Agenda packet — Redlands City Council, December 5, 2023 (part 2 of 5)

Comment Group-8:

Open-Ended Question Results (pg. 31)
▪ STUDY: “The structure fills up during the holidays, but Redlands has other options; people can go to Citrus Plaza”
o CHAMBER: Is this seriously something that could be considered as an option? Condemning an entire shopping district to fend for themselves, is a hard pill to swallow for business owners that will inevitably deal with increased rents after the completion of the new developments across the street.
▪ STUDY: “Community Priorities”
o “Ultimately, decisions about parking issues must be made in the context of community priorities and preference regarding resource allocation and the associated opportunity costs of public spending.”
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
303 of 966

MEMORANDUM - DT REDLANDS PARKING STUDY

RESPONSE TO CHAMBER OF COMMERCE COMMENTS
PROJECT #37-009592.00

| 8
▪ CHAMBER: Parking in the scheme of things may not be seen as important to talk about, but it’s an issue that needs to be addressed over and over again. Also, this was not the point of this study.

Response to Comment Group-8:
• The comment about shoppers going to Citrus Plaza was made by a survey respondent and documented in the report for transparency and completeness, rather than as a recommendation. The report recognizes the importance of Downtown Redlands to the community and recommends that the City take multiple actions—investing both time and resources—to improve parking availability and access specifically for the benefit of the downtown area.

Comment Group-9:

Business Outreach Summary (pg. 45)
▪ STUDY: “Approximately 20 people attended each meeting.” o CHAMBER: We know this to be an inaccurate representation of these meetings. At least 45 people were at the meeting on the morning of November 9th, 2022. ▪ STUDY: Parking-Related Concerns
o “One participant mentioned that Downtown Redlands did not regulate or have dedicated space for delivery vehicles, and as a result, they often took up multiple parking spaces during business hours (also creating noise and pollution).
o “Several owners mentioned that events that block off parking spaces and restrict vehicle access hurt their businesses.”
o “Difficulty finding parking prevents potential customers from going Downtown on their lunch break when they only have an hour.”
o “Having to park and walk a long distance is especially unpleasant in the summer heat.” o “Many participants expressed concern that the new development would reduce the supply of parking currently used by Downtown visitors and employees, while also creating new parking demand.
o “Safety concerns often caused employees and business owners to park as near their workplace as possible, and some of their customers felt unsafe as well.” ▪ STUDY: Places that Manage Parking Well
o “City look into Santa Monica and Pasadena as examples of communities that manage their parking well. Both cities keep an attractive and walkable downtown by having few off-street parking lots, providing parking structures, and using pricing to manage on-street parking. Old Pasadena has a ‘parking benefit district’ in which parking meter revenues are returned to downtown businesses, who chose to the revenue to fund security patrols, cleanliness, street beautification, and additional parking projects in the downtown area.” Response to Comment Group-9:
• Redlands city staff requested that all attendees sign in and document their attendance using the sign-in sheet at the entrance to the meetings. According to the sign-in sheets, there were 21 attendees recorded at the morning session and 9 attendees at the evening session, not including Redlands staff members or the Walker team. The number of attendees who completed the sign-in sheet matches Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
304 of 966

MEMORANDUM - DT REDLANDS PARKING STUDY

RESPONSE TO CHAMBER OF COMMERCE COMMENTS
PROJECT #37-009592.00

| 9
relatively closely with the estimates provided in the report, but it is also possible that one or more attendees did not complete the sign-in sheet.

Comment Group-10:
2017 Initial Downtown Parking Study (pg. 47)
▪ STUDY: “The initial study...between 12 p.m. and 2 p.m. ... and between 6 p.m. and 9 p.m. on Thursday Market Nights.”
▪ STUDY: Figure 32: Parking Improvements Plan from the 2017 Initial Downtown Parking Study o CHAMBER: The study area from 2023 is much smaller than the 2017 study area.

Response to Comment Group-10:
• This observation is correct, and the fact that the 2017 study covered a larger area was also noted in the report. The area covered in 2017 corresponded to the boundaries of the area of the Downtown Specific Plan (later repealed and replaced by the new Transit Villages Specific Plan). The 2017 study provided valuable insight into which areas were likely to experience the greatest parking challenges, so the 2023 study was able to prioritize and focus on a core area for making further observations and developing parking strategies and solutions.

Comment Group-11:

Transit Villages Specific Plan (pg. 51)
The following conclusions are important to note.
▪ STUDY: “Preserve convenient street parking”
▪ STUDY: “Manage existing parking recourses”
▪ STUDY: “Establishing a Downtown Transportation Improvement District” ▪ STUDY: “Increasing the amount of downtown parking available to the public” ▪ STUDY: “Unbundling parking so that spaces are sold or leased separately from residential units, allowing residents without cars to avoid paying for parking they don’t use and freeing up spaces for those who need it.”
o CHAMBER: How has this worked in other locales?
▪ STUDY: “Stuart Avenue Parking Garage, Redlands Mall Garage, Ed Hales Parking Garage, Seventh Street Garage.”
o CHAMBER: These are all decent ideas, but we need more details on these potential garages. Why not include the city hall location in this list?
Responses to Comment Group-11:
• Research on the results of unbundling the cost of parking is still in the early stages, although unbundling policies are quickly becoming more popular due to the strong economic, environmental, and equity arguments that support them. As noted in the report, one of the few studies on unbundling revealed that even after controlling for socioeconomic and built environment characteristics, the presence of bundled parking was associated with a 27 percent increase in vehicle miles traveled.1 It is reasonable to infer that less driving correlates with fewer parked vehicles and greater availability of existing parking supply. Another relevant study did not specifically concern unbundled parking, but residential parking

1 Pinski and Manville. 2018. “Parking behaviour: Bundled parking and travel behavior in American cities.” Land Use Policy, Volume 91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.02.012 Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
305 of 966

MEMORANDUM - DT REDLANDS PARKING STUDY

RESPONSE TO CHAMBER OF COMMERCE COMMENTS
PROJECT #37-009592.00

| 10
availability more generally. Researchers often question whether walkable neighborhoods with limited parking (where a parking space is more likely to be a separate lease) cause people to drive less, or merely attract people already interested in driving less. A recent study used San Francisco’s lottery for below-market-rate housing units as a “natural experiment” through which to examine this question.

Only two percent of lottery participants were offered an affordable housing unit, and participants tended to accept whatever housing units they were offered. The below-market-rate units assigned via lottery varied in their walkability, bike-ability, access to transit, and parking availability. Researchers asked lottery winners about their travel behavior and found that parking access was three times more influential a variable on transit use than living in a neighborhood with good transit access.2 Parking availability was not found to affect employment rates or job mobility. People may or may not have had a vehicle before winning the housing lottery, but the parking availability at their new unit was clearly associated with their subsequent car ownership.
• This list of possible garage locations was referenced only as part of the summary of the Transit Villages Specific Plan, which was developed at an earlier time. (For example, the Stuart Avenue Parking Garage from the list of possible locations has already been constructed.) If the City were to invest in another garage, Walker identified City Hall as the most feasible location, based on City Hall relocation information that may not have been available or confirmed when the Transit Villages Specific Plan was developed.

Comment Group-12:

AB 2097 (pg. 54)
STUDY: Case Studies of Parking Management Best Practices (pg. 57) • “1. Santa Monica, CA”
• “2. Pasadena, CA”
• “3. Cambridge, MA”
• “4. San Clemente, CA” (?)
o CHAMBER: The study says there are three case studies, but then talks about four cities. Is San Clemente, CA one of the four case studies?
• Santa Monica, CA
o STUDY: “Ultimately, Santa Monica’s demand management was so effective that the City found it had built more parking than necessary and approved the demolition of a public parking garage.” ▪ CHAMBER: This is a good goal, but we have nowhere near the abundance of public parking garages Santa Monica has.
o STUDY: “Where there are specific events, the City charges higher rates for structure parking, and charges per entry rather than hourly. The Special Event Rate is $30 during a weekday event and $35 during a weekend event. These rates are higher than the typical daily maximums of $20 during the weekday and $25 during the weekend.”
o STUDY: “Downtown residents who live in buildings without on-site parking are eligible to purchase monthly parking permits. Downtown employers are eligible to purchase monthly, a semi-annual, or annual permits for their employees to park in certain public facilities.”

2 Millard-Ball, A., West, J., Rezaei, N., & Desai, G. 2021. What Do Residential Lotteries Show Us About Transportation Choices? Urban Studies.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
306 of 966

MEMORANDUM - DT REDLANDS PARKING STUDY

RESPONSE TO CHAMBER OF COMMERCE COMMENTS
PROJECT #37-009592.00

| 11
o STUDY: “Daily parking is preferable to monthly parking, as studies have shown car use is almost doubled where employees can pay monthly instead of daily.” ▪ CHAMBER: We request more information on how this could be implemented and tested in our area, specifically.
o STUDY: “For residential developments, when the cost of parking is separate from the cost of housing, households are more likely to choose to reduce their vehicle ownership.” ▪ CHAMBER: We don’t know the rents/mortgages for the people living in the new developments, so how can we know if people will give up vehicles? Household income can be tied to the number of vehicles per unit.
o STUDY: “Santa Monica has clear signage displaying the location of public parking facilities, as well as the number of spaces available in parking structures. It also uses sensor technology to continually update a web page showing the location of off-street parking facilities and how full they are.”
• Cambridge, MA
o STUDY: “The mid-sized city of Cambridge, Massachusetts stands out for the way it links parking with transportation demand management.”
▪ CHAMBER: Besides being a former client of Walker Consultants, why was Cambridge included as a case study? Is there no other city on the West Coast that could be similar? Perhaps Riverside, CA.
o STUDY: “The city favors TDM because it is less expensive than expanding roads and parking facilities, it improves environmental quality and livability, it can be put in place quickly and tailored to particular groups, it promotes social equity, it encourages efficient land use, and it corrects marking distortions by revealing the true cost of people’s travel options. Cambridge also recently eliminated minimum parking requirements throughout the City, and like Pasadena, has parking maximums in some areas.”
▪ CHAMBER: This seems to be referencing AB 2097. It is confusing though, is it being suggested to have minimums or maximums?
o STUDY: “Parking rates vary, with higher charges in areas or during hours with higher demand. In addition to managing street parking, Cambridge has two public parking structures and nine off- street facilities. Rate variation examples include:
▪ Public parking facility rates range from 50 cents to $3 per hour ▪ Some public lots have higher rates from 8am-6pm and offer lower rates from 6pm- 10pm; other facilities do not charge at all in the evenings ▪ Reduced monthly fees for resident permit parking in garages varies by month ($100 per month May through November, $50 per month December through April)” o CHAMBER: These are all great ideas.
• San Clemente, CA
o STUDY: “To understand parking dynamics in the downtown, San Clemente hired Walker Parking Consultants in 2002 to develop a parking study and survey that analyzed parking supply and demand.”
▪ CHAMBER: Has anything changed in 21 years?
o STUDY: “62 percent of the residents reported that they would bike more if there were more bicycle lanes and trails, and 37 percent of residents noted that they would bike more if there were more bike parking at work, school, or other destinations.” Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
307 of 966

MEMORANDUM - DT REDLANDS PARKING STUDY

RESPONSE TO CHAMBER OF COMMERCE COMMENTS
PROJECT #37-009592.00

| 12
▪ CHAMBER: Were they asked if they currently own bikes?

Responses to Comment Group-12:
• The scope of this project included three case studies; however, as the potential recommendations most relevant to Redlands began to emerge, San Clemente was added in as a bonus to provide additional context for how shared parking can work. Although this case study was less comprehensive than the others, the final document can be updated to reference the inclusion of four, rather than three, case studies.
• The fact that Santa Monica demolished a parking structure was included not as a “goal” but more as a warning about how resources could potentially be used inefficiently when new parking structures are built before other desirable options, including TDM strategies, are tested. Although it was not noted in the report, the City of Pasadena is also transforming one of its parking structures into a residential building. Although Santa Monica has more public parking than Redlands, it also attracts more tourism— up to eight million visitors per year. A comparison of the number of parking spaces per visitor would be an interesting exercise, but would require drawing boundaries and significant analysis that is beyond the scope of this study.
• The Chamber requests additional information on how daily, rather than monthly, employee parking rates might be implemented in Redlands. The report recommends developing an employee parking plan, with designated areas for employee parking, but it does not necessarily suggest employee parking should be paid. If future conditions eventually reveal a need for paid parking options, as was the case in Santa Monica, daily parking may be preferable to monthly, but implementation details should be developed in collaboration with business community stakeholders, potentially through a downtown parking benefit district.
• It is true that household income is an important factor affecting household vehicle ownership levels.

However, the price of vehicle ownership—including the monthly cost of parking—is another factor.

Many factors affect vehicle ownership levels, but all else equal, economic logic suggests that free, bundled parking will result in higher vehicle ownership levels than parking paid for separately. Refer to the response to Comment Group-11 for additional research findings related to parking supply and vehicle ownership.
• Cambridge, MA was initially chosen for its best practice of having development standards that link parking supply to TDM requirements. (Walker staff on this project was not involved with the referenced Parking and TDM policy development in the City of Cambridge but learned of the policy from various outside research sources.) Similar policy options related to development standards—including implementing parking maximums in some areas—were initially considered as possibilities for Redlands, but after discussion with City staff members, they were not included among the report’s recommendations. This report primarily focuses on parking management solutions with minimal focus on planning and development review. The case studies showcase a wide range of parking practices, from which specific strategies most relevant or feasible for Redlands were selected and further developed. Cambridge’s citywide elimination of parking minimums was not related to AB 2097, as AB 2097 is a recent state law that applies only to “high quality transit areas” in California. • Walker notes the Chamber’s support of providing a variety of paid and unpaid parking options based on hourly and monthly demand.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
308 of 966

MEMORANDUM - DT REDLANDS PARKING STUDY

RESPONSE TO CHAMBER OF COMMERCE COMMENTS
PROJECT #37-009592.00

| 13
• As noted in response to questions from the Traffic and Parking Commission, follow-up research and recent comments from San Clemente staff members revealed that San Clemente’s shared parking strategy continues to be successful. This update will be added to the report. • The community survey conducted for the Sustainable Mobility Plan did not directly ask about bicycle ownership but did ask residents to choose their top three barriers to biking. One of the options was “Lack of equipment (bicycle, helmet, etc.)” and it was selected by 1% of respondents, making it the least common response.

Comment Group-13:

Community Input: National Community Survey Findings (pg. 68) • STUDY: “Ease of travel by car in Redlands was rated as more satisfactory than ease of travel by walking, biking or public transportation.”
o CHAMBER: If this is the case, why would we want to make it harder for people to park their cars? • STUDY: “In terms of resource allocation, Downtown parking was the least likely to be seen as a major priority for the City. It was the second least likely to be seen as the top priority, selected by only five percent of respondents. In general, people would prefer resources be allocated to issues of Homelessness, Public Safety, Sustainability and Climate Change, and Quality of Life, rather than Downtown parking.”
o CHAMBER: We’re trying to solve the specific problem of parking, not these other issues that are clearly more important than parking.

Responses to Comment Group-13:
• The majority of the report’s recommendations, including increasing the supply of publicly available parking and managing prime parking locations to ensure availability, were developed to make it easier for people to park. The finding was cited to highlight that travelers who need or want to use other modes also face challenges, which may be even greater than those faced by drivers. • Although resident priorities for citywide resource allocation were not the theme of this study, they do provide important context from which to consider potential downtown parking solutions. The report focuses on parking issues and solutions while also considering community values, fiscal responsibility, and efficiency.

Comment Group-14:

Support for Creating On-Street Parking Availability
• STUDY: “Maintaining on-street parking availability means that one or two spaces should be open on every block so that customers – including those who may have limited physical mobility, be in a hurry, or need to transport bulky items to and from their vehicles – can easily find convenient parking near their destination. Community outreach revealed that this goal is important to people and that Downtown Redlands has room for improvement.”
o CHAMBER: This is not the case for Redlands as of right now. In fact, we’re nowhere near it. • STUDY: “When asked an open-ended question about thoughts or concerns related to parking in Downtown Redlands, many people expressed difficulties due to a lack of available parking, such as arriving late to appointments or even going to another destination instead of Downtown.” o CHAMBER: Previously a graph stated only 5% cared about parking. However, in this section, it’s being referenced in solving the problem.
• STUDY: “The NCS revealed room for improvement in parking availability.” Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
309 of 966

MEMORANDUM - DT REDLANDS PARKING STUDY

RESPONSE TO CHAMBER OF COMMERCE COMMENTS
PROJECT #37-009592.00

| 14
• STUDY: “Fifty-six percent of respondents thought it reasonable to expect to find parking within 1-2 blocks of their destination, which currently is not always possible in Downtown Redlands.” • STUDY: “Many business owners expressed their concern that the lack of convenient available parking drives potential customers away. This was identified as a particular concern for retail store owners, whose customers are less likely to be meeting others or have a pre-established appointment and may have more flexibility in their plans.”
• STUDY: “ ‘Park-Once’ environments are places that encourage people to walk from one destination to another, rather than returning to their vehicles and driving between nearby destinations.” • STUDY: “These responses suggest that a sizable share of people do not mind walking and might even be willing to walk from Stuart Avenue Parking Garage to State Street if the walk felt pleasant and safe and was clearly marked with signage and wayfinding.”
o CHAMBER: It is frankly unreasonable to think that the Stuart Street structure will have any availability, let alone be a viable option even for those that would walk. It’s connected to an office building with a restaurant that hasn’t opened yet. It’s across from a hotel that hasn’t been built yet. 200 spaces are reserved for transit riders. There are multiple business across the street that will also use that structure.
▪ What about residents that live South, and in the hills? They need a place to ditch their car as well, if they are wanting to come Downtown.
• STUDY: “One necessary element of a ‘park-once’ environment is the ability to park on the outskirts of a core area for an extended period without time limits. Multiple employees expressed the desire for more parking options without time limits. One person suggested that a downtown trolley or electric scooter share could be part of the solution if long-term parking was located further away.” o CHAMBER: Where would this happen?
• STUDY: “Comments included that having to park and walk a long distance can be unpleasant in the summer heat, and that many customers and employees currently do not feel safe walking downtown or entering a parking structure at night.
• STUDY: “Almost half of survey respondents indicated that they usually try to go places with parking reasonably close to their destination.”
• STUDY: “Only 5 percent of survey respondents identified downtown parking as the top priority for Redlands, but 32 percent did consider downtown parking a ‘major priority’ worthy of additional City resources.”
o CHAMBER: The survey includes the comparison of the importance of parking to issues like homelessness, climate change, and crime. The point of this study was to help us fix the parking issue. In the report, the open-ended responses mentioned overwhelming issues about parking, yet those responses weren’t given the same credence as the multiple-choice and charted answers. In fact, responses to open-ended questions were not quantified and reviewed in the same fashion as data related to multiple choice questions. • STUDY: “Business owners expressed similar concerns about the parking needs of their employees. They also highlighted the importance of continuing to provide customers with sufficient parking options after the redevelopment of the large parking lot at the Redlands Mall site, which has long served as a significant parking resource for the downtown area.”
• STUDY: “While supporting solo driving may not be the top priority of the case studies, all of them do provide sufficient accommodation for vehicles and a large array of demand-based parking options that can meet the needs of various types of downtown visitors.” Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
310 of 966

MEMORANDUM - DT REDLANDS PARKING STUDY

RESPONSE TO CHAMBER OF COMMERCE COMMENTS
PROJECT #37-009592.00

| 15
• STUDY: “Given that the downtown area is already built out, ensuring that parking spaces be conveniently accessible within one or two blocks of every downtown destination is something that can only be achieved through parking management.”
• STUDY: “Santa Monica and Pasadena were mentioned by members of the business community as places with aspirational parking management.”
o CHAMBER: How many parking structures does each referenced city have? This number would be valuable to understand, especially compared to the number of businesses and residents in each city.

Responses to Comment Group-14:
• Walker acknowledges that Redlands currently lacks convenient on-street parking availability downtown. • Even if only 5 percent of Redlands residents want downtown parking to be the top priority for resource allocation, this is still a significant number of people, suggesting downtown parking solutions still deserve at least some staff time and citywide resources, but solutions that are appropriate to the scale and importance of the problem should be prioritized. Intercept outreach responses provide insight into people’s experiences and specific challenges; NCS results provide insight into residents’ priorities. • With regard to the Stuart Street structure, availability will depend on the specific uses. Some uses may be complementary; for example, office workers may park in the structure during the day, while restaurant visitors may park there in the evening. If this plan’s recommendations are implemented, residents who live in the South and want to visit downtown will have various parking options, including paid on-street parking in prime locations, free on-street parking at the periphery, and publicly available off-street parking. The study’s heat map showing Thursday peak parking utilization reveals multiple potential opportunities for shared parking agreements (see Table 1 and Figure 1).

Table 1: Possible Shared Use Opportunities on the South Side of Downtown Study Area Parking Area Inventory
City Hall Underground Employee Parking (P) 168
United Methodist (S) 38
Citizen’s Bank (X) 99
Misc. Lots (Y) 62
Bear Valley Water (GG) 17
First Congregational (HH) 69
Theron’s (II) 20
First Presbyterian (JJ) 33

Source: Walker Consultants, 2023.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
311 of 966

MEMORANDUM - DT REDLANDS PARKING STUDY

RESPONSE TO CHAMBER OF COMMERCE COMMENTS
PROJECT #37-009592.00

| 16
Figure 1: Thursday Peak Parking Utilization, 1 p.m.

Source: Walker Consultants, 2023.

• With regard to providing long-term parking areas, initially, all parking facilities outside of the area designated for the paid parking pilot would be available to long-term parkers. If parking demand eventually resulted in an expanded paid parking area, locations where low utilization was observed would remain free for long-term parking. The parking strategy should be flexible and responsive to both observed parking demand, so, while it is possible to provide a clear framework for decision making, the precise implementation locations should be adaptable. The City should follow a consistent strategy of pursuing shared use agreements for facilities located near areas with high parking demand. • The open-ended responses from residents, visitors, and employees provide additional insight and confirm the parking issues inferred from quantitative data. Responses that are completely open-ended cannot be visualized in the same manner as multiple-choice responses, but the parking issues highlighted in the open-ended responses were all taken into consideration and are thoroughly addressed by the recommendations.
• The number of public parking spaces in each case study city’s downtown in comparison to the number of businesses, residents, and visitors would be an interesting analysis but is beyond the scope and budget of this study. However, it is important to note that public parking structures in Santa Monica and Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
312 of 966

MEMORANDUM - DT REDLANDS PARKING STUDY

RESPONSE TO CHAMBER OF COMMERCE COMMENTS
PROJECT #37-009592.00

| 17
Pasadena were generally constructed with significant assistance from each City’s Redevelopment Agency (RDA) at the time. RDA’s were abolished in the State of California as of February 1, 2012. which are no longer available. The construction of these parking structures also predates the cities’ recent climate action plans, which include strategies related to parking policies and facilities/sustainable mobility and land use as essential to achieving GHG reduction goals, as is the case in Redlands (see Figure 2).

Figure 2: Transportation-related Greenhouse Gas Reduction Estimates

Source: Climate Action Plan, page 3-16, 2017.

Comment Group-15:

CHAMBER Final Remarks
We need to realize the importance of this study and its consequences. The City, the Consultants, and the Chamber risk losing the trust of the community by proceeding with a presentation, if the study has not been adequately prepared. Merchants, employees, and residents don’t have time or the capacity to keep up with what is going on. Tens of thousands of residents still don’t even know what the plans are for the Mall, or that Market Mornings is on Saturday, as opposed to Thursday nights. For at least 60 years, parking has been an issue in Redlands and we cannot risk another decade or two to pass on by before serious action is taken.

What is going to be diﬀerent than the last times the City has contracted out studies and reports? We further hope that the City Council is not simply presented with the action of “Receive and File” when the Walker study report is ﬁnalized.

The clock is ticking before construction starts on 3 major developments all within one block of each other. The Chamber, which represented 500 members, should be updated on a need-to-know basis, and please note that we are eager and willing to contribute solutions and be part of the conversation with a seat at the table.

Response to Comment Group-15:

The parking study includes not only observations and recommendations, but also action steps and implementation details. It is up to the City Council to direct staff to carry out the recommended action steps and allocate budget as necessary, taking into consideration the recommendations and priorities of the Traffic and Parking Commission and other stakeholders, including the Chamber of Commerce. Redlands is fortunate to have an organization so invested in the community’s economic vitality, and we hope the Chamber of Commerce remain an active stakeholder, providing specific insight into downtown parking challenges and potential solutions. Walker recommends that the City establish a Downtown Parking Benefit District (with active Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
313 of 966

MEMORANDUM - DT REDLANDS PARKING STUDY

RESPONSE TO CHAMBER OF COMMERCE COMMENTS
PROJECT #37-009592.00

| 18
representation from the Chamber of Commerce) and we hope that the Chamber encourages any of its members with underutilized parking facilities to consider entering shared use parking agreements with the City.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
314 of 966

MEMORANDUM - DT REDLANDS PARKING STUDY

RESPONSE TO CHAMBER OF COMMERCE COMMENTS
PROJECT #37-009592.00

| 19
Appendix A: Events in and near Downtown Redlands

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
315 of 966

MEMORANDUM - DT REDLANDS PARKING STUDY

RESPONSE TO CHAMBER OF COMMERCE COMMENTS
PROJECT #37-009592.00

| 20

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
316 of 966

MEMORANDUM - DT REDLANDS PARKING STUDY

RESPONSE TO CHAMBER OF COMMERCE COMMENTS
PROJECT #37-009592.00

| 21

Events Analysis

From the list of 105 events in or near the Downtown study area, the following should be noted:
• 35 events are Downtown Morning Markets (Saturday, 8 am - 11:30 am) • 22 events are Concerts and Musicals at the Redlands Bowl (Evenings, 8:00 pm) • 14 events are on Sundays
When events are held regularly, such as market mornings or evening concerts, it is easier to develop shared parking agreements, management programs, or shuttles tailored to the needs of the event. When events are held outside the days and hours of peak demand (such as on Sundays, or at 8:00 pm), it is easier to find underutilized parking resources that could potentially help meet the need for event parking.

Ultimately, event parking management is outside the scope of this study, but parking benefit district members, community stakeholders, and event coordinators can collaborate to develop appropriate and effective strategies that provide options for eventgoers without compromising the economic success of downtown businesses.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
317 of 966
National Community Survey 2022, Abbreviated Results –
Summary of results for parking related questions and responses and top priorities questions and responses

The results of the 2022 National Community Survey results identified the ease of public parking in Downtown Redlands was more likely to be rated as excellent or good than public parking in the City of Redlands as a whole. Only 17 percent of the respondents rated the ease of finding public parking in Downtown Redlands as poor, compared with 24 percent for the ease of finding parking in the entire city.

Figure 1

A similar question asked respondents to rate the convenience/location of parking in Downtown Redlands. The convenience/location of parking was slightly less likely to be rated as poor than was the ease of finding parking, suggesting that participants may have been relatively content with the parking spaces they eventually found, but less content with the amount of time it took to find a space. A total of 83 percent of the respondents rated the ease of finding public parking downtown as excellent, good, or fair, compared with 89 percent for convenience/location of the parking.

Figure 2

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
318 of 966

Asking survey participants how many blocks they consider a reasonable distance to park away from the business they are visiting can shed light on ratings of the convenience, location, and ease of parking in Downtown Redlands. In response to this question, seven percent of participants reported finding it reasonable to walk five or more blocks, while 36 percent were willing to walk three-to-four blocks, and 56 percent expected to be able to park within a block or two of their destination.

Figure 3

When asked to select a single top priority for the City to address out of the six issues mentioned (Downtown Parking, Diversity, Equity & inclusion, Quality of Life, Sustainability & Climate Change, Public Safety, and Homelessness), survey responses revealed similar priorities, with five percent selecting Downtown Parking as a top priority. In the context of resource allocation, Downtown Redlands parking was least likely to be seen as a major issue, with only 32 percent of the respondents selecting this choice.

Figure 4
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
319 of 966

Figure 5
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
320 of 966

MEMORANDUM - DT REDLANDS PARKING STUDY

RESPONSE TO TRANSPORTATION & PARKING COMMISSIONER COMMENTS PROJECT #37-009592.00

| 1

Walker has reviewed the comments provided by the City’s Traffic and Parking Commission commissioners on the Downtown Redlands Parking Study (Walker Consultants, April 27, 2023), and offers the following responses:

Comment KM-1: As I noted at the previous meeting, the report’s “Summary of Existing Conditions Key Findings” is sourced on an extraordinarily slim data set. What industry/professional standards or other peer reviewed study methodologies support this data collection strategy and analysis as reflective of overall conditions?

Response KM-1: It is typical in the parking industry to collect data on one weekday and one weekend day for a parking study. Walker has completed municipal parking studies for thousands of jurisdictions over its 57-year history and has a deep body of knowledge regarding typical trends in downtowns. In studies where we have collected additional data at the request of the client, the additional data collected tends to be similar and does not add a significant amount of value to the findings and recommendations.

In preparing for the data collection for the Downtown Redlands study, Walker consulted with City staff as to typical conditions that they desired to capture, and design to. In addition, Walker utilized visit and visit trend data provided by placer.ai, shown below. Thursday is a typical weekday, and Saturday was clearly the busiest weekend day.

Source: Placer.ai

DATE: May 22, 2023
TO: Brian Desatnik, Development Services Director
COMPANY: City of Redlands
ADDRESS: 35 Cajon Street
CITY/STATE: Redlands, CA
COPY TO:

FROM: Weckstein, Jeff
PROJECT NAME: Downtown Redlands Parking Study
PROJECT NUMBER: 37-009592.00
707 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 3650
Los Angeles, CA 90017

213.488.4911
walkerconsultants.com

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
321 of 966

MEMORANDUM - DT REDLANDS PARKING STUDY

RESPONSE TO TRANSPORTATION & PARKING COMMISSIONER COMMENTS PROJECT #37-009592.00

| 2
Similarly, looking at the monthly trend, November 2021 was not the busiest or least busy month, and coming out of the Covid-19 pandemic and the Omicron variant in the winter of 2021, it would be expected for most months of 2022 to have more visits downtown than November 2021.

Source: Placer.ai

The key finding from the study is that convenient parking is difficult to find in some areas, at least some of the time. If anything, this problem is understated in the month of November, and may become even more of an issue in other months. This would not affect the recommendations substantially:
• The City is already advised to continuously pursue opportunities to expand the public parking area.

There is such ample supply of underutilized private parking, that additional demand might simply increase the price the City would pay to lease private spaces, but it would not alter the core strategy or the cost-effectiveness of this method relative to other options for expanding the public supply. • If observations revealed higher demand, the paid parking pilot area could also have been expanded slightly. However, this is just a pilot program, and it may be easier to err on the side of having too small a paid parking area for the pilot.
• One strength of the report’s recommendations is that they are flexible and demand-responsive. If parking demand increases, the City can increase its efforts to expand the supply of underutilized parking made available to the public and can expand the paid parking area. If demand decreases, the City can end any shared-use agreements deemed unnecessary and reduce the paid parking area if streets do not have sufficient demand to justify paid parking. The strategies are meant to address high parking demand (according to observations and anticipation of future development) but can easily be scaled back if demand turns out to be lower than planned for.

Comment KM-2: There is no narrative, methodology, or explanation as to how the conditions from one weekday and one weekend in late November is both reflective of, or can be extrapolated to, the overall usage patterns/demand during the other days of week or times of the year. How does Walker support a Thursday in November as being reflective of the conditions throughout the year such as a similar Thursday in February, May, or August?

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
322 of 966

MEMORANDUM - DT REDLANDS PARKING STUDY

RESPONSE TO TRANSPORTATION & PARKING COMMISSIONER COMMENTS PROJECT #37-009592.00

| 3
Response KM-2: See response to comment KM-1. Additional narrative and methodology explaining the data collection will be incorporated into the final version of the report.

Comment KM-3: All of the study references, graphics, and examples come from data collected from the late 90s and early 2000s. In the case study cities referenced, what are the current use conditions and data for the past seven years (2015-2022)?

Response KM-3: Cities do not always publish or even track the results of their policies. Academic studies focused on a policy solution are often spread across cities rather than repeated over time in the same city. We attempted to obtain more recent data and followed up with city staff members regarding a few of the case study references:
• San Clemente shared parking program – in their 2018 Downtown Parking Study, staff recommended continuing the existing lease program and considering new opportunities to lease underutilized spaces (suggesting the continued success of the program). Walker contacted City staff for an update and received the following response: “The program continues to be very valuable for us. We currently have agreements with 7 different private lots, so each now has posted “Public Parking” signage. We are interested in expanding this program to also include night or weekend only lots – which would help especially with the downtown dinner rush. We have recently started to get pushback on the lease rate and some requests to increase that. Those will be evaluated on case-by-case basis.” • Old Town Pasadena PBD – Walker contacted the City’s Economic Development Director who agreed to research and provide an update to the sales tax revenue comparison between the PBD and other commercial areas; a response is still pending.

Comment KM-4: Given significant changes in shopping patterns (reference closing retail shops/malls), general societal changes (online shopping/social media society), and growing concerns with homelessness/safety concerns within downtown areas, how does Walker factor in these significant economic/social/environmental changes into the downtown parking models referenced in the report? How have these factors impacted Santa Monica and Pasadena parking districts as referenced?

Response KM-4: Closing retail locations and the rise of online shopping in general leads to a greater share of restaurant use relative to retail which increases parking demand and thus the importance of parking management. Parking management that ensures availability can also help keep retail businesses in the downtown: a member of Redlands’ business community shared that the lack of convenient parking harms retail more than restaurant uses, since retail customers may be more likely to go elsewhere if convenient parking is not available, whereas restaurant visitors are often meeting others and less likely to change their plans. Visitors who are willing to pay a few dollars for a good parking space also tend to be the ones who are most likely to spend money in the area, so it is important to make sure a variety of parking options are available.

Improving safety downtown was one of the key recommendations in this report, under Strategy 4 – to improve the pedestrian environment. Santa Monica’s downtown does not have a parking benefit district, but there is a business improvement district. BID activities (including “Clean and Safe” activities) are funded through property- based assessments, rather than parking revenues. Pasadena’s PBD uses parking revenue to fund Safe, Clean, and Homeless Outreach services. In addition to cleaning and beautification activities, their job description includes:
• Provide High Visibility & Presence
• Monitor Suspicious Activity
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
323 of 966

MEMORANDUM - DT REDLANDS PARKING STUDY

RESPONSE TO TRANSPORTATION & PARKING COMMISSIONER COMMENTS PROJECT #37-009592.00

| 4
• Respond to Calls for Service
• Provide Safety Escorts
• Assist the Pasadena Police Department
• Conduct Homeless Wellness Checks
Guide hours are from 7am-midnight Sunday through Thursday and from 7am-3am Friday and Saturday.

Comment KM-5: Is Walker aware of exemplar cities that utilized Strategies 1, 4, or 6 and why are they not included in the report. Where are the examples of cities that pursued options other than “Strategy 3” (reference pages 9 – 11)?

Response KM-5: Strategy 1 (increase access to underutilized spaces through shared parking): San Clemente was used as an example because they are another mid-sized CA city with a formally established program. However, many other cities have individual agreements that allow public parking on one or two privately-owned lots.

Additional case studies include:
• Oak Park, IL: The Village manages approximately 1,000 privately-owned parking spaces, encompassing approximately 30 different lots and owners.
• Sacramento, CA: As of spring 2015, the City has agreements with 21 privately owned parking facilities.

Some are available to the public only on evenings and weekends. The City assumes all liability and enforcement responsibilities. Approximately 10,000 private spaces are publicly managed, resulting in approximately $1 million annual revenue for the City.

For Strategy 4 (improve pedestrian environment): This is a common goal among downtowns and included in most parking plans, even if they do not always explicitly focus on improving routes that connect parking facilities with destination areas. One downtown that did was Pasadena. This was not included in the case studies as it was not a public initiative, but rather an initiative of their Playhouse District Association. The City of Pasadena assisted as a partner.
• 122 people in 25 teams participated in a “downtown Pasadena Walkabout” and their observations and recommendations were summarized in a report.
• 25 walking routes focused on getting into, around, and from various locations, including parking areas, and walkers provided comments on how to improve each route.

The City of Healdsburg also focuses on pedestrian improvements through its parking in-lieu fee, which can be used to spend money on sidewalks to help people more comfortably walk longer distances, as a way to reduce parking demand. An in-lieu fee is not an option in Redlands since minimum parking requirements are not legal within ½ mile of public transit, but this example shows how another city made the connection between pedestrian improvements and reduced parking demand.

Examples of cities using PBD revenue to fund pedestrian improvements:
• Austin, TX
• Boulder, CO
• Brookline Village, MA
• Old Pasadena, CA
• San Diego, CA
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
324 of 966

MEMORANDUM - DT REDLANDS PARKING STUDY

RESPONSE TO TRANSPORTATION & PARKING COMMISSIONER COMMENTS PROJECT #37-009592.00

| 5
Regarding Strategy 6 (expand parking supply), we are not aware of examples of publicly run valet assist parking.

The valet programs in our case study cities are privately run by establishments that wish to use their own facilities more efficiently and provide a better experience for their customers. However, in the case of Redlands, many businesses rely heavily on public parking, and it may be in their best interest to coordinate so that public facilities are used as efficiently as possible. The report recommends a feasibility study to further evaluate this option, especially as a flexible solution for event parking.

Comment KM-6: General question as to Walker’s business/consulting strategy or predisposed reporting outcomes bias. Of similar parking study reports issued by the company in the last five years, how many Walker issued reports did not recommend either a Transportation Management Ordinance or Transportation Improvement/Benefit District (reference pages 90 – 95)?

Response KM-6: This report provides case study information related to a Transportation Management Ordinance but does not recommend this as a strategy for Redlands. Walker has performed hundreds of municipal parking studies over the past five years, the majority of which did not recommend either a Transportation Management Ordinance or Transportation Improvement/Benefit District.

Comment ERS-1: page 5 - sustainable - Reconsider this word. There are modes that are not considered "sustainable" but they still reduce parking demand. Those modes should also be encouraged. Examples - ICE- powered motorcycles and scooters, golf carts, ICE-powered microcars.

Response ERS-1: City staff has provided the following response to this comment: “Staff believes the focus should be on sustainable modes, consistent with the City's General Plan - scooters and other non-ICE powered modes are considered sustainable.”

Comment ERS-2: page 5 - study area - how was this determined?

Response ERS-2: Walker worked with City staff to determine the appropriate study area for the project. Staff and Walker believe that these boundaries represented the best representation of downtown.

Comment ERS-3: page 9 – Climate Action Plan. Please cite a reference

Response ERS-3: This is part of the City's General Plan and is available on the City's web site. A reference to it in the document and a hyperlink in the digital version will be added.

Comment ERS-4: page 11 – Sustainable – see previous comment.

Response ERS-4: See response to comment ERS-1.

Comment ERS-5: page 19 – a typical weekday and weekend day - There are multiple event centers in or near the study area. Events can be held day or night, any day of the week. One of these events can significantly impact on- street parking availability. This occurs often enough that it should not be considered an outlier, but rather a typical condition that should be addressed by this study.

Did WC verify whether any special events were occurring during these two days?

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
325 of 966

MEMORANDUM - DT REDLANDS PARKING STUDY

RESPONSE TO TRANSPORTATION & PARKING COMMISSIONER COMMENTS PROJECT #37-009592.00

| 6
Response ERS-5: Walker verified that there were no special events on the data collection days. Saturday November 19, 2022 was a farmer’s market day. City staff does not consider an event day the design day for the parking system.

Comment ERS-6: page 20 - ample availability overall - The term "ample availability" is misleading by your own description. Can a more accurate term be used?

Response ERS-6: Agreed. Text will be revised to say "while there were many empty parking spaces within the downtown area…"

Comment ERS-7: page 21 - 1 p.m. How was all of this observed at one point in time?

Response ERS-7: There were five data collectors in the field on the survey days. Counts were collected in an approximately 30 minute window starting at the hour noted.

Comment ERS-8: page 22 - It would be very useful to also indicate which of these lots are private, non-public.

This comment applies to all utilization maps in this report.

Response ERS-8: Comment noted. This will be incorporated into the final report.

Comment ERS-9: page 24 - Saturday at 9 a.m., 11 a.m. The new Farmers' Market significantly impacts parking demand and availability at these times. The conditions described in this report are no longer relevant. This requires additional study and an update to the report.

Response ERS-9: Ed Hale's parking lot (61 spaces) opened up on Saturdays, but street parking taken away (127 spaces) for a net loss of 66 spaces on Saturday morning compared to win data collection occurred. The increase in Saturday demand/decrease in supply would not alter any of the key recommendations.

Comment ERS-10: page 35 - Citrus Avenue garage remains and is. Why? It's a terrible parking garage. A new parking garage would meet seismic and accessibility requirements and provide an opportunity to extend retail and/or mixed-use all the way down Citrus.

Response ERS-10: City staff provided the following response to Walker: “It is still a parking resource even though it does not meet current seismic standards. It would be nice to have a new structure on this site if funds were available.” Walker agrees that it is still a parking resource, and while it could be demolished and incorporated into a new parking structure this would increase the cost pet net new parking space considerably. Public investment in a structure is still an option in various forms, but it is a decision that should be weighed in the context of community-wide priorities and goals and other possible uses of public spending.

Comment ERS-11: page 38 - Surveys. Some of this survey data should be mapped against time-of-day. I assume the interviewer documented that? TOD will be critical in coordinating shared parking arrangements with private owners.

Response ERS-11: Time of day was recorded, and additional analyses could be conducted if desired. Responses to availability questions generally corresponded predictably with demand patterns observed through the quantitative data collection.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
326 of 966

MEMORANDUM - DT REDLANDS PARKING STUDY

RESPONSE TO TRANSPORTATION & PARKING COMMISSIONER COMMENTS PROJECT #37-009592.00

| 7
Comment ERS-12: page 58 - 2017 Initial Downtown Parking Study. What became of this study? How was it used? Is a parking study meant to be reissued on a 5-6 year cycle?

Response ERS-12: City staff provided the following response to this comment: “This was a survey/inventory completed by in-house city staff. It was not done by people with particular expertise in the area of parking management. There were several improvements done to city streets as a result of the study and a small city- owned lot was converted to a 56-space parking lot. There is no set time period for updating parking studies.

Comment ERS-13: page 62 - actions that make alternative modes of transportation more attractive. I see inadequate bike racks and sharrows painted on the street. Bicyclists need actual infrastructure, not symbolic efforts.

Response ERS-13: City staff noted that this is the type of recommendation they would like to see from the Commission. Walker notes that the section referenced is just summarizing existing objectives included in the Transit Villages Specific Plan. Walker could focus more on infrastructure separation in our recommendations if desired.

Comment ERS-14: page 68 - Santa Monica, CA Is it confirmed that this approach is compliant with AB 2097?

Response ERS-14: City staff provided the following response to this comment: “The purpose of the surveys from other cities was to help generate ideas on possible policies and programs, not to suggest that we necessary copy what other cities have done. This program in Santa Monica precedes AB2097 and likely does not comply.

Walker further notes that this was included as relevant history/context for their city, not as a possible strategy option for Redlands.

Comment ERS-15: page 68 - 1. Santa Monica, CA

2. Pasadena, CA

3. Cambridge, MA

The only similarity between Redlands and these three cities is the population size. It is impossible to tell if these strategies would translate to Redlands. Are there examples successful parking strategies in edge cities with lower density, surrounded by even lower density, and with fewer alternative transportation options?

Response ERS-15: The case study cities are also similar in their goals from their General Plans. They may have been more successful in promoting sustainable transportation, partly as a result of well-aligned parking management efforts. Other examples exist but may be less comprehensive. For example, the report also mentions San Clemente in the context of shared parking.

Comment ERS-16: page 69 - the state’s parking cash-out law. I hate to use too much blunt language, but this is a very dumb law. It is unknown, unenforceable, and unenforced. No one is monitoring its effectiveness.

Response ERS-16: Comment noted.

Comment ERS-17: page 70 - Unbundling Parking. Who pays liability insurance and property taxes on unbundled parking areas?

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
327 of 966

MEMORANDUM - DT REDLANDS PARKING STUDY

RESPONSE TO TRANSPORTATION & PARKING COMMISSIONER COMMENTS PROJECT #37-009592.00

| 8
Response ERS-17: The property owner would.

Comment ERS-18: page 70 - Impact Fees. Historically, how economically sustainable are impact fees? Maintenance and operations costs will come due in perpetuity. If impact fees vanish because a develop weasels out of it, who picks up the tab?

Response ERS-18: City staff provided the following response to this comment: “Again, this is just an idea.

Transportation Impact Fees are widely used by other cities and they are intended to make capital improvements to transportation infrastructure, not for maintenance.”

Comment ERS-19: page 72 - $1.6 million, How is enforcement funded?

Response ERS-19: City staff provided the following response to this comment: “That would be up to City Management through the City's budget process.”

Comment ERS-20: page 72 - meter replacement expenses. What were the costs of installing them in the first place?

Response ERS-20: City staff provided the following response to this comment: “We do not have their cost numbers. There are many new technologies for implementing paid street parking that have varying costs.”

Comment ERS-21: page 73 - Parking Maximums. Do they have any issues with developments that are under- parked and creating excess demand on on-street and adjacent parking facilities?

Response ERS-21: Walker has not interviewed their staff regarding the results of this policy, but their maximums may not be low enough to be binding (building to market demand could mean building less parking than the maximum allowable).

Comment ERS-22: page 73 - Parking and TDM Ordinance. Success with this approach is going to be dependent on density and availability of alternative transportation. Redlands has neither right now.

Response ERS-22: This was not included among the recommendations for Redlands. It is just another parking- related policy from the case study city.

Comment ERS-23: page 75 – perception. Improving the perception of available parking is not a suitable solution.

The improved perception will lead to increased demand that is both perceived and actual.

Response ERS-23: Survey results demonstrate that some percentage of respondents feel that parking is inadequate in Downtown Redlands, while the data collection demonstrated thousands of empty parking spaces in the study area during periods of peak parking demand. Effective parking management and unlocking the private supply will improve the perception of parking availability by freeing up spaces for customers and visitors where they are needed most. However, actual availability will also improve in key areas, and for clarity, the phrase “and the perception…” can be removed.

Comment ERS-24: page 89 – Improve the Downtown Pedestrian Environment. This doesn't mention separation of pedestrian and auto routes.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
328 of 966

MEMORANDUM - DT REDLANDS PARKING STUDY

RESPONSE TO TRANSPORTATION & PARKING COMMISSIONER COMMENTS PROJECT #37-009592.00

| 9

Response ERS-24: City staff provided the following response to this comment: “Difficult to implement within existing rights-of-way in downtown. Would require elimination of vehicle travel lanes as has been done in the downtowns of many large cities in recent years. This would be a good topic for the Commission to discuss and make recommendations on.”

Comment ERS-25: page 89 – Encourage the Use of Sustainable Transportation Modes to Reduce Parking Demand. This doesn't mention separation of non-motorized and motorized routes.

Response ERS-25: See response to comment ERS-24.

Comment ERS-26: page 101 – parking enforcement position. Wouldn't this also require an experienced planner to oversee leasing, risk management, parking district management, and presumably a support staff?

Response ERS-26: City staff provided the following response to this comment: “Depends on the extent of the duties. Could be limited to just enforcing time restrictions and paid parking areas but could also have other duties at the City's discretion. Another good area for the Commission to discuss and make recommendations on.” Walker notes that this recommendation and the parking benefit district recommendation can be updated to mention that allocation of staff time would be needed to support the recommendation.

Comment ERS-27: page 103 – civilian. Is this position safe enough for a civilian?

Response ERS-27: City staff provided the following response to this comment: “These positions are usually considered non-sworn positions under the Police Department. This would be up to the City to decide.” Walker further notes that civilians can write parking citations but cannot issue moving violations and are therefore less likely to interact with vehicle owners.

Comment ERS-28: page 108 – : Action Steps. First action step should be to slow and separate traffic.

Response ERS-28: City staff provided the following response to this comment: “This should be part of Commission discussions and recommendations.” Walker further notes that this could action be the result of "conduct outreach to determine how and where the community thinks safety could be improved" but this detailed outreach was not the primary focus of this study.

Comment ERS-29: page 109 – : 8: Implementation Details. how are these implemented? District design standards?

Response ERS-29: The implementation could start with revision of the Downtown District’s design standards if needed, and would involve the City/stakeholders identifying specific locations for actions.

Comment ERS-30: page 113 – : o large employers. The City is really the only large employer in the study area.

This looks a lot like a benefit for City employees that won't really help reduce parking demand.

Response ERS-30: Comment noted.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
329 of 966

MEMORANDUM - DT REDLANDS PARKING STUDY

RESPONSE TO TRANSPORTATION & PARKING COMMISSIONER COMMENTS PROJECT #37-009592.00

| 10
Comment ERS-31: page 114 – : Create a Transportation Wallet Program. Resources should be focused on infrastructural improvements, not giveaway programs.

Response ERS-31: City staff provided the following response to this comment: “These are good topics for Commission to discuss and make recommendations on.” Walker notes that this is more of a long-term option for one possible use of excess parking revenues, but it could be evaluated by the Commission/Parking Benefit District/community members in the context of other possible uses of funds when the time comes. Walker further notes that construction of additional structured parking, while an ‘asset,’ would provide a negative return on investment, and thus constitute a ‘giveaway’ program to motorists in its own right.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
330 of 966

MEMORANDUM

To: Eric Shamp, Traffic and Parking Commission Chair
From: Brian Desatnik, Development Services Director
Date: September 28, 2023
Subject: Recommended Action Steps of the Downtown Redlands Parking Study Following-up to the previous updates to the Traffic and Parking Commission (TPC), which included Development Services Department staff along with Walker Consultants providing a presentation of the Downtown Redlands Parking Study report on May 25, 2023, and a presentation of the Action Steps for prioritization to the TPC on July 27, 2023. At the meeting on July 27th, the TPC requested to staff to provide a list of the top priorities. Please see staff recommendations below.

To summarize, the purpose of this study is to inventory and assess the availability of public parking in downtown and to provide targeted recommendations to help address real and perceived parking concerns.

Chapters 1-3 were provided to the commission and discussed at the March 23, 2023, meeting, which included Chapter 1, Introduction; Chapter 2, Existing Conditions; and Chapter 3, Downtown Vision, Goals, and Parking Strategies. These first three chapters provided the purpose and identified a specific study area within downtown; existing parking conditions and key findings; survey results from site visits and personal interviews, along with results from previous community surveys; and parking vision and goals.

Chapter 4, Action Steps, and Implementation Details, which recommends specific action steps and an outline for an implementation plan for each of the downtown parking strategies outlined in Chapter 3.

Staff Recommendations:

1. Increased Parking Enforcement (page 92)
- Time frame to start – Immediate. It may take 3-4 months to hire additional staff required. Costs for this effort would be on-going as opposed to one-time. - Hire additional staff to enforce current parking limits, with the goal of increasing turnover in the existing timed parking spaces. - 2- hour parking, 8:00 am – 6:00 pm, except Sunday, is posted on:
• E. State Street, from Orange Street to Redlands Boulevard. • Orange Street, from State Street to the Railroad crossing. • 6
th Street, from Redlands Boulevard to Olive Street.
• 5 th, 7th, 8th, and 9th Streets, from Redlands Blvd to Citrus Avenue. • E. Citrus Avenue from Redlands Boulevard to Orange Street.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
331 of 966
• Vine St. from 6th Street to Cajon Street.
- Evaluate over a 6–12-month period; if effective, number of citations should decline over time.
- If increased enforcement is not effective and there is no change in parking availability, then consider initiating a paid parking pilot program (see number 5 below).

2. Parking Structure (page 24)
- Time frame to start – Immediate. It may take 9-12 months to complete a feasibility study and 3-5 years to complete the structure. - Initiate an RFP for a feasibility study and cost analysis. The study would analyze the net increase in parking capacity of downtown, project the number of new trips made to downtown Redlands, and assess the structure’s overall economic impact. The study will also include an analysis of the total project cost, cost per parking space, on-going maintenance costs, and potential funding sources.
- The Downtown Redlands Parking Study identified the current city hall site (not including the Citrus Ave. parking structure) as the most feasible location for a new, 4-level structure, which included approximately 590 parking spaces.

Additional floors would yield approximately 170 spaces/floor. - As a cost reference, the construction cost per parking space at the recently opened Stuart Avenue parking structure was approximately $62,500 per space, which would cost approximately $36.9 million for a 590-space structure, and a1,000-parking space structure would cost approximately $62.5 million based on this reference.

3. Pursue Shared-Use Agreements on Private Lots (page 87) - Time frame to start – Immediate.
- L ease of existing parking lots greater than 25-spaces should be the focus.

Lots could be used for general public parking during periods of high demand or to be used for safe convenient employee parking. Acquisition could also be considered for smaller lots.
- Opportunities are likely office buildings, banks and religious institutions. - On-going evaluation of the successful use these lots would be required.

4. Encourage Use of Existing Parking Facilities through Safety Improvements (page 90)
- Time frame to start – Immediate, allowing for 6-18 months for physical improvements to begin or be completed.
- Provide safe and convenient parking for employees who work in and around State Street, by identifying public parking lots where employees can park and walk safely and comfortably to and from their work locations.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
332 of 966
- Including evaluation and improvements to existing lighting, signage, accessibility, security, and emergency phone installations. Look for opportunities to add shade as well.
- Focus of improvements would be on existing public lots, including the public parking at Centennial Plaza, Citrus Avenue parking structure, city hall surface parking, and the public parking lot behind Hatfield Buick. (Page 7, table 1; page 4, figure 2)
- Improvements would be evaluated for additional lots added to the public inventory either through purchase or lease in the future. - Ongoing evaluation of the successful use these lots would be conducted.

5. Paid Parking Pilot Program (page 92)
- Time frame to start – Medium Term; after evaluation of effectiveness of increased parking enforcement
- Pending an analysis of increased parking enforcement and its lack of success of creating more parking availability, a Paid Parking Pilot Program for prime locations could be initiated.
- When parking demand is high, drivers will have the option between parking for free and walking a few blocks or paying a small fee to park in a more convenient space.
- Recommended locations include:
• E. State Street, from Orange Street to Redlands Boulevard. • 5
th – 9th Streets, from Redlands Boulevard to E. Citrus Avenue. - An evaluation of various payment technologies that can be utilized to best serve the public and the city will need to be determined. - Ongoing evaluation of the performance of a pilot program would be accomplished, and could include in measurement of success, if there is an increase in sales tax revenue in the area compared to prior years.

6. Establish a Parking Benefits District (PBD) (page 94) - Time frame to start – Not immediate, and dependent on creation of a Paid Parking Pilot Program
- Establishing a PBD could be utilized to help identify the issues, needs, and opportunities to improve parking in the downtown.
- Establishing an advisory committee, its members, roles, and responsibilities will need to be accomplished and would be accomplished at the direction of the Mayor and City Council.
- A PBD could be established by ordinance and funded by revenue from a Paid Parking Pilot Program and other parking fees in the identified area. - Ongoing evaluation of the PBD performance would be accomplished.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
333 of 966
Special Events
The Downtown Redlands Parking Study did not consider special events because it is not typical to base parking needs on non-standard or infrequent uses. However, to address public comment, staff has summarized all of the special events that occur in and around the downtown, including the Redlands Bowl, on the worksheet attached to this report to quantify the impact. With the exception of a small number of events, staff does not believe that the events greatly impact the overall parking availability in the downtown for long periods of time.

The attached document provides a breakdown of what city staff included in its research of special events and programs in the study and Redlands Bowl areas, along with added events provided by the Redlands Chamber of Commerce. Several factors such as day of the week, event time of the day/evening, event duration, and the location of the event were taken into consideration when estimating a level of impact to overall parking impact to the business community. Below is a summary of the main points derived from the information included in the attachment. • Eleven named events over the course of 13 days were evaluated to be Medium to High Impact to parking. Five of these events are holiday events. • Nine named events over the course 64 days were evaluated to be Low Impact to Parking. Downtown Morning Market occurs on 43 days of this 64-event day total with streets reopened by 1:00 pm.
• S even named events over the course of 26 days were evaluated to be Minimal Impact to Parking.
• The Redlands Bowl had 36 events that occurred mostly in the evenings, with most of the parking during these events taking place on the surrounding adjacent residential streets, neighboring religious institutions, and the Redlands mall parking lots.

City staff conducted a windshield survey of the upper level of the Citrus Avenue parking structure during several of the Redlands Bowl evening events and found many available parking spaces after 8:30 pm. Since the Bowl events were occurring at this same time, usually lasting to nearly 10:00 pm, this could demonstrate that Redlands Bowl attendees were not utilizing this parking structure that serves the downtown Redlands businesses.

Staff is requesting that the Commission review and discuss staff’s recommendations and formulate recommendations that can be forwarded to the City Council for consideration.

Attachments:

1. 2023 Downtown Redlands Events – Redlands Parking Study Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
334 of 966

LOCATION TIME DAY(S)

DAYS PER
YEAR
State St. to Bowl 8a - 11a Saturday 1
Vine & Cajon St 10a - 9p Saturday 1
State St. to Bowl 6a - 12p Saturday 1
DT Streets 6a - 8p Fri - Sun 3
State St., 5th St. 9a - 6p Sunday 1
DT Streets 5a - 2p Sunday 1
State Street 2p - 6:p Varies 1
Several DT Streets 8a - 11a Varies 1
Ed Hales Park 6p - 9p Friday 1
State, Citrus Sts. 5p - 9p Saturday 1
State Street 5p - 9p Varies 1

LOCATION TIME DAY(S)

DAYS PER
YEAR
State Street 8a - 12p Saturday 43
Ed Hales Park 11a -7p Sunday 12
Ed Hales Park 8a - 4p Saturday 2
State Street 10a - 5p Sunday 1
State Street 9a - 7p Sunday 2
State Street evening Thursday 1
approx. 4 blocks of State St., and most of 5th St. closed Run through Redlands (early March) 5K & 10 K

LOW IMPACT TO PARKING COMMENTS

HOLIDAY EVENTS
Halloween Trick or Treat Approx 3 blocks State St. closed; portion of 5th St closed Veteran's Day Parade Citrus Av., W. State, Redlands Bl.

Christmas Tree Lighting Some adjacent streets closed
New Year's Eve Orange Drop most businesses are closed by this time STN Giving Sunday One Sunday p/month; Vendors; Half block of 5th St. close between Redlands Bl. & driveway
Art on State One block closed between 6th & 7th
Downtown Morning Market Streets open by 1pm
2023 DOWNTOWN REDLANDS EVENTS - Redlands Parking Study

MEDIUM / HIGH IMPACT TO PARKING COMMENTS
Lincoln Pilgrimage (February) Parade through downtown; event until 3pm Artlands Art Walk (late October) city hall parking lot used; streets closed Believe Walk (early October) Cancer awareness walk; event until 2p Bicycle Classic (April) Several blocks of various streets closed Firefighter Car Show (end of May)
Christmas Parade Parade route to Eureka St.

Wine Walk No streets closed; no special event permit
Board Game Paradise event Board game playing & marketing; no street closure DTR Art Walk Ed Hales Park is also used ; streets closed Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
335 of 966
Ed Hales Park 6a - 1p Saturday 1
Ed Hales Park 6a - 1p Saturday 1
Ed Hales & State St. 9a - 1p Sunday 1

LOCATION TIME DAY(S)

DAYS PER
YEAR
Contemporary Club 2p - 4p Saturday 12
YMCA varies varies 9
Various, citywide 7a - 1p Saturday 1
Fox Theater 7p - 10p Friday 1
Sylvan Park 10a - 4p Saturday 1
Smiley Park 9a - 1p Saturday 1
Smiley Library 6p - 8p varies 1

LOCATION TIME DAY(S)

DAYS PER
YEAR
Redlands Bowl evenings various 12
Redlands Bowl 10a - 5p Sat - Sun 2
Redlands Bowl 8p - 10p Varies 22
Graduations parking is on adjacent streets & at mall lots Festival of the Arts
Redlands Bowl Summer Music Events Parking occurs on adjacent streets and Mall lots

REDLANDS BOWL EVENTS COMMENTS
A.K Smiley Library - Dia de Los Muertos usually held on November 1 Sunrise Rotary Star Search
Southern Calif in Film 20-40 attendees, PARK AT Contemporary parking lot

MINIMAL IMPACT TO PARKING COMMENTS
Unity in Community (Juneteenth)
A.K. Smiley Library Family Day
YMCA Family Circus event at YMCA
Redlands Day of Service portion took place in DT in 2023 Earth Day city event No street closure
First Church of Christ event
Chamber Dog Walk
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
336 of 966
17'16'17'
11' 14'18
11 5
18 7 6
5 12'
8'25'17'
12'
12'
11' 8'11'

15.5'
8'
12' 11'

12.5'
11'
17' 16' 17'
4 4
8 4
2 10
6 14
17 CITY OF REDLANDS
xxxx-TS
1 BENCHMARK

CITRUS AVENUE ANGLED PARKING
1 45° ANGLE PARKING STUDY,

ONE-WAY TRAFFIC

PARKING SPACE QUANTITIES
EXISTING PARKING SPACES:104
PROPOSED PARKING SPACES: 139

INDICATES NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES

ORANGE STREET

CITRUS AVENUE

REDLANDS BOULEVARD

FIFTH STREETSIXTH STREETSEVENTH STREET

EIGHTH STREETNINTH STREET

OLIVE AVENUE
SCALE: 1" = 40'
N

MATCHLINE

SEE BELOW LEFT
X

MATCHLINE

SEE ABOVE RIGHT

LOADING ZONE

WESTBOUND TRAVEL
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
337 of 966

LOCATION TIME DAY(S)

LOW IMPACT TO PARKING COMMENTS

HOLIDAY EVENTS
Halloween Trick or Treat Approx 3 blocks State St. closed; portion of 5th St closed Veteran's Day Parade Citrus Av., W. State, Redlands Bl.

MEDIUM / HIGH IMPACT TO PARKING COMMENTS
Lincoln Pilgrimage Parade through downtown; event until 3pm Artlands Art Walk city hall parking lot used; streets closed Believe Walk Cancer awareness walk; event until 2p
Bicycle Classic Several blocks of various streets closed Firefighter Car Show
Christmas Parade Parade route to Eureka St.

Wine Walk No streets closed; no special event permit
Board Game Paradise event Board game playing & marketing; no street closure DTR Art Walk Ed Hales Park is also used ; streets closed Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
338 of 966
Ed Hales Park 6a - 1p Saturday 1
Ed Hales Park 6a - 1p Saturday 1
Ed Hales & State St. 9a - 1p Sunday 1

LOCATION TIME DAY(S)

REDLANDS BOWL EVENTS COMMENTS
A.K Smiley Library - Dia de Los Muertos
Sunrise Rotary Star Search
Southern Calif in Film 20-40 attendees, PARK AT Contemporary parking lot

MINIMAL IMPACT TO PARKING COMMENTS
Unity in Community (Juneteenth)
A.K. Smiley Library Family Day
YMCA Family Circus event at YMCA
Redlands Day of Service portion took place in DT in 2023 Earth Day city event No street closure
First Church of Christ event
Chamber Dog Walk
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
339 of 966
City Council/Successor Agency Meeting I. 2.

DATE: 12/05/2023
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
SUBJECT: Discussion and possible action relating to naming the Avice Meeker Sewall Theatre stage in honor of Cliff Cabanilla, and adoption of Resolution No. 8537 (Council Member Davis)
MOTION:

I move to approve the naming of the Avice Meeker Sewall Theatre stage to the "Cliff Cabanilla Stage", and adopt Resolution No. 8537.

DISCUSSION:

This item is being put forth to the City Council to allow for discussion and possible action regarding the naming of the Avice Meeker Sewall Theatre stage.

The proposal is to consider naming the stage to, "Cliff Cabanilla Stage" in honor of the late Professor Cliff Cabanilla.

Cliff Cabanilla hailed from the small pineapple island of Lanai, Hawaii. He served in the United States Navy, attended BYU, and settled in Redlands.

He began his teaching career at San Bernardino Valley College in the 1960s and then started the theatre program at Crafton Hills College where he ran the department for the next 30+ years.

Cliff Cabanilla founded the Redlands Theatre Festival in 1972 as a summer theater program for Crafton Hills College. His vision was to bring a repertory theatre company to Redlands, to produce high-quality theatrical entertainment for the community that would delight, and sometimes challenge, the audience and to house it in a beautiful park setting.

Cliff Cabanilla saw an unused pasture in Prospect Park and turned it into a robust amphitheater. In the early years, the company would till, hoe and terrace the land and build a temporary stage each summer.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
340 of 966
In the first program, Cliff declared his dream to house productions on a permanent Elizabethan-type stage, meeting three important criteria: it must be a fully functional theater, it must be entirely harmonious with the beauty of Prospect Park, and it must serve the community.

In the 1980’s, Cliff worked with architect Leon Armantrout to design and build a permanent Elizabethan-style structure. Under Cliff’s watchful eye, that stage opened every summer and hosted hundreds of actors performing 5 great plays in true British repertory for the citizens of Redlands and beyond.

Until his passing in November, 2022, Cliff Cabanilla and his company have been faithful stewards of the Prospect Park theater.

For 52 years, the Redlands Theatre Festival has served the community, delighting audiences and allowing them to experience new and classic works in a gorgeous outdoor setting in Prospect Park. All Redlands Theatre Festival companies and the city of Redlands owe a debt of gratitude to Cliff Cabanilla for his vision, his tenacity and his leadership!

Cliff Cabanilla was an innovative theatrical force; a screen and stage actor, scenic designer, theatre technician, director, and artistic producer with a career that spanned fifty years. For this reason, and respecting the fact that Professor Cabanilla passed November 12, 2022, I would like to propose naming the stage in honor of Cliff Cabanilla so that it can be known, going forward, as the Cliff Cabanilla Stage.

Per section 2. B of Resolution No. 7711, "Any member of the City Council may initiate a proposal for naming a City park, building or other public facility by causing the matter to be placed for consideration on an agenda for a regularly scheduled meeting of the City Council."
Per section 4. B of Resolution 7711, "City parks, buildings or other public facilities may be named for a person or entity who has made a significant contribution to the Redlands community, provided such person shall be deceased for at least (3) years prior to designating his or her name for a park, building or other public facility, unless waived by the City Council;" SUBMITTED BY:

Denise Davis, Council Member
Attachments
Reso. No. 7711 Naming of Parks, Buildings, Streets and Other Public Facilities Reso. No. 8537 Name of Sewall Theater Stage
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
341 of 966
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
342 of 966
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
343 of 966
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
344 of 966
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
345 of 966
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
346 of 966

1 I:\cmo\Resolutions\8537 Cliff Cabanilla Stage.docx-ms RESOLUTION NO. 8537

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REDLANDS

COMMEMORATIVELY NAMING THE STAGE OF THE AVICE MEEKER
SEWALL THEATRE AS THE “CLIFF CABANILLA STAGE”

WHEREAS, a report has been prepared and submitted by Council Member Davis requesting the commemorative naming of the Avice Meeker Sewall Theatre stage as “Cliff Cabanilla Stage” in honor of Cliff Cabanilla; and

WHEREAS, Cliff Cabanilla founded the Redlands Theatre Festival in 1972 as a summer theater program for Crafton Hills College with the vision of bringing a repertory theatre company to Redlands, to produce high-quality theatrical entertainment for the community that would delight, and sometimes challenge, the audience and to house it in a beautiful park setting; and

WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Redlands adopted Resolution No. 7711 on February 21, 2017; and

WHEREAS, in accordance with the requirement of Resolution No.7711, Naming Procedure, any member of the City Council may initiate a proposal for naming a City park, building or other public facility by causing the matter to be placed for consideration on an agenda f or a regularly scheduled meeting of the City Council; and

WHEREAS, in accordance with the requirement of Resolution No.7711, Criteria for Naming Parks, Buildings and other Public Facilities, City parks, buildings or other public facilities may be named for a person or entity who has made a significant contribution to the Redlands community, provided such person shall be deceased for at least (3) years prior to designating his or her name for a park, building or other public facility, unless waived by the City Council.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REDLANDS AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. That the above-named stage will be known as “Cliff Cabanilla Stage”.

ADOPTED, SIGNED AND APPROVED this 5th day of December, 2023.

________________________
Eddie Tejeda, Mayor

ATTEST:

____________________________
Jeanne Donaldson, City Clerk
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
347 of 966

2 I:\cmo\Resolutions\8537 Cliff Cabanilla Stage.docx-ms

I, Jeanne Donaldson, City Clerk of the City of Redlands, hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was duly adopted by the City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 5th day of December 2023, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

______________________________
Jeanne Donaldson, City Clerk
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
348 of 966
City Council/Successor Agency Meeting J. 1.

DATE: 12/05/2023
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
SUBJECT: Resolution No. 8523 to Participate in the Statewide Community Infrastructure Program (SCIP)
(Mayor to declare meeting open as a public hearing)
Public hearing to consider Resolution No. 8523 authorizing the City to join the Statewide Community Infrastructure Program (SCIP); authorizing the California Statewide
Communities Development Authority to accept applications from property owners, conduct special assessment
proceedings and levy assessments and special taxes and to form assessment districts and community facilities districts within the territory of the City of Redlands; embodying a joint community facilities agreement setting forth the terms and conditions of community facilities district financing; approving the form of the acquisition agreement when applicable; and authorizing related actions.
(Management Services/Finance Director Garcia)
a.

PROCEDURE FOR PUBLIC HEARING:

Mayor declares the meeting open as a public hearing.1.

Mayor calls upon Department Director for report.2.

Mayor calls for questions/comments from members of the City Council.3.

Mayor calls for comments/questions/testimony from members of the public (3 minutes per speaker).

4. Mayor calls upon City Clerk to note any written comments received.5.

Mayor closes the public hearing.6.

City Council considers the motion and votes.7.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
349 of 966
MOTION(S):

If City Council determines the staff recommendation is appropriate, the following motions are provided:

I move to adopt Resolution No. 8523 authorizing the City to become a participant of the Statewide Community Infrastructure Program (SCIP); authorizing the California Statewide Communities Development Authority (CSCDA) to accept applications from property owners within the City's jurisdiction; approving the Resolution of Intention to be adopted by CSCDA in connection with any assessment district formed within the City (Exhibit 'A' to the resolution); approving the Form of Acquisition Agreement for use when applicable (Exhibit 'B' to the resolution); and directing the City Clerk to transmit a certified copy of this resolution to the Secretary of CSCDA.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that Council adopt Resolution No. 8523 authorizing the City to become a participant of the Statewide Community Infrastructure Program (SCIP); authorizing the California Statewide Communities Development Authority (CSCDA) to accept applications from property owners within the City's jurisdiction; approving the Resolution of Intention to be adopted by CSCDA in connection with any assessment district formed within the City (Exhibit 'A' to the resolution); approving the Form of Acquisition Agreement for use when applicable (Exhibit 'B' to the resolution); and directing the City Clerk to transmit a certified copy of this resolution to the Secretary of CSCDA.

DISCUSSION:

In an effort to expand the economic development tools available to developers, property owners and businesses, the City's Development Services and Finance teams are proposing to participate in the Statewide Community Infrastructure Program (SCIP). SCIP provides a pooled, tax-exempt bond financing program for public infrastructure improvement costs (i.e., required off-site improvements) for commercial, industrial, retail and multi- and single-family residential developments. SCIP is administered by the California Statewide Communities Development Authority (CSCDA).

Off-site improvements are those improvements that the City will require a developer to make, but are located outside the boundaries of the property, often in public right-of-way. These improvements are necessitated by the fact that development projects impact public infrastructure. For example, new developments may change vehicular traffic patterns, create additional stormwater runoff, call for other utility requirements, or even create additional Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
350 of 966
foot traffic. Financing these public infrastructure improvements can significantly affect the feasibility of a project.

The CSCDA is a California joint powers authority sponsored by the California League of Cities and the California State Association of Counties. It was created to provide local governments with an effective tool for the timely financing of community-based public benefit projects. The member agencies of CSCDA include the City of Redlands, along with more than 500 other cities, special districts and counties throughout California. SCIP is one of its financing programs that enables developers to finance qualified public infrastructure improvements through an acquisition agreement via tax-exempt bond issuance proceeds. Local agencies in the region that utilize SCIP include Fontana, Rialto, Yucaipa Valley Water District, Corona, Banning and Riverside County.

Revenues to pay the debt service on these bonds are derived by CSCDA using the assessment district format. Under the assessment district format, CSCDA will levy assessments on the parcels in each assessment district. Each individual, qualified development project within the City would be its own district for the purposes of this program. The assessments will be payable in annual installments billed to the property owner and collected on the county property tax roll. Such installments will be calculated to cover debt service on the bonds along with the administrative costs of SCIP. The assessment follows the parcel owner upon change of ownership. As with a conventional assessment district, each property owner retains the right to pay off the assessment at any time and thereby discharge the lien which secures payment of the annual installments.

CSCDA administers the formation of assessment districts, levying of assessments, issuance of bonds and administration of collections and enforcement. The duties of local agency staff are reduced to informing developers of SCIP, confirming the project status, approving projects for use of SCIP financing, confirming public (off-site) improvement obligations for qualified projects, determining when improvements are completed and therefore ready for acquisition, and to acquire completed improvements for projects which have been funded. In addition, when improvements will be financed, the Local Agency will be required to enter into an “Acquisition Agreement” with the Applicant to provide the terms and conditions governing the acquisition of completed Improvements.

The City is not liable for any debt service on the bonds issued by the CSCDA or the assessments imposed on the participating properties. If the resolution is adopted by the City Council, the SCIP will be available citywide to developers/owners of both residential and commercial projects. The City is permitted to charge CSCDA a fee to cover its staff costs to review the requisite documents, including the SCIP application and funding request.

The benefits for the property owner participating in the SCIP include:

For homebuyers, paying for the costs of public infrastructure through a Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
351 of 966
For homebuyers, paying for the costs of public infrastructure through a special assessment is superior to having those costs "rolled" into the cost of the home. Although the tax bill is higher, the amount of the mortgage is smaller. Moreover, because the special assessment financing is at tax-exempt rates, it can come at a lower cost than mortgage rates.

Owners of smaller projects, both residential and commercial, can have access to tax-exempt financing of infrastructure.

Before the inception of SCIP, only projects large enough to justify the formation of an assessment district or community facilities district had access to tax-exempt financing.

The benefits for the City include:

As in conventional assessment district and CFD financing, the City is not liable to repay the bonds issued by CSCDA or the assessments imposed on the participating properties.

CSCDA handles all district formation, district administration, bond issuance and bond administration functions.

Providing tax-exempt financing helps participating cities with the impact of rising public infrastructure improvement costs.

SCIP is an important tool for developers in determining the overall feasibility of a project and, in certain instances, the decision to purchase land.

As lead for this program, the City's Development Services Department will provide administrative assistance by: (a) reviewing the application to perform the verification, (b) coordinate review, finalization, and execution on behalf of the City of the acquisition agreement (Exhibit 'B' of the resolution) when eligible improvements are being financed, (c) monitor progress and completion of construction of eligible improvements for purposes of submitting reimbursement requisitions pursuant to the acquisition agreement, if any, and (d) sign a closing certificate. The City's administrative costs mentioned above can be recovered at bond issuance on an individual project basis.

The proposed SCIP resolution authorizes CSCDA to accept applications from owners of property within our planning jurisdiction for tax-exempt financing of certain public infrastructure improvements through SCIP. It also authorizes CSCDA to form assessment districts and community facilities districts within the City’s boundaries, conduct assessment and special tax proceedings and levy assessments and special taxes against the property of participating owners. It approves the form of an acquisition agreement, attached to the resolution as Exhibit 'B', to be entered into between the City and the participating property owner/developer, if applicable, to provide the terms and conditions under which financing for public infrastructure improvements will be provided and to establish the procedure for disbursement of bond proceeds to pay for completed facilities. It also authorizes miscellaneous related actions and makes certain findings and determinations required by law.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
352 of 966
Each application submitted would undergo an extensive review process to determine if it benefits the property owners and the City. The size, scope and cost of the project would all be taken into consideration. Additionally, the applicant would not be eligible to seek reimbursement from the City through development impact fee reductions or other mechanisms for the infrastructure costs. Development impact fees would not be included as eligible costs to be financed through the SCIP Program.

ALTERNATIVES:

The Council may choose to reject the resolution and not participate in the SCIP program.

STRATEGIC PLAN:

N/A
SUBMITTED BY:

Danielle Garcia, Management Services/Finance Director
RECOMMENDED BY:

Charles M. Duggan Jr., City Manager
REVIEWED BY:

Yvette M. Abich Garcia, City Attorney
Janice McConnell, Assistant City Manager
Christopher Boatman, Assistant City Manager
Brian Desatnik, Development Services Director
Fiscal Impact
Fiscal Year: FY 2023-24
Revenue Generating: No
Appropriation Required Y/N: No
Discussion:

There is no fiscal impact. The City's administrative costs to review the financing documents may be recovered by a charge to the CSCDA and are reimbursed at bond issuance on an individual project basis.

Attachments
Resolution No. 8523 - Joining SCIP
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
353 of 966
1 I:\cmo\Resolutions\8523 Joining Statewide Community Infrastructure Program SCIP.docx-msv3

RESOLUTION NO. 8523

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REDLANDS

AUTHORIZING THE CITY TO JOIN THE STATEWIDE COMMUNITY
INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAM; AUTHORIZING THE CALIFORNIA

STATEWIDE COMMUNITIES DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY TO ACCEPT

APPLICATIONS FROM PROPERTY OWNERS, CONDUCT SPECIAL

ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND LEVY ASSESSMENTS AND SPECIAL

TAXES AND TO FORM ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS AND COMMUNITY

FACILITIES DISTRICTS WITHIN THE TERRITORY OF THE CITY OF REDLANDS; EMBODYING A JOINT COMM UNITY FACILITIES

AGREEMENT SETTING FORTH THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF
COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT FINANCINGS; APPROVING FORM OF ACQUISITION AGREEMENT FOR USE WHEN APPLICABLE; AND

AUTHORIZING RELATED ACTIONS

WHEREAS, the California Statewide Communities Development Authority (the “Authority”) is a joint exercise of powers authority, lawfully formed and operating within the State pursuant to an agreement (the “Joint Powers Agreement”) entered into as of June 1, 1988 under the authority of Title 1, Division 7, Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 6500) of the California Government Code (the “JPA Law”), the members of which include numerous cities, counties and local agencies in the State of California, including the City of Redlands (the “City”); and

WHEREAS, the Joint Powers Agreement authorizes the Authority to undertake financing programs under any applicable provisions of State law to promote economic development, the stimulation of economic activity, and the increase of the tax base within the jurisdiction al boundaries of its members (such members, the “Program Participants”); and

WHEREAS, as one of the Programs under the Joint Powers Agreement, the Authority has established the Statewide Community Infrastructure Program (“SCIP”) to allow the financing of certain public capital improvements to be constructed by or on behalf of property owner s for acquisition by the City or another public agency (the “Improvements”) and other authority providing for the levy of fees on new development to pay for public capital improvements (collectively, the “Fee Act”) through the levy of special asse ssments pursuant to the Municipal Improvement Act of 1913 (Streets and Highways Code Sections 10000 and following) (the “1913 Act”) and the issuance of improvement bonds (the “Local Obligations”) under the Improvement Bond Act of 1915 (Streets and Highways Code Sections 8500 and following) (the “1915 Act”) upon the security of the unpaid special assessments; and WHEREAS, the “Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982,” being Chapter 2.5, Part 1, Division 2, Title 5 (beginning with Section 53311) of the Government Code of the State (the “Mello-Roos Act”) is an applicable provision of State law available to, among other things, finance public improvements necessary to meet increased demands placed upon local agencies as a result of development;
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
354 of 966
2 I:\cmo\Resolutions\8523 Joining Statewide Community Infrastructure Program SCIP.docx-msv3

WHEREAS, the Authority also uses SCIP to allow the financing of Improvements through the levy of special taxes and the issuance of Local Obligations under the Mello-Roos Act upon the security of the special taxes; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to allow the owners of property being developed within its jurisdiction (“Participating Developers”) to participate in SCIP and to allow the Authority to conduct proceedings and to form community facilities districts (“CFDs”) and to issue Local Obligations under the Mello -Roos Act, as well as to conduct assessment proceedings to form assessment districts (“Assessment Districts”) under the 1913 Act and to issue Local Obligations under the 1915 Act, to finance Improvements, provided that such Participating Developers voluntarily agree to participate and consent to the levy of such assessments or special taxes, as applicable; and
WHEREAS, from time to time when eligible property owners within the jurisdiction of the City elect to be Participating Developers, the Authority will conduct proceedings under the 1913 Act and the Mello-Roos Act and issue Local Obligations under the 1915 Act and the Mello-Roos Act to finance Improvements and, at the conclusion of such proceedings, will levy assessments or special taxes, as applicable on such property within the territory of the City; WHEREAS, both the Authority and the City are “local agencies” under the Mello -Roos Act;
WHEREAS, the Mello-Roos Act permits two or more local agencies to enter into a joint community facilities agreement to exercise any power authorized by the Mello-Roos Act; WHEREAS, the City desires to enter into such an agreement with the Authority to authorize the Authority to form CFDs from time to time within the territorial limits of the City to finance Improvements payable by such property owners;
WHEREAS, there has been presented to this meeting a proposed form of Resolution of Intention to be adopted by the Authority in connection with assessment proceedings (the “ROI”), a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A, and the territory within which assessments may be levied for SCIP (provided that each Participating Developer consents to such assessment) shall be coterminous with the City’s official boundaries of record at the time of adoption of such ROI (the “Proposed Boundaries”), and reference is hereby made to such boundaries for the plat or map required to be included in this Resolution pursuant to Section 10104 of the Streets and Highways Code; and
WHEREAS, there has also been presented to this meeting a proposed form of Acquisition Agreement (the “Acquisition Agreement”), a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit B, to be approved as to form for use with respect to any Improvements to be constructed and installed by a Participating Developer and for which the Participating Developer requests acquisition financing as part of its SCIP application; and
WHEREAS, the City will not be responsible for the conduct of any proceedings; the levy or collection of assessments or special taxes or any required remedial action in the case of delinquencies in such assessment or special tax payments; or the issuance, s ale or administration of the Local Obligations or any other bonds issued in connection with SCIP; and Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
355 of 966
3 I:\cmo\Resolutions\8523 Joining Statewide Community Infrastructure Program SCIP.docx-msv3

WHEREAS, the Authority may issue revenue bonds pursuant to the Marks -Roos Local Bond Pooling Act of 1985 (the “Marks -Roos Act”) to acquire Local Obligations and thereby provide the proceeds to finance Improvements; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code Section 6586.5, notice was published at least five days prior to the adoption of this resolution at a public hearing, which was duly conducted by this City Council concerning the significant public benefits of SCIP and the financing of the Improvements;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Redlands as follows:

Section 1. This resolution shall constitute full “local approval,” under Section 9 of the Joint Powers Agreement, and under the Authority’s Local Goals and Policies (defined below), for the Authority to undertake and conduct proceedings in accordance herewith and und er the Mello Roos Act to form CFDs with boundaries that shall be coterminous with the City’s official boundaries of record at the time of such proceedings or any portion thereof (the “Proposed Boundaries”), and to authorize a special tax and to issue bonds with respect thereto; provided that the Participating Developers, who shall be the legal owners of such property at the time of formation of the CFD, execute a written consent to the levy of special tax in connection with SCIP by the Authority and execute a ballot in favor of the formation of such CFD and the Mello -Roos Act.

Section 2. The City hereby consents to the conduct of special assessment proceedings by the Authority in connection with SCIP pursuant to the 1913 Act and the issuance of Local Obligations under the 1915 Act on any property within the Proposed Boundaries; provided, that:
(1) Such proceedings are conducted pursuant to one or more Resolutions of Intention in substantially the form of the ROI; and
(2) The Participating Developers, who shall be the legal owners of such property at the time of the formation of the Assessment District, execute a written consent to the levy of assessments in connection with SCIP by the Authority and execute an assessmen t ballot in favor of such assessment in compliance with the requirements of Section 4 of Article XIIID of the State Constitution.

Section 3. The Joint Powers Agreement, together with the terms and provisions of this resolution, shall together constitute a separate joint community facilities agreement between the City and the Authority under the Mello -Roos Act for each CFD formed. As, without t his resolution, the Authority has no power to finance City Improvements (as such terms are defined herein) in proceedings under the Act to form the CFD, adoption by the Commission of the Authority of each Resolution of Intention to form a CFD under the Mello-Roos Act to finance City Improvements shall constitute acceptance of the terms hereof by the Authority with respect to such CFD.

Section 4. This resolution and the agreement it embodies are determined to be beneficial Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
356 of 966
4 I:\cmo\Resolutions\8523 Joining Statewide Community Infrastructure Program SCIP.docx-msv3

to the residents/customers of the City and are in the best interests of the residents of the City, and of the future residents of the area within the proposed CFDs and Assessment Districts. The City hereby finds and declares that the issuance of revenue b onds by the Authority to purchase Local Obligations in connection with SCIP will provide significant public benefits, including without limitation, savings in effective interest rate, bond preparation, bond underwriting and bond issuance costs, and the mor e efficient delivery of local agency services to residential and commercial development within the City.

Section 5. The Authority has adopted Local Goals and Policies as required by Section 53312.7 of the Mello-Roos Act. The City approves the use of those Local Goals and Policies in connection with the formation of CFDs. The City hereby agrees that the Authority may act in lieu of the City under those Local Goals and Policies in forming and administering the CFDs.

Section 6. The Authority has prepared and will update from time to time the “SCIP Manual of Procedures” (the “Manual”), and the City will handle funds for Improvements for properties participating in SCIP in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Manual.

Section 7. Pursuant to the Mello-Roos Act and this resolution, the Authority may conduct proceedings under the Mello -Roos Act to form the CFDs and to have such CFDs authorize the financing of any or all of the facilities set forth on Exhibit C, attached hereto. All of the facilities, shall be facilities that have an expected useful life of five years or longer and are facilities that the City or other local public agencies, as the case may be, are authorized by law to construct, own or operate, or to which they may contribute revenue. Exhibit C, may be modified from time to time by written agreement between an authorized representative of the Authority and of the City. The facilities are referred to herein as the “Improvements,” and the Improvements to be owned by the City are referred to as the “City Improvements.”
Section 8. For Fees paid or to be paid to another agency by any particular CFD (an “Other Local Agency”), the Authority will obtain the written consent of that Other Local Agency before issuing Local Obligations to fund such Fees, as required by the Mello -Roos Act. For the Improvements to be owned by an Other Local Agency, the Authority will separately identify them in its proceedings, and will enter into a joint community facilities agreement with such Other Local Agency prior to issuing Local Obligations to finance such Improvements, as required by the Mello- Roos Act. Each joint community facilities agreement with each Other Local Agency will contain a provision that the Other Local Agency will provide indemnification to the City to the same extent that the City provides indemnification to the Other Local Agency under the terms of this resolution.

Section 9. At the time of formation of each CFD, the City will certify to the Commission of the Authority that all of the City Improvements to be funded by such CFD are necessary to meet increased demands placed upon the City as a result of development occurring or expected to occur within the proposed CFDs in the form attached hereto as Exhibit D. Any appropriate officer or staff of the City is authorized to execute and deliver such certificate in substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit D, with such changes as such signatory shall approve. Joint community facilities agreements with other local agencies will each contain a requirement that each Other Local Agency will make identical certification in connection with respect to the Improvements to be owned by, and Fees paid or to be paid to, such Other Local Agency equivalent to that made by the City in this paragraph.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
357 of 966
5 I:\cmo\Resolutions\8523 Joining Statewide Community Infrastructure Program SCIP.docx-msv3

Section 10. The Authority will apply the special tax collections initially as required by the documents under which any Local Obligations are issued; and thereafter, to the extent not provided in the Local Obligations documents, may pay its own reasonable administrati ve costs incurred in the administration of the CFDs. The Authority will remit any special tax revenues from any particular CFD remaining after the final retirement of all related Local Obligations to the City and to the other local agencies in the proport ions specified in the Authority’s proceedings. The City will apply any such special tax revenues it receives for authorized City Improvements and its own administrative costs only as permitted by the Mello -Roos Act. The joint community facilities agreements with each Other Local Agency must require the Other Local Agency to apply the special tax revenues they receive for their authorized Improvements and Fees under the CFDs and for their own related administrative costs only as permitted by the Mello-Roos Act.

Section 11. The Authority will administer the CFDs, including employing and paying all consultants, annually levying the special tax and all aspects of paying and administering the Local Obligations, and complying with all State and Federal requirements appertaining t o the proceedings, including the requirements of the United States Internal Revenue Code. The City will cooperate fully with the Authority in respect of the requirements of the Internal Revenue Code and to the extent information is required of the City to enable the Authority to perform its disclosure and continuing disclosure obligations with respect to the Local Obligations and any revenue bonds, although the City will not participate in nor be considered to be a participant in the proceeding s respecting the CFDs (other than as a party to the agreement embodied by this resolution) nor will the City be or be considered to be an issuer of the Local Obligations nor any revenue bonds. The Authority is required to obtain a provision equivalent to this paragraph in all joint community facilities agreements with each Other Local Agency.

Section 12. In the event the Authority completes issuance and sale of Local Obligations, and Local Obligation proceeds become available to finance the Improvements, the Authority shall establish and maintain a special fund for each development project (the “Acquisition and Construction Fund”). The portion of Local Obligation proceeds which is intended to be utilized to finance the Improvements shall be deposited in the Acquisition and Construction Fund. The Acquisition and Construction Fund will be avail able for City Improvements and for the Improvements and Fees pertaining to each Other Local Agency. Subaccounts shall be created as necessary.

Section 13. As respects the Authority and each Other Local Agency, the City agrees to fully administer, and to take full governmental responsibility for, the construction or acquisition of the City Improvements including but not limited to environmental review, approv al of plans and specifications, bid requirements, performance and payment bond requirements, insurance requirements, contract and construction administration, staking, inspection, acquisition of necessary property interests in real or personal property, the holding back and administration of retention payments, punch list administration, and the Authority and each Other Local Agency shall have no responsibility in that regard. The City reserves the right, as respects each Participating Developer, to require the Participating Developer to contract with the City to assume any portion or all of this responsibility. The Authority is required to obtain provisions equivalent to this paragraph in the joint community facilities agreement with each Other Local Agency.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
358 of 966
6 I:\cmo\Resolutions\8523 Joining Statewide Community Infrastructure Program SCIP.docx-msv3

Section 14. The City agrees to indemnify and to hold the Authority, its other members, and its other members’ officers, agents and employees, and each Other Local Agency and their officers, agents and employees (collectively, the “Indemnified Parties”) harmless from any and all claims, suits and damages (including costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees) arising out of the design, engineering, construction and installation of the City Improvements. The City reserves the right, as respects each Participating Developer, to require the Participating Developer to assume by contract with the City any portion or all of this responsibility. The Authority is required to obtain a provision equivalent to this paragraph in all joint community facilities agreements with each Other Local Agency naming the City and its officers, agents and employees as Indemnified Parties with respect to each Other Local Agency’s respective Improvements and the improvements to be constructed or acquired with each Other Local Agency’s Fees.

Section 15. As respects the Authority and each Other Local Agency, the City agrees – once the City Improvements are constructed according to the approved plans and specifications, and the City and the Participating Developer have put in place their agreed arrangements for the funding of maintenance of the City Improvements – to accept ownership of the City Improvements, to take maintenance responsibility for the City Improvements, and to indemnify and hold harmless the Indemnified Parties to the extent provided in the preceding paragraph from any and all claims, etc., arising out of the use and maintenance of the City Improvements. The City reserves the right, as respects the Participating Developer, to require the Participating Developer by contract with the City to assume any portion or all of this responsibility. The Authority is required to obtain a provision equivalent to this paragraph in all joint community facilities agreements with each Other Local Agency naming the City and its officers, agents and employees as Indemnified Parties.

Section 16. The City acknowledges the requirement of the Mello-Roos Act that if the City Improvements are not completed prior to the adoption by the Commission of the Authority of the Resolution of Formation of the CFD for each respective development project, the City Improvements must be constructed as if they had been constructed under the direction and supervision, or under the authority of, the City. The City acknowledges that this means all City Improvements must be constructed under contracts that r equire the payment of prevailing wages as required by Section 1720 and following of the Labor Code of the State of California. The Authority makes no representation that this requirement is the only applicable legal requirement in this regard. The City re serves the right, as respects the Participating Developer, to assign appropriate responsibility for compliance with this paragraph to the Participating Developer.

Section 17. The form of the Acquisition Agreement attached hereto as Exhibit B is hereby approved, and the City Manager or the City Manager’s designee (the “Authorized Officer”) is authorized to execute, and deliver to the Participating Developer, the Acquisition Agreement on behalf of the City in substantially that form, with such changes as shall be approved by the Authorized Officer after consultation with the City Attorney and the Authority’s bond counsel, such approval to be conclusively evidenced by the execution and delivery thereof.

Section 18. After completion of the City Improvements and appropriate arrangements for the maintenance of the City Improvements, or any discrete portion thereof as provided in Section 53313.51 of the Mello-Roos Act and in the Acquisition Agreement, to the satisfaction of the City, and in conjunction with the City’s acceptance thereof, acquisition of the City Improvements shall be undertaken as provided in the Acquisition Agreement.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
359 of 966
7 I:\cmo\Resolutions\8523 Joining Statewide Community Infrastructure Program SCIP.docx-msv3

Section 19. The City hereby consents to the formation of the CFDs in accordance with this resolution and consents to the assumption of jurisdiction by the Authority for the proceedings respecting the CFDs with the understanding that the Authority will hereafter take e ach and every step required for or suitable for consummation of the proceedings, the levy, collection and enforcement of the special tax, and the issuance, sale, delivery and administration of the Local Obligations, all at no cost to the City and without binding or obligating the City’s general fund or taxing authority.

Section 20. The terms of the Agreement embodied by this resolution may be amended by a writing duly authorized, executed and delivered by the City and the Authority, except that no amendment may be made after the issuance of the Local Obligations by the Authority that would be detrimental to the interests of the bondholders without complying with all of the bondholder consent provisions for the amendment of the bond resolutions, bond indentures or like instruments governing the issuance, delivery and administration of all outstanding Local Obligations.

Section 21. Except to the extent of the indemnifications extended to each Other Local Agency in the Agreement embodied by this resolution, and the City’s agreement to take responsibility for and ownership of the City Improvements, no person or entity, including the Participating Developer, shall be deemed to be a third party beneficiary of this resolution, and nothing in this resolution (either express or implied) is intended to confer upon any person or entity other than the Authority and the City (and th eir respective successors and assigns) any rights, remedies, obligations or liabilities under or by reason of this resolution.

Section 22. The City shall be identified as a third-party beneficiary of all joint community facilities agreements between the Authority and each Other Local Agency to the extent of the indemnification provisions and the provisions whereby each Other Local Agency agrees to take responsibility for and ownership of their Improvements.

Section 23. The appropriate officials and staff of the City are hereby authorized and directed to execute and deliver such closing certificates, requisitions, agreements and related documents, including but not limited to such documents as may be required by bond coun sel in connection with the participation in SCIP of any districts, authorities or other third -party entities entitled to own Improvements and/or to levy and collect fees on new development to pay for public capital improvements within the jurisdiction of the City, as are reasonably required by the Authority in accordance with the Manual to implement SCIP and to evidence compliance with the requirements of federal and state law in connection with the issuance by the Authority of the Local Obligations and a ny other bonds for SCIP. To that end, and pursuant to Treasury Regulations Section 1.150-2, the staff persons listed on Exhibit E , or other staff person acting in the same capacity for the City with respect to SCIP, are hereby authorized and designated to declare the official intent of the City with respect to the public capital improvements to be paid or reimbursed through participation in SCIP.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
360 of 966
8 I:\cmo\Resolutions\8523 Joining Statewide Community Infrastructure Program SCIP.docx-msv3

Section 24. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. The City Clerk of the City of Redlands is hereby authorized and directed to transmit a certified copy of this resolution to the Secretary of the Authority. This resolution shall remain in force with respect to any Assessment District and CFD formed until all Local Obligations have been retired and the authority to levy the special tax conferred by any CFD proceedings and to levy the assessment conferred by any assessment proceedings has ended or is otherwise terminated.

ADOPTED, SIGNED AND APPROVED this 5th day of December, 2023

________________________
Eddie Tejeda, Mayor

ATTEST:

_________________________
Jeanne Donaldson, City Clerk

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
361 of 966
9 I:\cmo\Resolutions\8523 Joining Statewide Community Infrastructure Program SCIP.docx-msv3

I, Jeanne Donaldson, City Clerk of the City of Redlands, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City Council at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 5th day of December, 2023, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

__________________________________________
Jeanne Donaldson, City Clerk

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
362 of 966

A-1
4148-5881-6816.1

EXHIBIT “A”

FORM OF RESOLUTION OF INTENTION

TO BE ADOPTED BY CSCDA

RESOLUTION NO. __SCIP-

RESOLUTION OF INTENTION OF THE CALIFORNIA STATEWIDE

COMMUNITIES DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY TO FINANCE CAPITAL

IMPROVEMENTS IN THE PROPOSED STATEWIDE COMMUNITY
INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAM ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. ___
([name of project ]) [City of _________], [COUNTY of _________],

APPROVING A PROPOSED BOUNDARY MAP, MAKING CERTAIN

DECLARATIONS, FINDINGS AND DETERMINATIONS CONCERNING

RELATED MATTERS, AND AUTHORIZING RELATED ACTIONS IN

CONNECTION THEREWITH

WHEREAS, under the authority of the Municipal Improvement Act of 1913 (the “1913 Act”), being Division 12 (commencing with Sections 10000 and following) of the California Streets and Highways Code (the “Code”), the Commission (the “Commission”) of the California Statewide Communities Development Authority (the “Authority”) intends to finance, through its Statewide Community Infrastructure Program, certain public capital improvements to be constructed by or on behalf of the property owner(s) and to be acquired by the [City/County of __] or another local agency (the “Improvements”) as described in Exhibit A attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein, all of which are of benefit to the property within the proposed Statewide Community Infrastructure Program Assessment District No. ___ ([ name of project ]) [City of __________], [County of __________] (the “Assessment District”);

WHEREAS, the Commission finds that the land specially benefited by the Improvements is shown within the boundaries of the map entitled “Proposed Boundaries of California Statewide Communities Development Authority Statewide Community Infrastructure Program Assessm ent District No. ___ ([ name of project ]) [City of __________], [County of __________], State of California,” a copy of which map is on file with the Secretary and presented to this Commission meeting, and determines that the land within the exterio r boundaries shown on the map shall be designated “Statewide Community Infrastructure Program Assessment District No. ___ ([name of project]) [City of __________], [County of __________], State of California”;

WHEREAS, the [City/County of __] is a member of the Authority and has approved the adoption on its behalf of this Resolution of Intention and has consented to the levy of the assessments in the Assessment District;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Commission of the California Statewide Communities Development Authority hereby finds, determines and resolves as follows:

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
363 of 966

A-2
4148-5881-6816.1

Section 1. The above recitals are true and correct.

Section 2. Pursuant to Section 2961 of the Special Assessment Investigation, Limitation and Majority Protest Act of 1931 (the “1931 Act”), being Division 4 (commencing with Section 2800) of the Code, the Commission hereby declares its intent to comply with the requirements of the 1931 Act by complying with Part 7.5 thereof.

Section 3. The Commission has designated a registered, professional engineer as Engineer of Work for this project, and hereby directs said firm to prepare the report containing the matters required by Sections 2961(b) and 10204 of the Code, as supplemented by Section 4 of Article XIIID of the California Constitution.

Section 4. The proposed boundary map of the Assessment District is hereby approved and adopted. Pursuant to Section 3111 of the Code, the Secretary of the Authority is directed to file a copy of the map in the office of the County Recorder of the [County of __________] within fifteen (15) days of the adoption of this resolution.

Section 5. The Commission determines that the cost of financing the Improvements shall be specially assessed against the lots, pieces or parcels of land within the Assessment District benefiting from the financing of the Improvements. The Commission intends to levy a special assessment upon such lots, pieces or parcels in accordance with the special benefit to be received by each such lot, piece or parcel of land, respectively, from the financing of the Improvements.

Section 6. The Commission intends, pursuant to subparagraph (f) of Section 10204 of the Code, to provide for an annual assessment upon each of the parcels of land in the proposed Assessment District to pay various costs and expenses incurred from time to time by the Authority and not otherwise reimbursed to the Authority which result from the administration and collection of assessment installments or from the administration or registration of the improvement bonds and the various funds and accounts pertaining thereto.

Section 7. Bonds representing unpaid assessments, and bearing interest at a rate not to exceed twelve percent (12%) per annum, will be issued in the manner provided by the Improvement Bond Act of 1915 (Division 10 of the Code), and the last installment of the bonds shall mature not to exceed twenty -nine (29) years from the second day of September next succeeding twelve (12) months from their date.

Section 8. The procedure for the collection of assessments and advance retirement of bonds under the Improvement Bond Act of 1915 shall be as provided in Part 11.1 thereof.

Section 9. Neither the Authority nor any member agency thereof will obligate itself to advance available funds from its or their own funds or otherwise to cure any deficiency which may occur in the bond redemption fund. A determination not to obligate itself shall no t prevent the Authority or any such member agency from, in its sole discretion, so advancing funds.

The amount of any surplus remaining in the improvement fund after acquisition of the Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
364 of 966

A-3
4148-5881-6816.1

Improvements and all other claims shall be distributed in accordance with the provisions of Section 10427.1 of the Code.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the California Statewide Communities Development Authority this ___ day of ______, 20__.

I, the undersigned, an Authorized Signatory of the California Statewide Communities Development Authority, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing resolution was duly adopted by the Commission of the Authority at a duly called meeting of the Commission of the Authority held in accordance with law on _____ __ , 20__.

By _________________ _
Authorized Signatory
California Statewide Communities
Development Authority

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
365 of 966

A-4

EXHIBIT A TO THE RESOLUTION OF INTENTION

DESCRIPTION OF WORK
The public capital improvements to be acquired and owned by the City of [__________] or another local agency upon or for the benefit of parcels within the Assessment District, for the project known as [Project Name], which are authorized to be financed pursuant to the Municipal Improvement Act of 1913 and as to which the owners of the applicable parcels within the Assessment District have applied for participation in SCIP, as more particularly described below.

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS*

*Capital improvements includes funding for incidental costs associated with the capital improvements, including but not limited to, contingency, design, engineering, and construction management [End of Form of Resolution of Intention]
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
366 of 966

B-1 4148-5881-6816.1

EXHIBIT “B”

FORM OF ACQUISITION AGREEMENT
_____________________

CALIFORNIA STATEWIDE COMMUNITIES DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

STATEWIDE COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAM

ACQUISITION AGREEMENT

BY AND BETWEEN

CITY OF REDLANDS
AND
[DEVELOPER]

Dated as of _______, 20__

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
367 of 966

B-2
4148-5881-6816.1

ACQUISITION AGREEMENT
Recitals
A. The parties to this Acquisition Agreement (the “Agreement”) are the CITY OF REDLANDS, (the “Local Agency”), and [DEVELOPER], a [ indicate type of legal entity ] (the “Developer”).

B. The effective date of this Agreement is ________, 20__.

C. The Developer has applied for the financing of, among other things, certain public capital improvements to be owned by the Local Agency (collectively, the “Acquisition Improvements”) through the California Statewide Communities Development Authority (the “Authority”) and its Statewide Community Infrastructure Program (“SCIP”). [ For CFDS:][The Acquisition Improvements are to be owned and operated by the Local Agency, and the financing is to be accomplished through a community facilities district which will be administered by the Authority under and pursuant to the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982 – California Government Code Sections 53311 and following (the “Act”). On [__________], 20[_], the Local Agency entered into a Joint Community Facilities Agreement authorizing the Authority to form a community facilities district (the “District”) within the territorial limits of the Local Agency to finance, among other things, the Acquisition Improvements. On [__________], 20[_], the Authority formed the District and, on the same date, a landowner election was conducted in which all of the votes were cast unanimously in favor of conferring the District authority on the Authority Commission.] [ For Assessment Districts :][The Acquisition Improvements are to be owned and operated by the Local Agency, and the financing is to be accomplished through an assessment district (the “District”) which will be administered by the Authority under and pursuant to Municipal Improvemen t Act of 1913 (Streets and Highways Code Sections 10000 and following) (the “1913 Act”) and the issuance of improvement bonds (the “Local Obligations”) under the Improvement B ond Act of 1915 (Streets and Highways Code Sections 8500 and following) (the “1915 Act” and, together with the “1913 Act” the “Act”).] D. The administration, payment and reimbursement of the Acquisition Improvements shall be as provided herein.

E. Under SCIP, the Authority intends to levy [assessments] [special taxes] and issue bonds, in one or more series, to fund, among other things, all or a portion of the costs of the Acquisition Improvements. The portion of the proceeds of the [special taxes and] bonds allocable to the cost of the Acquisition Improvements, together with interest earned thereon, is referred to herein as the “Available Amount”.

F. The Authority will provide financing for the acquisition by the Local Agency of the Acquisition Improvements and the payment of the Acquisition Price (as defined herein) of the Acquisition Improvements from the Available Amount. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a description of the Acquisition Improvements, which includes authorized discrete and usable portions, if any, of the public capital improvements, pursuant to Section 53313.51 of the Act, to be acquired from the Developer.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
368 of 966

B-3
4148-5881-6816.1

G. The parties anticipate that, upon completion of the Acquisition Improvements and subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the Local Agency will acquire such completed Acquisition Improvements with the Available Amount.

H. Any and all monetary obligations of the Local Agency arising out of this Agreement are the special and limited obligations of the Local Agency payable only from the Available Amount, and no other funds whatsoever of the Local Agency shall be obligated therefor.

I. Attached to this Agreement are Exhibit A (Acquisition Improvements and the Eligible Portions thereof), Exhibit B (Form of Requisition), and Exhibit C (Bidding, Contracting and Construction Requirements for Acquisition Improvements), all of which are incorporated into this Agreement for all purposes.

In consideration of Recitals A through I, inclusive, and the mutual covenants, undertakings and obligations set forth below, the Local Agency and the Developer agree as stated below.

Agreement

DEFINITIONS; DISTRICT FORMATION AND

FINANCING PLAN
Definitions. As used herein, the following capitalized terms shall have the meanings ascribed to them below:
“Acceptable Title” means free and clear of all monetary liens, encumbrances, assessments, whether any such item is recorded or unrecorded, and taxes, except those items which are reasonably determined by the Local Agency Engineer not to interfere with the intended use and therefore are not required to be cleared from the title. “Acquisition and Construction Fund” means the “[Local Agency] Acquisition and Construction Fund” established by the Authority pursuant to Section 1.03 hereof for the purpose of paying the Acquisition Price of the Acquisition Improvements and which fund may be held as a subaccount within a fund established under the Authority Trust Agreement and may be commingled with acquisition and construction fund monies available for other public capital improvements.
“Acquisition Improvement” shall have the meaning assigned to such term in the recitals and are further described in Exhibit A.
“Acquisition Price” means the total amount eligible to be paid to the Developer upon acquisition of an Acquisition Improvement as provided in Section 2.03 not to exceed the Actual Cost of the Acquisition Improvement.
“Act” has the meaning ascribed thereto in Recital C.
“Actual Cost” means the total cost of an Acquisition Improvement, as documented by the Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
369 of 966

B-4
4148-5881-6816.1

Developer to the satisfaction of the Local Agency and as certified by the Local Agency Engineer in an Actual Cost Certificate including, without limitation, (a) the Developer’s cost of constructing such Acquisition Improvement including grading, labor, mat erial and equipment costs, (b) the Developer’s cost of designing and engineering the Acquisition Improvement, preparing the plans and specifications and bid documents for such Acquisition Improvement, and the costs of inspection, materials testing and cons truction staking for such Acquisition Improvement, (c) the Developer’s cost of any performance, payment and maintenance bonds and insurance, including title insurance, required hereby for such Acquisition Improvement, (d) the Developer’s cost of any real property or interest therein that is either necessary for the construction of such Acquisition Improvement (e.g., temporary construction easements, haul roads, etc.), or is required to be conveyed with such Acquisition Improvement in order to convey Accepta ble Title thereto to the Local Agency or its designee, (e) the Developer’s cost of environmental evaluation or mitigation required for such Acquisition Improvement, (f) the amount of any fees , excluding development impact fees, actually paid by the Developer to governmental agencies in order to obtain permits, licenses or other necessary governmental approvals and reviews for such Acquisition Improvement, (g) the Developer’s cost for construction and project management, administration and supervision servic es for such Acquisition Improvement, (h) the Developer’s cost for professional services related to such Acquisition Improvement, including engineering, accounting, legal, financial, appraisal and similar professional services, and (i) the costs of construc tion financing incurred by the Developer with respect to such Acquisition Improvement. “Actual Cost Certificate” means a certificate prepared by the Developer detailing the Actual Cost of an Acquisition Improvement, or an Eligible Portion thereof, to be acquired hereunder, as may be revised by the Local Agency Engineer pursuant to Section 2.03. “Agreement” means this Acquisition Agreement, dated as of [_______________], 20[_]. “Authority” means the California Statewide Communities Development Authority. “Authority Trust Agreement” means a Trust Agreement entered into by the Authority and an Authority Trustee in connection with the issuance of bonds. “Authority Trustee” means the financial institution identified as trustee in an Authority Trust Agreement.
“Available Amount” shall have the meaning assigned to the term in Recital E. “Bonds” means bonds or other indebtedness issued by the Authority as tax -exempt or taxable bonds or other indebtedness, in one or more series, that is to be repaid by the District. “Code” means the Streets and Highways Code or the Government Code of the State of California, as applicable.
“Developer” means [Developer], its successors and assigns. “Disbursement Request Form” means a requisition for payment of funds from the Acquisition and Construction Fund for an Acquisition Improvement, or an Eligible Portion thereof in substantially the form contained in Exhibit B hereto.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
370 of 966

B-5
4148-5881-6816.1

“District” shall have the meaning assigned to the term in Recital C. “Eligible Portion” shall have the meaning ascribed to it in Section 2.03 below. “Installment Payment” means an amount equal to ninety percent (90%) of the Actual Cost of an Eligible Portion.
“Local Agency” means the City of Redlands.
“Local Agency Engineer” means the Engineer of the Local Agency or his/her designee who will be responsible for administering the acquisition of the Acquisition Improvements hereunder.
“Project” means the Developer’s development of the property in the District, including the design and construction of the Acquisition Improvements and the other public and private improvements to be constructed by the Developer within the District. [“Special Taxes” means annual special taxes, and prepayments thereof, authorized by the District to be levied by the Commission of the Authority.] “Title Documents” means, for each Acquisition Improvement acquired hereunder, a grant deed or similar instrument necessary to transfer title to any real property or interests therein (including easements), or an irrevocable offer of dedication of such real property with interests therein necessary to the operation, maintenance, rehabilitation and improvement by the Local Agency of the Acquisition Improvement (including, if necessary, easements for ingress and egress) and a bill of sale or similar instrument evidencing transfer of title to the Acquisition Improvement (other than said real property interests) to the Local Agency, where applicable.

Participation in SCIP . [ For CFDs:][The Local Agency has entered into a Joint Community Facilities Agreement with the Authority for the purpose of accepting applications from time to time of developers within the Local Agency’s jurisdictional boundaries.] Developer has applied for financing through SCIP of the Acquisition Improvements, and such application has been approved by the Local Agency. Developer and Local Agency agree that until and unless such financing is completed by the Authority and the Available Amount is depos ited in the Acquisition Account (as defined in Section 1.03 below), neither the Developer nor the Local Agency shall have any obligations under this agreement. Developer agrees to cooperate with the Local Agency and the Authority in the completion of SCIP financing for the Acquisition Improvements.

Deposit and Use of Available Amount.

Upon completion of the SCIP financing, the Available Amount will be deposited by the Authority in the Acquisition Account.

The Authority will cause the SCIP Trustee to establish and maintain an account (the “Acquisition Account”) for the purpose of holding all funds for the Acquisition Improvements.

All earnings on amounts in the Acquisition and Construction Fund shall remain in the Acquisition and Construction Fund for use as provided herein and pursuant to the Authority Trust Agreement.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
371 of 966

B-6
4148-5881-6816.1

Money in the Acquisition and Construction Fund shall be available to respond to delivery of a Disbursement Request Form and to be paid to the Developer or its designee to pay the Acquisition Price of the Acquisition Improvements, as specified in Article II hereof. Upon completion of all of the Acquisition Improvements and the payment of all costs thereof, any remaining funds in the Acquisition and Construction Fund (less any amount determined by the Local Agency as necessary to reserve for claims against t he account) (i) shall be applied to pay the costs of any additional Acquisition Improvements eligible for acquisition with respect to the Project as approved by the Authority and, to the extent not so used, (ii) shall be applied by the Authority [to call B onds or to reduce Special Taxes as the Authority shall determine][as provided in Section 10427.1 of the Code to pay a portion of the assessments levied on the Project property in the District].

No Local Agency Liability; Local Agency Discretion; No Effect on Other Agreements. In no event shall any actual or alleged act by the Local Agency or any actual or alleged omission or failure to act by the Local Agency with respect to SCIP subject the Local Agency to monetary liability therefor. Further, nothing in this Agreement sha ll be construed as affecting the Developer’s or the Local Agency’s duty to perform their respective obligations under any other agreements, public improvement standards, land use regulations or subdivision requirements related to the Project, which obligat ions are and shall remain independent of the Developer’s and the Local Agency’s rights and obligations under this Agreement.

DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION AND ACQUISITION OF ACQUISITION IMPROVEMENTS Letting and Administering Design Contracts. The parties presently anticipate that the Developer has awarded and administered or will award and administer engineering design contracts for the Acquisition Improvements to be acquired from Developer. All eligible expenditures of the Developer for design engineering and related costs in connection with the Acquisition Improvements (whether as an advance to the Local Agency or directly to the design consultant) shall be reimbursed at the time of acquisition of such Acquisition Improvements. The Developer shall be entitled to reimbursement for any design costs of the Acquisition Improvements only out of the Acqui sition Price as provided in Section 2.03 and shall not be entitled to any payment for design costs independent of or prior to the acquisition of Acquisition Improvements.

Letting and Administration of Construction Contracts; Indemnification. State law requires that all Acquisition Improvements not completed prior to the formation of the District shall be constructed as if they were constructed under the direction and supervision, or under the authority, of the [Local Agency]. In order to assure compliance with those provisions, except for any contracts entered into prior to the date hereof, Developer agrees to comply with the requirements set forth in Exhibit C hereto with respect to the bidding and contracting for the construction of the A cquisition Improvements. The Developer agrees that all the contracts shall call for payment of prevailing wages as required by the Labor Code of the State of California. The Developer’s indemnification obligation set forth in Section 3.01 of this Agreement shall also apply to any alleged failure to comply with the requirements of this Section, and/or applicable State laws regarding public contracting and prevailing wages.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
372 of 966

B-7
4148-5881-6816.1

Sale of Acquisition Improvements . The Developer agrees to sell to the [Local Agency] each Acquisition Improvement to be constructed by Developer (including any rights-of- way or other easements necessary for the Acquisition Improvements, to the extent not already publicly owned), when th e Acquisition Improvement is has been constructed and is complete to the satisfaction of the Local Agency for an amount not to exceed the lesser of (i) the Available Amount or (ii) the Actual Cost of the Acquisition Improvement. Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein, contains a list of the Acquisition Improvements. Portions of an Acquisition Improvement eligible for Installment Payments prior to completion of the entire Acquisition Improvement are described as eligible, discrete and usable portions in Exhibit A (each, an “Eligible Portion”). At the time of completion of each Acquisition Improvement, or Eligible Portion thereof, the Developer shall deliver to the Local Agency Engineer a written request for acquisition, accompanied by an Actual Cost Certificate, and by executed Title Documents for the transfer of the Acquisition Improvement where necessary. In the event that the Local Agency Engineer finds that the supporting paperwork submitted by the Developer fails to demonstrate the require d relationship between the subject Actual Cost and eligible work, the Local Agency Engineer shall advise the Developer that the determination of the Actual Cost (or the ineligible portion thereof) has been disallowed and shall request further documentation from the Developer. If the further documentation is still not adequate, the Local Agency Engineer may revise the Actual Cost Certificate to delete any disallowed items and the determination shall be final and conclusive.

Certain soft costs for the Acquisition Improvements, such as civil engineering, may have been incurred pursuant to single contracts that include work relating also to the private portions of the Project. In those instances, the total costs under such cont racts will be allocated to each Acquisition Improvement as approved by the Local Agency Engineer. Where a specific contract has been awarded for design or engineering work relating solely to an Acquisition Improvement, one hundred percent (100%) of the co sts under the contract will be allocated to that Acquisition Improvement. Amounts allocated to an Acquisition Improvement will be further allocated among the Eligible Portions of that Acquisition Improvement, if any, in the same proportion as the amount to be reimbursed for hard costs for each Eligible Portion bears to the amount to be reimbursed for hard costs for the entire Acquisition Improvement. Costs will be allocated to each Acquisition Improvement as approved by the Local Agency Engineer. The cos ts of certain environmental mitigation required to mitigate impacts of the public and private portions of the Project will be allocated to each Acquisition Improvement as approved by the Local Agency Engineer.

In the event that the Actual Cost is in excess of the Available Amount, the Local Agency shall withdraw the Available Amount from the Acquisition Account and transfer said amount to the Developer. In the event that the Actual Cost is less than the Availab le Amount, the Local Agency shall withdraw an amount from the Acquisition Account equal to the Actual Cost, and shall transfer said amount to the Developer. Any amounts then remaining in the Acquisition Account shall be applied as provided in Section 1.03.

In no event shall the Local Agency be required to pay the Developer more than the amount on deposit in the Acquisition Account at the time such payment is requested.

Conditions Precedent to Payment of Acquisition Price. Payment to the Developer or its designee of the Acquisition Price for an Acquisition Improvement from the Acquisition and Construction Fund shall in every case be conditioned first upon the determination of the Local Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
373 of 966

B-8
4148-5881-6816.1

Agency Engineer, pursuant to Section 2.03, that the Acquisition Improvement satisfies all Local Agency regulations and ordinances and is otherwise complete and ready for acceptance by the Local Agency, and shall be further conditioned upon satisfaction of the following additional conditions precedent:

The Developer shall have provided the Local Agency with lien releases or other similar documentation satisfactory to the Local Agency Engineer as evidence that none of the property (including any rights -of-way or other easements necessary for the operation and maintenance of the Acquisition Improvement, to the extent not already publicly owned) comprising the Acquisition Improvement, and the property which is subject to the [assessments/Special Taxes] of the District, is not subject to any prospective mechanics lien claim respecting the Acquisition Improvements.

All due and payable property taxes, and installments of [assessments/Special Taxes] shall be current on property owned by the Developer or under option to the Developer that is subject to the lien of the District.

The Developer shall certify that it is not in default with respect to any loan secured by any interest in the Project.

The Developer shall have provided the Local Agency with Title Documents needed to provide the Local Agency with title to the site, right-of-way, or easement upon which the subject Acquisition Improvements are situated. All such Title Documents shall be in a form acceptable to the Local Agency (or applicable governmental agency) and shall convey Acceptable Title. The Developer shall provide a policy of title insurance as of the date of transfer in a form acceptable to the Local Agency Engineer insuring the Local Agency as to the interests acquired in connection with the acquisition of any interest for which such a policy of title insurance is not required by another agreement between the Local Agency and the Developer. Each title insurance policy required hereunder shall be in the amount equal to or greater than the Acquisition Price.

SCIP Requisition. Upon a determination by the Local Agency Engineer to pay the Acquisition Price of the Acquisition Improvements pursuant to Section 2.04, the Local Agency Engineer shall cause a SCIP Requisition to be submitted to the Program Administrator. The Program Administrator will review the SCIP Requisition and forward it with instructions to the SCIP Trustee and the SCIP Trustee shall make payment directly to the Developer of such amount pursuant to the SCIP Trust Agreement. The Local Agency and the Developer acknowledge and agree that the SCIP Trustee shall make payment strictly in accordance with the SCIP Requisition and shall not be required to determine whether or not the Acquisition Improvements have been completed or what the Actual Costs m ay be with respect to such Acquisition Improvements. The SCIP Trustee shall be entitled to rely on the SCIP Requisition on its face without any further duty of investigation.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
374 of 966

B-9
4148-5881-6816.1

MISCELLANEOUS
Indemnification and Hold Harmless . The Developer hereby assumes the defense of, and indemnifies and saves harmless the Local Agency, the Authority, and each of its respective officers, directors, employees and agents, from and against all actions, damages, claims, losses or expenses of every type and description to which they may be subjected or put, by reason of, or resulting from or alleged to have resulted from the acts or omissions of the Developer or its agents and employees in the performance of this Agreement, or arising out of any contract for the design, engineering and construction of the Acquisition Improvements or arising out of any alleged misstatements of fact or alleged omission of a material fact made by the Developer, its officers, directors, employees or agents to the Authority's underwriter, financial advisor, appraiser, district engineer or bond counsel or regarding the Developer, its proposed developments, its property ownership and its contractual arrangements contained in the official statement relating to the SCIP financing (provided that the Developer shall have been furnished a copy of such official statement and shall not have objected thereto); and provided, further, that nothing in this Section 3.01 shall limit in any manner the Local Agency’s rights against any of the Developer’s architects, engineers, contractors or other consultants. Except as set forth in this Section 3.01, no provision of this Agreement shall in any way limit the extent of the responsibility of the Developer for payment of damages resulting from the operations of the Developer, its agents and employees. Nothing in this Section 3.01 shall be understood or construed to mean that the Developer agrees to indemnify the Local Agency, the Authority or any of its respective officers, directors, emp loyees or agents, for any negligent or wrongful acts or omissions to act of the Local Agency, Authority its officers, employees, agents or any consultants or contractors.

Audit. The Local Agency shall have the right, during normal business hours and upon the giving of ten days’ written notice to the Developer, to review all books and records of the Developer pertaining to costs and expenses incurred by the Developer (for which the Developer seeks reimbursement) in constructing the Acquisition Improvements.

Cooperation. The Local Agency and the Developer agree to cooperate with respect to the completion of the SCIP financing for the Acquisition Improvements. The Local Agency and the Developer agree to meet in good faith to resolve any differences on future matters which are not specifically covered by this Agreement.

General Standard of Reasonableness . Any provision of this Agreement which requires the consent, approval or acceptance of either party hereto or any of their respective employees, officers or agents shall be deemed to require that such consent, approval or acceptance not be unreasonably withheld or delayed, unless such provision expressly incorporates a different standard. The foregoing provision shall not apply to provisions in the Agreement which provide for decisions to be in the sole discretion of the party making the decision.

Third Party Beneficiaries. The Authority and its officers, employees, agents or any consultants or contractors are expressly deemed third party beneficiaries of this Agreement with respect to the provisions of Section 3.01. It is expressly agreed that, except for the Authority with respect to the provisions of Section 3.01, there are no third party beneficiaries of this Agreement, Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
375 of 966

B-10
4148-5881-6816.1

including without limitation any owners of bonds, any of the Local Agency’s or the Developer’s contractors for the Acquisition Improvements and any of the Local Agency’s, the Authority's or the Developer’s agents and employees.

Conflict with Other Agreements . Nothing contained herein shall be construed as releasing the Developer or the Local Agency from any condition of development or requirement imposed by any other agreement between the Local Agency and the Developer, and, in the event of a conflicting provision, such other agreement shall prevail unless such conflicting provision is specifically waived or modified in writing by the Local Agency and the Developer.

Notices. All invoices for payment, reports, other communication and notices relating to this Agreement shall be mailed to:

If to the Local Agency:

City of Redlands
[Address to come]
If to the Developer:
[Developer]
[Address to come]
Either party may change its address by giving notice in writing to the other party.

Severability. If any part of this Agreement is held to be illegal or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remainder of this Agreement shall be given effect to the fullest extent reasonably possible.

Governing Law . This Agreement and any dispute arising hereunder shall be governed by and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of California.

Waiver. Failure by a party to insist upon the strict performance of any of the provisions of this Agreement by the other party, or the failure by a party to exercise its rights upon the default of the other party, shall not constitute a waiver of such party’s right to insist and demand strict compliance by the other party with the terms of this Agreement.

Singular and Plural; Gender. As used herein, the singular of any word includes the plural, and terms in the masculine gender shall include the feminine.

Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original.

Successors and Assigns . This Agreement is binding upon the heirs, assigns and successors-in-interest of the parties hereto. The Developer may not assign its rights or obligations hereunder, except to successors -in-interest to the property within the District, without the prior written consent of the Local Agency.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
376 of 966

B-11
4148-5881-6816.1

Remedies in General . It is acknowledged by the parties that the Local Agency would not have entered into this Agreement if it were to be liable in damages under or with respect to this Agreement or the application thereof, other than for the payment to the Developer of any (i) moneys owing to the Developer hereunder, or (ii) moneys paid by the Developer pursuant to the provisions hereof which are misappropriated or improperly obtained, withheld or applied by the Local Agency.

In general, each of the parties hereto may pursue any remedy at law or equity available for the breach of any provision of this Agreement, except that the Local Agency shall not be liable in damages to the Developer, or to any assignee or transferee of the Developer other than for the payments to the Developer specified in the preceding paragraph. Subject to the foregoing, the Developer covenants not to sue for or claim any damages for any alleged breach of, or dispute which arises out of, this Agreement.

[The remainder of this page intentionally left blank]

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
377 of 966

B-12
4148-5881-6816.1

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the day and year written above.

CITY OF REDLANDS

By: ______________________________________
[City Manager]

ATTEST:

City Clerk of the City of Redlands

By: ________________________________

[DEVELOPER],
a [indicate type of legal entity]

By: __________________________
(Signature)

__________________________
(Print Name)

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
378 of 966

D-1 4148-5881-6816.1

Exhibit A to the Acquisition Agreement

DESCRIPTION OF ACQUISITION IMPROVEMENTS AND BUDGETED AMOUNTS

[To be completed based on Final Engineer’s Report]

Funding includes amounts for incidental costs associated with the capital improvements, including, but not limited to, contingency, design, engineering, and construction management.

ACQUISITION IMPROVEMENTS TOTAL AMOUNT*
[_] ............................................................................................................. $[_] [_] ............................................................................................................. $[_]

* Estimated. Acquisition Price will be determined based on Actual Cost as further described in this Acquisition Agreement.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
379 of 966

D-1 4148-5881-6816.1

Exhibit B to the Acquisition Agreement

FORM OF SCIP REQUISITION
To: BLX Group LLC
SCIP Program Administrator
777 S. Figueroa St., Suite 3200
Los Angeles, California 90017
Attention: Vo Nguyen
Fax: 213-612-2499

Re: Statewide Community Infrastructure Program
The undersigned, a duly authorized officer of the CITY OF REDLANDS hereby requests a withdrawal from the [DEVELOPER] ACQUISITION ACCOUNT, as follows:

Request Date: [Insert Date of Request]
Name of Developer: [Developer]
Withdrawal Amount: [Insert Acquisition Price]
Acquisition Improvements: [Insert Description of Acquisition Improvement(s) from Ex. A] Payment Instructions: [Insert Wire Instructions or Payment Address for Developer] The undersigned hereby certifies as follows:

1. The Withdrawal is being made in accordance with a permitted use of such monies pursuant to the Acquisition Agreement, and the Withdrawal is not being made for the purpose of reinvestment.

2. None of the items for which payment is requested have been reimbursed previously from other sources of funds.

3. If the Withdrawal Amount is greater than the funds held in the Acquisition Account, the SCIP Program Administrator is authorized to amend the amount requested to be equal to the amount of such funds.

4. To the extent the Withdrawal is being made prior to the date bonds have been issued on behalf of SCIP, this withdrawal form serves as the declaration of official intent of the CITY OF REDLANDS, pursuant to Treasury Regulations 1.150 -2, to reimburse with respect expenditures made from the Acquisition Account listed above in the amount listed above.

CITY OF REDLANDS
By:

Title:

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
380 of 966

D-1 4148-5881-6816.1

EXHIBIT “C”

ELIGIBLE FACILITIES
Eligible facilities that may be financed by a CFD formed by CSCDA through SCIP include all improvements authorized under the Mello-Roos Act, including but not limited to the following:

Transportation Improvements
Eligible roadway improvements include, but are not limited to: acquisition of land and easements; roadway design; project management; bridge crossings and culverts; clearing, grubbing, and demolition; grading, soil import/export, paving (including slurry s eal), and decorative/enhanced pavement concrete and/or pavers; joint trenches, underground utilities and undergrounding of existing utilities; dry utilities and appurtenances; curbs, gutters, sidewalks, bike trails (including onsite and off -site), enhanced fencing, and access ramps; street lights, signalization, and traffic signal control systems; bus turnouts; signs and striping; erosion control; median and parkway landscaping and irrigation; entry monumentation; bus shelters, bus and transit improvements including transfer stations and regional public transit improvements; masonry walls; traffic control; and other improvements related thereto. Eligible improvements for the roads listed herein also include any and all necessary underground potable and recy cled water, sanitary sewer, and storm drainage system improvements.

Water System Improvements
Authorized facilities include any and all water facilities designed to meet the needs of development within the CFD. These facilities include, but may not be limited to: water storage, treatment and distribution facilities including waterlines and appurte nances, gate valves, pressure reducing stations, flow meters, fire hydrants, and other improvements related thereto such as site clearing, grading and paving; curbs and gutters; booster pump stations & power; stand -by generators; site lighting, drainage, sanitary sewer, and water service; landscaping and irrigation; access gates, and fencing; and striping and signage.

Recycled Water System Improvements
Authorized facilities include any and all recycled water system facilities designed to meet the needs of development within the CFD. These facilities include, but may not be limited to: treatment and distribution facilities including pipelines and appurte nances, gate valves, flow meters, booster pump pressurization system, and other improvements related thereto - such as site clearing, grading and paving; curbs and gutters; booster pump stations; stand-by generators; site lighting, drainage, sanitary sewer , and water service; landscaping and irrigation; access gates, and fencing; and striping and signage.

Drainage System Improvements
Authorized facilities include any and all drainage and storm drain improvements designed to meet the needs of development within the CFD. These facilities include, but may not be limited to:
excavation and grading, pipelines and appurtenances, outfalls and water quality measures, detention/retention basins, drainage pretreatment facilities, drainage ways/channels, pump stations, landscaping and irrigation; access roads, gates, and fencing; and striping and signage and other improvements related thereto.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
381 of 966

D-1 4148-5881-6816.1

Wastewater System Improvements
Authorized facilities include any and all wastewater facilities designed to meet the needs of development within the CFD. These facilities include, but may not be limited to, pipelines and all appurtenances thereto; manholes; tie-in to existing main lines; force mains; lift stations; upgrades to existing lift stations; odor -control facilities; and permitting related thereto; and related sewer system improvements.

Park, Parkway and Open Space Improvements
Authorized facilities include any and all improvements to parks, parkways and open space required for development within the CFD. These facilities include, but may not be limited to: grading, turf, shrubs and trees, landscaping irrigation, site lighting, drainage, sanitary sewer and water service, pedestrian and bicycle trails, protective fencing (including soundwalls), pedestrian/bicycle bridges, storm drain crossings, wetland mitigation, hawk mitigation for authorized facilities herein, access gates and fencing and related open space improvements. Authorized facilities include acquisition of any and all parkland as well as open space/bike trail/public access easements required for development within the CFD.

School and Educational Facilities
Authorized facilities include classroom renovation, updates to school safety and security systems, technology improvements, energy efficiency improvements, school modernization and retrofitting, and new classroom and school construction as required for dev elopment within the CFD.

Other Incidental Expenses and Bond Issuance Costs
In addition to the above facilities, other incidental expenses as authorized by the Mello -Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982, including, but not limited to, the cost of planning and designing the facilities (including the cost of environmental evaluatio n, remediation and mitigation); engineering and surveying; construction staking; utility relocation and demolition costs incidental to the construction of the public facilities; costs of project/construction management; costs (including the costs of legal services) associated with the formation of the CFD; issuance of bonds (if any); determination of the amount of taxes; collection of taxes; payment of taxes; costs of calculating and providing reimbursements from one-time special tax payments; or costs otherwise incurred in order to carry out the authorized purposes of the CFD; and any other expenses incidental to the formation and implementation of the CFD and to the construction, completion, inspection and acquisition of the authorized facilities.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
382 of 966

D-1 4148-5881-6816.1

EXHIBIT “D”

FORM OF INCREASED DEMANDS CERTIFICATE
To: California Statewide Communities Development Authority Re: Statewide Community Infrastructure Program – Community Facilities District for [Project]
The undersigned, a duly authorized officer of the CITY OF REDLANDS (the “Local Agency”) hereby certifies that the public capital improvements identified below are necessary to meet increased demands placed upon the Local Agency as a result of development w ithin the proposed community facilities district for the [Project]:
[List improvements here]

CITY OF REDLANDS
By:

Title:

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
383 of 966

E-1 4148-5881-6816.1

EXHIBIT “E”

CITY OF REDLANDS CONTACTS FOR SCIP PROGRAM
Primary Contact
Name: Brian Desatnik
Title: Development Services Director
Mailing Address: 35 Cajon Street, Suite 20
Delivery Address (if different):

E-mail: [email protected]
Telephone: (909) 798-7555
Secondary Contact
Name: Don Young
Title: One Stop Permit Manager
Mailing Address: 35 Cajon Street, Suite 15A
Delivery Address (if different):

E-mail: [email protected]
Telephone: (909) 798-7555
[Add additional contacts as needed]

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
384 of 966

F-1

CERTIFICATION OF RESOLUTION
I, the undersigned, the duly appointed and qualified City Clerk of the City of Redlands, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. ___________ was duly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Redlands duly and regularly held at the regular meeting place thereof on the _______ day of __________, 2023, of which meeting all of the members of said City Council had due notice and at which a majority thereof were present.

An agenda of said meeting was posted at least 72 hours before said meeting at _____________________, a location freely accessible to members of the public, and a brief description of said resolution appeared on said agenda.

Notice of public was published in [ name of newspaper ] at least 5 days prior to the hearing.

I have carefully compared the foregoing with the original minutes of said meeting on file and of record in my office, and the foregoing is a full, true and correct copy of the original resolution adopted at said meeting and entered in said minutes.

Said resolution has not been amended, modified or rescinded since the date of its adoption and the same is now in full force and effect.

Dated: _______________, 2023
_________________________________
City Clerk of the City of Redlands

By: ______________________________

Seal
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
385 of 966
City Council/Successor Agency Meeting J. 2.

DATE: 12/05/2023
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
SUBJECT: Resolution No. 8522 - Fee and Service Charge Revenue/Cost Comparison System
(Mayor to declare meeting open as a public hearing)
Public hearing to consider Resolution No. 8522 approving a Fee and Service Charge Revenue/Cost Comparison System;
Establishing the Amounts of Fees and Charges Levied In
Connection with the City’s Provision of Services and
determination that this resolution is exempt
from environmental review pursuant to Section 15273 of the state's Guidelines implementing the California Environmental Quality Act.
(Management Services/Finance Director Garcia)
a.

PROCEDURE FOR PUBLIC HEARING:

Mayor declares the meeting open as a public hearing.1.

Mayor calls upon Department Director for report.2.

Mayor calls for questions/comments from members of the City Council.3.

Mayor calls for comments/questions/testimony from members of the public (3 minutes per speaker).

4. Mayor calls upon City Clerk to note any written comments received.5.

Mayor closes the public hearing.6.

City Council considers the motion and votes.7.

MOTION(S):

I move to determine that the adoption of Resolution No. 8522 is exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15273 of the State's Guidelines implementing the California Environmental Quality Act and to adopt Resolution No. 8522.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
386 of 966
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends the City Council determine that the adoption of Resolution No. 8522 is exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15273 of the state's Guidelines implementing the California Environmental Quality Act; and approve Resolution No. 8522.

DISCUSSION:

As staffing levels stabilized over the last 18 months, the Management Services Department was able to undertake a new cost of service study and overhead cost allocation plan that was previously budgeted for in fiscal year 2022. In Spring 2022, staff released a Request for Proposals (RFP) for these services.

Specifically, the scope of work included:

An Overhead Cost Allocation Study to help the City appropriately allocate general and administrative costs in the budget, and properly identify overhead rates for federal and state grants, user fees, and reimbursements from other governmental agencies; and
A Comprehensive User Fee and Rate Study to establish a fee and rate structure that meets the needs of the City and those it serves A total of four (4) proposals were received. Staff reviewed the proposals and selected Martix Consulting Group as the most highly qualified firm to provide these services.

The purpose of the Cost Allocation Plan is to clearly outline the support provided to general fund and non-general fund operations from central service departments (i.e., payroll, human resources, building maintenance). During the initial stages of the project, the consultant worked with Finance staff to compile budgetary data needed to properly allocate overhead costs across the City in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. The results of the Cost Allocation Plan are incorporated into the citywide fee study.

After the Cost Allocation Plan was completed and finalized, the Matrix team met with department staff citywide to understand the fee structure, discuss ideas and improvements, as well as collect data on each permit and service type – including time estimates. This culminated in an analysis that provides information on the full cost of providing each service included in the City’s schedule of fees. This iterative process also includes adding and removing fees as the need arises. The results are reviewed by City staff within each corresponding department for accuracy and reasonableness. The results are also reviewed to understand the impact of the updated information.

This work was substantially completed during the summer of 2023, before the City's negotiations with its nine (9) bargaining units were finalized. Therefore, Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
387 of 966
City's negotiations with its nine (9) bargaining units were finalized. Therefore, the full costs established in the Fee Study are to be used as a base amount that is increased with periodic across-the-board increases that are agreed to between the City and its labor partners. As such, in June and July 2023, the City Council approved a 7% across-the-board increase for its employees. The full costs of the fees outlined in the Fee Study have been updated and a reconciliation of the same is included with this report.

At this time, staff is recommending Council approval of Resolution No. 8522 which rescinds Resolution No. 8045. The Fee Study Report is attached for review, as well as the reconciliation of cost increases associated with the increase in personnel costs as of June and July 2023. The resolution reflects the costs associated with the services being provided, the percentage of costs being recovered, as well as the recommended recovery levels.

Department heads and staff reviewed the draft fee summaries, along with Finance staff, and are recommending recovery of “costs reasonably borne” at the following percentages, unless restricted by state statute or local ordinance:

Fees by Department Recovery Percentage
Development Services -
Planning 100%
Building & Safety 100%
Municipal Utilities & Engineering 100%
Fire Department 100%
Facilities & Community Services -
Trees & Administration 23-100%
Code Enforcement 100%
Animal Services 6-82%
Parks & Recreation 0-100%*
Police Department 100%
Management Services/Revenue 38-100%
Library 0-25%
*Fees charged for Parks & Recreation can be market-rate based, meaning that they are permitted by law to over-recover the cost of providing services related to rentals, reservations, and programs. The City often does so as to manage demand and expand other service offerings, as well as to offset under-recovering in other areas.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
388 of 966

The following fees are not recommended for adjustment, because they are restricted by either state statute or local ordinance:

Facilities & Community Services –
Animal Services
Shelter apprehension, unaltered-1st $ 35
Shelter apprehension, unaltered-2nd $ 50
Shelter apprehension, unaltered-3rd $ 100

Code Enforcement
Rental Dwelling Permit < 1 acre $ 80
Rental Dwelling Permit 1-3 acres $ 94
Rental Dwelling Permit 3.01-5 acres $ 106
Rental Dwelling Permit > 5.01 acres $ 116
Rental Dwelling Permit Reinspection $ 40

Development Services –
Building & Safety - Miscellaneous Permit Fees
Solar Energy Systems
Residential 0-15 kW $ 450
Residential each kW>15kW $ 15 /kW

Non-Residential 0-50 kW $ 1,000
Non-Residential ea. addt'l kW 51-250 kW $ 7 /kW Non-Residential ea. addt'l kW >250kW $ 5 /kW

Municipal Utilities and Engineering
Wide Load – Single Trip $ 16
Wide Load – Annual $ 90

Police Department
Concealed Carry Weapon (CCW) Permit $ 100
CCW Permit renewal $ 25
CCW Permit Modification $ 10
Resolution No. 8522 incorporates the past practice of using a phased-in approach for certain fee increases in Revenue, Parks & Recreation, Development Services (flat fees only, not those set by square footage), Fire, and Municipal Utilities & Engineering:

If the department's recommended recovery percentage increases by more than 70%, the fees are implemented over three years;

1. If between 30% and 70%, the fees are implemented over 2 years;2.

And if less than 30%, the recommended fees are implemented in the first year.

3. Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
389 of 966
Additionally, the resolution and the fees established by it shall become effective immediately upon Council approval except for new or modified fees which apply to the “filing, accepting, reviewing, approving, or issuance of an application, permit or entitlement to use” for a development project, as defined in Government Code section 66000. Those fees become effective sixty (60) days after the Council approves the resolution.

Generally speaking, Library fees are being reduced considerably in order to reduce barriers to library access and attract more patrons. Certain permit fees in the Revenue Division are increasing while other fees, like those for returned checks, are decreasing. Police Department fees are decreasing, reflecting streamlined processes. Fees for Animal Services are increasing modestly, and new services are being added. Growing evidence supports lower adoption fees promote increased save rates at shelters and, for that reason, these services are subsidized more than others. Fees in FCS - Administration, Code Enforcement and Trees are remaining relatively stable except for some higher fee increases related to abandoned property inspections and annual license fees for City facilities. Parks & Recreation fees are remaining relatively flat, with some increased fees for room reservations, reflecting the different sized rooms that are available. Generally, fees for Engineering are decreasing for encroachment permits and increasing in other areas related to plan check.

For Development Services - Planning fees, there are a number of fees whose recovery rate is increasing by more than 30%. These changes can be attributed to the length of time since the fees were last reviewed (2016). Since then, there have been changes in internal processes as well as staffing levels. Flat fees for Development Services - Building & Safety remain relatively stable, with moderate increases in some areas. For Building & Safety fees that are charged according to square footage of a project, these fees are shifting to recognize that smaller sized projects have been over-recovering and subsidizing the larger projects. By reevaluating the time estimates for each project size category, fees more appropriately reflect their fair share of plan check and inspection costs.

The adoption of this resolution is exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to state CEQA guidelines section 15273, which states that CEQA does not apply to the establishment, modification, structuring, restructuring, or approval of rates, tolls, fares, and other charges by public agencies.

ALTERNATIVES:

Council may deny the motion and provide alternative direction to staff.

STRATEGIC PLAN:

Not Applicable
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
390 of 966
SUBMITTED BY:

Danielle Garcia, Management Services/Finance Director
RECOMMENDED BY:

Charles M. Duggan, Jr., City Manager
REVIEWED BY:

Yvette M. Abich Garcia, City Attorney
Christopher Boatman, Assistant City Manager
Tabitha Crocker, Facilities and Community Services Director Brian Desatnik, Development Services Director
Don McCue, Library Director
Rachel Tolber, Chief of Police
Rich Sessler, Fire Chief
Fiscal Impact
Fiscal Year: multiple
Revenue Generating: Yes
Discussion:

Recommended fees are reflected in Exhibit “A” of Resolution No. 8522. At the estimated service levels, the fees included in Resolution No. 8522 are anticipated to generate approximately $780,000 in additional revenue per fiscal year. The increase in revenues will be accounted for in the upcoming FY 2025 & 2026 Biennial Budget being developed in the spring of 2024.

Attachments
Reso. No. 8522 Fee Resolution December 2023
Fee Schedule - Exhibit A of Resolution No. 8522
Report on Cost of Services (User Fee) Study
Reconciliation of User Fee Study Full Costs and Employee MOU Increases Cost Allocation Plan 2023
Reso. No. 8045 and Fee Schedule (rescind)
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
391 of 966
-1-
I:\cmo\Resolutions\8522 Fee and Service Charge Revenue Cost Comparison System.docx-msv2 RESOLUTION NO. 8522

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REDLANDS

ESTABLISHING A FEE AND SERVICE CHARGE REVENUE/COST COMPARISON

SYSTEM AND THE AMOUNTS OF FEES LEVIED IN CONNECTION WITH THE CITY’S PROVISION OF REGULATIONS, PRODUCTS AND SERVICES, AND RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 8045

BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Redlands as follows:

Section 1. Intent. Pursuant to article XIIIB of the California Constitution, it is the intent of the City Council of the City of Redlands to require the ascertainment of recovery of costs reasonably borne from fees levied therefor in providing the regulation s, product s or service s hereinafter enumerated in the exhibits to this Resolution. The fee and service charge revenue/cost comparison system establi shed within this Resolution provides a mechanism to e nsure that , pursuant to this Resolution, the fees adopted by the C ity for services rendered do not exceed the reasonable estimated costs for providing the regulation s, products or services for which the fees are charged. Accordingly, the City Council, by adoption of this Resolut ion, adopts the fees described in the attached Exhibit “A”.

Section 2. CPI Adjustment. The fees established by this Resolution may be increased annually by the City’s Finance Director, in July of each fiscal year, by an amount reasonably equal to the percent change in the Consumer Price Index – All Urban Users (Riverside – San Bernardino – Ontario) over the prior year. In making such adjustments, the Finance Director may round the amount of the increased fee to the nearest dollar for purposes of facilitating efficient payment and collection. Further, the City Manager, or his or her designee, shall undertake periodic reviews of the fees established by this Resolution and provide a written report to the City Council recommending whether such fees should be adjusted to reflect increased costs or efficiencies in the City’s provision of regulations, products and services.

Section 3. Authority for Administrative Orders. The City Manager is hereby delegated the authority to issue administrative orders establishing fee collection and financial procedures for implementation of this Resolution. All such administrative orders shall be signed by any affected Department Directors and the Finance Director.

Section 4. Costs Reasonably Borne. The phrase "costs reasonably borne," as used in this Resolution, consists of:

A. All applicable direct costs including, but not limited to, salaries, wages, fringe benefits, services and supplies, operation expenses, contracted services, special supplies and any other direct expense incurred.

B. All applicable indirect costs including, but not limited to, building maintenance and operations, equipment maintenance, communication, printing and reproduction, and like expenses when distributed on a rational proration system.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
392 of 966
-2-
I:\cmo\Resolutions\8522 Fee and Service Charge Revenue Cost Comparison System.docx-msv2 C. Fixed asset recovery expenses, consisting of depreciation of fixed assets and additional fixed asset expense recovery charges calculated on the current estimated cost of replacement, divided by the approximate life expectancy of the fixed asset. A further additional charge to make up the depreciation not previously recovered and reserved in cash also shall be calculated and considered a cost so as to recover such unrecovered depreciation over the remaining life of the asset.

D. General overhead, expressed as a percentage, distributing and charging the expenses of the City Council, City Manager, Finance Department, City Clerk, City Treasurer, City Attorney, Human Resources Department and all other staff and support service provided to the entire City organization.

E. Departmental overhead, expressed as a percentage, distributing and charging the cost of each department director and his or her supporting expenses as enumerated in the above subsections of this section.

F. Debt service costs, consisting of repayment of principal, payment of interest, and trustee fees and administrative expenses for all applicable bonds, certificates of participation, securities issues or loans. Any required coverage factors of added reserves beyond basic debt service costs shall also be considered a cost if required by covenant within any securities, ordinance, resolution, indenture or general law applicable to the City.

Section 5. Public Hearing. Pursuant to California Government Code sections 66016 and 66018, or other applicable statutory requirements, the City Clerk has caused public notice to be provided as set out in Government Code sections 66016, 66018 and 6062a, and the City Council has received at a regularly scheduled meeting oral and written testimony from staff and members of the public concerning the new fee proposed to b e established by this R esolution. The notice, oral and written presentations and public meeting were provided prior to the City Council taking any action on the new fee established by this Resolution.

Section 6. Public Data. At least ten (10) days prior to the required public hearing described herein, the City Clerk made available to the public data indicating the cost or estimated c ost required to support the fee for which the charge is proposed to be made . The data demonstrates that the new fee established by this Resolution is not a tax; that the amount of the fee is necessary to cover the reasonable costs of the City for the Service for which it is imposed; and the manner in which the costs are allocated to a payor bear a fair and reasonable relationship to the payor’s burden on, or benefit received from, the City’s governmental activities.

Section 7. Public Notice. Notice of the time and place of the public hearing, including a general explanation of the matter to be considered , has been mailed by the City Clerk at least 14 days prior to the public hearing to a ll interested parties who have filed written requests with the City for mailed notice of meetings relating to new or increased fees.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
393 of 966
-3-
I:\cmo\Resolutions\8522 Fee and Service Charge Revenue Cost Comparison System.docx-msv2 Section 8. Actual Costs/Deposits. The actual cost for a regulation, product, service , or project is determined by the affected City Department Directors. Initial deposits are determined by the amount of time historically spent by City staff on similar projects. Whenever seventy five percent (75%) of a deposit has been expended and the department determines that the estimated actual cost of the project or service will exceed the amount deposited, an additional deposit of such estimated excess amounts shall be required. When an additional deposit has been requested, work will be suspended on the project or service when eighty percent (80%) of the deposit previo usly received has been expended.

Section 9. Proposition 26 Determination. The City Council hereby finds and determines that the fees referenced within this Resolution are not taxes as defined in Article XIII C Section 1(e) of the California Constitution because the fees are either:

A. Imposed for a specific benefit conferred or privilege grant ed directly to the payo rs, that is not provided to t hose not charged, and which do not exceed the reasonable costs in the City of conferring the benefit or granting the privilege;

B. Imposed for a specific government service or product provided directly to the payor that is not provided to those charged, and which do not exceed the reasonable costs to the City of providing the service or product;

C. Imposed for the reasonable regulatory costs to the City for issuing licenses and permits, performing investigations, inspections, or audits, and the administrative enforcement and adjudication thereof;

D. Imposed for entrance to, or use of, City property; or the purchase, rental or lease of City property; or

E. Charges imposed as a condition of property development.

Section 10. Prior Resolutions Rescinded. Resolution No. 8045 of the City Council of the City of Redlands relating to fees is hereby rescinded on the effective date of this Resolution, except for the fees identified in this Resolution as becoming effective sixty (60) days after December 5, 2023. For the fee s identified in this Resolution No. 8522 as becoming effective sixty (60) days after December 5, 2023, such portions of Resolution No. 8045 shall not be rescinded until sixty (60) days after December 5, 2023.

Section 11. CEQA Exemption. The City Council hereby finds and determ ines that the adoption of this Resolution is exempt from review and under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080(b)(8)(1) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15273 because this R esolution relates to fees and charges for the purpose of meeting the operating expenses of the City.

Section 12. Severability. Should any part or portion of this Resolution be rendered or declared invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, including any of the fees identified in the Exhibit to this Resolution, such invalidation of such part or portion of this Resolution , or of any Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
394 of 966
-4-
I:\cmo\Resolutions\8522 Fee and Service Charge Revenue Cost Comparison System.docx-msv2 fee, shall not invalidate the remaining portions hereof, of the remaining fees, and they shall remain in full force and effect.

Section 13. Effective Date. This Resolution and the fees established by this Resolution shall become effective on December 5, 2023, except for new or modified fees which apply to the “filing, accepting, reviewing, approving, or issuance of an application, permit or entitlement to use” for a development project, as defined in Government Code section 66000, which shall become effective sixty (60) days after December 5, 2023.

ADOPTED, SIGNED AND APPROVED this 5th day of December 2023.

________________________________
Eddie Tejeda, Mayor

ATTEST:

_______________________________
Jeanne Donaldson, City Clerk

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
395 of 966
-5-
I:\cmo\Resolutions\8522 Fee and Service Charge Revenue Cost Comparison System.docx-msv2 I, Jeanne Donaldson, City Clerk of the City of Redlands, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City Council at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 5th day of December, 2023, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

__________________________________________
Jeanne Donaldson, City Clerk

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
396 of 966
CITY OF REDLANDS ‐ EXHIBIT 'A' TO RESOLUTION NO. 8522
FEE SCHEDULE
# Service Name Unit
Current
Fee
Recmded
Recovery %
Current
Recovery
Level
Change in
Recm.

Recovery % Full Cost Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
Reservation of library materials per item 1 0% 8% ‐8% 10 fee deleted fee deleted fee deleted Non‐resident Library Card fee annually 30 0% 118% ‐100% 25 fee deleted fee deleted fee deleted L1 Replacement of Lost Library Card per card 2 33% 59% ‐50% 3 1 1 1 L2 Day Pass for Computer Usage per day 1 25% 25% 0% 4 1 1 1 L3 Annual Internet Card ‐ Non‐Resident annually New 25% ‐‐ 20 5 5 5 Library New Fee Amounts
December 5, 2023 1 of 40
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
397 of 966
CITY OF REDLANDS ‐ EXHIBIT 'A' TO RESOLUTION NO. 8522
FEE SCHEDULE
# Service Name Unit
Current
Fee
Recmded
Recovery %
Current
Recovery
Level
Change in
Recm.

Recovery % Full Cost Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
MS1 Business License Fee ‐ New License Each 46 100% 75% 25% 61 51 56 61 MS2 Business License Fee ‐ Renewal License Each 20 100% 44% 56% 46 33 46 46 MS3 Dog License ‐ Base Fee Each 24 75% 45% 30% 53 32 40 40 MS4 Dog License ‐ For Spayed or Neutered Dog Each 12 38% 23% 15% 53 20 20 20 MS5 Replacement Tag Each 17 85% 63% 22% 27 23 23 23 MS6 Yard Sales Permit Each 4 75% 29% 46% 14 10 10 10 MS7 Parking Permit (new or replacement) Deposit 10 100% 46% 54% 22 22 22 22 MS8 Returned check ‐ first check Each 43 100% 161% ‐61% 27 27 27 27 MS9 Returned check ‐ subsequent check Each 43 100% 115% ‐15% 37 37 37 37 MS10 State CASp Service Fee* Each 4 100% 93% 7% 4 4 1 1 MS11 TEFRA Hearing Fee Each Actual Costs 100% 100% ‐ Actual Costs Actual Costs Actual Costs Actual Costs *Fee set by state law. Starting January 1, 2024 the new fee amount will be $1.00. See AB 1379 (2017‐2018).

Management Services ‐ Revenue Division New Fee Amounts
December 5, 2023 2 of 40
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
398 of 966
CITY OF REDLANDS ‐ EXHIBIT 'A' TO RESOLUTION NO. 8522
FEE SCHEDULE
# Service Name Unit
Current
Fee
Recmded
Recovery %
Current
Recovery
Level
Change in
Recm.

Recovery % Full Cost Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
P1 Background Checks Each 22 100% 30% 70% 74 39 57 74 P2 False alarm response Per response 212 100% 100% 0% 194 194 194 194 P3 Bicycle license Each 5 100% 29% 71% 17 9 11 17 P4 CCW Initial Permit Each 100 statute statute ‐ 1,275 100 100 100 P5 CCW Permit Renewal Each 25 statute statute ‐ 900 25 25 25 P6 CCW Modification Fee Each 10 statute statute ‐ 278 10 10 10 P7 Fingerprint ‐ rolling Each 26 100% 60% 40% 43 44 44 44 P8 Photos / Videos Each 67 100% 100% 0% 59 59 59 59 P9 Repossession Received Each 20 100% 61% 39% 33 33 33 33 P10 Vehicle Impounds ‐ All others Each 258 100% 100% 0% 175 175 175 175 P11 Vehicle Impounds ‐ DUI Each 258 100% 86% 14% 299 299 299 299 P12 Tow Services Agreement Each 80 100% 48% 52% 168 168 168 168 P13 Visa Clearance Each 11 100% 42% 58% 26 26 26 26 P14 Massage therapist permit Each 113 100% 86% 14% 131 131 131 131 P15 Massage Therapy Business Owner permit ‐ initial Each 417 100% 100% 0% 131 131 131 131 P16 Massage Therapy Business Owner permit ‐ renewal Each 214 100% 100% 0% 98 98 98 98 P17 Solicitor permit Each 113 100% 86% 14% 131 131 131 131 P18 Taxi Driver permit (3 yr. permit) Each 316 100% 100% 0% 131 131 131 131 P19 Tow Truck Driver permit Each 80 100% 61% 39% 131 131 131 131 P20 Adult Oriented Business permit Each 372 100% 100% 0% 225 225 225 225 P21 Adult Entertainer permit Each 113 100% 86% 14% 131 131 131 131 P22 Remote Bingo Each 599 100% 100% 0% 432 431 431 431 P23 Subpoena ‐ Records Each 15 statute statute ‐ 16 15 15 15 P24 Subpoena ‐ Appearance Each 275 statute statute ‐ 294 275 275 275 P25 Cost Recovery ‐ Delinquent Parking Citations % of each+ 15%+$5 n/a n/a ‐ 15%+$5 15%+$5 15%+$5 Denotes fee is set by statute.

Police Department New Fee Amounts
December 5, 2023 3 of 40
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
399 of 966
CITY OF REDLANDS ‐ EXHIBIT 'A' TO RESOLUTION NO. 8522
FEE SCHEDULE
# Service Name Unit
Current
Fee
Recmded
Recovery %
Current
Recovery
Level
Change in
Recm.

Recovery % Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
AS1 Animal Boarding ‐ Cat Per animal per day 10 15% 10% 5% 15 15 15 AS2 Animal Boarding ‐ Dog Per animal per day 20 26% 21% 5% 25 25 25 AS3 Apprehension ‐ Livestock Per Animal 50 35% 25% 10% 75 75 75 AS4 Cat Adoption Per Animal 10 10% 10% 0% 10 10 10 AS5 Cat ‐ Owner Release Per Animal 30 23% 23% 0% 30 30 30 AS6 Cat ‐ Apprehension Per Animal 15 6% 6% 0% 15 15 15 AS7 Cat ‐ Vaccine Per Animal 15 21% 21% 0% 15 15 15 AS8 Cat ‐ Spay/Neuter Per Animal 50 30% 30% 0% 55 55 55 AS9 Dog adoption Per Animal 15 15% 15% 0% 15 15 15 AS10 Dog ‐ Owner Release Per Animal 50 37% 38% ‐1% 50 50 50 AS11 Dog Apprehension (unaltered) ‐ 1st time Per Animal 35 13% 13% 0% 35 35 35 AS12 Dog Apprehension (unaltered) ‐ 2nd time Per Animal 50 18% 18% 0% 50 50 50 AS13 Dog Apprehension (unaltered) ‐ 3rd time Per Animal 100 35% 36% ‐1% 100 100 100 AS14 Dog ‐ Vaccine Per Animal 25 82% 68% 14% 30 30 30 AS15 Dog Spay/Neuter ‐ up to 30 lbs. Per Animal 75 40% 38% 2% 85 85 85 AS16 Dog Spay/Neuter ‐ 31 to 50 lbs. Per Animal 75 39% 36% 3% 85 85 85 AS17 Dog Spay/Neuter ‐ 51 to 75 lbs. Per Animal 75 36% 34% 2% 85 85 85 AS18 Dog Spay/Neuter ‐ 76 to 100 lbs. Per Animal 75 31% 29% 2% 85 85 85 AS19 Small Native/Exotic Animals (rabbit, pig, etc.) Per Animal 10 10% 5% 5% 20 20 20 AS20 Small Native/Exotic Bird, Reptile, Tortoise, etc. Per Animal 10 10% 5% 5% 20 20 20 AS21 Owner Release for Euthanasia Per Animal 75 80% 57% 23% 115 115 115 AS22 Flea and Tick Treatment Per Animal New 70% ‐ ‐ 25 25 25 AS23 Microchipping Per Animal 25 72% 72% 0% 25 25 25 Fees are rounded to the nearest $5 increment for ease of offsite administration.

Denotes fee is set by statute.

FCS ‐ Animal Services New Fee Amounts
December 5, 2023 4 of 40
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
400 of 966
CITY OF REDLANDS ‐ EXHIBIT 'A' TO RESOLUTION NO. 8522
FEE SCHEDULE
# Service Name Unit
Current
Fee
Recmded
Recovery %
Current
Recovery
Level
Change in
Recm.

Recovery % Full Cost Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
AT1 Small Cell Site Applications (pass‐through costs) Each Cost 100% 100% 0% Cost Cost Cost Cost AT2 Annual License Fee for Use of City Facilities Per Yr. 270 100% 68% 32% 398                398                398                398 AT3 Tree Services (permit) Each 134 91% 71% 19% 188                170                170                170 AT4 Planting (permit) Each 81 30% 22% 8% 375                113                113                113 AT5 Processing Fee (permit) Each 40 100% 89% 11% 45                  45                  45                  45 AT6 Street Banner Permit Each 25 23% 9% 14% 285                65                  65                  65 AT7 Prospect Park Sign Each 60 45% 38% 7% 159                72                  72                  72 AT8 Street Closure ‐ Special Events, By Application Only Per hour Per
Street New 100% ‐ ‐ 200                  200                  200                  200 AT9 Film Permits Each 446 100% 218% ‐118% 205                205                205                205 AT10
Film permits ‐
Locally owned/operated video prod. co.'s Each 223 50% 109% ‐59% 205                  103                  103                  103 CE 1 Abandoned Property Inspections Each 85 100% 38% 62.2% 225                225                225                225 CE 2 Vacant, abandoned property registration Each 93 100% 67% 33.0% 139                139                139                139 CE 3 Rental Dwelling Permit < 1 acre Each 80 88% 88% 0.0% 91                  80                  80                  80 CE 4 Rental Dwelling Permit 1‐3 acres Each 94 86% 86% 0.0% 109                94                  94                  94 CE 5 Rental Dwelling Permit 3.01‐5 acres Each 106 77% 77% 0.0% 137                106                106                106 CE 6 Rental Dwelling Permit > 5.01 acres Each 116 70% 70% 0.0% 165                116                116                116 CE 7 Rental Dwelling Permit Reinspection Each 40 24% 24% 0.0% 168                40                  40                  40 Denotes fee is set by City ordinance
FCS ‐ Administration and Trees, Code Enforcement New Fee Amounts December 5, 2023 5 of 40
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
401 of 966
CITY OF REDLANDS ‐ EXHIBIT 'A' TO RESOLUTION NO. 8522
FEE SCHEDULE
# Service Name Unit
Current
Fee
Recmded
Recovery %
Current
Recovery
Level
Change in
Recm.

Recovery % Cost Increase Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
Park Reservation Rates
Redlands Bowl Base Park Reservation 121 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ fee deleted fee deleted fee deleted Stage (outdoor area of Procellis only) Per Hour 20 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ fee deleted fee deleted fee deleted PR1 Mandatory Park Attendant Per Hour 50 54% 54% 0% 05 0                 50                  50 PR2 Avice Meeker Sewall Theatre Base Park Reservation 121 89% 89% 0% 0 121                121                121 PR3 Apron (full stage not available) Per Hour 20 2% 2% 0% 02 0                 20                  20 PR4 Sylvan Park Base Park Reservation 121 89% 89% 0% 0 121                121                121 PR5 Section A (Group Picnic) Tables 1 thru 8 ‐ seats 128 Per day 30 107% 107% 0% 03 0                 30                  30 PR6 Section A (Group Picnic) Tables 9 thru 17 ‐ seats 64 Per day 30 107% 107% 0% 03 0                 30                  30 PR7 Section A (Group Picnic) Tables 18 thru 25 ‐ seats 64 Per day 30 107% 107% 0% 03 0                 30                  30 PR8 Section C (Group Picnic) Tables 1 thru 7 ‐ seats 65 Per day 30 115% 115% 0% 03 0                 30                  30 PR9 Rose Garden Per day 25 40% 40% 0% 02 5                 25                  25 PR10 Covered Shelter/Picnic/BBQ Area Per day 40 308% 308% 0% 04 0                 40                  40 PR11 Gazebo Per day 40 250% 250% 0% 04 0                 40                  40 PR12 Skate Park ‐ special event application only Per hour New 118% ‐ ‐ ‐ 300                300                300 All Other Parks
PR13 Park Reservation Per day 94 37% 37% 0% 09 4                 94                  94 PR14 Covered Shelter/Picnic/BBQ Area Per day 40 308% 308% 0% 04 0                 40                  40 Clean‐up Deposit (refundable)
PR15 up to 50 persons Deposit 100 100% 100% 0% 0 100                100                100 PR16 51 to 150 persons Deposit 200 100% 100% 0% 0 200                200                200 PR17 151 or more persons Deposit 300 100% 100% 0% 0 300                300                300 Recreation & Senior Services
PR18
Miscellaneous: Staff Call‐Out fee shall be assessed when city staff is called to a field for any of  the following reasons: confirm field reservations, turn lighting on/off, clean garbage /debris left by users, resolve complaints and/make repairs resulting from abuse by user.

Per Hour 43 45% 32% 13% 17 60 60 60 PR19 Tennis Court Rental ‐ special events/tournaments onl y Per Hour New 50% ‐ New 02 0 20 20 PR20 Tennis/Pickleball Court Lightin g Per Hour 2.50 100% ‐ ‐ 03 3 3 PR21 Pickleball Court Rental ‐ special events/tournaments onl y Per Hour New 50% ‐ New 01 5 15 15 Recreational Organizations
PR22 Fee per Hour, per Field Per Hour Per Field 5 16% 16% 0% 05 5 5 PR23 Fee per Season, Non‐Resident Fee Per Season 25 78% 78% 0% 02 5 25 25 PR24 Fee per Hour for Field Splittin g Per Hour 2.50 100% ‐ ‐ 03 3 3 Non‐Recreational Organizations (should mimic the structure above) PR25 Youth ‐ Fee per Hour with NO Lights Per Hour Per Field 25 78% 78% 0% 02 5 25 25 PR26 Youth ‐ Fee per Hour with Lights Per Hour Per Field 35 109% 109% 0% 03 5 35 35 PR27 Adult ‐ Fee per Hour per Field Per Hour Per Field 35 100% ‐ ‐ 03 5 35 35 PR28 Adult ‐ Fee per Hour for Field Splittin g Per Hour Per Field 2.50 100% ‐ ‐ 03 3 3 FCS ‐ Parks & Recreation New Fee Amounts
December 5, 2023 6 of 40
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
402 of 966
CITY OF REDLANDS ‐ EXHIBIT 'A' TO RESOLUTION NO. 8522
FEE SCHEDULE
# Service Name Unit
Current
Fee
Recmded
Recovery %
Current
Recovery
Level
Change in
Recm.

Recovery % Cost Increase Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
FCS ‐ Parks & Recreation New Fee Amounts
PR29 Tournament Fee per Hour for Field Use Per Hour Per Field 50 91% 91% 0% 05 0                 50                  50 PR30 Tournament ‐ Required Deposit Deposit 200 100% 100% 0% 0 200                200                200 PR31 Field Preparation ‐ per Hour per Field Per Hour Per Field 65 51% 51% 0% 06 5                 65                  65 PR32 Banner ‐ per Season Per Season 60 57% 57% 0% 06 0                 60                  60 PR33 On‐Site Storage Fee per Month Per Month 50 93% 93% 0% 05 0                 50                  50 Programs, Services & Activities
PR 34 Adult Open Gym, Resident Per Person Per Day 1 20% 10% 10% 12                    2                    2 PR 35 Adult Open Gym, Non‐Resident Per Person Per Day 2 40% 20% 20% 24                    4                    4 PR 36 Adult Open Racquetball, Residen t Per Hour Per Person 1 20% 10% 10% 12                    2                    2 PR 37 Adult Open Racquetball, Non‐Residen t Per Hour Per Person 2 40% 20% 20% 24                    4                    4 PR 38 Adult Open Pickleball, Residen t Per Hour Per Person 1 20% 10% 10% 12                    2                    2 PR 39 Adult Open Pickleball, Non‐Residen t Per Hour Per Person 2 40% 20% 20% 24                    4                    4 PR 40 Adult Classes Actual Cost Cost 100% 100% 0% ‐ Cost Cost Cost PR 41 Adult Family Trips Actual Cost Cost 100% 100% 0% ‐ Cost Cost Cost Annual Pass (Includes ID Card, Access to Game Room, Gym Usage, Racquetball and Pickleball Courts and Tennis Courts)
PR42 Resident Per Person 25 313% 313% 0% 02 5                 25                  25 PR43 Non‐Resident Per Person 35 438% 438% 0% 03 5                 35                  35 PR44 Adult Group Homes Per Group Home 50 625% 625% 0% 05 0                 50                  50 PR45 Senior Services ‐ Bingo Per Card 0.5 10% 10% 0% 0 0.50               0.50               0.50 PR46 Bingo Tournaments Per Person Per Tournament Per Person 20 400% 400% 0% 02 0                 20                  20 PR47 Bingo Tournaments Per Team Per Tournament Per Team 100 435% 435% 0% 0 100                100                100 PR48 Senior Classes Actual Cost Cost 100% 100% 0% ‐ Cost Cost Cost PR49 Senior Trips Actual Cost Cost 100% 100% 0% ‐ Cost Cost Cost PR50 Youth Annual Pass for use at Community Cente r Per Pass 0 0% 0% 0% 0‐                     ‐                     ‐ PR51 Youth Annual Pass ‐ group homes Per Group Home 50 625% 625% 0% 05 0                 50                  50 PR52 Teen Activities Per Person 3 27% 27% 0% 03                    3                    3 PR53 Teen Trips Per Trip Cost 100% 100% 0% ‐ Cost Cost Cost PR54 Contract Classes Per Class Cost 100% 100% 0% ‐ Cost Cost Cost PR55 Special Events Per Event Cost 100% 100% 0% ‐ Cost Cost Cost PR56 Facility Rentals ‐ Deposit Required Deposit 200 100% 100% 0% 0 200                200                200 PR57 Security / Refundable Cleaning Deposi t Deposit 200 100% 100% 0% 0 200                200                200 PR58 Attendant / Staff Supervision Fee Per Hour Per Attendant 20 26% 17% 9% 10 30                  30                  30 PR59 Attendant & Room Set up Fee Per Hour Per Attendant 20 26% 17% 9% 10 30                  30                  30 PR60 Refunds Each 10 34% 34% 0% 01 0                 10                  10 PR61 Expedited Processing Fee Each 10 34% 34% 0% 01 0                 10                  10 Redlands Community Senior Center Facility Rentals
PR62 Kitchen Usage Each 54 159% 159% 0% 05 4                 54                  54 PR63 Mary Sanchez Banquet Room Per Hour 27 81% 29% 52% 48 51                  75                  75 PR64 Grand View Room Per Hour 27 57% 52% 5% 33 0                 30                  30 December 5, 2023 7 of 40
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
403 of 966
CITY OF REDLANDS ‐ EXHIBIT 'A' TO RESOLUTION NO. 8522
FEE SCHEDULE
# Service Name Unit
Current
Fee
Recmded
Recovery %
Current
Recovery
Level
Change in
Recm.

Recovery % Cost Increase Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
FCS ‐ Parks & Recreation New Fee Amounts
PR65 Lugonia Room Per Hour 27 20% 18% 2% 33 0                 30                  30 PR66 Entire Building Per Hour New 24% ‐ ‐ ‐ 125                125                125 Redlands Community Center Facility Rentals
PR67 Kitchen Usage Each 54 159% 159% 0% 05 4                 54                  54 PR68 Multipurpose Room Per Hour 27 80% 31% 49% 43 49                  70                  70 PR69 Dance Studio Per Hour 27 52% 21% 31% 39 47                  66                  66 PR70 Classroom A Per Hour 27 52% 47% 5% 33 0                 30                  30 PR71 Classroom B Per Hour 27 34% 47% ‐13% ‐7 20                  20                  20 PR72 Game Room Per Hour 27 68% 37% 32% 23 39                  50                  50 PR73 Gymnasium ‐ by application onl y Per Hour 65 59% 19% 40% 135 200                200                200 PR74 Racquetball Court Per Hour 21 29% 25% 5% 42 5                 25                  25 Joslyn Senior Center Facility Rentals
PR75 Kitchen Usage Each 54 159% 159% 0% 05 4                 54                  54 PR76 Auditorium Per Hour 27 61% 22% 39% 48 51                  75                  75 PR77 Lounge Per Hour 27 55% 49% 5% 33 0                 30                  30 PR78 Classroom Per Hour 27 45% 41% 5% 33 0                 30                  30 PR79 Dance Studio Per Hour New 45% ‐ ‐ ‐3 0                 30                  30 Carriage House at Prospect Park  Facility Rentals
PR80 Facility Rental Per Hour 200 32% 16% 16% 200 400                400                400 Miscellaneous
PR81 Boutique Space ‐ without table Per Day Per Space 10 53% 53% 0% 01 0                 10                  10 PR82 Boutique Space ‐ with table Per Day Per Space 20 105% 105% 0% 02 0                 20                  20 PR83 Smiley Gardens ‐ plot space Per Season Per Plot 20 86% 69% 17% 52 5                 25                  25 PR84 Clement Gardens ‐ plot space Per Season Per Plot 30 40% 34% 6% 53 5                 35                  35 PR85 Lugonia Gardens ‐ plot space Per Season Per Plot 35 77% 67% 10% 54 0                 40                  40 PR86 Program Attendant Fee                 Per Hour Per Employee 20 26% 17% 9% 10 30                  30                  30 PR87 City Parking Lot Facilities Per Space Per Hour New 100% ‐ ‐ ‐1                    1                    1 PR88 Special Events Application Per Application New 9% ‐ ‐ ‐ 100                100                100 December 5, 2023 8 of 40
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
404 of 966
CITY OF REDLANDS ‐ EXHIBIT 'A' TO RESOLUTION NO. 8522
FEE SCHEDULE
# Service Name Unit
Current
Fee
Recmded
Recovery %
Current
Recovery Level
Change in Recm.

Recovery % Full Cost Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
E1 Easement/Dedication Review Each 739            100% 93% 7% 794                794              794              794 E2 Conditional Use Permit Each 1,066         100% 81% 19% 1,316             1,316           1,316           1,316 E3 Commission Review and Approval Each 1,066         100% 81% 19% 1,316             1,316           1,316           1,316 E4 Building Moving Permit Each 240            100% 79% 21% 303                303              303              303 E5 Lot Line Adjustment Each 690            100% 89% 11% 774                774              774              774 E6 Certificate of Compliance Each 306            100% 34% 66% 907                607              907              907 E7 Street Vacation Each 1,124         100% 93% 7% 1,213             1,213           1,213           1,213 E8 Subordination Agreement/Lien Release Each 715            100% 79% 21% 908                908              908              908 E9 Public Improvement Agreement Each 1,049         100% 98% 2% 1,066             1,066           1,066           1,066 E10 Water Efficient Landscape Plan Each 834            100% 86% 14% 970                970              970              970 E11 Plan research records request Per Hour 114            100% 93% 7% 122                122              122              122 E12 Sign Installation ‐Street Name Sign Each 592            100% 312% ‐212% 190                190              190              190 E13 Sign Installation ‐ Stop Sign Each 720            100% 379% ‐279% 190                190              190              190 E14 Environmental Impact Review Per Review 392            100% 39% 61% 1,000             696              1,000           1,000 E15 Environmental Impact Report Review Per Review 1,858         100% 93% 7% 1,999             1,999           1,999           1,999 E16 Tentative Tract Map Each 1,469         100% 72% 28% 2,027             2,027           2,027           2,027 E17 Revised Tract Map Each 1,469         100% 100% 0% 1,475             1,475           1,475           1,475 E18 Final Tract Map Each 2,567         100% 51% 49% 4,996             3,782           4,996           4,996 E19 Tentative Parcel Map Each 1,469         100% 72% 28% 2,027             2,027           2,027           2,027 E20 Revised Parcel Map Each 1,887         100% 128% ‐28% 1,475             1,475           1,475           1,475 E21 Final Parcel Map Each 2,308         100% 46% 54% 4,996             3,652           4,996           4,996 Building Permit
E22 Residential 736            100% 167% ‐67% 441                441              441              441 E23 Commercial/Industrial Each 1,066         100% 184% ‐84% 578                578              578              578 E24 Room Addition Each 137            100% 101% ‐1% 135                135              135              135 E25 Commercial Tenant Improvement Each 137            100% 74% 26% 186                186              186              186 E26
Landscape Covenant Each 919            100% 97% 3% 951                951              951              951 E27 Landscape Covenant w/ Caltrans Agreement Each 1,179         100% 96% 4% 1,223             1,223           1,223           1,223 Plan Check
Grading
E28 Base Fee/ 0‐500 c.y. Base 506            100% 24% 76% 2,068             1,021           1,537           2,068 E29 Each addtl 500 cy or fraction thereof, 501‐5,000 c.y. Each 70              100% 95% 5% 74                  74                74                74 E30 Each addtl 5,000 cy or fraction thereof, 5,001‐50,000 c.y. Each 80              100% 90% 10% 89                  89                89                89 E31 Each addtl 10,000 cy or fraction thereof, 50,001‐100,000 c.y. Each 90              100% 80% 20% 112                112              112              112 E32 Each addtl 10,000 cy or fraction thereof, 100,001‐200,000 c.y. Each 10              100% 91% 9% 11                  11                11                11 E33 >200,001 c.y. each addtl 10,000 cy or fraction thereof Each 6                 100% 100% 0% 6                    6                   6                   6 E34 Erosion Control ‐ Single Family Residential Each 582            100% 80% 20% 723                723              723              723 E35 Erosion Control ‐ Nonresidential Each 1,102         100% 84% 16% 1,311             1,311           1,311           1,311 E36 SWPPP ‐ Single Family Residential Each 1,076         100% 114% ‐14% 943                943              943              943 MUED ‐ Engineering New Fee Amounts
December 5, 2023 9 of 40
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
405 of 966
CITY OF REDLANDS ‐ EXHIBIT 'A' TO RESOLUTION NO. 8522
FEE SCHEDULE
# Service Name Unit
Current
Fee
Recmded
Recovery %
Current
Recovery Level
Change in Recm.

Recovery % Full Cost Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
MUED ‐ Engineering New Fee Amounts
E37 SWPPP ‐ Nonresidential Base 1,422         100% 132% ‐32% 1,079             1,079           1,079           1,079 E38 Nonresidential Subdivision Lot Fee Per Lot 149            100% 151% ‐51% 99                  99                99                99 E39 Nonresidential Subdivision Acre Fee Per Acre 149            100% 75% 25% 198                198              198              198 WQMP
Preliminary
E40 SFR Each 1,226         100% 107% ‐7% 1,141             1,141           1,141           1,141 E41 Nonresidential Base 1,795         100% 104% ‐4% 1,733             1,733           1,733           1,733 E42 Nonresidential Subdivision Lot Fee Per Lot New 100% ‐ ‐ 99                  99                99                99 E43 Nonresidential Subdivision Acre Fee Per Acre 65              100% 33% 67% 198                132              198              198 Final
E44 SFR Each 1,136         100% 100% 0.4% 1,141             1,141           1,141           1,141 E45 Nonresidential Base 1,715         100% 99% 1% 1,733             1,733           1,733           1,733 E46 Nonresidential Subdivision Lot Fee Per Lot New 100% ‐ ‐ 99                  99                99                99 E47 Nonresidential Subdivision Acre Fee Per Acre 65              100% 33% 67% 198                132              198              198 E48 Street Construction ‐ Base Fee Base 1,430         100% 81% 19% 1,768             1,768           1,768           1,768 E49 Street Construction ‐ Per Sheet Per Sheet 571            100% 86% 14% 667                667              667              667 E50 Storm Drains ‐ Base Fee Base 825 100% 90% 10% 914                914              914              914 E51 Storm Drains ‐ Per Sheet Per Sheet 330 100% 78% 22% 422                422              422              422 E52 Hydrology Study Per Study 1477 100% 96% 4% 1,531             1,531           1,531           1,531 E53 Street Lights ‐ Base Fee Base 664 100% 101% ‐1% 656                656              656              656 E54 Street Lights ‐ Per Sheet Per Sheet 376 100% 89% 11% 422                422              422              422 E55 Sewer Construction ‐ Base Fee Base 825 100% 77% 23% 1,067             1,067           1,067           1,067 E56 Sewer Construction ‐ Per Sheet Per Sheet 330 100% 71% 29% 464                464              464              464 E57 Water Construction ‐ Base Fee Base 825 100% 77% 23% 1,067             1,067           1,067           1,067 E58 Water Construction ‐ Per Sheet Per Sheet 330 100% 71% 29% 464                464              464              464 E59 Traffic Signals ‐ New Installations Each 1689 100% 103% ‐3% 1,632             1,632           1,632           1,632 E60 Traffic Signals ‐ Modifications Each 1152 100% 115% ‐15% 1,006             1,006           1,006           1,006 E61 Street Trees ‐ Base Fee Base 551 100% 74% 26% 746                746              746              746 E62 Street Trees ‐ Per Sheet Per Sheet 274 100% 69% 31% 396                335              396              396 E63 Signs and Striping ‐ Base Fee Base 825 100% 77% 23% 1,067             1,067           1,067           1,067 E64 Signs and Striping ‐ Per Sheet Per Sheet 330 100% 71% 29% 464                464              464              464 Encroachment Permit
E65 Encroachment Permit Processing Fee Each 339 100% 86% 14% 392                392              392              392 E66 Driveway Approach ‐ Base Base 86 100% 139% ‐39% 62                  62                62                62 E67 Driveway Approach ‐ Each Each 43 100% 139% ‐39% 31                  31                31                31 E68 Sidewalk ‐ Base Base 86 100% 139% ‐39% 62                  62                62                62 E69 Sidewalk ‐ Per sq. ft. up to 300 sq. ft. Per sq. ft. 0.44 100% 142% ‐42% 0.31               0.31             0.31             0.31 E70 Sidewalk ‐ Each additional sq. ft. over 300 sq. ft. Per sq. ft. 0.11 100% 138% ‐38% 0.08               0.08             0.08             0.08 E71 Cross Gutter / Spandrel ‐ Base Base 86 100% 139% ‐39% 62                  62                62                62 December 5, 2023 10 of 40
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
406 of 966
CITY OF REDLANDS ‐ EXHIBIT 'A' TO RESOLUTION NO. 8522
FEE SCHEDULE
# Service Name Unit
Current
Fee
Recmded
Recovery %
Current
Recovery Level
Change in Recm.

Recovery % Full Cost Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
MUED ‐ Engineering New Fee Amounts
E72 Cross Gutter / Spandrel ‐ Per sq. ft. Per sq. ft. 0.87 100% 281% ‐181% 0.31               0.31             0.31             0.31 E73 Curb and Gutter‐ Base Base 86 100% 139% ‐39% 62                  62                62                62 E74 Curb and Gutter‐ Per linear foot up to 50 l.f. Per l.f. 3.28 100% 1058% ‐958% 0.31 0.31             0.31             0.31 E75 Curb and Gutter‐ Each additional linear foot up to 200 l.f. Per l.f. 1.64 100% 1025% ‐925% 0.16                 0.16             0.16             0.16 E76 Curb and Gutter‐ Each additional linear foot over 200 l.f. Per l.f. 0.82 100% 2050% ‐1950% 0.04 0.04             0.04             0.04 E77 Curb / Berm ‐ Base Base 86 100% 139% ‐39% 62                  62                62                62 E78 Curb / Berm ‐ Per linear foot up to 50 l.f. Per l.f. 2.19 100% 706% ‐606% 0.31 0.31             0.31             0.31 E79 Curb / Berm ‐ Each additional linear foot up to 200 l.f. Per l.f. 1.09 100% 681% ‐581% 0.16 0.16             0.16             0.16 E80 Curb / Berm ‐ Each additional linear foot over 200 l.f. Per l.f. 0.55 100% 1375% ‐1275% 0.04 0.04             0.04             0.04 E81 Crushed Aggregate Base ‐ Base Base 86 100% 139% ‐39% 62                  62                62                62 E82 Crushed Aggregate Base ‐ Per sq. ft. Per sq. ft. 0.09 100% 29% 71% 0.31               0.16             0.24             0.31 E83 Asphalt Pavement ‐ Base Base 10              100% 16% 84% 62                  27                44                62 E84 Asphalt Pavement ‐ Per sq. ft. Per sq. ft. 0.09           100% 29% 71% 0.31               0.16             0.24             0.31 E85 Street Light ‐ Base Base 86              100% 139% ‐39% 62                  62                62                62 E86 Street Light ‐ Each Each 43              100% 139% ‐39% 31                  31                31                31 Traffic Signal
New
E87 Base Base 86              100% 139% ‐39% 62                  62                62                62 E88 Each Each 2,568         100% 8284% ‐8184% 31                  31                31                31 Modification
E89 Base Base 86              100% 277% ‐177% 31                  31                31                31 E90 Each Each 2,011         100% 9576% ‐9476% 21                  21                21                21 E91 Reinforced Concrete ‐ Base Base 86              100% 139% ‐39% 62                  62                62                62 E92 Reinforced Concrete ‐ Per Cubic Yard Per c.y. 130            100% 419% ‐319% 31                  31                31                31 Storm Drain Pipe
E93 Base Base 86              100% 139% ‐39% 62                  62                62                62 E94 Per linear foot up to 100 l.f. Per l.f. 5.21           100% 840% ‐740% 0.62               0.62             0.62             0.62 E95 Each additional linear foot Per l.f. 0.82           100% 265% ‐165% 0.31               0.31             0.31             0.31 E96 Curb Inlet / Outlet Structures ‐ Base Base 86              100% 139% ‐39% 62                  62                62                62 E97 Curb Inlet / Outlet Structures ‐ Each Each 43              100% 139% ‐39% 31                  31                31                31 E98 Storm Drain Manhole / Junction Box ‐ Base Base 86              100% 139% ‐39% 62                  62                62                62 E99 Storm Drain Manhole / Junction Box ‐ Each Each 43              100% 139% ‐39% 31                  31                31                31 E100 Curb Core ‐ Base Base 86              100% 139% ‐39% 62                  62                62                62 E101 Curb Core ‐ Each Each 43              100% 139% ‐39% 31                  31                31                31 Sewer Main
E102 Base Base 86              100% 139% ‐39% 62                  62                62                62 E103 Per linear foot up to 50 l.f. Per l.f. 1.73           100% 278% ‐178% 0.62               0.62             0.62             0.62 E104 Each additional Linear Foot Per l.f. 0.27           100% 87% 13% 0.31               0.31             0.31             0.31 E105 Sewer Manhole ‐ Base Base 86              100% 139% ‐39% 62                  62                62                62 December 5, 2023 11 of 40
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
407 of 966
CITY OF REDLANDS ‐ EXHIBIT 'A' TO RESOLUTION NO. 8522
FEE SCHEDULE
# Service Name Unit
Current
Fee
Recmded
Recovery %
Current
Recovery Level
Change in Recm.

Recovery % Full Cost Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
MUED ‐ Engineering New Fee Amounts
E106 Sewer Manhole ‐ Each Each 43              100% 139% ‐39% 31                  31                31                31 E107 Sewer Cleanout ‐ Base Base 86              100% 139% ‐39% 62                  62                62                62 E108 Sewer Cleanout ‐ Each Each 43              100% 139% ‐39% 31                  31                31                31 E109 Sewer Lateral ‐ Base Base 86              100% 69% 31% 124                105              124              124 E110 Sewer Lateral ‐ Each Each 43              100% 69% 31% 62                  53                62                62 Water Main
Potable
E111 Base Base 86              100% 139% ‐39% 62                  62                62                62 E112 Per linear foot up to 50 l.f. Per l.f. 1.73           100% 279% ‐179% 0.62               0.62             0.62             0.62 E113 Each additional Linear Foot Per l.f. 0.27           100% 87% 13% 0.31               0.31             0.31             0.31 Non‐Potable
E114 Base Base 86              100% 139% ‐39% 62                  62                62                62 E115 Per linear foot up to 50 l.f. Per l.f. 1.73           100% 279% ‐179% 0.62               0.62             0.62             0.62 E116 Each additional Linear Foot Per l.f. 0.27           100% 87% 13% 0.31               0.31             0.31             0.31 E117 Water Service Lateral ‐ Base Base 86              100% 69% 31% 124                105              124              124 E118 Water Service Lateral ‐ Each Each 43              100% 69% 31% 62                  53                62                62 E119 Fire Hydrant Assembly ‐ Base Base 86              100% 139% ‐39% 62                  62                62                62 E120 Fire Hydrant Assembly ‐ Each Each 43              100% 139% ‐39% 31                  31                31                31 E121 Water Shutdown ‐ Base Base 86              100% 46% 54% 187                137              187              187 E122 Water Shutdown ‐ Each Each 43              100% 35% 65% 124                84                124              124 E123 Fire Services ‐ Base Base 86              100% 69% 31% 124                105              124              124 E124 Fire Services ‐ Each Each 43              100% 69% 31% 62                  53                62                62 Excavation, Trench, Street Cut
E125
Base Base 86              100% 139% ‐39% 62                  62                62                62 E126 Per linear foot up to 50 l.f. Per l.f. 1.73           100% 279% ‐179% 0.62               0.62             0.62             0.62 E127 Each additional Linear Foot Per l.f. 0.27           100% 87% 13% 0.31               0.31             0.31             0.31 Street Patch
E128 Base Base 86              100% 139% ‐39% 62                  62                62                62 E129 Per sq. ft. up to 200 sq. ft. Per sq. ft. 0.18           100% 58% 42% 0.31               0.25             0.31             0.31 E130 Each additional sq. t. over 200 sq. ft. Per sq. ft. 0.13           100% 81% 19% 0.16               0.16             0.16             0.16 Grading Permit (Inspection)
E131 0‐500 c.y. Base 583            100% 73% 27% 795                795              795              795 E132 Each add'l 2,000 c.y. or fraction thereof, 501‐10,000 c.y. Each 70              100% 137% ‐37% 51                  51                51                51 E133 Each add'l 5,000 c.y. or fraction thereof, 10,001‐100,000 c.y. Each 84              100% 124% ‐24% 68                  68                68                68 E134 Each add'l 10,000 c.y. or fraction thereof, 100,001‐200,000 c.y. Each 10              100% 59% 41% 17                  14                17                17 E135 >200,001 c.y. each add'l 10,000 c.y. or fraction thereof Each7                 100% 41% 59% 17                  12                17                17 E136 Permit ‐ Truck Route (up to 5 days) Per Permit 74              100% 72% 28% 103                103              103              103 E137 Permit ‐ Parklet Per Permit 296            100% 61% 39% 486                391              486              486 E138 Wide Load ‐ Single Trip Per Permit 16              94% 94% 0% 17                  16                16                16 December 5, 2023 12 of 40
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
408 of 966
CITY OF REDLANDS ‐ EXHIBIT 'A' TO RESOLUTION NO. 8522
FEE SCHEDULE
# Service Name Unit
Current
Fee
Recmded
Recovery %
Current
Recovery Level
Change in Recm.

Recovery % Full Cost Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
MUED ‐ Engineering New Fee Amounts
E139 Wide Load ‐ Annual Per Permit 90              94% 94% 0% 96                  90                90                90 NPDES
Program Fee
Industrial
E140 High Each 172            100% 82% 18% 210                210              210              210 E141 Medium Each 85              100% 54% 46% 156                121              156              156 E142 Low Each 36              100% 63% 37% 57                  47                57                57 Commercial
E143 High Each 172            100% 82% 18% 210                210              210              210 E144 Medium Each 85              100% 54% 46% 156                121              156              156 E145 Low Each 36              100% 63% 37% 57                  47                57                57 E146 Technology Fee Surcharge % of Permit 2% 100% ‐ ‐ ‐ 2 %2 %2 % Denotes fee is set by statute.

December 5, 2023 13 of 40
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
409 of 966
CITY OF REDLANDS ‐ EXHIBIT 'A' TO RESOLUTION NO. 8522
FEE SCHEDULE
# Service Name Unit Current Fee
Recmded
Recovery %
Current
Recovery Level
Change in Recm.

Recovery % Full Cost Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
FD1 High Fire Hazard Area Landscapin g Each 271                100% 85% 15% 319             319                319                319 FD2 False Alarm ‐ Residential Each 177                100% 60% 40% 297             237                297                297 FD3 False Alarm ‐ Commercial Each 299                100% 73% 27% 409             409                409                409 Plan Review
FD4 Commercial Per Review 404                100% 73% 27% 551             551                551                551 FD5 Multi‐family Per Review 324                100% 74% 26% 441             441                441                441 FD6 Other (access, grading, house moving) Per Review 243                100% 73% 27% 331             331                331                331 FD7 Residential tract Per Review 324                100% 74% 26% 441             441                441                441 FD8 Single famil y Per Review 163                100% 74% 26% 221             221                221                221 FD9 Commercial fire pump Per Review 208                100% 47% 53% 441             324                441                441 FD10 High‐piled storage Per Review 324                100% 74% 26% 441             441                441                441 FD11 Consultations (hourly fee) Per Review 484                100% 146% ‐46% 331             331                331                331 FD12 Fuel dispensin g Per Review 163                100% 74% 26% 221             221                221                221 FD13 Hood & duc t Per Review 163                100% 74% 26% 221             221                221                221 FD14 Medical gas Per Review 243                100% 73% 27% 331             331                331                331 FD15 Portables Per Review 163                100% 74% 26% 221             221                221                221 FD16 Spray booths Per Review 243                100% 73% 27% 331             331                331                331 Other Reviews
FD17 Landscape/Vegetation  Managemen t Per Review 163                100% 74% 26% 221             221                221                221 FD18 Resubmittal/Revision of previously reviewed plan (after 2nd sub ) Per Review 123                100% 74% 26% 166             166                166                166 FD19
Where no permit or inspection is required, i.e. solar
(commercial/residential, TI) Per Review 123                  100% 56% 44% 221               172                  221                  221 Private Underground Fire Line
FD20 1‐10 appliances Per Building 163                100% 74% 26% 221             221                221                221 FD21 11‐20 appliances Per Building 203                100% 74% 26% 276             276                276                276 FD22 21‐30 appliances Per Building 203                100% 74% 26% 276             276                276                276 FD23 31‐40 appliances Per Building 243                100% 73% 27% 331             331                331                331 FD24 Each additional appliance over 4 0 Per Building 123                100% 224% ‐124% 55               55                  55                  55 Aboveground and Underground Storage Tank
FD25 First tank at location Per Tank 123                100% 56% 44% 221             172                221                221 FD26 Each tank after first at same location Per Tank 163                100% 297% ‐197% 55               55                  55                  55 New Alarm System Plan Review
FD27 Sprinkler monitoring onl y Per Review 123                100% 37% 63% 331             227                331                331 FD28 10 or less initiating device s Per Review 203                100% 61% 39% 331             267                331                331 FD29 11‐20 initiating device Per Review 203                100% 53% 47% 386             294                386                386 FD30 20 or more devices Per Review 268                100% 49% 51% 551             409                551                551 Commercial Fire Alarm Modifications Plan Review
FD31 Sprinkler monitoring onl y Per Review 123                100% 56% 44% 221             172                221                221 FD32 10 or less initiating devices Per Review 163                100% 59% 41% 276             219                276                276 FD33 11‐20 initiating device Per Review 231                100% 70% 30% 331             281                331                331 Fire Department New Fee Amounts
December 5, 2023 14 of 40
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
410 of 966
CITY OF REDLANDS ‐ EXHIBIT 'A' TO RESOLUTION NO. 8522
FEE SCHEDULE
# Service Name Unit Current Fee
Recmded
Recovery %
Current
Recovery Level
Change in Recm.

Recovery % Full Cost Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
Fire Department New Fee Amounts
FD34 20 or more devices Per Review 311                100% 71% 29% 441             441                441                441 New Sprinkler System Plan Review
FD35 1‐99 heads Per Review 120                100% 27% 73% 441             226                332                441 FD36 100‐499 heads Per Review 243                100% 44% 56% 551             397                551                551 FD37 500‐1,000 heads Per Review 292                100% 44% 56% 661             476                661                661 FD38 1,000+ heads Per Review New 100% ‐ ‐ 770             770                770                770 Fire Sprinkler System Modification Plan Review
FD39 1‐99 heads Per Modification 123                100% 37% 63% 331             227                331                331 FD40 100‐499 heads Per Modification 163                100% 37% 63% 441             302                441                441 FD41 500‐1,000 heads Per Modification 203                100% 37% 63% 551             377                551                551 FD42 1,000+ heads Per Review 243                100% 32% 68% 770             507                770                770 Smoke Control System Plan Review
FD43 Review of rational analysis Per Review 364                100% 73% 27% 496             496                496                496 FD44 Design Testing Per Test 444                100% 73% 27% 606             606                606                606 In‐rack Sprinklers (plan review, permit, & 2 inspections) FD45 1‐10,000 square feet Each 191 100% 30% 70% 630             410                630                630 FD46 10,001‐50,000 square feet Each 271 100% 34% 66% 795             533                795                795 FD47 50,001‐100,000 square feet Each 351 100% 36% 64% 984             668                984                984 FD48 Each additional 1‐50,000 square feet over 100,000 square fee t Per 50,000 sq. ft. 431 100% 82% 18% 526             526                526                526 State Mandated Fire Marshal Inspections
FD49 High rise Per Inspection 632 100% 95% 5% 662             662                662                662 FD50 Facility Pre‐Inspection Per Inspection 40 100% 13% 87% 306             128                216                306 FD51 Annual Clearance Per Inspection 80 100% 26% 74% 306             155                229                306 FD52 Hospital ‐ I Per Inspection 912 100% 138% ‐38% 662             662                662                662 FD53 Schools ‐ E Per Inspection 552 100% 101% ‐1% 544             544                544                544 FD54 Preschools/Day Care Per Inspection 271 100% 88% 12% 306             306                306                306 FD55 Commercial home‐ 24 hour care Per Inspection 298 100% 97% 3% 306             306                306                306 ‐ Churches ‐ A Per Inspection fee deleted fee deleted fee deleted FD56 Jail, lock up, detention facilitie s Per Inspection 258 100% 39% 61% 662             460                662                662 FD57 Failure to Keep Scheduled Appointment for Inspection Per Inspection 160 100% 93% 7% 171             171                171                171 FD58 After hours inspection (OT inspection) Per Inspection 160 100% 93% 7% 171             171                171                171 In‐home (to include care facilities)
FD59 6 or less Per Inspection 258 100% 84% 16% 306             306                306                306 FD60 7 or more Per Inspection 311 100% 102% ‐2% 306             306                306                306 Prevention Inspections
Apartment / Condo
FD61 1‐10 units Per Inspection 191 100% 62% 38% 306             249                306                306 FD62 11‐30 units Per Inspection 204 100% 53% 47% 386             295                386                386 FD63 31‐50 units Per Inspection 218 100% 47% 53% 465             342                465                465 FD64 57‐75 units Per Inspection 258 100% 55% 45% 465             362                465                465 December 5, 2023 15 of 40
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
411 of 966
CITY OF REDLANDS ‐ EXHIBIT 'A' TO RESOLUTION NO. 8522
FEE SCHEDULE
# Service Name Unit Current Fee
Recmded
Recovery %
Current
Recovery Level
Change in Recm.

Recovery % Full Cost Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
Fire Department New Fee Amounts
FD65 76‐100 units Per Inspection 338 100% 73% 27% 465             465                465                465 FD66 101 + units Per Inspection 351 100% 64% 36% 544             448                544                544 Certificate of Occupancy
FD67 Ordinary hazard Per Certificate 218 100% 36% 64% 608             413                608                608 FD68 High hazard Per Certificate 231 100% 38% 62% 608             420                608                608 Hotels / Motels
FD69 1‐20 units Per Inspection 231 100% 60% 40% 386             308                386                386 FD70 21‐40 units Per Inspection 231 100% 60% 40% 386             308                386                386 FD71 41‐50 units Per Inspection 271 100% 50% 50% 544             408                544                544 FD72 51+ units Per Inspection 311                100% 50% 50% 624             467                624                624 Inspections By Group
FD73 F ‐ Fabrication, Finishing, Manufacturin g Per Inspection 458                100% 113% ‐13% 405             405                405                405 FD74 L ‐ Laboratory Per Inspection 338                100% 83% 17% 405             405                405                405 FD75 S ‐ Storage Per Inspection 258                100% 53% 47% 491             374                491                491 FD76 U ‐ Utility Per Inspection 191                100% 62% 38% 306             249                306                306 FD77 B, M, F, and S ‐ Large Warehouse inspections Per Inspection 632                100% 129% ‐29% 491             491                491                491 Miscellaneous Inspections
FD78 Ordinary Hazard Per Inspection 80                  100% 26% 74% 306             155                229                306 FD79 Commercial high hazard Per Inspection 271                100% 55% 45% 491             381                491                491 FD80 Re‐Inspection‐Ordinary Hazard Per Inspection 80                  100% 50% 50% 159             119                159                159 All Other Inspections
FD81 100,000 sq. ft or less Per Inspection 391                100% 97% 3% 405             405                405                405 FD82 100,000 ‐ 500,000 sq. ft Per Inspection 472                100% 88% 12% 534             534                534                534 FD83 500,001 sq. ft and above Per Inspection 552                100% 89% 11% 619             619                619                619 Construction Inspections
FD84 Kitchen Hood and Duc t Per Inspection 191                100% 58% 42% 332             262                332                332 FD85 Clean Agent System Per Inspection 191                100% 45% 55% 424             308                424                424 FD86 Battery Systems Per Inspection 231                100% 54% 46% 424             328                424                424 FD87 Compressed Gases Per Inspection 231                100% 54% 46% 424             328                424                424 FD88 Cryogenic fluids Per Inspection 231                100% 70% 30% 332             282                332                332 FD89 Fire pumps and related equipmen t Per Inspection 311                100% 60% 40% 516             414                516                516 FD90 Flammable and combustible liquid s Per Inspection 231                100% 70% 30% 332             282                332                332 FD91 Hazardous Materials Per Inspection 311                100% 94% 6% 332             332                332                332 FD92 Industrial ovens Per Inspection 191                100% 58% 42% 332             262                332                332 FD93 LP‐gas Per Inspection 191                100% 58% 42% 332.04       262                332                332 FD94 Private fire hydrants Per Inspection 191                100% 45% 55% 424             308                424                424 FD95 Spraying or dippin g Per Inspection 231                100% 70% 30% 332             282                332                332 FD96 Standpipe systems Per Inspection 191                100% 58% 42% 332             262                332                332 FD97 Temporary membrane structures and tents Per Inspection 183                100% 57% 43% 319             251                319                319 FD98 Gates/Barricades Per Inspection 191                100% 60% 40% 319             255                319                319 December 5, 2023 16 of 40
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
412 of 966
CITY OF REDLANDS ‐ EXHIBIT 'A' TO RESOLUTION NO. 8522
FEE SCHEDULE
# Service Name Unit Current Fee
Recmded
Recovery %
Current
Recovery Level
Change in Recm.

Recovery % Full Cost Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
Fire Department New Fee Amounts
FD99 Smoke Control/Exhaust Per Inspection 391                100% 76% 24% 516             516                516                516 FD100 Solar ‐ Photovoltaic Per Inspection 40                  100% 13% 87% 319             132                224                319 FD101 Emergency responder radio coverage system s Per Inspection 203                100% 61% 39% 332             268                332                332 Automatic Fire‐Extinguishing System
FD102 25 heads or less Per Inspection 191                100% 37% 63% 516             354                516                516 FD103 26‐99 heads Per Inspection 231                100% 38% 62% 608             420                608                608 FD104 Each additional head above 100 head s Each Addl Head 1                     100% 62% 38% 2                 1                    2                    2 Alarm and Detection Systems / Equip
FD105 Sprinklers monitoring onl y Per Inspection 191                100% 45% 55% 424             308                424                424 FD106 10 or less initiating devices Per Inspection 191                100% 45% 55% 424             308                424                424 FD107 11‐20 initiating devices Per Inspection 231                100% 45% 55% 516             374                516                516 FD108 20 or more devices Per Inspection 311                100% 51% 49% 608             460                608                608 Engine Company Inspections
FD109 Ordinary hazard Per Inspection 150                100% 25% 75% 595             297                443                595 Permits
FD110 Aerosol products Per Permit 258                100% 81% 19% 319             319                319                319 FD111 Amusement buildings Per Permit 258                100% 81% 19% 319             319                319                319 FD112 Bowling pin/Alley refurbish Per Permit 40                  100% 17% 83% 233             104                168                233 FD113 Carbon Dioxide System (at/over 100 lbs.) ‐ Beverage Systems Per Permit 218                100% 83% 17% 262             262                262                262 FD114 Cellulose Nitrate Film/Storage Per Permit 218                100% 68% 32% 319             269                319                319 FD115 Cryogenic Fluids Per Permit 258                100% 81% 19% 319             319                319                319 FD116 Fire Hydrants & Valves Per Permit 218                100% 93% 7% 233             233                233                233 FD117 Floor Finishin g Per Permit 258                100% 81% 19% 319             319                319                319 FD118 Fumigation or Thermal Insecticidal Foggin g Per Permit 191                100% 60% 40% 319             255                319                319 FD119 HPM Facilities Per Permit 231                100% 72% 28% 319             319                319                319 FD120 Hood and Duct Permit Per Permit 271                100% 98% 2% 276             276                276                276 FD121 Hot‐work operations Per Permit 231                100% 84% 16% 276             276                276                276 FD122 Industrial Ovens Per Permit 231                100% 84% 16% 276             276                276                276 FD123 Liquid or gas fueled vehicles or equipment in assembly buildings Per Permit 231                100% 84% 16% 276             276                276                276 FD124 Miscellaneous Combustible Storage (over 2500 cubic feet) Per Permit 271                100% 85% 15% 319             319                319                319 FD125 Open Burning (bonfire, rubbish, BBQ, recreational or ceremonial Fire,etc.) Per Permit 231                  100% 84% 16% 276               276                  276                  276 FD126 Organic Coatings Per Permit 231                100% 84% 16% 276             276                276                276 FD127 Private Hydrant Removal Per Permit 204                100% 87% 13% 233             233                233                233 FD128 Pyroxylin Plastics Per Permit 218                100% 79% 21% 276             276                276                276 FD129 Rocket launching (model rockets) Per Permit 244                100% 76% 24% 319             319                319                319 FD130
Special Activities (Production Facilities, Live Audience, Tradeshows, Exhibits, Special Events) ‐ seasonal events: haunted houses/mazes, pumpkin patches, christmas tree lots, etc.) Per Permit 258                  100% 81% 19% 319               319                  319                  319 FD131 Spraying/Dippin
g Per Permit 218                100% 83% 17% 263             263                263                263 December 5, 2023 17 of 40
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
413 of 966
CITY OF REDLANDS ‐ EXHIBIT 'A' TO RESOLUTION NO. 8522
FEE SCHEDULE
# Service Name Unit Current Fee
Recmded
Recovery %
Current
Recovery Level
Change in Recm.

Recovery % Full Cost Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
Fire Department New Fee Amounts
FD132 Tire storage/recapping/rebuildin g Per Permit 218                100% 83% 17% 263             263                263                263 FD133 Waste handlin g Per Permit 218                100% 83% 17% 263             263                263                263 FD134 Wood Products (over 200 cubic feet) Per Permit 218                100% 79% 21% 276             276                276                276 FD135 Compressed gas/LPG permit Per Permit 271                100% 98% 2% 276             276                276                276 FD136 Covered mall permit Per Permit 552                100% 51% 49% 1,091         821                1,091            1,091 FD137 Dry cleaning permit Per Permit 311                100% 86% 14% 362             362                362                362 FD138 Combustible Fiber Storage or  Dust Producin g Per Permit 258                100% 81% 19% 319             319                319                319 FD139 Explosives permit Per Permit 258                100% 81% 19% 319             319                319                319 FD140 Fruit ripening permit Per Permit 218                100% 68% 32% 319             269                319                319 FD141 Flammable/combustible liquid permi t Per Permit 231                100% 57% 43% 405             318                405                405 FD149 Poison gas permit Per Permit 271                100% 85% 15% 319             319                319                319 FD150 Radioactive material permit Per Permit 271                100% 85% 15% 319             319                319                319 FD151 Refrigeration equip permi t Per Permit 351                100% 87% 13% 405             405                405                405 FD152 Repair garage permit Per Permit 231                100% 84% 16% 276             276                276                276 FD153 Spray booth permit Per Permit 271                100% 85% 15% 319             319                319                319 FD154 Tanks permit Per Permit 231                100% 84% 16% 276             276                276                276 FD155 Welding / cutting permi t Per Permit 231                100% 84% 16% 276             276                276                276 FD156 Carnival / fair permit Per Permit 231                100% 84% 16% 276             276                276                276 FD157 Open flame permit Per Permit 231                100% 84% 16% 276             276                276                276 FD158 Parade float permit Per Permit 271                100% 85% 15% 319             319                319                319 FD159 Tents/Canop y Per Permit 231                100% 84% 16% 276             276                276                276 Pyrotechnics Special Effects ‐ Fireworks Permit
FD160 Small show Per Permit 321                100% 65% 35% 491             406                491                491 FD161 Large show Per Permit 1,218             100% 184% ‐84% 662             662                662                662 FD162 Standby (Engine Crew) Per Permit New 100% ‐ ‐ 1,341         1,341            1,341            1,341 Aircraft
FD163 Repair hangar permit Per Permit 271                100% 85% 15% 319             319                319                319 FD164 Refueling vehicle permi t Per Permit 271                100% 85% 15% 319             319                319                319 Assembly
FD165 50‐299 persons Per Permit 271                100% 85% 15% 319             319                319                319 FD166 300‐500 persons Per Permit 271                100% 75% 25% 362             362                362                362 FD167 501‐999 persons w/ stage Per Permit 311                100% 77% 23% 405             405                405                405 FD168 1000+ persons w/ stage Per Permit 351                100% 72% 28% 491             491                491                491 Weed Abatement
FD169 Landscape / Vegetation Management Admin Each 416                100% 141% ‐41% 296             296                296                296 FD170 Landscape/Vegetation Management Inspectio n Each 258                100% 150% ‐50% 171             171                171                171 FD171 Landscape / Vegetation Management Re‐inspectio n Each 190                100% 148% ‐48% 129             129                129                129 Hydrant / Hydro Flow Test
Install
FD172 1 tank Per Install 218                100% 79% 21% 276             276                276                276 December 5, 2023 18 of 40
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
414 of 966
CITY OF REDLANDS ‐ EXHIBIT 'A' TO RESOLUTION NO. 8522
FEE SCHEDULE
# Service Name Unit Current Fee
Recmded
Recovery %
Current
Recovery Level
Change in Recm.

Recovery % Full Cost Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
Fire Department New Fee Amounts
FD173 2 tanks Per Install 231                100% 72% 28% 319             319                319                319 FD174 3 tanks Per Install 271                100% 75% 25% 362             362                362                362 Removal
FD175 1 tank Per Removal 218                100% 79% 21% 276             276                276                276 FD176 2 tanks Per Removal 231                100% 72% 28% 319             319                319                319 FD177 3 tanks Per Removal 271                100% 75% 25% 362             362                362                362 FD178 Flow Test Fire Flow Per Test 231                100% 72% 28% 319             319                319                319 FD179 Miscellaneous Inspection/Permi t Per Hour 351                100% 110% ‐10% 319             319                319                319 Fire Miscellaneous Fees
FD180 Admin fee ‐ Cost Recovery Each 249                100% 73% 27% 341             341                341                341 December 5, 2023 19 of 40
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
415 of 966
CITY OF REDLANDS ‐ EXHIBIT 'A' TO RESOLUTION NO. 8522
FEE SCHEDULE
# Service Name Unit Current Fee
Recmded
Recovery %
Current
Recovery
Level
Change in
Recm.

Recovery % Full Cost Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
PL1 Concept plan Each 10,405 100% 52% 48% 19,956 15,181 19,956 19,956 PL2 Concept plan amendmen t Each 4,235 100% 38% 62% 11,291 7,763 11,291 11,291 PL3 Specific plan Each 9,725 100% 46% 54% 21,129 15,427 21,129 21,129 PL4 Specific plan amendment Each 4,427 100% 37% 63% 11,981 8,204 11,981 11,981 PL5 Conditional Use Permit ‐ New Construction Each 6,712 100% 50% 50% 13,528 10,120 13,528 13,528 PL6 Conditional Use Permit ‐ No New Construction Each 2,234 100% 100% 0% 2,234 2,234 2,234 2,234 PL7 Conditional Use Permit ‐ with an Alcohol License Each New 100% ‐ ‐ 4,254 4,254 4,254 4,254 PL8 Conditional Use Permit ‐ Planned Residential Development Each New 100% ‐ ‐ 4,412 4,412 4,412 4,412 PL9 Conditional Use Permit ‐ Time Extension Each 369 100% 12% 88% 3,167 1,292 2,216 3,167 PL10 Conditional Use Permit ‐ Daycare Home (13+ clients) Each 2,425 100% 132% ‐32% 1,839 1,839 1,839 1,839 PL11 Revised Conditional Use Permit ‐ Construction Each 3,152 100% 42% 58% 7,466 5,309 7,466 7,466 PL12 Revised Conditional Use Permit ‐ No Construction Each 1,590 100% 54% 46% 2,948 2,269 2,948 2,948 PL13 Variance ‐ Minor Fence Exception Permit Each 632 100% 28% 72% 2,264 1,171 1,709 2,264 PL14 Variance ‐ Single Family Residential (SFR) Each 2,775 100% 79% 21% 3,513 3,513 3,513 3,513 PL15 Variance ‐ Commercial / Multi‐Family Each 3,098 100% 66% 34% 4,728 3,913 4,728 4,728 PL16 Variance ‐ Parking Modification Each 2,277 100% 95% ‐ 2,391 2,391 2,391 2,391 PL17 Variance ‐ Minor Commission Review Each 1,982 100% 67% 33% 2,941 2,462 2,941 2,941 PL18 Building Move ‐ Main Structure Each 1,845 100% 90% 10% 2,053 2,053 2,053 2,053 PL19 Building Move ‐ Garage/Secondary Structure Each 1,749 100% 87% 13% 2,001 2,001 2,001 2,001 PL20 Commission Review & Approval ‐ Major > 1 acre Each 7,564 100% 68% 32% 11,158 9,361 11,158 11,158 PL21 Commission Review & Approval ‐ Minor 1 acre or less Each 5,779 100% 68% 32% 8,524 7,152 8,524 8,524 PL22 Commission Review & Approval ‐ Time Extension Each 307 100% 11% 89% 2,779 1,123 1,939 2,779 PL23 Commission Review & Approval ‐ Revised, Major > 1 acre Each 6,051 100% 78% 22% 7,775 7,775 7,775 7,775 PL24 Commission Review & Approval ‐ Revised, Minor 1 acre or less Each 5,217 100% 89% 11% 5,867 5,867 5,867 5,867 PL25 Parcel Map Each 5,046 100% 47% 53% 10,676 7,861 10,676 10,676 PL26 Revised Parcel Map Each 3,979 100% 57% 43% 6,931 5,455 6,931 6,931 PL27
Administrative parcel map (SB 9) Each New 100% ‐ ‐ 3,074 3,074 3,074 3,074 PL28 Tentative Tract Map Each 12,493 100% 82% 18% 15,238 15,238 15,238 15,238 PL29 Revised Tentative Tract Map Each 8,335 100% 104% ‐4% 8,051 8,051 8,051 8,051 PL30 Reversion to acreage/merge r Each 2,814 100% 74% 26% 3,797 3,797 3,797 3,797 PL31 Subdivision Time Extension Each 395 100% 8% 92% 5,237 1,993 3,591 5,237 PL32 Lot Line Adjustment Each 706 100% 32% 68% 2,196 1,451 2,196 2,196 PL33 Certificate of Compliance Each 750 100% 49% 51% 1,539 1,145 1,539 1,539 PL34 Environmental Impact Report (by consultant) Per Report Contract + 10% 100% ‐ ‐ Contract + 10% Contract + 10% Contract + 10% Contract + 10% PL35 Legal Noticing Publication (CEQA Notice) Per Hearing New 100% ‐ ‐ 535 535 535 535 PL36 Environmental Project Assessment Each 808 100% 36% 64% 2,260 1,534 2,260 2,260 PL37 Mitigation Monitoring Plan Review & Implementation Actual Cost Cost 100% ‐ ‐ Cost Cost Cost Cost DSD ‐ Planning New Fee Amounts
December 5, 2023 20 of 40
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
416 of 966
CITY OF REDLANDS ‐ EXHIBIT 'A' TO RESOLUTION NO. 8522
FEE SCHEDULE
# Service Name Unit Current Fee
Recmded
Recovery %
Current
Recovery
Level
Change in
Recm.

Recovery % Full Cost Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
DSD ‐ Planning New Fee Amounts
PL38 Negative Declaration by Staf f Each 5,700              100% 59% 41% 9,733              7,717            9,733            9,733 PL39 Negative Declaration by Consultant Actual Cost Contract + 10% 100% ‐ ‐ Contract + 10% Contract + 10% Contract + 10% Contract + 10% PL40 Residential Development Allocation (RDA) Each 3,857              100% 69% 31% 5,598              4,728            5,598            5,598 PL41 Alteration of Approved Project (RDA) Each 609                 100% 28% 72% 2,178              1,127            1,645            2,178 PL42 Transfer of Development Allocation Each 595                 100% 27% 73% 2,178              1,117            1,640            2,178 PL43 Zone Change ‐ Commission Determination Each 2,345              100% 31% 69% 7,503              4,924            7,503            7,503 PL44 Zone Change ‐ Ordinance Text Amendmen t Each 2,952              100% 22% 78% 13,673            6,490            10,028          13,673 PL45 Zone Change Each 3,797              100% 28% 72% 13,615            7,037            10,277          13,615 PL46 Sign Review ‐ One Each 681                 100% 83% 17% 824                 824               824               824 PL47 Sign Review by Staff Each 139                 100% 67% 33% 206                 173               206               206 PL48 Sign Program Each 1,542              100% 61% 39% 2,516              2,029            2,516            2,516 PL49 Sign Program Amendmen t Each 830                 100% 52% 48% 1,591              1,211            1,591            1,591 PL50 Conditional Use Permit ‐ Signs > 120 square feet Each 2,667              100% 88% 12% 3,014              3,014            3,014            3,014 PL51 Flag Test Each 1,479              100% 97% 3% 1,524              1,524            1,524            1,524 PL52 Annual Banner Permit Each 134                 100% 81% 19% 165                 165               165               165 PL53 Additional Banner Display Each 68                   100% 94% 6% 72                   72                 72                 72 PL54 Searchlights Each 134                 100% 93% 7% 144                 144               144               144 Demolition > 50 yr. old Building
PL55 Single Family Zones Each 646                 100% 32% 68% 2,044              1,345            2,044            2,044 PL56 Multi‐Family, Commercial, Industrial Each 683                 100% 28% 72% 2,455              1,268            1,853            2,455 PL57 Accessory Building Each 564                 100% 31% 69% 1,798              1,181            1,798            1,798 PL58 Historic Designated ‐ Single Family Residence Each 957                 100% 33% 67% 2,911              1,934            2,911            2,911 PL59 Historic Designated ‐ Multi‐Family, Commercial, Industrial Each 957                 100% 26% 74% 3,732              1,873            2,789            3,732 PL60 Historic Designated ‐ Accessory Building Each 667                 100% 26% 74% 2,541              1,285           1,904            2,541 Demolition < 50 yr. old Building
PL61 Single Family Zones Each 387                 100% 33% 67% 1,186              787               1,186            1,186 PL62 Multi‐Family, Commercial, Industrial Each 402                 100% 25% 75% 1,596              796               1,190            1,596 PL63 Accessory Building Each 430                 100% 40% 60% 1,062              746               1,062            1,062 PL64 Annexation Each 7,070              100% 66% 34% 10,698            8,884            10,698          10,698 PL65 Service Plan for Annexation Each 1,371              100% 41% 59% 3,361              2,366            3,361            3,361 PL66 Pre‐Annexation Agreemen t Each 2,565              100% 144% ‐44% 1,785              1,785            1,785            1,785 PL67 Zoning Verification Letter ‐ Basic Each 384                 100% 71% 29% 541                 541               541               541 PL68 Zoning Verification Letter ‐ Research Each 682                 100% 87% 13% 787                 787               787               787 PL69 Preliminary Review ‐ One Acre or Less Each 332                 100% 32% 68% 1,051              692               1,051            1,051 PL70 Preliminary Review ‐ Over One Acre Each 430                 100% 23% 77% 1,855              900               1,371            1,855 PL71 Minor Certificate of Appropriateness Each 356                 100% 66% 34% 539                 448               539               539 PL72 Certificate of Appropriateness Each 615                 100% 61% 39% 1,016              816               1,016            1,016 PL73 Mills Act Contract Application Each 480                 100% 41% 59% 1,160              820               1,160            1,160 December 5, 2023 21 of 40
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
417 of 966
CITY OF REDLANDS ‐ EXHIBIT 'A' TO RESOLUTION NO. 8522
FEE SCHEDULE
# Service Name Unit Current Fee
Recmded
Recovery %
Current
Recovery
Level
Change in
Recm.

Recovery % Full Cost Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
DSD ‐ Planning New Fee Amounts
PL74 Administrative Use Permit Each 795 100% 32% 68% 2,451 1,623 2,451 2,451 PL75 Zoning Clearance Form Each 46 100% 25% 75% 183 91 136 183 PL76 Agriculture Preserve Removal Each 2,524 100% 28% 72% 8,889 4,624 6,725 8,889 PL77 General Plan Amendmen t Each 6,068 100% 43% 57% 14,220 10,144 14,220 14,220 PL78 Legal Noticing (Public Hearing) Per Hearing New 100% ‐ ‐ 535 535 535 535 PL79 Street Vacation Each 2,602 100% 77% 23% 3,358 3,358 3,358 3,358 PL80 Appeal ‐ Various Fees Paid Each 2,254 100% 65% 35% 3,479 2,867 3,479 3,479 PL81 Addendum To Planning Commission Each 1,188 100% 47% 53% 2,505 1,847 2,505 2,505 PL82 Continued Item By Applicant Each 370 100% 34% 66% 1,103 737 1,103 1,103 PL83 Temporary Occupanc y Each 200 100% 29% 71% 690 362 523 690 PL84 News Rack Impound Fee Each 376 100% 47% 53% 802 589 802 802 PL85 Development Agreemen t Each 6,108 100% 38% 62% 16,200 11,154 16,200 16,200 PL86 Williamson Act Contract Removal Each 2,800 100% 50% 50% 5,596 4,198 5,596 5,596 PL87 Socio Economic Study Each 3,265 100% 66% 34% 4,950 4,108 4,950 4,950 PL88 Home Occupation Permit ‐ Review Each 50 100% 34% 66% 146 98 146 146 PL89 Special / Temporary Events Each 175 50% 15% 35% 1,188 385 594 594 PL90 Temporary Holiday Sales Each 37 50% 3% 47% 1,188 316 594 594 PL91 Preliminary Housing Application (SB 330) Each New 100% ‐ ‐ 1,505 1,505 1,505 1,505 PL92 Mine & Reclamation Plan Review Each Cost 100% ‐ ‐ Cost Cost Cost Cost PL93 Mitigation Monitoring Plan Review & Implementation Each Cost 100% ‐ ‐ Cost Cost Cost Cost PL94 Measure U Exemption Each New 100% ‐ ‐ 3,903 3,903 3,903 3,903 PL95 Technology Fee % of Permit 2% 100% ‐ ‐ 2% 2% 2% 2% PL96 Tribal Government Notification (AB52 and / or SB18) Each New 100% ‐ ‐ 590 590 590 590 December 5, 2023 22 of 40
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
418 of 966
CITY OF REDLANDS ‐ EXHIBIT 'A' TO RESOLUTION NO. 8522
FEE SCHEDULE
# Service Name Unit Current Fee
Recmded
Recovery %
Current
Recovery Level
Change in Recm.

Recovery % Full Cost Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
Miscellaneous Items Permit Fees
BS1 Standard Hourly Rate Per Hour 127.70 100% 87% 13% 147                147                147                147 BS2 Balcony Addition Each 510.80 100% 87% 13% 586                586                586                586 BS3 Change Of Occupancy Each 574.65 100% 87% 13% 659                659                659                659 BS4 Compliance Inspections/Reinspections Each 510.80 100% 87% 13% 584                584                584                584 BS5 Lighting Pole Each 255.40 100% 87% 13% 292                292                292                292 BS6 Service Required In Excess Of Standard Per Hour 127.70 100% 87% 13% 146                146                146                146 BS7 Re‐Inspection Per Hour 127.70 100% 87% 13% 146                146                146                146 BS8 Plan Re‐Check Per Hour 127.70 100% 87% 13% 147                147                147                147 BS9 Research Per Hour 127.70 100% 87% 13% 147                147                147                147 BS10 Residential Building Reports Each Report 63.85 100% 86% 14% 74                   74                  74                  74 BS11 Landscaping Each 638.50 100% 87% 13% 733                733                733                733 BS12 Skylight (Any Size) Each 255.40 100% 87% 13% 293                293                293                293 BS13 Spa Or Hot Tub (In‐Ground Private) Each 319.25 100% 87% 13% 366                366                366                366 Antenna
BS14 Equipment Container, Any Size Each 383.10 100% 87% 13% 440                440                440                440 BS15 Cellular/Mobile Phone, Free‐Standing Each 446.95 100% 68% 32% 660                553                660                660 BS16 Cellular/Mobile Phone, Co‐Location Each 383.10 100% 65% 35% 587                485                587                587 BS17 New Cellular/Mobile Phone, Free‐Standing Each New 100% ‐ ‐ 1,907             1,907             1,907             1,907 BS18 New Cellular/Mobile Phone, Co‐Location Each New 100% ‐ ‐ 1,393             1,393             1,393             1,393 BS19 Carport ‐ Minor (< Or = 200 Sq Ft.) Each 319.25 100% 87% 13% 366                366                366                366 BS20 Carport ‐ Major (> 200 Sq Ft.) Each 446.95 100% 87% 13% 513                513                513                513 BS21 Close Existing Openings ‐ Interior Wall Each 255.40 100% 87% 13% 293                293                293                293 BS22 Close Existing Openings ‐ Exterior Wall Each 383.10 100% 106% ‐6% 363                363                363                363 Deck (Wood)
BS23 Up To 200 Sq Ft. Each 319.25 100% 87% 13% 366                366                366                366 BS24 Each Additional 100 Sq Ft. Each 255.40 100% 87% 13% 293                293                293                293 With Calcs
BS25 Up To 200 Sq Ft. Each 383.10 100% 87% 13% 439                439                439                439 BS26 Over 200 Sq Ft. Each 446.95 100% 87% 13% 512                512                512                512 BS27 Demolition ‐ Single Family Dwelling Each 255.40 100% 58% 42% 439                347                439                439 BS28 Demolition ‐ Multi Family/ Commercial Each 383.10 100% 87% 13% 439                439                439                439 BS29 New Door ‐ Residential Each 319.25 100% 87% 13% 366                366                366                366 Fence Or Freestanding Wall
Non‐Masonry
BS30 Any Size Each 319.25 100% 87% 13% 366                366                366                366 Masonry
BS31 6 ‐ 8 Feet High, Pre‐Engineered Each 383.10 100% 87% 13% 439                439                439                439 BS32 Each Additional 100 Linear Feet Each 63.85 100% 29% 71% 220                115                167                220 Special Design
DSD ‐ Building & Safety Flat Fees New Fee Amounts
December 5, 2023 23 of 40
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
419 of 966
CITY OF REDLANDS ‐ EXHIBIT 'A' TO RESOLUTION NO. 8522
FEE SCHEDULE
# Service Name Unit Current Fee
Recmded
Recovery %
Current
Recovery Level
Change in Recm.

Recovery % Full Cost Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
DSD ‐ Building & Safety Flat Fees New Fee Amounts
BS33 6 ‐ 10 Feet High Each 574.65 100% 87% 13% 659                659                659                659 BS34 Each Additional 100 Linear Feet Each 191.55 100% 87% 13% 220                220                220                220 BS35 Over 10 Feet High Each 574.65 100% 87% 13% 659                659                659                659 BS36 Each Additional 100 Linear Feet Each 191.55 100% 87% 13% 220                220                220                220 BS37 Fireplace ‐ Pre‐Fabricated / Metal Each 255.40 100% 87% 13% 293                293                293                293 BS38 Fireplace ‐ Flag Pole (Over 30 Feet In Height) Each 255.40 100% 87% 13% 293                293                293                293 Grading (Cut And Fill)
BS39 0 ‐ 100 CY Each 191.55 100% 87% 13% 221                221                221                221 BS40 101 ‐ 1,000 CY Each 255.40 100% 87% 13% 294                294                294                294 BS41 1,000 ‐ 10,000 CY Each 383.10 100% 87% 13% 441                441                441                441 BS42 10,001 ‐ 100,000 CY Each 446.95 100% 87% 13% 515                515                515                515 BS43 100,001 ‐ 200,000 CY Each 638.50 100% 87% 13% 735                735                735                735 BS44 Each Additional 10,000 CY Or Portion Thereof Each 76.62 100% 87% 13% 88                   88                  88                  88 Partition ‐ Commercial
BS45 Interior (Up To 30 L.F.) Each 255.40 100% 87% 13% 293                293                293                293 BS46 Additional Partition Per 30 l.f. 127.70 100% 87% 13% 146               146                146                146 Patio Cover, Awning, Canopy, Trellis And Arbors
Wood Frame
BS47 City Standard Each 255.40 100% 87% 13% 292                292                292                292 BS48 With Calcs Each 319.25 100% 87% 13% 366                366                366                366 BS49 Other Frame Each 319.25 100% 87% 13% 366                366                366                366 BS50 Additional Patio Each 127.70 100% 87% 13% 146                146                146                146 BS51 Enclosure Each 319.25 100% 87% 13% 366                366                366                366 Solar Energy Systems
Residential
BS52 0 ‐15 kW Each kW 446.95 87% 87% 0% 513                450                450                450 BS53 Each Additional kW > 15 kW Each kW 12.77 87% 85% 2% 15                   15                  15                  15 Non‐Residential
BS54 0‐50 kW Each kW 1000.00 85% 85% 0% 1,170             1,000             1,000             1,000 BS55 51‐250 kW Each kW 7.00 70% 70% 0% 10                   7                     7                     7 BS56 Each Additional kW >250kW Each 5.00 83% 83% 0% 6                     5                     5                     5 BS57 Stucco Applications Each 191.55 100% 87% 13% 220                220                220                220 BS58 Additional Stucco Application Ea. Addt'l 40 sq ft. 127.70 100% 87% 13% 146                146                146                146 Repairs For Fire, Water, Decay & Pests
BS59 <$10,000 Each 766.20 100% 87% 13% 879                879                879                879 BS60 $10,000 ‐ 25,000 Each 766.20 100% 87% 13% 879                879                879                879 BS61 $25,001 ‐ 100,000 Each 1021.60 100% 87% 13% 1,172             1,172             1,172             1,172 BS62 > $100,000 Each 1149.30 100% 87% 13% 1,318             1,318             1,318             1,318 Retaining Wall (Concrete Or Masonry)
BS63 First 50 Linear Feet Each 383.10 100% 87% 13% 439                439                439                439 December 5, 2023 24 of 40
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
420 of 966
CITY OF REDLANDS ‐ EXHIBIT 'A' TO RESOLUTION NO. 8522
FEE SCHEDULE
# Service Name Unit Current Fee
Recmded
Recovery %
Current
Recovery Level
Change in Recm.

Recovery % Full Cost Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
DSD ‐ Building & Safety Flat Fees New Fee Amounts
BS64 Additional Retaining Wall Ea. Addt'l 50 l.f. 63.85 100% 87% 13% 73                   73                  73                  73 Special Design
BS65 3 ‐ 10 Feet High (Up To 50 Linear Feet) Each 446.95 100% 87% 13% 512                512                512                512 BS66 Additional Retaining Wall Ea. Addt'l 50 l.f. 63.85 100% 87% 13% 73                   73                  73                  73 BS67 Over 10 Feet High (Up To 50 Linear Feet) Each 702.35 100% 87% 13% 806                806                806                806 BS68 Additional Retaining Wall Ea. Addt'l 50 l.f. 63.85 100% 87% 13% 73                   73                  73                  73 Remodel ‐ Residential
BS69 500 Square Foot Single Story Each 638.50 100% 87% 13% 733                733                733                733 BS70 501 ‐ 1,000 Sq. Ft. Each 702.32 100% 64% 36% 1,099             901                1,099             1,099 BS71 Additional Remodel Each Add'l 500 sq. ft. 255.40 100% 87% 13% 293                293                293                293 Re‐Roof
Single Family Dwelling / Duplex
BS72 Any Size Per Re‐Roof 383.10 100% 87% 13% 439                439                439                439 Re‐Roof Multi‐Family/Comm./Ind.

BS73 Minor Repair < 500 Sq. Ft. Per Re‐Roof 191.55 100% 87% 13% 220                220                220                220 BS74 501 ‐ 3,000 Sq. Ft. Per Re‐Roof 319.25 100% 87% 13% 366                366                366                366 BS75 3,001 ‐ 10,000 Sq. Ft. Per Re‐Roof 446.95 100% 87% 13% 512                512                512                512 BS76 > 10,001 Sq. Ft. Ea. Add'l 1,000 sq ft 63.85 100% 87% 13% 73                   73                  73                  73 Roof Structure Replacement
BS77 Roof Structure Replacement Per Replacement 638.50 100% 87% 13% 732                732                732                732 BS78 Additional Roof Structure Replacement Per Replacement 127.70 100% 87% 13% 146                146                146                146 Residential Additions (One  Story)
BS79 Up To 500 Sq. Ft. Each 574.65 100% 78% 22% 733                733                733                733 BS80 501 ‐ 1,000 Sq. Ft. Each 766.20 100% 70% 30% 1,099             933                1,099             1,099 BS81 > 1,000 Sq.Ft. Each Add'l 500 sq. ft. 95.78 100% 33% 67% 293                194                293                293 BS82 Siding ‐ Stone And Brick Veneer (Interior Or Exterior) Each 255.40 100% 87% 13% 293                293                293                293 BS83 Siding ‐ Additional Siding Each Add'l 400 sq. ft. 95.78 100% 87% 13% 110                110                110                110 Signs
BS84 Monument Each 510.80 100% 87% 13% 585                585                585                585 BS85 Wall‐Mounted Fixture Each 255.40 100% 87% 13% 293                293                293                293 BS86 Free‐Standing Each 319.25 100% 87% 13% 366                366                366                366 Storage Racks
BS87 Any Height (Up To 100 Linear Feet) Each 383.10 100% 87% 13% 439                439                439                439 BS88 Each Additional 100 Linear Feet Ea. Addt'l 100 l.f. 31.93 100% 86% 14% 37                   37                  37                  37 Swimming Pool / Spa
Private
BS89 < 800 Sq. Ft. Each 638.50 100% 87% 13% 732                732                732                732 BS90 > 800 Sq. Ft. Each 766.20 100% 96% 4% 801                801                801                801 BS91 Heater Each 95.78 100% 87% 13% 110                110                110                110 BS92 Temporary Utility Connection Or Occupancy Each 127.70 100% 87% 13% 146                146                146                146 December 5, 2023 25 of 40
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
421 of 966
CITY OF REDLANDS ‐ EXHIBIT 'A' TO RESOLUTION NO. 8522
FEE SCHEDULE
# Service Name Unit Current Fee
Recmded
Recovery %
Current
Recovery Level
Change in Recm.

Recovery % Full Cost Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
DSD ‐ Building & Safety Flat Fees New Fee Amounts
Window Or Sliding Glass Door
Residential Replacement
BS93 Quantity 1‐4 Each 191.55 100% 87% 13% 220 220 220 220 BS94 Quantity 5 Or More Each Add'l 31.93 100% 86% 14% 37 37 37 37 BS95 New Window (Non Structural) Each 255.40 100% 87% 13% 293 293 293 293 Off‐Hours Inspection (Min 3 Hours)
BS96 First Hour Per Hour 383.10 100% 87% 13% 438 438 438 438 BS97 Each Additional Hour Each Addt'l Hour 191.55 100% 87% 13% 219 219 219 219 Strong‐Motion Instrumentation And Seismic Hazards Mapping Fee BS98
Group R Occupancies: One To Three Stories Excluding
Hotels/Motels Valuation
Valuation X
$0.0001 100% ‐ ‐
Valuation X
$0.0001
Valuation X
$0.0001
Valuation X
$0.0001
Valuation X
$0.0001
BS99 All Other Buildings Valuation
Valuation X
$0.00021 100% ‐ ‐
Valuation X
$0.00021
Valuation X
$0.00021
Valuation X
$0.00021
Valuation X
$0.00021
California Health & Safety Code Section 18931.6
BS100 Building Permit Fee Valuation
Valuation X
$0.00004 100% ‐ ‐
Valuation X
$0.00004
Valuation X
$0.00004
Valuation X
$0.00004
Valuation X
$0.00004
BS101 General Plan Maintenance Fee
Per sq.ft. of new
construction or
additions > 50% of
existing floor area

0.10 100% ‐ ‐ 0.16                 0.16                 0.16                 0.16 BS102 Technology Fee Surcharge % of Permit 0.02 100% ‐ ‐ 2% 2% 2% 2% Mechanical, Electrical & Plumbing Permit Fees
BS103 Administrative And Misc. Fees ‐ Permit Issuance Per Permit 63.85 100% 86% 14% 74                   74                  74                  74 Mechanical Permit Fees
BS104 Stand Alone Mechanical Plan Check (Hourly Rate) Per Hour 127.70 100% 87% 13% 147                147                147                147 Unit Fees
BS105 A/C, Residential Each 191.55 100% 87% 13% 220                220                220                220 BS106 Heater (Wall) Each 191.55 100% 87% 13% 220                220                220                220 BS107 Appliance Vent / Chimney (Only) Each 191.55 100% 87% 13% 220                220                220                220 BS108 Boiler Each 191.55 100% 87% 13% 220                220                220                220 BS109 Chiller Each 510.80 100% 87% 13% 586                586                586                586 BS110 Evaporative Cooler Each 191.55 100% 87% 13% 220                220                220                220 BS111 Moisture Exhaust Duct (Clothes Dryer) Each 191.55 100% 87% 13% 220                220                220                220 BS112 Vent Fan, Single Duct Each 191.55 100% 87% 13% 220                220                220                220 BS113 Vent System Each 383.10 100% 87% 13% 439                439                439                439 BS114 Exhaust Hood And Duct (Residential) Each 383.10 100% 87% 13% 439                439                439                439 BS115 Non‐Residential Incinerator Each 255.40 100% 87% 13% 293                293                293                293 BS116
Appliance Or Piece Of Equipment Not Classed In Other
Appliance Categories, Or For Which No Other Fee Is Listed Each 191.55 100% 87% 13%                  220 220                  220                  220 Other Fees
BS117 Installation Or Relocation Of Any Duct System Each 191.55 100% 87% 13% 220                220                220                220 December 5, 2023 26 of 40
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
422 of 966
CITY OF REDLANDS ‐ EXHIBIT 'A' TO RESOLUTION NO. 8522
FEE SCHEDULE
# Service Name Unit Current Fee
Recmded
Recovery %
Current
Recovery Level
Change in Recm.

Recovery % Full Cost Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
DSD ‐ Building & Safety Flat Fees New Fee Amounts
BS118 For Each Process Piping System Of 1 To 2 Outlets Each 127.70 100% 87% 13% 147                147                147                147 BS119 For Each Additional Process Piping Outlet Each Add'l Piping Outle 63.85 100% 87% 13% 73                   73                  73                  73 BS120 Other Mechanical Inspections Per Hour 127.70 100% 87% 13% 146                146                146                146 Plumbing / Gas Permit Fees
BS121 Permit Issuance Per Permit 63.85 100% 86% 14% 74                   74                  74                  74 BS122 Stand Alone Plumbing Plan Check Per Hour 127.70 100% 87% 13% 147                147                147                147 Unit Fees
BS123
Plumbing Fixture Or Trap Or Set Of Fixtures On One Trap, Including Water, Drainage Piping, And Backflow Protection Each 191.55 100% 87% 13% 220                  220                  220                  220 BS124 Building Or Trailer Park Sewer Each 191.55 100% 87% 13% 220                220                220                220 BS125 Rainwater System Inside Building Per Drain 191.55 100% 87% 13% 220                220                220                220 BS126 Private Sewage Disposal System Each 191.55 100% 87% 13% 220                220                220                220 BS127 Water Heater Each 191.55 100% 87% 13% 220                220                220                220 BS128
Industrial Waste Pretreatment Interceptor, Including Its Trap And Vent, Excepting Kitchen‐Type Grease Interceptors Functioning As Fixture Traps Each 574.65 100% 87% 13% 659                  659                  659                  659 BS129
Underground Utilities (Sewer, Storm, Water) Exception:

Single Family Dwellings Each 191.55 100% 87% 13% 220                  220                  220                  220 Other Fees
BS130
Install/Alter/Repair Water Piping And/Or Water Treating Equipment Each 191.55 100% 87% 13% 220                  220                  220                  220 BS131 For Repair Or Alteration Of Drainage Or Vent Piping Each Fixture 191.55 100% 87% 13% 220                220                220                220 BS132
For Each Lawn Sprinkler System On Any One Meter,
Including Backflow Protection Devices Therefor Each 191.55 100% 87% 13% 220                  220                  220                  220 Backflow Protective Devices ‐                      ‐                      ‐ BS133 Atmospheric‐Type Vacuum Breakers Each 191.55 100% 87% 13% 220                220                220                220 BS134 1 to 5 Each 63.85 100% 87% 13% 73                   73                  73                  73 BS135 Over 5 (Each) Each 38.31 100% 87% 13% 44                   44                  44                  44 BS136
Devices Other Than Atmospheric‐Type Vacuum
Breakers Each 191.55 100% 87% 13% 220                  220                  220                  220 Gas Piping System
BS137 1 ‐ 4 Outlets Each 191.55 100% 87% 13% 220                220                220                220 BS138 5 Or More Outlets Each 191.55 100% 87% 13% 220                220                220                220 BS139 Other Plumbing And Gas Inspections Per Hour 127.70 100% 87% 13% 146                146                146                146 Electrical Permit Fees
BS140 Permit Issuance Per Permit 63.85 100% 86% 14% 74                   74                  74                  74 BS141 Stand Alone Electrical Plan Check Each 127.70 100% 87% 13% 147                147                147                147 December 5, 2023 27 of 40
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
423 of 966
CITY OF REDLANDS ‐ EXHIBIT 'A' TO RESOLUTION NO. 8522
FEE SCHEDULE
# Service Name Unit Current Fee
Recmded
Recovery %
Current
Recovery Level
Change in Recm.

Recovery % Full Cost Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
DSD ‐ Building & Safety Flat Fees New Fee Amounts
BS142
Swimming Pools, Therapeutic Whirlpools, Spas And Alterations To Existing Swimming
Pools. Use Unit Fee Schedule  For Itemized Work. Each 191.55 100% 87% 13% 220                  220                  220                  220 BS143
Temporary Power; Temporary Power To A Permanent Location; Temporary Service Power Pole Or Pedestal Including All Pole Or Pedestal‐Mounted Receptacle Outlets And Appurtenances Each 191.55 100% 87% 13% 220                  220                  220                  220 BS144
For A Temporary Distribution System And Temporary Lighting And Receptacle Outlets For Construction  Sites, Decorative Light, Christmas Tree Lots, Firework Stands, Etc. Each 191.55 100% 87% 13% 220                  220                  220                  220 Unit Fees
Receptable, Switch, And Light Outlets
BS145 First 20 Each 191.55 100% 87% 13% 220                220                220                220 BS146 Each Additional 20 Outlets Each Add'l 20 Outlets 63.85 100% 87% 13% 73                   73                  73                  73 Lighting Fixtures
BS147 First 20 Each 191.55 100% 87% 13% 220                220                220                220 BS148 Each Additional Outlet Each Add'l Outlet 63.85 100% 87% 13% 73                   73                  73                  73 BS149 For Pole Or Platform‐Mounted Lighting Fixtures Each 63.85 100% 87% 13% 73                   73                  73                  73 BS150 For Theatrical‐Type Lighting Fixtures Or Assemblies Each 127.70 100% 87% 13% 147                147                147                147 BS151 Residential Appliances or Receptacle Outlets Each 191.55 100% 87% 13% 220                220                220                220 BS152 Non‐Residential Appliances Each 191.55 100% 87% 13% 220                220                220                220 Power  Apparatus
BS153 Up To And Including 1 Each 191.55 100% 87% 13% 220                220                220                220 BS154 Over 1 And Not Over 10 Each 191.55 100% 87% 13% 220                220                220                220 BS155 Over 10 And Not Over 50 Each 255.40 100% 87% 13% 293                293                293                293 BS156 Over 50 And Not Over 100 Each 383.10 100% 87% 13% 440                440                440                440 BS157 Over 100 Each 446.95 100% 87% 13% 513                513                513                513 BS158 Installation Or Relocation Of Panelboard Each 191.55 100% 87% 13% 220                220                220                220 BS159 Busways ‐ For Trolley And Plug‐In‐Type Busways 191.55 100% 87% 13% 220                220               220                220 BS160 Signs, Outline Lighting, And Marquees ‐ One Branch Circuit Each 100 feet or
fraction thereof 191.55 100% 87% 13% 220                  220                  220                  220 Electrical Services
BS161 600 Volts Or Less; Up To 1,000 Amperes In Rating Each 191.55 100% 87% 13% 220                220                220                220 BS162 Over 600 Volts Or Over 1,000 Amperes In Rating Each 510.80 100% 87% 13% 586                586                586                586 Other Fees
BS163
For Electrical Apparatus, Conduits And Conductors For Which A Permit Is Required But For Which No Fee Is Herein Set Forth Each 191.55 100% 87% 13% 220                  220                  220                  220 BS164 Other Electrical Inspections Per Hour 127.70 100% 87% 13% 146                146                146                146 December 5, 2023 28 of 40
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
424 of 966
CITY OF REDLANDS ‐ EXHIBIT 'A' TO RESOLUTION NO. 8522
FEE SCHEDULE
DSD ‐ Building & Safety Fees based on square footage
Recommended Recovery Level - 100% for all fees listed below.

IBC Class IBC Occupancy Type
Project Size
Threshold
Current
Fee @
Threshold
Size
Total
Current
Cost
Total
Current
Cost + 7%
Current
Recovery
Level
Change in
Recovery
Level
New Base
Fee (Cost)
Amount @
Threshold
Size Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
Current Fee
(Cost) for
Each
Additional
100 sq*
Total
Current
Cost
Total
Current
Cost + 7%
Current
Recovery
Level
Change in
Recovery
Level
New Fee
(Cost) for
Each
Additional
100 sf * Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
A-1 Assembly uses, usually with fixed seating, 2,000 $7,433 $5,781 $6,186 120% -20% $6,186 $6,186 $6,186 $6,186 $5.44 $24.10 $25.79 21% 79% $25.79 $12.15 $18.87 $25.79 Greater intended for the production and 10,000 $7,867 $7,709 $8,249 95% 5% $8,249 $8,249 $8,249 $8,249 $13.11 $19.42 $20.78 63% 37% $20.78 $16.94 $20.78 $20.78 Than 50 viewing of the performing arts or 20,000 $9,179 $9,650 $10,326 89% 11% $10,326 $10,326 $10,326 $10,326 $4.27 $4.74 $5.07 84% 16% $5.07 $5.07 $5.07 $5.07 Occupants motion pictures 40,000 $10,033 $10,599 $11,341 88% 12% $11,341 $11,341 $11,341 $11,341 $4.67 $5.98 $6.40 73% 27% $6.40 $6.40 $6.40 $6.40 - - 100,000 $12,832 $14,188 $15,181 85% 15% $15,181 $15,181 $15,181 $15,181 $1.62 $2.06 $2.20 73% 27% $2.20 $2.20 $2.20 $2.20 - - 200,000 $14,457 $16,250 $17,388 83% 17% $17,388 $17,388 $17,388 $17,388 $7.03 $3.94 $4.22 167% -67% $4.22 $4.22 $4.22 $4.22 A-2 Assembly uses intended for food and/or 1,000 $10,634 $8,408 $8,997 118% -18% $8,997 $8,997 $8,997 $8,997 $15.31 $70.67 $75.62 20% 80% $75.62 $35.21 $55.11 $75.62 - drink consumption 5,000 $11,248 $11,234 $12,020 94% 6% $12,020 $12,020 $12,020 $12,020 $34.70 $51.05 $54.62 64% 36% $54.62 $44.66 $54.62 $54.62 - - 10,000 $12,982 $13,787 $14,752 88% 12% $14,752 $14,752 $14,752 $14,752 $12.25 $15.00 $16.05 76% 24% $16.05 $16.05 $16.05 $16.05 - Restaurant 20,000 $14,207 $15,287 $16,357 87% 13% $16,357 $16,357 $16,357 $16,357 $13.06 $16.78 $17.95 73% 27% $17.95 $17.95 $17.95 $17.95 - - 50,000 $18,125 $20,321 $21,743 83% 17% $21,743 $21,743 $21,743 $21,743 $4.42 $5.74 $6.14 72% 28% $6.14 $6.14 $6.14 $6.14 - - 100,000 $20,336 $23,190 $24,813 82% 18% $24,813 $24,813 $24,813 $24,813 $19.93 $15.27 $16.34 122% -22% $16.34 $16.34 $16.34 $16.34 A-3, A-4 Assembly uses intended for worship; 1,000 $10,157 $8,073 $8,638 118% -18% $8,638 $8,638 $8,638 $8,638 $14.50 $67.56 $72.29 20% 80% $72.29 $33.57 $52.64 $72.29 - Assembly uses intended for viewing 5,000 $10,737 $10,776 $11,530 93% 7% $11,530 $11,530 $11,530 $11,530 $33.19 $47.89 $51.24 65% 35% $51.24 $42.22 $51.24 $51.24 - of outdoor sporting events and activities with 10,000 $12,397 $13,170 $14,092 88% 12% $14,092 $14,092 $14,092 $14,092 $11.72 $14.92 $15.96 73% 27% $15.96 $15.96 $15.96 $15.96 - spectator seating 20,000 $13,568 $14,662 $15,688 86% 14% $15,688 $15,688 $15,688 $15,688 $12.45 $16.06 $17.18 72% 28% $17.18 $17.18 $17.18 $17.18 - - 50,000 $17,302 $19,480 $20,844 83% 17% $20,844 $20,844 $20,844 $20,844 $4.23 $5.51 $5.90 72% 28% $5.90 $5.90 $5.90 $5.90 - - 100,000 $19,416 $22,233 $23,789 82% 18% $23,789 $23,789 $23,789 $23,789 $19.01 $15.85 $16.96 112% -12% $16.96 $16.96 $16.96 $16.96 A-4 See Above 500 $8,206 $6,458 $6,910 119% -19% $6,910 $6,910 $6,910 $6,910 $23.17 $108.10 $115.67 20% 80% $115.67 $53.69 $84.22 $115.67 - - 2,500 $8,670 $8,620 $9,223 94% 6% $9,223 $9,223 $9,223 $9,223 $53.16 $76.62 $81.98 65% 35% $81.98 $67.57 $81.98 $81.98 - - 5,000 $9,999 $10,536 $11,274 89% 11% $11,274 $11,274 $11,274 $11,274 $18.73 $23.87 $25.54 73% 27% $25.54 $25.54 $25.54 $25.54 - - 10,000 $10,936 $11,730 $12,551 87% 13% $12,551 $12,551 $12,551 $12,551 $19.94 $25.69 $27.49 73% 27% $27.49 $27.49 $27.49 $27.49 - - 25,000 $13,926 $15,584 $16,675 84% 16% $16,675 $16,675 $16,675 $16,675 $6.75 $8.81 $9.43 72% 28% $9.43 $9.43 $9.43 $9.43 - - 50,000 $15,614 $17,787 $19,032 82% 18% $19,032 $19,032 $19,032 $19,032 $30.42 $19.50 $20.87 146% -46% $20.87 $20.87 $20.87 $20.87 A-5 Assembly—Outdoor Activities 1,500 $10,470 $8,331 $8,914 117% -17% $8,914 $8,914 $8,914 $8,914 $9.99 $46.14 $49.37 20% 80% $49.37 $22.99 $35.98 $49.37 - Amusement Park, Bleacher, Stadium 7,500 $11,069 $11,100 $11,877 93% 7% $11,877 $11,877 $11,877 $11,877 $23.79 $33.87 $36.24 66% 34% $36.24 $30.02 $36.24 $36.24 - - 15,000 $12,853 $13,640 $14,595 88% 12% $14,595 $14,595 $14,595 $14,595 $8.04 $10.20 $10.91 74% 26% $10.91 $10.91 $10.91 $10.91 - - 30,000 $14,059 $15,170 $16,232 87% 13% $16,232 $16,232 $16,232 $16,232 $8.74 $11.19 $11.97 73% 27% $11.97 $11.97 $11.97 $11.97 - - 75,000 $17,992 $20,207 $21,621 83% 17% $21,621 $21,621 $21,621 $21,621 $2.92 $3.86 $4.13 71% 29% $4.13 $4.13 $4.13 $4.13 - - 150,000 $20,182 $23,102 $24,719 82% 18% $24,719 $24,719 $24,719 $24,719 $13.18 $10.86 $11.62 113% -13% $11.62 $11.62 $11.62 $11.62 A A Occupancy Tenant Improvements 1,000 $8,394 $6,922 $7,407 113% -13% $7,407 $7,407 $7,407 $7,407 $8.79 $57.87 $61.92 14% 86% $61.92 $26.32 $43.86 $61.92 - - 5,000 $8,745 $9,237 $9,884 88% 12% $9,884 $9,884 $9,884 $9,884 $26.90 $28.74 $30.75 87% 13% $30.75 $30.75 $30.75 $30.75 - - 10,000 $10,090 $10,674 $11,421 88% 12% $11,421 $11,421 $11,421 $11,421 $9.86 $18.56 $19.86 50% 50% $19.86 $14.86 $19.86 $19.86 - - 20,000 $11,077 $12,530 $13,407 83% 17% $13,407 $13,407 $13,407 $13,407 $9.99 $13.58 $14.53 69% 31% $14.53 $12.26 $14.53 $14.53 - - 50,000 $14,075 $16,605 $17,767 79% 21% $17,767 $17,767 $17,767 $17,767 $3.42 $4.66 $4.99 69% 31% $4.99 $4.20 $4.99 $4.99 - - 100,000 $15,785 $18,934 $20,259 78% 22% $20,259 $20,259 $20,259 $20,259 $15.38 $11.82 $12.65 122% -22% $12.65 $12.65 $12.65 $12.65 B Business—Professional Office 1,000 $8,999 $7,237 $7,744 116% -16% $7,744 $7,744 $7,744 $7,744 $13.95 $62.22 $66.58 21% 79% $66.58 $31.32 $48.68 $66.58 - Buildings or spaces for office professional 5,000 $9,558 $9,726 $10,407 92% 8% $10,407 $10,407 $10,407 $10,407 $28.61 $42.18 $45.13 63% 37% $45.13 $36.87 $45.13 $45.13 - or service type transactions, including 10,000 $10,987 $11,835 $12,663 87% 13% $12,663 $12,663 $12,663 $12,663 $10.41 $11.87 $12.70 82% 18% $12.70 $12.70 $12.70 $12.70 - storage of records and accounts; 20,000 $12,029 $13,022 $13,934 86% 14% $13,934 $13,934 $13,934 $13,934 $10.85 $11.86 $12.69 85% 15% $12.69 $12.69 $12.69 $12.69 - Restaurants w/ less than 50 occupants 50,000 $15,285 $16,581 $17,742 86% 14% $17,742 $17,742 $17,742 $17,742 $3.74 $4.46 $4.77 78% 22% $4.77 $4.77 $4.77 $4.77 - - 100,000 $17,157 $18,809 $20,126 85% 15% $20,126 $20,126 $20,126 $20,126 $16.75 $15.61 $16.70 100% 0% $16.70 $16.70 $16.70 $16.70 B B Occupancy Tenant Improvements 500 $7,539 $3,227 $3,453 218% -118% $3,453 $3,453 $3,453 $3,453 $8.17 $131.79 $141.02 6% 94% $141.02 $52.01 $95.85 $141.02 - Buildings or spaces for office professional 1,000 $7,866 $4,281 $4,581 172% -72% $4,581 $4,581 $4,581 $4,581 $24.29 $19.58 $20.95 116% -16% $20.95 $20.95 $20.95 $20.95 - or service type transactions, including 2,000 $9,080 $4,477 $4,790 190% -90% $4,790 $4,790 $4,790 $4,790 $8.86 $66.43 $71.08 12% 88% $71.08 $29.39 $49.93 $71.08 - storage of records and accounts; 4,000 $9,966 $5,806 $6,212 160% -60% $6,212 $6,212 $6,212 $6,212 $8.93 $31.09 $33.27 27% 73% $33.27 $16.96 $24.99 $33.27 - Restaurants w/ less than 50 occupants 10,000 $12,646 $7,671 $8,208 154% -54% $8,208 $8,208 $8,208 $8,208 $3.11 $10.81 $11.57 27% 73% $11.57 $5.90 $8.69 $11.57 - - 20,000 $14,204 $8,752 $9,365 152% -52% $9,365 $9,365 $9,365 $9,365 $13.80 $10.19 $10.90 127% -27% $10.90 $10.90 $10.90 $10.90 Construction Type
IA, IB
December 5, 2023 29 of 40
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
425 of 966
CITY OF REDLANDS ‐ EXHIBIT 'A' TO RESOLUTION NO. 8522
FEE SCHEDULE
Recommended Recovery Level - 100% for all fees listed below.

IBC Class IBC Occupancy Type
Project Size
Threshold
Current
Fee @
Threshold
Size
Total
Current
Cost
Total
Current
Cost + 7%
Current
Recovery
Level
Change in
Recovery
Level
New Base
Fee (Cost)
Amount @
Threshold
Size Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
Current Fee
(Cost) for
Each
Additional
100 sq*
Total
Current
Cost
Total
Current
Cost + 7%
Current
Recovery
Level
Change in
Recovery
Level
New Fee
(Cost) for
Each
Additional
100 sf * Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
Construction Type
IA, IB
E Educational 500 $8,324 $6,766 $7,240 115% -15% $7,240 $7,240 $7,240 $7,240 $22.87 $113.52 $121.47 19% 81% $121.47 $55.41 $87.94 $121.47 - Buildings or rooms used by more than 6 2,500 $8,782 $9,036 $9,669 91% 9% $9,669 $9,669 $9,669 $9,669 $52.37 $60.21 $64.42 81% 19% $64.42 $64.42 $64.42 $64.42 - persons for educational purposes up to the 5,000 $10,091 $10,541 $11,279 89% 11% $11,279 $11,279 $11,279 $11,279 $18.74 $34.58 $37.00 51% 49% $37.00 $27.87 $37.00 $37.00 - 12th grade 10,000 $11,027 $12,270 $13,129 84% 16% $13,129 $13,129 $13,129 $13,129 $20.01 $26.74 $28.61 70% 30% $28.61 $24.31 $28.61 $28.61 - Day care for 6 or more children older than 25,000 $14,029 $16,281 $17,421 81% 19% $17,421 $17,421 $17,421 $17,421 $6.75 $9.15 $9.79 69% 31% $9.79 $8.27 $9.79 $9.79 - 2.5 years of age 50,000 $15,716 $18,569 $19,869 79% 21% $19,869 $19,869 $19,869 $19,869 $30.58 $27.82 $29.77 103% -3% $29.77 $29.77 $29.77 $29.77 E E Occupancy Tenant Improvements 1,000 $7,643 $4,936 $5,282 145% -45% $5,282 $5,282 $5,282 $5,282 $8.02 $39.59 $42.36 19% 81% $42.36 $19.35 $30.69 $42.36 - Buildings or rooms used by more than 6 5,000 $7,964 $6,519 $6,975 114% -14% $6,975 $6,975 $6,975 $6,975 $23.35 $16.47 $17.62 132% -32% $17.62 $17.62 $17.62 $17.62 - persons for educational purposes up to the 10,000 $9,132 $7,343 $7,857 116% -16% $7,857 $7,857 $7,857 $7,857 $8.99 $15.94 $17.06 53% 47% $17.06 $13.02 $17.06 $17.06 - 12th grade 20,000 $10,030 $8,937 $9,563 105% -5% $9,563 $9,563 $9,563 $9,563 $8.84 $9.82 $10.51 84% 16% $10.51 $10.51 $10.51 $10.51 - Day care for 6 or more children older than 50,000 $12,682 $11,884 $12,716 100% 0% $12,716 $12,716 $12,716 $12,716 $3.05 $4.32 $4.62 66% 34% $4.62 $3.84 $4.62 $4.62 - 2.5 years of age 100,000 $14,206 $14,043 $15,026 95% 5% $15,026 $15,026 $15,026 $15,026 $13.78 $6.45 $6.90 200% -100% $6.90 $6.90 $6.90 $6.90 F-1 Factory Industrial—Moderate Hazard 20,000 $8,407 $8,882 $9,504 88% 12% $9,504 $9,504 $9,504 $9,504 $3.85 $4.19 $4.48 86% 14% $4.48 $4.48 $4.48 $4.48 - Factory and industrial uses that include the 50,000 $9,562 $10,138 $10,848 88% 12% $10,848 $10,848 $10,848 $10,848 $3.41 $3.92 $4.19 81% 19% $4.19 $4.19 $4.19 $4.19 - fabrication or manufacturing of Moderate 100,000 $11,266 $12,098 $12,945 87% 13% $12,945 $12,945 $12,945 $12,945 $1.21 $1.31 $1.40 86% 14% $1.40 $1.40 $1.40 $1.40 - and Low Hazard materials 250,000 $13,080 $14,065 $15,050 87% 13% $15,050 $15,050 $15,050 $15,050 $1.10 $1.20 $1.28 86% 14% $1.28 $1.28 $1.28 $1.28 - - 500,000 $15,823 $17,057 $18,251 87% 13% $18,251 $18,251 $18,251 $18,251 $0.93 $1.01 $1.08 86% 14% $1.08 $1.08 $1.08 $1.08 - - 1,000,000 $20,471 $22,095 $23,642 87% 13% $23,642 $23,642 $23,642 $23,642 $2.01 $1.80 $1.93 104% -4% $1.93 $1.93 $1.93 $1.93 F F Occupancy Tenant Improvements 2,000 $4,918 $4,081 $4,367 113% -13% $4,367 $4,367 $4,367 $4,367 $5.34 $16.33 $17.47 31% 69% $17.47 $11.41 $17.47 $17.47 - Factory and industrial uses that include the 10,000 $5,346 $5,388 $5,765 93% 7% $5,765 $5,765 $5,765 $5,765 $9.86 $12.06 $12.90 76% 24% $12.90 $12.90 $12.90 $12.90 - fabrication or manufacturing of Moderate 20,000 $6,331 $6,594 $7,056 90% 10% $7,056 $7,056 $7,056 $7,056 $2.8 9 $4.57 $4.89 59% 41% $4.89 $3.89 $4.89 $4.89 - and Low Hazard materials 40,000 $6,910 $7,507 $8,032 86% 14% $8,032 $8,032 $8,032 $8,032 $3.26 $4.33 $4.63 70% 30% $4.63 $4.63 $4.63 $4.63 - - 100,000 $8,865 $10,104 $10,811 82% 18% $10,811 $10,811 $10,811 $10,811 $1.20 $1.53 $1.64 73% 27% $1.64 $1.64 $1.64 $1.64 - - 200,000 $10,065 $11,636 $12,451 81% 19% $12,451 $12,451 $12,451 $12,451 $4.87 $3.75 $4.01 121% -21% $4.01 $4.01 $4.01 $4.01 H-1, H-2 High Hazard: Detonation Hazard; 1,000 $5,124 $4,180 $4,473 115% -15% $4,473 $4,473 $4,473 $4,473 $10.00 $33.59 $35.94 28% 72% $35.94 $18.56 $27.12 $35.94 H-3, H-4 Deflagration hazard or hazard from 5,000 $5,524 $5,524 $5,911 93% 7% $5,911 $5,911 $5,911 $5,911 $21.88 $28.54 $30.54 72% 28% $30.54 $30.54 $30.54 $30.54 H-5 accelerated burning; Materials that readily 10,000 $6,618 $6,950 $7,437 89% 11% $7,437 $7,437 $7,437 $7,437 $5.68 $8.39 $8.98 63% 37% $8.98 $7.33 $8.98 $8.98 - support combustion; Materials that are 20,000 $7,186 $7,789 $8,334 86% 14% $8,334 $8,334 $8,334 $8,334 $7.11 $9.31 $9.96 71% 29% $9.96 $9.96 $9.96 $9.96 - health hazards 50,000 $9,320 $10,582 $11,323 82% 18% $11,323 $11,323 $11,323 $11,323 $2.57 $3.29 $3.52 73% 27% $3.52 $3.52 $3.52 $3.52 - - 100,000 $10,605 $12,228 $13,084 81% 19% $13,084 $13,084 $13,084 $13,084 $10.27 $7.96 $8.52 121% -21% $8.52 $8.52 $8.52 $8.52 H See Above 1,000 $5,231 $4,352 $4,657 112% -12% $4,657 $4,657 $4,657 $4,657 $11.00 $34.68 $37.11 30% 70% $37.11 $19.62 $28.23 $37.11 - - 5,000 $5,671 $5,739 $6,141 92% 8% $6,141 $6,141 $6,141 $6,141 $21.61 $8.15 $8.72 248% -148% $8.72 $8.72 $8.72 $8.72 - - 10,000 $6,751 $6,147 $6,577 103% -3% $6,577 $6,577 $6,577 $6,577 $5.85 $18.94 $20.27 29% 71% $20.27 $10.61 $15.36 $20.27 - - 20,000 $7,336 $8,041 $8,604 85% 15% $8,604 $8,604 $8,604 $8,604 $7.14 $9.40 $10.06 71% 29% $10.06 $10.06 $10.06 $10.06 - - 50,000 $9,478 $10,863 $11,623 82% 18% $11,623 $11,623 $11,623 $11,623 $2.59 $3.34 $3.57 72% 28% $3.57 $3.57 $3.57 $3.57 - - 100,000 $10,775 $12,531 $13,408 80% 20% $13,408 $13,408 $13,408 $13,408 $10.44 $7.13 $7.63 137% -37% $7.63 $7.63 $7.63 $7.63 I-1 Housing of clients on a 24-hour basis in a 1,000 $6,730 $5,477 $5,860 115% -15% $5,860 $5,860 $5,860 $5,860 $12.25 $44.44 $47.55 26% 74% $47.55 $23.90 $35.55 $47.55 - supervised residential environment providing 5,000 $7,221 $7,254 $7,762 93% 7% $7,762 $7,762 $7,762 $7,762 $27.18 $35.99 $38.51 71% 29% $38.51 $38.51 $38.51 $38.51 - personal care services 10,000 $8,580 $9,053 $9,687 89% 11% $9,687 $9,687 $9,687 $9,687 $7.60 $10.81 $11.57 66% 34% $11.57 $9.58 $11.57 $11.57 - - 20,000 $9,339 $10,134 $10,843 86% 14% $10,843 $10,843 $10,843 $10,843 $9.13 $11.85 $12.68 72% 28% $12.68 $12.68 $12.68 $12.68 - - 50,000 $12,079 $13,688 $14,646 82% 18% $14,646 $14,646 $14,646 $14,646 $3.25 $4.16 $4.45 73% 27% $4.45 $4.45 $4.45 $4.45 - - 100,000 $13,706 $15,769 $16,873 81% 19% $16,873 $16,873 $16,873 $16,873 $13.37 $9.01 $9.64 139% -39% $9.64 $9.64 $9.64 $9.64 I-2, I-3 Medical, surgical, psychiatric, nursing or 1,000 $8,330 $6,846 $7,325 114% -14% $7,325 $7,325 $7,325 $7,325 $15.32 $55.54 $59.43 26% 74% $59.43 $29.88 $44.43 $59.43 - custodial care on a 24-hour basis for more 5,000 $8,943 $9,067 $9,702 92% 8% $9,702 $9,702 $9,702 $9,702 $33.97 $44.98 $48.13 71% 29% $48.13 $48.13 $48.13 $48.13 - than 6 persons; facilities where persons are 10,000 $10,641 $11,317 $12,109 88% 12% $12,109 $12,109 $12,109 $12,109 $9.50 $13.52 $14.47 66% 34% $14.47 $11.98 $14.47 $14.47 - restrained 20,000 $11,592 $12,668 $13,555 86% 14% $13,555 $13,555 $13,555 $13,555 $11.41 $14.81 $15.85 72% 28% $15.85 $15.85 $15.85 $15.85 - - 50,000 $15,016 $17,111 $18,309 82% 18% $18,309 $18,309 $18,309 $18,309 $4.07 $5.20 $5.56 73% 27% $5.56 $5.56 $5.56 $5.56 - - 100,000 $17,050 $19,711 $21,091 81% 19% $21,091 $21,091 $21,091 $21,091 $16.72 $13.39 $14.33 117% -17% $14.33 $14.33 $14.33 $14.33 December 5, 2023 30 of 40
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
426 of 966
CITY OF REDLANDS ‐ EXHIBIT 'A' TO RESOLUTION NO. 8522
FEE SCHEDULE
Recommended Recovery Level - 100% for all fees listed below.

IBC Class IBC Occupancy Type
Project Size
Threshold
Current
Fee @
Threshold
Size
Total
Current
Cost
Total
Current
Cost + 7%
Current
Recovery
Level
Change in
Recovery
Level
New Base
Fee (Cost)
Amount @
Threshold
Size Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
Current Fee
(Cost) for
Each
Additional
100 sq*
Total
Current
Cost
Total
Current
Cost + 7%
Current
Recovery
Level
Change in
Recovery
Level
New Fee
(Cost) for
Each
Additional
100 sf * Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
Construction Type
IA, IB
I-4 Day care operations of more than 6 people 1,000 $7,837 $6,451 $6,903 114% -14% $6,903 $6,903 $6,903 $6,903 $14.63 $52.44 $56.11 26% 74% $56.11 $28.32 $42.01 $56.11 - of any age where the care is for less than 5,000 $8,423 $8,549 $9,147 92% 8% $9,147 $9,147 $9,147 $9,147 $30.66 $40.92 $43.78 70% 30% $43.78 $43.78 $43.78 $43.78 - 24 hours a day 10,000 $9,956 $10,595 $11,337 88% 12% $11,337 $11,337 $11,337 $11,337 $8.94 $12.84 $13.74 65% 35% $13.74 $11.34 $13.74 $13.74 - - 20,000 $10,850 $11,879 $12,711 85% 15% $12,711 $12,711 $12,711 $12,711 $10.53 $13.68 $14.64 72% 28% $14.64 $14.64 $14.64 $14.64 - - 50,000 $14,007 $15,983 $17,102 82% 18% $17,102 $17,102 $17,102 $17,102 $3.73 $4.80 $5.14 73% 27% $5.14 $5.14 $5.14 $5.14 - - 100,000 $15,872 $18,381 $19,668 81% 19% $19,668 $19,668 $19,668 $19,668 $15.54 $14.48 $15.49 100% 0% $15.49 $15.49 $15.49 $15.49 I I Occupancy Tenant Improvements 1,000 $4,851 $4,041 $4,324 112% -12% $4,324 $4,324 $4,324 $4,324 $10.40 $32.45 $34.72 30% 70% $34.72 $18.43 $26.45 $34.72 - - 5,000 $5,266 $5,339 $5,713 92% 8% $5,713 $5,713 $5,713 $5,713 $18.72 $21.43 $22.93 82% 18% $22.93 $22.93 $22.93 $22.93 - - 10,000 $6,202 $6,410 $6,859 90% 10% $6,859 $6,859 $6,859 $6,859 $5.45 $10.06 $10.76 51% 49% $10.76 $8.11 $10.76 $10.76 - - 20,000 $6,748 $7,416 $7,935 85% 15% $7,935 $7,935 $7,935 $7,935 $6.37 $8.49 $9.08 70% 30% $9.08 $9.08 $9.08 $9.08 - - 50,000 $8,658 $9,963 $10,660 81% 19% $10,660 $10,660 $10,660 $10,660 $2.32 $3.00 $3.21 72% 28% $3.21 $3.21 $3.21 $3.21 - - 100,000 $9,820 $11,461 $12,263 80% 20% $12,263 $12,263 $12,263 $12,263 $9.49 $5.53 $5.92 160% -60% $5.92 $5.92 $5.92 $5.92 M Display and sale of merchandise accessible 1,000 $7,214 $5,982 $6,401 113% -13% $6,401 $6,401 $6,401 $6,401 $14.09 $48.50 $51.90 27% 73% $51.90 $26.57 $39.04 $51.90 - to the public 5,000 $7,778 $7,922 $8,477 92% 8% $8,477 $8,477 $8,477 $8,477 $28.24 $37.61 $40.24 70% 30% $40.24 $40.24 $40.24 $40.24 - - 10,000 $9,191 $9,802 $10,488 88% 12% $10,488 $10,488 $10,488 $10,488 $8.23 $12.06 $12.90 64% 36% $12.90 $10.57 $12.90 $12.90 - - 20,000 $10,014 $11,008 $11,779 85% 15% $11,779 $11,779 $11,779 $11,779 $9.66 $12.66 $13.55 71% 29% $13.55 $13.55 $13.55 $13.55 - - 50,000 $12,910 $14,807 $15,843 81% 19% $15,843 $15,843 $15,843 $15,843 $3.44 $4.45 $4.76 72% 28% $4.76 $4.76 $4.76 $4.76 - - 100,000 $14,629 $17,029 $18,221 80% 20% $18,221 $18,221 $18,221 $18,221 $14.30 $11.44 $12.24 117% -17% $12.24 $12.24 $12.24 $12.24 M M Occupancy Tenant Improvements 1,000 $6,836 $5,699 $6,098 112% -12% $6,098 $6,098 $6,098 $6,098 $13.79 $45.92 $49.13 28% 72% $49.13 $25.45 $37.12 $49.13 - - 5,000 $7,388 $7,536 $8,064 92% 8% $8,064 $8,064 $8,064 $8,064 $26.90 $29.78 $31.86 84% 16% $31.86 $31.86 $31.86 $31.86 - - 10,000 $8,732 $9,025 $9,657 90% 10% $9,657 $9,657 $9,657 $9,657 $7.78 $14.52 $15.54 50% 50% $15.54 $11.66 $15.54 $15.54 - - 20,000 $9,510 $10,476 $11,209 85% 15% $11,209 $11,209 $11,209 $11,209 $9.18 $12.04 $12.88 71% 29% $12.88 $12.88 $12.88 $12.88 - - 50,000 $12,264 $14,087 $15,073 81% 19% $15,073 $15,073 $15,073 $15,073 $3.28 $4.24 $4.54 72% 28% $4.54 $4.54 $4.54 $4.54 - - 100,000 $13,903 $16,208 $17,343 80% 20% $17,343 $17,343 $17,343 $17,343 $13.57 $6.58 $7.04 193% -93% $7.04 $7.04 $7.04 $7.04 R-1, R-2 Transient and nontransient lodging including 2,000 $9,994 $9,758 $10,441 96% 4% $10,441 $10,441 $10,441 $10,441 $0.64 $41.85 $44.78 1% 99% $44.78 $15.21 $29.77 $44.78 - hotels, motels, apartments and boarding 10,000 $10,046 $13,105 $14,022 72% 28% $14,022 $14,022 $14,022 $14,022 $15.93 $32.26 $34.52 46% 54% $34.52 $25.22 $34.52 $34.52 - houses 20,000 $11,638 $16,331 $17,474 67% 33% $17,474 $14,556 $17,474 $17,474 $3.76 $7.80 $8.35 45% 55% $8.35 $6.05 $8.35 $8.35 - - 40,000 $12,390 $17,891 $19,143 65% 35% $19,143 $15,767 $19,143 $19,143 $3.71 $10.01 $10.71 35% 65% $10.71 $7.21 $10.71 $10.71 - - 100,000 $14,614 $23,898 $25,571 57% 43% $25,571 $20,092 $25,571 $25,571 $1.92 $3.39 $3.63 53% 47% $3.63 $2.77 $3.63 $3.63 - - 200,000 $16,534 $27,284 $29,194 57% 43% $29,194 $22,864 $29,194 $29,194 $7.73 $10.80 $11.56 67% 33% $11.56 $9.64 $11.56 $11.56 R-3, R-3.1 One and two-family homes; Residentially 1,000 $6,618 $5,799 $6,205 107% -7% $6,205 $6,205 $6,205 $6,205 $5.10 $83.79 $89.66 6% 94% $89.66 $33.00 $60.91 $89.66 R-4 based 24-hour facility for 6 or fewer clients 2,000 $6,669 $6,637 $7,102 94% 6% $7,102 $7,102 $7,102 $7,102 $71.78 $157.73 $168.77 43% 57% $168.77 $120.28 $168.77 $168.77 - of any age; Residential care/assisted living 3,000 $7,387 $8,214 $8,789 84% 16% $8,789 $8,789 $8,789 $8,789 $42.09 $80.70 $86.35 49% 51% $86.35 $64.22 $86.35 $86.35 -
for more than 6 ambulatory clients 4,000 $7,807 $9,021 $9,652 81% 19% $9,652 $9,652 $9,652 $9,652 $112.80 $130.29 $139.41 81% 19% $139.41 $139.41 $139.41 $139.41 - - 5,000 $8,936 $10,324 $11,047 81% 19% $11,047 $11,047 $11,047 $11,047 $16.62 $25.18 $26.94 62% 38% $26.94 $21.78 $26.94 $26.94 - - 10,000 $9,766 $11,583 $12,394 79% 21% $12,394 $12,394 $12,394 $12,394 $89.66 $80.50 $86.14 104% -4% $86.14 $86.14 $86.14 $86.14 R-3 REPEAT OF MODEL 1,000 $4,906 $4,338 $4,642 106% -6% $4,642 $4,642 $4,642 $4,642 $3.91 $88.29 $94.47 4% 96% $94.47 $33.79 $63.68 $94.47 - One and two family homes. 2,000 $4,944 $5,221 $5,586 88% 12% $5,586 $5,586 $5,586 $5,586 $44.67 $62.06 $66.40 67% 33% $66.40 $55.54 $66.40 $66.40 - Repeat plan check set at 50% of initial plan 3,000 $5,391 $5,842 $6,251 86% 14% $6,251 $6,251 $6,251 $6,251 $28.43 $135.60 $145.09 20% 80% $145.09 $66.93 $105.43 $145.09 - check, per current Master Fee Schedule 4,000 $5,676 $7,198 $7,702 74% 26% $7,702 $7,702 $7,702 $7,702 $73.54 $168.11 $179.88 41% 59% $179.88 $126.71 $179.88 $179.88 - - 5,000 $6,411 $8,879 $9,501 67% 33% $9,501 $7,956 $9,501 $9,501 $10.15 $24.82 $26.56 38% 62% $26.56 $18.35 $26.56 $26.56 - - 10,000 $6,919 $10,120 $10,828 64% 36% $10,828 $8,874 $10,828 $10,828 $61.18 $51.07 $54.64 112% -12% $54.64 $54.64 $54.64 $54.64 S-1 Storage—Moderate Hazard, Repair Garage 500 $4,701 $5,268 $5,637 83% 17% $5,637 $5,637 $5,637 $5,637 $14.16 $85.94 $91.96 15% 85% $91.96 $39.83 $65.51 $91.96 - Motor Vehicles (not High Hazard) 2,500 $4,985 $6,987 $7,476 67% 33% $7,476 $6,231 $7,476 $7,476 $35.00 $40.78 $43.63 80% 20% $43.63 $43.63 $43.63 $43.63 - - 5,000 $5,860 $8,006 $8,566 68% 32% $8,566 $7,213 $8,566 $8,566 $10.42 $32.63 $34.91 30% 70% $34.91 $18.50 $26.59 $34.91 - - 10,000 $6,381 $9,638 $10,313 62% 38% $10,313 $8,347 $10,313 $10,313 $12.08 $21.76 $23.28 52% 48% $23.28 $17.68 $23.28 $23.28 - - 25,000 $8,193 $12,902 $13,805 59% 41% $13,805 $10,999 $13,805 $13,805 $4.26 $9.71 $10.39 41% 59% $10.39 $7.32 $10.39 $10.39 - - 50,000 $9,258 $15,330 $16,403 56% 44% $16,403 $12,831 $16,403 $16,403 $17.85 $20.63 $22.07 81% 19% $22.07 $22.07 $22.07 $22.07 December 5, 2023 31 of 40
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
427 of 966
CITY OF REDLANDS ‐ EXHIBIT 'A' TO RESOLUTION NO. 8522
FEE SCHEDULE
Recommended Recovery Level - 100% for all fees listed below.

SHELL BUILDINGS
B, M, S All Shell Buildings 1,000 $5,432 $6,056 $6,480 84% 16% $6,480 $6,479.92 $6,479.92 $6,479.92 $2.20 $54.22 $58.02 4% 96% $58.02 $20.62 $39.04 $58.02 - - 5,000 $5,873 $8,225 $8,801 67% 33% $8,801 $7,337 $8,801 $8,801 $4.22 $36.63 $39.19 11% 89% $39.19 $15.76 $27.30 $39.19 - - 10,000 $6,928 $10,056 $10,760 64% 36% $10,760 $8,844 $10,760 $10,760 $1.29 $11.48 $12.28 11% 89% $12.28 $4.92 $8.55 $12.28 - - 20,000 $7,574 $11,204 $11,988 63% 37% $11,988 $9,781 $11,988 $11,988 $1.41 $12.71 $13.60 10% 90% $13.60 $5.43 $9.46 $13.60 - - 50,000 $9,691 $15,017 $16,068 60% 40% $16,068 $12,880 $16,068 $16,068 $0.57 $4.19 $4.48 13% 87% $4.48 $1.86 $3.15 $4.48 - - 100,000 $11,111 $17,110 $18,308 61% 39% $18,308 $14,709 $18,308 $18,308 $2.16 $17.11 $18.31 12% 88% $18.31 $7.49 $12.82 $18.31 December 5, 2023 32 of 40
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
428 of 966
CITY OF REDLANDS ‐ EXHIBIT 'A' TO RESOLUTION NO. 8522
FEE SCHEDULE
DSD ‐ Building & Safety Fees based on square footage
Recommended Recovery Level - 100% for all fees listed below.

IBC Class IBC Occupancy Type
Project Size
Threshold
Current
Fee @
Threshold
Size
Total
Current
Cost
Total
Current
Cost + 7%
Current
Recovery
Level
Change in
Recovery
Level
New Base
Fee (Cost)
Amount @
Threshold
Size Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
Current
Fee (Cost)
for Each
Additional
100 sq*
Total
Current
Cost
Total
Current
Cost + 7%
Current
Recovery
Level
Change in
Recovery
Level
New Fee
(Cost) for
Each
Additional
100 sf * Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
A-1 Assembly uses, usually with fixed seating, 2,000 $6,319 $4,817 $5,155 123% -23% $5,155 $5,155 $5,155 $5,155 $4.97 $20.08 $21.49 23% 77% $21.49 $10.42 $15.87 $21.49 Greater intended for the production and 10,000 $6,717 $6,424 $6,874 98% 2% $6,874 $6,874 $6,874 $6,874 $11.07 $16.18 $17.31 64% 36% $17.31 $14.19 $17.31 $17.31 Than 50 viewing of the performing arts or 20,000 $7,823 $8,042 $8,605 91% 9% $8,605 $8,605 $8,605 $8,605 $3.63 $3.95 $4.23 86% 14% $4.23 $4.23 $4.23 $4.23 Occupants motion pictures 40,000 $8,548 $8,832 $9,451 90% 10% $9,451 $9,451 $9,451 $9,451 $3.93 $4.98 $5.33 74% 26% $5.33 $5.33 $5.33 $5.33 - - 100,000 $10,907 $11,823 $12,651 86% 14% $12,651 $12,651 $12,651 $12,651 $1.38 $1.72 $1.84 75% 25% $1.84 $1.84 $1.84 $1.84 - - 200,000 $12,287 $13,542 $14,490 85% 15% $14,490 $14,490 $14,490 $14,490 $5.94 $3.28 $3.51 169% -69% $3.51 $3.51 $3.51 $3.51 A-2 Assembly uses intended for food and/or 1,000 $9,012 $7,006 $7,497 120% -20% $7,497 $7,497 $7,497 $7,497 $14.06 $58.89 $63.01 22% 78% $63.01 $30.22 $46.37 $63.01 - drink consumption 5,000 $9,574 $9,362 $10,017 96% 4% $10,017 $10,017 $10,017 $10,017 $29.25 $42.54 $45.52 64% 36% $45.52 $37.39 $45.52 $45.52 - - 10,000 $11,037 $11,489 $12,293 90% 10% $12,293 $12,293 $12,293 $12,293 $10.35 $12.50 $13.38 77% 23% $13.38 $13.38 $13.38 $13.38 - Restaurant 20,000 $12,072 $12,739 $13,631 89% 11% $13,631 $13,631 $13,631 $13,631 $11.01 $13.98 $14.96 74% 26% $14.96 $14.96 $14.96 $14.96 - - 50,000 $15,373 $16,934 $18,119 85% 15% $18,119 $18,119 $18,119 $18,119 $3.75 $4.78 $5.12 73% 27% $5.12 $5.12 $5.12 $5.12 - - 100,000 $17,251 $19,325 $20,678 83% 17% $20,678 $20,678 $20,678 $20,678 $16.84 $12.73 $13.62 124% -24% $13.62 $13.62 $13.62 $13.62 A-3, A-4 Assembly uses intended for worship; 1,000 $8,609 $6,728 $7,199 120% -20% $7,199 $7,199 $7,199 $7,199 $13.31 $56.30 $60.24 22% 78% $60.24 $28.80 $44.28 $60.24 - Assembly uses intended for viewing 5,000 $9,141 $8,980 $9,608 95% 5% $9,608 $9,608 $9,608 $9,608 $27.99 $39.91 $42.70 66% 34% $42.70 $35.35 $42.70 $42.70 - of outdoor sporting events and activities with 10,000 $10,541 $10,975 $11,743 90% 10% $11,743 $11,743 $11,743 $11,743 $9.91 $12.43 $13.31 74% 26% $13.31 $13.31 $13.31 $13.31 - spectator seating 20,000 $11,532 $12,218 $13,074 88% 12% $13,074 $13,074 $13,074 $13,074 $10.49 $13.38 $14.32 73% 27% $14.32 $14.32 $14.32 $14.32 - - 50,000 $14,677 $16,233 $17,369 85% 15% $17,369 $17,369 $17,369 $17,369 $3.59 $4.59 $4.91 73% 27% $4.91 $4.91 $4.91 $4.91 - - 100,000 $16,474 $18,528 $19,825 83% 17% $19,825 $19,825 $19,825 $19,825 $16.07 $13.21 $14.14 114% -14% $14.14 $14.14 $14.14 $14.14 A-4 See Above 500 $6,968 $5,382 $5,759 121% -21% $5,759 $5,759 $5,759 $5,759 $21.25 $90.08 $96.39 22% 78% $96.39 $46.05 $70.84 $96.39 - - 2,500 $7,393 $7,184 $7,687 96% 4% $7,687 $7,687 $7,687 $7,687 $44.84 $63.85 $68.32 66% 34% $68.32 $56.58 $68.32 $68.32 - - 5,000 $8,514 $8,780 $9,395 91% 9% $9,395 $9,395 $9,395 $9,395 $15.84 $19.90 $21.29 74% 26% $21.29 $21.29 $21.29 $21.29 - - 10,000 $9,307 $9,775 $10,459 89% 11% $10,459 $10,459 $10,459 $10,459 $16.80 $21.41 $22.91 73% 27% $22.91 $22.91 $22.91 $22.91 - - 25,000 $11,826 $12,986 $13,896 85% 15% $13,896 $13,896 $13,896 $13,896 $5.73 $7.34 $7.86 73% 27% $7.86 $7.86 $7.86 $7.86 - - 50,000 $13,261 $14,822 $15,860 84% 16% $15,860 $15,860 $15,860 $15,860 $25.71 $16.25 $17.38 148% -48% $17.38 $17.38 $17.38 $17.38 A-5 Assembly—Outdoor Activities 1,500 $8,870 $6,943 $7,429 119% -19% $7,429 $7,429 $7,429 $7,429 $9.14 $38.45 $41.14 22% 78% $41.14 $19.70 $30.26 $41.14 - Amusement Park, Bleacher, Stadium 7,500 $9,418 $9,250 $9,898 95% 5% $9,898 $9,898 $9,898 $9,898 $20.05 $28.22 $30.20 66% 34% $30.20 $25.12 $30.20 $30.20 - - 15,000 $10,922 $11,367 $12,162 90% 10% $12,162 $12,162 $12,162 $12,162 $6.79 $8.50 $9.10 75% 25% $9.10 $9.10 $9.10 $9.10 - - 30,000 $11,940 $12,642 $13,527 88% 12% $13,527 $13,527 $13,527 $13,527 $7.36 $9.33 $9.98 74% 26% $9.98 $9.98 $9.98 $9.98 - - 75,000 $15,253 $16,839 $18,018 85% 15% $18,018 $18,018 $18,018 $18,018 $2.47 $3.22 $3.44 72% 28% $3.44 $3.44 $3.44 $3.44 - - 150,000 $17,109 $19,251 $20,599 83% 17% $20,599 $20,599 $20,599 $20,599 $11.13 $9.05 $9.68 115% -15% $9.68 $9.68 $9.68 $9.68 A A Occupancy Tenant Improvements 1,000 $7,100 $5,768 $6,172 115% -15% $6,172 $6,172 $6,172 $6,172 $7.82 $48.22 $51.60 15% 85% $51.60 $22.26 $36.71 $51.60 - - 5,000 $7,413 $7,697 $8,236 90% 10% $8,236 $8,236 $8,236 $8,236 $22.68 $23.95 $25.63 88% 12% $25.63 $25.63 $25.63 $25.63 - - 10,000 $8,547 $8,895 $9,517 90% 10% $9,517 $9,517 $9,517 $9,517 $8.35 $15.47 $16.55 50% 50% $16.55 $12.45 $16.55 $16.55 - - 20,000 $9,382 $10,441 $11,172 84% 16% $11,172 $11,172 $11,172 $11,172 $8.38 $11.32 $12.11 69% 31% $12.11 $10.24 $12.11 $12.11 - - 50,000 $11,895 $13,838 $14,806 80% 20% $14,806 $14,806 $14,806 $14,806 $2.90 $3.88 $4.15 70% 30% $4.15 $3.53 $4.15 $4.15 - - 100,000 $13,345 $15,778 $16,883 79% 21% $16,883 $16,883 $16,883 $16,883 $12.94 $9.85 $10.54 123% -23% $10.54 $10.54 $10.54 $10.54 B Business—Professional Office 1,000 $7,651 $6,031 $6,453 119% -19% $6,453 $6,453 $6,453 $6,453 $12.93 $51.85 $55.48 23% 77% $55.48 $26.97 $41.02 $55.48 - Buildings or spaces for office professional 5,000 $8,169 $8,105 $8,672 94% 6% $8,672 $8,672 $8,672 $8,672 $24.21 $35.15 $37.61 64% 36% $37.61 $30.91 $37.61 $37.61 - or service type transactions, including 10,000 $9,379 $9,862 $10,553 89% 11% $10,553 $10,553 $10,553 $10,553 $8.83 $9.89 $10.59 83% 17% $10.59 $10.59 $10.59 $10.59 - storage of records and accounts; 20,000 $10,262 $10,852 $11,611 88% 12% $11,611 $11,611 $11,611 $11,611 $9.17 $9.88 $10.58 87% 13% $10.58 $10.58 $10.58 $10.58 - Restaurants w/ less than 50 occupants 50,000 $13,014 $13,817 $14,784 88% 12% $14,784 $14,784 $14,784 $14,784 $3.20 $3.71 $3.97 80% 20% $3.97 $3.97 $3.97 $3.97 - - 100,000 $14,613 $15,674 $16,771 87% 13% $16,771 $16,771 $16,771 $16,771 $14.21 $13.01 $13.92 102% -2% $13.92 $13.92 $13.92 $13.92 Construction Type

IIA, IIB, IIIA, IIIB, IV
December 5, 2023 33 of 40
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
429 of 966
CITY OF REDLANDS ‐ EXHIBIT 'A' TO RESOLUTION NO. 8522
FEE SCHEDULE
Recommended Recovery Level - 100% for all fees listed below.

IIA, IIB, IIIA, IIIB, IV
B B Occupancy Tenant Improvements 500 $6,388 $2,689 $2,877 222% -122% $2,877 $2,877 $2,877 $2,877 $7.30 $109.82 $117.51 6% 94% $117.51 $43.67 $80.04 $117.51 - Buildings or spaces for office professional 1,000 $6,681 $3,568 $3,817 175% -75% $3,817 $3,817 $3,817 $3,817 $20.50 $16.32 $17.46 117% -17% $17.46 $17.46 $17.46 $17.46 - or service type transactions, including 2,000 $7,705 $3,731 $3,992 193% -93% $3,992 $3,992 $3,992 $3,992 $7.51 $55.35 $59.23 13% 87% $59.23 $24.58 $41.65 $59.23 - storage of records and accounts; 4,000 $8,457 $4,838 $5,177 163% -63% $5,177 $5,177 $5,177 $5,177 $7.49 $25.91 $27.72 27% 73% $27.72 $14.17 $20.85 $27.72 - Restaurants w/ less than 50 occupants 10,000 $10,704 $6,393 $6,840 156% -56% $6,840 $6,840 $6,840 $6,840 $2.65 $9.01 $9.64 27% 73% $9.64 $4.95 $7.26 $9.64 - - 20,000 $12,028 $7,294 $7,804 154% -54% $7,804 $7,804 $7,804 $7,804 $11.62 $8.49 $9.09 128% -28% $9.09 $9.09 $9.09 $9.09 E Educational 500 $7,067 $5,638 $6,033 117% -17% $6,033 $6,033 $6,033 $6,033 $20.96 $94.60 $101.22 21% 79% $101.22 $47.45 $73.93 $101.22 - Buildings or rooms used by more than 6 2,500 $7,486 $7,530 $8,057 93% 7% $8,057 $8,057 $8,057 $8,057 $44.09 $50.18 $53.69 82% 18% $53.69 $53.69 $53.69 $53.69 - persons for educational purposes up to the 5,000 $8,588 $8,784 $9,399 91% 9% $9,399 $9,399 $9,399 $9,399 $15.80 $28.82 $30.83 51% 49% $30.83 $23.31 $30.83 $30.83 - 12th grade 10,000 $9,378 $10,225 $10,941 86% 14% $10,941 $10,941 $10,941 $10,941 $16.86 $22.28 $23.84 71% 29% $23.84 $23.84 $23.84 $23.84 - Day care for 6 or more children older than 25,000 $11,906 $13,568 $14,518 82% 18% $14,518 $14,518 $14,518 $14,518 $5.73 $7.63 $8.16 70% 30% $8.16 $6.94 $8.16 $8.16 - 2.5 years of age 50,000 $13,338 $15,474 $16,557 81% 19% $16,557 $16,557 $16,557 $16,557 $25.82 $23.19 $24.81 104% -4% $24.81 $24.81 $24.81 $24.81 E E Occupancy Tenant Improvements 1,000 $6,479 $4,113 $4,401 147% -47% $4,401 $4,401 $4,401 $4,401 $7.17 $32.99 $35.30 20% 80% $35.30 $16.45 $25.73 $35.30 - Buildings or rooms used by more than 6 5,000 $6,765 $5,433 $5,813 116% -16% $5,813 $5,813 $5,813 $5,813 $19.72 $13.72 $14.68 134% -34% $14.68 $14.68 $14.68 $14.68 - persons for educational purposes up to the 10,000 $7,751 $6,119 $6,547 118% -18% $6,547 $6,547 $6,547 $6,547 $7.62 $13.29 $14.22 54% 46% $14.22 $10.92 $14.22 $14.22 - 12th grade 20,000 $8,513 $7,448 $7,969 107% -7% $7,969 $7,969 $7,969 $7,969 $7.41 $8.19 $8.76 85% 15% $8.76 $8.76 $8.76 $8.76 - Day care for 6 or more children older than 50,000 $10,737 $9,903 $10,597 101% -1% $10,597 $10,597 $10,597 $10,597 $2.59 $3.60 $3.85 67% 33% $3.85 $3.22 $3.85 $3.85 - 2.5 years of age 100,000 $12,033 $11,702 $12,521 96% 4% $12,521 $12,521 $12,521 $12,521 $11.61 $5.38 $5.75 202% -102% $5.75 $5.75 $5.75 $5.75 F-1 Factory Industrial—Moderate Hazard 20,000 $7,190 $7,402 $7,920 91% 9% $7,920 $7,920 $7,920 $7,920 $3.32 $3.49 $3.73 89% 11% $3.73 $3.73 $3.73 $3.73 - Factory and industrial uses that include the 50,000 $8,186 $8,449 $9,040 91% 9% $9,040 $9,040 $9,040 $9,040 $2.91 $3.27 $3.49 83% 17% $3.49 $3.49 $3.49 $3.49 - fabrication or manufacturing of Moderate 100,000 $9,639 $10,081 $10,787 89% 11% $10,787 $10,787 $10,787 $10,787 $1.02 $1.09 $1.17 88% 12% $1.17 $1.17 $1.17 $1.17 - and Low Hazard materials 250,000 $11,176 $11,721 $12,541 89% 11% $12,541 $12,541 $12,541 $12,541 $0.93 $1.00 $1.07 87% 13% $1.07 $1.07 $1.07 $1.07 - - 500,000 $13,489 $14,214 $15,209 89% 11% $15,209 $15,209 $15,209 $15,209 $0.78 $0.84 $0.90 87% 13% $0.90 $0.90 $0.90 $0.90 - - 1,000,000 $17,394 $18,412 $19,701 88% 12% $19,701 $19,701 $19,701 $19,701 $1.71 $1.50 $1.61 106% -6% $1.61 $1.61 $1.61 $1.61 F F Occupancy Tenant Improvements 2,000 $4,226 $3,401 $3,639 116% -16% $3,639 $3,639 $3,639 $3,639 $5.02 $13.61 $14.56 34% 66% $14.56 $9.79 $14.56 $14.56 - Factory and industrial uses that include the 10,000 $4,627 $4,490 $4,804 96% 4% $4,804 $4,804 $4,804 $4,804 $8.39 $10.05 $10.75 78% 22% $10.75 $10.75 $10.75 $10.75 - fabrication or manufacturing of Moderate 20,000 $5,466 $5,495 $5,880 93% 7% $5,880 $5,880 $5,880 $5,880 $2.49 $3.81 $4.07 61% 39% $4.07 $3.28 $4.07 $4.07 - and Low Hazard materials 40,000 $5,965 $6,256 $6,694 89% 11% $6,694 $6,694 $6,694 $6,694 $2.77 $3.61 $3.86 72% 28% $3.86 $3.86 $3.86 $3.86 - - 100,000 $7,625 $8,420 $9,010 85% 15% $9,010 $9,010 $9,010 $9,010 $1.03 $1.28 $1.37 76% 24% $1.37 $1.37 $1.37 $1.37 - - 200,000 $8,658 $9,696 $10,375 83% 17% $10,375 $10,375 $10,375 $10,375 $4.16 $3.12 $3.34 125% -25% $3.34 $3.34 $3.34 $3.34 H-1, H-2 High Hazard: Detonation Hazard; 1,000 $4,383 $3,483 $3,727 118% -18% $3,727 $3,727 $3,727 $3,727 $9.25 $28.00 $29.96 31% 69% $29.96 $19.60 $29.96 $29.96 H-3, H-4 Deflagration hazard or hazard from 5,000 $4,753 $4,603 $4,925 97% 3% $4,925 $4,925 $4,925 $4,925 $18.47 $23.78 $25.44 73% 27% $25.44 $25.44 $25.44 $25.44 H-5 accelerated burning; Materials that readily 10,000 $5,676 $5,792 $6,198 92% 8% $6,198 $6,198 $6,198 $6,198 $4.83 $6.99 $7.48 65% 35% $7.48 $6.15 $7.48 $7.48 - support combustion; Materials that are 20,000 $6,159 $6,491 $6,945 89% 11% $6,945 $6,945 $6,945 $6,945 $6.01 $7.76 $8.30 72% 28% $8.30 $8.30 $8.30 $8.30 - health hazards 50,000 $7,962 $8,819 $9,436 84% 16% $9,436 $9,436 $9,436 $9,436 $2.19 $2.74 $2.94 75% 25% $2.94 $2.94 $2.94 $2.94 - - 100,000 $9,059 $10,190 $10,904 83% 17% $10,904 $10,904 $10,904 $10,904 $8.73 $6.63 $7.09 123% -23% $7.09 $7.09 $7.09 $7.09 H See Above 1,000 $4,483 $3,627 $3,881 116% -16% $3,881 $3,881 $3,881 $3,881 $10.27 $28.90 $30.92 33% 67% $30.92 $20.60 $30.92 $30.92 - - 5,000 $4,894 $4,783 $5,118 96% 4% $5,118 $5,118 $5,118 $5,118 $18.29 $6.79 $7.26 252% -152% $7.26 $7.26 $7.26 $7.26 - - 10,000 $5,808 $5,122 $5,481 106% -6% $5,481 $5,481 $5,481 $5,481 $4.99 $15.79 $16.89 30% 70% $16.89 $8.92 $12.84 $16.89 - - 20,000 $6,308 $6,701 $7,170 88% 12% $7,170 $7,170 $7,170 $7,170 $6.05 $7.84 $8.39 72% 28% $8.39 $8.39 $8.39 $8.39 - - 50,000 $8,122 $9,052 $9,686 84% 16% $9,686 $9,686 $9,686 $9,686 $2.22 $2.78 $2.98 75% 25% $2.98 $2.98 $2.98 $2.98 - - 100,000 $9,235 $10,443 $11,174 83% 17% $11,174 $11,174 $11,174 $11,174 $8.90 $5.94 $6.35 140% -40% $6.35 $6.35 $6.35 $6.35 I-1 Housing of clients on a 24-hour basis in a 1,000 $5,732 $4,564 $4,883 117% -17% $4,883 $4,883 $4,883 $4,883 $11.32 $37.03 $39.62 29% 71% $39.62 $20.66 $30.00 $39.62 - supervised residential environment providing 5,000 $6,185 $6,045 $6,468 96% 4% $6,468 $6,468 $6,468 $6,468 $22.93 $29.99 $32.09 71% 29% $32.09 $32.09 $32.09 $32.09 - personal care services 10,000 $7,332 $7,544 $8,072 91% 9% $8,072 $8,072 $8,072 $8,072 $6.45 $9.01 $9.64 67% 33% $9.64 $8.05 $9.64 $9.64 - - 20,000 $7,977 $8,445 $9,037 88% 12% $9,037 $9,037 $9,037 $9,037 $7.71 $9.87 $10.56 73% 27% $10.56 $10.56 $10.56 $10.56 - - 50,000 $10,290 $11,407 $12,206 84% 16% $12,206 $12,206 $12,206 $12,206 $2.77 $3.47 $3.71 75% 25% $3.71 $3.71 $3.71 $3.71 - - 100,000 $11,677 $13,141 $14,061 83% 17% $14,061 $14,061 $14,061 $14,061 $11.35 $7.51 $8.04 141% -41% $8.04 $8.04 $8.04 $8.04 December 5, 2023 34 of 40
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
430 of 966
CITY OF REDLANDS ‐ EXHIBIT 'A' TO RESOLUTION NO. 8522
FEE SCHEDULE
Recommended Recovery Level - 100% for all fees listed below.

IIA, IIB, IIIA, IIIB, IV
I-2, I-3 Medical, surgical, psychiatric, nursing or 1,000 $7,083 $5,705 $6,104 116% -16% $6,104 $6,104 $6,104 $6,104 $14.15 $46.29 $49.53 29% 71% $49.53 $25.82 $37.50 $49.53 - custodial care on a 24-hour basis for more 5,000 $7,649 $7,556 $8,085 95% 5% $8,085 $8,085 $8,085 $8,085 $28.66 $37.48 $40.11 71% 29% $40.11 $40.11 $40.11 $40.11 - than 6 persons; facilities where persons are 10,000 $9,082 $9,430 $10,091 90% 10% $10,091 $10,091 $10,091 $10,091 $8.07 $11.26 $12.05 67% 33% $12.05 $10.06 $12.05 $12.05 - restrained 20,000 $9,888 $10,557 $11,296 88% 12% $11,296 $11,296 $11,296 $11,296 $9.64 $12.34 $13.20 73% 27% $13.20 $13.20 $13.20 $13.20 - - 50,000 $12,780 $14,259 $15,257 84% 16% $15,257 $15,257 $15,257 $15,257 $3.47 $4.33 $4.64 75% 25% $4.64 $4.64 $4.64 $4.64 - - 100,000 $14,513 $16,426 $17,576 83% 17% $17,576 $17,576 $17,576 $17,576 $14.18 $11.16 $11.94 119% -19% $11.94 $11.94 $11.94 $11.94 I-4 Day care operations of more than 6 people 1,000 $6,672 $5,376 $5,752 116% -16% $5,752 $5,752 $5,752 $5,752 $13.57 $43.70 $46.76 29% 71% $46.76 $24.53 $35.48 $46.76 - of any age where the care is for less than 5,000 $7,214 $7,124 $7,623 95% 5% $7,623 $7,623 $7,623 $7,623 $25.90 $34.10 $36.49 71% 29% $36.49 $36.49 $36.49 $36.49 - 24 hours a day 10,000 $8,510 $8,829 $9,447 90% 10% $9,447 $9,447 $9,447 $9,447 $7.60 $10.70 $11.45 66% 34% $11.45 $9.52 $11.45 $11.45 - - 20,000 $9,269 $9,899 $10,592 88% 12% $10,592 $10,592 $10,592 $10,592 $8.90 $11.40 $12.20 73% 27% $12.20 $12.20 $12.20 $12.20 - - 50,000 $11,939 $13,319 $14,251 84% 16% $14,251 $14,251 $14,251 $14,251 $3.18 $4.00 $4.28 74% 26% $4.28 $4.28 $4.28 $4.28 - - 100,000 $13,532 $15,317 $16,389 83% 17% $16,389 $16,389 $16,389 $16,389 $13.20 $12.07 $12.92 102% -2% $12.92 $12.92 $12.92 $12.92 I I Occupancy Tenant Improvements 1,000 $4,166 $3,367 $3,603 116% -16% $3,603 $3,603 $3,603 $3,603 $9.77 $27.04 $28.93 34% 66% $28.93 $19.35 $28.93 $28.93 - - 5,000 $4,557 $4,449 $4,761 96% 4% $4,761 $4,761 $4,761 $4,761 $15.88 $17.86 $19.11 83% 17% $19.11 $19.11 $19.11 $19.11 - - 10,000 $5,351 $5,342 $5,716 94% 6% $5,716 $5,716 $5,716 $5,716 $4.66 $8.38 $8.97 52% 48% $8.97 $6.81 $8.97 $8.97 - - 20,000 $5,817 $6,180 $6,613 88% 12% $6,613 $6,613 $6,613 $6,613 $5.41 $7.07 $7.57 71% 29% $7.57 $7.57 $7.57 $7.57 - - 50,000 $7,439 $8,302 $8,883 84% 16% $8,883 $8,883 $8,883 $8,883 $2.00 $2.50 $2.67 75% 25% $2.67 $2.67 $2.67 $2.67 - - 100,000 $8,439 $9,550 $10,219 83% 17% $10,219 $10,219 $10,219 $10,219 $ 8.11 $4.61 $4.93 164% -64% $4.93 $4.93 $4.93 $4.93 M
Display and sale of merchandise accessible 1,000 $6,154 $4,985 $5,334 115% -15% $5,334 $5,334 $5,334 $5,334 $13.12 $40.42 $43.25 30% 70% $43.25 $23.06 $33.01 $43.25 - to the public 5,000 $6,679 $6,602 $7,064 95% 5% $7,064 $7,064 $7,064 $7,064 $23.89 $31.34 $33.53 71% 29% $33.53 $33.53 $33.53 $33.53 - - 10,000 $7,873 $8,168 $8,740 90% 10% $8,740 $8,740 $8,740 $8,740 $7.00 $10.05 $10.75 65% 35% $10.75 $8.88 $10.75 $10.75 - - 20,000 $8,573 $9,173 $9,815 87% 13% $9,815 $9,815 $9,815 $9,815 $8.17 $10.55 $11.29 72% 28% $11.29 $11.29 $11.29 $11.29 - - 50,000 $11,025 $12,339 $13,203 84% 16% $13,203 $13,203 $13,203 $13,203 $2.94 $3.70 $3.96 74% 26% $3.96 $3.96 $3.96 $3.96 - - 100,000 $12,496 $14,191 $15,185 82% 18% $15,185 $15,185 $15,185 $15,185 $12.16 $9.54 $10.20 119% -19% $10.20 $10.20 $10.20 $10.20 M M Occupancy Tenant Improvements 1,000 $5,837 $4,749 $5,082 115% -15% $5,082 $5,082 $5,082 $5,082 $12.88 $38.26 $40.94 31% 69% $40.94 $26.91 $40.94 $40.94 - - 5,000 $6,353 $6,280 $6,719 95% 5% $6,719 $6,719 $6,719 $6,719 $22.77 $24.82 $26.55 86% 14% $26.55 $26.55 $26.55 $26.55 - - 10,000 $7,491 $7,521 $8,047 93% 7% $8,047 $8,047 $8,047 $8,047 $6.63 $12.10 $12.94 51% 49% $12.94 $9.79 $12.94 $12.94 - - 20,000 $8,154 $8,730 $9,341 87% 13% $9,341 $9,341 $9,341 $9,341 $7.78 $10.03 $10.73 72% 28% $10.73 $10.73 $10.73 $10.73 - - 50,000 $10,487 $11,739 $12,561 83% 17% $12,561 $12,561 $12,561 $12,561 $2.81 $3.53 $3.78 74% 26% $3.78 $3.78 $3.78 $3.78 - - 100,000 $11,891 $13,506 $14,452 82% 18% $14,452 $14,452 $14,452 $14,452 $11.56 $5.48 $5.87 197% -97% $5.87 $5.87 $5.87 $5.87 R-1, R-2 Transient and nontransient lodging including 2,000 $8,508 $8,131 $8,700 98% 2% $8,700 $8,700 $8,700 $8,700 $0.53 $34.87 $37.31 1% 99% $37.31 $12.67 $24.81 $37.31 - hotels, motels, apartments and boarding 10,000 $8,551 $10,921 $11,686 73% 27% $11,686 $11,686 $11,686 $11,686 $13.27 $26.88 $28.77 46% 54% $28.77 $21.02 $28.77 $28.77 - houses 20,000 $9,878 $13,609 $14,562 68% 32% $14,562 $12,220 $14,562 $14,562 $3.13 $6.50 $6.95 45% 55% $6.95 $5.04 $6.95 $6.95 - - 40,000 $10,504 $14,909 $15,953 66% 34% $15,953 $13,229 $15,953 $15,953 $3.09 $8.34 $8.93 35% 65% $8.93 $6.01 $8.93 $8.93 - - 100,000 $12,358 $19,915 $21,309 58% 42% $21,309 $16,834 $21,309 $21,309 $1.60 $2.82 $3.02 53% 47% $3.02 $2.31 $3.02 $3.02 - - 200,000 $13,958 $22,737 $24,329 57% 43% $24,329 $19,143 $24,329 $24,329 $6.44 $9.00 $9.63 67% 33% $9.63 $8.03 $9.63 $9.63 R-3, R-3.1 One and two-family homes; Residentially 1,000 $5,648 $4,833 $5,171 109% -9% $5,171 $5,171 $5,171 $5,171 $4.25 $69.82 $74.71 6% 94% $74.71 $27.50 $50.75 $74.71 R-4 based 24-hour facility for 6 or fewer clients 2,000 $5,691 $5,531 $5,918 96% 4% $5,918 $5,918 $5,918 $5,918 $59.82 $131.45 $140.65 43% 57% $140.65 $100.23 $140.65 $140.65 - of any age; Residential care/assisted living 3,000 $6,289 $6,845 $7,324 86% 14% $7,324 $7,324 $7,324 $7,324 $35.07 $67.25 $71.96 49% 51% $71.96 $53.52 $71.96 $71.96 - for more than 6 ambulatory clients 4,000 $6,640 $7,518 $8,044 83% 17% $8,044 $8,044 $8,044 $8,044 $94.00 $108.58 $116.18 81% 19% $116.18 $116.18 $116.18 $116.18 - - 5,000 $7,580 $8,604 $9,206 82% 18% $9,206 $9,206 $9,206 $9,206 $13.85 $20.98 $22.45 62% 38% $22.45 $18.15 $22.45 $22.45 - - 10,000 $8,272 $9,653 $10,328 80% 20% $10,328 $10,328 $10,328 $10,328 $74.72 $67.08 $71.78 104% -4% $71.78 $71.78 $71.78 $71.78 R-3 REPEAT OF MODEL 1,000 $4,221 $3,615 $3,868 109% -9% $3,868 $3,868 $3,868 $3,868 $3.25 $73.57 $78.72 4% 96% $78.72 $28.16 $53.06 $78.72 - One and two family homes. 2,000 $4,254 $4,351 $4,655 91% 9% $4,655 $4,655 $4,655 $4,655 $37.22 $51.72 $55.34 67% 33% $55.34 $46.28 $55.34 $55.34 - Repeat plan check set at 50% of initial plan 3,000 $4,626 $4,868 $5,209 89% 11% $5,209 $5,209 $5,209 $5,209 $23.69 $113.00 $120.91 20% 80% $120.91 $55.78 $87.86 $120.91 - check, per current Master Fee Schedule 4,000 $4,863 $5,998 $6,418 76% 24% $6,418 $6,418 $6,418 $6,418 $61.28 $140.09 $149.90 41% 59% $149.90 $105.59 $149.90 $149.90 - - 5,000 $5,476 $7,399 $7,917 69% 31% $7,917 $6,696 $7,917 $7,917 $8.46 $20.68 $22.13 38% 62% $22.13 $15.30 $22.13 $22.13 - - 10,000 $5,899 $8,433 $9,024 65% 35% $9,024 $7,461 $9,024 $9,024 $50.98 $42.56 $45.54 112% -12% $45.54 $45.54 $45.54 $45.54 December 5, 2023 35 of 40
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
431 of 966
CITY OF REDLANDS ‐ EXHIBIT 'A' TO RESOLUTION NO. 8522
FEE SCHEDULE
Recommended Recovery Level - 100% for all fees listed below.

IIA, IIB, IIIA, IIIB, IV
S-1 Storage—Moderate Hazard, Repair Garage 500 $4,011 $4,390 $4,697 85% 15% $4,697 $4,697 $4,697 $4,697 $12.93 $71.62 $76.63 17% 83% $76.63 $33.95 $54.97 $76.63 - Motor Vehicles (not High Hazard) 2,500 $4,269 $5,822 $6,230 69% 31% $6,230 $5,249 $6,230 $6,230 $29.49 $33.98 $36.36 81% 19% $36.36 $36.36 $36.36 $36.36 - - 5,000 $5,006 $6,672 $7,139 70% 30% $7,139 $7,139 $7,139 $7,139 $8.82 $27.20 $29.10 30% 70% $29.10 $15.51 $22.20 $29.10 - - 10,000 $5,447 $8,032 $8,594 63% 37% $8,594 $7,020 $8,594 $8,594 $10.18 $18.13 $19.40 52% 48% $19.40 $14.79 $19.40 $19.40 - - 25,000 $6,973 $10,752 $11,504 61% 39% $11,504 $9,239 $11,504 $11,504 $3.63 $8.09 $8.66 42% 58% $8.66 $6.14 $8.66 $8.66 - - 50,000 $7,880 $12,775 $13,669 58% 42% $13,669 $10,775 $13,669 $13,669 $15.10 $17.19 $18.40 82% 18% $18.40 $18.40 $18.40 $18.40 S-2 Storage—Low Hazard Storage 500 $4,909 $4,264 $4,562 108% -8% $4,562 $4,562 $4,562 $4,562 $16.04 $69.30 $74.15 22% 78% $74.15 $35.22 $54.39 $74.15 - - 2,500 $5,230 $5,650 $6,045 87% 13% $6,045 $6,045 $6,045 $6,045 $36.17 $32.33 $34.60 105% -5% $34.60 $34.60 $34.60 $34.60 - - 5,000 $6,134 $6,458 $6,910 89% 11% $6,910 $6,910 $6,910 $6,910 $11.00 $26.74 $28.61 38% 62% $28.61 $19.81 $28.61 $28.61 - - 10,000 $6,684 $7,795 $8,341 80% 20% $8,341 $8,341 $8,341 $8,341 $12.58 $17.58 $18.81 67% 33% $18.81 $15.69 $18.81 $18.81 - - 25,000 $8,571 $10,432 $11,162 77% 23% $11,162 $11,162 $11,162 $11,162 $4.46 $6.16 $6.59 68% 32% $6.59 $5.53 $6.59 $6.59 - - 50,000 $9,687 $11,971 $12,809 76% 24% $12,809 $12,809 $12,809 $12,809 $18.71 $16.57 $17.73 106% -6% $17.73 $17.73 $17.73 $17.73 S S Occupancy Tenant Improvements 1,000 $4,148 $3,850 $4,120 101% -1% $4,120 $4,120 $4,120 $4,120 $7.57 $31.38 $33.58 23% 77% $33.58 $16.15 $24.73 $33.58 - - 5,000 $4,451 $5,106 $5,463 81% 19% $5,463 $5,463 $5,463 $5,463 $16.26 $12.21 $13.06 124% -24% $13.06 $13.06 $13.06 $13.06 - - 10,000 $5,264 $5,716 $6,116 86% 14% $6,116 $6,116 $6,116 $6,116 $4.62 $13.63 $14.58 32% 68% $14.58 $9.60 $14.58 $14.58 - - 20,000 $5,725 $7,079 $7,574 76% 24% $7,574 $7,574 $7,574 $7,574 $5.43 $8.11 $8.68 63% 37% $8.68 $7.06 $8.68 $8.68 - - 50,000 $7,356 $9,511 $10,177 72% 28% $10,177 $10,177 $10,177 $10,177 $2.02 $2.84 $3.04 66% 34% $3.04 $2.53 $3.04 $3.04 - - 100,000 $8,364 $10,930 $11,695 72% 28% $11,695 $11,695 $11,695 $11,695 $8.03 $7.23 $7.74 104% -4% $7.74 $7.74 $7.74 $7.74 U Accessory and miscellaneous structure not 1,000 $4,230 $3,768 $4,031 105% -5% $4,031 $4,031 $4,031 $4,031 $7.31 $30.69 $32.84 22% 78% $32.84 $15.73 $24.16 $32.84 - specifically classified 5,000 $4,522 $4,995 $5,345 85% 15% $5,345 $5,345 $5,345 $5,345 $14.47 $13.28 $14.21 102% -2% $14.21 $14.21 $14.21 $14.21 - - 10,000 $5,246 $5,659 $6,055 87% 13% $6,055 $6,055 $6,055 $6,055 $5.01 $11.49 $12.29 41% 59% $12.29 $8.65 $12.29 $12.29 - - 20,000 $5,746 $6,808 $7,284 79% 21% $7,284 $7,284 $7,284 $7,284 $5.08 $7.40 $7.92 64% 36% $7.92 $6.50 $7.92 $7.92 - - 50,000 $7,271 $9,028 $9,660 75% 25% $9,660 $9,660 $9,660 $9,660 $1.87 $2.58 $2.76 68% 32% $2.76 $2.32 $2.76 $2.76 - - 100,000 $8,208 $10,318 $11,041 74% 26% $11,041 $11,041 $11,041 $11,041 $7.88 $5.33 $5.70 138% -38% $5.70 $5.70 $5.70 $5.70

SHELL BUILDINGS
B, M, S All Shell Buildings 1,000 $4,659 $5,046 $5,400 86% 14% $5,400 $5,400 $5,400 $5,400 $2.07 $45.19 $48.35 4% 96% $48.35 $17.34 $32.61 $48.35 - - 5,000 $5,072 $6,854 $7,334 69% 31% $7,334 $6,203 $7,334 $7,334 $3.60 $30.53 $32.66 11% 89% $32.66 $13.19 $22.78 $32.66 - - 10,000 $5,972 $8,380 $8,967 67% 33% $8,967 $7,469 $8,967 $8,967 $1.11 $9.57 $10.23 11% 89% $10.23 $4.12 $7.13 $10.23 - - 20,000 $6,528 $9,337 $9,990 65% 35% $9,990 $8,259 $9,990 $9,990 $1.20 $10.59 $11.33 11% 89% $11.33 $4.54 $7.89 $11.33 - - 50,000 $8,325 $12,515 $13,391 62% 38% $13,391 $10,858 $13,391 $13,391 $0.49 $3.49 $3.73 13% 87% $3.73 $1.56 $2.63 $3.73 - - 100,000 $9,562 $14,258 $15,256 63% 37% $15,256 $12,409 $15,256 $15,256 $1.85 $14.26 $15.26 12% 88% $15.26 $6.27 $10.70 $15.26 December 5, 2023 36 of 40
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
432 of 966
CITY OF REDLANDS ‐ EXHIBIT 'A' TO RESOLUTION NO. 8522
FEE SCHEDULE
DSD ‐ Building & Safety Fees based on square footage
Recommended Recovery Level - 100% for all fees listed below.

IBC Class IBC Occupancy Type
Project Size
Threshold
Current
Fee @
Threshold
Size
Total
Current
Cost
Total
Current
Cost + 7%
Current
Recovery
Level
Change in
Recovery
Level
New Base
Fee (Cost)
Amount @
Threshold
Size Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
Current
Fee (Cost)
for Each
Additional
100 sq*
Total
Current
Cost
Total
Current
Cost + 7%
Current
Recovery
Level
Change in
Recovery
Level
New Fee
(Cost) for
Each
Additional
100 sf * Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
A-1 Assembly uses, usually with fixed seating, 2,000 $5,206 $3,854 $4,124 126% -26% $4,124 $4,124 $4,124 $4,124 $4.51 $16.07 $17.19 26% 74% $17.19 $8.70 $12.88 $17.19 Greater intended for the production and 10,000 $5,566 $5,139 $5,499 101% -1% $5,499 $5,499 $5,499 $5,499 $9.02 $12.94 $13.85 65% 35% $13.85 $11.44 $13.85 $13.85 Than 50 viewing of the performing arts or 20,000 $6,469 $6,434 $6,884 94% 6% $6,884 $6,884 $6,884 $6,884 $2.98 $3.16 $3.38 88% 12% $3.38 $3.38 $3.38 $3.38 Occupants motion pictures 40,000 $7,065 $7,066 $7,561 93% 7% $7,561 $7,561 $7,561 $7,561 $3.19 $3.99 $4.27 75% 25% $4.27 $4.27 $4.27 $4.27 - - 100,000 $8,981 $9,459 $10,121 89% 11% $10,121 $10,121 $10,121 $10,121 $1.14 $1.37 $1.47 77% 23% $1.47 $1.47 $1.47 $1.47 - - 200,000 $10,117 $10,833 $11,592 87% 13% $11,592 $11,592 $11,592 $11,592 $4.86 $2.63 $2.81 173% -73% $2.81 $2.81 $2.81 $2.81 A-2 Assembly uses intended for food and/or 1,000 $7,389 $5,605 $5,998 123% -23% $5,998 $5,998 $5,998 $5,998 $12.81 $47.11 $50.41 25% 75% $50.41 $25.22 $37.63 $50.41 - drink consumption 5,000 $7,901 $7,490 $8,014 99% 1% $8,014 $8,014 $8,014 $8,014 $23.81 $34.03 $36.42 65% 35% $36.42 $30.11 $36.42 $36.42 - - 10,000 $9,092 $9,191 $9,835 92% 8% $9,835 $9,835 $9,835 $9,835 $8.46 $10.00 $10.70 79% 21% $10.70 $10.70 $10.70 $10.70 - Restaurant 20,000 $9,937 $10,191 $10,905 91% 9% $10,905 $10,905 $10,905 $10,905 $8.95 $11.19 $11.97 75% 25% $11.97 $11.97 $11.97 $11.97 - - 50,000 $12,623 $13,547 $14,496 87% 13% $14,496 $14,496 $14,496 $14,496 $3.09 $3.83 $4.09 75% 25% $4.09 $4.09 $4.09 $4.09 - - 100,000 $14,166 $15,460 $16,543 86% 14% $16,543 $16,543 $16,543 $16,543 $13.76 $10.18 $10.89 126% -26% $10.89 $10.89 $10.89 $10.89 A-3, A-4 Assembly uses intended for worship; 1,000 $7,061 $5,382 $5,759 123% -23% $5,759 $5,759 $5,759 $5,759 $12.11 $45.04 $48.19 25% 75% $48.19 $24.02 $35.93 $48.19 - Assembly uses intended for viewing 5,000 $7,546 $7,184 $7,687 98% 2% $7,687 $7,687 $7,687 $7,687 $22.79 $31.92 $34.16 67% 33% $34.16 $28.48 $34.16 $34.16 - of outdoor sporting events and activities with 10,000 $8,685 $8,780 $9,395 92% 8% $9,395 $9,395 $9,395 $9,395 $8.10 $9.95 $10.64 76% 24% $10.64 $10.64 $10.64 $10.64 - spectator seating 20,000 $9,495 $9,775 $10,459 91% 9% $10,459 $10,459 $10,459 $10,459 $8.52 $10.71 $11.46 74% 26% $11.46 $11.46 $11.46 $11.46 - - 50,000 $12,052 $12,986 $13,896 87% 13% $13,896 $13,896 $13,896 $13,896 $2.96 $3.67 $3.93 75% 25% $3.93 $3.93 $3.93 $3.93 - - 100,000 $13,532 $14,822 $15,860 85% 15% $15,860 $15,860 $15,860 $15,860 $13.12 $10.57 $11.31 116% -16% $11.31 $11.31 $11.31 $11.31 A-4 See Above 500 $5,730 $4,306 $4,607 124% -24% $4,607 $4,607 $4,607 $4,607 $19.34 $72.07 $77.11 25% 75% $77.11 $38.40 $57.47 $77.11 - - 2,500 $6,117 $5,747 $6,149 99% 1% $6,149 $6,149 $6,149 $6,149 $36.53 $51.08 $54.66 67% 33% $54.66 $45.59 $54.66 $54.66 - - 5,000 $7,030 $7,024 $7,516 94% 6% $7,516 $7,516 $7,516 $7,516 $12.94 $15.92 $17.03 76% 24% $17.03 $17.03 $17.03 $17.03 - - 10,000 $7,677 $7,820 $8,367 92% 8% $8,367 $8,367 $8,367 $8,367 $13.67 $17.13 $18.33 75% 25% $18.33 $18.33 $18.33 $18.33 - - 25,000 $9,728 $10,389 $11,116 88% 12% $11,116 $11,116 $11,116 $11,116 $4.72 $5.87 $6.29 75% 25% $6.29 $6.29 $6.29 $6.29 - - 50,000 $10,907 $11,858 $12,688 86% 14% $12,688 $12,688 $12,688 $12,688 $21.00 $13.00 $13.91 151% -51% $13.91 $13.91 $13.91 $13.91 A-5 Assembly—Outdoor Activities 1,500 $7,269 $5,554 $5,943 122% -22% $5,943 $5,943 $5,943 $5,943 $8.28 $30.76 $32.92 25% 75% $32.92 $16.41 $24.54 $32.92 - Amusement Park, Bleacher, Stadium 7,500 $7,766 $7,400 $7,918 98% 2% $7,918 $7,918 $7,918 $7,918 $16.31 $22.58 $24.16 68% 32% $24.16 $20.23 $24.16 $24.16 - - 15,000 $8,990 $9,093 $9,730 92% 8% $9,730 $9,730 $9,730 $9,730 $5.55 $6.80 $7.28 76% 24% $7.28 $7.28 $7.28 $7.28 - - 30,000 $9,822 $10,114 $10,822 91% 9% $10,822 $10,822 $10,822 $10,822 $5.98 $7.46 $7.98 75% 25% $7.98 $7.98 $7.98 $7.98 - - 75,000 $12,514 $13,471 $14,414 87% 13% $14,414 $14,414 $14,414 $14,414 $2.03 $2.57 $2.75 74% 26% $2.75 $2.75 $2.75 $2.75 - - 150,000 $14,034 $15,401 $16,479 85% 15% $16,479 $16,479 $16,479 $16,479 $9.09 $7.24 $7.75 117% -17% $7.75 $7.75 $7.75 $7.75 A A Occupancy Tenant Improvements 1,000 $5,807 $4,615 $4,938 118% -18% $4,938 $4,938 $4,938 $4,938 $6.84 $38.58 $41.28 17% 83% $41.28 $18.20 $29.57 $41.28 - - 5,000 $6,082 $6,158 $6,589 92% 8% $6,589 $6,589 $6,589 $6,589 $18.45 $19.16 $20.50 90% 10% $20.50 $20.50 $20.50 $20.50 - - 10,000 $7,004 $7,116 $7,614 92% 8% $7,614 $7,614 $7,614 $7,614 $6.84 $12.37 $13.24 52% 48% $13.24 $10.04 $13.24 $13.24 - - 20,000 $7,688 $8,353 $8,938 86% 14% $8,938 $8,938 $8,938 $8,938 $6.76 $9.06 $9.69 70% 30% $9.69 $8.22 $9.69 $9.69 - - 50,000 $9,715 $11,070 $11,845 82% 18% $11,845 $11,845 $11,845 $11,845 $2.38 $3.11 $3.32 72% 28% $3.32 $2.85 $3.32 $3.32 - - 100,000 $10,907 $12,623 $13,506 81% 19% $13,506 $13,506 $13,506 $13,506 $10.50 $7.88 $8.43 125% -25% $8.43 $8.43 $8.43 $8.43 B Business—Professional Office 1,000 $6,304 $4,824 $5,162 122% -22% $5,162 $5,162 $5,162 $5,162 $11.91 $41.48 $44.39 27% 73% $44.39 $22.63 $33.35 $44.39 - Buildings or spaces for office professional 5,000 $6,781 $6,484 $6,938 98% 2% $6,938 $6,938 $6,938 $6,938 $19.81 $28.12 $30.09 66% 34% $30.09 $24.95 $30.09 $30.09 - or service type transactions, including 10,000 $7,771 $7,890 $8,442 92% 8% $8,442 $8,442 $8,442 $8,442 $7.26 $7.92 $8.47 86% 14% $8.47 $8.47 $8.47 $8.47 -
storage of records and accounts; 20,000 $8,497 $8,681 $9,289 91% 9% $9,289 $9,289 $9,289 $9,289 $7.49 $7.91 $8.46 88% 12% $8.46 $8.46 $8.46 $8.46 - Restaurants w/ less than 50 occupants 50,000 $10,742 $11,054 $11,827 91% 9% $11,827 $11,827 $11,827 $11,827 $2.65 $2.97 $3.18 83% 17% $3.18 $3.18 $3.18 $3.18 - - 100,000 $12,068 $12,539 $13,417 90% 10% $13,417 $13,417 $13,417 $13,417 $11.66 $10.41 $11.14 105% -5% $11.14 $11.14 $11.14 $11.14 Construction Type
VA, VB
December 5, 2023 37 of 40
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
433 of 966
CITY OF REDLANDS ‐ EXHIBIT 'A' TO RESOLUTION NO. 8522
FEE SCHEDULE
Recommended Recovery Level - 100% for all fees listed below.

IBC Class IBC Occupancy Type
Project Size
Threshold
Current
Fee @
Threshold
Size
Total
Current
Cost
Total
Current
Cost + 7%
Current
Recovery
Level
Change in
Recovery
Level
New Base
Fee (Cost)
Amount @
Threshold
Size Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
Current
Fee (Cost)
for Each
Additional
100 sq*
Total
Current
Cost
Total
Current
Cost + 7%
Current
Recovery
Level
Change in
Recovery
Level
New Fee
(Cost) for
Each
Additional
100 sf * Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
Construction Type
VA, VB
B B Occupancy Tenant Improvements 500 $5,238 $2,151 $2,302 228% -128% $2,302 $2,302 $2,302 $2,302 $6.43 $87.86 $94.01 7% 93% $94.01 $35.33 $64.23 $94.01 - Buildings or spaces for office professional 1,000 $5,495 $2,854 $3,054 180% -80% $3,054 $3,054 $3,054 $3,054 $16.71 $13.06 $13.97 120% -20% $13.97 $13.97 $13.97 $13.97 - or service type transactions, including 2,000 $6,330 $2,985 $3,194 198% -98% $3,194 $3,194 $3,194 $3,194 $6.17 $44.28 $47.38 13% 87% $47.38 $19.77 $33.37 $47.38 - storage of records and accounts; 4,000 $6,948 $3,870 $4,141 168% -68% $4,141 $4,141 $4,141 $4,141 $6.05 $20.73 $22.18 27% 73% $22.18 $11.37 $16.70 $22.18 - Restaurants w/ less than 50 occupants 10,000 $8,763 $5,114 $5,472 160% -60% $5,472 $5,472 $5,472 $5,472 $2.18 $7.21 $7.71 28% 72% $7.71 $4.00 $5.83 $7.71 - - 20,000 $9,852 $5,835 $6,243 158% -58% $6,243 $6,243 $6,243 $6,243 $9.45 $6.79 $7.27 130% -30% $7.27 $7.27 $7.27 $7.27 E Educational 500 $5,809 $4,510 $4,826 120% -20% $4,826 $4,826 $4,826 $4,826 $19.05 $75.68 $80.98 24% 76% $80.98 $39.48 $59.92 $80.98 - Buildings or rooms used by more than 6 2,500 $6,190 $6,024 $6,446 96% 4% $6,446 $6,446 $6,446 $6,446 $35.81 $40.14 $42.95 83% 17% $42.95 $42.95 $42.95 $42.95 - persons for educational purposes up to the 5,000 $7,085 $7,028 $7,519 94% 6% $7,519 $7,519 $7,519 $7,519 $12.86 $23.05 $24.67 52% 48% $24.67 $18.76 $24.67 $24.67 - 12th grade 10,000 $7,729 $8,180 $8,753 88% 12% $8,753 $8,753 $8,753 $8,753 $13.70 $17.83 $19.07 72% 28% $19.07 $19.07 $19.07 $19.07 - Day care for 6 or more children older than 25,000 $9,783 $10,854 $11,614 84% 16% $11,614 $11,614 $11,614 $11,614 $4.71 $6.10 $6.53 72% 28% $6.53 $6.53 $6.53 $6.53 - 2.5 years of age 50,000 $10,960 $12,379 $13,246 83% 17% $13,246 $13,246 $13,246 $13,246 $21.07 $18.55 $19.85 106% -6% $19.85 $19.85 $19.85 $19.85 E E Occupancy Tenant Improvements 1,000 $5,313 $3,291 $3,521 151% -51% $3,521 $3,521 $3,521 $3,521 $6.32 $26.39 $28.24 22% 78% $28.24 $13.55 $20.79 $28.24 - Buildings or rooms used by more than 6 5,000 $5,566 $4,346 $4,650 120% -20% $4,650 $4,650 $4,650 $4,650 $16.08 $10.98 $11.75 137% -37% $11.75 $11.75 $11.75 $11.75 - persons for educational purposes up to the 10,000 $6,371 $4,895 $5,238 122% -22% $5,238 $5,238 $5,238 $5,238 $6.26 $10.63 $11.37 55% 45% $11.37 $8.81 $11.37 $11.37 - 12th grade 20,000 $6,996 $5,958 $6,375 110% -10% $6,375 $6,375 $6,375 $6,375 $5.99 $6.55 $7.01 85% 15% $7.01 $7.01 $7.01 $7.01 - Day care for 6 or more children older than 50,000 $8,793 $7,923 $8,477 104% -4% $8,477 $8,477 $8,477 $8,477 $2.14 $2.88 $3.08 69% 31% $3.08 $2.61 $3.08 $3.08 - 2.5 years of age 100,000 $9,860 $9,362 $10,017 98% 2% $10,017 $10,017 $10,017 $10,017 $9.43 $4.30 $4.60 205% -105% $4.60 $4.60 $4.60 $4.60 F-1 Factory Industrial—Moderate Hazard 20,000 $5,973 $5,922 $6,336 94% 6% $6,336 $6,336 $6,336 $6,336 $2.79 $2.79 $2.99 93% 7% $2.99 $2.99 $2.99 $2.99 - Factory and industrial uses that include the 50,000 $6,810 $6,759 $7,232 94% 6% $7,232 $7,232 $7,232 $7,232 $2.41 $2.61 $2.80 86% 14% $2.80 $2.80 $2.80 $2.80 - fabrication or manufacturing of Moderate 100,000 $8,013 $8,065 $8,630 93% 7% $8,630 $8,630 $8,630 $8,630 $0.84 $0.87 $0.94 90% 10% $0.94 $0.94 $0.94 $0.94 - and Low Hazard materials 250,000 $9,271 $9,377 $10,033 92% 8% $10,033 $10,033 $10,033 $10,033 $0.75 $0.80 $0.85 88% 12% $0.85 $0.85 $0.85 $0.85 - - 500,000 $11,154 $11,372 $12,168 92% 8% $12,168 $12,168 $12,168 $12,168 $0.63 $0.67 $0.72 88% 12% $0.72 $0.72 $0.72 $0.72 - - 1,000,000 $14,317 $14,730 $15,761 91% 9% $15,761 $15,761 $15,761 $15,761 $1.40 $1.20 $1.29 109% -9% $1.29 $1.29 $1.29 $1.29 F F Occupancy Tenant Improvements 2,000 $3,535 $2,721 $2,911 121% -21% $2,911 $2,911 $2,911 $2,911 $4.69 $10.89 $11.65 40% 60% $11.65 $8.17 $11.65 $11.65 - Factory and industrial uses that include the 10,000 $3,910 $3,592 $3,843 102% -2% $3,843 $3,843 $3,843 $3,843 $6.92 $8.04 $8.60 80% 20% $8.60 $8.60 $8.60 $8.60 - fabrication or manufacturing of Moderate 20,000 $4,601 $4,396 $4,704 98% 2% $4,704 $4,704 $4,704 $4,704 $2.09 $3.04 $3.26 64% 36% $3.26 $2.67 $3.26 $3.26 - and Low Hazard materials 40,000 $5,020 $5,005 $5,355 94% 6% $5,355 $5,355 $5,355 $5,355 $2.28 $2.89 $3.09 74% 26% $3.09 $3.09 $3.09 $3.09 - - 100,000 $6,386 $6,736 $7,208 89% 11% $7,208 $7,208 $7,208 $7,208 $0.86 $1.02 $1.09 79% 21% $1.09 $1.09 $1.09 $1.09 - - 200,000 $7,251 $7,757 $8,300 87% 13% $8,300 $8,300 $8,300 $8,300 $3.46 $2.50 $2.67 129% -29% $2.67 $2.67 $2.67 $2.67 H-1, H-2 High Hazard: Detonation Hazard; 1,000 $3,641 $2,787 $2,982 122% -22% $2,982 $2,982 $2,982 $2,982 $8.51 $22.40 $23.96 35% 65% $23.96 $16.24 $23.96 $23.96 H-3, H-4 Deflagration hazard or hazard from 5,000 $3,982 $3,682 $3,940 101% -1% $3,940 $3,940 $3,940 $3,940 $15.06 $19.02 $20.36 74% 26% $20.36 $20.36 $20.36 $20.36 H-5 accelerated burning; Materials that readily 10,000 $4,735 $4,634 $4,958 95% 5% $4,958 $4,958 $4,958 $4,958 $3.98 $5.59 $5.98 67% 33% $5.98 $4.98 $5.98 $5.98 - support combustion; Materials that are 20,000 $5,133 $5,193 $5,556 92% 8% $5,556 $5,556 $5,556 $5,556 $4.91 $6.21 $6.64 74% 26% $6.64 $6.64 $6.64 $6.64 - health hazards 50,000 $6,606 $7,055 $7,549 88% 12% $7,549 $7,549 $7,549 $7,549 $1.82 $2.19 $2.35 77% 23% $2.35 $2.35 $2.35 $2.35 - - 100,000 $7,515 $8,152 $8,723 86% 14% $8,723 $8,723 $8,723 $8,723 $7.18 $5.30 $5.68 127% -27% $5.68 $5.68 $5.68 $5.68 H See Above 1,000 $3,735 $2,901 $3,105 120% -20% $3,105 $3,105 $3,105 $3,105 $9.54 $23.12 $24.74 39% 61% $24.74 $17.14 $24.74 $24.74 - - 5,000 $4,116 $3,826 $4,094 101% -1% $4,094 $4,094 $4,094 $4,094 $14.97 $5.43 $5.81 258% -158% $5.81 $5.81 $5.81 $5.81 - - 10,000 $4,865 $4,098 $4,385 111% -11% $4,385 $4,385 $4,385 $4,385 $4.13 $12.63 $13.51 31% 69% $13.51 $13.51 $13.51 $13.51 - - 20,000 $5,278 $5,361 $5,736 92% 8% $5,736 $5,736 $5,736 $5,736 $4.96 $6.27 $6.71 74% 26% $6.71 $6.71 $6.71 $6.71 - - 50,000 $6,767 $7,242 $7,749 87% 13% $7,749 $7,749 $7,749 $7,749 $1.85 $2.22 $2.38 78% 22% $2.38 $2.38 $2.38 $2.38 - - 100,000 $7,694 $8,354 $8,939 86% 14% $8,939 $8,939 $8,939 $8,939 $7.36 $4.75 $5.08 145% -45% $5.08 $5.08 $5.08 $5.08 December 5, 2023 38 of 40
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
434 of 966
CITY OF REDLANDS ‐ EXHIBIT 'A' TO RESOLUTION NO. 8522
FEE SCHEDULE
Recommended Recovery Level - 100% for all fees listed below.

IBC Class IBC Occupancy Type
Project Size
Threshold
Current
Fee @
Threshold
Size
Total
Current
Cost
Total
Current
Cost + 7%
Current
Recovery
Level
Change in
Recovery
Level
New Base
Fee (Cost)
Amount @
Threshold
Size Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
Current
Fee (Cost)
for Each
Additional
100 sq*
Total
Current
Cost
Total
Current
Cost + 7%
Current
Recovery
Level
Change in
Recovery
Level
New Fee
(Cost) for
Each
Additional
100 sf * Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
Construction Type
VA, VB
I-1 Housing of clients on a 24-hour basis in a 1,000 $4,735 $3,651 $3,907 121% -21% $3,907 $3,907 $3,907 $3,907 $10.38 $29.62 $31.70 33% 67% $31.70 $21.04 $31.70 $31.70 - supervised residential environment providing 5,000 $5,150 $4,836 $5,175 100% 0% $5,175 $5,175 $5,175 $5,175 $18.68 $23.99 $25.67 73% 27% $25.67 $25.67 $25.67 $25.67 - personal care services 10,000 $6,084 $6,035 $6,458 94% 6% $6,458 $6,458 $6,458 $6,458 $5.30 $7.21 $7.71 69% 31% $7.71 $6.51 $7.71 $7.71 - - 20,000 $6,614 $6,756 $7,229 91% 9% $7,229 $7,229 $7,229 $7,229 $6.29 $7.90 $8.45 74% 26% $8.45 $8.45 $8.45 $8.45 - - 50,000 $8,501 $9,126 $9,764 87% 13% $9,764 $9,764 $9,764 $9,764 $2.29 $2.77 $2.97 77% 23% $2.97 $2.97 $2.97 $2.97 - - 100,000 $9,648 $10,513 $11,249 86% 14% $11,249 $11,249 $11,249 $11,249 $9.32 $6.01 $6.43 145% -45% $6.43 $6.43 $6.43 $6.43 I-2, I-3 Medical, surgical, psychiatric, nursing or 1,000 $5,835 $4,564 $4,883 119% -19% $4,883 $4,883 $4,883 $4,883 $12.97 $37.03 $39.62 33% 67% $39.62 $26.30 $39.62 $39.62 - custodial care on a 24-hour basis for more 5,000 $6,355 $6,045 $6,468 98% 2% $6,468 $6,468 $6,468 $6,468 $23.35 $29.99 $32.09 73% 27% $32.09 $32.09 $32.09 $32.09 - than 6 persons; facilities where persons are 10,000 $7,522 $7,544 $8,072 93% 7% $8,072 $8,072 $8,072 $8,072 $6.63 $9.01 $9.64 69% 31% $9.64 $8.13 $9.64 $9.64 - restrained 20,000 $8,185 $8,445 $9,037 91% 9% $9,037 $9,037 $9,037 $9,037 $7.86 $9.87 $10.56 74% 26% $10.56 $10.56 $10.56 $10.56 - - 50,000 $10,543 $11,407 $12,206 86% 14% $12,206 $12,206 $12,206 $12,206 $2.87 $3.47 $3.71 77% 23% $3.71 $3.71 $3.71 $3.71 - - 100,000 $11,977 $13,141 $14,061 85% 15% $14,061 $14,061 $14,061 $14,061 $11.65 $8.93 $9.55 122% -22% $9.55 $9.55 $9.55 $9.55 I-4 Day care operations of more than 6 people 1,000 $5,507 $4,301 $4,602 120% -20% $4,602 $4,602 $4,602 $4,602 $12.52 $34.96 $37.41 33% 67% $37.41 $24.96 $37.41 $37.41 - of any age where the care is for less than 5,000 $6,007 $5,699 $6,098 99% 1% $6,098 $6,098 $6,098 $6,098 $21.15 $27.28 $29.19 72% 28% $29.19 $29.19 $29.19 $29.19 - 24 hours a day 10,000 $7,065 $7,063 $7,558 93% 7% $7,558 $7,558 $7,558 $7,558 $6.25 $8.56 $9.16 68% 32% $9.16 $7.70 $9.16 $9.16 - - 20,000 $7,690 $7,919 $8,473 91% 9% $8,473 $8,473 $8,473 $8,473 $7.27 $9.12 $9.76 75% 25% $9.76 $9.76 $9.76 $9.76 - - 50,000 $9,871 $10,655 $11,401 87% 13% $11,401 $11,401 $11,401 $11,401 $2.64 $3.20 $3.42 77% 23% $3.42 $3.42 $3.42 $3.42 - - 100,000 $11,192 $12,254 $13,112 85% 15% $13,112 $13,112 $13,112 $13,112 $10.86 $9.66 $10.33 105% -5% $10.33 $10.33 $10.33 $10.33 I I Occupancy Tenant Improvements 1,000 $3,481 $2,694 $2,883 121% -21% $2,883 $2,883 $2,883 $2,883 $9.14 $21.63 $23.15 40% 60% $23.15 $16.15 $23.15 $23.15 - - 5,000 $3,847 $3,559 $3,808 101% -1% $3,808 $3,808 $3,808 $3,808 $13.04 $14.29 $15.29 85% 15% $15.29 $15.29 $15.29 $15.29 - - 10,000 $4,499 $4,274 $4,573 98% 2% $4,573 $4,573 $4,573 $4,573 $3.86 $6.70 $7.17 54% 46% $7.17 $5.52 $7.17 $7.17 - - 20,000 $4,885 $4,944 $5,290 92% 8% $5,290 $5,290 $5,290 $5,290 $4.45 $5.66 $6.06 73% 27% $6.06 $6.06 $6.06 $6.06 - - 50,000 $6,220 $6,642 $7,107 88% 12% $7,107 $7,107 $7,107 $7,107 $1.67 $2.00 $2.14 78% 22% $2.14 $2.14 $2.14 $2.14 - - 100,000 $7,057 $7,640 $8,175 86% 14% $8,175 $8,175 $8,175 $8,175 $6.73 $3.69 $3.95 170% -70% $3.95 $3.95 $3.95 $3.95 M Display and sale of merchandise accessible 1,000 $5,092 $3,988 $4,267 119% -19% $4,267 $4,267 $4,267 $4,267 $12.16 $32.33 $34.60 35% 65% $34.60 $23.38 $34.60 $34.60 - to the public 5,000 $5,578 $5,281 $5,651 99% 1% $5,651 $5,651 $5,651 $5,651 $19.53 $25.07 $26.83 73% 27% $26.83 $26.83 $26.83 $26.83 - - 10,000 $6,555 $6,535 $6,992 94% 6% $6,992 $6,992 $6,992 $6,992 $5.78 $8.04 $8.60 67% 33% $8.60 $7.19 $8.60 $8.60 - - 20,000 $7,133 $7,338 $7,852 91% 9% $7,852 $7,852 $7,852 $7,852 $6.69 $8.44 $9.03 74% 26% $9.03 $9.03 $9.03 $9.03 - - 50,000 $9,139 $9,871 $10,562 87% 13% $10,562 $10,562 $10,562 $10,562 $2.45 $2.96 $3.17 77% 23% $3.17 $3.17 $3.17 $3.17 - - 100,000 $10,363 $11,353 $12,148 85% 15% $12,148 $12,148 $12,148 $12,148 $10.03 $7.63 $8.16 123% -23% $8.16 $8.16 $8.16 $8.16 M M Occupancy Tenant Improvements 1,000 $4,839 $3,799 $4,065 119% -19% $4,065 $4,065 $4,065 $4,065 $11.96 $30.61 $32.75 37% 63% $32.75 $22.36 $32.75 $32.75 - - 5,000 $5,318 $5,024 $5,376 99% 1% $5,376 $5,376 $5,376 $5,376 $18.64 $19.85 $21.24 88% 12% $21.24 $21.24 $21.24 $21.24 - - 10,000 $6,249 $6,016 $6,438 97% 3% $6,438 $6,438 $6,438 $6,438 $5.48 $9.68 $10.35 53% 47% $10.35 $7.92 $10.35 $10.35 - - 20,000 $6,797 $6,984 $7,473 91% 9% $7,473 $7,473 $7,473 $7,473 $6.37 $8.02 $8.59 74% 26% $8.59 $8.59 $8.59 $8.59 - - 50,000 $8,709 $9,391 $10,049 87% 13% $10,049 $10,049 $10,049 $10,049 $2.34 $2.83 $3.02 77% 23% $3.02 $3.02 $3.02 $3.02 - - 100,000 $9,879 $10,805 $11,561 85% 15% $11,561 $11,561 $11,561 $11,561 $9.55 $4.39 $4.69 203% -103% $4.69 $4.69 $4.69 $4.69 R-1, R-2 Transient and nontransient lodging including 2,000 $7,021 $6,505 $6,960 101% -1% $6,960 $6,960 $6,960 $6,960 $0.42 $27.90 $29.85 1% 99% $29.85 $10.14 $19.85 $29.85 - hotels, motels, apartments and boarding 10,000 $7,055 $8,737 $9,348 75% 25% $9,348 $9,348 $9,348 $9,348 $10.62 $21.51 $23.01 46% 54% $23.01 $16.82 $23.01 $23.01 - houses 20,000 $8,117 $10,888 $11,650 70% 30% $11,650 $9,883 $11,650 $11,650 $2.51 $5.20 $5.56 45% 55% $5.56 $4.03 $5.56 $5.56 - - 40,000 $8,618 $11,927 $12,762 68% 32% $12,762 $10,690 $12,762 $12,762 $2.47 $6.67 $7.14 35% 65% $7.14 $4.81 $7.14 $7.14 - - 100,000 $10,101 $15,932 $17,047 59% 41% $17,047 $13,574 $17,047 $17,047 $1.28 $2.26 $2.42 53% 47% $2.42 $1.85 $2.42 $2.42 - - 200,000 $11,381 $18,190 $19,463 58% 42% $19,463 $15,422 $19,463 $19,463 $5.15 $7.20 $7.70 67% 33% $7.70 $6.43 $7.70 $7.70 R-3, R-3.1 One and two-family homes; Residentially 1,000 $4,679 $3,866 $4,137 113% -13% $4,137 $4,137 $4,137 $4,137 $3.40 $55.86 $59.77 6% 94% $59.77 $22.00 $40.60 $59.77 R-4 based 24-hour facility for 6 or fewer clients 2,000 $4,713 $4,425 $4,734 100% 0% $4,734 $4,734 $4,734 $4,734 $47.85 $105.16 $112.52 43% 57% $112.52 $80.18 $112.52 $112.52 - of any age; Residential care/assisted living 3,000 $5,192 $5,476 $5,860 89% 11% $5,860 $5,860 $5,860 $5,860 $28.06 $53.80 $57.57 49% 51% $57.57 $42.81 $57.57 $57.57 - for more than 6 ambulatory clients 4,000 $5,472 $6,014 $6,435 85% 15% $6,435 $6,435 $6,435 $6,435 $75.20 $86.86 $92.94 81% 19% $92.94 $92.94 $92.94 $92.94 - - 5,000 $6,224 $6,883 $7,365 85% 15% $7,365 $7,365 $7,365 $7,365 $11.08 $16.79 $17.96 62% 38% $17.96 $14.52 $17.96 $17.96 December 5, 2023 39 of 40
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
435 of 966
CITY OF REDLANDS ‐ EXHIBIT 'A' TO RESOLUTION NO. 8522
FEE SCHEDULE
Recommended Recovery Level - 100% for all fees listed below.

SHELL BUILDINGS
B, M, S All Shell Buildings 1,000 $3,887 $4,037 $4,320 90% 10% $4,320 $4,320 $4,320 $4,320 $1.93 $36.15 $38.68 5% 95% $38.68 $14.06 $26.18 $38.68 - - 5,000 $4,273 $5,483 $5,867 73% 27% $5,867 $5,867 $5,867 $5,867 $2.97 $24.42 $26.13 11% 89% $26.13 $10.61 $18.26 $26.13 - - 10,000 $5,015 $6,704 $7,173 70% 30% $7,173 $6,094 $7,173 $7,173 $0.93 $7.65 $8.19 11% 89% $8.19 $3.33 $5.72 $8.19 - - 20,000 $5,482 $7,469 $7,992 69% 31% $7,992 $6,737 $7,992 $7,992 $0.98 $8.47 $9.07 11% 89% $9.07 $3.65 $6.32 $9.07 - - 50,000 $6,958 $10,012 $10,712 65% 35% $10,712 $8,835 $10,712 $10,712 $0.42 $2.79 $2.99 14% 86% $2.99 $1.27 $2.11 $2.99 - - 100,000 $8,013 $11,407 $12,205 66% 34% $12,205 $10,109 $12,205 $12,205 $1.54 $11.41 $12.21 13% 87% $12.21 $5.06 $8.58 $12.21 December 5, 2023 40 of 40
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
436 of 966

Report on Cost of Services (User Fee) Study

CITY OF REDLANDS, CALIFORNIA

FINAL REPORT

September 2023

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
437 of 966

Table of Contents

1. Introduction and Executive Summary 1

2. Legal Framework and Policy Considerations 4

3. User Fee Study Methodology 8

4. Results Overview 10

5. DSD: Building 11

6. DSD: Planning 36

7. DSD and MUED: Engineering 41

8. FCS: Administration & Street Tree 49

9. FCS: Animal Services 50

10. FCS: Code Enforcement 53

11.FCS: Parks & Recreation and Senior Services 55

13. Fire 62

14. Library 69

15. Finance Department 71

16. Police 73

17. Development Services Surcharges 76

18. Cost Recovery Considerations 80
Appendix – Comparative Survey 85
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
438 of 966

Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Redlands, CA

Matrix Consulting Group 1

1. Introduction and Executive Summary

The report, which follows, presents the results of the Cost of Services (User Fee) Study conducted by the Matrix Consulting Group for the City of Redlands, California. 1 Project Background and Overview

The City of Redlands last conducted a comprehensive citywide formal fee study over 10 years ago. However, in the interim the City has increased fees based upon CPI, as well as done studies of its Building and Safety fees in 2016, and Fire Prevention fees in 2019. The purpose of this study is to comprehensively evaluate and determine the full cost (direct and indirect) of providing all city fee -related services. The Matrix Consulting Group analyzed the cost-of-service relationships that exist between fees for service activities in the following areas: Development Services: Building, Planning, and Engineering, Facility and Community Services: Administration, Animal Services, Code Enforcement, Parks, and Recreation, Fire, Library, Finance, and Police. The results of this Study provide a tool for understanding current service levels and the cost for those services. 2 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 Division. 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 2023 Budgeted salaries, benefits and allowable expenditures.

Indirect

Division, departmental, clerical, and Citywide support.

Together, the cost components in the table above comprise the calculation of the total “full” cost of providing any particular 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:

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
439 of 966

Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Redlands, CA

Matrix Consulting Group 2
• Department / Division Staff Interviews: The project team interviewed department / division staff regarding their needs for clarification to the structure of existing fee items, or for addition of new fee items.

• Data Collection: Data was collected for each permit / service, including time estimates. In addition, all budgeted costs and staffing levels for Fiscal Year 2023 were entered into the 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, as well as legal and policy considerations are provided in subsequent chapters of this report. 3 Summary of Results

When comparing FY23 fee-related budgeted expenditures with fee-related revenue the City is under-recovering its costs by approximately $874,000 or recovering 82% of its costs. The following table shows by major service area
1: the revenue collected, the total
annual cost, the resulting difference, and the resulting cost recovery percentage.

Table 2: Annual Cost Recovery Analysis

Service Area
Total
Revenue
Total
Annual Cost Difference
Cost
Recovery %
Building $2,348,085 $2,363,735 ($15,651) 99%
Planning $395,561 $682,465 ($286,904) 58%
Engineering $588,511 $710,754 ($122,242) 83%
Animal Services $15,593 $91,226 ($75,634) 17%
Code Enforcement $149,680 $158,302 ($8,622) 95%
Fire $92,263 $202,706 ($110,443) 46%
Library $9,802 $11,855 ($2,053) 83%
Finance $256,438 $486,560 ($230,122) 53%
Police $95,118 $117,825 ($22,707) 81%
Total $3,951,050 $4,825,429 ($874,379) 82%

All major service areas under-recover. Animal Services has the lowest cost -recovery percentage at 17%, representing a $76,000 deficit, while Planning at 58% cost recovery has the largest monetary deficit at $287,000. These differences highlight the disparity between current fees charged and the actual cost of providing services. As a means to help bridge the cost-recovery gap, t he City should closely evaluate all service areas, adjusting fees where appropriate.

1 Due to Park & Recreation fees being market -value driven this service area has been excluded.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
440 of 966

Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Redlands, CA

Matrix Consulting Group 3
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 Council members 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 100 percent full cost recovery or lower, is a policy decision to be made only by the Council, with input from City staff and the community.
4 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.
1 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. 2 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 adopts 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. Utilizing an annual increase mechanism would ensure that the City receives appropriate fee increases that reflect growth in costs.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
441 of 966

Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Redlands, CA

Matrix Consulting Group 4

2. Legal Framework and Policy Considerations

This section of the report is intended to provide an overview regarding overall 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, several 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 user fees typically administered by local government 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”.
1 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

“Global” Community Benefit “Global” Benefit and an
Individual or Group Benefit Individual or Group Benefit

• Police
• Park Maintenance
• Fire Suppression

• Recreation / Community
Services
• Fire Prevention

• Building Permits
• Planning and Zoning Approval
• Site Plan Review
• Engineering Development
Review
• Facility Rentals

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, hav e 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 fee, and other funding sources. Finally, in the “individual / Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
442 of 966

Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Redlands, CA

Matrix Consulting Group 5
group benefit” section of the table, lie the services provided by local government that are typically funded almost entirely by user fee revenue.

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. 2 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 the jurisdiction’s ability to charge a fee at all. An example 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 charging a water heater in residential home is higher than the cost of the water heater itself, many citizens will avoid pulling the permit.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
443 of 966

Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Redlands, CA

Matrix Consulting Group 6
• Benefit received by user of the service and the community at large is mutual.

Many services that directly benefit a group or individual equally benefit the community as a whole. 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.
3 Parks and Recreation Specific Regulations
There are specific rules and regulations within the State Law that impact Parks and Recreation related activities directly. These can be separated into two categories – rental rates and recreation programs. The following points provide further information regarding these items:

1. Rental Rates: One of the exceptions to the tax category under proposition 26 is a charge imposed for entrance to or use of local government property, or the purchase, or rental, or lease of local government property

2. There is no requirement
that these rates must be limited to the cost of service, as they can be dependent upon a variety of features of the facility or park being rented.

2. Recreation Programs: Under Proposition 26, the exception to the tax category is a charge that is “imposed”. Based upon the League of California Cities implementation guide for Proposition 26, as well as other legal opinions, recreation classes, youth sports, adult sports, are not a charge that is “imposed upon residents”. Rather residents have the option to voluntarily participate i n those programs and utilize a private entity (non-governmental entity) for those activities.

Therefore, these rates are allowed to be set based upon the market options within the area rather than being restricted to the cost of service being provided.

Utilizing these two principals is key to understanding the results generated through this analysis. As such, any surpluses reflected in the report do not need to be reduced to the cost of service, as the fee amount(s) should be based upon the rates that the market can bear.

2 Proposition 26 Article XIII C(1)(e)(4)
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
444 of 966

Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Redlands, CA

Matrix Consulting Group 7
4 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 time s 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 and where subsidies are identified increase them to reduce the deficit, and where over-recoveries are identified the fee must be reduced to be in compliance with the law.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
445 of 966

Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Redlands, CA

Matrix Consulting Group 8

3. User Fee Study Methodology

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 & 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 e ach 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 since 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 service s. Extremely difficult or abnormally simple projects are not factored in the analysis.

DIRECT
(Salaries, Benefits,
Productive Hours)

INDIRECT
(Departmental Admin,
Services & Supplies,
Citywide Overhead etc.)
Total Cost
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
446 of 966

Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Redlands, CA

Matrix Consulting Group 9
• Estimates reflect the time associated with the position or positions that typically perform a service.

• Estimates provided by staff are reviewed and approved by the department / division, and often involve multiple iterations before a Study is finalized.

• 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.

• 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 for 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 sometimes 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. The Matrix Consulting Group has recommended taking a deposit and charging Actual Costs for such fees as appropriate and itemized within the current fee schedule.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
447 of 966

Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Redlands, CA

Matrix Consulting Group 10

4. Results Overview

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 curr ent 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.

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

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
448 of 966

Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Redlands, CA

Matrix Consulting Group 11

5. DSD: Building and Safety

The Building and Safety Division is responsible for conducting structural, mechanical, electrical, and plumbing plan review and inspections for compliance with state and local building laws and codes. The fees examined within this study relate to various residential and commercial inspections. The following subsections discuss fee schedule modifications, detailed per unit results, and annual revenue impacts. 1 Fee Schedule Modifications
In discussions with staff, the building and safety division proposed adding the following two new fee categories:
• ‘New Cellular / Mobile Phone, free standing’
• ‘New Cellular / Mobile Phone, co-location’

The modifications ensure that the proposed fee schedule more accurately reflects the services being provided by Building & Safety staff.
2 Detailed Results – Flat Fees
The Building Division collect flat fees for plan review and inspection of many services including: carports, antenna, decks, demolition, fences, patios, and various mechanical, electrical, and plumbing fixtures. 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

Fee Name Current Fee Total Cost Difference
Miscellaneous Items Permit Fees
Standard Hourly Rate $128 $137 ($9)
Balcony addition $511 $548 ($37)
Change of Occupancy $575 $616 ($41)
Compliance Inspections/Re-inspections $511 $546 ($35)
Lighting Pole $255 $273 ($18)
Service Required in Excess of Standard $128 $137 ($9)
Re-inspection $128 $137 ($9)
Plan Re-Check $128 $137 ($10)
Research $128 $137 ($10)
Residential Building Reports $64 $69 ($5)
Landscaping $639 $685 ($46)
Skylight (any size) $255 $274 ($19)
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
449 of 966

Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Redlands, CA

Matrix Consulting Group 12
Fee Name Current Fee Total Cost Difference
Spa or Hot Tub (in-ground private) $319 $342 ($23)
Antenna
Equipment Container, any size $383 $411 ($28)
Cellular/Mobile Phone, free-standing $447 $617 ($170)
Cellular/Mobile Phone, co-location $383 $549 ($165)
New Cellular/Mobile Phone, free-standing New $1,783 N/A New Cellular/Mobile Phone, co-location New $1,302 N/A
Carport
Minor (< or = 200 sq ft.) $319 $342 ($23)
Major (> 200 sq ft.) $447 $479 ($32)
Close Existing Openings
Interior wall $255 $274 ($19)
Exterior wall $383 $339 $44
Deck (wood)
Up to 200 sq ft. $319 $342 ($23)
Each additional 100 sq ft. $255 $274 ($18)
With Calcs
Up to 200 sq ft. $383 $411 ($27)
Over 200 sq ft. $447 $479 ($32)
Demolition
Single Family Dwelling $255 $410 ($155)
Multi Family/ Commercial $383 $410 ($27)
New Door
Residential $319 $342 ($23)
Fence or Freestanding Wall
Non-Masonry
Any Size $319 $342 ($23)
Masonry
6 - 8 feet high, pre-engineered $383 $411 ($27)
Each additional 100 linear feet $64 $205 ($141)
Special Design
6 - 10 feet high $575 $616 ($41)
Each additional 100 linear feet $192 $205 ($14)
Over 10 feet high $575 $616 ($41)
Each additional 100 linear feet $192 $205 ($14)
Fireplace
Pre-Fabricated / Metal $255 $274 ($18)
Flag pole (over 30 feet in height) $255 $274 ($18)
Grading (Cut and Fill)
0 - 100 CY $192 $206 ($15)
101 - 1,000 CY $255 $275 ($20)
1,000 - 10,000 CY $383 $412 ($29)
10,001 - 100,000 CY $447 $481 ($34)
100,001 - 200,000 CY $639 $687 ($49)
Each Additional 10,000 CY or portion thereof $77 $82 ($6) Partition - Commercial
Interior (up to 30 l.f.) $255 $274 ($18)
Additional partition $128 $137 ($9)
Patio Cover, Awning, Canopy, Trellis and Arbors
Wood Frame
City Standard $255 $273 ($18)
With calcs $319 $342 ($23)
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
450 of 966

Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Redlands, CA

Matrix Consulting Group 13
Fee Name Current Fee Total Cost Difference
Other frame $319 $342 ($23)
Additional Patio $128 $137 ($9)
Enclosure $319 $342 ($23)
Solar Energy Systems3
Residential
0 -10 kW $450 $479 ($29)
Each Additional kW > 10 kW $15 $14 $1
Non-Residential
0-50 kW $1,000 $1,094 ($94)
51-250 kW $7 $9 ($2)
Each Additional kW >250kW $5 $6 ($1)
Stucco Applications
Stucco Applications $192 $205 ($14)
Additional Stucco Application $128 $137 ($9)
Repairs For Fire, Water, Decay & Pests
<$10,000 $766 $821 ($55)
$10,000 - 25,000 $766 $821 ($55)
$25,001 - 100,000 $1,022 $1,095 ($74)
> $100,000 $1,149 $1,232 ($82)
Retaining Wall (concrete or masonry)
First 50 linear feet $383 $411 ($27)
Additional retaining wall $64 $68 ($4)
Special Design
3 - 10 feet high (up to 50 linear feet) $447 $479 ($32) Additional retaining wall $64 $68 ($4)
Over 10 feet high (up to 50 linear feet) $702 $753 ($51) Additional retaining wall $64 $68 ($4)
Remodel - Residential
500 square foot Single Story $639 $685 ($46)
501 - 1,000 sq. ft. $702 $1,027 ($325)
Additional remodel $255 $274 ($18)
Re-roof
Single Family Dwelling / Duplex
Any Size $383 $411 ($27)
Re-roof Multi-Family/Comm./Ind.

Minor Repair < 500 sq. ft. $192 $205 ($14)
501 - 3,000 sq. ft. $319 $342 ($23)
3,001 - 10,000 sq. ft. $447 $478 ($31)
> 10,001 sq. ft. $64 $68 ($4)
Roof Structure Replacement
Roof Structure Replacement $639 $684 ($45)
Additional roof structure replacement $128 $137 ($9)
Residential Additions (one story)
Up to 500 sq. ft. $575 $685 ($110)
501 - 1,000 sq. ft. $766 $1,027 ($261)
> 1,000 sq. ft. $96 $274 ($178)
Siding
Stone and Brick Veneer (interior or exterior) $255 $274 ($18) Additional siding $96 $102 ($7)
Signs

3 Current fees for Solar Energy Systems are based on AB1414.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
451 of 966

Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Redlands, CA

Matrix Consulting Group 14
Fee Name Current Fee Total Cost Difference
Monument $511 $547 ($36)
Wall-mounted Fixture $255 $274 ($19)
Free-standing $319 $342 ($23)
Storage Racks
Any Height (up to 100 linear feet) $383 $411 ($27)
Each additional 100 linear feet $32 $34 ($2)
Swimming Pool / Spa
Private
< 800 sq. ft. $639 $684 ($45)
> 800 sq. ft. $766 $749 $18
Heater $96 $102 ($7)
Temporary Utility Connection or Occupancy $128 $137 ($9) Window or Sliding Glass Door
Residential Replacement
Quantity 1-4 $192 $205 ($14)
Quantity 5 or more $32 $34 ($2)
New Window (non-structural) $255 $274 ($18)
Off-hours inspection (min 3 hours)
First Hour $383 $410 ($27)
Each Additional Hour $192 $205 ($13)
Mechanical, Electrical & Plumbing Permit Fees
Administrative and Misc. Fees
Permit Issuance $64 $69 ($5)
Mechanical Permit Fees
Stand Alone Mechanical Plan Check (hourly rate) $128 $137 ($10) Unit Fees
A/C, Residential $192 $206 ($14)
Heater (Wall) $192 $206 ($14)
Appliance Vent / Chimney (only) $192 $206 ($14)
Boiler $192 $206 ($14)
Chiller $511 $548 ($37)
Evaporative Cooler $192 $206 ($14)
Moisture Exhaust Duct (Clothes Dryer) $192 $206 ($14)
Vent Fan, Single Duct $192 $206 ($14)
Vent System $383 $411 ($27)
Exhaust Hood and Duct (Residential) $383 $411 ($27)
Non-Residential Incinerator $255 $274 ($19)
Appliance or piece of equipment not classed in other
appliance categories, or for which no other fee is
listed $192 $206 ($14)
Other Fees
Installation or relocation of any duct system $192 $206 ($14) For Each Process Piping System of 1 to 2 Outlets $128 $137 ($9) For each additional process piping outlet $64 $69 ($5)
Other Mechanical Inspections $128 $137 ($9)
Plumbing / Gas Permit Fees
Permit Issuance $64 $69 ($5)
Stand Alone Plumbing Plan Check $128 $137 ($10)
Unit Fees
Plumbing fixture or trap or set of fixtures on one trap, including water, drainage piping, and backflow
protection $192 $206 ($14)
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
452 of 966

Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Redlands, CA

Matrix Consulting Group 15
Fee Name Current Fee Total Cost Difference
Building or trailer park sewer $192 $206 ($14)
Rainwater system inside building $192 $206 ($14)
Private sewage disposal system $192 $206 ($14)
Water Heater $192 $206 ($14)
Industrial waste pretreatment interceptor, including
its trap and vent, excepting kitchen-type grease
interceptors functioning as fixture traps $575 $616 ($42) Underground utilities (sewer, storm, water)
Exception: Single Family Dwellings $192 $206 ($14)
Other Fees
Install/Alter/Repair water piping and/or water
treating equipment $192 $205 ($14)
For repair or alteration of drainage or vent piping $192 $205 ($14) For each lawn sprinkler system on any one meter,
including backflow protection devices therefor $192 $206 ($14) Backflow Protective Devices
Atmospheric-type vacuum breakers $192 $206 ($14)
1 to 5 $64 $68 ($4)
over 5 (each) $38 $41 ($3)
Devices other than atmospheric-type vacuum
breakers $192 $206 ($14)
Gas Piping System
1 - 4 outlets $192 $206 ($14)
5 or more outlets $192 $206 ($14)
Other Plumbing and Gas Inspections $128 $137 ($9)
Electrical Permit Fees
Permit Issuance $64 $69 ($5)
Stand Alone Electrical Plan Check $128 $137 ($10)
Swimming pools, therapeutic whirlpools, spas and
alterations to existing swimming
pools. Use unit fee schedule for itemized work. $192 $206 ($14) Temporary power; Temporary power to a permanent
location; Temporary service power pole or pedestal
including all pole or pedestal-mounted receptacle
outlets and appurtenances $192 $206 ($14)
For a temporary distribution system and temporary
lighting and receptacle outlets for construction sites, decorative light, Christmas tree lots, firework stands, etc. $192 $206 ($14)
Unit Fees
Receptable, Switch, and Light Outlets
First 20 $192 $206 ($14)
Each Additional 20 Outlets $64 $69 ($5)
Lighting Fixtures
First 20 $192 $206 ($14)
Each Additional Outlet $64 $69 ($5)
For pole or platform-mounted lighting fixtures $64 $69 ($5) For theatrical-type lighting fixtures or assemblies $128 $137 ($9) Residential Appliances
Appliances or receptacle outlets $192 $206 ($14)
Non-Residential Appliances
Appliances $192 $206 ($14)
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
453 of 966

Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Redlands, CA

Matrix Consulting Group 16
Fee Name Current Fee Total Cost Difference
Power Apparatus
Up to and including 1 $192 $206 ($14)
Over 1 and not over 10 $192 $206 ($14)
Over 10 and not over 50 $255 $274 ($19)
Over 50 and not over 100 $383 $411 ($28)
Over 100 $447 $479 ($32)
Panelboards
Installation or relocation of panelboard $192 $206 ($14) Busways
For trolley and plug-in-type busways $192 $206 ($14)
Signs, Outline Lighting, and Marquees
One branch circuit $192 $206 ($14)
Electrical Services
600 volts or less; up to 1,000 amperes in rating $192 $206 ($14) Over 600 volts or over 1,000 amperes in rating $511 $548 ($37) Other Fees
For electrical apparatus, conduits and conductors for
which a permit is required but for which no fee is
herein set forth $192 $206 ($14)
Other Electrical Inspections $128 $137 ($9)

With the exception of ‘Swimming Pool / Spa – Private – greater than 800 sq. ft.’ which over-recovers by $18, all of Buildings flat fees under-recover. The largest deficits are a result of staff providing increased estimates for the amount of time it takes them to provide the services. Compared to the previous Development Services fee study conducted, staff increased the time estimate for ‘Remodel – Residential – 501-1,000 sq. ft.’ from five hours to seven hours, resulting in a deficit of $325. Additional large deficits are in relation to ‘Residential Additions (one story) – 501-1,000 sq. ft.’ and ‘Residential Additions (one story) > 1,000 sq. ft.’ at $261 and $178 respectively. 2 Detailed Results – Occupancy, Construction Material, & Square Footage
The Building Division collect various fees based on occupancy type, construction material, and square footage of the project . The total cost calculated for each service includes direct staff costs, cross-departmental support,4 and Departmental and Citywide overhead. The following three table are broken out by construction type and include: IBC class, building use / occupancy type, square footage, and the current fee, total cost calculated, and the resulting difference.

4 Building receives cross-departmental support from the Planning and Engineering Divisions and Fire Department.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
454 of 966

Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Redlands, CA

Matrix Consulting Group 17
Current Fee Total Cost Difference
Construction Type Construction Type Construction Type

IA, IB IA, IB IA, IB
Related
IBC
Class
Building Use
(e.g., IBC Occupancy Type) Sq. Ft.

Base Cost @
Threshold
Size
Cost for Each
Additional
100 sf *
Base Cost @
Threshold
Size
Cost for Each
Additional
100 sf *
Base Cost @
Threshold
Size
Cost for Each
Additional
100 sf *
A-1 Assembly uses, usually with
fixed seating, intended for the
production and viewing of the
performing arts or motion
pictures.
2,000 $7,433 $5.44 $5,781 $24.10 $1,652 ($18.66)
10,000 $7,867 $13.11 $7,709 $19.42 $159 ($6.30)
20,000 $9,179 $4.27 $9,650 $4.74 ($472) ($0.47)
40,000 $10,033 $4.67 $10,599 $5.98 ($566) ($1.32)
100,000 $12,832 $1.62 $14,188 $2.06 ($1,356) ($0.44)
200,000 $14,457 $7.03 $16,250 $3.94 ($1,793) $3.08
A-2 Assembly uses intended for
food and/or drink
consumption
1,000 $10,634 $15.31 $8,408 $70.67 $2,227 ($55.35)
5,000 $11,248 $34.70 $11,234 $51.05 $13 ($16.36)
10,000 $12,982 $12.25 $13,787 $15.00 ($805) ($2.75)
20,000 $14,207 $13.06 $15,287 $16.78 ($1,080) ($3.72) 50,000 $18,125 $4.42 $20,321 $5.74 ($2,195) ($1.32)
100,000 $20,336 $19.93 $23,190 $15.27 ($2,854) $4.66
A-3, A-
4 Assembly uses intended for
worship; intended for viewing
of outdoor sporting events
and activities with spectators.
1,000 $10,157 $14.50 $8,073 $67.56 $2,084 ($53.06)
5,000 $10,737 $33.19 $10,776 $47.89 ($39) ($14.69)
10,000 $12,397 $11.72 $13,170 $14.92 ($773) ($3.21)
20,000 $13,568 $12.45 $14,662 $16.06 ($1,094) ($3.61) 50,000 $17,302 $4.23 $19,480 $5.51 ($2,177) ($1.28)
100,000 $19,416 $19.01 $22,233 $15.85 ($2,817) $3.16
A-4 See Above 500 $8,206 $23.17 $6,458 $108.10 $1,748 ($84.93) 2,500 $8,670 $53.16 $8,620 $76.62 $50 ($23.46)
5,000 $9,999 $18.73 $10,536 $23.87 ($537) ($5.14)
10,000 $10,936 $19.94 $11,730 $25.69 ($794) ($5.76)
25,000 $13,926 $6.75 $15,584 $8.81 ($1,657) ($2.06)
50,000 $15,614 $30.42 $17,787 $19.50 ($2,172) $10.92
A-5 Assembly—Outdoor Activities
Amusement Park, Bleacher,
Stadium
1,500 $10,470 $9.99 $8,331 $46.14 $2,138 ($36.15)
7,500 $11,069 $23.79 $11,100 $33.87 ($31) ($10.08)
15,000 $12,853 $8.04 $13,640 $10.20 ($787) ($2.17)
30,000 $14,059 $8.74 $15,170 $11.19 ($1,112) ($2.45)
75,000 $17,992 $2.92 $20,207 $3.86 ($2,215) ($0.94)
150,000 $20,182 $13.18 $23,102 $10.86 ($2,919) $2.33
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
455 of 966

Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Redlands, CA

Matrix Consulting Group 18
Current Fee Total Cost Difference
Construction Type Construction Type Construction Type

IA, IB IA, IB IA, IB
Related
IBC
Class
Building Use
(e.g., IBC Occupancy Type) Sq. Ft.

Base Cost @
Threshold
Size
Cost for Each
Additional
100 sf *
Base Cost @
Threshold
Size
Cost for Each
Additional
100 sf *
Base Cost @
Threshold
Size
Cost for Each
Additional
100 sf *
A A Occupancy Tenant
Improvements

1,000 $8,394 $8.79 $6,922 $57.87 $1,471 ($49.07)
5,000 $8,745 $26.90 $9,237 $28.74 ($491) ($1.84)
10,000 $10,090 $9.86 $10,674 $18.56 ($584) ($8.70)
20,000 $11,077 $9.99 $12,530 $13.58 ($1,453) ($3.59)
50,000 $14,075 $3.42 $16,605 $4.66 ($2,530) ($1.24)
100,000 $15,785 $15.38 $18,934 $11.82 ($3,148) $3.56
B Business – Professional
Office. Buildings or spaces for
office professional or service
type transactions, including
storage of records and
accounts;
1,000 $8,999 $13.95 $7,237 $62.22 $1,763 ($48.27)
5,000 $9,558 $28.61 $9,726 $42.18 ($168) ($13.57)
10,000 $10,987 $10.41 $11,835 $11.87 ($847) ($1.46)
20,000 $12,029 $10.85 $13,022 $11.86 ($993) ($1.01)
50,000 $15,285 $3.74 $16,581 $4.46 ($1,295) ($0.71)
100,000 $17,157 $16.75 $18,809 $15.61 ($1,652) $1.14
B B Occupancy Tenant
Improvements. Buildings or
spaces for office professional
or service type transactions,
including storage of records /
accounts.
200 $7,539 $8.17 $3,227 $131.79 $4,312 ($123.61)
1,000 $7,866 $24.29 $4,281 $19.58 $3,585 $4.70
2,000 $9,080 $8.86 $4,477 $66.43 $4,603 ($57.57)
4,000 $9,966 $8.93 $5,806 $31.09 $4,161 ($22.16)
10,000 $12,646 $3.11 $7,671 $10.81 $4,975 ($7.70)
20,000 $14,204 $13.80 $8,752 $10.19 $5,452 $3.61
E Educational Buildings or
rooms used by more than 6
persons for educational
purposes up to the 12th grade.

Daycare for 6 or more children
older than 2.5 yrs of age.
500 $8,324 $22.87 $6,766 $113.52 $1,558 ($90.65)
2,500 $8,782 $52.37 $9,036 $60.21 ($254) ($7.85)
5,000 $10,091 $18.74 $10,541 $34.58 ($450) ($15.84)
10,000 $11,027 $20.01 $12,270 $26.74 ($1,243) ($6.73) 25,000 $14,029 $6.75 $16,281 $9.15 ($2,253) ($2.41)
50,000 $15,716 $30.58 $18,569 $27.82 ($2,854) $2.76
E E Occupancy Tenant
Improvements Buildings or
rooms used by more than 6
persons for educational
purposes up to the 12th
grade. Daycare for 6 or more
children older than 2.5 yrs of
age.
1,000 $7,643 $8.02 $4,936 $39.59 $2,707 ($31.57)
5,000 $7,964 $23.35 $6,519 $16.47 $1,445 $6.88
10,000 $9,132 $8.99 $7,343 $15.94 $1,789 ($6.96)
20,000 $10,030 $8.84 $8,937 $9.82 $1,093 ($0.99)
50,000 $12,682 $3.05 $11,884 $4.32 $798 ($1.27)
100,000 $14,206 $13.78 $14,043 $6.45 $164 $7.33
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
456 of 966

Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Redlands, CA

Matrix Consulting Group 19
Current Fee Total Cost Difference
Construction Type Construction Type Construction Type

IA, IB IA, IB IA, IB
Related
IBC
Class
Building Use
(e.g., IBC Occupancy Type) Sq. Ft.

Base Cost @
Threshold
Size
Cost for Each
Additional
100 sf *
Base Cost @
Threshold
Size
Cost for Each
Additional
100 sf *
Base Cost @
Threshold
Size
Cost for Each
Additional
100 sf *
F-1 Factory Industrial—Moderate
Hazard. Factory and Industrial
Uses that include the
fabrication or manufacturing
of Moderate & Low Hazard
Materials.
20,000 $8,407 $3.85 $8,882 $4.19 ($475) ($0.34)
50,000 $9,562 $3.41 $10,138 $3.92 ($577) ($0.51)
100,000 $11,266 $1.21 $12,098 $1.31 ($832) ($0.10)
250,000 $13,080 $1.10 $14,065 $1.20 ($985) ($0.10)
500,000 $15,823 $0.93 $17,057 $1.01 ($1,234) ($0.08)
1,000,000 $20,471 $2.01 $22,095 $1.80 ($1,624) $0.21
F F Occupancy Tenant
Improvements. Factory and
Industrial Uses that include
the fabrication or
manufacturing of Moderate &
Low Hazard Materials.
2,000 $4,918 $5.34 $4,081 $16.33 $836 ($10.99)
10,000 $5,346 $9.86 $5,388 $12.06 ($42) ($2.20)
20,000 $6,331 $2.89 $6,594 $4.57 ($263) ($1.67)
40,000 $6,910 $3.26 $7,507 $4.33 ($597) ($1.07)
100,000 $8,865 $1.20 $10,104 $1.53 ($1,240) ($0.33)
200,000 $10,065 $4.87 $11,636 $3.75 ($1,570) $1.12
H-1, H-2 High Hazard: Detonation
Hazard; Deflagration Hazard
or hazard from accelerated
burning; Materials that readily
support combustion;
Materials that are health
1,000 $5,124 $10.00 $4,180 $33.59 $944 ($23.60)
5,000 $5,524 $21.88 $5,524 $28.54 $1 ($6.65)
10,000 $6,618 $5.68 $6,950 $8.39 ($332) ($2.71)
20,000 $7,186 $7.11 $7,789 $9.31 ($603) ($2.20)
50,000 $9,320 $2.57 $10,582 $3.29 ($1,263) ($0.72)
hazards. 100,000 $10,605 $10.27 $12,228 $7.96 ($1,623) $2.32 H High Hazard: 1,000 $5,231 $11.00 $4,352 $34.68 $878 ($23.69) Detonation Hazard 5,000 $5,671 $21.61 $5,739 $8.15 ($69) $13.46 10,000 $6,751 $5.85 $6,147 $18.94 $604 ($13.10)
20,000 $7,336 $7.14 $8,041 $9.40 ($705) ($2.27)
50,000 $9,478 $2.59 $10,863 $3.34 ($1,385) ($0.74)
100,000 $10,775 $10.44 $12,531 $7.13 ($1,756) $3.32
I-1 Housing of clients on a 24-
hour basis in a supervised
residential environment
providing personal care
services.
1,000 $6,730 $12.25 $5,477 $44.44 $1,254 ($32.18)
5,000 $7,221 $27.18 $7,254 $35.99 ($33) ($8.81)
10,000 $8,580 $7.60 $9,053 $10.81 ($474) ($3.21)
20,000 $9,339 $9.13 $10,134 $11.85 ($795) ($2.72)
50,000 $12,079 $3.25 $13,688 $4.16 ($1,609) ($0.91)
100,000 $13,706 $13.37 $15,769 $9.01 ($2,063) $4.36
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
457 of 966

Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Redlands, CA

Matrix Consulting Group 20
Current Fee Total Cost Difference
Construction Type Construction Type Construction Type

IA, IB IA, IB IA, IB
Related
IBC
Class
Building Use
(e.g., IBC Occupancy Type) Sq. Ft.

Base Cost @
Threshold
Size
Cost for Each
Additional
100 sf *
Base Cost @
Threshold
Size
Cost for Each
Additional
100 sf *
Base Cost @
Threshold
Size
Cost for Each
Additional
100 sf *
I-2, I-3

Medical, surgical, psychiatric,
nursing or custodial care on a
24-hour basis for more than 6
persons; facilities where
persons are restrained.

1,000 $8,330 $15.32 $6,846 $55.54 $1,484 ($40.23)
5,000 $8,943 $33.97 $9,067 $44.98 ($124) ($11.01)
10,000 $10,641 $9.50 $11,317 $13.52 ($676) ($4.01)
20,000 $11,592 $11.41 $12,668 $14.81 ($1,076) ($3.39) 50,000 $15,016 $4.07 $17,111 $5.20 ($2,094) ($1.13)
100,000 $17,050 $16.72 $19,711 $13.39 ($2,662) $3.32
I-4 Day care operations of more
than 6 people of any age
where the care is for less than
24 hours a day.
1,000 $7,837 $14.63 $6,451 $52.44 $1,386 ($37.81)
5,000 $8,423 $30.66 $8,549 $40.92 ($126) ($10.26)
10,000 $9,956 $8.94 $10,595 $12.84 ($639) ($3.90)
20,000 $10,850 $10.53 $11,879 $13.68 ($1,029) ($3.15) 50,000 $14,007 $3.73 $15,983 $4.80 ($1,976) ($1.07)
100,000 $15,872 $15.54 $18,381 $14.48 ($2,509) $1.06
I I Occupancy Tenant
Improvements

1,000 $4,851 $10.40 $4,041 $32.45 $810 ($22.05)
5,000 $5,266 $18.72 $5,339 $21.43 ($73) ($2.71)
10,000 $6,202 $5.45 $6,410 $10.06 ($208) ($4.61)
20,000 $6,748 $6.37 $7,416 $8.49 ($669) ($2.12)
50,000 $8,658 $2.32 $9,963 $3.00 ($1,305) ($0.67)
100,000 $9,820 $9.49 $11,461 $5.53 ($1,641) $3.95
M Display and sale of
merchandise accessible to the
public.
1,000 $7,214 $14.09 $5,982 $48.50 $1,233 ($34.41)
5,000 $7,778 $28.24 $7,922 $37.61 ($144) ($9.37)
10,000 $9,191 $8.23 $9,802 $12.06 ($611) ($3.83)
20,000 $10,014 $9.66 $11,008 $12.66 ($994) ($3.01)
50,000 $12,910 $3.44 $14,807 $4.45 ($1,897) ($1.01)
100,000 $14,629 $14.30 $17,029 $11.44 ($2,401) $2.85
M M Occupancy Tenant
Improvements

1,000 $6,836 $13.79 $5,699 $45.92 $1,137 ($32.12)
5,000 $7,388 $26.90 $7,536 $29.78 ($148) ($2.88)
10,000 $8,732 $7.78 $9,025 $14.52 ($292) ($6.74)
20,000 $9,510 $9.18 $10,476 $12.04 ($966) ($2.85)
50,000 $12,264 $3.28 $14,087 $4.24 ($1,823) ($0.96)
100,000 $13,903 $13.57 $16,208 $6.58 ($2,305) $6.99
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
458 of 966

Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Redlands, CA

Matrix Consulting Group 21
Current Fee Total Cost Difference
Construction Type Construction Type Construction Type

IA, IB IA, IB IA, IB
Related
IBC
Class
Building Use
(e.g., IBC Occupancy Type) Sq. Ft.

Base Cost @
Threshold
Size
Cost for Each
Additional
100 sf *
Base Cost @
Threshold
Size
Cost for Each
Additional
100 sf *
Base Cost @
Threshold
Size
Cost for Each
Additional
100 sf *
R-1, R-2 Transient and nontransient
lodging including hotels,
motels, apartments, and
boarding houses.
2,000 $9,994 $0.64 $9,758 $41.85 $237 ($41.21)
10,000 $10,046 $15.93 $13,105 $32.26 ($3,059) ($16.33) 20,000 $11,638 $3.76 $16,331 $7.80 ($4,693) ($4.04)
40,000 $12,390 $3.71 $17,891 $10.01 ($5,501) ($6.31)
100,000 $14,614 $1.92 $23,898 $3.39 ($9,284) ($1.47)
200,000 $16,534 $7.73 $27,284 $10.80 ($10,750) ($3.07) R-3, R-

3.1, R-4
One and two-family homes;
Residentially based 24-hour
facility for 6 or fewer clients
of any age; Residential care /
assisted living for more than 6
ambulatory clients.
1,000 $6,618 $5.10 $5,799 $83.79 $819 ($78.69)
2,000 $6,669 $71.78 $6,637 $157.73 $32 ($85.96)
3,000 $7,387 $42.09 $8,214 $80.70 ($828) ($38.62)
4,000 $7,807 $112.80 $9,021 $130.29 ($1,214) ($17.49) 5,000 $8,936 $16.62 $10,324 $25.18 ($1,389) ($8.56)
10,000 $9,766 $89.66 $11,583 $80.50 ($1,817) $9.16
R-3 REPEAT OF MODEL 1,000 $4,906 $3.91 $4,338 $88.29 $568 ($84.38) One and two family homes. 2,000 $4,944 $44.67 $5,221 $62.06 ($277) ($17.39) 3,000 $5,391 $28.43 $5,842 $135.60 ($451) ($107.17)
4,000 $5,676 $73.54 $7,198 $168.11 ($1,522) ($94.57)
5,000 $6,411 $10.15 $8,879 $24.82 ($2,468) ($14.67)
10,000 $6,919 $61.18 $10,120 $51.07 ($3,201) $10.10
S-1 Storage—Moderate Hazard,
Repair Garage, Motor Vehicles
(not High Hazard)

500 $4,701 $14.16 $5,268 $85.94 ($567) ($71.79)
2,500 $4,985 $35.00 $6,987 $40.78 ($2,002) ($5.78)
5,000 $5,860 $10.42 $8,006 $32.63 ($2,146) ($22.22)
10,000 $6,381 $12.08 $9,638 $21.76 ($3,257) ($9.68)
25,000 $8,193 $4.26 $12,902 $9.71 ($4,709) ($5.45)
50,000 $9,258 $17.85 $15,330 $20.63 ($6,072) ($2.78)
S-2 Storage—Low Hazard Storage 500 $5,770 $17.55 $5,117 $83.16 $653 ($65.60) 2,500 $6,120 $42.93 $6,780 $38.80 ($659) $4.13
5,000 $7,194 $12.99 $7,750 $32.09 ($556) ($19.10)
10,000 $7,843 $14.93 $9,354 $21.10 ($1,511) ($6.17)
25,000 $10,083 $5.24 $12,519 $7.39 ($2,436) ($2.14)
50,000 $11,393 $22.12 $14,365 $19.89 ($2,972) $2.24
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
459 of 966

Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Redlands, CA

Matrix Consulting Group 22
Current Fee Total Cost Difference
Construction Type Construction Type Construction Type

IA, IB IA, IB IA, IB
Related
IBC
Class
Building Use
(e.g., IBC Occupancy Type) Sq. Ft.

Base Cost @
Threshold
Size
Cost for Each
Additional
100 sf *
Base Cost @
Threshold
Size
Cost for Each
Additional
100 sf *
Base Cost @
Threshold
Size
Cost for Each
Additional
100 sf *
S S Occupancy Tenant
Improvements

1,000 $4,856 $8.23 $4,620 $37.66 $236 ($29.42)
5,000 $5,185 $19.27 $6,127 $14.65 ($941) $4.62
10,000 $6,148 $5.44 $6,859 $16.35 ($711) ($10.91)
20,000 $6,693 $6.44 $8,494 $9.73 ($1,802) ($3.29)
50,000 $8,626 $2.36 $11,414 $3.40 ($2,788) ($1.05)
100,000 $9,804 $9.47 $13,116 $8.68 ($3,312) $0.79
U Accessory and miscellaneous
structure not specifically
classified.
1,000 $4,948 $7.89 $4,521 $36.83 $427 ($28.94)
5,000 $5,264 $17.02 $5,994 $15.93 ($730) $1.09
10,000 $6,115 $5.84 $6,791 $13.78 ($676) ($7.94)
20,000 $6,699 $6.02 $8,169 $8.88 ($1,470) ($2.86)
50,000 $8,504 $2.18 $10,833 $3.10 ($2,329) ($0.92)
100,000 $9,594 $9.26 $12,382 $6.39 ($2,788) $2.87
B, M, S All Shell Buildings 1,000 $5,432 $2.20 $6,056 $54.22 ($624) ($52.02) 5,000 $5,873 $4.22 $8,225 $36.63 ($2,352) ($32.41)
10,000 $6,928 $1.29 $10,056 $11.48 ($3,128) ($10.19)
20,000 $7,574 $1.41 $11,204 $12.71 ($3,630) ($11.30)
50,000 $9,691 $0.57 $15,017 $4.19 ($5,327) ($3.62)
100,000 $11,111 $2.16 $17,110 $17.11 ($5,999) ($14.95)

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
460 of 966

Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Redlands, CA

Matrix Consulting Group 23

Current Fee Total Cost Difference

Construction Type Construction Type Construction Type

IIA, IIB, IIIA, IIIB, IV IIA, IIB, IIIA, IIIB, IV IIA, IIB, IIIA, IIIB, IV Related
IBC
Class
Building Use
(e.g., IBC Occupancy Type)
Sq. Ft.

Base Cost @
Threshold
Size
Cost for Each
Additional
100 sf *
Base Cost @
Threshold
Size
Cost for Each
Additional
100 sf *
Base Cost @
Threshold
Size
Cost for Each
Additional
100 sf *
A-1 Assembly uses, usually with
fixed seating, intended for the
production and viewing of the
performing arts or motion
pictures.
2,000 $6,319 $4.97 $4,817 $20.08 $1,502 ($15.11)
10,000 $6,717 $11.07 $6,424 $16.18 $293 ($5.11)
20,000 $7,823 $3.63 $8,042 $3.95 ($219) ($0.33)
40,000 $8,548 $3.93 $8,832 $4.98 ($284) ($1.06)
100,000 $10,907 $1.38 $11,823 $1.72 ($917) ($0.34)
200,000 $12,287 $5.94 $13,542 $3.28 ($1,255) $2.66
A-2 Assembly uses intended for
food and/or drink
consumption
1,000 $9,012 $14.06 $7,006 $58.89 $2,006 ($44.83)
5,000 $9,574 $29.25 $9,362 $42.54 $212 ($13.29)
10,000 $11,037 $10.35 $11,489 $12.50 ($452) ($2.15)
20,000 $12,072 $11.01 $12,739 $13.98 ($668) ($2.98)
50,000 $15,373 $3.75 $16,934 $4.78 ($1,561) ($1.03)
100,000 $17,251 $16.84 $19,325 $12.73 ($2,075) $4.12
A-3, A-4 Assembly uses intended for
worship; intended for viewing
of outdoor sporting events
and activities with spectators.
1,000 $8,609 $13.31 $6,728 $56.30 $1,881 ($42.99)
5,000 $9,141 $27.99 $8,980 $39.91 $162 ($11.91)
10,000 $10,541 $9.91 $10,975 $12.43 ($434) ($2.53)
20,000 $11,532 $10.49 $12,218 $13.38 ($687) ($2.90)
50,000 $14,677 $3.59 $16,233 $4.59 ($1,556) ($1.00)
100,000 $16,474 $16.07 $18,528 $13.21 ($2,054) $2.86
A-4 See Above 500 $6,968 $21.25 $5,382 $90.08 $1,586 ($68.83) 2,500 $7,393 $44.84 $7,184 $63.85 $209 ($19.01)
5,000 $8,514 $15.84 $8,780 $19.90 ($266) ($4.06)
10,000 $9,307 $16.80 $9,775 $21.41 ($468) ($4.61)
25,000 $11,826 $5.73 $12,986 $7.34 ($1,160) ($1.61)
50,000 $13,261 $25.71 $14,822 $16.25 ($1,562) $9.46
A-5 Assembly—Outdoor Activities
Amusement Park, Bleacher,
Stadium
1,500 $8,870 $9.14 $6,943 $38.45 $1,927 ($29.32)
7,500 $9,418 $20.05 $9,250 $28.22 $168 ($8.17)
15,000 $10,922 $6.79 $11,367 $8.50 ($445) ($1.71)
30,000 $11,940 $7.36 $12,642 $9.33 ($702) ($1.97)
75,000 $15,253 $2.47 $16,839 $3.22 ($1,586) ($0.74)
150,000 $17,109 $11.13 $19,251 $9.05 ($2,143) $2.09
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
461 of 966

Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Redlands, CA

Matrix Consulting Group 24

Current Fee Total Cost Difference

Construction Type Construction Type Construction Type

IIA, IIB, IIIA, IIIB, IV IIA, IIB, IIIA, IIIB, IV IIA, IIB, IIIA, IIIB, IV Related
IBC
Class
Building Use
(e.g., IBC Occupancy Type)
Sq. Ft.

1,000 $7,100 $7.82 $5,768 $48.22 $1,332 ($40.40)
5,000 $7,413 $22.68 $7,697 $23.95 ($284) ($1.28)
10,000 $8,547 $8.35 $8,895 $15.47 ($347) ($7.12)
20,000 $9,382 $8.38 $10,441 $11.32 ($1,059) ($2.94)
50,000 $11,895 $2.90 $13,838 $3.88 ($1,942) ($0.98)
100,000 $13,345 $12.94 $15,778 $9.85 ($2,433) $3.09
B Business – Professional
Office. Buildings or spaces for
office professional or service
type transactions, including
storage of records and
accounts;
1,000 $7,651 $12.93 $6,031 $51.85 $1,621 ($38.92)
5,000 $8,169 $24.21 $8,105 $35.15 $64 ($10.94)
10,000 $9,379 $8.83 $9,862 $9.89 ($483) ($1.06)
20,000 $10,262 $9.17 $10,852 $9.88 ($590) ($0.71)
50,000 $13,014 $3.20 $13,817 $3.71 ($803) ($0.52)
100,000 $14,613 $14.21 $15,674 $13.01 ($1,061) $1.20
B B Occupancy Tenant
Improvements. Buildings or
spaces for office professional
or service type transactions,
including storage of records /
accounts.
200 $6,388 $7.30 $2,689 $109.82 $3,699 ($102.52)
1,000 $6,681 $20.50 $3,568 $16.32 $3,113 $4.18
2,000 $7,705 $7.51 $3,731 $55.35 $3,974 ($47.84)
4,000 $8,457 $7.49 $4,838 $25.91 $3,619 ($18.42)
10,000 $10,704 $2.65 $6,393 $9.01 $4,312 ($6.36)
20,000 $12,028 $11.62 $7,294 $8.49 $4,734 $3.13
E Educational Buildings or
rooms used by more than 6
persons for educational
purposes up to the 12th grade.

Daycare for 6 or more children
older than 2.5 yrs of age.
500 $7,067 $20.96 $5,638 $94.60 $1,429 ($73.64)
2,500 $7,486 $44.09 $7,530 $50.18 ($44) ($6.09)
5,000 $8,588 $15.80 $8,784 $28.82 ($196) ($13.02)
10,000 $9,378 $16.86 $10,225 $22.28 ($847) ($5.43)
25,000 $11,906 $5.73 $13,568 $7.63 ($1,662) ($1.90)
50,000 $13,338 $25.82 $15,474 $23.19 ($2,136) $2.64
E E Occupancy Tenant
Improvements Buildings or
rooms used by more than 6
persons for educational
purposes up to the 12th
grade. Daycare for 6 or more
children older than 2.5 yrs of
age.
1,000 $6,479 $7.17 $4,113 $32.99 $2,365 ($25.82)
5,000 $6,765 $19.72 $5,433 $13.72 $1,332 $5.99
10,000 $7,751 $7.62 $6,119 $13.29 $1,632 ($5.66)
20,000 $8,513 $7.41 $7,448 $8.19 $1,065 ($0.77)
50,000 $10,737 $2.59 $9,903 $3.60 $833 ($1.00)
100,000 $12,033 $11.61 $11,702 $5.38 $331 $6.23
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
462 of 966

Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Redlands, CA

Matrix Consulting Group 25

Current Fee Total Cost Difference

Construction Type Construction Type Construction Type

IIA, IIB, IIIA, IIIB, IV IIA, IIB, IIIA, IIIB, IV IIA, IIB, IIIA, IIIB, IV Related
IBC
Class
Building Use
(e.g., IBC Occupancy Type)
Sq. Ft.

Base Cost @
Threshold
Size
Cost for Each
Additional
100 sf *
Base Cost @
Threshold
Size
Cost for Each
Additional
100 sf *
Base Cost @
Threshold
Size
Cost for Each
Additional
100 sf *
F-1 Factory Industrial—Moderate
Hazard. Factory and Industrial
Uses that include the
fabrication or manufacturing
of Moderate & Low Hazard
Materials.
20,000 $7,190 $3.32 $7,402 $3.49 ($212) ($0.17)
50,000 $8,186 $2.91 $8,449 $3.27 ($263) ($0.36)
100,000 $9,639 $1.02 $10,081 $1.09 ($442) ($0.07)
250,000 $11,176 $0.93 $11,721 $1.00 ($545) ($0.07)
500,000 $13,489 $0.78 $14,214 $0.84 ($726) ($0.06)
1,000,000 $17,394 $1.71 $18,412 $1.50 ($1,019) $0.20
F F Occupancy Tenant
Improvements. Factory and
Industrial Uses that include
the fabrication or
manufacturing of Moderate &
Low Hazard Materials.
2,000 $4,226 $5.02 $3,401 $13.61 $825 ($8.59)
10,000 $4,627 $8.39 $4,490 $10.05 $137 ($1.66)
20,000 $5,466 $2.49 $5,495 $3.81 ($29) ($1.31)
40,000 $5,965 $2.77 $6,256 $3.61 ($291) ($0.84)
100,000 $7,625 $1.03 $8,420 $1.28 ($795) ($0.24)
200,000 $8,658 $4.16 $9,696 $3.12 ($1,038) $1.04
H-1, H-
2 High Hazard: Detonation
Hazard; Deflagration Hazard
or hazard from accelerated
burning; Materials that readily
support combustion;
Materials that are health
hazards.
1,000 $4,383 $9.25 $3,483 $28.00 $900 ($18.74)
5,000 $4,753 $18.47 $4,603 $23.78 $150 ($5.31)
10,000 $5,676 $4.83 $5,792 $6.99 ($116) ($2.16)
20,000 $6,159 $6.01 $6,491 $7.76 ($332) ($1.75)
50,000 $7,962 $2.19 $8,819 $2.74 ($857) ($0.55)
100,000 $9,059 $8.73 $10,190 $6.63 ($1,131) $2.10
H High Hazard: 1,000 $4,483 $10.27 $3,627 $28.90 $856 ($18.63) Detonation Hazard 5,000 $4,894 $18.29 $4,783 $6.79 $111 $11.50 10,000 $5,808 $4.99 $5,122 $15.79 $686 ($10.80)
20,000 $6,308 $6.05 $6,701 $7.84 ($393) ($1.79)
50,000 $8,122 $2.22 $9,052 $2.78 ($930) ($0.56)
100,000 $9,235 $8.90 $10,443 $5.94 ($1,208) $2.97
I-1 Housing of clients on a 24-
hour basis in a supervised
residential environment
providing personal care
services.
1,000 $5,732 $11.32 $4,564 $37.03 $1,168 ($25.71)
5,000 $6,185 $22.93 $6,045 $29.99 $140 ($7.06)
10,000 $7,332 $6.45 $7,544 $9.01 ($213) ($2.56)
20,000 $7,977 $7.71 $8,445 $9.87 ($468) ($2.16)
50,000 $10,290 $2.77 $11,407 $3.47 ($1,117) ($0.69)
100,000 $11,677 $11.35 $13,141 $7.51 ($1,464) $3.83
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
463 of 966

Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Redlands, CA

Matrix Consulting Group 26

Current Fee Total Cost Difference

Construction Type Construction Type Construction Type

IIA, IIB, IIIA, IIIB, IV IIA, IIB, IIIA, IIIB, IV IIA, IIB, IIIA, IIIB, IV Related
IBC
Class
Building Use
(e.g., IBC Occupancy Type)
Sq. Ft.

Base Cost @
Threshold
Size
Cost for Each
Additional
100 sf *
Base Cost @
Threshold
Size
Cost for Each
Additional
100 sf *
Base Cost @
Threshold
Size
Cost for Each
Additional
100 sf *
I-2, I-3 Medical, surgical, psychiatric,
nursing or custodial care on a
24-hour basis for more than 6
persons; facilities where
persons are restrained.

1,000 $7,083 $14.15 $5,705 $46.29 $1,378 ($32.14)
5,000 $7,649 $28.66 $7,556 $37.48 $93 ($8.82)
10,000 $9,082 $8.07 $9,430 $11.26 ($348) ($3.20)
20,000 $9,888 $9.64 $10,557 $12.34 ($669) ($2.70)
50,000 $12,780 $3.47 $14,259 $4.33 ($1,479) ($0.87)
100,000 $14,513 $14.18 $16,426 $11.16 ($1,913) $3.02
I-4 Day care operations of more
than 6 people of any age
where the care is for less than
24 hours a day.
1,000 $6,672 $13.57 $5,376 $43.70 $1,296 ($30.13)
5,000 $7,214 $25.90 $7,124 $34.10 $90 ($8.20)
10,000 $8,510 $7.60 $8,829 $10.70 ($319) ($3.10)
20,000 $9,269 $8.90 $9,899 $11.40 ($630) ($2.50)
50,000 $11,939 $3.18 $13,319 $4.00 ($1,380) ($0.81)

100,000 $13,532 $13.20 $15,317 $12.07 ($1,786) $1.13
I I Occupancy Tenant
Improvements

1,000 $4,166 $9.77 $3,367 $27.04 $798 ($17.27)
5,000 $4,557 $15.88 $4,449 $17.86 $108 ($1.98)
10,000 $5,351 $4.66 $5,342 $8.38 $9 ($3.73)
20,000 $5,817 $5.41 $6,180 $7.07 ($363) ($1.67)
50,000 $7,439 $2.00 $8,302 $2.50 ($863) ($0.50)
100,000 $8,439 $8.11 $9,550 $4.61 ($1,112) $3.50
M Display and sale of
merchandise accessible to the
public.
1,000 $6,154 $13.12 $4,985 $40.42 $1,169 ($27.29)
5,000 $6,679 $23.89 $6,602 $31.34 $77 ($7.45)
10,000 $7,873 $7.00 $8,168 $10.05 ($296) ($3.04)
20,000 $8,573 $8.17 $9,173 $10.55 ($600) ($2.38)
50,000 $11,025 $2.94 $12,339 $3.70 ($1,314) ($0.76)

100,000 $12,496 $12.16 $14,191 $9.54 ($1,696) $2.63
M M Occupancy Tenant
Improvements

1,000 $5,837 $12.88 $4,749 $38.26 $1,088 ($25.39)
5,000 $6,353 $22.77 $6,280 $24.82 $73 ($2.05)
10,000 $7,491 $6.63 $7,521 $12.10 ($30) ($5.47)
20,000 $8,154 $7.78 $8,730 $10.03 ($577) ($2.25)
50,000 $10,487 $2.81 $11,739 $3.53 ($1,252) ($0.73)
100,000 $11,891 $11.56 $13,506 $5.48 ($1,615) $6.07
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
464 of 966

Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Redlands, CA

Matrix Consulting Group 27

Current Fee Total Cost Difference

Construction Type Construction Type Construction Type

IIA, IIB, IIIA, IIIB, IV IIA, IIB, IIIA, IIIB, IV IIA, IIB, IIIA, IIIB, IV Related
IBC
Class
Building Use
(e.g., IBC Occupancy Type)
Sq. Ft.

Base Cost @
Threshold
Size
Cost for Each
Additional
100 sf *
Base Cost @
Threshold
Size
Cost for Each
Additional
100 sf *
Base Cost @
Threshold
Size
Cost for Each
Additional
100 sf *
R-1, R-2 Transient and nontransient
lodging including hotels,
motels, apartments, and
boarding houses.
2,000 $8,508 $0.53 $8,131 $34.87 $376 ($34.34)
10,000 $8,551 $13.27 $10,921 $26.88 ($2,371) ($13.61) 20,000 $9,878 $3.13 $13,609 $6.50 ($3,731) ($3.37)
40,000 $10,504 $3.09 $14,909 $8.34 ($4,405) ($5.25)
100,000 $12,358 $1.60 $19,915 $2.82 ($7,557) ($1.22)
200,000 $13,958 $6.44 $22,737 $9.00 ($8,779) ($2.56)
R-3, R-

3,000 $4,626 $23.69 $4,868 $113.00 ($242) ($89.31)

4,000 $4,863 $61.28 $5,998 $140.09 ($1,135) ($78.81)

5,000 $5,476 $8.46 $7,399 $20.68 ($1,923) ($12.23)

10,000 $5,899 $50.98 $8,433 $42.56 ($2,535) $8.42
S-1 Storage—Moderate Hazard,
Repair Garage, Motor Vehicles
(not High Hazard)

500 $4,011 $12.93 $4,390 $71.62 ($379) ($58.69)
2,500 $4,269 $29.49 $5,822 $33.98 ($1,554) ($4.49)
5,000 $5,006 $8.82 $6,672 $27.20 ($1,666) ($18.38)
10,000 $5,447 $10.18 $8,032 $18.13 ($2,585) ($7.95)
25,000 $6,973 $3.63 $10,752 $8.09 ($3,778) ($4.47)
50,000 $7,880 $15.10 $12,775 $17.19 ($4,895) ($2.10)
S-2 Storage—Low Hazard Storage 500 $4,909 $16.04 $4,264 $69.30 $645 ($53.26) 2,500 $5,230 $36.17 $5,650 $32.33 ($420) $3.84
5,000 $6,134 $11.00 $6,458 $26.74 ($324) ($15.74)
10,000 $6,684 $12.58 $7,795 $17.58 ($1,111) ($5.00)
25,000 $8,571 $4.46 $10,432 $6.16 ($1,861) ($1.69)
50,000 $9,687 $18.71 $11,971 $16.57 ($2,284) $2.14
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
465 of 966

Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Redlands, CA

Matrix Consulting Group 28

Current Fee Total Cost Difference

Construction Type Construction Type Construction Type

IIA, IIB, IIIA, IIIB, IV IIA, IIB, IIIA, IIIB, IV IIA, IIB, IIIA, IIIB, IV Related
IBC
Class
Building Use
(e.g., IBC Occupancy Type)
Sq. Ft.

1,000 $4,148 $7.57 $3,850 $31.38 $298 ($23.81)
5,000 $4,451 $16.26 $5,106 $12.21 ($655) $4.05
10,000 $5,264 $4.62 $5,716 $13.63 ($452) ($9.00)
20,000 $5,725 $5.43 $7,079 $8.11 ($1,353) ($2.67)
50,000 $7,356 $2.02 $9,511 $2.84 ($2,155) ($0.82)
100,000 $8,364 $8.03 $10,930 $7.23 ($2,566) $0.80
U Accessory and miscellaneous
structure not specifically
classified.
1,000 $4,230 $7.31 $3,768 $30.69 $463 ($23.39)
5,000 $4,522 $14.47 $4,995 $13.28 ($474) $1.19
10,000 $5,246 $5.01 $5,659 $11.49 ($413) ($6.48)
20,000 $5,746 $5.08 $6,808 $7.40 ($1,062) ($2.32)
50,000 $7,271 $1.87 $9,028 $2.58 ($1,756) ($0.71)

100,000 $8,208 $7.88 $10,318 $5.33 ($2,110) $2.55
B, M, S All Shell Buildings 1,000 $4,659 $2.07 $5,046 $45.19 ($387) ($43.12) 5,000 $5,072 $3.60 $6,854 $30.53 ($1,781) ($26.93)
10,000 $5,972 $1.11 $8,380 $9.57 ($2,408) ($8.45)
20,000 $6,528 $1.20 $9,337 $10.59 ($2,809) ($9.40)
50,000 $8,325 $0.49 $12,515 $3.49 ($4,190) ($2.99)
100,000 $9,562 $1.85 $14,258 $14.26 ($4,697) ($12.41)

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
466 of 966

Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Redlands, CA

Matrix Consulting Group 29
Current Fee Total Cost Difference
Construction Type Construction Type Construction Type

VA, VB VA, VB VA, VB
Related
IBC Class
Building Use
(e.g., IBC Occupancy Type) Sq. Ft.

Base Cost @
Threshold
Size
Cost for
Each
Additional
100 sf *
Base Cost @
Threshold
Size
Cost for
Each
Additional
100 sf *
Base Cost @
Threshold
Size
Cost for Each
Additional
100 sf *
A-1 Assembly uses, usually with fixed
seating, intended for the
production and viewing of the
performing arts or motion
pictures.
2,000 $5,206 $4.51 $3,854 $16.07 $1,352 ($11.56)
10,000 $5,566 $9.02 $5,139 $12.94 $427 ($3.92)
20,000 $6,469 $2.98 $6,434 $3.16 $35 ($0.18)
40,000 $7,065 $3.19 $7,066 $3.99 ($1) ($0.80)
100,000 $8,981 $1.14 $9,459 $1.37 ($478) ($0.24)
200,000 $10,117 $4.86 $10,833 $2.63 ($716) $2.23
A-2 Assembly uses intended for food
and/or drink consumption
1,000 $7,389 $12.81 $5,605 $47.11 $1,784 ($34.30)
5,000 $7,901 $23.81 $7,490 $34.03 $411 ($10.22)
10,000 $9,092 $8.46 $9,191 $10.00 ($100) ($1.54)
20,000 $9,937 $8.95 $10,191 $11.19 ($254) ($2.24)
50,000 $12,623 $3.09 $13,547 $3.83 ($925) ($0.74)
100,000 $14,166 $13.76 $15,460 $10.18 ($1,294) $3.58
A-3, A-4 Assembly uses intended for
worship; intended for viewing of
outdoor sporting events and
activities with spectators.
1,000 $7,061 $12.11 $5,382 $45.04 $1,678 ($32.93)
5,000 $7,546 $22.79 $7,184 $31.92 $362 ($9.13)
10,000 $8,685 $8.10 $8,780 $9.95 ($95) ($1.85)
20,000 $9,495 $8.52 $9,775 $10.71 ($280) ($2.18)
50,000 $12,052 $2.96 $12,986 $3.67 ($934) ($0.71)
100,000 $13,532 $13.12 $14,822 $10.57 ($1,291) $2.56
A-4 See Above 500 $5,730 $19.34 $4,306 $72.07 $1,424 ($52.73) 2,500 $6,117 $36.53 $5,747 $51.08 $370 ($14.55)
5,000 $7,030 $12.94 $7,024 $15.92 $6 ($2.97)
10,000 $7,677 $13.67 $7,820 $17.13 ($143) ($3.46)
25,000 $9,728 $4.72 $10,389 $5.87 ($662) ($1.16)
50,000 $10,907 $21.00 $11,858 $13.00 ($951) $8.00
A-5 Assembly—Outdoor Activities
Amusement Park, Bleacher,
Stadium
1,500 $7,269 $8.28 $5,554 $30.76 $1,715 ($22.48)
7,500 $7,766 $16.31 $7,400 $22.58 $366 ($6.27)
15,000 $8,990 $5.55 $9,093 $6.80 ($104) ($1.25)
30,000 $9,822 $5.98 $10,114 $7.46 ($291) ($1.48)
75,000 $12,514 $2.03 $13,471 $2.57 ($957) ($0.55)
150,000 $14,034 $9.09 $15,401 $7.24 ($1,367) $1.85
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
467 of 966

Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Redlands, CA

Matrix Consulting Group 30
Current Fee Total Cost Difference
Construction Type Construction Type Construction Type

VA, VB VA, VB VA, VB
Related
IBC Class
Building Use
(e.g., IBC Occupancy Type) Sq. Ft.

Base Cost @
Threshold
Size
Cost for
Each
Additional
100 sf *
Base Cost @
Threshold
Size
Cost for
Each
Additional
100 sf *
Base Cost @
Threshold
Size
Cost for Each
Additional
100 sf *
A A Occupancy Tenant
Improvements

1,000 $5,807 $6.84 $4,615 $38.58 $1,193 ($31.74)
5,000 $6,082 $18.45 $6,158 $19.16 ($76) ($0.71)
10,000 $7,004 $6.84 $7,116 $12.37 ($112) ($5.54)
20,000 $7,688 $6.76 $8,353 $9.06 ($665) ($2.30)
50,000 $9,715 $2.38 $11,070 $3.11 ($1,355) ($0.72)
100,000 $10,907 $10.50 $12,623 $7.88 ($1,716) $2.62
B Business – Professional Office.

Buildings or spaces for office
professional or service type
transactions, including storage of
records and accounts;
1,000 $6,304 $11.91 $4,824 $41.48 $1,480 ($29.57)
5,000 $6,781 $19.81 $6,484 $28.12 $297 ($8.31)
10,000 $7,771 $7.26 $7,890 $7.92 ($119) ($0.66)
20,000 $8,497 $7.49 $8,681 $7.91 ($185) ($0.42)
50,000 $10,742 $2.65 $11,054 $2.97 ($312) ($0.32)
100,000 $12,068 $11.66 $12,539 $10.41 ($471) $1.25
B B Occupancy Tenant
Improvements. Buildings or
spaces for office professional or
service type transactions,
including storage of records /
accounts.
200 $5,238 $6.43 $2,151 $87.86 $3,087 ($81.43)
1,000 $5,495 $16.71 $2,854 $13.06 $2,641 $3.65
2,000 $6,330 $6.17 $2,985 $44.28 $3,345 ($38.11)
4,000 $6,948 $6.05 $3,870 $20.73 $3,077 ($14.68)
10,000 $8,763 $2.18 $5,114 $7.21 $3,648 ($5.03)
20,000 $9,852 $9.45 $5,835 $6.79 $4,017 $2.65
E Educational Buildings or rooms
used by more than 6 persons for
educational purposes up to the
12th grade. Daycare for 6 or more
children older than 2.5 yrs of age.
500 $5,809 $19.05 $4,510 $75.68 $1,299 ($56.63)
2,500 $6,190 $35.81 $6,024 $40.14 $166 ($4.33)
5,000 $7,085 $12.86 $7,028 $23.05 $58 ($10.20)
10,000 $7,729 $13.70 $8,180 $17.83 ($452) ($4.13)
25,000 $9,783 $4.71 $10,854 $6.10 ($1,071) ($1.39)
50,000 $10,960 $21.07 $12,379 $18.55 ($1,419) $2.52
E E Occupancy Tenant
Improvements Buildings or rooms
used by more than 6 persons for
educational purposes up to the
12th grade. Daycare for 6 or more
children older than 2.5 yrs of age.
1,000 $5,313 $6.32 $3,291 $26.39 $2,023 ($20.07)
5,000 $5,566 $16.08 $4,346 $10.98 $1,220 $5.11
10,000 $6,371 $6.26 $4,895 $10.63 $1,476 ($4.37)
20,000 $6,996 $5.99 $5,958 $6.55 $1,038 ($0.56)
50,000 $8,793 $2.14 $7,923 $2.88 $870 ($0.74)
100,000 $9,860 $9.43 $9,362 $4.30 $498 $5.13
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
468 of 966

Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Redlands, CA

Matrix Consulting Group 31
Current Fee Total Cost Difference
Construction Type Construction Type Construction Type

VA, VB VA, VB VA, VB
Related
IBC Class
Building Use
(e.g., IBC Occupancy Type) Sq. Ft.

Base Cost @
Threshold
Size
Cost for
Each
Additional
100 sf *
Base Cost @
Threshold
Size
Cost for
Each
Additional
100 sf *
Base Cost @
Threshold
Size
Cost for Each
Additional
100 sf *
F-1 Factory Industrial—Moderate
Hazard. Factory and Industrial
Uses that include the fabrication
or manufacturing of Moderate &
Low Hazard Materials.
20,000 $5,973 $2.79 $5,922 $2.79 $51 ($0.00)
50,000 $6,810 $2.41 $6,759 $2.61 $51 ($0.21)
100,000 $8,013 $0.84 $8,065 $0.87 ($52) ($0.04)
250,000 $9,271 $0.75 $9,377 $0.80 ($105) ($0.04)
500,000 $11,154 $0.63 $11,372 $0.67 ($218) ($0.04)
1,000,000 $14,317 $1.40 $14,730 $1.20 ($413) $0.20
F F Occupancy Tenant
Improvements. Factory and
Industrial Uses that include the
fabrication or manufacturing of
Moderate & Low Hazard Materials.
2,000 $3,535 $4.69 $2,721 $10.89 $814 ($6.20)
10,000 $3,910 $6.92 $3,592 $8.04 $318 ($1.12)
20,000 $4,601 $2.09 $4,396 $3.04 $205 ($0.95)
40,000 $5,020 $2.28 $5,005 $2.89 $15 ($0.61)
100,000 $6,386 $0.86 $6,736 $1.02 ($350) ($0.16)
200,000 $7,251 $3.46 $7,757 $2.50 ($506) $0.96
H-1, H-2 High Hazard: Detonation Hazard;
Deflagration Hazard or hazard
from accelerated burning;
Materials that readily support
combustion; Materials that are
health hazards.
1,000 $3,641 $8.51 $2,787 $22.40 $854 ($13.89)
5,000 $3,982 $15.06 $3,682 $19.02 $299 ($3.97)
10,000 $4,735 $3.98 $4,634 $5.59 $101 ($1.61)
20,000 $5,133 $4.91 $5,193 $6.21 ($60) ($1.30)
50,000 $6,606 $1.82 $7,055 $2.19 ($449) ($0.38)
100,000 $7,515 $7.18 $8,152 $5.30 ($638) $1.88
H High Hazard: 1,000 $3,735 $9.54 $2,901 $23.12 $834 ($13.58) Detonation Hazard 5,000 $4,116 $14.97 $3,826 $5.43 $290 $9.54 10,000 $4,865 $4.13 $4,098 $12.63 $767 ($8.50)
20,000 $5,278 $4.96 $5,361 $6.27 ($83) ($1.31)
50,000 $6,767 $1.85 $7,242 $2.22 ($475) ($0.37)
100,000 $7,694 $7.36 $8,354 $4.75 ($660) $2.61
I-1 Housing of clients on a 24-hour
basis in a supervised residential
environment providing personal
care services.
1,000 $4,735 $10.38 $3,651 $29.62 $1,084 ($19.24)
5,000 $5,150 $18.68 $4,836 $23.99 $314 ($5.31)
10,000 $6,084 $5.30 $6,035 $7.21 $48 ($1.91)
20,000 $6,614 $6.29 $6,756 $7.90 ($142) ($1.61)
50,000 $8,501 $2.29 $9,126 $2.77 ($625) ($0.48)
100,000 $9,648 $9.32 $10,513 $6.01 ($865) $3.31
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
469 of 966

Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Redlands, CA

Matrix Consulting Group 32
Current Fee Total Cost Difference
Construction Type Construction Type Construction Type

VA, VB VA, VB VA, VB
Related
IBC Class
Building Use
(e.g., IBC Occupancy Type) Sq. Ft.

Base Cost @
Threshold
Size
Cost for
Each
Additional
100 sf *
Base Cost @
Threshold
Size
Cost for
Each
Additional
100 sf *
Base Cost @
Threshold
Size
Cost for Each
Additional
100 sf *
I-2, I-3 Medical, surgical, psychiatric,
nursing or custodial care on a 24-
hour basis for more than 6
persons; facilities where
persons are restrained.

1,000 $5,835 $12.97 $4,564 $37.03 $1,271 ($24.06)
5,000 $6,355 $23.35 $6,045 $29.99 $310 ($6.64)
10,000 $7,522 $6.63 $7,544 $9.01 ($22) ($2.38)
20,000 $8,185 $7.86 $8,445 $9.87 ($261) ($2.01)
50,000 $10,543 $2.87 $11,407 $3.47 ($864) ($0.60)
100,000 $11,977 $11.65 $13,141 $8.93 ($1,164) $2.72
I-4 Day care operations of more than
6 people of any age where the
care is for less than 24 hours a
day.
1,000 $5,507 $12.52 $4,301 $34.96 $1,206 ($22.45)
5,000 $6,007 $21.15 $5,699 $27.28 $308 ($6.14)
10,000 $7,065 $6.25 $7,063 $8.56 $2 ($2.31)
20,000 $7,690 $7.27 $7,919 $9.12 ($229) ($1.85)
50,000 $9,871 $2.64 $10,655 $3.20 ($785) ($0.56)
100,000 $11,192 $10.86 $12,254 $9.66 ($1,062) $1.20
I I Occupancy Tenant
Improvements

1,000 $3,481 $9.14 $2,694 $21.63 $787 ($12.49)
5,000 $3,847 $13.04 $3,559 $14.29 $288 ($1.24)
10,000 $4,499 $3.86 $4,274 $6.70 $225 ($2.84)
20,000 $4,885 $4.45 $4,944 $5.66 ($59) ($1.21)
50,000 $6,220 $1.67 $6,642 $2.00 ($421) ($0.32)
100,000 $7,057 $6.73 $7,640 $3.69 ($583) $3.04
M Display and sale of merchandise
accessible to the public.
1,000 $5,092 $12.16 $3,988 $32.33 $1,104 ($20.18)
5,000 $5,578 $19.53 $5,281 $25.07 $297 ($5.54)
10,000 $6,555 $5.78 $6,535 $8.04 $20 ($2.26)
20,000 $7,133 $6.69 $7,338 $8.44 ($206) ($1.75)
50,000 $9,139 $2.45 $9,871 $2.96 ($732) ($0.52)
100,000 $10,363 $10.03 $11,353 $7.63 ($990) $2.40
M M Occupancy Tenant
Improvements

1,000 $4,839 $11.96 $3,799 $30.61 $1,040 ($18.65)
5,000 $5,318 $18.64 $5,024 $19.85 $294 ($1.21)
10,000 $6,249 $5.48 $6,016 $9.68 $233 ($4.20)
20,000 $6,797 $6.37 $6,984 $8.02 ($187) ($1.65)
50,000 $8,709 $2.34 $9,391 $2.83 ($683) ($0.49)
100,000 $9,879 $9.55 $10,805 $4.39 ($926) $5.16
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
470 of 966

Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Redlands, CA

Matrix Consulting Group 33
Current Fee Total Cost Difference
Construction Type Construction Type Construction Type

VA, VB VA, VB VA, VB
Related
IBC Class
Building Use
(e.g., IBC Occupancy Type) Sq. Ft.

Base Cost @
Threshold
Size
Cost for
Each
Additional
100 sf *
Base Cost @
Threshold
Size
Cost for
Each
Additional
100 sf *
Base Cost @
Threshold
Size
Cost for Each
Additional
100 sf *
R-1, R-2 Transient and nontransient
lodging including hotels, motels,
apartments, and boarding houses.
2,000 $7,021 $0.42 $6,505 $27.90 $516 ($27.47)
10,000 $7,055 $10.62 $8,737 $21.51 ($1,682) ($10.89)
20,000 $8,117 $2.51 $10,888 $5.20 ($2,771) ($2.69)
40,000 $8,618 $2.47 $11,927 $6.67 ($3,309) ($4.20)
100,000 $10,101 $1.28 $15,932 $2.26 ($5,831) ($0.98)
200,000 $11,381 $5.15 $18,190 $7.20 ($6,809) ($2.04)
R-3, R-

3,000 $3,861 $18.96 $3,894 $90.40 ($33) ($71.45)

4,000 $4,050 $49.02 $4,798 $112.07 ($748) ($63.05)

5,000 $4,541 $6.77 $5,919 $16.55 ($1,378) ($9.78)

10,000 $4,879 $40.78 $6,747 $34.05 ($1,868) $6.74
S-1 Storage—Moderate Hazard, Repair
Garage, Motor Vehicles (not High
Hazard)

500 $3,319 $11.70 $3,512 $57.30 ($193) ($45.60)
2,500 $3,552 $23.98 $4,658 $27.19 ($1,106) ($3.21)
5,000 $4,152 $7.22 $5,338 $21.76 ($1,186) ($14.54)
10,000 $4,513 $8.28 $6,425 $14.51 ($1,912) ($6.23)
25,000 $5,755 $2.99 $8,601 $6.47 ($2,847) ($3.48)
50,000 $6,502 $12.34 $10,220 $13.76 ($3,718) ($1.41)
S-2 Storage—Low Hazard Storage 500 $4,049 $14.53 $3,411 $55.44 $638 ($40.91)

2,500 $4,340 $29.42 $4,520 $25.87 ($180) $3.56

5,000 $5,075 $9.00 $5,166 $21.39 ($92) ($12.39)

10,000 $5,525 $10.23 $6,236 $14.06 ($711) ($3.84)

25,000 $7,060 $3.68 $8,346 $4.92 ($1,286) ($1.24)

50,000 $7,980 $15.30 $9,577 $13.26 ($1,596) $2.04
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
471 of 966

Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Redlands, CA

Matrix Consulting Group 34
Current Fee Total Cost Difference
Construction Type Construction Type Construction Type

VA, VB VA, VB VA, VB
Related
IBC Class
Building Use
(e.g., IBC Occupancy Type) Sq. Ft.

Base Cost @
Threshold
Size
Cost for
Each
Additional
100 sf *
Base Cost @
Threshold
Size
Cost for
Each
Additional
100 sf *
Base Cost @
Threshold
Size
Cost for Each
Additional
100 sf *
S S Occupancy Tenant
Improvements

1,000 $3,439 $6.90 $3,080 $25.10 $359 ($18.20)
5,000 $3,716 $13.25 $4,084 $9.77 ($369) $3.48
10,000 $4,379 $3.81 $4,573 $10.90 ($194) ($7.09)
20,000 $4,759 $4.43 $5,663 $6.49 ($904) ($2.06)
50,000 $6,087 $1.68 $7,609 $2.27 ($1,522) ($0.59)
100,000 $6,926 $6.59 $8,744 $5.79 ($1,818) $0.81
U Accessory and miscellaneous
structure not specifically
classified.
1,000 $3,511 $6.72 $3,014 $24.55 $497 ($17.83)
5,000 $3,780 $11.91 $3,996 $10.62 ($216) $1.29
10,000 $4,376 $4.17 $4,527 $9.19 ($151) ($5.02)
20,000 $4,794 $4.15 $5,446 $5.92 ($652) ($1.77)
50,000 $6,039 $1.57 $7,222 $2.06 ($1,184) ($0.49)
100,000 $6,824 $6.49 $8,255 $4.26 ($1,431) $2.23
B, M, S All Shell Buildings 1,000 $3,887 $1.93 $4,037 $36.15 ($150) ($34.22) 5,000 $4,273 $2.97 $5,483 $24.42 ($1,210) ($21.45)
10,000 $5,015 $0.93 $6,704 $7.65 ($1,689) ($6.72)
20,000 $5,482 $0.98 $7,469 $8.47 ($1,987) ($7.49)
50,000 $6,958 $0.42 $10,012 $2.79 ($3,053) ($2.37)
100,000 $8,013 $1.54 $11,407 $11.41 ($3,394) ($9.87)

Generally, based upon the analysis, the Building Division is over-recovering for the smaller projects and under-recovering for the base costs for larger projects. The reevaluation of time estimates ensures that each project is paying for their fair share of plan check and inspection costs.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
472 of 966

DRAFT Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Redlands, CA

Matrix Consulting Group 35
3 Annual Revenue Impact
Based on the prior year’s permit information and the total cost calculated through this study Building has an annual deficit of roughly $ 16,000. The following table shows by major fee category: revenue at current fee, total projected annual cost, and the resulting difference.

Table 5: Annual Results - Building

Fee Category
Revenue at
Current Fee Annual Cost Difference
Square Footage Fees $1,502,180 $1,388,902 $113,278
Flat Fees $845,905 $974,833 ($128,929)
Total $2,348,085 $2,363,735 ($15,651)

Building has an annual cost recovery of 99%, which reflects a roughly $16,000 subsidy.

Currently, the projects based on square footage are subsidizing the flat fees charged, specifically, ‘Residential Remodels’ and ‘Residential Additions’ which account for roughly $61,000 of the flat fee deficit . The remaining deficit is spread among all oth er flat fee categories. The City should review these and other service areas and increase fees where appropriate, as even a small increase would impact the Division’s cost recovery.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
473 of 966

DRAFT Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Redlands, CA

Matrix Consulting Group 36

6. DSD: Planning

The Planning Division is responsible for ensuring development applications comply with zoning regulations and ordinances. Additionally, they are responsible for long-range planning activities as a means to inform policy decisions related to the growth and development of the City. The fees examined within this study relate to conditional use permits, variance, environmental impact reporting, demolition permits, annexations, along with various others. The following subsections discuss fee schedule modifications and detailed per unit results for the fee-related services provided by Planning. 1 Fee Schedule Modifications
In discussions with staff, the following modifications were proposed to the current fee schedule:
• New Fees: The following six fees were added to highlight new services offered by Planning or to allow staff to capture their time and effort providing the services more accurately.
- ‘Conditional Use Permit – Planned Residential Development’ - ‘Parcel Map – Administrative Parcel Map (SB9)’
- ‘Environmental - Legal Noticing (Public Hearing)’
- ‘Legal Noticing Publication (CEQA Notice)’
- ‘Preliminary Housing Application (SB 330)’
- ‘Measure U Exemption’

• Addition of Fees: ‘Tribal Government Notification (AB52 and / or SB18)’ was added to address a service the City current charges.

The modifications ensure that the proposed fee schedule more accurately reflects the services currently being provided by Planning.
2 Detailed Results
The Planning Division collect fees for conditional use permits, variance, environmental impact reporting, demolition permits, annexations, along with various others. The total cost calculated for each service includes direct staff costs, cross-departmental support,5 and Departmental and Citywide overhead. The following table details the fee name, current fee, total cost, and difference associated with each service offered.

5 Planning receives cross-departmental support from the Building Division and Fire Department.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
474 of 966

DRAFT Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Redlands, CA

Matrix Consulting Group 37

Table 6: Total Cost Per Unit Results – Planning

Fee Name Current Fee Total Cost Difference
Concept Plan
Concept plan $10,405 $18,650 ($8,245)
Concept plan amendment $4,235 $10,553 ($6,318)
Specific Plan
Specific plan $9,725 $19,747 ($10,022)
Specific plan amendment $4,427 $11,197 ($6,770)
Conditional Use Permit
New construction $6,712 $12,643 ($5,931)
No new construction $2,234 $3,976 ($1,742)
Planned Residential Development New $4,123
Time extension $369 $2,960 ($2,591)
Daycare home (13 + clients) $2,425 $1,719 $706
Revised Conditional Use Permit
Construction $3,152 $6,978 ($3,826)
No Construction $1,590 $2,755 ($1,165)
Variance
Minor Fence Exception Permit $632 $2,116 ($1,484)
SFR $2,775 $3,283 ($508)
Commercial / Multi-family $3,098 $4,419 ($1,321)
Parking modification $2,277 $2,235 $42
Minor commission review $1,982 $2,749 ($767)
Building Moving
Main Structure $1,845 $1,919 ($74)
Garage / Secondary structure $1,749 $1,870 ($121)
Commission Review and Approval
Major >1 acre $7,564 $10,428 ($2,864)
Minor 1 acre or less $5,779 $7,966 ($2,187)
Time extension $304 $2,597 ($2,293)
Revised
Major $6,051 $7,266 ($1,215)
Minor $5,217 $5,483 ($266)
Maps, Subdivision, & Lot Line Adjustments
Parcel Map
Parcel map $5,045 $9,977 ($4,932)
Revised parcel map $3,979 $6,478 ($2,499)
Administrative parcel map (SB 9) New $2,872 N/A
Tentative tract map
Tentative tract map $12,493 $14,242 ($1,749)
Revised tentative tract map $8,335 $7,524 $811
Reversion to acreage/merger $2,814 $3,549 ($735)
Subdivision time extension $395 $4,894 ($4,499)
Lot line adjustment $706 $2,053 ($1,347)
Certificate of compliance $750 $1,438 ($688)
Environmental
Environmental Impact Report (by consultant) Contract plus 10% administrative fee Legal Noticing Publication (CEQA Notice) New $500 N/A
Environmental project assessment $808 $2,112 ($1,304)
Mitigation Monitoring Plan Review & Implementation Actual Cost Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
475 of 966

DRAFT Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Redlands, CA

Matrix Consulting Group 38
Fee Name Current Fee Total Cost Difference
Negative Declaration
By Staff $5,700 $9,096 ($3,396)
By Consultant Contract plus 10% administrative fee
Residential Development Allocation (RDA)
Residential Development Allocation (RDA) $3,857 $5,231 ($1,374) Alteration of approved project $609 $2,036 ($1,427)
Transfer of development allocation $595 $2,036 ($1,441) Zone Change
Commission determination $2,345 $7,012 ($4,667)
Ordinance text amendment $2,952 $12,778 ($9,826)
Zone Change $3,797 $12,724 ($8,927)
Signs, Flags, Banners, & Searchlights
Sign Review
One sign review $681 $770 ($89)
Sign review by staff $139 $193 ($54)
Sign Program
Sign program $1,542 $2,351 ($809)
Sign program amendment $830 $1,487 ($657)
Conditional Use Permit - signs >120 SF $2,667 $2,817 ($150) Flag test $1,479 $1,424 $55
Annual banner permit $134 $154 ($20)
Additional banner display $68 $67 $1
Searchlights $134 $135 ($1)
Demolition > 50 yr. old building
Single Family Zones $646 $1,910 ($1,264)
Multi-Family, Commercial & Industrial $683 $2,294 ($1,611) Accessory Building $564 $1,680 ($1,116)
Historic Designated
SFR $957 $2,721 ($1,764)
Multi-Family, Commercial & Industrial $957 $3,488 ($2,531) Accessory Building $667 $2,375 ($1,708)
Demolition Permit < 50 yr. old building
Single Family Zones $387 $1,108 ($721)
Multi-Family, Commercial & Industrial $402 $1,492 ($1,090) Accessory Building $430 $993 ($563)
Annexation
Annexation $7,070 $9,998 ($2,928)
Service plan for annexation $1,371 $3,141 ($1,770)
Pre annexation agreement $2,565 $1,668 $897
Zoning Verification Letter
Basic $384 $506 ($122)
Research $682 $736 ($54)
Preliminary Review
One acre or less $332 $982 ($650)
Over one acre $430 $1,734 ($1,304)
Certificate of Appropriateness
Minor Certificate of Appropriateness $356 $504 ($148)
Certificate of Appropriateness $615 $950 ($335)
Misc. Permits and Fees
Mills Act Contract Application $480 $1,084 ($604)
Administrative Use Permit $795 $2,291 ($1,496)
Zoning Clearance Form $46 $171 ($125)
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
476 of 966

DRAFT Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Redlands, CA

Matrix Consulting Group 39
Fee Name Current Fee Total Cost Difference
Agriculture preserve removal $2,524 $8,307 ($5,783)
General plan amendment $6,068 $13,289 ($7,221)
Legal Noticing (Public Hearing) New $500 N/A
Street vacation $2,602 $3,138 ($536)
Appeal - Various Fees Paid $2,254 $3,252 ($998)
Addendum to planning commission $1,188 $2,341 ($1,153)
Continued item by applicant $370 $1,030 ($660)
Temporary occupancy $200 $645 ($445)
News rack impound fee $376 $750 ($374)
Development agreement $6,108 $15,141 ($9,033)
Williamson Act contract removal $2,800 $5,230 ($2,430)
Socio Economic Study $3,265 $4,626 ($1,361)
Home occupation permit - review $50 $137 ($87)
Special / Temporary Events $175 $1,110 ($935)
Temporary Holiday Sales $37 $1,110 ($1,073)
Preliminary Housing Application (SB 330) New $1,407 N/A Mine & Reclamation Plan Review Actual Cost
Mitigation Monitoring Plan Review & Implementation Actual Cost Measure U Exemption New $3,648 N/A
Tribal Government Notification (AB52 and / or SB18) New $551 N/A Planning generally under-recovers for its fees . The largest deficits are in relation to ‘Specific Plan’ at $10,022, ‘Zone Change – Ordinance Text Amendment’ at $9,826, and ‘Development Agreement’ at $9,033. Additionally, the full cost calculated for Planning fees includes the staff time and cost from Building and Fire, lending to these under- recoveries. The five fees which over-recover, range from a low of $1 for ‘Additional Banner Display’ to a high of $897 for ‘Annexation - Pre Annexation Agreement’. 3 Annual Revenue Impact
Based on the prior year’s permit information and the full cost calculated through this study, Planning has an annual deficit of roughly $ 287,000. The following table shows by major fee category: revenue at current fee, total projected annual cost, and the resulting difference.

Table 7: Annual Results - Planning

Fee Category
Revenue at
Current Fee
Annual
Cost Difference
Concept plan $10,405 $18,650 ($8,245)
Specific Plan $8,854 $22,394 ($13,540)
Conditional Use Permit $57,746 $109,691 ($51,945)
Variance $21,212 $46,993 ($25,781)
Commission Review and Approval $114,068 $161,613 ($47,545) Maps, Subdivision, & Lot Line Adjustments $61,371 $85,417 ($24,046) Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
477 of 966

DRAFT Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Redlands, CA

Matrix Consulting Group 40

Fee Category
Revenue at
Current Fee
Annual
Cost Difference
Zone Change $18,140 $63,675 ($45,535)
Signs, Flags, Banners, & Searchlights $15,744 $21,625 ($5,881) Demolition $3,483 $9,973 ($6,490)
Annexation $5,130 $3,336 $1,794
Preliminary Review $8,632 $25,531 ($16,899)
Certificate of Appropriateness $9,904 $14,651 ($4,747) Misc. Permits and Fees $60,872 $98,918 ($38,046)
Total $395,561 $682,465 ($286,904)

Planning has an annual cost recovery of 58%, which reflects a roughly $287,000 subsidy.

Approximately, half of the Division’s deficit is in relation to Conditional Use Permit ($52,000), Commission Review and Approval ($48,000), and Zone Change ($46,000).

Collectively, these service areas account for 19% of the prior year’s workload, meaning that even a small increase in fee s where appropriate would impact the Division’s cost recovery. For example, ‘Commission Review and Approval – Major >1 acre’ is currently charged at $7,564 each but it costs the City $11,983 to provide this service. Last year the Division completed 15 of these, increasing the cost of this fee alone would result in roughly $43,000 more in recovered costs.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
478 of 966
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Redlands, CA

Matrix Consulting Group 41

7. DSD and MUED: Engineering

The Engineering Division is responsible for reviewing development proposals for adherence to state and local codes and laws . The City has recently reorganized and development engineering is provided by two different departments: Development Services (DSD) and Municipal Utilities Engineering Department (MUED). The pla n review services are provided by DSD, whereas inspections are conducted by MUED staff. The fees examined within this study relate to review and inspections of subdivisions, grading, drainage, and right-of-way improvements . The following subsections discus s fee schedule modifications and detailed per unit results for the fee-related services provided by Engineering.
1 Fee Schedule Modifications
In discussions with Engineering staff, the following modifications were proposed:
• Removed Fees: The following fee sections and all fees within were removed as these services are covered under other fees or services on the fee schedule or by other departments / divisions:

A. Plan Check - Parcel Map
- ‘Base Fee’
- ‘Lot Fee’
- ‘Acre Fee’
B. Plan Check - Tract Map
- ‘Base Fee’
- ‘Lot Fee’
- ‘Acre Fee’
C. Construction Inspections
- ‘Hourly Inspections’
- ‘Out of Compliance Site, weekly’
- ‘High – Non-Rainy season, priority once’
- ‘High – Rainy Season, priority monthly’
- ‘Medium – Non-Rainy season, priority once’
- ‘Medium – Rainy Season, priority monthly’
- ‘Low – Non-Rainy season, priority once’
- ‘Low – Rainy Season, priority monthly’
D. Testing
- ‘Chlorination Removal Discharge Testing’
- ‘pH Testing’
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
479 of 966
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Redlands, CA

Matrix Consulting Group 42

E. SWPPP
- ‘Preliminary check’
- ‘Final check erosion control plan’
F. WQMOP
- ‘Preliminary check’
- ‘Final check erosion plan’
- ‘WQMP BMP Inspection – Complex Projects’
- ‘WQMP BMP Inspection – Standard Projects’
- ‘WQMP BMP Inspection – Basic Project’
G. Outdoor Dining
- ‘New’
- ‘Annual Renewal’
H. Outdoor Display
- ‘New’
- ‘Annual Renewal’

• New Fees: The following three per lot fees were added, which will allow Engineering to more accurately capture their time spent on subdivision fees. - ‘SWPPP – Nonresidential – Nonresidential Subdivision Lot Fee’ - ‘WQMP – Preliminary – Entitlement Project – Residential Subdivision Lot Fee
- ‘WQMP – Final – Entitlement Project – Residential Subdivision Lot Fee

• Renamed Fees: In the Plan Check section, all fees named ‘Project Base Fee’ were changed to ‘Nonresidential’, this modification more accurately portrays to applicants the service being offered.

The modifications noted ensures that the proposed fee schedule more accurately reflects the services being provided by the Engineering Division. 2 Detailed Results
The Engineering Division collect fees for review and inspections of subdivisions, grading, drainage, and right-of-way improvements. 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.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
480 of 966
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Redlands, CA

Matrix Consulting Group 43

Table 8: Total Cost Per Unit Results – Engineering

Fee Name Current Fee Total Cost Difference
Easement/Dedication Review $739 $742 ($3)
Conditional Use Permit $1,066 $1,230 ($164)
Commission Review and Approval $1,066 $1,230 ($164)
Building Moving Permit $240 $283 ($43)
Lot Line Adjustment $690 $723 ($33)
Certificate of Compliance $306 $848 ($542)
Street Vacation $1,124 $1,133 ($9)
Subordination Agreement/Lien Release $715 $849 ($134)
Public Improvement Agreement $1,049 $996 $53
Water Efficient Landscape Plan $834 $907 ($73)
Plan research records request $114 $114 $0
Sign Installation6
Street Name Sign $592 $177 $415
Stop Sign $720 $177 $543
Environmental Impact Review
Environmental Impact Review $392 $934 ($542)
Environmental Impact Report Review $1,858 $1,868 ($10)
Tract Map
Tentative Tract Map $1,469 $2,149 ($680)
Revised Tract Map $1,469 $2,133 ($664)
Final Tract Map $2,567 $6,051 ($3,484)
Parcel Map
Tentative Parcel Map $1,469 $2,149 ($680)
Revised Parcel Map $1,887 $2,133 ($246)
Final Parcel Map $2,308 $5,551 ($3,243)
Building Permit
Residential $736 $412 $324
Commercial/Industrial $1,066 $541 $525
Room Addition $137 $126 $11
Commercial TI $137 $174 ($37)
Landscape Covenant
Landscape Covenant $919 $889 $30
Landscape Covenant w/ Caltrans Agreement $1,179 $1,143 $36 Plan Check
Grading7
Base Fee 0-500 c.y. $506 $1,933 ($1,427)
Each addtl 500 cy or fraction thereof, 501-
5,000 c.y. $70 $0 $70
Each addtl 5,000 cy or fraction thereof, 5,001-
50,000 c.y. $84 ($4) $84
Each addtl 10,000 cy or fraction thereof,
50,001-100,000 c.y. $104 ($14) $104
Each addtl 10,000 cy or fraction thereof,
100,001-200,000 c.y. $10 ($0) $10
>200,001 c.y. each addtl 10,000 cy or fraction
thereof $6 $0 $6
Erosion Control
SFR $582 $676 ($94)

6 The total costs for Sign Installations does not include the material cost of signs. 7 The full cost calculated includes Fire Department cost.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
481 of 966
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Redlands, CA

Matrix Consulting Group 44

Fee Name Current Fee Total Cost Difference
Nonresidential $1,102 $1,226 ($124)
SWPPP
SFR $1,076 $882 $194
Nonresidential $1,422 $1,009 $413
Nonresidential Subdivision Lot Fee $149 $92 $57
Nonresidential Subdivision Acre Fee $149 $185 ($36)
WQMP
Preliminary
SFR $1,226 $1,251 ($25)
Nonresidential $1,795 $2,174 ($379)
Nonresidential Subdivision Lot Fee New $75 N/A
Nonresidential Subdivision Acre Fee $65 $250 ($185)
Final
SFR $1,136 $1,251 ($115)
Nonresidential $1,715 $2,359 ($644)
Nonresidential Subdivision Lot Fee New $50 N/A
Nonresidential Subdivision Acre Fee $65 $200 ($135)
Street Construction
Base Fee $1,430 $1,653 ($223)
Per Sheet $571 $623 ($52)
Storm Drains
Base Fee $825 $855 ($30)
Per Sheet $330 $395 ($65)
Hydrology Study
Hydrology Study $1,477 $1,431 $46
Street Lights
Base Fee $664 $613 $51
Per Sheet $376 $395 ($19)
Sewer Construction
Base Fee $825 $997 ($172)
Per Sheet $330 $434 ($104)
Water Construction
Base Fee $825 $997 ($172)
Per Sheet $330 $434 ($104)
Traffic Signals
New Installations $1,689 $1,525 $164
Modifications $1,152 $940 $212
Street Trees
Base Fee $551 $697 ($146)
Per Sheet $274 $370 ($96)
Signs and Striping
Base Fee $825 $997 ($172)
Per Sheet $330 $434 ($104)
Encroachment Permit
Processing Fee $339 $366 ($27)
Driveway Approach
Base $86 $58 $28
Each $43 $29 $14
Sidewalk
Base $86 $58 $28
Per sq. ft. up to 300 sq. ft. $0.44 $0.29 $0.15
Each additional sq. ft. over 300 sq. ft. $0.11 $0.07 $0.04 Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
482 of 966
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Redlands, CA

Matrix Consulting Group 45

Fee Name Current Fee Total Cost Difference
Cross Gutter / Spandrel
Base $86 $58 $28
Per sq. ft. $0.87 $0.29 $0.58
Curb and Gutter
Base $86 $58 $28
Per linear foot up to 50 l.f. $3.28 $0.29 $2.99
Each additional linear foot up to 200 l.f. $1.64 $0.15 $1.50 Each additional linear foot over 200 l.f. $0.82 $0.04 $0.79 Curb / Berm
Base $86 $58 $28
Per linear foot up to 50 l.f. $2.19 $0.29 $1.90
Each additional linear foot up to 200 l.f. $1.09 $0.15 $0.95 Each additional linear foot over 200 l.f. $0.55 $0.04 $0.51 Crushed Aggregate Base
Base $86 $58 $28
Per sq. ft. $0.09 $0.29 ($0.20)
Asphalt Pavement
Base $10 $58 ($48)
Per sq. ft. $0.09 $0.29 ($0.20)
Street Light
Base $86 $58 $28
Each $43 $29 $14
Traffic Signal
New
Base $86 $58 $28
Each $2,568 $29 $2,539
Modification
Base $86 $29 $57
Each $2,011 $19 $1,992
Reinforced Concrete
Base $86 $58 $28
Per cubic yard $130.00 $29.07 $100.93
Storm Drain Pipe
Base $86 $58 $28
Per linear foot up to 100 l.f. $5.21 $0.58 $4.63
Each additional linear foot $0.82 $0.29 $0.53
Curb Inlet / Outlet Structures
Base $86 $58 $28
Each $43 $29 $14
Storm Drain Manhole / Junction Box
Base $86 $58 $28
Each $43 $29 $14
Curb Core
Base $86 $58 $28
Each $43 $29 $14
Sewer Main
Base $86 $58 $28
Per linear foot up to 50 l.f. $1.73 $1 $1.15
Each additional Linear Foot $0.27 $0 ($0.02)
Sewer Manhole
Base $86 $58 $28
Each $43 $29 $14
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
483 of 966
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Redlands, CA

Matrix Consulting Group 46

Fee Name Current Fee Total Cost Difference
Sewer Cleanout
Base $86 $58 $28
Each $43 $29 $14
Sewer Lateral
Base $86 $116 ($30)
Each $43 $58 ($15)
Water Main
Potable
Base $86 $58 $28
Per linear foot up to 50 l.f. $1.73 $0.58 $1.15
Each additional Linear Foot $0.27 $0.29 ($0.02)
Non-Potable
Base $86 $58 $28
Per linear foot up to 50 l.f. $1.73 $0.58 $1.15
Each additional Linear Foot $0.27 $0.29 ($0.02)
Water Service Lateral
Base $86 $116 ($30)
Each $43 $58 ($15)
Fire Hydrant Assembly
Base $86 $58 $28
Each $43 $29 $14
Water Shutdown
Base $86 $174 ($88)
Each $43 $116 ($73)
Fire Services
Base $86 $116 ($30)
Each $43 $58 ($15)
Excavation, Trench, Street Cut
Base $86 $58 $28
Per linear foot up to 50 l.f. $1.73 $0.58 $1.15
Each additional Linear Foot $0.27 $0.29 ($0.02)
Street Patch
Base $86 $58 $28
Per sq. ft. up to 200 sq. ft. $0.18 $0.29 ($0.11)
Each additional sq. t. over 200 sq. ft. $0.13 $0.15 ($0.02) Grading Permit (Inspection)
0-500 c.y. $583 $743 ($160)
Each add'l 2,000 c.y. or fraction thereof, 501-
10,000 c.y. $70 $48 $22
Each add'l 5,000 c.y. or fraction thereof,
10,001-100,000 c.y. $84 $63 $21
Each add'l 10,000 c.y. or fraction thereof,
100,001-200,000 c.y. $10 $16 ($6)
>200,001 c.y. each add'l 10,000 c.y. or fraction
thereof $7 $16 ($9)
Permits
Truck Route (up to 5 days) $74 $96 ($22)
Permit - Parklet $296 $454 ($158)
Wide Load8
Single Trip $16 $16 $0

8 Set by California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
484 of 966
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Redlands, CA

Matrix Consulting Group 47

Fee Name Current Fee Total Cost Difference
Annual $90 $90 $0
NPDES
Program Fee
Industrial
High $172 $196 ($24)
Medium $85 $146 ($61)
Low $36 $53 ($17)
Commercial
High $172 $196 ($24)
Medium $85 $146 ($61)
Low $36 $53 ($17)

Engineering is generally over-recovering for its fees. The over-recoveries have to do with the reorganization of services. The largest over-recoveries are within the ‘Encroachment Permits’ section and are in relation to ‘Traffic Signal – New - Each’ at $2,539 and ‘Traffic Signal - Modification – Each’ at $1,992. The largest under-recoveries are in relation to ‘Parcel Map – Final Parcel Map’ and ‘Tract Map – Final Tract Map’ at $2,361 and $2,102 respectively.
3 Annual Revenue Impact
Based on the prior year’s permit information and the full cost calculated through this study, Engineering has an annual deficit of roughly $122,000. The following table shows by major fee category: revenue at current fee, total projected annual cost, and the resulting difference.

Table 9: Annual Results - Engineering

Fee Category
Revenue at
Current Fee Annual Cost Difference
Easement/Dedication Review $6,651 $6,676 ($25)
Conditional Use Permit $11,726 $13,530 ($1,804)
Commission Review and Approval $14,924 $17,220 ($2,296) Water Efficient Landscape Plan $834 $907 ($73)
Tract Map $41,072 $96,813 ($55,741)
Landscape Covenant $919 $889 $30
Grading Plan Check $21,164 $75,488 ($54,324)
Erosion Control $6,612 $7,353 ($741)
WQMP $6,130 $5,330 $800
Steet Construction $19,136 $21,166 ($2,030)
Storm Drains $1,155 $1,249 ($94)
Hydrology Study $25,109 $24,330 $779
Street Lights $2,456 $2,410 $46
Sewer Construction $7,260 $9,367 ($2,107)
Water Construction $5,280 $6,765 ($1,485)
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
485 of 966
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Redlands, CA

Matrix Consulting Group 48

Fee Category
Revenue at
Current Fee Annual Cost Difference
Street Trees $8,509 $11,259 ($2,750)
Signs and Striping $2,970 $3,730 ($760)
Encroachment Permit - Processing Fee $107,802 $116,481 ($8,679) Driveway Approach $2,580 $1,744 $836
Sidewalk $409 $276 $133
Traffic Signal $2,654 $87 $2,567
Sewer Main $17,373 $5,873 $11,500
Sewer Cleanout $129 $87 $42
Water Main $115,963 $57,563 $58,400
Water Service Lateral $129 $174 ($45)
Water Shutdown $129 $291 ($162)
Fire Services $129 $174 ($45)
Excavation, Trench, Street Cut $1,526 $981 $546
Grading Permit (Inspection) $37,895 $48,285 ($10,390)
NPDES $119,886 $173,330 ($53,444)
Total $588,511 $710,754 ($122,242)

Engineering has an annual cost recovery of 83%, which reflects a $122,000 subsidy. The largest deficits are in relation to Grading Plan Check ($ 54,000) and the NPDES program ($53,000). When evaluating the current fees for Grading Plan Check the primary deficit is in relation to ‘Base Fee 0 -500 c.y.’. Currently, the City charges $506 for this services but the full-cost to the City is $1,933, resulting in a per unit deficit of $1,427. The large deficit is due to the inclusion of Fire Prevention support. Likewise, the NPDES program services range from $36 to $172, but it costs the city $53 to $196 to provide these inspections, resulting in a $17 to $61 per inspection deficit.

These deficits are partially offset by the $58,000 surplus in relation to Water Main Encroachments. The primary driving force of this surplus is ‘Potable – per linear foot up to 50 l.f.’. This service is priced at $1.73 but it only costs $0.58, resulting in a $1.15 over charge per liner foot up to 50.

Overall, the City should evaluate these service areas and increase or decrease fees where appropriate, as even small modifications would impact the Division’s cost recovery.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
486 of 966
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Redlands, CA

Matrix Consulting Group 49

8. FCS: Administration & Street Tree

The Administration and Street Tree Divisions are responsible for enhancing the experiences of the community through the oversight of special projects and management of trees present on City property. The fees examined within this study relate to street banner and tree permits. The following subsections discuss fee schedule modifications and detailed per unit results for the fee-related services provided by the Administration and Street Tree Divisions.
1 Fee Schedule Modifications
In discussions with staff, staff consolidated transplant, removal, trimming, and relocation into a singular ‘Tree Service’ fee category. This more simplistically captures all of the tree- related services that can be provided by the City.
2 Detailed Results
The Administration and Street Tree Divisions collect fees for street banner and tree 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 10: Total Cost Per Unit Results – Administration and Street Tree Divisions

Fee Name Current Fee Total Cost Difference
Annual License Fee for Use of City Facilities $270 $372 ($102) Administration Division
Street Banner Permit $25 $266 ($241)
Prospect Park Sign $60 $149 ($89)
Street Tree Division
Street Tree Permits
Tree Services $134 $175 ($41)
Planting $81 $350 ($269)
Processing Fee $40 $42 ($2)

The Administration and Street Tree Division under-recovers for all fees, ranging from a low of $2 for ‘Street Tree Permit – Processing Fee’ to a high of $269 for ‘Street Tree Permit – Planting’.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
487 of 966
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Redlands, CA

Matrix Consulting Group 50

9. FCS: Animal Services

The Animal Services Division is responsible for ensuring the welfare of animals by enforcing state and local laws and providing various services including: apprehension of strays, response to reports of animal disturbances or aggression, and investigation of animal abuse or neglect. The fees examined within this study relate to animal apprehension, boarding, spay / neuter, vetting, and adoption. The following subsections discuss fee schedule modifications and detailed per unit results for the fee-related services provided by Animal Services.
1 Fee Schedule Modifications
In discussions with Animal Services’ staff, the following modifications were proposed to the current fee schedule:
• Consolidated Fees: The following fees were consolidated into three separate flat fees as a means to streamline the fee schedule:
- Apprehension: ‘Livestock – Large’, ‘Livestock – Medium’, and ‘Livestock – Small’ were consolidated into a single ‘Livestock’ fee. - Cat: ‘Cat – Neuter’ and ‘Cat – Spay’ are now ‘Cat – Spay / Neuter’ - Small-Native-Exotic Animals: ‘Native birds - parakeets, finch, lovebirds, canaries, etc.’, ‘Exotic birds - parrots, macaws, toucans, etc.’, ‘Turtle – Red Razor’, ‘Turtle – Snapping’, ‘Tortoise’, ‘Snakes’, and ‘Livestock’ were removed as they are now captured under ‘All Other Animals’. - Dog: ‘Dog – Neuter’ and ‘Dog – Spay’ are now ‘Dog – Spay / Neuter’ – with their weight still factored, but into a singular category.

• New Fees: A fee for ‘Flea and Tick Treatment’ was added to the fee schedule to reflect a service for which there is currently no fee.

The modifications ensure that the proposed fee schedule more accurately reflects the services being provided by the Animal Services Division. 2 Detailed Results
The Animal Services Division collect fees for animal apprehension, boarding, spay / neuter, vetting, and adoption. 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.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
488 of 966
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Redlands, CA

Matrix Consulting Group 51

Table 11: Total Cost Per Unit Results – Animal Services

Fee Name Current Fee Total Cost Difference
Animal Boarding
Cats $10 $97 ($87)
Dogs $20 $97 ($77)
Apprehension
Livestock $50 $201 ($151)
Cat
Cat adoption $10 $97 ($87)
Cat Release Owner $30 $130 ($100)
Apprehension, cat $15 $268 ($253)
Cat Vaccine $15 $72 ($57)
Cat - Spay / Neuter $50 $169 ($119)
Dog
Dog adoption $15 $97 ($82)
Dog Release Owner $50 $130 ($80)
Apprehension
Unaltered - 1st $35 $268 ($233)
Unaltered - 2nd $50 $268 ($218)
Unaltered - 3rd $100 $268 ($168)
Dog Vaccine $25 $37 ($12)
Dog Spay / Neuter
Up to 30 lbs. $75 $199 ($124)
31 - 50 lbs. $75 $209 ($134)
51 to 75 lbs. $75 $224 ($149)
76 - 100 lbs. $75 $262 ($187)
Small-Native-Exotic Animals
Small animals - Rabbit, Guinea Pig, Hamster $10 $196 ($186) All Other Animals $10 $196 ($186)
Other Fees
Owner Release for Euthanasia $75 $133 ($58)
Flea and Tick Treatment New $34 N/A
Microchipping $25 $34 ($9)

Animal Services under-recovers for all fees, ranging from a low of $9 for ‘Microchipping’ to a high of $233 for ‘Apprehension – Unaltered – 1st'. These services are generally subsidized. Due to the nature of these types of fees and how the needs of the community can impact the utilization of the Animal Shelter, under-recovery for these services is expected.
3 Annual Revenue Impact
Based on the prior year’s permit information and the full cost calculated through this study Animal Services has a n annual deficit of roughly $76,000. The following table shows by major fee category, revenue at current fee, total projected annual cost, and the resulting difference.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
489 of 966
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Redlands, CA

Matrix Consulting Group 52

Table 12: Annual Results – Animal Services

Fee Category Revenue at Current Fee Annual Cost Difference Animal Boarding $2,750 $17,802 ($15,052)
Apprehension $2,200 $8,852 ($6,652)
Cat $3,782 $27,752 ($23,970)
Dog $6,618 $32,064 ($25,446)
Small-Native-Exotic Animals $243 $4,757 ($4,514)
Total $15,593 $91,226 ($75,634)

Animal Services has an annual cost recovery of roughly 17%, which reflects a $ 76,000 subsidy. The largest subsidy is in relation to Dog ($25,000) and Cat ($24,000) fees, which includes fees for ‘adoption’ and ‘owner release’. Currently, the City charges $15 for a dog adoption and $10 for a cat adoption; however, it costs the City $97 to provide adoption services. The City completed roughly 489 adoptions last year at the current fee, resulting in a deficit of roughly $39,000. Meaning even a small increase to the adoption fee for dog and cat would have a substantial impact towards this Division’s cost recovery.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
490 of 966
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Redlands, CA

Matrix Consulting Group 53

10. FCS: Code Enforcement

The Code Enforcement Division is responsible for ensuring compliance and overseeing enforcement of state laws and municipal codes. The fees examined within this study relate to abandoned or vacant properties and rental dwelling permits . The following subsections discuss fee schedule modifications and detailed per unit results for the fee- related services provided by Code Enforcement.
1 Fee Schedule Modifications
In discussions with Code Enforcement staff, no modifications were proposed to the current fee schedule.
2 Detailed Results
The Code Enforcement Division collect fees for abandoned or vacant properties and rental dwelling 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 – Code Enforcement

Fee Name Current Fee Total Cost Difference
Abandoned Property Inspections $85 $210 ($125)
Vacant, abandoned property registration $93 $130 ($37)
Rental Dwelling Permit
< 1 acre $80 $85 ($5)
1-3 acres $94 $102 ($8)

3.01-5 acres $106 $128 ($22)
> 5.01 acres $116 $155 ($39)
Reinspection $40 $157 ($117)

As the above table indicates, Code Enforcement under-recovers for all fees, ranging from a low of $5 for ‘Rental Dwelling Permit 1-3 acres’ to a high of $125 for ‘Abandoned Property Inspections’.
3 Annual Revenue Impact
Based on the prior year’s workload information and the full cost calculated through this study Code Enforcement has an annual deficit of roughly $9,000. The following table Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
491 of 966
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Redlands, CA

Matrix Consulting Group 54

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

Table 14: Annual Results – Code Enforcement

Fee Category
Revenue at
Current Fee Annual Cost Difference
Rental Dwelling Permit $149,680 $158,302 ($8,622)
Total $149,680 $158,302 ($8,622)

Code Enforcement has an annual cost recovery of roughly 95%, which reflects a roughly $9,000 subsidy. ‘Rental Dwelling Permits’, are the primary source of Code Enforcement’s revenue. The City should closely evaluate these service areas and increase fees wh ere appropriate to help bridge this gap.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
492 of 966
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Redlands, CA

Matrix Consulting Group 55

11.FCS: Parks & Recreation and Senior Services

The Parks Division is responsible for the routine maintenance and upkeep of the City’s parks and landscape, along with assisting in the facilitation of special event. The fees examined within this study relate to park reservation rates and refundable clean-up deposits. The following subsections discuss fee schedule modifications and detailed per unit results for the fee-related services provided by Parks.

The Recreation and Senior Services Division is responsible for the daily operations of the City’s Community and Senior Centers. Additionally, this Division facilitates various senior, adult, and youth educational and leisure programs. The fees examined within this study relate to field / court rentals’ senior, adult, and youth activities; and facility rentals. The following subsections discuss fee schedule modifications and detailed per unit results for the fee-related services provided by Recreation and Senior Services. 1 Fee Schedule Modifications
In discussions with staff, the following modifications were proposed:
• Removed Fees: The following two fees were removed as these areas are already consider part of the base rental of the Redlands Bowl:
- ‘Prosellis (includes stage area)
- ‘Bowl’

The following eight fees were removed as the City no longer offers these services or they are captured other existing fees:
- ‘Tennis Machine Rental’
- ‘Senior Transport Program – Bus Pass – Round Trip’
- ‘Senior Transport Program – Bus Pass – On Way Trips’
- ‘Computer Class Room’
- ‘Annual License Fee for Use of City Facilities’
- ‘Vendor Fees – Vendor Participation Fee’
- ‘Vendor Fees – Additional Per Table’
- ‘Redlands Community Center – Conference Room’

• New Fees: The following seven fees were added to highlight new rental opportunities or programs offered by the City:
- ‘Skate Park’
- ‘Tennis Court – Court Rental’
- ‘Pickleball Court – Court Rental’
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
493 of 966
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Redlands, CA

Matrix Consulting Group 56

- ‘Adult Open Pickleball’
- ‘Parking Lot’
- ‘Special Events Application’

• Fee Name Change: ‘Teen Dance’ is now ‘Teen Activities’ as the City now offers more activities for teens than just dances.

The above modifications ensure that the fee schedules reflect the most up-to-date rentals and programs offered.
2 Detailed Results
The Parks and Recreation and Senior Services Divisions collect fees for facility rentals, picnic rentals, field rentals, after school programs, camp, classes, and sports programs.

The total cost calculated for each service includes direct staff costs, Departmental, and Citywide overhead. However, for these types of fees a different methodology was utilized to calculate the cost of service. There are two main types of services within these Division:

1. Programs: This represents programmatic activities such as sports leagues, tournaments, bingo, contract classes, etc. For these types of activities, the cost was calculated based upon staff time and effort associated with managing, and running the activity, and estimated number of participants (as needed).

2. Rentals: This represents the costs associated with park and facility rentals. For these services, the cost was based upon the area being rented (square footage or acre), cost per acre or square foot based upon city’s existing depreciations, estimated annual use of hours, the staff time to process the information, and average amount of time to rent the space.

The following subsections provide detail on current fees, total cost, and difference associated with each service offered.

2.1 Detailed Results – Parks
The Parks Division collect fees for park reservation rates and refundable clean-up deposits. The following table details the fee name, current fee, total cost (based upon the distinct rental methodology previously explained), and difference associated with each service offered.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
494 of 966
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Redlands, CA

Matrix Consulting Group 57

Table 15: Total Cost Per Unit Results – Parks

Fee Name Current Fee Total Cost Difference
Park Reservation Rates
Redlands Bowl $121 $127 ($6)
Stage (outdoor area of Prosellis only) $20 $942 ($922)
Mandatory Park Attendant $50 $86 ($36)
Avice Meeker Sewall Theatre $121 $127 ($6)
Apron (full stage not available) $20 $860 ($840)
Mandatory Park Attendant $50 $86 ($36)
Sylvan Park $121 $127 ($6)
Section A (Group Picnic):

Tables 1 through 8 (seats 128) $30 $26 $4
Tables 9 through 17 (seats 64) $30 $26 $4
Tables 17 through 25 (seats 64) $30 $26 $4
Section C (Group Picnic):

Tables 1 through 7 (seats 65) $30 $24 $6
Rose Garden $25 $59 ($34)
Covered Picnic Area (Shelter Area) $40 $12 $28
Gazebo $40 $15 $25
Skate Park New $238 N/A
All Other Parks
Park Reservation $94 $238 ($144)
Covered Picnic Area $40 $12 $28
Clean-up deposit (refundable)
up to 50 persons $100 $100 $0
50 to 150 persons $200 $200 $0
150 or more persons $300 $300 $0

With the exception of the ‘Rose Garden’ rental, all of the Sylvan Park rentals over-recover ranging from a low of $4 for ‘Section A (Group Picnic)’ rentals to a high of $28 for ‘Covered Picnic Area (Shelter Area)’. With the exception of ‘All Other Parks – Covered Picnic Area’ which over-recovers by $28, the rest of Park Division fees under-recover. The largest under-recovery is in relation to ‘Redlands Bowl – Stage (outdoor area of Prosellis only) at $922, followed by ‘Avice Meeker Sewall Theatre – Apron (full stage not available)’ at $840 and ‘All Other Parks – Park Reservation’ at $144.

2.2 Detailed Results – Recreation and Senior Services
The Recreation and Senior Services Division collect fees for field / court rentals’ senior, adult, and youth activities; and facility 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.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
495 of 966
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Redlands, CA

Matrix Consulting Group 58

Table 16: Total Cost Per Unit Results – Recreation and Senior Services

Fee Name Current Fee Total Cost Difference
Field / Court Rentals
Staff Call-Out fee $43 $125 ($82)
Tennis Court:

Court Rental New $36 N/A
Pickleball Court:

Court Rental New $27 N/A
Recreational Organizations
Resident $5 $30 ($25)
Non-Resident $25 $30 ($5)
Non-Recreational Organizations
Field Rental No Lights $25 $30 ($5)
Tournament
Field Use $50 $51 ($1)
Field Deposit $200 $200 $0
Field Preparation
Field Preparation $65 $119 ($54)
Banner
Banner $60 $98 ($38)
On-Site Storage
Storage Fee $50 $50 $0
Programs
Adult Services, Programs and Activities (18 and over)
Adult Open Gym
Resident $1 $9 ($8)
Non-Resident $2 $9 ($7)
Adult Open Racquet ball
Resident $1 $9 ($8)
Non-Resident $2 $9 ($7)
Adult Open Pickleball
Resident $1 $9 ($8)
Non-Resident $2 $9 ($7)
Annual Pass: I.D., Game Room, Gym Usage,
Racquetball, and Pickleball Courts
Resident $25 $8 $17
Non-Resident $35 $8 $27
Adult Group Homes $50 $8 $42
Senior Services, Programs and Activities
Bingo $0.50 $26.94 ($26.44) Bingo Tournaments
Per Person $20 $4 $16
Per Team $100 $22 $78
Senior Classes Actual Cost
Trips Actual Cost Youth Services, Programs, and Activities
Youth Annual Pass for use at Community
Center Free $8 ($8)
Annual Pass - group homes: I.D., Game Room,
Gym Usage, Racquetball and Tennis Courts $50 $8 $42
Teen Activities $3 $10 ($7) Facility Rentals
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
496 of 966
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Redlands, CA

Matrix Consulting Group 59

Fee Name Current Fee Total Cost Difference
Facility / Room Rates - $200 deposit required
Miscellaneous Charges
Security / Refundable Cleaning Deposit $200 $200 $0
Attendant / Staff Supervision Fee $20 $108 ($88)
Attendant & Room Set up Fee $20 $108 ($88)
Refunds $10 $27 ($17)
Expedited Processing Fee $10 $27 ($17)
Redlands Community Senior Center
Kitchen Flat Fee $54 $32 $22
Room Rentals (Mon-Fri 10am - 2 pm)
Mary Sanchez Banquet Room $27 $86 ($59)
Grand View Room $27 $49 ($22)
Lugonia Room $27 $143 ($116)
Entire Building
First 4 Hours $752 $1,975 ($1,223)
Each Additional Hour $54 $502 ($448)
Weekend Rates
Friday PM Block
6 - 10 PM $208 $2,008 ($1,800)
Extended 4 - 10 PM $302 $3,012 ($2,710)
Saturday AM Block
10 AM - 2 PM $208 $2,008 ($1,800)
Extended 8 AM - 2 PM $302 $3,012 ($2,710)
Saturday FM Block
6 - 10 PM $208 $2,008 ($1,800)
Extended 4 - 10 PM $302 $3,012 ($2,710)
Saturday All Day 10 AM - 10 PM $584 $6,024 ($5,440)
Redlands Community Center
Kitchen Flat Fee $54 $32 $22
Room Rentals, Business Hours Monday -
Friday 2 PM - 7:30 PM, Saturday 9 AM - 3PM
Multipurpose Room $27 $82 ($55)
Dance Studio $27 $118 ($91)
Classroom $27 $54 ($27)
Game Room $27 $69 ($42)
Weekend Rate Add-ons (Multipurpose,
Dance Studio, & Classroom)
Saturday PM Block
6 - 10 PM $208 $339 ($131)
Extended 4 - 10 PM $302 $508 ($206)
Saturday All Day 10 AM - 10 PM $584 $1,017 ($433)
Gymnasium $65 $316 ($251)
Weekend Rate Add-ons (Gymnasium)
Saturday PM Block
6 - 10 PM $340 $1,262 ($922)
Extended 4 - 10 PM $510 $1,893 ($1,383)
Racquetball Court $21 $79 ($58)
Joslyn Senior Center (temporarily closed)
Kitchen Flat Fee $54 $32 $22
Room Rentals (Wed and Frid 10 AM to 3 PM)
Auditorium $27 $114 ($87)
Lounge $27 $52 ($25)
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
497 of 966
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Redlands, CA

Matrix Consulting Group 60

Fee Name Current Fee Total Cost Difference
C -1 $27 $62 ($35)
Weekend Rate Add-ons
Friday PM Block
6 - 10 PM $208 $303 ($95)
Extended 4 - 10 PM $302 $454 ($152)
Saturday AM Block
Saturday AM Block 10 AM - 2 PM $208 $303 ($95)
Saturday AM Block Extended 8 AM - 2 PM $302 $454 ($152) Saturday PM Block
Saturday PM Block 6 - 10 PM $208 $303 ($95)
Saturday PM Block Extended 4 - 10 PM $302 $454 ($152)
Saturday All Day 10 AM - 10 PM $584 $909 ($325)
Carriage House - Prospect Park
Carriage House, Outside Pavilion, Grassy Area
Friday PM Block
6 - 10 PM $834 $1,180 ($346)
Extended 4 - 10 PM $976 $1,770 ($794)
Saturday AM Block
10 AM - 2 PM $834 $1,180 ($346)
Extended 8 AM - 2 PM $976 $1,770 ($794)
Saturday PM Block
6 - 10 PM $834 $1,180 ($346)
Extended 4 - 10 PM $976 $1,770 ($794)
Saturday All Day 10 AM - 10 PM $1,402 $3,541 ($2,139)
Miscellaneous
Boutique Spaces
Without Table $10 $18 ($8)
With Table $20 $18 $2
Garden Plot Spaces
Smiley Gardens $20 $27 ($7)
Clement Gardens $30 $81 ($51)
Lugonia Gardens $35 $49 ($14)
Program Attendant Fee $20 $108 ($88)
City Parking Lot Facilities
Parking Lot New $1 N/A
Special Events
Special Events Application New $1,050 N/A

Recreation and Senior Services under-recovers for a majority of their fees. The largest under-recoveries are seen in relation to rentals of the Community Senior Center, ranging from a low of $22 for ‘Grand View Room’ to a high of $5,440 for ‘Weekend Rates – Saturday All Day 10 AM – 10 PM’. Due to the nature of these types of fees and how the needs of the community impact their usage or offering, under-recover y is expected. The largest surplus at $42, is seen in relation to annual passes both for adult and youth services, programs, and activities.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
498 of 966
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Redlands, CA

Matrix Consulting Group 61

2.3 Detailed Results – Summary
Overall, this analysis calculates the cost of service based upon certain assumptions, however, parks and recreation fees can be set based upon the market demand. Since the market demand will fluctuate depending upon the amenities offered, the supply of services, and the quality of services, the information in this report should be utilized to determine a range of cost recovery. This range of cost recovery should be considered in conjunction with other factors to determine cost estimates for setting these fees.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
499 of 966
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Redlands, CA

Matrix Consulting Group 62

13. Fire

The Fire Department is responsible overseeing the safety of the community through fire prevention and inspections. The fees examined within this study relate to fire plan review; state mandated, prevention, and construction inspections; weed abatement; hydrant / hydro flow test; and first responder fees. The following subsections discuss fee schedule modifications and detailed per unit results for the fee-related services provided by Fire. 1 Fee Schedule Modifications
In discussions with staff, two modifications were proposed:

• Removed Fees: The following four fees were removed as the City no longer offers these services:
- ‘Building Occupant Safety Survey (BOSS)’
- ‘Administration fee only – Disking’
- ‘Administration fee only – Mowing’
- ‘Administration fee only – Hand Work’

• New Fees: ‘Standby (Engine Crew)’ was added to allow for the Department to charge for staff on-call time at events which include pyrotechnics.

• Expanded Fees: ‘New Sprinkler System Plan Review’ and ‘Fire Sprinkler Systems Modifications Plan Review’ were both parsed out into the following four categories to better capture the level of plan check effort:
- ‘1-99 heads’
- ‘100-499 heads’
- ‘500-1,000 heads’
- ‘1,000+ heads’

• Unit Change: The unit by which ‘Automatic Fire -Extinguishing System – Each Additional head above 100 heads’ is charged at was changed to ‘Each Additional Head’.

The modifications noted above ensures that the proposed fee schedule more accurately reflects the services being provided by the Fire Department.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
500 of 966
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Redlands, CA

Matrix Consulting Group 63

2 Detailed Results
The Fire Department collects fees for fire plan review; state mandated, prevention, and construction inspections; weed abatement; hydrant / hydro flow test; and first responder fees. 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 17: Total Cost Per Unit Results – Fire

Fee Name Current Fee Total Cost Difference
High Fire Hazard Area Landscaping $271 $298 ($27)
False Alarm
Residential $177 $278 ($101)
Commercial $299 $382 ($83)
Plan Review
Commercial $404 $515 ($111)
Multi-family $324 $412 ($88)
Other (access, grading, house moving) $243 $309 ($66)
Residential tract $324 $412 ($88)
Single family $163 $206 ($43)
Commercial fire pump $208 $412 ($204)
High-piled storage $324 $412 ($88)
Consultations (hourly fee) $484 $309 $175
Fuel dispensing $163 $206 ($43)
Hood & duct $163 $206 ($43)
Medical gas $243 $309 ($66)
Portables $163 $206 ($43)
Spray booths $243 $309 ($66)
Other Reviews
Landscape/Vegetation Management $163 $206 ($43)
Resubmittal/Revision of previously reviewed
plan (after 2nd sub) $123 $155 ($32)
Where no permit or inspection is required, i.e.
solar (commercial/residential, TI) $123 $206 ($83)
Private Underground Fire Line
1-10 appliances $163 $206 ($43)
11-20 appliances $203 $258 ($55)
21-30 appliances $203 $258 ($55)
31-40 appliances $243 $309 ($66)
Each additional appliance over 40 $123 $51 $72
Aboveground and Underground Storage Tank
First tank at location $123 $206 ($83)
Each tank after first at same location $163 $51 $112
New Alarm System Plan Review
Sprinkler monitoring only $123 $309 ($186)
10 or less initiating devices $203 $309 ($106)
11-20 initiating device $203 $360 ($157)
20 or more devices $268 $515 ($247)
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
501 of 966
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Redlands, CA

Matrix Consulting Group 64

Fee Name Current Fee Total Cost Difference
Commercial Fire Alarm Modifications Plan
Review
Sprinkler monitoring only $123 $206 ($83)
10 or less initiating devices $163 $258 ($95)
11-20 initiating device $231 $309 ($78)
20 or more devices $311 $412 ($101)
New Sprinkler System Plan Review
1-99 heads $120 $412 ($292)
100-499 heads $243 $515 ($272)
500-1,000 heads $292 $617 ($325)
1,000+ heads New $720 N/A
Fire Sprinkler System Modification Plan
Review
1-99 heads $123 $309 ($186)
100-499 heads $163 $412 ($249)
500-1,000 heads $203 $515 ($312)
1,000+ heads $243 $720 ($477)
Smoke Control System Plan Review
Review of rational analysis $364 $463 ($99)
Design Testing $444 $566 ($122)
In-rack Sprinklers (plan review, permit, & 2
inspections)
1-10,000 square feet $191 $589 ($398)
10,001-50,000 square feet $271 $743 ($472)
50,001-100,000 square feet $351 $920 ($569)
Each additional 1-50,000 square feet over
100,000 square feet $431 $492 ($61)
State Mandated Fire Marshal Inspections
High rise $632 $619 $13
Facility Pre-Inspection $40 $286 ($246)
Annual Clearance $80 $286 ($206)
Hospital - I $912 $619 $293
Schools - E $552 $509 $43
Preschools/Day Care $271 $286 ($15)
Commercial home- 24 hour care $298 $286 $12
Churches - A $80 $286 ($206)
Jail, lock up, detention facilities $258 $619 ($361)
Failure to Keep Scheduled Appointment for
Inspection $160 $160 ($0)
After hours inspection (OT inspection) $160 $160 ($0)
In-home (to include care facilities)
6 or less $258 $286 ($28)
7 or more $311 $286 $25
Prevention Inspections
Apartment / Condo
1-10 units $191 $286 ($95)
11-30 units $204 $360 ($156)
31-50 units $218 $435 ($217)
57-75 units $258 $435 ($177)
76-100 units $338 $435 ($97)
101 + units $351 $509 ($158)
Certificate of Occupancy
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
502 of 966
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Redlands, CA

Matrix Consulting Group 65

Fee Name Current Fee Total Cost Difference
Ordinary hazard $218 $569 ($351)
High hazard $231 $569 ($338)
Hotels / Motels
1-20 units $231 $360 ($129)
21-40 units $231 $360 ($129)
41-50 units $271 $509 ($238)
51+ units $311 $583 ($272)
Inspections By Group
F - Fabrication, Finishing, Manufacturing $458 $378 $80 L - Laboratory $338 $378 ($40)
S - Storage $258 $459 ($201)
U - Utility $191 $286 ($95)
B, M, F, and S - Large Warehouse inspections $632 $459 $173 Miscellaneous Inspections
Ordinary Hazard $80 $286 ($206)
Commercial high hazard $271 $459 ($188)
Re-Inspection-Ordinary Hazard $80 $148 ($68)
All Other Inspections
Inspection
100,000 sq. ft. or less $391 $378 $13
100,000 – 500,000 sq. ft. $472 $499 ($27)
500,001 sq. ft. and above $552 $579 ($27)
Construction Inspections
Kitchen Hood and Duct $191 $310 ($119)
Clean Agent System $191 $396 ($205)
Battery Systems $231 $396 ($165)
Compressed Gases $231 $396 ($165)
Cryogenic fluids $231 $310 ($79)
Fire pumps and related equipment $311 $483 ($172)
Flammable and combustible liquids $231 $310 ($79)
Hazardous Materials $311 $310 $1
Industrial ovens $191 $310 ($119)
LP-gas $191 $310 ($119)
Private fire hydrants $191 $396 ($205)
Spraying or dipping $231 $310 ($79)
Standpipe systems $191 $310 ($119)
Temporary membrane structures and tents $183 $298 ($115) Gates/Barricades $191 $298 ($107)
Smoke Control/Exhaust $391 $483 ($92)
Solar - Photovoltaic $40 $298 ($258)
Emergency responder radio coverage systems $203 $310 ($107) Automatic Fire-Extinguishing System
25 heads or less $191 $483 ($292)
26-99 heads $231 $569 ($338)
Each additional head above 100 heads $1.14 $1.72 ($0.58) Alarm and Detection Systems / Equip
Sprinklers monitoring only $191 $396 ($205)
10 or less initiating devices $191 $396 ($205)
11-20 initiating devices $231 $483 ($252)
20 or more devices $311 $569 ($258)
Engine Company Inspections
Ordinary hazard $150 $556 ($406)
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
503 of 966
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Redlands, CA

Matrix Consulting Group 66

Fee Name Current Fee Total Cost Difference
Permits
Aerosol products $258 $298 ($40)
Amusement buildings $258 $298 ($40)
Bowling pin/Alley refurbish $40 $218 ($178)
Carbon Dioxide System (at/over 100 lbs.) -
Beverage Systems $218 $245 ($27)
Cellulose Nitrate Film/Storage $218 $298 ($80)
Cryogenic Fluids $258 $298 ($40)
Fire Hydrants & Valves $218 $218 $0
Floor Finishing $258 $298 ($40)
Fumigation or Thermal Insecticidal Fogging $191 $298 ($107) HPM Facilities $231 $298 ($67)
Hood and Duct Permit $271 $258 $13
Hot-work operations $231 $258 ($27)
Industrial Ovens $231 $258 ($27)
Liquid or gas fueled vehicles or equipment in
assembly buildings $231 $258 ($27)
Miscellaneous Combustible Storage (over
2500 cubic feet) $271 $298 ($27)
Open Burning (bonfire, rubbish, BBQ,
recreational or ceremonial Fire, etc.) $231 $258 ($27)
Organic Coatings $231 $258 ($27)
Private Hydrant Removal $204 $218 ($14)
Proxylin Plastics $218 $258 ($40)
Rocket launching (model rockets) $244 $298 ($54)
Special Activities (Production Facilities, Live
Audience, Tradeshows, Exhibits, Special
Events) - seasonal events: haunted
houses/mazes, pumpkin patches, Christmas
tree lots, etc.) $258 $298 ($40)
Spraying/Dipping $218 $245 ($27)
Tire storage/recapping/rebuilding $218 $245 ($27)
Waste handling $218 $245 ($27)
Wood Products (over 200 cubic feet) $218 $258 ($40)
Compressed gas/LPG permit $271 $258 $13
Covered mall permit $552 $1,019 ($467)
Dry cleaning permit $311 $338 ($27)
Combustible Fiber Storage or Dust Producing $258 $298 ($40) Explosives permit $258 $298 ($40)
Fruit ripening permit $218 $298 ($80)
Flammable/combustible liquid permit $231 $378 ($147)
Hazardous / toxic / corrosive permit $231 $378 ($147)
High piled combustible permit $512 $539 ($27)
Junk yard permit $271 $298 ($27)
Lumber yard permit $218 $298 ($80)
Medical gas system permit $218 $245 ($27)
Pesticides permit $271 $298 ($27)
Pipeline - excavation / operation permit $271 $298 ($27) Poison gas permit $271 $298 ($27)
Radioactive material permit $271 $298 ($27)
Refrigeration equip permit $351 $378 ($27)
Repair garage permit $231 $258 ($27)
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
504 of 966
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Redlands, CA

Matrix Consulting Group 67

Fee Name Current Fee Total Cost Difference
Spray booth permit $271 $298 ($27)
Tanks permit $231 $258 ($27)
Welding / cutting permit $231 $258 ($27)
Carnival / fair permit $231 $258 ($27)
Open flame permit $231 $258 ($27)
Parade float permit $271 $298 ($27)
Tents/Canopy $231 $258 ($27)
Pyrotechnics Special Effects - Fireworks
Permit
Small show $321 $459 ($138)
Large show $1,218 $619 $599
Standby (Engine Crew) New $1,253 N/A
Aircraft
Repair hangar permit $271 $298 ($27)
Refueling vehicle permit $271 $298 ($27)
Assembly
50-299 persons $271 $298 ($27)
300-500 persons $271 $338 ($67)
501-999 persons w/ stage $311 $378 ($67)
1000+ persons w/ stage $351 $459 ($108)
Weed Abatement
Landscape / Vegetation Management Admin $416 $276 $140 Landscape / Vegetation Management
Inspection $258 $160 $98
Landscape / Vegetation Management Re-
inspection $190 $120 $70
Hydrant / Hydro Flow Test
Install
1 tank $218 $258 ($40)
2 tanks $231 $298 ($67)
3 tanks $271 $338 ($67)
Removal
1 tank $218 $258 ($40)
2 tanks $231 $298 ($67)
3 tanks $271 $338 ($67)
Flow Test Fire Flow $231 $298 ($67)
Miscellaneous Inspection/Permit $351 $298 $53
Fire Miscellaneous Fees
Admin fee - Cost Recovery $249 $319 ($70)

The Fire Department is under-recovering for the majority of its fees. Under-recoveries range from a low of $0.58 for ‘Automatic Fire -Extinguishing System – Each Additional head above 100 heads’ to a high of $5 69 for ‘In-rack Sprinklers (plan review, permit, & 2 inspections) – 50,0001-100,000 square feet’. The largest over-recoveries are in relation to ‘Pyrotechnics Special effects – Fireworks Permit – Large Show’, ‘Hospital – I’ and ‘Consultations (hourly fee) at $599, $293, $175 respectively.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
505 of 966
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Redlands, CA

Matrix Consulting Group 68

3 Annual Revenue Impact
Based on the prior year’s workload information and the full cost calculated through this study Fire has an annual deficit of roughly $110,000. The following table shows by major fee category: revenue at current fee, total projected annual cost, and the resulting difference.

Table 18: Annual Results – Fire

Fee Category Revenue at Current Fee Annual Cost Difference Plan Review $1,620 $2,059 ($439)
Other Reviews $25,756 $57,366 ($31,610)
Construction Inspections $62,327 $140,587 ($78,260)
Permits $2,560 $2,693 ($133)
Total $92,263 $202,706 ($110,443)

Fire has an annual cost recovery of roughly 46%, which reflects a $110,000 subsidy. The largest subsidy at $ 78,000 is in relation to Construction Inspections, specifically ‘Automatic-Fire Extinguishing System’ , which accounts for 65% of the Department’s deficit. In particular, ‘Automatic-Fire Extinguishing System – 25 heads or less’ is currently charged at $191 while the full cost calculated is $483; representing a $292 per unit deficit.

Due to the high volume of these types of inspections and the per unit cost difference, even a small increase in the fee would result in a significant impact on the Department’s ability to recover costs.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
506 of 966
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Redlands, CA

Matrix Consulting Group 69

14. Library

Library is responsible for overseeing the daily operations of A.K. Smiley Public Library, along with various other City and Library-operated facilities. The fees examined within this study relate to reservation of library materials, computer usage, replacement of library cards, and non-resident access. The following subsections discuss fee schedule modifications and detailed per unit results for the fee-related services provided by Library. 1 Fee Schedule Modifications
In discussions with Library staff, the following modifications were proposed to the current fee schedule:
• Addition of Fee: ‘Day Pass for Computer Usage’ is a fee Library currently charges but is not documented on the fee schedule. The addition of this fee will ensure all fee currently charged by Library are housed in this document.

• New Fee: ‘Annual Internet Card – Non-Resident’ is a new service offered by Library

The modifications noted above ensures that the proposed fee schedule more accurately reflects the services being provided by Library.
2 Detailed Results
Library collects fees for reservation of library materials, computer usage, replacement of library cards, and non-resident access. 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 19: Total Cost Per Unit Results – Library

Fee Name Current Fee Total Cost Difference
Reservation of library materials $1 $9 ($9)
Non-resident Library Card fee $30 $32 ($2)
Replacement of Lost Library Card $2 $3 ($1)
Day Pass for Computer Usage $1 $4 ($3)
Annual Internet Card - Non-Resident New $19 N/A

Library under-recovers for all fees, ranging from a low of $1 for ‘Replacement of Lost Library Card’ to a high of $9 for ‘Reservation of library materials’.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
507 of 966
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Redlands, CA

Matrix Consulting Group 70

3 Annual Revenue Impact
Based on the prior year’s workload information and the full cost calculated through this study Library has a deficit of roughly $2,000 The following table shows by major fee category: workload, revenue at current fee, total projected annual cost, and the resulting difference.

Table 20: Annual Results – Library

Fee Category Revenue at Current Fee Annual Cost Difference Non-resident Library Card fee $7,860 $6,230 $1,630
Replacement of Lost Library Card $1,302 $2,064 ($762) Day Pass for Computer Usage $640 $2,374 ($1,734)
Annual Internet Card - Non-Resident $0 $1,187 ($1,187) Total $9,802 $11,855 ($2,053)

Library has an annual cost recovery of roughly 83%, which reflects a $2,000 subsidy. The only over -recovery is in relation to the ‘Non -Resident Library Card Fee’ at $1,600. The largest subsidy is in relation to ‘Day Pass for Computer Usage’ at roughly $1,700.

Additionally, the addition of a new ‘Annual Internet Card – Non-resident’ fee has the potentially to impact Library’s future cost-recovery.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
508 of 966
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Redlands, CA

Matrix Consulting Group 71

15. Finance Department

The Finance Department is responsible for overseeing the City’s finances, along with the preparation of all financial reports. The fees examined within this study relate to business and dog licensing, yard sale permits, along with returned check, and TEFRA hearings. The following subsections discuss fee schedule modifications and detailed per unit results for the fee-related services provided by Management Services / Finance. 1 Fee Schedule Modifications
In discussions with staff, two modifications were proposed:

• Addition of Fee: It was determined that while the ‘Parking Permit’ is administered through the Municipal Utilities and Engineering Department and enforced by the Police Department; the fee is managed by Finance staff and should be added to the Finance fee schedule.

• Expanded Fee: The ‘Returned Check’ fee would be parsed out into two categories:
‘First Check’ and ‘Subsequent Check’, as a means more accurately align with the state set fee structure.

The modifications ensure that the proposed fee schedule more accurately reflects the services being provided by the Finance Department.
2 Detailed Results
The Finance Department collects fees for to business and dog licensing; yard sale permits; and returned check, CASp services, and TEFRA hearings. 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 21: Total Cost Per Unit Results – The Management Services / Finance

Fee Name Current Fee Total Cost Difference
Business License
New $46 $57 ($11)
Renewal $20 $43 ($23)
Dog Licensing
Base Fee $24 $50 ($26)
Spayed/Neutered $12 $50 ($38)
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
509 of 966
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Redlands, CA

Matrix Consulting Group 72

Fee Name Current Fee Total Cost Difference
Replacement Tag $17 $25 ($8)
Other Fees
Yard Sale Permit $4 $13 ($9)
Parking Permit (New or Replacement) $10 $20 ($10)
Returned Check9
First Check $43 $25 $18
Subsequent Check $43 $35 $8
TEFRA Hearing Fee Actual Costs

The City is currently under-recovering for all non-state set fees. Based upon the City’s current fee amount it is over -charging for the returned check fee. The under-recoveries, ranging from a low of $8 for ‘Dog Licensing – Replacement Tag’ to a high of $38 for ‘Dog Licensing – Spayed / Neutered’.
3 Annual Revenue Impact
Based on the prior year’s workload information and the full cost calculated through this study Finance has an annual deficit of roughly $230,000 The following table shows by major fee category workload, revenue at current fee, total projected annual cost, and the resulting difference.

Table 22: Annual Results – Management Services / Finance

Fee Category Revenue at Current Fee Annual Cost Difference Business License 203,446 376,843 ($173,397) Dog Licensing $52,992 $109,718 ($56,726)
Total $256,438 $486,560 ($230,122)

Finance has an annual cost recovery of roughly 53%, which reflects a $230,000 subsidy.

Business License accounts for a majority of the current annual volume, specifically renewals of business licenses. Currently, the City charges $20 for a renewed business license, but it costs the City $43 to provide the services. Meaning even a small increase in the business license fee amount would result in a significant impact on the Departments ability to bridge the gap in recovered costs.

9 State Set per CIV § 1719(a)
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
510 of 966
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Redlands, CA

Matrix Consulting Group 73

16. Police

The Police Department is responsible for ensuring the safety of the City through enforcement of state and City codes and laws. The fees examined within this study relate to background checks, bicycle license, concealed carry permits, vehicle impounds, and various business permits. The following subsections discuss fee schedule modifications and detailed per unit results for the fee-related services provided by Police. 1 Fee Schedule Modifications
In discussions with staff, two modifications were proposed:

• Removed Fee: ‘Miscellaneous – Permits’ was removed as the City no longer offers this permit.

• Fee Name Change: ‘Miscellaneous – Photos’ was changed to ‘Miscellaneous – Photo / Videos’. This modification aims to clarify the medium by which applicants can request data.

The modifications ensure that the proposed fee schedule more accurately reflects the services being provided by the Police Department.
2 Detailed Results
The Police Department collects fees for background checks, bicycle license, concealed carry permits, vehicle impounds, and various business 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 23: Total Cost Per Unit Results – Police

Fee Name Current Fee Total Cost Difference
Background Checks $22 $69 ($47)
False alarm response $212 $182 $30
Bicycle license $5 $16 ($11)
Concealed Carry Weapons (CCW)
Initial Permit $100 $1,191 ($1,091)
Permit Renewal $25 $841 ($816)
Modification Fee $10 $260 ($250)
Fingerprint - rolling $26 $41 ($15)
Miscellaneous
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
511 of 966
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Redlands, CA

Matrix Consulting Group 74

Fee Name Current Fee Total Cost Difference
Photos / Videos $67 $55 $12
Repossession Received $20 $31 ($11)
Vehicle Impound
All others $258 $164 $94
DUI $258 $279 ($21)
Tow Services Agreement $80 $157 ($77)
Visa Clearance $11 $24 ($13)
Film Permits
Film Permits $446 $192 $254
Locally owned and operated video production
companies $223 $192 $31
Massage Therapy
Massage therapist permit $113 $122 ($9)
Massage Therapy Business Owner permit -
initial $417 $122 $295
Massage Therapy Business Owner permit -
renewal $214 $92 $122
Solicitor permit $113 $122 ($9)
Taxi Driver permit (3 yr. permit) $316 $122 $194
Tow Truck Driver permit $80 $122 ($42)
Adult Oriented Business permit $372 $210 $162
Adult Entertainer permit $113 $122 ($9)
Remote Bingo $599 $403 $196
Subpoena
Records10 $15 $15 $0
Appearance11 $275 $275 $0
Cost Recovery - Delinquent Parking Citations 15% of citation + $5.00

Police over-recovers on roughly half of their fees. The largest over-recovery is in relation to ‘Massage Therapy Business Owner permit initial’ at $295, followed by ‘Remote Bingo’ at $196 and ‘Tax Driver permit (3 yr. permit) at $194. Under-recoveries range from a low of $9 for ‘Massage therapist permit’ and ‘Solicitor permit’ to a high of $1,091 for ‘Concealed Carry Weapons (CCW) – Initial Permit’.
3 Annual Revenue Impact
Based on the prior year’s workload information and the full cost calculated through this study Police has an annual deficit of roughly $23,000. The following table shows by major fee category: revenue at current fee, total projected annual cost, and the resulting difference.

10 State set per EVI § 1563(b)(1)
11 State set per GOV § 68097(1)(b)
Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
512 of 966
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Redlands, CA

Matrix Consulting Group 75

Table 24: Annual Results – Police

Fee Category Revenue at Current Fee Annual Cost Difference False alarm response $8,056 $6,899 $1,157
Fingerprint – rolling $1,508 $2,352 ($844)
Repossession Received $9,660 $14,905 ($5,245)
Vehicle Impound 45,150 34,287 10,863 Tow Services Agreement $30,000 $58,962 ($28,962)
Adult Oriented Business permit $744 $420 $324
Total $95,118 $117,825 ($22,707)

Police has an annual cost recovery of 81. The largest subsidy is from the ‘Tow Services Agreement’ is due to the City charging $80 when the full cost of providing the service is $157, resulting in a $ 77 per unit deficit. Changing this fee will help increase the revenue for the City.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
513 of 966
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Redlands, CA

Matrix Consulting Group 76

17. Development Services Surcharges

There are two typical surcharges assessed as part of the development review process – General Plan Maintenance Fee and Technology fee. The City of Redlands currently charges a General Plan Maintenance and Technology fee as part of the building phase of various projects within the City. The following subsections discuss the calculation of the General Plan Maintenance Fee and the Technology Fee.
1 General Plan Maintenance Fee
The City of Redlands currently assesses a General Plan Maintenance Fee as part of its building process. The 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. This is a fairly typical fee charged by many jurisdictions. Redlands’ currently charges this fee as a per square foot of new construction or additions greater than 50% of existing floor area, at the time of building permit submittal.

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 so as 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.

Since Redlands tracks their General Plan fee as a line item in their budget, the project team used a four-year average
12 of revenue generated to represent the total annual cost.

The below table show the cost category and the resulting annual cost.

Table 25: General Plan Maintenance Fee Cost Components

Cost Category Total Annual Cost
General Plan Review Fee Revenue $135,387

12 Revenue generated in fiscal years 20 -21, 21-22, and 22-23, along with projected revenue for fiscal year 23 -24 were averaged.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
514 of 966
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Redlands, CA

Matrix Consulting Group 77

The total annual costs associated with updating the General Plan are approximately $136,000.

In order to assess this fee based on square footage, the project team took the annual cost associated with general plan upkeep and divided it by the total square footage associated with new construction or large remodels for building permit submitted in th e prior year. The following table shows this calculation:

Table 26: General Plan Maintenance Fee Calculation

Category Amount
Total Annual Cost $135,387
Total Square Footage 926,779
General Plan Maintenance Fee $0.15

The calculated General Plan Maintenance Fee is $0.15 per square foot of new construction or additions greater than 50% of existing floor area. The following table compares the City’s current fee to the full cost fee calculated through this study:

Table 27: General Plan Maintenance Fee Per Unit Result Comparison

Category Current Fee Full Cost Surplus / (Deficit)
General Plan Maintenance Fee $0.10 $0.15 ($0.05)

The City’s current fee is $0.10 per square foot of new construction or additions greater than 50% of existing floor area. The full cost fee would result in an increase of the City’s current fee from $0.10 to $0.15, resulting in an 68% increase in cost recovery.

As part of this analysis, the project team conducted a comparative survey of other local jurisdictions and their assessment of the 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 28: General Plan Maintenance Fee – Comparative Survey

Jurisdiction Fee Amount
Fontana N / A
Rancho Cucamonga N / A
Rialto N / A
Ontario 5% of Building Permit & Planning Application
San Bernardino 2% of Plan Review and Permit Fees

Of the comparative jurisdictions, only San Bernardino and Ontario charge a General Plan Maintenance fee, however, neither charge their fee the same way as Redlands. Overall, Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
515 of 966
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Redlands, CA

Matrix Consulting Group 78

updating the City’s fee will allow Redlands to better recover its costs for long-range planning efforts.
2 Technology Surcharge Fee
A Technology Fee allows the City to support the costs associated with the City’s permitting system, staff time for managing the systems, acquiring the system, mobile devices used for permitting, etc. Currently, the City collects a Technology fee of 2% which is applied to Building, Engineering, Fire, and Planning permits. The project team used knowledge from previous fee studies for cities similar to Redlands as a way to estimate annual permit-related technology costs. The costs included in this estimate are the annual depreciation or capital costs for a permitting system, as well as the annual maintenance cost paid to the permitting vendor. The following table shows by cost category the annual cost:

Table 29: Technology Surcharge Fee Cost Components

Cost Category Total Annual Cost
Annual Capital Cost for Permitting System $100,000
Annual Maintenance Cost $75,000
Total Annual Costs $175,000

Based upon the items needed to provided development-related services, the annual technology-related costs are approximately $175,000.

The project team determined that the most relatable nexus for the Technology Fee is proportionate to the permit fee. This means, the greater the permit fee, the greater the Technology Fee as there is more software utilization and storage space for larger projects. Therefore, the project team took the total Technology Annual Cost and divided it by the annual fee-related cost associated with Building, Planning, and Engineering. The following table shows this calculation:

Table 30: Technology Fee Calculation

Category Amount
Total Technology Annual Cost $175,000
Total Projected Development Annual Cost $4,005,974
Technology Fee as % of Permit Fee 4%

Based upon this calculation, the City’s Technology fee would be 4% of the permit fee.

Therefore, if a permit fee was $100, the technology fee collected would be $4; whereas if a permit fee was $1,000; the Technology fee collected would be $40. This type of structure, enables the Technology fee to be more proportionately distributed based upon Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
516 of 966
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Redlands, CA

Matrix Consulting Group 79

the projects and their impact upon the system. The following table compares the city’s current fee to the full cost fee calculated through this study:

Table 31: Technology Fee Per Unit Result Comparison

Category Current Fee Full Cost Difference
Technology Fee 2% 4% (2%)

The City’s current fee is 2% of the plan review and permit fees , the full cost fee would result in an increase of the City’s current fee from 2% to 4%, resulting in a 46% increase in cost recovery.

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 32: Technology Fee – Comparative Survey

Jurisdiction Fee Amount
Fontana $0.45 Per Sq. Ft.

Ontario $1.50 Per Page
Rancho Cucamonga 7% of Permit
Rialto $3 Per Permit
San Bernardino 2% of Permit

Of the cities which charge a Technology Fee, Rancho Cucamonga and San Bernardino are the only jurisdiction which charge their fees as a percentage of permit fees. Redlands’ current (2%) and full-cost (4%) are lower than Rancho Cucamonga’s 7% but on par with San Bernardino’s 2%. Adjusting the City’s Technology Fee will ensure appropriate funding is set aside to support existing and future technological needs. 3 Surcharge Funds
It is a best practice to collect and account for General Plan Maintenance and Technology surcharges in separate accounts. The City of Redlands currently has a separate subaccount for the General Plan Maintenance Fee in the General Plan Fee but none for the Technology Fee. The City should develop a separate fund or subaccount within the General Fund to house the Technology Fee surcharge. This will ensure compliance with funding requirements, enable appropriate allocation of funds to general plan or technology-related activities, and mitigate any potential issues with comingling of funds.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
517 of 966
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Redlands, CA

Matrix Consulting Group 80

18. Cost Recovery Considerations

The following sections provide guidance regarding how and where to increase fees, determining annual update factors, and developing cost recovery policies and procedures.
1 Fee Adjustments
This study has documented and outlined on a fee-by-fee basis where the City is under and over collecting for its fee-related services. City and Department manage ment will now need to review the results of the study and adjust fees in accordance with 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 of time.

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 fairly straight forward, 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. 1 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. Oft en, Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
518 of 966
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Redlands, CA

Matrix Consulting Group 81

these minimal increases can provide necessary revenue to counterbalance fees which are unable to 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.
2 Phased Increases
Depending on current cost recovery levels some current fees may need to be increased significantly in order 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 their 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, in order to be in compliance. Assuming this particular 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 of time 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 laid out above, the City could increase the fee by $150 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 fi ve years, as that is the maximum window for which a comprehensive fee assessment should be completed. 2 Annual Adjustments
Conducting a comprehensive analysis of fee-related services and costs annually would be quite cumbersome and costly. The general rule of thumb for comprehensive fee analyses is between three and five years. This allows for jurisdictions to ensure they account for organizational changes such as staffing levels and merit increases, as well as process efficiencies, code or rule changes, or technology improvements.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
519 of 966
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Redlands, CA

Matrix Consulting Group 82

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 Factor: A common method of increasing fees or cost is to look at regional cost indicators, such as the Consumer Price Index. These factors are calculated by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, put out at various intervals within a year, and are specific to states and regions.

The City of Redlands should review its current options internally (COLA) as well as externally (CPI) to determine which option better reflects the goals of the Department and the City. If choosing a CPI factor, the City should outline which CPI should be used, including specific region, and adoption date. If choosing an internal factor, again, the City should be sure to specify which factor if multiple exist. 3 Policies and Procedures
This study has identified areas where the City is under-collecting the cost 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 serve to 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 associated with developing target cost recovery goals and procedures for achieving and increasing cost recovery.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
520 of 966
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Redlands, CA

Matrix Consulting Group 83

1 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 these cost recovery ranges by major service area.

Table 33: Typical Cost Recovery Ranges by Major Service Area

Service Areas Typical Cost Recovery Ranges
Building 80-100%
Planning 50-80%
Engineering 70-100%
Animal Services 20-50%
Code Enforcement 50-70%
Fire 50-80%
Library 20-50%
Finance 20-40%
Police 30-50%

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 Redlands compares to industry cost recovery range standards.

Redlands Regular Meeting of 12-05-23
521 of 966
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Redlands, CA

Redlands City CouncilDecember 5, 2023

Redlands City Council
December 5, 2023