Beaumont City Council
March 21, 2023

City of Beaumont
ACL No. R8-2010-0007

11. CWC §13350(e)(2) states that administrative civil liability on a per gallon basis may not exceed ten dollars ($10) for each gallon of waste discharged_ For the discharge incident described above, the total volume discharged and not recovered was 402,700 gallons. The maximum liability for the violation cited above on a per gallon basis is $4,027,000 (402,700 gallons X $10 per gallon = $4,027,000).

12. CWC §13327 specifies factors that the Regional Board shall consider in establishing the amount of civil liability. Consideration of these factors is addressed in the following table.

Factor
Comment
A. Nature,
Circumstances,
Extent and
Gravity of
Violation
An estimated 402,700 gallons of untreated wastewater(sewage) was discharged from Beaumont's sanitary sewer system to an ephemeral, un-named, tributary to San Timoteo Creek, a water of the United States.

The sewage discharged to the tributary has the potential to impact the designated beneficial uses of the San Timoteo Creek by the introduction of bacteria, nutrients, and other pollutants.

The nature of the soils in the tributary allowed sewage to be absorbed and percolated before reaching San Timoteo Creek.

However, the nutrients and some of the other pollutants in sewage, once deposited in the soil, have the potential to migrate through the soil column into the ground water or be carried by storm water into the Creek and other surface waterbodies. The discharge of sewage also is a threat to public health.

Once Beaumont became aware of the discharges at the Marshall Creek lift station (18 hours after its failure), Beaumont responded to the spill and was able to mobilize equipment and personnel to put the lift station back into operation.

City of Beaumont
ACL No. R8-2010-0007

B. Culpability
Regional Board staff has alleged in a previously issued administrative civil liability complaint (Complaint No. R8-2009- 0068) that Beaumont has failed to develop and implement a comprehensive Sanitary Sewer Management Plan (hereinafter "SSMP"") in compliance with the SSO Order. Staff has been working with Beaumont to bring them into compliance with this provision of the SSO Order. It has been alleged that Beaumont's failure to develop this plan, as required by the SSO Order, and its failure to take proactive steps to prevent SSOs and develop a comprehensive operation and maintenance plan has contributed to previous failures of lift stations. Failures of mechanical systems associated with the lift stations could have been prevented, or at least minimized, by proper operation and maintenance of these systems through development and
implementation of a SSMP. Provision D.6(i) of the SSO Order requires the Regional Board to consider the City's progress towards developing and implementing the SSMP in any
enforcement action.

As indicated above, the City also failed to ensure that its contractors were adequately trained. Had AOS employees been properly trained to effectively utilize the SCADA operator screen, the spill could have been prevented or at least minimized.

During the previous spill incidents, Regional Board staff had reiterated to the City the need for proper operation and maintenance of its sanitary sewer systems and for providing adequate training to its employees/contractors.

C. Economic
Benefit or
Savings
Beaumont's decision to riot act on a recommendation to repair problematic pump units and replace them with properly sized temporary units contributed to the magnitude of the discharge.

However, based on recent information provided by the City, it appears that these savings were insignificant.

City of Beaumont
ACL No. R8-2010-0007

D. Prior History of
Violations
The Assistant Executive Officer issued Administrative Civil Liability Complaint No R8-2009-0068 on November 19, 2009 to Beaumont due to eight sanitary sewer overflow incidents that discharged sewage into tributaries of San Timoteo Creek.

Regional Board staff are working with Beaumont to resolve this Complaint.

Beaumont has also violated provisions of the Riverside County Municipal Storm Water Permit (of which they are a co-permittee).

The Regional Board issued an administrative civil liability complaint for these violations.

E. Staff Costs
Regional Board staff spent approximately 78 hours investigating this incident. The total cost for staff time is $11,700 (78 hrsX$150/hr=$11,700).

F. Ability to pay
Beaumont is a city of more than 30,000 citizens. Pursuant to Water Code section 13385(k) it is not considered a small community with financial hardship and, therefore, it appears that Beaumont has the ability to pay the proposed administrative civil liability. The Prosecution Team is not in the possession of any information that Beaumont would be unable to pay the proposed liability amount.

13.After consideration of the above factors, the Assistant Executive Officer proposes that civil liability be imposed administratively on Beaumont in the amount of $111,000 for the violations cited above.

14.This penalty assessment is based on a consideration of the potential for harm from the sanitary sewer overflow event described above. Based on the potential harm from the discharge and the characteristics of the discharge, the Assistant Executive Officer determined that an assessment of $0.25 per gallon is appropriate. This is based on the fact that all of the discharge percolated into a dry creek bed and there were no identifiable beneficial use impacts. The total assessment based on flow is $100,675 (402,700 gallonsX$0.25/gallon=$100,675).

This amount is then adjusted based on Beaumont's a) culpability, b) the susceptibility of the discharge to cleanup and cooperation with Regional Board staff, and c) history of violations.

As indicated in the table above, Beaumont appears to have had an inordinate number of overflow incidents that suggest a lack of proper operation and maintenance. Based on lack of training and failure to implement an effective operations and maintenance

City of Beaumont Page 8 of 8 April 15, 2010
ACL No. R8-2010-0007
program, an adjustment factor of 1.1 was applied related to culpability. With regard to the cleanup factor, a 0.75 adjustment factor is used in considering cleanup cooperation, Beaumont's response activities (the City responded immediately upon discovery of the discharge) and the absence of any observable impacts on the beneficial uses from the discharge. With regard tothe history of violations factor, the assessment was increased by a factor of 1.2 based on the chronic history of on -going violations that has resulted in the issuing of an earlier administrative civil liability complaint (Complaint No. R8-2009- 0068). Applying each of these adjustment factors results in an adjusted final assessment of $99,668.25 ($100,675 X1.1 X.75X1.2=$99,668.25).

CWC §13327 also requires consideration of economic benefit or savings, if any, resulting from the violation, and other matters as justice may require. The amount of economic benefit is insignificant so no economic benefit has been assessed for this violation. The costs of investigation and enforcement are considered as one of the "other factors as justice may require". The staff costs ($11,700) are added to the adjusted amount above, for a total assessment of $111,368.25 ($99,668.25+$11,700=$111,368.25). This amount is rounded to the nearest thousand for a final proposed assessment of $111,000.00.

WAIVER OF HEARING
Beaumont may waive its right to a hearing. If you choose to do so, please sign the attached waiver form and return it, together with a check for $111,000 payable to the State Water Resources Control Board-WDPF in the enclosed preprinted envelope. If you waive your right to a hearing and pay the assessed amount, the Regional Board may not hold a hearing regarding this complaint.

If you have any questions, please contact Stephen D. Mayville at (951) 782-4992 or Chuck Griffin at (951) 782-4996.
4/1 5 /ld
Date
Kurt V. Berchtold
Assistant Executive Officer

Exhibit C

1. Project Title: Detection of septic system waste in the Beaumont Groundwater Management Zone, California, using chemical and isotopic tracers

2. Organization Proposing the Project:

Dr. James 0. Sickman, Associate Professor of Hydrology, Department of Environmental Sciences, University of California Riverside, Riverside CA 92521
Email: [email protected]; Tel. (951) 827-4552
Dr. Jay Gan, Professor of Environmental Chemistry, Department of Environmental Sciences, University of California Riverside, Riverside CA 92521
Email: [email protected]; Tel. (951) 827-2712

3. Project Description: Septic systems are a threat to groundwater quality in the Beaumont, CA area.

Septic systems contain a large suite of inorganic and organic substances, some of which have only recently been recognized as having negative effects on human health and the environment. These emerging contaminants can be extremely toxic at low levels and produce effects on the endocrine systems of higher organisms. In the proposed study, samples will be collected from groundwater wells in and around the City of Beaumont CA, in a synoptic survey. Additional samples of surface water in the region (urban and natural streams, agricultural drainage) and septic fluids may be co - collected. The samples will be used to determine concentrations of chemical and isotopic constituents that are diagnostic of the presence of septic wastewater in groundwater. These constituents include major cations, major anions, nutrients, isotopes of nitrate (61SN and 6180) and emerging pharmaceutical, pesticide, and food additive contaminants. Using these diagnostic tracers and results from modeling of groundwater movement using MODFLOW 96, the investigators will assess the threat of septic systems to groundwater quality in the study region.

4. Total Project Cost: $105,450 (see attached task budget)

5. Project schedule: Start Date: June 10, 2010. End Date December 1, 2011 Jun
'10
Jul
'10
Aug
'10
Sep
'10
Oct
'10
Nov
'10
Dec
'10
Jan
'11
Feb
'11
Mar
'11
Apr
'11
May
'11
Jun
'11
Jul
'11
Aug -
Dec
'11
Task l:

Publication
review
X
X
Task 2: Water
sampling
•
X
X
X
Task 3:
inorganic
analyses
X
X
X
X
Task 4: Isotope
analyses
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Task 5: Organic
analyses
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Task 6:

Modeling.

X
X
X
X
Task 7: Report
X
X
X
Task 8 Project
Management
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

6. Expected Products: Products of the study include a database on groundwater quality in and around the City of Beaumont, CA. A final report, which synthesizes groundwater modeling with new chemical data will be produced for the Regional Board.

Task Budget
Task
Description
Cost
1 Review of existing publications on groundwater resources in Beaumont region. Selection of wells and surface water sampling sites. Development of detailed Sampling and Analysis Plan and a Quality Assurance Project Plan.
$5,000
2 Water sampling. Travel between Riverside and Beaumont for collection of water samples. Sample containers, filters, coolers, dry ice etc.
$5,023
3 Analysis of water samples for: Cations, anions, and nutrients $6,000
4 Analysis of water samples for NO3 isotopes (615N and 6180) using microbial denitrifier method
$5,250
5 Analysis of water samples for emerging contaminants which may include: acetaminophen,diuron, bisphenol-A, caffeine,
carbamazepine, DEET, 17a-ethylnylestradiol, gemfibrozil, ibuprofen, sulfamethoxazole, TCEP
$30,483
6 Modeling of groundwater using MODFLOW 96
$16,000
7 Report preparation
$14,871
8 Project Management and Administration
$10,000
Total Direct Costs
$92,627
Indirect costs (15% of MTDC)
$12,823
Total Project Costs
$105,450

SEWER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN (SSMP)
BEAUMONR N 1 AT
A L 1 F O
Appendix 3 — SSMP Gap Analysis Completed by Fischer Compliance DEC 2022
A-3 City of Beaumont

APPENDIX 3 (SSSMP GAP ANALYSIS) : City of Beamont June 2022 Page 1/33

TABLE OF CONTENTS
A. PURPOSE 2
B. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2
C. REGULATORY BACKGROUND 5
D. CITY COLLECTION SYSTEM INFORMATION 6
E. DATA SOURCES FOR GAP ANALYSIS 8

1. GOALS 9

2. ORGANIZATION 10

3. LEGAL AUTHORITY 11

4. OPERATIONS/MAINTENANCE 12

5. DESIGN/PERFORMANCE 14

6. OVERFLOW EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN 15

7. FATS, OILS AND GREASE CONTROL 16

8. SYSTEM EVALULATION/CAPACITY 17

9. SSMP MEASUREMENT/MONITORING 18

10. SSMP AUDITS 19

11. COMMUNICATION 20

12. SSMP IMPLEMENTATION 21

13. TRAINING/STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES (SOPS) 22

14. SPILL DISCHARGES 23

15. SPILL NOTIFICATION 24

16. SPILL REPORTING 25

17. SPILL MONITORING 26
CCd•PLIANCE
�ISCHER,�
PRAC .1 E5 TMAT COMPLY

APPENDIX 3 (SSSMP GAP ANALYSIS) : City of Beamont 2022 Page 2/41 A. PURPOSE
This purpose of this Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP) Gap Analysis performed by Fischer Compliance LLC is to document baseline compliance status, identify compliance gaps, and provide supporting information to be utilized for development of the City's first SSMP.

The Gap Analysis findings include identification of violations and areas of concern for "Sanitary Sewer Systems Waste Discharge Requirements" (SSS WDRs), Water Quality Order No. 2006-0003-DWQ and Amended Monitoring and Reporting Program (Amended MRP, Order No. 201 3-0058-EXEC).1 B. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City hired Fischer Compliance LLC in 2022 to conduct to conduct an SSMP Audit (Gap Analysis) and develop the City's first SSMP to address the historic enforcement action taken against the City for not having a required SSMP in place to comply with the SSS WDRs (see 2022 City SSMP, Appendix 2).

The Gap Analysis revealed the City remains out of compliance with many elements of the SSS WDRs. To help City management facilitate a return to compliance as expeditiously as possible, Table 1 below provides quick references to the compliance findings.

I See Order Nos. 2006-003-DWQ and 2013 -0058 -EXEC available for download at:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water issues/programs/Spill/#general

APPENDIX 3 (SSSMP GAP ANALYSIS) : City of Beamont 2022

Table 1.1 - Gap Analysis Findings (Violations)
Requirements
I Violations Area of Concern Quick References
# #

1. Goals
V 1.1
None

2. Organization
V 2.2
None

3. Legal
None
AOC 3.1

4. O/M
V 4.1 -4.6
AOC 4.1 -4.3

5. Design
None
None

6. OERP
V 6.1
AOC 6.1

7. FOG
None
AOC 7.1

8. SECAP
None
AOC 8.1

9. Measurement
V 9.1-9.3
None

10. Audits
V 10.1
None

11. Communication
V 1 1 .1
None

12. Implementation
V 12.1
None

13. Training
V 1 3.1
None

14. Spill Discharges
V 14.1
None

15. Spill Notification
V 15.1
None

16. Spill Reporting
V 16.1
None

17. Spill Monitoring
V 17.1
None

APPENDIX 3 (SSSMP GAP ANALYSIS) : City of Beamont 2022

Table 2 — Summary of Provisions D.13(x) and D.13(ix) of the SSS WDRs Provision Requirement
Description
Provision D.13 (x)
"SSMP Program Audits - As part of the SSMP, the City shall conduct periodic internal Audits, appropriate to the size of the system and the number of Spills. At a minimum, these SSMP Gap Analysis must occur every two years and a report must be prepared and kept on file. This SSMP Gap Analysis shall focus on evaluating the effectiveness of the SSMP and the City's compliance with the SSMP requirements identified in this subsection (D.13), including identification of any deficiencies in the SSMP and steps to correct them."
Provision D.1 3(ix)
"Monitoring, Measurement, and Program Modifications"
(a) Maintain relevant information that can be used to establish and prioritize appropriate SSMP activities.
(b) Monitor the implementation and, where appropriate, measure the effectiveness of each element of the SSMP.
(c) Assess the success of the preventative maintenance program. (d) Update program elements, as appropriate, based on monitoring or performance evaluations; and
(e) Identify and illustrate Spill trends, including frequency, location, and volume.

The City's current work programs were reviewed to evaluate site -specific elements in place for its management, maintenance, and operations of the City sanitary sewer collection system to protect public health and the environment through minimizing sanitary sewer overflows (Spills). To ensure objective and effective outcomes of the Gap Analysis, the following critical elements and information provided by the City were reviewed and evaluated:
• Desktop compliance and document review.
• Review of State Water Board "Pre -Inspection Questionnaire" partially completed by the City. • Onsite and virtual conferences with interviews with City management and staff. • Certified spill reports and additional information recorded for the City in CIWQS.

APPENDIX 3 (SSSMP GAP ANALYSIS) : City of Beamont 2022 Page 5/41 C. REGULATORY BACKGROUND
California Water Boards Spill Reduction Program
The California Water Boards is charged with preserving, enhancing, and restoring the quality of California's water resources and drinking water for the protection of the environment, public health, and all beneficial uses of water quality. The Water Boards utilize the SSS WDRs as the primary regulatory tool for regulating publicly owned sewer systems part of its Sanitary Sewer Overflow Reduction Program mandated by the California Legislature. For addressing noncompliance, the State Water Board's Water Quality Enforcement Policy is used by the state and regional water board staff as necessary to address noncompliance.

SSMP Audits play a significant role in Water Board statewide prioritizations for compliance inspections, and individual enforcement actions for addressing noncompliance. Historic examples of compliance inspections, audits, and enforcement actions are available on the State Water Board Sanitary Sewer Systems Spill Reduction Program online library. "Self -reporting" data including individual spill reports certified by the City are hosted by the California Integrated Water Quality Management System (CIWQS) online. Additional detailed compliance and enforcement reports are also available online with individual spill data "flat files." U.S. EPA National Sewage Spill Enforcement Initiative
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) is charged with enforcing the federal Clean Water Act.

Since California has taken the lead with implementation of its own regulations for addressing Spills, the U.S. EPA relies on the SSS WDRs as the primary tool for evaluating compliance with the federal Clean Water Act. Historic records for collection system compliance inspections, compliance and enforcement cases and other information can be found using U.S. EPA' Enforcement and Compliance History Online (ECHO):. SSMP Audits play significant importance to U.S. EPA staff with implementation of a National Enforcement Initiative for collection systems to keep raw sewage out of the nation's waters.

APPENDIX 3 (SSSMP GAP ANALYSIS) : City of Beamont 2022 Page 6/41 D. CITY COLLECTION SYSTEM INFORMATION
The City of Beaumont owns and operates sanitary sewer collection system (collection system) serving a population of approximately 54,228 (18 square miles) and includes a total of 17,450 sewer connections. The collection system consists of 1 80 miles of gravity sewer mains, 20 miles of pressure ( "force main") sewers, 12 sewer lift stations and 23 miles of Brine Line. The collection system serves areas in (SSMP data) Counties. The City of Beaumont is located in Riverside County on the southern portion of California, east of the City of Banning. The City is located approximately 11 miles north of the City of Hemet, 5 miles east of the City of Banning, 12 miles east of City of Moreno Valley, and 7 miles southeast of the City of Yucaipa. The City currently encompasses an area greater than 26,000 acres, with an approximate population of 50,000 residents.

The City's service area is generally bound to the north by Brookside Avenue, to the east by Highlands Springs Avenue, and to the southwest of Monero Valley Freeway. The topography is generally steep, with slopes increasing from north to south toward the Interstate 1 0. Figure ES.2 displays the City's existing service area and the general plan boundary.

The City operates and maintains a wastewater collection system that covers the majority of developable area within Planning Boundary. Currently, the wastewater flows are conveyed to the City of Beaumont Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP).

APPENDIX 3 (SSSMP GAP ANALYSIS) : City of Beamont 2022 Page 7/41 Current information recorded in CIWQS2 for the City collection system is presented in Figure 3, below.

Region Place ID
8 631243
a
Place Name
Beaumont City CS
General Information
Place Type Place Address
Collection_System 550 East 6Th Beaumont, CA, 92223
Party Party type
299229 Person
551638 Person
Party Name
Kevin Dale Lee
Thaxton J. Van Belle
Place County
Riverside
Related Parties
Role
Is Onsite Manager For
Is Onsite Manager For
Is Onsite Manager For
Is A Data Submitter For
Classification
Relationship Start Date
03/29/2022
01/14/2019
Relationship End Date
560178 Person
Amer Jakher
11/03/2016
0 9/2 112 01 8
524414 Person
Jeremy Perales
Kimberley Dunbar
Allen Harrelson
08/26/2010
02/15/2019
524415 Person
Is Onsite Manager For
Is Onsite Manager For
Is Onsite Manager For
Owner
08/26/2010
03/01/2019
515102 Person
07/27/2009
0 8/0 112 01 0
332994 Person
Vincent Ferrini
11109/2007
11/19/2015
445907 Organization
119804 Person
Beaumont City
Michael A Pistilli
City Agency
01/24/2007
Is Onsite Manager For
04/04/2006
Total Related Parties: 9
a
Regulatory Measures
Reg Measure ID Reg Measure type Region Program Order No. WDID Effective Date Expiration Date Status Amended? 300636
Enrollee
8 SSOMUNILRG 2006-0003-DWQ 8SS010543 11/02/2006
Active N
Total Reg Measures: 1
Violations
Violation ID Occurred Date Violation type (-) Violation Description Corrective Action Status Classification Source Report displays most recent five years of violations. Refer to the Interactive Violation Report for more data.

Total Violations: 0
'Click the "(+/-) Violation Description" link to expand and contract the violation description. *As of 5/20/2010, the Water Board's Enforcement Policy requires that all violations be classified as 1, 2 or 3, with class 1 being the highest. Prior to this, violations were simply classified as Yes or No. It a 123 classification has been assigned to a violation that occurred before this date, that classification data will be displayed instead of the Yes/No data.

Priority Violations: 0
Violation types
0 Enf Id
373820
373815
Enf 1yRe
Admin Civil Liability
Admin Civil Liability
Enforcement Actions
Enf Order No
R8-2010-0022
R8-2010-0022
Effective Date
04/15/2010
11/19/2009
Status
Historical
Historical
Total Enf Actions: 2
inspection ID
Total Inspections: 0
InspegiaLlYpe
Inspections
Lead Inspector Actual End Date
Planned
Violations
Attachment
Last Inspection: None
The current report was generated with data as of 06/27/2022 Figure 3 — CIWQS detailed City information in CIWQS.
2 California Integrated Water Quality System (CIWQS) maintained by the State Water Board, available publicly at:
https://ciwgs.waterboards.ca.gov/ciwgs/readOnly/PublicReportSSOServlet?reportAction=criteria&reportld=sso main

APPENDIX 3 (SSSMP GAP ANALYSIS) : City of Beamont 2022

E. DATA SOURCES FOR GAP ANALYSIS
• 2021 City Draft Sewer Masterplan
• Onsite meetings with City staff and management.
• 2022 Pre -Inspection Questionnaire partially completed by City (see 2022 SSMP, Appendix 1) • CIWQS data and Spill data "flat files" posted on Spill Reduction Website3. • Collection system operational data.
• CIWQS operational performance/spill data and metrics. • Online and in -person interviews from City management and staff. 3 See https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water issues/programs/Spill/

APPENDIX 3 (SSSMP GAP ANALYSIS) : City of Beamont 2022

1. GOALS
SSS WDR Provisions
Citations
Provision D.1 3(i)
"Goal: The goal of the SSMP is to provide a plan and schedule to properly manage, operate, and maintain all parts of the sanitary sewer system. This will help reduce and prevent Spills, as well as mitigate any Spills that do occur." Provision D.3
"The Enrollee shall take all feasible steps to eliminate Spills. If an Spill does occur, the Enrollee shall take all feasible steps to contain and mitigate the impacts of an Spill." Provision D.4
"In the event of an Spill, the Enrollee shall take all feasible steps to prevent untreated or partially treated wastewater from discharging from storm drains into flood control channels or waters of the United States by blocking the storm drainage system and by removing the wastewater from the storm drains."
Provision D.8
"The Enrollee shall properly, manage, operate, and maintain all parts of the sanitary sewer system owned or operated by the Enrollee, and shall ensure that the system operators (including employees, contractors, or other agents) are adequately trained and possess adequate knowledge, skills, and abilities."
Violations

COMPLIANCE FINDINGS
Area of
Concern
Current Practices
Compliance

IDENTIFIED COMPLIANCE GAPS
Needs
Recommended Best Practices
•
Yes (V1.1)
(No current
goals
established)
• None
•
No Spill reduction
goals established.
•
•
City needs to set their
own SSMP program
goals.

City needs to ensure
they can measure
how goals are being
met or not.4
•
•
•
•
Reduce likelihood of Spills
through proper planning and
effective maintenance
programs.

Promptly and efficiently
respond to Spill events.

Mitigate the effects of Spills on
public health and environment.

Consider utilizing new Key
Performance Indicators (KPIs)
to measure effectiveness.

APPENDIX 3 (SSSMP GAP ANALYSIS) : City of Beamont 2022

2. ORGANIZATION
SSS WDR Provisions
Citations
Provision D.13 (ii)
"Organization: The SSMP must identify: The name of the responsible or authorized representative as described in Chapter J of this Order. The names and telephone numbers for management, administrative, and maintenance positions responsible for implementing specific measures in the SSMP program. The SSMP must identify lines of authority through an organization chart or similar document with a narrative explanation; and The chain of communication for reporting Spills, from receipt of a complaint or other information, including the person responsible for reporting Spills to the State and Regional Water Board and other agencies if applicable (such cis County Health Officer, County Environmental Health Agency, Regional Water Board, and/or State Office of Emergency Services (OES))."
Provision D.9
"The Enrollee shall allocate adequate resources for the operation, maintenance, and repair of its sanitary sewer system, by establishing a proper rate structure, accounting mechanisms, and Auditing procedures to ensure an adequate measure of revenues and expenditures. These procedures must be in compliance with applicable laws and regulations and comply with generally acceptable accounting practices." Provision D.1 1
"The Enrollee shall develop and implement a written Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP) and make it available to the State and/or Regional Water Board upon request. A copy of this document must be publicly available at the Enrollee's office and/or available on the Internet. This SSMP must be approved by the Enrollee's governing board at a public meeting."
Violations
C • M' LI NCE FIN
Area of Concern
• INGS
Current Practices

IDENTIFIED COMPLIANCE
Compliance Needs
GAPS
Best Practice
Recommendations
•
Yes (V2.1)
(Incomplete
assigned
responsibilities
for required
SSMP
elements).
• None
•
Some responsibilities
defined.
•
City needs to
established specific
assigned responsibilities
to each individual
element of the SSMP.
•
Consider utilizing new
Key Performance
Indicators (KPIs) to
measure
effectiveness.

APPENDIX 3 (SSSMP GAP ANALYSIS) : City of Beamont 2022

3. LEGAL AUTHORITY
SSS WDR Provisions
Citations
Provision D.1 3 (iii)
"(iii)Legal Authority: Each Enrollee must demonstrate, through sanitary sewer system use ordinances, service agreements, or other legally binding procedures, that it possesses the necessary legal authority to: Prevent illicit discharges into its sanitary sewer system (examples may include1/1, stormwater, chemical dumping, unauthorized debris and cut roots, etc.); Require that sewers and connections be properly designed and constructed; Ensure access for maintenance, inspection, or repairs for portions of the lateral owned or maintained by the Public Agency; Limit the discharge of fats, oils, and grease and other debris that may cause blockages, and Enforce any Inspection Violations of its sewer ordinances." C • M . LIANCE
FIN 1 INGS

IDENTIFIED COMPLIANCE
Compliance Needs
GAPS
Best Practice
Recommendations
Violations
Area of Concern
Current Practices
• None
•
Yes (AOC 3.1)
(Additional legal
review of
existing
authority should
be performed to
ensure
compliance with
Provision
D.1 3(iii) of SSS
WDRs.
• Some authority in place.
•
Additional review of legal
authority needed.
•
•
Consider utilizing new
Key Performance
Indicators (KPIs) to
measure effectiveness.

Annual review of City
codes and ordinances
to ensure adequate
legal authority
required.

APPENDIX 3 (SSSMP GAP ANALYSIS) : City of Beamont 2022

4. OPERATIONS/MAINTENANCE
SSS WDR Provisions
Citations
Provision D.1 3 (iv)
"(iv)Operation and Maintenance Program. The SSMP must include those elements listed below that are appropriate and applicable to the Enrollee's system: Maintain an up-to-date map of the sanitary sewer system, showing all gravity line segments and manholes, pumping facilities, pressure pipes and valves, and applicable stormwater conveyance facilities; Describe routine preventive operation and maintenance activities by staff and contractors, including a system for scheduling regular maintenance and cleaning of the sanitary sewer system with more frequent cleaning and maintenance targeted at known problem areas. The Preventative Maintenance (PM) program should have a system to document scheduled and conducted activities, such as work orders; Develop a rehabilitation and replacement plan to identify and prioritize system deficiencies and implement short-term and long- term rehabilitation actions to address each deficiency. The program should include regular visual and TV inspections of manholes and sewer pipes, and a system for ranking the condition of sewer pipes and scheduling rehabilitation. Rehabilitation and replacement should focus on sewer pipes that are at risk of collapse or prone to more frequent blockages due to pipe defects. Finally, the rehabilitation and replacement plan should include a capital improvement plan that addresses proper management and protection of the infrastructure assets. The plan shall include a time schedule for implementing the short- and long-term plans plus a schedule for developing the funds needed for the capital improvement plan; Provide training on a regular basis for staff in sanitary sewer system operations and maintenance, and require contractors to be appropriately trained; and Provide equipment and replacement part inventories, including identification of critical replacement parts." Provision D.3
"The Enrollee shall take all feasible steps to eliminate Spills. In the event that an Spill does occur, the Enrollee shall take all feasible steps to contain and mitigate the impacts of an Spill.

Provision D.4
"In the event of an Spill, the Enrollee shall take all feasible steps to prevent untreated or partially treated wastewater from discharging from storm drains into flood control channels or waters of the United States by blocking the storm drainage system and by removing the wastewater from the storm drains."
Provisions D.7/D.8/D.9
Mitigation of Spills, properly operate, maintain, manage, allocation of adequate resources.

APPENDIX 3 (SSSMP GAP ANALYSIS) : City of Beamont 2022

Violations
• Yes (V4.1)
(Lack of sufficient
resources for
proper
operations and
maintenance to
comply with
Provision D.8)
• Yes (V4.2)
(Insufficient
program in place
to ensure maps
are up to date).
• Yes (V 4.3)
(Lack of ongoing
tracking system
to document,
schedule and
prioritize and
routine system
maintenance).
• Yes (V 4.4)
(Lack of system
rehabilitation and
replacement
program to
prioritize and
schedule work to
address known
system
deficiencies).
• Yes (V 4.5)
(Insufficient
training and
documentation
on core
competencies).
• Yes (V 4.6)
(Insufficient
critical spare
parts inventory).

Area of Concern
• Yes (AOC 4.1)
Lack of existing
resources to
address ongoing
collection system
maintenance (total
of 4 maintenance
personnel to
operate over 1 80
miles of gravity
pipelines and XX
pump stations is
insufficient).
• Yes (AOC 4.2)
System spill
metrics in CIWQS
show significantly
higher metrics than
current regional
average
(~11,000 gallons
per spill since
2007).
• Yes (AOC 4.3)
Various operations
and maintenance
programs need to
be further
developed and/or
improved to help
reduce future spills
and violations).

Observed Practices

IDENTIFIED COMPLIANCE GAPS
Compliance Needs
Best Practice
Recommendations
• Established gravity
pipe cleaning program
in place.
• Established capital
improvement program
(CIP).
• Established lift station
inspection program
including specific lift
station deficiencies.
• New project underway
to upgrade existing lift
station flow metering.
• Established root control
program.
• Established monitoring
(Smart cover)
equipment in place.
• GIS system for
mapping accessible
from network.
• Develop condition
assessment
program.
• Establishment of
work order system
to schedule and
track ongoing
maintenance.
• Establishment
system to ensure
maps are up to
date and include all
required
information.
• Establishment of
routine CCTV
program and
condition
assessment.
• Establishment of
easement
maintenance
program.
• Establishment of
critical spare parts
inventory.
• Establishment of
standard operating
procedures.
• Establishment of
training program
utilizing SOPs.
• Establishments of
ongoing
repair/replacement
program to
complete identified
needs.
• Better tracking staff
time and labor.
• Consider utilizing new
Key Performance
Indicators (KPIs) to
measure effectiveness.

APPENDIX 3 (SSSMP GAP ANALYSIS) : City of Beamont 2022 Page 14/41

5. DESIGN/PERFORMANCE
SSS WDR Provisions
Citations
Provision D.13 (v)
"Design and Performance Provisions: Design and construction standards and specifications for the installation of new sanitary sewer systems, pump stations and other appurtenances; and for the rehabilitation and repair of existing sanitary sewer systems; and Procedures and standards for inspecting and testing the installation of new sewers, pumps, and other appurtenances and for rehabilitation and repair projects."
Operations and maintenance program.

Provision D.1 3(iv)
C • M' LI , NCE FIN 0 INGS

BEST PRACTICE RECOMMENDATIONS
Compliance Needs
Best Practice
Recommendations
Violations
Areas of Concern
Current Practices
• None
• None
•
Approximately two years
ago, the City upgraded
and adopted standards
and specifications for
new facilities.
•
•
TBD (needs more
information on specific
citations from Jack and
Thaxton covering 1/1,
prevent illicit discharges,
proper design of sewers,
etc.)
Need website/URL
including references
showing current inspection
practices (engineering).
•
•
•
•
Consider utilizing new
Key Performance
Indicators (KPIs) to
measure effectiveness.

Establish SOPs for new
construction inspections.

Post standard
specifications on
website.

Annual review of
standard specifications
to ensure current best
practices.

APPENDIX 3 (SSSMP GAP ANALYSIS) : City of Beamont 2022

6. OVERFLOW EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN
SSS WDR Provisions
Citations
Provision D.1 3 (vi)
"Overflow Emergency Response Plan - Each Enrollee shall develop and implement an overflow emergency response plan that identifies measures to protect public health and the environment.

At a minimum, this plan must include the following: Proper notification procedures so that the primary responders and regulatory agencies are informed of all Spills in a timely manner; A program to ensure an appropriate response to all overflows; Procedures to ensure prompt notification to appropriate regulatory agencies and other potentially affected entities (e.g. health agencies, Regional Water Boards, water suppliers, etc.) of all Spills that potentially affect public health or reach the waters of the State in accordance with the MRP. All Spills shall be reported in accordance with this MRP, the California Water Code, other State Law, and other applicable Regional Water Board WDRs or NPDES permit requirements. The SSMP should identify the officials who will receive immediate notification; Procedures to ensure that appropriate staff and contractor personnel are aware of and follow the Emergency Response Plan and are appropriately trained; Procedures to address emergency operations, such as traffic and crowd control and other necessary response activities; and A program to ensure that all reasonable steps are taken to contain and prevent the discharge of untreated and partially treated wastewater to waters of the United States and to minimize or correct any adverse impact on the environment resulting from the Spills, including such accelerated or additional monitoring as may be necessary to Determine the nature and impact of the discharge." Provisions
D.3, D.4, D.7, D.8
Reduce/prevent Spills/impacts to storm drains, proper O/M.

Violations
C • M .

Areas of

LI , NCE FIN'
Concern
INGS
Current Practices

IDENTIFIED COMPLIANCE
Compliance Needs
GAPS
Best Practice
Recommendations
• Yes (V6.1)
(Lack of OERP
and
implementation
to ensure
adequate
emergency
spill response
readiness).
• Yes (AOC 6.1)
Current
procedures for
notifying response
staff about
complaints is
insufficient to
ensure all calls
are received,
document and
addressed.
• Some field emergency
response procedures in
place.
• Establishment of effective
field response procedures
for spill response
activities.
• Establishment of new
contractor training
procedures.
• Consider utilizing
new Key
Performance
Indicators (KPIs) to
measure
effectiveness.
• Train personnel on
new OERP.
• Annual review of
OERP.
• Event debriefs for
all spills to
determine causes
and measure
effectiveness.

APPENDIX 3 (SSSMP GAP ANALYSIS) : City of Beamont 2022 Page 16/41

7. FATS, OILS AND GREASE CONTROL
SSS WDR Provisions
Citations
Provision D.13 (vii)
"FOG Control Program: Each Enrollee shall evaluate its service area to Determine whether a FOG control program is needed. If an Enrollee Determines that a FOG program is not needed, the Enrollee must provide justification for why it is not needed. If FOG is found to be a problem, the Enrollee must prepare and implement a FOG source control program to reduce the amount of these substances discharged to the sanitary sewer system. This plan shall include the following as appropriate: An implementation plan and schedule for a public education outreach program that promotes proper disposal of FOG; A plan and schedule for the disposal of FOG generated within the sanitary sewer system service area. This may include a list of acceptable disposal facilities and/or additional facilities needed to adequately dispose of FOG generated within a sanitary sewer system service area; The legal authority to prohibit discharges to the system and identify measures to prevent Spills and blockages caused by FOG; Requirements to install grease removal devices (such as traps or interceptors), design standards for the removal devices, maintenance requirements, BMP requirements, record keeping and reporting requirements; Authority to inspect grease producing facilities, enforcement authorities, and whether the Enrollee has sufficient staff to inspect and enforce the FOG ordinance; An identification of sanitary sewer system Chapters subject to FOG blockages and establishment of a cleaning maintenance schedule for each Chapter; and Development and implementation of source control measures for all sources of FOG discharged to the sanitary sewer system for each Chapter identified in (f) above." Reduce/prevent Spills/impacts to storm drains, proper O/M.

Provisions
D.3, D.4, D.8
Violations
• None
Area of Concern
• Yes (AOC 7.1)
City should
improve FOG
authority for
limiting discharges
of grease into
system).

Current Practices

IDENTIFIED COMPLIANCE GAPS
Compliance Needs
• Established FOG
reduction program in
place.
• Inspections of all Food
Service Establishments
(FSEs) at least once per
year.
• Established record
keeping practices for
FOG inspections and
enforcement.

Recommended Best
Practices
• Establish additional authority
and limits for reducing
potential future FOG impacts
to sewer system.
• Consider utilizing new
Key Performance
Indicators (KPIs) to
measure
effectiveness.
• Annual review of
FOG program to
check and measure
effectiveness; adjust
as necessary.
• Periodic CCTV
inspect City sewers
downstream of FSEs.

APPENDIX 3 (SSSMP GAP ANALYSIS) : City of Beamont 2022

8. SYSTEM EVALULATION/CAPACITY
SSS WDR Provisions
Citations
Provision D.1 3 (viii)
"System Evaluation and Capacity Assurance Plan: The Enrollee shall prepare and implement a capital improvement plan (CIP) that will provide hydraulic capacity of key sanitary sewer system elements for dry weather peak flow conditions, as well as the appropriate design storm or wet weather event. At a minimum, the plan must include Evaluation: Actions needed to evaluate those portions of the sanitary sewer system that are experiencing or contributing to a Spill discharge caused by hydraulic deficiency. The evaluation must provide estimates of peak flows (including flows from Spills that escape from the system) a spill with conditions similar to those causing overflow events, estimates of the capacity of key system components, hydraulic deficiencies (including components of the system with limiting capacity and the major sources that contribute to the peak flows a spill with overflow events; Design Criteria: Where design criteria do not exist or are deficient, undertake the evaluation identified in (a) above to establish appropriate design criteria; and capacity Enhancement Measures: The steps needed to establish a short- and long- term CIP to address identified hydraulic deficiencies, including prioritization, alternatives analysis, and schedules. The CIP may include increases in pipe size, I/1 reduction programs, increases and redundancy in pumping capacity, and storage facilities. The CIP shall include an implementation schedule and shall identify sources of funding. Schedule: The Enrollee shall develop a schedule of completion dates for all portions of the capital improvement program developed in (a) -(c) above.

This schedule shall be reviewed and updated consistent with the SSMP review and update requirements as described in Chapter D. 14."
Provisions
Proper O/M, adequate capacity for conveying base/peak flows.

D.8, D.8

COMPLIANCE FINDINGS
Area of Concern
Current Practices

BEST PRACTICE RECOMMENDATIONS
Violations
Improving Effectiveness
Recommended Best
Practices
• None
•
Yes. (AOC 8.1)
(draft Master
Plan should be
finalized and also
identify deficient
problem
locations,
budgets/projects
and commitments
short/long-term
to reduce future
spills).
•
•
•
•
Established draft
Sewer Masterplan in
2021.

Ongoing sewer rate
studies.

Utilization of
Geographic
Information System
(GIS).

Evaluating a combined
wastewater and
collection system
prioritization program
during budget cycles.
•
•
Finalize Masterplan.

Establish/track ongoing
progress for budgets,
projects completed
projects; collect/publish
data to track ongoing
progress of CIP.
•
Consider utilizing new
Key Performance
Indicators (KPIs) to
measure effectiveness.

APPENDIX 3 (SSSMP GAP ANALYSIS) : City of Beamont 2022

9. SSMP MEASUREMENT/MONITORING
SSS WDR Provisions
Citations
Provision D.13 (ix)
"System Evaluation and Capacity Assurance Plan: The Enrollee shall prepare and implement a capital improvement plan (CIP) that will provide hydraulic capacity of key sanitary sewer system elements for dry weather peak flow conditions, as well as the appropriate design storm or wet weather event. At a minimum, the plan must include: Evaluation: Actions needed to evaluate those portions of the sanitary sewer system that are experiencing or contributing to an Spill discharge caused by hydraulic deficiency. The evaluation must provide estimates of peak flows (including flows from Spills that escape from the system) a spill with conditions similar to those causing overflow events, estimates of the capacity of key system components, hydraulic deficiencies (including components of the system with limiting capacity) and the major sources that contribute to the peak flows a spill with overflow events; Design Criteria: Where design criteria do not exist or are deficient, undertake the evaluation identified in (a) above to establish appropriate design criteria; and capacity Enhancement Measures: The steps needed to establish a short- and long-term CIP to address identified hydraulic deficiencies, including prioritization, alternatives analysis, and schedules. The CIP may include increases in pipe size, 1/1 reduction programs, increases and redundancy in pumping capacity, and storage facilities. The CIP shall include an implementation schedule and shall identify sources of funding. Schedule: The Enrollee shall develop a schedule of completion dates for all portions of the capital improvement program developed in (a) -(c) above.

This schedule shall be reviewed and updated consistent with the SSMP review and update requirements as described in Chapter D. 14."
Provisions
Goals, proper O/M, reduce/prevent Spills/impacts to storm drains.

D.1 3(i), D.13(iv)
D.3, D.4

COMPLIANCE FINDINGS

BEST PRACTICE RECOMMENDATIONS
Compliance Needs
Recommended Best
Practices
Violations
Area of Concern
Current Practices
•
•
•
Yes (V9.1)
(no system in
place for
scheduling and
tracking
ongoing
maintenance).

Yes (V9.2)
(not monitoring
implementation
and measuring
effectiveness
and success of
preventative
maintenance).

Yes (V9.3)
(Not measuring
and monitoring
Spill trends).
• None
•
Staff checks indicate City is
meeting established response
time goals for spills.
•
Structured reviews
and established
records.
•
•
Consider utilizing
new Key
Performance
Indicators (KPIs)
to measure
effectiveness.

Event debriefs for
all spills to
determine causes
and measure
effectiveness.

APPENDIX 3 (SSSMP GAP ANALYSIS) : City of Beamont 2022

10. SSMP AUDITS
SSS WDR Provisions
Citations
Provision D.13 (x)
"As part of the SSMP, the Enrollee shall conduct periodic internal SSMP Gap Analysis, appropriate to the size of the system and the number of Spills. At a minimum, these SSMP Gap Analysis must occur every two years and a report must be prepared and kept on file. The audit shall focus on evaluating the effectiveness of the SSMP and the Enrollee's compliance with the SSMP requirements identified in this subchapter (D.13), including identification of any deficiencies in the SSMP and steps to correct them."
Provision D.1 3(ix)
Monitoring/Measurement/Program Performance (measure/assess O/M, Spill trends) C • M' LI ' NCE FIN 0 INGS

BEST PRACTICE RECOMMENDATIONS
Compliance Needs
Recommended Best
Practices
Violations
Area of Concern
Current Practices
•
Yes (V10.1)
(Lack of
periodic
ongoing
completed
SSMP Audits,
findings and
incorporation of
data into SSMP)
• None
• No comments.
•
•
Document work
programs, compliance
status and effectiveness
for each SSMP element
with future SSMP
Audit(s).

Outline SSMP Audit
commitments in new
City SSMP.
•
Consider utilizing
new Key
Performance
Indicators (KPIs) to
measure
effectiveness.

APPENDIX 3 (SSSMP GAP ANALYSIS) : City of Beamont 2022

11. COMMUNICATION
SSS WDR Provisions
Citations
Provision D.1 3 (xi)
"Communication Program — The Enrollee shall communicate on a regular basis with the public on the development, implementation, and performance of its SSMP. The communication system shall provide the public the opportunity to provide input to the Enrollee as the program is developed and implemented.

The Enrollee shall also create a plan of communication with systems that are tributary and/or satellite to the Enrollee's sanitary sewer system."
Provision D.13(vi)
OERP
C • M' LIANCE FIN 0 INGS

BEST PRACTICE RECOMMENDATIONS
Improving Effectiveness
Improving Resilience
Violations
Area of Concern Current Practices
•
Yes (V 11.1)
(no existing
communication
program in
place).
• None
• No comments
•
•
Ensure public has
opportunity to comment
on SSMP.

Improve procedures
between satellite
sewers and private
systems.
•
Consider utilizing new
Key Performance
Indicators (KPIs) to
measure
effectiveness.

APPENDIX 3 (SSSMP GAP ANALYSIS) : City of Beamont 2022

12. SSMP IMPLEMENTATION
SSS WDR Provisions
Citations
Provision D.1 1
"The Enrollee shall develop and implement a written Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP) and make it available to the State and/or Regional Water Board upon request. A copy of this document must be publicly available at the Enrollee's office and/or available on the Internet. This SSMP must be approved by the Enrollee's governing board at a public meeting." Provisions D.3,D.4 D.7
D.8, Amended MRP
Reduce/prevent Spills/impacts to storm drains, properly operate, maintain, manage, compliance with Monitoring and Reporting requirements.

COMPLIANCE FINDINGS

BEST PRACTICE RECOMMENDATIONS
Violations
Area of
Concern
Current Practices
Improving Effectiveness
Improving Resilience
•
Yes. (V 12.1)
Lack of SSMP
implementation
across most work
program).
• None
•
Most work
programs need
to be improved
and tracked to
improve spill
reduction/SSMP
effectiveness.
•
Additional documentation,
procedures, training and
implementation of work
programs needed.
•
•
Consider utilizing new Key
Performance Indicators (KPIs) to
measure effectiveness.

Consider new ways of tracking
data continuously to measure
effectiveness and document
improvements over time.

APPENDIX 3 (SSSMP GAP ANALYSIS) : City of Beamont 2022

13. TRAINING/STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES (SOPs)
SSS WDR Provisions
Citations
Provisions D.8, D.3,
D.4, D.1 3(iv), D.13(vi)
Properly operate, maintain, manage, reduce/prevent Spills/impacts to storm drains, proper O/M, OERP.

Provision D.1 3(vi)
"Overflow Emergency Response Plan - Each Enrollee shall develop and implement an overflow emergency response plan that identifies measures to protect public health and the environment.

At a minimum, this plan must include the following: Proper notification procedures so that the primary responders and regulatory agencies are informed of all Spills in a timely manner; A program to ensure an appropriate response to all overflows; Procedures to ensure prompt notification to appropriate regulatory agencies and other potentially affected entities (e.g. health agencies, Regional Water Boards, water suppliers, etc.) of all Spills that potentially affect public health or reach the waters of the State in accordance with the MRP. All Spills shall be reported in accordance with this MRP, the California Water Code, other State Law, and other applicable Regional Water Board WDRs or NPDES permit requirements. The SSMP should identify the officials who will receive immediate notification; Procedures to ensure that appropriate staff and contractor personnel are aware of and follow the Emergency Response Plan and are appropriately trained; Procedures to address emergency operations, such as traffic and crowd control and other necessary response activities; and A program to ensure that all reasonable steps are taken to contain and prevent the discharge of untreated and partially treated wastewater to waters of the United States and to minimize or correct any adverse impact on the environment resulting from the Spills, including such accelerated or additional monitoring as may be necessary to determine the nature and impact of the discharge." C • M' LI A NCE FIN ' INGS

BEST PRACTICE RECOMMENDATIONS
Improving Effectiveness
Improving Resilience
Violations
Area of Concern
Current Practices
Yes. (V 13.1)
Existing training
program
inadequate).
• None
• No comments
• TBD
• Consider utilizing new
Key Performance
Indicators (KPIs) to
measure
effectiveness.

APPENDIX 3 (SSSMP GAP ANALYSIS) : City of Beamont 2022

14. SPILL DISCHARGES
SSS WDR Provisions
Citations
Amended MRP
"The Enrollee shall develop and implement a written Sewer System Management Plan and make it available to the State and/or Regional Water Board upon request. A copy of this document must be publicly available at the Enrollee's office and/or available on the Internet. This SSMP must be approved by the Enrollee's governing board at a public meeting." Provisions D.3,D.4,
D.7, D.8, Amended
Reduce/prevent Spills/impacts to storm drains, properly operate, maintain, manage, compliance with Monitoring and Reporting requirements.

C • M' LIANCE FIN ' INGS

BEST PRACTICE RECOMMENDATIONS
Improving Effectiveness
Improving Resilience
Violations
•
Area of
Concern
Current Practices
Yes (V14.1)
The City certified
it discharged
214,260 gallons
of sewage to
surface waters
since 2007.
• None
• No comments
•
Implement additional
improvements to be
outlined in SSMP for
further increasing existing
spill reduction
performance.
•
Consider utilizing new
Key Performance
Indicators (KPIs) to
measure effectiveness
and make necessary
adjustments to ongoing
O/M program over
time.

APPENDIX 3 (SSSMP GAP ANALYSIS) : City of Beamont 2022

15. SPILL NOTIFICATION
SSS WDR Provisions
Citations
Amended MRP,
"For any Category 1 Spill greater than or equal to 1,000 gallons that results in a discharge to a Chapter B.
surface water or spilled in a location where it probably will be discharged to surface water, either directly or by way of a drainage channel or MS4, the enrollee shall, as soon as possible, but not later than two (2) hours after (A) the enrollee has knowledge of the discharge, (B) notification is possible, and (C) notification can be provided without substantially impeding cleanup or other emergency measures, notify the Cal OES and obtain a notification control number. 2. To satisfy notification requirements for each applicable Spill, the enrollee shall provide the information requested by Cal OES before receiving a control number. Spill information requested by Cal OES may include:
i. Name of person notifying Cal OES and direct return phone number. ii. Estimated Spill volume discharged (gallons).
iii. If ongoing, estimated Spill discharge rate (gallons per minute). iv. Spill Incident Description:
a. Brief narrative.
b. On -scene point of contact for additional information (name and cell phone number). c. Date and time enrollee became aware of the Spill.
d. Name of sanitary sewer system agency causing the Spill. e. Spill.

Indication of whether the Spill has been contained.
vi. Indication of whether surface water is impacted.
vii. Name of surface water impacted by the Spill, if applicable. viii. Indication of whether a drinking water supply is or may be impacted by the Spill. ix. Any other known Spill impacts.
x. Spill incident location (address, Agency, state, and zip code).

3. Following the initial notification to Cal OES and until such time that an enrollee certifies the Spill report in the CIWQS Online Spill Database, the enrollee shall provide updates to Cal OES regarding substantial changes to the estimated volume of untreated or partially treated sewage discharged and any substantial change(s) to known impact(s)." C • M . LIANCE FIN
Violations
I INGS

BEST PRACTICE RECOMMENDATIONS
Improving Effectiveness
Improving Resilience
Area of
Concern
Current Practices
•
Yes (V 15.1)
Some missed
notification
timeframes
have been
missed
resulting in
violations.
• None
• No comments
•
Development and
implementation of a new
standard operating
procedure (SOP) for spill
reporting to avoid future
noncompliance.
•
Consider utilizing new
Key Performance
Indicators (KPIs) to
measure effectiveness.

APPENDIX 3 (SSSMP GAP ANALYSIS) : City of Beamont 2022

16. SPILL REPORTING
SSS WDR Provisions
Citations
Amended MRP
"The Enrollee shall develop and implement a written Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP) and make it available to the State and/or Regional Water Board upon request. A copy of this document must be publicly available at the Enrollee's office and/or available on the Internet. This SSMP must be approved by the Enrollee's governing board at a public meeting." Provisions D.3, D.4,
D.7, D.8,
Amended MRP
Reduce/prevent Spills/impacts to storm drains, properly operate, maintain, manage, compliance with Monitoring and Reporting requirements.

Prohibition 1
All Spills reaching waters of the United States are prohibited.

COMPLIANCE FINDINGS
Violations
Area of Concern

BEST PRACTICE RECOMMENDATIONS
Current
Practices
Improving
Effectiveness
Improving Resilience
•
Yes (V16.1)
Some missed
reporting timelines
have been missed
resulting in
violations.
• None
•
Call tree and
basic forms in
place.
•
•
Improve field data
collection and other
response forms in new
SSMP.

Development and
implementation of a
new standard
operating procedure
(SOP) for spill
reporting to avoid
future noncompliance.
•
Consider utilizing new Key
Performance Indicators (KPIs)
to measure effectiveness.

APPENDIX 3 (SSSMP GAP ANALYSIS) : City of Beamont 2022

17. SPILL MONITORING
SSS WDR Provisions
Citations
Amended MRP
"The Enrollee shall develop and implement a written Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP) and make it available to the State and/or Regional Water Board upon request. A copy of this document must be publicly available at the Enrollee's office and/or available on the Internet. This SSMP must be approved by the Enrollee's governing board at a public meeting." Provisions D.3, D.4,
D.7,
D.8, Amended MRP
Reduce/prevent Spills/impacts to storm drains, properly operate, maintain, manage, compliance with Monitoring and Reporting requirements.

C • M ' LIANCE FIN INGS

BEST PRACTICE RECOMMENDATIONS
Improving Effectiveness
Improving Resilience
Violations
Area of
Concern
Current Practices
•
Yes (V 17.1)
City lacks large spill
(>50,000 gallons)
monitoring program
to ensure readiness.
• None
• No comments
•
•
Development of new SOP
to avoid future non-
compliance.

Improve calculations and
data to improve
supporting evidence for
spill start time, volume,
and final spill findings ;
ensure all data matches
fields certified in CIWQS.
•
Consider utilizing new
Key Performance
Indicators (KPIs) to
measure effectiveness.

SEWER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN (SSMP)
BEAUMONR N 1 AT
A L 1 F O
Appendix 4 — City Spill Performance/Metric Report by Fischer Compliance LLC DEC 2022
A-4 City of Beaumont

A. SPILL TRENDS AND COMPLIANCE BENCHMARKS
This section presents the City trends in Spills since 2007 and provides some information to allow comparing the City Spills with other collection systems in the Santa ana Regional Water Board area.

Information obtained from the Amended MRP provides definitions of the different Spill categories shown in Figure 4, below.

CATEGORIES
CATEGORY 1
CATEGORY 2
CATEGORY 3

PRIVATE LATERAL
SEWAGE

DISCHARGE (PLSD)
DEFINITIONS [see Section A an page 5 of Order 2006-0003-DWQ, for Sanitary Sewer Overflow (SSO) definition]
Discharges of untreated or partially treated wastewater of any volume resulting from an enrollee's sanitary sever system failure or flow condition that:
• Reach surface water and!or reach a drainage channel tributary to a surface water; or
• Reach a Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) and are not fully captured and returned to the sanitary sewer system or not otherwise captured and disposed of properly. Any volume of wastewater not recovered from the MS4 is considered to have reached surface water unless the storm drain system discharges to a dedicated storm water or groundwater infiltration basin (e.g., infiltration pit, percolation pond).

Discharges of untreated or partially treated wastewater of 1,000 gallons or greater resulting from an enrollee's sanitary sewer system failure or flow condition that do not reach surface water, a drainage channel; or a MS4 unless the entire SSC discharged to the storm drain system is fully recovered and disposed of properly.

All other discharges of untreated or partially treated wastewater resulting from an enrollee's sanitary sever system failure or flow condition.

Discharges of untreated or partially treated wastewater resulting from blockages or other problems within a privately owned sewer lateral connected to the enrollee's sanitary sewer system or from other private sewer assets. PLSDs that the enrollee becomes aware of may be voluntarily reported to the California Integrated Water Quality System (CIWQS) Online SSO Database.

Figure 4.1 — SSS WDRs Spill and Private Lateral Sewage Discharge (PLSD) definitions'.
' See Water Quality Order No. 2013 -0058 -EXEC.

City Sanitary Sewer Overflows (2007-2022)
Figures 4.2-4.15 below present detailed data and charts for the City since 2007 including information the City spill performance with other collection systems within the Santa Ana Regional Water Board area.

Agency
Beaumont City
REGION
V a
�8
Count of SPILL TYPE SPILL VOL Count of SPILL VOL REACH SURF SPILL VOL REACH SURF SPILL VOL REA( 52 596022
Count of CAT by Year and CAT
CAT•1 2
20 15 10
0 mill1■.. Ma.
2005 2010 2015 2020 2325
Year
Agency: SSO Rate Per 100 Mlles by Year
06 0 0.6
a

0.4 rc
N
N

0.2 0.0
2010
2015
Year
2020
52 241660
Reglor SSO Rate Per 100 Miles by Year

0.5 2
N
° 0.4 •
rn
a

0.3 1/1/2007 5/11/2022
0 Spill Volume
Spill Volume
0 42900000
0 0
State SSO Rate Per 100 Miles by Year
2010
2015
Year
2020
2010
2015
Year
2020
Figure 4.2 — City Spill trends and metrics (by number of Spills) since 2007.

Date
Agency 1/1/2007 5/11/2022
Beaumont City
v
0 0 42900000
Spill Volume Per Capita by Year Spill Recovered Percent by SPILL TYPE 7 6
1 6.628

0.244 0.292

0.002 mu 0.004 in 0.005 • 0.018
0 2010 2015 2020
Year SPILL TYPE

1.408

0.5 Figure 4.3 — City Spill trends and metrics (by volume of Spills) since 2007.

Agency
Beaumont City

SPILL CAUSE
All

SPILL CAUSE
Count of SPILL CAUSE
v
v
SPILL CAUSES by SPILL VOLUME

SPILL VOL
02M
01M
1/1/007 5/11/2022
0 0 42400000
0 OOM ,,,■__
o0 ,Qt° 041 re•Cy, s°a 10` a,�. �P� ° re�a, ��5 °�:. ,+ ��y 5 o eta ��G vi t`�i zo op 4,,,e �G° A.6e bps r.4 �a en<<
51 OQ° aAe � SlSQ QS e`e� t° Den \ °de
Q� Qe Oaf q� Ofi Ptic e G�ea

SPELL CAUSE
Figure 4.4 — City spill causes and volumes data (since 2007).

Date
Agency
Beaumont City
v
1/1/2007 5/11/2022
0 Count of WHERE FAILURE OCCUR by WHERE FAILURE OCCUR
12 Li • 10
0 w
_ • 8
v_
w
w ▪ b
x
0 • 4
0 0
2 13
11 10
4 1
3 1
2 116
Main Gravity Other Air Relief Pump Manhole Force Main
Mainline (specify Valve Station -Ca..
below) (ARV)/51o..,
Valve (BOVj

WHERE FAILURE OCCUR
Figure 4.5 — City spill data by asset failure location (since 2007).

fount of CAT by Year, CAT and Agency 1
CAT II0203
Beaumont City
20 15
Q
° 10
0 U
S
0 Cypress City
Fountain Valley City
20 15
U
0 10
0 U
5 ■.■
Lake Hemet Municipal Water District
1 • I IIN M.M.
2010 201`` 2000 _01 ] 0020
Year ea
Figure 4.6 — City Counts of spills compared with other agencies in region (since 2007)

Agency • Beaumont City 'Cypress Clty •=ountain Valley City "Lake Hemet Municipal Water District Figure 4.7 — City spill rates compared with other agencies in region (since 2007)

spill Volume by Year and Agency
Agency @Beaumont City •Cypress City @Fountain Valley City @Lake Hemet Municipal Water Dlstrlct 200K
E
1i0K
OK
vain 01 Iuacc
2010 2020
Year
Figure 4.8 — City spill volume compared with other agencies in region (since 2007)

spill Volume Per Capita by Year and Agency
Agency *Beaumont City (Cypress City •Fountain Valley City •Lake Hemet Municipal Water District 7 U • 4
2 o 3
>
N
2015
70711
Year
Figure 4.8 — City spill volume per capita compared with other agencies in region (since 2007)

Spll Recovered Percent by SPILL TYPE and Agency
Agency "Beaumont Clty 'Cypress City 'Fountain Valley City "Lake Hemet Municipal Water District 19 0.8

0.2 0.0
2 SPILL TYPE
3 1
Figure 4.9 — City spill recovery percentage compared with other agencies in region (since 2007).

SPILL CAUSES by NUMBER
Agency 'Beaumont City •Cypress City /Fauntaln Valley City I Lake Hemet Municipal Water District 20 15
1 1
0 .1
H , 1 ���`1,`e , � 4� y�ce`a, °�0(y1 ��a,1s4¢ Cep` t'4�95 4�a`1,`e a� e1. 5�a9s °(+t 'VI.° s�o °P a�da;1� cNI`
e`ec 1Qan1e t 0 de�cf aye v O �QSlat c'c Oe� o a,J`� ` ��� 1 F °
e y d,.')<4' Gt�a �0 V'61
,LSD 5�a�5� obi' �
0- q.,•1)43 1�q��`0 PeZ.1. /
�a\$' Syaa
e14/
0�
fia9
n'a

SPILL CAUSE
Figure 4.10 — City Spill data by asset failure location compared with other agencies in region (since 2007).

PILL CAUSES by SPILL VOLUME
Agency •Beaumont City 'Cypress City 'Fountain Valley City "Lake Hemet Municipal Water District

SPILL VOL
200K
100K
50K
OK
e e 1
nO\ I °�1Jt Soe�esa cSCo 14�
a„,95 �o \Qio�1e� r Pe eaio ret ,
o lati `5Q
Q Q Spa '01,c5 .t, c, Q�
r`
n1
1 1
a�`on Atio\5 AO X40
P�ti iii ote�o a� a (,o
0,
���t•D \c$ e t 5�l
a
0 Jetq 0
yak
Oa, �5S�e1�et

SPILL CAUSE
,De
Figure 4.11 — City spill causes by volume compared with other agencies in region (since 2007).

Count of WHERE FAILURE OCCUR by WHERE FAILURE OCCUR and Agency ma Agency' =aumont City 'Cypress City 0fountaln Valley Clty'Lake Hemet Municipal Water District 13 4
3 3 3
i
1 1
Gravity Mainline Other (specify Air Relief Valve Manhole Pump Force Main Lower Lateral below) (ARV)/Blow-Off Station -Controls
Value (BD!)

WHERE FAILURE OCCUR
Figure 4.12 — City spills by where failure occurred compared with other agencies in region (since 2007).

Date v
Agency
Multiple selections V
Count of WHERE FAILURE OCCUR by WHERE FAILURE OCCUR and Agency Agency !Beaumont City •Cypress City Fountain Valley City Lake Hemet Municipal Water District Count of WHERE FAILURE OCCUR
5 4
3 1
0 5
5 1
1 i
1 1
1 Main Other (specify Gravity Mainline Air Relief Valve Manhole below) (AM/Blow-Off
Valve (BOV)

WHERE FAILURE OCCUR
1/1/2007 8/12/2022
0 SPILL VOL
D 42900000
0 0

SPILL TYPE
1 2
3 Figure 4.13 — City asset failure location for Category 1 compared with other agencies in region (since 2007).

SEARCH CRITERIA: [REFINE SEARCH] [NEW SEARCH] [GLOSSARY] Date Range: Start_Date (10/28/2021) End_Date (10/28/2022) DRILLDOWN HISTORY: [GO BACK TO LISTING OF COLLECTION SYSTEMS] Beaumont City CS
Agency: Beaumont City
General Information
Region Place ID Place Name CS Category Place Address
8 631243 Beaumont City CS Municipal (Public) 550 East 6Th Beaumont, CA, 92223 0 Collection System Spill Summary
EI 0
Place County
Riverside
Operational Indices: Beaumont City CS
Spill Rate Indite (spills/1OOmi/yr)
Category 1
Category 2
Category 3
Mainlines
Laterals
Not Specified
Mainlines
Laterals
Not Specified
Mainlines
Laterals
Not Specified
Beaumont
City CS

0.0 N/A

0.0 2.56
N/A

0.0 0.51
N/A

0.0 State
Municipal
(Public)
Average

3.43 N/A

1.6 -

2.41 N/A

5.2 -

5.28 N/A

1.86 Region
Municipal
Average

0.58 N/A

0.0 1.46
N/A

0.39 0.66
N/A

0.23 Net Volume Spills Indite (gallons/1000 Capita/yr)
Category 1
Category 2
Category 3
Mainlines
Laterals
Not Specified
Mainlines
Laterals
Not Specified
Mainlines
Laterals
Not Specified
Beaumont
City CS

0.0 N/A

0.0 1449.71
N/A

0.0 10.84
N/A

0.0 State
Municipal
(Public)
Average
1518.02
N/A
18661.62
503.74
N/A
2713.18

91.83 N/A

17.81 Region
Municipal
Average

15.06 N/A
0_0
172.88
N/A
209.49

0.9 N/A

0.09 Figure 4.14 - CIWQS spill performance data for City compared with other agencies in region and state (since 2007).

SEWER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN (SSMP)
BEAUMONR N 1 AT
A L 1 F O
Appendix 5 — List of City Certified Spill Reports in CIWQS DEC 2022
A-5 City of Beaumont

2/9/23, 4:48 AM https://ciwgs.waterboards.ca.gov/ciwgs/readOnly/PublicReportSSOServlet?reportld=sso_overview region&reportAction=generate&...

SSO Public Report - Detail Page
Here is the detail page of your SSO public report search for the selected region, responsible agency, or collection system. These results correspond to the following search criteria:

SEARCH CRITERIA: [REFINE SEARCH]
• Agency (Beaumont City)
• Spill Type (sso_cat1_2_3)
The table below presents important details for all sewage discharge locations, as submitted through individual SSO reports, which meet the search criteria selected. If data is not shown for a particular field, it means the Enrollee did not provide the information and was not required to do so. To view the entire SSO report for a specific sewage discharge location, please select the corresponding EVENT ID.

DRILLDOWN HISTORY:

REGION: 8
Vol of
EVENT Responsible Collection SSO SSO Vol of SSO
—Region Start Date Reached SSO Failure Point WDID
ID — Agency System Category_ Vol Recovered Surface
Water
728717 8
728782 8
730624 8
731709 8
734948 8
735718 8
735896 8
741977 8
Beaumont Beaumont Category
City City CS 3
Beaumont Beaumont Category
City City CS 2
Beaumont Beaumont Category
City City CS 1
Beaumont Beaumont Category
City City CS 3
Beaumont Beaumont Category
City City CS 2
Beaumont Beaumont Category
City City CS 1
Beaumont Beaumont Category
City City CS 1
Beaumont Beaumont Category
City City CS 3
SSO
2007-04-
10 100 50 0 Main 8SS010543
10:00:00.0
2008-02-
09 36,000 0 0 Main 8SS010543
09:00:00.0
2008-02-
10 3,750 0 3,750 Lfit station 8SS010543
10:40:00.0
2009-01-
11 200 0 0 8SS010543
13:30:00.0
2009-03-
12 30,000 10,000 0 Pump station force main 8SS010543
08:00:00.0
2009-03-
29 50,000 30,000 1,000 8SS010543
00:00:00.0
2009-04-
02 30,000 20,000 8,000 8SS010543
08:00:00.0
2009-07-
22 500 450 0 Main 8SS010543
12:22:00.0
Beaumont Beaumont Category 2009-07-
741993 8 City City CS 2 22 5,000 0 0
06:00:00.0
Failure of lift station caused by
3/8" line that comes from
discharge side of pump
breaking. Water filled drywell
either overwhelming or failing
the sump pump. water level in
drywell rose to level of shorting
out electrical components in
drywell, including controls, and
communication equipment.

Both wetwell and drywell filled
to overflowing.
8SS010543
Beaumont Beaumont Category 2009-07-
741994 8 City City CS 3 25 650 0 0 Main 8SS010543
06:00:00.0
Beaumont Beaumont Category 2009-08-
743409 8 City City CS 1 18 1,500 0 1,500 8SS010543
15:00:00.0
Beaumont Beaumont Category 2009-08- (ARV) Relief valve in line for 743480 8 City City CS 1 20 2,000 0 2,000 pump station prior to force main 8SS010543 06:00:00.0 (discharge side of pump)
Beaumont Beaumont Category 2009-09-
744193 8 City City CS 1 02 3,000 0 3,000 8SS010543
00:00:00.0
744978 8 Beaumont Beaumont Category 2009-09- 10,000 0 10,000 Lift Station 8SS010543 City City CS 1 22

https://ciwgs.waterboards.ca.gov/ciwgs/readOnly/PublicReportSSOServlet?reportld=sso_overview_region&reportAction=generate&region=8&agency= ... 1/3

2/9/23, 4:48 AM https://ciwgs.waterboards.ca.gov/ciwgs/readOnly/PublicReportSSOServlet?reportld=sso_overview region&reportAction=generate&... 00:00:00.0
2009-11-
18 50 0 0 Main 8SSO10543
08:30:00.0
2009-11-
19 250 240 10 Main 8SSO10543
14:00:00.0
2009-12-
03 350 300 0 Main 8SSO10543
13:00:00.0
2009-12-
18 195,750 300 195,450 8SSO10543
11:30:00.0
2009-12-
24 150 125 0 8SSO10543
11:00:00.0
746863 8
746905 8
747311 8
747666 8
747977 8
748384 8
Beaumont Beaumont Category
City City CS 3
Beaumont Beaumont Category
City City CS 1
Beaumont Beaumont Category
City City CS 3
Beaumont Beaumont Category
City City CS 1
Beaumont Beaumont Category
City City CS 3
Beaumont Beaumont Category
City City CS 3
2010-01-
12 12:00:00.0
ARV bleed off valve connecting
100 95 0 boot failed spraying some of the 8SSO10543
water onto surface at lift station
instead of returning it to wetwell
Beaumont Beaumont Category 2010-05-
752164 8 City City CS 2 03 12,816 12,000 0 Lift station force main 8SSO10543 09:06:00.0
Beaumont Beaumont Category 2010-06-
753837 8 City City CS 3 23 300 225 0 8SSO10543
07:00:00.0
Beaumont Beaumont Category 2010-06-
754320 8 City City CS 3 30 150 0 0 Main 8SSO10543
05:00:00.0
Beaumont Beaumont Category 2010-10-
758145 8 City City CS 3 25 425 350 0 Main 8SSO10543
07:00:00.0
Beaumont Beaumont Category 2011-01-
760181 8 City City CS 1 04 200 0 200 Main 8SSO10543
10:00:00.0
Beaumont Beaumont Category 2012-05
781525 8 City City CS 3 21 200 150 0 Main 8SSO10543
15:23:00.0
Beaumont Beaumont Category 2012-07-
783295 8 City City CS 3 10 700 0 0 Main 8SSO10543
12:22:00.0
Beaumont Beaumont Category 2013-01-
790496 8 City City CS 2 17 13,211 13,211 0 Main 8SSO10543 14:15:00.0
Beaumont Beaumont Category 2014-05-
806013 8 City City CS 3 08 270 270 0 Manhole 8SSO10543
12:20:00.0
2017 -01 -
Beaumont Beaumont Category At lateral elbow connection at 831985 8 City City CS 1 21 7,500 0 7,500 manhole at 22 feet depth. 8SSO10543 13:30:00.0
Beaumont Beaumont Category 2017-07-
837527 8 City City CS 2 23 3,000 0 0 Gravity Mainline 8SSO10543 21:35:00.0
Beaumont Beaumont Category 2017-11-
841577 8 City City CS 1 13 4,650 0 4,650 Gravity Mainline 8SSO10543 13:02:00.0
Beaumont Beaumont Category 2017-11-
841745 8 City City CS 3 20 700 700 0 Gravity Mainline 8SSO10543 16:44:00.0
Beaumont Beaumont Category 2018-04-
846338 8 City City CS 1 08 3,000 1,000 1,000 Gravity Mainline 8SSO10543 11:46:00.0
Beaumont Beaumont Category 2018-04-
846494 8 City City CS 1 13 700 200 500 Gravity Mainline 8SSO10543 06:19:00.0
2018 -07 -
Beaumont Beaumont Category Air Relief Valve (ARV)/Blow-Off 849772 8 City City CS 1 29 3,200 0 200 Valve (BOV) 8SSO10543 09:12:00.0
Beaumont Beaumont Category 2019-06-
858853 8 City City CS 3 06 750 150 0 Gravity Mainline 8SSO10543 15:30:00.0
Beaumont Beaumont Category 201910
862108 8 City City CS 3 14 250 225 0 Gravity Mainline 8SSO10543 14:00:00.0
867086 8 Beaumont Beaumont Category 2020-05- 70 65 0 Gravity Mainline 8SSO10543 City City CS 3 Pa e 362 of 1116
https://ciwgs.waterboards.ca.gov/ciwgs/readOnly/Pu bl icReportSSOServlet?reportld=sso_overview_region&reportAction=generate&region=8&agency=... 2/3

2/9/23, 4:48 AM https://ciwgs.waterboards.ca.gov/ciwgs/readOnly/PublicReportSSOServlet?reportld=sso_overview region&reportAction=generate&... 12:00:00.0
Beaumont Beaumont Category 2020-05-
867138 8 City City CS 3 30 100 90 0 Pump Station -Controls 8SSO10543 13:50:00.0
Beaumont Beaumont Category 2020-07-
867754 8 City City CS 2 02 19,350 500 0 Pump Station -Controls 8SSO10543 11:24:00.0
2020 -11 -
Beaumont Beaumont Category Contractor's actions over -filled 870400 8 City City CS 1 13 5,000 1,500 2,500 gravity thickener 8SSO10543 08:40:00.0
Beaumont Beaumont Category 202011-
870539 8 City City CS 2 20 37,800 25,600 0 Gravity Mainline 8SSO10543 11:00:00.0
Beaumont Beaumont Category 2021-05-
874134 8 City City CS 2 18 7,080 4,000 0 Pump Station -Controls 8SSO10543 18:15:00.0
Beaumont Beaumont Category 2021-10-
877323 8 City City CS 2 31 57,750 0 0 Gravity Mainline 8SSO10543 12:00:00.0
Beaumont Beaumont Category 2021-12-
878088 8 City City CS 2 14 4,000 1,000 0 Gravity Mainline 8SSO10543 09:50:00.0
Beaumont Beaumont Category 2021-12-
878250 8 City City CS 2 22 7,500 100 0 Manhole 8SSO10543 09:55:00.0
Beaumont Beaumont Category 2022-03
880403 8 City City CS 3 15 600 0 0 Force Main 8SSO10543 11:00:00.0
2022 -06 -
Beaumont Beaumont Category Air Relief Valve (ARV)/Blow-Off 881700 8 City City CS 2 10 1,200 450 0 Valve (BOV) 8SSO10543 08:00:00.0
Beaumont Beaumont Category 2022-10-
883730 8 City City CS 2 04 13,440 2,100 0 Gravity Mainline 8SSO10543 06:04:00.0
The current report was generated with data as of: Thursday, February 09, 2023

https://ciwgs.waterboards.ca.gov/ciwgs/readOnly/Pu bl icReportSSOServlet?reportld=sso_overview_region&reportAction=generate&region=8&agency=... 3/3

SEWER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN (SSMP)
BEAUMONR N 1 AT
A L 1 F O
Appendix 6 — Board Presentation for Certification of 2022 SSMP DEC 2022
A-6 City of Beaumont

BEAUMONT
91, I- I- Jo L9C abed
—CALIFORNIA—
City of Beaumont
Cu
FISCHER«<

COACPLIANCE

PRACTICES THAT COMPLY
J ames Fischer P.E.

Fis cher Compliance LLC
R etir ed State Water Board
NPDES Inspe ctor
Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP) Board Presenta-Uo
Feb 28, 2023ar
3230 Arena Blvd, STE 245, Sacramento, CA 95834 ([email protected])

1 1. Background
-.0

2. Findings
° 3. Conclusions

BEAUMONT

CALIFORNIA
()
FISCHER,x
CO,*d'LIANCE

PRACTICES THAT COMPLY
SSMP Board Presentation (2/28/223)'

V I N d 0
1NOWflV3B
suoUUeaadO/d INSS `aopaloW @WOJ f 'S
suo!leJadO/d INSS aa� u!Aa>I .V
saJueuipJO/loaluoJ aJanoS dWSS `uewslunH )per 'E
sao1em !Jed 1Jafoad dWSS `za(1DueS au!LIsunS/aallUN aiane1 •Z JaSeueW Pafoad dWSS `alla8ueA uonxet l .1
:siagwaW weal Aim noA luaull
AIdINO3 lt/Hl S3DI1DVU
33NVI1d, WOO
",ii3H3SII

FISCHER,� .

CO,*d'LIANCE

PRACTICES THAT COMPLY
• About Fischer Compliance LLC
91, I- 1. Jo OL£ abed

BEAUMONT

CALIFORNIA
1 FISCHER COMPLIANCE, LLC is a professional
water and wastewater regulatory compliance
consulting company, delivering high quality
compliance consulting services to public
municipalities.
• 30+ years regulatory compliance experience
■ 12+ years California lead for Sanitary Sewer Systems
Waste Discharge Requirements (SSS WDRs)
• Clean Water Act Inspector — U .S. EPA
Subject matter expert in wastewater collection systems
and California Water Board Enforcement Policy

CO,*d'LIANCEFISCHERLLC

PRACTICES THAT C OMPLY
• About the State/Regional Water Boards
9LLLJo 1- L£ abed
1:::...'''*•.... ..wiii....•

BEAUMONT

CALIFORNIA

()
• About the State/Regional Water Boards
9 [ 1. 1. 10 ZL£ abed

BEAUMONT

CALIFORNIA

WATER BOARDS
State Water Resources Control Board 1
FISCHER,x
CO,*d'LIANCE

PRACTICES THAT COMPLY
RM15510N: To preser ve, enha nc e, and
re store the quality of Calif or nia's wat er r esources a n d drinking water for the protection of the en vir onm ent, public health, and all beneficial uses, and to ensure
proper water reso urce allocati on a nd effici ent use, f or the ben efit of presen t and future generatio ns.

9 1, I- I- Jo £L£ abed
()
• About the Water Board Order
FISCHER.

CO$i'LIANCE

RACTICES THAT COMPLY
State Water Resources Control Board
Order N o. 2006-0003-DWQ
• "Statewide General Waste Discharge Requirements for Sanitary Sewer Systems"

BEAUMONT

CALIFORNIA

• About the Water Board Order (2006-003-DWQ)
91, I- I- Jo PLC abed
BEAUMONT .

CALIFORNIA
Why was the Order issued?
• Major causes of Spills include:
• Grease Blockages; Root Blockages; Debris Blockages
• Sewer Line Flood Damage
• Manhole Structure Failures
• Vandalism
• Contractor Caused damage
• Pump Station Mechanical Failures, Power Outages
• Excessive Storm or Ground Water (I&I)
• Lack of Proper Operation & Maintenance
• Insufficient Capacity
()
FISCHER.

CO$t'LIANCE

PRACTICES THAT C OMPLY
Medford HaRNEY BA S.'. ','
•
o ¢+
+ o
o•
r .arson City
G R E R r'•
. 8 R Si N `t
•Las' •rag .as
MOJR •VE
DESERT
p o :!FOF1.11.4
"Statewide General Waste Discharge Requirements for Sanitary Sewer Systems"

FISCHER,x
CO,*d'LIANCE

PRACTICES THAT COMPLY
91, I- I- Jo 9L£ o6ed
• About the Water Board Order (2006-003-DWQ)
✓ Sanitary sewer systems experience periodic failures
resulting in discharges that may affect waters of the
state.
✓ Sanitary Sewer Overflows (SSOs) often contain
suspended solids, pathogenic organisms, toxic pollutants, nutrients, oxygen -demanding organic compounds, oil,
grease and other pollutants .
✓ SSOs may cause a public nuisance, threaten public
health, adversely affect aquatic life and impair the
recreational use and aesthetic enjoyment of surface
waters
h9?dforcl
+

HRRNEY--'
+
b A .�{ ,� C .:r5: i
G R E .4 T.
. B A s r N
Las' ?�35
MOJR V
DESERT
LIFORr•11.4
BEAUMONT . "Statewide General Waste Discharge Requirements for Sanitary Sewer Systems" CALIFORNIA �' J J

91, I- I- Jo 9LC abed
()
• About the Water Board Order (2006-003-DWQ)
FISCHER,.c
CO$i'LIANCE

RACTICES THAT COMPLY
What is the Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP)?
• A system -specific plai for the proper and efficient management, operation and maintenance of sanitary sewer systems that takes into consideration risk management and cost benefit analysis.
• It must contain a sp I response ply that establishes standard procedures for immediate response to an SSO in a manner designed to minimize water quality impacts and potential nuisance conditions
BEJJMONAT . CA L IFORN �' � J J J "Statewide General Waste Dischar e Re uirements for Sanitar Sewer s ystems"

FISCHER,� .

CO,*d'LIANCE

PRACTICES THAT COMPLY
• About the Water Board Order (Large Enforcement Case)
91, I- 1. Jo LL£ abed
Administrative Ci vil Liability Complaint No. R6V-2016-0042 Issued to City of Victorville for Series of Sanitary Sewer O verflow E vents, San Bernardino County
On July 1, 2016, the Water Board Pro secution Team issued Administrative Ci vil Liability Complaint N o. R6V-2016-0042 (C omplaint) to the City of Victorville (City) in response to alleged v iolations associated with six sanitary sewer overflow events and City sewer collection system planning, operations, and maintenance. The Water Board Prosecution Team and City subsequently entered into settlement negotiatio ns, during which three additional sanitary sewer overflow events occurred. A proposed settlement order was subsequently prepared and issued for public comment.

Show More
BEJJMONAT . "Statewide General Waste Discharge Requirements or Sanitary Sewer Systems" C A L I F O R N I g q f Y

BEAUMONT

CAL IFORNI A
CO,*d'LIANCEFISCH

PRACTICES THAT COMPLY
• About the City SSMP Project
1 i

91, I- I- Jo 6LC abed
()
FISCHER.

CO$i'LIANCE

RACTICES THAT COMPLY
• About the City SSMP Project

1. Address past violations and enforcement action (2009/2010) Santa Ana Regional Board Order No . R8-2009-0068 resolving 8 separate sewage spills • 8 individual spills (72,000 gallons spilled to surface waters) • Failure to develop/implement comprehensive SSMP
• Penalty Assessed: $99,000

BEAUMONT

CALIFORNIA

91, I- I- Jo 02C abed
()
FISCHER,.�
CO$i'LIANCE

RACTICES THAT COMPLY
• About the City SSMP Project

1. Address past violations and enforcement action (2009/2010) Santa Ana Regional Board Order No . R8-2010-007 resolving 1 large sewage spill • 402,700 gallons spilled to surface water/failure of Marshall Creek Lift Station • Failure to develop SSMP/take proactive steps to prevent spills/implement comprehensive operations/maintenance plan
• Penalty Assessed: $111,000

BEAUMONT

CALIFORNIA

9 II- I- Jo 1- 80 abed
()
FISCHER,.c
CO$i'LIANCE

RACTICES THAT COMPLY
• About the City SSMP Project

2. Perform Gap Analysis
a. Review the required elements of the SSMP
b. Review City of Beaumont's sewer collection system programs, activities & performance
c. Identify actions and activities required to achieve compliance d. Memorialize in a report (will serve as audit report)

BEAUMONT

CALIFORNIA

91, I- I- Jo Z8C abed
()
FISCHER.

CO$i'LIANCE

RACTICES THAT COMPLY
• About the City SSMP Project

3. Develop First City Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP) a. Meet or exceed regulatory requirements
b. Develop Key Performance Indicators (KPI's) to measure effectiveness c. Provide Orientation to staff

BEAUMONT

CALIFORNIA

• New City SSMP (Dec 2022)
91, I- 1. Jo £8C abed

BEAUMONT

CALIFORNIA

BEAUMONT
-CALIFORNI A-

SEWER SYSTEM

M ANAGEMENT PLAN
PREPARED BY:
)CO 'LIANCE
FISCHER,,.

FISCHER,.c
CO,*d'LIANCE

PRACTICES THAT COMPLY
91, I- 1. Jo 178£ abed
• Implementation of SSMP still
deficient
• Insufficient pipe Rehabilitation and
Repair Program
• Substantial future investments in
equipment and procedures
needed

BEAUMONT

CALIFORNIA
SEv. tR SY ., i EM w vIANAutMEN i ruuN (SSNir)

BEAUMONT
-C A L i R O R N 1 A-
4 .9 Pipe R epair Program
The objective of the pipe repair program is to address issues that c ould p otentially cause blockages and/ or spills in a timely manner. The City uses an on -call service agreement with contractors to perform r epairs on an emerg ency basis.

4.10 Prioritizati on Pr ogram
4 .10.1 Req uirement
De vel op a rehabilitation and replacement plan to identify and pri oritize system deficiencies and implement short-term and long-term rehabilitation actions to address each deficiency. The program should include regular visual and TV inspecti ons of manholes and sewer pipes, and a syst em for ra nki ng the c onditi on of sew er pip es and sch eduling rehabilitati on . Rehabilitation and replacement should focus on sewer pipes that are at risk of collapse or prone to more frequent blockages due to pipe defects. Finally, the rehabilitation and replacement plan should include a capital impr ovement plan that addresses proper management and protecti on of the infrastructure assets. The plan shall include a time schedule for implementing the short and long- t erm pla ns pl us a schedule for de vel oping th e funds need ed for th e capital impr ov em ent plan . 4 .10.2 R esponsible_P erson
Public Works Direct or
4 .10.3 Complianc e
The City's 2021 Master Plan has identified Capital Improvement projects and has a plan and schedule in place.

The City's 2021 Master Plan de vel oped a Rehabilitati on and Replacement f or lift stations.

The City currently does not have a Rehabilitation and Replacement Program in place to address gr avity pipes a nd manh ol es. Th e City do es not routinely inspect CCTV pip es and is not abl e to perf orm condition assessment .

FISCHERLLC
CO,*d'LIANCE

PRACTICES THAT COMPLY
• Conclusions
91, I- I- Jo 92C abed
1 ✓ The City SSMP document fully complies with WDR Provision D .11 . ✓ Full implementation of the City SSMP is still lacking in some areas . ✓ City wastewater team continues to improve SSMP implementation and address compliance gaps.

BEAUMONT

CALIFORNIA

CO,*d'LIANCEFISCHERLLC

PRACTICES THAT COMPLY
• Conclusions
91, I- I- Jo 92C abed

BEAUMONT

CALIFORNIA
✓ 2022 "Reissued" WDR Requirements (Order No. 2022-0103-DWQ):
✓ Re -Enrollment, due between 4/5/23 to 6/4/23
✓ Submittal of Legally Responsible Official information, due 6/4/23

CO,*d'LIANCEFISCHERLLC

PRACTICES THAT COMPLY
• Conclusions
91, I- I- Jo L8C abed
✓ 2022 "Reissued" WDR Requirements (Order No. 2022-0103-DWQ):
✓ Update City SSMP/Emergency Response Plan, due 6/4/23
✓ Upload City SSMP to State Water Board's California Integrated Water Quality System (CIWQS), due 6/4/23

BEAUMONT

CALIFORNIA

FISCHER«<

CO/ALIANCE

PRACTICES THAT COMPLY
91, I- I- Jo 88C abed

BEAUMONT

CA LIFORNIA
Contact Information
J ames Fischer P.E.

Fis cher Compliance LLC
R etir ed State Water Board
NPDES I nspe ctor
Fischer Compliance LLC
3230 Arena Blvd, STE 245
Sacramento, CA 95834
(916) 606-5275
jim@fischercompliance .com

BAUME ONTA -C A L I F O R N I
Staff Report
TO: City Council
FROM: Jennifer Ustation, Finance Director
DATE March 21, 2023
SUBJECT: Continued Public Hearing and Consideration of Resolution Adopting an Updated User Fee Schedule
Description Specific service fees to be updated based on comprehensive user fee study. The adoption of this Resolution is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA," Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq.), because it approves and sets forth a procedure for determining fees for the purpose of meeting the operating expenses of City departments, as set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21080(b)(8)(A) and Section 15273 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines.

Background and Analysis:

On September 20, 2022, staff brought forth a cost of services study for direction on a proposed new fee schedule. Staff used recommendations from City Council to work with Revenue and Cost Specialists (RCS) to complete the proposed new fee schedule changes. The study accounts for all revenue but focuses on the relationship between fees and taxes. RCS then determined what total service costs for each fee are and whether the revenue received supports the total cost or if the service is subsidized by taxes.

RCS suggests that services that are Personal Choice as opposed to Community Supported Services should be paid for by the service requestor rather than subsidized by the entire community, however, the City Council has final decision on the nature of the service and whether it deserves to be subsidized.

On December 20, 2022, City Council was presented options for possible fees relating to the Community Services Department including sports field fees and facility rental fees.

The discussion on that night included edits to the proposed Sports Field Policy Handbook, revisions to the proposed fee schedule, and the residency requirements for discounted fees that would apply to Youth Non -Profit Organizations. The goals of the discussion with City Council were to present proposed fees in a way that would allow for

some cost recovery, but also consider the impact it may have on non-profit organizations and the services they provide the community.

On January 17, 2023, the City Council discussed with staff proposed recreation fees.

New fees have been suggested to offset public expenses to operate, maintain, supervise, and administer the use of park and athletic facilities. At this meeting, the City Council approved the Sports Field Policy Handbook which will assist the Community Services Department with the direction of applying fees to the sports fields.

On February 7, 2023, the City Council reviewed the proposed fee changes (not including recreation fees), that have been recommended from the cost of services study. At that meeting, the City Council recommended to change the Minor Special Event Permit from the recommended $1,288 per application to a staff recommended reduced amount. Staff is recommending making the Minor Special Event Permit to a deposit -based fee of $500.

On March 7, 2023, City Council opened a public hearing for the adoption of the User Fee Schedule. Staff recommended to continue the public hearing due to an attachment to the resolution that had been posted in the agenda incomplete, although it was correct on the City's website. The public notice referred the public to the website for review of the fees. However, for transparency and in the interest of the public, the public hearing was continued to allow the public more time to review the proposed fees.

Included in this report is the recommended changes for all fees. Any fees that had not been reviewed prior were posted to the City's website for review at least 10 days prior to this meeting which includes suggested new fire fees and recreation fees.

Public Notice Requirement
The user fees include both development and non -development fees. A public hearing is required for fee revisions. A public hearing notice was published in accordance with California Government Code section 6062a for a hearing on March 7, 2023, regularly scheduled City Council meeting to adopt a resolution that confirms and updates the user fees and changes. The notice was published in the Press -Enterprise.

Effective Date and Future Fee Updates
Staff is recommending an effective date of July 1, 2023. It is a recommended best practice that a comprehensive review of cost of services and fees be performed every three to five years. Annual fee adjustments will be made utilizing the current CPI factor.

Fiscal Impact:

Approving the updated recommended user fees and charges will allow the City to improve its ability to seek full cost recovery for most City services. Actual cost recovery is dependent upon actual activity for those services.

Overall cost recovery revenue increases are difficult to estimate, due to the change in activity levels from year to year. RCS has provided a possible new cost recovery revenue amount with these changes of $702,300.

Recommended Action:

Hold the continued Public Hearing, and
Waive the full reading and adopt by title only, "A Resolution of the City Council of Beaumont Adopting a Comprehensive User Fee Study and Adopting a Comprehensive Fee Schedule Establishing User Fees for Certain Specified Services." Attachments:

A. Resolution Adopting Fee Study and Fee Schedule
B. Exhibit A of Resolution
C. Exhibit B of Resolution
D. Schedule of Fee Changes
E. Cost of Services Study for the City of Beaumont
F. Public Notice

RESOLUTION NO.

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

BEAUMONT ADOPTING A COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE

STUDY AND ADOPTING A COMPREHENSIVE FEE

SCHEDULE ESTABLISHING USER FEES FOR CERTAIN

SPECIFIED SERVICES

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BEAUMONT HEREBY
RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. The City Council of the City of Beaumont ("City Council") hereby finds, determines and declares that:

A. The City Council has conducted an extensive analysis of its services, the costs reasonably borne by the City in provided those services, the beneficiaries of those services, and the revenues produced by those paying fees and charges for special services;
B. The City Council has determined that City staff provides many types of services ("Services") involving requests by City customers ("Applicants"); and C. The City currently imposes user fees ("User Fees") upon Applicants to recover the costs of staff time, copying costs, and other expenses related to providing these Services; and
D. Current User Fees charged for the City's Services do not adequately recoup the City's costs of providing certain Services and thus, a significant amount of these costs are currently paid out of the City's general fund and, therefore, borne by the general public; and
E. The City Council finds that providing these Services are of special benefit to Applicants both separate and apart from the general benefit to the public, and therefore, in the interests of fairness to the general public, the City desires to better recover the costs of providing these Services from Applicants who have sought the City's Services by revising its schedule of User Fees; and F. The proposed User Fees are initially based upon the information contained in a document by City staff and Consultant ("Consultant") entitled "Cost of Services Study for the City of Beaumont " ("Fee Study"), dated September 2022, and updated by staff to reflect current costs of the City to provide the Services; and

G. Pursuant to state law, the City may impose User Fees for certain services.

H. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66014, the City is empowered to impose User Fees covering up to 100 percent of the actual costs of providing Services to Applicants; and
I. The City desires to adjust certain fees to recoup part or all of the actual costs incurred by the City in providing these Services; and
J. Chapter 3.32 of the Beaumont Municipal Code provides that the City may set fees to recoup costs reasonably borne by the City by means of adopting a resolution of the City Council, after compliance with the requirements of state law; and K. Government Code Section 66014 et al. allows local agencies to charge fees for various activities as long as those fees do not exceed the estimated reasonable costs of provided the service for which the fee is intended; and L. Pursuant to Government Code Sections 66014, 66015,66017 and 66018 and the Beaumont Municipal Code, the specific fees to be charged for certain regulations, services and products must be adopted by resolution or ordinance, following notice and public hearing; and
M. written notice has been provided to interested parties who filed written requests for mailed notice of meetings on new or increased development -related fees or service charges as required by Section 66016(a); and
N. The City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing on March 7, 2022, at which time the public was invited to make oral and written presentations as part of the regularly scheduled meeting prior to the adoption of this Resolution; and

0. At least ten (10) days prior to the public hearing referenced above, the City made available for public inspection the Fee Study as required under Government Code Section 66016; and
P. The City published notice of the public hearing as described above in accordance with Government Code Sections 66018 and 6062a (10 days in a newspaper regularly published once a week or oftener. Two publications, with at least five days intervening between the dates of first and last publication not counting such publication dates, are sufficient); and
Q.

The establishment and increase of User Fees is statutorily and categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act because setting User Fees and Development Fees fits within the statutory exemptions for local agency decisions involving rates, tolls or other charges pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080(b)(8) and Section 15273 of the California

Environmental Quality Act Guidelines this Resolution is not "an essential step culminating in action which may affect the environment".

Section 2. Adoption of the Report and Methodology. The City Council hereby approves "Cost of Services Study for the City of Beaumont", dated September 2022, and updated by staff to reflect current costs of the City to provide the Services and adopts the methodology for calculating and collecting the fees and charges established therein.

Section 3. Adoption of Fees and Charges. The City Council hereby adopts the "City of Beaumont User Fee Schedule" as set forth in attached Exhibit "A" and incorporated by this reference. Unless otherwise stated in the Fee Schedule, all User Fees shall be paid to the City by the Applicant prior to the City's performance of the requested Services.

Section 4. Suspension of Conflicting Resolutions. It is the desire of the City Council that all fees and charges for services, programs or products be set forth in one document for ease of reference. Accordingly, any and all provisions of prior Resolutions of the City Council establishing or modifying fees for the services, programs or products set forth in Exhibit "A," are hereby suspended and replaced as of the effective date of this Resolution in the manner set forth in Exhibit "A;" provided, however, that such repeal shall not excuse or affect the failure of any person or entity to pay any fee heretofore imposed upon such person or entity. For any period of time the fee schedule is determined it is invalid, the suspended fee schedule will be reinstated. The City Council desires to clarify that in adopting this Resolution, it is taking action only on those fees for the services, programs or products set forth in Exhibit A which have been modified from prior resolutions of the City Council. The remaining fees that have not been modified from prior resolutions shall remain in full force and effect and are hereby restated in Exhibit "B" for convenience so that all fees are set forth in one document.

Section 5. Building Valuation Based Fees. Building valuation to determine building fees based on project valuation shall be determined by using the current International Code Council (ICC) Building Valuation Data published preceding the fee update. The current publication in effect is August 2022 published 09/20/2022. When the Building Valuation Data publication does not define the project, the valuation of the work shall be determined as described in the currently adopted California Code of Regulations Title 24.

Section 6. Deposit Based Fees. The City Council herby authorizes the stop work of applications which fall below twenty percent (20%) balance on all deposit -based applications. The application is automatically deemed incomplete due to lack of funds and additional fess shall be deposited, as requested by staff, with the City of Beaumont for estimated completion of the application.

Section 7. Environmental Exemption. The adoption of this Resolution is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA," Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq.), because it approves and sets forth a procedure for determining fees for the

purpose of meeting the operating expenses of City departments, as set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21080(b)(8)(A) and Section 15273 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines.

Section 8. 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 hereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase be declared invalid or unconstitutional.

Section 9. Effective Date. This Resolution and all fees and rates herein shall continue and/or take effect on July 1, 2023.

ADOPTED this 21st day of March 2023.

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

By:

Julio Martinez, Mayor, City of Beaumont
ATTEST:

Nicole Wheelwright
Deputy City Clerk
By:

EXHIBIT "A"
City of Beaumont User Fee Schedule
[Attached]

EXHIBIT "B"
City of Beaumont Recreation Fee Schedule
[Attached]

DEPOSIT?
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
REF # FEE TITLE FEE AMOUNT

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
S-001

CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
$5,000 deposit with charges at the fully allocated
hourly rates for all personnel involved plus any outside costs
S-002

CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT
$2,715 per application
S-003

FINDINGS OF PUBLIC CONV/NECESSITY
$2,005 per application
S-004

CUP TIME EXTENSION
$1,970 per application
S-005

LARGE GROUP HOME CUP
$3,730 per application
S-006

GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
Up to 50 acres - $5,000 deposit with charges at the fully allocated hourly rates for all personnel involved plus
any outside costs
Over 50 acres - $7,500 deposit with charges at the fully allocated hourly rates for all personnel involved plus
any outside costs
S-007

ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT CHANGE
$5,000 deposit with charges at the fully allocated
hourly rates for all personnel involved plus any outside costs
S-008

SPECIFIC PLAN
$15,000 deposit with charges at the fully allocated
hourly rates for all personnel involved plus any outside costs
S-009

SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
$7,500 deposit with charges at the fully allocated
hourly rates for all personnel involved plus any outside costs
S-010

SPEC PLAN CONFORMITY DETERMINATION
$5,000 deposit with charges at the fully allocated
hourly rates for all personnel involved plus any outside costs
S-011

ANNEXATION
$25,000 deposit with charges at the fully allocated
hourly rates for all personnel involved plus any outside or LAFCo costs
S-012

PLAN OF SERVICES
$5,000 deposit with charges at the fully allocated
hourly rates for all personnel involved plus any outside costs
S-013

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
$25,000 deposit with charges at the fully allocated
hourly rates for all personnel involved plus any outside costs
S-014

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ANNUAL REVIEW
$2,165 per review
S-015

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AMENDMENT
$10,000 deposit with charges at the fully allocated
hourly rates for all personnel involved plus any outside costs
S-016

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ASSIGNMENT
$5,000 deposit with charges at the fully allocated
hourly rates for all personnel involved plus any outside costs
S-017

ESTOPPEL CERTIFICATE
$5,000 deposit with charges at the fully allocated
hourly rates for all personnel involved plus any outside costs
S-018

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Actual consultant cost plus 20% Administrative fee
Filing Fees - Actual costs
S-019

FACILITY FEE CREDIT AGREEMENT
$10,000 deposit with charges at the fully allocated
hourly rates for all personnel involved plus any outside costs
S-020

DENSITY BONUS AGREEMENT
$5,000 deposit with charges at the fully allocated
hourly rates for all personnel involved plus any outside costs
S-021

PRE -APPLICATION MEETING
$2,210 per meeting/review
50% credit on the first meeting's fee if the project is submitted within six months
S-022

ZONING MAP CHANGE
$5,000 deposit with charges at the fully allocated
hourly rates for all personnel involved plus any outside costs
S-023

TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP
$5,000 deposit with charges at the fully allocated
hourly rates for all personnel involved plus any outside costs
S-024

TENTATIVE TRACT MAP
$7,500 deposit with charges at the fully allocated
hourly rates for all personnel involved plus any outside costs
S-025

TENTATIVE MAP TIME EXTENSION
$2,190 per application
S-026

CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION
$10,000 deposit with charges at the fully allocated
hourly rates for all personnel involved plus any outside costs
S-027

VARIANCE
$2,560 per application
S-028

MINOR VARIANCE/MODIF OF STANDARDS
$245 per application

REF #
S-029

FEE TITLE

PLOT PLAN

FEE AMOUNT
$5,000 deposit with charges at the fully allocated
hourly rates for all personnel involved plus any outside costs
S-030

PLOT PLAN AMENDMENT
$3,000 deposit with charges at the fully allocated
hourly rates for all personnel involved plus any outside costs
S-031

PLOT PLAN TIME EXTENSION
$2,005 per application
S-032

RESIDENTIAL ADMIN PLOT PLAN
$925 per application
S-033

NON-RESIDENTIAL ADMIN PLOT PLAN
$1,030 per application
S-034

MINOR PLOT PLAN - STAFF
$1,435 per application
S-035

MINOR PLOT PLAN - PLAN COMM
$3,230 per application
S-036

PICK A LOT SITE PLAN REVIEW
$315 per lot
S-037
MAP/PLOT PLAN CONFORMITY DETERMIN.
$2,500 deposit with charges at the fully allocated
hourly rates for all personnel involved plus any outside costs
S-038

LANDSCAPE PLAN REVIEW
$20 per application plus $140 per sheet
S-039

LANDSCAPE PLAN AMENDMENT
$20 per application plus $140 per sheet
Cost is based on six sheets
S-040

LANDSCAPE INSPECTION (PLANNING)
$205 per lot
S-041

SIGN PROGRAM
$1,870 per application
S-042

SIGN PROGRAM AMENDMENT
$1,870 per application
S-043

SIGN PERMIT
$375 per application
S-044

SIGN PERMIT PANEL CHANGE
$170 per application
S-045

TEMPORARY SIGN PERMIT
$170 per application
S-046

UNLICENSED GROUP HOME PERMIT
$3,335 per application
S-047

AUTOMOBILE FOR HIRE REVIEW
$2,720 per application
S-048

HOME OCCUPATION PERMIT
$225 per application
S-049

MINOR SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT
$500 deposit with charges at the fully allocated hourly rates for all staff involved plus any outside costs.

S-050

MAJOR SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT
$1,985 per application
Carnival/Circus/Menagerie - additional $455 per
application
Events of more than 1,000 people - $5,000 deposit with
charges at the fully allocated hourly rates for all staff involved plus any outside costs
S-051

MISCELLANEOUS SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT
$1,000 per application
S-052

APPEAL TO PLANNING COMISSION
$2,585 per appeal
S-053

APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL
$2,985 per appeal
S-054

PLANNING INFORMATION REQUEST
$225 per letter, plus a deposit determined by staff with charges at the fully allocated hourly rates for all
personnel involved for additional research
S-055

MISCELLANEOUS PLANNING REVIEW
Deposit determined by staff with charges at the fully
allocated hourly rates for all personnel involved plus
any outside costs
S-056

COM DEV TECHNOLOGY SURCHARGE

3.29% Of Building, Planning, and Engineering fees
S-057

BUILDING PLAN CHECK/INSPECTION
See Appendix C below for detail
S-058

FINAL PARCEL MAP
$5,000 deposit with charges at the fully allocated
hourly rates for all personnel involved plus any outside costs
S-059

FINAL TRACT MAP
$7,500 deposit with charges at the fully allocated
hourly rates for all personnel involved plus any outside costs
S-060

TENTATIVE REVERSION TO ACREAGE
This fee should be removed as the service is no longer
provided
S-061

LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT/PARCEL MERGER
$1,200 deposit with charges at the fully allocated
hourly rates for all personnel involved plus any outside costs
S-062

FINAL MONUMENT SETTING
This fee should be removed from the fee schedule as the service is no longer provided
S-063

FINAL MONUMENT INSPECTION
$1,500 deposit with charges at the fully allocated
hourly rates for all personnel involved plus any outside costs
S-064

PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN CHECK
$565 per plan
S-065

RESIDENTIAL GRADING PLAN CHECK
$95 per plan plus $750 per sheet
$95 per plan plus $750 per sheet
$95 per plan plus $750 per sheet
$95 per plan plus $750 per sheet
S-066

RES GRADING PLAN CHECK AMENDMENT
$3,000 deposit with charges at the fully allocated
hourly rates for all personnel involved plus any outside costs

' EF•
S-067

FEE TITLE

RES GRADING PLAN CHECK ADD'L REVIEW
FEE AM . UNT
$1,000 deposit with charges at the fully allocated
hourly rates for all personnel involved plus any outside costs
S-068

COMMERCIAL GRADING PLAN CHECK
$95 per plan plus $1,125 per sheet
S-069

COMMERCIAL GRADING PLAN AMENDMENT
$3,000 deposit with charges at the fully allocated
hourly rates for all personnel involved plus any outside costs
S-070

COMM GRADING PLAN CHECK ADD'L REV
$1,000 deposit with charges at the fully allocated
hourly rates for all personnel involved plus any outside costs
S-071

GRADING/STOCKPILE INSPECTION
Charges at the fully allocated hourly rates for all
personnel involved plus any outside costs
Charges at the fully allocated hourly rates for all
personnel involved plus any outside costs
Charges at the fully allocated hourly rates for all
personnel involved plus any outside costs
Charges at the fully allocated hourly rates for all
personnel involved plus any outside costs
S-072
GRADING/STOCKPILE RES. INFILL INSP
$435 per permit
S-073

STREET LIGHT PLAN REVIEW
$95 per plan plus $655 per sheet
S-074

IMPROVEMENT CONSTRUCTION PLAN CHECK
$95 per plan plus $1,030 per sheet
S-075

IMPROVEMENT CONSTRUCTION PLAN AMEND
$1,500 deposit with charges at contract cost plus 20%
for administration
S-076

IMPROVEMENT CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION
Deposit based on the Engineers Estimate
(Minimum $750)
Deposit based on the Engineers Estimate
(Minimum $750)
S-077

SUBDIVISION/IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT
$725 per agreement plus actual costs for legal
S-078

PERFORMANCE BOND RELEASE
$915 per application
S-079

BOND RELEASE INSPECTION
$3,000 deposit with charges at the fully allocated
hourly rates for all personnel involved plus any outside costs
S-080

MAINTENANCE BOND RELEASE
$915 per application
S-081

MAINTENANCE BOND INSPECTION
$3,000 deposit with charges at the fully allocated
hourly rates for all personnel involved plus any outside costs
S-082

SUSPENSION OF IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT
This fee should be removed as the service is no longer
provided
S-083

APPEAL SUSPENSION OF IMPROVEMENT
This fee should be removed as the service is no longer
provided
S-084

STREET VACATION/OFFER OF DEDICATION
$2,000 deposit with charges at the fully allocated
hourly rates for all personnel involved plus any outside costs
S-085

NON-STANDARD ENCROACH PERMIT APPL
$60 per application
S-086

EXIST RESID STANDARD ENCROACH PRMT
$280 per permit
S-087

NON-STANDARD ENCROACH PLAN CHECK
$40 per plan plus charges at the fully allocated hourly rates for all personnel involved plus any outside costs S-088

NON-STANDARD ENCROACH INSPECTION
Deposit with charges at the fully allocated hourly rates for all personnel involved plus any outside costs
S-089
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE/CORRECT.
$1,000 deposit with charges at the fully allocated
hourly rates for all personnel involved plus any outside costs
S-090

PUBLIC WORKS PERMIT ISSUANCE
Within One Year - $95
After One Year - $1,000 deposit with charges at the fully allocated hourly rates for all personnel involved plus
any outside costs
S-091

WATER QUALITY MGMT PRELIM PLAN CHK
0-10 acres - $2,345 per plan
Above 10 acres - $3,465 per plan
S-092

WATER QUALITY MGMT FINAL PLAN CHECK
Above 10 acres - $2,420 per plan
0-10 acres - $1,855 per plan
S-093

PRELIM HYDROLOGY/HYDRAULIC STUDY
0-10 acres - $2,345 per study
10-50 acres - $3.095 per study
50-100 acres - $3,840 per study
100+ acres - $4,590 . er stud
S-094

FINAL HYDROLOGY/HYDRAULIC STUDY
0-10 acres - $2,345 per study
10-50 acres - $3,095 per study
50-100 acres - $3,840 per study
100+ acres - $4,590 per study

REF #
S-095

FEE TITLE

STORMWATER POLLUTION PROTECT REVIEW

FEE AMOUNT
This fee should be removed from the fee schedule as the service is provided by the State
S-096

STORMWATER POST -CONSTRUCT INSPECT
Charges at the fully allocated hourly rates for all
personnel involved plus any outside costs
S-097

SEWER CONNECTION/LATERAL INSPECTION
This fee should be removed as the service cost is
already covered as part an encroachment permit
S-098

LANDSCAPE PLAN CHECK
$95 per plan plus $560 per sheet
S-099

LANDSCAPE INSPECTION (PW)
Deposit of 50% of Engineers Estimate ($500 minimum)
S-100

TRAFFIC STUDY REVIEW
$2,000 deposit with charges at contract cost plus 20%
for administration
S-101

SCOPING AGREEMENT
$750 deposit with charges at contract cost plus 20% for administration
S-102

TRANSPORTATION WIDE LOAD PERMIT
Fees are set by the State: Single - $16 per permit
Fees are set by the State: Annual - $90 per permit
S-103

HAUL ROUTE REVIEW
$245 per application
S-104

DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERING DEPOSIT SVC
These fees are detailed in the various services with a
deposit -based fee
S-105

ENGINEERING EXTRA PLAN CHECK
Charges at contract cost plus 20% for administration
S-106

MISCELLANEOUS ENGINEERING SERVICES
Deposit determined by staff with charges at the fully
allocated hourly rates for all personnel involved plus
any outside costs plus 20% for administration

PUBLIC SAFETY SERVICES
S-107

CODE ENFORCEMENT INSPECTION
$120 per hour
S-108

INSPECTION WARRANT
Charge the fully allocated hourly rates for all personnel involved plus any outside costs
S-109

ABATEMENT WARRANT
Charge the fully allocated hourly rates for all personnel involved plus any outside costs
S-110

CODE ENFORCEMENT CITATION HEARING
$500 deposit with charges at the fully allocated hourly rates for all personnel involved plus any outside costs S-111
ABANDONED PROP. INIT. REGISTRATION
$185 per property
S-112
ABANDONED PROPERTY MONTHLY INSPECT.
$60 per month
S-113

WEED ABATEMENT
$245 plus actual cost of abatement
S-114

WEED ABATEMENT SUBSCRIPTION PROGRAM
$245 or 20% of abatement cost, whichever is less, plus
actual cost of abatement
S-115

FIRE PLAN CHECK/INSPECTION
See Appendix D for detail
S-116

STORED VEHICLE RELEASE
$175 per release
S-117

STORED VEHICLE RELEASE - DUI
$290 per release
S-118

VIN VERIFICATION
$60 per vehicle
S-119

TRAFFIC CITATION SIGN OFF
$25 per citation
S-120

POLICE ALARM LICENSE
$28 per license
S-121

AUTO REPOSSESSION PROCESSING
Fee is set by State law:
$15 per vehicle
S-122

SECOND HAND DEALER LICENSE
$235 per application
S-123

FORTUNETELLER PERMIT
$540 per application per year
S-124

MASSAGE TECHNICIAN PERMIT - NEW
$540 per application
S-125

MASSAGE TECHNICIAN PERMIT - RENEWAL
$45 per renewal
S-126

MASSAGE ESTABLISHMENT PERMIT
$225 per application, annually
S-127

ADULT ORIENTED ESTABLISHMENT PERMIT
$985 per application, annually
S-128

TOBACCO RETAILER PERMIT
$985 per application
S-129

GRAFFITI IMPLEMENTATION SALE PERMIT
$140 per application
S-130

TOW YARD INSPECTION
$355 per inspection
S-131

PEDDLER SOLICITOR PERMIT
$180 per person, annually
S-132

BINGO PERMIT
Remote Caller Game - $465 per permit
Other - $50 per application (limited by State law)
S-133

RV PARKING PERMIT
$7.50 per permit
S-134

GOLF CART PERMIT
$175 per application, annually
S-135

CONCEALED WEAPON CARRY PERMIT
Fee is set by State Law: New application - $100
Fee is set by State Law: $25 - renewal application
Fee is set by State Law:Psychological testing costs are to be added to the above fee up to $150
Fee is set by State Law: 20% of the fee is collected upon filing of the initial application and is and is non-
refundable. The balance of the fee is collected on
issuance of the license.

S-136

RECORDS CHECK/IMMIGRATION LETTER
$25 per check

REF #

FEE TITLE

FEE AMOUNT
S-137

FINGERPRINTING
Resident - $25
Non -Resident - $35
S-138

BICYCLE REGISTRATION
Per State Vehicle Code, Section 39004: New - $4
Per State Vehicle Code, Section 39004: Transfer - $2
Per State Vehicle Code, Section 39004: Replacement -
$2
Per State Vehicle Code, Section 39004: Renewal - $2
S-139

CITATION PROCESSOR LATE FEE
$35 per citation
S-140

POLICE REPORT COPY
Black & White - $0.35 per copy
Color - $0.45 per copy
S-141

POLICE ELECTRONIC FILE COPY
$7 per device
S-142

ANIMAL RELINQUISHMENT
Beaumont: Pick up - $135
Calimesa: Pick up - $135
Beaumont: Bring In - $115
Calimesa: Bring In - $115
Shelter Cost - $81
S-143

ANIMAL IMPOUND/RETURN TO OWNER
Beaumont - $50
Calimesa - $80
S-144

DECEASED ANIMAL PICK UP
Beaumont - $140
Calimesa - $140
S-145

ANIMAL QUARANTINE
Beaumont - $175 per animal plus $50 per day
Calimesa - $175 per animal plus $50 per day
S-146

DANGEROUS ANIMAL REGISTRATION
$220 per animal
$220 per animal
S-147

ANIMAL TRAP RENTAL
Beaumont - $60 per trap plus $10 per day after the fifth day, plus deposit based on replacement cost of trap
Calimesa - $97 per trap plus $12 per day after the fifth day, plus deposit based on replacement cost of trap
S-148

DOG SILENCER RENTAL
Beaumont - $60 plus deposit based on replacement cost
of trap
Calimesa - $73 plus deposit based on replacement cost
of trap
S-149

KENNEL LICENSE
Beaumont: 1 year - $300
Late Fee Penalty - 50% of License Fee
Beaumont: 2 year - $425
Late Fee Penalty - 50% of License Fee
Calimesa: 1 year - $300
Late Fee Penalty - 50% of License Fee
S-150

SENTRY KENNEL LICENSE
1 year - $365
Late Fee Penalty - 50% of License Fee
2 year - $715
Late Fee Penalty - 50% of License Fee
S-151

MICROCHIP IDENTIFICATION DEVICE
Beaumont - $35
Calimesa - $35
S-152

ANIMAL CONTROL RESPONSE
Beaumont - $75
Calimesa - $94
S-153

ANIMAL CONTROL SERVICES
See Appendix E for below detail

ENTERPRISE SERVICES
S-157

FATS, OILS OR GREASE INSPECTION
General Facility - $205 per first inspection
Dental Facility - $205 per first inspection plus $40 for Amalgam use
Reinspection - $95
S-158

INDUSTRIAL WASTE INSPECTION
Charges at the fully allocated hourly rates for all
personnel involved plus any outside costs
S-159

WASTEWATER SURVEY
$30 per review
S-160

SEWER FLOW MODELING
Charges at the fully allocated hourly rates for all
personnel involved plus any outside costs
S-161

SEWAGE SPILL RESPONSE
Charges at the fully allocated hourly rates for all
personnel involved plus any outside costs

ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
S-162

NEW BUSINESS LICENSE PROCESSING
$80 per application
$80 per application
S-163

BUSINESS LICENSE RENEWAL PROCESSING
$40 per renewal
$40 per renewal
S-164

RELEASE OF LIEN
$50 per lien plus County fees

REF #
S-165

FEE TITLE

NON -UTILITY NSF CHECK/ACH PROCESS

FEE AMOUNT
$35 per NSF check/ACH
S-166

UTILITY BILLING ACH RETURN PROCESS
$10 per ACH return
S-167

CREDIT CARD PROCESSING
2% of the amount charged
S-168

DOCUMENT REPRODUCTION
Black & White - $0.35 per copy
Color - $0.45 per copy
Larger than 11 x 17 - Actual Costs
S-169

ELECTRONIC FILE REPRODUCTION
$7 per device
$7 per device
$7 per device
$7 per device
$7 per device
S-170

PUBLIC NOTARY
$15 per signature (fee is set by the State)

APPENDIX C - BUILDING FEES

FEE AMOUNT
Permit Processing
Residential Permit Processing
$63
Commercial/Industrial Permit Processing
$84
Minimum Permit Fee - Residential
$155
Minimum Permit Fee - Commercial
$307
Demolition
Patio Cover or Room
$178
Swimming Pool or Building
$268
Manufactured and Mobile Home Permits (ALL)
Fixed Fee Set By State
Inspections
Additional Inspection -Commercial
$223
Additional Inspection -Residential
$107
After Hours or Weekend Inspections (2 HR. Minimum)
OT Hourly Rate
Re -inspection Fee
$128
Building Investigation Fee: In Field
Double Permit Fees
Plan Review
Plan Check 3rd and Subsequent Review - Outside Consultant Actual Cost
Plan Check 3rd and Subsequent Review - In house
$147
Expedited Plan Review
150% of Standard Plan Check Fee
Accesibility Ramp
$527
Accessory Structures -Residential
Aluminum Patio Cover
$208
Patio Cover - City Standard
$312
Patio Cover - Non -Standard
$438
Block Wall
Standard up to 6' Height <6' City Standard
$178
Each Additional 100 LF over 50 LF
$30
Non -Standard up to 6' Height <6' height
$457
Each Additional 100 LF over 50 LF
$47
Non -Standard <50' and Greater than 6' height
$699
Each Additional 100 LF over 50 LF
$47
Retaining Wall
Standard up to 6' Height <6' City Standard
$478
Each Additional 100 LF over 50 LF
$47
Non -Standard up to 6' Height <6'
$699
Each Additional 100 LF over 50 LF
$47
Non -Standard <50' and greater than 6' height
$850
Each Additional 100 LF over 50 LF
$48
Cellular Antenna/Pole
New
$730
Modification
$435
Commercial Hood & Duct
$1,465
Construction Trailer
$223
New Door/Window/Skylight - Residential
$617
Drywall Repair - Up To 1,000 SF
$312
Each Additional 1,000 SF
$15
Flag Pole
Up To 25'
$483
Over 25'
$680
Food Truck or Carnival
$223
Model Home Complex with Sales Office Conversion
$1,247
Parking Lot Restriping - 1-2 Accessible Stalls
$241
Each Additional Stall over 2
$24
Re -Roof
Single Family Dwelling
$164
Multi-Family/Commercial/Industrial - Up to 25,000 SQ or 250 Squares $268

REF #
Each Additional 25,000 SF or 250 Squares
$44
Siding or Stucco Repair
$510
Signs
Wall Sign
$304
Monument Sign
$604
Site Signage
$831
Spray Booth
$1,134
Storage Rack - First 500 LF
$349
Each Additional 500 LF
$40
Swimming Pool
Residential
$630
Mult-Family/Commercial
$1,984
Temporary Uses (e.g. Christmas Tree Lot/Pumpkin Lot/Similar Events) $438
Trash Enclosure
$768
Wall Addition
Interior Residential
$1,144
Interior Commercial
$1,956
Window Changeout
$241
New Construction Combo Trade Permit
10% of Building Permit Fee per Trade
Plan Check Fee*
65% of the Permit Fee
Plan Check Revisions and/or Deferred submittals*
City Cost + Admin 20%
Miscellaneous Fees
Activity Reports
$42
Addressing
$122
Each Address
$10
Appeal of Construction Board of Appeals or Accessibility Board of Appeals $2,585
Building Standards Fee
Fixed Fee Set by State
Change of Address
$42
Change of Contractor -Permit Updates
$42
Duplicate Inspection Card
$21
Duplicate Certificate of Occupancy
$103
Permit/Plan Review Extension
$103
Property Permit History Search: Office or Field
Actual Costs
SMIP
Fixed Fee Set by State
Street Names
$122
Each street
$19
Technolo} ' Surcharge

3.29%
Fees not specified.

FBHR
Certificate of Occupancy
$340
Services Not Listed
Actual Costs

VALLUATION
$0 to $1999
$321
$2000-$20,000
$321 plus $93 per $1,000 over $2k
$20,001-$50,000
$1,995 plus $18 per $1,000 over $20k
$50,001-$75,000
$2,535 plus $26 per $1,000 over $50k
$75,001-$100,000
$3,185 plus $32 per $1,000 over $75k
100,001 to 500,000
$3,985 plus $3 per $1,000 over $100k
$500,001 to $1,000,000
$5,185 plus $3 per $1,000 over $500k
$1,000,001 and up
$6,685 plus $3 per $1,000 over $1M
Residential Homes, ADUs and Room Additions
Construction Fees Calculated by Sq. Ft.

Square Feet
Rate Per Sq. Ft.
1-499
$772
500-999
$1,252 plus $61 per 100 SF over 500 SF
1000-2499
$1,557 plus $35 per 100 SF over 1,000 SF
2500 and over
$2,082 plus $21 per 100 SF over 2,500 SF

ELECTRICAL
Electrical Permit Processing Fee - Residential
$63
Minimum Electrical Permit Fee -Residential
$156
Electrical Permit Processing Fee - Commercial
$84
Minimum Electrical Permit Fee -Commercial
$156
Processing fee simaltaneously with other MEP permit
$21
Electrical Only Plan Review Fee
10% of Electrical Permit Fee

ELECTRICAL FIXED FEES
Electrical Panel/Pedestal or Sub -Panel Max 200 amp
$134
Electrical Meter Reset Permit
$134

REF #

FEE TITLE
EV Charger Plug -Residential Plan Review

FEE AMSUNT
$63
EV Charger Plug -Residential Permit
$223
EV Charging Station - Commercial Plan Review
$189
EV Charging Station each additional charger at same location $10
EV Charging Station - Commercial Permit
$268
EV Charging Station each additional charger at same location $14
Generator 10 KW or less Plan Review
$63
Generator 10 KW or less Permit
$178
Generator over 10 KW Plan Review
$95
Generator over 10 KW Permit
$223
Solar
Residential Roof Mounted Solar Less Than 15 KW Plan Review $136
State Law Caps at $450 up to 15 kw (136+240 = $376)
Each additional 15 KW
$7.50
State Law Caps at $15 FBHR is $16 (8+8 = $161
Residential Roof Mounted Solar Less Than 15 KW Permit
$240
State Law Caps at $450 up to 15 kw (136+240 = $376)
Each additional 15 KW
$7.50
State Law Caps at $15 FBHR is $16 (8+8 = $16)
Commercial Roof Mounted Solar Less than 50 KW Plan Review $222
State Law Caps at $1,000 up to 50kw (772+222 = $994)
Commercial Roof Mounted Solar 51-250 KW Plan Review each KW $3.50
State Law Caps each KW from 51-250 to $7 Actual Fee
$16
Commercial Roof Mounted Solar 251+ KW Plan Review each KW $2.50
State Law Caps each KW over 250 to $5 Actual Fee $16
Commercial Roof Mounted Solar Less than 50 KW Permit
$772
State Law Caps at $1,000 up to 50kw (772+222 = $994)
Commercial Roof Mounted Solar 51-250 KW Permit each KW
$3.50
State Law Caps each KW from 51-250 to $7 Actual Fee
16 Commercial Roof Mounted Solar 251+ KW Permit each KW $2.50
State Law Caps each KW over 250 to $5 Actual Fee $16
Tract & Solar App - Residential Roof Mounted Solar Less Than 15 KW Permit
$240
State Law Caps at $450 up to 15 kw (136+240 = $376)
Each additional 15 KW
$8
State Law Caps at $15
Residential Ground Mounted Solar Less Than 15 KW Plan Review $204
State Law Caps at $450 up to 15 kw (204+385 = $589)
Each additional 15 KW
$7.50
State Law Caps at $15 FBHR is $16 (8+8 = $161
Residential Roof Mounted Solar Less Than 15 KW Permit
$385
State Law Caps at $450 up to 15 kw (204+385 = $589)
Each additional 15 KW
$7.50
State Law Caps at $15 FBHR is $16 (8+8 = $161
Commercial Ground Mounted Solar Less than 50 KW Plan Review $407
State Law Caps at $1,000 up to 50kw (407+963 =
$1,3701
Commercial Ground Mounted Solar 51-250 KW Plan Review each KW $3.50
State Law Caps each KW from 51-250 to $7 Actual Fee
$16
Commercial Ground Mounted Solar 251+ KW Plan Review each KW $2.50
State Law Caps each KW over 250 to $5 Actual Fee $16
Commercial Ground Mounted Solar Less than 50 KW Permit
$963
State Law Caps at $1,000 up to 50kw (407+963 =
$1,3701
Commercial Ground Mounted Solar 51-250 KW Permit each KW $3.50
State Law Caps each KW from 51-250 to $7 Actual Fee
16

REF #

FEE TITLE
Commercial Ground Mounted Solar 251+ KW Permit each KW

FEE AMOUNT
$2.50
State Law Caps each KW over 250 to $5 Actual Fee $16
Battery Storage
1st Battery Plan Review
$95
Each Additional Battery
$32
1st Battery Permit
$357
Each Additional Battery
$44
Battery Storage with Solar Installation Plan Review
$126
Battery Storage with Solar Installation Permit
$44
Temporary Electrical Prior to Final
$223
Temporary Power Poles
$223
Each Span Pole
$14

FIXTURE COUNTS
To be used only when flat or valuation fee is not
applicable
Receptacles, Switches, Fixtures and Outlets
Each receptacle, switch, fixture, or outlet, lights
$5
Residential Appliance -For fixed residential appliances or receptacle outlets for same, including wall -mounted electric ovens; counter -mounted cooking tops; electric ranges; self-contained room, console or through -wall air conditions; space heater; food waste grinders; dishwashers; washing machines; water heaters; clothes dryers; or other motor -operated appliances not exceeding 1 horsepower fHPI
$7
Non -Residential Appliance -For nonresidential appliances and self-contained factory -wired, nonresidential appliances not exceeding 1 horsepower (HP), kilowatt (kW) or kilovolt -ampere (kVA) in rating, including medical and dental devices; food, beverage and ice cream cabinets; illuminated show cases; drinking fountains; vending machines; laundry machines; or other similar tvoes of equipment.
$7
Power Apparatus
Power Apparatus: Up To 1 HP, kW, Or kVA
$7
Power Apparatus: 1- 10 HP, kW, Or kVA
$24
Power Apparatus: 11 - 50 HP, kW, Or kVA
$36
Power Apparatus: 50 - 100 HP, kW, Or kVA
$71
Power Apparatus: > 100 HP, kW, Or kVA
$107
Busway and Trolley
Busway - Plug -In Typw - Each 100 LF
$7
Trolley - Each 100 LF
$7
Signs. Outline Lighting and Marquees
For signs, outline lighting systems or marquees supplied from one branch circuit $36
For additional branch circuits within the same sign, outline lighting system or marquee
$7
Services (Service Change)
Service Entrance - 600V or 1000A
$107
Temporary Power Service
Temporary Pedestal
$36
Temporary Distribution System
$12
Temporary Lighting
$12
Carnival or Circus
Generator
$24
Generator and Electrically Driven Ride
$24
Other Rides or Displays with Electrical Lighting
$7
System of Area and Booth Lighting
$7
Motors
Motor 1HP or Less
$16
Motor 1HP < 10 HP
$43
Motor 10HP <50 HP
$58
Motor 50 HP <100 HP
$102
Motor 100 HP and Up
$102

PLUMBING
Plumbing Permit Processing Fee - Residential
$63
Minimum Plumbing Permit Fee -Residential
$156
Plumbing Permit Processing Fee - Commercial
$84
Minimum Plumbing Permit Fee -Commercial
$156
Processing fee simaltaneously with other MEP permit
$21
Plumbing Only Plan Review Fee
10% of Plumbing Permit Fee

PLUMBING FIXED FEES
Gas Line
$271

REF #

FEE TITLE
Gas Re -Piping

FEE AMOUNT
$208
Septic System - New or Replacement
$617
Sewer Hook-up
$331
Sewer Connection Application
$25
Sewer Repair
$208
Temporary Gas Prior to Final
$223
Tub to Walk-in Shower
$420
Water Heater
$89
Water Re -Piping
$208
Water Heater - Tankless
$241

FIXTURE COUNTS
To be used only when flat or valuation fee is not
applicable
Cesspool
For each private sewage disposal system, ex: septic tank $71
For each industrial waste pretreatment interceptor, including its trap and vent, excepting kitchen -type grease interceptors functioning as fixture traps $36
Fixtures and Vents
For each plumbing fixture or trap or set of fixtures on one trap (including water, drainage piping and backflow protection thereof)
$12
For repair or alteration of drainage or vent piping
$5
Each Drain Piping, Drinking fountain, urinal, water piping, floor drain, washer (auto), laundry tray, kitchen sink, water closet, lavatory, shower, bath tub. $20
Gas Piping System
1-4 outlets - Per Outlet
$5
5 or More Outlets - Per Outlet
$3
House Sewer
$45
Lawn Sprinkler, Vacuum Breaker, Backflow Pretection Devices Lawn Sprinkler System on any one meter, including backflow protect $17
Each Backflow Protection Device 2 inches or smaller
$17
Each Backflow Protection Device over 2 inches
$36
Miscellaneous
$17
Lateral Connection
$143
Leach System
$65
Sewers. Disposal Systems and Interceptors
For each residential building sewer and each trailer park sewer $36
Rainwater systems - per drain (inside building)
$12
Sewage Disposal
$103
Water Piping and Water Heater
For installation, alteration, or repair of water piping or water -treating equipment, or both
$5
For each water heater including vent
$17

MECHANICAL
Mechanical Permit Processing Fee - Residential
$63
Minimum Mechanical Permit Fee -Residential
$156
Mechanical Permit Processing Fee - Commercial
$84
Minimum Mechanical Permit Fee -Commercial
$156
Processing fee simaltaneously with other MEP permit
$21
Mechanical Only Plan Review Fee
10% of Mechanical Permit Fee

MECHANICAL FIXED FEES
Furnace - Floor
$89
Furnace - Wall
$268
Fireplace
$104
HVAC Change -Out - Commercial - First Unit
$223
HVAC Change -Out - Commercial - Each Additional Unit
$45
HVAC Change -Out - Residential
$134
Incinerator - Domestic
$134
Incinerator - Commercial/Industrial
$325
Vent System- Hood
$12

FIXTURE COUNTS
To be used only when flat or valuation fee is not
applicable
Air Handling Unit
Up to 10,000 CFM
$12
Over 10,000 CFM
$24
Appliance Vent
$7
For the installation, relocation or replacement of each appliance vent installed and not included in an appliance permit.

Boiler, Compressor, Absorption System
Up to 3 HP/100,000 btu/h
$17
Over 3 HP/ 100,000 btu/h
$29

REF #

FEE TITLE
Ductwork

FEE AMOUNT
$43
Evaporative Cooler
$12
Forced Heating System
$43
Furnace
Up to 100,000 btu/h
$17
Over 100,000 btu/h
$24
For the installation or relocation of each floor furnace, including vent. $17
For the installation or relocation of each suspended heater, recessed wall heater or floor -mounted unit heater.
$17
Misc. Equipment
$12
Repairs or Additions
For the repair of, alteration of, or addition to each heating appliance, refrigeration unit, cooling unit, absorption unit, or each heating, cooling, absorption or evaporative cooling system, including installation of controls regulated by the Mechanical Code. $17
Ventilation and Exhaust
For each ventilation fan connected to a single duct
$7
For each ventilation system which is not a portion of any heating or air-conditioning system authorized by a permit
$12
For the installation of each hood which is served by mechanical exhaust, including the ducts for such hood.
$12

APPENDIX E - ANIMAL LICENSE
Beaumont
1 Year License Altered
$25
2 Year License Altered
$40
3 Year License Altered
$55
1 Year Unaltered
$100
Late License Fee
$25
Replacement Tag
$25
Banning
1 Year License Altered
This fee should be removed from the fee schedule as the service is no longer provided
2 Year License Altered
This fee should be removed from the fee schedule as the service is no longer provided
3 Year License Altered
This fee should be removed from the fee schedule as the service is no longer provided
1 Year Unaltered
This fee should be removed from the fee schedule as the service is no longer provided
Late License Fee
This fee should be removed from the fee schedule as the service is no longer provided
Replacement Tag
This fee should be removed from the fee schedule as the service is no longer provided
Calimesa
1 Year License Altered
$25
2 Year License Altered
$40
3 Year License Altered
$55
1 Year Unaltered
$100
Late License Fee
$25
Replacement Tag
$25
Shelter Fees - Determined by Ramona Humane Society

REF # FEE TITLE FEE AMOUNT

LEISURE & CULTURAL SERVICES
S-155

FACILITY RENTALS
Albert A. Chatigny Sr. Community Recreation
Center
Community Meeting Room
Private - $50/hour Non -Profit - $40/hour
Deposit - $100
Dance/Fitness Room
Private - $75/hour Non -Profit - $60/hour
Deposit - $250
Kitchen
Private - $150/day Non -Profit - $150/day
Deposit - $250
Gymnasium
Private - $150/hour Non -Profit -
$120/hour
Deposit - $500
Building Attendant - $20/hour
Belmont Civic Center
Gymnasium
Private - $150/hour Non -Profit -
$120/hour
Deposit - $500
Building Attendant - $20/hour
Community Park Pavilions
Pavilion - $25/hour
Deposit - $100
Restroom Key - $50
S-156

BALLFIELD RENTALS
Sports Field Permit Fee (credited to total fee) -
$100 per permit
All Permits adjusted - $10 per transaction
Permit Cancellation Fee - $100
Group 2 (>80% residency)
Youth Group Field Use (Non -Tournament) - $5
per hour/per field
Youth Group Field Use (Tournament) - $10
per hour/per field
Group 3-5 (<80% residency)
Youth Group Field Use (Non -Tournament) -
$15 per hour/per field
Youth Group Field Use (Tournament) - $20
per hour/per field
Group 6 (non-resident teams)
Youth Group Field Use - $30 per hour/per
field
Adult Group Field Use - $30 per hour/per
field
Tournaments - $30 per hour/per field
Lights:

Sports Park Soccer Complex - $30 per
hour/per field
Rangle Park - $15 per hour
Stewart Park - $30 per hour
Key Deposit (Refundable) - $45 (includes 2
keys)

FIRE PLAN CHECK

APPENDIX D - FIRE FEES FEE AMOUNT
Minimum Inspection Fee

FIRE INSPECTION

FEE AMOUNT
$150
Fire Fees For S • rinkler Permits FSS
New 13, 13R Fire Sprinkler System plan check (base fee) $525
New 13, 13R Fire Sprinkler System inspection (per sprinkler head) $7
New 13D Fire Sprinkler System plan check (base fee)
$225
New 13D Fire Sprinkler System inspection (per sprinkler head) (each separate plan type)
$7

TI 13, 13R Fire Sprinkler System plan check (Lase fee)
$375
TI 13, 13R Fire Sprinkler System inspection (per sprinkler head) $7
TI 13D Fire Sprinkler System plan check (base fee)
$187
TI 13D Fire Sprinkler System inspection (per sprinkler head) $7
Construction Reinspection Fee
$150
Alternate methods and materials (initial - 4 hrs. min.) $600
Alternate methods and materials Plan Review (addtl. hrs.) $150
Consultant Fire Plan Review
Actual consultant cost + 20% admin fee
Misc./Over the Counter/ Revisions
$150
3rd review and subsequent submittals (per hour)
$150
Expedited Plan Review (per hour)
$225
Overtime Inspection (per hour)
$225
Work without Permit (PENALT
$300
Fire Fees For Alarm Permits (FAL)
New Fire Alarm System plan check (base fee)
$525
New Fire Alarm System inspection (per initiating or notification device) $7
TI Fire Alarm System Plan Check (base fee)
$375
TI Fire Alarm System Inspection (per initiating or notification device) $7
Monitoring Only Plan Check
$150
Monitoring Only Inspection
$150
Construction Reinspection Fee
$150
Alternate methods and materials (initial - 4 hrs. min.) $600
Alternate methods and materials (addtl hrs.)
$150
Consultant Fire Plan Review
Actual consultant cost + 20% admin fee
Misc./Over the Counter/ Revisions
$150
3rd review and subsequent submittals (per hour)
$150
Expedited Plan Review (per hour)
$225
Overtime Inspection (per hour)
$225
Work without Permit (PENALTY)
$300
Fire Fees For Water System Permits (FTW)
Underground plan check (per connection)
$225
Underground inspection (per connection)
$300
Fire Pump plan check
$450
Fire Pump inspection
$375
Aboveground Temporary Tank plan check
$225
Aboveground Temporary Tank inspection
$225
Emergency Underground Repair an check
$225
Emergency Underground Repair inspection
$450
Standpipes/Hose valves plan check
$225
Standpipes/Hose valves inspection
$300
Construction Reinspection Fee
$150
Alternate methods and materials (initial - 4 hrs. min.) $600
Alternate methods and materials (addtl. hrs.)
$150
Consultant Fire Plan Review
Actual consultant cost + 20% admin fee
Misc./Over the Counter/ Revisions
$150
3rd review and subsequent submittals (per hour)
$150
Expedited Plan Review (per hour)
$225
Overtime Inspection (per hour)
$225
Work without Permit (PENALTY)
$300
Fire Fees For Protection Systems Permits (FPS)
Special Extinguishing System plan check
$412
Special Extinguishing System inspection
$225
Hood and Duct Extinguishing System plan check (per system) $225
Hood and Duct Extinguishing System inspection (per system) $225
Smoke Control - Rationale Analysis and Plan Review
$1,050
Smoke Control System inspection
$900
Construction Reinspection Fee
$150
Alternate methods and materials (initial - 4 hrs. min.) $600
Alternate methods and materials (addtl. hrs.)
$150
Consultant Fire Plan Review
Actual consultant cost + 20% admin fee
Misc./Over the Counter/ Revisions
$150
3rd review and subsequent submittals (per hour)
$150
Expedited Review (per hour)
$225
Overtime Inspection (per hour)
$225
Work without Permit PENALT
$300
$300
Special Equipment (Oven, Dust, etc) plan check
Special Equipment (Oven, Dust, etc) inspection
$300
Battery Energy Sytems - Commercial plan check
$300
Battery Energy Sytems - Commercial inspection
$300
Battery Energy Sytems - Residential under 20 kWh plan check $150
Battery Energy Sytems - Residential under 20 kWh inspection $0
Battery Energy Sytems - Residential over 20 kWh plan check $150
Battery Energy Sytems - Residential over 20 kWh inspection $150
Refrigeration System < 500 Ibs. plan check
$450

Refrigeration System _ 500 Ibs. inspection
$450
Spray Booths (per booth) plan check
$225
Spray Booths (per booth) inspection
$150
Gas Systems (Med Gas, Industrial Gas, LPG) plan check
$450
Gas Systems (Med Gas, Industrial Gas, LPG) inspection
$300
Emergency Responder Radio Coverage plan check
$600
Emergency Responder Radio Coverage inspection
$600
Generator plan check
$150
Generator inspection
$225
Construction Reinspection Fee
$150
Alternate methods and materials (initial - 4 hrs. min.) $600
Alternate methods and materials (addtl. hrs.)
$150
Consultant Fire Plan Review
Actual consultant cost + 20% admin fee
Misc./Over the Counter/ Revisions
$150
3rd review and subsequent submittals (per hour)
$150
Expedited Plan Review (per hour)
$225
Overtime Inspection (per hour)
$225
Work without Permit (PENALTY)
$150
$300
Effialgatgalal iews MU'
Access and Water Supply plan check
Access and Water Supply inspection
$300
Fuel Modification Plan check
$300
Fuel Modification inspection
$150
Construction Reinspection Fee
$150
Alternate methods and materials (initial - 4 hrs. min.) $600
Alternate methods and materials (addtl. hrs.)
$150
Consultant Fire Plan Review
Actual consultant cost + 20% admin fee
Misc./Over the Counter/ Revisions
$150
3rd review and subsequent submittals (per hour)
$150
Expedited Plan Review (per hour)
$225
Overtime Inspection (per hour)
$225
Work without Permit (PENALTY)
$225
$300
11 11 1111.1. 1
Haz-Mat Chem Class 100 Chemicals plan check
$825
Haz-Mat Chem Class >100 Chemicals ins ection
$525
11111111 1111. 11.111111. 111 for- ..rnr..
1111
Aboveground Storage Tanks inspection (per tank) Installation or Removal $112
Alterations to gas stations plan check (no tank alterations) $225
Alterations to gas stations inspection (no tank alterations) $150
Construction Reinspection Fee
$150
Alternate methods and materials (initial - 4 hrs. min.) $600
Alternate methods and materials Plan Review (addtl. hrs.) $150
Consultant Fire Plan Review
Actual consultant cost + 20% admin fee
Misc./Over the Counter/Revisions
$150
3rd review and subsequent submittals (per hour)
$150
Expedited Plan Review (per hour)
$225
Overtime Ins ection er hour
$225
$300
Fire Fees For High Pile Storage Permits (FHP)
High Pile Storage 100,000 sq. ft. plan check
$1,200
Hi h Pile Stora e > 100 000 s . ft. Ins ection
$1 200
Construction Reinspection Fee
$150
Alternate methods and materials initial - 4 hrs. min.
$600
Alternate methods and materials Plan Review (addtl. hrs.) $150
Consultant Fire Plan Review
Actual consultant cost + 20% admin fee

APPENDIX D - FIRE FEES

FIRE PLAN CHECK

FEE AMOUNT

FIRE INSPECTION

FEE AMOUNT
Misc./Over the Counter/Revisions
$150
3rd review and subsequent submittals (per hour)
$150
Expedited Plan Review (per hour)
$225
Overtime Inspection (per hour)
$225
Work without Permit (PENALTY)
$300
Fire Fees For Hazard Abatement (FHA)
Hazard Reduction Inspection, per inspection
$150
Hazard Reduction Abatement Administrative Fee
$300
Hazard Reduction Abatement Cost Recovery
actual costs
Fire Fees For Tumbleweed Abatement (FTA)
Hazard Reduction Inspection, per inspection
$150
Hazard Reduction Abatement Administrative Fee
$300
Hazard Reduction Abatement Cost Recovery
actual costs
Fire Fees For Inspections (FIN)
Residential Care Facility 6 or less Pre -inspection
$150
Residential Day Care Facility 8-14 Fire Clearance
$150
Special Event WITH tents and/or canopies >400 sq. ft.
$300
$300
Special Event with NO tents and/or canopies
$150
$150
Carnivals and Fairs
$300
$300
Food Trucks
$150
$150
Firework Displays
$900
Complaints (not on fee schedule but is documented under this record type) $0
Fire Clearances (not on fee schedule but is documented under this record type for hospital, res. care facility 850 fire clearance, etc) $0
Hydrant/Control Valve Flow Test
$225
Fire Standby (per hour)
$150
Miscellaneous Inspection (uses 1 hour of the hourly rate fee) $150
Annual Fire Code Permits (CFC Operational Permits)
Aerosol Products Level 2 & 3
$75
Open Flame and/ or Candles in Assembly Occupancies
$75
Cellulose Nitrate
$75
Combustible Fibers
$150
Combustible Materials
$75
Compressed Gases
$150
Cryogenic Fluids
$150
Dispensing of Flammable/Combustible liquids into a vehicle $150
Dry Cleaning Plants 1-2 units
$75
Dry Cleaning Plants > 2 units
$225
Combustible Dust Producing & Operations
$150
Covered and Uncovered Mall Buildings
$225
Explosives
$150
Flammable/Combustible Liquids Inside >_60 Gal.
$150
Flammable/Combustible Liquids Inside 100,000 sq. ft.
$600
Industrial Ovens/Drying
$150
Liquefied Petroleum Gases
$75
Liquid or Gas Filled Vehicles in Assemblies
$150
Miscellaneous Combustible Storage
$150
Motor Vehicle Repair
$150
Storage of Tires
$150
Places of Assembly
$150
Pyrotechnical Special Effects
$600
Spray Booths/ Dipping Operations
$150
Welding and Cutting
$75
Special Amusement Buildings
$225
Hazardous Production Materials
$150
Lumber yards and woodworking plants
$300
Magnesium
$75
Refrigeration Equipment <500 lbs.
$150
Refrigeration Equipment 2500 lbs.
$300
Additive Manufacturing (3D Printing)
$150
Energy Storage Systems
$300
Mobile Fueling of Hydrogen -Fueled Vehicles
$150
Motor Fuel -Dispensing Facilities
$150
Lithium Batteries
$150
Fire Fees For Business Annuals (Fire # FBP)
A-1 occupancies: Assembly uses, usually with fixed seating, intended for the production and viewing of performing arts or motion pictures <20,000 sq. ft. $225

EN IX P - FIRE FEES
A-1 occupancies: Assembly uses, usually with fixed seating, intended for the production and viewing of performing arts or motion pictures >_20,000 sq. ft.

FIRE PLAN CHECK

FEE AM)UNT

FIRE INS TECTISN

FEE AM)UNT
$450
A-2 occupancies: Assembly uses intended for food and/or drink consumption with occupant load of 50-150
$150
A-2 occupancies: Assembly uses intended for food and/or drink consumptionwith occupant load or more than 151
$225
A-3 occupancies: Assembly uses intended for worship, recreation or amusement and other assembly occupancies not classified as A -1,A -2,A-4, and A-5 occupancies _20,000 sq. ft.
$450
A-4 occupancies: Assembly uses intended for viewing of indoor sporting events and activities with spectator seating 350,000 sq. ft $900
H or L Occupancy
$450
2nd Re -Inspection Penalty (Penalty of $150 + reinspection fee $150 = $300) $300
3rd + Re -inspection Penalty (Penalty of $250 + reinspection fee $150 = $400) $400
Work without Permit (PENALTY)
$300
Fire Fees For Multi Famil Annuals Fire # FMF
R-1 Occupancy (i.e. hotels, motels) 100 units
$900
R-2 Occu. anc i.e. Res Permanent 3+ . er unit
$37
Care Facility Commercial 0-50 State Licensed
$300
Care Facili Commercial 51-99 State Licensed
$375
Care Facility Commercial 100-150 State Licensed
$450
Care Facili Commercial >_ 151 State Licensed
$600
2nd Re -Inspection Penalty (Penalty of $150 + reinspection fee $150 = $300) $300
3rd + Re -inspection Penalty (Penalty of $250 + reinspection fee $150 = $400) $400
Work without Permit (PENALTY)
$300
Fire Fees For State Mandates Annuals Fire # FSM
E Occupancy (Schools) 10,000 s.. ft.
$600
Hospitals 10 000 S.F.
$600
Skilled Nursing 10 000 S.F.
$600
Tail 10,000 S.F.
$600
High -Rise 75' or more
$900
Day Care Facilities Commercial 0-50
$150
Day Care Facilities Commercial 51-100
$225
Day Care Facilities Commercial 101-150
$300
Day Care Facilities Commercial >150
$375
2nd Re -Inspection Penalty (Penalty of $150 + reinspection fee $150 = $300) $300
3rd + Re -inspection Penalty (Penalty of $250 + reinspection fee $150 = $400) $400
Work without Permit PENALT
$300
Miscellaneous Fire Fees
Inspection (per hour)
$150
Plan Review (per hour)
$150
Consultant Fire Plan Review
Actual consultant cost + 20% admin fee
Fire Fees For Items That No Record Is Created
False Alarm - Residential
$0
False Alarm - Commercial
$300
Fire Fees That Will Be In Planning Records
Annexation Process and Environmental Review, Deposit
$1S0
Conditional Use Permit
$450

APPENDIX D - FIRE FEES
Conditional Use Permit: Admin & Existing Structure

FIRE PLAN CHECK

FEE AMOUNT
$300

FIRE INSPECTION

FEE AMOUNT
Conditional Use Permit: Amended CUP/Substantial Conformance $150
Custom Home Review
$300
Development Agreement, Deposit
Actual Costs
Development Agreement Amendment, Deposit
Actual Costs
Environmental Review
EIR Re .ort Pre .aration Deposit
Actual Costs
Extension of Time
Actual Costs
General Plan Amendment Deposit
Actual Costs
Phasing Map
$150
Plot Plan
With hearing
$450
Without hearing (notice)
$450
Without hearing (no notice)
$450
Amended plot plan/substantial conformance
$150
Pre -application Review
$450
S.ecificPlan Deposit
Actual Costs
Specific Plan Amendment, Deposit
Actual Costs
Special Event Permit - Minor
$150
Special event Permit - Major
$300
Tentative Parcel Map
Residential
$450
Commercial
$450
Tentative Tract or Condo Map
$450
Tentative Tract or Parcel Map Revised
$450
Fire Fees That Will Be In Land Development Records a
Precise Gradin: elan review .er sheet
$225
Water/Sewer plan review, per sheet
$225
4th+ submittal 1 2 hour of hourl rate)
Fire Fees For New Const. & Ti'S (BFC & BRC)
Buildings for all Commercial Uses - (The enclosure for all newly constructed or added space for non-residential occupancies classified as CBC Group A, B, E, F, I, M, S, or other commercial occupancies not specifically addressed elsewhere in this Fee Schedule where the interior is completed and occupiable (same fees as shell buildings)
$75
0 - 1999 s.. ft.
$150
$150
2,000 - 4,999 sq. ft.
$188
$188
5000-9999s..ft.
$225
$225
10,000 - 24,999 sq. ft.
$300
$300
25 000 -49999 s.. ft.
$375
$375
50,000 or > to be charged by base fee plus a sq. ft. multiplier $450 + $9 per 1,000 SF
$450 + $9 per 1,000 SF
Residential and Multifamily Residential Uses - (All newly constructed or added space for residential occupancies classified as CBC Group R, or other residential occupancies not specifically addressed elsewhere in this Fee Schedule)
0 - 1999 s.. ft.
$150
$150
2,000 - 4,999 sq. ft.
$188
$188
5 000 - 9 999 s.. ft.
$225
$225
10,000 - 24,999 sq. ft.
$300
$300
25 000 - 49 999 s.. ft.
$375
$375
50,000 or > to be charged by base fee plus a sq. ft. multiplier $450 + $9 per 1,000 SF
$450 + $9 per 1,000 SF
Hazardous Use - (All newly constructed or added space for hazardous use occupancies classified as CBC Group H.
0-1999 s.. ft.
$188
$188
2,000 - 4,999 sq. ft.
$300
$300
5 000 - 9 999 s.. ft.
$413
$413
10,000 - 24,999 sq. ft.
$525
$525
25 000 -49999 s.. ft.
$638
$638
50,000 or > to be charged by base fee plus a sq. ft. multiplier $750 + $15 per 1,000 SF
$750 + $15 per 1,000 SF
Shell Buildings for all Commercial Uses - (The enclosure for all newly constructed or added space for non-residential occupancies classified as CBC Group A, B, E, F, I, M, S, or other commercial occupancies not specifically addressed elsewhere in this Fee Schedule where the interior is not completed or occupiable)
0-1999sq.ft.
$150
$150
2,000 - 4,999 sq. ft.
$188
$188
5,000 - 9,999 sq. ft.
$225
$225
10,000 - 24,999 sq. ft.
$300
$300
25 000 -49999 s.. ft.
$375
$375
50,000 or > to be charged by base fee plus a sq. ft. multiplier $450 + $9 per 1,000 SF
$450 + $9 per 1,000 SF
Tenant Improvement - (Remodeled space for non-residential occupancies classified as CBC Group A, B, E, F, I, M, R, S, or other commercial occupancies not specifically addressed elsewhere.)
0-1999sq.ft.
$150
$150

APPENDIX D - FIRE FEES

FIRE PLAN CHECK

FEE AMOUNT

FIRE INSPECTION

FEE AMOUNT
2,000 - 4,999 sq. ft.
$188
$188
5,000 - 9,999 sq. ft.
$225
$225
10,000 - 24,999 sq. ft.
$300
$300
25,000 - 49,999 sq. ft.
$375
$375
50,000 or > to be charged by base fee plus a sq. ft. multiplier $450 + $9 per 1,000 SF
$450 + $9 per 1,000 SF
Tenant Improvement - Hazardous Use (Remodeled space for non- residential occupancies classified as CBC Group H.
0-1999sq. ft.
$150
$150
2,000 - 4,999 sq. ft.
$225
$225
5,000 - 9,999 sq. ft.
$338
$338
10,000 - 24,999 sq. ft.
$450
$450
25,000 - 49,999 sq. ft.
$563
$563
50,000 or > to be charged by base fee plus a sq. ft. multiplier $675 + $13.50 per 1,000 SF
$675 + $13.50 per 1,000 SF
Solar / Photovoltaic (BON / BFR / BRC)
Solar Photovoltaic Systems (Commercial)
$300
$150
Cell Sites
Cell Site New
$150
$150
Cell Site Modification
$75
$150
Additional Fire Fees for BFC / BFR / BON
Construction Trailer
$75
$150
Model Home Complex/Sales Office Conversion
$150
$150
Storage Racks - first 500 LF
$150
$150
Storage Racks - each additional 500 LF
$150
$150
Swimming Pool - Multi-Family/Commercial
$150
$150
Commercail EV Charging Station
$150
$150
Consultant Fire Plan Review
Actual consultant cost + 20% admin fee
Misc./Over the Counter/ Revisions
$150
Misc./Over the Counter/ Revisions option 2
$150
3rd review and subsequent submittals (per hour)
$150
Expedited / Overtime Plan Review (per hour)
$225
Expedited / Overtime Inspection (per hour]
$225

CITY OF BEAUMONT

UNIT REVENUES, COSTS, UNITS AND POSSIBLE NEW REVENUES
FISCAL YEAR 2020-21
REF 8

SERVICE

CURRENT FEE

SUGGESTED FEE
UNIT

REVENUE
UNIT
COST
0/0 UNIT
CHANGE
UNIT

PROFIT/
(SUBSIDY)

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
S-001

CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
Stand-alone - $2,038.94 deposit
$5,000 deposit with charges at the fully allocated hourly rates for all personnel involved plus any outside costs.
50 $0
0%
$0
S-002

CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT
None
$2 715 era lication
$0
$2 713
0%
$2 713
S-003

FINDINGS OF PUBLIC CONV/NECESSITY
None
$2,005 per application
$0
$2,006
0%
($2,006)
S-004

CUP TIME EXTENSION
$829.42 per application
51,970 per application
$829
$1,968
137%
($1,139)
S-005

LARGE GROUP HOME CUP
$1,117.60 per application
$3,730 per application
$1,118
$3,729
234%
(52,611)
S-006

GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
Up to 50 acres - $3,368 deposit
Over 50 acres - $5,563 deposit
Up to 50 acres - 55,000 deposit with charges at the fully allocated hourly rates for all personnel involved plus any outside costs.

Over 50 acres - $7,500 deposit with charges at the fully allocated hourly rates for all personnel involved plus any outside costs. $0
$0
0%
$0
S-007

ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT CHANGE
$4,324 deposit
$5,000 deposit with charges at the fully allocated hourly rates for all ersonnel involved lus an outside costs.
$0
$0
0%
$0
S-008

SPECIFIC PLAN
$11,081 deposit
$15,000 deposit with charges at the fully allocated hourly rates for all ersonnel involved lus an outside costs.
$0
$0
0%
$0
S-009

SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
$2,686 deposit
$7,500 deposit with charges at the fully allocated hourly rates for all ersonnel involved lus an outside costs.
$0
$0
0%
$0
S-010

SPEC PLAN CONFORMITY DETERMINATION
$2,354 deposit
$5,000 deposit with charges at the fully allocated hourly rates for all personnel involved plus any outside costs.
$0
$0
0%
$0
5-011

ANNEXATION
$48,235 deposit plus actual costs for LAFCo
$25,000 deposit with charges at the fully allocated hourly rates for all personnel involved plus any outside or LAFCo costs. $0
$0
0%
$0
S-012

PLAN OF SERVICES
$3,584 deposit
$5,000 deposit with charges at the fully allocated hourly rates for all personnel involved plus any outside costs.
$0
$0
0%
$0
S-013

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
$42,426 deposit
525,000 deposit with charges at the fully allocated hourly rates for all personnel involved plus any outside costs.
$0
$0
0%
$0
S-014

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ANNUAL REVIEW
$3 027.43 er review
$2 165 er review
$3 027
$2 165
-28%
$862
S-015

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AMENDMENT
$41,231 deposit
510,000 deposit with charges at the fully allocated hourly rates for all personnel involved plus any outside costs.
$0
$0
0%
$0
S-016

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ASSIGNMENT
53,521.16 per application
$5,000 deposit with charges at the fully allocated hourly rates for all personnel involved plus any outside costs.
$0
$0
0%
$0
5-017

ESTOPPEL CERTIFICATE
$3,521.16 per application
$5,000 deposit with charges at the fully allocated hourly rates for all ersonnel involved lus an outside costs.
$0
$0
0%
$0
S-018

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Actual consultant cost plus 20% Administrative
fee
Filing Fees - Actual costs
Actual consultant cost plus 20% Administrative fee
Filing Fees - Actual costs
$0
$0
0%
$0
S-019

FACILITY FEE CREDIT AGREEMENT
$9,797 deposit
$10,000 deposit with charges at the fully allocated hourly rates for all ersonnel involved lus an outside costs.
50 $0
0%
$0
S-020

DENSITY BONUS AGREEMENT
$2,994.38 per application
$5,000 deposit with charges at the fully allocated hourly rates for all personnel involved plus any outside costs.
$0
$0
0%
$0
S-021

PRE -APPLICATION MEETING
$907.92 per meeting/review
$2,210 per meeting/review
50% credit on the first meeting's fee if the project is submitted within six months.
$908
$2,211
144%
($1,303)
S-022

ZONING MAP CHANGE
$4,324 deposit
$5,000 deposit with charges at the fully allocated hourly rates for all ersonnel involved lus an outside costs.
50 $0
0%
50 S-023

TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP
$1,723 deposit
$5,000 deposit with charges at the fully allocated hourly rates for all personnel involved plus any outside costs.
50 $0
0%
50 S-024

TENTATIVE TRACT MAP
$4,390 deposit
$7,500 deposit with charges at the fully allocated hourly rates for all personnel involved plus any outside costs.
$0
$0
0%
$0
S-025

TENTATIVE MAP TIME EXTENSION
$846.98 per application
$2,190 per application
$847
$2,188
158%
($1,341)

POSSIBLE ANNUAL NEW
8 UNITS SUGGEST REVENUE
6 100%
$0
1 100%
$0
1 100%
$0
1 100%
$0
1 100%
$0
1 100%
$0
1 100%
$0
1 100%
$0
1 100%
$0
1 100%
$0
1 100%
$0
1 100%
$0
1 100%
$0
1 100%
$0
1 100%
$0
1 100%
$0
1 100%
$0
4 100%
$0
1 100%
$0
1 100%
$0
26 100%
$16,950
1 100%
$0
2 100%
$0
1 100%
$0
1 100%
$0
(b)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(b)
(b)
(b)
(b)
(b)
(b)
(b)
(b)
(a)
(b)
(b)
(b)
(b)
(b)
(b)
(d)
(b)
(b)
(b)
(a)

CITY OF BEAUMONT

UNIT REVENUES, COSTS, UNITS AND POSSIBLE NEW REVENUES
FISCAL YEAR 2020-21
REF #

SERVICE

CURRENT FEE

SUGGESTED FEE
UNIT

REVENUE
UNIT
COST
0/0 UNIT
CHANGE
0%
UNIT

PROFIT/
(SUBSIDY)
S-026

CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION
$10,548 deposit
$10,000 deposit with charges at the fully allocated hourly rates for all personnel involved plus any outside costs.
$0
$0
$0
S-027

VARIANCE
$1,530.76 per application
$2,560 per application
$1,531
$2,559
67%
($1,028)
S-028

MINOR VARIANCE/MODIF OF STANDARDS
$154.94 per application
$245 per application
$155
$246
59%
($91)
S-029

PLOT PLAN
$3,778 deposit
$5,000 deposit with charges at the fully allocated hourly rates for all personnel involved plus any outside costs.
$0
$0
0%
$0
S-030

PLOT PLAN AMENDMENT
$2,148 deposit
$3,000 deposit with charges at the fully allocated hourly rates for all personnel involved plus any outside costs.
$0
$0
0%
$0
S-031

PLOT PLAN TIME EXTENSION
$565 per application
$2,005 per application
$565
$2,006
255%
($1,441)
S-032

RESIDENTIAL ADMIN PLOT PLAN
$516.45 per application
$925 per application
$516
$924
79%
($407)
S-033

NON-RESIDENTIAL ADMIN PLOT PLAN
$516.45 per application
$1,030 per application
$516
$1,032
100%
($515)
S-034

MINOR PLOT PLAN - STAFF
$1,219.85 per application
$1,435 per application
$1,220
$1,435
18%
($216)
S-035

MINOR PLOT PLAN - PLAN COMM
$1,219.85 per application
$3,230 per application
$1,220
$3,230
165%
($2,010)
S-036

PICK A LOT SITE PLAN REVIEW
$103.29 per lot
$315 per lot
$103
$317
= 208%
($214)
S-037
MAP/PLOT PLAN CONFORMITY DETERMIN.
$984 deposit
$2,500 deposit with charges at the fully allocated hourly rates for all . ersonnel involved .lus an outside costs.
$0
$0
0%
$0
S-038

LANDSCAPE PLAN REVIEW
$743.69 per application
$20 per application plus $140 per sheet
$744
$857
15%
($113)
S-039

LANDSCAPE PLAN AMENDMENT
$614.58 per application
$20 per application plus $140 per sheet
Cost is based on six sheets
$615
$857
39%
($242)
S-040

LANDSCAPE INSPECTION (PLANNING)
$81.60 per lot
$205 per lot
$82
$205
150%
($123)
S-041

SIGN PROGRAM
$1,652.64 per application
$1,870 per application
$1,653
$1,872
13%
($219)
5-042

SIGN PROGRAM AMENDMENT
$969.89 per application
$1,870 per application
$970
$1,872
93%
($902)
S-043

SIGN PERMIT
$206.58 per application
$375 per application
$207
$376
82%
($169)
S-044

SIGN PERMIT PANEL CHANGE
$82.63 per application
$170 per application
$83
$170
105%
($87)
5-045

TEMPORARY SIGN PERMIT
None
$170 per application
$0
$170
0%
($170)
S-046

UNLICENSED GROUP HOME PERMIT
$800 per application
$3,335 per application
$800
$3,336
317%
($2,536)
S-047

AUTOMOBILE FOR HIRE REVIEW
$413.16 per application
$2,720 per application
$413
$2,718
558%
($2,305)
S-048

HOME OCCUPATION PERMIT
$77.47 per application
$225 per application
$77
$225
192%
($148)
S-049

MINOR SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT
$77.47 per application
$500 deposit with charges at the fully allocated hourly rates for all staff involved plus any outside costs.
$77
$1,288
1563%
($1,211)
S-050

MAJOR SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT
$77.47 per application
$1,985 per application
Carnival/Circus/Menagerie - additional $455 per application Events of more than 1,000 people - $5,000 deposit with charges at the fully allocated hourly rates for all staff involved plus any outside costs.
$77
$2,078
2585%
($2,001)
S-051

MISCELLANEOUS SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT
$77.47 per application
$1,000 per application
$77
$1,000
1199%
($923)
S-052

APPEAL TO PLANNING COMISSION
$642.46 per appeal
$2,585 per appeal
$642
$2,583
302%
($1,941)
S-053

APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL
$1,945.98 per appeal
$2,985 per appeal
$1,946
$2,986
53%
($1,040)

POSSIBLE ANNUAL NEW
# UNITS

SUGGEST

REVENUE
1 100%
$0
13 100%
$13,400
1 100%
$0
5 100%
$0
1 100%
$0
1 100%
$0
21 100%
$8,600
58 100%
$29,900
8 100%
$1,700
1 100%
$0
1 100%
$0
1 100%
$0
1 100%
$100
1 100%
$200
1 100%
$100
1 100%
$200
1 100%
$900
1 100%
$200
1 100%
$100
1 100%
$200
2 100%
$5,100
1 100%
$0
1 100%
$100
15 100%
$18,200
5 100%
$10,000
1 100%
$900
1 100%
$0
1 100%
$0
(b)
(a)
(b)
(b)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)

CITY OF BEAUMONT

UNIT REVENUES, COSTS, UNITS AND POSSIBLE NEW REVENUES
FISCAL YEAR 2020-21
REF #

SERVICE

CURRENT FEE

SUGGESTED FEE
UNIT

REVENUE
UNIT
COST
0/0 UNIT
CHANGE
295%
UNIT

PROFIT/
(SUBSIDY)
S-054

PLANNING INFORMATION REQUEST
$56.81 per letter
$225 per letter
Plus a deposit determined by staff with charges at the fully allocated hourly rates for all personnel involved for additional research
$57
$225
($168)
S-055

MISCELLANEOUS PLANNING REVIEW
$1,195 deposit
Planning Commission Hearing required by any
action - $786.04
Deposit determined by staff with charges at the fully allocated hourly rates for all personnel involved plus any outside costs. $0
$0
0%
$0
S-056

COM DEV TECHNOLOGY SURCHARGE

3.29% Of Building, Planning, and Engineering
fees

3.29% Of Building, Planning, and Engineering fees
$169,000
$170,000
1%
($1,000)
S-057

BUILDING PLAN CHECK/INSPECTION
See Appendix C for detail
See Appendix C for detail
$2,876,175
$2,549,034
-11%
$327,141
S-058

FINAL PARCEL MAP
$2,500 deposit
$5,000 deposit with charges at the fully allocated hourly rates for all personnel involved plus any outside costs.
$0
$0
0%
$0
S-059

FINAL TRACT MAP
$4,000 deposit
$7,500 deposit with charges at the fully allocated hourly rates for all personnel involved plus any outside costs.
$0
$0
0%
$0
S-060

TENTATIVE REVERSION TO ACREAGE
$1,000 deposit
This fee should be removed as the service is no longer provided. $0
$0
0%
$0
S-061

LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT/PARCEL MERGER
$1,200 deposit with charges at contract cost
plus 20% for administration
$1,200 deposit with charges at the fully allocated hourly rates for all personnel involved plus any outside costs.
$0
$0
0%
$0
S-062

FINAL MONUMENT SETTING
First four parcels/lots
- $2,582.25 plus $258.23 per
each additional parcel/lot
This fee should be removed from the fee schedule as the service is no longer provided.
$0
$0
0%
$0
S-063

FINAL MONUMENT INSPECTION
First four parcels/lots
- $1,032.90 plus $25.82 per
each additional parcel/lot
$1,500 deposit with charges at the fully allocated hourly rates for all personnel involved plus any outside costs.
$0
$0
0%
$0
S-064

PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN CHECK
None
$565 per plan
$0
$564
0%
($564)
S-065

RESIDENTIAL GRADING PLAN CHECK
Grading/Stockpile - $620.77 per sheet
Wall/Fence - $273.72 per sheet
Parking Lot Plan Check and Inspection -
$258.23 per sheet
Erosion Control - $1,000 deposit
$95 per plan plus $750 per sheet
$621
$845
36%
($224)
S-066

RES GRADING PLAN CHECK AMENDMENT
$2,500 deposit
$3,000 deposit with charges at the fully allocated hourly rates for all . ersonnel involved .lus an outside costs.
$0
50 0%
$0
S-067

RES GRADING PLAN CHECK ADD'L REVIEW
$1,000 deposit with charges at contract cost
plus 20% for administration
$1,000 deposit with charges at the fully allocated hourly rates for all personnel involved plus any outside costs.
$0
$0
0%
$0
S-068

COMMERCIAL GRADING PLAN CHECK
Grading/Stockpile - $812.89 per sheet
Wall/Fence - $273.72 per sheet
Parking Lot Plan Check and Inspection -
$258.23 per sheet
Erosion Control - $1 000 deposit
$95 per plan plus $1,125 per sheet
$813
$1,220
50%
($407)
S-069

COMMERCIAL GRADING PLAN AMENDMENT
$2,500 deposit
$3,000 deposit with charges at the fully allocated hourly rates for all personnel involved plus any outside costs.
$0
$0
0%
$0
S-070

COMM GRADING PLAN CHECK ADD'L REV
$1,000 deposit with charges at contract cost
plus 20% for administration
$1,000 deposit with charges at the fully allocated hourly rates for all personnel involved plus any outside costs.
$0
$0
0%
$0

POSSIBLE ANNUAL NEW
# UNITS

SUGGEST

REVENUE
1 100%
$0
1 100%
$0
1 100%
$0
1 100%
$0
3 100%
$0
3 100%
$0
1 100%
$0
3 100%
$0
1 100%
$0
1 100%
$0
15 100%
$8,500
81 100%
$18,200
25 100%
$0
9 100%
$0
24 100%
$9,800
25 100%
$0
4 100%
$0
(a)
(b)
(b)
(b)
(e)
(b)
(e)
(b)
(b)
(b)
(b)
(b)

CITY OF BEAUMONT

UNIT REVENUES, COSTS, UNITS AND POSSIBLE NEW REVENUES
FISCAL YEAR 2020-21
REF #

SERVICE

CURRENT FEE

SUGGESTED FEE
UNIT

REVENUE
UNIT
COST
0/0 UNIT
CHANGE
0%
UNIT

PROFIT/
(SUBSIDY)
S-071

GRADING/STOCKPILE INSPECTION
2,000-10,000 CY - $1,735.27 plus $433.82 each
additional 1,000 cubic Yards or fraction thereof
up to 10,000 cubic yards
10,001-100,000 CY - $3,904.36 plus $63.01
each additional 1,000 cubic Yards or fraction
thereof up to 100,000 cubic yards
100.00
Charges at the fully allocated hourly rates for all personnel involved plus any outside costs.
$0
$0
$0
S-072
GRADING/STOCKPILE RES. INFILL INSP
$433.82 per application
$435 per permit
$434
$411
-5%
$23
S-073

STREET LIGHT PLAN REVIEW
$623.87 per plan
$95 per plan plus $655 per sheet
$208
$751
261%
($543)
S-074

IMPROVEMENT CONSTRUCTION PLAN CHECK
$686.88 per sheet
$95 per plan plus $1,030 per sheet
$687
$1,126
64%
($439)
S-075

IMPROVEMENT CONSTRUCTION PLAN AMEND
$2,500 deposit
$1,500 deposit with charges at contract cost plus 20% for administration
$0
$0
0%
$0
S-076

IMPROVEMENT CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION
Deposit based on the Engineers Estimate
(Minimum $750)
Street Light Inspection - $78.50 per light
Deposit based on the Engineers Estimate
(Minimum $750)
$0
$0
0%
$0
S-077

SUBDIVISION/IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT
$288.18 per agreement
$725 per agreement plus actual costs for legal services $288
$727
152%
($438)
S-078

PERFORMANCE BOND RELEASE
$484.43 per application
$915 per application
$484
$914
89%
($430)
S-079

BOND RELEASE INSPECTION
$3,000 deposit
$3,000 deposit with charges at the fully allocated hourly rates for all personnel involved plus any outside costs.
$0
$0
0%
$0
S-080

MAINTENANCE BOND RELEASE
$484.43 per application
$915 per application
$485
$914
89%
($430)
S-081

MAINTENANCE BOND INSPECTION
$3,000 deposit
$3,000 deposit with charges at the fully allocated hourly rates for all personnel involved plus any outside costs.
$0
$0
0%
$0
S-082

SUSPENSION OF IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT
$1,000 deposit
This fee should be removed as the service is no longer provided. $0
$0
0%
$0
S-083

APPEAL SUSPENSION OF IMPROVEMENT
$1,000 deposit
This fee should be removed as the service is no longer provided. $0
$0
0%
$0
S-084

STREET VACATION/OFFER OF DEDICATION
$1,200 deposit with charges at contract cost
plus 20% for administration
$2,000 deposit with charges at the fully allocated hourly rates for all personnel involved plus any outside costs.
$0
$0
0%
$0
S-085

NON-STANDARD ENCROACH PERMIT APPL
$51.65 per application
$60 per application
$52
$58
12%
($6)
S-086

EXIST RESID STANDARD ENCROACH PRMT
$217.94 per permit
$280 per permit
$218
$282
29%
($64)
S-087

NON-STANDARD ENCROACH PLAN CHECK
Actual Cost
$40 per plan plus charges at the fully allocated hourly rates for all personnel involved plus any outside costs.
$80
$225
181%
($145)
S-088

NON-STANDARD ENCROACH INSPECTION
$500 deposit
Deposit with charges at the fully allocated hourly rates for all personnel involved plus any outside costs.
$0
$0
0%
$0
S-089
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE/CORRECT.
$1,000 deposit with charges at contract cost
plus 20% for administration
$1,000 deposit with charges at the fully allocated hourly rates for all personnel involved plus any outside costs.
$0
$0
0%
$0
S-090

PUBLIC WORKS PERMIT ISSUANCE
Within One Year - $75.40
After One Year - $500 deposit with charges at
the fully allocated hourly rates for all personnel
involved plus any outside costs.

Within One Year - $95
After One Year - $1,000 deposit with charges at the fully allocated hourly rates for all personnel involved plus any outside costs. $75
$95
27%
($20)
S-091

WATER QUALITY MGMT PRELIM PLAN CHK
0-10 acres - $4,211.13 per plan
Above 10 acres - $5,533.25 per plan
0-10 acres - $2,345 per plan
Above 10 acres - $3,465 per plan
$4,476
$2,568
-43%
$1,908
S-092

WATER QUALITY MGMT FINAL PLAN CHECK
$441.05 per plan
0-10 acres - $1,855 per plan
Above 10 acres - $2,420 per plan
$441
$1,970
347%
($1,529)

POSSIBLE ANNUAL NEW
# UNITS

SUGGEST

REVENUE
1 100%
$0
1 100%
$0
33 100%
$17,900
85 100%
$37,300
52 100%
$0
16 100%
$0
27 100%
$11,800
16 100%
$6,900
26 100%
$0
6 100%
$2,600
2 100%
$0
1 100%
$0
1 100%
$0
6 100%
$0
246
100%
$1,500
10 100%
$600
1 100%
$0
1 100%
$0
1 100%
$0
123
100%
$2,500
10 100%
($19,100)
10 100%
$15,300
(b)
(b)
(b)
(b)
(b)
(b)
(b)
(b)

CITY OF BEAUMONT

UNIT REVENUES, COSTS, UNITS AND POSSIBLE NEW REVENUES
FISCAL YEAR 2020-21
REF ti

SERVICE

CURRENT FEE

SUGGESTED FEE
UNIT

REVENUE
UNIT
COST
0/0 UNIT
CHANGE
0%
UNIT

PROFIT/
(SUBSIDY)
S-093

PRELIM HYDROLOGY/HYDRAULIC STUDY
None
0-10 acres - $2,345 per study
10-50 acres - $3.095 per study
50-100 acres - $3,840 per study
100+ acres - 4 590 er stud
$0
$2,825
($2,825)
S-094

FINAL HYDROLOGY/HYDRAULIC STUDY
0-10 acres - $2,889.02 per study
10-50 acres - $4,211.13 per study
50-100 acres - $5,533.25 per study
100+ acres - $8.177.47 per study
0-10 acres - $2,345 per study
10-50 acres - $3,095 per study
50-100 acres - $3,840 per study
100+ acres - $4.590 per study
$3,574
$2,825
-21%
$749
S-095

STORMWATER POLLUTION PROTECT REVIEW
Plan Check:
0-10 acres - $4,211.13 per plan
Above 10 acres - $5,533.25 per plan
This fee should be removed from the fee schedule as the service is provided by the State.
$0
$0
0%
50 S-096

STORMWATER POST -CONSTRUCT INSPECT
None
Charges at the fully allocated hourly rates for all personnel involved plus any outside costs.
50 $0
0%
$0
S-097

SEWER CONNECTION/LATERAL INSPECTION
$75 per inspection
Special Construction or Construction under
unusual conditions - $65 per hour ($75
minimum)
This fee should be removed as the service cost is already covered as part an encroachment permit.
$0
$0
0%
$0
S-098

LANDSCAPE PLAN CHECK
$411.09 per sheet
$95 per plan plus $560 per sheet
$411
5658
60%
($247)
S-099

LANDSCAPE INSPECTION (PW)
Deposit of 50% of Engineers Estimate ($500
minimum)
Deposit of 50% of Engineers Estimate ($500 minimum)
$0
$0
0%
$0
5-100

TRAFFIC STUDY REVIEW
$1,000 deposit with charges at contract cost
plus 20% for administration
$2,000 deposit with charges at contract cost plus 20% for administration
$0
$0
0%
$0
S-101

SCOPING AGREEMENT
None
$750 deposit with charges at contract cost plus 20% for administration
$0
$0
0%
$0
S-102

TRANSPORTATION WIDE LOAD PERMIT
Fees are set by the State:

Single - 516 per permit
Annual - $90 per permit
Fees are set by the State:

Single - $16 per permit
Annual - $90 per permit
$16
$20
25%
($4)
S-103

HAUL ROUTE REVIEW
None
$245 per application
$0
$245
0%
($245)
5-104

DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERING DEPOSIT SVC
These fees are detailed in the various services
with a deposit -based fee
These fees are detailed in the various services with a deposit- based fee
$360,000
$626,879
74%
($266,879)
5-105

ENGINEERING EXTRA PLAN CHECK
Charges at contract cost plus 20% for
administration
Charges at contract cost plus 20% for administration
$0
$0
0%
$0
S-106

MISCELLANEOUS ENGINEERING SERVICES
Actual Cost
Deposit determined by staff with charges at the fully allocated hourly rates for all personnel involved plus any outside costs plus 20% for administration.
$0
$0
0%
50 POSSIBLE ANNUAL NEW
# UNITS

SUGGEST

REVENUE
14 100%
$39,500
14 100%
($10,500)
1 100%
$0
1 100%
$0
1 100%
$0
24 100%
$5,900
24 100%
$0
1 100%
$0
1 100%
$0
1 80%
$0
1 100%
$0
1 100%
$0
1 100%
$0
1 100%
$0
SUBTOTAL - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES $255,550

PUBLIC SAFETY SERVICES
S-107

CODE ENFORCEMENT INSPECTION
None
5120 per hour
50 5122
0%
($122)
S-108

INSPECTION WARRANT
None
Charge the fully allocated hourly rates for all personnel involved plus any outside costs.
50 $0
0%
$0
S-109

ABATEMENT WARRANT
None
Charge the fully allocated hourly rates for all personnel involved plus any outside costs.
50 $0
0%
$0
S-110

CODE ENFORCEMENT CITATION HEARING
None
$500 deposit with charges at the fully allocated hourly rates for all personnel involved plus any outside costs.
$0
$7,407
0%
($7,407)
5-111
ABANDONED PROP. INIT. REGISTRATION
None
$185 per property
$0
5183
0%
($183)
S-112
ABANDONED PROPERTY MONTHLY INSPECT.

None
$60 per month
50 $61
0%
($61)
S-113

WEED ABATEMENT
$125 plus actual cost of abatement
$245 plus actual cost of abatement
$125
$244
95%
($119)
S-114

WEED ABATEMENT SUBSCRIPTION PROGRAM
$75 plus actual cost of abatement
$245 or 20% of abatement cost, whichever is less, plus actual cost of abatement
$75
$244
225%
($169)
1 100%
$0
1 100%
$0
1 100%
$0
2 100%
$0
12 100%
$2,200
12 100%
$700
31 100%
$3,700
59 100%
$10,000
(e)
(b)
(e)
(b)
(b)
(b)
(c)
(a)
(b)
(b)
(a)
(b)
(b)
(b)

CITY OF BEAUMONT

UNIT REVENUES, COSTS, UNITS AND POSSIBLE NEW REVENUES
FISCAL YEAR 2020-21
REF #

SERVICE

CURRENT FEE

SUGGESTED FEE
UNIT

REVENUE
UNIT
COST
0/0 UNIT
CHANGE
141%
UNIT

PROFIT/
(SUBSIDY)
S-115

FIRE PLAN CHECK/INSPECTION
See Appendix D for detail
See Appendix D for detail
$94
$225
($132)
S-116

STORED VEHICLE RELEASE
$75 per release
$175 per release
$75
$176
135%
($101)
S-117

STORED VEHICLE RELEASE - DUI
$150 .er release
$290 .er release
$150
$291
94%
$141
S-118

VIN VERIFICATION
$15 per vehicle
$15 per vehicle
$15
$58
290%
($43)
S-119

TRAFFIC CITATION SIGN OFF
$1S per citation
$25 per citation
$15
$24
58%
(59)
S-120

POLICE ALARM LICENSE
$21 per license
$28 per license
$21
$28
33%
($7)
S-121

AUTO REPOSSESSION PROCESSING
None
Fee is set by State law:
$15 per vehicle
$0
$19
0%
($19)
S-122

SECOND HAND DEALER LICENSE
$107 per application
5235 per application
$107
$233
118%
($126)
S-123

FORTUNETELLER PERMIT
$240 per application per year
$540 per application per year
$240
$542
126%
($302)
S-124

MASSAGE TECHNICIAN PERMIT - NEW
$100 .er application
$225 .er application
$100
$542
442%
$442
S-125

MASSAGE TECHNICIAN PERMIT - RENEWAL
$100 per renewal
$45 per renewal
$100
$44
-56%
$56
S-126

MASSAGE ESTABLISHMENT PERMIT
$101 per application, annually
$225 per application, annually
$101
$224
122%
($123)
S-127

ADULT ORIENTED ESTABLISHMENT PERMIT
$424 per application, annually
$985 per application, annually
$424
$983
132%
($559)
S-128

TOBACCO RETAILER PERMIT
$250.er application
$985 per application
$250
$983
293%
$733
S-129

GRAFFITI IMPLEMENTATION SALE PERMIT
$25 per application
$140 per application
$25
$141
464%
($116)
S-130

TOW YARD INSPECTION
$143 per inspection
$355 per inspection
$143
5353
147%
($210)
S-131

PEDDLER SOLICITOR PERMIT
$50 per person, annually
$180 per person, annually
$50
$180
261%
($130)
S-132

BINGO PERMIT
$50 per application
Remote Caller Game - $465 per permit
Other - 550 . er application limited b State law
$50
$463
826%
($413)
S-133

RV PARKING PERMIT
$5 per permit
$7.50 per permit
$5
$7
47%
($2)
S-134

GOLF CART PERMIT
$50 per application, annually
$175 per application, annually
$50
$173
247%
($123)
S-135

CONCEALED WEAPON CARRY PERMIT
$100 per application
Fee is set by State Law:

New application - $100 $25 - renewal application
Amended application - 510
Psychological testing costs are to be added to the above fee up to $150
20% of the fee is collected upon filing of the initial application and is and is non-refundable. The balance of the fee is collected nn eu anftha lirancv
$100
$383
283%
($283)
S-136

RECORDS CHECK IMMIGRATION LETTER
$10 .er check
$25.er check
$10
$26
161%
$16
S-137

FINGERPRINTING
Resident - $15
Non -Resident - $25
Resident - $25
Non -Resident - $35
$18
$34
92%
($16)
S-138

BICYCLE REGISTRATION
None
Per State Vehicle Code, Section 39004:

New - $4
Transfer - $2
Replacement - $2
Renewal - 52
$0
$26
0%
($26)
S-139

CITATION PROCESSOR LATE FEE
$30 per citation
$35 per citation
$30
$34
13%
($4)
S-140

POLICE REPORT COPY
Black & White - 50.35 per copy
Color - 50.45 per copy
Black & White - $0.35 per copy
Color - $0.45 per copy
$0
$1
0%
($1)
S-141

POLICE ELECTRONIC FILE COPY
$7 per device
$7 per device
$7
$29
318%
($22)
S-142

ANIMAL RELINQUISHMENT
Pickup - $20
Bring in - $10
Shelter Cost - $81
Beaumont:

Pick up - $135
Bring In - $115
Calimesa:

Pick up - $135
Bring In - $115
Shelter Cost - $81
$19
$154
707%
($135)
S-143

ANIMAL IMPOUND/RETURN TO OWNER
Beaumont - $50
Calimesa - $80
Beaumont - $50
Calimesa - $80
$60
$65
8%
($5)
S-144

DECEASED ANIMAL PICK UP
Beaumont - $40
Calimesa - $132
Beaumont - $140
Calimesa - $140
$71
$155
119%
($84)

POSSIBLE ANNUAL NEW
# UNITS

SUGGEST

REVENUE
1,762
100%
$115,850
575
100%
$58,000
25 100%
$3,500
11 100%
$500
7 100%
$0
1,500
100%
$10,400
1 80%
$0
7 100%
$900
1 100%
$0
1 100%
$0
1 100%
$0
10 100%
$1,200
1 100%
$0
1 100%
$0
1 100%
$0
3 100%
$600
15 100%
$2,000
2 10%
$0
12 100%
$0
10 100%
51,200
1 25%
$0
19 100%
$300
1,018
100%
$16,800
1 15%
$0
1 100%
$0
640
25%
$0
24 25%
$0
23 100%
$3,100
60 100%
$300
18 100%
$1,500
(c)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(c)
(c)
(c)
(c)
(c)

CITY OF BEAUMONT

UNIT REVENUES, COSTS, UNITS AND POSSIBLE NEW REVENUES
FISCAL YEAR 2020-21
REF #

SERVICE

CURRENT FEE

SUGGESTED FEE
UNIT

REVENUE
UNIT
COST
0/0 UNIT
CHANGE
384%
UNIT

PROFIT/
(SUBSIDY)
S-145

ANIMAL QUARANTINE
$40 per animal plus $15 per day
Beaumont - $175 per animal plus $50 per day
Calimesa - $175 per animal plus $50 per day
$40
$194
($154)
S-146

DANGEROUS ANIMAL REGISTRATION
Beaumont - $208
Calimesa - $263
$220 per animal
$226
$220
-2%
$5
S-147

ANIMAL TRAP RENTAL
Beaumont - $25 per trap plus $10 per day after
the fifth day
Calimesa - $97 per trap plus $12 per day after
the fifth day
Small Trap Replacement:

Beaumont - $149
Calimesa - $157
Large Trap Replacement:

Beaumont - $299
r,un,«n - xzn7
Beaumont - $60 per trap plus $10 per day after the fifth day Calimesa - $97 per trap plus $12 per day after the fifth day Plus deposit based on replacement cost of trap
$48
$75
57%
($27)
S-148

DOG SILENCER RENTAL
Beaumont - $20
Calimesa - $73
Replacement:

Beaumont - $154
Calimesa - $162
Beaumont- $60
Calimesa - $73
Plus deposit based on replacement cost of trap
$47
$83
78%
($37)
S-149

KENNEL LICENSE
Beaumont:
1 year - $291
2 year - $377
Late Fee Penalty - 50% of License Fee
Beaumont:
1 year - $300
2 year - $425
Calimesa:
1 year - $300
Late Fee Penalty - SOW. of Lireese Fee
$223
$346
55%
($123)
S-150

SENTRY KENNEL LICENSE
Beaumont:
1 year - $338
2 year - $572
Late Fee Penalty - 50% of License Fee
Beaumont:
1 year - $365
2 year - $715
Late Fee Penalty - 50% of License Fee
$455
$540
19%
($85)
S-151

MICROCHIP IDENTIFICATION DEVICE
$28 per device
Beaumont - $35
Calimesa - $35
$28
$40
45%
($12)
S-152

ANIMAL CONTROL RESPONSE
Beaumont - $59
Calimesa - $94
Beaumont- $75
Calimesa - $94
$77
$101
32%
($25)
S-153

ANIMAL CONTROL SERVICES
See Appendix E for detail
See Appendix E for detail
$89,682
$425,234
374%
($335,552)

POSSIBLE ANNUAL NEW
# UNITS

SUGGEST

REVENUE
3 100%
$500
3 100%
$0
16 100%
$400
2 100%
$0
3 100%
$0
2 100%
$0
90 100%
$1,100
2 100%
$0
1 100%
$0
SUBTOTAL - MOBILE HOME & HOUSING $234,750

LEISURE & CULTURAL SERVICES
S-154 !RECREATION PROGRAMS
1 Various fees
'See Appendix F for detail
1 $18,750 1 $816,542 1 4255%1 ($797,792)
1 2%
$0

CITY OF BEAUMONT

UNIT REVENUES, COSTS, UNITS AND POSSIBLE NEW REVENUES
FISCAL YEAR 2020-21
REF #

SERVICE

CURRENT FEE

SUGGESTED FEE
UNIT

REVENUE
UNIT
COST
0/0 UNIT
CHANGE
72%
UNIT

PROFIT/
(SUBSIDY)
S-155

FACILITY RENTALS
Various fees
Albert A. Chatigny Sr. Community Recreation Center
Community Meeting Room
Private - $50/hour Non -Profit - $40/hour
Deposit - $100
Dance/Fitness Room
Private - $75/hour Non -Profit - $60/hour
Deposit - $250
Kitchen
Private - $150/day Non -Profit - $150/day
Deposit - $250
Gymnasium
Private - $150/hour Non -Profit - $120/hour
Deposit - $500
Building Attendant - $20/hour
Belmont Civic Center
Gymnasium
Private - $150/hour Non -Profit - $120/hour
Deposit - $500
Building Attendant - $20/hour
Community Park Pavilions
Pavilion - $25/hour
Deposit - $100
Restroom Key - $50
$128,520
$221,180
($92,660)

POSSIBLE ANNUAL NEW
# UNITS

SUGGEST

REVENUE
1 58%
$0

CITY OF BEAUMONT

UNIT REVENUES, COSTS, UNITS AND POSSIBLE NEW REVENUES
FISCAL YEAR 2020-21
REF #

SERVICE

CURRENT FEE

SUGGESTED FEE
UNIT

REVENUE
UNIT
COST
0/0 UNIT
CHANGE
24595%
UNIT

PROFIT/
(SUBSIDY)
S-156

BALLFIELD RENTALS
Sports Park Soccer Complex Lights - $30 per
hour/per field
Sports Field Permit Fee (credited to total fee) - $100 per permit All Permits adjusted - $10 per transaction
Permit Cancellation Fee - $100
Group 2 (>80% residency)
Youth Group Field Use (Non -Tournament) - $5 per hour/per field Youth Group Field Use (Tournament) - $10 per hour/per field Group 3-5 (<80% residency)
Youth Group Field Use (Non -Tournament) - $15 per hour/per field
Youth Group Field Use (Tournament) - $20 per hour/per field Group 6 (non-resident teams)
Youth Group Field Use - $30 per hour/per field
Adult Group Field Use - $30 per hour/per field
Tournaments - $30 per hour/per field
Lights:

Sports Park Soccer Complex - $30 per hour/per field
Rangle Park - $15 per hour
Stewart Park - $30 per hour
Key Deposit (Refundable) - $45 (includes 2 keys)
Additional Keys - $15 per key
Maintenance Worker - $65 per hour
Park Monitor (Recreation Specialist) - $20 per hour
Snack Bar (Rangle & Sports Park) - $50 per day
$2,500
$617,369
($614,869)

POSSIBLE ANNUAL NEW
# UNITS

SUGGEST

REVENUE
1 1%
$0

SUBTOTAL - LEISURE & CULTURAL SERVICES
ENTERPRISE SERVICES _
S-157

FATS, OILS OR GREASE INSPECTION
None
General Facility - $205 per first inspection
Dental Facility - $205 per first inspection plus $40 for Amalgam use
Reinspection - $95
$0
$188
0%
(5188)
S-158

INDUSTRIAL WASTE INSPECTION
Actual costs
Charges at the fully allocated hourly rates for all personnel involved plus any outside costs.
$0
$0
0%
$0
S-159

WASTEWATER SURVEY
$25.82 per review (not currently charging)
$30 per review
$0
$29
0%
($291
S-160

SEWER FLOW MODELING
Actual cost plus 20% for administration
Charges at the fully allocated hourly rates for all personnel involved plus any outside costs.
$0
$0
0%
$0
S-161

SEWAGE SPILL RESPONSE
Actual cost plus 20% for administration
Charges at the fully allocated hourly rates for all personnel involved plus any outside costs.
$0
$0
0%
$0
$0
177
100%
$33,300
5 100%
$0
400
100%
$11,400
1 100%
$0
1 100%
$0
SUBTOTAL ENTERPRISE SERVICES $44,700

ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
S-162

NEW BUSINESS LICENSE PROCESSING
$31 per application
On -Line - $15 per application
$80 per application
$31
$79
154%
($48)
S-163

BUSINESS LICENSE RENEWAL PROCESSING
$15 per renewal
On -Line - $5 per renewal
$40 per renewal
$15
$39
162%
($24)
S-164

RELEASE OF LIEN
$51 per lien
$50 per lien plus County fees
$51
$37
-28%
$14
S-165

NON -UTILITY NSF CHECK/ACH PROCESS
None
$35 per NSF check/ACH
$0
$35
0%
($35)
S-166

UTILITY BILLING ACH RETURN PROCESS
None
$10 per ACH return
$0
$11
0%
($11)
S-167

CREDIT CARD PROCESSING
Fees calculated based on the amount charged
and the actual merchant rates
2% of the amount charged
$39,316
$161,000
310%
($121,684)
295
100%
$14,000
1,297
100%
$31,500
350
100%
$0
1 100%
$0
1 100%
$0
1 100%
$121,700

CITY OF BEAUMONT

UNIT REVENUES, COSTS, UNITS AND POSSIBLE NEW REVENUES
FISCAL YEAR 2020-21
REF #

SERVICE

CURRENT FEE

SUGGESTED FEE
UNIT

REVENUE
UNIT
COST
0/0 UNIT
CHANGE
0%
UNIT

PROFIT/
(SUBSIDY)
S-168

DOCUMENT REPRODUCTION
Black & White - $0.35 per copy
Color - $0.45 per copy
Larger than 11 x 17 - $10
Black & White - $0.35 per copy
Color - $0.45 per copy
Larger than 11 x 17 - Actual Costs
$1
$1
$0
S-169

ELECTRONIC FILE REPRODUCTION
Reproduction - $7 per disc
Scan of documents to disc - $0.25 per page
Scan of documents larger than 11 x 17 to disc -
$7 per page
Electronically transmitted documents - $0.20
per image
Photographs from Development Center - Actual
Costs
$7 per device
$7
$4
-43%
$3
S-170

PUBLIC NOTARY
$15 per signature (fee is set by the State)
$15 per signature (fee is set by the State)
$15
$36
140%
($21)
(a) Insufficient data to determine financial impact
(b) Deposit based service/fee
(c) Fee restricted by Law
(d) Fees are market sensitive
(e) Deletion of service/fee
Unit Subsidy
Profit ( than)
0%
50%

POSSIBLE ANNUAL NEW
# UNITS

SUGGEST

REVENUE
1 100%
$0
1 100%
$0
1 50%
$0
SUBTOTAL -ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES $167,200

SERVICE

POSSIBLE
NEW

REVENUE
$255,550
$234,750
$0
$44,700
$167,200
$702,200
[S-001 to S-106] COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
[S-107 to S-153] PUBLIC SAFETY
[5-154 to S-156] LEISURE & CULTURAL
[S-157 to S-161] PUBLIC SAFETY
[S-162 to S-170] ADMINISTRATIVE
Possible Rev
Greater Than $ 25,000
Less Than $

I
Cost of Services Study
for the
City of Beaumont
September 2022
;0
Prepared by:

Revenue & Cost Specialists, LLC
1519 E Chapman Ave, Ste C
Fullerton, CA 92831
www.revenuecost.com
(714) 992-9020

Cost of Services Study for the City of Beaumont

September 6, 2022
Honorable Mayor and City Council
via Jennifer Ustation, Director of Finance
City of Beaumont
550 E 6th Street
Beaumont, Ca 92223
Honorable Mayor, City Council, and Ms. Ustation:

This Report is submitted pursuant to our contract with the City to perform a revenue and cost analysis for the City for its services.

The motivation for this study is the need of both the City Council and City staff to maintain City's services at a level commensurate with the standards previously set by the City Council, and to maintain effective policy and management control of City services.

This Report provides currently useful information about the City's status on recovery of costs for all City services. In addition, it will assist in projecting and determining the future level and equity of these City services.

RCS wishes to thank all City department heads and staff for their assistance and cooperation extended to us during the accomplishment of our work, without whose aid this Report could not have been produced. The response, awareness and information gathered and supplied by numerous City employees make this Report the sound one we believe it to be.

We also believe that your constituents will appreciate your subjecting the City's operations to business costing methodologies, and your willingness to be informed of the true and full costs of those services which you have decided the City should provide its citizens.

Respectfully submitted,

ERIC JOHNSON CHU THAI
President Vice President
Revenue & Cost Specialists
1519 E. ChapnEaggt4taQttillel n, CA • 92831

Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 5
CHAPTER I - BACKGROUND OF STUDY 9
CHAPTER II - IDENTIFYING AND COSTING SERVICES 13
CHAPTER III - REVENUES MATCHED AGAINST COSTS 19
CHAPTER IV - SERVICE REVENUE RECOMMENDATIONS 25
CONCLUSION 37
APPENDIX A - SUMMARY OF CURRENT FEES AND PROPOSED FEES 39 APPENDIX B - SUMMARY WORKSHEETS MATCHED WITH COST DETAIL WORKSHEETS 71 APPENDIX C - BUILDING & SAFETY FEE DETAIL 413
APPENDIX D - FIRE PREVENTION FEE DETAIL 419
APPENDIX E - ANIMAL LICENSE FEE DETAIL 427
APPENDIX F - LESIURE & CULTURAL SERVICES FEE DETAIL 429 Cost of Services Study for the City of Beaumont

Pg. 05 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Revenue & Cost Specialists (RCS) has subjected the City's operations to a detailed analysis seeking alternate and more equitable ways to finance its services. This report presents the analytical advantages which are available to the City through the institution of a comprehensive system designed by RCS to implement Article XIIIB of the California Constitution.

Based on data presented in this report, the City Council can better respond to the limits on tax revenues available to the City as well as the constant demand for higher and more operational services and capital improvements. Due to demands made of the City, it is essential that the Council and City management have additional information upon which to assist in charting a future financial course that will preserve the quality of life which its citizens have come to expect.

Systematic and Documented Approach. This analysis was designed to provide the City with a systematic and documented approach to understand, control, and recapture the costs which are forced on it by normal service demands, growth and general economic inflation.

Constitutional Methodology. The methodology used for this analysis is the "costs reasonably borne" test established by Section 8(c) of Proposition 4, now Article XIIIB of the California Constitution. In following that process, RCS has analyzed the ways in which City services can be financed more equitably to assure the City's future financial viability.

Full Business Costs Determined. The methodology followed by both the Authors of Proposition 4, and consequently by RCS, determines the full business cost of providing the reported City services.

It also identifies the beneficiaries of those services and determines if they are paying in relationship to benefits derived or if they are deserving of a subsidy paid from the taxes paid by all local citizens and businesses. Thus, the City Council will have full knowledge of costs which are actually occurring.

Financial Integrity Established. This report summarizes the work accomplished and presents recommendations. These recommendations, if implemented, would establish the financial integrity of the analyzed City services and would establish a continuing cost control system following the business principles which are generally espoused for government, but often are ignored in application.

Identifying Service Center
There are three basic steps in the process used by RCS. The first step is to identify the services offered by the City. Next, the service costs are calculated. Finally, the revenue currently received is matched to the cost of providing the service to determine if there is a subsidy from taxes.

Cost of Services Study for the City of Beaumont

Pg. 06 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

BEAUMOM/
® 41/`,`
If all the
recommendations
and suggestions
made in this Report
are adopted, the City
of Beaumont would
increase cost
recovery by
$702,300 on an
annual basis
d o
d o
Refinement Process. In a series of meetings held with City staff, department by department, we developed a list of services, and then allocated staff time to the appropriate services. This service time was refined over the course of these meetings until all available staff time was allocated and represented an accurate allocation.

Personal Choice versus Community Supported Services
Personal Choice Services are those offered to identifiable customers at a measured level. They are also services that can be withheld for non-payment. These services are not precisely likened to fee - based services to the extent that policy makers may have decided to subsidize them in full or part.

These services are distinguished from Community Supported Services that carry an implicit requirement and rationale for setting a level of subsidization typically based on social, safety or general community welfare.

Summary of Results
If all the recommendations and suggestions made in this Report are adopted, the City of Beaumont would increase cost recovery by $702,300 on an annual basis. By taking such actions, far more equity between taxpayers and fee -payers would be gained, and the City's financial picture would be improved.

SERVICE
(21
TOTAL
FEE

REVENUE
(31
$3,804,984
$376,296
$149,770
$0
$85,789
TOTAL

SERVICE
COST
(41
$4,036,726
$1,082,598
$1,655,091
$44,734
$248,175
TOTAL

PROFIT/
(SUBSIDY
(51
($231,742)
($706,302)
($1,505,321)
($44,734)
($162,386)
$$650,4
PCT. RECOVERY

FROM FEES

ACTUAL SUGGEST
(6) (71

POSSIBLE
NEW

REVENUE
(81
[S-001 to S-106] COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
[S-107 to S-153] PUBLIC SAFETY
[S-154 to S-156] LEISURE & CULTURAL
[S-157 to S-162] ENTERPRISE
[S-163 to S-171] ADMINISTRATIVE
$4,416,839 $7,067,324

94.3%

34.8%

9.0%

0.0 34.6%

62.5%
VAR.

VAR.

VAR.

VAR.

VAR.
$255,550
$234,850
$0
$44,700
$167,200
$702,300
Policy Review Information
As the Council conducts its policy review of each of the revenue -cost match -ups, it should refer to Appendix A and also to the text in Chapter IV to assist in that review.

The policy review should assess the tax revenues used to subsidize each service and address the following options available to the City for each service center:

1. Reduce costs and thereby the tax subsidy by reducing the level of service or restructuring the service to provide it differently.

2. Adjust or institute a fee or charge to recover all of the "costs reasonably borne".

3. Eliminate a tax subsidy to another "less deserving" service to utilize the taxes in order to provide this service.

Cost of Services Study for the City of Beaumont

Pg. 07 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Result of Acceptance of Fee Suggestions
If the suggestions in Chapter IV and in the fee recommendations in Appendix A are adopted in full then a significant amount of added revenues will be available to the City, which would provide taxpayer equity. Most of these new revenues will be from fee increases to replace tax monies used to make up the difference between fees collected and costs incurred in providing the services, which will then be available for those services which can only be funded from taxes.

These tax "diversions" are the now -documented tax subsidies to potentially self-supporting City services. Thus, additional monies could be made available for police services, infrastructure maintenance, and other City services which are not generally conducive to service charges, thereby achieving much closer equity between benefits and associated payments.

Policy Guidance. More importantly, the Council would be able to make its decisions based on business principles as much as is possible.

Understanding of Equitable Charging for Government. The City Council now has to assist its constituents to understand that under the California Constitution the intent is that:
• Taxes finance services for which there is no alternative way to finance them. • Service charges should be utilized to finance those things for which benefits can be determined.
• Beneficiaries of such services be charged in direct relationship to the benefits derived.

Cost of Services Study for the City of Beaumont

Pg. 08 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
Cost of Services Study for the City of Beaumont

Pg. 09 CHAPTER I - BACKGROUND OF STUDY
CHAPTER 1 - BACKGROUND OF STUDY
Revenue & Cost Specialist has subjected the City's operations to a detailed analysis seeking alternate and more equitable ways to finance its services. This report presents the analytical advantages which are available to the City through the institution of a comprehensive system designed by RCS to implement Article XIIIB of the California Constitution.

Based on data presented in this report, the City Council can better respond to the limits on tax revenues available to the City as well as the constant demand for higher and more operational services and capital improvements. Due to demands made of the City, it is essential that the Council and City management have additional information upon which to assist in charting future financial course that will preserve the quality of life which its citizens have come to expect.

Systematic and Documented Approach. This analysis was designed to provide the City with a systematic and documented approach to understand, control, and recapture the costs which are forced on it by normal service demands, growth and general economic inflation.

Constitutional Methodology. The methodology used for this analysis is the "costs reasonably borne" test established by Section 8(c) of Proposition 4, now Article XIIIB of the California Constitution. In following that process, RCS has analyzed the ways in which City services can be financed more equitably to assure the City's future financial viability.

Full Business Costs Determined. The methodology followed by both the Authors of Proposition 4, and consequently by RCS, determines the full business cost of providing the reported City services.

It also identifies the beneficiaries of those services and determines if they are paying in relationship to benefits derived or if they are deserving of a subsidy paid from the taxes paid by all local citizens and businesses. Thus, the City Council will have full knowledge and cannot ignore costs which are actually occurring.

Financial Integrity Established. This text summarizes the work accomplished and presents recommendations. These recommendations, if implemented, would firmly establish the financial integrity of the analyzed City services and would establish a continuing cost control system following the business principles which are generally espoused for government, but often are ignored in application.

Financing Adjustments Pursuant to Proposition 4
Proposition 4, which is more commonly referred to as the "Gann Spirit of 13 'Let's Finish the Job' Initiative", was adopted by 74.3% of the voters of California on November 6, 1979. It became effective on July 1, 1980, retroactive to Fiscal Year 1978-1979. Statutes clarifying certain Cost of Services Study for the City of Beaumont

Pg. 10 CHAPTER I - BACKGROUND OF STUDY
provisions of the Proposition, which is now Article XIIIB of the California Constitution, became effective January 1, 1981.

This report provides data to the City for reviewing the reported fee -financed services based on full -costing information and for implementing the "costs reasonably borne" provision of this Constitutional Article, within presently known legal parameters and the authors' pronounced and published intent
Adjustments to Financing. As a result of this analysis, the City now possesses the basis for making necessary adjustments to its methods of financing services for those services reported on herein. It can achieve a more equitable and fair mix for financing those services and capital needs, using taxes and service charges, in the direction pointed by passage of Article XIIIB, and the business methodologies inherent in that Article.

It should be remembered from the start that taxes are now limited and controlled, and therefore the capability of using these taxes to subsidize "special" services which are wholly or partially fee - financed is also limited.

The "Costs Reasonably Borne" Test. The "costs reasonably borne" process as envisioned by the Authors of Proposition 4 implies a direct relationship between payment of fees and charges and receipt of services. It also implies the use of taxes for financing those governmental activities which humanely and properly cannot be financed other than by taxes.

Desirability of Direct Relationship between Payment and Service This direct fee -for -service and tax equity relationship does not exist when tax monies are used to subsidize services which are received by only a small portion of the taxpaying public or by non- residents. A major underlying goal of this project is to provide information and guidance to the Council on how the City can continue as a viable financial entity, finance the services and facilities that its citizens and business enterprises have come to expect, and yet in the long run be able to live within the limits imposed by Article XIIIB and Propositions 13 and 218.

At the same time, the City can in great part re-establish basic fairness and equity between users of City services and those who pay for them and control those costs on a continuing basis.

Impact of Propositions 4, 13, 26, and 218
Initiative 4 of November 1979, coupled with its immediate predecessor - Proposition 13 of a year earlier - wrought the greatest changes in California governmental financing in a century.

Proposition 218, passed in 1996 and becoming Articles XIIIC & D, further limited local governments' revenue source options. Those propositions have had, and will continue to have, a profound effect on California governments.

Cost of Services Study for the City of Beaumont

Pg. 11 CHAPTER I - BACKGROUND OF STUDY
Effects on the City. One effect of these propositions has been a constant search for new revenue sources to finance services required by the City. However, at the same time, State and Federal program revenues continue to decrease. Consequently, the City faces the prospect of declining revenue with which to fund City services.

Costs Exceeding Revenues. The full costs of delivering the City's defined fee -financed services -- as defined in business terms by the authors of Article XIIIB, and as applied by the business methods of this analysis as based on that Constitutional Article -- are running at an annual rate beyond current or expected fee revenues. The result is the diversion of tax monies to make up the difference between fee revenues collected and full business costs incurred.

Variety of Equitable Revenue Sources. This analysis presents a wide variety of ways in which revenue can surely and legally be raised and as important, more equitably raised than at present.

The amount of new revenues to be raised is dependent upon the Council's determination of the level of support for essential services.

Proposition 26. With the passage of Proposition 26 in 2010, these principles were codified with some changes. Article XIII C of the State Constitution was amended to formally declare that fees are not considered taxes if they do not exceed the reasonable costs of the service.

Some of the types of services for which reasonable fees are allowable are:
(1) A charge imposed for a specific benefit conferred or privilege granted directly to the payor that is not provided to those not charged, and which does not exceed the reasonable costs to the local government of conferring the benefit or granting the privilege. (2) A charge imposed for a specific government service or product provided directly to the payor that is not provided to those not charged, and which does not exceed the reasonable costs to the local government of providing the service or product. (3) A charge imposed for the reasonable regulatory costs to a local government for issuing licenses and permits, performing investigations, inspections, and audits, enforcing agricultural marketing orders, and the administrative enforcement and adjudication thereof.

Article XIII C also provides that a local government agency must demonstrate that the amount of revenue to be generated by a fee is no more than necessary to cover the reasonable costs of the governmental activity supported by the fee, and that the manner in which those costs are allocated to a payor bear a fair or reasonable relationship to the payor's burdens on, or benefits received from, the governmental activity. This Report was prepared in accordance with these principles.

Cost of Services Study for the City of Beaumont

Pg. 12 CHAPTER I - BACKGROUND OF STUDY
Text Topics
The remaining Chapters of this text address the following topics:

II. Identifying and Costing Service Centers
III. Overview of Service Revenues Matched Against Costs IV. Service Revenue Recommendations
V. Conclusion
Cost of Services Study for the City of Beaumont

Pg. 13 CHAPTER II - IDENTIFYING AND COSTING SERVICES

CHAPTER II - IDENTIFYING AND COSTING

SERVICES
There are three basic steps in the process used by RCS to identify and cost out service centers. The first step is to identify the services offered by the City. Next, the service costs are calculated.

Finally, the revenue currently received is matched to the cost of providing the service to determine if there is a subsidy from taxes. This chapter covers the first two steps and Chapter III shows the match -up of revenues and costs.

Identifying Service Centers
Two techniques were utilized to identify the service centers for which revenue and cost data were gathered and around which the service cost analysis of this Report is built.

Revenue Analysis. The first technique involved gathering revenue information for the past fiscal year, and then updating and revising the budget estimates for the same revenue sources for the fiscal year during which the analysis was performed by RCS. The Budget and financial reports for the current fiscal year were secured and analyzed. Budgeted and received revenues for all fee - supported services were extracted from those reports, where such information was available. RCS has divided services into far smaller "service centers" than the City has traditionally designated.

Service Center Identification. The second technique involved several scheduled meetings with City staff to identify each type of service being provided with or without charge. In a series of meetings held with City staff, department by department, RCS developed a comprehensive list of services, and then allocated staff time to the appropriate services. This service time was refined over the course of these meetings until all available staff time was allocated and represented an accurate allocation.

Resultant Service Centers
"Service Center" Defined. The "service revenue," fee or charge for a service, and the related "service cost" comprise a "service center". Each service center has a unique "Revenue and Cost Summary Worksheet" and a matching "Cost Detail Worksheet", which are found in Appendix B of this Report. These "Service Center Worksheets" are matched to one another on facing pages.

Detailed Back -Up Workpapers. The costs are backed up by detailed analyses, which have been turned over to the City in several volumes of work papers and detailed cost distribution reports.

Constitutional Basis for Cost of Services
The costs determined by RCS for the various service centers are based on the definitions of "costs reasonably borne" as utilized in Article XIIIB (Proposition 4) and as further defined by its Authors Cost of Services Study for the City of Beaumont

Pg. 14 CHAPTER II - IDENTIFYING AND COSTING SERVICES
To validate the
reasonableness of
the Study, 100% of
the available work
hours for all City
employees were
distributed and
accounted for,
even if it's not
public serving.
■
in their background documents. The Authors of Proposition 4 intended their full business costing definitions to be used by California governments. Thus, the City can know and control its costs, using those Constitutionally -set business principles and legally set elements and definitions of "costs reasonably borne".

Listing of Detailed Full Business Cost Definitions. Thus, the following are put forward by the Authors as the accepted elements of "costs reasonably borne":
a) Labor costs
b) Employee benefit costs
c) Operational services and supply expenses
d) Overhead expense
e) Administrative costs
f) Start-up costs
g) Future capital expenses
h) Capital replacement expense
i) Costs of expansion of services
j) Repayment of debt
Authors' Background. It is not surprising that the authors used such business definitions and elements of "cost" as quoted herein. They represented several known business organizations:
• The California Taxpayers Association
• The California Chamber of Commerce
• The National Tax Limitation Committee
• The California Association of Realtors
In effect, the pillars of California business and their thinking were represented, and their ideas were adopted overwhelmingly by the electorate of California at referendum. Thus, by definition, the premises of this report process have a California electoral mandate.

Principle Involved. A basic principle involved in this report was the recognition of those full business costs as used and as defined by the authors of the Constitutional amendment.

Types of Costs
The following costs, identified above as part of "costs reasonably borne" by the Authors of Proposition 4, make up the cost detail found on the right-hand page in Appendix B for each service center.

Salaries and Wages. City government is in fact a service industry, and therefore, it is natural that salaries make up the largest single element of cost for most services. In order to allocate the

Cost of Services Study for the City of Beaumont

Pg. 15 CHAPTER II - IDENTIFYING AND COSTING SERVICES
salaries, lengthy interviews were held, documents sought and researched, and reports and accounting records examined by RCS. The result was, in most cases, a percentage or hours distribution of individual employee personal services costs.

To validate the reasonableness of the Study, 100% of the available work hours for all City employees were distributed and accounted for, even if it's not public serving. In other words, one staff member cannot state they overworked on fee services beyond 100% of their hours, and another staff member cannot account for 100% of their time. No judgments were made about what personnel should or might be doing. Their time was distributed to those service centers where the time was expended.

Employee Fringe Benefits. Since fractional time, to as low as three minutes per unit of service or one -twentieth of a percent of the annual time of an employee has been allocated to service centers, fringe benefit costs also must be fractionalized to carefully and accurately distribute those ancillary personnel costs.

The City finances numerous benefits for its employees, thereby incurring measurable costs for these items, including:
• Retirement and pension liabilities
• Group Health Insurance
• Life Insurance
• Medicare Insurance
• State Unemployment Insurance
• Workers Compensation Insurance
All of these costs are current operating expenses, and the amounts were isolated. Actual costs were determined and reduced to a percentage of salary for each of the positions.

Available Work -Hours. After the individual elements of cost for positions was compiled, the total cost for each position was divided by the number of available work -hours. Available work hours were calculated as the total possible work -hours in a year, 2,080, less the following away -from - work benefit hours:
• Holidays
• Vacations
• Personal Leave
• Sick Leave
• Morning/Afternoon Breaks
• Start Up/Down Time
Cost of Services Study for the City of Beaumont

Pg. 16 CHAPTER II - IDENTIFYING AND COSTING SERVICES
Maintenance and Operation Costs. All maintenance and operation costs, including non -personnel expenses such as professional services, insurance, operating supplies etc., were derived from the current year Council -approved budget and allocated via percentages or through actual allocation to each of the service centers identified in a department or division.

General and Departmental Overhead Costs. Overhead costs provide the vital glue that holds an organization together operationally and provide important coordinating capabilities. They also provide the day-to-day support services and facilities required for the organization to function effectively. RCS calculated Beaumont's Cost Allocation Plan (CAP) to identify and allocate these costs to the remainder of the City organization. In the CAP, costs were allocated to end -user departments and divisions by applying an agreed -upon overhead allocation factor. Each factor was related to the work effort of its particular overhead element and was assessed for relevance and reasonableness.

Full Cost Distribution. The purpose of deriving overhead costs to apportion these amounts to direct service program costs. By adopting this method, the City will be aware of its true costs and be able to emulate business methods. Article XIIIB's (Proposition 4 of 1979) authors intended this, defining as part of "costs reasonably borne" a calculated "reasonable allocation for overhead and administration."
General City Overhead. These services primarily set policy and support other departments without providing a deliverable service to the public. Where they do perform an end -user service, such costs have not been allocated to other departments. Costs in this general administration category include the following functions:

General City Overhead
Buildings &
Grounds

15.5%
Risk Mgmt

18.9%
HR

6.0%
Administration

16.1%
Info Tech

16.3%
Legal Services

14.6%
Finance

12.6%
Cost of Services Study for the City of Beaumont

Pg. 17 CHAPTER II - IDENTIFYING AND COSTING SERVICES
Departmental Administration. Costs in this category involve intra-departmental support functions, outside the above listed general City overhead functions, and involve the allocation of staff time within and among departmental functions. These services also do not provide end -user deliverables to the public, but instead provide vital administrative support within specific departments.

Fully Allocated Hourly Rates (FAHR)
All of the above items make up the fully allocated hourly rate which is calculated for each position in the City. The makeup of each component of the City-wide average fully allocated hourly rate is detailed in the chart below.

Cost of Services Study for the City of Beaumont

Pg. 18 CHAPTER II — IDENTIFYING AND COSTING SERVICES

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
Cost of Services Study for the City of Beaumont

Pg. 19 CHAPTER III - REVENUES MATCHED AGAINST COSTS

CHAPTER III - REVENUES MATCHED AGAINST
COSTS
In the last chapter the method of calculating the costs for all City services was identified. This chapter begins with a Summary that itemizes the revenues and costs by service center. Then, an overview is presented of what will be presented in the following chapter, which shows that there is no one solution to the City's financial challenge.

Accounting for All Revenues - Fees and Taxes
Local government funding comes from a multitude of revenue sources such as taxes, fines, grants, use of property, user fees, utility rates, etc. Our Study accounts for all revenues, and focuses on the relationship between fees and taxes. As an example, Large Group Home CUP (S-005) in the following schedule estimates the full costs at $3,729. These expenses are offset by current fee revenues of $1,118, and tax revenues of $2,611 must pay for the remaining. This subsidy can be eliminated by raising the relevant fees. To the extent that the fees are NOT increased, general City taxes paid by all taxpayers are the only alternative revenue source.

SCHEDULE 1

CITY OF BEAUMONT

SUMMARY OF FEE SERVICES AND CURRENT FINANCING
FISCAL YEAR 2021-22
TOTAL

RESOURCES USED

SERVICE

TO FINANCE SERVICE
REF# (1)
FEE SERVICE (2)
COST (3)
FEES (4) TAXES (5)

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
S-001

CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
$0
$0
$0
S-002

CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT
$2,713
$0
$2,713
S-003

FINDINGS OF PUBLIC CONV/NECESSITY
$2,006
$0
$2,006
S-004

CUP TIME EXTENSION
$1,968
$829
$1,139
S-005

LARGE GROUP HOME CUP
$3,729
$1,118
$2,611
S-006

GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
$0
$0
$0
S-007

ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT CHANGE
$0
$0
$0
S-008

SPECIFIC PLAN
$0
$0
$0
S-009

SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
$0
$0
$0
S-010

SPEC PLAN CONFORMITY DETERMINATION
$0
$0
$0
S-011

ANNEXATION
$0
$0
$0
S-012

PLAN OF SERVICES
$0
$0
$0
S-013

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
$0
$0
$0
S-014

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ANNUAL REVIEW
$2,165
$3,027
($862)
S-015

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AMENDMENT
$0
$0
$0
S-016

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ASSIGNMENT
$0
$0
$0
S-017

ESTOPPEL CERTIFICATE
$0
$0
$0
S-018

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
$0
$0
$0
Cost of Services Study for the City of Beaumont

Pg. 20

CHAPTER III - REVENUES MATCHED AGAINST COSTS
REF# (1)
FEE SERVICE (2)
TOTAL

SERVICE
COST (3)

RESOURCES USED

TO FINANCE SERVICE
FEES (4) TAXES (5)
S-019

FACILITY FEE CREDIT AGREEMENT
$0
$0
$0
S-020

DENSITY BONUS AGREEMENT
$0
$0
$0
S-021

PRE -APPLICATION MEETING
$57,488
$23,606
$33,882
S-022

ZONING MAP CHANGE
$0
$0
$0
S-023

TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP
$0
$0
$0
S-024

TENTATIVE TRACT MAP
$0
$0
$0
S-025

TENTATIVE MAP TIME EXTENSION
$2,188
$847
$1,341
S-026

CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION
$0
$0
$0
S-027

VARIANCE
$33,266
$19,900
$13,366
S-028

MINOR VARIANCE/MODIF OF STANDARDS
$246
$155
$91
S-029

PLOT PLAN
$0
$0
$0
S-030

PLOT PLAN AMENDMENT
$0
$0
$0
S-031

PLOT PLAN TIME EXTENSION
$2,006
$565
$1,441
S-032

RESIDENTIAL ADMIN PLOT PLAN
$19,395
$10,845
$8,550
S-033

NON-RESIDENTIAL ADMIN PLOT PLAN
$59,852
$29,954
$29,898
S-034

MINOR PLOT PLAN - STAFF
$11,483
$9,759
$1,724
S-035

MINOR PLOT PLAN - PLAN COMM
$3,230
$1,220
$2,010
S-036

PICK A LOT SITE PLAN REVIEW
$317
$103
$214
S-037
MAP/PLOT PLAN CONFORMITY DETERMIN.
$0
$0
$0
S-038

LANDSCAPE PLAN REVIEW
$857
$744
$113
S-039

LANDSCAPE PLAN AMENDMENT
$857
$615
$242
S-040

LANDSCAPE INSPECTION
$205
$82
$123
S-041

SIGN PROGRAM
$1,872
$1,653
$219
S-042

SIGN PROGRAM AMENDMENT
$1,872
$970
$902
S-043

SIGN PERMIT
$376
$207
$169
S-044

SIGN PERMIT PANEL CHANGE
$170
$83
$87
S-045

TEMPORARY SIGN PERMIT
$170
$0
$170
S-046

UNLICENSED GROUP HOME PERMIT
$6,671
$1,600
$5,071
S-047

AUTOMOBILE FOR HIRE REVIEW
$2,718
$413
$2,305
S-048

HOME OCCUPATION PERMIT
$225
$77
$148
S-049

MINOR SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT
$19,327
$1,162
$18,165
S-050

MAJOR SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT
$10,392
$387
$10,005
S-051

MISCELLANEOUS SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT
$1,000
$77
$923
S-052

APPEAL TO PLANNING COMISSION
$2,583
$642
$1,941
S-053

APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL
$2,986
$1,946
$1,040
S-054

PLANNING INFORMATION REQUEST
$225
$57
$168
S-055

MISCELLANEOUS PLANNING REVIEW
$0
$0
$0
S-056

COM DEV TECHNOLOGY SURCHARGE
$170,000
$169,000
$1,000
S-057

BUILDING PLAN CHECK/INSPECTION
$2,549,034
$2,876,175
($327,141)
S-058

FINAL PARCEL MAP
$0
$0
$0
S-059

FINAL TRACT MAP
$0
$0
$0
S-060

TENTATIVE REVERSION TO ACREAGE
$0
$0
$0
S-061

LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT/PARCEL MERGER
$0
$0
$0
S-062

FINAL MONUMENT SETTING
$0
$0
$0
S-063

FINAL MONUMENT INSPECTION
$0
$0
$0

Cost of Services Study for the City of Beaumont

Pg. 21

CHAPTER III - REVENUES MATCHED AGAINST COSTS
REF# (1)
i FEE SERVICE (2)
TOTAL

SERVICE
COST (3)

RESOURCES USED

TO FINANCE SERVICE
FEES (4) TAXES (5)
S-064

PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN CHECK
$8,460
$0
$8,460
S-065

RESIDENTIAL GRADING PLAN CHECK
$68,439
$50,282
$18,157
S-066

RES GRADING PLAN CHECK AMENDMENT
$0
$0
$0
S-067

RES GRADING PLAN CHECK ADD'L REVIEW
$0
$0
$0
S-068

COMMERCIAL GRADING PLAN CHECK
$29,268
$19,509
$9,759
S-069

COMMERCIAL GRADING PLAN AMENDMENT
$0
$0
$0
S-070

COMM GRADING PLAN CHECK ADD'L REV
$0
$0
$0
S-071

GRADING/STOCKPILE INSPECTION
$0
$0
$0
S-072
GRADING/STOCKPILE RES. INFILL INSP
$411
$434
($23)
S-073

STREET LIGHT PLAN REVIEW
$24,792
$6,864
$17,928
S-074

IMPROVEMENT CONSTRUCTION PLAN CHECK
$95,699
$58,385
$37,314
S-075

IMPROVEMENT CONSTRUCTION PLAN AMEND
$0
$0
$0
S-076

IMPROVEMENT CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION
$0
$0
$0
S-077

SUBDIVISION/IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT
$19,620
$7,781
$11,839
S-078

PERFORMANCE BOND RELEASE
$14,624
$7,751
$6,873
S-079

BOND RELEASE INSPECTION
$0
$0
$0
S-080

MAINTENANCE BOND RELEASE
$5,484
$2,907
$2,577
S-081

MAINTENANCE BOND INSPECTION
$0
$0
$0
S-082

SUSPENSION OF IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT
$0
$0
$0
S-083

APPEAL SUSPENSION OF IMPROVEMENT
$0
$0
$0
S-084

STREET VACATION OFFER OF DEDICATION
$0
$0
$0
S-085

NON-STANDARD ENCROACH PERMIT APPL
$14,192
$12,706
$1,486
S-086

EXIST RESID STANDARD ENCROACH PRMT
$2,818
$2,179
$639
S-087

NON-STANDARD ENCROACH PLAN CHECK
$225
$80
$145
S-088

NON-STANDARD ENCROACH INSPECTION
$0
$0
$0
S-089
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE/CORRECT.
$0
$0
$0
S-090

PUBLIC WORKS PERMIT ISSUANCE
$11,697
$9,199
$2,498
S-091

WATER QUALITY MGMT PRELIM PLAN CHK
$25,681
$44,756
($19,075)
S-092

WATER QUALITY MGMT FINAL PLAN CHECK
$19,699
$4,411
$15,288
S-093

PRELIM HYDROLOGY/HYDRAULIC STUDY
$39,549
$0
$39,549
S-094

FINAL HYDROLOGY/HYDRAULIC STUDY
$39,549
$50,040
($10,491)
S-095

STORMWATER POLLUTION PROTECT REVIEW
$0
$0
$0
S-096

STORMWATER POST -CONSTRUCT INSPECT
$0
$0
$0
S-097

SEWER CONNECTION LATERAL INSPECTION
$0
$0
$0
S-098

LANDSCAPE PLAN CHECK
$15,783
$9,866
$5,917
S-099

LANDSCAPE INSPECTION
$0
$0
$0
S-100

TRAFFIC STUDY REVIEW
$0
$0
$0
S-101

SCOPING AGREEMENT
$0
$0
$0
S-102

TRANSPORTATION WIDE LOAD PERMIT
$20
$16
$4
S-103

HAUL ROUTE REVIEW
$245
$0
$245
S-104

DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERING DEPOSIT SVC
$626,879
$360,000
$266,879
S-105

ENGINEERING EXTRA PLAN CHECK
$0
$0
$0
S-106

MISCELLANEOUS ENGINEERING SERVICES
$0
$0
$0

SUBTOTAL - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
$4,036,726
$3,804,984
$231,742

Cost of Services Study for the City of Beaumont

Pg. 22

CHAPTER III - REVENUES MATCHED AGAINST COSTS
TOTAL

RESOURCES USED

SERVICE

TO FINANCE SERVICE
REF# (1)
J FEE SERVICE (2)
COST (3)
FEES (4) TAXES (5)

PUBLIC SAFETY
S-107

CODE ENFORCEMENT INSPECTION
$122
$0
$122
S-108

INSPECTION WARRANT
$0
$0
$0
S-109

ABATEMENT WARRANT
$0
$0
$0
S-110

CODE ENFORCEMENT CITATION HEARING
$14,813
$0
$14,813
S-111
ABANDONED PROP. INIT. REGISTRATION
$2,196
$0
$2,196
S-112
ABANDONED PROPERTY MONTHLY INSPECT.
$732
$0
$732
S-113

WEED ABATEMENT
$7,564
$3,875
$3,689
S-114

WEED ABATEMENT SUBSCRIPTION PROGRAM
$14,396
$4,425
$9,971
S-115

FIRE PLAN CHECK/INSPECTION
$396,626
$164,911
$231,715
S-116

STORED VEHICLE RELEASE
$101,137
$43,125
$58,012
S-117

STORED VEHICLE RELEASE - DUI
$7,269
$3,750
$3,519
S-118

VIN VERIFICATION
$643
$165
$478
S-119

TRAFFIC CITATION SIGN OFF
$166
$105
$61
S-120

POLICE ALARM LICENSE
$41,850
$31,500
$10,350
S-121

AUTO REPOSSESSION PROCESSING
$19
$0
$19
S-122

SECOND HAND DEALER LICENSE
$1,634
$749
$885
S-123

FORTUNETELLER PERMIT
$542
$240
$302
S-124

MASSAGE TECHNICIAN PERMIT - NEW
$542
$100
$442
S-125

MASSAGE TECHNICIAN PERMIT - RENEWAL
$44
$100
($56)
S-126

MASSAGE ESTABLISHMENT PERMIT
$2,240
$1,010
$1,230
S-127

ADULT ORIENTED ESTABLISHMENT PERMIT
$983
$424
$559
S-128

TOBACCO RETAILER PERMIT
$983
$250
$733
S-129

GRAFFITI IMPLEMENTATION SALE PERMIT
$141
$25
$116
S-130

TOW YARD INSPECTION
$1,060
$429
$631
S-131

PEDDLER SOLICITOR PERMIT
$2,704
$750
$1,954
S-132

BINGO PERMIT
$926
$100
$826
S-133

RV PARKING PERMIT
$88
$60
$28
S-134

GOLF CART PERMIT
$1,733
$500
$1,233
S-135

CONCEALED WEAPON CARRY PERMIT
$383
$100
$283
S-136

RECORDS CHECK/IMMIGRATION LETTER
$496
$190
$306
S-137

FINGERPRINTING
$35,111
$18,320
$16,791
S-138

BICYCLE REGISTRATION
$26
$0
$26
S-139

CITATION PROCESSOR LATE FEE
$34
$30
$4
S-140

POLICE REPORT COPY
$672
$0
$672
S-141

POLICE ELECTRONIC FILE COPY
$702
$168
$534
S-142

ANIMAL RELINQUISHMENT
$3,551
$440
$3,111
S-143

ANIMAL IMPOUND/RETURN TO OWNER
$3,891
$3,600
$291
S-144

DECEASED ANIMAL PICKUP
$2,781
$1,272
$1,509
S-145

ANIMAL QUARANTINE
$581
$120
$461
S-146

DANGEROUS ANIMAL REGISTRATION
$661
$677
($16)
S-147

ANIMAL TRAP RENTAL
$1,194
$760
$434
S-148

DOG SILENCER RENTAL
$166
$93
$73
S-149

KENNEL LICENSE
$1,037
$668
$369
S-150

SENTRY KENNEL LICENSE
$1,079
$910
$169

Cost of Services Study for the City of Beaumont

Pg. 23

CHAPTER III - REVENUES MATCHED AGAINST COSTS
REF# (1)
FEE SERVICE (2)
TOTAL

SERVICE
COST (3)

RESOURCES USED

TO FINANCE SERVICE
FEES (4) TAXES (5)
S-151

MICROCHIP IDENTIFICATION DEVICE
$3,644
$2,520
$1,124
S-152

ANIMAL CONTROL RESPONSE
$202
$153
$49
S-153

ANIMAL CONTROL SERVICES
$425,234
$89,682
$335,552

SUBTOTAL - PUBLIC SAFETY

LEISURE & CULTURAL SERVICES
$1,082,598
$376,296
$706,302
S-154

RECREATION PROGRAMS
$816,542
$18,750
$797,792
S-155

FACILITY RENTALS
$221,180
$128,520
$92,660
S-156

BALLFIELD RENTALS
$617,369
$2,500
$614,869

SUBTOTAL - LEISURE & CULTURAL SERVICES

ENTERPRISE SERVICES
$1,655,091
$149,770
$1,505,321
S-157

FATS, OILS OR GREASE INSPECTION
$33,334
$0
$33,334
S-158

INDUSTRIAL WASTE INSPECTION
$0
$0
$0
S-159

WASTEWATER SURVEY
$11,400
$0
$11,400
S-160

SEWER FLOW MODELING
$0
$0
$0
S-161

SEWAGE SPILL RESPONSE
$0
$0
$0

SUBTOTAL - ENTERPRISE SERVICES

ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
$44,734
$0
($44,734)
S-162

NEW BUSINESS LICENSE PROCESSING
$23,187
$9,145
$14,042
S-163

BUSINESS LICENSE RENEWAL PROCESSING
$50,972
$19,455
$31,517
S-164

RELEASE OF LIEN
$12,929
$17,850
($4,921)
S-165

NON -UTILITY NSF CHECK/ACH PROCESS
$35
$0
$35
S-166

UTILITY BILLING ACH RETURN PROCESS
$11
$0
$11
S-167

CREDIT CARD PROCESSING
$161,000
$39,316
$121,684
S-168

DOCUMENT REPRODUCTION
$1
$1
$0
S-169

ELECTRONIC FILE REPRODUCTION
$4
$7
($3)
S-170

PUBLIC NOTARY
$36
$15
$21

SUBTOTAL - ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES

GRAND TOTAL
$248,175
$85,789
$162,386
$7,067,324
$4,416,839
$2,650,485
Schedule 1 above shows that the City provides $7.1 million in fee services annually, and only recovers $4.4 million from fee revenues. Each year, an additional $2.65 million, coming from other funding sources, is needed to pay for these fee services.

Cost of Services Study for the City of Beaumont

Pg. 24
[T]he City provides
$7.1 million in fee
services, and only
recovers $4.4 million
from fee revenues.

Each year, an
additional $2.65 411
million, coming from
other funding
sources, is needed to
pay for these fee
services.

CHAPTER III - REVENUES MATCHED AGAINST COSTS
Policy Review Information
As the Council conducts its policy review of each of the revenue -cost match -ups in the next chapter, it should refer to comments on the bottom of the service center worksheets in Appendix B and also in the text in the next chapter to assist in that review.

The policy review should assess the tax revenues used to subsidize each service and address the following options available to the City for each service center:

1. Reduce costs and thereby the tax subsidy by reducing the level of service or restructuring the service to provide it differently.

2. Adjust or institute a fee or charge to recover all of the "costs reasonably borne".

3. Eliminate a tax subsidy to another "less deserving" service to utilize the taxes in order to provide this service.

Result of Acceptance of Fee Suggestions
If the suggestions in the following Chapter and on the Service Center Worksheets are adopted in full then a significant amount of added revenues will be available to the City, which would provide taxpayer equity. Most of these new revenues will be from fee increases to replace tax monies used to make up the difference between fees collected and costs incurred in providing the services, which will then be available for those services which can only be funded from taxes.

These tax "diversions" are the now -documented tax subsidies to potentially self-supporting City services. Thus, additional monies could be made available for police services, infrastructure maintenance, and other City services which are not generally conducive to service charges, thereby achieving much closer equity between benefits and associated payments.

Policy Guidance. More importantly, the Council would be able to make its decisions based on business principles as much as is possible.

Then there no longer will be a feeling that the old definitional saw of "a good tax" being "the one which you pay and from which I get the benefits" exists in the City. 411
Understanding of Equitable Charging for Government. The City Council now has to assist its constituents to understand that under the California Constitution the intent is:
• That taxes finance those services for which there is no other alternative way to finance them.
• That service charges and special assessments should be utilized to finance those things for which benefits can be determined.
• That the beneficiaries of such services be charged in direct relationship to the benefits derived.

Cost of Services Study for the City of Beaumont

Pg. 25 CHAPTER IV - SERVICE REVENUE RECOMMENDATIONS

CHAPTER IV - SERVICE REVENUE

RECOMMENDATIONS
The purpose of this Chapter is to present the services which RCS has initially labeled as Personal Choice and to suggest the magnitude of tax revenues that could be diverted from these services to Community Supported Services.

City Council has Final Judgment. It must be understood that considerable judgment, albeit experienced, was exercised by RCS in suggesting what services were Personal Choice as opposed to Community Supported Services and in suggesting that most Personal Choice Services should be paid for by the service requestor rather than subsidized by the entire community. However, the final decision on the nature of the service and whether it deserves to be subsidized will have to be made by the City Council.

Service Groups
RCS has organized Personal Choice Services into the following service groups for purposes of discussion:

1. Community Development Services

2. Public Safety Services

3. Leisure & Cultural Services

4. Enterprise Services

5. Administrative Services
These groups, explained in turn, are program oriented. Each group includes a table summarizing the revenues and costs of each service. The table summarizing the group tables is found at the end of this Chapter.

Appendix A, following the text, summarizes the current fees and the proposed fees for each of the Personal Choice service centers
Service Center details found in Appendix B, are in sequence by the Reference Number (Column 1 on each of the following Tables), include detail information for each service on two facing pages.

The left page has textual and summary information including RCS's suggested service fee. The right page has the service cost detail.

Cost of Services Study for the City of Beaumont

Pg. 26 CHAPTER IV - SERVICE REVENUE RECOMMENDATIONS
General Commentary on Chapter Tables
Each table has eight columns, explained here:
• Column 1 is the Report Reference Number.
• Column 2 is the title of the service.
• Columns 3, 4 & 5 are the same amounts for revenue, cost and profit (subsidy) found on the left page of the detail service sheets in Appendix B.
• Column 6 is the current percentage of costs recovered from the user fees and charges with the difference being subsidized by taxes.
• Column 7 is the percentage of user fee cost recovery which might be obtainable without tax subsidy. Of course, decisions regarding tax subsidies to a service are a City Council policy decision on how to allocate its tax and general revenues. • Column 8 contains the estimated amount of revenues which RCS suggests could be raised or reduced.

Special Circumstances
The table also footnotes which identify special circumstances for some fees. A service that is marked (a) is suggested to be removed from the City's fee schedule for various reasons. When a service is marked (b), the fee is deposit based and financial estimations is not possible. For services marked (c), there is insufficient data to determine the financial impact. Services and services marked (d), is restricted by law, and cannot be adjusted for full cost recovery. For services marked (e), City staff recommends the service fee remaining subsidized.

Cost of Services Study for the City of Beaumont

Pg. 27 CHAPTER IV - SERVICE REVENUE RECOMMENDATIONS
Community Development Services
When basic City development services are supported by general taxes, there is little reason for taxes to also finance those Personal Choice services which mainly benefit a developer or specific property owner. Thus, the expenses distributed across these service centers are primarily the incremental additional expenses caused by community development. Were no development to take place, most of these costs could be eliminated, or at least significantly reduced.

TABLE 1- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
REF #
1 SERVICE
2 TOTAL
FEE

REVENUE
3 TOTAL

SERVICE
COST
4 TOTAL

PROFIT/
(SUBSIDY)
5 PCT. RECOVERY

FROM FEES

POSSIBLE
NEW

REVENUE
8 ACTUAL SUGGEST
6 7
S-001

CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
100%
$0
S-002

CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT
$0
$2,713
($2,713)

0.0%
100%
$0
S-003

FINDINGS OF PUBLIC CONV/NECESSITY
$0
$2,006
($2,006)

0.0%
100%
$0
S-004

CUP TIME EXTENSION
$829
$1,968
($1,139)

42.1%
100%
$0
S-005

LARGE GROUP HOME CUP
$1,118
$3,729
($2,611)

30.0%
100%
$0
S-006

GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
100%
$0
S-007

ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT CHANGE
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
100%
$0
S-008

SPECIFIC PLAN
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
100%
$0
S-009

SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
100%
$0
S-010