Chino Hills — City staff and consultants reviewed a citywide update to user fees and a development-impact-fee nexus study on Oct. 14, laying out new charges, proposed increases and policy choices the City Council will decide after a public hearing set for Oct. 28.

The workshop was led by Finance Director Krista Bahaajer and consultants from Willdan Financial Services. "This is to discuss and provide initial direction on the annual update to the master schedule of fees, fines, and penalties and the new development impact fees nexus study," Finance Director Krista Bahaajer said at the start of the session. Tony Thrasher, the project manager for the user-fee study, described the technical approach used to estimate the full cost of providing fee-based services: "I am Tony Thrasher, the project manager for the user fee study," he said, explaining the use of fully burdened hourly rates and time data to calculate cost recovery levels.

The proposed user-fee changes include several newly recommended fees and multiple increases staff described as needed to better align charges with actual staff time and overhead. New or notable proposed fees discussed by staff include a $900 deposit for appeals to city council of administrative decisions; a $304 appeal fee for code-enforcement notices; building‑related appeal fees (an $8,338 standard appeal of a building official determination with an 85% subsidy reducing the owner‑occupied appeal to $1,250); a $26,900 deposit for housing-plan approvals tied to projects pursued under the city’s housing element; a $4,036 "other" tree removal permit for non-standard removals; and a $538 fee for certain wireless‑facility utility‑only reviews. Staff also proposed a continued 100% subsidy (waiver) for Chino Valley Unified School District special-event permits held at city parks.

Staff identified a number of existing fees that would be raised significantly under the update: examples discussed included a $203 increase to the building reinspection fee, a $31 increase for sign removal under code enforcement, and several development‑service application increases (lot‑line adjustments, lot mergers, minor exceptions and temporary use permits) in the $400–$944 range. Utility billing fees were proposed to increase modestly, including meter installation charges and service reconnection costs; staff said the changes reflect current material, labor and overhead costs.

The second portion of the workshop reviewed a comprehensive update to the city’s development‑impact fees. Carlos Villarreal of Willdan explained the state legal framework and the study’s methodology: "Impact fees are a one‑time charge, typically imposed at the building permit stage, or certificate of occupancy for most residential projects," Villarreal said. The consultants calculated fees per square foot for residential and nonresidential development, in keeping with recent state law changes, and laid out projected demand and facility plans that underlie fee calculations.

Key technical findings and policy choices

- Growth assumptions and revenue: The study uses regional projections (California Department of Finance, SCAG and the city’s general plan) and forecasts roughly 13,600 additional residents, about 5,300 dwelling units and 2,600 new jobs over the study period. Willdan estimated that, at the maximum justified fee levels, impact fees could generate roughly $102 million between now and 2045, before accounting for project timing, credits, or other funding sources.

- Fee categories and methods: The study proposes four fee categories: general city facilities, combined traffic facilities (the council’s two existing traffic fees are proposed to be merged), parks and recreation (with Quimby Act options for land dedication), and a new fire facilities fee. Willdan used an "existing inventory" approach for parks (park acres per 1,000 residents) and a "planned facilities" approach for traffic, general city and fire facilities (costs of identified projects allocated to new development).

- Parks methodology and Big League Dreams: Park‑fee increases account for updated park replacement values and the city’s revised parks master plan. Staff and consultants said prior park fees used an earlier master plan and a smaller set of planned parks; the updated planned‑facilities approach raises the parks component substantially for many residential examples. Willdan also included Big League Dreams — a city‑owned, specialized sports complex — in the inventory. The Building Industry Association (BIA) asked whether Big League Dreams should be treated differently; staff said removing it would reduce park‑related fees by a few thousand dollars per single‑family unit in sample scenarios.

- Parks valuation refinement: In response to questions from the BIA and councilmembers, staff agreed to treat a subset of primarily "minimally improved" nature or trail parks (9 parks identified in the workshop) with a lower improvement replacement value in the parks inventory. The council asked staff to incorporate that change before the Oct. 28 public hearing.

- Fire facilities and interagency issues: The study includes a proposed fire facilities fee category that allocates a share of new fire stations, apparatus and related equipment to new development. That proposal prompted a policy discussion about whether the city should collect a fire fee on behalf of the independent Chino Valley Fire District, pass the money through when collected, or leave fee collection to the district. Consultants and staff explained options: the city can collect a fee and remit the revenue to the district, or the district could prepare and request adoption of its own fee and present it to the city for consideration. Councilmembers pressed for clarity about prior MOU commitments, the $8 million the city previously provided toward Station 68, and whether continuing to collect for the district is required by past documents; staff said their legal analysis showed the city is not obligated to collect future fire fees for the district unless explicitly required by a written agreement. Staff also noted one component of the proposed fire fee would reimburse the city for earlier payments related to Station 68 if the council adopts the fee.

- Implementation and legal requirements: Willdan explained the Mitigation Fee Act requirements (Government Code section 66000) and recent changes from Assembly Bill 602 (AB 602), including the need for the schedule and nexus study to be posted publicly and for a 30‑day notice period prior to fee adoption. The consultants emphasized documentation of proportionality, benefit to new development and transparency in the nexus study and fee schedule.

Practical impacts on sample projects

Staff presented example calculations showing the effect of the maximum justified fees under the study on typical projects: a model single‑family home in a new subdivision showed an increase from roughly $42,000 under the current schedule to about $58,000 under the maximum justified schedule (an increase of about $16,000, with much of the rise in Quimby/parks components). A 4,500‑square‑foot custom home example showed an increase of about $19,000; a 6,300‑square‑foot single‑tenant commercial building example increased mainly because of traffic fees. Staff also explained the state requirement that accessory dwelling units under 700 square feet not be charged impact fees; Nick Ligori, the community development director, said, "we're not allowed to charge development impact fees for ADUs below 700 square feet," and described the proportional fee method the city would use for ADUs above that threshold.

Timeline and next steps

Councilmembers and staff confirmed the study materials and fee schedule must be finalized in time for a public hearing on Oct. 28; Willdan and city staff have made the nexus study and supporting analyses available online and said they provided a 30‑day notice to comply with AB 602. Staff presented two dates for when new fees would take effect: earlier in the workshop staff said the proposed effective date would be Jan. 1, 2026; later in remarks the city indicated, "If adopted at the public hearing as is, the fees will take effect 01/11/2026." The council directed staff to incorporate the agreed parks valuation change and other clarifications into the packet before the Oct. 28 public hearing.

What the council has not decided

No final adoption votes occurred at the workshop. Councilmembers asked for more detail on a few items — for example, a written breakdown of the tree‑removal permit calculations and the park replacement valuations — and asked staff to return with the requested clarifications in advance of the public hearing. The policy choice about whether the city should collect a fire facilities fee on behalf of the Chino Valley Fire District was left open for council direction; staff laid out procedural options and noted the city could collect and remit fees or the district could prepare and request an approved fee through its own process.

The public record and review process

Staff and the consultant reiterated that the nexus study, fee schedule, and required notices are posted online in compliance with AB 602 and the Mitigation Fee Act, and that a public hearing on Oct. 28 will allow public comment before council consideration. Staff told the council the adoption process will include the statutorily required findings, documentation of proportionality and benefit, and an opportunity for any developer or resident to present testimony.

The City Council will consider final adoption following the Oct. 28 public hearing. In the meantime staff will incorporate the agreed parks valuation change and provide the additional cost breakdowns councilmembers requested. Direct questions on the fees packet and the nexus study may be addressed to City of Chino Hills Finance and Community Development staff prior to the hearing.