Agenda packet, regular meeting — Banning City Council, March 10, 2026 (part 1 of 13)

March 10, 2026
5:00 p.m.

In Chambers
Council Chambers
99 E. Ramsey Street
Banning, CA 92220

1. CALL TO ORDER
AGENDA

CITY COUNCIL - REGULAR MEETING

CITY OF BANNING, CALIFORNIA
The following information comprises the agenda for the regular meeting of the Banning City Council, a joint meeting of the City Council and Banning Utility Authority, and the Banning City Council sitting in its capacity as the Banning Successor Agency Board.

This meeting is being held via Zoom so that members of the public may observe and participate in this meeting electronically. If you participate in this meeting via Zoom, you are agreeing to abide by the City's Zoom Community Standards for Public Meetings (provided in full on the last page of the agenda). Esta reunión se lleva a cabo en la Cámara y a través de Video/Teleconferencia en Zoom para que los miembros del público puedan observar y participar en esta reunión de manera electrónica. Si elige participar en esta reunión a través de Zoom, acepta cumplir con los Estándares comunitarios de Zoom para reuniones públicas de la ciudad (que se proporcionan en su totalidad en la última página de la agenda).

To observe and participate in the online video portion of the meeting through your personal computer or device, follow this link:
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/82012644588?pwd=RwqtJC8xehLDKZvr3LEKOf9u8uP2pt.1 Dial in: +1 669 900 9128
Meeting ID: 820 1264 4588
Password: 92220
Per the City of Banning Manual of Procedural Guidelines, matters taken up by the Council before 10 p.m. may be concluded, but no new matters shall be taken up except upon a majority vote of the council members present and voting. Such an extension shall only be valid for one hour and each hour thereafter shall require a renewed action for the meeting to continue.

1.1 INVOCATION
Performed by Nathaniel Rodriguez of Infinite Center

1.2 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

1.3 MOMENT OF SILENCE
In Memory of Sergio Rubio, Fleet Manager

1.4 ROLL CALL
City Council - Regular Meeting Agenda
March 10, 2026
1 2. AGENDA APPROVAL

3. PRESENTATIONS

4. REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION

5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, CORRESPONDENCE, APPOINTMENTS, AND REPORTS

6. CONSENT ITEMS

6.1 Consideration and approval of the meeting minutes of the Special Meeting (Workshop) held on May 30, 2025, and the City Council meetings held on June 10, 2025.

6.2 Public Works Capital Improvement Project Tracking List

6.3 Consideration of Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance 1616 Amending Chapter 15.68 - Development Impact Fees of the Banning Municipal Code, Including Sections 15.68.010,

15.68.020, 15.68.030, 15.68.040, 15.68.050, 15.68.060, 15.68.070, and Adding Section

15.68.080 Electric Facilities Development Impact Fees

6.4 Consideration of Second Reading and Adoption of of Ordinance No. 1621, an amendment to Chapter 15.76 the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Program

6.5 Consideration of Resolution 2026-41, Amending the Classification and Compensation Plan, Classification Change (Police Corporal and Police Sergeant)

2.1 AGENDA APPROVAL
John Pinkney, City Attorney

5.1 PUBLIC COMMENTS

5.2 CORRESPONDENCE

5.3 APPOINTMENTS

5.4 CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS

5.5 ANNOUNCEMENTS OF CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS

5.6 CITY TREASURER'S REPORT

5.7 CITY MANAGER'S REPORT

5.8 CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
The following items have been recommended for approval and will be acted upon simultaneously, unless a member of the City Council/Banning Utility Authority/Successor Agency Board wishes to remove an item for separate consideration.

Recommendation: Approve the meeting minutes of the Special Meeting (Workshop) held on May 30, 2025, and the City Council meetings held on June 10, 2025.

Recommendation: Receive and file
Recommendation: Approve second reading and adoption of Ordinance 1616.

Recommendation: Approved second reading and adoption of Ordinance No. 1621 Recommendation:

City Council - Regular Meeting Agenda
March 10, 2026
2 6.6 Consideration of Resolution 2026-42, Authorizing a New Software as a Service (SaaS) Agreement By and Between the City of Banning and PM AM Corporation - False Alarm Management Solution (FAMS)

6.7 Consideration of Resolution 2026-45, Approving Amendment No. 5 to the Professional Services Agreement with Engineering Resources of Southern California for an additional $1,600,000 for Plan Check, Inspections and Related Administrative Services and Extending the Contract Term to June 30, 2027

6.8 Consideration of Resolution 2026-46, Awarding a Professional Services Agreement for the Indian School Lane Bridge Structure Emergency Repair Engineering Services to Kimley-Horn and Associates; Inc. in the amount of $187,759, and approving a 10% contingency for a total budget of “Not-to-Exceed” $206,534.90

6.9 Consideration of Rescinding Resolution No. 2026-20 and Adoption of Resolution 2026-47 Approving the Purchase of Three 35-Foot Fixed Route CNG Buses in the amount of $2,998,200.42

6.10 Consideration of Resolution No. 2026-49 approving the Side Letter Agreement between the City of Banning and the Banning Police Officers Association which modifies and clarifies the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) governing the unit for the period of March 2024 through March 2027.

6.11Consideration of Resolution 2026-50, Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Base Contract for Sale and Purchase of Natural Gas with Maas Energy Works, LLC

7. PUBLIC HEARINGS

7.1 Continued from the February 26, 2026, and January 28, 2026, meetings - Consideration of Applications By NP Banning Industrial, LLC for the Sunset Crossroads Project, including (1) a Specific Plan (Case No. SP 20-2002) to Allow for the Development of Industrial and Commercial Uses on 533.8-acres of Land Located South of I-10 and the Union Pacific Railroad, and West of Sunset Avenue (Specific Plan Area); (2) a General Plan Amendment (Case No. GPA 20 -2501) and Zone Change (Case No. ZC 20-3502) to Amend the General Plan Land Use and Zoning of the Specific Plan Area to General Commercial (GC), Industrial (I), Opens Space- Parks (OS-P), and Open Space-Resources (OS- R), including Pre-zoning for Annexation of Portions of the Specific Plan Area into the City of Banning’s Jurisdictional Boundary; (3) a Development Agreement to Establish Vested Development Rights in Exchange for Public Benefits as Specified in the Agreement; (4) a Tentative Parcel Map (Case No. TPM 38118) for a Subdivision of the Specific Plan Area into Thirty-four Parcels and Five Lettered Lots Ranging in Size from One Acre to Seventy -eight Acres Consistent Adopt Resolution 2026-41
Recommendation: Adopt Resolution 2026-42
Recommendation: Adopt Resolution 2026-45
Recommendation: Adopt Resolution 2026-46
Recommendation: Rescind Resolution 2026-20 and Adopt Resolution 2026-47.

Recommendation: Adopt Resolution 2026-49
Recommendation: Adopt Resolution 2026-50
City Council - Regular Meeting Agenda
March 10, 2026
3 with the Nineteen Planning Areas in the Specific Plan; and (5) a Final Environmental Impact Report (Sch No. 2021020011) Including Findings of Fact, a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act.

7.2 Consideration of an Application by the City of Banning, CA for General Plan Amendment (Case No. GPA 22-2502) and Zone Change (Case No. ZC 22-3502) to Amend the Land Use Designation and Zoning of Approximately 41 acres of Land Owned by Mount San Jacinto Community College District Located Near the Southeast Corner of Westward and Sunset Avenues from PF–S (Public Facilities-Schools) to Very High Density Residential (VHDR) to Transfer Density of Not Less Than 1,146 Residential Units from the Sunset Crossroads Specific Plan.

7.3 Consideration of Resolution 2026-40 , Adopting Address-Related Fees Pursuant to BMC Chapter 12.32 and Update the City Master Fee Schedule
Recommendation:

STAFF RECOMMENDATION:

Conditioned upon approval of Agenda Item No. 7.2, approve the Project Applications as Recommended by Staff by Adopting:

Resolution No. 2026-28 Certifying the Environmental Impact Report (EIR), SCH No. 2021020011, Including Related Findings, Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and
Resolution No. 2026-29 Approving General Plan Amendment (No. 20-2501) and Specific Plan (No. 20-2002); and
Resolution No. 2026-30 Approving Annexation of 253.7 Acres into the City of Banning; and Resolution No. 2026-31 Approving the Tentative Parcel Map (TPM 38118); and Introducing by Title Only the Following Ordinances:

Ordinance No. 1618, Approving Zone Change (No. 20-3502) Ordinance No. 1620, Approving a Development Agreement between NP Banning Industrial LLC and the City of Banning
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:

Deny the Project Applications as Recommended by the Planning Commission by Adopting:

Resolution No. 2026-26 Rejecting the Certification of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), SCH No. 2021020011, Including Related Findings, Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and Resolution No. 2026-27Denying Applications by NP Banning Industrial LLC for the Sunset Crossroads Project, Including General Plan Amendment (No. 20-2501), Zone Change (No. 20-3502), Specific Plan (No. 20-2002), Tentative Parcel Map (TPM 38118) and a Development Agreement, for the Development of Industrial and Commercial Uses on a 533.8-acre Project Site Located South of I-10/Union Pacific Railroad and West of Sunset Avenue
Recommendation: 1. Adopt Resolution No. 2026-32, denying General Plan Amendment No. 22-2502 and Zone Change 22-3502 as recommended by the Planning Commission - OR -

1. Adopt Resolution No. 2026-33, approving General Plan Amendment No. 22-2502; and

2. Adopt Ordinance No. 1619, approving Zone Change No. 22-3502 Recommendation:

City Council - Regular Meeting Agenda
March 10, 2026
4 7.4 Making a Determination of Exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act and Conducting the First Reading and Introduction of Ordinance 1622, Amending Chapter 9.09 of Title 9 (Public Peace, Morals, and Welfare) of the Banning Municipal Code to Provide Updated Regulations Governing Camping and Related Activities Within the City of Banning

8. REPORTS OF OFFICERS

9. DISCUSSION ITEMS/ACTION ITEMS

9.1 Consideration of Resolution 2026-48, Authorizing the Appointment of Retired Annuitant Matthew Bassi as Interim Community Development Director

10. ITEMS FOR FUTURE AGENDAS

11. ADJOURNMENT
Adopt Resolution No. 2026-40, establishing fees for address-related services pursuant to Banning Municipal Code Chapter 12.32.

Recommendation: Introduce and waive first reading, direct the City Clerk to read the ordinance by title only, and Introduce Ordinance No. 1622, entitled:

Recommendation:

Adopt Resolution 2026-48

10.1 NEW ITEMS

10.2 EXISTING ITEMS

1. Emergency Preparedness (Barrington) January 2025

2. Review and Update Council Travel Policy (Flynn) May 2025

3. Streamline Procurement Policy (Flynn) August 2025

4.Update (anti-camping) Ordinance 1603 (Flynn) October 2025

5. Revise Manual of Procedural Guidelines, Article 10.3 (c) (Flynn) December 2025

6. Sales Tax Agreement Update with Diamond Chevrolet (Flynn) December 2025

7. Cannabis Warehouse Moratorium (New Facilities Only) (Barrington) December 2025

8. Update Outdated Billboard on Sunset St. (Flynn) January 2026

9. Continue Food Truck Festival (Barrington) January 2026 Next Regular Meeting – March 24, 2026
Zoom Community Standards for Public Meetings
By participating in this meeting on Zoom, you are agreeing to abide by the City of Banning’s Community Standards for Public Meetings. Zoom attendees that fail to adhere to these standards may be removed from the meeting room.

Your microphone must remain on mute, and you may only unmute your microphone when/if you are recognized by the Mayor.

Your camera must be turned off unless/until you are recognized by the Mayor.

To indicate a desire to make Public Comment, you must use the Raise Hand function. The Mayor will not recognize those who have not used the Raise Hand function.

Public Comment from Zoom attendees will immediately follow in-person comment from members of the public in Council Chambers.

If you fail to adhere to these community guidelines, you may be removed for disrupting the meeting occurring in Council Chambers. You may rejoin the meeting but may be removed for each violation of City Council - Regular Meeting Agenda
March 10, 2026
5 these community standards.

The chat function will be disabled for all City Council meetings on Zoom.

Estándares comunitarios de Zoom para Reuniones Públicas Al participar en esta reunión en Zoom, usted acepta cumplir con los Estándares Comunitarios para Reuniones Públicas de la ciudad de Banning. Los que atienden por Zoom que no cumplan con estos estándares pueden ser retirados de la sala de reuniones.

Su micrófono debe permanecer en silencio, y solo puede reactivar su micrófono cuando / si es reconocido por el alcalde.

Su cámara debe estar apagada a menos que sea reconocido por el alcalde.

Para indicar el deseo de hacer un Comentario Público, debe utilizar la función Levantar la mano. El alcalde no reconocerá a quienes no hayan utilizado la función Levantar la mano.

Los comentarios públicos de lo que atienden por Zoom seguirán inmediatamente los comentarios en persona de los miembros del público en las Cámaras del Consejo.

Si no cumple con estas pautas de la comunidad, es posible que lo destituyan por interrumpir la reunión que tiene lugar en las Cámaras del Consejo. Puede volver a unirse a la reunión, pero es posible que lo eliminen por cada violación de estos estándares de la comunidad.

La función de chat estará deshabilitada para todas las Reuniones del Ayuntamiento en Zoom.

AFFIDAVIT • DECLARACIÓN JURADA
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED under the laws of the State of California that the above agenda was posted on the City's website (www.banningca.gov) as well as the Bulletin Board at Banning City Hall, located at 99 E Ramsey Street, Banning, CA 92220, at least 72 hours in advance of the meeting.
_________________________
Vickie Sellers, Elected City Clerk
Secretaria Municipal Electa
City Council - Regular Meeting Agenda
March 10, 2026
6 PUBLIC NOTICE • NOTICIA PÚBLICA
Meeting Agendas and Notices
Interested in receiving email and/or text notifications of upcoming City Council meetings? Sign up for meeting notifications through the City's website. Pursuant to amended Government Code §54957.5(b), staff reports and other public records related to open session agenda items are available on the City's website (www.banningca.gov/).

Public Comment
Agenda Items
Any member of the public may address this meeting of the City Council on any item appearing on the agenda. A five-minute limitation shall apply to each member of the public and no member of the public shall be permitted to share their time with any other person.

Non-Agenda Items
Any member of the public may address this meeting of the City Council on any item which does not appear on the regular meeting agenda but is of interest to the general public and is an item upon which the City Council may act. A three-minute limitation shall apply to each member of the public and no member shall be permitted to share their time with any other person. No action shall be taken, nor discussion held by the City Council, on any item which does not appear on the agenda, unless the action is otherwise authorized in accordance with the provisions of subdivision (b) of §54954.2 of the Government Code.

Special Assistance/Accessibility Requests
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, any member of the public may request that the agenda and agenda packet be mailed to them. If you need special assistance to participate in this meeting (such as translation services), please contact the City Clerk's Office. Advanced notification of at least 48 hours prior to the meeting will allow the city to make arrangements to ensure your accessibility.
¿Necesita servicios de traducción para participar? Contacto Oficina del Secretario de la Ciudad.

CONTACT • CONTACTO
City Clerk's Office | 951-922-3102 | [email protected] 99 East Ramsey Street, Banning, California 92220
City Council - Regular Meeting Agenda
March 10, 2026
7 CITY OF BANNING

STAFF REPORT
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Elizabeth Gibbs, City Manager
PREPARED BY: Sandra Calderon, Deputy City Clerk
MEETING DATE: March 10, 2026
SUBJECT: Consideration and approval of the meeting minutes of the Special Meeting (Workshop) held on May 30, 2025, and the City Council meetings held on June 10, 2025.

RECOMMENDATION:

Approve the meeting minutes of the Special Meeting (Workshop) held on May 30, 2025, and the City Council meetings held on June 10, 2025.

BACKGROUND:

After every meeting, the City Clerk's Office prepares meeting minutes. The City Council reviews and approves these minutes either as presented or with modifications.

JUSTIFICATION:

These minutes have been prepared as summary minutes in accordance with City Council Resolution 2025-22 and Government Code Section 36814, 4801, and 54953 (c)(2).

FISCAL IMPACT:

None
ALTERNATIVES:

BUDGETED?:

No
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT:

No
ATTACHMENTS:

1. 2025 05 30_CC Meeting_Workshop_DRAFT.pdf

2. 2025 06 10_City Council Meeting_Closed Session_DRAFT.pdf

3. 2025 06 10_City Council Meeting_Workshop_DRAFT.pdf

4. 2025 06 10_City Council Meeting_Regular_DRAFT.pdf
8 1

MINUTES

CITY COUNCIL - SPECIAL MEETING (WORKSHOP)

CITY OF BANNING, CALIFORNIA
May 30, 2025 Council Chambers
2:00 p.m. 99 E. Ramsey Street
In Chambers Banning, CA 92220
The following information comprises the age minutes for the special meeting of the Banning City Council, a joint meeting of the City Council and Banning Utility Authority, and the Banning City Council sitting in its capacity as the Banning Successor Agency Board.

TELECOMMUTING LOCATION
Council Member Wallace will be participating remotely from the following location: Delta Hotel Lobby, 12021 Harper Boulevard, Anaheim, California. Members of the public are invited to participate remotely from this location.

1. CALL TO ORDER – 2:00 P.M.

1.1 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

1.2 ROLL CALL
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Council Member Cynthia Barrington Mayor Sheri Flynn
Council Member Leroy Miller
Mayor Pro Tem Richard Royce
Council Member Colleen Wallace
COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: None
OTHERS PRESENT: John O. Pinkney, City Attorney
Robert Fisher, Acting City Manager
Vickie Sellers, City Clerk
Caroline Patton, Administrative City Clerk

2. PUBLIC COMMENTS - Agenda Items Only
Mayor Flynn opened public comment
Lynea Hagen, apologized to the returning Wanderlust Company for having to return to speak and expressed disappointment with the early adjournment of the council meeting, stating that the remaining items could have been completed quickly.

Sue Savage, spoke on thank you cards from approximately 21 local businesses expressing appreciation for efforts related to SWAG. She reported that businesses are 9 2 impressed with the program, would like to see data and asked for guidance on procedures when encountering public exposure. She thanked the council for their work.

Kathy Aranda, expressed full support for the proposed Sunday community food truck event, noting the community’s need for family-friendly gatherings that build community and attract visitors. She also addressed homelessness, emphasizing concerns related to addiction, mental illness, public safety, and impacts on families and local businesses. She urged the city to invest in solutions, stating it is both a fiscal and moral responsibility.

Bill Hobbs, expressed disappointment with the early adjournment of the previous council meeting. He voiced support for SWAG and the proposed downtown food truck event, stating they could help bring the community together and revitalize downtown. He noted improved cleanliness and reduced encampments, commended city staff, police, and council for visible progress, and praised continuous collaborations and teamwork moving forward.

3. REPORTS OF OFFICERS

3.1 Consideration of an Agreement with Social Work Action Group (SWAG)
Robert Fisher, Acting City Manager, provided the staff report.

Council questions:

Mayor Pro Tem Royce confirmed whether the monthly amount not to exceed is per service or if the total is an all-inclusive amount, and how the final number was calculated.

Councilmember Wallace asked if the SWAG group was present.

She also asked where the money would come from to pay.

Councilmember Miller clarified the breakdown of the potential charges and asked if the billing would be done monthly or at the end of the contract. He also clarified who the oversight personnel would be.

Councilmember Barrington clarified that the fees are estimated because SWAG bills are hourly.

Mayor Flynn clarified that SWAG is not present because she communicated with them, letting them know they did not need to be there.
10 3
Mayor Pro Tem Royce clarified how the schedules would be to provide coverage.

Mayor Flynn opened public comment
None
Mayor Flynn closed public comment
Council discussion:

Councilmember Barrington noted the cost of the SWAG but mentioned not being able to see how the council could not move forward and do something.

Councilmember Miller noted that he is aware that there is a homeless problem but wanted to clarify how it would be paid for.

He noted being more comfortable with a month-to-month contract and not a year.

Councilmember Wallace noted being concerned about the
financial outlook of the city, speaking that the money being paid out for SWAG is her concern. She asked the city attorney if she could pull money from vacant positions to pay for something else.

Motion to move forward with a contract for SWAG made by Mayor Pro Tem Royce and seconded by Councilmember Barrington.

Motion passes with a 4-1 vote.

3.2 Consideration of an Agreement with Wanderlust Events for a Summer Food Truck Event Series located at City-Owned Property located at 150 E. Ramsey Street, Banning, CA 92220
Marisol Lopez, Economic Development Manager, provided the staff report.

Council questions:

Councilmember Barrington confirmed what the out-of-pocket cost would look like for the city; including lights, inspections, etc, noting that the cost would be significantly lower than $22,000.

Mayor Flynn asked about the trash reciprocals and if the city would be assisting with trash collection. She asked about the lighting and the costs surrounding the repair of that. Flynn also asked about the insurance that Wanderlust would be providing. 11 4
Mayor Pro Tem Royce asked Wanderlust if they have connected with the Chamber of Commerce. Barrington confirmed that she had talked with Oleg from the Chamber of Commerce noting they were in favor of the food truck festival.

Councilmember Barrington clarified what the actual cost would be. She also broke down that the City would need to provide the vendor to make the event successful.

Councilmember Miller asked about staffing hours and the charges for inspections. He also asked Wanderlust about how much is charged per food truck.

Mayor Pro Tem Royce asked about the liability insurance, confirming it is General Liability and not special event insurance.

Mayor Flynn opened public comment
John Hagen expressed support for events that draw people into the city and encouraged residents to engage with one another. He stated that even if an event involved some cost to the city, it should be viewed as an investment in community outreach and city exposure. He noted that potential sales tax revenues could help offset expenses and felt the overall benefit to the community would make the investment worthwhile.

Harry Sullivan asked whether sales tax could be collected on products sold at the event. He also inquired whether the four parcels across from City Hall would be used for the vent and whether that use would restrict the city’s ability to sell or develop the property. He expressed concern about the length of the agreement, including references to a potential one-year or indefinite use, and asked whether the contract includes a cancellation clause, such as a 30-day termination provision.

Alexander, Wanderlust Event owner, stated that sales tax is collected. He noted that if the land were to be sold, the event could be relocated as there are multiple potential sites within the city. He said that the event would be beneficial for the city, citing positive feedback from residents and neighboring communities.

Kathy Aranda expressed frustration that the city has previously sponsored events that did not generate revenue, yet there is significant scrutiny over relatively small amounts of funding. She felt that focusing on costs in the range of several hundred dollars undervalues the community, especially when compared to larger budget expenditures that do not show visible public benefit.

Bill Hobbs, stated strong support for the event, noting that the city needs positive community-building activities, especially given the recent challenges. He emphasized that the cost is relatively small and encouraged the council to consider the vent as an opportunity to bring residents together.

Luke Gregory spoke and asked if, at the time when a food truck starts, they have to get a fire inspection.
12 5
Juanita Diaz, asked about residents of Banning who own food trucks, and whether those businesses would have the option to be a part of the food truck festival. She mentioned that the community might be more supportive, especially when local businesses are included.

4. ADJOURNMENT – 3:25 P.M.

Prepared by: Amanda Morgan, Program Coordinator
Reviewed and submitted by: Sandra Calderon, Acting Administrative City Clerk.

These minutes have been prepared as Summary Minutes in
accordance with City Council Resolution 2025-22 and Government Code Sections 36814, 40801, and 54953(c)(2).

The entire discussion of this meeting may be viewed here:
https://banningca.granicus.com/player/clip/231?view_id=1&redirect=true 13 1

MINUTES

CITY COUNCIL - SPECIAL MEETING (CLOSED SESSION)

CITY OF BANNING, CALIFORNIA
June 10, 2025 Council Chambers
2:00 p.m. 99 E. Ramsey Street
In Chambers Banning, CA 92220
The following information comprises the minutes for the special meeting of the Banning City Council, a joint meeting of the City Council and Banning Utility Authority, and the Banning City Council sitting in its capacity as the Banning Successor Agency Board.

TELECOMMUTING LOCATION
Mayor Pro Tem Royce will be participating from a remote location, where the public is invited to attend:

Lobby/Business Center, 160 Portal Lane, Sedona AZ 86336.

1. CALL TO ORDER – 2:00 P.M.

COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Council Member Cynthia Barrington Mayor Sheri Flynn
Council Member Leroy Miller
Mayor Pro Tem Richard Royce
Council Member Colleen Wallace
COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: None
OTHERS PRESENT: John O. Pinkney, City Attorney
Robert Fisher, Acting City Manager
Vickie Sellers, City Clerk
Caroline Patton, Administrative City Clerk

2. PUBLIC COMMENTS - Agenda Items Only
Harry Sullivan, spoke and commented on a previous Hillwood presentation and who the business dealings are with, expressing concern for another LLC in the deals. He noted that credibility for a company is very important.

Frank Burgess, spoke on behalf of the Banning Airport, noting it was donated property and it has not been taken care of appropriately. By utilizing grant funding, there is an opportunity for it to remain up and running.

3. CLOSED SESSION
14 2
John Pinkney, Acting City Attorney, read closed session items.

3.1 CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8
Property: Banning Municipal Airport consisting of approximately 232.41 acres comprised of APNs 541-240-009; 541-250-009; 541-140-003; 532-150-002; 532-150-003; 532-150- 004; 532-130-012; 532-130-018; 532-130-011; 532-180-034.

Agency Negotiator: Public Works Director Art Vela or his designee.

Negotiating Parties: City of Banning as potential Lessor and Industrial Enterprises, LLC as potential Lessee.

Under Negotiations: Price and Terms of proposed ground lease.

3.2 CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL: ANTICIPATED LITIGATION – POTENTIAL

INITIATION OF LITIGATION
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(4)
One Potential Case.

3.3 PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957
Title: Interim City Attorney

3.4 PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957
Title: Acting City Manager

4. ADJOURNMENT
Closed Session was adjourned by Mayor Flynn at 4:01 p.m.

Prepared by: Amanda Morgan, Program Coordinator
Reviewed and submitted by: Sandra Calderon, Deputy City Clerk.

These minutes have been prepared as Summary Minutes in accordance with City Council Resolution 2025-22 and Government Code Sections 36814, 40801, and 54953(c)(2).

The entire discussion of this meeting may be viewed here:
https://banningca.granicus.com/player/clip/212?view_id=1&redirect=true 15 1

MINUTES

CITY COUNCIL - SPECIAL MEETING (WORKSHOP)

CITY OF BANNING, CALIFORNIA
June 10, 2025 Council Chambers
4:00 p.m. 99 E. Ramsey Street
In Chambers Banning, CA 92220
The following information comprises the minutes for the special meeting of the Banning City Council, a joint meeting of the City Council and Banning Utility Authority, and the Banning City Council sitting in its capacity as the Banning Successor Agency Board.

TELECOMMUTING LOCATION
Mayor Pro Tem Royce will be participating from a remote location where the public is invite to attend:

Lobby/Business Center, 160 Portal Lane, Sedona AZ 86336.

1. CALL TO ORDER – 4:01 P.M.

2. PUBLIC COMMENTS - Agenda Items Only

3. WORKSHOP

3.1 Planning Commission Interviews for Positions 4 and 5 Councilmembers interviewed Larry Ellis, Al Marshal and Marco Santana for positions 4 and 5.

4. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Flynn adjourned the meeting at 4:23 p.m.

Prepared by: Amanda Morgan, Program Coordinator
Reviewed and submitted by: Sandra Calderon, Deputy City Clerk. 16 2
These minutes have been prepared as Summary Minutes in accordance with City Council Resolution 2025-22 and Government Code Sections 36814, 40801, and 54953(c)(2).

The entire discussion of this meeting may be viewed here:
https://banningca.granicus.com/player/clip/213?view_id=1&redirect=true 17 1

MINUTES

CITY COUNCIL - REGULAR MEETING

CITY OF BANNING, CALIFORNIA
June 10, 2025 Council Chambers
5:00 p.m. 99 E. Ramsey Street
In Chambers Banning, CA 92220
The following information comprises the minutes for the regular meeting of the Banning City Council, a joint meeting of the City Council and Banning Utility Authority, and the Banning City Council sitting in its capacity as the Banning Successor Agency Board.

TELECOMMUTING LOCATION
Mayor Pro Tem Royce will be participating from a remote location where the public is invited to attend:

Lobby/Business Center, 160 Portal Lane, Sedona AZ 86336.

1. CALL TO ORDER – 5:01 p.m.

1.1 INVOCATION
Performed by Pastor Nathaniel Rodriguez of Infinite Center

1.2 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

1.3 ROLL CALL
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Council Member Cynthia Barrington Mayor Sheri Flynn
Council Member Leroy Miller
Mayor Pro Tem Richard Royce
Council Member Colleen Wallace
COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: None
OTHERS PRESENT: John O. Pinkney, City Attorney
Robert Fisher, Acting City Manager
Vickie Sellers, City Clerk
Sandra Calderon, Acting Administrative City Clerk

2. AGENDA APPROVAL

2.1 AGENDA APPROVAL
Mayor Flynn pulled item 6.1 from the agenda, and item 10 moved to after item 5.4 and before item 5.5
18 2
Motion made to approve the agenda made by Councilmember Barrington and seconded by Councilmember Miller. Motion passes 5-0.

3. PRESENTATIONS

3.1 Presentation by the Stagecoach Days Association on the 2024 Stagecoach Days Amy Pippenger, Chair of Stagecoach Days Association, provided the presentation.

Council questions:

Councilmember Miller thanked Amy and the committee for continuing the tradition in the community of Banning
Mayor Pro Tem Royce echoed Council Member Miller’s comments and thanked them for all their hard work.

Councilmember Barrington thanked the committee for their hard work. She mentioned wanting to see the event go citywide again, noting it is a way for everyone to come together to celebrate and have a good time.

3.2 Presentation by Members of the City of Banning Youth Council Amanda Morgan, Adan Fragas, and Justin Smith presented.

Council questions:

Mayor Pro Tem Royce thanked staff and youth council members for their hard Work.

Councilmember Miller noted that there are bright young people in the community and complemented their hard work.

Councilmember Barrington thanked the youth council members and congratulated both outgoing members on their college journeys.

Councilmember Wallace thanked the Youth Council and gave congratulations.

Mayor Flynn congratulated the youth council members on all of their hard work, nothing that each will enjoy their college experience.

3.3 Recognition of Outgoing Banning Youth Council Members Mayor Flynn recognized the two outgoing members of the Youth Council.

4. REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION
John Pinkney, Interim City Attorney
read the closed session items.
19 3

5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, CORRESPONDENCE, APPOINTMENTS, AND REPORTS

5. 1 PUBLIC COMMENTS
Bill Hobbs, Thanks the Youth Council for the presentation. He reminded the Council members that they represent a diverse group of constituents with varying political views. He encouraged elected officials to keep personal political opinions on their private platforms rather than shared or official pages, noting the current national climate is divisive. He emphasized respect for differing viewpoints and the importance of maintaining unity and professionalism in public communications.

Inge Schuler, reiterated that private fireworks are illegal and pose significant safety risks, including fire hazards, harm to pets, and challenges for residents with livestock. She emphasized the ongoing impact of illegal fireworks before and after the holiday, urged residents to take responsibility, and encouraged attendance at the City’s public fireworks display instead. She noted that while other cities have enforcement systems in place, addressing this issue remains a challenge for Banning and should be considered for future action.

Carlos Zapata, respectfully requested that the Council meeting not conclude before all agenda items and discussions are fully addressed. He also expressed pride in the young men on the youth council who had participated in the meeting prior. He also praised the Stagecoach Days Rodeo presentation, noting his personal connection to the rodeo community.

Harry Sullivan, stated that the Banning Municipal Airport is a long-standing, federally funded, self-supporting asset essential to public safety. He emphasized its role in emergency and weather-related landings, firefighting, and government aircraft operations, and its recent use during low visibility conditions. He urged the council to prioritize safety and keep the airport open.

Derrick, shared personal ties to Banning and noted concerns about no changes being made in the community after returning to care for his father. He encouraged the city to pursue local job opportunities alongside new housing developments so residents can live and work within the community rather than commute long distances.

David Kieffer, expressed appreciation for the council and emphasized the importance of mutual respect and compassion. He raised concerns about the proposed SWAG program element that discourages certain well-intended activities, questioning how this may impact faith-based and community outreach efforts such as providing food, showers, clothing, and other services to people experiencing homelessness. He urged Council to review the language and potential policy implications to ensure community partnerships and compassionate services are not negatively impacted.

Gloria Bell, asked clarifying questions regarding the SWAG contract, noting an understanding that the program costs approximately $48,000 per month under a month-tomonth agreement. She requested transparency on performance metrics and outcomes, including whether results from the first 30 days would be publicly reported or presented. She expressed concern about the cost and hourly compensation and emphasized the community’s interest.
20 4
Oleg Ivascheck, spoke and promoted the upcoming Chamber of Commerce Sunrise breakfast. He thanked City staff and Council for a successful good truck event, citing strong attendance, community engagement, and benefits to local businesses. He encouraged continued efforts to attract visitors and support economic activity.

Yessenia, expressed concerns about delays in obtaining a certificate of occupancy. Noting that despite completing all the necessary steps, she has not received a response from the City. She highlighted that the project would benefit banning by supporting youth arts. She requested a status update due to financial strain from the delay.

5. 2 CORRESPONDENCE
Vickie Sellers, read a letter into the record.

5.3 APPOINTMENTS

5.3.1. Planning Commission Appointments for Positions 4 and 5 Mayor Pro Tem Royce nominated David Ellis and seconded by Councilmember Barrington.

Motion fails 4-1.

Mayor Pro Tem Royce nominated Gerry Phelps and seconded by Councilmember Wallace Motion passes 5-0
Councilmember Wallace nominated Al Marshall and seconded by Councilmember Miller.

Motion passes 5-0.

5.3.2. Consideration of the Appointment of Two Members of the Banning City Council to a 2X2 Ad Hoc Committee for the Purpose of Discussing issues with the Larry Smith Correctional Facility in the City of Banning
Motion made by Councilmember Wallace to appoint Councilmember Miller and Barrington to the committee.

Motion passes 5-0.

5.4 CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS
Councilmember Barrington attended a 2x2 committee for truck routes with the cities of Beaumont and Calimesa. She also attended a 2x2 committee for a regional animal shelter, including Banning, Beaumont, Riverside County, and Calimesa.

Councilmember Miller met with RTA, where it was discussed to add more bus stands and signed a contract for maintenance
Mayor Pro Tem Royce attended a 2x2 committee to discuss fire service needs in the community.

Mayor Flynn reported attending a 2x2 committee for fire safety, a 2x2 for truck routes, and the 105th Cherry Festival Celebration.

5.5 CITY MANAGER'S REPORT
Robert Fisher, Acting City Manager, provided the report. 21 5

5.6 CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
John Pinkney, City Attorney, provided the report.

5.7 CITY TREASURER'S REPORT
Sue Savage, raised concerns about the City of Banning not adhering to its charter, specifically regarding the diminished role of the City Treasurer and reassignment of its duties.

She emphasized the need for greater financial transparency, regular reporting and accountability, urging City leadership to uphold legal mandates and better inform the public about city finances.

6. CONSENT ITEMS
The following items have been recommended for approval and will be acted upon simultaneously, unless a member of the City Council/Banning Utility Authority/Successor Agency Board wishes to remove an item for separate consideration.

Items pulled: 6.2, 6.4, 6.5, 6.7, 6.9
Mayor Flynn opened public comments for items not pulled.

Frank Connolly expressed concerns regarding the street sweeping contract, noting uncertainty about current costs, the contract exceeding the five-year term, and lack of updated cost information. He recommended going out to bid for a new contract to ensure competitive pricing and transparency .

Motion made to approve items 6.3, 6.6, 6.8 made by Councilmember Wallace and seconded by Councilmember Miller.

6.1 Approval of the Meeting Minutes for the February 14 and February 25, 2025 City Council

6.2 Consideration of Resolution 2025- 79, Approving Amendment No. 2 to the Services Agreement with Yunex, LLC in the Amount of $75,000 Extending the Term through FY 2027/2028 Citywide Traffic Signal Maintenance Services Art Vela, Public Works Director, provided the staff report.

Motion made to approve Resolution 2025-79 by Councilmember Wallace and seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Royce
Motion passes 5-0.

6.3 Consideration of Resolution 2025-80, Approving the First Amendment to Extend the End Date of the Sole-Source Professional Services Agreement with VCS Environmental to Provide Wetland Permitting Consulting and Strategy Services to the City of Banning until June 30, 2026 with a Remaining Balance of $152,551

6.4 Consideration of a Fee Waiver Request Not-to-Exceed $5,370 for Stagecoach Days Association's Use of Dysart Park for Equestrian and Community Events (Other than "Stagecoach Days") to Benefit the Community
22 6
Council questions:

Councilmember Barrington brought forward the idea of leasing the property to the Stagecoach Days Association, asking if the MOUs would need to be written until there is a lease agreement.

Ralph Wright, Parks and Recreation Director provided a staff report.

Mayor Flynn opened public comment
Amy Pippenger, voiced agreement with the parks and Recreation director, and reiterated creating a committee to discuss a lease agreement.

Mayor Flynn closed public comment.

6.5 Consideration of Resolution 2025-81, Approving a List of Projects to be Funded for Fiscal Year 2025/2026 by SB 1 “The Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017”

6.6 Consideration of Resolution 2025 -82, Approving the Sixth Amendment to the Street Sweeping Services Agreement with Sweeping Corp of America (SCA) for 2025/2026 under Sourcewell Contract #062421-SWP Increasing the Compensation in the amount of $149,352 for the Extended Term

6.7 Consideration of Resolution 2025-83, Approving a Renewed Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Banning and the Stagecoach Days Association for the "Stagecoach Days" Event
Mayor Flynn opened public comment
Amy Pippenger, mentioned that the days before the event the Association is spending time cleaning up the park and then the days after are meant for tearing everything down.

The speaker, suggests that even organizers typically have about 30 days to plan and execute events and may already have access to necessary resources like generators. He recommended charging or requiring event committees, such as those hosting rodeos or races, to be responsible for providing their own equipment and covering related costs.

Juanita Diaz, mentioned that the event organizers are treated unfairly and inconsistent, with some groups facing stricter rules and fees while others get better deals. She believes that all community event should be supported equally.

Mayor Flynn closed public comment
Council discussion:

Councilmember Barrington noted that the MOU is in good standing with the Stagecoach Days Association. She confirmed whether 30 days is sufficient. 23 7
Mayor Pro Tem Royce asked how long a lease agreement would take. He mentioned that both parties are satisfied, but all he hears is that neither party is fully satisfied.

Councilmember Barrington mentioned being able to create a lease agreement from previous templates and forming an Ad Hoc committee.

Mayor Flynn mentioned that voting on the current item is important now and then coming back later with a lease agreement after it has been worked on. She also assigned Councilmember Barrington and Mayor Pro Tem..

Motion made to approve by Councilmember Wallace and seconded by Councilmember Barrington.

Motion passes 5-0.

6.8 Consideration of Resolution 2025- 84, Approving a License Agreement with the Girl Scouts of San Gorgonio Council for the Use of the Girl Scout House Located in Repplier Park

6.9 Consideration of Resolution 2025-85, Approving the Installation of a Stop Sign and Establishing A Multi-Way Stop Controlled Intersection at Highland Springs Avenue and Potrero Boulevard
Nathan Smith, Deputy Public Works Director, presented the staff report.

Council questions:

Councilmember Barrington clarified the conditions of what makes a traffic sign warranted.

Mayor Flynn opened public comment
Sue Savage, mentioned that she drives through the intersection twice daily and find it to be traveled lightly with no traffic issues. She does not support adding a stop sign, believing it would create more problems than it would solve.

Mayor Flynn closed public comment
Council discussion:

Councilmember Miller mentioned being in favor of tabling the item.

Motion to table the item was made by Councilmember Wallace and seconded by Councilmember Miller.

Motion passes 5-0.

7. PUBLIC HEARINGS
24 8

7.1 Consideration of Resolution 2025-86, Confirming the Levy and Collection of Assessments within the City of Banning’s Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 for Fiscal Year 2025/2026
Nathan Smith, Deputy Public Works Director, provided the staff report.

Council questions:

Councilmember Barrington confirmed if the fence posts would be able to be resold Councilmember Miller asked if the fencing was the same as that used at Roosevelt Williams Park.

Mayor Flynn opened public comment
None
Mayor Flynn closed public comment
Motion made to approve Resolution 2025-86 made by Councilmember Barrington and seconded by Councilmember Wallace
Motion passes 5-0.

8. REPORTS OF OFFICERS

8.1 Consideration of Introduction and First Reading of Ordinance 1608, Amending Chapter 5.40 of the Banning Municipal Code Concerning Film Permits and Regulations
Marisol Lopez, Economic Development Manager, provided the staff report.

Council questions:

Mayor Flynn asked who the City film coordinator is. She also asked about the current permit fees and waiving of the business license, and whether those were listed in the ordinance. She also asked about the timing for filming to be allowed within the City during the day. She clarified whether businesses or homes would be notified within a 2-mile radius.

Councilmember Barrington asked about the local film productions and if uploaded to social media, whether it’s still considered private.

Mayor Flynn opened public comment
None
25 9
Mayor Flynn closed public comment.

Vickie Sellers, City Clerk, read the title of Chapter 5.40.

Motion to waive further reading made by Councilmember Wallace and seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Royce
Motion passes 5-0

8.2 Proposed Restriping of Highland Springs Avenue Median Between Ramsey Street and
Joshua Palmer Way by the City of Beaumont
Nate Smith, Deputy Public Works Director, provided the staff report.

Council questions:

Mayor Flynn asked about taking a left turn and whether it would be blocked, how drivers would be stopped heading south and turning right into Wendy’s parking lot.

She confirmed that heading North on Highland Springs, there would be no left turns.

Councilmember Miller clarified about the extension of the left turn lane, heading south on Highland Springs.

Councilmember Barrington noted the need to block off the left-hand turns, but expressed frustration about waiting for a while on the left turn signal, noting that driver still turn on a red.

Mayor Pro Tem Royce asked which signal lights are maintained by Cal Trans.

Mayor Flynn opened public comment
Oleg Ivaschuck, spoke on the horrible traffic flow. He explained that the current setup provides two entry points, allowing some flexibility and relief for drivers. Under the chang, drivers making a left turn may face longer waiting times and increased congestion, especially waiting on light signals.

Council discussion:

Councilmember Miller mentioned that if the proposal does not work, it can be removed.

9. DISCUSSION ITEMS

9.1 Discussion on Expanding Public Notification Requirements in Banning Zoning Ordinance Related to Land Use Development Applications
David Newell, Community Development Director, provided the staff report.

Council questions:
26 10
Councilmember Wallace mentioned that developers in her district have come out to ask questions and get feedback from residents.

Councilmember Miller asked about the extensions of the radius and how the council voting would occur by district, and whether council members would have to recuse themselves.

Mayor Flynn opened public comment
None
Mayor Flynn closed public comment
Council discussion:

Mayor Flynn recommended adding email notices for neighborhood organizations and noted having one required meeting rather than two.

Councilmember Barrington mentioned other cities such as Palm Springs having systems that she liked, noting that the apartment complexes should be notified, as well.

Mayor Flynn mentioned switching from letters to postcards to assist in costs.

Councilmember Miller mentioned that having signage is a huge help and individuals pay attention to it.

9.2 Discussion on Changing the City's Retail Cannabis Tax Rate Robert Fisher, Acting City Manager, provided the staff report.

Council questions:

Mayor Pro Tem Royce asked about the revenue that is being received from the tax into the general fund and whether the retailers are providing their receipts or if they are giving a check quarterly.

Councilmember Miller questioned why a retailer would not have paid.

Mayor Flynn asked if there was a way to collect and what the guidelines are for that. She also asked to consider whether the figures are for the fiscal year or the calendar year.

Mayor Pro Tem Royce asked if the retailers, per ordinance, have to provide their point of sales.

Mayor Flynn opened public comment
Carlos Zapata, a local owner of a cannabis retailer, expressed concern about a prior year adjustment request, stating that they received a rude and accusatory response that questioned his integrity. He described frustration with the lack of communication from City 27 11
staff and leadership, including unresponsiveness from the department directors and delayed follow-ups. He emphasized the challenged economic climate, noting significant sales declines across California, and urged the city to make informed, fair decisions. He highlighted their investment of over $1 million into improving previously neglected property, providing jobs for 18 local employees, maintaining security, and generating revenues for the City. He requested a more collaborative partnership with the city, warning that continued difficulties could risk business closures. He expressed commitment to their business and community.

Oleg Ivaschuck, spoke on behalf of businesses, noting that although he is not a consumer in the industry, he discussed the market change and its impact on dispensaries. He mentioned that the cannabis retailers are an asset, providing local jobs and taxes.

Juanita Diaz noted that although she is not a consumer, she believes the retailers are giving back to the community through taxes, the past council voted for it, and they are willing to contribute. The city should accept and not lose more businesses.

Council discussion:

Mayor Pro Tem Royce noted that, per the ordinances that he researched, the retailers have to provide their numbers on a quarterly basis. He expressed frustration that it feels like there is no adequate information being provided.

Councilmember Miller voiced his agreement with Mr. Royce, noting it is difficult to make a decision when there is no adequate numbers provided. He advised the retailers to email the information directly to the council.

Consensus was made to receive more information from staff and continue the item to the next City Council meeting.

10. ANNOUNCEMENTS FROM CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
None

11. ITEMS FOR FUTURE AGENDAS

11.1 NEW ITEMS

11.2 EXISTING ITEMS

1. Update on Community Garden (Flynn)

2. Contracting Animal Services (Flynn)

3. Emergency Preparedness (Barrington)

4. Discussion of Reversing Decision to Close Airport (Royce)

5. Patriot Tree (Barrington)

6. Contractor(s) to do Citywide Cleanup (Flynn)

7. RFP for City Manager (Wallace)

8. Long term City Strategic Planning (Miller)

9. Update on Electric Billing (Miller)

10. Review and Update Council Travel Policy (Flynn)

11. 2x2 Committee on Smith Correctional Facility (Royce) Motion to adjourn meeting made by Mayor Pro Tem Royce and seconded by Councilmember Miller. Motion passes 5-0.
28 12

12. ADJOURNMENT – 9:48 P.M.

Next Regular Meeting – June 24, 2025
Prepared by: Amanda Morgan, Program Coordinator
Reviewed and submitted by: Sandra Calderon, Deputy City Clerk.

These minutes have been prepared as Summary Minutes in
accordance with City Council Resolution 2025-22 and Government Code Sections 36814, 40801, and 54953(c)(2).

The entire discussion of this meeting may be viewed here:
https://banningca.granicus.com/player/clip/214?view_id=1&redirect=true 29 CITY OF BANNING

STAFF REPORT
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Elizabeth Gibbs, City Manager
PREPARED BY: Patrick Safari, Capital Improvement Projects Manager Art Vela, Director of Public Works
MEETING DATE: March 10, 2026
SUBJECT: Public Works Capital Improvement Project Tracking List RECOMMENDATION:

Receive and file
BACKGROUND:

To keep the City Council and the public informed of the progress and status of various capital improvement projects, staff has prepared the attached Public Works CIP Tracking List, which will be updated and presented on a monthly basis.

The tracking list includes planning, environmental, design, and construction contracts previously approved by the City Council and/or the City Manager’s Office and currently managed by the Public Works Department.

JUSTIFICATION:

This recurring item is provided to keep the City Council and public apprised of the progress on certain projects.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Not applicable
ALTERNATIVES:

BUDGETED?:

No
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT:

No
ATTACHMENTS:

1. CIP Tracking List_February.pdf
30 Category Project # Project Name Phase % Completed Tasks Completed Current Tasks Future Tasks Tentative Completion Date Project Budget Streets 2023-17 Hargrave Grade Separation PA&ED 15% Contract execution; project kickoff, grant reporting.

Agreements with Caltrans and UPRR;
Basis of Design document sent to all
stakeholders for approval.

Caltrans DEER exception.

Environmental work.
12/31/27 $ 8,300,000
Streets - Highland Springs Avenue
Interchange
PA&ED 40% Highway Safety Manual segmentation existing
condition; aerial topo mapping; traffic volume
report; Environmental Purpose/Need
Statement; Air/Noise memos; VMT
Methodology Memo; DDI Exclusion Memo;
ROW Data Sheets;
Revised noise studies for new alternate,
updated technical studies
Design Standard Risk Assessment;
Value Analysis Report; Geometric
Approval Document; R/W Data Sheets;
Transp. Management Plan
12/31/27 $ 2,900,000
Streets 2020-04 Sun Lakes Blvd Extension CEQA, PS&E 99% Obtained environmental permits, complted PSE package.

Finalize Kinder Morgan pipeline relocation
final plans.

Complete environmental permitting 12/1/26 $ 1,248,026
Streets 2020-04 Sun Lakes Blvd Extension Construction 0% Construction project public advertising Waiting for the Incidental Intake Permit from CDFW to begin construction
Begin Kinder Morgan Relocation and
Construction of the Reinforced
Concrete Boxes at the Smith Creek
crossings
7/30/27 $ 20,996,793
Streets - Traffic Signalization of 8th
Street/I-10 Interchange
Design/Permits 90% Design well underway. Submittal of
encroachment permit application to Caltrans.

Caltrans approval on TOAR and concepts.

Design paused, due to rephase of RSG
project and property acquisition needs
Resubmitted to Caltrans if needed.

Caltrans encroachment permit
issuance. Property acquisition (private
party task)
6/1/26 $ 1,081,000
Streets 2022-05 HSIP Cycle 10 Omar/Ramsey
Intersection Improvements
Construction 100% Project Approved for Funding by the State.

Proposal solicitation. Contract award.

Release Retention Caltrans post-construction review
meeting
2/27/26 $ 649,954
Streets 2023-04 HSIP Cycle 10 Ramsey Street
Pedestrian Safety Improvements
Construction 50% Project Approved for Funding by the State.

Project Awarded.

Construction in progress. Ramsey and 6th,
2nd St intersection construction
Pre-Construction review meeting with
Caltrans.
4/17/26 $ 596,850
Streets 2023-09 HSIP Upgrade 17 Traffic Signals
Hardware
PS&E 90% Project approved for funding by Caltrans STC Traffic Working on 90% Plans Submittal and Caltrans Approval
100% Plans Submittal and Approval 3/30/26 $ 433,900
Streets 2023-10 HSIP Pedestrian Crossings
Upgrades at 19 Intersection
PS&E 55% Project approved for funding by Caltrans Review of 60% plans 90% plan submittal 6/30/26 $ 585,000 Streets 2023-11 HSIP Wilson St & 12 St
Intersection Upgrade
PS&E 2% Project approved for funding by Caltrans Kick Off Meeting on 3/4/26 Begin Design Work 9/30/26 $ 277,000 Streets 2023-05 San Gorgonio/UPRR Pedestrian
Crossing
Design 95% Amendment 2 CC Approval. 65% Plans
complete
Final Plans approved by UPRR, CUPC
and Caltrans. GO 88-B approved
Approve C&M Agreement. Prepare Bid
Documents
8/30/26 $ 230,000
Facility 2021-06 CNG Station Design-Build 95% Grading, wall footing, equipment pads and some underground piping. Underground utility
installation; coordination with Gas Co., concrete
pads, block wall, time fill posts.

Gas company service work, finalizing
concrete work, installation of equipment.

Installation of electrical equipment, gas
meter set, generator installation,
compressor installation
12/31/25 $ 4,888,261
Facility City Hall Roof Repairs - Phase 2 Design/Bid 10% Scope identification - Roof/leak repairs on flat roof section over remainder of City Hall
Preparation of RFP Award, Construction 6/30/26 $ 275,000 Facility 2024-02 City Hall HVAC Replacement Construction 1% Bid and award of contract Finalize contracts Construction 6/1/26 $ 188,000 Water 2018-02W2 New Domestic Water Well C8 (Phase 2: Well Equipping and Site Development)
Construction 70% Poured pump pedestal, installed pump and completed vertical construction pending roof.

Continue installation of above-ground
piping, roof installation, louvers, doors etc.,
and other onsite work.

Finish roof installation, louvers, doors
etc., and above ground piping including
pump-to-waste.
7/30/26 $ 3,774,100
Water 2023-15W Ramsey Street Water Line Construction 100% 16" DIP for the actual mainline alignment has been completed and tested. Services installed.

Project is complete Warranty phase 9/30/25 $ 1,199,106
Water 2022-07W Well M12A (Phase 2: Well
Equipping an Site Development)
Construction 70% Pump house building inclduing pump
installation has been completed.

Installation of above-ground piping and
electrical wiring and cabintes.

Finish above ground piping and pumpto-waste. 7/30/26 $ 2,684,990 Water 20254-
08W
Banning Canyon Stormwater
Repairs
Construction 90% Significant progress has been made towards grading to re-establish the percolation ponds.

Grading (dredging) of the percolation
ponds is underway.

Complete the grading/restoration of the
percolation ponds.
3/31/26 $ 563,310
Wastewater 2022-
01WW
Wastewater Treatment Plant and
Recycled Water Improvements
Phase 1
(Design)
30% Received 10% BODR (Basis Of Design Report). Finalize the location and layout of brine evaporation ponds as well dewatering
equipment. Cost estimate is currently
being evaluated.

Analyze the cost estimate, make a
decision to whether to continue with
current design-build team ($95M) or
explore other options.
4/30/26 $ 4,398,490
Wastewater 2020-
08WW
WWTP Equalization Basin Design/CEQA 95% Completed 90% drawings review. Development of 100% drawings; ~$1.25M EPA Community Grant has been issued.

Finalize 100% drawings; Approval to
proceed with grant expenditures;
Invitation for Bids.
1/13/25 $ 362,866
Recycled
Water
2024-1RW Charles Street and Lincoln Street
Booster Station and Reservoirs
Construction 85% Project was awarded, a NTP was issued
followed by pre-con meeting and submittal
reviews.

Charles St - Site final grading and paving.

Lincoln St - Pump building roofing,
underground electrical conduits and
fencing.

Finish installation electrical work inside
the pump buildings and final grading
for hardscape.
3/31/26 $ 10,160,200

PUBLIC WORKS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS (CIP) TRACKING SHEET 31 Recycled
Water
2023-
06RW
Lions Park Non-Potable Water
Conversion
Construction 95% Project Awarded. Kick Off Meeting. Surveying and utility research
Project is complete. Working on punchlist
items
Issue Final Payment 3/31/26 $ 920,672
Electric Sun Lakes Blvd Extension Construction 0% Construction bid completed. Attended kick off meeting on 1/26/26. Began Coordination with
Frontier and SCE for communication conductor
relocation.

Issue plan revisions to Public Works to
accomodate Kinder Morgan pipeline work.

Complete application with SCE for
relocation work.

Prepare for construction of electric
improvements and joint trench with
SCE.
7/30/27 $ 2,366,090
Electric Robertson's Ready Mix Pole
Relocation
Construction 0% Line Extension Agreement approved by City Council. Additional comments provided by
Robertson's Ready Mix
Update agreement and resubmit for City
Council approval
Collect deposits from Robertson's
Ready Mix and order materials for
construction and schedule installation
12/30/26 $ 425,000
Electric 12kV Reconductor on Barbour St
at Hathaway
PS&E 95% Alternative plan to address replacement of 4kV equipment at the site has been approved.

Negtiate cost sharing with property owners
at 700 S Hathaway St for reduced scope of
work for completing necessary upgrades to
replace all 4kV equipment with 12kV
equipment.

Make adjustments for current budget
cycle and carry over to 2026/27 if
needed. Current construction estimate
is $125,000.
9/30/26 $ 125,000
Electric Mias Canyon Line Hardening Design/MSHC
P
95% Modified layout of pole line to avoid sensitive
species
Submit redesign to USFW/FEMA/CDFW
for clearance on avoidance.

Await determination on approval of
federal grant funding and match
funding thru CalOES
6/30/27 $ 2,189,140
Electric 34.5kV Circuit Reroute Construction 65% 16 of 26 poles have been replaced. Installation is being completed by BEU linemen.

Schedule construction for remaining poles Complete installation of remaining poles and re-energize subtransmission Circuit #1.
6/30/26 $ 575,000
32 CITY OF BANNING

STAFF REPORT
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Elizabeth Gibbs, City Manager
PREPARED BY: Nate Smith, Deputy Director of Public Works/City Engineer Art Vela, Director of Public Works
MEETING DATE: March 10, 2026
SUBJECT: Consideration of Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance 1616 Amending Chapter 15.68 - Development Impact Fees of the Banning Municipal Code, Including Sections 15.68.010, 15.68.020, 15.68.030,

15.68.040, 15.68.050, 15.68.060, 15.68.070, and Adding Section 15.68.080 Electric Facilities Development Impact Fees
RECOMMENDATION:

Approve second reading and adoption of Ordinance 1616.

BACKGROUND:

City Council adopted Ordinance 1551 on September 24, 2019 that set forth the current language in Chapter 15.68 Development Impact Fees of the Banning Municipal Code. This Ordinance makes minor text changes to Chapter 15.68 of the BMC to ensure that language is compliant with legislation and clarification on staff responsibility to assess development impact fees. This Ordinance also adds section

15.68.080 Electric Impact Fees to the BMC, authorizing the collection of a new development impact fee category for Electric Facilities.

The City Council adopted a revised Development Impact Fee rate structure with Resolution 2026-24 at the February 24th, 2026 City Council meeting.

JUSTIFICATION:

The proposed Ordinance updates Chapter 15.68 of the Banning Municipal Code with minor text updates and the addition of section 15.68.080 Electrical Development Impact Fees that would authorize the collection of that new development impact fee category.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no direct fiscal impact associated with these sections.

Future revenues for capital expenses would be collected on new development on the fee categories included in the Ordinance.

ALTERNATIVES:

BUDGETED?:

No
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT:
33 No
ATTACHMENTS:

1. ORD NO 1616.pdf

2. ORD NO 1616 Exhibit A - Chapter 15.68 DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES (Redline).pdf

3. SR, Reso 2026-24, Agenda Packet Materials.pdf
34 ORDINANCE NO. 1616

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
BANNING, CALIFORNIA AMENDING CHAPTER 15.68 -

DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES OF THE BANNING MUNICIPAL
CODE, INCLUDING SECTIONS 15.68.010, 15.68.020, 15.68.030,

15.68.040, 15.68.050, 15.68.060, 15.68.070, AND ADDING
SECTION 15.68.080 ELECTRIC FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT

IMPACT FEES
WHEREAS, On September 24, 2019, the City Council adopted Ordinance 1551 establishing Chapter 15.68 “Development Impact Fees” of the Banning Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, Chapter 15.68 provides that Development Impact Fees shall be pain in am amount established by resolution of the City Council; and
WHEREAS, Matrix Consulting Group has prepared a Development Impact Fee (DIF) Study dated February 2026 in compliance with the Mitigation Fee Act, Government Code Section 66000 et seq.; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has adopted by Resolution updated Development Impact Fees including the addition of a new Electric Facility Development Impact Fee NOW, THEREFORE, The City Council of the City of Banning does hereby ordain as follows:

SECTION 1. Incorporation of Recitals. The recitals reflected above are true and correct and incorporated herein by this reference.

SECTION 2. CEQA. The City Council finds that the actions contemplated by the Ordinance are not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to section 15378(b)(4), as the action relates to the creation of government funding mechanisms or other governmental fiscal activities, which do not involve any commitment to any specific project which may result in a potentially significant physical impact on the environment. The action is statutorily exempt from CEQA under section 15273(a)(4) to the establishment, modification, structuring, restructuring, or approval of rates, tolls, fares, and other charges by public agencies which the public agency finds are for the purpose of obtaining funds for capital project, necessary to maintain service within existing service areas. The capital projects described in the Development Impact Fee (DIF) Study will maintain the level of service currently provided by the City’s existing electric, fire, general facilities, parks, traffic, wastewater, and water facilities by ensuring that the impacts of new development will not negatively impact existing service levels within existing service areas.

SECTION 3. Findings. The City Council hereby finds and determines the following in connection with the adoption of this ordinance:

All other prerequisites to the adoption of this Ordinance, the approval of the Development Impact Fee (DIF) Study prepared by Matrix Consulting Group dated February 2026, the proposed new Electric Impact Fee, the updated Fire, General Facilities, Parks, Traffic, Wastewater, and Water Impact Fees, as specified by the Mitigation Fee Act (Cal. Gov. Code section 66000 et seq.) and all other applicable laws have been satisfied.
35 SECTION 4. Approval. The City Council hereby approves Ordinance 1616 amending Chapter

15.68 “Development Impact Fees” as set forth in Exhibit A. Exhibit A is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.

SECTION 5. Effective Date and Publication. The Mayor shall sign, and the City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this Ordinance and cause the same or a summary thereof to be published within 15 days after adoption in accordance with Government Code Section 36933.

This Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after adoption in accordance with Government Code Section 36937.

SECTION 6. Severability. The City Council hereby declares that if any provision, section, paragraph, sentence, or word of this Ordinance is rendered or declared to be invalid or unconstitutional by any final court action in a court of competent jurisdiction, or by reason of any preemptive legislation, such invalidity shall not affect the other provisions, sections, paragraphs, sentences, or words of this Ordinance, and to this end the provisions of this Ordinance are severable. The City Council declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance irrespective of the invalidity of any particular portion thereof and intends that the invalid portions should be severed, and the balance of the Ordinance enforced.

SECTION 7. Prosecution of Prior Ordinances. Neither the adoption of this Ordinance nor the repeal of any other ordinance of this City shall in any manner affect the prosecution of any violation of any City ordinance or provision of the City of Banning Municipal Code, committed prior to the effective date hereof, nor be construed as a waiver of any penalty or the penal provisions applicable to any violation thereof.

INTRODUCED AND READ for the first time and ordered posted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Banning, California, held on the 24th day of February, 2026, by the following roll call vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Banning, California, held on the 10th day of March, 2026.

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
36 _______________________
Richard Royce, Mayor
City of Banning
Attest:
______________________
Sandra Calderon, Deputy Administrative City Clerk
City of Banning
Approved as to form:
_________________________
John Pinkney, City Attorney
Slovak, Baron, Empey, Murphy & Pinkney, LLP
37 Exhibit A

Page 1 of 27 ends

Chapter 15.68 DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES

15.68.010 Fire protection facilities development impact fee.

A. Findings and Intent.

1. New residential and nonresidential development in the city has attracted and will continue to attract employees and residents to the city, and there is a causal connection between such development projects and the increased need for fire protection facilities.

2. Failure to enhance the ability of the city's fire protection facilities system to accommodate additional service calls will make it more difficult for residents, employers, and employees to obtain the fire services they need.

3. Sources of city revenue other than fire protection facilities development impact fees, including tax revenues that will be paid by new residential and nonresidential development, will be needed for many public purposes and therefore will not be sufficient to offset the burdens on fire facilities created by new development.

4. It is the intent of the city to require every person or organization that develops land to mitigate the impacts of that development on the city's fire facilities system. The city may therefore require developers to mitigate fire protection facilities impacts caused by their development and to pay a fire protection facilities development impact fee that will be used to mitigate those impacts by constructing fire facilities pursuant to the most current fire facilities plan, the most current capital improvement plan, or the annual budget process, as applicable.

5. The amount of fire protection facilities development impact fees collected pursuant to this section shall be limited to the cost of fire protection facilities necessary to mitigate the impact attributable to new development. The amount of fire protection facilities development impact fees collected shall not include the cost of fire protection facilities necessary to address the impacts of existing development.

B. Residential Fire Protection Facilities Fee Required.

1. Except as provided in subsection D of this section, the required fire protection facilities development impact fee for a residential building shall be paid in an amount established by resolution of the city council. The required fire protection facilities development impact fee shall be due and paid on a lumpsum basis on the date the first dwelling in the development or development phase receives its final building inspection, or of the issuance of certificate of occupancy, whichever occurs first.

2. The community development director, or his or her designee, shall be responsible for calculating the amount of the fire protection facilities development impact fee required for each development project based on the applicable land use category and corresponding rate specified in the resolution that adopts the fire protection facilities development impact fee. In calculating such fee, the community development director shall utilize the fee rate that is assigned to the land use category that is most applicable to the development project.

3. For the purposes of this subsection B, "final building inspection" shall mean the physical inspection of the building by the building and safety division of the community development department of the city for compliance with all applicable building codes and the issuance by all applicable city, county, regional, state, and federal agencies of their respective clearances for occupancy.

4. For the purposes of this subsection B, "certificate of occupancy" shall mean a document issued by the proper authority allowing the occupancy or use of a building and certifying that the structure, building or development conforms with all the applicable provisions of this Code, ordinances, and conditions of approval.
38

Page 2 of 27 ends

C. Nonresidential Fire Protection Facilities Fee Required.

1. Except as provided in subsection D of this section, the required fire protection facilities development impact fee for a nonresidential development shall be paid in an amount established by resolution of the city council. The required fire protection facilities development impact fee shall be due and paid on a lump-sum basis upon issuance of the building permitcertificate of occupancy.

3. For the purposes of this subsection C, "certificate of occupancy" shall mean a document issued by the proper authority allowing the occupancy or use of a building and certifying that the structure, building or development conforms to all the applicable building codes, this Code, and conditions of approval.

D. Fire Protection Facilities Fee—Exemption or Reduction.

1. The following uses and types of developments may be exempted from the payment of fire protection facilities development impact fees:
a. Any residential development that does not increase the number of permanent housing units on the parcel where the construction takes place, such as remodeling or rebuilding existing units. b. Accessory dwelling units and second units as defined in section 17.04.070. c. The remodeling or rebuilding of an existing nonresidential structure, provided the remodeling or rebuilding does not do any of the following:
i. Increase the square footage of the structure by more than fifty percent above that of the previously existing structure;
ii. Change the use to which the property or structure is to be put; or iii. Increase the average daily trips generated from the property above the amount generated by the prior use of the property.
d. Publicly owned facilities, including, without limitation, public libraries, public administration facilities, public parks, public utilities, schools, and related facilities. e. Facilities serving the health and safety of the public, including, without limitation, hospitals, police, fire, and safety facilities.

2. A developer may be exempted or allowed a reduction in fees from the fire protection facilities development impact fee requirements of subsections B and C of this section if the developer enters into a development agreement with the city pursuant to which fire protection facilities development impact fees are assessed to the developer, or equivalent or comparable fire protection facilities improvements are implemented by the developer.

3. A developer may be entitled to a reduction in the amount of the fire protection facilities development impact fee required by subsections B and C of this section if the developer constructs fire protection facilities improvements pursuant to the most current fire facilities plan, the most current capital improvement plan, or the annual budget process, as applicable. The fire protection facilities development impact fee may be reduced by the amount of fire protection facilities improvement costs that would be reasonably incurred by the city in building those same fire protection facilities improvements. The amount of such reduction shall be subject to the approval of the community development director, with concurrence from the fire chief, prior to construction of the fire protection facilities improvement.
39

Page 3 of 27 ends

4. A developer may be entitled to a reduction in the amount of the fire protection facilities development impact fee required by subsections B and C of this section if the development is located in an assessment district that has been formed to construct facilities pursuant to the most current fire facilities plan, the most current capital improvement plan, or the annual budget process, as applicable.

The fire protection facilities development impact fee may be reduced by the amount of the total assessment placed upon the development for the costs of fire protection facilities improvements. The amount of such reduction shall not exceed the amount of the fire protection facilities development impact fee required by subsections B and C of this section.

5. If a fee exemption or a fee reduction is granted pursuant to this subsection D, any subsequent change or intensification of the use or uses of the property or any expansion of the structures on the property, shall invalidate the fee exemption or fee reduction, and the applicant shall be subject to the fire protection facilities development impact fee requirement applicable to the entire development based on the fee in effect at the time of the change or expansion, less any amount previously paid.

E. Appeals.

1. A developer subject to the fire protection facilities development impact fee required by this section for a particular project may apply to the city manager, or his or her designee, for: (a) a fee adjustment based upon a showing of substantial evidence of a lesser impact upon the fire protection facilities level of service; or (b) a land use category adjustment based upon a showing of substantial evidence that another land use category is more appropriate for a particular development. The application shall be made in writing and filed with the city manager, or his or her designee, prior to the issuance of building permit. If a development review is not required for the development, then the application shall be made in writing and filed not later than the time at which the building permit is issued. The application shall state in detail the factual basis for the request for reduction.

2. The city manager, or his or her designee, shall make a decision on the application for adjustment within thirty calendar days after the application has been filed. Notice of the city manager's, or his or her designee's, decision shall be mailed to the applicant.

3. The decision of the city manager, or his or her designee, may be appealed to the city council by filing an application for appeal with the city clerk. The application must be filed within fifteen calendar days after notice of the city manager's, or his or her designee's, decision has been mailed to the applicant.

4. The city council shall consider the appeal at a public hearing to be held within sixty calendar days after the appeal application has been filed. The decision of the city council shall be final. The decision of the city council shall be in writing and shall be mailed to the applicant.

5. If a fee exemption, a fee reduction or a land use category adjustment is granted pursuant to this subsection E, any subsequent change or intensification of the use or uses of the property or any expansion of the structures on the property, shall invalidate the fee exemption, fee reduction or land use category adjustment, and the applicant shall be subject to the fire protection facilities development impact fee requirement applicable to the entire development based on the fee in effect at the time of the change or expansion, less any amount previously paid.

6. If a fee exemption, fee reduction or land use category adjustment is not granted pursuant to this subsection E, then upon the payment of the required fees, the city shall, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020, provide the applicant a written notice of the amount of the fees or a description of the dedications, reservations, or other exactions, and shall also provide notification that the ninety-day protest period has begun.

F. Use of Funds. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 66006, all fire protection facilities development impact fees paid and collected pursuant to this section shall be placed into one or more separate account(s) established for such fee and used solely for the purpose of constructing fire protection facilities improvements pursuant to the most current fire facilities plan, the most current capital improvement plan, or the annual budget process, as applicable; provided, however, that if the community 40

Page 4 of 27 ends

development director authorizes minor alterations, with the concurrence of the fire chief, to such plans or budget, then those alterations shall not affect the ability of the city to use fire protection facilities development impact fees collected pursuant to this section for the purpose of constructing fire protection facilities improvements in accordance with the most current fire facilities plan, the most current capital improvement plan, or the annual budget process, as applicable, and as altered or amended.

G. Fee Amount Applicable to Pending Projects. Except as may otherwise be provided in the resolution that adopts the fire protection facilities development impact fee amount, an applicant subject to the payment of fire protection facilities development impact fees required by subsections B or C of this section must pay the amount of the fee that is in effect when the fee becomes due as provided in subsection B.1 of this section for residential fire protection facilities development impact fees or subsection C.1 of this section for nonresidential fire facilities development impact fees. The amount of the fee is the amount specified by resolution of the city council, as amended from time to time. The fee imposed on a development project for which vested rights have been acquired through a vesting tentative subdivision map shall be the fee in effect at the time the rights became vested, plus any adjustment for inflation made between that date and the date the fee becomes due.

H. Periodic Adjustment to Fee Amount. The amount of the fire protection facilities development impact fee may be adjusted annually for inflation on July 1st of each year by the percentage change in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U): Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario (or any successor index)Construction Cost Index as published in the Engineering News-Record (or successor publication), as specified in the resolution that adopts the fee amount or by the periodic preparation of a new fire facilities plan, capital improvement plan, or city budget, as applicable, and required studies prepared and adopted pursuant to the Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code Section 66000 et seq.).

15.68.020 Police facilities development impact fee.

A. Findings and Intent.

2. Failure to enhance the ability of the city's police facilities system to accommodate additional service calls will make it more difficult for residents, employers, and employees to obtain the police services they need.

3. Sources of city revenue other than police facilities development impact fees, including tax revenues that will be paid by new residential and nonresidential development, will be needed for many public purposes and therefore will not be sufficient to offset the burdens on police facilities created by new development.

4. It is the intent of the city to require every person or organization that develops land to mitigate the impacts of that development on the city's police facilities system. The city may therefore require developers to mitigate police facilities impacts caused by their development and to pay a police facilities development impact fee that will be used to mitigate those impacts by constructing police facilities pursuant to the most current police facilities plan, the most current capital improvement plan, or the annual budget process, as applicable.

5. The amount of police facilities development impact fees collected pursuant to this section shall be limited to the cost of police facilities necessary to mitigate the impact attributable to new development. The amount of police facilities development impact fees collected shall not include the cost of police facilities necessary to address the impacts of existing development.

B. Residential Police Facilities Fee Required.
41

Page 5 of 27 ends

1. Except as provided in subsection D of this section, the required police facilities development impact fee for a residential building shall be paid in an amount established by resolution of the city council. The required police facilities development impact fee shall be due and paid on a lump-sum basis on the date the first dwelling in the development or development phase receives its final building inspection, or of the issuance of certificate of occupancy, whichever occurs first.

2. The community development director, or his or her designee, shall be responsible for calculating the amount of the police facilities development impact fee required for each development project based on the applicable land use category and corresponding rate specified in the resolution that adopts the police facilities development impact fee. In calculating such fee, the community development director shall utilize the fee rate that is assigned to the land use category that is most applicable to the development project.

C. Nonresidential Police Facilities Fee Required.

1. Except as provided in subsection D of this section, the required police facilities development impact fee for a nonresidential development shall be paid in an amount established by resolution of the city council. The required police facilities development impact fee shall be due and paid on a lump-sum basis upon issuance of the building permitcertificate of occupancy.

D. Police Facilities Fee—Exemption or Reduction.

1. The following uses and types of developments may be exempted from the payment of police facilities development impact fees:
a. Any residential development that does not increase the number of permanent housing units on the parcel where the construction takes place, such as remodeling or rebuilding existing units. b. Accessory dwelling units and second units as defined in section 17.04.070. c. The remodeling or rebuilding of an existing nonresidential structure, provided the remodeling or rebuilding does not do any of the following:
i. Increase the square footage of the structure by more than fifty percent above that of the previously existing structure;
ii. Change the use to which the property or structure is to be put; or 42

Page 6 of 27 ends

iii. Increase the average daily trips generated from the property above the amount generated by the prior use of the property.
d. Publicly owned facilities, including, without limitation, public libraries, public administration facilities, public parks, public utilities, schools, and related facilities. e. Facilities serving the health and safety of the public, including, without limitation, hospitals, police, fire, and safety facilities.

2. A developer may be exempted or allowed a reduction in fees from the police facilities development impact fee requirements of subsections B and C of this section if the developer enters into a development agreement with the city pursuant to which police facilities development impact fees are assessed to the developer, or equivalent or comparable police facilities improvements are implemented by the developer.

3. A developer may be entitled to a reduction in the amount of the police facilities development impact fee required by subsections B and C of this section if the developer constructs police facilities improvements pursuant to the most current police facilities plan, the most current capital improvement plan, or the annual budget process, as applicable. The police facilities development impact fee may be reduced by the amount of police facilities improvement costs that would be reasonably incurred by the city in building those same police facilities improvements. The amount of such reduction shall be subject to the approval of the community development director, with concurrence from the police chief, prior to construction of the police facilities improvement.

4. A developer may be entitled to a reduction in the amount of the police facilities development impact fee required by subsections B and C of this section if the development is located in an assessment district that has been formed to construct facilities pursuant to the most current police facilities plan, the most current capital improvement plan, or the annual budget process, as applicable. The police facilities development impact fee may be reduced by the amount of the total assessment placed upon the development for the costs of police facilities improvements. The amount of such reduction shall not exceed the amount of the police facilities development impact fee required by subsections B and C of this section.

5. If a fee exemption or a fee reduction is granted pursuant to this subsection D, any subsequent change or intensification of the use or uses of the property or any expansion of the structures on the property, shall invalidate the fee exemption or fee reduction, and the applicant shall be subject to the police facilities development impact fee requirement applicable to the entire development based on the fee in effect at the time of the change or expansion, less any amount previously paid.

E. Appeals.

1. A developer subject to the police facilities development impact fee required by this section for a particular project may apply to the city manager, or his or her designee, for: (a) a fee adjustment based upon a showing of substantial evidence of a lesser impact upon the police facilities level of service; or (b) a land use category adjustment based upon a showing of substantial evidence that another land use category is more appropriate for a particular development. The application shall be made in writing and filed with the city manager, or his or her designee, prior to the issuance of building permit. If a development review is not required for the development, then the application shall be made in writing and filed not later than the time at which the building permit is issued. The application shall state in detail the factual basis for the request for reduction.

Page 7 of 27 ends

5. If a fee exemption, a fee reduction or a land use category adjustment is granted pursuant to this subsection E, any subsequent change or intensification of the use or uses of the property or any expansion of the structures on the property, shall invalidate the fee exemption, fee reduction or land use category adjustment, and the applicant shall be subject to the police facilities development impact fee requirement applicable to the entire development based on the fee in effect at the time of the change or expansion, less any amount previously paid.

F. Use of Funds. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 66006, all police facilities development impact fees paid and collected pursuant to this section shall be placed into one or more separate account(s) established for such fee and used solely for the purpose of constructing police facilities improvements pursuant to the most current police facilities plan, the most current capital improvement plan, or the annual budget process, as applicable; provided, however, that if the community development director authorizes, with concurrence from the police chief, minor alterations to such plans or budget, then those alterations shall not affect the ability of the city to use police facilities development impact fees collected pursuant to this section for the purpose of constructing police facilities improvements in accordance with the most current police facilities plan, the most current capital improvement plan, or the annual budget process, as applicable, and as altered or amended.

G. Fee Amount Applicable to Pending Projects. Except as may otherwise be provided in the resolution that adopts the police facilities development impact fee amount, an applicant subject to the payment of police facilities development impact fees required by subsections B or C of this section must pay the amount of the fee that is in effect when the fee becomes due as provided in subsection B.1 of this section for residential police facilities development impact fees or subsection C.1 of this section for nonresidential police facilities development impact fees. The amount of the fee is the amount specified by resolution of the city council, as amended from time to time. The fee imposed on a development project for which vested rights have been acquired through a vesting tentative subdivision map shall be the fee in effect at the time the rights became vested, plus any adjustment for inflation made between that date and the date the fee becomes due.

H. Periodic Adjustment to Fee Amount. The amount of the police facilities development impact fee may be adjusted annually for inflation on July 1st of each year by the percentage change in the Construction Cost Index as published in the Engineering News-Record (or successor publication) Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U): Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario (or any successor index), as specified in the resolution that adopts the fee amount or by the periodic preparation of a new police facilities plan, capital improvement plan, or city budget, as applicable, and required studies prepared and adopted pursuant to the Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code Section 66000 et seq.).

15.68.030 General city facilities development impact fee.

A. Findings and Intent.

Page 8 of 27 ends

2. Failure to enhance the ability of the city's general city facilities system to accommodate additional service calls will make it more difficult for residents, employers, and employees to obtain the general city services they need.

3. Sources of city revenue other than general city facilities development impact fees, including tax revenues that will be paid by new residential and nonresidential development, will be needed for many public purposes and therefore will not be sufficient to offset the burdens on general city facilities created by new development.

4. It is the intent of the city to require every person or organization that develops land to mitigate the impacts of that development on the city's general city facilities system. The city may therefore require developers to mitigate general city facilities impacts caused by their development and to pay a general city facilities development impact fee that will be used to mitigate those impacts by constructing general city facilities pursuant to the most current general city facilities plan, the most current capital improvement plan, or the annual budget process, as applicable.

5. The amount of general city facilities development impact fees collected pursuant to this section shall be limited to the cost of general city facilities necessary to mitigate the impact attributable to new development. The amount of general city facilities development impact fees collected shall not include the cost of general city facilities necessary to address the impacts of existing development.

B. Residential General City Facilities Fee Required.

1. Except as provided in subsection D of this section, the required general city facilities development impact fee for a residential building shall be paid in an amount established by resolution of the city council. The required general city facilities development impact fee shall be due and paid on a lumpsum basis on the date the first dwelling in the development or development phase receives its final building inspection, orof the issuance of certificate of occupancy, whichever occurs first.

2. The community development director, or his or her designee, shall be responsible for calculating the amount of the general city facilities development impact fee required for each development project based on the applicable land use category and corresponding rate specified in the resolution that adopts the general city facilities development impact fee. In calculating such fee, the community development director shall utilize the fee rate that is assigned to the land use category that is most applicable to the development project.

C. Nonresidential General City Facilities Fee Required.

1. Except as provided in subsection D of this section, the required general city facilities development impact fee for a nonresidential development shall be paid in an amount established by resolution of the city council. The required general city facilities development impact fee shall be due and paid on a lump-sum basis upon issuance of the building permitcertificate of occupancy.

Page 9 of 27 ends

development director shall utilize the fee rate that is assigned to the land use category that is most applicable to the development project.

D. General City Facilities Fee—Exemption or Reduction.

1. The following uses and types of developments may be exempted from the payment of general city facilities development impact fees:
a. Any residential development that does not increase the number of permanent housing units on the parcel where the construction takes place, such as remodeling or rebuilding existing units. b. Accessory dwelling units and second units as defined in section 17.04.070. c. The remodeling or rebuilding of an existing nonresidential structure, provided the remodeling or rebuilding does not do any of the following:
i. Increase the square footage of the structure by more than fifty percent above that of the previously existing structure;
ii. Change the use to which the property or structure is to be put; or iii. Increase the average daily trips generated from the property above the amount generated by the prior use of the property.
d. Publicly owned facilities, including, without limitation, public libraries, public administration facilities, public parks, public utilities, schools, and related facilities. e. Facilities serving the health and safety of the public, including, without limitation, hospitals, police, fire, and safety facilities.

2. A developer may be exempted or allowed a reduction in fees from the general city facilities development impact fee requirements of subsections B and C of this section if the developer enters into a development agreement with the city pursuant to which general city facilities development impact fees are assessed to the developer, or equivalent or comparable general city facilities improvements are implemented by the developer.

3. A developer may be entitled to a reduction in the amount of the general city facilities development impact fee required by subsections B and C of this section if the developer constructs general city facilities improvements pursuant to the most current general city facilities plan, the most current capital improvement plan, or the annual budget process, as applicable. The general city facilities development impact fee may be reduced by the amount of general city facilities improvement costs that would be reasonably incurred by the city in building those same general city facilities improvements. The amount of such reduction shall be subject to the approval of the community development director, with concurrence from the public works director, prior to construction of the general city facilities improvement.

4. A developer may be entitled to a reduction in the amount of the general city facilities development impact fee required by subsections B and C of this section if the development is located in an assessment district that has been formed to construct facilities pursuant to the most current general city facilities plan, the most current capital improvement plan, or the annual budget process, as applicable. The general city facilities development impact fee may be reduced by the amount of the total assessment placed upon the development for the costs of general city facilities improvements.

The amount of such reduction shall not exceed the amount of the general city facilities development impact fee required by subsections B and C of this section. 46

Page 10 of 27 ends

5. If a fee exemption or a fee reduction is granted pursuant to this subsection D, any subsequent change or intensification of the use or uses of the property or any expansion of the structures on the property, shall invalidate the fee exemption or fee reduction, and the applicant shall be subject to the general city facilities development impact fee requirement applicable to the entire development based on the fee in effect at the time of the change or expansion, less any amount previously paid.

E. Appeals.

1. A developer subject to the general city facilities development impact fee required by this section for a particular project may apply to the city manager, or his or her designee, for: (a) a fee adjustment based upon a showing of substantial evidence of a lesser impact upon the general city facilities level of service; or (b) a land use category adjustment based upon a showing of substantial evidence that another land use category is more appropriate for a particular development. The application shall be made in writing and filed with the city manager, or his or her designee, prior to the issuance of building permit. If a development review is not required for the development, then the application shall be made in writing and filed not later than the time at which the building permit is issued. The application shall state in detail the factual basis for the request for reduction.

5. If a fee exemption, a fee reduction or a land use category adjustment is granted pursuant to this subsection E, any subsequent change or intensification of the use or uses of the property or any expansion of the structures on the property, shall invalidate the fee exemption, fee reduction or land use category adjustment, and the applicant shall be subject to the general city facilities development impact fee requirement applicable to the entire development based on the fee in effect at the time of the change or expansion, less any amount previously paid.

F. Use of Funds. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 66006, all general city facilities development impact fees paid and collected pursuant to this section shall be placed into one or more separate account(s) established for such fee and used solely for the purpose of constructing general city facilities improvements pursuant to the most current general city facilities plan, the most current capital improvement plan, or the annual budget process, as applicable; provided, however, that if the community development director authorizes minor alterations to such plans or budget, with the concurrence of the public works director, then those alterations shall not affect the ability of the city to use general city facilities development impact fees collected pursuant to this section for the purpose of constructing general city facilities improvements in accordance with the most current general city facilities plan, the most current capital improvement plan, or the annual budget process, as applicable, and as altered or amended.

G. Fee Amount Applicable to Pending Projects. Except as may otherwise be provided in the resolution that adopts the general city facilities development impact fee amount, an applicant subject to the payment of general city facilities development impact fees required by subsections B or C of this section must pay the 47

Page 11 of 27 ends

amount of the fee that is in effect when the fee becomes due as provided in subsection B.1 of this section for residential general city facilities development impact fees or subsection C.1 of this section for nonresidential general city facilities development impact fees. The amount of the fee is the amount specified by resolution of the city council, as amended from time to time. The fee imposed on a development project for which vested rights have been acquired through a vesting tentative subdivision map shall be the fee in effect at the time the rights became vested, plus any adjustment for inflation made between that date and the date the fee becomes due.

H. Periodic Adjustment to Fee Amount. The amount of the general city facilities development impact fee may be adjusted annually for inflation on July 1st of each year by the percentage change in the Construction Cost Index as published in the Engineering News-Record (or successor publication)Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U): Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario (or any successor index), as specified in the resolution that adopts the fee amount or by the periodic preparation of a new general city facilities plan, capital improvement plan, or city budget, as applicable, and required studies prepared and adopted pursuant to the Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code Section 66000 et seq.).

15.68.040 Traffic control facilities development impact fee.

A. Findings and Intent.

2. Failure to enhance the ability of the city's traffic control facilities system to accommodate increased traffic will make it more difficult for residents, employers, and employees to access residences and places of employment and could cause unacceptable harm to the quality of life in the city.

3. Sources of city revenue other than traffic control facilities development impact fees, including tax revenues that will be paid by new residential and nonresidential development, will be needed for many public purposes and therefore will not be sufficient to offset the burdens on traffic control facilities created by new development.

4. It is the intent of the city to require every person or organization that develops land to mitigate the impacts of that development on the city's traffic control facilities system. The city may therefore require developers to mitigate traffic control facilities impacts caused by their development and to pay a traffic control facilities development impact fee that will be used to mitigate those impacts by constructing traffic control facilities pursuant to the most current traffic control facilities plan.

5. The amount of traffic control facilities development impact fees collected pursuant to this section shall be limited to the cost of traffic control facilities necessary to mitigate the impact attributable to new development. The amount of traffic control facilities development impact fees collected shall not include the cost of traffic control facilities necessary to address the impacts of existing development.

B. Residential Traffic Control Facilities Fee Required.

1. Except as provided in subsection D of this section, the required traffic control facilities development impact fee for a residential building shall be paid in an amount established by resolution of the city council. The required traffic control facilities development impact fee shall be due and paid on a lumpsum basis on the date the first dwelling in the development or development phase receives its final building inspection, or of the issuance of the certificate of occupancy, whichever occurs first.

2. The community development director, or his or her designee, shall be responsible for calculating the amount of the traffic control facilities development impact fee required for each development project based on the applicable land use category and corresponding rate specified in the resolution that adopts the traffic control facilities development impact fee. In calculating such fee, the community 48

Page 12 of 27 ends

development director shall utilize the fee rate that is assigned to the land use category that is most applicable to the development project.

C. Nonresidential Traffic Control Facilities Fee Required.

1. Except as provided in subsection D of this section, the required traffic control facilities development impact fee for a nonresidential development shall be paid in an amount established by resolution of the city council. The required traffic control facilities development impact fee shall be due and paid on a lump-sum basis upon issuance of the building permit certificate of occupancy.

D. Traffic Control Facilities Fee—Exemption or Reduction.

1. The following uses and types of developments may be exempted from the payment of traffic control facilities development impact fees:
a. Any residential development that does not increase the number of permanent housing units on the parcel where the construction takes place, such as remodeling or rebuilding existing units. b. Accessory dwelling units and second units as defined in section 17.04.070. c. The remodeling or rebuilding of an existing nonresidential structure, provided the remodeling or rebuilding does not do any of the following:
i. Increase the square footage of the structure by more than fifty percent above that of the previously existing structure;
ii. Change the use to which the property or structure is to be put; or iii. Increase the average daily trips generated from the property above the amount generated by the prior use of the property.
d. Publicly owned facilities, including, without limitation, public libraries, public administration facilities, public parks, public utilities, schools, and related facilities. e. Facilities serving the health and safety of the public, including, without limitation, hospitals, police, fire, and safety facilities.

2. A developer may be exempted or allowed a reduction in fees from the traffic control facilities development impact fee requirements of subsections B and C of this section if the developer enters into a development agreement with the city pursuant to which traffic control facilities development 49

Page 13 of 27 ends

impact fees are assessed to the developer, or equivalent or comparable traffic control facilities improvements are implemented by the developer.

3. A developer may be entitled to a reduction in the amount of the traffic control facilities development impact fee required by subsections B and C of this section if the developer constructs traffic control facilities improvements pursuant to the most current traffic control facilities plan, the most current capital improvement plan, or the annual budget process, as applicable. The traffic control facilities development impact fee may be reduced by the amount of traffic control facilities improvement costs that would be reasonably incurred by the city in building those same traffic control facilities improvements. The amount of such reduction shall be subject to the approval of the community development director, with concurrence from the public works director, prior to construction of the traffic control facilities improvement.

4. A developer may be entitled to a reduction in the amount of the traffic control facilities development impact fee required by subsections B and C of this section if the development is located in an assessment district that has been formed to construct facilities pursuant to the most current traffic control facilities plan, the most current capital improvement plan, or the annual budget process, as applicable. The traffic control facilities development impact fee may be reduced by the amount of the total assessment placed upon the development for the costs of traffic control facilities improvements.

The amount of such reduction shall not exceed the amount of the traffic control facilities development impact fee required by subsections B and C of this section.

5. If a fee exemption or a fee reduction is granted pursuant to this subsection D, any subsequent change or intensification of the use or uses of the property or any expansion of the structures on the property, shall invalidate the fee exemption or fee reduction, and the applicant shall be subject to the traffic control facilities development impact fee requirement applicable to the entire development based on the fee in effect at the time of the change or expansion, less any amount previously paid.

E. Appeals.

1. A developer subject to the traffic control facilities development impact fee required by this section for a particular project may apply to the city manager, or his or her designee, for: (a) a fee adjustment based upon a showing of substantial evidence of a lesser impact upon the traffic control facilities level of service; or (b) a land use category adjustment based upon a showing of substantial evidence that another land use category is more appropriate for a particular development. The application shall be made in writing and filed with the city manager, or his or her designee, prior to the issuance of building permit. If a development review is not required for the development, then the application shall be made in writing and filed not later than the time at which the building permit is issued. The application shall state in detail the factual basis for the request for reduction.

Page 14 of 27 ends

impact fee requirement applicable to the entire development based on the fee in effect at the time of the change or expansion, less any amount previously paid.

F. Use of Funds. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 66006, all traffic control facilities development impact fees paid and collected pursuant to this section shall be placed into one or more separate account(s) established for such fee and used solely for the purpose of constructing traffic control facilities improvements pursuant to the most current traffic control facilities plan, the most current capital improvement plan, or the annual budget process, as applicable; provided, however, that if the community development director authorizes, with the concurrence from the public works director, minor alterations to such plans or budget, then those alterations shall not affect the ability of the city to use traffic control facilities development impact fees collected pursuant to this section for the purpose of constructing traffic control facilities improvements in accordance with the most current traffic control facilities plan, the most current capital improvement plan, or the annual budget process, as applicable, and as altered or amended.

G. Fee Amount Applicable to Pending Projects. Except as may otherwise be provided in the resolution that adopts the traffic control facilities development impact fee amount, an applicant subject to the payment of traffic control facilities development impact fees required by subsections B or C of this section must pay the amount of the fee that is in effect when the fee becomes due as provided in subsection B.1 of this section for residential traffic control facilities development impact fees or subsection C.1 of this section for nonresidential traffic control facilities development impact fees. The amount of the fee is the amount specified by resolution of the city council, as amended from time to time. The fee imposed on a development project for which vested rights have been acquired through a vesting tentative subdivision map shall be the fee in effect at the time the rights became vested, plus any adjustment for inflation made between that date and the date the fee becomes due.

H. Periodic Adjustment to Fee Amount. The amount of the traffic control facilities development impact fee may be adjusted annually for inflation on July 1st of each year by the percentage change in the Construction Cost Index as published in the Engineering News-Record (or successor publication)Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U): Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario (or any successor index), as specified in the resolution that adopts the fee amount or by the periodic preparation of a new traffic control facilities plan, capital improvement plan, or budget, as applicable, and required studies prepared and adopted pursuant to the Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code Section 66000 et seq.).

15.68.050 Parkland and park facilities development impact fee.

A. Findings and Intent.

1. New residential development in the city has attracted and will continue to attract residents to the city, and there is a causal connection between such development projects and the increased need for parkland and park facilities.

2. Failure to enhance the ability of the city's parkland and park facilities system to accommodate increases in residents will make it more difficult for residents to access parks and could cause unacceptable harm to the quality of life in the city.

3. Sources of city revenue other than parkland and park facilities development impact fees, including tax revenues that will be paid by new residential development, will be needed for many public purposes and therefore will not be sufficient to offset the burdens on parkland and park facilities created by new development.
51

Page 15 of 27 ends

4. It is the intent of the city to require every person or organization that develops land to mitigate the impacts of that development on the city's parkland and park facilities system. The city may therefore require developers to mitigate parkland and park facilities impacts caused by their development and to pay a parkland and park facilities development impact fee that will be used to mitigate those impacts by constructing parkland and park facilities pursuant to the most current parkland and park facilities plan, the most current capital improvement plan, or the annual budget process, as applicable.

5. The amount of parkland and park facilities development impact fees collected pursuant to this section shall be limited to the cost of parkland and park facilities necessary to mitigate the impact attributable to new development. The amount of parkland and park facilities development impact fees collected shall not include the cost of parkland and park facilities necessary to address the impacts of existing development.

B. Residential Parkland and Park Facilities Fee Required.

1. Except as provided in subsection C of this section, the required parkland and park facilities development impact fee for a residential building shall be paid in an amount established by resolution of the city council. The required parkland and park facilities development impact fee shall be due and paid on a lump-sum basis on the date the first dwelling in the development or development phase receives its final building inspection, orof the issuance of certificate of occupancy, whichever occurs first.

2. The community development director, or his or her designee, shall be responsible for calculating the amount of the parkland and park facilities development impact fee required for each development project based on the applicable land use category and corresponding rate specified in the resolution that adopts the parkland and park facilities development impact fee. In calculating such fee, the community development director shall utilize the fee rate that is assigned to the land use category that is most applicable to the development project.

3. For the purposes of this subsection B, "final building inspection" shall mean the physical inspection of the building by the Building and Safety Division of the community development department of the city for compliance with all applicable building codes and the issuance by all applicable city, county, regional, state, and federal agencies of their respective clearances for occupancy.

C. Parkland and Park Facilities Fee—Exemption or Reduction.

1. The following uses and types of developments may be exempted from the payment of parkland and park facilities development impact fees:
a. Any residential development that does not increase the number of permanent housing units on the parcel where the construction takes place, such as remodeling or rebuilding existing units. b. Accessory dwelling units and second units as defined in section 17.04.070. c. Publicly owned facilities, including, without limitation, public libraries, public administration facilities, public parks, public utilities, schools, and related facilities. d. Facilities serving the health and safety of the public, including, without limitation, hospitals, police, fire, and safety facilities.

2. A developer may be exempted or allowed a reduction in fees from the parkland and park facilities development impact fee requirements of subsection B of this section if the developer enters into a development agreement with the city pursuant to which parkland and park facilities development 52

Page 16 of 27 ends

impact fees are assessed to the developer, or equivalent or comparable parkland and park facilities improvements are implemented by the developer.

3. A developer may be entitled to a reduction in the amount of the parkland and park facilities development impact fee required by subsection B of this section if the developer constructs parkland and park facilities improvements pursuant to the most current parkland and park facilities plan, the most current capital improvement plan, or the annual budget process, as applicable. The parkland and park facilities development impact fee may be reduced by the amount of parkland and park facilities improvement costs that would be reasonably incurred by the city in building those same parkland and park facilities improvements. The amount of such reduction shall be subject to the approval of the community development director, with concurrence from the parks and recreation director, prior to construction of the parkland and park facilities improvement.

4. A developer may be entitled to a reduction in the amount of the parkland and park facilities development impact fee required by subsection B of this section if the development is located in an assessment district that has been formed to construct facilities pursuant to the most current parkland and park facilities plan, the most current capital improvement plan, or the annual budget process, as applicable. The parkland and park facilities development impact fee may be reduced by the amount of the total assessment placed upon the development for the costs of parkland and park facilities improvements. The amount of such reduction shall not exceed the amount of the parkland and park facilities development impact fee required by subsection B of this section.

5. If a fee exemption or a fee reduction is granted pursuant to this subsection D, any subsequent change or intensification of the use or uses of the property or any expansion of the structures on the property, shall invalidate the fee exemption or fee reduction, and the applicant shall be subject to the parkland and park facilities development impact fee requirement applicable to the entire development based on the fee in effect at the time of the change or expansion, less any amount previously paid.

D. Appeals.

1. A developer subject to the parkland and park facilities development impact fee required by this section for a particular project may apply to the city manager, or his or her designee, for: (a) a fee adjustment based upon a showing of substantial evidence of a lesser impact upon the parkland and park facilities level of service; or (b) a land use category adjustment based upon a showing of substantial evidence that another land use category is more appropriate for a particular development. The application shall be made in writing and filed with the city manager, or his or her designee, prior to the issuance of building permit. If a development review is not required for the development, then the application shall be made in writing and filed not later than the time at which the building permit is issued. The application shall state in detail the factual basis for the request for reduction.

5. If a fee exemption, a fee reduction or a land use category adjustment is granted pursuant to this subsection D, any subsequent change or intensification of the use or uses of the property or any expansion of the structures on the property, shall invalidate the fee exemption, fee reduction or land use category adjustment, and the applicant shall be subject to the parkland and park facilities 53

Page 17 of 27 ends

development impact fee requirement applicable to the entire development based on the fee in effect at the time of the change or expansion, less any amount previously paid.

6. If a fee exemption, fee reduction or land use category adjustment is not granted pursuant to this subsection D, then upon the payment of the required fees, the city shall, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020, provide the applicant a written notice of the amount of the fees or a description of the dedications, reservations, or other exactions, and shall also provide notification that the ninetyday protest period has begun.

E. Use of Funds. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 66006, all parkland and park facilities development impact fees paid and collected pursuant to this section shall be placed into one or more separate account(s) established for such fee and used solely for the purpose of constructing parkland and park facilities improvements pursuant to the most current parkland and park facilities plan, the most current capital improvement plan, or the annual budget process, as applicable; provided, however, that if the community development director, with concurrence from the parks and recreation director, authorizes minor alterations to such plans or budget, then those alterations shall not affect the ability of the city to use parkland and park facilities development impact fees collected pursuant to this section for the purpose of constructing parkland and park facilities improvements in accordance with the most current parkland and park facilities plan, the most current capital improvement plan, or the annual budget process, as applicable, and as altered or amended.

F. Fee Amount Applicable to Pending Projects. Except as may otherwise be provided in the resolution that adopts the parkland and park facilities development impact fee amount, an applicant subject to the payment of parkland and park facilities development impact fees required by subsection B of this section must pay the amount of the fee that is in effect when the fee becomes due as provided in subsection B.1 of this section for residential parkland and park facilities development impact fees. The amount of the fee is the amount specified by resolution of the city council, as amended from time to time. The fee imposed on a development project for which vested rights have been acquired through a vesting tentative subdivision map shall be the fee in effect at the time the rights became vested, plus any adjustment for inflation made between that date and the date the fee becomes due.

G. Periodic Adjustment to Fee Amount. The amount of the parkland and park facilities development impact fee may be adjusted annually for inflation on July 1st of each year by the percentage change in the Construction Cost Index as published in the Engineering News-Record (or successor publication)Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U): Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario (or any successor index), as specified in the resolution that adopts the fee amount or by the periodic preparation of a new parkland and park facilities plan, capital improvement plan, or city budget, as applicable, and required studies prepared and adopted pursuant to the Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code Section 66000 et seq.).

15.68.060 Wastewater facilities development impact fee.

A. Findings and Intent.

2. Failure to enhance the ability of the city's wastewater facilities system to accommodate additional service calls will make it more difficult for residents, employers, and employees to obtain the wastewater services they need.

3. Sources of city revenue other than wastewater facilities development impact fees, including tax revenues that will be paid by new residential and nonresidential development, will be needed for many public purposes and therefore will not be sufficient to offset the burdens on wastewater facilities created by new development.
54

Page 18 of 27 ends

4. It is the intent of the city to require every person or organization that develops land to mitigate the impacts of that development on the city's wastewater facilities system. The city may therefore require developers to mitigate wastewater facilities impacts caused by their development and to pay a wastewater facilities development impact fee that will be used to mitigate those impacts by constructing wastewater facilities pursuant to the most current wastewater facilities plan, the most current capital improvement plan, or the annual budget process, as applicable.

5. The amount of wastewater facilities development impact fees collected pursuant to this section shall be limited to the cost of wastewater facilities necessary to mitigate the impact attributable to new development. The amount of wastewater facilities development impact fees collected shall not include the cost of wastewater facilities necessary to address the impacts of existing development.

B. Residential Wastewater Facilities Fee Required.

1. Except as provided in subsection D of this section, the required wastewater facilities development impact fee for a residential building shall be paid in an amount established by resolution of the city council. The required wastewater facilities development impact fee shall be due and paid on a lumpsum basis on the date the first dwelling in the development or development phase receives its final building inspection, orof the issuance of certificate of occupancy, whichever occurs first.

2. The public workscommunity development director, or his or her designee, shall be responsible for calculating the amount of the wastewater facilities development impact fee required for each development project based on the applicable land use category and corresponding rate specified in the resolution that adopts the wastewater facilities development impact fee. In calculating such fee, the public workscommunity development director shall utilize the fee rate that is assigned to the land use category that is most applicable to the development project.

C. Nonresidential Wastewater Facilities Fee Required.

1. Except as provided in subsection D of this section, the required wastewater facilities development impact fee for a nonresidential development shall be paid in an amount established by resolution of the city council. The required wastewater facilities development impact fee shall be due and paid on a lump-sum basis upon issuance of the building permitcertificate of occupancy.

D. Wastewater Facilities Fee—Exemption or Reduction.

1. The following uses and types of developments may be exempted from the payment of wastewater facilities development impact fees:
55

Page 19 of 27 ends

a. Any residential development that does not increase the number of permanent housing units on the parcel where the construction takes place, such as remodeling or rebuilding existing units. b. Accessory dwelling units and second units as defined in section 17.04.070. c. The remodeling or rebuilding of an existing nonresidential structure, provided the remodeling or rebuilding does not do any of the following:
i. Increase the square footage of the structure by more than fifty percent above that of the previously existing structure;
ii. Change the use to which the property or structure is to be put; or iii. Increase the average daily trips generated from the property above the amount generated by the prior use of the property.
d. Publicly owned facilities, including, without limitation, public libraries, public administration facilities, public parks, public utilities, schools, and related facilities. e. Facilities serving the health and safety of the public, including, without limitation, hospitals, police, fire, and safety facilities.

2. A developer may be exempted or allowed a reduction in fees from the wastewater facilities development impact fee requirements of subsections B and C of this section if the developer enters into a development agreement with the city pursuant to which wastewater facilities development impact fees are assessed to the developer, or equivalent or comparable wastewater facilities improvements are implemented by the developer.

3. A developer may be entitled to a reduction in the amount of the wastewater facilities development impact fee required by subsections B and C of this section if the developer constructs wastewater facilities improvements pursuant to the most current wastewater facilities plan, the most current capital improvement plan, or the annual budget process, as applicable. The wastewater facilities development impact fee may be reduced by the amount of wastewater facilities improvement costs that would be reasonably incurred by the city in building those same wastewater facilities improvements. The amount of such reduction shall be subject to the approval of the public works director prior to construction of the wastewater facilities improvement.

4. A developer may be entitled to a reduction in the amount of the wastewater facilities development impact fee required by subsections B and C of this section if the development is located in an assessment district that has been formed to construct facilities pursuant to the most current wastewater facilities plan, the most current capital improvement plan, or the annual budget process, as applicable. The wastewater facilities development impact fee may be reduced by the amount of the total assessment placed upon the development for the costs of wastewater facilities improvements.

The amount of such reduction shall not exceed the amount of the wastewater facilities development impact fee required by subsections B and C of this section.

5. If a fee exemption or a fee reduction is granted pursuant to this subsection D, any subsequent change or intensification of the use or uses of the property or any expansion of the structures on the property, shall invalidate the fee exemption or fee reduction, and the applicant shall be subject to the wastewater facilities development impact fee requirement applicable to the entire development based on the fee in effect at the time of the change or expansion, less any amount previously paid.

E. Appeals.

1. A developer subject to the wastewater facilities development impact fee required by this section for a particular project may apply to the city manager, or his or her designee, for: (a) a fee adjustment based upon a showing of substantial evidence of a lesser impact upon the wastewater facilities level of service; or (b) a land use category adjustment based upon a showing of substantial evidence that another land use category is more appropriate for a particular development. The application shall be 56

Page 20 of 27 ends

made in writing and filed with the city manager, or his or her designee, prior to the issuance of building permit. If a development review is not required for the development, then the application shall be made in writing and filed not later than the time at which the building permit is issued. The application shall state in detail the factual basis for the request for reduction.

5. If a fee exemption, a fee reduction or a land use category adjustment is granted pursuant to this subsection E, any subsequent change or intensification of the use or uses of the property or any expansion of the structures on the property, shall invalidate the fee exemption, fee reduction or land use category adjustment, and the applicant shall be subject to the wastewater facilities development impact fee requirement applicable to the entire development based on the fee in effect at the time of the change or expansion, less any amount previously paid.

F. Use of Funds. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 66006, all wastewater facilities development impact fees paid and collected pursuant to this section shall be placed into one or more separate account(s) established for such fee and used solely for the purpose of constructing wastewater facilities improvements pursuant to the most current wastewater facilities plan, the most current capital improvement plan, or the annual budget process, as applicable; provided, however, that if the public works director authorizes minor alterations to such plans or budget, then those alterations shall not affect the ability of the city to use wastewater facilities development impact fees collected pursuant to this section for the purpose of constructing wastewater facilities improvements in accordance with the most current wastewater facilities plan, the most current capital improvement plan, or the annual budget process, as applicable, and as altered or amended.

G. Fee Amount Applicable to Pending Projects. Except as may otherwise be provided in the resolution that adopts the wastewater facilities development impact fee amount, an applicant subject to the payment of wastewater facilities development impact fees required by subsections B or C of this section must pay the amount of the fee that is in effect when the fee becomes due as provided in subsection B.1 of this section for residential wastewater facilities development impact fees or subsection C.1 of this section for nonresidential wastewater facilities development impact fees. The amount of the fee is the amount specified by resolution of the city council, as amended from time to time. The fee imposed on a development project for which vested rights have been acquired through a vesting tentative subdivision map shall be the fee in effect at the time the rights became vested, plus any adjustment for inflation made between that date and the date the fee becomes due.

H. Periodic Adjustment to Fee Amount. The amount of the wastewater facilities development impact fee may be adjusted annually for inflation on July 1st of each year by the percentage change in the Construction Cost Index as published in the Engineering News-Record (or successor publication)Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U): Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario (or any successor index), as specified in the resolution that adopts the fee amount or by the periodic preparation of a new wastewater facilities plan, 57

Page 21 of 27 ends

capital improvement plan, or city budget, as applicable and required studies prepared and adopted pursuant to the Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code Section 66000 et seq.).

15.68.070 Water facilities development impact fee.

A. Findings and Intent.

2. Failure to enhance the ability of the city's water facilities system to accommodate additional service connections will make it more difficult for residents, employers, and employees to obtain the water services they need.

3. Sources of city revenue other than water facilities development impact fees, including tax revenues that will be paid by new residential and nonresidential development, will be needed for many public purposes and therefore will not be sufficient to offset the burdens on water facilities created by new development.

4. It is the intent of the city to require every person or organization that develops land to mitigate the impacts of that development on the city's water facilities system. The city may therefore require developers to mitigate water facilities impacts caused by their development and to pay a water facilities development impact fee that will be used to mitigate those impacts by constructing water facilities pursuant to the most current water facilities plan, the most current capital improvement plan, or the annual budget process, as applicable.

5. The amount of water facilities development impact fees collected pursuant to this section shall be limited to the cost of water facilities necessary to mitigate the impact attributable to new development. The amount of water facilities development impact fees collected shall not include the cost of water facilities necessary to address the impacts of existing development.

B. Residential Water Facilities Fee Required.

1. Except as provided in subsection D of this section, the required water facilities development impact fee for a residential building shall be paid in an amount established by resolution of the city council. The required water facilities development impact fee shall be due and paid on a lump-sum basis on the date the first dwelling in the development or development phase receives its final building inspection, or of the issuance of certificate of occupancy, whichever occurs first.

2. The public workscommunity development director, or his or her designee, shall be responsible for calculating the amount of the water facilities development impact fee required for each development project based on the applicable land use category and corresponding rate specified in the resolution that adopts the water facilities development impact fee. In calculating such fee, the public workscommunity development director director shall utilize the fee rate that is assigned to the land use category that is most applicable to the development project.

C. Nonresidential Water Facilities Fee Required.
58

Page 22 of 27 ends

1. Except as provided in subsection D of this section, the required water facilities development impact fee for a nonresidential development shall be paid in an amount established by resolution of the city council. The required water facilities development impact fee shall be due and paid on a lump-sum basis upon issuance of the building permit certificate of occupancy.

2. The public workscommunity development director, or his or her designee, shall be responsible for calculating the amount of the water facilities development impact fee required for each development project based on the applicable land use category and corresponding rate specified in the resolution that adopts the water facilities development impact fee. In calculating such fee, the public workscommunity development director shall utilize the fee rate that is assigned to the land use category that is most applicable to the development project.

D. Water Facilities Fee—Exemption or Reduction.

1. The following uses and types of developments may be exempted from the payment of water facilities development impact fees:
a. Any residential development that does not increase the number of permanent housing units on the parcel where the construction takes place, such as remodeling or rebuilding existing units. b. Accessory dwelling units and second units as defined in section 17.04.070. c. The remodeling or rebuilding of an existing nonresidential structure, provided the remodeling or rebuilding does not do any of the following:
i. Increase the square footage of the structure by more than fifty percent above that of the previously existing structure;
ii. Change the use to which the property or structure is to be put; or iii. Increase the average daily trips generated from the property above the amount generated by the prior use of the property.
c. Publicly owned facilities, including, without limitation, public libraries, public administration facilities, public parks, public utilities, schools, and related facilities. d. Facilities serving the health and safety of the public, including, without limitation, hospitals, police, fire, and safety facilities.

2. A developer may be exempted or allowed a reduction in fees from the water facilities development impact fee requirements of subsections B and C of this section if the developer enters into a development agreement with the city pursuant to which water facilities development impact fees are assessed to the developer, or equivalent or comparable water facilities improvements are implemented by the developer.

3. A developer may be entitled to a reduction in the amount of the water facilities development impact fee required by subsections B and C of this section if the developer constructs water facilities improvements pursuant to the most current water facilities plan, the most current capital improvement plan, or the annual budget process, as applicable. The water facilities development impact fee may be reduced by the amount of water facilities improvement costs that would be reasonably incurred by the city in building those same water facilities improvements. The amount of such reduction shall be subject to the approval of the public works director prior to construction of the water facilities improvement.

4. A developer may be entitled to a reduction in the amount of the water facilities development impact fee required by subsections B and C of this section if the development is located in an assessment 59

Page 23 of 27 ends

district that has been formed to construct facilities pursuant to the most current water facilities plan, the most current capital improvement plan, or the annual budget process, as applicable. The water facilities development impact fee may be reduced by the amount of the total assessment placed upon the development for the costs of water facilities improvements. The amount of such reduction shall not exceed the amount of the water facilities development impact fee required by subsections B and C of this section.

5. If a fee exemption or a fee reduction is granted pursuant to this subsection D, any subsequent change or intensification of the use or uses of the property or any expansion of the structures on the property, shall invalidate the fee exemption or fee reduction, and the applicant shall be subject to the water facilities development impact fee requirement applicable to the entire development based on the fee in effect at the time of the change or expansion, less any amount previously paid.

E. Appeals.

1. A developer subject to the water facilities development impact fee required by this section for a particular project may apply to the city manager, or his or her designee, for: (a) a fee adjustment based upon a showing of substantial evidence of a lesser impact upon the water facilities level of service; or (b) a land use category adjustment based upon a showing of substantial evidence that another land use category is more appropriate for a particular development. The application shall be made in writing and filed with the city manager, or his or her designee, prior to the issuance of building permit. If a development review is not required for the development, then the application shall be made in writing and filed not later than the time at which the building permit is issued. The application shall state in detail the factual basis for the request for reduction.

5. If a fee exemption, a fee reduction or a land use category adjustment is granted pursuant to this subsection E, any subsequent change or intensification of the use or uses of the property or any expansion of the structures on the property, shall invalidate the fee exemption, fee reduction or land use category adjustment, and the applicant shall be subject to the water facilities development impact fee requirement applicable to the entire development based on the fee in effect at the time of the change or expansion, less any amount previously paid.

F. Use of Funds. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 66006, all water facilities development impact fees paid and collected pursuant to this section shall be placed into one or more separate account(s) established for such fee and used solely for the purpose of constructing water facilities improvements pursuant to the most current water facilities plan, the most current capital improvement plan, or the annual budget process, as applicable; provided, however, that if the public works director authorizes minor alterations to such plans or budget, then those alterations shall not affect the ability of the city to use water facilities development impact fees collected pursuant to this section for the purpose of constructing water 60

Page 24 of 27 ends

facilities improvements in accordance with the most current water facilities plan, the most current capital improvement plan, or the annual budget process, as applicable, and as altered or amended.

G. Fee Amount Applicable to Pending Projects. Except as may otherwise be provided in the resolution that adopts the water facilities development impact fee amount, an applicant subject to the payment of water facilities development impact fees required by subsections B or C of this section must pay the amount of the fee that is in effect when the fee becomes due as provided in subsection B.1 of this section for residential water facilities development impact fees or subsection C.1 of this section for nonresidential water facilities development impact fees. The amount of the fee is the amount specified by resolution of the city council, as amended from time to time. The fee imposed on a development project for which vested rights have been acquired through a vesting tentative subdivision map shall be the fee in effect at the time the rights became vested, plus any adjustment for inflation made between that date and the date the fee becomes due.

H. Periodic Adjustment to Fee Amount. The amount of the water facilities development impact fee may be adjusted annually for inflation on July 1st of each year by the percentage change in the Construction Cost Index as published in the Engineering News-Record (or successor publication)Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U): Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario (or any successor index), as specified in the resolution that adopts the fee amount or by the periodic preparation of a new water facilities plan, capital improvement plan, or city budget, as applicable and required studies prepared and adopted pursuant to the Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code Section 66000 et seq.).

15.68.080 Electric facilities development impact fee.

A. Findings and Intent.

2. Failure to enhance the ability of the city's electric facilities system to accommodate additional service connections will make it more difficult for residents, employers, and employees to obtain the electric services they need.

3. Sources of city revenue other than electric facilities development impact fees, including tax revenues that will be paid by new residential and nonresidential development, will be needed for many public purposes and therefore will not be sufficient to offset the burdens on electric facilities created by new development.

4. It is the intent of the city to require every person or organization that develops land to mitigate the impacts of that development on the city's electric facilities system. The city may therefore require developers to mitigate electric facilities impacts caused by their development and to pay an electric facilities development impact fee that will be used to mitigate those impacts by constructing electric facilities pursuant to the most current electric facilities plan, the most current capital improvement plan, or the annual budget process, as applicable.

5. The amount of electric facilities development impact fees collected pursuant to this section shall be limited to the cost of electric facilities necessary to mitigate the impact attributable to new development. The amount of electric facilities development impact fees collected shall not include the cost of electric facilities necessary to address the impacts of existing development.

B. Residential Electric Facilities Fee Required.

1. Except as provided in subsection D of this section, the required electric facilities development impact fee for a residential building shall be paid in an amount established by resolution of the city council.

The required electric facilities development impact fee shall be due and paid on a lump-sum basis on the date of the issuance of certificate of occupancy.
61

Page 25 of 27 ends

2. The community development director, or his or her designee, shall be responsible for calculating the amount of the electric facilities development impact fee required for each development project based on the applicable land use category and corresponding rate specified in the resolution that adopts the electric facilities development impact fee. In calculating such fee, the community development director shall utilize the fee rate that is assigned to the land use category that is most applicable to the development project.

C. Nonresidential Electric Facilities Fee Required.

1. Except as provided in subsection D of this section, the required electric facilities development impact fee for a nonresidential development shall be paid in an amount established by resolution of the city council. The required electric facilities development impact fee shall be due and paid on a lump-sum basis upon issuance of the certificate of occupancy.

D. Electric Facilities Fee—Exemption or Reduction.

1. The following uses and types of developments may be exempted from the payment of electric facilities development impact fees:
a. Any residential development that does not increase the number of permanent housing units on the parcel where the construction takes place, such as remodeling or rebuilding existing units. b. Accessory dwelling units and second units as defined in section 17.04.070. c. The remodeling or rebuilding of an existing nonresidential structure, provided the remodeling or rebuilding does not do any of the following:
i. Increase the square footage of the structure by more than fifty percent above that of the previously existing structure;
ii. Change the use to which the property or structure is to be put; or iii. Increase the average daily trips generated from the property above the amount generated by the prior use of the property.
c. Publicly owned facilities, including, without limitation, public libraries, public administration facilities, public parks, public utilities, schools, and related facilities. d. Facilities serving the health and safety of the public, including, without limitation, hospitals, police, fire, and safety facilities.

2. A developer may be exempted or allowed a reduction in fees from the electric facilities development impact fee requirements of subsections B and C of this section if the developer enters into a development agreement with the city pursuant to which electric facilities development impact fees are 62

Page 26 of 27 ends

assessed to the developer, or equivalent or comparable electric facilities improvements are implemented by the developer.

3. A developer may be entitled to a reduction in the amount of the electric facilities development impact fee required by subsections B and C of this section if the developer constructs electric facilities improvements pursuant to the most current electric facilities plan, the most current capital improvement plan, or the annual budget process, as applicable. The electric facilities development impact fee may be reduced by the amount of electric facilities improvement costs that would be reasonably incurred by the city in building those same electric facilities improvements. The amount of such reduction shall be subject to the approval of the public works director prior to construction of the electric facilities improvement.

4. A developer may be entitled to a reduction in the amount of the electric facilities development impact fee required by subsections B and C of this section if the development is located in an assessment district that has been formed to construct facilities pursuant to the most current electric facilities plan, the most current capital improvement plan, or the annual budget process, as applicable. The electric facilities development impact fee may be reduced by the amount of the total assessment placed upon the development for the costs of electric facilities improvements. The amount of such reduction shall not exceed the amount of the electric facilities development impact fee required by subsections B and C of this section.

5. If a fee exemption or a fee reduction is granted pursuant to this subsection D, any subsequent change or intensification of the use or uses of the property or any expansion of the structures on the property, shall invalidate the fee exemption or fee reduction, and the applicant shall be subject to the electric facilities development impact fee requirement applicable to the entire development based on the fee in effect at the time of the change or expansion, less any amount previously paid.

E. Appeals.

1. A developer subject to the electric facilities development impact fee required by this section for a particular project may apply to the city manager, or his or her designee, for: (a) a fee adjustment based upon a showing of substantial evidence of a lesser impact upon the electric facilities level of service; or (b) a land use category adjustment based upon a showing of substantial evidence that another land use category is more appropriate for a particular development. The application shall be made in writing and filed with the city manager, or his or her designee, prior to the issuance of building permit. If a development review is not required for the development, then the application shall be made in writing and filed not later than the time at which the building permit is issued. The application shall state in detail the factual basis for the request for reduction.

5. If a fee exemption, a fee reduction or a land use category adjustment is granted pursuant to this subsection E, any subsequent change or intensification of the use or uses of the property or any expansion of the structures on the property, shall invalidate the fee exemption, fee reduction or land use category adjustment, and the applicant shall be subject to the electric facilities development impact fee requirement applicable to the entire development based on the fee in effect at the time of the change or expansion, less any amount previously paid. 63

Page 27 of 27 ends

F. Use of Funds. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 66006, all electric facilities development impact fees paid and collected pursuant to this section shall be placed into one or more separate account(s) established for such fee and used solely for the purpose of constructing electric facilities improvements pursuant to the most current electric facilities plan, the most current capital improvement plan, or the annual budget process, as applicable; provided, however, that if the public works director authorizes minor alterations to such plans or budget, then those alterations shall not affect the ability of the city to use electric facilities development impact fees collected pursuant to this section for the purpose of constructing electric facilities improvements in accordance with the most current electric facilities plan, the most current capital improvement plan, or the annual budget process, as applicable, and as altered or amended.

G. Fee Amount Applicable to Pending Projects. Except as may otherwise be provided in the resolution that adopts the electric facilities development impact fee amount, an applicant subject to the payment of electric facilities development impact fees required by subsections B or C of this section must pay the amount of the fee that is in effect when the fee becomes due as provided in subsection B.1 of this section for residential electric facilities development impact fees or subsection C.1 of this section for nonresidential electric facilities development impact fees. The amount of the fee is the amount specified by resolution of the city council, as amended from time to time. The fee imposed on a development project for which vested rights have been acquired through a vesting tentative subdivision map shall be the fee in effect at the time the rights became vested, plus any adjustment for inflation made between that date and the date the fee becomes due.

H. Periodic Adjustment to Fee Amount. The amount of the electric facilities development impact fee may be adjusted annually for inflation on July 1st of each year by the percentage change in the Construction Cost Index as published in the Engineering News-Record (or successor publication), as specified in the resolution that adopts the fee amount or by the periodic preparation of a new electric facilities plan, capital improvement plan, or city budget, as applicable and required studies prepared and adopted pursuant to the Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code Section 66000 et seq.). 64 CITY OF BANNING

STAFF REPORT
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Elizabeth Gibbs, City Manager
PREPARED BY: Nate Smith, Deputy Director of Public Works/City Engineer MEETING DATE: February 24, 2026
SUBJECT: Consider Resolution 2026-24, Making a Finding of Exemption Under CEQA, Approving the Development Impact Fee Study (DIF) Dated January 2026, and Adopting New and Amended Development Impact Fees, and Introducing Ordinance 1616 Amending Chapter 15.68 - Development Impact Fees of the Banning Municipal Code, Including Sections 15.68.040, 15.68.010, 15.68.020, 15.68.030, 15.68.040, 15.68.050,

15.68.060, 15.68.070, and Adding Section 15.68.080 Electric Facilities Development Impact Fees
RECOMMENDATION:
1) Determine this action is exempt under CEQA
2) Adopt Resolution 2026-24
3) Waive further reading, and introduce as read by title only, Ordinance 1616 BACKGROUND:

City Council approved Resolution 2024-92 on June 11th, 2024 that approved a professional services agreement with Matrix Consulting Group LTD for the Comprehensive User Fee and Impact Fee Study.

This study would provide an update to both the User Fees assessed by the City of Banning for services provided to the public, as well as updates to the Development Impact Fee (DIF) program. The work was split into the Comprehensive User Fees, which were adopted by City Council on November 12 with Resolution 2025-156, and the Development Impact Fee Update, which is the subject of this public hearing.

The previous development impact fees were adopted with Resolution 2019-112 on September 10, 2019 in accordance with Banning Municipal Code, which was modified with Ordinance 1551 adopted September 24, 2019. The development impact fees have been at the rates set with Resolution 2019-112 since that time.

DIFs are commonly imposed by local agencies on new developments as a precondition in the development application process. Revenues realized from DIF programs serve the primary purpose of funding the cost for public facilities necessary for mitigating the impacts of development projects and assure that new developments pay for their share of costs associated with growth. Data is used from various sources from the state, region, and City to determine growth patterns and expected development. This information is provided in greater detail in the draft DIF report. DIFs are regulated by Government Code Sections 66000 through 66025, with recent legislation of AB1600, which requires a reasonable relationship (“nexus”) between the collection of fees and the development within the City’s jurisdiction. AB602 has additional requirements that requires the adoption of a nexus study prior to 651
adoption of the fees, that fees be proportional, and that nexus studies must be updated every 8 years.

Greater detail on the legal authority and requirements are provided in the DIF Report.

The City currently imposes DIF on Fire, General Facilities, Parks, Police, Traffic, Wastewater, and Water.

A new DIF category is proposed for Electric services. The City Council adopted a Cost of Service and Rate Study for the Electric Utility in September 2025 (NewGen Strategies and Solutions, LLC) that included a capital component to the study. This report assessed the study to determine if it met the requirements set by the State to implement a DIF and determined that it does. The DIF Study identified that there is a discrepancy between the current DIF and the DIF that is necessary to implement the capital plans that are included with this study. As such, the DIF is proposed to be increased to the maximum justifiable amount for each development category. There are a couple of cases where the DIF is proposed to decrease slightly based on the new study. DIF is assessed on all new development.

The proposed DIF is located in Exhibit A of Resolution 2026-24.

This DIF study identifies the maximum justifiable fee that can be charged to the 5 development categories (Single Family Residential, Multi-Family Residential, General Commercial, Office, Industrial) for each DIF service (Electric, Fire, General Facilities, Parks, Police, Traffic, Wastewater, Water). The City Council has the authority to adopt the rates as presented, or make reductions to the rates proposed in the study. In no case, can the City Council adopt rates greater than what is presented in the DIF study.

If a reduced rate is desired, that means that the service area collecting the DIF would require some form of subsidy to fund the capital and equipment cost components to 100%. This could be through other City funds, state funds, federal funds, grants, etc., or deferment of improvements contemplated in the DIF. These are policy decisions to be made by the City Council.

The current DIF ordinance does allow for the adjustment on DIF on an annual basis based on CPI-U for the Riverside/San Bernardino/Ontario region, however, the DIF has not been adjusted since its adoption in 2019. Moving forward, City Staff will apply the appropriate adjustment in the DIF effective July 1 of each year, starting on July 1, 2027.

JUSTIFICATION:

The DIF Study prepared by Matrix Consulting contains the maximum justifiable DAF for each of the DIF categories (Electric, Fire, General Facilities, Parks, Police, Traffic, Wastewater, Water). The California Housing and Community Development Department outlines three typical methodologies for calculating impact fees: The existing inventory method, the planned facility method, and the system plan method (a hybrid of existing plan planned methods). This analysis used the mode widely accepted and recognized 'system plan method' to calculate the fees. Detail of this methodology is included in the attached DIF Study.

AB602 requires that the City's DIF be evaluated every 8 years. The last update in the City of Banning was 2019, and this action would be consistent with the statutory requirements.

A public workshop was held on January 17, 2026 to introduce the topic for City Council. This was an information item only, no official action was taken.

A second City Council discussion item occurred on February 10, 2026 to review rates and provide an analysis on the comparison to our neighbor. After this meeting, City staff conferred with Matrix Consulting to review comments recieved prior to the discussion item. This was an information item only, no official action was taken.

A public hearing notice was published on Friday, February 13, 2026 in the Record Gazette.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The update to the City's DIF program will provide the necessary revenue to fund the capital project 662
described in the DIF studies in order to mitigate the impacts of new development and keep the City's level of service for electric facilities, fire protection, general facilities, parks, police, traffic, wastewater, and water systems at a satisfactory level.

ALTERNATIVES:

BUDGETED?:

No
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT:

No
ATTACHMENTS:

1. Resolution 2026-24 - DIF Update.pdf

2. Resolution 2026-24 Exhibit A - 2026 DIF Schedule.pdf

3. Resolution 2026-24 Exhibit B - DIF Study Final Report.pdf

4. ORD NO 1616.pdf

5. ORD NO 1616 Exhibit A - Chapter 15.68 DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES (Redline).pdf

6. 2019 Current DIF Table.pdf

7. 2026 DIF Comparison.pdf

8. 2026_0210 BIA Comment Letter.pdf

9. 2026_0218 BIA DIF Response Letter.pdf

10. PHN ORD 1616.pdf

11. PHN Affidavit - DIF.pdf
673
Resolution 2026-24

Page 1 of 8 ends

RESOLUTION 2026-24

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BANNING, CALIFORNIA, MAKING

A FINDING OF EXEMPTION UNDER CEQA, APPROVING THE DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE (DIF) STUDY DATED FEBRUARY 2026, AND ADOPTING NEW AND AMENDED

DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
WHEREAS, On September 24, 2019, the City Council adopted Ordinance 1551 establishing Chapter 15.68 “Development Impact Fees” of the Banning Municipal Code. Chapter

15.68 provides that Development Impact Fees shall be paid in an amount established by resolution of the City Council; and
WHEREAS, Matrix Consulting Group has prepared the Development Impact Fee (DIF) Study dated February 2026; and
WHEREAS, the Development Impact Fee (DIF) Study (“Study”) identifies capital infrastructure, equipment, and other physical needs necessary to accommodate build out of the community under the City’s General Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Study describes the benefit and impact areas on which development impact fees are to be imposed and collected, describing the reasonable relationship between the development impact fees and the various types of new development, analyzing the need for new public facilities and improvements which will be necessitated by new development, setting forth a methodology for determining the relationship between new development, the needed public facilities, and the estimated cost of those improvements, and otherwise satisfying the requirements of the law, and Government Code Sections 66000 et seq. (the “Mitigation Fee Act”), with regard to the imposition and collection of development impact fees; and WHEREAS, the Study evaluates project development growth in the City through the year 2040 for electric, fire, general facilities, parks, police, traffic, wastewater, and water based on the City’s General Plan, adopted specific plans, and other development approvals, and provides the basis for calculating and adopting impact fees in the following categories: Electric, Fire, General Facilities, Parks, Police, Traffic, Wastewater, and Water; and WHEREAS, the analysis of facilities and improvement costs contained in the Study, taken together with the methodology established by the Study, demonstrate the specific costs associated with providing adequate public facilities commensurate with project levels of new development in the City; and
WHEREAS, the Study provides the documentation, detail, and other information required by the Mitigation Fee Act as the basis for the adopting and imposition of the development impact fees for electric, fire, general facilities, parks, police, traffic, wastewater, and water, and describes the benefit and impact area on which the development impact fees are to be imposed, lists the specific public improvements to be financed through the imposition and collection of the development impact fees, describes the estimated costs of providing the improvements and facilities, describes the reasonable relationship between the development impact fees and the various types of new development, and otherwise satisfies the requirements of the law with regard to the imposition and collection of development impact fees; and 684
Resolution 2026-24

Page 2 of 8 ends

WHEREAS, pursuant to the Mitigation Fee Act, the City Council finds that there is a reasonable relationship between the need for park land and parks improvements and residential development that does not involve the subdivision of land for which a corresponding fee is charged because future residential development will increase the City’s population and will require additional park space and improvements to adequately serve the athletic and recreational needs of these new residents; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Mitigation Fee Act, the City Council finds that there is a reasonable relationship between the development and improvement of parks and residential development that does not involve the subdivision of land for which the fee is imposed, because the additional parks and improvement will improve and expand the City’s park system and thus reduce the risk that the City’s increasing population will overuse or overcrowd the City’s parks; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Mitigation Fee Act, the City Council finds that the proposed fees for traffic impact fee does not duplicate fees collected under the Western Riverside County Traffic Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Ordinance because the items listed in the Study only include costs for transportation improvements at intersections, and other costs, that are not included in TUMF, but would require improvements due to background growth and new development in the City; and
WHEREAS, the facts and evidence presented to the City Council have established that there is a reasonable relationship between the need for new facilities or improvements and the impacts of new development for which a corresponding fee is charged, and also that there is a reasonable relationship between the fees and the use and the type of development for which the fee is imposed; and
WHEREAS, the City has compiled with the notice and hearing requirements of state law and the Mitigation Fee Act prior to adopting the Resolution, and a notice of public hearing on the development impact fees was mailed as required by law to any interested party who filed a written request with the City Clerk for mailed notice of a new meeting on new or increased fees; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing at the February 10, 2026 Regular City Council meeting, at which time further testimony was presented and the public hearing was closed; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the record of these proceedings, including the Study, the City’s General Plan, ordinances and resolutions, the staff report, written correspondence received by the City, and the testimony received at the hearing prior to the adoption of this Resolution, held on February 10, 2026, contains substantial evidence to support the imposition and collection of the development impact fees established herein; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and considered the development impact fees established therein and finds that the fees will mitigate some of the impacts associated with additional capital and infrastructure needs necessitated by new residential and non-residential development in the City.

NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Banning hereby finds, resolves, and determines as follows:
695
Resolution 2026-24

Page 3 of 8 ends

SECTION 1: ADOPTION AND INCORPORATION OF RECITALS
The findings and recitals set forth above the true and correct and are incorporated herein.

SECTION 2: ADOPTION OF THE STUDY
The City Council hereby approved the Development Impact Fee (DIF) Study prepared by Matrix Consulting Group dated February 2026, and the findings contained therein. The City Council further adopts the methodology set forth in the Study for calculating and collecting the development impact fees adopted herein. A copy of the Study shall be on file with the City Clerk and available during regular City business hours for public inspection.

SECTION 3: ADOPTION OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
The City Council hereby approve and adopts the development impact fees for electric, fire, general facilities, parks, police, traffic, wastewater, and water in accordance with the schedule set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.

SECTION 4: METHODOLOGY FOR CALCULATION, ADJUSTMENT, AND COLLECTION OF

DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
The development impact fees established in Exhibit A are hereby adopted, and shall be calculated, adjusted, and collected in accordance with City ordinances and the Study. The amount of the development impact fees may be adjusted annually for inflation of July 1st of each calendar year by the percentage change in the Construction Cost Index as published in the Engineering News-Record (or successor publication).

SECTION 5: IMPOSITION OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
The development impact fees established herein shall be due and payable in accordance with Government Code Section 66007, upon the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy.

SECTION 6: EFFECTIVE DATE OF NEW DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES The development impact fees for fire, general facilities, parks, police, traffic, wastewater, and water established by Section 4 of this Resolution shall be effective on the thirtieth (30th) day following the adoption of this Resolution.

The development impact fee for electric established by Section 4 of this Resolution shall be effective on the later of the thirtieth (30th) day following the adoption of this resolution or the thirtieth (30th) following the adoption of Ordinance 1616, whichever is later.

SECTION 7: EXCEPTIONS
The development impact fees established herein shall not include fees established and collected pursuant to Chapter 15.72 (“Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan”) and Chapter 15.76 (“Western Riverside County Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Program”) of the Municipal Code.

SECTION 8: APPEAL OF FEE IMPOSITION
706
Resolution 2026-24

Page 4 of 8 ends

Any applicant who is subject to payment of the development impact fees established herein may file an appeal in accordance with Chapter 15.68 of the Municipal Code, as that chapter may be amended from time to time.

SECTION 9: REPEAL OR PRIOR DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES ADOPTED BY RESOLUTION 2019-112 AND CONFLICTING RESOLUTIONS
Any and all provisions of Resolution No. 2019-112 and any other prior resolutions of the City Council establishing or modifying development impact fees in the categories established in the Study and set forth in Exhibit A, which duplicate or conflict with the provisions of the Resolution and Exhibit A, are hereby repealed and replaced with the fees set forth in Exhibit A and the terms and conditions established by this Resolution upon the effective date of the new development impact fees as provided in Section 6 of this Resolution.

SECTION 10: ENVIRONMENTAL EXEMPTION
The adoption of the Study and the development impact fees specified in this Resolution was reviewed in accordance with the criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and the State CEQA guidelines. The City Council finds the adoption of the Study and the development impact fees in this Resolution is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to section 15378(b)(4), as the action relates to the creation of government funding mechanisms or other governmental fiscal activities, which do not involve any commitment to any specific project which may result in a potentially significant physical impact on the environment.

The City Council finds the adoption of the Study and the development impact fees in this Resolution is statutorily exempt from CEQA under section 15273(a)(4) to the establishment, modification, structuring, restructuring, or approval of rates, tolls, fares, and other charges by public agencies which the public agency finds are for the purpose of obtaining funds for capital project, necessary to maintain service within existing service areas. The capital projects described in the Development Impact Fee (DIF) Study will maintain the level of service currently provided by the City’s existing electric, fire, general facilities, parks, traffic, wastewater, and water facilities by ensuring that the impacts of new development will not negatively impact existing service levels within existing service areas.

SECTION 11: SEVERABILITY
If any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Resolution or any part hereof is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Resolution or any part thereof. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase be declared invalid or unconstitutional.

SECTION 12: CERTIFICATION
The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this resolution and shall cause a certified copy of this resolution to be filed in the book of original resolutions. 717
Resolution 2026-24

Page 5 of 8 ends

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 10th day of February 2026.

Richard Royce, Mayor
City of Banning
ATTEST:

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

John Pinkney, City Attorney
Slovak, Baron, Empey, Murphy & Pinkney,
LLC
728
Resolution 2026-24

Page 6 of 8 ends

CERTIFICATION:

I, Sandra Calderon, Deputy City Clerk of the City of Banning, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution 2026-24, was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Banning, California, at a regular meeting thereof held on the 24th day of February 2026 by the following vote, to wit:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Sandra Calderon, Deputy City Clerk
City of Banning, California
739
Resolution 2026-24

Page 7 of 8 ends

Exhibit A
Schedule of Development Impact Fees
Effective 30 Days After Adoption
Adopted on February 24, 2026, and Effective on March 26, 2026 Fire, General Facilities, Parks, Police, Traffic, Wastewater, and Water Development Impact Fees
Adopted on February 24, 2026 and Effective on April 9, 2026 Electric Development Impact Fee
1074
Resolution 2026-24

Page 8 of 8 ends

Exhibit B
Development Impact Fee (DIF) Study dated February 2026 by Matrix Consulting Group 1175
City of Banning, Ca
2026 Development Impact Fee Schedule
Maximum Justifiable Fee per Development Impact Fee (DIF) Study dated January 2026 by Matrix Consulting Group Residential Uses (Fees assessed on a PER SQUARE FOOT basis) Single Family $ 0.99 $ 1.21 $ 1.23 $ 3.80 $ 0.90 $ 1.19 $ 3.25 3/4" $ 6,094 Multi-Family $ 0.93 $ 2.11 $ 2.13 $ 6.59 $ 1.57 $ 1.00 $ 2.20 1" $ 10,156 1-1/2" $ 20,312
2" $ 32,500
Non-Residential Uses (Fees assessed on a PER SQUARE FOOT basis) 3" $ 60,937 Commercial $ 2.36 $ 0.65 $ 0.47 $ 0.48 $ 10.06 $ 2.29 4" $ 101,562 Office $ 2.21 $ 0.85 $ 0.62 $ 0.63 $ 3.29 $ 0.80 6" $ 203,123 Industrial $ 1.27 $ 0.32 $ 0.23 $ 0.23 $ 1.60 $ 0.87 8" $ 568,745 Resolution 2026-24, Effective March 26, 2026 (Police, Fire Protection, Parkland and Parks, General Facilities, Wastewater, Traffic, Water) Resolution 2026-24, Effective April 9, 2026 (Electric)
Water Facilities Traffic Impact
Fees
Electric Impact
Land Use Fee
Police Facilities Fire Protection
Facilities
Parkland and
Parks
General City
Facilities
Wastewater
Facilities
1276

BANNING, CA

DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE (DIF)
STUDY
FEBRUARY 2026
1377
INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
LEGAL FRAMEWORK 8
PROJECTED GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT 10
ADMINISTRATIVE FEE 13
ELECTRIC IMPACT FEE 14
FIRE IMPACT FEE 18
GENERAL FACILITIES IMPACT FEE 24
PARKS IMPACT FEE 30
POLICE IMPACT FEE 35
TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE 40
WASTEWATER IMPACT FEE 45
WATER IMPACT FEE 51
APPENDIX A – ELECTRIC INFRASTRUCTURE COST 57
APPENDIX B – FIRE INFRASTRUCTURE COST 58
APPENDIX C – GENERAL FACILITIES INFRASTRUCTURE COST 59
APPENDIX D – PARKS INFRASTRUCTURE COST 60
APPENDIX E – POLICE INFRASTRUCTURE COST 61
APPENDIX F – TRAFFIC INFRASTRUCTURE COST 62
APPENDIX G – WASTEWATER INFRASTRUCTURE COST 63
APPENDIX H – WATER INFRASTRUCTURE COST 65

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1478

BANNING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 1
The report, which follows, presents the results of the Development Impact Fee Study conducted by Matrix Consulting Group for the City of Banning.

PROJECT BACKGROUND AND SCOPE OF WORK
The City of Banning retained Matrix Consulting Group to update existing impact fees to ensure compliance with the state’s nexus requirements and to explore the development of new impact fees.

Within the state of California, impact fees are governed by the Mitigation Fee Act (AB1600) (Gov. Code §66000 et seq.) and AB602, which require demonstrating a reasonable relationship between the development activity and the proposed benefit. The City’s last comprehensive impact fee update was in 2019; as such, the City is reevaluating the nexus for these impact fees to ensure they remain appropriate and reflect completed and new projects. The results of this study will allow the City to ensure that future development has a nexus with its proportionate impact on City infrastructure and to update the fee amounts to better reflect those impacts.

GENERAL PROJECT APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY
The California Housing and Community Development Department outlines three typical methodologies for calculating impact fees: the existing inventory method, the planned facility method, and the system plan method (a hybrid of the existing and planned methods). For this analysis, the project team used the more widely accepted and recognized ‘system plan method’ to calculate the fees.

The ‘system plan method’ utilizes the concept of a ‘service level standard’. This standard is based on the recognition of the jurisdiction's existing service-level standards for its service users (i.e., residents, employees, students, etc.). As new development and growth in the community occur, there is potential for the service level standard to decline if appropriate measures are not taken to maintain it. Therefore, the ‘service level standard’ calculates the impact of each individual on the City’s infrastructure and applies it to future individuals and growth. If the service population increases, there would be a corresponding impact on infrastructure, thereby creating a nexus for the collection of impact fees.

However, if there is no increased population or use of those services, impact fees would not be justifiable or applicable.

For the purposes of calculating impact fees, the project team reviewed a variety of data elements from the state, regional organizations, county, and City staff. The following points highlight the data reviewed through the course of this analysis:
• Ordinances and Codes: The project team reviewed the City’s ordinances and municipal code to ensure that there was the legal authority to assess and increase current impact fees.

INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1579

BANNING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 2
• General Plan, Facilities Assessment, Department Master Plans, and CIP Plans: Data was reviewed from a variety of City-specific documents regarding the potential growth in the community, the goals for the City and the departments, as well as future capital projects. • Growth and Projection Data: Population, household, dwelling unit, and employment information for current and future years was obtained from the U.S. Census Bureau, the California Department of Finance, the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), American Water Works Association (AWWA) and internal City General Plan projection documents. • Service Level Standards: Information on police facilities, fire equipment, transportation projects, storm drain projects, and park needs was collected, reviewed, and applied to calculate future impacts. • Revenues and Expenses: Revenue collected from impact fees was reviewed to ensure compliance with reporting practices and to calculate an administrative overhead percentage. Expense information was reviewed for infrastructure costs and overhead to support impact fees.

These components were used to develop and update the City's impact fees.

SUMMARY OF RESULTS
During this analysis, the project team evaluated impact fees based on projected population impacts for 2025-2040. Based on the results, the maximum justifiable impact fees were calculated for the following infrastructure: Electric, Fire, General Facilities, Parks, Police, Traffic, Wastewater, and Water.

As outlined in the Mitigation Fee Act, proportional costs associated with future infrastructure impacts, along with administrative overhead, were used to calculate the full cost of the impact fees presented. It is important to note that AB602 states that residential (single-family and multi-family) should be calculated based upon proportional square footage, rather than per dwelling unit. To comply with this regulation, all residential fees were converted to a per-square-foot calculation. The following subsections show the results of the updated impact fees calculated for the City.

ELECTRIC IMPACT FEE
The City recently completed a Cost of Service and Rate Study for its electric operations (September 2025, NewGen Strategies and Solutions, LLC). One mechanism to maintain the service standard outlined in the NewGen study is for the City to explore the feasibility of implementing an impact fee for its electrical utility infrastructure. Through this analysis, the project team calculated the full cost to be as follows:

Table 1: Proposed Electric Impact Fee
Category Full Cost
Residential: Per Sq. Ft.

Single Family $0.99
Multi-Family $0.93
Non-Residential: Per Sq. Ft.

Commercial $2.36
1680

BANNING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 3
Category Full Cost
Office $2.21
Industrial $1.27
The full cost fee calculated through this study represents the maximum fee that the City can charge, inclusive of an allowable administrative fee outlined in the Mitigation Fee Act.

FIRE IMPACT FEE
The City of Banning administers a Fire impact fee to ensure that new development contributes its proportional share of costs to offset the demand placed on fire facilities, vehicles, and equipment required to support growth. The following table compares the City’s current impact fee to the full cost calculated through this analysis, the difference, and the current level of cost recovery.

Table 2: Current vs. Full Cost – Fire Impact Fee
Category Current Fee Full Cost Difference Current Cost
Recovery %
Residential: Per Sq. Ft.1
Single Family $0.39 $1.21 ($0.82) 32%
Multi-Family $0.61 $2.11 ($1.50) 29%
Non-Residential: Per Sq. Ft.

Commercial $0.49 $0.65 ($0.16) 75%
Office $0.63 $0.85 ($0.22) 74%
Industrial $0.24 $0.32 ($0.08) 76%
All fire impact fees show an under-recovery, ranging from a low of $0.08 per square foot for industrial projects to a high of $1.50 per square foot for multi-family residential development. The full cost fee calculated in this study represents the maximum fee the City can charge and includes the administrative fee allowable under the Mitigation Fee Act.

GENERAL FACILITIES IMPACT FEE
The City of Banning administers a General Facilities impact fee to ensure that new development contributes its proportional share of costs to offset the demand placed on public facilities (i.e., City Hall, corporation yard, etc.), city vehicles, and equipment required to support growth. The following table compares the City’s current impact fee to the full cost calculated through this analysis, the difference, and the current level of cost recovery.
1 Currently, Banning charges their residential impacts fees based on per dwelling unit. Due to changes in regulations (as outlined in the Legal Framework chapter) residential impact fees must now be calculated based on square footage (similar to the commercial impact fees). To ensure a proper comparison the current fee was converted into a square footage fee utilizing the data outlined in the Projected Growth and Development chapter.
1781

BANNING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 4
Table 3: Current vs. Full Cost – General Facilities Fee Category Current Fee Full Cost Difference Current Cost
Recovery %
Residential: Per Sq. Ft.2
Single Family $0.27 $1.23 ($0.95) 22%
Multi-Family $0.43 $2.13 ($1.70) 20%
Non-Residential: Per Sq. Ft.

Commercial $0.49 $0.47 $0.02 103%
Office $0.64 $0.62 $0.02 103%
Industrial $0.24 $0.23 $0.01 104%
Residential fees under-recover, while non-residential fees slightly over-recover on a square footage basis.

Like other impact fees, the full cost fee calculated through this study represents the maximum fee that the City can charge, inclusive of all allowable administrative costs outlined in the Mitigation Fee Act.

PARKS IMPACT FEE
The City of Banning administers a Parks impact fee to ensure that new development contributes its proportional share of costs to offset the acquisition of new land and the demand placed on park infrastructure required to support growth. The following table compares the City’s current impact fee to the full cost calculated through this analysis, the difference, and the current level of cost recovery.

Table 4: Current vs. Full Cost – Parks Impact Fee
Category Current Fee Full Cost Difference Current Cost
Recovery %
Residential: Per Sq. Ft.3
Single Family $2.02 $3.80 ($1.78) 53%
Multi-Family $3.14 $6.59 ($3.45) 48%
The City under-recovers for both of its residential park-specific impact fees. The full cost fee calculated through this study represents the maximum fee that the City can charge and is inclusive of the administrative fee allowable under the Mitigation Fee Act.

POLICE IMPACT FEE
The City of Banning administers a Police impact fee to ensure that new development contributes its proportional share of costs to offset the demand placed on police facilities, vehicles, and equipment 2 Currently, Banning charges their residential impacts fees based on per dwelling unit. Due to changes in regulations (as outlined in the Legal Framework chapter) residential impact fees must now be calculated based on square footage (similar to the commercial impact fees). To ensure a proper comparison the current fee was converted into a square footage fee utilizing the data outlined in the Projected Growth and Development chapter.
3 Currently, Banning charges their residential impacts fees based on per dwelling unit. Due to changes in regulations (as outlined in the Legal Framework chapter) residential impact fees must now be calculated based on square footage (similar to the commercial impact fees). To ensure a proper comparison the current fee was converted into a square footage fee utilizing the data outlined in the Projected Growth and Development chapter.
1882

BANNING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 5
required to support growth. The following table compares the City’s current impact fee to the full cost calculated through this analysis, the difference, and the current level of cost recovery.

Table 5: Current vs. Full Cost – Police Impact Fee
Category Current Fee Full Cost Difference Current Cost
Recovery %
Residential: Per Sq. Ft.4
Single Family $0.63 $0.90 ($0.27) 70%
Multi-Family $0.98 $1.57 ($0.59) 63%
Non-Residential: Per Sq. Ft.

Commercial $0.35 $0.48 ($0.13) 72%
Office $0.46 $0.63 ($0.17) 73%
Industrial $0.17 $0.23 ($0.06) 72%
All police impact fees show an under-recovery, ranging from a low of $0.06 per square foot for industrial projects to a high of $0.59 per square foot for multi-family residential development. As with other impact fees, the full cost fee calculated through this study represents the maximum justifiable fee that the City can charge and is inclusive of the administrative fee allowable under the Mitigation Fee Act.

TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE
The City of Banning administers a Traffic impact fee to ensure that new development contributes its proportional share of costs to offset the restoration and expansion of the City’s transportation infrastructure required to support growth. The city’s prior traffic impact fee analysis had a separate impact fee for each potential land use in the City. For streamlining and consistency with the other impact fees, the categories were condensed. As such, the impact fees cannot be compared, and the following table only shows the full cost of the traffic impact fee.

Table 6: Current vs. Full Cost – Traffic Impact Fee
Category Full Cost
Residential: Per Sq. Ft.

Single Family $1.19
Multi-Family $1.00
Non-Residential: Per Sq. Ft.

Commercial $10.06
Office $3.29
Industrial $1.60
4 Currently, Banning charges their residential impacts fees based on per dwelling unit. Due to changes in regulations (as outlined in the Legal Framework chapter) residential impact fees must now be calculated based on square footage (similar to the commercial impact fees). To ensure a proper comparison the current fee was converted into a square footage fee utilizing the data outlined in the Projected Growth and Development chapter.
1983

BANNING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 6
In an effort to streamline the administration of the City’s traffic-specific impact fees, it was proposed to reclassify the land-use categories. The full cost includes administrative costs and represents the maximum amount the City can charge to recover for transportation-related impacts.

WASTEWATER IMPACT FEE
The City of Banning administers a Wastewater impact fee to ensure that new development contributes its proportional share of costs to offset the restoration and expansion of the City’s wastewater infrastructure (including gravity mains, force mains, lift stations, wastewater treatment plant, etc.) required to support growth. The following table compares the City’s current impact fee to the full cost calculated through this analysis, the difference, and the current level of cost recovery.

Table 7: Current vs. Full Cost – Wastewater Impact Fee
Category Current Fee Full Cost Difference Current Cost
Recovery %
Residential: Per Sq. Ft.5
Single Family $2.66 $3.25 ($0.59) 82%
Multi-Family $5.06 $2.20 $2.86 230%
Non-Residential: Per Sq. Ft.

Commercial Varies $4.49 N/A N/A
Office Varies $1.57 N/A N/A
Industrial Varies $1.71 N/A N/A
The single-family wastewater impact fee under-recovers, while the multi-family rate over-recovers. This rightsizing is primarily due to converting the fee from per-dwelling-unit to per-square-foot, in alignment with recent legislation. Currently, the City charges its non-residential rates based on the various development types. Going forward, it was proposed to reclassify non-residential fees into three categories to provide consistent land-use-based rates. The full cost fee calculated in this study represents the maximum fee the City can charge and includes the administrative fee allowable under the Mitigation Fee Act.

WATER IMPACT FEE
The City of Banning administers a Water impact fee to ensure that new development contributes its proportional share of costs to offset the restoration and expansion of the City’s water infrastructure (including pipelines, wells, valves, pump stations, etc.) required to support growth. The following table compares the City’s current impact fee to the full cost calculated through this analysis, the difference, and the current level of cost recovery.
5 Currently, Banning charges their residential impacts fees based on per dwelling unit. Due to changes in regulations (as outlined in the Legal Framework chapter) residential impact fees must now be calculated based on square footage (similar to the commercial impact fees). To ensure a proper comparison the current fee was converted into a square footage fee utilizing the data outlined in the Projected Growth and Development chapter.
2084

BANNING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 7
Table 8: Current vs. Full Cost – Water Impact Fee
Meter Size Current Fee Full Cost Difference Current Cost Recovery % 3/4” $5,847 $6,094 ($247) 96%
1” $9,744 $10,156 ($412) 96%
1-1/2” $19,488 $20,312 ($824) 96%
2” $31,181 $32,500 ($1,319) 96%
3” $58,464 $60,937 ($2,473) 96%
4” $97,441 $101,562 ($4,121) 96%
6” N/A $203,123 N/A N/A
8” N/A $568,745 N/A N/A
The City under-recovers for water impact fees. The full cost fee calculated in this study represents the maximum fee the City can charge and includes the administrative fee allowable under the Mitigation Fee Act.

SUMMARY
Through this analysis, all of the City’s impact fees have been reviewed and, in general, show underrecoveries. The only fees that the City will need to reduce are related to General Public Facilities nonresidential properties, and Wastewater multi-family development. Overall, this report details the calculations for each impact fee and validates the nexus between the full cost identified and the proportionate impact of new development.

The updated and proposed impact fees calculated through this study represent the maximum justifiable costs associated with the proportionate share and impact of new development within Banning. It is up to City staff, management, and Council to use the information in this report to determine whether new development should bear the full cost or whether the City should subsidize it.

The City does not currently increase its impact fees annually. Due to changes in construction/infrastructure costs, it is best practice to increase these fees annually. The most appropriate factor for annual increases is the Construction Cost Index (CCI). This is considered a best practice and ensures that increases in construction costs are included in the impact fees, and a proportionate share is passed onto new development.

The annual increase is not meant to be an infinite increase in fees. Per the Mitigation Fee Act and Assembly Bill 602 the nexus for the impact fees should be reevaluated every eight years to ensure that there is still an appropriate correlation between the current fee being charged and proposed development within the City.
2185

BANNING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 8
Impact Fees are a mechanism for new development to pay for their proportionate share of impact upon City owned facilities and infrastructure. The following subsections discuss the State’s requirements for impact fees and the City’s legal authority for assessing these fees.

STATE LEGAL AUTHORITY – AB1600
Development Impact Fees in California are governed by the Mitigation Fee Act6, which includes AB1600 and AB602. At a high level, AB1600 specifies that there needs to be a reasonable relationship, or “nexus,” between the collection of fees and the new residential and non-residential development within a City’s service area. It states that revenue can only be used to expand current facilities or purchase new facilities, infrastructure, and equipment. It also states that the revenue generated cannot be used to fund staffing, maintenance, or other operational costs.

To establish a nexus between new development and the need for new facilities or infrastructure, the legislation requires that certain criteria be met. The following points highlight each of the required criteria:
• Purpose of Fee: Outline specific types of facilities, infrastructure, equipment, and projects for which the impact fee will be utilized.
• Impact Relationship: In order to establish an impact relationship there needs to be a clear and reasonable relationship between the need for the public facility or infrastructure and the type of development project upon which the fee is imposed.
• Proportionality: The proportionality requirement states that the impact fee established must be directly related to the proportionate impact of the type of development project. • Benefit Relationship: The benefit relationship requires that the use of the impact fee revenue and the type of development project upon which it is imposed is reasonable. • Use of Fee Revenue: The revenue collected from the impact fees can only be used to fund the identified facility expansions, infrastructure improvements, or to purchase new equipment.

For each of the impact fees evaluated through this study, the individual chapter will discuss how the fee is able to meet the nexus criteria identified, as well as its compliance with the “Sheets v. El Dorado County” findings of “roughly proportionate” to the impacts of the project. 6 CA Govt Code § 66001

LEGAL FRAMEWORK
2286

BANNING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 9
STATE LEGAL AUTHORITY – AB602
In January of 2022, Assembly Bill 602 (AB602) went into effect. This Bill is applicable to all impact fees adopted / implemented January 1, 2022, or later. The bill has three main criteria:
• Prior to the adoption of new impact fees, a nexus study needs be adopted. • The nexus study needs to identify existing service levels, the new service level, and an explanation of why the new service level is appropriate.
• A fee levied on housing development must be proportionate to the square footage of proposed units unless findings are established on why square footage is not the appropriate metric. This ensures larger residential projects pay a higher portion of fees than smaller residential (i.e. ADU) projects. • If the nexus study supports the increase of existing fees, the assumptions of the nexus study supporting the original fee must be reviewed and the amount of fees collected under the original fee. • Large jurisdictions must adopt a capital improvement plan with the nexus study.

Along with these criteria, some other key provisions of the bill include:
• Impact fees must be posted online – along with the nexus analysis. • All impact fees must be collected by the time of final inspection or certificate of occupancy issuance, whichever occurs later7.
• Impact fees nexus studies must be updated every eight years.

Under directive from AB602, the State’s Department of Housing and Community Development created templates for a nexus study and residential feasibility analysis. These resources establish a litmus test for cities to gauge their compliance.

This report will serve as the City’s nexus analysis for its existing impact fees and will ensure that all criteria per AB602 are met and clearly outlined.

CITY LEGAL AUTHORITY FOR IMPACT FEES
The City of Banning has the legal authority to impose impact fees as outlined in the municipal code (Chapter 15.68). The municipal code outlines the components that make up each impact fee, the types of projects exempt from paying the fee, how and when the fee is collected, and how impact fee funds are to be used. The City’s most recent impact fee resolutions were adopted in 2019 (Ord. No. 1551, § 8, 9-24- 19). This resolution provided a list of all current impact fees based upon a prior 2019 Nexus Analysis study, with updated fee amounts. To implement the Electric Impact Fee, the City would require an update to its ordinance and resolution.
7 Section 65940.1.(3)
2387

BANNING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 10
The projected increase in the jurisdiction's population (both residential and non-residential) is the primary criterion for determining the projected impact of new development on a jurisdiction. These population projections serve as the basis for impact fee calculations. To calculate the projected growth and development, as well as density requirements, the project team reviewed the following sources of data:
• State of California Department of Finance: Data from the Department of Finance were used for 2025 estimates of the total residential population within the City. • Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG): This data was utilized to inform growth projections for 2040.
• Employment Development Department Report: The most recent report information was utilized to inform employment projections.
• General Plan, Facilities Plans, Regional Plans, and City Projections: General Plan and facilities master plan information was used to estimate future dwelling units, square-footage growth, employment, and facility needs.
• US Census Bureau: The Census Bureau’s American Community Survey (ACS) information was used to calculate residential densities.

Information from these sources was used to calculate the projected population increase and the resulting population densities. The following subsections discuss the population projections calculated and the population densities used to calculate the impact fees.

POPULATION PROJECTIONS
The basis for impact fees is predicated on sufficient population growth that results in a meaningful impact on City Infrastructure. The following table shows by category, the 2025 estimates, the 2040 estimates, and the overall projected increase:

Table 9: Population Projections
Category 2025 Estimates 2040 Estimates8 Total Projected Increase Residential 31,9499 37,600 5,651
Non-Residential 11,40010 14,200 2,800
Overall, the residential population is projected to grow by roughly 5,700 residents over the next 15 years, while the non-residential population is expected to grow by 2,800 employees. 8 The 2040 estimates come SCAG Jurisdictional Forecast. 9 The residential estimate comes from the California Department of Finance Table E-5 2025 10 The non-residential estimate comes from 2023 Average Annual EDD Labor Report

PROJECTED GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT
2488

BANNING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 11
The numbers noted in the table served as the basis for all proportionate impact calculations throughout this study, with non-residential information used for calculations associated with non-residential projected growth.

POPULATION DENSITIES
In addition to the population projection information, the other data set consistently used in the calculations is the density for residential and non-residential categories. The following subsections discuss the population density assumptions used to calculate all impact fees in this report.

RESIDENTIAL POPULATION DENSITY
Currently, Banning categorizes residential population into two categories: single-family and multi-family, both of which are administered based on the number of dwelling units. Due to changes in the regulations, residential density per unit cannot be used as the basis for impact fee calculation.

Therefore, the project team used existing information to generate density based on square footage per resident (similar to non-residential densities).

The project team used US Census data to calculate the residential density factors. The total number of people in per unit type (single-family or multi-family) was divided by the total number of units, resulting in an average persons per unit. The following graphic shows the calculation for single-family11 and multifamily12:

Table 10: Single Family Per Unit Calculation
25,563 # of ppl in units = 2.79 people per unit
9,155 # of units
Table 11: Multi-Family Per Unit Calculation
2,375 # of ppl in units = 2.55 people per unit
931 # of units
To convert people per unit to a square footage per resident calculation, the calculated value was divided by the average square footage of a residential unit, resulting in an average square footage per person.

The calculated value was then multiplied by 1,000, providing the average number of people per 1,000 square feet. The following graphic shows this calculation for single-family and multi-family:

Table 12: Single Family Avg. Sq. Ft. Per Person Calculation

2.79 people per unit X 1,000 sq. ft. = 1.47 ppl per 1,000 sq. ft. 1,90013 average sq. ft. per unit 11 The single-family data comes from the US Census data table B25033. 12 The multi-family data comes from the US Census data table B25032. 13 Based on discussions with City staff it was determined that 1,900 sq. ft. is fairly representative of the size of the typical single-family dwelling in Banning.
2589

BANNING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 12
Table 13: Multi-Family Avg. Sq. Ft. Per Person Calculation

2.55 people per unit X 1,000 sq. ft. = 2.55 ppl per 1,000 sq. ft. 1,00014 avg. sq. ft. per unit The people per 1,000 square feet, or household density factor for single-family, is 1.47, and for multifamily, it is 2.55. The density factor is then divided by the cost-per-capita calculation to derive the base impact fee.

NON-RESIDENTIAL POPULATION DENSITY
Similar to the residential density calculation, a non-residential development calculation was performed for the City. The City uses three main non-residential categories: Commercial, Office, and Industrial. The project team used City staff values for the non-residential density. The City utilized the same density factors as utilized in the 2019 nexus analysis. The following table shows the density associated with each non-residential category type:

Table 14: Non-Residential Population Densities
Category Density (employees per 1,000 sq. ft.)
Commercial 2.39
Office 3.12
Industrial 1.16
The density (square footage per employee) is multiplied by the cost per capita calculation to derive the base impact fee.

The following chapters use the assumptions in this section to estimate the proportional impact of new development on the City’s existing and proposed infrastructure. 14 Based on discussions with City staff it was determined that 1,000 sq. ft. is fairly representative of the size of the typical multi-family dwelling in Banning.
2690

BANNING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 13
In accordance with regulations outlined in the Mitigation Fee Act, a citywide administrative fee was calculated for use in this analysis.

The project team took the four-year average15 of actual revenue for each impact fee fund and divided the revenue by the citywide overhead cost calculated in the City’s most recent cost allocation plan16. The results were then averaged to produce a city-specific administrative fee. The following table shows the calculation:

Table 15: Administrative Fee Calculation
Funds
4 Yr. Avg. of
Actual Revenue CAP OH Administrative %17
410 Fire $1,169,479 $186 0.00%
430 General Facilities $454,039 $25,065 5.00%
451 Parks $165,285 $14,044 8.00%
400 Police $331,553 $185 0.00%
420 Traffic $2,201,371 $699 0.00%
681 Wastewater $8,578,218 $3,256 0.00%
661 Water $3,197,641 $131,436 4.00%
Average Administrative % 2.00%
Based on the average administrative expenses incurred across the funds, the calculated citywide administrative fee is 2%. This accounts for the support provided by City staff in the monitoring and reporting of impact fee funds and is added to the individual calculated impact fees, resulting in a maximum justifiable impact fee.
15 The following fiscal years were averaged: FY21-22, FY22-23, FY23-24, and FY24-25. 16 Based on FY24 information.
17 The administrative percentage shows rounded values, which is why it shows 0.00% for certain funds.

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE
2791

BANNING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 14
The City recently completed a cost-of-service and rate study for its electric operations (September 2025, NewGen Strategies and Solutions, LLC). One method to support the service standards outlined in the NewGen study is to evaluate the feasibility of establishing an impact fee for electrical utility infrastructure. The following subsections discuss the growth assumptions and standards utilized, cost assumptions and components, impact fee calculation, ability to meet the nexus criteria, and a comparative survey of fire impact fees.

GROWTH ASSUMPTIONS
The purpose of an electric impact fee is to recover the proportionate costs associated with the increased demand placed on the electrical infrastructure by new development, which in turn necessitates the enhancement, expansion, or replacement of existing infrastructure. Electric impacts are measured in average annual kilowatt-hours per square foot (kWh/sq. ft.). For purposes of this analysis, the project team used the California Energy Commission findings for residential18 and non-residential19 land use types.

Once the average annual kilowatt-hours per square foot for each land use category are established, the single-family rate of 4.00 kWh/sq. ft. is used as the baseline equivalent dwelling unit (EDU), assigned a value of 1.0020. All other land use types are then expressed as a proportion of this baseline by dividing their respective rates by the single-family residential benchmark. This proportional conversion ensures that each land use type contributes its fair share of capital costs based on relative electrical demand.

The following table shows these conversions.

Table 16: EDU Factor Calculation
Category Avg. Annual kWh
/ 1,000 Sq. Ft. SFR - Baseline EDU Factor
Residential
Single Family 4,000 4,000 1.00
Multi-Family 3,745 4,000 0.94
Non-Residential
Commercial 9,500 4,000 2.38
Office 8,900 4,000 2.23
Industrial 5,100 4,000 1.28
18 2019 California Residential Appliance Saturation Study (RASS) 19 2022 California Commercial End-Use Survey (CEUS): Final Report 20 SFR is used as the EDU baseline strictly for normalization purposes; it does not imply a greater impact, only a consistent reference unit for flow comparison.

ELECTRIC IMPACT FEE
2892

BANNING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 15
The above EDU factors are then multiplied by the difference in dwelling units per land use type from 2025 to 2040. These calculations are shown in the table below:

Table 17: Projected Total Number of EDUs Calculation
Category 2025
KSF 21
2040
KSF 22 Difference EDU Factor
Weighted
2025 DU / KSF
Weighted
2040 DU / KSF
Weighted
Difference
Residential
Single Family 19,426 28,073 8,647 1.00 19,426 28,073 8,647 Multi-Family 2,381 16,728 14,347 0.94 2,229 15,661 13,432 Total 21,807 44,801 22,994 21,655 43,734 22,079
Non-Residential
Commercial 1,204 2,993 1,789 2.38 2,859 7,108 4,249
Office 2,234 1,895 (339) 2.23 4,970 4,216 (753)
Industrial 1,340 977 (363) 1.28 1,708 1,246 (462)
Total 4,777 5,865 1,088 9,537 12,570 3,033
Total Number of KSF 31,192 56,304 25,112
The total projected growth of thousand square feet from 2025 to 2040 is roughly 25,122. This value is divided by the total cost to be apportioned (as outlined in the following section), resulting in the cost per EDU, which serves as the basis for calculating the electric impact fee.

COST COMPONENTS AND ASSUMPTIONS
Based on the projected increase in EDUs, an impact nexus exists for the department’s infrastructure needs. The planning horizon for the Electric impact fee is 15 years (2025 to 2040). Over this period, the department will need to replace and upgrade infrastructure to maintain its existing level of service. The impact fee calculation applies the system plan method to determine the proportional share attributable to new development. Since future development will benefit from these facilities and equipment, an appropriate portion of the upgrade cost should be allocated to new growth. The following table presents the total projected infrastructure costs, net of existing fund balances, by cost category.

Table 18: Total Projected Infrastructure Cost – Electric Total Electric CIP Cost23 $24,475,000
Total Projected Net Infrastructure Cost $24,475,000
No fund balance is removed as this is a new fee. Over the next 15 years, the City will require approximately $24.5 million to meet the needs of the City’s existing and future population. The total projected net infrastructure cost is then divided by the weighted growth in EDU, resulting in a cost per EDU. The calculation is shown below:
21 Based on Department of Finance and EDD Current projections. 22 Based on Banning’s General Plan.
23 A detailed accounting of the CIP costs is included in Appendix A of this report. 2993

BANNING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 16
Table 19: Electric Cost Per EDU Calculation
$24,475,000 Total Projected Net Infrastructure Cost
= $975 Cost / EDU 25,112 Weighted Growth in EDU
The $975 per EDU cost illustrates the amount the City should invest in electrical infrastructure per dwelling unit.

IMPACT FEE CALCULATIONS
As the previous section calculated, the total cost per EDU is $1,219. This is the cost regardless of residential or non-residential development. This value is then multiplied by the EDU factor, resulting in the Electric impact fee. The following table shows this calculation:

Table 20: Electric Impact Fee Calculation
Category Cost Per
EDU
EDU
Factor Impact Fee
Residential: Per KSF
Single Family $975 1.00 $975
Multi-Family $975 0.94 $912
Non-Residential: Per KSF
Commercial $975 2.38 $2,315
Office $975 2.23 $2,169
Industrial $975 1.28 $1,243
The cost per unit for residential single-family development is $975, multi-family is $912, and nonresidential development varies from a low of $1,243 per 1,000 square feet for industrial properties to a high of $2,315 per 1,000 square feet for commercial development. The 2% administrative fee is applied to the impact fee. The following table shows this calculation.

Table 21: Electric Impact Fee Calculation – Including Administrative Fee Category Impact
Fee Admin % Impact Fee + Admin Fee Per KSF
Impact Fee + Admin
Fee per Sq. Ft.

Residential
Single Family $975 2% $994 $0.99
Multi-Family $912 2% $931 $0.93
Non-Residential
Commercial $2,315 2% $2,361 $2.36
Office $2,169 2% $2,212 $2.21
Industrial $1,243 2% $1,267 $1.27
The addition of the administrative fee captures the full cost associated with the proportionate impact of future development.
3094

BANNING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 17

NEXUS CRITERIA
As discussed in the legal framework section, for an impact fee to be implemented, it must meet all five nexus criteria established by the Mitigation Fee Act. The following table outlines each criterion point and how the proposed Electric Impact fee meets the criteria.

Table 22: Impact Fee Nexus Criteria – Electric
Criteria Meet
Purpose Of Fee
The purpose of this fee would be to upgrade existing electric infrastructure necessary to maintain services levels and enhance or replace electric-specific equipment.

Use of Fee Revenue
Revenue associated with this impact fee would be housed in a specific electric impact fee fund to help ensure that funds are appropriately accounted for and used to meet the electric infrastructure needs of the City’s growth.

Benefit Relationship
The use of the impact fee revenue would be to expand, upgrade, or replace existing electric infrastructure and equipment to accommodate increased usage proportional to grow. New residents and employees receive benefits associated with a reliable electrical system.

Impact Relationship
New development contributes additional pull on the electrical grid.

Therefore, the cost associated with adding additional equipment or expanding facilities to accommodate additional wear would be borne by new residents or employees.

Proportionality
The proposed impact fee is calculated based upon proportionality of projected growth with the greatest impact by residential areas, followed by commercial areas. The fees are calculated on a per square foot basis for both residential and commercial properties as the concept is that the larger the space, the greater the population that occupies that space and therefore the greater the impact on the City’s infrastructure.

Capital Improvement Plan A capital improvement plan has been adopted to update the City’s electric infrastructure and is presented as an appendix.

Level of Service
The proposed impact fees are based on the existing level of service as they are based on the current standard of the electric infrastructure servicing both existing and future population. Future population / growth is calculated based on their proportional need for the facilities, vehicles and equipment.

Original Nexus Analysis There was no prior nexus analysis so this would serve as the basis of the nexus analysis.

As the table demonstrates, the City meets all five criteria necessary to charge an electric development impact fee, as well as the three additional criteria associated with AB602. Additionally, the electric impact fee has an essential nexus to the City’s land use interest of ensuring that there is adequate electric infrastructure to serve the new development, and the fee has been calculated to be roughly proportionate to the development’s impact on the City’s electric infrastructure.

COMPARATIVE SURVEY
As part of this impact fee analysis, the project team conducted a comparative survey of surrounding jurisdictions. Of the surveyed jurisdictions, none assess an electric-specific impact fee. 3195

BANNING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 18
The City currently administers a fire impact fee to recover the proportionate costs of fire infrastructure required to serve new development. The Fire Department provides services to both residential and nonresidential populations, and future growth will increase demand for fire-specific infrastructure. To ensure service levels are maintained as the City continues to grow, the current fire impact fee cost components and assumptions were updated through this analysis. The following subsections discuss the growth assumptions and standards utilized, cost assumptions and components, impact fee calculation, ability to meet the nexus criteria, and a comparative survey of fire impact fees.

GROWTH ASSUMPTIONS
The Fire Department serves both residential and non-residential populations (employees). Future development would require expanded Fire stations and purchasing additional vehicles and equipment.

Since the Fire Department's primary goal is to provide fire prevention and suppression services within the City, its services benefit both existing and future development. To determine the proportional share of existing and future development, the project team calculated the City’s future service population. In addition, since an employee working within the city does not have the same tendency to use fire services as a resident, their impact was weighted less. The weighting for employees was based on the acreage within the City zoned for non-residential use. Based on zoning, non-residential acreage accounts for 33% of the City of Banning; therefore, the non-residential population was weighted at 33%. The following table shows the current population for each category, the proportionate weight factor, and the weighted population:

Table 23: Weighted Population Calculation
Category 2025
Population
Weight
Factor
Weighted 2025
Population
Residential 31,949 100% 31,949
Non-Residential 11,400 33% 3,754
Total 43,349 35,703
The total weighted 2025 population is roughly 36,000. This value is then divided by the total cost to be apportioned, as outlined in the following section, resulting in a weighted cost per capita.

COST COMPONENTS AND ASSUMPTIONS
Based on projected increases in residential and non-residential populations, an impact nexus exists for the department’s infrastructure needs. The planning horizon for the Fire impact fee is 15 years (2025 to 2040). Over this period, the department will need to replace and upgrade infrastructure to maintain its existing level of service. The impact fee calculation applies the system plan method to determine the proportional share attributable to new development. Since future development will benefit from these

FIRE IMPACT FEE
3296

BANNING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 19
facilities and equipment, an appropriate portion of the upgrade cost should be allocated to new growth.

The following table presents the total projected infrastructure costs, net of existing fund balances, by cost category.

Table 24: Total Projected Infrastructure Cost - Fire
Total Fire Facility Cost24 $27,244,568
Total Fire Equipment & Vehicle Cost25 $3,448,421
Total Projected Infrastructure Cost $30,692,989
Current Fund Balance26 ($1,789,387)
Total Projected Net Infrastructure Cost $28,903,602
Over the next 15 years, the Fire Department will require approximately $29 million to meet the needs of the City’s existing and future population.

IMPACT FEE CALCULATIONS
As the previous section calculated, the total infrastructure needs for the Fire Department are approximately $30 million. This cost is then divided by the total weighted service population as shown in Table 23, resulting in the cost per capita. The figure below shows this calculation.

Table 25: Cost Per Capita Calculation
$28,903,602 Total Projected Net Infrastructure Cost
= $810 Cost per Capita 35,703 Weighted 2025 Population
The $810 per capita cost illustrates the amount the City should invest in fire infrastructure per person.

Again, since the non-residential population does not have the same need for fire services, the 33% weighting (based on City zoning) is applied to cost per capita for residents versus non-residential users.

Table 26: Weighted Cost Per Capita
Category Cost / Capita Weight
Factor
Weighted Cost
Per Capita
Residential $810 100% $810
Non-Residential $810 33% $267
While the residential cost per capita remains at $810, the non-residential cost per capita reduces to $267.

The weighted cost per capita is then multiplied by the density factors, which have been calculated per 1,000 sq. ft. for all categories and outlined in the Projected Growth and Development chapter, resulting in the Fire impact fee by category. The following table shows this calculation. 24 A detailed accounting of the facility costs is included in Appendix B of this report. 25 A detailed accounting of the equipment costs is included in Appendix B of this report. 26 Represents the fund balance at the end of FY24-25.
3397

BANNING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 20
Table 27: Fire Impact Fee Calculation
Category Cost Per
Capita Density Impact Fee
Residential: Per 1,000 Sq. Ft.

Single Family $810 1.47 $1,190
Multi-Family $810 2.55 $2,065
Non-Residential: Per 1,000 Sq. Ft.

Commercial $267 2.39 $637
Office $267 3.12 $832
Industrial $267 1.16 $309
The cost per 1,000 square feet for residential single-family development is $1,190, multi-family is $2,065, and non-residential development varies from a low of $309 per 1,000 square feet for industrial properties to a high of $637 per 1,000 square feet for offices. The 2% administrative fee is applied to the impact fee.

The following table shows this calculation.

Table 28: Fire Impact Fee Calculation – Including Administrative Fee Category Impact
Fee Admin %
Impact Fee +
Admin Fee Per
1,000 Sq. Ft.

Impact Fee +
Admin Fee
per Sq. Ft.

Residential
Single Family $1,190 2% $1,214 $1.21
Multi-Family $2,065 2% $2,106 $2.11
Non-Residential
Commercial $637 2% $650 $0.65
Office $832 2% $848 $0.85
Industrial $309 2% $315 $0.32
The addition of the administrative fee captures the full cost associated with the proportionate impact of future development. The following table compares the City’s current Fire impact fee to the full cost impact fees, and the associated per unit difference:

Table 29: Current vs. Full Cost – Fire Impact Fee
Category Current
Impact Fee27
Full Cost
Impact Fee Difference
Residential: Per Sq. Ft.

Single Family $0.39 $1.21 ($0.82)
Multi-Family $0.61 $2.11 ($1.50)
27 Currently, Banning charges their residential impacts fees based on per dwelling unit. Due to changes in regulations (as outlined in the Legal Framework chapter) residential impact fees must now be calculated based on square footage (similar to the commercial impact fees). To ensure a proper comparison the current fee was converted into a square footage fee utilizing the data outlined in the Projected Growth and Development chapter.
3498

BANNING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 21
Category Current
Impact Fee27
Full Cost
Impact Fee Difference
Non-Residential: Per Sq. Ft.

Commercial $0.49 $0.65 ($0.16)
Office $0.63 $0.85 ($0.22)
Industrial $0.24 $0.32 ($0.08)
All impact fees show an under-recovery, ranging from a low of $0.08 per square foot for industrial to a high of $1.50 per square foot for multi-family developments.

Table 30: Impact Fee Nexus Criteria – Fire
Criteria Meet
Purpose Of Fee
The purpose of this fee is to upgrade existing Fire stations, cover costs of new stations necessary to maintain services levels, and enhance or replace fire-specific vehicles and equipment.

Use of Fee Revenue
Revenue associated with this impact fee is housed in a specific fire impact fee fund to help ensure that funds are appropriately accounted for and used to meet the fire infrastructure needs of the City’s growth.

Benefit Relationship
The use of the impact fee revenue would be to rehabilitate existing fire stations and equipment to accommodate to allow for the most efficient response for service. New residents and employees receive benefits associated with more efficient response times and enhanced equipment.

Impact Relationship
The addition of new residents and employees would have an impact on the ability of the fire services to respond adequately and in an efficient manner. Therefore, the cost associated with adding additional equipment or expanding facilities to accommodate additional staff to allow for responses would be borne by new residents or employees.

Capital Improvement Plan A capital improvement plan has been adopted to update the City’s fire facilities and is presented as an appendix.

Level of Service
The proposed impact fees are based on the existing level of service as they are based on the current standard of the fire infrastructure servicing both existing and future population. Future population / growth is calculated based on their proportional need for the facilities, vehicles and equipment.
3599

BANNING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 22
Criteria Meet
Original Nexus Analysis
The original nexus analysis developed by the City was based on information from 2019, and the City has not increased fees since then.

Since the original analysis, costs have significantly increased, and as the fund balance reflects, the City has insufficient funding to meet the needs for future development.

As the table demonstrates, the City meets all five criteria necessary to continue charging the fire development impact fee, as well as the three additional criteria associated with AB602. Additionally, the fire impact fee has an essential nexus to the City’s land use interest of ensuring that there is adequate fire infrastructure to serve the new development, and the fee has been calculated to be roughly proportionate to the development’s impact on the City’s fire facilities, as it does not exceed the City’s cost of providing fire services to new development.

COMPARATIVE SURVEY
As part of this impact fee analysis, the project team conducted a comparative survey of surrounding jurisdictions that charge a Fire Impact Fee. The following table compares the City’s current fee and full cost to other jurisdictions in the region:

Table 31: Comparative Survey – Fire Impact Fee
Residential Non-Residential (Per Sq. Ft.)
Jurisdiction Single Family Multi-Family Commercial Office Industrial Banning - Current $0.39 per sq.
ft
$0.61 per sq.
ft $0.49 $0.63 $0.24
Banning - Full Cost $1.21 per sq.
ft.
$2.11 per sq.
ft. $0.65 $0.85 $0.32
Beaumont $0.35 per sq.
ft.
$0.35 per sq.
ft. $0.36 $0.48 $0.17
Colton $870 per unit $662 per unit $0.21 $0.36 $0.08
Desert Springs
$441 Detached
Dwelling
$453 Attached
Dwelling
$441 Detached
Dwelling
$453 Attached
Dwelling
$0.12 $0.12 $0.09
Palm Desert $709 Low
Density
$306 Medium
Density
$182 High
Density
$0.22 $0.21 $0.21
Redlands $0.45 per sq.
ft.
$0.45 per sq.
ft. $0.17 $2.08 $2.46
Yucaipa $0.63 per sq.
ft.
$0.63 per sq.
ft. $0.52 $0.52 $0.39
Of the surveyed jurisdictions, Palm Springs and Riverside do not assess a Fire-specific impact fee. Palm Springs does have a Canyon area-specific fire protection impact fee, assessed at $460 per acre for 10036

BANNING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 23
single-family residential development and $1,875 per acre for commercial or multi-family development.

However, since it is not a city-wide impact fee, it was not included in the comparison.

The City’s current residential Fire impact fees are on the lower end when compared to surrounding jurisdictions that also charge per square foot; only Beaumont is lower. Both the single-family and multifamily residential calculated full costs are higher than all other jurisdictions.

With the exception of Redlands’ office and industrial fees and Yucaipa’s commercial and industrial fees, Banning’s current and calculated full cost non-residential fees are higher than those of the surveyed jurisdictions.
10137

BANNING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 24
The City currently administers a general facilities impact fee to recover the proportionate costs City Hall and other governmental infrastructure that is not covered through other impact fees (i.e. Police, Fire, Parks, Traffic, etc.). To ensure service levels are maintained as the City continues to grow, the current general facilities impact fee cost components and assumptions were updated through this analysis. The following subsections discuss the growth assumptions and standards utilized, cost assumptions and components, impact fee calculation, ability to meet the nexus criteria, and a comparative survey of general facilities impact fees.

GROWTH ASSUMPTIONS
City facilities are accessed by both residential and non-residential populations (employees). Future development would require expanded public facilities and the purchase of additional vehicles and equipment. Since these facilities house City staff who provide public services, they benefit both existing and future development. To determine the proportional share of existing and future development, the project team calculated the City’s future service population. In addition, since an employee working within the city does not have the same tendency to use general facilities as a resident, their impact was weighted less. Non-residential access was based on a standard 40-hour work week, reflecting the typical period during which non-residents are present in the City. Based on hours per week, the non-residential population was weighted at 24%. The following table shows the current population for each category, the proportionate weight factor, and the weighted population:

Table 32: Weighted Population Calculation
Category 2025
Population
Weight
Factor
Weighted 2025
Population
Residential 31,949 100% 31,949
Non-Residential 11,400 24% 2,714
Total 43,349 34,663
The total weighted 2025 population is roughly 35,000. This value is then divided by the total cost to be apportioned, as outlined in the following section, resulting in a weighted cost per capita.

COST COMPONENTS AND ASSUMPTIONS
Based on projected increases in residential and non-residential populations, an impact nexus exists for the department’s infrastructure needs. The planning horizon for the General Facilities impact fee is 15 years (2025 to 2040). Over this period, the department will need to replace and upgrade infrastructure to maintain its existing level of service. The impact fee calculation applies the system plan method to determine the proportional share attributable to new development. Since future development will benefit from these facilities and equipment, an appropriate portion of the upgrade cost should be allocated to

GENERAL FACILITIES IMPACT FEE
10238

BANNING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 25
new growth. The following table presents the total projected infrastructure costs, net of existing fund balances, by cost category.

Table 33: Total Projected Infrastructure Cost - General Facilities Total General Facilities Cost28 $28,727,200
Total General Facilities Equipment & Vehicle Cost29 $320,900 Total Projected Infrastructure Cost $29,048,100
Current Fund Balance30 ($706546)
Total Projected Net Infrastructure Cost $28,341,551
Over the next 15 years, the General Facilities will require approximately $28 million to meet the needs of the City’s existing and future population.

IMPACT FEE CALCULATIONS
As calculated in the previous section, the total infrastructure needs for General Facilities are approximately $28 million. This cost is then divided by the total weighted service population as shown in Table 32, resulting in the cost per capita. The figure below shows this calculation.

Table 34: Cost Per Capita Calculation
$28,341,551 Total Projected Net Infrastructure Cost
= $818 Cost per Capita 34,663 Weighted 2025 Population
The $818 per capita cost illustrates the amount the City should invest in infrastructure per person. Again, since the non-residential population does not require the same access, the 24% weighting (based on a 40-hour work week) is applied to the cost per capita for residents versus non-residential users.

Table 35: Weighted Cost Per Capita
Category Cost / Capita Weight
Factor
Weighted Cost
Per Capita
Residential $818 100% $818
Non-Residential $818 24% $195
While the residential cost per capita remains at $818, the non-residential cost per capita reduces to $195.

The weighted cost per capita is then multiplied by the density factors outlined in the Projected Growth and Development chapter, resulting in the General Facilities impact fee by category. The following table shows this calculation.
28 A detailed accounting of the facility costs is included in Appendix C of this report. 29 A detailed accounting of the equipment costs is included in Appendix C of this report. 30 Represents the fund balance at the end of FY24-25.
10339

BANNING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 26
Table 36: General Facilities Impact Fee Calculation
Category Cost Per
Capita Density Impact Fee
Residential: Per 1,000 Sq. Ft.

Single Family $818 1.47 $1,202
Multi-Family $818 2.55 $2,086
Non-Residential: Per 1,000 Sq. Ft.

Commercial $195 2.39 $465
Office $195 3.12 $607
Industrial $195 1.16 $226
The cost per 1,000 square feet for residential single-family development is $1,202, multi-family is $2,086, and non-residential development varies from a low of $226 per 1,000 square feet for industrial properties to a high of $607 per 1,000 square feet for offices. The 2% administrative fee is applied to the impact fee.

The following table shows this calculation.

Table 37: General Facilities Impact Fee Calculation – Including Administrative Fee Category Impact
Fee Admin %
Impact Fee +
Admin Fee Per
1,000 Sq. Ft.

Impact Fee +
Admin Fee
per Sq. Ft.

Residential
Single Family $1,202 2% $1,226 $1.23
Multi-Family $2,086 2% $2,127 $2.13
Non-Residential
Commercial $465 2% $475 $0.47
Office $607 2% $620 $0.62
Industrial $226 2% $230 $0.23
The addition of the administrative fee captures the full cost associated with the proportionate impact of future development. The following table compares the City’s current General Facilities impact fee to the full cost impact fees, and the associated per unit difference:
10440

BANNING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 27
Table 38: Current vs. Full Cost – General Facilities Impact Fee Category Current
Impact Fee
Full Cost
Impact Fee Difference
Residential: Per Sq. Ft.

Single Family $0.2731 $1.23 ($0.95)
Multi-Family $0.4332 $2.13 ($1.70)
Non-Residential: Per Sq. Ft.

Commercial $0.49 $0.47 $0.02
Office $0.64 $0.62 $0.02
Industrial $0.24 $0.23 $0.01
All residential impact fees show an under-recovery, ranging from a low of $0.95 per square foot for single-family to a high of $1.70 per square foot for multi-family developments. Non-residential impact fees show minimal overages of $0.01 to $0.02 per square foot.

Table 39: Impact Fee Nexus Criteria – General Facilities Criteria Meet
Purpose Of Fee
The purpose of the fee is to upgrade existing City Hall, Public Works Facilities, and other miscellaneous City equipment and facilities overseen by the Public Works Department.

Use of Fee Revenue
Revenue associated with this impact fee is housed in a specific general facilities impact fee fund to help ensure that funds are appropriately accounted for and used to meet the general facilities infrastructure needs of the City’s growth.

Benefit Relationship
The use of the impact fee revenue would be to rehabilitate existing facilities and equipment to maintain level of service and serve new development. New residents and employees receive benefits from improved access to infrastructure.

Impact Relationship
The addition of new residents and employees would have an impact on the ability of the City to meet all the needs. Therefore, the cost associated with adding additional equipment or expanding facilities to accommodate additional staff to allow for appropriate handling of the new growth would be borne by new residents or employees. 31 Currently, Banning charges their residential impacts fees based on per dwelling unit. Due to changes in regulations (as outlined in the Legal Framework chapter) residential impact fees must now be calculated based on square footage (similar to the commercial impact fees). To ensure a proper comparison the current fee was converted into a square footage fee utilizing the data outlined in the Projected Growth and Development chapter.
32 Currently, Banning charges their residential impacts fees based on per dwelling unit. Due to changes in regulations (as outlined in the Legal Framework chapter) residential impact fees must now be calculated based on square footage (similar to the commercial impact fees). To ensure a proper comparison the current fee was converted into a square footage fee utilizing the data outlined in the Projected Growth and Development chapter.
10541

BANNING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 28
Criteria Meet
Proportionality
The proposed impact fee is calculated based upon proportionality of projected growth with the greatest impact by residential areas, followed by commercial areas. The fees are calculated on a per square foot basis for both residential and commercial properties as the concept is that the larger the space, the greater the population that occupies that space and therefore the greater the impact on the City’s infrastructure.

Capital Improvement Plan
As part of this impact fee analysis, a capital improvement plan has been adopted to update the City’s general public facilities and is presented as an appendix.

Level of Service
The proposed impact fees are based on the existing level of service as they are based on the current standard of infrastructure servicing both existing and future population. Future population / growth is calculated based on their proportional need for the facilities.

Original Nexus Analysis
The original nexus analysis developed by the City was based on information from 2019, and the City has not increased fees since then.

Since the original analysis, costs have significantly increased, and as the fund balance reflects, the City has insufficient funding to meet the needs for future development.

As the table demonstrates, the City meets all five criteria necessary to continue charging the general facilities development impact fee, as well as the three additional criteria associated with AB602.

Additionally, the general facilities impact fee has an essential nexus to the City’s land use interest of ensuring that there is adequate infrastructure to serve the new development, and the fee has been calculated to be roughly proportionate to the development’s impact on the City’s general facilities as it does not exceed the City’s cost of providing services to new development.

COMPARATIVE SURVEY
As part of this impact fee analysis, the project team conducted a comparative survey of surrounding jurisdictions that charge a General Facilities Impact Fee. The following table compares the City’s current fee and full cost to other jurisdictions in the region:

Table 40: Comparative Survey – General Facilities Impact Fee Residential Non-Residential (Per Sq. Ft.)
Jurisdiction Single Family Multi-Family Commercial Office Industrial Banning - Current $0.27 per sq.
ft
$0.43 per sq.
ft $0.49 $0.64 $0.24
Banning - Full Cost $1.23 per sq.
ft.
$2.13 per sq.
ft. $0.47 $0.62 $0.23
Beaumont $0.25 per sq.
ft.
$0.25 per sq.
ft. $0.15 $0.18 $0.06
10642

BANNING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 29
Residential Non-Residential (Per Sq. Ft.)
Jurisdiction Single Family Multi-Family Commercial Office Industrial Colton $180 per unit $137 per unit $0.04 $0.08 $0.02
Desert Springs
$529 Detached
Dwelling
$543 Attached
Dwelling
$529 Detached
Dwelling
$543 Attached
Dwelling
$0.14 $0.14 $0.11
Redlands $0.71 per sq.
ft.
$0.71 per sq.
ft. $0.26 $3.30 $3.90
Yucaipa $1.23 per sq.
ft.
$1.22 per sq.
ft. $0.26 $0.26 $0.74
Of the surveyed jurisdictions, Palm Desert, Palm Springs, and Riverside do not assess a General Facilities-specific impact fee. The City’s current residential General Facilities impact fees are lower than those of surrounding jurisdictions that also charge per-square-foot fees. Yucaipa’s single-family rate is aligned with the City’s calculated full cost, but significantly lower than the City’s multi-family rate.

With the exception of Redlands’ office and industrial fees and Yucaipa’s industrial fees, Banning’s current and calculated full cost non-residential fees are higher than those of the surveyed jurisdictions. 10743

BANNING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 30
The City currently imposes a parks impact fee, which helps acquire new land and supports enhancements to existing park facilities. Park services primarily benefit the residential population, and future growth will increase demand for park-specific infrastructure. To ensure service levels are maintained as the City continues to grow, the current park impact fee cost components and assumptions were updated through this analysis. The following subsections discuss the growth assumptions and standards utilized, cost assumptions and components, impact fee calculation, ability to meet the nexus criteria, and a comparative survey of parks impact fees.

GROWTH ASSUMPTIONS
Park services primarily serve Banning's residents; as such non-residential people where not factored into the Parks impact fee calculations. Future development would require expanded park facilities, enhanced equipment, and the acquisition of new parkland.

The City’s current standard is 2.19 acres per 1,000 residents, based on the existing parks available in the City’s Park Master Plan and the current residential population. In order for the City to maintain this existing level of service and standard as the residential population increases, the City will need to acquire additional park acreage. The following table shows the proportionate number of acres needed to account for new residential growth:

Table 41: Proposed New Acres Needed based on Acreage Standard Category Amount
Current Acreage Standard – per resident 0.00226
Projected Residential Growth 5,651
Total # of Acres Required to Maintain Standard 12.37
Based upon the standard of 0.00226 acres per resident and growth of 5,651 residents, the City will need to acquire an additional 12.37 acres to retain this standard.

COST COMPONENTS AND ASSUMPTIONS
Based on projected increases in residential population, an impact nexus exists for the department’s infrastructure needs. The planning horizon for the Parks impact fee is 15 years (2025 to 2040). Over this period, the department will need to replace and upgrade infrastructure to maintain its existing level of service. The impact fee calculation applies the system plan method to determine the proportional share attributable to new development. Since future development will benefit from these facilities and equipment, an appropriate portion of the upgrade cost should be allocated to new growth. The following table presents the total projected infrastructure costs, net of existing fund balances, by cost category.

PARKS IMPACT FEE
10844

BANNING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 31
Table 42: Total Projected Infrastructure Cost - Parks
Total Parks Facilities Cost33 $17,414,800
Total Parks Anticipated Projects Cost34 $2,658,200
Total Parks Equipment & Vehicle Cost35 $385,925
Total Projected Infrastructure Cost $20,458,925
Current Fund Balance36 ($29,288)
Total Projected Net Infrastructure Cost $20,429,637
Over the next 15 years, the Parks will require approximately $20 million to meet the needs of the City’s existing and future population.

In addition to the $20 million in infrastructure costs, the other cost component to be considered is the parkland cost per resident. The parkland cost per resident is calculated by multiplying the cost to develop a single acre37 by the number of acres needed to maintain the parkland standard. This is calculated at $10,697,966. This cost is then divided by the anticipated growth to calculate the cost per resident. The following figure shows this calculation.

Table 43: Cost of Parkland Development Per Resident Calculation $10,697,966 Cost to Acquire / Develop Parkland
= $1,839 Cost per Capita 5,651 Growth in Population Between 2025 and 2040 The $1,893 per resident covers the cost of acquiring and developing parkland to maintain the City’s parkland standard.

Lastly, as outlined in the prior section, a citywide administrative fee of 2% was calculated to cover City staff support for monitoring and reporting impact fee funds.

IMPACT FEE CALCULATIONS
As calculated in the previous section, the total infrastructure needs for Parks are approximately $20 million. This cost is then divided by the total service population calculated in the Projected Growth and Development chapter. The figure below shows this calculation.

Table 44: Cost Per Capita Calculation
$20,429,637 Total Projected Net Infrastructure Cost
= $639 Cost per Capita 31,949 2025 Population
33 A detailed accounting of the capital improvement costs is included in Appendix D of this report. 34 A detailed accounting of the facility costs is included in Appendix D of this report. 35 A detailed accounting of the equipment costs is included in Appendix D of this report. 36 Represents the fund balance at the end of FY24-25.
37 To remain consistent with prior assumptions land acquisitions cost was taken from the prior DIF study and a CCI inflation factor was added. 10945

BANNING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 32
The $639 per capita cost is added to the parkland cost per resident ($1,893), equaling a total residential cost per capita rate of $2,533. This value illustrates the amount the City should invest in Parks infrastructure per person.

The total cost per capita is then multiplied by the density factors outlined in the Projected Growth and Development chapter, resulting in the Parks impact fee by category. The following table shows this calculation.

Table 45: Parks Impact Fee Calculation
Category Cost Per
Capita Density Impact Fee
Residential: Per 1,000 Sq. Ft.

Single Family $2,533 1.47 $3,722
Multi-Family $2,533 2.55 $6,461
The cost per 1,000 square feet for residential single-family development is $3,722, and for multi-family is $6,461. The 2% administrative fee is applied to the impact fee. The following table shows this calculation.

Table 46: Parks Impact Fee Calculation – Including Administrative Fee Category Impact
Fee Admin %
Impact Fee +
Admin Fee Per
1,000 Sq. Ft.

Impact Fee +
Admin Fee
per Sq. Ft.

Residential
Single Family $3,722 2% $3,796 $3.80
Multi-Family $6,461 2% $6,590 $6.59
The addition of the administrative fee captures the full cost associated with the proportionate impact of future development. The following table compares the City’s current Parks impact fee to the full cost impact fees, and the associated per unit difference:

Table 47: Current vs. Full Cost – Parks Impact Fee
Category Current
Impact Fee38
Full Cost
Impact Fee Difference
Residential: Per Sq. Ft.

Single Family $2.02 $3.80 ($1.78)
Multi-Family $3.14 $6.59 ($3.45)
38 Currently, Banning charges their residential impacts fees based on per dwelling unit. Due to changes in regulations (as outlined in the Legal Framework chapter) residential impact fees must now be calculated based on square footage (similar to the commercial impact fees). To ensure a proper comparison the current fee was converted into a square footage fee utilizing the data outlined in the Projected Growth and Development chapter.
11046

BANNING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 33
All impact fees show an under-recovery, ranging from a low of $1.78 per square foot for single-family to a high of $3.45 per square foot for multi-family developments.

Table 48: Impact Fee Nexus Criteria – Parks
As the table demonstrates, the City meets all five criteria necessary to continue charging the parks development impact fee, as well as the three additional criteria associated with AB602. Additionally, the park impact fee has an essential nexus to the City’s land use interest of ensuring that there is adequate park infrastructure to serve the new development, and the fee has been calculated to be roughly Criteria Meet
Purpose Of Fee The purpose of this fee would be to fund the acquisition of new parkland, the development of new parks and recreation facilities and improving existing parks equipment.

Use of Fee Revenue Revenue associated with this impact fee is housed in a specific park impact fee fund to help ensure that funds are appropriately accounted for and used to meet the ark infrastructure needs of the City’s growth.

Benefit Relationship The use of the impact fee revenue would be to develop new facilities or expand or improve existing facilities, which would be directly proportional to the increased wear and tear and use of parks and recreation facilities as there is new residential growth in the City. The increase in residential population is related proportionally to the square footage of development as larger properties result in more population.

Impact Relationship Based upon the current and proposed parks and recreation facility needs in the City, the addition of new residents would require the need for new and expanded facilities.

Proportionality The proposed impact fee is calculated based upon proportionality of projected growth with the greatest impact by residential areas. The fees are calculated on a per square foot basis for residential properties as the concept is that the larger the space, the greater the population that occupies that space and therefore the greater the impact on the City’s infrastructure.

Capital Improvement Plan A capital improvement plan has been adopted to update the City’s park facilities and is presented as an appendix.

Level of Service
The proposed impact fees are based on the existing level of service as they are based on the current standard of the parks facilities servicing both existing and future population. Future population / growth is calculated based on their proportional need for the facilities.

Original Nexus Analysis
The original nexus analysis developed by the City was based on information from 2019, and the City has not increased fees since then. Since the original analysis, costs have significantly increased, and as the fund balance reflects, the City has insufficient funding to meet the needs for future development.
11147

BANNING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 34
proportionate to the development’s impact on the City’s park infrastructure, as it does not exceed the City’s cost of providing services to new development.

COMPARATIVE SURVEY
As part of this impact fee analysis, the project team conducted a comparative survey of surrounding jurisdictions that charge a Parks Impact Fee. The following table compares the City’s current fee and full cost to other jurisdictions in the region:

Table 49: Comparative Survey – Parks Impact Fee
Residential
Jurisdiction Single Family Multi-Family
Banning - Current $2.02 per sq. ft $3.80 per sq. ft
Banning - Full
Cost $3.14 per sq. ft. $6.59 per sq. ft.

Beaumont $0.78 per sq. ft. $0.78 per sq. ft.

Colton $5,714 per unit $4,351 per unit
Desert Springs $1,675 Detached Dwelling
$1,722 Attached Dwelling
$1,675 Detached Dwelling
$1,722 Attached Dwelling
Redlands $1.18 per sq. ft. $1.18 per sq. ft.

Riverside
$4,646 SFR Detached
$4,065 SFR Attached - Duplex
$2,615 Residential Condo
$3,653 MFR - Triplex or Quadplex
$3,045 MFR ADU/Apt/Senior Apt
Yucaipa $1.67 per sq. ft. $1.67 per sq. ft.

Of the surveyed jurisdictions, Palm Desert and Palm Springs do not assess a Parks-specific impact fee.

The City’s current and calculated full cost Parks impact fees for single-family development are higher than those of surrounding jurisdictions that also charge per-square-foot fees. The City’s Multi-family rates are significantly higher than surrounding jurisdictions. It is important to tone that it is common to see these types of fees subsidized and occasionally jurisdictions may exclude the parkland acquisition component when assessing these fees.
11248

BANNING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 35
The City currently administers a police impact fee to recover the proportionate costs of fire infrastructure required to serve new development. The Police Department provides services to both residential and non-residential populations, and future growth will increase demand for fire-specific infrastructure. To ensure service levels are maintained as the City continues to grow, the current police impact fee cost components and assumptions were updated through this analysis. The following subsections discuss the growth assumptions and standards utilized, cost assumptions and components, impact fee calculation, ability to meet the nexus criteria, and a comparative survey of police impact fees.

GROWTH ASSUMPTIONS
The Police Department serves both residential and non-residential populations (employees). Future development would require expanded Police stations and the purchase of additional vehicles and equipment. Since the primary goal of the Police Department is to provide law enforcement and safety services within the City, its services benefit both existing and future development. To determine the proportional share of existing and future development, the project team calculated the City’s future service population. In addition, since an employee working within the city does not have the same tendency to use fire services as a resident, their impact was weighted less. The weighting for employees was based on the acreage within the City zoned for non-residential use. Based on zoning, non-residential acreage accounts for 33% of the City of Banning; therefore, the non-residential population was weighted at 33%. The following table shows the current population for each category, the proportionate weight factor, and the weighted population:

Table 50: Weighted Population Calculation
Category 2025
Population
Weight
Factor
Weighted 2025
Population
Residential 31,949 100% 31,949
Non-Residential 11,400 33% 3,754
Total 43,349 35,703
The total weighted 2025 population is roughly 36,000. This value is then divided by the total cost to be apportioned, as outlined in the following section, resulting in a weighted cost per capita.

COST COMPONENTS AND ASSUMPTIONS
Based on projected increases in residential and non-residential populations, an impact nexus exists for the department’s infrastructure needs. The planning horizon for the Police impact fee is 15 years (2025 to 2040). Over this period, the department will need to replace and upgrade infrastructure to maintain its existing level of service. The impact fee calculation applies the system plan method to determine the proportional share attributable to new development. Since future development will benefit from these facilities and equipment, an appropriate portion of the upgrade cost should be allocated to new growth.

POLICE IMPACT FEE
11349

BANNING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 36
The following table presents the total projected infrastructure costs, net of existing fund balances, by cost category.

Table 51: Total Projected Infrastructure Cost - Police
Total Police Facility Cost39 $18,614,423
Total Police Equipment & Vehicle Cost40 $3,756,500
Total Projected Infrastructure Cost $22,370,923
Current Fund Balance41 ($860,409)
Total Projected Net Infrastructure Cost $21,510,514
Over the next 15 years, the Police Department will require approximately $21.5 million to meet the needs of the City’s existing and future population.

IMPACT FEE CALCULATIONS
As the previous section calculated, the total infrastructure needs for the Police Department are approximately $21.5 million. This cost is then divided by the total weighted service population as shown in Table 50, resulting in the cost per capita. The figure below shows this calculation.

Table 52: Cost Per Capita Calculation
$21,510,514 Total Projected Net Infrastructure Cost
= $602 Cost per Capita 35,703 Weighted 2025 Population
The $602 per capita cost illustrates the amount the City should invest in police infrastructure per person.

Again, since the non-residential population does not have the same need for police services, the 33% weighting (based on City zoning) is applied to cost per capita for residents versus non-residential users.

Table 53: Weighted Cost Per Capita
Category Cost / Capita Weight
Factor
Weighted Cost
Per Capita
Residential $602 100% $602
Non-Residential $602 33% $198
While the residential cost per capita remains at $602, the non-residential cost per capita reduces to $198.

The weighted cost per capita is then multiplied by the density factors outlined in the Projected Growth and Development chapter, resulting in the Police impact fee by category. The following table shows this calculation.
39 A detailed accounting of the facility costs is included in Appendix E of this report. 40 A detailed accounting of the equipment costs is included in Appendix E of this report. 41 Represents the fund balance at the end of FY24-25.
11450

BANNING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 37
Table 54: Police Impact Fee Calculation
Category Cost Per
Capita Density Impact Fee
Residential: Per 1,000 Sq. Ft.

Single Family $602 1.47 $885
Multi-Family $602 2.55 $1,537
Non-Residential: Per 1,000 Sq. Ft.

Commercial $198 2.39 $474
Office $198 3.12 $619
Industrial $198 1.16 $230
The cost per 1,000 square feet for residential single-family development is $885, multi-family is $1,537, and non-residential development varies from a low of $230 per 1,000 square feet for industrial properties to a high of $619 per 1,000 square feet for offices. The 2% administrative fee is applied to the impact fee.

The following table shows this calculation.

Table 55: Police Impact Fee Calculation – Including Administrative Fee Category Impact
Fee Admin %
Impact Fee +
Admin Fee Per
1,000 Sq. Ft.

Impact Fee +
Admin Fee
per Sq. Ft.

Residential
Single Family $885 2% $903 $0.90
Multi-Family $1,537 2% $1,568 $1.57
Non-Residential
Commercial $474 2% $484 $0.48
Office $619 2% $631 $0.63
Industrial $230 2% $235 $0.23
The addition of the administrative fee captures the full cost associated with the proportionate impact of future development. The following table compares the City’s current Police impact fee to the full cost impact fees and the associated per-unit difference:

Table 56: Current vs. Full Cost – Police Impact Fee
Category Current
Impact Fee
Full Cost
Impact Fee Difference
Residential: Per Sq. Ft. 42
Single Family $0.63 $0.90 ($0.27)
Multi-Family $0.98 $1.57 ($0.59)
42 Currently, Banning charges their residential impacts fees based on per dwelling unit. Due to changes in regulations (as outlined in the Legal Framework chapter) residential impact fees must now be calculated based on square footage (similar to the commercial impact fees). To ensure a proper comparison the current fee was converted into a square footage fee utilizing the data outlined in the Projected Growth and Development chapter.
11551

BANNING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 38
Category Current
Impact Fee
Full Cost
Impact Fee Difference
Non-Residential: Per Sq. Ft.

Commercial $0.35 $0.48 ($0.13)
Office $0.46 $0.63 ($0.17)
Industrial $0.17 $0.23 ($0.06)
All impact fees show an under-recovery, ranging from a low of $0.06 per square foot for industrial to a high of $0.59 per square foot for multi-family developments.

Table 57: Impact Fee Nexus Criteria – Police
Criteria Meet
Purpose Of Fee
The purpose of this fee is to upgrade existing Police stations, cover costs of new stations necessary to maintain services levels, and enhance or replace police-specific vehicles and equipment.

Use of Fee Revenue
Revenue associated with this impact fee is housed in a specific police impact fee fund to help ensure that funds are appropriately accounted for and used to meet the police infrastructure needs of the City’s growth.

Benefit Relationship
The use of the impact fee revenue would be to rehabilitate existing police stations and equipment to accommodate to allow for the most efficient response for service. New residents and employees receive benefits associated with more efficient response times and enhanced equipment.

Impact Relationship
The addition of new residents and employees would have an impact on the ability of the police services to respond adequately and in an efficient manner. Therefore, the cost associated with adding additional equipment or expanding facilities to accommodate additional staff to allow for responses would be borne by new residents or employees.

Capital Improvement Plan A capital improvement plan has been adopted to update the City’s police facilities and is presented as an appendix.

BANNING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 39
Criteria Meet
Original Nexus Analysis
The original nexus analysis developed by the City was based on information from 2019, and the City has not increased fees since then.

Since the original analysis, costs have significantly increased, and as the fund balance reflects, the City has insufficient funding to meet the needs for future development.

As the table demonstrates, the City meets all five criteria necessary to continue charging the police development impact fee, as well as the three additional criteria associated with AB602. Additionally, the police impact fee has an essential nexus to the City’s land use interest of ensuring that there is adequate police infrastructure to serve the new development, and the fee has been calculated to be roughly proportionate to the development’s impact on the City’s police facilities, as it does not exceed the City’s cost of providing fire services to new development.

COMPARATIVE SURVEY
As part of this impact fee analysis, the project team conducted a comparative survey of surrounding jurisdictions that charge a Police Impact Fee. The following table compares the City’s current fee and full cost to other jurisdictions in the region:

Table 58: Comparative Survey – Police Impact Fee
Residential Commercial (Per Sq. Ft.)
Jurisdiction Single Family Multi-Family Commercial Office Industrial Banning - Current $0.63 per sq.
ft
$0.98 per sq.
ft $0.35 $0.46 $0.17
Banning - Full Cost $0.90 per sq.
ft.
$1.57 per sq.
ft. $0.48 $0.63 $0.23
Beaumont $0.53 per sq.
ft.
$0.53 per sq.
ft. $0.27 $0.36 $0.12
Colton $1,134 per
unit $863 per unit $0.28 $0.4 $0.10
Desert Springs
$427 Detached
Dwelling
$439 Attached
Dwelling
$427 Detached
Dwelling
$439 Attached
Dwelling
$0.11 $0.11 $0.09
Redlands $0.52 per sq.
ft.
$0.52 per sq.
ft. $0.19 $2.40 $2.84
Of the surveyed jurisdictions, Palm Desert, Palm Springs, Riverside, and Yucaipa do not assess a policespecific impact fee. The City’s current and calculated full-cost residential fees are higher than those of all other jurisdictions that assess fees based on square footage.

With the exception of Redlands’ office and industrial fees, Banning’s current and calculated full cost commercial fees are higher than those of the surveyed jurisdictions. 11753

BANNING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 40
The City currently administers a traffic impact fee to recover the proportionate costs of traffic infrastructure required to serve new development. To ensure service levels are maintained as the City continues to grow, the current traffic impact fee cost components and assumptions were updated through this analysis. The following subsections discuss the growth assumptions and standards utilized, cost assumptions and components, impact fee calculation, ability to meet the nexus criteria, and a comparative survey of traffic impact fees.

GROWTH ASSUMPTIONS
The purpose of a Traffic impact fee is to recover the proportionate costs of transportation improvements required to serve new development, including roadway capacity, signalization, intersection upgrades, and various pathways. Transportation demand projections are based on standardized trip generation rates, which measure the number of trips produced by residents, employees, and visitors accessing homes, jobs, services, and commercial destinations. These rates differ by land-use type and reflect each use’s relative impact on the transportation network. Applying differentiated trip factors ensures that development contributes its proportional share toward the transportation improvements needed to support growth. Trip generation assumptions used in this analysis are based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition, an industry-standard source. The trip rates are then multiplied by the change in dwelling units per land-use type from 2025 to 2040. These calculations are shown in the table below:

Table 59: Projected Total Number of Trips Calculation
Category 2025 DU
/ KSF 43
2040 DU
/ KSF 44 Difference Trip Rate
Weighted
2025 DU / KSF
Weighted
2040 DU / KSF
Weighted
Difference
Residential
Single Family 10,224 14,775 4,551 0.99 10,122 14,627 4,505 Multi-Family 2,381 16,728 14,347 0.44 1,042 7,319 6,277 Total 12,605 31,503 18,898 12,163 21,946 10,782
Non-Residential
Commercial 1,204 2,993 1,789 4.40 5,297 13,169 7,872
Office 2,234 1,895 (339) 1.44 3,216 2,729 (487)
Industrial 1,340 977 (363) 0.70 938 684 (254)
Total 4,777 5,865 1,088 6.54 9,451 16,582 7,131
Total Number of Trips 20,615 38,528 17,913
43 Based on Banning’s General Plan.
44 Based on Banning’s General Plan.

TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE
11854

BANNING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 41
The total projected number of trips increasing from 2025 to 2040 is roughly 18,000. This value is divided by the total cost to be apportioned (as outlined in the following section), resulting in the cost per trip, which serves as the basis for calculating the wastewater impact fee.

COST COMPONENTS AND ASSUMPTIONS
Based on the projected increase in trips, an impact nexus exists for the department’s infrastructure needs. The planning horizon for the Traffic impact fee is 15 years (2025 to 2040). Over this period, the department will need to replace and upgrade infrastructure to maintain its existing level of service. The impact fee calculation applies the system plan method to determine the proportional share attributable to new development. Since future development will benefit from these facilities and equipment, an appropriate portion of the upgrade cost should be allocated to new growth. The following table presents the total projected infrastructure costs, net of existing fund balances, by cost category.

Table 60: Total Projected Infrastructure Cost - Traffic Total Traffic CIP Cost45 $89,069,875
Total Projected Infrastructure Cost $89,069,875
Current Fund Balance46 ($2,723,594)
Total Projected Net Infrastructure Cost $86,346,281
Over the next 15 years, the City will require approximately $86 million to meet the needs of the City’s existing and future population.

The total projected net infrastructure cost is then divided by the weighted total number of trips, resulting in a cost per trip. The calculation is shown below:

Table 61: Traffic Cost Per Trip Calculation
$86,346,281 Total Projected Net Infrastructure Cost
= $2,241 Cost / Trip 38,528 # of 2040 Total Trips
The $2,241 per-trip cost illustrates the amount the City should invest in transportation infrastructure per dwelling unit or KSF.

IMPACT FEE CALCULATIONS
As the previous section calculated, the total cost per trip is $2,241. This is the cost regardless of residential or non-residential development. This value is then multiplied by the trip rate, resulting in the Traffic impact fee. The following table shows this calculation:
45 A detailed accounting of the capital improvement costs is included in Appendix F of this report. 46 Represents the fund balance at the end of FY24-25.
11955

BANNING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 42
Table 62: Traffic Impact Fee Calculation
Category Cost Per
EDU
EDU
Factor Impact Fee
Residential: Per DWU
Single Family $2,241 0.99 $2,219
Multi-Family $2,241 0.44 $981
Non-Residential: Per KSF
Commercial $2,241 4.40 $9,861
Office $2,241 1.44 $3,227
Industrial $2,241 0.70 $1,569
The cost per dwelling unit for residential single-family development is $2,219, multi-family is $981, and non-residential development varies from a low of $1,569 per 1,000 square feet for industrial properties to a high of $9,861 per 1,000 square feet for commercial development. The 2% administrative fee is applied to the impact fee. The following table shows this calculation.

Table 63: Traffic Impact Fee Calculation – Including Administrative Fee Category Impact
Fee Admin %
Impact Fee +
Admin Fee Per
DWU or KSF
Impact Fee +
Admin Fee
per Sq. Ft.

Residential
Single Family $2,219 2% $2,263 $1.1947
Multi-Family $981 2% $1,000 $1.0048
Non-Residential
Commercial $9,861 2% $10,058 $10.06
Office $3,227 2% $3,292 $3.29
Industrial $1,569 2% $1,600 $1.60
The addition of the administrative fee captures the full cost associated with the proportionate impact of future development. The City’s current traffic impact fees were calculated for every possible type of land use that could exist at a super granular level. To be consistent with other impact fees, the City is proposing to streamline the traffic impact fee to be based on the more general land use type. Therefore, the values in the table above reflect the maximum justifiable traffic impact fee.

NEXUS CRITERIA
As discussed in the legal framework section, in order for an impact fee to be implemented, it must meet all five of the nexus criteria as established per the Mitigation Fee Act. The following table outlines each criterion point and how the proposed Traffic Impact fee meets the criteria. 47 The average square footage of a SFR unit (1,900 sq. ft.) in Banning was used to convert from DU to square footage. 48 The average square footage of a MFR unit (1,000 sq. ft.) in Banning was used to convert from DU to square footage. 12056

BANNING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 43
Table 64: Impact Fee Nexus Criteria – Traffic
As the table demonstrates, the City meets all five criteria necessary to continue charging the traffic development impact fee, as well as the three additional criteria associated with AB602. Additionally, the traffic impact fee has an essential nexus to the City’s land use interest of ensuring that there is adequate traffic infrastructure to serve the new development, and the fee has been calculated to be roughly proportionate to the development’s impact on the City’s transportation systems, as it does not exceed the City’s cost of providing transportation services to new development.

COMPARATIVE SURVEY
As part of this impact fee analysis, the project team conducted a comparative survey of surrounding jurisdictions that charge a Traffic Impact Fee. The following table compares the City’s current fee and full cost to other jurisdictions in the region:

Criteria Meet
Purpose Of Fee The purpose of the fee is to upgrade existing transportation measures or fund the construction of new transportation measures based upon the projected increase in development within the City.

Use of Fee Revenue Revenue associated with this impact fee is housed in a specific traffic impact fee fund to help ensure that funds are appropriately accounted for and used to meet the traffic infrastructure needs of the City’s growth.

Benefit Relationship The use of the impact fee revenue would be to enhance, upgrade, or expand existing and future transportation infrastructure. New residents and employees receive benefit from these transportation project improvements. The residential and commercial service population increase is directly applicable to square footage per development.

Impact Relationship The addition of new residents and employees would have an impact on the ability of the city’s existing transportation system to the increase in need. Therefore, the cost associated with adding additional or improving existing transportation infrastructure would be proportionately borne by new residents or employees.

Proportionality The proposed impact fee is calculated based upon proportionality of projected growth with the greatest impact by residential areas, followed by commercial areas. The fees are calculated on a per square foot basis for both residential and commercial properties as the concept is that the larger the space, the greater the population that occupies that space and therefore the greater the impact on the City’s infrastructure.

Capital Improvement Plan A capital improvement plan has been adopted to update the City’s fire facilities and is presented as an appendix.

Level of Service
The proposed impact fees are based on the existing level of service as they are based on the trips servicing both existing and future population.

Future population / growth is calculated based on their proportional need for the infrastructure.

Original Nexus Analysis
The original nexus analysis developed by the City was based on information from 2019, and the City has not increased fees since then.

Since the original analysis, costs have significantly increased, and as the fund balance reflects, the City has insufficient funding to meet the needs for future development.
12157

BANNING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 44
Table 65: Comparative Survey – Traffic
Residential Commercial (per sq. ft.)
Jurisdiction Single Family Multi-Family Commercial Office Industrial Banning - Current Varies Varies Varies Varies Varies
Banning - Full Cost $1.19 per
sq. ft.
$1.00 per
sq. ft. $10.06 $3.29 $1.60
Beaumont $1.66 per
sq. ft.
$1.66 per
sq. ft. $10.70 $6.02
$2.82 -
$0.5449
Colton $1,623 per
DWU
$1,236 per
DWU $0.40 $0.68 $0.15
Redlands $1.40 per
sq. ft.
$1.40 per
sq. ft. $7.15 $4.31 $2.73
Riverside $525 per DWU $420 per DWU N/A N/A N/A
Yucaipa $4.88 per
sq. ft.
$4.88 per
sq. ft. $4.12 $4.12 $4.71
Of the surveyed jurisdictions, Desert Springs and Palm Springs do not assess a traffic-specific impact fee. Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) administers Palm Desert’s traffic impact fee.

Since it is a regional fee rather than a Palm Desert-specific fee, it was excluded from this comparison.

The City’s calculated full-cost residential fees are lower than those of all other jurisdictions that assess fees based on square footage.

Beaumont’s non-residential fees are higher than Banning’s calculated full cost. With the exception of commercial rates, Redlands and Yucaipa’s fees generally align with Banning’s, while Colton’s rates are the lowest of the surveyed jurisdictions.
49 Colton’s industrial fees range based on the type of industrial development. 12258

BANNING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 45
The City currently administers a wastewater impact fee to recover the proportionate costs of wastewater infrastructure required to serve new development. These wastewater systems serve both residential and non-residential populations, and future growth will increase demand for wastewater-specific infrastructure. To ensure service levels are maintained as the City continues to grow, the current wastewater impact fee cost components and assumptions were updated through this analysis. The following subsections discuss the growth assumptions and standards utilized, cost assumptions and components, impact fee calculation, ability to meet the nexus criteria, and a comparative survey of wastewater impact fees.

GROWTH ASSUMPTIONS
The purpose of a wastewater impact fee is to recover the proportionate costs associated with the increased demand placed on the wastewater system by new development, which in turn necessitates the enhancement, expansion, or replacement of existing infrastructure. Wastewater impacts are measured through flow generation in gallons per day per acre (GPD/A). Flow estimates are then converted using standardized density factors to determine average daily flow per 1,000 square feet (KSF). This conversion establishes a consistent baseline for comparing flow impacts across land uses and allocating costs proportionally to new development. The following table shows this calculation.

Table 66: Average Flow Generation per KSF by Land Use Type Category Flow Generation
(GPD / A) Density50 Average Flow Generation/ DU or KSF
Residential
Single Family 1,020 5.00 204.00
Multi-Family 800 11.00 72.73
Non-Residential
Commercial 1,150 15.25 75.41
Office 1,150 43.56 26.40
Industrial 750 26.14 28.69
Once average flow generation per DU or KSF is established for each land use category, the single-family residential flow rate of 204 gallons per day per dwelling unit is used as the baseline equivalent dwelling unit (EDU), assigned a value of 1.0051. All other land use types are then expressed as a proportion of this baseline by dividing their respective flow generation rates by the single-family residential benchmark. 50 Densities align with values represented in the General Plan and other City documents. 51 SFR is used as the EDU baseline strictly for normalization purposes; it does not imply a greater impact, only a consistent reference unit for flow comparison.

WASTEWATER IMPACT FEE
12359

BANNING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 46
This proportional conversion ensures that each land use type contributes its fair share of capital costs based on relative wastewater demand. The following table shows these conversions.

Table 67: EDU Factor Calculation
Category
Average Flow
Generation / DU or
KSF
SFR - Baseline EDU Factor
Residential
Single Family 204.00 204.00 1.00
Multi-Family 72.73 204.00 0.36
Non-Residential
Commercial 75.41 204.00 0.37
Office 26.40 204.00 0.13
Industrial 28.69 204.00 0.14
The above EDU factors are then multiplied by the difference in dwelling units per land use type from 2025 to 2040. These calculations are shown in the table below:

Table 68: Projected Total Number of EDUs Calculation
Category 2025 DU
/ KSF 52
2040 DU
/ KSF 53 Difference EDU Factor
Weighted
2025 DU / KSF
Weighted
2040 DU / KSF
Weighted
Difference
Residential
Single Family 10,224 14,775 4,551 1.00 10,224 14,775 4,551 Multi-Family 2,381 16,728 14,347 0.36 849 5,964 5,115
Total 12,605 31,503 18,898 11,073 20,739 9,666
Non-Residential
Commercial 1,204 2,993 1,789 0.37 445 1,106 661
Office 2,234 1,895 (339) 0.13 289 245 (44)
Industrial 1,340 977 (363) 0.14 188 137 (51)
Total 4,777 5,865 1,088 923 1,489 567
Total Number of EDUs 11,995 22,228 10,232
The total projected growth of dwelling units from 2025 to 2040 is roughly 10,000. This value is divided by the total cost to be apportioned (as outlined in the following section), resulting in the cost per EDU, which serves as the basis for calculating the wastewater impact fee.

COST COMPONENTS AND ASSUMPTIONS
Based on the projected increase in EDUs, an impact nexus exists for the department’s infrastructure needs. The planning horizon for the Wastewater impact fee is 15 years (2025 to 2040). Over this period, 52 Based on Banning’s General Plan.
53 Based on Banning’s General Plan.
12460

BANNING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 47
the department will need to replace and upgrade infrastructure to maintain its existing level of service.

The impact fee calculation applies the system plan method to determine the proportional share attributable to new development. Since future development will benefit from these facilities and equipment, an appropriate portion of the upgrade cost should be allocated to new growth. The following table presents the total projected infrastructure costs, net of existing fund balances, by cost category.

Table 69: Total Projected Infrastructure Cost - Wastewater Total Wastewater CIP Cost Allocated to New Development at Buildout54 $132,753,401 % of Total Population in 2040 Compared to Build-out 55%55 Total Wastewater CIP Cost Allocated to 2040 Development $73,014,371 Total Projected Infrastructure Cost $73,014,371
Current Fund Balance56 ($10,976,585)
Total Projected Net Infrastructure Cost $62,037,786
Over the next 15 years, the City will require approximately $62 million to meet the needs of the City’s existing and future population.

The total projected net infrastructure cost is then divided by the weighted growth in EDU, resulting in a cost per EDU. The calculation is shown below:

Table 70: Wastewater Cost Per EDU Calculation
$62,037,786 Total Projected New Development Cost
= $6,063 cost / EDU 10,232 Weighted Growth in EDU
The $6,063 per EDU cost illustrates the amount the City should invest in wastewater infrastructure per dwelling unit.

IMPACT FEE CALCULATIONS
As calculated in the previous section, the total cost per EDU is $6,063. This is the cost, regardless of whether the development is residential or non-residential. This value is then multiplied by the EDU factor to calculate the Wastewater impact fee. The following table shows this calculation:

Table 71: Wastewater Impact Fee Calculation
Category Cost Per
EDU
EDU
Factor Impact Fee
Residential: Per DWU
Single Family $6,063 1.00 $6,063
54 A detailed accounting of the capital improvement costs is included in Appendix G of this report. It is important to note that 55 The 2010 Parks Master Plan estimates a build-out population of the City to be 67,787. By 2040, the City is expected to be at 37,600, which is only 55% of the build out population.
56 Represents the fund balance at the end of FY24-25.
12561

BANNING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 48
Category Cost Per
EDU
EDU
Factor Impact Fee
Multi-Family $6,063 0.36 $2,161
Non-Residential: Per KSF
Commercial $6,063 0.37 $2,241
Office $6,063 0.13 $785
Industrial $6,063 0.14 $853
The cost per EDU for residential single-family development is $6,603, multi-family is $2,161, and nonresidential development ranges from a low of $785 per 1,000 square feet for office properties to a high of $2,241 per 1,000 square feet for commercial development. The 2% administrative fee is applied to the impact fee. The following table shows this calculation.

Table 72: Wastewater Impact Fee Calculation – Including Administrative Fee Category Impact
Fee Admin %
Impact Fee +
Admin Fee Per
DWU or KSF
Impact Fee +
Admin Fee
per Sq. Ft.

Residential
Single Family $6,063 2% $6,184 $3.2557
Multi-Family $2,161 2% $2,205 $2.2058
Non-Residential
Commercial $2,241 2% $2,286 $2.29
Office $785 2% $800 $0.80
Industrial $853 2% $870 $0.87
The addition of the administrative fee captures the full cost associated with the proportionate impact of future development. The following table compares the City’s current Wastewater impact fee to the full cost impact fees and the associated per-unit difference:

Table 73: Current vs. Full Cost – Wastewater Impact Fee Category Current
Impact Fee59
Full Cost
Impact Fee Difference
Residential: Per Sq. Ft.

Single Family $2.66 $3.25 ($0.59)
Multi-Family $5.06 $2.20 $2.86
Non-Residential: Per Sq. Ft.

Commercial Varies $2.29 N/A
57 The average square footage of a SFR unit (1,900 sq. ft.) in Banning was used to convert from DU to square footage. 58 The average square footage of a MFR unit (1,000 sq. ft.) in Banning was used to convert from DU to square footage. 59 Currently, Banning charges their residential impacts fees based on per dwelling unit. Due to changes in regulations (as outlined in the Legal Framework chapter) residential impact fees must now be calculated based on square footage (similar to the commercial impact fees). To ensure a proper comparison the current fee was converted into a square footage fee utilizing the data outlined in the Projected Growth and Development chapter.
12662

BANNING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 49
Category Current
Impact Fee59
Full Cost
Impact Fee Difference
Office Varies $0.80 N/A
Industrial Varies $0.87 N/A
The single-family rate shows an under-recovery of $0.59 per square foot, while the multi-family rate shows an overage of $2.86 per square foot. Currently, the City calculates a different impact fee each time, depending on the non-residential development. To streamline fee administration, it was proposed to reclassify fees into three categories: commercial, office, and industrial.

Table 74: Impact Fee Nexus Criteria – Wastewater
Criteria Meet
Purpose Of Fee
The purpose of this fee is to upgrade existing wastewater systems necessary to maintain services levels and enhance or replace wastewater-specific vehicles and equipment.

Use of Fee Revenue
Revenue associated with this impact fee is housed in a specific wastewater impact fee fund to help ensure that funds are appropriately accounted for and used to meet the wastewater infrastructure needs of the City’s growth.

Benefit Relationship
The use of the impact fee revenue would be to expand, upgrade, or replace existing wastewater systems and equipment to accommodate increased usage proportional to grow. New residents and employees receive benefits associated safe and reliable wastewater systems.

Impact Relationship
New development contributes additional wastewater flow to the City’s collection and treatment system. Therefore, the cost associated with adding additional equipment or expanding facilities to accommodate additional wear would be borne by new residents or employees.

Capital Improvement Plan A capital improvement plan has been adopted to update the City’s wastewater infrastructure and is presented as an appendix.

Level of Service
The proposed impact fees are based on the existing level of service as they are based on the current standard of the wastewater infrastructure servicing both existing and future population. Future population / growth is calculated based on their proportional need for the facilities, vehicles and equipment.
12763

BANNING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 50
Criteria Meet
Original Nexus Analysis
The original nexus analysis developed by the City was based on information from 2019, and the City has not increased fees since then.

Since the original analysis, costs have significantly increased, and as the fund balance reflects, the City has insufficient funding to meet the needs for future development.

As the table demonstrates, the City meets all five criteria necessary to continue charging the wastewater development impact fee, as well as the three additional criteria associated with AB602. Additionally, the wastewater impact fee has an essential nexus to the City’s land use interest of ensuring that there is adequate wastewater infrastructure to serve the new development, and the fee has been calculated to be roughly proportionate to the development’s impact on the City’s wastewater systems, as it does not exceed the City’s cost of providing wastewater services to new development.

COMPARATIVE SURVEY
As part of this impact fee analysis, the project team conducted a comparative survey of surrounding jurisdictions that charge a Wastewater impact fee. The following table compares the City’s current fee and full cost to other surveyed jurisdictions in the region:

Table 75: Comparative Survey – Wastewater
Residential Non-Residential (Per Sq. Ft.)
Jurisdiction Single Family Multi-Family Commercial Office Industrial Banning - Current $2.66 per
sq. ft
$5.06 per
sq. ft Varies Varies Varies
Banning - Full Cost $3.25 per
sq. ft.
$2.86 per
sq. ft. $2.29 $0.80 $0.87
Beaumont $0.54 per
sq. ft.
$0.54 per
sq. ft. $0.25 $0.39 $0.38
Palm Springs $1,006 per
EDU
$1,006 per
EDU
$100 per
fixture unit
$100 per
fixture unit
$100 per
fixture unit
Redlands $0.27 per
sq. ft.
$0.27 per
sq. ft. $0.45 $0.45 $0.48
Of the surveyed jurisdictions, Desert Springs, Palm Desert, Riverside, and Yucaipa do not assess a wastewater-specific impact fee.

The City of Colton does assess a combined water & wastewater fee based on meter size. Residential fees are $2,968 for a 3/4-inch meter and $4,956 for a 1-inch meter. Non-residential fees range from a low of $2,968 for a 3/4-inch meter to a high of $333,893 for a 12-inch meter.

The City’s current and calculated full-cost residential fees are higher than those of all other jurisdictions that assess fees based on square footage. The City’s full cost or commercial fees are much higher than those of the other surveyed jurisdictions. It is important to note that this only reflects the adopted impact fees and does not reflect that many jurisdictions have not reviewed or updated their impact fees in many years.
12864

BANNING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 51
The City currently administers a water impact fee to recover the proportionate costs of water infrastructure required to serve new development. These water systems serve both residential and nonresidential populations, and future growth will increase demand for water-specific infrastructure. To ensure service levels are maintained as the City continues to grow, the current water impact fee cost components and assumptions were updated through this analysis. The following subsections discuss the growth assumptions and standards utilized, cost assumptions and components, impact fee calculation, ability to meet the nexus criteria, and a comparative survey of water impact fees.

GROWTH ASSUMPTIONS
The purpose of a water impact fee is to recover the proportionate costs associated with the increased demand placed on the water system by new development, which in turn necessitates the enhancement, expansion, or replacement of existing infrastructure. Water impacts are measured through flow generation60 in gallons per day per acre (GPD/A). Flow estimates are then converted using standardized density factors to determine average daily flow per 1,000 square feet (KSF). This conversion establishes a consistent baseline for comparing flow impacts across land uses and allocating costs proportionally to new development. The following table shows this calculation.

Table 76: Average Flow Generation per KSF by Land Use Type Category Flow Generation
(GPD / A) Density61 Average Flow Generation / DU or KSF Residential
Single Family 2,300 5.00 460.00
Multi-Family 1,553 11.00 141.14
Non-Residential
Commercial 5,300 15.25 347.54
Office 5,300 43.56 121.67
Industrial 1,700 26.14 65.03
Once average flow generation per DU or KSF is established for each land use category, the single-family residential flow rate of 460 gallons per day per KSF is used as the baseline equivalent dwelling unit (EDU), assigned a value of 1.0062. All other land use types are then expressed as a proportion of this baseline by dividing their respective flow generation rates by the single-family residential benchmark. 60 Flow generation is a term that translates to water demands. 61 Densities align with values represented in the General Plan and other City documents. 62 SFR is used as the EDU baseline strictly for normalization purposes; it does not imply a greater impact, only a consistent reference unit for flow comparison.

WATER IMPACT FEE
12965

BANNING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 52
This proportional conversion ensures that each land use type contributes its fair share of capital costs based on relative water demand. The following table shows these conversions.

Table 77: EDU Factor Calculation
Category Average Flow
Generation / KSF SFR - Baseline EDU Factor
Residential
Single Family 460.00 460.00 1.00
Multi-Family 141.14 460.00 0.31
Non-Residential
Commercial 347.54 460.00 0.76
Office 121.67 460.00 0.26
Industrial 65.03 460.00 0.14
The above EDU factors are then multiplied by the difference in dwelling units per land use type from 2025 to 2040. These calculations are shown in the table below:

Table 78: Projected Total Number of Trips Calculation
Category 2025 DU
/ KSF 63
2040 DU
/ KSF 64 Difference EDU Factor
Weighted
2025 DU / KSF
Weighted
2040 DU / KSF
Weighted
Difference
Residential
Single Family 10,224 14,775 4,551 1.00 10,224 14,775 4,551 Multi-Family 2,381 16,728 14,347 0.31 731 5,132 4,402
Total 12,605 31,503 18,898 10,955 19,907 8,953
Non-Residential
Commercial 1,204 2,993 1,789 0.76 910 2,261 1,352
Office 2,234 1,895 (339) 0.26 591 501 (90)
Industrial 1,340 977 (363) 0.14 189 138 (51)
Total 4,777 5,865 1,088 1,690 2,901 1,211
Total Number of EDUs 12,644 22,808 10,164
The total projected growth of equivalent growth factors from 2025 to 2040 is roughly 10,000. This value is divided by the total cost to be apportioned (as outlined in the following section), resulting in the cost per EDU, which serves as the basis for calculating the water impact fee.

COST COMPONENTS AND ASSUMPTIONS
Based on the projected increase in EDUs, an impact nexus exists for the department’s infrastructure needs. The planning horizon for the Water impact fee is 15 years (2025 to 2040). Over this period, the department will need to replace and upgrade infrastructure to maintain its existing level of service. The 63 Based on Banning’s General Plan.
64 Based on Banning’s General Plan.
13066

BANNING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 53
impact fee calculation applies the system plan method to determine the proportional share attributable to new development. Since future development will benefit from these facilities and equipment, an appropriate portion of the upgrade cost should be allocated to new growth. The following table presents the total projected infrastructure costs, net of existing fund balances, by cost category.

Table 79: Total Projected Infrastructure Cost - Water
Total Water CIP Cost Attributed to New Development at Buildout65 $190,324,683 % of Total Population in 2040 Compared to Build-out 55%66 Total Water CIP Cost Allocated to 2040 Development $104,678,576 Total Projected Infrastructure Cost $104,678,576
Current Fund Balance67 ($3,477,270)
Total Projected Net Infrastructure Cost $101,201,305
Over the next 15 years, the City will require approximately $101 million to meet the needs of the City’s future population.

The total projected infrastructure cost is then divided by the weighted growth in EDU, resulting in a cost per EDU. The calculation is shown below:

Table 80: Water Cost Per EDU Calculation
$101,201,305 Total Projected Net Infrastructure Cost
= $9,957 cost / EDU 10,164 Weighted Growth in EDU
The $9,957 per EDU cost illustrates the amount the City should invest in water infrastructure per dwelling unit.

IMPACT FEE CALCULATIONS
As the previous section calculated, the total cost per EDU is $9,957. Water impact fees are typically administered based on the size of the water meter. This cost per EDU is then multiplied by a standard water meter equivalency factor68, resulting in the Water impact fee. The following table shows this calculation:

Table 81: Water Impact Fee Calculation
Meter Size Cost Per EDU Water Meter Equivalency Factor Impact Fee 3/4" $9,957 0.60 $5,974
1” $9,957 1.00 $9,957
1-1/2” $9,957 2.00 $19,914
65 A detailed accounting of the capital improvement costs is included in Appendix H of this report. 66 The 2010 Parks Master Plan estimates a build-out population of the City to be 67,787. By 2040, the City is expected to be at 37,600, which is only 55% of the build out population.
67 Represents the fund balance at the end of FY24-25.
68 American Water Works Association (AWWA) water meter equivalency factors – M1 Principles of Water Rates, Fees, and Charges 7th Edition. 13167

BANNING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 54
Meter Size Cost Per EDU Water Meter Equivalency Factor Impact Fee 2” $9,957 3.20 $31,862
3” $9,957 6.00 $59,742
4” $9,957 10.00 $99,570
6” $9,957 20.00 $199,141
8” $9,957 56.00 $557,593
The cost per meter size ranges from $5,974 for a 3/4-inch meter to $557,593 for an 8-inch meter. The 2% administrative fee is applied to the impact fee. The following table shows this calculation.

Table 82: Water Impact Fee Calculation – Including Administrative Fee Meter Size Impact Fee Admin % Impact Fee +
Admin Fee
3/4" $5,974 2% $6,094
1” $9,957 2% $10,156
1-1/2” $19,914 2% $20,312
2” $31,862 2% $32,500
3” $59,742 2% $60,937
4” $99,570 2% $101,562
6” $199,141 2% $203,123
8” $557,593 2% $568,745
The addition of the administrative fee captures the full cost associated with the proportionate impact of future development. The following table compares the City’s current water impact fee to the full cost impact fees and the associated per-unit difference:

Table 83: Current vs. Full Cost – Water Impact Fee
Meter Size Current
Impact Fee
Full Cost
Impact Fee Difference
3/4" $5,847 $6,094 ($247)
1” $9,744 $10,156 ($412)
1-1/2” $19,488 $20,312 ($824)
2” $31,181 $32,500 ($1,319)
3” $58,464 $60,937 ($2,473)
4” $97,441 $101,562 ($4,121)
6” N/A $203,123 N/A
8” N/A $568,745 N/A
Currently, the City does not charge fees for 6-inch or 8-inch meters; therefore, no comparison is available.

All remaining water impact fees are under-recovered, ranging from $247 to $4,121. 13268

BANNING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 55

Table 84: Impact Fee Nexus Criteria – Water
Criteria Meet
Purpose Of Fee
The purpose of this fee is to upgrade existing water systems necessary to maintain services levels and enhance or replace water -specific vehicles and equipment.

Use of Fee Revenue
Revenue associated with this impact fee is housed in a specific water impact fee fund to help ensure that funds are appropriately accounted for and used to meet the water infrastructure needs of the City’s growth.

Benefit Relationship
The use of the impact fee revenue would be to expand, upgrade, or replace existing water systems and equipment to accommodate increased usage proportional to grow. New residents and employees receive benefits associated with reliable water systems.

Impact Relationship
New development contributes additional water distribution through the City’s water tanks, mains, and facilities. Therefore, the cost associated with adding additional equipment or expanding facilities to accommodate additional impacts to the system would be borne by new residents or employees.

Proportionality
The proposed impact fee is calculated based upon proportionality of projected growth with the greatest impact by residential areas, followed by commercial areas. The fees are calculated on a meter size basis for both residential and commercial properties as the concept is that the larger the meter size, the greater the population that accesses that system and therefore the greater the impact on the City’s infrastructure.

Capital Improvement Plan A capital improvement plan has been adopted to update the City’s water infrastructure and is presented as an appendix.

Level of Service
The proposed impact fees are based on the existing level of service as they are based on the current standard of the water infrastructure servicing both existing and future population. Future population / growth is calculated based on their proportional need for the facilities, vehicles and equipment.

Original Nexus Analysis
The original nexus analysis developed by the City was based on information from 2019, and the City has not increased fees since then.

Since the original analysis, costs have significantly increased, and as the fund balance reflects, the City has insufficient funding to meet the needs for future development.

As the table demonstrates, the City meets all five criteria necessary to continue charging the water development impact fee, as well as the three additional criteria associated with AB602. Additionally, the water impact fee has an essential nexus to the City’s land use interest of ensuring that there is adequate water infrastructure to serve the new development, and the fee has been calculated to be roughly proportionate to the development’s impact on the City’s water systems, as it does not exceed the City’s cost of providing water services to new development.
13369

BANNING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 56

COMPARATIVE SURVEY
As part of this impact fee analysis, the project team conducted a comparative survey of surrounding jurisdictions that charge a Water impact fee. Of the surveyed jurisdictions, Beaumont, Desert Springs, Palm Desert, Palm Springs, Riverside, and Yucaipa do not assess a water-specific impact fee.

The City of Redland does assess a water impact fee; however, it’s based on land use type. Residential fees are $2.37 per square foot, while non-residential fees range from $190 per 1,000 square feet for Warehousing – Standard and High Cube to $3,139 for Institutional and Health Care.

The City of Colton’s impact fees are a combined water & wastewater fee based on meter size. Its rates are lower than Banning’s current and full-cost calculations. 13470

BANNING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 57
The following table provides information on capital improvement costs related to Electric. All information was provided and confirmed by the City of Banning’s Public Works Department staff.

Project Name Total CIP Cost
Allocated to
Existing
Development
Allocated to
New
Development
Capital Maintenance Projects
Underground Conversion Livingston to Hargrave
(Backbone/Fiber loop at Ramsey/Livingston/Alola) $150,000 $150,000 $0 Underground Conductor Replacement Barbour St
E/O Hathaway $275,000 $275,000 $0
Underground Conductor Replacement at
Mockingbird Lane and Hillside Dr $750,000 $750,000 $0
Underground Conductor Replacement at Westward
Ave from 4th St to 8th St $625,000 $625,000 $0
Fiber Extension to Stagecoach Substation (UG and
OH) $360,000 $360,000 $0
Midway Substation Upgrades (breaker replacement
and SCADA-ready upgrades and future full
replacement) $6,125,000 $6,125,000 $0

34.5 kV/12.47 kV (Cir 77)/fiber UG and OH
Extension to Sunset Ave $2,000,000 $1,200,000 $800,000
SoCalGas Reimbursement for Feeder Circuits to
Cottonwood Ave $0 $0 $0
Underground Conductor Replacement at Vista
Serena Ave $350,000 $175,000 $175,000
Fire Mitigation Tier 2/3 High Threat Area (Various) $450,000 $450,000 $0 Mias Canyon Line Hardening $2,100,000 $2,100,000 $0

34.5 kV/12.47 kV/fiber Underground Circuits
Hathaway St from Williams St to Hoffer St $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $0

34.5 kV/12.47 kV/fiber Underground Circuits
Hathaway St from Lincoln St to John St $150,000 $150,000 $0 Install Two (2) Engineered baseplate pole at Sunset
and Lincoln $850,000 $850,000 $0
Install Reclosers on 34.5 kV and 12.47 kV system $250,000 $250,000 $0 Robertson's Ready Mix Circuit Reroute $425,000 $425,000 $0 Sun Lakes Blvd Extension - Electric Relocation $3,500,000 $3,500,000 $0 SCE WDAT Upfront Capital Costs $500,000 $0 $500,000
Electrical Substation Projects
Ivy Substation (15 MVA) (FY 2022) $5,585,429 $5,585,429 $0 Stagecoach Substation (10MVA) (FY 2023) $4,192,813 $4,192,813 $0 San Gorgonio Substation (20 MVA) (FY 2024) $6,275,426 $6,275,426 $0 Smith Creek Substation (40 MVA) (FY TBD) $14,000,000 $7,000,000 $7,000,000 Banning Substation Upgrade (WDAT) (FY 27-28) $16,000,000 $0 $16,000,000 Total CIP Costs $41,843,168 $40,368,168 $24,475,000
APPENDIX A – ELECTRIC INFRASTRUCTURE
COST
13571

BANNING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 58
The following tables provide information on facility and equipment costs related to Fire. All information was provided and confirmed by the City of Banning’s Fire Department staff.

Category
Quantity
(sq. ft.)
Cost /
Sq. Ft. Total Cost
Facilities Inventory
Fire Station (89) No.1 - 172 N Murray Street 6,000 $620 $3,722,885 Fire Station No. 20 - 1550 E 6th Street - $620 $0
Fire Station - 5261 W. Wilson 9,190 $620 $5,702,218
Fire Services/ Fire Chief - 3900 W Wilson Street 4,544 $620 $2,819,465 New Fire Station (located south of the freeway) $15,000,000 Total Facility Cost $27,244,568
Category Count Purchase Cost Total Value
Equipment Inventory
2022 Smeal Custom Multi Funct. Engine 1 $1,700,000 $1,700,000 2016 Smeal Custom Multi Funct. Engine 1 $1,700,000 $1,700,000 2025 Ford Escape Fire Marshal Vehicle 1 $23,405 $23,405 2020 Range SC Ford Inspector Vehicle 1 $25,017 $25,017
Total Equipment Cost $3,448,421
APPENDIX B – FIRE INFRASTRUCTURE COST
13672

BANNING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 59
The following tables provide information on facility and equipment costs related to General Facilities. All information was provided and confirmed by the City of Banning’s Public Works Department staff.

Category
Quantity
(sq. ft.)
Cost /
Sq. Ft. Total Cost
Facilities Inventory
City Hall - 99 E Ramsey St 21,500 $400 $8,600,000
Animal Shelter - 2242 E Charles St 5,143 $400 $2,057,200 Corporation Yard - 176 E Lincoln St 6,400 $400 $2,560,000 Corporation Yard - Warehouse 26,200 $400 $10,480,000
Corporation Yard - Fleet Garage 9,242 $400 $3,696,800
Chamber of Commerce Bld 58 E. Ramsey 3,333 $400 $1,333,200 Total Facility Cost $28,727,200
Category Count Purchase Cost Total Value
Equipment Inventory
Ford F-250 w/ equipment rack and tool boxes (2) 2 $55,000 $94,800 F-550 Super Duty Aerial Boom Lift 1 $128,000
John Deere Ride of Mower 1 $15,500
John Deere Flair Mower 1 $12,300
Miller Tow Behind Welder 1 $66,300
14' Utility Trailer 1 $4,000
Total Equipment Cost $320,900
APPENDIX C – GENERAL FACILITIES

INFRASTRUCTURE COST
13773

BANNING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 60
The following tables provide information on capital improvement, facilities, and equipment costs related to Parks. All information was provided and confirmed by the City of Banning’s Public Works and Parks Department staff.

Category Total Value
Park Improvements
Roosevelt Williams Park $556,200
Budgeted in FY 2026
Replacement Playground - Repplier Park $150,000
Replacement Playground - Sylvan Park $150,000
Enclosed Skidsteer with bucket & Auger $70,000
Irrigation System replacement& Fencing project - Non-potable Lions Park $1,012,000 Budget for FY 2027
Sylvan Restroom demo and Replacement $450,000
Lion's Park Playground replacement $200,000
Ray Pak - Commercial Pool Heaters (Two) $70,000
Total Improvement Cost $2,658,200
Category
Quantity
(sq. ft.)
Cost /
Sq. Ft. Total Value
Facilities Inventory
Community Center / Gym - 769 N San Gorgonio Ave 12,046 $400 $4,818,400 Senior Center - 769 N San Gorgonio Ave 6,029 $400 $2,411,600 Aquatics Center - 749 N San Gorgonio Ave 5,697 $400 $2,278,800 Lions Park Concessions Building 1,350 $400 $540,000
Roosevelt Williams Park Recreation Center 2,215 $400 $886,000 Repplier Park Amphitheatre Bldg - 769 N. San Gorgonio 3,200 $400 $1,280,000 Dysart Park Offices 2,200 $400 $880,000
Armory 10,800 $400 $4,320,000
Total Facility Cost $17,414,800
Category Count
Purchase
Cost Total Value
Equipment Inventory
Black Widow Arena Groomer 1 $12,200 $12,200
MDF 440 Drinking Fountains - 10 10 $34,550 $345,500
200 Gal Tow Behind Commercial Sprayer 1 $13,900 $13,900 Alkota Trailer Mounted Pressure Washer 1 $14,325 $14,325 Total Equipment Cost 385,925
APPENDIX D – PARKS INFRASTRUCTURE COST
13874

BANNING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 61
The following tables provide information on facilities and equipment costs related to Police. All information was provided and confirmed by the City of Banning’s Police Department staff.

Category Quantity (sq. ft.)
Cost /
Sq. Ft. Total Cost
Facilities Inventory
125 E. Ramsey Street - PD Station 30,000 $620 $18,614,423 Total Facility Cost $18,614,423
Category Count
Purchase
Cost Total Value
Equipment Inventory
Motorola APX NEXT radios (50) 50 $500,000
Getac BC02 Body Worn Cameras (40) 40 $28,000
Unit 52 2006 Ford E350 Motorhome (Mobile Command Center) 1 $200,000 $300,000 Unit 15 1992 Ford F700 Armored Vehicle 1 $10,000 $250,000 Unit 25 2003 Ford E350 Box Van (Evidence Van) 1 $10,000 $75,000 Unit 26 2004 Ford F250 4x4 1 $60,000 $67,500
Unit 80 2021 Ford F250 (ACO Truck) 1 $60,000 $67,500
Unit 81 2015 Ford F350 (ACO Truck) 1 $30,000 $67,500
Unit 02 2023 HDK Forester 4 Golf Cart 1 $9,000 $14,000
1996 E-Z Go Golf Cart (x2) 2 $2,500 $28,000
2015 Ford Fusion (x2) 2 $8,000 $54,000
2018 Ford Fusion (x2) 2 $15,000 $54,000
Unit 16 2006 Ford Expedition 1 $8,000 $66,000
Unit 46 2017 Ford Taurus 1 $10,000 $32,000
2024 Ford Explorer Admin Units (x2) 2 $88,000
Unit 47 2024 Chevrolet Silverado Admin 1 $58,595 $48,500 2020 (1) & 2023 Chevrolet Tahoe (13) (14 total units) 14 $882,000 Unit 13 2020 Kia Sorento 1 $20,000 $37,000
Unit 21 2024 Chevrolet Blazer 1 $52,116 $40,000
Unit 23 2025 Chevrolet Traverse 1 $51,919 $43,500
2024 Ford F150 (x3) 3 $202,500
2017 & 2020 Ford Explorer Police Interceptor(x10) 10 $560,000 Unit 39 2015 Ford Taurus 1 $25,000 $32,000
2018 Ford Taurus (x3) 3 $96,000
BMW R1200RTP Motorcycles (x3) 3 $4,500 $78,000
Unit 40 2024 Ford Escape 1 $34,000
Mobile Speed Trailer 1 $11,500
Total Equipment Cost $3,756,500
APPENDIX E – POLICE INFRASTRUCTURE COST
13975

BANNING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 62
The following table provides information on capital improvement costs related to Traffic. All information was provided and confirmed by the City of Banning’s Public Works Department staff.

Project Name 2025 Total Cost
Int: 1 Highland Springs Avenue/16th Street-Cougar Way $2,490,094 Int: 2 Highland Springs Avenue/F Street $1,649,243
Int: 6 Highland Springs Avenue/Ramsey Street $699,012
Int: 9 Highland Springs Avenue/Sun Lakes Boulevard $728,38069 Int: 10 Highland Springs Avenue/Potrero Boulevard $182,35070 Int: 12 Highland Home Road/Beaumont Road-G Street $3,538,969 Int: 13 Highland Home Road/F Street $3,101,067
Int: 14 Highland Home Road/D Street $2,681,517
Int: 16 Highland Home Road/Ramsey Street $492,344
Int: 17 Highland Home Road/Sun Lakes Boulevard–Westward Avenue $795,48671 Int: 18 Sunset Avenue/Wilson Street $2,944,786
Int: 19 Sunset Avenue/Ramsey Street $1,380,051
Int: 20 Sunset Avenue/I-10 Westbound Ramps $232,561
Int: 21 Sunset Avenue/I-10 Eastbound Ramps $788,042
Int: 24 Sunrise Avenue/Wilson Street $685,430
Int: 25 16th St/Wilson Street $884,790
Int: 26 8th St/Wilson Street $890,596
Int: 27 8th St/Ramsey Street $336,151
Int: 28 8th St/I-10 Westbound Ramps $867,984
Int: 29 8th St/I-10 Eastbound Ramps $1,809,944
Int: 30 8th Street/Lincoln Street $3,582,893
Int: 31 4th St/Wilson Street $364,699
Int: 32 San Gorgonio Avenue/Wilson Street $1,012,843
Int: 33 Hargrave Street/Ramsey Street $2,362,201
Int: 34 Hargrave Street/I-10 Westbound Ramps $1,056,125 Int: 35 Hargrave Street/I-10 Eastbound Ramps $1,163,566 Int: 36 Hargrave Street/Lincoln Street $3,112,154
I-10/Highland Springs Avenue Interchange $49,236,594
Total Improvement Cost $89,069,875
69 Approximately 10% of this project has already been completed, as such this cost has been discounted by 10%. 70 Approximately 50% of this project has already been completed, as such this cost has been discounted by 50%. 71 Approximately 75% of this project has already been completed, as such this cost has been discounted by 75%.

APPENDIX F – TRAFFIC INFRASTRUCTURE
COST
14076

BANNING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 63
The following table provides information on capital improvement costs related to Wastewater. All information was provided and confirmed by the City of Banning’s Public Works Department staff.

Project Name
Total CIP
Cost72
Allocated to
Existing
Development73
Allocated to New
Development at
Buildout74
Gravity Mains
WWGM-1 Gravity Main along Williams Street $434,722 $434,722 $0 WWGM-2 Northern Segment of Gravity Main
along Hathaway Street $459,521 $459,521 $0
WWGM-3A Casing Under I-10 $665,212 $665,212 $0
WWGM-3B Gravity Main along Hathaway Street $1,522,984 $1,522,984 $0 WWGM-4 Gravity Main along Ramsey Street $459,521 $459,521 $0 WWGM-5 Gravity Main along Charles Street $688,552 $688,552 $0 WWGM-6 Gravity Main along Livingston Street $459,521 $459,521 $0 WWGM-7 Gravity Main along Fourth Street $229,031 $229,031 $0 WWGM-8 Gravity Main along Charles Street $688,552 $495,991 $192,561 WWGM-9 Gravity Main along Porter Street $465,356 $186,726 $278,630 WWGM-10 Gravity Main along Porter Street $3,838,095 $1,150,991 $2,687,104 WWGM-11 Gravity Main, Porter Street to WWTP $2,248,006 $697,305 $1,550,701 WWGM-12 Gravity Main south of Charles Street
to WWTP $344,276 $131,292 $212,984
WWGM-13 Gravity Main along Wilson Street $211,526 $175,056 $36,470 New Service Related Improvements
Gravity Mains
WWGM-15 Butterfield-Loma Linda Offsite Trunk $1,269,154 $0 $1,269,154 WWGM-16 Westward Lift Station Bypass $1,088,263 $468,274 $619,989 WWGM-17 RSG Main Trunk $9,593,050 $0 $9,593,050
WWGM-18 Gravity Main along Wilson Street $846,102 $0 $846,102 WWGM-19 Gravity Main for RMG $634,577 $0 $634,577
WWGM-20 Gravity Main along Lincoln Street $42,305 $0 $42,305 WWGM-21 Gravity Main along Cottonwood
Road $1,692,205 $0 $1,692,205
WWGM-22 Gravity Main along Fountain Street $2,326,782 $0 $2,326,782 WWGM-23 Gravity Main along Longhorn Road $8,462,483 $0 $8,462,483 WWGM-24 Gravity Main along Bobcat Road $3,215,189 $0 $3,215,189 WWGM-25 Gravity Main along Sunset Avenue $11,256,079 $0 $11,256,079 WWGM-26 Gravity Main along Westward
Avenue $1,269,154 $0 $1,269,154
WWGM-27 Gravity Main along Mias Canyon
Road and Bluff Street $5,289,599 $0 $5,289,599
72 Represents the estimated CIP costs at 2025 prices.
73 Represents the costs already identified to existing development, so that it is not factored into future development allocations. 74 Represents the costs of projects assigned / associated with new development.

APPENDIX G – WASTEWATER

INFRASTRUCTURE COST
14177

BANNING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 64
Project Name
Total CIP
Cost72
Allocated to
Existing
Development73
Allocated to New
Development at
Buildout74
WWGM-28 Gravity Main along Florida Street $634,577 $0 $634,577 WWGM-29 Gravity Main along Almond and
Blanchard Street $634,577 $0 $634,577
WWGM-30 Casing for Gravity Main Crossing I10 $1,245,813 $0 $1,245,813 WWGM-31 Gravity Main along Lincoln Street $1,269,154 $0 $1,269,154 WWGM-32 Gravity Main along Ramsey Street $634,577 $0 $634,577 Force Mains
WWFM-2 Force Main along Westward Avenue $1,692,205 $0 $1,692,205 WWFM-3 Force Main along Porter Street $1,903,730 $0 $1,903,730 WWFM-4 Force Main along Roadrunner Trail $423,051 $0 $423,051 WWFM-5 Force Main Creek Crossing $423,051 $0 $423,051
Lift Stations
WWLS-2 Distribution Center Lift Station $3,787,038 $0 $3,787,038 WWLS-3 Business Park Lift Station $2,131,303 $0 $2,131,303 WWLS-4 Porter Street Lift Station $1,569,666 $0 $1,569,666 WWLS-5 Roadrunner Trail Lift Station $1,787,027 $0 $1,787,027 WWLS-6 Bluff Street Lift Station $1,859,966 $0 $1,859,966 Rehabilitation and Replacement Projects
Gravity Mains
WWRR-1 Annual Sewer Replacement $4,784,855 $4,784,855 $0 Lift Stations
WWRR-2 Caltrans Lift Station Site
Improvements $215,902 $58,352 $157,550
WWRR-3 Westward Lift Station Site
Improvements $125,457 $125,457 $0
Treatment Plant Related Improvements
WWTP-1 Digestor Cleaning $218,820 $218,820 $0
WWTP-2 Heat Exchanger Repairs $87,528 $87,528 $0
WWTP-3 Boiler Gas Control Valves $116,704 $116,704 $0
WWTP-4 Digestor Gas Pipeline $43,764 $43,764 $0
WWTP-5 WWTP Upgrade $75,000,000 $13,875,000 $61,125,000 Total Costs $170,288,578 $27,535,177 $132,753,401
14278

BANNING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 65
The following table provides information on capital improvement costs related to Water. All information was provided and confirmed by the City of Banning’s Public Works Department staff.

Project Name
Total CIP
Cost75
Allocated to
Existing
Development
76 Allocated to
New
Development
at Buildout77
Potable Water Facilities
Pipelines
PWP-1 New Transmission Main for Proposed Lower
Main Well C-9 $603,942 $0 $603,942
PWP-2 New Transmission Main for Upper Main
Reservoir 1 (RSG) $7,466,124 $5,897,917 $1,568,207
PWP-4 New Transmission Main for Proposed
Development in Main Zone (RSG $12,090,511 $0 $12,090,511 PWP-6 New Transmission Main from Mountain
Booster PS to Existing Mounta $2,115,256 $0 $2,115,256
PWP-7 New Transmission Main for Proposed
Development in Mountain North $2,720,657 $0 $2,720,657
PWP-8 New Transmission Main for Proposed Upper
Main Well C-10 $603,942 $0 $603,942
PWP-9 New Transmission Main for Mountain North
Reservoir 1 & PS (Butterfie $5,893,541 $2,828,608 $3,064,933 PWP-10 New Transmission Main for Upper Main
Reservoir 2 $574,766 $0 $574,766
PWP-11 New Transmission Main for Proposed
Development in Upper Butterfield (Zone1) $603,942 $0 $603,942 PWP-12 New Transmission Main for Proposed
Upper Butterfield Reservoir (Butte (Zone 1) $2,720,657 $0 $2,720,657 PWP-13 Water Canyon Pipe Phase 2 (City's Existing
CIP) $4,741,091 $4,741,091 $0
PWP-14 New Transmission Main for Proposed
Upper Main Well C-10 $1,209,343 $0 $1,209,343
PWP-15 New Transmission Main for Proposed
Foothill West Well C-8 $603,942 $0 $603,942
PWP-16 New Transmission Main for Proposed
Upper Main Well C-12 $603,942 $0 $603,942
PWP-17 New Transmission Main for Foothill West
Reservior 2 $4,533,942 $0 $4,533,942
PWP-18 New Transmission Main for Upper Main
Reservoir 3 $6,045,256 $0 $6,045,256
PWP-20 New Transmission Main for (Lorna) Loma
Linda Reservoir 1 & PS $4,533,942 $0 $4,533,942
Booster Pump Stations
PWPU-1.a Upgrade Existing Mountain Booster
Pump Station $3,282,294 $3,282,294 $0
75 Represents the estimated CIP costs at 2025 prices.
76 Represents the costs already identified to existing development, so that it is not factored into future development allocations. 77 Represents the costs of projects assigned / associated with new development.

APPENDIX H – WATER INFRASTRUCTURE
COST
14379

BANNING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 66
Project Name
Total CIP
Cost75
Allocated to
Existing
Development
76 Allocated to
New
Development
at Buildout77
PWPU-1.b Demolish Existing Mountain Booster
Pump Station $242,160 $242,160 $0
PWPU-2 New Foothill West Pump Station $4,500,000 $0 $4,500,000 PWPU-3 New Mountain 2 Booster Pump Station $2,340,000 $1,123,200 $1,216,800 PWPU-5 Add VFD to Well C-5 $0 $0 $0
PWPU-6 New Upper Butterfield Zone Pump
Station (Zone 1) $4,000,000 $0 $4,000,000
PWPU-7 New Loma Linda Pump Station $4,500,000 $0 $4,500,000 Storage
PWS-1 Proposed Upper Main Reservoir 1 $19,343,651 $15,280,901 $4,062,750 PWS-3 Proposed Mountain North Reservoir 1 $8,160,512 $3,916,870 $4,243,641 PWS-4 Proposed Upper Main Reservoir 2 $19,343,651 $0 $19,343,651 PWS-5 Proposed Upper Butterfield Reservoir (Zone
1) $5,439,855 $0 $5,439,855
PWS-6 Proposed Foothill West Reservoir 2 $8,160,512 $0 $8,160,512 PWS-7 Proposed Upper Main Reservoir 3 $38,083,360 $0 $38,083,360 PWS-9 Proposed Loma (Lorna) Linda Reservoir 1 $5,439,855 $0 $5,439,855 Wells
PWW-1 Proposed Main Zone Well C-9 $4,992,004 $0 $4,992,004 PWW-2 Convert Well M-7 to Supply the Upper Main
Pressure Zone $278,630 $0 $278,630
PWW-3 Convert Well M-'12 to Supply the Upper
Main Pressure Zone $278,630 $0 $278,630
PWW-4 Proposed Upper Main Well C-10 $6,202,806 $0 $6,202,806 PWW-5 Proposed Upper Main Well C-11 $6,201,347 $0 $6,201,347 PWW-7 Proposed Upper Main Well C-12 $6,201,347 $0 $6,201,347 Valves
PWV-2 New Pressure Reducing Valve for Rancho
San Gorgonio $497,450 $0 $497,450
PWV-3 Foothill West to Upper Main Zone Pressure
Reducing Station $993,441 $0 $993,441
PWV-4 C2 PRVs'l& 2 $993,441 $0 $993,441
PWRZ-1 New Pressure Reducing Valves for ReZoning $4,994,922 $4,994,922 $0 Wateryard
Wateryard $5,403,822 $2,437,796 $2,966,026
Recycled Water Facilities
Pipelines
RWP‐3 Banning High School Lateral $750,000 $0 $750,000
RWP‐4 Rancho San Gorgonio Lateral $301,971 $0 $301,971
RWP‐5 Neighborhood Park Lateral $211,526 $0 $211,526
RWP‐6 Dysart Park Lateral $1,480,679 $0 $1,480,679
RWP‐7 Five Bridges Development Lateral $290,301 $0 $290,301 RWP‐9 Five Bridges Basin Pipeline $2,393,886 $1,076,592 $1,317,294 RWP‐10 WWTP Basin Pipeline $797,962 $358,864 $439,098
14480

BANNING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 67
Project Name
Total CIP
Cost75
Allocated to
Existing
Development
76 Allocated to
New
Development
at Buildout77
Valves
RWV‐1 BCVWD Co-Owned Wells and Interconnect
Buildings (2) $8,000,000 $0 $8,000,000
Other
RWO‐1 Five Bridges Site Improvements $4,659,398 $4,659,398 $0 RWO‐2 WWTP Basin Site Improvements $599,566 $599,566 $0 RWO‐3 Hydrogeological Study $218,820 $218,820 $0
RWO‐4 Monitoring Wells and Lysimeters $4,353,051 $4,353,051 $0 RWO‐5 404 Permitting $291,759 $291,759 $0
RWO‐6 Recycled Water Master Plan Update $194,020 $194,020 $0 Title 22 Improvements $4,741,091 $0 $4,741,091
Total Costs $246,822,511 $56,497,829 $190,324,683
14581
ORDINANCE NO. 1616

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
BANNING, CALIFORNIA AMENDING CHAPTER 15.68 -

DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES OF THE BANNING MUNICIPAL
CODE, INCLUDING SECTIONS 15.68.010, 15.68.020, 15.68.030,

15.68.040, 15.68.050, 15.68.060, 15.68.070, AND ADDING
SECTION 15.68.080 ELECTRIC FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT

SECTION 1. Incorporation of Recitals. The recitals reflected above are true and correct and incorporated herein by this reference.

SECTION 3. Findings. The City Council hereby finds and determines the following in connection with the adoption of this ordinance:

All other prerequisites to the adoption of this Ordinance, the approval of the Development Impact Fee (DIF) Study prepared by Matrix Consulting Group dated February 2026, the proposed new Electric Impact Fee, the updated Fire, General Facilities, Parks, Traffic, Wastewater, and Water Impact Fees, as specified by the Mitigation Fee Act (Cal. Gov. Code section 66000 et seq.) and all other applicable laws have been satisfied.
14682
SECTION 4. Approval. The City Council hereby approves Ordinance 1616 amending Chapter

15.68 “Development Impact Fees” as set forth in Exhibit A. Exhibit A is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.

This Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after adoption in accordance with Government Code Section 36937.

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Banning, California, held on the 10th day of March, 2026.

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
14783
_______________________
Richard Royce, Mayor
City of Banning
Attest:
______________________
Sandra Calderon, Deputy Administrative City Clerk
City of Banning
Approved as to form:
_________________________
John Pinkney, City Attorney
Slovak, Baron, Empey, Murphy & Pinkney, LLP
14884
Exhibit A

Page 1 of 27 ends

Banning City CouncilMarch 10, 2026

Banning City Council
March 10, 2026