HomeMy WebLinkAbout030717 - Agenda - Regular Meetingvllai llwi llu
City Council Agenda
Tuesday, March 7, 2017
Study Session 1 r Room
The Government Center
South Coast Air Quality Management District/
Main Auditorium
21865 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765
JIMMY LIN
RUTH M. LOW
Mayor
Mayor Pro Tem
CAROL HERRERA NANCY A. LYONS
STEVE TYE
Council Member Council Member
Council Member
City Manager James DeStefano • City Attorney David DeBerry • City Clerk Tommye Cribbins
Copies of staff reports or other written documentation relating to agenda items are on file in the Office of the City Clerk, and are
available for public inspection. If requested, the agenda will be made available in an alternative format to a person with
disability as required by Section 202 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. If you have questions regarding an agenda
item, please contact the City Clerk at (909) 839-7010 during regular business hours.
In an effort to comply with the requirements of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, the City of Diamond Bar
requires that any person in need of any type of special equipment, assistance or accommodation(s) in order to communicate at
a City public meeting, must inform the City Clerk a minimum of 72 hours prior to the scheduled meeting.
Have online access? City Council Agendas are now available on the City of Diamond Bar's web site at
www.CityofD!amondBar.com
Please refrain from smoking, eating or drinking in the Council Chambers. The City of Diamond Bar uses recycled
paper and encourages you to do the same.
DIAMOND BAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING RULES
Welcome to the meeting of the Diamond Bar City Council. Meetings are open to the public and
are broadcast live on Time-Warner Cable Channel 3 and Verizon FiOS television Channel 47.
You are invited to attend and participate.
PUBLIC INPUT
Members of the public may address the Council on any item of business on the agenda during
the time the item is taken up by the Council. In addition, members of the public may, during the
Public Comment period address the Council on any Consent Calendar item or any matter not on
the agenda and within the Council’s subject matter jurisdiction. Persons wishing to speak
should submit a speaker slip to the City Clerk. Any material to be submitted to the City Council
at the meeting should be submitted through the City Clerk.
Speakers are limited to five minutes per agenda item, unless the Mayor determines otherwise.
The Mayor may adjust this time limit depending on the number of people wishing to speak, the
complexity of the matter, the length of the agenda, the hour and any other relevant
consideration. Speakers may address the Council only once on an agenda item, except during
public hearings, when the applicant/appellant may be afforded a rebuttal.
Public comments must be directed to the City Council. Behavior that disrupts the orderly
conduct of the meeting may result in the speaker being removed from the Council chambers.
INFORMATION RELATING TO AGENDAS AND ACTIONS OF THE COUNCIL
Agendas for regular City Council meetings are available 72 hours prior to the meeting and are
posted in the City’s regular posting locations, on DBTV Channel 3, Time-Warner Cable Channel
3, FiOS television Channel 47 and on the City’s website at www.ci.diamond-bar.ca.us. A full
agenda packet is available for review during the meeting, in the foyer just outside the Council
chambers. The City Council may take action on any item listed on the agenda.
ACCOMMODATIONS FOR THE DISABLED
A cordless microphone is available for those persons with mobility impairments who cannot
access the podium in order to make a public comment. Sign language interpretation is available
by providing the City Clerk three business days’ notice in advance of a meeting. Please
telephone (909) 839-7010 between 7:30 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. Monday through Thursday and 7:30
a.m. to 5:30 p.m. on Fridays.
HELPFUL PHONE NUMBERS
Copies of agendas, rules of the Council, Cassette/Video tapes of meetings: (909) 839-7010
Computer access to agendas: www.ci.diamond-bar.ca.us
General information: (909) 839-7000
Written materials distributed to the City Council within 72 hours of the City Council meeting are
available for public inspection immediately upon distribution in the City Clerk’s Office at 21810 Copley
Dr., Diamond Bar, California, during normal business hours.
THIS MEETING IS BEING BROADCAST LIVE FOR VIEWING ON TIME-
WARNER CABLE CHANNEL 3 AND FRONTIER FiOS TELEVISION
CHANNEL 47, AS WELL AS BY STREAMING VIDEO OVER THE INTERNET
AND BY REMAINING IN THE ROOM, YOU ARE GIVING YOUR PERMISSION
TO BE TELEVISED. THIS MEETING WILL BE RE-BROADCAST EVERY
SATURDAY AND SUNDAY AT 9:00 A.M. AND ALTERNATE TUESDAYS AT
8:00 P.M. AND ARE ALSO AVAILABLE FOR LIVE AND ARCHIVED VIEWING
ON THE CITY’S WEB SITE AT WWW.DIAMONDBARCA.GOV.
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
March 07, 2017
Next Resolution: 2017-07
Next Ordinance: 01(2017)
STUDY SESSION: 5:30 p.m., Room CC-8
1. FEE STUDY UPDATE – DEVELOPMENT & ADMINISTRATIVE
MISCELLANEOUS SERVICES - DISCUSSION AND ACTION.
PUBLIC COMMENT
CALL TO ORDER: 6:30 P.M.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor
INVOCATION: Monsignor James Loughnane
St. Denis Catholic Church
ROLL CALL: Council Members Herrera, Lyons,
Tye, Mayor Pro Tem Low, Mayor Lin
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Mayor
1. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS, CERTIFICATES, PROCLAMATIONS: NONE.
2. CITY MANAGER REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
MARCH 7, 2017 PAGE 2
3. PUBLIC COMMENTS:
"Public Comments" is the time reserved on each regular meeting agenda to
provide an opportunity for members of the public to directly address the Council
on Consent Calendar items or matters of interest to the public that are not
already scheduled for consideration on this agenda. Although the City Council
values your comments, pursuant to the Brown Act, the Council generally cannot
take any action on items not listed on the posted agenda. Please complete a
Speaker's Card and give it to the City Clerk (completion of this form is voluntary).
There is a five-minute maximum time limit when addressing the City Council.
4. RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Under the Brown Act, members of the City Council may briefly respond to public
comments but no extended discussion and no action on such matters may take
place.
5. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS:
5.1 Traffic and Transportation Commission Meeting - March 9, 2017 - 7:00
p.m., Windmill Community Room, 21810 Copley Drive.
5.2 Planning Commission Meeting - March 14, 2017 - 7:00 p.m., Windmill
Community Room, 21810 Copley Drive.
5.3 City Council Meeting - March 21, 2017 - 6:30 p.m., AQMD/Government
Center Auditorium, 21865 Copley Drive.
5.4 Joint Meeting of the City Council and Planning Commission - March 29,
2017 - 6:30 p.m., Windmill Community Room, 21810 Copley Drive.
5.5 State of the City - March 30, 2017 - 6:00 p.m., Diamond Bar Center Grand
View Ball Room, 1600 South Grand Avenue.
6. CONSENT CALENDAR:
6.1 WAIVE READING IN FULL FOR ALL ORDINANCES AND
RESOLUTIONS AND ADOPT THE CONSENT CALENDAR.
6.2 APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MINUTES:
6.2.a Study Session of February 21, 2017.
6.2.b Regular Meeting of February 21, 2017.
Recommended Action: Approve.
Requested by: City Clerk
MARCH 7, 2017 PAGE 3
6.3 TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF
JANUARY 12, 2017.
6.3.a Minutes of January 12, 2017.
Recommended Action: Receive and file.
Requested by: Public Works Department
6.4 RATIFICATION OF CHECK REGISTER DATED FEBRUARY 16, 2017
THROUGH MARCH 1, 2017 TOTALING $ 1,357,898.37.
Recommended Action: Ratify.
Requested by: Finance Department
6.5 APPROVAL OF TREASURER'S STATEMENT FOR JANUARY, 2017.
Recommended Action: Approve.
Requested by: Finance Department
6.6 AWARD OF CONTRACT TO OPENGOV, INC., IN THE AMOUNT OF
$32,450 ANNUALLY FOR FINANCIAL AND NON-FINANCIAL
MANAGEMENT SOFTWARE SERVICES.
Recommended Action: Award.
Requested by: Finance Department
7. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
7.1 ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 0X(2017): AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
DIAMOND BAR MOVING CITY COUNCIL ELECTIONS TO A
STATEWIDE GENERAL ELECTION DATE AS REQUIRED BY STATE
LAW.
Recommended Action: Receive Staff's Presentation, Open the Public
Hearing, Receive Testimony, Close the Public Hearing, Discuss and
Adopt.
Requested by: City Manager
8. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: NONE.
9. COUNCIL SUB-COMMITTEE REPORTS AND MEETING ATTENDANCE
REPORTS/COUNCIL MEMBER COMMENTS:
10. ADJOURNMENT:
Agenda #: 1
Meeting Date: March 7, 2017
CITY COUNCIL STUDY S ESSION REPORT
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: James DeStefano, City Manager
FROM: Ryan McLean, Assistant City Manager
TITLE: FEE STUDY UPDATE – DEVELOPMENT & ADMINISTRATIVE
MISCELLANEOUS SERVICES - DISCUSSION AND ACTION.
BACKGROUND:
The City of Diamond Bar provides customer service-focused and cost-effective
municipal services to the public. These services can be classified as community
supported services or personal choice services. Community supported services have an
implicit rationale for subsidization based on overall community welfare, such as social
and safety services like parks and public safety, and are generally funded with taxes.
Personal choice services are those provided directly to individuals for personal benefit
that can be otherwise withheld for non-payment, such as building permits and facility
rentals. The general assumption is that the cost of providing personal choice services is
that their cost should be primarily borne by the individual receiving the benefit rather
than be subsidized by the taxpayer.
Cities customarily perform fee study updates at regular intervals to determine if fees are
in line with operating costs and to make policy decisions to determine the appropriate
level of subsidy, if any. The City’s most recent analysis was performed in 2009, which
resulted in the City Council adopting a three year phased fee increase plus an annual
Consumer Price Index (CPI) adjustment each fiscal year thereafter. The City Council’s
2009 action did not result in full cost recovery, and the majority of personal choice
services remain subsidized today.
In 2016, the City Manager authorized Revenue Cost Specialists (RCS) to perform a
comprehensive user fee study for a total not-to-exceed cost of $26,000. RCS is an
expert in the field of cost analysis, completing comprehensive fee studies that provide a
documented and systematic approach to managing fees and maintaining long -term
financial sustainability for cities across the state. The RCS report was commissioned
with the following goals in mind:
1. Conduct a cost and revenue analysis to determine the fully-burdened cost of
1
Packet Pg. 6
personal choice services, including all direct and indirect costs, and identify
subsidies.
2. Identify the beneficiary of City services to determine if the r ecipient is paying in
relationship to the benefits derived or if the service has community benefits and
is deserving of subsidy.
3. Develop a legally defensible baseline for calculating personal services fees under
the “costs reasonably borne” test under Article XIIB of the California Constitution.
The test provides that the City is entitled to collect fees for personal choice
services that include all applicable direct and indirect costs, overhead, and debt
service costs as established in the study. While the City Council may choose to
subsidize any or all personal choice services, failing to collect all costs
reasonably borne in providing the service will lead to inequity between taxpayers
and the recipient of the service (taxpayer subsidization).
4. Recommend fee and policy adjustments to ensure the City’s long-term financial
health and ability to maintain service levels.
To develop the report and meet these goals, RCS conducted extensive interviews
across departments over a period of months, establishing tim e and volume data for
each service while compiling associated overhead costs (personnel/consultants, facility
costs, maintenance, equipment and supplies, other administrative overhead, etc.). This
complete approach provides a more accurate reflection of th e true cost of each service
than would a standardized blended hourly personnel rate.
DISCUSSION:
The results of the study show that full costs of delivering fee -financed personal choice
services exceed current and expected fee revenues on an annual basis in all service
centers (Development Services, Parks & Recreation, & Administrative/Miscellaneous
Services), meaning that tax dollars are diverted to subsidize the difference between fee
revenues collected and full business costs incurred.
Acknowledging the extensive amount of services provided and complexity of the policy
matters related to the fee study, staff will present recommendations for Parks &
Recreation to the City Council at a future meeting and will focus now on the results for
Development and Administrative/Miscellaneous Services.
Development Services are classified as those services provided by the Community
Development and Public Works Departments, specifically under the Building & Safety,
Engineering, and Planning Divisions. Specific services include development, plot plan,
and environmental reviews, plan checks and inspections, and various permits (building,
grading, CUP/TUP, encroachment, etc.), among many others. These personal choice
services mainly benefit a developer or specific proper ty owner and their costs would not
otherwise be borne by the City. In FY 2015-16, the City’s Development Services fees
were subsidized by 38.3%, for a total taxpayer subsidy of $917,534.
Administrative/Miscellaneous Services include a variety of services not classified under
the City’s other service centers. These include various permits (film, self -haul, parking,
etc.), false alarm billing, and NSF check fees, among others. Like Development
1
Packet Pg. 7
Services outlined above, these personal choice services benefit or are otherwise the
result of individual action and would not otherwise be borne by the City. In FY 2015 -16,
the City’s Administrative/Miscellaneous Services fees were subsidized by 14.2%, for a
total taxpayer subsidy of $25,493.
It should be noted that any fees found in the study to be exceeding the costs reasonably
borne will be reduced to the correct level.
ANALYSIS:
The City Council has a 28-year history of prudent fiscal management, resulting in
balanced budgets and significant reserves, even in th e midst of the 2008 national
economic recession. To maintain this strong foundation as the City matures, the City
Council should enact policy that protects long-term financial sustainability and the City’s
limited revenue sources. As a primarily built-out bedroom community, Diamond Bar’s
large-scale commercial growth potential is inherently limited, and the City does not
currently have the luxury of a mall, auto dealerships, or major tourist attractions that
generate significant sales and transient occupanc y tax revenues. Furthermore,
Diamond Bar’s 5.9% share of the County property tax pool is among the lowest in the
County, offering little cushion to absorb subsidies over time.
These facts highlight the need to maintain strategic fiscal management and redu ce tax
subsidies so those monies can be used to pay for services with community-wide
benefits. As costs increase over time, the City’s tax subsidies for personal choice
services will also increase, leaving the Council with a choice between continuing
taxpayer subsidies and reducing service levels or adjusting fees to capture the costs
reasonably borne by providing the service to an individual or developer. To better
account for the City’s ongoing business costs, it is appropriate to make adjustments to
fees for those services.
Therefore, staff recommends that the City Council move to eliminate tax subsidies for
personal choice services in the Development and Administrative/Miscellaneous
Services categories, with some minor exceptions as noted in the attached matrices
(Exhibits A, B, & C). Approval of this recommendation would result in a conservatively
estimated subsidy reduction of $652,675.
To provide additional context to the discussion, staff has included the following
examples.
Example 1: Business License Fees
The vast majority of California cities require licensing for all businesses. This regulatory
permit provides a check to ensure all businesses within the city limits are in compliance
with local zoning requirements and city ordinances. Many cities base business license
fees on gross receipts, generating significant annual revenues to the City. To maintain
the City’s commitment to business-friendly practices, Diamond Bar’s business license
initiation and renewal fees are set at $11 annually. These r ates are unchanged with
staff’s recommendation.
Example 2: Water Heater/Dishwasher Permit
A water heater/dishwasher installation permit is a common building and safety plumbing
1
Packet Pg. 8
inspection/permitting service. The permit fee is made up of the following comp onents,
as follows:
Water Heater/Dishwasher Permit
Component Current Proposed Change
Plumbing Inspection Fee $61.62 $53.68 -$7.94
Permit Fee $36.12 $43.34 $7.22
Retention Fee $2.00 $4.85 $2.85
Total $99.74 $101.87 $2.13
Example 3: Reroof (2,200 square feet)
Reroofing permits and inspections are common services requested by homeowners.
The total permit fee is made up of the following components, as follows:
Reroof (2,200 square feet)
Component Current Proposed Change
Construction Inspection
Fee
$192.22 $230.68 $38.47
Permit Fee $36.12 $43.34 $7.22
Retention Fee $2.00 $13.70 $12.70
SMIP (State Fee) $2.00 $2.00 $0.00
BASF (State Fee) $1.00 $1.00 $0.00
Total $233.34 $290.72 $57.38
Example 4: Electrical Panel Upgrade (200)
This example shows the proposed change in cost for an electrical permit and
inspection.
Electrical Panel Upgrade (200)
Component Current Proposed Change
Electrical Inspection Fee $72.28 $87.90 $15.62
Permit Fee $36.12 $43.34 $7.22
Retention Fee $2.00 $6.56 $4.56
Total $110.40 $137.80 $27.40
Example 5: Solar Plan Check/Inspection (7.56kW roof system)
More and more homeowners are choosing to install rooftop solar generating systems on
their properties to reduce energy costs and produce clean energy.
Solar Plan Check/Inspection (7.56kW roof system)
Category Current Proposed Change
Single Family Residence $500.00
(+ $15 per kW)
$305.00 -$195.00
Commercial Structure $1,000.00
(+ $7 per kW)
$1,050.00
(+$5 per kW)
$50.00
1
Packet Pg. 9
Example 6: Streamlined Plot Plan Review
This is a service reviews design and code/zoning compliance for a project with an
addition of 300-500 square feet. This service requires significant staff processing time
(nearly four hours on average) and is currently highly subsidized. To reduce costs to
homeowners in the future, this service has been separated from a standard plot plan
review that carries a higher fee (they are currently bundled with standard/larger plot
plans).
Streamlined Plot Plan Review
Current Proposed Change
$245.62 $590.00 $344.38
Example 7: Plot Plan Review
This service reviews design and code/zoning compliance for more significant projects
such as a new second story or an addition not more than 50% of the existing square
feet. This service requires significant staff processing time (more than 10 hours on
average) and is currently highly subsidized.
Plot Plan Review
Current Proposed Change
$245.62 $1,670 $344.38
Example 8: NSF Check Processing (Administrative/Miscellaneous Services example)
This service is for processing an insufficient funds check.
NSF Check Processing
Current Proposed Change
$15.00 per check $46.00 per check $31.00
CONCLUSION:
Staff requests that the City Council review the results and recommendations and
provide direction to staff. Upon receipt of the Council’s direction, staff will prepare a
Master Fee Resolution for Development and Administrative/Miscellaneous Fee for
consideration and adoption at an upcoming meeting. As mentioned above, staff will
present the results and recommendations for Parks & Recreation at a later date.
Attachments:
1. 1.a Cost of Services Study - Attachment A Planning Engineering
2. 1.b Cost of Services Study - Attachment B Building
3. 1.c Cost of Services Study - Attachment C Admin Services
1
Packet Pg. 10
APPENDIX A
SUMMARY OF CURRENT AND
PROPOSED FEES FOR
PLANNING
ENGINEERING
1.a
Packet Pg. 11
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
1
.
a
:
C
o
s
t
o
f
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
S
t
u
d
y
-
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
A
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
(
1
1
9
9
:
F
e
e
S
t
u
d
y
)
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
FEE COMPARISON REPORT
FY 2016-2017
January 31, 2017 1
REF #: S-001 TITLE: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - MINOR
CURRENT FEE RECOMMENDED FEE
$1,444.81 Deposit $1,595 per application plus $2,000 deposit with charges at the
fully allocated hourly rates for all project personnel plus any
outside costs.
REF #: S-002 TITLE: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - MAJOR
CURRENT FEE RECOMMENDED FEE
$2,889.62 Deposit $1,995 per application plus $4,000 deposit with charges at the
fully allocated hourly rates for all project personnel plus any
outside costs.
REF #: S-003 TITLE: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT
CURRENT FEE RECOMMENDED FEE
None $2,835 per application
REF #: S-004 TITLE: ADMINISTRATIVE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
CURRENT FEE RECOMMENDED FEE
$1,444.81 Deposit $1,755 per application plus $2,000 deposit with charges at the
fully allocated hourly rates for all project personnel plus any
outside costs.
REF #: S-005 TITLE: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
CURRENT FEE RECOMMENDED FEE
$2,889.62 Deposit $2,855 per application plus $5,000 deposit with charges at the
fully allocated hourly rates for all project personnel plus any
outside costs.
REF #: S-006 TITLE: PLOT PLAN REVIEW
CURRENT FEE RECOMMENDED FEE
$245.62 per project $1,670 per application
1.a
Packet Pg. 12
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
1
.
a
:
C
o
s
t
o
f
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
S
t
u
d
y
-
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
A
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
(
1
1
9
9
:
F
e
e
S
t
u
d
y
)
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
FEE COMPARISON REPORT
FY 2016-2017
January 31, 2017 2
REF #: S-007 TITLE: STREAMLINED PLOT PLAN REVIEW
CURRENT FEE RECOMMENDED FEE
$245.62 per application $590 per application
REF #: S-008 TITLE: ZONING CLEARANCE
CURRENT FEE RECOMMENDED FEE
$43.34 per application $75 per application
REF #: S-009 TITLE: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
CURRENT FEE RECOMMENDED FEE
$5,849.92 Deposit $10,000 deposit with charges at the fully allocated hourly rates
for all personnel involved plus any outside costs.
REF #: S-010 TITLE: SPECIFIC PLAN
CURRENT FEE RECOMMENDED FEE
$5,779.25 Deposit $10,000 deposit with charges at the fully allocated hourly rates
for all personnel involved plus any outside costs.
REF #: S-011 TITLE: SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
CURRENT FEE RECOMMENDED FEE
None $5,000 deposit with charges at the fully allocated hourly rates for
all personnel involved plus any outside costs.
REF #: S-012 TITLE: ZONING CODE AMENDMENT
CURRENT FEE RECOMMENDED FEE
$5,779.24 Deposit $10,000 deposit with charges at the fully allocated hourly rates
for all personnel involved plus any outside costs.
1.a
Packet Pg. 13
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
1
.
a
:
C
o
s
t
o
f
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
S
t
u
d
y
-
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
A
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
(
1
1
9
9
:
F
e
e
S
t
u
d
y
)
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
FEE COMPARISON REPORT
FY 2016-2017
January 31, 2017 3
REF #: S-013 TITLE: ZONING MAP AMENDMENT
CURRENT FEE RECOMMENDED FEE
$5,779.24 Deposit $10,000 deposit with charges at the fully allocated hourly rates
for all personnel involved plus any outside costs.
REF #: S-014 TITLE: DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
CURRENT FEE RECOMMENDED FEE
$4,334.43 Deposit $10,000 deposit with charges at the fully allocated hourly rates
for all personnel involved plus any outside costs.
REF #: S-015 TITLE: ANNEXATION
CURRENT FEE RECOMMENDED FEE
$5,779.24 Deposit $10,000 deposit with charges at the fully allocated hourly rates
for all personnel involved plus any outside costs.
REF #: S-016 TITLE: DENSITY BONUS
CURRENT FEE RECOMMENDED FEE
None $5,000 deposit with charges at the fully allocated hourly rates for
all personnel involved plus any outside costs.
REF #: S-017 TITLE: VARIANCE
CURRENT FEE RECOMMENDED FEE
$2,889.62 Deposit $5,000 deposit with charges at the fully allocated hourly rates for
all personnel involved plus any outside costs.
REF #: S-018 TITLE: MINOR VARIANCE
CURRENT FEE RECOMMENDED FEE
$614.04 per application $1,420 per application
1.a
Packet Pg. 14
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
1
.
a
:
C
o
s
t
o
f
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
S
t
u
d
y
-
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
A
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
(
1
1
9
9
:
F
e
e
S
t
u
d
y
)
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
FEE COMPARISON REPORT
FY 2016-2017
January 31, 2017 4
REF #: S-019 TITLE: ENVIRONMENTAL CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION
CURRENT FEE RECOMMENDED FEE
$36.12 per application plus State and County fees $75 per application plus State and County fees
REF #: S-020 TITLE: ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CURRENT FEE RECOMMENDED FEE
Actual Costs with deposit determined by staff Deposit determined by staff with charges at the fully allocated
hourly rates for all personnel involved plus any outside costs.
REF #: S-021 TITLE: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
CURRENT FEE RECOMMENDED FEE
Actual Costs with deposit determined by staff Deposit determined by staff with charges at the fully allocated
hourly rates for all personnel involved plus any outside costs.
REF #: S-022 TITLE: MITIGATION MONITORING
CURRENT FEE RECOMMENDED FEE
Actual Costs with deposit determined by staff Deposit determined by staff with charges at the fully allocated
hourly rates for all personnel involved plus any outside costs.
REF #: S-023 TITLE: TENTATIVE MAP REVIEW
CURRENT FEE RECOMMENDED FEE
Tenative Parcel Map - $4,334.43 Deposit
Tentative Tract Map - $7,224.05 Deposit
Parcel Map Waiver - $1,413.62 Deposit
Revision after Map is Approved - $2,889.62 Deposit
Tentative Parcel Map - $5,000 deposit with charges at the fully
allocated hourly rates for all personnel involved plus any outside
costs.
Tentative Tract Map - $10,000 deposit with charges at the fully
allocated hourly rates for all personnel involved plus any outside
costs.
REF #: S-024 TITLE: CC&R REVIEW
CURRENT FEE RECOMMENDED FEE
$2,167.21 Deposit $5,000 deposit with charges at the fully allocated hourly rates for
all personnel involved plus any outside costs.
1.a
Packet Pg. 15
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
1
.
a
:
C
o
s
t
o
f
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
S
t
u
d
y
-
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
A
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
(
1
1
9
9
:
F
e
e
S
t
u
d
y
)
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
FEE COMPARISON REPORT
FY 2016-2017
January 31, 2017 5
REF #: S-025 TITLE: JOINT USE PARKING PERMIT AGREEMENT
CURRENT FEE RECOMMENDED FEE
No Public Hearing - $614.04 deposit
With Public Hearing - $1,444.81 deposit
Deposit determined by staff with charges at the fully allocated
hourly rates for all personnel involved plus any outside costs.
REF #: S-026 TITLE: LANDSCAPE PLAN CHECK
CURRENT FEE RECOMMENDED FEE
Contract cost plus 18% $340 per application plus any outside costs
REF #: S-027 TITLE: LARGE FAMILY DAY CARE PERMIT
CURRENT FEE RECOMMENDED FEE
No Public Hearing - $2,039.58 per application
With Public Hearing - $4,342.32 per application
This fee is already covered as a Conditional Use Permit (T-002),
and therefore should be removed as a separate fee.
REF #: S-028 TITLE: COMPREHENSIVE SIGN PROGRAM
CURRENT FEE RECOMMENDED FEE
$1,011.37 Deposit $1,620 per application plus $2,000 deposit with charges at the
fully allocated hourly rates for all project personnel plus any
outside costs.
REF #: S-029 TITLE: SIGN REVIEW
CURRENT FEE RECOMMENDED FEE
$72.25 per application $125 per application
REF #: S-030 TITLE: TEMPORARY SIGN REVIEW
CURRENT FEE RECOMMENDED FEE
$36.12 per application plus a $100 refundable deposit when sign
is removed
$70 per application
1.a
Packet Pg. 16
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
1
.
a
:
C
o
s
t
o
f
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
S
t
u
d
y
-
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
A
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
(
1
1
9
9
:
F
e
e
S
t
u
d
y
)
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
FEE COMPARISON REPORT
FY 2016-2017
January 31, 2017 6
REF #: S-031 TITLE: MILLS ACT PROCESSING
CURRENT FEE RECOMMENDED FEE
None $5,000 deposit with charges at the fully allocated hourly rates for
all personnel involved plus any outside costs.
REF #: S-032 TITLE: ADULT ORIENTED BUSINESS/ENTERTAINER
CURRENT FEE RECOMMENDED FEE
$2,570.49 Deposit $2,160 per application
REF #: S-033 TITLE: PUBLIC CONVENIENCE & NEC. (ABC) REV
CURRENT FEE RECOMMENDED FEE
$245.62 per application $385 per application
REF #: S-034 TITLE: TREE PERMIT
CURRENT FEE RECOMMENDED FEE
No Public Hearing - $614.04 per application
With Public Hearing - $1,011.37 Deposit
No Public Hearing - $1,185 per application
With Public Hearing - $2,500 deposit with charges at the fully
allocated hourly rates for all personnel involved plus any outside
costs.
REF #: S-035 TITLE: ANIMAL PERMIT
CURRENT FEE RECOMMENDED FEE
No Public Hearing - $245.62 per application
With Public Hearing - $1,011.37 Deposit
Deposit determined by staff with charges at the fully allocated
hourly rates for all personnel involved plus any outside costs.
REF #: S-036 TITLE: TEMPORARY USE PERMIT
CURRENT FEE RECOMMENDED FEE
No Public Hearing - $245.62 per application
With Public Hearing - $1,011.37 Deposit
$250 per application
1.a
Packet Pg. 17
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
1
.
a
:
C
o
s
t
o
f
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
S
t
u
d
y
-
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
A
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
(
1
1
9
9
:
F
e
e
S
t
u
d
y
)
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
FEE COMPARISON REPORT
FY 2016-2017
January 31, 2017 7
REF #: S-037 TITLE: PLANNING INTERPRETATION
CURRENT FEE RECOMMENDED FEE
$712.82 Deposit $975 per application
REF #: S-038 TITLE: PRELIMINARY PROJECT REVIEW
CURRENT FEE RECOMMENDED FEE
$1,444.81 Deposit $1,835 per application
50% of this fee will be credited towards future Planning fees for
this project
REF #: S-039 TITLE: EXTENSION OF TIME
CURRENT FEE RECOMMENDED FEE
No Public Hearing - $122.81 per application
With Public Hearing - $1,011.37 per application
No Public Hearing - $150 per application
With Public Hearing - $2,835 per application
REF #: S-040 TITLE: PLANNING APPEAL
CURRENT FEE RECOMMENDED FEE
$722.40 per appeal plus additional costs determined by
Community Development Director if needed
$3,575 per appeal
REF #: S-041 TITLE: MISCELLANEOUS/SPECIAL STUDY REVIEW
CURRENT FEE RECOMMENDED FEE
Actual cost of providing document plus City Overhead Deposit determined by staff with charges at the fully allocated
hourly rates for all personnel involved plus any outside costs.
REF #: S-042 TITLE: NEW BUSINESS LICENSE PROCESSING
CURRENT FEE RECOMMENDED FEE
$10 per application plus $1 State fee $38 per application plus $1 State fee
1.a
Packet Pg. 18
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
1
.
a
:
C
o
s
t
o
f
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
S
t
u
d
y
-
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
A
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
(
1
1
9
9
:
F
e
e
S
t
u
d
y
)
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
FEE COMPARISON REPORT
FY 2016-2017
January 31, 2017 8
REF #: S-043 TITLE: RENEWAL BUSINESS LICENSE PROCESSING
CURRENT FEE RECOMMENDED FEE
$10 per renewal plus $1 State fee $17 per renewal plus $1 State fee
REF #: S-044 TITLE: FINAL MAP REVIEW
CURRENT FEE RECOMMENDED FEE
1-5 lots - $1,444.81
6-10 lots - $1,878.25
11-25 lots - $2,528.42
26-50 lots - $4,045.47
51-100 lots - $6,284.92
101-150 lots - $9,391.26
151+ lots $9,391.26 plus $50.57 per lot over 150
Certificate of Compliance - $568.80
Minimum $2,500 deposit with charges at the fully allocated
hourly rates for all personnel involved plus any outside costs.
REF #: S-045 TITLE: LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT
CURRENT FEE RECOMMENDED FEE
$2,889.62 Deposit Minimum $2,500 deposit with charges at the fully allocated
hourly rates for all personnel involved plus any outside costs.
REF #: S-046 TITLE: CERTIFICATE OF CORRECTION/MAP AMEND
CURRENT FEE RECOMMENDED FEE
$2,531.99 Deposit Minimum $2,500 deposit with charges at the fully allocated
hourly rates for all personnel involved plus any outside costs.
REF #: S-047 TITLE: DEDICATION/EASEMENT/VACATION REVIEW
CURRENT FEE RECOMMENDED FEE
1-10,000 square feet - $1,806.01 per application
10,000+ square feet - $4,334,43 per application
Minimum $2,500 deposit with charges at the fully allocated
hourly rates for all personnel involved plus any outside costs.
1.a
Packet Pg. 19
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
1
.
a
:
C
o
s
t
o
f
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
S
t
u
d
y
-
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
A
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
(
1
1
9
9
:
F
e
e
S
t
u
d
y
)
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
FEE COMPARISON REPORT
FY 2016-2017
January 31, 2017 9
REF #: S-048 TITLE: GRADING PLAN REVIEW
CURRENT FEE RECOMMENDED FEE
50-100 CY - $316.27
101-1,000 CY - $279.66 plus $72.74 per 100 CY in excess of
101
1,001-10,000 CY - $1,123.48 plus $77.88 per 1,000 CY in
excess of 1,001
10,001-100,000 CY - $1,824.36 plus $46.23 per 1,000 CY in
excess of 10,001
100K-500K CY - $4,773.62 plus $127.29 per 10K CY in excess
of 100K
500,001+ CY - $6,138.27 plus $127.29 per 10K CY in excess of
500K
50-100 CY - $1,065
101-1,000 CY - $1,065 plus $22 per 100 CY in excess of 101
1,001-10,000 CY - $1,263 plus $60 per 1,000 CY in excess of
1,001
10,001+ CY - Deposit determined by staff with charges at the
fully allocated hourly rates for all personnel involved plus any
outside costs
REF #: S-049 TITLE: GRADING INSPECTION
CURRENT FEE RECOMMENDED FEE
50-100 CY - $245.62
101-1,000 CY - $268.01 plus $78.60 per 100 CY in excess of
101
1,001-10,000 CY - $976.11 plus $65.88 per 1,000 CY in excess
of 1,001
10,001-100,000 CY - $1,568.20 plus $42.04 per 1,000 CY in
excess of 10,001
100,000+ CY - $2,567.26 plus $104.089 per 10,000 CY in
excess of 100,001
50-100 CY - $700
101-1,000 CY - $700 plus $7.50 per 100 CY in excess of 101
1,001-10,000 CY - $768 plus $87 per 1,000 CY in excess of
1,001
10,001+ CY - Deposit determined by staff with charges at the
fully allocated hourly rates for all personnel involved plus any
outside costs
REF #: S-050 TITLE: IMPROVEMENT PLAN CHECK/INSPECTION
CURRENT FEE RECOMMENDED FEE
Street Plan Check - $0.17 per linear foot, minimum of $736.85
Street Inspection - $0.07 per Linear Foot, minimum of $772.97
Sewer Plan Check - $2.46 per linear foot, minimum of $368.43
Sewer Inspection - $3.76 per Linear Foot, minimum of $527.36
Storm Drain Plan Check - $2.46 per linear foot, minimum of
$325.08
Storm Drain Inspection - $3.76 per Linear Foot, minimum of
$469.56
As-Builts - $2,889.62 minimum deposit
Change of Plans - $2,889.62 minimum deposit
As-Builts - $3,000 deposit with charges at the fully allocated
hourly rates for all personnel involved plus any outside costs.
Other - Deposit determined by staff with charges at the fully
allocated hourly rates for all personnel involved plus any outside
costs.
REF #: S-051 TITLE: DRAIN/EROSION CONTROL PLAN REV/INSP
CURRENT FEE RECOMMENDED FEE
$245.62 per application $245 per application
1.a
Packet Pg. 20
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
1
.
a
:
C
o
s
t
o
f
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
S
t
u
d
y
-
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
A
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
(
1
1
9
9
:
F
e
e
S
t
u
d
y
)
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
FEE COMPARISON REPORT
FY 2016-2017
January 31, 2017 10
REF #: S-052 TITLE: LOW IMPACT DEVELOP PLAN REVIEW
CURRENT FEE RECOMMENDED FEE
SUSMP - $2,889.62 Deposit Deposit determined by staff with charges at the fully allocated
hourly rates for all personnel involved plus any outside costs.
REF #: S-053 TITLE: STORMWATER PROTECT PLAN REV/INSPECT
CURRENT FEE RECOMMENDED FEE
None Deposit determined by staff with charges at the fully allocated
hourly rates for all personnel involved plus any outside costs.
REF #: S-054 TITLE: STORMWATER BUSINESS INSPECTION
CURRENT FEE RECOMMENDED FEE
None $300 per inspection
REF #: S-055 TITLE: STORM DRAIN TRANSFER TO COUNTY
CURRENT FEE RECOMMENDED FEE
$1,011.37 per application $660 per application
REF #: S-056 TITLE: STOCKPILE/BORROW SITE PLAN REVIEW
CURRENT FEE RECOMMENDED FEE
$281.74 per plan $155 per plan
REF #: S-057 TITLE: STOCKPILE/BORROW SITE INSPECTION
CURRENT FEE RECOMMENDED FEE
$217.34 per permit $155 per permit
1.a
Packet Pg. 21
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
1
.
a
:
C
o
s
t
o
f
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
S
t
u
d
y
-
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
A
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
(
1
1
9
9
:
F
e
e
S
t
u
d
y
)
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
FEE COMPARISON REPORT
FY 2016-2017
January 31, 2017 11
REF #: S-058 TITLE: ENGINEERING REPORT REVIEW
CURRENT FEE RECOMMENDED FEE
$2,626.25 Deposit Minimum $2,500 deposit with charges at the fully allocated
hourly rates for all personnel involved plus any outside costs.
REF #: S-059 TITLE: GEOTECHNICAL OBSERVATION/REPORT REV
CURRENT FEE RECOMMENDED FEE
Observation - $2,667.02 Deposit
Report Review - $2,928.39 Deposit
Minimum $2,500 deposit with charges at the fully allocated
hourly rates for all personnel involved plus any outside costs.
REF #: S-060 TITLE: CHANGE OF ADDRESS REQUEST
CURRENT FEE RECOMMENDED FEE
$369.66 per application $400 per application
REF #: S-061 TITLE: CURB/GUTTER ENCROACHMENT PERMIT
CURRENT FEE RECOMMENDED FEE
Plan Check - $0.66 per linear foot, minimum of $122.81
Inspection - $0.66 per Linear Foot, minimum of $281.74
$435 per linear foot plus $2 per linear foot over 100 linear feet
REF #: S-062 TITLE: SIDEWALK ENCROACHMENT PERMIT
CURRENT FEE RECOMMENDED FEE
Plan Check - $0.66 per linear foot, minimum of $122.81
Inspection - $0.72 per Linear Foot, minimum of $281.74
$435 per permit plus $2 per linear foot over 100 linear feet
REF #: S-063 TITLE: DRIVEWAY APPROACH ENCROACH PERMIT
CURRENT FEE RECOMMENDED FEE
Plan Check - $122.81 per permit
Inspection - $404.55 per permit
Replacement of Existing - $435 per permit
New/Relocation/Widen - $615 per permit
1.a
Packet Pg. 22
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
1
.
a
:
C
o
s
t
o
f
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
S
t
u
d
y
-
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
A
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
(
1
1
9
9
:
F
e
e
S
t
u
d
y
)
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
FEE COMPARISON REPORT
FY 2016-2017
January 31, 2017 12
REF #: S-064 TITLE: CURB CORE ENCROACHMENT PERMIT
CURRENT FEE RECOMMENDED FEE
$110 per permit $110 per permit
REF #: S-065 TITLE: PARKWAY DRAIN ENCROACHMENT PERMIT
CURRENT FEE RECOMMENDED FEE
$368.43 per permit $370 per permit
REF #: S-066 TITLE: UTILITY STREET CUT ENCROACH PERMIT
CURRENT FEE RECOMMENDED FEE
1-150 LF - $281.74
151-500 LF - $404.55
501-1,000 LF - $527.36
$655 per permit plus $3 per linear foot over 150 linear feet
REF #: S-067 TITLE: NON-STREET CUT UTIL ENCROACH PERMIT
CURRENT FEE RECOMMENDED FEE
None $220 per permit
REF #: S-068 TITLE: UTILITY RESIDENTIAL STREET CLOSURE
CURRENT FEE RECOMMENDED FEE
None $265 per permit
REF #: S-069 TITLE: SEWER LATERAL PERMIT
CURRENT FEE RECOMMENDED FEE
$250.55 per permit plus County fee of $154 $220 per permit plus County fee
1.a
Packet Pg. 23
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
1
.
a
:
C
o
s
t
o
f
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
S
t
u
d
y
-
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
A
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
(
1
1
9
9
:
F
e
e
S
t
u
d
y
)
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
FEE COMPARISON REPORT
FY 2016-2017
January 31, 2017 13
REF #: S-070 TITLE: MONITORING WELL PERMIT
CURRENT FEE RECOMMENDED FEE
Quarterly - $210.54
Semi-Annual - $281.74
Annual - $404.55
$195 per permit
Permit is valid for 90 days.
REF #: S-071 TITLE: DUMPSTER/STORAGE ENCROACH PERMIT
CURRENT FEE RECOMMENDED FEE
Per Day - $65.02
Per Week - $81.52
$35 per permit
Permit is good for 7 days.
REF #: S-072 TITLE: LANE CLOSURE PERMIT
CURRENT FEE RECOMMENDED FEE
$252.84 per week $265 per permit
REF #: S-073 TITLE: OVERWIDE/LONG LOAD PERMIT
CURRENT FEE RECOMMENDED FEE
$16 per permit
County - No Charge
$16 per permit
This fee is set by the State
REF #: S-074 TITLE: TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN/INSPECTION
CURRENT FEE RECOMMENDED FEE
Plan Check - $3,173.30 per sheet deposit
Inspection - $2,631.71 deposit
Deposit determined by staff with charges at the fully allocated
hourly rates for all personnel involved plus any outside costs.
REF #: S-075 TITLE: PERMANENT ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT
CURRENT FEE RECOMMENDED FEE
None New - $295 per application plus any actual legal/outside costs
Existing - $160 per application plus any actual legal/outside
costs
1.a
Packet Pg. 24
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
1
.
a
:
C
o
s
t
o
f
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
S
t
u
d
y
-
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
A
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
(
1
1
9
9
:
F
e
e
S
t
u
d
y
)
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
FEE COMPARISON REPORT
FY 2016-2017
January 31, 2017 14
REF #: S-076 TITLE: ENCROACHMENT PERMIT TIME EXTENSION
CURRENT FEE RECOMMENDED FEE
Unexpired Plan Checks/Permit - $158.93 $25 per application
REF #: S-077 TITLE: HOUSE NUMBER PAINTING PERMIT
CURRENT FEE RECOMMENDED FEE
$1,000 Refundable Deposit $65 per permit plus $1,000 refundable deposit
REF #: S-078 TITLE: OTHER ENGINEER INSPECTION/PLAN REV
CURRENT FEE RECOMMENDED FEE
Plan Review - $2,889.62 Deposit
Inspection - $738.04 Deposit
Minimum $2,500 deposit with charges at the fully allocated
hourly rates for all personnel involved plus any outside costs.
REF #: S-079 TITLE: ENGINEER RE-INSPECT/EXTRA PLAN REV
CURRENT FEE RECOMMENDED FEE
Plan Review - $2,296.49 Deposit
Inspection - $598.13 Deposit
Deposit determined by staff with charges at the fully allocated
hourly rates for all personnel involved plus any outside costs.
REF #: S-080 TITLE: DEVELOPER BASED DEPOSIT REVIEW
CURRENT FEE RECOMMENDED FEE
See Detail on Deposit-Based Service Sheets See Detail on Deposit-Based Service Sheets
REF #: S-081 TITLE: BUILDING PLAN CHECK/INSPECTION
CURRENT FEE RECOMMENDED FEE
New Construction - Various fees based on valuation
Trade Permits - Various fees
See Appendix D for detail
To recover 100% of these costs the City should increase the
current Building Plan Check and Permit fees by 20%.
See Appendix D for detail
1.a
Packet Pg. 25
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
1
.
a
:
C
o
s
t
o
f
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
S
t
u
d
y
-
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
A
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
(
1
1
9
9
:
F
e
e
S
t
u
d
y
)
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
FEE COMPARISON REPORT
FY 2016-2017
January 31, 2017 15
REF #: S-082 TITLE: SOLAR PLAN CHECK/INSPECTION
CURRENT FEE RECOMMENDED FEE
Residential - $500 plus $15 per kW above 15kW
Commercial - $1,000 plus
$7 per kW up to 250kW
$5 per kW above 250 kW
Single Family Residential - $305
Multi Family Residential/Commercial/Industrial - $1,050 plus $5
per kW above 250 kW
REF #: S-083 TITLE: CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY
CURRENT FEE RECOMMENDED FEE
$174.50 per certificate $170 per certificate
REF #: S-084 TITLE: TEMPORARY CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY
CURRENT FEE RECOMMENDED FEE
$98.89 per application $385 per application plus any outside costs
REF #: S-085 TITLE: PRE-ALTERATION INSPECTION
CURRENT FEE RECOMMENDED FEE
$98.89 per inspection $100 per inspection
REF #: S-086 TITLE: BUILDING DEMOLITION INSPECTION
CURRENT FEE RECOMMENDED FEE
$174.50 per permit Complete Demolition - $115 per permit
Partial Demolition - $390 per permit
REF #: S-087 TITLE: ALTERNATE MATERIALS/METHODS REVIEW
CURRENT FEE RECOMMENDED FEE
None $155 per application or actual costs at the discretion of the
Building Official
1.a
Packet Pg. 26
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
1
.
a
:
C
o
s
t
o
f
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
S
t
u
d
y
-
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
A
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
(
1
1
9
9
:
F
e
e
S
t
u
d
y
)
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
FEE COMPARISON REPORT
FY 2016-2017
January 31, 2017 16
REF #: S-088 TITLE: SPECIAL INSPECTOR REVIEW
CURRENT FEE RECOMMENDED FEE
$52.36 per job site per specialty $35 per job site per specialty
REF #: S-089 TITLE: BUILDING PERMIT EXTENSION
CURRENT FEE RECOMMENDED FEE
$98.89 per application $0-$100,000 valuation - $75 per application
$100,001+ valuation - $255 per application
REF #: S-090 TITLE: BUILDING APPEAL
CURRENT FEE RECOMMENDED FEE
None $1,555 per appeal
REF #: S-091 TITLE: BUILDING FEE REFUND
CURRENT FEE RECOMMENDED FEE
None Charge 20% of the original fee amount up to $350 maximum.
REF #: S-092 TITLE: DUPLICATE BUILDING INSPECTION CARD
CURRENT FEE RECOMMENDED FEE
None $25 per card
REF #: S-093 TITLE: AFTER HOURS CONSTRUCTION REVIEW
CURRENT FEE RECOMMENDED FEE
None $260 per application
1.a
Packet Pg. 27
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
1
.
a
:
C
o
s
t
o
f
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
S
t
u
d
y
-
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
A
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
(
1
1
9
9
:
F
e
e
S
t
u
d
y
)
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
FEE COMPARISON REPORT
FY 2016-2017
January 31, 2017 17
REF #: S-094 TITLE: INSPECTION OUTSIDE NORMAL HOURS
CURRENT FEE RECOMMENDED FEE
First 2 hours - $165.38 per inspection
After 2 hours - $165.38 per hour
$150 per hour, 2 hour minimum
REF #: S-096 TITLE: ADDITIONAL PLAN REVIEW/INSPECTION
CURRENT FEE RECOMMENDED FEE
$98.89 per hour Charges at the fully allocated hourly rates for all personnel
involved plus any outside costs.
REF #: S-097 TITLE: BUILDING RECORDS ARCHIVING
CURRENT FEE RECOMMENDED FEE
$2 per permit or plan sheet 5% of all building plan check and permit fees
REF #: S-098 TITLE: PERMIT SYSTEM REPLACEMENT
CURRENT FEE RECOMMENDED FEE
None 4% of Building Plan and Permit Revenues
1.a
Packet Pg. 28
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
1
.
a
:
C
o
s
t
o
f
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
S
t
u
d
y
-
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
A
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
(
1
1
9
9
:
F
e
e
S
t
u
d
y
)
APPENDIX B
DETAIL OF
BUILDING & SAFETY
FEES
1.b
Packet Pg. 29
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
1
.
b
:
C
o
s
t
o
f
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
S
t
u
d
y
-
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
B
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
(
1
1
9
9
:
F
e
e
S
t
u
d
y
)
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
COMMUNITY AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
BUILDING & SAFETY DIVISION
CURRENT PROPOSED
ACTION FEES FEES
Permit Valuation
Based on ICBO/ICC Valuation Guidelines & City Ancillary Table
Special Inspector $52.36 $35.00
Per Job Site, Specialty
Building Permit Fees (Total Valuation)
$0-$700.00 $45.66 $54.79
$701.00-$1,000 $68.45 $82.14
Each Additional $1,000 or Fraction Thereof Up To $25,000 $17.68 $21.22
Each Additional $1,000 or Fraction Thereof Up To $50,000 $13.57 $16.28
Each Additional $1,000 or Fraction Thereof Up To $100,000 $10.17 $12.20
Each Additional $1,000 or Fraction Thereof More Than $100,000 $9.99 $11.99
Combo Permits:
Electrical Permit See Electrical Permit Schedule 10% of the Building Permit Fee
Plumbing Permit See Plumbing Permit Schedule 10% of the Building Permit Fee
Mechanical Permit See Mechanical Permit Schedule 10% of the Building Permit Fee
Building Plan Check Fees 85% of Permit Fees 85% of Permit Fees
$50 minimum $50 minimum
Permit and Plan Check of unpermitted work Double Fees Double Fees
Extension of Expired/Unexpired Permit 98.89
$0-$100,000 valuation $75.00
$100,001+ valuation $255.00
Strong Motion Instrumentation Program (State Fee, Valuation Based)
Residential $0.50 Minimum $0.60 Minimum
or .013% of valuation or .013% of valuation
Commercial & 3-Story + Residential $0.50 Minimum $0.60 Minimum
or .028% of valuation or .028% of valuation
Energy Enforcement (State Mandated)10% of Permit & Plan Check Fee 10% of Permit & Plan Check Fee
Building Standards Admin Special Relvolving Fund (BSAF) (State Fee,
Valuation Based)
$1-25,000 $1 $1
$25,000-50,000 $2 $2
$50,000-75,000 $3 $3
$75,000-100,000 $4 $4
Every $25,000 or fraction therof above $100,000 additional $1 $1
Site Inspection (inspections not otherwise covered by a fee)$174.50 $124.69
Inspection, Group R or M Occupancies $174.50 $209.40
Occupancy Groups Other Than R or M (Floor Area)
Less Than 5,000 S.F.$209.41 $251.29
5,001-10,000 S.F.$279.22 $335.06
10,001-100,000 S.F.$558.44 $670.13
Over 100,000 S.F.$698.06 $837.67
Inspection, Repair/Rehab of Building/Structure Declared Substandard Regular Bldg Permit Fee Regular Bldg Permit Fee
Inspection, Demolition of Building/Structure $174.50 $209.40
Pre-Alt Inspection - Wood Re-Roof Overlay, Pool/Spa Locations $98.89 $100.00
Inspection/Reinspection of Group A, Division 4 Structures $69.60 $83.52
Application/Investigation For Relocation, Building Permit Required By
Chapter 68 (Floor Area)
Less Than 2,500 S.F.$209.41 $251.29
2,501+ S.F.$418.83 $502.60
Building Fee Detail.xlsx Page 1
1.b
Packet Pg. 30
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
1
.
b
:
C
o
s
t
o
f
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
S
t
u
d
y
-
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
B
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
(
1
1
9
9
:
F
e
e
S
t
u
d
y
)
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
COMMUNITY AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
BUILDING & SAFETY DIVISION
CURRENT PROPOSED
ACTION FEES FEES
Inspection Outside Normal Business Hours
0-2 Hours Minimum Fee $165.38 $300.00
Each Hour Thereafter $165.38 $150.00
Reinspection Fee (Each)$45.03 $53.68
Inspections For Which No Fee is Indicated
(Per Hour, Minimum Charge of ½ Hour)$90.06 $107.35
Additional Plan Review, Per Hour $98.89 $107.35
Certificate of Occupancy $174.50 $170.00
Certificate of Occupancy, Temporary $98.89 $385 + Outside Costs
Extension of Certificate of Occupancy, Temporary $98.89 $75.00
Administrative & Miscellaneous Fees
Permit Issuance $36.12 $43.34
Supplemental Permit Issuance $27.01 $32.41
Standard Retention Fee $2.00 5% of Permit & Plan Check Fees
Mechanical Permit Fees
Minimum Inspection Fee: Mechanical $61.89 $74.27
Stand Alone Mechanical Plan Check $122.80 per hour 50% of Mech Permit Fee $55 Min.
Unit Fees:
A/C, Residential (Each)
Up to 100,000 BTUs $26.01 $31.21
100,001-500,000 BTUs $49.12 $58.94
500,001+ BTUs $126.13 $151.36
Furnace (F.A.U., Floor)
Up to 100,000 BTUs $26.01 $31.21
100,001-500,000 BTUs $49.12 $58.94
500,001+ BTUs $126.13 $151.36
Heater (Wall)
Up to 100,000 BTUs $26.01 $31.21
100,001-500,000 BTUs $49.12 $58.94
500,001+ BTUs $126.13 $151.36
Refrigeration Compressor
Up to 100,000 BTUs $26.01 $31.21
100,001-500,000 BTUs $49.12 $58.94
500,001+ BTUs $126.13 $151.36
Boiler
Up to 100,000 BTUs $26.01 $31.21
100,001-500,000 BTUs $49.12 $58.94
500,001+ BTUs $126.13 $151.36
Chiller
Up to 100,000 BTUs $26.01 $31.21
100,001-500,000 BTUs $49.12 $58.94
500,001+ BTUs $126.13 $151.36
Heat Pump (Package Unit)
Up to 100,000 BTUs $26.01 $31.21
100,001-500,000 BTUs $49.12 $58.94
500,001+ BTUs $126.13 $151.36
Building Fee Detail.xlsx Page 2
1.b
Packet Pg. 31
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
1
.
b
:
C
o
s
t
o
f
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
S
t
u
d
y
-
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
B
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
(
1
1
9
9
:
F
e
e
S
t
u
d
y
)
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
COMMUNITY AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
BUILDING & SAFETY DIVISION
CURRENT PROPOSED
ACTION FEES FEES
Heater (Unit, Radiant, Etc.)
Up to 100,000 BTUs $26.01 $31.21
100,001-500,000 BTUs $49.12 $58.94
500,001+ BTUs $126.13 $151.36
Air Handler (Each)
2000 CFMs $12.28 $14.74
2001-3,999 CFMs $36.26 $43.51
4000-10,000 CFMs $36.26 $43.51
10,001+ CFMs $62.85 $75.42
Duct Work (Only, New)
1-10 Registers $41.90 $50.28
11-30 Registers $125.70 $150.84
31-50 Registers $190.80 $228.96
51+ Registers $194.62 $233.54
Alterations
1-10 Registers $41.90 $50.28
11-30 Registers $125.70 $150.84
31-50 Registers $190.80 $228.96
51+ Registers $194.62 $233.54
Evaporative Cooler
1-12,000 BTUs $21.09 $25.31
12,001-24,000 BTUs $21.09 $25.31
24,001-36,000 BTUs $21.09 $25.31
36,001-48,000 BTUs $21.09 $25.31
48,001+ BTUs $21.09 $25.31
Inlet & Outlet Served by AC System - Each Register $4.19 $5.03
Moisture Exhaust Duct (Clothes Dryer, Each)$32.65 $39.18
Ventilation Fan Connected to a Single Duct (Each)$15.31 $18.37
Vent System (Each)$32.65 $39.18
Exhaust Hood/Fan/Duct (Residential, Each)$62.85 $75.42
Exhaust Hood, Type 1 - Commercial Grease Hood (Each)$62.85 $75.42
Exhaust Hood, Type 2 - Commercial Steam Hood (Each)$62.85 $75.42
Spray Booth Served By Mechanical Exhaust, Including Fans & Ducts
attached Thereto $62.85 $75.42
Refrigerator Condenser Remote
Up to 100,000 BTUs $26.01 $31.21
100,001-500,000 BTUs $49.12 $58.94
500,001+ BTUs $126.13 $151.36
Walk-in Box/Refrigerator Coil
Up to 100,000 BTUs $26.01 $31.21
100,001-500,000 BTUs $49.12 $58.94
500,001+ BTUs $126.13 $151.36
Install/Relocate Forced Air or Gravity-Type Furnace or Burner (Including
Attached Ducts & Vents)
Up to 100,000 BTUs $26.01 $31.21
100,001-500,000 BTUs $49.12 $58.94
500,001+ BTUs $126.13 $151.36
Building Fee Detail.xlsx Page 3
1.b
Packet Pg. 32
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
1
.
b
:
C
o
s
t
o
f
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
S
t
u
d
y
-
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
B
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
(
1
1
9
9
:
F
e
e
S
t
u
d
y
)
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
COMMUNITY AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
BUILDING & SAFETY DIVISION
CURRENT PROPOSED
ACTION FEES FEES
Install/Relocate Suspended Heater, Recessed Wall Heater, or Floor
Mounted Unit Heater (Each)
Up to 100,000 BTUs $26.01 $31.21
100,001-500,000 BTUs $49.12 $58.94
500,001+ BTUs $126.13 $151.36
Repair/Alter/Add Heating Appliance, Refrigeration Unit, Cooling Unit,
Absorption Unit, or Each Heating, Cooling, Absorption, or Evaporative
Cooling System, Including Installation of Controls (Each)
Up to 100,000 BTUs $26.01 $31.21
100,001-500,000 BTUs $49.12 $58.94
500,001+ BTUs $126.13 $151.36
Fire Damper (Each)$10.26 $12.31
Garage Ventilation System (Each)$32.65 $39.18
Product Conveying System (Each)$32.65 $39.18
Appliance or Piece of Equipment Not Classed in Other Appliance
Categories, or For Which No Other Fee Is Listed $32.65 $39.18
Fire Suppression System $10.26 $12.31
Reinspection Fee (Each)$45.03 $53.68
Inspections For Which No Fee is Indicated
(Per Hour, Minimum Charge of ½ Hour)$90.06 $107.35
Plumbing & Gas Permit Fees
Minimum Inspection Fee: Plumbing & Gas $61.62 $53.68
Stand Alone Plumbing Plan Check $122.80 per hour 40% of Plumb Permt Fee $55 Min.
Unit Fees:
Gas Piping System
First 5 $79.52 $95.42
After First 5 (Each)$4.08 $4.90
Gas Meter (Each)$15.90 $19.08
Gas Pressure Regulator (Each)$15.90 $19.08
Building Sewer Connection (Each)$45.67 $54.80
Future House Sewer Section $29.47 $35.36
Private Sewage Disposal System (Septic Tank & Seepage Pit/Connection to
House, Each)$93.53 $112.24
Disconnection, Abandonment, Alteration, or Repair of Any House Sewer
or Private Sewage Disposal System or Part Thereof (Each)$32.10 $38.52
Backflow Preventer
First 5 $15.90 $19.08
After First 5 (Each)$6.57 $7.88
Water Heater and/or Vent (Each)$15.90 $19.08
Water Softener (Each)$15.90 $19.08
Dishwasher, Permanent (Each)$15.90 $19.08
Water Pipe Repair/Replacement $15.90 $19.08
Drainage or Vent Piping Repair/Alterations (Each)$15.90 $19.08
Drinking Fountain (Each)$15.90 $19.08
Solar Water System Fixtures (Solar Panels, Tanks, Water Treatment
Equipment, Each)$52.97 $63.56
Swimming Pool Drainage Trap & Receptor (Water Supply for Pool Not
Included, Each) $15.90 $19.08
Medical Gas System (Each)$15.90 $19.08
Building Fee Detail.xlsx Page 4
1.b
Packet Pg. 33
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
1
.
b
:
C
o
s
t
o
f
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
S
t
u
d
y
-
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
B
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
(
1
1
9
9
:
F
e
e
S
t
u
d
y
)
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
COMMUNITY AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
BUILDING & SAFETY DIVISION
CURRENT PROPOSED
ACTION FEES FEES
Plumbing Fixture/Trap or Set of Fixtures on One Trap, Including Water,
Drainage Piping, Hose Bibs, and Backflow Protection (each) $15.90 $19.08
Building Drain (w/o Accompanying Plumbing, Each)$15.90 $19.08
Cesspool, Overflow Seepage Pit, Percolation Test Pit, Swimming Pool
Drywell, or Drainfield Extension or Replacement (Each)$45.67 $54.80
Private Sewage Disposal System (each)$236.38 $283.66
Industrial Waste Grease Trap, Pretreatment Interceptor, Including Trap &
Vent (Each)$15.90 $19.08
Water Treating Equipment and/or Water Piping
Installed/Altered/Repaired (Each)$15.90 $19.08
Lawn Sprinkler System On any one Meter, Including Backflow Protection
Devices Therefore (Each)$15.90 $19.08
Backflow Devices Not Included in Other Fee Services e.g., Building/Trailer
Sewer (Each)$15.90 $19.08
Reinspection Fee (Each)$45.03 $53.68
Inspections For Which No Fee is Indicated
(Per Hour, Minimum Charge of ½ Hour)$90.06 $107.35
Electrical Permit Fees
Minimum Inspection Fee: Electrical $59.36 $53.68
Stand Alone Electrical Plan Check $122.80 per hour 70% of Elec. Permt Fee $55 Min.
System Fees:
Service, Subpanels, Switchboards or Section, Motor-Controlled Centers,
and Panel Boards
Up to 200 Amps $37.42 $44.90
201-1000 Amps $73.25 $87.90
1001+ Amps $156.62 $187.94
New Single & Two-Family Residential Buildings (Per Sq. Ft.)$0.10 $0.12
Multifamily Residential Buildings (Per Sq. Ft.)$0.09 $0.11
Temporary Service Power Pole or Pedestal, Including All Pole or Pedestal
Mounted Receptacle Outlets and Appurtenances $41.90 $50.28
Temporary Distribution System & Temporary Lighting & Receptacle
Outlets (Each)$20.81 $24.97
Pre-Inspection (Per-Hour)$122.81 $107.35
Private/Residential In-Ground Swimming Pools, Spas, Therapeutic
Whirlpools, Hot Tubs, New/Repairs (Each)$78.16 $93.79
**Includes Complete System of Necessary Branch Wiring, Bonding,
Grounding, Underwater Lighting, Water Pumping, and Other Similar
Electrical Equipment Directly Related to the Operation of a Swimming
Pool
Carnivals, Circuses, or other Traveling Shows or Exhibitions Utilizing
Transportable Rides, Booths, Displays, and Attractions With Lighting $42.62 $51.14
Temporary Distribution System and Temporary Lighting and Receptacle
Outlets For Construction Sites, Decorative Lights, Christmas Tree Sales
Lots, Fireworks Stands, Etc. (Each)$15.75 $18.90
Building Fee Detail.xlsx Page 5
1.b
Packet Pg. 34
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
1
.
b
:
C
o
s
t
o
f
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
S
t
u
d
y
-
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
B
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
(
1
1
9
9
:
F
e
e
S
t
u
d
y
)
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
COMMUNITY AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
BUILDING & SAFETY DIVISION
CURRENT PROPOSED
ACTION FEES FEES
Unit Fees:
Receptacle, Switch, Lighting, or Other Outlets at Which Current is Used or
Controlled, Except Services, Feeders, & Meters
First 20 (Or Portion Thereof)$1.88 $2.26
Each Additional $1.30 $1.56
Lighting Fixtures, Sockets, or Other Lamp-Holding Devices
First 20 (Or Portion Thereof)$1.88 $2.26
Each Additional $1.30 $1.56
Pole or Platform Mounted Lighting Fixtures (Each)$2.17 $2.60
Theatrical-type Lighting Fixtures or Assemblies (Each)$2.17 $2.60
Residential Appliances $10.40 $12.48
Fixed Residential Appliances or Receptacle Outlets For Same, Including
Wall-Mounted Electric Ovens, Counter Mounted Cooking Tops, Electric
Ranges, Self-contained Room Console, or Through Wall Air Conditioners,
Space Heaters, Food Waste Grinders, Dishwashers (Each)
**For Other Types of Air Conditioners, and Motor-Driven Appliances
Having Larger Electrical Ratings, See Power Apparatus
Nonresidential Appliances $10.40 $12.48
Residential Appliances and Self-contained Factory-Wired Non-
Residential Appliances, Including Medical and Dental Services, Food,
Beverage, and Ice Cream Cabinets, Illuminated Show Cases, Drinking
Fountains, Vending Machines, Laundry Machines, etc. (Each)
Residential Appliances and Self-contained Factory-Wired Non-Residential
Appliances Not Exceeding One Horsepower (HP), Kilowatt (kW), or Kilovolt-
ampere (kVA) in rating, including medical and dental devices, food,
beverage, and ice cream cabinets, etc.$10.40 $12.48
**For Other Types of Air Conditioners, and Motor-Driven Appliances
Having Larger Electrical Ratings, See Power Apparatus
Motors, Generators, Transformers, Rectifiers, Synchronous Converters,
Capacitors, Industrial Heating, Air Conditioners, and Heat Pumps, Cooking
& Baking Equipment and Other Apparatus Rating in Horsepower (HP),
Kilowatts (kW), or Kilovolt-amperes (kVA)
Over 3-10 $18.93 $22.72
Over 11-50 $44.36 $53.23
Over 51-100 $83.22 $99.86
Over 101 $137.11 $164.53
Trolley and Plug-In Type Busways (each 100 ft. or fraction thereof)$25.14 $30.17
**An Additional Fee Will Be Required For Lighting Fixtures, Motors, and
Other Appliances That Are Connected To Trolley and Plug-In Type
Busways. No Fee is Required For Portable Tools
Signs, Outline Lighting, or Marquees (Each)$37.42 $44.90
Signs, Outline Lighting, or Marquees Supplied From One Branch Circuit
(Each)$12.28 $14.74
Additional Branch Circuits Within The Same Sign, Outline Lighting System,
Or Marquee (Each)$12.28 $14.74
Miscellaneous Apparatus, Conduits, and Conductors (Each)$62.70 $75.24
Building Fee Detail.xlsx Page 6
1.b
Packet Pg. 35
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
1
.
b
:
C
o
s
t
o
f
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
S
t
u
d
y
-
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
B
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
(
1
1
9
9
:
F
e
e
S
t
u
d
y
)
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
COMMUNITY AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
BUILDING & SAFETY DIVISION
CURRENT PROPOSED
ACTION FEES FEES
Electrical Apparatus, Conduits, and Conductors For Which a Permit is
Required, But For Which No Fee is Herein Set Forth (Each)$62.70 $75.24
**Not Applicable When a Fee is Paid For One or More Services, Outlets,
Fixtures, Appliances, Power Apparatus, Busways, Signs, or Other
Equipment
Photovoltaic Systems (Each)$57.75 $69.30
Reinspection Fee (Each)$45.03 $53.68
Inspections For Which No Fee is Indicated
(Per Hour, Minimum Charge of ½ Hour)$90.06 $107.35
Building Fee Detail.xlsx Page 7
1.b
Packet Pg. 36
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
1
.
b
:
C
o
s
t
o
f
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
S
t
u
d
y
-
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
B
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
(
1
1
9
9
:
F
e
e
S
t
u
d
y
)
APPENDIX C
SUMMARY OF CURRENT AND
PROPOSED FEES FOR
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
1.c
Packet Pg. 37
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
1
.
c
:
C
o
s
t
o
f
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
S
t
u
d
y
-
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
C
A
d
m
i
n
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
(
1
1
9
9
:
F
e
e
S
t
u
d
y
)
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
FEE COMPARISON REPORT
FY 2016-2017
January 31, 2017 1
REF #: S-036 TITLE: TEMPORARY USE PERMIT
CURRENT FEE RECOMMENDED FEE
No Public Hearing - $245.62 per application
With Public Hearing - $1,011.37 Deposit
$250 per application
REF #: S-095 TITLE: LIMITED COLLECTION REFUSE PERMIT
CURRENT FEE
Issued Jan-Mar - $207.77
Issued Mar-Jun - $155.82
Issued Jul-Sep - $103.87
Issued Oct-Dec - $51.94
RECOMMENDED FEE
$235 per permit
REF #: S-113 TITLE: FILM PERMIT
RECOMMENDED FEE CURRENT FEE
$592.27 per application Student - $100 per application
Other - $435 per application plus $500 per day for right-of-way
rental
REF #: S-114 TITLE: ANIMAL ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL
CURRENT FEE
None
RECOMMENDED FEE
$1,065 per appeal
REF #: S-115 TITLE: SELF HAUL REFUSE PERMIT
CURRENT FEE RECOMMENDED FEE
Issued Jan-Mar - $207.77
Issued Mar-Jun - $155.82
Issued Jul-Sep - $103.87
Issued Oct-Dec - $51.94
Issued Jan-Mar - $765
Issued Mar-Jun - $574
Issued Jul-Sep - $383
Issued Oct-Dec - $191
TITLE: NSF CHECK PROCESSSING REF #: S-117
CURRENT FEE
$15 per NSF Check
RECOMMENDED FEE
$46 per NSF Check
1.c
Packet Pg. 38
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
1
.
c
:
C
o
s
t
o
f
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
S
t
u
d
y
-
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
C
A
d
m
i
n
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
(
1
1
9
9
:
F
e
e
S
t
u
d
y
)
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
FEE COMPARISON REPORT
FY 2016-2017
2
REF #: S-118 TITLE: RESIDENTIAL PARKING PERMIT
CURRENT FEE RECOMMENDED FEE
None $10 per permit
REF #: S-119 TITLE: FALSE ALARM BILLING
CURRENT FEE RECOMMENDED FEE
None $10 per bill
REF #: S-120 TITLE: DOCUMENT REPRODUCTION
CURRENT FEE RECOMMENDED FEE
$0.10 per page after the first five pages
Microfiche - $5 for the first page and $1.25 per page thereafter
FPPC Copy - $0.10 per page after the first five pages
Other - $0.25 per page after the first five pages
Plans/Map/Blueprint Copy - $5 per page
REF #: S-121 TITLE: ELECTRONIC FILE COPY
CURRENT FEE
CD/DVD - $10 per disk
RECOMMENDED FEE
$5 per device/disk
REF #: S-122 TITLE: DOCUMENT CERTIFICATION
CURRENT FEE
$5 per document
RECOMMENDED FEE
$5 per document
REF #: S-123 TITLE: DOCUMENT COMPILATION
RECOMMENDED FEE CURRENT FEE
$122.81 per hour Charge the fully allocated hourly rates for all staff involved plus
any outside costs.
REF #: S-124 TITLE: NOTARY PUBLIC SERVICES
CURRENT FEE
None
RECOMMENDED FEE
$15 per signature
This fee is set by the State and it was recently increased.
1.c
Packet Pg. 39
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
1
.
c
:
C
o
s
t
o
f
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
S
t
u
d
y
-
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
C
A
d
m
i
n
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
(
1
1
9
9
:
F
e
e
S
t
u
d
y
)
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
FEE COMPARISON REPORT
FY 2016-2017
January 31, 2017 3
REF #: S-125 TITLE: ABATEMENT LIEN PROCESSING
CURRENT FEE RECOMMENDED FEE
Actual Costs Actual costs with charges at the fully allocated hourly rates for
all personnel involved plus any outside costs.
REF #: S-126 TITLE: CANDIDATE PROCESSING
CURRENT FEE RECOMMENDED FEE
None $25 per candidate
This is the maximum allowed under State law (Elections Code
section 10228)
REF #: S-127 TITLE: LOCAL INITIATIVE PROCESSING
CURRENT FEE RECOMMENDED FEE
None $200 per application
Fee is to be refunded to the filer if, within one year of the date of
filing the notice of intent, the elections official certifies the
sufficieny of the petition.
This is the maximum allowed under State law (Elections Code
section 9202(b)).
1.c
Packet Pg. 40
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
1
.
c
:
C
o
s
t
o
f
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
S
t
u
d
y
-
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
C
A
d
m
i
n
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
(
1
1
9
9
:
F
e
e
S
t
u
d
y
)
3/7/2017
3/7/2017
3/7/2017
Fee Type
Current
Actual Cost
$ Change
% Change
Business License — New
$11.00
$38.00
$27.00
245.45%
Business License - Renewal
$11.00
$18.00
$7.00
63.64%
Water Heater / Dishwaser
$99.74
$101.87
$2.13
2.14%
Reroof (2,200 sq/feet)
$233.34
$290.72
$57.38
24.59%
Electrical Panel Upgrade
$110.40
$137.80
$27.40
24.82%
Solar Plan Check - Family
$500.00
$305.00
-$195.00
-39.00%
Solar Plan Check- Commercial
$1,000.00
$1,050.00
$50.00
5.00%
Streamline Plot Plan
$245.62
$590.00
$344.38
140.21%
Plot Plan
$245.62
$1,670.00
$1,424.38
579.91%
NSF Check Processing
$15.00
$46.00
$31.00
206.67%
3/7/2017
A
1
9
Recommended
Fee Type
Permit Type
Current Fee.
Actual Cost
Fee
Single Family addition .less than
Zoning Clearance
$43.34 per
$75 per
300 square feet
(Staff Review)
application
$76.04
application
Single Family addition between
300 square feet and 50% of
Plot Plan
$245.62
$1,670 per
existing square feet
(Staff Review)
per project
$1,670. per. project
application
Single Family addition over
50% of size of existing square
Development Review
$2,855.
Average of $8,825
$2,855 plus -
feet
(Planninq Commission)
Deposit
per proiect
$5.000 deposit
3/7/2017
It
Agenda #: 6.1
Meeting Date: March 7, 2017
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Tommye Cribbins, City Clerk
TITLE: WAIVE READING IN FULL FOR ALL ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS
AND ADOPT THE CONSENT CALENDAR.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve.
PREPARED BY:
6.1
Packet Pg. 41
Agenda #: 6.2
Meeting Date: March 7, 2017
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: James DeStefano, City Manager
TITLE: APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MINUTES:
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve.
Attachments:
1. 6.2.a Study Session of February 21, 2017.
2. 6.2.b Regular Meeting of February 21, 2017.
6.2
Packet Pg. 42
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
FEBRUARY 21, 2017
STUDY SESSION: M/Lin called the Study Session to order at 5:00 p.m. in
Room CC-8 of the South Coast Air Quality Management District/Government Center,
21865 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765.
ROLL CALL: Council Members Herrera, Lyons, Tye, Mayor Pro Tem
Low and Mayor Lin
Staff Present: James DeStefano, City Manager; David DeBerry, City
Attorney; Ryan McLean, Assistant City Manager; David Liu, Public Works Director; Ken
Desforges, IS Director; Dianna Honeywell, Finance Director; Anthony Santos, Assistant
to the City Manager; Amy Haug, Human Resources/Risk Manager Kimberly Young, Senior
Civil Engineer; Cecilia Arellano, Public Information Coordinator, and Tommye Cribbins,
City Clerk.
Also Present: Eric Strong, RCS
► FEE STUDY UPDATE – DEVELOPMENT AND ADMINISTRATIVE
MISCELLANEOUS SERVICES – Discussion and Action.
ACM/McLean explained that he and AtoCM/Santos will provide the Council with
staff’s update on the City’s Fee Study process, background on how the study was
conducted and provide recommendations for consideration to obtain staff’s
direction for bringing this matter back at an upcoming City Council Meeting for
consideration and adoption. The fee study was done for all services offered by the
City. Tonight’s presentation and action is based entirely on Development Services
(Planning, Building and Safety, Engineering and Public Works as well as basic
administrative services). Staff will bring back Parks and Recreation re lated items
for separate discussion at a later date.
The City offers hundreds of services across departments within the City’s structure
with tonight’s discussion focusing on the Development and Administrative
Miscellaneous Services portion. It is very important to understand the different
types of services offered by the City in two categories with the first being community
supported services which are the services where there is implicit rationale for the
subsidization, items that have a community benefit and social benefit including
parks facilities, public safety, police and fire. Those are items that serve the entire
public. In general, these services are funded using tax dollars (property tax, sales
tax, etc.). The second type of services to discuss are “personal choice” services
which are those that directly benefit the end user, whether that is an individual or a
developer, and is generally assumed that the costs associated with these services
are generally paid for by the person who benefits from the service such as building
permits, facilities rental, development and so forth. ACM/McLean noted that staff’s
goal tonight is not about raising revenue, it is about eliminating or reducing
subsidies. Staff is attempting to plan for and provide strategies for long-term fiscal
sustainability and one of the key ways to do so is to make sure that the City is not
6.2.a
Packet Pg. 43
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
6
.
2
.
a
:
S
t
u
d
y
S
e
s
s
i
o
n
o
f
F
e
b
r
u
a
r
y
2
1
,
2
0
1
7
.
(
1
2
0
5
:
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
f
o
r
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
)
_____________________________________________________________________
FEBRUARY 21, 2017 PAGE 2 CC STUDY SESSION
subsidizing “personal choice” services with taxpayer dollars. In general, Community
Support Services such as the Sheriff’s contract, is generally paid from taxes the
City collects through revenues or grants. Personal Choice Services are generally
paid for by fees. Currently, the City is subsidizing the Personal Choice Services
and have been doing so for quite some time which means that t he City is using,
General Fund tax revenues to subsidize the cost of providing those fees to
individuals and developers.
M/Lin said that a classic argument is whether it is a taxpayer subsidy or something
that a developer is generating future tax revenues for the City.
ACM/McLean said he believed it depended on the project. In addition to generating
tax revenue there are ongoing services that must be provided through Public
Safety, for example. There may be certain projects where agreements are made
as a tradeoff, but in general, most of the projects (building permit or housing
development), is not the case because in time the City ends up subsidizing those
items.
CM/DeStefano pointed out that this directly relates to the extraordinarily low
property tax rate. Out of all 88 cities in LA County, Diamond Bar has the lowest
property tax rate. It is what it is and it cannot be changed, but what it means to the
City is that developments just do not produce the kinds of tax revenue needed and
residential land uses even in Diamond Bar’s higher priced brackets, do not pay for
the services necessary to support a residential use. Office uses at best are break-
even because again, there is not any revenue coming from most office uses. With
retail the picture tends to get much better very quickly. With hotels, for example, it
is instantly better but Diamond Bar has very little retail land left and very little sales
tax-producing retail businesses and very few hotels. So it comes full circle where
the City does not receive the kind of tax revenue from the typical developments that
occur in Diamond Bar and by necessity, the City has to seek revenues from other
sources to fill this void.
ACM/McLean continued that it is very important to remember that the City has
inherent limitations on its revenue generating capabilities. The City is built out. It
does not have any malls, racetracks or resort types of facilities that generate
transient occupancy tax. When the City thinks long-term, staff believes it is
appropriate, if the City wants to maintain fiscal sustainability and the good
performance over the years with balanced budgets without service cuts, it is very
important to look at the level of subsidies the City has for providing these services.
AtoCM/Santos said these studies are performed at regular intervals. The last time
Diamond Bar conducted a study was in 2009. In 2016, the City Manager authorized
a new study with Revenue Cost Specialists (RCS).
ACM/McLean stated that when the 2009 study was performed, the policy direction
that was taken was to not follow the full cost recovery model as outlined, which
6.2.a
Packet Pg. 44
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
6
.
2
.
a
:
S
t
u
d
y
S
e
s
s
i
o
n
o
f
F
e
b
r
u
a
r
y
2
1
,
2
0
1
7
.
(
1
2
0
5
:
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
f
o
r
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
)
_____________________________________________________________________
FEBRUARY 21, 2017 PAGE 3 CC STUDY SESSION
means that the City is still subsidizing nearly all of its fees. At this point, the current
document serves as the baseline for what it costs today.
C/Tye asked what a reasonable interval was.
AtoCM/Santos responded that it is dependent upon the agenc y. Eric Strong with
RCS has done dozens if not hundreds of these fee study analysis. Some agencies
conduct studies every three years and others every five years. The last time
Diamond Bar conducted a study was in 2009, eight years since the last
comprehensive review.
CM/DeStefano said that Eric may have additional thoughts, but without CPI’s, it
hurts the City. He knows that some do not favor automatic CPI’s but the City’s
costs reflect more closely the CPI and without that the City instantly starts t o fall
behind.
C/Tye asked if a city with stable work force would necessarily have their costs go
up more than a city with a lot of turnover and are costs driven up as cities age and
cost of staff goes up.
Mr. Strong responded that it absolutely reflects the costs through turnover where
newer employees would have a lower cost per employee basis. That is why this
study looked at the costs for providing this cost for Diamond Bar and did not concern
themselves about costs in Walnut or Brea.
CM/DeStefano said that there cannot be an apples to apples comparison because
it is different everywhere. On a per-capita basis, Diamond Bar pays a far lower cost
for its Public Safety services. Some cities are up to 70-75 and almost 80 percent
of their entire city budget paying for police, fire, labor, retirement, etc. Other cities
have substantially more property taxes or sales taxes or other things. During the
redevelopment days there were cities that subsidized their development fees
because they received money at the end through property tax increases and tax
increment benefits. If one were comparing the costs in Diamond Bar versus the
costs in any other city it is very difficult to compare without getting into the deep
details and financial intricacies and philosophies behind why a city does what it
does.
M/Lin felt the City received the benefit of consultants because it was not burdened
by retirement, pensions, etc.
CM/DeStefano said it depends on the Personal Service requested. In the Planning
Department, for example, most of the services are provided directly by staff but
there are consultants that are used in areas of expertise staff does not have and for
which it would not make sense to purchase that expertise with a city staff person.
On the Engineering side, it is 50/50 with staff doing a lot of the work and so are the
consultants but staff is overseeing that consultant’s work. Building and Safety is
entirely consultant driven with CDD/Gubman overseeing that contract. And it has
6.2.a
Packet Pg. 45
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
6
.
2
.
a
:
S
t
u
d
y
S
e
s
s
i
o
n
o
f
F
e
b
r
u
a
r
y
2
1
,
2
0
1
7
.
(
1
2
0
5
:
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
f
o
r
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
)
_____________________________________________________________________
FEBRUARY 21, 2017 PAGE 4 CC STUDY SESSION
been the City’s philosophy and profile to utilize consultant services over the years
because it best serves the City’s needs and keeps overall costs low including
retirement costs, ebb and flow of the economy and other reasons. Other
departments that may have personal services that are offered to constituents are
done by staff or paid by recreation fees and in this instance, this study directly
relates to what it costs to provide the service in Diamond Bar and what is the
appropriate percentage of that cost the City is trying to recover.
AtoCM/Santos continued that this study was conducted to determine the fully -
burdened cost to Diamond Bar, to the Diamond Bar taxpayer as well as, to the
recipient of these purchase choices to make sure of the benefits to the individual
for the work being performed. Staff also wanted to make sure to develop a legally-
defensible baseline purpose which included employee time by classification in
completing different classifications of permit work in order to defend those costs for
a Conditional Use Permit or a New Business License. The ultimate goal of this
study is to recommend fee and policy adjustments to the City Council for
consideration.
The methodology for conducting this fee study included departmental meetings to
determine service level and time spent to provide each service; review budget ,
develop a cost allocation plan, review services to categorize between Community
Supported and Personal Choice services, review recovery percentage and develop
recommendations. The elements of costs included salaries, employee fringe
benefits, operating expenses, overhead and administration expenses and asset
replacement expenses.
The full costs of delivering fee-financed personal choice services exceed revenue
on an annual basis. Current Development and Administrative/Miscellaneous
Services taxpayer subsidy is about $917,534. Full cost recovery model for Personal
Choice Services presents a potential subsidy reduction of $652,675 in FY 2017 -18.
C/Lyons asked what it would take to fully recover.
AtoCM/Santos explained that the dollar figure for full cost recovery is a very
conservative revenue estimate. The City does not want to over-promise and under-
deliver. Every year fluctuates based on development projects and the appli cant
load that comes in. No two years are the same. The last couple of years when the
Willow Heights project was going on it was one-time applications that were among
the highest the City had received since incorporation. Staff looked at conservative
estimates year-to-year on average which resulted in the $652,675.
ACM/McLean said that the $917,534 number is based on data from the previous
year in which the City had more volume and the $652,675 figure is based on a more
normal average year-to-year.
C/Lyons asked for confirmation that the whole cost recovery model would recover
most of the cost in a normal year.
6.2.a
Packet Pg. 46
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
6
.
2
.
a
:
S
t
u
d
y
S
e
s
s
i
o
n
o
f
F
e
b
r
u
a
r
y
2
1
,
2
0
1
7
.
(
1
2
0
5
:
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
f
o
r
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
)
_____________________________________________________________________
FEBRUARY 21, 2017 PAGE 5 CC STUDY SESSION
Mr. Strong said that part of the costs would be something that would occur once
every five years.
AtoCM/Santos said that with the current fee structure, if there are volumes greater
than Lennar the subsidy would be greater than the $917,534. If the full cost -
recovery model is implemented, depending on how much volume there is (high or
low), the City would recoup its costs for providing the services. He explained fee
examples highlighting current to actual costs (fully-burdened business model).
ACM/McLean stated that staff’s recommendation is to put into place a fee -
resolution that captures the fully-burdened rate for providing Personal Choice
Services. Staff believes it is appropriate for the City’s long term fiscal health to
eliminate or reduce taxpayer subsidies. Obviously, the Council has the discretion
to make decisions if they choose to provide subsidies in certain cases, but staff’s
recommendation is that the City implement a full-burdened fee resolution that
eliminates the taxpayer subsidies for these particular services. Staff would further
recommend that this take effect July 1, 2017 to correspond with the budget year
and also recommends that Business License applications and renewal remain at
the $11 rate which is consistent with the City Council’s goal to provide business -
friendly services. Staff would strongly recommend that with any implementation
that there be an annual fee adjustment based on the annual CPI in order to stay
somewhat current and recommend another fee study be done at a future interval to
make sure that five to seven years going forward that the City is capturing the
correct costs. As a reminder, Parks and Recreation fees will be discussed at a later
date given its unique features.
In summary, the objective is to prioritize the long term fiscal health of the City and
eliminate taxpayer subsidies on Personal Choice Services.
C/Herrera asked if on adoption the Plot Plan fee would go from $225 to $1670, for
example.
Mr. Strong responded affirmatively.
C/Herrera commented that it is a huge hike.
ACM/McLean said that the difference demonstrates the level of subsidy that is
currently in place. One can see that while it is a very significant increase, it is the
cost of providing that service and if the City continues to subsidize it at that level it
is money that cannot be spent in Community Choice services.
MPT/Low asked for more time to study this matter.
Discussion ensued.
Council agreed to again discuss this item at a future Study Session meeting.
6.2.a
Packet Pg. 47
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
6
.
2
.
a
:
S
t
u
d
y
S
e
s
s
i
o
n
o
f
F
e
b
r
u
a
r
y
2
1
,
2
0
1
7
.
(
1
2
0
5
:
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
f
o
r
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
)
_____________________________________________________________________
FEBRUARY 21, 2017 PAGE 6 CC STUDY SESSION
► SISTER CITY – Discussion and Action
M/Lin stated that he brought this item forward for discussion because about two
months ago a citizen of New Taipei City requested to meet with him which he did
when he traveled to Taiwan. He was told that the two cities had not had any contact
for a long time and that the previous Sister City no longer existed but that the District
still had about 110-120,000 people. He met with the Chief of the District of Sai
Chow and original members of the Sister City Committee for Diamond Bar and was
told they would like to revitalize activities.
CM/DeStefano said that staff is recommending that the City not go forward at this
time. Staff could not find any direct benefit to the community of Diamond Bar from
the prior relationship and were challenged by the benefits that may derive from the
new larger City of New Taipei. That coupled with efforts underway o ver the next
year in a variety of areas caused staff to believe that this is not an area the City
should move forward with at this time. Council may think differently and move
forward to re-energize the relationship with now New Taipei City and if Council were
to do so, it is recommended that the Council do so directly with the government of
New Taipei and not go through the Sister City Association because it has been
inactive for many years and may not have current representation that would benefit
Diamond Bar in a re-energized relationship.
M/Lin said he is very experienced with the Sister City concept and he believed the
proper way to move forward would be to create a Sister City Committee consisting
of two Council Members and a group of no more than 10 people as a part of the
Sister City group.
Council discussion ensued after which Council concurred to take time to consider
the matter and bring it back for further discussion.
► BARKING DOG NUISANCE PROCESS - Discussion and Action
M/Lin asked for discussion of this matter after hearing from a speaker and learning
about the situation.
CM/DeStefano said that in 28 years there has been only one other incident of its
kind of which staff is aware. These issues must exist but they do not rise to the
level of the recent example which is discussed in staff’s report. Also discussed in
staff’s report is the difficulty in monitoring and implementing any ordinance for any
length of time of an annoying barking dog or any other animal nuisance and given
the infrequent nature of this item, staff is not recommending changes to the code at
this time.
C/Herrera said she has complaints from residents about barking dogs in her
neighborhood and neighbor disputes. They call Inland Valley and Inland Valley
doesn’t really do anything and she believes the reason it doesn’t surface to the City
level is that people get discouraged that there is no one to help them. What she
6.2.a
Packet Pg. 48
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
6
.
2
.
a
:
S
t
u
d
y
S
e
s
s
i
o
n
o
f
F
e
b
r
u
a
r
y
2
1
,
2
0
1
7
.
(
1
2
0
5
:
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
f
o
r
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
)
_____________________________________________________________________
FEBRUARY 21, 2017 PAGE 7 CC STUDY SESSION
does not want to see is people poisoning other people’s pets because they can’t
make the barking stop.
CM/DeStefano said he is not aware of any such incidents. The Inland Valley
Humane Society is often used as a weapon against a neighbor in what is a
disgruntled neighbor-to-neighbor relationship so the IVHS has a process that
begins by having at least one more complaining party, at which point they will then
begin investigating the situation and try to find a duplication of the incidents that are
the source of the complaints. Often IVHS cannot confirm the problem and as a
result, nothing happens. In the most recent case, the circumstances were the same
and to this day staff does not know whether it was the dogs next door, down the
street or up the hill because the situation could not be duplicated. When IVHS can
duplicate a situation they issue notices or citations to the owner to make the
appropriate correction.
C/Tye felt that IVHS did a good job but felt they needed help with customer service.
Some people will never be satisfied which is likely the situation with the most recent
example and he does not believe anything should be changed because of one
aberration.
Public Comments: None
ADJOURNMENT: With no further business to come before the City Council,
M/Lyons recessed the Study Session at 6:25 p.m. to the Regular Meeting.
________________________________
Tommye Cribbins, City Clerk
The foregoing minutes are hereby approved this day of , 2017.
_______________________________
Jimmy Lin, Mayor
6.2.a
Packet Pg. 49
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
6
.
2
.
a
:
S
t
u
d
y
S
e
s
s
i
o
n
o
f
F
e
b
r
u
a
r
y
2
1
,
2
0
1
7
.
(
1
2
0
5
:
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
f
o
r
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
)
MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
FEBRUARY 21, 2017
CLOSED SESSION: 5:00 p.m., Room CC-8
► Conference with Real Property Negotiators pursuant
to Government Code Section 54956.8
Property: APN 8718-005 Parcels 007 and 008 (vacant property)
Agency Negotiators: James DeStefano, City Manager,
David DeBerry, City Attorney
Negotiating Parties: City and YMCA
Under Negotiations: Price and Terms of Payment
STUDY SESSION: 5:20 p.m., Room CC-8
► Fee Study Update – Development & Administrative Miscellaneous
Services – Discussion and Action
► Sister City – Discussion and Action
► Barking Dog Nuisance Process – Discussion and Action
Public Comments: None Offered
Study Session Adjourned to Regular Meeting at 6:25 p.m.
CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Lin called the Regular City Council meeting to
order at 6:32 p.m. in the South Coast Air Quality Management District/Government
Center Auditorium, 21865 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA.
CM/DeStefano reported that the City Council began this evening with a Closed Session
at 5:00 p.m. There was one matter discussed regarding property negotiations for which
there is no reportable action.
Council then moved from the Closed Session to a Study Session at 5:20 p.m., during
which three items were discussed: 1) Fee Study Update in consideration of changing
General Consumer Fees (parks & recreation services) for services the City Government
provides as well as Personal Choice Service (single party building per mits). Council
asked that this matter be brought back for further discussion. 2) Possible renewal of a
Sister City relationship with a community in Taiwan formerly known as Sansha i and now
known as New Taipei City was discussed and Council took action to table the matter for
the foreseeable future. 3) There was a brief discussion by the City Council regarding
the possibility of making changes to the City’s Code dealing with annoying nuisance
6.2.b
Packet Pg. 50
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
6
.
2
.
b
:
R
e
g
u
l
a
r
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
o
f
F
e
b
r
u
a
r
y
2
1
,
2
0
1
7
.
(
1
2
0
5
:
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
f
o
r
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
)
FEBRUARY 21, 2017 PAGE 2 CITY COUNCIL
barking dog incidents and Council agreed with staff’s recomm endation that no action
was needed at this time because such incidents that rise to City Council level are
extremely infrequent in Diamond Bar. The Study Session concluded at 6:28 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: C/Lyons led the Pledge of Allegiance
INVOCATION: Luke Pamplin, Evangelical Free Church, gave the
invocation
ROLL CALL: Council Members Herrera, Lyons, Tye, Mayor Pro
Tem Low and Mayor Lin
Staff Present: James DeStefano, City Manager; David DeBerry, City
Attorney; Ryan McLean, Assistant City Manager; David Liu, Public Works Director; Ken
Desforges, IS Director; Dianna Honeywell, Finance Director; Anthony Santos, Assistant
to the City Manager; Kimberly Young, Senior Civil Engineer; Cecilia Arellano, Public
Information Coordinator, and Tommye Cribbins, City Clerk.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: As Presented.
1. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS, CERTIFICATES, PROCLAMATIONS:
1.1 M/Lin and Council Members presented Certificates of Recognition to
Diamond Bar Pop Warner Cheer Team members for placing 6 th in the
nation at the 2016 National Cheer & Dance Championship and for
becoming the 2017 Jamz National Champions.
NEW BUSINESS OF THE MONTH:
1.2 M/Lin and Council Members presented a Certificate Plaque to Diamond
Bar Montessori Academy, 23555 Palomino Drive, as New Business of the
Month for February 2017.
2. CITY MANAGER REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: None.
3. PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Cynthia Smith asked what the monitoring policy and procedure was in the
Diamond Bar Planning Department that assures projects are consistent with the
City’s General Plan and is it true that the Planning Department does not retain or
refer to CC&R’s when considering development project applications and/or
approvals. Upon reading the annual General Plan Update report she noticed that
there was no declaration of projects that are inconsistent with the General Plan.
6.2.b
Packet Pg. 51
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
6
.
2
.
b
:
R
e
g
u
l
a
r
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
o
f
F
e
b
r
u
a
r
y
2
1
,
2
0
1
7
.
(
1
2
0
5
:
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
f
o
r
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
)
FEBRUARY 21, 2017 PAGE 3 CITY COUNCIL
Allen Wilson, representing the Office of Assemblyman Chen, spoke about the
introduction of Assembly Bill 100 which offers tax breaks for homeowners and
renters offered by Assemblyman Chen and Assemblyman Matthew Hart from
Huntington Beach which they encourage constituents to support. For further
information individuals can call him at his Sacramento Office at 916 -319-2055 or
the Brea Office at 714-529-5502 or follow him on Twitter @PhillipChenca.
.
Pui Ching Ho, Diamond Bar Library spoke about upcoming Library events. On
Saturday, February 25 at 3:00 p.m. the Alzheimer’s Association will present a
workshop teaching individuals how to recognize the warning signs of the disease.
March 2 is Dr. Seuss’ Birthday and the Library is celebrating with a puppet show.
Please check the library website at
http://colapublib.org/libs/diamondbar/index.php for additional programs and
events.
Rob Julian, 209 S. Rock River Road voiced his concerns about individuals
parking cars in front of the school where there is bus parking only at Lorbeer
Middle School. When he called the school he was told to call the City and when
he called the City he was told to take the matter up with the Sheriff’s Department.
He called the Sheriff’s Department and was told to go back to the school and was
again told it was a City issue and when he called the City again he was told the
City had a problem with the school. He called the school principal and was told
she had never had a problem with the City and it must have happened prior to
her tenure. He suggested the City paint the curb and install “bus parking only”
signs so it can be enforced.
Ghazala Khan, 2896 Vista Court, asked for increased security for her Crystal
Ridge neighborhood community due to the increased burglaries in the area of
Hawkwood and Crystal Ridge. Captain Reyes and Lt. Marquez have responded
and obtained videos from residents to help identify the perpetrators but they are
not aware that any individuals have been identified or apprehended. Residents
of the area are working with the Homeowners Association to install cameras and
security lights. Her goal in bringing this matter to the City Cou ncil is because
Diamond Bar is considered to be one of the top 10 cities in the nation when it
comes to a low crime rate and that the current situation gives the City a huge
black eye. Response by the Sheriff’s Department has taken up to an hour and a
half which they believe to be unacceptable.
Daniel Luevanos, One Legacy/Donate Life, spoke about the purpose of his
organization and advised Council that he and 23 other eye and organ recipients
rode on the Team Life Rose Parade float this year that won the Theme Trophy
“Echoes of Success”. His organization is preparing for its 15th Annual Donate
Life Run/Walk at Cal State Fullerton. April is Donor Awareness Month and his
organization is asking for a Proclamation for organ donation for the month of
April.
6.2.b
Packet Pg. 52
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
6
.
2
.
b
:
R
e
g
u
l
a
r
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
o
f
F
e
b
r
u
a
r
y
2
1
,
2
0
1
7
.
(
1
2
0
5
:
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
f
o
r
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
)
FEBRUARY 21, 2017 PAGE 4 CITY COUNCIL
Manuel Baca and Rosanne Bader, Board of Trustees members for Mt. SAC
updated Council on the school’s facilities, its activities and programs. Mt. SAC
is planning for the next decade and seeking community input to help develop a
new Education and Facilities Master Plan. To this end, Mt. SAC will have a
series of workshops, the first of which will be held on Thursday evening at
Ganesha Park on White Street in Pomona. Thereafter, there will be meetings
spread throughout the district including West Covina, Baldwin Park, Irwindale,
Hacienda Heights, City of Industry, Walnut, LaVerne and Pomona. They
presented flyers and referred residents to the website at www.mtsac.com
Chia Teng, 22379 Kicking Horse Drive, spoke about Tentative Parcel Map No.
72035 which seeks subdivision of the property into three lots where only two are
mandated by The Country Estates Homeowners Association for which approval
of the Association is required and has been denied. Despite the As sociation’s
denial, the Planning Commission approved the Map at its last meeting which is a
conflict and he imagines the matter will be litigated because the property owner
will have the subdivision map recorded and the HOA will fight it.
Tommy Lu, 2898 Vista Court and member of Crystal Ridge Homeowners
Association, spoke in support of Ghazala Khan’s comments and other community
members who were affected by burglaries in their community. During this period
of time the community has had police support and Lt. Marquez has been very
kind, very attentive and very supportive but more needs to happen to protect the
community.
4. RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS:
CM/DeStefano responded to the first speaker’s comments about the City’s
General Plan and the City’s utilization and enforcement of private CC&R’s. With
respect to the General Plan, City staff is obligated by City Codes and State
Codes to ensure that all physical development projects are ultimately consistent
with the City’s overall broad policy document for land use known as the City’s
General Plan. Whether it is a room addition or a new subdivision like Willow
Heights or a new commercial building in the Gateway Corporate Center, each
and every project must be found to be consist with the City’s General Plan. That
decision making process is at the basic staff level with a front counter permit as
well as, through actions preceded by recommendations from staff, actions of the
City’s Planning Commission and often by the City Council. It is a fundamental
requirement and your professional City staff upholds the laws of the State of
California as well as, the rules of the City and the policies of the City
Government. A comment was made regarding the General Plan Annual Report
which was on the City Council’s agenda a meeting or two ago. It is a State
requirement that an annual report be prepared and submitted to the State
regarding the progress of the City’s General Plan and its implementation.
Accordingly, each year City staff puts together a summary of acti vities, major
developments, issues and opportunities that are occurring within the City. That
annual General Plan Report does not get into details and is instead, a broad
6.2.b
Packet Pg. 53
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
6
.
2
.
b
:
R
e
g
u
l
a
r
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
o
f
F
e
b
r
u
a
r
y
2
1
,
2
0
1
7
.
(
1
2
0
5
:
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
f
o
r
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
)
FEBRUARY 21, 2017 PAGE 5 CITY COUNCIL
stroke review of the City’s implementation of its General Plan.
The same speaker asked questions about whether or not the City looks at
CC&Rs. Homeowners Associations and Business Property Owner Associations
often have CC&R’s (Covenants, Conditions & Restrictions) which are private
party agreements amongst and between the parties within that association who
have agreed to abide by the rules of that association. More commonly, these
associations are known within residential projects where there may be different
standards from what the City utilizes. There may be different standards fo r the
size of lots, the number and size of pets, and a wide variety of things which can
be implemented through private CC&Rs that may be different that the standards
of the cities. This City government like other City governments does not create
and does not enforce private CC&Rs. Homeowners Associations and Business
Owner Associations have their own enforcement powers, have their own
attorneys, and their own decision -making process through their Board of
Directors to enforce their own rules. Cities do not enforce private CC&Rs. The
example that was raised by a Mr. Lu regarding a potential project that is coming
to the City and indicating that the project does not follow The Country Estate’s
CC&Rs, may indeed be the case. It is not often that it happens, but does happen
from time to time. It is really incumbent upon the private property owner (in this
case the sub-divider) to work through its Homeowner’s Association. If they do
not, their project is in peril because they need to abide by their local Association’s
rules and regulations, which is not generally difficult to do. Again, the City does
not enforce private CC&Rs and it is not the public’s responsibility to weigh in and
to enforce those private covenants amongst and between the property owners.
Another speaker provided the Council and staff with a matter regarding traffic,
school buses and student pickup/drop-off at Lorbeer Middle School. Having
spoken with PWD/Liu, this is a matter of which staff is not aware but take s
extraordinarily serious and so too does the City’s Public Safety partner, the LA
County Sheriff’s Department and staff will be on that matter immediately and if
the speaker is still in the audience, a staff member will get additional information
from him to be able to coordinate information regarding that issue. Each school
has a circulation route for buses, parent pickup and for students which obviously
needs to be adhered to in order for the circulation system to work properly. Each
school has appropriate parking zones, each school is located in a different area
and each school has its own unique characteristics, but there is a traffic and
circulation parking plan for each school. Staff and the Sheriff’s Department will
get on this matter immediately and continue to work very closely with the current
principal and the entire Pomona Unified School District, a wonderful working
relationship the City has enjoyed for three decades with both school districts.
Two speakers spoke regarding the recent spate of home burglaries within The
Country Estates. Speakers happen to live in one of the newer developments of
The Country Estates, a sub-community known as Crystal Ridge which is a
neighborhood of beautiful homes that are inside the gates . These homeowners
are members of the larger Country Estates Homeowners Association, which is
6.2.b
Packet Pg. 54
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
6
.
2
.
b
:
R
e
g
u
l
a
r
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
o
f
F
e
b
r
u
a
r
y
2
1
,
2
0
1
7
.
(
1
2
0
5
:
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
f
o
r
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
)
FEBRUARY 21, 2017 PAGE 6 CITY COUNCIL
privately gate-guarded, and privately security patrolled. A question was with
respect to Hawkwood which is a public street that terminates at a street within
The Country Estates Association where there is a gate. The Hawkwood gate is
within the boundaries of The Country Estates and is the managed and
maintained responsibility of The Country Estates Homeowners Association. It
was created decades ago but it was improved 15 -20 years ago with pilasters and
wrought iron when a nearby Parcel Map was processed and the Crystal Ridge
Project was processed. Again, the Hawkwood gate is under the control of The
Country Estates Homeowners Association and it was meant to be an emergency
gate and is therefore not manned as are the other two gates within The Country
Estates.
Lt. Marquez spoke to the burglaries and ongoing investigation underway in the
Crystal Ridge community to catch those responsible. He stated that he is aware
of the burglaries committed in the community within The Country Estates. He
has attended a meeting with the community and he spoke about the specific
incidents that have taken place. At this point it would be irresponsible of him to
speak to an open investigation that is ongoing in this pa rticular forum. He met
with the HOA President, security, two detectives and the Community Relations
Deputy today regarding additional patrol and additional monitoring and electronic
devices that can be placed in and around the community in question to mak e it
safer. The meeting lasted about two hours and was held inside the community.
He assured the community that the investigation of the burglaries that are
happening in The Country Estates has the attention of the Sheriff’s Department
and that the department is working diligently with the community and other law
enforcement agencies to apprehend and arrest the individuals that have
committed these burglaries.
CM/DeStefano said that the first speaker referred to the City’s enforcement of
CC&Rs. A later speaker was more specific in referring to The Country Estates
CC&Rs and a subdivision of a parcel of land. He admonished the Council that
should Council Members have questions or comments, they should not speak to
the matter of the Parcel Map (the subdivision of land) because that matter is
coming to the City Council in the form of a public hearing upon a
recommendation from the Planning Commission to move forward. There will be
another Noticed public hearing before the City Council and while an exact date
has not yet been set for the hearing, it is likely to be on the March 21, 2017 City
Council agenda. Because this is a matter of public hearing and because it is
coming before the City Council again, Council is asked to please not discuss the
CC&R enforcement, particularly with respect to the subdivision of land and the
specific application coming to the City Council in 30 days.
M/Lin said that Mrs. Khan said that it took law enforcement 47 minutes to
respond to a call and he wanted to know if that was a typical response time.
Lt. Marquez said he has spoken with Mrs. Khan on several occasions . Calls for
service are constantly monitored and broken into different categories such as
6.2.b
Packet Pg. 55
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
6
.
2
.
b
:
R
e
g
u
l
a
r
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
o
f
F
e
b
r
u
a
r
y
2
1
,
2
0
1
7
.
(
1
2
0
5
:
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
f
o
r
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
)
FEBRUARY 21, 2017 PAGE 7 CITY COUNCIL
emergency, priority and routine calls for service. He can assure the C ouncil that
any calls that are emergency and priority are very quickly responded to by the
department and routine calls such as calls for service that are reports that need
to be taken take longer for response and he will speak to Mrs. Khan about that
effort again. If Mrs. Khan calls in an emergency his department will be there in
short order.
5. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS:
5.1 Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting – February 23, 2017 – 7:00
p.m. – Windmill Community Room, 21810 Copley Drive.
5.2 Household Hazardous Waste and e-Waste Roundup Event – Saturday,
February 25, 2017 – 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., Gateway Corporate Center.
5.3 Community Coffee with State Senator Josh Newman – February 25, 2017
9:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m., Diamond Bar Center, 1600 Grand Avenue.
RSVP to 714-671-9474.
5.4 4th Annual Bridal Show – February 26, 2017 – 11:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.,
Diamond Bar Center, 1600 Grand Avenue.
5.5 City Council Meeting – March 7, 2017 – 6:30 p.m., AQMD/Government
Center Auditorium, 21865 Copley Drive.
6. CONSENT CALENDAR: C/Herrera moved, MPT/Low seconded, to
approve the Consent Calendar as presented. Motion carried by the following
Roll Call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Herrera, Lyons, Tye, MPT/Low, M/Lin
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
6.1 WAIVE READING IN FULL OF ALL ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS
AND ADOPT THE CONSENT CALENDAR.
6.2 APPROVED CITY COUNCIL MINUTES:
6.2.1 Study Session Minutes of February 7, 2017 – as submitted.
6.2.2 Regular Meeting of February 7, 2017 – as submitted.
6.3 RECEIVED AND FILED PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 17, 2016.
6.4 RATIFIED CHECK REGISTER DATED February 2, 2017 through
February 15, 2017 totaling $735,966.05.
6.2.b
Packet Pg. 56
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
6
.
2
.
b
:
R
e
g
u
l
a
r
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
o
f
F
e
b
r
u
a
r
y
2
1
,
2
0
1
7
.
(
1
2
0
5
:
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
f
o
r
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
)
FEBRUARY 21, 2017 PAGE 8 CITY COUNCIL
6.5 ADOPTED RESOLUTION 2017-03: APPROVING PLANS AND
SPECIFICATIONS AND ESTABLISHING A PROJECT PAYMENT
ACCOUNT; AWARDED CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR THE
TRAFFIC SIGNAL INFRASTRUCTURE UPGRADES PHASE II PROJECT
TO ELECNOR BELCO ELECTRIC, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $449,772
AND AUTHORIZED A CONTINGENCY AMOUNT OF $42,000 FOR
CONTRACT CHANGE ORDERS TO BE APPROVED BY THE CITY
MANAGER, FOR A TOTAL AUTHORIZATION AMOUNT OF $491,772.
7. PUBLIC HEARING:
7.1 RESOLUTION NO. 2017-04: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT
THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND NECESSITY REQUIRE THE
ACQUISITION BY EMINENT DOMAIN OF INTERESTS IN CERTAIN
REAL PROPERTY FOR PUBLIC USE AND AUTHORIZING AND
DIRECTING CONDEMNATION OF PARCEL NOS. 8718-005-007 AND
008.
CM/DeStefano referred staff’s report to CA/DeBerry who stated that this is
a Public Hearing at which the City Council considers whether to authorize
legal counsel to file a Court action in Eminent Domain to acquire the
property. The particular property that is subject to the Resolution is 2.83
acres and is currently unused. It is owned by the YMCA and is located
across from the YMCA at the end of Sunset Crossing Road. Its current
state is that it is generally covered with weeds, some grass and dirt , it is
surrounded by chain link fencing, and there are storage bins located on
the property. At one point this property was used as practice fields for the
adjacent Pony League but in staff’s estimation, it has not been used for
any recreational purposes over the last 10 years.
CA/DeBerry further stated that the City’s proposed use of the property is
to develop one-acre as a neighborhood park and to leave the remaining
1.83 acres as open space for the immediate future pending further study.
There will be further study of the precise amenities anticipated to be
included in the neighborhood park and the City also intends to receive
neighborhood input prior to proceeding.
Prior to filing a Court action, State Law requires that the City Council make
specified findings, all of which are contained in the Resolution bef ore the
Council this evening. He summarized the five findings: 1) the public
interest is served by the proposed use (park purposes); 2) that the
proposed use is planned or located in a manner compatible with the
greatest public good and least private injury; 3) that the property is
necessary for the proposed use; 4) that the offer required by State Law
has been made to the property owner; and, 5) that the City has fulfilled its
legal requirements prior to adopting the Resolution of Necessity which
6.2.b
Packet Pg. 57
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
6
.
2
.
b
:
R
e
g
u
l
a
r
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
o
f
F
e
b
r
u
a
r
y
2
1
,
2
0
1
7
.
(
1
2
0
5
:
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
f
o
r
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
)
FEBRUARY 21, 2017 PAGE 9 CITY COUNCIL
includes a finding under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Staff’s report contains the detailed findings and evidentiary support.
Briefly, in support of the findings, the acquisition will help the City meet its
General Plan goal of having 3-acres per 1,000 residents. Currently, the
rate is 2.3-acres per 1,000 residents. It also furthers two General Plan
strategies that encourage both acquisition of open space and public parks.
The property is already designated under the Zoning Code and Gener al
Plan for “park purposes and open space.” There is currently no
neighborhood park that serves this community. The nearest park
(Peterson Park) is about 1.8 miles from the site. The City has complied
with state law and retained an appraiser which appraised the property as
“highest and best use” and by state law, the City is required to offer the full
amount of the appraised value to the YMCA which it has done. The
Resolution also contains a finding under the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) that the property is categorically exempt. There are
three exemptions that apply to this project: 1) Exemption for infill
development of less than five-acres; 2) there is an exemption when there
is no reasonable foreseeability that the project will have any significant
impact on the environment; and, 3) typically acquisitions for Open Space
and Public Parks are exempt under CEQA. However, having said that,
once the City decides on the particular amenities for the neighborhood
park and sometime in the future when the City decides what to do with the
balance of the property, it would undertake the same CEQA analysis to
determine whether or not it is exempt.
As required by State Law, the City provided written notice to the property
owner regarding the time and place of this hearing and by State Law, the
property owner is required, within 15-days of such notice (by February 10)
to advise the City if the property owner wants to be heard at this Public
Hearing. To date, the City has not received a written request from the
property owner to be heard in this matter.
If the City Council adopts this Resolution, it will authorize legal counsel to
move forward with the filing of an action in LA Superior Court to acquire
the property. He noted that even if the Council adopts the Resolution
tonight the ongoing effort for the City to negotiate a voluntary purchase
with the YMCA will in no way stop. This effort to negotiate a voluntary
purchase will be ongoing as the parties involved have recently traded
ideas about what the purchase price should be.
One of the items that is not discussed at the Public Hearing as dictated by
State Law is the price being offered for the property. To that end, all
public comments during tonight’s Public Hearing must be directed to t he
five findings that are contained within the Resolution.
MPT/Low asked for clarification that this project was exempt under CEQA
and yet at some other point another CEQA might be required.
6.2.b
Packet Pg. 58
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
6
.
2
.
b
:
R
e
g
u
l
a
r
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
o
f
F
e
b
r
u
a
r
y
2
1
,
2
0
1
7
.
(
1
2
0
5
:
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
f
o
r
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
)
FEBRUARY 21, 2017 PAGE 10 CITY COUNCIL
CA/DeBerry said that the current actions tonight are intended t o simply
acquire the property. Until such time as the City has acquired the park
and has determined what particular amenities will be for the neighborhood
park and or for the 1.83 acres later on, whether or not those particular
activities and installation/construction would have on the property are not
known. It is too early in the process to determine whether or not there will
be an Environmental Impact required for whatever is determined to take
place until the property is acquired. Once a more definit ive plan is in place
the City will relook at CEQA to determine whether or not those exemptions
still apply and if not, further study may be required.
MPT/Low asked if the property was currently being used or sitting fallow.
CA/DeBerry said as indicated in staff’s report, it is sitting fallow staff
believes it has not been used over the past 10 years.
M/Lin opened the Public Hearing at 7:49 p.m.
M/Lin asked if the property owner was present and there was no
response.
Absent anyone requesting to speak on this matter, M/Lin closed the Public
Hearing at 7:49 p.m.
C/Lyons said she would like to move forward with this project. She can
remember when the property was well used by youth in the community for
baseball practice and general play. She hates to see it in its current
condition and it is definitely an eyesore.
C/Lyons moved, C/Herrera seconded, to Approve Resolution No. 2017 -04:
A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar, Finding and
Determining that the Public Interest and Necessity require the
Acquisition by Eminent Domain of Interests In Certain Real Property for
Public Use, and Authorizing and Directing Condemnation of Parcel Nos.
8718-005-007 and 008. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Herrera, Lyons, Tye, MPT/Low,
M/Lin
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
6.2.b
Packet Pg. 59
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
6
.
2
.
b
:
R
e
g
u
l
a
r
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
o
f
F
e
b
r
u
a
r
y
2
1
,
2
0
1
7
.
(
1
2
0
5
:
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
f
o
r
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
)
FEBRUARY 21, 2017 PAGE 11 CITY COUNCIL
8. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
8.1 (a) ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2017-05: AMENDING THE FISCAL
YEAR 2016-17 MUNICIPAL BUDGET.
CM/DeStefano stated that each year at about this time staff brings forward
to the City Council recommended changes to the Council’s adopted
budget and staff is doing so again this evening. Staff’s report will be
provided by FD/Honeywell.
FD/Honeywell explained that the purpose of this report is to update the
City Council on the City’s financial condition at the midpoint of the 2016 -17
Fiscal Year and to make appropriate adjustments to the budget. The City
has continued to see moderate increases in most revenue sources which
is a positive indicator of an improving local economy. Property tax and
sales tax revenue represent nearly 63 percent of the General Fund
revenue so meaningful increases in these categories are important
financial indicators for the City. Property tax revenue is tracking on budget
for FY 2016-17 and it had been increased over the 2015-16 FY levels by 3
½ percent. Sales tax is being adjusted upward at mid -year by $350,000.
This increase is due primarily to better than expected results in th e
business and industry sector, diversification in the sales tax base and
continued economic development efforts throughout the City. There are
some decreases in the General Fund revenue such as lower than
expected fines and forfeiture revenue due to bett er compliance with City
Ordinances and lower recreation fees due to cancellation of the Snowfest
earlier this year due to bad weather. Even with these reductions, there is
an overall increase to the General Fund revenue in the amount of
approximately $1.7 million of which $1.2 is a use of General Fund
reserves. The City has continued to control expenditures in order to best
meet the needs of the organization and its residents. Staff is
recommending an increase of General Fund Appropriations at mid -year of
approximately $1.6 million over the current adjusted budget. A portion of
this increase is due to the reorganization of the Parks and Facilities
Maintenance Division earlier this fiscal year. It was not immediately
known at the beginning of the fiscal year what the needs of the
department would be. As the year has progressed and staff has had the
opportunity to evaluate facilities throughout the City, the necessary
resources are now being appropriated.
A majority of the increase to the expenditures is for the funding of Capital
projects which constitutes $1.2 million of the $1.6 million increase.
$245,000 is for additional funding for the City’s Monument Signs, $84,000
is for Preliminary Mitigation Measures for the recent storm damage to
Sycamore Canyon Park and Steep Canyon, and $805,000 for Area 5
Street Rehab. In the past, projects of this nature have commenced after
the beginning of the new fiscal year around August. Staff has determined
6.2.b
Packet Pg. 60
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
6
.
2
.
b
:
R
e
g
u
l
a
r
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
o
f
F
e
b
r
u
a
r
y
2
1
,
2
0
1
7
.
(
1
2
0
5
:
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
f
o
r
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
)
FEBRUARY 21, 2017 PAGE 12 CITY COUNCIL
that it is beneficial for slurry projects to start closer to the beginning of the
summer for better results and fewer school traffic issues. In order to
award the contract in April or May, funding sources must be identified
during the current fiscal year which results in the short -term borrowing
from the General Fund Reserves in the current fiscal year. These funds
will be returned to the General Fund Reserves in Fiscal Year 2017 -18 and
replaced with a new funding source such as Measure M which was
approved by the voters in November 2016. The details of all of these
changes can be found in Exhibit A of Staff’s report. Adjustments at mid -
year will bring projected General Fund Reserves at June 30, 2017 to
$15.8 million which is 60 percent of the General Fund appropriations.
Also included in this mid-year report are a variety of adjustments to
Special Revenue Funds, the most notable being an increase to the
General Plan Fund. The majority of the $544,000 increase is funds that
were already earmarked and appropriated in prior years and not carried
over in September when the rest of the carryovers were done. A small
portion is for costs related to GPAC meetings and public outreach in order
to keep the residents apprised of the progress of the General Plan.
Adjustments to the CIP Fund include additional appropriations for Lemon
Avenue and as previously mentioned, the City Monument signs. New
appropriations include Pantera Park lighting design and the previously
mentioned funding for the Area 5 slurry project and initial mitigation efforts
at Sycamore Canyon Park and Steep Canyon.
C/Herrera moved, C/Tye seconded, to Adopt Resolution 2017 -05:
Amending the Fiscal Year 2016-17 Municipal Budget. Motion carried by
the following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Herrera, Lyons, Tye, MPT/Low,
M/Lin
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
(b) ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2017-06: AMENDING RESOLUTION
NO. 2016-40, THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR’S COMPENSATION
PLAN EFFECTIVE MARCH 4, 2017.
C/Herrera moved, C/Lyons seconded, to Adopt Resolution No. 2017-06:
Amending Resolution No. 2016-40, the City of Diamond Bar’s
Compensation Plan effective March 4, 2017. Motion carried by the
following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Herrera, Lyons, Tye, MPT/Low,
M/Lin
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
6.2.b
Packet Pg. 61
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
6
.
2
.
b
:
R
e
g
u
l
a
r
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
o
f
F
e
b
r
u
a
r
y
2
1
,
2
0
1
7
.
(
1
2
0
5
:
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
f
o
r
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
)
FEBRUARY 21, 2017 PAGE 13 CITY COUNCIL
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
8.2 APPROVE AMENDED AND RESTATED AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY
OF DIAMOND BAR AND USA WASTE OF CALIFORNIA, INC. (WASTE
MANAGEMENT) FOR RESIDENTIAL CART CUSTOMER SOLID WASTE
MANAGEMENT SERVICES.
ACM/McLean reported that staff is bringing forward a recommendation to
approve a franchise amended and restated agreement between the City
and USA Waste aka Waste Management, the City’s exclusive residential
solid waste hauler since 2000. The current second agreement went into
place in 2010. Since that time, Waste Management has continued to
provide good service to the customers, has maintained competitive rates
and offered a variety of very significant refuse and recycling programs.
The current agreement is set to expire in August 2018. In March 2016,
City Council directed staff to begin exclusive negotiations with Waste
Management over the next six months. Following an RFP process,
Council selected HF&H Consultants, an industry leader and expert in
providing assistance to staff as it negotiates these very complex deals and
who is represented at tonight’s meeting.
Staff began negotiations last August by setting staff’s goals about how it
would proceed with negotiations. Number one was to provide high quality
service. Staff wanted to maintain and expand the special programs the
City has which include not just trash service, but also recycling, e-waste,
household hazardous waste and a long list of other items. Staff wanted to
generate revenues and added value from these agreements to fund
community-wide initiatives and services and finally, to maintain health and
safety throughout the community through continuity of service. This
negotiation process concluded early 2017 and the resulting d ocument is
Exhibit A in Council’s packet which is the proposed contract agreement
that staff has come to agreement with the City’s haulers. This document
has been reviewed and approved by the City Attorney.
Some of the key provisions are as follows: The term of the agreement per
the negotiated agreement is that the current agreement would be
extended for a period of five years to August 2023 with the City having
at that point, the option to extend the Agreement by two one-year
extensions. Regular service provided under this agreement are that
customers will continue to be able to select the appropriate sized cart they
wish to use. One of the unique features of the agreements is that the City
has a “pay as you throw” system which means individuals can choose
carts based on the amount of waste and/or recyclables they generate. In
short, those who produce less waste end up paying less because they do
not need the larger cart. Staff found that about 84 percent of customers
choose to use bins that are smaller than the 96 gallon because they found
ways to recycle more and generate less waste. The third item is rates and
6.2.b
Packet Pg. 62
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
6
.
2
.
b
:
R
e
g
u
l
a
r
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
o
f
F
e
b
r
u
a
r
y
2
1
,
2
0
1
7
.
(
1
2
0
5
:
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
f
o
r
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
)
FEBRUARY 21, 2017 PAGE 14 CITY COUNCIL
what staff has agreed to with Waste Management is to freeze the current
rates for the first year of the agreement which results in an approximate
rate payer savings of $94,630 for that first year. Thereafter, Waste
Management would have the availability of requesting rate increases
based solely on their changes in providing service and business costs
associated with providing service beginning in year two of the agreement.
He noted that it is very difficult to provide apples to apples comparisons
between cities. The agreements Diamond Bar has and the franchise
agreements versus those of other agencies can differ in many different
wa ys. For example, Arcadia has a much more limited “scope of services”
compared to specialized recycling service Diamond Bar enjoys including
e-waste, household hazardous waste, sharps collection, etc. More
importantly, Arcadia has made a policy decision not to have franchise
fees. They do not have road maintenance charges associated with their
agreements which for Diamond Bar are charged to offset heavy
equipment on City streets which fund the City’s slurry seal projects that
keep Diamond Bar streets looking very nice. Arcadia has also chosen not
to collect street sweeping costs, a policy decision that was made because
Arcadia has fundamentally different revenue sources from Diamond Bar.
For example, Arcadia has a higher property tax share. Diamond Bar has
the lowest property tax share in the County of Los Angeles which limits its
revenue collection. Some other cities that may choose to subsidize these
services have large-scale sales tax producing developments such as
malls and in Arcadia’s case, a racetrack. It is important to keep these
factors in mind when comparing rates.
The City has two fees that are included in its franchises which are the 5
percent franchise fee and the 4.7 percent AB939 fee. Staff is not
proposing changes in the levels of those rates. They will continue as they
have been for the past 17 years or so. Staff anticipates a total of
$510,000 being generated by franchise and AB939. Because of Diamond
Bar’s limited availability of sales tax like a resort town generates with a
high TOT and because the City does not have other revenue generating
sources it is important that the City has the ability to do so in a situation
such as this. The agreement also includes street sweeping funding which
allows the City to meet all stormwater requirements. There is road
maintenance funding of $125,000 which is put into the City’s street
maintenance accounts to fund slurry seal and street improvements
throughout the community to offset some of the damages caused by
heavy equipment on the streets. There is a $75,000 one-time payment for
contracting funds, a fee that will be collected to reimburse the City for
consultant costs related to the negotiation process. Finally, there is an
environmental education fund which goes to fund community ed ucation
programs including the City’s Discovery Cube partnership of Orange
County to provide additional environmental services and recycling
education to school-aged kids in both districts.
6.2.b
Packet Pg. 63
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
6
.
2
.
b
:
R
e
g
u
l
a
r
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
o
f
F
e
b
r
u
a
r
y
2
1
,
2
0
1
7
.
(
1
2
0
5
:
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
f
o
r
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
)
FEBRUARY 21, 2017 PAGE 15 CITY COUNCIL
The agreements have minimal diversion rates that remain at 4 5 percent
for all material and 75 percent for construction/demolition materials, both
of which meet state requirements.
Staff and the consultant team have spent a lot of time developing these
comprehensive program enhancements which include a senior discount
for residents aged 60 who may be eligible for those reduced rates.
Diamond Bar is a pioneer in that aspect. The City has over 3,000
residents who take advantage of the City’s senior program which is unique
to the area. There is a disabled customer discount in which those that can
provide proof of disability receive an additional 15 percent off of their
monthly service. There is a yard waste reduction discount which provides
backyard composting instruction which may result in the customer being
eligible for waiver of the “mandatory yard waste bin.” Backyard assistance
for disabled individuals wherein Waste Management drivers retrieve and
replace carts for those who are unable to wheel the carts to the curbside.
Program includes “on-call bulky item and e-Waste collection and disposal.
Residents are eligible for four free bulky item pickups which is helpful in
disposing of furniture, refrigerators, etc. There is also an “at your door
hazardous waste” collection – two free annual pickups for residents which
includes items such as paint, cleaning solution, household chemicals,
batteries, etc. There is also a Sharps mail-back program for secure
return, medication take-back program, a free mulch giveaway which is
very popular and is tied to the bi-annual environmental events such as
Arbor Day, Earth Day, joint events and the Eco -Expo. The program
includes holiday tree collection and disposal and staff has partnered with
Waste Management to increase the City’s outreach, educational and
marketing materials with billing inserts, a comprehensive user-guide that
provides information on all of these services and others that are available
to residents. And, Waste Management provides free services to the City
for various City events which provides another offset to the City’s General
Fund.
C/Tye asked ACM/McLean if when he spoke to comparing apples to
apples, that the City has all of these services that other cities may not
have and that residents would have to pay for those additional services
were they not written into the contract.
ACM/McLean said that in general, Diamond Bar has a very
comprehensive program and some of these particular offerings may not
be available to residents of other cities and yes, in most cases, they would
likely pay an additional charge to receive those services.
Certain accountability items are built into the agreements to make sure
that contract compliance is met, that there is accountability to the City and
the residents. It includes standardized reporting to ensure t he haulers are
meeting their diversion and other contractual obligations. The City has the
6.2.b
Packet Pg. 64
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
6
.
2
.
b
:
R
e
g
u
l
a
r
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
o
f
F
e
b
r
u
a
r
y
2
1
,
2
0
1
7
.
(
1
2
0
5
:
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
f
o
r
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
)
FEBRUARY 21, 2017 PAGE 16 CITY COUNCIL
ability to do performance audits and there are payments associated with
those to offset the cost of doing those audits, and there are customer
surveys available at the City’s request.
In summary, staff and Waste Management believe the goals of the
exclusive negotiation period have been met and to that end, staff has
received a signature from Waste Management indicating their approval of
this process. The agreed upon terms provide extremely robust services
as the Council has always shown that it wants to set an example when it
comes to environmental services and staff believes that the large amount
of specialized services these agreements provide shows that. The
agreement also ensures the City and residents that the community is
meeting State Mandates with respect to environmental and diversion
requirements.
Staff recommends that the City Council approve the agreement with
Waste Management for the amended and restated agreement.
C/Herrera pointed out that the previous agreement was for eight (8) years
and why is the City proposing only a five-year agreement this time around.
ACM/McLean said that the total timeframe for the previous agreement
included one-year extension opportunities which was actually a six-year
agreement with two option years.
C/Herrera said she did not understand why it was shortened from 8 to 7
years.
ACM/McLean said that in discussing the matter with the City Attorney a nd
amongst staff, it was felt that it was an appropriate time period and, at a
future time, if the City wished to enter into another exclusive negotiation it
could. Staff felt this was the appropriate time span for this agreement. In
addition, staff anticipates there will likely be changes to State Mandates
and Laws coming forward and staff felt it would be appropriate to address
those at that time.
C/Tye referred staff to Page 14, Item 2.4 Term of the Agreement which
states that the term of this agreement shall be 13 years.
ACM/McLean said that is because this is an amended and restated
agreement which means that this extends the term of the original
agreement by amendment.
C/Lyons said she felt that Waste Management does a very good job for
Diamond Bar and appreciates the bulky item and holiday tree pickups and
the fact that they call and leave messages for residents when they are
delayed due to the holiday. For residential, Waste Management does a
6.2.b
Packet Pg. 65
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
6
.
2
.
b
:
R
e
g
u
l
a
r
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
o
f
F
e
b
r
u
a
r
y
2
1
,
2
0
1
7
.
(
1
2
0
5
:
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
f
o
r
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
)
FEBRUARY 21, 2017 PAGE 17 CITY COUNCIL
terrific job.
MPT/Low asked if ACM/McLean had stated that because Diamond Bar
has one of the lowest property tax rates for every hundred dollars a
resident pays the City gets 40 cents on that hundred.
ACM/McLean responded that the City gets 5.9 percent or 5.9 cents of
every dollar received of the County’s share of property tax revenue.
MPT/Low said that over the past eight years Diamond Bar has enjoyed the
contract with Waste Management have there been any rate increases
imposed to the initial contract.
ACM/McLean said there have been rate increases in accordance with a
standard formula included in the agreement based on the changing
dynamics of business costs which includes fuel, labor, landfill rates, etc.
MPT/Low asked if the increase was different from the published CPI.
ACM/McLean said that the staff’s audit he referenced was based on
performance which is separate from this. It is not the CPI. There are
different factors and a formula that generates the amount the hauler would
request for any type of increase which would be done annually. He
reminded Council that for the first year of this agreement there is a rate
freeze, so none would be accepted for review until year two.
MPT/Low asked whether any other waste hauler would be obligated to
reimburse for the consulting costs.
ACM/McLean said yes, that this has been a feature of the agreements in
the past two negotiation periods and when he speaks about Valley Vista
she will hear that they have the same obligation as part of their agreed
upon terms.
C/Herrera moved, C/Tye seconded, to Approve Amended and Restated
Agreement between City of Diamond Bar and USA Waste of California,
Inc. (Waste Management) for Residential Cart Customer Solid Waste
Management Services. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Herrera, Lyons, Tye, MPT/Low,
M/Lin
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
6.2.b
Packet Pg. 66
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
6
.
2
.
b
:
R
e
g
u
l
a
r
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
o
f
F
e
b
r
u
a
r
y
2
1
,
2
0
1
7
.
(
1
2
0
5
:
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
f
o
r
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
)
FEBRUARY 21, 2017 PAGE 18 CITY COUNCIL
8.3 APPROVE AMENDED AND RESTATED AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY
OF DIAMOND BAR AND VALLEY VISTA SERVICES FOR BIN ROLL-
OFF BOX CUSTOMER SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICES.
C/Lyons recused herself from Item 8.3 and left the Dais.
ACM/McLean stated that much of the information he provided related to
the process for the Waste Management Agreement applies to this reque st
for approval of an amended and restated agreement between the City of
Diamond Bar and Valley Vista Services. Valley Vista Services has served
the City of Diamond Bar since 2000 and is currently working under an
agreement that began in 2010. Valley Vista Services has continued to
provide good customer service, maintain competitive rates and offer a
variety of services to the public they serve. In addition, they have been
very responsive to staff and worked well with staff members to make sure
the City was providing good environmental services to the community. In
March 2016 the City Council directed staff to proceed with exclusive
negotiations with Valley Vista for commercial and multi-family services and
during this process staff again used the services of HF&H, an expert
consulting service to help get through the process with Valley Vista.
This process began in August 2016 and staff, consultants and Valley Vista
met over a series of months to negotiate and get to an agreed upon
amended and restated franchise agreement. Similar to the previously
discussed agreement, this supersedes the existing document and is
essentially an amendment going forward with new terms. This amended
and restated agreement would go into effect immediately upon Council’s
approval, should it be granted. The City Attorney has reviewed and
approved this agreement.
Key provisions related to the Valley Vista agreement are that this is a five -
year agreement with an expiration in 2023 and adds two option years at
the City’s discretion. For regular service customers continue to be able to
select the appropriate sized bins and all recyclables and refuse is sorted
at the Valley Vista MRF which is the Material Recovery Facility. With
respect to rates, apples to apples comparisons are difficult for the reasons
previously outlined. However, like the previous discussion, these rates
are frozen at the current rates through June 30, 2018 which is an
estimated rate payer savings of approximately $48,278 and Valley Vista
would be eligible for a rate increase request starting in July 2018, year two
of the agreement. Any increase would be based on a formula that is
included in the agreed upon terms that is based on business costs such
as fuel, labor and landfill costs.
Valley Vista has had and staff is recommending that it continue to have
slightly different percentages for franchising, AB939 fees. In this case,
franchise fees are at 5 percent and the AB939 are at 13 percent. AB939
6.2.b
Packet Pg. 67
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
6
.
2
.
b
:
R
e
g
u
l
a
r
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
o
f
F
e
b
r
u
a
r
y
2
1
,
2
0
1
7
.
(
1
2
0
5
:
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
f
o
r
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
)
FEBRUARY 21, 2017 PAGE 19 CITY COUNCIL
are funds that are special revenue funds the City uses spe cifically for
environmental services and recycling programs. One example is that the
City partners with ACE Hardware to provide a place for residents to drop
off and recycle light bulbs, batteries, fluorescent tubes and such which is a
very well used and convenient benefit provided residents. The agreement
includes minimum diversion of 25 percent for all solid waste and a
minimum of 75 percent for all construction/demolition materials as
mandated by the State.
Program enhancements that are focused on the commercial and multi-
family sector are substantially different than the residential. These
comprehensive and proactive efforts include scout service for businesses
and multi-family units, bulky item pickups, household hazardous waste
pickups, and very comprehensive educational and marketing materials
which include materials for an organics program which were very
impressive and will be very helpful for businesses that are required to
meet the new Organics State Mandates. They also provide service to City
facilities and special events which is a very significant service to the public
since Diamond Bar has several large-scale events including the City
Birthday Celebration and the 4th of July which are provided to the City at
no charge which is a General Fund offset the City would otherwise have to
pay.
The Organics Recycling Program is a result of the recently passed
AB1826 which is a requirement that commercial businesses that generate
specific amounts of food waste or restaurant waste have this material
diverted from landfills. This is a new requirement and through this process
staff worked with Valley Vista to secure a program that will serve the
community, its businesses and restaurants that are impacted by this State
Mandate at a very competitive price as an incentive to get them to
participate.
With respect to accountability, Valley Vista wants to ensure compliance
and accountability to the City and its residents so there are standardized
reporting requirements, performance audits and customer service surveys
as terms in the agreement.
Staff recommends that the City Council approve the amended and
restated agreement with Valley Vista Services to provide commercial and
multi-family waste hauling services. Both parties agreed that the goals of
the negotiation have been met.
M/Lin asked what the monthly average rate is for these services.
ACM/McLean reported that the services vary but in general, a 3-yard bin
commercial and multi-family standard monthly service rate is $132.98.
Staff’s report includes comparisons in different agencies and staff would
6.2.b
Packet Pg. 68
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
6
.
2
.
b
:
R
e
g
u
l
a
r
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
o
f
F
e
b
r
u
a
r
y
2
1
,
2
0
1
7
.
(
1
2
0
5
:
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
f
o
r
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
)
FEBRUARY 21, 2017 PAGE 20 CITY COUNCIL
caution that there are varying factors in each agreement that impact those
rates. In Diamond Bar, the comparison for monthly standard service for a
64 gallon cart for residential and the rate is $27.18. The senior rate is a
15 percent reduction off of the standard rates.
C/Tye commented that Valley Vista and Waste Management have been
involved in this community for years and have done a terrific job. At one
time there were 13 different provide rs in the City of Diamond Bar and
again, many unfunded mandates have come to the forefront and those
mandates are pushed off on somebody. So he thinks that Valley Vista
and Waste Management have done a terrific job for the City and residents
of Diamond Bar. Just about anything Council Members and the public
attend and anything the City puts together, they are there and they are
both supporting the City in any way that they can. He appreciates their
efforts and their neighborly attitude and attention.
MPT/Low said that Valley Vista and Waste Management have done an
excellent job and she really appreciates their participation in the City.
C/Tye moved, MPT/Low seconded, to Approve Amended and Restated
Agreement between City of Diamond Bar and Valley Vista Services for Bin
Roll-off Box Customer Solid Waste Management Services. Motion carried
by the following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Herrera, Tye, MPT/Low, M/Lin
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS Lyons
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
C/Lyons returned to the Dais.
9. COUNCIL SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS AND MEETING ATTENDANCE
REPORTS/COUNCIL MEMBER COMMENTS:
C/Lyons reported that on February 9th she enjoyed celebrating Chinese New
Year with the Diamond Bar Evergreen Club which was very well attended with
lots of food and entertainment. Last week she represented the Council at the
celebration for Chaparral Middle School. The school was one of only nine that
earned the prestigious award “Middle Schools t o Watch.” Well done, Chaparral!
She participated in a meeting with Southern California Gas where concerns were
shared regarding the reduced amount of storage this year over past years. As a
result, they have asked everyone to conserve natural gas so that everyone can
make it through the winter which is unusually wet and cold. She thanked
FD/Honeywell and her staff for all of their hard work on the mid -year budget
amendment. It was a huge task and the recommendations were thorough and
thoughtful and she appreciates their diligence. She is very excited about the
acquisition of the YMCA property and feels a park in that part of the City would
6.2.b
Packet Pg. 69
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
6
.
2
.
b
:
R
e
g
u
l
a
r
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
o
f
F
e
b
r
u
a
r
y
2
1
,
2
0
1
7
.
(
1
2
0
5
:
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
f
o
r
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
)
FEBRUARY 21, 2017 PAGE 21 CITY COUNCIL
be terrific. She recalls when the property was well used and she looks forward to
that happening again.
C/Herrera congratulated the Diamond Bar Pop Warner Cheer Team for placing
6th in the “National Cheer and Dance” Championship and becoming the 2017
Jamz National Champions. The kids work very hard and deserve all of the
accolades they receive. She attended the San Gabriel Val ley Council of
Governments Transportation meeting where a great deal of time was spent
discussing ACE (Alameda Corridor East) concluding its grade separation work so
that rail can run above traffic through intersections rather than impeding traffic
flow. In a few years they will conclude their work after spending $1 billion of
federal funds. San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments is the parent
organization for ACE and the discussion was whether to disband ACE or
repurpose and reutilize the organization for other projects throughout the San
Gabriel Valley region. It was the recommendation of the Transportation
Committee and the Governing Board of the Council of Governments and the vote
was unanimous to keep ACE and to take the next six month s to come up with a
plan on how to repurpose ACE so that it could potentially take over construction
of different projects. Diamond Bar’s interest is the potential of ACE taking over
and supervising the construction of the SR57/60 Confluence project which would
undoubtedly expedite the project and likely come in for less money than if the
project was supervised under Caltrans. The decision was very exciting for
Diamond Bar.
M/Lin said that ACE is providing construction supervision for the Lemon Avenue
Interchange project.
C/Tye said it seems that the City is saving money as the Council sits in session
and thank you to C/Herrera for making everyone aware of that. Tonight this
meeting will be adjourned in memory of Lynda Burgess and he asked that the
meeting also be adjourned in memory of Whittier Police Officer Keith Boyer.
Captain Reyes and Lt. Marquez have black bands across their badges to
commemorate the loss of a fellow police officer who was murdered in the line of
duty, simply for doing his job. C/Tye stated that he grew up in Whittier and the
incident happened close to a Little League field where he used to play. This man
was killed for responding to a car accident and was murdered by a cockroach of
a human being and it quickly and forever changed the Boyer’s lives and the life of
his fellow officer, Pat Hazel. This perpetrator was a gang member who killed his
cousin so he could steal his cousin’s car and make his way to Whittier and kill
Officer Boyer. Sheriff McDonald discussed AB47 and Prop 109 or 58, h e knows
from people who spoke this evening, burglaries have increased and burglars are
very bright in that if they do not steal more than $950 they will not be treated as
they were in the past. Again, this individual was in and out of jail 10 times in the
last year. Something is wrong. When one considers what has been approved
through the initiative process or by the legislature, this officer was nearing
retirement which is what one looks forward to – to have a successful career and
be able to retire and spend time with his family. It is so very sad when one
6.2.b
Packet Pg. 70
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
6
.
2
.
b
:
R
e
g
u
l
a
r
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
o
f
F
e
b
r
u
a
r
y
2
1
,
2
0
1
7
.
(
1
2
0
5
:
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
f
o
r
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
)
FEBRUARY 21, 2017 PAGE 22 CITY COUNCIL
realizes this can happen in the blink of an eye.
MPT/Low said that C/Tye mentioned AB47 which has resulted in the early
release of many prisoners. Her heart goes out to the two speakers and their
neighbors who were burglarized in their homes in the Crystal Ridge
development. Nearly every month individuals appear before the Council to talk
about the trauma they have experienced, not so much to the loss of property, but
to the emotional toll and the feeling that their privacy and safety have been
violated. She understands their pain and is very thankful that Diamond Bar has
an excellent and responsive Sheriff’s Department. She thanked Lt. Marquez and
staff for meeting with the residents. This is not a problem that can be fixed very
quickly but the effort to eliminate such events is ongoing. She thanked
ACM/McLean for his work on the Waste Management and Valley Vista contracts
whose report came in at a whopping 542 pages. Great job! It was great seeing
the young women doing their cheer. If others grew up with parents who did not
encourage sports she thinks that is a mistake and young people should be
encouraged to participate in various sports because they make people happy
and provide new perspectives on life. She gave a shout out to the Pony League
and Girls Softball, basketball and baseball. Congratulations to the Breakfast
Lions for their successful “Drumming for Kids” event as well as, the Miss
Diamond Bar Scholarship Pageant which deserves everyone’s support.
M/Lin attended many functions during the past two weeks, one of which that
stood out to him was his attendance, along with C/Lyons, at the Diamond Bar
Woman’s Club’s Annual Charity Casino Night which was a very fun event. C/Tye
spoke about Officer Keith Boyer. M/Lin’s nephew recently graduated from the
Police Academy and is working for the police department in Westminster and he
understands how great a police officer is. This is the first police officer in his
family as far back as he can trace his history. Lynda Burgess was the City’s first
City Clerk and helped set up the documentation protocols, filing systems, etc.
She worked for the City for 15 years and passed away last week.
ADJOURNMENT: With no further business to conduct, M/Lin adjourned the Regular
City Council Meeting at 8:45 p.m. in memory of Lynda Burgess and Whittier Police
Department Officer Keith Boyer.
_____________________________________
Tommye Cribbins, City Clerk
6.2.b
Packet Pg. 71
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
6
.
2
.
b
:
R
e
g
u
l
a
r
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
o
f
F
e
b
r
u
a
r
y
2
1
,
2
0
1
7
.
(
1
2
0
5
:
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
f
o
r
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
)
FEBRUARY 21, 2017 PAGE 23 CITY COUNCIL
The foregoing minutes are hereby approved this day of , 2017.
Jimmy Lin, Mayor
6.2.b
Packet Pg. 72
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
6
.
2
.
b
:
R
e
g
u
l
a
r
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
o
f
F
e
b
r
u
a
r
y
2
1
,
2
0
1
7
.
(
1
2
0
5
:
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
f
o
r
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
)
Agenda #: 6.3
Meeting Date: March 7, 2017
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: James DeStefano, City Manager
TITLE: TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY
12, 2017.
RECOMMENDATION:
Receive and file.
Attachments:
1. 6.3.a Minutes of January 12, 2017.
6.3
Packet Pg. 73
6.3.a
Packet Pg. 74
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
6
.
3
.
a
:
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
o
f
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
1
2
,
2
0
1
7
.
(
1
1
7
9
:
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
f
o
r
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
)
6.3.a
Packet Pg. 75
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
6
.
3
.
a
:
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
o
f
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
1
2
,
2
0
1
7
.
(
1
1
7
9
:
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
f
o
r
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
)
6.3.a
Packet Pg. 76
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
6
.
3
.
a
:
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
o
f
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
1
2
,
2
0
1
7
.
(
1
1
7
9
:
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
f
o
r
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
)
6.3.a
Packet Pg. 77
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
6
.
3
.
a
:
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
o
f
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
1
2
,
2
0
1
7
.
(
1
1
7
9
:
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
f
o
r
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
)
6.3.a
Packet Pg. 78
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
6
.
3
.
a
:
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
o
f
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
1
2
,
2
0
1
7
.
(
1
1
7
9
:
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
f
o
r
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
)
6.3.a
Packet Pg. 79
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
6
.
3
.
a
:
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
o
f
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
1
2
,
2
0
1
7
.
(
1
1
7
9
:
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
f
o
r
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
)
6.3.a
Packet Pg. 80
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
6
.
3
.
a
:
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
o
f
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
1
2
,
2
0
1
7
.
(
1
1
7
9
:
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
f
o
r
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
)
6.3.a
Packet Pg. 81
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
6
.
3
.
a
:
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
o
f
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
1
2
,
2
0
1
7
.
(
1
1
7
9
:
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
f
o
r
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
)
Agenda #: 6.4
Meeting Date: March 7, 2017
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: James DeStefano, City Manager
TITLE: RATIFICATION OF CHECK REGISTER DATED FEBRUARY 16, 2017
THROUGH MARCH 1, 2017 TOTALING $ 1,357,898.37.
RECOMMENDATION:
Ratify.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Expenditure of $ 1,357,898.37 in City funds.
BACKGROUND:
The City has established the policy of issuing accounts payable checks on a weekly
basis with City Council ratification at the next scheduled City Council Meeting.
DISCUSSION:
The attached check register containing checks dated February 16, 2017 through March
1, 2017 for $ 1,357,898.37 is being presented for ratification. All payments have been
made in compliance with the City’s purchasing policies and procedures. Payments
have been reviewed and approved by the appropriate departmental staff and the
attached Affidavit affirms that the check register has been audited and deemed accurate
by the Finance Director.
PREPARED BY:
6.4
Packet Pg. 82
REVIEWED BY:
Attachments:
1. 6.4.a Check Register Affidavit 3-7-17
2. 6.4.b Check Register 3-7-17
6.4
Packet Pg. 83
6.4.a
Packet Pg. 84
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
6
.
4
.
a
:
C
h
e
c
k
R
e
g
i
s
t
e
r
A
f
f
i
d
a
v
i
t
3
-
7
-
1
7
(
1
2
0
3
:
R
a
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
C
h
e
c
k
R
e
g
i
s
t
e
r
)
6.4.b
Packet Pg. 85
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
6
.
4
.
b
:
C
h
e
c
k
R
e
g
i
s
t
e
r
3
-
7
-
1
7
(
1
2
0
3
:
R
a
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
C
h
e
c
k
R
e
g
i
s
t
e
r
)
6.4.b
Packet Pg. 86
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
6
.
4
.
b
:
C
h
e
c
k
R
e
g
i
s
t
e
r
3
-
7
-
1
7
(
1
2
0
3
:
R
a
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
C
h
e
c
k
R
e
g
i
s
t
e
r
)
6.4.b
Packet Pg. 87
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
6
.
4
.
b
:
C
h
e
c
k
R
e
g
i
s
t
e
r
3
-
7
-
1
7
(
1
2
0
3
:
R
a
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
C
h
e
c
k
R
e
g
i
s
t
e
r
)
6.4.b
Packet Pg. 88
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
6
.
4
.
b
:
C
h
e
c
k
R
e
g
i
s
t
e
r
3
-
7
-
1
7
(
1
2
0
3
:
R
a
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
C
h
e
c
k
R
e
g
i
s
t
e
r
)
6.4.b
Packet Pg. 89
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
6
.
4
.
b
:
C
h
e
c
k
R
e
g
i
s
t
e
r
3
-
7
-
1
7
(
1
2
0
3
:
R
a
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
C
h
e
c
k
R
e
g
i
s
t
e
r
)
6.4.b
Packet Pg. 90
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
6
.
4
.
b
:
C
h
e
c
k
R
e
g
i
s
t
e
r
3
-
7
-
1
7
(
1
2
0
3
:
R
a
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
C
h
e
c
k
R
e
g
i
s
t
e
r
)
6.4.b
Packet Pg. 91
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
6
.
4
.
b
:
C
h
e
c
k
R
e
g
i
s
t
e
r
3
-
7
-
1
7
(
1
2
0
3
:
R
a
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
C
h
e
c
k
R
e
g
i
s
t
e
r
)
6.4.b
Packet Pg. 92
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
6
.
4
.
b
:
C
h
e
c
k
R
e
g
i
s
t
e
r
3
-
7
-
1
7
(
1
2
0
3
:
R
a
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
C
h
e
c
k
R
e
g
i
s
t
e
r
)
6.4.b
Packet Pg. 93
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
6
.
4
.
b
:
C
h
e
c
k
R
e
g
i
s
t
e
r
3
-
7
-
1
7
(
1
2
0
3
:
R
a
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
C
h
e
c
k
R
e
g
i
s
t
e
r
)
6.4.b
Packet Pg. 94
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
6
.
4
.
b
:
C
h
e
c
k
R
e
g
i
s
t
e
r
3
-
7
-
1
7
(
1
2
0
3
:
R
a
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
C
h
e
c
k
R
e
g
i
s
t
e
r
)
6.4.b
Packet Pg. 95
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
6
.
4
.
b
:
C
h
e
c
k
R
e
g
i
s
t
e
r
3
-
7
-
1
7
(
1
2
0
3
:
R
a
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
C
h
e
c
k
R
e
g
i
s
t
e
r
)
6.4.b
Packet Pg. 96
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
6
.
4
.
b
:
C
h
e
c
k
R
e
g
i
s
t
e
r
3
-
7
-
1
7
(
1
2
0
3
:
R
a
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
C
h
e
c
k
R
e
g
i
s
t
e
r
)
Agenda #: 6.5
Meeting Date: March 7, 2017
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: James DeStefano, City Manager
TITLE: APPROVAL OF TREASURER'S STATEMENT FOR JANUARY, 2017.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
No Fiscal Impact
BACKGROUND:
Per City policy, the Finance Department presents the monthly Treasurer’s Statement for
the City Council’s review and approval. This statement shows the cash balances with a
breakdown of various investment accounts and the yield to maturity from investments.
This statement also includes an investment portfolio management report which details
the activities of investments. All investments have been made in accordance with the
City’s Investment Policy.
PREPARED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
Attachments:
6.5
Packet Pg. 97
1. 6.5.a Jan'16 Treasurer's Report
2. 6.5.b Jan'16 Investment Portfolio Summary
6.5
Packet Pg. 98
6.5.a
Packet Pg. 99
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
6
.
5
.
a
:
J
a
n
'
1
6
T
r
e
a
s
u
r
e
r
'
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
1
1
9
3
:
T
r
e
a
s
u
r
e
r
'
s
S
t
a
t
e
m
e
n
t
)
6.5.a
Packet Pg. 100
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
6
.
5
.
a
:
J
a
n
'
1
6
T
r
e
a
s
u
r
e
r
'
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
1
1
9
3
:
T
r
e
a
s
u
r
e
r
'
s
S
t
a
t
e
m
e
n
t
)
6.5.b
Packet Pg. 101
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
6
.
5
.
b
:
J
a
n
'
1
6
I
n
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t
P
o
r
t
f
o
l
i
o
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
(
1
1
9
3
:
T
r
e
a
s
u
r
e
r
'
s
S
t
a
t
e
m
e
n
t
)
6.5.b
Packet Pg. 102
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
6
.
5
.
b
:
J
a
n
'
1
6
I
n
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t
P
o
r
t
f
o
l
i
o
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
(
1
1
9
3
:
T
r
e
a
s
u
r
e
r
'
s
S
t
a
t
e
m
e
n
t
)
6.5.b
Packet Pg. 103
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
6
.
5
.
b
:
J
a
n
'
1
6
I
n
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t
P
o
r
t
f
o
l
i
o
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
(
1
1
9
3
:
T
r
e
a
s
u
r
e
r
'
s
S
t
a
t
e
m
e
n
t
)
6.5.b
Packet Pg. 104
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
6
.
5
.
b
:
J
a
n
'
1
6
I
n
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t
P
o
r
t
f
o
l
i
o
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
(
1
1
9
3
:
T
r
e
a
s
u
r
e
r
'
s
S
t
a
t
e
m
e
n
t
)
Agenda #: 6.6
Meeting Date: March 7, 2017
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: James DeStefano, City Manager
TITLE: AWARD OF CONTRACT TO OPENGOV, INC., IN THE AMOUNT OF $32,450
ANNUALLY FOR FINANCI AL AND NON-FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT
SOFTWARE SERVICES.
RECOMMENDATION:
Award.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Sufficient funds have been included in the current year’s Information Systems Budget to
cover FY 17/18 identified expenditures. Subsequent year expenditures will be
appropriated in each fiscal year budget.
BACKGROUND:
Accurate and timely preparation of the Annual Budget is critical to successful City
operations. Currently, the budget preparation process is cumbersome and time
consuming for all City departments. This largely manual process consists of
departments submitting their budgetary proposals to the Finance Department by way of
Excel spreadsheets and email communications. This process alone increases the room
for error due to financial data being submitted back and forth. Although this process has
allowed for successful budget p reparation in years past, it is not the most effective or
efficient way to prepare a budget. In recent years, new platforms have entered the
market that are specifically focused on the budgeting needs of local governments.
DISCUSSION:
In December of 2015 the City entered into a one-year agreement with OpenGov, Inc.
(OpenGov), a leader in cloud-based financial transparency and performance
intelligence solutions. As a result, the City currently has access to OpenGov’s
Intelligence & Transparency platform which allows the ability to easily create and share
financial data within the organization. OpenGov has since expanded their capabilities by
offering additional financial platforms which include: Budget Builder, Personnel
Forecasting, and Budget Book powered by WDesk.
6.6
Packet Pg. 105
Building upon the City’s existing Intelligence & Transparency platform , OpenGov’s end-
to-end solution offers the following:
Budget Builder – revolutionizes the budget preparation process by automating,
streamlining, and centralizing departmental proposals
Personnel Forecasting – accurately forecasts personnel costs based upon
compensation, benefits and retirement, and employee enrollments
Budget Book powered by WDesk – integrates with OpenGov to prepare the
final budget document for publication
After participating in demonstrations for each platform, staff has determined that
OpenGov best meets the City’s current and future needs in the areas of operating
budget preparation, capital improvement program planning and financial forecasting.
The expanded OpenGov platform will allow staff to directly interact with Finance by
entering and modifying their data in one centralized location, rather than sending Excel
spreadsheets back and forth. The platform will be linked directly to the City’s financial
management system, Sungard Pentamation, providing timely and accurate access to
critical financial data. Most importantly, this streamlined process minimizes the potential
for human error.
In discussing fees with OpenGov, they have agreed to offer the City their 2016 pricing
and waive all implementation fees. As such, entering into a five-year agreement benefits
the City by locking-in annual fees for the entire term of the agreement. The annual fees
associated with each platform are illustrated in the table below:
OPENGOV PRODUCT ANNUAL FEE
Intelligence and Transparency $5,950
Budget Builder $13,000
Personnel Forecasting $2,000
Budget Book powered by WDesk $10,000
Integrations $1,500
TOTAL $32,450
The total amount of the five-year contract is $174,058.30.
LEGAL REVIEW:
The City Attorney has reviewed and approved the agreement as to form.
PREPARED BY:
6.6
Packet Pg. 106
REVIEWED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
Attachments:
1. 6.6.a Saas Terms and Conditions
2. 6.6.b OpenGov, Inc. Addendum to Software Agreement
3. 6.6.c OpenGov Platform Overview
6.6
Packet Pg. 107
6.6.a
Packet Pg. 108
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
6
.
6
.
a
:
S
a
a
s
T
e
r
m
s
a
n
d
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
(
1
2
0
0
:
R
e
q
u
e
s
t
f
o
r
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
O
p
e
n
G
o
v
C
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
)
6.6.a
Packet Pg. 109
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
6
.
6
.
a
:
S
a
a
s
T
e
r
m
s
a
n
d
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
(
1
2
0
0
:
R
e
q
u
e
s
t
f
o
r
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
O
p
e
n
G
o
v
C
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
)
6.6.a
Packet Pg. 110
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
6
.
6
.
a
:
S
a
a
s
T
e
r
m
s
a
n
d
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
(
1
2
0
0
:
R
e
q
u
e
s
t
f
o
r
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
O
p
e
n
G
o
v
C
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
)
6.6.a
Packet Pg. 111
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
6
.
6
.
a
:
S
a
a
s
T
e
r
m
s
a
n
d
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
(
1
2
0
0
:
R
e
q
u
e
s
t
f
o
r
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
O
p
e
n
G
o
v
C
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
)
6.6.a
Packet Pg. 112
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
6
.
6
.
a
:
S
a
a
s
T
e
r
m
s
a
n
d
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
(
1
2
0
0
:
R
e
q
u
e
s
t
f
o
r
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
O
p
e
n
G
o
v
C
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
)
6.6.b
Packet Pg. 113
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
6
.
6
.
b
:
O
p
e
n
G
o
v
,
I
n
c
.
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
S
o
f
t
w
a
r
e
A
g
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
(
1
2
0
0
:
R
e
q
u
e
s
t
f
o
r
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
O
p
e
n
G
o
v
C
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
)
6.6.b
Packet Pg. 114
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
6
.
6
.
b
:
O
p
e
n
G
o
v
,
I
n
c
.
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
S
o
f
t
w
a
r
e
A
g
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
(
1
2
0
0
:
R
e
q
u
e
s
t
f
o
r
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
O
p
e
n
G
o
v
C
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
)
6.6.b
Packet Pg. 115
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
6
.
6
.
b
:
O
p
e
n
G
o
v
,
I
n
c
.
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
S
o
f
t
w
a
r
e
A
g
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
(
1
2
0
0
:
R
e
q
u
e
s
t
f
o
r
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
O
p
e
n
G
o
v
C
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
)
6.6.b
Packet Pg. 116
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
6
.
6
.
b
:
O
p
e
n
G
o
v
,
I
n
c
.
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
S
o
f
t
w
a
r
e
A
g
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
(
1
2
0
0
:
R
e
q
u
e
s
t
f
o
r
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
O
p
e
n
G
o
v
C
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
)
6.6.b
Packet Pg. 117
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
6
.
6
.
b
:
O
p
e
n
G
o
v
,
I
n
c
.
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
S
o
f
t
w
a
r
e
A
g
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
(
1
2
0
0
:
R
e
q
u
e
s
t
f
o
r
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
O
p
e
n
G
o
v
C
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
)
6.6.b
Packet Pg. 118
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
6
.
6
.
b
:
O
p
e
n
G
o
v
,
I
n
c
.
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
S
o
f
t
w
a
r
e
A
g
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
(
1
2
0
0
:
R
e
q
u
e
s
t
f
o
r
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
O
p
e
n
G
o
v
C
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
)
6.6.b
Packet Pg. 119
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
6
.
6
.
b
:
O
p
e
n
G
o
v
,
I
n
c
.
A
d
d
e
n
d
u
m
t
o
S
o
f
t
w
a
r
e
A
g
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
(
1
2
0
0
:
R
e
q
u
e
s
t
f
o
r
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
O
p
e
n
G
o
v
C
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
)
3/2/2017
1
The world’s first integrated cloud platform
for budgeting, reporting, and transparency.
Smart Government Platform™
About
OpenGov is the leader in government performance solutions: easy‐to‐use cloud software for
•Better budgeting – Including end to end solution with Budget Book
•Improved reporting and operational intelligence
•Comprehensive transparency
OpenGov solutions give governments the right tools and relevant data for more informed
decision‐making and better outcomes for the public
6.6.c
Packet Pg. 120
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
6
.
6
.
c
:
O
p
e
n
G
o
v
P
l
a
t
f
o
r
m
O
v
e
r
v
i
e
w
(
1
2
0
0
:
R
e
q
u
e
s
t
f
o
r
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
O
p
e
n
G
o
v
C
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
)
3/2/2017
2
OpenGov Network™
Smart Cities, Counties, States, School Districts, Special Districts, and Agencies
47
STATES
1400+
GOVERNMENTS
$1 Trillion+
ANALYZED
45% of all Cities in California
Reporting and Transparency
6.6.c
Packet Pg. 121
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
6
.
6
.
c
:
O
p
e
n
G
o
v
P
l
a
t
f
o
r
m
O
v
e
r
v
i
e
w
(
1
2
0
0
:
R
e
q
u
e
s
t
f
o
r
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
O
p
e
n
G
o
v
C
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
)
3/2/2017
3
6.6.c
Packet Pg. 122
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
6
.
6
.
c
:
O
p
e
n
G
o
v
P
l
a
t
f
o
r
m
O
v
e
r
v
i
e
w
(
1
2
0
0
:
R
e
q
u
e
s
t
f
o
r
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
O
p
e
n
G
o
v
C
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
)
3/2/2017
4
Pension Funds
Balance Sheet
Long-Term
Financial Plan
Assessed Property
Valuations
Sales Tax by
Industry
Auditors: Annual,
Balance Sheet &
Transactions
Vehicle Inventory
Personnel
Budget
OPEB
Fiscal Health
Indicators
Employee
Compensation
History
OpenGov Reporting: The critical information you need to run your government
Budget Builder
6.6.c
Packet Pg. 123
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
6
.
6
.
c
:
O
p
e
n
G
o
v
P
l
a
t
f
o
r
m
O
v
e
r
v
i
e
w
(
1
2
0
0
:
R
e
q
u
e
s
t
f
o
r
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
O
p
e
n
G
o
v
C
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
)
3/2/2017
5
6.6.c
Packet Pg. 124
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
6
.
6
.
c
:
O
p
e
n
G
o
v
P
l
a
t
f
o
r
m
O
v
e
r
v
i
e
w
(
1
2
0
0
:
R
e
q
u
e
s
t
f
o
r
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
O
p
e
n
G
o
v
C
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
)
Agenda #: 7.1
Meeting Date: March 7, 2017
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: James DeStefano, City Manager
TITLE: ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 0X(2017): AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
DIAMOND BAR MOVING CITY COUNCIL ELECTIONS TO A STATEWIDE
GENERAL ELECTION DATE AS REQUIRED BY STATE LAW.
RECOMMENDATION:
Receive Staff's Presentation, Open the Public Hearing, Receive Testimony, Close the
Public Hearing, Discuss and Adopt.
BACKGROUND
Since incorporation in 1989, City Council elections have been held in November of odd
numbered years. Statewide Primary and General Elections are held in June and
November of even numbered years. There has been significant discussion statewide
about increasing voter turnout by requiring those counties, cities and special districts
which hold elections in odd number years to move them to one of these two statewide
general election dates.
As a result of these discussions, the California Legislature passed the California Voter
Participation Rights Act, California Elections Code Sections 14050 -14057 ("SB 415"),
which was signed into law on September 1, 2015. SB 415 prohibits a general law city
such as the City of Diamond Bar from holding an election other than on a statewide
general election date if holding an election on a non -concurrent date has previously
resulted in a "significant decrease in voter turnout", which is defined as at least 25%
less than the average voter turnout within the City's jurisdiction for the previous four
statewide general elections.
ANALYSIS
SB 415 will in effect move all co unty, city, and special district elections to even-
numbered years if the respective agency has a more than 25% drop in voter
participation relative to the statewide general election. Staff reviewed voter data
comparing City registered voter participation for City Council elections with City
registered voter participation at the last four statewide elections. In summary, on
average approximately 16.64% of City registered voters have voted in odd number
years from 2009 to 2015 at City Council elections. City registered voter participation
7.1
Packet Pg. 125
rates for the last four statewide election dates averaged 37.87% from 2010 to 2016, a
difference of 56.06% (37.87% - 16.64%) ÷ 37.87% = 56.06%. Because the voting
differential is 56% and greater than the 25% threshold, the Ci ty is required to move its
elections to a statewide general election date.
SB 415 permits the City to continue to have elections in odd numbered years as long as
the City has adopted a plan to hold future elections on statewide general election dates
by January 1, 2018, and that plan does in fact move future elections to a statewide
general election date by November 8, 2022. Pursuant to Elections Code 10403.5 any
City ordinance moving its City Council election to be held on a statewide general
election date, must be approved by the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors. In
adopting such an ordinance the City cannot increase any term of a Council Member’s
office by more than 12 months.
DISCUSSION
The City Council was presented various options over the co urse of three study sessions
all of which would result in increasing existing or prospective City Council terms. The
options under consideration included the following:
Option 1: Adopt a plan that keeps the upcoming November 2017 Council election
unchanged at four (4) year terms, but modifies the 2019 and 2021
elections to June or November of 2024 or 2026 respectively.
Option 2: Adopt a plan that modifies the 2017 and 2019 elections to June or
November of 2022 and 2024 respectively.
Option 3: Adopt a plan that extends existing City Council terms by six or twelve
months for the 2017 and 2019 elections, thereby moving the election date
to June or November of 2018 and 2020 respectively.
In an effort to meet the spirit of SB 415 and to provide the Dia mond Bar community with
the greatest voter turnout, the City Council chose Option 3 and directed staff to prepare
an Ordinance for consideration that would extend current City Council terms by twelve
months, resulting in order to move the 2017 and 2019 ele ctions to November 2018 and
November 2020 as required by SB 415. All City Council terms thereafter would remain
at four (4) year terms and be held in November of even numbered years.
Pursuant to Government Code §36937(a) this Ordinance shall take effect immediately
upon adoption by the City Council as it relates to an election, and the Ordinance shall
be submitted to the Board of Supervisors for approval. Once the Ordinance is approved
by the Board of Supervisors it will become operative. Once that occurs, as required by
State law the City Clerk shall mail a notice regarding the change in election dates to all
registered voters in the City of Diamond Bar.
PREPARED BY:
7.1
Packet Pg. 126
REVIEWED BY:
Attachments:
1. 7.1.a Elections Ordinance 3-7-17
2. 7.1.b Elections Attachment 2
7.1
Packet Pg. 127
1
1196503.1
ORDINANCE NO. XXXX
AN ORDI N ANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR MOVING CITY
COUNCIL ELECTIONS TO A STATEWIDE
GENERAL ELECTION DATE AS REQUIRED BY
STATE LAW .
WHEREAS , Senate Bill 415, Electio ns Code §§14050 et seq., the
"California Voter Part icipation Rights Act" (hereafter, the "Voter Rights Act")
requires a city to move its city council elections to a statewide general election
date if: (1) city council elections are held on a date other tha n a statewide election
date; and (2) if the result of holding city council elections on a date other than a
statewide election results in a "significant decrease in voter turnout"; and
WHEREAS , a "significant decrease in voter turnout" under the Voter Rights
Act occurs if the voter turnout for city council elections is at least 25% less than
the average voter turnout within the city for the previous four statewide general
elections; and
WHEREAS , statewide general election dates are defined in Elections Code
§§ 1000 and 1001 as either : (1) the first Tuesday after the first Monday in June of
each even -numbered year; or (2) the first Tuesday after the first Monday in
November of each even -number year; and
WHEREAS, the City of Diamond Bar ("City") is required by the Voter Rights Act
to move its city council elections to a statewide general election date because: (1)
elections for the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar ("City Council") are currently
held in November of odd-numbered years; and (2) the voter turnout for City Council
elections has been at least 25% less than the average voter turnout in the City for
the previous four statewide general elections; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined to hold its elections on the
statewide general election date that occurs on the first Tuesday after the fi rst Monday in
November of even-numbered years; and
WHEREAS, in order to move City Council elections to the November statewide
general election date and comply with the mandates of the Voter Rights Act, the City
Council is required to modify the terms of the City Council for the next two election
cycles; and
WHEREAS, Elections Code §10403.5 provides that when the City Council
adopts an ordinance to move its election to statewide general election dates that it
shall not increase or decrease the term of office of a City Council member by more
than 12 months.
7.1.a
Packet Pg. 128
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
7
.
1
.
a
:
E
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
3
-
7
-
1
7
(
1
1
7
6
:
S
T
A
T
E
W
I
D
E
G
E
N
E
R
A
L
E
L
E
C
T
I
O
N
D
A
T
E
O
R
D
I
N
A
N
C
E
)
2
1196503.1
NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar does
hereby ordain as follows:
SECTION I
Elections for members of the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar ("City
Council") shall, beginning in November of 2018, be held on the November statewide
general election date, which is the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November of
even-numbered years. To move City Council elections to the November statewide
general election date the City Council election currently scheduled for November 2017
shall be held on the statewide general election date in November of 2018. The City
Council election currently scheduled for November 2019 shall be held on the
statewide general election date in November of 2020.
SECTION II
Members of the City Council whose term of office would otherwise expire upon
the declaration of election results and installation of newly elected City Council
members in December of 2017, shall continue in their offices for an additional 12
months to December of 2018. Members of the City Council whose term of office
would otherwise expire upon declaration of election results and installation of newly
elected City Council members in December of 2019, shall continue in their offices f or
an additional 12 months to December of 2020.
SECTION III
A certified copy of this Ordinance shall be transmitted to the Registrar of Voters
and the Board of Supervisors for the County of Los Angeles for a report and approval
thereof in accordance with Elections Code § 10403.5.
SECTION IV
Within 30 days after the Board of Supervisors has approved this Ordinance and
made it operative, the City Clerk shall cause a notice to be mailed to all registered
voters in the City informing the voters of the change in the election date and that as a
result of the change in election date, the terms of office of the currently seated City
Council will be increased, for the existing term only, to five years.
SECTION V:
If any section, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this
Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall
not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council
hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance, a nd each section,
subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause and phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact
that any one (or more) section, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase had
been declared invalid or unconstitutional.
7.1.a
Packet Pg. 129
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
7
.
1
.
a
:
E
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
3
-
7
-
1
7
(
1
1
7
6
:
S
T
A
T
E
W
I
D
E
G
E
N
E
R
A
L
E
L
E
C
T
I
O
N
D
A
T
E
O
R
D
I
N
A
N
C
E
)
3
1196503.1
SECTION VI:
Pursuant to Government Code §36937(a) this Ordinance shall take effect
immediately upon adoption by the City Council as it relates to an election and shall
become operative upon approval by the Board of Supervisors. The City Clerk shall
certify to the passage and adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause a certified copy
of this Ordinance to be posted within fifteen (15) days after this Ordinance becomes
effective, in the Office of the City Clerk and two additional public places, together with
the vote for and against the same.
ADOPTED this ___ day of ________, 2017.
Jimmy Lin, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Tommye Cribbins, City Clerk David DeBerry, City Attorney
I, Tommye Cribbins, City Clerk of the City of Diamond Bar, California, do hereby
certify that the foregoing Ordinance was introduced at the regular meeting of the City
Council held on the __ day of ________, 2017, and was duly passed and adopted the
same day, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
Tommye Cribbins, City Clerk
7.1.a
Packet Pg. 130
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
7
.
1
.
a
:
E
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
3
-
7
-
1
7
(
1
1
7
6
:
S
T
A
T
E
W
I
D
E
G
E
N
E
R
A
L
E
L
E
C
T
I
O
N
D
A
T
E
O
R
D
I
N
A
N
C
E
)
1205672.1
INTEROFFICE
MEMORANDUM
______________________________________________________________________
TO: City Council
FROM: James DeStefano, City Manager
VIA: Anthony Santos, Assistant to the City Manager
SUBJECT: Statewide Election Legislative Update – SB 415
DATE: January 31, 2017
______________________________________________________________________
BACKGROUND
This is a continuation item from the January 17, 2017 City Council Study Session. As a
result of SB 415 election requirements, staff intends to present additional information for
Council consideration regarding potential changes to upcoming Council elections and
terms of office. SB 415 requires cities develop a plan to move their elections to a
statewide election date by January 1, 2018, and to hold their elections on a statewide
election date by November 8, 2022.
ANALYSIS
SB 415 will in effect move all county, city, and special district elections to even
numbered years if the respective agency has a more than 25% drop in voter
participation relative to the statewide general election. Staff reviewed voter data
comparing City registered voter participation for City Council elections with City
registered voter participation at the last four statewide elections. Attachment A contains
the voter data comparison. In summary, on average approximately 16.64% of City
registered voters have voted in odd number years from 2009 to 2015 at City Council
elections. City registered voter participation rates for the last four statewide election
dates averaged 37.87% from 2010 to 2016, a difference of 56.06% (37.87% - 16.64%) ÷
37.87% = 56.06%. Because the voting differential is 56% and greater than the 25%
mandate, the City will be required to move its elections to a statewide election date.
OPTIONS
The following options are presented for Council consideration:
Option 1:
Adopt a plan that keeps the upcoming November 2017 Council election unchanged at
four (4) year terms, but modifies the 2019 and 2021 elections respectively as follows:
x 2019 election will institute either a 4 ½ year term for a June 2024 election, or
institute a 5 year term for a November 2024 election.
x 2021 election will institute either a 4 ½ year term for a June 2026 election, or
institute a 5 year term for a November 2026 election.
Packet Pg. 5
Co
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
:
S
t
a
t
e
w
i
d
e
E
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
U
p
d
a
t
e
–
S
B
4
1
5
-
D
i
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
a
n
d
A
c
t
i
o
n
(
S
T
U
D
Y
S
E
S
S
I
O
N
:
)
7.1.b
Packet Pg. 131
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
7
.
1
.
b
:
E
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
2
(
1
1
7
6
:
S
T
A
T
E
W
I
D
E
G
E
N
E
R
A
L
E
L
E
C
T
I
O
N
D
A
T
E
O
R
D
I
N
A
N
C
E
)
1205672.1
Option 2:
Adopt a plan that modifies the 2017 and 2019 Council elections respectively as follows:
x 2017 election will institute either a 4 ½ year term for a June 2022 election, or
institute a 5 year term for a November 2024 election.
x 2019 election will institute either a 4 ½ year term for a June 2024 election, or
institute a 5 year term for a November 2024 election.
Option 3:
Adopt a plan that extends existing terms by six or twelve months for the 2017 and 2019
elections (moving the election date to June/November of the following even numbered
year), or the November 2019 and 2021 elections (moving the election date to the
June/November of the following even numbered year).
All options would be compliant with SB 415 by commencing even year elections by the
November 8, 2022 deadline.
CONSIDERATIONS:
Timing – Any plan that the Council adopts is required under SB 415 to go before the
respective County Board of Supervisors for certification. Los Angeles County Registrar
Recorders has been advising cities to anticipate a four to six month turnaround time
between when an ordinance is presented to Council for consideration, when the Board
certifies the plan, and the City issues a written notice to all registered voters in Diamond
Bar. Therefore, if the City were to consider a November 2017 election starting date, or
extending the 2017 Council terms, timing would be very tight in order to meet the June
2017 candidate filing period.
Financial – City costs to consolidate with Los Angeles County are directly related to the
number of agencies that hold elections together. Because more agencies are moving to
November, it is anticipated that November elections will be less costly than June
elections. The total estimated costs are unknown at this time, but on average have
been $150,000 per election.
Registrar Recorder – Cities have been encouraged by the LA County Registrar
Recorders office to keep elections in November. To date, only the Pasadena Area
Community College District has provided a plan to consolidate in June of even years,
with agencies opting for the November cycle as intended under SB 415. It is unknown
at this time what ramifications, if any, will be placed on the City for selecting a June
election date. However, County has stated that June ballots tend to be longer in size
than November ballots because there are more candidates vying for open seats,
whereas November ballots typically only have runoffs.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff requests the Council review the options contained in this memorandum for
discussion and direction, with the ultimate goal of bringing back an ordinance and plan
to Council for consideration and adoption prior to the January 1, 2018 SB 415 deadline.
Packet Pg. 6
Co
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
:
S
t
a
t
e
w
i
d
e
E
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
U
p
d
a
t
e
–
S
B
4
1
5
-
D
i
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
a
n
d
A
c
t
i
o
n
(
S
T
U
D
Y
S
E
S
S
I
O
N
:
)
7.1.b
Packet Pg. 132
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
7
.
1
.
b
:
E
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
2
(
1
1
7
6
:
S
T
A
T
E
W
I
D
E
G
E
N
E
R
A
L
E
L
E
C
T
I
O
N
D
A
T
E
O
R
D
I
N
A
N
C
E
)
3/7/2017
3/7/2017
3/7/2017
Nov -16
Nov -14
Nov -12
Nov 10
General v City'
29,310
31,552
30,897
30,307
30,517
14,575
=..9,634
20,783
15;783
15,194
49.73%
30.53%
67.27%
52.08%
49.79%
66.58%
Jun -16
Jun -14
Jun -12
Jun -10
Primary v. City
'.28,132
.31,476
30,133
30,869
30,153
11,003
5,711
7,083
7,325
7,781
39.11%
18.14%
23.51%
23.73%
25.80%
35.52%
Jun 16
'Jun 14
Jun -12
Jun -10
State v :City -'-
28,721
31,514
.30,515
30,588
30,335
" 12,789
(7,673
13,933
11,554
11,487
44.53%
24.35%
45.66%
37.77%
37.87%
56.06%
Nov 15
Nov -13
Nov -11
Nov -09
'- 30,924
31,989
29,842
29,877
`. 30,658
4,464
5,174
.4,936
5,830
5,101
1444%
4617%
16,54%
19.51%1
16.64%
3/7/2017
91
3/7/2017
3/7/2017
0
3/7/2017
7
3/7/2017
TO:
FROM:
ADDRESS:
VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL
CITY CLERK L� `
�S VLt � /� v '� J DATE:
�"
ORGANIZATION:
AGENDA#/SUBJECT: V1
M
I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda/subject item. Please have the Council Minutes
reflect my name and address as written above.,
This document is a public record subject to disclosure under the Public Records Act.
TO: CITY lCLERK
FROM: �!'kk Ro DATE:
ADDRESS: PHONE:
Al 0097.1 iq 1/./_l9[11111]\i
AGENDA#/SUBJECT:
L:
(Optional)
I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda/subject item. Please have the Council Minutes
reflect my name and address as written above.
J.._.._...
`J Signature
This document is a public record subject to disclosure under the Public Records Act.
TO: CITY CLERK
I 'rFROM: i hDATE: ( /
PHONE: _
ORGANIZATION:
AGENDA#/SUBJECT:
S. W/ L VJJ'Jc/r )r r t t( k
I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda/subject item. Please have the Council Minutes
reflect my name and address as written above.
X ._
s
�igi.a�ure
This document is a public record subject to disclosure under the Public Records Act.