Big Bear Lake City Council
May 14, 2025

CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING NOTICE & AGENDA
MAY 14, 2025
Meeting Time: 2:00 p.m.

Meeting Location: Hofert Hall, Civic Center, 39707 Big Bear Boulevard, Big Bear Lake, CA 92315

COUNCILMEMBERS

MAYOR PERRI MELNICK

MAYOR PRO TEM KENDI SEGOVIA

COUNCILMEMBER RICK HERRICK
COUNCILMEMBER CHARLES HICKS, JR.

COUNCILMEMBER RANDALL PUTZ

CITY STAFF

CITY MANAGER ERIK SUND

ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER/CITY CLERK ERICA STEPHENSON

CITY ATTORNEY STEPHEN DEITSCH
__________________________________________________________________________________________

CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING

NOTICE & AGENDA
To:

Mayor Perri Melnick
Mayor Pro Tem Kendi Segovia
Councilmember Rick Herrick
Councilmember Charles Hicks, Jr.

Councilmember Randall Putz
City Manager
City Attorney
Division Managers
Local Media
NOTICE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the City Council will conduct a Special Meeting on Wednesday, May 14, 2025, at 2:00 p.m., at the Big Bear Lake Civic Center located at 39707 Big Bear Blvd, Big Bear Lake, CA 92315; said meeting is being called pursuant to Section 54956 of the Government Code of the State of California for the purpose of considering the following matter:

AGENDA

OPEN SESSION

CALL TO ORDER

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA
MAY 14, 2025 – Page 2

ROLL CALL

PRESENTATION
• Presentation from Kelly Ent, Deputy City Manager / Chief Financial Officer providing the City’s Quarterly (July 2024 – March 2025) Financial Update.

PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS NOTICE
If members of the public cannot attend the meeting, the City encourages the public to submit written public communications about any item on this special meeting agenda, to the City Clerk either in person, via mail or by email at [email protected]. Please identify the Agenda item in the header of your letter or the subject line of your email. All written communications received by the City Clerk prior to the meeting will be distributed to the City Council prior to the start of the meeting, however, the public is encouraged to submit comments by 5:00 pm the evening prior to the meeting to ensure adequate time for City Council review and consideration.

Public comment is permitted only on items included on the posted Special Meeting Agenda and the public comment period will be held prior to City Council’s deliberation of each item. Please note that there is a three-minute maximum time limit when addressing City Council during that time period. The time limit is subject to adjustment at the discretion of the Presiding Officer. Speakers are limited to their individual maximum time limit and other members of the public cannot cede their speaking time to another person.

1. DISCUSSION/ACTION ITEM

1.1 FISCAL YEAR 2025-26 PROPOSED BUDGET, 5-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT

PROGRAM, COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY AND PROPOSED MASTER FEE

SCHEDULE PRESENTATIONS AND DISCUSSION
Staff’s Recommendation: Receive a presentation from City staff providing an overview of the City’s proposed FY 2025-26 Budget, 5-Year Capital Improvement Program (CIP), Comprehensive User Fee Study, and proposed Master Fee Schedule; then engage in related discussion and provide direction to staff as appropriate.

ADJOURNMENT
I hereby certify under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the State of California, that the foregoing agenda was posted in accordance with the applicable legal requirements. Dated this 8th day of May, 2025. _______________________
Erica Stephenson, City Clerk
The City of Big Bear Lake wishes to make all of its public meetings accessible to the public. If you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk’s Office at (909) 866-5831. When possible, notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting.

PRESENTATION MATERIALS
BIG BEAR LAKE California (July 2024 – March 2025)

QUARTERLY FINANCIAL REPORT
Third Quarterly Update for Fiscal Year 2024-25

CITY OF
Additional financial information available here

CURRENT FINANCIAL CONDITION
The city remains well positioned to ensure
continuity of services and public safety and
to provide for the ongoing investment in
street improvements and capital projects
aimed at maintaining and enhancing the
city’s infrastructure. Sufficient fund balances
are available for operations and investment in
reserves for the general plan amendment,
snow removal and equipment replacements.

This report will provide an overview of the
financial activity for the first nine months of
the fiscal year compared to the budget and
prior year. As the end of the fiscal year
approaches, the revenue and expenditure
trends through March are used to project
expectations through year end and to prepare
the budget for the coming year.

The discussion that follows will review the
city’s core operating fund, the General Fund,
as well as the various Special Revenue Funds
which provide essential resources for street
maintenance and snow removal efforts in
addition to funding for planned capital
projects, infrastructure enhancements, and
road improvements.

GENERAL FUND
The General Fund is the City’s primary
operating fund. Revenues are available for
general purposes and are used to pay for
services such as street maintenance, snow
removal, public safety as well as general
operations. As shown in the following chart,
$16.5 million has been deposited into the
General Fund as of March and $16.2 million
has been expended.

The fiscal activity to date is consistent with
expectations. The General Fund Revenues
and General Fund Expenditures sections of
this report will provide additional details
regarding the various components of revenue
and expenditures and will provide insight
into fiscal projections through year end.

General Fund Revenues:

The General Fund has three major sources of
revenue: property taxes, sales taxes, and
transient occupancy taxes (TOT). These
revenues are the city’s primary resources for
funding operations. Major revenues generate
approximately 74% of the budgeted
resources for the General Fund. Of the $16.5
million deposited into the General Fund
through the third quarter, major revenues
generated $12.0 million.

In addition to the major revenues, the General
Fund receives franchise fees, charges for
services including the issuance of permits
and processing of licenses, as well as special
revenues for street maintenance and snow
removal. The table below summarizes the
various resources supporting General Fund
operations.

Quarterly Financial Report Third Quarterly Update for FY 2024-25

Note: Increase in revenue budget is indicative of projected growth in major revenues (Property Taxes, Sales Taxes & TOT).

Property Taxes: The City receives most of
the property tax revenue semi-annually in
December and April. As of March, $3.6
million has been received representing 61.4%
of the budgeted property tax revenue. This is
consistent with the timing of revenue
collections and budget expectations. Looking
ahead to fiscal year end, increased valuations
from property transfers are anticipated to
generate property tax revenues ahead of
budget expectations.

Sales Taxes: Sales taxes are collected at the
time of sale by retailers and are remitted to
the state. The revenue is then allocated to the
local jurisdictions once processed by the
California Department of Tax and Fee
Administration (CDTFA). The $1.9 million
received through March includes tax revenue
collected through the holiday quarter
(December 2024) plus the January advance.

In total, this represents 53.7% of the fiscal
year budget. Collections to date are in line
with budget expectations despite the
disruption caused by the Line Fire which
began in early September. Sales tax revenue
through year end is expected to come in as
budgeted.

Transient Occupancy Taxes (TOT):

Remittances are due the month following the
close of the collection period; therefore, TOT
received through March represents payments
for rents collected during the first eight
months of the fiscal year. The TOT rate
through December was 9%. As of January 1,
2025, the TOT rate is now 10%. As discussed
further in the Special Revenue Funds section
of this report, 2% of the TOT received is set
aside in the Measure Y fund for capital
improvements and the remainder is deposited
into the General Fund.

Through March, $6.5 million has been
deposited into the General Fund. This
represents 75% of the $8.7 million budgeted
for the year and is ahead of the $5.9 million
collected at this time last year despite the
Line Fire disruption to the local economy and
the lack of snowfall this season.

Franchise Fees: A significant portion of the
income from franchise fees is received in
April. As a result, the percentage of revenue
collected compared to the annual budget
tends to lag. The Franchise fee revenue
budget anticipated additional revenue
pursuant to an adjustment in electric rates
which was delayed; therefore, franchise fees
are anticipated to come in under budget this
fiscal year. Revenue received to date is
consistent with collections during this same
period last year.

Use of Money & Property: Revenue
received includes interest earnings on
deposits with the Local Agency Investment
Fund (LAIF). Interest rates have remained
higher than anticipated; thus, generating
additional interest income which is pacing
ahead of budget projections at this time.

Operating Transfers: Funds received for
specific purposes are deposited into special
revenue funds and distributed to cover
qualified expenditures. Of the $1.4 million
budget, nearly half is received in the form of
gas taxes distributed through the state
Highway User Tax Account (HUTA). These
revenues are the primary funding source for
street maintenance and snow removal.

Revenue received to date is in line with
expectations and on track to meet projections
through year end.

Quarterly Financial Report Third Quarterly Update for FY 2024-25

General Fund Expenditures
General Fund expenditures for the first six
months of the year are $16.2 million, or

57.8% of the annual budget. Included in the
adopted budget are contributions to reserves
for future vehicle and equipment
replacements, snow removal contingency,
and the general plan amendment. When
reserve contributions are made, available
funds are set aside in a separate account to be
used for the designated purpose, like a
transfer of funds between a checking and
savings account. These budgeted
contributions are simply a resource planning
tool to ensure resource availability and will
not be reflected as an expenditure.

Factoring out the budget for reserve
contributions, expenditures to date represent

59.6% of budget appropriations. The city
uses conservative budgeting practices. For
example, the budget for personnel costs
assumes that all positions are filled
throughout the year; however, vacancies do
exist and result in budget savings. Similarly,
professional and contractual services are
budgeted assuming those services will be
needed all year long; however, the timing of
those expenditures is dependent upon when
services are utilized. Capital outlays and
project funding transfers are made on a
reimbursement basis and will lag project
expenditures. Therefore, expenditures of less
than 75% of the budget at this time of year
are to be expected and are consistent with the
prior year.

SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS
Funds which are restricted in use are
separated into special revenue funds.

Waste Management Funds: This Special
Revenue category is comprised of two
operating funds: (1) The Sanitation Fund is
used to account for all activity related to the
maintenance of the sewer system and the
collection and transmission of affluent to the
Big Bear Area Regional Wastewater Agency
(BBARWA) treatment facility. (2) The
Refuse Fund captures all activity associated
with the provision of solid waste services,
hazardous materials disposal, as well as the
administration of regulatory programs and
environmental mandates.

Sanitation (Wastewater):

Through March, $5.4 million has been
deposited into the Sanitation Fund. This
represents 66.9% of the annual budgeted
revenue. Charges for services are the main
source of income supporting the provision
wastewater services and system maintenance.

These charges are collected from residential
and commercial properties via the tax roll and
are primarily received in December and
April. Collections to date are in line with
budget estimates and year end projections.

Quarterly Financial Report Third Quarterly Update for FY 2024-25

When compared to the same period in the
previous year, Sanitation revenues are up
approximately $400,000, or 8.2% which is
indicative of the direct pass through charges
collected on tax roll for treatment of affluent
by BBARWA.

As mentioned in the discussion of General
Fund revenues, interest rates have remained
higher than anticipated in the adopted budget
and are continuing to generate additional
interest income for this fund.

As of the close of the third quarter, the
Sanitation Fund has expended $4.3 million
which represents 47.3% of annual budget.

Due to vacancies, personnel services are
tracking below budget and are anticipated to
remain under budget through year end.

Pass through of BBARWA charges occurs
semiannually in conjunction with the
collection of fees on the tax roll. Therefore,
the $2.6 million or 50.7% has been passed
through as of March which is consistent with
the prior year and budget expectations.

Interfund transfers for capital improvements
occur on a reimbursement basis and are
dependent upon the timing of project
expenditures. These transfers will vary from
year-to-year. As of March, approximately
$500,000 has been transferred to cover
capital expenditures. When compared to the
previous year, approximately $1.1 million
had been transferred due to the timing and
nature of the planned projects. At the close of
the fiscal year, it is common for projects to be
underway. Dependent upon the status of
these projects at year end, the carryover of
budget appropriations may be necessary to
continue project efforts and enable
completion in the following fiscal year.

Refuse (Solid Waste):

To date, $3.3 million has been deposited into
the Refuse Fund which represents 63.7% of
budget which is primarily comprised on solid
waste fees collected on the tax roll. As
described in the Sanitation discussion,
revenues collected via the tax roll are mostly
received in December and April; therefore,
revenues are on track with budget
expectations through March.

Compared to the previous year, revenues to
date have increased approximately
$270,0000 or 8.8%. This is indicative of
charges associated with the solid waste
franchise agreement. These revenues are a
direct pass through to Big Bear Disposal, the
city’s franchise waste hauler.

Budgeted operating transfers are associated
with grant revenue to help offset the cost of
SB1383 implementation of organic waste
compliance measures. The timing of
reimbursement from this grant is subject to
when eligible expenditures are incurred. It is
anticipated that the grant will not be fully
expended by the end of the fiscal year;
therefore, a portion of the proceeds from this
grant will likely be received next fiscal year.

To date, $3.7 million or 71.0% of budget has
been expended for solid waste operations.

This is consistent with budget expectations
and previous year fiscal activities. As
described above, it is anticipated that the
grant funded SB1383 implementation costs
Quarterly Financial Report Third Quarterly Update for FY 2024-25

will be not be fully expended until next fiscal
year. All other solid waste expenditures are
expected to remain on track with budget
through year end.

Transportation Funds: Revenues restricted
solely for street maintenance efforts, road
construction, and transportation purposes are
shown in the table below. These funding
sources are required to be collected in
separate funds and then allocated to cover
authorized expenditures.

The largest allocation of transportation
funding to the city comes from gas taxes
received from the state Highway User Tax
Account (HUTA). Of the $2.4 million
transportation revenue budget, nearly onethird comes from HUTA. This revenue is an essential funding source for street
maintenance and snow removal. HUTA
allocations are received throughout the year
with the largest apportionment received
annually in March. This funding allocation
represents reimbursement for a portion of the
snow removal costs incurred during the
previous season and fluctuates depending on
the severity of the snowfall. This
reimbursement exceeded budget projections
as shown in the table above.

Revenue derived from gasoline and diesel
sales taxes as well as fees for zero emissions
vehicles are collected by the state and
deposited into the Road Maintenance and
Rehabilitation Account (RMRA) for
distribution by the State Controller’s Office
for local road improvement projects. The
RMRA revenue received through March
represents seven monthly allocations totaling
approximately $80,000 or 61.3% of the
budget indicating that RMRA distributions
are on track to meet budget expectations
through fiscal year end.

Local jurisdictions receive an allocation from
the San Bernardino County Measure I halfcent sales tax which is used to fund road improvement projects. As mentioned
previously, sales tax distributions are
collected by retailers and are subsequently
distributed by CDTFA to the various
jurisdictions including the San Bernardino
County Transportation Authority (SBCTA)
who then distributes Measure I funds to local
entities. This distribution process results in a
time lag for receiving agencies; thus, receipts
through March represent six monthly
installments of Measure I proceeds. Most
recent projections received from SBCTA
indicate that Measure I revenue will come in
approximately $140,000 under budget for the
current fiscal year. There are sufficient funds
available in the existing fund balance to cover
budgeted road improvement projects through
year end.

The transportation revenue budget includes
an annual contribution of $500,000 from
Measure Y TOT supporting the free trolley
service offered by Mountain Transit
Authority (MTA). Contributions are made
monthly in accordance with the grant
agreement between the city and MTA.

As of March, transportation funding of $1.5
million has been received representing 62.3%
of the budget. In total, transportation funds
are expected to come in slightly under budget
by approximately $30,000 or 1.2%.

Comparing budget expectations to the
previous year, there is a planned reduction in
transportation funding. This is indicative of
the fluctuations in HUTA revenues received
for eligible snow removal costs which vary
depending upon the timing and magnitude of
the storm activity.

Quarterly Financial Report Third Quarterly Update for FY 2024-25

Miscellaneous Funds:

As TOT revenue is received, 2% is
earmarked for capital improvements and
infrastructure enhancements. This set aside
was initiated as a result of the 2008 voter
approved Measure Y which authorized a 2%
increase in the TOT rate and an advisory
measure, Measure YY, recommending the
additional funds to be preserved for this
purpose. Since that time, these local funds
have been an essential funding source for the
city’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP).

Of the $2.5 million in anticipated Measure Y
TOT revenue, $1.9 million or 78.4% has been
received through March. This represents tax
on rents collected for overnight
accommodations during the first eight
months of the fiscal year. This is consistent
with the prior year receipts through March.

Budgeted grant proceeds represent funding
awarded to the city for eligible expenditures.

Approximately one-third of the budgeted
revenue has been received to date. Grant
proceeds are primarily received on a
reimbursement basis; therefore, receipts are
dependent upon when expenditures are
incurred.

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUNDS
The current budget includes an appropriation
of $14.2 million for planned street and capital
improvements. As shown in the following
chart, these projects receive funding from a
variety of sources including special revenues,
grant proceeds and locally generated
revenues. Approximately $8.7 million, or
61%, of the planned CIP expenditures will be
funded with local revenues from the General
Fund and Measure Y TOT.

The CIP budget includes the twenty-four (24)
identified projects programmed into the
adopted budget for streets, facilities, parks,
and trails, as well as sanitation infrastructure.

With winter weather conditions, the City’s
construction cycle is seasonal in nature. As a
result, appropriations for work in progress at
the close of the previous fiscal year are
incorporated into the current budget along
with any new projects approved since the
start of the fiscal year. The table below shows
the budget appropriations by type as well as
the expenditures through March.

In total, $7.6 million, or 53.0% of the current
budget, has been expended. As we emerge
from the winter season, construction projects
will resume. The timing of expenditures is
dependent on when progress payments are
made and when projects are completed.

Expenditures to date are consistent with the
project expenditures incurred during this
same period last year and are in line with
budget expectations.

Preliminary design and planning efforts are
being utilized to develop project estimates for
potential future CIP investments. As part of
the annual budget, the CIP serves as a
resource planning tool and will be updated to
evaluate potential funding sources for
identified projects over the next five years.

DISCUSSION/ACTION

ITEM REPORTS

MEETING
DATE: May 14, 2025
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
THROUGH: Erik Sund, City Manager
FROM: Kelly Ent, Deputy City Manager/Chief Financial Officer SUBJECT: Fiscal Year 2025-26 Proposed Budget, 5-Year Capital Improvement Program, Comprehensive User Fee Study and Proposed Master Fee Schedule Presentations and Discussion

BACKGROUND & DISCUSSION
On June 12, 2024, the City Council adopted the Fiscal Year 2024-25 budget. Staff will provide an update on the current fiscal year’s budget status and present the following items:
• Proposed Budget for Fiscal Year 2025-26
• City’s 5-Year Capital Improvement Program (CIP)
• Comprehensive User Fee Study and proposed Master Fee Schedule • Overview of the City’s Strategic Priorities
The next step in the budget process, will be bringing back a final proposed budget for Fiscal Year 2025-26 to the City Council at its June 11, 2025 meeting for a public hearing and budget adoption.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact at this time.

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
This action has no impact pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

CONSIDERATION OF STRATEGIC PRIORITIES
This item aligns with Strategic Priority Goal No. 1, to “ensure fiscal responsibility.”

RECOMMENDED ACTION
It is recommended that the City Council receive a presentation from City staff providing an overview of the City’s proposed FY 2025-26 Budget, 5-Year Capital Improvement Program (CIP), Comprehensive User Fee Study and proposed Master Fee Schedule; then engage in related discussion and provide direction to staff as appropriate.

Item 1.1

ATTACHMENTS

1. Fiscal Year 2025-26 Proposed Budget and 5-Year Capital Improvement Program (CIP)

2. June 12, 2024 Agenda Report - Award of Contract /Comprehensive User Fee Study & Cost Allocation Plan (including Matrix Consulting Group’s Proposal)

3. Comprehensive User Fee Study Report

4. Master Fee Schedule
Item 1.1
Attachment 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION
Budget Message / Transmittal Letter 6

2.0 SUMMARIES
Summary of All Funds Budget 11
Schedule of Resources by Fund & Category 17
Schedule of Expenditures by Fund & Category 18
Organization Chart 19
Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) Distribution of Personnel 20

3.0 GENERAL FUND
General Fund Summary of Revenues & Expenditures 24
General Fund Revenue Detail 25
General Fund Expenditures by Department 29

3.1 MANAGEMENT SERVICES
City Council 30
City Manager 31
City Attorney 32
Law Enforcement 33
Information Technology 34
City Clerk / Communications 35
Staff Services / Risk Management 36
Economic Development / Tourism Management 37
Performing Arts Center (PAC) Administration 38

TABLE OF CONTENTS
FY 2025-26 Proposed Budget May 14, 2025 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

3.2 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
Engineering 39
Public Works
Traffic Utilities 40
Animal Regulation 41
Street Maintenance & Snow Removal 42
Vehicle Maintenance 44
Street Lighting 45
City Parking Lots & Facilities 46
City Parks & Trails 47
Civic Center 48
PAC Operations & Maintenance 49
Community Development
Planning Commission 50
Planning 51
Building & Safety 52

3.3 FINANCE / TREASURY SERVICES
Finance 53
General Government 54
Successor Administration 55

3.4 GENERAL FUND RESERVES / INTERFUND TRANSFERS
Summary of Reserve Commitments 56
Contributions to Replacement Reserve 57
Interfund Transfers Out 58
FY 2025-26 Proposed Budget May 14, 2025 3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

4.0 WASTE MANAGEMENT FUNDS
Sanitation (Wastewater) Fund Summary of Revenues & Expenditures 59 Sanitation (Wastewater) Fund Detail of Revenues & Expenditures 60 Sanitation (Wastewater) Summary of Reserve Commitments 63 Refuse (Solid Waste) Fund Summary of Revenues & Expenditures 64 Refuse (Solid Waste) Fund Detail of Revenues & Expenditures 65 Refuse (Solid Waste) Summary of Reserve Commitments 68

5.0 ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS
Village Streetscape Maintenance Fund 69
Tourism Business Improvement District (TBID) 70

6.0 TRANSPORTATION FUNDS
Traffic Safety 71
Gas Tax - Highway User Tax Account (HUTA) 72
Gas Tax - Road Maintenance and Repair Account (RMRA) 73 Measure I Fund - Local 10-40 74
Measure I Fund - Major Local Highways Program (MLHP) 75 Mobile Source Air Pollution 76
Mountain Transit (MTA) 77
Local Transportation 78
FY 2025-26 Proposed Budget May 14, 2025 4

TABLE OF CONTENTS

7.0 MISCELLANEOUS FUNDS
Property Lease General Operations 79
State Pass-through Fees 80
Public, Education, and Government (PEG) Access 81
Measure Y Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) 82
SB1383 Grant 83
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) 84
Grant Funding 85
Supplemental Law Enforcement Services (State COPS Subvention) 86

8.0 GROWTH MANAGEMENT FUNDS
Development Impact - General Facilities 87
Development Impact - Circulation 88
Development Impact - Drainage 89
Development Impact - Public Facilities 90
Development Impact - Parkland 91
Development Impact - Fire Suppression 92

9.0 CAPITAL / STREET IMPROVEMENT FUNDS
Summary of Planned Projects 93
Capital Improvements Fund Detail by Account 94
Street Improvements Fund Detail by Account 96

10.0 5-Year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Appendix A FY 2025-26 Proposed Budget May 14, 2025 5
Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers:

I am pleased to present a balanced OperaƟng Budget and Capital Improvement Program for the City of Big Bear Lake for Fiscal Year 2025-26 (July 1, 2025 to June 30, 2026).

The total City budget amounts to $65.6 million with the General Fund budget at $26.0 million, designaƟng $1,050,000 in reserve contribuƟons, and a full Ɵme employee count of 72 budgeted posiƟons.

The budget theme for the Fiscal Year 2025-26 budget can best be described as the year of Resiliency. The previous fiscal year budget theme was Return on Investment; in doing so, those and future investments need to be resilient. Big Bear Lake’s beauƟful four seasons, weather, seasonal tourism, and uƟlity infrastructure can be significantly tested in our community, creaƟng a difficult environment to navigate. By strengthening and invesƟng in the City’s financial foundaƟon through conservaƟve forecasƟng and responsible and efficient spending, the City has definitely seen a Return on Investment, through posiƟve growth of the City’s fund balance and revenues conƟnuing to show posiƟve returns. The City has also invested in local businesses through dedicated economic development resources with a focus on support and programs. These fiscal commitments directly improve and enhance the City’s overall infrastructure. As we look to the future, it is important to remember while Big Bear Lake has a stunning landscape, we need to ensure that Resiliency is a priority to maintain that landscape.

Strategic PrioriƟes
As we approach the FY 2025-26 budget, it is important to revisit the strategic prioriƟes that the City Council iniƟated in the FY 2023-24 budget process and have revisited every budget process thereaŌer. These prioriƟes set the goals of the City Council, City Manager, and City staff; objecƟves are incorporated into the budget to achieve these strategic prioriƟes. As you can see, we have iniƟated some new objecƟves and have provided status on all objecƟves.

FY 2025-26 Proposed Budget May 14, 2025 6
As we draŌed the budget for FY 2025-26, City staff reviewed the objecƟves and prioriƟes to determine if any changes were needed. The previous year’s strategic prioriƟes deferred the General Plan Update process to FY 2025-26. While the City has conƟnued to set aside dollars in past budgets to fund this required update, this deferment afforded City staff to focus on the implementaƟon of a new permiƫng system. The City is on track to go live with this new permiƫng system in late summer of 2025. This system will significantly enhance the end user experience when pulling a City permit - through 24 hour access, real Ɵme informaƟon, online submiƩal process for blueprints, online payment process, and most importantly, the end user will be able to print their permit via the new portal.

FY 2025-26 Proposed Budget May 14, 2025 7
This budget includes funding for public safety, conƟnued prioriƟzaƟon of the quality of life in our residenƟal communiƟes, the ongoing investment in the City’s Capital Improvement and Maintenance Projects, providing economic development support to the City’s business community, advancing the City’s communicaƟons, and the ongoing implementaƟon of technology improvements to provide more efficient services.

City staff have conƟnued to focus on maintaining the quality of the services they provide to the public, while minimizing expenses and adding efficiencies wherever possible. As a result, the City’s operaƟng posiƟon conƟnues to be posiƟve and available to address forecasted cost increases; while the City has commiƩed to focusing on funding reserves so they are available to offset any future economic downturn while sƟll being responsive to our residents' needs and providing the best services possible. The City conƟnues to operate with staff vacancies and remains commiƩed to delivering essenƟal City services. I would like to thank City Council and City staff for their commitment to the City and its ciƟzens.

Economic Outlook
The City’s economic outlook conƟnues to look favorable. We saw the economy expanding during the last three fiscal years, however there are new forecast consideraƟons:
 Interest rates
 Tariffs
 Consumer spending
 Increased ConstrucƟon Costs
 Tourism & Business Travel
 FluctuaƟng Gas prices
The City conƟnues to see increases in its property and transient occupancy tax revenues, while sales tax remains healthy. The annual outlook for sales tax forecasts moderate growth, approximately a 3.5-5% increase; restaurants and hotels are forecasƟng approximately 1.5-2.5% growth.

These areas of economic growth compliment the City’s significant revenue sources and conƟnue to contribute posiƟvely to improving the outlook for the City of Big Bear Lake. It is important to note, the City remains cauƟous in our budget forecasƟng, knowing these posiƟve trends can change relaƟvely quickly. The City is commiƩed to maintaining a strong fiscal foundaƟon and will remain conservaƟve in our fiscal acƟons and forecasƟng.

The Budget
The City is seeing its “Resiliency” with a number of items included in this year’s budget: appropriate staffing levels to beƩer serve the community, enhanced transparency and communicaƟon, ongoing commitment to improving infrastructure, review of uƟlity needs, dedicaƟon to wildfire miƟgaƟon, and conƟnued fiscal responsibility. City Management prioriƟzes maintaining a posiƟve operaƟng posiƟon to absorb anƟcipated cost increases and effects of any inflaƟonary impacts.

FY 2025-26 Proposed Budget May 14, 2025 8
The City realizes potenƟal future cost increases may occur and will maintain a conservaƟve financial posiƟon. As part of the development of the FY 2025-26 budget, staff conƟnually seek opportuniƟes to improve City services and maintain adequate staffing levels. These acƟons are summarized in following paragraphs by category below:
 Staffing: City Management conƟnually assesses all City Departments; in an effort to idenƟfy redundancies and gain operaƟonal efficiencies while being proacƟvely responsive to the current needs of the organizaƟon. The City is diligent in evaluaƟng vacancies to determine the priority in the recruitment process to compliment the effecƟve delivery of City services. The Staffing secƟon of the budget document contains addiƟonal FTE informaƟon.
 CompensaƟon and Benefits: The City and the employee associaƟon conƟnue to have a fantasƟc relaƟonship and the City Council adopted a three year MOU (ending June 30, 2026) that is a fair and a balanced package that compliments the City’s budget while reflecƟng a fair investment in City staff. The City will revisit the MOU in early 2026, any financial impacts will be presented in fiscal year 2026-27 budget process.
 Pension: Pension actuarial contribuƟon rates for FY 2025-26 will be slightly less than the prior year based on the June 2024 actuarial reports.

The payments are anƟcipated to remain mostly flat over Ɵme as SBCERA conƟnues to pay down past unfunded liabiliƟes.  Maintenance: While costs conƟnue to rise due to a number of factors, the City is allocaƟng $6.1M to ensure exisƟng capital assets are properly maintained extending the asset lives and lowering future replacement costs.  Capital Projects: PrioriƟzed projects in the proposed $9.9M budget include Moonridge Road and Rathbun Drive RehabilitaƟon, Rathbun Creek Trail, Performing Arts Center Improvements, and investments in the City’s sewer and sanitaƟon infrastructure.

The City's budget conƟnues to allocate resources to address public safety. These costs are dedicated to quality of life issues within the City. Key Public Safety costs include:
 San Bernardino Sheriff's Department (SBSD): The FY 2024-25 Police Services contract amount of $6.0 million increases in FY 2025-26 to $6.3 million. This increase is contributed to cost of living.  Neighborhood PreservaƟon/Code Enforcement: These two programs together total $2.0 million and address quality of life issues, the implementaƟon of BeauƟfy Big Bear Lake, year round parking enforcement, and other municipal code services.

FY 2025-26 Proposed Budget May 14, 2025 9
Accomplishments
There have been a number of key accomplishments in FY 2024-25 including: compleƟng the Castle Rock Trailhead Parking Lot Project, economic development support through the City’s Small Business Façade Improvement Program, conƟnued investment and expansion of the City’s summer concert series and holiday events, the launching of the City’s first app, Big Bear Lake 365, complete remodel of the Performing Art Center’s restrooms with ADA compliance features, and the reconstrucƟon of Summit Blvd.

Summary
In FY 2025-26, we will conƟnue to focus on implemenƟng the City Council's strategic prioriƟes while maintaining a balanced budget, providing quality services to the residents, and implemenƟng the adopted Capital Improvement and Maintenance Program. Over the next fiscal year, City staff will be seeking ways to improve the City’s resiliency on all levels.

I am very fortunate for the support of the City Council and their leadership, with an amazing City staff, this City is in a great posiƟon to do great things. As always, the City stands ready to address next year's challenges and opportuniƟes knowing we are resilient and can take on anything thrown our way.

Erik Sund
City Manager
FY 2025-26 Proposed Budget May 14, 2025 10
Total
General Village Sanitation Refuse Other Fund Bal.

Revenues & Other Resources 25,324,197 515,600 8,540,310 5,454,812 20,964,196 60,799,116 Expenditures & Other Uses (25,966,237) (515,600) (9,286,060) (5,531,707) (24,321,044) (65,620,648) Change in Fund Balance (642,040) - (745,750) (76,895) (3,356,848) (4,821,532) Projected Fund Balance 07/01/25 16,975,353 - 4,661,305 1,549,287 5,400,108 28,586,053 Projected Fund Balance 06/30/26 16,333,313 - 3,915,555 1,472,392 2,043,261 23,764,521 Measure Y Transient Occupancy Taxes 908,065
Development Impact Fees 3,405,214
Other Restricted Revenue:

Transportation Funds (3,171,119) *
COPS 427,281
PEG 431,395
SB1383 -
CDBG -
Grants -
Property Lease -
Total Other Restricted Revenue (2,312,443) *
Pass-through Charges 42,425
2,043,261
*Includes $3.2 million Measure I MLHP AEA
Operating Funds $21.7 million
FY 2025-26 Proposed Budget May 14, 2025 11
General Village Sanitation Refuse Total
Fund LL&M Fund Fund All Funds
Fund Balance 6/30/24 $ 18,898,408 $ 5,101,677 - $ $ 1,406,987 $ 33,695,075 Resources $ 24,226,594 $ 467,900 $ 8,154,230 $ 5,196,200 $ 65,298,797 Uses $ (26,149,649) $ (467,900) $ (8,594,602) $ (5,053,900) $ (70,407,820) $ (1,923,056) $ (440,372) - $ $ 142,300 $ (5,109,022)
Projected Balance 6/30/25 $ 16,975,353 $ 4,661,305 - $ $ 1,549,287 $ 28,586,053 Resources $ 25,324,197 $ 515,600 $ 8,540,310 $ 5,454,812 $ 60,799,116 Uses $ (25,966,237) $ (515,600) $ (9,286,060) $ (5,531,707) $ (65,620,648) $ (642,040) $ (745,750) - $ $ (76,895) $ (4,821,532)
Projected Balance 6/30/26 $ 16,333,313 $ 3,915,555 - $ $ 1,472,392 $ 23,764,521 Fund Balance Projection
June 30, 2025
FY 2025-26 Proposed Budget May 14, 2025 12
Fund Balance 6/30/24
Resources
Uses
Projected Balance 6/30/25
Resources
Uses
Projected Balance 6/30/26
Traffic HUTA RMRA Measure I Measure I Air Mountain
Safety Gas Tax Gas Tax Local MLHP Pollution Transit
$ 13,339 $ 9,854 $ 9,444 $ 680,834 $ (3,200,000) $ 17,781 $ - $ 220,000 $ 769,570 $ 127,280 $ 439,200 $ - $ 5,600 $ 500,000 $ (233,339) $ (779,424) $ (132,350) $ (845,255) $ - $ (500,000) - $ $ (13,339) $ (9,854) $ (5,070) $ (406,055) $ - $ 5,600 $ - $ - $ - $ 4,374 $ 274,779 $ (3,200,000) $ 23,381 $ -
$ 220,000 $ 544,150 $ 133,860 $ 512,600 $ - $ 5,500 $ 500,000 $ (220,000) $ (544,150) $ (138,234) $ (787,379) $ - $ (500,000) - $ $ - $ - $ (4,374) $ (274,779) $ - $ 5,500 $ -
$ - $ - $ - $ (3,200,000) - $ $ 28,881 $ -
Fund Balance Projection
June 30, 2025
FY 2025-26 Proposed Budget May 14, 2025 13
Fund Balance 6/30/24
Resources
Uses
Projected Balance 6/30/25
Resources
Uses
Projected Balance 6/30/26
Local Property State PEG Measure Y SB1383 CDBG
Transportaion Lease Pass-throughs Access Fund Fund Fund $ - $ - $ 32,745 $ 438,895 $ 7,008,987 $ 162 $ (38,948) $ 303,500 $ 392,921 $ 4,840 $ 55,000 $ 2,474,500 $ 7,300 $ 243,976 $ (303,500) $ (392,921) $ - $ (40,000) $ (5,474,601) $ (5,000) $ (205,028) $ - $ - $ 4,840 $ 15,000 $ (3,000,101) $ 2,300 $ 38,948 $ - $ - $ 37,585 $ 453,895 $ 4,008,886 $ 2,462 $ -
$ - $ 464,921 $ 4,840 $ 52,500 $ 2,514,000 $ 66,125 $ 33,400 $ (464,921) - $ $ - $ (75,000) $ (5,614,821) $ (68,587) $ (33,400) $ - $ - $ 4,840 $ (22,500) $ (3,100,821) $ (2,462) $ -
$ - $ - $ 42,425 $ 431,395 $ 908,065 $ - $ -
Fund Balance Projection
June 30, 2025
FY 2025-26 Proposed Budget May 14, 2025 14
Fund Balance 6/30/24
Resources
Uses
Projected Balance 6/30/25
Resources
Uses
Projected Balance 6/30/26
Grant COPS FEMA/OES DIF DIF DIF DIF
Funding Subvention Fund Gen. Facilities Circulation Drainage Public Facilities $ (185,637) $ 299,081 $ - $ 223,798 $ 558,620 $ 714,951 $ 295,623 $ 2,226,290 $ 205,700 $ - $ 32,000 $ 80,000 $ 70,000 $ 70,000 $ (2,040,653) $ (110,000) $ - $ - $ (200,000) - $ $ -
$ 185,637 $ 95,700 $ - $ 32,000 $ 80,000 $ (130,000) $ 70,000 $ - $ 394,781 $ - $ 255,798 $ 638,620 $ 584,951 $ 365,623 $ - $ 157,500 $ - $ 74,800 $ 187,700 $ 164,200 $ 67,500 $ (125,000) - $ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
$ - $ 32,500 $ - $ 74,800 $ 187,700 $ 164,200 $ 67,500
$ - $ 427,281 $ - $ 330,598 $ 826,320 $ 749,151 $ 433,123 June 30, 2025
Fund Balance Projection
FY 2025-26 Proposed Budget May 14, 2025 15
Fund Balance 6/30/24
Resources
Uses
Projected Balance 6/30/25
Resources
Uses
Projected Balance 6/30/26
DIF DIF Capital Street Total
Parkland Fire Fees Improvements Improvements TBID Other Funds $ 485,163 $ 233,259 $ - $ - $ 690,052 $ 8,288,003
$ 80,000 $ 35,000 $ 10,093,493 $ 3,690,104 $ 5,127,600 $ 27,253,874 $ - $ (10,093,493) - $ $ (3,690,104) $ (5,096,100) $ (30,141,769) $ 80,000 $ 35,000 $ - $ - $ 31,500 $ (2,887,895)
$ 565,163 $ 268,259 $ - $ - $ 721,552 $ 5,400,108
$ 75,000 $ 157,600 $ 3,485,000 $ 6,450,000 $ 5,093,000 $ 20,964,196 $ - $ (3,485,000) - $ $ (6,450,000) $ (5,814,552) $ (24,321,044) $ 75,000 $ 157,600 $ - $ (721,552) - $ $ (3,356,848)
$ 640,163 $ 425,859 $ - $ - $ - $ 2,043,261
Fund Balance Projection
June 30, 2025
FY 2025-26 Proposed Budget May 14, 2025 16

SCHEDULE OF RESOURCES BY FUND & CATEGORY
2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2024-25 2024-25 2025-26 ProposedActual Actual Adopted Adjusted Projected Proposed Adopted % Diff Comments $ 24,615,759 $ 24,908,673 $ 24,255,460 $ 24,343,791 $ 24,226,594 $ 25,324,197 $ 1,068,737 4.4% Sanitation $ 6,429,829 $ 7,387,807 $ 8,118,600 $ 8,118,600 $ 8,154,230 $ 8,540,310 $ 421,710 5.2% Refuse 4,087,882 4,634,808 5,253,000 5,253,000 5,196,200 5,454,812 201,812 3.8% Total Waste Management Funds $ 10,517,711 $ 12,022,615 $ 13,371,600 $ 13,371,600 $ 13,350,430 $ 13,995,122 $ 623,522 4.7% Traffic Safety $ 433,383 $ 369,414 $ 220,000 $ 220,000 $ 220,000 $ 220,000 $ 0.0% - Gas Tax - HUTA 495,257 1,129,933 659,360 659,360 769,570 544,150 (115,210) -17.5% Lighter winter in FY25; decrease in snow reimbursement Gas Tax - RMRA 112,636 130,243 130,720 130,720 127,280 133,860 3,140 2.4% Measure I Local 10-40 619,306 680,512 575,000 575,000 439,200 512,600 (62,400) -10.9% SBCTA revenue projection Measure I Major Local Hwys 10-40 - - - - - - - %
Mobile Source Air Pollution 9,064 7,922 5,200 5,200 5,600 5,500 300 5.8% Mountain Transit (MTA) 251,282 333,333 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 0 0.0% Local Transportation - - - 303,518 303,500 - - %
Total Transportation Funds $ 1,920,928 $ 2,651,358 $ 2,090,280 $ 2,393,798 $ 2,365,150 $ 1,916,110 $ (174,170) -9.1% Village Streetscape Maintenance $ 303,838 $ 1,839,211 $ 497,800 $ 497,800 $ 467,900 $ 515,600 $ 17,800 3.6% Tourism Business Improvement District 5,475,476 4,910,366 5,096,100 5,096,100 5,127,600 5,093,000 (3,100) -0.1% Total Assessment District Funds $ 5,779,314 $ 6,749,577 $ 5,593,900 $ 5,593,900 $ 5,595,500 $ 5,608,600 $ 14,700 0.3% Property Lease General Operations $ 289,869 $ 380,391 $ 361,640 $ 392,921 $ 392,921 $ 464,921 $ 103,281 28.6% Additional long term planning and support State Pass-through Fees 4,586 3,841 4,840 4,840 4,840 4,840 0 0.0% PEG Access 59,609 61,013 62,500 62,500 55,000 52,500 (10,000) -16.0% Measure Y TOT 2,923,124 2,785,161 2,468,000 2,468,000 2,474,500 2,514,000 46,000 1.9% SB1383 Grant 0 5,737 0 75,000 7,300 66,125 66,125 % Grant activity separated for accounting purposes Community Development Block Grant 0 0 35,900 243,976 243,976 33,400 (2,500) -7.0% Grant Funding 648,784 1,064,895 75,000 2,226,290 2,226,290 0 (75,000) -100.0% SB1383 Grant moved to separate fund COPS Grant 174,633 204,156 150,700 150,700 205,700 157,500 6,800 4.5% FEMA and OES Reimbursement 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 %
Total Miscellaneous Funds $ 4,100,604 $ 4,505,194 $ 3,158,580 $ 5,624,227 $ 5,610,527 $ 3,293,286 $ 31,425 0.8% Developer Impact - General Facilities $ 28,576 $ 33,868 $ 25,700 $ 25,700 $ 32,000 $ 74,800 $ 49,100 191.1% Developer Impact - Circulation 56,356 93,013 67,500 67,500 80,000 187,700 120,200 178.1% Developer Impact - Drainage 64,747 77,826 65,000 65,000 70,000 164,200 99,200 152.6% Developer Impact - Public Facilities 81,267 77,650 67,500 67,500 70,000 67,500 0 0.0% Developer Impact - Parkland 94,689 95,606 67,500 67,500 80,000 75,000 7,500 11.1% Developer Impact - Fire Supp 39,644 33,979 32,500 32,500 35,000 157,600 125,100 384.9% Total Growth Management Funds $ 365,278 $ 411,941 $ 325,700 $ 325,700 $ 367,000 $ 726,800 $ 401,100 123.2% Capital Improvements $ 3,291,814 $ 6,260,156 $ 2,590,000 $ 10,910,511 $ 10,093,493 $ 3,485,000 $ 895,000 34.6% Street Improvements 7,760,677 2,196,663 2,825,000 3,690,104 3,690,104 6,450,000 3,625,000 128.3% Capital Project Funds $ 11,052,491 $ 8,456,819 $ 5,415,000 $ 14,600,615 $ 13,783,597 $ 9,935,000 $ 4,520,000 83.5% $ 58,352,085 $ 59,706,178 $ 54,210,520 $ 66,253,631 $ 65,298,798 $ 60,799,116 $ 6,588,596 12.2% 13,128,761 13,052,356 7,900,800 17,206,027 16,424,712 12,415,448 4,514,648 57.1% $ 45,223,324 $ 46,653,822 $ 46,309,720 $ 49,047,604 $ 48,874,086 $ 48,383,668 $ 2,073,948 4.5% General Fund
Capital Project Funds
Waste Management Funds
Transportation Funds
Assessment District Funds
Growth Management Funds
Miscellaneous Funds
Refer to CIP for detailed project information and funding Includes anticipated new commercial development
Grand Total
Less Transfers from Other Funds
Adjusted Total
FY 2025-26 Proposed Budget May 14, 2025 17

SCHEDULE OF EXPENDITURES BY FUND & CATEGORY
2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2024-25 2024-25 2025-26 ProposedActual Actual Adopted Adjusted Projected Proposed Adopted % Diff Comments $ 23,812,848 $ 24,322,677 $ 24,816,722 $ 27,095,602 $ 26,149,649 $ 25,966,237 $ 1,149,515 4.6% Sanitation $ 6,137,674 $ 8,034,627 $ 8,477,840 $ 9,184,652 $ 8,594,602 $ 9,286,060 $ 808,220 9.5% BBARWA Pass-through; CCTV Software Maint. & Support Refuse 3,920,922 4,408,912 5,181,550 5,181,550 5,053,900 5,531,707 350,157 6.8% BBD Pass-through; Capital Project Total Waste Management Funds $ 10,058,596 $ 12,443,539 $ 13,659,390 $ 14,366,202 $ 13,648,502 $ 14,817,767 $ 1,158,377 8.5% Traffic Safety $ 433,383 $ 369,414 $ 220,000 $ 220,000 $ 233,339 $ 220,000 $ 0.0% - Gas Tax - HUTA 495,257 1,129,933 659,360 659,360 779,424 544,150 (115,210) -17.5% Lighter winter in FY25; decrease in snow reimbursement Gas Tax - RMRA 100,121 130,429 132,350 132,350 132,350 138,234 5,884 4.4% Measure I Local 10-40 430,460 573,453 823,528 845,255 845,255 787,379 (36,149) -4.4% Measure I Local Highways 10-40 3,120,185 - - - - - - %
Air Pollution Trust 90,000 - - - - - - %
Mountain Transit (MTA) 251,282 333,333 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 - 0.0% Local Transportation - - - 303,518 303,500 - - %
Total Transportation Funds $ 4,920,688 $ 2,536,562 $ 2,335,238 $ 2,660,483 $ 2,793,868 $ 2,189,763 $ (145,475) -6.2% Village Streetscape Maintenance $ 524,099 $ 473,467 $ 497,800 $ 497,800 $ 467,900 $ 515,600 $ 17,800 3.6% Tourism Business Improvement District 5,441,819 4,878,272 5,096,100 5,096,100 5,096,100 5,814,552 718,452 14.1% VBB Pass-through Total Assessment District Funds $ 5,965,918 $ 5,351,739 $ 5,593,900 $ 5,593,900 $ 5,564,000 $ 6,330,152 $ 736,252 13.2%% %
Property Lease General Operations $ 244,422 $ 425,837 $ 361,640 $ 392,921 $ 392,921 $ 464,921 $ 103,281 28.6% Additional long term planning and support State Pass-through Fees - - 700 700 - - (700) -100.0%
PEG Access - 19,688 40,000 40,000 40,000 75,000 35,000 87.5% Measure Y TOT 1,413,035 2,873,293 2,088,140 5,839,401 5,474,601 5,614,821 3,526,681 168.9% Capital / Infrastructure project funding SB1383 Grant - 5,575 - 75,000 5,000 68,587 68,587 % Grant activity separated for accounting purposes Community Development Block Grant (680) 38,948 35,900 205,028 205,028 33,400 (2,500) -7.0% Grant Funding 926,983 962,624 75,000 2,040,653 2,040,653 - (75,000) -100.0% SB1383 Grant moved to separate fund COPS / SLESF 187,977 234,408 110,000 110,000 110,000 125,000 15,000 13.6% Total Miscellaneous Funds $ 2,771,737 $ 4,560,374 $ 2,711,380 $ 8,703,703 $ 8,268,203 $ 6,381,729 $ 3,670,349 135.4% Developer Impact - General Facilities $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - % Developer Impact - Circulation - - - - - - - %
Developer Impact - Drainage - - - 200,000 200,000 - - % Developer Impact - Public Facilities - - - - - - - %
Developer Impact - Parkland 4,800 - - - - - - %
Developer Impact - Fire Supp - - - - - - - %
Total Growth Management Funds $ 4,800 $ - $ - $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ - $ - % Capital Improvements / General & Sanitation 3,291,815 $ $ 6,260,156 $ 2,590,000 $ 10,910,511 $ 10,093,493 $ 3,485,000 $ 895,000 34.6% Street Improvements 7,760,677 2,196,663 2,825,000 3,690,104 3,690,104 6,450,000 3,625,000 128.3% Total Capital Project Funds $ 11,052,492 $ 8,456,819 $ 5,415,000 $ 14,600,615 $ 13,783,597 $ 9,935,000 $ 4,520,000 83.5% $ 58,587,078 $ 57,671,710 $ 54,531,630 $ 73,220,505 $ 70,407,820 $ 65,620,648 $ 11,089,018 20.3% 13,128,761 13,052,356 7,900,800 17,206,027 16,424,712 12,410,448 4,509,648 57.1% $ 45,458,317 $ 44,619,354 $ 46,630,830 $ 56,014,479 $ 53,983,108 $ 53,210,200 $ 6,579,370 14.1% Refer to CIP for detailed project information and funding.

Grand Total
Adjusted Total
Transportation Funds
Less Transfers to Other Funds
General Fund
Capital Project Funds
Waste Management Funds
Assessment District Funds
Miscellaneous Funds
Growth Management Funds
FY 2025-26 Proposed Budget May 14, 2025 18
FY 2025-26 Proposed Budget May 14, 2025 19
Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) Distribution of Personnel
General
Fund
Sanitation
Fund
Refuse
Fund
Village
Assessment
District
FY 2025-26
Proposed
FY 2024-25
Amended
FY 2024-25
Adopted
FY 2023-24
Adopted
Management Services
4120 City Manager's Office
City Manager 0.55 0.15 0.15 - 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85
Assistant City Manager/City Clerk 0.10 - - - 0.10 0.10 0.10 - Administrative Analyst I/II - - - - - - 0.20 0.40
Executive Assistant 0.40 0.05 0.05 - 0.50 0.60 0.60 0.50 Department Total 1.05 0.20 0.20 - 1.45 1.55 1.75 1.75
4810 Information Technology
City Manager 0.15 - - - 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15
Administrative Analyst I/II 0.40 0.05 0.05 - 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.25 Department Total 0.55 0.05 0.05 - 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.40
4130 City Clerk / Communications
Assistant City Manager/City Clerk 0.35 0.05 0.05 - 0.45 0.45 0.45 - Assistant City Manager - - - - - - - 0.30
City Clerk - - - - - - - 1.00
Deputy City Clerk 0.90 0.05 0.05 - 1.00 1.00 1.00 -
Administrative Services Manager 0.10 - - - 0.10 0.10 - - Staff Services / Risk Manager - - - - - - 0.10 -
Communications / Events Specialist 0.80 - - - 0.80 0.80 0.80 1.00 Executive Assistant 0.50 - - - 0.50 0.40 0.40 0.50
Department Total 2.65 0.10 0.10 - 2.85 2.75 2.75 2.80
4150 Staff Services / Risk Management
Assistant City Manager/City Clerk 0.20 0.05 0.05 - 0.30 0.30 0.30 - Assistant City Manager - - - - - - - 0.45
Administrative Services Manager 0.40 0.15 0.15 - 0.70 0.90 - - Staff Services / Risk Manager - - - - - - 0.90 -
Senior Human Resources / Risk Management Analyst - - - - - - - 0.90 Administrative Technician - Payroll 1.00 - - - 1.00 1.00 1.00 - Staff Services Technician - - - - - - 1.00 -
Human Resources Technician 0.70 0.15 0.15 - 1.00 1.00 - 1.00 Department Total 2.30 0.35 0.35 - 3.00 3.20 3.20 2.35
4415 Economic Development / Tourism Management
Assistant City Manager/City Clerk 0.10 - - - 0.10 0.10 0.10 - Assistant City Manager - - - - - - - 0.15
Economic Development Manager 1.00 - - - 1.00 1.00 1.00 - Economic Development Analyst 1.00 - - - 1.00 1.00 - -
Administrative Services Manager 0.20 - - - 0.20 - - -
Administrative Analyst I/II 1.00 - - - 1.00 1.00 1.30 0.35 Code Compliance Manager - - - - - - - 1.00
Neighborhood Preservation Officer I/II/Senior 3.60 - 0.40 - 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 Code Compliance Officer I/II/Senior 1.00 - - - 1.00 1.00 1.00 - Code Compliance Technician 0.90 - 0.10 - 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Administrative Technician - - - - - - 1.00 -
Administrative Assistant - - - - - - - 1.00
Department Total 8.80 - 0.50 - 9.30 9.10 9.40 7.50
FY 2025-26 Proposed Budget May 14, 2025 20
Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) Distribution of Personnel
General
Fund
Sanitation
Fund
Refuse
Fund
Village
Assessment
District
FY 2025-26
Proposed
FY 2024-25
Amended
FY 2024-25
Adopted
FY 2023-24
Adopted
4610 Performing Arts Center (PAC) Administration
Assistant City Manager/City Clerk 0.05 - - - 0.05 0.05 0.05 - Assistant City Manager - - - - - - - 0.10
Senior Human Resources / Risk Management Analyst - - - - - - - 0.10 Communications / Events Specialist 0.20 - - - 0.20 0.20 0.20 - Department Total 0.25 - - - 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.20
Total Management Services 15.60 0.70 1.20 - 17.50 17.50 18.00 15.00 Development Services
4310 Engineering
Assistant City Manager 0.20 0.05 0.05 - 0.30 0.30 0.30 - Deputy City Manager / Director of Public Works - - - - - - - 0.55 Engineering Manager 0.40 0.40 0.20 - 1.00 1.00 - -
Public Works Manager-Capital Projects/Emergency Operations - - - - - - 1.00 1.00 Associate Engineer/Civil Engineer 0.40 0.40 0.20 - 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 Project Manager 0.25 0.25 0.50 - 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Administrative Assistant 1.90 - - - 1.90 1.90 1.00 1.00 Department Total 3.15 1.10 0.95 - 5.20 5.20 5.30 5.55
4320 Public Works
Assistant City Manager 0.10 0.10 0.10 - 0.30 0.30 0.30 - Deputy City Manager / Director of Public Works - - - - - - - 0.45 Deputy Public Works Director 0.70 0.15 0.15 - 1.00 1.00 - - Public Works Manager-Field Operations/Utilities 0.25 0.75 - - 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Public Works Supervisor 0.60 0.15 0.10 0.15 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Street Maintenance - Crew Leader/Senior Crew Leader 0.55 0.35 0.10 - 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Street Maintenance - Maintenance Worker I/II/III 7.85 0.10 0.05 - 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 Facilities / Parks - Crew Leader/SeniorCrew Leader 0.75 0.25 - - 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Facilities / Parks - Maintenance Worker I/II 8.30 - 0.80 2.90 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 Wastewater - Crew Leader/Senior Crew Leader - 1.00 - - 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Wastewater - Collection Operator I/II/III - 5.00 - - 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 Mechanic I/II 0.65 0.30 0.05 - 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Theater Technician I/II 1.00 - - - 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Administrative Analyst 0.50 0.35 0.25 - 1.10 1.10 - -
Administrative Assistant 0.10 - - - 0.10 0.10 1.00 1.00 Department Total 21.35 8.50 1.60 3.05 34.50 34.50 33.30 33.45 4410 Planning
Assistant City Manager 0.20 - - - 0.20 0.20 0.20 -
Director of Community & Economic Development - - - - - - - 0.50 Economic Development Manager - - - - - - - 1.00
Community Development Manager 0.50 - - - 0.50 0.50 0.50 - Senior Planner 1.00 - - - 1.00 1.00 - 1.00
Principal Planner - - - - - - 2.00 2.00
Assistant Planner 1.00 - - - 1.00 1.00 - -
Associate Planner 1.00 - - - 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Planning Technician 1.00 - - - 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Administrative Analyst I/II 0.35 - - - 0.35 0.35 - -
Administrative Clerk 1.00 - - - 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.50
Department Total 6.05 - - - 6.05 6.05 5.70 7.00
FY 2025-26 Proposed Budget May 14, 2025 21
Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) Distribution of Personnel
General
Fund
Sanitation
Fund
Refuse
Fund
Village
Assessment
District
FY 2025-26
Proposed
FY 2024-25
Amended
FY 2024-25
Adopted
FY 2023-24
Adopted
4430 Building & Safety
Assistant City Manager 0.20 - - - 0.20 0.20 0.20 -
Director of Community & Economic Development - - - - - - - 0.50 Community Development Manager 0.50 - - - 0.50 0.50 0.50 - Senior Building Inspector 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Code Compliance Officer I/II - - - - - - - 2.00
Permit Technician 1.00 - - - 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Administrative Analyst I/II 0.05 - - - 0.05 0.05 - -
Administrative Assistant 1.00 - - - 1.00 1.00 1.00 -
Administrative Clerk - - - - - - - 0.50
Department Total 3.75 - - - 3.75 3.75 3.70 5.00
Total Development Services 34.30 9.60 2.55 3.05 49.50 49.50 48.00 51.00 Finance / Treasury Services
4140 Finance
Deputy City Manager / Chief Financial Officer 0.50 0.10 0.10 - 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.55 Finance Manager 0.40 0.10 0.10 - 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.55
Senior Accountant 0.65 0.10 0.10 - 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.95
Financial Analyst - - - - - - 0.85 0.95
Accountant I 0.80 0.10 0.10 - 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Accounting Technician - - - - - - - 0.65
Administrative Clerk 0.40 - - - 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.50
Department Total 2.75 0.40 0.40 - 3.55 3.55 4.40 5.15
4800 General Government
Deputy City Manager / Chief Financial Officer 0.10 - - - 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.15 Finance Manager 0.20 - - - 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.15
Senior Accountant - - - - - - - 0.05
Financial Analyst - - - - - - 0.05 0.05
Accounting Technician - - - - - - - 0.35
Administrative Clerk 0.50 - - - 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50
Department Total 0.80 - - - 0.80 0.80 0.85 1.25
4801 Successor Administration
Deputy City Manager / Chief Financial Officer 0.20 - - - 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.30 Finance Manager 0.20 - - - 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.30
Senior Accountant 0.15 - - - 0.15 0.15 0.15 -
Financial Analyst - - - - - - 0.10 -
Administrative Clerk 0.10 - - - 0.10 0.10 0.10 -
Department Total 0.65 - - - 0.65 0.65 0.75 0.60
Total Finance / Treasury Services 4.20 0.40 0.40 - 5.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 Total FTE FY 2025-26 54.10 10.70 4.15 3.05 72.00 72.00 72.00 73.00 Total FTE FY 2024-25 53.90 10.80 4.25 3.05 72.00
Difference 0.20 (0.10) (0.10) - -
FY 2025-26 Proposed Budget May 14, 2025 22
Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) Distribution of Personnel
FY 2024-25
Staff Services / Risk Manager (1.00)
Administrative Services Manager 1.00
Staff Services Technician Title Changed to Human Resources Technician (1.00) Human Resources Technician Title Changed from Staff Services Technician 1.00 Administrative Analyst I/II (1.00)
Economic Development Analyst 1.00
Administrative Technician (1.00)
Administrative Analyst I/II 1.00
Principal Planner (2.00)
Senior Planner Position reclassified from Principal Planner 1.00 Assistant Planner Position reclassified from Principal Planner 1.00 Associate Engineer Position replaced with Engineering Manager (1.00) Engineering Manager Position replaced Associate Engineer 1.00 Public Works Manager-Capital Projects/Emergency Operations Position replaced with Deputy Public Works Director (1.00) Deputy Public Works Director Position replaced Public Works Manager-Capital Proj/Emergency Ops 1.00 Administrative Analyst I/II (0.50)
Administrative Analyst I/II 0.50
Financial Analyst FTE Transferred to Public Works (1.00) Administrative Analyst I/II FTE Transferred from Finance / Treasury Services 1.00 Total Change in FTEs -
Title Changed from Administrative Analyst
Summary of Personnel Changes:

Title Changed to Administrative Services Manager
Title Changed from Staff Services / Risk Manager
Title Changed to Economic Development Analyst
Position upgraded to Administrative Analyst
Position upgraded from Administrative Technician
Positions reclassified to Senior Planner and Assistant Planner Partial FTE transferred to Development Services
Partial FTE transferred from Management Services
FY 2025-26 Proposed Budget May 14, 2025 23
General Fund Summary of Revenues & Expenditures
2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2024-25 2024-25 2025-26 ProposedActual Actual Adopted Adjusted Projected Projected Adopted % Diff Comments $ 17,927,900 $ 18,734,447
Property Taxes 5,226,365 5,727,380 5,889,800 5,889,800 6,002,200 6,287,447 397,647 6.8% Projected growth primarily due to property transfers Sales and Use Tax 3,578,941 3,466,025 3,482,000 3,482,000 3,430,000 3,608,000 126,000 3.6% Continues to be a stable revenue source Transient Occupancy Tax 8,253,059 8,107,699 8,733,000 8,733,000 8,495,700 8,839,000 106,000 1.2% Franchise Fees 872,508 950,090 1,120,000 1,120,000 932,200 1,187,000 67,000 6.0% Includes electric rate adjustment Other Taxes 261,448 225,035 201,000 201,000 131,000 131,000 (70,000) -34.8% Fewer property transfers Subventions and Grants 625,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 %
Building Permits and Fees 437,921 558,417 365,000 365,000 365,000 805,600 440,600 120.7% Includes anticipated new commercial development Licenses and Permits 1,857,173 1,815,187 1,790,000 1,790,000 1,792,400 1,791,500 1,500 0.1% Fines and Forfeitures 472,555 237,112 185,000 185,000 75,000 125,000 (60,000) -32.4% Use of Property and Money 431,231 684,196 332,400 332,400 588,000 476,000 143,600 43.2% Interest rates have remained higher than anticipated Current Service Charges 744,622 473,108 561,000 561,000 596,600 575,100 14,100 2.5% Miscellaneous Revenue 276,057 339,168 271,900 271,900 272,400 274,400 2,500 0.9% Other Financing Sources 108,099 34,807 0 0 0 0 0 % Grant proceeds now tracked in a separate fund Transfer In Traffic Safety [260] 433,383 369,414 220,000 220,000 233,339 220,000 0 0.0% Transfer In Gas Tax [270] 495,257 1,129,933 659,360 659,360 779,424 544,150 (115,210) -17.5% Includes snow removal reimbursement Transfer In Measure I Local [276] 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 0 0.0% Transfer In Sanitation [250] 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 0 0.0% Transfer In Refuse [550] 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 0 0.0% Transfer In COPS [770] 187,977 234,408 110,000 110,000 110,000 125,000 15,000 13.6% Supplemental law enforcement funding Transfer In Grants [299] 19,163 221,693 0 88,331 88,331 0 0 % Total Revenues $ 24,615,759 $ 24,908,673 $ 24,255,460 $ 24,343,791 $ 24,226,594 $ 25,324,197 $ 1,068,737 4.4% $ 21,842,900 $ 23,092,360
Direct Labor 6,903,075 7,650,278 8,829,200 8,828,100 8,020,900 8,825,500 (3,700) 0.0% Supplies 637,565 797,773 780,700 771,200 822,500 839,500 58,800 7.5% Increased cost of materials and supplies Other Services & Charges 4,868,827 4,152,434 5,574,300 5,603,300 5,453,800 5,794,460 220,160 3.9% Inflationary increases Law Enforcement Services 5,725,598 6,278,512 6,313,000 6,313,000 6,313,000 6,637,900 324,900 5.1% Anticipated increase in contract cost Capital Outlay 603,989 623,791 1,095,000 1,243,353 1,232,700 995,000 (100,000) -9.1% FY25 Permitting software system replacement Capital Lease Payments 65,331 84,651 0 0 0 0 0 % GASB accounting entries Interfund Transfers to MTA [282] 100,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 %
Interfund Transfers to Village [291] 169,208 1,671,329 302,400 302,400 272,500 294,490 (7,910) -2.6% Interfund Transfers to Capital [321] 1,112,913 1,901,580 900,000 3,010,499 3,010,499 825,000 (75,000) -8.3% Interfund Transfers to Streets [350] 3,626,342 1,162,328 1,022,122 1,023,750 1,023,750 1,754,387 732,265 71.6% Total Expenditures $ 23,812,848 $ 24,322,677 $ 24,816,722 $ 27,095,602 $ 26,149,649 $ 25,966,237 $ 1,149,515 4.6% $ 802,911 $ 585,996 $ (561,262) $ (2,751,811) $ (1,923,056) $ (642,040) $ 16,100,211 $ 16,803,575 $ 16,615,714 $ 16,615,714 $ 16,615,714 $ 13,827,658 $ (2,788,056) -16.8% Net Revenue (Expenditure) 802,911 585,996 (561,262) (2,751,811) (1,923,056) (642,040) (80,778) 14.4% Net Contributions From (To) Reserves (257,074) (765,000) (865,000) (865,000) (865,000) (1,050,000) (185,000) 21.4% Component of Committed Fund Balance Change in Nonspendable & Restricted 157,527 (8,857) 0 0 0 0 0 % GASB accounting entries Ending Unrestricted Fund Balance $ 16,803,575 $ 16,615,714 $ 15,189,452 $ 12,998,903 $ 13,827,658 $ 12,135,618 $ (3,053,834) -20.1% $ 1,260,620 $ 1,517,694 $ 2,282,694 $ 2,282,694 $ 2,282,694 $ 3,147,694 $ 865,000 37.9% Contribution from Reserves (42,926) 0 0 0 0 0 0 %
Contributions to Reserves 300,000 765,000 865,000 865,000 865,000 1,050,000 185,000 21.4% Proposed set-aside for future expenditures Ending Commited Fund Balance $ 1,517,694 $ 2,282,694 $ 3,147,694 $ 3,147,694 $ 3,147,694 $ 4,197,694 $ 1,050,000 33.4% Total Available Fund Balance $ 18,321,269 $ 18,898,408 $ 18,337,146 $ 16,146,597 $ 16,975,352 $ 16,333,312 $ (2,003,834) -10.9% Net Revenue (Expenditure)
Revenues
Expenditures
Refer to Capital Improvement Plan for detailed project
information and funding
Committed Fund Balance
Unrestricted Fund Balance
FY 2025-26 Proposed Budget May 14, 2025 24

GENERAL FUND RESOURCES
2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2024-25 2024-25 2025-26 ProposedAcct # Title Actual Actual Adopted Adjusted Projected Proposed Adopted % Diff Comments Fund 110
Property Taxes
3110 Current Secured Taxes 3,589,422 3,898,158 4,037,200 4,037,200 4,059,800 4,245,028 207,828 5.1% Projected per Teeter allocation; Assessed
valuations + 3.66% primarily due to ownership
changes.
3113 RDA Residual Balance RR09 331,193 361,868 343,200 343,200 439,000 416,200 73,000 21.3% 3114 RDA Residual Balance RR10 63,454 69,290 65,400 65,400 83,600 79,300 13,900 21.3% 3120 Current Unsecured Taxes 131,282 149,544 202,200 202,200 165,900 217,316 15,116 7.5% 3125 Suppl Roll Prtx Current Year 111,341 90,504 82,600 82,600 96,600 99,500 16,900 20.5% 3126 Unitary Tax 109,768 127,851 130,000 130,000 135,100 130,000 0 0.0% Projected per Teeter allocation; Expected to remain relatively flat
3130 Prior Year Taxes 208 (139) 0 0 0 0 0 %
3132 Suppl Roll Prtx Prior Year 36,649 74,134 32,400 32,400 47,000 52,600 20,200 62.3% 3134 Penalties On Taxes 6,879 7,766 5,800 5,800 6,500 7,000 1,200 20.7% 3145 Property Tax in Lieu of VLF 744,440 815,303 853,700 853,700 853,700 894,403 40,703 4.8% 2004 VLF Swap; Based on HdL data 3363 RDA Sharing Agreement RR09 82,709 110,197 115,300 115,300 96,600 122,700 7,400 6.4% 3364 RDA Sharing Agreement RR10 19,019 22,904 22,000 22,000 18,400 23,400 1,400 6.4% Total Property Taxes 5,226,365 5,727,380 5,889,800 5,889,800 6,002,200 6,287,447 397,647 6.8% Sales Tax
3210 Sales Tax 3,578,941 3,466,025 3,482,000 3,482,000 3,430,000 3,608,000 126,000 3.6% Total Sales Tax 3,578,941 3,466,025 3,482,000 3,482,000 3,430,000 3,608,000 126,000 3.6% Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT)
3220 Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) 8,029,622 7,944,134 8,383,700 8,383,700 8,383,700 8,600,000 216,300 2.6% 3221 TOT - Curr FY Prior Periods 234,620 115,853 262,000 262,000 157,000 150,000 (112,000) -42.7% 3222 TOT - Prior Fiscal Year (11,183) 47,712 87,300 87,300 (45,000) 89,000 1,700 1.9% Total Transient Occupancy Tax 8,253,059 8,107,699 8,733,000 8,733,000 8,495,700 8,839,000 106,000 1.2% Franchise Fees
3250 Franchises 872,508 950,090 1,120,000 1,120,000 932,200 1,187,000 67,000 6.0% Big Bear Disposal, Spectrum, Bear Valley Electric & Southwest Gas
Total Franchise Fees 872,508 950,090 1,120,000 1,120,000 932,200 1,187,000 67,000 6.0% Other Taxes
3235 Doc Transfer Tax 231,235 193,901 170,000 170,000 100,000 100,000 (70,000) -41.2% Property ownership transfers 3310 Motor Vehicle Inlieu Tax 5,173 6,234 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 0 0.0% SB 89 transferred VLF allocation to law
enforcement grants effective 7/1/2011. Only
excess under R&T11001.5(b) continues to be
allocated to cities.
3370 Homeowners Exemption 25,040 24,900 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 0 0.0% Mobile home owners' exemption through County Assessor
Total Other Taxes 261,448 225,035 201,000 201,000 131,000 131,000 (70,000) -34.8% Redevelopment dissolution residual revenue
(i.e., tax increment remaining after
enforceable obligations have been paid).

Obligations will be fully extinguished August
2029.

Based on historical trend, year-to-date activity,
and industry projections as of 4th quarter
2024.

Revenue not guaranteed through Teeter
Program. Projection based on trend.

FY 2025-26 Proposed Budget May 14, 2025 25

GENERAL FUND RESOURCES
2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2024-25 2024-25 2025-26 ProposedAcct # Title Actual Actual Adopted Adjusted Projected Proposed Adopted % Diff Comments Fund 110
Building Permits and Fees
3410 Building Permits 185,414 248,326 175,000 175,000 175,000 403,300 228,300 130.5% 3412 Plumbing Permits 10,033 10,327 10,000 10,000 10,000 22,900 12,900 129.0% 3413 Electrical Permits 28,525 27,481 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,100 100 0.4% 3414 Mechanical Permits 3,429 3,532 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 0 0.0% 3722 Plan Ck /Review 210,520 268,751 150,000 150,000 150,000 349,300 199,300 132.9% Total Building Permits and Fees 437,921 558,417 365,000 365,000 365,000 805,600 440,600 120.7% Licenses and Permits
3230 Business Permit Renewals 39,571 30,720 35,000 35,000 37,500 37,500 2,500 7.1% 3231 Business Permit Penalties 4,829 5,980 5,000 5,000 5,900 5,000 0 0.0% 3411 Streetcut/Encroachment Permits 19,094 21,880 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 0 0.0% 3418 Grading Permits 789 977 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 0 0.0% 3420 Mobile Home Annual Permit 4,405 0 0 0 0 0 0 %
3421 Mobile Home Annual MRLPP Fees 2,831 0 0 0 0 0 0 %
3458 Engineering Service Fees 24,883 31,847 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 0 0.0% 3459 Planning Service Fees 54,679 47,539 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 0 0.0% 3468 Sign Permit 580 464 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 0 0.0% 3482 Film Permit Fee 1,557 2,193 3,000 3,000 2,000 2,000 (1,000) -33.3% 3491 Vacation Rental Fees 1,671,661 1,647,315 1,600,000 1,600,000 1,600,000 1,600,000 0 0.0% 3756 Bsns Lic Application Fee 32,294 26,272 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 0 0.0% Total Licenses and Permits 1,857,173 1,815,187 1,790,000 1,790,000 1,792,400 1,791,500 1,500 0.1% Fines and Forfeitures
3523 Recovery of Code Costs/VR 412,029 199,305 150,000 150,000 60,000 100,000 (50,000) -33.3% Vacation rental enforcement 3524 Recovery of Code Costs/Other 48,676 24,507 25,000 25,000 5,000 15,000 (10,000) -40.0% Non-vacation rental citations 3729 Vehicle Recovery Fee 11,850 13,300 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 0 0.0% Total Fines and Forfeitures 472,555 237,112 185,000 185,000 75,000 125,000 (60,000) -32.4% Use of Money and Property
3611 Interest On Bank Deposits 256,966 484,329 200,000 200,000 440,000 330,000 130,000 65.0% 3612 Other Interest 15,032 5,403 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 0 0.0% 3618 TOT - Penalties and Interest 38,882 38,984 51,400 51,400 62,000 60,000 8,600 16.7% 3620 Rent -PAC Facility and Eqt 10,980 15,877 15,000 15,000 20,000 20,000 5,000 33.3% PAC user group rental fees 3621 Rental Income 4,828 14,324 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 0 0.0% Easements & event rental fees 3622 Rent/Options - Cell Tower 49,605 56,286 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 0 0.0% Per rental agreements 3638 Change in Fair Market Value 54,938 68,992 0 0 0 0 0 % GASB entry; not budgeted Total Use of Money and Property 431,231 684,196 332,400 332,400 588,000 476,000 143,600 43.2% Current Service Charges
3385 Blvd. Reimbursement 299,327 0 80,000 80,000 105,600 80,000 0 0.0% Caltrans boulevard snow removal reimbursement. Offset in 110-4320-2291
3723 Inspection Fee 74,435 98,491 73,000 73,000 73,000 73,000 0 0.0% 3743 Electric Vehicle Charging Fee 10,714 40,653 42,000 42,000 42,000 44,100 2,100 5.0% Charging stations installed FY23 3749 Use of Personnel/Equipment 0 4,719 0 0 0 0 0 %
State responsibility beginning FY24
Includes permit and plan review fees for
anticipated new commercial development
FY 2025-26 Proposed Budget May 14, 2025 26

GENERAL FUND RESOURCES
2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2024-25 2024-25 2025-26 ProposedAcct # Title Actual Actual Adopted Adjusted Projected Proposed Adopted % Diff Comments Fund 110
3751 Admin Service City Depts 260,000 260,000 260,000 260,000 270,000 270,000 10,000 3.8% $125K Sanitation and $135K Refuse plus Fire Protection District Meeting Costs
3753 Administrative Overhead - TBID 93,798 66,122 101,000 101,000 101,000 103,000 2,000 2.0% BBLTBID Administration Fee equal to 1% of
BBLTBID Assessments plus penalties and
interest collected from delinquent accounts.
3754 Candidate Statement Fees 500 0 0 0 0 0 0 %
3771 Ticket Sales-Performing Arts 5,848 3,121 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 0 0.0% Ticket handling fees Total Current Service Charges 744,622 473,108 561,000 561,000 596,600 575,100 14,100 2.5% Miscellaneous Revenue
3730 Sale-Maps/Publications 3 17 0 0 0 0 0 % Photocopy service 3731 Miscellaneous Revenue 920 6,134 1,000 1,000 5,000 5,000 4,000 400.0% 3732 Cash Over/Short 104 1,806 0 0 0 0 0 %
3733 Sale Of Taxable Items 3,408 5,574 5,500 5,500 2,000 4,000 (1,500) -27.3% Sale of snow poles 3736 Admin Allow State Passthru Fee 368 447 400 400 400 400 0 0.0% Pursuant to State regulations, administrative
fees associated with the collection of CA
pass-through fees for disability access and
building standards development programs
are to be retained by the local jurisdiction.
3755 Refunds and Reimbursements 4,755 19,440 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 0 0.0% 3757 Successor Admin Allowance 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 0 0.0% ABx1 26 effective 2/1/2011, Successor
Agency annual allowance for costs associated
with the dissolution of the former Big Bear
Lake Improvement Agency.
3912 Sale of Property and Equipment 16,500 55,751 0 0 0 0 0 % Total Miscellaneous Revenue 276,057 339,168 271,900 271,900 272,400 274,400 2,500 0.9% Other Financing Sources
3941 GASB 96 SBITA 108,099 34,807 0 0 0 0 0 % GASB accounting entry is not budgeted Total Other Financing Sources 108,099 34,807 0 0 0 0 0 % Total Revenue before Reserves / Transfers 23,144,979 22,618,224 22,931,100 22,931,100 22,680,500 24,100,047 1,168,947 0 0 Interfund Transfers
4103 Transfer In-Gas Tax (270) 495,257 1,129,933 659,360 659,360 779,424 544,150 (115,210) -17.5% California City Finance estimate; includes snow reimbursement
4106 Transfer In-Traf Safety (260) 433,383 369,414 220,000 220,000 233,339 220,000 0 0.0% Vehicle fines fund code enforcement & law enforcement
4111 Transfer In-Sanitation (250) 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 0 0.0% Street maintenance / pavement impact 4114 Transfer In-COPS (770) 187,977 234,408 110,000 110,000 110,000 125,000 15,000 13.6% Restricted for front-line law enforcement 4117 Transfer In-Meas I Local (276) 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 0 0.0% Categorical street maintenance 4119 Transfer In-Refuse (550) 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 0 0.0% Street maintenance / pavement impact 4125 Transfer In-Grants (299) 19,163 221,693 0 88,331 88,331 0 0 % Grant administration Total Interfund Transfers 1,470,780 2,290,449 1,324,360 1,412,691 1,546,094 1,224,150 (100,210) -7.6% FY 2025-26 Proposed Budget May 14, 2025 27

GENERAL FUND RESOURCES
2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2024-25 2024-25 2025-26 ProposedAcct # Title Actual Actual Adopted Adjusted Projected Proposed Adopted % Diff Comments Fund 110
Contributions from Reserves
4110 Contribution from Reserves 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 % Refer to Capital Improvement Plan Total Contributions from Reserves 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 %
Total Transfers In & Use of Reserves 1,470,780 2,290,449 1,324,360 1,412,691 1,546,094 1,224,150 (100,210) -7.6% Total Resources 24,615,759 24,908,673 24,255,460 24,343,791 24,226,594 25,324,197 1,068,737 4.4% FY 2025-26 Proposed Budget May 14, 2025 28

GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES BY DEPARTMENT
2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2024-25 2024-25 2025-26 ProposedActual Actual Adopted Adjusted Projected Proposed Adopted % Diff Comments Management Services
City Council 4110 216,903 $ $ 186,127 $ 262,800 $ 282,800 $ 255,700 $ 253,700 $ (9,100) -3.5% City Manager 4120 268,566 285,841 346,700 346,700 379,600 346,700 - 0.0% City Attorney 4170 462,267 401,937 490,000 490,000 515,000 526,000 36,000 7.3% Law Enforcement 4250 5,725,598 6,278,512 6,313,000 6,313,000 6,313,000 6,637,900 324,900 5.1% Information Technology 4810 666,556 691,608 1,096,500 1,096,500 1,101,100 941,100 (155,400) -14.2% FY25 includes permit system implementation City Clerk / Communications 4130 445,896 520,533 740,000 740,000 591,100 720,000 (20,000) -2.7% Staff Services / Risk Management 4150 914,864 972,438 1,331,200 1,331,200 1,335,400 1,280,860 (50,340) -3.8% Economic Development / Tourism Management 4415 1,078,549 1,177,273 2,184,900 2,184,900 1,832,700 1,907,100 (277,800) -12.7% FY25 budget consolidation overstated Performing Arts Center (PAC) Administration 4610 86,152 95,586 78,400 78,400 73,400 72,900 (5,500) -7.0% Total $ 9,865,351 $ 10,609,855 $ 12,843,500 $ 12,863,500 $ 12,397,000 $ 12,686,260 $ (157,240) -1.2% Development Services
Engineering 4310 642,098 $ $ 817,128 $ 775,700 $ 775,700 $ 630,100 $ 735,500 $ (40,200) -5.2% Traffic Utilities 4230 11,099 11,299 17,000 17,000 12,000 14,000 (3,000) -17.6% Reflects utility rate change Animal Regulation 4260 57,183 57,486 62,600 62,600 62,900 66,400 3,800 6.1% Street Maintenance & Snow Removal 4320 3,405,841 2,830,162 2,925,400 2,930,900 3,052,600 3,380,800 455,400 15.6% Addition of Deputy Director and Analyst positions Vehicle Maintenance 4325 193,073 194,977 229,100 229,100 248,400 236,400 7,300 3.2% Street Lighting 4330 84,897 88,531 102,200 102,200 88,700 107,000 4,800 4.7% City Parking Lots & Facilities 4335 288,339 355,668 464,500 464,500 445,500 474,500 10,000 2.2% City Parks & Trails 4625 554,982 729,375 1,037,800 1,168,400 1,109,600 1,081,300 43,500 4.2% Civic Center 4820 412,290 333,336 442,800 442,800 422,100 467,800 25,000 5.6% PAC Operations & Maintenance 4821 203,734 212,730 258,800 258,800 258,400 302,100 43,300 16.7% FY26 includes PAC facility/equipment repairs/replacements Planning Commission 4411 28,680 28,940 31,500 31,500 31,500 35,500 4,000 12.7% FY26 new commissioner training Planning 4410 1,190,274 1,126,163 1,072,300 1,072,300 894,700 1,158,400 86,100 8.0% FTE reclassifications Building and Safety 4430 804,257 1,075,848 1,008,100 1,008,100 937,500 1,162,900 154,800 15.4% Fee for service - plan review Total $ 7,876,747 $ 7,861,642 $ 8,427,800 $ 8,563,900 $ 8,194,000 $ 9,222,600 $ 794,800 9.4% Finance / Treasury Services
Finance 4140 552,418 $ $ 679,732 $ 821,800 $ 821,800 $ 771,000 $ 690,500 $ (131,300) -16.0% Transfer of Analyst to Public Works General Government 4800 316,108 258,693 249,100 259,753 230,900 243,000 (6,100) -2.4% Successor Administration 4801 193,761 177,517 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 - 0.0% Total $ 1,062,287 $ 1,115,942 $ 1,320,900 $ 1,331,553 $ 1,251,900 $ 1,183,500 $ (137,400) -10.4% Expenditures before Reserves / Transfers $ 18,804,385 $ 19,587,440 $ 22,592,200 $ 22,758,953 $ 21,842,900 $ 23,092,360 $ 500,160 2.2% Reserves/ Interfund Transfers
Replacement Reserve 4831 $ - $ 865,000 - $ $ 865,000 $ 865,000 $ 1,050,000 $ 185,000 21.4% Set-aside for future expenditures General Fund Transfers 4850 5,008,463 4,735,237 2,224,522 4,336,649 4,306,749 2,873,877 649,355 29.2% Investment in capital improvements Total $ 5,008,463 $ 4,735,237 $ 3,089,522 $ 5,201,649 $ 5,171,749 $ 3,923,877 $ 834,355 27.0% Grand Total $ 23,812,848 $ 24,322,677 $ 25,681,722 $ 27,960,602 $ 27,014,649 $ 27,016,237 $ 1,334,515 5.2% Budget Appropriations $ 23,812,848 $ 24,322,677 $ 24,816,722 $ 27,095,602 $ 26,149,649 $ 25,966,237 $ 1,149,515 4.6% Excludes fund balance set-aside FY 2025-26 Proposed Budget May 14, 2025 29

CITY COUNCIL
2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2024-25 2024-25 2025-26 ProposedAcct # Title Actual Actual Adopted Adjusted Projected Proposed Adopted % Diff Comments Fund 110
Expenses
Department 4110
Direct Labor Costs
0010 Salaries 30,083 27,824 30,000 30,000 27,900 31,000 1,000 3.3% 0080 Direct Benefits 95,867 97,373 89,100 89,100 81,100 86,000 (3,100) -3.5% Total Direct Labor Costs 125,950 125,198 119,100 119,100 109,000 117,000 (2,100) -1.8% Supplies
1400 Office Expense 711 579 500 500 500 500 0 0.0%
1430 Special Dept Expense 4,068 1,461 14,000 14,000 14,000 14,000 0 0.0% Total Supplies 4,779 2,040 14,500 14,500 14,500 14,500 0 0.0% Other Services and Charges
2120 Telephone 546 558 600 600 600 600 0 0.0%
2170 Printing 0 19 100 100 100 100 0 0.0%
2190 Postage Charges 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 %
2240 Professional Services 18,000 0 20,000 20,000 20,000 30,000 10,000 50.0% Professional Services and State of the City Expenditures
2640 Memberships and Dues 5,299 4,185 5,500 5,500 5,500 5,500 0 0.0% League of California Cities membership 2661 Meetings - Non Travel 3,508 3,424 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 0 0.0% 2670 Councilmember Training 10,750 10,921 14,000 14,000 14,000 14,000 0 0.0% 2680 Mileage 572 154 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 0 0.0%
2681 Interagency Support 0 0 17,000 17,000 0 0 (17,000) -100.0% Contribution to Southern California
Mountains Foundation in support of trails
position provided through CA4All grant.
2685 Community Sponsored Programs 40,000 36,913 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 0 0.0% General Fund monies to support local
community-based organizations. Annual
CDBG funding offset.
2688 City Council Contingency 7,500 2,715 25,000 45,000 45,000 25,000 0 0.0% Annual baseline budget $25K. Past uses
include: Outdoor Writers Association,
Special Olympics, Rose Parade Entry, Dick
Kun Commemorative Statue, American
Patriot Music Project.FY25 includes Spay &
Neuter Clinic.

Total Other Services and Charges 86,174 58,890 129,200 149,200 132,200 122,200 (7,000) -5.4% Total Expenses 216,903 186,127 262,800 282,800 255,700 253,700 (9,100) -3.5% FY 2025-26 Proposed Budget May 14, 2025 30

CITY MANAGER
2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2024-25 2024-25 2025-26 ProposedAcct # Title Actual Actual Adopted Adjusted Projected Proposed Adopted % Diff Comments Fund 110
Expenses
Department 4120
Direct Labor Costs
0010 Salaries 172,707 182,425 222,800 222,800 251,800 218,300 (4,500) -2.0% 0020 Salaries - Overtime 0 106 5,000 5,000 0 0 (5,000) -100.0% 0080 Direct Benefits 86,198 93,154 101,500 101,500 110,400 111,000 9,500 9.4% Total Direct Labor Costs 258,904 275,684 329,300 329,300 362,200 329,300 0 0.0% Supplies
1400 Office Expense 1,025 368 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 0 0.0% 1430 Special Dept Expense 4,039 1,977 7,500 7,500 7,500 7,500 0 0.0% Total Supplies 5,064 2,346 8,500 8,500 8,500 8,500 0 0.0% Other Services and Charges
2640 Memberships and Dues 1,605 1,320 1,800 1,800 1,800 1,800 0 0.0% California City Management Foundation
(CCMF) and International City/County
Management Association (ICMA)
2650 Publications 30 521 1,100 1,100 1,100 1,100 0 0.0% 2660 Travel/Conferences/Meetings 1,820 4,863 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 0 0.0% 2661 Meetings - Non Travel 1,143 1,108 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 0 0.0% Total Other Services and Charges 4,598 7,812 8,900 8,900 8,900 8,900 0 0.0% Total Expenses 268,566 285,841 346,700 346,700 379,600 346,700 0 0.0% FY 2025-26 Proposed Budget May 14, 2025 31

CITY ATTORNEY
2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2024-25 2024-25 2025-26 ProposedAcct # Title Actual Actual Adopted Adjusted Projected Proposed Adopted % Diff Comments Fund 110
Expenses
Department 4170
Other Services and Charges
2110 Advertising - Legal 38,548 22,387 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 0 0.0% Legal advertisements 2244 Prof Services- Legal BB and K 325,179 282,007 415,000 415,000 415,000 426,000 11,000 2.7% General legal services 2252 Prof. Services- Other Attorney 98,539 97,543 50,000 50,000 75,000 75,000 25,000 50.0% Specialized legal services Total Other Services and Charges 462,267 401,937 490,000 490,000 515,000 526,000 36,000 7.3% Total Expenses 462,267 401,937 490,000 490,000 515,000 526,000 36,000 7.3% FY 2025-26 Proposed Budget May 14, 2025 32

LAW ENFORCEMENT
2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2024-25 2024-25 2025-26 ProposedAcct # Title Actual Actual Adopted Adjusted Projected Proposed Adopted % Diff Comments Fund 110
Expenses
Department 4250
Other Services and Charges
2300 Contractual Services-Govt 5,531,498 6,038,156 6,197,000 6,197,000 6,197,000 6,506,900 309,900 5.0% Subject to agreement. Preliminary budget
assumes same level of staffing and 5%
escalator.
2301 Contract Services-OT 183,603 234,408 100,000 90,000 90,000 100,000 0 0.0% Special services during peak visitation 2303 Cal ID Fingerprinting 6,123 5,948 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 0 0.0% County CAL-ID Program Assessment 2305 COPS Grant Expenditures 4,374 0 10,000 20,000 20,000 25,000 15,000 150.0% Law Enforcement equipment purchases funded from State COPS subvention funds
Total Other Services and Charges 5,725,598 6,278,512 6,313,000 6,313,000 6,313,000 6,637,900 324,900 5.1% Total Expenses 5,725,598 6,278,512 6,313,000 6,313,000 6,313,000 6,637,900 324,900 5.1% FY 2025-26 Proposed Budget May 14, 2025 33

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2024-25 2024-25 2025-26 ProposedAcct # Title Actual Actual Adopted Adjusted Projected Proposed Adopted % Diff Comments Fund 110
Expenses
Department 4810
Direct Labor Costs
0010 Salaries 65,218 56,912 84,900 84,900 88,500 81,500 (3,400) -4.0% 0080 Direct Benefits 35,331 27,331 33,100 33,100 34,100 34,600 1,500 4.5% Total Direct Labor Costs 100,548 84,243 118,000 118,000 122,600 116,100 (1,900) -1.6% Other Services and Charges
2120 Telephone-Internet 75,521 81,808 70,000 70,000 70,000 70,000 0 0.0% Cell phones, landlines & internet 2200 Rent/Lease Payable 20,569 2,017 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 0 0.0% Copier Lease 2242 Maintenance / Support 281,442 307,671 500,000 500,000 500,000 550,000 50,000 10.0% Annual license fees, software maintenance
agreements, technical support, network
security and maintenance services
2660 Education / Training 0 0 3,500 3,500 3,500 5,000 1,500 42.9% Departmental training Total Other Services and Charges 377,532 391,496 603,500 603,500 603,500 655,000 51,500 8.5% Capital Outlay
3951 Computer Equip and Software 33,042 96,410 375,000 375,000 375,000 170,000 (205,000) -54.7% FY24 Computer equipment & Laserfiche
migration; FY25 Permit system migration;
FY26 recruitment and performance
appraisal automation.
3952 GASB 96 SBITA Capital Outlay 108,099 34,807 0 0 0 0 0 % GASB accounting entries Total Capital Outlay 141,141 131,217 375,000 375,000 375,000 170,000 (205,000) -54.7% Debt Service
4600 GASB 87 Lease Principal Exp. 0 17,668 0 0 0 0 0 %
4601 GASB 96 SBITA Principal Exp. 46,745 65,221 0 0 0 0 0 % 4610 GASB 87 Lease Interest Exp. 0 330 0 0 0 0 0 %
4611 GASB 96 SBITA Interest Exp. 589 1,433 0 0 0 0 0 %
Total Debt Service 47,334 84,651 0 0 0 0 0 %
Total Expenses 666,556 691,608 1,096,500 1,096,500 1,101,100 941,100 (155,400) -14.2% GASB accounting entries
FY 2025-26 Proposed Budget May 14, 2025 34

CITY CLERK / COMMUNICATIONS
2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2024-25 2024-25 2025-26 ProposedAcct # Title Actual Actual Adopted Adjusted Projected Proposed Adopted % Diff Comments Fund 110
Expenses
Department 4130
Direct Labor Costs
0010 Salaries 216,347 189,786 339,800 339,800 250,200 332,100 (7,700) -2.3% 0020 Salaries - Overtime 2,695 3,005 5,000 5,000 7,500 5,000 0 0.0% 0080 Direct Benefits 99,535 75,822 165,800 165,800 107,700 157,200 (8,600) -5.2% Total Direct Labor Costs 318,578 268,613 510,600 510,600 365,400 494,300 (16,300) -3.2% Supplies
1400 Office Expense 5,458 3,535 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 0 0.0% 1430 Special Dept Expense 855 2,941 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 0 0.0% Total Supplies 6,313 6,476 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,500 0 0.0% Other Services and Charges
2111 Promotions 14,031 9,457 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 0 0.0% 2170 Printing 11,413 12,122 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 0 0.0% Codification of Ordinances; Snow Removal Guide
2226 Armed Forces Banner Program 2,704 4,229 3,200 3,200 3,200 3,200 0 0.0% 2240 Professional Services 37,073 129,800 75,000 75,000 75,000 70,000 (5,000) -6.7% Website hosting/upgrades; Online municipal
code hosting; video productions; graphic
design services; PRA services, document
storage, shredding & retention support.

FY26 Film Services Contract moved to
Economic Development.
2300 Contractual Services 15,011 0 10,000 10,000 5,000 5,000 (5,000) -50.0% Election services 2640 Memberships and Dues 934 275 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 0 0.0% IIMC, Southern California City Clerk Association, Notary Membership
2660 Education / Training 0 0 3,000 3,000 4,500 4,500 1,500 50.0% Departmental training 2680 Mileage 253 0 700 700 500 500 (200) -28.6%
2684 Signature Event Sponsorship 39,589 89,560 95,000 95,000 95,000 100,000 5,000 5.3% Includes July 4, Halloween & Christmas in
the Village, Menorah Lighting, Tour de Big
Bear support, Village Concert Series
support & incidentals
Total Other Services and Charges 121,006 245,444 222,900 222,900 219,200 219,200 (3,700) -1.7% Total Expenses 445,896 520,533 740,000 740,000 591,100 720,000 (20,000) -2.7% FY 2025-26 Proposed Budget May 14, 2025 35

STAFF SERVICES / RISK MANAGEMENT
2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2024-25 2024-25 2025-26 ProposedAcct # Title Actual Actual Adopted Adjusted Projected Proposed Adopted % Diff Comments Fund 110
Expenses
Department 4150
Direct Labor Costs
0010 Salaries 99,754 170,898 260,500 260,500 267,500 245,200 (15,300) -5.9% 0020 Salaries - Overtime 702 0 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 0 0.0% 0080 Direct Benefits 48,867 77,119 131,300 131,300 113,200 112,600 (18,700) -14.2% Total Direct Labor Costs 149,324 248,017 396,800 396,800 385,700 362,800 (34,000) -8.6% Supplies
1400 Office Expense 334 1,634 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 0 0.0% 1430 Special Dept Expense 34,161 25,368 35,000 35,000 35,000 35,000 0 0.0% Employee recognition & engagement Total Supplies 34,494 27,001 37,500 37,500 37,500 37,500 0 0.0% Other Services and Charges
2240 Professional Services 98,496 70,605 190,000 190,000 190,000 170,000 (20,000) -10.5% Benefit & workers' compensation
administration fees, DMV physicals, hearing
tests, inoculations, employee assistance
program, OSHA compliance, Annual PARS
contribution. FY25 includes ADA Transition
Plan.
2317 Recruitment Expense 66,081 16,060 12,500 12,500 15,000 10,000 (2,500) -20.0% Includes pre-employment screenings,
advertisements and recruitment services.

FY23 included management recruitment
services.
2552 Accidents and Damage 1,841 10,331 0 0 0 0 0 %
Not budgeted due to unforeseen nature.

Generally not material. Includes towing fleet
vehicle following an accident.
2600 Insurance 532,609 540,578 670,400 670,400 683,200 676,560 6,160 0.9% 2640 Memberships and Dues 619 1,049 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 0 0.0% 2660 Education / Training 0 0 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 0 0.0% Departmental training (PSHRA, SHRM) 2670 Education/Training - Universal 31,400 58,797 15,500 15,500 15,500 15,500 0 0.0% Employee trainings (CJPIA, etc.), League
conferences, & education assistance
program. FY25 trainings specific to
departmental skills moved to department
budgets (e.g., Class A license training,
APWA, CACEO).

Total Other Services and Charges 731,047 697,419 896,900 896,900 912,200 880,560 (16,340) -1.8% Total Expenses 914,864 972,438 1,331,200 1,331,200 1,335,400 1,280,860 (50,340) -3.8% FY 2025-26 Proposed Budget May 14, 2025 36

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT / TOURISM MANAGEMENT
2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2024-25 2024-25 2025-26 ProposedAcct # Title Actual Actual Adopted Adjusted Projected Proposed Adopted % Diff Comments Fund 110
Expenses
Department 4415
Direct Labor Costs
0010 Salaries 503,792 578,747 1,062,600 1,062,600 845,400 895,100 (167,500) -15.8% 0020 Salaries - Overtime 113,156 113,475 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 0 0.0% 0080 Direct Benefits 305,023 321,254 567,600 567,600 427,100 437,800 (129,800) -22.9% Total Direct Labor Costs 921,970 1,013,476 1,735,200 1,735,200 1,377,500 1,437,900 (297,300) -17.1% FY25 budget consolidation overstated Supplies
1400 Office Expense 2,369 120 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 0 0.0% 1420 15,569 12,555 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 0 0.0%
1430 Special Dept Expense 1,744 2,208 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 0 0.0% 1480 Small Tools 86 242 250 250 250 250 0 0.0%
1482 Safety Supplies 0 0 250 250 250 250 0 0.0%
1490 Clothing and Personal Equipt 4,209 3,775 4,500 4,500 4,500 4,500 0 0.0% Total Supplies 23,978 18,899 25,500 25,500 25,500 25,500 0 0.0% Other Services and Charges
2111 Promotions 0 0 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 0 0.0% Outreach 2170 Printing 0 0 7,500 7,500 7,500 7,500 0 0.0% Printed materials 2240 Professional Services 22,302 25,824 87,000 87,000 87,000 105,000 18,000 20.7% Economic development services; TOT/TBID
audits. FY26 moved Film Services Contract
from City Clerk / Communications to
Economic Development.
2310 Contractual Services 109,470 118,674 170,000 170,000 170,000 170,000 0 0.0% Data collection services, radio support agreement, citation processing services.
2640 Memberships and Dues 600 400 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 0 0.0% 2650 Publications 229 0 200 200 200 200 0 0.0%
2660 Education / Training 0 0 3,500 3,500 9,000 5,000 1,500 42.9% Departmental training (CACEO, CALED, PC832)
2685 Business Improvement Grants 0 0 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 0 0.0% FY25 program initiative; FY26 Phase II Total Other Services and Charges 132,601 144,898 424,200 424,200 429,700 443,700 19,500 4.6% Total Expenses 1,078,549 1,177,273 2,184,900 2,184,900 1,832,700 1,907,100 (277,800) -12.7% Fuel
FY25 Consolidated Economic Development,
Code Compliance and Neighborhood
Preservation
FY 2025-26 Proposed Budget May 14, 2025 37

PERFORMING ARTS CENTER (PAC) ADMINISTRATION
2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2024-25 2024-25 2025-26 ProposedAcct # Title Actual Actual Adopted Adjusted Projected Proposed Adopted % Diff Comments Fund 110
Expenses
Department 4610
Direct Labor Costs
0010 Salaries 55,794 58,845 48,100 48,100 45,800 44,800 (3,300) -6.9% 0080 Direct Benefits 27,167 29,142 21,800 21,800 19,100 19,600 (2,200) -10.1% Total Direct Labor Costs 82,961 87,987 69,900 69,900 64,900 64,400 (5,500) -7.9% Supplies
1400 Office Expense 2 34 500 500 500 500 0 0.0%
Total Supplies 2 34 500 500 500 500 0 0.0%
Other Services and Charges
2175 Ticket Printing 1,799 5,203 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 0 0.0% 2302 Cont Srvc-Bank Charges 1,389 2,362 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 0 0.0% Total Other Services and Charges 3,188 7,565 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 0 0.0% Total Expenses 86,152 95,586 78,400 78,400 73,400 72,900 (5,500) -7.0% 0 FY 2025-26 Proposed Budget May 14, 2025 38

ENGINEERING
2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2024-25 2024-25 2025-26 ProposedAcct # Title Actual Actual Adopted Adjusted Projected Proposed Adopted % Diff Comments Fund 110
Expenses
Department 4310
Direct Labor Costs
0010 Salaries 279,014 373,745 360,500 360,500 282,700 347,700 (12,800) -3.6% 0080 Direct Benefits 156,249 215,069 209,500 209,500 137,700 195,100 (14,400) -6.9% Total Direct Labor Costs 435,263 588,813 570,000 570,000 420,400 542,800 (27,200) -4.8% Supplies
1400 Office Expense 2,468 806 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 0 0.0% 1420 Fuel 237 3,586 1,500 1,500 5,500 5,500 4,000 266.7% 1430 Special Dept Expense 9,125 4,420 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 0 0.0% Total Supplies 11,830 8,812 8,000 8,000 12,000 12,000 4,000 50.0% Other Services and Charges
2241 Professional Services 44,243 132,107 115,000 115,000 115,000 95,000 (20,000) -17.4% Land survey services, traffic counts,
Caltrans permits, & specialty services
including pavement condition assessment.
2243 Professional Services-Engineer 150,733 86,771 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 0 0.0% General engineering services; plan check services
2640 Memberships and Dues 0 599 500 500 500 500 0 0.0% PE & PMP License Fees 2650 Publications 30 25 200 200 200 200 0 0.0%
2660 Education / Training 0 0 7,000 7,000 7,000 10,000 3,000 42.9% Departmental training. Includes emergency operations training.

Total Other Services and Charges 195,005 219,502 197,700 197,700 197,700 180,700 (17,000) -8.6% Total Expenses 642,098 817,128 775,700 775,700 630,100 735,500 (40,200) -5.2% FY 2025-26 Proposed Budget May 14, 2025 39

TRAFFIC UTILITIES
2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2024-25 2024-25 2025-26 ProposedAcct # Title Actual Actual Adopted Adjusted Projected Proposed Adopted % Diff Comments Fund 110
Expenses
Department 4230
Other Services and Charges
2131 Utility - Traffic Signal 11,099 11,299 17,000 17,000 12,000 14,000 (3,000) -17.6% Reflects utility rate changes Total Other Services and Charges 11,099 11,299 17,000 17,000 12,000 14,000 (3,000) -17.6% Total Expenses 11,099 11,299 17,000 17,000 12,000 14,000 (3,000) -17.6% FY 2025-26 Proposed Budget May 14, 2025 40

ANIMAL REGULATION
2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2024-25 2024-25 2025-26 ProposedAcct # Title Actual Actual Adopted Adjusted Projected Proposed Adopted % Diff Comments Fund 110
Expenses
Department 4260
Direct Labor Costs
0010 Salaries 14,213 15,198 14,900 14,900 14,700 16,100 1,200 8.1% 0020 Salaries - Overtime 514 670 0 0 1,000 1,000 1,000 % 0080 Direct Benefits 8,475 8,701 8,600 8,600 8,100 9,300 700 8.1% Total Direct Labor Costs 23,202 24,569 23,500 23,500 23,800 26,400 2,900 12.3% Other Services and Charges
2220 Maint-Buildings and Grounds 6,279 4,661 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 0 0.0% 2240 Professional Services 27,702 28,256 29,100 29,100 29,100 30,000 900 3.1% Vector Control Services Total Other Services and Charges 33,981 32,917 39,100 39,100 39,100 40,000 900 2.3% Total Expenses 57,183 57,486 62,600 62,600 62,900 66,400 3,800 6.1% FY 2025-26 Proposed Budget May 14, 2025 41

STREET MAINTENANCE AND SNOW REMOVAL
2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2024-25 2024-25 2025-26 ProposedAcct # Title Actual Actual Adopted Adjusted Projected Proposed Adopted % Diff Comments Fund 110
Expenses
Department 4320
Direct Labor Costs
0010 Salaries 660,733 646,519 727,200 727,200 799,600 947,100 219,900 30.2% 0020 Salaries - Overtime 89,577 120,264 85,000 85,000 120,000 120,000 35,000 41.2% 0080 Direct Benefits 446,574 395,348 424,100 424,100 418,400 532,800 108,700 25.6% Total Direct Labor Costs 1,196,884 1,162,131 1,236,300 1,236,300 1,338,000 1,599,900 363,600 29.4% Supplies
1400 Office Expense 4,219 10,647 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 0 0.0% 1410 General Household 16,622 24,574 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 0 0.0% 1420 55,561 53,187 59,000 59,000 59,000 62,000 3,000 5.1% 1422 Fuel-Snow Plowing 80,190 30,130 32,000 32,000 32,000 34,000 2,000 6.3% 1430 Special Dept Expense 1,622 17,803 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 0 0.0% Resources for snow operations 1440 Basic Materials 65,828 140,061 100,000 90,000 90,000 100,000 0 0.0% Pothole Patching Materials, Street Paint 1441 Street Signs 4,688 17,736 30,000 40,000 40,000 30,000 0 0.0% As needed sign replacement. FY25 budget includes solar radar feedback signs.
1451 Automotive Expense - Snow 119,934 197,962 120,000 120,000 150,000 150,000 30,000 25.0% Tire chains, cutting edges, plow locator service
1480 Small Tools 1,627 3,507 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 0 0.0% 1482 Safety Supplies 4,582 8,287 10,000 10,000 15,000 15,000 5,000 50.0% Hard hats, gloves, reflective vests, first aid supplied, AED lease
1490 Clothing and Personal Equipt 11,040 14,580 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 0 0.0% Total Supplies 365,914 518,474 431,000 431,000 466,000 471,000 40,000 9.3% Other Services and Charges
2210 Rents and Leases - Equipment 40,900 69,478 30,000 30,000 25,000 25,000 (5,000) -16.7% Delineators; Boom lift 2220 Maint-Buildings and Grounds 21,636 29,066 40,000 40,000 20,000 20,000 (20,000) -50.0% 2230 Maintenance - Equipment 3,465 5,102 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 0 0.0% 2240 Professional Services 45,389 50,775 37,500 37,500 37,500 37,500 0 0.0% Snow removal towing services 2290 Contractual Services-Snow Rmvl 972,017 282,413 360,000 360,000 360,000 380,000 20,000 5.6% 2291 Contractual Services-BBL Blvd 282,817 134,847 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 0 0.0% Caltrans baseline reimbursement $80K per
contract; Fluctuations reflect Caltrans
authorizations based on actual snowfall; For
reimbursement offset refer to
110-0000-3385.
2310 Contractual Services 21,879 104,535 85,000 90,500 90,500 105,000 20,000 23.5% Street sweeping, alarm monitoring, solar
maintenance, portable restroom rental, tree
inspection/removal
2315 Cinders and Cinder Hauling 21,035 16,377 25,000 25,000 25,000 26,800 1,800 7.2% Budget based on a typical year; fluctuations
in actual expenditures are dependent upon
winter weather conditions and snowfall
2320 Laundry 18,000 31,418 20,000 20,000 30,000 30,000 10,000 50.0% Fuel
FY 2025-26 Proposed Budget May 14, 2025 42

STREET MAINTENANCE AND SNOW REMOVAL
2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2024-25 2024-25 2025-26 ProposedAcct # Title Actual Actual Adopted Adjusted Projected Proposed Adopted % Diff Comments Fund 110
Expenses
Department 4320
2640 Memberships and Dues 1,517 1,074 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 0 0.0% APWA and IECA memberships 2650 Publications 30 64 100 100 100 100 0 0.0%
2660 Education / Training 0 0 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 0 0.0% Departmental training (CDL, APWA) Total Other Services and Charges 1,428,685 725,148 703,100 708,600 693,600 729,900 26,800 3.8% Capital Outlay
3951 Capital Outlay 26,302 3,890 85,000 85,000 50,000 50,000 (35,000) -41.2% 3960 Machinery and Equipment 388,056 420,520 470,000 470,000 505,000 530,000 60,000 12.8% Snow removal equipment rental & message boards. Includes transportation/delivery.

Total Capital Outlay 414,358 424,410 555,000 555,000 555,000 580,000 25,000 4.5% Total Expenses 3,405,841 2,830,162 2,925,400 2,930,900 3,052,600 3,380,800 455,400 15.6% FY 2025-26 Proposed Budget May 14, 2025 43

VEHICLE MAINTENANCE
2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2024-25 2024-25 2025-26 ProposedAcct # Title Actual Actual Adopted Adjusted Projected Proposed Adopted % Diff Comments Fund 110
Expenses
Department 4325
Direct Labor Costs
0010 Salaries 68,898 67,092 70,600 70,600 86,000 73,700 3,100 4.4% 0020 Salaries - Overtime 4,368 3,643 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 0 0.0% 0080 Direct Benefits 46,031 43,791 45,000 45,000 47,300 45,700 700 1.6% Total Direct Labor Costs 119,297 114,526 120,600 120,600 138,300 124,400 3,800 3.2% Supplies
1450 Automotive Expense 30,616 38,784 45,000 45,000 45,000 45,000 0 0.0% 1480 Small Tools 273 329 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 0 0.0% Total Supplies 30,888 39,113 46,500 46,500 46,500 46,500 0 0.0% Other Services and Charges
2140 Utilities - Gas 18,183 16,409 21,000 21,000 18,500 19,000 (2,000) -9.5% 2150 Utilities - Water 1,833 3,182 3,200 3,200 4,600 5,000 1,800 56.3% 2160 Utilities - Electric 8,398 430 10,300 10,300 6,000 7,000 (3,300) -32.0% 2310 Contractual Services 720 0 1,000 1,000 2,000 2,000 1,000 100.0% 2320 Laundry 1,880 2,421 1,500 1,500 2,500 2,500 1,000 66.7% 2686 Vehicle Maintenance 4,805 4,382 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 0 0.0% 2687 Vehicle Maintenance - Tires 7,068 14,515 15,000 15,000 20,000 20,000 5,000 33.3% Total Other Services and Charges 42,888 41,338 62,000 62,000 63,600 65,500 3,500 5.6% Total Expenses 193,073 194,977 229,100 229,100 248,400 236,400 7,300 3.2% Reflects utility rate changes
FY 2025-26 Proposed Budget May 14, 2025 44

STREET LIGHTING
2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2024-25 2024-25 2025-26 ProposedAcct # Title Actual Actual Adopted Adjusted Projected Proposed Adopted % Diff Comments Fund 110
Expenses
Department 4330
Other Services and Charges
2130 Utilities - Other 84,897 88,531 102,200 102,200 88,700 107,000 4,800 4.7% Reflects utility rate changes Total Other Services and Charges 84,897 88,531 102,200 102,200 88,700 107,000 4,800 4.7% Total Expenses 84,897 88,531 102,200 102,200 88,700 107,000 4,800 4.7% FY 2025-26 Proposed Budget May 14, 2025 45

CITY PARKING LOTS & FACILITIES
2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2024-25 2024-25 2025-26 ProposedAcct # Title Actual Actual Adopted Adjusted Projected Proposed Adopted % Diff Comments Fund 110
Expenses
Department 4335
Direct Labor Costs
0010 Salaries 111,636 140,540 162,800 162,800 147,200 162,200 (600) -0.4% 0020 Salaries - Overtime 15,710 21,481 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 0 0.0% 0080 Direct Benefits 68,128 79,918 88,300 88,300 73,000 93,300 5,000 5.7% Total Direct Labor Costs 195,474 241,939 266,100 266,100 235,200 270,500 4,400 1.7% Supplies
1410 General Household 16,160 23,296 32,000 32,000 32,000 32,000 0 0.0% 1440 Basic Materials/Repairs 2,045 3,996 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 0 0.0% Total Supplies 18,206 27,291 37,000 37,000 37,000 37,000 0 0.0% Other Services and Charges
2140 Utilities - Gas 0 0 0 0 6,000 6,000 6,000 % FY25 new services added 2150 Utilities - Water 5,970 5,783 7,000 7,000 6,300 7,000 0 0.0% Reflects utility rate adjustment 2160 Utilities - Electric 46,863 48,162 79,400 79,400 86,000 104,000 24,600 31.0% Includes electricity for lighting, restrooms,
and EV charging stations. Reflect utility rate
adjustment.
2220 Maint-Buildings and Grounds 21,827 32,493 75,000 75,000 75,000 50,000 (25,000) -33.3% Total Other Services and Charges 74,660 86,438 161,400 161,400 173,300 167,000 5,600 3.5% Total Expenses 288,339 355,668 464,500 464,500 445,500 474,500 10,000 2.2% FY 2025-26 Proposed Budget May 14, 2025 46

CITY PARKS & TRAILS
2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2024-25 2024-25 2025-26 ProposedAcct # Title Actual Actual Adopted Adjusted Projected Proposed Adopted % Diff Comments Fund 110
Expenses
Department 4625
Direct Labor Costs
0010 Salaries 258,758 317,404 343,800 343,800 318,400 337,400 (6,400) -1.9% 0020 Salaries - Overtime 30,014 49,894 35,000 35,000 45,000 45,000 10,000 28.6% 0080 Direct Benefits 148,063 175,532 186,800 186,800 158,400 184,700 (2,100) -1.1% Total Direct Labor Costs 436,835 542,831 565,600 565,600 521,800 567,100 1,500 0.3% Supplies
1410 General Household 16,160 23,296 40,000 40,000 40,000 42,000 2,000 5.0% FY26 includes new Castle Rock restroom facility
1440 Basic Materials 2,430 8,272 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,500 0 0.0% 1480 Small Tools 469 5,238 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 0 0.0% Includes conversion of small equipment to electric
Total Supplies 19,059 36,806 66,500 66,500 66,500 68,500 2,000 3.0% Other Services and Charges
2150 Utilities - Water 21,343 22,504 32,000 32,000 23,000 25,000 (7,000) -21.9% 2160 Utilities - Electric 31,887 32,273 36,000 36,000 30,000 38,000 2,000 5.6% 2220 Maint-Buildings and Grounds 39,021 32,286 110,000 135,000 135,000 140,000 30,000 27.3% Landscaping maintenance and
improvements; FY25 update holiday décor;
FY26 addition of Castle Rock Trailhead
2225 Landscaping 4,172 0 25,000 0 0 0 (25,000) -100.0% Consolidated with #2220 2310 Contractual Services 0 34,200 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 0 0.0% Contractual services to supplement workforce
2640 MWD Permit 2,664 2,664 2,700 2,700 2,700 2,700 0 0.0% Total Other Services and Charges 99,088 123,926 305,700 305,700 290,700 305,700 0 0.0% Capital Outlay
3951 Capital Outlay 0 25,812 100,000 230,600 230,600 140,000 40,000 40.0% Trail and wood structure maintenance; additional structures / furnishings
Total Capital Outlay 0 25,812 100,000 230,600 230,600 140,000 40,000 40.0% Total Expenses 554,982 729,375 1,037,800 1,168,400 1,109,600 1,081,300 43,500 4.2% Reflects utility rate changes and new Castle
Rock restroom facility
FY 2025-26 Proposed Budget May 14, 2025 47

CIVIC CENTER
2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2024-25 2024-25 2025-26 ProposedAcct # Title Actual Actual Adopted Adjusted Projected Proposed Adopted % Diff Comments Fund 110
Expenses
Department 4820
Direct Labor Costs
0010 Salaries 55,249 63,063 64,100 64,100 63,300 79,400 15,300 23.9% 0020 Salaries - Overtime 5,426 7,196 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 0 0.0% 0080 Direct Benefits 36,664 38,947 39,700 39,700 36,300 49,900 10,200 25.7% Total Direct Labor Costs 97,339 109,206 108,800 108,800 104,600 134,300 25,500 23.4% Supplies
1400 Office Expense 4,453 4,698 3,200 3,200 5,000 5,000 1,800 56.3% 1410 General Household 16,185 23,385 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 0 0.0% 1420 16,342 32,286 12,000 12,000 30,000 30,000 18,000 150.0% 1440 Basic Materials 5,627 6,084 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 0 0.0% 1480 Small Tools 239 0 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 0 0.0%
Total Supplies 42,846 66,452 46,200 46,200 66,000 66,000 19,800 42.9% Other Services and Charges
2140 Utilities - Gas 87,200 63,733 95,000 95,000 80,000 83,000 (12,000) -12.6% 2150 Utilities - Water 4,930 5,140 5,300 5,300 6,000 6,000 700 13.2% 2160 Utilities - Electric 79,049 29,195 82,000 82,000 60,000 73,000 (9,000) -11.0% 2220 Maint-Buildings and Grounds 52,313 13,105 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 0 0.0% 2230 Maintenance - Equipment 7,737 16,447 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 0 0.0% 2231 PEG Maintenance & Operations 0 454 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 0 0.0% 2310 Contractual Services 18,344 26,215 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 0 0.0% Includes alarm monitoring; elevator, HVAC, generator & solar maintenance
2320 Laundry 2,632 3,390 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 0 0.0% Total Other Services and Charges 252,205 157,678 267,800 267,800 231,500 247,500 (20,300) -7.6% Capital Outlay
3951 Capital Outlay 19,900 0 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 0 0.0% Total Capital Outlay 19,900 0 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 0 0.0% Total Expenses 412,290 333,336 442,800 442,800 422,100 467,800 25,000 5.6% Fuel
Reflects utility rate changes
FY 2025-26 Proposed Budget May 14, 2025 48

PERFORMING ARTS CENTER OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE
2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2024-25 2024-25 2025-26 ProposedAcct # Title Actual Actual Adopted Adjusted Projected Proposed Adopted % Diff Comments Fund 110
Expenses
Department 4821
Direct Labor Costs
0010 Salaries 69,767 88,581 88,400 88,400 79,000 93,100 4,700 5.3% 0020 Salaries - Overtime 30,409 31,172 30,000 37,600 47,600 30,000 0 0.0% 0080 Direct Benefits 36,131 38,167 39,400 30,700 29,700 39,000 (400) -1.0% Total Direct Labor Costs 136,307 157,919 157,800 156,700 156,300 162,100 4,300 2.7% Supplies
1410 General Household 0 0 1,000 0 0 0 (1,000) -100.0%
1415 Theatre Supplies 1,185 0 1,500 0 0 0 (1,500) -100.0% 1440 Basic Materials 271 97 6,000 0 0 0 (6,000) -100.0% 1480 Small Tools 244 0 500 0 0 0 (500) -100.0%
1490 Clothing and Personal Equipt 0 0 500 0 0 0 (500) -100.0% Total Supplies 1,700 97 9,500 0 0 0 (9,500) -100.0%
Other Services and Charges
2140 Utilities - Gas 21,086 15,860 25,000 25,000 25,000 26,000 1,000 4.0% 2160 Utilities - Electric 26,350 9,732 26,000 20,000 20,000 24,000 (2,000) -7.7% 2220 Maint-Buildings and Grounds 800 700 5,500 15,000 15,000 15,000 9,500 172.7% 2230 Maintenance - Equipment 271 672 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 0 0.0% 2310 Contractual Services 14,703 14,908 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 0 0.0% Total Other Services and Charges 63,209 41,872 81,500 85,000 85,000 90,000 8,500 10.4% Capital Outlay
3952 Theatre Equipment 2,518 12,842 10,000 17,100 17,100 50,000 40,000 400.0% FY26 repairs/replacements Total Capital Outlay 2,518 12,842 10,000 17,100 17,100 50,000 40,000 400.0% Total Expenses 203,734 212,730 258,800 258,800 258,400 302,100 43,300 16.7% Consolidated maintenance costs in Account
#2220.

Reflects utility rate changes
FY 2025-26 Proposed Budget May 14, 2025 49

PLANNING COMMISSION
2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2024-25 2024-25 2025-26 ProposedAcct # Title Actual Actual Adopted Adjusted Projected Proposed Adopted % Diff Comments Fund 110
Expenses
Department 4411
Direct Labor Costs
0010 Salaries 24,067 23,763 24,000 24,000 24,000 24,000 0 0.0% 0080 Direct Benefits 952 940 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 0 0.0% Total Direct Labor Costs 25,018 24,703 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 0 0.0% Supplies
1400 Office Expense 818 427 250 250 250 250 0 0.0%
1430 Special Dept Expense 108 631 250 250 250 250 0 0.0% Total Supplies 926 1,059 500 500 500 500 0 0.0%
Other Services and Charges
2660 Travel/Conferences/Meetings 2,735 3,178 6,000 6,000 6,000 10,000 4,000 66.7% League of California Cities Planning Conference / New Commissioner Training
Total Other Services and Charges 2,735 3,178 6,000 6,000 6,000 10,000 4,000 66.7% Total Expenses 28,680 28,940 31,500 31,500 31,500 35,500 4,000 12.7% FY 2025-26 Proposed Budget May 14, 2025 50

PLANNING
2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2024-25 2024-25 2025-26 ProposedAcct # Title Actual Actual Adopted Adjusted Projected Proposed Adopted % Diff Comments Fund 110
Expenses
Department 4410
Direct Labor Costs
0010 Salaries 649,717 688,510 608,000 608,000 581,900 698,300 90,300 14.9% 0020 Salaries - Overtime 1,290 1,395 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 0 0.0% 0080 Direct Benefits 342,369 334,962 297,500 297,500 246,000 318,300 20,800 7.0% Total Direct Labor Costs 993,376 1,024,866 910,500 910,500 832,900 1,021,600 111,100 12.2% Supplies
1400 Office Expense 2,132 2,070 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 0 0.0% 1430 Special Dept Expense 0 1,223 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 0 0.0% Total Supplies 2,132 3,293 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 0 0.0% Other Services and Charges
2240 Professional Services 192,962 95,747 150,000 150,000 50,000 125,000 (25,000) -16.7% Contractual support for planning services,
plan check and CEQA. FY26 budget
includes Citywide Mobility Study.
2640 Memberships and Dues 1,354 2,231 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 0 0.0% 2650 Publications 450 0 500 500 500 500 0 0.0%
2660 Education / Training 0 0 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 0 0.0% Departmental training (APA, ICSC) 2680 Mileage 0 26 300 300 300 300 0 0.0%
Total Other Services and Charges 194,766 98,004 158,800 158,800 58,800 133,800 (25,000) -15.7% Total Expenses 1,190,274 1,126,163 1,072,300 1,072,300 894,700 1,158,400 86,100 8.0% FY 2025-26 Proposed Budget May 14, 2025 51

BUILDING AND SAFETY
2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2024-25 2024-25 2025-26 ProposedAcct # Title Actual Actual Adopted Adjusted Projected Proposed Adopted % Diff Comments Fund 110
Expenses
Department 4430
Direct Labor Costs
0010 Salaries 319,436 442,989 433,700 433,700 407,800 426,800 (6,900) -1.6% 0020 Salaries - Overtime 582 1,028 0 0 500 500 500 %
0080 Direct Benefits 205,084 233,413 250,900 250,900 203,200 222,600 (28,300) -11.3% Total Direct Labor Costs 525,102 677,429 684,600 684,600 611,500 649,900 (34,700) -5.1% Supplies
1400 Office Expense 1,465 940 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 0 0.0% 1420 914 3,322 1,000 1,000 3,500 3,500 2,500 250.0%
1430 Special Dept Expense 528 0 500 500 500 500 0 0.0%
1490 Clothing and Personal Equipt 576 850 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 0 0.0% Total Supplies 3,484 5,112 4,000 4,000 6,500 6,500 2,500 62.5% Other Services and Charges
2240 Professional Services 252,435 368,945 300,000 300,000 300,000 500,000 200,000 66.7% Building Official and Plan Review services;
Includes anticipated new commercial
development plan review
2245 Mobile Home Permit State Fee 1,215 0 0 0 0 0 0 %
2246 Mobilehome Resid Protct Act 2,980 0 0 0 0 0 0 %
2310 Contractual Services 15,965 23,004 15,000 15,000 15,000 0 (15,000) -100.0% Consolidated with Professional Services 2640 Memberships and Dues 270 345 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 0 0.0% 2650 Publications 2,806 1,013 500 500 500 500 0 0.0% Building code book updates every three (3) years.
2660 Education / Training 0 0 3,000 3,000 3,000 5,000 2,000 66.7% Departmental training (e.g., CALBO) Total Other Services and Charges 275,671 393,307 319,500 319,500 319,500 506,500 187,000 58.5% Total Expenses 804,257 1,075,848 1,008,100 1,008,100 937,500 1,162,900 154,800 15.4% State responsibility beginning FY 23/24
Fuel
FY 2025-26 Proposed Budget May 14, 2025 52

FINANCE
2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2024-25 2024-25 2025-26 ProposedAcct # Title Actual Actual Adopted Adjusted Projected Proposed Adopted % Diff Comments Fund 110
Expenses
Department 4140
Direct Labor Costs
0010 Salaries 245,529 350,446 376,800 376,800 357,400 311,300 (65,500) -17.4% 0020 Salaries - Overtime 43 10 0 0 0 0 0 %
0080 Direct Benefits 120,452 194,179 194,400 194,400 166,300 154,700 (39,700) -20.4% Total Direct Labor Costs 366,024 544,635 571,200 571,200 523,700 466,000 (105,200) -18.4% Supplies
1400 Office Expense 3,402 3,333 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 0 0.0% 1430 Special Dept Expense 16,996 1,029 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 0 0.0% Total Supplies 20,397 4,362 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 0 0.0% Other Services and Charges
2170 Printing 2,264 1,869 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 0 0.0% Printing of forms, checks & deposit stock. 2240 Professional Services 116,102 83,105 178,000 178,000 175,000 150,000 (28,000) -15.7% 2302 Cont Srvc-Bank Charges 12,747 10,660 15,200 15,200 15,000 15,200 0 0.0% 2305 Property Tax Collect Charges 32,278 33,689 36,900 36,900 36,800 38,800 1,900 5.1% 2640 Memberships and Dues 1,030 1,213 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 0 0.0% CSMFO & GFOA memberships 2650 Subscriptions and Publications 1,182 199 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 0 0.0% GAAFR & Other technical publications 2660 Education / Training 0 0 7,500 7,500 7,500 7,500 0 0.0% Departmental training 2680 Mileage 394 0 500 500 500 500 0 0.0%
Total Other Services and Charges 165,997 130,735 242,600 242,600 239,300 216,500 (26,100) -10.8% Total Expenses 552,418 679,732 821,800 821,800 771,000 690,500 (131,300) -16.0% FY 2025-26 Proposed Budget May 14, 2025 53

GENERAL GOVERNMENT
2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2024-25 2024-25 2025-26 ProposedAcct # Title Actual Actual Adopted Adjusted Projected Proposed Adopted % Diff Comments Fund 110
Expenses
Department 4800
Direct Labor Costs
0010 Salaries 140,553 103,874 85,200 85,200 81,700 81,400 (3,800) -4.5% 0020 Salaries - Overtime 872 10 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 0 0.0% 0080 Direct Benefits 72,829 63,448 48,400 48,400 43,700 46,100 (2,300) -4.8% Total Direct Labor Costs 214,253 167,332 138,600 138,600 130,400 132,500 (6,100) -4.4% Supplies
1400 Office Expense 5,296 4,915 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 0 0.0% 1430 Special Dept Expense 36,197 20,843 15,000 15,000 5,000 15,000 0 0.0% FY23 EOC Winter Storm lodging &
provisions; FY24 Hurricane Hillary Sand
Bags for Public Use
1482 Safety Supplies 4,060 4,348 7,500 7,500 7,500 7,500 0 0.0% First Aid Supplies.

Total Supplies 45,553 30,106 27,500 27,500 17,500 27,500 0 0.0% Other Services and Charges
2190 Postage Charges 14,287 12,524 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 0 0.0% Consolidated General Fund postage 2200 Rent/Lease Payable (17,997) 0 0 0 0 0 0 % GASB 87 implementation entry 2640 Memberships and Dues 15,944 19,221 28,000 28,000 28,000 28,000 0 0.0% LAFCO, SCAG, SBCOG Total Other Services and Charges 12,234 31,745 48,000 48,000 48,000 48,000 0 0.0% Capital Outlay
3950 Office Equipment / Furnishings 26,072 29,510 35,000 45,653 35,000 35,000 0 0.0% Total Capital Outlay 26,072 29,510 35,000 45,653 35,000 35,000 0 0.0% Debt Service
4600 Principal Payment Copier Lease 17,457 0 0 0 0 0 0 % 4610 Interest Expense Copier Lease 540 0 0 0 0 0 0 %
Total Debt Service 17,997 0 0 0 0 0 0 %
Total Expenses 316,108 258,693 249,100 259,753 230,900 243,000 (6,100) -2.4% GASB 87 implementation entry
FY 2025-26 Proposed Budget May 14, 2025 54

SUCCESSOR ADMINISTRATION
2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2024-25 2024-25 2025-26 ProposedAcct # Title Actual Actual Adopted Adjusted Projected Proposed Adopted % Diff Comments Fund 110
Expenses
Department 4801
Direct Labor Costs
0010 Salaries 118,729 104,551 107,900 107,900 107,900 117,800 9,900 9.2% 0080 Direct Benefits 61,738 61,609 63,800 63,800 63,800 63,400 (400) -0.6% Total Direct Labor Costs 180,467 166,160 171,700 171,700 171,700 181,200 9,500 5.5% Other Services and Charges
2240 Professional Services 9,848 11,357 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 0 0.0% Audit & annual disclosure services 2251 Administrative Overhead 0 0 68,300 68,300 68,300 58,800 (9,500) -13.9% 2702 Contrib to Other Gov 3,446 0 0 0 0 0 0 % Final Due Diligence Review Payment Total Other Services and Charges 13,294 11,357 78,300 78,300 78,300 68,800 (9,500) -12.1% Total Expenses 193,761 177,517 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 0 0.0% Must tie to CWOB Approved Budget;
Difference offset against Finance Dept.

FY 2025-26 Proposed Budget May 14, 2025 55
Summary of Fund Balance Commitments
General Fund
Balance
6/30/2024 Contributions Uses
Projected
6/30/2025 Contributions Uses
Projected
6/30/2026
Unrestricted Fund Balance:

Committed
(1) Facility Reserve - Civic Center - - - - 100,000 - 100,000 (1) Facility Reserve - Theatre - - - - 50,000 - 50,000
(2) Contingency Reserve - Snow 500,000 300,000 - 800,000 - - 800,000 (3) Contingency Reserve - Disaster/Cash Flow 442,609 - - 442,609 500,000 - 942,609 (4) Replacement Reserve - Vehicle 175,002 125,000 - 300,002 - - 300,002 (4) Replacement Reserve - Equipment 565,083 40,000 - 605,083 - - 605,083 (5) Street Improvement Reserve - - - - - - -
(6) General Plan Amendment Set-aside 600,000 400,000 - 1,000,000 400,000 - 1,400,000 Total Committed 2,282,693 865,000 - 3,147,693 1,050,000 - 4,197,693 Reserve Policy Basis Target Trigger *
Projected
Balance
Below
Target
(1)
Basis = Depreciated cost of structures
Target = 10% of Basis 7,000,000 700,000 630,000 150,000 550,000 (2)
Basis = Annual Snow Removal Cost
Target = 50% of Basis 1,500,000 750,000 675,000 800,000 - (3)
Basis = Annual Operating Cost
Target = 25% of Basis 23,390,000 5,847,500 5,262,750 942,609 4,904,900 (4)
Basis = Depreciated cost of vehicles
Target = 50% of Basis 450,000 225,000 202,500 300,002 - (4)
Basis = Depreciated cost of equipment
Target = 50% of Basis 1,200,000 600,000 540,000 605,083 - (5)
Basis = Annual Street Maintenance Cost
Target = 50% of Basis 2,000,000 1,000,000 900,000 - 1,000,000 (6) General Plan Amendment 1,400,000 1,200,000 1,080,000 1,400,000 - Fiscal Year 2024-25 Fiscal Year 2025-26
Projected Activity Projected Activity
Proposed 3-year set-aside for plan
amendment
Comments
Recurring investment programmed into 5-
Year CIP
Contributing snow reimbursement
Successor Agency legal settlement brought
balance below policy target
Balance in line with policy target
Balance in line with policy target
Recurring investment programmed into 5-
Year CIP
FY 2025-26 Proposed Budget May 14, 2025 56

CONTRIBUTIONS TO REPLACEMENT RESERVE
2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2024-25 2024-25 2025-26 ProposedAcct # Title Actual Actual Adopted Adjusted Projected Proposed Adopted % Diff Comments Fund 110
Expenses
Department 4831
Capital Outlay
3930 Vehicle Replacement Reserve 0 0 125,000 125,000 125,000 0 (125,000) -100.0% 3960 Machinery and Equip Reserve 0 0 40,000 40,000 40,000 0 (40,000) -100.0% 3981 Theatre Set Aside 0 0 0 0 0 50,000 50,000 %
3982 Disaster Contingency Replace 0 0 0 0 0 500,000 500,000 % 3984 Snow Contingency Reserve 0 0 300,000 300,000 300,000 0 (300,000) -100.0% 3987 General Plan Set-Aside 0 0 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 0 0.0% 3992 Civic Center Set Aside 0 0 0 0 0 100,000 100,000 % Total Capital Outlay 0 0 865,000 865,000 865,000 1,050,000 185,000 21.4% Total Expenses 0 0 865,000 865,000 865,000 1,050,000 185,000 21.4% Projected & Proposed commitments for
budgetary purposes only. Actual
commitments will be shown on the Balance
Sheet.

For the status of set-aside funds, refer to the
Summary of Fund Balance Commitments.

FY 2025-26 Proposed Budget May 14, 2025 57

GENERAL FUND INTERFUND TRANSFERS OUT
2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2024-25 2024-25 2025-26 ProposedAcct # Title Actual Actual Adopted Adjusted Projected Proposed Adopted % Diff Comments Fund 110
Expenses
Department 4850
Interfund Transfers
5101 Transfer Out-Cap Project (321) 444,988 1,901,580 900,000 3,010,499 3,010,499 825,000 (75,000) -8.3% Capital contribution from fund balance 5104 Transfer Out-Vill Maint (291) 169,208 1,671,329 302,400 302,400 272,500 294,490 (7,910) -2.6% General Fund required contribution to Village Assessment District
5105 Transfer Out-Street Impr (350) 3,626,342 1,162,328 1,022,122 1,023,750 1,023,750 1,754,387 732,265 71.6% Street improvement projects contribution 5112 Transfer Out-MTA (282) 100,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 % No-Fare Trolley Contribution 5121 Trans Out-Cap Prj Resrve (321) 42,925 0 0 0 0 0 0 % Capital funding reserve commitments 5122 Trans Out-Cap Prj Other (321) 625,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 % Capital Project interagency contributions Total Interfund Transfers 5,008,463 4,735,237 2,224,522 4,336,649 4,306,749 2,873,877 649,355 29.2% Total Expenses 5,008,463 4,735,237 2,224,522 4,336,649 4,306,749 2,873,877 649,355 29.2% FY 2025-26 Proposed Budget May 14, 2025 58

SANITATION FUND SUMMARY OF REVENUES & EXPENDITURES
2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2024-25 2024-25 2025-26 ProposedActual Actual Adopted Adjusted Projected Projected Adopted % Diff Comments Licenses and Permits 10,655 42,720 16,500 16,500 31,500 31,500 15,000 90.9% Use of Property and Money 145,750 226,967 100,000 100,000 170,000 130,000 30,000 30.0% Current Service Charges 6,273,424 7,117,153 8,002,100 8,002,100 7,952,730 8,378,810 376,710 4.7% 3.3% CPI on City fees; BBARWA fees at adopted rate Miscellaneous Revenue 0 967 0 0 0 0
Total Revenue $ 6,429,829 $ 7,387,807 $ 8,118,600 $ 8,118,600 $ 8,154,230 $ 8,540,310 $ 421,710 5.2% $ 6,910,790 $ 7,486,060
Direct Labor 1,504,021 1,613,175 1,798,900 1,798,900 1,680,200 1,915,200 116,300 6.5% Pursuant to labor agreement Supplies 87,396 118,643 124,000 134,000 141,000 141,000 17,000 13.7% Increased cost of materials and supplies Other Services & Charges 668,345 670,879 692,940 682,940 653,550 704,430 11,490 1.7% BBARWA Contract 3,064,135 3,737,889 4,435,000 4,435,000 4,436,040 4,725,430 290,430 6.5% Pass-through at BBARWA adopted rate Interfund Transfers to Gen. Fund [110] 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 0 0.0% Interfund Transfers to Capital [321] 490,208 1,417,611 1,050,000 1,756,812 1,306,812 1,400,000 350,000 33.3% Investment in wastewater infrastructure Interfund Transfers to Streets [350] 173,569 326,431 227,000 227,000 227,000 250,000 23,000 10.1% Equipment investment Total Expenditures $ 6,137,674 $ 8,034,627 $ 8,477,840 $ 9,184,652 $ 8,594,602 $ 9,286,060 $ 808,220 9.5% $ 292,156 $ (646,820) $ (359,240) $ (1,066,052) $ (440,372) $ (745,750) $ (386,510) 107.6% $ 2,215,461 $ 2,557,617 $ 1,885,797 $ 1,885,797 $ 1,885,797 $ 1,445,425 $ (440,372) -23.4% Net Revenue (Expenditure) 292,156 (646,820) (359,240) (1,066,052) (440,372) (745,750) (386,510) 107.6% Reflects investment in capital improvements Net Contributions From (To) Reserves 50,000 (25,000) 0 0 0 0 0 % Component of Committed Fund Balance Change in Nonspendable & Restricted 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 % GASB accounting entries Ending Unrestricted Fund Balance $ 2,557,617 $ 1,885,797 $ 1,526,557 $ 819,745 $ 1,445,425 $ 699,675 $ (826,882) -54.2% $ 3,240,880 $ 3,190,880 $ 3,215,880 $ 3,215,880 $ 3,215,880 $ 3,215,880 $ 0.0% - Contribution from Reserves (50,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 %
Contributions to Reserves 0 25,000 0 0 0 0 0 %
Ending Commited Fund Balance $ 3,190,880 $ 3,215,880 $ 3,215,880 $ 3,215,880 $ 3,215,880 $ 3,215,880 $ - 0.0% Total Available Fund Balance $ 5,748,497 $ 5,101,677 $ 4,742,437 $ 4,035,625 $ 4,661,305 $ 3,915,555 $ (826,882) -17.4% Revenues
Expenditures
Net Revenue (Expenditure)
Unrestricted Fund Balance
Committed Fund Balance
FY 2025-26 Proposed Budget May 14, 2025 59

SANITATION (WASTEWATE) FUND
2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2024-25 2024-25 2025-26 ProposedAcct # Title Actual Actual Adopted Adjusted Projected Proposed Adopted % Diff Comments Fund 250
Revenue
Licenses and Permits
3450 Sewer Inspection Fee 1,155 3,220 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 - 0.0% 3451 Sewer Connection Fee 9,500 39,500 15,000 15,000 30,000 30,000 15,000 100.0% Total Licenses and Permits 10,655 42,720 16,500 16,500 31,500 31,500 15,000 90.9% Use of Money and Property
3611 Interest On Bank Deposits 101,349 196,224 100,000 100,000 170,000 130,000 30,000 30.0% 3638 Change in Fair Market Value 44,401 30,742 0 0 0 0 - % Total Use of Money and Property 145,750 226,967 100,000 100,000 170,000 130,000 30,000 30.0% Current Service Charges
3740 Sewer Service Charge-Billed 81,279 118,477 83,030 83,030 83,030 85,770 2,740 3.3% 3741 Sewer Service Charge-Tax Roll 3,080,793 3,185,606 3,417,070 3,417,070 3,366,560 3,477,610 60,540 1.8% 3742 BBARWA Sewer Fees 3,029,920 3,721,207 4,412,000 4,412,000 4,413,140 4,725,430 313,430 7.1% Pass-through rates are established by
BBARWA board adoption. Per Resolution
2023-50 (effective 7/1/2023 - 6/30/2028),
FY26 established rate for improved parcel is
$431.35/EDU; however, charges will be
billed at BBARWA's adopted rate of
$391.81. Unimproved parcels will be billed
at $20 or $30 per parcel depending on
acreage.
3744 Sewer Svc Chg Delinquent 81,433 88,564 90,000 90,000 90,000 90,000 - 0.0% Total Current Service Charges 6,273,424 7,117,153 8,002,100 8,002,100 7,952,730 8,378,810 376,710 4.7% Miscellaneous Revenue
3912 Sale of Property and Equipment 0 967 0 0 0 0 - %
Total Miscellaneous Revenue 0 967 0 0 0 0 - %
Total Revenue before Reserves / Transfers 6,429,829 7,387,807 8,118,600 8,118,600 8,154,230 8,540,310 421,710 5.2% Contribution from Reserves
4110 Contribution from Reserves 0 0 0 0 0 0 - %
Total Contributions from Reserves 0 0 0 0 0 0 - %
Total Transfers In & Use of Reserves 0 0 0 0 0 0 - %
Total Resources 6,429,829 7,387,807 8,118,600 8,118,600 8,154,230 8,540,310 421,710 5.2% City sewer user fees pursuant to Resolution
No. 2023-50 established rate per EDU at
$282.08 for FY24 and allows for annual
inflationary adjustments equal to the greater
of 2% or CPI up to a maximum of 5%
through FY28; FY26 rate of $301.58
includes 3.3% CPI adjustment.

FY 2025-26 Proposed Budget May 14, 2025 60

SANITATION (WASTEWATE) FUND
2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2024-25 2024-25 2025-26 ProposedAcct # Title Actual Actual Adopted Adjusted Projected Proposed Adopted % Diff Comments Fund 250
Expenses
Department 4550
Direct Labor Costs
0010 Salaries 869,358 938,050 1,076,700 1,076,700 1,048,400 1,174,400 97,700 9.1% 0020 Salaries - Overtime 109,597 135,524 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 - 0.0% 0080 Direct Benefits 525,066 539,601 617,200 617,200 526,800 635,800 18,600 3.0% Total Direct Labor Costs 1,504,021 1,613,175 1,798,900 1,798,900 1,680,200 1,915,200 116,300 6.5% Supplies
1400 Office Expense 3,791 8,152 3,000 3,000 10,000 10,000 7,000 233.3% 1420 Fuel 23,516 26,655 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 - 0.0% 1430 Special Dept Expense 0 400 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 - 0.0% 1440 Basic Materials 46,636 67,416 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 - 0.0% 1450 Automotive Expense 6,054 7,466 10,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 10,000 100.0% 1480 Small Tools 1,965 511 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 - 0.0% 1482 Safety Supplies 5,434 6,847 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 - 0.0% 1490 Clothing and Personal Equipt 0 1,197 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 - 0.0% Total Supplies 87,396 118,643 124,000 134,000 141,000 141,000 17,000 13.7% Other Services and Charges
2120 Telephone 2,448 6,175 4,200 4,200 4,200 4,200 - 0.0% 2123 Comm P S 1-12 8,059 6,980 9,100 9,100 9,100 9,100 - 0.0% SCADA and Alarm System 2140 Utilities - Gas 18,183 16,409 30,000 30,000 18,500 19,000 (11,000) -36.7% 2150 Utilities - Water 585 608 600 600 650 700 100 16.7% 2160 Utilities - Electric 109,355 88,870 113,400 113,400 75,000 91,000 (22,400) -19.8% Reflects utility rate change 2170 Printing 12,508 0 700 700 2,500 2,500 1,800 257.1% 2190 Postage Charges 0 3,196 2,200 2,200 8,500 8,500 6,300 286.4% 2220 Maint-Buildings and Grounds 3,684 1,283 7,500 8,500 8,500 9,000 1,500 20.0% Site Maintenance 2230 Maintenance - Equipment 4,988 20,271 40,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 (10,000) -25.0% 2240 Professional Services 29,669 28,903 170,000 170,000 170,000 100,000 (70,000) -41.2% System Mapping, Rate Analysis, Master Planning
2241 Professional Services - USA 2,697 3,728 2,500 2,500 5,000 5,000 2,500 100.0% 2251 Administration Overhead 125,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 - 0.0% 2300 Contract Services - BBARWA 3,064,135 3,737,889 4,435,000 4,435,000 4,436,040 4,725,430 290,430 6.5% 2305 Property Tax Collect Charges 5,880 5,889 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 - 0.0% 2310 Contractual Services 35,594 17,196 25,000 25,000 25,000 130,000 105,000 420.0% Flow meter monitoring; Pump maintenance
contract; Standby generator maintenance;
CCTV Software Maintenance & Support
2320 Laundry 15,709 13,670 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 - 0.0% 2600 Insurance 287,424 327,135 118,440 118,440 128,300 127,130 8,690 7.3% 2640 Memberships and Dues 2,165 1,640 2,300 2,300 2,300 2,300 - 0.0% California Water Environment Association
(CWEA) & American Public Works
Association (APWA)
Annual property owner notifications
FY 2025-26 Proposed Budget May 14, 2025 61

SANITATION (WASTEWATE) FUND
2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2024-25 2024-25 2025-26 ProposedAcct # Title Actual Actual Adopted Adjusted Projected Proposed Adopted % Diff Comments Fund 250
2660 Education / Training 0 3,925 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 0 0.0% CWEA CEU requirements and DMV Commercial License Training
2685 Vehicle Maintenance 4,396 0 1,000 0 0 0 (1,000) -100.0% Consolidated with Automotive Expense Total Other Services and Charges 3,732,480 4,408,768 5,127,940 5,117,940 5,089,590 5,429,860 301,920 5.9% Expenditures before Reserves / Transfers 5,323,896 6,140,585 7,050,840 7,050,840 6,910,790 7,486,060 435,220 6.2% Reserve Contributions
2895 Contingency Reserve 0 0 0 0 0 0 - %
3930 Vehicle & Equip Repl Reserve 0 25,000 0 0 0 0 - %
3931 System Replace Reserves 0 0 0 0 0 0 - %
Total Reserve Contributions 0 25,000 0 0 0 0 - %
Interfund Transfers
5101 Transfer Out-Cap Project (321) 490,208 1,417,611 1,050,000 1,756,812 1,306,812 1,400,000 350,000 33.3% Refer to Capital Improvement Plan 5102 Transfer Out-Street Impr (350) 173,569 326,431 227,000 227,000 227,000 250,000 23,000 10.1% 5105 Transfer Out-GF (110) 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 - 0.0% Total Interfund Transfers 813,777 1,894,042 1,427,000 2,133,812 1,683,812 1,800,000 373,000 26.1% Total Expenditures 6,137,674 8,059,627 8,477,840 9,184,652 8,594,602 9,286,060 808,220 9.5% SANITATION (WASTEWATE) FUND 292,156 (671,820) (359,240) (1,066,052) (440,372) (745,750) (386,510) 107.6% Annual Pavement Impact Fees are
allocated $250K to street improvements
fund and $150K to street maintenance
services
FY 2025-26 Proposed Budget May 14, 2025 62
Summary of Fund Balance Commitments
Sanitation (Wastewater) Fund
Balance
6/30/2024 Contributions Uses
Projected
6/30/2025 Contributions Uses
Projected
6/30/2026
Unrestricted Fund Balance:

Committed
(1) Contingency Reserve - Disaster/Cash Flow 1,220,000 - - 1,220,000 - - 1,220,000 (2) Replacement Reserve - Vehicle 223,558 - - 223,558 - - 223,558 (3) Replacement Reserve - Equipment 337,853 - - 337,853 - - 337,853 (4) System Replacement Reserve 1,409,469 - - 1,409,469 - - 1,409,469 Total Committed 3,190,879 - - 3,190,879 - - 3,190,879
Reserve Policy Basis Target Trigger *
Projected
Balance
Below
Target
(1)
Basis = Annual Operating Cost
Target = 25% of Basis 2,760,000 690,000 621,000 1,220,000 - (2)
Basis = Depreciated cost of vehicles
Target = 50% of Basis 140,000 70,000 63,000 223,558 -
(3)
Basis = Depreciated cost of equipment
Target = 50% of Basis 640,000 320,000 288,000 337,853 - (4)
Basis = Depreciated cost of system
Target = 10% of Basis 4,100,000 410,000 369,000 1,409,469 - Fiscal Year 2024-25 Fiscal Year 2025-26
Projected Activity Projected Activity
Budget include appropriation for Sewer
Master Plan & Mapping
Balance in line with policy target
Balance in line with policy target
Set-aside for infrastructure improvements
Comments
FY 2025-26 Proposed Budget May 14, 2025 63

REFUSE FUND SUMMARY OF REVENUES & EXPENDITURES
2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2024-25 2024-25 2025-26 ProposedActual Actual Adopted Adjusted Projected Projected Adopted % Diff Comments Subventions and Grants 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 0 0.0% Use of Property and Money 30,173 47,438 15,000 15,000 20,000 15,000 0 0.0% Current Service Charges 4,017,709 4,576,795 5,158,000 5,158,000 5,166,200 5,361,225 203,225 3.9% Franchise fee at noticed rate subject to adoption Miscellaneous Revenue 35,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 %
Transfer In Grants 0 5,575 75,000 75,000 5,000 73,587 (1,413) -1.9% Total Revenue $ 4,087,882 $ 4,634,808 $ 5,253,000 $ 5,253,000 $ 5,196,200 $ 5,454,812 $ 201,812 3.8% Direct Labor 681,233 645,230 731,300 716,650 694,000 779,600 48,300 6.6% Pursuant to labor agreement Supplies 155 14,062 80,400 80,000 10,000 73,587 (6,813) -8.5% SB 1383 compliance Other Services & Charges 339,502 334,943 465,050 473,900 438,900 479,320 14,270 3.1% Inflationary increases Big Bear Disposal Contract 2,786,108 3,309,677 3,759,800 3,766,000 3,766,000 3,954,200 194,400 5.2% Direct pass through per solid waste agreement Capital Outlay 8,923 0 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 0 0.0% Interfund Transfers to Gen. Fund [110] 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 0 0.0% Interfund Transfers to Capital [321] 0 0 0 0 0 100,000 100,000 % Capital project investment Total Expenditures $ 3,920,922 $ 4,408,912 $ 5,181,550 $ 5,181,550 $ 5,053,900 $ 5,531,707 $ 350,157 6.8% $ 166,960 $ 225,896 $ 71,450 $ 71,450 $ 142,300 $ (76,895) $ (148,345) -207.6% $ 914,131 $ 1,081,091 $ 1,306,987 $ 1,306,987 $ 1,306,987 $ 1,449,287 $ 142,300 10.9% Net Revenue (Expenditure) 166,960 225,896 71,450 71,450 142,300 (76,895) (148,345) -207.6% Net Contributions From (To) Reserves 0 0 0 0 0 (5,000) (5,000) % Component of Committed Fund Balance Change in Nonspendable & Restricted 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 % GASB accounting entries Ending Unrestricted Fund Balance $ 1,081,091 $ 1,306,987 $ 1,378,437 $ 1,378,437 $ 1,449,287 $ 1,367,392 $ (11,045) -0.8% $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ - 0.0% Contribution from Reserves 0 0 0 0 0 5,000 5,000 %
Contributions to Reserves 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 %
Ending Commited Fund Balance $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 105,000 $ 5,000 5.0% Total Available Fund Balance $ 1,181,091 $ 1,406,987 $ 1,478,437 $ 1,478,437 $ 1,549,287 $ 1,472,392 $ (6,045) -0.4% Unrestricted Fund Balance
Committed Fund Balance
Revenues
Expenditures
Net Revenue (Expenditure)
FY 2025-26 Proposed Budget May 14, 2025 64

REFUSE (SOLID WASTE) FUND
2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2024-25 2024-25 2025-26 ProposedAcct # Title Actual Actual Adopted Adjusted Projected Proposed Adopted % Diff Comments Fund 550
Revenue
Subventions and Grants
3360 Recycling Grant 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 0 0.0% Total Subventions and Grants 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 0 0.0% Use of Money and Property
3611 Interest On Bank Deposits 21,899 39,031 15,000 15,000 20,000 15,000 0 0.0% 3638 Change in Fair Market Value 8,273 8,408 0 0 0 0 0 % Total Use of Money and Property 30,173 47,438 15,000 15,000 20,000 15,000 0 0.0% Current Service Charges
3724 NPDES Site Inspection Fees 10,678 5,706 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 0 0.0% 3744 Refuse Fees - Prior 24,773 30,918 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 0 0.0% 3745 Refuse Fees 1,075,140 1,118,306 1,183,700 1,183,700 1,185,700 1,185,700 2,000 0.2% 3746 Waste Disposal Rebate WDA98744 123,076 109,875 136,500 136,500 136,500 143,325 6,825 5.0% 3747 BB Disp Refuse Fees-curr year 2,725,720 3,233,662 3,759,800 3,759,800 3,766,000 3,954,200 194,400 5.2% Franchise waste hauler direct pass through 3748 BB Disp Refuse Fees-prior year 58,322 78,328 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 0 0.0% County collection of tax roll delinquencies Total Current Service Charges 4,017,709 4,576,795 5,158,000 5,158,000 5,166,200 5,361,225 203,225 3.9% Miscellaneous Revenue
3755 Refunds and Reimbursements 35,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 % FY23 Big Bear Disposal reimbursement pursuant to solid waste agreement.

Total Miscellaneous Revenue 35,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 %
Total Revenue before Reserves / Transfers 4,087,882 4,629,234 5,178,000 5,178,000 5,191,200 5,381,225 203,225 3.9% Total Interfund Transfers
4102 Transfer In-Reserves 0 0 0 0 0 5,000 5,000 %
4109 Transfer In-Grants (299) 0 0 75,000 0 0 0 (75,000) -100.0% 4129 Transfer In-SB1383 Grant (297) 0 5,575 0 75,000 5,000 68,587 68,587 % Total Interfund Transfers 0 5,575 75,000 75,000 5,000 73,587 (1,413) -1.9% Total Transfers In & Use of Reserves 0 5,575 75,000 75,000 5,000 73,587 (1,413) (0) Total Resources 4,087,882 4,634,808 5,253,000 5,253,000 5,196,200 5,454,812 201,812 3.8% FY 2025-26 Proposed Budget May 14, 2025 65

REFUSE (SOLID WASTE) FUND
2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2024-25 2024-25 2025-26 ProposedAcct # Title Actual Actual Adopted Adjusted Projected Proposed Adopted % Diff Comments Fund 550
Expenses
Department 4570
Direct Labor Costs
0010 Salaries 424,486 407,353 467,900 467,900 462,300 507,700 39,800 8.5% 0020 Salaries - Overtime 17,959 19,668 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 0 0.0% 0080 Direct Benefits 238,789 218,209 243,400 228,750 211,700 251,900 8,500 3.5% Total Direct Labor Costs 681,233 645,230 731,300 716,650 694,000 779,600 48,300 6.6% Supplies
1438 SB 1383 Grant Expenditures 0 5,575 75,000 75,000 5,000 68,587 (6,413) -8.6% SB 1383 Compliance; implementation of Edible Food Recovery
1440 Basic Material 155 8,487 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 0 0.0% 1482 Safety Supplies 0 0 400 0 0 0 (400) -100.0%
Total Supplies 155 14,062 80,400 80,000 10,000 73,587 (6,813) -8.5% Other Services and Charges
2120 Telephone 469 1,821 1,300 1,300 1,300 1,300 0 0.0% 2170 Printing 4,437 373 700 5,000 5,000 5,000 4,300 614.3% 2190 Postage Charges 0 3,211 2,200 15,000 15,000 15,000 12,800 581.8% 2222 Portable Bathroom Rentals 909 1,492 5,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 (3,000) -60.0% 2240 Professional Services 48,875 41,298 85,000 85,000 50,000 85,000 0 0.0% Engineering services 2241 Professional Services - Hazmat 44,663 28,619 49,000 49,000 49,000 51,000 2,000 4.1% 2251 Administration Overhead 135,000 135,000 135,000 135,000 135,000 135,000 0 0.0% 2305 Property Tax Collect Charges 5,314 5,323 5,300 5,300 5,300 5,300 0 0.0% 2310 Contractual Svcs-Residential 2,786,108 3,309,677 3,759,800 3,766,000 3,766,000 3,954,200 194,400 5.2% Direct pass through per solid waste franchise agreement.
2311 NPDES Contract Services 49,693 80,858 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 0 0.0% County Stormwater Program Contribution,
Consulting NPDES Support, Inspections,
Technical efforts
2314 Village Litter Containers 4,423 5,307 20,000 5,900 5,900 6,200 (13,800) -69.0% 2318 DOC Recycling Expenditures 5,000 5,647 5,000 6,300 6,300 10,000 5,000 100.0% Grant funded 2320 Laundry 3,009 3,874 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 0 0.0% 2600 Insurance 37,711 22,121 53,050 60,600 60,600 60,020 6,970 13.1% 2660 Education / Training 0 0 500 500 500 500 0 0.0%
Total Other Services and Charges 3,125,611 3,644,620 4,224,850 4,239,900 4,204,900 4,433,520 208,670 4.9% Capital Outlay
3970 Other Capital Outlay 8,923 0 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 0 0.0% Total Capital Outlay 8,923 0 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 0 0.0% Expenditures before Reserves / Transfers 3,815,922 4,303,912 5,076,550 5,076,550 4,948,900 5,326,707 250,157 4.9% Annual property owner notifications, public
outreach
FY 2025-26 Proposed Budget May 14, 2025 66

REFUSE (SOLID WASTE) FUND
2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2024-25 2024-25 2025-26 ProposedAcct # Title Actual Actual Adopted Adjusted Projected Proposed Adopted % Diff Comments Fund 550
Interfund Transfers
5101 Transfer Out-General (110) 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 0 0.0% 5103 Transfer Out-Cap Project (321) 0 0 0 0 0 100,000 100,000 % Total Interfund Transfers 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 205,000 100,000 95.2% Total Expenditures 3,920,922 4,408,912 5,181,550 5,181,550 5,053,900 5,531,707 350,157 6.8% REFUSE (SOLID WASTE) FUND 166,960 225,896 71,450 71,450 142,300 (76,895) (148,345) -207.6% FY 2025-26 Proposed Budget May 14, 2025 67
Summary of Fund Balance Commitments
Refuse (Solid Waste) Fund
Balance
6/30/2024 Contributions Uses
Projected
6/30/2025 Contributions Uses
Projected
6/30/2026
Unrestricted Fund Balance:

Restricted
Restricted Reserve - DOC Recycling Grant 5,000 - - 5,000 - (5,000) - Committed
(1) Contingency Reserve - Disaster/Cash Flow 100,000 - - 100,000 - - 100,000 Total Committed 105,000 - - 105,000 - (5,000) 100,000
Committed Reserve Policy Basis Target Trigger *
Projected
Balance
Below
Target
(1)
Basis = Annual Operating Cost
Target = 25% of Basis 1,300,000 325,000 292,500 100,000 225,000 Comments
Operating budget includes
investment in SB 1383 compliance &
updates to existing stormwater
basins.

Fiscal Year 2024-25 Fiscal Year 2025-26
Projected Activity Projected Activity
FY 2025-26 Proposed Budget May 14, 2025 68

VILLAGE STREETSCAPE MAINTENANCE FUND
2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2024-25 2024-25 2025-26 ProposedAcct # Title Actual Actual Adopted Adjusted Projected Proposed Adopted % Diff Comments Fund 291 $ 28.00 $ 33.00 $ 38.00 $ 43.00
Revenue
Miscellaneous
3917 Village Assessments 134,630 167,882 195,400 195,400 195,400 221,110 25,710 13.2% Per Resolution No. 2021-80 established 5- Year rate structure through FY26.

Total Interfund Transfers 134,630 167,882 195,400 195,400 195,400 221,110 25,710 13.2% Interfund Transfers
4101 Transfer In-General (110) 169,208 1,671,329 302,400 302,400 272,500 294,490 (7,910) -2.6% Total Interfund Transfers 169,208 1,671,329 302,400 302,400 272,500 294,490 (7,910) -2.6% Total Revenue 303,838 1,839,211 497,800 497,800 467,900 515,600 17,800 3.6% Expenses
Department 4361
Direct Labor Costs
0010 Salaries 208,767 187,487 183,300 183,300 175,100 195,200 11,900 6.5% 0020 Salaries - Overtime 26,820 22,544 35,000 35,000 35,000 35,000 0 0.0% 0080 Direct Benefits 126,671 110,916 105,100 105,100 91,500 111,200 6,100 5.8% Total Direct Labor Costs 362,258 320,947 323,400 323,400 301,600 341,400 18,000 5.6% Other Services and Charges
2140 Utilities - Gas 21,293 14,181 21,000 21,000 21,000 22,000 1,000 4.8% 2150 Utilities - Water 6,531 9,192 13,000 13,000 9,600 10,000 3,469 53.1% 2160 Utilities - Electric 21,717 20,678 29,700 29,700 25,000 30,000 8,283 38.1% 2220 Maint-Buildings and Grounds 89,447 81,406 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 0 0.0% Includes annual replanting of flowers 2305 Property Tax Collect Charges 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 %
2310 Contractual Services 22,854 27,044 30,700 30,700 30,700 32,200 1,500 4.9% Electrical Repair and Maintenance Total Other Services and Charges 161,841 152,519 174,400 174,400 166,300 174,200 (200) -0.1% Total Expenses 524,099 473,467 497,800 497,800 467,900 515,600 17,800 3.6% VILLAGE STREETSCAPE MAINTENANCE FUND (220,261) 1,365,745 0 0 0 0 0 % Assessment per Lineal Foot
City's General Benefit Contribution. FY24
Includes fund balance transfer.

FY 2025-26 Proposed Budget May 14, 2025 69

TOURISM BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (TBID)
2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2024-25 2024-25 2025-26 ProposedAcct # Title Actual Actual Adopted Adjusted Projected Proposed Adopted % Diff Comments Fund 781
Revenue
Assessments
3220 TBID - Current Period 5,141,542 4,656,762 4,843,700 4,843,700 4,843,700 4,900,000 56,300 1.2% 3221 TBID - Curr FY Prior Periods 287,960 176,832 151,400 151,400 151,400 90,000 (61,400) -40.6% 3222 TBID - Prior Fiscal Year 10,351 55,322 50,500 50,500 82,000 51,500 1,000 2.0% Total Assessments 5,439,852 4,888,916 5,045,600 5,045,600 5,077,100 5,041,500 (4,100) -0.1% Use of Money and Property
3618 TBID - Penalties and Interest 35,624 21,450 50,500 50,500 50,500 51,500 1,000 2.0% Total Use of Money and Property 35,624 21,450 50,500 50,500 50,500 51,500 1,000 2.0% Total Revenue 5,475,476 4,910,366 5,096,100 5,096,100 5,127,600 5,093,000 (3,100) -0.1% Expenses
Department 4712
Other Services and Charges
2251 Administrative Overhead 54,020 48,608 50,500 50,500 50,500 50,400 (100) -0.2% Per Management District Plan (MDP)
overhead charge equal to 1% of
assessments collected.
2253 TBID - Penalties and Interest 39,777 17,515 50,500 50,500 50,500 51,500 1,000 2.0% Per MDP to be retained by City for collection services.
2255 Pass through to Owners Assoc 5,348,021 4,812,150 4,995,100 4,995,100 4,995,100 5,712,652 717,552 14.4% Total Other Services and Charges 5,441,819 4,878,272 5,096,100 5,096,100 5,096,100 5,814,552 718,452 14.1% Total Expenses 5,441,819 4,878,272 5,096,100 5,096,100 5,096,100 5,814,552 718,452 14.1% TBID FUND 33,657 32,093 0 0 31,500 (721,552) (721,552) % Includes 3% assessment on short term
lodging and 2% assessment on ski resort
ticket sales.

FY 2025-26 Proposed Budget May 14, 2025 70

TRAFFIC SAFETY FUND
2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2024-25 2024-25 2025-26 ProposedAcct # Title Actual Actual Adopted Adjusted Projected Proposed Adopted % Diff Comments Fund 260
Revenue
Fines and Citations
3501 Vehicle Code Fines 19,549 16,203 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 0 0.0% 3522 Parking Citations 413,834 353,211 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 0 0.0% Total Fines and Citations 433,383 369,414 220,000 220,000 220,000 220,000 0 0.0% Total Revenue 433,383 369,414 220,000 220,000 220,000 220,000 0 0.0% Expenses
Department 4230
Interfund Transfers
5101 Transfer Out-General (110) 433,383 369,414 220,000 220,000 233,339 220,000 0 0.0% Total Interfund Transfers 433,383 369,414 220,000 220,000 233,339 220,000 0 0.0% Total Expenses 433,383 369,414 220,000 220,000 233,339 220,000 0 0.0% TRAFFIC SAFETY FUND 0 0 0 0 (13,339) 0 0 %
FY 2025-26 Proposed Budget May 14, 2025 71
GAS TAX - Highway User Tax Account (HUTA)
2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2024-25 2024-25 2025-26 ProposedAcct # Title Actual Actual Adopted Adjusted Projected Proposed Adopted % Diff Comments Fund 270
Revenue
Other Taxes
3244 Highway Use-2103-R&T7360 41,134 45,911 47,610 47,610 46,650 45,880 (1,730) -3.6% 3245 Highway Use-2105 28,730 30,617 31,860 31,860 31,840 32,090 230 0.7% 3246 Highway Use-2106 22,766 23,881 24,090 24,090 24,030 24,180 90 0.4% 3247 Highway Use-2107 39,154 41,443 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 0 0.0% 3248 Highway Use-2107.5 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 0 0.0% Flat amount based on population 3249 Highway Use 2107 Snowremoval 361,474 986,080 513,800 513,800 625,050 400,000 (113,800) -22.1% Snow Reimbursement for expenditures incurred in the previous fiscal year
Total Other Taxes 495,257 1,129,933 659,360 659,360 769,570 544,150 (115,210) -17.5% Total Revenue 495,257 1,129,933 659,360 659,360 769,570 544,150 (115,210) -17.5% Expenses
Department 4367
Interfund Transfers
5101 Transfer Out-General (110) 495,257 1,129,933 659,360 659,360 779,424 544,150 (115,210) -17.5% Transfer out for street maintenance Total Interfund Transfers 495,257 1,129,933 659,360 659,360 779,424 544,150 (115,210) -17.5% Total Expenses 495,257 1,129,933 659,360 659,360 779,424 544,150 (115,210) -17.5% GAS TAX - HUTA 0 0 0 0 (9,854) 0 0 %
Gas Tax Swap Legislation effective
7/1/2010. Projections based on estimates
provided from CaliforniaCityFinance.com.

Includes Board of Equalization gasoline
price projections and projected fuel tax
revenues to cities.

FY 2025-26 Proposed Budget May 14, 2025 72
GAS TAX - Road Maintenance and Repair Account (RMRA)
2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2024-25 2024-25 2025-26 ProposedAcct # Title Actual Actual Adopted Adjusted Projected Proposed Adopted % Diff Comments Fund 271
Revenue
Other Taxes
3243 S&H 2030 - RMRA 112,636 130,243 130,720 130,720 127,280 133,860 3,140 2.4% Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 street improvement funding
Total Other Taxes 112,636 130,243 130,720 130,720 127,280 133,860 3,140 2.4% Total Revenue 112,636 130,243 130,720 130,720 127,280 133,860 3,140 2.4% Expenses
Department 4368
Interfund Transfers
5105 Transfer Out-Street Impr (350) 100,121 130,429 132,350 132,350 132,350 138,234 5,884 4.4% Transfer out to street improvements Total Interfund Transfers 100,121 130,429 132,350 132,350 132,350 138,234 5,884 4.4% Total Expenses 100,121 130,429 132,350 132,350 132,350 138,234 5,884 4.4% GAS TAX - RMRA 12,516 (185) (1,630) (1,630) (5,070) (4,374) (2,744) 168.3% FY 2025-26 Proposed Budget May 14, 2025 73
MEASURE I LOCAL 10-40 FUND
2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2024-25 2024-25 2025-26 ProposedAcct # Title Actual Actual Adopted Adjusted Projected Proposed Adopted % Diff Comments Fund 276
Revenue
Subventions and Grants
3335 Measure I-Local 10-40 613,862 665,883 567,500 567,500 429,200 505,100 (62,400) -11.0% Total Subventions and Grants 613,862 665,883 567,500 567,500 429,200 505,100 (62,400) -11.0% Use of Money and Property
3611 Interest On Bank Deposits 5,444 16,150 7,500 7,500 10,000 7,500 0 0.0% 3638 Change in Fair Market Value 0 (1,522) 0 0 0 0 0 % GASB accounting entry is not budgeted Total Use of Money and Property 5,444 14,628 7,500 7,500 10,000 7,500 0 0.0% Total Revenue 619,306 680,512 575,000 575,000 439,200 512,600 (62,400) -10.9% Expenses
Department 4326
Interfund Transfers
5101 Transfer Out-General (110) 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 0 0.0% Categorical street maintenance 5110 Transfer Out-Street Impr (350) 350,460 493,453 743,528 765,255 765,255 707,379 (36,149) -4.9% Street improvement projects Total Interfund Transfers 430,460 573,453 823,528 845,255 845,255 787,379 (36,149) -4.4% Total Expenses 430,460 573,453 823,528 845,255 845,255 787,379 (36,149) -4.4% MEASURE I LOCAL 10-40 FUND 188,845 107,059 (248,528) (270,255) (406,055) (274,779) (26,251) 10.6% FY 2025-26 Proposed Budget May 14, 2025 74

MEASURE I MAJOR LOCAL HIGHWAY PROGRAM (MLHP) FUND
2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2024-25 2024-25 2025-26 ProposedAcct # Title Actual Actual Adopted Adjusted Projected Proposed Adopted % Diff Comments Fund 277
Revenue
Subventions and Grants
3336 Measure I-Major Local 10-40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 %
SBCTA Advance Expenditure Agreement
(AEA) for Moonridge Corridor Improvements
Project estimated reimbursement FY29
Total Subventions and Grants 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 %
Total Revenue 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 %
Expenses
Department 4328
Interfund Transfers
5110 Transfer Out-Street Impr (350) 3,120,185 0 0 0 0 0 0 % Total Interfund Transfers 3,120,185 0 0 0 0 0 0 %
Total Expenses 3,120,185 0 0 0 0 0 0 %
MEASURE I MAJOR LOCAL 10-40 (REGIONAL) (3,120,185) 0 0 0 0 0 0 % FY 2025-26 Proposed Budget May 14, 2025 75

MOBILE SOURCE AIR POLLUTION
2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2024-25 2024-25 2025-26 ProposedAcct # Title Actual Actual Adopted Adjusted Projected Proposed Adopted % Diff Comments Fund 281
Revenue
Subventions and Grants
3388 Air Pollution Trust 6,680 6,638 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 0 0.0% AB 2766 AQMD funds; Local jurisdictions
receive $1.60 per vehicle from vehicle
registration fees for projects aimed at
reducing air pollution from motor vehicles
Total Subventions and Grants 6,680 6,638 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 0 0.0% Use of Money and Property
3611 Interest On Bank Deposits 1,786 514 200 200 600 500 300 150.0% 3638 Change in Fair Market Value 598 770 0 0 0 0 0 %
Total Use of Money and Property 2,384 1,284 200 200 600 500 300 150.0% Total Revenue 9,064 7,922 5,200 5,200 5,600 5,500 300 5.8% Expenses
Department 4545
Interfund Transfers
5101 Transfer Out-Cap Project (321) 90,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 % Electric vehicle charging stations Total Interfund Transfers 90,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 %
Total Expenses 90,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 %
MOBILE SOURCE AIR POLLUTION (80,936) 7,922 5,200 5,200 5,600 5,500 300 5.8% FY 2025-26 Proposed Budget May 14, 2025 76

MOUNTAIN TRANSIT (MTA)
2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2024-25 2024-25 2025-26 ProposedAcct # Title Actual Actual Adopted Adjusted Projected Proposed Adopted % Diff Comments Fund 282
Revenue
Subventions and Grants
3352 MTA County Pass Through 65,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 % SB Cnty No-Fare Trolley Contribution Total Interfund Transfers 65,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 %
Interfund Transfers
4112 Transfer In-General Fund (110) 100,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 % No-Fare Trolley Contribution 4126 Transfer In-Measure Y (296) 86,282 333,333 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 0 0.0% FY23 Bus Stop Contribution; FY24 No-Fare
Trolley Contribution per Grant Agreement
A2023-37 effective 11/1/23 through
10/31/28
Total Interfund Transfers 186,282 333,333 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 0 0.0% Total Revenue 251,282 333,333 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 0 0.0% Expenses
Department 4362
Other Services and Charges
2652 MTA County Pass Through 65,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 %
2681 No-Fare Transit System Contrib 100,000 333,333 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 0 0.0% 2682 MTA Bus Stop Contribution 86,282 0 0 0 0 0 0 %
Total Other Services and Charges 251,282 333,333 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 0 0.0% Total Expenses 251,282 333,333 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 0 0.0% MOUNTAIN TRANSIT (MTA) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 %
Pass through contributions to MTA
FY 2025-26 Proposed Budget May 14, 2025 77

LOCAL TRANSPORTATION
2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2024-25 2024-25 2025-26 ProposedAcct # Title Actual Actual Adopted Adjusted Projected Proposed Adopted % Diff Comments Fund 290
Revenue
Subventions and Grants
3334 Article 3 Grant 0 0 0 303,518 303,500 0 0 % Grant funding for capital improvements Total Subventions and Grants 0 0 0 303,518 303,500 0 0 % Total Revenue 0 0 0 303,518 303,500 0 0 %
Expenses
Department 4366
Interfund Transfers
5102 Transfer Out-Cap Project (321) 0 0 0 303,518 303,500 0 0 % Total Interfund Transfers 0 0 0 303,518 303,500 0 0 %
Total Expenses 0 0 0 303,518 303,500 0 0 %
LOCAL TRANSPORTATION 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 %
Refer to Capital Improvement Plan
FY 2025-26 Proposed Budget May 14, 2025 78
Property Lease General Operations
2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2024-25 2024-25 2025-26 ProposedAcct # Title Actual Actual Adopted Adjusted Projected Proposed Adopted % Diff Comments Fund 255
Revenue
Use of Money and Property
3621 Rental Income 39,869 85,540 77,600 77,600 75,400 76,700 (900) -1.2% Residential & commercial properties Total Use of Money and Property 39,869 85,540 77,600 77,600 75,400 76,700 (900) -1.2% Interfund Transfers
4126 Transfer In-Measure Y (296) 250,000 294,851 284,040 315,321 317,521 388,221 104,181 36.7% Total Interfund Transfers 250,000 294,851 284,040 315,321 317,521 388,221 104,181 36.7% Total Revenue 289,869 380,391 361,640 392,921 392,921 464,921 103,281 0 Expenses
Department 4270
Other Services and Charges
2200 Rent/Lease Payable 100,000 102,000 104,040 104,040 104,040 106,121 2,081 2.0% Ground Lease effective Aug. 2021 2220 Maint-Buildings and Grounds 47,191 53,675 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 0 0.0% 2304 Property Tax 50,752 60,552 57,600 57,600 57,600 58,800 1,200 2.1% 2640 MHP Permit Fees 1,709 0 0 0 0 0 0 %
Total Other Services and Charges 199,652 216,227 261,640 261,640 261,640 264,921 3,281 1.3% Capital Outlay
3951 Capital Outlay 44,770 209,611 100,000 131,281 131,281 200,000 100,000 100.0% Additional Long Term Planning and Support Total Capital Outlay 44,770 209,611 100,000 131,281 131,281 200,000 100,000 100.0% Total Expenses 244,422 425,837 361,640 392,921 392,921 464,921 103,281 0 Property Lease General Operations 45,447 (45,447) 0 0 0 0 0 % FY 2025-26 Proposed Budget May 14, 2025 79
State Pass-through Fees
2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2024-25 2024-25 2025-26 ProposedAcct # Title Actual Actual Adopted Adjusted Projected Proposed Adopted % Diff Comments Fund 293
Revenue
Building Permits and Fees
3756 Disability Access Fee 4,453 3,618 4,700 4,700 4,700 4,700 0 0.0% CA Gov. Code 4467 requires a fee of $4.00
per business license to be collected for
disability access & compliance. 10% of that
fee is passed through to the Division of the
State Architect. The remainder, shown here
less a 5% administrative fee, is required to
be retained in a separate fund for Certified
Access Specialist (CASp) certification &
training and to facilitate compliance with
construction related accessibility
requirements.
3758 Seismic Education Program Fee 133 222 140 140 140 140 0 0.0% State Seismic Program Fee is collected on
construction building permits. The fee varies
depending upon the type of structure and
valuation of the project. 95% of the fee is
passed through to the CA Department of
Conservation. The remaining 5% is required
to be retained by the local jurisdiction for
seismic education purposes.

Total Building Permits and Fees 4,586 3,841 4,840 4,840 4,840 4,840 0 0 Total Revenue 4,586 3,841 4,840 4,840 4,840 4,840 0 0 0 Expenses
Department 4616
Other Services and Charges
2310 DSA CASp Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 %
2660 DSA CASp Training 0 0 500 500 0 0 (500) -100.0%
Total Other Services and Charges 0 0 500 500 0 0 (500) -100.0% Department 4618
Other Services and Charges
2660 Strong Motion Seismic Training 0 0 200 200 0 0 (200) -100.0% Total Other Services and Charges 0 0 200 200 0 0 (200) -100.0% Total Expenses 0 0 700 700 0 0 (700) (1)
State Pass-through Fees 4,586 3,841 4,140 4,140 4,840 4,840 700 16.9% Statute requires priority for use of funds to
be utilized to train and retain certified access
specialists.

Retained funds shall be used for seismic
education & to improve the preparation for
damage assessments following a seismic
event.

FY 2025-26 Proposed Budget May 14, 2025 80

PEG ACCESS FUND
2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2024-25 2024-25 2025-26 ProposedAcct # Title Actual Actual Adopted Adjusted Projected Proposed Adopted % Diff Comments Fund 295
Revenue
Use of Money and Property
3611 Interest On Bank Deposits 6,652 14,420 7,500 7,500 10,000 7,500 0 0.0% Total Use of Money and Property 6,652 14,420 7,500 7,500 10,000 7,500 0 0.0% Miscellaneous Revenue
3748 DIVCA PEG fee 52,957 46,593 55,000 55,000 45,000 45,000 (10,000) -18.2% Total Miscellaneous Revenue 52,957 46,593 55,000 55,000 45,000 45,000 (10,000) -18.2% Total Revenue 59,609 61,013 62,500 62,500 55,000 52,500 (10,000) -16.0% Expenses
Department 4615
Capital Outlay
3951 Capital Outlay 0 19,688 40,000 40,000 40,000 75,000 35,000 87.5% Meeting & broadcast equipment;
FY24 dais seating; FY25 audio upgrades;
FY26 Addition of Closed Captioning Feature
Total Capital Outlay 0 19,688 40,000 40,000 40,000 75,000 35,000 87.5% Total Expenses 0 19,688 40,000 40,000 40,000 75,000 35,000 87.5% PEG ACCESS FUND 59,609 41,325 22,500 22,500 15,000 (22,500) (45,000) -200.0% FY 2025-26 Proposed Budget May 14, 2025 81

MEASURE Y TOT FUND
2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2024-25 2024-25 2025-26 ProposedAcct # Title Actual Actual Adopted Adjusted Projected Proposed Adopted % Diff Comments Fund 296
Revenue
Transient Occupancy Tax
3220 Meas Y Transient Occupancy Tax 2,717,015 2,453,660 2,244,500 2,244,500 2,244,500 2,300,000 55,500 2.5% 3221 Meas Y TOT - Curr FY Prior Per 79,688 36,927 70,100 70,100 42,000 40,000 (30,100) -42.9% 3222 TOT - Prior Fiscal Year (4,189) 15,106 23,400 23,400 (12,000) 24,000 600 2.6% Total Transient Occupancy Tax 2,792,514 2,505,693 2,338,000 2,338,000 2,274,500 2,364,000 26,000 1.1% Use of Money and Property
3611 Interest On Bank Deposits 116,530 246,338 130,000 130,000 200,000 150,000 20,000 15.4% 3638 Change in Fair Market Value 14,080 33,130 0 0 0 0 0 % GASB accounting entry is not budgeted Total Use of Money and Property 130,610 279,468 130,000 130,000 200,000 150,000 20,000 15.4% Total Revenue 2,923,124 2,785,161 2,468,000 2,468,000 2,474,500 2,514,000 46,000 1.9% Expenses
Department 4850
Interfund Transfers
5101 Transfer Out-Cap Project (321) 686,753 2,161,087 604,100 3,682,332 3,315,332 1,126,600 522,500 86.5% 5110 Transfer Out-Street Impr (350) 390,000 84,022 700,000 1,341,749 1,341,749 3,600,000 2,900,000 414.3% 5112 Transfer Out-MTA (282) 86,282 333,333 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 0 0.0% No-Fare Trolley Contribution 5125 Transfer Out-Lease Ops (255) 250,000 294,851 284,040 315,321 317,521 388,221 104,181 36.7% Real Property Lease commitment Total Interfund Transfers 1,413,035 2,873,293 2,088,140 5,839,401 5,474,601 5,614,821 3,526,681 168.9% Total Expenses 1,413,035 2,873,293 2,088,140 5,839,401 5,474,601 5,614,821 3,526,681 168.9% MEASURE Y TOT FUND 1,510,089 (88,132) 379,860 (3,371,401) (3,000,101) (3,100,821) (3,480,681) -916.3% Refer to Capital Improvement Plan
2% TOT set-aside for visitor serving
amenities & capital improvements
FY 2025-26 Proposed Budget May 14, 2025 82
SB1383 Grant
2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2024-25 2024-25 2025-26 ProposedAcct # Title Actual Actual Adopted Adjusted Projected Proposed Adopted % Diff Comments Fund 297
Revenue
Subventions and Grants
3374 SB1383 Organic Waste Recycling 0 5,575 0 75,000 5,000 64,425 64,425 % Total Subventions and Grants 0 5,575 0 75,000 5,000 64,425 64,425 % Use of Money and Property
3611 Interest On Bank Deposits 0 243 0 0 2,300 1,700 1,700 % 3638 Change in Fair Market Value 0 (81) 0 0 0 0 0 % GASB accounting entry is not budgeted Total Use of Money and Property 0 162 0 0 2,300 1,700 1,700 % Total Revenue 0 5,737 0 75,000 7,300 66,125 66,125 %
Expenses
Department 4850
Interfund Transfers
5127 Transfer Out-Refuse (550) 0 5,575 0 75,000 5,000 68,587 68,587 % Refer to Capital Improvement Program Total Interfund Transfers 0 5,575 0 75,000 5,000 68,587 68,587 % Total Expenses 0 5,575 0 75,000 5,000 68,587 68,587 %
SB1383 Grant 0 162 0 0 2,300 (2,462) (2,462) %
FY 2025-26 Proposed Budget May 14, 2025 83

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT
2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2024-25 2024-25 2025-26 ProposedAcct # Title Actual Actual Adopted Adjusted Projected Proposed Adopted % Diff Comments Fund 298
Revenue
Subventions and Grants
3386 Block Grant CDBG 0 0 35,900 243,976 243,976 33,400 (2,500) -7.0% Refer to Capital Improvement Plan Total Subventions and Grants 0 0 35,900 243,976 243,976 33,400 (2,500) -7.0% Total Revenue 0 0 35,900 243,976 243,976 33,400 (2,500) -7.0% Expenses
Department 4620
Interfund Transfers
5101 Transfer Out-Cap Project (321) (680) 38,948 35,900 205,028 205,028 33,400 (2,500) -7.0% Refer to Capital Improvement Plan Total Interfund Transfers (680) 38,948 35,900 205,028 205,028 33,400 (2,500) -7.0% Total Expenses (680) 38,948 35,900 205,028 205,028 33,400 (2,500) -7.0% COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT 680 (38,948) 0 38,948 38,948 0 0 % FY 2025-26 Proposed Budget May 14, 2025 84

GRANT FUNDING
2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2024-25 2024-25 2025-26 ProposedAcct # Title Actual Actual Adopted Adjusted Projected Proposed Adopted % Diff Comments Fund 299
Revenue
Subventions and Grants
3372 Local Roadway Safety Plan LRSP 0 31,914 0 0 0 0 0 % 3373 Ca 4 All Youth Workforce 350,535 839,842 0 1,304,000 1,304,000 0 0 % 3374 SB1383 Organic Waste Recycling 0 0 75,000 0 0 0 (75,000) -100.0% 3375 Statewide Parks Program (SPP) 0 0 0 181,290 181,290 0 0 % 3378 SB 2 Planning Grant Program 0 160,000 0 0 0 0 0 %
3379 Federal Lands Access (FLAP) 0 0 0 741,000 741,000 0 0 % 3381 EEM State Grant 298,249 33,139 0 0 0 0 0 %
Total Subventions and Grants 648,784 1,064,895 75,000 2,226,290 2,226,290 0 (75,000) -100.0% Total Revenue 648,784 1,064,895 75,000 2,226,290 2,226,290 0 (75,000) -100.0% Expenses
Department 4850
Interfund Transfers
5122 Transfer Out-Cap Proj (321) 907,820 740,931 0 1,952,323 1,952,323 0 0 % 5125 Transfer Out-Gen Fund (110) 19,163 221,693 0 88,331 88,331 0 0 % 5126 Transfer Out-Refuse (550) 0 0 75,000 0 0 0 (75,000) -100.0% Total Interfund Transfers 926,983 962,624 75,000 2,040,653 2,040,653 0 (75,000) -100.0% Total Expenses 926,983 962,624 75,000 2,040,653 2,040,653 0 (75,000) -100.0% GRANT FUNDING (278,199) 102,271 0 185,637 185,637 0 0 % Refer to Capital Improvement Plan
FY 2025-26 Proposed Budget May 14, 2025 85

SUPPLEMENAL LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICES FUND
2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2024-25 2024-25 2025-26 ProposedAcct # Title Actual Actual Adopted Adjusted Projected Proposed Adopted % Diff Comments Fund 770
Revenue
Subventions and Grants
3397 AB3229 Supp Law Enf Fund 165,306 186,305 143,200 143,200 195,700 150,000 6,800 4.7% State COPS subvention Total Subventions and Grants 165,306 186,305 143,200 143,200 195,700 150,000 6,800 4.7% Use of Money and Property
3611 Interest On Bank Deposits 8,234 15,676 7,500 7,500 10,000 7,500 0 0.0% 3638 Change in Fair Market Value 1,093 2,175 0 0 0 0 0 % Total Use of Money and Property 9,327 17,851 7,500 7,500 10,000 7,500 0 0.0% Total Revenue 174,633 204,156 150,700 150,700 205,700 157,500 6,800 4.5% Expenses
Department 4255
Interfund Transfers
5101 Transfer Out-General (110) 187,977 234,408 110,000 110,000 110,000 125,000 15,000 13.6% Funding for sheriff overtime and equipment.

Total Interfund Transfers 187,977 234,408 110,000 110,000 110,000 125,000 15,000 13.6% Total Expenses 187,977 234,408 110,000 110,000 110,000 125,000 15,000 13.6% COPS/SLEF FUND (13,344) (30,252) 40,700 40,700 95,700 32,500 (8,200) -20.1% FY 2025-26 Proposed Budget May 14, 2025 86

DEVELOPER IMPACT - GENERAL FACILITIES
2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2024-25 2024-25 2025-26 ProposedAcct # Title Actual Actual Adopted Adjusted Projected Proposed Adopted % Diff Comments Fund 340
Revenue
Licenses and Permits
3471 Developer Impact- General Fac 25,389 25,445 22,000 22,000 22,000 67,300 45,300 205.9% Includes anticipated new commercial development
Total Licenses and Permits 25,389 25,445 22,000 22,000 22,000 67,300 45,300 205.9% Use of Money and Property
3611 Interest On Bank Deposits 3,316 7,629 3,700 3,700 10,000 7,500 3,800 102.7% 3638 Change in Fair Market Value (129) 795 0 0 0 0 0 %
Total Use of Money and Property 3,187 8,423 3,700 3,700 10,000 7,500 3,800 102.7% Total Revenue 28,576 33,868 25,700 25,700 32,000 74,800 49,100 191.1% Expenses
Department 4344
Interfund Transfers
5102 Transfer Out-Cap Project (321) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 %
Total Interfund Transfers 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 %
Total Expenses 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 %
DEVELOPER IMPACT - GENERAL FACILITIES 28,576 33,868 25,700 25,700 32,000 74,800 49,100 191.1% FY 2025-26 Proposed Budget May 14, 2025 87

DEVELOPER IMPACT - CIRCULATION
2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2024-25 2024-25 2025-26 ProposedAcct # Title Actual Actual Adopted Adjusted Projected Proposed Adopted % Diff Comments Fund 341
Revenue
Licenses and Permits
3471 Developer Impact- Circulation 48,015 72,198 60,000 60,000 60,000 172,700 112,700 187.8% Includes anticipated new commercial development
Total Licenses and Permits 48,015 72,198 60,000 60,000 60,000 172,700 112,700 187.8% Use of Money and Property
3611 Interest On Bank Deposits 8,231 18,893 7,500 7,500 20,000 15,000 7,500 100.0% 3638 Change in Fair Market Value 110 1,923 0 0 0 0 0 %
Total Use of Money and Property 8,341 20,815 7,500 7,500 20,000 15,000 7,500 100.0% Total Revenue 56,356 93,013 67,500 67,500 80,000 187,700 120,200 178.1% Expenses
Department 4344
Interfund Transfers
5110 Transfer Out-Street Impr (350) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 %
Total Interfund Transfers 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 %
Total Expenses 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 %
DEVELOPER IMPACT - CIRCULATION 56,356 93,013 67,500 67,500 80,000 187,700 120,200 178.1% FY 2025-26 Proposed Budget May 14, 2025 88

DEVELOPER IMPACT - DRAINAGE
2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2024-25 2024-25 2025-26 ProposedAcct # Title Actual Actual Adopted Adjusted Projected Proposed Adopted % Diff Comments Fund 342
Revenue
Licenses and Permits
3471 Developer Impact- Drainage 51,581 50,304 50,000 50,000 50,000 149,200 99,200 198.4% Includes anticipated new commercial development
Total Licenses and Permits 51,581 50,304 50,000 50,000 50,000 149,200 99,200 198.4% Use of Money and Property
3611 Interest On Bank Deposits 11,380 24,708 15,000 15,000 20,000 15,000 0 0.0% 3638 Change in Fair Market Value 1,786 2,815 0 0 0 0 0 % Total Use of Money and Property 13,166 27,522 15,000 15,000 20,000 15,000 0 0.0% Total Revenue 64,747 77,826 65,000 65,000 70,000 164,200 99,200 152.6% Expenses
Department 4344
Interfund Transfers
5110 Transfer Out-Street Impr (350) 0 0 0 200,000 200,000 0 0 % Refer to Capital Improvement Plan Total Interfund Transfers 0 0 0 200,000 200,000 0 0 %
Total Expenses 0 0 0 200,000 200,000 0 0 %
DEVELOPER IMPACT - DRAINAGE 64,747 77,826 65,000 (135,000) (130,000) 164,200 99,200 152.6% FY 2025-26 Proposed Budget May 14, 2025 89

DEVELOPER IMPACT - PUBLIC FACILITIES
2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2024-25 2024-25 2025-26 ProposedAcct # Title Actual Actual Adopted Adjusted Projected Proposed Adopted % Diff Comments Fund 343
Revenue
Licenses and Permits
3471 Developer Impact- Public Fac 78,698 67,206 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 0 0.0% Total Licenses and Permits 78,698 67,206 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 0 0.0% Use of Money and Property
3611 Interest On Bank Deposits 3,407 9,705 7,500 7,500 10,000 7,500 0 0.0% 3638 Change in Fair Market Value (838) 739 0 0 0 0 0 %
Total Use of Money and Property 2,569 10,444 7,500 7,500 10,000 7,500 0 0.0% Total Revenue 81,267 77,650 67,500 67,500 70,000 67,500 0 0.0% Expenses
Department 4344
Interfund Transfers
5102 Transfer Out-Cap Project (321) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 %
Total Interfund Transfers 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 %
Total Expenses 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 %
DEVELOPER IMPACT - PUBLIC FACILITIES 81,267 77,650 67,500 67,500 70,000 67,500 0 0.0% FY 2025-26 Proposed Budget May 14, 2025 90

DEVELOPER IMPACT - PARKLAND
2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2024-25 2024-25 2025-26 ProposedAcct # Title Actual Actual Adopted Adjusted Projected Proposed Adopted % Diff Comments Fund 344
Revenue
Licenses and Permits
3471 Developer Impact- Parkland 88,470 77,765 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 0 0.0% Total Licenses and Permits 88,470 77,765 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 0 0.0% Use of Money and Property
3611 Interest On Bank Deposits 6,576 16,292 7,500 7,500 20,000 15,000 7,500 100.0% 3638 Change in Fair Market Value (358) 1,548 0 0 0 0 0 % Total Use of Money and Property 6,219 17,840 7,500 7,500 20,000 15,000 7,500 100.0% Total Revenue 94,689 95,606 67,500 67,500 80,000 75,000 7,500 11.1% Expenses
Department 4344
Interfund Transfers
5102 Transfer Out-Cap Project (321) 4,800 0 0 0 0 0 0 % Total Interfund Transfers 4,800 0 0 0 0 0 0 %
Total Expenses 4,800 0 0 0 0 0 0 %
DEVELOPER IMPACT - PARKLAND 89,889 95,606 67,500 67,500 80,000 75,000 7,500 11.1% FY 2025-26 Proposed Budget May 14, 2025 91

DEVELOPER IMPACT - FIRE SUPPRESSION
2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2024-25 2024-25 2025-26 ProposedAcct # Title Actual Actual Adopted Adjusted Projected Proposed Adopted % Diff Comments Fund 345
Revenue
Licenses and Permits
3471 Developer Impact - Fire 31,018 25,190 25,000 25,000 25,000 150,100 125,100 500.4% Includes anticipated new commercial development
Total Licenses and Permits 31,018 25,190 25,000 25,000 25,000 150,100 125,100 500.4% Use of Money and Property
3611 Interest On Bank Deposits 3,441 7,955 7,500 7,500 10,000 7,500 0 0.0% 3638 Change in Fair Market Value 5,184 835 0 0 0 0 0 %
Total Use of Money and Property 8,625 8,790 7,500 7,500 10,000 7,500 0 0.0% Total Revenue 39,644 33,979 32,500 32,500 35,000 157,600 125,100 384.9% Department 4344
Other Services and Charges
2702 Contribution to FPD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 %
Total Other Services and Charges 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 %
Total Expenses 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 %
DEVELOPER IMPACT - FIRE SUPPRESSION 39,644 33,979 32,500 32,500 35,000 157,600 125,100 384.9% FY 2025-26 Proposed Budget May 14, 2025 92
Summary of Capital Projects
Available Funds Available Funds Available Funds Available Funds Gas Tax Measure Y CDBG
2024-25 2025-26 110 250 550 271 276 296 298
CIP No. Account Project
Potential
Carryover
Appropriations
Proposed
Budget Fund Balance Fund Balance Fund Balance RMRA Local TOT HUD A.3 350-4350-3549 Citywide Line Striping - 200,000 200,000 - - - - - - A.5 350-4350-3534 Rathbun Drive Rehabilitation - 2,000,000 - - - - - 2,000,000 - A.4 350-4350-3535 Moonridge Road Rehabilitation - 4,000,000 1,304,387 250,000 - 138,234 707,379 1,600,000 - A.6 350-4350-3610 Street Sign Replacement Project - 250,000 250,000 - - - - - - A.1 350-4350-3620 Street / Drainage Improvements 200,000 - - - - - - - - Total Street Improvements: 200,000 6,450,000 1,754,387 250,000 - 138,234 707,379 3,600,000 - C.1 321-4346-2925 Rathbun Creek Trail - 660,000 - - - - - 660,000 - 321-4346-2929 CA 4 All Youth Workforce Program 700,000 - - - - - - - - B.2 321-4346-2930 Sidewalk Improvements 50,000 50,000 - - - - - 16,600 33,400 B.6 321-4346-2931 Clean Bear Site Relocation - 100,000 - - 100,000 - - - - B.7 321-4346-2950 General Plan Amendment - 300,000 300,000 - - - - - - 321-4346-3638 "SMORE" Division Creek Project 700,000 - - - - - - - - E.1 321-4346-3900 Vehicle Acquisitions / Replacements 100,000 225,000 225,000 - - - - - - E.2 321-4346-3901 Equipment Acquisitions / Replacements - 200,000 200,000 - - - - - - 321-4346-3922 Civic Center ADA Compliance 60,000 - - - - - - - - 321-4346-3924 Above Ground Fuel Tank 400,000 - - - - - - - - B.4 321-4346-3961 Civic Center Repairs 500,000 100,000 100,000 - - - - - - B.1 321-4346-3973 Beaver / Badger Pkg Lot Improvements - 100,000 - - - - - 100,000 - B.3 321-4346-3977 Bartlett Parking Lot Improvements - 350,000 - - - - - 350,000 - Total Other Capital Improvements: 2,510,000 2,085,000 825,000 - 100,000 - - 1,126,600 33,400 D.1-D.3 321-4555-2240 Sanitation Infrastructure - 700,000 - 700,000 - - - - - 321-4555-3980 Sewer Master Plan & Mapping 450,000 - - - - - - - - D.4 321-4555-3982 Sewer Cleaning & Inspection - 350,000 - 350,000 - - - - - 321-4555-3992 Vehicle Acquisitions / Replacements 100,000 - - - - - - - - E.2 321-4555-3993 Equiipment Acquisitions / Replacements - 350,000 - 350,000 - - - - - Total Sanitation Improvements: 550,000 1,400,000 - 1,400,000 - - - - - Total All Projects: $ 3,260,000 $ 9,935,000 $ 2,579,387 $ 1,650,000 $ 100,000 $ 138,234 $ 707,379 $ 4,726,600 $ 33,400 General Fund Sanitation Refuse Measure I
FY 2025-26 Proposed Budget May 14, 2025 93

CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND
2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2024-25 2024-25 2025-26 ProposedAcct # Title Actual Actual Adopted Adjusted Projected Proposed Adopted % Diff Comments Fund 321
Revenue
Interfund Transfers
4101 Transfer In-General (110) 444,988 1,901,580 900,000 3,010,499 3,010,499 825,000 (75,000) -8.3% 4102 Transfer In-Sanitation (250) 490,208 1,417,611 1,050,000 1,756,812 1,306,812 1,400,000 350,000 33.3% 4103 Transfer In-AQMD (281) 90,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 % AB2766 Air Pollution Trust funds 4104 Transfer In-Refuse (550) 0 0 0 0 0 100,000 100,000 % 4109 Transfer In-Grants (299) 907,820 740,931 0 1,952,323 1,952,323 0 0 % Grant funding 4120 Transfer In-CDBG (298) (680) 38,948 35,900 205,028 205,028 33,400 (2,500) -7.0% ADA Funding 4121 Transfer In-Gen Fund Reserves 42,925 0 0 0 0 0 0 % 4126 Transfer In-Measure Y (296) 686,753 2,161,087 604,100 3,682,332 3,315,332 1,126,600 522,500 86.5% 4127 Transfer In-LTF (290) 0 0 0 303,518 303,500 0 0 % Grant funding Total Interfund Transfers 3,291,814 6,260,156 2,590,000 10,910,511 10,093,493 3,485,000 895,000 34.6% Total Revenue 3,291,814 6,260,156 2,590,000 10,910,511 10,093,493 3,485,000 895,000 34.6% Expenses
Department 4346
Capital Outlay
2925 Rathbun Creek Trail 34,252 755,323 0 8,288 8,288 660,000 660,000 % 2927 Rathbun Ck/Moonridge Restroom 4,800 0 0 0 0 0 0 %
2928 Building Demolition 0 0 100,000 0 0 0 (100,000) -100.0% 2929 Ca 4 All Youth Workforce Progr 564,778 740,931 0 1,030,033 1,030,033 0 0 % 2930 Sidewalk Improvements 0 58,349 75,000 384,486 384,486 50,000 (25,000) -33.3% 2931 Clean Bear Site Relocation 0 0 0 0 0 100,000 100,000 % 2950 General Plan 11,654 0 0 0 0 300,000 300,000 %
3637 Stanfield "SMORE" Project 353,062 5,865 0 15,541 15,541 0 0 % 3638 "SMORE" Division Creek Project 0 10,413 0 739,588 739,570 0 0 % 3639 Stanfield Boardwalk Improvmnts 920,271 0 0 0 0 0 0 % 3900 Vehicle Acq/Replacements 239,952 64,992 150,000 383,027 383,027 225,000 75,000 50.0% 3901 Equipment Acq/Replacements 196,314 543,038 150,000 446,022 446,022 200,000 50,000 33.3% 3903 Park Improvements 5,096 361,719 165,000 165,000 165,000 0 (165,000) -100.0% 3904 EV Charging Stations 110,458 0 0 0 0 0 0 %
3905 Parking Lot Improvements 0 0 0 17,754 17,754 0 0 % 3922 Civic Center ADA Upgrades 18,000 14,365 0 467,308 467,308 0 0 % 3923 Animal Shelter Improvements 2,380 0 0 0 0 0 0 %
3924 Above Ground Fuel Tank 0 0 0 400,000 400,000 0 0 % 3943 Stanfield Parking Lot 0 385,847 0 0 0 0 0 %
3944 Stanfield Restroom Facility 303,997 0 0 0 0 0 0 %
3959 PAC Facility Improvements 0 0 300,000 632,000 632,000 0 (300,000) -100.0% 3961 Civic Center Repairs 0 792,924 200,000 577,403 577,403 100,000 (100,000) -50.0% 3962 42106 BB Blvd Land Acq 27,000 1,340,114 0 0 0 0 0 % 3963 Software Development-ESRI GIS 0 108,780 0 24,610 24,610 0 0 % 3966 Network Enhancements 30,587 0 0 0 0 0 0 %
3970 42139 BB Blvd Land Acq 0 0 0 694,531 694,531 0 0 % 3972 40752 Beaver Lane Land Acq 0 0 0 729,265 729,265 0 0 % 3973 40752 Beaver Lane Land Impv 0 0 0 0 0 100,000 100,000 % Refer to Capital Improvement Plan for
detailed project information and funding.

FY 2025-26 Proposed Budget May 14, 2025 94

CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND
2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2024-25 2024-25 2025-26 ProposedAcct # Title Actual Actual Adopted Adjusted Projected Proposed Adopted % Diff Comments Fund 321
3977 Bartlett Pkg Lot Improvements 0 0 400,000 400,000 33,000 350,000 (50,000) -12.5% 3978 Christmas Tree Lot Improvement 0 44,730 0 0 0 0 0 % 3979 Knickerbocker-Penn Improvement 43,888 0 0 0 0 0 0 % 3990 Castle Rock Trailhead Improvem 48,529 101,416 0 2,043,584 2,043,584 0 0 % Total Capital Outlay 2,915,019 5,328,805 1,540,000 9,158,439 8,791,421 2,085,000 545,000 35.4% Department 4555
Capital Outlay
2240 Sanitation Infrastructure 218,338 541,166 525,000 712,072 712,072 700,000 175,000 33.3% 3980 System Master Plan and Mapping 0 0 0 450,000 450,000 0 0 % 3982 Sewer Cleaning & Inspection 0 237,606 450,000 450,000 0 350,000 (100,000) -22.2% 3983 Cottage Lane Line Replacement 0 152,579 0 0 0 0 0 % 3990 Jay Bird Main Replacement 93,108 0 0 0 0 0 0 %
3992 Vehicle Replacements 65,350 0 75,000 140,000 140,000 0 (75,000) -100.0% 3993 Equipment Replacement 0 0 0 0 0 350,000 350,000 %
Total Capital Outlay 376,796 931,351 1,050,000 1,752,072 1,302,072 1,400,000 350,000 33.3% Total Expenses 3,291,815 6,260,156 2,590,000 10,910,511 10,093,493 3,485,000 895,000 34.6% CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND (1) 0 0 0 0 0 0 %
Refer to Capital Improvement Plan for
detailed project information and funding.

Refer to Capital Improvement Plan for
detailed project information and funding.

FY 2025-26 Proposed Budget May 14, 2025 95

STREET IMPROVEMENT FUND
2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2024-25 2024-25 2025-26 ProposedAcct # Title Actual Actual Adopted Adjusted Projected Proposed Adopted % Diff Comments Fund 350
Revenue
Interfund Transfers
4101 Transfer In-General (110) 3,626,342 1,162,328 1,022,122 1,023,750 1,023,750 1,754,387 732,265 71.6% 4102 Transfer In-Sanitation (250) 173,569 326,431 227,000 227,000 227,000 250,000 23,000 10.1% 4103 Transfer In-Meas I Local (276) 350,460 493,453 743,528 765,255 765,255 707,379 (36,149) -4.9% 4107 Transfer In-Meas I Major (277) 3,120,185 0 0 0 0 0 0 % 4110 Transfer In-RMRA (271) 100,121 130,429 132,350 132,350 132,350 138,234 5,884 4.4% 4126 Transfer In-Measure Y (296) 390,000 84,022 700,000 1,341,749 1,341,749 3,600,000 2,900,000 414.3% 4132 Transfer In-Dev Drainage (342) 0 0 0 200,000 200,000 0 0 % Total Interfund Transfers 7,760,677 2,196,663 2,825,000 3,690,104 3,690,104 6,450,000 3,625,000 128.3% Total Revenue 7,760,677 2,196,663 2,825,000 3,690,104 3,690,104 6,450,000 3,625,000 128.3% Expenses
Department 4350
Capital Outlay
3520 Aurora Rd Improvements 81,845 0 0 0 0 0 0 %
3521 Canvasback Dr Improvements 22,012 0 0 0 0 0 0 %
3525 Dixie Ln Improvements 56,544 0 0 0 0 0 0 %
3526 Talmadge Rd Improvements 119,617 0 0 0 0 0 0 %
3527 Eureka Dr Improvements 15,906 0 0 0 0 0 0 %
3528 Talmadge Spur Improvements 43,260 0 0 0 0 0 0 %
3529 Marina Point Dr Improvements 233,406 0 0 0 0 0 0 % 3530 Wren Dr Improvements 148,264 0 0 0 0 0 0 %
3531 Bartlett Rd Improvements 76,234 0 0 0 0 0 0 %
3532 Andrew Ln Improvements 13,642 0 0 0 0 0 0 %
3533 Ponderosa Dr Improvements 41,018 0 0 0 0 0 0 %
3534 Tamarack Dr Improvements 45,963 0 0 0 0 0 0 %
3535 Tomahawk Dr Improvements 51,684 0 0 0 0 0 0 %
3536 Maple Leaf Dr Improvements 41,685 0 0 0 0 0 0 %
3537 San Gorgonio Dr Improvements 48,742 0 0 0 0 0 0 %
3545 Crack Sealing Project 0 69,332 75,000 75,000 75,000 0 (75,000) -100.0% 3549 Citywide Striping 0 153,499 150,000 316,414 316,414 200,000 50,000 33.3% 3550 Big Bear-Moonridge Chip Seal 0 68,887 0 0 0 0 0 %
3551 Balboa Lane Rehab 0 77,455 0 0 0 0 0 %
3552 Berkley Lane Rehab 0 88,007 0 0 0 0 0 %
3553 Boulder Bay Court Rehab 0 71,396 0 0 0 0 0 %
3554 Bow Canyon Court Rehab 0 24,630 0 0 0 0 0 %
3555 Bow Canyon Lane Rehab 0 84,136 0 0 0 0 0 %
3556 Chipmunk Lane Rehab 0 59,702 0 0 0 0 0 %
3557 Elgin Road Rehab 0 17,579 0 0 0 0 0 %
3558 Knoll Road Rehab 0 23,111 0 0 0 0 0 %
3559 Homestead Lane Rehab 0 62,516 0 0 0 0 0 %
3560 Red Oak Lane Rehab 0 29,734 0 0 0 0 0 %
3561 Lakeview Court Rehab 0 16,662 0 0 0 0 0 %
3562 Manzanita Court Rehab 0 22,500 0 0 0 0 0 %
3563 Marin Road Rehab 0 22,212 0 0 0 0 0 %
Refer to Capital Improvement Plan for
detailed project information and funding.

Refer to Capital Improvement Plan for
detailed project information and funding.

FY 2025-26 Proposed Budget May 14, 2025 96

STREET IMPROVEMENT FUND
2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2024-25 2024-25 2025-26 ProposedAcct # Title Actual Actual Adopted Adjusted Projected Proposed Adopted % Diff Comments Fund 350
3564 Summit Blvd Rehabilitation 0 0 2,500,000 2,848,690 2,848,690 0 (2,500,000) -100.0% 3605 Douglas St Improvements 15,146 0 0 0 0 0 0 %
3606 Teakwood Dr Improvements 244,522 0 0 0 0 0 0 %
3607 Juniper Dr Improvements 31,898 0 0 0 0 0 0 %
3608 Street Sign Reinforcement Proj 0 14,050 0 0 0 0 0 % 3609 Drainage Master Plan 0 0 0 200,000 200,000 0 0 %
3610 Street Sign Replacement Project 0 59,925 0 0 0 250,000 250,000 % 3620 Street/Drainage Improvements 0 278,504 100,000 250,000 250,000 0 (100,000) -100.0% 3623 Alden Road Reconstruction 0 45,811 0 0 0 0 0 %
3624 Chalet Lane Reconstruction 0 47,935 0 0 0 0 0 %
3625 Chip O Wood Reconstruction 0 52,839 0 0 0 0 0 %
3626 Circle Lane Reconstruction 0 110,891 0 0 0 0 0 %
3627 Conklin Road Reconstruction 0 171,268 0 0 0 0 0 %
3628 Paine Court Reconstruction 0 71,468 0 0 0 0 0 %
3629 Pulaski Road Reconstruction 0 57,143 0 0 0 0 0 %
3630 Stone Bridge Dr/Cir Reconstruc 0 254,586 0 0 0 0 0 % 3631 Stone Road Reconstruction 0 70,214 0 0 0 0 0 %
3634 Rathbun Drive Rehabilitation 0 0 0 0 0 2,000,000 2,000,000 % 3635 Moonridge Road Rehabilitation 0 0 0 0 0 4,000,000 4,000,000 % 3636 Moonridge Realign/Roundabouts 6,429,287 70,671 0 0 0 0 0 % Total Capital Outlay 7,760,677 2,196,663 2,825,000 3,690,104 3,690,104 6,450,000 3,625,000 128.3% Total Expenses 7,760,677 2,196,663 2,825,000 3,690,104 3,690,104 6,450,000 3,625,000 128.3% STREET IMPROVEMENT FUND 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 %
Refer to Capital Improvement Plan for
detailed project information and funding.

FY 2025-26 Proposed Budget May 14, 2025 97

INTRODUCTION
5-Year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Summary A-1

STREETS
Annual Street Rehabilitation A-4
Annual Crack Seal of City Streets A-5
Annual Citywide Line Striping A-6
Moonridge Road Rehabilitation A-7
Rathbun Drive Rehabilitation A-8
Street Sign Replacement Project A-9

FACILITIES
Beaver / Badger Parking Lot Improvements A-10
Sidewalk Improvements A-11
Bartlett Event Space A-12
City Hall Repairs A-13
Public Parking Lot Assessment & Improvements A-14
Clean Bear Site Relocation A-15
General Plan Amendment A-16

TRAILS / PARKS
Rathbun Creek Trailhead Restroom & Parking Lot A-17
Rathbun Creek Trail Segment 2 A-18
Rathbun Creek Trail Segment 4 A-19
APPENDIX A - Capital Improvement Program
APPENDIX A - Capital Improvement Program

SANITATION
Sanitary Sewer Cured-in-Pipe (CIPP) A-20
Generator and Automatic Transfer Switch (ATS) Replacement A-21 Wet Well Rehabilitation A-22
Sewer Cleaning & Inspection Report A-23

EQUIPMENT AND VEHICLES
Vehicle Replacements A-24
Heavy Equipment A-25
City of Big Bear Lake
5-Year Capital Improvement Program (CIP)
Fiscal Year 2025-26 through 2029-30
No. Project Name 25/26 26/27 27/28 28/29 29/30 5-Year Total

STREETS
A.1 Annual Street Rehabilitation $ - $ 1,971,800 $ 2,067,800 $ 2,159,200 $ 2,254,300 $ 8,453,100 A.2 Annual Crack Seal of City Streets $ - $ 75,000 $ 75,000 $ 75,000 $ 75,000 $ 300,000 A.3 Annual Citywide Line Striping $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 1,000,000 A.4 Moonridge Road Rehabilitation $ 4,000,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 4,000,000 A.5 Rathbun Drive Rehabilitation $ 2,000,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 2,000,000 A.6 Street Sign Replacement Project $ 250,000 $ 250,000 $ 250,000 $ 250,000 $ 250,000 $ 1,250,000 $ 6,450,000 $ 2,496,800 $ 2,592,800 $ 2,684,200 $ 2,779,300 $ 17,003,100 Proposed Funding
General Fund $ 1,754,387 $ 1,467,170 $ 1,448,590 $ 1,424,390 $ 1,402,970 $ 7,497,507 Sanitation Fund $ 250,000 $ 250,000 $ 250,000 $ 250,000 $ 250,000 $ 1,250,000 Measure I - Local $ 707,379 $ 444,700 $ 457,800 $ 471,900 $ 486,900 $ 2,568,679 RMRA $ 138,234 $ 134,930 $ 136,410 $ 137,910 $ 139,430 $ 686,914 Measure Y TOT $ 3,600,000 $ 200,000 $ 300,000 $ 400,000 $ 500,000 $ 5,000,000 $ 6,450,000 $ 2,496,800 $ 2,592,800 $ 2,684,200 $ 2,779,300 $ 17,003,100

FACILITIES
B.1 Beaver / Badger Parking Lot Improvements $ 100,000 $ 1,000,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 1,100,000 B.2 Sidewalk Improvements $ 50,000 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 $ 250,000 B.3 Bartlett Event Space $ 350,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 350,000 B.4 City Hall Repairs $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 500,000 B.5 Public Parking Lot Assessment & Improvements $ - $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 800,000 B.6 Clean Bear Site Relocation $ 100,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 100,000 B.7 General Plan Amendment $ 300,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 450,000 $ - $ - $ 1,750,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 2,350,000 $ 800,000 $ 350,000 $ 350,000 $ 4,850,000 Proposed Funding
General Fund $ 400,000 $ 100,000 $ 150,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 850,000 General Plan Set-aside $ - $ 1,000,000 $ 400,000 $ - $ - $ 1,400,000 Measure Y TOT $ 466,600 $ 1,250,000 $ 250,000 $ 250,000 $ 250,000 $ 2,466,600 Refuse Fund $ 100,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 100,000
Community Development Block Grant $ 33,400 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 33,400 $ 1,000,000 $ 2,350,000 $ 800,000 $ 350,000 $ 350,000 $ 4,850,000

FISCAL YEAR
FY 2025-26 Proposed Budget May 14, 2025 Appendix A-1
No. Project Name 25/26 26/27 27/28 28/29 29/30 5-Year Total

FISCAL YEAR

TRAILS/PARKS
C.1 Rathbun Creek Trailhead Restroom & Parking Lot $ 660,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 660,000 C.2 Rathbun Creek Trail Segment 2 $ - $ 1,160,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 1,160,000 C.3 Rathbun Creek Trail Segment 4 $ - $ - $ - $ 1,500,000 $ - $ 1,500,000 $ 660,000 $ 1,160,000 $ - $ 1,500,000 $ - $ 3,320,000
Proposed Funding
Measure Y TOT $ 660,000 $ 1,160,000 $ - $ 1,500,000 $ - $ 3,320,000 $ 660,000 $ 1,160,000 $ - $ 1,500,000 $ - $ 3,320,000

SANITATION
D.1 Sanitary Sewer Cured-in-Place Pipe (CIPP) $ 300,000 $ 300,000 $ 300,000 $ 300,000 $ 300,000 $ 1,500,000 D.2 Generator and Automatic Transfer Switch (ATS) Replacement $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ - $ - $ 600,000 D.3 Wet Well Rehabilitation $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 1,000,000 D.4 Sewer Cleaning & Inspection Project $ 350,000 $ 250,000 $ 250,000 $ 250,000 $ 250,000 $ 1,350,000 $ 1,050,000 $ 950,000 $ 950,000 $ 750,000 $ 750,000 $ 4,450,000 Proposed Funding
Sanitation Fund $ 1,050,000 $ 950,000 $ 950,000 $ 750,000 $ 750,000 $ 4,450,000 $ 1,050,000 $ 950,000 $ 950,000 $ 750,000 $ 750,000 $ 4,450,000

EQUIPMENT AND VEHICLES
E.1 Vehicle Replacements $ 225,000 $ 225,000 $ 225,000 $ 225,000 $ 225,000 $ 1,125,000 E.2 Heavy Equipment $ 550,000 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 1,150,000 $ 775,000 $ 375,000 $ 375,000 $ 375,000 $ 375,000 $ 2,275,000 Proposed Funding
General Fund $ 425,000 $ 375,000 $ 375,000 $ 375,000 $ 375,000 $ 1,925,000 General Fund Vehicle Reserve $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Sanitation Fund $ 350,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 350,000
Sanitation Vehicle Reserve $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
$ 775,000 $ 375,000 $ 375,000 $ 375,000 $ 375,000 $ 2,275,000 TOTAL PLANNED EXPENDITURES $ 9,935,000 $ 7,331,800 $ 4,717,800 $ 5,659,200 $ 4,254,300 $ 31,898,100 FY 2025-26 Proposed Budget May 14, 2025 Appendix A-2
No. Project Name 25/26 26/27 27/28 28/29 29/30 5-Year Total

FISCAL YEAR

TOTAL PROPOSED FUNDING
General Fund $ 2,579,387 $ 1,942,170 $ 1,973,590 $ 1,899,390 $ 1,877,970 $ 10,272,507 Sanitation Fund $ 1,650,000 $ 1,200,000 $ 1,200,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 6,050,000 Refuse Fund $ 100,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 100,000
Measure I - Local $ 707,379 $ 444,700 $ 457,800 $ 471,900 $ 486,900 $ 2,568,679 RMRA $ 138,234 $ 134,930 $ 136,410 $ 137,910 $ 139,430 $ 686,914 Measure Y TOT $ 4,726,600 $ 2,610,000 $ 550,000 $ 2,150,000 $ 750,000 $ 10,786,600 Community Development Block Grant $ 33,400 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 33,400 General Plan Amendment Set-aside $ - $ 1,000,000 $ 400,000 $ - $ - $ 1,400,000 TOTAL PROPOSED FUNDING $ 9,935,000 $ 7,331,800 $ 4,717,800 $ 5,659,200 $ 4,254,300 $ 31,898,100 FY 2025-26 Proposed Budget May 14, 2025 Appendix A-3
5-Year Capital Improvement Program
Project Detail Fiscal Year 25/26 - 29/30
PROJECT NO.: A.1 PROJECT COST: $ 8,453,100
Funding Year 25/26 26/27 27/28 28/29 29/30 5- Year Total Source
General Fund $ - $ 942,170 $ 923,590 $ 899,390 $ 877,970 $ 3,643,120 Sanitation $ - $ 250,000 $ 250,000 $ 250,000 $ 250,000 $ 1,000,000 Measure I- Local $ - $ 444,700 $ 457,800 $ 471,900 $ 486,900 $ 1,861,300 RMRA $ - $ 134,930 $ 136,410 $ 137,910 $ 139,430 $ 548,680 Measure Y TOT $ - $ 200,000 $ 300,000 $ 400,000 $ 500,000 $ 1,400,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
TOTAL $ - $ 1,971,800 $ 2,067,800 $ 2,159,200 $ 2,254,300 $ 8,453,100 Expenditures
Environmental $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Permitting $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Design $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
ROW $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Construction $ - $ 1,971,800 $ 2,067,800 $ 2,159,200 $ 2,254,300 $ 8,453,100 Acquisition $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
TOTAL $ - $ 1,971,800 $ 2,067,800 $ 2,159,200 $ 2,254,300 $ 8,453,100

MAP PICTURE
Annual Street Rehabilitation

SCOPE/DESCRIPTION JUSTIFICATION

STREETS
On-going Operating & Maintenance Impact: Reduced maintenance for potholing, asphalt patches.

Permits/ Easements Needed: Notice of Exemption
Milling of existing asphalt, replacement of old metal pipe culverts, reconstruction of storm drain inlets and headwalls, curb and gutter, replacement of street signs, and paving of streets.

The City performs an annual rehabilitation of the asphalt surface of various streets with priority based on streets with low Pavement Condition Index (PCI) values. This
project improves the life cycle of the streets by improving drainage, adding base, and paving streets.

FY 2025-26 Proposed Budget May 14, 2025 Appendix A-4
5-Year Capital Replacement / Improvement Plan
Project Detail Fiscal Year 25/26 - 29/30
PROJECT NO.: A.2 PROJECT COST: $ 300,000
Funding Year 25/26 26/27 27/28 28/29 29/30 5- Year Total Source
General Fund $ - $ 75,000 $ 75,000 $ 75,000 $ 75,000 $ 300,000 Sanitation $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Measure I- Local $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
RMRA $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
TOTAL $ - $ 75,000 $ 75,000 $ 75,000 $ 75,000 $ 300,000 Expenditures
Environmental $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Permitting $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Design $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
ROW $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Construction $ - $ 75,000 $ 75,000 $ 75,000 $ 75,000 $ 300,000 Acquisition $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
TOTAL $ - $ 75,000 $ 75,000 $ 75,000 $ 75,000 $ 300,000 On-going Operating & Maintenance Impact: Reduce cost needed for full street rehabilitation.

Annual Crack Seal of City Streets

SCOPE/DESCRIPTION JUSTIFICATION

STREETS
Crack seal pavement on City streets. The crack sealing
prevents water intrusion into the pavement, prolonging the condition and useful life of the pavement.

Crack sealing is part of a comprehensive pavement
maintenance plan. Streets will be prioritized for crack seal based on the Pavement Condition Index (PCI) rating and
the visual presence of cracks. This provides a longer life cycle for the pavement and reduces costs for
rehabilitation.

MAP PICTURE
Permits/ Easements Needed: Notice of Exemption
FY 2025-26 Proposed Budget May 14, 2025 Appendix A-5
5-Year Capital Replacement / Improvement Plan
Project Detail Fiscal Year 25/26 - 29/30
PROJECT NO.: A.3 PROJECT COST: $ 1,000,000
Funding Year 25/26 26/27 27/28 28/29 29/30 5- Year Total Source
General Fund $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 1,000,000 Sanitation $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Measure I- Local $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
RMRA $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
TOTAL $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 1,000,000 Expenditures
Environmental $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Permitting $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Design $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
ROW $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Construction $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 1,000,000 Acquisition $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
TOTAL $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 1,000,000 Annual Citywide Line Striping

SCOPE/DESCRIPTION JUSTIFICATION

STREETS
Striping of City streets, lane markings, long line striping, and parking areas. Approximately 100,000 linear feet of long linesyellow, fog, and skip lines. This work is let out to contract for striping work to take place both in the Spring and the Fall of each year.

This annual project coordinates the restriping of streets, stop bars, legends, parking areas and bicycle shared lane markings. The work is contracted to qualified striping
contractors.

On-going Operating & Maintenance Impact: Reduce impact on Public Works time and Resources.

MAP PICTURE
Permits/ Easements Needed: Notice of Exemption.

FY 2025-26 Proposed Budget May 14, 2025 Appendix A-6
5-Year Capital Replacement / Improvement Plan
Project Detail Fiscal Year 25/26 - 29/30
PROJECT NO.: A.4 PROJECT COST: $ 4,000,000
Funding Year 25/26 26/27 27/28 28/29 29/30 5- Year Total Source
General Fund $ 1,304,387 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 1,304,387
Sanitation $ 250,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 250,000
Measure I- Local $ 707,379 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 707,379
RMRA $ 138,234 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 138,234
Measure Y TOT $ 1,600,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 1,600,000
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
TOTAL $ 4,000,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 4,000,000
Expenditures
Environmental $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Permitting $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Design $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
ROW $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Construction $ 4,000,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 4,000,000
Acquisition $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
TOTAL $ 4,000,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 4,000,000
Moonridge Road Rehabilitation

STREETS

SCOPE/DESCRIPTION JUSTIFICATION
The proposed project includes the reconstruction of the pavement, the construction of cement treated base to combat historic groundwater issues under the roadway, and the
replacement of curb, gutter and sidewalks.

The section of Moonridge Road from Big Bear Boulevard to Elm Street is in significant disrepair and in need of
reconstruction. The Pavement Condition Index (PCI) ratings for this section of Moonridge Road range between Poor
and Very Poor.

On-going Operating & Maintenance Impact: Reduced maintenance for potholing, asphalt patches.

Permits/ Easements Needed: Notice of Exemption

MAP PICTURE
FY 2025-26 Proposed Budget May 14, 2025 Appendix A-7
5-Year Capital Replacement / Improvement Plan
Project Detail Fiscal Year 25/26 - 29/30
PROJECT NO.: A.5 PROJECT COST: $ 2,000,000
Funding Year 25/26 26/27 27/28 28/29 29/30 5- Year Total Source
General Fund $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Sanitation $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Measure I- Local $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
RMRA $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Measure Y TOT $ 2,000,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 2,000,000
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
TOTAL $ 2,000,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 2,000,000
Expenditures
Environmental $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Permitting $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Design $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
ROW $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Construction $ 2,000,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 2,000,000
Acquisition $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
TOTAL $ 2,000,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 2,000,000
Rathbun Drive Rehabilitation

STREETS

SCOPE/DESCRIPTION JUSTIFICATION
The proposed project includes a reconstruction and widening of Rathbun Drive from Moonridge Road to Elm Street
including the addition of approximately 100 parking spaces and a pedestrian sidewalk.

Maximize the use of the City’s right of way and add onstreet parking for future developments along Moonridge Corridor.

On-going Operating & Maintenance Impact: Additional maintenance for snow removal will be required on the new sidewalk.

Permits/ Easements Needed: Notice of Exemption

MAP PICTURE
FY 2025-26 Proposed Budget May 14, 2025 Appendix A-8
5-Year Capital Replacement / Improvement Plan
Project Detail Fiscal Year 25/26 - 29/30
PROJECT NO.: A.6 PROJECT COST: $ 1,250,000
Funding Year 25/26 26/27 27/28 28/29 29/30 5- Year Total Source
General Fund $ 250,000 $ 250,000 $ 250,000 $ 250,000 $ 250,000 $ 1,250,000 Sanitation $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Measure I- Local $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
RMRA $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Measure Y TOT $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
TOTAL $ 250,000 $ 250,000 $ 250,000 $ 250,000 $ 250,000 $ 1,250,000 Expenditures
Environmental $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Permitting $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Design $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
ROW $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Construction $ 250,000 $ 250,000 $ 250,000 $ 250,000 $ 250,000 $ 1,250,000 Acquisition $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
TOTAL $ 250,000 $ 250,000 $ 250,000 $ 250,000 $ 250,000 $ 1,250,000 On-going Operating & Maintenance Impact: None.

Permits/ Easements Needed: None.

MAP PICTURE
Street Sign Replacement Project

STREETS

SCOPE/DESCRIPTION JUSTIFICATION
Replacement of all City traffic signs, including street name signs, regulation, warning, and guide signs. Citywide project will be undertaken in phases over multiple years.

Signage needs to be updated to comply with updated
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) requirements
pertaining to visibility, readability, and height.

FY 2025-26 Proposed Budget May 14, 2025 Appendix A-9
5-Year Capital Replacement / Improvement Plan
Project Detail Fiscal Year 25/26 - 29/30
PROJECT NO.: B.1 PROJECT COST: $ 1,100,000
Funding Year 25/26 26/27 27/28 28/29 29/30 5- Year Total Source
Measure Y TOT $ 100,000 $ 1,000,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 1,100,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
TOTAL $ 100,000 $ 1,000,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 1,100,000
Expenditures
Environmental $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Permitting $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Design $ 100,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 100,000
ROW $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Construction $ 1,000,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 1,000,000
Acquisition $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
TOTAL $ 100,000 $ 1,000,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 1,100,000
On-going Operating & Maintenance Impact: Parking lot will need to be maintained for trash, and snow removal.

Permits/ Easements Needed: WQMP, NOE

MAP PICTURE
Beaver / Badger Parking Lot Improvements

FACILITIES

SCOPE/DESCRIPTION JUSTIFICATION
This project is for the design (FY 25/26) and construction (FY 26/27) of two paved parking lots with the addition of curb and gutter, new sidewalks, and lighting to supplement parking in the Village.

The project will expand necessary public parking to address increased visitation and usage in the Village.

FY 2025-26 Proposed Budget May 14, 2025 Appendix A-10
5-Year Capital Replacement / Improvement Plan
Project Detail Fiscal Year 25/26 - 29/30
PROJECT NO.: B.2 PROJECT COST: $ 250,000
Funding Year 25/26 26/27 27/28 28/29 29/30 5- Year Total Source
Measure Y TOT $ 16,600 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 $ 216,600 CDBG $ 33,400 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 33,400
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
TOTAL $ 50,000 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 $ 250,000 Expenditures
Environmental $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Permitting $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Design $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
ROW $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Construction $ 50,000 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 $ 250,000 Acquisition $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
TOTAL $ 50,000 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 $ 250,000 On-going Operating & Maintenance Impact: Additional maintenance for snow removal will be required on the new sidewalk.

Permits/ Easements Needed: Notice of Exemption

MAP PICTURE
Sidewalk Improvements

FACILITIES

SCOPE/DESCRIPTION JUSTIFICATION
For FY 25/26, the project will improve ADA compliance on existing concrete sidewalks on Pine Knot Ave south of
Cameron Drive, and on Cameron Drive west. Future sidewalk improvements will focus on repair, replacement, and
expansion of sidewalk throughout the City.

The FY 25/26 project will make needed sidewalk repairs as well as extend the sidewalk network within the Village area and create an area of safe passage. Future years projects will replace or expand sidewalk throughout the City to
promote pedestrian mobility.

FY 2025-26 Proposed Budget May 14, 2025 Appendix A-11
5-Year Capital Replacement / Improvement Plan
Project Detail Fiscal Year 25/26 - 29/30
PROJECT NO.: B.3 PROJECT COST: $ 350,000
Funding Year 25/26 26/27 27/28 28/29 29/30 5- Year Total Source
Measure Y TOT $ 350,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 350,000
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
TOTAL $ 350,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 350,000
Expenditures
Environmental $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Permitting $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Design $ 350,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 350,000
ROW $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Construction $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Acquisition $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
TOTAL $ 350,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 350,000
On-going Operating & Maintenance Impact: Maintenance of the new facilities will be required.

Permits/ Easements Needed: Building Permits

MAP PICTURE
Bartlett Event Space

FACILITIES

SCOPE/DESCRIPTION JUSTIFICATION
Design of an event and public gathering space within the existing Bartlett Parking Lot. Improvements are planned to include bandshell, a restroom, storage and multipurpose room.

There is growing demand for a designated special events space within the Village to support the community and
business owners, additionally the demolition of the
dilapidated Chamber Building will require the restroom
building to be replaced.

FY 2025-26 Proposed Budget May 14, 2025 Appendix A-12
5-Year Capital Replacement / Improvement Plan
Project Detail Fiscal Year 25/26 - 29/30
PROJECT NO.: B.4 PROJECT COST: $ 500,000
Funding Year 25/26 26/27 27/28 28/29 29/30 5- Year Total Source
General Fund $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 500,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
TOTAL $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 500,000 Expenditures
Environmental $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Permitting $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Design $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
ROW $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Construction $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 500,000 Acquisition $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
TOTAL $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 500,000 City Hall Repairs

FACILITIES

SCOPE/DESCRIPTION JUSTIFICATION
On-going maintenance and improvement of the Civic Center Facility.

Maintenance and enhancement of the Civic Center ensures that the building meets safety standards, protects existing infrastructure, and is upgraded and improved
appropriately.

On-going Operating & Maintenance Impact: None.

Permits/ Easements Needed: None.
****

MAP PICTURE
FY 2025-26 Proposed Budget May 14, 2025 Appendix A-13
5-Year Capital Replacement / Improvement Plan
Project Detail Fiscal Year 25/26 - 29/30
PROJECT NO.: B.5 PROJECT COST: $ 800,000
Funding Year 25/26 26/27 27/28 28/29 29/30 5- Year Total Source
Measure Y $ - $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 800,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
TOTAL $ - $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 800,000 Expenditures
Environmental $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Permitting $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Design $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
ROW $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Construction $ - $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 800,000 Acquisition $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
TOTAL $ - $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 800,000 Public Parking Lot Assessment & Improvements

FACILITIES

SCOPE/DESCRIPTION JUSTIFICATION
As part of the City's maintenance program, Public Works will perform rehabilitation of paved surfaces in existing parking lots including replacement of asphalt, curb and gutter, and other amenities.

The parking lot surfaces within these facilities are in need of maintenance and repair. The goal is to improve the
appearance and extend the useful life of the pavement
while improving user/pedestrian safety.

On-going Operating & Maintenance Impact: None.

Permits/ Easements Needed: None.

MAP PICTURE
FY 2025-26 Proposed Budget May 14, 2025 Appendix A-14
5-Year Capital Replacement / Improvement Plan
Project Detail Fiscal Year 25/26 - 29/30
PROJECT NO.: B.6 PROJECT COST: $ 100,000
Funding Year 25/26 26/27 27/28 28/29 29/30 5- Year Total Source
Refuse Fund $ 100,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 100,000
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
TOTAL $ 100,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 100,000
Expenditures
Environmental $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Permitting $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Design $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
ROW $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Construction $ 100,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 100,000
Acquisition $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
TOTAL $ 100,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 100,000
Clean Bear Site Relocation

FACILITIES

SCOPE/DESCRIPTION JUSTIFICATION
Move Clean Bear Site No. 2 to a vacant City owned parcel on the south side of Cienega Drive.

Relocation of the Clean Bear Site No. 2 will allow for better circulation within the site.

On-going Operating & Maintenance Impact: No change.

Permits/ Easements Needed: WQMP, NOE

MAP PICTURE
FY 2025-26 Proposed Budget May 14, 2025 Appendix A-15
5-Year Capital Replacement / Improvement Plan
Project Detail Fiscal Year 25/26 - 29/30
PROJECT NO.: B.7 PROJECT COST: $ 1,750,000
Funding Year 25/26 26/27 27/28 28/29 29/30 5- Year Total Source
General Fund $ 300,000 $ - $ 50,000 $ - $ - $ 350,000
Reserves $ - $ 1,000,000 $ 400,000 $ - $ - $ 1,400,000
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
TOTAL $ 300,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 450,000 $ - $ - $ 1,750,000 Expenditures
Environmental $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Permitting $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Design $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
ROW $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Construction $ 300,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 450,000 $ - $ - $ 1,750,000 Acquisition $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
TOTAL $ 300,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 450,000 $ - $ - $ 1,750,000 General Plan Amendment

SCOPE/DESCRIPTION JUSTIFICATION

FACLITIES
The General Plan is a comprehensive, long-term general plan for the physical development of the City. The General Plan serves as a foundation for making land use decisions based upon the goals and policies that will be developed through this effort. This process will require retaining a qualified consultant to prepare the General Plan and will take approximately 3 years.

The City's current General Plan was adopted in 1999 and needs to be updated for the next approximately twentyyear period.

On-going Operating & Maintenance Impact: None

MAP PICTURE
Permits/ Easements Needed: Environmental Impact Report will be prepared as a part of this process.

FY 2025-26 Proposed Budget May 14, 2025 Appendix A-16
5-Year Capital Replacement / Improvement Plan
Project Detail Fiscal Year 25/26 - 29/30
PROJECT NO.: C.1 PROJECT COST: $ 660,000
Funding Year 25/26 26/27 27/28 28/29 29/30 5- Year Total Source
Measure Y TOT $ 660,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 660,000
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
TOTAL $ 660,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 660,000
Expenditures
Environmental $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Permitting $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Design $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
ROW $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Construction $ 660,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 660,000
Acquisition $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
TOTAL $ 660,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 660,000
Rathbun Creek Trailhead Restroom & Parking Lot

MAP PICTURE
Construction of a new restroom facility to support Rathbun Creek Trail users as well as the general public.

Rathbun Creek Trail is part of the Big Bear Valley
Pedestrian Bicycle Equestrian Master Plan (June 2013) and ultimately connects the lake to the US Forest Service trail system. There are currently no public restrooms along side the trail.

On-going Operating & Maintenance Impact: Increased maintenance for new restroom facilities and trash collection.

Permits/ Easements Needed: Notice of Exemption and WQMP

SCOPE/DESCRIPTION JUSTIFICATION

TRAILS/PARKS
FY 2025-26 Proposed Budget May 14, 2025 Appendix A-17
5-Year Capital Replacement / Improvement Plan
Project Detail Fiscal Year 25/26 - 29/30
PROJECT NO.: C.2 PROJECT COST: $ 1,160,000
Funding Year 25/26 26/27 27/28 28/29 29/30 5- Year Total Source
Measure Y TOT $ - $ 1,160,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 1,160,000
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
TOTAL $ - $ 1,160,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 1,160,000
Expenditures
Environmental $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Permitting $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Design $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
ROW $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Construction $ - $ 1,160,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 1,160,000
Acquisition $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
TOTAL $ - $ 1,160,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 1,160,000

MAP PICTURE
Rathbun Creek Trail Segment 2
On-going Operating & Maintenance Impact: Maintenance of the trail will be required.

Permits/ Easements Needed: Notice of Exemption, San Bernardino County Flood Control Easements/Permits, and Caltrans encroachment permit for this section of trail to cross Big Bear Boulevard

TRAILS/PARKS

SCOPE/DESCRIPTION JUSTIFICATION
Segment 2 of Rathbun Creek Trail extends the trail from Big Bear Blvd. west to Sandalwood Drive. The trail will be paved, with a wood rail fence and pedestrian bridge crossing.

The Rathbun Creek Trail is a high priority trail that will provide recreation, education opportunities, and
transportation greenway that will allow residents and
visitors a variety of opportunities to connect distinct segments of the City.

FY 2025-26 Proposed Budget May 14, 2025 Appendix A-18
5-Year Capital Replacement / Improvement Plan
Project Detail Fiscal Year 25/26 - 29/30
PROJECT NO.: C.3 PROJECT COST: $ 1,500,000
Funding Year 25/26 26/27 27/28 28/29 29/30 5- Year Total Source
Measure Y TOT $ - $ - $ - $ 1,500,000 $ - $ 1,500,000
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
TOTAL $ - $ - $ - $ 1,500,000 $ - $ 1,500,000
Expenditures
Environmental $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Permitting $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Design $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
ROW $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Construction $ - $ - $ - $ 1,500,000 $ - $ 1,500,000
Acquisition $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
TOTAL $ - $ - $ - $ 1,500,000 $ - $ 1,500,000
On-going Operating & Maintenance Impact: Maintenance of the trail will be required.

Permits/ Easements Needed: Notice of Exemption, San Bernardino County Flood Control Easements/Permits, Potential easements from other private property owners, including Big Bear Mountain Resort, dependent upon the designed alignment.

MAP PICTURE
Rathbun Creek Trail Segment 4

TRAILS/PARKS

SCOPE/DESCRIPTION JUSTIFICATION
Segment 4 of the Rathbun Creek Trail begins at Moonridge Road adjacent to the new Zoo and continues along the golf course to Sand Canyon Road. The trail will be paved, with a wood rail fence and pedestrian bridge crossing.

The Rathbun Creek Trail is a high priority trail that will provide recreation, education opportunities, and
transportation greenway that will allow residents and
visitors a variety of opportunities to connect distinct segments of the City.

FY 2025-26 Proposed Budget May 14, 2025 Appendix A-19
5-Year Capital Replacement / Improvement Plan
Project Detail Fiscal Year 25/26 - 29/30
PROJECT NO.: D.1 PROJECT COST: $ 1,500,000
Funding Year 25/26 26/27 27/28 28/29 29/30 5- Year Total Source
Sanitation $ 300,000 $ 300,000 $ 300,000 $ 300,000 $ 300,000 $ 1,500,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
TOTAL $ 300,000 $ 300,000 $ 300,000 $ 300,000 $ 300,000 $ 1,500,000 Expenditures
Environmental $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Permitting $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Design $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
ROW $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Construction $ 300,000 $ 300,000 $ 300,000 $ 300,000 $ 300,000 $ 1,500,000 Acquisition $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
TOTAL $ 300,000 $ 300,000 $ 300,000 $ 300,000 $ 300,000 $ 1,500,000

MAP PICTURE
Permits/ Easements Needed: Notice of Exemption.

Reline clay and concrete sanitary sewer mainline pipes
throughout the sanitation system.

Sewer pipes composed of clay and concrete material
attract tree roots making them more susceptible to inflow and infiltration problems.

On-going Operating & Maintenance Impact: Will reduce sewer back-up issues and reduce maintenance costs.

Sanitary Sewer Cured-in-Place Pipe (CIPP)

SCOPE/DESCRIPTION JUSTIFICATION

SANITATION
FY 2025-26 Proposed Budget May 14, 2025 Appendix A-20
5-Year Capital Replacement / Improvement Plan
Project Detail Fiscal Year 25/26 - 29/30
PROJECT NO.: D.2 PROJECT COST: $ 600,000
Funding Year 25/26 26/27 27/28 28/29 29/30 5- Year Total Source
Sanitation $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ - $ - $ 600,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
TOTAL $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ - $ - $ 600,000
Expenditures
Environmental $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Permitting $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Design $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
ROW $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Construction $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ - $ - $ 600,000 Acquisition $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
TOTAL $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ - $ - $ 600,000
Generator and Automatic Transfer Switch (ATS) Replacement

SANITATION

SCOPE/DESCRIPTION JUSTIFICATION
Replacement of generators and automatic transfer switches at lift stations throughout the system.

Generators and ATS need to be replaced due to
maintenance, age, and environmental concerns.

On-going Operating & Maintenance Impact: Upgrading equipment will prevent sanitary sewer flooding and maintain continuity of service during times of power interruption.

Permits/ Easements Needed: None.

MAP PICTURE
FY 2025-26 Proposed Budget May 14, 2025 Appendix A-21
5-Year Capital Replacement / Improvement Plan
Project Detail Fiscal Year 25/26 - 29/30
PROJECT NO.: D.3 PROJECT COST: $ 1,000,000
Funding Year 25/26 26/27 27/28 28/29 29/30 5- Year Total Source
Sanitation $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 1,000,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
TOTAL $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 1,000,000 Expenditures
Environmental $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Permitting $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Design $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
ROW $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Construction $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 1,000,000 Acquisition $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
TOTAL $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 1,000,000 On-going Operating & Maintenance Impact: Reduces need for replacement.

MAP PICTURE
Permits/ Easements Needed: Notice of Exemption
Wet Well Rehabilitation

SCOPE/DESCRIPTION JUSTIFICATION

SANITATION
Sewer Lift Stations require relining of sewer well walls. The proposed rehabilitation will increase the useful life of the manholes and eliminate future replacement costs.

FY 2025-26 Proposed Budget May 14, 2025 Appendix A-22
5-Year Capital Replacement / Improvement Plan
Project Detail Fiscal Year 25/26 - 29/30
PROJECT NO.: D.4 PROJECT COST: $ 1,350,000
Funding Year 25/26 26/27 27/28 28/29 29/30 5- Year Total Source
Sanitation $ 350,000 $ 250,000 $ 250,000 $ 250,000 $ 250,000 $ 1,350,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
TOTAL $ 350,000 $ 250,000 $ 250,000 $ 250,000 $ 250,000 $ 1,350,000 Expenditures
Environmental $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Permitting $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Design $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
ROW $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Construction $ 350,000 $ 250,000 $ 250,000 $ 250,000 $ 250,000 $ 1,350,000 Acquisition $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
TOTAL $ 350,000 $ 250,000 $ 250,000 $ 250,000 $ 250,000 $ 1,350,000 On-going Operating & Maintenance Impact: Annual maintenance program to reduce future costs.

Permits/ Easements Needed: Notice of Exemption

MAP PICTURE
Sewer Cleaning & Inspection Project

SANITATION

SCOPE/DESCRIPTION JUSTIFICATION
Annual maintenance program to perform cleaning and
inspections on sanitary sewer facilities. For each FY the highest priority areas will be targeted for maintenance and inspection.

The project will help to mitigate sanitary sewer back up issues and identify areas that may need additional
maintenance.

FY 2025-26 Proposed Budget May 14, 2025 Appendix A-23
5-Year Capital Replacement / Improvement Plan
Project Detail Fiscal Year 25/26 - 29/30
PROJECT NO.: E.1 PROJECT COST: $ 1,125,000
Funding Year 25/26 26/27 27/28 28/29 29/30 5- Year Total Source
General Fund $ 225,000 $ 225,000 $ 225,000 $ 225,000 $ 225,000 $ 1,125,000 GF Veh. Res. $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Sanitation $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Sani. Veh. Res. $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
TOTAL $ 225,000 $ 225,000 $ 225,000 $ 225,000 $ 225,000 $ 1,125,000 Expenditures
Environmental $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Permitting $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Design $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
ROW $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Construction $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Acquisition $ 225,000 $ 225,000 $ 225,000 $ 225,000 $ 225,000 $ 1,125,000 TOTAL $ 225,000 $ 225,000 $ 225,000 $ 225,000 $ 225,000 $ 1,125,000 On-going Operating & Maintenance Impact: Fleet will require routine maintenance.

Permits/ Easements Needed: None

MAP PICTURE
Vehicle Replacements

EQUIPMENT & VEHICLES

SCOPE/DESCRIPTION JUSTIFICATION
Replace aged fleet vehicles from the Sanitation, Public Works, Engineering, Building & Safety, and Neighborhood
Preservation Departments, at approximately 3 per year. Public Works vehicles must be equipped with radios and snow blades for plowing. For FY 25/26 the purchase will focus on aging Public Works vehicles.

Currently the City has approximately 42 fleet vehicles, with 19 vehicles older than 10 years. In order to keep costs down for acquiring difficult to find replacement parts
associated with older vehicles it is necessary to replace the City fleet on an annual basis.

FY 2025-26 Proposed Budget May 14, 2025 Appendix A-24
5-Year Capital Replacement / Improvement Plan
Project Detail Fiscal Year 25/26 - 29/30
PROJECT NO.: E.2 PROJECT COST: $ 1,150,000
Funding Year 25/26 26/27 27/28 28/29 29/30 5- Year Total Source
General Fund $ 200,000 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 800,000 Sanitation Fund $ 350,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 350,000
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
TOTAL $ 550,000 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 1,150,000 Expenditures
Environmental $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Permitting $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Design $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
ROW $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Construction $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Acquisition $ 550,000 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 1,150,000 TOTAL $ 550,000 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 1,150,000 On-going Operating & Maintenance Impact: Regularly scheduled maintenance.

Permits/ Easements Needed: None

MAP PICTURE
Heavy Equipment

EQUIPMENT & VEHICLES

SCOPE/DESCRIPTION JUSTIFICATION
Annual replenishment of heavy equipment fleet. For FY 25/26 this includes the purchase of a Sanitation CCTV van, equipped with WinCan software to conduct inspections and capture live video and data.

Heavy equipment that has exceeded life expectancy will be restocked to ensure safety and compliance standards as
well as plan for the long-term needs of the Public Works team.

FY 2025-26 Proposed Budget May 14, 2025 Appendix A-25

MEETING
DATE: June 12, 2024
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
THROUGH: Erik Sund, City Manager
FROM: Kelly Ent, Deputy City Manager / Chief Financial Officer SUBJECT: Award of Contract – Comprehensive User Fee Study and Cost Allocation Plan

BACKGROUND & DISCUSSION
State and local governments commonly charge user fees to fund the provision of goods and services. The amount of user fees charged may not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of providing the services. In establishing the fee amount, it is appropriate and reasonable to factor in the expense of the direct services which includes employee labor and benefits, supplies, materials, etc., as well as any indirect expenses such as overhead costs. Government organizations must have objective cost allocation plans to support indirect costs estimated for user fees that are periodically reviewed and updated.

The City’s current user fee schedule is based on a user fee study dated February 27, 2002. The City awarded its last Cost of Services plan in 2000, and implemented the new fee structure in 2002, which included Consumer Price Index (CPI) adjustments that were applied in the first few years.

With those adjustments factored in, user fees have not been updated since 2006.

The City released a Request for Proposals (RFP) on April 3, 2024, seeking proposals from qualified professional firms with proven experience to conduct a Comprehensive User Fee Study (Fee Study) and Cost Allocation Plan (CAP). The purpose of the requested study is to ensure the City assesses appropriate fees and rates that will allow the City to recover the actual costs incurred for fee-related services.

The scope of services requested in the RFP includes reviewing and updating all fees and charges for services provided by the city, as well as recommending additional fees. The study will evaluate the cost of providing each service and ensure a reasonable relationship between the cost and the current service fees. The goal is to recover the actual costs incurred for fee-related services and develop user fees that comply with Proposition 26, Proposition 218, and other applicable statutory requirements. The study will also compare rates and fees with similar cities and identify best practices in establishing user fees.

The proposal received by Matrix Consulting Group, Ltd. meets the mandatory elements which require the firms to be independent and free of conflicts of interest with the City, Department of Water (DWP), and Fire Protection District (FPD). City staff evaluated the proposal based on the cost of services to be provided, approach to working with City staff, timing to accomplish services requested, overall experience, client referrals, and the ability for City staff to internally update the Item 1.1
Attachment 2
cost allocation rates and user fees in future years.

Based on the evaluation of proposals, it is recommended that the City Council approve the professional services agreement with Matrix Consulting Group, Ltd. with a fixed not-to-exceed total contract cost of $49,990.

FISCAL IMPACT
The fiscal year 2024-25 budget appropriation includes the cost for professional services to support a comprehensive user fee study and cost allocation plan. No additional appropriation is being requested as the approved budget supports the cost of the contract.

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
This action has no impact pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

CONSIDERATION OF STRATEGIC PRIORITIES
This item aligns with Strategic Priority Goal No. 1, to “ensure fiscal responsibility.”

RECOMMENDED ACTION
It is recommended that the City Council adopt a Resolution Awarding a Professional Services Agreement to Matrix Consulting Group, Ltd. to Conduct a Comprehensive User Fee Study and Cost Allocation Plan.

ATTACHMENT

1. Resolution No. 2024-XX

2. 2024 RFP for a Comprehensive User Fee Study and Cost Allocation Plan

3. Matrix Consulting Group Proposal for a Comprehensive Fee Study and Cost Allocation Plan
Proposal for a Comprehensive Fee Study and Cost
Allocation Plan

BIG BEAR LAKE, CALIFORNIA
May 1, 2024
Richard Brady, President
Matrix Consulting Group, Ltd.
1650 S. Amphlett Blvd. Suite 213
San Mateo, CA 94402
(650) 858-0507
Table of Contents
Letter of Transmittal i
1 Independence, Business License, Insurance 1
2 Experience and Technical Competence 2
3 Proposed Method and Timing 13
4 Cost Proposal 27
May 1, 2024
Kelly Ent, Chief Financial Officer
City of Big Bear Lake
39707 Big Bear Blvd.

Big Bear Lake, CA 92315
Dear Ms. Ent:

The Matrix Consulting Group, Ltd. is pleased to have this opportunity to submit a proposal to conduct a Comprehensive User Fee Study and Cost Allocation Plan for the City of Big Bear Lake. While the City has included a Development Impact Fee Study scope of work within its RFP, we will not be including that service in our proposal, due to the City’s lack of updated facility and master plans. This proposal is based on our review and understanding of the City’s Request for Proposals.

We understand the importance of establishing documented and defensible studies to recover direct and indirect costs. We have conducted over 300 cost of service studies, mostly in California, and have been providing this service to our client for over 21 years. Our experience in providing similar services and understanding of the impact and implementation issues comes from working with clients across California, including Adelanto, Blythe, Calimesa, Downey, Glendale, Manhattan Beach, Menifee, Port of Long Beach, Redlands, Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino.

At Matrix Consulting Group, we distinguish ourselves from our competitors through our commitment to delivering unparalleled value. Our staff thoroughly understand service and process assumptions behind the cost of service. This dual expertise allows us to provide comprehensive insights and solutions that optimize efficiency and maximize our clients’ value.

I am the firm’s President, authorized to negotiate on its behalf and bind it contractually.

Courtney Ramos, a senior vice president and financial services practice leader, can clarify information in this proposal during the review process. We can be reached at the address and phone number below or via email at [email protected] and [email protected].

Richard Brady, President
Matrix Consulting Group, Ltd.
matrix
consulting group
Proposal for Comprehensive Fee Study and Cost Allocation Study Big Bear Lake, CA Matrix Consulting Group 1
1 Independence, Business License, and Insurance
The section contains required statements related to our independence from the City, business license information, and insurance compliance.

Independence
The Matrix Consulting Group is independent of the City, the Department of Water and Power (DWP) and Fire Protection District (FPD).

Business License
We understand that a City of Big Bear Lake Business License will be required while conducting any work under this contract.

Insurance
We have reviewed the City’s sample Professional Services Agreement (RFP Attachment A). We can comply with all terms and conditions except the insurance requirement requiring coverage for owned automobiles. Our firm does not own automobiles, as such we cannot provide coverage for this. Our insurance otherwise complies with contract requirements, and we would request an exception for this coverage.

Proposal for Comprehensive Fee Study and Cost Allocation Study Big Bear Lake, CA Matrix Consulting Group 2
2 Experience and Technical Competence
This section of our proposal provides an overview of our firm and relevant experience, including references, as well as an introduction to the proposed project team.

Introduction to the Matrix Consulting Group
The Matrix Consulting Group specializes in providing analytical services to local governments to assist them in providing highly responsive, efficient, and effective services to their residents. Our firm’s history and composition are summarized below:
• We are a corporation, incorporated in the State of California in 2003, and have our headquarters there (the Bay Area) and regional offices in Irvine (CA), Edwardsville (IL), the Dallas Metroplex (TX), Portland (OR), and the Tampa (FL) area. • We are comprised of 28 full time and seven part time highly experienced management consultants who specialize in the analysis of local government functions encompassing the entire spectrum of critical operational areas. We have a dedicated financial services team.
• We have worked with over 1,700 government agencies, conducting cost of service and management studies and providing recommendations for operations, improvements, and cost recovery.
• The market and service focus of the Matrix Consulting Group has always been financial, management, staffing, and operations analysis of local government. The following outlines the core financial services provided by our firm:

OMB 2 CFR Part 200 Cost Plans User Fee Studies
Full Cost Plans Development Impact Fee Studies
Indirect Cost Rate Proposals Fully Burdened Hourly Rates Internal Service Fund Analyses Revenue Projections
No other firm better understands how public agencies operate or how to help them thrive.

Cost Allocation Plan Experience
Our firm has extensive experience developing Full Cost and OMB compliant Cost Allocation Plans, as well as Indirect Cost Rate Proposals for various municipal organizations across the United States. Whether we are working with large cities, small towns, special districts, or individual departments, our goal is to document and define the services being provided, and accurately allocate costs to all beneficiaries. The following points highlight our experience with developing cost allocation processes and metrics:

Proposal for Comprehensive Fee Study and Cost Allocation Study Big Bear Lake, CA Matrix Consulting Group 3
• Administrative Functions: Our firm has extensive experience in evaluating processes and functions associated with Finance, Human Resources, and Purchasing. From basic tasks and responsibilities to process improvement and oversight controls, our project teams can:
- Identify core service functions, such as payroll, employee benefits, budget preparation, agenda, and Council support.
- Review current data metrics, and work with staff to ensure resulting allocations are appropriate, fair, and equitable.
- Recognize services that are not in direct support of departments, including land acquisition and stewardship, and ensure they are accurately identified, but not further allocated.

Our project teams understand the core services associated with administrative functions, as well as the time associated with process completion, and are adept at helping staff determine daily, weekly, monthly, or annual time spent on a task.

These assumptions form the core basis of a cost allocation plan, and should be defensible not only through documentation, but also by City staff. • Governmental Functions: The Matrix Consulting Group has worked with and been a part of managerial studies relating to Manager and Legal services. Additionally, we have extensive experience working with, and presenting to various boards, councils, subcommittees, and the public. Our understanding of the various types of services provided allow our project teams to assess what services are best for allocation, including:
- Categorizing services and support that benefit the City as an organization, such as contract negotiation, and approval of internal policies. - Identifying services that benefit the City economically, such as lobbying, and economic development, which should not be allocated.

Our team understands how these costs can and should be treated in both a Full Cost Plan and OMB compliant plan, including making staff aware of common practices, as well as aggressive allocation options.
• Internal Services: The Matrix Consulting Group has significant experience evaluating services and functions associated with facilities maintenance, fleet services, and information technology. While these services can be part of the general fund or internal services, their allocation is important when trying to understand the indirect costs associated with any fund, department, or program.

Our project teams work with these departments to:

Proposal for Comprehensive Fee Study and Cost Allocation Study Big Bear Lake, CA Matrix Consulting Group 4
- Review existing allocation processes and metrics to ensure compliance with state and federal regulations.
- Determine if newer metrics, or metric alterations could provide more accurate allocations.
• Indirect Cost Rate Proposals: Our firm’s experience with indirect cost rate proposals ranges from developing citywide proposals to departmental and divisional proposals. We look at all indirect costs related to the service and program area, determine if it is allowable and then set up the indirect cost rate calculation. Based upon the jurisdiction’s rate methodology we are versed in provisional, fixed final, and fixed carry forward rates. We work with our clients to review rates, outline appropriate applications, and customize templates based upon cognizant agency guidelines.

Our project team members are well versed in Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidelines for cost allocation, Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP), and best management practices outlined by the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) relating to cost allocation and cost recovery. We are committed to ensuring that all cost centers being allocated comply with state and local laws, use fair and equitable allocation metrics, and are documented and defensible.

The following table provides a sampling of California jurisdictions for whom we have provided similar services, including the types of services provided to each jurisdiction, relevant to cost allocation services:

Jurisdiction Full Cost OMB Indirect Rates Annual Plan
Adelanto, CA X
Citrus Heights, CA X X
Cupertino, CA X X
Daly City, CA X
Dixon, CA X X
Downey, CA X X
Elk Grove, CA X X X
Fairfield, CA X X
Livermore, CA X X X
Manhattan Beach, CA X X X
Menifee, CA X X
Millbrae, CA X X
Pacific Grove, CA X X
Redlands, CA X
Redwood City, CA X X
Riverside, CA X X
San Mateo, CA X X X
Santa Clara, CA X X
South San Francisco, CA X X
Sunnyvale, CA X X X
Proposal for Comprehensive Fee Study and Cost Allocation Study Big Bear Lake, CA Matrix Consulting Group 5
Details about any project listed in this section are available upon request.

User Fee Study Experience
Our firm has extensive experience conducting comprehensive user fee studies for a variety of municipal organizations and departments. When conducting comprehensive user fee studies, the focus is often on Community Development (building, planning, and engineering) and Parks and Recreation services. The following points highlight our experience in these areas:
• Community Development: Our firm has extensive experience in evaluating development review permitting functions for Building, Planning, Engineering, and Fire Prevention. From the basic process steps for submitting, reviewing, inspecting, and approving applications and permits to development of processes, procedures, and cost recovery goals, our project teams can address topics as:
– The best metric for assessing fees, such as building valuation, square footage, construction estimate, or number of fixtures.
– Appropriate deposit amounts, guidelines, and processes to ensure actual cost recovery is achieved.
– Setting fees at levels that both recover costs but are not cost prohibitive. – Cost recovery and implementation options for support services including General Plan Updates, Technology Fees, GIS, etc.

Beyond understanding processes and assessing time estimates provided, our project teams are aware of the cross-departmental support associated with application and permit services. These costs are included in the full cost calculation and can be expressed as part of the established fee or a separate fee. • Parks and Recreation: The Matrix Consulting Group has worked with every type of recreation function, including traditional parks and recreation, libraries, and open space preserves. Our experience spans master and strategic planning, park condition assessments, and program staffing and cost recovery. Our project teams are well versed in the areas that most impact cost recovery, including:
– The best use of a tiered recovery approach, such as resident versus nonresident, or profit versus non-profit. – Setting fees according to the cost recovery pyramid to ensure that premium services have a higher cost recovery.

Proposal for Comprehensive Fee Study and Cost Allocation Study Big Bear Lake, CA Matrix Consulting Group 6
The goal in reviewing parks and recreation costs for service, is to ensure that fees and rates are set at a level that allows the City to continue to serve the community in a manner consistent with current goals and commitments.

Our firm also has extensive experience in calculating cost of services for administrative functions such as Finance and City Clerk, as well as public safety services relating to Police, Fire Prevention, and EMS.

All our cost of service and user fee studies are developed in compliance with California State regulations including Propositions 218 and 26, as well as government codes 66014 and 66016 which stipulate that user fees charged by local agencies “…may not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of providing the service for which the fee is charged”.

The following table includes a sampling of California clients for whom we have conducted user fee studies, including the types of departments and services reviewed:

Jurisdiction
Planning
Fees
Building
Fees
Engineering
Fees
Fire
Fees
Admin
Fees
Utility
Fees
Police
Fees
Recreation
Fees
Adelanto, CA X X X X X
Capitola, CA X X X X
Citrus Heights, CA X X X X X X
Cupertino, CA X X X X
Dixon, CA X X X X X X
Downey, CA X X X X X X X X
Elk Grove, CA X X X
Glendale, CA X X X X X X X X
Livermore, CA X X X X
Los Altos Hills, CA X X X X
Manhattan Beach, CA X X X X X X X X
Menifee, CA X X X X X X X
Millbrae, CA X X X X X X
Mill Valley, CA X X X X X X
Montebello, CA X X X X X X X X
Orange, CA X X X X X X X X
Pacific Grove, CA X X X X X X
Redwood City, CA X X X X X X X X
San Mateo, CA X X X
Santa Clara, CA X X X X X X X X
South Pasadena, CA X X X X X X X
So. San Francisco, CA X X X X X X X X
Stockton, CA X X X X
Vacaville, CA X X X X X X X
Winters, CA X X X X X X X
References
The following table references three (3) clients for whom similar services were provided and managed by our project executive and project manager.

Proposal for Comprehensive Fee Study and Cost Allocation Study Big Bear Lake, CA Matrix Consulting Group 7
Client Client Contact Project Type/Details
Menifee, CA Margarita Cornejo
Deputy Finance Director
(951) 723-3716
[email protected]
Cost Allocation Plan
Citywide User Fee Study
Development Impact Fee Study
South San Francisco, CA Jason Wong
Deputy Finance Director
(650) 877-8505
[email protected]
Full Cost Allocation Plan
OMB Cost Allocation Plan
Citywide Fee Study
Development Impact Fee Study
Walnut, CA Joelle Guerra
Senior Planner
(909) 595-7543
[email protected]
Development Fee Study
Additional details are available upon request.

Proposed Project Team
All proposed project team members are full-time permanent employees of Matrix Consulting Group. The table below includes brief professional summaries of each team member.

Courtney Ramos
Vice President,
Project Executive
Experience:
18 years
Ms. Ramos is our Financial Services Practice Leader, who oversees cost allocation plan, user fee, development impact fee, and cost of service engagements. Her tenure has also included participation in operational audits focusing on organizational / staffing structure enhancements.

Courtney has completed over 250 cost of service studies. Clients include Chula Vista, Glendale, Riverside, Manhattan Beach, South Pasadena, South El Monte, and Adelanto.

Her role on this project would be to serve as the Project Executive involved in reviewing and presenting results.

Proposal for Comprehensive Fee Study and Cost Allocation Study Big Bear Lake, CA Matrix Consulting Group 8
Khushboo Ingle
Senior Manager,
Project Manager
Experience:
12 years
Ms. Ingle is a Senior Manager who manages cost allocation plan, user fee, development impact fee, and cost of service engagements. Her experience with the firm also includes participation in operational audit engagements focusing on organization, staffing, and internal processes.

Khushboo has completed over 150 cost of service studies. Clients that she’s worked with include Pomona, Chula Vista, Riverside, Burbank, Pasadena, Lemon Grove, Redlands, and San Bernardino.

Her role on this project would be to serve as the Project Manager, involved in leading meetings, developing draft results, and reviewing results.

Madison Dixson
Sr. Consultant,
Data Analyst
Experience:
2 years
Ms. Dixson is an analyst who assists our senior staff on cost allocation plan, user fee, development impact fee, and cost of service engagements.

Madison has participated in numerous cost allocation and cost of service studies. Recent clients include Menifee, Calimesa, South San Francisco, Glendale, Burbank, and Pasadena.

Her role on this project would be to serve as an Analyst, involved in attending meetings, data input, and developing models.

Abnash Minhas
Consultant,
Analyst
Experience:
1 year
Ms. Minhas is an analyst who has recently joined our firm to assist our staff on cost-of-service engagements including cost allocation plan, user fee, and development impact fee studies.

Abnash has recently assisted the project team with Glendale, Burbank, Menifee, and Pomona.

Her role on this project would be to serve as an Analyst, involved in attending meetings, data input, and model development.

Resumes for each team member begin on the following page.

Proposal for Comprehensive Fee Study and Cost Allocation Study Big Bear Lake, CA Matrix Consulting Group 9

COURTNEY RAMOS

SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT/CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
Courtney Ramos is our Financial Services Practice Leader, who oversees cost allocation plan, user fee, development impact fee, and cost of service engagements. Her tenure with the firm has also included participation in operational audit engagements focusing on reviewing organizational and staffing structures to enhance services.

Courtney’s relevant experience include:
• Completed over 250 cost of service studies for clients across the United States.
• Analysis focuses on development and documentation of direct and indirect costs, fair and equitable allocation methodologies, and defensible results.
• Expertise also includes development of fiscal policies and procedures relating to cost of service and cost recovery.

Experience Highlights
Manhattan Beach CA: Courtney served as the project manager on this engagement which determined the overhead allocation and full cost of providing city fee-based services. Key analysis included:
• Identifying services provided by City staff, including documenting services, and service levels.
• Ensuring fair and equitable allocations of support services. • Recommending capital project allocation through direct engineering charges.

Riverside, CA: This study reviewed the City’s overhead review practices.

Key analysis included:
• Ensuring all central services are appropriately accounted for in the plan.
• Identifying best practices for cost allocation.

Role on This Engagement:

Courtney will serve as the Project Executive on this engagement, ensuring timely project deliverables, quality control, and presentation support to stakeholders.

Relevant CA Clients:

Citrus Heights
Cupertino
Dixon
Elk Grove
Fairfield
Humboldt County
Livermore
Long Beach
Manhattan Beach
Orange
Pacific Grove
Redwood City
San Bernardino County
San Pablo
San Mateo
Santa Clara
Santa Clara County
Sonoma County
South San Francisco
Stanislaus County
Sunnyvale
Vacaville
Winters
Willits
Years of Experience: 18
Education:

A.A. Administration of
Justice, A.A. Sociology
Santa Barbara City College
(CA).

Professional Association /
Certification:

Government Finance
Officers Association
California Society of
Municipal Finance Officers
OMB Cost Plan Best
Practices
Proposal for Comprehensive Fee Study and Cost Allocation Study Big Bear Lake, CA Matrix Consulting Group 10

KHUSHBOO INGLE

VICE PRESIDENT
Ms. Ingle is a Vice President who manages cost allocation plan, user fee, development impact fee, and cost of service engagements. Her experience with the firm also includes participation in operational audit engagements focusing on reviewing organizational, staffing, and internal processes to enhance services.

Khushboo’s relevant experience include:
• Completed over 150 cost of service studies for clients across the United States.
• Analysis focuses on verifying and reviewing cost of service assumptions and ensuring compliance with best practices. • Expertise also includes impact fee studies and development feestudies.

Experience Highlights
Menifee, CA: Khushboo served as the Project Manager on this engagement which looked at conducting a full cost allocation plan, OMB compliant cost plan, citywide fee study and development impact fee analysis. Key analysis includes:
• Reviewing and identifying indirect support areas.
• Determining the full cost of building permit and plan review fees. • Conducting outreach with the BIA on approval of study results.

Pomona, CA: Khushboo served as the project manager on this engagement which developed an OMB Compliant Cost Plan, Indirect Cost Rate, and Citywide Fully Burdened Hourly Rates. Key analysis included:
• Ensuring compliance with OMB 2 CFR Part 200 Compliant Guidelines.
• Assigning defensible metrics to ensure appropriate indirect rate. • Calculating overhead costs for inclusion in fully burdened rates.

Role on This Engagement:

Khushboo will serve as the Project Manager on this engagement, leading interviews and coordinating necessary data collection for the financial analysis, policy discussions, and working with the Data Analyst to compile and analyze data.

Relevant CA Clients:

Adelanto
Citrus Heights
Cupertino
Dixon
Elk Grove
Fairfield
Humboldt County
Livermore
Long Beach
Manhattan Beach
Menifee
Orange
Redlands
Redwood City
San Bernardino County
San Mateo
Santa Clara
Santa Clara County
Sonoma County
South San Francisco
Sunnyvale
Vacaville
Winters
Years of Experience: 12
Education:

B.A., University of
California – San Diego,
International Economics
M.A., University of
California – San Diego,
International Affairs
Professional Association /
Certification:

California Society of
Municipal Finance Officers
Revenue Enhancement
Best Practices
Proposal for Comprehensive Fee Study and Cost Allocation Study Big Bear Lake, CA Matrix Consulting Group 11

MADISON DIXSON

SENIOR CONSULTANT
Ms. Dixson is a lead analyst on cost allocation plan, user fee, development impact fee, and cost of service engagements.

Madison’s relevant experience include:
• Completed over 50 cost of service studies for clients across the United States.
• Analysis focuses on comparative review of services and fee levels. • Expertise also includes narrative analysis of cost of service studies.

Experience Highlights
Riverside, CA: Madison served as a project analyst on this engagement. She worked with the project team to input data into the model to develop the OMB Compliant Cost Plan for the City of Riverside.

Glendale, CA: Madison supported our senior team members in collection, analysis, and distillation of allocation metrics for input into the Citywide Fee Model. This ensured accurate development of fee results, as well as clear backup documentation for the City.

Redlands, CA: Madison worked as a project analyst, participating in interviews discussing support areas, reviewing and compiling agenda statistic information, and developing a cost allocation narrative to describe the services being allocated.

Role on This Engagement:

Madison will serve as the Lead Analyst on this engagement, collecting and reviewing data, inputting data into analytical models, and producing final results.

Relevant CA Clients:

Adelanto
Burbank
Cupertino
Daly City
Dixon
Fairfield
Fort Bragg
Glendale
Menifee
Millbrae
Palo Alto
Pasadena
Port of Long Beach
Redlands
Redwood City
Riverside
San Bernardino
San Bernardino County
San Mateo
Santa Clara
Stockton
South San Francisco
Sunnyvale
Years of Experience: 3
Education:

B.A., University of
California, Irvine,
Anthropology
Professional Association /
Certification:

California Society of
Municipal Finance Officers
Revenue Cost Allocation
Best Practices
Proposal for Comprehensive Fee Study and Cost Allocation Study Big Bear Lake, CA Matrix Consulting Group 12

ABNASH MINHAS

CONSULTANT
Ms. Minhas is an analyst on cost allocation plan, user fee, development impact fee, and cost of service engagements.

Abnash’s relevant experience include:
• Completed over 20 cost of service studies for clients across the United States.
• Analysis focuses on data analysis of metrics.
• Expertise also includes narrative analysis of cost-of-service studies.

Experience Highlights
Calimesa, CA: Abnash supported the project team on this engagement. She worked with the project team to clean up data and conduct comparative analyses for the fee study.

Redlands, CA: Abnash worked as a project analyst, participating in comparative analyses, and putting together workbooks for city staff review.

Malibu, CA: Abnash is currently assisting on a project for the City of Malibu, working on gathering comparative information, calculating hourly rates, and inputting data into models.

Role on This Engagement:

Abnash will serve as an Analyst on this engagement, collecting data, inputting data into analytical models, and assisting with development of reports.

Relevant Clients:

Burlingame
Calimesa
Chula Vista
Glendale
Los Altos
Malibu
Pacific Grove
Pomona
Redlands
Redwood City
San Mateo
San Ramon
Sonoma Fire
South San Francisco
Years of Experience: 3
Education:

B.A., University of
California – San Diego,
Economics
Professional Association /
Certification:

OMB Cost Allocation Best
Practices
Proposal for Comprehensive Fee Study and Cost Allocation Study Big Bear Lake, CA Matrix Consulting Group 13
3 Proposed Method and Timing
The Matrix Consulting Group works with various clients ranging from small towns to major metropolitan cities in over 46 states across the U.S. and Canada. Every project is unique but is managed according to the following essential project approach:

The above approaches allow us to provide services to our clients that not only meet their needs and adhere to state and local guidelines but also educate staff about uses and applications of fees and provide guidance for future updates or increases.

Quality Control
We believe very strongly in the science of our craft, especially as it relates to cost allocation and cost of service studies. As such, our firm utilizes quality control techniques which include:
• Project Management: Ensuring our projects meet the needs and timelines of our clients are accomplished through the following:
- The project manager and lead analyst develop general and project specific data collection plans and interview guides.
- All project work activities are defined in advance and tied to each project team member, deliverables, the schedule, and the budget. - We have frequent client review meetings to discuss the quality and direction of the project through interim deliverables and draft documents.

Understanding City-specific financial data.

Working collaboratively wtih City staff through meetings and workshops.

Applying industry standards, best management practices, and technical expertise for cost allocation and user fee application.

Calculating defensible results with buy-in from internal and external stakeholders.

Providing recommendations and transferring knowledge and work products to City staff for successful implementation.

Proposal for Comprehensive Fee Study and Cost Allocation Study Big Bear Lake, CA Matrix Consulting Group 14
• Numerical Results: Financial analyses are used to develop budgets and projections, and often are subject to public oversight and review. For this reason, our firm ensures data determined quality control through the following:
- Expenditure data entered into cost models are tied to budget documents. - Allocation metrics are tied to published reports / data outputs and workload is used to cross-check true cost associated with services.

These project management approaches have resulted in all our projects being delivered at a high level of quality, on time and on budget.

Work Plan
The City of Big Bear Lake is requesting three scopes of work: 1) Cost Allocation Plan; 2) Comprehensive User Fee Study; and 3) Development Impact Fee Study. We are only proposing to bid on two of the three scopes of work – the Cost Allocation and User Fee Studies. We are foregoing bidding on the Development Impact Fee Study due to the City’s lack of current (within the last five years) data such as development project projections, and master plans for facilities and infrastructure. The unavailability of these materials makes it difficult to establish a strong nexus for impact fees in compliance with new regulations relating to AB602.

The Cost Allocation and Fee Study scopes of work can be conducted concurrently as there are economies of scale that can be achieved by conducting them in this way. The following subsections outline the tasks broken out by Project-Wide Tasks, Cost Allocation Plan Tasks, Comprehensive User Fee Study Tasks, Development Impact Fee Study Tasks.

Project-wide Tasks
The following tasks would be conducted for all scopes of work.

Task 1 Data Collection
Prior to any initial meetings, the Matrix Consulting Group will provide the City with a list of initial data requirements for the study. This will allow our project team to review this information thoroughly in preparation for initial discussions with staff. A common list of data collection items include:
• Budgeted Expenditures per Fund and Department.
• Staffing per Fund and Department.
• List of current fees to be included in the scope.

Proposal for Comprehensive Fee Study and Cost Allocation Study Big Bear Lake, CA Matrix Consulting Group 15
• Copy of any previous studies / analyses.
• List of comparable jurisdictions for the comparative analysis.

The provision of these items will allow our project team to familiarize themselves with the City’s structure.

Deliverable List of basic data requirements for the Study Meetings None
Task 2 Study Objectives and Project Schedule
Once the data has been collected, the project team will then meet with designated City staff to discuss any issues identified by the project team, as well as to clarify any existing issues or concerns held by the City regarding the current user fee study and impact fee study methodology. Discussions will include:
• Review of the City’s specific needs and critical issues surrounding development and implementation of the cost allocation and fee study. • Opportunities for improvement and restructuring of previous fee analyses. • Discussion of cost recovery goals and targets, as well as infrastructure needs.

At the culmination of the meeting, the project team and the designated City staff will leave with a greater understanding of the overall approach and methodology that will be taken by the project team to conduct the cost allocation and comprehensive fee study.

Deliverable Project Schedule
Meetings Kickoff
Task 3 Excel-Based Models and Training
The City of Big Bear Lake has requested an excel-based model for updating the cost allocation and user fee study. Our Excel-based models would provide the ability for the City to adapt and continuously update results from year to year as the organization changes.

After the final drafts are approved, at the discretion of City staff, the project team would meet with and train designated City employees on use of the models. Staff will be provided with training, which walks through the model tabs, includes instructions tab in the model, a user guide for the cost allocation model, and discusses specific customizations made for the City.

Proposal for Comprehensive Fee Study and Cost Allocation Study Big Bear Lake, CA Matrix Consulting Group 16
Deliverable Cost Allocation and Fee Study Model(s)
Meetings Model Training
Cost Allocation Plan Tasks
The City of Big Bear Lake is interested in developing a Cost Allocation Plan to capture the indirect costs associated with direct programs and services. The plan's results will provide the city with the direct and indirect costs associated with the operations of its services, as well as fully burdened hourly rates by staff position. The City is interested in both a Full Cost Allocation Plan, used as overhead in fee studies and reimbursement from non-general fund sources, and an OMB Compliant Cost Plan used for reimbursement for federal and state grants. The following provides an overview of the tasks to be conducted, deliverables, and any meetings.

Task 1 Interview Staff and Gather Allocation Metrics
The project team would review the City’s budget and financial structure to identify City departments and services to be allocated. To structure a custom cost allocation model, our project team would perform the following:
• Review and discuss the accounting (fund and organizational levels) structure of the City based upon the budgeted expenditures to identify any anomalies from previous years.
• Identify and meet specific central services departments to develop allocation bases and ensure that the plan reflects the following aspects:
- All current services provided by the Department are identified and documented within the Cost Allocation Plan.
- Allocation bases discussed to be utilized are reflective of the current level of effort and most relatable to the service being performed.

The following is a sample flowchart visually representing the discussion outcome, the first level is the central services department, the second level is the identified service category, and the third level is the basis by which costs will be allocated:

Proposal for Comprehensive Fee Study and Cost Allocation Study Big Bear Lake, CA Matrix Consulting Group 17
• Discuss alternative allocations, including outcomes and potential impacts.

The points above provide examples of the types of detailed and in-depth discussions that the project team will have with City departments involved in the cost allocation process.

At this point in the process, the project team would reach out to each department and ask for specific allocation metrics such as purchase orders, invoices, sq. ft. per facility, etc.

Deliverable Allocation Metric Requests from Support Departments Meetings 1 Meeting per Support Department
Task 2 Review of Draft Cost Allocation Metrics
Based on the units of service identified in Task 1 and the allocation metrics collected, the project team would put together allocation statistic workbooks for review with specific central service departments. The purpose of these workbooks is to review the initial results of the allocation metrics gathered by the project team. The following graphic shows an example of the allocation workbook:

Fund Dept Desc
# of AR Transactions
per Fund/Dept Allocation %
1 10 City Manager 3 0.87%
1 16 Human Resources 30 8.75%
1 20 City Attorney 30 8.75%
1 30 Police 68 19.83%
1 35 Fire 1 0.29%
1 40 Development Services 7 2.04%
1 50 Public Works Streets 5 1.46%
1 50 Public Works Facilities 1 0.29%
1 50 Public Works Community Services 185 53.94%
10 Water 1 0.29%
14 Sewer 8 2.33%
29 Self-Insured Liability Fund 4 1.17%
TOTAL 343 100.00%
Finance
Payroll
# of Employees per
Division
Accounts Payable
# of Invoices per
Division
Financial Reporting
Actual Expenses per
Division
Proposal for Comprehensive Fee Study and Cost Allocation Study Big Bear Lake, CA Matrix Consulting Group 18
In the sample graphic provided, based on the number of AR Transactions per fund/department, the primary support is for Public Works Community Services (54%) for all the Parks and Recreation transactions, followed by Police (20%). Based upon the results of this sample, the project team would verify with Finance that the statistics were allocated to the appropriate fund/department and that the resulting percentage is reflective of the support being provided by the Accounts Receivable staff and function.

This type of detailed review is critical for the development of a defensible cost allocation plan. It also ensures that departmental staff and City staff are comfortable with the use of the allocation metrics and the support that those metrics represent.

Deliverable Draft Allocation Workbooks
Meetings 1 Draft Allocation Meeting per Department
Task 3 Structure and Prepare Draft Full Cost Allocation Plan Once the central service departments and administrative functional areas have agreed upon, the appropriate allocation metrics for services, allowable administrative or other indirect costs are allocated to each benefiting department, operating unit, or fund. At this point the project team would begin customizing the Cost Plan to ensure methodologies and assumptions comply with Federal regulations and general accounting principles.

During the development of the cost allocation plan, the project team will ensure that any expenses included in the plan are vetted and reviewed with Finance staff, as well as incorporate any direct reimbursements. The results of the draft cost allocation plan will be provided to staff in numerical format in Excel prior to the development of a draft report.

Deliverable Draft Cost Allocation (Excel Results)
Meetings Draft Results Meeting with Finance
Task 4 Finalize the Cost Allocation Plan
Upon review and approval of the draft cost plan by central service departments and the Finance Department, the project team will finalize the Cost Allocation Plan and report.

The final deliverables associated with the Cost Allocation Plan will be:
• Cost allocation plan report: including all detailed allocation schedules, cost schedules, summary schedules, and narrative information regarding the central services included.
• Excel summary schedule: the results of the full cost allocation plan in Excel format for ease of calculations, incorporation into City documents, and review by staff.

Proposal for Comprehensive Fee Study and Cost Allocation Study Big Bear Lake, CA Matrix Consulting Group 19
This type of final work product ensures that information is available in a variety of formats for City staff to use. The detailed report serves as backup documentation; whereas the excel results can be input into budget documents.

Deliverable Final Cost Allocation Report
Meetings None
Task 5 Structure Draft OMB Cost Allocation Model
The City is also interested in the development of an OMB 2 CFR Part 200 Compliant Cost Allocation. The OMB Compliant Cost Allocation Plan has the following key requirements:

1. Expenditures Allocated: The OMB 2 CFR Part 200 must be based upon the most recent fiscal year’s audited actual expenditures.

2. Types of Services Included: Services such as lobbying, legislative costs, and certain Treasurer costs, cannot be included in the OMB 2 CFR Part 200 plan.

The draft 2 CFR Part 200 Compliant Cost Allocation Plan will provide clear documentation regarding the basis for allocations, and the methodologies applied to achieve the plan’s final result. The Draft Cost Allocation Plan will be discussed and reviewed with each participating department as well as City staff to ensure appropriate metrics and expenditures have been included.

Deliverable Draft OMB Excel Results
Meetings Draft Results Review
Task 6 Draft OMB Cost Allocation Plan Report
Upon approval of the excel draft results of the cost allocation model, the project team will put together a Cost Allocation Report. This draft report will include a narrative description of all City departments and services included in the cost plan and the methodology used to allocate those services. In addition to the narrative portion, the excel portion will be included identifying how each cost was allocated.

Deliverable Draft OMB Report
Meetings Draft Meeting Review
Task 7 Finalize OMB Cost Plan
Any revisions or edits from the draft cost allocation study would be incorporated into the Final Cost Allocation study report.

Proposal for Comprehensive Fee Study and Cost Allocation Study Big Bear Lake, CA Matrix Consulting Group 20
Deliverable Final OMB Report
Meetings None
Task 8 Develop Fully Burdened Hourly Rates
The project team will calculate fully burdened hourly rates inclusive of direct and indirect costs. The following points highlight the cost components and factors included in fully burdened rates:
• Direct costs: This component accounts for salary and benefits associated with each employee or position and is reflective of staffing and salary reports provided by the City.
• Indirect costs - departmental: This component accounts for operational services and supplies which are used in the execution of job duties. This cost component is developed through analysis of services and supply budgets. • Indirect costs - citywide: This component accounts for citywide support such as Finance, HR, and Attorney support provided by other city departments. This cost component is derived from the Cost Allocation Plan.

Additionally, we will review MOU’s or labor agreements and talk with staff to determine appropriate productive hour calculations. This reduction in available hours will ensure that fully burdened hourly rates account for leave accruals (holiday, vacation, and sick), as well as any meetings or trainings. The results of this analysis will be fully burdened hourly rates by position.

Deliverable Fully Burdened Hourly Rates (Full Cost & OMB) Meetings Meeting to Discuss Hourly Rate Assumptions
Task 9 Present the Final Report to Key Stakeholders
While Cost Allocation Plans are typically not presented to Council or external stakeholders, the project team would work with the City to determine the appropriate group to present the results of the cost allocation plan, as well as discuss implementation options.

Deliverable Presentation
Meetings 1-3 City Meetings
Proposal for Comprehensive Fee Study and Cost Allocation Study Big Bear Lake, CA Matrix Consulting Group 21
Comprehensive User Fee Study Tasks
The City of Big Bear Lake is requesting a comprehensive fee analysis. The purpose of these studies is to ensure compliance with existing state rules and regulations as well as future pending state rules and regulations. The following tasks provide an overview of the level of detail utilized to conduct the comprehensive fee study.

Task 1 Develop a Schedule of Current and Potential Fees for Service The project team will work with staff to review their current fee schedules in line-item detail. This meeting is critical in ensuring staff can incorporate any updates or changes to the fee study based on code, regulation, staffing, process, or technological changes.

The focus of this meeting will be the following:
• Renaming fees: Rewording or renaming fees to identify services more clearly. • Eliminating fees: Removing any outdated services or fees. • Adding new fees: Capturing any new services or breaking out existing fee categories to identify all the services being provided by City staff more clearly and identify potential fees for services that the City would like to provide. • Recategorization of fees: Collapsing or expanding multiple fee ranges to better capture the services provided. For example, eliminate lot ranges or acreages if those do not impact the review amount, but add categories based upon the approval level (i.e., Council vs. Director level).

It is important to note that this meeting occurs first to ensure that any significant proposed structural changes are captured prior to collecting time estimate information or developing draft fee results. However, there is the ability to make future adjustments.

Deliverable Proposed Fee Structure(s)
Meetings Fee Structure Meeting
Task 2 Conduct Time Data Gathering Workshops
The project team will conduct workshops to gather time estimates for each service included in the study, interview key personnel from each department, and analyze the various activities being performed. Below is an example of the steps involved in permit processing and the time associated with each step.

Proposal for Comprehensive Fee Study and Cost Allocation Study Big Bear Lake, CA Matrix Consulting Group 22
Basic process steps in application/permit processing will be documented and provided in detail for each department / division represented in the study. The project team will try to minimize the impact on staff by incorporating any baseline assumptions from prior city studies.

The project team will conduct multiple time estimate workshop(s) for each department / division included in the study, and the workshop results will be Excel-based workbook(s) that staff can review. Staff will be provided time for any edits or comments on time estimate information.

Deliverable Time Estimate Workbook(s)
Meetings 2-3 Time Estimate Workshops
Task 3 Perform Total Cost Analysis
The Matrix Consulting Group’s costing model is built based on the City’s operations, budget details, and intended uses for the results. This method is a customized approach specific to each jurisdiction for cost analysis of user fee services. It is a “bottom-up” approach, the most defensible methodology for calculating user fees. The methodology incorporates the time estimate information and fully burdened hourly rate (from cost allocation plan task) information. The following graphic shows the cost calculation:

This costing method uses time and annual activity level data to establish the cost of providing services on both a unit and an annual level. Once the time spent for a fee activity is determined for each individual or position, the team uses its fee and rate software to apply the fully burdened hourly rates calculated in the previous task.

Resulting costs are presented on a unit and annual level and are compared to the existing fee schedule and revenue reports. The City will obtain detailed information regarding cost recovery surpluses and deficits on both a detailed (per unit) and global (annualized) level, as well as an understanding of cost components for each service.

Intake
Permit Tech:
15 mins
Routing
Permit Tech:
10 mins
Initial Review
Plan Checker:
1 hour
Final Review
Plan Checker:
30 mins
Issue Permit
Permit Tech:
15 mins
Time
Estimate
Fully
Burdened
Rate
Full Cost
Fee
Proposal for Comprehensive Fee Study and Cost Allocation Study Big Bear Lake, CA Matrix Consulting Group 23
Deliverable Per Unit and Annual Fee Study Results
Meetings 1-2 Draft Results Meetings
Task 4 Conduct a Market Rate Survey
We will work with the City to identify jurisdictions in San Bernardino County to conduct a comparative survey of fees. This comparative survey activity will include:
• Developing fee scenarios for each department included in the study to be compared to other jurisdictions.
• Graphing the results of the fee analysis for easy visual comparison purposes. • Collecting contextual information such as population size, budget, staffing, last time fee study was done, and last fee schedule update.

As market surveys do not provide adequate or objective information about the relationship between a jurisdiction’s costs and fees, these steps ensure we provide the City with the most information possible.

Deliverable Comparative Graphs (included in Draft Report) Meetings None
Task 5 Review / Revise Fee Study Results
Because the analysis of service fees is based on estimates and information provided by City staff, all participants must be comfortable with our methodology and the data they have provided. Once the department agrees that the analysis reflects the reasonable Proposal for Comprehensive Fee Study and Cost Allocation Study Big Bear Lake, CA Matrix Consulting Group 24
costs of providing services, City management can review the results. At this point, the project team will provide City staff with Recommended Fee Workbooks. The Recommended Fee Workbooks will provide departments / divisions with the fee study results in MS Excel. The following shows an example of the workbook:

Current - Per Unit Results
Fee Title Current Fee Total Cost
Surplus/(Deficit)
Per Unit
Cost Recovery
%
Lot Line Adjustment $900 $1,557 ($657) 58%
Temporary Use Permit $40 $325 ($285) 12%
Recommended Fee
Fee Title
Recommended
Fee
$ Change to
Recommended
Fee
% Change to
Recommended Fee
Recommended
Fee Cost
Recovery %
Lot Line Adjustment $1,200 $300 33% 77%
Temporary Use Permit $100 $60 150% 31%
Recommended Fee Annual
Fee Title Workload
Revenue at
Current Fee
Revenue at
Recommended Fee
Potential
Change in
Revenue
Lot Line Adjustment 4 $3,600 $4,800 $1,200
Temporary Use Permit 60 $2,400 $6,000 $3,600
TOTAL $6,000 $10,800 $4,800
As the graphic indicates, the recommended fee workbook allows the City to input information into the Recommended Fee column and see its impacts, such as the dollar increase, percentage increase, and what percentage of their current costs they will recover. Additionally, the workbook allows the City to calculate potential increases or declines in revenue because of the recommended fees.

Deliverable Recommended Fee Workbooks
Meetings None
Task 6 Prepare a Draft User Fee Study Report
Upon conclusion of the fee study, we will prepare a detailed report summarizing the results of each of the previous work tasks described above. This report will include:
• A concise executive summary discussing the study, methodology, results, and narrative describing the services included in the study. • A section on proposed modifications to the current fee schedule, including removal or addition of new fees for service.

Proposal for Comprehensive Fee Study and Cost Allocation Study Big Bear Lake, CA Matrix Consulting Group 25
• A section on per unit and annual results for each fee is included in the analysis, as well as where workload data is available.
• A comparative survey section outlining key fees, their comparison to other local jurisdictions, and contextual information regarding budget, staffing, and when they last conducted fee studies.

The draft report will be provided to City staff for comments.

Deliverable Draft Fee Study Report
Meetings None
Task 7 Finalize Fee Study Report
Any edits or revisions to the draft user fee study report will be incorporated into the finalized fee study report. This finalized fee study report will include all elements of the draft fee study report and any additional cost recovery considerations and policy considerations for the City Council’s review.

Deliverable Final Fee Study Report
Meetings None
Task 8 Master Fee Schedule
Once the final user fee study report is approved, the project team will develop a master fee schedule, consolidating all fees in a singular location. The master fee schedule will include a numbering system, the department name, the fee title, the unit of application, the current fee, the total cost per unit calculated through the study, the difference, the cost recovery, the relevant rule / regulation that applies to the fee type, the staff recommended fee, and staff recommended cost recovery level. This attachment is extremely helpful as part of the staff report provided to the Council upon adoption.

Deliverable Master Fee Schedule
Meetings None
Task 9 Present the Final Report to Key Stakeholders
The presentation of results to City officials and/or stakeholders is critical to the success of the overall engagement. Because the product from the study is often controversial, the objective of this final step is to present a succinct summary that provides decision makers with key information. The Matrix Consulting Group will attend and present the Study at up to three (3) Committee or Council Meetings, including any fee adoption Proposal for Comprehensive Fee Study and Cost Allocation Study Big Bear Lake, CA Matrix Consulting Group 26
hearings. We believe that these number of meetings is typically sufficient to ensure that there is buy-in from the stakeholders.

Deliverable Presentation
Meetings 1-3 City Committee / Commission / Council Meetings Project Timeline
This project is anticipated to take approximately 6 months to complete. All studies can be conducted concurrently. For each task included, we have identified the time frame during the 6-month period in which the analysis will be completed.

Month
Tasks 1 2 3 4 5 6
Project-Wide
Data Collection
Study Objectives & Schedule
Excel-Based Model & Training
Cost Allocation Plan
Interview Staff and Gather Data
Review Allocation Metrics
Structure Draft Cost Plan
Finalize Full Cost Plan
Structure OMB Model
Draft OMB Report
Final OMB Report
Fully Burdened Hourly Rates
Presentation
User Fee Study
Current & Potential Fees
Data Workshops
Total Cost Analysis
Comparative Survey
Review/Revise Results
Draft Fee Study Report
Prepare Final Report
Develop Master Fee Schedule
Present Final Report
All proposed timelines can be adjusted based on City staff priorities and in accordance with City preferences and timelines.

Proposal for Comprehensive Fee Study and Cost Allocation Study Big Bear Lake, CA Matrix Consulting Group 27
4 Cost Proposal
The Matrix Consulting Group proposes to develop a Comprehensive User Fee Study and Cost Allocation Plan for a fixed not-to-exceed fee of $49,990. The following table provides a breakdown of hours by team member and task.

Project Exec. Project Mgr. Analyst (2) Total Cost
Project-Wide Tasks
Data Collection 0 4 6 $1,830
Study Objectives 2 4 2 $1,870
Excel-Based Model & Training 2 6 12 $3,800
Project-Wide Subtotal 4 14 20 $7,500
Cost Allocation Plan Tasks
Interview Staff and Gather Data 0 2 4 $1,060
Review Allocation Metrics 0 2 6 $1,350
Structure Draft Cost Plan 0 2 4 $1,060
Finalize Full Cost Plan 2 2 4 $1,680
Draft OMB Model 0 2 4 $1,060
Draft OMB Plan 0 2 4 $1,060
Final OMB Report 2 2 4 $1,680
Fully Burdened Hourly Rates 2 6 18 $4,670
Presentation 2 2 0 $1,100
Project-Wide Subtotal 8 22 48 $14,720
Comprehensive Fee Study Tasks
Current & Potential Fees 0 2 4 $1,060
Data Workshops 0 4 6 $1,830
Total Cost Analysis 2 8 18 $5,150
Comparative Survey 0 0 18 $2,610
Review/Revise Results 2 4 12 $3,320
Draft Fee Study Report 4 6 24 $6,160
Prepare Final Report 2 5 8 $2,980
Develop Master Fee Schedule 0 4 8 $2,120
Present Final Report 2 8 0 $2,540
Fee Study Subtotal 12 41 98 $27,770
Total Hours 24 77 166
Hourly Rate $310 $240 $145
Total Professional Fees $7,440 $18,480 $24,070 $49,990
Our typical practice is to bill for hours worked monthly, with our contracts set up as fixed not-to-exceed price contracts. We are open to billing on a task or deliverable basis as well.

The Matrix Consulting Group is committed to helping our clients develop accurate and defensible cost-of-service methodologies and ensure that they can implement the results of these studies appropriately. Our project team will work with City staff to facilitate an Proposal for Comprehensive Fee Study and Cost Allocation Study Big Bear Lake, CA Matrix Consulting Group 28
understanding of the results and how to incorporate those results into budget and policy documents, informational handouts, and other City materials.

Our Client support continues even after a final report has been issued. We understand that questions can arise about the development of a study well after project completion and are committed to working with our clients to answer any questions about methodologies and applications of results. This support is provided to our clients at no extra cost.

I am the firm’s President and I am authorized to submit this proposal, represent the firm, and sign a contract with the City.

Richard Brady, President
Matrix Consulting Group, Ltd.

BIG BEAR LAKE, CA

COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE

STUDY REPORT
MAY 2025
Item 1.1
Attachment 3

MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP
INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
LEGAL FRAMEWORK 4
USER FEE STUDY METHODOLOGY 7
RESULTS OVERVIEW 9
BUILDING & SAFETY 10
BUSINESS LICENSES 16
CITY CLERK 18
ENGINEERING 20
PERFORMING ARTS CENTER 24
PLANNING 26
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES SURCHARGES 31
COST RECOVERY CONSIDERATIONS 35
APPENDIX – COMPARATIVE SURVEY 39

TABLE OF CONTENTS

BIG BEAR LAKE FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 1
The report, which follows, presents the results of the Cost of Services (User Fee) Study conducted by Matrix Consulting Group for the City of Big Bear Lake, California.

PROJECT BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW
The City of Big Bear Lake last conducted a formal fee study in 2000 and updated its fees based on CPI up until 2006, at which point fees were no longer increased. The purpose of this study is to evaluate and determine the full cost (direct and indirect) of providing a variety of city services. Matrix Consulting Group analyzed the cost-of-service relationships that exist between fees for service activities in the following areas: Building & Safety, Business Licenses, City Clerk, Engineering, Performing Arts Center, Citywide Fees, and Planning. The results of this Study provide a tool for understanding current service levels and the cost for those services.

GENERAL PROJECT APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY
The methodology employed by the Matrix Consulting Group is a widely accepted “bottom up” approach to cost analysis, where time spent per unit of fee activity is determined for each position within a Department or Program. Once time spent for a fee activity is determined, all applicable City costs are then considered in the calculation of the “full” cost of providing each service. The following table provides an overview of types of costs applied in establishing the “full” cost of services provided by the City:

TABLE 1: OVERVIEW OF COST COMPONENTS
Cost Component Description
Direct Fiscal Year 2025 Budgeted salaries, benefits, and allowable expenditures.

Indirect Program, departmental, clerical, and Citywide support.

Together, the cost components in the table above comprise the calculation of the total “full” cost of providing a service, regardless of whether a fee for that service is charged.

The work accomplished by the Matrix Consulting Group in the analysis of the proposed fees for service involved the following steps:
• Department / Program Staff Interviews: The project team interviewed department / program staff regarding their needs for clarification to the structure of existing fee items or for addition of new fee items.

INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

BIG BEAR LAKE FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 2
• Data Collection: Data was collected for each permit / service, including time estimates. In addition, all budgeted costs and staffing levels for Fiscal Year 2025 were entered into Matrix Consulting Group’s analytical software model.
• Cost Analysis: The full cost of providing each service included in the analysis was established. • Review and Approval of Results with City Staff: Department management has reviewed and approved these documented results.

A more detailed description of user fee methodology and legal and policy considerations are provided in subsequent chapters of this report.

SUMMARY OF RESULTS
When comparing FY25 fee-related budgeted expenditures with fee-related revenue, the City is underrecovering its costs by approximately $445,000 or recovering 60% of its costs. The following table shows by major revenue source: annual revenue collected, total annual cost, the resulting difference, and cost recovery level.

TABLE 2: ANNUAL COST RECOVERY ANALYSIS
Service Area Total Revenue Total Annual Cost Difference Cost Recovery % Building & Safety $552,822 $598,972 ($46,150) 92%
Planning $60,023 $348,110 ($288,087) 17%
Engineering $59,084 $169,825 ($110,741) 35%
Total $671,929 $1,116,907 ($444,979) 60%
The largest deficit is in Planning, at $288,000. Planning’s deficit is primarily related to Conditional Use Permits and Special Event fees. The differences highlight the disparity between current fees charged and the actual cost of providing services. As such, the City should closely evaluate and modify fees where appropriate to help bridge the cost-recovery gap.

The detailed documentation of this study will show an over-collection for some fees (on a per unit basis) and an undercharge for most others. The results of this analysis will provide the Department and the City with guidance on how to right-size their fees to ensure that each service unit is set at an amount that does not exceed the full cost of providing that service. The display of the cost recovery figures shown in this report are meant to provide a basis for policy development discussions among Councilmembers and City staff and do not represent a recommendation for where or how the Council should act. The setting of the “rate” or “price” for services, whether at full cost recovery or lower, is a policy decision to be made only by the Council with input from City staff and the community.

BIG BEAR LAKE FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 3

CONSIDERATIONS FOR COST RECOVERY POLICY AND UPDATES
The Matrix Consulting Group recommends that the City use the information contained in this report to discuss, adopt, and implement a formal Cost Recovery Policy, including a mechanism for the annual update of fees for service.

ADOPT A FORMAL COST RECOVERY POLICY
The Matrix Consulting Group strongly recommends that the Council adopt a formalized, individual cost recovery policy for each service area included in this Study. Whenever a cost recovery policy is established at less than 100% of the full cost of providing services, a known gap in funding is recognized and may then potentially be recovered through other revenue sources. The Matrix Consulting Group considers a formalized cost recovery policy for various fees for service an industry Best Management Practice.

ADOPT AN ANNUAL FEE UPDATE / INCREASE MECHANISM
The purpose of a comprehensive update is to completely revisit the analytical structure, service level estimates and assumptions, and to account for any major shifts in cost components or organizational structures that have occurred since the City’s previous analysis. It’s recommended the City adopt the practice of conducting comprehensive analyses every three to five years as this practice captures any changes to organizational structure, processes, as well as any new service areas.

In between comprehensive updates, the City should utilize published industry economic factors such as Consumer Price Index (CPI) or other regional factors to update the cost calculations established in the Study on an annual basis.

BIG BEAR LAKE FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 4
This section of the report is intended to provide an overview regarding legal rules and regulations, as well as general policy considerations, for fees for service. A “user fee” is a charge for service provided by a governmental agency to a public citizen or group. In California, constitutional laws such as Propositions 13, 4, and 218; State Government Codes 66014 and 66016; and, more recently, Prop 26 and the Attorney General’s Opinion 92-506 set the parameters under which the local government user fees are established and administered. Specifically, California State Law, Government Code 66014(a), stipulates that user fees charged by local agencies “…may not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of providing the service for which the fee is charged.”

GENERAL PRINCIPLES AND PHILOSOPHIES REGARDING USER FEES Local governments are providers of many types of general services to their communities. While all services provided by local government are beneficial to constituents, some services can be classified as globally beneficial to all citizens, while others provide more of a direct benefit to a specific group or individual. The following table provides examples of services provided by local government within a continuum of the degree of community benefit received:

TABLE 3: SERVICES IN RELATION TO BENEFIT RECEIVED
Funding for local government is obtained from a myriad of revenue sources such as taxes, fines, grants, special charges, user fees, etc. In recent years, alternative tax revenues, which typically offset subsidies for services provided to the community, have become increasingly limited. These limitations have caused increased attention on user fee activities as a revenue source that can offset costs otherwise subsidized (usually) by the general fund. In Table 3, services in the “global benefit” section tend to be funded primarily through voter-approved tax revenues. In the middle of the table, one typically finds a mixture of taxes, user fees, and other funding sources. Finally, in the “individual / group benefit” section of the table lie the services provided by local government that are typically funded almost entirely by user fee revenue.
"Global" Community Benefit
•Police
•Park Maintenance
•Fire Suppression
"Global" Benefit and an
Individual or Gorup Benefit
•Recreation / Community
Services
•Fire Prevention
Individual or Group Benefit
•Building Permits
•Planning and Zoning
Approval
•Engineering Development
Review

LEGAL FRAMEWORK

BIG BEAR LAKE FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 5
The following are two central concepts regarding the establishment of user fees:
• Fees should be assessed according to the degree of individual or private benefit gained from services. For example, the processing and approval of a land use or building permit will generally result in monetary gain to the applicant, whereas Police services and Fire Suppression are examples of services that are essential to the safety of the community at large. • A profit-making objective should not be included in the assessment of user fees. In fact, California laws require that the charges for service be in direct proportion to the costs associated with providing those services. Once a charge for service is assessed at a level higher than the actual cost of providing a service, the term “user fee” no longer applies. The charge then becomes a tax subject to voter approval.

Therefore, it is commonly accepted that user fees are established at a level that will recover up to, and not more than, the cost of providing a particular service.

GENERAL POLICY CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING USER FEES
Undoubtedly, there are programs, circumstances, and services that justify a subsidy from a tax-based or alternative revenue source. However, it is essential that jurisdictions prioritize the use of revenue sources for the provision of services based on the continuum of benefit received.

Within the services that are typically funded by user fees, the Matrix Consulting Group recognizes several reasons why City staff or the Council may not advocate the full cost recovery of services. The following factors are key policy considerations in setting fees at less than 100 percent of cost recovery:
• Limitations posed by an external agency. The State or an outside agency will occasionally set a maximum, minimum, or limit on the jurisdiction’s ability to charge a fee. Examples includes time spent copying and retrieving public documents and / or transportation permits. • Encouragement of desired behaviors. Keeping fees for certain services below full cost recovery may provide better compliance from the community. For example, if the cost of a permit for changing a water heater in residential home is higher than the cost of the water heater itself, many citizens will avoid pulling the permit.
• Benefit received by user of the service and the community at large is mutual. Many services that directly benefit a group or individual also equally benefit the community. Examples include Planning Design Review, historical dedications, and certain types of special events.

The Matrix Consulting Group recognizes the need for policies that intentionally subsidize certain activities. The primary goals of a User Fee Study are to provide a fair and equitable basis for determining the costs of providing services and ensure that the City complies with State law.

BIG BEAR LAKE FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 6

SUMMARY OF LEGAL RESTRICTIONS AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS Once the full cost of providing services is known, the next step is to determine the “rate” or “price” for services at a level which is up to, and not more than, the full cost amount. The Council is responsible for this decision, which often becomes a question of balancing service levels and funding sources. The placement of a service or activity within the continuum of benefit received may require extensive discussion and at times fall into a “grey area.” However, with the resulting cost of services information from a User Fee Study, the Council can be assured that the adopted fee for service is reasonable, fair, and legal. The City will need to review all fees for service in this analysis. Where subsidies are identified, the City should increase the fees to reduce the deficit; where over-recoveries are identified, the fee must be reduced to comply with the law.

BIG BEAR LAKE FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 7
The Matrix Consulting Group utilizes a cost allocation methodology commonly known and accepted as the “bottom-up” approach to establishing User Fees. The term means that several cost components are calculated for each fee or service. These components then build upon each other to comprise the total cost for providing the service. The following chart describes the components of a full cost calculation:

The general steps utilized by the project team to determine allocations of cost components to a particular fee or service are:
• Calculate fully burdened hourly rates by position, including direct and indirect costs. • Develop time estimates for the average time spent to deliver each service included in the study. • Distribute the appropriate amount of the other cost components to each fee or service based on the staff time allocation basis or another reasonable basis.

The results of these allocations provide detailed documentation for the reasonable determination of the actual cost of providing each service.

One of the key study assumptions utilized in the “bottom up” approach is the use of time estimate averages for the provision of each fee-related service. Utilization of time estimates is a reasonable and defensible approach, especially given that experienced staff members who understand service levels and processes unique to the City developed these estimates.

The project team worked closely with City staff in developing time estimates with the following criteria:
• Estimates are representative of average times for providing services. Extremely difficult or abnormally simple projects are not factored in the analysis.
• Estimates reflect the time associated with the position or positions that typically perform a service. • Estimates are reviewed by the project team for “reasonableness” against their experience with other agencies.
• Estimates were not based on time in motion studies, as they are not practical for the scope of services and time frame for this project.

DIRECT
(Salaries, Benefits,
Productive Hours)

INDIRECT
(Departmental Admin,
Services & Supplies,
Citywide Overhead etc.)
Total Cost

USER FEE STUDY METHODOLOGY

BIG BEAR LAKE FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 8
• Estimates match the current or proposed staffing levels to ensure there is no over-allocation of staff resources to fee and non-fee related activities.

The Matrix Consulting Group agrees that while the use of time estimates is not perfect, it is the best alternative available for setting a standard level of service on which to base a jurisdiction’s fees for service and meets the requirements of California law.

The alternative to time estimating is actual time tracking, often referred to billing on a “time and materials” basis. Except in the case of anomalous or very large and complex projects, the Matrix Consulting Group believes this approach to not be cost effective or reasonable for the following reasons:
• Accuracy in time tracking is compromised by the additional administrative burden required to track, bill, and collect for services in this manner.
• Additional costs are associated with administrative staff’s billing, refunding, and monitoring deposit accounts.
• Customers often prefer to know the fees for services in advance of applying for permits or participating in programs.
• Departments can better predict revenue streams and staff needs using standardized time estimates and anticipated permit volumes.

Situations arise where the size and complexity of a given project warrants time tracking and billing on a “time and materials” basis. Matrix Consulting Group has recommended taking a deposit and charging Actual Costs for such fees as appropriate and itemized within the current fee schedule.

BIG BEAR LAKE FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 9
The motivation behind a cost of services (User Fee) analysis is for the City Council and Departmental staff to maintain services at a level that is both accepted and effective for the community and also to maintain control over the policy and management of these services.

It should be noted that the results presented in this report are not a precise measurement. In general, a cost-of-service analysis takes a “snapshot in time,” where a fiscal year of financial and operational information is utilized. Changes to the structure of fee names, along with the use of time estimates, allow only for a reasonable projection of subsidies and revenue. Consequently, the Council and Department staff should rely conservatively upon these estimates to gauge the impact of implementation going forward.

Discussion of results in the following chapters is intended as a summary of extensive and voluminous cost allocation documentation produced during the Study. Each chapter will include detailed cost calculation results for each major permit category including the following:
• Modifications: discussions regarding any proposed revisions to the current fee schedule, including elimination or addition of fees.
• “Per Unit” Results: comparison of the full cost of providing each unit of service to the current fee for each unit of service (where applicable).
• Annualized Results: utilizing volume of activity estimates, annual subsidies, and revenue impacts were projected where workload was available.

The full analytical results were provided to City staff under separate cover from this summary report.

RESULTS OVERVIEW

BIG BEAR LAKE FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 10
The Building & Safety Division is responsible for ensuring all new and modified construction within the City adheres to local, state, and federal regulations. The fees examined within this study relate to structural, electrical, plumbing, and mechanical plan review and inspections. The following subsections discuss fee schedule modifications and detailed per unit results for the fee-related services provided by Building & Safety.

FEE SCHEDULE MODIFICATIONS
In discussions with City staff, the following modifications were made to the current fee schedule:
• Expanded Fees: ‘Commercial / Industrial / MFR - New and TI’ was expanded to include higher valuation scenarios.
• Combined Fees: Staff have proposed combining the fees associated with plan check and inspection of construction permits for both Commercial and Single Family Residential. Therefore, the schedule will only show a singular fee for these services.
• Eliminated Fee: The current municipal code allowed the Building official to charge either 2% of the valuation or a flat $500, whichever is greater. The expansion and codification of a valuation-based table with fee amounts, eliminates the need for this provision. • New Itemized Fees: The City currently uses valuation as the method to assess fees for most of its permits. However, through this process staff are proposing to recognize and name the following services to ensure standardization of permit fees:
‘SFR – New and Addition / Remodel’
‘Mini Split’
‘Whole House Fan’
‘Tankless Water Heater Replacement / Install’
‘Residential’
‘Commercial’
‘Battery / Energy Storage System’
‘EV Charging Station’
‘Accessory Dwelling Unit’
‘Walls / Fences’
‘Swimming Pools & Spas’
‘Bathroom / Kitchen Remodels (non-structural)’
‘Demolition’
‘Siding and/or Stucco Repair’
‘Patio / Carport / Deck / Balcony’
‘City Standard Deck’
‘Fireplace’
‘Signs’
The modifications noted above ensure that the proposed fee schedule better reflects the services being provided by Building & Safety staff.

BUILDING & SAFETY

BIG BEAR LAKE FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 11

DETAILED RESULTS
The Building & Safety Division collect fees for structural, electrical, mechanical, and plumbing plan check and inspection. The total cost calculated for each service includes direct staff costs and Departmental and Citywide overhead. The following table details the fee name, current fee, total cost, and difference associated with each service offered.

TABLE 4: TOTAL COST PER UNIT RESULTS – BUILDING & SAFETY Fee Name Current Fee Total Cost Difference
Valuation
Commercial / Industrial / MFR - New and TI (Plan Check & Inspection) Construction Permit (Valuation)1
$0 - $25,000 $69 $609 ($540)
Each Additional $1,000 or fraction thereof $14.00 $28.63 ($14.63) $25,001 - $50,000 $392 $1,325 ($933)
Each Additional $1,000 or fraction thereof $10.10 $21.91 ($11.81) $50,001 - $100,000 $644 $1,872 ($1,229)
Each Additional $1,000 or fraction thereof $7.00 $12.24 ($5.24) $100,001 - $500,000 $994 $2,484 ($1,491)
Each Additional $1,000 or fraction thereof $5.60 $6.56 ($0.96) $500,001 - $1,000,000 $3,234 $5,109 ($1,875)
Each Additional $1,000 or fraction thereof $4.75 $9.88 ($5.13) $1,000,001 - $5,000,000 $5,609 $10,048 ($4,440)
Each Additional $1,000 or fraction thereof $3.65 $1.43 $2.22 $5,000,000 - $25,000,000 $20,209 $15,786 $4,422
Each Additional $1,000 or fraction thereof $3.65 $0.66 $2.99 $25,000,001+ $27,509 $29,070 ($1,561)
Each Additional $1,000 or fraction thereof $3.65 $0.33 $3.32 MEP
MEP Issuance $24 $83 ($60)
Electrical (Commercial)
Electric Spa $109 $891 ($783)
Electrical Service Upgrade $140 $765 ($625)
Branch Circuit Valuation $765 ($765)
EV Charger Valuation $1,084 ($1,084)
Electrical (Residential)
Electric Spa $109 $96 $12
Electrical Service Upgrade $140 $96 $44
Mechanical (Commercial)
Gas Test $110 $96 $13
Mini Split $82 $446 ($364)
Appliance Valuation $446 ($446)
1 The valuation will be determined on the most recent ICC cost per sq. ft. table published.

BIG BEAR LAKE FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 12
Fee Name Current Fee Total Cost Difference
Air Handling $82 $446 ($364)
Hood Fan / Duct $82 $765 ($683)
Mechanical (Residential)
Gas Test $110 $96 $13
Whole House Fan Valuation $96 N/A
Forced Air / Gravity Furnace Valuation $96 N/A
Appliance Flue / Vent $12 $96 ($84)
Ventilation Fan $12 $96 ($84)
Air Handling $82 $96 ($14)
Hood Fan / Duct $11 $96 ($86)
Plumbing (Commercial)
Hot Water Heater $116 $446 ($330)
Tankless Water Heater Replacement / Install Valuation $446 N/A Fixture or Trap Valuation $892 N/A
Water heater / Ventilation Valuation $446 N/A
Gas Pipe Outlet Valuation $446 N/A
Backflow Valuation $446 N/A
Plumbing (Residential)
Hot Water Heater $116 $96 $20
Tankless Water Heater Replacement / Install Valuation $96 N/A Fixture or Trap Valuation $543 N/A
Water heater / Ventilation $113 $96 $17
Gas Pipe Outlet Valuation $96 N/A
Backflow Valuation $96 N/A
Flat Fees
Reroof $152 $529 ($377)
Fire Sprinklers $336 $835 ($499)
Window Replacement $87 $83 $4
Accessory Dwelling Unit Valuation $2,771 N/A
Walls / Fences:

More than 6 Feet Tall Valuation $1,152 N/A
Swimming Pools & Spas:

Residential Valuation $1,856 N/A
Commercial Valuation $2,175 N/A
Bathroom / Kitchen Remodels (non-structural) Valuation $881 N/A Demolition Valuation $1,218 N/A
Siding and/or Stucco Repair Valuation $606 N/A
Patio / Carport / Deck / Balcony Valuation $1,178 N/A
City Standard Deck $886
Fireplace Valuation $345 N/A
Signs:

Pole or Freestanding Valuation $1,052 N/A
Wall Mounted Valuation $733 N/A
Monument Valuation $1,371 N/A

BIG BEAR LAKE FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 13
Fee Name Current Fee Total Cost Difference
Misc Permits & Inspections
Requested Building Inspection $154 $662 ($508)
Occupancy Inspection $97 $567 ($470)
Building Support to Fire
Fire Alarm System
Plan Check + Insp. Modification
5 devices $155 $678 ($523)
6 to 10 Devices $245 $997 ($752)
>10 devices $336 $1,316 ($980)
Plan Check + Insp. New
Greater than or equal to 20,000 sq. ft. $383 $1,316 ($933) Less than 20,000 sq. ft. $336 $804 ($468)
Special Extinguishing System
Plan Check + Insp. Modification
Modification $199 $612 ($413)
New System $292 $804 ($512)
Spray Booth
Spray Booth Plan Ck. + Insp. $199 $1,123 ($924)
Sprinkler System / Standpipe
Plan Check+ Insp.

Residential
New System $336 $708 ($372)
Modification <4 $155 $389 ($234)
Modification 5-20 $199 $612 ($413)
Modification >20 Actual Cost $931 N/A
Commercial
New System $383 $1,110 ($727)
Modification <4 $155 $568 ($413)
Modification 5-20 $199 $887 ($688)
Modification >20 Actual Cost $1,206 N/A
The fees administered by the Building & Safety Division generally under-recover their associated costs.

The largest under-recovery is for a ‘Construction Permit’ with a base valuation of $1,000,001 - $5,000,000 at $4,440. The smallest undercharge is $0.96 for ‘Each Additional $1,000 or faction thereof between the $100,001 - $500,000’.

CONVERSION OF SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
Under the City’s current fee structure, plan review and permitting services related to Single Family Residential (SFR) projects, either new or remodel, are assessed fees based on the project’s valuation.

However, in discussions with city staff, it was determined that the driver of staff effort for both plan review and inspection is not the value of the project, but rather it’s size. Therefore, the proposed fee structure looks to evaluate SFR permits based on the size of the dwelling. The following table details the

BIG BEAR LAKE FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 14
proposed fee structure and the calculated full cost of providing SFR construction services (including plan check and inspection).

TABLE 5: TOTAL COST PER UNIT RESULTS – BUILDING & SAFETY SFR Fee Name Total Cost
SFR - New and Additions / Remodels
0-250 sq. ft. $686
251 - 500 sq. ft. $686
Each Additional 100 square feet or fraction thereof $419.39 500 - 1,000 sq. ft. $1,734
Each Additional 100 square feet or fraction thereof $113.56 1,001 to 1,500 sq. ft. $2,302
Each Additional 100 square feet or fraction thereof $157.29 1,501 to 2,000 sq. ft. $3,089
Each Additional 100 square feet or fraction thereof $166.77 2,001 to 3,500 sq. ft. $3,922
Each Additional 100 square feet or fraction thereof $94.07 3,501 to 5,000 sq. ft. $5,333
Each Additional 100 square feet or fraction thereof $45.11 5,000+ sq. ft. $6,010
Each Additional 100 square feet or fraction thereof $22.56 The above structure will allow the City to equitably assess permit and plan check fees where the driver is the size of the project, rather than the project’s valuation.

SOLAR PERMITS
Along with creating a standalone fee structure for SFR construction permits, City staff also wanted to establish standalone fees for solar permits that mirror the State’s fee structure. The following table details the proposed fee structure and the calculated full cost of providing services related to solar permits.

TABLE 6: TOTAL COST PER UNIT RESULTS – & SAFETY SOLAR
Fee Name Total Cost
Solar Permits
Residential
Roof Mounted
System up to 15kW $516
Each Additional kW above 15kW $12
Ground Mounted
System up to 15kW $873
Each Additional kW above 15kW $18

BIG BEAR LAKE FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 15
Fee Name Total Cost
Commercial
Roof Mounted
Systems up to 50kW $1,096
Per kW between 50kW and 250kW $2
Each Additional kW above 250kW $2
Ground Mounted
Systems up to 50kW $2,053
Per kW between 50kW and 250kW $2
Each Additional kW above 250kW $2
Battery / Energy Storage System
Residential $548
Commercial $1,498
EV Charging Station:

Residential $452
Commercial $2,148
As solar permits become more common, the above structure will ensure that residents and members of the building community have a clear understanding of the fees associated with these services.

ANNUAL REVENUE IMPACT
Based on the prior year’s (FY23/24) workload information, Building & Safety has a deficit of roughly $46,000. The following table shows by major fee category: revenue at current fee, total projected annual cost, and the resulting difference.

TABLE 7: ANNUAL RESULTS – BUILDING & SAFETY
Fee Category Revenue at Current Fee Annual Cost Difference Commercial $85,607 $95,735 ($10,128)
Single Family Residential $326,313 $251,298 $75,015
MEP $45,081 $44,048 $1,033
Solar $10,650 $16,962 ($6,312)
Flat Fees $68,281 $157,092 ($88,811)
Fire Support $16,890 $33,837 ($16,947)
Total $552,822 $598,972 ($46,150)
The largest area of subsidy relates to Flat Fees, where approximately $66,000 of the $89,000 deficit relates to ‘Reroof’ permits. The per unit subsidy for these permits is $377, and the City processed approximately 176 of these permits last year. The transition of Single Family Residential permits from a valuation methodology to a square footage-based methodology will ensure elimination of the overrecovery associated with these permits.

BIG BEAR LAKE FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 16
The Business Licenses Division is responsible for issuing and regulating permits that allow businesses to operate legally in Big Bear Lake. The fees examined within this study relate to Business Licenses, vacation rental programs and film permits. The following subsections discuss fee schedule modifications, detailed per unit results, and annual impacts as appropriate for the fee-related services provided by the Business Licenses Department.

FEE SCHEDULE MODIFICATIONS
In discussions with City staff, the following modifications were made to the current fee schedule:
• New Fees: Staff proposed the addition of the following fees as they highlight services that are going to be offered:
- ‘Transfer of Vacation Rental’
- ‘Commercial Properties – TOT Permit’
• Consolidated Fees: Staff incorporated the ‘Transient Private Home Rental Inspection’ into the Vacation Rental Program Annual Fee.

The modifications noted above ensure that the proposed fee schedule more accurately reflects the services being provided by the City.

DETAILED RESULTS
The Business Licenses Division collects fees for Business Licenses, vacation rental programs and film permits. The total cost calculated for each service includes direct staff costs and Departmental and Citywide overhead. The following table details the fee name, current fee, total cost, and difference associated with each service offered.

TABLE 8: TOTAL COST PER UNIT RESULTS – BUSINESS LICENSES Fee Name Current Fee Total Cost Difference
New Business Located Within the City of Big Bear Lake
Commercial/Brick and Mortar Businesses $231 $328 ($97)
Home Office Businesses (Home Occupation) $235 $135 $100 New Business Located Outside the City of Big Bear Lake
Businesses Based in a Different City $74 $62 $12
Existing Businesses
Annual Renewals (September 30th) – All Businesses $44 $31 $13 Vacation Rental Program
Vacation Rental Program $550 $731 ($181)
Transfer of Vacation Rental New $72 N/A

BUSINESS LICENSES

BIG BEAR LAKE FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 17
Fee Name Current Fee Total Cost Difference
Home Sharing $100 $635 ($535)
Film Permit
For Motion Pictures $173 $552 ($379)
For Still Shots $117 $342 ($225)
TOT Permit Program
Commercial Properties - TOT Permit New $408 N/A
The fees administered by the Business Licenses Division have a mix of over and under-recoveries. The largest under-recovery is for a ‘Transient Priv. Home Rental Inspection’ is $810, while the smallest undercharge is for a new business license for a ‘Commercial/Brick and Mortar Businesses’ at $97.

ANNUAL REVENUE IMPACT
The City did not have enough detail regarding how the workload was allocated between the various fee items on its schedule. Therefore, no annual revenue impacts were calculated.

BIG BEAR LAKE FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 18
The City Clerk is responsible for managing, maintaining, and archiving City records, supporting City Council, and providing copies of City records. The fees examined within this study relate to research services, photocopy services, and the Armed Forces Banner Program. The following subsections discuss fee schedule modifications, detailed per unit results, and annual revenue impacts as appropriate for the fee-related services provided by the City Clerk.

FEE SCHEDULE MODIFICATIONS
In discussions with City Clerk staff, it was determined that the current fee structure reflects the services provided, and that no modifications were needed.

DETAILED RESULTS
The City Clerk’s Office collects fees for research service, photocopy services, and administration of the Armed Forces Banner Program. The total cost calculated for each service includes direct staff costs and Departmental and Citywide overhead. The following table details the fee name, current fee, total cost, and difference associated with each service offered.

TABLE 9: TOTAL COST PER UNIT RESULTS – CITY CLERK
Fee Name Current Fee Total Cost Difference
Printed Material Sale Actual Cost
Research Service Actual Cost
Photocopy Service2
First 4 Pages $0.25 N/A
Pages 5 To 50 $0.10 N/A
Pages 50 And Above $0.05 N/A
For Large Copies (I.E. Blueprints) $3 N/A
Armed Forces Banner Program
Armed Forces Banner $75 $433 ($358)
The Photocopy fees charged by the City Clerk are set by the State, and Research service and Printed Material Sales are charged actual cost. The ‘Armed Forces Banner’ program shows a deficit of $358. The large deficit is due to the inclusion of both staff time to coordinate and install the banner, along with the material cost of the banner itself.
2 GOV § 7922.530

CITY CLERK

BIG BEAR LAKE FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 19

ANNUAL REVENUE IMPACT
The City Clerk does not keep records of the number of photocopies or research services provided; therefore, annual revenue impacts were not calculated.

BIG BEAR LAKE FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 20
Engineering is responsible for constructing and maintaining the City's roads, bridges, and stormwater drains, as well as ensuring compliance with all private development that impacts the City’s right-of-way.

The fees examined within this study relate to public improvement and grading plan check and inspection, encroachment permits, and document processing. The following subsections discuss fee schedule modifications, detailed per unit results, and annual results for the fee-related services provided by Engineering.

FEE SCHEDULE MODIFICATIONS
In discussions with City staff, the following modifications were made to the current fee schedule:
• New Fees: Staff proposed the addition of the following fees as they highlight either services already offered but not codified on the fee schedule or new services the City is looking to provide:
‘Object right-of-way’
‘Traffic Control Plan (Temporary)’
‘Sewer Inspections’
‘Sewer Availability / Will Serve Letter’
‘Technology Fee’
• Expanded Fees: Due to large variability in how the fees are administered, staff proposed expanding the following fee categories to include a Base fee and a fee for Each Additional Hour:

Public Improvements’
‘Grading inspection Res. (Over 50 c.y.)’
‘Grading plan - Comm./Ind’
‘Engineering plan check’
• Modified Fees: The following dot points highlight descriptive modifications proposed by staff:
- ‘Driveway approach’ was expanded to read ‘Driveway / Curb / Sidewalk approach’ - ‘Driveway w/ongoing Construction’ was expanded to read ‘Driveway / Curb / Sidewalk approach w/ongoing Construction’
- ‘NPDES’ fees were modified to mimic the categories currently in use by the City’s consultant and how the City is actually billed for these services.

ENGINEERING

BIG BEAR LAKE FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 21
The modifications noted above ensure that the proposed fee schedule better reflects not only the services being provided by Engineering staff, but also the level of effort required by Engineering staff to provide those services.

DETAILED RESULTS
The Engineering Division collects fees for encroachment permits, inspections, lot line adjustments, NPDES fees and WQMPs. The total cost calculated for each service includes direct staff costs and Departmental and Citywide overhead. The following table details the fee name, current fee, total cost, and difference associated with each service offered.

TABLE 10: TOTAL COST PER UNIT RESULTS – ENGINEERING
Fee Name Current Fee Total Cost Difference
Agreements
Deferred improvement agreement $291 $2,265 ($1,974)
Certificate of Compliance
Certificate of Compliance $453 $2,265 ($1,812)
Encroachment Permits
Driveway / Curb / Sidewalk approach $137 $738 ($601)
Driveway / Curb / Sidewalk approach
w/ongoing Construction $28 $738 ($710)
Utility street cut
First 2,000 sq. ft. $53 $1,482 ($1,429)
Each Additional 500 sq. ft. $45 $226 ($181)
Object right-of-way
Less than 7 Day $53 $650 ($597)
Between 7 and 30 Days $246 $992 ($746)
Over 30 Days $246 $1,334 ($1,088)
Traffic Control Plan (Temporary) New $539 N/A
Street cut (lateral) $246 $655 ($409)
Inspections
Public Improvements
Base $288 $1,003 ($715)
Per Hour New $195 N/A
Grading inspection Res. (Over 50 c.y.)
Base $181 $685 ($504)
Per Hour New $195 N/A
Lot Line Adjustment
Lot Line Adjustment $548 $3,032 ($2,484)
Lot Merger
Lot Merger $548 $2,130 ($1,582)
Research Service
Research Service Actual Cost
Reversion to Acreage
Reversion to Acreage $2,673 $8,757 ($6,084)

BIG BEAR LAKE FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 22
Fee Name Current Fee Total Cost Difference
Plan Checks
Grading plan - Res. (over 50 c.y.) $479 $826 ($347)
Grading plan - Comm./Ind
Base $598 $2,992 ($2,394)
Each Addl Hour New $533 N/A
Engineering plan check
Base $900 $1,991 ($1,091)
Each Addl Hour New $533 N/A
Snow Poles
Snow Poles $25 $25 $0
Subdivisions
Final parcel map $1,482 $4,495 ($3,013)
Final tract map
First 5 Lots $1,639 $4,622 ($2,983)
Each Additional Lot $51 $301 ($250)
Sewer Fees
Sewer Inspections $35 $342 ($307)
Sewer Availability / Will Serve Letter New $418 N/A
NPDES Fees
NPDES Category
Industrial:

High $247 $425 ($178)
Medium $198 $309 ($112)
Low $99 $193 ($94)
Restaurants (Including 2nd inspection):

High $82 $155 ($72)
Medium $66 $116 ($50)
Low $49 $77 ($28)
Commercial:

High $71 $116 ($45)
Medium (Municipal Sites) $50 $103 ($53)
Low $49 $77 ($28)
Other - Inactive / Residential / NonInspection $25 $39 ($14) Post Construction Best Management
Practices / WQMP Inspection $165 $271 ($106)
WQMP $247 $425 ($178)
Preliminary WQMP $2,834 $3,999 ($1,166)
Final WQMPs
Basic $3,203 $4,533 ($1,330)
Standard $4,189 $5,866 ($1,677)
Complex $7,145 $10,132 ($2,987)
WQMP Inspections $1,602 $2,630 ($1,029)
Single Family Residential - Base $1,058 $1,866 ($808)

BIG BEAR LAKE FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 23
Fee Name Current Fee Total Cost Difference
Single Family Residential – Each
Additional Hour $191 $267 ($75)
Roughly half of the fees administered by the Engineering Division under-recover for their associated costs. The largest under-recovery is $6,084 for a ‘Reversion to Acreage’. The smallest undercharge is in the NPDES Category for a Business category of ‘Commercial – Low’ at $14.

ANNUAL REVENUE IMPACT
Based on the prior year’s (FY23/24) workload information, Engineering has a deficit of roughly $111,000.

The following table shows by major fee category: revenue at current fee, total projected annual cost, and the resulting difference.

TABLE 11: ANNUAL RESULTS – ENGINEERING
Fee Category
Revenue at Current
Fee
Annual Cost Difference
Encroachment Permits $25,714 $100,416 ($74,702)
Lot Line Adjustment $1,644 $5,809 ($4,165)
Lot Merger $3,288 $8,837 ($5,549)
Plan Checks $3,600 $4,459 ($859)
Sewer Fees $350 $3,836 ($3,068)
WQMP $24,488 $35,728 ($11,240)
Total $59,084 $169,825 ($110,741)
Engineering has an annual cost recovery of roughly 35%, which reflects a $111,000 under-recovery. The largest under-recovery at approximately $75,000 is in relation to Encroachment Permits, which is primarily caused by the $601 per unit deficit associated ‘Driveway / Curb / Sidewalk approach, as in the last fiscal year roughly 62 of these permits were issued.

BIG BEAR LAKE FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 24
Performing Arts Center is responsible for facility rentals and room rentals. The following subsections discuss fee schedule modifications, detailed per unit results, and annual results where appropriate for the fee-related services provided by Performing Arts Center staff.

FEE SCHEDULE MODIFICATIONS
In discussions with City staff, it was determined that two room rentals should be added to the schedule as they are available to the public: Training Room and Chalet Building.

DETAILED RESULTS
This Division collects fees for the Performing Arts Center and room rentals. The total cost calculated for each service includes direct staff costs and Departmental and Citywide overhead. The following table details the fee name, current fee, total cost, and difference associated with each service offered.

TABLE 12: TOTAL COST PER UNIT RESULTS – PERFORMING ARTS CENTER Fee Name Current Fee Total Cost Difference
Performing Arts Center
Facility Rental Performance
Schools $122 $3,055 ($2,933)
Non-Profit $245 $3,055 ($2,810)
For-Profit $428 $3,055 ($2,627)
Facility Rental Dry Rehearsal / Load-In / Load-Out
Schools $31 $2,678 ($2,647)
Non-Profit $48 $2,678 ($2,630)
For-Profit $61 $2,678 ($2,617)
Facility Rental Rehearsal
Schools $31 $2,327 ($2,296)
Non-Profit $67 $2,327 ($2,260)
For-Profit $79 $2,327 ($2,248)
Other Room Rental Fees
Shop Rental $12 $1,772 ($1,760)
Sewing Room Rental $12 $1,772 ($1,760)
Room Rentals
Hofert Hall Rental $92 $753 ($661)
Training Room New $671 N/A
Chalet Building New $668 N/A

PERFORMING ARTS CENTER

BIG BEAR LAKE FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 25
All rentals provided by the Performing Arts Center division show an under-recovery, ranging from a high of $2,933 for a ‘Facility Rental Performance’ by a school to a low of $661 for the rental of ‘Hofert Hall’.

ANNUAL REVENUE IMPACT
The City does not have good records regarding the number and types of facility rentals, and therefore, no annual revenue impacts were calculated.

BIG BEAR LAKE FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 26
Planning is responsible for overseeing current and future development within the City. The fees examined within this study relate to appeals, zoning, conditional and temporary use, development agreements, signs, variance, and much more. The following subsections discuss fee schedule modifications, detailed per unit results, and annual revenue impacts for the fee-related services provided by Planning.

FEE SCHEDULE MODIFICATIONS
In discussions with Planning staff, the following modifications were made to the current fee schedule:
• New Fees: Staff proposed the addition of the following fees as they highlight services already offered but not codified on the fee schedule:
- ‘Banner’
- ‘SB 9’
• Consolidated Fees: Staff proposed consolidating ‘Conditional Use Permit’ and ‘Plot Plan Review’ from Residential and Commercial into a singular fee category. • Expanded Fees: Staff proposed expanding the ‘Vendor Fee’ into ‘Non-Profit’ and ‘For-Profit’, similar to the other special events categories, to capture potential subsidies being provided to non-profit vendors.

The modifications noted above ensure that the proposed fee schedule more accurately reflects the services being provided by Planning staff.

DETAILED RESULTS
The Planning Division collects fees for annexations, appeals, conditional use permits, general plan amendments, and sign permits. The total cost calculated for each service includes direct staff costs and Departmental and Citywide overhead. The following table details the fee name, current fee, total cost, and difference associated with each service offered.

TABLE 13: TOTAL COST PER UNIT RESULTS – PLANNING
Fee Name Current Fee Total Cost Difference
Annexations
Uninhabited within the Sphere of
Influence $2,172 Actual Cost N/A
Uninhabited outside the Sphere of
Influence Actual Cost
Inhabited Actual Cost
Affordable Housing/Density Bonus
Negotiation and drafting Actual Cost

PLANNING

BIG BEAR LAKE FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 27
Fee Name Current Fee Total Cost Difference
Annual review Actual Cost
Appeals
Of staff decision to Planning
Commission $115 $3,665 ($3,550)
Of Planning Com. decision to City
Council $115 $3,665 ($3,550)
Conditional Use Permit
Conditional Use Permit Modified $11,335 N/A
Development Agreements
Negotiation and drafting Actual Cost
Annual review Actual Cost
Deferred Completion Agreements
Planning review $325 $1,926 ($1,601)
Environmental Review
Categorical exemption $45 Actual Cost N/A
Initial study
Initial study $330 Actual Cost N/A
Filing Fee $14 Actual Cost N/A
State F&G administration fee $14 Actual Cost N/A
Preparation of EIR Actual Cost
Subsequent use of an EIR $238 Actual Cost N/A
Mitigation monitoring Actual Cost
General Plan Amendments
Text amendment $2,022 $10,448 ($8,426)
Map amendment
First 5 Acres $2,186 $10,448 ($8,262)
Each Additional 5 Acres $45 $246 ($201)
Home Occupation Permit
Home Occupation Permit $142 $235 ($93)
Horse Drawn Carriage Permit
Initial review $346 $2,753 ($2,407)
Interpretations
Staff interpretation $115 $1,220 ($1,105)
Planning Commission interpretation $288 $1,220 ($932)
Inspections
Second & subsequent re-inspections
First Hour $57 $174 ($117)
Each Additional 1 1/2 Hours $27 $87 ($60)
Modifications
Major modification (Approval by PC) $2,109 $11,115 ($9,006) Major modification (Approval by staff) $991 $8,191 ($7,200) Minor modification $679 $3,852 ($3,173)
Parking Permits
Ironwood Parking Permit (Resident) $25 $220 ($195)
Plot Plan Review

BIG BEAR LAKE FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 28
Fee Name Current Fee Total Cost Difference
Plot Plan Review Modified $10,958 N/A
Pre-Development Review
Pre-Development Review $115 $1,779 ($1,664)
Research Service
Research Service Actual Cost
Right-Of-Way Vacation
Right-Of-Way Vacation $779 $7,306 ($6,527)
Special DRC Meeting
Special DRC Meeting $404 $1,936 ($1,532)
Sign Permits
Sign Permit $58 $318 ($260)
Sign Program $139 $954 ($815)
Banner
Light Pole New $500 N/A
Overhead Sign Mounted Banners New $500 N/A
Special Events
Special Events
Minor
Non-Profit $0 $556 ($556)
For Profit Local $150 $556 ($406)
For Profit Other $220 $556 ($336)
Major
Non-Profit $0 $9,651 ($9,651)
For Profit Local $835 $9,651 ($8,816)
For Profit Other $1,229 $9,651 ($8,422)
Residential Yard Sale $0 $153 ($153)
Special Event Deposit 10% 10% 0%
Vendor Fee:

Non-Profit $5 $153 ($148)
For Profit $5 $153 ($148)
Subdivisions
Tentative parcel map
Tentative parcel map $2,056 $9,091 ($7,035)
Tentative parcel map (Condo)
Tentative parcel map (Condo) $1,129 $9,091 ($7,962)
Final parcel map (Engineering) $1,482 $3,739 ($2,257)
Tentative tract map (SFR)
First 5 Lots $2,925 $10,963 ($8,038)
Each Additional Lot $17 $141 ($124)
Tentative tract map (Condo)
Tentative tract map (Condo) $1,129 $11,183 ($10,054)
Final tract map (Engineering)
First 5 Lots $1,639 $3,026 ($1,387)
Each Additional Lot $51 $267 ($216)

BIG BEAR LAKE FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 29
Fee Name Current Fee Total Cost Difference
SB 9
Duplex New $954 N/A
Urban Lot Split New $1,908 N/A
Time Extension
PC approved plan
PC approved plan $2,109 $5,808 ($3,699)
Staff approved plan
Staff approved plan $991 $5,808 ($4,817)
Temporary Use Permit
Temporary structures or uses
Non-Profit $0 $979 ($979)
For Profit $845 $979 ($134)
Stockpiling
Stockpiling $403 $979 ($576)
Tree Removal Permit
Tree Removal Permit $28 $153 ($125)
Variances & Deviations
Minor Deviation
Minor Deviation $697 $3,649 ($2,952)
Variance
Variance $1,800 $8,624 ($6,824)
Vehicle For Hire
Vehicle For Hire $346 $2,753 ($2,407)
Zoning Amendment
Text Change
Text Change $1,914 $9,644 ($7,730)
Map Change/Pre-Zone $2,123 $9,644 ($7,521)
Zoning Clearance
Zoning Clearance $65 $624 ($559)
Nearly all the fees administered by the Planning Division show an under-recovery for the associated costs. The largest under-recovery is for a ’Tentative Tract Map (Condo)’ at $10,054. The smallest undercharge is for a ‘Second & Subsequent Re-Inspections – Each Additional 1 ½ Hours’ at $60.

ANNUAL REVENUE IMPACT
Based on the prior year’s (FY23/24) workload information, Planning has a deficit of roughly $288,000.

The following table shows by major fee category: revenue at current fee, total projected annual cost, and the resulting difference.

BIG BEAR LAKE FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 30
TABLE 14: ANNUAL RESULTS – PLANNING
Fee Category Revenue at Current Fee Annual Cost Difference Conditional Use Permit $9,908 $56,674 ($46,767)
Modifications $8,899 $49,636 ($40,737)
Plot Plan Review $3,963 $21,917 ($17,954)
Pre-Development Review $1,840 $28,461 ($26,621)
Right-Of-Way Vacation $779 $7,306 ($6,527)
Sign Permits $580 $3,180 ($2,600)
Special Events $17,479 $116,166 ($98,687)
Subdivisions $2,056 $9,091 ($7,035)
Time Extension $2,109 $5,808 ($3,699)
Temporary Use Permit $3,380 $3,917 ($537)
Tree Removal Permit $1,456 $7,943 ($6,487)
Variances and Deviations $5,400 $25,871 ($20,471)
Zoning $2,174 $12,139 ($9,965)
Total $60,023 $348,110 ($288,087)
Planning has an annual cost recovery of roughly 17%, which reflects a $288,000 annual under-recovery.

Nearly $93,000 of the subsidy relates to Major For-Profit Special Events, which shows a per unit deficit of approximately $8,400, and was processed 11 times in the last year.

BIG BEAR LAKE FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 31
There are two typical surcharges assessed as part of the development review process – General Plan Maintenance Fee and Technology fee. Currently, the City of Big Bear Lake does not assess either of these fees. The following subsections discuss the calculation and application of the General Plan Maintenance Fee and Technology Fee and provides comparative context to other jurisdictions.

GENERAL PLAN MAINTENANCE FEE
A General Plan Maintenance fee is meant to account for updates to the general plan, zoning ordinance, housing elements, and other long-range planning activities that are part of the larger General Plan.

The General Plan Maintenance fee is governed by Government Code Section 66014(b) which states that fees “may include the costs reasonably necessary to prepare and revise the plans and policies that a local agency is required to adopt before it can make any necessary findings and recommendations.” This code states that fees can be charged against zoning changes, zoning variances, use permits, building inspections, and filing applications.

More typically, the fee is charged during the building permit phase to ensure any development project, which gets to that phase, makes enough of an impact to require the need for an update to the Zoning Code or the General Plan. This fee should only be applied to major building permits (i.e., new or remodel / tenant improvements) rather than standalone permits for water heaters or electrical outlets.

The project team took the estimated cost associated with updating the General Plan and Housing Element, divided by the years between updates, to come up with an annualized cost. The following table breaks out by category the components that comprise the total annual cost calculation.

TABLE 15: GENERAL PLAN MAINTENANCE FEE – ANNUAL COSTS
Task Estimated Cost Years Annualized Cost
General Plan Update $1,000,000 20 $50,000
Housing Element $250,000 8 $31,250
Total Annual Cost $81,250
The annual cost to the City for updating their general plan is roughly $81,000. The two most common methodologies for assessing a General Plan Maintenance fee are:

1. Percentage of Building Permit Fee: This means that the general plan maintenance fee is assessed as a percentage of the total building permit fee assessed to a project.

2. Percentage of Valuation: This means that the fee is assessed based upon the total project valuation.

Even if the City doesn’t utilize valuation for calculating fees, it still must collect that information for SMIP and other state surcharges and can utilize it to determine the General Plan Maintenance fee.

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES SURCHARGES

BIG BEAR LAKE FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 32
The project team calculated the full cost of the General Plan Fee based upon both methodologies. The following table shows this calculation:

TABLE 16: GENERAL PLAN MAINTENANCE FEE CALCULATION
Category Building Permit Fee Valuation
Total Annual Cost $81,250 $81,250
Base $554,578 $33,940,627
General Plan Maintenance Fee 15% 0.24%
The calculated General Plan Maintenance Fee can either be applied as 15% of the Building Permit Fee or

0.24% of Building Valuation. The City can choose one of these options to charge as its General Plan Maintenance Fee.

As part of this analysis, the project team conducted a comparative survey of other local jurisdictions and their assessment of a General Plan Maintenance Fee. Like other comparative efforts, the survey below simply shows the fees charged by the jurisdiction and does not include the basis upon which the other jurisdictions calculated or developed their fee. The following table shows the results of this comparative analysis:

TABLE 17: GENERAL PLAN MAINTENANCE FEE – COMPARATIVE SURVEY Jurisdiction Fee Amount
Mammoth Lakes $0.20 per sq. ft.

Palm Springs 0.07% of Building Valuation

0.1% of Planning Valuation
South Lake Tahoe N/A
Victorville 10% of Permit Fee
As the table indicates the current fee charged by jurisdictions varies based upon project type and / or building permit. The full cost calculated for the City is higher than all the other jurisdictions surveyed.

However, like other comparative analyses, this only reflects the fee being charged, not necessarily the full cost of those services.

TECHNOLOGY SURCHARGE FEE
A Technology Fee allows a jurisdiction to support the costs associated with its permitting system, staff time for managing the systems, acquiring the system, mobile devices used for permitting, etc.

The project team used knowledge from previous fee studies for cities like Big Bear Lake to estimate annual permit-related technology costs. The costs included in this estimate are the capital costs for a permitting system annualized over 25 years, as well as the annual licensing and maintenance cost paid to maintain the permitting system. The following table shows by cost category the annual cost:

BIG BEAR LAKE FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 33
TABLE 18: TECHNOLOGY SURCHARGE COST COMPONENTS
Item Total Cost # of Years Annualized Cost
Software System $1,000,000 25 $40,000
Annual Licensing and Maintenance $25,000 1 $25,000
Total Annual Cost $65,000
Based upon the software related items needed to maintain the permitting system, annual technologyrelated costs are approximately $65,000.

The most defensible methodology for assessing a technology fee is based proportionately on the percentage of the permit fee, as the greater the permit fee, the more software utilization and storage space is required. Therefore, the project team took the total Technology Annual Cost and divided it by the annual fee-related cost associated with departments who utilize the permitting software (Building, Planning, Engineering, and Fire). The following table shows this calculation:

TABLE 19: TECHNOLOGY SURCHARRGE CALCULATION
Category Technology Fee Calculation
Total Annual Technology Cost $65,000
Total Annual Permitting Costs $1,088,638
Technology Surcharge 6%
Based upon this calculation, the City’s full cost Technology fee would be 6% of the permit fee. Therefore, if a permit fee was $100, the Technology fee collected would be $6; whereas if a permit fee was $1,000; the Technology fee collected would be $60. This type of structure enables the Technology fee to be more proportionately distributed based upon the projects and their impact upon the system.

As part of this analysis, the project team conducted a comparative survey of other local jurisdictions and their assessment of a Technology Fee. Like other comparative efforts, the survey below simply shows the fees charged by the jurisdiction and does not include the basis upon which the other jurisdictions calculated or developed their fee. The following table shows the results of this comparative analysis:

TABLE 20: TECHNOLOGY SURCHARGE – COMPARATIVE SURVEY
Jurisdiction Fee Amount
Mammoth Lakes N/A
Palm Springs 0.109% of Building Valuation

0.1% of Planning Valuation

0.109% of Engineering Valuation
South Lake Tahoe N/A
Victorville 4.6% of Permit Fee
As the table indicates the current fee charged by jurisdictions varies based upon project type and / or valuation. The full cost calculated for the City is higher than all the other jurisdictions surveyed. However,

BIG BEAR LAKE FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 34
like other comparative analyses, this only reflects the fee being charged, not necessarily the full cost of those services.

SURCHARGE FUND BEST PRACTICES
It is a best practice to collect and account for General Plan Maintenance and Technology surcharges in separate accounts, as doing so ensures compliance with funding requirements, enables appropriate allocation of funds to general plan or technology-related activities, and mitigates any potential issues with the comingling of funds.

BIG BEAR LAKE FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 35
The following sections provide guidance regarding how and where to increase fees, determine annual update factors, and develop cost recovery policies and procedures.

FEE ADJUSTMENTS
This study has documented and outlined on a fee-by-fee basis where the City is under- and overcollecting for its fee-related services. City and Department management will now need to review the study results and adjust fees per Departmental and City philosophies and policies. The following dot points outline the major options the City has in adjusting its fees:
• Over-Collection: Upon review of the fees that were shown to be over-collecting for costs of services provided, the City should reduce the current fee to be in line with the full cost of providing the service. • Full Cost Recovery: For fees that show an under-collection for costs of services provided, the City may decide to increase the fee to full cost recovery immediately. • Phased Increase: For fees with significantly low-cost recovery levels, or which would have a significant impact on the community, the City could choose to increase fees gradually over a set period.

The City will need to review the results of the fee study and associated cost recovery levels and determine how best to adjust fees. While decisions regarding fees that currently show an over-recovery are straightforward, the following subsections provide further detail on why and how the City should consider either implementing Full Cost Recovery or a Phased Increase approach to adjusting its fees.

FULL COST RECOVERY
Based on the permit or review type, the City may wish to increase the fee to cover the full cost of providing services. Certain permits may be close to cost recovery already, and an increase to full cost may not be significant. Other permits may have a more significant increase associated with full cost recovery.

Increasing fees associated with permits and services that are already close to full cost recovery can potentially bring a Department’s overall cost recovery level higher. Often, these minimal increases can provide necessary revenue to counterbalance fees that cannot be increased.

The City should consider increasing fees for permits for which services are rarely engaged to full cost recovery. These services often require specific expertise and can involve more complex research and review due to their infrequent nature. As such, setting these fees at full cost recovery will ensure that when the permit or review is requested, the City is recovering the full cost of its services.

COST RECOVERY CONSIDERATIONS

BIG BEAR LAKE FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 36

PHASED INCREASES
Depending on current cost recovery levels, some current fees may need to be increased significantly to comply with established or proposed cost recovery policies. Due to the type of permit or review or the amount by which a fee needs to be increased, it may be best for the City to use a phased approach to reaching its cost recovery goals.

As an example, you may have a current fee of $200 with a full cost of $1,000, representing 20% cost recovery. If the current policy is 80% cost recovery, the current fee would need to increase by $600, bringing the fee to $800, to comply with proposed recovery levels. Assuming this service is something the City provides quite often and affects various members of the community, an instant increase of $600 may not be feasible. Therefore, the City could take a phased approach, whereby it increases the fee annually over a set period until cost recovery is achieved.

Raising fees over a set period not only allows the City to monitor and control the impact to applicants but also ensure that applicants have time to adjust to significant increases. Continuing with the example above, the City could increase the fee by $150 per year for the next four years, spreading out the increase. Depending on the desired overall increase and the impact to applicants, the City could choose to vary the number of years by which it chooses to increase fees. However, the project team recommends that the City not phase increases for periods greater than five years, as that is the maximum window after which a comprehensive fee assessment should be completed.

ANNUAL ADJUSTMENTS
Conducting a comprehensive analysis of fee-related services and costs annually would be quite cumbersome and costly. The general recommendation is that a comprehensive fee analysis should be conducted every three to five years. This allows jurisdictions to ensure they account for organizational changes, such as staffing levels and merit increases, and process efficiencies, code or rule changes, or technology improvements. Developing annual update mechanisms allow jurisdictions to maintain current levels of cost recovery, while accounting for increases in staffing or expenditures related to permit services. The two most common types of update mechanisms are Consumer Price Index (CPI) and Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) factors. The following points provide further detail on each of these mechanisms:
• COLA / Personnel Cost Factor: Jurisdictions often provide their staff with annual salary adjustments to account for increases in local cost of living. These increases are not tied to merit or seniority but rather meant to offset rising costs associated with housing, gas, and other livability factors.

Sometimes these factors vary depending on the bargaining group of a specific employee. Generally, these factors are around two or three percent annually. • CPI / ECI Factor: A common method of increasing fees or cost is to look at regional cost indicators, such as the Consumer Price Index or Employment Cost Index. These factors are calculated by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, are put out at various intervals within a year, and are specific to states and regions.

BIG BEAR LAKE FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 37
The City of Big Bear Lake should review its current options internally (COLA) as well as externally (CPI / ECI) to determine which option better reflects the goals of the Departments and the City. If choosing a CPI / ECI factor, the City should outline which CPI / ECI should be used, including specific region and adoption date. If choosing an internal factor, the City should be sure to specify which factor if multiple exist.

POLICIES AND PROCEDURES
This study has identified areas where the City is under-collecting the costs associated with providing services. This known funding gap is therefore being subsidized by other City revenue sources.

Development of cost recovery policies and procedures will ensure that current and future decision makers understand how and why fees were determined and set, as well as provide a road map for ensuring consistency when moving forward. The following subsections outline typical cost recovery levels and discuss the benefits of developing target cost recovery goals and procedures for achieving and increasing cost recovery.

TYPICAL COST RECOVERY
The Matrix Consulting Group has extensive experience in analyzing local government operations across the United States and has calculated typical cost recovery ranges. The following table outlines cost recovery ranges by major service area.

TABLE 21: TYPICAL COST RECOVERY RANGES BY MAJOR SERVICE AREA Service Areas Typical Cost Recovery Ranges
Building 80-100%
Planning 50-80%
Engineering 70-100%
Information presented in the table above is based on the Matrix Consulting Group’s experience in analyzing local governments’ operations across the United States and within California and reflects typical cost recovery ranges observed by local adopting authorities. The following graph depicts how Big Bear Lake compares to industry cost recovery range standards.

BIG BEAR LAKE FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 38
Building is within the typical cost recovery range, while Planning and Engineering are significantly lower than typical cost recovery ranges.

DEVELOPMENT OF COST RECOVERY POLICIES AND PROCEDURES
The City should review the current cost recovery levels and adopt a formal policy regarding cost recovery.

This policy can be general in nature and can apply broadly to the City as a whole or to each department and division specifically. A department-specific cost recovery policy would allow the City to better control the cost recovery associated with different types of services being provided and the community benefit received.
92%
17%
35%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Building Planning Engineering
Cost Recovery %
Current Revenue Cost Recovery vs. Typical Revenue Cost Recovery Typical Cost Recovery Current Cost Recovery

BIG BEAR LAKE FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 39
As part of the Cost of Services (User Fee) study for the City of Big Bear Lake, Matrix Consulting Group conducted a comparative survey of user fees. The City identified four municipalities to be included in the comparative survey: Mammoth Lakes, South Lake Tahoe, Palm Springs, and Victorville. The project team then reviewed public documents (i.e., agenda items, staff reports, budgets, fee schedules, and ordinances) and or contacted jurisdictions to get comparative information.

While this full report provides the City with a reasonable estimate and understanding of the true costs of providing services, many jurisdictions also wish to benchmark themselves against other comparable jurisdictions to understand the local “rates” for comparable services. This type of comparative analysis allows for the City to assess what types of changes in fee levels their community can bear. However, benchmarking does not provide adequate information regarding the relationship of other jurisdiction’s costs to their fees (i.e., policy decisions to subsidize, cost recovery goals, etc.). To contextualize this portion of the analysis, the project team provided economic and recency factors for the comparable jurisdictions.

The following sections detail various factors to consider when reviewing comparative survey results, as well as graphical comparisons of current fees and total calculated costs for various permits issued or services provided by the City.

ECONOMIC FACTORS
To provide additional context to the comparative survey information, the project team collected economic factors for the jurisdictions included. Three important economic factors to consider when comparing fees across multiple jurisdictions are: population, budget, and workforce size. These factors can impact how and when fees are administered, as a jurisdiction with a smaller population may choose to not charge a fee, or a smaller workforce size may inhibit their ability to administer a fee.

The following tables rank each jurisdiction from smallest to largest for each of these economic factors:

TABLE 22: RANKING OF JURISDICTIONS BY POPULATION
Jurisdiction Population3
Big Bear Lake 4,958
Mammoth Lakes 7,110
South Lake Tahoe 20,790
Palm Springs 43,791
Victorville 138,202
3 California Finance estimates as of 1/1/2024 were used to determine each jurisdiction’s population.

APPENDIX – COMPARATIVE SURVEY

BIG BEAR LAKE FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 40
TABLE 23: RANKING OF JURISDICTIONS BY CITYWIDE TOTAL BUDGET Jurisdiction FY24-25 Budget4
Mammoth Lakes $32,781,587
Big Bear Lake $55,396,630
South Lake Tahoe $60,729,589
Palm Springs $186,533,002
Victorville $377,874,602
TABLE 24: RANKING OF JURISDICTIONS BY FTE
Jurisdiction FY24-25 Authorized FTE
Big Bear Lake 72.00
Mammoth Lakes 114.30
South Lake Tahoe 217.17
Palm Springs 657.00
Victorville 707.00
When compared to the surveyed jurisdictions, the City of Big Bear Lake ranks near the middle in terms of population, budget, and staffing.

RECENCY FACTOR
While the above comparative information can provide some perspective when paralleling Big Bear Lake’s fees with surveyed jurisdictions, other key factors to consider are when a jurisdiction’s fee schedule was last updated and when the last comprehensive analysis was undertaken. It is important to note that even though jurisdictions may have conducted recent fee studies, their fees are not always adopted at full cost recovery. The comparative results only show the adopted fee for the surveyed jurisdiction, not necessarily the full cost associated with the comparable service.

The following tables detail when each surveyed jurisdiction last conducted a fee analysis and when they last updated their fee schedule:

TABLE 25: LAST FEE SCHEDULE UPDATE
Jurisdiction Response
Mammoth Lakes 2024
Victorville 2024
South Lake Tahoe 2024
Palm Springs 2023
4 To ensure appropriate comparisons, full operating budget (all funds) has been used for all jurisdictions.

BIG BEAR LAKE FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 41
TABLE 26: LAST FEE STUDY CONDUCTED
Jurisdiction Response
Mammoth Lakes 2018
Palm Springs 2022
Victorville 2022
South Lake Tahoe 2024
All surveyed jurisdictions have published an updated fee schedule within the past three years.

Additionally, all the jurisdictions except for Mammoth Lakes have conducted a fee study within the last five years.

ADDITIONAL FACTORS
Along with keeping the statistics outlined in the previous sections in mind, the following issues should also be noted regarding the use of market surveys in the setting of fees for service:
• Cost Recovery Factors: Each jurisdiction and its fees are different, and many are not based on the actual cost of providing services as various policy decisions may subsidize services. • Fee Variance Factors: The same “fee” with the same name may include different steps or subactivities. Jurisdictions also provide varying levels of service and have varying levels of costs associated with providing services such as staffing levels, salary levels, indirect overhead costs, etc.

In addition to the issues noted, market surveys can also run the risk of creating a confusing excess of data that will obscure rather than clarify policy issues. Because each jurisdiction is different, the Matrix Consulting Group recommends that the information contained in the market comparison of fees be used as a secondary decision-making tool, rather than the primary method for determining an acceptable price point for services.

COMPARATIVE SURVEY RESULTS
As part of this study, the project team conducted a survey of how the City’s current user fees and calculated full cost compare to other identified jurisdictions. The following subsections provide a comparative look at several fee-related services provided by the City versus the surveyed jurisdictions. 1 APPEAL OF STAFF DECISION TO PLANNING COMMISSION
Planning currently charges a fee of $115 for an appeal – of staff decision to Planning Commission.

Through this study, the project team calculated the full cost of this service to be $3,665. The following graph shows how Big Bear Lake’s current fee and full cost compares to surveyed jurisdictions.

BIG BEAR LAKE FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 42
Big Bear Lake’s current fee is the lowest and below the jurisdictional average of $1,211. The full cost calculated is well above those fees surveyed and is closest to Mammoth Lakes at $1,942. South Lake Tahoe’s appeal fee ($371) is general and administered by their City Clerk office. 2 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
Planning recently streamlined its Conditional Use Permit, combining the Residential ($1,966) and Commercial ($1,997) categories. Through this study, the project team calculated the full cost of this service to be $11,335. The following graph shows how Big Bear Lake’s current fee and full cost compare to surveyed jurisdictions.
$0
$500
$1,000
$1,500
$2,000
$2,500
$3,000
$3,500
$4,000
Big Bear Lake -
Current Fee
Big Bear Lake -
Full Cost
Mammoth
Lakes
Palm Springs South Lake
Tahoe
Victorville
Appeal of Staff Decision to Planning Commission
Fee Average
$0
$2,000
$4,000
$6,000
$8,000
$10,000
$12,000
Big Bear Lake -
Current Fee
Big Bear Lake -
Full Cost
Mammoth
Lakes
Palm Springs South Lake
Tahoe
Victorville
Conditional Use Permit
Fee Average

BIG BEAR LAKE FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 43
Big Bear Lake’s current fee is the lowest and below the jurisdictional average of $5,133. The full cost calculated is well above the surveyed jurisdictions. Palm Springs charges the highest fee, $6,227, while Mammoth Lakes requires a deposit of $2,500.
3 SIGN PERMIT
Planning currently charges a fee of $58 for a Sign Permit. Through this study, the project team calculated the full cost of this service to be $318. The following graph shows how Big Bear Lake’s current fee and full cost compare to surveyed jurisdictions.

Big Bear Lake’s current fee is the lowest surveyed. The full cost calculated is in line with Mammoth Lakes’ fee of $334 and below the jurisdictional average of $58. Victorville has the highest fee at $580. 4 FINAL TRACT MAP - 10 LOTS
Planning currently charges a fee of $1,724 for the Final Tract Map of 10 lots. Through this study, the project team calculated the full cost of this service to be $4,359. The following graph shows how Big Bear Lake’s current fee and full cost compare to surveyed jurisdictions. $0
$100
$200
$300
$400
$500
$600
$700
Big Bear Lake -
Current Fee
Big Bear Lake -
Full Cost
Mammoth Lakes Palm Springs South Lake
Tahoe
Victorville
Sign Permit
Fee Average

BIG BEAR LAKE FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 44
Both Big Bear Lake’s current fee and calculated full cost are below the jurisdictional average of $5,893.

Victorville has the highest fee at $7,017, with Mammoth Lakes being the next highest at $6,000. 5 VARIANCE
Planning currently charges a fee of $1,800 for a Variance fee. Through this study, the project team calculated the full cost of this service to be $8,624. The following graph shows how Big Bear Lake’s current fee and full cost compares to surveyed jurisdictions.

Big Bear Lake’s current fee is the lowest of surveyed jurisdictions, while its full cost is higher than any current stated fee. The jurisdictional average is $3,028, with Mammoth Lakes assessing a $6,000 deposit.
$0
$1,000
$2,000
$3,000
$4,000
$5,000
$6,000
$7,000
$8,000
Big Bear Lake -
Current Fee
Big Bear Lake -
Full Cost
Mammoth
Lakes
Palm Springs South Lake
Tahoe
Victorville
Final Tract Map - 10 lots
Fee Average
$0
$1,000
$2,000
$3,000
$4,000
$5,000
$6,000
$7,000
$8,000
$9,000
$10,000
Big Bear Lake -
Current Fee
Big Bear Lake -
Full Cost
Mammoth
Lakes
Palm Springs South Lake
Tahoe
Victorville
Variance
Fee Average

BIG BEAR LAKE FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 45
6 ZONING CLEARANCE
Planning currently charges a fee of $65 for a Zoning Clearance. Through this study, the project team calculated the full cost of this service to be $624. The following graph shows how Big Bear Lake’s current fee and full cost compares to surveyed jurisdictions.

Big Bear Lake’s current fee is the lowest surveyed, with the next closet being Victorville at $97. The full cost calculated is highest than any surveyed jurisdiction. South Lake Tahoe has the highest fee surveyed at $247, with the jurisdictional average at $269.
7 REROOF - RESIDENTIAL ($25,000)
Building currently charges a fee of $152 for a Reroof. Through this study, the project team calculated the full cost of this service to be $529. The following graph shows how Big Bear Lake’s current fee and full cost compares to surveyed jurisdictions.
$0
$100
$200
$300
$400
$500
$600
$700
Big Bear Lake -
Current Fee
Big Bear Lake - Full
Cost
Palm Springs South Lake Tahoe Victorville
Zoning Clearance
Fee Average
$0
$500
$1,000
$1,500
$2,000
$2,500
Big Bear Lake -
Current Fee
Big Bear Lake -
Full Cost
Mammoth
Lakes
Palm Springs South Lake
Tahoe
Victorville
Reroof - Residential ($25,000)
Fee Average

BIG BEAR LAKE FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 46
Big Bear Lake’s current fee is the lowest of the surveyed jurisdictions. The full cost calculated is below the jurisdictional average of $763 and closest to South Lake Tahoe at $500. Mammoth Lakes has the highest fee at $2,025.
8 SFR - NEW: 2,000 SQ. FT. (VALUED AT $400,000)
Building recently converted its fees for SFR from valuation to square footage. The current fee for a new 2,000 square foot single family home valued at $400,000 based on the current valuation structure is $3,234. Through this study, the project team calculated the full cost of this service based on square footage to be $3,922. The following graph shows how Big Bear Lake’s current fee and full cost compares to surveyed jurisdictions.

The current fee and the full cost calculated are the closest to Palm Springs ($4,337) and well below the jurisdictional average of $6,806. Mammoth Lakes charges the highest fee at $12,273, with Victorville charging the lowest fee at $2,615.
9 SFR - ADDITION: 500 SQ. FT. (VALUED AT $100,000)
For a 500 square foot Addition in a Single-Family Residential Construction Project, Big Bear Lake currently charges $994. Through this study, the project team calculated the full cost of this service to be $1,734. The following graph shows how Big Bear Lake’s current fee and full cost compares to surveyed jurisdictions.
$0
$2,000
$4,000
$6,000
$8,000
$10,000
$12,000
$14,000
Big Bear Lake -
Current Fee
Big Bear Lake -
Full Cost
Mammoth
Lakes
Palm Springs South Lake
Tahoe
Victorville
SFR - New: 2,000 sq. ft. (Valued at $400,000)
Fee Average

BIG BEAR LAKE FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 47
The full cost calculated is in line with South Lake Tahoe and Victorville at around $2,000. The current fee is below the jurisdictional average of $1,261. Mammoth Lakes has the lowest fee at $225 10 COMMERCIAL - NEW: VALUED AT $5 MILLION (12,000 SQ. FT.) For a New Commercial Construction Project that is 50,000 square feet and valued at $5,000,000, the City of Big Bear Lake currently charges $20,209. Through this study, the project team calculated the full cost of this service to be $15,786. The following graph shows how Big Bear Lake’s current fee and full cost compares to surveyed jurisdictions.
$0
$500
$1,000
$1,500
$2,000
$2,500
Big Bear Lake -
Current Fee
Big Bear Lake -
Full Cost
Mammoth
Lakes
Palm Springs South Lake
Tahoe
Victorville
SFR - Addition: 500 sq. ft. (Valued at $100,000)
Fee Average
$0
$20,000
$40,000
$60,000
$80,000
$100,000
$120,000
$140,000
$160,000
$180,000
Big Bear Lake -
Current Fee
Big Bear Lake -
Full Cost
Mammoth Lakes Palm Springs South Lake
Tahoe
Victorville
Commercial - New: Valued at $5 Million (50,000 Sq. Ft)
Fee Average

BIG BEAR LAKE FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 48
The current fee and the full cost calculated are most closely aligned with Victorville ($10,435) and Palm Springs ($33,649). The jurisdictional average is $76,021, with South Lake Tahoe ($100,000) and Mammoth Lakes ($160,000) charging the highest fees.
11 COMMERCIAL - TI: VALUED AT $500,000
For a Commercial TI Construction Project that is 2,500 square feet and valued at $500,000, the City of Big Bear Lake currently charges $3,234. Through this study, the project team calculated the full cost of this service to be $5,109. The following graph shows how Big Bear Lake’s current fee and full cost compares to surveyed jurisdictions.

The current and full cost fee is closest to the fee charged by Palm Springs ($3,109). The jurisdictional average of $6,576 is skewed by South Lake Tahoe ($10,000). 12 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
Engineering currently charges a fee of $453 for a Certificate of Compliance. Through this study, the project team calculated the full cost of this service to be $2,265. The following graph shows how Big Bear Lake’s current fee and full cost compares to surveyed jurisdictions. $0
$2,000
$4,000
$6,000
$8,000
$10,000
$12,000
Big Bear Lake -
Current Fee
Big Bear Lake -
Full Cost
Mammoth Lakes Palm Springs South Lake
Tahoe
Victorville
Commercial - TI: Valued at $500,000 (2,500 Sq. Ft)
Fee Average

BIG BEAR LAKE FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 49
The current fee is the lowest surveyed, and in alignment with Mammoth Lakes ($500 deposit). The full cost calculated is between South Lake Tahoe ($867) and Victorville ($2,092), but below the jurisdictional average of $2,545. Palm Springs charges the highest for this fee at $4,675. 13 DRIVEWAY / CURB / SIDEWALK APPROACH
Engineering currently charges a fee of $137 for a Driveway / Curb / Sidewalk approach. Through this study, the project team calculated the full cost of this service to be $738. The following graph shows how Big Bear Lake’s current fee and full cost compares to surveyed jurisdictions.

The current cost is the lowest of surveyed fees. The full cost calculated is just above the jurisdictional average of $697. Mammoth Lakes charges the highest fee at $1,000. $0
$500
$1,000
$1,500
$2,000
$2,500
$3,000
$3,500
$4,000
$4,500
$5,000
Big Bear Lake -
Current Fee
Big Bear Lake -
Full Cost
Mammoth Lakes Palm Springs South Lake
Tahoe
Victorville
Certificate of Compliance
Fee Average
$0
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1,000
$1,200
Big Bear Lake -
Current Fee
Big Bear Lake - Full
Cost
Mammoth Lakes Palm Springs Victorville
Driveway / Curb / Sidewalk Approach
Fee Average

BIG BEAR LAKE FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 50
14 STREET CUT (LATERAL)
Engineering currently charges a fee of $246 for a Street cut (lateral). Through this study, the project team calculated the full cost of this service to be $655. The following graph shows how Big Bear Lake’s current fee and full cost compares to surveyed jurisdictions.

Big Bear Lake currently charges the lowest fee surveyed, just below Mammoth Lakes ($375). The full cost calculated aligns with the jurisdictional average of $635. Palm Springs charges the highest fee at $781.
15 UTILITY STREET CUT: 2,000 SQ. FT.

Engineering currently charges a fee of $53 for a Utility street cut: 2,000 sq. ft. Through this study, the project team calculated the full cost of this service to be $1,482. The following graph shows how Big Bear Lake’s current fee and full cost compares to surveyed jurisdictions.

Big Bear Lake’s current fee is by far the lowest surveyed. The full cost calculated Is above those surveyed and the jurisdictional average of $765. Mammoth Lakes charges a $1,000 deposit. $0
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1,000
Big Bear Lake -
Current Fee
Big Bear Lake - Full
Cost
Mammoth Lakes Palm Springs South Lake Tahoe
Street Cut (Lateral)
Fee Average
$0
$500
$1,000
$1,500
$2,000
Big Bear Lake -
Current Fee
Big Bear Lake - Full
Cost
Mammoth Lakes Palm Springs South Lake Tahoe
Utility Street Cut: 2,000 sq. ft.

Fee Average

BIG BEAR LAKE FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 51
16 LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT
Engineering currently charges a fee of $548 for a Lot Line Adjustment. Through this study, the project team calculated the full cost of this service to be $3,032. The following graph shows how Big Bear Lake’s current fee and full cost compares to surveyed jurisdictions.

The calculated full cost is well above the jurisdictional average of $1,958. The current fee is closest to Victorville at $438 dollars. Palm Springs charges the highest fee at $4,675. South Lake Tahoe charges hourly ($125) for this.
17 FINAL PARCEL MAP
Engineering currently charges a fee of $1,482 for Final Parcel Map. Through this study, the project team calculated the full cost of this service to be $4,495. The following graph shows how Big Bear Lake’s current fee and full cost compares to surveyed jurisdictions. $0
$1,000
$2,000
$3,000
$4,000
$5,000
Big Bear Lake -
Current Fee
Big Bear Lake -
Full Cost
Mammoth
Lakes
Palm Springs South Lake
Tahoe
Victorville
Lot Line Adjustment
Fee Average
$0
$2,000
$4,000
$6,000
$8,000
$10,000
Big Bear Lake -
Current Fee
Big Bear Lake - Full
Cost
Palm Springs South Lake Tahoe Victorville
Final Parcel Map
Fee Average

BIG BEAR LAKE FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 52
The City’s current fee is the lowest of the surveyed jurisdictions. The full cost calculated is slightly below the jurisdictional average of $4,566. Palm Springs charges the highest for this at $8,219. 18 NEW BUSINESS LICENSE
The Business License Division currently charges a fee of $231 for New Business License. Through this study, the project team calculated the full cost of this service to be $328. The following graph shows how Big Bear Lake’s current fee and full cost compares to surveyed jurisdictions.

Big Bear Lake’s current fee and full cost calculated are both the second and third highest fees, right below Victorville ($390). They are also above the jurisdictional average of $175. South Lake Tahoe ($95) also includes a $12 Business License Technology Fee. Palm Springs charges the lowest fee for this at $36.
19 EXISTING / RENEWAL BUSINESS LICENSE
The Business License’s Division currently charges a fee of $44 for an Existing / Renewal Business License. Through this study, the project team calculated the full cost of this service to be $31. The following graph shows how Big Bear Lake’s current fee and full cost compares to surveyed jurisdictions. $0
$50
$100
$150
$200
$250
$300
$350
$400
$450
Big Bear Lake -
Current Fee
Big Bear Lake -
Full Cost
Mammoth Lakes Palm Springs South Lake
Tahoe
Victorville
New Business License
Fee Average

BIG BEAR LAKE FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 53
Big Bear Lakes Current Fee is right under the jurisdictional average of $50. The full cost calculated is the second lowest, right above Palm Springs ($23). South Lake Tahoe charges the highest for this fee at $77 and includes a $12 Business License Technology Fee.
20 VACATION RENTAL PROGRAM
The Business License Division currently charges a fee of $550 for the Vacation Rental Program. Through this study, the project team calculated the full cost of this service to be $731. The following graph shows how Big Bear Lake’s current fee and full cost compares to surveyed jurisdictions.

The current fee is below the jurisdictional average of $711, whereas the full cost is only slightly above that. Big Bear Lake’s full cost calculated is the second highest fee, below Palm Springs ($1,072). South Lake Tahoe charges the lowest for this fee at $350.
$0
$20
$40
$60
$80
$100
Big Bear Lake -
Current Fee
Big Bear Lake - Full
Cost
Palm Springs South Lake Tahoe Victorville
Existing / Renewal Business License
Fee Average
$0
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1,000
$1,200
Big Bear Lake - Current
Fee
Big Bear Lake - Full Cost Palm Springs South Lake Tahoe Vacation Rental Program
Fee Average

BIG BEAR LAKE FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 54
21 FILM - MOTION
The Business License’s Division currently charges a fee of $173 for Motion Film. Through this study, the project team calculated the full cost of this service to be $552. The following graph shows how Big Bear Lake’s current fee and full cost compares to surveyed jurisdictions.

The calculated full cost is well above the jurisdictional average of $287. Big Bear Lake’s current fee is nearest to Palm Springs fee at $110. Mammoth Lakes charges the lowest for this at $50. 22 FILM – STILL PHOTO
The Business License’s Division currently charges a fee of $117 for a Film – Still Photo. Through this study, the project team calculated the full cost of this service to be $342. The following graph shows how Big Bear Lake’s current fee and full cost compares to surveyed jurisdictions. $0
$100
$200
$300
$400
$500
$600
Big Bear Lake -
Current Fee
Big Bear Lake -
Full Cost
Mammoth
Lakes
Palm Springs South Lake
Tahoe
Victorville
Film - Motion
Fee Average
$0
$100
$200
$300
$400
$500
Big Bear Lake -
Current Fee
Big Bear Lake - Full
Cost
Mammoth Lakes Palm Springs Victorville
Film - Still Photo
Fee Average

BIG BEAR LAKE FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 55
The calculated full cost is above the jurisdictional average of $188 but is below Victorville at $403. Big Bear Lake’s current fee is in line with Palm Springs ($117), with Mammoth Lakes charging the lowest fee at $50.
23 ARMED FORCES BANNER
City Clerk currently charges a fee of $75 for an Armed Forces Banner. Through this study, the project team calculated the full cost of this service to be $433. The following graph shows Big Bear Lake’s current fee and full cost compared to those of the surveyed jurisdictions.

Big Bear Lake’s current fee is the lowest, while the full cost calculated is the highest. The jurisdictional average of $328 is the midpoint between Victorville ($403) and Palm Springs ($252).

SUMMARY
Overall, Big Bear Lake generally has current fees that are lower, if not the lowest, than those of the surveyed jurisdictions. Of the surveyed jurisdictions, Big Bear Lake’s current fees are most comparable with Palm Springs, while the City’s full cost calculated is most comparable to fees charged by the Town of Mammoth Lakes, except for Building fees which are more in alignment with Palm Springs and Victorville. It is important to note that the results of this survey only show the fees adopted by the council, not the cost recovery policy decisions for departments or a jurisdiction. As such, the results of this survey should be used as a secondary decision-making tool. $0
$100
$200
$300
$400
$500
Big Bear Lake - Current
Fee
Big Bear Lake - Full Cost Palm Springs Victorville
Armed Forces Banner
Fee Average
Big Bear Lake Master Fee Schedule