Agenda packet, regular meeting — Big Bear Lake City Council, August 13, 2025 (part 1 of 2)

CITY COUNCIL

REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
AUGUST 13, 2025
Closed Session: 4:30 p.m., ECR, Civic Center, 39707 Big Bear Boulevard, Big Bear Lake, CA 92315 Open Session: 5:00 p.m., 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
If members of the public cannot attend the meeting, the City encourages the public to submit written public communications about any item on this meeting agenda, or about any subject matter within the jurisdiction of the City, to the City Clerk either in person, via mail or by email at [email protected]. If your comment is related to a specific Agenda item, 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 8:00 am on the day of the meeting to ensure adequate time for City Council review and consideration.

OPEN SESSION – 4:30 P.M.

CALL TO ORDER

ROLL CALL

CLOSED SESSION COMMUNICATIONS
Any member of the public is entitled to speak on Closed Session Agenda items. If you wish to address any other items listed on the agenda, you must do so during Open Session. There is a three-minute maximum time limit when addressing City Council. 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.

DECLARATION OF CLOSED SESSION ITEMS

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
August 13, 2025 - Page 2

1. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – ANTICIPATED LITIGATION pursuant to Govt.

Code Section 54956.9 (d)(4)
One (1) Case

RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION
RECONVENE OPEN SESSION – 5:00 P.M.

CALL TO ORDER

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

INVOCATION
An Invocation provided by Stacy Gorin, Executive Director, Southern California Mountains Foundation.

RESULTS OF CLOSED SESSION
EVENT CALENDAR FOR THE PERFORMING ARTS CENTER - For tickets please contact the box office at (909) 866-4970 or visit www.citybigbearlake.com.
• The Big Bear Theatre Project presents Stoneface: The Rise and Fall and Rise of Buster Keaton on August 15th and 16th at 7:30 p.m. and Matinee Showings on August 16th and 17th at 2:00 p.m. • The San Bernardino County Workforce Development Department, in partnership with the City of Big Bear Lake and the Employment Development Department, hosts the 2025 Job Fair & Resource Event August 28th at 10:00 a.m. in Hofert Hall.
• The Blue Jay AA Group hosts The Mountain AA Conference September 5th at 7:00 p.m., and September 6th and 7th at 9:00 a.m.

PRESENTATIONS
• Presentation to Administrative Services Manager Rachel Bowman recognizing her achievements and significant contributions related to the City receiving the 2025 CJPIA Risk Management Award. • Presentation of a 20-year Employee Service Award to Dave Wagner, Administrative Assistant in the Development Services Department.
• Presentation of a 5-year Employee Service Award to Michal Maretta, Senior Building Inspector in the Development Services Department.
• Presentation from Big Bear Valley Education Trust representatives providing an overview of this organization’s community services and projects.

CITY MANAGER ANNOUNCEMENTS IN RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS MADE AT THE 7/9/25 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS (PART 1)
At this time, general public comment is permitted only on consent calendar items and other matters not listed on the posted agenda that are within the subject matter and jurisdiction of the City. Public comment on specific

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
August 13, 2025 - Page 3
items listed on the posted agenda, such as public hearing & discussion or action items, will be taken later in the meeting when the item is called for discussion. When addressing the City Council, please keep the following in mind; State law prohibits the City Council from taking any action on items not listed on the agenda. Therefore, the City Council is prevented from engaging in discussion or deliberation regarding the public’s comments or inquires on non-agendized topics, although the City Council and/or City staff can make brief statements related to a public comment. Each speaker has a 3-minute maximum time limit subject to adjustment at the discretion of the Presiding Officer. To allow City Council sufficient time to address agendized City business, if Public Communications Part 1 exceeds one hour, the remaining public speakers will be allowed to provide public comments during Public Communications Part 2. Participants cannot cede their speaking time to another person. To help ensure a respectful and efficient meeting, please address the City Council directly, not the audience, and refrain from disruptive comments and applause. We appreciate your attendance and your participation in our local government proceedings.

1. CONSENT CALENDAR

1.1 APPROVE DEMANDS – CHECK ISSUE DATE 6/28/25 THROUGH 7/31/25 IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,663,932.96 AND THE PRELIMINARY JUNE 2025 TREASURER’S REPORT

1.2 APPROVE MEETING MINUTES FROM THE JULY 9, 2025 REGULAR MEETING

OF CITY COUNCIL

1.3 DESIGNATE VOTING DELEGATES FOR THE 2025 LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA

CITIES ANNUAL CONFERENCE
Staff’s recommendation: Adopt a Resolution Designating Mayor Perri Melnick as the Voting Delegate and Mayor Pro Tem Kendi Segovia as the Voting Alternate for the 2025 League of California Cities Annual Conference.

1.4 AUTHORIZE SANITATION PUMP REPLACEMENTS AND REPAIRS WITH XYLEM WATER SOLUTIONS USA, INC.

Staff’s recommendation: Adopt a Resolution Authorizing Sanitation Pump Replacements and Repairs with Xylem Water Solutions USA, Inc. and Finding this Project Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

1.5 APPROVE FISCAL YEAR 2025-26 MEASURE I FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL

IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Staff’s recommendation: Adopt a Resolution Adopting the Measure I Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan and Expenditure Strategy for Fiscal Year 2025-26 Through Fiscal Year 2029-30.

1.6 AUTHORIZE A TASK ORDER WITH BUCKNAM INFRASTRUCTURE GROUP, INC. FOR THE PREPARATION OF THE CITY’S PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN
Staff’s recommendation: Authorize a Task Order with Bucknam Infrastructure Group, Inc. for the preparation of the City’s Pavement Management Plan.

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
August 13, 2025 - Page 4

1.7 AUTHORIZE A CHANGE ORDER WITH TRUEPOINT SOLUTIONS RELATED TO

THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ACCELA SOFTWARE PROGRAM
Staff’s recommendation: Adopt a Resolution Authorizing a Change Order with TruePoint Solutions Related to the Implementation of the Accela Software Program.

1.8 AUTHORIZE THE EXECUTION OF AN EASEMENT WITH BIG BEAR

MOUNTAIN RESORTS RELATED TO THE RATHBUN DRIVE IMPORVEMENTS Staff’s recommendation: Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the Execution of an Easement with Big Bear Mountain Resorts Related to the Rathbun Drive Improvements.

ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR

2. PUBLIC HEARING - Any person may appear and be heard in support or in opposition to the proposal at the time of the hearing. If you challenge the action in court or an administrative proceeding, you may be limited to raising only those issues which you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in the notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City at or before the public hearing.

2.1 RESOLUTION UPDATING AND ESTABLISHING A MASTER FEE SCHEDULE Staff recommendation: Conduct a public hearing to receive comments regarding the City’s Master Fee Schedule; and adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Big Bear Lake, California Updating and Establishing User and Regulatory Fees for Various City Regulatory Activities, Programs, and Services Set Forth in a Master Fee Schedule.

3. DISCUSSION/ACTION ITEMS

3.1 PRESENTATION FROM VISIT BIG BEAR STAFF PROVIDING AN ANNUAL

OVERVIEW OF THEIR ORGANIZATION
Staff’s recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council receive a presentation from Travis Scott, Visit Big Bear’s Chief Executive Officer, providing an overview of the budget, marketing activities, events and achievements and provide direction to staff, as appropriate.

PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS (PART 2)

4. COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS & ADDITIONAL CITY BUSINESS
• CITY CLERK, CITY ATTORNEY & CITY MANAGER COMMENTS
• COUNCILMEMBER BOARD/COMMITTEE REPORTS & COMMENTS

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
August 13, 2025 - Page 5

ADJOURNMENT

TENTATIVE ITEMS TO BE CONSIDERED AT A FUTURE PUBLIC MEETING • Emergency Operations Plan
o September 10, 2025 Regular City Council Meeting
• Fiscal Year 2025-26 Carryover of Appropriations
o September 10, 2025 Regular City Council Meeting
Please note - The Wednesday October 8, 2025 Regular City Council Meeting will be canceled and an Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting will be held on Thursday, October 2, 2025.

DECLARATION OF POSTING
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 7th day of August 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. Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting.

CONSENT CALENDAR REPORTS
Check# Vendor Date Amount
92610 Bear Valley Electric 07/01/25 27,699.21
92611 Shelli Davis 07/01/25 2,904.32
92612 Best Best & Krieger LLP 07/01/25 16,752.10
92613 BMI - Broadcast Music Inc. 07/01/25 37.17
92615 Butchers Blocks & Building Materials 07/01/25 604.73 92616 Cynthia Louise Gabaldon 07/01/25 7,050.00
92617 Cintas Corporation 07/01/25 1,417.51
92618 Melisa Carlc 07/01/25 2,240.00
92620 Dapeer Rosenblit & Litvak LLP 07/01/25 497.50
92621 Davey Resource Group, Inc. 07/01/25 3,840.00
92622 Lumber City Corp. 07/01/25 119.22
92624 The Grizzly 07/01/25 4,496.00
92625 Intelesys One, Inc. 07/01/25 4,458.20
92626 LEOCO Fence Company 07/01/25 287.56
92627 Hitchin Lucerne, Inc. 07/01/25 109.09
92629 Orkin Pest Control 07/01/25 317.00
92632 SWA Group Inc. 07/01/25 7,260.00
92633 Triden Group Corporation 07/01/25 9,927.85
92635 Uline 07/01/25 2,190.48
92637 Verizon Wireless 07/01/25 1,595.57
92639 Vulcan Materials Company Inc. 07/01/25 1,848.59
92642 Allison Mechanical, Inc 07/10/25 1,143.44
92643 Big Bear Paint Center 07/10/25 936.78
92644 Michael Bonner 07/10/25 1,800.00
92645 Cynthia Louise Gabaldon 07/10/25 500.00
92646 Crafco Inc. 07/10/25 1,616.25
92647 Lumber City Corp. 07/10/25 257.27
92648 Geiger Supply, Inc. 07/10/25 29.49
92649 Grainger Inc. 07/10/25 710.34
92650 Knights Automotive and Performance, Inc. 07/10/25 662.54 92651 Lynn Merrill And Associates, Inc. 07/10/25 6,062.42 92652 Mission Linen Supply Inc. 07/10/25 1,086.38
92653 BBAP, LLC 07/10/25 119.57
92654 Nativescapes, Inc. 07/10/25 1,197.00
92655 Right of Way, Inc. 07/10/25 218.03
92657 Soroptimist International of Big Bear Valley 07/10/25 5,000.00 92658 SBRK Finance Holdings, Inc 07/10/25 300.00
92659 SWA Group Inc. 07/10/25 990.00
92660 Triple Crown Products, Inc. 07/10/25 446.38
92661 Tripepi, Smith & Associates, Inc. 07/10/25 780.00 92662 Volvo Construction Equipment Inc. 07/10/25 43,746.50 92663 Vulcan Materials Company Inc. 07/10/25 2,774.71
92664 Willdan Engineering Inc 07/10/25 1,568.00
92665 Xylem Water Solutions USA Inc 07/10/25 91,422.56
92666 Moonridge School of Dance 07/10/25 50.00
92667 San Bernardino County Fire Protection District 07/10/25 5,935.19 92668 Mountain Area Regional Transit Authority 07/10/25 41,666.67 92670 Alliant Insurance Services, Inc. 07/10/25 527.00
92671 Bear Valley Printing Inc 07/10/25 946.37
92673 Underground Service Alert Inc. 07/10/25 631.01
92674 San Bernardino County Sheriff's Dept 07/17/25 8,304.25 92675 Mountain Area Regional Transit Authority 07/17/25 159,168.11 92676 Airgas, Inc. 07/17/25 64.98
92677 Best Best & Krieger LLP 07/17/25 14,411.65
92678 BlackHole Technologies Inc 07/17/25 1,969.78
92679 Bravo Arts Solutions LLC 07/17/25 122.10
92680 Butchers Blocks & Building Materials 07/17/25 394.97 92681 Bear Valley Tree Care, Inc. 07/17/25 1,950.00
92682 Cintas Corporation 07/17/25 560.31
92683 FedEx 07/17/25 83.86
92684 Fisher Integrated, Inc. 07/17/25 1,200.00
92685 Grainger Inc. 07/17/25 264.80
92686 Lynn Merrill And Associates, Inc. 07/17/25 522.23 92687 Mission Linen Supply Inc. 07/17/25 1,636.29
92688 Michael Marcotte 07/17/25 605.00
92689 Mountain Water Co 07/17/25 128.00
92690 Orkin Pest Control 07/17/25 239.00
92691 Parkhouse Tire, Inc. 07/17/25 1,585.15
92692 CAT Tracking Inc. 07/17/25 91,966.03
92693 Vulcan Materials Company Inc. 07/17/25 834.48
92694 Willdan Engineering Inc 07/17/25 2,100.00
92695 San Bernardino County Treasurer 07/17/25 5,994.78 92696 San Bernardino County Clerk of the Board of Supervisors 07/17/25 150.00 92698 All Protection Alarm 07/17/25 404.56
92700 Butchers Blocks & Building Materials 07/17/25 116.63 92702 Calolympic Glove & Safety Co 07/17/25 468.74
92703 Lumber City Corp. 07/17/25 239.26
92704 Laguna Vault, LLC 07/17/25 55.00
92705 Grainger Inc. 07/17/25 1,089.19
92706 Mission Linen Supply Inc. 07/17/25 2,029.21
City of Big Bear Lake
Checks Issued 06/28/2025 - 07/31/2025
Item 1.1
Check# Vendor Date Amount
City of Big Bear Lake
Checks Issued 06/28/2025 - 07/31/2025
92707 Orkin Pest Control 07/17/25 152.00
92708 Right of Way, Inc. 07/17/25 532.66
92709 Southern California Association of Governments 07/17/25 772.00 92710 Xylem Water Solutions USA Inc 07/17/25 1,642.00
92715 San Bernardino County Vehicle Svcs Dept 07/24/25 7,406.93 92716 City of Big Bear Lake Dept of Water & Power 07/24/25 8,128.72 92720 Lumber City Corp. 07/24/25 58.16
92723 Mile High Sports & Equipment 07/24/25 9,500.00
92724 Moonridge Fuelstop 07/24/25 170.84
92725 BlueTriton Brands Inc 07/24/25 2,077.44
92726 Triden Group Corporation 07/24/25 38,405.98
92728 TruePoint Solutions, LLC 07/24/25 37,811.89
92729 United Rentals (North America), Inc 07/24/25 314.63 92730 Willdan Engineering Inc 07/24/25 20,546.25
92731 South Coast AQMD 07/24/25 736.57
92732 Big Bear Municipal Water Dist 07/24/25 2,897.27
92733 Bear Valley Mutual Water Co 07/24/25 106,120.80
92735 Alliant Insurance Services, Inc. 07/24/25 527.00
92736 Allison Mechanical, Inc 07/24/25 4,866.00
92737 Big Bear Disposal Inc 07/24/25 315,145.03
92738 Big Bear Paint Center 07/24/25 60.42
92739 Butchers Blocks & Building Materials 07/24/25 438.59 92740 Bear Valley Paving, Inc. 07/24/25 22,410.00
92741 Bear Valley Printing Inc 07/24/25 464.75
92742 CALBO 07/24/25 1,445.00
92743 Calolympic Glove & Safety Co 07/24/25 188.11
92744 Execucom 07/24/25 735.00
92745 Lumber City Corp. 07/24/25 31.98
92746 Essel Technology Services, Inc. 07/24/25 3,300.00 92747 Governance Sciences Group, Inc. 07/24/25 10,900.00 92748 Inland Lighting Supplies, Inc 07/24/25 487.81
92750 Mission Linen Supply Inc. 07/24/25 1,070.89
92751 Mojave Desert & Mountain 07/24/25 4,146.00
92752 Right of Way, Inc. 07/24/25 2,250.00
92753 Spinitar 07/24/25 7,612.00
92755 Triden Group Corporation 07/24/25 14,127.85
92756 United Rentals (North America), Inc 07/24/25 788.73 92757 Waxie Sanitary Supply Inc. 07/24/25 5,302.79
92758 San Bernardino County Solid Waste Mgmt Division 07/31/25 37.12 92759 Butchers Blocks & Building Materials 07/31/25 67.72 92760 Dapeer Rosenblit & Litvak LLP 07/31/25 2,425.40
92761 Merrell Johnson Engineering Inc 07/31/25 14,532.50 92762 Municipal Maintenance Equipment 07/31/25 3,992.96 92763 Tripepi, Smith & Associates, Inc. 07/31/25 115.00 92764 United Rentals (North America), Inc 07/31/25 5,022.23 92765 Jon Wreesman 07/31/25 1,424.72
92766 San Bernardino County Flood Control District 07/31/25 54,318.00 92767 City of Big Bear Lake 07/31/25 24.07
92768 Alliant Insurance Services, Inc. 07/31/25 527.00
92769 Big Bear Paint Center 07/31/25 143.32
92770 Bear Valley Paving, Inc. 07/31/25 123,462.47
92772 Cintas Corporation 07/31/25 835.07
92773 Extra Space Management Inc 07/31/25 1,058.00
92774 Grainger Inc. 07/31/25 1,495.63
92775 Mission Linen Supply Inc. 07/31/25 1,010.27
92776 Randy Spitz 07/31/25 129.00
92777 Orkin Pest Control 07/31/25 156.00
92778 BlueTriton Brands Inc 07/31/25 1,387.63
92779 Right of Way, Inc. 07/31/25 5,086.33
92780 Soroptimist International of Big Bear Valley 07/31/25 200.00 92781 Southwest Gas Corporation 07/31/25 432.52
92783 Twin Bear Equipment Rental, Inc. 07/31/25 83.81
92784 Vulcan Materials Company Inc. 07/31/25 1,781.25
92785 Jon Wreesman 07/31/25 1,554.24
ACH Autozone Investment Corporation 07/31/25 10.33
ACH Charter Communications Holdings, LLC 07/17/25 4,394.23 ACH Charter Communications Holdings, LLC 07/24/25 609.83 ACH Espyr 07/24/25 204.60
ACH Gary Payne 07/10/25 990.00
ACH Gary Payne 07/31/25 275.00
ACH Phase II Systems 07/11/25 2,268.89
ACH S Porter Inc 07/10/25 161,074.11
ACH TASC Client Invoices 07/11/25 100.13
ACH US Bank Corporate Payment Systems 07/23/25 30,338.98 ACH Valero Marketing & Supply Co 07/24/25 1,268.15
ACH What's Up Big Bear 07/31/25 90.00
1,663,932.96
Check# Vendor/Employee Transaction Amount
City Council 4110
92657 Soroptimist International of Big Bear Valley City Grant Reimbursement - Beyond the Bell Tuition 07/10/25 5,000.00 92779 Right of Way, Inc. Recognition Street Sign - Ray Wolfe 07/31/25 253.24 ACH US Bank Corporate Payment Systems Conference Expenses/Council Provisions/Training Expense 07/23/25 1,641.19 City Council Total 6,894.43
City Manager 4120
ACH US Bank Corporate Payment Systems 07/23/25 437.09
City Manager Total 437.09
City Clerk & Communications 4130
92612 Best Best & Krieger LLP 07/01/25 44.24
92635 Uline 07/01/25 1,709.54
92647 Lumber City Corp. 07/10/25 50.41
92666 Moonridge School of Dance 07/10/25 50.00
92670 Alliant Insurance Services, Inc. 07/10/25 527.00
92677 Best Best & Krieger LLP 07/17/25 3,457.20
92680 Butchers Blocks & Building Materials 07/17/25 56.02 92704 Laguna Vault, LLC 07/17/25 55.00
92735 Alliant Insurance Services, Inc. 07/24/25 527.00
92737 Big Bear Disposal Inc 07/24/25 2,535.48
92752 Right of Way, Inc. 07/24/25 2,250.00
92768 Alliant Insurance Services, Inc. 07/31/25 527.00
92780 Soroptimist International of Big Bear Valley 07/31/25 200.00 ACH US Bank Corporate Payment Systems 07/23/25 1,945.92 City Clerk & Communications Total 13,934.81
Staff Services & Risk Management 4150
92611 Shelli Davis 07/01/25 2,904.32
ACH Espyr 07/24/25 204.60
ACH Phase II Systems 07/11/25 2,268.89
ACH TASC Client Invoices
Community Gathering Expense/Meeting Expense/Digital Subscriptions/Conference Exp PRA Services - May
Special Event Expense - Village Concert Series
Special Event Expense - Village Concert Series
Special Event Expense - Village Concert Series
Special Event Expense - Village Concert Series
PRA Services - June
Special Event Expense - Village Concert Series
Document Storage - July
Special Event Expense - Village Concert Series
Special Event Expense - 4th of July
Special Event Expense - 4th of July
Special Event Expense - Village Concert Series
Charitable Event Sponsorship
Special Event Expense - Village Concert Series/Office Supplies/Promotional Expense Vehicle Repair Damage Claim
EAP Services - July
PARS Administrative Fees
Administrative Fees 07/11/25 100.13
ACH US Bank Corporate Payment Systems Employee Appreciation & Engagement/Meeting Exp/Office Supplies/Training Exp/Payroll Check Stock 07/23/25 12,915.04 Staff Services & Risk Management Total 18,392.98
City Attorney 4170
92612 Best Best & Krieger LLP 07/01/25 16,707.86
92620 Dapeer Rosenblit & Litvak LLP 07/01/25 497.50
92624 The Grizzly 07/01/25 4,496.00
92677 Best Best & Krieger LLP 07/17/25 10,954.45
92760 Dapeer Rosenblit & Litvak LLP 07/31/25 2,425.40
City Attorney Total 35,081.21
Traffic Safety 4230
92610 Bear Valley Electric 07/01/25 1,382.49
Traffic Safety Total 1,382.49
Law Enforcement 4250
92674 San Bernardino County Sheriff's Dept
Professional Legal Services - May
Professional Legal Services - May
Legal Notices
Professional Legal Services - June
Professional Legal Services - June
Electricity Usage
Quarterly Emergency Dispatch 07/17/25 8,304.25
Law Enforcement Total 8,304.25
Expenditure By Department
Checks Issued 06/28/2025 - 07/31/2025
City of Big Bear Lake
Check# Vendor/Employee Transaction Amount
Expenditure By Department
Checks Issued 06/28/2025 - 07/31/2025
City of Big Bear Lake
Animal Regulation 4260
92629 Orkin Pest Control Pest Control Services 07/01/25 161.00 92688 Michael Marcotte Equipment Maintenance 07/17/25 155.00 Animal Regulation Total 316.00
Engineering 4310
92616 Cynthia Louise Gabaldon Professional Services 07/01/25 7,050.00 92645 Cynthia Louise Gabaldon Professional Services 07/10/25 500.00 92694 Willdan Engineering Inc Professional Services 07/17/25 2,100.00 92696 San Bernardino County Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Notice of Exemption Filing Fee 07/17/25 150.00 92715 San Bernardino County Vehicle Svcs Dept Fuel Charges 07/24/25 358.62 92761 Merrell Johnson Engineering Inc Professional Services 07/31/25 2,386.50 92767 City of Big Bear Lake Castle Rock Trailhead Ribbon Cutting Expense 07/31/25 24.07 ACH US Bank Corporate Payment Systems Castle Rock Trailhead Ribbon Cutting Exp/Meeting Provisions/Office Supplies/Filing Fee 07/23/25 4,219.73 Engineering Total 16,788.92
Street Maintenance & Snow Removal 4320
92617 Cintas Corporation First Aid Supplies 07/01/25 708.76 92627 Hitchin Lucerne, Inc. Materials/Supplies 07/01/25 109.09 92629 Orkin Pest Control Pest Control Services 07/01/25 156.00 92635 Uline Materials/Supplies 07/01/25 480.94
92639 Vulcan Materials Company Inc. Materials/Supplies 07/01/25 1,848.59 92643 Big Bear Paint Center Materials/Supplies 07/10/25 936.78 92646 Crafco Inc. Materials/Supplies 07/10/25 1,616.25
92649 Grainger Inc. Materials/Supplies 07/10/25 433.60
92652 Mission Linen Supply Inc. Uniform Laundry Service 07/10/25 807.98 92660 Triple Crown Products, Inc. Uniforms 07/10/25 223.19 92662 Volvo Construction Equipment Inc. Snow Removal Expense - Equipment Rentals 07/10/25 43,746.50 92663 Vulcan Materials Company Inc. Materials/Supplies 07/10/25 2,774.71 92676 Airgas, Inc. Materials/Supplies 07/17/25 64.98
92678 BlackHole Technologies Inc GPS Monthly Services 07/17/25 1,969.78 92680 Butchers Blocks & Building Materials Materials/Supplies 07/17/25 242.94 92682 Cintas Corporation AED Lease 07/17/25 70.04
92687 Mission Linen Supply Inc. Uniform Laundry Service 07/17/25 1,309.03 92688 Michael Marcotte Equipment Maintenance 07/17/25 155.00 92693 Vulcan Materials Company Inc. Materials/Supplies 07/17/25 834.48 92700 Butchers Blocks & Building Materials Materials/Supplies 07/17/25 45.22 92702 Calolympic Glove & Safety Co Materials/Supplies 07/17/25 234.37 92703 Lumber City Corp. Materials/Supplies 07/17/25 33.95 92705 Grainger Inc. Materials/Supplies 07/17/25 1,089.19 92706 Mission Linen Supply Inc. Uniform Laundry Service 07/17/25 1,501.11 92715 San Bernardino County Vehicle Svcs Dept Fuel Charges 07/24/25 2,193.69 92724 Moonridge Fuelstop Fuel Charges 07/24/25 170.84
92725 BlueTriton Brands Inc Drinking Water 07/24/25 1,038.71 92739 Butchers Blocks & Building Materials Materials/Supplies 07/24/25 412.05 92743 Calolympic Glove & Safety Co Materials/Supplies 07/24/25 94.06 92744 Execucom After-hours Call Service 07/24/25 367.50 92748 Inland Lighting Supplies, Inc Materials/Supplies 07/24/25 487.81 92750 Mission Linen Supply Inc. Uniform Laundry Service 07/24/25 856.71 92756 United Rentals (North America), Inc Materials/Supplies 07/24/25 788.73 92757 Waxie Sanitary Supply Inc. Janitorial Supplies 07/24/25 1,325.70 92758 San Bernardino County Solid Waste Mgmt Division Solid Waste Collection 07/31/25 37.12 92764 United Rentals (North America), Inc Equipment Rentals 07/31/25 5,022.23 Check# Vendor/Employee Transaction Amount
Expenditure By Department
Checks Issued 06/28/2025 - 07/31/2025
City of Big Bear Lake
92769 Big Bear Paint Center Materials/Supplies 07/31/25 143.32 92772 Cintas Corporation First Aid Supplies 07/31/25 417.54 92773 Extra Space Management Inc Storage Rental Spaces 07/31/25 1,058.00 92774 Grainger Inc. Snow Removal Expense 07/31/25 1,495.63 92775 Mission Linen Supply Inc. Uniform Laundry Service 07/31/25 808.22 92776 Randy Spitz Meeting Supplies 07/31/25 129.00
92777 Orkin Pest Control Pest Control Services 07/31/25 156.00 92778 BlueTriton Brands Inc Drinking Water 07/31/25 693.81 92779 Right of Way, Inc. Signs 07/31/25 4,833.09
92784 Vulcan Materials Company Inc. Materials/Supplies 07/31/25 1,781.25 ACH Autozone Investment Corporation Materials/Supplies 07/31/25 10.33 ACH Charter Communications Holdings, LLC Cable Service 07/24/25 92.51 ACH US Bank Corporate Payment Systems Fleet Management Training/Meeting Provisions/Office Supplies/DOT Training & Biennial Update 07/23/25 2,220.83 ACH Valero Marketing & Supply Co Fuel Charges 07/24/25 1,196.86 PW: Street Maintenance & Snow Removal Total 89,224.02
Vehicle Maintenance 4325
92610 Bear Valley Electric Electricity Usage 07/01/25 6,732.11 92615 Butchers Blocks & Building Materials Materials/Supplies 07/01/25 518.47 92650 Knights Automotive and Performance, Inc. Vehicle Maintenance 07/10/25 662.54 92652 Mission Linen Supply Inc. Uniform Laundry Service 07/10/25 50.49 92653 BBAP, LLC Vehicle Repair Parts 07/10/25 119.57
92655 Right of Way, Inc. Equipment Repair 07/10/25 218.03 92687 Mission Linen Supply Inc. Uniform Laundry Service 07/17/25 81.82 92691 Parkhouse Tire, Inc. Tires 07/17/25 1,585.15
92706 Mission Linen Supply Inc. Uniform Laundry Service 07/17/25 93.83 92716 City of Big Bear Lake Dept of Water & Power Water Usage 07/24/25 374.01 92750 Mission Linen Supply Inc. Uniform Laundry Service 07/24/25 53.55 92775 Mission Linen Supply Inc. Uniform Laundry Service 07/31/25 50.51 92781 Southwest Gas Corporation Natural Gas Usage 07/31/25 77.84 ACH US Bank Corporate Payment Systems Vehicle Maintenance 07/23/25 18.00 PW: Vehicle Maintenance Total 10,635.92
Street Lighting 4330
92610 Bear Valley Electric Electricity Usage 07/01/25 1,286.52 PW: Street Lighting Total 1,286.52
Parking Lots & Facilities 4335
92610 Bear Valley Electric Electricity Usage 07/01/25 1,599.95 92615 Butchers Blocks & Building Materials Materials/Supplies 07/01/25 6.18 92680 Butchers Blocks & Building Materials Materials/Supplies 07/17/25 69.35 92698 All Protection Alarm Alarm Monitoring 07/17/25 251.58 92700 Butchers Blocks & Building Materials Materials/Supplies 07/17/25 14.64 92707 Orkin Pest Control Pest Control Services 07/17/25 152.00 92708 Right of Way, Inc. Signs 07/17/25 532.66
92716 City of Big Bear Lake Dept of Water & Power Water Usage 07/24/25 496.42 92737 Big Bear Disposal Inc Portable Restroom Rentals 07/24/25 127.48 92739 Butchers Blocks & Building Materials Materials/Supplies 07/24/25 22.89 92757 Waxie Sanitary Supply Inc. Janitorial Supplies 07/24/25 1,325.70 92781 Southwest Gas Corporation Natural Gas Usage 07/31/25 53.13 ACH Charter Communications Holdings, LLC Security Camera Internet Service 07/17/25 240.00 PW: Parking Lots & Facilities Total 4,891.98
Check# Vendor/Employee Transaction Amount
Expenditure By Department
Checks Issued 06/28/2025 - 07/31/2025
City of Big Bear Lake
Planning 4410
92664 Willdan Engineering Inc Professional Services 07/10/25 1,568.00 ACH US Bank Corporate Payment Systems Meeting Supplies 07/23/25 53.96 Planning Total 1,621.96
Economic Development & Tourism Management 4415
92622 Lumber City Corp. Materials/Supplies 07/01/25 11.63 92671 Bear Valley Printing Inc Printing Services 07/10/25 327.39 92729 United Rentals (North America), Inc Bear Mountain Event Rentals 07/24/25 314.63 92715 San Bernardino County Vehicle Svcs Dept Fuel Charges 07/24/25 420.74 92746 Essel Technology Services, Inc. Professional Services 07/24/25 3,300.00 ACH US Bank Corporate Payment Systems Conference Expenses/Office Supplies 07/23/25 76.91 ACH Valero Marketing & Supply Co Fuel Charges 07/24/25 71.29 Economic Development & Tourism Management Total 4,522.59 Building & Safety 4430
92703 Lumber City Corp. Materials/Supplies 07/17/25 54.28 92715 San Bernardino County Vehicle Svcs Dept Fuel Charges 07/24/25 101.24 92730 Willdan Engineering Inc Professional Services 07/24/25 20,546.25 92742 CALBO Education Week Training Expenses 07/24/25 1,445.00 ACH US Bank Corporate Payment Systems California Building Code Reference Books/CALED Membership 07/23/25 1,242.03 Building & Safety Total 23,388.80
PAC Administration 4610
92679 Bravo Arts Solutions LLC Ticket Printing Fees 07/17/25 122.10 PAC Administration Total 122.10
City Parks & Trails 4625
92610 Bear Valley Electric Electricity Usage 07/01/25 1,962.59 92622 Lumber City Corp. Materials/Supplies 07/01/25 91.12 92647 Lumber City Corp. Materials/Supplies 07/10/25 54.35 92648 Geiger Supply, Inc. Materials/Supplies 07/10/25 29.49 92649 Grainger Inc. Materials/Supplies 07/10/25 276.74
92654 Nativescapes, Inc. Landscaping Materials 07/10/25 1,197.00 92680 Butchers Blocks & Building Materials Materials/Supplies 07/17/25 26.66 92703 Lumber City Corp. Materials/Supplies 07/17/25 36.84 92716 City of Big Bear Lake Dept of Water & Power Water Usage 07/24/25 4,425.83 92732 Big Bear Municipal Water Dist Boulder Bay Park Marina Permit 07/24/25 2,897.27 92757 Waxie Sanitary Supply Inc. Janitorial Supplies 07/24/25 1,325.70 92762 Municipal Maintenance Equipment Equipment Maintenance 07/31/25 3,992.96 92765 Jon Wreesman Irrigation Repairs 07/31/25 1,424.72 ACH Charter Communications Holdings, LLC Security Camera Internet Service 07/17/25 409.99 City Parks & Trails Total 18,151.26
General Government 4800
92683 FedEx Shipping Charges 07/17/25 83.86
92689 Mountain Water Co Water Dispenser Rental & Water 07/17/25 128.00 92695 San Bernardino County Treasurer LAFCO FY26 Apportionment 07/17/25 5,994.78 92709 Southern California Association of Governments Membership Dues 07/17/25 772.00 ACH US Bank Corporate Payment Systems Office Furnishings/Shipping Charges/Office Supplies 07/23/25 4,950.40 General Government Total 11,929.04
Check# Vendor/Employee Transaction Amount
Expenditure By Department
Checks Issued 06/28/2025 - 07/31/2025
City of Big Bear Lake
Information Technology 4810
92618 Melisa Carlc GIS Services 07/01/25 2,240.00
92625 Intelesys One, Inc. Monthly IT Services 07/01/25 4,458.20 92633 Triden Group Corporation Monthly IT Services 07/01/25 9,927.85 92637 Verizon Wireless Cell Phone Service 07/01/25 1,037.12 92644 Michael Bonner Professional Services - Govpilot Module Configuration 07/10/25 1,800.00 92658 SBRK Finance Holdings, Inc Professional Services - Employee Self-Service 07/10/25 300.00 92684 Fisher Integrated, Inc. Video Streaming 07/17/25 1,200.00 92726 Triden Group Corporation Network Upgrades/Computer Equipment 07/24/25 38,207.56 92727 Triden Group Corporation IT Services Extended Support 07/24/25 198.42 92728 TruePoint Solutions, LLC Accela Implementation 07/24/25 37,811.89 92747 Governance Sciences Group, Inc. Flashvote Survey Annual Subscription 07/24/25 10,900.00 92753 Spinitar Annual Maintenance Agreement 07/24/25 7,612.00 92755 Triden Group Corporation Monthly IT Services 07/24/25 14,127.85 ACH Charter Communications Holdings, LLC High Speed Internet 07/17/25 3,624.25 ACH Charter Communications Holdings, LLC High Speed Internet 07/24/25 517.32 ACH US Bank Corporate Payment Systems Computer Supplies/Professional Platforms/Toner 07/23/25 2,175.78 Technology Services Total 136,138.24
Civic Center 4820
92626 LEOCO Fence Company Fencing Installation 07/01/25 287.56 92642 Allison Mechanical, Inc Equipment Maintenance 07/10/25 1,143.44 92647 Lumber City Corp. Materials/Supplies 07/10/25 139.06 92652 Mission Linen Supply Inc. Uniform Laundry Service 07/10/25 70.70 92681 Bear Valley Tree Care, Inc. Tree Removals 07/17/25 1,950.00 92682 Cintas Corporation AED Lease 07/17/25 420.23
92687 Mission Linen Supply Inc. Uniform Laundry Service 07/17/25 114.54 92688 Michael Marcotte Equipment Maintenance 07/17/25 295.00 92690 Orkin Pest Control Pest Control Services 07/17/25 239.00 92703 Lumber City Corp. Materials/Supplies 07/17/25 56.20 92706 Mission Linen Supply Inc. Uniform Laundry Service 07/17/25 131.34 92715 San Bernardino County Vehicle Svcs Dept Fuel Charges 07/24/25 1,622.24 92716 City of Big Bear Lake Dept of Water & Power Water Usage 07/24/25 558.74 92720 Lumber City Corp. Materials/Supplies 07/24/25 58.16 92736 Allison Mechanical, Inc Equipment Maintenance 07/24/25 4,866.00 92738 Big Bear Paint Center Materials/Supplies 07/24/25 60.42 92745 Lumber City Corp. Materials/Supplies 07/24/25 31.98 92750 Mission Linen Supply Inc. Uniform Laundry Service 07/24/25 74.96 92757 Waxie Sanitary Supply Inc. Janitorial Supplies 07/24/25 1,325.69 92775 Mission Linen Supply Inc. Uniform Laundry Service 07/31/25 70.72 92781 Southwest Gas Corporation Natural Gas Usage 07/31/25 151.96 92785 Jon Wreesman Plumbing Services 07/31/25 1,554.24
ACH Charter Communications Holdings, LLC Security Camera Internet Service 07/17/25 119.99 Civic Center Total 15,342.17
PAC Operations & Maintenance 4821
92698 All Protection Alarm Alarm Monitoring 07/17/25 152.98 92700 Butchers Blocks & Building Materials Materials/Supplies 07/17/25 17.97 92613 BMI - Broadcast Music Inc. Annual Music License Fee 07/01/25 37.17 92781 Southwest Gas Corporation Natural Gas Usage 07/31/25 38.75 92783 Twin Bear Equipment Rental, Inc. Materials/Supplies 07/31/25 83.81 ACH Gary Payne Theatre Maintenance & Support 07/10/25 990.00 ACH Gary Payne Theatre Maintenance & Support 07/31/25 275.00 Check# Vendor/Employee Transaction Amount
Expenditure By Department
Checks Issued 06/28/2025 - 07/31/2025
City of Big Bear Lake
ACH US Bank Corporate Payment Systems Materials/Supplies 07/23/25 38.88 ACH What's Up Big Bear Theatre Support 07/31/25 90.00
PAC Operations & Maintenance Total 1,724.56
Sanitation 250
92610 Bear Valley Electric Electricity Usage 07/01/25 13,819.59 92617 Cintas Corporation First Aid Supplies 07/01/25 708.75 92637 Verizon Wireless Cell Phone Service 07/01/25 430.80 92647 Lumber City Corp. Materials/Supplies 07/10/25 13.45 92652 Mission Linen Supply Inc. Uniform Laundry Service 07/10/25 76.41 92660 Triple Crown Products, Inc. Uniforms 07/10/25 223.19 92665 Xylem Water Solutions USA Inc Pump System Maintenance/Controllers & Sensors Installation 07/10/25 91,422.56 92673 Underground Service Alert Inc. Underground Dig Alert Services 07/10/25 631.01 92682 Cintas Corporation AED Lease 07/17/25 70.04
92685 Grainger Inc. Materials/Supplies 07/17/25 264.80
92702 Calolympic Glove & Safety Co Materials/Supplies 07/17/25 234.37 92703 Lumber City Corp. Materials/Supplies 07/17/25 57.99 92706 Mission Linen Supply Inc. Uniform Laundry Service 07/17/25 152.82 92710 Xylem Water Solutions USA Inc Pump Repairs 07/17/25 1,642.00 92715 San Bernardino County Vehicle Svcs Dept Fuel Charges 07/24/25 2,710.40 92716 City of Big Bear Lake Dept of Water & Power Water Usage 07/24/25 54.84 92725 BlueTriton Brands Inc Drinking Water 07/24/25 1,038.73 92731 South Coast AQMD Permit Fees 07/24/25 736.57
92743 Calolympic Glove & Safety Co Materials/Supplies 07/24/25 94.05 92744 Execucom After-hours Call Service 07/24/25 367.50 92761 Merrell Johnson Engineering Inc Professional Services 07/31/25 703.00 92772 Cintas Corporation First Aid Supplies 07/31/25 417.53 92778 BlueTriton Brands Inc Drinking Water 07/31/25 693.82 92781 Southwest Gas Corporation Natural Gas Usage 07/31/25 77.84 ACH US Bank Corporate Payment Systems Training Expense Refund/Solid Waste Exposure Provisions 07/23/25 -1,034.46 Sanitation Total 115,607.60
Property Lease General Operations 255
92661 Tripepi, Smith & Associates, Inc. Professional Services 07/10/25 780.00 92700 Butchers Blocks & Building Materials Materials/Supplies 07/17/25 35.55 92733 Bear Valley Mutual Water Co Annual Ground Lease 07/24/25 106,120.80 92763 Tripepi, Smith & Associates, Inc. Professional Services 07/31/25 115.00 Property Lease General Operations Total 107,051.35
Mountain Transit 282
92668 Mountain Area Regional Transit Authority No-Fare Trolley Contribution - July 07/10/25 41,666.67 Mountain Transit Total 41,666.67
Village Streetscape Maintenance 291
92610 Bear Valley Electric Electricity Usage 07/01/25 915.96 92615 Butchers Blocks & Building Materials Materials/Supplies 07/01/25 80.08 92622 Lumber City Corp. Materials/Supplies 07/01/25 16.47 92700 Butchers Blocks & Building Materials Materials/Supplies 07/17/25 3.25 92716 City of Big Bear Lake Dept of Water & Power Water Usage 07/24/25 2,218.88 92737 Big Bear Disposal Inc Village Litter Containers 07/24/25 2,686.15 92739 Butchers Blocks & Building Materials Materials/Supplies 07/24/25 3.65 92759 Butchers Blocks & Building Materials Materials/Supplies 07/31/25 67.72 92781 Southwest Gas Corporation Natural Gas Usage 07/31/25 33.00 Check# Vendor/Employee Transaction Amount
Expenditure By Department
Checks Issued 06/28/2025 - 07/31/2025
City of Big Bear Lake
ACH US Bank Corporate Payment Systems Holiday Décor Refund 07/23/25 -562.32 Village Streetscape Maintenance Total 5,462.84
Capital Projects 321
92621 Davey Resource Group, Inc. Castle Rock Trailhead Project 07/01/25 3,840.00 92632 SWA Group Inc. Bartlett Parking Lot Improvement 07/01/25 7,260.00 92659 SWA Group Inc. Bartlett Parking Lot Improvement 07/10/25 990.00 92740 Bear Valley Paving, Inc. Emergency Sewer Repair - Moonridge Rd 07/24/25 22,410.00 92741 Bear Valley Printing Inc Castle Rock Trailhead Project 07/24/25 464.75 92770 Bear Valley Paving, Inc. Emergency Sewer Repair - Moonridge Rd 07/31/25 123,462.47 ACH S Porter Inc Castle Rock Trailhead Project 07/10/25 161,074.11 Capital Projects Total 319,501.33
Street Improvement Projects 350
92671 Bear Valley Printing Inc Moonridge & Rathbun Rd Rehabilitation Projects 07/10/25 618.98 92675 Mountain Area Regional Transit Authority Street/Drainage Improvements 07/17/25 159,168.11 92692 CAT Tracking Inc. Citywide Line Striping Project 07/17/25 91,966.03 92723 Mile High Sports & Equipment Street/Drainage Improvements 07/24/25 9,500.00 92761 Merrell Johnson Engineering Inc Street/Drainage Improvements 07/31/25 6,500.00 Capital Projects/ Street Improvements Total 267,753.12
Refuse 550
92637 Verizon Wireless Cell Phone Service 07/01/25 127.65 92651 Lynn Merrill And Associates, Inc. Professional Services 07/10/25 6,062.42 92652 Mission Linen Supply Inc. Uniform Laundry Service 07/10/25 80.80 92667 San Bernardino County Fire Protection District Household Hazardous Waste Removal 07/10/25 5,935.19 92686 Lynn Merrill And Associates, Inc. Professional Services 07/17/25 522.23 92687 Mission Linen Supply Inc. Uniform Laundry Service 07/17/25 130.90 92706 Mission Linen Supply Inc. Uniform Laundry Service 07/17/25 150.11 92737 Big Bear Disposal Inc Residential Curb/Bin Service 07/24/25 309,795.92 92750 Mission Linen Supply Inc. Uniform Laundry Service 07/24/25 85.67 92751 Mojave Desert & Mountain Membership Contribution 07/24/25 4,146.00 92761 Merrell Johnson Engineering Inc Professional Services 07/31/25 4,943.00 92766 San Bernardino County Flood Control District NPDES Agreement #11-545 Annual Fee 07/31/25 54,318.00 92775 Mission Linen Supply Inc. Uniform Laundry Service 07/31/25 80.82 Refuse Total 386,378.71
1,663,932.96
DISTRIBUTION OF TREASURY CASH Rate Amount % of Total
Demand Account $ 3.74% 1,279,378
Imprest Cash - Payroll $ 0.02% 5,515
Imprest Cash $ 0.00% 1,625
Dental Self Insured Checking $ 0.50% 171,697
Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) 4.269% 32,734,925 $ 95.74% Total Cash In Treasury: 34,193,139 $ 100.00%
INVESTMENT ACTIVITY Days Deposits Withdrawals
LAIF Average Life (Days) of Portfolio 244
LAIF Transactions $150,000 -$1,700,000
Interest Received in Fiscal Year 2024-25 $1,332,425
DISTRIBUTION OF CASH BY FUND June 2025 May 2025 Change
General $ 27,649,828 27,126,170 $ (523,658) $
Sanitation $ 5,992,681 5,846,668 $ (146,013) $
Capital Improvement $ (1,480,541) (1,669,150) $ (188,609) $ Refuse $ 1,926,416 1,554,602 $ (371,814) $
Trust $ 281,273 263,273 $ (18,000) $
Successor Agency $ 619,865 619,865 $ - $
AB 3229 Supp Law Enforce $ 451,711 451,711 $ - $
Total Cash in Treasury: 34,193,139 $ 35,441,233 $ (1,248,094) $ CASH WITH FISCAL AGENT - RESERVE FUNDS Cost Basis Market Value Current Yield 2005 Revenue Refunding Bonds
Big Bear Lake Reserve Fund $ 634,958 634,958 $ 4.21%
Moonridge Reserve Fund $ 90,441 90,441 $ 4.21%
1999 IA Tax Allocation Bonds $ 289,289 289,289 $ 4.21%
- The aforementioned investments conform to the City's investment policy. (Res. 2022-64) - Cash is sufficient to meet needs of the next 6 months. - Interest earned on invested cash is accrued on a quarterly basis.

Pursuant to California Government Code 53647 all local government agencies are required to report the current market value of investments under management by an outside party. The reserve funds for the aforementioned bond issues are held and managed by the City's Trustee, Union Bank.

CITY OF BIG BEAR LAKE

TREASURER'S REPORT
June, 2025
Preliminary
Regular Meeting Minutes – July 9, 2025
A Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Big Bear Lake was called to order by Mayor Melnick at 4:31 p.m., Wednesday, July 9, 2025, at the Civic Center, 39707 Big Bear Boulevard, Big Bear Lake, California.

OPEN SESSION
Flag Salute: Flag Salute led by Mayor Pro Tem Segovia
Invocation: Invocation was provided by Jim Lona, Commander of American Legion Post 584.

Councilmembers Present: Mayor Perri Melnick
Mayor Pro Tem Kendi Segovia
Councilmember Rick Herrick
Councilmember Charles Hick, Jr.

Councilmember Randall Putz
Others Present: Erik Sund, City Manager
Stephen P. Deitsch, City Attorney
Erica Stephenson, City Clerk

CLOSED SESSION PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS
Daniel Gulbranson, Big Bear Lake resident, expressed his dissatisfaction with City leadership and public meeting protocols.

Lizbeth Ortega, Big Bear resident, shared her frustration with the City’s code enforcement practices.

Edgar Alaniz, Big Bear Lake business owner, stated his frustration with the City’s business related citation procedures, and his disappointment with the City’s leadership.

At the hour of 4:42 p.m., Mayor Melnick called for a recess to Closed Session.

At the hour of 5:19 p.m., Mayor Melnick resumed Open Session.

RESULTS OF CLOSED SESSION
City Attorney Stephen P. Deitsch, announced that the City Council discussed the following item in Closed Session and no reportable action was taken by the City Council.

1. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – ANTICIPATED LITIGATION pursuant to Govt.

Code Section 54956.9 (d)(2)
One (1) Case
Item 1.2

Page 2 ends

Meeting Minutes
July 9, 2025

PRESENTATIONS
• Presentation to Sara Schacht recognizing her four years of dedicated service to the Big Bear Lake Planning Commission.
• Presentation to Ray Wolfe recognizing his longtime service as Executive Director of the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (SBCTA).
• Presentation from Executive Vice Chancellor Jose Torres regarding the San Bernardino Community College District.

OPEN SESSION PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS
Daniel Gulbranson, Big Bear Lake resident, shared his concerns about the City Council Agenda and City leadership.

Connie Swank, Big Bear Lake resident, expressed her disappointment related to recent interactions with the City, Sheriff's Office and Fire Department.

Tom Sitton, Big Bear Lake resident, began by expressing his concerns regarding City Council’s activities related to local businesses; then thanked the City Council for allowing the 4th of July fireworks show.

Jim Lona, Big Bear resident, spoke about the recent passing of local Army veteran Luis Alvarez; and provided information regarding local charitable fundraisers and events.

Jim Eakin, Big Bear Lake resident, expressed his gratitude to the City Council for approving his appointment to the Planning Commission.

Tim Wilcott, Big Bear Lake business owner, criticized the City’s code enforcement efforts; requested the City query Village business owners to seek their input.

Edgar Alaniz, Big Bear Lake business owner, expressed his belief that the City violated the Brown Act during the June 11, 2025 City Council meeting.

Lizbeth Ortega, Big Bear resident, shared information regarding the City’s code compliance regulations being unequally enforced.

1. CONSENT CALENDAR
A motion was made by Councilmember Putz, seconded by Councilmember Herrick to approve the Consent Calendar as follows:

1.1 APPROVE DEMANDS – CHECK ISSUE DATE 6/1/25 THROUGH 6/27/25 IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,455,784.84 AND THE MAY 2025 TREASURER’S REPORT Approved.

1.2 APPROVE MEETING MINUTES FROM THE MAY 8, 2024 SPECIAL MEETING OF

CITY COUNCIL
Approved.

Page 3 ends

Meeting Minutes
July 9, 2025

1.3 APPROVE MEETING MINUTES FROM THE MAY 8, 2024 REGULAR MEETING

OF CITY COUNCIL
Approved.

1.4 APPROVE MEETING MINUTES FROM THE JUNE 12, 2024 REGULAR MEETING

OF CITY COUNCIL
Approved.

1.5 APPROVE MEETING MINUTES FROM THE JUNE 11, 2025 SPECIAL MEETING OF

CITY COUNCIL
Approved.

1.6 APPROVE MEETING MINUTES FROM THE JUNE 11, 2025 REGULAR MEETING

OF CITY COUNCIL
Approved.

1.7 ADOPT AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY AND FIRE PROTECTION 2025 FIRE HAZARD SEVERITY ZONES

DESIGNATION MAP IN ACCORDANCE WITH CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE 51179
Approved and adopted the following ordinance entitled:

ORDINANCE NO. 2025-522

ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BIG BEAR

LAKE, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT
OF FORESTRY AND FIRE PROTECTION 2025 FIRE HAZARD

SEVERITY ZONES DESIGNATION MAP IN ACCORDANCE WITH
CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE 51179

1.8 AUTHORIZE EXTENDING EXISTING ON-CALL CONSULTING SERVICES

AGREEMENTS AND APPROVE ADDITIONAL ON-CALL CONSULTING SERVICES

AGREEMENTS
Approved and adopted the following resolution entitled:

RESOLUTION NO. 2025-34

RESOLUTION EXTENDING EXISTING ON-CALL CONSULTING

SERVICES AGREEMENTS AND APPROVING ADDITIONAL ON-CALL

CONSULTING SERVICES AGREEMENTS

1.9 AUTHORIZE BID SOLICITATIONS FOR UPCOMING CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT

PROJECTS
Approved.

Page 4 ends

Meeting Minutes
July 9, 2025

1.10 AUTHORIZE REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL SOLITICATIONS FOR A CITYWIDE

MOBILITY STUDY, AND AN INVENTORY AND ASSESSMENT OF

NONMAINTAINED STREETS
Approved.

1.11 AUTHORIZE REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL SOLITICATIONS FOR THE GENERAL

PLAN UPDATE
Approved.

1.12 AUTHORIZE A PURCHASE ORDER WITH CRAFCO, INC. FOR THE ANNUAL

CRACK SEAL OF CITY STREETS PROGRAM
Approved.

The Consent Calendar was approved by the following vote, with Councilmember Hicks abstaining on Items 1.2, 1.3 and 1.4, stating that he had not been a City Councilmember during those meetings.

AYES: Putz, Herrick, Segovia, Hicks, Melnick
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None

ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR
None.

2. PUBLIC HEARING

2.1 AUTHORIZE THE PLACEMENT OF SOLID WASTE SERVICE CHARGES ON THE FISCAL YEAR 2025-26 TAX ROLL
Assistant City Manager Sean Sullivan made a staff presentation on this Item.

At 6:20 p.m., with no questions from the City Council, Mayor Melnick opened the Public Hearing and invited up speakers who wanted to speak on this item. The following individual approached the City Council:

Daniel Gulbranson, Big Bear Lake resident, expressed his frustration pertaining to the City’s trash collection services.

At the hour of 6:23 p.m., Mayor Melnick closed the Public Hearing.

Following the Public Hearing, Councilmember Herrick made a motion, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Segovia, to approve staff’s recommendation and adopt the following resolution entitled:

RESOLUTION NO. 2025-35

RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE PLACEMENT OF SOLID WASTE
SERVICE CHARGES ON THE FISCAL YEAR 2025-26 TAX ROLL

Page 5 ends

Meeting Minutes
July 9, 2025
Said motion was approved by the following vote:

AYES: Segovia, Putz, Hicks, Herrick, Melnick
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None

3. DISCUSSION/ACTION ITEMS

3.1 AUTHORIZE REQUEST FOR INFORMATION SOLITICATIONS FROM POTENTIAL DEVELOPERS FOR THE CITY’S LEASED 19-ACRE PROPERTY
Economic Development Manger Kelly Tinker made a staff presentation on this Item.

Following the presentation and after City Council questions, Mayor Melnick invited up speakers who wanted to make a public comment on this Item. The following individuals approached the City Council:

Daniel Gulbranson, Big Bear Lake resident, questioned the cost of the project, and expressed concern over the displacement of residents.

Connie Swank, Big Bear Lake resident, questioned whether the RFI would be shared with local contractors.

After City Council comments, a motion was made by Councilmember Herrick, seconded by Councilmember Putz, to approve staff’s recommendation authorizing staff to proceed with the Request for Information solicitations from potential developers for the City’s leased 19-acre property.

Said motion was approved by the following vote:

AYES: Herrick, Segovia, Putz, Melnick
NOES: Hicks
ABSTAIN: None
EXCUSED: None

3.2 REAL PROPERTY PURCHASE – “0” BIG BEAR BOULEVARD- APN: 0311-221-35 Economic Development Manger Kelly Tinker made a staff presentation on this Item.

Following the presentation and after City Council questions, Mayor Melnick invited up speakers who wanted to make a public comment on this Item. The following individual approached the City Council:

Daniel Gulbranson, Big Bear Lake resident, expressed his frustration pertaining to City spending.

Following the public comment and City Council’s remarks, a motion was made by Councilmember Putz seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Segovia, to approve staff’s recommendation and adopt the following resolution entitled:

RESOLUTION NO. 2025-36

RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE ANY AND

ALL DOCUMENTS NECESSARY TO CONSUMMATE THE PURCHASE

Page 6 ends

Meeting Minutes
July 9, 2025

TRANSACTION, CONVEYING TO THE CITY OF BIG BEAR LAKE THAT CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT “0” BIG BEAR BOULEVARD, PARCEL NUMBER 0311-221-35; AUTHORIZING A FISCAL YEAR 2025-26 BUDGET APPROPRIATION; AND FINDING THE ACTION EXEMPT FROM THE

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
Said motion was approved by the following vote:

AYES: Putz, Segovia, Herrick, Melnick
NOES: Hicks
ABSTAIN: None
EXCUSED: None

3.3 SIGNATURE EVENTS AND THE TOUR DE BIG BEAR EVENT
At the hour of 7:05 p.m., Councilmember Herrick recused himself from this Item due to a potential business related conflict of interest.

Assistant City Manager Sean Sullivan made a staff presentation on this Item.

Following the presentation and City Council questions, Mayor Melnick invited up speakers who wanted to speak on this Item. The following individual approached the City Council:

Chris Barnes, Tour de Big Bear Board President, discussed the economic benefits the Tour de Big Bear brings to Big Bear Lake; he emphasized that Visit Big Bear is focused on marketing the event, not financially supporting it; he further explained that due to safety concerns for the cyclists, the organization requests the City’s financial contribution to assist in ensuring the event is conducted in a safe manner.

Following public comment, the City Council and staff engaged in discussion and it was decided that an opportunity for further consideration of the City’s Signature Events would be included in an upcoming Agenda Item. No formal City Council action was taken related to this Item.

At the hour of 7:31 p.m., Councilmember Herrick returned to the meeting.

3.4 PRESENTATION FROM VISIT BIG BEAR STAFF PROVIDING AN ANNUAL

OVERVIEW OF THEIR ORGANIZATION
Item 3.4 was pulled from the Agenda at the request of Visit Big Bear Chief Executive Officer Travis Scott. This Item will be included in the August 13, 2025 Regular City Council Meeting Agenda.

4. COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS, & ADDITIONAL CITY BUSINESS
• CITY CLERK, CITY ATTORNEY, CITY MANAGER COMMENTS
City Manager Sund announced the opening of the new Castle Rock Trail Parking Lot. He also reported that the property at 40095 Big Bear Blvd., commonly referred to as the "burned-down house," has been red-tagged and is scheduled for demolition within the next 30 days.

Page 7 ends

Meeting Minutes
July 9, 2025
• COUNCILMEMBER BOARD/COMMITTEE REPORTS & COMMENTS
Councilmember Herrick read a portion of a letter from the California Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) indicating that a "no action" closure letter had been issued, finding in his favor for FPPC Case 2024-01281.

Councilmember Hicks announced that the Big Bear Fire Authority meetings will now be available for public viewing via YouTube. He also extended his condolences to the families of the slain firefighters in Idaho and shared his well wishes to the police officer that was shot in a recent ambush in Texas. In addition, Councilmember Hicks requested to revisit the Housing Element discussion (specifically focusing on ADU requirements) at the next City Council meeting, but his request didn’t receive support from another City Councilmember.

Mayor Pro Tem Segovia commented on the recent Castle Rock Trailhead Parking Lot Ribbon Cutting event.

Mayor Melnick thanked City staff and partner agencies for their outstanding efforts during the July 4th weekend. She also took a moment to honor the memory of Minnesota House Speaker Melissa Hortman, her husband Mark, and their dog Gilbert, who were tragically assassinated in their home on June 14th. Additionally, she acknowledged Minnesota State Senator John Hoffman and his wife, Yvette Hoffman, who were shot at their home on the same day. Mayor Melnick emphasized that political violence has no place in our society and must be condemned.

ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the City Council at this Regular Meeting, Mayor Melnick adjourned the meeting at 7:42 p.m. in memory of the victims of the June 14th attack in Minnesota. _______________________
Erica Stephenson, City Clerk

MEETING
DATE: August 13, 2025
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
THROUGH: Erik Sund, City Manager
FROM: Erica Stephenson, City Clerk
SUBJECT: Designate Voting Delegates for the 2025 League of California Cities Annual Conference

BACKGROUND & DISCUSSION
The 2025 League of California Cities (Cal Cities) Annual Conference is scheduled to take place in Long Beach from October 8-10. An important part of the Cal Cities Annual Conference is the Annual Business Meeting. During this meeting, participants consider and take action on a variety of proposed resolutions that establish or amend Cal Cities policies. In order to vote at the Business Meeting, City Council must designate a voting delegate and alternate voting delegate, one of whom may vote in the event the designated voting delegate is unable to serve in that capacity. Cal Cities requires that the City’s voting delegate and alternate be affirmed by a formal City Council action, therefore staff has prepared the attached resolution for your consideration and possible action.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this recommended action.

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
None requiring review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

CONSIDERATION OF STRATEGIC PRIORITIES
This item aligns with the City Council’s Strategic Priorities as it aids in the enhancement of local advocacy strategies and bolsters partnerships with regional partners.

RECOMMENDED ACTION
It is recommended that the City Council adopt a Resolution Designating Mayor Perri Melnick as the Voting Delegate and Mayor Pro Tem Kendi Segovia as the Voting Alternate for the 2025 League of California Cities Annual Conference.

ATTACHMENT

1. Resolution No. 2025-XX
Item 1.3
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-XX

RESOLUTION DESIGNATING MAYOR PERRI MELNICK AS

THE VOTING DELEGATE AND MAYOR PRO TEM KENDI
SEGOVIA AS THE VOTING ALTERNATE FOR THE 2025

LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES ANNUAL CONFERENCE
WHEREAS, the City of Big Bear Lake is a full voting member of the League of California Cities (Cal Cities); and
WHEREAS, Cal Cities takes positions on matters affecting cities throughout the state, including but not limited to sponsoring legislation, taking joint positions on pending legislation, and placing voters’ initiatives on the ballot; and
WHEREAS, the Cal Cities’ Board of Directors places matters for the cities’ collective consideration on the agenda for the Annual Business Meeting at the League’s conference; and WHEREAS, Cal Cities requires each city seeking to vote on said matters to authorize a voting delegate to formally represent the city by participating in the business meeting and vote on behalf of the city.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of the City of Big Bear Lake that:

1. The City of Big Bear Lake appoints Mayor Perri Melnick as the voting delegate and Mayor Pro Tem Kendi Segovia as the voting alternate to the 2025 Cal Cities Annual Conference in Long Beach, California; and

2. The City Clerk, or the City Clerk’s designee, is authorized to inform Cal Cities of the above appointments.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 13th day of August, 2025.

Perri Melnick, Mayor
ATTEST:

Erica Stephenson, City Clerk
Item 1.3
Attachment 1

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO ) ss

CITY OF BIG BEAR LAKE )
I, Erica Stephenson, City Clerk of the City of Big Bear Lake, California, do hereby certify that the whole number of the City Council of the said City is five; that the foregoing resolution, being Resolution No. 2025-XX was duly passed and adopted by the said City Council and attested by the City Clerk of said City, all at a regular meeting of the said City held on the 13th day of August, 2025 and that the same was so passed and adopted by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

Erica Stephenson, City Clerk

MEETING
DATE: August 13, 2025
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
THROUGH: Erik Sund, City Manager
FROM: Sean Sullivan, Assistant City Manager
Nicholas Haecker, Deputy Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Authorize Sanitation Pump Replacements and Repairs with Xylem Water Solutions USA, Inc.

BACKGROUND & DISCUSSION
The City’s Sanitation Division is responsible for the maintenance of the sanitary sewer system which includes approximately 200 miles of sewer main, more than 3,000 manholes, and 12 sewer lift stations. The sewer lift stations, also known as pumping stations, move wastewater throughout the City’s sanitary sewer system and ultimately deposit it in larger trunk lines managed by the Big Bear Area Regional Wastewater Agency (BBARWA). The lift stations are critical resources to keep the wastewater moving through the system and preventing overflows. The lift stations are equipped with submersible pumps that are all manufactured by Flygt, a subsidiary of Xylem Water Solutions USA, Inc. (Xylem).

The pumps are submersible and are housed within wet wells, exposing them continually to corrosive conditions. Based upon the volume of flow within the system, some of the pumps can run around the clock during peak seasons. Given the conditions in which these critical systems operate, Sanitation staff performs ongoing, routine maintenance of these pumps. In addition, the City will engage the manufacturer of these pumps for more intensive, preventative maintenance efforts. The malfunction or failure of these pumps could lead to significant consequences, such as sewer backups and spills; which is why the maintenance of these systems is so critical.

In February 2025, the City Council authorized a maintenance agreement with Xylem to perform preventative maintenance and inspection of the City’s twenty-six (26) pumps that are in service at the twelve (12) sewer lift stations. Xylem completed the maintenance activities and performed thorough inspections of the existing pumps. Based upon their findings, Xylem has recommended the replacement of eight (8) pumps and the rebuilding of nine (9) pumps. These recommendations are based upon the age, condition, and functionality of the pumps. Generally pumps that are nearing their end of life, based upon their years in service, are recommended for replacement while pumps that are not as old can have critical components replaced through a rebuilding process where they will effectively function as new, replaced pumps.

The City has standardized equipment across all lift stations to aid in the troubleshooting, maintenance, and replacement of the system. These submersible pumps are manufactured exclusively by Xylem Water Solutions USA, Inc. under the name Flygt and are supplied and installed directly by the manufacturer. The manufacturer provides standard warranties on the Item 1.4
pumps and provides preventative maintenance services. Xylem has provided individual proposals for each pump, including the eight (8) replacements and nine (9) rebuilds for a total cost of $274,953.28. These costs include the replacement or rebuilt pump as well as the removal of the existing and installation of the new or rebuilt pump.

Location Type Cost
Lift Station 1 - 41313 Eastwood Rd Replacement (3) $ 72,475.00 Lift Station 2 - 490 Lake View Court Replacement (1) $ 45,841.80 Lift Station 2 - 490 Lake View Court Rebuild (1) $ 36,784.48 Lift Station 3 - 39699 Lake Dr Rebuild (1) $ 19,751.00
Lift Station 3 - 39699 Lake Dr Rebuild (1) $ 12,009.00
Lift Station 4 - 39556 Forest Rd Replacement (2) $ 18,400.80 Lift Station 5 - 39128 Willow Landing Rebuild (1) $ 5,104.00 Lift Station 6 - 41404 Stone Bridge Rd Replacement (2) $ 31,472.80 Lift Station 7 - 603 Landlock Landing Rebuild (1) $ 7,870.00 Lift Station 7 - 603 Landlock Landing Rebuild (1) $ 8,288.00 Lift Station 10 - 42186 Eagle Nest Rebuild (1) $ 4,934.00 Lift Station 10 - 42186 Eagle Nest Rebuild (1) $ 4,934.00 Lift Station 12 - 707 Cove Dr Rebuild (1) $ 7,088.40
Total $ 274,953.28
To maintain equipment consistency and operational reliability, staff recommends waiving the competitive procurement process and purchasing these pumps and rebuilds directly from Xylem, as has been the City’s practice for many years.

FISCAL IMPACT
The total cost for the purchase and installation of these pumps is $274,953.28 and funding is available in the adopted Fiscal Year 2025–26 Capital Improvement Program Budget.

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
This action is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to section 15301.B as repair and maintenance of a publicly owned utility system.

CONSIDERATION OF STRATEGIC PRIORITIES
The proposed action aligns with the City Council's Strategic Priority Number 1 as it “supports and invests in sustainable infrastructure projects and programs”.

RECOMMENDED ACTION
It is recommended that the City Council adopt a Resolution Authorizing Sanitation Pump Replacements and Repairs with Xylem Water Solutions USA, Inc. and Finding this Project Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution 2025-XX

2. CEQA Notice of Exemption
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-XX

RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SANITATION PUMP REPLACEMENTS AND REPAIRS WITH XYLEM WATER SOLUTIONS USA, INC. AND FINDING THIS

PROJECT CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
WHEREAS, the City of Big Bear Lake Sanitation Division maintains a sanitary sewer system that includes approximately 200 miles of pipeline, more than 3,000 manholes and twelve (12) lift stations; and,
WHEREAS, the lift stations are critical infrastructure that move the wastewater through the City’s sanitary sewer system, ultimately depositing it into trunk lanes that are managed by the Big Bear Area Regional Wastewater Authority; and,
WHEREAS, the functionality of these stations is critical to maintain the movement of wastewater and prevent sewer overflows and, as such, in February 2025, the City Council authorized an agreement with Xylem Water Solutions USA, Inc. (Xylem) to perform preventative maintenance and inspections on the City’s twenty-six (26) sanitary sewer pumps; and, WHEREAS, Xylem has completed the maintenance and inspections of the sanitary sewer pumps and has recommendations for the replacement or rebuilding of seventeen (17) of the existing pumps in use in the sanitary sewer system; and,
WHEREAS, Xylem has provided a proposal to the City for the replacement of eight (8) pumps and the rebuilding of nine (9) pumps in the total amount of $274,953.28, inclusive of the furnishing and installation of these pumps; and,
WHEREAS, the determination as to whether a pump is replaced or rebuilt is a function of the age and condition of the equipment, whereby, pumps that are nearing the end of their prescribed life cycle are typically recommended for replacement and pumps that are not as old can have critical components replaced as a part of a rebuilding to function as new pumps; and, WHEREAS, the City has standardized equipment across all lift stations to pumps manufactured by Xylem under their Flygt brand to aid in troubleshooting, maintenance, and replacement, and as such, staff recommends that a competitive procurement effort be waived to maintain consistency of the equipment utilized within the system; and,
WHEREAS, funding is available for this effort within the adopted Fiscal Year 2025-26 Capital Improvement Program Budget; and,
WHEREAS, this action is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to section 15301.B as repair and maintenance of a publicly owned utility system.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of the City of Big Bear Lake that:

Item 1.4
Attachment 1

1. An agreement and purchase order is approved with Xylem Water Solutions USA, Inc. for the replacement or rebuilding of sanitation system pumps in the amount of $274,953.28.

2. This project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to section 15301.B as repair and maintenance of a publicly owned utility system

3. The City Manager is authorized to execute all documents related to this action in a form approved by the City Attorney.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 13th day of August, 2025.

Perri Melnick, Mayor
ATTEST:

Erica Stephenson, City Clerk

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO ) ss

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

Erica Stephenson, City Clerk

NOTICE OF EXEMPTION
TO: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors FROM: Engineering Division County of San Bernardino City of Big Bear Lake
385 N. Arrowhead Avenue, 2nd Floor P. O. Box 10000
San Bernardino, CA 92415-0130 Big Bear Lake, CA 92315-8900 Project Title:

Sanitation System Pump Replacements and Repairs
Project Location - Specific:

Twelve Sanitary Sewer Lift Stations owned by and located within the City of Big Bear Lake Description of Project:

This project involves the replacement or rebuilding of submersible pumps utilized at twelve (12) sanitary sewer lift stations within the City of Big Bear Lake’s sanitary sewer system.

Name of Public Agency Approving Project:

City of Big Bear Lake, City Council
Name of Person or Agency Carrying out Project:

City of Big Bear Lake, Engineering Division
Exempt Status: (check one) (State type and section number) XX Categorically Exempt. Section: 15301(b)
Reasons why project is exempt:

These repairs are categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under section 15301.b as repair and maintenance of a publicly owned utility system.

Lead Agency or Contact Person: Area Code/Telephone/Extension Sean Sullivan, Assistant City Manager (909) 866-5831
Date: August 13, 2025
Signature:
______________________________
Sean Sullivan,
Assistant City Manager
Item 1.4
Attachment 2

MEETING
DATE: August 13, 2025
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
THROUGH: Erik Sund, City Manager
FROM: Sean Sullivan, Assistant City Manager
Katya Meyer, Project Manager
SUBJECT: Approve Fiscal Year 2025-26 Measure I Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan

BACKGROUND & DISCUSSION
Measure I is a one-half of one percent sales tax adopted by San Bernardino County voters in 1989 to generate funding in support of roadway improvement and transportation projects throughout San Bernardino County. In 2004, voters again considered the measure and it was voted to be extended through 2040. Measure I funds support three (3) specific project focus areas:

Regional/Arterial Streets Program, Local Streets Program, and an Elderly/Disabled Transit Program. Local agencies throughout the County, including the City of Big Bear Lake, receive an annual local return allocation of Measure I funds to support local street projects. The City’s anticipated local return for Fiscal Year 2025-26 is approximately $505,000.

The distribution of Measure I funds is administered by the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (SBCTA). A requirement of the receipt of these funds is that annually, by September 1, each agency shall submit to SBCTA a Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan that outlines all projects funded, partially or entirely, with Measure I funds. Additionally, the City shall submit an expenditure strategy document outlining the goals and objectives of the funding uses.

The City designates its annual local return allocation of Measure I funds to road maintenance activities. The adopted Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Budget for Fiscal Year 2025-26 includes approximately $6,450,000 dedicated to road maintenance and rehabilitation projects with approximately $707,379 of it coming from Measure I, which includes the current fiscal year’s allocation as well as remaining fund balance. The activities within these projects include street paving and rehabilitation, crack sealing, line striping, and pothole repair. The Measure I funds are specifically programmed to the Moonridge Road Rehabilitation Project which includes 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 proposed Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan and expenditure strategy continues to show all available Measure I resources supporting the ongoing Annual Street Rehabilitation Projects.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no direct fiscal impact associated with this action. The submittal of this resolution and the Item 1.5
adopted planning documents is a requirement of the City continuing to receive annual allocations of Measure I proceeds. The City’s anticipated local return allocation for Fiscal Year 2025-26 is approximately $505,000.

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
Under Section 15378 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, this is not a project, and, therefore, no environmental review is required.

CONSIDERATION OF STRATEGIC PRIORITIES
This item aligns with the City Council’s Strategic Priorities as it supports sustainable infrastructure projects consistent with the needs of our community.

RECOMMENDED ACTION
It is recommended that the City Council adopt a Resolution Adopting the Measure I Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan and Expenditure Strategy for Fiscal Year 2025-26 Through Fiscal Year 2029-30.

ATTACHMENT

1. Resolution No. 2025-XX
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-XX

RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE MEASURE I FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL

IMPROVEMENT PLAN AND EXPENDITURE STRATEGY FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2025-26 THROUGH FISCAL YEAR 2029-30
WHEREAS, San Bernardino County voters approved passage of Measure I in 1989, authorizing the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (SBCTA) to impose a one-half of one percent retail transactions and use tax applicable in the incorporated and unincorporated territory of the County of San Bernardino to fund road improvement projects; and, WHEREAS, in November 2004, voters subsequently voted to extend the term of the Measure through 2040; and,
WHEREAS, SBCTA is responsible for administering the funds and distributing them to the local agencies for usage in one of the three (3) established categories: Regional/Arterial Streets, Local Streets, and Elderly/Disabled Transit; and,
WHEREAS, cities and agencies throughout San Bernardino County are eligible for an annual local return of these funds to support eligible activities within their jurisdictions and the City of Big Bear Lake annually receives approximately $505,000; and, WHEREAS, a requirement of the distribution of the local return funds to the eligible local agencies is that they submit, annually, a Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan and Expenditure Strategy which outline the proposed projects and intended expenditures of Measure I funds; and, WHEREAS, the City proposed to expend the annual Measure I allocation for the Moonridge Road Rehabilitation Project in FY 2025-26 and the Annual Street Rehabilitation Program in the future fiscal years of the plan, which are budgeted in the Five-Year Capital Improvement Program; and, WHEREAS, the streets projects allocated for Measure I funding undertakes street overlays or reconstruction activities, based upon the street’s needs, with the goal of rehabilitating several miles of streets annually.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council that:

1. The Measure I Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan (Exhibit A) and Expenditure Strategy (Exhibit B) Fiscal Year 2025-26 through Fiscal Year 2029-30, attached to this resolution, are hereby adopted.

2. Staff is directed to submit the adopted plan and strategy to the SBCTA accordingly.

Item 1.5
Attachment 1
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 13th day of August, 2025.

Perri Melnick, Mayor
ATTEST:

Erica Stephenson, City Clerk

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO ) ss

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

Erica Stephenson, City Clerk
Resolution Number:

Resolution Approval Date:

Contact Person/Title:

Phone:

Email:
6/30/25 Carryover Balance $383,910.00
FY2025/26 Est. Revenue FY2026/27 Est. Revenue FY2027/28 Est. Revenue FY2028/29 Est. Revenue FY2029/30 Est. Revenue Total Est. Rev. $505,112 $519,133 $533,647 $548,749 $564,484 $2,671,126 Projects:

Various Road Maintenance Activities No No 0.0% 0.0% $400,000 $80,000 $80,000 $80,000 $80,000 $80,000 $400,000 Moonridge Road Rehabilitation No No 0.0% 0.0% $4,000,000 $707,379 $0 $0 $0 $0 $707,379 Annual Street Rehabilitation Program No No 0.0% 0.0% $0 $0 $444,700 $457,800 $471,900 $486,900 $1,861,300

0.0% 0.0% $0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 $0

0.0% 0.0% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

0.0% 0.0% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 $0

0.0% 0.0% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

0.0% 0.0% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$787,379 $524,700 $537,800 $551,900 $566,900 $2,968,679 Total Programming is currently 97% Total Estimated Programming: $2,968,679 2025-XX Jurisdiction:
8/13/2025
Sean Sullivan, Assistant City Manager
909-866-5831
Measure I Local Pass-through Program

FIVE YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Fiscal Years 2025/2026 thru 2029/2030
[email protected]
Projects Total:

Big Bear Lake
Current
Estimate
Current
Estimate Total CurrentEstimate
Current
Estimate
Current
Estimate
(Must not exceed 150% of Carryover Balance +
Total Estimated Revenue)
Is Project in
City's
Non-motorized
Transportation
Plan?
(Yes/No)
Does Project
have an ATP
Component?
(Yes/No)
Is the Project on the City's
Nexus Study List?
(Public/DIF Share %)
Estimated Total
Project Cost

Page 1 of 1 ends

Item 1.5
Exhibit A

MEASURE I CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN

EXPENDITURE STRATEGY
FISCAL YEAR 2025-2026 THRU 2029-2030
The City of Big Bear Lake currently has a carryover balance of approximately $383,910 in the Measure I Local Street fund and anticipates approximately $505,000 in new revenue for FY 25-26.

In this next fiscal year, the City is planning to use approximately $707,000 on full reconstruction of Moonridge Road and use $80,000 for routine road maintenance activities such as striping, sign installation, and pothole patching on various City rights-of-way.

Future Measure I pass through funds will be used by the City of Big Bear Lake for a variety of roadway improvements projects with a focus on the Annual Street Rehabilitation Projects. Streets identified for re-construction are chosen based on their rating within the City’s Pavement Management Plan, based upon staff identification of concerns from the field, and in coordination with the local utilities. Staff’s goal is to pave as many miles of streets each year, as possible to address areas of concern, to extend the useful life of the streets, and to coordinate with the activities of utilities and other projects. The amount of street improvements to be done each year is driven by the available budget and the needs of each street.

All Measure I funds are being expended to maintain, improve and/or re-construct existing City roadways.

Item 1.5
Exhibit B

MEETING
DATE: August 13, 2025
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
THROUGH: Erik Sund, City Manager
FROM: Sean Sullivan, Assistant City Manager
Miguel Cabanas, PE, PLS, Engineering Manager
SUBJECT: Authorize a Task Order with Bucknam Infrastructure Group, Inc. for the Preparation of the City’s Pavement Management Plan

BACKGROUND & DISCUSSION
The City of Big Bear Lake owns and is responsible for the maintenance and operation of 87.6 centerline miles of roadway, totaling more than 11,600,000 square feet of pavement. On an annual basis, the City invests significant resources into the maintenance and operation of these streets, including several million dollars for annual capital improvement projects aimed at pavement rehabilitation, line striping, crack sealing, and other pavement maintenance activities. The activities and prioritization of street maintenance projects should generally be guided by the City’s Pavement Management Plan (PMP), which is a study and report that is compiled to provide an assessment and overview of the City’s pavement condition. The City of Big Bear Lake’s last PMP was prepared in the summer of 2022 by Bucknam Infrastructure Group, Inc.

A Pavement Management Plan includes a comprehensive inventory and mapping of the City’s street network. For this proposed effort, the consultant will utilize their advanced GIS system, which includes elements of artificial intelligence (AI) to capture the most accurate inventory of the City’s pavement. From the baseline inventory, the team will visually inspect all streets within the network to assess their condition and document the presence of any of twenty (20) identifiable distresses including cracking of all types, potholes and bumps or sags, and patches. From this assessment, each street section will be assigned a score from 0-100, which is each street’s Pavement Condition Index (PCI). The scores correlate to a rating schedule, as prescribed by the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), ranging from very good to very poor. When the City last completed the PMP in 2022, the Citywide average PCI was 69.7, rating the City’s streets as fair.

In addition to completing the mapping, inspection, and rating of streets, the scope of these services also includes the preparation of models for prioritization and funding of potential capital improvement projects. The report, which will be populated with current street construction costs provided by the City, will recommend budget funding levels based upon desired outcomes, such as maintaining the current PCI rating or increasing the PCI rating. These models will be helpful Item 1.6
to staff in making future budget recommendations related to the ongoing maintenance and improvement of the City’s street infrastructure.

Bucknam Infrastructure Group, Inc. has maintained an on-call agreement for professional services with the City of Big Bear Lake since 2022. Under this agreement, they have previously completed the 2022 Pavement Management Plan and a Street Sign Inventory in 2023. Bucknam Infrastructure Group, Inc. is well qualified to complete this program as they have successfully completed similar projects for the City of Big Bear Lake as well multiple other municipalities throughout Southern California.

In addition to the practical benefit related to the management of the City’s street infrastructure, certain grants or funding sources require agencies to have current pavement management plans to be eligible for funding. PMPs are generally updated every two to five years depending on the requirements of the particular county an agency is located within. While there is no statutory requirement in San Bernardino County regarding the timeline for updating PMPs, the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (SBCTA) simply indicates that local agencies shall have a PMP as a condition of receiving funding from that agency. For reference, Orange County requires updates every two (2) years and Los Angeles County requires updates every three (3) years. Given the recent increase in annual funding that the City of Big Bear Lake has expended over recent fiscal years, staff believes that it is prudent to update this plan every three (3) years.

FISCAL IMPACT
The proposal from Bucknam Infrastructure Group, Inc. for the development of the Pavement Management Plan is $38,972. Funding for this effort is included in the adopted Fiscal Year 2025-26 Annual Budget within the Engineering Division.

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
The program and services do not constitute a project pursuant to the definitions within the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and, as such, no environmental review is required.

CONSIDERATION OF STRATEGIC PRIORITIES
This proposal aligns with Strategic Priority Goal No. 1, to “Support and invest in sustainable infrastructure projects and programs consistent with the needs of our community”.

RECOMMENDED ACTION
It is recommended that the City Council Authorize a Task Order with Bucknam Infrastructure Group, Inc. for the preparation of the City’s Pavement Management Plan.

ATTACHMENT

1. Proposal of Bucknam Infrastructure Group, Inc.

July 16, 2025
Mr. Sean Sullivan
Director of Public Services
City of Big Bear Lake
39707 Big Bear Blvd.

Big Bear Lake, CA 92315
Subject: Proposal for Pavement Management Program Update – FY 2025-26 Dear Sean:

It is our pleasure to submit our proposal to the City of Big Bear Lake for the continued, proactive management of your Pavement Management Plan (PMP). Several key factors deliver an accurate PMP:
1) Segment true area accuracy;
2) Up-to-date work history;
3) Reliable PCI’s and
4) Relevant unit costs
With the City seeking to continue the strong development/management of the PMP through advanced inspections, Capital Improvement reporting (CIP), County compliance reporting and GIS enhancement, Bucknam Infrastructure Group, Inc. has identified a proactive and cost-efficient method to assist the City in continued development of your pavement management program. Our team will focus our high-end pavement management knowledge, extensive San Bernardino County experience, MicroPAVER application and GIS/GPS technologies to optimize the City’s capital and maintenance dollars.

Bucknam served as the City’s PMP consultant for the 2022 update. Our project staff can be relied upon again to provide outstanding service to the City. This will be accomplished by assisting the City in implementing a common-sense neighborhood M&R schedule, formulating a proactive Arterial/Local CIP budget and providing realistic maintenance recommendations. Our firm is unique in that we provide:
 Relevant and accurate PMP services based on our ongoing work with numerous San Bernardino, Riverside, San Diego, Los Angeles, and Orange local agencies such as:
o 20 Inland Empire/San Diego local agencies;
o 38 Los Angeles County local agencies (42%);
o 21 Orange County Local agencies (60%); and
o Army Corps of Engineers ASTM D6433 compliant surveying, reporting and pavement analysis on an annual basis;
Item 1.6
Attachment 1
 Our project manager has worked within the SoCal Pavement Management industry for over twentyseven (27) years and has worked extensively with MicroPAVER and StreetSaver PMP software’s through turn-key data conversion projects to long-term, proactive pavement CIP scheduling that relies on accurate and cost-efficient bid documentation;
 Project/engineering experience that brings the understanding that MicroPAVER results are not set in stone; we proactively use the available data to enhance budget forecasting and CIP/O&M project planning;
 Use of Bucknam cloud-based learning Artificial Intelligence (AI) to calculate, compare and qualify AC/PCC segment true areas within the City of Big Bear Lake;  Cost effective management methodologies, from the project kickoff through final reporting, gained through our Project Manager’s experience and use of Bucknam’s MyRoads® dynamic PMP-GIS link; As Project Manager, my goal is not just to meet the requirements of this project but establish a living document (Arterial & Local pavement CIP submittal) that will be used throughout the term of the CIP as well as implement achievable long-term infrastructure management goals in coordination with City schedules.

Mr. Peter Bucknam (Project Manager) will be providing day-to-day operational and management services; he is authorized to sign the agreement for this contract. He can be contacted at 760-216- 6529 (work) 714-501-1024 (cell) or email at [email protected].

By selecting Bucknam Infrastructure Group, Inc., the City of Big Bear Lake will continue to receive a strong, knowledgeable, innovative, and communicative team with the experience to implement a cost-effective pavement management program. Our handpicked pavement management professionals are committed to delivering quality services to the City. We have already scheduled time for your project and eagerly await our kick-off meeting with City staff and you.

Respectfully submitted,
Bucknam Infrastructure Group, Inc.

Peter J. Bucknam
President/Project Manager
Scope of Work
City of Big Bear Lake 1-1
2025-26 Pavement Management Program Update
Project Understanding / Approach
We have defined detailed phases to the scope of work;

1. Project Implementation

2. Client Satisfaction

3. Project Schedule

4. Scope of Work (Major Tasks)

5. Optional Services
1) Project Implementation
Task 1.1: Management & Administration – Project Kickoff The first step in implementing a successful pavement management program truly resides in frequent communication and timely scheduled data updates. For the City of Big Bear Lake, it will be essential to establish, up front, the Public Works and Street Maintenance/CIP pavement management priorities. Ourteam will set up a Project Kickoff meeting with staff (e.g. Sean Sullivan and Miguel Cabanas) to further discuss and review in detail the expectations of the project, technical approach and the review of schedule and budget. This will be scheduled immediately after the purchase order is issued.

This effort will build consensus between the Public Works and Maintenance departments as well as build stronger ARTERIAL and LOCAL maintenance programs. Additional items to be discussed will include the review and assessment of the existing MicroPAVER pavement plan/data, County compliance, survey areas based on recent maintenance work and schedules, new construction, data quality, current pavement procedures, historical expenditure levels, and desired service levels.

Task 1.2: Project Status Meetings – Quality Control Program Status Meetings and Progress Reports
• Minimum of three meetings during the project (kickoff, field review and status meetings);
• Monthly progress status reports will be delivered to City project manager.

Quality Control (QC)
We will use a statistical sampling approach for measuring the quality of our field technician’s work. In this manner, 10 percent of the original 90 miles of surveys will be resurveyed by an independent survey crew, supervised by a field supervisor, and the results will be compared to the original surveys (this will include 9 miles of arterial / local QC).

Our QC process involves checking the field crews’ work in a “blind study” fashion. Quality control checks will be performed at the end of each survey week. This will ensure that all field personnel are properly collecting distresses and pavement quantities for all street Scope of Work
City of Big Bear Lake 1-2
2025-26 Pavement Management Program Update
segments. PCI variance reporting will be performed where previous PCI 2022 data will be compared to newly inspected 2025 PCI data; if PCI’s vary more than ten (10) points per year Bucknam staff will assess the potential cause through unrecorded work history, accelerated pavement deterioration, etc. Bucknam will record/log any discrepancies between the previous and current PMP databases (any corrections/changes to the database shall not be made without prior City staff approval).

Since we are collecting distress information on our field Tablets with the Big Bear Lake MicroPAVER database live, our staff will perform several quality control tests within the pavement management software using a sample set of the City of Big Bear Lake’sstreet distress data. This will ensure that all system and analysis settings as well as City recommendations and standards are being followed.

Over the past two years, Bucknam has submitted over seventy-five (75+) PMP compliant reports for local municipalities, they include:

Every year our staff has attended the OCTA MicroPAVER Distress Training Classes held from 2011 thru 2025.

In May 2025 our staff was acknowledged as “qualified inspectors and firm” to prepare Pavement Management Plans compliant with the OCTA Countywide Pavement Management Guidelines (this compliance runs through June 2027).

Scope of Work
City of Big Bear Lake 1-3
2025-26 Pavement Management Program Update
2) Client Satisfaction
Task 2.1: Project Deliverables
Shown throughout our Scope of Work, each Task is summarized with project deliverables.

Client satisfaction will derive from frequent communication with the Project Manager and key staff members from the Public Works and Street Maintenance departments. Project success is created by delivering on three main factors; • Adherence to scope tasks and deliverables
• Performing to the standard set by the Project Schedule; and • Controlling costs.

Our Project Manager will follow each of these factors throughout the duration of the project
Deliverable: Project Status Updates, as stated in Task 1.2 3) Project Schedule
Task 3.1: Project Schedule - Management & Administration Our project schedule shows each major task identified in our scope of work, as well as quality control milestones and meetings. Bucknam currently has ample staff to apply to this project in order to meet a proactive schedule. See key milestone dates from the project schedule below (fiscal year will change accordingly):
• Project Kickoff – September 5, 2025
• Survey Completion – November, 2025
• Delivery of draft PMP – December, 2025
• City comments returned to Consultant – late December, 2025 • Delivery of City CIP Final Report – February, 2026
 Big Bear Lake’s CIP data/Final Report, reporting and revenue projections will be submitted by March, 2026
 All necessary County compliance data, reporting and revenue projections will be submitted prior to April, 2026
4) Scope of Work (Major Tasks)
TASK 4.1: Update Maintenance & Rehabilitation History
Based on the pavement maintenance that has been performed by in-house staff as well as contractual rehabilitation/maintenance, our staff will review all street activities that have been Scope of Work
City of Big Bear Lake 1-4
2025-26 Pavement Management Program Update
performed since the 2022 PMP update. This data will be entered into MicroPAVER to enhance pavement deterioration analysis, PCI’s and the recommendations for the upcoming budgetary analysis and CIP reporting.

TASK 4.2: Pavement Condition Surveys
MPAH (Arterial / Collector and Local) Survey
First and foremost, the assessment of the
City’s pavement segmentation is one of the
key priorities for this project. With three
years between major inspections, it will be
essential to verify that all Arterial, Collector
and Local segmentation is up-to-date and
that section true area SF quantities are
verified, accurate and reliable. This will be
completed by utilizing Bucknam’s cloud-based learning technology (AI) to initially quantify square footages for each pavement section (see sample above).

Bucknam’s use of cloud-based learning technology is initiated by providing the AI with the City of Big Bear Lake’s most recent aerial image; in doing so, all AC and PCC pavement true areas are initially calculated. These calculations are possible due to the cloud-based learning tech’s inherent working knowledge of how to recognize edge-of-pavement, surface types, medians, bus pads and AC/PCC surface limits.

This ability will allow Bucknam to obtain the necessary quality control measurements for defined Big Bear Lake PMP segments and to perform segment true area SF variance reports. This will in turn create more accurate PCI’s, engineering project cost estimations, total centerline / square footages of the network as well as for each unique pavement segments (shown as an optional task).

We will review/assess new and/or missing streets previously excluded from the last PMP update and create the necessary segmentation within the Big Bear Lake PMP database + GIS links.

Once the pavement segmentation has been assessed and verified, the necessary inspections will be performed. Our survey methodology will include the following approach based on ASTM D6433, County reporting guidelines and the City’s cost / benefit analysis:

1. Walking - All sections are surveyed through “two-pass test” walking methodologies.

AC/PCC distress types will be collected based upon actual surface conditions and physical characteristics of the segment. Surveying methods will be conducted by remaining consistent with ASTM D6433 & the Army Corp of Engineers AC/PCC sampling guidelines while being flexible to current City requirements.

All sample locations are observed through walking surveys; samples areas will cover a minimum of 20% of the total section area and will be 2,500 SF +/- 1,000 SF in size. As defined by the City, the following pavement sections are to be surveyed for the upcoming 2025 PMP update:

Scope of Work
City of Big Bear Lake 1-5
2025-26 Pavement Management Program Update
• The inspection of approximately 90 centerline miles of Arterial / Collector and Local segments will be performed;
Our use of MicroPAVER-Tablet units allows our
staff to collect pavement data with the City of
Big Bear Lake’s MicroPAVER database live in
the field. At the end of the day all electronic
data is transferred to our office for quality
control and management.

Our Tablet methodology sets us apart from the
competition since we are using a paper-less
inventory process to enter data; this in turn generates cost savings to enhance the project schedule and other portions of the project such as True Area SF calcs, CIP reporting, MicroPAVER training and on-call services.

Roadway Verification Survey - A listing of the field attribute data that is updated/verified during the survey for the pavement management database is listed below (County survey guidelines will be followed):

2. Field Attribute Data (updated and/or verified)
• Street Name, from/to, indicating the assigned limits of the section, street codification
• Street ranking indicating arterial, collector, local, # of lanes, surface type • Historical PCI tracking from previous 2022 inspections and 2025 PCI inspections • Segment quantities, indicating the length, width, and total true area of the section

3. Conditional data will be evaluated for all street segments and will include:
• ASTM D6433 20 AC & 19 PCC distresses by type, severity and sample area • Sampling/conditional data typically pulled from within edge-of-pavement to edgeof pavement • PCI ratings (0-100), taking into account the surface condition, level of distress We welcome staff members from the City of Big Bear Lake to join our surveys. All pavement data will be entered into the active 2025 MicroPAVER software. Data management will be performed in-house at our Oceanside office.

4. Section Distress and PCI Reporting
Upon 60% and 100% completion of the required condition surveys, we will prepare draft PCI Reports and PCI GIS maps that document the conditions of all pavement segments. This report will provide the conditional/section measurement data, sourced within MicroPAVER, for the City to review and prioritize needed street maintenance/rehabilitation projects. The City and our staff will review the PCI reports to ensure that all inventory data is correct and the project is running smoothly.

Scope of Work
City of Big Bear Lake 1-6
2025-26 Pavement Management Program Update
Our PCI reporting will include:
• PCI Report – Sorted by Name (A to Z), PCI Order (0-100), Zone (1, 2, 3, etc.); • Pavement segment and PCI “Variance Report” (sections showing +/- 10 PCI variance); • Work history report; and
• GIS Maps presenting PCI presenting PCI findings by section.

Once the City has reviewed, assessed and commented on the draft report, we will address all comments made and deliver the final reports/maps.

Deliverable: Citywide PCI reports, compliant County PCI reports

DEVELOP RECOMMENDED MASTER PLAN OF STREETS
TASK 4.3: Preparation of Multi-Yr Pavement CIP – Final Report With the City desiring to update and develop a comprehensive multi-year Pavement CIP (FY 2026- 2031), our staff will review all pavement treatments that were previously recommended as well as currently being applied in 2025. Through our experience in developing numerous pavement CIP reports on a yearly basis, we will support city staff through each essential phase of the development of the CIP. These services will include:
• Review and verification of maintenance applications / unit costs per SF; • Review of annual funding sources, availability and status; • Analysis of alternative pavement materials and applications for possible use by the City in upcoming years; and
• Assistance with County Pavement Compliance reporting
We will assist the City by preparing Forecast Maintenance / Rehabilitation (FMR) report in a format that uses the information found in the PCI reports in conjunction with the PMP application/unit cost identified by our team. The FMR report will include:
• Current inventory and pavement conditions indices (PCI) shown in tabular and GIS layouts for all road classes and surface types (pavement condition report, priority listings); • Assessment of current unit costs for PMP applications of AC/PCC treatments as well as future costs over the multi-year CIP program;
• Projected annual maintenance/rehabilitation program for each street, within the defined CIP term, that demonstrate the greatest return on investment on conditions and needed annual revenues;
• Three budgetary scenario options will be included in our FMR reporting, they typically include:
 #1 – Model current “actual budget” funding against found 2025 conditions Scope of Work
City of Big Bear Lake 1-7
2025-26 Pavement Management Program Update
 #2 – Model a recommended report that proactively increases the City’s weighted PCI and lowers deferred backlog of maintenance/rehabilitation  #3 – Model a maintain PCI budget to demonstrate what annual revenues are needed to sustain the PMP asset at today’s conditions
• Identification of potential funding sources for the street rehabilitation projects; • Recommendations for each section and/or neighborhood zones will be identified that will include maintenance type, estimated cost to complete and encumbered inflation; • A distinct and separate section will identify the City’s annual slurry seal program that will cover yearly priority recommendations, neighborhood programs and annual estimated costs;
• A detailed breakdown of deferred maintenance (backlog) which will allow the City to measure and understand its impact to current and future capital projects; • Final FMR mapping will include: recommended maintenance year, specific minor/major recommendations, PCI’s; and
Deliverable: We will submit one (1) digital copy of the draft Final PMP Report to be reviewed by the City. One (1) copy of the Final Pavement Management Program Report will be delivered to the City once all comments addressed. Digital copies of project GIS files will also be delivered to the City.

TASK 4.4: PMP Mapping and GIS
As an enhancement and proactive approach to
this project, our staff will update the existing
2022 PMP - GIS link between MicroPAVER,
MyRoads® and the City’s GIS system (see 2022
Big Bear Lake PCI map to the right). The maps
described below will be incorporated into the
City’s Final PMP report:
• PCI values for every section
• Work History identifications
• 5-yr Arterial / Local Rehabilitation
and Slurry Seal Programs
• Functional classification maps
Once the City has approved the Pavement Condition Report, we will update the necessary MicroPAVER - GIS linkages. By using the unique ID’s within the PMP and the City’s ESRI street shapefile ID’s, we will create a one-to-one match for each pavement section in the GIS. Our staff will coordinate all project deliveries with Public Works and the GIS department to ensure that the most current and accurate PMP - GIS maps are represented within the City’s GIS enterprise.

Scope of Work
City of Big Bear Lake 1-8
2025-26 Pavement Management Program Update
We can also provide this data to the City’s ESRI ArcGIS Online software (if owned) or can provide these mapping services through Bucknam Web-GIS MyRoads® portal supported through ArcGIS Online.

Deliverable: Complete GIS files/themes based on list above (shapefiles).

TASK 4.5: Big Bear Lake MyRoads® PMP Web-Portal
Big Bear Lake MyRoads® PMP Web-Portal
– Bucknam’s MyRoads® PMP web-portal is
a great match for the Big Bear Lake PMP
today and the future. Our application
brings your PMP data to life within a
dynamic dashboard! Bucknam now
provides all our PMP clients with a unique
and agency driven “MyRoads®” web-portal
that provides instantaneous access to your
pavement management database. This
“dashboard” allows users to toggle through
individual sections via GIS Lasso map
selections, zone queries, rank selection and
PCI ranges to review all section metrics,
latest/previous inspections, work histories and filtered PCI reports. To cap it off, your selections/queries also generate preliminary engineering costs estimations for slurry, overlay and reconstruction projects and provides you with the predictive PCI as if the work is complete.

Bucknam has shown the 2022 Big Bear Lake MyRoads® account in active use! This tool will be accessed by City staff simply through a Username/Password methodology. As changes are made to the Big Bear Lake PMP database the MyRoads® dataset is changed to reflect work history edits, PCI inspections and section changes.

In summary, MyRoads® allows the user perform the following dynamic functions:
• Query specific pavement segment(s) to view current/historic PCI, work history inspection; • Filter for pavement sections within a defined zone, PCI range and/or functional class; • Select a pavement section or grouping of section through the on-board GIS tool; • Enter slurry, overlay & reconstruction unit costs to determine preliminary cost of maintenance and resulting citywide PCI
o Display critical street / sidewalks / signs / ROW assets along pavement section(s) that are critical to Engineering Bid development and solicitation (ADA ramps, utilities, manholes, trees, etc.
• Displays all final GIS project maps (PCI, work history, 5-yr forecasted maintenance, etc.) • Bucknam will train Big Bear Lake staff on the simple use of the MyRoads® dashboard.

Scope of Work
City of Big Bear Lake 1-9
2025-26 Pavement Management Program Update
Optional Services
Task 4.6: ArcGIS Online (AGOL) Pothole Tracking System
Bucknam has developed a proactive solution to enhance the current approach to managing pavement maintenance activities, specifically as it relates to identifying and tracking the repair of potholes. We have outlined below our approach that will allow City staff to continuously access/query pothole data and monitor maintenance progress through a fully customizable ArcGIS Online (AGOL) Dashboard. The Dashboard mirrors the City’s existing repair methodology and serves as a tool for City staff to accomplish these efforts internally.

With many Cities receiving pothole data from a variety of sources, including staff inspections and resident service requests, there is a growing need to centralize and track this data in a meaningful way. A clear understanding of pothole locations, repair timelines, and recurring trouble areas is essential to increasing maintenance efficiency and reducing roadway safety risks and liability.

Bucknam will work closely with key City staff to assess existing pothole data. If the City does not have pothole data, Bucknam can collect this through our manual pavement survey methodology.

Once this information is reviewed and finalized, it will be integrated and published into the City’s ArcGIS Online account. Bucknam will then design a Dashboard interface that allows staff to interact with the data in real time. The Dashboard will allow City staff to visualize pothole locations on a dynamic map, query attributes such as repair status and dates of repair, and assign maintenance personnel to the specific pothole locations. Users will be able to filter data by zones, neighborhoods, or user-defined project areas. Additionally, potholes marked as repaired will be reflected in real time in the Dashboard metrics, ensuring accurate tracking of work history. This solution provides a scalable tool to support day-to-day operations and long-term pavement planning. Beyond potholes, Bucknam has successfully implemented this same management approach for sidewalk distresses, curb markings, signage, ADA ramps, and more. This solution is shown as an optional service within our proposed fee below.

Below is a screenshot of the City of Lakewood’s AGOL Pothole Dashboard and its corresponding mobile field application in active use.

Scope of Work
City of Big Bear Lake 1-10
2025-26 Pavement Management Program Update
Proposed Fee
Task items 1 through 4 can be accomplished on a time and materials, not-to-exceed basis in accordance with the standard hourly rate schedule attached. Our anticipated fee including labor and reimbursable expenses is projected to be $38,972 for an seven-month term. We have included our fee schedule below for the City consideration.

Should the City desire to increase the service level above the hours outlined above for the Task items 1 through 4 or require other services not described herein, a fee adjustment would be negotiated and mutually agreed upon by both parties.

Scope of Work
City of Big Bear Lake 1-11
2025-26 Pavement Management Program Update
Standard Hourly Rate Schedule
Category Rate
Principal $ 331
Pavement Management Project Manager 235
Senior Project Manager 225
Management Analyst 190
Project Engineer / Planner 180
Sr. Engineer / GIS Manager / Sr. Inspector 175
Assistant Engineer / Sr. Technician / GIS Analyst 162
CADD Operator 125
Field / GIS Technician 115
Administrative Assistant 105
Clerical / Word Processing 105
Reimbursables
Mileage $0.81/mile
Subconsultant Services Cost + 15%
Reproduction Cost + 15%
Travel & Subsistence Cost + 15%
Fees & Permits Cost + 15%
Computer Services (External) Cost + 15%
Rates Effective 7/1/25

MEETING
DATE: August 13, 2025
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
THROUGH: Erik Sund, City Manager
FROM: Sean Sullivan, Assistant City Manager
Andrew Mellon, Community Development Manager
SUBJECT: Authorize a Change Order with TruePoint Solutions Related to the Implementation of the Accela Software Program

BACKGROUND & DISCUSSION
On August 14, 2024, the City Council authorized staff to begin the process of implementing software from Accela to support Community Development functions. The approvals included the software license agreement with Accela as well as an agreement with TruePoint Solutions (TruePoint) to serve as the City’s software implementation partner. The implementation of this software package is being pursued to satisfy two primary objectives: to comply with updated State statutes and to improve the overall customer interface related to project approvals and permit issuance.

On September 28, 2022, Governor Newsom signed AB 2234, which amended the Government Code sections pertaining to post-entitlement permitting for development projects. Under existing law, local jurisdictions have established time limits in which to approve or disprove entitlement/development applications. The new legislation (AB 2234) applies timing provisions to non-discretionary post-entitlement processes (e.g. building permits, demolition permits, grading permits, and minor off-site improvement permits) and now requires local agencies to establish an online permitting system where applicants can apply, complete, and retrieve post-entitlement permits remotely. The City’s existing software used to support these services did not offer the functionality, such as remote permit submittal and receipt, as required by AB 2234. As this updated permitting system will satisfy the requirements of AB 2234, it will also offer an enhanced customer service interface for project applicants.

Upon the City Council approval in August 2024, work began on this project in September 2024.

TruePoint Solutions, as the City’s implementation partner, took the lead in developing the approach and work plans for the City staff to work from in order to implement a software platform of this nature. City staff was charged with reviewing all the City’s processes, work flows, and forms related to the Community Development Process and TruePoint would build them into a web based application that manages not only the forms and information but also the workflows, assignment routing, and notification process. While the basis of the software platform is consistent Item 1.7
across all users, agencies can customize the forms and work flows to make them specific to the City’s processes and customer expectations, which is what the City’s team has done.

During the implementation process, City staff and TruePoint have focused their attention on the customization of forms and applications in the new software. City staff has identified a number of custom forms and applications through their extensive evaluation process, while comparing work flows to existing City permitting processes and identifying a variety of improvements to the customer interface. TruePoint has been responsible for drafting and identifying the programming needed to accomplish these improvements. Through TruePoint’s work with programming these forms, they have reviewed and interacted with staff extensively to ensure that not only they meet the data fields and appearance desired by the City but that they interact appropriately with the overall work flow that these enhancements will offer. However, these additional improvements were not included in the project budget.

Another key element that has arisen out of this implementation is the necessity to bridge the City’s historical data, including permit data and plans, from the existing software services into the new Accela platform. The migration of these records from the existing platform into the Accela platform will enable consistent and easy access to historical plans and permits which will aid staff in the review of proposed projects via the permit application process, fulfilling public records requests, as well as required planning and reporting required of the Community Development Department. Additionally, the transferring of this historical data into the Accela platform will eliminate the need to maintain licensing fees to the existing software service. TruePoint has worked diligently to identify and plot the migration of the existing data from BluePrince and City View, the existing software programs utilized by Community Development. The migration has been challenging, primarily due to the age and functional obsolescence of BluePrince. While the team has identified a solution and a path forward to complete this migration, the initial budget identified does not have sufficient funds to accomplish this migration.

The development of the new Accela platform is nearly complete and the team is working on final review, and then will begin testing the new program and processes. Beyond the review and testing, the consultant team is making the final configurations and implementation steps in advance of the program launch, which will include the finalization of the merging of historical data. The Accela platform is slated to go live for public use in the middle of September 2025. Given these previously mentioned challenges that staff have encountered, there is a need for an additional budget authorization in a total amount not to exceed of $45,000. The approval of this change order will allow for a seamless implementation, while providing significant improvements to the Accela platform that will benefit both the public and City staff.

FISCAL IMPACT
Funding for this project, including the requested change order, is available within the adopted Fiscal Year 2025-26 Operating Budget under the Information Technology Division.

CONSIDERATION OF STRATEGIC PRIORITIES
This proposal aligns with Strategic Priority Goal No. 3, to “Invest in attracting, retaining and developing staff, strive to deliver the best customer service.” It also aligns with the City’s requirements of becoming compliant with California Assembly Bill 2234 (AB 2234).

RECOMMENDED ACTION
It is recommended that the City Council adopt a Resolution Authorizing a Change Order with TruePoint Solutions Related to the Implementation of the Accela Software Program.

ATTACHMENT

1. Resolution 2025-XX
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-XX

RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A CHANGE ORDER WITH

TRUEPOINT SOLUTIONS RELATED TO THE

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ACCELA SOFTWARE PROGRAM
WHEREAS, On August 14, 2024, the City Council authorized staff to begin the process of implementing software from Accela to support Community Development functions with the approval of a software license agreement with Accela and an agreement with TruePoint Solutions as the software implementation consultant; and,
WHEREAS, the intention of implementing an updated permitting system is to comply with AB 2234, which requires local agencies establish an online permitting system where applicants can apply, complete, and retrieve post-entitlement permits as well as to improve the customer experience related to Community Development Department services; and, WHEREAS, work on this effort commenced in September 2024 with City staff being responsible for reviewing and refining the City’s processes, work flows, and forms related to Community Development functions and TruePoint Solutions would build them into the web based application; and,
WHEREAS, the basis of the Accela platform is consistent across all users, the City of Big Bear Lake, as have many agencies, has customized the forms, fields, and flow of processing to make them specific to the City’s processes and customer expectations; and, WHEREAS, these efforts have required considerable effort of City staff and extensive support from the consultant related to programming these project elements, and through Truepoint’s work with programming these forms, they have reviewed and interacted with staff extensively to ensure that not only they meet the data fields and appearance desired by the City but that they interact appropriately with the overall work flow that these enhancements will offer; however, these additional improvements were not included within the project budget; and, WHEREAS, an additional key element of this effort is to migrate the City’s existing historical data, including permit data and plans, from the existing programs, BluePrince and City View, into the new Accela platform, as this historical data is critical for the review of proposed projects, planning and reporting activities of the Community Development Department, and having this information readily accessible to respond to extensive public records requests for property and projects; and,
WHEREAS, the existing software systems are antiquated and nearing obsolescence which has complicated the migration effort, resulting in additional, unanticipated consultant hours to achieve the desired outcome; and,
WHEREAS, the team has identified a solution and a path forward to complete this migration, however, the initial budget identified does not have sufficient funds to accomplish this migration; and,
Item 1.7
Attachment 1
WHEREAS, the development of the platform is nearly complete and the City team is working on final review and testing of the program while the consultant team is working in the background on the final configurations and implementation steps, including the finalization of the merging of historical data; and,
WHEREAS, the program is scheduled to go live, for public use, in the middle of September 2025; and,
WHEREAS, there is the need for a change order authorization to TruePoint Solutions in the amount of $45,000; and,
WHEREAS, the approval of this change order will allow for a seamless implementation, while providing significant improvements to the Accela platform that will benefit both the public and City staff.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council that:

1. A change order is authorized with TruePoint Solutions related to the implementation of the Accela Software Program in the amount of $45,000.

2. The City Manager is authorized to execute all necessary contract documents in a form approved by the City Attorney.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 13th day of August, 2025.

Perri Melnick, Mayor
ATTEST:

Erica Stephenson, City Clerk

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO ) ss

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

Erica Stephenson, City Clerk

MEETING
DATE: August 13, 2025
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
THROUGH: Erik Sund, City Manager
FROM: Sean Sullivan, Assistant City Manager
Miguel Cabanas, PE, PLS, Engineering Manager
Israel Gomez, Associate Engineer
SUBJECT: Authorize the Execution of an Easement with Big Bear Mountain Resorts Related to the Rathbun Drive Improvements

BACKGROUND & DISCUSSION
Within the adopted Fiscal Year 2025-26 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) budget is funding for the Moonridge Road Rehabilitation Project and the Rathbun Drive Rehabilitation Project. For purposes of project execution, these projects were combined into the Fiscal Year 2025-26 Annual Street Rehabilitation Project – Moonridge Road and Rathbun Drive. The scope of work for this project is to reconstruct the sidewalk, curb, gutter, and pavement along Moonridge Road. The work on Rathbun Drive will reconstruct the pavement and widen the street to accommodate one-way traffic, on-street parking, and the addition of sidewalk, curb, and gutter. On June 11, 2025, the City Council awarded a construction contract to Granite Construction Co. for this project in the amount of $4,298,000. Work on this project commenced on July 14, 2025, and is anticipated to be completed by October 2025.

Rathbun Drive is a local roadway that is located to the north / east of the Moonridge Corridor between Elm Street and Moonridge Road. The existing pavement section falls below street standards for width and is in significant disrepair. The proposed project includes the complete removal of the existing roadway section and the reconstruction of a new street section. The existing right-of-way on Rathbun Drive is 40’, however, the existing roadway averages less than 20’ in width. The project will not only maximize the existing right-of-way but will also obtain an easement of 8’ from Big Bear Mountain Resort to utilize a portion of the existing, unimproved Rathbun Parking Lot.

With this space, the roadway will transition to a one-way street traveling in the direction from Moonridge Road / Clubview Drive to Elm Street with a 14’ wide travel lane. The remaining street space will create approximately 100 on-street, public parking spaces to serve the Moonridge Corridor. Additionally, the project will construct concrete sidewalk, five feet wide, on the southside of the roadway, adjacent to the existing businesses and residences, to improve pedestrian safety and access from the newly constructed parking spaces.

City staff has worked closely with representatives from Big Bear Mountain Resorts (BBMR) regarding the need to obtain an easement to maximize the buildable space for the identified Item 1.8
Rathbun Drive improvements. BBMR understand the nature of and the need for these improvements and has graciously offered the easement at no cost to the City.

As prepared, the attached Easement Agreement authorizes the City to construct, operate and maintain public street, surface stormwater drainage, on street parking, and utility infrastructure in the identified area. The affected area represents approximately 8’ of space along the frontage, from the property line, of the open area known as the Rathbun Parking Lot, totaling approximately 6,080 square feet. The easement is permanent and perpetual and is being offered at no cost to the City.

The City will be responsible for the operation and maintenance of the area at the City’s sole expense. Within the agreement, the City will hold harmless and indemnify the grantor, BBMR and its parent company, Alterra Mountain Company. The terms of the easement agreement are consistent with other previously executed easement agreements that the City is party to with BBMR and other grantors of easements. The agreement was prepared jointly, by legal counsel from both the City and Alterra Mountain Company and has been agreed to by both sides. For purposes of the easement execution, the land is held in the name Big Bear Mountain Development Company, which is a subsidiary of Big Bear Mountain Resort.

Staff is seeking the City Council’s acceptance of the Agreement and authorization for the City Manager to sign the necessary acceptance of the documents. The Agreement will be recorded, through the San Bernardino County Recorder’s office, and will be permanently attached to the subject parcel of land.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with the acceptance of this easement from BBMR as BBMR has granted the easement to the City without compensation. The costs associated with the improvements to the easement area have been budgeted for and addressed as a part of the Fiscal Year 2025-26 Annual Street Rehabilitation Project.

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
There is no environmental impact, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), associated with the approval of this easement. The necessary environmental findings, associated with this street improvement project, were previously made by the City Council.

CONSIDERATION OF STRATEGIC PRIORITIES
This item aligns with the City Council’s Strategic Priority No. 1 as it “supports and invests in sustainable infrastructure projects and programs”.

RECOMMENDED ACTION
It is recommended that the City Council adopt a Resolution Authorizing the Execution of an Easement with Big Bear Mountain Resorts Related to the Rathbun Drive Improvements.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution 2025-XX

2. Easement Agreement
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-XX

RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN EASEMENT

WITH BIG BEAR MOUNTAIN RESORTS RELATED TO THE

RATHBUN DRIVE IMPROVMENTS
WHEREAS, within the adopted Fiscal Year 2025-26 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) budget is funding for the Moonridge Road Rehabilitation Project and the Rathbun Drive Rehabilitation Project and for purposes of execution, these projects have been combined into the Fiscal Year 2025-26 Annual Street Rehabilitation Project - Moonridge Road and Rathbun Drive; and, WHEREAS, on June 11, 2025, the City Council awarded a construction contract to Granite Construction Co. for this project in the amount of $4,298,000 and work on this project commenced on July 14, 2025 and is anticipated to be completed by October 2025; and, WHEREAS, the scope of work for this project is to reconstruct the sidewalk, curb, gutter, and pavement along Moonridge Road; and,
WHEREAS, the scope of work along Rathbun Drive will reconstruct the pavement and widen the street to accommodate one-way traffic, on-street parking, and the addition of sidewalk, curb, and gutter; and,
WHEREAS, the existing right-of-way along Rathbun Drive is 40’ wide, however, additional space is required to accommodate the proposed improvements; and, WHEREAS, City staff has worked closely with representatives from Big Bear Mountain Resorts (BBMR) about the need to obtain an easement of 8’ along the frontage of the unimproved area generally known as the Rathbun Parking Lot totaling approximately 6,080 square feet; and, WHEREAS, BBMR’s representatives understand the nature and the need for these improvements and have graciously offered the easement to the City for no compensation; and, WHEREAS, as prepared, the proposed Easement Agreement authorizes the City to construct, operate, and maintain public street, surface stormwater drainage, on-street parking, and utility infrastructure in the identified area; and,
WHEREAS, the easement is permanent and perpetual and pursuant to the terms of the agreement, the City will be responsible for all operation and maintenance at the City’s sole expense; and, WHEREAS, the agreement stipulates that the City will indemnify and hold harmless the grantor of the easement, BBMR and its parent company, Alterra Mountain Company; and, WHEREAS, the agreement has been developed, reviewed, and agreed to by counsel for both entities and the agreement is consistent with other easement agreements that the City has previously executed with BBMR and other entities; and,
Item 1.8
Attachment 1
WHEREAS, upon approval of this agreement, the documents will be executed by the City Manager and the easement will be recorded against the subject property, where the easement will remain permanently attached to this parcel.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of the City of Big Bear Lake that:

1. The Easement Agreement between the City of Big Bear Lake and the Big Bear Mountain Development Company, a subsidiary of Big Bear Mountain Resorts, is approved.

2. The City Manager is authorized to execute all related documents in a form approved by the City Attorney.

3. Once executed, the documents shall be forwarded to the San Bernardino County Recorder for recordation.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 13th day of August, 2025.

Perri Melnick, Mayor
ATTEST:

Erica Stephenson, City Clerk

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO ) ss

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

Erica Stephenson, City Clerk
1 RECORDING REQUESTED BY:

City of Big Bear Lake
Attn: Sean Sullivan
39707 Big Bear Blvd.

Big Bear Lake, CA 92315
AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:

City Clerk
City of Big Bear Lake
P.O. Box 10000
Big Bear Lake, CA 92315
Exempt from Recording Fees:

Ca Gov. Code §27383
City of Big Bear Lake
THIS SPACE FOR RECORDER’S USE ONLY
DOCUMENTARY TRANSFER TAX: No Tax Due.

This is a conveyance of an easement,
and the consideration and value is less
than $100 (Rev. & Tax Code §11922)
______________________________
Eric Stephenson, City Clerk

EASEMENT AGREEMENT
This EASEMENT AGREEMENT (“Agreement”) is entered into by and between Grantor and Grantee (both defined below) effective upon that certain date (“Effective Date”) of the fully executed original hereof, being recorded in the public records of San Bernardino County, California (“County”), as evidenced by the instrument recording date inserted above.

WHEREAS, Big Bear Mountain Development Company, a Delaware corporation, (together with its successors and assigns, (“Grantor”) is the owner in fee of that certain real property in the City of Big Bear Lake, County of San Bernardino, State of California, identified as APN 2328-383-01 (“Land”), which Land is more particularly described below.

WHEREAS, City of Big Bear Lake (together with its successors and assigns, “Grantee”) is a municipal corporation and subdivision of the State of California with its principal place of business at 39707 Big Bear Boulevard, Big Bear Lake, California.

Item 1.8
Attachment 2
2 WHEREAS, Grantee desires permission from Grantor to enter upon and use certain portions of the Land solely for the express purposes set forth hereinbelow related to the construction and use of certain road, drainage, and utilities infrastructure, improvements and related features, all at Grantee’s sole cost and expense, for public use within the Easement Area defined in this Agreement, subject to all rights of Grantor reserved herein and all other terms, conditions, and limitations of this Agreement and applicable law.

NOW THEREFORE, FOR VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, the sufficiency and receipt of which is hereby acknowledged by Grantor and Grantee, and in consideration of the respective promises, covenants, obligations, rights, and remedies of the parties set forth herein, Grantor and Grantee hereby agree as follows:

1. Recitals; Defined Terms; Exhibits. The recitals set forth above are true and correct and are incorporated into the agreement of the parties set forth herein. All initially-capitalized terms used and defined in this Agreement shall be construed as defined herein. The legal description of the Land attached to this Agreement as Exhibit “A”, the one-page drawing by Vanlen Consultants, Inc. attached to this Agreement as Exhibit “B”, and the legal description of the Easement Area attached to this Agreement as Exhibit “C” are all incorporated herein by this reference.

2. Grant of Easement. Grantor does hereby grant to Grantee a permanent and perpetual exclusive road and utility easement (as depicted and referenced on Exhibit “B” hereto as “Parcel A” and “Parcel B”, hereinafter collectively referred to as the “Easement Area”), solely for lienfree construction, maintenance and repair of public street, surface stormwater drainage, on street parking and utility purposes related to streetlight facilities installed upon such Easement Area (the “Easement Purposes”), including all purposes incidental thereto, and for no other use or purpose without the express written consent of Grantor, which consent may be given or withheld in Grantor’s sole discretion, subject to and reserving unto Grantor (and notwithstanding anything to the contrary set forth in this Agreement), without material disturbance of Grantee in its exercise of such Easement Purposes, or the rights in, along, upon, above, over, across, under and through said Easement Area: (i) of pedestrian and vehicular ingress, egress, and access to and from the Land; (ii) to construct, install, maintain, operate, use, repair, alter, replace, and remove utility equipment, services and related facilities serving the Land (including, without limitation, through excavation and/or trenching with prompt back-filling and surface restoration); (iii) to barricade/fence all or any portion(s) of the northerly boundary of the Easement Area related to Grantor’s operations and uses upon the Land; (iv) of drone flights, crane operations, and other aerial operations in the airspace above the Easement Area; (v) of such other purposes and uses related to Grantor’s private and/or commercial parking operations upon the Land, public and/or private events staged upon the Land, staging of materials and equipment upon the Land, and all future development and construction of improvements upon the Land (collectively, “Reservations of Grantor”). As so limited by the foregoing Reservations of Grantor and by the Easement Purposes, such grant and right of Grantee herein is referred to as the “Perpetual Exclusive Easement”. Without amplifying or otherwise expanding the Grantee’s express rights under this Agreement as set forth above, the Perpetual Exclusive Easement shall be deemed to permit Grantee to conduct upon the Easement Area and solely in furtherance of the Easement Purposes, all reasonable and necessary activities related thereto, including, but not limited to, the survey, trenching (with prompt back-filling and surface restoration), staging, construction, installation, maintenance, operation, use, repair, alteration, replacement and removal of any improvements and facilities inherently related to the 3 above listed purposes including, but not limited to, public street, curb, gutter, sidewalk, streetlight and all public utilities whether or not commonly in use now, together with all rights incidental thereto and such other purposes authorized by statute or deemed by common law to be compatible and consistent with the purpose of this Perpetual Exclusive Easement, including, but not limited to, ancillary improvements and uses associated therewith, over, under, along, above, through and across the Easement Area.

3. Grantee Obligation to Construct Curb Cuts and Driveway Aprons to Access Grantor’s Land. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary set forth in this Agreement, Grantee shall install, within a reasonable time following the Effective Date (subject to reasonable extensions of time on account of Grantor’s acts or omissions, or from force majeure events beyond Grantee’s reasonable control), at Grantee’s sole cost and expense and in a first-class and lien-free manner all those certain curb cuts, driveway aprons and related elements of infrastructure necessary for the customers of Snow Summit and Bear Mountain resorts to enter/exit the Land in passenger vehicles, and for the passenger shuttle vehicles of Grantor and its affiliates (including Snow Summit, LLC) to access the Land by reasonable means consistent with historical practices or as otherwise mutually agreed by City of Big Bear Lake and Snow Summit, LLC, all pursuant to written plans and specifications prepared by or on behalf of Grantee and approved by Grantor in writing, which approval Grantor shall not unreasonably withhold, condition, or delay.

4. Grantee Operations and Temporary Worksite Access. The Perpetual Exclusive Easement shall include the right and privilege of workmen, contractors, employees and agents of Grantee to use and occupy the footprint of the Perpetual Exclusive Easement for the exercise of the purposes hereinabove described, including the right of access, ingress, egress, control, and passage across the Perpetual Exclusive Easement, without limitation. The rights hereby granted shall also include the right and privilege to use and to temporarily place and operate tools, equipment, machinery, and materials on the Perpetual Exclusive Easement as may be necessary to exercise the purposes hereinabove described. Grantee shall also have the right to temporarily use an additional ten (10) feet of the Grantor’s land adjacent to the Perpetual Exclusive Easement as may be reasonably necessary during the construction and installation of improvements and facilities permitted within the Easement Area for proper access to the work site; provided, in every instance Grantee shall at its sole cost and expense clean and restore Grantor’s property to the same condition as when Grantee encountered it, reasonable wear and tear excepted.

5. Barriers Within the Easement Area. Subject to the Reservations of Grantor, Grantor shall not erect, place, or maintain, nor permit the erection, placement, or maintenance, of any building, wall, fence, or other structure within the Easement Area or plant any trees or other vegetation on any portion of the Easement Area without the express written consent of Grantee. Grantee shall have the right to trim, cut or clear away any trees, brush, or other vegetation encroaching on, under, or above the Easement Area, from time to time as determined in its sole discretion, without payment of additional compensation. Grantee may assign the rights and Perpetual Exclusive Easement herein granted, either in whole or in part, subject to the terms of this grant and subject to and consistent with all applicable policies, procedures, laws, rules, and regulations.

6. Development of the Land. Grantee acknowledges and agrees that the Perpetual Exclusive Easement shall not, by itself, materially impair of Grantor’s development rights with respect to the Land, including, without limitation, the right to construct improvements up to the minimum 4 setback from any boundary of the Land disregarding the dimensions of the Easement Area and the location of any of Grantee’s improvements therein. Notwithstanding the foregoing, nothing herein shall limit or restrict the authority of Grantee or its governing body from making future zoning, land use, or development decisions generally applicable to the Land in its regulatory capacity.

7. Construction. Grantee shall commence within a reasonable time and diligently pursue completion of the improvements permitted under this Agreement within the Easement Area to substantial completion pursuant to written plans and specifications approved by Grantor, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld, conditioned, or delayed. Grantor hereby approves that certain “bid set” of plans prepared by Brad S. Merrill (R.C.E. 49423) dated May 22, 2025 (addendum 1) approved by the City of Big Bear Lake in connection with that certain City of Big Bear Lake Fiscal Year 25/26 Street Rehabilitation Project (Project No. 25.002) (“Plans”). If by the second (2nd) anniversary of the Effective Date (subject to reasonable extensions of time on account of Grantor’s acts or omissions, or from force majeure events beyond Grantee’s reasonable control), Grantee has not substantially completed construction and installation of such road, drainage and utility facilities substantially consistent with the Plans and opened the Easement Area to the public on a permanent basis, or, if at any time following such completion and opening of the Easement Area to public use as permitted herein the Perpetual Exclusive Easement remains abandoned for ninety (90) consecutive days following written notice to Grantee (or is subsequently abandoned again for any duration), then, in either of such events, the grant of Permanent Exclusive Easement shall be deemed revoked and terminated, and all rights of Grantee pursuant to this Agreement shall terminate automatically and become null and void. Grantor shall have no obligation to re-locate the Easement Area or otherwise re-define the Easement Area, and Grantee accepts the Easement Area as defined herein as is, where is, with all faults.

8. No Liability of Grantor. All liabilities of any kind arising from the Grantee’s acceptance, occupancy, use and improvement of the Easement Area or otherwise related to the Permanent Exclusive Easement shall be Grantee’s responsibility, including, but not limited to, all payments to material suppliers, workmen, laborers, consultants, engineers, design professionals and others involved with Grantee’s improvements upon or related to the Easement Area. Grantee shall promptly discharge and pay all costs, expenses and liabilities associated with (a) the design, permitting, construction, installation, inspection, maintenance, repair, alteration, replacement, removal, and use of any and all improvements within the Easement Area, (b) all activities and operations of Grantee, its agents, employees, and/or contractors, and/or (c) the activities and operations of the public arising in connection with this Agreement, the Permanent Exclusive Easement, and/or the Easement Area.

9. Remedies.
(a) If either party determines that the other party is in violation of the terms of this Agreement or that a violation is threatened, the non-violating party shall give written notice to the other party of such violation or threatened violation and demand corrective action sufficient to cure the violation and, where the violation involves injury to the Easement Area resulting from any use or activity inconsistent with the express provisions of this Agreement, to restore the portion of the Easement Area so injured. If the violating party fails to cure the violation within 30 days after receipt of notice thereof from the non-violating party, or under circumstances where the violation 5 cannot reasonably be cured within a 30-day period, fails to begin curing such violation within the 30-day period, and thereafter fails to continue diligently to cure such violation until finally cured, the non-violating party may bring an action at law or in equity in a court of competent jurisdiction to enforce the terms of this Agreement, to enjoin the violation by temporary restraining order or permanent injunction, to recover any damages to which it may be entitled for violation of the terms of this Agreement or injury to any protected values, including damages for any loss thereof, and to require the restoration of the Easement Area to the condition that existed prior to any such injury. (b) If either party, in its reasonable discretion, determines that circumstances require immediate action to prevent or mitigate significant damage stemming from a violation or threatened violation of this Agreement, such party may pursue its remedies under this Agreement without waiting for the period provided for cure to expire. The parties’ respective rights under this paragraph apply equally in the event of either actual or threatened violations of the terms of this Agreement, and the parties agree that remedies at law for any violation of the terms of this Agreement are inadequate and that both parties shall be entitled to the injunctive relief described in this paragraph, both prohibitive and mandatory, in addition to such other relief to which they may be entitled, including specific performance of the terms of this Agreement, without the necessity of proving either actual damages or the inadequacy of otherwise available legal remedies.

The remedies described in this Agreement shall be cumulative and shall be in addition to all remedies now or hereafter existing at law or in equity.

10. Costs of Enforcement. Any costs incurred by the prevailing party in enforcing the terms of this Agreement, including, without limitation, costs of suit and reasonable attorneys' fees, and any costs or restoration incurred by the curing party necessitated by violation by the non-curing party of the terms of this Agreement shall be borne by the non-prevailing party or non-curing party, as applicable.

11. No Waiver. Enforcement of this Agreement by each party hereto of its respective rights and remedies under the terms of this Agreement shall be at the discretion of such party, and any forbearance to exercise its rights under this Agreement in the event of any breach of any term of this Agreement by the other party shall not be deemed or construed to be a waiver of such term or of any subsequent breach of the same or any other term of this Agreement or of any of such forbearing party’s rights under this Agreement. No delay or omission in the exercise of any right or remedy on any breach shall impair such right or remedy or be construed as a waiver.

12. Hold Harmless. Grantee shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless Grantor, its parent companies, subsidiaries, and affiliates, and all of their respective officers, directors, members, managers, employees, agents, and contractors, and the heirs, successors, and assigns of each of them, from and against any and all loss, damage, liability, claims, suits, costs and expenses whatsoever, including, without limitation, reasonable attorneys' fees regardless of the merit or outcome of any such claim or suit arising from or in any manner connected with any third-party claims caused by Grantee’s negligence, willful misconduct, or material breach of this Agreement related to (i) any act, omission, condition, or other matter related to or occurring on or about Easement Area (except to the extent of the adjudicated fault, negligence or willful misconduct of Grantor) (ii) Grantee’s or the public’s use of the Perpetual Exclusive Easement and/or (iii) Grantee’s exercise of any and all rights herein granted. Nothing in this Agreement shall limit the 6 ability of either party to avail themselves of the protections offered by any applicable law affording immunity to either party, including, but not limited to, the provisions of California Civil Code and California Government Code as to third party claims; provided however, Grantee expressly waives any immunity whatsoever express or implied from suit by Grantor with respect to all matters for which Grantee expressly agrees to be responsible pursuant to this Agreement.

13. General Provisions.
(a) Controlling Law. The interpretation and performance of this Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of California.
(b) Severability. If any provision of this Agreement, or the application thereof to any person or circumstance, is found to be invalid, the remainder of the provisions of this Agreement, or the application of such provision to persons or circumstances other than those as to which it is found to be invalid, as the case may be, shall not be affected thereby. (c) Entire Agreement. This Agreement sets forth the entire agreement of the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof and supersedes all prior discussions, negotiations, understandings, or agreements relating to the subject matter hereof, all of which are merged herein. (d) Notices. All notices or other communications between the parties that are required pursuant to this Agreement shall be in writing and either personally delivered to the recipient, or delivered to the recipient via certified mail, return receipt requested, or by commercial courier service with the requirement for a signature for delivery confirmation, in each case addressed to the intended recipient’s address below:

If to Grantor:

Big Bear Mountain Development Company
c/o Big Bear Mountain Resort
880 Summit Boulevard
P.O. Box 77
Big Bear Lake, CA 92315
Attn: President & COO
With a copy of notices to Grantor delivered concurrently to:

Alterra Mountain Company
3501 Wazee Street, Suite 400
Denver, CO 80216
Attn: Chief Legal & Social Responsibility Officer
If to Grantee:

City Big Bear Lake
39707 Big Bear Blvd.
7 P.O. Box 10000
Big Bear Lake, CA 92315
Attn: City Manager
By written notice to the other party, each party to this Agreement may change its address for purposes of receipt of notices to any serviceable address in the United States. (e) Amendments. Neither this Agreement nor any of its terms, provisions, conditions, representations or covenants can be modified except by written instrument mutually executed by all parties and recorded in the public records of County. (f) Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in any number of duplicate originals, and in counterpart, and the various signatures collated together to form a single instrument, all of which duplicate originals and counterparts shall constitute but one agreement.

14. Covenants Run With the Land. The Perpetual Exclusive Easement granted herein, and the restrictions hereby imposed, shall be deemed easements, restrictions, and covenants running with the land pursuant to California Civil Code Section 1468, and shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the parties hereto and their respective heirs, successors, and assigns. Reference herein to Grantor and Grantee and its or their rights and obligations hereunder shall include reference to any successors in interest and assignees of Grantor and Grantee.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Grantor and Grantee have caused this EASEMENT AGREEMENT instrument to be executed on the date set forth below, whereupon Grantee shall cause this instrument to be recorded in the real property records of County at Grantee’s sole cost and expense.

GRANTOR:

BIG BEAR MOUNTAIN DEVELOPMENT

COMPANY
By:

Name:

Its:

GRANTEE:

CITY OF BIG BEAR LAKE
By:

Name:

Its:
[ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ATTACHED]
A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF _________________________ )
On _ , 20 , before me, ____________________________________, Notary Public, personally appeared _____________________________________________, who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.

I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.

WITNESS my hand and official seal.
______________________________ (Seal)
Signature
A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document.

I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.

WITNESS my hand and official seal.
______________________________ (Seal)
Signature

Page 1 of 2 ends

Exhibit “A”
Legal Description of Land of Grantor
(To be inserted prior to execution)
EXHIBIT “A”

LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF LAND OF GRANTOR
PARCEL E OF GRANT DEED RECORDED AS DOCUMENT # 2022-0267502, OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, LAYING WITHIN SECTION 22, TOWNSHIP 2 NORTH, RANGE 1 EAST, SAN BERNARDINO MERIDIAN, ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL PLAT THEREOF.

Exhibit “B”
Depiction of Easement Area
(To be inserted prior to execution)

Exhibit “C”
Description of Easement Area
(To be inserted prior to execution)
C

CITY OF BIG BEAR LAKE

CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE
232838301
This is to certify that the interest in real property conveyed by this perpetual grant of an exclusive easement dated [***INSERT DATE***], from BIG BEAR MOUNTAIN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY to the City of Big Bear Lake, a municipal corporation and political subdivision of the State of California, is hereby accepted by the undersigned officer pursuant to authority conferred by resolution of the City Council adopted on [***INSERT DATE***]; and the Grantee consents to the recordation thereof by its duly authorized officer.

By:

Name/Position:
____________________________
Date:

PUBLIC HEARING REPORTS
On

MEETING
DATE: August 13, 2025
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
THROUGH: Erik Sund, City Manager
FROM: Kelly Ent, Deputy City Manager / Chief Financial Officer Kimberly Graf, Finance Manager
SUBJECT: Resolution Updating and Establishing a Master Fee Schedule

BACKGROUND & DISCUSSION
On June 12, 2024, the City Council awarded a contract to Matrix Consulting Group, Ltd. (“Matrix”) to conduct a comprehensive user fee study. The various fee-related services are a special benefit to applicants both separate and apart from the general benefit to the public. The attached report summarizes the analysis conducted by Matrix and the calculation of the current cost to deliver the various fee-related services.

The existing Master Fee Schedule is based on a study conducted in 2000. After much deliberation, the fees were adopted in 2002 at less than full-cost recovery. The adopted fees were updated for CPI up until 2006. The existing fees are not representative of the cost to provide the various services as shown in the attached study. Compared to the established fees, the city is underrecovering its costs by approximately $445,000 or recovering approximately 60% of its costs. The largest area of under-recovery is in Planning with deficits primarily related to Conditional Use Permits and Special Event fees.

At the May 14th workshop, a draft of this study was presented with a proposed five year phase in.

Based on feedback received during this meeting and follow up discussions, fee adjustments were made and a proposed three year phase in was developed as an alternative to accelerate cost recovery. The attached fee tables are a basis for discussion that provide two options for implementation of fees and cost recovery objectives. The level of cost recovery and period of time in which to achieve that objective is a policy decision to be made by the City Council.

The five year phase in approach is intended to mitigate the impact on applicants in those situations where there is a significant disparity between the existing fee and cost of service delivery by gradually moving toward cost recovery whereas the three year phase in approach attempts to recover costs more quickly. Fees which occur infrequently or do not require a significant adjustment are not proposed to be phased in but rather achieve full-cost recovery in the first year.

In instances such as this, where full-cost recovery is achieved before the end of the phase in period, an inflationary factor is included through the end of the phase in period. Services which provide both a special benefit and a general benefit are commonly implemented at less than full-cost recovery and are included in the attached fee tables as such.

Item 2.1
To adopt a new Master Fee Schedule requires the City Council to conduct a public hearing and receive public comment regarding the proposed fees. Once the hearing has concluded, the City Council will consider whether or not to adjust the established fees and to what extent to recover the cost of providing the various services.

FISCAL IMPACT
Assuming historical permit activity is representative of future volume, at full-cost recovery, fee adjustments would offset existing costs by generating additional revenue of approximately $445,000.

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
The setting or revision of user fees pursuant to this Resolution is exempt from environmental review under Public Resources Code Section 21080(b)(8) of the California Environmental Quality Act, which provides an exemption for the establishment or modification of charges by public agencies which the public agency finds are for the purpose of meeting operating expenses.

CONSIDERATIONS 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 take the following actions:

1. Conduct a public hearing, and

2. Adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Big Bear Lake, California Updating and Establishing User and Regulatory Fees for Various City Regulatory Activities, Programs, and Services Set Forth in a Master Fee Schedule (following are phased implementations options):
a. Over a period of three (3) years, or
b. Over a period of five (5) years.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Comprehensive User Fee Study Report

2. Master Fee Schedule: Three Year Implementation

3. Master Fee Schedule: Five Year Implementation

4. Resolution No. 2025-XX

BIG BEAR LAKE, CA

COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE

STUDY REPORT
JULY 2025
Item 2.1
Attachment 1

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 Group 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 to mimic the state regulations and the calculated full cost of providing services related to solar permits.

TABLE 6: TOTAL COST PER UNIT RESULTS – BUILDING & SAFETY SOLAR Fee Name Total Cost
Residential Solar Permits (Photovoltaic Systems)
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 Solar Permits (Photovoltaic Systems)
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. While this report shows the cost associated with processing these fees, the City will set the solar fees based on the state mandated guidelines outlined in Government Code Section 66015.

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 valuation to square footage-based will eliminate the over-recovery 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 $535 for a ‘Home Sharing’ permit, 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 $2,870 ($2,748)
Non-Profit $245 $2,870 ($2,625)
For-Profit $428 $2,870 ($2,442)
Facility Rental Dry Rehearsal / Load-In / Load-Out
Schools $31 $2,530 ($2,499)
Non-Profit $48 $2,530 ($2,482)
For-Profit $61 $2,530 ($2,469)
Facility Rental Rehearsal
Schools $31 $2,151 ($2,120)
Non-Profit $67 $2,151 ($2,084)
For-Profit $79 $2,151 ($2,072)
Other Room Rental Fees
Shop Rental $12 $1,794 ($1,782)
Sewing Room Rental $12 $1,794 ($1,782)
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 $2,748 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

Page 1 of 9 ends

Fee Name Unit Current Fee Total Cost
Proposed
Fee (Yr1)
Proposed
Fee (Yr2)
Proposed
Fee (Yr3) Fee Type
City Clerk
Printed Material Sale Each Actual Cost Actual Cost Actual Cost Actual Cost Actual Cost User Fee Research Service Each Actual Cost Actual Cost Actual Cost Actual Cost Actual Cost User Fee Photocopy Service:

First 4 Pages Per Page $0.25 $0.25 $0.25 $0.25 $0.25 GOV § 7922.530 Pages 5 To 50 Per Page $0.10 $0.10 $0.10 $0.10 $0.10 GOV § 7922.530 Pages 50 And Above Per Page $0.05 $0.05 $0.05 $0.05 $0.05 GOV § 7922.530 For Large Copies (I.E. Blueprints) Per Page $3 $3 $3 $3 $3 GOV § 7922.530 Armed Forces Banner Program
Armed Forces Banner Each $75 $433 $75 $75 $75 User Fee
Performing Arts Center
Facility Rental Performance:

Schools Per 6 Hr Block $122 $2,870 $183 $366 $732 Rental Non-Profit Per 6 Hr Block $245 $2,870 $368 $735 $1,470 Rental For-Profit Per 6 Hr Block $428 $2,870 $642 $1,284 $2,568 Rental Facility Rental Dry Rehersal / Load-In / Load-Out:

Schools Per 5 Hr Block $31 $2,530 $47 $93 $186 Rental
Non-Profit Per 5 Hr Block $48 $2,530 $72 $144 $288 Rental For-Profit Per 5 Hr Block $61 $2,530 $92 $183 $366 Rental Facility Rental Rehersal:

Schools Per 5 Hr Block $31 $2,151 $47 $93 $186 Rental
Non-Profit Per 5 Hr Block $67 $2,151 $101 $201 $402 Rental For-Profit Per 5 Hr Block $79 $2,151 $119 $237 $474 Rental Other Room Rental Fees:

Shop Rental Per 6 Hr Block $12 $1,794 $18 $36 $72 Rental Sewing Room Rental Per 6 Hr Block $12 $1,794 $18 $36 $72 Rental Room Rentals
Hofert Hall Rental Per Hour $92 $753 $138 $276 $552 Rental Training Room Per Hour New $671 $168 $335 $671 Rental
Chalet Building Per Hour New $668 $167 $209 $313 Rental General Fees
NSF Check Processing
First Check Each $25 $25 $25 $25 State Set
Subsequent Check Each $35 $35 $35 $35 State Set
Business Licenses
New Business Located Within the City of Big Bear Lake:

Commercial/Brick and Mortar Businesses Each $231 $328 $254 $305 $358 User Fee Home Office Businesses (Home Occupation) Each $235 $135 $135 $139 $143 User Fee New Business Located Outside the City of Big Bear Lake:

Businesses Based in a Different City Each $74 $62 $62 $64 $66 User Fee Existing Businesses:

Annual Renewals (September 30th) – All Businesses Each $44 $31 $31 $32 $33 User Fee Late Fees:

Between Oct. 5th and 15th Each $10 $15 $20 $25 Penalty
After Oct. 15th Each $25 $30 $35 $40 Penalty
Vacation Rental Program
Vacation Rental Program Per Year Per Property $550 $731 $605 $635 $731 User Fee Transfer of Vacation Rental Each New $72 $72 $74 $76 User Fee Home Sharing Each $100 $635 $200 $400 $635 User Fee
Item 2.1
Attachment 2
Big Bear Lake Master Fee Schedule

Page 2 of 9 ends

Fee Name Unit Current Fee Total Cost
Proposed
Fee (Yr1)
Proposed
Fee (Yr2)
Proposed
Fee (Yr3) Fee Type
Film Permit
For Motion Pictures Each $173 $552 $260 $389 $552 User Fee For Still Shots Each $117 $342 $176 $263 $342 User Fee
TOT Permit Program
Commercial Properties - TOT Permit Per Year Per Property New $408 $408 $421 $433 User Fee Building & Safety
Commercial / Industrial / MFR - New and TI (Plan Check & Inspection) - 50% due up front for Plan Check Construction Permit (Valuation)*:
$0 - $25,000 Base $69 $608.92 $608.92 $627.19 $646.01 User Fee Each Additional $1,000 or fraction thereof Each Addl $1,000 $14.00 $28.63 $28.63 $29.49 $30.38 User Fee $25,001 - $50,000 Base $392 $1,324.79 $1,324.79 $1,364.53 $1,405.47 User Fee Each Additional $1,000 or fraction thereof Each Addl $1,000 $10.10 $21.91 $21.91 $22.56 $23.24 User Fee $50,001 - $100,000 Base $644 $1,872.46 $1,872.46 $1,928.63 $1,986.49 User Fee Each Additional $1,000 or fraction thereof Each Addl $1,000 $7.00 $12.24 $12.24 $12.60 $12.98 User Fee $100,001 - $500,000 Base $994 $2,484.29 $2,484.29 $2,558.82 $2,635.58 User Fee Each Additional $1,000 or fraction thereof Each Addl $1,000 $5.60 $6.56 $6.56 $6.76 $6.96 User Fee $500,001 - $1,000,000 Base $3,234 $5,108.58 $5,108.58 $5,261.84 $5,419.69 User Fee Each Additional $1,000 or fraction thereof Each Addl $1,000 $4.75 $9.88 $9.88 $10.18 $10.48 User Fee $1,000,001 - $5,000,000 Base $5,609 $10,048.48 $10,048.48 $10,349.93 $10,660.43 User Fee Each Additional $1,000 or fraction thereof Each Addl $1,000 $3.65 $1.43 $1.43 $1.48 $1.52 User Fee $5,000,000 - $25,000,000 Base $20,209 $15,786.41 $15,786.41 $16,260.00 $16,747.80 User Fee Each Additional $1,000 or fraction thereof Each Addl $1,000 $3.65 $0.66 $0.66 $0.68 $0.70 User Fee $25,000,001+ Base $27,509 $29,069.76 $29,069.76 $29,941.86 $30,840.11 User Fee Each Additional $1,000 or fraction thereof Each Addl $1,000 $3.65 $0.33 $0.33 $0.34 $0.35 User Fee *Valuation is based on the most recent adopted ICC Cost of Construction table SFR - New and Additions / Remodels (Plan Check & Inspection) - 50% due up front for Plan Check Construction Permit (Square Footage):
0-250 sq. ft. Base Modified $685.80 $685.80 $706.38 $727.57 User Fee 251 - 500 sq. ft. Base Modified $685.80 $685.80 $706.38 $727.57 User Fee Each Additional 100 square feet or fraction thereof Each Addl 100 Sq. Ft. Modified $419.39 $419.39 $431.97 $444.93 User Fee 500 - 1,000 sq. ft. Base Modified $1,734.27 $1,734.27 $1,786.30 $1,839.88 User Fee Each Additional 100 square feet or fraction thereof Each Addl 100 Sq. Ft. Modified $113.56 $113.56 $116.97 $120.48 User Fee 1,001 to 1,500 sq. ft. Base Modified $2,302.07 $2,302.07 $2,371.14 $2,442.27 User Fee Each Additional 100 square feet or fraction thereof Each Addl 100 Sq. Ft. Modified $157.29 $157.29 $162.01 $166.87 User Fee 1,501 to 2,000 sq. ft. Base Modified $3,088.53 $3,088.53 $3,181.19 $3,276.63 User Fee Each Additional 100 square feet or fraction thereof Each Addl 100 Sq. Ft. Modified $166.77 $166.77 $171.78 $176.93 User Fee 2,001 to 3,500 sq. ft. Base Modified $3,922.40 $3,922.40 $4,040.07 $4,161.27 User Fee Each Additional 100 square feet or fraction thereof Each Addl 100 Sq. Ft. Modified $94.07 $94.07 $96.89 $99.80 User Fee 3,501 to 5,000 sq. ft. Base Modified $5,333.41 $5,333.41 $5,493.42 $5,658.22 User Fee Each Additional 100 square feet or fraction thereof Each Addl 100 Sq. Ft. Modified $45.11 $45.11 $46.47 $47.86 User Fee 5,000+ sq. ft. Base Modified $6,010.13 $6,010.13 $6,190.44 $6,376.15 User Fee Each Additional 100 square feet or fraction thereof Each Addl 100 Sq. Ft. Modified $22.56 $22.56 $23.23 $23.93 User Fee MEP
MEP Issuance Each $24 $83 $47 $71 $83 User Fee
Electrical (Commercial) - Plan Check & Inspection
Electric Spa Each $109 $891 $217 $435 $891 User Fee
Electrical Service Upgrade Each $140 $765 $280 $490 $765 User Fee Branch Circuit Each Modified $765 $765 $788 $811 User Fee EV Charger Each Modified $1,084 $1,084 $1,116 $1,150 User Fee Big Bear Lake Master Fee Schedule

Page 3 of 9 ends

Fee Name Unit Current Fee Total Cost
Proposed
Fee (Yr1)
Proposed
Fee (Yr2)
Proposed
Fee (Yr3) Fee Type
Electrical (Residential)
Electric Spa Each $109 $96 $96 $99 $102 User Fee
Electrical Service Upgrade Each $140 $96 $96 $99 $102 User Fee Mechanical (Commercial)
Gas Test Each $110 $96 $96 $99 $102 User Fee
Mini Split Each $82 $446 $164 $327 $446 User Fee
Appliance Each Modified $446 $446 $459 $473 User Fee
Air Handling Each $82 $446 $164 $327 $446 User Fee
Hood Fan / Duct Each $82 $765 $164 $327 $765 User Fee
Mechanical (Residential)
Gas Test Each $110 $96 $96 $99 $102 User Fee
Whole House Fan Each New $96 $96 $99 $102 User Fee
Forced Air / Gravity Furnace Each Modified $96 $96 $99 $102 User Fee Appliance Flue / Vent Each $12 $96 $25 $49 $96 User Fee Ventilation Fan Each $12 $96 $25 $49 $96 User Fee
Air Handling Each $82 $96 $96 $99 $102 User Fee
Hood Fan / Duct Each $11 $96 $21 $43 $96 User Fee
Plumbing (Commercial)
Hot Water Heater Each $116 $446 $174 $261 $446 User Fee Tankless Water Heater Replacement / Install Each New $446 $446 $459 $473 User Fee Fixture or Trap Per Fixture Modified $892 $892 $919 $947 User Fee Waterheater / Ventilation Each Modified $446 $446 $459 $473 User Fee Gas Pipe Outlet Each Modified $446 $446 $459 $473 User Fee Backflow Each Modified $446 $446 $459 $473 User Fee
Plumbing (Residential)
Hot Water Heater Each $116 $96 $96 $99 $102 User Fee
Tankless Water Heater Replacement / Install Each New $96 $96 $99 $102 User Fee Fixture or Trap Per Fixture Modified $543 $543 $559 $576 User Fee Waterheater / Ventilation Each $113 $96 $96 $99 $102 User Fee Gas Pipe Outlet Each Modified $96 $96 $99 $102 User Fee Backflow Each Modified $96 $96 $99 $102 User Fee
Solar Permits
Residential:

Roof Mounted
System up to 15kW Base Modified $516 $450 $450 $450 User Fee Each Additional kW above 15kW Each Addl kW Modified $11.65 $15 $15 $15 User Fee Ground Mounted
System up to 15kW Base Modified $873 $450 $450 $450 User Fee Each Additional kW above 15kW Each Addl kW Modified $18.06 $15 $15 $15 User Fee Commercial:

Roof Mounted
Systems up to 50kW Base Modified $1,096 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 User Fee Per kW between 50kW and 250kW Each kW Modified $1.92 $7 $7 $7 User Fee Each Additional kW above 250kW Each Addl kW Modified $1.92 $5 $5 $5 User Fee Ground Mounted
Systems up to 50kW Base Modified $2,053 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 User Fee Per kW between 50kW and 250kW Each kW Modified $1.92 $7 $7 $7 User Fee Each Additional kW above 250kW Each Addl kW Modified $1.92 $5 $5 $5 User Fee Big Bear Lake Master Fee Schedule

Page 4 of 9 ends

Fee Name Unit Current Fee Total Cost
Proposed
Fee (Yr1)
Proposed
Fee (Yr2)
Proposed
Fee (Yr3) Fee Type
Battery / Energy Storage System:

Residential Each Modified $548 $548 $565 $582 User Fee
Commercial Each Modified $1,498 $1,498 $1,543 $1,590 User Fee EV Charging Station:

Residential Each Modified $452 $452 $466 $480 User Fee
Commercial Each Modified $2,148 $2,148 $2,212 $2,279 User Fee Flat Fees
Reroof Each $152 $529 $228 $342 $529 User Fee
Fire Sprinklers Each $336 $835 $504 $756 $912 User Fee
Window Replacement Each $87 $83 $83 $86 $88 User Fee
Accessory Dwelling Unit Each Modified $2,771 $2,771 $2,854 $2,939 User Fee Walls / Fences:

More than 6 Feet Tall Each Modified $1,152 $1,152 $1,186 $1,222 User Fee Swimming Pools & Spas:

Residential Each Modified $1,856 $1,856 $1,912 $1,969 User Fee Commercial Each Modified $2,175 $2,175 $2,240 $2,307 User Fee Bathroom / Kitchen Remodels (non-structural) Each Modified $881 $881 $908 $935 User Fee Demolition Each Modified $1,218 $1,218 $1,254 $1,292 User Fee Siding and/or Stucco Repair Each Modified $606 $606 $624 $643 User Fee Patio / Carport / Deck / Balcony Each Modified $1,178 $1,178 $1,214 $1,250 User Fee City Standard Deck Each Modified $886 $886 $913 $940 User Fee Fireplace Each Modified $345 $345 $355 $366 User Fee
Signs:

Pole or Freestanding Each Modified $1,052 $1,052 $1,083 $1,116 User Fee Wall Mounted Each Modified $733 $733 $755 $777 User Fee Monument Each Modified $1,371 $1,371 $1,412 $1,454 User Fee Misc Permits & Inspections
Requested Building Inspection Each $154 $662 $308 $462 $662 User Fee Occupancy Inspection Each $97 $567 $194 $388 $567 User Fee Surcharges
Technology Fee % of Bldg Permit Fee New 6% 6% 6% 6% Surcharge General Plan Maintenance % of Bldg Valuation New 0.24% 0.24% 0.24% 0.24% Surcharge Building Support to Fire
Fire Alarm System
Plan Check + Insp. Modification:
5 devices Each $155 $678 $271 $475 $678 User Fee
6 to 10 Devices Each $245 $997 $429 $750 $997 User Fee
>10 devices Each $336 $1,316 $588 $1,029 $1,316 User Fee Plan Check + Insp. New:

Greater than or equal to 20,000 sq. ft. Each $383 $1,316 $670 $1,173 $1,316 User Fee Less than 20,000 sq. ft. Each $336 $804 $504 $756 $879 User Fee Special Extingushing System
Plan Check + Insp. Modification:

Modification Each $199 $612 $299 $448 $669 User Fee
New System Each $292 $804 $438 $657 $879 User Fee
Spray Booth
Spray Booth Plan Ck. + Insp. Each $199 $1,123 $398 $796 $1,227 User Fee Big Bear Lake Master Fee Schedule

Page 5 of 9 ends

Fee Name Unit Current Fee Total Cost
Proposed
Fee (Yr1)
Proposed
Fee (Yr2)
Proposed
Fee (Yr3) Fee Type
Sprinkler System / Stand Pipe
Plan Check+ Insp.:

Residential
New System Each $336 $708 $420 $630 $774 User Fee
Modification <4 Each $155 $389 $194 $291 $425 User Fee
Modification 5-20 Each $199 $612 $249 $373 $669 User Fee Modification >20 Each Actual Cost $931 $931 $959 $988 User Fee Commercial
New System Each $383 $1,110 $479 $718 $1,213 User Fee
Modification <4 Each $155 $568 $194 $291 $621 User Fee
Modification 5-20 Each $199 $887 $249 $373 $970 User Fee Modification >20 Each Actual Cost $1,206 $1,206 $1,243 $1,280 User Fee Planning
Annexations
Uninhabited within the Sphere of Influence Each $2,172 Actual Cost Actual Cost Actual Cost Actual Cost User Fee Uninhabited outside the Sphere of Influence Each Actual Cost Actual Cost Actual Cost Actual Cost Actual Cost User Fee Inhabited Each Actual Cost Actual Cost Actual Cost Actual Cost Actual Cost User Fee Affordable Housing/Density Bonus
Negotiation and drafting Each Actual Cost Actual Cost Actual Cost Actual Cost Actual Cost User Fee Annual review Each Actual Cost Actual Cost Actual Cost Actual Cost Actual Cost User Fee Appeals
Of staff decision to Planning Commission Each $115 $3,665 $500 $750 $1,000 User Fee Of Planning Com. decision to City Council Each $115 $3,665 $500 $750 $1,000 User Fee Conditional Use Permit
Conditional Use Permit Each Modified $11,335 $4,000 $7,500 $11,335 User Fee Development Agreements
Negotiation and drafting Each Actual Cost Actual Cost Actual Cost Actual Cost Actual Cost User Fee Annual review Each Actual Cost Actual Cost Actual Cost Actual Cost Actual Cost User Fee Deferred Completion Agreements
Planning review Deposit $325 $1,926 $650 $1,300 $1,926 Deposit Environmental Review
Categorical exemption Each $45 Actual Cost Actual Cost Actual Cost Actual Cost User Fee Initial study:

Initial study Each $330 Actual Cost Actual Cost Actual Cost Actual Cost User Fee Filing Fee Each $14 Actual Cost Actual Cost Actual Cost Actual Cost User Fee State F&G administration fee Each $14 Actual Cost Actual Cost Actual Cost Actual Cost User Fee Preparation of EIR Each Actual Cost Actual Cost Actual Cost Actual Cost Actual Cost User Fee Subsequent use of an EIR Each $238 Actual Cost Actual Cost Actual Cost Actual Cost User Fee Mitigation monitoring Each Actual Cost Actual Cost Actual Cost Actual Cost Actual Cost User Fee General Plan Amendments
Text amendment Each $2,022 $10,448 $4,044 $8,088 $10,448 User Fee Map amendment:

First 5 Acres Base $2,186 $10,448 $4,372 $8,744 $10,448 User Fee Each Additional 5 Acres Each Addl 5 Acre $45 $246 $90 $180 $246 User Fee Home Occupation Permit
Home Occupation Permit Each $142 $235 $235 $242 $250 User Fee Big Bear Lake Master Fee Schedule

Page 6 of 9 ends

Fee Name Unit Current Fee Total Cost
Proposed
Fee (Yr1)
Proposed
Fee (Yr2)
Proposed
Fee (Yr3) Fee Type
Horse Drawn Carriage Permit
Initial review Each $346 $2,753 $2,753 $2,835 $2,920 User Fee Interpretations
Staff interpretation Each $115 $1,220 $345 $863 $1,220 User Fee Planning Commission interpretation Each $288 $1,220 $576 $864 $1,220 User Fee Inspections
Second & subsequent re-inspections:

First Hour Base $57 $174 $174 $179 $184 User Fee
Each Additional 1 1/2 Hours Each Addl 1 1/2 Hr $27 $87 $87 $90 $92 User Fee Modifications
Major modification (Approval by PC) Each $2,109 $11,115 $2,636 $5,273 $11,115 User Fee Major modification (Approval by staff) Each $991 $8,191 $1,982 $3,964 $8,191 User Fee Minor modification Each $679 $3,852 $1,358 $2,716 $3,852 User Fee Parking Permits
Ironwood Parking Permit (Resident) Each $25 $220 $50 $100 $220 User Fee Plot Plan Review
Plot Plan Review Each Modified $10,958 $3,500 $7,000 $10,958 User Fee Pre-Development Review
Pre-Development Review Each $115 $1,779 $345 $863 $1,779 User Fee Research Service
Research Service Each Actual Cost Actual Cost Actual Cost Actual Cost Actual Cost User Fee Right-Of-Way Vacation
Right-Of-Way Vacation Each $779 $7,306 $1,558 $3,116 $7,306 User Fee Special DRC Meeting
Special DRC Meeting Each $404 $1,936 $707 $1,237 $1,936 User Fee Sign Permits
Sign Permit Each $58 $318 $116 $232 $318 User Fee
Sign Program Each $139 $954 $278 $556 $954 User Fee
Banner:

Light Pole Each New $500 $500 $515 $531 User Fee
Overhead Sign Mounted Banners Each New $500 $500 $515 $531 User Fee Special Events
Special Events:

Minor
Non-Profit Each $0 $556 $25 $50 $100 User Fee
For Profit Local Each $150 $556 $188 $350 $500 User Fee For Profit Other Each $220 $556 $300 $400 $556 User Fee Major
Non-Profit Each $0 $9,651 $25 $100 $500 User Fee
For Profit Local Each $835 $9,651 $1,500 $2,500 $5,000 User Fee For Profit Other Each $1,229 $9,651 $2,500 $5,000 $9,500 User Fee Residential Yard Sale Each $0 $153 $50 $100 $153 User Fee Special Event Deposit % of Permit 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% Deposit Vendor Fee:

Non-Profit Per Vendor Per Event $5 $153 $10 $50 $75 User Fee For Profit Per Vendor Per Event $5 $153 $25 $75 $150 User Fee Big Bear Lake Master Fee Schedule

Page 7 of 9 ends

Fee Name Unit Current Fee Total Cost
Proposed
Fee (Yr1)
Proposed
Fee (Yr2)
Proposed
Fee (Yr3) Fee Type
Subdivisions
Tentative Parcel Map:

Tentative Parcel Map Each $2,056 $9,091 $4,112 $6,168 $9,091 User Fee Tentative Parcel Map (Condo):

Tentative Parcel Map (Condo) Each $1,129 $9,091 $2,258 $4,516 $9,091 User Fee Final Parcel Map (Engineering) Each $1,482 $3,739 $1,853 $2,779 $3,739 User Fee Tentative Tract Map (SFR):

First 5 Lots Base $2,925 $10,963 $5,850 $8,775 $10,963 User Fee Each Additional Lot Each Addl Lot $17 $141 $34 $68 $141 User Fee Tentative Tract Map (Condo):

Tentative Tract Map (Condo) Each $1,129 $11,183 $2,823 $7,056 $11,183 User Fee Final Tract Map (Engineering):

First 5 Lots Base $1,639 $3,026 $2,049 $2,561 $3,307 User Fee Each Additional Lot Each Addl Lot $51 $267 $102 $204 $291 User Fee SB 9:

Duplex Each New $954 $954 $983 $1,012 User Fee
Urban Lot Split Each New $1,908 $1,908 $1,966 $2,025 User Fee Time Extension
PC Approved Plan:

PC Approved Plan Each $2,109 $5,808 $3,164 $4,745 $5,808 User Fee Staff Approved Plan:

Staff Approved Plan Each $991 $5,808 $1,982 $3,964 $6,347 User Fee Temporary Use Permit
Temporary Structures or Uses:

Non-Profit Each $0 $979 $10 $50 $100 User Fee
For Profit Each $845 $979 $979 $1,009 $1,039 User Fee
Stockpiling:

Stockpiling Each $403 $979 $605 $907 $979 User Fee
Tree Removal Permit
Tree Removal Permit Each $28 $153 $56 $112 $167 User Fee Variances & Deviations
Minor Deviation:

Minor Deviation Each $697 $3,649 $1,394 $2,788 $3,649 User Fee Variance:

Variance Each $1,800 $8,624 $3,600 $7,200 $8,624 User Fee Vehicle For Hire
Vehicle For Hire Each $346 $2,753 $2,753 $2,835 $2,920 User Fee Zoning Amendment
Text Change:

Text Change Each $1,914 $9,644 $3,828 $7,656 $9,644 User Fee Map Change/Pre-Zone Each $2,123 $9,644 $4,246 $8,492 $9,644 User Fee Zoning Clearance
Zoning Clearance Each $65 $624 $163 $325 $681 User Fee
Surcharges
Technology Fee % of Fee New 6% 6% 6% 6% Surcharge
Big Bear Lake Master Fee Schedule

Page 8 of 9 ends

Fee Name Unit Current Fee Total Cost
Proposed
Fee (Yr1)
Proposed
Fee (Yr2)
Proposed
Fee (Yr3) Fee Type
Engineering
Agreements
Deferred improvement agreement Each $291 $2,265 $582 $1,164 $2,475 User Fee Certificate of Compliance
Certificate of Compliance Each $453 $2,265 $906 $1,812 $2,475 User Fee Encroachment Permits
Driveway / Curb / Sidewalk approach Each $137 $738 $274 $548 $807 User Fee Driveway / Curb / Sidewalk approach w/ongoing Construction Each $28 $738 $84 $252 $738 User Fee Utility Street Cut:

First 2,000 sq. ft. Base $53 $1,482 $159 $477 $1,482 User Fee Each Additional 500 sq. ft. Each Addl 500 sq. ft $45 $226 $90 $180 $226 User Fee Object Right-of-Way:

Less than 7 Day Each $53 $650 $133 $331 $650 User Fee
Between 7 and 30 Days Each $246 $992 $369 $554 $992 User Fee Over 30 Days Each $246 $1,334 $492 $984 $1,334 User Fee Traffic Control Plan (Temporay) Each New $539 $539 $556 $572 User Fee Street cut (lateral) Each $246 $655 $369 $461 $655 User Fee Inspections
Public Improvements:

Base Base $288 $1,003 $504 $756 $1,095 User Fee
Per Hour Per Hour New $195 $195 $201 $207 User Fee
Grading inspection Res. (Over 50 c.y.):

Base Base $181 $685 $272 $407 $749 User Fee
Per Hour Per Hour New $195 $195 $201 $207 User Fee
Lot Line Adjustment
Lot Line Adjustment Each $548 $3,032 $1,096 $2,192 $3,313 User Fee Lot Merger
Lot Merger Each $548 $2,130 $959 $1,439 $2,328 User Fee Research Service
Research Service Each Actual Cost Actual Cost Actual Cost Actual Cost Actual Cost User Fee Reversion to Acreage
Reversion to Acreage Each $2,673 $8,757 $4,010 $6,014 $8,757 User Fee Plan Checks
Grading plan - Res. (over 50 c.y.) Each $479 $826 $599 $748 $826 User Fee Grading plan - Comm./Ind:

Base Base $598 $2,992 $1,047 $1,831 $2,992 User Fee
Each Addl Hour Per Hour New $533 $533 $549 $566 User Fee Engineering Plan Check:

Base Base $900 $1,991 $1,125 $1,406 $1,991 User Fee
Each Addl Hour Per Hour New $533 $533 $549 $566 User Fee Snow Poles
Snow Poles Each $25 $25 $25 $26 $27 User Fee
Subdivisions
Final Parcel Map Each $1,482 $4,495 $2,223 $3,335 $4,495 User Fee Final Tract Map:

First 5 Lots Base $1,639 $4,622 $2,459 $3,688 $4,622 User Fee Each Additional Lot Each Addl Lot $51 $301 $102 $204 $301 User Fee Big Bear Lake Master Fee Schedule

Page 9 of 9 ends

Fee Name Unit Current Fee Total Cost
Proposed
Fee (Yr1)
Proposed
Fee (Yr2)
Proposed
Fee (Yr3) Fee Type
Sewer Fees
Sewer Inspections Per Inspection $35 $342 $88 $219 $342 User Fee Sewer Availability / Will Serve Letter Each New $418 $418 $431 $444 User Fee NPDES Fees
NPDES Category:

Industrial
High Per Inspection Per Facility $247 $425 $425 $438 $451 User Fee Medium Per Inspection Per Facility $198 $309 $309 $319 $328 User Fee Low Per Inspection Per Facility $99 $193 $193 $199 $205 User Fee Restaurants (Including 2nd inspection)
High Per Inspection Per Facility $82 $155 $155 $159 $164 User Fee Medium Per Inspection Per Facility $66 $116 $116 $120 $123 User Fee Low Per Inspection Per Facility $49 $77 $77 $80 $82 User Fee Commercial
High Per Inspection Per Facility $71 $116 $116 $120 $123 User Fee Medium (Municipal Sites) Per Inspection Per Facility $50 $103 $103 $106 $109 User Fee Low Per Inspection Per Facility $49 $77 $77 $80 $82 User Fee Other - Inactive / Residential / Non-Inspection Per Inspection $25 $39 $39 $40 $41 User Fee Post Construction Best Management Practices / WQMP Inspections Per Inspection $165 $271 $271 $279 $287 User Fee Surcharges
Technology Fee % of Permit Fee New 6% 6% 6% 6% Surcharge WQMP
Preliminary WQMP Each $2,834 $3,999 $3,999 $4,119 $4,243 User Fee Final WQMPs: User Fee
Basic Each $3,203 $4,533 $4,533 $4,669 $4,809 User Fee
Standard Each $4,189 $5,866 $5,866 $6,042 $6,223 User Fee Complex Each $7,145 $10,132 $10,132 $10,436 $10,749 User Fee WQMP Inspections Each $1,602 $2,630 $2,630 $2,709 $2,790 User Fee Single Family Residential - Base Each $1,058 $1,866 $1,866 $1,922 $1,980 User Fee Single Family Residential - Additional Hour Per Hour $191 $267 $267 $275 $283 User Fee Big Bear Lake Master Fee Schedule

Page 1 of 9 ends

Fee Name Unit Current Fee Total Cost
Proposed
Fee (Yr1)
Proposed
Fee (Yr2)
Proposed
Fee (Yr3)
Proposed
Fee (Yr4)
Proposed
Fee (Yr5) Fee Type
City Clerk
Printed Material Sale Each Actual Cost Actual Cost Actual Cost Actual Cost Actual Cost Actual Cost Actual Cost User Fee Research Service Each Actual Cost Actual Cost Actual Cost Actual Cost Actual Cost Actual Cost Actual Cost User Fee Photocopy Service:

First 4 Pages Per Page $0.25 $0.25 $0.25 $0.25 $0.25 $0.25 $0.25 GOV § 7922.530 Pages 5 To 50 Per Page $0.10 $0.10 $0.10 $0.10 $0.10 $0.10 $0.10 GOV § 7922.530 Pages 50 And Above Per Page $0.05 $0.05 $0.05 $0.05 $0.05 $0.05 $0.05 GOV § 7922.530 For Large Copies (I.E. Blueprints) Per Page $3 $3 $3 $3 $3 $3 $3 GOV § 7922.530 Armed Forces Banner Program
Armed Forces Banner Each $75 $433 $75 $75 $75 $75 $75 User Fee Performing Arts Center
Facility Rental Performance:

Schools Per 6 Hr Block $122 $2,870 $134 $168 $252 $377 $566 Rental Non-Profit Per 6 Hr Block $245 $2,870 $270 $337 $505 $758 $1,137 Rental For-Profit Per 6 Hr Block $428 $2,870 $471 $589 $883 $1,324 $1,986 Rental Facility Rental Dry Rehersal / Load-In / Load-Out:

Schools Per 5 Hr Block $31 $2,530 $34 $43 $64 $96 $144 Rental Non-Profit Per 5 Hr Block $48 $2,530 $53 $66 $99 $149 $223 Rental For-Profit Per 5 Hr Block $61 $2,530 $67 $84 $126 $189 $283 Rental Facility Rental Rehersal:

Schools Per 5 Hr Block $31 $2,151 $34 $43 $64 $96 $144 Rental Non-Profit Per 5 Hr Block $67 $2,151 $74 $92 $138 $207 $311 Rental For-Profit Per 5 Hr Block $79 $2,151 $87 $109 $163 $244 $367 Rental Other Room Rental Fees:

Shop Rental Per 6 Hr Block $12 $1,794 $13 $17 $25 $37 $56 Rental Sewing Room Rental Per 6 Hr Block $12 $1,794 $13 $17 $25 $37 $56 Rental Room Rentals
Hofert Hall Rental Per Hour $92 $753 $101 $127 $190 $285 $427 Rental Training Room Per Hour New $671 $67 $84 $126 $189 $283 Rental Chalet Building Per Hour New $668 $167 $209 $313 $469 $587 Rental General Fees
NSF Check Processing
First Check Each $25 $25 $25 $25 $25 $25 State Set
Subsequent Check Each $35 $35 $35 $35 $35 $35 State Set Business Licenses
New Business Located Within the City of Big Bear Lake:

Commercial/Brick and Mortar Businesses Each $231 $328 $254 $305 $358 $369 $380 User Fee Home Office Businesses (Home Occupation) Each $235 $135 $135 $139 $143 $148 $152 User Fee New Business Located Outside the City of Big Bear Lake:

Businesses Based in a Different City Each $74 $62 $62 $64 $66 $68 $70 User Fee Existing Businesses:

Annual Renewals (September 30th) – All Businesses Each $44 $31 $31 $32 $33 $34 $35 User Fee Late Fees:

Between Oct. 5th and 15th Each $10 $15 $20 $25 $30 $31 Penalty After Oct. 15th Each $25 $30 $35 $40 $45 $50 Penalty
Vacation Rental Program
Vacation Rental Program Per Year Per Property $550 $731 $605 $635 $667 $700 $735 User Fee Transfer of Vacation Rental Each New $72 $72 $74 $76 $79 $81 User Fee Home Sharing Each $100 $635 $150 $225 $338 $506 $635 User Fee Item 2.1
Attachment 3
Big Bear Lake Master Fee Schedule

Page 2 of 9 ends

Fee Name Unit Current Fee Total Cost
Proposed
Fee (Yr1)
Proposed
Fee (Yr2)
Proposed
Fee (Yr3)
Proposed
Fee (Yr4)
Proposed
Fee (Yr5) Fee Type
Film Permit
For Motion Pictures Each $173 $552 $216 $270 $338 $422 $552 User Fee For Still Shots Each $117 $342 $146 $183 $229 $286 $357 User Fee TOT Permit Program
Commercial Properties - TOT Permit Per Year Per Property New $408 $408 $421 $433 $446 $460 User Fee Building & Safety
Commercial / Industrial / MFR - New and TI (Plan Check & Inspection) - 50% due up front for Plan Check Construction Permit (Valuation)*:
$0 - $25,000 Base $69 $608.92 $608.92 $627.19 $646.01 $665.39 $685.35 User Fee Each Additional $1,000 or fraction thereof Each Addl $1,000 $14.00 $28.63 $28.63 $29.49 $30.38 $31.29 $32.23 User Fee $25,001 - $50,000 Base $392 $1,324.79 $1,324.79 $1,364.53 $1,405.47 $1,447.63 $1,491.06 User Fee Each Additional $1,000 or fraction thereof Each Addl $1,000 $10.10 $21.91 $21.91 $22.56 $23.24 $23.94 $24.66 User Fee $50,001 - $100,000 Base $644 $1,872.46 $1,872.46 $1,928.63 $1,986.49 $2,046.09 $2,107.47 User Fee Each Additional $1,000 or fraction thereof Each Addl $1,000 $7.00 $12.24 $12.24 $12.60 $12.98 $13.37 $13.77 User Fee $100,001 - $500,000 Base $994 $2,484.29 $2,484.29 $2,558.82 $2,635.58 $2,714.65 $2,796.09 User Fee Each Additional $1,000 or fraction thereof Each Addl $1,000 $5.60 $6.56 $6.56 $6.76 $6.96 $7.17 $7.38 User Fee $500,001 - $1,000,000 Base $3,234 $5,108.58 $5,108.58 $5,261.84 $5,419.69 $5,582.28 $5,749.75 User Fee Each Additional $1,000 or fraction thereof Each Addl $1,000 $4.75 $9.88 $9.88 $10.18 $10.48 $10.80 $11.12 User Fee $1,000,001 - $5,000,000 Base $5,609 $10,048.48 $10,048.48 $10,349.93 $10,660.43 $10,980.24 $11,309.65 User Fee Each Additional $1,000 or fraction thereof Each Addl $1,000 $3.65 $1.43 $1.43 $1.48 $1.52 $1.57 $1.61 User Fee $5,000,000 - $25,000,000 Base $20,209 $15,786.41 $15,786.41 $16,260.00 $16,747.80 $17,250.23 $17,767.74 User Fee Each Additional $1,000 or fraction thereof Each Addl $1,000 $3.65 $0.66 $0.66 $0.68 $0.70 $0.73 $0.75 User Fee $25,000,001+ Base $27,509 $29,069.76 $29,069.76 $29,941.86 $30,840.11 $31,765.32 $32,718.27 User Fee Each Additional $1,000 or fraction thereof Each Addl $1,000 $3.65 $0.33 $0.33 $0.34 $0.35 $0.36 $0.37 User Fee *Valuation is based on the most recent adopted ICC Cost of Construction table SFR - New and Additions / Remodels (Plan Check & Inspection) - 50% due up front for Plan Check Construction Permit (Square Footage):
0-250 sq. ft. Base Modified $685.80 $685.80 $706.38 $727.57 $749.40 $771.88 User Fee 251 - 500 sq. ft. Base Modified $685.80 $685.80 $706.38 $727.57 $749.40 $771.88 User Fee Each Additional 100 square feet or fraction thereof Each Addl 100 Sq. Ft. Modified $419.39 $419.39 $431.97 $444.93 $458.27 $472.02 User Fee 500 - 1,000 sq. ft. Base Modified $1,734.27 $1,734.27 $1,786.30 $1,839.88 $1,895.08 $1,951.93 User Fee Each Additional 100 square feet or fraction thereof Each Addl 100 Sq. Ft. Modified $113.56 $113.56 $116.97 $120.48 $124.09 $127.81 User Fee 1,001 to 1,500 sq. ft. Base Modified $2,302.07 $2,302.07 $2,371.14 $2,442.27 $2,515.54 $2,591.00 User Fee Each Additional 100 square feet or fraction thereof Each Addl 100 Sq. Ft. Modified $157.29 $157.29 $162.01 $166.87 $171.88 $177.03 User Fee 1,501 to 2,000 sq. ft. Base Modified $3,088.53 $3,088.53 $3,181.19 $3,276.63 $3,374.93 $3,476.17 User Fee Each Additional 100 square feet or fraction thereof Each Addl 100 Sq. Ft. Modified $166.77 $166.77 $171.78 $176.93 $182.24 $187.70 User Fee 2,001 to 3,500 sq. ft. Base Modified $3,922.40 $3,922.40 $4,040.07 $4,161.27 $4,286.11 $4,414.69 User Fee Each Additional 100 square feet or fraction thereof Each Addl 100 Sq. Ft. Modified $94.07 $94.07 $96.89 $99.80 $102.79 $105.87 User Fee 3,501 to 5,000 sq. ft. Base Modified $5,333.41 $5,333.41 $5,493.42 $5,658.22 $5,827.96 $6,002.80 User Fee Each Additional 100 square feet or fraction thereof Each Addl 100 Sq. Ft. Modified $45.11 $45.11 $46.47 $47.86 $49.30 $50.78 User Fee 5,000+ sq. ft. Base Modified $6,010.13 $6,010.13 $6,190.44 $6,376.15 $6,567.44 $6,764.46 User Fee Each Additional 100 square feet or fraction thereof Each Addl 100 Sq. Ft. Modified $22.56 $22.56 $23.23 $23.93 $24.65 $25.39 User Fee MEP
MEP Issuance Each $24 $83 $41 $51 $64 $80 $96 User Fee
Electrical (Commercial) - Plan Check & Inspection
Electric Spa Each $109 $891 $217 $435 $869 $895 $922 User Fee Electrical Service Upgrade Each $140 $765 $280 $490 $736 $758 $780 User Fee Branch Circuit Each Modified $765 $765 $788 $811 $836 $861 User Fee EV Charger Each Modified $1,084 $1,084 $1,116 $1,150 $1,184 $1,220 User Fee Big Bear Lake Master Fee Schedule

Page 3 of 9 ends

Fee Name Unit Current Fee Total Cost
Proposed
Fee (Yr1)
Proposed
Fee (Yr2)
Proposed
Fee (Yr3)
Proposed
Fee (Yr4)
Proposed
Fee (Yr5) Fee Type
Electrical (Residential)
Electric Spa Each $109 $96 $96 $99 $102 $105 $108 User Fee Electrical Service Upgrade Each $140 $96 $96 $99 $102 $105 $108 User Fee Mechanical (Commercial)
Gas Test Each $110 $96 $96 $99 $102 $105 $108 User Fee
Mini Split Each $82 $446 $123 $184 $276 $414 $517 User Fee Appliance Each Modified $446 $446 $459 $473 $487 $502 User Fee Air Handling Each $82 $446 $123 $184 $276 $414 $517 User Fee Hood Fan / Duct Each $82 $765 $123 $184 $276 $414 $887 User Fee Mechanical (Residential)
Gas Test Each $110 $96 $96 $99 $102 $105 $108 User Fee
Whole House Fan Each New $96 $96 $99 $102 $105 $108 User Fee Forced Air / Gravity Furnace Each Modified $96 $96 $99 $102 $105 $108 User Fee Appliance Flue / Vent Each $12 $96 $25 $49 $96 $99 $102 User Fee Ventilation Fan Each $12 $96 $25 $49 $96 $99 $102 User Fee Air Handling Each $82 $96 $96 $99 $102 $105 $108 User Fee Hood Fan / Duct Each $11 $96 $21 $43 $96 $99 $102 User Fee Plumbing (Commercial)
Hot Water Heater Each $116 $446 $174 $261 $391 $446 $517 User Fee Tankless Water Heater Replacement / Install Each New $446 $446 $459 $473 $487 $502 User Fee Fixture or Trap Per Fixture Modified $892 $892 $919 $947 $975 $1,004 User Fee Waterheater / Ventilation Each Modified $446 $446 $459 $473 $487 $502 User Fee Gas Pipe Outlet Each Modified $446 $446 $459 $473 $487 $502 User Fee Backflow Each Modified $446 $446 $459 $473 $487 $502 User Fee Plumbing (Residential)
Hot Water Heater Each $116 $96 $96 $99 $102 $105 $108 User Fee Tankless Water Heater Replacement / Install Each New $96 $96 $99 $102 $105 $108 User Fee Fixture or Trap Per Fixture Modified $543 $543 $559 $576 $593 $611 User Fee Waterheater / Ventilation Each $113 $96 $96 $99 $102 $105 $108 User Fee Gas Pipe Outlet Each Modified $96 $96 $99 $102 $105 $108 User Fee Backflow Each Modified $96 $96 $99 $102 $105 $108 User Fee Solar Permits
Residential:

Roof Mounted
System up to 15kW Base Modified $516 $450 $450 $450 $450 $450 User Fee Each Additional kW above 15kW Each Addl kW Modified $11.65 $15 $15 $15 $15 $15 User Fee Ground Mounted
System up to 15kW Base Modified $873 $450 $450 $450 $450 $450 User Fee Each Additional kW above 15kW Each Addl kW Modified $18.06 $15 $15 $15 $15 $15 User Fee Commercial:

Roof Mounted
Systems up to 50kW Base Modified $1,096 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 User Fee Per kW between 50kW and 250kW Each kW Modified $1.92 $7 $7 $7 $7 $7 User Fee Each Additional kW above 250kW Each Addl kW Modified $1.92 $5 $5 $5 $5 $5 User Fee Ground Mounted
Systems up to 50kW Base Modified $2,053 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 User Fee Per kW between 50kW and 250kW Each kW Modified $1.92 $7 $7 $7 $7 $7 User Fee Each Additional kW above 250kW Each Addl kW Modified $1.92 $5 $5 $5 $5 $5 User Fee Big Bear Lake Master Fee Schedule

Page 4 of 9 ends

Fee Name Unit Current Fee Total Cost
Proposed
Fee (Yr1)
Proposed
Fee (Yr2)
Proposed
Fee (Yr3)
Proposed
Fee (Yr4)
Proposed
Fee (Yr5) Fee Type
Battery / Energy Storage System:

Residential Each Modified $548 $548 $565 $582 $599 $617 User Fee Commercial Each Modified $1,498 $1,498 $1,543 $1,590 $1,637 $1,686 User Fee EV Charging Station:

Residential Each Modified $452 $452 $466 $480 $494 $509 User Fee Commercial Each Modified $2,148 $2,148 $2,212 $2,279 $2,347 $2,417 User Fee Flat Fees
Reroof Each $152 $529 $228 $342 $514 $595 $613 User Fee Fire Sprinklers Each $336 $835 $504 $756 $912 $939 $968 User Fee Window Replacement Each $87 $83 $83 $86 $88 $91 $93 User Fee Accessory Dwelling Unit Each Modified $2,771 $2,771 $2,854 $2,939 $3,028 $3,118 User Fee Walls / Fences:

More than 6 Feet Tall Each Modified $1,152 $1,152 $1,186 $1,222 $1,258 $1,296 User Fee Swimming Pools & Spas:

Residential Each Modified $1,856 $1,856 $1,912 $1,969 $2,028 $2,089 User Fee Commercial Each Modified $2,175 $2,175 $2,240 $2,307 $2,377 $2,448 User Fee Bathroom / Kitchen Remodels (non-structural) Each Modified $881 $881 $908 $935 $963 $992 User Fee Demolition Each Modified $1,218 $1,218 $1,254 $1,292 $1,331 $1,371 User Fee Siding and/or Stucco Repair Each Modified $606 $606 $624 $643 $662 $682 User Fee Patio / Carport / Deck / Balcony Each Modified $1,178 $1,178 $1,214 $1,250 $1,288 $1,326 User Fee City Standard Deck Each Modified $886 $886 $913 $940 $969 $998 User Fee Fireplace Each Modified $345 $345 $355 $366 $376 $388 User Fee Signs:

Pole or Freestanding Each Modified $1,052 $1,052 $1,083 $1,116 $1,149 $1,184 User Fee Wall Mounted Each Modified $733 $733 $755 $777 $801 $825 User Fee Monument Each Modified $1,371 $1,371 $1,412 $1,454 $1,498 $1,543 User Fee Misc Permits & Inspections
Requested Building Inspection Each $154 $662 $231 $347 $520 $662 $682 User Fee Occupancy Inspection Each $97 $567 $146 $218 $327 $491 $567 User Fee Surcharges
Technology Fee % of Bldg Permit Fee New 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% Surcharge General Plan Maintenance % of Bldg Valuation New 0.24% 0.24% 0.24% 0.24% 0.24% 0.24% Surcharge Building Support to Fire
Fire Alarm System
Plan Check + Insp. Modification:
5 devices Each $155 $678 $233 $349 $523 $763 $785 User Fee 6 to 10 Devices Each $245 $997 $368 $551 $827 $1,122 $1,155 User Fee >10 devices Each $336 $1,316 $504 $756 $1,134 $1,481 $1,525 User Fee Plan Check + Insp. New:

Greater than or equal to 20,000 sq. ft. Each $383 $1,316 $575 $862 $1,293 $1,481 $1,525 User Fee Less than 20,000 sq. ft. Each $336 $804 $504 $756 $879 $905 $932 User Fee Special Extingushing System
Plan Check + Insp. Modification:

Modification Each $199 $612 $299 $448 $669 $689 $709 User Fee New System Each $292 $804 $438 $657 $879 $905 $932 User Fee Spray Booth
Spray Booth Plan Ck. + Insp. Each $199 $1,123 $299 $448 $672 $1,007 $1,302 User Fee Big Bear Lake Master Fee Schedule

Page 5 of 9 ends

Fee Name Unit Current Fee Total Cost
Proposed
Fee (Yr1)
Proposed
Fee (Yr2)
Proposed
Fee (Yr3)
Proposed
Fee (Yr4)
Proposed
Fee (Yr5) Fee Type
Sprinkler System / Stand Pipe
Plan Check+ Insp.:

Residential
New System Each $336 $708 $370 $462 $578 $722 $821 User Fee Modification <4 Each $155 $389 $171 $213 $266 $333 $451 User Fee Modification 5-20 Each $199 $612 $249 $373 $560 $689 $709 User Fee Modification >20 Each Actual Cost $931 $931 $959 $988 $1,017 $1,048 User Fee Commercial
New System Each $383 $1,110 $479 $718 $1,077 $1,249 $1,287 User Fee Modification <4 Each $155 $568 $233 $349 $523 $640 $659 User Fee Modification 5-20 Each $199 $887 $299 $448 $672 $999 $1,029 User Fee Modification >20 Each Actual Cost $1,206 $1,206 $1,243 $1,280 $1,318 $1,358 User Fee Planning
Annexations
Uninhabited within the Sphere of Influence Each $2,172 Actual Cost Actual Cost Actual Cost Actual Cost Actual Cost Actual Cost User Fee Uninhabited outside the Sphere of Influence Each Actual Cost Actual Cost Actual Cost Actual Cost Actual Cost Actual Cost Actual Cost User Fee Inhabited Each Actual Cost Actual Cost Actual Cost Actual Cost Actual Cost Actual Cost Actual Cost User Fee Affordable Housing/Density Bonus
Negotiation and drafting Each Actual Cost Actual Cost Actual Cost Actual Cost Actual Cost Actual Cost Actual Cost User Fee Annual review Each Actual Cost Actual Cost Actual Cost Actual Cost Actual Cost Actual Cost Actual Cost User Fee Appeals
Of staff decision to Planning Commission Each $115 $3,665 $500 $500 $500 $750 $1,000 User Fee Of Planning Com. decision to City Council Each $115 $3,665 $500 $500 $500 $750 $1,000 User Fee Conditional Use Permit
Conditional Use Permit Each Modified $11,335 $2,500 $4,000 $5,500 $7,500 $11,335 User Fee Development Agreements
Negotiation and drafting Each Actual Cost Actual Cost Actual Cost Actual Cost Actual Cost Actual Cost Actual Cost User Fee Annual review Each Actual Cost Actual Cost Actual Cost Actual Cost Actual Cost Actual Cost Actual Cost User Fee Deferred Completion Agreements
Planning review Deposit $325 $1,926 $488 $731 $1,097 $1,645 $2,233 Deposit Environmental Review
Categorical exemption Each $45 Actual Cost Actual Cost Actual Cost Actual Cost Actual Cost Actual Cost User Fee Initial study:

Initial study Each $330 Actual Cost Actual Cost Actual Cost Actual Cost Actual Cost Actual Cost User Fee Filing Fee Each $14 Actual Cost Actual Cost Actual Cost Actual Cost Actual Cost Actual Cost User Fee State F&G administration fee Each $14 Actual Cost Actual Cost Actual Cost Actual Cost Actual Cost Actual Cost User Fee Preparation of EIR Each Actual Cost Actual Cost Actual Cost Actual Cost Actual Cost Actual Cost Actual Cost User Fee Subsequent use of an EIR Each $238 Actual Cost Actual Cost Actual Cost Actual Cost Actual Cost Actual Cost User Fee Mitigation monitoring Each Actual Cost Actual Cost Actual Cost Actual Cost Actual Cost Actual Cost Actual Cost User Fee General Plan Amendments
Text amendment Each $2,022 $10,448 $4,044 $8,088 $10,448 $11,759 $12,112 User Fee Map amendment:

First 5 Acres Base $2,186 $10,448 $4,372 $8,744 $10,448 $11,759 $12,112 User Fee Each Additional 5 Acres Each Addl 5 Acre $45 $246 $90 $180 $246 $277 $285 User Fee Home Occupation Permit
Home Occupation Permit Each $142 $235 $235 $242 $250 $257 $265 User Fee Big Bear Lake Master Fee Schedule

Page 6 of 9 ends

Big Bear Lake City CouncilAugust 13, 2025

Big Bear Lake City Council
August 13, 2025