1 20.78$ -$ 10% -$ -$ -$ 10% -$ -$ -$ 10% -$ -$ 81.86$ Cost (each) Quantity required Total Cost -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Cost (each) Quantity required Total Cost 17% N/A 13.92$ 0.35$ 1 0.35$ 14.27$ Total Service Direct Cost:96.13$ City Admin (CAP) Overhead Rate:0% Total Service Cost/Unit:96.13$ Comparison Agency Fee Dollars % Ontario 300.00$ 200.00$ 200%Current Fee Amount:100.00$ Corona 34.00$ (66.00)$ -66% Claremont $ 93.75 (6.25)$ -6%Recommended Fee Amount:100.00$ La Verne 18.75$ (81.25)$ -81%Recommended Fee Subsidy:($3.87) Irvine 90.00$ (10.00)$ -10% $ - (100.00)$ -100% Fee Change:$0.00 Revised: 08/30/2023 Completed By: Date: 12.14.23 Facility Overhead Total other costs per unit of service: Comparisons to Proposed Fee Fee Difference Jenny Hanlon CSD Admin Overhead (charged to personnel/material/rental costs) Total burdened personnel cost per unit of service: Material and Rental Costs Description Total materials/rental costs per unit of service: Other Costs Description USER FEE COST ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Department/Division User Fee Description CSD/Special Events Special Event area between A & B This Special Event area is a small grass staging area between parking lots A and B at the Epicenter Complex and is available to rent on a per-hour basis. It is smaller in size compared to the other special event areas in the department. This breakdown includes staff time for reservation handling, communication, and pre-rental preparation. There is no request to change this fee. Labor Rates Position CS Coordinator Recreation Leader II ***COMPLETE ALL FIELDS COLORED TAN, AS APPLICABLE, FOR YOUR FEE*** Fund Account 001, 130, 137,140, 700, 848,RC3501 Description of service, demand, recommended subsidy (if any), and other comments: Personnel Costs Straight Time Labor Rate Fringe Benefit Rate Total Direct Labor Cost Dept/Div Overhead Fully Burdened Cost (per hour) Hours by Position (per unit) Total Labor Cost (per unit) 40.91$ 50.00% 61.37$ 10% 67.50$ 35 2,362.55$ 81.42$ 50.00% 122.13$ 10% 134.34$ 5 671.72$ 93.55$ 50.00% 140.33$ 10% 154.36$ 1 154.36$ 44.75$ 50.00% 67.13$ 10% 73.84$ 8 590.70$ Senior Attorney 325.00$ 325.00$ 10% 357.50$ 3.5 1,251.25$ 5,030.58$ Cost (each) Quantity required Total Cost -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Cost (each) Quantity required Total Cost -$ -$ -$ Total Service Direct Cost:5,030.58$ City Admin (CAP) Overhead Rate:0% Total Service Cost/Unit:5,030.58$ Comparison Agency Fee Dollars % Corona 2,346.00$ $2,346.00 0.47$ Current Fee Amount:458.00$ Upland 2,582.00$ $2,582.00 0.52$ Antioch 1,005.00$ $1,005.00 0.20$ Recommended Fee Amount:5,000.00$ Ventura 2,940.00$ $2,940.00 0.59$ Recommended Fee Subsidy:$30.57 South San Francisco 2,665.00$ 2,665.00$ 0.53$ Camarillo 1,143.00$ 1,143.00$ 0.23$ -$ Fee Change:$4,542.00 Revised: 08/30/2023 Completed By: Date: 11/05/2024 Total other costs per unit of service: Comparisons to Proposed Fee Fee Difference Deborah Allen and Fred Lyn Total burdened personnel cost per unit of service: Material and Rental Costs Description Total materials/rental costs per unit of service: Other Costs Description USER FEE COST ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Department/Division User Fee Description Engineering / RCMU Cell tower contract amendment / extension Parks and Landscape Maintenance Supervisor Director of Engineering Services / City Engineer An existing telecommunication provider has an existing lease and is requesting a modification to the existing site plan, requesting to add lease space for additional equipment or a new co-lease, in addition to a contract amendment/extension. The proposed fee is the estimated amount of staff time needed based on current and past practice. Time includes the review of the existing communication provider lease and verify payments are up to date, explore any onsite issues, and review new equipment for size, aesthetics and noise pollution, and assess market value for City Property and email and communication with the telecommunication provider. This fee will ensure that the city is recouping costs for city staff and City Attorney fees for any input and review and coordinate any onsite logistics and guidelines. A typical process takes 6 months to one year. The City fee schedule currently has a $458/hour fee for Cell Site modification, but this hourly fee seems out of line with actual costs. Labor Rates Position Management Analyst I Deputy Director of Engineering Services / Utilities ***COMPLETE ALL FIELDS COLORED TAN, AS APPLICABLE, FOR YOUR FEE*** Fund Account 001, 130, 137,140, 700, 848,RC3501 Description of service, demand, recommended subsidy (if any), and other comments: Personnel Costs Straight Time Labor Rate Fringe Benefit Rate Total Direct Labor Cost Dept/Div Overhead Fully Burdened Cost (per hour) Hours by Position (per unit) Total Labor Cost (per unit) 40.91$ 50.00% 61.37$ 10% 67.50$ 55 3,712.58$ 81.42$ 50.00% 122.13$ 10% 134.34$ 10 1,343.43$ 93.55$ 50.00% 140.33$ 10% 154.36$ 2 308.72$ 44.75$ 50.00% 67.13$ 10% 73.84$ 16 1,181.40$ Senior Attorney 325.00$ 325.00$ 10% 357.50$ 7 2,502.50$ 9,048.63$ Cost (each) Quantity required Total Cost 250.00$ 4 1,000.00$ -$ -$ -$ 1,000.00$ Cost (each) Quantity required Total Cost -$ -$ -$ Total Service Direct Cost:10,048.63$ City Admin (CAP) Overhead Rate:0% Total Service Cost/Unit:10,048.63$ Comparison Agency Fee Dollars % Antioch Fully burdened rates + outside costs Current Fee Amount:2,256.00$ Rancho Palos Verde $3,800 PLUS $5,000 TRUST DEPOSIT $8,800.00 390% Campbell $ 8,000.00 $8,000.00 80%Recommended Fee Amount:10,000.00$ Town of Moraga Cost of Service plus deposit $3,000.00 Recommended Fee Subsidy:$48.63 La Pine, Oregon $10,000.00 100%Fee Change:$7,744.00 p// p g / / / / Revised: 08/30/2023 Completed By: Date: 11/05/2024 Total other costs per unit of service: Comparisons to Proposed Fee Fee Difference Deborah Allen and Fred Lyn Total burdened personnel cost per unit of service: Material and Rental Costs Description Community meeting (room rental) (if needed) Total materials/rental costs per unit of service: Other Costs Description USER FEE COST ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Department/Division User Fee Description Engineering / RCMU New Cell Tower Siting and new contract on City Property Parks and Landscape Maintenance Supervisor Director of Engineering Services / City Engineer The proposed fee is the estimated amount of staff time needed based on current and past practice. A typical process timeline from start to finish will be between 2 to 3 years. The estimated time includes the review of the proposed communication provider's site plan, contract lease neogotiations, explore any onsite issues, and review new equipment for size, aesthetics and noise pollution and email, research on current market value on City property and communication with the telecommunication provider. This fee will ensure that the city is recouping costs for City Staff and City Attorney fees for any input and review and coordinate any onsite logistics and guidelines. The City fee schedule currently has a flat fee of $2,256 fee for a new Cell tower with equipment shelter, but this flat fee does not cover the estimated actual costs of Staff time to review site plan, negotiate communication provider lease, review new equipment for aesthetics and noise pollution, ensuring the city is recouping costs for City staff and City Attorney fees for their input and review. Labor Rates Position Management Analyst I Deputy Director of Engineering Services / Utilities ***COMPLETE ALL FIELDS COLORED TAN, AS APPLICABLE, FOR YOUR FEE*** Fund Account 001, 130, 137,140, 700, 848,RC3501 Description of service, demand, recommended subsidy (if any), and other comments: Personnel Costs Straight Time Labor Rate Fringe Benefit Rate Total Direct Labor Cost Dept/Div Overhead Fully Burdened Cost (per hour) Hours by Position (per unit) Total Labor Cost (per unit) 40.91$ 50.00% 61.37$ 10% 67.50$ 17 1,147.53$ 81.42$ 50.00% 122.13$ 10% 134.34$ 1.75 235.10$ 93.55$ 50.00% 140.33$ 10% 154.36$ 0.5 77.18$ 44.75$ 50.00% 67.13$ 10% 73.84$ 4 295.35$ Senior Attorney 325.00$ 325.00$ 10% 357.50$ 1.75 625.63$ 2,380.78$ Cost (each) Quantity required Total Cost -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Cost (each) Quantity required Total Cost -$ -$ -$ Total Service Direct Cost:2,380.78$ City Admin (CAP) Overhead Rate:0% Total Service Cost/Unit:2,380.78$ Comparison Agency Fee Dollars % Corona 2,346.00$ $2,346.00 0.40$ Current Fee Amount:458.00$ Upland 2,582.00$ $2,582.00 1.03$ Antioch 1,005.00$ $1,005.00 0.40$ Recommended Fee Amount:2,500.00$ Ventura 2,940.00$ $2,940.00 1.18$ Recommended Fee Subsidy:($119.22) South San Francisco 2,665.00$ 2,665.00$ 1.07$ Camarillo 1,143.00$ 1,143.00$ 0.46$ Fee Change:$2,042.00 Revised: 08/30/2023 Completed By: Date: 11/05/2024 Parks and Landscape Maintenance Supervisor Director of Engineering Services / City Engineer An existing telecommunication provider has an existing lease and is requesting a modification to the existing site plan. The proposed fee is the estimated amount of staff time needed based on current and past practice. Time includes the review of the existing communication provider lease and verify payments are up to date, explore any onsite issues, and review new equipment for size, aesthetics and noise pollution and email and communication with the telecommunication provider. This fee will ensure that the city is recouping costs for city staff and City Attorney fees for any input and review and coordinate any onsite logistics and guidelines. The City fee schedule currently has a $458/hour fee for Cell Site modification, but this hourly fee seems out of line with actual costs. Labor Rates Position Management Analyst I Deputy Director of Engineering Services / Utilities USER FEE COST ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Department/Division User Fee Description Engineering / RCMU Cell Site Modification Courtesy Review Total burdened personnel cost per unit of service: Material and Rental Costs Description Total materials/rental costs per unit of service: Other Costs Description Total other costs per unit of service: Comparisons to Proposed Fee Fee Difference Deborah Allen and Fred Lyn ***COMPLETE ALL FIELDS COLORED TAN, AS APPLICABLE, FOR YOUR FEE*** Fund Account 16 CC000-RC4302 Description of service, demand, recommended subsidy (if any), and other comments: Personnel Costs Straight Time Labor Rate Fringe Benefit Rate Total Direct Labor Cost Dept/Div Overhead Fully Burdened Cost (per hour) Hours by Position (per unit) Total Labor Cost (per unit) -$ 10% -$ -$ -$ 10% -$ -$ -$ 10% -$ -$ -$ 10% -$ -$ -$ 10% -$ -$ -$ Cost (each) Quantity required Total Cost -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Cost (each) Quantity required Total Cost -$ -$ -$ Total Service Direct Cost:-$ City Admin (CAP) Overhead Rate:0% Total Service Cost/Unit:-$ Comparison Agency Fee Dollars % Fontana no comparison Current Fee Amount:10% Ontario Advanced long range planning fee: 5% of all bldg permits and pln apps Eastvale no comparison Recommended Fee Amount:15.90% Upland 7%Recommended Fee Subsidy: Chino .05% of the job valuation Fee Change: Revised: 08/30/2023 Completed By: Date: 11/07/2024 USER FEE COST ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Department/Division User Fee Description Planning & Economic Development General Plan Maintenance Fee The General Plan Maintenance fee is a small percentage charged to applicable Planning applications in addition to the base fee. Revenues generated from the collection of this fee are used to fund updates to the General Plan. Per Government Code 66014(B), local agencies are allowed to include costs reasonably necessary to prepare and revise plans and policies that are required to adopt before it can make any necessary findings and determinations, including maintenance to the General Plan. In 2023, the City collaborated with a vendor, NBS, to complete a comprehensive fee study. The study concluded that the City's current General Plan Maintenance fee of 10% is recovering 92% of the Department's cost of providing services, however, to recover 100% of the cost of providing services, the fee would need to be increased to 15.9%. Thus, the Planning and Economic Development Department is recommending an increase in the General Plan Maintenance fee accordingly. Labor Rates Position N/A Total burdened personnel cost per unit of service: Material and Rental Costs Description See backup document "Fee Study- Planning & Building and Stafety Services Departments Final Report" Total materials/rental costs per unit of service: Other Costs Description Total other costs per unit of service: Comparisons to Proposed Fee Fee Difference Aracely Estrada Public Hearing – User Fees December 4, 2024 •The City offers many services. Fees are charged to recover costs associated with services provided. •Fees are reviewed and updated each year. •The following departments participated in fee adjustments: Overview Animal Services Community Services Engineering (RCMU) Planning & Economic Development Objective •Address rising operational costs and ensure a sustainable funding model. Proposed Updates •Align adoption fees with medical care costs. •Revise licensing fees to support regulatory services. •Introduce specialized fee structures for certain animals. •Adjust pet surrender fees based on service requirements. Rationale •Reflects increased expenses for animal care, medical services, and administration. •Tailored to specific service needs for cost recovery.. •Maintain high-quality services amidst growing demand and financial pressures. Anim al Services Objective •Enhance service offerings to meet the evolving needs of customers. Proposed Updates •Adjust user fees to reflect the current marketplace. •Eliminate or combine outdated fees. •Refine fee language for accuracy and better customer service. Rationale •Careful evaluation to ensure fees align with community needs and preferences. •Increased flexibility for patrons. •Improved alignment with the current business model. Com m unity Services Objective •Recover costs for managing telecommunications projects effectively. Proposed Updates •Introduce fees for telecommunications lease reviews, site modifications, and contract amendments. •Adjust fees to reflect estimated time and resource requirements. Rationale •Current flat or hourly fees insufficient to cover actual costs. •Based on staff time and City Attorney service requirements. •Aligns fees with project management needs. •Support cost recovery for lease compliance and logistics. Engineering – Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Utility (RCMU) Objective •Improve clarity and accuracy in the fee structure. Proposed Updates •Update fee names to better reflect their purpose. •Increase the General Plan Maintenance fee for cost recovery. •Correct footnotes and terminology for consistency. Rationale •Ensures the fee schedule is accurate and transparent. •Aligns with departmental cost-recovery goals. Planning & Economic Development Proposed fees will become effective on the following dates: •January 1, 2025 •Animal Services (With exception of Licensing Fees) •February 2, 2025 - 60 Days From Adoption of the Resolution •Animal Services' Licensing Fees •Engineering (RCMU) •Planning & Economic Development •July 1, 2025 •Community Services Effective Dates of Fees Outreach efforts of the proposed fee changes include: •Notice of Public Hearing was advertised in the newspaper twice. •Notice of Public Hearing was mailed to interested parties by the City Clerk’s Office. •Fee Cost Analysis were made available for viewing in the City Clerk’s Office on November 21, 2024. Public Outreach Staff recommends the City Council take the following actions: 1.Open the public hearing on the proposed new and amended service and user fees; 2.Adopt a Resolution to establish new fees, repeal outdated fees, and amend certain existing fees for Animal Services, Community Services, Engineering Services (RCMU), and Planning & Economic Development Recommendation Questions? DATE:December 4, 2024 TO:Mayor and Members of the City Council President and Members of the Board of Directors FROM:John R. Gillison, City Manager INITIATED BY:Matt Burris, Deputy City Manager/Community Development Zack Neighbors, Director of Building and Safety Services Jason Welday, Director of Engineering Services/City Engineer SUBJECT:Public Hearing for Consideration of Resolution No. 2024-104, a Resolution of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, Establishing the Rates for the Impact Fees Associated with Fire Protection, Park, Community and Recreation Center, Library, Animal Center, Police, and Transportation Facilities; Adopting the Impact Fee Nexus Studies in Support of the Foregoing Impact Fees, Including Adopting Capital Improvement Programs as part of the Nexus Studies, and Making a Determination of Exemption Under CEQA; and Consideration of First Reading of Ordinance No. 1034, to be Read by Title Only and Waive Further Reading, Adding Chapter 3.80 to the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code, Establishing a Development Impact Fee for Fire Impacts of Residential and Business Development, and Making a Determination of Exemption under CEQA. (RESOLUTION NO. 2024-104) (ORDINANCE NO. 1034) (CITY/FIRE) REVISION: As part of the City’s outreach on this item, the staff met with representatives of the Building Industry of America (BIA) and several developers actively working in the City. BIA and the developers have asked for clarifying information 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, staff is recommending that the public hearing for the Transportation Development Impact Fee schedule, Non- Transportation Development Impact Fees, and Nexus Studies be continued to December 18, 2024, at 7:00 p.m. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the City Council continue the public hearing on Transportation Development Impact Fees, Non-Transportation Development Impact Fees, and Nexus Studies to December 18, 2024, at 7:00 p.m. ATTACHMENTS: None. Page 110 12/4/2024 – REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED FOR PUBLIC HEARING ITEM G 2 From: James Brownyard <james@thedvba.org> Sent: Tuesday, December 3, 2024 11:17 AM To: Oriel, Jasmin <Jasmin.Oriel@cityofrc.us> Subject: RE: City of Rancho Cucamonga Regular City Council Meeting Agenda | Wednesday, December 4, 2024 Importance: High Good morning, Ms. Oriel, I have been reading the Transportation Fee Study. One of the first statements I read was that the interests of the administration and council was to limit the amount for fees charged. My thoughts at the time were that the city would charge 70 to 90 percent of the supportable fee under the requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act. However, in reaching the end of the transportation section with the final “supportable” fees, I was surprised. For a single family detached home of 2,500 sq.ft. of livable space the city would charge $35,000+. This amount is hard to swallow. I do not know the current fees, so I can’t compare with the existing charges. What really got to us as we represent all types of new construction, were the charges for commercial construction. In tat category is fueling stations. A business with one fuel pump would expe ct to be charged 12.77 times the single family detached cost at $452,952. Ouch. But, what company actually builds a fueling station with only one pump? On the smaller size are stations with 4 islands of pumps totally 16 pumps. That price tag would range ab out $7,250,000. Before any construction occurs. We may have missed something but as we read the study, these fees, just for transportation facilities, is a non - starter. Please let us know if we have gotten this wrong. As a minor issue, we are confused about the timeframe for the data used in the calculations, there are at least 3 different counts in current or base population and persons served. Those dates are 2018, 2020 as the census, an updated census number for 2023 and then another starting point of 2024. It makes it very difficult to understand the current Level of Service (LOS) promoted here as the mitigation standard. To support a “nexus” as required by the Mitigation Fee Act simplified under AB 602 the current L OS may be adopted as the “nexus” by default. This makes these base years and population data points very important. Consistency is necessary. Thank you, James E. Brownyard V.P. Legislative and Governmental Affairs Desert Valleys Builders Association 550 S. Oleander Road Palm Springs, CA 92262 Office: (760) 776-7001 Cellphone: (760) 562-1735 Page 111 12/4/2024 – REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED FOR PUBLIC HEARING ITEM G2 From: Joe Oftelie <JOftelie@warmingtongroup.com> Sent: Wednesday, December 4, 2024 10:01 AM To: Bravo-Valdez, Patricia <Patricia.Bravo-Valdez@cityofrc.us> Subject: Public Hearing for Consideration of Resolution No. 2024-104 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. Good morning, Please find the attached comment letter for Agenda Item G2 for tonight’s City Council meeting. Thank you very much, Joe Oftelie | President Warmington Residential | Southern California Division 3090 Pullman Street | Costa Mesa, CA 92626 c: 562.826.3483 HomesByWarmington.com You don't often get email from joftelie@warmingtongroup.com. Learn why this is important Page 112 3090 Pullman Street, Costa Mesa, California 92626 t: 714.557.5511 f: 714.641.9337 HomesByWarmington.com December 4, 2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga – City Council 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 RE: Public Hearing for Consideration of Resolution No. 2024-104 Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council Members, I am writing to express significant concerns about the current proposed development impact fee agenda item scheduled for your upcoming meeting. After careful review, it has become apparent that the proposed fee structure requires substantial additional analysis and stakeholder engagement before the City Council can responsibly take action. The proposed development impact fees appear to have several critical issues that merit comprehensive review and revision: 1. The current analysis seems incomplete and may not fully capture the nuanced economic implications for various stakeholders, including developers, residents, and local businesses. 2. There are insufficient details demonstrating how the proposed fees were calculated and how they align with the city's long-term economic development goals. 3. The potential unintended consequences of these fees on housing affordability and local economic growth have not been adequately explored. Given these concerns, I respectfully request that the City Council table this agenda item. This will provide: - Adequate time for city staff to conduct a more thorough and comprehensive analysis - An opportunity for meaningful stakeholder engagement and input - A chance to develop a more balanced and well-researched recommendation By taking a measured approach, the City Council can ensure that any adopted development impact fees are fair, transparent, and supportive of Rancho Cucamonga's broader community development objectives. We recommend reconvening on this matter once a more robust analysis has been completed and stakeholders have had a meaningful opportunity to provide input and feedback. Thank you for your careful consideration of these critical issues. Sincerely, Joe Oftelie President Warmington Residential | Southern California Division Page 113 12/4/2024 – REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED FOR PUBLIC HEARING ITEM G2 From: Carlos Rodriguez <crodriguez@biasc.org> Sent: Tuesday, December 3, 2024 1:51 PM To: Gillison, John <John.Gillison@cityofrc.us> Cc: Bravo-Valdez, Patricia <Patricia.Bravo-Valdez@cityofrc.us> Subject: Public Hearing Notice - December 4, 2024 City Council Meeting Good afternoon John, Per our discussion and as referenced in the attached cover letter please see the attached legal analysis of the NBS DIF study. We have also updated our previous analysis of the Fehr and Peers transportatfon fee study and NBS DIF study in separate memos prepared by DPFG – both submitted on November 19 with our previous legal analysis. We highlighted the memo updates in blue to help clarify our new comments. Please advise on your schedule availability to meet with your consultant team at your earliest conveni ence. Thank you, Carlos From: Gillison, John <John.Gillison@cityofrc.us> Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2024 6:17 PM To: Carlos Rodriguez <crodriguez@biasc.org> Cc: Bravo-Valdez, Patricia <Patricia.Bravo-Valdez@cityofrc.us> Subject: RE: Public Hearing Notice - December 4, 2024 City Council Meeting Carlos Our team is available to meet on 11/26 at 3:30 in the Rains Room. That will accommodate a good dozen people and we can also remote in (thru Teams or Zoom) anyone on other team who might have a challenge getting to City Hall. Please let us know if you need that optfon. Appreciate the feedback on the two DIF studies. We will be prepared to respond to your questfons by the 26th and then we can follow up with a letter in writfng confirming what was discussed at the meetfng. As I committed to you, we will consider your request and questfons, and all requests and questfons, in good faith and make a recommendatfon to the City Council regarding the December 4th hearing. We will also share your correspondence with the City Attorney and City Council and we will see you tomorrow night for public comment. John R. Gillison City Manager City of Rancho Cucamonga 2020 All American City I value your work life boundaries. Please do not feel pressure to respond to this message outside of working hours. Page 114 From: Carlos Rodriguez <crodriguez@biasc.org> Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2024 5:11 PM To: Gillison, John <John.Gillison@cityofrc.us> Cc: Bravo-Valdez, Patricia <Patricia.Bravo-Valdez@cityofrc.us> Subject: Public Hearing Notice - December 4, 2024 City Council Meeting Greetfngs John, I hope all is well. Please see the attached preliminary comments regarding the two DIF studies and we would appreciate a written response at your earliest convenience. Our review is ongoing and we respectiully request a 60-day pause on the December 4, public hearing to the first meetfng in February, 2025. That said, we contfnue our review as quickly as possible in good faith and optfmism that we will be granted additfonal tfme needed to complete our analysis and begin our series of meetfngs with your team. Please let me know your schedule availability next Tuesday, 11/26. Thank you for your consideratfon. I’ve cc’d Patricia and appreciate her passing along our attached correspondence to the City Council. Best, Carlos From: Bravo-Valdez, Patricia <Patricia.Bravo-Valdez@cityofrc.us> Sent: Monday, November 4, 2024 9:22 AM Subject: Public Hearing Notice - December 4, 2024 City Council Meeting Good morning, Attached please find a Public Hearing notice regarding city fees. Thank you, Patricia Bravo-Valdez, MMC Deputy Director of City Clerk Services City Clerk Services Department City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730-3801 PO Box 807, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 T: (909) 477-2700, Ext. 2009 / www.cityofrc.us Page 115 17192 Murphy Ave., #14445, Irvine, CA 92623 December 3, 2024 Honorable Mayor Dennis Michael and City Council 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 RE: Request for 60-day Pause To Review Development Impact Fees Studies Dear Mayor Michael and City Council: On behalf of the Building Industry Legal Defense Foundation (BILD) and the Building Industry Association of Southern California San Bernardino County Chapter, we write to express concern over the adequacy of the Fehr & Peers nexus study for the proposed Rancho Cucamonga Traffic Development Impact Fees and the NBS DIF Study. These reports shared by the city raises several issues which may require further review. By way of background, the Building Industry Legal Foundation (BILD) is a non-profit affiliate of the Building Industry Association of Southern California (BIA/SC). BILD provides legal support, research and litigation services dedicated to increasing the production of housing in response to the State’s overwhelming underproduction of housing. BIA/SC represents the home building community of the entire Southern California region, working to achieve housing as the foundation of vibrant and sustainable communities. Recently, BIA/SC retained the services of the Rutan and Tucker law firm to provide a legal review of the proposed transportation impact fees brought forward by the City of Rancho Cucamonga. This analysis submitted on November 19 finds that the transportation fee study conducted by Fehr & Peers “fails to comply” with “constitutional and statutory requirements” of such studies and this fails to meet legal compliance standards These findings are further supported by the previously submitted technical review provided by engineering firm Linscott, Law & Greenspan Engineers (LLG). The experts at LLG proffer eight issues with the Fehr & Peers study that need to be resolved before the City can justifiably rely on said study for the establishment of a fee system. Please note, we have submitted an additional legal analysis regarding the NBS Nexus Study for your consideration. We have also updated our previous analysis of the Fehr and Peers transportation fee study and NBS DIF study in separate memos prepared by DPFG. Page 116 Without a legally sufficient Nexus study, the City of Rancho Cucamonga cannot proceed with adopting new fees. Such action cannot occur until the multiple State and Federal legal concerns are addressed, along with the technical issued raised by LLG. As such, BILD and BIA/SC request a written response to each of our previous comment letters and that consideration of any development impact fee updates be continued from the December 4, 2024 Council Agenda and that the City commit to a 60-day pause, to allow collaborative discussions to resolve all issues raised in our comments. In conclusion, we respectfully request that the City Council forgo any action over the next 60-days on the following agenda item: G2. Public Hearing for Consideration of Resolution No. 2024-104, a Resolution of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, Establishing the Rates for the Impact Fees Associated with Fire Protection, Park, Community and Recreation Center, Library, Animal Center, Police, and Transportation Facilities; Adopting the Impact Fee Nexus Studies in Support of the Foregoing Impact Fees, Including Adopting Capital Improvement Programs as part of the Nexus Studies, and Making a Determination of Exemption Under CEQA; and Consideration of First Reading of Ordinance No. 1034, to be Read by Title Only and Waive Further Reading, Adding Chapter 3.80 to the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code, Establishing a Development Impact Fee for Fire Impacts of Residential and Business Development, and Making a Determination of Exemption under CEQA. (RESOLUTION NO. 2024-104) (ORDINANCE NO. 1034) (CITY/FIRE) Furthermore, we respectfully request to schedule a series of meetings with your staff and consultant team to discuss their written responses at their earliest convenience. We appreciate your immediate attention to this matter and look forward to working with City staff to resolve the issues necessitating this letter. Sincerely, Adam S. Wood Carlos Rodriguez Chief Administrator Chief Policy Officer BILD BIA/SC Page 117 David P. Lanferman Direct Dial: (650) 320-1507 E-mail: dlanferman@rutan.com December 3, 2024 Rutan & Tucker, LLP | 455 Market Street, Suite 1870 San Francisco, CA 94105 | 650 -263 -7900 | Fax 650 -263 -7901 Orange County | Palo Alto | San Francisco | Scottsdale | www.rutan.com 2644/031455-0010 21501875.7 a12/03/24 Mr. John Gillison, City Manager CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Mr. Matt Burris, Director Dept. of Community Development CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Re: Proposed New “Development Impact Fees (DIF)” and “Nexus Study” Preliminary Comments, Questions, and Objections Dear City Manager Gillison and Director Burris: On behalf of the Building Industry Association of Southern California (“BIA”) we respectfully submit this letter summarizing our preliminary comments and objections to the proposed set of new and unreasonably-increased “Development Impact Fees (DIF)” for non- transportation facilities as described in the “Development Impact Fee Study” dated November 1, 2024, prepared for the City of Rancho Cucamonga by NBS Government Finance. The proposal would abruptly increase fees on attached housing by 128% and on detached housing by 47%., While we appreciate that the City’s consultants appear to have attempted to comply with the constitutional and statutory requirements in preparing the subject NBS Nexus Study, it is nevertheless clear that there are numerous fatal legal errors and deficiencies reflected in this Nexus Study. Consequently, the current version of this NBS Nexus Study does not, and cannot, support the proposed new and radically-increased set of development impact fees (“DIF”). Any City Council action to approve the proposed new DIF on the basis of this flawed Nexus Study would be contrary to applicable laws, factually unjustified, and subject to judicial invalidation. The BIA and its members therefore strongly urge the City to defer action on the proposed new DIF, and instead request that the City direct its consultants to review and revise the current version of this Nexus Study in light of the comments, questions, and objections raised in this letter. The proposal for adoption of new and greatly-increased development fees has huge – potentially prohibitive -- impacts on the ability of the City to attract and provide much-needed housing. Accordingly, BIA would also respectfully request that the City provide adequate time and opportunities for open and interactive discussions of these proposals with homebuilders and other interested stakeholders before bringing them forward for Council consideration. Page 118 Mr. John Gillison, City Manager Matt Burris, Director December 3, 2024 Page 2 2644/031455-0010 21501875.7 a12/03/24 INTRODUCTORY COMMENTS AND GENERALLY-APPLICABLE OBJECTIONS: The following comments and objections apply generally to each of the particular development fees proposed by the NBS Nexus Study: 1. Failure to Comply with New AB 602: To its credit, the Study acknowledges that new AB 602 took effect on January 1, 2022, adding new requirements for cities seeking to adopt or amend development impact fees – including that cities must adopt nexus studies. That legislation added several requirements specifically mandating the contents of purported “nexus studies” – with which this Nexus Study fails to comply, as detailed below. 2. Failure to Include a Capital Improvement Plan: One of those new requirements of AB 602 now mandates that larger cities, such as Rancho Cucamonga, must also adopt a Capital Improvement Plan (“CIP”) as part of the nexus study. This Nexus Study fails to do so. As stated in the IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY TEMPLATE prepared by the Terner Center for the California Dept. of Housing and Community Development (December 2023) [“NEXUS STUDY TEMPLATE”]: When adopting or updating a fee, a large jurisdiction must adopt a Capital Improvement Plan as part of the nexus study.... A CIP indicates the approximate location, size, time of availability, and estimates of cost for all facilities or improvements to be financed with the fees. At a minimum, the use of fee revenues needs to be programmed in the jurisdiction’s Five Year Capital Improvement Plan. A CIP is required to describe “the approximate location, size, and time of availability, and estimates of cost for all facilities” to be financed by the fees. (Gov. Code § 66002(a). The NBS Nexus Study, however, does not include such a Capital Improvement Plan, as expressly required by Gov. Code § 66016.5(a)(6). To the contrary, the Study acknowledges this failure, but tries to argue that the use of an “existing inventory” approach somehow excuses its omission of a valid CIP. There is no authority for that argument. Not only is this a failure to comply with the statutory mandate, it also means that the assumption regarding a “need” for the projected “new facilities” in the Nexus Study – as well as the associated “cost estimates” for those hypothetical new facilities -- are speculative and unfounded. In the absence of a Council-adopted CIP calling for the City to actually provide the new public facilities imagined in the Nexus Study, the purported justification for these fees would likely be deemed to be mere speculation, based on the estimated costs of building “hypothetical” or illusory facilities for which the City Council had not made any commitment. The California Court Page 119 Mr. John Gillison, City Manager Matt Burris, Director December 3, 2024 Page 3 2644/031455-0010 21501875.7 a12/03/24 of Appeal recently invalidated a set of such facilities fees on such grounds, i.e., that there was no adopted facilities plan upon which to base the projected costs of speculative new facilities ostensibly “needed” by new development. (See, SummerHill Winchester LLC v. Campbell Unif. Sch. Dist. (2018) 30 Cal.App.5th 545, 556: “Here, the fee study's use of hypothetical new schools that CUSD was not going to build as the financial premise for calculating the fee was not a reasonable alternative methodology that could legally support the fee imposed by the Board.”) Although the City has an adopted CIP for 2023/24, the Nexus Study does not refer to it. And, most critically, the proposed new facilities identified in the CIP (and their estimated costs) are not consistent with the assumptions about new facilities in the Nexus Study. The cost estimates for the new capital improvements in the Council-adopted CIP that the City actually plans to provide are far less than the unrealistic projections in the Nexus Study for its unidentified and hypothetical new facilities. 3. Failure to Provide Any Analysis of Prior Nexus Study: The Nexus Study also fails to comply with another AB 602 requirement: If a nexus study purports to support the increase of an existing fee, the City must [“shall”] “review the assumptions of the nexus study supporting the original fee and evaluate the amount of fees collected under the original fee.” Gov. Code § 66016.5(a)(4). Again, this Nexus Study fails to comply with this statutory requirement. We are informed that the City last conducted a nexus study to justify its current set of DIF in 2020 – the “Development Impact Fee Study” dated November 4, 2020, prepared by NBS. That Study made assumptions about the City’s anticipated growth and resulting needs for new public facilities caused by that growth -- and reached conclusions about reasonable DIF – far different from those in this Study. This Study fails to explain those contrasts as required by AB 602. 4. Failure to Calculate Fees Proportionately to the Square Footage of the Proposed Units in the Development. This Nexus Study also fails to comply with another AB 602 requirement: Nexus studies adopted after July 1, 2022, must either calculate a fee levied or imposed on a housing development project proportionately to the square footage of the proposed units, or make specified findings explaining why square footage is not an appropriate metric to calculate the fees. (Gov. Code § 66016.5(a)(5). The Legislature added this requirement in recognition of studies showing that “per unit” development fees often result in disproportionately high fees on smaller homes and multi-family units. This Study improperly calculates its fees on a “tiered per unit” basis, and fails to justify its disregard of the statute. Page 120 Mr. John Gillison, City Manager Matt Burris, Director December 3, 2024 Page 4 2644/031455-0010 21501875.7 a12/03/24 The statute requires the City to make findings as to all of the following: (a) An explanation as to why square footage is not an appropriate metric to calculate fees imposed on a housing development project; (b) An explanation that an alternative basis of calculating the fee bears a reasonable relationship between the fee charged and the burden posed by the development; and. (c) That other policies in the fee structure support smaller developments, or otherwise ensure that smaller developments are not charged disproportionate fees. Although this Nexus Study attempts to provide an explanation for its refusal to establish new impact fees proportionately to the square footage of the units upon which fees are to be imposed, it nevertheless fails to comply with the requirements of Section 66016.5(a)(5)(B), and completely fails to make any finding that “other policies in the fee structure support smaller developments, or otherwise ensure that smaller developments are not charged disproportionate fees” as required by the statute. Since the NBS Nexus Study uses a novel “tiered” square footage per unit approach and fails to comply with this statutory requirement, it is not entitled to any presumption that it has “ used a valid method to establish a reasonable relationship between the fee charged and the burden posed by the development.” Gov. Code § 66016.5(a)(5). 5. Failure to satisfy constitutional requirements that the City demonstrate that the proposed new DIF are reasonably related to or caused by new development, and are at least “roughly proportional” in amount to the burdens caused by new development. The NBS Nexus Study largely claims to rely on what it calls the “existing inventory” method in order to justify the proposed new development fees. The validity of that purported “methodology” is open to question, particularly following the recent Supreme Court decision in Sheetz v County of El Dorado (2024) holding that all development fees, regardless of how they are enacted or imposed, must and comply with the constitutional requirements for valid development fees as declared by other U.S. Supreme Court decisions [e.g., Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Mgt. Dist., 570 U.S. 595]. The California Court of Appeal has recently affirmed that those requirements apply in California [e.g., Alliance for Responsible Planning, supra, 63 Cal.App.5th at1085]. Even if the “existing inventory” methodology retains any validity, the City must still comply with the federal and state constitutions and must show: [a] that the proposed new DIF fees are limited to the reasonably estimated costs of providing new public facilities that bear an “essential nexus” the government’s legitimate needs to mitigate impacts caused by new development; and Page 121 Mr. John Gillison, City Manager Matt Burris, Director December 3, 2024 Page 5 2644/031455-0010 21501875.7 a12/03/24 [b] that the proposed new DIF fees would be at least “roughly proportional” and limited to the costs of providing new facilities which are shown to be needed to mitigate impacts caused by the new development. 6. The Nexus Study’s Assumptions of Population Growth, and Average Size of Units, and Persons/Unit by Unit Size Are Speculative and Unfounded. The highly speculative assumptions used in the Nexus Study for anticipated future growth of the City through 2040, and for the average size of dwelling units in the City, and for the number of person per dwelling unit are at least questionable and appear to be inconsistent with other objective sources of information, as pointed out in the MEMORANDUM by Peter Piller (Development Planning & Finance Group) dated December 2, 2024 [previously provided to the City by BIASC]. 7. Failure to Properly Account for Other Non-Fee Funding Sources. The Study does not properly take into account – and credit – all other, non-DIF, funding sources for the proposed facilities and improvements (e.g., State or federal grants; existing surpluses, interest, and new local tax revenues likely to generated by new development, etc.) New development ultimately will be paying on-going local property, sales, and gasoline taxes, in addition to one-time DIF fees. Such taxes are available to help fund these kinds of improvements. In addition, the City will likely require subdividers and other developments to provide (at developer cost) project-specific parks and other improvements, which should not be included in the DIF project list. 8. The Nexus Study Fails to Account for Mandatory Exclusions from New Fees: The proposed new impact fees may not be imposed against new residential Accessory Dwelling Units that are less than 750 sq.ft. in size. Gov. Code § 65852.2. There is no indication that the Nexus Study accounts for the fact that some part of the anticipated population growth may be accommodated in such small ADUs that would be exempt from the new fees, and that the “impacts” of such new ADUs would not be mitigated by the proposed new fees on other forms of residential development, thus skewing the burden of the fees disproportionately. Similarly, the proposed new fees may not be imposed against new development projects that have “vested rights” against the imposition of new fees pursuant to Preliminary Applications under SB 330, or pursuant to Development Agreements precluding the imposition of new fees. The failure of the Nexus Study to account for such residential developments that will be exempt from the new fees again improperly skews the burden of the fees disproportionately. Page 122 Mr. John Gillison, City Manager Matt Burris, Director December 3, 2024 Page 6 2644/031455-0010 21501875.7 a12/03/24 OBJECTIONS TO SPECIFIC PROPOSED IMPACT FEES The comments and objections in this letter are primarily focused on the following proposed fees, without implying that the other fees are free from deficiency or objection: * Increased fees for Park Land Acquisition * Increased fees for Park Improvements * Increased fees for Community Recreation/Center Facilities * Increased fees for Library Facilities, Furnishings and Materials * New fees to be given to the Fire Protection District for Fire facilities. INVALID FEES FOR PARK LAND ACQUISITION: The NBS Nexus Study (at Chapter 3) addresses proposed new fees for the purposes of acquiring additional park land and recreational improvements. However, the Study fails to comply with California State law governing fees for parkland acquisition and also fails to comply with the City’s own local ordinances governing “park in-lieu fees” and “park impact fees” on new development. In California, fees imposed for the purpose of acquiring park land or recreational improvements as a condition of approving new development are governed by two (2) distinct statutory regimes: the Quimby Act [Cal. Gov. Code §§ 66477 et seq.], and/or the Mitigation Fee Act [Cal. Gov. Code §§ 66000 et seq.]. The Quimby Act provides limited authorization for cities and counties to exact land dedications, or payment of fees “in-lieu” of such dedications, as a condition of residential subdivision approval. The Mitigation Fee Act applies more broadly, allowing reasonable and proportionate fees to be imposed as conditions of all types of development activity. Although a City may elect to establish park fees under both the Quimby Act [for residential subdivisions], and under the Mitigation Fee Act [for other types of development approvals], it must assure that those fees are not duplicative. (Home Builders Ass’n v. City of Lemoore (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 554.) The City’s Municipal Code properly reflects these two distinct types of fees for park land acquisition, i.e., between the demands for park land (or in-lieu fees) that may be imposed on new residential subdivisions and the fees that might be imposed on other types of new development. See, RCMC § 3.68.010(B): “Fees for park land acquisition are subdivided -- [i] Fees in-lieu of park land dedication for subdivisions and [ii] impact fees for park land acquisition not involving subdivisions.” Page 123 Mr. John Gillison, City Manager Matt Burris, Director December 3, 2024 Page 7 2644/031455-0010 21501875.7 a12/03/24 9. The Nexus Study FAILS to Distinguish Between “In-Lieu Fees” That May Be Imposed on New Residential Subdivisions under the Quimby Act and “Impact Fees” That May Be Imposed on Projects Not Involving Subdivisions. The NBS Nexus Study (at Table 3.5) fails to observe these distinctions, mandated by the Municipal Code as well as by State law. Instead, the Study wrongly proposes just one set of proposed “land acquisition fees” -- to be applied to all residential development – multi-family residential developments not involving any subdivision as well as single family residential subdivisions – in derogation of Chapter 3.68 and the Quimby Act. 10. The Nexus Study FAILS to Acknowledge or Comply With the Quimby Act Limitations on Park Land In-Lieu Fees. The Nexus Study fails to acknowledge that fees to be imposed on residential subdivisions in-lieu of park land dedication demands must comply with the specific methodology and limitations detailed in the Quimby Act. The Quimby Act is one of the two statutory regimes in California governing city demands for park land dedications and in-lieu fees. It was enacted in 1975 as part of the Subdivision Map Act, and was amended in 1982 to specify stricter limits on the scope of such required dedication of land, or payment of in-lieu fees, for park and recreational facilities as a condition of residential subdivision map or parcel map approval (and excluding commercial, industrial or condominium subdivisions).1 The Quimby Act only allows cities to require – as a condition of approval for residential subdivisions – the dedication of land for park use at a ratio of between 3 acres per 1,000 residents and 5 acres per 1,000 residents (depending on the city’s existing level of service), or the payment of fees “in lieu of” such dedication. Significantly, under the Quimby Act the fees may be used “only for the purpose of developing new or rehabilitating existing [1] neighborhood, or [2] community park or recreational facilities to serve the subdivision” – and are generally to be used only in the “neighborhood” in which the assessed subdivision is located, with some narrow statutory exceptions. 1 The other statutory basis for park impact fees is “AB 1600” which enacted the Mitigation Fee Act in 1988 (Gov Code 66000 et seq). This can provide an alternative to Quimby Act in-lieu fees, or can be established in non-duplicative addition to Quimby Act fees. AB 1600 fees may be imposed as conditions of approval for any kind of new development (commercial, industrial, institutional, as well as SF residential, multi-family, etc.) to fund a wide range of “public facilities” – including “parks and recreation facilities.” (Gov. Code 66002(c).) Page 124 Mr. John Gillison, City Manager Matt Burris, Director December 3, 2024 Page 8 2644/031455-0010 21501875.7 a12/03/24 11. The Proposed Land Acquisition Fees Are NOT Accurately Based on the City’s “Existing Level of Service.” (a) Failure to “Identify” Proposed New Facilities: The Mitigation Fee Act requires that a city proposing to adopt development impact fees must “identify” the public facilities that are to be funded by the fees. Gov. Code § 66001(a)(2). This Nexus Study fails to do so. According to the NBS Nexus Study (p. 3-1), its calculations of proposed new park impact fees [including fees for both land acquisition and for park improvements] are based on the “existing inventory method” to attempt to justify the proposed new fees. However, as the NBS Nexus Study itself points out, under AB 602 which amended the Mitigation Fee Act effective in 2022, any new nexus study must now include a “Capital Improvement Plan” identifying the proposed new facilities to be funded with fees as well as the other funding sources and timing required for a valid CIP. This Study fails to include any such CIP or identification of new park land projects. (b) Over-Stated “Existing Inventory” of Improved Park Acreage: While an “existing inventory” approach may be an appropriate methodology in some cases for calculating AB-1600 land acquisition in-lieu fees as to non-subdivision developments, it requires that the Study must first accurately identify its existing park acreage in the various different categories of park land, i.e., neighborhood parks; community parks; open space, etc. Remarkably, the “inventory” of existing park land in this 2024 Nexus Study is not consistent with the inventory of parks in the 2020 NBS Nexus Study (Table 3.1). The new parks inventory claims almost 11 fewer acres of “improved” parks than the 2020 inventory. Moreover, as pointed out in the MEMORANDUM by Peter Piller (Development Planning & Finance Group) dated December 2, 2024, the NBS Nexus Study fails to accurately identify the City’s existing inventory of park acreage, improved and unimproved, and substantially over-states the City’s “existing inventory” of park acreage. The cited examples of mis-stated park acreage includes the following – “Table A”: Park Location NBS Claimed Acreage Actual Acreage Central Park 39.4 “improved” acres 28.3 improved acres Day Creek Park 24 improved acres 10 improved acres Heritage Comm. 40 improved acres 34.1 improved acres Church Street 6.5 improved acres 4.57 improved acres Total: 109.9 improved acres 76.97 improved acres Page 125 Mr. John Gillison, City Manager Matt Burris, Director December 3, 2024 Page 9 2644/031455-0010 21501875.7 a12/03/24 Accordingly, the NBS Nexus Study wrongly over-stated the City-owned “Improved” Park Acreage by at least 49 acres as pointed out in Exhibit E of the MEMORANDUM by Peter Piller (Development Planning & Finance Group) dated December 2, 2024. The Nexus Study thus overstates the City’s existing LOS of improved park land by at least 15%. The NBS Nexus Study must be reviewed and corrected, at least, in order to assure that it presents an actual and accurate inventory of the existing park land acreage, broken down into the appropriate classifications, e.g., improved v. unimproved, neighborhood v community, etc. (c) The Nexus Study FAILS to show that there is any “need” to acquire additional park land acreage as a result of new development: Since the City admits that it already owns more than 80 acres of park land that is not yet “developed,” the Nexus Study fails to justify the acquisition of additional park acreage. As explained by the Court of Appeal in Boatworks LLC, supra, 35 Cal.App.5th at 300: “the City here already owns the land it needs to develop most or all of the proposed parks and recreational facilities. A calculation that is based on the cost of buying new land—untethered from whether the City actually plans to do so—is not reasonably related to the burden posed by anticipated new development.” 12. Fees for Park Land Acquisition Are To Be Based on the Costs of “Unimproved” Land Suitable for Use As Parks. The NBS Nexus Study admits (at p. S-2) that its calculations of “impact fees for park land acquisition” were “based on the existing level of service which means the existing ratio of improved park acres to population in the City.” That was in error. A nexus study intended to justify the imposition of fees for the acquisition of park land must be based upon the verifiable costs of acquiring “unimproved” land suitable for park use, rather than subdivided or developed land. (Norsco Constr. Co. v. City of Fremont (1976) 54 Cal.App.3d 488, 499.) 13. The Nexus Study Is Wrongly Based on Unfounded and Undifferentiated Land Acquisition Cost Estimates. The Nexus Study asserts (at p. 3-5) that it calculated the “cost per capita” for acquiring [unidentified] park land based on estimates from unverified and non -specific “sales data” information allegedly in a private data base. It does not clarify how “recent” or how “local” those sales were, nor whether those sales involved improved or unimproved property. Table 3.4 in the Nexus Study uses just one (1) estimate of the “cost per acre” of acquiring new park land – and fails to differentiate between the costs of acquiring “improved” park land and the costs of acquiring unimproved park land. To the extent that the Nexus Study is based on the purported costs of acquiring “improved” park land, it would be duplicative and unlawful to base Page 126 Mr. John Gillison, City Manager Matt Burris, Director December 3, 2024 Page 10 2644/031455-0010 21501875.7 a12/03/24 the calculations of fees for “park improvements” as to those acres. (Boatworks, LLC v. City of Alameda (2019) 35 Cal.App.5th 290, 300.) See also, Section 15, below. This is not “substantial evidence” sufficient to support any kind of legislative fee- enactment action by the City Council. To the contrary, the text of the Study reveals that the proposed “costs per capita” are not supported by an adopted CIP, and are not shown to be based on more accurate, independent, verifiable sources. 14. The Proposed Land Acquisition Fees Were Improperly Calculated by Erroneously Excluding Impacts and Demands of New Non-Residential Development. The City currently imposes fees on new development pursuant to Ch. 3.68 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code (RCMC), which states that the City enacted “Park In -Lieu/Park Impact Fees” to require “new residential and commercial development to contribute to the cost of expanding the availability of park and recreation assets in the City.” (RCMC § 3.68.010(a).) Despite the City Council’s manifest intention that both residential and commercial development should contribute to the costs of acquiring additional park land and facilities, this Nexus Study declares (at p. -1) to the contrary, i.e., that its proposed new park impact fees “apply only to residential development.” This Study thus stands in defiance of the City’s own Municipal Code. Growth of the City’s “service population” – including increased employment, whether City residents or not – also contributes to increased demands upon park and recreation facilities. A nexus study should estimate the demand for public facilities “based on the relevant ‘service population’” as explained in the NEXUS STUDY TEMPLATE. It is common for park fee nexus studies under AB 1600 to recognize that the demand for parks and rec facilities is driven by non-resident users as well as the residential population, and comes from non-residents (businesses and visitors, etc)(id.). It is common therefore to factor- in such anticipated growth of future employee population, usually at a fraction of a full time resident, in the “service population” (residents + employees) in calculating and apportioning the costs of acquiring new parks. There is no evidentiary support for the unfounded assumption in this Study that employment growth in the City will not contribute any increased need for parks or recreation facilities The Study should be corrected to properly reflect allocation of an appropriate portion of future facility costs to demands created by non-residential growth. The Nexus Study should be corrected to include some fractional and proportional allocation of the reasonable costs of acquiring additional unimproved park land to increased demands attributable to increased employment growth in the City. Such an allocation of costs to other land uses, e.g., commercial, industrial, educational, institutional, etc., would also result in a more equitable sharing, and reduction, of the appropriate fees on new residential development. Page 127 Mr. John Gillison, City Manager Matt Burris, Director December 3, 2024 Page 11 2644/031455-0010 21501875.7 a12/03/24 B. INVALID FEES FOR PARK IMPROVEMENTS: Most of the comments and objections to the proposed fees for park land acquisition are similarly applicable to the proposed new fees for “park improvements.” There are also several distinct and critical grounds for objection to the calculations of the proposed “park improvement” fees in the NBS Nexus Study, including (without limitation) the following: 15. Fees for “Park Improvements” Are Improperly Duplicative of Fees for “Improved Park Land” Acquisition. The NBS Nexus Study asserts (p. S-2, and p. 3-1) that its proposed fees for the acquisition of additional park land are based on “the City’s existing ratio of improved park land to population....” It is therefore apparent that the costs of providing eligible “improvements” to the additional acres of park land are already factored-in and included in the estimated costs of acquiring those additional acres of “improved park land.” Fees cannot be justified by the estimated costs of providing improvements to park land that is considered to already be “improved” at the time it is to be acquired. California courts prohibit and invalidate “duplicative” fees. See, e.g., Boatworks, LLC v. City of Alameda (2019) 35 Cal.App.5th 290 [affirming the invalidation of the City’s entire set of “park fees” on new development because of deficient “nexus study” justification]; Home Builders Ass’n v. City of Lemoore, supra. 16. The Nexus Study Wrongly Includes the Costs of Acquiring “Added Park Maintenance Vehicles and Equipment” In Its Calculation of Park Improvement Fees. The Nexus Study admits (p. 3-4) that it included the purported “replacement costs of existing [but unidentified] park maintenance vehicles and equipment” in its efforts to justify fees for “park improvements.” This too was erroneous as a matter of law. That inclusion of unidentified “replacement costs” for unidentified vehicles and equipment is inconsistent with the limited authority to impose fees to fund “public facilities” as defined in the Mitigation Fee Act, at Government Code § 66000(d). Nothing in the Fee Act authorizes the imposition of development fees to pay for lawnmowers or other “maintenance vehicles.” To the contrary, Government Code § 65913.8 expressly prohibits the use of development fees to fund “operations or maintenance” (subject to inapplicable exceptions). The assertion in the Nexus Study is also inconsistent with the Municipal Code. See, RCMC § 3.68.020, defining “facilities” as “land, improvements, or infrastructure located in the city.” Not vehicles or equipment. Moreover, the Nexus Study asserts (in footnote 2 to Table 3.4) that its estimates for the costs of “park improvements” was based on “improvement costs for a recently completed 4.4 acre Page 128 Mr. John Gillison, City Manager Matt Burris, Director December 3, 2024 Page 12 2644/031455-0010 21501875.7 a12/03/24 dog park.” Even if costs for maintenance vehicles and unspecified equipment were somehow allowed to be the basis for charging development fees, there is no mention anywhere in the Nexus Study of any evidence of the “replacement costs” of such vehicles and equipment. And such replacement costs would need to be reduced to reflect appropriate depreciation. Since there is no way to tell what portion of the “park improvement costs” were wrongly inflated by the improper inclusion of the purported “replacement costs” of these maintenance items, the proposed fees for “park improvements” must be completely voided and recalculated. 17. Failure to Account for “Credits” for Private Improvements: The Nexus Study should make provision for giving reasonable and equitable credits or offsets to builders who include privately-owned, but publicly-beneficial, open space or recreational improvements in their proposed developments. Such credits for the value of private recreational improvements are of course required by the Quimby Act, where a subdivider dedicates land and provides “recreational improvements” to the dedicated land, the City must provide a credit for the value of those improvements and any equipment located on the dedicated land. The Quimby Act further provides that subdividers of common interest developments may be “eligible” for possible credits for the value of private open space included within common interest developments, which is a reasonable recognition that such open space helps reduce demands for, and impacts on, publicly-owned open space. (E..g Boatworks LLC v. City of Alameda, supra.) C. INVALID FEES FOR COMMUNITY RECREATION FACILITIES: The NBS Nexus Study (at Chapter 4) purports to justify the calculation and imposition of development fees to fund additional “community and recreation center facilities,” as provided by Ch. 3.52 of the RCMC. The Study asserts (p. 4-1) that this component of the proposed new development fees is based on the relationship between the City’s existing population and “the replacement cost of the existing community center and recreation center facilities.” As in the case of the Study’s discussion of Park Land and Park Improvement Fees (above), the Study claims to be based on the dubious “existing inventory” approach. Accordingly, the objections detailed in the foregoing Sections (A) and (B) of this letter are equally applicable to this proposed fee, and are incorporated by reference. 18. Failure to provide substantial evidence as to “replacement cost” of existing community recreation facilities. The NBS Nexus Study merely references to the 2020 “NBS Nexus Study” as the basis for its unfounded estimates as to the “replacement costs” of the subject facilities. That is not Page 129 Mr. John Gillison, City Manager Matt Burris, Director December 3, 2024 Page 13 2644/031455-0010 21501875.7 a12/03/24 substantial evidence to support the calculation of the new fees. The City’s 2023/2024 CIP does not support the cost estimates used in this Nexus Study. In 2020, NBS “valued” the City’s Community Center facilities at $102,870,000 – based on unverified cost estimates in an older 2014 nexus study. Now, just four years later, NBS asserts that the “replacement cost” of the same six facilities has increased by more than 30%, to $134,875,000. The 2020 Nexus Study projected that these fees would need to generate $12,000,000 in revenue to maintain the alleged LOS; now this Nexus Study incredibly claims that fees need to raise more than $29,000,000 to maintain the “existing inventory.” 19. Even if “replacement costs” were properly based on qualified expert evidence or other substantial evidence of costs, the Nexus Study fails to account for depreciation of the existing facilities. If it may be shown to be “reasonable” to assume that the costs of replacing the City’s existing facilities at current construction costs meets the constitutional nexus and proportionality requirements, then the Nexus Study must also take the depreciated condition of the City’s existing facilities, and the depreciated value of those facilities, rather than “new” condition costs. Boe v. City of Seattle (1965) 401 P.2d 648, 66 Wn.2d 152.) D. INVALID FEES FOR LIBRARY FACILITIES: The NBS Nexus Study (at Chapter 5) purports to justify the calculation and imposition of development fees to fund additional “library facilities and materials.” The Study states that these Library fees are governed by Ch. 3.56 of the RCMC. 20. Failure to provide substantial evidence as to “replacement cost” of existing library facilities and materials. The NBS Nexus Study merely references to the 2020 “NBS Nexus Study” as the basis for its unfounded estimates as to the “replacement costs” of the subject facilities and materials. That is not substantial evidence to support the calculation of the new fees. The City’s 2023/2024 CIP does not support the cost estimates used in this Nexus Study. The 2020 Nexus Study asserted that the average replacement cost per item of the existing library materials was $25.00. The new Nexus Study now asserts – incredibly and without verified sources of competent evidence – that the costs of those materials has more than doubled in just four years, to $54.71 per item. Page 130 Mr. John Gillison, City Manager Matt Burris, Director December 3, 2024 Page 14 2644/031455-0010 21501875.7 a12/03/24 21. Library “furnishings” and “materials” may not be financed by development impact fees. While “library facilities” may be considered as public facilities that may be financed by development impact fees, there is no legal authority for the inclusion of the costs of “furnishings” or “materials” (books and electronic materials) in the calculation of such development fees. E. INVALID FEES FOR FIRE FACILITIES: This new 2024 NBS Nexus Study (Chapter8) now proposes to justify the creation and imposition of new “fire impact fees” at rates up to and exceeding $1,000 per dwelling unit, and proposing to generate more than $20,000,000 in new fee revenue. 22. There is no legal authority for the proposed Fire Impact Fees. The Study does not claim that the City has adopted any existing Ordinance that purports to authorize the creation or imposition of such a “fire impact fee.” The Study admits that the City does not have an existing fire impact fee. The Study admits that fire protection services are in fact provided by a distinct public agency, the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District (“District”). It further admits (p.8-1), properly, that “fire districts are prohibited by California law from imposing impact fees of their own.” (Health & Safety Code 13916.) It therefore appears that the City, or the District, now propose to do “indirectly” that which the District is prohibited from doing directly, i.e., imposing a fire impact fee on new residential development. Such a scheme would be unlawful. “The City cannot do indirectly what it could not do directly.” (City of Garden Grove v. Superior Court (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 355, 379.) See also, National Rifle Ass’n v. Vullo, 602 U.S. 175, 201 (2024): “Bantam Books [v. Sullivan, 372 U.S. 58, 67] stands for the principle that a government official cannot do indirectly what she is barred from doing directly.” 23. The City cannot lawfully imposed fees on developments within the City and then transfer the proceeds to another distinct agency, at least in the absence of a Joint Powers Agreement. The City seeks to impose these fees on new development located within the City Limits, but intends to transfer these fees, at least in part, to pay for fire facilities and services to be planned, provided, and operated by a distinct District. It is questionable if the City has the legal authority Page 131 Mr. John Gillison, City Manager Matt Burris, Director December 3, 2024 Page 15 2644/031455-0010 21501875.7 a12/03/24 to do so. (See, City of Dublin v. County of Alameda (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 264 [holding that the County could not impose its fees within City limits to fund County facilities.] ‘A municipal corporation has generally no extraterritorial powers of regulation. It may not exercise its governmental functions beyond its corporate boundaries. [Citations.]’ (City of Oakland v. Brock (1937) 8 Cal.2d 639, 641…. (Amaral v. Cintas Corp. (2008) 163 CA4th 1157, 1175.) 24. The proposed “fire impact fees” would be deemed to be an unconstitutional “special tax” established without the voter approval required by the California Constitution. “No fee or charge may be imposed for general governmental services including, but not limited to, police, fire, ambulance or library services, where the service is available to the public at large in substantially the same manner as it is to property owners.” (Calif. Const., Art. XIII D, § 6 (b) (5) [added by Proposition 218 in 1996].) This constitutional prohibition applies to the proposed Police Impact Fees as well as to the Fire Impact Fees, to the extent that it appears that the fees may be improperly used to fund services and non-capital vehicles and equipment, as distinct from facilities. As explained by the Ninth Circuit in Novato Fire Prot. Dist. v. United States (1999) 181 F.3d 1135, 1139: [F]ire protection was a core government service, and that, consequently, the attempts by a municipality to charge for this and other such services were invalid.... Otherwise “virtually all of what are now considered taxes could be transmitted into user fees by the simple expedient of dividing what are generally accepted as taxes into constituent parts, e.g., a police fee.” (Id.) Accordingly, we hold that the fees charged to the United States by the District for fire protection and emergency medical services clearly constituted an impermissible tax. Following voter approval of Proposition 26 (2010), purported “fees” and other charges enacted by cities are now presumed to be in the nature of “taxes” subject to substantive requirements as well as the need for voter approval, subject to a few exceptions – and “[t]he local government bears the burden of establishing the exceptions. (Cal. Const. art. XIII C § 1, subd. (e).)” (Jacks v. City of Santa Barbara (2017) 3 Cal.5th 260.) The substantive constitutional burdens on the City to demonstrate the justification for its fees are even more stringent. As the Court of Appeal explained: “The local government bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that [1] a levy, charge, or other exaction is not a tax, [2] that the amount is no more than necessary to cover the reasonable costs of the governmental activity, and [3] that the manner in which those costs are allocated to a payor bear a Page 132 Mr. John Gillison, City Manager Matt Burris, Director December 3, 2024 Page 16 2644/031455-0010 21501875.7 a12/03/24 fair or reasonable relationship to the payor’s burdens on, or benefits received from, the governmental activity.” (Schmeer v. County of Los Angeles (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 1310, 1326.) 25. The Nexus Study improperly uses “calls for service” as it “demand variable” in attempting to justify the Fire Impact Fees and the Police Impact Fees. There is no legal authority for use of “calls for service” as a component of calculating a level of service in the context of a development fee nexus study. To the limited extent that an “existing inventory” approach may be appropriate in calculating an impact fee, the LOS is calculated by reference to the ratio of existing facilities per population. There is no legal or logical basis for purporting to justify the Fire Impact Fees (and the Police Fees) based on anticipated changes in the number of “calls for service” rather than changes in the service population. DEMAND FOR ANALYSIS OF THE IMPACT OF NEW FEES ON HOUSING FEASIBILITY As stated in the new Nexus Study Template (p. 23), “Once a nexus has been established, … localities should consider the ability of residential development and land to absorb the added cost of new or increased impact fees in addition to other development costs so that impact fees do not inhibit housing production.” The dramatic, and unreasonable, increases in the existing DIF and the proposed creation of new “fire impact fees” at the proposed rates will indeed inhibit housing production in the City. The new fee proposals would create new “governmental constraints” on efforts to provide more affordable multi-family residential development, in direct conflict with the City’s obligations under State Housing Law and the policies asserted in the current Housing Element. The City must immediately conduct an objective analysis of the very severe – if not devasting – impacts of these fee proposals on the economic feasibility of providing housing in the City before taking action on the proposed new fees. CONCLUSION The preliminary comments and objections summarized in this letter should be considered a starting point for further discussions of any proposed new development fees. The City should provide an effective interactive process to solicit and include input from the community and development stakeholders on the proposed new DIF, before bringing the final proposal to the Council. BIA and its members would be pleased to be included in that process. The City should require its consultant to revisit the Nexus Study and to make the substantial corrections and revisions that are necessary before it may be considered a legally-sufficient and Page 133 Mr. John Gillison, City Manager Matt Burris, Director December 3, 2024 Page 17 2644/031455-0010 21501875.7 a12/03/24 compliant basis for the City to move forward in evaluating proposed new development fees for impacts actually attributable to new development. We welcome any questions from, or discussions with, the City Staff or the consultants in this regard. Thank you for your consideration of the points and issues raised by our letter. RUTAN & TUCKER, LLP David P. Lanferman cc: BIA of So. California Page 134 Page 1 of 9 Memorandum To: Carlos Rodriguez, BIA Southern California Chapter From: Peter Piller Date: December 2, 2024 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 November 1, 2024 Development Impact Fee Nexus Study (“DIF Study”) prepared by NBS (“NBS”) for the City of Rancho Cucamonga (“City”). The purpose of the review of the 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 DIF Study. • Identify initial issues and comments within the 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. The existing Impact Fee Fund Balance and Site Values are being added to each facilities list. o Can it be guaranteed that those revenues will only be used to construct additional facilities, and won’t be put towards the rehabilitation, renovation, or replacement of an existing facility. o Will all existing facilities continue to be used for their current purposes? If any existing facilities are going to be shut down/replaced by new future facilities, the replacement cost for the existing facility should not be included in the fee calculation. 2. The study uses the Fehr & Peers Transportation DIF Study for residential development projections and the “Conservative Scenario” projections from Strategic Economics for non-residential development projections. Page 135 Page 2 of 9 o Why not use the non-residential development projections from the 2040 General Plan Buildout projections in the City’s Climate Action Plan which contains data that is consistent with the residential figures used in the Fehr & Peers Transportation DIF Study? 3. Some of the improved park acreages seem to be overstated. A few examples, but not all, are included below: o Central Park appears to only be 28.3 improved acres. The study shows 39.4. See Exhibit A attached. o Heritage Community Park appears to only be 29.1 improved acres. The study shows 40. See Exhibit B attached. o Church Street Park appears to only be 4.57 improved acres. The study shows 6.5. See Exhibit C attached. o Day Creek Park appears to only be 10 improved acres. The study shows 24. See Exhibit D attached. o Exhibit E, attached, contains a review of all parks in the study and their respective acreages. o Additionally, the City owns approximately 88 acres of unimproved park land. Assuming the current 0.00192 acres per 1,000 persons is accurate (which as discussed above does not appear to be true) there will need to be an additional 80 acres of improved park land to maintain existing standards. Why does the City need to acquire another 80 acres of park land when they already own 88 acres of unimproved park land? o Lastly, are the costs assumed for land acquisition and park improvements reasonable? Can source data be provided for these cost assumptions? Some of the other jurisdictions we have reviewed fee studies for have values much lower than the ones used in the study and the City’s 2020 impact fee study used $525,000 for land acquisition and $500,000 for improvements. 4. General questions and comments: o While land value is excluded in the Community and Recreation Centers fee calculation for the Heritage Park Equestrian Center and the Lewis/Brulte Community/Sr. Center (because it is included in the Park Fee section), the replacement cost is included. Is there any overlap between this replacement cost and the improved park costs for these two facilities? (i.e. does the replacement cost include any of the costs associated with the park improvement cost of $989,000 per acre? Can source data be provided for these cost assumptions as it appears they are based on 2014 estimates from the City, escalated for cost inflation? o Additionally, how will credits for each of the fee types be determined if a project provides a park, recreational facility, constructs a fire station, etc. if there are no facility lists? Page 136 Page 3 of 9 5. Home sizes seem to be understated or population per household in each category seems skewed. o Data we have compiled of only single family homes in the City shows 10,202 units at or above 2,300 SF (3,150 SF on average). The study states there are only 4,841 units at or above 2,300 SF and that figure includes residential land uses outside of just single family. o Additionally, with the average persons per household in the City being 2.75, if there are over twice as many 2,300+ SF units as stated in the study, it leads us to believe that assuming 4.4 persons per household for 2,300+ SF units and the other ranges is an overstatement. o Does the City have data showing the average size of residential units in the City? The square footage ranges in the study don’t seem to align with the typical unit sizes seen in the City. Other studies we have reviewed for other cities have used this data to convert fees to a per square foot fee, so it seems this is something the City could obtain. 6. To provide reasoning for not using a per square foot fee, the nexus study states on page 2- 2 “Such a fee structure results in impact fees that are necessarily five times as high for a 3,000 square-foot single-family unit as for a 600 square apartment. That type of fee structure is justified only if the actual impact of a 3,000 square-foot unit is five times greater than the impact of a 600 square-foot unit.” o This same logic can be applied to the methodology used in the nexus study. The nexus study results in impact fees that are 4.4 times higher for a 2,300 square foot home as for a 600 square foot home. The nexus study also results in impact fees that are 4.4 times higher for a 3,500 square foot home as for a 600 square foot home. This type of fee structure can only be justified if the actual impact of a 2,300 square foot home and a 3,500 square foot home are 4.4 times the impact of a 600 square foot home. o The study effectively assumes that a 1,201 SF home will have approximately 1.5 times the impact of a 1,199 SF home, a 1,901 SF home will have approximately 1.30 times the impact of an 1,899 SF home, and a 2,301 SF home will have approximately 1.26 times the impact of a 2,299 SF home. o In addition to this potential flaw, the nexus study also arbitrarily assigns persons per household factors to each range of home square footage. There are multiple combinations of persons per household factors for each square footage range that can keep the total population and average persons per household at 173,319 and 2.75, respectively. What is to say the combination used in the nexus study is any more accurate than a different combination? 7. Table S.3 within the study misleadingly states that the fee increase for a unit in the three largest square footage ranges will be between $3,078 and $12,750 per unit (23% to 96% increase). This is due to the study comparing the existing single family fees to the proposed fees for these square footage ranges. What the study fails to detail is if a Page 137 Page 4 of 9 condominium or townhome is developed within these square footage ranges, the actual increase in fees will be between $7,240 and $16,912 per unit (79% to 186% increase). Page 138 Page 5 of 9 Exhibit A Central Park Improved Acreage Page 139 Page 140 Page 6 of 9 Exhibit B Heritage Community Park Improved Acreage Page 141 23.02 AC 0.45 AC 29.10 AC Total Page 142 Page 7 of 9 Exhibit C Church Street Park Improved Acreage Page 143 © 2024 LightBox. All rights reserved.1 170 feet 1.7 AC 2.87 AC 4.57 AC Total Page 144 Page 8 of 9 Exhibit D Day Creek Park Improved Acreage Page 145 © 2024 LightBox. All rights reserved.1 172 feet 8.17 AC 1.83 AC 10 AC Total Page 146 Page 9 of 9 Exhibit E Review of Park Acreage Table Page 147 Per DPFG's review of Landvision & County GIS Park Name Total Acres 1 Improved Acres Park Name Total Acres 2 Improved Acres 2 Difference in Total Acres Difference in Improved Acres Community Parks Community Parks Central Park 103.0 39.4 Central Park 100.5 28.3 -2.5 -11.1 Etiwanda Creek Park 33.5 12.0 Etiwanda Creek Park 18.2 12.3 -15.3 0.3 Heritage Community Park 40.0 40.0 Heritage Community Park 34.1 29.1 -5.9 -10.9 Red Hill Community Park 44.0 44.0 Red Hill Community Park 44.0 44.0 0.0 0.0 Epicenter Adult Sports Complex 42.0 42.0 Epicenter Adult Sports Complex 38.0 38.0 -4.0 -4.0 Subtotal Community Parks 262.5 177.4 Subtotal Community Parks 234.8 151.7 -27.7 -25.7 Neighborhood Parks Neighborhood Parks Bear Gulch Park 5.0 5.0 Bear Gulch Park 4.4 4.4 -0.6 -0.6 Beryl Park East 10.0 10.0 Beryl Park East 10.1 10.1 0.1 0.1 Beryl Park West 10.0 10.0 Beryl Park West 9.1 9.1 -0.9 -0.9 Church Street Park 6.5 6.5 Church Street Park 4.6 4.6 -1.9 -1.9 Coyote Canyon Park 5.0 5.0 Coyote Canyon Park 4.5 4.5 -0.5 -0.5 Day Creek Park 24.0 24.0 Day Creek Park 10.0 10.0 -14.0 -14.0 Ellena Park 6.5 6.5 Ellena Park 6.0 6.0 -0.5 -0.5 Garcia Park 5.5 5.5 Garcia Park 5.5 5.5 0.0 0.0 Golden Oak Park 9.0 9.0 Golden Oak Park 5.0 5.0 -4.0 -4.0 Hermosa Park 10.0 10.0 Hermosa Park 9.6 9.6 -0.4 -0.4 Kenyon Park 6.5 6.5 Kenyon Park 7.8 7.8 1.3 1.3 Legacy Park 3.7 3.7 Legacy Park 3.7 3.7 0.0 0.0 Lions Park 1.5 1.5 Lions Park 2.7 2.7 1.2 1.2 Los Amigos Park 3.3 3.3 Los Amigos Park 3.3 3.3 0.0 0.0 Milliken Park 10.0 10.0 Milliken Park 10.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 Mountain View Park 5.0 5.0 Mountain View Park 5.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 Old Town Park 5.0 5.0 Old Town Park 5.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 Olive Grove Park 7.9 7.9 Olive Grove Park 7.9 7.9 0.0 0.0 Ralph M. Lewis Park 9.5 9.5 Ralph M. Lewis Park 6.8 6.8 -2.7 -2.7 Rancho Summit Park 6.9 6.9 Rancho Summit Park 6.7 6.7 -0.2 -0.2 Spruce Avenue Park 5.0 5.0 Spruce Avenue Park 3.9 3.9 -1.1 -1.1 Tapia Park (Long Term Lease)3.3 0.0 Tapia Park (Long Term Lease)3.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 Victoria Arbors Park 9.1 9.1 Victoria Arbors Park 9.9 8.1 0.8 -1.0 Victoria Groves Park 6.5 6.5 Victoria Groves Park 6.5 6.5 0.0 0.0 Vintage Park 6.5 6.5 Vintage Park 7.0 7.0 0.5 0.5 West Greenway Park 5.0 5.0 West Greenway Park 6.4 6.4 1.4 1.4 Windrows Park 8.0 8.0 Windrows Park 8.0 8.0 0.0 0.0 Subtotal Neighborhood Parks 194.2 190.9 Subtotal Neighborhood Parks 172.7 167.6 -21.5 -23.4 Total 456.7 368.3 Total 407.4 319.3 -49.3 -49.0 Table 3.1: Existing Parks 1 Source: City of Rancho Cucamonga Community Services Department 2 Source: Landvision and County of San Bernardino GIS. Page 148 Page 1 of 3 Memorandum To: Carlos Rodriguez, BIA Southern California Chapter From: Peter Piller Date: December 2, 2024 Subject: High Level Review of the 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 October 23, 2024 Transportation Development Impact Fee Nexus Study (“Transportation DIF Study”) prepared by Fehr & Peers for the City of Rancho Cucamonga (“City”). The purpose of the review of the 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 Transportation DIF Study. • Identify initial issues and comments within the 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. Allocating costs as done in Table 14 (above) incorrectly assumes that an increase in 1 resident is equal to the impact of an increase in service population by 1. Using generic persons per household factors or employees per 1,000 square feet and converting the trips per unit or trips per 1,000 square feet factors to trips per resident or employee, on average, the impact to trips for one employee is 2-3 times as high as the impact of one resident (see below table on next page). Costs should instead be allocated proportionately between residential and non- Page 149 Page 2 of 3 residential development based on total trips generated by land use at buildout. The City’s Climate Action Plan seems to have data consistent with the growth assumptions in the study and has information on future non-residential development that could be utilized. When evaluating trip generation using this data, it seems residential development will be responsible for approximately 48% to 51% of new trips through 2040. 2. How can it be justified that for an approximately 16.6% increase in service population, approximately 99.1% of the $837,678,600 in program costs are allocated to new development (when excluding DIF Account Balance) or approximately 91.6% of the $844,529,000 in program costs are allocated to new development (when including DIF Account Balance)? As existing development will also benefit from these projects, shouldn't they be allocated a portion of the net program costs based on share of trips at buildout? Table 13 – DIF Program Cost Total Program Element Total Cost DIF Project Costs 844,529,000$ DIF Accounty Balance (June 2024)(64,000,000)$ Adjustments for Existing Deficiencies (6,850,400)$ Program Subtotal 773,678,600$ Admin Fee (2.5%)19,341,965$ Program Total 793,020,565$ 3. How is the need for certain projects justified, and how can it be reasonably established that there is a nexus between the proposed projects and the impacts of new development? o The City’s Resolution 2020-122 contained approximately $278 million in transportation projects that were needed to mitigate the impacts of new development. The Transportation study states that $137,400,000 of the facilities have been completed. Where did the additional approximately $700 million in program costs come from? The majority of program costs are for “multi-modal” and “active transportation” enhancement projects that seem to simply push the goals and vision of the City, as opposed to increasing capacity and mitigating the impacts of new development. o As an example, the Etiwanda Ave Grade Separation Project ($185,000,000) is located in the very southeastern corner of the City. Not only is it unlikely any residents living west of the I-15 will be travelling there, but it is also unlikely the project is necessary to mitigate the impacts caused by new development. Are there any traffic studies evaluating the impact of trips created by new development to this location? Page 150 Page 3 of 3 o Another example is the Foothill Boulevard Active Transportation Transformation. How is the impact of new development creating the need for reduced road lanes, sidewalks, trails, and increased bike lanes? This project would result in the opposite of reduced congestion and increased capacity, and it seems like this would only make circulation throughout the City worse. o Although the City recently adopted a Capital Improvement Plan (“CIP”), it doesn’t appear the projects or costs in the Transportation study are based on the CIP. 4. Outside of the Existing DIF Account Balance, were any other sources of funds such as grants or state funding used to offset the program costs? Page 151 12/4/2024 – REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED FOR PUBLIC HEARING ITEM G2 From: Gillison, John <John.Gillison@cityofrc.us> Sent: Wednesday, December 4, 2024 11:36 AM To: Carlos Rodriguez <crodriguez@biasc.org> Cc: Bravo-Valdez, Patricia <Patricia.Bravo-Valdez@cityofrc.us>; Bravo-Valdez, Patricia <Patricia.Bravo- Valdez@cityofrc.us> Subject: Re: Public Hearing Notice - December 4, 2024 City Council Meeting Carlos Acknowledging receipt only. Until we have reviewed with legal and our consultants I have no further response. Once we get thru the letters I will reach out about a meeting. John On Dec 3, 2024, at 1:51 PM, Carlos Rodriguez <crodriguez@biasc.org> wrote: Good afternoon John, Per our discussion and as referenced in the attached cover letter please see the attached legal analysis of the NBS DIF study. We have also updated our previous analysis of the Fehr and Peers transportation fee study and NBS DIF study in separate memos prepared by DPFG – both submitted on November 19 with our previous legal analysis. We highlighted the memo updates in blue to help clarify our new comments. Please advise on your schedule availability to meet with your consultant team at your earliest convenience. Thank you, Carlos Page 152 12/4/2024 – REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED FOR PUBLIC HEARING ITEM G2 From: Michael Manning <michael@manninghomes.com> Sent: Wednesday, December 4, 2024 3:08 PM To: City Clerk <City.Clerk@cityofrc.us> Subject: Letter for City Council Meeting - 12/4/24 You don't often get email from michael@manninghomes.com. Learn why this is important 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. Hello, Please find attached a letter we would like submitted to City Council this evening regarding Resolution 2024-104 / Ordinance No. 1034. We are unable to attend this evening and would like to submit this letter as comment to the proposed resolution. Thank you, Michael Manning Project Manager MANNINGHOMES 20151 SW Birch Street, Ste. 150 Newport Beach, CA 92660 P (949) 250-4200 | M (949) 322-8283 michael@manninghomes.com facebook | instagram | recent news | website Page 153 Page 154 Page 155 NEW BRIDGE HOMES ATTACHED AGENDA PACKET FOR REGULAR MEETING OF DECEMBER 4, 2024 TO EMAIL. Page 156 Page 157 DATE:December 4, 2024 TO:Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM:John R. Gillison, City Manager INITIATED BY:Matt Marquez, Director of Planning and Economic Development Jennifer Nakamura, CNU-A, Deputy Director of Planning SUBJECT:Public Hearing for Consideration of First Reading of Ordinance No. 1035, to be Read by Title Only and Waive Further Reading, Amending Chapter 17.62 of Article IV of Title 17 (Development Code) of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code to Amend Nonconforming Use Provisions Concerning the Discontinuance of Nonconforming Uses. This Project is Exempt from Environmental Review Pursuant to Section 15161(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines. (ORDINANCE NO. 1035) (CITY) RECOMMENDATION: Planning Commission and Staff recommend the City Council conduct first reading of Ordinance No. 1035 to be read by title only and waive further reading, to amend Chapter 17.62 concerning the discontinuance of nonconforming uses. BACKGROUND: In July 2021 the City Council adopted an amendment to the Development Code that revised industrial land use standards through an interactive outreach with our industrial development partners. As part of these amendments, the land use table was updated to reflect our desire for a more diverse industrial sector, creating some nonconforming uses. We have worked diligently with our industrial stakeholders to address nonconforming uses on a case-by-case basis; however, a long-term solution is desired by all parties. ANALYSIS: The industrial code amendments adopted in 2021 modified the City’s land use table, making some industrial uses previously permitted by right required to now obtain discretionary approvals (i.e. minor or conditional use permit) or making some uses in certain zones no longer permitted (i.e. truck storage). When a use on a site is no longer permitted or conditionally permitted, it becomes a nonconforming use, subject to the nonconforming provisions of the code. Under the current nonconforming use provisions, found at Chapter 17.62 of the Municipal Code, “[a] use lawfully occupying a structure or a site that does not conform with the use regulations or the site area regulations for the district in which the use is located shall be deemed to be a nonconforming use and may be continued,” unless the use is enlarged, extended, or discontinued. This provision allows existing uses to continue to operate as legal nonconforming uses, even if they would otherwise be required to obtain a minor or conditional use permit or would not be permitted in that zone. Page 158 Page 2 2 6 2 6 If a nonconforming use is discontinued for 180 days, then the use ceases to be legal nonconforming and must comply with the provisions of the code. The proposed amendment would extend the period of discontinued use before a legal nonconforming use is terminated for industrial, manufacturing, and processing uses, as shown on the allowed land use table (17.30.030-1) and defined in Chapter 17.32 (Allowed Land Use Definitions) of the Development Code. Based on input from brokers, developers, and property owners, these uses are unique in that the time to secure a tenant in buildings intended for such uses can require up to a year. City staff has not heard this concern from the owners of properties operating other types of uses. The intent of the proposed amendment is to avoid the unintended consequence of a property owner losing the protection of a legal nonconforming status while they are actively seeking a new tenant to operate such a legal nonconforming use. On November 13, 2024, the Planning Commission considered the amendment at an advertised public hearing. A summary of the discussion is included in the draft meeting minutes (Attachment 1, item D5). Overall, the Commission was supportive of providing some additional flexibility for industrial property owners and users, while encouraging adaptation to the vision outlined in the General Plan and Economic Development Strategy. One letter was received by an industrial property owner requesting that the nonconforming use provisions be further extended to two years. The Commission appreciated their comments but felt two years was too long. The Commission adopted a resolution recommending Council approval of the proposed amendment (Attachment 2). The proposed amendment is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and the City’s local CEQA Guidelines pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the proposed amendment, revising the requirements related to the discontinuance of nonconforming uses, will have a significant effect on the environment. The proposed amendment is an administrative process of the City that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment. This item was advertised as a public hearing with a 1/8th page legal advertisement in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper on November 21, 2024. Because the amendment is citywide, no individual noticing is required, however, we did notify industrial stakeholders that have been part of our discussions on extending the nonconforming use provisions. FISCAL IMPACT: None. COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / VALUE(S) ADDRESSED: The project supports the Council’s core value of working together cooperatively and respectfully with each other, staff and all stakeholders through thoughtful conversation and mutually agreeable solutions to complex problems. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1 – Planning Commission Meeting Minutes (Draft), November 13, 2024 Attachment 2 – Planning Commission Resolution 2024-037 Attachment 3 – Ordinance No. 1035 Page 159 HPC/PC MINUTES – November 13, 2024 Page 1 of 5 Draft Historic Preservation Commission and Planning Commission Agenda November 13, 2024 Draft Minutes Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 7:00 p.m. The regular Joint meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission and Planning Commission was held on November 13, 2024. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Morales at 7:00 p.m. A.Roll Call Planning Commission present: Chairman Morales, Vice Chairman Boling, Commissioner Dopp, Commissioner Daniels and Commissioner Diaz. Staff Present: Serita Young, Assistant City Attorney; Jennifer Nakamura, Deputy Director of Planning; Tabe van der Zwaag, Associate Planner; Bond Mendez, Associate Planner; Sophia Serafin, Assistant Planner; Lupe Biggs, Executive Assistant; Elizabeth Thornhill, Executive Assistant. B.Public Communications Chairman Morales opened the public communications. Hearing no comments from the public, Chairman Morales closed the public communications. C.Consent Calendar C1. Consideration to adopt Regular Meeting Minutes of October 23, 2024. Motion: Moved by Vice Chairman Boling; seconded by Commissioner Dopp. Motion carried 5- 0 approved the minutes as presented. D.Public Hearings D1. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP – CREATIVE DESIGN ASSOCIATES – A request to subdivide a 43,428 square foot lot into four parcels, for a site located in the Low (L) residential district at 6808 Hermosa Avenue; APN: 1076-081-02 (Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM20808). This item is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City’s CEQA guidelines under CEQA Section 15315; Minor Land Division’s. Associate Planner Tabe van der Zwaag presented a PowerPoint presentation (copy on file). Chairman Morales opened the public hearing. ATTACHMENT 1 Page 160 HPC/PC MINUTES – November 13, 2024 Page 2 of 5 Draft Project Manager Shen was in attendance and available to answer questions. Hearing no comments from the public, Chairman Morales closed the public hearing. Commissioner Dopp stated the wall issue is in the special condition. He said the project with 4 lots is appropriate for this specific site. Commissioner Daniels asked staff if there is a concern over a private drive vs. a cul-de-sac on the lot. Associate Planner van der Zwaag answered that the Engineering and Planning department reviewed it and they felt since it is such a small subdivision, it does not make sense to put a large cul-de-sac at the end of the street, which would cut into the farthest lot. He said this way the applicant will maintain the street rather than the city in the future. Vice Chairman Boling commented that he appreciates the applicant coming in with an infill project like this. He said there are not too many parcels similar left in the city, so seeing additional housing units potentially come online is a plus for the city. Chairman Morales stated this is a good redevelopment of this lot. He said it will improve the neighborhood and add more affordable housing to our community. Motion: Moved by Commissioner Dopp; seconded by Vice Chairman Boling to adopt Resolution 2024-034, Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM20808. Motion carried 5-0. D2. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP – FORE PROPERTY - A request to consolidate six (6) parcels into one (1) parcel totaling approximately 9.15 acres of land within the Traditional Town Center General Plan Designation and Center 1 (CE1) Zone, located at the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Grove Avenue; APNs: 0207-011-35, -36, -41, -43, -44, and -45. This item is consistent with the City’s General Plan and certified Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH No. 2021050261) pursuant to CEQA Section 15183(c) Compliance Memorandum (SUBTT20863; Related file: Design Review DRC2022-00379). Assistant Planner Sophia Serafin presented a PowerPoint presentation (copy on file). Chairman Morales opened the public hearing. Applicant Finger was present to answer questions. Commissioner Daniels asked why the commercial was not carved out for a second parcel. Why was this one parcel for the entire project. Applicant Finger answered that it has always been designed to be one project as mixed use. It was the desire of the city to have the commercial as part of the residential. He said at this stage they did not have any intention to sell it off individually. They intend to keep it as one project. Hearing no comments from the public, Chairman Morales closed the public hearing. Chairman Morales stated the proposed map has been reviewed by both the Engineering and Planning departments and found it to be consistent with all the relevant standards and mapping regulations. He expressed his support. Page 161 HPC/PC MINUTES – November 13, 2024 Page 3 of 5 Draft Motion: Moved by Commissioner Dopp; seconded by Commissioner Daniels to adopt Resolution 2024-033, Tentative Tract Map SUBTT20863. Motion carried 5-0. D3. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DESIGN REVIEW – SC RANCHO DEVELOPMENT CORP. - A request for site plan and architectural review of 75 multi-family units located on approximately 3.18 acres of land within Planning Area N-12 in the Core Living (CL) Placetype of the Resort Specific Plan, Planning Area 1B, located north of 6th Street, south of the BNSF/Metrolink right of way, and west of Milliken Avenue; APN: 0209-272-20. (Design Review DRC2023-00360). Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City certified an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH No. 2015041083) on May 18, 2016, in connection with the City’s approval of General Plan Amendment DRC2015-00114, Specific Plan Amendment DRC2015-00040, and Development Code Amendment DRC2015-00115. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, no subsequent or supplemental EIR is required in connection with subsequent discretionary approvals of the same project. Deputy Director of Planning Nakamura stated that staff is requesting a continuance on this item to December 11th, 2024, due to questions for the applicant and additional time is required to complete. Chairman Morales opened the public hearing. Hearing no comments from the public, Chairman Morales announced this item will remain open to December 11th, 2024, HPC/PC meeting. Motion: Moved by Vice Chairman Boling; seconded by Commissioner Diaz. Motion carried 5-0. D4. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DESIGN REVIEW – SC RANCHO DEVELOPMENT CORP.- A request for site plan and architectural review of 84 multi-family units located on approximately 3.4 acres of land within Planning Area N-14 in the Village Neighborhood (VN) Placetype of the Resort Specific Plan, Planning Area 1B, located north of 6th Street, south of the BNSF/Metrolink right of way, and west of Milliken Avenue; APN: 0209-272-20. (Design Review DRC2023-00331). Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City certified an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH No. 2015041083) on May 18, 2016, in connection with the City’s approval of General Plan Amendment DRC2015-00114, Specific Plan Amendment DRC2015-00040, and Development Code Amendment DRC2015-00115. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, no subsequent or supplemental EIR is required in connection with subsequent discretionary approvals of the same project. Deputy Director of Planning Nakamura stated that staff is requesting a continuance on this item to December 11th, 2024, due to questions for the applicant and additional time is required to complete. Chairman Morales opened the public hearing. Hearing no comments from the public, Chairman Morales announced this item will remain open to December 11th, 2024, HPC/PC meeting. Motion: Moved by Commissioner Diaz; seconded by Vice Chairman Boling. Motion carried 5-0. Page 162 HPC/PC MINUTES – November 13, 2024 Page 4 of 5 Draft D5. Consideration to amend Chapter 17.62 of Article IV of Title 17 (Development Code) of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code to Amend Nonconforming Use Provisions Concerning the Discontinuance of Nonconforming Uses. This project is exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15161(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines. This item will be forwarded to City Council for final action. Deputy Director of Planning Nakamura presented a PowerPoint presentation (copy on file). Commissioner Daniels asked staff to explain the nuances of the types of industrial development. He said there are a lot of different industrial uses but is there something we are discussing a nonconforming for. Deputy Director of Planning Nakamura provided examples on warehouse uses. Commissioner Daniels asked the type of building we are talking about is the very large warehousing buildings. Deputy Director of Planning Nakamura replied that our industrial code impacted buildings of a wide variety of sizes. Vice Chairman Boling stated the timing on when this will become effective. He said if there are any properties that would be subject to 180-day vacancy period, he asked would they then get the remainder of their 180 and then 185+ tacked onto their current 180 that they are already experiencing, or will 1-year start when the new ordinance becomes effective. Deputy Director of Planning Nakamura answered we have yet to find a user in that position. Vice Chairman Boling mentioned because this was publicly noticed, we did receive one correspondence, it appears those in the industry are aware of this potential change and there are no properties we are aware of that would fall within that time period. Deputy Director of Planning Nakamura confirmed. Assistant City Attorney Young mentioned the ordinance is not written to be retroactive and once it goes into effect, it starts from that point going forward. Chairman Morales opened the public hearing. Hearing no comments from the public, Chairman Morales closed the public hearing. Commissioner Dopp mentioned the real issue is the timeline. He wondered at what point some of the existing nonconforming industrial would change to meet the new vision in the General Plan. He is comfortable with 1-year rather than 2-years, which is extreme, regarding the letter from the public. He recommends we do not go past that. Commissioner Daniels stated the purpose of the nonconforming use is to potentially phase that use out. He said he is comfortable with the 180 days and really does not have a problem with the longer time period for this specific use. He wonders if we are giving them a special license that the other nonconforming uses are not getting. He asked about the uses that have been made nonconforming they can become conforming by getting a conditional use permit. Page 163 HPC/PC MINUTES – November 13, 2024 Page 5 of 5 Draft Deputy Director of Planning Nakamura answered not all can become conforming by getting a conditional use permit. She said if they are no longer permitted in that zone, they are phased out. She also mentioned that industrial land uses received a fair degree of change during the industrial code update and the General Plan update, more than most commercial uses. Vice Chairman Boling commented that staff has been tasked a difficult and delicate situation where they are trying to balance the needs or concerns of some of our business constituents that have invested millions of dollars recently in building within our city that then generates tax revenue, property tax revenue, jobs and employment and trying balance that against a recent change in direction vision of the City Council as they adopted the update to the General Plan. He said the 1-year extension seems to be a reasonable striking a balance between those two diametrically opposed in some cases instances. While he understands the need for insuring ultimately Council’s vision of development in the future moves forward and that non-conforming uses ultimately wither away, this seems to be a reasonable balance to help protect that investment of millions of dollars in construction and development that occurred within the last 5, 10 years. Chairman Morales stated that 1-year is adequate to do what they have to do, and 2-years would be too long. Motion: Moved by Commissioner Dopp; seconded by Vice Chairman Boling to adopt Resolution 2024-037 recommending Municipal Code Amendment DRC2021-00170 to the City Council for approval. Motion carried 5-0. E. Director Announcements Deputy Director of Planning Nakamura announced there will be no meeting on November 27th, returning on December 11th. F. Commission Announcements - None G. Adjournment Motion: Moved by Vice Chairman Boling, seconded by Commissioner Dopp to adjoin the meeting. Hearing no objections, Chairman Morales adjourned the meeting at 7:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Elizabeth Thornhill, Executive Assistant Planning and Economic Development Department Approved: Page 164 ATTACHMENT 2 Page 165 Page 166 Ordinance – Page 1 of 4 ORDINANCE ____ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT TO AMEND SECTION 17.62.040 OF CHAPTER 17.62 OF ARTICLE IV OF TITLE 17 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE, CONCERNING THE DISCONTINUANCE OF NONCONFORMING USES, AND FINDING AN EXEMPTION FROM CEQA UNDER SECTION 15061(B)(3) OF THE CEQA GUIDELINES The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does ordain as follows: SECTION 1. Recitals. A.The City of Rancho Cucamonga (the “City”), has prepared a Municipal Code Amendment, as described in the title of this Ordinance. Hereinafter in this Ordinance, the subject Municipal Code Amendment is referred to as “the amendment”. B.The City is a municipal corporation, duly organized under the constitution and laws of the State of California. C.As shown in Exhibit A to this Ordinance, the amendment proposes to amend Section 17.62.040 of Chapter 17.62 of Article IV of Title 17 of the Municipal Code concerning the discontinuance of nonconforming uses. D.On the November 13, 2024, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a noticed public hearing with respect to the amendment and, following the conclusion thereof, adopted Resolution No. 2024-__ recommending that the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga adopt said amendment. E.On [month] [day], 2024, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a noticed public hearing on the amendment and concluded said hearing on that date. F.All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Ordinance have occurred. SECTION 2. Findings. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Council during the above-referenced public hearing, this Council hereby finds and concludes that the changes proposed to Section 17.62.040 (Discontinuation of Nonconforming Use) in the amendment are consistent with the Development Code and the General Plan’s goals, policies and implementation programs. Pursuant to Section 17.22.040(C) of the Municipal Code, amendments to the Municipal Code “may be approved only when the City Council finds that the amendment[s] are consistent with the General Plan goals, policies, and implementation programs.” The proposed amendment is consistent with the following General Plan Land Use goals and policies: •Land Use Goal LC-3: A fiscally sound and sustainable City. •Land Use Policy LC-3.10: Encourage businesses and development that will support and/or enhance the operations of existing businesses when complimentary to the General Plan Vision while discouraging new development and businesses that will have detrimental impacts to existing businesses and development. ATTACHMENT 3 Page 167 Ordinance – Page 2 of 4 This Ordinance would extend the period of discontinued use before a legal nonconforming use is terminated for industrial, manufacturing, and processing uses from 180 days to 365 days. Many of these uses have become non-conforming uses throughout the City as the City has amended its Development Code and General Plan to better conform to the needs of residents and businesses, including the development of more housing to meet the City’s regional housing needs. Based on input from brokers, developers, and property owners, these uses are unique in that the period of time to secure a tenant in buildings intended for such uses can require up to a year. City staff has not heard this concern from the owners of properties operating other types of uses. The City Council intends to avoid the unintended consequence of an owner of property formerly zoned for industrial, manufacturing, or processing uses losing the protection of a legal nonconforming status while it is actively seeking a new tenant to operate such a legal non- conforming use. SECTION 3. CEQA. The proposed amendment is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and the City’s local CEQA Guidelines pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the proposed amendment, revising the requirements related to the discontinuance of nonconforming uses, will have a significant effect on the environment. The proposed amendment is an administrative process of the City that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment. The City Council has reviewed the administrative record concerning the proposed amendment and the proposed CEQA determination, and based on its own independent judgment, finds that the amendment set forth in this Ordinance is not subject to, or exempt from, the requirements of the CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3). SECTION 4. The City Council hereby amends Section 17.62.040 (Discontinuation of Nonconforming Use) of Chapter 17.62 (Nonconforming Uses and Structures) of Article IV (Site Development Provisions) of Title 17 (Development Code) of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code as shown in Exhibit A of this Ordinance, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. SECTION 5. Severability. The City Council declares that, should any section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance for any reason is held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance, and each section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions thereof be declared invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION 6. Enforcement. Neither the adoption of this Ordinance nor the repeal of any other Ordinance of this City shall in any manner affect the prosecution for violations of ordinances, which violations were committed prior to the effective date hereof, nor be construed as a waiver of any penalty or the penal provisions applicable to any violation thereof. SECTION 7. Publication. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause it to be published in the manner required by law. Page 168 Ordinance – Page 3 of 4 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this ____ day of __________, 2024. _____________________________________ Dennis Michael Mayor I, JANICE REYNOLDS, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, 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 ____ day of ______________, 2024, and was finally passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held on the ____ day of ______________, 2024, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSTAINED: COUNCILMEMBERS: ATTEST:______________________________ City Clerk Page 169 Ordinance – Page 4 of 4 EXHIBIT A Amendments to Title 17, Article IV (Site Development Provisions), Chapter 17.62 (Nonconforming Uses and Structures) Amended Section: • Section 17.62.040 (Discontinuation of Nonconforming Use) 17.62.040 Discontinuation of nonconforming use. Whenever a nonconforming use has been replaced by a conforming use or has been discontinued for a continuous period of 180 days or more, the nonconforming use shall not be reestablished, and the use of the building/structure or property thereafter shall conform with the current regulations for the district in which it is located, provided that this section shall not apply to nonconforming dwelling units. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the period of continuous discontinued use shall be extended to 365 days or more for industrial, manufacturing, and processing uses, as those uses are defined in section 17.32.020 of chapter 17.32 of this code. Page 170 12/4/2024 – REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED FOR PUBLIC HEARING ITEM G3 From: Bob Close <bob.close@bridgeblp.com> Sent: Monday, December 2, 2024 4:12 PM To: City Council <CityCouncil@cityofrc.us> Subject: Nonconforming Use Code Amendment 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. Item G3 on the 12/4/2024 City Council meeting proposes extending the nonconforming period from 6 months to 1 year. We acquired the building at 10808 6th Street in 2022, and the City indicated in a zoning compliance letter that “the future zoning for this property eix expected to remain Neo-Industrial District” immediately before we closed. We appreciates the City’s right to change the land use and zoning, but this change has several unintended consequences that could decrease the quality of the future tenants of the building. See attached letter sent prior to the Planning Commission meeting in November. We would appreciate it if any of the Council members could contact us to briefly discuss this issue. Thanks. Bob Close Director, Development and Construction Bridge Logistics Properties 1501 Quail Street, Suite 110 Newport Beach, Ca 92660 Cell: 954-882-8793 Email: bob.close@bridgeblp.com BridgeBLP.com Confidentiality Notice and Disclaimer: The information attached and/or herein (the “Materials”) transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, re-transmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. This message cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free. The Materials do not constitute a solicitation to purchase any firm managed assets or securities. We reserve the right to monitor and review the content of email communications sent to or received by email addresses of Bridge Investment Group Holdings LLC or its affiliates. Emails sent to or from an email address of Bridge Investment Group Holdings LLC or any of its affiliates may be stored in accordance with regulatory requirements. If you received this email in error, please contact the sender and delete the materials from any computer. Your Personal Data: We may collect and process information about you that may be subject to data protection laws. For more information about how we use and disclose your personal data, how we protect your information, our legal basis to use your information, your rights and who you can contact, please refer to: https://www.bridgeig.com/privacy. You don't often get email from bob.close@bridgeblp.com. Learn why this is important Page 171 12/4/2024 – REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED FOR PUBLIC HEARING ITEM G3 From: Gillison, John <John.Gillison@cityofrc.us> Sent: Monday, December 2, 2024 6:47 PM To: Bob Close <bob.close@bridgeblp.com> Cc: Bravo-Valdez, Patricia <Patricia.Bravo-Valdez@cityofrc.us>; Troyan, Linda <Linda.Troyan@cityofrc.us>; nghirelli@rwglaw.com Subject: RE: 10808 6th Street Importance: High Bob Acknowledging receipt of your email and the attachment. Patricia is our Deputy City Clerk and Linda is our City Clerk and they are copied here so they can arrange for copies to be present at each City Councilmember’s seat before the Council meeting on Wednesday evening. Nick is our City Attorney and I am copying him so he is aware your letter will become part of the packet and that you will be attending Wed night to comment on the item and ask for additional relief. John R. Gillison City Manager City of Rancho Cucamonga 2020 All American City I value your work life boundaries. Please do not feel pressure to respond to this message outside of working hours. From: Bob Close <bob.close@bridgeblp.com> Sent: Monday, December 2, 2024 4:17 PM To: Gillison, John <John.Gillison@cityofrc.us> Subject: RE: 10808 6th Street I intend to attend on Wednesday. How do I get the letter included for the meeting? I thought it was automatic from PC, but it doesn’t look like it is part or the package (but it is mentioned in the staff report). Thanks. Bob Close Director, Development and Construction Bridge Logistics Properties 1501 Quail Street, Suite 110 Newport Beach, Ca 92660 Cell: 954-882-8793 Email: bob.close@bridgeblp.com BridgeBLP.com Page 172 From: Bob Close Sent: Monday, December 2, 2024 2:33 PM To: Gillison, John <John.Gillison@cityofrc.us> Subject: FW: 10808 6th Street Can you please call me to discuss this issue. I know it is going to Council on Thursday. It is physically impossible to actually build what is required in the new code on our site, given the requirement for different types of buildings and a maximum building size of <20,000 SF. The 2 year period of to release the nonconforming use vastly improves the situation with our building. Thanks. Bob Close Director, Development and Construction Bridge Logistics Properties 1501 Quail Street, Suite 110 Newport Beach, Ca 92660 Cell: 954-882-8793 Email: bob.close@bridgeblp.com BridgeBLP.com Page 173 50586742.1/200483.0004 November 12, 2024 City of Rancho Cucamonga Attn: Jennifer Nakamura Deputy Director of Planning In 2022, the zoning of our building at 10808 6th Street was changed from Neo-Industrial to Mixed Employment 2 (ME2). We appreciate that Item D5, consideration to amend Chapter 17.62 of Article IV of Title 17 (Development Code) of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code to Amend Nonconforming Use Provisions Concerning the Discontinuance, is currently on the November 13, 2024 Planning Commission agenda. Based on our interpretation, this proposed Code Amendment will extend the time for maintaining the right to nonconforming use from 180 days to one year of discontinuation. Unfortunately, that amount of time is not adequate and a minimum two year right to maintain the nonconforming use is absolutely critical for this Code Amendment to have the intended effect. As previously discussed, the zoning and land changes enacted in 2022 have several unintended consequences that contradict the City’s goals. A major goal of the 2022 land use change was to limit pure warehouse and trucking uses in favor of higher employment tenants, but this code change will have the opposite effect: • Tenants with a higher employment base for manufacturing or heavier office use are less common. It often takes a year or longer to lease a space to higher employment use and then 6-8 months to plan, design, permit and build the office space or manufacturing infrastructure within the building. With only a year of discontinuation allowed, we will be forced to lease the building quickly to a pure warehouse tenant to preserve our nonconforming rights. • Uses with higher office and employment opportunities require more capital than typical warehouses. With the zoning change in 2022, our building is nonconforming which is considered riskier by lenders and other capital sources. The main issue is that the nonconforming right is extinguished within currently 6 months (or 1 year with the proposed change) while this is not an issue to lenders or other capital sources if the time period is extended to at least 2 years. The additional time allows us to fund the improvements required to land the most desirable tenants (to us and the City). We closed on this building in 2022 after being reassured by the City in a zoning verification letter that “the future zoning for this property is expected to remain Neo-Industrial (NI) District”. The change we are requesting is minor and does not alter the land use changes initiated in 2022. This minor change of extending the discontinuation period to 2 years allows us to take the time and invest the required capital to attract the most desirable tenants to the City. Sincerely, Bob Close Director- Development and Construction Bridge Logistic Properties Cell: (954) 882-8793 Email: bob.close@bridgeblp.com Page 174 Nonconforming Use Ordinance City Council December 4, 2024 Background •Changes in Industrial Land Uses •2021 Industrial Code Amendments •General Plan and Code Update in 2022 •Desire for diversification and modernization •Created nonconforming uses •Nonconforming uses can continue •Chapter 17.62 (Nonconforming uses) •Use can be continued by new user within 180 days of discontinuation by previous user Proposed Change •Modify Nonconforming Use Discontinuation •Expand discontinuation period from 180 to 365 days •Applicable to industrial uses only •Changes in industrial land uses •Longer time to re-tenant industrial buildings •Other uses experienced less land use change Planning Commission •Public Hearing on November 13, 2024 •One Public Comment Received •Request to extend from 180 days to 2 years •Felt the 1-year timeline was appropriate Recommendation Planning Commission and Staff recommend that the that the City Council conduct first reading of Ordinance No.1035 by title only and waive further reading. DATE:December 4, 2024 TO:President and Members of the Board of Directors FROM:John R. Gillison, City Manager INITIATED BY:Mike McCliman, Fire Chief Augie Barreda, Deputy Fire Chief Ty Harris, Deputy Fire Chief Darci Vogel, Fire Business Manager Mackenzie Rojer, Fire Data Analyst SUBJECT:Consideration to Approve the Implementation of Medic Squad 178. (FIRE) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Fire Board approve the implementation of Medic Squad 178. BACKGROUND: On December 5, 2023, the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors awarded Contract No. 23-1282 for ground ambulance medical transportation services to CONFIRE and its private subcontractor-partner Priority Ambulance, for an initial term beginning October 1, 2024, through September 30, 2029, with an option to extend the contract for a second five-year term. Services required as part of the contact include Advanced Life Support, Basic Life Support, ground ambulance services, and Interfacility and Critical Care Transport services to 11 Exclusive Operating Areas within the County. As a result of the County awarding the ambulance contract to CONFIRE, several member and contract agencies (Ontario, Chino Valley, Rancho Cucamonga, and San Bernardino County Fire Protection District (SBCFPD)) are required to support the system by implementing at least one ambulance within their jurisdictions. Per the RFP and the contractual agreement with Priority Ambulance, the ambulances shall be staffed on a 24/7/365. On December 20, 2023, the Fire Board authorized an amendment to the Fiscal Year 23-24 Budget to provide for the hiring of six firefighters to staff an ambulance. On January 17, 2024, the Fire Board authorized the purchase of two Type-1 Ambulances utilizing Sourcewell Cooperative Agreement No. 11092, awarded to Wheeled Coach. Both of these actions took place in order to meet the requirements of the County of San Bernardino contract for ground ambulance medical transportation services. On February 27, 2024, American Medical Response (AMR) filed a lawsuit challenging the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors’ decision to award the ambulance transportation contract to CONFIRE. On July 9, 2024, AMR then filed an injunction requesting a stay of the execution of the ambulance transportation contract pending the outcome of the lawsuit. On September 12, 2024, a judge granted the requested injunction, subsequently delaying the scheduled implementation of the ambulance contract on October 1, 2024. Page 175 Page 2 2 6 3 2 ANALYSIS: In order to meet the staffing requirements of the County ambulance contract, the Fire District hired six firefighters and began a Fire Academy in March 2024. At the conclusion of the Fire Academy in May 2024, the Fire District temporarily placed Medic Squad 178 into service at newly opened Fire Station 178 while awaiting the commencement of the ambulance contract. The primary objective of Medic Squad 178 was to respond to low-acuity calls in order to increase the availability of the Fire District’s other all-risk apparatus for higher level critical incidents that necessitate a Medic Engine or Medic Truck response. Low-acuity calls are for non-urgent illnesses or injuries that are less severe and do not pose an immediate danger to the patient. However, Medic Squad 178 is staffed with a firefighter paramedic capable of performing advanced life-saving actions if a patient’s condition changes upon arrival. Medic Squad 178 Impact Once placed in service, the Fire District began collecting data on Medic Squad 178’s responses in order to determine if the primary objective was being met. From June 1 to October 31, 2024, Medic Squad 178 absorbed 1,417-unit responses, which is 13.51% of the Fire District’s total unit responses. Combined, Fire Station 178 (consisting of both Medic Engine 178 and Medic Squad 178) absorbed 26.41% of the Fire District’s unit responses. Of the 1,417 dispatches of Medic Squad 178, 80.95% were independent and did not require an additional Fire District apparatus. Whereas 19.05% of the time, Medic Squad 178 was the secondary apparatus to another Rancho Cucamonga Fire District apparatus, serving as a force multiplier. On average, Medic Squad 178 was dispatched to nine incidents per day with a minimum of 3 incidents and a maximum of 19 incidents per day. Medic Squad 178 was primarily dispatched to emergency medical incidents 76.08% of the time, followed by good intent calls at 14.82%. Page 176 Page 3 2 6 3 2 During the same timeframe of June 1 to October 31, 2024, the Fire District was dispatched to 1,840 low-acuity incidents (17.14% of total incidents). Of these responses, Medic Squad 178 absorbed 63.12%, responding to 1,157 of the low-acuity incidents. These low-acuity calls are incidents that the Fire District’s Medic Engines and Medic Trucks would have responded to previously. As a result, Medic Squad 178 increased the availability of the Fire District’s all-risk emergency apparatus for critical emergencies, which has enhanced Fire District’s call handling efficiency and improved the Fire District’s emergency response plan. Recommendation While the original intent had been for the temporary deployment of Medic Squad 178 until the commencement of the ambulance contract, it is uncertain when or if that contract will move forward. As detailed above, the deployment of Medic Squad 178 to low-acuity calls has increased the availability of the Fire District’s all-risk emergency apparatus to incident types that are critical in nature, subsequently providing an enhanced level of service to the community. Therefore, staff recommends the continued deployment of Medic Squad 178 to enhance the concentration levels of resources to the community. FISCAL IMPACT: Due to the anticipated implementation of the County ambulance contract, the staffing for Medic Squad 178 is already accounted for in the current Fiscal Year 2024-25 budget (F281 CC508). The total annual expense is $1,307,970. However, since the Fire District is not staffing an ambulance as part of the County ambulance contract, this expense will not be offset by revenue. The annual revenue for the ambulance contract was estimated at $1,408,700. The Fire District purchased two ambulances in order to meet the requirements of the County ambulance contract. These ambulances will be used by Medic Squad 178. If the County ambulance contract moves forward, the Fire District will need to purchase a new squad unit and equipment. Any additional expenses will be examined during the preparation of the budget for Fiscal Year 2025-26. Page 177 Page 4 2 6 3 2 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 implementing Medic Squad 178 in order to enhance the level of service provided to the community and increase the availability of the Fire District’s all-risk emergency apparatus for critical emergencies. ATTACHMENTS: None Page 178 Medic Squad 178 Deployment Analysis Right Resource, Right Patient, Right Time Overview •Objective of Medic Squad 178 •Impact of Station 178 •Medic Squad 178’s Deployment •Medic Squad 178’s Distribution •Medic Squad 178’s Call Types •Medic Squad 178’s Low-Acuity Impact •Financial Impact •Recommendation Rancho Cucamonga Fire District 9,776 10,064 10,398 10,735 7,483 7,751 7,978 8,255 6,000 6,500 7,000 7,500 8,000 8,500 9,000 9,500 10,000 10,500 11,000 2021 2022 2023 2024 Co u n t o f U n i t R e s p o n s e s a n d I n c i d e n t s Year Incidents and Unit Responses per Year (June, July, August, September, October) Unit Response Incidents Medic Squad 178 I2150 7.18% ME171 10.13% ME172 11.84% ME173 9.79% ME174 10.74% ME175 6.11% ME176 3.43% ME177 4.91% ME178 12.90% MS178 13.51% MT174 5.54% MT175 3.91% 75 3 10 6 2 12 4 2 10 2 7 11 2 6 64 1 36 0 51 5 13 5 3 14 1 7 58 1 41 0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 Co u n t o f U n i t R e s p o n s e s Station Unit Responses by Station (June, July, August, September, October) I2150 ME171 ME172 ME173 ME174 ME175 ME176 ME177 ME178 MS178 MT174 MT175 Station 178 Impact Medic Squad 178’s Deployment Basic Incident Type Count % Emergency Medical Service 1,078 76.08% Good Intent Call 210 14.82% Not Recorded 69 4.87% Service Call 42 2.96% Fire 17 1.20% False Alarm & False Call 1 0.07% Average:9 Minimun:3 Maximun:19 1,417 Unit Responses 80.95% Independent 19.05% Force Multiplier Sunday, 199, 14.04% Monday, 208, 14.68% Tuesday, 196, 13.83% Wednesday, 196, 13.83% Thursday, 211 , 14.89% Friday, 202, 14.26% Saturday, 205, 14.47% DAY OF WEEK DISTRIBUTION June, 297, 20.96% July, 267, 18.84% August, 292, 20.61% September, 283, 19.97% October, 278, 19.62% MONTH DISTRIBUTION Medic Squad 178 Distribution Medic Squad 178 Distribution 136 102 167 203 204 220 208 177 0 50 100 150 200 250 Un i t R e s p o n s e s Time of Day In a 24 Hour Period (3-Hour Intervals) Hour of Day Distribution (24-Hour Period) (June, July, August, September, October) 12:00 AM –2:59 AM 9.60% 3:00 AM –5:59 AM 7.20% 6:00 AM –8:59 AM 11.79% 9:00 AM –11:59 AM 14.33% 12:00 PM –2:59 PM 14.40% 3:00 PM –5:59 PM 15.53% 6:00 PM –8:59 PM 14.68% 9:00 PM –11:59 PM 12.49% Medic Squad 178 Heatmap via ESRI 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178Map Legend: Each marked area on the heatmap represents a 1.5-mile radius surrounding each fire station. Call Types from Dispatch Response Type(June, July, August, September, October) Alpha 1,078 10.04% Bravo 596 5.55% Omega 166 1.55% 17.14% of unit responses are low-acuity. Charlie 1,173 10.93% Delta 1,633 15.21% Echo 218 2.03% No EMD 5,871 54.69% Low-Acuity Dispatches | 17.14% High-Acuity Dispatches | 28.17% No Call Type 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 Co u n t o f U n i t R e s p o n s e s Apparatus Low-Acuity Incidents (June, July, August, September, October) Alpha Bravo Omega I2150 3 0.16% ME171 107 5.84% ME172 87 4.75% ME173 81 4.42% ME174 53 2.89% ME175 55 3.00% ME176 50 2.73% ME177 75 4.09% ME178 128 6.98% MS178 1,157 63.12% MT174 23 1.25% MT175 14 0.76% Medic Squad 178 Low-Acuity Impact ALPHA 1,078 BRAVO 596 OMEGA 166 Total Low-Acuity Incidents: 1,840 Emergency vs. Non-Emergency 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 I2150 ME171 ME172 ME173 ME174 ME175 ME176 ME177 ME178 MS178 MT174 MT175 CO U N T APPARATUS Apparatus Response Mode To Scene (June, July, August, September, October) Emergency Emergency, Downgraded to Non-Emergency Non-Emergency Non-Emergency, Upgraded to Emergency 83.14% of apparatus responses are emergency response mode to scene 16.46% of apparatus responses are non-emergency response mode to scene Right Resource, Right Patient, Right Time Medic Squad 178’s contribution to low-acuity responses has had an impact of optimizing effective resource deployment to ensure our community is receiving the highest level of service which includes the right resource, to the right patient, at the right time. Financial Impact •Staffed by 1 Firefighter Paramedic and 1 Firefighter EMT on a 24/7 basis. •In anticipation of the ambulance contract, staffing has already been included in the current budget. The total annual expense is $1,307,970. •Staffing will no longer be offset by ambulance revenue, estimated at $1,408,700 annually. •Dependent upon the outcome of the ambulance contract, a vehicle purchase may be purchased next fiscal year. Recommendation •Staff recommends the Fire Board approve the implementation of Medic Squad 178. •The deployment of Medic Squad 178 to low-acuity calls has increased the availability of the Fire District’s all- risk emergency apparatus to incident types that are critical in nature, subsequently providing an enhanced level of service to the community. Q&A?