Temecula City Council
February 27, 2024

Landscape and Lighting
LLADs are a form of special assessment that finance improvements to Assessment Districts
landscaping, lighting and open space, along with open space acquisition. The Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972 authorizes municipal agencies in California to initiate and administer LLADs. The creation of a LLAD, as with any special assessment, requires the preparation of an Engineer's Report that demonstrates the nexus between fees assessed and benefits provided, followed by majority (50 percent plus one) approval via a special ballot, pursuant to Proposition 218.

LLADs are widely used throughout California to fund a range of public realm improvements and services related to street trees, streetscape improvements, street and traffic lights, and recreational facilities, among others. As with parcel taxes, LLADs typically fund more than just street tree planting, establishment and maintenance. While a LLAD could be designed for street trees alone, the process may attract other agencies in need of additional revenue and interested in expanding the scope to services such as park and recreation maintenance. One caution would be to avoid setting the assessment so high as to generate voter backlash. Local municipalities have often convened focus groups to determine the appropriate assessment level.

General Obligation Bonds
Local governments commonly use General Obligation (GO) bonds to fund the construction and improvement of projects involving real property (e.g., buildings, infrastructure and parks). GO bonds typically carry low interest rates, making them attractive for capital projects, which may include tree planting. However, funding is available for discrete projects, often over a limited time rather than an extended period. In addition, ongoing maintenance is ineligible for GO bond funding pursuant to federal tax law. California cities pay debt service from GO bonds through ad valorem property taxes, where assessments are based on property value. As a result, the issuance of GO bonds requires two-thirds voter approval (State Treasurer 2008).

Maintenance Assessment
The Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972 authorizes Maintenance Assessment Districts
Districts (MADs), which are closely related to LLADs. The key difference is that charter cities, can create MADs for the provision of services not specifically authorized under state law, thereby broadening their use (Griffin, pers. comm., 2012). MADs may be used to finance street tree care, but as with a LLAD, a MAD intended for street trees alone could also attract the attention of other agencies interested in funding the provision of additional non -related services.

Community Benefit
Community Benefit Districts (CBDs) are used to finance neighborhood Districts
revitalization, commonly in commercial areas. Special benefits typically include public safety, economic development, beautification, and streetscape improvements. Formation of a CBD requires property owners to petition the appropriate local agency and demonstrate an interest in paying for additional services. A non-profit Board of Directors typically comprised of property owners, businesses, and government representatives administers a CBD.

While CBDs may include street tree planting and maintenance, this is rarely the focus.
* Source: City of San Francisco, Financing San Francisco's Urban Forest 2013 1XXX I CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN

Funding Opportunities I APPENDIX G
this page was Intentionally left blank
CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN I I.XXXI

PUR�BpNFORESTMANpGEMENTPIAN //��
�✓ _ �l

Item No. 5

CITY OF TEMECULA

AGENDA REPORT
TO: City Manager/City Council
FROM: Patrick Thomas, Director of Public Works/City Engineer DATE: February 27, 2024
SUBJECT: Award Construction Contract to Ace Capital Engineering for the American with Disabilities Act Transition Plan Implementation Project, PW18-16 PREPARED BY: Nino Abad, Senior Civil Engineer
Laura Bragg, Associate Engineer II
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council:

1. Award a construction contract to Ace Capital Engineering in the amount of $356,528.53 for the American with Disabilities Act Transition Plan Implementation Project, PW18-16; and

2. Authorize the City Manager to approve contract change orders up to 15% of the contract amount, $53,479.28; and

3. Make a finding that the American with Disabilities Act Transition Plan Implementation Project, PW 18-16, project is exempt from Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan fees.

BACKGROUND: On September 12, 2023, City Council approved the plans and specifications and authorized the Department of Public Works to solicit construction bids for American with Disabilities Act (ADA) Transition Plan Implementation Project, PW18-16.

As part of the Capital Improvements Program and Budget for Fiscal Year 2020-24, the City Council approved appropriations to support an Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Transition Plan Implementation Program. The project would implement the recommended improvements identified in the previously completed Americans with Disabilities (ADA) Transition Plan. The ADA Transition Plan prioritized the removal of identified barriers preventing disabled persons access to City facilities and programs. Each Fiscal Year the City utilizes the available budget to implement the ADA Transition Plan.

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Transition Plan Implementation Project, PW18-16, includes four new ADA accessible dugouts at the Ronald Reagan Sports Park North/South Baseball Fields, an ADA accessible ramp from Margarita Road to the North/South Baseball Fields,

ADA parking lot reconfiguration, and modifications to sidewalks.

The construction contract was publicly advertised between December 15, 2023, and January 11, 2024. Three (3) bids were received and publicly opened on Thursday, January 11, 2024.

The results were as follows:

Rank Bidder Bid Amount

1. Ace Capital Engineering $ 356,528.53

2. Aster Construction Service Inc. Non -Responsive

3. HZS Engineering Inc. Non -Responsive
The bid submitted by Aster Construction Services Inc. did not include acknowledgement of Addendum #1 or Addendum #2, which is required to be submitted with the bid packet, so the bid was deemed non -responsive.

HZS Engineering Inc. failed to submit the required exhibits for the CDBG funding, which is required to be submitted with the bid packet, so the bid was deemed non -responsive.

Ace Capital Engineering, of Lake Forest, California, did not sign Addendums #1 and #2 but acknowledged the Addendums on page P6 of the proposal. This clerical omission is deemed a waivable minor irregularity. Therefore, it has been determined that Ace Capital Engineering is the lowest responsive and responsible bidder. Ace Capital Engineering has public contracting experience and has successfully completed similar public projects. Staff has received a bid evaluation memorandum from the City's CDBG consultant which verifies that Ace Capital Engineering bid submittal meets CDBG requirements.

The Engineer's Estimate of construction cost was $275,000. The construction contract allows for 60 working days (approximately 3 months) to construct the Project.

The Ronald Reagan Sports Park North/South baseball fields have never received renovation such as the ones being proposed. Renovation projects of older facilities often uncover additional deficiencies during construction that would need to be remedied. As such, staff is requesting the approval of a 15% contingency instead of the 10% normally requested.

The Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) is an element of the Riverside County Integrated Project (RCIP) to conserve open space, nature preserves and wildlife to be set aside in some areas. It is designed to protect over 150 species and conserve over 500,000 acres in Western Riverside County. The City of Temecula is a permittee to the MSHCP and as such is required to abide by the Regional Conservation Authority's (RCA) MSHCP Mitigation Fee Implementation Manual adopted by Resolution 2020-013 on December 7, 2020. The RCA is a joint regional authority formed by the County and the Cities to provide primary policy direction for implementation of the MSHCP.

Since July 1, 2008, the RCA has required that locally funded Capital Improvement Projects contribute applicable MSHCP fees within 90-days of construction contract award. Fees outside the public right of way are calculated on a cost per acre of disturbed area basis, while fees for typical right-of-way improvements projects are 5% of construction costs. Maintenance only projects, such as this project, are exempt from MSHCP fees.

FISCAL IMPACT: The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Transition Plan Implementation is identified in the City's Capital Improvement Program, Fiscal Years 2024-28, and is funded with Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and Measure S. Adequate funds are available in the project account to cover the contract amount of $356,528.53 plus the 15% contingency amount of $53,479.28 for a total encumbrance of $410,007.81.

ATTACHMENTS: 1. Contract

2. Project Description

3. Project Location

CITY OF TEMECULA, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS

CONTRACT
for

AMERICAN WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA) TRANSITION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION PROJECT NO. PW18-16
THIS CONTRACT, made and entered into the 27'h day of February, 2024, by and between the City of Temecula, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as "City", and Ace Capital Engineering, hereinafter referred to as "Contractor."
WITNESSETH:

That City and Contractor, for the consideration hereinafter named, mutually agree as follows:

CONTRACT DOCUMENTS.

The complete Contract includes all of the Contract Documents, to wit: Notice Inviting Bids, Instructions to Bidders, Proposal, Performance Bond, Labor and Materials Bond, Plans and Specifications entitled AMERICAN WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA) TRANSITION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION, PROJECT NO. PW18-16, Insurance Forms, this Contract, and all modifications and amendments thereto, the State of California Department of Transportation Standard Specifications (latest edition) where specifically referenced in the Plans and Technical Specifications, and the latest version of the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction, including all supplements as written and promulgated by Public Works Standards, Inc. (hereinafter, "Standard Specifications") as amended by the General Specifications, Special Provisions, and Technical Specifications for AMERICAN WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA) TRANSITION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION, PROJECT NO. PW18-16,. Copies of these Standard Specifications are available from the publisher:

BNi Building News
Division of BNi Publications, Inc.
990 Park Center Drive, Suite E
Vista, CA 92081
(760) 734-1113
The Standard Specifications will control the general provisions, construction materials, and construction methods for this Contract except as amended by the General Specifications, Special Provision, and Technical Specifications for AMERICAN WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA) TRANSITION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION, PROJECT NO. PW18-16.

In case of conflict between the Standard Specifications and the other Contract Documents, the other Contract Documents shall take precedence over, and be used in lieu of, such conflicting portions.

Where the Contract Documents describe portions of the work in general terms, but not in complete detail, it is understood that the item is to be furnished and installed completed and in place and that only the best general practice is to be used. Unless otherwise specified, the Contractor shall furnish all labor, materials, tools, equipment, and incidentals, and do all the work involved in executing the Contract.

Contract C-1

The Contract Documents are complementary, and what is called for by anyone shall be as binding as if called for by all. Any conflict between this Contract and any other Contract Document shall be resolved in favor of this Contract.

2. SCOPE OF WORK.

Contractor shall perform everything required to be performed, shall provide and furnish all the labor, materials, necessary tools, expendable equipment, and all utility and transportation services required for AMERICAN WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA) TRANSITION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION, PROJECT NO. PW18-16.

All of said work to be performed and materials to be furnished shall be in strict accordance with the Drawings and Specifications and the provisions of the Contract Documents hereinabove enumerated and adopted by City.

3. CITY APPROVAL.

All labor, materials, tools, equipment, and services shall be furnished and work performed and completed under the direction and supervision, and subject to the approval of City or its authorized representatives.

4. CONTRACT AMOUNT AND SCHEDULE.

The City agrees to pay, and Contractor agrees to accept, in full payment for, the work agreed to be done, the sum of: THREE HUNDRED FIFTY-SIX THOUSAND, FIVE HUNDREDTWENTY-EIGHT DOLLARS and FIFTY-THREE CENTS ($356,528.53), the total amount of the base bid.

Contractor agrees to complete the work in a period not to exceed SIXTY (60) working days, commencing with delivery of a Notice to Proceed by City. Construction shall not commence until bonds and insurance are approved by City.

5. CHANGE ORDERS.

All change orders shall be approved by the City Council, except that the City Manager is hereby authorized by the City Council to make, by written order, changes or additions to the work in an amount not to exceed the contingency as established by the City Council.

6. PAYMENTS.
a. Lump Sum Bid Schedule. Before submittal of the first payment request, the Contractor shall submit to the Director of Public Works a schedule of values allocated to the various portions of the work, prepared in such form and supported by such data to substantiate its accuracy as the Director of Public Works may require. This schedule, as approved by the Director of Public Works, shall be used as the basis for reviewing the Contractor's payment requests. b. Unit Price Bid Schedule. Pursuant to Section 20104.50 of the Public Contract Code, within thirty (30) days after submission of a payment request to the City, the Contractor shall be paid a sum equal to 95% of the value of the work completed according to the bid schedule. Payment request forms shall be submitted on or about the thirtieth (3011) day of each successive month as the work progresses. The final payment, if unencumbered, or any part thereof unencumbered, shall be made sixty (60) days after acceptance of final payment and the Contractor filing a one - Contract C-2

year Warranty and an Affidavit of Final Release with the City on forms provided by the City.

C. Payment for Work Performed. Payments shall be made on demands drawn in the manner required by law, accompanied by a certificate signed by the City Manager, stating that the work for which payment is demanded has been performed in accordance with the terms of the Contract, and that the amount stated in the certificate is due under the terms of the Contract. Partial payments on the Contract price shall not be considered as an acceptance of any part of the work. d. Payment of Interest. Interest shall be paid on all undisputed payment requests not paid within thirty (30) days pursuant to Public Contracts Code Section 20104.50.

Public Contract Code Section 7107 is hereby incorporated by reference.

7. LIQUIDATED DAMAGES / EXTENSION OF TIME.
a. Liquidated Damages. In accordance with Government Code Section 53069.85, Contractor agrees to forfeit and pay to City the sum of one thousand dollars ($1,000) per day for each calendar day completion is delayed beyond the time allowed pursuant to Paragraph 4 of this Contract. Such sum shall be deducted from any payments due to or to become due to Contractor.
b. Extension of Time. Contractor will be granted an extension of time and will not be assessed liquidated damages for unforeseeable delays beyond the control of, and without the fault or negligence of the Contractor, including delays caused by City.

Within ten (10) calendar days of the occurrence of such delay, Contractor shall give written notice to City. Within thirty (30) calendar days of the occurrence of the delay, Contractor shall provide written documentation sufficient to support its delay claim to City. Contractor's failure to provide such notice and documentation shall constitute Contractor's waiver, discharge, and release of such delay claims against City.
8, WAIVER OF CLAIMS.

On or before making each request for payment under Paragraph 6 above, Contractor shall submit to City, in writing, all claims for compensation as to work related to the payment.

Unless the Contractor has disputed the amount of the payment, the acceptance by Contractor of each payment shall constitute a release of all claims against the City related to the payment. Contractor shall be required to execute an affidavit, release, and indemnity agreement with each claim for payment.

9. PREVAILING WAGES.

Pursuant to the provisions of Section 1773 of the Labor Code of the State of California, the City Council has obtained the general prevailing rate of per diem wages and the general rate for holiday and overtime work in this locality for each craft, classification, or type of workman needed to execute this Contract from the Director of the Department of Industrial Relations. Copies may be obtained from the California Department of Industrial Relations Internet website at http:/t www.dir.ca.go . Contractor shall provide a copy of prevailing wage rates to any staff or subcontractor hired, and shall pay the adopted prevailing wage rates as a minimum. Contractor shall comply with the provisions of Sections 1720, 1720.9, 1725.5, 1771.1(a), 1773.8, 1775, 1776, 1777.5, 1777.6, and 1813 of the Labor Code.

Pursuant to the provisions of 1775 of the Labor Code, Contractor shall forfeit to the City, as a penalty, the sum of $200.00 for each calendar day, or portion thereof, for each laborer, Contract C-3

worker, or mechanic employed, paid less than the stipulated prevailing rates for any work done under this Contract, by him or by any subcontractor under him, in violation of the provisions of the Contract. This project, work, or service will be subject to compliance monitoring and enforcement by the Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) pursuant to Labor Code Section 1771.4. Contractor shall comply with the provisions of Sections 1720, 1720.9, 1725.5, 1771.1(a), 1773.8, 1775, 1776, 1777.5, 1777.6, and 1813 of the Labor Code.

The Federal minimum wage rates for this project as predetermined by the United States Secretary of Labor are included in Exhibit "B" of the project specifications. Future effective general prevailing wage rates which have been predetermined are on file with the California Department of Industrial Relations and are referenced but not printed in the general prevailing wage rates.

10. TIME OF THE ESSENCE.

Time is of the essence in this contract.

11. INDEMNIFICATION.

All work covered by this Contract done at the site of construction or in preparing or delivering materials to the site shall be at the risk of Contractor alone. Contractor agrees to save, indemnify, hold harmless and defend City of Temecula, Temecula Community Services District, and/or Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, its officers, employees, and agents, against any and all liability, injuries, or death of persons (Contractor's employees included) and damage to property, arising directly or indirectly out of the obligations herein undertaken or out of the operations conducted by Contractor, save and except claims or litigations arising through the sole active negligence or sole willful misconduct of the City.

The Contractor shall indemnify and be responsible for reimbursing the City for any and all costs incurred by the City as a result of Stop Notices filed against the project. The City shall deduct such costs from Progress Payments or final payments due to the Contractor.

12. GRATUITIES.

Contractor warrants that neither it nor any of its employees, agents, or representatives has offered or given any gratuities or promises to City's employees, agents, or representatives with a view toward securing this Contract or securing favorable treatment with respect thereto.

13. CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

Contractor warrants that none of its partners, members or shareholders are related by blood or marriage to any employee of the City who has participated in the development of the specifications or approval of this project or who will administer this project nor are they in any way financially associated with any City officer or employee, or any architect, engineer, or other preparers of the Drawings and Specifications for this project. Contractor further warrants that no person in its employ nor any person with an ownership interest in the Contractor has been employed by the City within one year of the date of the Notice Inviting Bids.
14, CONTRACTOR'S AFFIDAVIT.

After the completion of the work contemplated by this Contract, Contractor shall file with the City Manager, its affidavit stating that all workmen and persons employed, all firms Contract C_4

supplying materials, and all subcontractors upon the Project have been paid in full, and that there are no claims outstanding against the Project for either labor or materials, except certain items, if any, to be set forth in an affidavit covering disputed claims or items in connection with a Stop Notice which has been filed under the provisions of the laws of the State of California.

15. NOTICE TO CITY OF LABOR DISPUTES,
Whenever the Contractor has knowledge that any actual or potential labor dispute is delaying or threatens to delay the timely performance of the Contract, Contractor shall immediately give notice thereof, including all relevant information with respect thereto, to City.

16. BOOKS AND RECORDS.

Contractor's books, records, and plans or such part thereof as may be engaged in the performance of this Contract, shall at all reasonable times be subject to inspection and audit by any authorized representative of the City.
17, INSPECTION.

The work shall be subject to inspection and testing by City and its authorized representatives during manufacture and construction and all other times and places, including without limitation, the plants of Contractor and any of its suppliers. Contractor shall provide all reasonable facilities and assistance for the safety and convenience of inspectors. All inspections and tests shall be performed in such manner as to not unduly delay the work. The work shall be subject to final inspection and acceptance notwithstanding any payments or other prior inspections. Such final inspection shall be made within a reasonable time after completion of the work.

18. DISCRIMINATION.

Contractor represents that it has not, and agrees that it will not, discriminate in its employment practices on the basis of race, creed, religion, national origin, color, sex, age, or handicap.

19. GOVERNING LAW
The City and Contractor understand and agree that the laws of the State of California shall govern the rights, obligations, duties and liabilities of the parties to this Contract and also govern the interpretation of this Contract.

20. PROHIBITED INTEREST.

No member, officer, or employee of the City of Temecula or of a local public body shall have any interest, direct or indirect, in the Contract or the proceeds thereof during his/her tenure or for one year thereafter.

Furthermore, the Contractor covenants and agrees to their knowledge that no board member, officer or employee of the City of Temecula has any interest, whether contractual, non -contractual, financial or otherwise, in this transaction, or in the business of the contracting party other than the City of Temecula, and that if any such interest comes to the knowledge of either party at any time, a full and complete disclosure of all such information will be made, in writing, to the other party or parties, even if such interest would not be considered a conflict of interest under Article 4 (commencing with Section 1090) or Article Contract C-5

4.6 (commencing with Section 1220) of Division 4 of Title I of the Government Code of the State of California.
21, ADA REQUIREMENTS.

By signing this Contract, Contractor certifies that the Contractor is in total compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Public Law 101-336, as amended.

22. WRITTEN NOTICE.

Any written notice required to be given in any part of the Contract Documents shall be performed by depositing the same in the U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, directed to the address of the Contractor as set forth in the Contract Documents, and to the City addressed as follows:

Mailing and Delivery Address: Patrick A. Thomas, PE
Director of Public Works/ City Engineer
City of Temecula
41000 Main Street
Temecula, CA 92590
23, INSURANCE.

The Contractor shall procure and maintain, for the duration of the Contract, insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work by the Contractor, its agents, representatives, employees or subcontractors.

Minimum Scope of Insurance: Coverage shall be at least as broad as:

Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability Form No. CG 00 01 11 85 or 88.

2. Insurance Services Office Business Auto Coverage form CA 00 01 06 92 covering Automobile Liability, code 1 (any auto). If the Contractor owns no automobiles, a non -owned auto endorsement to the General Liability policy described above is acceptable.

3. Worker's' Compensation insurance as required by the State of California and Employer's Liability Insurance. If the Contractor has no employees while performing under this Contract, worker's compensation insurance is not required, but Contractor shall execute a declaration that it has no employees.

Minimum Limits of Insurance: The Contractor shall maintain limits no less than:

1. General Liability: Two Million Dollars $2,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury, and property damage. If Commercial General Liability Insurance or other form with a general aggregate limit is used, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this project/location or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit.

2. Automobile Liability: One Million Dollars $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and property damage.

Worker's Compensation as required by the State of California; Employer's Liability: One Million Dollars $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury or disease.

Contract C-6

Deductibles and Self -insured Retentions: Any deductibles or self-insurance retentions shall not exceed Twenty -Five Thousand Dollars $25,000.

Other Insurance Provisions: The general liability and automobile liability policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions:

The City of Temecula, Temecula Community Services District, Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, their officers, officials, employees, and volunteers are to be covered as insureds as respects to liability arising out of activities performed by or on behalf of the Contractor; products and completed operations of the Contractor; premises owned, occupied or used by the Contractor; or automobiles owned, leased, hired or borrowed by the Contractor. The coverage shall contain no special limitations on the scope of protection afforded to the City of Temecula, Temecula Community Services District, Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, their officers, officials, employees, agents or volunteers.

2. For any claims related to this project, the Contractor's insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the City of Temecula, Temecula Community Services District, Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, their officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the City of Temecula, Temecula Community Services District, Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, their officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers shall be excess of the Contractor's insurance and shall not contribute with it.

3. Any failure to comply with reporting or other provisions of the policies including breaches of warranties shall not affect coverage provided to the City of Temecula, Temecula Community Services District, Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, their officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers.

4. The Contractor's insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the limits of the insurer's liability.

5. Each insurance policy required by this Contract shall be endorsed to state in substantial conformance to the following: If the policy will be cancelled before the expiration date the insurer will notify in writing to the City of such cancellation not less than 30 days prior to the cancellation effective date.

6. If insurance coverage is cancelled or reduced in coverage or in limits, the Contractor shall within two business days of notice from the insurer, phone, fax, and/or notify the City via certified mail, return receipt requested of the changes to or cancellation of the policy.

Acceptability of Insurers: Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best's rating of no less than A-, VII or better, unless otherwise acceptable to the City. Self- insurance shall not be considered to comply with these insurance requirements.

Verification of Coverage: Contractor shall furnish the City with original endorsements effecting coverage required by this clause. The endorsements are to be signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. The endorsements are to be on Contract C_7

forms provided by the City. All endorsements are to be received and approved by the City before work commences. As an alternative to the City's forms, the Contractor's insurer may provide complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, including endorsements affecting the coverage required by these specifications.

Subcontractors: Contractor shall include all subcontractors as insureds under its policies or shall furnish separate certificates and endorsements for each subcontractor. All coverages for subcontractors shall be subject to all of the requirements stated herein.

24. RECOVERED MATERIALS AND SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL ACT
Contractor agrees to comply with all requirements of Section 6002 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 6962), including but not limited to the regulatory provisions of 40 CFR Part 247, and Executive Order 12873, as they apply to the procurement of the items designated in Subpart B of 40 CFR Part 247.

25. TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND VIDEO SURVEILLANCE SERVICES OR EQUIPMENT Contractor shall not procure or obtain, extend or renew a contract to procure or obtain, or enter into a contract to procure or obtain equipment, services, or systems that use covered telecommunications equipment or services as a substantial or essential component of any system, or as critical technology as part of any system. As described in Public Law 115- 232, section 889, covered telecommunications equipment is telecommunications equipment produced by Huawei Technologies Company or ZTE Corporation, or any subsidiary or affiliate of such entities. Covered equipment also includes video surveillance and telecommunications equipment or services provided by Hytera Communications Corporation, Hangzhou Hikvision Digital Technology Company, Dahua Technology Company, any subsidiary or affiliate of such entities, and any entity that the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Director of the National Intelligence or the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, reasonably believes to be an entity owned or controlled by, or otherwise connected to, the government of a covered foreign country.

26. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS
The Contractor shall comply with all applicable federal, State and local laws, ordinances, codes and regulations in force at the time the Contractor performs pursuant to the Contract Documents, and shall comply with all grant or funding terms and conditions applicable to the Contract and/or the work

27. CLAIM DISPUTE RESOLUTION.

In the event of any dispute or controversy with the City over any matter whatsoever, the Contractor shall not cause any delay or cessation in or of work, but shall proceed with the performance of the work in dispute. The Contractor shall retain any and all rights provided that pertain to the resolution of disputes and protests between the parties. The disputed work will be categorized as an "unresolved dispute" and payment, if any, shall be as later determined by mutual agreement or a court of law. The Contractor shall keep accurate, detailed records of all disputed work, claims and other disputed matters.

All claims arising out of or related to the Contract or this project, and the consideration and payment of such claims, are subject to the Government Claims Act (Government Code Section 810 et seq.) with regard to filing claims. All such claims are also subject to Public Contract Code Section 9204 and Public Contract Code Section 20104 et seq. (Article 1.5), where applicable. This Contract hereby incorporates those provisions as though fully set forth herein. Thus, the Contractor or any Subcontractor must present a claim in accordance Contract C.g

with the Government Claims Act as a prerequisite to prosecuting any claim against the City.

The filing or prosecution of a claim in compliance with Section 9204 and/or Article 1.5 (if applicable) does not in any way obviate the need to timely present a claim under the Government Claims Act, or in any toll the expiration of any limitations period for the timely presentation of a claim under the Government Claims Act.

Contract C_9

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Contract to be executed on the date first above written.

DATED:- C121() 2o.2 ej
DATED:

ATTEST:

Rand! Johl, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

CONTRACTOR:

Ace Capital Engineering
21171 Fernleaf Dr.

Lake Forest, CA 92630
(949) 333-9322
[email protected]
By:
.0
Rana Allafchian
Print or type NAME
Chief Executive Officer
Print or type TITLE*
By: ::::a�
Ali Mohammad!
Print or type NAME
Secretary
Print or type TITLE*
(*Signatures of two corporate officers required for Corporations) Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney

CITY OF TEMECULA
m
Contract C-10
Mayor
James Stewart

Adk
C7"` The Heart of Southern California
Wine Country
City of Temecula
Fiscal Years 2024-28
Capital Improvement Program

AMERICAN WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA) TRANSITION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION Infrastructure Project
Project Description: The American with Disabilities Act (ADA) Transition Plan Implementation will utilize the recently completed Transition Plan and implement its recommendations based on the established priorities. The implementation will include improvements to public facilities, programs, and public rights of way to modify/remove identified barriers over a fiscally constrained framework.

Benefit: This project furthers the City's Core Values of A Safe and Prepared Community, Transportation Mobility and Connectivity, as well as Equity.

Core Value: Equity
Project Status: The American With Disabilities Act (ADA) Transition Plan Upgrade was completed in Fiscal Year2017-18. The implementation of the Transition Plan recommendation is an ongoing program.

Department: Public Works - Account No. 210.265.999.612 / PW18-16 Level: I
ADA Compliant
2023-24
Prior Years
2022-23
Proposed
2024-25
2025-26
2026-27
2027-28
Total Project
Project Cost:

Actuals
Adjusted
Budget
Projected
Projected
Projected
Projected
Cost
Administration
87,736
187,601
78,660
78,660
78,660
78,660
78,660
668,637
Construction
506
478,829
245,000
245,000
245,000
245,000
245,000
1,704,335
Design & Environmental
1150,000
1150,000
Total Expenditures
88,242
816,430
323,660
323,660
323,660
323,660
323,660
2,522,972
Source of Funds:

CDBG
Measure S
98,514
556,158 323,660 323,660 323,660 323,660 323,660
250,000
2,272,972
250,000
Total Funding
98,514
806,158 323,660 323,660 323,660 323,660 323,660
2,522,972
Future Operating & Maintenance Costs:

Total Operating Costs

r wv
r
c� � -
Tcmenrla
_
O
y
Ih
+ 4
1 i
PROJECT: Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Transitions Plan Implementation, PW18-16 SUBJECT: Award Construction Contract for work at the Ronald Reagan Sports Park North/South Baseball Fields DATE: February 27, 2024

Item No. 6

CITY OF TEMECULA

AGENDA REPORT
TO: City Manager/City Council
FROM: Patrick Thomas, Director of Public Works/City Engineer DATE: February 27, 2024
SUBJECT: Approve an Increase to the Contingency Amount for the Playground Equipment Enhancement and Safety Surfacing at Calle Aragon Park
PREPARED BY: Julie Tarrant, Principal Management Analyst Stacey Biddle, Management Assistant
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council:

1. Approve an increase to the contingency amount for the Playground Equipment Enhancement and Safety Surfacing at Calle Aragon Park, by $17,890; and

2. Increase the City Manager's authority to approve additional work by $17,890.

BACKGROUND: On April 25, 2023, City Council approved a Purchase and Installation Agreement with Playcore Wisconsin, Inc., dba GameTime for Playground Equipment Enhancement and Safety Surfacing at Calle Aragon Park, in the amount of $73,736.46, and authorized the City Manager to approve additional work not to exceed a contingency amount of $2,000.

During the installation process it was determined that the original proposed scope of work to install engineered wood fiber would not be sufficient to meet ADA compliance and required safety standards. Upon further assessment by staff, an alternative application method to install pour -in - place rubberized safety surfacing was recommended. Due to this change in the type of surfacing, the overall cost of additional work has increased to $19,890.

To complete the project and ensure ADA and safety standards are adhered to, staff recommends an increase to the contingency in the amount of $17,890 to cover the cost of additional work.

FISCAL IMPACT: Adequate funds are available in the Playground Equipment Enhancement and Safety Surfacing project as identified in the City's Capital Improvement Program, Fiscal Years 2024-2028.

ATTACHMENTS: None

Item No. 7

CITY OF TEMECULA

AGENDA REPORT
TO: City Manager/City Council
FROM: Patrick A. Thomas, Director of Public Works/City Engineer DATE: February 27, 2024
SUBJECT: Approve Plans and Specifications and Authorize the Solicitation of Construction Bids for Pickleball Courts, PW21-03
PREPARED BY: Avlin Odviar, Principal Civil Engineer
Samantha Preciado, Assistant Engineer II
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council:

1. Approve the plans and specifications and authorize the Department of Public Works to solicit construction bids for the Pickleball Courts, Project PW21-03; and

2. Make a finding that this project is exempt from California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Article 19, Categorical Exemption, Section 15301, Existing Facilities, of the CEQA Guidelines.

BACKGROUND: The Pickleball Courts Project is a parks/recreation project that will include the construction of a 17-court pickleball facility to replace the existing turf soccer field, also known as "The Pit", at Ronald Reagan Sports Park.

The project includes seventeen (17) dedicated concrete pickleball courts (16 standard and 1 championship/ADA) with colored court surfacing, surrounded by a 10-ft-high chain link fence with windscreen. The facility also includes 3.5-ft-high interior chain link fencing to separate courts and contain ball play, outdoor amenities such as a prefabricated shade structure, spectator area, outdoor furniture, and a designated area for portable restrooms with a hand -washing station. Four existing Musco lights will be protected in place and re -focused to light the new facility. The facility will be ADA accessible and comply with current ADA standards. The parking lots will consist of gravel surfacing with solar -powered security lights.

This advertisement will include two (2) additive alternative bids. Additive Alternative No. 1 modifies the Base Bid by replacing the westerly parking lot surfacing with asphalt concrete and installing additional solar -powered security lights. Similarly, Additive Alternative No. 2 modifies the Base Bid by replacing the easterly parking lot surfacing with asphalt concrete and installing additional solar -powered security lights.

The plans and specifications are complete, and the project is ready to be advertised for construction bids. The contract documents are available for review in the Director of Public Works' office.

The Engineer's estimate of construction cost is $1,980,000.00 for the Base Bid, $226,000.00 for Additive Alternate #1, and $244,000.00 for Additive Alternate #2, for a total of $2,450,000.00.

The lowest bid will be determined by the lowest, responsive Base Bid. The construction duration is estimated to be 85 working days (approximately 4 months).

The project is exempt from California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements pursuant to Article 19, Categorical Exemption, Section 15301, Existing Facilities, of the CEQA Guidelines.

Section 15301 states that minor additions to existing structures are Class 1 activities which are exempt from CEQA.

FISCAL IMPACT: The Pickleball Court Project is identified in the City's Capital Improvement Program (CIP) budget for Fiscal Years 2024-28, funded through Measure S and Developer Impact Fees (DIF). Sufficient funds are available in the project budget.

ATTACHMENTS: 1. Project Description

2. Project Location

Ak
The Heart of Southern California
Wine Country

PICKLEBALL COURTS
Parks/Recreation Project
Project Description: Design and construct new dedicated pickleball courts at Ronald Reagan Sports Park.

Benefit: This project will provide City residents with an additional popular amenity for enhanced recreational opportunities.

Core Value: Healthy and Livable City
Project Status: Project development, design, and environmental through Fiscal Year2023-24. Construction in Fiscal Year2024-25.

Department: Public Works - Account No. 210.265.999.5800.PW21-03 / 787 Level: I
City of Temecula
Fiscal Years 2024-28
Capital Improvement Program
Project Cost:

Prior Years
Actuals
2023-24
2022-23 Adopted 2024-25 2025-26 2026-27 2027-28
Adjusted Budget Projected Projected Projected Projected Total Project
Cost
5801-Administration
31,479
78,521 248,418
358,418
5804-Construction
1,800,000 602,460
2,402,460
5805-Construction Engineering
50,000
50,000
5802-Design & Environmental
67,268
222,732
290,000
5809-Information Technology
200,000
200,000
Total Expenditures
1 98,7471
2,101,253 1,100,878
3,300,878
Source of Funds:
4244-DIF-Park & Rec Improvements
4002-Measure S
1,450,000
750,000 1,100,878
1,450,000
1,850,878
Total Funding
-
2,200,000 1,100,878
3,300,878
Future Operating & Maintenance Costs:

Total Operating Costs
174

Item No. 8

ACTION MINUTES

TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT MEETING

COUNCIL CHAMBERS
41000 MAIN STREET

TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA
FEBRUARY 13, 2024
CALL TO ORDER at 7:11 PM: President Zak Schwank
ROLL CALL: Alexander, Kalfus, Schwank, Stewart
CSD PUBLIC COMMENTS -None

CSD CONSENT CALENDAR
Unless otherwise indicated below, the following pertains to all items on the Consent Calendar.

Approved the Staff Recommendation (4-0): Motion by Stewart, Second by Kalfus. The vote reflected unanimous approval.

11. Approve Action Minutes of January 23, 2024
Recommendation: That the Board of Directors approve action minutes of January 23, 2024.

CSD DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES REPORT

CSD GENERAL MANAGER REPORT

CSD BOARD OF DIRECTORS REPORTS

CSD ADJOURNMENT
At 7:14 PM, the Community Services District meeting was formally adjourned to Tuesday, February 27, 2024 at 5:00 PM for a Closed Session, with a regular session commencing at 6:00 PM, City Council Chambers, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California.

Zak Schwank, President
ATTEST:

Randi Johl, Secretary
[SEAL]

Item No. 9

ACTION MINUTES

JOINT TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY AND

CITY COUNCIL MEETING

COUNCIL CHAMBERS
41000 MAIN STREET

TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA
FEBRUARY 13, 2024
CALL TO ORDER at 7:14 PM: Chair/Mayor James Stewart
ROLL CALL: Alexander, Kalfus, Schwank, Stewart
TPFA PUBLIC COMMENTS — None

TPFA / COUNCIL CONSENT CALENDAR
Unless otherwise indicated below, the following pertains to all items on the Consent Calendar.

Approved the Staff Recommendation (4-0): Motion by Schwank, Second by Alexander. The vote reflected unanimous approval.

12. Approve Joint Action Minutes of January 23, 2024
Recommendation
That the Board of Directors approve the joint action minutes of January 23, 2024.

13. Adopt Resolutions of Intention to Form CFD 23-01 (Altair), Authorize the Levy of Special Taxes on Property in CFD 23-01 (Altair), Incur Bonded Indebtedness for CFD 23-01 (Altair) and Approve Related Documents and Agreements Recommendation: That the Board of Directors and the City Council adopt the resolutions entitled:

RESOLUTION NO. TPFA 2024-03

A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE

TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY

DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO ESTABLISH A

COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT AND TO AUTHORIZE

THE LEVY OF SPECIAL TAXES THEREIN - ALTAIR
RESOLUTION NO. TPFA 2024-04

A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE

TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY

DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO INCUR BONDED

INDEBTEDNESS OF THE PROPOSED TEMECULA PUBLIC

FINANCING AUTHORITY COMMUNITY FACILITIES
DISTRICT NO. 23-01 (ALTAIR)
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-12

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

TEMECULA APPROVING JOINT COMMUNITY FACILITIES

AGREEMENT RELATING TO THE FINANCING OF PUBLIC

IMPROVEMENTS AND IMPLEMENTATION OF AN

ACQUISITION AGREEMENT

TPFA / COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING

14. Approve Issuance of Special Tax Bonds for Temecula Public Financing Authority Community Facilities District No. 20-01 (Heirloom Farms) Recommendation: That the City Council hold a public hearing relating to the proposed issuance of special tax bonds for the Temecula Public Financing Authority Community Facilities District No. 20-01 (Heirloom Farms), and that the Board of Directors and the City Council adopt the resolutions entitled:

RESOLUTION NO. 2023-13

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

TEMECULA MAKING FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO AND

APPROVING THE ISSUANCE OF BONDS BY THE

TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY
RESOLUTION NO. TPFA 2024-05

A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE

TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY

AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF SPECIAL TAX BONDS
FOR COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 20-01
(HEIRLOOM FARMS), AND APPROVING OTHER RELATED

DOCUMENTS AND ACTIONS
Approved the Staff Recommendation (4-0): Motion by Kalfus, Second by Alexander.

The vote reflected unanimous approval.

TPFA/COUNCIL EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT

TPFA/COUNCIL BOARD OF DIRECTORS REPORTS
a

TPFA/COUNCIL ADJOURNMENT
At 7:23 PM, the Joint Temecula Public Financing Authority and City Council meeting was formally adjourned to Tuesday, February 27, 2024 at 5:00 PM, for a Closed Session, with regular session commencing at 6:00 PM, City Council Chambers, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California.

James Stewart, Chair/Mayor
ATTEST:

Randi Johl, Secretary
[SEAL]

Item No. 10

TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY

AGENDA REPORT
TO: Executive Director/Board of Directors
FROM: Aaron Adams, Executive Director
DATE: February 27, 2024
SUBJECT: Adopt Resolutions to Form Temecula Public Financing Authority Community Facilities District No. 23-02 (Prado)
PREPARED BY: Jennifer Hennessy, Director of Finance/Treasurer RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of Directors take the following actions:

1. That the Board of Directors of the Temecula Public Financing Authority (the "Board") hold a public hearing regarding the formation of the proposed Temecula Public Financing Authority Community Facilities District No. 23-02 (Prado) (the "CFD"), the levy of special taxes in the CFD, and the issuance of bonds by the Temecula Public Financing Authority (the "Authority") for the CFD, and adopt the following resolutions entitled:

RESOLUTION NO. TPFA

A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE

TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY OF

FORMATION OF TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING
AUTHORITY COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO.23-02
(PRADO), AUTHORIZING THE LEVY OF A SPECIAL TAX

WITHIN THE DISTRICT, AND PRELIMINARILY

ESTABLISHING AN APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT FOR THE

DISTRICT
RESOLUTION NO. TPFA

A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE

TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY

DETERMINING THE NECESSITY TO INCUR BONDED

INDEBTEDNESS OF THE TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING
AUTHORITY COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO.23-02
(PRADO)
RESOLUTION NO. TPFA

A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE

TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY CALLING

SPECIAL ELECTION WITHIN COMMUNITY FACILITIES
DISTRICT NO.23-02 (PRADO)

2. That the Board hold an election regarding the CFD, and adopt the resolution entitled:

RESOLUTION NO. TPFA

A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE

TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY DECLARING

RESULTS OF SPECIAL ELECTION AND DIRECTING
RECORDING OF NOTICE OF SPECIAL TAX LIEN —
COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 23-02 (PRADO)

3. That the Board have the first reading of the ordinance entitled:

ORDINANCE NO. TPFA

AN ORDINANCE OF THE TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING

AUTHORITY LEVYING SPECIAL TAXES WITHIN

TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY
COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 23-02 (PRADO)
BACKGROUND: In December of last year, in response to a request by Meritage Homes of California, Inc., a California corporation (the "Developer"), the Temecula Public Financing Authority (the "Authority") adopted Resolution No. TPFA 2023-12 (the "Authority Resolution") and the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2023-93, pursuant to which they approved a Deposit/Reimbursement Agreement, subsequently executed by the Authority, the City and the Developer, whereby the Developer agreed to pay the costs of the Authority and the City in connection with the formation of a community facilities district. The Authority Resolution also designated various consultants to assist with the formation of the community facilities district.

The Authority has now received a petition (including waivers) (the "Petition") from the Developer requesting that it move forward with the formation of the community facilities district for the purpose of financing public facilities, to fund the costs of municipal services, and to prepay special taxes being levied for an existing Authority community facilities district on property in the proposed CFD in connection with the planned Prado development project. The community facilities district is to be designated as the Temecula Public Financing Authority Community Facilities District No. 23-02 (Prado) (the "CFD").

The CFD is generally located in the northerly portion of the City of Temecula, east of Interstate

15. The territory to be included within the boundaries of the CFD includes several County Assessor's parcels identified in the Petition, totaling 28.71 acres.

On January 23, 2024, the Board adopted two resolutions related to the formation of the new CFD and set the date for a public hearing regarding the new CFD for February 27, 2024. On January

23, 2024, the City Council adopted a resolution approving a Joint Community Facilities Agreement with the Authority whereby the City agrees to own and operate certain facilities financed by the CFD, to provide the municipal services to be provided for by the CFD and to assist the Authority administer an Acquisition Agreement with the Developer pursuant to which the Developer will construct public improvements authorized to be funded by the CFD.

The CFD will only include land currently owned by the Developer as delineated in the Petition.

In the Petition, the Developer has requested that the CFD levy special taxes and issue bonds to provide funds to fund various public improvements identified in the Petition and to finance other costs of issuing the special tax bonds and of providing a reserve fund for the bonds. It is also expected that special taxes will be levied to fund the costs of certain municipal services identified in the Petition.

The Authority proposes to use bond proceeds to finance the design, construction and installation of certain public improvements, including related incidental expenses, all as specified in the Resolution of Intention to Establish the CFD adopted by the Board on January 23, 2024. That Resolution authorized the Executive Director of the Authority to enter into Joint Community Facilities Agreements with the Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD) and the Temecula Valley Unified School District (TVUSD), pursuant to which the Authority will use the CFD bond proceeds to finance improvements to be designated by EMWD and TVUSD, which entities will then relieve the Developer of certain otherwise applicable fee obligations related to the construction of homes in the CFD. The facilities authorized to be funded by the CFD, when complete, will become the property of and will be maintained by the City, EMWD, and TVUSD, as appropriate.

SPECIFIC ACTIONS: It is recommended that the Board receive and file a CFD Report prepared by the City's Public Works Director at the direction of the Authority and conduct a public hearing regarding (a) the establishment of the new CFD, (b) the levy of special taxes on property in the CFD, (c) the necessity to incur bonded indebtedness for the CFD, and (d) the establishment of an appropriation limit for the new CFD.

If, following the public hearing, no protest has been filed by the Developer pertaining to the establishment of the CFD or the levy of special taxes within the new CFD, the Board will consider the adoption of the following resolutions:

A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA PUBLIC

FINANCING AUTHORITY OF FORMATION OF TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO.23-02 (PRADO), AUTHORIZING

THE LEVY OF A SPECIAL TAX WITHIN THE DISTRICT, AND PRELIMINARILY

ESTABLISHING AN APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT FOR THE DISTRICT

A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA PUBLIC

FINANCING AUTHORITY DETERMINING THE NECESSITY TO INCUR BONDED

INDEBTEDNESS OF THE TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 23-02 (PRADO)

A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA PUBLIC

FINANCING AUTHORITY CALLING SPECIAL ELECTION WITHIN COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 23-02 (PRADO)
Following the adoption of the above resolutions, the City Clerk will open the ballot cast by the Developer, as the sole owner of the property in the CFD in the special election called for the new CFD for the ballot questions regarding (a) the authorization to levy special taxes within the CFD, (b) the authorization to issue bonds secured by the levy of such special taxes and (c) the establishment of an appropriations limit for the CFD.

If the results of the special election reveal that the propositions have received the affirmative vote of the Developer, the Authority is then requested to take the following actions.

Adopt the following resolution:

A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA PUBLIC

FINANCING AUTHORITY DECLARING RESULTS OF SPECIAL ELECTION AND DIRECTING RECORDING OF NOTICE OF SPECIAL TAX LIEN — COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 23-02 (PRADO)
Hold the first reading of the following ordinance:

AN ORDINANCE OF THE TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY LEVYING

SPECIAL TAXES WITHIN TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 23-02 (PRADO)
FISCAL IMPACT: The Developer has agreed to pay all expenses incurred relative to the proposed formation of the new CFD and the issuance of bonds for the CFD. Costs of issuance of the proposed bond issue will be paid from the proceeds of the bonds expected to be issued by the Authority for the CFD in the future and bond proceeds may be used to reimburse the Developer for funds advanced by it in connection with the formation of the CFD and the bonds.

All annual costs of administering the new CFD and the bonds issued for the CFD will be paid from a portion of the special taxes levied on the properties in the CFD. The bonds, if and when issued by the Authority for the new CFD, would be payable from special taxes levied on land in the new CFD and collected by the Authority. All costs of the City and the Authority to administer the Acquisition Agreement and the Joint Community Facilities Agreement will be paid for with proceeds of a portion of the special taxes levied on property of the CFD.

ATTACHMENTS: 1.

TPFA Resolution
— Formation of CFD

2. TPFA Resolution
— Incur Bonded Indebtedness

3. TPFA Resolution
— Calling Special Election

4. TPFA Resolution
— Declaring Special Election Results

5. TPFA Ordinance

6. CFD Report

7. Notice of Special Tax Lien

RESOLUTION NO. TPFA 2024-

A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE

TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY OF

FORMATION OF TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING
AUTHORITY COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO.
23-02 (PRADO), AUTHORIZING THE LEVY OF A SPECIAL

TAX WITHIN THE DISTRICT, AND PRELIMINARILY

ESTABLISHING AN APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT FOR THE

DISTRICT

THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. On January 23, 2024, this Board of Directors adopted Resolution No. TPFA 2024-01 entitled "A Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Temecula Public Financing Authority Declaring Its Intention to Establish a Community Facilities District and to Authorize the Levy of Special Taxes Therein — Prado" (the "Resolution of Intention") stating its intention to form the Temecula Public Financing Authority Community Facilities District No. 23-02 (Prado) (the "District") pursuant to the Mello -Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982, constituting Section 53311 et seq. of the California Government Code (the "Law").

Section 2. The Resolution of Intention, incorporating by reference a map of the proposed boundaries of the District and describing the public improvements (the "Facilities") and municipal services (the "Services"), and the prepayment of certain special taxes (the "Special Taxes"), eligible to be financed by the District, the cost of financing the Facilities and the Services, and the prepayment of the Special Taxes, and the rate and method of apportionment of the special tax to be levied within the District to pay the costs of the Facilities and the Services, and the prepayment of the Special Taxes, and to pay the principal and interest on bonds proposed to be issued with respect to the District, is on file with the Secretary and the provisions thereof are incorporated herein by this reference as if fully set forth herein.

Section 3. On this date, this Board of Directors held the public hearing as required by the Law and the Resolution of Intention relative to the proposed formation of the District.

Section 4. At the hearing all interested persons desiring to be heard on all matters pertaining to the formation of the District, the Facilities and the Services, and the prepayment of the Special Taxes eligible to be funded by the District, and the levy of the special tax, were heard and a full and fair hearing was held.

Section 5. At the hearing evidence was presented to this Board of Directors on the matters before it, including a report by the Director of Public Works of the City of Temecula (the "Report") as to the Facilities and the Services, and the prepayment of the Special Taxes eligible to be funded by the District and the costs thereof, a copy of which is on file with the Secretary, and this Board of Directors at the conclusion of the hearing was fully advised regarding the District.

Section 6. Written protests with respect to the formation of the District and/or the furnishing of specified types of the Facilities or of the Services, or of the Special Taxes to be prepaid, as described in the Report, have not been filed with the Secretary by fifty percent (50%) or more of the registered voters residing within the territory of the District or the owners of one- half (1/2) or more of the area of land within the District and not exempt from the special tax.

Section 7. The special tax proposed to be levied in the District to pay for the costs of the Facilities and the Services and the prepayment of the Special Taxes, as set forth in Exhibit B to the Resolution of Intention, has not been eliminated by protest by fifty percent (50%) or more of the registered voters residing within the territory of the District or the owners of one-half (1/2) or more of the area of land within the District and not exempt from the special tax.

Section 8. On April 10, 2001, this Board of Directors adopted a resolution approving Local Goals and Policies for Community Facilities Districts, and this Board of Directors hereby finds and determines that the District is in conformity with said goals and policies.

Section 9. All prior proceedings taken by this Board of Directors in connection with the establishment of the District and the levy of the special tax have been duly considered and are hereby found and determined to be valid and in conformity with the Law.

Section 10. The community facilities district designated "Temecula Public Financing Authority Community Facilities District No. 23-02 (Prado)" is hereby established pursuant to the Law.

Section 11. The boundaries of the District, as described in the Resolution of Intention and set forth in the boundary map of the District recorded on February 7, 2024 at 10:11 a.m. in the Riverside County Recorder's Office in Book 92 of Maps of Assessment and Community Facilities Districts at Page 66 (instrument no. 2024-0034988), are hereby approved, are incorporated herein by this reference and shall be the boundaries of the District.

Section 12. The types of facilities and services, and the prepayment of the special taxes, eligible to be funded by the District pursuant to the Law are as described in Exhibit A hereto which Exhibit is by this reference incorporated herein. This Board of Directors hereby finds that the Facilities and the Services are necessary to meet increased demands placed upon local agencies as the result of development occurring in the District.

Section 13. Except to the extent that funds are otherwise available to the District to pay for the Facilities, the Services, the prepayment of the Special Taxes and/or to pay the principal and interest as it becomes due on bonds of the District issued to finance the Facilities and the prepayment of the Special Taxes, a special tax sufficient to pay the costs thereof, secured by recordation of a continuing lien against all non-exempt real property in the District, will be levied within the District and collected in the same manner as ordinary ad valorem property taxes or in such other manner as this Board of Directors shall determine, including direct billing of the affected property owners. The proposed rate and method of apportionment of the special tax among the parcels of real property within the District, in sufficient detail to allow each landowner within the proposed District to estimate the maximum amount such owner will have to pay, are described in Exhibit B to the Resolution of Intention which Exhibit is by this

reference incorporated herein. This Board of Directors hereby finds that the basis for the levy and apportionment of the special tax, as set forth in the Rate and Method, is reasonable.

Section 14. The Treasurer of the Temecula Public Financing Authority, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, CA 92590, telephone number (951) 693-3945, is the officer of the Authority that will be responsible for preparing annually and whenever otherwise necessary a current roll of special tax levy obligations by assessor's parcel number and which will be responsible for estimating future special tax levies pursuant to Section 53340.2 of the Law.

Section 15. Upon recordation of a notice of special tax lien pursuant to Section 3114.5 of the California Streets and Highways Code, a continuing lien to secure each levy of the special tax shall attach to all nonexempt real property in the District and this lien shall continue in force and effect until the special tax obligation is prepaid and permanently satisfied and the lien canceled in accordance with law or until collection of the tax by the Authority ceases.

Section 16. In accordance with Section 53325.7 of the Law, the appropriations limit, as defined by subdivision (h) of Section 8 of Article XIIIB of the California Constitution, of the District is hereby preliminarily established at $20,000,000 and said appropriations limit shall be submitted to the voters of the District as provided below. The proposition establishing the appropriations limit shall become effective if approved by the qualified electors voting thereon and shall be adjusted in accordance with the applicable provisions of Section 53325.7 of the Law.

Section 17. Pursuant to the provisions of the Law, the proposition of the levy of the special tax and the proposition of the establishment of the appropriations limit specified above shall be submitted to the qualified electors of the District as separate ballot measures at an election, the time, place and conditions of which election shall be as specified by a separate resolution of this Board of Directors.

Section 18. This Resolution shall take effect upon its adoption.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the Board of Directors of the Temecula Public Financing Authority this 27th day of February, 2024.

James Stewart, Chair
ATTEST:

Randi Johl, Secretary
[SEAL]

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss

CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, Randi Johl, Secretary of the Temecula Public Financing Authority, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. TPFA 2024- was duly and regularly adopted by the Board of Directors of the Temecula Public Financing Authority at a meeting thereof held on the 27th day of February, 2024, by the following vote:

AYES: BOARD MEMBERS:

NOES: BOARD MEMBERS:

I_ : W: I :T97_11 to] 07L1aL10.1a C�
ABSENT: BOARD MEMBERS:

Randi Johl, Secretary

EXHIBIT A

DESCRIPTION OF SPECIAL TAXES, FACILITIES AND MUNICIPAL

SERVICES ELIGIBLE TO BE FUNDED BY THE DISTRICT

SPECIAL TAXES TO BE PREPAID
It is proposed that the District be eligible to finance all or a portion of any amount necessary to eliminate any fixed special assessment liens, or to pay, repay, or defease any obligation to pay or any indebtedness secured by any tax, fee, charge, or assessment levied within the area of the CFD (including, but not limited to the lien of special taxes by the Temecula Public Financing Authority Community Facilities District No. 01-2 (Harveston)), or to pay debt service on any such indebtedness.

FACILITIES
It is proposed that the District be eligible to finance all or a portion of the costs of the following facilities:

The acquisition and construction of: streets (including paving, aggregate base, striping and traffic marking, sidewalks, curbs, gutters and driveways), including Temecula Center Drive, Ynez Road and Date Street within and in the vicinity of the District; stormwater drainage systems (including storm drain lines, inlets, outlets, channels, structures, junctions, manholes, catch basins and related dewatering); street light improvements (including light fixtures, substructures, conduits and service points of connection); and street signage (including traffic, stop and street name signs).

The foregoing are to include the acquisition of any related right-of-way and other land needed for the installation of any such improvements, demolition of existing structures and site leveling needed for the installation of any such improvements, erosion control, and other appurtenances.
• The acquisition and installation of traffic signal improvements, including traffic signal interconnection and video surveillance systems, at the intersection of Ynez Road and Temecula Center Drive.
• Landscaping improvements in the public right of way along or in the vicinity of Temecula Center Drive, Date Street and Ynez Road, including related appurtenances.
• Capital improvements included in the City of Temecula's adopted Capital Improvement Program for Fiscal Years 2024-2028.
• School improvements to be designated by the Temecula Valley Unified School District, which may include construction of buildings, equipping of school facilities, and acquisition of support and other appurtenances with a useful life of five years or more.
• Sewer system improvements to be designated by the Eastern Municipal Water District.

Water facilities to be designated by the Rancho California Water District.

A-1

The Facilities include the acquisition of right-of-way, the costs of design, engineering and planning, the costs of any environmental or traffic studies, surveys or other reports, the cost of any required environmental mitigation and any required noise mitigation measures, landscaping and irrigation, soils testing, permits, plan check and inspection fees, insurance, legal and related overhead costs, coordination and supervision and any other costs or appurtenances related to any of the foregoing.

MUNICIPAL SERVICES
It is proposed that the District be eligible to fund all or a portion of the costs of the following municipal services:
• Public safety services, including police and fire protection. • Maintenance of parks, and landscaping in public areas, public easements and public right of way in or near the area of the District, such maintenance to include but not be limited to maintenance of planting areas, trees, bioretention filters, multipurpose trails, and the furnishing of water for irrigation.
• Maintenance of public signage in or near the District. • Maintenance of storm drainage systems within or serving the area of the District, and including storm drain pipes, culverts, detention/desilting basins, manholes, catch basins and drop inlets, cleanout of storm drains and catch basin cleaning and inspection.
• Maintenance of sidewalks, streets and roadways within or in the vicinity of the area of the District, and including slurry, overlay, curbs and gutters, curb ramps, striping and street sweeping.
• Maintenance of street lighting located within or in the vicinity of the District, and including decorative lighting and pull box assemblies.
• Maintenance of traffic signals, and traffic interconnection and video surveillance systems, within and in the vicinity of the District, and including electrical, LED replacement, maintenance and replacement.
• Graffiti removal from public improvements within and in the area of the District.

The District may fund any of the following related to the services described above: the furnishing of services and materials for the ordinary and usual maintenance, operation and servicing of the improvements, including repair, removal or replacement of all or part of any of the improvements, the furnishing of water for the irrigation and the furnishing of electric current or energy, for any lights or irrigation facilities, obtaining, constructing, furnishing, operating and maintaining equipment, apparatus or facilities related to providing the services and/or equipment, apparatus, facilities or fixtures in areas to be maintained, obtaining supplies or appurtenant facilities necessary for such maintenance, paying the salaries and benefits of personnel necessary or convenient to provide the services, payment of insurance costs and other related expenses. The District may also provide for the reimbursement to the City of Temecula to the extent that the City of Temecula advances funds to pay for any of the foregoing services, and may fund reserves for repairs and replacements and for future expected costs of services. It is A-2

expected that the services will be provided by the City of Temecula, either with its own employees or by contract with third parties, or any combination thereof.

The services to be financed by the District shall be in addition to those provided in the territory of the District before the date of creation of the District, and will not supplant services already available within that territory when the District is created.

OTHER
It is expected that the District may also finance any of the following:

1. Bond related expenses, including underwriters discount, appraisal and price point study costs, reserve fund, capitalized interest, bond and disclosure counsel fees and expenses, landowner counsel fees and expenses, and all other incidental expenses related to any special tax bonds (the "Bonds") issued for the District.

2. Administrative fees of the Authority, the City of Temecula and the Bond trustee or fiscal agent related to the District and the Bonds.

3. Reimbursement of costs related to the formation of the District advanced by the Authority, the City of Temecula, any landowner in the District, or any party related to any of the foregoing, as well as reimbursement of any costs advanced by the Authority, the City of Temecula, any landowner in the District or any party related to any of the foregoing, for facilities, fees or other purposes or costs of the District.

A-3

RESOLUTION NO. TPFA 2024-

A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF

THE TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY

DETERMINING THE NECESSITY TO INCUR BONDED

INDEBTEDNESS OF THE TEMECULA PUBLIC

FINANCING AUTHORITY COMMUNITY FACILITIES
DISTRICT NO.23-02 (PRADO)

THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. On January 23, 2024, this Board of Directors adopted Resolution No. TPFA 2024-01 entitled "A Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Temecula Public Financing Authority Declaring Its Intention to Establish a Community Facilities District and to Authorize the Levy of Special Taxes Therein — Prado" (the "Resolution of Intention") stating its intention to form the Temecula Public Financing Authority Community Facilities District No. 23-02 (Prado) (the "District"), pursuant to the Mello -Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982, California Government Code Section 53311 et seq. (the "Law"), to fund costs of certain public improvements (the "Facilities"), of certain municipal services (the "Services") and the prepayment of certain special taxes (the "Special Taxes"), as described therein.

Section 2. On January 23, 2024, this Board of Directors also adopted Resolution No.

TPFA 2024-02 entitled "A Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Temecula Public Financing Authority Declaring Its Intention to Incur Bonded Indebtedness of the Proposed Temecula Public Financing Authority Community Facilities District No. 23-02 (Prado)" (the "Resolution of Intention to Incur Indebtedness") stating its intention to incur bonded indebtedness within the boundaries of the District for the purpose of financing costs of the Facilities and the prepayment of the Special Taxes.

Section 3. On this date, this Board of Directors held the public hearing as required by the Law and the Resolution of Intention relative to the determination to proceed with the formation of the District, the provision by the District of funds to pay costs of the Facilities, the Services and the prepayment of the Special Taxes, and the rate and method of apportionment of the special tax to be levied within the District to pay the principal and interest on the proposed indebtedness and the administrative costs of the Authority and the City of Temecula relative to the District.

Section 4. At the hearing all persons desiring to be heard on all matters pertaining to the formation of the District, the provision of funds to pay the costs of the Facilities, the Services and the prepayment of the Special Taxes and the levy of the special tax on property within the District, were heard and a full and fair hearing was held.

Section 5. Subsequent to the hearing, this Board of Directors adopted a resolution entitled "A Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Temecula Public Financing Authority of Formation of Temecula Public Financing Authority Community Facilities District No. 23-02

(Prado), Authorizing The Levy Of A Special Tax Within The District, and Preliminarily Establishing An Appropriations Limit For The District" (the "Resolution of Formation").

Section 6. On this date, this Board of Directors held the public hearing as required by the Law relative to the matters material to the questions set forth in the Resolution of Intention to Incur Indebtedness.

Section 7. No written protests with respect to the matters material to the questions set forth in the Resolution of Intention to Incur Indebtedness have been filed with the Secretary.

Section 8. This Board of Directors deems it necessary to incur bonded indebtedness in the maximum aggregate principal amount of $20,000,000 within the boundaries of the District.

Section 9. The indebtedness is incurred for the purpose of financing costs of the Facilities and the prepayment of the Special Taxes, as provided in the Resolution of Formation including, but not limited to, the costs of issuing and selling bonds to finance costs of the Authority and the City of Temecula in administering the District.

Section 10. The whole of the District shall pay for the bonded indebtedness through the levy of the special tax. The special tax is to be apportioned in accordance with the Rate and Method set forth in Exhibit B to the Resolution of Intention.

Section 11. The maximum amount of bonded indebtedness to be incurred is $20,000,000 and the maximum term of the bonds to be issued shall in no event exceed forty (40) years.

Section 12. The bonds shall bear interest at a rate or rates not to exceed the maximum interest rate permitted by applicable law at the time of sale of the bonds, payable weekly, semiannually or in such other manner as this Board of Directors or its designee shall determine, the actual rate or rates and times of payment of such interest to be determined by this Board of Directors or its designee at the time or times of sale of the bonds.

Section 13. The proposition of incurring the bonded indebtedness herein authorized shall be submitted to the qualified electors of the District and shall be on the same ballot, as a separate ballot measure, with elections on the proposition of levying special taxes within the District and the establishment of an appropriations limit for the District. The time, place and conditions of said election shall be as specified by separate resolution of this Board of Directors.

Section 14. This Resolution shall take effect upon its adoption.

N

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the Board of Directors of the Temecula Public Financing Authority this 27th day of February, 2024.

James Stewart, Chair
ATTEST:

Randi Johl, Secretary
[SEAL]

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss

CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, Randi Johl, Secretary of the Temecula Public Financing Authority, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. TPFA 2024- was duly and regularly adopted by the Board of Directors of the Temecula Public Financing Authority at a meeting thereof held on the 27th day of February, 2024, by the following vote:

AYES: BOARD MEMBERS:

NOES: BOARD MEMBERS:

I_ : W: I :T97_11 to] 07L1aL10.1a C�
ABSENT: BOARD MEMBERS:

Randi Johl, Secretary

RESOLUTION NO. TPFA 2024-

A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE

TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY CALLING

SPECIAL ELECTION WITHIN COMMUNITY FACILITIES
DISTRICT NO.23-02 (PRADO)

THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. On this date, this Board of Directors adopted a resolution entitled "A Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Temecula Public Financing Authority of Formation of Temecula Public Financing Authority Community Facilities District No. 23-02 (Prado), Authorizing the Levy of a Special Tax Within the District, and Preliminarily Establishing an Appropriations Limit for the District" (the "Resolution of Formation"), ordering the formation of the Temecula Public Financing Authority Community Facilities District No. 23-02 (Prado) (the "District"), authorizing the levy of a special tax on property within the District and preliminarily establishing an appropriations limit for the District.

Section 2. On this date, this Board of Directors also adopted a resolution entitled "A Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Temecula Public Financing Authority Determining the Necessity to Incur Bonded Indebtedness of the Temecula Public Financing Authority Community Facilities District No. 23-02 (Prado)" (the "Resolution to Incur Indebtedness"), determining the necessity to incur bonded indebtedness in the maximum aggregate principal amount of $20,000,000 upon the security of the special tax to be levied within the District.

Section 3. Pursuant to Sections 53325.7, 53326 and 53351 of the California Government Code (the "Law"), the issues of the levy of said special tax, the incurring of bonded indebtedness and the establishment of said appropriations limit shall be submitted to the qualified electors of the District at an election called therefor as provided below.

Section 4. The three propositions described in Section 3 above shall be separate ballot measures included on a single ballot, the form of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A and by this reference incorporated herein. The form of ballot is hereby approved.

Section 5. This Board of Directors hereby finds that fewer than 12 persons have been registered to vote within the territory of the District for each of the ninety (90) days preceding the close of the public hearings heretofore conducted and concluded by this Board of Directors for the purposes of these proceedings. Accordingly, and pursuant to Section 53326(b) of the Law, this Board of Directors finds that for purposes of these proceedings the sole qualified elector is the owner of all of the land within the District and that the vote shall be by said landowner or its authorized representative, having one vote for each acre or portion thereof such landowner owns in the District as of the close of the public hearings.

Section 6. This Board of Directors hereby calls a special election to consider the three ballot measures described in Section 4 above, which election shall be held immediately following

adoption of this Resolution in the meeting place of the Board of Directors of the Temecula Public Financing Authority (the "Authority"). The Secretary is hereby designated as the official to conduct said election. It is hereby acknowledged that the Secretary has on file the Resolution of Formation, a map of the proposed boundaries of the District, and a sufficient description to allow the Secretary to determine the boundaries of the District.

Section 7. Pursuant to Section 53327 of the Law, the election shall be conducted by mail or hand delivered ballot pursuant to applicable provisions of the California Elections Code. The voted ballot shall be returned to the Secretary no later than immediately following the adoption of this Resolution; and when the qualified elector has voted, the election shall be closed.

Section 8. This Board of Directors acknowledges that the Secretary has delivered the ballot to the sole qualified elector of the District in the form set forth in Exhibit A hereto. The ballot indicated the number of votes to be voted by the landowner.

The ballot was accompanied by all supplies and written instructions necessary for the use and return of the ballot. The envelope to be used to return ballot was enclosed with the ballot, had the return postage prepaid, and contained the following: (a) the name and address of the landowner, (b) a declaration, under penalty of perjury, stating that the voter is the owner of record or authorized representative of the landowner entitled to vote and is the person whose name appears on the envelope, (c) the printed name, signature and address of the voter, (d) the date of signing and place of execution of the declaration pursuant to clause (b) above, and (e) a notice that the envelope contains an official ballot and is to be opened only by the Secretary.

Analysis and arguments with respect to the ballot measures were waived by the landowner in its petition to the Authority to create the District and are expected to be waived by the landowner in its voted ballot, as permitted by Section 53327(b) of the Law.

Section 9. The Secretary shall accept the ballot of the qualified elector upon and prior to the adoption of this Resolution, whether the ballot be personally delivered or received by mail.

The Secretary shall have available a ballot which may be marked in the Board of Directors meeting room on the election day by the qualified elector.

Section 10. This Board of Directors hereby further finds that the provision of the Law requiring a minimum of 90 days following the adoption of the Resolution of Formation to elapse before said special election is for the protection of the qualified elector of the District. The petition previously submitted by the landowner in the District and the voted ballot of the sole qualified elector of the District contain waivers of notices of hearings and notices of election, waiting periods for the election, ballot analysis and arguments in connection with the election, and any otherwise required form of the ballot. Accordingly, this Board of Directors finds and determines that the qualified elector has been fully apprised of and has agreed to the shortened time for the election and waiver of analysis and arguments, and has thereby been fully protected in these proceedings.

This Board of Directors also finds and determines that the Secretary has concurred in the shortened time for the election.

Section 11. Pursuant to the Local Agency Special Tax and Bond Accountability Act, Sections 50075.1 et. seq. and Sections 53410 et. seq. of the California Government Code, (a) (i) N

the ballot measure pertaining to the levy of special taxes referred to in Sections 3 and 4 above contains a statement indicating the specific purposes of the special tax, (ii) the proceeds of the special tax shall be applied only to the purposes specified in the ballot measure, (iii) there shall be created by the Treasurer an account into which proceeds of the special tax levies will be deposited, and (iv) the Treasurer is hereby directed to provide an annual report to this Board of Directors as required by Section 50075.3 of the California Government Code; and (b) (i) the ballot measure pertaining to the incurring of bonded indebtedness contains a statement indicating the specific purposes of the bonds, (ii) the proceeds of the bonds shall be applied only to the purposes specified in the ballot measure, (iii) there shall be created by the Treasurer an account into which the proceeds of the bonds will be deposited, and (iv) the Treasurer is hereby directed to provide an annual report to this Board of Directors as required by Section 53411 of the California Government Code.

Section 12. The Secretary is hereby directed to cause to be published in a newspaper of general circulation circulating within the District a copy of this Resolution and a copy of the Resolution to Incur Indebtedness, as soon as practicable after the date of adoption of this Resolution.

Section 13. This Resolution shall take effect upon its adoption.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the Board of Directors of the Temecula Public Financing Authority this 27th day of February, 2024.

James Stewart, Chair
ATTEST:

Randi Johl, Secretary
[SEAL]

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss

CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, Randi Johl, Secretary of the Temecula Public Financing Authority, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. TPFA 2024- was duly and regularly adopted by the Board of Directors of the Temecula Public Financing Authority at a meeting thereof held on the 27th day of February, 2024, by the following vote:

AYES: BOARD MEMBERS:

NOES: BOARD MEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: BOARD MEMBERS:

ABSENT: BOARD MEMBERS:

Randi Johl, Secretary

EXHIBIT A

TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY
COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 23-02
(PRADO)

OFFICIAL BALLOT
Special Tax and Bond Election
(February 27, 2024)
This ballot is for a special, landowner election. You must return this ballot in the enclosed postage paid envelope to the Secretary of the Temecula Public Financing Authority no later than immediately after adoption of the resolution of the Board of Directors calling said election, either by mail or in person.

To vote, mark a cross (X) on the voting line after the word "YES" or after the word "NO". All marks otherwise made are forbidden. All distinguishing marks are forbidden and make the ballot void.

If you wrongly mark, tear, or deface this ballot, return it to the Secretary of the Temecula Public Financing Authority and obtain another.

BALLOT MEASURE A: Shall the Temecula Public Financing Authority Community Facilities District No. 23-02 (Prado), in order to finance facilities, services, special tax prepayment, and administrative expenses, be authorized to Yes: ❑ levy Special Tax A, Special Tax B and Special Tax C at rates from $3,740 — $4,220 per dwelling unit and $83,890 per acre increasing 2% each fiscal year No: ❑ through fiscal year 2065-66, plus initially $420 per unit and $8,904 per acre increasing in transition year and at 5.6% each fiscal year in perpetuity, as specified in Resolution TPFA 2024-06 adopted February 27, 2024? BALLOT MEASURE B: Shall the Temecula Public Financing Authority Community Facilities District No. 23-02 (Prado), in order to finance certain Yes: ❑ facilities, prepayment of special taxes, fund a reserve fund and pay costs of issuance, be authorized to incur bonded indebtedness in a maximum amount of No: ❑ not to exceed $20,000,000 as specified in Resolution TPFA 2024-07 adopted February 27, 2024?
BALLOT MEASURE C: Shall the annual appropriations limit, as defined by subdivision (h) of Section 8 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution, of the Yes: ❑ Temecula Public Financing Authority Community Facilities District No. 23-02 (Prado) be established at $20,000,000, as specified in Resolution TPFA 2024- No: ❑ 06 adopted February 27, 2024?
By execution in the space provided below, you also indicate your waiver of the time limit pertaining to the conduct of the election and any requirement for analysis and arguments with respect to the ballot

measures, as such waivers are described and permitted by Section 53326(a) and 53327(b) of the California Government Code.

Number of Votes for
each Ballot Measure: 29
Property Owner: Meritage Homes of California, Inc., a
California corporation
By:

Its:

RESOLUTION NO. TPFA 2024-

A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF

THE TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY

DECLARING RESULTS OF SPECIAL ELECTION AND

DIRECTING RECORDING OF NOTICE OF SPECIAL TAX
LIEN — COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 23-02
(PRADO)

THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. In proceedings heretofore conducted by this Board of Directors pursuant to the Mello -Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982, Section 53311 et seq. of the California Government Code (the "Law"), this Board of Directors on this date adopted a resolution entitled "A Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Temecula Public Financing Authority Calling Special Election Within Community Facilities District No. 23-02 (Prado)", calling for a special election of the qualified electors within the Temecula Public Financing Authority Community Facilities District No. 23-02 (Prado) (the "District").

Section 2. Pursuant to the terms of said resolution, which are by this reference incorporated herein, the special election was held on this date, and the Secretary has on file a Canvass and Statement of Results of Election, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A.

Section 3. This Board of Directors has reviewed the canvass and hereby approves it.

Section 4. The issues presented at the special election were the incurring of a bonded indebtedness in the maximum aggregate principal amount of $20,000,000, the levy of a special tax within the District to be levied in accordance with the rate and method of apportionment of special taxes heretofore approved by this Board of Directors by its resolution adopted this date entitled "A Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Temecula Public Financing Authority of Formation of Temecula Public Financing Authority Community Facilities District No. 23-02 (Prado), Authorizing Levy of a Special Tax Within the District, and Preliminarily Establishing an Appropriations Limit for the District," and the approval of an appropriations limit of not to exceed $20,000,000 pursuant to said Resolution.

Section 5. Pursuant to the canvass of the special election on file with the Secretary, the issues presented at the special election each were approved by the sole qualified elector of the District by its votes cast at the special election.

Section 6. Pursuant to the voter approval, the District is hereby declared to be fully formed with the authority to incur bonded indebtedness and to levy special taxes as heretofore provided in these proceedings and in the Law.

Section 7. It is hereby found that all prior proceedings and actions taken by this Board of Directors with respect to the District were valid and in conformity with the Law.

Section 8. The Secretary is hereby directed to execute and cause to be recorded in the office of the County Recorder of the County of Riverside a notice of special tax lien in the form required by the Law, said recording to occur no later than fifteen days following adoption by the Board of Directors of this Resolution.

Section 9. This Resolution shall take effect upon its adoption.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the Board of Directors of the Temecula Public Financing Authority this 27th day of February, 2024.

James Stewart, Chair
ATTEST:

Randi Johl, Secretary
[SEAL]

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss

CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, Randi Johl, Secretary of the Temecula Public Financing Authority, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. TPFA 2024- was duly and regularly adopted by the Board of Directors of the Temecula Public Financing Authority at a meeting thereof held on the 27th day of February, 2024, by the following vote:

AYES: BOARD MEMBERS:

NOES: BOARD MEMBERS:

I_ : W: I :T97_11 to] 07L1aL10.1a C�
ABSENT: BOARD MEMBERS:

Randi Johl, Secretary

EXHIBIT A

CANVASS AND STATEMENT OF RESULT OF ELECTION

TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY
COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 23-02
(PRADO)
I hereby certify that on February 27, 2024, 1 canvassed the returns of the special election held on February 27, 2024, in the Temecula Public Financing Authority Community Facilities District No. 23-02 (Prado) and the total number of ballots cast in said District and the total number of votes cast for and against the ballot measures are as follows and the totals as shown for and against each measure are full, true and correct:

BALLOT MEASURE A: Shall the Temecula
Public Financing Authority Community
Facilities District No. 23-02 (Prado), in order to
finance facilities, services, special tax
prepayment, and administrative expenses be
authorized to levy Special Tax A, Special Tax
B and Special Tax C at rates from $3,740 —
$4,220 per dwelling unit and $83,890 per acre
increasing 2% each fiscal year through fiscal
year 2065-66, plus initially $420 per unit and
$8,904 per acre increasing in transition year
and at 5.6% each fiscal year in perpetuity, as
specified in Resolution TPFA 2024-06 adopted
February 27, 2024?
Qualified
Landowner Votes
Votes Cast YES NO
29 Qualified
Landowner Votes
Votes Cast YES NO
BALLOT MEASURE B: Shall the Temecula
Public Financing Authority Community
Facilities District No. 23-02 (Prado), in order to
finance certain facilities, prepayment of special 29
taxes, fund a reserve fund and pay costs of
issuance, be authorized to incur bonded
indebtedness in a maximum amount of not to
exceed $20,000,000 as specified in Resolution
TPFA 2024-07 adopted February 27, 2024?
A-1

Qualified
Landowner Votes
Votes Cast YES NO
BALLOT MEASURE C: Shall the annual
appropriations limit, as defined by subdivision
(h) of Section 8 of Article XIII B of the
California Constitution, of the Temecula Public 29
Financing Authority Community Facilities
District No. 23-02 (Prado) be established at
$20,000,000, as specified in Resolution TPFA
2024-06 adopted February 27, 2024?
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I HAVE HEREUNTO SET MY HAND this 27th day of February, 2024.

M
Secretary,
Temecula Public Financing Authority
A-2

ORDINANCE NO. TPFA 2024-

AN ORDINANCE OF THE TEMECULA PUBLIC

FINANCING AUTHORITY LEVYING SPECIAL TAXES

WITHIN TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY
COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO.23-02 (PRADO)

THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. On January 23, 2024, this Board of Directors of the Temecula Public Financing Authority (the "Authority") adopted Resolution No. TPFA 2024-01 entitled "A Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Temecula Public Financing Authority Declaring Its Intention to Establish a Community Facilities District and to Authorize the Levy of Special Taxes Therein — Prado" (the "Resolution of Intention"), stating its intention to establish the Temecula Public Financing Authority Community Facilities District No. 23-02 (Prado) pursuant to the Mello -Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982, Section 53311 et seq. of the California Government Code (the "Law"), to finance the costs of certain public improvements (the "Facilities") and of certain municipal services (the "Services"), and the cost to prepay certain special taxes (the "Special Taxes").

Section 2. Notice was published as required by the Law of the public hearing called pursuant to the Resolution of Intention relative to the intention of this Board of Directors to form the District and to provide for the costs of the Facilities, the Services and the prepayment of the Special Taxes.

Section 3. The Resolution of Intention called for a public hearing on the District to be held on February 27, 2024 and on such date this Board of Directors held the public hearing relative to the determination to proceed with the formation of the District.

Section 4. At the public hearing all persons desiring to be heard on all matters pertaining to the formation of the District and the levy of special taxes in the District were heard, substantial evidence was presented and considered by this Board of Directors and a full and fair hearing was held.

Section 5. Subsequent to said hearing, this Board of Directors adopted resolutions entitled "A Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Temecula Public Financing Authority of Formation of Temecula Public Financing Authority Community Facilities District No. 23-02 (Prado), Authorizing the Levy of a Special Tax Within the District, and Preliminarily Establishing an Appropriations Limit for the District" (the "Resolution of Formation"), "A Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Temecula Public Financing Authority Determining the Necessity to Incur Bonded Indebtedness of the Temecula Public Financing Authority Community Facilities District No. 23-02 (Prado)" (the "Resolution of Necessity") and "A Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Temecula Public Financing Authority Calling Special Election Within Community Facilities District No. 23-02 (Prado)", which resolutions established the District, authorized the levy of a special tax on property within the District, and called an

election within the District on the proposition of incurring indebtedness, levying the special tax and establishing an appropriations limit for the District.

Section 6. On February 27, 2024 an election was held within the District in which the sole eligible landowner elector approved said propositions.

Section 7. By the passage of this Ordinance this Board of Directors hereby authorizes and levies special taxes within the District, pursuant to the Law, at the rate and in accordance with the rate and method of apportionment of special taxes for the District approved by the Resolution of Formation (the "Rate and Method") which Resolution is by this reference incorporated herein. The special taxes are hereby levied commencing in Fiscal Year 2024-2025 and in each fiscal year thereafter until payment in full of any bonds issued by the Authority for the District (the "Bonds") as contemplated by the Resolution of Formation and the Resolution of Necessity, payment in full of all costs of administering the District, and so long as necessary to pay for the Services.

Section 8. The Authority Treasurer is hereby authorized and directed to work with the Finance Director for the City of Temecula (who is identified as the "CFD Administrator" in the Rate and Method) each fiscal year to determine the specific special tax rate and amount to be levied for each parcel of real property within the District, in the manner and as provided in the Rate and Method.

Section 9. Properties or entities of the State, federal or local governments shall be exempt from any levy of the special taxes, to the extent set forth in the Rate and Method attached as Exhibit B to the Resolution of Intention. In no event shall the special taxes be levied on any parcel within the District in excess of the maximum tax specified in the Rate and Method.

Section 10. All of the collections of the special tax shall be used as provided for in the Law and in the Resolution of Formation including the payment of principal and interest on the Bonds, the replenishment of the reserves for the Bonds, the payment of the costs to provide the Facilities and the Services, and to prepay the Special Taxes, the costs of the Authority and the City of Temecula in administering the District, and the costs of collecting and administering the special tax.

Section 11. The special taxes shall be collected from time to time as necessary to meet the financial obligations of the District on the secured real property tax roll in the same manner as ordinary ad valorem taxes are collected. The special taxes shall have the same lien priority, and be subject to the same penalties and the same procedure and sale in cases of delinquency as provided for ad valorem taxes. In addition, the provisions of Section 53356.1 of the California Government Code shall apply to delinquent special tax payments. The Treasurer is hereby authorized and directed to provide all necessary information to the auditor/tax collector of the County of Riverside and to otherwise take all actions necessary in order to effect proper billing and collection of the special tax, so that the special tax shall be levied and collected in sufficient amounts and at the times necessary to satisfy the financial obligations of the District in each fiscal year.

N

Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Treasurer may collect one or more installments of the special taxes on any one or more parcels in the District by means of direct billing by the Authority of the property owners within the District, if any of the Bonds bear interest at a variable interest rate, or otherwise if, in the judgment of the Treasurer, such means of collection will reduce the administrative burden on the Authority in administering the District or is otherwise appropriate in the circumstances. In such event, the special taxes shall become delinquent if not paid when due as set forth in any such respective billing to the applicable property owners.

Section 12. If for any reason any portion of this Ordinance is found to be invalid, or if the special tax is found inapplicable to any particular parcel within the District, by a Court of competent jurisdiction, the balance of this Ordinance, and the application of the special tax to the remaining parcels within the District shall not be affected.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the Board of Directors of the Temecula Public Financing Authority this 27th day of February, 2024.

ATTEST:

Randi Johl, Secretary
[SEAL]
James Stewart, Chair
3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss

CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, Randi Johl, Secretary of the Temecula Public Financing Authority, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. TPFA 2024- was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a meeting of the Board of Directors of the Temecula Public Financing Authority on the 271h day of February, 2024, and that thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted by the Board of Directors of the Temecula Public Financing Authority at a meeting thereof held on the day of , , by the following vote:

AYES: BOARD MEMBERS:
loco] T97_11to] 07L1aL10.1a C�
ABSTAIN: BOARD MEMBERS:

ABSENT: BOARD MEMBERS:

Randi Johl, Secretary

Quint & Thimmig LLP
2/4/24
2/13/24

TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY
COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO.23-02
(PRADO)

COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT REPORT

CONTENTS
Introduction
A. Description of Special Taxes eligible to be Prepaid, and the Facilities and the Municipal Services eligible to be Funded
B. Proposed Boundaries of the Community Facilities District C. Cost Estimate
Exhibit A — Description of Special Taxes eligible to be Prepaid, and the Facilities and the Municipal Services eligible to be Funded
Exhibit B — Cost Estimate
20009.24:J19205

TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY
COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 23-02
(PRADO)
INTRODUCTION. The Board of Directors (the "Board of Directors") of the Temecula Public Financing Authority (the "Authority") did, pursuant to the provisions of the Mello -Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982 (the "Law"), on January 23, 2024, adopt Resolution No. TPFA 2024-01 entitled "A Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Temecula Public Financing Authority Declaring Its Intention to Establish a Community Facilities District and to Authorize the Levy of Special Taxes Therein — Prado" (the "Resolution of Intention"). In the Resolution of Intention, the Board of Directors expressly ordered the preparation of a written Community Facilities District Report (the "Report"), for the proposed Temecula Public Financing Authority Community Facilities District No. 23-02 (Prado) (the "District").

The Resolution of Intention ordering the Report did direct that the Report generally contain the following:

1. A brief description of the special taxes eligible to be prepaid and the facilities and the municipal services eligible to be funded by the District; and

2. An estimate of the fair and reasonable cost of providing for the prepayment of the special taxes, and the funding of the facilities and the municipal services, including the incidental expenses in connection therewith, including the costs of the proposed bond financing, any Authority or City of Temecula administrative costs and all other related costs.

For particulars, reference is made to the Resolution of Intention, as previously approved and adopted by the Board of Directors.

NOW, THEREFORE, 1, the Director of Public Works of the City of Temecula, do hereby submit the following data:

A. DESCRIPTION OF SPECIAL TAXES ELIGIBLE TO BE PREPAID, AND THE FACILITIES AND THE MUNICIPAL SERVICES ELIGIBLE TO BE FUNDED. A brief description of the special taxes eligible to be prepaid and the facilities and municipal services that the Authority has determined to be eligible to be funded by the District are as shown in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and hereby made a part hereof.

B. PROPOSED BOUNDARIES OF THE COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT. The proposed boundaries of the District are those properties and parcels in which special taxes may be levied to pay for the cost to prepay certain special taxes, and the costs and expenses of the facilities and municipal services to be funded by the District. The proposed boundaries of the District are described in the map of the District recorded on February 7, 2024 at the hour of 10:11 o'clock a.m. in Book 92 at Page 66 of Maps of Assessment and Community Facilities Districts in the office of the County Recorder for the County of Riverside (instrument no. 2024- 0034988), a copy of which map is on file with the Secretary. -1-

C. COST ESTIMATE. The cost estimate of the funding for the prepayment of the special taxes, the facilities, and the annual municipal services is set forth in Exhibit 'B" attached hereto and hereby made a part hereof.

Dated: 2024
as
Patrick Thomas,
Director of Public Works
of the City of Temecula
-2-

EXHIBIT A

DESCRIPTION OF SPECIAL TAXES, FACILITIES AND MUNICIPAL SERVICES

ELIGIBLE TO BE FUNDED BY THE DISTRICT

SPECIAL TAXES TO BE PREPAID
It is proposed that the District be eligible to finance all or a portion of any amount necessary to eliminate any fixed special assessment liens, or to pay, repay, or defease any obligation to pay or any indebtedness secured by any tax, fee, charge, or assessment levied within the area of the CID (including, but not limited to the lien of special taxes by the Temecula Public Financing Authority Community Facilities District No. 01-2 (Harveston)), or to pay debt service on any such indebtedness.

FACILITIES
It is proposed that the District be eligible to finance all or a portion of the costs of the following facilities:
• The acquisition and construction of: streets (including paving, aggregate base, striping and traffic marking, sidewalks, curbs, gutters and driveways), including Temecula Center Drive, Ynez Road and Date Street within and in the vicinity of the District; stormwater drainage systems (including storm drain lines, inlets, outlets, channels, structures, junctions, manholes, catch basins and related dewatering); street light improvements (including light fixtures, substructures, conduits and service points of connection); and street signage (including traffic, stop and street name signs).

The foregoing are to include the acquisition of any related right-of-way and other land needed for the installation of any such improvements, demolition of existing structures and site leveling needed for the installation of any such improvements, erosion control, and other appurtenances.
• The acquisition and installation of traffic signal improvements, including traffic signal interconnection and video surveillance systems, at the intersection of Ynez Road and Temecula Center Drive.
• Landscaping improvements in the public right of way along or in the vicinity of Temecula Center Drive, Date Street and Ynez Road, including related appurtenances. • Capital improvements included in the City of Temecula's adopted Capital Improvement Program for Fiscal Years 2024-2028.
• School improvements to be designated by the Temecula Valley Unified School District, which may include construction of buildings, equipping of school facilities, and acquisition of support and other appurtenances with a useful life of five years or more. • Sewer system improvements to be designated by the Eastern Municipal Water District. • Water facilities to be designated by the Rancho California Water District.

The Facilities include the acquisition of right-of-way, the costs of design, engineering and planning, the costs of any environmental or traffic studies, surveys or other reports, the cost of any required environmental mitigation and any required noise mitigation measures, landscaping and irrigation, soils testing, permits, plan check and inspection fees, insurance, legal and related overhead costs, coordination and supervision and any other costs or appurtenances related to any of the foregoing.

A-1

MUNICIPAL SERVICES
It is proposed that the District be eligible to fund all or a portion of the costs of the following municipal services:
• Public safety services, including police and fire protection. • Maintenance of parks, and landscaping in public areas, public easements and public right of way in or near the area of the District, such maintenance to include but not be limited to maintenance of planting areas, trees, bioretention filters, multipurpose trails, and the furnishing of water for irrigation.
• Maintenance of public signage in or near the District. • Maintenance of storm drainage systems within or serving the area of the District, and including storm drain pipes, culverts, detention/desilting basins, manholes, catch basins and drop inlets, cleanout of storm drains and catch basin cleaning and inspection. • Maintenance of sidewalks, streets and roadways within or in the vicinity of the area of the District, and including slurry, overlay, curbs and gutters, curb ramps, striping and street sweeping.
• Maintenance of street lighting located within or in the vicinity of the District, and including decorative lighting and pull box assemblies.
• Maintenance of traffic signals, and traffic interconnection and video surveillance systems, within and in the vicinity of the District, and including electrical, LED replacement, maintenance and replacement.
• Graffiti removal from public improvements within and in the area of the District.

The District may fund any of the following related to the services described above: the furnishing of services and materials for the ordinary and usual maintenance, operation and servicing of the improvements, including repair, removal or replacement of all or part of any of the improvements, the furnishing of water for the irrigation and the furnishing of electric current or energy, for any lights or irrigation facilities, obtaining, constructing, furnishing, operating and maintaining equipment, apparatus or facilities related to providing the services and / or equipment, apparatus, facilities or fixtures in areas to be maintained, obtaining supplies or appurtenant facilities necessary for such maintenance, paying the salaries and benefits of personnel necessary or convenient to provide the services, payment of insurance costs and other related expenses. The District may also provide for the reimbursement to the City of Temecula to the extent that the City of Temecula advances funds to pay for any of the foregoing services, and may fund reserves for repairs and replacements and for future expected costs of services. It is expected that the services will be provided by the City of Temecula, either with its own employees or by contract with third parties, or any combination thereof.

The services to be financed by the District shall be in addition to those provided in the territory of the District before the date of creation of the District, and will not supplant services already available within that territory when the District is created.

It is expected that the District may also finance any of the following:

1. Bond related expenses, including underwriters discount, appraisal and price point study costs, reserve fund, capitalized interest, bond and disclosure counsel fees and expenses, landowner counsel fees and expenses, and all other incidental expenses related to any special tax bonds (the "Bonds") issued for the District.

A-2

2. Administrative fees of the Authority, the City of Temecula and the Bond trustee or fiscal agent related to the District and the Bonds.

3. Reimbursement of costs related to the formation of the District advanced by the Authority, the City of Temecula, any landowner in the District, or any party related to any of the foregoing, as well as reimbursement of any costs advanced by the Authority, the City of Temecula, any landowner in the District or any party related to any of the foregoing, for facilities, fees or other purposes or costs of the District.

A-3

EXHIBIT B

TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY
COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO.23-02
(PRADO)

PREPAYMENT OF SPECIAL TAXES ESTIMATE
The cost to prepay the special taxes levied on property in the District for the Temecula Public Financing Authority Community Facilities District No. 01-2 (Harveston), if the special taxes were prepaid on July 1, 2024, is estimated to be $191,706.97; consisting of the following: bond redemption amount $208,536.25, bond redemption premium $4,170.72, less a reserve fund credit of $21,000.00.

BONDS / FACILITIES COST ESTIMATE
Acquisition & Construction of Facilities
Incidentals
(a) Bond Reserve Fund
(b) Capitalized Interest
(c) Bond Discount/Underwriter Compensation
(d) Other Costs of Issuance
Subtotal Incidentals:

Total Bond Amount Needed
$1,311,000
692,000
500,000
400,000

MUNICIPAL SERVICES COST ESTIMATE
$17,097,000
$ 2,903,000
$ 20,000,000
The maximum annual special tax that may be levied in the District to pay costs of providing the services eligible to be funded by the District is projected to be $99,540.00 for fiscal year 2024-25 (assuming buildout of 237 homes expected to be constructed in the District), increasing each fiscal year thereafter by an amount equal to five and six -tenths percent (5.6%) of the amount in effect for the previous fiscal year; to be replaced by a maximum special tax projected to be $4,025.20 per unit for the Transition Year (as defined in the Rate and Method of Apportionment of Special Taxes for the District), that will increase, each fiscal year following the Transition Year by an amount equal to five and six -tenths percent (5.6%) over the amount in effect for the previous fiscal year.

IM

Quint & Thimmig LLP
2/4/24
2/13/24

RECORDING REQUESTED BY
AND RETURN TO:

CITY CLERK

CITY OF TEMECULA
41000 Main Street
Temecula, CA 92590

EXEMPT FROM RECORDER'S FEES
Pursuant to Government Code
Sections 6103 and 27383

NOTICE OF SPECIAL TAX LIEN

TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY
COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO.23-02
(PRADO)
20009.24:J19210

NOTICE OF SPECIAL TAX LIEN
Temecula Public Financing Authority
Community Facilities District No. 23-02
(Prado)
Pursuant to the requirements of Section 3114.5 of the California Streets and Highways Code and Section 53311 et seq. of the California Government Code, the undersigned Secretary of the Temecula Public Financing Authority (the "Authority"), County of Riverside, State of California, hereby gives notice that a lien to secure payment of a special tax which the Board of Directors of the Authority authorized, is hereby imposed. The special tax secured by this lien is authorized to be levied for the purpose of paying principal and interest on bonds, the proceeds of which are being used to finance the costs of certain public facilities and the prepayment of certain special taxes, as well as pay for the public facilities and certain municipal services and administrative expenses, all as described on Exhibit A attached hereto and hereby made a part hereof.

The special tax is authorized to be levied within the Temecula Public Financing Authority Community Facilities District No. 23-02 (Prado) which has now been officially formed and the lien of the special tax is a continuing lien which shall secure each annual levy of the special tax and which shall continue in force and effect until the special tax obligation is permanently satisfied and cancelled in accordance with law or until the special tax ceases to be levied and a notice of cessation of special tax is recorded in accordance with Section 53330.5 of the Government Code.

The rate, method of apportionment, and manner of collection of the authorized special tax is as set forth in Exhibit B attached hereto and hereby made a part hereof. Conditions under which the obligation to pay the Special Tax A may be prepaid in part or in full and permanently satisfied in part or in full are as provided in Exhibit B hereto. Special Tax B and Special Tax C may not be prepaid.

Notice is further given that upon the recording of this notice in the office of the County Recorder, the obligation to pay the special tax levy shall become a lien upon all nonexempt real property within the Temecula Public Financing Authority Community Facilities District No. 23- 02 (Prado) in accordance with Section 3115.5 of the California Streets and Highways Code.

The name(s) of the owner(s) of the real property included within the area of this community facilities district and the assessor's tax parcel(s) numbers of all parcels or any portion thereof which are included within the area of this community facilities district, in each case which are not exempt from the special tax and as they appear on the latest secured assessment roll as of the date of recording of this or as otherwise known to the Authority, are as set forth in Exhibit C attached hereto and hereby made a part hereof.

Reference is made to the boundary map of the community facilities district recorded on February 7, 2024 at 10:11 a.m. in Book 92 of Maps of Assessment and Community Facilities Districts at Page 66 (instrument no. 2024-0034988), in the office of the County Recorder for the County of Riverside, State of California, which map is now the final boundary map of the community facilities district.
-2-

For further information concerning the current and estimated future tax liability of owners or purchasers of real property subject to this special tax lien, interested persons should contact the Treasurer of the Temecula Public Financing Authority, Temecula Public Financing Authority, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, CA 92590, telephone number (951) 693-3945.

Dated: 2024
51 Secretary,
Temecula Public Financing Authority
-3-

EXHIBIT A

DESCRIPTION OF SPECIAL TAXES, FACILITIES AND MUNICIPAL

SERVICES ELIGIBLE TO BE FUNDED BY THE DISTRICT

SPECIAL TAXES TO BE PREPAID
It is proposed that the District be eligible to finance all or a portion of any amount necessary to eliminate any fixed special assessment liens, or to pay, repay, or defease any obligation to pay or any indebtedness secured by any tax, fee, charge, or assessment levied within the area of the CFD (including, but not limited to the lien of special taxes by the Temecula Public Financing Authority Community Facilities District No. 01-2 (Harveston)), or to pay debt service on any such indebtedness.

FACILITIES
It is proposed that the District be eligible to finance all or a portion of the costs of the following facilities:
• The acquisition and construction of: streets (including paving, aggregate base, striping and traffic marking, sidewalks, curbs, gutters and driveways), including Temecula Center Drive, Ynez Road and Date Street within and in the vicinity of the District; stormwater drainage systems (including storm drain lines, inlets, outlets, channels, structures, junctions, manholes, catch basins and related dewatering); street light improvements (including light fixtures, substructures, conduits and service points of connection); and street signage (including traffic, stop and street name signs).

The foregoing are to include the acquisition of any related right-of-way and other land needed for the installation of any such improvements, demolition of existing structures and site leveling needed for the installation of any such improvements, erosion control, and other appurtenances.
• The acquisition and installation of traffic signal improvements, including traffic signal interconnection and video surveillance systems, at the intersection of Ynez Road and Temecula Center Drive.
• Landscaping improvements in the public right of way along or in the vicinity of Temecula Center Drive, Date Street and Ynez Road, including related appurtenances. • Capital improvements included in the City of Temecula's adopted Capital Improvement Program for Fiscal Years 2024-2028.
• School improvements to be designated by the Temecula Valley Unified School District, which may include construction of buildings, equipping of school facilities, and acquisition of support and other appurtenances with a useful life of five years or more. • Sewer system improvements to be designated by the Eastern Municipal Water District. • Water facilities to be designated by the Rancho California Water District.

The Facilities include the acquisition of right-of-way, the costs of design, engineering and planning, the costs of any environmental or traffic studies, surveys or other reports, the cost of any required environmental mitigation and any required noise mitigation measures, landscaping and irrigation, soils testing, permits, plan check and inspection fees, insurance, legal and related overhead costs, coordination and supervision and any other costs or appurtenances related to any of the foregoing.

A-1

MUNICIPAL SERVICES
It is proposed that the District be eligible to fund all or a portion of the costs of the following municipal services:
• Public safety services, including police and fire protection. • Maintenance of parks, and landscaping in public areas, public easements and public right of way in or near the area of the District, such maintenance to include but not be limited to maintenance of planting areas, trees, bioretention filters, multipurpose trails, and the furnishing of water for irrigation.
• Maintenance of public signage in or near the District. • Maintenance of storm drainage systems within or serving the area of the District, and including storm drain pipes, culverts, detention/desilting basins, manholes, catch basins and drop inlets, cleanout of storm drains and catch basin cleaning and inspection. • Maintenance of sidewalks, streets and roadways within or in the vicinity of the area of the District, and including slurry, overlay, curbs and gutters, curb ramps, striping and street sweeping.
• Maintenance of street lighting located within or in the vicinity of the District, and including decorative lighting and pull box assemblies.
• Maintenance of traffic signals, and traffic interconnection and video surveillance systems, within and in the vicinity of the District, and including electrical, LED replacement, maintenance and replacement.
• Graffiti removal from public improvements within and in the area of the District.

The District may fund any of the following related to the services described above: the furnishing of services and materials for the ordinary and usual maintenance, operation and servicing of the improvements, including repair, removal or replacement of all or part of any of the improvements, the furnishing of water for the irrigation and the furnishing of electric current or energy, for any lights or irrigation facilities, obtaining, constructing, furnishing, operating and maintaining equipment, apparatus or facilities related to providing the services and / or equipment, apparatus, facilities or fixtures in areas to be maintained, obtaining supplies or appurtenant facilities necessary for such maintenance, paying the salaries and benefits of personnel necessary or convenient to provide the services, payment of insurance costs and other related expenses. The District may also provide for the reimbursement to the City of Temecula to the extent that the City of Temecula advances funds to pay for any of the foregoing services, and may fund reserves for repairs and replacements and for future expected costs of services. It is expected that the services will be provided by the City of Temecula, either with its own employees or by contract with third parties, or any combination thereof.

The services to be financed by the District shall be in addition to those provided in the territory of the District before the date of creation of the District, and will not supplant services already available within that territory when the District is created.

It is expected that the District may also finance any of the following:

1. Bond related expenses, including underwriters discount, appraisal and price point study costs, reserve fund, capitalized interest, bond and disclosure counsel fees and expenses, landowner counsel fees and expenses, and all other incidental expenses related to any special tax bonds (the "Bonds") issued for the District.

A-2

2. Administrative fees of the Authority, the City of Temecula and the Bond trustee or fiscal agent related to the District and the Bonds.

3. Reimbursement of costs related to the formation of the District advanced by the Authority, the City of Temecula, any landowner in the District, or any party related to any of the foregoing, as well as reimbursement of any costs advanced by the Authority, the City of Temecula, any landowner in the District or any party related to any of the foregoing, for facilities, fees or other purposes or costs of the District.

A-3

EXHIBIT B

RATE AND METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT OF SPECIAL TAX

TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY
COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 23-02
(PRADO)
The following sets forth the Rate and Method of Apportionment of Special Tax for the levy and collection of an Annual Special Tax A, an Annual Special Tax B, and an Annual Special Tax C in the Temecula Public Financing Authority ("Authority") Community Facilities District No. 23-02 (Prado) ("CFD No. 23-02"). An Annual Special Tax A, an Annual Special Tax B, and an Annual Special Tax C shall be levied on property in CFD No. 23-02 and collected in CFD No. 23-02 each Fiscal Year, in an amount determined through the application of the Rate and Method of Apportionment of Special Tax described below. All of the real property within CFD No. 23-02, unless exempted by law or by the provisions hereof, shall be taxed for the purposes, to the extent, and in the manner herein provided.

SECTION A

DEFINITIONS
The terms hereinafter set forth have the following meanings:
"Acre" or "Acreage" means the land area of an Assessor's Parcel as shown on an Assessor's Parcel Map, or if the land area is not shown on the Assessor's Parcel Map, the land area as shown on the applicable Final Map, or if the land area is not shown on the applicable Final Map, the land area as calculated by or on behalf of the CFD Administrator.
"Act" means the Mello -Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982, as amended, being Chapter 2.5, Division 2 of Title 5 of the Government Code of the State of California. "Administrative Expenses" means the actual or reasonably estimated costs directly related to the administration of CFD No. 23-02, including but not limited to the following: (i) the costs of computing Special Tax A, Special Tax B, and/or Special Tax C (collectively, the "Special Taxes") and of preparing the annual Special Tax A, Special Tax B, and Special Tax C collection schedules (whether by the CFD Administrator or designee thereof, or both); (ii) the costs of collecting the Special Taxes (whether by the Authority, County, City, or otherwise); (iii) the costs of remitting the Special Taxes to the fiscal agent or trustee for any Bonds; (iv) the costs of commencing and pursuing to completion any foreclosure action arising from delinquent Special Taxes; (v) the costs of the fiscal agent or trustee (including its legal counsel) in the discharge of the duties required of it under any Indenture; (vi) the costs of the Authority, City, or designee of either in complying with arbitrage rebate, mandated reporting and disclosure requirements of applicable federal and State of California laws, and responding to property owner or Bond owner inquiries regarding the Special Taxes or Bonds; (vii) the costs associated with the release of funds from any escrow account established under an Indenture; (viii) the costs of the Authority, City, or designee of either related to any appeal of a Special Tax; (ix) an allocable share of the salaries of the City staff and City overhead expense directly relating to the foregoing and (x) any other expense eligible under the Act to be charged for the administration of CFD 23-02 or any Bonds. Administrative Expenses shall also include amounts advanced by the City or the Authority for any administrative purposes of CFD No. 23-02. "Annual Special Tax A" means for each Assessor's Parcel, the Special Tax A actually levied in a given Fiscal Year on such Assessor's Parcel.

"Annual Special Tax B" means for each Assessor's Parcel, the Special Tax B actually levied in a given Fiscal Year on such Assessor's Parcel.
"Annual Special Tax C" means for each Assessor's Parcel, the Special Tax C actually levied in a given Fiscal Year on such Assessor's Parcel.
"Approved Property" means all Assessor's Parcels of Taxable Property other than Provisional Exempt Property: (i) that are included in a Final Map that was recorded prior to the January 1st immediately preceding the Fiscal Year in which the Special Tax A is being levied, and (ii) that have not been issued a Building Permit on or before the April 1 st immediately preceding the Fiscal Year in which the Special Tax A is being levied.
"Assessor" means the Assessor of the County.
"Assessor's Parcel" or "Parcel" means a lot or parcel of land designated on an Assessor's Parcel Map with an assigned Assessor's Parcel Number within the boundaries of CFD No. 23-02. "Assessor's Parcel Map" means an official map of the Assessor designating parcels by Assessor's Parcel Number.
"Assessor's Parcel Number" means that number assigned to a lot or parcel of land by the Assessor for purposes of identification.
"Assigned Annual Special Tax A" means the Special Tax A as described in Section D below. "Authority" means the Temecula Public Financing Authority. "Authorized Facilities" means the public facilities authorized to be financed, in whole or in part, by CFD No. 23-02, as identified in the list of authorized facilities approved by the Resolution of Formation of the CFD adopted by the Board of Directors when the CFD No. 23-02 was formed or as it may be modified by proceedings under the Act.
"Authorized Services" means the services authorized to be funded, in whole or in part, by the CFD No. 23-02, as identified in the list of authorized services approved by the Resolution of Formation of the CFD adopted by the Board of Directors when the CFD No. 23-02 was formed or as it may be modified by proceedings under the Act.
"Backup Annual Special Tax A" means the Special Tax A as described in Section E below. "Board of Directors" means the Board of Directors of the Authority, acting as the legislative body of CFD No. 23-02, or its designee.
"Bonds" means any bonds or other indebtedness (as defined in the Act), whether in one or more series, the repayment of which is secured by a pledge of the proceeds of the levy of Special Tax A on Assessor's Parcels within CFD No. 23-02.
"Boundary Map" means a recorded map which indicates the boundaries of CFD No. 23-02. "Building Permit" means the first legal document issued by the City giving official permission for new construction of improvements on an Assessor's Parcel in CFD No. 23-02. For purposes of this In

definition, "Building Permit" may or may not include any subsequent building permits issued or changed after the first issuance, as determined by the CFD Administrator. "Building Square Footage" or "BSF" means the square footage of assessable internal living space, exclusive of garages or other structures not used as living space, as determined by the CFD Administrator by reference to the building permit application for such Assessor's Parcel. "Calendar Year" means the period commencing January 1 of any year and ending the following December 31.
"CFD No. 23-02" or "CFD" means the Temecula Public Financing Authority Community Facilities District No. 23-02 (Prado) formed by the Authority under the Act. "CFD Administrator" or "Administrator" means the Finance Director of the City, or designee thereof, responsible for, among other things, determining the Special Tax A Requirement, the Special Tax B Requirement, and the Special Tax C Requirement and providing for the levy and collection of said Special Tax A, Special Tax B, and Special Tax C.
"City" means the City of Temecula, California.
"County" means the County of Riverside, California.
"Developed Property" means all Assessor's Parcels of Taxable Property: (i) that are included in a Final Map that was recorded prior to January 1 st preceding the Fiscal Year in which Special Tax A, Special Tax B or Special Tax C are being levied, and (ii) for which a building permit was issued on or before April 1 st preceding the Fiscal Year in which any or all of the Special Taxes are being levied. "Exempt Property" means all Assessor's Parcels designated as being exempt from the Special Taxes as provided for in Section P.
"Exempt Welfare Exemption Property" means, for each Fiscal Year, an Assessor's Parcel that is (a) receiving a welfare exemption under subdivision (g) of Section 214 of the California Revenue and Taxation Code (or any successor statute), as indicated in the County's Assessor's roll finalized as of January 1 of the previous Fiscal Year, and (b) exempt from the Special Tax pursuant to Section 53340(c) of the Act. Pursuant to Section 53340(c) of the Act, after the issuance of the first series of Bonds, any Assessor's Parcels that receive welfare exemption under subdivision (g) of Section 214 of the California Revenue and Taxation Code (or any successor statute) shall not be classified as Exempt Welfare Exemption Property and will be subject to the Special Tax. "Final Map" means a subdivision of property by recordation of a final map, parcel map, or lot line adjustment, pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act (California Government Code Section 66410 et seq.) or recordation of a condominium plan pursuant to California Civil Code 4285 that creates individual lots that do not need, and are not expected, to be further subdivided prior to the issuance of a Building Permit.
"Fiscal Year" means the period commencing July 1 of any year and ending the following June 30. "Indenture" means the bond indenture, fiscal agent agreement, trust agreement, resolution, or other instrument pursuant to which Bonds are issued, as modified, amended and/or supplemented from time to time, and any instrument replacing or supplementing the same.

I:c

"Land Use Type" means Residential Property, Multifamily Residential Property, or Non -Residential Property.
"Maximum Special Tax A" means for each Assessor's Parcel of Taxable Property, the maximum Special Tax A, determined in accordance with Section C that can be levied on each such Assessor's Parcel.
"Maximum Special Tax B" means for each Assessor's Parcel of Taxable Property, the maximum Special Tax B, determined in accordance with Section I that can be levied on each such Assessor's Parcel.
"Maximum Special Tax C" means for each Assessor's Parcel of Taxable Property, the maximum Special Tax C, determined in accordance with Section L that can be levied on each such Assessor's Parcel.
"Multifamily Residential Property" means all Assessor's Parcels of Developed Property for which a building permit has been issued for the purpose of constructing a building or buildings comprised of attached Units available for rental by the general public, not for sale to an end user, and which attached units are under common ownership, as determined by the CFD Administrator. "Non -Residential Property" means all Assessor's Parcels of Developed Property for which a building permit was issued for any type of use other than Residential Property and or Multifamily Residential Property.
"Partial Prepayment Amount" means the amount required to prepay a portion of the Special Tax A obligation for an Assessor's Parcel, as described in Section H. "Prepayment Amount" means the amount required to prepay the Special Tax A obligation in full for an Assessor's Parcel, as described in Section G.
"Proportionately" means for Special Tax A that the ratio of the Annual Special Tax A to the applicable Assigned Annual Special Tax A is equal for all applicable Assessor's Parcels. In the case of Special Tax B and Special Tax C, "Proportionately" means that the ratio of the Annual Special Tax B to the applicable Maximum Special Tax B and the Annual Special Tax C to the applicable Maximum Special Tax C, respectively, is equal for all applicable Assessor's Parcels. In the case of Developed Property subject to the apportionment of the Annual Special Tax A under Step Four of Section F, "Proportionately" means that the quotient of (a) Annual Special Tax A less the Assigned Annual Special Tax A divided by (b) the Backup Annual Special Tax A less the Assigned Annual Special Tax A, is equal for all applicable Assessor's Parcels.
"Provisional Exempt Property" means all Assessor's Parcels of Taxable Property subject to Special Tax A that would otherwise be classified as Exempt Property pursuant to the provisions of Section P, but cannot be classified as Exempt Property because to do so would reduce the Acreage of all Taxable Property below the required minimum Acreage set forth in Section P. "Residential Property" means all Assessor's Parcels of Developed Property for which a building permit has been issued for purposes of constructing one or more residential dwelling units, and which are not Multifamily Residential Property.
"RMA" means this Rate and Method of Apportionment of Special Tax

"Special Tax(es)" means any of the special taxes authorized to be levied on Taxable Property within and for CFD No. 23-02 pursuant to the Act to fund the Special Tax A Requirement, Special Tax B Requirement, and/or the Special Tax C Requirement.
"Special Tax A" means any of the Special Taxes authorized to be levied on Taxable Property within and by CFD No. 23-02 pursuant to the Act to fund the Special Tax A Requirement. "Special Tax B" means any of the Special Taxes authorized to be levied on Taxable Property within and by CFD No. 23-02 pursuant to the Act to fund the Special Tax B Requirement. "Special Tax C" means any of the Special Taxes authorized to be levied on Taxable Property within and by CFD No. 23-02 pursuant to the Act to fund the Special Tax C Requirement. "Special Tax A Requirement" means, subject to the Maximum Special Tax A, the amount required in any Fiscal Year to pay: (i) the debt service or the periodic costs on all outstanding Bonds due in the Calendar Year that commences in such Fiscal Year, (ii) Administrative Expenses for such Fiscal Year (apportioned between Special Tax A and Special Tax B), (iii) any amount required to establish or replenish any reserve funds established in association with the Bonds, and (iv) the collection or accumulation of funds for the acquisition or construction of Authorized Facilities, provided that the inclusion of such amount does not cause an increase in the levy of Special Tax A on Approved Property or Undeveloped Property as set forth in Step Two and Three of Section F, less (v) any amount available to pay debt service or other periodic costs on the Bonds pursuant to any applicable Indenture. "Special Tax B Requirement" means, subject to the Maximum Special Tax B, that amount to be collected in any Fiscal Year to pay for Authorized Services as required to meet the needs of CFD No. 23-02. The costs of services to be covered shall be the direct costs for (i) Authorized Services, and (ii) Administrative Expenses (apportioned between Special tax A and Special Tax B); less (iii) a credit for funds available to reduce the Annual Special Tax B levy, if any, as determined by the CFD Administrator. Under no circumstances shall the Special Tax B Requirement include amounts needed to repay Bonds.
"Special Tax C Requirement" means, subject to the Maximum Special Tax C, that amount to be collected in any Fiscal Year to pay for Authorized Services as required to meet the needs of CFD No. 23-02. The costs of services to be covered shall be the direct costs for (i) Authorized Services, and (ii) Administrative Expenses; less (iii) a credit for funds available to reduce the Annual Special Tax C levy, if any, as determined by the CFD Administrator. Under no circumstances shall the Special Tax C Requirement include amounts needed to repay Bonds.
"Special Tax Category" means any of the individual categories of BSF set forth in Table 1 in Section D below.
"Taxable Property" means (i) with respect to Special Tax A, all Assessor's Parcels within CFD No. 23-02, which are not Exempt Property or for which the Special Tax A obligation has not been prepaid in full, and (ii) with respect to Special Tax B and Special Tax C, all Assessor's Parcels within CFD No. 23-02, which are not Exempt Property.
"Temecula Public Financing Authority" or "PFA" or "Authority" means the Temecula Public Financing Authority, or its designee.
"Transition Event" shall be deemed to have occurred when the CFD Administrator determines that the following events have occurred: (i) all Bonds secured by the levy and collection of Special Tax A

in the CFD have been fully repaid, or legally defeased, pursuant to the Indenture; (ii) all Administrative Expenses from prior Fiscal Years have been paid or reimbursed; and (iii) there are no other Authorized Facilities that the Authority or the CFD intends to fund with proceeds of Bonds or of Special Tax A as confirmed in writing by the CFD Administrator.
"Transition Year" means the earlier of: (i) the first Fiscal Year in which the Administrator determines that the Transition Event occurred in the prior Fiscal Year, or (ii) Fiscal Year 2065-66. "Undeveloped Property" means all Assessor's Parcels of Taxable Property which are not Developed Property, Approved Property, or Provisional Exempt Property. "Unit" means any residential dwelling unit excluding dwelling units within Multifamily Residential Property.

SECTION B

CLASSIFICATION OF ASSESSOR'S PARCELS
Each Fiscal Year, beginning with Fiscal Year 2024-25, each Assessor's Parcel within CFD No. 23-02 shall be classified as Taxable Property or Exempt Property. In addition, each Assessor's Parcel of Taxable Property shall be further classified as Developed Property, Approved Property, Undeveloped Property, or Provisional Exempt Property. In addition, each Assessor's Parcel of Developed Property shall further be classified as Residential Property, Multifamily Residential Property or Non -Residential Property. Assessor's Parcels of Residential Property shall be further categorized based on the Building Square Footage of each such Assessor's Parcel.

SECTION C

MAXIMUM SPECIAL TAX A

1. Developed Property
For each Fiscal year, the Maximum Special Tax A for each Assessor's Parcel of Residential Property, Multifamily Residential Property or Non -Residential Property shall be the greater of (i) the Assigned Annual Special Tax A or (ii) the Backup Annual Special Tax A.

2. Approved Property, Undeveloped Property, and Provisional Exempt Property For each Fiscal year, the Maximum Special Tax A for each Assessor's Parcel classified as Approved Property, Undeveloped Property, or Provisional Exempt Property shall be the Assigned Annual Special Tax A.

3. Increase in the Maximum Special Tax A
On each July 1, commencing July 1, 2025, the Maximum Special Tax A shall be increased by an amount equal to two percent (2.0%) of the amount in effect for the previous Fiscal Year.

4. Maximum Special Tax A at Transition Year
For the Transition Year and each Fiscal Year thereafter, the Maximum Special Tax A for any Assessor's Parcel of Taxable Property shall be $0.00. Notwithstanding the forgoing, if there are delinquent Special Tax A taxes on a Parcel, such delinquent Special Tax A taxes will continue to constitute a lien against the Parcel until they are collected.

SECTION D

ASSIGNED ANNUAL SPECIAL TAX A

1. Developed Property
Each Fiscal Year prior to the Transition Year, each Assessor's Parcel of Residential Property, Multifamily Residential Property or Non -Residential Property shall be subject to an Assigned Annual Special Tax A.

The Assigned Annual Special Tax A applicable to an Assessor's Parcel of Developed Property shall be determined using the table below.

TABLE 1

ASSIGNED ANNUAL SPECIAL TAX A RATES

FOR DEVELOPED PROPERTY
FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
Land Use Type
Building Square
Footage
Assigned Special Tax A
Residential Property
Less than 1,500
$3,740 per Unit
Residential Property
1,500 — 1,599
$3,860 per Unit
Residential Property
1,600 — 1,699
$3,980 per Unit
Residential Property
1,700 — 1,799
$4,100 per Unit
Residential Property
Greater than 1,799
$4,220 per Unit
Multifamily Residential Property
N/A
$83,890 per Acre
Non -Residential Property
N/A
$83,890 per Acre

2. Approved Property, Undeveloped Property and Provisional Exempt Property Each Fiscal Year, prior to the Transition Year, each Assessor's Parcel of Approved Property, Undeveloped Property, and Provisional Exempt Property shall be subject to an Assigned Annual Special Tax A. The Assigned Annual Special Tax A rate for an Assessor's Parcel classified as Approved Property, Undeveloped Property, or Provisional Exempt Property shall be determined pursuant to Table 2 below.

TABLE 2

ASSIGNED ANNUAL SPECIAL TAX RATES

FOR APPROVED PROPERTY, UNDEVELOPED PROPERTY,

AND PROVISIONAL EXEMPT PROPERTY
FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
Assigned Special Tax A
$83,890 per Acre

3. Increase in the Assigned Annual Special Tax A
On each July 1, commencing July 1, 2025, the Assigned Annual Special Tax A for any Assessor's Parcel of Taxable Property shall be increased by an amount equal to two percent (2.0%) of the amount in effect for the previous Fiscal Year.

IM

4. Assianed Annual Special Tax A at Transition Year
For the Transition Year and each Fiscal Year thereafter, the Assigned Annual Special Tax A for all Taxable Property shall be $0.00. Notwithstanding the forgoing, if there are delinquent Special Tax A taxes on a Parcel, such delinquent Special Tax A taxes will continue to constitute a lien against the Parcel until they are collected.

SECTION E

BACKUP ANNUAL SPECIAL TAX A
At the time a Final Map is recorded, the CFD Administrator shall determine the Backup Annual Special Tax A for all Assessor's Parcels classified or reasonably expected to be classified as Residential Property within such Final Map by multiplying the Maximum Special Tax A rate for Undeveloped Property by the total Acreage of Taxable Property, excluding the Provisional Exempt Property Acreage, Non -Residential Property Acreage, Multifamily Residential Property Acreage and any Acreage reasonably expected to be classified as Exempt Property, and dividing such amount by the total number of such Assessor's Parcels which are classified or reasonably expected to be classified as Residential Property.

The Backup Annual Special Tax A rate for Multifamily Residential Property or Non -Residential Property shall be its Assigned Annual Special Tax A rate.

On each July 1, commencing July 1, 2024, the Backup Annual Special Tax A shall be increased by an amount equal to two percent (2.0%) of the amount in effect for the previous Fiscal Year.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, if Assessor's Parcels which are classified or to be classified as Residential Property, Non -Residential Property or Multifamily Property are subsequently changed by recordation of a lot line adjustment, Final Map amendment, new Final Map or similar instrument, then the Backup Annual Special Tax A shall be recalculated within the area that has been changed to equal the amount of Backup Annual Special Tax A that would have been generated if such change did not take place.

SECTION F

METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT OF THE ANNUAL SPECIAL TAX A
Commencing Fiscal Year 2024-25 and for each subsequent Fiscal Year, the Board of Directors shall levy the Annual Special Tax A in accordance with the following steps:

Step One: The Annual Special Tax A shall be levied Proportionately on each Assessor's Parcel of Developed Property at up to 100% of the applicable Assigned Annual Special Tax A rates in Table 1 to satisfy the Special Tax A Requirement.

Step Two: If additional moneys are needed to satisfy the Special Tax A Requirement after the first step has been completed, the Annual Special Tax A shall be levied Proportionately on each Assessor's Parcel of Approved Property at up to 100% of the applicable Maximum Annual Special Tax A to satisfy the Special Tax A Requirement.

Step Three: If additional moneys are needed to satisfy the Special Tax A Requirement after the first two steps have been completed, the Annual Special Tax A shall be levied Proportionately on each Assessor's Parcel of Undeveloped Property up to 100% of the

Maximum Annual Special Tax A for Undeveloped Property applicable to each such Assessor's Parcel as needed to satisfy the Special Tax A Requirement.

Step Four: If additional moneys are needed to satisfy the Special Tax A Requirement after the first three steps have been completed, the Annual Special Tax A on each Assessor's Parcel of Developed Property for which the Maximum Special Tax A is the Backup Annual Special Tax A shall be increased Proportionately from the Assigned Annual Special Tax A up to 100% of the Backup Annual Special Tax A as needed to satisfy the Special Tax A Requirement.

Step Five: If additional moneys are needed to satisfy the Special Tax A Requirement after the first four steps have been completed, the Annual Special Tax A shall be levied Proportionately on each Assessor's Parcel of Provisional Exempt Property up to 100% of the Maximum Annual Special Tax A applicable to each such Assessor's Parcel as needed to satisfy the Special Tax A Requirement.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, pursuant to Section 53321 (d) of the Act, the Special Tax A levied against an Assessor's Parcel used for private residential purposes shall under no circumstances increase more than ten (10%) as a consequence of delinquency of default by the owner of any other Assessor's Parcel or Assessor's Parcels and shall, in no event, exceed the Maximum Special Tax A in effect for the Fiscal Year in which the Special Tax A is being levied.

SECTION G

PREPAYMENT OF SPECIAL TAX A
The following definitions apply to this Section G:
"Business Day" means days Temecula City Hall is open for business. "CFD Public Facilities Amount" means $13,486,000 expressed in 2024 dollars, which shall increase by the Construction Inflation Index on July 1, 2024, and on each July 1 thereafter, or such lower number as (i) shall be determined by the CFD Administrator as sufficient to provide the Authorized Facilities under the authorized bonding program, or (ii) shall be determined by the Board of Directors concurrently with a covenant that the CFD will not issue any more Bonds. "Construction Inflation Index" means the annual percentage change in the Engineering News - Record Building Cost Index for the City of Los Angeles, measured as of the calendar year which ends in the previous Fiscal Year. In the event this index ceases to be published, the Construction Inflation Index shall be another index as determined by the CFD Administrator that is reasonably comparable to the Engineering News -Record Building Cost Index for the City of Los Angeles. "Future Facilities Costs" means the CFD Public Facilities Amount minus (i) Bond proceeds deposited in an Improvement Fund and (ii) other amounts (proceeds of the levy of Special Tax A, interest earnings, etc.) held in an Improvement Fund that were available to fund such CFD Public Facilities Amount prior to the date of prepayment.
"Improvement Fund" means any fund or account established under an Indenture to hold funds which were or continue to be available for expenditure to pay costs of Authorized Facilities and any fund or account established prior to the issuance of Bonds for such purpose. :•

"Outstanding Bonds" means the principal amount of all previously issued Bonds which will remain outstanding after the payment from the amount of any Special Tax A that has therefore been levied, excluding Bonds to be redeemed at a later date with the proceeds of prior prepayments of Special Tax A.

Prepayment in Full
The Special Tax A obligation may be prepaid and permanently satisfied for (i) Assessor's Parcels of Developed Property, (ii) Assessor's Parcels of Approved Property or Undeveloped Property for which a Building Permit has been issued, (iii) Approved or Undeveloped Property for which a Building Permit has not been issued, and (iv) Assessor's Parcels of Provisional Exempt Property that are not Exempt Property pursuant to Section P. The Special Tax A obligation applicable to an Assessor's Parcel may be fully prepaid and the obligation to pay the Special Tax A for such Assessor's Parcel permanently satisfied as described herein; provided that a prepayment may be made only if there is no delinquent Special Tax A with respect to such Assessor's Parcel at the time of prepayment. An owner of an Assessor's Parcel intending to prepay the Special Tax A obligation for such Assessor's Parcel shall provide the CFD Administrator with written notice of intent to prepay, and within 5 business days of receipt of such notice, the CFD Administrator shall notify such owner of the amount of the non- refundable deposit determined by the CFD Administrator to cover the cost to be incurred for the CFD in calculating the Prepayment Amount (as defined below) for the Assessor's Parcel. Within 15 business days of receipt of such non-refundable deposit, the CFD Administrator shall notify such owner of the Prepayment Amount for the Assessor's Parcel. Prepayment must be made not less than 60 days prior to the redemption date for any Outstanding Bonds to be redeemed with the proceeds of such prepaid Special Taxes.

The Prepayment Amount (defined below) shall be calculated as follows (capitalized terms are defined below):

Bond Redemption Amount
plus
Redemption Premium
plus
Future Facilities Amount
plus
Defeasance Amount
plus
Administrative Fees and Expenses
less
Reserve Fund Credit
Equals:

Prepayment Amount
The Prepayment Amount shall be determined by the CFD Administrator as of the proposed prepayment date as follows:

Confirm that no Special Tax A delinquencies apply to such Assessor's Parcel.

2. For Developed Property, compute the Maximum Special Tax A for the Assessor's Parcel. For Approved Property or Undeveloped Property for which a Building Permit has been issued, compute the Maximum Special Tax A for the Assessor's Parcel as though it was already designated as Developed Property, based upon the Building Permit which has been issued for the Assessor's Parcel. For Approved Property or Undeveloped Property for which a Building Permit has not been issued or Provisional Exempt Property, compute the Maximum Special Tax A for the Assessor's Parcel.

3. Divide the Maximum Special Tax A derived pursuant to paragraph 2 by the 1 total amount of Special Tax A that could be levied on all Taxable Property based on the applicable Maximum Special Tax A, including for Approved Property or Undeveloped Property for which a Building Permit has been issued, the Maximum Special Tax A for the Assessor's Parcel as though it was already designated as Developed Property. The calculation of the total amount of Maximum Special Tax A shall exclude Assessor's Parcels for which the Special Tax A obligation has been previously prepaid in full or the portion thereof that has been previously prepaid in part.

4. Multiply the quotient derived pursuant to paragraph 3 by the principal amount of the Outstanding Bonds to determine the amount of Outstanding Bonds to be redeemed with the Prepayment Amount (the "Bond Redemption Amount").

5. Multiply the Bond Redemption Amount by the applicable redemption premium, if any, on the Outstanding Bonds to be redeemed (the "Redemption Premium").

6. Determine the Future Facilities Costs.

7. Multiply the quotient derived pursuant to paragraph 3 by the amount determined pursuant to paragraph 6 to determine the amount of Future Facilities Costs for the Assessor's Parcel (the "Future Facilities Amount").

8. Determine the amount needed to pay interest on the Bond Redemption Amount from the first bond interest and/or principal payment date following the current Fiscal Year until the earliest redemption date for the Outstanding Bonds on which Bonds can be redeemed from Special Tax prepayments.

9. Determine the Special Tax A levied on the Assessor's Parcel in the current Fiscal Year which have not yet been paid.

10. Determine the amount the CFD Administrator reasonably expects to derive from the investment of the Bond Redemption Amount and the Redemption Premium from the date of prepayment until the redemption date for the Outstanding Bonds to be redeemed with the Prepayment Amount.

11. Add the amounts derived pursuant to paragraphs 8 and 9 and subtract the amount derived pursuant to paragraph 10 (the "Defeasance Amount").

12. Verify the administrative fees and expenses of the CFD, including the cost of computation of the Prepayment Amount not funded from the deposit, the cost to invest the Prepayment Amount, the cost of redeeming the Outstanding Bonds, and the cost of recording notices to evidence the prepayment of the Special Tax A obligation for the Assessor's Parcel and the redemption of Outstanding Bonds (the "Administrative Fees and Expenses").

13. The reserve fund credit (the "Reserve Fund Credit") shall equal the lesser of:
(a) the expected reduction in the reserve requirement (as defined in the Indenture), if any, associated with the redemption of Outstanding Bonds as a result of the prepayment, or (b) the amount derived by subtracting the new reserve requirement (as defined in the Indenture) in effect after the redemption of Outstanding Bonds as a result of the prepayment from the balance in the B-11

reserve fund on the prepayment date, but in no event shall such amount be less than zero.

14. The Prepayment Amount is equal to the sum of the Bond Redemption Amount, the Redemption Premium, the Future Facilities Amount, the Defeasance Amount and the Administrative Fees and Expenses, less the Reserve Fund Credit.

15. From the Prepayment Amount, the Bond Redemption Amount, the Redemption Premium, and Defeasance Amount shall be deposited into the appropriate fund as established under the Indenture and be used to redeem Outstanding Bonds or make debt service payments. The Future Facilities Amount shall be deposited into the Improvement Fund. The Administrative Fees and Expenses shall be retained by the CFD to be used for payment thereof.

The Prepayment Amount may be sufficient to redeem other than a $5,000 increment of Bonds. In such event, the increment above $5,000 or an integral multiple thereof will be retained in the appropriate fund established under the Indenture to be used with the next redemption from other Special Tax A prepayments of Outstanding Bonds or to make debt service payments.

As a result of the payment of the current Fiscal Year's Special Tax A levy as determined pursuant to paragraph 9 above, if applicable and possible, the CFD Administrator shall remove the current Fiscal Year's Special Tax A levy for the Assessor's Parcel from the County tax roll. With respect to any Assessor's Parcel for which the Special Tax A obligation is prepaid, the Board of Directors shall cause a suitable notice to be recorded in compliance with the Act, to indicate the prepayment of Special Tax A obligation and the release of the lien securing the payment of Special Tax A for the Assessor's Parcel, and the obligation to pay the Special Tax A for such Assessor's Parcel shall cease.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, no Special Tax A prepayment (whether in full pursuant to this Section G or in part pursuant to Section H below) shall be allowed unless the amount of Maximum Special Tax A that may be levied on all Assessor's Parcels of Taxable Property, excluding all Provisional Exempt Property and all Assessor's Parcels with delinquent Special Taxes, after the proposed prepayment will be at least 1.1 times maximum annual debt service on the Bonds that will remain outstanding after the prepayment plus the estimated annual Administrative Expenses, all as determined by the CFD Administrator.

Tenders of Bonds in prepayment of the Maximum Special Tax A obligation may be accepted upon the terms and conditions established by the Board of Directors pursuant to the Act. However, the use of Bond tenders shall only be allowed on a case -by -case basis as specifically approved by the Board of Directors.

SECTION H

PARTIAL PREPAYMENT OF SPECIAL TAX A
The Special Tax A obligation for an Assessor's Parcel of Developed Property, Approved Property or Undeveloped Property may be partially prepaid. For purposes of determining the partial prepayment amount, the provisions of Section G shall be modified as provided by the following formula:

PP = ((PE —A) x F) + A
B-12

These terms have the following meaning
PP = Partial Prepayment
PE = the Prepayment Amount calculated according to Section G F = the percent by which the owner of the Assessor's Parcel(s) is partially prepaying the Maximum Special Tax A obligation
A = the Administrative Fees and Expenses determined pursuant to Section G The owner of an Assessor's Parcel who desires to partially prepay the Special Tax A obligation for the Assessor's Parcel shall notify the CFD Administrator of (i) such owner's intent to partially prepay the Maximum Special Tax A obligation, and (ii) the percentage of the Maximum Special Tax A obligation such owner wishes to prepay. Within 5 Business Days of receipt of such notice, the CFD Administrator shall notify such property owner of the amount of the non-refundable deposit determined to cover the cost to be incurred by the CFD in calculating the amount of a partial prepayment. Within 15 Business Days of receipt of such non-refundable deposit, the CFD Administrator shall notify such owner of the amount of the Partial Prepayment for the Assessor's Parcel. A Partial Prepayment must be made not less than 60 days prior to the redemption date for any Outstanding Bonds to be redeemed with the proceeds of the Partial Prepayment.

With respect to any Assessor's Parcel for which the Maximum Special Tax A obligation is partially prepaid, the CFD Administrator shall (i) distribute the Partial Prepayment as provided in Paragraph 15 of Section G and (ii) indicate in the records of the CFD that there has been a Partial Prepayment for the Assessor's Parcel and that a portion of the Special Tax A obligation equal to the remaining percentage (1.00 - F) of Special Tax A obligation will continue to be levied on the Assessor's Parcel pursuant to Section F.

SECTION I

MAXIMUM SPECIAL TAX B

1. Developed Property
Maximum Special Tax B
Each Fiscal Year, each Assessor's Parcel of Residential Property, Multifamily Residential Property, or Non -Residential Property shall be subject to a Maximum Annual Special Tax B.

The Maximum Annual Special Tax B applicable to an Assessor's Parcel of Developed Property shall be determined using the table below.

TABLE 3

MAXIMUM SPECIAL TAX B RATES

FOR DEVELOPED PROPERTY
FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
Land Use Type
Maximum Special Tax B
Residential Property
$420 per Unit
Multifamily Residential Property
$8,904 per Acre
Non -Residential Property
$8,904 per Acre
B-13

2. Approved Property, Undeveloped Property and Provisional Exempt Property No Special Tax B shall be levied on Approved Property, Undeveloped Property, and Provisional Exempt Property.

3. Increase in the Maximum Special Tax B
On each July 1, commencing July 1, 2025, the Maximum Special Tax B shall be increased by an amount equal to five and six -tenths percent (5.6%) of the amount in effect for the previous Fiscal Year.

4. Maximum Special Tax B at Transition Year
For the Transition Year and each Fiscal Year thereafter, the Maximum Special Tax B for any Assessor's Parcel of Developed Property shall be $0.00.

SECTION J

METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT OF THE SPECIAL TAX B
Commencing with Fiscal Year 2024-25 and for each following Fiscal Year, the Authority shall levy the Special Tax B at up to 100% of the applicable Maximum Special Tax B, Proportionately on each Assessor's Parcel of Developed Property until the amount of Special Tax B equals the Special Tax B Requirement.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, pursuant to Section 53321 (d) of the Act, the Special Tax B levied against an Assessor's Parcel used for private residential purposes shall under no circumstances increase more than ten (10%) as a consequence of delinquency of default by the owner of any other Assessor's Parcel or Assessor's Parcels and shall, in no event, exceed the Maximum Special Tax B in effect for the Fiscal Year in which the Special Tax B is being levied.

SECTION K

PREPAYMENT OF SPECIAL TAX B
No prepayments of Special Tax B are permitted.

SECTION L

MAXIMUM SPECIAL TAX C

1. Developed Property
Maximum Special Tax C
For the Transition Year and each Fiscal Year thereafter, each Assessor's Parcel of Residential Property, Multifamily Residential Property, or Non -Residential Property shall be subject to a Maximum Special Tax C.

The Maximum Special Tax C applicable to an Assessor's Parcel of Developed Property shall be determined using the table below.

B-14

TABLE 4

MAXIMUM SPECIAL TAX C RATES

FOR DEVELOPED PROPERTY
FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
Land Use Type
Maximum Special
Tax C
Residential Property
$785 per
Unit
Multifamily Residential Property
$16,641
per Acre
Non -Residential Property
$16,641
per Acre

2. Approved Property, Undeveloped Property and Provisional Exempt Property No Special Tax C shall be levied on Approved Property, Undeveloped Property, and Provisional Exempt Property.

3. Increase in the Maximum Special Tax C
On each July 1, commencing July 1, 2025, the Maximum Special Tax C shall be increased by an amount equal to five and six -tenths percent (5.6%) of the amount in effect for the previous Fiscal Year.

SECTION M

METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT OF THE SPECIAL TAX C
For the Transition Year and each Fiscal Year thereafter, the Authority shall levy the Special Tax C at up to 100% of the applicable Maximum Special Tax C, Proportionately on each Assessor's Parcel of Developed Property until the amount of Special Tax C equals the Special Tax C Requirement.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, pursuant to Section 53321 (d) of the Act, the Special Tax C levied against an Assessor's Parcel used for private residential purposes shall under no circumstances increase more than ten (10%) as a consequence of delinquency of default by the owner of any other Assessor's Parcel or Assessor's Parcels and shall, in no event, exceed the Maximum Special Tax C in effect for the Fiscal Year in which the Special Tax C is being levied.

SECTION N

PREPAYMENT OF SPECIAL TAX C
No prepayments of Special Tax C are permitted.

SECTION O

TERM OF THE SPECIAL TAX A, SPECIAL TAX B, AND SPECIAL TAX C For each Fiscal Year that any Bonds are outstanding the Special Tax A shall be levied on all Assessor's Parcels subject to the Special Tax A. If any delinquent Annual Special Tax A amounts remain uncollected prior to or after the Transition Year, the Special Tax A may be levied to the extent necessary to reimburse CFD 23-02 for uncollected Annual Special Tax A amounts associated with the levy of such Special Tax A amounts, but not later than the 2064-65 Fiscal Year.

Prior to the Transition Year, Special Tax B shall be levied as long as the Authorized Services are being provided. Special Tax B shall not be levied during or after the Transition Year.

B-15

For the Transition Year and each Fiscal Year thereafter, Special Tax C shall be levied in perpetuity as long as the Authorized Services are being provided.

SECTION P

EXEMPT PROPERTY
The CFD Administrator shall classify as Exempt Property (i) Assessor's Parcels which are owned by, irrevocably offered for dedication, encumbered by or restricted in use by the State of California, Federal or other local governments, including school districts, (ii) Assessor's Parcels which are used as places of worship and are exempt from ad valorem property taxes because they are owned by a religious organization, (iii) Assessor's Parcels which are owned by, irrevocably offered for dedication, encumbered by or which make use as a dwelling unit, or otherwise, infeasible by a homeowners' association, (iv) Assessor's Parcels with public or utility easements making impractical their utilization for other than the purposes set forth in the easement, (v) Assessor's Parcels which are privately owned and are encumbered by or restricted solely for public uses, or (vi) other types of public uses determined by the CFD Administrator. The CFD Administrator shall classify such Assessor's Parcels as Exempt Property in the chronological order in which property becomes Exempt.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, the CFD Administrator for purposes of levying the Special Tax shall not, except for any Assessor's Parcel on which the Special Tax cannot be levied pursuant to the Mello -Roos Act, classify an Assessor's Parcel as Exempt Property if such classification would reduce the sum of all Taxable Property to less than the Acreage amounts listed in Table 5 below. Assessor's Parcels which cannot be classified as Exempt Property because such classification would reduce the Acreage of all Taxable Property to less than the Acreage amounts listed in Table 5 will be classified as Provisional Exempt Property, and will be subject to the levy of Special Tax pursuant to Step Five in Section F.

No Special Tax shall be levied on any Assessor's Parcel in any Fiscal Year in which such Assessor's Parcel is classified as Exempt Welfare Exemption Property.

TABLE 5

MINIMUM TAXABLE ACRES
Acres

11.18 SECTION Q

APPEALS AND INTERPRETATIONS
Any property owner claiming that the amount or application of the Annual Special Tax A, Annual Special Tax B, or Annual Special Tax C is not correct may file a written notice of appeal with the CFD Administrator not later than twelve months after having paid the first installment of the Annual Special Tax A, Annual Special Tax B, or Annual Special Tax C that is disputed. The CFD Administrator shall promptly review the appeal, and if necessary, meet with the property owner, consider written and oral evidence regarding the amount of the Annual Special Tax A, Annual Special Tax B, or Annual Special Tax C in dispute and rule on the appeal. If the CFD Administrator's decision requires that the Annual Special Tax A, Annual Special Tax B, or Annual Special Tax C for an Assessor's Parcel be modified or changed in favor of the property owner, a cash refund shall not be made (except for the last year of levy in the case of the Annual Special Tax A), but an adjustment shall be made to the Annual Special Tax A, Annual Special Tax B, or Annual Special Tax C on that Assessor's Parcel in the subsequent Fiscal Year(s).

B-16

The Board of Directors may interpret this Rate and Method of Apportionment of Special Tax for purposes of clarifying any ambiguity or to correct or supplement any defective or inconsistent provision hereof.

SECTION R

MANNER OF COLLECTION
The Annual Special Tax A, Annual Special Tax B, and Annual Special Tax C shall be collected in the same manner and at the same time as ordinary ad valorem property taxes, provided, however, that CFD 23-02 may collect the Annual Special Tax A, Annual Special Tax B, and Annual Special Tax C at a different time or in a different manner if necessary to meet its financial obligations.

B-17

EXHIBIT C

TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY
COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO.23-02
(PRADO)

ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS AND OWNER OF

LAND WITHIN THE DISTRICT
County Assessor's
Parcel Numbers Owner of Record of Parcels
916-400-051
Meritage Homes of California, Inc.
5 Peters Canyon Road, Suite 310
916-400-052
Irvine, CA 92606
916-400-053
916-400-070
C-1

Item No. 11

CITY OF TEMECULA

AGENDA REPORT
TO: City Manager/City Council
FROM: Jennifer Hennessy, Director of Finance
DATE: February 27, 2024
SUBJECT: Approve Proposed Fiscal Year 2024-25 User Fee Schedule RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled:

RESOLUTION NO.

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A COMPREHENSIVE

USER FEE SCHEDULE AND AMENDING FEES AND

CHARGES FOR CITY SERVICES, INCLUDING BUILDING

AND SAFETY, PLANNING, LAND DEVELOPMENT, FIRE

PREVENTION, POLICE, AND OTHER CITY SERVICES AND

MAKING RELATED DETERMINATIONS PURSUANT TO THE

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
BACKGROUND: The City of Temecula currently imposes various User Fees on private development related services provided by the City. The current Fee Schedule is based on a User Fee Study conducted in 2005 with annual inflationary adjustments applied each year since.

The City worked with Wohlford Consulting to review the current User Fees and prepare the attached 2023 Full Cost of Services/User Fee Study (Study), which comprehensively analyzes the full cost for each fee service provided by the Building and Safety, Planning, Land Development, Fire Prevention and Police departments. The Study analyzes nearly 900 separate and distinct fees to determine the full cost of each fee, including overhead and support service costs.

Additionally, the Study
determined that the City
is currently recovering
less than 50 percent of
its cost to provide these
services, as summarized
in the adjacent table.

TOTALS: 1 $ 15,823,200 1 1 $ 7,640,661 $ 8,182,539 48%
Staff worked in tandem with Wohlford Consulting to provide estimates of staff time required for each service studied in the analysis and the projected annual volume for each fee. Utilizing the

Fiscal Year 2022-23 Annual Budget, the cost of each service was calculated and compared to the current fees charged. The Full Cost compared to the Current Revenue collected resulted in a total subsidy of approximately $8.2 million annually, for a 48% Cost Recovery Rate.

While setting a fee with a 100% Cost Recovery Rate would generate the most revenue and ensure that the City's costs are covered, maximizing cost recovery may not be the only goal of the Study.

Encouraging compliance and providing a public benefit to the greater community are just two factors to consider in determining the recommended fees. For example, subsidizing fees related to Hazmat chemical plan check are common to achieve compliance by the businesses by setting the fee at an affordable level. It is for the benefit of the overall community to ensure safety and setting reasonable fee amounts can help achieve this goal.

Staff collectively set the recommended cost recovery rate at 75% of the Full Cost for each fee.

In the cases where the City's current fee exceeded the Full Cost, then the fee was reduced to match the Full Cost, pursuant Government Code Section 66013, which states the fees shall not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of providing the service for which the fee is imposed. The aggregated result of this methodology would generate a 67% cost recovery rate, as indicated in the table below:

PROJECTED

REVENUE

SURPLUS/
(SUBSIDY)

RECOMMENDED

COSTRECOVERY PROJECTED

RATE REVENUE
@ Recommended
Fees
(Projected Revenue
— Full Coat)
(Rewmm / Full INCREASE/
Cost) (DECREASE)
$ 196,1461
$ 807,5291
$ 6948921

11. $ 1,226:4321
$ 109,856'
TOTALS: $ 15 823 200 $ 7 640 661 $ 8 182 539 48% $ 10 675 515 $ 5 147 685 67% The recommended fees have been summarized in the attached Proposed Fiscal Year 2024-25 User Fee Schedule.

The Study not only analyzes the Full Cost of nearly 900 fees, but it also includes a simplified restructuring of the complex Building and Safety Fee matrix, which greatly reduces the number of fees imposed and makes the Fee Schedule much more user friendly. Additionally, the Study includes several new fee categories not currently in the City's Fee Schedule:
a. Annual Fire Inspection Program (Fire Prevention)
b. Annual NPDES Inspection Program (Land Development)
C. Weed Abatement Administration (Building)
d. Wireless Antenna Facilities (Planning)
e. Drainage Tributary (Land Development)
In accordance with Government Code 66016, 66017 and 66018, the specific fees to be charged for certain regulations, services and products must be adopted by resolution, following notice and public hearing. Notice of public hearing has been provided pursuant to Government Code Section 6062a, 66016, 66017 and 66018 and written notice has been provided to those interested parties who filed written requests for mailed notice of meetings on new or increased development -related fees or service charges. Per Government Code Section 66017, the fees may

become effective 60 days following City Council approval. The attached Resolution includes an annual Cost of Living Adjustment for the User Fee Schedule, to ensure the fees track with inflation until a subsequent User Fee Study is implemented.

The City's User Fees are collected via a permitting software known as Energov. The Proposed Fee Schedule will require a re -programming of Energov, which may take several months depending on the structural changes in the Fee Schedule. As such, a phased implementation, by department, may be necessary to implement the Proposed Fee Schedule.

FISCAL IMPACT: The Proposed Fee Schedule has the potential of creating approximately $3 million in additional General Fund Revenue per year, depending on the volume of User Fees processed.

ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution

2. Proposed Fiscal Year 2024-25 User Fee Schedule

3. User Fee Study Fact Sheet

4. 2023 Full Cost of Services (User Fee) Study — FINAL REPORT

5. Notice of Public Hearing

RESOLUTION NO.2024-

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY

OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A

COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE SCHEDULE AND

AMENDING FEES AND CHARGES FOR CITY SERVICES,

INCLUDING BUILDING AND SAFETY, PLANNING, LAND

DEVELOPMENT, FIRE PREVENTION, POLICE, AND

OTHER CITY SERVICES AND MAKING RELATED

DETERMINATIONS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT.

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

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

A. The City Council has determined that it is necessary to assess fees for the process of private development related requests, planning, engineering, public works, police, fire, building and safety related requests, and other City services; B. The City Council has conducted an extensive analysis of its services, the costs reasonably borne by the City in providing those services, the beneficiaries of those services, and the revenues produced by those paying fees and charges for special services; C. The City Council has determined that City staff provides many types of services ("Services") involving requests by City customers ("Applicants"); D. The City currently imposes various user fees (the "User Fees") upon Applicants to recover the costs of staff time and other expenses related to providing these Services; E. Current User Fees charged for the City's Services do not adequately recoup the City's costs of providing certain Services and thus, a certain amount of these costs are currently paid out of the City's General Fund and, therefore, borne by the general public; F. The City Council desires to better recover the costs of providing these Services from Applicants who have sought the City's Services by revising its schedule of User Fees; G. The proposed User Fees are based upon the information contained in "2023 Full Cost of Services (User Fee) Study," dated as of September 27, 2023, prepared by Wohlford Consulting ("User Fee Study") that comprehensively analyzed the full cost for each fee service, the cost analysis incorporates the following "full cost" components: direct salaries & benefits, services and supplies, indirect and support activities, supervision and support, cross -department support; department/division administration; citywide administration; facility use, capital (annualized),and anticipated growth;

H. Pursuant to Government Code Sections 66016, 66017 and 66018, the specific fees to be charged for certain regulations, services and products must be adopted by resolution, following notice and public hearing;
I. Notice of public hearing has been given pursuant to Government Code Section 6062a, 66016, 66017 and 66018 and written notice has been provided to those interested parties who filed written requests for mailed notice of meetings on new or increased development -related fees or service charges;
J. On February 27, 2024, the City Council conducted a duly noticed Public Hearing, at which time the public was invited to make oral and written presentations as part of the regularly scheduled meeting prior to the adoption of this Resolution; K. The proposed User Fees do not exceed the reasonable and actual cost to the City of providing those services and the proceeds of those User Fees will not be used for any purposes other than the reimbursement of those actual costs.

Section 2. Adoption of Fees and Charges. The City Council hereby adopts the City of Temecula User Fee Schedule ("User Fee Schedule") as set forth in attached Exhibit "A" and incorporated by this reference. Unless otherwise stated in the User Fee Schedule, all User Fees shall be paid to the City by the Applicant prior to the City's performance of the requested Services.

Section 3. Annual Cost of Living Adjustment. The amount of the User Fees set forth in the User Fee Schedule shall be adjusted annually, without Council action, on July I" of each year by the percentage change in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U): Riverside -San Bernardino -Ontario (or any successor index). The calculation for that annual adjustment shall be made using the month of April over the month of April in the prior year. The User Fees shall not be decreased based on the changes in the Consumer Price Index.

Section 4. Repeal of Conflicting Resolutions. It is the desire of the City Council that all fees and charges for services, programs or products be set forth in one document for ease of reference. Accordingly, any and all provisions of prior Resolutions of the City Council establishing or modifying fees for the services, programs or products set forth in Exhibit "A," are hereby repealed and replaced as of the effective dates as set forth in Section 7 of this Resolution, in the manner set forth in Exhibit "A;" provided, however, that such repeal shall not excuse or affect the failure of any person or entity to pay any fee heretofore imposed upon such person or entity. The City Council desires to clarify that in adopting this Resolution, it is taking action only on those fees for the services, programs or products set forth in Exhibit A which have been modified from prior resolutions of the City Council. To the extent any remaining fees that have not been modified from prior resolutions shall remain in full force and effect and are hereby restated for convenience so that all fees are set forth in one document.

Section 5. Policies and Procedures. Staff is hereby authorized and directed to establish policies and procedures for implementation and collection of User Fees.

Section 6. CEQA. The approval of the User Fees established in this Resolution does not constitute a "project" under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(4) because such actions involve the creation of a government

funding mechanism which does not involve any commitment to any specific project which may result in a potentially significant physical impact on the environment. Furthermore, the approval of the User Fees established in this Resolution is statutorily exempt from CEQA under CEQA guidelines Section 15273 (a)(1) because the approval of the User Fees is merely establishing fees to meet operating expenses.

Section 7. Severability. If any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this Resolution or any part hereof is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Resolution or any part thereof. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase hereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase be declared invalid or unconstitutional.

Section 8. Effective Date. The User Fees listed in the User Fee Schedule in Exhibit A, which are imposed on a development project and which apply to the filing, accepting, reviewing, approving or issuing of an application, permit, or entitlement to use shall be effective no sooner than 60 days following the date this Resolution is adopted.

Section 9. Certification. The Mayor shall sign this Resolution and the City Clerk shall attest and certify to the passage and adoption thereof.

EXHIBIT "A"
City of Temecula User Fee Schedule

2024-25

PROPOSED

USER FEE SCHEDULE
41000 Main Street
Temecula, CA 92590
951.694.6430

City of Temecula
Proposed User Fee Schedule
Effective Fiscal Year 2024-25
Department: Building - Miscellaneous
Fee Description Fee#
NEW OCCUPANCIES:

NC - Commercial w/o interior improvements (shell) - up to 5,000 si 1 NC - Commercial w/o interior improvements (shell) - 5,001-15,000 si 2 NC - Commercial w/o interior improvements (shell) - 15,001-50,000 si 3 NC - Commercial w/o interior improvements (shell) - each additional 1,000 sf, or portion thereof, over 50,000 SF
4 NC - Commercial with interior improvements - up to 5,000 si 5 NC - Commercial with interior improvements - 5,001-15,000 si 6 NC - Commercial with interior improvements - 15,001-50,000 si 7 NC - Commercial with interior improvements - each additional 1,000 sf, or portion thereof, over 50,000 SF
8 NC - Warehouse - up to 5,000 sf
9 NC - Warehouse - 5,001-15,000 sf
10 NC - Warehouse - 15,001-50,000 sf
11 NC - Warehouse - each additional 1,000 sf, or portion thereof, over 50,000 SF 12 NC - Commercial High Rise - up to 10,000 sf
13 NC - Commercial High Rise - 10,001-50,000 sf
14 NC - Commercial High Rise - each additional 1,000 sf, or portion thereof, over 50,000 SF 15 NC - Parking Structure - up to 100,000 sf 16
NC - Parking Structure - 100,001-500,000 sf 17
NC - Parking Structure - each additional 10,000 sf, or portion thereof, over 500,000 SF 1 18 NC - New Single Family Custom/ Model - up to 1,000 sf
19 NC - New Single Family Custom/ Model - 1,001-2,500 sf 20 NC - New Single Family Custom/ Model - 2,501-5,000 sf 21 NC - New Single Family Custom/ Model - each additional 500 sf, or portion thereof, over 5,000 SF
22 NC - New Single Family - Production (Tract) - up to 1,000 sf 23 NC - New Single Family - Production (Tract) - 1,001-2,500 sf 24 NC - New Single Family - Production (Tract) - 2,501-5,000 sf 25 NC - New Single Family - Production (Tract) - each additional 500 sf, or portion thereof, over 5,000 SF
26 NC - Apartments/Multi- Family - up to 5,000 sf
27 NC - Apartments/Multi- Family - 5,001-10,000 sf
28 NC - Apartments/Multi- Family - 10,001-15,000 sf
29 NC - Apartments/Multi- Family - each additional 1,000 sf, or portion thereof, over 15,000 SF
30 NC - Hotels/Motels - up to 10,000 sf
31 NC - Hotels/Motels - 10,001-50,000 sf
32 NC - Hotels/Motels - each additional 1,000 sf, or portion thereof, over 50,000 SF 33 TI - Tenant Improvements - up to 2,500 sf
34 TI - Tenant Improvements - 2,501- 5,000 sf
35 TI - Tenant Improvements - 5,001-20,000 sf
36 TI - Tenant Improvements - each additional 1,000 sf, or portion thereof, over 20,000 SF 1 37 NC - OSHPOD Category 2 and above (Surgery Centers, Dialysis) - up to 5,000 sf 38 NC - OSHPOD Category 2 and above (Surgery Centers, Dialysis) - 5,001-15,000 sf 39 NC - OSHPOD Category 2 and above (Surgery Centers, Dialysis) - 15,001-50,000 sf 40 NC - OSHPOD Category 2 and above (Surgery Centers, Dialysis) - each additional 1,000 sf, or portion thereof, over 50,000 SF
41 TI - OSHPOD Category 2 and above (i.e. Surgery Centers, Dialysis) - up to 5,000 sf 42 TI - OSHPOD Category 2 and above (i.e. Surgery Centers, Dialysis) - 5,001-15,000 sf 43 TI - OSHPOD Category 2 and above (i.e. Surgery Centers, Dialysis) - 15,001-50,000 sf 1 44 TI - OSHPOD Category 2 and above (i.e. Surgery Centers, Dialysis) - each additional 1,000 sf, or portion thereof, over 50,000 SF
45 NC - UTILITY BUILDING - up to 500 sf
46 NC - UTILITY BUILDING - 501-1,000 sf
47 NC - UTILITY BUILDING - 1,001-2,500 sf
48 NC - UTILITY BUILDING - each additional 500 sf. or portion thereof, over 2.500 SF 49 Proposed Fees - Plan Check
Current Fee
Full Cost
Proposed
Fee
Fee Increase /
(Decrease)
$ 2,336.98
$ 2,994.67
$ 2,994.67
$ 657.69
$ 3,209.46
$ 3,847.86
$ 3,847.86
$ 638.40
$ 5,639.44
$ 4,967.14
$ 4,967.14
$ (672.30)
$ 112.65
$ 123.44
$ 123.44
$ 10.79
$ 4,520.09
$ 4,187.49
$ 4,187.49
$ (332.60)
$ 5,669.16
$ 5,255.87
$ 5,255.87
$ (413.29)
$ 8,813.43
$ 7,147.36
$ 7,147.36
$ (1,666.07)
$ 247.36
$ 123.65
$ 123.65
$ (123.71)
$ 4,058.92
$ 4,164.22
$ 4,164.22
$ 105.30
$ 4,474.07
$ 4,726.36
$ 4,726.36
$ 252.29
$ 7,515.74
$ 5,589.09
$ 5,589.09
$ (1,926.65)
$ 170.18
$ 123.65
$ 123.65
$ (46.53)
$ 3,209.46
$ 5,965.75
$ 5,965.75
$ 2,756.29
$ 5,639.44
$ 8,563.97
$ 8,563.97
$ 2,924.53
$ 112.65
$ 123.65
$ 123.65
$ 11.00
$ 16,488.80
$ 6,663.96
$ 6,663.96
$ (9,824.84)
$ 82,445.45
$ 8,368.70
$ 8,368.70
$ (74,076.75)
$ 320.90
$ 165.07
$ 165.07
$ (155.83)
$ 944.86
$ 2,185.05
$ 1,638.79
$ 693.93
$ 1,207.08
$ 2,483.58
$ 1,862.69
$ 655.60
$ 1,826.44
$ 3,065.87
$ 2,299.40
$ 472.96
$ 472.43
$ 100.68
$ 100.68
$ (371.75)
$ -
$ 228.24
$ 171.18
$ 171.18
$
$ 240.31
$ 180.23
$ 180.23
$
$ 251.69
$ 188.77
$ 188.77
$
$ 59.26
$ 44.45
$ 44.45
$ 4,048.86
$ 4,211.23
$ 4,211.23
$ 162.37
$ 5,134.65
$ 4,953.94
$ 4,953.94
$ (180.71)
$ 6,094.38
$ 5,527.38
$ 5,527.38
$ (567.00)
$ 221.47
$ 107.66
$ 107.66
$ (113.81)
$ 5,134.65
$ 6,101.42
$ 6,101.42
$ 966.77
$ 8,817.74
$ 10,426.67
$ 10,426.67
$ 1,608.93
$ 242.40
$ 108.26
$ 108.26
$ (134.14)
$ 991.12
$ 1,651.24
$ 1,651.24
$ 660.12
$ 3,249.97
$ 2,512.61
$ 2,512.61
$ (737.36)
$ 6,253.89
$ 3,202.33
$ 3,202.33
$ (3,051.56)
$ 258.87
$ 104.48
$ 104.48
$ (154.39)
$ 3,758.35
$ 6,131.79
$ 6,131.79
$ 2,373.44
$ 4,907.43
$ 7,430.61
$ 7,430.61
$ 2,523.18
$ 10,320.60
$ 11,283.03
$ 11,283.03
$ 962.43
$ 1,005.74
$ 107.67
$ 107.67
$ (898.07)
$ 2,351.85
$ 2,766.60
$ 2,766.60
$ 414.75
$ 3,767.94
$ 3,957.07
$ 3,957.07
$ 189.13
$ 7,997.28
$ 5,569.22
$ 5,569.22
$ (2,428.06)
$ 743.52
$ 107.67
$ 107.67
$ (635.85)
$ 247.84
$ 752.34
$ 752.34
$ 504.50
$ 321.43
$ 956.55
$ 956.55
$ 635.12
$ 499.99
$ 1,105.28
$ 1,105.28
$ 605.29
$ 34.76
$ 72.52
$ 72.52
$ 37.76
Red Text = New Fees/Fee Categories User Fee Schedule - Consolidated.xlsx (V. 2.27.24) Page - 2

City of Temecula
Proposed User Fee Schedule
Effective Fiscal Year 2024-25
Department: Building - Miscellaneous
Fee Description Fee#
MISCELLANEOUS BUILDING FEES (NON-MPE):
50 51
52 53
54 55
56 57
58 59
60 61
62 63
64 65
Accessory Structure 0 to 500 sf
Accessory Structure 500 to 1000 sf
Accessory Structure 1001 sf+
Cellular Tower - free-standing
Cellular Tower with Equipment Shelter
Adding Antenna's to existing tower - first 5
each additional 5
Carport - First 200 sf
Carport - each additional 200 sf
Non Construction Certificate of Occupancy: 0 - 1,500 sf Non Construction Certificate of Occupancy: Over 1,500 sf Commercial Coach (per unit)
Demolition
Door - New (non structural)
Door - New (structural shear wall/masonry)
Duplicate / Replacement Job Card
Freestanding Wall (fence)(non-masonry):
5 - 10 feet in height
66 Each additional 100 If
67 Over 10 feet in height
68 69
Each additional 100 If
up to 6' high - first 100 If
70 Each additional 100 If
71 Over 6' high (engineered) - first 100 It
72 each additional 100 If
73 Fireplace - Masonry
74 Fireplace - Pre -Fabricated / Metal [DELETED]
75 Flag pole (over 30 feet in height)
76 Lighting pole - first pole
77 Lighting pole - each add'I pole (at same location]
78 Res/Com Engineered: Deck, Patio Cover, Awning, Balcony, Covered Porch, Enclosed Patio - First 300 sf
79 Res/Com Engineered: Deck, Patio Cover, Awning, Balcony, Covered Porch, Enclosed Patio - Each additional 100 sf
80 City Standard Patio/Deck (includes ICC products) - First 300 sf 81 City Standard Patio/Deck (includes ICC products) - Each additional 100 sf 82 Mobile Homes - Site Preparation
83 Mobile Homes - Foundation
84 Mobile Homes - Installlation
85 Partition - Commercial, Interior (up to 30 I.f.)
86 Additional partition (each 30 If)
87 Partition - Residential, Interior (up to 301.f.)
88 Additional partition (each 30 If)
89 Photovoltaic System:

Residential Roof Mounted
90 Residential Ground Mounted
91 Commercial Roof Mounted
92 Commercial Ground Mounted
93 nnmg wan (concrete or masonry):
94 95
96 97
98 99
Standard (up to 50 If)
i additional 50 If of retaining wall
neered first 50 If up to 8' high
i additional 50 If
neered first 50 If over 8' high
i additional 50 If
,n Addition First Story up to 300 sf
100
i additional 100 sf
101
,n Addition Multi Story up to 300 sf
102
i additional 100 sf
103
odel - Residential - up to 300 s.f.
104
odel - Residential - each additional 300 sf
105
iof up to 5000 sf (50 squares)
106
Proposed Fees - Plan Check
Current Fee
Full Cost
Proposed
Fee
Fee Increase /
(Decrease)
$ 247.84
$ 598.25
$ 448.69
$ 200.85
$ 321.43
$ 648.19
$ 486.14
$ 164.72
$ 499.99
$ 840.99
$ 630.74
$ 130.75
$ 561.84
$ 1,053.73
$ 790.30
$ 228.46
$ 239.21
$ 1,625.94
$ 1,219.46
$ 980.24
$ 55.13
$ 471.73
$ 353.80
$ 298.67
$
-
$ 47.26
$ 35.45
$ 35.45
$ 110.26
$ 460.55
$ 345.41
$ 235.15
$
-
$ 43.41
$ 32.56
$ 32.56
$ 135.66
$ 483.32
$ 362.49
$ 226.83
$ 110.26
$ 276.23
$ 207.17
$ 96.91
$ 49.38
$ 92.88
$ 69.66
$ 20.28
$ 60.88
$ 147.55
$ 110.66
$ 49.78
$ 41.95
$ 51.26
$ 38.45
$ (3.50)
$ 87.73
$ 167.01
$ 125.26
$ 37.53
$ 23.01
$ 40.35
$ 30.26
$ 7.25
$ 87.73
$ 361.38
$ 271.04
$ 183.31
$ 23.01
$ 53.60
$ 40.20
$ 17.19
$ 95.88
$ 167.01
$ 125.26
$ 29.38
$ 12.46
$ 40.35
$ 30.26
$ 17.80
$ 142.38
$ 402.79
$ 302.09
$ 159.72
$ 12.46
$ 66.85
$ 50.14
$ 37.67
$ 161.55
$ 358.47
$ 268.85
$ 107.30
$ 78.14
$ 222.82
$ 167.12
$ 88.98
$ 70.95
$ 196.38
$ 147.29
$ 76.34
$ 12.46
$ 14.20
$ 10.65
$ (1.81)
$ 93.96
$ 300.29
$ 93.09
$ (0.87)
$ 14.38
$ 47.44
$ 14.71
$ 0.32
$ 78.14
$ 83.14
$ 78.98
$ 0.84
$ 7.19
$ 10.38
$ 7.27
$ 0.08
$ 160.59
$ 532.26
$ 399.20
$ 238.60
$ 160.59
$ 479.80
$ 359.85
$ 199.26
$ 160.59
$ 256.80
$ 192.60
$ 32.01
$ 87.73
$ 345.52
$ 259.14
$ 171.41
$ 10.55
$ 44.11
$ 33.08
$ 22.54
$ 55.13
$ 307.42
$ 230.57
$ 175.44
$ 37.87
$ 47.04
$ 35.28
$ (2.59)
or 9
$ 122.24
$ 413.50
$ 310.13
$ 187.88
$ 186.48
$ 519.60
$ 389.70
$ 203.22
$ 321.19
$ 867.66
$ 650.75
$ 329.56
$ 449.66
$ 1,133.65
$ 850.24
$ 400.58
$ 86.29
$ 188.08
$ 86.52
$ 0.23
$ 12.46
$ 37.52
$ 12.76
$ 0.29
$ 135.66
$ 242.76
$ 135.95
$ 0.28
$ 60.88
$ 42.49
$ 42.49
$ (18.39)
$ 177.37
$ 256.01
$ 179.21
$ 1.84
$ 60.88
$ 42.49
$ 42.49
$ (18.39)
$ 263.66
$ 647.31
$ 485.48
$ 221.82
$ 87.73
$ 66.09
$ 66.09
$ (21.64)
$ 263.66
$ 873.60
$ 655.20
$ 391.54
$ 87.73
$ 66.09
$ 66.09
$ (21.64)
$ 110.26
$ 507.57
$ 111.67
$ 1.41
$ 78.14
$ 103.70
$ 78.81
$ 0.67
$ 95.40
$ 97.10
$ 95.16
$ (0.24)
Red Text = New Fees/Fee Categories User Fee Schedule - Consolidated.xlsx (V. 2.27.24) Page - 3

City of Temecula
Proposed User Fee Schedule
Effective Fiscal Year 2024-25
Department: Building - Miscellaneous
Fee Description Fee#
each additional 1,000 sf (10 squares)
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
Sauna - steam (actual time at staff hourly rates)
Siding - Stone/Brick Veneer/ Stucco first 400 sf
Siding - each additional 400 sf
Signs:

Directional
Each additional Directional Sign
Monument
Each additional Monument Sign
Pole
115
116
117
118
Each additional Pole Sign
Wall Sign - Illuminated
Each additional Illuminated sign
Wall Non -Illuminated
119
Each additional Wall Sign
120
Skylight - Residential (each)
121
Skylight - Commercial (each)
122
Stairs - First Flight
123
124
125
126
127
128
Each additional flight
Storage Racks
0-8' high (up to 100 If)
each additional 100 If
over 8' high (up to 100 If)
each additional 100 If
Swimming Pool / Spa
129
130
131
132
133
Vinyklined (up to 800 s.f.)
Fiberglass
Gunite (up to 800 s.f.)
Each additional 800 s.f.

Commercial pool (up to 800 sf)
Each additional 800 sf
134
Window or Sliding Glass Door
Replacement First 5
135
Each additional 5
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
New window (structural shear wall/masonry) first 5
Each additional 5
Disabled Access Compliance Inspection (Permit Issuance is flat fee, Inspection is actual time at staff hourly rates)
Address Assignment (hourly)
NEW: Weed Abatement Contract Administrative Fee (Code Enforcement; HOURLY RATES:

After Hours Inspection Fee (4 hours minimum) - at applicable staff hourly rate [Fee shown is the minimum fee]
Records Research (first 1/2 hour)
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
Each Additional 1/2 hour (or portion thereof)
Supplemental Plan Check Fee (first 1/2 hour)
Each Additional 1/2 hour (or portion thereof)
Supplemental Inspection Fee (first 1/2 hour)
Each Additional 1/2 hour (or portion thereof)
Community Development Tech (per hour)
Community Development Proc. Supervisor (per hour)
Building Inspector II (per hour)
Building Official (per hour)
Community Development Director (per hour)
Sr. Administrative Assistant (per hour)
Administrative Assistant (per hour)
Principal Management Analyst (per hour)
Sr. Office Specialist (per hour)
157
Code Enforcement Officer I / II (per hour)
158
Proposed Fees - Plan Check
Current Fee
Full Cost
Proposed
Fee
Fee Increase /
(Decrease)
$ 1.44
$ 20.87
$ 1.46
$ 0.02
$ 64.24
$ 113.35
$ 85.01
$ 20.78
$ 64.24
$ 33.54
$ 33.54
$ (30.70)
$ 110.26
$ 168.96
$ 126.72
$ 16.46
$ 37.87
$ 37.92
$ 28.44
$ (9.43)
$ 93.48
$ 357.68
$ 268.26
$ 174.78
$ 12.46
$ 85.31
$ 63.98
$ 51.52
$ 70.95
$ 146.21
$ 109.66
$ 38.71
$ 13.42
$ 34.12
$ 25.59
$ 12.17
$ 90.60
$ 180.71
$ 135.53
$ 44.93
$ 25.41
$ 43.63
$ 32.72
$ 7.32
$ 80.06
$ 167.40
$ 125.55
$ 45.49
$ 25.41
$ 20.87
$ 15.65
$ (9.75)
$ 64.24
$ 164.44
$ 123.33
$ 59.09
$ 103.55
$ 192.74
$ 144.56
$ 41.01
$ 109.78
$ 222.95
$ 167.21
$ 57.43
$ 55.13
$ 23.64
$ 17.73
$ (37.40)
$ 87.73
$ 245.79
$ 184.34
$ 96.62
$ 18.22
$ 33.54
$ 25.16
$ 6.94
$ 128.95
$ 468.11
$ 351.08
$ 222.13
$ 32.12
$ 74.96
$ 56.22
$ 24.10
$ 122.24
$ 107.86
$ 80.90
$ (41.35)
$ 116.01
$ 107.86
$ 80.90
$ (35.12)
$ 118.89
$ 153.70
$ 115.28
$ (3.61)
$ 60.88
$ 16.65
$ 12.49
$ (48.39)
$ 187.44
$ 871.03
$ 653.27
$ 465.83
$
-
$ 103.70
$ 77.78
$ 77.78
$ 37.87
$ 79.56
$ 59.67
$ 21.80
$ 37.87
$ 16.65
$ 12.49
$ (25.38)
$ 103.55
$ 164.70
$ 123.53
$ 19.98
$ 103.55
$ 20.87
$ 15.65
$ (87.89)
$
-
$ 45.70
$ 34.28
$ 34.28
$ 160.59
$ 150.23
$ 112.67
$ (47.92)
$
-
$ 340.67
$ 255.50
$ 255.50
$ 91.08
$ 117.96
$ 88.47
$ (2.61)
$ 45.54
$ 94.41
$ 70.81
$ 25.27
$ 91.08
$ 138.06
$ 103.55
$ 12.46
$ 45.54
$ 100.30
$ 75.23
$ 29.68
$ 160.59
$ 166.46
$ 124.85
$ (35.75)
$ 160.59
$ 211.18
$ 158.39
$ (2.21)
$ 160.59
$ 179.84
$ 134.88
$ (25.71)
$ 160.59
$ 235.53
$ 176.65
$ 16.05
$ 160.59
$ 358.15
$ 268.61
$ 108.02
$ 160.59
$ 154.46
$ 115.85
$ (44.75)
$ 160.59
$ 156.46
$ 117.35
$ (43.25)
$ 160.59
$ 208.36
$ 156.27
$ (4.32)
$ 160.59
$ 155.09
$ 116.32
$ (44.28)
$ 160.59
$ 167.95
$ 125.96
$ (34.63)
Red Text = New Fees/Fee Categories User Fee Schedule - Consolidated.xlsx (V. 2.27.24) Page - 4

City of Temecula
Proposed User Fee Schedule
Effective Fiscal Year 2024-25
Department: Building - Miscellaneous
Fee Description
NEW OCCUPANCIES:

NC - Commercial w/o interior improvements (shell) - up to 5,000 si NC - Commercial w/o interior improvements (shell) - 5,001-15,000 si NC - Commercial w/o interior improvements (shell) - 15,001-50,000 si NC - Commercial w/o interior improvements (shell) - each additional 1,000 sf, or portion thereof, over 50,000 SF
NC - Commercial with interior improvements - up to 5,000 si NC - Commercial with interior improvements - 5,001-15,000 si NC - Commercial with interior improvements - 15,001-50,000 si NC - Commercial with interior improvements - each additional 1,000 sf, or portion thereof, over 50,000 SF
NC - Warehouse - up to 5,000 sf
NC - Warehouse - 5,001-15,000 sf
NC - Warehouse - 15,001-50,000 sf
NC - Warehouse - each additional 1,000 sf, or portion thereof, over 50,000 SF NC - Commercial High Rise - up to 10,000 sf
NC - Commercial High Rise - 10,001-50,000 sf
NC - Commercial High Rise - each additional 1,000 sf, or portion thereof, over 50,000 SF NC - Parking Structure - up to 100,000 sf
NC - Parking Structure - 100,001-500,000 sf
NC - Parking Structure - each additional 10,000 sf, or portion thereof, over 500,000 SF NC - New Single Family Custom/ Model - up to 1,000 sf
NC - New Single Family Custom/ Model - 1,001-2,500 sf
NC - New Single Family Custom/ Model - 2,501-5,000 sf
NC - New Single Family Custom/ Model - each additional 500 sf, or portion thereof, over 5,000 SF
NC - New Single Family - Production (Tract) - up to 1,000 si NC - New Single Family - Production (Tract) - 1,001-2,500 sf NC - New Single Family - Production (Tract) - 2,501-5,000 sf NC - New Single Family - Production (Tract) - each additional 500 sf, or portion thereof, over 5,000 SF
NC - Apartments/Multi- Family - up to 5,000 sf
NC - Apartments/Multi- Family - 5,001-10,000 sf
NC - Apartments/Multi- Family - 10,001-15,000 sf
NC - Apartments/Multi- Family - each additional 1,000 sf, or portion thereof, over 15,000 SF
NC - Hotels/Motels - up to 10,000 sf
NC - Hotels/Motels - 10,001-50,000 sf
NC - Hotels/Motels - each additional 1,000 sf, or portion thereof, over 50,000 SF TI - Tenant Improvements - up to 2,500 sf
TI - Tenant Improvements - 2,501- 5,000 sf
TI - Tenant Improvements - 5,001-20,000 sf
TI - Tenant Improvements - each additional 1,000 sf, or portion thereof, over 20,000 SF NC - OSHPOD Category 2 and above (Surgery Centers, Dialysis) - up to 5,000 sf NC - OSHPOD Category 2 and above (Surgery Centers, Dialysis) - 5,001-15,000 sf NC - OSHPOD Category 2 and above (Surgery Centers, Dialysis) - 15,001-50,000 sf NC - OSHPOD Category 2 and above (Surgery Centers, Dialysis) - each additional 1,000 sf, or portion thereof, over 50,000 SF
TI - OSHPOD Category 2 and above (i.e. Surgery Centers, Dialysis) - up to 5,000 sf TI - OSHPOD Category 2 and above (i.e. Surgery Centers, Dialysis) - 5,001-15,000 sf TI - OSHPOD Category 2 and above (i.e. Surgery Centers, Dialysis) - 15,001-50,000 sf TI - OSHPOD Category 2 and above (i.e. Surgery Centers, Dialysis) - each additional 1,000 sf, or portion thereof, over 50,000 SF
NC - UTILITY BUILDING - up to 500 sf
NC - UTILITY BUILDING - 501-1,000 sf
NC - UTILITY BUILDING - 1,001-2,500 sf
NC - UTILITY BUILDING - each additional 500 sf, or portion thereof, over 2,500 SF Fee#
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
Proposed Fees - Inspection
Current Fee
Full Cost
Proposed
Fee
Fee Increase /
(Decrease)
$ 3,505.48
$ 1,567.19
$ 1,567.19
$ (1,938.29)
$ 4,814.19
$ 2,038.11
$ 2,038.11
$ (2,776.08)
$ 8,459.16
$ 3,677.95
$ 3,677.95
$ (4,781.21)
$ 168.98
$ 160.03
$ 160.03
$ (8.95)
$ 6,780.13
$ 2,051.55
$ 2,051.55
$ (4,728.58)
$ 8,503.75
$ 2,890.01
$ 2,890.01
$ (5,613.74)
$ 13,220.14
$ 4,075.53
$ 4,075.53
$ (9,144.61)
$ 371.04
$ 160.03
$ 160.03
$ (211.01)
$ 6,088.38
$ 1,411.00
$ 1,411.00
$ (4,677.38)
$ 6,711.10
$ 1,935.86
$ 1,935.86
$ (4,775.24)
$ 11,273.61
$ 3,243.01
$ 3,243.01
$ (8,030.60)
$ 255.27
$ 160.03
$ 160.03
$ (95.24)
$ 4,814.19
$ 4,328.70
$ 4,328.70
$ (485.49)
$ 8,459.16
$ 7,743.28
$ 7,743.28
$ (715.88)
$ 168.98
$ 160.03
$ 160.03
$ (8.95)
$ 24,733.20
$ 5,985.25
$ 5,985.25
$ (18,747.95)
$ 123,668.18
$ 11,386.45
$ 11,386.45
$ (112,281.73)
$ 481.35
$ 448.35
$ 448.35
$ (33.00)
$ 1,417.29
$ 2,613.34
$ 1,960.01
$ 542.71
$ 1,810.62
$ 2,885.74
$ 2,164.31
$ 353.68
$ 2,739.66
$ 3,431.04
$ 3,431.04
$ 691.38
$ 708.65
$ 115.07
$ 115.07
$ (593.58)
$ 932.40
$ 2,068.43
$ 1,551.32
$ 618.93
$ 1,031.87
$ 2,341.77
$ 1,756.33
$ 724.46
$ 1,695.81
$ 2,633.10
$ 1,974.83
$ 279.01
$ 475.19
$ 115.07
$ 115.07
$ (360.12)
$ 6,073.28
$ 3,378.91
$ 3,378.91
$ (2,694.37)
$ 7,701.98
$ 3,966.72
$ 3,966.72
$ (3,735.26)
$ 9,141.56
$ 4,383.68
$ 4,383.68
$ (4,757.88)
$ 332.21
$ 160.03
$ 160.03
$ (172.18)
$ 7,701.98
$ 6,828.93
$ 6,828.93
$ (873.05)
$ 13,226.61
$ 12,210.86
$ 12,210.86
$ (1,015.75)
$ 338.25
$ 160.03
$ 160.03
$ (178.22)
$ 1,486.08
$ 887.63
$ 887.63
$ (598.45)
$ 4,874.95
$ 1,247.30
$ 1,247.30
$ (3,627.65)
$ 9,379.94
$ 2,906.40
$ 2,906.40
$ (6,473.54)
$ 390.70
$ 177.33
$ 177.33
$ (213.37)
$ 5,637.53
$ 3,695.01
$ 3,695.01
$ (1,942.52)
$ 7,361.14
$ 4,859.36
$ 4,859.36
$ (2,501.78)
$ 15,480.90
$ 6,383.62
$ 6,383.62
$ (9,097.28)
$ 1,508.61
$ 160.03
$ 160.03
$ (1,348.58)
$ 3,527.77
$ 2,277.89
$ 2,277.89
$ (1,249.88)
$ 5,651.91
$ 3,379.31
$ 3,379.31
$ (2,272.60)
$ 11,995.32
$ 4,980.89
$ 4,980.89
$ (7,014.43)
$ 1,115.28
$ 160.03
$ 160.03
$ (955.25)
$ 371.76
$ 578.59
$ 578.59
$ 206.83
$ 480.34
$ 695.69
$ 695.69
$ 215.35
$ 749.99
$ 819.32
$ 819.32
$ 69.33
$ -
$ 137.55
$ 137.55
$ 137.55
Red Text = New Fees/Fee Categories User Fee Schedule - Consolidated.xlsx (V. 2.27.24) Page - 5

City of Temecula
Proposed User Fee Schedule
Effective Fiscal Year 2024-25
Department: Building - Miscellaneous
Fee Description
MISCELLANEOUS BUILDING FEES (NON-MPE):

Accessory Structure 0 to 500 sf
Accessory Structure 500 to 1000 sf
Accessory Structure 1001 sf+
Cellular Tower - free-standing
Cellular Tower with Equipment Shelter
Adding Antenna's to existing tower - first 5
each additional 5
Carport - First 200 sf
Carport - each additional 200 sf
Non Construction Certificate of Occupancy: 0 - 1,500 sf Non Construction Certificate of Occupancy: Over 1,500 sf Commercial Coach (per unit)
Demolition
Door - New (non structural)
Door - New (structural shear wall/masonry)
Duplicate / Replacement Job Card
Freestanding Wall (fence)(non-masonry):
6 - 10 feet in height
Each additional 100 If
Over 10 feet in height
Each additional 100 If
Freestanding Wall (masonry):
up to 6' high - first 100 If
Each additional 100 If
Over 6' high (engineered) - first 100 It
each additional 100 If
Fireplace - Masonry
Fireplace - Pre -Fabricated / Metal [DELETED]
Flag pole (over 30 feet in height)
Lighting pole - first pole
Lighting pole - each add'I pole (at same location]
Res/Com Engineered: Deck, Patio Cover, Awning, Balcony, Covered Porch, Enclosed Patio - First 300 sf
Res/Com Engineered: Deck, Patio Cover, Awning, Balcony, Covered Porch, Enclosed Patio - Each additional 100 sf
City Standard Patio/Deck (includes ICC products) - First 300 sf City Standard Patio/Deck (includes ICC products) - Each additional 100 sf Mobile Homes - Site Preparation
Mobile Homes - Foundation
Mobile Homes - Installlation
Partition - Commercial, Interior (up to 30 I.f.)
Additional partition (each 30 If)
Partition - Residential, Interior (up to 30 I.f.)
Additional partition (each 30 If)
Photovoltaic System:

Residential Roof Mounted
Residential Ground Mounted
Commercial Roof Mounted
Commercial Ground Mounted
Retaining Wall (concrete or masonry):

City Standard (up to 50 If)
each additional 50 If of retaining wall
Engineered first 50 If up to 8' high
Each additional 50 If
Engineered first 50 If over 8' high
Each additional 50 If
Room Addition First Story up to 300 sf
Each additional 100 sf
Room Addition Multi Story up to 300 sf
Each additional 100 sf
Remodel - Residential - up to 300 s.f.

Remodel - Residential - each additional 300 sf
Reroof up to 5000 sf (50 squares)
Fee#
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
Proposed Fees - Inspection
Current Fee
Full Cost
Proposed
Fee
Fee Increase /
(Decrease)
$ 371.76
$ 652.53
$ 489.40
$ 117.64
$ 480.34
$ 729.40
$ 547.05
$ 66.71
$ 749.99
$ 833.24
$ 833.24
$ 83.25
$ 842.75
$ 640.44
$ 640.44
$ (202.31)
$ 358.82
$ 831.90
$ 623.93
$ 265.11
$ 82.69
$ 368.89
$ 276.67
$ 193.97
$ -
$ 60.22
$ 45.17
$ 45.17
$ 165.39
$ 329.33
$ 247.00
$ 81.61
$ -
$ 110.41
$ 82.81
$ 82.81
$ 80.30
$ 234.53
$ 82.09
$ 1.79
$ 160.59
$ 324.45
$ 162.23
$ 1.63
$ 203.50
$ 435.91
$ 326.93
$ 123.44
$ 165.39
$ 323.94
$ 242.96
$ 77.57
$ 74.06
$ 157.89
$ 118.42
$ 44.35
$ 91.32
$ 233.42
$ 175.07
$ 83.74
$ 131.59
$ 320.10
$ 240.08
$ 108.48
$ 34.52
$ 79.24
$ 59.43
$ 24.91
$ 131.59
$ 437.24
$ 327.93
$ 196.34
$ 34.52
$ 79.24
$ 59.43
$ 24.91
$ 143.81
$ 438.77
$ 329.08
$ 185.26
$ 18.70
$ 146.68
$ 110.01
$ 91.31
$ 213.56
$ 652.99
$ 489.74
$ 276.18
$ 18.70
$ 200.63
$ 150.47
$ 131.78
$ 242.33
$ 586.96
$ 440.22
$ 197.89
$ 117.21
$ 363.98
$ 272.99
$ 155.78
$ 106.42
$ 362.19
$ 271.64
$ 165.22
$ 18.70
$ 45.83
$ 34.37
$ 15.68
$ 140.94
$ 458.58
$ 142.16
$ 1.22
$ 21.57
$ 118.97
$ 22.60
$ 1.03
$ 117.21
$ 339.96
$ 118.99
$ 1.78
$ 10.79
$ 51.30
$ 10.77
$ (0.01)
$ 160.59
$ 349.84
$ 262.38
$ 101.79
$ 160.59
$ 366.03
$ 274.52
$ 113.93
$ 160.59
$ 437.96
$ 328.47
$ 167.88
$ 131.59
$ 361.44
$ 271.08
$ 139.49
$ 15.82
$ 70.12
$ 52.59
$ 36.77
$ 82.69
$ 316.24
$ 237.18
$ 154.49
$ 56.81
$ 55.74
$ 55.74
$ (1.07)
$ 183.36
$ 307.51
$ 230.63
$ 47.27
$ 279.72
$ 422.59
$ 316.94
$ 37.22
$ 481.78
$ 487.35
$ 487.35
$ 5.57
$ 674.49
$ 706.49
$ 706.49
$ 3200.
$ 147.41
$ 444.17
$ 151.02
$ 3.61
$ 18.70
$ 102.50
$ 18.45
$ (0.25)
$ 203.50
$ 512.27
$ 204.91
$ 1.41
$ 91.32
$ 115.07
$ 92.06
$ 0.73
$ 266.06
$ 641.49
$ 269.43
$ 3.37
$ 91.32
$ 115.07
$ 92.06
$ 0.73
$ 395.49
$ 876.73
$ 657.55
$ 262.06
$ 131.59
$ 67.41
$ 67.41
$ (64.18)
$ 395.49
$ 998.76
$ 749.07
$ 353.58
$ 131.59
$ 67.41
$ 67.41
$ (64.18)
$ 165.39
$ 713.54
$ 171.25
$ 5.86
$ 117.21
$ 113.29
$ 113.29
$ (3.92)
$ 143.10
$ 485.54
$ 145.66
$ 2.57
Red Text = New Fees/Fee Categories User Fee Schedule - Consolidated.xlsx (V. 2.27.24) Page - 6

City of Temecula
Proposed User Fee Schedule
Effective Fiscal Year 2024-25
Department: Building - Miscellaneous
Fee Description
each additional 1,000 sf (10 squares)
Sauna - steam (actual time at staff hourly rates)
Siding - Stone/Brick Veneer/ Stucco first 400 sf
Siding - each additional 400 sf
Signs:

Directional
Each additional Directional Sign
Monument
Each additional Monument Sign
Pole
Each additional Pole Sign
Wall Sign - Illuminated
Each additional Illuminated sign
Wall Non -Illuminated
Each additional Wall Sign
Skylight - Residential (each)
Skylight - Commercial (each)
Stairs - First Flight
Each additional flight
Storage Racks
0-8' high (up to 100 If)
each additional 100 If
over 8' high (up to 100 If)
each additional 100 If
Swimming Pool / Spa
Vinyl -lined (up to 800 s.f.)
Fiberglass
Gunite (up to 800 s.f.)
Each additional 800 s.f.

Commercial pool (up to 800 sf)
Each additional 800 sf
Window or Sliding Glass Door
Replacement First 5
Each additional 5
New window (structural shear wall/masonry) first 5
Each additional 5
Disabled Access Compliance Inspection (Permit Issuance is flat fee, Inspection is actual time at staff hourly rates)
Address Assignment (hourly)
NEW: Weed Abatement Contract Administrative Fee (Code Enforcement; HOURLY RATES:

After Hours Inspection Fee (4 hours minimum) - at applicable staff hourly rate [Fee shown is the minimum fee]
Records Research (first 1/2 hour)
Each Additional 1/2 hour (or portion thereof)
Supplemental Plan Check Fee (first 1/2 hour)
Each Additional 1/2 hour (or portion thereof)
Supplemental Inspection Fee (first 1/2 hour)
Each Additional 1/2 hour (or portion thereof)
Community Development Tech (per hour)
Community Development Proc. Supervisor (per hour)
Building Inspector II (per hour)
Building Official (per hour)
Community Development Director (per hour)
Sr. Administrative Assistant (per hour)
Administrative Assistant (per hour)
Principal Management Analyst (per hour)
Sr. Office Specialist (per hour)
Code Enforcement Officer I / II (per hour)
Fee#
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
Proposed Fees - Inspection
Current Fee
Full Cost
Proposed
Fee
Fee Increase /
(Decrease)
$ 2.16
$ 71.92
$ 2.16
$ 0.00
$ 96.36
$ 291.57
$ 218.68
$ 122.32
$ 96.36
$ 60.22
$ 60.22
$ (36.14)
$ 165.39
$ 300.31
$ 225.23
$ 59.85
$ 56.57
$ 117.77
$ 88.33
$ 31.76
$ 140.22
$ 467.56
$ 350.67
$ 210.45
$ 18.70
$ 166.32
$ 124.74
$ 106.04
$ 106.42
$ 332.68
$ 249.51
$ 143.09
$ 20.13
$ 88.99
$ 66.74
$ 46.61
$ 135.90
$ 300.31
$ 225.23
$ 89.33
$ 38.11
$ 81.80
$ 61.35
$ 23.24
$ 120.09
$ 271.53
$ 203.65
$ 83.56
$ 38.11
$ 76.41
$ 57.31
$ 19.20
$ 96.36
$ 258.95
$ 194.21
$ 97.86
$ 136.14
$ 303.90
$ 227.93
$ 91.78
$ 187.44
$ 289.52
$ 217.14
$ 29.70
$ 82.69
$ 106.98
$ 80.24
$ (2.46)
$ 131.59
$ 346.00
$ 259.50
$ 127.91
$ 27.32
$ 70.12
$ 52.59
$ 25.27
$ 193.43
$ 390.95
$ 293.21
$ 99.78
$ 48.18
$ 86.31
$ 64.73
$ 16.55
$ 183.36
$ 461.91
$ 346.43
$ 163.07
$ 175.21
$ 461.91
$ 346.43
$ 171.22
$ 178.33
$ 564.16
$ 423.12
$ 244.79
$ 91.32
$ 103.38
$ 77.54
$ (13.79)
$ 281.16
$ 857.03
$ 642.77
$ 361.62
$ -
$ 103.38
$ 77.54
$ 77.54
$ 56.81
$ 259.19
$ 194.39
$ 137.59
$ 56.81
$ 119.57
$ 89.68
$ 32.87
$ 155.32
$ 349.11
$ 261.83
$ 106.51
$ 155.32
$ 88.99
$ 66.74
$ (88.58)
$ 160.59
$ 247.54
$ 185.66
$ 25.06
$ 642.37
$ 719.35
$ 719.35
$ 76.98
$ 91.08
$ 127.68
$ 95.76
$ 4.68
$ 45.54
$ 89.92
$ 67.44
$ 21.90
$
$ 179.84
$ 134.88
$ 134.88
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 167.95
$ 125.96
$ 125.96
$
$ -
$ -
$
Red Text = New Fees/Fee Categories User Fee Schedule - Consolidated.xlsx (V. 2.2724) Page - 7

City of Temecula
Proposed User Fee Schedule
Effective Fiscal Year 2024-25
Department: Building - MP&E
Fee Description Fee#
rmit Issuance Fees:
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
rmit Issuance - Simple Project (includes 1 inspection visit) - Base Fee (Plus individual it fees for each inspection listed below)
e for Each Additional Trip (Plus individual unit fees for each inspection listed below)

ECHANICAL PERMIT FEES
3ndard Mechanical Item (Each common mechanical item and system, with the ception of those listed below.) - each item
;tall/Relocate each forced air or gravity -type furnace or burner and/or boiler or mpressor (including attached ducts and vents) up to and including 100,000 Btu/h ;tall/Relocate each forced air or gravity -type furnace or burner and/or boiler or mpressor (including attached ducts and vents) over 100,000 Btu/h

UMBING / GAS PERMIT FEES
3ndard Plumbing Item (Each common plumbing item and system, with the exception those listed below.) - each item
ch Water Heater and/or vent
aallation, alteration, or repair of piping for water, gas, drainage and/or venting - each m or system (per building/structure)
ch building or trailer park sewer or private sewage disposal system - each item or stem (per building/structure)
ch Industrial waste pretreatment interceptor including its trap and vent, excepting chen-type grease interceptors functioning as fixture traps vate, Residential, In -ground Swimming Pools (each new) (Includes a complete system necessary branch circuit wiring, bonding, grounding, underwater lighting, water mping and other similar electrical equipment directly related to the operation of a imming pool. For all other types of swimming pools, therapeutic whirlpools, spas, d alterations to existing swimming pools, use the UNIT FEE schedule.) 170 mporary Power Service - Power pole or pedestal, including all pole or pedestal- )unted receptacle outlets and appurtenances. Also includes temporary power tribution system and temporary lighting and receptacle outlets for constructions =s, decorative light, Christmas tree sales lots, firework stands, etc. 171 ceceptacle, �.wiccn, ana ugnung uuueis Ineaaerl, ugnung rimures, socKels, or omer amp -holding devices, (Receptacle, switch, lighting, or other outltes at which current is ised or controlled, except services, feeders, and meters.): First 10 (or portion thereof) For multi -outlet assemblies, each 5 feet or fraction thereof may be considered as one cutlet.)
172
ach Additional 10 (or portion thereof)
173
kppliances: Residential and Non -Residential (see details below' 174
Jp to and including 1(each)
175
)ver 1 and not over 10 (each)
176
)ver 10 and not over 50 (each)
177
)ver 50 and not over 100 (each)
178
)ver 100 (each)
,ign Power (not included as a Miscellaneous Fee) - Signs, Outline Lighting, or Marquees ier each branch circuit
179
180
,ervices
,ervices of 600 volts or less and not over 200 amperes in ratine (each! 181
vices of 600 volts or less and over 200 amperes to 1000 amperes in rating (each) 1 182 vices over 600 volts or over 1000 amperes in rating (each) 183 -cellaneous Apparatus, Conduits, and Conductors: Electrical apparatus, conduits, I conductors for which a permit is required, but for which no fee is herein set forth is fee is not applicable when a fee is paid for one or more services, outlets, fixtures, diances, power apparatus, busways, signs, or other equipment.) - each item 184 Proposed
Fees
Current Fee
Full Cost
Proposed
Fee
Fee Increase /
(Decrease)
$ 121.88
$ 135.93
$ 135.93
$ 14.05
$ 67.71
$ 70.11
$ 70.11
$ 2.40
$ 49.28
$ 114.55
$ 85.91
$ 36.63
$ 108.34
$ 191.88
$ 143.91
$ 35.57
$ 135.43
$ 222.45
$ 166.84
$ 31.41
$ 13.54
$ 107.26
$ 13.94
$ 0.40
$ 27.09
$ 154.02
$ 29.26
$ 2.18
$ 22.33
$ 73.38
$ 55.04
$ 32.71
$ 67.71
$ 182.79
$ 137.09
$ 69.38
$ 67.71
$ 234.52
$ 175.89
$ 108.18
$ 67.71
$ 88.85
$ 71.08
$ 3.37
$ 57.56
$ 187.50
$ 140.63
$ 83.06
$ 27.09
$ 55.41
$ 41.56
$ 14.47
$ 13.54
$ 27.70
$ 13.85
$ 0.31
$ 8.13
$ 90.87
$ 8.18
$ 0.05
$ 27.09
$ 128.18
$ 28.20
$ 1.11
$ 54.17
$ 160.55
$ 54.59
$ 0.42
$ 81.26
$ 189.32
$ 81.41
$ 0.15
$ 108.34
$ 221.69
$ 108.63
$ 0.29
$ 135.43
$ 252.26
$ 136.22
$ 0.80
$
-
$ 34.36
$ 25.77
$ 25.77
$ 65.00
$ 91.57
$ 68.68
$ 3.67
$ 40.63
$ 118.54
$ 88.91
$ 48.28
$ 81.26
$ 136.53
$ 102.40
$ 21.14
$ 27.09
$ 128.18
$ 96.14
$ 69.05
Red Text = New Fees/Fee Categories User Fee Schedule - Consolidated.xlsx (V. 2.27.24) Page - 8

City of Temecula
Proposed User Fee Schedule
Effective Fiscal Year 2024-25
Department: Planning
Fee Description Fee#
Adult Business
Adult Business - Conditional Use Permit
185
Adult Business - Employee Permit
186
Adult Business - Owner Permit
187
Annexation
Annexation / Detachment (Actual Time @ Staff Cost Recovery Hourly Rates) [calculated cost is the potential deposit]
188
Pre -Annexation Agreement (Actual Time @ Staff Cost Recovery Hourly Rates) [calculated cost is the potential deposit]
189
Appeal
190
ADDeal
License
ive Declaration (Without Mitigation)
191
192
193
194
195
196
ve Declaration (With Mitigation)
anaged EIR
?mental EIR
dum to EIR
tificate Of Historical Appropriateness
197
iditional Use Permits
iditional Use Permit - No Site Changes
198
iditional Use Permit with Development Plar
199
P - Modification of Existing CUP
200
RtR Review
&R Review (staff)
201
✓elopment Agreement
✓elopment Agreement - New
202
✓elopment Agreement - Modification
203
✓elopment Plan
✓elopment Plan - Larger than 100,000 SF
204
205
206
✓elopment Plan - 10,000-100,000 SF
✓elopment Plan - Less than 10,000 SF
Credit Or Reduction
Credit Or Reduction
207
ension of Time
ension Of Time
208
ding of Public Convenience Or Necessity
ding Of Public Convenience or Necessity (without DP or CUP) 209
neral Plan Amendment
neral Plan Amendment - Text Or Exhibit
210
neral Plan Amendment - Zoning & and/or Land Map
211
:al Impact Analysis [NEW]
212
idscape Construction Plan
idscape Construction Plan (City administration and processing fee --in addition to isultant review fee charged directly to applicant)
213
ps
tificate Of Compliance (in addition to any Public Works fees) 214
ndominium Conversion (Actual Time at Staff Cost -Recovery Hourly Rates) [Calculated ;t is to establish a potential deposit amount.]
215
idominium Map
216
Line Adjustment (in addition to any Public Works fees]
217
nor Change To Approved Tentative Map
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
-cel Merger (support to Public Works fee)
ising Plan For Tentative Map
iersion To Acreage
A Commercial Industrial Standard
A Commercial Industrial with Waiver
A Residential Standard
A Residential wth Waiver - Final Map
Proposed Fees
Current Fee
Full Cost
Proposed
Fee
Feelncrease
(Decrease)
$ 14,894.80
$ 21,714.10
$ 21,714.10
$ 6,819.30
$ 217.50
$ 1,968.44
$ 1,968.44
$ 1,750.94
$ 316.50
$ 2,548.71
$ 2,548.71
$ 2,232.21
$ 48,781.70
$ 113,593.52
$ 113,593.52
$ 64,811.82
$ 59,112.90
$ 107,312.79
$ 107,312.79
$ 48,199.89
$ 536.80
$ 16,353.30
$ 750.00
$ 213.20
$ 50.00
$ 1,029.81
$ 50.00
$ -
$ 6,107.20
$ 18,143.57
$ 13,607.68
$ 7,500.48
$ 8,349.00
$ 24,036.47
$ 18,027.35
$ 9,678.35
$ 65,792.10
$ 115,164.35
$ 86,373.26
$ 20,581.16
$ -
$ 57,881.46
$ 43,411.10
$ 43,411.10
$ -
$ 30,656.24
$ 22,992.18
$ 22,992.18
$ 618.00
$ 4,345.26
$ 750.00
$ 132.00
$ 4,498.10
$ 11,262.07
$ 5,631.04
$ 1,132.94
$ 1,433.20
$ 5,674.65
$ 2,837.33
$ 1,404.13
$ -
$ 10,541.55
$ 5,270.78
$ 5,270.78
$ -
$ 4,331.41
$ 4,331.41
$ 4,331.41
$ 72,402.00
$ 71,048.70
$ 71,048.70
$ (1,353.30)
$ 16,585.80
$ 39,860.36
$ 29,895.27
$ 13,309.47
$ 17,686.10
$ 35,767.19
$ 26,825.39
$ 9,139.29
$ 14,702.60
$ 29,155.81
$ 21,866.86
$ 7,164.26
$ 10,822.90
$ 18,929.76
$ 14,197.32
$ 3,374.42
$ 1,210.00
$ 7,607.62
$ 3,803.81
$ 2,593.81
$ 3,771.90
$ 5,509.63
$ 4,132.22
$ 360.32
$ 1,186.00
$ 7,450.47
$ 3,725.24
$ 2,539.24
$ 10,215.70
$ 34,007.31
$ 25,505.48
$ 15,289.78
$ 8,005.80
$ 28,845.47
$ 21,634.10
$ 13,628.30
$ -
$ 19,187.63
$ 14,390.72
$ 14,390.72
$ 782.00
$ 1,969.35
$ 1,477.01
$ 695.01
$ 1,753.40
$ 217.06
$ 217.06
$ (1,536.34)
$ 6,076.40
$ 34,589.54
$ 25,942.16
$ 19,865.76
$ 15,758.60
$ 10,121.08
$ 10,121.08
$ (5,637.52)
$ 1,773.20
$ 1,230.84
$ 1,230.84
$ (542.36)
$ 2,686.20
$ 5,248.38
$ 3,936.29
$ 1,250.09
$ -
$ 148.39
$ 111.29
$ 111.29
$ 4,802.60
$ 6,623.61
$ 4,967.71
$ 165.11
$ 1,023.00
$ 15,704.93
$ 11,778.70
$ 10,755.70
$ 7,517.40
$ 12,836.41
$ 9,627.31
$ 2,109.91
$ 5,056.70
$ 10,427.19
$ 7,820.39
$ 2,763.69
$ 5,394.40
$ 15,708.12
$ 11,781.09
$ 6,386.69
$ 4,319.70
$ 12,713.93
$ 9,535.45
$ 5,215.75
Red Text = New Fees/Fee Categories User Fee Schedule - Consolidated.xlsx (V. 2.27.24) Page - 9

City of Temecula
Proposed User Fee Schedule
Effective Fiscal Year 2024-25
Department: Planning
Fee Description Fee#
TPM Revised
226
TPM Vesting
227
TTM Standard - 5-34 Lots/Units (flat fee)
228
TTM Standard - Additional Unit Fee per lot above 34 lots 229
TTM Standard Revised Map
230
TTM Vesting 5 - 34 lots/units (flat fee)
231
TTM Vesting - Additional Unit Fee per lot above 34 lots 232
TTM Vesting Revised Map
233
Massage Permits
Massage Establishment Permit
234
Massage Establishment Permit Renewal
235
Minor Exception
Minor Exception - General
236
237
238
239
240
241
Minor Exception - Individual Homeowner
Modifications
Major Modification
Minor Modification
Minor Modification - Plan Review Only
Minor Modification - Plan Review Only (Individual Homeowner; Municipal Code Amendment
Municipal Code Amendment
242
Planned Development Overlay
243
Planned Development Overlay
244
Planned Development Overlay - Amendment
245
Residential Tract Home Product Review
Residential Tract Home Product Review
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
Accessory Dwelling Unit
Accessory Dwelling Unit
Signage
Sign Program Amendment
Sign Program - New
Specific Plan J1110011116-
Specific Plan - New
Specific Plan Amendment - Major
Specific Plan Amendment- Minor
Temporary Use Permits
Temporary Use Permit - Minor Regular
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
Temporary Use Permit - Major Regular
Temporary Use Permit - Major Non Profit
Temporary Use Permit - Minor Non Profit
Temporary Use Permit - Model Home Complex
Temporary Use Permit - Sales / Construction Trailer
Variance
Variance
rs License
260
ss Antenna Facility
ss Antenna Facility - Administrative Review
261
ss Antenna Facility - Revision with Public Hearing
262
ss Antenna Facility - New
;Letter
Letter
Fees
iling Permit
263
264
265
266
267
bution to Non -Planning Fees:
)rary Sign Permit
Occupation Permit
Proposed Fees
Current Fee
Full Cost
Proposed
Fee
Fee Increase
(Decrease)
$ 4,699.20
$ 9,955.03
$ 7,466.27
$ 2,767.07
$ 4,728.00
$ 15,570.00
$ 11,677.50
$ 6,949.50
$ 16,019.30
$ 20,733.83
$ 16,587.06
$ 567.76
$ -
$ 419.01
$ 314.26
$ 314.26
$ 8,021.20
$ 11,735.71
$ 8,801.78
$ 780.58
$ 20,181.70
$ 23,630.21
$ 21,267.19
$ 1,085.49
$ -
$ 419.01
$ 314.26
$ 314.26
$ 11,288.20
$ 12,843.61
$ 11,559.25
$ 271.05
$ 816.00
$ 2,626.30
$ 1,969.73
$ 1,153.73
$ 331.00
$ 1,734.03
$ 867.02
$ 536.02
$ 697.00
$ 4,371.45
$ 3,278.59
$ 2,581.59
$ 174.00
$ 1,332.12
$ 100.00
$ (74.00)
$ 8,311.60
$ 15,300.12
$ 11,475.09
$ 3,163.49
$ 3,595.90
$ 6,308.79
$ 4,731.59
$ 1,135.69
$ 221.00
$ 3,427.79
$ 300.00
$ 79.00
$ 221.00
$ 2,270.92
$ 200.00
$ (21.00)
$ 8,006.90
$ 39,629.22
$ 29,721.92
$ 21,715.02
$ 42,203.70
$ 57,257.64
$ 42,943.23
$ 739.53
$ -
$ 33,649.81
$ 25,237.36
$ 25,237.36
$ 13,894.00
$ 23,468.53
$ 17,601.40
$ 3,707.40
$ 1,027.40
$ 4,226.82
$ 2,113.41
$ 1,086.01
$ -
$ 5,738.25
$ 2,869.13
$ 2,869.13
$ 3,469.00
$ 13,614.99
$ 10,211.24
$ 6,742.24
$ 114,706.90
$ 157,802.08
$ 118,351.56
$ 3,644.66
$ 45,526.80
$ 80,431.26
$ 60,323.45
$ 14,796.65
$ 15,885.10
$ 43,362.65
$ 32,521.99
$ 16,636.89
$ 150.00
$ 1,851.28
$ 150.00
$
$ 300.00
$ 3,292.35
$ 300.00
$
$ 100.00
$ 3,109.99
$ 100.00
$
$ 75.00
$ 1,851.20
$ 75.00
$
$ 17.00
$ 4,764.82
$ 3,573.62
$ 3,556.62
$ 17.00
$ 4,364.64
$ 3,273.48
$ 3,256.48
$ 5,204.10
$ 25,970.92
$ 12,985.46
$ 7,781.36
$ 66.00
$ 1,667.87
$ 75.00
$ 9.00
$ -
$ 5,527.07
$ 4,145.30
$ 4,145.30
$
$ 9,995.16
$ 7,496.37
$ 7,496.37
$
$ 13,476.98
$ 10,107.74
$ 10,107.74
$ 34.00
$ 657.03
$ 200.00
$ 166.00
$ -
$ 7,663.49
$ 5,747.62
$ 5,747.62
$ 35.00
$ 216.41
$ 20.00
$ (15.00)
$ 20.00
$ 54.50
$ 20.00
$
Red Text = New Fees/Fee Categories User Fee Schedule - Consolidated.xlsx (V. 2.2724) Page - 10

City of Temecula
Proposed User Fee Schedule
Effective Fiscal Year 2024-25
Department: Planning
Fee Description Fee#
COST RECOVERY RATES (HOURLY STAFF RATES:
ling / Community Development Technician (per hour)
268
nunity Dev Svcs Processing Sup. (per hour)
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
tant Planner (per hour)
:late Planner (per hour)
,r Planner (per hour)
led Planner (per hour)
nunity Development Director (per hour)
nistrative Assistant (per hour)
ipal Management Analyst (per hour)
tant Director of Community Development (per hour)
Proposed
Fees
Current Fee
Full Cost
Proposed
Fee
Feelncrease
(Decrease)
$ 52.83
$ 203.72
$ 152.79
$ 99.96
$ 65.39
$ 252.26
$ 189.20
$ 123.81
$ 62.74
$ 211.26
$ 158.45
$ 95.71
$ 69.35
$ 240.53
$ 180.40
$ 111.05
$ 93.55
$ 287.17
$ 215.38
$ 121.83
$ 65.81
$ 227.58
$ 170.69
$ 104.88
$ 144.73
$ 384.61
$ 288.46
$ 143.73
$ 48.28
$ 175.53
$ 131.65
$ 83.37
$ 91.97
$ 230.77
$ 173.08
$ 81.11
$
-
$ 336.87
1 $ 252.65
1 $ 252.65
Red Text = New Fees/Fee Categories User Fee Schedule - Consolidated.xlsx (V. 2.2724) Page - 11

City of Temecula
Proposed User Fee Schedule
Effective Fiscal Year 2024-25
Department: Land Development
Fee Description Fee#
-EARING (per acre)
278
RAIDING:

JBDIVISION PRECISE GRADING PLAN (excluding Custom Lots) - Base Fee 279
JBDIVISION PRECISE GRADING PLAN (excluding Custom Lots) - Per Lot 280
AN REVISION (per sheet)
281
In and SUBSEQUENT REVIEW (per sheet)
N / OFF -SITE IMPROVEMENTS PLAN CHECK:

NSITE PLANCHECK:
63%of Engineer's Construction Security Worksheet (CSW)
282
283
Example project: (CSW = $76,000)
FFSITE PLANCHECK:
63% of Engineer's Construction Security Worksheet (CSW) 284
Example project: (CSW = $102,000)
285
286
1AFFIC CONTROL PLAN:
1AFFIC CONTROL PLAN (per sheet)
affic Control Plan - 4th and each subsequent review [NEW CATEGORY] :GAL DOCUMENT REVIEW
�rtificate of Correction
287
all General Vacation
288
immary Vacation
289
290
291
292
293
294
■
iblic Dedication - not related to a map
iscellaneous Legal Document
?rtificate Of Compliance
A Line Adjustment
ircel Merger
NAL MAP REVIEW (Parcel and Tract Maps)
ise Fee
295
:R SHEET (NEW STRUCTURE)
296
onument Review
297
mended Maps (Parcel and Tract) per sheet
298
nal Map - 4th and subsequent review (per sheet)
299
:MA STUDIES
Aq
300
301
302
303
mditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) Review
Ater of Map Amendment (LOMA) Review
Ater of Map Revision (LOMR) Review
ood Certification Review [NEW FEE]

YDROLOGY
rainage tributary area up to 20 acres [NEW CATEGORY]
304
rainage tributary area over 20 acres [NEW CATEGORY]
305
ydrology Revision (NEW)
306
A Standard
A Priority Development
' Revision [NEW FEE]
307
308
309
310
311
Impact Analysis:
and MAINTENANCE:

3.63%of Engineer's Construction Security Worksheet (CSW) 312 Example project: (CSW = $50,000)

PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTION FEES
CLEARING (per acre) 313
ON / OFF -SITE IMPROVEMENTS INSPECTION:

ONSITE INSPECTION:

3.63%of Engineer's Construction Security Worksheet (CSW) 314 Example project: (CSW = $76,000)
OFFSITE INSPECTION:

3.63% of Engineer's Construction Security Worksheet (CSW) 315 Example project: (CSW = $102,000)
Proposed Fees
Current Fee
Full Cost
Proposed
Fee
Fee Increase /
(Decrease)
$ 218.00
$ 348.59
$ 261.44
$ 43.44
$ 349.49
$ 1,717.42
$ 1,288.07
$ 938.58
$ 42.00
$ 582.45
$ 436.84
$ 394.84
$ 342.00
$ 400.72
$ 400.72
$ 58.72
$ 132.00
$ 167.87
$ 167.87
$ 35.87
$ 2,760.00
$ 7,199.44
$ 2,758.80
$ 2,639.58
$ 3,665.00
$ 6,753.39
$ 3,702.60
$ 1,400.04
$ 82.00
$ 510.48
$ 382.86
$ 300.86
$ -
$ 128.33
$ 96.25
$ 96.25
$ 922.00
$ 2,894.55
$ 2,170.91
$ 1,248.91
$ 4,967.60
$ 4,341.52
$ 4,341.52
$ (626.08)
$ 2,001.00
$ 3,471.86
$ 2,603.90
$ 602.90
$ 1,452.00
$ 3,044.15
$ 2,283.11
$ 831.11
$ 485.10
$ 2,317.45
$ 869.04
$ 383.94
$ 1,755.00
$ 2,497.20
$ 1,872.90
$ 117.90
$ 1,774.00
$ 3,005.78
$ 2,254.34
$ 480.34
$ 2,663.00
$ 3,894.90
$ 2,921.18
$ 258.18
$ 5,868.00
$ 10,162.52
$ 10,162.52
$ 4,294.52
$ -
$ 1,575.67
$ 1,181.75
$ 1,181.75
$ 452.00
$ 4,805.14
$ 3,603.86
$ 3,151.86
$ 587.00
$ 1,505.28
$ 1,128.96
$ 541.96
$ 286.00
$ 707.09
$ 530.32
$ 244.32
$ 6,865.00
$ 3,805.50
$ 3,805.50
$ (3,059.50)
$ 2,390.00
$ 3,805.50
$ 2,854.13
$ 464.13
$ 2,195.00
$ 3,513.15
$ 2,634.86
$ 439.86
$ -
$ 2,426.73
$ 1,820.05
$ 1,820.05
$ 2,829.00
$ 3,662.32
$ 2,929.86
$ 100.86
$ 4,125.00
$ 5,693.09
$ 4,269.82
$ 144.82
$ -
$ 1,953.89
$ 1,465.42
$ 1,465.42
$ 1,653.87
$ 1,504.98
$ 1,504.98
$ (148.89)
$ 2,742.06
$ 3,479.99
$ 2,783.99
$ 41.93
$ -
$ 3,949.58
$ 2,962.19
$ 2,962.19
or
$ 3,309.00
$ 2,310.67
$ 2,310.67
$ (998.33)
$ 827.00
$ 6,764.19
$ 5,073.14
$ 4,246.14
$ 1,850.00
$ 6,770.21
$ 1,815.00
$ 3,227.66
$ 166.00
$ 119.31
$ 119.31
$ (46.69)
$ 2,760.00
$ 7,175.36
$ 2,758.80
$ 2,621.52
$ 3,665.00
$ 5,171.00
$ 3,702.60
$ 213.25
Red Text = New Fees/Fee Categories User Fee Schedule - Consolidated.xlsx (V. 2.27.24) Page - 12

City of Temecula
Proposed User Fee Schedule
Effective Fiscal Year 2024-25
Department: Land Development
Fee Description Fee#
PARKS AND LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE:

PARKS & MAINTENANCE INSPECTION:

3.63% of Engineer's Construction Security Worksheet (CSW) 316
Example project: (CSW = $50,000)
Encroachment Fees:

Block Party
317
Driveway - Residential
318
Driveway - Commercial
319
Excavation: Base Fee
Excavation: Parallel / Street Crossing - Depth up to 5 feet - per 100 If (in addition to the Excavation Base Fee)
320
321
Excavation: Parallel / Street Crossing - Depth greater than 5 feet - per 100 If (in addition to the Excavation Base Fee)
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
Utility Access
Movie Filming
Parkway Drain (maximum 2 per lot)
Street Closure
Utility Company -Annual Blanket
Haul Route
Tree trimming
329
Soil Study [NEW FEE)
330
NPDES Fees (potential new fees):
■
Annual Industrial Inspection - annual service per site
330
Permanent BMP's Inspection (developer placed) - annual service per site 331
Proposed
Fees
Current Fee
Full Cost
Proposed
Fee
Fee Increase /
(Decrease)
$ 1,850.00
$ 7,175.36
$ 2,758.80
$ 7,501.24
$ 37.00
$ 118.98
$ 37.00
$
-
$ 78.00
$ 487.94
$ 105.00
$ 27.00
$ 104.00
$ 487.95
$ 365.96
$ 261.96
$ 276.00
$ 1,687.39
$ 1,265.54
$ 989.54
$ 276.00
$ 447.32
$ 335.49
$ 59.49
$ 276.00
$ 1,108.90
$ 831.68
$ 555.68
$ 42.00
$ 562.37
$ 421.78
$ 379.78
$ 1,233.00
$ 821.84
$ 821.84
$ (411.16)
$ 78.00
$ 226.68
$ 78.00
$
-
$ 166.00
$ 718.94
$ 539.21
$ 373.21
$ 479.00
$ 3,609.69
$ 2,707.27
$ 2,228.27
$ 42.00
$ 472.88
$ 354.66
$ 312.66
$ 42.00
$ 119.84
$ 42.00
$
-
$
-
$ 651.95
$ 488.96
$ 488.96
$
$ 250.04
$ 250.04
$ 250.04
$
$ 250.04
$ 250.04
$ 250.04
Red Text = New Fees/Fee Categories User Fee Schedule - Consolidated.xlsx (V. 2.2724) Page - 13

City of Temecula
Proposed User Fee Schedule
Effective Fiscal Year 2024-25
Department: Fire Prevention
Fee Description Fee#
nkler Plan Check New 1- 50 heads
331
nkler Plan Check New 51-100
332
nkler Plan Check New 101-200
333
nkler Plan Check New 201-300
334
nkler Plan Check New 301-400
335
nkler Plan Check New 401-500
336
nkler Plan Check New - each additional 50 heads, or portion thereof, above 500 337
nkler Inspection
New 1- 50 heads
338
nkler Inspection
New 51-100
339
nkler Inspection
New 101-200
340
nkler Inspection
New 201-300
341
nkler Inspection
New 301-400
342
nkler Inspection
New 401-500
343
sprinkler Inspection New - each additional 50 heads, or portion thereof, above 500 344
Sprinkler Plan Check Ti 1-10 heads
345
Sprinkler Plan Check Ti 11-50
346
Sprinkler Plan Check Ti 51-100
347
Sprinkler Plan Check Ti - each additional 50 heads, or portion thereof, above 100 348
Sprinkler Inspection Ti 1-10
349
Sprinkler Inspection Ti 11-50
350
Sprinkler Inspection Ti 51-100
351
Sprinkler Inspection Ti - each additional 50 heads, or portion thereof, above 100 352
Alarm Plan Check New 1-10
353
Alarm Plan Check New 11-25
354
Alarm Plan Check New 26-50
355
Alarm Plan Check New 51-75
356
alarm Plan Check New 76-100
357
alarm Plan Check New - each additional 25 units, or portion thereof, above 100 358
Alarm Inspection New 1-10
359
Alarm Inspection New 11-25
360
Alarm Inspection New 26-50
361
Alarm Inspection New 51-75
362
alarm Inspection New 76-100
363
alarm Inspection New - each additional 25 units, or portion thereof, above 100 364
Alarm Plan Check Ti 1-10
365
Alarm Plan Check Ti 11-25
366
Alarm Plan Check Ti 26-50
367
alarm Plan Check Ti 51-75
368
alarm Plan Check Ti 76-100
369
Alarm Plan Check Ti -each additional 25 units, or portion thereof, above 100 370
Nireless Communicator Alarm Ti PC
371
Alarm Inspection Ti 1-10
372
Alarm Inspection Ti 11-25
373
Alarm Inspection Ti 26-50
374
Alarm Inspection Ti 51-75
375
Alarm Inspection Ti 76-100
376
Alarm Inspection Ti - each additional 25 units, or portion thereof, above 100 377
Nireless Communicator Alarm Inspection
378
Underground Sprinkler Plan Check
379
Underground Hydrants Plan Check
380
Underground Combo Plan Check
381
Underground Sprinkler Insp
382
Underground Hydrants Insp
383
Underground Combo Insp
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
*PA 13D Plan Check (Single Family/Duplex)
*PA 13R Plan Check (Multi-Family/3 or more units)
*PA 13D Inspection (Single Family/Duplex)
*PA 13R Inspection (Multi-Family/3 or more units)
Hood & Duct Sys Plan Check (Per System)
Hood & Duct Sys Insp (Per System)
Fire Pumps Plan Check
Proposed
Fees
Current Fee
Full Cost
Proposed
Fee
Fee Increase /
(Decrease)
$ 12.57
$ 699.90
$ 949.95
$ 712.46
$ 699.90
$ 1,098.31
$ 823.73
$ 123.84
$ 921.61
$ 1,230.53
$ 922.90
$ 1.29
$ 921.61
$ 1,328.36
$ 996.27
$ 74.66
$ 1,142.13
$ 1,571.05
$ 1,178.29
$ 36.16
$ 1,142.13
$ 1,669.95
$ 1,252.46
$ 110.34
$ 699.90
$ 345.31
$ 345.31
$ (354.59)
$ 769.41
$ 563.00
$ 563.00
$ (206.41)
$ 769.41
$ 743.51
$ 743.51
$ (25.90)
$ 1,172.09
$ 832.71
$ 832.71
$ (339.38)
$ 1,172.09
$ 1,016.44
$ 1,016.44
$ (155.65)
$ 1,574.77
$ 1,060.83
$ 1,060.83
$ (513.94)
$ 1,574.77
$ 1,105.70
$ 1,105.70
$ (469.07)
$ 769.41
$ 234.75
$ 234.75
$ (534.66)
$ 370.32
$ 788.81
$ 591.61
$ 221.29
$ 481.78
$ 838.27
$ 628.70
$ 146.92
$ 699.90
$ 887.72
$ 710.18
$ 10.28
$ 481.78
$ 241.20
$ 241.20
$ (240.58)
$ 473.39
$ 569.00
$ 512.10
$ 38.71
$ 672.33
$ 837.69
$ 753.92
$ 81.59
$ 874.87
$ 932.75
$ 932.75
$ 57.88
$ 672.33
$ 102.87
$ 102.87
$ (569.46)
$ 481.78
$ 669.10
$ 501.83
$ 20.05
$ 699.90
$ 718.55
$ 718.55
$ 18.65
$ 699.90
$ 817.45
$ 735.71
$ 35.81
$ 1,249.99
$ 965.81
$ 965.81
$ (284.18)
$ 1,913.93
$ 1,110.25
$ 1,110.25
$ (803.68)
$ 699.90
$ 361.35
$ 361.35
$ (338.55)
$ 672.33
$ 668.34
$ 668.34
$ (3.99)
$ 971.95
$ 713.21
$ 713.21
$ (258.74)
$ 971.95
$ 1,027.32
$ 1,027.32
$ 55.37
$ 1,475.30
$ 1,117.06
$ 1,117.06
$ (358.24)
$ 1,475.30
$ 1,476.04
$ 1,476.04
$ 0.74
$ 971.95
$ 501.82
$ 501.82
$ (470.13)
$ 481.78
$ 656.22
$ 492.17
$ 10.39
$ 699.90
$ 705.68
$ 705.68
$ 5.78
$ 699.90
$ 804.58
$ 804.58
$ 104.68
$ 1,249.99
$ 952.94
$ 952.94
$ (297.05)
$ 1,249.99
$ 1,051.85
$ 1,051.85
$ (198.14)
$ 699.90
$ 472.20
$ 472.20
$ (227.70)
$ 481.00
$ 516.62
$ 464.96
$ (16.04)
$ 672.33
$ 659.33
$ 659.33
$ (13.00)
$ 971.95
$ 704.20
$ 704.20
$ (267.75)
$ 971.95
$ 1,018.31
$ 1,018.31
$ 46.36
$ 1,475.30
$ 1,108.05
$ 1,108.05
$ (367.25)
$ 1,475.30
$ 1,467.03
$ 1,467.03
$ (8.27)
$ 971.95
$ 601.00
$ 601.00
$ (370.95)
$ 198.00
$ 570.67
$ 428.00
$ 230.00
$ 811.35
$ 888.16
$ 888.16
$ 76.81
$ 811.35
$ 1,036.52
$ 829.22
$ 17.86
$ 1,033.07
$ 1,036.52
$ 1,036.52
$ 3.45
$ 769.41
$ 908.67
$ 817.80
$ 48.40
$ 874.87
$ 1,046.02
$ 941.42
$ 66.55
$ 1,072.62
$ 1,042.80
$ 1,042.80
$ (29.82)
$ 576.46
$ 797.30
$ 597.98
$ 21.52
$ 699.90
$ 986.37
$ 739.78
$ 39.88
$ 254.07
$ 767.74
$ 575.81
$ 321.73
$ 769.41
$ 857.54
$ 857.54
$ 88.13
$ 547.69
$ 658.17
$ 592.35
$ 44.66
$ 378.71
$ 723.76
$ 542.82
$ 164.11
$ 825.73
$ 1,170.40
$ 877.80
$ 52.07
Red Text = New Fees/Fee Categories User Fee Schedule - Consolidated.xlsx (V. 2.27.24) Page - 14

City of Temecula
Proposed User Fee Schedule
Effective Fiscal Year 2024-25
Department: Fire Prevention
Fee Description Fee#
Fire Pumps Insp
Spray Booth Plan Check (Per System)
Spray Booth Insp (Per System)
392
393
394
FM200 Plan Check (Per System)
395
FM200 Inspection (Per System)
396
Dry Chem Systems Plan Check (Per System)
397
Dry Chem Systems Insp (Per System)
398
Cot Systms Plan Check (Per System)
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
Cot Systems Insp (Per System)
Halogenated Extinguishing Systems Plan Check
Halogenated Extinguishing Systems Insp
Medical Gases Plan Check (Per System)
Medical Gases Insp (Per System)
UST Plan Check
UST Inspection
AST Plan Check
AST Inspection
Tank/Piping Removal Plan Check
Tank/Piping Removal Insp
Smoke Control System Plan Check
Smoke Control System Insp
Dust Collection Plan Check
Dust Collection Insp
Industrial Ovens/Furnace Plan Check
Industrial Ovens/Furnace Insp
Hazmat Chemical Classificaton 1-5 chemicals Plan Check
417
Hazmat Chemical Classificaton 6-15 chemicals Plan Check 418
Hazmat Chemical Classificaton 16-50 chemicals Plan Check 419
Hazmat Chemical Classificaton 51-100 chemicals Plan Check Hazmat Chemical Classificaton - each additional 10 chemicals, or portion thereof, above 100
420
421
Hazmat Chemical Classificaton 1-5 chemicals Insp
422
Hazmat Chemical Classificaton 6-15 chemicals Insp
423
Hazmat Chemical Classificaton 16-50 chemicals Insp
424
Hazmat Chemical Classificaton 51-100 chemicals Insp
Hazmat Chemical Classificaton - each additional 10 chemicals, or portion thereof, above 100
425
426
HPS Plan Check
427
HPS Inspection
428
Minor Technical Report Review (1-10 Pages)
429
Major Technical Report Review (over 10 Pages)
430
Adult Care Facility 6 or fewer clients Inspection
431
Residential Care Facility Inspection
432
Large Family Day Care 9-14 children Inspection
433
Small Family Day Care 8 or fewer children Inspection
434
OTHER FEES:

Plan Revision Fee (1st Hour)
434
Plan Revision Fee (ea addtl. 1/2 Hour or portion thereof; 435
Plan resubmittal: fee charged on 4th and each subsequent submittal 436
Penalty for Failure to Cancel Scheduled Inspection & No Show 437
Job Card Reprint Fee
438
Works (Actual Time at Staff Hourly Rates) - Calculated cost is potential deposit. ) 439 Proposed
Fees
Current Fee
Full Cost
Proposed
Fee
Fee Increase /
(Decrease)
$ 1,290.73
$ 1,306.56
$ 1,306.56
$ 15.83
$ 601.62
$ 832.27
$ 624.20
$ 22.58
$ 738.25
$ 542.72
$ 542.72
$ (195.53)
$ 608.00
$ 1,080.13
$ 540.07
$ (67.93)
$ 601.00
$ 872.26
$ 566.97
$ (34.03)
$ 384.70
$ 783.41
$ 587.56
$ 202.85
$ 378.71
$ 542.72
$ 407.04
$ 28.33
$ 607.62
$ 783.41
$ 313.36
$ (294.25)
$ 749.03
$ 542.72
$ 217.09
$ (531.95)
$ 711.00
$ 1,080.13
$ 810.10
$ 99.10
$ 749.00
$ 542.72
$ 407.04
$ (341.96)
$ 498.56
$ 995.71
$ 448.07
$ (50.49)
$ 372.72
$ 826.43
$ 702.47
$ 329.75
$ 810.15
$ 995.71
$ 896.14
$ 85.98
$ 1,249.99
$ 1,066.23
$ 1,066.23
$ (183.76)
$ 810.15
$ 995.71
$ 896.14
$ 85.98
$ 1,249.99
$ 737.76
$ 737.76
$ (512.23)
$ 384.70
$ 583.67
$ 233.47
$ (151.24)
$ 530.91
$ 634.61
$ 253.84
$ (277.07)
$ 920.41
$ 1,910.85
$ 1,433.14
$ 512.73
$ 2,434.06
$ 1,770.82
$ 1,770.82
$ (663.24)
$ 711.88
$ 897.28
$ 717.82
$ 5.94
$ 430.24
$ 544.92
$ 435.94
$ 5.69
$ 699.90
$ 897.28
$ 717.82
$ 17.93
$ 421.86
$ 544.92
$ 435.94
$ 14.08
$ 149.81
$ 777.82
$ 388.91
$ 239.10
$ 359.54
$ 990.60
$ 445.77
$ 86.23
$ 1,198.45
$ 1,321.81
$ 1,255.72
$ 57.27
$ 2,241.11
$ 1,628.66
$ 1,628.66
$ (612.45)
$ 119.85
$ 596.43
$ 447.32
$ 327.48
$
-
$ 516.62
$ 258.31
$ 258.31
$
$ 619.42
$ 340.68
$ 340.68
$
$ 827.51
$ 620.63
$ 620.63
$
$ 1,157.88
$ 868.41
$ 868.41
$
$ 471.75
$ 353.81
$ 353.81
$ 1,160.10
$ 1,549.52
$ 852.24
$ (307.87)
$ 587.24
$ 816.59
$ 694.10
$ 106.86
$ 485.37
$ 702.06
$ 526.55
$ 41.17
$ 1,155.31
$ 1,150.58
$ 1,150.58
$ (4.73)
$ 388.30
$ 610.00
$ 457.50
$ 69.20
$ 388.30
$ 879.24
$ 659.43
$ 271.13
$ 388.30
$ 610.00
$ 457.50
$ 69.20
$ 116.25
$ 520.26
$ 260.13
$ 143.88
$ 260.06
$ 318.59
$ 286.73
$ 26.67
$ 87.49
$ 228.85
$ 114.43
$ 26.94
$ 260.06
$ 318.05
$ 286.25
$ 26.18
$ 143.81
$ 365.72
$ 274.29
$ 130.48
$ 41.95
$ 13.36
$ 13.36
$ (28.59)
$ 280.44
$ 682.39
$ 272.96
$ (7.48)
Red Text = New Fees/Fee Categories User Fee Schedule - Consolidated.xlsx (V. 2.2724) Page - 15

City of Temecula
Proposed User Fee Schedule
Effective Fiscal Year 2024-25
Department: Fire Prevention
Fee Description
ANNUAL INSPECTION PROGRAM FEES: _
A-1 Occupancies up to 10,000 sq ft
A-1 Occupancies each additional 10,000 sq ft, or portion therot A-2 Occupancies up to 10,000 sq ft
A-2 Occupancies each additional 10,000 sq ft, or portion therot A-3 Occupancies up to 10,000 sq ft
A-3 Occupancies each additional 10,000 sq ft, or portion therot A-4 Occupancies up to 10,000 sq ft
A-4 Occupancies each additional 10,000 sq ft, or portion therot A-5 Occupancies up to 50,000 sq ft
A-5 Occupancies each additional 10,000 sq ft, or portion therot E Occupancies Schools - Elementary
E Occupancies Schools - Middle
E Occupancies Schools - High
E Occupancies Schools - Private
I Occupancy - up to 10,000 square feet
I Occupancy - each additional 10,000 sq ft, or portion therot B or M Occupancies - up to 3,600 sq ft
B or M Occupancies - 3,601- 50,000 sq ft
B or M Occupancies - 50,001- 350,000 sq ft
B or M Occupancies - each additional 50.000 sq ft, or portion therot F or S Occupancies - up to 3,600 sq ft
F or S Occupancies - 3,601 - 50,000 sq ft
F or S Occupancies - 50,001 - 350,000 sq ft
F or S Occupancies - each additional 50.000 sq ft, or portion therot H Occupancies - up to 10,000 sq ft
H Occupancies - each additional 10,000 sq ft, or portion therot High Rise - greater than 75 feet from grade (Prohibited by City Ordir L Occupancies
R-1 Occupancies - first 25 units
R-1 Occupancies - 26-50 units
R-1 Occupancies - 51-75 units
R-1 Occupancies - 76-100 units
R-1 Occupancies - each additional 25 units
R-2 Occupancies - 1-5 Buildings
R-2 Occupancies - 6-10 Buildings
R-2 Occupancies - 11-15 Buildings
R-2 Occupancies - 16-20 Buildings
R-2 Occupancies - 21-30 Buildings
R-2 Occupancies - 30-50 Buildings
R-2 Occupancies ->50 Buildings
Re -inspection fee (after initial and first inspection; ANNUAL INSPECTION AND OPERATING PERMITS (IFC 105 PERMITS) the Annual Inspection Program Fee:

Combustible Dust Producing Operation
Fire hydrants and Valves
dustrial Ovens
tuid or gas fueled vehicles or euipment in assembly building itdoor assembly event
rtting and/or Welding
!mporary membrane structures and tents
rcraft refueling Vehicle/Avation Facilities
arosol Products
!Ilulose Nitrate Film
rmbustible Fiber Storage
rmpressed Gases
yogenic Fluids
plosives 105.6.15
,rotechnic Special Effects material
3mmable and Combustible Liquids
rzardous Materials
gh Piled Storage
to
Fee#
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
Proposed
Fees
Current Fee
Full Cost
Proposed
Fee
Fee Increase /
(Decrease)
$
$ 471.78
$ 235.89
$ 235.89
$
$

97.75 $ 73.31
$ 73.31
$
$
619.04
$ 247.62
$ 247.62
$
$

97.75 $ 73.31
$ 73.31
$
$
663.92
$ 252.29
$ 252.29
$
$

97.75 $ 73.31
$ 73.31
$
$
501.22
$ 260.63
$ 260.63
$
$

97.75 $ 73.31
$ 73.31
$
$
681.44
$ 286.20
$ 286.20
$
$

97.75 $ 73.31
$ 73.31
$
$
1,069.17
$ 534.59
$ 534.59
$
$
2,146.19
$ 858.48
$ 858.48
$
$
3,223.22
$ 1,289.29
$ 1,289.29
$
$
1,158.92
$ 579.46
$ 579.46
$
$
636.51
$ 477.38
$ 477.38
$
$

97.75 $ 73.31
$ 73.31
$
$
412.18
$ 247.31
$ 247.31
$
$
681.44
$ 511.08
$ 511.08
$
$
816.07
$ 693.66
$ 693.66
$
$
322.10
$ 161.05
$ 161.05
$
$
455.80
$ 227.90
$ 227.90
$
$
681.44
$ 477.01
$ 477.01
$
$
816.07
$ 612.05
$ 612.05
$
$
375.00
$ 187.50
$ 187.50
$
$
606.05
$ 454.54
$ 454.54
$
$
232.37
$ 116.19
$ 116.19
$
$
1,399.33
$ 1,049.50
$ 1,049.50
$
$
606.05
$ 303.03
$ 303.03
$
$
410.93
$ 246.56
$ 246.56
$
$
576.07
$ 432.05
$ 432.05
$
$
710.70
$ 533.03
$ 533.03
$
$
845.33
$ 634.00
$ 634.00
$
$
142.62
$ 142.62
$ 142.62
$
$
426.54
$ 319.91
$ 319.91
$
$
591.69
$ 443.77
$ 443.77
$
$
726.32
$ 544.74
$ 544.74
$
$
860.94
$ 645.71
$ 645.71
$
$
995.57
$ 746.68
$ 746.68
$
$
1,130.20
$ 847.65
$ 847.65
$
$
1,399.46
$ 1,049.60
$ 1,049.60
$
$
299.66
$ 224.75
$ 224.75
;;
$
281.80
$ 84.54
$ 84.54
$
281.80
$ 84.54
$ 84.54
$
236.92
$ 59.23
$ 59.23
$
281.80
$ 84.54
$ 84.54
$
236.92
$ 59.23
$ 59.23
$
251.28
$ 125.64
$ 125.64
$
371.55
$ 185.78
$ 185.78
$
251.28
$ 125.64
$ 125.64
$
371.55
$ 185.78
$ 185.78
$
251.26
$ 188.45
$ 188.45
$
233.74
$ 70.12
$ 70.12
$
236.90
$ 71.07
$ 71.07
$
281.77
$ 70.44
$ 70.44
$
251.26
$ 75.38
$ 75.38
$
251.26
$ 75.38
$ 75.38
$
281.77
$ 140.89
$ 140.89
$
1,203.27
$ 360.98
$ 360.98
$
326.64
$ 81.66
$ 81.66
$
326.64
$ 65.33
$ 65.33
$
371.52
$ 92.88
$ 92.88
Red Text = New Fees/Fee Categories User Fee Schedule - Consolidated.xlsx (V. 2.27.24) Page - 16

City of Temecula
Proposed User Fee Schedule
Effective Fiscal Year 2024-25
Department: Fire Prevention
Fee Description Fee#
Amusement Building
499
500
501
502
Carnival and Fairs
Exhibits and Trade Shows
Waste Handling
FULL COST RECOVERY RATES (HOURLY STAFF RATES:
■
Assistant Fire Marshal (per hour)
502
Fire Safety Specialist (per hour)
503
Fire Plan Check - (per hour)
504
Fire Inspection (per hour)
505
Community Development Tech. (per hour)
506
Adminstrative Assistant (per hour)
507
NEW OCCUPANCIES:

NC - Commercial w/o interior improvements (shell) - up to 5,000 sf 507
NC - Commercial w/o interior improvements (shell) - 5,001-15,000 sf 508
NC - Commercial w/o interior improvements (shell) - 15,001-50,000 sf 509
NC - Commercial w/o interior improvements (shell) - each additional 1,000 sf, or )ortion thereof, over 50,000 SF
510
NC - Commercial with interior improvements - up to 5,000 sf 511
NC - Commercial with interior improvements - 5,001-15,000 sf 512
NC - Commercial with interior improvements - 15,001-50,000 sf 513
NC - Commercial with interior improvements - each additional 1,000 sf, or portion :hereof, over 50,000 SF
514
NC - Warehouse - up to 5,000 sf
515
NC - Warehouse - 5,001-15,000 sf
516
NC - Warehouse - 15,001-50,000 sf
517
NC - Warehouse - each additional 1,000 sf, or portion thereof, over 50,000 SF 518
NC - Commercial High Rise - up to 10,000 sf
519
NC - Commercial High Rise - 10,001-50,000 sf
520
NC - Commercial High Rise - each additional 1,000 sf, or portion thereof, over 50,000 iF
521
NC - Parking Structure - up to 100,000 sf
522
NC - Parking Structure - 100,001-500,000 sf
523
NC - Parking Structure - each additional 10,000 sf, or portion thereof, over 500,000 SF 1 524 NC - New Single Family Custom/ Model - up to 1,000 sf
525
NC - New Single Family Custom/ Model - 1,001-2,500 sf
526
NC - New Single Family Custom/ Model - 2,501-5,000 sf
NC - New Single Family Custom/ Model - each additional 500 sf, or portion thereof, wer 5,000 SF
527
528
NC - New Single Family - Production (Tract) - up to 1,000 sf 529
NC - New Single Family - Production (Tract) - 1,001-2,500 sf 530
NC - New Single Family - Production (Tract) - 2,501-5,000 sf NC - New Single Family - Production (Tract) - each additional 500 sf, or portion thereof, wer 5,000 SF
531
532
NC - Apartments/Multi- Family - up to 5,000 sf
533
NC - Apartments/Multi- Family - 5,001-10,000 sf
534
NC - Apartments/Multi- Family - 10,001-15,000 sf
535
NC - Apartments/Multi- Family - each additional 1,000 sf, or portion thereof, over L5,000 SF
536
NC - Hotels/Motels - up to 10,000 sf
537
NC - Hotels/Motels - 10,001-50,000 sf
538
NC - Hotels/Motels - each additional 1,000 sf, or portion thereof, over 50,000 SF 539
TI - Tenant Improvements - up to 2,500 sf
540
TI - Tenant Improvements - 2,501- 5,000 sf
541
TI -Tenant Improvements - 5,001-20,000 sf
542
TI - Tenant Improvements - each additional 1,000 sf, or portion thereof, over 20,000 SFJ 543 NC - OSHPOD Category 2 and above (Surgery Centers, Dialysis) - up to 5,000 sf 544
NC - OSHPOD Category 2 and above (Surgery Centers, Dialysis) - 5,001-15,000 sf 545
NC - OSHPOD Category 2 and above (Surgery Centers, Dialysis) - 15,001-50,000 sf NC - OSHPOD Category 2 and above (Surgery Centers, Dialysis) - each additional 1,000 ;f, or portion thereof, over 50,000 SF
546
547
TI - OSHPOD Category 2 and above (i.e. Surgery Centers, Dialysis) - up to 5,000 sf 548
Proposed
Fees
Current Fee
Full Cost
Proposed
Fee
Fee Increase /
(Decrease)
$ 576.32
$ 230.53
$ 230.53
$ 576.32
$ 230.53
$ 230.53
$ 576.32
$ 230.53
$ 230.53
$ 236.90
$ 118.45
$ 118.45
$ 180.97
$ 211.46
$ 158.60
$ (22.37)
$ 106.66
$ 197.81
$ 148.36
$ 41.70
$ 99.47
$ 179.49
$ 134.62
$ 35.15
$ 99.47
$ 179.49
$ 134.62
$ 35.15
$ 99.47
$ 160.91
$ 120.68
$ 21.21
$ 99.47
$ 317.35
$ 158.42
$ 369.20
$ 118.82
$ 369.20
$ 19.34
$ 51.85
$ 317.35
$ 533.97
$ 400.48
$ 83.13
$ 721.95
$ 682.33
$ 682.33
$ (39.62)
$ 14.43
$ 175.08
$ 131.31
$ 116.88
$ 723.39
$ 385.61
$ 385.61
$ (337.78)
$ 887.49
$ 533.97
$ 533.97
$ (353.52)
$ 1,636.45
$ 682.33
$ 682.33
$ (954.12)
$ 14.47
$ 175.08
$ 131.31
$ 116.84
$ 1,023.48
$ 385.61
$ 385.61
$ (637.87)
$ 1,139.65
$ 533.97
$ 533.97
$ (605.68)
$ 785.07
$ 682.33
$ 682.33
$ (102.74)
$ 20.47
$ 175.08
$ 131.31
$ 110.84
$ 1,281.39
$ 929.60
$ 929.60
$ (351.79)
$ 1,917.65
$ 1,226.31
$ 1,226.31
$ (691.34)
$ 282.72
$ 323.44
$ 323.44
$ 40.72
$ 974.51
$ 632.88
$ 632.88
$ (341.63)
$ 1,332.13
$ 929.60
$ 929.60
$ (402.53)
$ 101.63
$ 197.81
$ 148.36
$ 46.73
$ 276.60
$ 369.00
$ 276.75
$ 0.15
$ 276.60
$ 434.28
$ 325.71
$ 49.11
$ 276.60
$ 517.95
$ 388.46
$ 111.86
$ 276.60
$ 197.81
$ 197.81
$ (78.79)
$
-
$ 385.46
$ 289.10
$ 289.10
$
$ 434.91
$ 326.18
$ 326.18
$
$ 372.70
$ 279.53
$ 279.53
$
$ 98.91
$ 74.18
$ 74.18
$ 254.07
$ 534.61
$ 400.96
$ 146.89
$ 376.31
$ 732.42
$ 549.32
$ 173.00
$ 368.40
$ 880.78
$ 660.59
$ 292.18
$ 4.24
$ 233.76
$ 175.32
$ 171.08
$ 376.31
$ 732.42
$ 549.32
$ 173.00
$ 561.36
$ 880.78
$ 660.59
$ 99.23
$ 11.22
$ 233.76
$ 175.32
$ 164.10
$ 357.86
$ 459.79
$ 367.83
$ 9.97
$ 448.94
$ 533.97
$ 480.57
$ 31.63
$ 761.26
$ 682.42
$ 682.42
$ (78.84)
$ 150.53
$ 233.76
$ 175.32
$ 24.79
$ 355.22
$ 550.59
$ 412.94
$ 57.72
$ 969.79
$ 698.95
$ 698.95
$ (270.84)
$ 886.86
$ 847.31
$ 847.31
$ (39.55)
$ 70.95
$ 332.67
$ 249.50
$ 178.55
$ 637.90
$ 551.22
$ 551.22
$ (86.68)
Red Text = New Fees/Fee Categories User Fee Schedule - Consolidated.xlsx (V. 2.27.24) Page - 17

City of Temecula
Proposed User Fee Schedule
Effective Fiscal Year 2024-25
Department: Fire Prevention
Fee Description Fee#
TI - OSHPOD Category 2 and above (i.e. Surgery Centers, Dialysis) - 5,001-15,000 sf 549 TI - OSHPOD Category 2 and above (i.e. Surgery Centers, Dialysis) - 15,001-50,000 sf 1 550 TI - OSHPOD Category 2 and above (i.e. Surgery Centers, Dialysis) - each additional L,000 sf, or portion thereof, over 50,000 SF
551
NC - UTILITY BUILDING (Garage) - up to 500 sf
552
VC - UTILITY BUILDING (Garage) - 501-1,000 sf
553
554
555
NC - UTILITY BUILDING (Garage) - 1,001-2,500 sf
NC - UTILITY BUILDING (Garage) - each additional 500 sf, or portion thereof, over 2,500 iF
MISCELLANEOUS BUILDING FEES (NON-MPE):

Accessory Structure 0 to 500 sf
Accessory Structure 500 to 1000 sf
Accessory Structure 1001 sf+
Cellular Tower - free-standing
555
556
557
558
559
Cellular Tower with Equipment Shelter
adding Antenna's to existing tower - first 5
560
each additional 5
561
:arport - First 200 sf
562
:arport - each additional 200 sf
563
Non Construction Certificate of Occupancy: 0 - 1,500 sf 564
Non Construction Certificate of Occupancy: Over 1,500 sf 565
Commercial Coach (per unit)
566
Demolition
567
Door - New (non structural)
568
Door - New (structural shear wall/masonry)
569
ratio - First 300 sf
570
Res/Com Engineered: Deck, Patio Cover, Awning, Balcony, Covered Porch, Enclosed 'atio - Each additional 100 sf
571
Mobile Homes - Installlation
572
Partition - Commercial, Interior (up to 30 I.f.)
573
Additional partition (each 30 If)
574
Partition - Residential, Interior (up to 30 I.f.)
575
575
576
576
577
578
578
579
580
Photovoltaic System:

Residential Ground Mounted
Commercial Ground Mounted
Retaining Wall (concrete or masonry):

Room Addition First Story up to 300 sf
Room Addition Multi Story up to 300 sf
Remodel - Residential - up to 300 s.f.

Storage Racks
0-8' high (up to 100 If)
each additional 100 If
over 8' high (up to 100 If)
each additional 100 If
581
CONTRIBUTIONS TO PUBLIC WORKS FEES:

SUBDIVISION PRECISE GRADING PLAN (excluding Custom Lots) - Base Fee 581
SUBDIVISION PRECISE GRADING PLAN (excluding Custom Lots) - Per Lot 582
ONSITE PLANCHECK: Percentage of Engineer's Construction Security Worksheet (CSW)l 583 Small project: Example Size = $76,000
584
Medium project: Example Size = $517,000
585
Large project: Example Size = $3,055,500
586
OFFSITE PLANCHECK Percentage of Engineer's Construction Security Worksheet (CSW) 587
Small project: Example Size = $ 102,000
588
Medium project: Example Size = $ 497,500
589
Large project: Example Size = $4,200,000
590
Lot Line Adjustment
591
Base Fee
592

PER SHEET (NEW STRUCTURE)
Monument Review (min)
Amended Maps (Parcel and Tract) per sheet
593
594
595
Proposed
Fees
Current Fee
Full Cost
Proposed
Fee
Fee Increase /
(Decrease)
$ 737.13
$ 698.95
$ 698.95
$ (38.18)
$ (439.19)
$ 1,286.50
$ 847.31
$ 847.31
$ 12.75
$ 372.89
$ 279.67
$ 266.92
$ 173.06
$ 253.67
$ 190.25
$ 17.20
$ 213.97
$ 302.53
$ 226.90
$ 12.93
$ 266.06
$ 303.13
$ 303.13
$ 37.07
$ 8.19
$ 175.08
$ 131.31
$ 123.12
$ -
$ 254.31
$ 190.73
$ 190.73
$
$ 303.17
$ 227.38
$ 227.38
$
$ 302.64
$ 226.98
$ 226.98
$
$ 89.53
$ 67.15
$ 67.15
$
$ 287.34
$ 215.51
$ 215.51
$
$ 238.04
$ 178.53
$ 178.53
$
$ 174.10
$ 130.58
$ 130.58
$
$ 53.58
$ 40.19
$ 40.19
$
$ 53.58
$ 40.19
$ 40.19
$
$ 53.58
$ 40.19
$ 40.19
$
$ 53.58
$ 40.19
$ 40.19
$
$ 53.58
$ 40.19
$ 40.19
$
$ 286.71
$ 215.03
$ 215.03
$
$ 40.23
$ 30.17
$ 30.17
$
$ 40.23
$ 30.17
$ 30.17
$
$ 220.64
$ 165.48
$ 165.48
$
$ 220.64
$ 165.48
$ 165.48
$
$ 220.64
$ 165.48
$ 165.48
$
$ 53.58
$ 40.19
$ 40.19
$
$ 25.75
$ 19.31
$ 19.31
$
$ 53.58
$ 40.19
$ 40.19
$
$ 289.49
$ 217.12
$ 217.12
$
$ 454.27
$ 340.70
$ 340.70
$
$ 53.58
$ 40.19
$ 40.19
$
$ 53.58
$ 40.19
$ 40.19
$
$ 53.58
$ 40.19
$ 40.19
$
$ 511.92
$ 383.94
$ 383.94
$
$ 188.76
$ 141.57
$ 141.57
$
$ 511.92
$ 383.94
$ 383.94
$
$ 188.76
$ 141.57
$ 141.57
$
$ 429.32
$ 429.32
$
$ 429.32
$ 429.32
$
$ 230.50
$ 230.50
$
$ 270.72
$ 270.72
$
$ 270.72
$ 270.72
$
$ 270.72
$ 270.72
$
$ 230.50
$ 230.50
$
$ 270.72
$ 270.72
$
$ 270.72
$ 270.72
$
$ 270.72
$ 270.72
$
$ 270.72
$ 270.72
$
$ 158.65
$ 158.65
$
$ 158.65
$ 158.65
$
$ 158.65
$ 158.65
$
$ 158.65
$ 158.65
Red Text = New Fees/Fee Categories User Fee Schedule - Consolidated.xlsx (V. 2.27.24) Page - 18

City of Temecula
Proposed User Fee Schedule
Effective Fiscal Year 2024-25
Department: Fire Prevention
Fee Description
Final Map - 4th and subsequent review (per sheet)
Driveway - Residential
Driveway - Commercial
Utility Access
Movie Filming
Fee#
596
597
598
599
600
Proposed Fees
Current Fee
Full Cost
Proposed
Fee
Fee Increase /
(Decrease)
$
$
$
$
$ 158.65
$ 158.65
$ 251.69
$ 251.69
$ 251.69
$ 251.69
$ 198.82
$ 198.82
$
$ 323.59
$ 323.59
Red Text = New Fees/Fee Categories User Fee Schedule - Consolidated.xlsx (V. 2.27.24) Page - 19

City of Temecula
Proposed User Fee Schedule
Effective Fiscal Year 2024-25
Department: Police
Fee Description Fee#

1. ABC PERMIT (plus Fingerprint fee and state or county fees, if applicable; 601

2. CITATION COPY
602

3. FINGERPRINTS (per Penal Code 13300 (e) rolling maximum) 603

4. MASSAGE PERMIT (not a PD fee) (plus Fingerprint fee and state or county fees, if applicable)
604

5. REPORT COPY
605
5 SOLICITOR'S PERMIT (plus Fingerprint fee and state or county fees, if applicable) 606

7. TAXI DRIVER PERMIT (plus Fingerprint fee and state or county fees, if applicable) 607

9. VEHICLE RELEASE
608

REPOSSESSION RECOVERY FEE
609
TAXI CAB INSPECTION / PERMIT (plus Fingerprint fee and state or county fees, if applicable)
610

LIVESCAN
611
RV permits
612
Proposed
Fees
Current Fee
Full Cost
Proposed
Fee
Fee Increase /
(Decrease)
$ 34.00
$ 311.97
$ 100.00
$ 66.00
$ 19.00
$ 16.77
$ 16.77
$ (2.23)
$ 10.00
$ 50.95
$ 25.48
$ 15.48
$ 81.00
$ -
$
-
$ (81.00)
$ 26.00
$ 96.18
$ 50.00
$ 24.00
$ 34.00
$ 76.55
$ 50.00
$ 16.00
$ 81.00
$ 119.39
$ 89.54
$ 8.54
$ 166.00
$ 175.75
$ 175.75
$ 9.75
$ 15.00
$ 89.83
$ 50.00
$ 35.00
$ 91.00
$ 73.06
$ 73.06
$ (17.94)
$ 10.00
$ 50.95
$ 20.00
$ 10.00
$
-
$ 47.36
$ 35.52
$ 35.52
Red Text = New Fees/Fee Categories User Fee Schedule - Consolidated.xlsx (V. 2.2724) Page - 20

City of Temecula
User Fee Study Fact Sheet
February 2024
The City of Temecula has recently completed a User Fee Study, prepared by Wohlford Consulting. The Study calculates the full cost of services provided for nearly 900 individual fees, projected volume and revenue for each fee as well as the City's current percentage of cost recovery. City Staff has reviewed the Study and made recommendations for all fees reflected in the Study.

1. The User Fee Study analyzes development -related fees for the following departments:
a. Building & Safety
b. Planning
c. Land Development
d. Fire Prevention
e. Police

2. The City's existing fees are based on a Fee Study adopted September 24, 2005, with annual inflationary adjustments applied each year.
a. A User Fee Study was conducted in 2010, however it was not implemented due to the Great Recession.

3. The Study includes the results of an Indirect Cost Allocation Plan used to determine overhead rates reflected in the Study.

4. The Study calculates the full cost of services using the Fiscal Year 2022-23 Annual Operating Budget, using the following formula:
a. Staff Hours X Personnel Costs = Direct Costs + Overhead + Support Costs = Full Cost

5. The Potential Revenue from each fee is calculated using the following formula:
a. Full Cost X Annual Volume of Fees = Potential Annual Revenue

6. The Potential Revenue is compared to the Current Revenue to determine the percentage of cost recovery the City is obtaining from each fee. Below is a consolidated table showing the results of the Study.

TOTALS: $ 15,823,200 $ 7 640 661 $ 8 182 539)1 1 $ 10,714,432 1 $ 5 108 768 67.7% I

7. Currently, the City is recovering 48.3% of its costs. The Recommended Fee Schedule would recover 67.7% of its cost, in aggregate.
a. Target cost recovery rate was set at 75% with individual fees modified if the target exceeded the cost of providing the service.
b. In no case does the fee exceed the cost of providing the service.

City of Temecula
User Fee Study Fact Sheet, Continued
February 2024

8. Building and Safety Fees have been restructured and are more simplified than the previous Fee Schedule.

9. Many new fee categories were added:
a. Annual Fire Inspection Program (Fire Prevention)
b. Annual NPDES Inspection Program (Land Development)
c. Weed Abatement Administration (Building)
d. Wireless Antenna Facilities (Planning)
e. Drainage Tributary (Land Development)

10. City Council will hold a Public Hearing to consider the adoption of the new Fee Schedule at their February 27, 2024 meeting.
a. If approved, Fees would be effective in Fiscal Year 2024-25 b. Fee implementation may be phased -in by department, due to system re -programming. c. Fees Schedule Resolution will continue to include annual inflationary adjustments

2023

FULL COST OF SERVICES
(USER FEE)
STUDY
for the City of

FINAL REPORT
September 27, 2023

WOHLFORD CONSULTING
Sacramento, CA
(916) 205-7050
chad(cr�,wohlfordconsulting. com

[THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]

�=. 2023 Full Cost of Services (User Fee) Study
c� FINAL REPORT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1 Table: Summary Results.................................................................I Table: Sample Unit Fee Cost Results.............................................2

PROJECT BACKGROUND
3 Purposeand Intent.................................................................................................3 Scopeof the Study..................................................................................................4 Purposeof the Report............................................................................................4 About Wohlford Consulting.................................................................................4

LOCAL GOVERNMENT USER FEE ISSUES
5 UserFees Defined...................................................................................................5 FeeBackground.....................................................................................................5 Impetus for User Fees and Increased Scrutiny...................................................6 BasicUser Fee Principles......................................................................................8

PROJECT APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY
10 ConceptualApproach..........................................................................................10 SummarySteps of the Study...............................................................................I I
Basic Assumptions and Standards.....................................................................13 QualityControl....................................................................................................16

FINDINGS AND RESULTS
17 Basis.......................................................................................................................17 Summaryof Results.............................................................................................17 Table: Summary Results — All Departments................................17 Graph: Current Funding Sources of Fee Services ......................18 Other Results Information and Explanations...................................................19 Results for Building & Safety.............................................................................23 Resultsfor Planning.............................................................................................24 Results for Land Development...........................................................................25 Resultsfor Fire Prevention.................................................................................26 Resultsfor Police..................................................................................................28 Opportunitiesfor Greater Cost Recovery.........................................................29 Impact of Fee Activity Levels..............................................................................29 Results for Staff Hourly Rates (Full Cost Recovery Rates) .............................30 Potential Cost Changes from Prior Studies and Fee -Setting ...........................33 Considerations Concerning Recommended Fees..............................................33 Limitations for Use of Revenue Results.............................................................34 Other Beneficial Outcomes of the Study............................................................34 Wohlford Consulting i September 27, 2023

c�c
2023 Full Cost of Services (User Fee) Study

FINAL REPORT
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

OTHER ISSUES AND INFORMATION
Fee Setting Considerations..................................................................................36 FeeComparison Issues........................................................................................38 Cost "Reasonableness"........................................................................................39 EnhancedFee Flexibility.....................................................................................40 ImplementationIssues.........................................................................................40 Potential Implementation Strategies..................................................................42 FutureUpdates.....................................................................................................45 36 CONCLUSION 48
ThankYou to City Staff......................................................................................48 ClosingComments...............................................................................................48

APPENDICES
Appendix 1: Cost Results for Building & Safety
Appendix 2: Cost Results for Planning
Appendix 3: Cost Results for Land Development
Appendix 3: Cost Results for Fire Prevention
Appendix 3: Cost Results for Police
Wohlforrd Consulting ii September 27, 2023

A 2023 Full Cost of Services (User Fee) Study
It FINAL REPORT

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City of Temecula engaged Wohlford Consulting to conduct an objective analysis of the full costs incurred by selected departments in support of various activities for which the departments charges user fees. In order to ensure accuracy and establish a clear nexus between the cost of those services and the fees, the study utilized a unit cost build-up methodology to identify the full cost for individual fee activities, based upon staff time and associated direct and indirect costs. By projecting an estimated average annual volume for each fee activity, the study also identified the annual cost of the services and the potential annual revenue for the fee activities at full cost levels.

Through comparisons of the full costs and current fees, the study identified existing unit and annual subsidies. The following table illustrates the results for the individual departments:

Summary Results
FULL COST:

PROJECTED

PROJECTED

PROJECTED

PROGRAM AREA
Annual Cost of

REVENUE AT

SURPLUS /
COST
Fee -Related

CURRENT
(DEFICIT)

RECOVERY
Services
FEES
RATE
Building & Safety
$ 3,911,000
$ 2,801,000
($ 1,110,000)

71.6%
Planning
$ 3,386,000
$ 1,192,000
($ 2,194,000)

35.2%
Land Development
$ 2,812,000
$ 1,881,000
($ 931,000)

66.9%
Fire Prevention
$ 5,161,000
$ 1,780,000
($ 3,381,000)

34.5%
Police
$ 554,000
$ 234,000
($ 320,000)

42.2%
TOTALS:
$ 15,824,000
$ 7,888,000
($ 7,9369000)

49.8%
As the table shows, the current total cost of fee activities included in this study is approximately $15.8 million annually. Given the current fee levels charged by the departments, the potential annual revenue (assuming a consistent activity level and complete collection) is $7.9 million, which represents a current cost -recovery ratio of 49.8% overall and an annual fund deficit (subsidy) of $7.9 million.

The projected revenue at current fees shown in the table above assumes that the City will charge existing fees in all possible instances. However, for practical and customer service reasons (to facilitate good community relations and encourage overall compliance), as well as collection inefficiencies, the City likely does not actually charge for every situation where fees could be levied. Consequently, projected current fee revenues and full cost recovery levels will likely be less than shown in the table, so the table figures should be considered the maximum potential amounts.

The overall annual cost recovery is comprised of approximately 879 individual fee results calculated in the study. In most cases (76%), the current unit fees are less than the full cost of providing the service, resulting in fee subsidies. Some examples of this situation are presented in the table below:

Wohlford Consulting Page 1 of 48 September 27, 2023

A 2023 Full Cost of Services (User Fee) Study
It FINAL REPORT
Sample Unit Fee Cost Results
Current
Full Cost
Surplus /
Full Cost
Program and Fee Title
Fee
per Unit
(Subsidy)
Recovery
per Unit
Rate
Conditional Use Permit with
$ 1,433
$ 5,675
$ (4,242)
25%
Development Plan(Planning)
New Single -Family Dwelling: 2,501-
$ 1,826
$ 3,066
$ (1,240)
60%
5,000 sf(Building)
Water Heater (includes Permit Issuance
$ 149
$ 290
$(141)
51%
Fee(Building)
On -Site Improvements Plan Check:
$ 20,556
$ 24,555
$ (3,999)
84%
Medium project Land Development)
Sprinkler Plan Check: 51-100 heads
$ 700
$ 1,098
$ (398)
64%
Fire Prevention
Sprinkler Inspection: 51-100 heads (Fire
$ 769
$ 744
$ 26
103%
Prevention
Vehicle Release Police
$ 166
$ 176
$ 10
94%
While the average cost recovery rate for all fees is 49.8%, the individual recovery rates for subsidized fees vary widely. Some fees are at 0% cost recovery (i.e., no current fee exists), and some fee levels are currently greater than the cost of services (over 100%). The appendix to this report presents the results for each fee and service in a format similar to the above table.

The results of the study demonstrate the potential for improved cost recovery and revenue enhancement through fee increases (offset by some potential decreases). The reality of the local government fee environment, however, is that large increases to achieve 100% cost recovery in a single year are often not feasible, desirable, or appropriate. In addition, some of the "fee" activities, while technically possible to establish as full cost fees, are likely not feasible to charge full cost (e.g., appeals). In recognition of this situation in Temecula, staff will develop recommended fees that will likely result in less than full cost recovery in the first year. The annual amount of revenue from the recommended fees and the actual cost -recovery ratio will not be known until City staff prepares their analysis and submits recommendations to the City Council.

It is important to note that these results will not match the entire budget and operations of each department, some of which may have non -fee programs and/or services intentionally funded by the General Fund or external sources, such as grants or state funds. In addition, in some instances, the total costs and/or revenues shown are greater than the department budgets, because the anticipated annual workload is greater than current staff resources can fulfill or the task hours used to calculate unit costs are based on a "minimum professional standard" that may be greater than current staff capacity currently allows. This situation was particularly pronounced in the Fire Prevention results. The Findings and Results section of this report addresses these issues in more detail, primarily in the Other Results Information and Explanations section starting on page 19.

The details and explanations behind these summary results are contained in the body of this report and the appendix. The background and comprehensive data analysis for the Cost of Services Study was provided to the City and is available for review.

Wohlford Consulting Page 2 of 48 September 27, 2023

A 2023 Full Cost of Services (User Fee) Study
It FINAL REPORT

PROJECT BACKGROUND
Purpose and Intent
In its effort to manage resources wisely, meet service demands, and meet regulatory obligations, the City of Temecula utilizes a variety of tools to ensure that it has the best information to make good decisions, fairly and legitimately set fees, affect revenues, maintain compliance with state law and local policies, and address the needs of the City administration and the public. Given the limitations on raising revenue in local government, the City recognized that a Cost of Service (User Fee) Study is the most cost-effective way to understand its total cost of services and identify potential fee changes and revenue impacts.

A quality Cost of Service Study is much more than a method to identify the cost of service and potential fee increases. This type of analysis can also become a management tool, providing information and perspectives that can help the City better understand its operations and financial circumstances. Other important outcomes from the study processes and results include the ability to:
• Calculate specific fee subsidies and revenue impacts of current and potential fees; • Identify new fees and cost recovery strategies and delete obsolete or ineffective fees; • Enhance internal understanding of program operations and support activities; • Allow the City to compare its costs or fee levels with neighboring jurisdictions; • Quantify productivity and staffing shortages, inefficiencies, or overages; • Measure the distribution of staff effort of specific positions to individual tasks and service areas, which can help managers more effectively prioritize work tasks; • Ensure that fees are fair and defensible;
• Ensure that the City's fees are consistent with state law; • Ensure that City fees are defensible to the public, interest groups, and the courts; and • Foster a better understanding of workflow and staff involvement in specific activities.

The principal goal of the consultant study was to determine the full cost of the services provided by the department program areas that charge fees for their services. Other objectives of the project included:
✓ Establish objective and transparent fee information
✓ Develop insight and a rational basis for setting fees ✓ Understand individual fee subsidies and overall funding deficits ✓ Balance revenues and/or cost -recovery
✓ Understand the context and principles of user fees
✓ Improve fairness and equity
✓ Ensure compliance with state law
Wohlford Consulting Page 3 of 48 September 27, 2023

A 2023 Full Cost of Services (User Fee) Study
It FINAL REPORT
The City can use the study results to better understand its true costs and as the basis for making informed policy decisions regarding the most appropriate charges (fees), if any, to levy against individuals and organizations that require discretionary services from the City.

Scope of the Study
The scope of this study encompasses a review and calculation of the user fees charged by the City of Temecula, including the following program areas:
• Building & Safety
• Planning
• Land Development (PW)
• Fire Prevention
• Police
The study involved the identification of existing and potential new fees, fee schedule restructuring, data collection and analysis, orientation and consultation, quality control, communication and presentations, project management, and calculation of individual service costs (fees).

The Study focused on the cost of department services at anticipated service and staffing levels.

This study was not a management study intended to identify, evaluate, or quantify potential cost savings opportunities, efficiency and effectiveness improvements, performance or productivity, staffing or organizational structure, process changes, risk mitigation, or other factors that could later influence operating practices and the cost of the services. The analysis did not seek to compare the service levels, fee structures, quality, or operating practices of Temecula departments to other cities or counties. This study also did not address potential economic or social impacts of possible fee increases on the community.

Purpose of the Report
This report presents a summary of the study results and a general description of the approach and methods used to determine the cost of services. Some issues are presented as background for the results and the study processes. However, the report is not intended to document all of the issues and discussions involved with the study, nor is it intended to provide persuasive discourse on the relative merits of the tools, techniques, methods, or other approaches used in the study. The main source of detailed information from this study is the series of worksheets and workbooks that contain the source data and calculations that lead to the final results.

About Wohlford Consulting
The consultant for this study, Chad Wohlford, has over 36 years of experience analyzing and managing government costs and operations, including 12 years of direct government management and analytical service. He has personally engaged in over 250 cost analysis studies with more than 80 different government clients (many of them for multiple projects) in at least eight states. Before founding Wohlford Consulting, Chad Wohlford was a state director of the cost services practice for a large international consulting corporation.

Wohlford Consulting Page 4 of 48 September 27, 2023

A 2023 Full Cost of Services (User Fee) Study
It FINAL REPORT

LOCAL GOVERNMENT USER FEE ISSUES
User Fees Defined
A User Fee is:

A fee or rate charged to an individual or group that receives a private benefit from services provided by the City.

The defining principle behind a user fee is the nature of the individual or private benefit that results from the service for which the fee is charged. With the inflexibility and categorical requirements of many funding sources, taxes (as embodied by the General Fund) are generally levied and used to pay for services that benefit the public as a whole (i.e., community benefit). Of course, a number of gray areas exist to complicate the specific categorization of charges, since many services that appear to benefit a single group may have secondary benefits to others. It is the prerogative of the City Council or other governing body to determine the final fee levels that reflect the local policies and intent regarding cost recovery and subsidies.

As a point of clarification, utility rates are a type of local government fees that are similar in nature to, but otherwise separated from, user fees. Utility rates seek to recover for the usage of a particular commodity provided by the government agency, such as water or sewage treatment. In contrast, the traditional user fees addressed in this study relate to services for which employee time is the most prominent feature of the service and regulatory approval is the normal product of the transaction. The departments included in this study do not charge utility rates or fees.

Development Impact Fees (DIFs) are also sometimes confused or mistakenly conflated with user fees, since they are usually charged in association with development -related user fees. However, impact fees are also not "user fees," because DIFs are designed to fund future infrastructure (capital) costs and are prohibited from being applied to normal operating costs and services.

Fee Background
As part of an overall funding strategy, local government relies upon user fees to fund programs and services that provide limited or no direct benefit to the community as a whole. With rising demands for services and restrictions on most other funding sources, counties and cities have increased scrutiny of subsidies provided by the General Fund (or external funding sources or reserves) to other funds and to service recipients that reap a disproportionate share of the benefits.

To the extent that the government uses general tax monies (General Fund) or other non -fee funds to provide an individual with a private benefit and not require the individual to pay the cost of the service (and, therefore, receive a subsidy), the government is unable to use those resources to provide benefits to the community as a whole. In effect, then, the government is using community funds to pay for a private benefit. Unlike other revenue sources, counties and cities have greater control over the amount of user fees they charge to recover costs.

Wohlford Consulting Page 5 of 48 September 27, 2023

A 2023 Full Cost of Services (User Fee) Study
Ir FINAL REPORT
Impetus for User Fees and Increased Scrutiny
Prior to Proposition 13, California cities were not as concerned as they are today with potential subsidies and recovering the cost of their services from individual fee payers. In times of fiscal shortages, cities could raise property taxes, which funded everything from Animal Control and recreation to development -related services. However, this situation changed with the passage of Proposition 13 in 1978.

Proposition 13 ushered in the era of revenue limitation in California local government. In subsequent years, the state saw a series of additional limitations to local government revenues.

Proposition 4 (1979) defined the difference between a tax and a fee: a fee can be no greater than the cost of providing the service; and Proposition 218 (1996) further limited the imposition of taxes for certain classes of fees. As a result, cities were required to secure a supermajority vote in order to enact or increase taxes. Since significant resistance usually emerges to any efforts to raise local government taxes, cities have little control and very few successful options for new revenues.

To compound the revenue problems faced by local government, the state of California took a series of actions in the 1990's and 2000's to improve the state's fiscal situation —at the expense of local government. The "Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund" (ERAF) take -away of property taxes and the reduction of Vehicle License Fees severely reduced local tax revenues.

Cities (and counties) faced significant funding troubles in the face of rising and sometimes uncontrollable costs, increased citizen demands, and continued imposition of state mandates. The flexibility of local government budgets to address their own priorities was hampered by categorical grants, earmarked funds, mandates, maintenance of effort requirements, and funding match requirements. As expected, cities and counties sought relief.

To cope with the funding shortages, local government was forced to enact service reductions, seek reimbursement from the state for more and more mandated services (SB 90 Mandated Cost Reimbursement), and impose a wider range and higher levels of user fees and impact fees. In turn, to placate local government and transfer some control and responsibility, the state delegated more authority to charge user fees. The state also codified limitations to user fee levels and administration and put more of the responsibility and liability for user fees to the local level.

With greater need and authority to charge fees, many local governments took to the concept readily and enacted new and increased fees. After a series of real and/or perceived abuses, a focused and influential user fee backlash occurred in the mid-1990's that required further clarification and limitation of user fee practices. Special interest groups challenged fees (primarily development - related) in a number of cities and counties, resulting in a series of lawsuits, special studies, and formal opinions from the California Attorney General (1995) and Legislative Counsel of California (1997).

The end result of all of these user fee actions is an environment of significant scrutiny of any and all fee actions. Local government has been forced to pay greater attention to the methods and bases for new fees, since they can be readily challenged. The focus of fee -setting decisions has shifted from the revenue needs to the actual cost of the services provided. "Pay to play" principles Wohlford Consulting Page 6 of 48 September 27, 2023

A 2023 Full Cost of Services (User Fee) Study
It FINAL REPORT
have become more prominent as a way to ensure equity and fairness for all citizens. In addition, the issue of subsidies has come to the forefront, since it has become less tolerable to use general taxpayer funds to subsidize the private activities and profits of developers (for example), business owners, and other individual beneficiaries of City services —at the expense of more public safety and social services.

Most Recent Change: Proposition 26
In 2010 the trend to limit fee progression continued when California voters approved Proposition

26. This measure attempted to further define and clarify which local government charges are to be considered taxes (subject to public vote) and which are fees (subject only to city council or board of supervisors approval). In summary, the measure established that any "levy, charge, or exaction of any kind imposed by a local government" is a tax, unless it falls into one of seven categories (exceptions):
(1) A charge imposed for a specific benefit conferred or privilege granted directly to the payor that is not provided to those not charged, and which does not exceed the reasonable costs to the local government of conferring the benefit or granting the privilege.
(2) A charge imposed for a specific government service or product provided directly to the payor that is not provided to those not charged, and which does not exceed the reasonable costs to the local government of providing the service or product.
(3) A charge imposed for the reasonable regulatory costs to a local government for issuing licenses and permits, performing investigations, inspections, and audits, enforcing agricultural marketing orders, and the administrative enforcement and adjudication thereof.
(4) A charge imposed for entrance to or use of local government property or the purchase rental or lease of local government property.
(5) A fine, penalty, or other monetary charge imposed by the judicial branch of government or a local government as a result of a violation of law, including late payment fees, fees imposed under administrative citation ordinances, parking violations, etc.
(6) A charge imposed as a condition of property development. (7) Assessments and property related fees imposed in accordance with the provisions of Article XIII D (Proposition 218).

Wohlford Consulting Page 7 of 48 September 27, 2023

A 2023 Full Cost of Services (User Fee) Study
It FINAL REPORT
According to analyses by the League of California Cities, the "vast majority of fees that cities would seek to adopt will most likely fall into one or more of these exemptions."' City fees fall under the same general status and conditions, so the analysis should be applicable to counties also, so most or all properly structured and calculated user fees will be exempt from Proposition 26"2 under exception numbers one, two, three or six.

As a cost of services study, this analysis sought to evaluate the cost of a wide range of services and activities conducted by the departments regardless of whether the services are associated with specific fees. While this study includes cost analysis of services that could be considered for fee adoptions, it does not, in and of itself, establish fees or fee levels for the City, which is the purview of the City Council. If recommended fees are provided in the study, the types of fees and charges that are likely to be considered "taxes" under Proposition 26 are normally and intentionally excluded. (Note: In rare instances where a recommendation would be provided to set a cost recovery level for a service considered a "tax" under Proposition 26 definitions, the recommendation assumes that the City will implement those taxes in compliance with state law.

There are no such instances in this study for the City of Temecula.) While the study evaluates the cost of many direct services, including some that are unrecoverable and/or may not ever become recommended fees, the fees likely to be adopted are designed to recover the reasonable cost of providing the service to the individual fee payers. As noted above and as defined in Proposition 26, these fees fall within the definitions of the exceptions. However, it is unknown to the consultant whether Proposition 26 has yet been subject to sufficient review by the courts to eliminate all uncertainties regarding its application. Regardless, prior to any new fee implementation, it would be prudent for the City's own legal counsel to evaluate the impact of Proposition 26 (and all other related laws) to ensure full compliance with state law. A more recent resource for the City's consideration is the League of California Cities: Proposition 26 and 218 Implementation Guide (May 2019).

Basic User Fee Principles
The definition of a user fee, the modern environment for their existence and administration, and general public administration concepts all affect a Cost of Service Study. Wohlford Consulting considered a variety of related principles to assist the City in the determination of user fee structures, service costs, and implementation. Under these principles, User Fees should be:
• Based on the Cost of Services:
✓ Not arbitrary
✓ Not unintentionally subsidized
✓ Not unfairly subsidized
• Fair and Equitable
• Consistent with City Goals / Objectives
• Compliant with State Law
• Dynamic (for updates & anomalies)
'Living with Proposition 26 of 2010: Many Local Fees Will Fit Within Seven Categories of Exemptions, November 2010, Page 1
2 Proposition 26 Implementation Guide, April 2011, Page 43 Wohlford Consulting Page 8 of 48 September 27, 2023

A 2023 Full Cost of Services (User Fee) Study
It FINAL REPORT
For most development -related user fees, state law establishes that "...fees may not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of providing the service for which the fee is charged..." (Government Code §66014). The "fee" exceptions in Proposition 26 also state that the charge must "not exceed the reasonable costs" to provide the service. Although it specifically applies to development - related fees, this code and associated sections are commonly referenced for other fee areas, so this general admonition is the dominating principle in this User Fee Study. Other sections of state law authorize the City to charge "...the department's costs incurred in undertaking the activity..." for inspections and other regulatory services related to the public health -related programs, for example (Health and Safety Code § 113717). Similar guidelines are imparted in Health and Safety Code § 17951. The methodology, approach, data collection, quality control, and other efforts of the study are intended to establish compliance with these principles. The costs calculated in the study represent the estimated reasonable full cost for each service and, therefore, the maximum fee the City may charge for its services.

User fee activities are primarily discretionary services provided only to those who request the services or cause the services to be required. These services are not provided to the public at large, which is why local government and taxpayers often consider it appropriate to recover the full cost of the services from those applicants that receive the services. The alternative is for taxpayers (through the General Fund, typically) to subsidize the services on behalf of the individuals or entities that benefit directly from the services.

Wohlford Consulting Page 9 of 48 September 27, 2023

A 2023 Full Cost of Services (User Fee) Study
It FINAL REPORT

PROJECT APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY
Conceptual Approach
The basic concept of a User Fee Study is to determine the full cost of each service provided by the City for which the City charges a user fee. The full cost may not necessarily become the City's fee, but it serves as the objective basis from which the City can make informed decisions regarding the final fee level.

In order to determine the full cost for each fee service, the cost analysis incorporates the following "full cost" components:
• Direct Salaries & Benefits
• Services and Supplies
• Indirect and Support Activities
• Supervision and Support
• Cross -Department Support
• Department / Division Administration
• Citywide Administration
• Facility Use
• Capital (annualized)
• Anticipated Growth
A critical method to ensure full cost recovery rates is to establish annual billable (productive / available) hours for staff. The Study reduces the full-time annual hours (2,080) for each position classification by non -billable hours, such as holiday, vacation, and sick leave, staff meetings, mandated breaks, and training. In studies conducted by Wohlford Consulting, the typical number of billable hours for the average full-time employee is approximately 1,400 hours per year, but this figure might normally range from 1,200 to 1,500, depending on the type of position. Each department study calculated a separate billable hour total for each position classification in the study, which was used to calculate individual hourly position costs. By using the billable hours, rather than the full 2,080 hours of full-time pay, the Study ensures that hourly rates and the resultant costs reflect the levels necessary to recover the full cost of services in a particular year given the practical availability of staff to provide services.

The standard fee limitation we abided in this study is the "reasonable cost" principle. In order to maintain compliance with this standard, every major component of the fee study process included a related review. The use of budget figures and time estimates indicates reliance upon estimates for some data. In other areas, the study includes actual known figures that exceed the reasonable standard. The key to the defensibility of the study, therefore, is a dedication to the reasonableness of the data and results. The quality control measures implemented ensure the study satisfies the reasonableness standard. The study does not utilize arbitrary data or other information that would not satisfy the estimated/reasonable standard.

In those cases where it was possible to establish reasonably consistent time/workload standards for specific services, the analysis develops the cost of the service as a "flat" or "fixed" fee. In addition to providing consistent cost information, this approach is the most common method for developing the full cost of City services within the selected departments.

Wohlford Consulting Page 10 of 48 September 27, 2023

A 2023 Full Cost of Services (User Fee) Study
It FINAL REPORT
The alternative to fixed fees is to track actual staff time for every staff member for every service.

This approach creates an administrative burden and leaves the City and the fee payer unable to predict the final fee amount. An "actual staff time" billing approach is appropriate, however, when the fee activity varies widely between occurrences and would thus cause fixed fees to be unfair and unreasonable in a significant number of cases. In those cases where actual time billing might be most effective, the City can choose to require a deposit to ensure a minimum fee is received.

The Study established a few of these fees to be based on actual billing charges, by using staff time estimates for common service levels, and the resulting amount calculated for the "fees" could be used as potential deposit levels.

The cost figures used as the basis for the study were from the City's FY 2022-23 final approved budget.

Summary Steps of the Study
The methodology used to determine individual user fee costs is straightforward. This analysis employs a "unit cost build-up" approach to determine the cost of individual services. The approach uses the following factors:
• Staff time to complete activities and services
• Direct cost of individual staff positions (converted to productive hourly rates) • Rational distribution of overhead and support costs
Multiplying the first two factors (# of hours by hourly rate) identifies the direct cost for each service. By distributing the remaining indirect/overhead costs, the analysis establishes the full cost. The following list provides a summary of the study process steps:

Fee Studv Process Outline

1. Establish the inventory of fee services (current and potential)

2. Identify the staff positions that work on each fee service

3. Calculate the direct productive hourly rate for each position

4. Determine the time necessary for each position to perform fee tasks

5. Calculate the direct cost of the staff time for each fee

6. Distribute indirect and overhead costs to each fee

7. Sub -allocate supporting activities to fee services

8. Perform quality control processes (constant)

9. Calculate revenue impacts

10. Perform the "gap analysis" (unit and total subsidies/deficits)

11. Perform review processes

12. Document and present results
To ensure a high degree of accuracy and thoroughness for the study, each of these steps in the process involves a rigorous set of subtasks, iterations, reviews, and quality control requirements.

Both the City staff and the consultant were involved with the performance and/or review of each of these steps.

Wohlford Consulting Page 11 of 48 September 27, 2023

A 2023 Full Cost of Services (User Fee) Study
It FINAL REPORT
The following table illustrates the methodology using hypothetical information in a simplified format:

Simplified Unit Cost Calculation
Time to
Full Cost
Annual
Annual
Service ("Fee" or
Complete
Productive
(per Unit
Volume
Cost or
Program) /
I
X
Hourly
—of
Fee
X
of
=
Potential
Activity
Activity
Rate
Activity)
Activity
Annual
(hours)
Revenue
FEE #1:
10 Intake

0.5 $ 100
$ 50
10 $ 500
Plan Check
1 $ 100
�F $ 100
[
10 $ 1,000
Inspection
2 $ 100
$ 200
10 $ 2,000
Filing

0.5 L
$ 100
$ 50
J
10 1
$ 500
Salaries &
4 $ 100
$ 400
n
10 $ 4,000
Benefits Total:

Indirect Costs
I
PF
$ 5017
710[11
$ 500

TOTAL COST
$ 450
�L]
10 L ]
The above table of hypothetical data indicates that Fee #1 takes staff a total of four hours to complete the necessary services, so at $100 per hour, the direct staff cost is $400 per unit. The addition of $50 for indirect and overhead costs brings the total unit cost to $450. With 10 units a year, the total annual cost for the service is $4,500.

It is important to note that this simple example indicates only a single position at four hours consumed per unit. The actual time analysis is much more detailed, and includes individual time estimates for each employee who works on each service for which the City charges a fee.

Consequently, there were thousands of individual time datum identified for these studies.

By multiplying the unit costs by the annual number of fee activities, the analysis estimates the total annual cost of the fee -related activities. By using the same annual activity volumes and multiplying them by current fees, the Study establishes potential cost recovery from current fees.

The difference between the two figures is the actual cost -current fee gap. If the current fees are greater than the actual cost, the gap is an over collection or profit. If the full cost is greater than the current fees, the gap represents a subsidy, or individual fee deficit. The following table illustrates a simplified example of a gap analysis:

Wohlford Consulting Page 12 of 48 September 27, 2023

All
2023 Full Cost of Services (User Fee) Study

FINAL REPORT
Simplified Annual Subsidy/Gap Analysis
Annual
Annual
Annual
Current
Fee
Volume
X
Current
Revenue @
_
Revenue
Annual
of
Fee
Current
@ Full
(Subsidy)
Activity
Fee
Cost
Surplus
Fee #1
10 $ 100
$ 1,000
$ 4,500
($ 3,500)
Fee #2
15 �F-S
75F
$ 1,125
$ 2,000
�FF(S
875)
Fee #4
20 $ 50
$ 1,000
$ _500111
$ 500
Fee #4
25 $ 25
$ 625
$ 100
$ 525
Total:
$ 3,750
1 J$7,100
($ 3,350)
The above table indicates that hypothetical Fee #1 is currently subsidized $3,500 per year, while the City is charging fee payers $500 more per year than the cost for the service represented by Fee #4.

Basic Assumptions and Standards
The study relied upon a series of underlying assumptions and basic considerations to achieve the results. These issues are described below:

Time Data &
Estimates: One of the principal building blocks of this cost analysis was the time data provided by department staff to represent their workload related to each fee service and/or subordinate activity. The principal source of the time data was the department program area staff. For the individual time data points for each service, qualified staff provided time estimates based upon their professional experience. The use of staff -provided time estimates is necessary in the absence of actual time data, such as the kind that could be developed through a long-term time and motion study or other more formal methods. A study to determine actual time consumed for each project type is not feasible for a local government user fee study, as it would take several years for every service and project type to occur (in order to collect the associated data), and the variability between instances of each type would render the actual data unreliable anyway. Furthermore, the cost to conduct such an analysis to achieve useful data would be extensive and would greatly offset any value of the User Fee Study —all without improving the acceptability, defensibility, or accuracy of the cost study results.

If conscientiously considered by qualified staff, time estimates should satisfy the standard that a fee must not exceed the "reasonable cost" of providing the service for which the fee is charged. For this study, department staff provided time estimates that represent a normal level of effort for each fee activity, as determined by past experience, and necessary to perform an acceptable professional level of Wohlford Consulting Page 13 of 48 September 27, 2023

All
2023 Full Cost of Services (User Fee) Study

FINAL REPORT
service. This data was reviewed by other experienced staff in the organization, in order to utilize other perspectives and experiences and further ensure reasonableness. This approach is "industry standard" for cost of service and user fee analysis.

Full Cost: The study determines the full cost of services. To this end, the analysis includes all direct costs for City services, such as the salaries and benefits of the employees who perform the services. The analysis also includes the appropriate distribution of legitimate indirect and overhead costs that support the operations and personnel that perform the services. These costs include general supplies and services, utilities, insurance, facility and equipment costs, technology upgrades, City, department, and/or division overhead, annualized capital costs, annualized supporting plan maintenance, and Citywide overhead (cost allocation) —all whenever applicable. Citywide overhead is comprised of central service costs, such as City Manager, Finance, City Attorney, and Human Resources. These costs are universally accepted as components to be included in service cost (fee) calculations, because the underlying services provide the organizational and operational support necessary for the employees and administrative infrastructure to exist and conduct the fee activities. It is important to note that all of these costs are distributed to the fee -related services, as well as the non -fee -related services. In other words, the costs for fee -related services are not burdened with all of the cost, but only their fair share of the cost. The costs assigned to most direct non -fee services are considered unrecoverable.

Non -Fee
Services: As a full cost of service analysis, the study for each department/fee area also calculates the cost of non -fee services. These services include areas such as public information and support to other City departments, which do not have associated fees. The purpose of including these other services is to ensure the fair and appropriate distribution of overhead and indirect costs to all areas, instead of concentrating these costs only on the fee -related activities. This approach also allows the analysis to distribute staff hours across all activities to ensure a true picture of the utilization of staff time and cost and provide a quality control check.

The detailed study results in the appendices indicate whether a summary total includes "All Services" (including non -fee categories) or "Fee Services Only" (excluding non -fee services). The figures in the body of this report only include the "Fee Services" totals.

Service Level
Assumptions: The entire analysis was based upon the current organization and business practices in each department. The study assumed continued consistency in the time consumption for each service, as well as future staffing, quality, productivity, efficiency, and all other qualitative and quantitative standards.

The analysis is also based upon a level of service determined by department management to be the minimum professional standard. As a result, in some cases, Wohlford Consulting Page 14 of 48 September 27, 2023

All
2023 Full Cost of Services (User Fee) Study

FINAL REPORT
the time estimates may represent a higher level of service than that of the current department organization and business practices. The study assumed consistency in the future time consumption for each service, as well as future staffing, quality, productivity, efficiency, and all other qualitative and quantitative standards.

Consistent
Workload: Most of the service costs in this study were developed as "flat" or fixed fees. Under this approach, the Study calculates the cost of the services after assuming that all services for a specific fee will require the same workload (time), regardless of the characteristics of the particular fee activity or the applicant. Time estimates that reflect the "typical" level of effort required for a particular fee activity. The flat fee approach ignores the variance in time that may exist from applicant to applicant, due to qualitative or other differences in the applicants themselves or their submitted materials. The overall efficacy of this approach relies upon the assumption that the variances will average out over the course of time, resulting in a consistent and reasonably fair fee for all.

Subsidy: A deficit exists when the cost of a particular service is greater than the fee charged and recovered for that service. This deficit creates the need for a subsidy from another funding source, so the use of either term in this report or in subsequent discussions is appropriate for the same meaning.

Individual fee subsidies can take different forms. In cases where different size fees within the same category are set at different cost -recovery levels, one fee payer may subsidize another for the same type of service. This situation exists, because the individual fees are not each priced to recover the individual costs of the services (i.e., one payer is overcharged and one is undercharged). In these instances, there is a basic imbalance and/or unfairness between fee payers built into the system.

Other fee subsidies are more general or larger in overall scope, such as when all of the fee levels are set below the costs of the individual services. The overall cost of services is very real, so if the recipients of the services are not asked to pay full cost, the balance must be borne by one or more City funding sources, so the concept of a subsidy is not just theoretical. In local government, subsidies are normally covered by General Fund revenues, since most other funding sources are limited in what they can be used to fund.

This reliance upon General Fund revenues or reserves to fund private -benefit services, such as septic system inspections, creates some criticism, since it reduces the availability of those revenues for other public benefit services or priorities.

However, subsidies can also reflect positive public policy goals, since they can be used to encourage or reward certain desired activities.

This study identifies existing subsidies for individual fee activities, as well as the resulting annual operating deficits for each department. The purpose of the subsidy analysis is to inform the City regarding current subsidy levels and give City leaders information to help make informed fee setting and policy decisions.

Wohlford Consulting Page 15 of 48 September 27, 2023

A 2023 Full Cost of Services (User Fee) Study
It FINAL REPORT
Costs vs.

Fees: The Study and appendices reference "fees" in titles and descriptions. In the context of the full cost analysis, the terms "cost" and "fees" are interchangeable. The full cost of a service serves as the potential fee until the City has an opportunity to review the results and establish new fee levels for implementation. This study does not presume to establish City fees, since the decisions about fee levels are the purview of the City Council and require additional information (e.g., community input, economic impacts, etc.) that was not evaluated as part of this study.

Quality Control
The quality of a cost study is dependent on the data that is used for the analysis. All study components are interrelated, so it is critical that the study utilize good data. To avoid accuracy problems and other quality flaws, the study incorporated a rigorous quality control process with checks at every step in the analysis. The quality control measures ensure that the study covers all of the issues, appropriately accounts for positions and resources in the models, and factors all other data fairly and accurately. The elements of the quality control process used for the User Fee calculations include:

Quality Control Steps /Initiatives
✓ Involvement of knowledgeable ✓ Normalcy/expectation ranges City staff and managers (data inputs and results)
✓ Clear instructions and guidance ✓ Challenge and questioning to City staff and managers ✓ Utilization of staff hours ✓ Process checklists ✓ FTE balancing
✓ Reasonableness tests and ✓ Internal and external reviews validation ✓ Cross-checking
Wohlford Consulting Page 16 of 48 September 27, 2023

A 2023 Full Cost of Services (User Fee) Study
It FINAL REPORT

FINDINGS AND RESULTS
Basis
The Departments and Divisions analyzed through this cost study charge fees to the citizens and businesses of Temecula that receive various discretionary services from the City, such as plan reviews, inspections, and permits. These fees consist of a mix of flat (fixed) fees and time and materials fees (variable @ staff hourly rates). In this study, for those fees where the staff could identify a typical or standard project with only slight variability of staff effort (i.e., cost) between projects, we established fixed costs. In contrast, services where significant variability of staff effort exists between projects were designated as "actual staff time". For the actual time fees, we used the calculated staff hourly rates to establish the "cost" of a typical project (which can also be used as a starting deposit).

City staff and the consultant worked together to develop the fees through a unit cost build-up approach, whereby the analysis calculated the cost of each unit of service (e.g., permitting process, inspections, plan review) using staff time and cost -recovery hourly rates. To develop the annual deficit or surplus figures, the analysis multiplied the unit costs and current unit fees by the anticipated annual volume of each service. This extrapolation of the unit fees into a one-year period indicates the potential revenue impacts to each department included in the study, as well as the City as a whole.

Summary of Results
The current total cost of City fee activities included in this study is approximately $$15.8 million annually. Given the current fee levels charged by the City, the potential annual revenue (assuming a consistent activity level and complete collection) is $7.9 million, which represents a current cost - recovery ratio of 49.8% overall and an annual fund deficit (subsidy) of $7.9 million. In other words, if the City set fee levels at the full cost of each service, (100% cost -recovery) the City could collect an additional $7.9 million in revenue from fee activities in these departments each year.

The following table illustrates these results for the departments:

Summary Results - All Departments
FULL COST:

PROJECTED

PROJECTED

PROJECTED

PROGRAM AREA
Annual Cost of

REVENUE AT

SURPLUS /
COST
Fee -Related

CURRENT
(DEFICIT)

RECOVERY
Services
FEES
RATE
Building & Safety
$ 3,911,000
$ 2,801,000
$ 1,110,000

71.6%
Planning
$ 3,386,000
$ 1,192,000
$ 2,194,000

35.2%
Land Development
$ 2,812,000
$ 1,881,000
$ 931,000

66.9%
Fire Prevention
$ 5,161,000
$ 1,780,000
$ 3,381,000

34.5%
Police
1 $ 554,000
1 $ 234,000
$ 320,000

42.2%
TOTALS:
1 $ 15,824,000
1 $ 7,888,000
$ 7,936,000

49.8%
Wohlford Consulting Page 17 of 48 September 27, 2023

A 2023 Full Cost of Services (User Fee) Study
It FINAL REPORT
In addition to the overall annual funding deficit (subsidy), 741 out of 940 (79%) of the current fees are less than the full cost of providing the services, thus providing individual subsidies to fee payers. The remaining 199 current fees are set equal to or higher than full cost. If the City elects to set all fees to recover full cost (and no more), most of the current fees would increase, and some might be reduced. Given the projected annual volume of permit activity for the individual fees, the City would experience an overall increase in annual revenue of approximately $7.9 million.

Another way to view these results is to consider the funding sources for the full cost of fee -related activities. In the following graph, the bottom portion of each program (solid blue) indicates the amount of the fees funded by current fees, and the upper portion (red/white striped) represents the funding provided by the General Fund, reserves. or other non -fee sources:
$5,500,000
$5,000,000
$4,500,000
$4,000,000
$3,500,000
$3,000,000
$2,500,000
$2,000,000
$1,500,000
$1,000,000
$500,000
Current Funding Sources of Fee Services
Building Planning Land Fire Police
Development Prevention
The potential ("Projected") revenue at current fees shown in the table above assumes that the City will charge existing fees in all possible instances. However, for practical and customer service reasons (to facilitate good community relations and encourage overall compliance), as well as collection inefficiencies, the City likely does not actually charge for every situation where fees could be levied. Consequently, projected current fee revenues and full cost recovery levels will most likely be less than shown in the table, so the table figures should be considered the maximum potential amounts.

The reality of the local government fee environment, however, is that large increases to achieve 100% cost recovery are often not feasible, desirable, or appropriate. In recognition of this situation Wohlford Consulting Page 18 of 48 September 27, 2023

A
2023 Full Cost of Services (User Fee) Study

FINAL REPORT
in Temecula, City staff will likely develop recommended fees that will initially result in less than full cost recovery. The annual amount of revenue from the recommended fees and the actual cost - recovery ratio will not be known until the City staff prepares their analysis and recommendations to the City Council.

In a cost of service (user fee) analysis, the principal output and findings are the full cost figures for the fee activities. The appendices to this report contain the unit cost results individually by department / division, as well as the summary results for each. To achieve these results, the consultant prepared and utilized a variety of worksheets and workbooks to document and calculate the full costs of each service. Printouts and electronic files of these materials comprise the background documentation of the study and were provided separately to the City.

Other Results Information and Explanations
Clarifications
It should be noted that the "full cost" figures presented in the table reflect only the total annual cost of the fee -related activities. The departments also have some non -fee activities or services funded by external sources that are not included in this table. Therefore, the table's focused cost figures will not match any budgets or other financial documents that include every component of the City or individual departments.

This report presents a variety of cost and revenue figures to demonstrate and explain various elements of the City's costs and revenues. Given the complex revenue situation, the different figures presented, and the potential for confusion, it may be beneficial to briefly clarify some of the key revenue issues at this point in the report:
• The study focused on the fee -related services provided by the City, so most cost figures only on those services, and not the entire City or department budgets. • The summary revenue shown in the first table above and in the Executive Summary is based only on the fee -related services.
• The revenues are "potential" levels, based on the assumption that the City will charge the appropriate fees for each eligible instance, with no waivers. • The revenues are "potential" levels, based on the assumed collection of all fees. • The City does not always charge for all fee -related services, in order to meet customer service and operational policy goals, so the actual revenue collections have been less than the potential fees would indicate.
• Non -fee -related services were included in the analysis and form the overall picture of department costs, revenues, and subsidies.
• Table titles and descriptions in the paragraphs differentiate between the results being discussed.

Wohlford Consulting Page 19 of 48 September 27, 2023

A
�4
Cost Study Results vs. The Budget
2023 Full Cost of Services (User Fee) Study

FINAL REPORT
It is important to note that the subsidies identified in the study may differ from any previously identified or existing budget subsidies, because the analysis included factors that are not necessarily part of the budget process. These factors may include: direct staff support, updated annual workload data, and anticipated service and staffing levels, which may differ from previous assumptions employed for the budget.

Definition of Results
The results of this Study reflect the full cost of fee -related services provided by the City.

The results are not necessarily the fees that the City will charge. The City Council has the authority and responsibility to set the fee levels following receipt of staff recommendations, public meetings, and deliberations, and the process for development of recommended fee levels for Board consideration will occur later.

Potential Utilization Gap Revenue Adjustment
In order to establish the cost of providing individual services, key department staff were directed to provide time estimates or data to indicate the typical time it takes to complete one unit of each service. In many instances the time associated with the current typical level of service was insufficient to provide an adequate or acceptable quality or service level according to a "minimum professional standard" of department staff and management. The most likely cause for this situation is a lack of sufficient resources (primarily, staff hours available) to provide the minimum standard of service.

Rather than collect time estimates that would establish fee/cost levels at this unacceptable level (and perpetuate funding at the deficient level), the data collectors agreed to provide time estimates that would meet the minimum professional standard. Since these time estimates sometimes exceeded the actual current efforts, the annualized projection of staff utilization for some positions ultimately exceeded the available time of the staff, resulting in a "utilization gap" in the study. In those cases, the overutilization shown in the study represents an amount of additional staff resources necessary to meet the minimum professional standard of service.

However, the cost for these staff hours/positions does not currently reside in the department budgets. Instead, they represent additional resource needs that could be funded by the potential fee increases demonstrated in the study. As a result, the total full cost shown in the summary results exceeds the actual cost inputs by the amount represented by the utilization gap —although it represents the true cost of providing the services indicated.

To be more specific, the total cost of the extra position time in the study is approximately $3.7 million. The impacts of these additional costs are included in the base unit costs shown in the results, as well as the annualized results. In other words, the $15.3 million in overall costs (seen in the summary tables) includes the $3.7 million cost associated with Wohlford Consulting Page 20 of 48 September 27, 2023

All
2023 Full Cost of Services (User Fee) Study

FINAL REPORT
the additional time estimates included in the study for over -utilized positions. Of this total, 86% ($3.2 million) is produced in Fire Prevention.

Inclusion of the utilization gap costs into the summary tables is necessary to understand the true cost of the services provided by the City at minimum professional standard levels.

However, it may create an apparent inconsistency if someone were to attempt to compare the total costs from the study with a department's budget along with other reasonable cost inputs. Therefore, the following table is presented to show the costs from the study if the utilization gap cost was discounted from the overall totals:

Alternate Summary Results
(Adjusted for Overudlization)
Department / Division
FULL COST:

Annual Cost of
Fee -Related
Services

CURRENT
REVENUE:

Projected
(annual) @
Current Fees

POTENTIAL

FEE REVENUE
CHANGE:
(Full Cost -
Current)

CURRENT
COST

RECOVERY
RATE
(Current /
Full Cost
Full Cost Study Results:

Building & Safety
$ 3,911,000
$ 2,801,000
$ 1,110,000

71.6%
Planning
$ 3,386,000
$ 1,192,000
$ 2,194,000

35.2%
Land Development
$ 2,812,000
$ 1,881,000
$ 931,000

66.9%
Fire Prevention
$ 5,161,000
$ 1,780,000
$ 3,381,000

34.5%
Police
$ 554,000
$ 234,000
$ 320,000

42.2%
Study Totals:
$15,824,000
$ 7,888,000
($ 7,936,000)

49.8%
Potential Utilization Gal)
Adjustments:

Building & Sae
$ 334,000
$ 0
$ 334,000
Planning
$ 0
$ 0
$ 0
Land Development
$ 178,000
$ 0
$ 178,000
Fire Prevention
$ 3,150,000
$ 0
$ 3,150,000
Police
$ 0
$ 0
$ 0
Total Adjustments:
$ 3,662,000
$ 0
$ 3,552,000
Adjusted Study Total:
$ 12,162,000
$ 7,888,000
($ 4,274,000)

64.9%
The following chart provides a visual representation of the results when the cost of overutilized staff is removed. As with the previous graph, the bottom portion of each program (solid blue) indicates the amount of the fees funded by current fees, and the upper portion (red/white striped) represents the funding provided by the General Fund, reserves. or other non -fee sources:

Wohlford Consulting Page 21 of 48 September 27, 2023

All
$4,000,000
$3,500,000
$3,000,000
$2,500,000
$2,000,000
$1,500,000
$1,000,000
$500,000
4 2023 Full Cost of Services (User Fee) Study

FINAL REPORT
Current Funding Sources of Fee Services
(Adjusted for Overudlization)
Building
L` FUND SUBSIDY
■ PROJECTED REVENUE

FROM CURRENT FEES
Planning Land Fire
Development Prevention
Police
The resultant net cost shown in the above table and chart is more consistent with the City's approved current budget. Nevertheless, because they represent a truer picture of the overall cost for services at a minimum professional standard (as defined by each department), all of the results discussed in this report refer to the original cost and revenue figures, which include the utilization gap totals.

Wohlford Consulting Page 22 of 48 September 27, 2023

A
�4
Results for Building & Safety
2023 Full Cost of Services (User Fee) Study

FINAL REPORT
FULL COST:

PROJECTED

PROJECTED

PROJECTED
Annual Cost of
COST

REVENUE AT

SURPLUS /
Fee -Related

RECOVERY

CURRENT FEES
(DEFICIT)
Services
RATE
$ 3,911,000
1 $ 2,801,000
($1,110,000)

71.6%
Summary of Results
The cost analysis for Building & Safety revealed an overall annual funding deficit (subsidy) of approximately $1.1 million for fee -related activities, with an overall cost -recovery rate of 72%. (Note: Non -fee activities were included in the analysis to ensure proper distribution of all costs, but are excluded from the summary figures presented in this report.) In addition, 237 out of 320 (74%) of the current fees are less than the full cost of providing the services, thus providing a subsidy to fee payers. The remaining 83 current fees are set equal to or higher than full cost. If the City elects to set all fees to recover full cost (and no more), most of the current fees would increase, and some might be reduced or remain the same. Given the projected annual volume of permit activity for the fees, the City would experience an overall increase in annual revenue of approximately $1.1 million.

In addition to the unit fee calculations, the fee study also calculated the hourly cost (hourly rate) for each individual position classification in Building & Safety (e.g., Building Inspector hourly rate). The study found that almost all (15 of 17) of the full hourly costs were greater than the hourly rates currently charged. The current hourly rates are up to 55% less than the cost and average 29% less than full cost, which means that most hourly charges currently result in significant subsidies. In instances where Building & Safety would rely upon hourly rates (e.g., real-time charges), sufficient staff rates are critical for full cost -recovery.

Appendix 1 contains the detailed results for Building & Safety.

Potential Cost -Recovery / Revenue Limitations
The cost results for Building indicate a potential for significant additional revenue —as much as $1.1 million annually —if all fees are adjusted to full cost. However, the total potential revenue reflects very large increases to many individual fees that may not be feasibly attainable in the first year, so this large figure should be discounted according to the City's plans for increases. To the extent that the City does not increase all fees to their full cost levels, the City will not realize the associated additional annual revenue.

For example, the combined cost (plan check and inspection) for a residential roof -mounted photovoltaic system is $721, but the current combined fee is $306. Given the annual volume of these fees, the gap between the annual cost and projected revenue from the current fees is $609,000. As portrayed in the study results, this indicates that the City could raise the fee to recover an additional $609,000 annually in new revenue. However, the Wohlford Consulting Page 23 of 48 September 27, 2023

A
�4
2023 Full Cost of Services (User Fee) Study

FINAL REPORT
state of California restricts the fees that can be charged for these services to $450 to $500 (or so, depending on the size of the system). Therefore, the actual potential increase in cost recovery/revenue is likely closer to $200,000 and the overall potential revenue is overstated by approximately $400,000.

As an additional example of potential fee limitations, the study includes a "new" fee for Weed Abatement Contract Administrative Fee associated with Code Enforcement (managed within Building & Safety) that projects additional revenue of $114,000. This revenue is possible only if the City enacts this new fee.

Due to the unknown outcomes of the fee -setting decisions, it is not possible to firmly establish the probable revenue impact of the Building & Safety results. Once the City staff prepare recommended fees and/or receives specific direction from the City Council, better predictions may be possible. Until then, it is important to understand that the revenue projections in the study represent the full cost of services and potential maximum revenue increases, and not the likely true cost -recovery results.

Results for Planning
FULL COST:

PROJECTED

PROJECTED

PROJECTED
Annual Cost of

REVENUE AT

SURPLUS /
COST
Fee -Related

RECOVERY

CURRENT FEES
(SUBSIDY)
Services
RATE
$ 3,386,000
$1,192,000
($ 2,194,000)

35.2%
Summary of Results
The cost analysis for Planning revealed an overall annual funding deficit (subsidy) of approximately $2.2 million for fee -related activities, with an overall cost -recovery rate of 35%. In addition, 89 out of 93 (95%) of the current fees are less than the full cost of providing the services, thus providing a subsidy to fee payers. The remaining four current fees are set equal to or higher than full cost. If the City elects to set all fees to recover full cost (and no more), most of the current fees would increase, and some might be reduced.

Given the projected annual volume of permit activity for the fees, the City would experience an overall increase in annual revenue of approximately $2.2 million.

In addition to the unit fee calculations, the fee study also calculated the hourly cost (hourly rate) for each individual position classification in Planning (e.g., Senior Planner hourly rate). The study found that of the full hourly costs were greater than the hourly rates currently charged. The current hourly rates are up to 74% less than the cost and average 69% less than full cost, which means that all hourly charges currently result in significant subsidies. In instances where Planning would rely upon hourly rates (e.g., real-time charges against deposits, such as Annexations), sufficient staff rates are critical for full cost -recovery.

Appendix 2 contains the detailed results for Planning fee activities.

Wohlford Consulting Page 24 of 48 September 27, 2023

All
2023 Full Cost of Services (User Fee) Study

FINAL REPORT
Potential Cost -Recovery / Revenue Limitations
The cost results for Planning indicate a theoretical potential for significant additional cost recovery (revenue) —as much as $2.2 million annually —if all fees are adjusted to full cost.

However, the total potential revenue reflects very large increases to many individual fees that may not be feasibly attainable in the first year. For example, achieving full cost recovery for any of the Temporary Use Permits (to increase cost recovery by $157,000 annually) would require at least a ten -fold increase in each of the current fees, with the Temporary Use Permit - Minor Regular increasing from $150 to $1,850, for example. As another example, a Minor Modification - Plan Review Only would need to increase from the current fee of $221 to $3,428 to recover full cost, with both Minor Modifications fee types representing $389,000 of the total potential additional cost recovery.

The overall large figure for additional revenue recovery should be discounted according to the City's plans for increases. To the extent that the City does not increase all fees to their full cost levels, the City will not realize the $2.2 million of additional annual revenue.

Furthermore, in some local government situations, only a reduced portion of this kind of potential revenue is likely to be realized, due to "fee" areas that are traditionally heavily subsidized, such as appeals (current fee = $537; full cost = $16,353), architectural or historical review, subsidies for certain industry types, and pre -application reviews.

However, in Temecula there is not a lot of volume for these types of fees, so the overall subsidy is more related to fees that are more traditionally charged closer to full cost.

Without any increase in fees, Planning will continue to operate with a 65% subsidy from the General Fund, reserves, other program areas, or other external sources. More accurate or detailed predictions regarding the amount of revenue expected are not feasible, as too many unknown factors are present at this time.

Results for Land Development
FULL COST:

PROJECTED

PROJECTED

PROJECTED
Annual Cost of
COST

REVENUE AT

SURPLUS /
Fee -Related

RECOVERY

CURRENT FEES
(SUBSIDY)
Services
RATE
$ 2,812,000
$1,881,000
($ 931,000)

66.9%
Summary of Results
The cost analysis for Land Development revealed an overall annual funding deficit of approximately $931,000 for all fee -related activities combined, with an overall cost - recovery rate of 67%. In addition, 86% (69 out of 80 fees, by tally) of the current fees are less than the full cost of providing the services, thus providing a subsidy to fee payers. The remaining 11 current fees are currently set equal to or higher than full cost. In other words, if the City elects to set all fees to recover full cost (and no more), the majority of the current fees would increase, and a small minority would be reduced or remain the same. Given Wohlford Consulting Page 25 of 48 September 27, 2023

All
2023 Full Cost of Services (User Fee) Study

FINAL REPORT
the projected annual volume of permit activity for the fees, the City would experience an overall increase in annual revenue of approximately $931,000.

In addition to the unit fee calculations, the fee study also calculated the hourly cost (hourly rate) for each individual position classification in Land Development (e.g., Associate Civil Engineer hourly rate). The study found that all of the full hourly costs were greater than the hourly rates currently charged. The current hourly rates are up to 67% less than the cost and average 53% less than full cost, which means that all hourly charges currently result in significant subsidies. In instances where Land Development would rely upon hourly rates (e.g., real-time charges), sufficient staff rates are critical for full cost -recovery.

Appendix 3 contains the detailed results for Land Development fee activities.

Potential Cost -Recovery / Revenue Limitations
The cost results for Land Development indicate a potential for significant additional cost recovery (revenue)as much as $931,000 annually —if all fees are adjusted to full cost.

However, the total potential revenue reflects very large increases to many individual fees that may not be feasibly attainable in the first year. For example, a Subdivision Precise Grading Plan (per lot) has a current fee of $42 and a full cost of $582 which, extrapolated annually, represents a potential increase of $59,000 in annual revenue if the fee is set a full cost. A Traffic Control Plan (per sheet) currently charged at $81, but the full cost is $510, representing a potential annual revenue increase of $151,000. An Excavation Base Fee would need to increase from $276 to $1,687 to achieve full cost recovery and $169,000 in new revenue. Another $139,000 in potential additional annual revenue is associated with potential new NPDES (stormwater pollution mitigation) fees.

To the extent that the City does not adjust these and all other fees to their full cost levels, the City will not realize the $931,000 in additional annual revenue. Without any increase in fees, Land Development will continue to operate with a 33% subsidy from the General Fund, reserves, other program areas, or other external sources. More accurate or detailed predictions regarding the amount of revenue expected are not feasible, as too many unknown factors are present at this time.

Results for Fire Prevention
FULL COST:

PROJECTED

PROJECTED

PROJECTED
Annual Cost of
COST

REVENUE AT

SURPLUS /
Fee -Related

RECOVERY

CURRENT FEES
(SUBSIDY)
Services
RATE
$ 5,161,000
$ 1,780,000
($ 3,381,000)

34.5%
Summary of Results
The cost analysis for Fire Prevention revealed an overall annual funding deficit of approximately $3.4 million for fee -related activities, with an overall cost -recovery rate of Wohlford Consulting Page 26 of 48 September 27, 2023

A
�4
2023 Full Cost of Services (User Fee) Study

FINAL REPORT
35%. The analysis also revealed that 70% (265 out of 376 fees, by tally) of the current fees are less than the full cost of providing the services, thus providing a subsidy to fee payers.

The remaining fees (30%) are currently set equal to or higher than full cost. Given the projected annual volume of permits and other activity for Fire Prevention fees, if the City elects to set all fees to recover full cost (and no more), the City would experience an overall increase in annual Fire Prevention revenue of approximately $3.4 million.

In addition to the unit fee calculations, the fee study also calculated the hourly cost (hourly rate) for each individual position classification in Fire Prevention (e.g., Fire Safety Specialist hourly rate). The study found that all of the full hourly costs were greater than the hourly rates currently charged. The current hourly rates are up to 46% less than the cost and average 38% less than full cost, which means that all hourly charges currently result in significant subsidies. In instances where Fire Prevention would rely upon hourly rates (e.g., real-time charges), sufficient staff rates are critical for full cost -recovery.

Appendix 4 contains the detailed results for Fire Prevention fee activities.

Potential Cost -Recovery / Revenue Limitations
The cost results for Fire Prevention indicate a potential for significant additional cost recovery (revenue) from new and increased fees —as much as $3.4 million annually —if all fees are adjusted to full cost. For Fire agencies, only a reduced portion of this kind of potential revenue is typically realized, due to potential "fee" areas that are traditionally heavily subsidized. For example, in this Fire Prevention analysis, the cost of services related to annual inspections of businesses and other occupancies totals $1.8 million annually. The City currently does not charge for these services, so any fee would be new to the fee payers, which would include schools, businesses, and some residential care facilities.

The entire $3.4 million in potential revenue is theoretically attainable if the City sets fees at the full cost levels. However, the total potential revenue reflects very large increases to many individual fees that may not be feasibly attainable in the first year. As a simple example, the fee for Fire hydrants and Valves Permits would need to increase from $96 to $282 to achieve full cost recovery and the full annual amount of $465,000 in new revenue (resulting from a very high annual volume). Consequently, the overall large revenue figure should be discounted according to the City's plans for increases.

To the extent that the City does not increase all fees to their full cost levels, the City will not realize the associated additional annual revenue. Without any increase in fees, Fire Prevention will continue to operate with a 65% subsidy from the General Fund, reserves, other program areas, or other external sources. More accurate or detailed predictions regarding the amount of revenue expected are not feasible, as too many unknown factors are present at this time.

None of the comments or discussions in this report are intended to assert that the City should exclude or avoid charging any of the Fire Prevention fees included in this study.

Wohlford Consulting Page 27 of 48 September 27, 2023

All
2023 Full Cost of Services (User Fee) Study

FINAL REPORT
All of the costs for services for fee -related activities are legitimate and associated fees are appropriate. Many Fire fees have historically been subsidized, due to historical precedent, organizational inertia, or established policy bases. However, the trend for many years for other city and county departments, particularly in conjunction with a new fee study, has been to seek greater cost recovery for Fire Prevention services —including 100% cost - recovery for many fee services, especially in development -related categories.

Results for Police
FULL COST:

PROJECTED

PROJECTED

PROJECTED
Annual Cost of

REVENUE AT

SURPLUS /
COST
Fee -Related

RECOVERY

CURRENT FEES
(SUBSIDY)
Services
RATE
$ 554,000
1 $ 234,000
1 ($320,000)

42.2%
Summary of Results
The cost analysis for Police revealed an overall annual funding deficit of approximately $320,000 for fee -related activities, with an overall cost -recovery rate of 42%. The analysis also revealed that 80% (8 out of 10 fees, by tally) of the current fees are less than the full cost of providing the services, thus providing a subsidy to fee payers. The remaining two fees (20%) are currently set equal to or higher than full cost. In other words, if the City elects to set all fees to recover full cost (and no more), the City would experience an overall increase in annual revenue of approximately $320,000.

Since the hourly rates for Police personnel are dictated by external contract, the study did not attempt to determine separate hourly rates for cost -recovery.

It is important to note that fee -related activities represent only a small portion of the department's overall costs. We included non -fee activities (e.g., patrol, traffic, investigations, etc.) in the analysis to ensure proper distribution of all costs, but we excluded these activities (and related cost results) from the summary figures presented in this report. We excluded the non -fee from the summary results, because there is no fee revenue associated with these programs and/or the revenues associated with these programs will be unaffected by any changes in the fees evaluated in this study. The non -fee portion of the department's cost is approximately $33.6 million.

Appendix 5 contains the detailed results for Police fee activities.

Potential Cost -Recovery / Revenue Limitations
The cost results for the Sheriff's Department indicate a potential for significant additional cost recovery (revenue) —as much as $320,000 annually —if all fees are adjusted to full cost. This potential revenue is theoretically attainable if the City sets fees at the full cost levels. However, the total potential revenue reflects new fees and very large increases to many individual fees that may not be feasibly attainable in the first year. In addition, some Wohlford Consulting Page 28 of 48 September 27, 2023

A 2023 Full Cost of Services (User Fee) Study
It FINAL REPORT
fees are restricted by external requirements, such as fingerprinting. The full cost of each of the two fingerprinting services (rolling and Livescan) is $51, while the current fee is $10. The annual potential revenue increase includes $95,000 for the potential increases to fingerprinting fees. While a small increase may be allowable, the $51 figure may not be, or the Department may elect to retain the lower fee, so the total additional revenue may not be achievable. Consequently, the total revenue figure should be discounted according to the City's plans for increases. Without an increase to any fees, the Sheriff's Department will continue to operate with a 58% subsidy from the General Fund, reserves, other program areas, or other external sources.

Opportunities for Greater Cost Recovery
The results shown in this study demonstrate the existence of subsidies for the majority of the services provided by the departments evaluated. Opportunities exist for the City to enhance the recovery of costs for individual services and programs through increases to existing fees. The major source of potential new revenue identified by this study is through fee increases from current levels to full cost, as opposed to many areas with no current fees.

It is important to note, however, that some of the potential fee -related revenues identified in this study would come from "new" fees. In some of these cases, the Department is providing the service, but does not have a fee currently authorized, and would need to seek City Council approval to set the fee. (These potential new fees can be identified in the study results / appendices by the lack of a current fee, except for those categories that are clearly headed by titles that indicate the subsequent items are non -fee or support services.)
The revenue results presented in this report assume that the City will set fees for all potential fee - related services at 100% of full cost. If the City maintains its current cost -recovery practices and does not attempt to recover the cost for all services (e.g., no fees, full subsidy, fee waivers), the potential revenues will be less than indicated by the results shown in the tables of this report.

Impact of Fee Activity Levels
To the extent that the City increases its fees to the full cost levels, revenue from fee services could increase by the amount described. However, it is important to note that permit or service activity levels will have the greatest impact on the final revenues resulting from fee changes. In addition to the final fee levels, the annual volume of fees (e.g., number of activities or permits) will materially drive the revenues.

The study calculated potential revenues based upon the fee activity projections / assumptions provided by the City, which were based on past experience, current trends, and anticipated changes. The potential for additional cost recovery is grounded in a consistent comparison between the current fees and the full cost fees at the same activity levels. Consequently, if economic activity and the resultant fee workload (service demand) decline, the City would experience an overall drop in fee revenues that is unconnected to the results of this study.

Wohlford Consulting Page 29 of 48 September 27, 2023

All
2023 Full Cost of Services (User Fee) Study

FINAL REPORT
Results for Staff Hourly Rates (Full Cost Recovery Rates) Full Cost Recovery Hourly Rates
The study results include a series of "Full Cost Recovery Rates" associated with various position classifications (e.g., Senior Planner, Building Inspector II). These rates are calculated to recover 100% of each position's fully loaded cost within the hours available to perform billable/direct services to customers and other direct department activities (both fee and non -fee). The cost components factored into these rates are the same as the costs included in the unit fees, as described in the "Full Cost" section above. In addition, these rates take into account the available billable hours for each position (also known as "productive hours"). For example, if a position's fully burdened cost is $150,000, and the position's billable hours are 1,500, the full cost recovery rate would be $100 per hour.

These rates should not be confused with pay or other compensation rates. Due to the cost burden added to these rates (e.g., overhead, operating expenditures, indirect costs) and use of billable hours, a Full Cost Recovery rate typically ranges from three to four times the hourly pay rate of the employee.

The departments can use these rates to recover full costs whenever an actual cost billing situation is present for fees or charges to grants or other external sources. A salary -only or salary+benefits rate would fail to recover the full cost of the position.

Standard Blended Rates
The study results include some "standard blended" hourly rates that are not specific to any particular position in a department. These rates enable a department to utilize a general rate for actual direct staff time when specific employee rates are not feasible or desirable, such as when the department is attempting to provide an estimate of cost when the actual employee assignments or project complexity is not fully known or to provide simplified billing to external funding sources.

The study calculated each blended rate by using portions of the hourly cost of multiple direct positions that are typically involved in hourly fees, totaling one hour, as well as portions of support or administrative positions as overhead to these rates. To determine the relative portions from each position, the study used a ratio that generally corresponds to the typical work assignments of those employees.

Variable Hourly Fee Deposits
For some fee -related services (especially anomalous situations) the City may choose to track actual staff time consumed by the project and charge full cost -recovery hourly rates to establish the specific fee level. This "actual staff time billing" process may require the applicant to pay an initial deposit (i.e., down payment) to ensure that the City will collect a base amount of fees for the project. If the project consumes more time/cost than the Wohlford Consulting Page 30 of 48 September 27, 2023

All
2023 Full Cost of Services (User Fee) Study

FINAL REPORT
initial deposit, the City will request an additional infusion of funds from the applicant.

Ultimately, the applicant will pay the full cost of all staff time devoted to the project.

However, it should be noted that not all departments currently utilize deposits or down - payment -type arrangements. This approach may not be feasible or desirable for the future either, since the nature of some department services and interactions with the public are different from many other City functions, which may present insurmountable difficulties to adapt for these services. Consequently, this discussion merely presents the idea for future potential consideration by the City.

This cost analysis calculated the typical cost of each service, which appears in the results as the resultant full cost. If the City wants to establish deposits, instead of fixed fees, the unit costs identified in this study can serve as the deposit levels. When considering fee setting, the City does not need to establish the deposit at this level to ensure full cost recovery, because the fees charged will be based upon the actual time consumed —not the deposit level. The deposit merely serves as the first payment.

The City may choose to use the results from the cost study as the basis to set the deposit levels, since they represent "typical" projects. This approach may not be desirable, however, because it could result in a greater number of necessary refunds of overpayments, and because it would "front load" fee payments for projects which have a longer review process.

Issues Regarding Comparisons with External Hourly Rates Local government hourly rates are occasionally compared to the rates charged by private contractors or other external agencies, in order to ascertain the "reasonableness" of the counties' or cities' rates. Although an attempt is usually made to compare equivalent positions, the government rates are commonly higher than those from private enterprises.

There are a variety of valid reasons for the differences in rates, which contribute to the potential assessment of whether the rates are reasonable.

Even when the services and products are similar, significant differences exist in the costs and operations between government agencies and private enterprises, regardless of the purported impacts of employee efficiency, performance, or effectiveness. The differences are most evident in their organizational missions, cost structures, and service levels.

Most significantly, the differences are due to the fact that private firms typically do not have to account for the same underlying costs as a government agency, including:
• Permit system (purchase and maintenance)
• City Council (or other committees and boards) support/meetings (attendance, status reports, etc.)
• Supporting plans or documentation (development and maintenance), such as policies and procedures, emergency planning and management, incident response plans, and code updates.

Wohlford Consulting Page 31 of 48 September 27, 2023

All
2023 Full Cost of Services (User Fee) Study

FINAL REPORT
• Emergency response and investigations
• Code enforcement
• Public information (pre -project support)
• Routine non -technical training (e.g., sexual harassment, workplace violence) • Administrative oversight tasks (e.g., Economic Interest statements) • Fee studies performed by outside contractors
• Employer contributions to defined benefit retirement plans (vs. 401K or no plan) • Competitive comprehensive health insurance coverage and post -employment benefits
• Recruitment processes that require extra steps (e.g., exams and formal applications) to ensure fairness and equity, and review processes to prevent issues such as nepotism. (Private firms can use whatever processes they want and can hire anybody they want.)
• Purchasing processes that require extra steps to ensure fairness and protect public money (i.e., formal bidding processes). (Private firms can purchase however they choose.)
• Additional administrative support, such as Finance and/or Auditor Departments that must track public funds and prepare/publish reports with greater detail than required in private firms (to protect public money and ensure public access to information).

All of the above costs (some partially) may be allocated to City fees and cost -recovery rates established in the studies (with exceptions for some positions). Consequently, even when salaries are equal, total City employee costs are greater than private firm employee costs.

Even if the City "privatized" some or all of the fee services, most of these costs would still exist in the City and would have to be recovered. Therefore, private firms would have to either raise their rates or bill for more hours —or the City would have to add a premium/surcharge to the private fees. Either way, the cost would be greater than simple public -private rate comparisons would indicate.

In addition, the fees (based on worker time) also have the following built into them:

Review and approval processes to ensure accountability and protect the public.

Systems and processes designed for fairness and equity among customers (can create inefficiencies). (Private firms can provide different service levels to different customers.)
Standard fees must also include services to difficult projects and customers, because the City must serve everyone equally and cannot refuse to serve any customers. (Private firms can avoid "unprofitable" or overly burdensome customers.)
In summary, private enterprises generally do not have the same level of cost inputs that need to be recovered in rates charged by a city, in order to recover costs and avoid subsidies from non -fee sources. Conversion to privatized services would not necessarily eliminate Wohlford Consulting Page 32 of 48 September 27, 2023

A 2023 Full Cost of Services (User Fee) Study
It FINAL REPORT
those additional costs, as the City would still incur many of them regardless of the final service provider.

Potential Cost Changes from Prior Studies and Fee -Setting This cost analysis identified significant gaps (subsidies) between the full cost of individual services (as calculated in the study) and the current fees for almost all fees in the study. This finding may surprise those who assume that the City is already charging full cost for its services.

According to staff, the City has not implemented significant fee changes (based on cost/fee analysis) since at least 2004, with annual inflationary adjustments applied since that time.

Nevertheless, even if the City established user fees at 100% of full cost following a previous study, and regularly applied an inflation factor, there are a variety of reasons why the cost calculations from this study would identify significant gaps between the current fees and the full cost. This study did not attempt to evaluate and quantify factors that resulted in changes to the gap, but common variables include:
• New or changes to state or federal regulatory requirements that must be implemented or enforced through department programs
• Current fees may not have been previously set at full cost (policy decisions). • Increases in per -unit workload (i.e., time required to complete tasks) due to new codes and regulations that add complexity and additional required checks and services to tasks. • Increases in City costs that exceed inflationary measures (e.g., CPI) such as:
o Employee salaries (COLA's, step increases)
o Employee benefits (retirement, healthcare)
o Services and supplies (electricity, fuel, insurance)
o Citywide overhead costs (Cost Allocation Plan results) • Inclusion of new costs not in existence or identified in the previous study, such as:
o Internal administrative and supervision costs (division, department, and City overhead)
o Annualized capital or asset replacement costs
o Cross-division/department support costs
o Support functions authorized to be included in user fees • Changes in technology and/or business processes
• Staff turnover resulting in reduced personnel costs.
• Improved analytical methodologies with enhanced rigor and comprehensiveness • Improved recognition of the role and treatment of productive / billable hours factors (direct vs. indirect work hours)
• Potential decreases due to streamlining/expenditure reductions Considerations Concerning Recommended Fees
If the City's primary goal is to maximize cost recovery from user fees, Wohlford Consulting would recommend setting user fees at 100% of the full cost identified in the study, with few exceptions.

This approach would reduce the burden on non -fee funding sources, such as the General Fund.

Wohlford Consulting Page 33 of 48 September 27, 2023

A 2023 Full Cost of Services (User Fee) Study
It FINAL REPORT
This position reflects a philosophy that fee payers should pay the full share for the services they consume from the City for their private benefit.

Maximizing cost recovery may not be the only goal of a User Fee Study, however, and sometimes full -cost recovery is not needed, desired, or appropriate. Other department and City goals, City Council priorities, policy initiatives, past experience, implementation issues, community expectations, and other internal and external factors may influence staff recommendations and City Council decisions.

In recognition of these other issues, staff will work to develop recommended fees that address the City's current needs. Wohlford Consulting anticipates that the City Council may provide further direction to staff regarding acceptable fee levels. In the meantime, the cost recovery results shown in the Study are based upon full cost calculations and do not reflect any specific or general fee recommendations provided by Wohlford Consulting.

Limitations for Use of Revenue Results
The annual results are based upon an estimated annual volume of activity provided by department staff during the study. The purpose of these total figures is to provide a sense of scale that puts the fund deficit and other results in context. These figures are not perfect, since a number of variables will ultimately alter the final cost recovery totals. Variables include:
• Fees set at less than full cost
• Increased or decreased activity from assumed levels
• Change in the blend of service types and fees
• Timing of the implementation of the fees and revenue collection • Service activities and fee collections that cross multiple fiscal years • Project tasks (activity volume count) and fee collection which occur in different years This Study presents the potential cost recovery figures and annual costs only to provide a basis for comparison of current fee levels to full cost (as well as a basis to establish recommended fees).

Since the impacts of these variable factors are unknown, Wohlford Consulting cautions the City against using the annualized figures for the purpose of revenue projections or other budgeting decisions.

Other Beneficial Outcomes of the Study
Although it is the primary focus of the Study, the cost analysis is not the only part of this effort that can benefit the City. A series of secondary outcomes and benefits resulted from the steps of the processes used in the Study, the analysis of data, and the myriad of discussions between the consultant and staff.

Since these secondary benefits are not the focus of the Study, the descriptions presented below are not intended to fully explain and document all of the elements and benefits of these outcomes.

Instead, the intent of the descriptions is to briefly describe their existence and to encourage follow- up in some cases.

Wohlford Consulting Page 34 of 48 September 27, 2023

All
Orientation and Training
2023 Full Cost of Services (User Fee) Study

FINAL REPORT
The long-term success of the project is affected by the ability of the City staff to continue to understand, use, and explain the study methodologies and results after the consultant is gone. Consequently, as part of the study process, staff spent a considerable amount of time working with the consultant to learn the conceptual and practical elements of the data collection, analysis, and calculations. This informal training process not only ensures the future success of the project, but it also facilitated effective data collection and the City's internal review of the results.

Management Information
The processes of data collection, analysis, and validation produce beneficial management information. The background documentation and fee models, as well as the discussions with the consultant, highlighted information that is beneficial for managers who wish to pursue additional in-house analysis. Department managers have access to the auxiliary information developed and documented during the Study, including current and potential:
• Utilization of Time and Staff (productivity and staffing needs) • Revenue Impacts (potential new revenue)
• Distribution of Staff Effort across Services (who does what and for how long) • Total Time for Each Service (workload impacts)
• General Staff Productivity (direct vs. indirect activities) Intangibles
During the course of this Study, the consultant provided the City with experience -based advice intended to help the City best achieve its current and future fee objectives. Staff and the consultant discussed implementation strategies and alternatives, future steps, common questions and complaints, public policy considerations, economic considerations, legal considerations, how to address criticism and support the study, other analysis needed, and update techniques. These discussions and the other contributions from the consultant do not necessarily appear elsewhere in the formal documentation, such as this report.

Wohlford Consulting Page 35 of 48 September 27, 2023

All

OTHER ISSUES AND INFORMATION
Fee Setting Considerations
2023 Full Cost of Services (User Fee) Study

FINAL REPORT
The principal goal of this Study is to identify the cost of department services to help the City make informed decisions regarding fee levels and charges. Determining appropriate fee levels is an involved and dynamic process. Staff must consider many issues in formulating recommendations, and the City Council must consider those issues and more in making final decisions.

City staff will develop fee level recommendations to present to the City Council. Unfortunately, there are no hard and fast rules to guide the City, since the most important issues are subject to administrative and political discretion. To assist the City's deliberations, Wohlford Consulting offers the following general considerations:

Suhsidi�atinn
Recalling the definition of a user fee helps guide decisions regarding subsidization. One general principle is that individuals or groups that receive a purely private benefit should pay 100% of the full cost of the services. In contrast, services that provide a purely public benefit should be funded entirely by tax dollars. The complicating reality for local government is that a large number of services fall into the range between these two extremes. The following graphic illustrates the potential decision basis:
100%
0%
Source of Service Funding
100%
Private
Benefit
(1)
Some Some
Public Private
Benefit Benefit
(2) (3)
100%
Public
Benefit
(4)
Examples:
(1) Development
Permits
(2) Youth Programs
(3) Long Range
Planning
(4) Police Patrol
A common justification for subsidizing certain fees with general fund contributions is that some fee -related services provide a "public benefit" to the larger community, in addition to the private benefits obtained by the applicants. This approach assumes that, for example, subsidized development activities provide economic, cultural, quality of life, or other community benefits that equal or exceed the costs to the City.

Wohlford Consulting Page 36 of 48 September 27, 2023

All
2023 Full Cost of Services (User Fee) Study

FINAL REPORT
Subsidization can also be an effective public policy tool, since it can be used to reduce fees to encourage certain activities or allow some people to afford services they otherwise could not at the full cost. In addition, subsidies may be appropriate to allow citizens access to services (such as appeals) without burdensome costs.

Regardless of the intent, it is important for City leaders and the public to understand that subsidies must be covered by another revenue source, such as the General Fund or reserves.

Therefore, the general taxpayer will potentially help to fund private benefits, and/or other City services will not receive funds that would otherwise be available.

Consistency with City Public Policy and Objectives
User fees are part of the fabric of City administration. The fee levels and policies should be consistent with other established policy objectives, strategies, and statements. If the City espouses cost recovery and fairness, City fees should reflect those standards by minimizing subsidies. If the City has stated a desire to encourage specific activities or industries, City fee structures should make allowances to encourage those activities and businesses. In summary, the existing policy stances should influence the fee decisions.

Fairness and EquitX
The fees should be fair and equitable to all fee payers. Some fee payers should not pay more than the full cost, in order to offset the lower/subsidized fees of others. If City leadership wants to provide subsidies, the extra funding should come from a general source external to each department's fee revenues, such as the General Fund or other distributed revenues, not from other individual fee payers who are already paying their fair share. This general principle is also generally backed by California law, as established through Propositions 218 and 26.

Impact on Demand (Elasticity)
Economic principles of elasticity suggest that increased costs for services (higher fees) will eventually depress the demand for the services. Lower fees may create an incentive to purchase the services and encourage certain actions. Either of these conditions may be a desirable effect to the City. However, the level of the fees that would cause demand changes is entirely unknown, and the monopolistic nature of some City services (citizens can't go elsewhere for lower prices) could also influence demand in unknown ways. The User Fee Study did not attempt to evaluate the economic or behavioral impacts of higher fees, but the City should consider the potential impacts of these issues when deciding on fee levels.

Compliance with Legal Standards
By following a non-profit ethic and the applicable general standards (e.g., reasonable cost) set forth in the Government Code, this cost study identified the full -cost -recovery fee levels that the City can use to establish fees in compliance with both the spirit and letter of Wohlford Consulting Page 37 of 48 September 27, 2023

A 2023 Full Cost of Services (User Fee) Study
It FINAL REPORT
established legal standards. (Note: Nothing herein should be construed as legal advice, and the City should consult its own counsel for questions of a legal nature.) Fee Comparison Issues
With the availability of the cost results from this study, a comparison of the City's service costs and/or proposed fees to fees from neighboring or comparable jurisdictions is often an attractive concept to local government. However, the City should recognize a number of significant limitations that affect the validity and reliability of comparisons.

With the potential for numerous factors to affect the differences in fee levels between counties, it is important to realize that the value of a fee comparison is generally limited to market -based decision -making. There is very little relevance of current fee levels in other counties to the actual costs in Temecula, since fee schedules tend to be highly variable expressions of local policy, rather than true barometers of service costs or cost -recovery intent.

Direct comparisons of fee levels across surveyed counties are usually somewhat limited, due to wide differences in fee structures, definitions, and program types. The value of a comparison may be to allow department and City leadership to develop a sense of the City's place in the range of fee levels among comparative jurisdictions, but it does not establish a clear understanding of each City's specific cost circumstances, including actual cost, service levels, or cost -recovery performance. This situation may exist for a variety of reasons, including:
• Many counties and cities have not conducted an actual cost study, so their fees may be based upon historical or other subjective factors unrelated to actual cost. • Most counties and cities do not publish their subsidy rates, so their fees may be subsidized (knowingly or unknowingly). Even if they have completed a cost study, there is often no way to know whether cost subsidies exist. • The services included in fees may be combined in some counties and separated in others, thus making direct comparisons unreliable.
• The methodology used to determine the fees in other counties may be deficient or designed to recover less than full cost.
• Other jurisdictions may have different policy goals and considerations that affect the level of cost they desire to recover.

Even if the studies treated the costs equally, there are number of additional qualifying factors that would create legitimate and reasonable variances in costs between different counties and cities.

These cost factors include:

Wohlford Consulting Page 38 of 48 September 27, 2023

A 2023 Full Cost of Services (User Fee) Study
It FINAL REPORT
➢ Salaries and benefits
➢ Services and supplies
➢ Overhead levels (department, division, city, and administrative) ➢ Post -Employment Benefits (OPEB)
➢ Leave time (holiday, vacation, sick)
➢ Other non -direct time (training, meetings, breaks)
➢ Capital costs (annualized)
➢ Cross-division/department costs
➢ Cost -recovery of associated services (e.g., incident response, investigations, epidemiology)
➢ Reserve contributions
➢ Staff longevity (affects the time necessary to complete tasks) ➢ Service levels (affect the number of associated tasks and the overall time necessary to complete fee services)
➢ Efficiency
Cost "Reasonableness"
A common question posed at the conclusion of a User Fee Study, particularly when reviewing the results, is whether the data and results are reasonable. Although the scope of this study did not include an evaluation of the service levels in each department, the following discussion addresses this question and related issues.

The notion of "reasonableness" is a function of different definitions and assumptions. The most basic consideration is whether the reasonableness standard applies to the cost of the service or to the fee charged --which can be two entirely different issues.

The reasonableness of a fee is largely a policy matter after cost has been established, since each individual's perspective influences his or her definition of reasonableness. For example, whether a particular fee is considered reasonable certainly depends on whether one is the person paying the fee or a disinterested party. Concepts of subsidization are also important to consider, particularly when the fee payer will realize a profit as a result of the City's action (e.g., private developers or businesses). Political considerations, jurisdictional comparisons, economic sympathy, desired incentives and disincentives, and historical trends may also play a part in the determination of fee reasonableness.

A User Fee Study establishes the true cost of providing individual services. The most common standard for this analysis, as directed by the California Government Code, is that the fees can be no greater than the "estimated reasonable cost" of providing the service for which a fee is charged.

However, there is no best practice or specific "reasonableness" definition or standard for providing individual services —and, by extension, there is no best cost level. Often, the only commonality across different jurisdictions is difference. Attempts to create a standard through rough statistical analysis of past data from other jurisdictions are problematic, and imply a level of accuracy and meaningfulness that does not exist. The cost components, service structures, staffing arrangements, services levels, overhead levels, and many other factors vary widely (and legitimately) among even neighboring jurisdictions.

Wohlford Consulting Page 39 of 48 September 27, 2023

A 2023 Full Cost of Services (User Fee) Study
It FINAL REPORT
The City's User Fee Study employed quality control measures to ensure that the analysis identified the most accurate costs for each department's current operations, which represents one commonly accepted measure of reasonableness.

However, if the City expands its definition of reasonableness to include consideration of the most efficient and effective operational practices, it is important to note that the scope of this User Fee Study focused on the current operational costs of department services only and did not delve into issues of service performance or quality. In contrast, a true best practices evaluation and determination of cost reasonableness based upon an idealized service approach requires a more robust management and operations study. To be successful, this type of study should involve meaningful observations and evaluations of business processes and management practices, operational reviews, comprehensive line staff interviews, concept definition processes, and a wider scope and intensity of investigation and analysis. Anything short of this full analysis would lack credibility, utility, and relevance.

Enhanced Fee Flexibility
The time data in this study represent the best estimates for the level of effort necessary to complete each of the fee activities, based on past experience and meeting a minimum professional standard.

Since unforeseen circumstances and requests are possible, there is a need for flexibility in fees to address new or anomalous situations. In these situations, a department can identify the need for additional staff time and apply standard or individual position hourly rates to establish charges.

The Study calculated full -cost recovery rates for all key positions. To facilitate use of these rates, the City Council should grant the authority to charge these supplemental rates by including them in the approved fee ordinance or resolution.

Implementation Issues
Following City Council approval of a new fee schedule, the City will be faced with the practical task of implementing the new fees. While the City develops a project plan for implementation, it may wish to consider the information and issues presented below.

Timing
To ensure more accurate revenue and service expectations, it is important for the City to recognize the realistic limitations to a speedy implementation of new fees. Some possible issues to consider include:

1. In addition to the mandated noticing and public hearing requirements, the City may be prohibited from charging any development -related new fees until at least 60 days following approval by the City Council (Government Code §66017). These fees may include certain plan checks, site plan reviews, or permits that would be considered part of the development process. Other operating fees may be adopted subject to Health and Safety Code §101325 and/or Government Code §54985- Wohlford Consulting Page 40 of 48 September 27, 2023

All
2023 Full Cost of Services (User Fee) Study

FINAL REPORT
54988, which do not specify timing for implementation. The City should consult its own legal counsel for determination of applicable legal requirements.

2. Based on initial public or leadership reaction to the initial fee proposals, the City may identify the need for additional public hearings/meetings, which would add time for additional noticing and hearing requirements that could also delay full implementation.

3. The City will also be faced with a series of practical and customer service limitations. Fee schedules must be produced and published in the usual places (brochures and handouts, website, staff handbooks). The City's permit systems must be updated to reflect the new fee levels. Staff must be trained on new fee structures and/or procedures in some instances. Fortunately, if planned effectively, City staff can complete many of these administrative tasks while waiting for the other administrative or legal processes to complete.

Permit Systems
The User Fee Study did more than calculate the full cost of existing services. In many cases the consultant and department staff reorganized or otherwise modified the existing fee structures. We added new fees, deleted obsolete fees, combined fees, and established materially different structures for some. As a result, the City will need to modify the structure and organization of the fees in the permitting systems and structures used by the City before any new fees go into effect.

Phasing
Due to the large gaps between some current fees and their full cost recovery levels identified in the study, many of the City's fees may be subject to significant increases. If implemented all at once, these increases may surprise local businesses, developers, community -based organizations, citizens, and other fee -payers, and could conceivably have an adverse impact on the local economy. If the City plans to institute significant fee increases for these services, phasing in the fee increases helps to minimize impacts to the community and to give it a chance to plan for, and adapt to, the increases.

There are, however, two key downsides to enacting a phased approach to fee increases.

The first issue is the delay of cost recovery, since fees will continue to be subsidized at higher levels until the full cost (or desired cost -recovery goal) fee levels are achieved. The second issue is the potential for additional administrative and/or operational cost resulting from more frequent fee changes. Each fee change can result in the need for additional contracted services to modify permit systems, supplemental staff training, reprinting of forms or other documentation, and other additional internal workload.

Wohlford Consulting Page 41 of 48 September 27, 2023

A 2023 Full Cost of Services (User Fee) Study
It FINAL REPORT
Public Outreach
Public and interest group acceptance of new or increased fees can often be improved through an awareness campaign and direct communication with affected parties. Having the opportunity to review the fees (and perhaps the analysis behind them) builds confidence in the credibility of the analysis and reduces objections. Conversely, last-minute notices cause the community to question the veracity of the fee analysis and City motives behind the apparently rushed approval process.

The public outreach needs associated with fee changes vary by department and by the types of fees. Each department should develop a public notification and outreach plan that is appropriate for the types of fees affected, the degree of potential fee changes, and the customer base and others affected by the changes.

Potential Implementation Strategies
Wohlford Consulting generally recommends setting fees at 100% of cost and implementing the new fees as soon as possible. This approach for the City would result in a large number of individual fee increases, a smaller number of fee decreases, and a significant overall increase in annual revenue.

This standard recommendation would minimize individual fee subsidies and maximize cost recovery. However, Wohlford Consulting understands that current economic conditions, and the City's desire to attain community support, warrant the consideration of alternative fee implementation approaches and timing. We recognize that a decline in economic activity and vitality, political desire to spur economic recovery, and anticipated criticism and extraordinary resistance to fee increases, may make the typical fee implementation approach especially difficult.

Consequently, Wohlford Consulting has identified several approaches for the City to consider that will facilitate implementation and achievement of the City's cost -recovery objectives. The alternatives are presented below:

Option 1: Adopt the Fee Schedule at 100% Cost-RecoverX
Under this option, the City would implement almost all fees at 100% of full cost as soon as possible, with a limited number of reasonable exceptions determined by the City for critical areas of public safety or public involvement. This approach would result in the maximum cost recovery (i.e., new revenue gains), absent any impact of price elasticity (which is unknown), and is the only approach that will mitigate the underfunding of department services. However, the full cost recovery approach may not be the most palatable option to the City, as discussed above, so one of the other options may be more appropriate.

Option 2: Increase Selected Fees On1X
Under this option, the City would select a limited number of fees to increase. To select the fees targeted for increase, the City should consider a variety of factors that affect progress Wohlford Consulting Page 42 of 48 September 27, 2023

A
�4
2023 Full Cost of Services (User Fee) Study

FINAL REPORT
towards revenue, subsidy, or policy goals. These factors may include which fees are burdensome to customers, which ones are the most frequently charged, which ones are the least successful at current cost recovery (i.e., most subsidized), potential controversy and opposition, targeted customers, and past experience.

While this approach will not result in full cost recovery and will perpetuate subsidization of fee -related services, it may be the most practical and achievable option. It may also result in greater overall success for the City. A successful partial implementation may achieve greater overall cost recovery gains and subsidy reduction than a failed complete implementation.

Before selecting this approach, the City should evaluate whether the determination of targeted fees would require a significant secondary analysis that may, in itself, cause considerable controversy and opposition.

Option 3: Standard Discount
If full cost recovery is not intended, the easiest option to administer is to apply a standard discount to the cost results. For example, the City Council could decide to charge a specified percentage (e.g., 80%) of full cost for all fees. Under this scenario, the City would increase fees that are currently less than the specified percentage of full cost and decrease any fees that are currently greater than that percentage.

Even if the percentage cost -recovery rate is standardized, the rate of change for individual fees could be inconsistent, to the extent that these fees are not currently set at a consistent ratio to full cost. As a result, the fee payers could still experience sticker shock and see significant percentage and/or dollar increases to individual fees. However, the notion of a discount applied to fees may have strong appeal to customers and other interested parties.

Option 4: Cgpped Increase
Under this option, the City Council would limit individual fee increase to a specified percentage increase (cap) above its current level (e.g., a 50% increase only).

This approach applies an understandable consistency to the increases, but it separates the fees from a relationship with full cost. Depending on the cap selected, this approach can prevent significant increases to fees that would occur under a full -cost -recovery scenario. However, it also could limit the cost -recovery performance of individual fees, and thus result in continued underfunding of services.

Option 5: Phased Implementation
The option to phase the implementation of fee changes over time is applicable to each of the other options. Under this approach, the City would select a period of years over which to achieve its overall goal. For example, the City could decide to achieve full cost recovery over a period of three years (or some other desired period), rather than all in the first year. To achieve a "full cost in three years" goal, the City would increase the fees by 33% of the gap between current fees and full cost each year for three years. The City should also consider Wohlford Consulting Page 43 of 48 September 27, 2023

All
2023 Full Cost of Services (User Fee) Study

FINAL REPORT
annual inflation into the annual phased growth factors, to ensure that full cost is included for the duration of the phasing.

This approach would smooth out the fee increases, which might allow customers to adjust their business plans, plan for future development projects, absorb the increases over time, and build the increases into their cost calculations. This approach may also stimulate some development activity, as customers schedule their projects earlier to take advantage of reduced fees.

However, this approach will also maintain a level of deficit for a longer duration and perpetuate an underfunding of services.

Option 6: Hybrid Approach
The City has the option to mix and match the components of each of the options to establish a process and an outcome that best meets its needs. Further evaluation and understanding of City objectives would be necessary to more fully define the most appropriate recommendation for the City.

Consultant's Recommendation Regarding I_mplementation Strategies The ideal fee implementation strategy for Temecula can only be determined through careful evaluation of City Council priorities, community input, future City budget conditions, City policy, and potential community impact and response. Most of this information is unavailable at this time and is likely to change periodically; so in order to provide a recommendation in the absence of this direct knowledge, Wohlford Consulting must rely upon successful experiences with other communities and knowledge of the departments gained through this Study.

To improve the cost -recovery performance of the departments, Wohlford Consulting recommends a blended, or hybrid, implementation approach that combines the full -cost -recovery goals of Option #1 with the customer and community -centric features of a phased approach from Option #5.

In recognition that the City Council may not want to set all fees at full cost, this general recommended approach is flexible and acknowledges that the City will likely seek 100% cost - recovery only for certain fees. In addition, the City will likely set different phasing schedules for individual fees, ranging from immediate implementation at 100% of cost to a schedule of increases over many years to achieve a level of full -cost recovery in the future.

The phased approach is intended to "soften" the larger fee increases, including many that could increase from zero to hundreds or thousands of dollars at full cost. The potential for "sticker shock" and customer frustration is real, and a phased approach may help the City achieve community acceptance of the fees with less controversy and rancor. The City's revenue goals and financial condition should be the primary driver for determining the specific time frame for the phased approach.

Wohlford Consulting Page 44 of 48 September 27, 2023

All
2023 Full Cost of Services (User Fee) Study

FINAL REPORT
Wohlford Consulting believes that this blended/hybrid approach would be most beneficial to the City, because the City can maintain the relationship between fees and full cost (thus facilitating future adjustments), as well as maintain focus on an overall goal of full cost recovery —while retaining flexibility to adapt to changing local conditions. In addition, the phasing of some fee changes will make it easier for customers to accept and adjust to the cost increases, and it will allow time for the economy to continue to recover before the full impact of the final fee increases is borne by customers.

Note: This recommendation also recognizes the potential need to continue subsidizing a few specific services, in order to ensure continued public safety and/or reasonable public involvement in some processes.

Future Updates
This Study represents a snapshot in time of the costs to provide fee related services. This analysis is based upon the FY 2022/23 Adopted Budget, including the staffing and budgeted expenditures.

However, the study's specific applicability to the budget and current costs will effectively end when the City experiences significant budget changes. With budget/cost increases over time, the fee levels would fall further behind in future years. Consequently, the City needs a method to keep the fees relatively current with changes in costs over time. Some of the most common approaches include:

Status Quo: Many counties and cities simply allow their fees to remain constant over the years. Not only does this approach negatively affect revenue recovery, it also causes potentially dramatic increases when the next update is completed.

Wohlford Consulting recommends against the status quo approach.

Full Review: The City can elect to conduct a complete User Fee Study each year. This would be the most accurate and defensible update strategy, but it would be the most expensive and time consuming. The payback for this level of effort and scrutiny does not usually warrant this approach, so Wohlford Consulting does not recommend it.

Minor Update: A minor update would involve changing only the basic cost factors in the existing fee models to recalculate fees at the new levels. Time estimates, allocation bases, staffing levels, and other key components would remain the same. This level of analysis would require the re -involvement of a consultant.

This approach would be more cost-effective than a full review, since consultant fees would be merely a fraction of the cost of an entire study. Wohlford Consulting recommends the minor update approach as the optimal way to stay current and remain defensible.

Inflation Factor: One of the easiest and least expensive update approaches is to apply an inflation factor to existing fees in an attempt to mirror cost increases over time. This method simply entails the development of a spreadsheet to apply a percentage increase to current fees. The flaw in this approach is the potential inaccuracy Wohlford Consulting Page 45 of 48 September 27, 2023

All
2023 Full Cost of Services (User Fee) Study

FINAL REPORT
of any inflation factor applied generically to a wide range of cost types.

However, this approach is generally accepted (and seldom challenged) as a convenient and reasonable way to modify fees in future years. For this reason, Wohlford Consulting recommends the inflation factor approach, if the City does not wish to conduct a minor update.

The key to an effective inflation factor approach is to select the right factor. A variety of CPI -type factors are available for the City to use, with the most common and recognized source being the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics (hllp:// www.bls.gov/cpi) . Another excellent source is the California Department of Industrial Relations (Office of the Director - Research Unit: California Consumer Price Index), whose Consumer Price Index - California, for All Urban Consumer is the current source of annual inflationary adjustments for some other jurisdictions in California.

The average annual inflation growth in most California indexes over the past 10 years was approximately 3%, and the annual increases in the top indexes have exceeded 3.5% only two or three times. The West Urban Area CPI (All Urban Consumers, All Items), for example, has experienced an annual rate of increase of 3.0% or less for most of the last decade —and actually demonstrated an overall decline of .4% in 2009—and only exceeded 3% three times in over 10 years (2018 — 3.3%, 2021 — 4.5%, and 2022 — 8.0%). Last two years have been anomalous, and current trends are showing decreases in inflation for the current year, with the first half of 2023 at 5%. In addition, the California Department of Industrial Relations Consumer Price Index- California, for All Urban Consumers, has followed similar trends, with average annual increases of approximately 3% over the past 10 years, including 1.7% in 2020, 4.2% in 2021, and 7.3% in 2022. These figures are similar to the results from the BLS West Urban Area index.

Considering payroll increases, energy, health care, retirement, insurance, and other key local government costs, the actual costs for the City have probably far exceeded a 3-4% average annual growth over the past decade. Based on this assumption, Wohlford Consulting recommends that the City establish its own inflation factor that represents local cost growth. The use of an average factor would mitigate radical swings from year to year. The basis for this factor could be one of the following:

1. City labor costs. Labor costs (salaries and benefits) comprise the majority of operating costs and the largest component of fees for the City, so they are the key driver for overall cost increases. In addition, these costs are the most predictable costs, which will allow the City to calculate prospective fee modifications sooner. With faster base information, the City will be able to increase fees earlier and more accurately, which will help to maximize cost recovery performance. To create this factor, the City can calculate the overall percentage increases Wohlford Consulting Page 46 of 48 September 27, 2023

All
2023 Full Cost of Services (User Fee) Study

FINAL REPORT
to salaries and benefits from year to year and apply this same percentage increase to existing fee levels. If there is concern that the labor costs have increased without a corresponding increase in all other budgeted costs, the City can moderate the labor cost factor, by determining the specific ratio of labor costs to all other costs, and applying this ratio to reduce the labor cost factor accordingly. For example, if labor costs are 80% of total costs, and the labor costs increase 10% from one year to the next, the City can apply an 8% increase to all fees.

2. Total Budget Costs. The City could calculate the overall percentage increases to the budget and apply this increase to existing fee levels.

These costs may also be predictable, but the City must take special care to exclude cost components from the calculations that are not related to fee activities, as was done in the original fee study.

Wohlford Consulting Page 47 of 48 September 27, 2023

A 2023 Full Cost of Services (User Fee) Study
It FINAL REPORT

CONCLUSION
Thank You to Temecula Staff
As part of the study process, the consultant received tremendous support and cooperation from City staff, who contributed and reviewed a variety of components to the study, including:
• Staffing structures, budgets, and other cost data
• Fee and service structures, organization, and descriptions • Time estimates to complete work tasks
• Activity statistics (fee volumes) and current fee levels • Multiple reviews of draft results and other documentation • Information and characterizations of existing relevant issues and policies A User Fee Study requires significant involvement of the managers and line staff from the departments —on top of their existing workloads and competing priorities. The contributions of City staff were critical to the success of the study, and included direct work with the consultant and behind the scenes support and data collection. There were too many individuals involved to list, but the City and the leadership of the fee study departments should commend all of them for their considerable assistance, professionalism, positive attitudes, helpful suggestions, responsiveness, and overall cooperation.

Closing Comments
The City of Temecula engaged Wohlford Consulting to conduct an objective analysis of the full costs incurred in support of various activities for which the City charges user fees. The consultant used high -quality study processes and a unit cost build-up methodology to identify the full cost for individual fee activities.

Through this study, the City of Temecula now has a more complete understanding of the full cost to provide user fee services to the community. With this information, the City can more fully consider the public policy and financial implications of its current approach to cost recovery for these services. The end result can be a new fee schedule that is based upon informed consideration and rational decisions.

Wohlford Consulting Page 48 of 48 September 27, 2023

[THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]

2023 Full Cost of Services (User Fee) Study

FINAL REPORT
APPENDIX 1:

COST RESULTS FOR BUILDING
The follow pages contain a summary of the results from the analysis of Building & Safety Division fee services.

Wohlford Consulting Appendix 1 - Final Results September 27, 2023

City of TEMECULA
2023 USER FEE STUDY

UPDATED RESULTS

BUILDING

REVENUE

SUMMARY
Fee Service Areas
Fee Area
New Occupancy &
Miscellaneous Items
Full Cost Results (Annual - All Services)
Projected Annual
Revenue at
Current Fee /
Deposit
Annual Full
Cost
Annual
Revenue
Surplus /
(Subsidy)
Full Cost
Recovery
Rate
$ 2,435,411
$ 4,750,943
$ (2,315,532)
51 %
$ 365,172
$ 543,215
1 $ (178,043)
67%
$ 2,800,582
$ 5,294,158
1 $ (2,493,575)
53%
Revenue Totals
Potential Revenue Results (Fee Services Only)
Projected
Projected Annual
Annual
Annual
Revenue at
Revenue at
Revenue
Full Cost
Current Fee /
Full Cost per
Surplus /
Recovery
Deposit
Unit
(Subsidy)
Rate
$ 2,435,411
$ 3,367,623
$ (932,21112)1
72%
$ 365,172
1 $ 543,215
1 $ (178,043)1
67%
$ 2,800,582
1 $ 3,910,837
1 $(1,110,255)
72%
Revenue Totals
Potential Revenues
Potential
Revenue at
Current Fees
Potential
Revenue at
Rec'd Fees
Potential
Revenue
Growth /
(Decline)
Rate of
Change
$ 2,435,411
$ 3,367,623
$ 932,212
38%
$ 365,172
$ 543,215
$ 178,043
49%
$ 2,800,582
$ 3,910,837
$ 1,110,255
40%
Revenue Totals
Wohlford Consulting Appendix 1a - Page 1 of 1 September 28, 2023

City of TEMECULA
2023 USER FEE STUDY

UPDATED RESULTS

BUILDING

RESULTS ANALYSIS - MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS
Fee Service Information
Plan Check Full Cost Results (Unit) I F-Inspection Full Cost Results (Unit) Fee #
Fee Title
Annual
PLAN
CHECK
Revenue
Activity Level
Annual

INSPECTION
Revenue
Activity Level
Total Current
Fee / Deposit
Total Full
Cost per Unit
Surplus /
(Subsidy) per
Unit
Full Cost
Recovery
Rate
Department /
Division
Current Fee I
Deposit
Total Full
Cost per Unit
Surplus /
(Subsidy) per
Unit
Full Cost
Recovery
Rate
1 NEW OCCUPANCIES:
$ 11111111111111ft
$
$
0%
78%
$ -
$ -
$ 1,567.19
$
$ 1,938.29
0%
2 NC - Commercial w/o interior improvements
(shell) - up to 5,000 sf
$ 2,336.98
$ 2,994.67
$ (657.69)
$ 3,505.48
224%
3 NC - Commercial w/o interior improvements
(shell) - 5,001-15,000 sf
$ 3,209.46
$ 3,847.86
$ (638.40)
83%
$ 4,814.19
$ 2,038.11
$ 2,776.08
236%
4 NC - Commercial w/o interior improvements
(shell) - 15,001-50,000 sf

2.0 2.0
$ 5,639.44
$ 4,967.14
$ 672.30
114%
$ 8,459.16
$ 3,677.95
$ 4,781.21
230%
5 NC - Commercial w/o interior improvements
(shell) - each additional 1,000 sf, or portion
thereof, over 50,000 SF

1.0 1.0
$ 112.65
$ 123.44
$ (10.79)
91%
$ 168.98
$ 160.03
$ 8.95
106%
6 0
-
-
$ -
$ -
$ -
0%
$ -
$ -
$ -
0%
7 NC - Commercial with interior improvements -
up to 5,000 sf
-
-
$ 4,520.09
$ 4,187.49
$ 332.60
108%
$ 6,780.13
$ 2,051.55
$ 4,728.58
330%
8 NC - Commercial with interior improvements -
5,001-15,000 sf

2.0 2.0
$ 5,669.16
$ 5,255.87
$ 413.29
108%
$ 8,503.75
$ 2,890.01
$ 5,613.74
294%
9 NC - Commercial with interior improvements -
15,001-50,000 sf

3.0 3.0
$ 8,813.43
$ 7,147.36
$ 1,666.07
123%
$ 13,220.14
$ 4,075.53
$ 9,144.61
324%
10 NC - Commercial with interior improvements -
each additional 1,000 sf, or portion thereof,
over 50,000 SF
-
-
$ 247.36
$ 123.65
$ 123.71
200%
$ 371.04
$ 160.03
$ 211.01
232%
11 0
$ -
$ -
$ -
0%
$ -
$ -
$ -
0%
12 NC - Warehouse - up to 5,000 sf
$ 4,058.92
$ 4,164.22
$ (105.30)
97%
$ 6,088.38
$ 1,411.00
$ 4,677.38
431%
13 NC - Warehouse - 5,001-15,000 sf
$ 4,474.07
$ 4,726.36
$ (252.29)
95%
$ 6,711.10
$ 1,935.86
$ 4,775.24
347%
14 NC - Warehouse - 15,001-50,000 sf

2.0 2.0
$ 7,515.74
$ 5,589.09
$ 1,926.65
134%
$ 11,273.61
$ 3,243.01
$ 8,030.60
348%
15 NC - Warehouse - each additional 1,000 sf, or
portion thereof, over 50,000 SF
-
-
$ 170.18
$ 123.65
$ 46.53
138%
$ 255.27
$ 160.03
$ 95.24
160%
16 0
$ -
$ -
$ -
0%
$ -
$ -
$ -
0%
17 0
$ -
$ -
$
0%
$ -
$ -
$ -
0%
18 NC - Commercial High Rise - up to 10,000 sf
$ 3,209.46
$ 5,965.75
$ (2,756.29)
54%
$ 4,814.19
$ 4,328.70
$ 485.49
111 %
19 NC - Commercial High Rise - 10,001-50,000 sf
$ 5,639.44
$ 8,563.97
$ (2,924.53)
66%
$ 8,459.16
$ 7,743.28
$ 715.88
109%
20 NC - Commercial High Rise - each additional
1,000 sf, or portion thereof, over 50,000 SF
$ 112.65
$ 123.65
$ (11.00)
91%
$ 168.98
$ 160.03
$ 8.95
1061/6
21 0
$ -
$ -
$
0%
$ -
$ -
$ -
0%
22 0
$ -
$ -
$
0%
$ -
$ -
$ -
0%
23 NC - Parking Structure - up to 100,000 sf

1.0 1.0
$ 16,488.80
$ 6,663.96
$ 9,824.84
247%
$ 24,733.20
$ 5,985.25
$ 18,747.95
413%
24 NC - Parking Structure - 100,001-500,000 sf
-
-
$ 82,445.45
$ 8,368.70
$ 74,076.75
985%
$ 123,668.18
$ 11,386.45
$ 112,281.73
1086%
25 NC - Parking Structure - each additional
10,000 sf, or portion thereof, over 500,000 SF
$ 320.90
$ 165.07
$ 155.83
194%
$ 481.35
$ 448.35
$ 33.00
107%
26 0
$ -
$ -
$ -
0%
$ -
$ -
$ -
0%
27 NC - New Single Family Custom/ Model - up to
1,000 sf
$ 944.86
$ 2,185.05
$ (1,240.19)
43%
$ 1,417.29
$ 2,613.34
$ (1,196.05)
54%
Wohlford Consulting Appendix 1 b - Page 1 of 26 September 28, 2023

City of TEMECULA
2023 USER FEE STUDY

UPDATED RESULTS

BUILDING

RESULTS ANALYSIS - MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS
Fee Service Information
Plan Check Full Cost Results (Unit) I F-Inspection Full Cost Results (Unit) Annual
PLAN
Annual
Department /
CHECK

INSPECTION
Surplus /
Full Cost
Division
Surplus /
Full Cost
Revenue
Revenue
Total Current
Total Full
(Subsidy) per
Recovery
Current Fee /
Total Full
(Subsidy) per
Recovery
Fee #
Fee Title
Activity Level
Activity Level
Fee / Deposit
Cost per Unit
Unit
Rate
Deposit
Cost per Unit
Unit
Rate
NC - New Single Family Custom/ Model -
28 1,001-2,500 sf

3.0 3.0
$ 1,207.08
$ 2,483.58
$ (1,276.50)
49%
$ 1,810.62
$ 2,885.74
$ (1,075.12)
63%
NC - New Single Family Custom/ Model -
29 2,501-5,000 sf

6.0 6.0
$ 1,826.44
$ 3,065.87
$ (1,239.43)
60%
$ 2,739.66
$ 3,431.04
$ (691.38)
80%
NC - New Single Family Custom/ Model - each
additional 500 sf, or portion thereof, over 5,000
30 SF

1.0 1.0
$ 472.43
$ 100.68
$ 371.75
469%
$ 708.65
$ 115.07
$ 593.58
6161/6
31 0
-
-
$ -
$ -
$ -
0%
$ -
$ -
$ -
0%
NC - New Single Family - Production (Tract) -
32 up to 1,000 sf
-
-
$
$ 228.24
$ (228.24)
0%
$ 932.40
$ 2,068.43
$ (1,136.03)
45%
NC - New Single Family - Production (Tract) -
33 1,00 1 -2,500 sf

60.0 60.0
$
$ 240.31
$ (240.31)
0%
$ 1,031.87
$ 2,341.77
$ (1,309.90)
44%
NC - New Single Family - Production (Tract) -
34 2,501-5,000 sf

28.0 28.0
$
$ 251.69
$ (251.69)
0%
$ 1,695.81
$ 2,633.10
$ (937.29)
64%
NC - New Single Family - Production (Tract) -
each additional 500 sf, or portion thereof, over
35 5,000 SF
-
-
$
$ 59.26
$ (59.26)
0%
$ 475.19
$ 115.07
$ 360.12
413%
36 0
$
$ -
$ -
0%
$ -
$ -
$ -
0%
37 NC - Apartments/Multi- Family - up to 5,000 sf
$ 4,048.86
$ 4,211.23
$ (162.37)
96%
$ 6,073.28
$ 3,378.91
$ 2,694.37
180%
NC -Apartments/Multi- Family- 5,001-10,000
38 sf
$ 5,134.65
$ 4,953.94
$ 180.71
104%
$ 7,701.98
$ 3,966.72
$ 3,735.26
194%
NC -Apartments/Multi- Family- 10,001-15,000
39 sf
$ 6,094.38
$ 5,527.38
$ 567.00
110%
$ 9,141.56
$ 4,383.68
$ 4,757.88
209%
NC - Apartments/Multi- Family - each
additional 1,000 sf, or portion thereof, over
40 15,000 SF
$ 221.47
$ 107.66
$ 113.81
206%
$ 332.21
$ 160.03
$ 172.18
208%
41 0
$ -
$ -
$ -
0%
$ -
$ -
$ -
0%
42 NC - Hotels/Motels - up to 10,000 sf
$ 5,134.65
$ 6,101.42
$ (966.77)
84%
$ 7,701.98
$ 6,828.93
$ 873.05
113%
43 NC - Hotels/Motels - 10,001-50,000 sf

1.0 1.0
$ 8,817.74
$ 10,426.67
$ (1,608.93)
85%
$ 13,226.61
$ 12,210.86
$ 1,015.75
108%
NC - Hotels/Motels - each additional 1,000 sf,
44 or portion thereof, over 50,000 SF

1.0 1.0
$ 242.40
$ 108.26
$ 134.14
224%
$ 338.25
$ 160.03
$ 178.22
2110/6
45 0
-
-
$ -
$ -
$ -
0%
$ -
$ -
$ -
0%
46 TI - Tenant Improvements - up to 2,500 sf

73.0 73.0
$ 991.12
$ 1,651.24
$ (660.12)
60%
$ 1,486.08
$ 887.63
$ 598.45
167%
47 TI - Tenant Improvements - 2,501- 5,000 sf

40.0 40.0
$ 3,249.97
$ 2,512.61
$ 737.36
129%
$ 4,874.95
$ 1,247.30
$ 3,627.65
391 %
48 TI - Tenant Improvements - 5,001-20,000 sf

32.0 32.0
$ 6,253.89
$ 3,202.33
$ 3,051.56
195%
$ 9,379.94
$ 2,906.40
$ 6,473.54
323%
TI - Tenant Improvements - each additional
49 1,000 sf, or portion thereof, over 20,000 SF

9.0 9.0
$ 258.87
$ 104.48
$ 154.39
248%
$ 390.70
$ 177.33
$ 213.37
220%
50 0
-
-
$ -
$ -
$ -
0%
$ -
$ -
$ -
0%
NC - OSHPOD Category 2 and above (Surgery
51 Centers, Dialysis) - up to 5,000 sf
$ 3,758.35
$ 6,131.79
$ (2,373.44)
61%
$ 5,637.53
$ 3,695.01
$ 1,942.52
153%
NC - OSHPOD Category 2 and above (Surgery
52 Centers, Dialysis) - 5,001-15,000 sf
Lj $ 4,907.43
$ 7,430.61
$ (2,523.18)
66%
$ 7,361.14
$ 4,859.36
$ 2,501.78
151 %
Wohlford Consulting Appendix 1b - Page 2 of 26 September 28, 2023