Banning City Council
August 26, 2025

ORDINANCE 1611

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BANNING, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF BANNING

AND JDNJ ENTERPRISES, LLC, A MISSOURI LIMITED LIABILITY

CORPORATION
WHEREAS, the City of Banning, California, (“City”) is a general law city and a municipal corporation of the State of California; and
WHEREAS, Article 2.5 of Chapter 4 of Division 1 of Title 7 of the California Government Code (“Development Agreement Statute”) and Chapter 17.60 of the Banning Municipal Code authorize City to enter into binding development agreements with persons having legal or equitable interests in real property for the development of such property; and WHEREAS, JDNJ Enterprises, LLC, a Missouri Limited Liability Corporation (“Owner”) is proposing to develop an approximately 1,320,284 square-foot tilt-up industrial building with onand off-sit related improvements on approximately 131.28-acres of real property located entirely within the City of Banning, comprised of three parcels having seven Assessor’s Parcel Number (Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs): 532-030-008, 532-030-009, 532-080-008, 532-080-010, 532-090-026, 532-090-028, 532-090-030, 532-110-015.), and more specifically depicted and described in Exhibit A (hereinafter the “Property”); and WHEREAS, the Subject Property is, or will be made, subject to the following entitlements:

Resolution No. 2025-106 approving Tentative Parcel Map No. 38756 to reconsolidate all existing parcels on the Site into two parcels and Design Review No. 21-7017 for construction of one concrete tilt-up industrial building; and Resolution No. 2025-107 certifying an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), SCH Number 2022090102, Adopting Findings and a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Adopting a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (collectively the "Entitlements"); and
WHEREAS, the Project will provide jobs and industry in the City; and WHEREAS, the Project will provide a community benefit to the residents of the City; and WHEREAS, the Developer is not requesting from the City, nor is the City providing, any form of financial assistance to locate, develop, construct and/or operate the Project in the City of Banning, and Developer agrees to comply with all conditions of approval; and WHEREAS, to strengthen the public planning process, encourage private participation in comprehensive planning and reduce the economic risk of development, the Legislature of the State of California adopted Sections 65864 et seq. of the California Government Code, (the "Development Agreement Statute") which authorizes cities to enter into property development agreements with any person(s) or entity(ies) having a legal or equitable interest in real property for the development of such real property in order to establish certain development rights in the real property; and
WHEREAS, the Development Agreement is intended to provide assurances to Developer that an approved Project may proceed subject to the specified policies, rules, regulations, and conditions of approval applicable to the Project at the time of approval, regardless of any changes to City policies, rules, and regulations after project approval; and 175
Ordinance 1611

WHEREAS, this Agreement will eliminate uncertainty in planning for and securing orderly development and occupancy of the Property, assure installation of necessary improvements, and ensure attainment of the maximum effective utilization of resources within the City at the least economic cost to its citizens; and
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission held a public hearing on the Project on March 5, 2025 and passed a resolution recommending approval subject to certain specific recommendations; and
WHEREAS, the City prepared the Final Revised EIR (the "FEIR") and, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21092.5, the City provided copies of the FEIR to all commenting agencies and persons requesting copies of the responses; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Banning (the "City Council"), at its regularly scheduled public meeting on July 8, 2025, held a public hearing on the Project; and WHEREAS, based on the foregoing recitals, City has determined that this Agreement is appropriate under the Development Agreement Statute and Chapter 17.60 of the Banning Municipal Code and consistent with the policies and programs of the City of Banning General Plan, any applicable specific plan and the zoning ordinances; and WHEREAS, this Agreement is voluntarily entered into in consideration of the benefits to and the rights created in favor of each of the parties hereto and in reliance upon the various representations and warranties contained herein; and
WHEREAS, City, as "Lead Agency" under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and the CEQA Guidelines, has determined that the "Project," as more fully described in this Agreement, has been fully analyzed per CEQA under the FEIR for the Project dated October 2024 and all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Ordinance have occurred.

NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BANNING DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. RECITALS
That the above Recitals are true and correct and are incorporated as though fully set forth herein.

SECTION 2. APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
That the City Council hereby approves the Development Agreement by and between the City of Banning and JDNJ ENTERPRISES, LLC, A MISSOURI LIMITED LIABILITY CORPORATION ("Development Agreement"), a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "B" and incorporated herein by this reference, subject to the terms and conditions stated therein.

SECTION 3. SEVERABILITY
The City Council declares that, should any provision, section, paragraph, sentence or word of this Ordinance be rendered or declared invalid by any final action in a court of competent jurisdiction or by reason of any preemptive legislation, the remaining provisions, sections, paragraphs, sentences or words of this Ordinance as hereby adopted shall remain in full force and effect.

SECTION 4. EFFECTIVE DATE OF ORDINANCE
That this Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after its second reading by the City Council. 176
Ordinance 1611

SECTION 5. EFFECTIVE DATE OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
The Development Agreement shall not be executed by the City until on or after the effective date of the Ordinance.

SECTION 6. RECORDATION OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
The City Clerk is hereby directed to record the fully executed Development Agreement with the Riverside County Recorder no later than ten (10) days after its execution.

SECTION 7. CERTIFICATION
The City Clerk is directed to certify the passage and adoption of this Ordinance; cause it to be entered into the City of Banning’s book of original ordinances; make a note of the passage and adoption in the records of this meeting; and, within fifteen (15) days after the passage and adoption of this Ordinance, cause it to be published or posted in accordance with California law.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 26th day of August, 2025.

Sheri Flynn, Mayor
City of Banning
ATTEST:

Sandra Calderon, Acting Administrative City Clerk
City of Banning
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

John Pinkney, City Attorney
Slovak, Baron, Empey, Murphy & Pinkney, LLP
177
Ordinance 1611

CERTIFICATION:

I, Caroline Patton, Administrative City Clerk of the City of Banning, California, do hereby certify that Ordinance 1611 was duly introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Banning, held on the 8th day of July, 2025, and was duly adopted at a regular meeting of said City Council on the 26th day of August, 2025, by the following vote, to wit:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Sandra Calderon, Acting Administrative City Clerk
City of Banning, California
178
Ordinance 1611

EXHIBIT A
Legal Description

THE LAND REFERRED TO HEREIN BELOW IS SITUATED IN THE CITY OF BANNING, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:

PARCEL 1:

THOSE CERTAIN PARCELS OF LAND LOCATED WITHIN THE MORONGO INDIAN

RESERVATION, LOCATED IN THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, BEING THOSE PORTIONS OF SECTION 1, 2 AND 12 OF TOWNSHIP 3 SOUTH, RANGE 1 EAST,

SAN BERNARDINO MERIDIAN, AS SHOWN ON THE OFFICIAL PLAT THEREOF, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:

COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 2;

THENCE ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 2 SOUTH 89°40'06" EAST 489.00 FEET TO A LINE PARALLEL WITH AND 489.00 FEET EASTERLY OF THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID SECTION 2, SAID POINT BEING THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING;
THENCE ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE NORTH 00°21'44" EAST 342.00 FEET TO A LINE PARALLEL WITH AND 342.00 FEET NORTHERLY OF SAID SOUTHERLY LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 2;
THENCE ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE SOUTH 89°40'06" EAST 2164.30 FEET TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID SECTION 2;

THENCE CONTINUING ALONG THE EASTERLY PROLONGATION OF SAID PARALLEL LINE SOUTH 88°36'14" EAST 107.02 FEET TO A LINE PARALLEL WITH AND 107.00 FEET EASTERLY OF THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID SECTION 1;
THENCE ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE SOUTH 00°17'18" WEST 270.81 FEET TO THE NORTHERLY LINE OF A STRIP OF LAND 16.50 FEET IN WIDTH, EXCEPTED FROM GRANT DEED REC. 10/7/2004 AS DOC. NO. 2004-0797131, OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA (DEPT. OF INT. FILING 582 173Y07); THENCE ALONG SAID NORTHERLY LINE SOUTH 89°47'09" WEST 107.00 FEET TO THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID SECTION 1;
THENCE ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE SOUTH 00°17'18" WEST 16.50 FEET TO THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF THE AFOREMENTIONED 16.50 FOOT STRIP;
THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE NORTH 89°47'09" EAST 107.00 FEET TO A LINE PARALLEL WITH AND 107.00 FEET EASTERLY OF THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID SECTION 1;
THENCE ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE SOUTH 00°17'18" WEST 52.58 FEET TO THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 1, SAID POINT IS LOCATED ON A LINE PARALLEL WITH AND 107.00 FEET EASTERLY OF THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID SECTION 12; 179
Ordinance 1611

THENCE ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE SOUTH 00°03'26" WEST 1044.17 FEET TO THE

NORTHERLY LINE OF THAT CERTAIN FINAL ORDER OF CONDEMNATION RECORDED AUGUST 19, 1963 AS INST. NO. 87113 AND THAT CERTAIN FINAL ORDER OF CONDEMNATION RECORDED SEPTEMBER 26, 1967 AS INST. NO. 84776, BOTH OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE. SAID NORTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE BEING DEPICTED CALTRANS RIGHT-OF-WAY MAP NO. 984524 FILED IN BOOK 204 PAGE 91 OF CALTRANS RIGHT-OF-WAY MAPS AND CALTRANS RIGHT-OF-WAY MAP NO. 452194 FILED IN BOOK 205 PAGE 263 OF CALTRANS RIGHT-OF-WAY MAPS, BOTH ON FILE IN THE MISC. RECORDS OF THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY SURVEYOR OF SAID COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE;
THENCE ALONG SAID NORTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY SOUTH 71°02'58" WEST 113.17 FEET TO THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID SECTION 2;
THENCE ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE OF SECTION 12 NORTH 00°03'26" EAST 1081.36 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE AFOREMENTIONED SECTION 12;

THENCE ALONG THE AFOREMENTIONED SOUTHERLY LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 2 NORTH 88°36'14" WEST 2641.66 FEET TO THE SOUTH QUARTER CORNER OF SECTION 2;

THENCE ALONG THE AFOREMENTIONED SOUTHERLY LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 2 NORTH 89°40'06" WEST 2161.30 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING;

RESERVING THEREFROM AN EASEMENT FOR INGRESS, EGRESS AND UTILITIES, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:

COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 2;

THENCE ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 2 SOUTH 89°40'06" EAST 2583.30 FEET TO A POINT 67.00 FEET WESTERLY OF THE SOUTH QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 2, SAID POINT IS THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING;
THENCE NORTH 00° 21'44" EAST 342.00 FEET TO A LINE PARALLEL WITH 342.00 FEET NORTHERLY OF SAID SOUTHERLY LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 2; THENCE ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE SOUTH 89°40'06" EAST 69.98 FEET TO A LINE PARALLEL WITH AND 342.00 FEET NORTHERLY OF THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 2;
THENCE ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE SOUTH 88°36'14" EAST 30.02 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 00°21'44" WEST 342.06 FEET TO THE AFOREMENTIONED SOUTHERLY LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 2;
THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE NORTH 88°36'14" WEST 33.02 FEET TO THE SOUTH QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 2;
180
Ordinance 1611

THENCE ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 2 NORTH 89°40'06" WEST 66.98 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.

APN: 532-030-008, 532-030-009, 532-080-008, 532-080-010, 532-090-026, 532-090-028 AND 532-090-030
PARCEL 2:

THAT PORTION OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 11, TOWNSHIP 3 SOUTH, RANGE 1

EAST, SAN BERNARDINO BASE AND MERIDIAN, ACCORDING TO UNITED STATES

GOVERNMENT SURVEY, LYING NORTHERLY OF THAT CERTAIN PORTION OF SAID NORTHEAST 1/4 CONVEYED TO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA BY DEED RECORDED OCTOBER 11, 1961, AS INSTRUMENT NO. 87046 IN BOOK 2997, PAGE 542, OFFICIAL RECORDS.

EXCEPTING THEREFROM, ALL RIGHT, TITLE AND INTEREST IN AND TO ALL

HYDROCARBONS, MINERALS, GEOTHERMAL RESOURCES, AND MINERAL ORES OF

EVERY KIND AND CHARACTER, METALLIC OR OTHERWISE, SOLID, LIQUID OR GAS AND

WHETHER OR NOT HEREAFTER KNOWN TO SCIENCE OR INDUSTRY, NOT KNOWN TO

EXIST OR HEREAFTER DISCOVERED UPON, WITHIN OR

UNDERLYING THE SURFACE OF SAID LAND AS SHOWN IN DEED RECORDED JANUARY 28, 1987 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 24458 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.

APN: 532-110-015
PARCEL 3:

A NON-EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT FOR ROAD PURPOSES UPON, OVER AND ACROSS THAT PORTION OF THE EAST 1/2 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 11, TOWNSHIP 3 SOUTH, RANGE 1 EAST, SAN BERNARDINO BASE AND MERIDIAN, INCLUDED WITHIN A STRIP OF LAND 20 FEET WIDE, THE NORTHERLY LINE OF WHICH IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:

BEGINNING AT A POINT IN THE EAST LINE OF THE SAID NORTHWEST 1/4, DISTANT ALONG SAID EAST LINE SOUTH 0°41'41" WEST 1359.31 FEET FROM A 3/4 INCH IRON PIPE AND BRASS CAP MARKED "U.S.G.L.O. 1917" SET FOR THE NORTH 1/4 CORNER OF SAID SECTION;
THENCE NORTH 89°25'57" WEST, 1319.31 FEET TO THE WEST LINE OF THE SAID EAST 1/2.

ALSO THAT PORTION OF THE WEST 20 FEET OF SAID EAST 1/2 LYING SOUTHERLY OF THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED 20 FOOT STRIP.

EXCEPT THAT PORTION LYING SOUTHERLY OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED LINE:

BEGINNING AT A POINT IN THE WEST LINE OF SAID EAST 1/2, DISTANT ALONG SAID WEST LINE SOUTH 0°25'01" WEST 1041.97 FEET FROM THE POINT OF INTERSECTION 181
Ordinance 1611

THEREOF WITH THAT CERTAIN LINE HEREINABOVE DESCRIBED AS HAVING A BEARING OF NORTH 89°25'57" WEST;
THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG 545 FOOT RADIUS CURVE CONCAVE NORTHWESTERLY FROM A TANGENT BEARING NORTH 56°01'51" EAST, THROUGH AN ANGLE OF 1°46'36", A DISTANCE OF 16.90 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 54°15'15" EAST 50 FEET, AS CREATED IN DEED RECORDED JUNE 10, 1968 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 53726, OFFICIAL RECORDS.
182
Ordinance 1611

EXHIBIT B
Development Agreement
183
4924-7261-4673.13/
393342.00002/8-21-25/jcc/kp

RECORDING REQUESTED BY,
AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:

CITY OF BANNING
99 E. RAMSEY STREET
BANNING, CA 92220

BANNING, CALIFORNIA
ATTN: CITY CLERK
SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER’S USE
EXEMPT FROM RECORDING FEE PER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 6103

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT

BETWEEN

THE CITY OF BANNING
AND

JDNJ ENTERPRISES, LLC

CONCERNING

BANNING COMMERCE CENTER
184
4924-7261-4673.13/
393342.00002/8-21-25/jcc/kp
{This Page Left Intentionally Blank}
185
4924-7261-4673.13/
393342.00002/8-21-25/jcc/kp
THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (the “Development Agreement”) is made and entered into this September 25, 2025 , by and between the City of Banning, a California municipal corporation (the “City”), and JDNJ Enterprises, LLC, a Missouri limited liability corporation qualified to do business in the state of California (“Developer”). City and Developer may be referred to in this Development Agreement collectively as the “Parties” or each individually as a “Party.”

RECITALS

1. Article 2.5 of Chapter 4 of Division 1 of Title 7 of the California Government Code (“Development Agreement Statute”) and Chapter 17.60 of the Banning Municipal Code authorizes City to enter into binding development agreements with persons having legal or equitable interests in real property for the development of such property.

2. Developer is proposing to develop an approximately 1,320,000 square-foot tilt-up industrial building consisting of 39,600 square feet of office space and 1,280,400 square feet of warehousing, and trailer parking on approximately 131.33 acres of real property located entirely within the City of Banning, comprised of three parcels having seven Assessor’s Parcel Number (Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs):
532-030-008, 532-030-009, 532-080-008, 532-080-010, 532-090-026, 532-090- 028, 532-090-030, 532-110-015.), and more specifically depicted and described in Exhibit A (hereinafter the “Site”).

3. City and Developer mutually desire to enter into this Development Agreement pursuant to the Development Agreement Statute in order to implement the Project.

4. On July 8, 2025, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2025-106 approving Tentative Parcel Map No. 38576 to reconsolidate all existing parcels on the Site into two (2) parcels; and Design Review No. 21-7017 for construction of one concrete tilt-up industrial building as described in the preceding recitals.

Resolution No. 2025-106 and any attachments and exhibits thereto is hereby incorporated by this reference.

5. For purposes of this Development Agreement, the approvals granted by Resolution No. 2025-106 are referred to herein as the “Project Approvals.”

6. On August 26, 2025, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1611 approving this Development Agreement between the City and Developer and finding this Development Agreement to be consistent with the City’s General Plan and Zoning Code.

7. The terms and conditions of this Development Agreement have undergone extensive review by City staff and the City Council and have been found to be fair, just and reasonable. By electing to enter into this Development Agreement, the City agrees to bind future City Councils by the obligations specified herein and limit the future exercise of certain governmental and proprietary powers of the City; and 186
4924-7261-4673.13/
393342.00002/8-21-25/jcc/kp -2-
further finds that the best interests of the citizens of the City and the public health, safety and welfare will be served by entering into this Development Agreement.

8. As set forth in the Project Approvals and this Development Agreement, development of the Site in accordance with this Development Agreement will further important policies and goals of the City, eliminate uncertainty in planning, provide for the orderly development of the Site, ensure progressive installation of necessary improvements, provide for public services appropriate to the development of the Project, and provide substantial community benefits.

9. Developer has incurred and will in the future incur substantial costs in order to assure development of the Site in accordance with this Development Agreement, and has incurred and will in the future incur substantial costs in excess of the generally applicable requirements in order to assure vesting of legal rights to develop the Site in accordance with this Development Agreement.

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements contained herein, and other good and valuable consideration, the adequacy and receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the Parties do hereby agree as follows:

AGREEMENT
SECTION 1. RECITALS
The Recitals are part of this Development Agreement and shall be enforceable as any other provision.

SECTION 2. DEFINITIONS
The following defined terms shall have the meanings set forth in this Section 2 unless a different meaning is clearly intended by the context in they are used.

A. “Development Agreement” means this Development Agreement.

B. “City” means the City of Banning.

C. “City Council” means the City Council of the City of Banning.

D. “City Manager” means the City Manager of the City of Banning.

E. “Developer” means JDN Enterprises, LLC, a Missouri limited liability corporation.

F. “Development Impact Fee Program” or “DIF Program” means City’s program of collection and use of development impact fees, including fees for Police Facilities, Fire Facilities, Parkland and Park Facilities, General City Facilities, Transportation Facilities, Wastewater Facilities, and Water Facilities (collectively “DIF”) as set forth in Banning City Council Resolutions 2019-112, as it may be amended or superseded, City’s Update of Traffic Fee Component of the Development Fee 187
4924-7261-4673.13/
393342.00002/8-21-25/jcc/kp -3-
Program dated May 2019 and Development Impact Fee Update Study, dated August 7, 2019.

G. “Effective Date” shall mean the date that Ordinance No. 1611 approving this Development Agreement becomes effective.

H. “Existing Development Regulations,” subject to the exclusions and reservations set forth in Section 7, means all ordinances, resolutions, codes, rules, regulations and official policies of the City in force as of the Effective Date and governing the development of the Project and use of the Site; including, without limitation, the permitted use of land, the density or intensity of use, subdivision requirements, timing and phasing of development, the maximum height and size of buildings, the provisions for reservation or dedication of land for public purposes, and the design, improvement and construction standards and specifications.

I. “Municipal Code” means the Banning Municipal Code, as amended from time to time.

J. “Project” means the proposed development of the Site with 1,320,284 square-foot tilt-up industrial building consisting of 39,600 square feet of office space and 1,312,284 square feet of warehousing and trailer parking in a manner consistent with the Project Approvals and the terms and conditions of this Development Agreement.

K. “Project Approvals” means EIR 2022090102, SCH Number 2022090102, Tentative Parcel Map No. 38576 and Design Review No. 21-7017.

L. “Second Transportation Payment” shall have the meaning ascribed to it in Section 9(B) below.

M. “Site” means the real property that is the subject of the Project Approvals and as legally described in Exhibit A to this Development Agreement.

N. “Term” shall have the meaning ascribed to it in Section 6 below.

O. “Transfer” means any sale, lease, encumbrance, or other transfer of all or any portion of the Project or any interest therein.

P. “Transferee” means any person, partnership, limited liability company, joint venture, firm, or corporation who acquires an interest in the Site pursuant to a Transfer and assumes, or is deemed to assume, Developer’s obligations hereunder with respect to such interest.

Q. “Transportation Public Benefit Fee” shall have the meaning ascribed to it in Section 9(B) below.
188
4924-7261-4673.13/
393342.00002/8-21-25/jcc/kp -4-
SECTION 3. DEVELOPER’S REAL PROPERTY INTEREST
Developer warrants and represents that, as of the Effective Date, it has or will have legal title to or an equitable interest in the Site; that it has full legal right to enter into this Development Agreement; and that the persons executing this Development Agreement on behalf of each Developer have been duly authorized to do so.

SECTION 4. RELATIONSHIP OF THE PARTIES
It is hereby specifically understood and acknowledged that the Project is a private development and that neither the City nor Developer will be deemed to be the agent of the other for any purposes whatsoever.

SECTION 5. BINDING EFFECT OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
A. Covenants, Reservations, and Restrictions. Developer hereby subjects the Project and the Property to the covenants, reservations, and restrictions as set forth in this Development Agreement. The City and Developer hereby declare their specific intent that the covenants, reservations and restrictions as set forth herein shall be deemed covenants running with the land and shall pass to and be binding upon each of Developer’s successors and assigns in title or interest to the Site. The Parties hereby further declare their understanding and intent that the benefit of such covenants, reservations, and restrictions touch and concern the land by enhancing and increasing the enjoyment and use of the Site by Developer and the future occupants of the Site, the intended beneficiaries of such covenants, reservations, and restrictions, and by furthering the public purposes for which this Development Agreement is adopted. Each and every contract, deed, or other instrument hereinafter executed, covering, or conveying the Site or any portion thereof shall conclusively be held to have been executed, delivered, and accepted subject to the covenants, reservations, and restrictions expressed in this Development Agreement, regardless of whether such covenants, reservations, and restrictions are set forth in such contract, deed, or other instrument.

B. Recordation. The City Clerk shall record this Development Agreement in the Official Records of the County Recorder of the County of Riverside within ten (10) days following the Effective Date. Upon the expiration or termination of this Development Agreement and the request of Developer, the City will execute and deliver, in recordable form, an instrument confirming that this Development Agreement is of no further force or effect.

SECTION 6. TERM
The Term of this Development Agreement shall commence on the Effective Date and shall expire fifteen (15) years thereafter (the “Initial Term”) unless terminated sooner as provided in this Development Agreement. Unless Developer is in default under this Agreement, the Term shall automatically be extended for an additional five (5) years if prior to the expiration of the Initial Term, the Developer has provided City with the initial Transportation Public Benefit Fee in the amount of Two Million Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($2,500,000) as specified in Section 9.B. Unless otherwise specified in this 189
4924-7261-4673.13/
393342.00002/8-21-25/jcc/kp -5-
Development Agreement, the respective rights and obligations of the Parties hereto shall remain in full force and effect throughout the Term. Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary herein, in the event that, for any reason whatsoever, Developer fails to acquire fee simple title to the Property ("Fee Title") within 180 days following the Effective Date ("Fee Title Deadline"), Developer may elect, in its sole and absolute discretion, with the written approval of the fee title owner, and upon written notice to the City within sixty (60) days following the Fee Title Deadline, to terminate this Agreement and the Project Approvals. Effective upon such termination by Developer and fee title owner, this Agreement and the Project Approvals shall be of no further force or effect. After the Fee Title Deadline, if Developer has failed to acquire Fee Title and the fee title owner does not issue written approval of termination of this Agreement within five (5) days after the Fee Title Deadline, Developer shall no longer be subject to any of the obligations created in this Agreement or in the Project Approvals.

SECTION 7. VESTING OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS
A. General Statement. As a material inducement to Developer and its lenders to continue with diligent efforts to promote the development of the Property, Developer shall have the vested right to develop the Project on the Site in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Project Approvals, this Development Agreement, and the Existing Development Regulations, and City shall have the right to control development of the Site in accordance with the provisions of the Project Approvals, this Development Agreement, and the Existing Development Regulations.

B. Existing Development Regulations. In accordance with the terms of Gov. Code, § 65866, City and Developer agree the development of the Project on the Site shall be subject to all ordinances, resolutions, codes, rules, regulations and official policies of the City in force as of the Effective Date and governing the development and of the Site, including, without limitation, the permitted use of land, the density or intensity of use, subdivision requirements, timing and phasing of development, the maximum height and size of buildings, the provisions for reservation or dedication of land for public purposes, and the design, improvement and construction standards and specifications applicable to the development of the Site (collectively “Existing Development Regulations”) except as otherwise provided in this Development Agreement.

C. Exclusions and Reservations.

1. “Existing Development Regulations” excludes, and nothing in this Development Agreement shall preclude the application of, any municipal ordinance, resolution, code, rule, regulation or official policy, laws, and regulations that do not conflict with Developer’s vested rights to develop and use the Property in accordance with this Development Agreement.

Developer shall comply with such nonconflicting laws and regulations as may from time to time be enacted or amended hereafter.
190
4924-7261-4673.13/
393342.00002/8-21-25/jcc/kp -6-

2. Without limitation to the foregoing exclusions or any nonconflicting law, City hereby expressly reserves its right with regarding to the Project and the Site to apply and enforce any municipal ordinance, resolution, code, rule, regulation or official policy, laws, or regulations regarding: (i) the conduct of businesses, professions, and occupations; (ii) taxes, fees, charges, and assessments; (iii) the control and abatement of nuisances; (iv) the granting of encroachment permits and the conveyance of similar rights and interests that provide for the use of or the entry upon public property; (v) the exercise of the power of eminent domain; (vi) any and all new health and safety regulations (e.g., fire, building, and seismic, plumbing, and electric codes) made applicable in the City, inclusive of any similar such codes based upon uniform codes and incorporated by reference into the Banning Municipal Code; and (vii) procedural rules of general city-wide application, provided that City agrees to nevertheless process any Minor Modifications to Tentative Parcel Map No. 38576 or Design Review No. 21-7017 pursuant to the Chapter 17.84 of the Banning Municipal Code as that Chapter reads as of the Effective Date regardless of any later Municipal Code amendment.

Such Minor Modifications may include modifications which do not: (a) alter the permitted uses of the Site; (b) increase the maximum height and size of permitted buildings or structures in excess of the originally approved Project; or constitute a project requiring a subsequent or supplemental environmental impact report pursuant to Public Resources Code § 21166.

D. Superior Law. Nothing in this Development Agreement shall preclude the application to the Project and the Site of those changes in City ordinances, regulations, plans, or specifications that are: (i) specifically mandated and required by changes in state or federal laws or regulations as provided in Government Code § 65869.5 or any successor provision or provisions; (ii) required to ensure public safety and are made applicable throughout the City; or (iii) required to ensure access under the Americans with Disabilities Act. In the event such changes prevent or preclude compliance with one or more of the provisions of this Development Agreement, such provisions of this Development Agreement shall be modified or suspended or performance thereof delayed, to the extent necessary to comply with such changes in the law.

SECTION 8. DEVELOPMENT TIMING; PERMIT PROCESSING
A. Developer’s Discretion. Because the California Supreme Court held in Pardee Construction Co. v. City of Camarillo, 37 Cal.3d 465 (1984), that failure to provide for the timing of development resulted in a later adopted initiative restricting the timing of development, it is the Parties’ intent to avoid that deficiency by acknowledging and providing that Developer shall have the right (without obligation), subject to the provisions of this Development Agreement, to complete the Project in such order and at such rate and at such times as Developer deems appropriate within the exercise of its subjective business judgment. 191
4924-7261-4673.13/
393342.00002/8-21-25/jcc/kp -7-
B. Permit Processing. The City and its officers, agencies and departments shall not unreasonably delay the processing of any application for any permit or approval necessary to commence or complete the Project.

C. Provision of Real Property Interests by City. In any instance where Developer is required to construct any public improvement on land not owned by Developer, Developer shall at its sole cost and expense provide or cause to be provided, the real property interests necessary for the construction of such public improvements.

In the event Developer is unable, after exercising reasonable efforts over a period of at least 180 days to acquire the real property interests necessary for the construction of such public improvements (“Offsite Interests”), and if so requested by Developer and upon Developer’s provision of adequate security for costs City may reasonably incur as determined by City in its discretion, City may negotiate to attempt to purchase the Offsite Interests in order to allow Developer to construct the public improvements as required by the Project Approvals or this Development Agreement. If City is unable to acquire the Offsite Interests through a voluntary transaction, City shall consider acquiring the Offsite Interests through using its power of eminent domain to acquire such required real property interests. If City does elect in its discretion to exercise its power of Eminent domain, Developer shall pay all reasonable costs associated with such acquisition or condemnation proceedings as determined by City in its discretion and shall enter into a land acquisition agreement (“LAA”) with City in a form approved by the City Attorney.

The LAA shall provide among other things, that the Developer shall provide a deposit in an amount determined by the City to cover the City’s staff, legal and other expenses associated with the condemnation proceedings. This Section is not intended by the Parties to impose upon the Developer an enforceable duty to acquire land or construct any public improvements on land not owned by Developer, except to the extent that the Developer elects to proceed with the development of the Project, and then only in accordance with valid conditions imposed by City upon the development of the Project under the Subdivision Map Act or other legal authority. If after using good faith efforts to acquire the Offsite Interests, Developer is unable to acquire the Offsite Interests, and City, in its reasonable discretion, refuses to use its power of eminent domain to acquire the Offsite Interests, City shall waive the requirement for Developer to acquire the Offsite Interests, or if development of the Project cannot proceed without acquisition of the Offsite Interests, the Parties shall meet and confer in good faith to attempt to devise alternatives to allow the Project to proceed without acquisition of the Offsite Interests.

D. Subdivision Map Extension and Other Development Approvals. As permitted by Government Code § 66452.6, each subdivision or parcel map, heretofore or hereafter approved in connection with development of the Site or the Project shall be extended and shall remain in effect for the term provided by this Agreement. If Developer, in its sole and absolute discretion, chooses to process vesting tentative maps, City shall process such vesting maps subject to and in accordance with the Existing Land Use Regulations, the Subdivision Map Act. Subject to and in accordance with the Existing Land Use Regulations, and the Subdivision Map Act any tentative map, either vesting or non-vesting, may be processed in phases. In 192
4924-7261-4673.13/
393342.00002/8-21-25/jcc/kp -8-
addition, Design Review No. 21-7017 and all subsequently adopted discretionary project approvals shall remain in effect for the term provided by this Development Agreement.

E. Development Impact Fees. Development Impact Fees (“DIF”) currently imposed are identified in Resolution 2019-112 adopted by the City Council on September 10, 2019. A schedule showing the DIF in place as of the Effective Date is attached as Exhibit “B”. DIF and sewer and water connection and capacity fees shall be those in effect at the time of the issuance of a building permit and due and payable by Developer prior to the issuance of the building permit for the building in question.

For the sake of clarity, as a condition to building permit issuance for each building, Developer shall pay the development impact fees listed on Exhibit “B” for such building in the amount in effect at the time the building permit for such building is issued, as well as any new or increased DIF authorized by this Agreement. The City may apply subsequently adopted new categories of DIF to the Project if the same are applied uniformly to development either throughout the City or with a defined area of benefit that includes the Property if the subsequently adopted DIF is not applied on an ad hoc basis solely to the Project and the subsequently adopted fee does not physically prevent development of the Property for the uses and to the density and intensity of development set forth in this Agreement.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, if Developer is not in default under this Agreement and has made the initial Transportation Public Benefit Fee of Two Million Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($2,500,000) as specified below, prior to first anniversary of the Effective Date, the City agrees not impose any new category of DIF on the Project for a period of Five Years after the Effective Date.

SECTION 9. PUBLIC BENEFITS
A. Intent. This Section sets forth the terms and conditions under which Developer agrees to provide public benefits in consideration of the of the benefits conferred on Developer and the Site by this Development Agreement.

B. Transportation Public Benefit Fee. Developer shall pay City a Transportation Public Benefit Fee in the amount of Nine Million Dollars ($9,000,000) (“Transportation Public Benefit Fee”).Two Million Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($2,500,000) of the Transportation Public Benefit Fee will be paid no later than one (1) year from the Effective Date and the remaining amount of Six Million Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($6,500,000) (“Second Transportation Payment”) prior to the issuance of the Project’s first building permit. If the Second Transportation Payment is not paid prior to the second anniversary of the Effective Date, the amount of the Second Transportation Payment will increase annually equal to the annual percentage change in the Consumer Price Index published by the U.S.

Bureau of Labor Statistics for “All Urban Consumers” in the Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario Area, measured as of the month of April in the previous Fiscal Year, but not less than one percent (1%) and not greater than five percent (5%) .

The City shall solely use the Ramsey Interchange Fee for the design and construction of the Ramsey-Interstate 10 interchange and or the Hargrave Street interchange. The City acknowledges and agrees that the City shall not impose 193
4924-7261-4673.13/
393342.00002/8-21-25/jcc/kp -9-
any other fee or exaction upon Developer for the Ramsey-Interstate 10 interchange.

C. Electrical Facilities Fee. Developer shall pay City an Electrical Facilities Fee equal to Three Hundred and Fifty-Seven Thousand Dollars ($357,000) per megavoltamperes (MVA) of requested electrical load due and payable pro rata prior to issuance of any building permit (“Electric Facilities Fee”). City shall use the proceeds of the Electrical Facilities Fee solely for the design or construction of new or expanded electrical facilities, which can include reimbursement to the City for part of the cost of an existing electrical facility substation which the City has funded.

D. Electrical Substation Land Dedication. Developer shall reserve and offer to dedicate to City lettered-lot “C” on the proposed Tentative Parcel Map No. 38576 for the Banning Electrical Utility to have the option to construct a new electrical substation (“Substation Property”). Such offer of dedication shall occur at the time final Parcel Map No. 38576 is recorded. If the City accepts the offer of dedication and undertakes construction of the electrical substation on the Substation Property, construction of the electrical substation shall be undertaken by the City at no cost to Developer. If the City accepts the offer of dedication for the Substation Property, City or its successors shall not use the Substation Property for any purpose other than a substation and related uses. If the City accepts the offer of dedication for the Substation Property, within thirty (30) days of City’s acceptance of the dedication, City shall pay the amount of the fair market value (“FMV”) of the Substation Property to the Developer, with the amount of the payment capped at the amount of the Electric Facilities Fee Acquisition of the Substation Property shall be at the sole discretion of the City and the City may in its sole discretion elect not to acquire the Substation Property.

E. Prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy within the Project, the Developer shall be required to take all actions required to improve Hathaway Street, as depicted in Exhibit “C”.

F. The Developer shall use reasonable efforts to hire residents of the City of Banning.

Developer will hold at least one local job fair with the City for the purpose of recruiting workers from the City.

G. Sanitary Lift Station Land Construction and Dedication. Developer shall construct a sanitary lift station (“Lift Station”) on lettered lot “D” on the proposed Tentative Parcel Map No. 38576 (“Lift Station Property”) subject to plans and specifications approved by the Public Works Director and as contemplated by the Sewer Master Plan dated March 2018. City shall issue DIF credits against the wastewater DIF which includes the Lift Station and Lift Station Property in the amounts of (i) the cost of designing and constructing the Lift Station, and (ii) the FMV of the Lift Station Property (collectively, “Lift Station Costs”) in an amount not to exceed the Developer’s wastewater DIF obligation. Developer shall complete construction of the Lift Station prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for the Project. Developer is aware that the sewer force main near the Project running to Nicolet was installed by a previous developer on its property, and Developer must 194
4924-7261-4673.13/
393342.00002/8-21-25/jcc/kp -10-
obtain the consent of the property owner to use this sewer force main for the Project and to undertake any additional improvements to the sewer force main at its sole cost and expense.

H. FMV Process. In order to determine the FMV of the Substation Property and the Lift Station Property, City shall commission an appraisal for each property, which shall be addressed to City and Developer, at Developer’s sole expense, prepared by a licensed appraiser holding a MAI designation from the Appraisal Institute (“Developer’s Appraiser”) with at least 15 years’ experience in appraising similar properties in the same geographical region. The FMV shall be based upon the the assumption the Property has in place all needed discretionary approvals to develop a project similar in nature to the Project. The appraiser shall use a date of valuation which is the current date of the appraisal. Developer’s Appraiser shall deliver a written report as to their opinion of FMV for each property within sixty (60) days after such appraiser has been retained by Developer. Upon receipt of Developer’s appraisal, the City shall have thirty (30) days to review the appraisal and agree or dispute the determination of FMV. In the event that the City disputes the FMV determined by Developer’s appraisal, the City shall be entitled to commission a second appraisal, at the City’s own expense, prepared by a licensed appraiser having the qualifications provided above (“City’s Appraiser”). The City’s Appraiser shall deliver a written report as to their opinion of FMV for the property within sixty (60) days after such appraiser has been retained by the City. If the higher appraisal is equal to or less than 120% of the lower appraisal, the two appraisals will be added together and their total divided by two; the resulting quotient will be the FMV of the property in question. If the higher appraisal is greater than 120% of the lower appraisal, the Parties shall have sixty (60) days after Developer’s receipt of the City’s appraisal to reach a negotiated resolution. If the Parties are unable to reach a negotiation resolution, the Parties shall reasonably cooperate to select a third licensed appraiser having the qualifications provided above(“Review Appraiser”) to make a final determination of FMV. If the Parties are unable to agree on the selection of the Review Appraiser, the Parties shall jointly petition the Riverside County Superior Court to select a Review Appraiser. The Parties will equally share the fees and expenses associated with the Review Appraiser, including but not limited to, the Parties’ joint petition to select a Review Appraiser and the Review Appraiser’s fees. The Review Appraiser shall review the two appraisals and then make a determination of FMV, which shall be no less than the value of the lower appraisal and no greater than the value of the higher appraisal. The Review Appraiser’s determination of FMV shall be binding on all Parties.

I. Community Facilities Districts.

1. Service CFD. Developer agrees, pursuant to the Mello Roos Act, to petition the City or, alternatively, California Statewide Communities Development Authority (“CSCDA”) to form a community facilities district, the boundaries of which shall be coextensive with those of the Site (the “Service CFD”) for the purpose of financing City services and ongoing maintenance of public improvements provided by the City to the parcels within the boundaries of 195
4924-7261-4673.13/
393342.00002/8-21-25/jcc/kp -11-
the Service CFD the cost of which shall be solely borne by the Developer, provided such services qualify as authorized services under the Mello Roos Act (collectively, “Authorized Services”). The Service CFD shall be a condition to the City’s issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for the Project.

2. If City sponsors the formation of the Service CFD, City shall initiate the process promptly following submission of Developer’s petition and compliance with Section 53318(d) of the Mello-Roos Act and shall use good faith, diligent efforts to form the Service CFD, including the scheduling of necessary public hearings at the cost of Developer. If requested, Developer will execute a reimbursement agreement providing for the advance deposit of monies to reimburse City for the cost of its implementing the CFD.

Developer agrees to cooperate in the formation and agrees that it will not contest and will exercise all of its voting power in favor of the formation of the Service CFD. Should Developer request CSCDA to sponsor the formation of the Service CFD, City shall cooperate in process and agrees to use good faith efforts to take all necessary and appropriate actions to assist Developer and CSCDA in the formation of the Service CFD in accordance with Section 9.H.1, including the issuance of necessary consents in the formation process.

3. Developer and City shall reasonably cooperate in developing the rate and method of apportionment of special taxes for the Service CFD (“Service RMA”), which the Parties agree shall provide, in part: (a) the maximum Service Special Tax rate in the first year that there is a levy of the Service Special Tax shall be at a rate of $0.10 per building square foot, which amount shall be subject to an “Annual Escalation Factor” equal to the annual percentage change in the Consumer Price Index published by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics for “All Urban Consumers” in the RiversideSan Bernardino-Ontario Area, measured as of the month of April in the previous Fiscal Year, but not less than three percent (3%) and not greater than five percent (5%); (b) the levying of the Service Special Tax shall commence in the first fiscal year following the issuance of a certificate of occupancy by May 1 of the preceding Fiscal Year, (c) the adoption of an annual budgeting process to establish the annual actual Service Special Tax rate, and (d) the Service Special Tax cannot be prepaid.

4. Facilities CFD At the discretion of the Developer, Developer may, pursuant to the Mello Roos Act, petition the City or, alternatively, pursue other financing alternatives, including requesting CSCDA to form a community facilities district, the boundaries of which shall be coextensive with those of the Site (“Facilities CFD,” collectively with Service CFD, the “CFDs”) for the purpose of financing (i) public infrastructure required under the Development Agreement, including without exception, public streets, highways, and bridges, and other related improvements such as grading, paving, curbs and gutters, sidewalks, street signalization and signage, street lights and parkway landscaping related thereto, water facilities, storm 196
4924-7261-4673.13/
393342.00002/8-21-25/jcc/kp -12-
drain facilities, sewer facilities, public parks, landscaping, electrical facilities, (collectively, “Facilities”), and (ii) Development Impact Fees, including, without exception, the Public Benefit Fees described in Section B and C above (“Fees,” collectively with Facilities, “Authorized Facilities and Fees”).

If City agrees to sponsor the formation of the Facilities CFD, City shall initiate the process promptly following submission of Developer’s petition and compliance with Section 53318(d) of the Mello-Roos Act, and shall use good faith, diligent efforts to form the Facilities CFD and timely issue bonds (“CFD Bonds”), including the scheduling of necessary public hearings related to formation and issuance of CFD Bonds. Any costs incurrent in establishing the Facilities CFD and issuing the CFD Bonds shall be paid from the CFD Bond proceeds, or failing that by the Developer. Developer agrees to cooperate in the formation and agrees that it will not contest and will exercise all of its voting power in favor of the formation of the Facilities CFD and issuance of CFD Bonds. Should Developer request CSCDA to sponsor the formation of the Facilities CFD and be the issuer of the CFD Bonds, City shall cooperate in process and agrees to use good faith efforts to take cooperate with Developer and CSCDA in the formation of the Facilities CFD and the issuance of the CFD Bonds, including the issuance of necessary consents in the formation and bond issuance processes.

Developer and City shall reasonably cooperate in developing the rate and method of apportionment of special taxes for the Facilities CFD (“Facilities RMA”).

5. In the event Developer conveys or grants an easement to any portion of the Site to City or any other government agency and the property so conveyed is subject to payment of special taxes under the Facilities CFD formed pursuant to this Development Agreement and CFD Bonds have been issued and are outstanding, Developer shall prepay the special taxes pursuant to the terms of the Facilities RMA with respect to the portion of the Site subject to an easement or being conveyed prior to completion of any such conveyance or easement. Upon completion of the conveyance or grant of easement, Developer’s obligation to pay special taxes pursuant to the Facilities RMA and the Services RMA for the conveyed property shall terminate. Alternatively, the RMA may exclude the forgoing conveyance or grant of easement from the imposition of the special taxes to accomplish the goals of this paragraph.

6. Notwithstanding the foregoing, it is acknowledged and agreed by the Parties that nothing contained in this Development Agreement shall be construed as committing or requiring the City Council to authorize and approve the formation of the CFDs and/or the issuance of the CFD Bonds. Further, City and Developer agree that the practical ability to issue CFD bonds is subject to marketability and therefore, Developer and City will first consult with a mutually agreed upon public finance consultant, at Developer’s cost prior to forming a Facilities CFD.
197
4924-7261-4673.13/
393342.00002/8-21-25/jcc/kp -13-

7. Except as expressly set forth or reserved in this Development Agreement, City shall not, without the prior written consent of Developer, initiate the formation of any new financing district or assessment district involving the levy of special taxes or assessments for facilities or services applicable to the Project or any portion thereof during the term of this Agreement or prior to the substantial completion of the Project.

SECTION 10. COMPLIANCE REVIEW
Within ten (10) days of each anniversary of the Effective Date, Developer shall file a report with City containing sufficient evidence to demonstrate Developer’s good faith compliance with this Development Agreement, and City will review Developer’s report in good faith.

Pursuant to Gov. Code § 65865.1, if City finds and determines, as a result of its review, that there is substantial evidence that Developer has not complied in good faith with terms or conditions of this Development Agreement, City may terminate or modify the agreement. City does not waive any claim of defect in performance by Developer if after any annual review, City does not enforce this Development Agreement.

SECTION 11. TRANSFERS AND ASSIGNMENTS
A. Transfers. Developer shall have the right to sell, transfer or assign the Site in whole or in part (provided that no such partial transfer shall violate the Subdivision Map Act, Government Code § 66410 et seq.) to any person, partnership, limited liability company, joint venture, firm or corporation at any time during the Term of this Development Agreement without the prior consent of City. City acknowledges and agrees it is likely in the future that Developer may transfer its interest in the Site to an affiliated entity. Developer and Transferee shall execute and record an Assignment and Assumption Agreement whereby the assignee agrees to perform all of the obligations of the Developer under this Development Agreement, a copy of which shall be delivered to the City contemporaneously upon the closing of such sale, transfer or assignment. Upon recordation of the Assignment and Assumption Agreement, Developer shall be released from its obligations with respect to such portion of, or interest in, the Project that was the subject of such Transfer.

B. Conditions Applicable to Transfers. Notwithstanding whether a Transferee has executed an Assignment and Assumption Agreement, a Transferee shall be deemed upon transfer or assignment to have assumed all Developer’s obligations and to have been assigned all of Developer’s rights under this Development Agreement, and will be deemed the Developer hereunder. This Development Agreement may only be transferred to a person or entity who acquires fee title to the Site or any portion of the Site. Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, in no event shall any Lender (as defined in Section 12 below) have any obligation under this Development Agreement unless and until such Lender purchases at a foreclosure sale, or accepts a deed in lieu of foreclosure, the portion of the Site that was subject to a mortgage.

C. Release of Transferring Developer. Notwithstanding any transfer, a transferring Developer shall continue to be obligated under this Development Agreement until 198
4924-7261-4673.13/
393342.00002/8-21-25/jcc/kp -14-
the full satisfaction by such transferring Developer of the following conditions and upon such satisfaction shall be released from the obligations under this Development Agreement: (i) Developer no longer has a legal or equitable interest in all or any part of the Site; (ii) Developer is not then in default under this Development Agreement; and (iii) Developer has provided City with the notice and executed agreement required under Section 11(A) above. If requested by transferring Developer, the City shall promptly memorialize such release in writing upon satisfaction of the foregoing conditions. A default under this Development Agreement by Developer shall not be considered or acted upon by the City as a default by the transferee and shall not affect the transferee’s rights or obligations hereunder,. Likewise, a default by a transferee relating to the transferred portion(s) of the Site shall not be considered or acted upon by the City as a default by Developer and shall not affect Developer’s rights and obligations hereunder.

Notwithstanding the forgoing, if a default of this Development Agreement is of a continuing nature that affects continued development of the Project including, but not limited to a failure to complete public improvements in accordance with the Project Approvals as needed to provide service to the Project or the payment of any tax, fee or assessment such default shall be the continuing responsibility of the transferee, if the transferee has accepted the obligation to complete public improvements.

SECTION 12. LENDERS
A. Rights of Lender. Should Developer place or cause to be placed any encumbrance or lien on the Project, or any part thereof, the beneficiary (“Lender”) of such encumbrance or lien shall have the right at any time during the Term of this Development Agreement and the existence of such encumbrance or lien to: (i) do any act or thing required of Developer under this Development Agreement, or cure any default of Developer under this Development Agreement within the time limits set forth in this Development Agreement, and any such act or thing done or performed by Lender or cure shall be as effective as if done by Developer; (ii) realize on the security afforded by the encumbrance or lien by exercising foreclosure proceedings or power of sale or other remedy afforded in law or in equity or by the security document evidencing the encumbrance or lien (hereinafter referred to as “a trust deed”); (iii) transfer, convey or assign the title of Developer to the Site to any purchaser at any foreclosure sale, whether the foreclosure sale be conducted pursuant to court order or pursuant to a power of sale contained in a trust deed; and (iv) acquire and succeed to the interest of Developer by virtue of any foreclosure sale, whether the foreclosure sale is conducted pursuant to a court order or pursuant to a power of sale contained in a trust deed. Should any Lender request an amendment of this Development Agreement in respect of the rights and remedies granted to a Lender, the City shall consider such an amendment in good faith and in accordance with state and local law so long as the proposed amendment does not materially and adversely affect the rights, powers, and remedies of the City in respect of a default by Developer hereunder.

B. Notice to Lender. City shall give written notice of any default or breach under this Development Agreement by Developer to Lender (if known by the City) 199
4924-7261-4673.13/
393342.00002/8-21-25/jcc/kp -15-
simultaneously with such notice of default the City gives to Developer and afford Lender the opportunity after receipt of service of the notice to: (i) cure the breach or default within thirty (30) days after service of such notice, where the default can be cured by the payment of money; (ii) cure the breach or default within thirty (30) days after service of such notice where the breach or default can be cured by something other than the payment of money and can be cured within that time; or (iii) cure the breach or default in such reasonable time as may be required where something other than payment of money is required to cure the breach or default and cannot be performed within thirty (30) days after such notice, provided that acts to cure the breach or default are commenced within a thirty (30) day period after service of such notice of default on Lender by the City and are thereafter diligently completed by Lender.

C. Action by Lender. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Development Agreement, a Lender may forestall any action by the City for a breach or default under the terms of this Development Agreement by Developer by commencing proceedings to foreclose its encumbrance or lien on the Site. The proceedings so commenced may be for foreclosure of the encumbrance by order of court or for foreclosure of the encumbrance under a power of sale contained in the instrument creating the encumbrance or lien. The proceedings shall not, however, forestall any such action by the City for the default or breach by Developer unless: (i) they are commenced within thirty (30) days after service on Developer (and on Lender if Lender’s address is provided by notice to the City pursuant this Development Agreement) of the notice described hereinabove; (ii) they are, after having been commenced, diligently pursued in the manner required by law to completion within one year; and (iii) lender keeps and performs all of the terms, covenants, and conditions of this Development Agreement requiring the payment or expenditure of money by Developer until the foreclosure proceedings are complete or are discharged by redemption, satisfaction, or payment.

SECTION 13. NOTICES
Any notice or instrument permitted or required under this Development Agreement shall be deemed made when personally delivered or when mailed 72 hours after deposit in the United States Mail, certified mail postage prepaid and addressed to the party at the following addresses:

If to City: City of Banning
99 E. Ramsey Street
Banning, CA 92220
Attn: City Manager
If to Developer JDNJ ENTERPRISES, LLC
120 South Central Avenue, Suite 500
St. Louis. MO 63105
Attn: John C. Condas
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
200
4924-7261-4673.13/
393342.00002/8-21-25/jcc/kp -16-
2010 Main Street, Suite 800
Irvine, CA 92614
Actual notice shall be deemed adequate notice on the date actual notice occurred, regardless of the method of service.

SECTION 14. EVENT OF DEFAULT
Developer is in default under this Development Agreement upon the occurrence of one or more of the following events or conditions:

A. A material warranty, representation, or statement made or furnished by Developer to City set forth herein or in any document incorporated by reference herein is false or proved to have been false in any material respect when it was made.

B. City finds and determines upon the basis of substantial evidence following an annual review pursuant to this Development Agreement, that Developer has not complied in good faith with any material term and/or condition of this Development Agreement, subject to notice and opportunity to cure as provided by this Development Agreement.

C. Developer breaches any of the terms or conditions of this Development Agreement, after notice and opportunity to cure as provided in this Development Agreement.

SECTION 15. ENFORCEMENT
A. Notice; Cure. In the event of a default under the provisions of this Development Agreement by Developer or City, the non-breaching party shall give written notice to the defaulting party (or its successor) by registered or certified mail addressed at the address stated in this Development Agreement, and if such violation is not corrected to the reasonable satisfaction of the non-breaching party within thirty (30) days after such notice is served on the defaulting party, or if such breach or default cannot be cured within such thirty (30) days (excluding monetary defaults) and provided that acts to cure the breach or default must be commenced within such thirty (30) days and must thereafter be diligently pursued to completion by the defaulting party, then the non-breaching party may, without further notice, declare a default under this Development Agreement and, upon any such declaration of default, if the City is the defaulting party, Developer may bring any action necessary to specifically enforce the obligations of City. If Developer is the defaulting party, then City may give notice to Developer of its intent to terminate or modify this Development Agreement, in which event the matter shall be scheduled for consideration and review by the City Council.

B. Remedies. The Parties acknowledge that money damages and remedies at law generally are inadequate and specific performance and other non-monetary relief are particularly appropriate remedies for the enforcement of this Development Agreement and should be available to the Parties for the following reasons: due to the size, nature, and scope of the Project, it may not be practical or possible to 201
4924-7261-4673.13/
393342.00002/8-21-25/jcc/kp -17-
restore the Property to its natural condition once implementation of this Development Agreement has begun. After such implementation, Developer may be foreclosed from other choices it may have had to utilize the Site or portions thereof. Developer has invested significant time and resources and performed extensive planning and processing of the Project in agreeing to the terms of this Development Agreement and will be investing even more significant time and resources in implementing the Project in reliance upon the terms of this Development Agreement, and it is not possible to determine the sum of money which would adequately compensate Developer for such efforts. Accordingly, it is expressly recognized that injunctive relief and specific enforcement of this Development Agreement are proper and desirable remedies, and it is agreed that in any claim by Developer against City for an alleged breach of this Development Agreement may avail itself to injunctive relief or an appropriate action for specific enforcement of this Development Agreement. It is agreed that specific performance is not available to City against Developer, although City can seek the remedy of injunctive relief, declaratory relief or any other appropriate remedy against Developer.

C. Nonperformance by Developer. Nonperformance by Developer shall not be excused because performance by Developer of the obligations herein contained would be unprofitable, difficult, or expensive, or because of a failure of any third party or entity, other than City.

SECTION 16. PARTIES NOT LIABLE FOR DAMAGES
It is acknowledged by the Parties that the City and Developer would not have entered into this Development Agreement if either could be held liable in damages under or with respect to this Development Agreement or the application thereof. Consequently, and except for the payment of attorneys’ fees in accordance with this Development Agreement, the City shall not be liable in damages to Developer, or to any assignee, transferee, or any other person, and Developer shall not be liable in damages to City.

Developer and City jointly covenant on behalf of itself and its successors in interest not to sue for or claim any damages: (i) for any breach of this Development Agreement; (ii) for the taking, impairment or restriction of any right or interest conveyed or provided hereunder or pursuant hereto; (iii) arising out of or connected with any dispute, controversy, or issue regarding the application or interpretation or effect of the provisions of this Development Agreement; or (iv) for any injury to or interference with the rights of Developer, allegedly or actually arising out of, or incurred in connection with, the Parties entering this Development Agreement, or their exercise of any rights under this Development Agreement. Notwithstanding the forgoing, City shall not be excluded from seeking money damages for non-payment of the Electric Facilities Fee or the Transportation Public Benefit Fee, including attorney fees. In addition, Developer shall not be excluded from seeking its attorneys fees in the case of a breach of this Agreement by City.
202
4924-7261-4673.13/
393342.00002/8-21-25/jcc/kp -18-
SECTION 17. INDEMNIFICATION AND LEGAL CHALLENGE
A. Claims For Damage For Personal Injuries. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Developer must defend, indemnify, and hold the City and its elected officials, officers, contractors serving as City officials, agents, and employees (“Indemnitees”) harmless from liability for damage and/or claims for damage for personal injuries, including death, and claims for property damage, and with respect to all other actions and liabilities for damages caused or alleged to have been caused by reason of Developer’s activities in connection with the development and/or construction of the Project, and which may arise from the direct or indirect operations of Developer or those of Developer’s contractors, agents, tenants, employees, or any other persons acting on Developer’s behalf, which relate to the development and/or construction of the Project. This indemnity provision applies to all damages and claims for damage, as described above, regardless of whether or not the City prepared, supplied, or approved the plans, specifications, or other documents for the Project, including any associated public or private improvements.

B. Prevailing Wages. Without limiting the generality of the preceding paragraph (A), Developer shall defend, indemnify, and hold the Indemnitees harmless from and against any and all claims, liabilities, losses, damages, costs, and expenses arising from or related to any claims that Developer or Developer’s contractors are required to pay prevailing wages pursuant to Labor Code Section 1720 et seq., in connection with the development of the Project or any public improvements.

C. Third Party Legal Challenge. Without limiting the generality of preceding paragraph A, in the event of any legal action challenging the validity, applicability, or interpretation of any provision of this Development Agreement, any of the entitlement documents pertaining to the Project including, without limitation, the City’s General Plan, Zoning Code, or any other supporting document relating to the Project, Developer shall also indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the Indemnitees with respect to all liability, costs, and expenses incurred by, and/or awarded against, the City or any of the Indemnitees in relation to such action. In addition, the Term, the obligations imposed herein, and the lifespan of all Project Approvals, presently in existence or in existence in the future, shall be extended day for day based upon a timely filed lawsuit challenging the validity or legality of this Agreement and/or any of the Project Approvals, until the date on which said challenge is finally resolved. Developer and City shall promptly notify the other Party to this Agreement upon learning of the filing any such third party litigation.

D. Legal Counsel; Cash Deposit. With respect to any legal action or claim falling within Developer’s defense, indemnity, and hold harmless obligations, the City shall have the right to select counsel of its choice and the Parties shall cooperate in the defense. The City’s separate counsel billing rates shall be identical to the rates City pays for its typical municipal litigation rates for legal challenges of the variety being defended. Developer shall provide, and maintain for the duration of such action or claim, a cash deposit to City in an amount or amounts determined by the City Attorney to be reasonably necessary to cover the City’s legal fees, 203
4924-7261-4673.13/
393342.00002/8-21-25/jcc/kp -19-
costs, and expenses. Developer shall not be entitled to a refund of funds expended from the deposit regardless of the outcome of the action or claim. The City shall refund to Developer any unexpended funds from the deposit within thirty (30) days of any final disposition or full and complete settlement of the action or claim.

E. Continued Effect of Development Agreement. In the event of any litigation challenging the effectiveness of this Development Agreement, or any portion hereof, this Development Agreement shall remain in full force and effect while such litigation, including any appellate review, is pending, unless otherwise ordered by the court. Absent issuance of an injunction, Developer may elect to continue development of the Project under this Development Agreement pending completion of the litigation but it shall do so at its sole risk, and the City shall not be liable for any loss suffered as a result thereof. City shall perform all obligations under this Development Agreement, including the timely processing of all applications submitted by Developer in connection with the Project.

F. Survival. This Section shall survive this the expiration or earlier termination of this Development Agreement. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Developer’s obligation to indemnify any Indemnitee due to personal injury or property injury suffered in connection with Developer’s design and construction of any public facility, shall terminate one (1) year after City accepts Developer’s dedication of such public facility.

SECTION 18. ENTIRE AGREEMENT
This Development Agreement and the Exhibits therein contain the entire agreement between the Parties, and is intended by the Parties to completely state the Development Agreement in full. Any agreement or representation respecting the matters dealt with herein or the duties of any Party in relation thereto, not expressly set forth in this Development Agreement, is null and void.

SECTION 19. AMENDMENT OR CANCELLATION
Except as otherwise provided for herein, this Development Agreement may be amended or canceled in whole or in part only by mutual consent of the Parties, or their successors in interest, and in the manner provided in Gov. Code, §§ 65865.1, 65867, 65867.5.

SECTION 20. OPERATING MEMORANDA
The provisions of this Development Agreement require a close degree of cooperation between the City and the Developer. It is anticipated due to the term of this Development Agreement that non-substantive interpretation of the Development Approvals may be appropriate with respect to the details of performance of the City and the Developer. To the extent allowable by law and this Development Agreement, the City and Developer shall retain a certain degree of flexibility with respect to all matters, items and provisions covered in general under this Development Agreement. The Developer may request minor changes, adjustments or clarifications under this Agreement and the City and Developer may effectuate such changes, adjustments or clarifications through operating memoranda (“Operating Memoranda”) approved by the Parties in writing, which reference 204
4924-7261-4673.13/
393342.00002/8-21-25/jcc/kp -20-
this Section of the Development Agreement. Operating Memoranda shall not constitute an amendment to this Development Agreement but mere ministerial interpretations or clarifications; therefore, public notices and hearings shall not be required. The City Attorney shall be authorized, upon consultation with the Developer, to determine whether a requested interpretation or clarification may be effectuated pursuant to this Section or whether the requested clarification is of such character to constitute an amendment to the Development Agreement which requires compliance with the provisions of this Development Agreement pertaining to amendments. The authority to enter into such Operating Memoranda is hereby delegated to the City Manager, and the City Manager is hereby authorized in his or her discretion to execute any Operating Memoranda permitted hereunder without Planning Commission or City Council action and without public hearing.

SECTION 21. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
A. Binding Effect. This Development Agreement shall bind, and the benefits and burdens hereof shall inure to, the respective Parties hereto and their legal representatives, executors, administrators, successors and assigns, wherever the context requires or admits.

B. Headings. Headings used in this Development Agreement are for reference purposes only and shall not be deemed a part of this Development Agreement.

C. Exhibits. Each exhibit referenced in this Development Agreement is hereby incorporated into the Development Agreement as if set forth in full herein. In the event of any material discrepancy between the terms of any exhibit so incorporated and the terms of this Development Agreement, the terms of this Development Agreement shall control.

D. Time of Essence. Time is of the essence in every provision hereof in which time is a factor.

E. Force Majeure. In the event that any party hereto shall be delayed or hindered or prevented from performance of any act required hereunder by reason of acts of God, strikes, lockouts, labor troubles, riots, insurrection, terrorism, war, pandemics, epidemics or other reason of similar nature not the fault of the party delayed in performing the work or doing the acts required under the terms of this Development Agreement, then the performance of such act shall be excused for the period of the delay caused by the foregoing. Financial inability shall not be deemed an excuse for delay under this Section.

F. Waiver. No waiver of any default shall constitute a waiver of any other default or breach, whether of the same or other covenant or condition. No waiver, benefit, privilege, or service voluntarily given or performed by a party shall give the other party any contractual rights by custom, estoppel, or otherwise.

G. Cooperation. Each of the Parties shall cooperate with and provided reasonable assistance to the other to the extent contemplated hereunder in the performance 205
4924-7261-4673.13/
393342.00002/8-21-25/jcc/kp -21-
of all obligations under this Development Agreement and the satisfaction of the conditions of this Development Agreement.

H. City Manager Authority. Any consent, approved or other instrument described in this Development Agreement may be granted, given or executed on behalf of the City by the City Manager or their written designee without the need for further authorization from the City Council; provided, however that, notwithstanding the foregoing, the City Manager or their designee may, in their sole discretion, refer to the City Council any item for which the City Manager has authority to act hereunder.

I. Conflicts of Interest; Prohibited Interests. Developer warrants and maintains as of the Effective Date of this Development Agreement that it has no knowledge that any officer or employee of City has any interest, whether contractual, noncontractual, financial, proprietary, or otherwise, in this transaction or in the business of Developer. If any information regarding an officer of employee of the City having an interest in this transaction or in the business of Developer as of the Effective Date of this Development Agreement comes to the knowledge of Developer at any time during the Term of this Development Agreement, Developer shall immediately make a complete, written disclosure of such interest to the City, even if such interest would not be deemed a prohibited “conflict of interest” under applicable laws. If the City subsequently is provided information that Developer had knowledge but failed to disclose knowledge of any such interest, and Developer fails to acknowledge such interest within 14 days of notification by the City, Developer’s failure shall constitute a breach of the Development Agreement subject to the provisions of Section 14 of this Development Agreement.

J. Applicable Law and Venue. This Development Agreement shall be construed in accordance with and governed by the laws of the State of California. Venue for any action or litigation brought for breach or to enforce any provision of this Development Agreement shall be the County of Riverside, California.

K. Partial Invalidity. If any provisions of this Development Agreement shall be deemed to be invalid, illegal, or unenforceable, the validity, legality, or enforceability of the remaining provisions hereof shall not in any way be affected or impaired thereby.

L. Attorneys’ Fees. In any proceedings arising from the enforcement of this Development Agreement or because of an alleged breach or default hereunder, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover its costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees and experts’ fees incurred during the proceeding (including appeals) as may be fixed within the discretion of the court.

M. Corporate Authority. Each person executing this Development Agreement on behalf of Developer warrants that he or she is duly authorized to execute this Development Agreement on behalf of Developer and that by his or her execution, Consultant is formally bound to the provisions of this Development Agreement. 206
4924-7261-4673.13/
393342.00002/8-21-25/jcc/kp -22-
N. Counterparts. This Development Agreement may be executed by the Parties in counterparts, which counterparts shall be construed together and have the same effect as if all of the Parties had executed the same instrument.

O. No Third-Party Beneficiaries. This Agreement is made and entered into for the sole protection and benefit of the Parties and their successors and assigns. No other person shall have any right of action based upon any provision of this Development Agreement.

P. Legally Binding Contract; Enforceability. It is the intent of City and Developer that this Development Agreement is a legally binding contract which shall prevail over the provisions of any subsequently enacted moratoria, statutes, ordinances, limitations, or other measures, enacted by City, or under the authority of City by voter initiative or referendum, and which initiative, moratorium, referendum, statute, ordinance, limitation, or other measure relates, in whole or in part, to the rate, timing, sequence, or phasing of the development or construction of all or part of the Project or the improvements or affecting parcel or subdivision maps, building permits, occupancy certificates, or other entitlement to use the Site which are issued by City, subject only to the rights and powers reserved to City under the terms of this Development Agreement and the requirements of California law IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Development Agreement as of the day and year first above-written.

CITY

CITY OF BANNING,
a California municipal corporation
By: _________________________
Sheri Flynn
Mayor
ATTEST:

By: _________________________
Vickie Sellers
City Clerk

DEVELOPER

JDNJ ENTERPRISES, LLC,
a Missouri limited liability corporation
qualified to do business in California
By: JDNJ, LLC, its Manager
By: JDN Holding Co., LLC, its Manager
By: __________________________
James G. Sansone, Manager
By: __________________________
Douglas G. Sansone, Manager
By: __________________________
Nicholas G. Sansone, Manager
207
4924-7261-4673.13/
393342.00002/8-21-25/jcc/kp -23-
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

By: _________________________
John O. Pinkney
City Attorney
208
4924-7261-4673.13/
393342.00002/8-21-25/jcc/kp
{This Page Left Intentionally Blank}
209
4924-7261-4673.13/
393342.00002/8-21-25/jcc/kp

EXHIBIT A
-1-

EXHIBIT A

SITE LEGAL DESCRIPTION

THE LAND REFERRED TO HEREIN BELOW IS SITUATED IN THE CITY OF BANNING,

COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:

PARCEL 1:

THOSE CERTAIN PARCELS OF LAND LOCATED WITHIN THE MORONGO INDIAN

RESERVATION, LOCATED IN THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, BEING THOSE PORTIONS OF SECTION 1, 2 AND 12 OF TOWNSHIP 3 SOUTH, RANGE 1 EAST, SAN BERNARDINO MERIDIAN, AS SHOWN ON THE OFFICIAL PLAT THEREOF, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:

COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 2;

THENCE ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 2 SOUTH 89°40'06" EAST 489.00 FEET TO A LINE PARALLEL WITH AND 489.00 FEET EASTERLY OF THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID SECTION 2, SAID POINT BEING THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING;
THENCE ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE NORTH 00°21'44" EAST 342.00 FEET TO A LINE PARALLEL WITH AND 342.00 FEET NORTHERLY OF SAID SOUTHERLY LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 2;
THENCE ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE SOUTH 89°40'06" EAST 2164.30 FEET TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID SECTION 2;

THENCE CONTINUING ALONG THE EASTERLY PROLONGATION OF SAID PARALLEL LINE SOUTH 88°36'14" EAST 107.02 FEET TO A LINE PARALLEL WITH AND 107.00 FEET EASTERLY OF THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID SECTION 1; THENCE ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE SOUTH 00°17'18" WEST 270.81 FEET TO THE NORTHERLY LINE OF A STRIP OF LAND 16.50 FEET IN WIDTH, EXCEPTED FROM GRANT DEED REC. 10/7/2004 AS DOC. NO. 2004-0797131, OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA (DEPT. OF INT. FILING 582 173Y07);
THENCE ALONG SAID NORTHERLY LINE SOUTH 89°47'09" WEST 107.00 FEET TO THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID SECTION 1;
THENCE ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE SOUTH 00°17'18" WEST 16.50 FEET TO THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF THE AFOREMENTIONED 16.50 FOOT STRIP; 210
4924-7261-4673.13/
393342.00002/8-21-25/jcc/kp

EXHIBIT A
-2-
THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE NORTH 89°47'09" EAST 107.00 FEET TO A LINE PARALLEL WITH AND 107.00 FEET EASTERLY OF THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID SECTION 1;
THENCE ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE SOUTH 00°17'18" WEST 52.58 FEET TO THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 1, SAID POINT IS LOCATED ON A LINE PARALLEL WITH AND 107.00 FEET EASTERLY OF THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID SECTION 12; THENCE ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE SOUTH 00°03'26" WEST 1044.17 FEET TO

THE NORTHERLY LINE OF THAT CERTAIN FINAL ORDER OF CONDEMNATION RECORDED AUGUST 19, 1963 AS INST. NO. 87113 AND THAT CERTAIN FINAL ORDER OF CONDEMNATION RECORDED SEPTEMBER 26, 1967 AS INST. NO. 84776, BOTH OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE. SAID

NORTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE BEING DEPICTED CALTRANS RIGHT-OF-WAY MAP NO. 984524 FILED IN BOOK 204 PAGE 91 OF CALTRANS RIGHT-OF-WAY MAPS AND CALTRANS RIGHT-OF-WAY MAP NO. 452194 FILED IN BOOK 205 PAGE 263 OF CALTRANS RIGHT-OF-WAY MAPS, BOTH ON FILE IN THE MISC. RECORDS OF THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY SURVEYOR OF SAID COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE; THENCE ALONG SAID NORTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY SOUTH 71°02'58" WEST 113.17 FEET TO THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID SECTION 2;
THENCE ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE OF SECTION 12 NORTH 00°03'26" EAST 1081.36 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE AFOREMENTIONED SECTION 12;

THENCE ALONG THE AFOREMENTIONED SOUTHERLY LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 2 NORTH 88°36'14" WEST 2641.66 FEET TO THE SOUTH QUARTER CORNER OF SECTION 2;

THENCE ALONG THE AFOREMENTIONED SOUTHERLY LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 2 NORTH 89°40'06" WEST 2161.30 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING;

RESERVING THEREFROM AN EASEMENT FOR INGRESS, EGRESS AND UTILITIES, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:

COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 2;

THENCE ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 2 SOUTH 89°40'06" EAST 2583.30 FEET TO A POINT 67.00 FEET WESTERLY OF THE SOUTH QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 2, SAID POINT IS THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING;
211
4924-7261-4673.13/
393342.00002/8-21-25/jcc/kp

EXHIBIT A
-3-
THENCE NORTH 00° 21'44" EAST 342.00 FEET TO A LINE PARALLEL WITH 342.00

FEET NORTHERLY OF SAID SOUTHERLY LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 2;
THENCE ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE SOUTH 89°40'06" EAST 69.98 FEET TO A LINE PARALLEL WITH AND 342.00 FEET NORTHERLY OF THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 2;
THENCE ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE SOUTH 88°36'14" EAST 30.02 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 00°21'44" WEST 342.06 FEET TO THE AFOREMENTIONED SOUTHERLY LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 2; THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE NORTH 88°36'14" WEST 33.02 FEET TO THE SOUTH QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 2;

THENCE ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 2 NORTH 89°40'06" WEST 66.98 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.

APN: 532-030-008, 532-030-009, 532-080-008, 532-080-010, 532-090-026, 532-090- 028 AND 532-090-030
PARCEL 2:

THAT PORTION OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 11, TOWNSHIP 3 SOUTH, RANGE 1 EAST, SAN BERNARDINO BASE AND MERIDIAN, ACCORDING TO UNITED

STATES GOVERNMENT SURVEY, LYING NORTHERLY OF THAT CERTAIN PORTION OF SAID NORTHEAST 1/4 CONVEYED TO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA BY DEED RECORDED OCTOBER 11, 1961, AS INSTRUMENT NO. 87046 IN BOOK 2997, PAGE 542, OFFICIAL RECORDS.

EXCEPTING THEREFROM, ALL RIGHT, TITLE AND INTEREST IN AND TO ALL

HYDROCARBONS, MINERALS, GEOTHERMAL RESOURCES, AND MINERAL ORES

OF EVERY KIND AND CHARACTER, METALLIC OR OTHERWISE, SOLID, LIQUID OR

GAS AND WHETHER OR NOT HEREAFTER KNOWN TO SCIENCE OR INDUSTRY,

NOT KNOWN TO EXIST OR HEREAFTER DISCOVERED UPON, WITHIN OR

UNDERLYING THE SURFACE OF SAID LAND AS SHOWN IN DEED RECORDED JANUARY 28, 1987 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 24458 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.

APN: 532-110-015
PARCEL 3:
212
4924-7261-4673.13/
393342.00002/8-21-25/jcc/kp

EXHIBIT A
-4-

A NON-EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT FOR ROAD PURPOSES UPON, OVER AND ACROSS THAT PORTION OF THE EAST 1/2 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 11, TOWNSHIP 3 SOUTH, RANGE 1 EAST, SAN BERNARDINO BASE AND MERIDIAN, INCLUDED WITHIN A STRIP OF LAND 20 FEET WIDE, THE NORTHERLY LINE OF WHICH IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:

BEGINNING AT A POINT IN THE EAST LINE OF THE SAID NORTHWEST 1/4, DISTANT ALONG SAID EAST LINE SOUTH 0°41'41" WEST 1359.31 FEET FROM A 3/4 INCH IRON PIPE AND BRASS CAP MARKED "U.S.G.L.O. 1917" SET FOR THE NORTH 1/4 CORNER OF SAID SECTION;
THENCE NORTH 89°25'57" WEST, 1319.31 FEET TO THE WEST LINE OF THE SAID EAST 1/2.

ALSO THAT PORTION OF THE WEST 20 FEET OF SAID EAST 1/2 LYING SOUTHERLY OF THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED 20 FOOT STRIP.

EXCEPT THAT PORTION LYING SOUTHERLY OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED LINE:

BEGINNING AT A POINT IN THE WEST LINE OF SAID EAST 1/2, DISTANT ALONG SAID WEST LINE SOUTH 0°25'01" WEST 1041.97 FEET FROM THE POINT OF

INTERSECTION THEREOF WITH THAT CERTAIN LINE HEREINABOVE DESCRIBED AS HAVING A BEARING OF NORTH 89°25'57" WEST;
THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG 545 FOOT RADIUS CURVE CONCAVE NORTHWESTERLY FROM A TANGENT BEARING NORTH 56°01'51" EAST, THROUGH AN ANGLE OF 1°46'36", A DISTANCE OF 16.90 FEET; THENCE NORTH 54°15'15" EAST 50 FEET, AS CREATED IN DEED RECORDED JUNE 10, 1968 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 53726, OFFICIAL RECORDS. 213
4924-7261-4673.13/
393342.00002/8-21-25/jcc/kp

EXHIBIT B
-5-

EXHIBIT B

DIF SCHEDULE AS OF EFFECTIVE DATE
City of Banning Development Impact Fees1
Land Use Category Fire
Facilities
General
City
Facilities
Police Traffic Water Wastewater2
Nonresidential – Fee
per 1,000 Square Feet
- Industrial $236.00 $239.00 $170.00 $1,791.69
Per Table

8.5 in City
Council
Resolution
2019-112
$708.54
1 Represents the City of Banning Development Impact Fees for non-residential land uses effective November 9, 2019 per City Council Resolution No. 2019-112. 2 Wastewater Facilities Fee shown as per 1 EDU. Wastewater Facilities EDU Factors for every 1,000 square feet are 0.37 for Commercial, 0.13 for Office and 0.14 for Industrial. 214
4924-7261-4673.13/
393342.00002/8-21-25/jcc/kp

EXHIBIT C
-6-

EXHIBIT C

HATHAWAY IMPROVEMENTS
The following shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer:
 Along the west side of N Hathway Street between E Williams Street and E George Street, install City standard sidewalk behind curb and gutter, and install city standard curb ramps at intersections. Install new residential driveways as necessary to maintain access to existing driveway locations.  Within the existing right-of-way and pavement along the west side of N Hathway Street between E Williams Street and future Wilson Street, install striping for a new 6 ft. bike lane.
 Within the existing right-of-way and pavement along the east side of N Hathway Street between E Williams Street and existing Nicolet Street, install striping for a new 6 ft. bike lane.
 At the intersection of E Jacinto View Road and N Hathway Street, provide traffic measure to restrict Project traffic from access to E Jacinto View Rd  At the intersection of E Nicolet Street and N Hathway Street, provide traffic measure to restrict Project traffic from access to E Nicolet Street  At the intersection of E George Street and N Hathway Street, provide traffic measure to restrict Project traffic from access to E George Street 215
4924-7261-4673.13/
393342.00002/8-21-25/jcc/kp

RECORDING REQUESTED BY,
AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:

CITY OF BANNING
99 E. RAMSEY STREET
BANNING, CA 92220

BANNING, CALIFORNIA
ATTN: CITY CLERK
SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER’S USE
EXEMPT FROM RECORDING FEE PER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 6103

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT

BETWEEN

THE CITY OF BANNING
AND

JDNJ ENTERPRISES, LLC

CONCERNING

BANNING COMMERCE CENTER
216
4924-7261-4673.13/
393342.00002/8-21-25/jcc/kp
{This Page Left Intentionally Blank}
217
4924-7261-4673.13/
393342.00002/8-21-25/jcc/kp
THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (the “Development Agreement”) is made and entered into this September 25, 2025, by and between the City of Banning, a California municipal corporation (the “City”), and JDNJ Enterprises, LLC, a Missouri limited liability corporation qualified to do business in the state of California (“Developer”). City and Developer may be referred to in this Development Agreement collectively as the “Parties” or each individually as a “Party.”

RECITALS

1. Article 2.5 of Chapter 4 of Division 1 of Title 7 of the California Government Code (“Development Agreement Statute”) and Chapter 17.60 of the Banning Municipal Code authorizes City to enter into binding development agreements with persons having legal or equitable interests in real property for the development of such property.

2. Developer is proposing to develop an approximately 1,320,000 square-foot tilt-up industrial building consisting of 39,600 square feet of office space and 1,280,400 square feet of warehousing, and trailer parking on approximately 131.33 acres of real property located entirely within the City of Banning, comprised of three parcels having seven Assessor’s Parcel Number (Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs):
532-030-008, 532-030-009, 532-080-008, 532-080-010, 532-090-026, 532-090- 028, 532-090-030, 532-110-015.), and more specifically depicted and described in Exhibit A (hereinafter the “Site”).

3. City and Developer mutually desire to enter into this Development Agreement pursuant to the Development Agreement Statute in order to implement the Project.

4. On July 8, 2025, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2025-106 approving Tentative Parcel Map No. 38576 to reconsolidate all existing parcels on the Site into two (2) parcels; and Design Review No. 21-7017 for construction of one concrete tilt-up industrial building as described in the preceding recitals.

Resolution No. 2025-106 and any attachments and exhibits thereto is hereby incorporated by this reference.

5. For purposes of this Development Agreement, the approvals granted by Resolution No. 2025-106 are referred to herein as the “Project Approvals.”

6. On August 26, 2025, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1611 approving this Development Agreement between the City and Developer and finding this Development Agreement to be consistent with the City’s General Plan and Zoning Code.

7. The terms and conditions of this Development Agreement have undergone extensive review by City staff and the City Council and have been found to be fair, just and reasonable. By electing to enter into this Development Agreement, the City agrees to bind future City Councils by the obligations specified herein and limit the future exercise of certain governmental and proprietary powers of the City; and 218
4924-7261-4673.13/
393342.00002/8-21-25/jcc/kp -2-
further finds that the best interests of the citizens of the City and the public health, safety and welfare will be served by entering into this Development Agreement.

8. As set forth in the Project Approvals and this Development Agreement, development of the Site in accordance with this Development Agreement will further important policies and goals of the City, eliminate uncertainty in planning, provide for the orderly development of the Site, ensure progressive installation of necessary improvements, provide for public services appropriate to the development of the Project, and provide substantial community benefits.

9. Developer has incurred and will in the future incur substantial costs in order to assure development of the Site in accordance with this Development Agreement, and has incurred and will in the future incur substantial costs in excess of the generally applicable requirements in order to assure vesting of legal rights to develop the Site in accordance with this Development Agreement.

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements contained herein, and other good and valuable consideration, the adequacy and receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the Parties do hereby agree as follows:

AGREEMENT
SECTION 1. RECITALS
The Recitals are part of this Development Agreement and shall be enforceable as any other provision.

SECTION 2. DEFINITIONS
The following defined terms shall have the meanings set forth in this Section 2 unless a different meaning is clearly intended by the context in they are used.

A. “Development Agreement” means this Development Agreement.

B. “City” means the City of Banning.

C. “City Council” means the City Council of the City of Banning.

D. “City Manager” means the City Manager of the City of Banning.

E. “Developer” means JDN Enterprises, LLC, a Missouri limited liability corporation.

F. “Development Impact Fee Program” or “DIF Program” means City’s program of collection and use of development impact fees, including fees for Police Facilities, Fire Facilities, Parkland and Park Facilities, General City Facilities, Transportation Facilities, Wastewater Facilities, and Water Facilities (collectively “DIF”) as set forth in Banning City Council Resolutions 2019-112, as it may be amended or superseded, City’s Update of Traffic Fee Component of the Development Fee 219
4924-7261-4673.13/
393342.00002/8-21-25/jcc/kp -3-
Program dated May 2019 and Development Impact Fee Update Study, dated August 7, 2019.

G. “Effective Date” shall mean the date that Ordinance No. 1611 approving this Development Agreement becomes effective.

H. “Existing Development Regulations,” subject to the exclusions and reservations set forth in Section 7, means all ordinances, resolutions, codes, rules, regulations and official policies of the City in force as of the Effective Date and governing the development of the Project and use of the Site; including, without limitation, the permitted use of land, the density or intensity of use, subdivision requirements, timing and phasing of development, the maximum height and size of buildings, the provisions for reservation or dedication of land for public purposes, and the design, improvement and construction standards and specifications.

I. “Municipal Code” means the Banning Municipal Code, as amended from time to time.

J. “Project” means the proposed development of the Site with 1,320,284 square-foot tilt-up industrial building consisting of 39,600 square feet of office space and 1,312,284 square feet of warehousing and trailer parking in a manner consistent with the Project Approvals and the terms and conditions of this Development Agreement.

K. “Project Approvals” means EIR 2022090102, SCH Number 2022090102, Tentative Parcel Map No. 38576 and Design Review No. 21-7017.

L. “Second Transportation Payment” shall have the meaning ascribed to it in Section 9(B) below.

M. “Site” means the real property that is the subject of the Project Approvals and as legally described in Exhibit A to this Development Agreement.

N. “Term” shall have the meaning ascribed to it in Section 6 below.

O. “Transfer” means any sale, lease, encumbrance, or other transfer of all or any portion of the Project or any interest therein.

P. “Transferee” means any person, partnership, limited liability company, joint venture, firm, or corporation who acquires an interest in the Site pursuant to a Transfer and assumes, or is deemed to assume, Developer’s obligations hereunder with respect to such interest.

Q. “Transportation Public Benefit Fee” shall have the meaning ascribed to it in Section 9(B) below.
220
4924-7261-4673.13/
393342.00002/8-21-25/jcc/kp -4-
SECTION 3. DEVELOPER’S REAL PROPERTY INTEREST
Developer warrants and represents that, as of the Effective Date, it has or will have legal title to or an equitable interest in the Site; that it has full legal right to enter into this Development Agreement; and that the persons executing this Development Agreement on behalf of each Developer have been duly authorized to do so.

SECTION 4. RELATIONSHIP OF THE PARTIES
It is hereby specifically understood and acknowledged that the Project is a private development and that neither the City nor Developer will be deemed to be the agent of the other for any purposes whatsoever.

SECTION 5. BINDING EFFECT OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
A. Covenants, Reservations, and Restrictions. Developer hereby subjects the Project and the Property to the covenants, reservations, and restrictions as set forth in this Development Agreement. The City and Developer hereby declare their specific intent that the covenants, reservations and restrictions as set forth herein shall be deemed covenants running with the land and shall pass to and be binding upon each of Developer’s successors and assigns in title or interest to the Site. The Parties hereby further declare their understanding and intent that the benefit of such covenants, reservations, and restrictions touch and concern the land by enhancing and increasing the enjoyment and use of the Site by Developer and the future occupants of the Site, the intended beneficiaries of such covenants, reservations, and restrictions, and by furthering the public purposes for which this Development Agreement is adopted. Each and every contract, deed, or other instrument hereinafter executed, covering, or conveying the Site or any portion thereof shall conclusively be held to have been executed, delivered, and accepted subject to the covenants, reservations, and restrictions expressed in this Development Agreement, regardless of whether such covenants, reservations, and restrictions are set forth in such contract, deed, or other instrument.

B. Recordation. The City Clerk shall record this Development Agreement in the Official Records of the County Recorder of the County of Riverside within ten (10) days following the Effective Date. Upon the expiration or termination of this Development Agreement and the request of Developer, the City will execute and deliver, in recordable form, an instrument confirming that this Development Agreement is of no further force or effect.

SECTION 6. TERM
The Term of this Development Agreement shall commence on the Effective Date and shall expire fifteen (15) years thereafter (the “Initial Term”) unless terminated sooner as provided in this Development Agreement. Unless Developer is in default under this Agreement, the Term shall automatically be extended for an additional five (5) years if prior to the expiration of the Initial Term, the Developer has provided City with the initial Transportation Public Benefit Fee in the amount of Two Million Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($2,500,000) as specified in Section 9.B. Unless otherwise specified in this 221
4924-7261-4673.13/
393342.00002/8-21-25/jcc/kp -5-
Development Agreement, the respective rights and obligations of the Parties hereto shall remain in full force and effect throughout the Term. Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary herein, in the event that, for any reason whatsoever, Developer fails to acquire fee simple title to the Property ("Fee Title") within 180 days following the Effective Date ("Fee Title Deadline"), Developer may elect, in its sole and absolute discretion, with the written approval of the fee title owner, and upon written notice to the City within sixty (60) days following the Fee Title Deadline, to terminate this Agreement and the Project Approvals. Effective upon such termination by Developer and fee title owner, this Agreement and the Project Approvals shall be of no further force or effect. After the Fee Title Deadline, if Developer has failed to acquire Fee Title and the fee title owner does not issue written approval of termination of this Agreement within five (5) days after the Fee Title Deadline, Developer shall no longer be subject to any of the obligations created in this Agreement or in the Project Approvals.

SECTION 7. VESTING OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS
A. General Statement. As a material inducement to Developer and its lenders to continue with diligent efforts to promote the development of the Property, Developer shall have the vested right to develop the Project on the Site in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Project Approvals, this Development Agreement, and the Existing Development Regulations, and City shall have the right to control development of the Site in accordance with the provisions of the Project Approvals, this Development Agreement, and the Existing Development Regulations.

B. Existing Development Regulations. In accordance with the terms of Gov. Code, § 65866, City and Developer agree the development of the Project on the Site shall be subject to all ordinances, resolutions, codes, rules, regulations and official policies of the City in force as of the Effective Date and governing the development and of the Site, including, without limitation, the permitted use of land, the density or intensity of use, subdivision requirements, timing and phasing of development, the maximum height and size of buildings, the provisions for reservation or dedication of land for public purposes, and the design, improvement and construction standards and specifications applicable to the development of the Site (collectively “Existing Development Regulations”) except as otherwise provided in this Development Agreement.

C. Exclusions and Reservations.

1. “Existing Development Regulations” excludes, and nothing in this Development Agreement shall preclude the application of, any municipal ordinance, resolution, code, rule, regulation or official policy, laws, and regulations that do not conflict with Developer’s vested rights to develop and use the Property in accordance with this Development Agreement.

Developer shall comply with such nonconflicting laws and regulations as may from time to time be enacted or amended hereafter.
222
4924-7261-4673.13/
393342.00002/8-21-25/jcc/kp -6-

2. Without limitation to the foregoing exclusions or any nonconflicting law, City hereby expressly reserves its right with regarding to the Project and the Site to apply and enforce any municipal ordinance, resolution, code, rule, regulation or official policy, laws, or regulations regarding: (i) the conduct of businesses, professions, and occupations; (ii) taxes, fees, charges, and assessments; (iii) the control and abatement of nuisances; (iv) the granting of encroachment permits and the conveyance of similar rights and interests that provide for the use of or the entry upon public property; (v) the exercise of the power of eminent domain; (vi) any and all new health and safety regulations (e.g., fire, building, and seismic, plumbing, and electric codes) made applicable in the City, inclusive of any similar such codes based upon uniform codes and incorporated by reference into the Banning Municipal Code; and (vii) procedural rules of general city-wide application, provided that City agrees to nevertheless process any Minor Modifications to Tentative Parcel Map No. 38576 or Design Review No. 21-7017 pursuant to the Chapter 17.84 of the Banning Municipal Code as that Chapter reads as of the Effective Date regardless of any later Municipal Code amendment.

Such Minor Modifications may include modifications which do not: (a) alter the permitted uses of the Site; (b) increase the maximum height and size of permitted buildings or structures in excess of the originally approved Project; or constitute a project requiring a subsequent or supplemental environmental impact report pursuant to Public Resources Code § 21166.

D. Superior Law. Nothing in this Development Agreement shall preclude the application to the Project and the Site of those changes in City ordinances, regulations, plans, or specifications that are: (i) specifically mandated and required by changes in state or federal laws or regulations as provided in Government Code § 65869.5 or any successor provision or provisions; (ii) required to ensure public safety and are made applicable throughout the City; or (iii) required to ensure access under the Americans with Disabilities Act. In the event such changes prevent or preclude compliance with one or more of the provisions of this Development Agreement, such provisions of this Development Agreement shall be modified or suspended or performance thereof delayed, to the extent necessary to comply with such changes in the law.

SECTION 8. DEVELOPMENT TIMING; PERMIT PROCESSING
A. Developer’s Discretion. Because the California Supreme Court held in Pardee Construction Co. v. City of Camarillo, 37 Cal.3d 465 (1984), that failure to provide for the timing of development resulted in a later adopted initiative restricting the timing of development, it is the Parties’ intent to avoid that deficiency by acknowledging and providing that Developer shall have the right (without obligation), subject to the provisions of this Development Agreement, to complete the Project in such order and at such rate and at such times as Developer deems appropriate within the exercise of its subjective business judgment. 223
4924-7261-4673.13/
393342.00002/8-21-25/jcc/kp -7-
B. Permit Processing. The City and its officers, agencies and departments shall not unreasonably delay the processing of any application for any permit or approval necessary to commence or complete the Project.

C. Provision of Real Property Interests by City. In any instance where Developer is required to construct any public improvement on land not owned by Developer, Developer shall at its sole cost and expense provide or cause to be provided, the real property interests necessary for the construction of such public improvements.

In the event Developer is unable, after exercising reasonable efforts over a period of at least 180 days to acquire the real property interests necessary for the construction of such public improvements (“Offsite Interests”), and if so requested by Developer and upon Developer’s provision of adequate security for costs City may reasonably incur as determined by City in its discretion, City may negotiate to attempt to purchase the Offsite Interests in order to allow Developer to construct the public improvements as required by the Project Approvals or this Development Agreement. If City is unable to acquire the Offsite Interests through a voluntary transaction, City shall consider acquiring the Offsite Interests through using its power of eminent domain to acquire such required real property interests. If City does elect in its discretion to exercise its power of Eminent domain, Developer shall pay all reasonable costs associated with such acquisition or condemnation proceedings as determined by City in its discretion and shall enter into a land acquisition agreement (“LAA”) with City in a form approved by the City Attorney.

The LAA shall provide among other things, that the Developer shall provide a deposit in an amount determined by the City to cover the City’s staff, legal and other expenses associated with the condemnation proceedings. This Section is not intended by the Parties to impose upon the Developer an enforceable duty to acquire land or construct any public improvements on land not owned by Developer, except to the extent that the Developer elects to proceed with the development of the Project, and then only in accordance with valid conditions imposed by City upon the development of the Project under the Subdivision Map Act or other legal authority. If after using good faith efforts to acquire the Offsite Interests, Developer is unable to acquire the Offsite Interests, and City, in its reasonable discretion, refuses to use its power of eminent domain to acquire the Offsite Interests, City shall waive the requirement for Developer to acquire the Offsite Interests, or if development of the Project cannot proceed without acquisition of the Offsite Interests, the Parties shall meet and confer in good faith to attempt to devise alternatives to allow the Project to proceed without acquisition of the Offsite Interests.

D. Subdivision Map Extension and Other Development Approvals. As permitted by Government Code § 66452.6, each subdivision or parcel map, heretofore or hereafter approved in connection with development of the Site or the Project shall be extended and shall remain in effect for the term provided by this Agreement. If Developer, in its sole and absolute discretion, chooses to process vesting tentative maps, City shall process such vesting maps subject to and in accordance with the Existing Land Use Regulations, the Subdivision Map Act. Subject to and in accordance with the Existing Land Use Regulations, and the Subdivision Map Act any tentative map, either vesting or non-vesting, may be processed in phases. In 224
4924-7261-4673.13/
393342.00002/8-21-25/jcc/kp -8-
addition, Design Review No. 21-7017 and all subsequently adopted discretionary project approvals shall remain in effect for the term provided by this Development Agreement.

E. Development Impact Fees. Development Impact Fees (“DIF”) currently imposed are identified in Resolution 2019-112 adopted by the City Council on September 10, 2019. A schedule showing the DIF in place as of the Effective Date is attached as Exhibit “B”. DIF and sewer and water connection and capacity fees shall be those in effect at the time of the issuance of a building permit and due and payable by Developer prior to the issuance of the building permit for the building in question.

For the sake of clarity, as a condition to building permit issuance for each building, Developer shall pay the development impact fees listed on Exhibit “B” for such building in the amount in effect at the time the building permit for such building is issued, as well as any new or increased DIF authorized by this Agreement. The City may apply subsequently adopted new categories of DIF to the Project if the same are applied uniformly to development either throughout the City or with a defined area of benefit that includes the Property if the subsequently adopted DIF is not applied on an ad hoc basis solely to the Project and the subsequently adopted fee does not physically prevent development of the Property for the uses and to the density and intensity of development set forth in this Agreement.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, if Developer is not in default under this Agreement and has made the initial Transportation Public Benefit Fee of Two Million Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($2,500,000) as specified below, prior to first anniversary of the Effective Date, the City agrees not impose any new category of DIF on the Project for a period of Five Years after the Effective Date.

SECTION 9. PUBLIC BENEFITS
A. Intent. This Section sets forth the terms and conditions under which Developer agrees to provide public benefits in consideration of the of the benefits conferred on Developer and the Site by this Development Agreement.

B. Transportation Public Benefit Fee. Developer shall pay City a Transportation Public Benefit Fee in the amount of Nine Million Dollars ($9,000,000) (“Transportation Public Benefit Fee”).Two Million Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($2,500,000) of the Transportation Public Benefit Fee will be paid no later than one (1) year from the Effective Date and the remaining amount of Six Million Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($6,500,000) (“Second Transportation Payment”) prior to the issuance of the Project’s first building permit. If the Second Transportation Payment is not paid prior to the second anniversary of the Effective Date, the amount of the Second Transportation Payment will increase annually equal to the annual percentage change in the Consumer Price Index published by the U.S.

Bureau of Labor Statistics for “All Urban Consumers” in the Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario Area, measured as of the month of April in the previous Fiscal Year, but not less than one percent (1%) and not greater than five percent (5%) .

The City shall solely use the Ramsey Interchange Fee for the design and construction of the Ramsey-Interstate 10 interchange and or the Hargrave Street interchange. The City acknowledges and agrees that the City shall not impose 225
4924-7261-4673.13/
393342.00002/8-21-25/jcc/kp -9-
any other fee or exaction upon Developer for the Ramsey-Interstate 10 interchange.

C. Electrical Facilities Fee. Developer shall pay City an Electrical Facilities Fee equal to Three Hundred and Fifty-Seven Thousand Dollars ($357,000) per megavoltamperes (MVA) of requested electrical load due and payable pro rata prior to issuance of any building permit (“Electric Facilities Fee”). City shall use the proceeds of the Electrical Facilities Fee solely for the design or construction of new or expanded electrical facilities, which can include reimbursement to the City for part of the cost of an existing electrical facility substation which the City has funded.

D. Electrical Substation Land Dedication. Developer shall reserve and offer to dedicate to City lettered-lot “C” on the proposed Tentative Parcel Map No. 38576 for the Banning Electrical Utility to have the option to construct a new electrical substation (“Substation Property”). Such offer of dedication shall occur at the time final Parcel Map No. 38576 is recorded. If the City accepts the offer of dedication and undertakes construction of the electrical substation on the Substation Property, construction of the electrical substation shall be undertaken by the City at no cost to Developer. If the City accepts the offer of dedication for the Substation Property, City or its successors shall not use the Substation Property for any purpose other than a substation and related uses. If the City accepts the offer of dedication for the Substation Property, within thirty (30) days of City’s acceptance of the dedication, City shall pay the amount of the fair market value (“FMV”) of the Substation Property to the Developer, with the amount of the payment capped at the amount of the Electric Facilities Fee Acquisition of the Substation Property shall be at the sole discretion of the City and the City may in its sole discretion elect not to acquire the Substation Property.

E. Prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy within the Project, the Developer shall be required to take all actions required to improve Hathaway Street, as depicted in Exhibit “C”.

F. The Developer shall use reasonable efforts to hire residents of the City of Banning.

Developer will hold at least one local job fair with the City for the purpose of recruiting workers from the City.

G. Sanitary Lift Station Land Construction and Dedication. Developer shall construct a sanitary lift station (“Lift Station”) on lettered lot “D” on the proposed Tentative Parcel Map No. 38576 (“Lift Station Property”) subject to plans and specifications approved by the Public Works Director and as contemplated by the Sewer Master Plan dated March 2018. City shall issue DIF credits against the wastewater DIF which includes the Lift Station and Lift Station Property in the amounts of (i) the cost of designing and constructing the Lift Station, and (ii) the FMV of the Lift Station Property (collectively, “Lift Station Costs”) in an amount not to exceed the Developer’s wastewater DIF obligation. Developer shall complete construction of the Lift Station prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for the Project. Developer is aware that the sewer force main near the Project running to Nicolet was installed by a previous developer on its property, and Developer must 226
4924-7261-4673.13/
393342.00002/8-21-25/jcc/kp -10-
obtain the consent of the property owner to use this sewer force main for the Project and to undertake any additional improvements to the sewer force main at its sole cost and expense.

H. FMV Process. In order to determine the FMV of the Substation Property and the Lift Station Property, City shall commission an appraisal for each property, which shall be addressed to City and Developer, at Developer’s sole expense, prepared by a licensed appraiser holding a MAI designation from the Appraisal Institute (“Developer’s Appraiser”) with at least 15 years’ experience in appraising similar properties in the same geographical region. The FMV shall be based upon the the assumption the Property has in place all needed discretionary approvals to develop a project similar in nature to the Project. The appraiser shall use a date of valuation which is the current date of the appraisal. Developer’s Appraiser shall deliver a written report as to their opinion of FMV for each property within sixty (60) days after such appraiser has been retained by Developer. Upon receipt of Developer’s appraisal, the City shall have thirty (30) days to review the appraisal and agree or dispute the determination of FMV. In the event that the City disputes the FMV determined by Developer’s appraisal, the City shall be entitled to commission a second appraisal, at the City’s own expense, prepared by a licensed appraiser having the qualifications provided above (“City’s Appraiser”). The City’s Appraiser shall deliver a written report as to their opinion of FMV for the property within sixty (60) days after such appraiser has been retained by the City. If the higher appraisal is equal to or less than 120% of the lower appraisal, the two appraisals will be added together and their total divided by two; the resulting quotient will be the FMV of the property in question. If the higher appraisal is greater than 120% of the lower appraisal, the Parties shall have sixty (60) days after Developer’s receipt of the City’s appraisal to reach a negotiated resolution. If the Parties are unable to reach a negotiation resolution, the Parties shall reasonably cooperate to select a third licensed appraiser having the qualifications provided above(“Review Appraiser”) to make a final determination of FMV. If the Parties are unable to agree on the selection of the Review Appraiser, the Parties shall jointly petition the Riverside County Superior Court to select a Review Appraiser. The Parties will equally share the fees and expenses associated with the Review Appraiser, including but not limited to, the Parties’ joint petition to select a Review Appraiser and the Review Appraiser’s fees. The Review Appraiser shall review the two appraisals and then make a determination of FMV, which shall be no less than the value of the lower appraisal and no greater than the value of the higher appraisal. The Review Appraiser’s determination of FMV shall be binding on all Parties.

I. Community Facilities Districts.

1. Service CFD. Developer agrees, pursuant to the Mello Roos Act, to petition the City or, alternatively, California Statewide Communities Development Authority (“CSCDA”) to form a community facilities district, the boundaries of which shall be coextensive with those of the Site (the “Service CFD”) for the purpose of financing City services and ongoing maintenance of public improvements provided by the City to the parcels within the boundaries of 227
4924-7261-4673.13/
393342.00002/8-21-25/jcc/kp -11-
the Service CFD the cost of which shall be solely borne by the Developer, provided such services qualify as authorized services under the Mello Roos Act (collectively, “Authorized Services”). The Service CFD shall be a condition to the City’s issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for the Project.

2. If City sponsors the formation of the Service CFD, City shall initiate the process promptly following submission of Developer’s petition and compliance with Section 53318(d) of the Mello-Roos Act and shall use good faith, diligent efforts to form the Service CFD, including the scheduling of necessary public hearings at the cost of Developer. If requested, Developer will execute a reimbursement agreement providing for the advance deposit of monies to reimburse City for the cost of its implementing the CFD.

Developer agrees to cooperate in the formation and agrees that it will not contest and will exercise all of its voting power in favor of the formation of the Service CFD. Should Developer request CSCDA to sponsor the formation of the Service CFD, City shall cooperate in process and agrees to use good faith efforts to take all necessary and appropriate actions to assist Developer and CSCDA in the formation of the Service CFD in accordance with Section 9.H.1, including the issuance of necessary consents in the formation process.

3. Developer and City shall reasonably cooperate in developing the rate and method of apportionment of special taxes for the Service CFD (“Service RMA”), which the Parties agree shall provide, in part: (a) the maximum Service Special Tax rate in the first year that there is a levy of the Service Special Tax shall be at a rate of $0.10 per building square foot, which amount shall be subject to an “Annual Escalation Factor” equal to the annual percentage change in the Consumer Price Index published by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics for “All Urban Consumers” in the RiversideSan Bernardino-Ontario Area, measured as of the month of April in the previous Fiscal Year, but not less than three percent (3%) and not greater than five percent (5%); (b) the levying of the Service Special Tax shall commence in the first fiscal year following the issuance of a certificate of occupancy by May 1 of the preceding Fiscal Year, (c) the adoption of an annual budgeting process to establish the annual actual Service Special Tax rate, and (d) the Service Special Tax cannot be prepaid.

4. Facilities CFD At the discretion of the Developer, Developer may, pursuant to the Mello Roos Act, petition the City or, alternatively, pursue other financing alternatives, including requesting CSCDA to form a community facilities district, the boundaries of which shall be coextensive with those of the Site (“Facilities CFD,” collectively with Service CFD, the “CFDs”) for the purpose of financing (i) public infrastructure required under the Development Agreement, including without exception, public streets, highways, and bridges, and other related improvements such as grading, paving, curbs and gutters, sidewalks, street signalization and signage, street lights and parkway landscaping related thereto, water facilities, storm 228
4924-7261-4673.13/
393342.00002/8-21-25/jcc/kp -12-
drain facilities, sewer facilities, public parks, landscaping, electrical facilities, (collectively, “Facilities”), and (ii) Development Impact Fees, including, without exception, the Public Benefit Fees described in Section B and C above (“Fees,” collectively with Facilities, “Authorized Facilities and Fees”).

If City agrees to sponsor the formation of the Facilities CFD, City shall initiate the process promptly following submission of Developer’s petition and compliance with Section 53318(d) of the Mello-Roos Act, and shall use good faith, diligent efforts to form the Facilities CFD and timely issue bonds (“CFD Bonds”), including the scheduling of necessary public hearings related to formation and issuance of CFD Bonds. Any costs incurrent in establishing the Facilities CFD and issuing the CFD Bonds shall be paid from the CFD Bond proceeds, or failing that by the Developer. Developer agrees to cooperate in the formation and agrees that it will not contest and will exercise all of its voting power in favor of the formation of the Facilities CFD and issuance of CFD Bonds. Should Developer request CSCDA to sponsor the formation of the Facilities CFD and be the issuer of the CFD Bonds, City shall cooperate in process and agrees to use good faith efforts to take cooperate with Developer and CSCDA in the formation of the Facilities CFD and the issuance of the CFD Bonds, including the issuance of necessary consents in the formation and bond issuance processes.

Developer and City shall reasonably cooperate in developing the rate and method of apportionment of special taxes for the Facilities CFD (“Facilities RMA”).

5. In the event Developer conveys or grants an easement to any portion of the Site to City or any other government agency and the property so conveyed is subject to payment of special taxes under the Facilities CFD formed pursuant to this Development Agreement and CFD Bonds have been issued and are outstanding, Developer shall prepay the special taxes pursuant to the terms of the Facilities RMA with respect to the portion of the Site subject to an easement or being conveyed prior to completion of any such conveyance or easement. Upon completion of the conveyance or grant of easement, Developer’s obligation to pay special taxes pursuant to the Facilities RMA and the Services RMA for the conveyed property shall terminate. Alternatively, the RMA may exclude the forgoing conveyance or grant of easement from the imposition of the special taxes to accomplish the goals of this paragraph.

6. Notwithstanding the foregoing, it is acknowledged and agreed by the Parties that nothing contained in this Development Agreement shall be construed as committing or requiring the City Council to authorize and approve the formation of the CFDs and/or the issuance of the CFD Bonds. Further, City and Developer agree that the practical ability to issue CFD bonds is subject to marketability and therefore, Developer and City will first consult with a mutually agreed upon public finance consultant, at Developer’s cost prior to forming a Facilities CFD.
229
4924-7261-4673.13/
393342.00002/8-21-25/jcc/kp -13-

7. Except as expressly set forth or reserved in this Development Agreement, City shall not, without the prior written consent of Developer, initiate the formation of any new financing district or assessment district involving the levy of special taxes or assessments for facilities or services applicable to the Project or any portion thereof during the term of this Agreement or prior to the substantial completion of the Project.

SECTION 10. COMPLIANCE REVIEW
Within ten (10) days of each anniversary of the Effective Date, Developer shall file a report with City containing sufficient evidence to demonstrate Developer’s good faith compliance with this Development Agreement, and City will review Developer’s report in good faith.

Pursuant to Gov. Code § 65865.1, if City finds and determines, as a result of its review, that there is substantial evidence that Developer has not complied in good faith with terms or conditions of this Development Agreement, City may terminate or modify the agreement. City does not waive any claim of defect in performance by Developer if after any annual review, City does not enforce this Development Agreement.

SECTION 11. TRANSFERS AND ASSIGNMENTS
A. Transfers. Developer shall have the right to sell, transfer or assign the Site in whole or in part (provided that no such partial transfer shall violate the Subdivision Map Act, Government Code § 66410 et seq.) to any person, partnership, limited liability company, joint venture, firm or corporation at any time during the Term of this Development Agreement without the prior consent of City. City acknowledges and agrees it is likely in the future that Developer may transfer its interest in the Site to an affiliated entity. Developer and Transferee shall execute and record an Assignment and Assumption Agreement whereby the assignee agrees to perform all of the obligations of the Developer under this Development Agreement, a copy of which shall be delivered to the City contemporaneously upon the closing of such sale, transfer or assignment. Upon recordation of the Assignment and Assumption Agreement, Developer shall be released from its obligations with respect to such portion of, or interest in, the Project that was the subject of such Transfer.

B. Conditions Applicable to Transfers. Notwithstanding whether a Transferee has executed an Assignment and Assumption Agreement, a Transferee shall be deemed upon transfer or assignment to have assumed all Developer’s obligations and to have been assigned all of Developer’s rights under this Development Agreement, and will be deemed the Developer hereunder. This Development Agreement may only be transferred to a person or entity who acquires fee title to the Site or any portion of the Site. Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, in no event shall any Lender (as defined in Section 12 below) have any obligation under this Development Agreement unless and until such Lender purchases at a foreclosure sale, or accepts a deed in lieu of foreclosure, the portion of the Site that was subject to a mortgage.

C. Release of Transferring Developer. Notwithstanding any transfer, a transferring Developer shall continue to be obligated under this Development Agreement until 230
4924-7261-4673.13/
393342.00002/8-21-25/jcc/kp -14-
the full satisfaction by such transferring Developer of the following conditions and upon such satisfaction shall be released from the obligations under this Development Agreement: (i) Developer no longer has a legal or equitable interest in all or any part of the Site; (ii) Developer is not then in default under this Development Agreement; and (iii) Developer has provided City with the notice and executed agreement required under Section 11(A) above. If requested by transferring Developer, the City shall promptly memorialize such release in writing upon satisfaction of the foregoing conditions. A default under this Development Agreement by Developer shall not be considered or acted upon by the City as a default by the transferee and shall not affect the transferee’s rights or obligations hereunder,. Likewise, a default by a transferee relating to the transferred portion(s) of the Site shall not be considered or acted upon by the City as a default by Developer and shall not affect Developer’s rights and obligations hereunder.

Notwithstanding the forgoing, if a default of this Development Agreement is of a continuing nature that affects continued development of the Project including, but not limited to a failure to complete public improvements in accordance with the Project Approvals as needed to provide service to the Project or the payment of any tax, fee or assessment such default shall be the continuing responsibility of the transferee, if the transferee has accepted the obligation to complete public improvements.

SECTION 12. LENDERS
A. Rights of Lender. Should Developer place or cause to be placed any encumbrance or lien on the Project, or any part thereof, the beneficiary (“Lender”) of such encumbrance or lien shall have the right at any time during the Term of this Development Agreement and the existence of such encumbrance or lien to: (i) do any act or thing required of Developer under this Development Agreement, or cure any default of Developer under this Development Agreement within the time limits set forth in this Development Agreement, and any such act or thing done or performed by Lender or cure shall be as effective as if done by Developer; (ii) realize on the security afforded by the encumbrance or lien by exercising foreclosure proceedings or power of sale or other remedy afforded in law or in equity or by the security document evidencing the encumbrance or lien (hereinafter referred to as “a trust deed”); (iii) transfer, convey or assign the title of Developer to the Site to any purchaser at any foreclosure sale, whether the foreclosure sale be conducted pursuant to court order or pursuant to a power of sale contained in a trust deed; and (iv) acquire and succeed to the interest of Developer by virtue of any foreclosure sale, whether the foreclosure sale is conducted pursuant to a court order or pursuant to a power of sale contained in a trust deed. Should any Lender request an amendment of this Development Agreement in respect of the rights and remedies granted to a Lender, the City shall consider such an amendment in good faith and in accordance with state and local law so long as the proposed amendment does not materially and adversely affect the rights, powers, and remedies of the City in respect of a default by Developer hereunder.

B. Notice to Lender. City shall give written notice of any default or breach under this Development Agreement by Developer to Lender (if known by the City) 231
4924-7261-4673.13/
393342.00002/8-21-25/jcc/kp -15-
simultaneously with such notice of default the City gives to Developer and afford Lender the opportunity after receipt of service of the notice to: (i) cure the breach or default within thirty (30) days after service of such notice, where the default can be cured by the payment of money; (ii) cure the breach or default within thirty (30) days after service of such notice where the breach or default can be cured by something other than the payment of money and can be cured within that time; or (iii) cure the breach or default in such reasonable time as may be required where something other than payment of money is required to cure the breach or default and cannot be performed within thirty (30) days after such notice, provided that acts to cure the breach or default are commenced within a thirty (30) day period after service of such notice of default on Lender by the City and are thereafter diligently completed by Lender.

C. Action by Lender. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Development Agreement, a Lender may forestall any action by the City for a breach or default under the terms of this Development Agreement by Developer by commencing proceedings to foreclose its encumbrance or lien on the Site. The proceedings so commenced may be for foreclosure of the encumbrance by order of court or for foreclosure of the encumbrance under a power of sale contained in the instrument creating the encumbrance or lien. The proceedings shall not, however, forestall any such action by the City for the default or breach by Developer unless: (i) they are commenced within thirty (30) days after service on Developer (and on Lender if Lender’s address is provided by notice to the City pursuant this Development Agreement) of the notice described hereinabove; (ii) they are, after having been commenced, diligently pursued in the manner required by law to completion within one year; and (iii) lender keeps and performs all of the terms, covenants, and conditions of this Development Agreement requiring the payment or expenditure of money by Developer until the foreclosure proceedings are complete or are discharged by redemption, satisfaction, or payment.

SECTION 13. NOTICES
Any notice or instrument permitted or required under this Development Agreement shall be deemed made when personally delivered or when mailed 72 hours after deposit in the United States Mail, certified mail postage prepaid and addressed to the party at the following addresses:

If to City: City of Banning
99 E. Ramsey Street
Banning, CA 92220
Attn: City Manager
If to Developer JDNJ ENTERPRISES, LLC
120 South Central Avenue, Suite 500
St. Louis. MO 63105
Attn: John C. Condas
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
232
4924-7261-4673.13/
393342.00002/8-21-25/jcc/kp -16-
2010 Main Street, Suite 800
Irvine, CA 92614
Actual notice shall be deemed adequate notice on the date actual notice occurred, regardless of the method of service.

SECTION 14. EVENT OF DEFAULT
Developer is in default under this Development Agreement upon the occurrence of one or more of the following events or conditions:

A. A material warranty, representation, or statement made or furnished by Developer to City set forth herein or in any document incorporated by reference herein is false or proved to have been false in any material respect when it was made.

B. City finds and determines upon the basis of substantial evidence following an annual review pursuant to this Development Agreement, that Developer has not complied in good faith with any material term and/or condition of this Development Agreement, subject to notice and opportunity to cure as provided by this Development Agreement.

C. Developer breaches any of the terms or conditions of this Development Agreement, after notice and opportunity to cure as provided in this Development Agreement.

SECTION 15. ENFORCEMENT
A. Notice; Cure. In the event of a default under the provisions of this Development Agreement by Developer or City, the non-breaching party shall give written notice to the defaulting party (or its successor) by registered or certified mail addressed at the address stated in this Development Agreement, and if such violation is not corrected to the reasonable satisfaction of the non-breaching party within thirty (30) days after such notice is served on the defaulting party, or if such breach or default cannot be cured within such thirty (30) days (excluding monetary defaults) and provided that acts to cure the breach or default must be commenced within such thirty (30) days and must thereafter be diligently pursued to completion by the defaulting party, then the non-breaching party may, without further notice, declare a default under this Development Agreement and, upon any such declaration of default, if the City is the defaulting party, Developer may bring any action necessary to specifically enforce the obligations of City. If Developer is the defaulting party, then City may give notice to Developer of its intent to terminate or modify this Development Agreement, in which event the matter shall be scheduled for consideration and review by the City Council.

B. Remedies. The Parties acknowledge that money damages and remedies at law generally are inadequate and specific performance and other non-monetary relief are particularly appropriate remedies for the enforcement of this Development Agreement and should be available to the Parties for the following reasons: due to the size, nature, and scope of the Project, it may not be practical or possible to 233
4924-7261-4673.13/
393342.00002/8-21-25/jcc/kp -17-
restore the Property to its natural condition once implementation of this Development Agreement has begun. After such implementation, Developer may be foreclosed from other choices it may have had to utilize the Site or portions thereof. Developer has invested significant time and resources and performed extensive planning and processing of the Project in agreeing to the terms of this Development Agreement and will be investing even more significant time and resources in implementing the Project in reliance upon the terms of this Development Agreement, and it is not possible to determine the sum of money which would adequately compensate Developer for such efforts. Accordingly, it is expressly recognized that injunctive relief and specific enforcement of this Development Agreement are proper and desirable remedies, and it is agreed that in any claim by Developer against City for an alleged breach of this Development Agreement may avail itself to injunctive relief or an appropriate action for specific enforcement of this Development Agreement. It is agreed that specific performance is not available to City against Developer, although City can seek the remedy of injunctive relief, declaratory relief or any other appropriate remedy against Developer.

C. Nonperformance by Developer. Nonperformance by Developer shall not be excused because performance by Developer of the obligations herein contained would be unprofitable, difficult, or expensive, or because of a failure of any third party or entity, other than City.

SECTION 16. PARTIES NOT LIABLE FOR DAMAGES
It is acknowledged by the Parties that the City and Developer would not have entered into this Development Agreement if either could be held liable in damages under or with respect to this Development Agreement or the application thereof. Consequently, and except for the payment of attorneys’ fees in accordance with this Development Agreement, the City shall not be liable in damages to Developer, or to any assignee, transferee, or any other person, and Developer shall not be liable in damages to City.

Developer and City jointly covenant on behalf of itself and its successors in interest not to sue for or claim any damages: (i) for any breach of this Development Agreement; (ii) for the taking, impairment or restriction of any right or interest conveyed or provided hereunder or pursuant hereto; (iii) arising out of or connected with any dispute, controversy, or issue regarding the application or interpretation or effect of the provisions of this Development Agreement; or (iv) for any injury to or interference with the rights of Developer, allegedly or actually arising out of, or incurred in connection with, the Parties entering this Development Agreement, or their exercise of any rights under this Development Agreement. Notwithstanding the forgoing, City shall not be excluded from seeking money damages for non-payment of the Electric Facilities Fee or the Transportation Public Benefit Fee, including attorney fees. In addition, Developer shall not be excluded from seeking its attorneys fees in the case of a breach of this Agreement by City.
234
4924-7261-4673.13/
393342.00002/8-21-25/jcc/kp -18-
SECTION 17. INDEMNIFICATION AND LEGAL CHALLENGE
A. Claims For Damage For Personal Injuries. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Developer must defend, indemnify, and hold the City and its elected officials, officers, contractors serving as City officials, agents, and employees (“Indemnitees”) harmless from liability for damage and/or claims for damage for personal injuries, including death, and claims for property damage, and with respect to all other actions and liabilities for damages caused or alleged to have been caused by reason of Developer’s activities in connection with the development and/or construction of the Project, and which may arise from the direct or indirect operations of Developer or those of Developer’s contractors, agents, tenants, employees, or any other persons acting on Developer’s behalf, which relate to the development and/or construction of the Project. This indemnity provision applies to all damages and claims for damage, as described above, regardless of whether or not the City prepared, supplied, or approved the plans, specifications, or other documents for the Project, including any associated public or private improvements.

B. Prevailing Wages. Without limiting the generality of the preceding paragraph (A), Developer shall defend, indemnify, and hold the Indemnitees harmless from and against any and all claims, liabilities, losses, damages, costs, and expenses arising from or related to any claims that Developer or Developer’s contractors are required to pay prevailing wages pursuant to Labor Code Section 1720 et seq., in connection with the development of the Project or any public improvements.

C. Third Party Legal Challenge. Without limiting the generality of preceding paragraph A, in the event of any legal action challenging the validity, applicability, or interpretation of any provision of this Development Agreement, any of the entitlement documents pertaining to the Project including, without limitation, the City’s General Plan, Zoning Code, or any other supporting document relating to the Project, Developer shall also indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the Indemnitees with respect to all liability, costs, and expenses incurred by, and/or awarded against, the City or any of the Indemnitees in relation to such action. In addition, the Term, the obligations imposed herein, and the lifespan of all Project Approvals, presently in existence or in existence in the future, shall be extended day for day based upon a timely filed lawsuit challenging the validity or legality of this Agreement and/or any of the Project Approvals, until the date on which said challenge is finally resolved. Developer and City shall promptly notify the other Party to this Agreement upon learning of the filing any such third party litigation.

D. Legal Counsel; Cash Deposit. With respect to any legal action or claim falling within Developer’s defense, indemnity, and hold harmless obligations, the City shall have the right to select counsel of its choice and the Parties shall cooperate in the defense. The City’s separate counsel billing rates shall be identical to the rates City pays for its typical municipal litigation rates for legal challenges of the variety being defended. Developer shall provide, and maintain for the duration of such action or claim, a cash deposit to City in an amount or amounts determined by the City Attorney to be reasonably necessary to cover the City’s legal fees, 235
4924-7261-4673.13/
393342.00002/8-21-25/jcc/kp -19-
costs, and expenses. Developer shall not be entitled to a refund of funds expended from the deposit regardless of the outcome of the action or claim. The City shall refund to Developer any unexpended funds from the deposit within thirty (30) days of any final disposition or full and complete settlement of the action or claim.

E. Continued Effect of Development Agreement. In the event of any litigation challenging the effectiveness of this Development Agreement, or any portion hereof, this Development Agreement shall remain in full force and effect while such litigation, including any appellate review, is pending, unless otherwise ordered by the court. Absent issuance of an injunction, Developer may elect to continue development of the Project under this Development Agreement pending completion of the litigation but it shall do so at its sole risk, and the City shall not be liable for any loss suffered as a result thereof. City shall perform all obligations under this Development Agreement, including the timely processing of all applications submitted by Developer in connection with the Project.

F. Survival. This Section shall survive this the expiration or earlier termination of this Development Agreement. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Developer’s obligation to indemnify any Indemnitee due to personal injury or property injury suffered in connection with Developer’s design and construction of any public facility, shall terminate one (1) year after City accepts Developer’s dedication of such public facility.

SECTION 18. ENTIRE AGREEMENT
This Development Agreement and the Exhibits therein contain the entire agreement between the Parties, and is intended by the Parties to completely state the Development Agreement in full. Any agreement or representation respecting the matters dealt with herein or the duties of any Party in relation thereto, not expressly set forth in this Development Agreement, is null and void.

SECTION 19. AMENDMENT OR CANCELLATION
Except as otherwise provided for herein, this Development Agreement may be amended or canceled in whole or in part only by mutual consent of the Parties, or their successors in interest, and in the manner provided in Gov. Code, §§ 65865.1, 65867, 65867.5.

SECTION 20. OPERATING MEMORANDA
The provisions of this Development Agreement require a close degree of cooperation between the City and the Developer. It is anticipated due to the term of this Development Agreement that non-substantive interpretation of the Development Approvals may be appropriate with respect to the details of performance of the City and the Developer. To the extent allowable by law and this Development Agreement, the City and Developer shall retain a certain degree of flexibility with respect to all matters, items and provisions covered in general under this Development Agreement. The Developer may request minor changes, adjustments or clarifications under this Agreement and the City and Developer may effectuate such changes, adjustments or clarifications through operating memoranda (“Operating Memoranda”) approved by the Parties in writing, which reference 236
4924-7261-4673.13/
393342.00002/8-21-25/jcc/kp -20-
this Section of the Development Agreement. Operating Memoranda shall not constitute an amendment to this Development Agreement but mere ministerial interpretations or clarifications; therefore, public notices and hearings shall not be required. The City Attorney shall be authorized, upon consultation with the Developer, to determine whether a requested interpretation or clarification may be effectuated pursuant to this Section or whether the requested clarification is of such character to constitute an amendment to the Development Agreement which requires compliance with the provisions of this Development Agreement pertaining to amendments. The authority to enter into such Operating Memoranda is hereby delegated to the City Manager, and the City Manager is hereby authorized in his or her discretion to execute any Operating Memoranda permitted hereunder without Planning Commission or City Council action and without public hearing.

SECTION 21. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
A. Binding Effect. This Development Agreement shall bind, and the benefits and burdens hereof shall inure to, the respective Parties hereto and their legal representatives, executors, administrators, successors and assigns, wherever the context requires or admits.

B. Headings. Headings used in this Development Agreement are for reference purposes only and shall not be deemed a part of this Development Agreement.

C. Exhibits. Each exhibit referenced in this Development Agreement is hereby incorporated into the Development Agreement as if set forth in full herein. In the event of any material discrepancy between the terms of any exhibit so incorporated and the terms of this Development Agreement, the terms of this Development Agreement shall control.

D. Time of Essence. Time is of the essence in every provision hereof in which time is a factor.

E. Force Majeure. In the event that any party hereto shall be delayed or hindered or prevented from performance of any act required hereunder by reason of acts of God, strikes, lockouts, labor troubles, riots, insurrection, terrorism, war, pandemics, epidemics or other reason of similar nature not the fault of the party delayed in performing the work or doing the acts required under the terms of this Development Agreement, then the performance of such act shall be excused for the period of the delay caused by the foregoing. Financial inability shall not be deemed an excuse for delay under this Section.

F. Waiver. No waiver of any default shall constitute a waiver of any other default or breach, whether of the same or other covenant or condition. No waiver, benefit, privilege, or service voluntarily given or performed by a party shall give the other party any contractual rights by custom, estoppel, or otherwise.

G. Cooperation. Each of the Parties shall cooperate with and provided reasonable assistance to the other to the extent contemplated hereunder in the performance 237
4924-7261-4673.13/
393342.00002/8-21-25/jcc/kp -21-
of all obligations under this Development Agreement and the satisfaction of the conditions of this Development Agreement.

H. City Manager Authority. Any consent, approved or other instrument described in this Development Agreement may be granted, given or executed on behalf of the City by the City Manager or their written designee without the need for further authorization from the City Council; provided, however that, notwithstanding the foregoing, the City Manager or their designee may, in their sole discretion, refer to the City Council any item for which the City Manager has authority to act hereunder.

I. Conflicts of Interest; Prohibited Interests. Developer warrants and maintains as of the Effective Date of this Development Agreement that it has no knowledge that any officer or employee of City has any interest, whether contractual, noncontractual, financial, proprietary, or otherwise, in this transaction or in the business of Developer. If any information regarding an officer of employee of the City having an interest in this transaction or in the business of Developer as of the Effective Date of this Development Agreement comes to the knowledge of Developer at any time during the Term of this Development Agreement, Developer shall immediately make a complete, written disclosure of such interest to the City, even if such interest would not be deemed a prohibited “conflict of interest” under applicable laws. If the City subsequently is provided information that Developer had knowledge but failed to disclose knowledge of any such interest, and Developer fails to acknowledge such interest within 14 days of notification by the City, Developer’s failure shall constitute a breach of the Development Agreement subject to the provisions of Section 14 of this Development Agreement.

J. Applicable Law and Venue. This Development Agreement shall be construed in accordance with and governed by the laws of the State of California. Venue for any action or litigation brought for breach or to enforce any provision of this Development Agreement shall be the County of Riverside, California.

K. Partial Invalidity. If any provisions of this Development Agreement shall be deemed to be invalid, illegal, or unenforceable, the validity, legality, or enforceability of the remaining provisions hereof shall not in any way be affected or impaired thereby.

L. Attorneys’ Fees. In any proceedings arising from the enforcement of this Development Agreement or because of an alleged breach or default hereunder, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover its costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees and experts’ fees incurred during the proceeding (including appeals) as may be fixed within the discretion of the court.

M. Corporate Authority. Each person executing this Development Agreement on behalf of Developer warrants that he or she is duly authorized to execute this Development Agreement on behalf of Developer and that by his or her execution, Consultant is formally bound to the provisions of this Development Agreement. 238
4924-7261-4673.13/
393342.00002/8-21-25/jcc/kp -22-
N. Counterparts. This Development Agreement may be executed by the Parties in counterparts, which counterparts shall be construed together and have the same effect as if all of the Parties had executed the same instrument.

O. No Third-Party Beneficiaries. This Agreement is made and entered into for the sole protection and benefit of the Parties and their successors and assigns. No other person shall have any right of action based upon any provision of this Development Agreement.

P. Legally Binding Contract; Enforceability. It is the intent of City and Developer that this Development Agreement is a legally binding contract which shall prevail over the provisions of any subsequently enacted moratoria, statutes, ordinances, limitations, or other measures, enacted by City, or under the authority of City by voter initiative or referendum, and which initiative, moratorium, referendum, statute, ordinance, limitation, or other measure relates, in whole or in part, to the rate, timing, sequence, or phasing of the development or construction of all or part of the Project or the improvements or affecting parcel or subdivision maps, building permits, occupancy certificates, or other entitlement to use the Site which are issued by City, subject only to the rights and powers reserved to City under the terms of this Development Agreement and the requirements of California law IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Development Agreement as of the day and year first above-written.

CITY

CITY OF BANNING,
a California municipal corporation
By: _________________________
Sheri Flynn
Mayor
ATTEST:

By: _________________________
Vickie Sellers
City Clerk

DEVELOPER

JDNJ ENTERPRISES, LLC,
a Missouri limited liability corporation
qualified to do business in California
By: JDNJ, LLC, its Manager
By: JDN Holding Co., LLC, its Manager
By: __________________________
James G. Sansone, Manager
By: __________________________
Douglas G. Sansone, Manager
By: __________________________
Nicholas G. Sansone, Manager
239
4924-7261-4673.13/
393342.00002/8-21-25/jcc/kp -23-
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

By: _________________________
John O. Pinkney
City Attorney
240
4924-7261-4673.13/
393342.00002/8-21-25/jcc/kp
{This Page Left Intentionally Blank}
241
4924-7261-4673.13/
393342.00002/8-21-25/jcc/kp

EXHIBIT A
-1-

EXHIBIT A

SITE LEGAL DESCRIPTION

THE LAND REFERRED TO HEREIN BELOW IS SITUATED IN THE CITY OF BANNING,

COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:

PARCEL 1:

THOSE CERTAIN PARCELS OF LAND LOCATED WITHIN THE MORONGO INDIAN

RESERVATION, LOCATED IN THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, BEING THOSE PORTIONS OF SECTION 1, 2 AND 12 OF TOWNSHIP 3 SOUTH, RANGE 1 EAST, SAN BERNARDINO MERIDIAN, AS SHOWN ON THE OFFICIAL PLAT THEREOF, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:

COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 2;

THENCE ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 2 SOUTH 89°40'06" EAST 489.00 FEET TO A LINE PARALLEL WITH AND 489.00 FEET EASTERLY OF THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID SECTION 2, SAID POINT BEING THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING;
THENCE ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE NORTH 00°21'44" EAST 342.00 FEET TO A LINE PARALLEL WITH AND 342.00 FEET NORTHERLY OF SAID SOUTHERLY LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 2;
THENCE ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE SOUTH 89°40'06" EAST 2164.30 FEET TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID SECTION 2;

THENCE CONTINUING ALONG THE EASTERLY PROLONGATION OF SAID PARALLEL LINE SOUTH 88°36'14" EAST 107.02 FEET TO A LINE PARALLEL WITH AND 107.00 FEET EASTERLY OF THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID SECTION 1; THENCE ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE SOUTH 00°17'18" WEST 270.81 FEET TO THE NORTHERLY LINE OF A STRIP OF LAND 16.50 FEET IN WIDTH, EXCEPTED FROM GRANT DEED REC. 10/7/2004 AS DOC. NO. 2004-0797131, OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA (DEPT. OF INT. FILING 582 173Y07);
THENCE ALONG SAID NORTHERLY LINE SOUTH 89°47'09" WEST 107.00 FEET TO THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID SECTION 1;
THENCE ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE SOUTH 00°17'18" WEST 16.50 FEET TO THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF THE AFOREMENTIONED 16.50 FOOT STRIP; 242
4924-7261-4673.13/
393342.00002/8-21-25/jcc/kp

EXHIBIT A
-2-
THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE NORTH 89°47'09" EAST 107.00 FEET TO A LINE PARALLEL WITH AND 107.00 FEET EASTERLY OF THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID SECTION 1;
THENCE ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE SOUTH 00°17'18" WEST 52.58 FEET TO THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 1, SAID POINT IS LOCATED ON A LINE PARALLEL WITH AND 107.00 FEET EASTERLY OF THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID SECTION 12; THENCE ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE SOUTH 00°03'26" WEST 1044.17 FEET TO

THE NORTHERLY LINE OF THAT CERTAIN FINAL ORDER OF CONDEMNATION RECORDED AUGUST 19, 1963 AS INST. NO. 87113 AND THAT CERTAIN FINAL ORDER OF CONDEMNATION RECORDED SEPTEMBER 26, 1967 AS INST. NO. 84776, BOTH OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE. SAID

NORTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE BEING DEPICTED CALTRANS RIGHT-OF-WAY MAP NO. 984524 FILED IN BOOK 204 PAGE 91 OF CALTRANS RIGHT-OF-WAY MAPS AND CALTRANS RIGHT-OF-WAY MAP NO. 452194 FILED IN BOOK 205 PAGE 263 OF CALTRANS RIGHT-OF-WAY MAPS, BOTH ON FILE IN THE MISC. RECORDS OF THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY SURVEYOR OF SAID COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE; THENCE ALONG SAID NORTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY SOUTH 71°02'58" WEST 113.17 FEET TO THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID SECTION 2;
THENCE ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE OF SECTION 12 NORTH 00°03'26" EAST 1081.36 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE AFOREMENTIONED SECTION 12;

THENCE ALONG THE AFOREMENTIONED SOUTHERLY LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 2 NORTH 88°36'14" WEST 2641.66 FEET TO THE SOUTH QUARTER CORNER OF SECTION 2;

THENCE ALONG THE AFOREMENTIONED SOUTHERLY LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 2 NORTH 89°40'06" WEST 2161.30 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING;

RESERVING THEREFROM AN EASEMENT FOR INGRESS, EGRESS AND UTILITIES, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:

COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 2;

THENCE ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 2 SOUTH 89°40'06" EAST 2583.30 FEET TO A POINT 67.00 FEET WESTERLY OF THE SOUTH QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 2, SAID POINT IS THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING;
243
4924-7261-4673.13/
393342.00002/8-21-25/jcc/kp

EXHIBIT A
-3-
THENCE NORTH 00° 21'44" EAST 342.00 FEET TO A LINE PARALLEL WITH 342.00

FEET NORTHERLY OF SAID SOUTHERLY LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 2;
THENCE ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE SOUTH 89°40'06" EAST 69.98 FEET TO A LINE PARALLEL WITH AND 342.00 FEET NORTHERLY OF THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 2;
THENCE ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE SOUTH 88°36'14" EAST 30.02 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 00°21'44" WEST 342.06 FEET TO THE AFOREMENTIONED SOUTHERLY LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 2; THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE NORTH 88°36'14" WEST 33.02 FEET TO THE SOUTH QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 2;

THENCE ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 2 NORTH 89°40'06" WEST 66.98 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.

APN: 532-030-008, 532-030-009, 532-080-008, 532-080-010, 532-090-026, 532-090- 028 AND 532-090-030
PARCEL 2:

THAT PORTION OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 11, TOWNSHIP 3 SOUTH, RANGE 1 EAST, SAN BERNARDINO BASE AND MERIDIAN, ACCORDING TO UNITED

STATES GOVERNMENT SURVEY, LYING NORTHERLY OF THAT CERTAIN PORTION OF SAID NORTHEAST 1/4 CONVEYED TO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA BY DEED RECORDED OCTOBER 11, 1961, AS INSTRUMENT NO. 87046 IN BOOK 2997, PAGE 542, OFFICIAL RECORDS.

EXCEPTING THEREFROM, ALL RIGHT, TITLE AND INTEREST IN AND TO ALL

HYDROCARBONS, MINERALS, GEOTHERMAL RESOURCES, AND MINERAL ORES

OF EVERY KIND AND CHARACTER, METALLIC OR OTHERWISE, SOLID, LIQUID OR

GAS AND WHETHER OR NOT HEREAFTER KNOWN TO SCIENCE OR INDUSTRY,

NOT KNOWN TO EXIST OR HEREAFTER DISCOVERED UPON, WITHIN OR

UNDERLYING THE SURFACE OF SAID LAND AS SHOWN IN DEED RECORDED JANUARY 28, 1987 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 24458 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.

APN: 532-110-015
PARCEL 3:
244
4924-7261-4673.13/
393342.00002/8-21-25/jcc/kp

EXHIBIT A
-4-

A NON-EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT FOR ROAD PURPOSES UPON, OVER AND ACROSS THAT PORTION OF THE EAST 1/2 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 11, TOWNSHIP 3 SOUTH, RANGE 1 EAST, SAN BERNARDINO BASE AND MERIDIAN, INCLUDED WITHIN A STRIP OF LAND 20 FEET WIDE, THE NORTHERLY LINE OF WHICH IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:

BEGINNING AT A POINT IN THE EAST LINE OF THE SAID NORTHWEST 1/4, DISTANT ALONG SAID EAST LINE SOUTH 0°41'41" WEST 1359.31 FEET FROM A 3/4 INCH IRON PIPE AND BRASS CAP MARKED "U.S.G.L.O. 1917" SET FOR THE NORTH 1/4 CORNER OF SAID SECTION;
THENCE NORTH 89°25'57" WEST, 1319.31 FEET TO THE WEST LINE OF THE SAID EAST 1/2.

ALSO THAT PORTION OF THE WEST 20 FEET OF SAID EAST 1/2 LYING SOUTHERLY OF THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED 20 FOOT STRIP.

EXCEPT THAT PORTION LYING SOUTHERLY OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED LINE:

BEGINNING AT A POINT IN THE WEST LINE OF SAID EAST 1/2, DISTANT ALONG SAID WEST LINE SOUTH 0°25'01" WEST 1041.97 FEET FROM THE POINT OF

INTERSECTION THEREOF WITH THAT CERTAIN LINE HEREINABOVE DESCRIBED AS HAVING A BEARING OF NORTH 89°25'57" WEST;
THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG 545 FOOT RADIUS CURVE CONCAVE NORTHWESTERLY FROM A TANGENT BEARING NORTH 56°01'51" EAST, THROUGH AN ANGLE OF 1°46'36", A DISTANCE OF 16.90 FEET; THENCE NORTH 54°15'15" EAST 50 FEET, AS CREATED IN DEED RECORDED JUNE 10, 1968 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 53726, OFFICIAL RECORDS. 245
4924-7261-4673.13/
393342.00002/8-21-25/jcc/kp

EXHIBIT B
-5-

EXHIBIT B

DIF SCHEDULE AS OF EFFECTIVE DATE
City of Banning Development Impact Fees1
Land Use Category Fire
Facilities
General
City
Facilities
Police Traffic Water Wastewater2
Nonresidential – Fee
per 1,000 Square Feet
- Industrial $236.00 $239.00 $170.00 $1,791.69
Per Table

8.5 in City
Council
Resolution
2019-112
$708.54
1 Represents the City of Banning Development Impact Fees for non-residential land uses effective November 9, 2019 per City Council Resolution No. 2019-112. 2 Wastewater Facilities Fee shown as per 1 EDU. Wastewater Facilities EDU Factors for every 1,000 square feet are 0.37 for Commercial, 0.13 for Office and 0.14 for Industrial. 246
4924-7261-4673.13/
393342.00002/8-21-25/jcc/kp

EXHIBIT C
-6-

EXHIBIT C

HATHAWAY IMPROVEMENTS
The following shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer:
 Along the west side of N Hathway Street between E Williams Street and E George Street, install City standard sidewalk behind curb and gutter, and install city standard curb ramps at intersections. Install new residential driveways as necessary to maintain access to existing driveway locations.  Within the existing right-of-way and pavement along the west side of N Hathway Street between E Williams Street and future Wilson Street, install striping for a new 6 ft. bike lane.
 Within the existing right-of-way and pavement along the east side of N Hathway Street between E Williams Street and existing Nicolet Street, install striping for a new 6 ft. bike lane.
 At the intersection of E Jacinto View Road and N Hathway Street, provide traffic measure to restrict Project traffic from access to E Jacinto View Rd  At the intersection of E Nicolet Street and N Hathway Street, provide traffic measure to restrict Project traffic from access to E Nicolet Street  At the intersection of E George Street and N Hathway Street, provide traffic measure to restrict Project traffic from access to E George Street 247

CITY OF BANNING

STAFF REPORT
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Arturo Vela, Acting City Manager
PREPARED BY: Ralph Wright, Parks and Recreation Director Ralph Wright, Parks and Recreation Director
MEETING DATE: August 26, 2025
SUBJECT: Parks and Recreation Report of Monthly Activities through the 4th Quarter of Fiscal Year 2024/2025 - June 2025
RECOMMENDATION:

Receive and file.

BACKGROUND:

To better track the participation levels of parks and recreation program offerings and the facilities usage for parks and recreation programs and services, staff developed a monthly report that is used to compile and present our numbers, help tell our story and allow for easy year over year comparison.

The ten-page report includes parks staff activities, park and facility usage, sports and classes participation, Senior activities, Banning Connect ridership and passes sold, aquatics programming, special events and the last page is a tracking page for trips and activities associated with the Outdoor Equity Program grant. The report is aligned with the fiscal year, July through June of each year and compiled each month.

Staff brings the report to the Council after each quarter of the Fiscal Year. Attached in this item, is the June 2025 report that contains participation information through the end of the 4th quarter of FY 2024-25 and includes participation data for the entire 2024/2025 Fiscal year.

The 4th quarter report shows strong ongoing park and facility usage as well as continued strong participation data throughout all programming areas. Many of our regular ongoing programs continue to be at capacity or nearing capacity. The June report also shows the start of our Summer programming with the start of our Summer Day Camp program and the aquatic programming in full swing.

The June report continues to show great participation throughout all programming and services offered in the Senior Center. The daily meal program has grown to offering up to 70 daily meals.

Although there has been a slight reduction in the total number of incidents of graffiti and a reduction in the total incidents of vandalism through the 4th quarter of the Fiscal Year, the impacts on the department and the general public are noticeable. These negative incidents significantly impact our park staff's ability to perform ongoing park’s maintenance and the general public’s ability to use the park.

JUSTIFICATION:

This report provides quantitative information pertinent to parks and recreation services offered for the City of Banning's residents.
248
FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact with this report
ALTERNATIVES:

None provided.

BUDGETED?:

No
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT:

No
ATTACHMENTS:

1. Parks and Recreation MRA - June 2025.pdf
249
*Fiscal Year *
24-25
*The Monthly Reports are based on a fiscal year*
July 1, 2024- June 30, 2025
Six parks with approximately 58 developed acres maintained P1
P2
P3
P4
P5
P6
P7
P8
P9
P10
Parks Maintenance
Parks Usage
Facility Usage
Sports/Volunteers
Senior Center
Classes / Programs
Transit
Aquatics
Special Events
OEP
PARK and REC Stats
Monthly Year-to-Date
2023-2024 2024-2025 2023-2024 2024-2025
# of trees PLANTED 0 0 11 1
# of trees REMOVED 2 0 13 4
# of trees TRIMMED 15 2 77 93
Service requests completed by
Parks 9 8 94 91
Vandalism incidents repaired 9 11 114 106
Graffiti incidents repaired 26 21 240 215
June is full of dancing, swimming, and celebrating holidays like Juneteenth and Father’s
Day. We remind ourselves that
celebrating with friends is
good medicine and days at the
pool are what makes summer
great.
250
2 Park/Field Usage
# of uses
Monthly Year-to-Date
2023-2024 2024-2025 2023-2024 2024-2025
Dysart Park 0 6 44 46
Lion’s Park 90 3 473 346
Repplier Park 29 33 324 269
Richard Sanchez 0 0 0 0
Roosevelt Williams 0 0 0 3
Sylvan Park 20 8 129 115
TOTAL 130 50 963 795
East Ramsey Lot 0 0 1 11
Carpenter Hamilton Park 0 0 1 0
Picnic Area Usage
(scheduled)
# of uses
Monthly Year-to-Date
2023-2024 2024-2025 2023-2024 2024-2025
Repplier Park 1 18 15 60
Roosevelt Williams Small 0 1 2 2
Sylvan Park 23 22 61 60
TOTAL 29 43 102 140
Roosevelt Williams Large 5 2 23 15
Lion’s Park 0 0 1 2
Dysart Park
Barrel racing summer series is back in Dysart on
Wednesday nights!
251
3 n/a - Figures not available
Community Center
# of uses
Monthly Year-to-Date
2023-2024 2024-2025 2023-2024 2024-2025
Small Meeting Room 60 25 237 186
Large Dance Room 65 21 249 195
Gymnasium 95 74 999 1031
Kitchen 1 0 13 26
Parking Lot 2 1 31 24
TOTAL 223 121 1529 1463
Senior Center
# of uses
Monthly Year-to-Date
2023-2024 2024-2025 2023-2024 2024-2025
Nutrition Site 24 27 296 321
Multi-purpose Room 27 37 384 396
TOTAL 51 64 680 717
Playhouse Bowl
# of uses
Monthly Year-to-Date
2023-2024 2024-2025 2023-2024 2024-2025
Meeting Room 19 22 139 129
Amphitheater 0 1 17 13
TOTAL 19 23 155 142
Roosevelt Williams
and Armory
# of uses
Monthly Year-to-Date
2023-2024 2024-2025 2023-2024 2024-2025
Roosevelt Will. Meeting Room 1 1 28 68
TOTAL 10 2 135 149
Armory 9 1 107 81
Facility Use
Once a month, we have the privilege of hosting
IHSS training and orientation at our senior center.

The goal of the IHSS program is to enable elderly
and/or disabled persons to remain safely in independent living as long as possible. IHSS Services may include meal preparation and clean-up, food
shopping, bathing, dressing, personal care, domestic services (cleaning) assistance with medications, etc. This in- home assistance is designed to allow
persons to remain in their home rather than be
placed in an institutional setting.
252
4 n/a - Figures not applicable min - Minimum participation not met NO - Not offered Youth Sports # of Participants # of Participants # of Teams Facility Visits Monthly Year to Date Year-to-Date Year To Date
2024-2025 2024-2025 2024-2025 2024-2025
Youth Basketball 0 329 28 5470
Youth Flag Football 0 111 8 1386
Youth Soccer 0 161 11 1445
Smart Start 0 22 0 132
TOTAL 0 623 47 8433
Adult Sports # of Participants # of Participants # of Teams Facility Visits Monthly Year to Date Year-to-Date Year To Date
2024-2025 2024-2025 2024-2025 2024-2025
Adult Softball NO NO NO NO
Adult Basketball 0 80 8 480
TOTAL 0 80 80 480
Volunteers # of Volunteers Hours volunteered # of Volunteers Hours volunteered Monthly Monthly Year to Date Year To Date
2024-2025 2024-2025 2024-2025 2024-2025
Coaches 0 0 90 822
Events 0 0 75 1772
Senior Center 16 183 224 3582.5
TOTAL 16 183 389 6176.5
Registration for our annual Soccer Camp has begun! Banning United Soccer Academy in partnership with Parks and Recreation provide such an awesome opportunity for Soccer minded kids in the community to focus on their skills over the summer. 253
5 # of Participants # of Participants
Classes/Programs
Monthly Year to Date
2024-2025 2024-2025
Games & Puzzles 43 547
Bingo & Loteria 112 1275
Health & Wellness Classes 160 2518
Crafts & Activities 55 839
Pool Table 16 276
Education Classes 57 534
Movies 41 503
Events 215 1760
Sponsored Social Programs 0 707
Presentations 40 812
TOTAL 739 9771
# of Participants # of Participants
Services Monthly Year to Date
2024-2025 2024-2025
Fill the Cupboard 33 380
Computer Lab 25 614
Daily Meals 730 9002
Paralegal 0 3
Phone / Walk-in Referrals 141 2403
Morning Greeters 110 1320
Food Vouchers / Salvation
Army/Other Services 1 11
Happiness Campaign 100 869
Boutique 73 1227
Cool/Warm Center 0 48
Morongo Moravian Gifts 0 66
Total 1213 15943
I want to shout out a huge thank you to our senior center staff and volunteers. They continue to make incredibly
fun and meaningful things happen for our seniors when
they plan activities!
254
6 n/a - Figures not applicable min - Minimum participation not met NO - Not offered Classes/Programs # of Participants # of Participants Facility Visits Monthly Year to Date Year To Date
2024-2025 2024-2025 2024-2025
Adult Programs/Classes 118 1940 2951
Youth Programs/Classes 35 951 4877
Day Camp 250 566 2296
Open Gym Basketball 0 1105 1105
Open Gym Pickleball 40 968 968
Open Gym Volleyball 0 0 0
TOTAL 585 6930 13728
Special Needs Programs/Classes 142 1391 1531
It is Day Camp time! We have been doing this program for years, but every year is an adventure entirely its own. This year we look forward to field trips and wholesome presentations.
255
7 n/a - Figures not applicable min - Minimum participation not met NO - Not offered # of Passes # of Passes
Bus Passes Purchased Monthly Year to Date
2024-2025 2024-2025
Day Pass n/a n/a
Disabled Bus Pass 0 0
General Bus Pass 0 2
Senior Bus Pass 1 1
Youth Bus Pass n/a n/a
Banning Student Bus Pass 0 0
General Ticket Book 3 32
Senior Disabled Ticket Book 2 2
Dial-A-Ride 10 ticket Pass n/a n/a
TOTAL 6 40
We have come to know and bond with our bus riders either through phone call, from when they check in on the schedule, or in person, when they come to purchase their pass. We are grateful to be of service to them and to notify them that bus rides will be free for all Banning residents.
# of Passengers # of Passengers
Ridership Numbers Monthly Year to Date
2024-2025 2024-2025
Senior/Disabled Passengers 2384 32899
General Passengers 5357 46977
Non Resident Riders 180 9254
Cabazon Zone Passengers 981 9551
Youth Passengers 104 1340
Student Passengers 838 10294
Veteran Passengers 23 430
Dial-A-Ride Passengers 343 4088
TOTAL 10210 114842
256
n/a - Figures not applicable min - Minimum participation not met NO - Not offered 8 June
Monthly Monthly Yearly
Visits Visits
2024-2025 2024-2025 2024-2025
Child Admission 2862 2862 6399
Adult Admission 1734 1734 3669
Senior Admission 174 174 505
Lap Swim Adult 17 17 75
Lap Swim Senior 43 43 337
Adult Swim Lessons 3 3 11
Children's Lessons 276 2208 5136
Senior Water Exercise 26 26 99
Aqua Zumba 138 138 418
Pool Rentals: 3 540 3600
Dive-In Movie Admission 943 943 1786
Cabana Rentals 7 175 900
TOTAL 6226 8863 22935
Our Swim Season is in full swing and our swim lessons focus on encouraging residents to build a life-long passion for swimming while safely enjoying the water.
257
9 n/a - Figures not applicable min - Minimum participation not met NO - Not offered Special Events Year-to-Date
# Participants/Attendees 2024-2025
Monthly 2024-2025
Evening Concert Series 0 8000
Hispanic Heritage 0 1000
Total: 0 14186
July 4th Celebration 0 2000
Glow Party 0 180
Lego Party 0 15
Halloween Trunk or Treat 0 1400
Family Color Run 0 72
Beary Party 0 24
Santa Shoppe & Pancake Breakfast 0 304
Paint Party 0 7
Polar Express Party 0 34
Christmas at the Ranch 0 900
Disaster Expo 0 250
We are looking forward to our 4th of July celebration! Who doesn’t love coming together with their community and enjoying fireworks. 258
10 June
The Outdoor Equity Program seeks to provide outdoor experiences and opportunities to the Banning community. Combining education and the outdoors, the Outdoor Equity Program allows participants to seek enriching outdoor experiences like our Day Camp Field Trips! We have also been busy this summer with our Teen Development programs like Jr. Rec and Youth Council or even our Teen Gym Night.

This program funded by the Outdoor Equity Grants Program, created through AB 209 and administered by California State Parks, Office of Grants and Local Services.

June
Monthly Monthly Yearly
Events/
Activities
ParticipantsParticipants
2024-2025 2024-2025 2024-2025
Community Clean Ups 0 0 70
Events 1 11 161
Programs 1 10 163
Trips 2 112 640
TOTALS 3 145 1092
Teen Development 3 12 58
259

CITY OF BANNING

STAFF REPORT
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Arturo Vela, Acting City Manager
PREPARED BY: Yvette Vaca, Administrative Sergeant
Vincent Avila, Chief of Police
MEETING DATE: August 26, 2025
SUBJECT: Receive and File Animal Control Statistics for the Months of June and July 2025
RECOMMENDATION:

Receive and file.

BACKGROUND:

The Banning Police Department provides Animal Control Services statistics to the public and City Council upon request.

JUSTIFICATION:

Statistics tell a city how many Animal Control Officers need to be on the street, the types of calls they handle, and the need for additional services. Statistics show increases and decreases in particular areas of Animal Control Services over time.

FISCAL IMPACT:

None.

ALTERNATIVES:

Providing statistics keeps the Council, staff, and residents apprised of current Animal Control Services activities. If the statistics are not presented to the Council on a regular basis, then they should be provided on another platform.

BUDGETED?:

No
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT:

No
ATTACHMENTS:

1. Good Police Stats ACO June July 2025.pdf
260
CATEGORY Jun-25 Jun-24 % CHGE YTD-25 YTD-24 % CHGE
Calls for Service 123 110 12% 611 660 -7%
Animals Impounded 6 6 0% 33 51 -35%
Animals Euthanized 2 5 -60% 8 27 -70%
Bite Reports 3 1 200% 17 15 13%
Citations Issued 0 0 0% 0 0 0%
Fees/Bills/Outside Costs 295.5 0 29550% 2242.09 8039.86 -72%

BANNING POLICE DEPARTMENT
JUNE, 2025
261
CATEGORY Jul-25 Jul-24 % CHGE YTD-25 YTD-24 % CHGE
Calls for Service 118 71 66% 729 731 0%
Animals Impounded 5 1 400% 38 52 -27%
Animals Euthanized 2 2 0% 10 29 -66%
Bite Reports 5 5 0% 22 20 10%
Citations Issued 0 0 0% 0 0 0%
Fees/Bills/Outside Costs 1282 0 128200% 3524.09 8039.86 -56%

BANNING POLICE DEPARTMENT
JULY, 2025
262

CITY OF BANNING

STAFF REPORT
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Arturo Vela, Acting City Manager
PREPARED BY: Ralph Wright, Parks and Recreation Director Ralph Wright, Parks and Recreation Director
MEETING DATE: August 26, 2025
SUBJECT: Ground Lease Agreement - COB and Diversified Pacific Development Group, LLC for Stagecoach Days Overflow Parking
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council authorize the Acting City Manager to execute the Ground Lease Agreement with Diversified Pacific Development Group, LLC, for overflow parking during Stagecoach Days 2025.

BACKGROUND:

The annual Stagecoach Days event is held in September each year at A.C. Dysart Park. In June of 2025, the City entered into and approved a renewed MOU with the Banning Stagecoach Day’s Association to support the event through cash support as well as In-Kind service support. The event has grown and parking on the Dysart grounds is not sufficient for all attendees. To assist with this additional parking need, the City of Banning has entered into ground lease agreements with Diversified Pacific Development Group for several years to accommodate overflow parking during Stagecoach Days. The Agreement allows the city to use land owned by Diversified Pacific for a nominal fee of $1.00.

The lease agreement is for the lot directly east of Dysart Park and has served as an overflow parking area for the past events without complications.

JUSTIFICATION:

Parking at Dysart Park is not sufficient to accommodate parking needs during Stagecoach Days. The Diversified Pacific property is immediately adjacent to the parking lot at Dysart Park and rent charged is a $1 fee. Without the Agreement, off-site parking and shuttle buses would be required.

FISCAL IMPACT:

No significant fiscal impact as agreement calls for a nominal fee of $1 for the term of the ground lease.

ALTERNATIVES:

1. Approve as recommended.

2. Do not approve and provide alternative direction.
263
BUDGETED?:

Yes
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT:

Yes
ATTACHMENTS:

1. 2025 Stagecoach Days Overload Parking Ground Lease-Div Pac LLC (Signed).pdf 264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275

CITY OF BANNING

STAFF REPORT
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Arturo Vela, Acting City Manager
PREPARED BY: Nate Smith, Deputy Director of Public Works/City Engineer MEETING DATE: August 26, 2025
SUBJECT: Approve Amendment No. 1 to the Purchase Order with Couts Heating and Cooling, Inc of Corona, California for As-Needed HVAC Services for City of Banning Facilities in the Amount of $12,000 for a Total Purchase Order of $37,000
RECOMMENDATION:

Approve Amendment No. 1 to the purchase order with Couts Heating and Cooling, Inc.

BACKGROUND:

The Building Maintenance Division is tasked with and responsible for essential building and system services, including maintenance of the Citywide Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning (HVAC) systems. As-needed services are contracted out to an HVAC specialist when the systems are in need of repair, or suffer a failure that requires servicing. For these services, the City has utilized Couts Heating and Cooling "Couts".

Couts was issued a purchase order for $25,000 in July 2024 for the 24/25 fiscal year, expiring on 6/30/25. The purchase order limits any single items to not exceed $5,000. Any single cost over that amount is subject to separate CUPCCAA purchasing requirements.

Due to many factors, including delay in invoice issuance, staff outages, and staff shortages, there were several calls for as-needed services that were delayed in processing, and in summation exceed the authorized amount in the PO that were recieved after July 1 2025 for services provided between the end of March 2024 and the middle of June 2024. In total, there are 6 invoices for $11,547.37. The remaining available balance on the PO is $768.49, leaving a deficit of $10,778.88. As such, the request of Council is to authorize Amendment No. 1 for an additional $12,000 on the PO.

Prior to this request, City staff has requested all outstanding invoices from Couts to ensure there are no additional expenses on the PO for FY24/25. After the outstanding invoices are paid, the PO can be closed and remaining authorized funds would remain unspent.

JUSTIFICATION:

HVAC is a necessary facility function to ensure safe work environments for City staff. The unpredictable nature of HVAC failures, especially into the spring and summer seasons, makes estimating actual needs challenging.

To address this concern in the future, Public Works Staff, in cooperation with Purchasing Staff, will 276
implement the following changes to past practices:

1. Refresh staff on purchasing policy (B-30) and potential consequences when not adhered to

2. Solicit bids to establish a 5-year contract (2 years with optional 1-year extensions), subject to City Council approval with annual PO limits above $25,000 and a cumulative limit for the 5-year contract period.

3. Issue a partial year PO for FY25/26 at reduced limits ($12,500) to allow for a contract to be solicited and approved by City Council.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is sufficient budget to fund Amendment No. 1 to the Couts Purchase Order in the approved Building Maintenance budget for Fiscal Year 2024/2025.

ALTERNATIVES:

Reject Amendment No. 1, which would prohibit the City from paying the service provider for services that were already rendered to the City.

BUDGETED?:

Yes
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT:

Yes
277

CITY OF BANNING

STAFF REPORT
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Arturo Vela, Acting City Manager
PREPARED BY: Fred Lyn, Deputy Director of Electric
Art Vela, Acting City Manager / Director of Public Works MEETING DATE: August 26, 2025
SUBJECT: Receive and File the Final Report of the City of Banning's Broadband Feasibility Study
RECOMMENDATION:

Receive and File the Final Report of the Broadband Feasibility Study prepared for the City of Banning and direct staff to seek reimbursement from the California Public Utilities Commission's Broadband Grant Portal.

BACKGROUND:

On November 23, 2022, the City of Banning (City) was awarded a $300,000 grant from the California Public Utilities Commission’s (CPUC’s) Local Agency Technical Assistance Grant Program in order to conduct a broadband feasibility study to identify gaps, examine economic impacts and develop a plan to deploy broadband access in Banning in order to improve education outcomes, business/expansion and provide opportunities for high-quality jobs. The original grant application had a project completion date of December 31, 2024. On September 12, 2024, the City requested a one-year grant extension in order for the project to be completed by December 31, 2025 which was granted by the CPUC.

In October 2023, the City issued a Request for Proposal (RFP No. 23-042) requesting consultant services that would assess Banning’s existing broadband infrastructure and internet service to the City, potential demand for high-speed broadband service, identify potential costs, opportunities and challenges associated with expanding the City’s existing fiber optic network. On December 12, 2023, the City Council approved Resolution 2023-196, approving a Professional Services Agreement to CTC Technology and Energy in the amount of $220,000.

JUSTIFICATION:

The final report from CTC Technology and Energy is attached to this staff report. Some of the key findings from the feasibility report include:

According to the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) National Broadband data map (https://broadbandmap.fcc.gov/home), the City is well covered by wireline fixed broadband through the current internet service providers (ISPs) either cable internet through Charter Spectrum and fiber optic internet through Frontier Communications.

Of the City’s 11,654 locations (residential and commercial) 278

99.78 percent of these locations are adequately “served” by wireline broadband internet through a minimum of 100 Mbps download speeds and 20 Mbps upload speeds (100/20).

91.2% percent of these locations are adequately “served” by licensed fixed wireless services such as T-Mobile or Verizon Wireless networks.

A majority of the survey results (73%) expressed a level of satisfaction with their current ISPs, with the main reasons for survey respondents being unsatisfied including internet service being too slow, too expensive and unreliable.

Additional survey results expressed support (53%) in the City bringing in a new broadband competitor and additional support (52%) that the City should establish a City-run broadband service.

Overall, there was very little support (11%-19%) in survey respondents wanting to pay additional fees to support this service.

The total estimated cost to construct a citywide Fiber to the Premise (FTTP) network connecting to a new network hub site in the Western area of the City and the existing Corporate Yard will cost approximately $25.4 million while the expansion of a FTTP to the proposed new developments, as well as those currently under construction would cost an additional $19.1 million for a total of $44.5 million.

It is staff's opinion that it is not feasible, at this time, for the City to pursue the construction of a city owned and operated FTTP network.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Accepting the final broadband feasibility report will allow the City to be reimbursed for a grant contract amount of $220,000.

ALTERNATIVES:

Provide staff with an alternative direction.

BUDGETED?:

No
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT:

No
ATTACHMENTS:

1. Banning Final Report_Final Draft.pdf
279
Columbia Telecommunications Corporation
301.933.1488 • www.ctcnet.us
Broadband Feasibility Study
Prepared for the City of Banning, California
August 2025
280
City of Banning – Broadband Feasibility Study | FINAL DRAFT | August 2025 ii
Contents
1 Executive summary 1

1.1 Overview 1

1.2 Key findings 2

1.3 Recommendations 3
2 More than 99 percent of locations in Banning are considered served but the City has lower rates of wireline subscription than the state and the U.S. 5

2.1 Key findings 5

2.2 Overview of the broadband market structure 6

2.2.1 Middle-mile market segment 7

2.2.2 Last-mile market segment 8

2.3 The City is almost completely served by broadband service according to FCC data, with 99.78 percent of locations able to obtain service at 100/20 Mbps or higher 9

2.3.1 FCC data show very few unserved and underserved locations; CPUC data are reported on a census block level and show some census blocks as unserved or underserved 10

2.3.2 FCC data show that fiber is available to 10,144 locations or 86.8 percent of the City 14

2.3.3 FCC data show that cable is available to 99.2 percent of locations in the City 16

2.3.4 There are only 14 locations covered by DSL in the City 18

2.3.5 Licensed fixed wireless service is offered in many locations by Verizon, T-Mobile, and GeoLinks 20 2.3.6 Competition is fairly robust in the City, and many locations have a choice of technology and provider at speeds of 100/20 Mbps or higher 25

2.3.7 CPUC data show many locations interspersed throughout the City that are eligible for CASF funding 29

2.4 American Community Survey data reveal that low-income Banning residents face gaps in subscriptions and device ownership 31

2.4.1 Banning lags state and national adoption rates for residential internet subscriptions, and lowincome residents face the most significant gaps 31

2.4.2 Most Banning households that lack wireline internet access earn less than $75,000 per year 32

2.5 When the ACP was available, 68.2 percent of potentially eligible households in Banning enrolled in the program 35

2.6 Other than for eligible low-income households, internet service pricing plans start at $39.99 per month for fiber service 36

2.6.1 Cable service pricing 36

2.6.2 Fiber service pricing 37

2.6.3 Licensed fixed wireless service pricing 38

2.6.4 DSL service pricing 41

2.7 Speed test data 42
3 A residential phone survey confirmed that though there are few gaps in access, some were concerned about the quality of their internet service and there was moderate support for a City-run network 44
281
City of Banning – Broadband Feasibility Study | FINAL DRAFT | August 2025 iii

3.1 Survey key findings 44

3.1.1 Nearly all (94 percent of) respondents reported having internet access, but some expressed concerns about the quality of service and price 44

3.1.2 Though all demographic groups state that they have access to enough computers, lowerincome households would have more difficulty replacing a lost or broken device 45

3.1.3 Respondents were somewhat in favor of the City bringing in new broadband service, but few were willing to support this effort through additional fees 45

3.2 Survey process 46

3.2.1 Data collection and response 46

3.2.2 Data analysis 46

3.2.3 Survey methodology 47

3.3 Survey results 47

3.3.1 Reasons for not having internet service 50

3.3.2 Internet service cost 50

3.3.3 Satisfaction with home internet service 52

3.3.4 Computing devices used in household 54

3.3.5 Respondent opinions about additional broadband service 56

3.3.6 Respondent information 62
4 An online survey shows that local businesses have limited satisfaction with their commercial broadband services 68
5 Banning stakeholders suggest that broadband subscriptions can be costly, and many residents experience drops in service 70

5.1 Government stakeholders 70

5.2 Education and library stakeholders 70

5.3 Tribal stakeholders 71

5.4 Business stakeholders 72

5.5 Internet service provider stakeholders 73
6 Constructing a citywide fiber-to-the-premises network would cost an estimated $25.4 million, with an additional estimated cost of $19.1 million to expand to surrounding areas 74

6.1 FTTP network architecture 76

6.2 Assumptions and criteria 81

6.3 Estimated deployment costs 85

6.3.1 Cost estimate for the primary citywide fiber-to-the-premises design 85

6.3.2 Cost estimates to expand the primary network design to surrounding areas 86 7 The City could consider multiple business models for the development of a citywide fiber-to-thepremises network 97

7.1 Business and ownership models 97

7.1.1 Under Business Model 1, the City fully funds, owns, and operates the citywide FTTP network 97

7.1.2 Under Business Model 2, the City would develop and maintain dark fiber and contract with an ISP to operate the network and deliver service 97
282
City of Banning – Broadband Feasibility Study | FINAL DRAFT | August 2025 iv

7.1.3 Under Business Model 3, the City would separately contract with an entity to develop and maintain the active infrastructure and allow retail competition over the network 98

7.1.4 Under Business Model 4, a private entity handles all aspects and generally also owns the infrastructure, but there is the possibility for the City to retain long-term ownership 98

7.1.5 Risk allocation varies across the four models 99

7.1.6 Business model conclusions and recommendations 99

7.2 Funding opportunities 100

7.2.1 Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) Program 100

7.2.2 SB 156 funding 102

7.2.3 California Advanced Services Fund (CASF) 103
Appendix A: Survey instruments – residential phone survey and online business survey 105 Phone survey 108
Online business survey 116
Appendix B: Data sources 105
FCC Broadband Data Collection 105
CPUC broadband mapping 106
Appendix C: Stakeholder outreach questions 120
Internet service providers 120
Education and libraries 120
All other stakeholder meetings (business and economic development, government, Tribal) 123 283
City of Banning – Broadband Feasibility Study | FINAL DRAFT | August 2025 v
Figures
Figure 1: Unserved and underserved locations based on FCC data .....................................................11 Figure 2: Unserved locations based on CPUC annual collected broadband data .................................12 Figure 3: Underserved locations based on CPUC annual collected broadband data ............................13 Figure 4: Fiber coverage based on FCC data.......................................................................................14 Figure 5: Fiber coverage based on CPUC annual collected broadband data.........................................15 Figure 6: Cable coverage based on FCC data .....................................................................................16 Figure 7: Cable coverage based on CPUC annual collected broadband data .......................................17 Figure 8: DSL coverage based on FCC data ........................................................................................18 Figure 9: DSL coverage based on CPUC annual collected broadband data ..........................................19 Figure 10: Verizon fixed wireless coverage by speed based on FCC data .............................................21 Figure 11: T-Mobile fixed wireless coverage by speed based on FCC data ...........................................22 Figure 12: GeoLinks fixed wireless coverage by speed based on FCC data ..........................................23 Figure 13: Licensed fixed wireless coverage based on CPUC data.......................................................24 Figure 14: Service areas by ISP at 100/20 or higher based on FCC data................................................25 Figure 15: Locations served by more than one provider at 100/20 or higher based on FCC data ............26 Figure 16: Census blocks served by only one provider at 100/20 or higher based on CPUC data ...........27 Figure 17: Census blocks with two or more providers at 100/20 or higher based on CPUC data ............28 Figure 18: CASF priority eligible locations in Banning .........................................................................30 Figure 19: Internet subscription rates in Banning compared to the state and nation ............................32 Figure 20: No wireline internet and mobile-only subscriptions compared to the state and nation.........32 Figure 21: Wireline internet subscription rates by income level..........................................................33 Figure 22: Device ownership rates in Banning compared to the state and nation .................................34 Figure 23: Lack of devices in Banning compared to state and national averages ..................................34 Figure 24: Speed test distribution by speed .......................................................................................43 Figure 25: Speed test distribution by ISP............................................................................................43 Figure 26: Age of respondents compared to City of Banning adult population......................................47 Figure 27: Home internet services subscribed to ...............................................................................48 Figure 28: Home internet service provider by respondent age.............................................................49 Figure 29: Included in monthly service cost.......................................................................................50 Figure 30: Included in monthly service cost by respondent age ..........................................................51 Figure 31: Monthly price for bundled or unbundled internet service by service provider.......................51 Figure 32: Monthly price for internet service by type of bundle ...........................................................52 Figure 33: Overall satisfaction with home internet service by internet service provider .......................52 Figure 34: Overall satisfaction with home internet service by household income ................................53 Figure 35: Reasons for lack of satisfaction with home internet service................................................53 Figure 36: Frequency of slowdowns or drops in home internet service ................................................54 Figure 37: Length of time to replace a lost or damaged computer .......................................................55 Figure 38: Opinions about the role(s) for local government (mean ratings)...........................................56 Figure 39: Opinions about the role(s) for local government.................................................................56 Figure 40: Agreement that the City should establish its own broadband service by respondent age .....57 Figure 41: Agreement that the City should establish its own broadband service by household income.57 Figure 42: Would consider a new internet service by current internet service provider ........................58 Figure 43: Would consider a new internet service by household income .............................................58 Figure 44: Amount willing to pay for new internet service by internet service provider .........................59 Figure 45: Amount willing to pay for new internet service by household income ..................................59 Figure 46: Willingness to pay temporary annual fee for five years (mean ratings).................................60 Figure 47: Willingness to pay temporary annual fee for five years .......................................................61 284
City of Banning – Broadband Feasibility Study | FINAL DRAFT | August 2025 vi
Figure 48: Willingness to pay temporary annual fee for five years by household income ......................61 Figure 49: Age of respondents and City of Banning adult population ...................................................62 Figure 50: Gender identity.................................................................................................................64 Figure 51: Total household size .........................................................................................................64 Figure 52: Children in household.......................................................................................................65 Figure 53: Annual household income.................................................................................................65 Figure 54: Race/ethnicity ..................................................................................................................66 Figure 55: Race/ethnicity in household..............................................................................................66 Figure 56: Other demographic groups................................................................................................67 Figure 57: Importance of aspects of respondent’s business internet service.......................................69 Figure 58: Satisfaction with internet by aspects of respondent’s business service ..............................69 Figure 59: City of Banning hub site and backbone design....................................................................78 Figure 60: High-level fiber-to-the-premises architecture....................................................................79 Figure 61: XGS-GPON fiber network with a buried service drop...........................................................80 Figure 62: Backbone and primary FDC network design overview and sample of FTTP detail..................82 Figure 63: Conceptual design for the fiber-to-the-premises network...................................................83 Figure 64: High-level fiber-to-the-premises architecture and components..........................................84 Figure 65: Atwell high-level design overview ......................................................................................88 Figure 66: The Airport high-level design overview ...............................................................................90 Figure 67: Mission Heights high-level design overview .......................................................................92 Figure 68: Rancho San Gorgonio high-level design overview ...............................................................94 Figure 69: SC-TMP high-level design overview....................................................................................96 Figure 70: Three elements of the FTTP network ..................................................................................97 285
City of Banning – Broadband Feasibility Study | FINAL DRAFT | August 2025 vii
Tables
Table 1: Broadband market overview...................................................................................................7 Table 2: Served, unserved, and underserved location counts from FCC data.........................................9 Table 3: Served locations by technology and provider........................................................................10 Table 4: ACP enrollment in Banning over one year (2023–2024) ...........................................................36 Table 5: Charter cable pricing ...........................................................................................................37 Table 6: Frontier fiber pricing ............................................................................................................38 Table 7: T-Mobile licensed fixed wireless pricing ...............................................................................39 Table 8: Verizon licensed fixed wireless pricing .................................................................................39 Table 9: GeoLinks fixed wireless pricing ............................................................................................41 Table 10: Frontier DSL service pricing................................................................................................42 Table 11: Home internet usage by key demographics .........................................................................48 Table 12: Have enough computers to efficiently connect to the internet by key demographics.............54 Table 13: Demographic profile of respondents by age ........................................................................63 Table 14: High-level estimated cost summary for the proposed primary design ..................................75 Table 15: High-level estimated cost summary for expansion to surrounding areas ..............................76 Table 16: Estimated costs for the primary design ...............................................................................86 Table 17: Estimated costs for Atwell..................................................................................................87 Table 18: Estimated costs for the Airport area....................................................................................89 Table 19: Estimated costs for Mission Heights ...................................................................................91 Table 20: Estimated costs for Rancho San Gorgonio...........................................................................93 Table 21: Estimated costs for SC-TMP ...............................................................................................95 Table 22: Overview of four business model options............................................................................98 Table 23: Risk allocation across business model options...................................................................99 Table 24: Projects pending CASF funding in Riverside County........................................................... 104 286
City of Banning – Broadband Feasibility Study | FINAL DRAFT | August 2025 1 1 Executive summary

1.1 Overview
In early 2024, the City of Banning engaged CTC Technology & Energy to research and prepare a Broadband Feasibility Study. The City received a Local Agency Technical Assistance (LATA) grant from the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to complete this work. In its application, the City stated, “A goal of the City and BEU [Banning Electric Utility] is to develop a comprehensive range of water, wastewater and utility services and facilities that adequately, cost-effectively, and safely meet the immediate and long-term needs of the City.” It also stated, “BEU is uniquely qualified to expand fiber optic on its existing utility pole infrastructure.”1 Banning is poised for significant growth over the next several years, with City officials expecting that the population will reach 60,000 within the next five to 10 years. 2 The City approved four major housing projects in 2020, yielding more than 8,000 new homes. The City is also in the process of negotiating a development agreement for 202 acres of warehouse and distribution facilities and a 30-acre movie studio near the airport, which would result in an additional 8,000 new jobs.3 The City believes that improving broadband connectivity will be a critical piece of its long-term growth strategies. In exploring the potential of providing broadband service through its own fiber optic infrastructure, the City aims to 1) provide an option for high-speed connectivity to unserved and underserved areas, 2) offer a future proof option for infrastructure to pending new developments, and 3) leverage its existing network to provide a full spectrum of utilities to all residents and businesses.

This report contains findings compiled from the following project tasks:
• High-level design and cost estimate of a citywide fiber-to-the-premises (FTTP) network to inform decision-making about building new, City-owned broadband infrastructure; • A statistically valid phone survey to assess services to which residents subscribe, their use of these services, their perceptions about service quality and slowdowns, and their receptiveness to a new broadband service;
• An online survey conducted with the businesses in the City to gather data on their existing broadband service and future needs;
• An analysis of existing conditions of the broadband market in the City of Banning based on publicly available data sources;
• An analysis of potential business models for the City to consider with varying levels of risk and operational control; and
• An evaluation of the various funding opportunities for the City and their parameters. 1 City of Banning Application to CPUC for LATA funding; September 1, 2022. 2 City of Banning Application to CPUC for LATA funding; September 1, 2022. 3 City of Banning Application to CPUC for LATA funding; September 1, 2022. 287
City of Banning – Broadband Feasibility Study | FINAL DRAFT | August 2025 2 The City of Banning is located in Riverside County, California, in the San Gorgonio Pass region. The population as of July 1, 2022, was estimated at 30,683.4 The median household income in the City was $54,083 in 2022 as compared to $84,505 for Riverside County as a whole. The percentage of people in poverty is also higher in the City (18.9 percent) as compared to Riverside County as a whole (10.9 percent).5 This report uses the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) definitions of “served,” “underserved,” and “unserved.” “Served” areas are those with broadband service at a minimum of 100 Mbps download speeds and 20 Mbps upload speeds (100/20). “Unserved” areas are those in which speeds are below 25 Mbps download and 3 Mbps upload (25/3). “Underserved” areas receive speeds between 25 and 100 Mbps download and between 3 and 20 Mbps upload. 6 Speeds are reported by internet service providers on an annual basis and results are consolidated in the FCC National Broadband Map.7

1.2 Key findings
This report presents the following key findings:
• The total estimated cost to construct a citywide FTTP network in the areas of PD West and Corporate Yard is approximately $25.4 million or $2,065 per passing (including a 20 percent contingency). This includes the backbone, distribution plant, and other associated fixed costs. The distribution network electronics, subscriber drops, and customer premises equipment (CPE) are estimated at $6.8 million. At a take-rate of 40 percent, the total cost per customer would be approximately $6,500.
• Fiber expansion to developing areas would cost approximately $19.1 million. If the City were to build out the network to the new developments in the surrounding areas of Atwell, the Airport, Mission Heights, Rancho San Gorgonio, and SC-TMP, the total additional cost would be approximately $19.1 million or $1,893 per passing for the backbone, distribution plant, and other associated fixed costs. Assuming a 40 percent take-rate and separate fiber builds for each of these areas, the cost per customer ranges from $4,055 for Rancho San Gorgonio to $149,443 for the Airport project.
• Survey responses indicate low levels of support from residents to supplement the costs of building a new FTTP network. The residential survey found that 25 percent of respondents strongly agreed and 28 percent agreed that the City should work to bring in a new private broadband provider to compete with existing providers. Additionally, 30 percent strongly agreed and 22 percent agreed that the City should establish a City-run broadband service to compete with existing providers. However, survey respondents expressed little support for paying temporary fees to support construction of networks. On a scale where 1 4 “QuickFacts: Banning city, California,” U.S. Census Bureau, https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/banningcitycalifornia,US/PST045223. 5 “QuickFacts: Banning city, California,” U.S. Census Bureau, https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/banningcitycalifornia,US/PST045223. 6 FCC press release, March 14, 2024, https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-401205A1.pdf. 7 National Broadband Map, https://broadbandmap.fcc.gov/home. 288
City of Banning – Broadband Feasibility Study | FINAL DRAFT | August 2025 3 signifies “Strongly Opposed” and 5 signifies “Strongly Support,” the mean level of support for paying household construction subsidies (above the cost of service) was 2.1 at $200 per year for five years and 1.4 at $800 per year for five years. • According to FCC data, the City is well covered by wireline cable through Charter Spectrum and fiber through Frontier Communications, with 99.78 percent of locations served. T-Mobile also covers a little more than half of the City with fixed wireless services, but its speeds are inconsistent. The residential phone survey revealed that 94 percent of households have home internet, including 60 percent that subscribe to Charter and 24 percent that subscribe to Frontier.
• According to American Community Survey (ACS) data, wireline subscription rates among the residents of the City of Banning lag behind those of the state and the country.

Further, 16.1 percent of households report relying on a mobile service plan only. The high subscription rate of eligible households to the Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP), when it was in effect, indicates a gap in affordability for many residents now that the program has ended.
• Device utilization is high but there are gaps in lower-income households. According to the residential phone survey, 93 percent of households have enough computers in good, working order to efficiently connect to the internet for their daily needs. However, in households with less than $50,000 annual income, 11 percent would not be able to replace a lost or broken computer in the foreseeable future, and nearly one-half would need a month or longer to replace it.

1.3 Recommendations
This report makes the following recommendations:
• The City should consider the California Advanced Services Fund (CASF) Infrastructure Program as the most likely source of funding for the City. The full cost of the fiber buildout would not be covered by any existing funding sources. Although the final map of locations eligible for funding through the Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment Program (BEAD) has not yet been released, based on the current maps there are only 26 eligible underserved or unserved locations in the City. However, many locations interspersed throughout the City are eligible for CASF infrastructure grants. The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) has not provided details on when the next grant window for this program will open. As a point of reference, $32.7 million was allocated to the CASF Broadband Infrastructure Fund for fiscal year 2023-24. See Section 7.2.3 for more detail. • The City may want to conduct a market sounding with service providers in the area to gauge their receptivity to further building out their fiber infrastructure. Since 86.8 percent of locations in the City are already covered by fiber, mainly from Frontier, it would be unlikely that other providers would choose to build in those areas. However, it would be valuable to gather their perspectives on building fiber to the currently undeveloped areas including Atwell, the Airport, Mission Heights, Rancho San Gorgonio, and SC-TMP. 289
City of Banning – Broadband Feasibility Study | FINAL DRAFT | August 2025 4 • As a next step, the City could develop a financial model comparing capital expenditures (capex) and operating expenditures (opex) with projected revenues. The model could show different scenarios to achieve a desired internal rate of return (IRR) based on takerates, average revenue per user (ARPU), and level of investment by the City. • If the City decides to move forward with broadband planning, the City Council may want to determine the level of spending it is willing to commit to building out broadband infrastructure. Based on survey responses and income levels in the City, it is unlikely residents would agree to subsidize the construction of the network (see Section 3.3.5).

During its next budgeting cycle, the City could decide allocation levels for its own investment before reaching out to potential partners.
• The City may choose to issue a request for proposals (RFP) to solicit interest from internet service providers (ISP) for the outlying areas that are under development. The ISPs may choose to propose varying levels of investment and ownership in the network based on their business models and their plans for expansion. The financial modeling proposed above could inform the requirements of the RFP. See Section 7.1 for more detail on business models.
• The City may consider a subsidy program to fill the gap left behind by the ACP. Given that wireline subscription rates in the City are below the state and national rates, additional funding to households lacking a wireline connection could encourage higher adoption rates.

The cost of the program for the 16.1 percent of mobile-only subscribers would be approximately $712,000 per year, assuming a $30 per month subsidy. 290
City of Banning – Broadband Feasibility Study | FINAL DRAFT | August 2025 5 2 More than 99 percent of locations in Banning are considered served but the City has lower rates of wireline subscription than the state and the U.S.

The following sections analyze the availability and pricing of residential broadband services within the City of Banning as well as relevant metrics of digital equity, including data on internet adoption and device ownership.

2.1 Key findings
• There are very few residential addresses in the City that are unserved or underserved.8 Of the 11,680 Broadband Serviceable Locations9 (BSL) in the City, 99.78 percent are served at speeds of 100 Megabits per second (Mbps) download and 20 Mbps upload (100/20) or more. Fiber, cable, DSL, and fixed wireless technologies all have a presence in the City, with multiple providers serving many locations.
• Banning has nearly ubiquitous wireline cable coverage from Charter, and considerable fiber coverage from Frontier. The FCC National Broadband Map10 reports that Charter Spectrum offers cable broadband to nearly every address in the City (11,592 locations or

99.2 percent of all locations). Additionally, Frontier offers fiber service to 10,024 locations (or

85.8 percent of the total) in Banning. With this, wireline broadband competition is pervasive throughout the City.
• For locations that have access to broadband, Frontier’s lowest fiber service tier may be more cost-effective than other, less reliable, internet services in the City. Frontier’s 200/200 Mbps service tier is priced at $39.99 per month without any promotional discounts.

Alternatively, Charter’s Internet 100 tier, with speeds up to 100/10 Mbps, is priced at $59.99 monthly. Similarly, T-Mobile and Verizon Wireless’s fixed wireless services are priced at $65 and $60, respectively, without any discounts applied.
• Just over half of all Banning households have access to T-Mobile’s fixed wireless services, but not everyone has consistent access to served speeds. T-Mobile, and to a lesser extent Verizon Wireless, offer fixed wireless home services (leveraging their networks previously used only for mobile service). These services provide some competition to Charter and Frontier in areas of the City, but with the significant caveat that performance of these networks is dependent on individual subscribers’ distance from wireless facilities, and the data speeds may be cut (or “throttled”) by these providers during times of congestion. FCC data show that approximately 56.9 percent of (or 6,653) Banning locations have access to 8 Under current federal definitions, unserved areas are defined as those lacking access to fixed broadband at 25 Mbps download and 3 Mbps upload (25/3). Underserved areas are defined as those lacking access to fixed broadband at 100/20 Mbps.
9 The FCC Broadband Data Collection reporting uses the term “broadband serviceable location (BSL)” to represent address level information. A BSL is shown as a single served address for locations that may have more than one household or unit, as is the case with duplexes and multi-tenant or apartment buildings. In cases where an address or location is serviced by a single provider or technology, an assumption can be made that the same is true for all households or units at that location. For the definition of a Broadband Serviceable Location, see: https://help.bdc.fcc.gov/hc/en-us/articles/16842264428059-About-the-FabricWhat-a-Broadband-Serviceable-Location-BSL-Is-and-Is-Not. 10 “Broadband Data Collection,” FCC, https://www.fcc.gov/BroadbandData. 291
City of Banning – Broadband Feasibility Study | FINAL DRAFT | August 2025 6 licensed fixed wireless services, and 34.3 percent of (or 4,004) Banning locations have access to Verizon’s fixed wireless services.
• Banning lags the state and the nation in wireline internet subscription rates, and a high percentage of residents rely on mobile-only service. According to American Community Survey (ACS) data11, internet adoption rates in Banning are lower than the state and nation, with an estimated 3,946 (or 35.6 percent of) households lacking a subscription to residential wireline internet service. Of those households without wireline service, roughly 1,784 households (or 16.1 percent of all households in Banning) are solely using a cellular internet service at home.
• When it was in effect, the Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP) helped to fill the gap for a large portion of low-income households. ACP analysis revealed that overall in Banning, 68.2 percent of eligible households subscribed to the $30 per month subsidy as of January 31, 2024. Additionally, the City’s rate of enrollment in the ACP had increased by 26.9 percentage points over the final year of the program. The sunsetting of the ACP indicates a considerable obstacle for broadband affordability in the City.

2.2 Overview of the broadband market structure
As a foundation for the analysis presented in the remainder of this report, this section briefly describes the structure of the broadband market, including deployed infrastructure, market participants, and customer segments.

The broadband market is divided by types of providers, types of services based on the use of infrastructure, and types of customers served. In larger metropolitan areas, long-haul fiber bridges the distance between cities, often connecting at data centers. The relevant infrastructure for this analysis consists of:

1. Middle-mile fiber, which delivers enterprise-level services to large businesses, institutions, and government clients in a local or regional area and connects wireline and wireless lastmile infrastructure with the long-haul network through “backhaul” services.

2. Last-mile infrastructure (wireline (e.g., fiber) or wireless), which delivers consumer-grade services to residences and business-class services to small businesses.

Table 1 summarizes the broadband market for middle- and last-mile market segments. The sections below describe the middle-mile and last-mile segments specific to Banning in more detail. 11 “American Community Survey Data,” U.S. Census Bureau https://www.census.gov/programssurveys/acs/data.html. 292
City of Banning – Broadband Feasibility Study | FINAL DRAFT | August 2025 7 Table 1: Broadband market overview

2.2.1 Middle-mile market segment
Middle-mile service providers connect last-mile ISPs (both wired and wireless) to the backbone of the internet at major data centers and other interconnection points. Middle-mile services include the following:
• Transport is a service from one point to another over a middle-mile network that enables the buyer to transport its traffic between its local network and a major network hub; this is a highend service, often with service-level guarantees, that is used by more sophisticated ISPs. • Backhaul is a type of service sold to other ISPs (primarily wireless) to “backhaul” their internet traffic from the neighborhood to the internet backbone; these are high-end services that may be delivered over lit or dark fiber.
• Commodity internet bandwidth enables local ISPs to put their traffic on the internet. It can be purchased locally (at the interconnection point with the middle-mile provider), offering simplicity for the local ISP, or at a data center (with transport services then necessary to move the bandwidth between the data center and the ISP’s local network). • Interconnection services allow ISPs to connect to the internet backbone and to each other; these include access to data centers or field exchange points; rack space at data centers; and access to splice enclosures or other interconnection elements. • Dark fiber enables sophisticated ISPs to use their own electronics to “light” and operate fiber strands along a middle-mile route; the dark fiber owner offers physical maintenance guarantees and splicing and related services to access the fiber.

A range of entities provide middle-mile services, though remote locations and cost effectiveness may create challenges for different types of last-mile ISPs to connect to these middle-mile providers:
293
City of Banning – Broadband Feasibility Study | FINAL DRAFT | August 2025 8 • Incumbents operate large networks to support their own last-mile operations, both fixed and mobile; these providers sometimes sell middle-mile services to competitors. Frontier has very limited middle-mile facilities where it serves as the local incumbent last-mile provider.
• Infrastructure companies deploy network infrastructure assets and bundle access to those assets including fiber, wireless towers, and “small cells” on street furniture to sell middlemile services to ISPs. Companies like Crown Castle, CENIC, Extenet, and CenturyLink are considered infrastructure companies.
• Enterprise ISPs may or may not deploy their own network infrastructure, but their primary business model is to sell very high-end middle-mile (and last-mile) services to sophisticated users, including last-mile ISPs, multi-location business enterprises, and large anchor institutions.
• Platform companies such as Google and Meta own massive long-haul and middle-mile fiber networks to support their own needs; in limited cases, these assets are also used to deliver services to ISPs.

2.2.2 Last-mile market segment
ISPs offer a range of data services over the last-mile portions of their networks to residences, businesses, institutions—and to other ISPs. Last-mile services and customer types include the following:
• Consumer-grade internet services are sold to households and cost-conscious small businesses; these are “best efforts” rather than guaranteed levels of service, which is indicated by advertisements for speeds “up to” a certain level. • Business-class internet services are sold to many smaller and mid-size businesses that require a bit more support than households; these are still “best efforts,” but they may include symmetry (i.e., matching download and upload speeds), lower levels of oversubscription (meaning the infrastructure will be supporting fewer customers), and prioritization at the ISP’s network operations center.
• Enterprise-level services are the services sold to sophisticated institutions and businesses that require “quality of service” guarantees; these are high-end services that include pointto-point transport and point-to-point dark fiber.

Key last-mile market players include incumbent, competitive, and mobile/fixed wireless providers:
• Incumbent providers include “telephone companies” such as AT&T offering voice and internet over legacy copper, digital subscriber line (DSL), or in some cases fiber infrastructure, as well as cable companies such as Comcast or Charter Spectrum offering internet over legacy cable TV infrastructure and some newly built fiber infrastructure in core areas.
• Competitive providers include fiber-to-the-premises (FTTP) providers like Frontier Communications as well as fixed wireless providers such as T-Mobile or Verizon.

Competitive providers include smaller, niche, and community providers as well as larger 294
City of Banning – Broadband Feasibility Study | FINAL DRAFT | August 2025 9 enterprises and they market to a mix of residential and business customers. These providers often have to “overbuild”12 the legacy incumbent networks to bring newer technology into the area.
• Mobile companies such as AT&T, Verizon, and T-Mobile also offer “fixed wireless” services in the last mile. As these incumbent providers expand their 5G networks over the next several years, and resellers (or Mobile Virtual Network Operators) such as Tracfone market services over those networks, faster and more reliable fixed wireless may become increasingly available.

2.3 The City is almost completely served by broadband service according to FCC data, with 99.78 percent of locations able to obtain service at 100/20 Mbps or higher
This section provides an overview of the areas of broadband coverage reported by providers in the City of Banning, according to the most recent data available from the FCC’s Broadband Data Collection data, and the California Public Utilities Commission’s (CPUC) interactive coverage map data as of the development of this report. A full explanation of data sources used for this report is included in Appendix A.

According to FCC data, 99.78 percent of locations in the City are reported to be served at speeds of 100/20 Mbps or greater. Counts of served, unserved, and underserved locations are listed in Table

2. 13 Counts of locations served by each technology separately, and by each individual ISP, are shown in Table 3. Charter and Frontier serve 99.2 percent of locations and 85.8 percent of locations, respectively.

Table 2: Served, unserved, and underserved location counts from FCC data14 Broadband Serviceable
Locations (BSL)15
Percentage of
Broadband Serviceable
Locations (BSL)16
Served 11,654 99.78%
Underserved 8 0.07%
Unserved 18 0.15%
Total locations 11,680 100%
12 Overbuilding in the telecom industry is defined as utilizing an existing telecommunications operator’s network (which includes telco and cable networks) to provide service to customers. For example, a fiber network may be built in the same right-of-way or on an aerial pole line where an existing network exists, whether it is copper, coax, or wireless. 13 Section 2.3 also analyzes service availability data from the CPUC. Comparable tables are not provided for these data because the CPUC data do not provide counts of served, unserved, and underserved locations. 14 FCC BDC Data, June 30, 2023 (updated February 21, 2024). 15 A location may include two or more housing units per address. 16 The FCC Broadband Data Collection reporting uses the term “broadband serviceable location (BSL)” to represent address-level information. A BSL is shown as a single served address for locations that may have more than one household or unit, as is the case with duplexes and multi-tenant or apartment buildings. In cases where an address or location is serviced by a single provider or technology, an assumption can be made that the same is true for all households or units at that location. 295
City of Banning – Broadband Feasibility Study | FINAL DRAFT | August 2025 10 Table 3: Served locations by technology and provider Broadband Serviceable
Locations (BSL) served
Percentage of
Broadband Serviceable
Locations*
Cable
Charter 11,592 99.2%
Fiber
Charter 120 1.0%
Frontier 10,024 85.8%
DSL
Tpx 9 0.07%
Frontier 5 0.04%
Licensed Fixed Wireless
T-Mobile 6,653 56.9%
Verizon 4,004 34.3%
GeoLinks 62 0.53%
*Note: some locations may be able to subscribe to more than one service. See Figure 15.

2.3.1 FCC data show very few unserved and underserved locations; CPUC data are reported on a census block level and show some census blocks as unserved or underserved Figure 1 shows the unserved and underserved locations throughout the City based on FCC National Broadband Map data. Eighteen locations are reported as unserved, and eight locations are reported as underserved.

The CPUC uses its own map for reporting unserved and underserved locations. The latest version of these data is as of December 31, 2021, and the data are also carrier reported.17 The CPUC data are reported on a census block level only, and do not give exact location counts. However, they do show a greater portion of the City as unserved as compared to the FCC data; this may be due to one or two unserved locations determining the status of an entire census block. Figure 2 shows unserved census blocks and Figure 3 shows underserved census blocks based on CPUC data. 17 “CPUC Annual Collected Broadband Data,” CPUC, https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/industries-andtopics/internet-and-phone/broadband-mapping-program/cpuc-annual-collected-broadband-data. 296
City of Banning – Broadband Feasibility Study | FINAL DRAFT | August 2025 11 Figure 1: Unserved and underserved locations based on FCC data 297
City of Banning – Broadband Feasibility Study | FINAL DRAFT | August 2025 12 Figure 2: Unserved locations based on CPUC annual collected broadband data 298
City of Banning – Broadband Feasibility Study | FINAL DRAFT | August 2025 13 Figure 3: Underserved locations based on CPUC annual collected broadband data 299
City of Banning – Broadband Feasibility Study | FINAL DRAFT | August 2025 14 2.3.2 FCC data show that fiber is available to 10,144 locations or 86.8 percent of the City Banning is well covered by fiber, primarily from Frontier. As shown in Table 3, Charter serves 120 addresses in the City with fiber as well. However, this service seems to be primarily for businesses.

Figure 4 shows fiber coverage from FCC data and Figure 5 shows residential fiber coverage from Frontier based on CPUC data. Again, since CPUC data are only shown on a census block level, they may give the appearance of greater coverage than if they were mapped on a location level.

Figure 4: Fiber coverage based on FCC data
300
City of Banning – Broadband Feasibility Study | FINAL DRAFT | August 2025 15 Figure 5: Fiber coverage based on CPUC annual collected broadband data 301
City of Banning – Broadband Feasibility Study | FINAL DRAFT | August 2025 16 2.3.3 FCC data show that cable is available to 99.2 percent of locations in the City As cited in Table 3, 99.2 percent of locations in the City are covered by cable offered by Charter Communications according to FCC data. Figure 6 shows the dispersion of cable coverage; areas that do not show a cable presence have few to no Broadband Serviceable Locations (BSL). See Appendix A for more information.

Figure 6: Cable coverage based on FCC data
302
City of Banning – Broadband Feasibility Study | FINAL DRAFT | August 2025 17 Figure 7 shows cable coverage as reported by the CPUC by census block.

Figure 7: Cable coverage based on CPUC annual collected broadband data 303
City of Banning – Broadband Feasibility Study | FINAL DRAFT | August 2025 18 2.3.4 There are only 14 locations covered by DSL in the City DSL is a legacy technology built on the original telephone service copper network. DSL is sparse throughout the City, and speeds generally fall into the unserved or underserved category. The only exception is Tpx, which reports providing business service with speeds of up to 400/100 Mbps, but in very few locations. Figure 8 shows DSL coverage according to FCC data. Figure 9 shows DSL coverage that is reported in CPUC data—a very different picture from the FCC map. As discussed, the CPUC records its data by census block, meaning that even if there is only one location within that block that is served, it will show the entire census block as covered.

Figure 8: DSL coverage based on FCC data
304
City of Banning – Broadband Feasibility Study | FINAL DRAFT | August 2025 19 Figure 9: DSL coverage based on CPUC annual collected broadband data 305
City of Banning – Broadband Feasibility Study | FINAL DRAFT | August 2025 20 2.3.5 Licensed fixed wireless service is offered in many locations by Verizon, T-Mobile, and GeoLinks
Licensed fixed wireless technology is often used in low-density rural areas that do not have wireline broadband options due to the high cost to build. However, fixed wireless options are also available in urban areas in addition to wireline infrastructure, as demonstrated in the City of Banning. Most fixed wireless solutions will not offer the quality of service that the most advanced wired providers can provide. Even as wireless technologies continue to advance, they will still lag behind the performance of fiber optics, simply because of the relative challenge in providing high-capacity connections wirelessly over long distances.18
According to FCC data, Verizon, T-Mobile, and GeoLinks all have fixed wireless coverage areas within the City: See Figure 10, Figure 11, and Figure 12. Verizon and T-Mobile have the greatest number of served locations at speeds of 100/20 or higher.
18 The analysis of wireless options presented in this report assumes a benchmark capacity of 1 Gbps per location. That is not to say that lower bitrate systems may be insufficient for some locations, nor would it suggest that higher bitrates would not be desirable for others at some time in the future. 306
City of Banning – Broadband Feasibility Study | FINAL DRAFT | August 2025 21 Figure 10: Verizon fixed wireless coverage by speed based on FCC data 307
City of Banning – Broadband Feasibility Study | FINAL DRAFT | August 2025 22 Figure 11: T-Mobile fixed wireless coverage by speed based on FCC data 308
City of Banning – Broadband Feasibility Study | FINAL DRAFT | August 2025 23 Figure 12: GeoLinks fixed wireless coverage by speed based on FCC data 309
City of Banning – Broadband Feasibility Study | FINAL DRAFT | August 2025 24 Fixed wireless coverage according to CPUC data also differs, showing coverage mainly by Southern California Telephone Company and small pockets of Verizon coverage (see Figure 13).

Figure 13: Licensed fixed wireless coverage based on CPUC data 310
City of Banning – Broadband Feasibility Study | FINAL DRAFT | August 2025 25 2.3.6 Competition is fairly robust in the City, and many locations have a choice of technology and provider at speeds of 100/20 Mbps or higher
While there is a mix of technologies offered by multiple providers in the City, there is a fair amount of competition for service at 100/20 Mbps or higher. Frontier and Charter are the dominant providers, and there are some areas of overlap between their coverage areas (see Figure 14).

Figure 14: Service areas by ISP at 100/20 or higher based on FCC data 311
City of Banning – Broadband Feasibility Study | FINAL DRAFT | August 2025 26 Figure 15 shows areas where there is competition in the City at speeds of 100/20 Mbps or more according to FCC data. Dot points show where end users have a choice of provider. Market competition usually leads to lower prices and better customer service in an area.

Figure 15: Locations served by more than one provider at 100/20 or higher based on FCC data 312
City of Banning – Broadband Feasibility Study | FINAL DRAFT | August 2025 27 Figure 16 shows census blocks where end users have access to only one wireline provider at 100/20 Mbps or higher based on CPUC data. These particular census blocks are served by either Charter or Frontier.

Figure 16: Census blocks served by only one provider at 100/20 or higher based on CPUC data 313
City of Banning – Broadband Feasibility Study | FINAL DRAFT | August 2025 28 Figure 17 shows competition at a census block level, based on CPUC data. Although this figure does not indicate what providers are in competition across each census block, Figure 14 provides additional context to show that households with access to service from two wireline providers are predominantly receiving both Charter and Frontier.

Figure 17: Census blocks with two or more providers at 100/20 or higher based on CPUC data 314
City of Banning – Broadband Feasibility Study | FINAL DRAFT | August 2025 29 2.3.7 CPUC data show many locations interspersed throughout the City that are eligible for CASF funding
The California Advanced Services Fund (CASF) is a long-standing grant program administered by the CPUC. A few items of note regarding the CASF program include:
• CASF-eligible projects are determined by the CPUC’s California Interactive Broadband Map19 as opposed to the FCC Broadband National Map.
• “Unserved” for CASF projects is defined as areas with no fixed facility-based broadband provider offering service of 25/3 Mbps or higher, with priority funding for areas with less than 10/1 Mbps.
• Applicants are required to deploy infrastructure that provides service at a minimum of 100/20 Mbps (compared to BEAD projects that must deliver 100/100 Mbps or more). • CASF grants do not favor fiber as highly as BEAD grants, and there is no Extremely High Cost per Location Threshold to determine the type of technology to be deployed.

Figure 18 shows the areas in the City of Banning that are eligible for CASF funding. Section 7.2 of this report provides additional details about specific funding opportunities, both state and federal. 19 “California Interactive Broadband Map,” CPUC, https://www.broadbandmap.ca.gov/. 315
City of Banning – Broadband Feasibility Study | FINAL DRAFT | August 2025 30 Figure 18: CASF priority eligible locations in Banning 316
City of Banning – Broadband Feasibility Study | FINAL DRAFT | August 2025 31 2.4 American Community Survey data reveal that low-income Banning residents face gaps in subscriptions and device ownership
Data on internet adoption and device ownership are important to fully understand the nature of the digital divide in the City of Banning. American Community Survey (ACS) data show that Banning lags the state and national averages in internet adoption and device ownership. While high-speed broadband services are available throughout Banning, many households do not subscribe or own devices necessary to fully use these services—and those lacking subscriptions or devices are largely lower-income households.

The ACS is conducted yearly and nationwide by the U.S.Census Bureau and consists of self-reported data. However, it is important to note a five-year sampling period (2017–2022) 20 that may not accurately illustrate the most recent trends.

An analysis of ACS data found that in Banning:
• 35.6 percent of households21 lack a wireline internet subscription. • 80.1 percent of households that lack a wireline internet subscription also earn less than $75,000 annually.
• 24.7 percent of households do not own a desktop or laptop computer device.

2.4.1 Banning lags state and national adoption rates for residential internet subscriptions, and lowincome residents face the most significant gaps According to ACS data, 83.4 percent of Banning households subscribe to residential internet services. Most of these subscriptions (64.4 percent) are via wireline technology (fiber, cable, or DSL).

The City lags both the state and nation in internet subscriptions of any kind, and in wireline internet subscriptions, as shown in Figure 19.
20 The U.S. Census Bureau does not release data for communities the size of Banning for sampling periods less than five years in order to keep margins of error to a minimum. 21 According to the U.S. Census Bureau, a household consists of “all the people who occupy a housing unit … A household includes the related family members and all the unrelated people, if any, such as lodgers, foster children, wards, or employees who share the housing unit.” https://census.gov/programssurveys/cps/technical-documentation/subjectdefinitions.html#:~:text=A%20household%20includes%20the%20related,who%20share%20the%20housing %20unit.
317
City of Banning – Broadband Feasibility Study | FINAL DRAFT | August 2025 32 Figure 19: Internet subscription rates in Banning compared to the state and nation Internet adoption rates in Banning are lower than the state and nation, and an estimated 3,946 households (35.6 percent) lack residential wireline internet service (Figure 20). Of those households without wireline service, roughly 1,784 (or 16.1 percent of all households) are solely using a cellular internet service at home. Lower-income households may use their cellular connection and smartphone in lieu of paying for a more robust connection to the home. However, reliance on cellular service is insufficient for all members of a household to participate in the digital economy, because data caps and service throttling prevent strong, consistent connections.

Figure 20: No wireline internet and mobile-only subscriptions compared to the state and nation

2.4.2 Most Banning households that lack wireline internet access earn less than $75,000 per year In Banning, most of the households without an internet subscription are lower-income households.

While 89.5 percent of households making more than $75,000 subscribe to wireline internet services,

83.40%

64.40%

91.60%

77.40%

88.50%

73.30%

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

80.00%

90.00%
100.00%
Internet of any kind Wireline internet
Banning CA USA

35.6%

16.1%

22.6%

10.3%

26.7%

11.5%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

40.0%
No wireline internet Cell only
Banning CA USA
318
City of Banning – Broadband Feasibility Study | FINAL DRAFT | August 2025 33 the rate of wireline subscription is only 81.4 percent for households making between $20,000 and $75,000, and 75.9 percent for those earning less than $20,000. 22 Figure 21 shows subscription rates
by income bracket.

Figure 21: Wireline internet subscription rates by income level

2.4.2.1 Banning lags both state and national device ownership rates, and 8.1 percent of households lack device access
ACS data show that 91.9 percent of households in Banning own at least one computing device (which could be a desktop/laptop, tablet, or mobile phone, or a combination of these devices), a figure that lags both the state and national figures. Access to affordable devices that meet a household’s needs is a critical element of the effort to expand broadband access to a community. Looking across different types of devices, including desktop, laptop, smartphone, and tablet ownership, the data show that some residents may struggle with access to devices (see Figure 22 and Figure 23). 22 For both of these income brackets, some households are likely able to afford service yet choose not to purchase it because they simply are not interested. For this reason, a 100 percent subscription rate does not represent the ideal or goal rates for any given population.

75.9%

81.4%

89.5%

65.0%

70.0%

75.0%

80.0%

85.0%

90.0%

95.0%
< $20,000 $20,000 - $74,000 ≥ $75,000
319
City of Banning – Broadband Feasibility Study | FINAL DRAFT | August 2025 34 Figure 22: Device ownership rates in Banning compared to the state and nation Figure 23 shows that 8.1 percent of Banning households lack a device, indicating a barrier to full digital inclusion. In addition, 24.7 percent of households (2,730 in total) in Banning do not have a laptop or desktop, leaving these residents to rely on smartphones or tablets and making it difficult to fully engage in the digital economy or successfully learn and work from home.

Figure 23: Lack of devices in Banning compared to state and national averages Additional device barriers may exist even after device ownership numbers are improved. For example, for households with many individuals, a single desktop or laptop will likely not deliver sufficient capacity for all members of the household to meaningfully use the internet. Further, ownership of a device is not sufficient to ensure full access to the benefits of broadband. Many

75.3%

81.1%

57.4%

2.2%

83.7%

91.5%

67.2%

3.2%

79.3%

88.2%

63.4%

2.6%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%
100.0%
Desktop/ Laptop Smartphone Tablet Other
Banning CA USA

8.1%

24.7%

4.1%

16.3%

6.0%

20.7%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%
No device No desktop/ laptop
Banning CA USA
320
City of Banning – Broadband Feasibility Study | FINAL DRAFT | August 2025 35 households may require further digital education, skills training, or access to technical support to maximize the benefits of these services.

2.5 When the ACP was available, 68.2 percent of potentially eligible households in Banning enrolled in the program
The Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP), which provided a monthly subsidy toward some home internet subscriptions, presented an opportunity for many low-income residents to purchase a quality broadband subscription more affordably.

As of January 31, 2024, estimates based on FCC data reported by ZIP code showed that 5,253 households in Banning’s zip code of 92220 were receiving the ACP subsidy—which is 68.2 percent of the estimated 7,703 eligible households in the City. 23 Additionally, Banning’s rate of enrollment in
the ACP had increased by 26.9 percentage points over the final year of the program. This noticeable increase may reflect the positive results of local efforts designed to increase enrollment when the program was available. These data are shown in Table 4.

While these enrollment rates are high, 2,450 households in Banning were eligible to enroll in the program but did not. Lack of enrollment among eligible households might be due to a lack of awareness of the program and a challenging sign-up process; many eligible residents may need to go to a library or other location with internet access just to begin the registration process. As a result, many local governments and other digital divide stakeholders conduct active outreach to households that may be eligible to make them aware of the program and assist in the sign-up process.

Now that the program has ended, residents may still need help enrolling in low-cost programs offered by the City’s broadband providers, as described in the next section. While outreach may increase enrollment in some areas, some residents that are eligible for low-cost programs may be uninterested or unwilling to participate. This could be the case if a household cannot afford internet even if it receives a discount or subsidy, feels no need to use the internet, receives satisfactory service from a cellular provider, receives free internet access through a communal source, or does not want to apply for any future federal subsidy program—which can be a particular concern for recent immigrants.
23 Estimates of total number of eligible households are calculated by The Benton Institute for Broadband & Society through its ACP tool, using 2021 American Community Survey reported data on household income, food stamp recipiency, Medicaid recipiency, supplemental security income, and public assistance income. “The Affordable Connectivity Program Enrollment Performance Tool,” Benton Institute for Broadband & Society, https://www.benton.org/acp_tool.
321
City of Banning – Broadband Feasibility Study | FINAL DRAFT | August 2025 36 Table 4: ACP enrollment in Banning over one year (2023–2024) Date
Eligible
households
enrolled
Enrolled
households24
Eligible
households
Unenrolled eligible
households
January 2023 41.3% 3,184 7,703 4,519
June 2023 49.0% 3,778 7,703 3,925
January 2024 68.2% 5,253 7,703 2,450

2.6 Other than for eligible low-income households, internet service pricing plans start at $39.99 per month for fiber service
An analysis of all ISP data plans was completed as part of this study. Pricing for cable, fiber, fixed wireless, and DSL plans are detailed below.

Those who do not qualify for a discounted plan must pay a minimum of $39.99 per month after the promotional price expires for reliable wired broadband speeds. For example, residents can obtain initial pricing from Frontier of $29.99 per month for its 200/200 Mbps fiber service, but these prices rise following the promotional period. For existing wireless options, Banning residents seeking home internet services can pay a minimum of $60 per month, which can be as low as $35 per month for Verizon 5G Home customers during the initial promotional period.

2.6.1 Cable service pricing
Charter is the only cable provider in the City, with near-ubiquitous coverage servicing 99.2 percent of all (or 11,592) Banning locations. Table 5 shows the service plans offered by Charter in the City.

The Internet Assist program is available only to qualifying low-income households. 24 “ACP Enrollment and Claims Tracker,” USAC, data as of February 2024, https://www.usac.org/about/affordable-connectivity-program/acp-enrollment-and-claims-tracker/. 322
City of Banning – Broadband Feasibility Study | FINAL DRAFT | August 2025 37 Table 5: Charter cable pricing
Name of
plan
Speed
(download/
upload)
Monthly nonpromotional
price
Minimum
contract
Additional
information
Internet
Assist 30/4 Mbps $24.99 No
contract
Includes modem
and Wi-Fi router.

Wi-Fi extender for
$5/month.

Installation fee of
$65 (or self-install
fee of $30). Only
available to
qualifying
households.

Internet
100 100/10 Mbps $59.99 No
contract
Free internet
modem, no data
caps, free
unlimited access
to nationwide outof-home Wi-Fi, free
antivirus software.

Installation fee of
$65 (or self-install
fee of $30). Wi-Fi
extender for
$7/month.

Internet 300/10 Mbps $84.99 No
contract
Internet
Ultra 500/20 Mbps $104.99 No
contract
Internet
Gig 1000/35 Mbps $114.99 No
contract

2.6.2 Fiber service pricing
Frontier is the fiber provider with the most coverage in Banning, serving 10,024 locations, or 85.8 percent of locations. Table 6 shows the pricing for Frontier fiber service. Charter also serves a small number of locations with fiber (120 locations, which represent one percent of all locations in the City of Banning), but research indicates it is business service only. 323
City of Banning – Broadband Feasibility Study | FINAL DRAFT | August 2025 38 Table 6: Frontier fiber pricing
Name of
plan Speed
Monthly nonpromotional
price
Minimum
contract
Additional
information
Fiber 200 200/200 Mbps $39.99 No
contract Includes a router.
$50 equipment
restocking fee
when
unsubscribed from
plan
Fiber 500 500/500 Mbps $59.99 No
contract
Fiber 1 Gig 1/1 Gbps $79.99 No
contract
Fiber 2 Gig 2/2 Gbps $109.99 No
contract
Fiber 5 Gig 5/5 Gbps $164.99 No
contract
Includes a router.
$100 expert
installation fee
waived if
subscribed for
more than 12
months. $50
equipment
restocking fee
when
unsubscribed from
plan

2.6.3 Licensed fixed wireless service pricing
In Banning, T-Mobile and Verizon offer the most licensed fixed wireless coverage, at 6,653 locations (56.9 percent coverage) and 4,004 (34.3 percent coverage) locations, respectively. T-Mobile’s fixed wireless service is tied to a data amount, while Verizon’s tiers are based on typical speeds rather than data amounts. GeoLinks offers service to 62 locations (less than one percent of coverage) and offers dedicated fixed wireless for each individual location at speeds up to 30 Mbps download.

Table 7 details the fixed wireless offerings of T-Mobile. Speeds vary from 75 to 245 Mbps download and 15 to 31 Mbps upload depending on a household’s proximity to either the 5G or 4G LTE network. 324
City of Banning – Broadband Feasibility Study | FINAL DRAFT | August 2025 39 Table 7: T-Mobile licensed fixed wireless pricing
Name of
plan Speed*
Monthly nonpromotional
price
Minimum
contract
Additional
information
Internet
Lite
Average speeds:
72 to 245 Mbps
(download)
15 to 31 Mbps
(upload)
Varies based
on data
amount:
$65 (100 GB)
$165 (300 GB)
No
contract
required
$35 one-time
device connection
fee
*Speeds are estimated and rounded. Quoted download speeds were 76-245 Mbps with claims that 50 percent of customers experience speeds in this range and the remaining customers could receive service faster or slower than this range. Upload speeds were quoted as 21-40 Mbps.

Table 8 shows Verizon Wireless’ 5G Home Internet service plans. Verizon does not require users to subscribe to Verizon Wireless mobile plans to get these home internet options, but significant discounts are only available if the fixed wireless service is bundled with a Verizon mobile plan and handset. Through the Verizon Forward program, eligible customers can receive a discount of up to $30 per month on any Verizon Wireless package.

Table 8: Verizon licensed fixed wireless pricing
Name of
plan Speed
Monthly nonpromotional
price
Minimum
contract
Additional
information
5G Home
Internet
(Verizon
Forward
Program)
Can be applied to
any 5G package
$30 discount
to regular
price of
subscriptions
Eligibility includes Federal Pell
Grant recipient within the last
year, qualification for Lifeline
(through participation in SNAP or
Medicaid, or income 125% below
FPL), and WIC. Wireless router
included; available to existing
customers. Can use Lifeline
discount if applicable.
5G Home
Typical speeds:
50 to 85 Mbps
upload, 5 to 10
Mbps download
(maximum 100
Mbps download)
Discounted
price
$35/month*;
regular price
$60/month
No contract
required
Includes router.

Late fee applies.

Requires deposit
depending on
credit.
5G Home
Plus
Typical speeds:
85 to 250 Mbps
download, 10 to
20 Mbps
download
(maximum 300
Mbps download)
Discounted
price
$45/month*;
regular price
$80/month
No contract
required
Includes router,
whole-home Wi-Fi,
Verizon Cloud. Late
fee applies.

Requires deposit
depending on
credit.
*Discount applies when subscribed to Verizon Wireless plan 325
City of Banning – Broadband Feasibility Study | FINAL DRAFT | August 2025 40 GeoLinks is a provider that primarily offers enterprise fixed wireless and fiber services to rural and suburban customers across California, Nevada, and Arizona. Although business services are its focus, GeoLinks does offer residential fixed wireless services in some locations, including Banning.

Because GeoLinks typically offers services to rural and suburban customers, its residential operations differ significantly to other licensed fixed wireless providers mentioned in this report. A representative at the company indicated that customers do not share service infrastructure with other households, meaning that each customer would receive their own dedicated service. This individualized approach is the reason for GeoLinks’ high cost of residential service and $1,500 installation fee, as shown in Table 9. Although Figure 12 above shows a handful of customers in Banning as reported in the FCC data, the high cost of residential service suggests that these may be enterprise customers.
326
City of Banning – Broadband Feasibility Study | FINAL DRAFT | August 2025 41 Table 9: GeoLinks fixed wireless pricing
Name of
plan Speed
Monthly nonpromotional
price
Minimum
contract
Additional
information
Residential
Pricing 3M 3/3 Mbps
$574.50/month*
$383/month**
$152/month***
No
contract
required
Dedicated fixed
wireless. $1,500
installation fee
waived with
contract.

Residential
Pricing 5M 5/5 Mbps
$688.50/month*
$459/month**
$165/month***
No
contract
required
Dedicated fixed
wireless. $1,500
installation fee
waived with
contract.

Residential
Pricing
10M
10/10 Mbps
$961.50/month*
$641/month**
$221/month***
No
contract
required
Dedicated fixed
wireless. $1,500
installation fee
waived with
contract.

Residential
Pricing
15M
15/15 Mbps
$1,036.50/month*
$691/month**
$276/month***
No
contract
required
Dedicated fixed
wireless. $1,500
installation fee
waived with
contract.

Residential
Pricing
20M
20/20 Mbps
$1,201.50/month*
$801/month**
$304/month***
No
contract
required
Dedicated fixed
wireless. $1,500
installation fee
waived with
contract.

Residential
Pricing
25M
25/25 Mbps
$1,284/month*
$856/month**
$359/month***
No
contract
required
Dedicated fixed
wireless. $1,500
installation fee
waived with
contract.

Residential
Pricing
30M
30/30 Mbps
$1,407/month*
$938/month**
$392/month***
No
contract
required
Dedicated fixed
wireless. $1,500
installation fee is
waived with
contract.
*Month-to-month with no contract
**With a 12-month contract
***With a 36-month contract

2.6.4 DSL service pricing
Frontier offers DSL service over its legacy copper telephone wires with speeds up to 115 Mbps download and up to 7 Mbps download. Actual speeds will vary by household, but the cost of service 327
City of Banning – Broadband Feasibility Study | FINAL DRAFT | August 2025 42 is $74.99 for all DSL customers. Please note that there are only 14 locations in the City that are currently served by DSL.

Table 10: Frontier DSL service pricing
Name of
plan Speed
Monthly nonpromotional
price
Minimum
contract
Additional
information
Frontier
Internet Up to 115/7 Mbps $74.99
No
contract
required
$100 installation
fee

2.7 Speed test data
Speed tests were conducted by Banning residents at varying locations across the City. 25 The goal of
these speed tests was to evaluate whether the actual speeds residents receive fall into the categories of unserved, underserved, or served.

Of the 47 speed tests completed, fifteen locations recorded service speeds below 100/20 Mbps—14 of which were receiving speeds that are considered underserved, and one location that was considered unserved (see Figure 56 below).

In total, 25 tests were conducted for Spectrum, 14 were conducted for Frontier, and one test each was conducted for T-Mobile, Verizon Wireless, and AT&T. Overall, Frontier recorded upload speeds that were significantly higher than the averages from other providers, with an average result of 181/157 Mbps. Providers that followed at served speeds were T-Mobile (averaging 325/25 Mbps), Spectrum (averaging 308/21 Mbps), and AT&T (averaging 303/20 Mbps). Results for Verizon Wireless demonstrated an average speed that would be deemed underserved, at 78/13 Mbps (Figure 25). 25 Residents conducted Speed Tests on their personal devices, by accessing the the Ookla Speed Test software available on the Ookla webpage, https://www.speedtest.net/. 328
City of Banning – Broadband Feasibility Study | FINAL DRAFT | August 2025 43 Figure 24: Speed test distribution by speed
Figure 25: Speed test distribution by ISP
329
City of Banning – Broadband Feasibility Study | FINAL DRAFT | August 2025 44 3 A residential phone survey confirmed that though there are few gaps in access, some were concerned about the quality of their internet service and there was moderate support for a City-run network

3.1 Survey key findings
As part of this study, CTC conducted a survey of residents on a wide range of broadband-related topics. The survey was intended to gather data about the types of services to which residents subscribe, their use of these services, their perceptions about service quality and slowdowns, and residents’ level of interest in the City taking steps to address any gaps.

Key findings are presented thematically in three subsections: broadband access gaps, device utilization gaps, and demand for additional internet service options. These and other findings are presented in greater detail in the following sections.

3.1.1 Nearly all (94 percent of) respondents reported having internet access, but some expressed concerns about the quality of service and price
The survey found few gaps in access to residential internet services, but some residents had concerns about the quality of the services. The following are key findings:
• Almost all respondents have internet access. Ninety-four percent of households have home internet, including 60 percent that subscribe to Charter and 24 percent that subscribe to Frontier. Usage is relatively high across all demographic groups, except those in lowerincome households (earning below $50,000 per year), where 88 percent have a home internet subscription.
• Most subscribers have internet-only service. Fewer than one-half (44 percent) of households that subscribe to broadband services bundle internet service with television and/or phone service. Charter customers are more likely than Frontier customers to bundle their internet service with other services (53 percent versus 24 percent). • Some home internet subscribers have concerns about the quality of their service.

Although 44 percent of subscribers are very satisfied and 29 percent are somewhat satisfied, a sizeable segment of subscribers is either dissatisfied (11 percent) or neither satisfied/dissatisfied (15 percent) with their service. Primary reasons for lower satisfaction levels include service is too slow (49 percent), service is too expensive (44 percent), and service drops from time to time (42 percent).
• Some customers experience slowdowns or drops in service weekly or more often. Seven percent reported that they experience slowdowns in service at least once daily, and 12 percent experience this at least once per week. Another 23 percent experience slowdowns or drops monthly, and 22 percent experience them annually. Only 36 percent of subscribers reported that they never experience slowdowns or drops in service. 330
City of Banning – Broadband Feasibility Study | FINAL DRAFT | August 2025 45 3.1.2 Though all demographic groups state that they have access to enough computers, lowerincome households would have more difficulty replacing a lost or broken device Most respondents have access to computers and other devices, particularly among higher-income households. The following are key findings:
• Almost all respondents have access to computers in the home. Ninety-three percent of households have enough computers in good, working order to efficiently connect to the internet for their daily needs. This is true for various demographic groups. • Mostrespondents at all income levels would be able to replace non-working computers within a day (32 percent) or a week (26 percent). However, eight percent of respondents would not be able to replace their computer in the foreseeable future, and approximately one-third of respondents would need one month or longer to replace it. • Respondents in lower-income households face bigger gaps in maintaining and replacing their computers, compared with those in higher-income households. Specifically, 11 percent of those in households earning less than $50,000 annually would not be able to replace a lost or broken computer in the foreseeable future, and nearly one-half would need a month or longer to replace it.

3.1.3 Respondents were somewhat in favor of the City bringing in new broadband service, but few were willing to support this effort through additional fees Many respondents would like to have a choice of an additional internet service provider in the City, but few would be willing to pay a temporary annual fee to make it feasible for a second provider to establish a new best-in-class private or public broadband service. The following are key findings:
• Overall, there is moderate support for City action to foster broadband competition.

Twenty-five percent of respondents strongly agreed the City should work to bring in a new private broadband provider to compete with existing providers, and 28 percent agreed.

Additionally, 30 percent strongly agreed that the City should establish a City-run broadband service to compete with existing providers, and 22 percent agreed. However, 62 percent of households with annual income of less than $50,000 strongly agreed or agreed that the City should establish this type of service.
• Respondents expressed little support for paying temporary fees to support construction of networks. Starting new broadband services in the City would likely require significant subsidies to become financially feasible. On a scale where 1 signifies “Strongly Opposed” and 5 signifies “Strongly Support,” the mean level of support for paying household construction subsidies (above the cost of service) was 2.1 at $200 per year for five years and

1.4 at $800 per year for five years. Meanwhile, 47 percent of respondents were strongly opposed to paying a temporary annual fee of $200 per year for five years. The amounts provided were round numbers meant to provide a sense of willingness to pay construction subsidies. Though they are based on ranges of subsidies seen in some other jurisdictions, they do not reflect an analysis of subsidies that might be required for the City of Banning. 331
City of Banning – Broadband Feasibility Study | FINAL DRAFT | August 2025 46 3.2 Survey process
In close coordination with the City of Banning, CTC managed the survey project, including development of the questionnaire, sample selection, data collection, survey data analysis, and reporting of results.

CTC developed the draft survey instrument based on the project objectives and provided it to City staff for review and comment. The City provided revisions and approved the final questionnaire. (A copy of the survey instrument is included in Appendix B).

3.2.1 Data collection and response
The survey was conducted by telephone between April 8 and April 18, 2024. CTC purchased approximately 4,765 phone numbers of City of Banning residents from Data Axle, a commercial database company. The numbers included landlines and mobile numbers. The original project scope specified a target return of 300 completed surveys. CTC’s call center ambassadors conducted the outreach and obtained 309 completed surveys.

Margin of error is a common measure of statistical validity or accuracy. The margin of error for aggregate results at the 95 percent confidence level for 309 responses is ±5.5 percent. That is, for questions with valid responses from all survey respondents, one would be 95 percent confident (19 times in 20) that the survey responses are within ±5.5 percent of the target population as a whole.

The margin of error is larger for various subgroups.

3.2.2 Data analysis
The survey responses were entered into SPSS26 software and the entries were coded and labeled.

SPSS databases were formatted, cleaned, and verified prior to the data analysis. The survey data was evaluated using techniques in SPSS including frequency tables, cross-tabulations, and means functions. Statistically significant differences between subgroups of response categories are highlighted and discussed where relevant.

The survey responses were weighted based on the age of the respondent, household income, and race/ethnicity. Because younger individuals, those in lower-income households, and racial/ethnic minorities were less likely to respond, the weighting corrects for the potential bias based on the age, household income, and ethnicity of the respondent. In this manner, the results should more closely reflect the opinions of the City’s adult population.

Figure 26 summarizes the survey respondents’ age category as compared to the overall population distributions. Survey respondents were underrepresented in the 18 to 39 age category. 26 Statistical Package for the Social Sciences, http://www-01.ibm.com/software/analytics/spss/. 332
City of Banning – Broadband Feasibility Study | FINAL DRAFT | August 2025 47 Figure 26: Age of respondents compared to City of Banning adult population

3.2.3 Survey methodology
The results presented in this section are based on analysis of information provided by 309 residents of the City of Banning, from a total of 11,069 households in the City. 27 Results are representative of
the set of households with a 95 percent confidence interval and a margin of error of ±5.5 percent at the aggregate level.

Unless otherwise indicated, the percentages reported are based on the “valid” responses from those who provided a definite answer and do not reflect individuals who said “don’t know” or otherwise did not supply an answer because the question did not apply to them. Key statistically significant results (p ≤ 0.05) are noted where appropriate.

3.3 Survey results
Respondents were asked about internet connection types, including home internet service (e.g., DSL, cable modem, fiber, and fixed wireless), as well as cost and overall satisfaction with their service. This information provides valuable insight into residents’ need for internet and related communications services. Respondents may have opted to skip over some questions in the survey, making it possible for certain response totals to equal less than 309.

Sixty percent of households subscribe to Charter home internet service, as shown in Figure 27.

Twenty-four percent of households have Frontier internet service, and one percent have T-Mobile.

Just six percent of households do not have any type of home internet service. Nine percent of respondents indicate they used “other” home internet services, including Verizon and Starlink.

Some said they did not know.
27 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2018-2022 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates. 2%
13%
17%
28%
39%
17%
14% 14%
19%
36%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
18-29 30-39 40-49 50-64 65+
Survey Respondents Census Population
333
City of Banning – Broadband Feasibility Study | FINAL DRAFT | August 2025 48 Figure 27: Home internet services subscribed to
Table 11 highlights the saturation of home internet service subscriptions by key demographic groups. In total, 94 percent of households have home internet service. Usage is relatively high across all demographic groups. However, 88 percent of households earning under $50,000 annually and 91 percent with an ethnic/racial minority household member (most of whom are Hispanic/Latino in this survey) have internet service, at levels that are slightly lower than the overall sample.

Table 11: Home internet usage by key demographics

Total
internet
usage
Weighted
Count
TOTAL 94% 309
Respondent age
Under age 40 ........................................................................................................... 94% 94 40-49....................................................................................................................... 96% 44 50-64....................................................................................................................... 91% 56 65+.......................................................................................................................... 94% 111 Gender
Male ........................................................................................................................ 94% 139 Female .................................................................................................................... 94% 167 Race/ethnicity
White, non-Hispanic ................................................................................................ 97% 106 Racial/ethnic minority.............................................................................................. 91% 175 Household size
One HH member...................................................................................................... 91% 60 Two HH members .................................................................................................... 100% 98 Three HH members.................................................................................................. 87% 54 Four + HH members................................................................................................. 93% 95 334
City of Banning – Broadband Feasibility Study | FINAL DRAFT | August 2025 49 Total
internet
usage
Weighted
Count
Children in household
No children in HH .................................................................................................... 94% 197 Children in HH ......................................................................................................... 93% 111 Income
Less than $50,000.................................................................................................... 88% 129 $50,000 to $99,999 .................................................................................................. 98% 89 $100,000 or more..................................................................................................... 95% 60 Other demographic groups
Veteran.................................................................................................................... 99% 48 Individual with a disability ........................................................................................ 98% 72 Primarily non-English speaker.................................................................................. 60% 16 Formerly incarcerated individual.............................................................................. 100% 2 Actively enrolled in K-12 school or college or other higher education ........................ 91% 96 A student in college or other higher education .......................................................... 100% 37 Although levels of subscription to home internet service are high across various age cohorts, seniors were somewhat more likely than younger respondents to report subscribing to Charter and less likely to report subscribing to Frontier (see Figure 28). Specifically, 82 percent of respondents ages 65 and older said their household subscribes to Charter (compared to 45 percent of respondents under age 40).

Figure 28: Home internet service provider by respondent age Under 40 40-49 50-64 65+
Charter Spectrum 45% 44% 54% 82%
Frontier 35% 33% 29% 8%
T-Mobile 4% 0% 2% 0%
Other home internet 10% 19% 6% 4%
I don't subscribe 6% 4% 9% 6%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
335
City of Banning – Broadband Feasibility Study | FINAL DRAFT | August 2025 50 3.3.1 Reasons for not having internet service
Respondents without home internet service were asked why they do not subscribe. Please note that this is a small sample size (19 respondents), and it is difficult to conclude larger trends based on the number of respondents in this category. Twelve out of 19 said they cannot afford it, or it is not worth the cost. Three respondents said they do not know how to use the internet. Six respondents cited a variety of other reasons, including using the internet at another location.

Those without home internet service were also asked where or how they regularly access the internet outside of the home. Ten of 19 respondents said they access the internet at a neighbor or friend’s house, while seven use a mobile hotspot provided by a school, library, or other party. Six respondents said they do not access the internet at any location.

3.3.2 Internet service cost
Respondents were asked to give the cost of their home internet service, as well as indicate whether or not they bundle internet with TV and/or phone service. Overall, 44 percent of subscribers bundle their internet service, including 16 percent with both cable and phone services (see Figure 29).

Charter customers are more likely than Frontier customers to bundle their internet service with other services (53 percent versus 24 percent).

Figure 29: Included in monthly service cost
As shown in Figure 30, saturation of bundled communication services is correlated with respondent age. Sixty-four percent of subscribers ages 65 and older bundle their internet with other services, compared with one-fourth of those under age 40.
56%
47%
76%
19%
23%
13%
9%
7%
9%
16%
23%
2%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Total Internet Providers
Charter Spectrum
Frontier
Internet only Internet and cable Internet and phone Internet, cable, and phone 336
City of Banning – Broadband Feasibility Study | FINAL DRAFT | August 2025 51 Figure 30: Included in monthly service cost by respondent age Figure 31 shows the cost of communications services for the leading providers for all service bundles. Overall, three in 10 respondents who are internet subscribers pay $100 or more per month for their communications services (bundled or unbundled). Counts for specific bundles are relatively small when broken out by provider. Charter customers pay slightly more for services compared with Frontier customers, but they are also more likely to bundle services.

Figure 31: Monthly price for bundled or unbundled internet service by service provider Four in 10 subscribers with internet-only service pay $70 to $99 per month, and 33 percent pay $40 to $69 per month, as shown in Figure 32. In comparison, 55 percent of those who bundle internet, cable, and phone services pay $100 or more per month (versus 13 percent of those with internetonly service). 75%
64%
58%
36%
5%
17%
22%
29%
9%
10%
7%
10%
11%
9%
13%
25%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Under 40
40-49
50-64
65+
Internet only Internet and cable Internet and phone Internet, cable, and phone 15% 19%
11%
26%
26%
25%
28% 25% 39%
31% 30% 25%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Total Internet Providers Charter Spectrum Frontier
$100 or more
$70 - $99
$40 - $69
Less than $40
337
City of Banning – Broadband Feasibility Study | FINAL DRAFT | August 2025 52 Figure 32: Monthly price for internet service by type of bundle

3.3.3 Satisfaction with home internet service
Subscribers were asked to evaluate their overall level of satisfaction with their home internet service.

As shown in Figure 33, 44 percent of subscribers are very satisfied with their service, and 29 percent are somewhat satisfied. A small segment of subscribers is either dissatisfied to some extent (11 percent) or neither satisfied nor dissatisfied (15 percent) with their service, with only three percent being very dissatisfied. The difference in satisfaction ratings between Charter and Frontier customers is not statistically significant.

Figure 33: Overall satisfaction with home internet service by internet service provider Satisfaction with home internet service by household income is illustrated in Figure 34. More than one-half of subscribers earning at least $50,000 per year said they are very satisfied with their internet service, compared with one-fourth of those in lower-income households. 15% 9%
33%
33%
20%
23%
4%
40%
7% 21%
8%
13%
64%
56% 55%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Internet only Internet and cable Internet and phone Internet, cable, and phone
$100 or more
$70 - $99
$40 - $69
Less than $40
44% 42% 45%
29% 30% 29%
15% 15% 16%
8% 10% 6%
3% 3% 4%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Total Internet Providers Charter Spectrum Frontier
Very dissatisfied
Somewhat dissatisfied
Neither dissatisfied nor satisfied
Somewhat satisfied
Very satisfied
338
City of Banning – Broadband Feasibility Study | FINAL DRAFT | August 2025 53 Figure 34: Overall satisfaction with home internet service by household income Among those who are not “very satisfied” with their home internet service, the leading reasons cited include that service is too slow (49 percent), service is too expensive (44 percent), and service drops from time to time (42 percent). Additionally, 14 percent cited a lack of choice of providers, and two percent cited data caps. Respondents could select more than one reason.

Figure 35: Reasons for lack of satisfaction with home internet service More than one-third of respondents claim that they do not experience any slowdown or drops in their home internet service, but seven percent experience this at least daily and 12 percent at least weekly (see Figure 36). The difference in frequency reported by Charter customers and Frontier customers is not statistically significant.
25%
55% 52%
41%
20% 25%
19%
15% 17%
11% 7%
4% 4% 6%1%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Less than $50,000 $50,000 to $99,999 $100,000 or more
Very dissatisfied
Somewhat dissatisfied
Neither dissatisfied nor satisfied
Somewhat satisfied
Very satisfied
49%
44%
42%
14%
2%
7%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Service is too slow
Service is too expensive
Service drops from time to time
I don't have a choice of provider
Data caps prevent me from getting access at certain
times
Other reason for lack of satisfaction
Percent of subscribers who are not "very satisfied" with their home internet service
339
City of Banning – Broadband Feasibility Study | FINAL DRAFT | August 2025 54 Figure 36: Frequency of slowdowns or drops in home internet service

3.3.4 Computing devices used in household
Respondents were asked a series of questions about computing devices used in their household and how long it would take to replace a lost or damaged computer. Table 12 highlights the saturation of devices in the household by key demographic groups. In total, 93 percent of respondents believe they have enough computers in good, working order to efficiently connect to the internet. There were no notable differences in this statistic by demographic group.

Table 12: Have enough computers to efficiently connect to the internet by key demographics

Have
enough
computers
Weighted
count
TOTAL 93% 307
Respondent age
Under age 40 ................................................................................................................. 94% 94 40-49............................................................................................................................. 96% 43 50-64............................................................................................................................. 85% 56 65+................................................................................................................................ 96% 111 Gender
Male .............................................................................................................................. 92% 139 Female .......................................................................................................................... 94% 166 Race/ethnicity
White, non-Hispanic ...................................................................................................... 95% 106 Racial/ethnic minority.................................................................................................... 92% 175 Household size
One HH member............................................................................................................ 95% 60 Two HH members .......................................................................................................... 95% 98 Three HH members........................................................................................................ 88% 54 Four + HH members....................................................................................................... 94% 95 7% 6% 10%
12% 14% 8%
23% 24%
16%
22% 20%
27%
36% 36% 39%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Total Internet Providers Charter Spectrum Frontier
I do not have this problem
One or more times per year
One or more times per month
One or more times per week
Daily or more frequently
340
City of Banning – Broadband Feasibility Study | FINAL DRAFT | August 2025 55 Have
enough
computers
Weighted
count
Children in household
No children in HH .......................................................................................................... 94% 197 Children in HH ............................................................................................................... 91% 111 Income
Less than $50,000.......................................................................................................... 90% 129 $50,000 to $99,999 ........................................................................................................ 97% 88 $100,000 or more........................................................................................................... 92% 60 Other demographic groups
Veteran.......................................................................................................................... 92% 48 Individual with a disability .............................................................................................. 90% 72 Primarily non-English speaker........................................................................................ 92% 16 Formerly incarcerated individual.................................................................................... 72% 2 Actively enrolled in K-12 school or college or other higher education .............................. 91% 96 A student in college or other higher education ................................................................ 100% 37 More than one-half of respondents said they could replace their primary computer within a day (32 percent) or a week (26 percent) if it were lost or damaged beyond repair (see Figure 37). Eight percent of respondents would not be able to replace their computer in the foreseeable future, and approximately one-third of respondents would need one month or longer to replace it.

Figure 37: Length of time to replace a lost or damaged computer Respondents in lower-income households would require more time to replace a lost or broken computer compared with those in higher-income households. Specifically, 11 percent of those in households earning less than $50,000 annually would not be able to replace a lost or broken computer in the foreseeable future, and nearly one-half would need a month or longer to replace it. 32%
23%
35% 40%
26%
19%
36% 31%
20%
26%
16% 13%
7%
14%
7% 4% 7%
5%
10%
8% 11%
4% 7%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Total Less than $50,000 $50,000 to
$99,999
$100,000 or more
Not in the foreseeable future
More than 6 months
Within 6 months
Within a month
Within a week
Within a day
341
City of Banning – Broadband Feasibility Study | FINAL DRAFT | August 2025 56 3.3.5 Respondent opinions about additional broadband service Respondents were asked their opinions about the role of local government in providing or promoting broadband communications services within the City of Banning. Figure 38 illustrates the mean ratings, while Figure 39 provides detailed responses to each portion of the question.

Overall, there is some support for expanding provider options in the area. More than one-half of respondents strongly agreed (25 percent) or agreed (28 percent) that the City should work to bring in a new private broadband provider to compete with existing providers. Additionally, more than onehalf of respondents strongly agreed (30 percent) or agreed (22 percent) the City should establish a City-run broadband service to compete with existing providers. Six in 10 respondents either strongly agreed (29 percent) or agreed (30 percent) that the City should take action with respect to broadband infrastructure.

Figure 38: Opinions about the role(s) for local government (mean ratings) Figure 39: Opinions about the role(s) for local government

3.4 3.4

2.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
The City should work to bring in a new private
broadband provider to compete with existing providers
The City should establish its own broadband service to
compete with existing providers
The City should take no action with respect to
broadband infrastructure
Mean Rating: 1= Strongly Disagree and 5=Strongly Agree
11%
16%
29%
14%
10%
30%
22%
21%
19%
28%
22%
11%
25%
30%
11%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
The City should work to bring in a new private
broadband provider to compete with existing providers
The City should establish its own broadband service to
compete with existing providers
The City should take no action with respect to
broadband infrastructure
1 - Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree 5 - Strongly agree 342
City of Banning – Broadband Feasibility Study | FINAL DRAFT | August 2025 57 In general, support for these efforts is somewhat high across various demographic groups. However, middle-age respondents and those in lower-income households had a somewhat higher level of agreement, compared with their counterparts, that the City should establish its own broadband service (see Figure 40 and Figure 41).

Figure 40: Agreement that the City should establish its own broadband service by respondent age Figure 41: Agreement that the City should establish its own broadband service by household income

3.3.5.1 Willingness to purchase and cost of new internet service Respondents were asked to evaluate their likelihood of considering a new internet service, if the City provided multiple options of internet service providers with different levels of service in terms of speed. More than one-half of respondents would be very likely (30 percent) or somewhat likely (26 percent) to consider a new provider, as illustrated in Figure 42. One-fifth of Charter customers said they would be very unlikely to consider a new provider. 26% 31%
40%
27%
13%
40% 26%
21%
35%
12%
10%
19%
4%
13%
12%
13%
22%
3%
12%
19%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Under 40 40-49 50-64 65+
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
37% 31% 25%
25%
17% 30%
24%
19%
13%
3%
16% 10%
10%
16%
23%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Less than $50,000 $50,000 to $99,999 $100,000 or more
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
343
City of Banning – Broadband Feasibility Study | FINAL DRAFT | August 2025 58 Figure 42: Would consider a new internet service by current internet service provider Those earning under $50,000 per year would be somewhat more likely than those in higher-earning households to consider a new internet service. Specifically, 39 percent of those in lower-income households (annual income of less than $50,000) said they would be very likely to consider a new internet service.

Figure 43: Would consider a new internet service by household income Respondents were also asked how much they would be willing to pay on a monthly basis for faster, more reliable internet service under this model. More than four in 10 respondents would be willing to pay $40 to $69 per month, and 20 percent would pay $20 to $39 per month (see Figure 44). Less than one-fourth of respondents would pay $70 or more per month for new internet service. 30% 31% 34%
26% 26% 22%
18% 17% 21%
10% 6%
20%
16% 20%
3%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Total Charter Spectrum Frontier
Very unlikely
Somewhat unlikely
Neutral
Somewhat likely
Very likely
39%
25% 28%
29%
25%
28%
11%
27% 11%
6% 10%
15%
15% 14% 18%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Less than $50,000 $50,000 to $99,999 $100,000 or more
Very unlikely
Somewhat unlikely
Neutral
Somewhat likely
Very likely
344
City of Banning – Broadband Feasibility Study | FINAL DRAFT | August 2025 59 Figure 44: Amount willing to pay for new internet service by internet service provider Nearly one-half of respondents with an annual household income of less than $50,000 would be willing to pay up to $40 a month for new internet service, and four in 10 would be willing to pay $40 to $69 per month (see Figure 45). This indicates strong support for improved service, even in lowincome households.

Figure 45: Amount willing to pay for new internet service by household income

3.3.5.2 Willingness to pay temporary per-household fee
Respondents were asked their level of support or opposition for paying a temporary annual fee at various price levels to establish a new best-in-class private or public broadband service. The mean support rating across this array of questions is illustrated in Figure 46, while detailed responses are illustrated in Figure 47.
15% 14% 11%
20% 23%
19%
42% 43%
42%
18% 15%
23%
5% 4% 5%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Total Charter Spectrum Frontier
$100 or more
$70 - $99
$40 - $69
$20 - $39
$0 - $19
20%
11% 9%
26%
21%
7%
40%
44%
40%
15%
19%
28%
5%
15%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Less than $50,000 $50,000 to $99,999 $100,000 or more
$100 or more
$70 - $99
$40 - $69
$20 - $39
$0 - $19
345
City of Banning – Broadband Feasibility Study | FINAL DRAFT | August 2025 60 Overall, respondents are opposed to paying a temporary fee to help cover construction costs at various price points. The mean rating falls from a high of 2.1 at $200 per year for five years to 1.4 at $800 per year for five years. From another perspective, 47 percent of respondents are strongly opposed to paying a temporary annual fee of $200 per year, increasing to 73 percent strongly opposed at a price point of $800 per year.

Figure 46: Willingness to pay temporary annual fee for five years (mean ratings)

2.1 1.6

1.4 1.0

1.5 2.0

2.5 3.0

3.5 4.0

4.5 5.0
$200/YEAR $400/YEAR $800/YEAR
Mean Rating: 1= Strongly Oppose and
5=Strongly Support
346
City of Banning – Broadband Feasibility Study | FINAL DRAFT | August 2025 61 Figure 47: Willingness to pay temporary annual fee for five years Willingness to pay a temporary annual fee is very low across all income cohorts, as illustrated in Figure 48.

Figure 48: Willingness to pay temporary annual fee for five years by household income 47%
60%
73%
16%
23%
16%
18%
13%
10%
16%
3% 1%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
$200/year $400/year $800/year
5 - Strongly support
4 - Support
3 - Neutral
2 - Oppose
1 - Strongly oppose

2.1 1.5

1.3 2.3

1.8 1.4

2.2 1.6

1.3 1.0

1.5 2.0

2.5 3.0

3.5 4.0

4.5 5.0
$200/year $400/year $800/year
Mean Rating (1=Strongly Oppose and
5=Strongly Support)
Less than $50,000 $50,000 to $99,999 $100,000 or more
347
City of Banning – Broadband Feasibility Study | FINAL DRAFT | August 2025 62 3.3.6 Respondent information
Basic demographic information was gathered from survey respondents and is summarized in this section. Several comparisons of respondent demographic information and other survey questions were provided previously in this report.

As indicated previously in Figure 26 regarding age-weighting, disproportionate shares of survey respondents were in the middle-aged cohorts relative to the City’s adult population as a whole. Only two percent of survey respondents are ages 18 to 29, compared with 17 percent of the adult population, while 28 percent of survey respondents are ages 50 to 64, compared with 19 percent of the population (see Figure 49). The weighted survey results presented in this report are adjusted to account for these differences and to provide results that are more representative of the City’s population, as discussed previously.

Figure 49: Age of respondents and City of Banning adult population28 28 Percentage totals are rounded to whole numbers.
2%
13%
17%
28%
39%
17%
14% 14%
19%
36%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
18-29 30-39 40-49 50-64 65+
Survey Respondents Census Population
348
City of Banning – Broadband Feasibility Study | FINAL DRAFT | August 2025 63 Table 13 highlights the demographic characteristics of survey respondents, broken out by respondent age. Respondents less than age 50 are more likely than older respondents to have children in the household. Younger respondents were also more likely than older respondents to classify a household member as a person of racial or ethnic minority, whereas those ages 50 and are older were more likely to say their household members are white, non-Hispanic. Respondents ages 65 and older are more likely than other respondents to live alone (29 percent) and to have a veteran in the household (30 percent).

Table 13: Demographic profile of respondents by age
<40 40-49 50-64 65+ Total
Gender
Male 34% 52% 43% 54% 45%
Female 66% 48% 57% 46% 55%
Nonbinary 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Weighted count 94 44 54 111 306
Household size
(adults + children)
One HH member 12% 11% 18% 29% 20%
Two HH members 7% 20% 30% 60% 32%
Three HH members 27% 15% 26% 7% 18%
Four + HH members 54% 55% 27% 5% 31%
Weighted count 94 44 56 111 308
Children in
household
No Children in HH 28% 38% 73% 99% 64%
Children in HH 72% 62% 27% 1% 36%
Weighted count 94 44 56 111 308
Household income
Less than $50,000 47% 19% 55% 52% 46%
$50,000 to $99,999 28% 48% 25% 33% 32%
$100,000 to $150,000 25% 33% 20% 15% 22%
Weighted count 84 40 51 99 277
Race/ethnicity
White, non-Hispanic 16% 25% 30% 65% 38%
Racial/ethnic minority 84% 75% 70% 35% 62%
Weighted count 88 40 50 104 282
Other demographics
Veteran 8% 8% 5% 30% 16%
Individual with a disability 13% 18% 37% 28% 23%
Primarily a non-English speaker or
have a language barrier 0% 7% 16% 4% 5%
Formerly incarcerated individual 0% 2% 1% 1% 1%
Actively enrolled in K-12 school 60% 56% 23% 2% 31%
A student in college or other higher
education 19% 24% 6% 4% 12%
Weighted count 94 44 56 111 309
349
City of Banning – Broadband Feasibility Study | FINAL DRAFT | August 2025 64 More than one-half (55 percent) of respondents are female, and 45 percent are male.

Figure 50: Gender identity
Respondents were asked to indicate the number of individuals in their household in each age category. Thirty-two percent of households have two members, 18 percent have three household members, and 31 percent have four or more members. Just 19 percent of respondents live alone (see Figure 51).

Figure 51: Total household size
More than three in 10 households have a child under age 18, as illustrated in Figure 52.

Male
45%
Female
55%
One HH
member
19%
Two HH
members
32% Three HH
members
18%
Four + HH
members
31%
350
City of Banning – Broadband Feasibility Study | FINAL DRAFT | August 2025 65 Figure 52: Children in household
Survey data were weighted to correspond to the income distribution in the population. As shown in Figure 53, weighted survey data includes 19 percent of households earning under $25,000 per year (versus nine percent in the unweighted survey data). In total, 46 percent of the weighted sample has a household income of less than $50,000, 32 percent earn $50,000 to $99,999 per year, and 22 percent earn $100,000 or more per year.

Figure 53: Annual household income
Respondents were asked to select what races and ethnicities are represented in their households, as illustrated in Figure 54. Responses to the race and ethnicity question were grouped to correspond as closely as possible to U.S. Census categories. These categories were used in weighting the survey No Children in
HH
64%
Children in HH
36%
19%
27%
21%
11%
13%
4% 5%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
Less than
$25,000
$25,000 to
$49,999
$50,000 to
$74,999
$75,000 to
$99,999
$100,000 to
$149,999
$150,000 to
$199,999
$200,000 or
more
351
City of Banning – Broadband Feasibility Study | FINAL DRAFT | August 2025 66 data by race and ethnicity. More than one-half (52 percent) of the weighted count of respondents said they have white household members, and 44 percent said they have Hispanic or Latino household members. Overall, 38 percent of the weighted sample of households are white, nonHispanic only, and 62 percent have a racial or ethnic minority household member (see Figure 55).

Figure 54: Race/ethnicity
Figure 55: Race/ethnicity in household
Respondents were asked if there was a household member in various other demographic groups, as shown in Figure 56. Sixteen percent of households have a veteran, and 23 percent have a member with a disability. Three in 10 households have a member actively enrolled in K-12 school, and 12 percent have a student in college or other higher education. Respondents are less likely to have a 10%
8%
44%
4%
52%
0%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Black/African American
Asian/Asian American
Hispanic/Latino
Native American/Indigenous American
White
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander
Respondents could select
more than one response, and
figures may add to more than
100%.

White, nonHispanic only
38%
Racial/ethnic
minority
62%
352
City of Banning – Broadband Feasibility Study | FINAL DRAFT | August 2025 67 primarily non-English speaker (five percent) or a formerly incarcerated individual (less than one percent) in the household.

Figure 56: Other demographic groups
16%
23%
5%
1%
31%
12%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
Veteran Individual with a
disability
Primarily a nonEnglish speaker
or have a
language barrier
Formerly
incarcerated
individual
Actively enrolled
in K-12 school
A student in
college or other
higher education
Percent of households
353
City of Banning – Broadband Feasibility Study | FINAL DRAFT | August 2025 68 4 An online survey shows that local businesses have limited satisfaction with their commercial broadband services
The City circulated an online survey of 15 questions created by CTC to over 100 businesses in the City to learn about their existing internet services and ongoing broadband needs. The City received nine total responses from businesses in construction and manufacturing, technology, and health care; the nonprofit sector; and one coffee shop. The size of these businesses spanned from one to four people, to over 200 employees. The survey instrument is included in Appendix B.

Due to the number of responses, the data in this section are purely qualitative and cannot be construed as representative of all businesses in the City.

In total, three respondents have Frontier as a provider, four have Charter as a provider, and two respondents did not know the provider used by their business. Below are details of respondents’ services based on their provider:
• Frontier: Businesses using Frontier pay over $100 a month for their internet service, with one business paying over $250 per month. All respondents rely heavily on their broadband services to serve clients or customers. Two of the three businesses receive 500/500 Mbps service, and one receives up to 100/20 Mbps. When asked their preferred internet speed, all stated that they would like to have at least 1/1 Gigabit service to allow their business to run more smoothly online. Two of three respondents stated that better broadband accessibility would improve their businesses by ensuring that fewer video calls are dropped, and that less time is put toward simply connecting to the internet.
• Charter: Three of four Charter subscribers were able to determine the cost of their monthly internet subscriptions: one business pays over $100 for 100/20 Mbps service, and two pay under $100—one for 500/100 Mbps service and the other for 500/500 Mbps service. Similarly to Frontier customers, all respondents using Charter stated they would prefer at least 1/1 Gigabit service for their businesses. These respondents represent businesses in technology, health care, and marketing, all of which rely heavily on the internet to perform their work and services.

The two business respondents that are unsure of the provider their business uses each stated that access to the internet is very important for their businesses, and that their preferred internet speed would be 1 Gigabit symmetrical service if they had access to it.

When asked to rank the business applications that are most important to their businesses, email and other communications were the most important, followed by data uploads to servers, cloud software needs, video conferencing, and then e-commerce.

When asked about the importance of certain aspects of internet service for each respondent’s business, 100 percent of respondents stated that internet reliability was extremely or very important to their business operations, and 89 percent of respondents said that speed of connection was extremely or very important. See Figure 57 for more details. 354
City of Banning – Broadband Feasibility Study | FINAL DRAFT | August 2025 69 Figure 57: Importance of aspects of respondent’s business internet service When asked about their level of satisfaction with different aspects of their business services, 44 percent of respondents stated they were either not at all satisfied or only slightly satisfied with speed, and 56 percent stated they were only moderately satisfied. Further, 67 percent stated they were either not at all satisfied or only slightly satisfied with the level of reliability of their internet service. See Figure 58 for more details.

Figure 58: Satisfaction with internet by aspects of respondent’s business service 11%
33%
22% 22%
11%
11%
22%
33% 11%
22%
22%
33% 56%
56%
78%
22% 22%
11%

SPEED OF

CONNECTION

RELIABILITY TECHNICAL

SUPPORT

SERVICE

OVERALL

CUSTOMER

SERVICE

THAT I HAVE

OTHER OPTIONS

FOR BUSINESS
SERVICE Not at all important Slightly important
Moderately important Very important
Extremely important
11% 11% 11%
22%
33%
33%
67% 67% 45%
56%
56%
22% 22%
33%
11%

SPEED OF

CONNECTION

RELIABILITY TECHNICAL

SUPPORT

SERVICE

OVERALL

CUSTOMER

SERVICE

THAT I HAVE

OTHER OPTIONS

FOR BUSINESS

SERVICE
Not at all satisfied Slightly satisfied Moderately satisfied Very satisfied Extremely satisfied
355
City of Banning – Broadband Feasibility Study | FINAL DRAFT | August 2025 70 5 Banning stakeholders suggest that broadband subscriptions can be costly, and many residents experience drops in service
As part of this study, the City of Banning and CTC conducted stakeholder outreach meetings to businesses, leaders in government institutions, representatives of educational institutions, and the Morongo Band of Mission Indians (MBMI). The purpose of the meetings was to supplement survey and speed test data with qualitative input into the City’s needs for broadband, current service quality, and gaps in service, and to gauge interest in a potential citywide network. The following is a summary of the feedback gathered during the stakeholder sessions.

5.1 Government stakeholders
The invitees to the government meeting included the Mayor, one council member, City officials, members of the Planning Commission, and representatives of the County Board of Supervisors and the Correctional Facility. There were two attendees at the session: the Director of Public Works and a city council member. The city council member is also a member the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). SCAG is involved in broadband planning throughout Southern California, although the council member mentioned that its efforts are primarily focused on Los Angeles County.

The City currently uses Frontier fiber as a backbone for its operations. Reliability in terms of speed and uptime are priorities, particularly for emergency communications and the Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system. Other essential operations are the police department and the water yard. The Director of Public Works expressed that there was room for improvement in terms of the City’s internal needs (for City facilities, individual department needs, and the SCADA system).

From a community perspective, both stakeholders expressed a desire for a public Wi-Fi network for downtown Banning, public parks, and other public areas.

In terms of residential broadband coverage, the City council member expressed a need for better broadband and affordability programs in eastern Banning and potentially parts of southern Banning and recounted anecdotal evidence of drops in service and unaffordability. She stated that most residents in these areas subscribe to Charter, where Frontier service is not available. This data point is supported by the survey results in Section 3.3 of this study, which found that 60 percent of residents have service through Charter. Other potential areas of need are in the retirement homes and mobile home parks in the City.

Both government stakeholders expressed an interest in a City-owned fiber network, especially if the network could offer a lower or similar cost to that currently paid by residents for a higher quality of service. They expressed that a City-owned fiber network could support City facilities, the SCADA network for utilities and public works, and residents.

In terms of future partnerships, the government stakeholders identified Riverside County, the San Diego Association of Governments, and the Morongo Band of Mission Indians as potential partners to bring broadband to Banning and nearby communities.

5.2 Education and library stakeholders
CTC facilitated a meeting with three education and library stakeholders in the City of Banning—the Innovation and Technology Officer at Banning Unified School District, the District Director of the 356
City of Banning – Broadband Feasibility Study | FINAL DRAFT | August 2025 71 Banning Library District, and the Library Manager of the Banning Library District. City officials were also in attendance.

The Banning Unified School District accesses its broadband services through the Riverside County Office of Education (RCOE), which is a location for connecting all Riverside County school districts and their schools to internet providers in respective areas. In this colocation model, the RCOE releases a request for ISPs to bid on the opportunity to provide services to local school districts, and then decides on the appropriate partnership. The associated costs are then federally funded through the E-Rate program.

Currently, the Banning Unified School District, through the RCOE, is under a five-year contract with Charter/Spectrum and receives 10 gigabit symmetrical service for all schools, with the ability to increase its speeds to 20 gigabit symmetrical service as needed. Presently, the district’s speeds and level of redundancy are sufficient for all schools, but RCOE monitors the district’s broadband usage monthly to determine if more bandwidth is needed.

The biggest challenge that the district faces with respect to its broadband services is related to the City of Banning’s frequent power outages. Interruption in district-wide service has been caused by a number of power outages within the last year. The district understands that the City operates its own public utilities.

When asked about the school district’s interest in the possibility of a City-operated fiber network, the district believed it would not be impacted due to the structure of its broadband network being managed by the RCOE. However, the district representative believes that the addition of a new fiber provider offering residential service could have a positive impact on students and their families by offering more competition and potentially lowering costs.

The library representatives briefly attended the session and mentioned that their service was more than sufficient for their current and future needs due to their use of the statewide Corporation for Education Network Initiatives in California (CENIC) network. CENIC leverages a 3,800-mile fiber network and delivers 1 to 10 gigabit symmetrical services to libraries. CENIC files for E-Rate discounts on behalf of the libraries.
29 5.3 Tribal stakeholders
The City met with the Realty Administrator of the Morongo Band of Mission Indians (MBMI), who is involved in realty, economic development, public works, and business leasing for the Tribe.

The Tribe has a long history of being underserved and only recently gained acceptable service.

Previously they had reached out to both Charter and Frontier, and approximately 10 years ago Frontier responded and provided service to 500 of the 675 households in the Tribe. An upgrade had been planned for the remainder of the Tribal land when Frontier declared bankruptcy in 2020. 30 29 “CENIC and CALIFA Connecting California Libraries,” CENIC, https://cenic.org/files/publications/Combined_Toolkit_Designed_final.pdf. 30 “Frontier Transfer Proceeding (A.20-05-010/D.21-04-008),” CPUC, https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/industriesand-topics/internet-and-phone/frontier-transfer-proceeding. 357
City of Banning – Broadband Feasibility Study | FINAL DRAFT | August 2025 72 As of January 2024, Frontier signed a five-year agreement with the Tribe to provide fiber to all 675 households. The Tribe pays for 100 Mbps symmetrical service for each Tribal member, and individuals can pay for speeds above that up to 5 Gbps. The Tribe’s representative mentioned that government buildings are covered by Verizon service. The new Frontier service has not been available for long enough to judge quality, but before the 2024 agreement, Frontier served the Tribe with slower speeds and less coverage, which was not sufficient for Tribe members’ needs.

The representative expressed openness and willingness to partner with the City if the City developed its own publicly owned fiber network. As there is no competition for households in the Tribe, the representative expressed a desire for another provider to ensure top-quality service into the future, as well as better pricing and more responsive customer service. She remarked that the Tribe is not interested in creating its own ISP.

The Tribe anticipates that a potential City-owned network could include community buildings, public works services and systems, and businesses (including the casino, leaseholds, and future developments including a new hotel, restaurants, prospective developments in the airport area, and other warehouse or data centers). The representative also identified the Cabezon and Whitewater communities as other potentially underserved communities that may need broadband.

5.4 Business stakeholders
Multiple developers, the Chamber of Commerce, and representatives of larger businesses were invited to the business stakeholder meeting. This outreach was supplemental to the online business survey described in Section 4, which reached business stakeholders beyond those able to attend the meeting.

Attendees included representatives of developers associated with Southridge Park, Mission Heights, Diversified Pacific Development Group, Northpoint Development, and Loma Linda University; and a representative of the Banning Chamber of Commerce.

The Chamber of Commerce representative stated that he believed that most businesses in the City use Charter/Spectrum, but that they are generally dissatisfied with their service due to price compared to perceived value. Affordability and discounts are important to business owners, according to the Chamber representative. He did not provide specific details regarding the customers or types of businesses.

Developers for Mission Heights shared general plans for a 2,500-unit housing development with its own microgrid and expressed that they needed a solution for fiber internet but had not yet developed their plan. Southridge Park developers also stated the need for fiber, but did not provide specifics on how they would procure service. They expressed openness to building their own fiber infrastructure, partnering with an incumbent provider (likely Frontier), or partnering with the City, depending on which was most cost-effective and convenient for construction. Residents in the development would have varying needs, but the developers identified fiber infrastructure as a requirement. They also shared knowledge of more developments that could come to Banning, including warehouses, a movie studio, a data center, and a potential redevelopment of the airport area. All attendees agreed that conduit needed to be placed at the initiation of the new developments to accommodate future connectivity needs.
358
City of Banning – Broadband Feasibility Study | FINAL DRAFT | August 2025 73 5.5 Internet service provider stakeholders
The City met with representatives from Frontier and Charter, the two service providers with the most extensive coverage in the City. Frontier provides fiber throughout most of Banning, and Charter provides primarily cable. (See Section 2.3 for details on the ISPs’ coverage, technology, and pricing.) Representatives of Frontier stated that its fiber coverage reaches almost all residences in Banning and residential addresses can subscribe to symmetrical speeds from 200 Mbps to 5 Gbps. Frontier did not have an estimate regarding commercial coverage but did state that it serves many businesses in the City. This aligns with the data in section 2.3, which show that Frontier’s fiber offering is available to 85.8 percent of locations in the City. Representatives indicated a commitment and active process of building out fiber to any new developments in Banning.

The representative of Charter did not share specific data due to concerns of proprietary information but stated that their fastest residential speed was 1 Gbps download (not symmetrical).

Spectrum offers Internet Assist as a low-income service offering at $29.99 per month, which offers up to 100 Mbps download speeds. Frontier stated that after the ACP program was terminated, it established a low-cost program offering 200 Mbps symmetrical at $29.99 per month.

Both service providers stated that they do not lease or provide external access to their assets. 359
City of Banning – Broadband Feasibility Study | FINAL DRAFT | August 2025 74 6 Constructing a citywide fiber-to-the-premises network would cost an estimated $25.4 million, with an additional estimated cost of $19.1 million to expand to surrounding areas
CTC developed a conceptual, high-level network design and cost model for providing fiber-to-the premises (FTTP) services to the residents and business of the City of Banning. This design aligns with industry best practices and provides high capacity, resilience, and scalability. The network can deliver symmetrical service speeds of up to 10 gigabits per second (10 Gbps) or higher with modest electronics upgrades in the future.

The primary design involves a citywide FTTP distribution network reaching the areas of PD West and Corporate Yard. There are approximately 12,279 passings in the City, including both residential and business locations. In addition to meeting the City’s current need, this network was designed to be expanded into the surrounding areas of Atwell, the Airport, Mission Heights, Rancho San Gorgonio, and SC-TMP, if the City should choose to expand. These surrounding areas total an additional 10,091 residential and business locations, which include single-family and business units as well as multidwelling unit (MDU) buildings.

As shown in Table 14 below, the total estimated cost to construct a citywide FTTP network in the areas of PD West and Corporate Yard is approximately $25.4 million for the backbone, distribution plant, and other associated fixed costs, or approximately $2,065 per passing (including a 20 percent contingency). Assuming a 40 percent take-rate, distribution network electronics, subscriber drops, and CPE would cost an additional $6.8 million, bringing the total estimated implementation cost for the primary design to $38.5 million.

In general, take-rates of new broadband competitors are dependent on the types of market competition present. Forty percent represents a potentially achievable take-rate for the City. 360
City of Banning – Broadband Feasibility Study | FINAL DRAFT | August 2025 75 Table 14: High-level estimated cost summary for the proposed primary design Cost attribute
Estimated
cost (40%
take-rate)
Total fixed costs31 $25,352,000
Total passings 12,279
Total fixed cost per passing $2,065
Distribution network electronics, subscriber drops,
and CPE $6,750,000
Number of subscribers 4,912
Total cost $32,102,000
Total cost per customer $6,536
Total cost (with 20% contingency) $38,522,400
If the City expands this primary network into surrounding areas, the total additional cost for the combined areas of Atwell, the Airport, Mission Heights, Rancho San Gorgonio, and SC-TMP is estimated to be approximately $19.1 million for the backbone, distribution plant, and other associated fixed costs, or $1,893 per passing (including a 20 percent contingency). As shown in the table below, the combined total implementation cost to reach these additional areas at a 40 percent take-rate would be an estimated $27.5 million.
31 Fixed costs are the costs associated with building the backbone and distribution network, and do not include subscriber drops or distribution network electronics directly related to subscribers. The cost to build this part of the network will not change based on take-rate. 361
City of Banning – Broadband Feasibility Study | FINAL DRAFT | August 2025 76 Table 15: High-level estimated cost summary for expansion to surrounding areas Cost attribute
Estimated
cost
(Atwell)
Estimated
cost
(Airport)
Estimated
cost
(Mission
Heights)
Estimated
cost
(Rancho San
Gorgonio)
Estimated
cost
(SC-TMP)
Total
Total fixed costs $9,537,850 $493,995 $3,818,000 $4,455,500 $788,370 $19,093,715 Total passings 4,372 9 2,215 3,427 68 10,091
Total fixed costs
per passing
$2,182 $54,888 $1,724 $1,300 $11,594 $71,688
Distribution
network
electronics,
subscriber
drops, and CPE
$1,920,000 $44,000 $702,100 $1,103,000 $66,500 $3,835,600 Number of
subscribers
(40% take-rate)
1,749 4 886 1371 27 4,037
Total cost $11,457,850 $537,995 $4,520,100 $5,558,500 $854,870 $22,929,315 Total cost per
customer
$6,552 $149,443 $5,102 $4,055 $31,429 $5,679.79
Total cost (with
20%
contingency)
$13,749,420 $645,594 $5,424,120 $6,670,200 $1,025,844 $27,515,178 Total cost per
customer
$7,862 $179,332 $6,122 $4,866 $37,715 $6,815.75
The cost of building an FTTP network will depend on multiple factors, including the percentage of the network infrastructure built on aerial poles as opposed to inside underground conduit. Since the City owns and maintains the utility poles within the City of Banning, the models for this estimate assume that the City seeks to maximize the use of existing utility poles where possible and will utilize underground construction in areas where aerial construction is not feasible. Based on data provided by the City, PD West is comprised of approximately 50 percent aerial and 50 percent underground infrastructure and Corporate Yard is comprised of 90 percent aerial and 10 percent underground infrastructure. Based on feedback from the City, the poles will not require make-ready; therefore, the design assumes a small contingency to account for any unexpected make-ready costs.

The information gathered from the City, along with additional necessary information from geological and topographical datasets, were entered into an FTTP cost estimation tool that uses current inmarket labor and material costs to generate the estimated capital expenditures (capex) for the FTTP infrastructure design.

6.1 FTTP network architecture
This conceptual design includes two hub sites located in City-owned buildings, avoiding costs of leasing or purchasing property and constructing a building (see Figure 59). Although these locations 362
City of Banning – Broadband Feasibility Study | FINAL DRAFT | August 2025 77 were chosen because they are available spaces in existing facilities, other spaces could be chosen for network hub sites in a final design.

These two locations are interconnected by a fiber optic backbone ring consisting of a 288-strand fiber cable that has a geographically redundant path; this redundancy ensures traffic flow with low probability of service interruption in the event of a fiber break or damage. This design and cost estimate assumes new fiber for the entire build.
363
City of Banning – Broadband Feasibility Study | FINAL DRAFT | August 2025 78 Figure 59: City of Banning hub site and backbone design 364
City of Banning – Broadband Feasibility Study | FINAL DRAFT | August 2025 79 Figure 60 shows a logical representation of the FTTP network architecture recommended based on the conceptual outside plant design.

Figure 60: High-level fiber-to-the-premises architecture This drawing illustrates the primary functional components in the FTTP network, their relative position to one another, and the flexibility of the architecture to support multiple subscriber models and classes of service.

The recommended architecture is a hierarchical data network that provides critical scalability and flexibility, both in terms of initial network deployment and its ability to accommodate the increased demands of future applications and technologies. The characteristics of this hierarchical FTTP data network are:
• Capacity – ability to consistently provide efficient transport for subscriber data at advertised speeds, even at peak times
• Availability – high levels of redundancy, reliability, and resiliency; the ability to quickly detect faults and reroute traffic
• Efficiency – no traffic bottlenecks; efficient use of resources • Scalability – ability to grow in terms of physical service area and increased data capacity, and to integrate newer technologies without new construction 365
City of Banning – Broadband Feasibility Study | FINAL DRAFT | August 2025 80 • Flexibility – ability to provide different levels and classes of service to different customer environments; can support an open access network or a single-provider network; can provide separation between service providers on the physical layer (separate fibers) or logical layer (separate Virtual Local Area Network (VLAN) or Virtual Private Network (VPN) providing networks within the network)
• Security – controlled physical access to all equipment and facilities, plus network access control to devices
This architecture offers scalability to meet long-term needs. This design would support the current industry standard 10 Gigabit Symmetrical Passive Optical Network (XGS-PON) and Next-Generation Passive Optical Network 2 (NG-PON2) standards. It could also provide the option of direct Active Ethernet (AE) services on a limited basis, such as for business customers, using spare fiber capacity built into the design.

XGS-PON uses passive optical splitting, which is performed inside fiber distribution cabinets (FDC), to connect fiber from the Optical Line Terminals (OLT) to the customer premises where it connects to an Optical Node Terminal (ONT) on the outside or inside of the premise. With XGS-PON service (Figure 61), the Fiber Distribution Cabinets house multiple optical splitters, each of which splits the fiber link to the OLT up to 64 customers. The XGS-PON OLT uses single-fiber (bi-directional) modules called SFPs (Small Form Factor Pluggable) which consists of a laser transmitter and a receiver to support multiple (less than 64) subscribers, so each customer receives a fiber connection all the way to the premises.

Figure 61: XGS-GPON fiber network with a buried service drop The design assumes placement of manufacturer-terminated fiber tap enclosures within the public right-of-way or easements, providing watertight fiber connectors for customer service drop cables, and eliminating the need for service installers to perform splices in the field. This is an industrystandard approach to reduce both customer activation times and the potential for damage to distribution cables and splices.
366
City of Banning – Broadband Feasibility Study | FINAL DRAFT | August 2025 81 6.2 Assumptions and criteria
The FTTP network design was developed with the following criteria and required characteristics of the hierarchical FTTP network:
• Underground conduit and fiber will be installed in the public right-of-way or in an easement on the side of the road.
• The aerial fiber design will make use of existing poles where possible. • Primary and secondary distribution cables will be 288-count cables; extended lateral fiber sizes will range from 48- to 144-count cables; and short lateral and drop fiber will contain 12 strands.
• The network will target up to 288 passings per secondary distribution point, each served from an FDC containing optical splitters.
• The distribution plant will terminate at multi-port subscriber tap terminals (i.e., “taps”) in either underground handholes or aerially on messenger strand, each serving no more than 12 homes.
• Access conduit will be placed in drop access handholes placed at the edge of the parcel for each serviceable passing (one handhole per one or two passings) where underground plant is used.
• The underground vault spacing along distribution routes will be no more than 750 feet. • Where possible, the distribution plant network routes will avoid crossing major roadways, railways, and waterways.
• In the aerial design, the cables would be attached to the City-owned utility poles. • In the aerial design, the City-owned poles would require no make ready.

Figure 62 below shows the location of the FDCs in relation to the hub site locations as well as the backbone and primary network routes.
367
City of Banning – Broadband Feasibility Study | FINAL DRAFT | August 2025 82 Figure 62: Backbone and primary FDC network design overview and sample of FTTP detail 368
City of Banning – Broadband Feasibility Study | FINAL DRAFT | August 2025 83 Figure 63 shows a logical representation of an FTTP network that deploys both aerial and underground outside plant design. As shown previously, the hub and backbone network will feed the primary distribution network. This will be achieved through both underground distribution vaults and aerial attachments throughout the network. The primary distribution network is responsible for the communication of all the FDCs back to the hub sites. These cabinets house the fiber patching and splitting to each resident. The secondary distribution network extends the fiber connection from the FDC to the service location using multi-port subscriber tap terminals (MST), which allows for the network to terminate to each user quickly and efficiently. Each tap will then connect to a preconnectorized drop cable that feeds services to the end user.

Figure 63: Conceptual design for the fiber-to-the-premises network Figure 64 shows the architecture of the FTTP network and its components. 369
City of Banning – Broadband Feasibility Study | FINAL DRAFT | August 2025 84 Figure 64: High-level fiber-to-the-premises architecture and components Hub Site
n x 10 Gbps links
over redundant
backbone routes
Spare fiber capacity for
limited Active Ethernet
and Metro Ethernet
services
Single Fiber Optic
Strand from
Splitter enclosure
to Each Subscriber
Tap
Core Network
Distribution
Layer PacketOptical Switch
Single
Customer
ONU
Large customer/MDU
access devices
(wavelength services, dedicated
1 Gbps to 100 Gbps Ethernet,
G.Fast aggregation)
Access Layer
FTTP Components
FTTP Components
Backbone Layer
Backbone Layer Distribution Layer Access
Fiber Distribution
Enclosures
Splice
Enclosures
Conduit
Existing
City
Facilities
Communications
Shelters / Cabinets
Optitap-style
subscriber taps
Outdoor
Fiber Cables
Network Interface
Device (NID) or
Fiber termination
panels (large
MDUs)
Support Infrastructure Fiber Infrastructure
Support Infrastructure Fiber Infrastructure
Backbone Layer Distribution Layer Access
Splice
Enclosures
Termination
Panels and Cable
Management
Termination
Panels and Cable
Management
Customer
Premises
Distribution Layer
Handholes
Vaults
~15,000 passings per hub

GPON OLT /
Ethernet Switch

CRMJ MN
MGT - 4 MGT - 1
MGT
FTA
ACO
Calix E7 -2-
-1-
-2-
-1-
GPON 1 GPON 2 GPON 3 GPON 4 SFP 1 SFP 2 SFP 3 SFP 4 SFP 5 SFP 6 SFP 7 SFP 8 XFP 1 XFP 2 SFP + 1 SFP + 2

FAILCT RLSRVC
GPON-4
GPON 1 GPON 2 GPON 3 GPON 4 SFP 1 SFP 2 SFP 3 SFP 4 SFP 5 SFP 6 SFP 7 SFP 8 XFP 1 XFP 2 SFP + 1 SFP + 2

FAILCT RLSRVC
GPON-4

CRMJ MN
MGT - 4 MGT - 1
MGT
FTA
ACO
Calix E7 -2-
-1-
-2-
-1-
GPON 1 GPON 2 GPON 3 GPON 4 SFP 1 SFP 2 SFP 3 SFP 4 SFP 5 SFP 6 SFP 7 SFP 8 XFP 1 XFP 2 SFP + 1 SFP + 2

FAILCT RLSRVC
GPON-4
GPON 1 GPON 2 GPON 3 GPON 4 SFP 1 SFP 2 SFP 3 SFP 4 SFP 5 SFP 6 SFP 7 SFP 8 XFP 1 XFP 2 SFP + 1 SFP + 2

FAILCT RLSRVC
GPON-4

CRMJ MN
MGT - 4 MGT - 1
MGT
FTA
ACO
Calix E7 -2-
-1-
-2-
-1-
GPON 1 GPON 2 GPON 3 GPON 4 SFP 1 SFP 2 SFP 3 SFP 4 SFP 5 SFP 6 SFP 7 SFP 8 XFP 1 XFP 2 SFP + 1 SFP + 2

FAILCT RLSRVC
GPON-4
GPON 1 GPON 2 GPON 3 GPON 4 SFP 1 SFP 2 SFP 3 SFP 4 SFP 5 SFP 6 SFP 7 SFP 8 XFP 1 XFP 2 SFP + 1 SFP + 2

FAILCT RLSRVC
GPON-4
Passive
Splitters
370
City of Banning – Broadband Feasibility Study | FINAL DRAFT | August 2025 85 6.3 Estimated deployment costs
The cost for the backbone and distribution plant contains the following elements:
• Project management encompasses overall project and contract management, including oversight of the construction and engineering contractor(s), equipment suppliers, and rightof-way agreements. • Engineering and as-builts includes system-level architecture planning, preliminary designs, and field walkouts to determine candidate fiber routing; development of detailed engineering prints and preparation of permit applications; and post-construction “as-built” revisions to engineering design materials.
• Conduit and vault infrastructure consists of all labor and materials related to underground communications conduit construction, including conduit placement, vault/handhole installation, and surface restoration; and includes all work area protection and traffic control measures inherent to roadway construction activities.
• Utility pole make-ready consists of a small contingency for any of the labor needed for preparing poles for the addition of new aerial cabling. This includes moving existing cables to make room for new cables or replacing poles if the existing pole is at maximum capacity.

This is based on the City’s input that the City-owned poles would require no make-ready. • Fiber optic cables and components consist of the material and labor costs specific to the installation of fiber optic cables, taps, splice enclosures, and other related components, irrespective of the cable pathway (underground conduit or aerial placement). • Fiber splicing, testing, and documentation includes all labor related to splicing of outdoor fiber optic cables.
• Hub facilities and systems consist of the material and labor costs of placing cabinets to house hub site electronics and terminating backbone fiber cables within the hubs.

We also provide the estimated cost for FTTP distribution electronics, subscriber drops, and customer premises equipment (CPE). The cost for drops represents the materials and labor for installing aerial or underground infrastructure across a subscriber’s property; CPE, such as a modem, is a separate expense.

6.3.1 Cost estimate for the primary citywide fiber-to-the-premises design The backbone, distribution plant, and other associated fixed costs for the primary citywide FTTP design are estimated to cost approximately $25.4 million, or $2,065 per passing, including a 20 percent contingency cost on construction material.

Table 16 below also provides estimates for the total implementation cost of the FTTP buildout in a 40 percent and 100 percent take-rate scenario—approximately $38.5 million and $50.2 million (or $7,843 and $4,085 per subscriber), respectively. Forty percent represents a potentially achievable 371
City of Banning – Broadband Feasibility Study | FINAL DRAFT | August 2025 86 take-rate; a 100 percent take-rate is used in the event the City or a potential partner wishes to build connections to every premise, regardless of whether that premises subscribes.

Table 16: Estimated costs for the primary design
Cost attribute
Estimated costs
40% take-rate 100% take-rate
Total passings 12,279 12,279
Project management and engineering $4,550,000 $4,550,000 Backbone and distribution plant $17,952,000 $17,952,000 MDU laterals and cabling $1,000,000 $1,000,000
Core network electronics $1,850,000 $1,850,000
Total fixed cost $25,352,000 $25,352,000
Fixed cost per passing $2,065 $2,065
Distribution electronics cost $600,000 $1,050,000
Customer activation cost (includes
standard service drops and CPE for
standard and MDU customers)
$6,150,000 $15,400,000
Total subscribers 4,912 12,279
Total cost (without contingency) $32,102,000 $41,802,000 Total cost per customer $6,536 $3,404
Total cost (with contingency) $38,522,400 $50,162,400
Total cost per customer $7,843 $4,085

6.3.1.1 Existing fiber infrastructure
The City of Banning maintains an existing fiber network used for its internal systems and electrical department. CTC considered whether use of the City-owned fiber in constructing the proposed backbone network design could provide cost savings by offsetting the amount of new fiber strand needed.

This analysis determined that cost savings would likely be minimal due to the amount of distribution build required in these areas, along with the limited capacity and locations of coincidence of the existing fiber. Building a new fiber backbone was determined to best suit the current and future needs of the proposed network, as well as allowing the existing fiber to continue to serve an important role in the function of theCity’s internal systems. Available capacity on these cables could be reserved for future uses by the City.

6.3.2 Cost estimates to expand the primary network design to surrounding areas In addition to the primary citywide design, the City is interested in potentially expanding such a network into the surrounding areas of Atwell, the Airport, Mission Heights, Rancho San Gorgonio, and SC-TMP.
372
City of Banning – Broadband Feasibility Study | FINAL DRAFT | August 2025 87 The following sections present standalone designs for each area that would leverage the primary citywide backbone and distribution network. The cost estimates provided for each area are in addition to the cost of the primary design.

6.3.2.1 Cost estimate for Atwell
The area of Atwell includes 4,372 passings. The backbone, distribution plant, and other associated fixed costs for Atwell are estimated to cost approximately $9.5 million, or $2,182 per passing, including a 20 percent contingency cost on construction material. Table 17 presents the estimated total implementation costs for this area at 40 percent and 100 percent take-rates.

Table 17: Estimated costs for Atwell
Cost attribute
Estimated costs
40% take-rate 100% take-rate
Total passings 4,372 4,372
Project management and engineering $1,350,000 $1,350,000 Backbone and distribution plant $5,587,850 $5,587,850
MDU laterals and cabling $1,950,000 $1,950,000
Core network electronics $650,000 $650,000
Total fixed cost $9,537,850 $9,537,850
Fixed cost per passing $2,182 $2,182
Distribution electronics cost $170,000 $310,000
Customer activation cost (includes
standard service drops and CPE for
standard and MDU customers)
$1,750,000 $4,250,000
Total subscribers 1,749 4,372
Total cost (without contingency) $11,457,850 $14,097,850 Total cost per customer $6,552 $3,225
Total cost (with 20% contingency) $13,749,420 $16,917,420 Total cost per customer $7,862 $3,869
373
City of Banning – Broadband Feasibility Study | FINAL DRAFT | August 2025 88 Figure 65: Atwell high-level design overview
374
City of Banning – Broadband Feasibility Study | FINAL DRAFT | August 2025 89 6.3.2.2 Cost estimate for the Airport area
The Airport area includes nine passings. The backbone, distribution plant, and other associated fixed costs for the Airport are estimated to cost approximately $490,000, or $54,888 per passing, including a 20 percent contingency cost on construction material. Table 18 presents the estimated total implementation costs for this area at 40 percent and 100 percent take-rates.

Table 18: Estimated costs for the Airport area
Cost attribute
Estimated costs
40% take-rate 100% take-rate
Total passings 9 9
Project management and engineering $14,045 $14,045
Backbone and distribution plant $478,550 $478,550
MDU laterals and cabling $0 $0
Core network electronics $1,400 $1,400
Total fixed cost $493,995 $493,995
Fixed cost per passing $54,888 $54,888
Distribution electronics cost $25,000 $25,000
Customer activation cost (includes
standard service drops and CPE for
standard and MDU customers)
$19,000 $48,000
Total subscribers 4 9
Total cost (without contingency) $537,995 $566,995
Total cost per customer $149,443 $62,999
Total cost (with 20% contingency) $645,594 $680,394
Total cost per customer $179,332 $75,559
375
City of Banning – Broadband Feasibility Study | FINAL DRAFT | August 2025 90 Figure 66: The Airport high-level design overview
376
City of Banning – Broadband Feasibility Study | FINAL DRAFT | August 2025 91 6.3.2.3 Cost estimate for Mission Heights
The area of Mission Heights includes 2,215 passings. The backbone, distribution plant, and other associated fixed costs for Mission Heights are estimated to cost approximately $3.8 million, or $1,724 per passing, including a 20 percent contingency cost on construction material. Table 19 presents the estimated total implementation costs for this area at 40 percent and 100 percent takerates.

Table 19: Estimated costs for Mission Heights
Cost attribute
Estimated costs
40% take-rate 100% take-rate
Total passings 2,215 2,215
Project management and engineering $600,000 $600,000
Backbone and distribution plant $985,000 $985,000
MDU laterals and cabling $1,900,000 $1,900,000
Core network electronics $333,000 $333,000
Total fixed cost $3,818,000 $3,818,000
Fixed cost per passing $1,724 $1,724
Distribution electronics cost $100,000 $150,000
Customer activation cost (includes
standard service drops and CPE for
standard and MDU customers)
$602,100 $1,505,300
Total subscribers 886 2,215
Total cost (without contingency) $4,520,100 $5,473,300
Total cost per customer $5,102 $2,471
Total cost (with 20% contingency) $5,424,120 $6,567,960 Total cost per customer $6,122 $2,965
377
City of Banning – Broadband Feasibility Study | FINAL DRAFT | August 2025 92 Figure 67: Mission Heights high-level design overview 378
City of Banning – Broadband Feasibility Study | FINAL DRAFT | August 2025 93 6.3.2.4 Cost estimate for Rancho San Gorgonio
The area of Rancho San Gorgonio includes 3,427 passings. The backbone, distribution plant, and other associated fixed costs for Rancho San Gorgonio are estimated to cost approximately $4.5 million, or $1,300 per passing, including a 20 percent contingency cost on construction material.

Table 20 presents the estimated total implementation costs for this area at 40 percent and 100 percent take-rates.

Table 20: Estimated costs for Rancho San Gorgonio
Cost attribute
Estimated costs
40% take-rate 100% take-rate
Total passings 3,427 3,427
Project management and engineering $650,000 $650,000
Backbone and distribution plant $555,500 $555,500
MDU laterals and cabling $2,750,000 $2,750,000
Core network electronics $500,000 $500,000
Total fixed cost $4,455,500 $4,455,500
Fixed cost per passing $1,300 $1,300
Distribution electronics cost $150,000 $250,000
Customer activation cost (includes
standard service drops and CPE for
standard and MDU customers)
$953,000 $3,000,000
Total subscribers 1,371 3,427
Total cost (without contingency) $5,558,500 $7,012,500
Total cost per customer $4,055 $2,046
Total cost (with 20% contingency) $6,670,200 $8,415,000 Total cost per customer $4,866 $2,456
379
City of Banning – Broadband Feasibility Study | FINAL DRAFT | August 2025 94 Figure 68: Rancho San Gorgonio high-level design overview 380
City of Banning – Broadband Feasibility Study | FINAL DRAFT | August 2025 95 6.3.2.5 Cost estimate for SC-TMP
The area of SC-TMP includes 68 passings. The backbone, distribution plant, and other associated fixed costs for SC-TMP are estimated to cost approximately $790,000 or $11,594 per passing, including a 20 percent contingency cost on construction material. Table 21 presents the estimated total implementation costs for this area at 40 percent and 100 percent take-rates.

Table 21: Estimated costs for SC-TMP
Cost attribute
Estimated costs
40% take-rate 100% take-rate
Total passings 68 68
Project management and engineering $324,000 $324,000
Backbone and distribution plant $404,370 $404,370
MDU laterals and cabling $50,000 $50,000
Core network electronics $10,000 $10,000
Total fixed cost $788,370 $788,370
Fixed cost per passing $11,594 $11,594
Distribution electronics cost $25,000 $27,000
Customer activation cost (includes
standard service drops and CPE for
standard and MDU customers)
$41,500 $98,500
Total subscribers 27 68
Total cost (without contingency) $854,870 $918,870
Total cost per customer $31,429 $13,513
Total cost (with 20% contingency) $1,025,844 $1,102,644 Total cost per customer $37,715 $16,215
381
City of Banning – Broadband Feasibility Study | FINAL DRAFT | August 2025 96 Figure 69: SC-TMP high-level design overview
382
City of Banning – Broadband Feasibility Study | FINAL DRAFT | August 2025 97 7 The City could consider multiple business models for the development of a citywide fiber-to-the-premises network

7.1 Business and ownership models
This section provides an overview of four categories of business model the City of Banning might consider for a citywide FTTP network. The models are distinguished by the role of the involved parties across the network’s three primary elements: 1) passive infrastructure, 2) active infrastructure, and 3) service provision. Capital and operating costs of the network, as well as contractual relationships between the City and a private sector entity, fall into one of these three elements.

Figure 70: Three elements of the FTTP network
Passive infrastructure Active infrastructure Service provision Building and maintaining
the dark fiber network
Setting up and operating the
network’s active electronics
Delivering broadband
services to subscribers
The funding and financing associated with each element differ across the four business models, as do the allocation of risks, responsibilities, and ownership of assets associated with each element.

There are key tradeoffs across the business models, particularly between the objectives of retaining local control and transferring risk to the private sector.

7.1.1 Under Business Model 1, the City fully funds, owns, and operates the citywide FTTP network Under this model, the citywide FTTP network is fully funded, owned, and operated by the public sector, such as through the City’s electric utility. The utility might outsource some operating responsibilities, but ultimately remains responsible for the project’s success. This is the only business model in which the City would effectively have full control over all aspects of the broadband network construction, ownership, operations, and service provision. However, in this model the City would also fully retain revenue risk and all operating risk. The City would also face significant start-up costs and not be able to leverage existing broadband operations elements, as a partner likely could.

7.1.2 Under Business Model 2, the City would develop and maintain dark fiber and contract with an ISP to operate the network and deliver service
In this model, the City would use public funding and/or financing to contract with a private entity to construct and maintain the dark fiber. The City would then lease access to the dark fiber network to an ISP, who would in turn operate the network and provide customer service—that is, run the business. The City could work to structure a combination of lease fees and, potentially, revenue sharing under the partnership agreement. In this model, the private ISP would take the commercial 383
City of Banning – Broadband Feasibility Study | FINAL DRAFT | August 2025 98 and operating risk and would be incentivized to provide high-quality service while compensating the City for access to the dark fiber. The City would own this asset and absorb costs of construction, though this would be mitigated by the leasing revenue.

7.1.3 Under Business Model 3, the City would separately contract with an entity to develop and maintain the active infrastructure and allow retail competition over the network Under Model 3, the City once again would use public funding and/or financing to contract with a private entity to construct and maintain the dark fiber. The City also would competitively procure and contract with a separate private entity to design, build, operate, and maintain the active infrastructure component of the network. The service provision element of the network could be provided by multiple ISPs through an open market. ISPs would lease access to the passive and active infrastructure from the City, possibly in combination with a revenue share mechanism. Although compelling in concept, this model is the least proven in the United States as ISPs have not demonstrated that they prefer this method.

7.1.4 Under Business Model 4, a private entity handles all aspects and generally also owns the infrastructure, but there is the possibility for the City to retain long-term ownership Business Model 4 is mostly or entirely private. The City would facilitate and potentially sign one contract with a single private entity that would be responsible for providing all elements of the citywide FTTP network, owning and operating the network, and running the business. The private entity may subcontract for construction and/or maintenance of the dark fiber and operations. In this model, public funding and/or financing could still be used but a sizable portion of the financing for all three elements would be provided by the private entity and its financiers. However, if City funds were used in part for the effort, the City could negotiate for benefits including long-term ownership of the fiber.

The business models and their differences are summarized in Table 22.

Table 22: Overview of four business model options
Business model Passive infrastructure Active infrastructure Service provision 1 Publicly funded/financed
and maintained Municipal ISP
2 Publicly funded/financed
and maintained ISP (one or multiple)
3 Publicly funded/financed
and maintained
Active infrastructure
contractor
Multiple ISPs / open
market
4 (Largely) privately funded/financed, privately maintained, and operated Regardless of the business model selected, the City may leverage competition to maximize value for taxpayers and subscribers. Even with an all-private solution with no City role, the mere fact that a new provider is operating in Banning will mean competition has been created with the incumbent cable company.

The four different models also use public and private financing differently. Private financing can be used to achieve material risk transfer (“skin in the game”) for long-term infrastructure assets.

However, private capital (which we assume will consist of a combination of private equity and debt) 384
City of Banning – Broadband Feasibility Study | FINAL DRAFT | August 2025 99 also has a significantly higher cost than public borrowing for Banning. As such, there is a tradeoff between a more effective risk transfer (i.e., more private capital) and affordability (i.e., more public financing), which also was a key consideration in developing the four business models.

7.1.5 Risk allocation varies across the four models
Differences in risk allocation arise from the differences in financial and contractual relationships between the involved parties across the four business models. In Table 23, “traditional” risk transfer refers to commonly used contractual mechanisms that are used to assign risk and liability for various items in all types of construction and maintenance contracts. Risk transfer from the City to a private sector partner is further enhanced when the partner has invested its own capital in the project and could be adversely financially impacted under poor performance.

Table 23: Risk allocation across business model options Model Passive
infra.

Active
infra.

Service
provision
Construction
risk
Maintenance
risk
Operating
risk
Revenue
risk
#1 City Municipal ISP Traditional Traditional Retained by City Retained by City #2 City Private ISP(s) Traditional Traditional Transferred to ISP32
Transferred to
ISP
#3 City Contractor Open
market Traditional Traditional
Transferred to
active infra.
contractor and
ISPs
Transferred to
ISP
#4 Private
Enhanced
through longterm private
financing
Enhanced
through longterm private
financing
Transferred to
private sector
Transferred to
private sector
The table above highlights the key distinctions in how the four major categories of risk (construction, maintenance, operating, and revenue risk) are allocated for each business model.

7.1.6 Business model conclusions and recommendations
Each of the four business models has the potential to meet the City’s goals, albeit to varying degrees and with certain tradeoffs. The following key takeaways can help the City decide on which business model to pursue:
• Business Model 1 gives the City the most control, but also requires substantial operational experience, expertise, and discipline. Other municipalities that have successfully used this model already had a municipal utility whose operational expertise and resources could be leveraged. Banning could leverage its existing municipal electric utility for this purpose. • Business Model 2 leverages the City’s access to relatively cheap capital to develop the passive infrastructure while transferring most of the operational and commercial risks, including those related to building and financing the active infrastructure, to a private 32 Maintenance risks associated with passive infrastructure are retained by the City. 385
City of Banning – Broadband Feasibility Study | FINAL DRAFT | August 2025 100
partner. This is a potentially viable and attractive business model for the City, for which the City can apply lessons learned from other municipalities across the U.S. • Similar to Business Model 2, Business Model 3 leverages the City’s access to relatively lowcost capital to develop passive infrastructure. In addition, under Business Model 3, the City also leverages its access to capital to develop active infrastructure while transferring most of the operational and commercial risk to private partners. The theoretical advantage of this model lies in the opportunity to have multiple ISPs compete on the municipal network. But there is only limited experience with this business model in the U.S., and Banning is a relatively small market.
• Business Model 4 increases private sector involvement across all elements to also include developing and financing passive infrastructure. Whereas private capital is more expensive than public finance, this premium effectively represents the cost of risk transfer from the City to the private partner. In addition, as the project will likely need a public subsidy regardless of the selected business model, some of the project may still be financed using public debt (or available City cash reserves), thus reducing the impact of more expensive private financing on the overall cost of capital. This may be a potentially viable and attractive business model for the City, for which the City can leverage public-private partnership experience from other municipalities across the U.S.

Since Banning has a municipal utility to leverage, it has the operational experience and expertise to be able to successfully implement a citywide network as required under Business Model 1. The question is whether the City wants to assume the costs and the risks associated with building, owning, and operating such a network. Business Model 3 (open access) is less prevalent and would require further market sounding to identify partners who are both willing to participate and have a track record of doing so successfully.

7.2 Funding opportunities
There have been unprecedented amounts of funding allocated in recent years at the federal, state, and local level to expand broadband infrastructure and to promote digital equity throughout the U.S.

Programs including the Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) Program, Federal Funding Account (FFA) Program,
33 and the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund (RDOF) lead with a “fiber first” strategy and deprioritize fixed wireless projects.

7.2.1 Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) Program The largest source of upcoming federal funding is the BEAD Program administered by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), which provides $42.45 billion 33 The CPUC’s Federal Funding Account program primarily relies on federal funds allocated to states by the American Rescue Plan Act’s State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund and Capital Projects Fund programs. As such, the CPUC’s FFA program incorporates and complies with the U.S. Treasury rules adopted for these funding sources, including requirements to prioritize fiber. CPUC, “Decision Adopting Federal Funding Account Rules,” (D.22-04-055), Order Instituting Rulemaking Regarding Broadband Infrastructure Deployment and to Support Service Providers in the State of California, Rulemaking 20-09-001, April 22, 2022 (“FFA Decision”), https://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/Published/G000/M470/K543/470543650.PDF. 386
City of Banning – Broadband Feasibility Study | FINAL DRAFT | August 2025 101
throughout the U.S. to expand high-speed internet access by funding planning, infrastructure deployment, and adoption programs.

In June 2023, NTIA announced that California will receive $1.86 billion in BEAD funding to support a last-mile grant program to deploy broadband infrastructure to all unserved and underserved locations in the state.34
The California Public Utilities Commission, which will administer this grant program, conducted extensive state-wide planning in 2022 and 2023 and released three key planning documents setting the policy and strategy for the state’s BEAD participation35—culminating with California’s Initial Proposal Volume I and Volume II, which the state submitted to NTIA on December 27, 2023, and NTIA approved on October 4, 2024. The Initial Proposal outlines the basics of the BEAD program implementation and the principles that the CPUC will use to select grantees for last-mile infrastructure funding.

Through its planning and mapping efforts, the CPUC has determined that this significant investment will not be sufficient to meet the needs of all unserved locations in the state and has proposed a detailed and strict scoring rubric to prioritize projects to maximize the impact of the funding and serve the areas with the greatest need in the state. Funding for infrastructure can only be used on deployment to eligible unserved and underserved locations (or community anchor institutions), as opposed to being designated for all locations in high-need areas.

Federal rules require states to prioritize BEAD funding for fiber deployment projects except in some “extremely high-cost areas” that may qualify for alternative technologies such as fixed wireless. An Extremely High Cost per Location Threshold (EHCPLT), which determines which areas will be eligible for funding for coverage with technologies other than fiber, will be established by the CPUC.

Applicants will be required to make at least a 25 percent match toward project expenses except for in designated high-cost areas.36
The CPUC plans to accept grant applications in 2025 and recipients must complete their projects within four years of receiving the award.
34 The eligibility of locations for BEAD funding is based on the FCC’s Broadband Data Collection, which maps service availability at the address level. States are required to prioritize awarding funding to serve all unserved locations and then underserved locations as identified by these data. See, BEAD NOFO at Section IV.B.7.a.ii and Section IV.B.7.b.1; https://broadbandusa.ntia.doc.gov/sites/default/files/2022- 05/BEAD%20NOFO.pdf; and “Broadband Data Collection,” FCC, https://www.fcc.gov/BroadbandData. 35 California Five-Year Action Plan, CPUC, August 2023, https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/-/media/cpucwebsite/divisions/communications-division/documents/broadband-implementation-forcalifornia/bead/california-bead-five-year-action-plan---final-draft---20230828.pdf; California Initial Proposal Volume 1, CPUC, December 2023, https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/-/media/cpuc-website/industries-andtopics/documents/internet-and-phone/bead-program/draft-cpuc-bead-ipv1-as-submitted.pdf; California Initial Proposal Volume 2, CPUC, December 2023, https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/-/media/cpucwebsite/industries-and-topics/documents/internet-and-phone/bead-program/draft-cpuc-bead-ipv2-assubmitted.pdf. 36 “High-cost areas” are designated by NTIA and are not synonymous with “extremely high-cost areas” above the EHCPLT. See, BEAD NOFO, Executive Summary Section L, p. 3; Section I.C(k) and I.C(m), p. 13, https://broadbandusa.ntia.doc.gov/sites/default/files/2022-05/BEAD%20NOFO.pdf. 387
City of Banning – Broadband Feasibility Study | FINAL DRAFT | August 2025 102

7.2.2 SB 156 funding
The California Legislature also allocated significant state and federal funds to support broadband infrastructure deployment through SB 156 in 2021.37
SB 156 established the Middle-Mile Broadband Initiative (MMBI) to develop a statewide open-access middle-mile broadband network, allocating $3.25 billion in funding for the project. The network will consist of approximately 8,000 route miles, including new construction and joint-builds as well as leases and purchases of fiber. 38 By providing ISPs with cost-effective access to middle-mile infrastructure on equal terms, the network is intended to help lower the cost of last-mile deployment, particularly in unserved and underserved areas, and support bringing equitable highspeed broadband service to all Californians.39 The Legislature directed the California Department of Technology (CDT) to partner with a Third-Party Administrator (GoldenStateNet)40 to orchestrate the build. The design and construction of the network is monitored by the Middle-Mile Advisory Committee (MMAC).41
SB 156 also allocated $2 billion to the Federal Funding Account (FFA) Program to provide grant funding for last-mile deployment. The Legislature directed the CPUC to evenly allocate the funding between rural and urban counties,42 which the CPUC defined and identified based on a formula that uses 2019 data.43 Using this formula, the CPUC has categorized RiversideCounty as an urban county and allocated $50.6 million under FFA44 to fund wireline fiber broadband infrastructure projects located in the County.

Applications for the FFA program were due on September 29, 2023. The CPUC received eight applications totaling over $39 million in funding requests for projects solely located within Riverside County, as well as an additional four applications that cross county lines and propose to serve locations within Riverside County as well as San Bernardino and San Diego Counties. Final awards have been announced on a rolling basis during the second half of 2024, and awarded projects must be completed within two years of receiving authorization to construct. 37 SB 156 (Chapter 112, July 20, 2021),
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220SB156. 38 “Statewide Middle-Mile Network Map,” Middle-Mile Broadband Initiative, https://middle-mile-broadbandinitiative.cdt.ca.gov/pages/statewide-middle-mile-network-map. 39 Middle-Mile Broadband Initiative, https://middle-mile-broadband-initiative.cdt.ca.gov/. 40 GoldenStateNet, https://goldenstatenet.org/. 41 The development and structure of the MMAC is designed by SB 156. The Committee has eleven members including representatives from CDT, Caltrans, the Department of Finance, the CPUC, the Government Operations Agency, and four members of the Legislature. Cal. Govt. Code §11549.58(c); “MMAC Meetings,” Broadband for All, https://middle-mile-broadband-initiative.cdt.ca.gov/pages/mmbi-advisory-committee. 42 SB 4, Chapter 671 (October 8, 2021), Section 2 (revised Public Utilities Code Section 281(n)), https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220SB4. The funding is mostly federal funding from the American Rescue Plan Act, including both the Capital Projects Fund and State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds, as well as smaller contributions of state funds. 43 CPUC, “Decision Adopting Federal Funding Account Rules,” (D.22-04-055), Order Instituting Rulemaking Regarding Broadband Infrastructure Deployment and to Support Service Providers in the State of California, Rulemaking 20-09-001, April 22, 2022, pp. 32-35 (“FFA Decision”), https://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/Published/G000/M470/K543/470543650.PDF. 44 See, FFA Decision, at p. 35. 388
City of Banning – Broadband Feasibility Study | FINAL DRAFT | August 2025 103
The California Loan Loss Reserve (LLR) Fund was established by SB 156 to finance municipal network capital expenses through the issuance of long-term tax-exempt bonds. The LLR program allocated $750 million to offer a credit enhancement for localities in financing local broadband infrastructure.45 The CPUC started accepting applications for this program beginning in March 2024.

7.2.3 California Advanced Services Fund (CASF)
The California Advanced Services Fund (CASF) provides funding for broadband adoption, infrastructure, service to public housing, consortia operations, line extensions, and technical assistance for California Tribes.46 The Legislature allocates funding collected through surcharges on residential customer bills to each of the CASF grant fund accounts. Between 2021 and 2032, the CPUC is authorized to collect up to $150 million per year to fund all CASF programs.47 For Fiscal Year 2023-2024, the CPUC allocated $32.7 million of the CASF budget for infrastructure grant funding.48 The CPUC accepts applications for the Broadband Infrastructure Grant Account program once a year and the total amount of grant funding distributed to projects varies each year depending on the mix of applications received. The funding window for 2024 to 2025 is yet to be determined. Usually, the CPUC accepts applications on April 1 of each year.

The CPUC relies on its own data collection and mapping analysis to determine eligible locations for CASF infrastructure funding.49 Projects are eligible for funding between 60 percent and 100 percent of the costs of construction, and funded projects must deploy infrastructure in unserved areas with current speeds of no greater than 25/3 Mbps. The CPUC prioritizes projects in areas with 10/1 Mbps service or lower. Projects must commit to increasing speeds for residential users to at least 100/20 Mbps using either fiber, cable, or fixed wireless technologies. Projects must also commit to offer an “affordable” service offering for low-income customers at $15 or less per month.

As of the writing of this report, the following projects were pending in Riverside County for CASF funding.
50 45 CPUC Loan Loss Reserve Fund, https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/industries-and-topics/internet-andphone/broadband-implementation-for-california/loan-loss-reserve-fund. 46 “California Advanced Services Fund,” CPUC, https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/industries-and-topics/internetand-phone/california-advanced-services-fund. 47 California Public Utilities Code §281(d)(4); See, also, Broadband Infrastructure Grant Account Program Requirements, Guidelines and Application Materials, https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/-/media/cpucwebsite/divisions/communications-division/documents/casf-infrastructure-and-marketanalysis/broadband-infrastructure-grant-account---landing-page/decision-docs/d2211023attachment1casf-guidelinesw-coverheader053123.pdf. 48 CPUC, Approval of Fiscal Year 2023-24 Budget Allocations for California Advanced Services Fund, Resolution T-17782 (June 8, 2023),
https://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/Published/G000/M511/K159/511159823.PDF. 49 California Interactive Broadband Map, http://www.broadbandmap.ca.gov/. 50 “CASF Approved Infrastructure Projects,” CPUC, https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/industries-and-topics/internetand-phone/california-advanced-services-fund/casf-infrastructure-grant/casf-infrastructure-approvedprojects. 389
City of Banning – Broadband Feasibility Study | FINAL DRAFT | August 2025 104
Table 24: Projects pending CASF funding in Riverside County Project Applicant Amount
approved
Eligible
locations Notes
ConnectAnza
Phase 3
Anza Electric
Cooperative $688,431 28
FTTP network in the
Mountain Center of
Riverside County
Kwikbit Internet
Mobile Home
Park 1 Project
Kwikbit Internet $889,083 197
Fixed wireless
network in four
mobile home parks in
Orange, Los Angeles,
Riverside, and San
Diego Counties
390
City of Banning – Broadband Feasibility Study | FINAL DRAFT | August 2025 105
Appendix A: Data sources
The broadband coverage analysis in this report utilizes multiple data sources, which are described in more detail below.

Analysis of the current service availability in the City of Banning is primarily based on publicly available data, including the FCC’s National Broadband Map, the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey (ACS), and the CPUC’s broadband service availability mapping data. ACS and CPUC data are updated once a year.

FCC Broadband Data Collection
While there are other public broadband availability datasets, this report relies on the FCC’s National Broadband Map as the primary source because it provides the most granular, current, and comprehensive national data regarding broadband services. Wireline and wireless service providers are required to report service availability data via the FCC’s Broadband Data Collection portal twice a year to populate the map. The dataset of locations used to build the map is referred to as the Fabric.51
The FCC has established an ongoing challenge process for both service availability and location data to refine the National Broadband Map,52 which may impact the reported coverage in the City. The FCC updates service availability data as challenges are resolved53 and issues new versions of the National Broadband Map on approximately May 31 and November 30 of each year.54 As discussed above, priority areas for federal BEAD funding are determined based on the FCC’s mapping; areas with reported speeds of less than 25/3 Mbps on the FCC map are designated as “unserved” and areas with reported speeds of between 25/3 Mbps and 100/20 Mbps are “underserved.”
The map utilizes a base Fabric of “broadband serviceable locations” (BSL), which are defined as “a business or residential location in the United States at which mass-market fixed broadband Internet access service is, or can be, installed.”55 BSLs are structures, not addresses. A single structure, such as an apartment building or a small office building, may have multiple units—i.e., addresses— but will be designated as one BSL. Secondary structures such as garages, accessory dwelling units (ADU), or non-residential buildings on a farm are not considered separate BSLs. By counting MDUs as a single BSL, the FCC assumes that all the households or units within a single structure are served by similar levels of broadband speeds and service availability. 51 “Broadband Data Collection,” FCC, https://www.fcc.gov/BroadbandData. 52 For a summary of the challenge process see, “Broadband Data Task Force Seeks Comment On The Broadband Data Collection Challenge Processes,” WC Docket Nos. 11-10, 19-195, FCC public notice released January 19, 2024, https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-24-64A1.pdf. 53 “Broadband Data Collection,” FCC, https://www.fcc.gov/BroadbandData; see, “What’s on the National Broadband Map?” revised November 30, 2023. Expected release dates for the updated National Broadband Map are on May 31 and November 30 of each year.
54 Federal Communications Commission, Public Notice DA 23-69, January 25, 2023, https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-23-69A1.pdf (accessed February 20, 2023). 55 FCC Broadband Data Collection (updated 7/18/2023), https://help.bdc.fcc.gov/hc/enus/articles/16842264428059-About-the-Fabric-What-a-Broadband-Serviceable-Location-BSL-Is-and-Is-Not. 391
City of Banning – Broadband Feasibility Study | FINAL DRAFT | August 2025 106
Locations that include a single large business or multiple businesses that require enterprise-grade services, such as a manufacturing facility, large office building, or corporate campus, are not counted as BSLs. These locations do not rely on mass-market broadband internet service and are not counted as served or unserved locations. Certain types of community anchor institutions such as libraries, schools, government buildings, and community centers are also considered enterprise customers and, therefore, not counted as a BSL.56
CPUC broadband mapping
In addition to the FCC maps, this report also uses service availability data published by the CPUC.

The CPUC publishes two service availability maps based on data reported by ISPs, data from other state funding programs, demographic data, Census data, and socio-economic data built as layers into the maps.57
In contrast to the FCC, the CPUC only considers broadband serviceable locations that are unserved by speeds of 25/3 Mbps as eligible for funding through its state grant programs.

The CPUC relies on the California Interactive Broadband Map to determine eligibility of locations for its CASF grant program. This map defines any location or area served by speeds of greater than 25/3 Mbps—by any wireline or fixed wireless technology—as served. The CPUC further identifies locations served by less than 10/1 Mbps as “priority” areas for funding.58 The CPUC has developed a separate map specifically to support its FFA grant program.59 The Federal Funding Account Public Map relies on FCC broadband deployment data and data reported by ISPs directly to the CPUC, as well as other demographic and socioeconomic data. This map uses different thresholds and criteria to define areas that are “unserved” than the FCC National Broadband Map or the CPUC’s California Interactive Broadband Map.

The FFA Public Map shows a location as “unserved” if the location lacks access to reliable broadband speeds of at least 25 Mbps download and 3 Mbps upload or if the location is served only by “legacy technologies” such as DSL or cable technology utilizing DOCSIS 2.0 or lower. The map also shows any area or location served solely by fixed or mobile wireless to be “unserved.” The map determines a location served by legacy or wireless technology to be unserved regardless of the speeds that an ISP may report to either the FCC or the CPUC.60 As a result of this broader definition of “unserved locations,” the CPUC’s FFA Public Map identifies a larger number of unserved locations than the FCC’s National Broadband Map or the CPUC’s 56 “About the Fabric: What a Broadband Serviceable Location (BSL) Is and Is Not,” FCC Broadband Data Collection, updated July 18, 2023, https://help.bdc.fcc.gov/hc/en-us/articles/16842264428059-About-theFabric-What-a-Broadband-Serviceable-Location-BSL-Is-and-Is-Not. 57 “CPUC Annual Collected Broadband Data,” CPUC, https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/industries-andtopics/internet-and-phone/broadband-mapping-program/cpuc-annual-collected-broadband-data. 58 California Interactive Broadband Map, https://www.broadbandmap.ca.gov/. 59 Federal Funding Account Public Map, version 2, https://federalfundingaccountmap.vetro.io/map#5.65/37.393/-116.87. 60 See, CPUC, “Decision Adopting Federal Funding Account Rules,” (D.22-04-055), Order Instituting Rulemaking Regarding Broadband Infrastructure Deployment and to Support Service Providers in the State of California, Rulemaking 20-09-001, April 22, 2022, pp. 32-35 (“FFA Decision”), https://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/Published/G000/M470/K543/470543650.PDF, at p. 20. 392
City of Banning – Broadband Feasibility Study | FINAL DRAFT | August 2025 107
California Interactive Broadband Map. The CPUC allows providers to present an evidence-based challenge to the determination that an area is unserved, including those areas served by legacy technologies.

The FFA Public Map has additional layers that include socio-economic and demographic data, including depiction of “disadvantaged communities” as defined by the CalEnviroScreen 4.0 analysis.61 The CPUC uses these CalEnviroScreen data to prioritize funding for communities that are in the 25 percent of highest scoring census tracts identified as “disadvantaged.”62 The map also takes into account Census Bureau median household income data and prioritizes areas with median household income at less than 80 percent of the county median household income. 61 Federal Funding Account Public Map, version 2,
https://federalfundingaccountmap.vetro.io/map#5.65/37.393/-116.87. 62 “CalEnviroScreen 4.0,” California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/report/calenviroscreen-40. 393
City of Banning – Broadband Feasibility Study | FINAL DRAFT | August 2025 108
Appendix B: Survey instruments – residential phone survey and online business survey
Phone survey
394
City of Banning – Broadband Feasibility Study | FINAL DRAFT | August 2025 109
395
City of Banning – Broadband Feasibility Study | FINAL DRAFT | August 2025 110
396
City of Banning – Broadband Feasibility Study | FINAL DRAFT | August 2025 111
397
City of Banning – Broadband Feasibility Study | FINAL DRAFT | August 2025 112
398
City of Banning – Broadband Feasibility Study | FINAL DRAFT | August 2025 113
399
City of Banning – Broadband Feasibility Study | FINAL DRAFT | August 2025 114
400
City of Banning – Broadband Feasibility Study | FINAL DRAFT | August 2025 115
401
City of Banning – Broadband Feasibility Study | FINAL DRAFT | August 2025 116
Online business survey
402
City of Banning – Broadband Feasibility Study | FINAL DRAFT | August 2025 117
403
City of Banning – Broadband Feasibility Study | FINAL DRAFT | August 2025 118
404
City of Banning – Broadband Feasibility Study | FINAL DRAFT | August 2025 119
405
City of Banning – Broadband Feasibility Study | FINAL DRAFT | August 2025 120
Appendix C: Stakeholder outreach questions
Internet service providers

1. Name of organization:

2. Name, title, role of person(s):

3. Description of the service area and current network infrastructure Detailed information about geographic, demographic, general coverage size Network technology and architecture, especially for wireless providers

4. Description of any specific market segments targeted or served Approximate number of customers served, broken down by market segment Low-income service offerings

5. Description of current federal or state grant-funded infrastructure projects in the City:

Location
Expected number of passings
Timeline/completion dates

6. Assets:

What assets or infrastructure do you own, lease, or use in the City? Are these assets available for others to use?

7. New developments/businesses:

Are you aware of the new developments for housing and potential new businesses coming to the City?
Are you planning to extend your infrastructure to accommodate these locations? Any specifics on technology or service plans?

8. Barriers:

What barriers has your company encountered to investment in broadband infrastructure and expanding or improving service in the City?
How do you believe the City can help to mitigate any of those barriers? What areas of the City do you believe are the most unserved or underserved? 406
City of Banning – Broadband Feasibility Study | FINAL DRAFT | August 2025 120
Education and libraries

1. Name of organization:

2. Name, title, role of person(s):

3. Current broadband service:

Who is your internet service provider?
Do you have Gigabit symmetrical service?
Are you satisfied with your service?
If you’re not satisfied, what are the key issues?
Do you experience any drops in service, or slow speeds? Do you have access to fiber?

4. Competition:

Do you have enough choices of broadband providers in Banning? Would you like to see more competition? If so, why?

5. City-owned FTTP:

Are you in favor of establishing a City-owned fiber network? What aspects of it would be appealing or unappealing to you?

6. Future development:

Given there is a lot of development happening across the City, how do you perceive that impacting/changing the services you provide?
Will the new developments affect your broadband needs?
Does your service meet your anticipated future needs? (more bandwidth)

7. Areas of need:

From your perspective, which areas of the City have the most need for improved broadband service?
Why do you think these areas have remained unserved or underserved? Is lack of quality broadband service a hindrance to expansion or investment in any parts of Banning? Which areas?
407
City of Banning – Broadband Feasibility Study | FINAL DRAFT | August 2025 122

8. Broadband gaps:

Where do you see the most significant broadband gaps for students/families or library patrons?
Do you have data to document this gap? (poor service, high cost, etc.)

9. Libraries:

If you know of individuals/families without internet at home, do you have programs for expanded Wi-Fi or device access like hotspots, computer or tablet programs, or free Wi-Fi areas, to bridge this gap?
Who typically uses computers at your library? How many people/week or month? How many hotspots do you have available for loan? How frequently are they rented out?

10. Schools:

Do you have a 1:1 computer program at Banning Public Schools? Do you have programs for expanded Wi-Fi or device access like hotspots? Who typically loans out your hotspots/other technology? How many people/week or month?

11. Barriers to:

Getting affordable, high-speed broadband internet service at home Access to reliable and affordable devices and tech support for those devices Access to adaptive technology, devices and content to meet the needs of your constituents
408
City of Banning – Broadband Feasibility Study | FINAL DRAFT | August 2025 123
All other stakeholder meetings (business and economic development, government, Tribal)

1. Name of organization:

2. Name, title, role of person(s):

3. Current broadband service:

Who is your internet service provider?
Are the City’s needs met by its current service? What are the priorities? Do you have Gigabit symmetrical service? If not, what level of service do you have? Are you satisfied with your service?
If you’re not satisfied, what are the key issues?
Do you experience any drops in service, or slow speeds? Do you have access to fiber?
Are there other needs such as public safety?

4. Competition:

Do you have enough choices of broadband providers in Banning? Would you like to see more competition? If so, why?

5. City-owned FTTP:

Are you in favor of establishing a City-owned fiber network? What aspects of it would be appealing or unappealing to you? What network features would you want or need? (i.e., speeds, price point, funding model for the network, P3)

6. Future development:

Given there is a lot of development happening across the City, how do you perceive that impacting/changing the services you provide?
Will the new developments affect your broadband needs?

7. Areas of need:

From your perspective, which areas of the City have the most need for improved broadband 409
City of Banning – Broadband Feasibility Study | FINAL DRAFT | August 2025 124
Are there any disadvantaged areas of the City that might benefit from more affordable service or other offerings catered to their needs?
Why do you think these areas have remained unserved?
Is lack of quality broadband service a hindrance to expansion or investment in any parts of Banning? Which areas?
Which businesses/industries are most affected and how?

8. Use cases:

Among your constituents, workers, or customer base, what are the greatest needs related to broadband? (Remote work, affordability, access, speed, telehealth, etc.)

9. Partnerships:

Where do you see opportunities for synergies or partnerships for your organization to explore? What potential partnerships (between the City, other public entities, businesses, service providers, private entities, and/or nonprofits) may resolve issues you have observed related to broadband access?
410

CITY OF BANNING

STAFF REPORT
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Arturo Vela, Acting City Manager
PREPARED BY: Shah Nawaz, Deputy Water/Wastewater Director Art Vela, Acting City Manager
MEETING DATE: August 26, 2025
SUBJECT: Authorization to Apply for Bureau of Reclamation's Drought Resiliency Program Grant Funding for the Installation of a New Municipal Well C-9.

RECOMMENDATION:

Authorize the submittal of a grant application to the Bureau of Reclamation's Drought Resiliency Program for the installation of a new municipal Well C-9.

BACKGROUND:

The City relies on a combination of groundwater wells and imported water to meet its potable water demands. The Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) administers the Drought Resiliency Program, which provides funding to water suppliers for infrastructure improvements that increase water supply reliability, enhance drought preparedness, and mitigate the impacts of future water shortages. Eligible projects include the construction of new wells to diversify and strengthen local water supplies.

City staff have identified the drilling of a new municipal well as a priority project that aligns closely with the goals of the BOR program. This well would improve the City’s ability to meet peak demand, reduce reliance on imported water, and provide greater operational flexibility in times of drought or emergency.

JUSTIFICATION:

Applying for and securing BOR Drought Resiliency Program grant funding will:

Increase Water Supply Reliability
Enhance System Redundancy and Resiliency
Leverage External Funding
Support Long-Term Sustainability Goals
A new well will provide an additional, independent water source and will allow the City to better manage peak demands, conduct maintenance on existing wells without service interruptions, and respond more effectively to emergency situations. The BOR grant could offset a substantial portion of project costs, allowing the City to implement a critical infrastructure improvement with reduced impact to the Water Fund and ratepayers. By expanding groundwater production capacity, the City will be better positioned to maintain compliance with the water quality regulations (e.g., Chromium-6), meet the 2018 Integrated Master Plan (IMP) objectives, and adapt to future supply challenges.

FISCAL IMPACT:

A proposal in the amount of $20,100 was received from Engineering Solutions Services (ESS) to prepare and submit the City’s application for the BOR’s Drought Resiliency Program grant. ESS is currently under a multi-year contract with the City to provide grant research, writing, and management services. 411
The cost of this proposal will be funded through the Water Fund, Account No. 661-6300-471.95-08.

ALTERNATIVES:

Do not Authorize staff to apply for the BOR grant funding opportunity.

BUDGETED?:

Yes
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT:

No
ATTACHMENTS:

1. Banning - BOR DRP 2025 - Project Proposal 20250702.pdf 412

Bureau of Reclamation Grant Application Services
1 Art Vela, PE July 22, 2025
Director of Public Works
City of Banning
99 E. Ramsey Street
Re: Proposal to Provide Grant Writing Services for Bureau of Reclamation Grant Opportunity Dear Art,
Thank you very much for the opportunity to submit this proposal to prepare a grant application on behalf of the City of Banning (City) for the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) Drought Resiliency Program (DRP) for a well installation project (Project). Engineering Solutions Services, Inc. (ESS) has a high success rate (over 95% success rate) in obtaining funding from Reclamation and will use this expertise to write a highly competitive application on behalf of the City.

ESS team members bring their extensive experience in preparation of successful grant application packages for the Reclamation grant programs and our team of technical experts are available and committed to preparing a credible and successful application package highlighting the Project’ elements matching the grant focus.

We look forward to the preparation of this grant application and I can be reached at any time on my cell (949) 637-1405 or by email at [email protected] should you have any questions.

Sincerely,
Sudi Shoja, PE
Principal
413

Bureau of Reclamation Grant Application Services
2 Scope of Work
The below listed scope of work is outlines the steps required to submit a successful grant application to the FY26 Bureau of Reclamation Drought Resiliency Program (DRP).

Task 1: Project Management

1.1 Kick-off meeting to discuss the project.

1.2 On-going meetings (internal and with City) until Project application is submitted.

Task 2: Grant Application

2.1. Develop list of information needed and review received information and guidelines.

2.2. Prepare Application Template, Narrative, Sample Resolutions and Support Letters.

2.3. Prepare Budget, Schedule and Forms.

2.4. QA/QC and Submit App Package for City's Review.

2.5. Revise Application Based on Feedback from City.

2.6. Finalize and Submit Application on behalf of City. 414

Bureau of Reclamation Grant Application Services
3 Schedule
The below schedule outlines the milestones and estimated timing for the application development and submission.

Description Estimated
Schedule Responsible Party
Notice of Funding Opportunity is
Announced/Notice to Proceed is Issued Week 1 Reclamation/City Kick of Meeting and Preparation of a List
of Required Information from City Week 1 ESS
Establish submittal process Week 1 ESS
Prepare project schedule and budget
based on available information from City Week 2 ESS/City Draft technical proposal section Weeks 2-3 ESS
Draft evaluation criteria sections Weeks 2-3 ESS
Finalize draft and submit to City for
review Week 4 City
Review comments received, participate in
a conference call to resolve and finalize
the application
Weeks 5-6 City
Submit application Week 6 ESS
Respond to questions from BOR Post submittal City/ESS
*ESS will adjust the timeline to meet the grant submittal requirements as needed. 415

Bureau of Reclamation Grant Application Services
4 Cost
ESS proposes to prepare the application for the proposed Reclamation grant based on the below estimate.

Principal
Grant
Expert/QA/
QC Support Lead
Total
Hours
Total Cost per
Task
Hourly Rates $ 218 $ 225 $ 188
Task 1 Project Management

1.1 Project Management/Meetings over application period Hours 2 2 2 Subtotal of Task 1 Hours 2 2 2 6
Fee $ 436 $ 450 $ 376 $ 1,262
Task 2 Grant Application

2.1. Develop list ofinformation needed and review
received information and guidelines.

Hours 2 8 2 12

2.2. PrepareApplication Template, Narrative, Sample
Resolutions and Support Letters.

Hours 8 24 4 36

2.3. Prepare Budget, Schedule and Forms. Hours 2 2 8 12

2.4. QA/QC and Submit App Package for City's Review. Hours 2 6 2 10

2.5. ReviseApplication Based on Feedback from City. Hours 8 4 4 16

2.6. Finalize and Submit Application on behalf of City. Hours 2 2 Subtotal of Task 2 Hours 22 44 22 88
Fee $ 4,796 $ 9,900 $ 4,136 $ 18,832
TOTAL PROJECT HOURS 24 46 24
Contingency
Subtotal: $ -
ESTIMATED TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $ 5,232 $ 10,350 $ 4,512 $ 20,100 BOR Drought Resiliency Program FY26- Level of Effort
Task Item
Labor Hours
416

CITY OF BANNING

STAFF REPORT
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Arturo Vela, Acting City Manager
PREPARED BY: Art Vela, Acting City Manager
MEETING DATE: August 26, 2025
SUBJECT: Approval of Amendment No. 1 to the Professional Services Agreement for Various Financial Management and Process Improvement Consulting Services By and Between the City of Banning and Russ Branson Consulting
RECOMMENDATION:

Approval of Amendment No. 1 to the Professional Services Agreement with Russ Branson BACKGROUND:

On August 14, 2025, the City entered into a Professional Services Agreement with Russ Branson Consulting to assist the City in assessing and addressing deficiencies in its Utility Billing system and to provide financial management consulting support. The scope of work to be performed by Russ Branson Consulting includes assessment and improvement recommendations for the City’s Utility Billing System; support to the Finance Director to bring accounting records current and in compliance with professional standards; and assistance with other finance-related projects and the potential to present findings publicly.

The Consultant was selected due to Consultant’s extensive experience (see Attachment 3) performing the services needed by the City. The Consultant’s experience includes, but is not limited to, serving as the Finance Director for the City of Roseville, CA which also had an Electrical Utility. The Consultant participated in two interviews prior to being selected by the City to perform the necessary work. The Agreement was awarded to the Consultant pursuant to the emergency purchasing provisions of the City’s Procurement Policies and Procedures (Policy No. B-30).

JUSTIFICATION:

In accordance with the Procurement Policies, the initial Agreement limited the compensation to a not-toexceed limit of $25,000, the maximum allowed under City Manager signing authority. This was done to immediately engage the Consultant to provide the necessary services to the City. Due to current workload demands, the City Manager is no longer able to dedicate the same level of attention to Utility Billing issues as was possible during his tenure as Public Works Director. Additionally, the Administrative Services Director must now focus on critical year-end responsibilities, including the closeout of Fiscal Year 2024-25 and support for the current audit of Fiscal Year 2023-24.

Given the complexity of the Utility Billing system and ongoing compliance requirements related to State, Federal, and Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP), it is anticipated that additional time and resources will be necessary to continue this work effectively. The previously authorized expenditure of $25,000 will not be sufficient to address these needs.
417
To ensure continuity of operations and maintain accurate and improved timeliness of utility billing, compliance with all applicable financial reporting standards, and enhanced support for internal processes within the Finance Department, staff recommends increasing the expenditure authority accordingly.

An increase in total compensation to a revised total of Ninety-Five Thousand Dollars ($95,000) is warranted.

Pursuant to Section 7 of the original Agreement and Article 4, Section 13 of the City’s Procurement Policies and Procedures (Policy No. B-30), changes involving an increase in compensation over $25,000 must be approved by the City Council. The proposed First Amendment amends Section 9.01 of the Agreement accordingly to reflect this change.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Approval of the amendment will increase the maximum authorized expenditure under the Agreement from $25,000 to $95,000. An appropriation in the amount of $95,000 to Account No. 001-1900-412.33-11 (Fiscal Services - Professional Services) is required to fund the PSA.

ALTERNATIVES:

Do not approve and provide staff with direction.

BUDGETED?:

No
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT:

Yes
ATTACHMENTS:

1. Branson resume (1).pdf

2. Amendment No. 1 PSA Russ Branson.docx

3. Executed Contract with Russ Branson.pdf
418
- more -
R u s s Br a nso n
545 W 111th Street, #3I • New York, NY 10025 • 916-747-7834 • [email protected]

E X P E R I E N C E

RUSS BRANSON CONSULTING
Founder September 2019 to Present
Leader of consulting practice servicing municipal clients in analyzing and addressing issues of poor fiscal condition, work force issues, budget forecasting, and organizational assessment. In this capacity, Mr. Branson works cooperatively with clients to identify and address the most intractable issues facing governmental agencies today. Clients include special districts, cities, and counties.

PUBLIC FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT (PFM)
Director October 2013-August 2019
Responsible for growing the Municipal and Budget Consulting (MBC) practice for PFM in the western United States. PFM’s MBC practice works with a variety of municipal clients on strategic consulting issues related to all aspects of municipal governance and budget management. In this role, Mr. Branson has led engagements focused around long-term budget forecasts and financial planning, utility capital facility financing, organizational analysis, and workforce support analysis. Mr.

Branson is responsible for generating work, managing completion of consulting assignments, and maintaining positive client relations. Has presented results of work to City Councils, County and special district boards, and State legislators.

CITY OF ROSEVILLE
Assistant City Manager (ACM)/Treasurer April 2000-October 2013 On a team with the City Manager and one other ACM, oversaw the operations of the City of Roseville.

Had responsibility over the Human Resources, Information Technology, Central Services (fleet maintenance, building maintenance, purchasing), and City Clerk departments. Oversaw all aspects of the Finance department as well as the issuance and tracking of City debt, meter reading, and utility billing. Was the City’s Treasurer for all cash management and investment of $500 million in idle funds.

Also held positions of Administrative Services Director/Treasurer and Finance Director/Treasurer during this time period.

Accomplishments in this position include:
▪ Worked closely with four City Managers, providing consistent support for City success ▪ Oversaw Human Resources, IT, Central Services, Finance, and City Clerk department heads ▪ Worked closely with Electric Utility on risk management and financing of the gas-fired power plant and gas pre-pay bonds
▪ Worked with Environmental Utilities on bond financing for the sewer treatment plant and rate and fee studies
▪ Successfully managed City finances through economic crisis by recognizing coming issues early and providing budget solutions in a proactive fashion ▪ Oversaw issuance of wastewater, water, electric, and special tax debt issuance of nearly $2 billion that facilitated economic development of City
419
Russ Branson
2 ▪ Identified financing for major downtown infrastructure, landscaping, and park improvements. ▪ Built strong relationships in local and regional community by solving development issues and being responsive to needs of regional partners and local media ▪ Negotiated compensation decreases with five labor unions during 2008 and 2009 ▪ Provided support to 15 operating departments in all facets of municipal finance, functioning as an in-house consultant
▪ Received excellence awards in budget and financial reporting from the Government Finance Officers Association and Calif. Society of Municipal Finance Officers eight consecutive years

ECONOMIC AND PLANNING SYSTEMS
Principal December 1988-March 2000
EPS is a large urban economics consulting firm with offices in Berkeley, Sacramento, and Denver.

Performed work across many disciplines, including: establishment of special financing districts, impact fee studies, wastewater rate studies, market analysis, fiscal studies, school funding, infrastructure financing plans, and redevelopment plans. Accomplishments included:
▪ Grew the Sacramento office from two employees to more than 25 over a ten-year period ▪ Maintained ten to fifteen active client relationships at any given time ▪ Collaborated with public sector staff, land use/bond attorneys, engineers, planners, developers, and the public statewide to accomplish client goals ▪ Managed professional staff across disciplines and between various EPS offices

PROFESSIONAL INVOLVEMENT
▪ Member, California Society of Municipal Finance Officers (CSMFO) ▪ Former Board Member, Local Agency Investment Board (LAIB). Appointed by CA State Treasurer ▪ Teach annual course through UC Davis Extension entitled “Financial Aspects of Planning” ▪ Audit Committee Member, One-Community Health in Sacramento, CA AWARDS
▪ Sacramento Business Journal Public Agency CFO of the Year, 2012 ▪ California Public Securities Association Award of Excellence in Public Finance, 2013

E D U C A T I O N
California State University, Sacramento May 1990
Master of Business Administration
California State University, Sacramento May 1980
Bachelor of Arts, Psychology
References available upon request
420

FIRST AMENDMENT TO
THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT (C00####)

FOR VARIOUS FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT AND PROCESS IMPROVEMENT

CONSULTING SERVICES BY AND BETWEEN

THE CITY OF BANNING AND RUSS BRANSON CONSULTING
This FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR

VARIOUS FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT AND PROCESS IMPROVEMENT CONSULTING (“Amendment”) is made and entered into as of August 26, 2025 (“Effective Date”), by and between CITY OF BANNING, a municipal corporation whose address is 99 E. Ramsey Street, Banning California 92220 (“City”) and Russ Branson D.B.A Russ Branson Consulting, an individual whose address is 545 W 111th Street, #31 New York, NY 10025 (“Consultant”). City and Consultant are sometimes hereinafter individually referred to as “Party” and hereinafter collectively referred to as the “Parties.”

RECITALS
WHEREAS, in accordance with the City of Banning’s Administrative Procedures, Policy No. B30 Procurement Policies & Procedures, Subsection 13-100, originally adopted on June 27, 2017, and most recently amended on January 28, 2025, the Parties entered into that certain

AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FOR VARIOUS FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT AND PROCESS IMPROVEMENT CONSULTING SERVICES dated _____, 2025 (“Agreement”); and
WHEREAS, Subsection 13-100(4) of the Procurement Policies and Procedures allows the City Manager to execute the Agreement for an amount up to Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000) and requires City Council approval within Thirty (30) days for amounts exceeding the TwentyFive Thousand Dollars ($25,000) threshold; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 7 of the Agreement, City shall have the right during the performance of the services, without invalidating the Agreement, to order extra work beyond that specified in the Agreement or make changes by altering, adding to or deducting from said work; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 9.01 of the Agreement, the total fees and charges paid by City to Consultant under the Agreement shall not exceed the amount of Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 42 of the Agreement, any modification to the Agreement will be effective only if in writing and signed by both Parties. 421
WHEREAS, the Parties desire to amend the Agreement to increase the maximum compensation payable to Consultant from Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000) to Ninety-Five Thousand Dollars ($95,000); and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Banning has approved this Amendment and the increase in compensation at its meeting held on August 26, 2025.

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants made by the Parties and contained herein and other consideration, the value and adequacy of which are hereby acknowledged, the Parties agree as follows:

1. Incorporation of Recitals. The Parties hereby agree that the recitals set forth in this Amendment are deemed incorporated into this Amendment and the Agreement by this reference.

2. Definitions. All capitalized terms used but not defined in this Amendment shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the Agreement.

3. Amendment to Section 9.01. The Parties hereby agree that Section 9.01 of the Agreement is hereby amended and restated in its entirety to read as follows:
“9.01 Consultant shall be paid at the rate of Two-Hundred Fifty Dollars ($250) per hour and shall not increase any rate without the prior written consent of the City. If Consultant needs to be onsite, at the request of the City, Consultant will be reimbursed for appropriate travel related costs. Notwithstanding anything in this Agreement to the contrary, total fees and charges paid by City to Consultant under this Agreement will not exceed the amount of Ninety-Five Thousand Dollars ($95,000).”

4. This Amendment shall become effective as of the Effective Date first written above.

5. All other terms of the Agreement not expressly amended by this Amendment shall remain in full force and effect.

6. This Amendment shall be governed by the laws of the State of California. Any legal action arising from or related to this Amendment shall be brought in the state or federal courts of the State of California in and for the County of Riverside.
[SIGNATURE PAGE BELOW]
422
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereby have made and executed this Amendment to be effective as of the day and year first above written.

CITY OF BANNING RUSS BRANSON
By: _____________________ By: _____________________
Title: ____________________ Title: ____________________ Date: ____________________ Date: ____________________
ATTEST:
________________________
City Clerk
Approved As To Form:
_________________________
City Attorney
423
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT (C00####)

FOR VARIOUS FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT AND PROCESS IMPROVEMENT

CONSULTING

BY AND BETWEEN

THE CITY OF BANNING
AND
Russ Branson Consulting
424
1 AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES (C00###) FOR VARIOUS

FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT AND PROCESS IMPROVEMENT CONSULTING BY

AND BETWEEN CITY OF BANNING AND RUSS BRANSON CONSULTING THIS AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES (herein “Agreement”) is made and entered into this 13th day of August, 2025 by and between the CITY OF BANNING, a municipal corporation whose address is 99 E. Ramsey Street, Banning California 92220 (“City”) and Russ Branson Consulting, a sole-proprietor whose address is 545 W 111th Street, #31 New York, NY 10025(“Consultant”). City and Consultant are sometimes hereinafter individually referred to as “Party” and hereinafter collectively referred to as the “Parties.”

RECITALS
A. In accordance with the City of Banning’s Administrative Procedures, Policy No. B-30 Procurement Policies & Procedures, originally adopted on June 27, 2017, and most recently amended on January 28, 2025, the City may engage in emergency purchasing as outlined in Article 4, Section 13 – Emergency Purchasing. Pursuant to this authority, the City has conducted interviews and reference checks to secure consulting services related to Utility Billing and Finance Management, as further described in Section 1 of this Agreement.

B. Consultant, following informal outreach and two interviews, was selected by the City to perform the services described herein.

C. City has authority to enter into this Agreement pursuant to the City of Banning’s Municipal Code and their Procurement Policies and Procedures Manual.

D. The Parties wish to formalize the selection of Consultant to perform the services defined in Section 1 of this Agreement and to set forth the terms and conditions governing such performance. .

AGREEMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants made by the Parties and contained herein and other consideration, the value and adequacy of which are hereby acknowledged, the Parties agree as follows:

1. Scope of Services. In compliance with all terms and conditions of this Agreement, the Consultant shall provide those services specified in the “Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein by this reference, which services may be referred to herein as the “services” or “work” hereunder and which relate to the troubleshooting of the Utility Billing system and processes and for 425
2 assistance to the Finance Director in bringing its accounting records both current and in conformance with state, federal and professional standards. Consultant may perform additional services as requested by City. As a material inducement to the City entering into this Agreement, Consultant represents and warrants that it has the qualifications, experience, and facilities necessary to properly perform the services required under this Agreement in a thorough, competent, and professional manner, and is experienced in performing the work and services contemplated herein. Consultant shall at all times faithfully, competently and to the best of its ability, experience and talent, perform all services described herein. Consultant covenants that it shall follow the highest professional standards in performing the work and services required hereunder and that all materials will be of good quality, fit for the purpose intended. For purposes of this Agreement, the phrase “highest professional standards” shall mean those standards of professional practice recognized by the relevant industries.

2. Compliance with Law. Consultant shall keep itself informed concerning, and shall render all services hereunder in accordance with all ordinances, resolutions, statutes, rules, and regulations of the City and any Federal, State or local governmental entity having jurisdiction in effect at the time service is rendered.

3. Licenses, Permits, Fees and Assessments. Consultant shall obtain at its sole cost and expense such licenses, permits and approvals as may be required by law for the performance of the services required by this Agreement. Consultant shall have the sole obligation to pay for any fees, assessments and taxes, plus applicable penalties and interest, which may be imposed by law and arise from or are necessary for the Consultant’s performance of the services required by this Agreement, and shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless City, its officers, employees or agents of City, against any such fees, assessments, taxes penalties or interest levied, assessed or imposed against City hereunder.

4. Familiarity with Work. By executing this Agreement, Consultant warrants that Consultant (i) has thoroughly investigated and considered the scope of services to be performed, (ii) has carefully considered how the services should be performed, and (iii) fully understands the facilities, difficulties and restrictions attending performance of the services under this Agreement.

If the services involve work upon any site, Consultant warrants that Consultant has or will investigate the site and is or will be fully acquainted with the conditions there existing, prior to commencement of services hereunder. Should the Consultant discover any latent or unknown conditions, which will materially affect the performance of the services hereunder, Consultant shall immediately inform the City of such fact and shall not proceed except at City’s risk until written instructions are received from the Contract Officer (as defined in Section 17).

5. Care of Work. The Consultant shall adopt reasonable methods during the life of the Agreement to furnish continuous protection to the work, and the equipment, materials, papers, 426
3 documents, plans, studies and/or other components thereof to prevent losses or damages, and shall be responsible for all such damages, to persons or property, until acceptance of the work by City, except such losses or damages as may be caused by City’s own negligence.

6. Further Responsibilities of Parties. Both Parties agree to use reasonable care and diligence to perform their respective obligations under this Agreement. Both Parties agree to act in good faith to execute all instruments, prepare all documents and take all actions as may be reasonable necessary to carry out the purposes of this Agreement. Unless hereafter specified, neither Party shall be responsible for the service of the other.

7. Additional Services. City shall have the right at any time during the performance of the services, without invalidating this Agreement, to order extra work beyond that specified in this agreement or make changes by altering, adding to or deducting from said work. No such extra work may be undertaken unless a written order is first given by the Contract Officer to the Consultant, incorporating therein any adjustment in (i) the Contract Sum, and/or (ii) the time to perform this Agreement, which said adjustments are subject to the written approval of the Consultant. Any increase in compensation of up to $25,000, or in the time to perform of up to one hundred eighty (180) days may be approved by the Contract Officer. Any greater increases, taken either separately or cumulatively must be approved by the City Council.

8. Facilities and Equipment. Except as otherwise provided, Consultant shall, at its own cost and expense, provide all facilities and equipment necessary to perform the services required by this Agreement. City shall make available to Consultant only physical facilities such as desk, filing cabinets, and conference space (“City Facilities”), as may be reasonably necessary for Consultant’s use while consulting with City employees and reviewing records and the information in possession of City. The location, quality, and time of furnishing City Facilities shall be in the sole discretion of City. In no event shall City be required to furnish any facilities that may involve incurring any direct expense, including but not limited to computer, long distance telephone, network data, internet or other communication charges, vehicles and reproduction facilities.

9. Compensation.

9.01 Consultant shall be paid at the rate of Two-Hundred Fifty Dollars ($250) per hour and shall not increase any rate without the prior written consent of the City. If Consultant needs to be onsite, at the request of the City, Consultant will be reimbursed for appropriate travel related costs. Notwithstanding anything in this Agreement to the contrary, total fees and charges paid by City to Consultant under this Agreement shall not exceed the amount of Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000)
427
4 9.02 Consultant shall not be compensated for any services rendered nor reimbursed for any expenses incurred in excess of those authorized unless approved in advance by the City, in writing.

9.03 Consultant shall submit to City monthly invoices for the services rendered.

City shall have the right to review and audit all invoices prior to or after payment to Consultant.

This review and audit may include, but not be limited to City’s:
a. Determination that any fee charged is consistent with this Agreement's approved rate schedule;
b. Determination that the fees charged are correct;
c. Determination that each item charged is the usual, customary, and reasonable charge for the particular item. If City determines an item charged is greater than usual, customary, or reasonable, or is duplicative, ambiguous, excessive, or inappropriate, City shall either return the bill to Consultant with a request for explanation or adjust the payment accordingly and give notice to Consultant of the adjustment.

9.04 Payment to Consultant for work performed pursuant to this Agreement shall not be deemed to waive any defects in work performed by Consultant.

10. Time of Essence. Time is of the essence in the performance of this Agreement.

11. Schedule of Performance. Consultant shall commence the services pursuant to this Agreement and shall perform all services within the time period(s) generally established by the City project manager and in conjunction with the Consultant.

13. Force Majeure. The performance time period(s) agreed to between the City and Consultant pursuant to this Agreement shall be extended because of any delays due to unforeseeable causes beyond the control and without the fault or negligence of the Consultant, including, but not restricted to, acts of God or of the public enemy, unusually severe weather, fires, earthquakes, floods, epidemics, quarantine restrictions, riots, strikes, freight embargoes, wars, litigation, and/or acts of any governmental agency, including the City, if the Consultant shall within ten (10) days of the commencement of such delay notify the Contract Officer in writing of the causes of the delay.

14. Term. Unless earlier terminated in accordance with this Agreement, the term of this Agreement shall continue in full force and effect until completion of the services but not exceeding one (1) year from the date hereof. Maximum term and any subsequent amendment or modification shall not exceed five (5) years.
428
5 15. Representatives and Personnel of Consultant. The following principals of Consultant (Principals) are hereby designated as being the principals and representatives of Consultant authorized to act in its behalf with respect to the work specified herein and make all decisions in connection therewith:

Russ Branson Principal
(Name) (Title)
It is expressly understood that the experience, knowledge, capability and reputation of the foregoing principals were a substantial inducement for City to enter into this Agreement.

Therefore, the foregoing principals shall be responsible during the term of this Agreement for directing all activities of Consultant and devoting sufficient time to personally supervise the services hereunder.

16. Status of Consultant. Consultant shall have no authority to bind City in any manner, or to incur any obligation, debt or liability of any kind on behalf of or against City, whether by contract or otherwise, unless such authority is expressly conferred under this Agreement or is otherwise expressly conferred in writing by City. Consultant shall not at any time or in any manner represent that Consultant or any of Consultant’s officers, employees, or agents are in any manner officials, officers, employees or agents of City. Neither Consultant, nor any of Consultant’s officers, employees or agents, shall obtain any rights to retirement, health care or any other benefits which may otherwise accrue to City’s employees. Consultant expressly waives any claim Consultant may have to any such rights.

17. Contract Officer. The Contract Officer shall be such person as may be designated by the City Manager. It shall be the Consultant’s responsibility to assure that the Contract Officer is kept informed of the progress of the performance of the services and the Consultant shall refer any decisions which must be made by City to the Contract Officer. Unless otherwise specified herein, any approval of City required hereunder shall mean the approval of the Contract Officer.

The Contract Officer shall have authority to sign all documents on behalf of the City required hereunder to carry out the terms of this Agreement.

18. Independent Consultant. Neither the City nor any of its employees shall have any control over the manner, mode or means by which Consultant, its agents or employees, perform the services required herein, except as otherwise set forth herein. City shall have no voice in the selection, discharge, supervision or control of Consultant’s employees, servants, representatives or agents, or in fixing their number, compensation or hours of service. Consultant shall perform all services required herein as an independent Consultant of City and shall remain at all times as to City a wholly independent Consultant with only such obligations as are consistent with that role. 429
6 Consultant shall not at any time or in any manner represent that it or any of its agents or employees are agents or employees of City. City shall not in any way or for any purpose become or be deemed to be a partner of Consultant in its business or otherwise or a joint venture or a member of any joint enterprise with Consultant.

19. Prohibition against Subcontracting or Assignment. The experience, knowledge, capability and reputation of Consultant were a substantial inducement for the City to enter into this Agreement. Therefore, Consultant shall not contract with any other entity to perform in whole or in part the services required hereunder without the express written approval of the City. In addition, neither this Agreement nor any interest herein may be transferred, assigned, conveyed, hypothecated or encumbered voluntarily or by operation of law, whether for the benefit of creditors or otherwise, without the prior written approval of City. Transfers restricted hereunder shall include the transfer to any person or group of persons acting in concert of more than twenty-five percent (25%) of the present ownership and/or control of Consultant, taking all transfers into account on a cumulative basis. In the event of any such unapproved transfer, including any bankruptcy proceeding, this Agreement shall be void. No approved transfer shall release the Consultant or any surety of Consultant of any liability hereunder without the express consent of City.

20. Insurance Coverages. Consultant hereby agrees to be solely responsible for the health and safety of its employees and agents in performing the services under this Agreement and shall comply with all laws applicable to worker safety including but not limited to Cal-OSHA.

Therefore, throughout the duration of this Agreement, Consultant hereby covenants and agrees to maintain insurance in conformance with the requirements set forth below. Attached hereto as Exhibit “B” are copies of Certificates of Insurance and endorsements as required by Section

21.02. If existing coverage does not meet the requirements set forth herein, Consultant agrees to amend, supplement or endorse the existing coverage to do so. Consultant shall provide the following types and amounts of insurance:

20.01 Commercial general liability insurance in an amount of not less than $1,000,000 per occurrence and $2,000,000 in the aggregate; Consultant agrees to have its insurer endorse the general liability coverage required herein to include as additional insured’s City, its officials, employees and agents.

20.02 Professional Liability Insurance (Errors & Omission – Technology Exposure – Other Considerations). Choose and check one: Required _X_ /Not Required ; Consultant will file with City, before beginning professional services, a certificate of insurance satisfactory to City evidencing professional liability coverage of not less than $1,000,000 per occurrence and $2,000,000 policy aggregate.
430
7 20.03 Business Auto Coverage in an amount no less than $1 million per accident.

If Consultant or Consultant’s employees will use personal autos in performance of the services hereunder, Consultant shall provide evidence of personal auto liability coverage for each such person.

20.04 Workers’ Compensation coverage for any of Consultant’s employees that will be providing any services hereunder. Consultant will have a state-approved policy form providing statutory benefits as required by California law. The provisions of any workers’ compensation will not limit the obligations of Consultant under this Agreement. Consultant expressly agrees not to use any statutory immunity defenses under such laws with respect to City, its employees, officials and agents.

20.05 CYBER LIABILITY INSURANCE. REQUIRED IF CHECKED HERE ONLY [_X ] (Technology Professional Liability – Errors and Omissions), with limits not less than $2,000,000 per occurrence, and $2,000,000 aggregate or the full per occurrence limits of the policies available, whichever is greater. Coverage shall be sufficiently broad to respond to the duties and obligations as is undertaken by Consultant in this Agreement and shall include, but not be limited to, claims involving infringement of intellectual property, including but not limited to infringement of copyright, trademark, trade dress, invasion of privacy violations, information theft, damage to or destruction of electronic information, release of private information, alteration of electronic information, extortion and network security. The policy shall provide coverage for breach response costs as well as regulatory fines and penalties as well as credit monitoring expenses with limits sufficient to respond to these obligations. Consultant will file with City, before beginning professional services, certificates of insurance.

21. General Conditions pertaining to Insurance Coverage.

21.01 No liability insurance coverage provided shall prohibit Consultant from waiving the right of subrogation prior to a loss. Consultant waives all rights of subrogation against City regardless of the applicability of insurance proceeds and shall require all Consultants and subconsultants or subcontractors to do likewise.

21.02 Prior to beginning the services under this Agreement, Consultant shall furnish City with certificates of insurance, endorsements, and upon request, complete copies of all policies, including complete copies of all endorsements. All copies of policies and endorsements shall show the signature of a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf.

21.03. All required policies shall be issued by a highly rated insurer with a minimum A.M. Best rating of “A:VII”). The insurer(s) shall be admitted and licensed to do business in California. The certificates of insurance hereunder shall state that coverage shall not 431
8 be suspended, voided, canceled by either party, or reduced in coverage or in limits, except after thirty (30) days' prior written notice has been given to City.

21.04 Self-insurance does not comply with these insurance specifications.

Consultant acknowledges and agrees that that all insurance coverage required to be provided by Consultant or any sub-consultants or subcontractor shall apply first and on a primary, noncontributing basis in relation to any other insurance, indemnity or self-insurance available to City.

21.05 All coverage types and limits required are subject to approval, modification and additional requirements by City, as the need arises. Consultant shall not make any reductions in scope of coverage (e.g. elimination of contractual liability or reduction of discovery period) that may affect City’s protection without City’s prior written consent.

21.06 Consultant agrees to provide immediate notice to City of any claim or loss against Consultant or arising out of the services performed under this Agreement. City assumes no obligation or liability by such notice but has the right (but not the duty) to monitor the handling of any such claim or claims if they are likely to involve City.

22. Indemnification. Consultant shall indemnify, defend (with counsel approved by City), and hold harmless City and City's elected officials, officers, directors, employees, agents, representatives, successors, and assigns (collectively, "City Indemnified Parties") from and against all damages, whether ordinary, direct, indirect, incidental, special, consequential, or exemplary, judgments, liabilities, fines, penalties, losses, claims, actions, demands, lawsuits, costs, and expenses (including, without limitation, reasonable attorneys' fees, expert costs, court costs, and defense costs) that arise from or relate to: (i) Consultant's negligent acts or omissions or willful misconduct in connection with this Agreement; (ii) Consultant's breach of the terms and conditions of this Agreement; or (iii) Consultant's failure to comply with applicable state, federal or local laws, rules, or regulations.

23. Records. Consultant shall keep, and require sub-consultants to keep, such ledgers books of accounts, invoices, vouchers, canceled checks, reports, studies or other documents relating to the disbursements charged to City and services performed hereunder (the “books and records”), as shall be necessary to perform the services required by this Agreement and enable the Contract Officer to evaluate the performance of such services. Any and all such documents shall be maintained in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and shall be complete and detailed. The Contract Officer shall have full and free access to such books and records at all times during normal business hours of City, including the right to inspect, copy, audit and make records and transcripts from such records. Such records shall be maintained for a period of three (3) years following completion of the services hereunder, and the City shall have access to such records in the event any audit is required. In the event of dissolution of Consultant’s business, 432
9 custody of the books and records may be given to City, and access shall be provided by Consultant’s successor in interest.

24. Reports. Consultant shall periodically prepare and submit to the Contract Officer such reports concerning the performance of the servicesrequired by this Agreement as the Contract Officer shall require. Consultant hereby acknowledges that the City is greatly concerned about the cost of work and services to be performed pursuant to this Agreement. For this reason, Consultant agrees that if Consultant becomes aware of any facts, circumstances, techniques, or events that may or will materially increase or decrease the cost of the work or services contemplated herein or, if Consultant is providing design services, the cost of the project being designed, Consultant shall promptly notify the Contract Officer of said fact, circumstance, technique or event and the estimated increased or decreased cost related thereto and, if Consultant is providing design services, the estimated increased or decreased cost estimate for the project being designed.

25. Ownership of Documents; Audit.

25.01 All draft and final reports, plans, drawings, studies, maps, photographs, specifications, data, notes, manuals, warranties and all other documents of any kind or nature prepared, developed or obtained by Consultant in connection with the performance of services performed for the City shall become the sole property of City, and Consultant shall promptly deliver all such materials to City upon request. At City’s sole discretion, Consultant may be permitted to retain original documents, and furnish reproductions to City upon request, at no cost to City.

25.02 Subject to applicable federal and state laws, rules and regulations, City shall hold all intellectual property rights to any materials developed pursuant to this Agreement.

Consultant shall not use such data or documents for purposes other than the performance of this Agreement, nor shall Consultant release, reproduce, distribute, publish, adapt for future use or any other purposes, or otherwise use, any data or other materials first produced in the performance of this Agreement, nor authorize others to do so, without the prior written consent of City.

25.03 Consultant shall retain and maintain, for a period not less than four years following termination of this Agreement, all-time records, accounting records and vouchers and all other records with respect to all matters concerning services performed, compensation paid, and expenses reimbursed. At any time during normal business hours and as often as City may deem necessary, Consultant shall make available to City’s agents for examination all of such records and shall permit City’s agents to audit, examine and reproduce such records.

26. Confidentiality and Release of Information.
433
10 26.01 All information gained or work product produced by Consultant in performance of this Agreement shall be considered confidential, unless such information is in the public domain or already known to Consultant. Consultant shall not release or disclose any such information or work product to persons or entities other than City without prior written authorization from the Contract Officer.

26.02 Consultant, its officers, employees, agents or sub-consultants, shall not, without prior written authorization from the Contract Officer or unless requested by the City Attorney, voluntarily provide documents, declarations, letters of support, testimony at depositions, response to interrogatories or other information concerning the work performed under this Agreement. Response to a subpoena or court order shall not be considered “voluntary” provided Consultant gives City notice of such court order or subpoena.

26.03 If Consultant, or any officer, employee, agent or sub-consultant of Consultant, provides any information or work product in violation of this Agreement, then City shall have the right to reimbursement and indemnity from Consultant for any damages, costs and fees, including attorney’s fees, caused by or incurred as a result of Consultant’s conduct.

26.04 Consultant shall promptly notify City should Consultant, its officers, employees, agents or sub-consultants be served with any summons, complaint, subpoena, notice of deposition, request for documents, interrogatories, request for admissions or other discovery request, court order or subpoena from any party regarding this Agreement and the work performed there under. City retains the right, but has no obligation, to represent Consultant or be present at any deposition, hearing or similar proceeding. Consultant agrees to cooperate fully with City and to provide City with the opportunity to review any response to discovery requests provided by Consultant. However, this right to review any such response does not imply or mean the right by City to control, direct, or rewrite said response.

27. Governing Law; Venue. This Agreement shall be interpreted, construed and governed both as to validity and to performance of the Parties in accordance with the laws of the State of California. Legal actions concerning any dispute, claim or matter arising out of or in relation to this Agreement shall be instituted in the Superior Court of the County of Riverside, State of California, or any other appropriate court in such county, and Consultant covenants and agrees to submit to the personal jurisdiction of such court in the event of such action. In the event of litigation in a U.S. District Court, venue shall lie exclusively in the Central District of California, in Riverside.

28. Disputes; Default. In the event that City determines Consultant is in default under the terms of this Agreement, the City shall not have any obligation or duty to continue compensating Consultant for any work performed after the date of default. Instead, the City may 434
11 give notice to Consultant of the default and the reasons for the default. The notice shall include the timeframe in which Consultant may cure the default. This timeframe is presumptively thirty (30) days, but may be extended, though not reduced, if circumstances warrant. During the period of time that Consultant is in default, the City shall hold all invoices and shall, when the default is cured, proceed with payment on the invoices. In the alternative, the City may, in its sole discretion, elect to pay some or all of the outstanding invoices during the period of default. If Consultant does not cure the default, the City may take necessary steps to terminate this Agreement under this Section. Any failure on the part of the City to give notice of the Consultant’s default shall not be deemed to result in a waiver of the City’s legal rights or any rights arising out of any provision of this Agreement.

29. Retention of Funds. Consultant hereby authorizes City to deduct from any amount payable to Consultant (whether or not arising out of this Agreement) (i) any payment amount of which may be in dispute hereunder or which are necessary to compensate City for any losses, costs, liabilities, or damages suffered by City, and (ii) all amounts for which City may be liable to third parties, by reason of Consultant’s acts or omissions in performing or failing to perform Consultant’s obligation under this Agreement. In the event that any claim is made by a third party, the amount or validity of which is disputed by Consultant, or any indebtedness shall exist which shall appear to be the basis for a claim of lien, City may withhold from any payment due, without liability for interest because of such withholding, an amount sufficient to cover such claim. The failure of City to exercise such right to deduct or to withhold shall not, however, affect the obligations of the Consultant to insure, indemnify, and protect City as elsewhere provided herein.

30. Waiver. Waiver by any Party to this Agreement of any term, condition, or covenant of this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver of any other term, condition, or covenant. Waiver by any Party of any breach of the provisions of this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver of any other provision or a waiver of any subsequent breach or violation of any provision of this Agreement. Acceptance by City of any work or services by Consultant shall not constitute a waiver of any of the provisions of this Agreement. No delay or omission in the exercise of any right or remedy by a non-defaulting Party on any default shall impair such right or remedy or be construed as a waiver. Any waiver by either Party of any default must be in writing and shall not be a waiver of any other default concerning the same or any other provision of this Agreement.

31. Rights and Remedies are Cumulative. Except with respect to rights and remedies expressly declared to be exclusive in this Agreement, the rights and remedies of the Parties are cumulative and the exercise by either Party of one or more of such rights or remedies shall not preclude the exercise by it, at the same or different times, of any other rights or remedies for the same default or any other default by the other Party.
435
12 32. Legal Action. In addition to any other rights or remedies, either Party may take legal action, in law or in equity, to cure, correct or remedy any default, to recover damages for any default, to compel specific performance of this Agreement, to obtain declaratory or injunctive relief, or to obtain any other remedy consistent with the purposes of this Agreement.

Notwithstanding any contrary provision herein, Consultant must file a statutory claim pursuant to Government Code Sections 905 et seq. and 910 et seq., in order to pursue a legal action against City under this Agreement.

33. Termination of Agreement.

33.01 Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, City, at its sole option, may terminate this Agreement with or without cause, or for no cause, at any time by giving thirty (30) days’ written notice to Consultant.

33.02 In the event of termination, the payment of monies due Consultant for undisputed services performed prior to the effective date of such termination shall be paid within thirty (30) business days after receipt of an invoice as provided in this Agreement. Immediately upon termination, Consultant agrees to promptly provide and deliver to City all original documents, reports, and the like which are in the possession or control of Consultant and pertain to City.

34. Attorney’s Fees. If either Party to this Agreement is required to initiate or defend or made a party to any action or proceeding in any way connected with this Agreement, the prevailing party in such action or proceeding, in addition to any other relief which may be granted, whether legal or equitable, shall be entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees. Attorney’s fees shall include attorney’s fees on any appeal, and in addition the Party entitled to attorney’s fees shall be entitled to all other reasonable costs for investigating such action, taking depositions and discovery and all other necessary costs the court allows which are incurred in such litigation. All such fees shall be deemed to have accrued on commencement of such action and shall be enforceable whether or not such action is prosecuted to judgment.

35. Non-liability of City Officers and Employees. No officer or employee of the City shall be personally liable to the Consultant, or any successor in interest, in the event of any default or breach by the City or for any amount which may become due to the Consultant or to its successor, or for breach of any obligation of the terms of this Agreement.

36. Conflict of Interest. Consultant covenants that neither it, nor any officer or principal of its firm, has or shall acquire any interest, directly or indirectly, which would conflict in any manner with the interests of City or which would in any way hinder Consultant’s performance of services under this Agreement. Consultant further covenants that in the performance of this 436
13 Agreement, no person having any such interest shall be employed by it as an officer, employee, agent or sub-consultant without the express written consent of the Contract Officer. Consultant agrees to at all times avoid conflicts of interest or the appearance of any conflicts of interest with the interests of City in the performance of this Agreement. No officer or employee of the City shall have any financial interest, direct or indirect, in this Agreement within the scope of Government Code section 1090, nor shall any such officer or employee make, participate in making, or use his or her official position to influence, any City decision relating to the Agreement which has a material financial effect on his or her financial interests or the financial interests of any corporation, partnership or association in which he or she is, directly or indirectly, interested, in violation of any State statute or regulation. The Consultant warrants that it has not paid or given and will not pay or give any third party any money or other consideration for obtaining this Agreement.

37. Covenant Against Discrimination. Consultant covenants that, by and for itself, its heirs, executors, assigns, and all persons claiming under or through them, that there shall be no discrimination against or segregation of, any person or group of persons on account of race, color, creed, religion, sex, gender, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry in the performance of this Agreement. Consultant shall take affirmative action to insure that applicants are employed and that employees are treated during employment without regard to their race, color, creed, religion, sex, marital status, national origin, or ancestry, or other protected class.

38. Unauthorized Aliens. Consultant hereby promises and agrees to comply with all of the provisions of the Federal Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C.A. §§ 1101, et seq., as amended, and in connection therewith, shall not employ unauthorized aliens as defined therein.

Should Consultant so employ such unauthorized aliens for the performance of work and/or services covered by this Agreement, and should the any liability or sanctions be imposed against City for such use of unauthorized aliens, Consultant hereby agrees to and shall reimburse City for the cost of all such liabilities or sanctions imposed, together with any and all costs, including attorneys’ fees, incurred by City.

39. Notices. Any notice, demand, request, document, consent, approval, or communication either Party desires or is required to give to the other Party or any other person shall be in writing and either served personally or sent by prepaid, first-class mail, in the case of the City, to the City Manager and to the attention of the Contract Officer, CITY OF BANNING, 99 East Ramsey Street, Banning, CA 92220 and in the case of the Consultant, to the person at the address designated on the execution page of this Agreement. Either Party may change its address by notifying the other Party of the change of address in writing. Notice shall be deemed communicated at the time personally delivered or in seventy-two (72) hours from the time of mailing if mailed as provided in this Section.
437
14 40. Interpretation. The terms of this Agreement shall be construed in accordance with the meaning of the language used and shall not be construed for or against either Party by reason of the authorship of this Agreement or any other rule of construction which might otherwise apply.

41. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original, and such counterparts shall constitute one and the same instrument.

42. Integration; Amendment. This Agreement including the attachments hereto is the entire, complete and exclusive expression of the understanding of the Parties. It is understood that there are no oral agreements between the Parties hereto affecting this Agreement and this Agreement supersedes and cancels any and all previous negotiations, arrangements, agreements and understandings, if any, between the Parties, and none shall be used to interpret this Agreement.

No amendment to or modification of this Agreement shall be valid unless made in writing and approved by the Consultant and by the City Council. The Parties agree that this requirement for written modifications cannot be waived and that any attempted waiver shall be void.

43. Severability. In the event that any one or more of the phrases, sentences, clauses, paragraphs, or sections contained in this Agreement shall be declared invalid or unenforceable by a valid judgment or decree of a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unenforceability shall not affect any of the remaining phrases, sentences, clauses, paragraphs, or sections of this Agreement which are hereby declared as severable and shall be interpreted to carry out the intent of the Parties hereunder unless the invalid provision is so material that its invalidity deprives either Party of the basic benefit of their bargain or renders this Agreement meaningless.

44. Corporate Authority. The persons executing this Agreement on behalf of the Parties hereto warrant that (i) such Party is duly organized and existing, (ii) they are duly authorized to execute and deliver this Agreement on behalf of said Party, (iii) by so executing this Agreement, such Party is formally bound to the provisions of this Agreement, and (iv) the entering into this Agreement does not violate any provision of any other Agreement to which said Party is bound.

This Agreement shall be binding upon the heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns of the Parties.
[SIGNATURE ON FOLLOWING PAGE]
438
439
16 EXHIBIT “A”

SCOPE OF WORK
Utility Billing System Assistance
Consultant is to complete an assessment of the Utility Billing systems and processes for the City’s Electrical Utility and recommend options for speeding its recovery to a timely billing cycle.

After review of the recommended options by the City, Consultant may assist the City in implementing his recommendations.

Consultant may make presentations to the City Council and others in public meetings.

Financial Management Assistance
Consultant may complete various projects as assigned by the City’s Finance Director to catch up the City’s accounting systems and/or compliance with state, federal or general accounting principles.
440
17 EXHIBIT “B”

CERTIFICATES OF INSURANCE AND ENDORSEMENTS
[ATTACHED BELOW]
441
18 ,.--., ACORD® CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE
�
COVERAGES CERTIFICATE NUMBER· REVISION NUMBER"

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED NOn\1THSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONOTION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WTH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS

CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS,

EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS INSR
LTR TYPE OF INSURANCE 1�-�E.!- 1� ..�� POLICY NUMBER POLICYEFFIMMJDD!YYYYI POLICY EXP IMMJDDN'f'f'{I LIMITS �
�
�

COMMERCIAL GEN E
□

RA L LIABILITY
� CLAIMS-MADE OCCUR

EACH OCCURRENCE I
PRE'M·����E;�,;�ir�emel I
MED EXP /,A n)o' one person) I

PERBONA L & ADV INJURY I
R

GENLAGGRE
□

GATE LIMITAPPLIES PER
POLICY. PRO- DLoc JECT OTHER

GENERAL AGGREGATE I

PRODUCTS- COMP/OP AGG I
I
AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY COMBINED SINGLE LIMIT (Ea accident) I �
f--
�
�

ANY AUTO

OWNED HSCHEDULED AUTOS ONLY AUTOS HIRED NON-OWNED

AUTOS ONLY AUTOS ONLY
BODILY INJURY (Per person) I
BODILY INJURY (Per accident) I
rPRe?��c�l/nfAM AGE I
I
� UMBRELLA LIAB HOCCUR EXCESS LIAB CLAIMS-MADE

EACH OCCURRENCE I

AGGREGATE I

OED I I RETENTIONI I

WJRKERS COMPENSATION
□ AND EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY YIN ANY PROPR.IETORIPARTNER!EXECUTIVE OFFICERiMEMBER EXCLUDED? (Mand:ltory m NH)
lf11es, describe under DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS below
NIA
I �ffruTE I I OTHER

EL EACH ACCIDENT I

EL DISEASE - EA EMPLOYEE I

EL DISEASE- POLICY LIMIT I
A
Professional Liability
EONCAF 150727142-006 09/04/2024 09/04/2025
Aggregate
Each Claim
Retention
$2,000,000
$1,000,000
$2,500
DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS /LOCATIONS !VEHICLES (ACORD 101, Additional Remarks Schedule, m:N be attached if more space is required) B Cyber Liability Policy
- Insurer: At-Bay Specialty Insurance Company
- Policy Number AB-6720823-01
- Effective and Expiration Dates 08/0712025 to 08/07/2026 -Aggregate Limit of Insurance $2,000,000
................PROOF OF INSLIRANCE"'"'""'""'"'"'""'"'

CERTIFICATE HOLDER CANCELLATION

SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE THE EXPIRATION DATE lHEREOF, NOTICE WILL BE DELIVERED IN City of Banning ACCORDANCE WITH THE POLICY PROVISIONS.
99 E. Ramsey Street AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE
Banning, CA 92220 s4.£,
�
�-�
ACORD 25 (2016/03)
© 1988-2015 ACORD CORPORATION. All rights reserved.

The ACORD name and logo are registered marks of ACORD

I DATE (MMIDDNYYY)
08/1212025
THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. THIS

CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AFFIRMATIVELY OR NEGATIVELY AMEND, EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES

BELOW THIS CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE ISSUING INSURER(S), AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OR PRODUCER, AND THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER.

IMPORTANT: If the certificate holder is an ADDITIONAL INSURED, the policy(ies) must have ADDITIONAL INSURED provisions or be endorsed.

If SUBROGATION IS WAIVED, subject to the terms and conditions of the policy, certain policies may require an endorsement. A statement on this certificate does not confer rights to the certificate holder in lieu of such endorsement(s).

PRODUCER CONTACT Gary R McCarthy NAME:

GRBM. Inc. �."lt'"Jo E><II: (845) 878-9293 I r:,� No\: (845) 878-3769 39 Old Doansburg Road E-MAIL [email protected] ADDRESS:

INSURER(S) AFFORDING COVERAGE NAIC #
Brewster NY 10509 INSURER A: Illinois Union Ins Co 27960

INSURED
Russell Branson dba Russ Branson Consulting
545 \Nest 111th Street. #31
New York NY 10025-1982
INSURER B: At-Bay Specialty Insurance Company
INSURER C:

INSURER D:

INSURER E:

INSURER F:
442
19 GEICO. gaica.cam
Tel: 1-800-841-3000 Declarations Page This is a description of your coverage.

Please retain for your records.

GEICO General Insurance Company
P.O. Box 509090
San Diego, CA 92150-9090 Policy Number: 6078-46-64-78
Coverage Period:
03-01-25 through 09-01-25 12:01 a.m.slandardlime al the address of the named insured.

Date Issued: January 25, 2025

RUSSELL K BRANSON AND CARYN M

COCHRAN
8608 GLENROY WAY
SACRAMENTO CA 95826-1738
Email Address: [email protected]
Named Insured
Russell Kahale Lial Branson
Caryn Michele Cochran
Additional Drivers
Tyler Grace Cochranbranson
Vehicle Vehicle Location Finance Company/
Lienholder
1 2016 Hyundai Elantra KMHD35LHXGU299535 SACRAMENTO CA 95826-1738 Coverages* Limits and/or Deductibles Vehicle 1
Bodily Injury Liability
Each Person/Each Occurrence $300,0001$500,000 $358.40
Property Damage Liability $50,000 $200.60
Medical Payments $5,000 $31.80
Uninsured & Underinsured Motorists
Each Person/Each Occurrence $30,0001$60,000 $62.40
Uninsured Motorists Property Damage Insured Rejects
Comprehensive (Excluding Collision) $500 Ded $39.20
Total Six Month Premium $692.40
*Coverage applies where a premium or $0.00 is shown for a vehicle.

If you elect to pay your premium in installments, you may be subject to an additional fee for each installment. The fee amount will be shown on your billing statements and is subject to change.

DEG_PAGE (03-14) (Page 1 of 4)
Continued on Back
Renewal Page 5 of 15
443
20 DEG_PAGE (03-14) (Page 2 of 4)
Continued on Next Page
Renewal Page 6 of 15
Discounts and Surcharges
Discounts
Anti-Theft Device (All Vehicles)
Passive Restraint/Air Bag (All Vehicles)
California Good Driver (All Vehicles)
Loyalty Persistency (All Vehicles)
Multi-Car (All Vehicles)
Surcharges
Accident and/or Conviction (Veh 1)
Group Insurance Plan:

Professional Group Insurance Plan
Contract Type: A30CA
Contract Amendments: ALL VEHICLES - A30CA SIGPGCW
Class: 0 -N -07SFO-39 T (VEH 1)
Important Policy Information
No coverage is provided in Mexico.

Reminder - Physical damage coverage will not cover loss for custom options on an owned automobile, including equipment, furnishings or finishings including paint, if the existence of those options has not been previously reported to us. This reminder does NOT apply in VIRGINIA, however, in Virginia coverage is limited for custom furnishings or equipment on pick-up trucks and vans but you may purchase coverage for this equipment. Please call us at 1-800-841-3000 or visit us at geico.com if you have any questions.

Congratulations! Your policy qualifies for the Professional Group Insurance Plan and includes a savings of $188.00.

A credit or discount has been applied to this policy: Multi-Car.

Subject to the policy carrying Comprehensive and/or Collision Coverage, if a non-owned auto, in operation while leased or rented for a fee, has a Manufacturer Suggested Retail Price above $100,000, the limits of liability for loss to the non-owned auto is the highest of the actual cash value of any owned auto shown on the Declarations page.

GEICO now offers a discount in California for advanced safety features factory-installed on many vehicles. Please be sure to review each of your vehicles on geico.com or call us at 1-800-841-3000 to confirm all applicable safety features are listed.

For your protection, California law requires the following to appear on this form: "Any person who knowingly presents false or fraudulent information to obtain or amend insurance coverage or to make a claim for the payment of a loss is guilty of a crime and may be subject to fines and confinement in state prison." In California, you have the right to designate one person to receive notices from GEICO if your policy is about to cancel or expire for non-payment. Your designee will not have any rights or benefits under your policy other than the right to receive the notice or make a payment. You can change or remove the designee at any time. If you would like to add, change or remove a designee from your policy, simply log into your account at geico.com or call us at 1-800-841-3000.
444
21 DEG_PAGE (03-14) (Page3 of 4) Renewal Page 7 of 15
Important Policy Information
Claims incurred while an insured vehicle is being used to carry passengers for hire may not be covered by this contract. Please review the contract for a full list of exclusions and contact us if you plan to use any of your insured vehicles for this purpose.

A Good Student Credit or Discount no longer applies to your 2016 HYUNDAI.

Please verify that the coverages you requested are accurately reflected on your Declarations Page. Visit geico.com to review additional coverages and/or limits available to you.

In accordance with Section 1872.87 of the California Insurance Code, in addition to your premium, a $).88 charge per vehicle is assessed to fund auto insurance fraud reduction initiatives. This charge is applied once per policy term per vehicle.

The number of vehicles and drivers on your policy affects the calculation of your premium.

The annual mileage figures applicable to the vehicles on your policy for the current and upcoming policy periods are:

Vehicle Current Mileage Upcoming Mileage
2016 Hyundai Elantra 12,000 12,000
445
22 DEC_PAGE (00-14) (Page4 ol 4) Renewal Page 8 or 15
446
23 Al�CINCINNATI

INSURANCE COMPANIES
The Cincinnati Insurance Company

PERSONAL UMBRELLA LIABILITY

DECLARATIONS
Policy Period: From 03/28/2025 To 03/28/2026 12 01 am. Standard Time at the Address of the Named Insured

POLICY NUMBER
U0l 1076549
Image 8
Renewal
UOl 1076549
Named Insured & Address
Russell Branson
Caiyn Cochran
545 W 111TH ST APT 31
NEW YORK, NY 10025-1961
Please refer any questions to your agent:

USI Insurance Services LLC
725 RXRPLZ
UNIONDALE, NY 11556-3817
855-874-0888
Agency 31144 Producer Bradley Michael Ziegler
County of NEW YORK
In the event of a claim, you may call your
agent or The Cincinnati Insurance Company
at 877-242-2544.

PAYOR -Account
Billing Method: Direct Bill
Current Pay Plan: Annual Pay
Total Premium: $248.00
THIS IS NOT A BILL. You will receive a separate invoice if a premium charge or return is due.

LIMITS OF INSURANCE
a. Bodily Injury and Property Damage (per Each Occurrence) b. Personal Injury (Aggregate)
Excluding excess supplementary uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage. (unless otherwise modified by endorsement)
} $1,000,000
The following credits have been applied to your policy:

Package Credit
BASIC PREMIUM SUBTOTAL $248.00
DDU (7/15) 02/06/2025

ORIGINAL COPY
U011076549 1 of 2
447
24 Al�CINCINNATI

INSURANCE COMPANIES
The Cincinnati Insurance Company

PERSONAL UMBRELLA LIABILITY

DECLARATIONS
Policy Period: From 03/28/2025 To 03/28/2026 12 01 am. Standard Time at the Address of the Named Insured

POLICY NUMBER
U0l 1076549
Image 8
Renewal

OTHER COVERAGES, ENDORSEMENTS AND CHARGES
Personal Umbrella Liability Policy UXl0lUM (8/15)
Important Notice to Policyholders Regarding Excess AP451ANY (3/17) Uninsured and Underinsured Motorist Coverage - New York Notice of Privacy Practices
New York Notice to Policyholders Serving In Active
Military Duty
Notice To New York Senior Citizen Policyholders
Notice to Policyholders - New York
Automobile Limitation
Excess Supplementary Uninsured/ Underinsured Motorists
Coverage Exclusion - New York
Amendatory Endorsement - New York
Mll 659 (4/22)
MI 1721NY0403
MI1923NY (2/09)
MI1989NY (10/11)
UX306 (6/16)
UX324NY (4/10)
UX420NY (6/23)

OTHER COVERAGES, ENDORSEMENTS AND CHARGES PREMIUM
TOTAL POLICY PREMIUM $248.00
SCHEDULE A- SCHEDULE OF UNDERLYING INSURANCE:

It is agreed by the Named Insured and their "resident relatives" that the following minimum limits of "underlying insurance" are in force as of the inception date of this policy and will be maintained during the term of this policy:

Underlying Insurance
Personal Liability:

Underlying Limit
Address: 545 W 111TH ST APT 3INEW YORK, NY 10025-1961
Carrier: CIC
Policy Number: C0l 1076549
Bodily Injury, Personal Injury and Property Damage
Combined $1,000,000
and/ or
each occurrence
aggregate
DDU (7/15) 02/06/2025

ORIGINAL COPY
U011076549 2 of 2
448
25 IMPORTANT NOTICE TO POLICYHOLDERS REGARDING

EXCESS SUPPLEMENTARY UNINSURED/UNDERINSURED

MOTORISTS COVERAGE - NEW YORK

OFFER OF EXCESS SUPPLEMENTARY UNINSURED/UNDERINSURED MOTORISTS

COVERAGE
This form will attach to and form a part of your umbrella liability policy and all subsequent renewal, reinstatement,replacement, rubstitution, amended, modified, transfer or replacement policies.

1. UNINSUREDAJNDERINSURED MOTORISTS COVERAGE
The purpose of this notice is to explain that y:,u can choose to purchase Excess Supplementary Uninsured/Underinsured Motorists Bodily Injury insurance:
• h. a limit that is from $1,000,000 to $10,000,000: or Reject Bo:::ess Suppementary Uninsured/Underinsured Motorists Bodily Injury insurance entirely.

Keep in mind that if coverage is accepted, you must maintain full primary Uninsured/Underinrured Motorists Coverage limits equal to the Auto limits of lnrurance scheduled as underlying insurance on your policy or endorsement.

2. EXPLANATION OF COVERAGE
The coverage provided under E)Cess Supplementary Uninsured/Underinsured Mctorists Coverage is excess over any primary Uninsured/Underinsured Motorists Coverage you have purchased.

Please discuss with your insurc11ce agent any questions you may have about the coverage described in this notice and your coverage options.

AP451ANY (3/17)
449
26 NEW YORK NOTICE TO POLICYHOLDERS SERVING IN ACTIVE

MILITARY DUTY
This is to notify you that you may designate an adult third-party to receive bills and other notices related to y:>ur insurance coverage, Slould y:>u be called to active milit.ry duty. In the event that you, as the named insured on the policy, are called to a:::tive military duty, complete this form and return it to yol.l" insurance agent. designate the following individual as my third-party designee for Name of Insured (print)
insurance policy number: U01 1076549
Name of third-party designee (print)
Address
City, Sta:e, Zip
Phone Number
The authority o1 the third-party designee may be revoked by the named insured, at any time, upon delivery of written notice from the insured to their insurance agent.

Signature of Named Insured calledto Active Military duty.

By signing below, I agree to become the insured's third-party designee. As a third-party designee, y:>u are not an insurea under the policy. You have been designated bytne insured as the person to receive bills and other notices related to their insurance coverage. Failure by ya.J, on the insured's behalf, or failure of the insured through you, to pay premium when due will res.JI! in the cancellation of the insured's inSJrance Third-party Designee Signature
Date
Suspension of Coverage
You have the option of suspending any insurance coverage, without penalty. If you elect to suspend y:>ur automobile insurance, you must comply with the conditions applicable to suspension, including surrender of registration and plates to the Department of Motor Vehicles.

By signing below, you the named insured, elect to suspend your inSJrance coverage for the time y:>u are on Active Military duty During the suspension period you
Named lnSJred
will have no coverage under this policy. Coverage will not be reinstated until y:>u have sent written nctic:e to ya.Jr lnSJranc:e Agent, along with any premium due to reinstate coverage.

Effective date to SJspend cOJerage. Coverage will be SJspended at 12:01 A.M. local time on the date shown.

In the event the third-party designee withdraws or otherwise fails to carry out their responsibility to the named insured, the coverage will be canceled when premiums are not paid. In the event coverage is cancelled, The Cincinnati Insurance Company is reSponSible to send notice o1 cancellation to the Third-Party Designee at the adcress provided herein.

Ml 1721 NY 04 03
450
27 NOTICE TO POLICYHOLDERS - NEW YORK
(Direct Bill Policyholders only)
When premiums are not paid on time, we experience additional costs to keep your pd icy in force. These costs are addressed by service charges which are applied to y::,ur policy. The timely payment of your premium can prevent the following service charges from ever being applied to your balance:

1. The first time your policy cancellation is resdnded (meaning the cancellation nctice has been mailed, but we receive payment before the cancellation takes effect), we will waive the service charge. For each succeeding reseinded cancellation of your policy, a nominal $10 service charge will be applied to your installment.

2. The first time your policy is reinstated (meaning the cancellation has already taken effect), we will only add a nominal $10 service charge to keep your policy in force. For each succeeding reinstatement, a $25 service charge will be applied to your policy.

3. The first time a premium payment is returned due to Non-Sufficient Funds (NSF) for your policy, we will add a nominal $10 service charge to your installment. For each succeeding return of payment, a $25 service charge will be added to your installment.

Failure to pay any of the des:::ribed service charges when applied to y::,ur policy for any of the described circumstances will rerult in cancellation of your policy fcr nonpayment.

Please contact your agent with any questions.

Ml1989NY (10/11)
451
28 i,,..., .

ACORD® CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE I
COVERAGES CERTIFICATE NUMBER· REVISION NUMBER·
�

CERTIFICATE HOLDER CANCELLATION

CITY OF BANNING

SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE

THE EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF, NOTICE WILL BE DELIVERED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE POLICY PROVISIONS.
99 E. RAMSEY STREET
BANNING, CA 92220
I

AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE
Completed by an authorized State Farm representative. If signature is required, please contact a State Fann agent.

ACORD 25 (2016/03)
© 1988-2015 ACORD CORPORATION. All rights reserved.

The ACORD name and logo are registered marks of ACORD
1001486132849.14 04-13-2022
DATE (MMfDDNYYY)
08/04/2025
THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. THIS

CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AFFIRMATIVELY OR NEGATIVELY AMEND, EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW. THIS CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE ISSUING INSURER(S), AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OR PRODUCER, AND THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER.

IMPORTANT: If the certificate holder is an ADDITIONAL INSURED, the policy(ies) must have ADDITIONAL INSURED provisions or be endorsed.

If SUBROGATION IS WAIVED, subject to the terms and conditions of the policy, certain policies may require an endorsement. A statement on this certificate does not confer riahts to the certificate holder in lieu of such endorsementrs l.

PRODUCER StateFann Marc T edaldi
A, 312E 93rd Street
New York, NY 10128
CONTACT Marc Tedaldi NAME: r:,gN�.E .. , 212-427-3110 Ir:,�Nol: 212-427-3199 E-MAIL
UH'IRESS: marc.tedaldi .tzOv@state famr.com
INSURER(S) AFFORDING COVERAGE NAIC #
INSURER A: State Farm Fire and Casualty Company 25143

INSURED

RUSS BRANSON CONSULTING
545 W 11TH ST APT 31
NEW YORK, NY 10025
INSURER B:

INSURER C:

INSURER D:

INSURER E:

INSURERF:

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE POLICIES OF INSURt\NCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PEFlOD INDICATED. NOTV\ITHSTANDNG ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT VMTH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS

CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS, EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES. LIMITS SH0\11/N MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS. 1 Tff TYPE OF INSURANCE w�so wv6 POLICY NUMBER -v•" <n IMMIDDNYYYi ,MMDDNYYY, LIMITS - COMMERCIAL GEN E
□
RA L LIABILITY EACH OCCURRENCE $ 1,000,000
UAMAoe I u HeNI eU
$ 300,000 - � Cll'dMS-MADE OCCUR nnr•11q�q 11:::, "��· rr"'n�c:•1 MED EXP (An\l one person) 1 5,000
A -
- X X 92-C6-J283-5 09/0712024 0910712025 PERSONAL&ADV IN.JURY 1 1,000,000 GEN'LAGGREGATE LIMIT APPLIES PER GENERAL AGGREGATE I 2,000,000 � PRO- LDC PRODUCTS - COM P!OP AGG $ 2,000,000 POLICY. JECT OTHER $
AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY COMEINED SINGLE LJMIT /Ea acc:idenn $ �
�
�

ANY AUTO

OWNED HSCHEDULED AUTOS ONLY AUTOS HIRED NON-OWNED

AUTOS ONLY AUTOS ONLY
BODILY INJURY (Per person) $
BODILY INJURY (Perciccident) $
PROPERTY DAMAGE !Per accident $
$
� UMBRELLA LIAB HOCCUR EXCESS LIAB CLJdM S- MADE
EACH OCCURRENCE $
AGGREGATE $
OED I I RETENTION $ $

WORKERS COMPENSATION

AND EMPLOYERS'LIABILITY
���16��R�����:��I��i;ECUTIVE (Mandatory
in NH)
lf\les,describeunder
DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS below
NIA
I ��fTIITE I I OTHCR $
EL EACH ACCIDENT $
EL DISEASE EA EMPLOYEE $
EL DISEASE- POLICY LIMIT $
DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS I LOCATIONS !VEHICLES (ACORD 101, Additional Remarks Schedule, may be attached if more space is required)

ADDITIONAL INSURED CITY OF BANNING, ITS OFFICIALS, EMPLOYEES AND AGENTS 452

CITY OF BANNING

STAFF REPORT
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Arturo Vela, Acting City Manager
PREPARED BY: Michelle Green, Interim Administrative Services Director Michelle Green, Interim Administrative Services Director MEETING DATE: August 26, 2025
SUBJECT: Receive and File Accounts Payable and Payroll Warrants Issued in the Month of March 2025
RECOMMENDATION:

Receive and file.

BACKGROUND:

Staff compiles a monthly report to include accounts payable and payroll warrants issued.

JUSTIFICATION:

Description Payment # Amount Total Amount
Checks:

Checks Issued During Month 194712-195040 $2,494,284.99
Voided/Reissue Checks $ 373.71
Check Total $2,493,911.28
Wires Total 1166 $1,106,788.96
ACH Payments: 9008210-9008240
Payroll Direct Deposit 03/07/2025 $ 630,758.73
Payroll Direct Deposit 03/21/2025 $ 626,635.99
Other Payments $1,416,161.93
ACH Total $2,673,556.65
Payroll Checks: 13814-13830
Manual check 03/05/2025 $ 25,572.34
Payroll-Regular 03/07/2025 $ 1,688.38
Manual check 03/19/2025 $ 74,516.34
Payroll-Regular 03/21/2025 $ 1,659.47
Payroll Check Total $ 103,436.53
453
Total Warrants Issued for
March 2025
$ 6,377,693.42
FISCAL IMPACT:

No fiscal impact.

ALTERNATIVES:

Receive and file the warrants for period ending March 31, 2025.

BUDGETED?:

No
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT:

No
ATTACHMENTS:

1. Attachment 1 - Fund List_Updated 10.11.23.pdf

2. AP & PAYROLL WARRANT-MARCH 2025.pdf
454
General Fund Special Revenue Capital Improvement Enterprise Enterprise Internal Service Sucessor Agency Agency Funds Funds Funds Funds-BUA Funds Funds Funds
General Fund (001) Departments (002) Developer Deposit (400) Police Facilities Development (670) Electric Fund (660) Water (702) Fleet Maintenance (805) Redevelopment Obligation- - (1000) City Council (005) Successor Agency Admin (410) Fire Facilities Development - (7000) Electric (661) Water Capital Facilities (700) Risk Management Retirement - (1200) City Manager (100) Gas Tax Street (420) Traffic Control Facility - (7010) Generation & Trans. (662) Irrigation Water Fund - (5020) Workers Compensation (810) Sucessor Housing Agency (101) Measure A Street (421) Ramsey/Highland Signal (672) Rate Stability/Debt Service Reserve (663) BUA Water Capital Project - (5030) Unemployment Insur. (830) Debt Service Successor Agncy (102) RMRA (SB1) Gas Tax (430) General Facilities (673) Electric Improvement (669) BUA Water Debt Service - (5040) Liability Insurance (840) Bond Exp. Agreement - (221) ATWEL #2020-02 CFD
(360) Sun Lakes CFD #86-1
(365) Wilson Street #91-1 AD
(370) Area Police Computer
(375 Fair Oaks #2004-01-AD
(376) Cameo Homes
- (1210) Economic Development
- (1220) Public Information
- (1300) Human Resources
- (1400) City Clerk
(103) SB 300 Street (444) Wilson Median Fund (674) Electric Revenue Bond Project - (5300) City Attorney (BEA) Project -
(104) Article 3 Sidewalk (451) Park Development Fund (675) Public Benefit (680) Wastewater (841) Bond Exp. Agreement - - (1500) Elections
(1800) City Attorney
(110) CDBG (470) Capital Improvement (678) Electric Revenue Bond Debt Service (681) Wastewater Capital Facility (703) Information Systems Services
(704) Building Maintenance
(705) Support Services
(761) Utility Billing Admin.
(BEA) Low/Mod
- (1900) Fiscal Services
(111) Landscape Maintenance (475) Fair Oaks #2004-01-AD (682) Wastewater Tertiary - (3100) Account & Collections
- (1910) Purchasing & AP
(132) Air Quality Improvement (600) Airport Fund (683) BUA Wastewater Capital Project - (3110) Meter Reading
(140) Asset Forfeiture/Police (610) Transit Fund (685) State Revolving Loan - (2060) TV Government Access
- (2200) Police
(148) Supplemental Law- - (5800) Fixed Route (689) BUA Wastewater Debt Service Enforcement - (5850) Dial A Ride
(150) State Park Bond (690) Refuse Fund
(190) Housing Authority
(200) Special Donation
(201) Sr. Center Activities
(202) Animal Control Reserve
(203) Police Volunteer
(222) Federal Funds
(300) City Administration-
COP Debt Service
- (2210) Dispatch
- (2300) Animal Control
- (2400) Fire
- (2700) Building Safety
- (2740) Code Enforcement
- (2800) Planning
- (3000) Engineering
- (3200) Building Maintenance
- (3600) Parks
- (4000) Recreation
- (4010) Aquatics
- (4020) Day care
- (4050) Senior Center
- (4060) Sr. Advisory Board
- (4500) Central Services
- (4800) Debt Service
- (5400) Community Enhancement
Budget Processes, Policies & Fund Structure
The following depicts the City's budgeted funds and how they fit in the organization for budget and accounting purposes. Note that departments in the General Fund may also have budget responsibility for other funds.

Appropriated Funds
Governmental Funds Proprietary Funds Fiduciary Funds
Black = Major - Blue = Non-Major - Red = Retired Funds FY 20-21 455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
1166 xxxx
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550

CITY OF BANNING

STAFF REPORT
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Arturo Vela, Acting City Manager
PREPARED BY: Michelle Green, Interim Administrative Services Director Michelle Green, Interim Administrative Services Director MEETING DATE: August 26, 2025
SUBJECT: Receive and File Accounts Payable and Payroll Warrants Issued in the Month of April 2025
RECOMMENDATION:

Receive and file.

BACKGROUND:

Staff compiles a monthly report to include accounts payable and payroll warrants issued.

JUSTIFICATION:

Description Payment # Amount Total Amount
Checks:

Checks Issued During Month 195041-195303 $2,509,099.90
Voided/Reissue Checks $ 0.00
Check Total $2,509,099.90
Wires Total 1167-1169 $2,305,268.52
ACH Payments: 9008241-9008262
Payroll Direct Deposit 04/04/2025 $ 626,146.30
Payroll Direct Deposit 04/18/2025 $ 692,919.56
Other Payments $1,347,555.24
ACH Total $2,666,621.10
Payroll Checks: 13831-13846
Payroll-Regular 04/04/2025 $ 1,821.14
Payroll-Regular 04/18/2025 $ 1,805.12
Payroll Check Total $ 3,626.26
Total Warrants Issued for
April 2025
$ 7,484,615.78
551
FISCAL IMPACT:

No fiscal impact.

ALTERNATIVES:

Receive and file the warrants for period ending April 30, 2025.

BUDGETED?:

No
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT:

No
ATTACHMENTS:

1. Attachment 1 - Fund List_Updated 10.11.23.pdf

2. AP & PAYROLL WARRANTS-APRIL 2025.pdf
552
General Fund Special Revenue Capital Improvement Enterprise Enterprise Internal Service Sucessor Agency Agency Funds Funds Funds Funds-BUA Funds Funds Funds
General Fund (001) Departments (002) Developer Deposit (400) Police Facilities Development (670) Electric Fund (660) Water (702) Fleet Maintenance (805) Redevelopment Obligation- - (1000) City Council (005) Successor Agency Admin (410) Fire Facilities Development - (7000) Electric (661) Water Capital Facilities (700) Risk Management Retirement - (1200) City Manager (100) Gas Tax Street (420) Traffic Control Facility - (7010) Generation & Trans. (662) Irrigation Water Fund - (5020) Workers Compensation (810) Sucessor Housing Agency (101) Measure A Street (421) Ramsey/Highland Signal (672) Rate Stability/Debt Service Reserve (663) BUA Water Capital Project - (5030) Unemployment Insur. (830) Debt Service Successor Agncy (102) RMRA (SB1) Gas Tax (430) General Facilities (673) Electric Improvement (669) BUA Water Debt Service - (5040) Liability Insurance (840) Bond Exp. Agreement - (221) ATWEL #2020-02 CFD
(360) Sun Lakes CFD #86-1
(365) Wilson Street #91-1 AD
(370) Area Police Computer
(375 Fair Oaks #2004-01-AD
(376) Cameo Homes
- (1210) Economic Development
- (1220) Public Information
- (1300) Human Resources
- (1400) City Clerk
(103) SB 300 Street (444) Wilson Median Fund (674) Electric Revenue Bond Project - (5300) City Attorney (BEA) Project -
(104) Article 3 Sidewalk (451) Park Development Fund (675) Public Benefit (680) Wastewater (841) Bond Exp. Agreement - - (1500) Elections
(1800) City Attorney
(110) CDBG (470) Capital Improvement (678) Electric Revenue Bond Debt Service (681) Wastewater Capital Facility (703) Information Systems Services
(704) Building Maintenance
(705) Support Services
(761) Utility Billing Admin.
(BEA) Low/Mod
- (1900) Fiscal Services
(111) Landscape Maintenance (475) Fair Oaks #2004-01-AD (682) Wastewater Tertiary - (3100) Account & Collections
- (1910) Purchasing & AP
(132) Air Quality Improvement (600) Airport Fund (683) BUA Wastewater Capital Project - (3110) Meter Reading
(140) Asset Forfeiture/Police (610) Transit Fund (685) State Revolving Loan - (2060) TV Government Access
- (2200) Police
(148) Supplemental Law- - (5800) Fixed Route (689) BUA Wastewater Debt Service Enforcement - (5850) Dial A Ride
(150) State Park Bond (690) Refuse Fund
(190) Housing Authority
(200) Special Donation
(201) Sr. Center Activities
(202) Animal Control Reserve
(203) Police Volunteer
(222) Federal Funds
(300) City Administration-
COP Debt Service
- (2210) Dispatch
- (2300) Animal Control
- (2400) Fire
- (2700) Building Safety
- (2740) Code Enforcement
- (2800) Planning
- (3000) Engineering
- (3200) Building Maintenance
- (3600) Parks
- (4000) Recreation
- (4010) Aquatics
- (4020) Day care
- (4050) Senior Center
- (4060) Sr. Advisory Board
- (4500) Central Services
- (4800) Debt Service
- (5400) Community Enhancement
Budget Processes, Policies & Fund Structure
The following depicts the City's budgeted funds and how they fit in the organization for budget and accounting purposes. Note that departments in the General Fund may also have budget responsibility for other funds.

Appropriated Funds
Governmental Funds Proprietary Funds Fiduciary Funds
Black = Major - Blue = Non-Major - Red = Retired Funds FY 20-21 553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623

CITY OF BANNING

STAFF REPORT
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Arturo Vela, Acting City Manager
PREPARED BY: Jason Smith,
Art Vela, Director of Public Works
MEETING DATE: August 26, 2025
SUBJECT: Consideration of Resolution 2025-113, Authorizing the Electric Department to Execute a Lease-to-Own Agreement for One Altec DT85 Digger/Derrick Truck
RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt Resolution 2025-113.

BACKGROUND:

Banning Electric Utility is a retail electrical energy distribution provider and load serving entity serving approximately 14,000 end-use customers with 15 miles of overhead and underground sub-transmission, six (6) distribution substations, and 129 miles of overhead and underground distribution lines and a host of special equipment and appurtenances requiring a full complement of aerial, digging, and material handling devices. Digger/Derrick vehicles are used for both overhead and underground construction applications. This type of unit is used to auger holes, lift conductors, set poles, lift and set electric equipment such as transformers, capacitor banks, voltage regulators as well as assist in pulling underground cable.

JUSTIFICATION:

Currently the department owns two smaller Digger/Derrick units which were purchased in 2004 and 2006. Both units are near the end of their useful life. Pictures of the oldest unit are attached below. In addition, these smaller units can no longer meet all the needs of the growing physical size of electric utility equipment. Recently, the utility added a steel transmission line which consists of seventy-five (75) foot steel poles. The smaller units cannot safely maneuver the weight, nor can they reach the necessary height to safely replace or work on these large steel poles. Also, the smaller units cannot lift the larger pad mounted transformers which are becoming more common as demand for more power increases.

This vehicle purchase will alleviate additional costs and coordination of crane rentals for this type of work and will allow the department to operate and maintain its infrastructure and equipment in a safe and effective manner. The DT85E Digger/Derrick truck specification sheet and quote are attached to this staff report.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The terms of the lease to purchase will be sixty (60) months at a monthly payment of $9,390 including taxes for a total cost of $468,713. Vehicle ownership will belong to the utility upon final payment.

ALTERNATIVES:
624
Do not adopt the resolution and provide an alternative direction.

BUDGETED?:

Yes
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT:

No
ATTACHMENTS:

1. Resolution_2025-113_Digger_Derrick.docx

2. DT85E-onesheet-web.pdf

3. IMG.UNIT.337.pdf

4. Updated City of Banning 8.14.25.pdf

5. Banning Muni edits FINAL 8-18-2025 (003).docx
625
Resolution 2025-113