Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/24/2009, B3 - MAXIMUS FEE STUDY7 7 j I J __ J I l ---------------------· _,,_;_"_(.,_" ...;,/_,,_''--~• 006.(iJM!J..$.: CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO User Fee Study Prepared by: MAXIMUS HELPING GOVERNMENT SERVE THE PEOPLE• September 2008 Daniel B. Edds, MBA, Sr. Manager 4320 Auburn Blvd, Suite 2000 Sacramento, CA 95841 425.637.1919 l I l I J --------------------- Mb?iJ[Y.ll)j TABLE OF CONTENTS Section 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 Section 2. PUBLIC SAFETY Police Protection 81 Fire & Environmental Safety 10 Section 3. PUBLIC UTILITIES 13 Section 4. LEISURE, CULTURAL & SOCIAL SERVICES: Parks and Recreation 15 Section 5. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Development Review: Planning 18 Construction Regulation: Building & Safety 21 Engineering 23 Section 6. GENERAL GOVERNMENT FEES 26 Section 7. REASONABLENESS 27 Section 8. MAINTAINING FEE SCHEDULES AND RELATED REVENUES 30 Section 9. COMPARISON STATISTICS 32 Section 10. MAXIMUS AND THE METHODOLOGIES USED 35 Section 11. MAXIMUS: USER FEE CONCEPTS AND PHILOSOPHY 42 Section 12. CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO'S USER FEE COST RECOVERY POLICY 44 -MAXIMU S -.U,..0,Gtl'I U'•Ol!L•'t -1/HHM TECHNICAL APPENDICES A. Police Protection B. Fire & Environmental Safety C. Public Utilities D. Park & Recreation E. Planning F. Building & Safety G. Engineering H. General Government l I I J -------------------- MAXIM1§: Section 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.0 OVERVIEW AND SUMMARY In 2006, the City of San Luis Obispo engaged MAXIMUS to conduct a detailed and comprehensive review of its user fee generating services. This study was to update the findings of similar studies undertaken in 2000 and 1995. This review was limited to Planning, Engineering, Building & Safety, Fire Prevention, Police, Utilities and Recreation. As part of this project, the City desired to evaluate its cost structure, fee schedules, and current pricing models and compare them against full costs of these services. This comparison also considered the currently-approved cost recovery policies. MAXIMUS employed proven and objective methodologies (see Appendix B) to calculate the actual cost of services, and used their experience to guide the City regarding the appropriate costs to be included in the development of its fees. City leaders can use this information to make inform·ed decisions and to set fees to meet the fiscal and policy goals and objectives of the City. Through this study, MAXIMUS determined the full cost of each of the services for which user fees are currently being charged or could be charged. This "cost" includes all legitimate direct and indirect costs associated with providing each service, including direct support costs from other divisions. The study provides the City of San Luis Obispo with cost-of-service information that it can consider, together with existing city policy for fee-setting purposes. The results will show some increases in user fees and revenues, with a corresponding decrease in the general fund (or utilities' funds) subsidy of these services. Some fees may be decreased, thus reducing the user fee revenues. -Page 1 1.1 SUMMARY TABLE. Cost Recovery Summary Cost Recovery Revenue Potential At Policy/ Proposed Full Cost Based on Total Cost Current Levels Recove~ Polic~ Police 474,261 318,098 323,096 156,163 4,998 Fire 1,231,346 502,330 811,399 729,016 309,069 Recreation 3,887,755 1,163,930 1,177,514 2,723,825 13,584 Development Review -Planning 1,471,143 986,043 1,452,417 485,100 466,374 Building & Safety 1,549,392 1,049,878 1,549,392 499,514 499,514 Engineering 923,011 528,106 923,011 394,905 394,905 General Government 296,100 258,275 296,100 37,825 37,825 Total General Fund 9,833,008 4,806,660 6,532,929 5,026,348 1,726,269 Water Fund 231,768 179,921 231,768 51,847 51,847 Sewer Fund 89,395 71,744 89,395 17,651 17,651 Total Water & Sewer Funds 321,163 251,665 321,163 69,498 69,498 TOTAL 10,154,171 5,058 ,325 6,854,092 5,095,846 1,795,767 Notes 1 These calculations are based on policy recommendations included in this report. 2 Building revenues will be slightly reduced by recommended 50% fees for certain over the counter minor permits, as listed on page 10. 1.2 PROJECT SCOPE The scope of the project was defined by the following questions: 1. What does it cost the city to provide various fee-related services? 2. Are these costs reasonable? 3. What are current cost recovery levels? 4. What fee changes are necessary to achieve recommended cost recovery levels? 5. What changes to current revenues can the city expect if recommended fees are implemented? 1.3 PROJECT IMPLICATIONS Opportunities to reduce subsidies and increase general fund revenues come from a variety of factors: 1. Increasing productive hourly rates to full cost. 2. Acknowledging the total time to provide a service from the city-wide system of service delivery. 3. Adding some new fees, while eliminating others. 4. Restructuring existing fees to better reflect current business processes, regulations or to create the opportunity to charge a flat fee. Page2 2 7 l j I 1.4 PROJECT APPROACH MAXIMUS, with direction and coordination from the Finance and Information Technology Department, undertook the following steps to fulfill this study. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Interview departments that currently provide user fee activities. Calculate service costs and project revenues. Then compare projected revenues currently received for those activities as part of the quality control mechanism. Identify service areas where the city might increase or revise fees based on the full cost of services and other economic or policy considerations. Present selected comparisons showing what other cities and counties are charging for similar services. Analyze organizational issues that could impact the reasonableness of the city's cost of providing services. 1.5 COSTING METHODOLOGIES -SUMMARY Detailed descriptions of the methodologies used are available in Section 10. However, in summary, the following methodologies were used to arrive at the cost of each fee area: 1.5.1 Process Analytics (MAX.FEE) For this study, a methodology called Process Analytics is a rigorous and superior methodology to more traditional approaches, which use direct and indirect costs only. Process Analytics, which also calculates direct and indirect costs, has the added benefit of mapping processes within a citywide system of service delivery. 1.5.2 NEXUS -Building and Safety, Fire Prevention NEXUS is a specific costing methodology designed for Building and Safety and Inspection operations. The objective is to move these operations away from the historically-accepted method of establishing fees based on the valuation of the project. 1.5.3 Program Cost and Revenue Match For those operational units where a detailed, fee by fee, cost analysis is not necessary or would create more effort than value can be received, MAXIMUS employs a methodology that matches program or division costs against similar revenues. The primary result is the ability to analyze program cost recovery and determine if the amount is sufficient to meet the current policy. This methodology is primarily limited to Recreation Services. 1.6 REVENUE PROJECTIONS Due to the structural changes to some of the fees, it is imprecise to compare the calculated costs with current fees to determine the exact existing subsidies or surpluses. For some fees, the fee categories/types are different, the existing activity volume statistics no longer apply, and the current fee levels are no longer comparable. This limitation affects the individual fee comparisons, as well as the total r~venue that results from all fees over time during a fiscal year. Page 3 As a result of these issues, there are some limitations to the utility of the potential revenue figures indicated in the summary worksheets. However, every effort has been made to make a reasonable and conservative projection of new revenues if the City adopts fees at full cost recovery. 1.7 KEY FINDINGS 1.7.1 Fee Schedules As part of this study, MAXIM US evaluated the current fee schedules and some individual fees for service were eliminated, often due to being evaluated and included into a larger activity, most often in the building plan check and inspection services. Examples of the fees eliminated or changed are shown below. Others were added. Examples of those fees tht are new to the City are shown below. Fees Incorporated into the New Schedules a. Energy Consumption Compliance Surcharge -included in the overall building activity analysis and resulting fee schedule. b. Accessibility Compliance Surcharge -included in the overall building activity analysis and resulting fee schedule. c. Waterway Management Fee -included in the overall building activity analysis and resulting fee schedule. d. Fire Safety Surcharge -replaced with Fire Prevention New Construction plan check and inspection fee schedules. New Fees Fire Prevention Program a. Intake and inspection of deminimus waste generators which are not currently paying any fee; b. Intake and inspection of minor and major modifications to underground storage tanks. c. Oversight of and permitting of soil remediation. d. Plan check and inspection of commercial photovoltaic systems. Engineering Development Review Services e. Development Review Planning Applications (surcharge created -to be collected at time of Building Permit issuance) Construction Regulation: Building and Safety f. Plan check and inspection of commercial photovoltaic systems; Page4 J 1.7.2 Plan Check and Inspection Building & Safety, Fire Prevention -Change in Methodology The City of San Luis Obispo currently uses the method adopted by many municipalities in setting building permit and plan check fees (related to building and fire codes). This method bases fees on a modified version of rates included in the Uniform Building Code and on construction valuation tables published periodically the building officials' national organization (ICBO). Consequently, City of San Luis Obispo's Building & Safety fee revenue largely correlates with construction valuation. Like many other jurisdictions, City of San Luis Obispo sought an alternate method of calculating building-related fees to establish a link between the fees charged to the community and the cost of providing the services. This "nexus" is a requirement in California and other states and a desired policy goal. MAXIMUS recommends a methodology "NEXUS" th~t builds a cost structure based upon establishing time estimates for each phase of project plan check and inspection and for each building's type and size. The result for new construction permits is a unit cost per square foot and in the case of miscellaneous permits and sub-trade items, a unit cost per unit. MAXIMUS believes this methodology better meets the "nexus" requirements of a building fee structure. The resulting fees will be fair to both the applicant and the jurisdiction, definitive, practical, and legal. While a different methodology, MAXIMUS believes that the new fee structure will be revenue neutral compared with the prior "valuation" fee methodology. 1.7.3 Engineering Development Review Services Engineering Development Review provides support to both the Planning and Building Functions. Support for planning activities ($237,829 annually) is recommended to be added as an Engineering Development Review surcharge to be collected at time of building permit issuance. Time to support building activities is recovered through the recommended fee tables for new construction. Engineering Services Planning Support Building Support Total E~ea111lng ~pmfiltlit ~ •~JO$' a:111dRaffi~R~Clllll, Annual Revenue At Current Fee Actual Annual Cost 528 ,106 548,232 -0-237,829 -0-136,950 528,106 923,011 Page 5 Potential Revenue 20,126 237,829 136,950 394,905 --------------------- M.6 XIM~ 1.7.4 Fees at less than 100% cost recovery In compliance with its adopted policy, the City has set a number of its fees at less than 100% ur c.;osl recovery due lo the community benefit of the program, such as recreationational activities, or to encourage compliance with regulatory requirements, such as fire and life safety inspections of multi-dwelling properties. City of San Luis Obispo Fees appro ved at less than 100% cost rec ov ery Affordable Housing Projects Voluntary Service Lateral Rehabilitation Buildings Retrofitting to Add Fire Sprinklers Unreinforced Masonry Building Strengthening Multi-Dwelling Rental Property Inspections Recreation Programs Planni nQ Appe als The following fees are recommended for less than 100% cost recovery because they, too, are fees for services of broad community benefit. For example, in most cases the property return fee is to return personal property for people of quite limited means (homeless, often), so that fee is recommended to be reduced to $10. In the case of massage technician and taxi permits, staff recommends that only 75% of the cost be recovered, as there is a broad community benefit in ensuring that all persons providing these services obtain the necessary permits and renewals. Percentage of Current Fee Actual Cost Proposed Fee Cost POLICE Property Return Fee 34.00 58.71 10.00 20% Massage Technician 63.00 134.51 101.25 75% Permit Massage Technician 41.00 121.69 91.27 75% Permit Renewal Taxi Permit 94.10 134.51 100.88 75% Taxi Permit Renewal 31.25 108.87 81.65 75% Some of the Police fees are set by statute, so while it costs more than can be recovered, the City is limited to the amount set by law. Concealed Weapons Permit and Issuance cannot exceed $100, and the renewal cannot exceed $252 (Penal Code 12054). Checks of local records for clearance letters cannot exceed $25 (Penal Code 13322). In reviewing the list of minor, over the counter requests for building permits, staff determined that setting the fee to recover 100% of the cost to provide certain services would tend to discourage voluntary compliance and not provide the level of safety that is in the best interest of the community. Page6 7 Current Fee Actual Proposed Percentage Cost Fee of Cost CONSTRUCTION REGULATION: BUILDING Water Heater Replacements 40.00 **119.95 60.00 50% Forced Air Unit Replacement 40.00 **119.95 60.00 50% Electrical Service Upgrade (200 amps or less) 40.00 **119.95 60.00 50% Photovoltaic Unit Installation -residential only 40.00 **119.95 60.00 50% Gas Fire Inserts -retrofit from wood-burning 40.00 **119.95 60.00 50% fireplaces Notes •• Cost of minimum, over the counter permit. 1. 7 .5 Recreation Fee Designations/Descriptions for Policy Purposes As part of this fee analysis, Recreation staff reviewed the current fee descriptions and corresponding recovery levels currently approved in the City's fee policies. These had not been reviewed or revised in over 20 years, and a number of changes have occurred in both the Department practices and the Community service requirements. As a result, staff recommends a number of minor changes to the Recreation classifications and descriptions in the City's fee recovery policy to more accurately reflect the current environment and practices. These recommended changes are shown in Section 4 and Technical Appendix D. If these policy changes are approved, Recreation is almost at its recommended fee recovery level. Only small increases in the contractor class and rentals by the public of the indoor and outdoor city facilities will be required. 1.8 COST RECOVERY BY PROGRAM --ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS The analysis of cost recovery and other considerations for the city's user fee services are summarized by program area in Sections 2 -6 and the detailed analysis follows in the technical Appendices A -G. Page 7 Section 2. PUBLIC SAFETY Police Protection Fire & Environmental Safety 2.1 Police Protection 2.2 Summary Description • .___ MAXIMUS ~ •..l "-'KAI•• rl.l,lff.-• In addition to its patrol and commonly-known public safety functions, the Police Department provides a series of other services, including permit issuance for certain businesses, and records management. 2.3 Financial Inputs For The Purpose Of Calculating Productive Hourly Rates 1. Total Personnel costs: $799,749 2. Total Non-Personnel costs: $62,216 3. Citywide Indirect costs (Cost Allocation Plan): $200,737 4. Division indirect costs (reallocating Police Admin): $203,576 5. Total cost inputs: $1,266,278 It should be noted that due to the variety of Police positions and the various budgets that support the entire operation that Non-Personnel costs were applied as an average of 12% of personnel. 2.4 Calculation Specifics As previously described, the methodology used to calculate the cost of services is called Process Analytics (MAXFEE). Specifically, the proje~t involved five steps: 1. Review of existing fees, add new fees and eliminate fees. This step was actually a subset of each and every part of the project. Throughout the project, services were evaluated for current applicability to the City. 2 . Time data. Police staff prepared estimates of the time requirements for each project (fee) type. These time data were essential to the development of costs. 3. Input labor and budget data. Computerized financial models created in MS Excel assisted this project. Into this model, time estimates were uploaded along with all direct and indirect financial expenses. Page 8 l l 1 j J 4. Calculate Productive Hourly Rates. These rates calculate the cost of departmental time, less vacation time, sick leave time, etc and then removes additional hours for activities that cannot be cost recovered such as administration. This becomes the fully loaded hourly rate that will be charged to users of services when a flat fee is not possible. 5. Revenue projection. Once the cost of individual fees was calculated a revenue estimate was prepared to compare the revenue at the current fee level with the potential revenue if fees were set at full cost. 2.5 Findings The analyses of Police fees suggest there is currently an over-recovery of costs within fee generating services. However, it should be noted that this may be somewhat misleading because some of the costs and revenues for false alarms are transferred to outside contract firms. The table following summarizes the current costs and revenues from the Police fee generating services. The table also reflects any potential revenue from adopting the recommended fees. The full Maximus analysis of Police fees is contained in Technical Appendix A. Police Total Cost Current Cost Recovery Cost Recovery at Policy Level Revenue Potential At Full Cost Recovery At Policy Level Page9 $454,353 $306,218 $303,896 $148,135 ($2,322) 2.6 Fire and Environmental Safety 2. 7 Summary Description The Fire Prevention Program encompasses fire prevention inspections and plan checks for new construction projects as well as annual prevention inspections for selected commercial services. Because of this, Fire Prevention provides a critical public safety service. The logic to charging for at least a portion of these services is two fold: 1. Fire hazards from these structures and businesses provide a level of risk to the general public that is high relative to the general population. 2 . These structures and businesses consume a disproportionate share of fire prevention services relative to individuals within the general population. 2.8 Financial Inputs For The Purpose Of Calculating Productive Hourly Rates 1. Total Personnel and Non-Personnel costs: $659,480 2. Citywide Indirect costs (Cost Allocation Plan): $192,166 3. Division admin indirect costs: $146,493 4. Total cost inputs: $994,541 2.9 Calculation Specifics Process Analytics (MAXFEE), the methodology used for the Planning Division, was also used to calculate the cost of services for the City's Fire and Environmental Safety fees. The same project steps mentioned above also apply here. 1. Review of existing fees, add new fees and eliminate fees. This step was actually a subset of each and every part of the project. Throughout the project, services were evaluated for current applicability to the City. 2. Time data. To establish the time estimate for each service, utility staff was interviewed. This resulted in a set of time data that has been reviewed multiple times to assure accuracy Page 10 l I 3 . Input labor and budget data. Computerized financial models created in MS Excel assisted this project. Into this model, time estimates were uploaded along with all direct and indirect financial expenses. 4 . 5. Calculate Productive Hourly Rates. For those services that cannot be calculated with a flat fee, an hourly rate was established. This rate calculates the cost of departmental time, less vacation time, sick leave time, etc and then removes additional hours for activities that cannot be cost recovered such as administration and public information. This becomes the fully loaded hourly rate that will be charged to users of services when a flat fee is not possible. Revenue projection. Once the cost of individual fees was calculated a revenue estimate was prepared to compare the revenue at the current fee level with the potential revenue if fees were set at full cost. 2.10 Calculation Specifics As previously described, the methodology used to calculate the cost of services is called Process Analytics (MAXFEE). The same project steps mentioned above also apply here. 2.11 Findings The analyses of Fire Prevention services that are cost recoverable indicate a significant opportunity to increase cost recovery. Projected current revenues for both New Construction, Fire Prevention Miscellaneous fees, and Fire Prevention routine inspections are $502,300. The full cost of these services is $1,231,346, which suggests $436,300 is available for additional cost recovery. It should be noted that the projected cost recovery is based on the current policy of only recovering 50% of the R-1 Inspections. The table following summarizes the current costs and revenues from the Fire Prevention and Environmental Safety fee generating services. The table also reflects any potential revenue from adopting the recommended fees. The full Maximus analysis of Fire Prevention and Environmental Safety fees is contained in Technical Appendix B. Page 11 Fire Prevention and Environmental Safety Revenue Potential Fee for Service Activity Area Cost Current Recovery Total Cost at Policy Full Cost Based Cost Recovery Levels Recovery on Policy New Construction 152,372 82,708 152,372 69,664 69,664 Miscellaneous Items Development Review 8,610 -8,610 8,610 8,610 Fire Specific Items 27,552 -27,552 27,552 27,552 Annual Operating Permits / Special Permits 259,289 144,870 259,289 114,419 114,419 Certified Unified Participating Agency Fees 70,860 77,197 70,860 (6,337) (6,337) R-1 Occupancy Annual Inspections 561,132 185,405 280,566 375 ,727 95,161 Subtotal Miscellaneous Items 927,443 407,472 646,877 519,971 239,405 Fire Prevention Routine Inspections 151,531 12,150 12,150 139,381 0 Total 1,231,346 502,330 811,399 729,016 309,069 Note: Due to the multiple year span of this report, some of the data in the annual operating permits section reflects more current activity than was likely in the 2005-06 year. The potential for revenues could be as much as 20% higher for this category than will actually be received. MAXI MUS recommends that this fee area be monitored. Page 12 7 l l J --------------------• MA?SJM~ 3.1 3.2 Section 3. PUBLIC UTILITIES Water and Wastewater Services Public Utilities Sumn:,ary Description The fees associated with the Utilities Department that were included in this study are those associated with the installation and removal of water meters and sewer laterals, pretreatment inspection services for industrial waste users, and management of utility billing accounts for water and wastewater services. This study excludes water and sewer rate setting and hard material costs associated with meter and adapter fees. 3.3 Financial Inputs For The Purpose Of Calculating Productive Hourly Rates 1. Total Personnel costs: $462,090 2. Total Non-Personnel costs: $53,124 3. Citywide Indirect costs (Cost Allocation Plan) as a percentage of personnel cost (28.5% ): $131,696 4. Division indirect costs as a percentage of personnel cost ( 10. 7% ): 49,444 5. Total cost inputs: $643,231 3.4 Calculation Specifics Process Analytics (MAXFEE), the methodology used for the Planning Division, was also used to calculate the cost of services for the City's Public Utility fees. The same project steps mentioned above also apply here. 1. Review of existing fees, add new fees and eliminate fees. This step was actually a subset of each and every part of the project. Throughout the project, services were evaluated for current applicability to the City. 2 . Time data. To establish the time estimate for each service, utility staff was interviewed. This resulted in a set of time data that has been reviewed multiple times to assure accuracy. 3. Input labor and budget data. Computerized financial models created in MS Excel assisted this project. Into this model, time estimates were Page 13 uploaded along with all direct and indirect financial expenses. 4. Calculate Productive Hourly Rates. For those services that cannot be calculated with a flat fee, an hourly rate was established. This rate calculates the cost of departmental time, less vacation time, sick leave time, etc and then removes additional hours for activities that cannot be cost recovered such as administration and public information. This becomes the fully loaded hourly rate that will be charged to users of services when a flat fee is not possible. 5. Revenue projection. Once the cost of individual fees was calculated, a revenue estimate was prepared to compare the revenue at the current fee level with the potential revenue if fees were set at full cost. 3.5 Findings Of the $636,142 of financial inputs only $321,163 is actually consumed in fee generating activities. The projected current revenue from fee revenues is $251,665 which suggests an additional $69,498 is available to the City at full cost recovery. The table following summarizes the current costs and revenues from the Water and Sewer Fund fee generating services. The table also reflects any potential revenue from adopting the recommended fees. The full Maximus analysis of the Public Utilities services fees is contained in Technical Appendix C. Public Utilities Revenue Potential Cost Fee for Service Total Cost Current Cost Recovery at Full Cost Based on Activity Area Recovery Policy Recovery Policy Levels Water Services 231,768 179,921 231,768 51,847 51,847 Sewer Services 89,395 71,744 89,395 17,651 17,651 Total 321,163 251,665 321,163 69,498 69,498 Page 14 7 I 7 Section 4. LEISURE, CULTURAL AND SOCIAL SERVICES Parks and Recreation 4.1 RECREATION 4.2 Summary Description Recreation services are an important part of community life. The mission statement reads: We create community through people, parks and programs. This is an excellent reminder of the importance and place of recreation within community life. The objective of the Recreation portion of the User Fee Study was to determine the total cost of each budgeted program, such as Aquatics, Children's Services, Teen Sports. This is in contrast to a more detailed approach that would determine the cost, for example, of an Adult Lap Swim for the community pool. An activity specific analysis such as this is both highly detailed and involves significant staff time that is not warranted, given the City's cost recovery policies. Additionally, Recreation fees tend to be market driven rather than cost driven. Because of these reasons, an approach that focused on the total cost of programs and the development of cost recovery rates was a better use of time and resources. 4.3 Calculation Specifics 1. Establish Cost Data. This initial step included a review of all budgeted data and placed these data into relevant categories that would facilitate a good analysis: a. Direct program costs b. Indirect program costs c. Indirect facility costs (i.e. utilities and maintenance) 2. Establish revenue data. This second step involved gathering the various sources of program revenues into categories that matched program budgets. 3. Application of City Overhead. This third step involved assigning City Wide Overhead to each department. Page 15 • MAXIMU S ~O. ~'t b.>\l uirlU'ffl ' 4 . Calculating cost recovery rates. This final step calculated cost recovery rates at two levels. a. Program level. This level includes all program costs both direct and indirect. b. Total City level. This level adds both department overhead and City overhead to calculate. 4.4 Findings Based on our findings, we observe that the Recreation Department for the City of San Luis Obispo has a higher than average rate of cost recovery. This would indicate that department leadership takes seriously the fiscal side of program development. In total, all programs are recovering 78% of direct costs. When department and City indirect costs are included, this rates drops to 33%. MAXIMUS still considers this an outstanding rate for a city's Recreation program. The table following summarizes the current costs and revenues from the Parks and Recreation fee generating services. The table also reflects any potential revenue from adopting the recommended fees. The full Maximus analysis of Parks and Recreation fees is contained in Technical Appendix D. Parks and Recreation Revenue Potential Cost Fee for Service Activity Total Cost Current Cost Recovery at Full Cost Based on Area Recovery Policy Recovery Policy Levels Special Events 283,029 83,683 83,683 199,346 0 Sports 580,179 216,226 216,226 363,953 0 Teens, Boomers, Contract 431,970 81,398 82,160 350,572 762 Classes Facilities 767,745 153,623 166,445 614,122 12,822 Aquatics 911,715 124,599 124,599 787,116 0 Childcare 913,116 504,401 504,401 408,715 0 Total 3,887,754 1,163,930 1,177,514 2,723,824 13,584 Recreation staff analyzed the current operating practices and community services and are recommending a number of minor changes in the cost recovery classification of several of their fees. In special events, staff recommends that major community events, such as the Tour of California and parades be revised from mid range cost recovery to low cost recovery. They recommend this for their departmental special events such as the Easter Egg hunt and Christmas on the Plaza, as well. On the other hand, they are recommending that the annual Triathlon be set at a high cost recovery, rather than mid- Page 16 1 7 7 J J l range cost recovery. Childcare is recommended at mid-range cost recovery, rather than high cost recovery. The City's cost recovery policy defines high cost recovery programs as needing to recover 60% to 100% of their costs; mid range cost recovery activities need to recovery 30% to 60% of their costs; and low range cost recovery activities need to recovery 0% to30% of their costs. The table below lists the recommended changes to the cost recovery levels for the identified recreation activities or type of activities. Mid Low Mid Low Mid High High Low Mid Low TEENS, BOOMERS, CONl'RACT CLASSES High Mid High Low Mid High Low A~UATIC.S All aquatic programs (now grouped) Low Low CHILDREN'S SERWCES Childcare Programs High Mid Page 17 / Section 5. Community Development Development Review: Planning Construction Regulation Building & Safety Engineering 5.1 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW: PLANNING 5.2 Summary Description The Development Review and Long-Range Planning Divisions of the Community Development Department is responsible for assisting the community in planning for its future by preparing, compiling, and disseminating information on land use, housing, transportation, and other issues that affect the City; facilitating the public process through which plans and policies are adopted; processing development applications; making recommendations on long-range planning issues and specific development proposals; and conducting environmental review consistent with State Law. Some activities performed by this division, such as Council-initiated projects, are not cost recoverable. 5.3 Financial Inputs for the Purpose of Calculating Productive Hourly Rates To calculate the costs associated with planning fees, all planning costs, including the Development Review and Long Range Planning Divisions, were reviewed and included. In summary, the cost data that was included are as follows: 1. Total Personnel costs: $1,091, 673. 2. Total Non-Personnel costs: $38,900 3. Citywide Indirect costs (Cost Allocation Plan): $744,800 4. Citywide Indirect costs from the Community Development Administrative program: $143,337 5. Total cost inputs: $2,018,710 Excluded from these costs were those affecting the General Plan Update. These costs were determined to be outside the current cost recovery policy. Page 18 • MAXIMS -.:,<Mt• ........... .u)J. .. , •• 5.4 Calculation Specifics As previously described, the methodology used to calculate the cost of services is called Process Analytics (MAXFEE). Specifically, the project involved five steps: 1. Review of existing fees, add new fees and eliminate fees. This step was actually a subset of each and every part of the project. Throughout the project, services were evaluated for current applicability to the City. 2 . Time data. Planning staff maintain time sheets that are completed as part of each pay period. These data were used to determine the time requirement for processing each fee or service. Contrary to most staff time tracking, MAXIMUS found the data provided to be excellent! 3 . Input labor and budget data. Computerized financial models created in MS Excel assisted this project. Into this model, time estimates were uploaded along with all direct and indirect financial expenses. 4 . Calculate Productive Hourly Rates. For those services that cannot be calculated with a flat fee, an hourly rate was established. This rate calculates the cost of departmental time, less vacation time, sick leave time, etc and then removes additional hours for activities that cannot be cost recovered such as administration and public information. This becomes the fully loaded hourly rate that will be charged to users of services when a flat fee is not possible. 5 . Revenue projection. Once the cost of individual fees was calculated a revenue estimate was prepared to compare the revenue at the current fee level with the potential revenue if fees were set at full cost. 5.5 Findings The current policy with respect to Planning is to assign a portion of costs to the general public, a portion to the Planning applicant and a portion to Builders when they pull a permit. In this way, the general public is paying for some general long range planning activities. Also, by pushing back the recovery of some planning costs until a permit is actually issued, the initial cost of development is reduced for applicants. Therefore, the costs that are included in this report are based on the current cost recovery policy of recovering 100% of development review costs (except for appeals, which are much lower), and 25% of long-range planning costs. . MAXIMUS has calculated that the total costs associated with General Plan Maintenance and Long Range Planning is $886,643. Of this amount, $221,661 is included (25%) in the Planning fees. This means that if the City adopted a policy or practice of "full cost recovery", it could generate an additional $664,982. Page 19 The table following summarizes the current costs and revenues from the Planning fee generating services. The table also reflects any potential revenue from adopting the recommended fees. The full Maximus analysis of Planning fees is contained in Technical Appendix E. Planning Total Cost $ 1,471,143 Current Cost Recovery $ 986,043 Cost Recovery at Policy Level $ 1,452,417 Revenue Potential At Full Cost Recovery $ 485,100 At Policy Level $ 466,374 Page 20 l l l j J J -MAXIM U ~ lf~YllU"l,ofilltU f 5.6 CONSTRUCTION REGULATION: BUILDING DIVISION 5. 7 Summary Description The Building Division is responsible for plan checking all building plans and inspecting all phases of construction. The purpose of this is to promote the life, safety and health of residents , employees and others in the City. In addition, the department ensures compliance with all building, electrical, plumbing, disabled access, energy and other applicable codes. 5.8 Financial Inputs For The Purpose Of Calculating Productive Hourly Rates 1. Total Personnel costs and Non-Personnel: $775,484 2. Citywide Indirect costs (Cost Allocation Plan): $208,600 3. Division indirect costs: $121,500 4. Support from Engineering: $139,950 5. Upgrade of the permitting system: $2,000 6. Total Cost Inputs: 1,247,534 5.9 Calculation Specifics The City of San Luis Obispo currently uses the method adopted by many municipalities in setting building permit and plan check fees (related to building and fire codes). This method bases fees on a modified version of rates included in the Uniform Building Code and on construction valuation tables published periodically by the building officials' national organization (ICBO). Consequently, City of San Luis Obispo's Building & Safety fee revenue largely correlates with construction valuation. There is generally a close link between the scale (and related cost) of a building project and the effort required to plan check and inspect a project. However, as many other jurisdictions, City of San Luis Obispo sought an alternate method of calculating building- related fees to establish a better link between the fees charged to the community and the actual cost of providing the services. This "nexus" is a requirement in California and other states and a desired policy goal in many others. Consistent with generally accepted practice, the MAXIMUS NEXUS methodology builds a cost structure based upon establishing time estimates for each phase of project plan check and inspection and for each building's type and size. The result for new Page 21 construction permits is a unit cost per square foot, and in the case of miscellaneous permits and sub-trade items, a cost per unit. We believe this methodology meets the imperatives of a building fee structure. The resulting fees will be fair to both the applicant and the jurisdiction, definitive, practical, and legal. 5.10 Findings The analyses of Building services that are cost recoverable indicate an excellent opportunity to fully recover costs associated with Building activities. Projected current revenues are $1,049,878 vs. projected costs of $1,549,392. This projects an additional $499,514 available for cost recovery. • The table following summarizes the current costs and revenues from the Building fee generating services. The table also reflects any potential revenue from adopting the recommended fees. The full Maximus analysis of Building activities and fees is contained in Appendix A. Construction Regulation: Building & Safety Revenue Potential Cost Recovery at Current Cost Policy Full Cost Based on Fee for Service Activity Area Total Cost Recovery Levels Recovery Policy New Construction 1,266,413 886,029 1,266,413 380,384 380,384 Mechanical, Electrical and Plumbing Permits (MEPs)'s 17,705 9,454 17,705 8,251 8,251 Miscellaneous Items 265,274 154,395 265,274 110,879 110,879 Total Revenues 1,549,392 1,049,878 1,549,392 499,514 499,514 Note: Building revenues will be slightly reduced by recommended 50% fees for certain over the counter minor fees: water heater replacements, forced air unit replacements, electrical service upgrades of 200 amps or less, residential photovoltaic units and gas fire inserts . Page 22 7 l I J J 5.11 CONSTRUCTION REGULATION: ENGINEERING DIVISION 5.12 Summary Description The Engineering Division reviews land development proposals, zoning matters, traffic impacts, and environmental studies to ensure compliance with City and State regulations. It also conducts inspections of construction activity and regulates various activities in the City that impact the local right-of-ways or infrastructure. 5.13 Financial Inputs For The Purpose Of Calculating Productive Hourly Rates 1. Total Personnel costs: $458,935 2 . Total Non-Personnel costs: $12,900 3. Citywide and Department Indirect costs (Cost Allocation Plan): $386,600 4 . Total cost inputs: $858,435 5.14 Calculation Specifics As previously described, the methodology used to calculate the cost of services is called Process Analytics (MAXFEE). Specifically, the project involved five steps: 1. 2. Review of existing fees, add new fees and eliminate fees. This step was actually a subset of each and every part of the project. Throughout the project, services were evaluated for current applicability to the City. Time data. Engineering staff prepared estimates of the time requirements for each project (fee) type. These time data were essential to the development of costs. 3. Input labor and budget data. Computerized financial models created in MS Excel assisted this project. Into this model, time estimates were uploaded along with all direct and indirect financial expenses. 4 . Calculate Productive Hourly Rates. These rates calculate the cost of departmental time, less vacation time, sick leave time, etc and then remove additional hours for activities that cannot be cost recovered such as administration. This becomes the fully loaded hourly rate that will be charged to users of services when a flat fee is not possible. 5. Revenue projection. Once the cost of individual fees was calculated a revenue estimate was prepared to compare the revenue at the current fee level with the potential revenue if fees were set at full cost. Page 23 6 . External Costs Included. As part of the review of engineering fees, a review of the support from the Utility Department was included. The costs associated with these fees, therefore, include the cost of time associated with the Utilities operations and support. 5.15 Findings The analyses of Engineering services that are cost recoverable indicate an excellent opportunity to recover additional costs. Engineering is providing significant support to Building & Safety and Planning functions and is not recovering these costs. The lack of cost recovery from the support of the Planning function is quite normal for many California jurisdictions. This is due in large part to the increased requirements on the Planning function for input from Engineering in processing applications. Specifically: • Engineering is providing $237,829 of under recovered cost associated with support to Planning. These costs have been captured by adding those Planning fees that are supported by Engineering as a charge to be collected at building permit issuance. • Engineering is providing $136,950 of under recovered costs associated with support to Building. These costs have been added to the Building & Safety fee schedule as a component of cost. Additionally, Engineering services currently charges improvement projects based on a percentage of the Engineer's cost estimate. This is a traditional method of establishing fees used by most development engineering organizations. However, much like, with Building & Safety, the state standard is that fees must be based on a "reasonable estimate of cost". Using a percentage of "Engineers cost estimate" to establish a fee does not necessarily establish the required nexus with cost. To establish this requirement, MAXIMUS calculated the percentage multiplier based on annual costs associated with plan checking and inspections. It is the recommendation of MAXIMUS and Engineering staff that the department begin to track data that will allow them to develop flat fees for improvement plan checking and inspections. The table following summarizes the current costs and revenues from the Engineering fee generating services. The table also reflects any potential revenue from adopting the recommended fees. The full Maximus analysis of Engineering activities and fees is contained in Technical Appendix G: Page 24 l Engineering Revenue Potential Cost Fee for Service Activity Area Total Cost Current Cost Recovery at Full Cost Based on Recovery Policy Recovery Policy Levels Engineering Services 548 ,232 528,106 548 ,232 20 ,126 20,123 Eng ineering Support to Planning 237 ,829 237,829 237,829 237 ,829 Engineering Support to Building 136,950 136,950 136 ,950 136 ,950 Total Revenues 923 ,011 528 ,108 923 ,011 394,905.6 394 ,905 __j J Page 25 _j Section 6. GENERAL GOVERNMENT FEES Fees Calculated by the City of San Luis Obispo General Government fees are those collected across City departments or by the Finance Division: reproduction, returned check and business license costs. These fees were not studied by Maximus so all analysis in this section was performed by City staff. The analyses suggest that there is currently an under-recovery of costs within the area business license and returned check fees. The following table summarizes the current costs and revenues from the business license. The table also reflects any potential revenue from adopting the recommended fees. The full Maximus analysis of General Government fees is contained in Technical Appendix H. Business License Total Cost Current Cost Recovery Cost Recovery at Policy Level Additional Revenue Potential $296,100 $258,275 $296,100 $37,825 The following table summarizes the current costs and revenues from returned checks. The table also reflects any potential revenue from adopting the recommended fees. The full Maximus analysis of General Government fees is contained in Technical Appendix H. Returned Checks Total Cost Current Cost Recovery Cost Recovery at Policy Level Additional Revenue Potential $19,500 $9,375 $19,100 $10,125 Since it is difficult to estimate the number of times items are reproduced each year, costs to reproduce paper documents, audio and video recordings have been analyzed individually but no revenue impacts have been determined for these services. The City encourages requests for information that can be provided as an attachment to an email or downloaded from the City's website, reducing the need for paper copies and the impact on the environment. All information that can be provided in this manner and does not require research time will be provided for free. Page 26 l + Section 7. REASONABLENESS 7.1 DETERMINING IF FEES ARE REASONABLE The City of San Luis Obispo has concern that fees be "reasonable". MAXIMUS feels this is a worthy goal. In addition, the City has also established cost recovery policies. This is a practice that other jurisdictions would find beneficial. However, determining if fees are "reasonable" can be a very subjective evaluation. What is reasonable to one may not be reasonable to another. To provide the City with a sense of reasonableness", MAXIMUS has provided three independent analysis to determine if fees are indeed -"reasonable". 7.2 TIME ESTIMATES -Building & Safety MAXIMUS maintains a database of time estimates for its Building Nexus models. There is currently a universe of over 50 California jurisdictions. MAXIMUS compared plan checking and inspection times for 6 projects and compared these times against our universe of jurisdictions 25-75K and 75-1 00K in population. It is the opinion of MAXIM US that the time estimates provided in this study closely approximates the averages in our database. San Luis Obispo Popu Popu Total Plan Check latio latio & Inspection n 25 n 75 Time -75 -100 K K Population 1 19 20 Residential Room 1 Addition of 300 esq. -21.5 13.3 21.1 Value $30,000 New Single Family 2 Residence (2000 sq. 20.9 14.0 31.9 ft.) w. Garage (450 sq . ft.l -Value $227 500 Commercial Office 3 Building (20,000 sq. ft.) 84.8 80.3 70.5 -Value $1,400,000 Tenant Improvement 4 (5,000 esq. ) -Value 31.7 NA 28.5 $25,000 5 Custom Home -2500 37.5 22.6 29.7 SF Page 27 + 7.3 PRODUCTIVE HOURLY RATES While MAXIMUS does not maintain a database of calculated Productive Hourly Rates, there are substantial opportunities for observation. Within these studies, MAXIMUS also uses many different rates, some rates are a blend of several positions within a department, and others are rates for individual positions. It is our observation that both the number of available productive hours and the productive hourly rates used to calculate the full cost of fees is well within normal limits. Average (blended) Productive Hourly Rates for these studies fall in a range of $95 -$150 per hour. There is nothing in either of these core data that we would find out of the ordinary. Average blended rates for the City of San Luis Obispo are as follows: Planning: $100.40 Engineering: $117.40 Building: $124.71 / $98.58 (Note: the Building hourly rate of $124.71 includes indirect support costs, while the second hourly rate of $98.58 was calculated for the purpose of miscellaneous permits not requiring planning or engineering support.) 7.4 COMPARISON SURVEY MAXIMUS, as a firm, does not put much weight on the validity of comparing fees from one jurisdiction to another. 1 . Multiple variables can impact the published price of a fee that may have little to do with cost. In reality, what is actually being compared in these surveys is cost vs. price. It is a comparison of one jurisdiction's cost with several other jurisdictions' prices. 2 . Differences in cost recovery analysis and policies can have significant impact on the prices that are charged -if there are even policies for cost recovery. 3 . Lack of cost recovery opportunities and quality analysis can also impact prices charged for services. If a jurisdiction has not raised it is fees or even analyzed its costs in 5-10 years, (not at all unusual) then using them, as a basis of comparison would be inappropriate. 4. Differences in service levels can also impact significantly costs and the price of fees. For example, if one jurisdiction values high service and charges accordingly, their prices will be different than a jurisdiction that has limited resources for service and does not wish to recover additional costs. Page 28 7 7 7 l J . l + 5 . Differences in development type and volume can also impact prices. Those jurisdictions that have little commercial development will have different cost structures than those jurisdictions that have significant commercial development. However, when used as a general guide to understand where one jurisdiction is at in its fee development against a universe of fees, these comparisons can have merit. A comparison survey has been provided as part in the appendix of this report. It is rather obvious that the City of San Luis Obispo is higher; on average, than the benchmark jurisdictions. Several reasons may be factors in this reality: 1. The City of San Luis Obispo has established cost recovery policies. This drives routine cost recovery analysis, which may not be done, on a regular basis in other jurisdictions. 2 . Many jurisdictions simply do not understand the full cost of operations. Lack of an effective Indirect Cost Allocation Plan, using direct labor only for calculating hourly rates, ignoring cross-departmental support and failing to fully account for productive hours and have a dramatic impact on fees. 7.5 CONCLUSION The State of California mandates that User Fees be a "reasonable estimate of cost". This is generally determined to mean that the prices charged be a reasonable estimate of the cost. In other words, fees can be priced at full cost, but no more than cost. The City of San Luis Obispo reduces many of its fees as part of a comprehensive cost recovery set of policies. We would conclude, therefore, that the fees we calculated are certainly reasonable given that they are not priced above cost and many fees are below cost due to existing City policies. In addition, based on the observations listed above, we would conclude that the fees we have calculated are reasonable in that they are not excessively higher than the comparisons we made. This is not to suggest that every fee is reasonable when compared against the inputs of other jurisdictions, but that in total, the fees calculated for the City would certainly pass our test of reasonableness . Page 29 -------------------- + MA.2SJ M!J~ Section 8. MAINTAINING FEE SCHEDULES AND RELATED REVENUES 8.1 BENEFITS OF REGULARLY UPDATING FEES Updated Master Fee Schedule. MAXIMUS regularly and routinely finds significant errors and/or omissions in fee schedules. For many jurisdictions these errors contribute to significant under recovery of costs and open the possibility of legal liability. Maintaining Revenues. The traditional method of increasing fees with an annual CPI factor works for 2-3 years. Specific reasons are elaborated below but in summary, increases based on inflation factors fail to capture cost increase in workloads due to regulatory requirements and the resulting changing processes. 8.2 Multi-Year Fees (Updates) MAXIMUS develops fee analysis on the most accurate up to date budget data available. Once fee adjustments are implemented, we recommend updating the fee calculations periodically to account for changes in costs over time. The development and use of an automatic fee increase mechanism normally provides a level of convenience and efficiency, because staff does not have to take the time to recalculate cost recovery percentages each year, yet the fees will increase to recover some of the budget increases. However, the use of a sub-optimal approach can result in cost increases significantly outpacing the fee increases. In order to ensure that jurisdictions receive appropriate fee increases that reflect the actual growth in cost, MAXIMUS has identified a series of alternatives: Alternative 1 : Update the Fee Model Annually The most accurate method to ensure accurate fee increases is to recalculate fees based upon new staffing and expenditure numbers each year. However, this approach would likely be the most time consuming (and expensive) of the alternatives, as it requires significant financial analysis and a repeat of the approval process. Page 30 7 + l Alternative 2: City Labor Costs (Recommended Alternative) Labor costs comprise the bulk of expenses for most government services. Consequently, changes in labor costs drive the overall change in division costs. To better recover increased costs, jurisdictions can insert into the rate schedule a fee increase factor that is based upon known and anticipated labor cost increases, such as programmed cost of living raises, association agreements, salary step increases, benefits increases, and other salary or benefit enhancements. Labor costs are generally easier to predict than most other costs, since most agencies have greater control over its internal costs. Furthermore, common CPI factors are not specific to the regional economies of many communities. As a result, MAXIMUS believes that a factor based upon specific labor costs would be the most accurate indicator of overall divisional cost increases. Alternative 3: Annual cost increases In addition to raising fees by a programmed cost of living such as increased average labor rates, MAXIMUS also recommends establishing annual increases that are set into ordinance wherever practical. This sets the expectation that the price of user fees will fluctuate with inflationary pressures. Furthermore, this eliminates the pattern of many jurisdictions of raising user fees only after a major study -every 10-15 years. The disruptions to normal business processes, both internally and politically produce significant stress on local staff, citizens, and elected officials. Page 31 + Davis Monterey Napa Palm Springs Santa Barbara Santa Cruz Santa Maria Ventura Section 9. COMPARISON STATISTICS Benchmark Cities Page 32 Arroyo Grande Atascadero Grover Beach Morro Bay Paso Robles Pismo Beach County of San Luis Obispo ~ _J _J ~ + -MAXIMUS -""'·~-~ San Luis Obispo Fee Comparison Study BUILDING Residential Room New Single Family Commercial Tenant Residential Electric Sign Permit for Residence (2000 sq. Fee Description • Reviews Addition of 300 ft.) w. Garage (450 Office Building Improvement Service Upgrade ( up illuminated free- sq.ft. -Value (20,000 sq. ft.) -(5,000 sq.ft. ) -to 200 amp) -Value standing sign • $30,000 sq. ft.) -Value Value $1,400,000 Value $25,000 $500 Value $1000 $227,500 Averaae Current Fee $987 $4,363 $20,322 $1,582 $29 $123 City of San Luis Obispo $1,053 $4,680 $14,350 $3,952 $142 $240 Proposed Fee City of Davis 1,139.84 2,893 .0 0 11 ,598.00 1,0 09.92 56.00 60.00 City of Monterey 1,363.64 6,405.39 31,412 .60 1,230.25 69.25 152.85 City of Napa 1,020.00 21,027.00 33,000 .00 967.00 44.50 89.55 City of Palm Springs 482.50 1,185 .16 5,838 .80 429.59 88 .74 49 .84 City of Santa Barbara 1,120 .00 6,457 .00 19,494.00 9,169.00 230 .00 240 .00 City of Santa Cruz 2,621.69 18,337.17 44,257 .19 2 ,187.06 57 .00 332.29 City of Santa Maria 255.00 3,964.00 19.157 .00 300.18 110.20 55 .00 City of Ventura 2,590.00 1,950.10 8,207 .50 1,540.00 80.00 80.00 City of Morro Bay 750.00 5 .68 7 .50 35.000 .0 0 625 .00 46 .20 46 .20 City of Arroyo Grande 1.565 .00 47.00 47.00 City of Atascadero 1,782.36 20.000 .00 69,000 .00 1,500.00 95.00 244 .00 City of Grover Beach 724.25 2.907 .07 10,129.46 405.43 116.00 170 .04 City of Paso Robles 386.00 2,326.00 2,638.00 1.754.00 55.00 331 .00 City Pismo Beach 465.46 1,799 .00 7,234 .00 412 .00 62.42 163 .33 San Luis Obispo County 1,424.05 8,715.13 12,009 .73 2,820 .70 98.00 192 .26 NIR = No Response to Date NIA = Not on City/County's fee schedule OR unable to determine from City's fee schedule . Does not mean City does not charge for the service . Page 33 + San Luis Obispo Fee Comparison Study Fee Description • Reviews City of San Luis Obispo ' NIR = No Response to Date ' ENGINEERING Current Fee Proposed Fee City of Davis City of Monterey City of Napa City of Palm Springs City of Santa Barbara City of Santa Cruz City of Santa Maria Tract Map $2,824 $9,850 See Planning Per sheet: $1100 See Planning Minor: $1,000 & $100/hr > 10 hours Major: $2,000 & $100/hr > 20 hrs. $3,663 • MAXIMUS .aJN!i.........,..-niir.n.-..r Encroachment • Improvement Plan curb, gutter and Improvement Inspection sidewalk Check $1,076 1.90% 12.90% $477 1.3% 8.8% $162 .00 3% of common area or Hourly: $86/hr dedication improvements See Planning See Planning See Planning Per fee : $20 .84 - $190.00 $333.44 Hourly: $82/hr See Planning See Planning See Planning Minor: $1,000 & $100/hr $250 > 10 hours 6.5% of Engineer's estimate Major: $2,000 & $100/hr > 20 hrs. NIA = Not on City/County's fee schedule OR unable to determine from City's fee schedule. Does not mean City does not charge for the service. Page 34 __J _J _J + -M&lM_~ San Luis Obispo Fee Comparison Study PLANNING Planning Tentative Tentative Home Occupation Administrative Subdivision Map Subdivision Map 5 Tract map -Each Fee Description -Reviews Permit Use Permit Commission Use 4 or less lots or more lots (tract additional lot Permit (parcel map) map) Current Fee $114 $708 $2,698 $5,736 $7,436 $190 City of San Luis Obispo Proposed Fee $155 $2,569 $8,320 $7,463 $24,436 $419 City of Monterey $30.00 $175-$750 $2000 + hourly fee $850 $2,000 $100 .00 $1,200 Deposit. $1,200 Deposit. $1,500 Deposit. $1 ,5 00 Deposit. Hourly: rat es vary City of Napa $30.00 Hourly: rates vary Hourly: rates vary Hourly: rates vary Hourly: rates vary by by position by position by position by position position ~ $8,492 plus $8,492 plus City of Palm Springs N/A N/A $604 notifictation notifictation charges N/A charges 5-10 lots:$6,230 City of Santa Barbara N/A $2,440 $6,500 .00 $4,850 11-20 lots : $9,870 $75/ lot over 51 lots 21-50 lots : $15,790 > 51 lots $15,790 Page 35 + -MAXlMUS ....,,_~-~ San Luis Obispo Fee Comparison Study PLANNING ! City of Santa Cruz $170 (+$35 fire $800 $1,473 $2,064 $2,064 $304 review fee) Minor. $2,123 plus City of Santa Marta NIA N/A $1,091 Eng fees $1,432 $2 ,281 N/A Major. $2,704 plus $1091 Eng fees Residential: $1,924 Residential: $2,490 City of Ventura Non Residential: Non Residential: $2,587 $4,701 N/A $2,588 $3,363 I City of Morro Bay $57 $500 $1,795 $3,000 $4 ,000 $100 per lot over 10 Arroyo Grande $60 $315 $1,300 $1,210 + $24.78/lot $1 ,21 0+ $24.78/lot $25 Atascadero NIA $605 $3,205 $2 ,865 $3,400 $44/lot over 15 lots NIR = No Response to Date NIA = Not on City/County's fee schedule OR unable to detennine from Cfty's fee schedule. Does not mean Cfty does not charge for the service . Page 36 7 I l j + Section 10. MAXIMUS AND THE METHODOLOGY About MAXIMUS The Cost Services Division of MAXIMUS is a part of a nationwide consulting firm specializing in cost analysis and revenue enhancement studies for state and local government. The Western Region Office is headquartered in Sacramento, California, with other offices in Oakland, Irvine, Denver, and Seattle. Our Western Region has provided services to hundreds of cities and counties in the West. In addition to being the industry's volume leader in cost analysis studies, we have pioneered approaches to fee analysis. Costing methodologies General Cost Analysis & Approach The purpose of a user fee study is to determine the full cost of services offered by the agency for which user fees are currently being charged or could be charged. The full cost can usually be compared to current revenues to determine the existing amount of subsidy (or occasionally, overcharge). With this knowledge a City can make informed decisions concerning appropriate fee adjustments. MAXIMUS is able to assist in understanding fee-related issues and trends. However, in the final analysis, the actual decision to increase or decrease fees (or the costs included in a fee) is a local decision. The underlying rationale to charge full cost for services is simply this: the City is providing a distinct service or product to a business or individual who is gaining a monetary, personal, or recreational benefit. Equity says that others who do not participate in that benefit should not subsidize individuals or businesses that benefit directly from services. For example, why should a long-term resident living in a central part of a City contribute towards a subsidy to a developer opening up a new subdivision on the edge of a City? Our methodology for developing fee-for-service calculations is to create a standard cost model for each current and potential fee. We believe that a service qualifies for the "fee" designation when the activity primarily benefits a specific individual or group, as opposed to the public at large. For example, a development activity clearly fits the definition -whether the beneficiary makes a near-term profit or not -as opposed to police patrol or parkland maintenance, which benefit the community as a whole. Page 37 + -AXIMUS ot,1,,-..WJv11"1MoiMl'r General Steps to Calculate Full Cost In general, all MAXIMUS methodologies seek to calculate the full cost of City services. By "full cost" we mean the total cost, to the City, to provide specific services. These costs include all direct labor and benefits, non-personnel costs, program overhead and City overhead. Calculation of Available Productive Hours One of the primary reasons limiting the full recovery of costs is labor rates that do not capture the total cost of operations. To calculate the full cost of staff time, MAXI MUS reduces from the standard 2080 hours the following: 1. Annual accrual of vacation leave. 2. Annual accrual of sick leave 3. Annual holiday leave 4. Time associated with management leave 5. Time associated with routine management and staff meetings . 6. Expenses associated with administrative staff support 7. Time associated with training. Typically, when all time is factored out of the standard 2080 hours, the average is in the area of 1200-1600 hours. This can vary greatly for different departments. Reduce Reliance on Time & Material (Hourly) Fees Theory would suggest that the most equitable way to charge a client for a service would be to track the total time and charge an hourly rate based upon the personnel cost of the person(s) providing the service. The reality is that this system is often flawed. Several factors make this system unreliable. Times assigned to projects are nearly always underestimated without a precise time tracking and automated tool that monitors 100% of staff time. Hourly rates are habitually too low and fail to capture: 1 . Overhead expenses, vacation, sick leave, holiday and other "non-productive" time; 2 . Time spent on support activities such as counter duty, database maintenance, general administration, training and meetings. 3 . Divisions are typically not asked to set measurable objectives on billable hours that one might see in the private sector with similar professional disciplines. Because of these factors, MAXIMUS recommends flat fees wherever possible. As part of this study, we recommended and calculated fees on a flat fee basis wherever practical. Page 38 1 + Quality Assurance MAXIMUS takes the quality of its services very seriously. Because of this, several steps are involved to insure the highest quality of work. Balance time available with time assigned. In the major areas of the study, total time available to staff to provide productive of "billable" work is compared against time that is actually assigned. If there is a significant difference, additional reviews are required. Balance projected revenues with current expenses. The focus of a study of fees is to calculate the full cost of these services but no more. MAXI MUS projects annual revenues from fees and then compares these revenues against expenses. If there is a significance difference, additional reviews are required. Staff involvement. MAXIMUS believes in a highly collaborative process. Because of this, all costing models are reviewed by staff a minimum of three times before a final report is written. Process Analytics (MAX.FEE) For this study, a methodology called Process Analytics was utilized. Process Analytics is deeply rooted in the principles of Activity Based Costing. It is a rigorous and superior methodology compared to a more traditional approach, which utilized direct and indirect costs only. Process Analytics, which also calculated direct and indirect costs, has the added benefit of mapping processed with in a citywide system of service delivery. For example, as part of this study, MAXIMUS was able to map the resources consumed by the actual processes that are used in the delivery of services. In very simple terms it seeks to answer these questions: 1. What are the operational processes associated with the output of any organization? 2. What are the costs of those operational processes? 3. What are the relationships of processes to organizational output? 4. What are the costs of organizational output based on the work activities & processes? Answering the first question identifies the work that staff provides on a daily basis and provides the ability to calculate the cost of activities that directly link to output. Answering the second question calculates the costs of those processes for future performance initiatives. The third question maps the relationships between processes and output. The fourth question calculates the cost of output. Page 39 + Summary of the Process Analytics Approach The "Process Analytics" diagram below illustrates the components of an ABC system and how costs flow through the model: General Ledger Fixed Assets Personnel Process Resources Budget Unit 1 Budget Unit 2 Budget Unit 3 Activities Services Activity I Service l Activity 2 Service 2 Activity 3 Service 3 Activity 4 Service 4 Activity 5 Costs start with the resources and then are assigned to the activities via resource drivers. The costs in activities are then assigned to the cost objects via the activity drivers. The diagram also illustrates how a single resource or activity can be assigned to multiple activities or cost objects. Steps in the Process Analytics (methodology) In order to conduct this portion of the study, MAXIM US employed the steps listed below : 1. Project kick-off and orientation meetings (to establish project goals and identify unique services and structures within the City); 2 . Build the structure of the costing model in state of the art modeling software (work with staff and management to match the business processes of the division); 3 . Develop staff resource consumption data (determine how much time it takes to perform specific tasks and services); 4 . Develop the cost of staff (hourly rate; 5. Distribute other expenses (other direct and indirect costs of providing services); 6. Collect volume data; and 7. Run the model (calculate the hourly rates and other costs). NEXUS for Building and Safety NEXUS is a specific costing methodology designed for Building Safety & Inspection operations. The objective is to move these operations away from the historically accepted method of establishing fees based on the valuation of the project. While accepted and used by the Page 40 l + majority of jurisdictions throughout the country, this method is coming under increasing legal scrutiny. Many states, including California, have a legal code that limits the cost recovery of user fees up to a "reasonable estimate of cost". The intent of this language is to limit cost recovery up to cost but no more than cost. Using valuation based models to set user fees is coming under criticism because it is difficult to create the connection or nexus between the actual cost of a service and the price charged for that same service. This is especially true when City labor rates remain flat to stable yet construction costs (valuations) rise due to increases in material expenses. In theory, this results in increases in building fees without a quantifiable increase in costs. Cost and Revenue Match Used principally for Recreation Services, this methodology matches total costs and total revenues for each budgeted program. This data is then used to determine a cost recovery rate for each program and the department as a whole. Then City and Department overhead is added to calculate cost recovery rates at both the program level and the level of the City. Page 41 + Section 10. MAXIMUS User Fee Concepts and Philosophy General Fee Principles Local governments are funded from a variety of sources, with the primary sources being taxes, subventions, fees, special charges, fines, and grants. As the traditional provider of basic services, cities and counties are constantly struggling with securing sufficient funding to pay for the services expected/demanded/desired by the citizenry. Many local government services are "global" in nature (e.g., police and fire protection, library, recreation, open space, etc.). Other services benefit a particular segment of the population, most often providing a direct monetary or personal benefit to the recipient. It is in this latter group that subsidy and recovery issues are brought to the fore. Given the nature of government financing, if specialized services are not cost recovered sometimes there must be a decrease in funding for other public good activities. User fee services are those services provided by a governmental agency on behalf of a private citizen or group. The assumption underlying most fee recommendations is that. costs of services benefiting individuals, and not society as a whole, should be borne by the individual receiving the benefit. Setting user fees, therefore, is equivalent to establishing prices for services. Making a profit is not an objective for local government in providing services to the general public. It is commonly felt that fees should be established at a level that will recover the cost of providing each service, no more, and no less. It is generally accepted that recovery of costs should be in direct proportion to the individual/specific gain for services. This means that if a developer wants to rezone farm land for a housing development, the City may not want to charge that business a fee less than full cost, since to do otherwise would require a subsidy paid by the general citizenry who do not share in the particular benefit. Where new development causes an increase in infrastructure requirements, that increase should logically be shared pro rata with the existing area proportionate to the degree that the new development benefits from the infrastructure. Conversely, a recreation program could logically be subsidized from the general tax base in order to promote the overall well being of the general public, or to achieve specific socio- economic objectives. If there were alternative tax options available to fund government services subsidy issues would not be stressed. However, this has not been the case in recent years. MAXIMUS recognizes, however, that there are circumstances and programs, which probably justify a subsidy (e.g., youth, senior and disadvantaged recreation programs, certain classifications of code enforcement, library services, etc.) Definitions of Common Terms MAXIMUS uses some common terminology in the development and discussion of costing models and results, including: Page 42 7 I I l + Resources: Resources are the assets of the organization and the costs incurred performing various specific activities. Examples of resources include dollars, personnel, facilities, and capital equipment. Cost Drivers: The Cost Driver is the measurable output identified for each activity. The drivers determine how resources are consumed by activities and how activities are consumed by the services . Examples of drivers are the number of hours to perform an activity or service, the number of permits issued, or square footage occupied. Activities: An activity is the work or specific task performed within an organization. Examples include purchasing supplies, plan check review/screen check, general maintenance, and attending public meetings. Page43 --------------------- Section 10. CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO USER FEE COST RECOVERY POLICY (including Recreation Cost Recovery Change Recommendations) --l -• - -. . 00/\.XI M~ . .. , • ~-!• --_._ A. Ongoing Review Fees will be reviewed and updated on an ongoing basis to ensure that they keep pace with changes in the cost-of-living as well as changes in methods or levels of service delivery . In implementing this goal, a comprehensive analysis of City costs and fees should be made at least every five years. In the interim, fees will be adjusted by annual changes in the Consumer Price Index. Fees may be adjusted during this interim period based on supplemental analysis whenever there have been significant changes in the method, level or cost of service delivery. 8. User Fee Cost Recovery Levels In setting user fees and cost recovery levels, the following factors will be considered: 1. Community-Wide Versus Special Benefit. The level of user fee cost recovery should consider the community-wide versus special service nature of the program or activity. The use of general- purpose revenues is appropriate for community-wide services, while user fees are appropriate for services that are of special benefit to easily identified individuals or groups. 2 . Service Recipient Versus Service Driver. After considering community-wide versus special benefit of the service , the concept of service recipient versus service driver should also be considered. For example, it could be argued that the applicant is not the beneficiary of the City's development review efforts: the community is the primary beneficiary. However, the applicant is the driver of development review costs, and as such, cost recovery from the applicant is appropriate. 3. Effect of Pricing on the Demand for Services. The level of cost recovery and related pricing of services can significantly affect the demand and subsequent level of services provided. At full cost recovery, this has the specific advantage of ensuring that the City is providing services for which there is genuinely a market that is not overly-stimulated by artificially low prices . Conversely, high levels of cost recovery will negatively impact the delivery of services to lower income groups. This negative feature is especially pronounced, and works against public policy, if the services are specifically targeted to low income groups. 4. Feasibility of Collection and Recovery. Although it may be determined that a high level of cost recovery may be appropriate for specific services, it may be impractical or too costly to establish a system to identify and charge the user. Accordingly, the feasibility of assessing and collecting charges should also be considered in developing user fees, especially if significant program costs are intended to be financed from that source. C . Factors Favoring Low Cost Recovery Levels Page44 7 7 • MAXIMU , .,,.. , ....... .., ... .,.., ..... Very low cost recovery levels are appropriate under the following circumstances: 1. There is no intended relationship between the amount paid and the benefit received. Almost all "social service" programs fall into this category as it is expected that one group will subsidize another. 2. Collecting fees is not cost-effective or will significantly impact the efficient delivery of the service . 3. There is no intent to limit the use of (or entitlement to) the service. Again, most "social service" programs fit into this category as well as many public safety (police and fire) emergency response services. Historically, access to neighborhood and community parks would also fit into this category. 4. The service is non-recurring, generally delivered on a "peak demand" or emergency basis, cannot reasonably be planned for on an individual basis, and is not readily available from a private sector source. Many public safety services also fall into this category. 5. Collecting fees would discourage compliance with regulatory requirements and adherence is primarily self-identified, and as such, failure to comply would not be readily detected by the City. Many small-scale licenses and permits might fall into this category. D. Factors Favoring High Cost Recovery Levels The use of service charges as a major source of funding service levels is especially appropriate under the following circumstances: 1. The service is similar to services provided through the private sector. 2. Other private or public sector alternatives could or do exist for the delivery of the service . 3. For equity or demand management purposes, it is intended that there be a direct relationship between the amount paid and the level and cost of the service received. 4. The use of the service is specifically discouraged. Police responses to disturbances or false alarms might fall into this category. 5. The service is regulatory in nature and voluntary compliance is not expected to be the primary method of detecting failure to meet regulatory requirements. Building permit, plan checks, and subdivision review fees for large projects would fall into this category . E. General Concepts Regarding the Use of Service Charges The following general concepts will be used in developing and implementing service charges : 1. Revenues should not exceed the reasonable cost of providing the service . 2. Cost recovery goals should be based on the total cost of delivering the service, including direct costs, departmental administration costs and organization-wide support costs such as accounting, personnel, information technology, legal services, fleet maintenance and insurance. Page 45 3. The method of assessing and collecting fees should be as simple as possible in order to reduce the administrative cost of collection. 4. Rate structures should be sensitive to the "market" for similar services as well as to smaller, infrequent users of the service. 5. A unified approach should be used in determining cost recovery levels for various programs based on the factors discussed above. F. Low Cost-Recovery Services Based on the criteria discussed above, the following types of services should have very low cost recovery goals. In selected circumstances, there may be specific activities within the broad scope of services provided that should have user charges associated with them. However, the primary source of funding for the operation as a whole should be general-purpose revenues, not user fees. 1. Delivering public safety emergency response services such as police patrol services and fire suppression . 2. Maintaining and developing public facilities that are provided on a uniform, community-wide basis such as streets, parks and general-purpose buildings. 3. Providing social service programs and economic development activities . G. Recreation Programs The following cost recovery policies apply to the City's recreation programs: 1. Cost recovery for activities directed to adults should be relatively high . 2 . Cost recovery for activities directed to youth and seniors should be relatively low. In those circumstances where services are similar to those provided in the private sector, cost recovery levels should be higher. Although ability to pay may not be a concern for all youth and senior participants, these are desired program activities, and the cost of determining need may be greater than the cost of providing a uniform service fee structure to all participants. Further, there is a community-wide benefit in encouraging high-levels of participation in youth and senior recreation activities regardless of financial status. 3. Cost recovery goals for recreation activities are recommended as follows: High Range Cost Recovery Activities (60-100 %) / Triathlon \,.b-:'" Banner Permit Fee'-- J....-G-::: Adult Sports ~ /indoor Facility Rentals (non-City users)'-\r-" Outdoor Facility Rentals Mid range Cost Recovery Activities (30-60 %) Page 46 l --------------------- ~-Ho liday in the Pl aza ~ Co nt rac t Clas ses . ., h. Child ren's Se rv ice s Programs \ Maj or Comme rcia l Film Permit Application Fee . Low range Cost Recovery Activities (0 -30 %) Major Speci al Events (non-City sponsored) Department Special Events (other than Triathlon and Holiday in the Plaza) Skate Park You th Sports . Teen Pr ogram s Boo mer Prog rams Sen ior Programs Batt ing Cag es . Aqu at ics Program s Community Gardens Jr. Ranger Camp Minor Commercial Film Permit Application Fee MAX M.Y~ 4. For cost recovery activities of less than 100%, there should be a differential in rates between residents and non-residents. However, the Director of Parks and Recreation is authorized to reduce or eliminate non-resident fee differentials when it can be demonstrated that: a. The fee is reducing attendance. b. And there are no appreciable expenditure savings from the reduced attendance . 5. Charges will be assessed for use of rooms, pools, gymnasiums, ball fields, special-use areas , and recreation equipment for activities not sponsored or co-sponsored by the City . Such charges will generally conform to the fee guidelines described above . However, the Director of Parks and Recreation is authorized to charge fees that are closer to full cost recovery for facilities that are heavily used at peak times and include a majority of non-resident users. 6. A vendor charge of at least 10 percent of gross income will be assessed from individuals or organizations using City facilities for moneymaking activities. 7. Director of Parks and Recreation is author ized to offer reduced fees such as introductory rates, family discounts and coupon discounts on a pilot basis (not to exceed 18 months) to promote new recreation programs or resurrect existing ones . 8 . The Parks and Recreation Department will consider waiving fees only when the City Administrative Officer determines in writing that an undue hardship exists. H. Development Review Programs The following cost recovery policies apply to the development review programs : 1. Services provided under this category include : a. Planning (planned development permits, tentative tract and parcel maps, rezonings, general plan amendments , variances , use permits). Page 47 b. Building and safety (building permits, structural plan checks , inspections). c. Engineering (public improvement plan checks, inspections, subdivision requirements, encroachments). d. Fire plan check . 2. Cost recovery for these services should generally be very high . In most instances, the City's cost recovery goal should be 100%. 3. However, in charging high cost recovery levels, the City needs to clearly establish and articulate standards for its performance in reviewing developer applications to ensure that there is "value for cost." I. Comparability With Other Communities In setting user fees, the City will consider fees charged by other agencies in accordance with the following criteria: 1. Surveying the comparability of the City's fees to other communities provides useful background information in setting fees for several reasons : a. They reflect the "market" for these fees and can assist in assessing the reasonableness of San Luis Obispo's fees. b. If prudently analyzed, they can serve as a benchmark for how cost-effectively San Luis Obispo provides its services . 2 . However, fee surveys should never be the sole or primary criteria in setting City fees as there are many factors that affect how and why other communities have set their fees at their levels. For example : a . What level of cost recovery is their fee intended to achieve compared with our cost recovery objectives? b. What costs have been considered in computing the fees? c. When was the last time that their fees were comprehensively evaluated? d. What level of service do they provide compared with our service or performance standards? e. Is their rate structure significantly different than ours and what is it intended to achieve? 3. These can be very difficult questions to address in fairly evaluating fees among different communities. As such, the comparability of our fees to other communities should be one factor among many that is considered in setting City fees. Page 48 I J __ J _] J J J J TECHNICAL APPENDIX J J I J . l Annual Fee# Fee or Service Name/ Description Qty Charges for reproduction of certain documents and /or reports, including those specified in the California PL #1 Vehicle Code 11064 Processing charge for return of property taken for PL#3 safekeeping: Processing & maintenance fee 36 Duplication of photographs: duplication costs PL#6 (contractor) plus fee 36 Concealed Weapons Permit: -Investigative costs and PL #? permit processing 1 PL#8 Massage Facility Permit 1 PL#9 Massage Technician Initial Permit 24 PL#10 Massage Technician Permit Renewal 12 Miscellaneous charges: -Local record information for PL#11 clearance letter (fee limited by Penal Code 13322) 33 Miscellaneous charges: -Impound vehicle releases (30- PL#12 day impound) 96 PL#13 Miscellaneous charges: -Vehicle Tow Release Fee 612 PL#15 Miscellaneous charges: -Record sealings (851.8 P.C.) 1 Miscellaneous charges: -Property Damage-Only Collisions Investigations per party per non-injury traffic PL #16 collision investigation report. 30 Solicitor permits Initial investigations (rate determined PL#18 by the Finance Director 12 A DUI collision cost recovery: Officer cost per hour plus PL#28 vehicle costs 63 Nuisance Abatement Officer costs -per hour PL#32 Determined by Finance Director 60 MAXIMUS, Inc. City of San Luis Obispo USER FEE STUDY ACTUAL COST RESULTS Police Fees UNIT COSTS ,..,.,,ua1 Unit Cost/ Per Unit Current Potential Surplus/ Unit Fee Fee (Subsidy) Per Issuance $ 0 .36 $ 0.38 $ (0) Per Iss uance $ 33.85 $ 58 .71 $ (24 .86) Per Iss uance $ 10.20 $ 30.32 $ (20 .12 Per Issuance $ 100.00 $ 1,236.68 $(1, 136.68) Per Issuance $ 112.00 $ 322.44 $ (210 .44) Per Issuance $ 63.00 $ 134 .51 $ (71 .51) Per Issuance $ 41.00 $ 121.69 $ (80.69) Per Issuance $ 25 .00 $ 24.10 $ 0.90 Per Issuance $ 171.00 $ 110 .70 $ 60.30 Per Issuance $ 96.00 $ 63 .71 $ 32.29 Per Issuance $ 206 .65 $ 603.77 $ (397.12) Per Issuance $ 50 .00 $ 142.38 $ (92.38) Per Issuance $ 53.25 $ 155.20 $ (101 .95) Per Issuance $ -$ 118 .11 $ (118 .11) Per Issuance $ -$ 118.11 $ (118 .11) Technical Appendix A -1 REVENUE IMPACTS RECOMMENDED FEES ACCUal >-rnnua1 Annual Annual Cost Revenue Rec.Fee Annual Revenue at / Potential Surplus/ (Set by staff Revenue Current Fee Revenue (Deficit) or statute) (Subsidy) $ 3,983 $ 4,204 $ (221) $ 0.38 $ 4,204 $ 1,218.60 $ 2 ,11 3.59 $ (894.99) $ 10 .00 $ 360 .00 $ 367 .20 $ 1,091 .67 $ (724.47) $ 12 .00 $ 432 00 $ 100.00 $ 1,236.68 $ (1 .136 .68) $ 100.00 $ 100.00 $ 112.00 $ 322.44 $ (210.44) $ 322.44 $ 322.44 $ 1,512.00 $ 3,228.30 $ (1,716.30) $ 100 ,88 $ 2,421 .12 $ 492.00 $ 1,460.32 $ (968 .32) $ 91 .27 $ 1,095.24 $ 825 ,00 $ 795 .30 $ 29.70 $ 25 .00 $ 825 .00 $ 16,416 .00 $ 10,626.95 $ 5,789 .05 $ 110 .70 $10 ,626 .95 $ 58,752.00 $ 38,991 .81 $ 19,760.19 $ 63.71 $38,991 .81 $ 206.65 $ 603 .77 $ (397.12) $ 603 .77 $ 603 .77 $ 1,500 .00 $ 4.271.39 $ (2,771 .39 $ 50 .00 $ 1,500 .00 $ 639.00 $ 1.862.39 $ (1,223 .39) $ 155 .20 $ 1,862 .39 $ -$ 7,440.87 $ (7,440 .87) $ 118.11 $ 7,440 .87 $ -$ 7 ,086 .54 $ (7,086.54) $ 118.11 $ 7 ,086 .54 Printed: 2/9/2009 Fee# Fee or Service Name/ Description PL#35 Alarm Permits (per 15.12.060 SLOMC): Permit PL#36 Alarm Perm its (per 15 .12.060 SLOMC ): Renewal PL#37 Excessive alarm s 3rd - PL#38 Excessive alarms 4th - PL#39 Excessive alarms 5th - PL#40 Excessive al arms 6th - PL #41 Excessive alarms 7th & more Excessive Alarms (fees designed to re capture cost for two "free " alarms) D Second response cost recovery (per 9.21 .030-050 SLOMC). Concludes direct officer time and vehi cle PL#42 costs PL#45 Ta xi permit (per 5.20 .0 10/5.2 0.21 0 SLOMC ) -Permit fee Taxi permit (per 5.20.010/5 .20.21 0 SLOMC) -P ermit PL#46 Renewal Fe e -Plus any state mandated fees Electronic Game Center Perm it (pe r 5.52 .020 SLOMC ) Investigative costs/I nspection/Permit PL#47 Processing/Renewal Public Dan ce Permit (per 5.64 .01 0 SLOMC)-Perm it PL#48 Processing PL#49 Processing civil subpoenas for do cuments PL#S0 Issuing repossession tow rel eases PL#51 Witness for civil cases (Gov code : 68093-68097 .2) MAXIMUS , Inc. Annual Qtv 108 2100 178 111 81 49 192 1203 35 City of San Luis Obispo USER FEE STUDY ACTUAL COST RESULTS Police Fees . UNIT COSTS ACIUal Unit Cost/ Per Unit Current Potential Surplus/ Unit Fee Fee (Subsidy) Per Issuance $ 29.80 $ 29 .80 $ - $ 29 .80 $ 29 .80 $ - Per Issuance $ 65 .50 $ 17 3.38 $ (107 .88) Per Issuance $ 110 .8 5 $ 124 .38 $ (13.53) Per Issuance $ 181.20 $ 124.38 $ 56 .82 Per Issuance $ 317.00 $ 124.38 $ 192.62 Per Issuance $ 499 .10 $ 124.38 $ 374.72 $ 173 .38 $ (1 73 .38) Actual response time $ -$ 118 .11 $ (118 .11) 6 Per Issuance $ 94 .10 $ 134 .51 $ (40.41) 24 Per Issuance $ 31 .2 5 $ 108 .87 $ (77.62) 1 Per Issuance $ 127 .95 $ 310.40 $ (182.45) 18 Per Issua nce $ 73.50 $ 71.98 $ 1.52 24 Per Issuance $ 15 .00 $ -$ 15.00 18 Per Issuance $ 15.00 $ -$ 15.00 6 $ 150 .00 $ -$ 150 .00 Tec hn ical Appendi x A -2 REVENUE IMPACTS RECOMMENDED FEES ,..,aua1 Annua, Annual Annual Cost Revenue Rec . Fee Annual Revenue at / Potential Surplus/ (Set by staff Revenue Current Fee Revenue (Deficit) or statute) (Subsidy} $ 3,218.40 $ 3,218.40 $ -$ 29.80 $ 3,218.40 $ 62 ,580.00 $ 62 ,580.00 $ -$ 29 .80 $62,580.00 $ 11,659.00 $ 30 ,861 .03 $ (19,202.03) $ 65 .50 $11,659.00 $ 12,304.35 $ 13 ,805 .80 $ (1 ,501.45) $ 110.85 $12,304.35 $ 14,677.20 $ 10 ,074.50 $ 4 ,602 .70 $ 181 .20 $14 ,677 .20 $ 15,533.00 $ 6,094.45 $ 9,438.55 $ 317.00 $15,533 .00 $ 95 ,827.20 $ 23,880.30 $ 71,946 .90 $ 499.10 $95,827.20 $ -$208,576 ,14 $ (208,576.14) $ -$ 4,133.82 $ (4 ,133 .82 $ 118.11 $ 4,133.82 $ 564.60 $ 807.07 $ (242.47) $ 100 .88 $ 605.31 $ 750.00 $ 2,612 .96 $ (1,862.96) $ 81 .66 $ 1,959.72 $ 127.95 $ 310.40 $ (182.45) $ 31040 $ 310.40 $ 1,323.00 $ 1,295 .73 $ 27 .27 $ 71 .98 S 1,295 .73 • $ 360.00 $ -$ 360 .00 $ 15.00 $ 360 .00 $ 270.00 $ -$ 270 .00 $ 15 .00 $ 270 .00 $ 900 .00 $ -$ 900.00 $ 150.00 $ 900 .00 Printed: 2/9/2009 Fee# PL#52 PL#52 Fee or Service Name / Description Reproduction of DVD images (plus cost of CD) Reproduction of audio files (plus cost of CD) Tobacco Permit (fee calculated by the City of San Luis Obispo) .LEGEND· Fee# Fee or Service Name / Description Annual Quantity Actual Unit Cost I Potential Fee Current Fee Per Unit Surplus/ (Subsidy) Total Actual Annual Cost I Potential Revenue Annual Revenue at Current Fee Total Annual Revenue Surplus/ (Subsidy) * Non-User Fee Activities ** PL 28, 31 Excessive Alarms False Alarms Excessive alarms 1st and 2nd Excessive alarms 3rd Excessive alarms 4th Excessive alarms 5th MAXIMUS, Inc. Annual Qty 12 12 40 City of San Luis Obispo USER FEE STUDY ACTUAL COST RESULTS Police F:ees UNIT COSTS Ac:lual Unit Cost/ Per Unit Current Potential Surplus/ Unit Fee Fee (Subsidvl Per Issuance $ -$ 61.40 $ (61.40) Per Issuance $ -$ 61.40 $ (61.40) Per Issuance $ 297.00 $ 480.00 $ (183 .00) ____,J REVENUE IMPACTS RECOMMENDED FEES ,.. ... ,ua, Annua, Annual Annual Cost Revenue Rec. Fee Annual Revenue at / Potential Surplus/ (Set by staff Revenue Current Fee Revenue (Deficit) or statute) (Subsidy) $ -$ 736 .79 $ (736.79) $ 30 .00 $ 360 .00 $ -$ 736 .79 $ (736.79) $ 61.40 $ 736.79 $ 11,880.00 $ 19,200.00 $ (7 ,320.00) $ 480.00 $19,200.00 s 318,098 1 s 474,2611 s (1 56,1s2>l r I s 323,8031 A reference number to facilitate discussion The services and/or fees included in the MAXIM US study The annual number of each service provided , as reported by the City The actual cost of each service, as calculated by MAXIMUS The current fee charged by the City for each service, if applicable The difference between the Actual Unit Cost and the Current Fee for each service service (Unit Cost x Annual Quantity) service (Current Fee x Annual Quantity) This figure represents the annual subsidy (based on actual cost), the City provides to fee-payers/customers These costs have been excluded from the estimated potential revenue totals . Fee is set by the State of California Hourly rates only This fee is scheduled so that the first 2 false alarms are "free" but additional calls are charged higher rates to capture the cost of the first two calls and subseauent responses . Per Aciual Annual Actual Annual Unit Cost/ Revenue al Cost/ P0IenIial Annual Revenue! Percentage Annual Qty Current Fee Potential Fee Cu1Tent Fee Revenue Surplus I (Deficit) Varta nce 1203 $ 173 .38 s s 208,576 .14 s (208,576) 178 $65 .50 $ 173 .38 s 11,659.00 s 30,861 .03 s (19,202) 111 $110.85 $ 124 ,38 s 12,304.35 s 13,805 .80 s (1,501) 81 $181.20 $ 124 ,38 s 14,677,20 s 10,074,50 s 4,603 Technical Appendix A -3 Printed: 2/9/2009 Fee# Fee or Service Name / Description Excessive alarms 6th Excessive alarms 7th & more MAXIMUS , Inc . Total Annua l Qtv 49 192 City of San Luis Obispo USER FEE STUDY ACTUAL COST RESULTS Police Fees UNIT COST S. R!;VENUI; IMPAC TS ,..c.ua, Unit Cost/ Per Unit Annual Current Potential Surplus/ Revenue at Unit Fee Fee (Subsidy} Current Fee $317.00 $ $499.10 $ 124.38 $ 15,533.00 $ 124.38 $ 95,827.20 $ $ 150.000.75 $ Technical Appendix A-4 6,094.45 $ 23.880.30 $ 293.292.23 $ 9.439 71 ,947 (143,291.48) ,..c.ua, .... nnua, Annual Cost Revenue / Potential Surplus/ Revenue (Deficit} 96% RECO MMENDED FEES Rec .Fee An nua l (Set by s taff Re.ve nue o r statute} {Subs idv) Printed: 2/9/2009 City of San Luis Obispo Fire Department-Fire Prevention Division New Construction Fees FEE AND REVENUE COMPARISONS ----- SF Class Occupahcy Type St.i ndard A-1 Assembly-Fixed Seating 1,000 -Theater, Concert Hall 5,000 -. 10 .000 -. 20 ,000 . -50 .000 -. 100,000 A-2 Assembly-Food & Drink 1,000 . Restaurant, Night Club, Bar 5,000 . -10,000 . -20,000 -. 50.000 --100,000 A-3 Assembly-Workshop, Amusement 500 -Arcade, Church, Community Hall 2,500 . . 5,000 . . 10 ,000 . . 25 ,000 -. 50.000 A-4 Assembly-I ndoor Sport Viewing 500 -Arena, Skating Rink, Tennis Court 2,500 --5,000 Annual Volume of Activity 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 --10 ,000 . 0 . . 25,000 0 . . 50,000 0 A-5 Ass embly-Outdoor Acti vities 500 0 . Amusement Park, Bleach er, Stadium 2,500 0 -. 5,000 0 -· . 10.000 0 . . 25,000 0 . 50,000 0 A A Occupancy Tenant Improvements 500 0 -. 2,500 0 -. 5,000 4 --10 ,000 0 . -25,000 0 -. 50,000 0 B Business-An ima l Hospital 500 0 . -2,500 0 . . 5,000 0 . . 10 ,000 0 MAXIMUS, Inc. UNI , vv.:i1.:, Average Actual Cost per Unit Current SF Cost Fee 1.0312 $ 1,031 $ - 0.2865 $ 1,433 $ - 0.1814 $ 1,814 $ . 0.1173 $ 2,346 $ - 0.0555 $ 2,775 $ . 0.03 26 $ 3.260 $ . 0.9482 $ 948 $ - 0.2648 $ 1,324 $ . 0.1682 $ 1,682 $ . 0.10 86 $ 2,172 $ - 0.0515 $ 2,575 $ - 0.0 302 $ 3,020 $ . 1.4848 $ 742 $ - 0.4096 $ 1,024 $ - 0.2580 $ 1,290 $ - 0.1671 $ 1,671 $ 1,525 0.0790 $ 1,975 $ - 0.0464 $ 2,320 $ - 1.4848 $ 742 $ . 0.4096 $ 1,024 $ . 0.2580 $ 1,290 $ - 0.1671 $ 1,671 $ - 0.0790 $ 1,975 $ - 0.0464 $ 2,320 $ - 1.12 87 $ 564 $ - 0.3 241 $ 810 $ . 0.2096 $ 1,048 $ . 0.1345 $ 1,345 $ - 0.0641 $ 1,603 $ - 0.0376 $ 1,880 $ - 0.9650 $ 483 $ - 0.2732 $ 683 $ - 0.1751 $ 876 $ 581 0.1127 $ 1,127 $ - 0,0536 $ 1,340 $ - 0.0314 $ 1,570 $ . 1.4824 $ 741 $ . 0.4169 $ 1,042 $ . 0.2661 $ 1,331 $ . 0.1715 $ 1.715 $ . Technical Appendix B 4 -1 __.. __] rv;;v,c;;NUt IMl"'A\:,I .:, Surplus/ Annual Annual (Subs idy) Actual Revenue@ General Fund Each Fee Annual Cost Current Fee Subsidy Subtotal $ (1 ,031) $ -$ -$ - $ (1 ,433) $ . $ . $ - $ (1 ,814) $ . $ . $ - $ (2 ,346) $ . $ . $ - $ (2,775) $ -$ . $ - $ (3.260) $ $ -$ -$ - $ (948) $ $ -$ - $ (1,324) $ $ -$ - $ (1,682) $ -$ -$ - $ (2,172) $ -$ . $ - $ (2,575) $ $ . $ . $ (3,020) $ . $ -$ . $ . $ (742) $ . $ . $ - $ (1 ,024) $ . $ . $ . $ (1,290) $ . $ . $ . $ (146 $ 836 $ 763 $ (73) $ {1 ,975) $ -$ . $ . $ (2 ,320) $ . $ -$ . $ (73) $ (742) $ . $ . $ . $ (1,024) $ -$ . $ - $ (1,290) $ -$ -$ - $ (1,671) $ . $ -$ - $ (1,975) $ . $ . $ . $ (2,3 20) $ . $ -$ -$ . $ (564' $ -$ . $ - $ (810) $ -$ -$ . $ (1,048) $ -$ -$ - $ (1,345) $ . $ . $ . $ (1.603' $ . $ . $ . $ (1 ,880) $ . $ . $ -$ . $ (483) $ -$ . $ . $ (683) $ . $ -$ - $ (295) $ 3.064 $ 2,033 $ (1,031) $ (1,127 $ -$ -$ - $ (1,340) $ . $ -$ - $ (1 ,570) $ . $ -$ . $ (1 ,031) $ (741) $ -$ . $ - $ (1,0 42) $ . $ -$ . $ (1 ,331) $ . $ . $ . $ (1,715) $ -$ $ P rinted: 9/29/2008 City of San Luis Obispo Fire Department-Fire Prevention Division New Construction Fees FEE AND REVENUE COMPARISONS " -. . - SF Class Occupancy Type Standard . . 25 ,000 . . 50,000 B Bu siness-Bank 200 . . 1,000 . . 2,000 . . 4,000 . . 10,000 . . 20 .000 B Business-Clinic, Outpatient 500 . 2,500 . -5,000 . . 10,000 . . 25 ,000 . . 50,000 B Business-Dry Cleaning 500 . . 2 ,500 . . 5,000 . . 10,000 . . 25,000 . . 50,000 B Business-Laboratory 200 . . 1,000 . . 2 ,000 . . 4 ,000 . . 10,000 . . 20 .000 B Bus iness-Motor Vehicle Showroom 500 . . 2,500 . . 5,000 . . 10,000 . . 25 ,000 . . 50,000 B Business-Professional Office 1,000 . . 5,000 . -10,000 . . 20,000 . . 50 ,000 . . 100 ,000 B Bus iness-High Rise Offi ce 300 . . 1,500 MAXIMUS , Inc . Annual Volume of A ~tlvlty 0 0 0 0 0 • 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 UNII \..\;/;)I;) Average Actual Cost per Unit Current SF Cost Fee 0.0814 $ 2,035 $ . 0.0478 $ 2,390 $ . 3.50 15 $ 700 $ . 0 .9786 $ 979 $ . 0 .6220 $ 1,244 $ . 0 .4016 $ 1,606 $ . 0 .1904 $ 1,904 $ - 0 .1117 $ 2,234 $ . 1.4824 $ 741 $ . 0.4169 $ 1,042 $ . 0 .2661 $ 1,331 $ . 0.1715 $ 1,715 $ . 0.0814 $ 2 ,035 $ . 0.0478 $ 2,390 $ . 1.2365 $ 618 $ . 0.3444 $ 861 $ . 0.2184 $ 1,092 $ . 0.1411 $ 1.411 $ 1,284 0.066 9 $ 1,673 $ . 0.03 92 $ 1,960 $ . 2.0034 $ 40 1 $ . 0.5556 $ 556 $ . 0.3513 $ 703 $ . 0.2272 $ 909 $ . 0.1076 $ 1,076 $ . 0.0631 $ 1,262 $ . 0.0000 $ . $ . 0 .0000 $ . $ . 0.0000 $ . $ . 0 .0000 $ . $ . 0 .0000 $ . $ . 0.0000 $ . $ . 1.0713 $ 1,071 $ . 0.2937 $ 1,469 $ . 0.1843 $ 1,843 $ . 0.1195 $ 2,390 $ . 0.0564 $ 2,820 $ . 0.0331 $ 3,310 $ . 0.00 00 $ . $ . 0.0000 $ . $ . Technical Appendix B 4-2 l'l;CVCl'IIUI: IM l"'A\.. I;) Surplus/ Annual Annual (Subsidy) Actual Revenue@ General Fund Each Fee Annual Cost Current Fee Subsidy Subtotal $ (2,035) $ $ . $ . $ (2.390) $ . $ . $ . $ . $ (700) $ . $ . $ - $ (979) $ -$ . $ . $ (1,244 ) $ -$ . $ . $ (1,606) $ -$ . $ . $ (1,904) $ . $ . $ . $ (2 ,234) $ -$ . $ -$ - $ (741) $ . $ . $ . $ (1,042) $ . $ . $ - $ (1,331) $ . $ . $ . $ (1 ,715) $ -$ $ - $ (2 ,035) $ . $ . $ $ (2,390 $ . $ . $ -$ . $ (618) $ . $ . $ . $ (861) $ . $ . $ - $ (1,092) $ . $ . $ . $ (127) $ 9,877 $ 8,988 $ (889) $ (1,673) $ . $ . $ . $ (1 ,960) $ . $ . $ . $ (889 $ (401) $ . $ . $ $ (556) $ -$ . $ . $ (703) $ . $ . $ $ (909 $ . $ . $ . $ (1,076) $ . $ . $ $ (1,262) $ . $ . $ . $ - $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ $ . $ . $ . $ (1,071 ) $ . $ . $ . $ (1,469) $ $ . $ . $ (1 ,843) $ . $ . $ . $ (2,390) $ . $ . $ - $ (2,820) $ . $ . $ . $ (3,310) $ . $ . $ . $ . $ -$ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . Printed : 9/29 /200 8 City of San Luis Obispo Fire Department-Fire Prevention Division New Construction Fees FEE AND REVENUE COMPARISONS - ; SF Class Occupancy Type Standard --3,000 . 6,000 -. 15,000 --30,000 B B Occupancy Tenant Improvements 50 0 --2,500 --5 ,000 . -10,000 . . 25,000 . . 50,000 E Educational-Group Occupancy 500 -6+ persons, up to the 12th Grade 2,500 . . 5,000 . . 10 ,000 . -25,000 . . 50 ,000 E Ed ucationa l-Day Care 250 . 5+ children, older than 2 1/2 yrs 1,250 . . 2.500 . . 5,000 -. 12.500 . . 25,000 E E Occupancy Tenant Improvement s 500 . -2,500 . -5,000 --10,000 . . 25,000 -. 50 ,000 F-1 Factory Industria l-Mod erate Hazard 500 -. 2 ,500 . . 5,000 . -10,000 . . 25 ,000 . . 50,000 F-2 Factory Industrial-Low Hazard 500 . -2,500 -5,000 . . 10,000 . . 25 ,000 -. 50 ,000 MAXIMUS , Inc . Annual Volume of Activity 0 0 0 0 0 0 105 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 ~ -UNl 1 1.,u;:,1;:, Average Actual Cost per Unit Current SF Cost Fee 0 .0000 $ . $ . 0.0000 $ -$ . 0.0000 $ -$ - 0.00 00 $ -$ - 0.8 0 14 $ 401 $ . 0.2222 $ 556 $ . 0.1405 $ 703 $ 235 0.0909 $ 909 $ . 0.043 0 $ 1,075 $ - 0 .0252 $ 1,260 $ 1.4871 $ 744 $ . 0.4022 $ 1,006 $ . 0.250 0 $ 1,250 $ - 0.1626 $ 1,626 $ . 0.0766 $ 1,915 $ . 0.0449 $ 2 ,245 $ . 2 .22 37 $ 556 $ 0.63 14 $ 789 $ . 0.4055 $ 1,014 $ 0.2608 $ 1,304 $ . 0.1241 $ 1,551 $ . 0.0728 $ 1,820 $ . 1.0950 $ 548 $ 0.3073 $ 768 $ . 0.1 95 8 $ 979 $ 0.1263 $ 1,263 $ . 0 .0599 $ 1,498 $ - 0.0352 $ 1,760 $ - 1.816 8 $ 908 $ - 0.4967 $ 1,242 $ . 0.3110 $ 1,555 $ . 0.2018 $ 2,018 $ . 0.0953 $ 2,383 $ . 0.0559 $ 2.795 $ . 1.8168 $ 908 $ . 0.4967 $ 1,242 $ . 0.3110 $ 1,555 $ 857 0.2 018 $ 2,018 $ . 0.0953 $ 2,383 $ . 0.0559 $ 2,795 $ . Technical Appendix B 4-3 l'(C:Vt:NUt: IMt"~v I ;:, Surplus/ Annual Annual (Subsidy) Actual Revenue@ General Fund Each Fee Annual Cost Current Fee Subsidy Subtotal $ -$ -$ -$ . $ -$ . $ -$ - $ . $ . $ . $ $ . $ . $ -$ -$ . $ (401 $ -$ -$ . $ (556) $ -$ -$ - $ (468) $ 73,763 $ 24 ,675 $ (49 ,088) $ (909) $ . $ -$ . $ (1 ,075) $ . $ . $ $ (1 ,260) $ . $ -$ $ (49 ,088) $ (744) $ . $ -$ - $ (1,006) $ . $ . $ - $ (1,250) $ . $ . $ . $ (1 ,626) $ . $ -$ . $ (1 ,915) $ . $ . $ - $ (2 ,245) $ . $ . $ -$ . $ (556) $ -$ -$ . $ (789) $ . $ -$ . $ (1,014) $ . $ . $ $ (1,304) $ . $ . $ - $ (1,551) $ . $ -$ - $ (1,820' $ . $ . $ -$ . $ (548 $ . $ . $ . $ (768) $ . $ . $ . $ (979) $ . $ -$ - $ (1,263) $ . $ -$ . $ (1,498) $ . $ . $ . $ (1 ,760 $ . $ . $ . $ . $ (908) $ . $ . $ . $ (1,242) $ -$ . $ . $ (1,555) $ . $ . $ . $ (2,018) $ . $ . $ . $ (2,383 $ . $ . $ . $ (2 ,795) $ . $ . $ . $ . $ (908) $ . $ . $ - $ (1,242) $ . $ . $ . $ (698) $ 1,555 $ 857 $ (698) $ (2 ,018) $ . $ . $ . $ (2,383) $ . $ . $ . $ (2,795) $ . $ $ . $ (698) Printed: 9/29/2008 City of San Luis Obispo Fire Department-Fire Prevention Division New Construction Fees FEE AND REVENUE COMPARISONS SF Class Occupancy T ype Standard F F Occupan cy Tenant Im provements 1,000 . . 5,000 . . 10,000 -20 ,000 . . 50 ,000 . . 100 ,000 H-1 High Hazard Group H-1 500 . Pose a detonation hazard 2 ,500 -. 5,000 -. 10,000 . . 25 ,000 . -50 ,000 H-2 High Hazard Group H-2 500 -Pose a def/agration hazard 2 ,500 -. 5,000 --10,000 --25,000 -. 50,000 H-3 High Hazard Group H-3 500 -Re adily support combustion 2,50 0 -5,000 -. 10,000 -. 25,000 --50,000 H-4 High Haza rd Group H-4 250 . Pose health hazards 1,250 . . 2,500 . . 5,000 . . 12 ,500 . -25,000 H-5 High Haza rd Group H-5 100 . Sem iconductor Fabricatio n, R&D 500 . -1,000 . -2,000 . . 5,000 . -10,000 H H Occupan cy Tenant Im provements 500 -. 2 ,500 --5,000 --10,000 MAXIMUS , Inc. Annual Volume of Activity 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 UNl11.,v.::,1.::, Average Actual Cost per Unit Current SF Cost Fee 0.4 750 $ 475 $ . 0.1 306 $ 653 $ . 0.0821 $ 821 $ . 0.0532 $ 1,064 $ . 0.0252 $ 1,260 $ . 0.0148 $ 1,480 $ 1.814 5 $ 907 $ - 0.5040 $ 1,260 $ . 0.3191 $ 1,596 $ - 0.2063 $ 2,063 $ . 0.0977 $ 2,443 $ . 0.0573 $ 2,865 $ . 1.8145 $ 907 $ . 0.5040 $ 1,260 $ - 0.3191 $ 1,596 $ . 0.2063 $ 2,063 $ . 0 .0977 $ 2,443 $ . 0 .0573 $ 2 ,865 $ . 1.8145 $ 907 $ - 0.5040 $ 1,260 $ - 0.3191 $ 1,596 $ . 0.2063 $ 2 ,063 $ . 0.0977 $ 2,443 $ . 0.0573 $ 2 ,865 $ 2.6422 $ 66 1 $ . 0.71 73 $ 897 $ . 0.4469 $ 1,117 $ - 0.2905 $ 1,453 $ . 0.1369 $ 1,711 $ . 0.0803 $ 2,008 $ - 1.09 13 $ 109 $ - 0 .3395 $ 170 $ - 0 .2304 $ 230 $ - 0.1455 $ 291 $ - 0.070 3 $ 352 $ . 0.041 2 $ 412 $ . 1.0488 $ 524 $ - 0.2951 $ 738 $ - 0.1884 $ 942 $ - 0.1215 $ 1,215 $ . Technical Appendi x B 4-4 "'-• .... ~UE ,m.-,...., 1.::, Surplus/ Annual Annual (Subsidy) Actual Revenue@ General Fund Each Fee Annual Cost Current Fee Subsidy Subtotal $ (475) $ . $ . $ . $ (653) $ . $ . $ . $ (821 $ . $ . $ . $ (1 ,064) $ . $ . $ . $ (1,260) $ . $ . $ . $ {1,480 $ -$ . $ -$ - $ (907) $ . $ . $ . $ (1,260) $ . $ . $ . $ (1,596) $ . $ . $ . $ (2 ,063 $ . $ . $ . $ (2,443) $ . $ . $ - $ (2,865 $ -$ . $ . $ . $ (907) $ . $ -$ . $ (1,260' $ . $ -$ . $ (1,596) $ . $ . $ . $ (2 ,063) $ . $ . $ . $ (2,443' $ . $ . $ . $ {2,865 ' $ . $ -$ . $ . $ (907) $ . $ . $ . $ (1,260) $ . $ -$ - $ (1,596) $ . $ -$ . $ (2,063 $ . $ . $ $ (2,443) $ -$ -$ . $ (2 ,865) $ . $ . $ $ - $ (661) $ -$ . $ . $ (897) $ . $ . $ . $ (1,117 $ . $ -$ . $ (1,453) $ $ -$ . $ (1,711 $ . $ -$ . $ (2 ,008) $ . $ . $ . $ . $ (109 $ -$ . $ - $ (170) $ -$ . $ $ (230) $ -$ . $ . $ (291) $ . $ . $ - $ (352) $ $ . $ . $ (412 ) $ -$ $ . $ . $ (524) $ . $ . $ . $ (738) $ . $ -$ - $ (942) $ -$ . $ . $ (1,215) $ . $ . $ . Printed: 9/29/2008 City of San Luis Obispo Fire Department-Fire Prevention Division New Construction Fees FEE AND REVENUE COMPARISONS SF Class Occupancy Type Standard -25,0 00 -50 ,000 1-1 lnstitutional-17+ persons, ambulatory 1,000 --5,000 -10,000 -20,000 . -50,000 . -100,000 1-2 lnstitutional-6+ persons, non-ambulat 1,000 -5,000 --10.000 . . 20,000 . . 50 ,000 . 100,000 1-3 lnstitutional-6+ persons, restrained 1,000 . -5,000 . -10,000 --20 ,000 --50,000 --100,000 1-4 lnstitutional-6+ persons, day care 1,000 -. 5,000 --10,000 --20,000 --50,000 --100,000 I I Occupancy Tenant Improvements 1,000 --5,000 . -10,000 -. 2 0.000 --50,000 --100,000 M Mercantile-Department & Drug Store 2,500 --12,500 -. 25 ,000 . -50,000 --125,000 --250 ,000 M Mercantile-Market 5,000 . . 25,000 MAXIMUS, Inc . Annual Volume of Activity 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 UNI I vV.:>1.:> Average Actual Cost per Unit Current SF Cost Fee 0 .0577 $ 1,443 $ - 0.0338 $ 1,690 $ - 0.9630 $ 963 $ . 0,265 3 $ 1,327 $ 0.1670 $ 1,670 $ - 0.1082 $ 2,164 $ - 0.0511 $ 2,555 $ . 0.0300 $ 3.000 $ - 0.9630 $ 963 $ - 0.2653 $ 1,327 $ - 0.1670 $ 1,670 $ . 0.1 082 $ 2,164 $ . 0 .051 1 $ 2,555 $ - 0.0300 $ 3,000 $ - 0.7233 $ 723 $ - 0.2024 $ 1,012 $ - 0.1288 $ 1,288 $ - 0.0831 $ 1,662 $ - 0.0394 $ 1,970 $ - 0.0231 $ 2,310 $ . 0.7233 $ 723 $ . 0.2024 $ 1,012 $ - 0.1288 $ 1,288 $ - 0.0831 $ 1,662 $ - 0.0 394 $ 1,970 $ - 0.0231 $ 2,310 $ - 0 .6688 $ 669 $ 48 0.1855 $ 928 $ . 0.1173 $ 1,173 $ - 0.0758 $ 1,516 $ - 0.0359 $ 1,795 $ - 0.0211 $ 2,110 $ - 0.3345 $ 836 $ 663 0.0918 $ 1,148 $ - 0.0576 $ 1,440 $ . 0.0373 $ 1,865 $ 12 ,598 0.0176 $ 2,200 $ . 0 .010 3 $ 2,575 $ - 0.306 3 $ 1,532 $ - 0.0832 $ 2,080 $ . Technical Appendix B 4-5 - Kt:.VE.NUE IMt'Al .. .-1 .:> Surplus/ Annual Annual (Subsidy) Actual Revenue@ General Fund Each Fee Annual Cost Current Fee Subsidy Subtotal $ {1 ,443) $ -$ -$ $ (1,690) $ -$ -$ -$ . $ (963) $ -$ -$ - $ (1,327) $ -$ . $ - $ (1,670) $ . $ $ - $ (2,164) $ $ . $ - $ (2,555) $ -$ -$ - $ (3 ,000) $ -$ . $ -$ . $ (963) $ -$ . $ - $ (1 ,327) $ -$ $ - $ (1,670) $ -$ -$ - $ (2,164) $ . $ $ - $ (2,555) $ -$ -$ . $ (3,000' $ -$ -$ . $ . $ (723) $ -$ -$ . $ (1,012) $ -$ -$ - $ (1,288) $ . $ -$ - $ (1,662) $ -$ . $ - $ (1,970) $ -$ -$ - $ (2,310) $ -$ $ -$ .. $ (723) $ -$ -$ - $ (1 ,012) $ . $ $ - $ (1 ,288) $ -$ $ - $ (1,662) $ -$ -$ - $ (1,970) $ . $ -$ - $ (2,310) $ . $ -$ -$ - $ (621) $ 1,003 $ 72 $ (931) $ (928) $ -$ $ - $ (1,173) $ -$ -$ - $ (1,516) $ -$ -$ - $ (1,795) $ -$ -$ - $ (2 ,110) $ . $ -$ -$ (931 ) $ (173) $ 836 $ 663 $ (173) $ (1,148) $ -$ $ - $ (1,440) $ -$ -$ . $ 10.733 $ 1,865 $ 12 ,598 $ 10,733 $ (2,200) $ -$ . $ - $ (2,575) $ . $ -$ -$ 10,560 $ (1,532) $ -$ -$ . $ (2 ,080) $ -$ -$ - Printed : 9/29 /2008 City of San Luis Obispo Fire Department-Fire Prevention Division New Construction Fees FEE AND REVENUE COMPARISONS - SF Class Occupancy Type Standard --50,000 --100 ,00 0 --250,000 --500 ,000 M Mercantile-Motor fuel-dispensing 2,000 --10,000 --20,000 --40,000 . . 100,000 . . 200,000 M Mercantile-Retail or wholesale store 300 . . 1,500 . -3,000 . . 6,0 00 . -15,000 --30,000 M M Occupancy Tenant Improvements 1,000 --5,000 . . 10,000 . -20 ,00 0 --50,000 . . 100,000 R-1 Residential-Transient 1,000 -Boarding Houses, Hotels, Motels 5,000 . . 10,000 --20,000 . . 50,000 . . 100,000 R-1 Residential-Transient, Phased Permi 1,000 . Boarding Houses, Hotels, Motels 5,000 --10,000 --20 ,000 --50,0 00 --100.000 R-2 Residential-Permanent, 2+ Dwellings 1,000 . Apartment, Dormitory, Timeshare 5,000 -. 10 ,000 --20 ,000 --50,000 . . 100 ,000 MAXIMUS , Inc . Annual Vol umeol Activity 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 31 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 0 0 0 UNI I u l;J;)I;) Average Actual Cost per Unit Current SF Cost Fee 0.0518 $ 2,590 $ - 0.0337 $ 3,370 $ - 0.0159 $ 3,975 $ - 0.0093 $ 4,650 $ - 0.4542 $ 908 $ - 0 .1242 $ 1,242 $ - 0 .0778 $ 1,556 $ - 0 .0505 $ 2 ,020 $ - 0.023 8 $ 2,380 $ . 0.0140 $ 2,800 $ . 2.2057 $ 662 $ - 0.5854 $ 878 $ . 0.35 90 $ 1,077 $ . 0.2347 $ 1,408 $ - 0.1101 $ 1,652 $ . 0.0646 $ 1.938 $ . 0.6690 $ 669 $ . 0 .1835 $ 918 $ - 0 .1152 $ 1,152 $ 351 0.0747 $ 1,494 $ . 0.035 3 $ 1,765 $ . 0.0207 $ 2,070 $ . 0.3790 $ 379 $ . 0 .1054 $ 527 $ . 0 .0668 $ 668 $ . 0.04 32 $ 864 $ . 0.0205 $ 1,025 $ . 0.0120 $ 1,200 $ - 0.3790 $ 379 $ - 0.1054 $ 527 $ - 0.0668 $ 668 $ - 0.0432 $ 864 $ - 0.020 5 $ 1,025 $ - 0.012 0 $ 1,200 $ - 0.1011 $ 101 $ - 0.0265 $ 133 $ - 0.0161 $ 161 $ - 0.01 06 $ 212 $ - 0.0049 $ 245 $ - 0.0029 $ 290 $ - Technical Appendix B 4-6 l"\<a vt:NUt: IMt'A\., I::, Surplus/ Annual A nnual (Subsidy ) Actual Revenue@ Ge neral Fund Each Fee Annual Cost Current Fee S ubs idy Subtotal $ (2,590 ) $ -$ -$ - $ (3,370) $ -$ -$ - $ (3,975 ) $ -$ -$ - $ (4,650) $ -$ -$ -$ . $ (908) $ . $ -$ - $ (1,24 2) $ 2 ,4 84 $ -$ (2,484) $ (1,556 $ 3,112 $ . $ (3,112) $ (2,020) $ -$ -$ - $ (2,380) $ -$ -$ - $ (2,800) $ . $ . $ . $ (5 ,596) $ (662) $ . $ . $ . $ (878) $ . $ . $ . $ (1,077) $ $ . $ . $ (1,408) $ . $ -. $ . $ (1,652) $ . $ . $ . $ (1,938 $ . $ . $ . $ . $ (669) $ . $ -$ - $ (918) $ . $ . $ . $ (801) $ 35,712 $ 10,881 $ (24,831) $ (1,494) $ -$ -$ - $ (1,765) $ . $ . $ . $ (2,070) $ -$ . $ -$ (24,831) $ (379) $ . $ -$ . $ (527) $ . $ . $ . $ (668) $ -$ -$ . $ (864) $ -$ . $ - $ (1,025) $ -$ . $ . $ (1,200) $ -$ -$ . $ . $ (379) $ -$ -$ . $ (527) $ -$ -$ - $ (668) $ -$ . $ . $ (864) $ -$ . $ - $ (1,025) $ . $ -$ . $ (1,200) $ -$ $ . $ - $ (101) $ -$ . $ - $ (133) $ 530 $ . $ (530) $ (161) $ 644 $ . $ (644) $ (212) $ -$ -$ - $ (245 $ . $ -$ - $ (290) $ -$ -$ -$ (1,174) Pr inted : 9/29/2008 '-- City of San Luis Obispo Fire Department-Fire Prevention Division New Construction Fees FEE AND REVENUE COMPARISONS L •· - SF Class Occupancy Type Standard R-2 Res idential-Permanent, 2+, Phased 1,500 . Apartment, Dormitory, Time share 7,500 . . 15,000 . . 30,000 . . 75,000 . . 150,000 R-3 Dwellings-Custom Homes 500 . Wild/and Urban Interface Only 1,000 . . 2,50 0 . . 4,000 . . 6,000 . -8,000 R-3 Dwell ing s-Models, First Master Plan 500 . Wild/and Urban Interface Only 1,000 . -2,500 . . 4,000 . . 6,00 0 . . 8,000 R-3 Dwel lings-Production Phase of Maste 500 . (repeats) 1,000 . . 2,500 . -4,000 . . 6,000 . . 8,000 R-3 Dwell i ngs-Alternate Materials 500 . . 1,000 . . 2,500 . . 4,000 . . 6,000 . . 8,0 00 R-3 Dwellings-H illside -Custom Homes 500 . . 1,000 . . 2,500 . . 4,000 . . 6,000 . . 8,000 R-3 Dwellings-Hillside -Models , First Mai 500 . . 1,000 . . 2,500 . . 4,000 MAXIMUS , In c. Annual Volume of Actl vlty 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 2 0 0 0 1 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 UNI I 1.,v;;:, I::; Average Actual Cost per Unit Current SF Cost Fee 0.0818 $ 123 $ . 0.0255 $ 191 $ . 0.0173 $ 260 $ . 0.0109 $ 327 $ . 0.0053 $ 398 $ . 0.0031 $ 465 $ . 1.3362 $ 668 $ 877 0.6681 $ 668 $ 450 0.2672 $ 668 $ 697 0.1837 $ 735 $ 877 0.1334 $ 800 $ . 0.1084 $ 867 $ . 0.3 225 $ 161 $ . 0.1613 $ 161 $ 425 0.0645 $ 161 $ . 0.0570 $ 228 $ 828 0.0490 $ 294 $ - 0.0451 $ 361 $ . 0.3225 $ 161 $ . 0.1613 $ 161 $ . 0.0645 $ 16 1 $ . 0.0570 $ 228 $ . 0.0490 $ 294 $ . 0.0451 $ 361 $ . 0.0000 $ . $ . 0.0000 $ . $ . 0.0000 $ . $ . 0.0000 $ . $ . 0.0 00 0 $ . $ . 0.000 0 $ . $ . 0.0000 $ . $ . 0.0000 $ . $ . 0.0000 $ . $ . 0.0000 $ . $ . 0.0000 $ . $ . 0.0000 $ . $ . 0.0000 $ . $ . 0.0000 $ . $ . 0.0 000 $ . $ . 0.0000 $ . $ . Technical Appendix B 4-7 __J ro.C v i;;o~Ut IIVll"'Al.,I::; Surplus/ Annual Annual (S ubsidy;) Actual Revenue@ General Fund Each Fee Annual Cost Current Fee Subsidy Subtotal $ (123) $ . $ . $ . $ (191) $ . $ . $ . $ (260) $ . $ . $ . $ l327) $ . $ . $ . $ (398) $ . $ . $ . $ (465) $ . $ . $ . $ . $ 209 $ 1,336 $ 1,754 $ 418 $ (218) $ 668 $ 450 $ (218) $ 29 $ 1,336 $ 1,394 $ 58 $ 142 $ 1,470 $ 1,754 $ 284 $ (800 $ .. $ $ . $ (867) $ . $ . $ -$ 542 $ (161) $ . $ $ . $ 264 $ 161 $ 425 $ 264 $ (161) $ . $ . $ . $ 600 $ 912 $ 3,312 $ 2,400 $ (294) $ . $ . $ . $ (361 $ . $ . $ . $ 2,664 $ (161) $ . $ . $ . $ (161) $ $ . $ . $ (161) $ . $ . $ . $ (228) $ . $ . $ . $ (294) $ . $ . $ . $ (361) $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ - $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . s . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ - $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . Pri nted: 9/29/2008 City of San Luis Obispo Fire Department-Fire Prevention Division New Construction Fees FEE AND REVENUE COMPARISONS ' SF Class Occupancy Type Standard --6,000 . . 8,000 R-3 Dwellings-Hillside -Production Phase 500 . (repeats) 1,000 . . 2,500 . . 4,000 . . 6,000 --8,000 R-3 Dwellings-Hillside -Alternate Materia 500 -. 1,000 --2 ,500 . . 4,000 . . 6,000 . . 8,000 R-4 Residential-Assisted Living (6-16 per 1,000 --5,000 . . 10 ,000 . . 20,000 . . 50 ,000 -. 100,000 R R Occupancy Tenant Improvements 500 . . 2,500 . R-1 Tl for Hotel and Motels only. Apt B 5,000 . and R-3 residential see itemized list. 10,000 -. 25,000 . . 50,000 S-1 Storage-Moderate Hazard 1,000 . . 5,000 . . 10 ,000 . . 20,000 . . 50,000 -. 100 ,000 S-1 Storage-Moderate Hazard, Repair Gt 1,000 . Motor Vehicles (not High Hazard) 5,000 . . 10,000 . -20,000 . -50,000 . . 100,000 S-2 Storage-Low Hazard 1,000 . . 5,000 MAXIMUS , Inc . Annual VoJume of Activity 0 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 UNl 1 1..v;:,1;:, Average Actual Cost per Unit Current SF Cost Fee 0.0000 $ . $ . 0.0000 $ . $ . 0.0000 $ . $ . 0.0000 $ . $ . 0.0000 $ -$ . 0.0000 $ . $ . 0.0000 $ . $ . 0.0000 $ . $ - 0.0000 $ . $ - 0.0000 $ . $ . 0.0000 $ -$ . 0 .00 00 $ . $ . 0 .0000 $ . $ . 0.0000 $ . $ . 0.9914 $ 991 $ . 0.2701 $ 1,351 $ . 0.1688 $ 1,688 $ . 0.1096 $ 2 .192 $ . 0.0517 $ 2 ,585 $ 5,203 0.0303 $ 3,030 $ . 1.0765 $ 538 $ 253 0.2998 $ 750 $ 709 0.1901 $ 951 $ . 0.1228 $ 1,228 $ . 0 .0582 $ 1,455 $ . 0.0341 $ 1,705 $ . 0.8661 $ 866 $ . 0.2412 $ 1,206 $ . 0.1530 $ 1,530 $ . 0.0988 $ 1,976 $ . 0.0468 $ 2,340 $ . 0.0275 $ 2 ,750 $ . 0.8661 $ 866 $ . 0.2412 $ 1,206 $ . 0.1530 $ 1,530 $ . 0.0988 $ 1,976 $ - 0.0468 $ 2,340 $ . 0.0275 $ 2 .750 $ . 0.8661 $ 866 $ . 0.2412 $ 1,206 $ . Technical Appendix B 4-8 ru;v'ENUE IMr~._,1;:, Surplus/ Annual Annual (Sub.i;ldy) Actual Revenue@ General Fun·d Each Fee Annual Cost Current Fee Subsidy Subtotal $ . $ -$ . $ - $ . $ . $ -$ -$ . $ . $ . $ . $ $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ -$ . $ -$ - $ -$ . $ $ -$ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ -$ -$ . $ . $ . $ . $ $ - $ . $ -$ . $ $ . $ -$ $ . $ . $ . $ $ . $ - $ (991) $ . $ $ . $ (1,351) $ . $ . $ . $ (1,688) $ . $ . $ - $ (2,192 ) $ . $ -$ . $ 2 ,618 $ 2,585 $ 5,203 $ 2,618 $ (3,030) $ -$ . $ -$ 2,618 $ (28 5) $ 1,077 $ 506 $ (571) $ (41) $ 750 $ 709 $ (41) $ (951) $ . $ . $ . $ (1 ,228 $ -$ . $ - $ (1,455) $ -$ . $ . $ (1,705 $ . $ -$ . $ (611) $ (866) $ . $ . $ . $ (1 ,206 $ -$ . $ . $ (1,530 $ . $ . $ . $ (1,976) $ . $ -$ . $ (2,340) $ . $ . $ . $ (2,750) $ . $ . $ . $ . $ (866) $ . $ . $ - $ (1,206) $ . $ . $ . $ (1,530) $ . $ . $ . $ (1 ,976 $ . $ . $ . $ (2,340 ) $ . $ . $ . $ (2 ,750 $ . $ . $ $ - $ (866) $ $ . $ $ (1,206) $ $ . $ - Printed : 9/29/2008 City of San Luis Obispo Fire Department-Fire Prevention Division New Construction Fees FEE AND REVENUE COMPARISONS . ., -.. SF, Class Occupancy Type Standard --10,000 --20,000 --50 ,000 --100,000 S-2 Storage-Low Hazard, Aircraft Hangar 500 --2,500 --5,000 --10,000 --25,000 --50 ,000 S-2 Storage-Low Hazard, Parking GaragE 1,000 -Open or Enclosed 5,000 --10,000 --20,000 --50,000 --100,000 s S Occupancy Tenant Improvements 1.000 --5,000 -. 10,000 -20,000 --50,000 --100,000 u Accessory-Agricultural Building 600 --3,000 --6,000 . . 12,000 --30,000 -. 60,000 u Accessory-Barn or Shed 100 . . 500 . -1,000 -. 2 ,000 . . 5,000 --10,000 u Accessory-Private Garage 100 . -500 --1,000 -. 2,000 . . 5,000 . -10.000 MAXIMUS, Inc. Annual Volume of Activity 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 UNII uu::.1;:, Average Actual Cost per Unit Current SF Cost Fee 0.1530 $ 1,530 $ - 0.0988 $ 1,976 $ 1,385 0.0468 $ 2,340 $ - 0.0275 $ 2,750 $ - 1.4867 $ 743 $ - 0.4061 $ 1,015 $ 1,133 0.2541 $ 1,271 $ 1,133 0.1649 $ 1,649 $ 1,133 0.0778 $ 1,945 $ - 0.0457 $ 2,285 $ - 0.2779 $ 278 $ - 0.0729 $ 365 $ - 0.0443 $ 443 $ - 0.0291 $ 582 $ - 0.0136 $ 680 $ - 0.0080 $ 800 $ - 0.1228 $ 123 $ 115 0 .0382 $ 191 $ 193 0.0259 $ 259 $ - 0 .0164 $ 328 $ - 0.0079 $ 395 $ - 0.0046 $ 460 $ . 0.0000 $ -$ . 0.0000 $ . $ . 0.0000 $ -$ - 0 .0000 $ -$ - 0.0000 $ -$ 0.0000 $ -$ 0.0000 $ -$ - 0.0000 $ . $ . 0.0000 $ . $ - 0.0000 $ . $ . 0.0000 $ . $ . 0.0000 $ -$ 0.0000 $ -$ - 0.0000 $ -$ 0.0000 $ -$ 0.0000 $ . $ - 0.0000 $ -$ - 0 .0000 $ -$ Technical Appendix B 4-9 ---· ..!!: IMl"'I-\\., 1;:, Surplus/ Annual Annual (Subsidy) Actual Revenue@ General Fund Each Fee Annual Cost Current Fee Subsidy Subtotal $ (1.530) $ -$ -$ - $ (591) $ 1,976 $ 1,385 $ (591) $ (2,340 $ -$ -$ - $ (2,750) $ -$ -$ -$ (591) $ (743 $ -$ -$ . $ 118 $ 1,015 $ 1,133 $ 118 $ (138) $ 1,271 $ 1,133 $ (138) $ (516) $ 1,649 $ 1,133 $ (516) $ (1 ,945) $ -$ -$ - $ (2,285) $ -$ -$ -$ (536) $ (278) $ -$ -$ - $ (365 $ -$ -$ - $ (443) $ -$ -$ - $ (582) $ -$ -$ - $ (680) $ -$ -$ - $ (800) $ -$ -$ . $ . $ (8) $ 123 $ 115 $ (8) $ 2 $ 764 $ 772 $ 8 $ (259) $ -$ . $ - $ (328) $ -$ . $ $ (395 $ -$ $ . $ (460) $ -$ -$ $ 0 $ -$ -$ -$ . $ . $ -$ -$ - $ . $ . $ $ . $ . $ -$ . $ - $ -$ -$ $ - $ . $ . $ -$ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ - $ $ . $ . $ - $ -$ -$ -$ . $ -$ . $ $ . $ $ -$ -$ - $ $ -$ -$ $ . $ $ . $ $ - $ . $ -$ -$ . $ . $ . $ $ $ . $ . $ . $ - $ -$ -$ -$ - $ -$ . $ -$ -$ . Printed : 9/29/2008 City of San Luis Obispo Fire Department-Fire Prevention Division New Construction Fees FEE AND REVENUE COMPARISONS -· -' - SF Class Occupancy T ype Standard u Acce sso ry-Other 10,000 --50,000 --100,000 -· -200,000 --500,000 . -1,000,000 -Other Tenant Improvements 600 --3,000 --6 ,000 --12,000 . . 30,000 --60,000 -New Type 1 40 --20 0 -. 400 --800 --2,000 --4,000 -New Type 2 1.000 --5,000 -. 10,000 --20,000 --50,000 . . 100,000 -New Type 3 1,000 -. 5,000 --10 ,000 --20 ,000 --50 ,000 --100,000 -New Type 4 500 --2,500 --5,000 . 10 ,000 --25 ,000 --50,000 -New Type 5 3,000 --15,000 . -30,000 --60,000 MAXIMUS , Inc . Annual Volume of Activity 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 UJ\1111.iV::i l ::i. Average Actual Cost per Unit Current SF Cost Fee 0.0000 $ -$ - 0.0000 $ -$ - 0.0000 $ -$ - 0.0000 $ -$ - 0 .0000 $ -$ . 0.0000 $ -$ . 0 .0000 $ -$ - 0 .0000 $ . $ 0.000 0 $ . $ . 0.0000 $ -$ 0.0000 $ . $ - 0.000 0 $ -$ . 0.0000 $ -$ . 0.0000 $ . $ . 0.0000 $ . $ . 0.0000 $ . $ . 0.0000 $ -$ . 0 .0000 $ . $ . 0 .0000 $ . $ . 0.0000 $ . $ . 0.0000 $ . $ . 0.0000 $ -$ - 0.000 0 $ -$ . 0.000 0 $ . $ - 0.0000 $ -$ . 0.0000 $ -$ - 0.0000 $ -$ - 0.0000 $ -$ - 0.0000 $ . $ - 0.0000 $ -$ - 0.0000 $ -$ . 0.0000 $ -$ - 0 .0000 $ -$ - 0.0000 $ -$ - 0 .0000 $ -$ - 0.0000 $ -$ - 0.0000 $ -$ - 0.0000 $ -$ - 0.0000 $ -$ . 0.0000 $ -$ - Technical Appendix B 4 -10 ru:vc1'1U I: I Mr"M\, I,;:, Surplus/ Annual Annual (Subsidy) Actual Revenue@ General Fund Each Fee A nn ual Cost Current Fee Subsidy Subtotal $ -$ -$ -. $ - $ -$ -$ -$ - $ -$ -$ -$ - $ -$ -$ -$ - $ -$ -$ . $ - $ -$ -$ -$ . $ - $ -$ -$ . $ . $ -$ -$ . $ - $ -$ . $ -$ . $ . $ -$ . $ - $ -$ -$ . $ - $ . $ -$ . $ -$ . $ . $ . $ -$ - $ -$ -$ -$ . $ -$ . $ . $ - $ -$ -$ -$ - $ -$ . $ -$ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ -$ . $ $ - $ -$ -$ -$ . $ -$ . $ $ . $ -$ $ -$ $ -$ -$ -$ . $ . $ -$ -$ -$ - $ -$ -$ -$ - $ -$ . $ -$ - $ . $ . $ -$ . $ -$ . $ -$ - $ -$ -$ -$ - $ . $ . $ -$ . $ - $ . $ . $ -$ - $ -$ -$ -$ - $ -$ -$ -$ . $ -$ -$ -$ - $ -$ -$ -$ - $ -$ . $ -$ . $ - $ -$ -$ -$ - $ . $ -$ -$ - $ . $ . $ . $ - $ -$ -$ -$ - Printed : 9/29/200 8 .___ City of San Luis Obispo Fire Department-Fire Prevention Division New Construction Fees FEE AND REVENUE COMPARISONS SF Class Occupancy Type Sta ndard --150,000 --300 ,000 -New Type 6 3,000 --15.000 --30,000 . -60.000 --150,000 --300,000 -New Type 7 3,000 --15 ,000 --30,000 . . 60,000 . -150,000 . . 300 ,00 0 -New Type 8 3,000 . -15 ,000 . . 30,000 . . 60,000 --150,000 --300,000 -New Type 9 3,000 -. 15,000 -. 30,000 --60,000 --150,000 . -300,000 -New Type 10 1,000 --5,000 --10,000 -. 20 ,000 --50,000 --100,000 -New Type 11 1,000 . . 5,000 --10,000 -20,000 -. 50,000 . . 100,000 SHELL BUILDINGS MAXIMUS , Inc. Annual Volume of Activity 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 UNI I ~u:, I:, Average Actual Cost per Unit Current SF Cost Fee 0.0000 $ -$ . 0.0 000 $ -$ . 0.0000 $ . $ - 0.0000 $ -$ - 0.0000 $ -$ - 0.0000 $ -$ - 0.0000 $ -$ - 0.0000 $ -$ . 0.0000 $ -$ . 0.0000 $ . $ . 0.0000 $ -$ . 0.0000 $ -$ . 0 .0000 $ . $ . 0 .0 00 0 $ -$ . 0 .0000 $ -$ . 0.0000 $ . $ - 0.000 0 $ -$ - 0.0000 $ -$ - 0.0000 $ -$ - 0.0000 $ . $ 0.0000 $ -$ . 0.0000 $ . $ . 0.0000 $ -$ 0.0000 $ -$ . 0.0000 $ -$ 0.0000 $ -$ - 0.0000 $ -$ . 0.0000 $ . $ - 0.0000 $ -$ . 0.0000 $ -$ - 0.0000 $ -$ . 0.0000 $ -$ . 0.0000 $ -$ - 0.0000 $ -$ . 0.0000 $ -$ - 0.0000 $ -$ - 0.0000 $ . $ - 0.0000 $ -$ - Technical Appendix B 4 -11 "'cvt:NUt: m1 t"A1., l::;: Surplus/ Annual Annual (Subsidy) Actual Revenue@ General Fund Each Fee Annual Cost Current Fee Subsidy Subtotal $ -$ . $ $ . $ $ -$ $ . $ - $ . $ -$ -$ - $ $ -$ $ - $ -$ -$ . $ - $ . $ . $ -$ . $ -$ . $ . $ . $ -$ . $ $ . $ - $ -$ -$ -$ . $ -$ -$ $ - $ -$ . $ . $ . $ . $ -$ . $ . $ . $ -$ . $ . $ . $ -$ $ . $ - $ $ -$ -$ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ -$ . $ . $ -$ -$ $ . $ . $ . $ $ - $ $ -$ $ -$ . $ . $ -$ . $ . $ . $ . $ $ - $ -$ -$ -$ - $ -$ . $ -$ - $ . $ . $ -$ - $ $ -$ -$ . $ - $ -$ . $ -$ $ . $ -$ . $ . $ . $ -$ -$ . $ . $ . $ -$ . $ . $ . $ . $ - $ . $ . $ -$ -$ - $ . $ -$ -$ - $ -$ -$ -$ - $ -$ -$ -$ - $ . $ . $ . $ - $ . $ . $ -$ . $ . $ -$ . $ . $ - Printed: 9/29/2008 City of San Luis Obispo Fire Department-Fire Prevention Division New Construction Fees FEE AND REVENUE COMPARISONS ~ .. , -, - SF Clas s Qccup_ancy Type Sta nd~rd • All Shell Buildings 1,000 . . 5,000 -. 10 ,000 . . 20.000 . . 50,000 . . 100 ,000 MAXIMUS, Inc . A n nual Volume of Activ ity 0 0 0 0 0 0 UNl l .\,,Vi:1 1'.:» Average Actual Cost per Unit Current ·SF Cost Fee 0 .7424 $ 742 $ . 0.2048 $ 1,024 $ . 0.1290 $ 1,290 $ - 0.0835 $ 1,670 $ . 0 .0395 $ 1.975 $ . 0 .0232 $ 2.320 $ . Technical Appendix B 4-12 -. Kcvcl'IUI: l~l'A\,, I.:, Surplus/ Annual Annual (Su bsidy) P.ct ual Reven ue@ Gen~ral Fund Each Fee Ann ual Cos t Current Fee Subs tdy Subtotal $ (742) $ . $ . $ . $ (1,024) $ . $ -$ . $ (1.290) $ -$ . $ - $ (1,670) $ . $ . $ . $ (1,975) $ -$ . $ . $ (2 ,320) $ . $ . $ . $ . Total Revenues: I s 152,372 I s 82,708 j $ (69 ,665)1 $ css,6s5Il Printed : 9/29/2008 L_ City of San Luis Obispo Fire Department-Fire Prevention Division MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS PERMIT FEES -. ., - ,. l Intake and Work Item Unit Processing Standard Hourly Rate NEW CONSTRUCTION -R-3 TRACT DEVELOPMENT FIRE REVIEW 0 -50 UNITS each 0.25 51 -100 UNITS each 0,25 101 + UNITS each 0.25 Residential Photovoltaic System (each) Commercial Photovoltaic System (each 20 arrays up to 100) Commercial Photovoltaic System (over 100 arrays) FIRE-SPECIFIC ITEMS - (ISSUED BY BUILDING AND SAFETY) FIRE-SPECIFIC ITEMS Fire Sprinkler Systems -RetrofiVReplace/Repair 1-25 Heads (Issued directly by Fire Department) each 0.167 26-50 Heads each 0.167 51-100 Heads each 0.167 101-200 Heads each 0.167 Every 200 Heads above 200 each 0 Fire Alarm System -RetrofiVRepair/Alteration 1-50 Devi ces each 0.167 51-100 Devices each 0.167 Every 50 Devices above 100 each 0,167 Sprinkler Monitoring System each 0.167 Other Suppression Systems : Inert Gas System s each 0.167 Dry Chemical Systems each 0.167 Wet Chemical/Kitchen Hood each 0.167 Foam Systems each 0,167 Paint Spray Booth each 0.167 Other Fire Fees: Hydrant Flow Test (existing hydrants) rst hydrar 0,58 Hydrant Flow Test (existing hydrants) ~ add'I hyc 0 Reinspection Fee hourly 0.083 Board of Appeals hourl y 1 Emergency Call-Out (Non-Scheduled) hourmir 0 MAXIMUS , Inc. 71ME E~TIM ATES Average Average Plan Check Inspection Process Process Hours Hours 5.000 5.000 9.000 10.000 15.000 30.000 0 1 4 1.000 3.000 0.000 3.500 0.000 4 .000 0.000 5.000 0.000 1.000 0.000 2.000 0.000 2.500 0.000 1.000 0.000 1.500 0.000 2.500 0.000 1.500 0.000 2.000 0.000 2.500 0.000 2.000 0.000 2.000 0 .000 1.000 0.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 4.000 - - Annual Volume Intake & Plan Total Time (# of Check Actuaf (hours) Units) Cost $ 115.19 10.250 1 $ 604 .74 19.250 1 $ 1,065.50 45.250 1 $ 1,756.63 0 .000 $ - 0.250 $ - 1.000 $ - 3.750 $ - 4.167 4 8 $ 134.43 3.667 5 $ 19.24 4.167 5 $ 19.24 5.167 $ 19.24 1.000 $ 2.167 $ 19.24 2.667 $ 19.24 1.167 $ 19.24 1.667 $ 19.24 2.667 $ 19.24 1.667 $ 19.24 2.167 $ 19 .24 2.667 $ 19.24 2.167 $ 19.24 2.580 $ 66.81 1.000 $ - 1.083 $ 9 56 1,000 $ 115.19 4 .000 $ - Tech nical Appendix B 5 -13 Inspection Actual Cost $ 115.19 $ 575.95 $ 1,151 .89 $ 3,455 .67 $ - $ 28.80 $ 115.19 $ 431.96 $ 345.57 $ 403.16 $ 460.76 $ 575.95 $ 115.19 $ 230.38 $ 287.97 $ 115,19 $ 172.78 $ 287.97 $ 172.78 $ 230.38 $ 287.97 $ 230.38 $ 230.38 $ 115.19 $ 115.19 $ $ 460.76 UNIT COSTS Surplus/ Total Actual Average (Subsidy) Cost Current Fee Per Unit $ 115.19 $ (115.19) $ 1,180.69 $ (1,180.69) $ 2,217.39 $ (2,217.39) $ 5,212 .30 $ (5,212 .30 ) $ -$ - $ 28 .80 $ (28.80) $ 115.19 $ (115.19 1 $ 431.96 $ (431.96) Subtotal Development Review $ 479.99 $ (479.99) $ 422.40 $ (422.40) $ 479.99 $ (<179.99 1 $ 595.18 $ (595.18) $ 115.19 $ (115.19) $ 249.61 $ (249.61 $ 307.21 $ (307,21) $ 134.43 $ (134.43) $ 192.02 $ (192.02) $ 307.21 $ (307.21 ) $ 192,02 $ (192 .02 $ 249.61 $ (249.61 $ 307 .21 $ (307.21 ) $ 249.61 $ (249.61 $ 297.19 $ (297.19) $ 115.19 $ (115.19 $ 124.75 $ (124.75) $ 115.19 $ (115.19) $ 460.76 s (460,76 ) Printed: 9/29/2008 City of San Luis Obispo Fire Department-Fire Prevention Division MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS PERMIT FEES ,. -- - Intake and Work Item Unit Processing Standard Hour!Y Rate After Hours Call-Out (Scheduled) hourly 0.5 ANNUAL OPERATING PERMITS/ SPECIAL PERMITS (ISSUED BY FIRE DEPARTMENT) Aircraft Refue ling Veh icles each 0.5 Aircraft Repair Hangar each 0.5 Automobile Wrecking Yard eac h 0.5 Bonfire or Rubbish Fire s each 0,5 Bowling Pin or Alley Refinishing each 0.5 Burning in Public Place each 0,5 Candles or Op en-Flames in Assembly Areas each 0.5 Cellulose Nitrate Storage (handle/store over 100/cu ft) each 0.5 Combustible Fiber Storage (handle /store over 100/cu ft) eac h 0,5 Compressed Gases : Non-flammable : More than 6,000 cubic feel each 0,5 Flammable : More than 200 cubic feel each 0.5 Cryogens A Inside Building : Flammable -over 1 gallon each 0.5 Oxidizer (includes oxygen) over 50 gallons each 0.5 Corrosive or Highly Toxic -over 1 gallon each 0.5 Non-Flammable • over 60 gallons each 0.5 B Outside Building : Flammable -over 60 gallons each 0,5 Oxidizer (includes oxygen) each 0,5 Corrosive or Highly Toxic -over 1 gallon each 0.5 Non-flammable -over 500 gallons each 0.5 Dry Cleaning Plant Using Flammable Liquids each 0.5 Using Non-flammable Liquids each 0.5 Dust Producing Operation each 0.5 Explosives or Blasting Agents each 0.5 Fireworks each 0.5 Flammable/Combustible Liquid Pipeline Operation/Excavation ea ch 0.5 Flammable or Combustible Liquids Ins ide -Class I (over 5 gallons ) each 0.5 Class II & Ill (o ver 25 gallons) each 0.5 Outside -Class I (over 10 gallons) each 0.5 Class II & Ill (over 60 gallons ) each 0.5 MAXIMUS, Inc . TIME ESTIMATES Average Average Plan Check Inspection Process Process Hours Hours 0.000 1.000 0.000 1.500 0.000 3.000 0.000 3.000 0.000 1.500 0.000 3.000 0.000 1.500 0.000 3.000 0.000 1.500 0.000 3.000 0.000 0.580 0.000 1.500 0.000 1.500 0.000 1.500 0.000 3.000 0.000 0.580 0.000 1.500 0.000 1.500 0.000 3.000 0.000 0.580 0.000 3 .000 0.000 1.500 0.000 3 .000 0.000 3.000 2.000 3.000 2.000 3.000 0.000 1.500 0.000 0 .580 0 .000 1.500 0 .000 0.580 Annual Volume Intake & Plan Total Time (# of Check Actua l (hours) Units) Cost s-115.19 1.500 $ 57.59 2.000 $ 57 .59 3.500 $ 57.59 3.500 $ 57.59 2.000 $ 57.59 3.500 $ 57.59 2.000 $ 57.59 3.500 $ 57,59 2.000 $ 57.59 3.500 $ 57.59 1.080 $ 57.59 2.000 2 $ 57.59 2,000 $ 57.59 2.000 $ 57.59 3.500 $ 57.59 1.080 1 $ 57.59 2.000 $ 57.59 2.000 $ 57.59 3.500 $ 57.59 1.080 $ 57.59 3.500 $ 57 .59 2.000 3 $ 57 .59 3.500 7 $ 57.59 3.500 3 $ 57.59 5.500 $ 287.97 5,500 $ 287.97 2,000 $ 57.59 1.080 59 $ 57.59 2.000 $ 57.59 1.080 $ 57 .59 Technical Appendix B 5 -14 - Inspection Actual Cost $ 115.19 $ 115.19 $ 172.78 $ 345.57 $ 345.57 $ 172.78 $ 345.57 $ 172.78 $ 345.57 $ 172.78 $ 345.57 $ 66.81 $ 172.78 $ 172.78 $ 172.78 $ 345.57 $ 66.81 $ 172.78 $ 172.78 $ 345.57 $ 66.81 $ 345.57 $ 172.78 $ 345 .57 $ 345,57 $ 345.57 $ 345.57 $ 172 .78 $ 66.81 $ 172.78 $ 66.81 UNIT COSTS Surplus/ Total Actual Average (Subsidy) Cost Current Fee Per Unit $ H5.19 $ (1f5.19) $ 172.78 $ (172.78 Subtotal Fire Items (issued by Bldg) $ 230.38 $ 168.65 $ (61.73) $ 403.16 $ 168.65 $ (234.51) $ 403.16 $ 168.65 $ (234.51 $ 230.38 $ 168.65 $ (61.73 $ 403.16 $ 168.65 $ (234.51) $ 230.38 $ 168.65 $ (61 .73) $ 403.16 $ 168.65 $ (234.51) $ 230.38 $ 168.65 $ (61.73) $ 403.16 $ 168.65 $ (234.51 ) $ 124.40 $ 168.65 $ 44.25 $ 230.38 $ 168.65 $ (61.73) $ 230.38 $ 168.65 $ (61 ,73) $ 230.38 $ 168.65 $ (61.73\ $ 403.16 $ 168.65 $ (234.51 1 $ 124.40 $ 168.65 $ 44.25 $ 230.38 $ 168.65 $ (61.731 $ 230.38 $ 168.65 $ (61.73) $ 403.16 $ 168.65 $ (234.51 1 $ 124.40 $ 168.65 $ 44 .25 $ 403.16 $ 168.65 $ (234.51 ) $ 230.38 $ 168.65 $ (61.73) $ 403.16 $ 168.65 $ (234.51) $ 403.16 $ 168.65 $ (234.51 1 $ 633 .54 $ 168.65 $ (464 .89' $ 633.54 $ 168.65 $ (464.89) $ 230 38 $ 168.65 $ (6 1.73) $ 124.40 $ 168.65 $ 44.25 $ 230.38 $ 168.65 $ (6 1.73) $ 124.40 $ 168.65 $ 44.25 Printed: 9/29/2008 City of San Luis Obispo Fire Department-Fire Prevention Division MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS PERMIT FEES Intake and Work Item Unit Processing Standard Hourly Rate Fruit Ripening-Ethylene Gas Process ea ch 0.5 Fumigation or Thermal Insectici dal Fogging each 0.5 Garages -Repair each 0.5 Hazardous Chemicals : A Cryogenics (any amount) each 0.5 B Highly Toxic Materials (an y amoun t) each 0.5 C Hypergolic Materials (any amount) each 0.5 D Organ ic Peroxides (over 10 lbs.) each 0.5 E Poison Gas (any amount) each 0.5 F Pyrophoric Materials (any amount) each 0.5 G Any combination of amounts stated above each 0.5 Highl y Toxic Pesticides (storage of any amount ) each 0.5 High-Piled Combustible Stock -exceeding 2,500 sq. ft each 0.5 Junk Yards each 0.5 Liquefied Petroleum Gas A Containers more than 119 gallons water capacity each 0.5 B Tank Vehicles for Transportation of LP Gas each 0.5 Lumberyard -Storage in excess of 100,000 board fe et each 0.5 Magnesium Working -Process more than 10 lbs daily each 0.5 Mall (covered) A Place or construct temporary kiosk, display bcoths, concession equipment or the like, in the mall each 0.5 B Use the mall as a pla ce of assembly each 0.5 C Use open-flames or flame-producing device each 0.5 D Display any liquid or gas-fueled power equipment each 0.5 E Use liquefied petroleum gas , liquefied nat ural gas and compressed flammable gas in a mall each 0.5 Matches -Manufacture/Store in excess of 60 matchman gross {14,004 each gross) each 0.5 Nitrate Film• Store, handle , use or display each 0.5 Oil and Natural Gas Wells (drill, own/operate or maintain) each 0.5 Orga nic Coatings -manufactu re ov er 1 gal lo n a day each 0.5 Ovens -Industrial, Baking and Drying each 0.5 Places of Assembly each 0.5 MAXIMUS, Inc . TIME ESTIMATES Average Average Plan Check Inspection Process Process Hours Hours 0.000 3.000 0.000 3.000 0.000 3.000 0.000 3.000 0.000 3.000 0.000 3 .000 0.000 3.000 0.000 3 .000 0.000 3.000 0.000 . 3 .000 0.000 3,000 0.000 3.000 0.000 3.000 0.000 1.500 0.000 1.500 0.000 3.000 0.000 3.000 0.000 1.500 0.000 3.000 0.000 3.000 0 .000 1.500 0.000 1.500 0,000 3.000 0.000 1.500 0.000 3.000 0.000 3.000 0.000 1.500 0.000 3.0 00 Annual Volume Intake & Plan Total Time (# of Check Actua l (hours) Units) Cost $ 115.19 3 .500 $ 57.59 3.500 $ 57.59 3.500 53 $ 57.59 3.500 $ 57.59 3.500 $ 57.59 3.500 $ 57.59 3.500 $ 57.59 3.500 $ 57.59 3.500 $ 57.59 3.500 126 $ 57.59 3.500 3 $ 57.59 3.500 1 $ 57.59 3.500 $ 57.59 2.000 11 $ 57.59 2.000 $ 57.59 3.500 1 $ 57.59 3.500 $ 57.59 2.000 $ 57.59 3.500 $ 57.59 3.500 $ 57.59 2.000 $ 57.59 2.000 $ 57.59 3.500 $ 57.59 2.000 $ 57.59 3.500 $ 57.59 3.500 $ 57.59 2.000 1 $ 57.59 3.500 130 $ 57,59 Te c hnical Appendix B 5 -15 _J UNIT COSTS Surplus/ Inspection Total Actual Average (Subsidy) Actual Cost Cost Current Fee Per Unit $ 115.19 $ 115.19 $ (1 15.19) $ 345.57 $ 403,16 $ 168.65 $ (234 .51 ] $ 345.57 $ 403 .16 $ 168.65 $ (234.51 ) $ 345.57 $ 403.16 $ 168.65 $ (234 .51 ) $ 345.57 $ 403.16 $ 168.65 $ (234.51 $ 345.57 $ 403.16 $ 168.65 $ (234.51 $ 345,57 $ 403.16 $ 168.65 $ (234 .51 $ 345.57 $ 403.16 $ 168.65 $ (234.51 ) $ 345.57 $ 403.16 $ 168.65 $ (234.51 ) $ 345.57 $ 403.16 $ 168.65 $ (234 .51 ) $ 345.57 $ 403.16 $ 168.65 $ (234,51 ) $ 345.57 $ 403.16 $ 168.65 $ (234 ,51 ) $ 345.57 $ 403.16 $ 168.65 $ (234.51 ) $ 345.57 $ 403.16 $ 168.65 $ (234.51) $ 172.78 $ 230.38 $ 168.65 $ (61 .73) $ 172.78 $ 230.38 $ 168.65 $ (61 .73 $ 345.57 $ 403.16 $ 168.65 $ (234.51 $ 345.57 $ 403.16 $ 168.65 $ (234.51 ' $ 172.78 $ 230.38 $ 168.65 $ (61 .73' $ 345.57 $ 403.16 $ 168.65 $ (234.51 ) $ 345.57 $ 403.16 $ 168.65 $ (234 .51) $ 172.78 $ 230.38 $ 168.65 $ (61 ,73) $ 172.78 $ 230.38 $ 168.65 $ (61.73) $ 345.57 $ 403.16 $ 168.65 $ (234.51) $ 172.78 $ 230.38 $ 168.65 $ (61 .73) $ 345.57 $ 403.16 $ 168.65 $ (234.51 J $ 345.57 $ 403 .16 $ 168.65 $ (234 .51) $ 172.78 $ 230.38 $ 168.65 $ (61.73 $ 345.57 $ 403.16 $ 168.65 $ (234.51 Printed: 9/29 /2008 City of San Luis Obispo Fire Department-Fire Prevention Division MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS PERMIT FEES : --.-----I. ' Intake and Work Item Unit Processing Standard Hourly Rate Radioactive Material (store or handle -see UFC for amounts) each 0.5 Refrigeration Equipment -Mechanical refrigeration each 0.5 Spraying or Dipping each 0.5 Tank Vehicles for Transportation of Flammable and Combustible Liquids ea ch 0.5 Ten ts and Air-supported Structures -excess of 200 sq , ft , each 0,5 Tire Re-capping each 0.5 Excavation, Flammable•liquid pipeline each 0.5 Waste Material Plant each 0.5 Welding and Cutting Operations -Any Occupancy eac h 0.5 AVERAGE PERMITTED acc. ANALYSIS Permit Evaluation Plan Re view new fee • on e time each 0 CERTIFIED UNIFIED PARTICIPATING AGENCY FEES A. Hazardous Materials Handlers 1. Remote utility (1-time fee)-(Business Plan) each 0.5 2. 1 -4 Materials handled each 0.5 3. 5 -1 O Materials handled each 0.7 4. 11 +Materials handled each 0.7 B. Waste Generators 1, 1 Waste slream (professional or medical) • each 1 2. 1 -5 Waste streams (all others) each 0.5 3. 6+Waste streams each 0.7 4 . Waste Stream (DeMinimus) new fee 0,5 C. Tiered Perm itt ing 1. CE each 0.5 2. CA each 0,5 3, PBR eac h 0.5 P-Underground Storage Tanks (general model) 1, First tank each 0.5 2, Each additional tank ea ch 0 3, Tank installation each tank 0,5 4. Tank removal each tank 0.5 5 , Minor Modification per projec 0.5 MAXIMUS, Inc . TIME ESTIMATl;S Average Average Plan Check Inspection Process Process Hours Hours 0.000 3.0 00 0.000 1.500 0.000 3.00 0 0.000 1.500 0.000 3.000 0.000 3.000 0.000 3.000 0.000 3.000 0.000 0.580 2.000 0.000 0.300 1.80 0 0,000 1.000 0.000 1.000 0.000 1.330 0 .000 0.000 0 .000 1 .000 0 .00 0 1.300 0.000 0 .0 00 1.000 0.500 1.000 0 .500 3.000 2.000 0.00 0 2.500 0.000 0.250 4.000 10 .000 2.000 8.000 0.500 1.330 Annual Volume Intake & Pla n Total Time (# of Check Actua l (hours) Units) Cost $ 115.19 3.500 2 $ 57.59 2.000 $ 57.59 3 .500 8 $ 57.59 2.000 $ 57.59 3.500 $ 57.59 3.500 $ 57.59 3.500 $ 57.59 3.500 $ 57.59 1.080 93 $ 57.59 2 .487 355 $ 56.08 2.000 $ 230.38 0.000 2.600 $ 92.15 1.500 101 $ 57.59 1.700 18 $ 80.63 2.030 13 s 80.63 0.000 1.000 44 $ 115.19 1.500 119 $ 57.59 2.000 3 $ 80.63 0.500 $ 57.59 0.000 2.000 $ 172.78 2.000 $ 172.78 5.500 $ 403.16 0.000 3,000 28 $ 57.59 0.250 58 $ . 14.500 1 $ 518.35 10.500 3 $ 287.97 2.330 $ 115.19 Technical Appendi x B 5 -16 Inspection Actual Cost $ 115.19 $ 345.57 $ 172.78 $ 345.57 $ 172.78 $ 345.57 $ 345.57 $ 345.57 $ 345.57 $ 66.81 $ 230.35 $ $ 207.34 $ 115.19 $ 115.19 $ 153.20 $ - $ 115.19 $ 149.75 $ . $ 57.59 $ 57.59 $ 230 .38 $ 287 .97 $ 28.80 $ 1,151.89 $ 921.51 $ 153.20 UNnCOSTS Surplus/ Total Actual Average (Subsidy) Cost Current Fee Per Unit $ 11"5.19" $ (115.19) $ 403.16 $ 168,65 $ (234 .51 ) $ 230.38 $ 168.65 $ l61.73) $ 403.16 $ 168 .6 5 $ (234.51) $ 230.38 $ 168.65 $ (61.73 ) $ 403.16 $ 168.65 $ (234.5t) $ 403.16 $ 168.65 $ (234 ,51 ) $ 403.16 $ 168.65 $ (234.51 $ 403.16 $ 168.65 $ (234.51 ) $ 124.40 $ 168 .65 $ 44.25 $ 286.43 $ 168.65 $ (117.78 ) $ 230.38 $ 168.65 $ (6 1.73) Subtotal Ann Op Permits $ 299.49 $ 212.00 $ (87.49) $ 172.78 $ 212 .00 $ 39.22 $ 195.82 $ 281.0 0 $ 85.18 $ 233.83 $ 353 .00 $ 119,17 $ 115.19 $ 36.00 $ (79.19) $ 172.78 $ 212.00 $ 39.22 $ 230.38 $ 281.00 $ 50.62 $ 57.59 $ (57 .59) $ 230.38 $ 142.00 $ (88 ,38) $ 230.38 $ 281.00 $ 50,62 $ 633.54 $ 424 .00 $ (209 ,54) $ 345.57 $ 353.00 $ 7.43 $ 28.80 $ 70 .00 $ 41.20 $ 1,670.24 $ 1,059.00 $ (611 ,24 $ 1,209.48 $ 670.00 $ (539.48 ) $ 268.39 $ (268.39) Printed: 9/29/2008 L-- City of San Luis Obispo Fire Department-Fire Prevention Division MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS PERMIT FEES I . Intake and Work Item Unit Processing Standard Hourly Rate 6. Major Modification per projeo 0.5 E. Above Grou nd Sto rage Tanks 1. Per Site per site 0.5 F.CALARP 1. New Stationary Source Facility each 1 2. Existing /Annual Facility Inspection each 0.5 G. Site Remediation oversight hourly 0 Soil Remediation per hour 0 Temporary Closure Permit ach facilit 0.33 R-1 OCCUPANCY ANNUAL INSPECTIONS • STATE MANDATED Apartments, Condominiums, R-1 Occupancy ClassifrcaLion Administrative Fee ,ach facili 2.86 Inspection per unit 0 Low Income Housing -Apartments, Condominiums, R-1 Occupancy Classification NO FEE Administrative Fee ach facilil. 2.86 Inspection per unit 0 Hotels, Motels. Lodging House, etc , 1 to 30 Units ach facili 2.86 31 to 80 Units ach facilil 2.86 >80 units ach facilit 2 86 NON FEE CATEGORIES FIRE PREV STAFF INSPECTION OF NON . PERMITTED OCCUPANCIES no charge 50 PUBLIC INFORMATION no charge 10 PUBLIC EDUCATION PROGRAMS no charge 53 FIRE INVESTIGATIONS no charge 230 WEED ABATEMENT no charge 773 COMMUNITY EVENTS no charge so TIME ESTIMATES Average Average Plan Check Inspection Process Process Hours Hours 1.000 6 .330 0.000 0.500 10.000 2 .670 0.000 1.500 0.000 1.000 0.000 1.000 1.000 7.000 0.000 0,000 0.000 0.570 0.000 0.000 0 .000 0.570 0.000 2.500 0.000 4 0.000 5 Hours Consumed:! 3,200 l I I ss 1 4 ,992 I Productive Hours per FTE: FTE Consumed: ROUTINE INSP ECTI ONS fal no charg=e ___ __, 0.75 I MAX IMUS, Inc . : Annual Volume Intake & Plan Total Time (# of Check Actual (hours) Units) Cost $ 115.19 7,830 $ 172.78 0.000 1,000 20 $ 57 .59 0.000 13.670 1 $ 1,267 08 2.000 $ 57 .59 1.000 $ . 0.000 1.000 $ - 8.330 $ 153.20 2.860 437 n $ 329.44 0.570 4975 H $ . . 0.000 $ . 2,860 42 I $ 329.44 0.570 441 I $ . 5.360 41 $ 329.44 6.360 17 $ 329 .44 7.860 11 $ 329.44 50.000 1 $ 5,759.45 10.000 1 $ 1,151 .89 53.000 1 $ 6,105,02 230 .000 1 ~-26.493.48 773.000 1 $ 89,041 .13 50.000 1 $ 5,759.45 9,143 I 7,299 1 1,310 7.0 0.750 I 1286 ·- Technical Appendix B 5 -17 UNIT COSTS Inspection Total Actual Actual Cost Cost $ 115.19 $ 115.19 $ 729 ,15 $ 901 .93 $ 57.59 $ 115.19 $ 307.55 $ 1,574.63 $ 172.78 $ 230.38 $ 115.19 $ 115.19 $ 115.19 $ 115.19 $ 806.32 $ 959.52 $ . $ 329.44 $ 65.66 $ 65 .66 $ . $ . $ . $ 329.44 $ 65 .66 $ 65.66 $ 287 .97 $ 617.41 $ 403 ,16 $ 732.60 $ 575.95 $ 905.39 $ . $ 5 ,759.45 $ . $ 1,151.89 $ -$ 6 ,105.02 $ . $ 26,493.48 $ . $ 89,041 .13 $ . $ 5,759.45 $ 86 .39 I s 86.39 Surplus/ Average (Subsidy) Current Fee Per Unit $ (115.19 $ {901.93) $ 70.00 $ (45.19) $ 70 .00 $ {1,504.63) $ (230.38} $ (115.19) $ (115.19) $ (959.52) Subtotal CUPA $ 65 .00 $ (264.44) $ 28,00 $ (37.66) $ . $ (329.44 $ (65.66 $ 200 .00 $ (417.41 $ 300 .00 $ (432.60) $ 400.00 $ {505 .39) Subtotal R-1 Inspections $ (5,759.45) $ (1,151.89) $ (6,105 02) $ (26 .493 .48) $ (89,041.13) $ (5,759.45) $ 259,289 Total non-fee Total fee $ ,86.391 _j Printed: 9/29/2008 City of San Luis Obispo Fire Department-Fire Prevention Division MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS PERMIT FEES " - --·-· ---I • - lnlake'and Work.ll~m Unit Processing Stfn4ai'd H6urly Rate FIRE PR EV STAFF INSPECTION OF NON • 1st Re-- PERM ITTED OCCUPANC IES inspecoo n PUB UC INFORMATION 3rd & Subsequ entfire sa:fety inspectio n • 'e."ltGtJlatiens ~s~ gn the cu rr~J1l policy or 50% east reoovery MAXIMUS, Inc . TIME ESTIMATES Average Av_erage Plan Check Inspection Proce~ Process Ho.urs Hours 0.75 I 0.75 Annual Volume ln@ke & Pi~n TotalTime (#of Check Actual (h ours) Unit$) Co~t S· 1f5.19 0.750 360 s, ' - 0.750 108 $ . Technical Appendix B 5-18 Inspection Actual Cost $ 115.19 $ 86,39 -$ 86;~9 UNIT COSTS Surplusf Total Actual Average (StJbsldy) Gast Curre·nt Fee Per Unit s 115;19 $ (115.19) s 86,39 s (86 .391 s 86,39 $ 112.50 $ 26 .11 Printed: 9/29/2008 City of San Luis Obispo Fire Department-Fire Prevention Divish MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS PERMIT FEES REVE NUE IMPACTS RECO MM ENDED FEES ' ·-. .. .. . I ' , Actual Annual Annual Revenue Work Item Unit Cost @ Current Fee Standard Hou~i Rah,1 • NEW CONSTRUCTION • R-3 TRACT DEVELOPMENT FIRE REVIEW 0 • 50 UNITS each $ 1,181 $ . 51 • 100 UNITS each $ 2,217 $ . 101 + UNITS each $ 5,212 $ . $ . $ . Residential Photovoltaic System (each) $ . $ . Commercial Photovoltaic System (each 20 arrays up to 100) $ . $ . Commercial Photovoltaic System (over 100 arrays) $ -$ . $ 8,610 s . FIRE-SPECIFIC ITEMS • (ISSUED BY BUILDING AND SAFETY) FIRE -SPECIFIC ITEMS ' fire Sprinkler Systems • RetrofiVReplace/Repair 1-25 Heads (Issued directly by Fire Department) each $ 23,040 $ . 26-50 Heads each $ 2,112 $ . 51-100 Heads each $ 2,400 $ . 101-200 Heads each $ . $ . Every 200 Heads above 200 each $ . $ Fire Alarm System• RetrofiVRepair/Alteration 1-50 Devices each $ . $ . 51-100 Devices each $ . $ . Every 50 Devices above 100 each $ . $ . Sprinkler Monitoring System each $ . $ . Other Suppression Systems: Inert Gas Systems each $ . $ . Dry Chemical Systems each $ . $ . Wet Chemical/Kitchen Hood each $ . $ Foam Systems each $ . $ . Paint Spray Booth each $ . $ . Other Fire Fees : Hydrant Flow Test (existing hydrants) rs! hydrar $ .. $ . Hydrant Flow Test (existing hydrants) ~ add'I hyc $ . $ . Reinspection Fee hourly $ . $ . Board of Appeals hourly $ . $ . Emergency Call-Out (Non-Scheduled) 14 hour mir $ . $ . MAXIMUS , Inc . Annual General Recom- $ $ $ $ .$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Fund Subsidy mended Fee $ 115.19 1,181 $ 1,180.69 2,217 $ 2,217.39 5,212 $ 5,212.30 . $ . . $ 28 .80 . $ 115.19 . $ 431.96 8,610 23,040 $ 479.99 2,112 $ 422.40 2,400 $ 479.99 -$ 595.18 . $ 115.19 $ 249.61 . $ 307.21 . $ 134.43 . $ 192,02 . $ 307,21 . $ 192.02 . $ 249.6 1 . $ 307.21 . $ 249 .61 -$ 297 .19 . $ 115.19 . $ 124.75 . $ 115.19 . $ 460.76 Technica!Appendix B 5 -19 Public Percent Subsidy Per Recovery Unit 100.00% $ . 100.00% $ . 100.00% $ . 100.00% $ . s . 100.00% $ . 100.00% $ . 100.00% $ . Su btot al Dev Review 100.00% $ . 100.00% $ - 100.00% $ . 100.00% $ . 100.00% $ . 100.00% $ . 100.00% $ . 100.00% s . 100.00% $ . 100.00% s . 100.00% $ . 100.00% $ . 100.00% $ . 100.00% $ . 100.00% $ . 100.00% $ ., 100.00% S 100.00% $ . 100.00% s . RECOMMENDED REVENU E Actual Annual Revenue Annual Public Annual Cost @Rec'd Fee Subsidy s 1,181 $ 1,181 $ . $ 2,217 $ 2,217 $ $ 5,212 $ 5,212 $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ $ . $ . $ . $ . $ 8,610 $ 8,610 $ . $ 23,040 $ 23,040 $ . $ 2,112 $ 2,112 $ . $ 2,400 $ 2,400 $ . $ ► $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ $ s . $ . $ $ . $ $ . s . $ . $ . $ . $ ► $ . $ . $ $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ $ . $ . $ $ . $ . $ -$ . $ . $ . $ . s . $ . $ . s . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . Printed: 9/29/2008 City of San Luis Obispo Fire Department-Fire Prevention Divisit MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS PERMIT FEES Work Item Unit Standard Hourly Rate After Hours Call-Out (Scheduled) hourlv ANNUAL OPERATING PERMITS/ SPECIAL PERMITS (ISS UED BY FIRE DEPARTMENT) Aircraft Refueling Vehicles each Aircraft Repair Hangar each Automobile Wrecking Yard each Bonfire or Rubbish Fires each Bowling Pin or Alley Refinishing each Burning in Public Place each Candles or Open-Flames in Assembly Areas each Cellulose Nitrate Storage (hand le /store over 100/cu ft) each Combus tible Fiber Storage (handle/store over 100/c u ft) eac h Compressed Gases : Non-flammable: More than 6.000 cubic feel each Flammable: More than 200 cubic feel each Cryogens A Inside Building : Flammable -over 1 gallon each Oxidizer (includes oxygen) over 50 gallons each Corrosive or Highly Toxic -over 1 gallon each Non-Flammable -over 60 gallons each B Outside Building: Flammable -over 60 gallons each Oxidizer (includes oxygen) each Corrosive or Highly Toxic -over 1 gallon each Non-flammable • over 500 gallons each Dry Cleaning Plant Using Flammable Liquids each Using Non-flammable Liquids each Dust Producing Operalion each Explosives or Blasting Agents each Fireworks each Flammable/Combustible Liquid Pipeline Operation/Excavation each Flammable or Combustible Liquids Inside -Class I (over 5 gallons) each Class II & Ill (o ver 25 gallons) each Outside -Class I (over 10 gallons) each Class II & Ill (over 60 gallons) each MAXIMUS , Inc . . ., REVEN UE IMPACTS RECOMMENDED FEES Actual Annual Annual Revenue Cost @ Current Fee $ . $ . $ 27,552 $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ 461 $ 337 $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ 124 $ 169 $ . $ . $ -$ . $ . $ . $ . $ $ . $ $ 691 $ 506 $ 2,822 $ 1,181 $ 1,209 $ 506 $ . $ . $ . $ . $ $ - $ 7,340 $ 9,950 $ . $ $ . $ . Annual General Recom- Fund Subsidy mended Fee $ 115.19 '$· . $ 172 .78 $ 27,552 '$ s 230.38 $ . s 403.16 s, s 403 .16 $ . s 230 .38 s . $ 403.16 s . $ 230 .38 -s . $ 403 .16 s $ 230.38 $ . $ 403.16 s -$ 124.40 s 123 $ 230.38 s . $ 230.38 s . $ 230.38 s . s 403.16 s 44 s 124.40 s . $ 230.38 $ . $ 230 .38 $· . $ 403.16 $ . $ 124.40 $ . $ 403.16 $ 185 s 230.38 $ 1,642 $ 403.16 $ 704 $ 403.16 -$ . $ 633.54 $ . s 633.54 $ . s 230 .38 $ 2,611 $ 124.40 $ . $ 230.38 $ . s 124 .40 Technical Appendix B 5-20 Public Percent Subsidy Per Recovery Unit 100 .0 0% ,$ - 100 .00% $ - S u btotal Fire llems-Sldg 100.00% $ . 100 .00% $ . 100.00% $ . 100.00% $ . 100.00% $ . 100.00% $ - 100.00% $ . 100.00% $ . 100,00% S . 100.00% $ - 100.00% $ •' 100.00% $ . 100.00% S . 100.0 0% $ . 100.00% $ . 100.00% $ . 100.00% $ . 100.00% $ . 100.00% $ . 100.00% $ . 100.00% S . 100.00% s . 100.00% S . 100.00% s . 100.00% s . 100.00% s . 100.00% S - 100.00% S . 100.00% S - RECOMMENDED REV EN UE Actual Annual Revenue Annual Public Annual Cost @Rec"d Fee Subsidy $ . $ . $ . s 27,552 $ 27,552 $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ $ . $ . $ . s . $ . $ . s . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . s . $ . $ . s $ . $ . $ 461 $ 461 $ . s $ . $ . $ $ . $ . $ $ . $ . $ 124 $ 124 $ . s $ . $ . s $ . $ . s $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ $ . $ . $ 691 $ 691 $ . $ 2 ,822 $ 2,822 $ . s 1,209 $ 1,209 $ . s . $ . $ . $ $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . s 7,340 $ 7,340 $ s . $ -$ - $ . $ . $ . Printed: 9/29/2008 L_ City of San Luis Obispo Fire Department-Fire Prevention Divisi• MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS PERMIT FEES - Work Item Unit Standard Hourly Rate Fruit Ripening-Ethylene Gas Process each Fumigation or Thermal Insecticidal Fogging each Garages -Repair each Hazardous Chemicals: A Cryogenics (any amount) each B Highly Toxic Materials (any amount) each C Hypergolic Materials (any amount) each D Organic Peroxides (over 10 lbs.) each E Poison Gas (any amount) each F Pyrophoric Materials (any amount) each G Any combination of amounts stated above each Highly Toxic Pesticides (storage of any amount) each High-Piled Combustible Stock -exceeding 2,500 sq . ~ each Junk Yards each Liquefied Petroleum Gas A Containers more than 119 gallons water capacity each B Tank Vehicles for Transportation of LP Gas each Lumberyard -Storage in excess of 100,000 board feet each Magnesium Working -Process more than 10 lbs daily each Mall (covered) A Place or construct temporary kiosk, display booths, concession equipment or the like, in the mall each B Use the mall as a place of assembly each C Use open-flames or flame-producing device each D Display any liquid or gas-fueled power equipment each E Use liquefied petroleum gas, liquefied natural gas and compressed fiammable gas in a mall each Matches -Manufacture/Store in excess of 60 matchman gross (14,004 each gross) each Nitrate Film -Store, handle, use or display each Oil and Natural Gas Wells (drill, own/operate or maintain) each Organic Coatings -manufacture over 1 gallon a day each Ovens -Industrial, Baking and Drying each Places of Assembly each MAXIMUS, Inc. _____. ~EV.EN Ue:-I MF!ACTS-RECOMMENDED FEES Actual Annual Annual Revenue Cost @ Current Fee $ -$ - $ -$ - $ 21,368 $ 8,938 $ -$ - $ . $ - $ -$ . $ -$ - $ . $ . $ -$ . $ 50,798 $ 21,250 $ 1,209 $ 506 $ 403 $ 169 $ -$ $ 2,534 $ 1,855 $ . $ . $ 403 $ 169 $ -$ . $ . $ - $ -$ - $ -$ . $ . $ - $ . $ - $ . $ . $ . $ - $ -$ .. - $ : $ . $ 230 $ 169 $ 52.411 $ 21,925 Annual General Recom- Fund Subsidy mended Fee s 115.1 9 s -$ 403.16 s . $ 403.16 s 12,429 $ 403.16 ,$ -$ 403.16 s -$ 403.16 s . $ 403.16 s . $ 403.16 s . $ 403.16 $ . $ 403 ,16 ;$ 29,648< $ 403.16 $ 704 $ 403.16 s 235 s 403.16 $ -$ 403.16 $ 679 $ 230.38 $ s 230.38 $ 235 $ 403.16 s -$ 403 .16 $ . $ 230 ,38 $ . $ 403.16 '$ . s 403,16 $ -$ 230,38 '$ . s 230.38 $ . $ 403.16 $ -s 230 .38 $ . $ 403.16 s . $ 403.16 $ 62 $ 230.38 $ 30.487 $ 403.16 Technical Appendix B 5-21 Public Percent Subsidy Per Recovery Unit 100.00% s· - 100.00% $ - 100.00% $ 100.00% $ - 100.00% $ . 100.00% $ . 100.00% $ - 100.00% s - 100.00% s . 100.00% $ . 100.00% $ - 100.00% s 100.00% $ 100.00% $ - 100.00% S . 100.00% $ 100.00% $ . 100.00% $ - 100.00% S . 100.00% S - 100.00% $ . 100.00% $ 100.00% $ . 100.00% $ 100.00% S . 100.00% $ . 100.00% $ 100.00% $ - 100.00% $ - _J RECOMM END ED REVENUE Actual Annual Revenue Annual Public Annual Cost @Rec'd Fee Subsidy $ $ . $ . $ $ . $ $ 21,368 $ 21,368 $ . $ . $ . $ . $ $ . $ - $ $ $ . s . $ $ - s . $ . $ . $ $ $ . $ 50,798 $ 50 ,798 $ . $ 1,209 $ 1,209 $ . $ 403 $ 403 $ . $ . $ -$ . s 2,534 $ 2,534 $ . $ $ $ . $ 403 $ 403 $ . s $ $ . s . $ . $ . $ . $ $ . $ . $ $ . $ $ . $ . $ . $ $ . $ . $ $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ $ . .S . $ $ . s 230 $ 230 $ . s 52,411 $ 52.411 $ . Printed: 9/29/2008 City of San Luis Obispo Fire Department-Fire Prevention Divisi, MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS PERMIT FEES ~EVENJJE IMPACTS RE COMMENDED FEES ----- ' Actual Annual Work Item Unit Cost Standard Hourly Rate Radioactive Materi al (store or handle -see UFC for amounts) each $ 806 Refrigeration Equipment -Mechanical refrigeration each $ Spraying or Dipping each $ 3,225 Tank Vehicles for Transportation of Flammable and Combustible Liquids each $ . Tents and Air-supported Structures -excess of 200 sq , ft, each $ - Tire Re-capping eac h $ . Excavation, Flammable -liquid pipeline each $ - Waste Material Plant each $ - Welding and Cutting Operations -Any Occupancy each $ 11,570 AVERAGE PERMITTED OCC . ANALYSIS $ 101,683 Permit Evaluation Plan Review new fee • one time each $ . $ 259,289 CERTIFIED UNIFIED PARTICIPATING AGENCY FEES A. Hazardous Materials Handlers 1. Remote utility (1-time fee)-(Business Plan) each $ - 2. 1 -4 Materials handled each $ 17,451 3. 5 -10 Materials handled each $ 3,525 4. 11+Mate ria ls handled each $ 3.040 B. Waste Generators 1. 1 Was te stream (p rofessional or medical ) • each $ 5,068 2. 1 -5 Waste streams (all others) each $ 20.561 3. 6+Waste streams each $ 691 4. Waste Stream (DeMinimus) new fee $ . C. Tiered Permitting 1. CE each $ . 2. CA each $ . 3. PBR each $ . D. Underground Storage Tanks (general model) 1. First tank eac h $ 9 ,676 2. Each addiLiona l tank each $ 1,670 3. Tank installation each tank $ 1,670 4. Tank remo val each tank $ 3,628 5, Minor Modification pe rprojec $ . MAXI MUS , Inc. .. Annual Revenue @ Current Fee $ 337 $ $ 1,349 $ . $ . $ - $' . $' . $ 15,684 $ 59,871 $ - $ 144,870 $ . sr. 21 ,412 s 5,058 $ 4.589 $ 1.584 $ 25,228 $ 843 $ . $ . $ . $ . $ 9,884 $ 4 ,060 $ 1,059 $ 2,010 $ . Annual General Recom- Fund Subsidy mended Fee s 115.19 $ 469 s 403.16 s . $ 230.38 s: 1,876 s 403,16 $ . $ 230.38 s . $ 40 3.16 $ . $ 403.16 s -$ 403.16 $ . $ 403.16 $ 4.115 s 124.40 $ 41.81 2 $ 286.43 $ . $ 230.38 $ 127,958 s . $ 299.49 $ (3.$1 $ 172.78 $ (1,5.3.3' $ 195.82 $ (1,54 9 ) $ 233 .83 s 3,484 $ 115.19 s (4,667 $ 172.78 $ (1 52' $ 230.38 $ -s 57.59 $ s 230 .3 8 $ . $ 230.3 8 $ . $ 633 .54 s (208} s 345.57 s ~.590 s 28 .80 s 611 s 1.670.24 s 1,618 s 1,209.48 $ . $ 268.39 Techni cal Appen d ix B 5 • 22 Public Percent Subsidy Per Recovery Unit 100.00% s . 100.00% $ . 100.00% $ 100.00% $ . 100.00% $ . 100.00% $ - 100.00% $ . 100.00% $ - 100.00% $ - 100.00% $ ., 100.00% $ . 100.00% $ . Subtotal Ann Op Permits 100.00% s - 100.00 % $ - 100.00% $ - 100.00% $ - 100.00 % $ - 100.00% $ _, 100.00% $ - 100.00% $ - 100.00% $ . 100.00% $ 100.00% s . 100.00% $ . 100.0 0% $ . 100.00% $ 100.00% $ . 100.00% $ RECOMMENDED REVENUE Actual Annual Revenue Annual Public Annual Cost @Rec'd Fee Subsidy $ 806 $ 806 $ . $ . $ . $ - s 3,225 $ 3.225 $ . $ . $ $ - s -$ $ . s -$ -$ . s -$ -$ - s -$ $ . $ 11,570 $ 11,570 $ . $ 101,683 $ 101,683 $ - $ . $ . $ $ 259,289 $ 259,289 $ . s . $ . $ $ 17.451 $ 17.451 $ s 3 ,525 $ 3,525 $ $ 3,040 $ 3.040 $ $ 5,068 $ 5,068 $ . s 20 ,561 $ 20.561 $ . ~ 691 $ 691 $ - $ . $ . $ . $ . $ $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ $ 9,676 $ 9,676 $ - $ 1,670 $ 1,670 $ $ 1,670 $ 1,6 70 $ - $ 3,628 $ 3 ,628 $ - s . $ . $ - Prin ted: 9/29/2008 City of San Luis Obispo Fire Department-Fire Prevention Divisi• MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS PERMIT FEES .. REVEN Uc I MPACTS RECOMMENDED FEES . - Actual Annual Annual Revenue Annual General Recom- Work Item Unit Cost @ Current Fee Fund Subsidy mended Fee Standard Hourly Rate s 115.19 6. Major Modification oer oroiec $ -$ . 6 -s 901 .93 E. Above Ground Storage Tanks 1, Per Site per site $ 2,304 $ 1,400 s 904 $ 115.19 F.CALARP 1. New Stationary Source Facility each $ 1,575 $ 70 s 1,505 $ 1,574 .63 2. Exi sti ng/Annual Facility Inspection each $ -$ -$' -$ 230.38 G. Site Remed iation oversight hourly $ . $ -s -$ 115.19 Soil Remediation per hour $ -$ -s -$ 115.19 Temporary Closure Penmit Iach facilil $ -$ $ $ 959.52 $ 70,860 $ 77,197 $ {6,337' R-1 OCCUPANCY ANNUAL INSPECTIONS - STATE MANDATED ,Apartments, Condominiums, R-1 Occupancy Classification Administrative Fee ~ch facilil $ 143,966 $ 28,405 s· 115;561 s 164.72 Inspection per unit $ 326,647 $ 139,300 s 187,34 7 s 32 .83 Low Income Housing -Apartments, Condominiums, R-1 Occupancy Classification NO FEE $ -$ -$, . $ . Administrative Fee 1ach facilil $ 13,837_ $ -s, 13,837 $ 164.72 Inspection perunil $ 28,955 $ . $ 28,955 $ 32.83 Hotels, Motels, Lodging House, etc 1 to 30 Units ach facili $ 25,314 '. $ 8,200 s 17,114 $ 308.71 31 to 80 Units ach facilil $ 12.454 $ 5.100 ·s 7,354 $ 366.30 >BO units ach facili $ 9,959 _ $ 4,400 $ S.559 $ 452.69 $ 561.132 $ 185.405 $ 375;727 NON FEE CATEGORIES FIRE PREV STAFF INSPECTION OF NON - PERMITTED OCCUPANCIES no chargE $ 5,759 $ -s 5 ,759 $ 5,759.45 PUBLIC INFORMATION no chargE $ 1,152 $ -.s 1,152 $ 1,151 .89 PUBLIC EDUCATION PROGRAMS no chargE $ 6,105 $ -'$ &,105 $ 6 ,105.02 FIRE INVESTIGATIONS no chargE $ 26,493 $ -s 261493 $ 26,493.48 WEED ABATEMENT no charg, $ 89,041 $ -,s 89,041 $ 89,041.13 COMMUNITY EVENTS no chargE $ 5,759 $ -,$ 5,759 s 5,759.45 $ 134,310 . $ -.$ 134 ,310 Total Reven ues: Hours Consumed :! $ 1,061,753 I $ 467 ,472 I$ 667 ,(!20 Productive Hours per FTE: $ 134,310 FTE Consumed:! $ 927,442 l RO UTIN E INSPECTIONS '""tnochal $ 111,100 ! $ -( $ 111,100 ( $ 86.39 MAXIMUS, In c. Tec hnical Appendix B 5 -23 Public Percent Subsidy Per Recovery Unit 100 .00% S - 100.00% $ - 100.00% $ - 100.00% $ - 100.00% $ - 100.00% $ . 100.00% $ - 100.00% S - Subtotal CUPA 50.00% $ 164.72 50 .00% $ 32.83 $ . 50 .00% s 164.72 50.00% $ 32 .83 50.00% $ 308 ,71 50.00% $ 366.30 50.00% $ 452.69 S ubtotal R-1 Inspections 100.00% $ - 100.00% $ - 100.00% $ - 100.00% $ - 100.00% S - 100.00% $ - 100.00%1 $ ---' _J RECOMMENDED RE VE NUE Actual Annual Revenue Annual Public Annual Cost @Rec'd Fee Subsidy $ . $ -$ - $ 2,304 $ 2,304 $ - $ 1,575 $ 1,575 $ - $ -$ -$ - s -$ . $ - s -$ . $ - s -$ . $ - $ 70,860 $ 70,860 $ . $ 143,966 $ 71 ,983 $ 71,983 $ 326,647 $ 163,324 $ 163 ,324 $ . $ -$ - s 13,837 $ 6,918 $ 6,918 $ 28 ,955 $ 14.478 $ 14,478 $ 25,314 $ 12,657 $ 12,657 s 12 ,454 $ 6 ,227 $ 6,227 $ 9,959 $ 4,980 $ 4 ,980 s 561 ,132 $ 280,566 $ 280 ,566 $ 5,759 $ 5 ,759 $ 1 ,152 $ 1,152 $ 6,105 $ 6,105 $ 26,493 $ 26,493 s 89,041 $ 89,041 $ 5,759 $ 5,759 $ 134,310 $ 134 ,310 Total Revenues : $ 1,061,753 I S 646.,__877 I$ 414,876 $ 134,310 I$ 927,442 l $ 1,1.,00 I $ 111 ,100 Is I Printed: 9/29/2008 City of San Luis Obispo Fire Department-Fire Prevention Divisi• MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS PERMIT FEES i REVENUE IMPACTS RECOMMENDED FEES -- P..ctual Annoal Ann 1,1a l Re venue: A nnt1 a_l Genera l Re com• Wprkllitm Un.It Cost ,@ Gu~ni fe:e FU[l~i' Su bsidy· me nded Fee sta~dilrd Hourly Rate. s 115.19 FIRE PREV STAFF INSPECTION OF NON -1st Re- ,-.r:.t<M ITTED OCCUPANCI E:s lnspectio n s 31,101 $' $ 31 ,101 $ 86.39 PUBLIC INFORMATION 3rd & Subsequ entfire safety lnspectio n s 9,330 s 12,1?0 s ~820 s 86.39 Total • Ca lcul ation s based Of'l the eurr.ent policy of 59% ~ $ 151,531 I$ 12,1so I$ 145,021 I MAXIMUS , Inc. Technical Appendix B 5-24 Pub lic Per ce nt Su bs l dy Pe r Rei:ove ry Uni t 100.00% $ - 100.00% $ - 100.00% $ - RECOMMENDED REVENUE Actual Ann ua l Rev enue Annual Pu bllc Annu a.1 Cost @ Rec'd Fee Subs idy $ 31 ,101 s 31 ,101 s - $ 9,330 s 9 ,330 s - Printed : 9/29/2008 ~ Fee# , .___ Fee or Service Name / Description Fire Engine/Ladder Truck (per hour) Squad or Light Rescue Equipment (per hour) False Alarm City of San Luis Obispo USER FEE STUDY ACTUAL COST RESULTS Fire Equ i pment and Person nel Stand-BX Fees Fees calculated by the City of San Luis Obispo . UNIT COSTS REVENUE IMPACTS Actual Annua1 AC1Ua1 Unit Cost Revenue Annual Annual I Per Unit at Cost/ Revenue Annual Current Potential Surplus/ Current Potential Surplus/ Qty Fee Fee (Subsidy) Fee Revenue (Deficit) 320.00 373.00 (53 .00) N/A 281 .00 232.00 49.00 N/A 487.00 373 .00 114 .00 1 _____, REVENUE Al RECOMMENDED FEES Annual Revenue Rec.Fee (Subsidy) $ 373 $ . $ 232 $ . $ 373 $ . [1 City of San Luis Obispo Utilities Department ACTUAL COST RESULTS ~ Ut!hfl Fees Fee# Fee or Service Name / Description Meter Installations -Install Water Meter (.58" -1" UF #1 meter) (plus meter cost) Meter Installations -Install Water Meter (1.5" -2" UF#2 meter) (plus meter cost) Meter Installations -Install Water Meter (larger than UF#3 2" meter) Meter Installations -Remove Water Meter (.58" -1" UF#4 meter) Meter Installations -Remove Water Meter (1 .5" -2" UF#5 meter) Meter Installations -Remove Water Meter (larger UF#6 than 2" meter) UF#7 Meter Installations -Retirement of Service Meter Installations -Retirement of Service (larger UF#8 than 2" meter) UF#9 Meter Installations -Account Set-up UF#10 Meter Installations -Account Set-up Same Day Meter Installations -Account Set-up After UF #11 Hours/Weekends Meter Installations -Account Set-up Unlimited UF #12 (annual amount) Meter Installations -Disconnect Service for Non- UF#13 Payment Meter Installations -Lock Meter for Continuing Non- UF#14 Payment & Illegal Use UF#15 This space intentionally left blank UF #16 Meter Costs -.58" x .75" UF #17 Meter Costs -.75" MAXIMUS, Inc. Annual Qty 133 13 1 7 2 1 1 1 3250 98 8 2 1 1 1 2 18 UNIT COSTS -- ACtUal Unit Cost/ Per Unit Potential Surplus/ Current Fee Fee (Subsidy) $ 56 $ 73.01 $ (17) $ 165 $ 146.02 $ 19 $ -$ -$ - $ 56 $ 73.01 $ (17) $ 165 $ 146.02 $ 19 $ -$ -$ - $ 184 $ 434.18 $ (250) $ -$ -$ - $ 38 $ 52.07 $ (14) $ 149 $ 158.48 $ (9) $ 183 $ 224.02 $ (41) $ 899 $ 2,868.25 $ (1,969' $ 56 $ 85.47 $ (29) $ 56 $ 158.48 $ (102) $ 45 $ 73.01 $ (28) $ 54 $ 57 .07 $ (3) $ 89 $ 86.14 $ 3 Technical Appendix C -1 ~ REVENUE IMPACTS RECOMMENDED FEES AC1uaI AnnuaI Annual Annual Cost Revenue Annual Revenue at / Potential Surplus/ Revenue Current Fee Revenue (Deficit) Rec.Fee (Subsidy) $ 7,448 $ 9,710 $ (2,262) $ 73 $ 9,710 $ 2,145 $ 1,898 $ 247 $ 146 $ 1,898 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ - $ 392 $ 511 $ (119) $ 73 $ 511 $ 330 $ 292 $ 38 $ 146 $ 292 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ - $ 184 $ 434 $ (250) $ 434 $ 434 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ - $ 123,500 $ 169,228 $ (45,728) $ 52 $ 169 ,228 $ 14,602 $ 15 ,531 $ (929) $ 158 $ 15 ,531 $ 1,464 $ 1,792 $ (328) $ 224 $ 1,792 $ 1,798 $ 5,737 $ (3 ,939) $ 2 ,868 $ 5,737 $ 56 $ 85 $ (29) $ 85 $ 85 $ 56 $ 158 $ (102) $ 158 $ 158 $ 45 $ 73 $ (28) $ 73 $ 73 $ 108 $ 114 $ (6) $ 57 $ 114 $ 1,602 $ 1,551 $ 51 $ 86 $ 1,551 Printed : 9/29/2008 City of San Luis Obispo Utilities Department ACTUAL COST RESULTS [I Ubhty Fees Fee# Fee or Service Name / Description UF#18 Meter Costs -1" UF#19 Meter Costs -1.5" UF#20 Meter Costs -2" UF#21 Meter Costs -3" and larger UF#22 Adapter Costs -1" Service/ .58" x .75" Meter UF#23 Adapter Costs -1" Service / . 75" Meter UF#24 Adapter Costs -1.5" Service / 1" Meter UF#25 Adapter Costs -2" Service / 1" Meter UF#26 Adapter Costs -2" Service / 1.5" Meter UF#27 Sewer Services -Lateral Installation UF#28 Sewer Services -Lateral Abandonment UF#29 Sewer Services -Pretreatment Inspection Services UF#30 Sewer Services -Industrial User Class I UF#31 Sewer Services -Industrial User Class II Sewer Services -Industrial User Class Ill - UF#32 Significant User UF#33 Sewer Services -Industrial User Reinspection UF#34 MAXIMUS, Inc. Annual Qty 113 7 6 1 3 17 1 23 6 60 2 1 134 177 5 1 --UNIT COSTS Actual Unit Cost/ Per Unit Potential Surplus/ Current Fee Fee (Subsidy) $ 115 $ 102.74 $ 12 $ 650 $ 650.00 $ - $ 995 $ 995.00 $ - $ -$ -$ - $ 14 $ 10.25 $ 4 $ 11 $ 9.00 $ 2 $ 74 $ 66.25 $ 8 $ 75 $ 72.00 $ 3 $ 108 $ 103.00 $ 5 Subtotal $ 228 $ 327.15 $ (99) $ 227 $ 302.15 $ (75) $ -$ -$ - $ 284 $ 272.38 $ 12 $ 87 $ 144.54 $ (58) $ 818 $ 1,415 .85 $ (598) $ 65 $ -$ 65 Subtotal Technical Appendix C -2 REVENUE IMPACTS RECOMMENDED FEES Actual Annu~• Annual Annual Cost Revenue Annual Revenue at / Potential Surplus/ Revenue Current Fee Revenue (Deficit) Rec.Fee (Subsidy) $ 12 ,995 $ 11,610 $ 1,385 $ 103 $ 11,610 $ 4,550 $ 4,550 $ -$ 650 $ 4,550 $ 5,970 $ 5,970 $ -$ 995 $ 5,970 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ - $ 42 $ 31 $ 11 $ 10 $ 31 $ 187 $ 153 $ 34 $ 9 $ 153 $ 74 $ 66 $ 8 $ 66 $ 66 $ 1,725 $ 1,656 $ 69 $ 72 $ 1,656 $ 648 $ 618 $ 30 $ 103 $ 618 $ 179,921 $ 231 ,768 $ (51,847 $ 231,768 $ 13,680 $ 19,629 $ (5,949 $ 327 $ 19,629 $ 454 $ 604 $ (150 $ 302 $ 604 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ - $ 38,056 $ 36,499 $ 1,557 $ 272 $ 36,499 $ 15,399 $ 25,584 $ (10,185) $ 145 $ 25,584 $ 4,090 $ 7,079 $ (2,989 $ 1,416 $ 7,079 $ 65 $ -$ 65 $ -$ - $ 71,744 $ 89,395 $ (17,651) $ 89,395 $ -$ - Printed: 9/29/2008 City of San Luis Obispo Utilities Department ACTUAL COST RESULTS [I Ubh!ii_Fees Fee# Fee or Service Name/ Description LEGEND: Fee# Fee or Service Name / Description Annual Quantity Actual Unit Cost I Potential Fee Current Fee Per Unit Surplus / (Subsidy) Total Actual Annual Cost/ Potential Revenue Annual Revenue at Current Fee Total Annual Revenue Surplus / (Subsidy) * Non-User Fee Activities MAXIMUS , Inc. II --UNIT COSTS -REVENUE IMPACTS RECOMMENDED FEES ActUal ACiUal Annua1 Unit Cost I Per Unit Annual Annual Cost Revenue Annual Annual Potential Surplus/ Revenue at / Potential Surplus/ Revenue Qty Current Fee Fee (Subsidy ) Current Fee Revenue (Deficit) Rec.Fee (Subsidy) $ 251 ,66E $ 321 ,163 $ (69,498) $ 321,163 A reference number to facilitate discussion The services and/or fees included in the MAXI MUS study The annual number of each service provided , as reported by the City The actual cost of each service, as.calculated by MAXI MUS The current fee charged by the City for each service , if applicable The difference between the Actual Unit Cost and the Current Fee for each service Quantitv for that service (Unit Cost x Annual Quantity) for that service (Current Fee x Annual Quantity) Current Fee. This figure represents the annual subsidy (based on actual cost), the City provides These costs have been excluded from the estimated potential revenue totals. Technical Appendix C -3 Printed : 9/29/2008 r ...__ r ...__ L_ City of SAN LUIS OBISPO Parks and Recreation Actual Cost Results ._____ High Range cost Recovery Activities (60% to 100%) Fee# Fee Area : " :WECIALEVEffTS - 2 MI/Jor Special Events 3 Department Special Events 4 Triathalon (includes vol. coordination) 5 Christmas in the Plaza 7 Volunteer Coorilination -Other Rec Programs 8 Sk8 Park 9 Community Gardens 10 Special Event Application Fee (unit) 11 Banner Permit Fee (unit) 12 Still Photography/Minor Commercial Filming Venture [unit) 13 Major Commercial Filming Venture (unit) 14 Non-Profit Org Filming Venture (unit) 15 Destination Mar'<eting Org (unit) NF Non-User Fee Activities SP{Jl!TS - -~ -ADIJL T SPORTS 2 Basketball 3 Softball -All Seasons 5 Boomer Sports (no fee) YOU'IH SPORTS 7 Youth Basketball 8 Flag Footbal 9 Futsal TEEN SPORTS 11 Boys Volleyball 12 Gins Volleyball 13 Track 14 Boys Basketball 15 Gins Basketball 16 Cross Country 17 Wresmng (no fee) 18 High School Basketball 19 Advisory Boards/Comittees/Special Interest Groups 20 Support to Special Evenls -Non Reimbur;ed NF Non-User Fee Activities ©MAXIMUS Recoverable Units of Service -.. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 36 35 4 1 0 0 1 Subtotal .. - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Current Fee per Unit n/a n/a n/a n/a nla n/a nla $5500 $153.00 $72.00 $100 ,00 $30.00 $0 ,00 n/a - nla nla nla nfa n/a n/a nfa n/a nla n/a nla nla . nla nla nla n/a n/a Current Annual Revenue -. - $0 $0 $61,746 $5,172 $0 $2,770 $1,188 $1,975 $5,226 $280 $100 $0 $0 $0 $78.457 -~ :_. $10,553 $85,929 $0 $18,116 $420 $4,207 $845 $1,404 $2,101 $3,794 $588 $240 $0 $2,100 $0 $0 $0 $130,297 Mid Range cost Recovery Activities (30% 1060%) Surplus Full Cost Actual Annual (Deficit) -per per Unit Program Cost Unit ·-· --- nla $21,755 nfa n/a $53,967 nla n/a $76,607 nfa n/a $12,595 n/a n/a $4,296 n/a n/a $78,367 nfa n/a $3,272 n/a $425 .22 $18,285 ($370) $81.69 $3,350 $71 $180.56 $1,626 ($109) $387.00 $387 ($287) $171.00 $171 ($141) $171 ,00 $171 ($171) n/a $1,035 n/a $275 ,884 . -- --. n/a $30,051 n/a n/a $79,220 n/a n/a $25,221 n/a nla $70,327 n/a n/a $13,655 n/a n/a $27,680 n/a n/a $20,511 n/a nla $36,208 nla n/a $6,410 nla n/a $39,079 n/a n/a $32,611 nla n/a $6,169 n/a n/a $4,031 nfa n/a $27,977 nla n/a $7,820 nla n/a $8,430 nla n/a ($240 ) nla $435,160 Technical Appendix D -1 Surplus Current Cost Proposed Cost (Deficit) -Annual Recovery% Recovery% . ~ -. ($21,755) 0% 0% ($53,967) 0% 0% ($14,861) 81% 81% ($7,423) 41% 41% [$4,296) 0% 0% ($75,597) 4% 4% ($2,084) 36% 36% ($16,310) 11 % 25% $1,876 156% 39% ($1,346) 17% 17% ($287) 26% 26% ($171) 0% 0% ($171) 0% 0% ($1,035) 0% 0% ($197,427) ---- -. ($19,498) 35% 76% $6,709 108% 92% ($25,221) 0% 0% ($52,211) 26% 26% ($13,235) 3% 3% ($23,473) 15% 15% ($19,666) 4% 4% ($34,804) 4% 4% ($4,309) 33% 33% ($35,285) 10% 10% ($32,023) 2% 2% ($5,929) 4% 4% ($4,031) 0% 0% ($25,877) 8% 8% ($7,820) 0% 0% ($8,430) 0% 0% $240 0% 0% ($304,863) _J Low Range cost Recovery Activities (0%to 30%) Recommended Current Cost Cost Recovery Additional Recovery Policy Policy Revenue Classification Classification MID LOW MID LOW MID HIGH MID MID N/A N/A LOW LOW LOW LOW HIGH LOW LOW LOW NEW FEE-LOW NEW FEE-LOW NIA N/A - HIGH HIGH HIGH HIGH LOW LOW MID LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Printed : 9129/2008 , ~ City of SAN LUIS OBISPO Parks and Recreation Actual Cost Results High Range cost Recovery Activities (60% to 100%) Fee# Fee Area TEEMS.~corrtRM::1 ClAsSEs --~· 2 Teen Programs • Non-Recoverable 3 Teen Programs -Club 864 4 Boomers -Non-Recoverable Programs 5 Boomers -Victorian Games 6 iloomers -Grandparents Day 7 Bootne1$ -Globa l Gourmet 8 Seniol Cenlef Boalll Support 9 Senior Cenlef Special E,·onts (Alt In Paradise) 10 Contraot Classes 11 Advisory Boards/Comittees/Special Interest Groups 12 Suppo,t to Special Events -Non Reimbursed NF Non-User Fee Activities -~~iil:.lir I: 6'.:i .,-;,,,.•,~. .. .. 1 Jmemal Fae/Illy RentJJls (rentJJls by City Dep;,ntnents) 2 External Fac,7ity Rental (rentJJls by the Public) 3 OuldoorFacilily Renla!s " 4 Batting Cages NF Facilities Support to Olher City Departments (Annual) NF Facililies Support to Fire EOC (Annual) NF Facilities Support to Police EOC (Annual) NF Faollilies Support to Other Rec Programs (Al\ntlaQ NF Non-User Fee AdMtles ©MAXIMUS Recoverable Units of Service - 1 1 1 1 1 , 1 I 1 1 1 1 Subtoial ---- 1 1 1 \ 1 \ , 1 1 Subtotal Currant Fee per Unit .. . n/a rva nl• rva nla n/e rla nla n/a "'· n/a rla n/a n/a !Va n/a rita rJa n/a rJa rla Currant Annual Revenue ::.- $0 $1,789 $0 $0 $185 $3,150 $0 $109 $76,165 so so so S8 1,398 ,. -- $39,247 $11,642 $98,330 $4,404 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $153,623 Mid Range cost Recovery Activities (30% to60%) Surplus Full Cost Actual Annual (Deficit) -per per Unit Program Cost Unit -:--:-:-·-- n/a $115,570 nla rva $46,198 rva rva 543,313 rJa rva $7,479 rva n/a $7,479 nla rJa $36,955 n/a nla $8,287 nla nla $4,971 n/a nla $143,133 n/a n/e $4,971 n/a rJa $13,614 nla nia $0 so $431,970 -.. - n/a $418,332 n/a rla $24,919 n/a nla $179,738 n/a n/a $37,266 rvs nle $54,621 n/a rJa $15.390 nla n/a $25,185 rla n/a $11.369 n/a nfa $925 n/a $767.745 Technical Appendix D -2 Surplus Currant Cost Proposed Cost (Deficit) -Annual Recovery% Recovery% - > -- ($115,570) 0% 0% ($44.409) 4% 4% ($43,313) 0% 0% ($7,479) 0% 0% ($7 ,294) 2% 2% ($33.805) 9% 9% (58187) 0% 0% [$4,862) 2% 2',(, 1566 ,968) 53% S4% $ ($4,971 ) 0% 0% ($13,614) 0'4 ()'I, so ~ 0% ($350,572) -. - ·- [5379.()85] 9% 9% ($13177) 47% 60% $ ($81 ,408) 55% 60% $ ($32,862) 12% 12% ($54,621) 0% 0% ($15.390) 0% 0% (525,1 65) 0% 0% (S11.369) 0% 0% ($925) 0% 0% ($614,122) Low Range cost Recovery Activities (0%to30%) Recommended Currant Cost Cost Recovery Additional Recovery PcJicy Policy Revenue Classification Classification .. --· LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW 762 HIGH MIO NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA $762 ----·• HIG H LOW 3,309 HIGH HIGH 9,513 MIO HIGH LOW NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA N/A $12,822 Printed : 912912008 L__ r '---L_ L_ City of SAN LUIS OBISPO Parks and Recreation Actual Cost Results ----- High Range cost Recovery Activities (60% to 100%) ..._ - Mid Range cost Recovery Activities (30 % to60%) Surplus Recoverable Current Fee Current Annual Full Cost Actual Ann ual (Deficn) -per Fee# Fee Area Un its of Service -ADIJATiqS , . ,-.· -- ---- 1 I .. . ~ tH!OOAAE" . -----• : ·-· -' . --. - 1 .. SIJJ/f prawded analysis for Public Wll'ks component Banner Permits 35 "" So~ Field Maintenance 450 0 Grand Total "Actual Annual Program Cost Calculations do not include Parks Maintenance costs. •• Additional analysis that was includede at the request of the staff. per Unit Revenue per Unit Program Cost --- rJa $124,599 rJa $911,715 •".: --. -•. -. --· rJa $504 ,40 1 rJa $913,116 $149 .31 S5.226 $204 .15 $7,145 585,929 $32226 $145 ,019 $1 ,163,930 $3,887,755 ••• Over a three year period, at 70 teams per season, each team would be required to pay an additional $5 .63 to reach 60 % cost recovery ©MAXIMUS Te chnical Appendix D -3 Unit -. rla nla -- Surplus Current Cost Proposed Cost (Deficit) -Annual Recovery% Recovery% -- --. ($787,116) 14'/, 14'4 .. - ($408,715) 55 !1 55% ($1,919) 73 ,1% (559,090) 59.3% 60% ($2, 723,825) _.. I _____. _J Low Range cost Recovery Activities (0% to 30%) Recommended Current Cost Cost Recoveiy Additional Recovery Policy Policy Revenue Classification Classification ---.... LOW LOW -·· "-. HtGtl MID $13,584 Printed : 9/29/2008 FY 2005/06 RECREATION PROGRAMS City of SAN LUIS OBISPO Division Recovery %'s Current Annual Revenue (FY Actual Annual Surplus Average Current Fee Area 04/05) Program Cost (Deficit) Cost Recovery % SPECW:-MNTS:t ------·-'$18AS7 -- ·$27$~ ($197:42'7) - ~ SPORTS • . . . S130.297 ~--.. . ,t60 (S304,ll(Sll 30% TE~. B"C>OMERS, COITTRACT CLASSES :c:· . ~i,f.•_lh ~ ,! , ' "_ S81,~· . -•• _ 0 (S350,572J 19% FACIUTIES -.,.; • ~ ►------~I ~ . 'l: -~_::<ii~ ~$15@23 -• ...,_....~~ (5614.122) 20% , .. _ ©MAXIMUS, 2005 Page: 4 of4 Increase to Reach City User Fee Add itional Cost Recovery Revenue at Adcfrtional Average New Policy Increase Revenue Cost Recovery % - 9% S!04,206 ~.749 38o/ii ml. $332,646 S202."349 76'16 °" • $81 ,756 $360 19% -124% _ S1,l06.ffll S95'2,8S7 14~ 55%' S622$li S497.1137 ~ 4S~ '917;]54 $413~ 101% - 39%1 $1;9n.182 $1 .139..428 I 78~ Run Date: 9/29/2008 L_ L_ Annual Qty Fee# Fee or Service Name / Description PL #1 Sid ewalk Sales Permit 0 PL#2 Home Occupation Permit 149 PL#3 Administrative Use Permit 77 Secondary Dwelling Units : Determination of PL#4 Code Consistency 0 PL#5 Planning Commission Use Permit 9 PL#6 Downtown Housing Conversio n Perm it 0 PL#7 Varian ce 6 PL#8 Plann ed Development: Rezoning 4 PL#9 Planned Development: Plan Am endment 4 PL#1 0 Rezoning : Map Amendment 0 Rezoning : Text Amendment 100 % of full cost PL #11 of time & materials 3 PL #1 2 Time Extension 25% of current filing fee 8 PL #13 Non-Profit Special Event Fee 0 PL#14 Mills Act Application Fee 1 PL #15 Affordable Housing Incentive request 0 Sidewalk Use Fee (Sidewal k Ca fe) (pe r sq . ft . PL#16 Ip er mo nth) 1 PL#17 Land Use Documentation Requests 5 PL #18 Administrative Approval Applications 8 PL#19 Appeals 6 PL#20 Lot Line Adjustment 8 Tentative Subdivision Map 4 or less lots PL#21 (parcel map) 17 Tentative Subdivision Map 5 or more PL#22 lots (tract map) 15 PL#23 Tra ct map • Each additional lot 1 PL#24 Certifi cate of Compliance ( + re co rd ing fee s) 3 Time Extension/modification 25% of current PL#25 filing fee 6 MAXIMUS , Inc. City of San Luis Obispo USER FEE STUDY ACTUAL COST RESULTS annmg_ UNIT COSTS REVENUE IMPACTS Current Actual Per Unit Annual Actual Annual Application Unit Cost I Surplus/ Revenue at Annual Cost Revenue Potential / Potential Surplus/ Fee Fee (Subsidy) Current Fee Revenue (Deficit) $ 99 $ 216 $ (117) $ . $ . $ . $ 114 $ 110 $ 4 $ 16,986 $ 16,374 $ 612 $ 708 $ 1,859 $ (1,151) $ 54,516 $ 143,178 $ (88,662) $ 917 $ 1,905 $ (988) $ . $ . $ . $ 2 ,69 8 $ 6,022 $ (3 ,324) $ 24 ,282 $ 54,201 $ (29,919' $ 3,75 9 $ 7,256 $ (3,497) $ . $ . $ . $ 772 $ 1,761 $ (989) $ 4,632 $ 10,569 $ (5,937) $ 7,312 $ 14 ,32 5 $ (7,013) $ 29,248 $ 57,298 $ (28 ,050) $ 1,514 $ 2 ,898 $ (1,384) $ 6,056 $ 11,594 $ (5,538) $ 5,486 $ 10,638 $ (5,152) $ . $ . $ . $ . $ 7,930 $ (7,930) $ . $ 23,789 $ (23 ,789) $ . $ 1,221 $ (1,221) $ . $ 9,771 $ (9,771) $ 53 $ 1,859 $ (1,806) $ . $ -$ . $ 1,832 $ 3,210 $ (1,378 $ 1,832 $ 3 ,210 $ (1,378 $ 211 $ • $ 211 $ . $ . $ . $ 0.59 $ 0.44 $ 0 $ 1 $ 0.44 $ 0.15 $ 151 $ 1,859 $ (1,708) $ 755 $ 9 .297 $ (8,542) $ 252 $ 1,287 $ (1,035) $ 2.016 $ 10 ,299 $ (8 ,283 $ 100 $ 3 ,121 $ (3 ,021 $ 600 $ 18 ,726 $ (18,126 $ 1,228 $ 2 ,969 $ (1,741) $ 9,824 $ 23,748 $ (13,924) $ 5 ,736 $ 5,388 $ 348 $ 97.512 $ 91,596 $ 5,916 $ 7,436 $ 17,683 $ (10,247) $ 111,540 $ 265 ,243 $ (153,703' $ 190 $ 304 $ (114) $ 190 $ 304 $ (114) $ 1,336 $ 3,429 $ (2,093) $ 4,008 $ 10,288 $ (6,280) $ 1,617 $ 2,664 $ (1,046) $ 9,704 $ 15,981 $ (6,277) Technica l Appendix E -1 _j REVENUE AT RECOMMENDED FEES Amount Potential Application Collected With Annual Fee (at 45%) Building Revenue Permit (55%) (Subsidy) $ 97 $ 119 $ . $ 49 $ 60 $ 16,374 $ 837 $ 1,023 $ 143,178 $ 85 7 $ 1,048 $ . $ 2.710 $ 3,312 $ 54,201 $ 3.265 $ 3,991 $ - $ 793 $ 969 $ 10,569 $ 6.446 $ 7,879 $ 57 ,298 $ 1,304 $ 1,594 $ 11,594 $ 4,787 $ 5,851 $ . $ 3,568 $ 4,361 $ 23,789 $ 550 $ 672 $ 9,771 $ 837 $ 1,023 $ $ 1,445 $ 1,766 $ 3,210 $ . $ . $ . $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 837 $ 1,023 $ 9,297 $ 579 $ 708 $ 10,299 $ 600 $ -$ . $ 1,336 $ 1,633 $ 23,748 $ 2,425 $ 2 ,963 $ 91,596 $ 7,957 $ 9,726 $ 265,243 $ 137 $ 167 $ 304 $ 1,543 $ 1,886 $ 10,288 $ 1,199 $ 1,465 $ 15,981 Printed: 9/29/2008 Annual Qty Fee# Fee or Service Name / Description Environmental Impact Determination PL#26 {Includes a $25 County Filing fee) Projects may 27 Environmental Impact Study: Historic PL#27 Resources 2 Environmental Impact Report (Consultant contract plus 30% for administrative & review PL#28 services) 1 PL#30 Architectural Review: Siqns 0 PL#31 Architectural Review: Development Projects 45 PL#32 Architectural Review: Minor-Incidental 75 PL#33 Architectural Review: Plan Revision 1 Architectural Review: Time Extension 25% of PL#34 current filing fee 1 PL#35 Christmas Tree/Pumpkin Lot Permit 3 PL#36 Fence Height Exception 12 PL#37 Voluntary Merger (+ recording fees) 2 PL#38 Agreements (+ recording fees) 1 PL#39 Voluntary Guarantees 30 Street Name Change 100% of full cost of time PL#40 & materials 0 Street Abandonment 100 % of full cost of time & PL#41 materials 3 PL#42 Condominium Conversion 3 PL#44 Specific Plan Amendment 1 General and Specific Plans: Map (includes PL#46 rezoning) 100% of full cost of time & materials 5 General and Specific Plans: Text 100% of full PL#47 cost of time & materials 1 Annexation 100% of full cost of time & PL#49 materials 2 Development Review Fee (Received at the FP #50 Building Permit) 1 MAXIMUS, Inc. City of San Luis Obispo USER FEE STUDY ACTUAL COST RESULTS annin_g_ ,_ UNIT COSTS --REVENUE IMPACTS -·- Current Actual Per Unit Annual Actual Annual Application Unit Cost/ Surplus/ Revenue at Annual Cost Revenue Potential / Potential Surplus/ Fee Fee (Subsidy) Current Fee Revenue (Deficit) $ 2,147 $ 4 ,150 $ (2.003) $ 57,969 $ 11 2,045 $ (54 ,076) $ -$ 1,295 $ (1,295) $ -$ 2,590 $ (2.590) $ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - $ 1,208 $ 2,271 $ (1,063 ) $ -$ -$ - $ 2,357 $ 5,084 $ (2,727) $ 106,065 $ 228,766 $ (122 ,701) $ 917 $ 1,872 $ (955) $ 68 ,775 $ 140 ,363 $ (7 1,588 ' $ 1,279 $ 2,533 $ (1 ,254) $ 1,279 $ 2,533 $ (1,254) $ . $ 1,175 $ (1,175 ) $ -$ 1,175 $ (1 ,175 $ 131 $ 256 $ (125 ' $ 393 $ 767 $ (374 ) $ 205 $ 415 $ (210) $ 2,460 $ 4 ,983 $ (2 ,523) $ 204 $ 420 $ (216) $ 408 $ 839 $ (431 ) $ 221 $ 330 $ (109) $ 221 $ 330 $ (109) $ 269 $ 535 $ (266) $ 8,070 $ 16,038 $ (7,968) $ . $ 4,730 $ (4 ,730) $ -$ -$ . $ 4 ,940 $ 9,218 $ (4,279 ) $ 14,819 $ 27,655 $ (12 ,836) $ 3,873 $ 7,934 $ (4,061) $ 11,619 $ 23,802 $ (12 ,183) $ 10 ,8 44 $ 13,486 $ (2 ,642) $ 10,844 $ 13,486 $ (2,642) $ 2,191 $ 13,811 $ (11 ,620) $ 10,955 $ 69,054 $ (58,099) $ 11 ,376 $ 14,435 $ (3,059) $ 11,376 $ 14,435 $ (3,059) $ 7,226 $ 18,407 $ (11 ,182) $ 14,451 $ 36,814 $ (22 ,363 ) $ 292,637 $ -$292,637 $ 292,637 $ . $ 292,637 Technical Appendix E -2 REVENUE AT RECOMMENDED FEES Amount Potential Application Collected With Annual Fee (at 45%) Building Revenue Permit (55%) (Subsidy) $ 1,867 $ 2,28 2 $ 112 ,045 $ 583 $ 712 $ 2,590 $ . $ -$ . $ 1,022 $ 1,249 $ - $ 2,288 $ 2,796 $ 228 ,766 $ 842 $ 1,029 $ 140 ,363 $ 1,140 $ 1,393 $ 2,53 3 $ 529 $ 646 $ 1,175 $ 115 $ 141 $ 767 $ 187 $ 228 $ 4 ,983 $ 189 $ 231 $ 839 $ 148 $ 18 1 $ 330 $ 241 $ 294 $ 16,038 $ 2,129 $ 2,602 $ - $ 4.148 $ 5,070 $ 27,655 $ 3,570 $ 4,364 $ 23,802 $ 6,069 $ 7,417 $ 13,486 $ 6,215 $ 7 ,596 $ 69 ,054 $ 6,496 $ 7,939 $ 14 ,435 $ 8,283 $ 10,124 $ 36.814 $ . $ -$ . Printed: 9/29/2008 Fee# Fee or Service Name / Description LEGEND.· Fee# Fee or Service Name/ Description Annual Quantity Actual Unit Cost/ Potential Fee Current Application Fee (at 45%) Current Amount Collected With Building Permit Per Unit Surplus/ (Subsidy) Total Actual Annual Cost/ Potential Revenue Annual Revenue at Current Fee Total Annual Revenue Surplus / (Subsidy) * Non-User Fee Activities MAXIMUS , Inc . City of San Luis Obispo USER FEE STUDY ACTUAL COST RESULTS ann1n.9. UNIT COSTS REVENUE IMPACTS Current Actual Per Unit Annual Actual Annual Annual Unit Cost I Annual Cost Revenue Qty Application Potential Surplus/ Revenue at I Potential Surplus/ Fee Fee (Subsidy) Current Fee Revenue (Deficit) Totals $ 986,043 $ 1,471,143 $ (485,101) A reference number to facilitate discussion The services and/or fees included in the MAXI MUS study The annual number of each service provided , as re ported by the Ci ty The actual cost of each service , as calculated by MAXIM US The current fee charged by the City for each service , which is estimated to be 45% of the total Remaining 55 % of the planning fee that is built into the Building surcharge The difference between the Actual Unit Cost and the Current Fee for each service The potential revenue if the City charged the Actual Unit Cost for each service at the Annual Quantity for that service (Unit Cost x Annual Quantity) for that service (Current Fee x Annual Quantity) Current Fee . This figure represents the annual subsidy (based on actual cost), the City provides These costs have been excluded from the estimated potential revenue totals . Technical Append ix E -3 REVENUE AT RECOMMENDED FEES Amount Potential App II cation Collected With Annual Fee (at45%) Build ing Revenue Permit (55%) (Subsidy) $ 90,218 $ 109,533 $1,452,417 Pri nted: 9/29 /2008 City of SAN LUIS OBISPO Community Development Department-Building Division New Construction Fees FEE AND REVENUE COMPARISONS Annual SF Vo lume of Class Occu pa nc_y Typ e Standard Activity A-1 Assembly-Fixed Seating 1,000 0 . Theater, Conce rt Hall 5,000 0 . . 10,000 0 . -20,000 0 . -50,000 0 . -100,000 0 A-2 Assembly-Food & Drink 1,000 0 -Restaurant, Night Club, Bar 5,000 0 -10,000 0 . . 20,000 0 -. 50,000 0 . . 100,000 0 A-3 Assembly-Workshop, Amusement 500 0 . Arcade, Church , Community Hall 2,500 0 -. 5,000 0 . . 10,000 1 . . 25,000 0 . . 50 ,000 0 A-4 Assembly-Indoor Sport Viewing 500 0 -Arena , Skating Rink, Tennis Court 2,500 0 --5,000 0 . . 10,000 0 . . 25,000 0 . . 50 ,000 0 A-5 Assembly-Outdoor Activities 1,500 0 . Am usement Park, Bleacher, Stadium 7,500 0 . . 15,000 0 . . 30,000 0 . . 75,000 0 . . 150,000 0 A A Occupancy Tenant Improvements 500 0 . . 2,500 0 -. 5,000 11 . . 10,000 0 . . 25,000 0 . . 50,000 0 B Busi ness-Animal Hospital 500 0 . . 2,500 0 . . 5,000 0 -. 10,000 0 MAXIMUS , Inc. -UNI I vU;)I;) Average Actual Cost per Unit Current SF Cost Fee 4.8327 $ 4,833 $ - 1.5006 $ 7,503 $ . 0.8792 $ 8,792 $ . 0.5731 $ 11,462 $ . 0.3 340 $ 16,700 $ . 0.2246 $ 22,460 $ . 4.6556 $ 4,656 $ . 1.4369 $ 7,185 $ . 0.841 7 $ 8,417 $ . 0.5479 $ 10,958 $ 0.3180 $ 15,900 $ . 0.2131 $ 21.310 $ 7.1789 $ 3,589 $ . 2.2044 $ 5,511 $ . 1.2913 $ 6,457 $ . 0.8396 $ 8,396 $ 11,000 0.4855 $ 12,138 $ . 0.324 3 $ 16,2 15 $ . 7.3242 $ 3,66 2 $ - 2.2429 $ 5,607 $ . 1.3137 $ 6,569 $ - 0.8 536 $ 8,536 $ . 0.4926 $ 12,315 $ 0.3285 $ 16,425 $ . 3.1037 $ 4,656 $ 0.9579 $ 7,184 $ . 0.56 12 $ 8,418 $ 0.3653 $ 10,959 $ - 0.2120 $ 15,900 $ . 0.1421 $ 21,315 $ . 5 .1706 $ 2,585 $ . 1.5720 $ 3,930 $ . 0.9207 $ 4,604 $ 1,860 0.5972 $ 5,972 $ . 0.342 9 $ 8,573 $ . 0.2276 $ 11 ,380 $ . 6.742 7 $ 3,371 $ . 2.089 2 $ 5,223 $ . 1.2239 $ 6,120 $ . 0.7975 $ 7,975 $ . Technical Appendix F 4 -1 l'(C v i:;:;NUt: ,m.-,... .... 1;:, Surplus/ Annual Annual ,(Subsidy) Actual Revenue@ General Fund Each Fee Annual Cost Current Fee Subsidy Subtotal $ (4,833 $ -$ . $ . $ (7,503 $ $ . $ . $ (8,792) $ . $ . $ . $ (11,462 $ $ -$ - $ (16,700) $ . $ . $ - $ (22,460 $ . $ . $ -$ . $ (4,656) $ . $ -$ - $ (7,185) $ -$ . $ - $ (8,417) $ . $ . $ . $ {10,958) $ . $ . $ - $ (15,900) $ -$ . $ . $ (21,310' $ . $ . $ $ . $ (3,589) $ . $ . $ . $ (5 ,511) $ . $ . $ . $ (6,457) $ . $ . $ . $ 2,604 $ 8,396 $ 11,000 $ 2,604 $ (12,138) $ . $ . $ . $ (16,215 $ . $ . $ . $ 2,604 $ (3,662) $ . $ -$ . $ (5,607 $ . $ -$ . $ (6,569) $ $ . $ . $ (8 ,536) $ . $ . $ . $ (12,315 $ $ . $ . $ (16,425) $ $ . $ $ . $ (4 ,6 56) $ -$ . $ . $ (7 ,184) $ . $ . $ . $ (8,418) $ -$ . $ $ (10,959) $ . $ . $ . $ (15,900) $ . $ . $ . $ (21,315) $ . $ . $ . $ . $ (2,585) $ . $ -$ . $ (3,930) $ . $ -$ . $ (2,744) $ 50,639 $ 20,460 $ (30.179) $ (5,972) $ -$ -$ - $ (8,573) $ $ . $ . $ (11,380) $ . $ . $ $ (30 ,179) $ (3,371) $ . $ . $ . $ (5,223) $ . $ . $ . $ (6,120) $ . $ . $ . $ (7,975 $ . $ . $ . Printd : 9/29/2008 L........ I.-- City of SAN LUIS OBISPO Community Development Department-Building Division New Construction Fees FEE AND REVENUE COMPARISONS - Annual SF Volume of Class Occupancy Type Standard Act ivity --25,000 0 . -50,000 0 8 Business-Bank 500 0 -. 2,500 0 --5,000 0 --10,000 7 --25,000 0 --50,000 0 B Business-Barber Shop/Beauty Shop 500 0 --2,500 0 --5,000 0 . . 10,000 0 . . 25,000 0 . . 50,000 0 B Business-Car Wash 500 0 -. 2,500 0 . -5,000 0 . -10,000 0 . -25,000 0 . -50,000 0 B Business-Clinic, Outpatient 500 0 -. 2 ,500 0 --5 ,000 0 --10,000 0 --25,000 0 . -50,000 0 B Business-Dry Cleaning 500 0 . . 2,500 0 . . 5,000 0 . . 10,000 0 . . 25,000 0 . . 50.000 0 8 Business-Laboratory 500 0 . . 2,500 0 . . 5,000 0 . . 10,000 0 -. 25,000 0 --50,000 0 B Business-Motor Vehicle Showroom 500 0 . . 2,500 0 MAXIMUS, Inc. UNI I \,V;:) I.:, Average Actual Cost per Unit Current SF Cost Fee 0.4641 $ 11,603 $ . 0.3117 $ 15,585 $ - 6.7427 $ 3,371 $ - 2.0892 $ 5,223 $ 1.2239 $ 6,120 $ - 0.7975 $ 7,975 $ 8,377 0.4641 $ 11,603 $ - 0.3117 $ 15,585 $ - 6 ,7427 $ 3,371 $ . 2,0892 $ 5,223 $ . 1.2239 $ 6,120 $ - 0.7975 $ 7,975 $ - 0.4641 $ 11,603 $ . 0.3117 $ 15,585 $ 6.7427 $ 3,371 $ . 2.0892 $ 5,223 $ . 1.2239 $ 6 ,120 $ 0.7975 $ 7,975 $ . 0.4641 $ 11 ,603 $ . 0.3117 $ 15,585 $ . 6.7427 $ 3,371 $ - 2.0892 $ 5,223 $ . 1.2239 $ 6,120 $ . 0 .7975 $ 7,975 $ . 0.4641 $ 11 ,603 $ . 0.3117 $ 15,585 $ . 6.7427 $ 3,371 $ - 2.0892 $ 5,223 $ . 1.2239 $ 6,120 $ . 0.7975 $ 7,975 $ . 0.4641 $ 11,603 $ . 0.3117 $ 15,585 $ 6 .7427 $ 3,371 $ . 2.0892 $ 5,223 $ - 1.2239 $ 6,120 $ 0.7975 $ 7,975 $ - 0.4641 $ 11,603 $ . 0.3117 $ 15,585 $ 3.5294 $ 1,765 $ . 0.9329 $ 2,332 $ Technical Appendix F 4-2 __J Ktv'ENUE IMl'Al;l::i Surplus/ Annual Annual (Subsidy) Actual Revenue@ General Fund Each Fee Annual Cost Current Fee Subsidy Subtotal $ (11,603) $ . $ . $ . $ -(15 ,585) $ . $ . $ -$ - $ (3,371) $ . $ . $ - $ (5,223 $ -$ . $ - $ (6,120) $ -$ . $ . $ 402 $ 55,825 $ 58,639 $ 2,814 $ (11 ,603) $ . $ $ - $ (15,585 $ -$ $ -$ 2,814 $ (3,371) $ -$ -$ - $ (5,223) $ -$ . $ - $ (6,120) $ . $ . $ . $ (7,975) $ . $ . $ - $ (11,603 $ . $ . $ . $ (15,585) $ . $ . $ . $ . $ (3,371) $ . $ -$ . $ (5,223 $ . $ -$ $ (6 ,120) $ -$ -$ $ (7,975) $ . $ . $ - $ (11,603 $ -$ . $ . $ (15 ,585) $ -$ $ . $ . $ (3,371) $ . $ -$ . $ (5,223: $ . $ . $ . $ (6,120) $ . $ . $ . $ (7,975) $ -$ . $ . $ (11,603) $ -$ . $ - $ (15 ,5851 $ -$ $ . $ . $ (3,371) $ . $ . $ $ (5,223) $ . $ $ . $ (6,120) $ . $ . $ . $ (7 ,975) $ . $ . $ . $ (11,603) $ . $ . $ - $ (15,585) $ . $ $ . $ . $ (3,371) $ . $ . $ - $ (5,223) $ . $ . $ . $ (6,120) $ . $ . $ . $ (7,975) $ . $ . $ . $ (11 ,603) $ . $ . $ . $ (15,585) $ . $ . $ $ . $ (1,765) $ . $ . $ . $ (2,332) $ . $ . $ . Printd: 9/29/2008 City of SAN LUIS OBISPO Community Development Department-Building Division New Construction Fees FEE AND REVENUE COMPARISONS --.. Annual SF Volume of Class Occupancy Type Standard Activity --5 ,000 0 --10,000 0 --25,000 0 --50 ,000 0 B Bus iness-Professional Office 500 0 --2 ,500 0 --5,000 0 --10,000 0 --25,00 0 0 --50 ,000 0 B B Occupancy Te nant Improvements 500 14 --2,500 0 --5,000 105 -. 10 ,000 0 --25,000 0 --50,000 0 E Educational-Group Occupancy 500 0 -6+ persons, up to the 12th Grade 2,500 0 -. 5,000 0 -10,000 0 . -25,000 0 --50,000 0 E Educational-Day Ca re 500 0 . 5+ children , older than 2 1 /2 yrs 2 ,500 0 --5,000 0 --10 ,000 0 --25,000 0 -50,000 0 E E Occupancy Tenant Improvements 500 0 --2,500 0 -. 5,000 0 --10,000 0 -25,000 0 -. 50,000 0 F-1 Factory Industrial-Mod erate Hazard 1,000 0 --5.000 0 . -10,000 0 --20,000 0 -. 50,000 0 -. 100,000 0 MAXIMUS , Inc . UI\I I I '-,1;;1:::,1:::, Average Actual Cost per Unit Current SF Cost Fee 0 .5450 $ 2 ,725 $ - 0.3405 $ 3,405 $ - 0 .1734 $ 4,335 $ - 0.1019 $ 5 ,095 $ - 6 .2888 $ 3,1 44 $ - 1.9258 $ 4,815 $ . 1.1280 $ 5 ,640 $ . 0.7329 $ 7,329 $ - 0.4230 $ 10,575 $ - 0.2821 $ 14 ,105 $ - 4.4634 $ 2,232 $ 558 1.3488 $ 3,372 $ - 0.7 899 $ 3,950 $ 1,582 0.5116 $ 5,116 $ - 0.2924 $ 7,310 $ . 0.1933 $ 9,665 $ . 7.3242 $ 3,662 $ . 2 .2429 $ 5,607 $ - 1.3137 $ 6,569 $ - 0.8536 $ 8,536 $ - 0.4926 $ 12,315 $ . 0.3285 $ 16 ,425 $ . 7.3242 $ 3,662 $ 2.2429 $ 5,607 $ . 1.3137 $ 6,569 $ - 0.8536 $ 8,536 $ . 0.4 926 $ 12,3 15 $ - 0.3285 $ 16,425 $ - 4 .9162 $ 2,458 $ - 1.504 8 $ 3 ,762 $ - 0.8814 $ 4,407 $ - 0.5726 $ 5,726 $ - 0.3304 $ 8,260 $ - 0.2202 $ 11,0 10 $ - 4.7914 $ 4,791 $ - 1.0914 $ 5,457 $ . 0.6054 $ 6,054 $ . 0.3488 $ 6,976 $ - 0 .17 06 $ 8.530 $ - 0.1026 $ 10,260 $ - Technical Appendix F 4-3 Kl:VENUE IMPAC 1:::, Surplus/ Annual Annual (S ubsJdy } Actual Revenue@ General Fund Each Fee Annual Cost Current Fee Subsidy Subtotal $ (2 ,725) $ -$ -$ - $ (3,405) $ -$ -$ - $ (4,335) $ -$ -$ - $ (5,095) $ -$ -$ -$ . $ (3,144 ) $ -$ . $ - $ (4,815) $ -$ . $ . $ (5 ,640 ) $ -$ -$ - $ (7,329' $ -$ . $ . $ (10 ,575) $ $ . $ - $ (14,105' $ -$ -$ -$ . $ (1 .674' $ 31,244 $ 7,812 $ (23,432) $ (3,372) $ -$ -$ - $ (2 ,368 ) $ 414,698 $ 166,110 $ (248 ,588 ) $ (5,1 16) $ -$ . $ - $ (7,310 ) $ -$ -$ - $ (9 ,665) $ . $ -$ -$ (272 ,019) $ (3 ,662) $ . $ -$ - $ (5,607) $ -$ -$ . $ (6,569) $ -$ . $ . $ (8 ,536) $ -$ -$ - $ (12 ,315) $ -$ . $ - $ (16.425) $ . $ -$ -$ . $ (3,662) $ -$ . $ - $ (5,607) $ . $ -$ - $ (6 ,569) $ -$ . $ - $ (8.536) $ . $ . $ - $ (12,315) $ . $ . $ - $ (16,425) $ -$ -$ -$ . $ (2,458) $ -$ -$ - $ (3,762 ) $ -$ -$ - $ (4,407 ) $ -$ . $ . $ (5 ,726) $ . $ . $ . $ (8,260 ) $ -$ . $ - $ (11 ,010) $ -$ -$ -$ . $ (4 ,791 ) $ . $ . $ - $ (5 ,457 ) $ -$ -$ - $ (6.054 ) $ -$ -$ - $ (6,976) $ . $ -$ - $ (8,530 ) $ -$ . $ . $ (10 .260 ) $ . $ . $ . $ . Printd : 9/29/2008 L_ ---- City of SAN LUIS OBISPO Community Development Department-Building Division New Construction Fees FEE AND REVENUE COMPARISONS - Annual SF Volume of Class Occupa ncy Type Standard Activity F-2 Factory Industrial-Low Hazard 1,000 0 . -5,000 1 . -10,000 1 . . 20 ,000 0 . -50,000 0 . . 100.000 0 F F Occupancy Tenant Improvements 1,000 0 . . 5,000 0 --10,000 0 . . 20,000 0 . . 50 ,000 0 . . 100,000 0 H-1 High Hazard Group H-1 500 0 -Pose a detonation hazard 2,500 0 . . 5,000 0 . . 10,000 0 . . 25 ,000 0 . . 50,000 0 H-2 High Hazard Group H-2 500 0 . Pose a deflagration hazard 2,500 0 . -5,000 0 . -10,000 0 --25,000 0 . -50 ,000 0 H-3 High Hazard Group H-3 500 0 -Readily support combustion 2,500 0 . . 5,000 0 . -10,000 0 . . 25,000 0 . -50,000 0 H-4 High Hazard Group H-4 250 0 -Pose health hazards 1,250 0 . . 2,500 0 . . 5,000 0 . . 12,500 0 . . 25,000 0 H-5 High Hazard Group H-5 250 0 . Semiconductor Fabrication , R&D 1,250 0 . . 2,500 0 . -5,000 0 MAXIMUS , Inc. UNII \.V.:,1;:, Average Actual Cost per Unit Current SF Cost Fee 3.2827 $ 3,283 $ . 0.9988 $ 4,994 $ 7,0 30 0 .58 50 $ 5.850 $ 4.612 0.3795 $ 7,590 $ . 0 .2180 $ 10,900 $ . 0 .1448 $ 14,480 $ . 2 .2765 $ 2,277 $ . 0.6877 $ 3,439 $ . 0.4027 $ 4,027 $ . 0.2608 $ 5,216 $ . 0.1490 $ 7,450 $ . 0.0985 $ 9,850 $ 7 .2694 $ 3 ,635 $ . 2.2 162 $ 5,541 $ . 1.2980 $ 6,490 $ . 0.8 42 ~ $ 8,425 $ . 0.4847 $ 12,118 $ . 0 .322 3 $ 16,115 $ . 7 ,2694 $ 3,635 $ . 2.2162 $ 5,541 $ . 1.2980 $ 6,490 $ . 0 .8425 $ 8,425 $ - 0.4847 $ 12,118 $ - 0,3223 $ 16,115 $ - 7 .2694 $ 3,635 $ . 2 .2162 $ 5,541 $ - 1.2980 $ 6,490 $ . 0 .8425 $ 8,425 $ 0 .4847 $ 12,118 $ . 0.3223 $ 16 ,115 $ . 14 .5389 $ 3,635 $ . 4 .4324 $ 5,541 $ - 2.5960 $ 6,490 $ - 1,6849 $ 8,425 $ - 0 .9693 $ 12 ,116 $ 0,6445 $ 16 ,113 $ 12 .5893 $ 3,147 $ 3.7308 $ 4,664 $ . 2.1841 $ 5,460 $ . 1.4076 $ 7,038 $ . Technical Appendix F 4-4 ru:.Vt:N U t: IMt'Av I -> Surplus/ Anni.Jal Annual (Subsidy) Actual Revenue@ General Fund Each Fee Annual Cost Current Fee Subsidy Subtotal $ (3,283) $ . $ -$ . $ 2 ,036 $ 2 ,497 $ 3,515 $ 1,018 $ (1,238) $ 2,925 $ 2,306 $ (61 9) $ (7 ,590) $ . $ . $ . $ (10 ,900 ) $ . $ . $ . $ (14 ,480 $ . $ . $ -$ 399 $ (2 ,277) $ . $ . $ . $ (3,439) $ . $ . $ . $ (4 ,027 ) $ . $ . $ . $ (5,216) $ -$ . $ . $ (7,450 $ . $ . $ . $ (9,850) $ . $ . $ . $ . $ (3,635) $ . $ . $ . $ (5,54 1) $ -$ . $ . $ (6,490) $ . $ . $ . $ (8,425 ) $ . $ . $ . $ (12,1 18) $ . $ . $ . $ (16,115) $ . $ . $ . $ . $ (3,6 35) $ . $ . $ . $ (5,541) $ . $ . $ . $ (6,490) $ . $ $ . $ (8,425) $ . $ . $ . $ (12 ,118) $ . $ . $ - $ (16 ,115) $ . $ . $ . $ . $ (3,635) $ . $ . $ . $ (5,541) $ . $ $ . $ (6,490 $ . $ . $ . $ (8 ,425 ) $ . $ . $ . $ (12,118) $ . $ . $ $ (16 ,115) $ . $ . $ . $ - $ (3,635) $ . $ . $ - $ (5,54 1) $ . $ . $ . $ (6 ,490 ) $ . $ . $ . $ (8,425) $ . $ . $ . $ (12 ,116 $ . $ . $ . $ (16 ,113) $ . $ -$ -$ . $ (3,147) $ . $ . $ . $ (4,664) $ . $ . $ . $ (5 ,460 ' $ -$ . $ . $ (7 ,038) $ . $ . $ . Printd: 9/29/2008 City of SAN LUIS OBISPO Community Development Department-Building Division New Construction Fees FEE AND REVENUE COMPARISONS Annual SF Volume of Class Occupancy Type Standard Ac tivity --12.500 0 --25,000 0 H H Occupancy Tenant Improvements 250 0 --1,250 1 --2 ,500 0 --5 ,000 0 --12,500 0 -. 25 .000 0 1-1 lnstitutional-17+ persons, ambulatory 1,000 0 -. 5,000 0 --10,000 0 -. 20,000 0 . . 50,000 0 --100,000 0 1-2 lnstitutional---6+ persons , non-ambulatory 1,000 0 --5,000 0 . . 10,000 0 -. 20 ,000 0 . . 50,000 0 . . 100 ,000 0 1-3 lnstitutional---6+ persons, restrained 1,000 0 . . 5,000 0 . . 10,000 0 . . 20,000 0 --50,000 0 . . 100,000 0 1-4 lnstitutional---6+ persons, day care 1,000 0 . . 5,000 0 . . 10 ,000 0 --20,000 0 -. 50 ,000 0 -. 100,000 0 I I Occupancy Tenant Improvements 1.000 1 -. 5,000 1 --10 ,000 0 . . 20,000 0 . . 50 ,000 0 . -100 ,000 0 L La bs (Califo rn ia ONLY ) 2,000 0 --10 ,000 0 MAXIMUS , Inc. -UNI I 1.,..:,-, I ~ Average Actual Cost per Unit Current SF Cost Fee 0.792 9 $ 9,911 $ - 0.5172 $ 12 .930 $ 11 .4331 $ 2,858 $ - 3.5256 $ 4,407 $ 390 2.0653 $ 5,163 $ . 1.3442 $ 6 ,721 $ . 0.7796 $ 9,745 $ . 0.5221 $ 13,053 $ . 4.5080 $ 4,508 $ . 1.3838 $ 6,919 $ . 0.8106 $ 8,106 $ . 0.5270 $ 10,540 $ . 0.3046 $ 15 .230 $ . 0 .2034 $ 20 ,340 $ . 4.5080 $ 4,508 $ . 1.3838 $ 6,919 $ . 0 .8106 $ 8 ,106 $ . 0.5270 $ 10,540 $ - 0.3046 $ 15,230 $ - 0 .2034 $ 20.340 $ . 4.5080 $ 4,508 $ - 1.3838 $ 6,919 $ - 0 .8106 $ 8,106 $ . 0 .5270 $ 10,540 $ 0.3046 $ 15,230 $ . 0.2034 $ 20,340 $ . 4.5080 $ 4,508 $ . 1.3838 $ 6,919 $ . 0.8 106 $ 8 ,106 $ - 0.5270 $ 10,540 $ . 0.3046 $ 15,230 $ . 0.2034 $ 20 ,340 $ . 2 .8648 $ 2,865 $ 141 0.8831 $ 4,416 $ 580 0.5173 $ 5,173 $ . 0.3367 $ 6,734 $ - 0.1952 $ 9,760 $ - 0.1307 $ 13.070 $ . 0 .0 00 0 $ -$ - 0.0000 $ . $ . Technical Appendi x F 4-5 .. Kl:VCl"<UI: 1m r-,...1.,I~ Surplus/ Annual Annual (Subsidy) Actual Revenue@ General Fund Each Fee Annual Cost Current Fee Subsidy Subtotal $ (9 ,911) $ -$ $ - $ (12 ,93 0) $ -$ -$ -$ - $ (2,858) $ -$ -$ - $ (4 ,017) $ 2 .204 $ 195 $ (2 ,009) $ (5 ,163) $ -$ . $ - $ (6 ,721) $ -$ $ - $ (9,745) $ -$ . $ - $ (13,053) $ -$ . $ -$ (2 ,009) $ (4 ,508) $ -$ -$ - $ (6,919) $ -$ $ - $ (8,106) $ -$ $ - $ (10 ,540) $ -$ . $ - $ (1 5,230) $ -$ . $ - $ (20 ,340) $ -$ . $ -$ - $ (4,508) $ -$ . $ . $ (6,919 ) $ . $ . $ . $ (8,106) $ -$ . $ . $ (10,540) $ -$ -$ - $ (15,230) $ . $ . $ - $ (20,340 $ -$ $ . $ . $ (4,508) $ -$ $ - $ (6,919) $ $ . $ . $ (8,106) $ -$ . $ . $ (10 ,540) $ $ . $ $ (15 ,230) $ . $ . $ . $ (20 ,340) $ -$ . $ . $ . $ (4.508) $ . $ . $ . $ (6 ,919) $ . $ . $ . $ (8,106) $ . $ . $ . $ (10 .540) $ . $ . $ . $ (15,230 ' $ $ -$ - $ (20 ,340) $ . $ . $ -$ - $ (2,724' $ 2,865 $ 141 $ (2,724) $ (3,836) $ 2,208 $ 290 $ (1,918) $ (5 ,173 $ -$ -$ . $ (6 ,734 ) $ . $ -$ - $ (9,760 $ . $ . $ . $ (13 .070) $ . $ . $ . $ (4,642 ) $ . $ . $ -$ . $ . $ . $ . $ . Printd: 9/29/2008 City of SAN LUIS OBISPO Community Development Department-Building Division New Construction Fees FEE AND REVENUE COMPARISONS .. - Annual SF Volume of Class Occupancy Type Standard Activity . . 20,000 0 . . 40,0 00 0 . . 100,000 0 . . 200.000 0 M Mercantile-Department & Drug Store 2 ,500 0 . . 12,500 0 . . 25,000 0 . . 50,000 0 -. 125,000 0 -. 250,000 0 M Mercantile-Market 2 ,500 1 . . 12 ,500 0 . . 25,000 0 . . 50 ,000 1 . . 125,000 0 -. 250,000 0 M Merca ntile-Motor fue l-d ispensing 400 0 . . 2,000 0 . . 4,000 0 -. 8,000 0 . . 20,000 0 . . 40,000 0 M Mercantile-Retail o r w holesale store 2,500 0 . . 12,500 0 . . 25,000 0 -. 50 ,000 0 . . 125,000 0 . . 250,000 0 M M Occupancy Tenant Improvements 1,000 0 . . 5,000 0 . . 10,000 3 1 . . 20,00 0 0 . . 50,0 00 0 . . 100,000 0 R-1 Residential-Transient 2,500 0 . Boarding Houses, Hotels, Motels 12,500 0 . . 25,000 0 . . 50,000 0 . . 125,000 0 . . 250 ,000 0 MAXIMUS, Inc. UNII \.U::>1;:,· Average Actual Cost per Unit Current SF Cost Fee 0.000 0 $ . $ . 0.0000 $ . $ . 0.0000 $ . $ . 0.0000 $ . $ . 2.2589 $ 5,647 $ . 0 ,7099 $ 8,874 $ - 0.4160 $ 10,400 $ . 0.2720 $ 13 ,600 $ . 0.1598 $ 19 ,975 $ . 0.1083 $ 27,075 $ . 2 .258 9 $ 5,647 $ 4,539 0 .7099 $ 8,874 $ . 0.4160 $ 10,400 $ . 0,272 0 $ 13,600 $ 80,568 0.1598 $ 19 ,975 $ 0 .1083 $ 27.075 $ . 0.0000 $ . $ . 0.0000 $ . $ . 0.0000 $ . $ . 0 .0000 $ . $ . 0 .0000 $ . $ . 0.0000 $ . $ . 2.2589 $ 5,647 $ . 0.7099 $ 8,874 $ . 0.4160 $ 10 ,400 $ . 0.2720 $ 13,600 $ . 0.1598 $ 19,975 $ . 0.1083 $ 27,075 $ . 2 .9316 $ 2 ,932 $ . 0.8998 $ 4,499 $ . 0.5271 $ 5 ,271 $ 2 .316 0.3427 $ 6,854 $ . 0.1981 $ 9,905 $ . 0.1323 $ 13 ,230 $ - 3.3633 $ 8,408 $ . 1.0797 $ 13,496 $ . 0.6329 $ 15,823 $ . 0.4158 $ 20 ,790 $ . 0.2478 $ 30,975 $ . 0.16 98 $ 42 ,450 $ . Technical Appendi x F 4-6 ----' --- _J Kc:v't:NUt: IMt'A(.; I ;:, Surplus/ Annual Annual (Subsidy) Actual Revenue@ General Fund Each Fee Annual Cost Current Fee Subsidy Subtotal $ . $ . $ . $ . $ $ . $ $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ (5 ,647) $ . $ . $ . $ (8 ,874 $ . $ . $ . $ (10 ,400 $ . $ . $ . $ (13,600) $ . $ . $ . $ (19,975 $ . $ . $ . $ (27 ,075) $ . $ . $ . $ . $ (1 ,108) $ 5,647 $ 4,539 $ (1 ,108) $ (8,874) $ . $ . $ . $ (10 ,400) $ . $ . $ . $ 66 ,968 $ 13 ,600 $ 80,568 $ 66,968 $ (19,975 ) $ . $ . $ $ (27 ,075 $ . $ . $ . $ 65,860 $ . $ . $ . $ $ . $ . $ $ - $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ (5,647 ) $ . $ -$ . $ (8 ,874) $ . $ . $ . $ (10,400) $ . $ . $ . $ (13,600) $ . $ . $ . $ (19,975) $ . $ . $ . $ (27,075) $ . $ $ . $ . $ (2 ,932) $ . $ . $ . $ (4 ,499 ) $ . $ . $ . $ (2 ,955) $ 163.401 $ 7 1,796 $ (91 ,605 ) $ (6 ,854) $ . $ $ . . $ (9,905) $ . $ . $ . $ (13 ,230) $ . $ . $ . $ (91,605) $ (8,408 ) $ . $ . $ . $ (13.496 ) $ . $ . $ . $ (15 ,823) $ . $ $ . $ (20 ,790 $ . $ $ . $ (30 ,975) $ . $ $ . $ (42 ,450 ) $ . $ . $ . $ - Printd : 9/29/2008 City of SAN LUIS OBISPO Community Development Department-Building Division New Construction Fees FEE AND REVENUE COMPARISONS r--. --·. -·· . Annual SF Volume of Class Occupa"cy Type Standard Activity R-1 Residential-Trans ient, Phased Perm it 2,500 0 -Board ing Houses, Hotels , Mote ls 12,500 0 --25,000 0 --50,000 0 --125,000 0 --250 ,000 0 R-2 Residential-Permanent, 2+ Dwell ings 1,000 0 -Apartment, Dormitory, Timeshare 5,000 4 --10 ,00 0 4 . -20,0 00 0 . -50 ,00 0 0 --100,000 0 R-2 Residential-Permanent, 2+, Pha se d 1,000 0 -Apartment , Dormitory, Timeshare 5,000 0 --10,000 1 --20,000 0 --50,000 0 --100,00 0 0 R-3 Dwell i ngs-Custom Homes 500 12 --1,000 10 --2,500 14 --4 ,000 12 --6,000 2 --8,000 0 R-3 Dwellings-Models, First Maste r Plan 500 0 --1,000 0 --2,50 0 0 . -4 ,000 0 --6,000 0 --8,000 0 R-3 Dwelli ngs-Production Phase 500 0 -of Master Plan (repeats) 1,000 0 --2,500 6 --4 ,000 34 --6,000 0 --8 ,000 0 R-3 Dwel lings-Alternate Materials 500 0 --1,000 0 --2.500 0 --4,000 0 MAXIMUS, Inc . UNI I 1..1.1.:, 1.:, Average Actual Cost per Unit Current SF Cost Fee 3.3633 $ 8,408 $ - 1.0797 $ 13,496 $ - 0 .63 29 $ 15,823 $ - 0.4158 $ 20,790 $ - 0.2478 $ 30,975 $ - 0.1698 $ 42,450 $ - 5 .80 85 $ 5,809 $ - 1.8487 $ 9,2 44 $ - 1.0835 $ 10,835 $ - 0.7105 $ 14,210 $ - 0.4210 $ 21,050 $ . 0.2872 $ 28,720 $ - 5.201 7 $ 5,202 $ - 1.630 3 $ 8,152 $ - 0 .9553 $ 9,553 $ - 0.6241 $ 12 ,482 $ - 0.3661 $ 18,305 $ - 0.2476 $ 24 ,760 $ - 5.5366 $ 2 ,768 $ 2 ,000 3.5355 $ 3,536 $ 2,891 1.8831 $ 4,70 8 $ 4 ,363 1.4098 $ 5,639 $ 5,465 1.1813 $ 7,0 88 $ 2,136 1.1183 $ 8,946 $ - 4.6141 $ 2,307 $ - 2 .9525 $ 2,953 $ . 1.8831 $ 4,708 $ - 1.1796 $ 4.718 $ - 0.99 10 $ 5,946 $ - 0.9393 $ 7,514 $ - 2.45 93 $ 1,230 $ - 1.6573 $ 1,657 $ - 1.0438 $ 2,610 $ 2,599 0.6933 $ 2,77 3 $ 5 ,073 0.6179 $ 3,707 $ - 0.6023 $ 4,818 $ - 0 .000 0 $ -$ - 0.000 0 $ -$ - 0 .000 0 $ -$ - 0 .0000 $ -$ - Technical Appendix F 4-7 r,;cVtNUI: IMr-1-\v t.:, Surplus/ Annual Annual (Subsidy), Actual Revenue@ General Fund Each Fee Annual Cost Current Fee Subsidy Subtotal $ (8 ,408 ) $ -$ -$ . $ (13,496' $ -$ -$ $ (15 ,823 ) $ -$ -$ - $ (20 ,790' $ -$ -$ - $ (30,975) $ . $ -$ - $ (42,450) $ -$ -$ -$ . $ (5,809) $ -$ -$ - $ (9,244) $ 36,974 $ -$ (36,974) $ (10 ,8 35 ) $ 43,340 $ -$ (43,340) $ (14,210) $ -$ . $ - $ (21,050 $ -$ -$ - $ (2 8,720 ) $ -$ -$ -$ (80 ,314) $ (5,202) $ -$ -$ $ (8 ,152 $ -$ -$ - $ (9,553) $ 9,553 $ -$ (9,553) $ (12,482 ) $ $ -$ - $ (18 ,305) $ . $ -$ - $ (2 4,76 0 $ -$ -$ -$ (9 ,553) $ (768) $ 33 ,220 $ 24,000 $ (9,220) $ (645) $ 35,355 $ 28 ,910 $ (6,445 ) $ (345 ) $ 65,909 $ 61,082 $ (4,827) $ (174) $ 67,670 $ 65,580 $ (2,0 90) $ (4,952) $ 14,176 $ 4,272 $ (9,90 4) $ (8,946 $ $ -$ -$ (32,485) $ (2,307) $ . $ -$ - $ (2,953) $ -$ -$ - $ (4,708 $ -$ -$ - $ (4,718) $ -$ -$ - $ (5,946) $ . $ -$ - $ (7,514) $ -$ -$ -$ - $ (1,230) $ -$ . $ - $ (1,657) $ -$ -$ . $ (11) $ 15,657 $ 15 ,594 $ (63) $ 2,300 $ 94,289 $ 172.482 $ 78,193 $ (3,707 $ -$ -$ - $ (4,818) $ -$ -$ -$ 78 ,130 $ -$ -$ -$ - $ -$ -$ -$ - $ -$ -$ . $ - $ -$ -$ -$ - Pr intd: 9/29/2008 City of SAN LUIS OBISPO Community Development Department-Building Division New Construction Fees FEE AND REVENUE COMPARISONS Annual SF Volume of Class Occupancy Type Standard Activity --6,000 0 -. 8,000 0 R-3 Dwellings-Hillside -Custom Homes 500 0 . . 1,000 0 ., . 2,500 0 . . 4 .000 0 . . 6,000 0 . -8,000 0 R-3 Dwellings-Hillside -Models, First Master 500 0 . Plan 1,000 0 . -2,500 0 . . 4,000 0 . . 6,000 0 . . 8,000 0 R-3 Dwelling s-Hillside -Production Phase 500 0 . of Master Plan (repeats) 1,000 0 . -2,500 0 . -4,000 0 --6,000 0 . -8,000 0 R-3 Dwellings-Hillside -Alternate Materials 500 0 . -1,000 0 . . 2,500 0 . . 4.000 0 . . 6,000 0 . . 8,000 0 R-4 Residential-Assisted Living (6-16 persons) 1,000 0 . . 5,000 0 . . 10,000 0 . . 20,000 0 . . 50,000 1 . . 100,000 0 R R Occupancy Tenant Improvements 500 9 . . 2,500 1 . 5,000 0 . . 10,000 0 . -25,000 0 . -50,000 0 S-1 Storage-Moderate Hazard 1,000 0 . . 5,000 0 MAXIMUS, Inc. Ul'III \..U.:i1<> Average Actual Cost per Unit Current SF Cost Fee 0.0000 $ -$ . 0.0000 $ . $ . 0.0000 $ -$ . 0.0000 $ -$ . 0.0 000 $ . $ - 0.0000 $ . $ . 0.0000 $ . $ . 0.0000 $ . $ . 0.0000 $ . $ . 0.0000 $ . $ . 0.0000 $ . $ 0.0000 $ . $ . 0.0000 $ . $ . 0.0000 $ . $ . 0.00 00 $ . $ . 0.0000 $ . $ . 0.0000 $ . $ . 0.0000 $ . $ . 0.0000 $ . $ . 0.0000 $ . $ . 0.0000 $ . $ . 0.0000 $ $ . 0.0000 $ . $ . 0.0000 $ . $ 0.0000 $ . $ . 0.0000 $ . $ - 5.9903 $ 5,990 $ 1,8967 $ 9,484 $ . 1.1116 $ 11,116 $ . 0.7280 $ 14,560 $ . 0.4299 $ 21,495 $ 33,995 0.2924 $ 29,240 $ . 6.9656 $ 3,483 $ 1,017 2.1763 $ 5,441 $ 4,441 1.2752 $ 6,376 $ . 0.8325 $ 8,325 $ . 0.4872 $ 12,180 $ . 0.3289 $ 16,445 $ 3.2787 $ 3,279 $ . 0.9977 $ 4,989 $ . Te ch nical Appendix F 4-8 __] ___J n:cv't:NUt: IMt'A(.; 1 ;-:, Surplus/ Annual Annual (Subsidy) Actual Revenue@ General Fund Each Fee Annual Cost Current Fee Subsidy Subtotal $ -$ . $ . $ - $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ $ . $ . $ . $ . $ - $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ - $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ -$ . $ -$ . $ . $ . $ -$ . $ . $ -$ - $ -$ -$ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ -$ . $ . $ . $ -$ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ - $ -$ -$ . $ . $ . $ (5,990) $ . $ . $ . $ (9,484 $ -$ . $ . $ (11 ,1 16) $ . $ . $ . $ (14,560) $ . $ . $ - $ 12 ,500 $ 21,495 $ 33,995 $ 12,500 $ (29,240) $ . $ . $ . $ 12,500 $ (2,466) $ 31,345 $ 9,153 $ (22,192) $ (1,000) $ 5,441 $ 4,441 $ (1,000) $ (6 ,376) $ . $ . $ . $ (8,325) $ . $ . $ . $ (12,180) $ . $ . $ - $ (16.445) $ . $ . $ . $ (23 ,192) $ (3,279) $ . $ . $ - $ (4,989) $ . $ . $ . Printd: 9/29/2008 City of SAN LUIS OBISPO Community Development Department-Building Division New Construction Fees FEE AND REVENUE COMPARISONS --.. ., Annual -SF Volume of Class Occupancy Type Standard Actlvlty --10,000 0 --20,000 1 --50,000 0 . -100,000 0 S-1 Storage-Moderate Hazard, Repair Garage 1,000 0 -Motor Vehicles (not High Hazard) 5 ,000 0 --10,000 0 --20,000 0 -. 50,000 0 --100.000 0 S-2 Storage-Low Hazard 1,000 1 --5,000 1 --10.000 1 . -20,000 0 --50 .000 0 . . 100,000 0 S-2 Storage-Low Hazard, Aircraft Hangar 1,000 0 -. 5,000 0 . -10,000 0 -. 20,000 0 . -50,000 0 -. 100,000 0 S-2 Storage-Low Hazard, Parking Garages 1,000 0 -Open or Enclosed 5,000 0 --10,000 0 . . 20 ,000 0 --50,000 0 -. 100,000 0 s S Occupancy Tenant Improvements 1,000 1 --5,000 4 -. 10,000 0 . 20,000 0 . -50,000 0 --100,000 0 u Accessory-Agricultural Building 600 0 . -3,000 0 . -6,000 0 -. 12,000 0 --30,000 0 --60,000 0 MAXIMUS , Inc . U N II I..U::i1;;, Average Actual Cost per Unit Current SF Cost Fee 0 .584 3 $ 5,843 $ - 0.3791 $ 7,582 $ 8,911 0 .2178 $ 10 ,890 $ - 0.1447 $ 14,470 $ 3.2787 $ 3 ,279 $ - 0.9977 $ 4,989 $ - 0.5843 $ 5,843 $ . 0.3791 $ 7,582 $ . 0.2178 $ 10,890 $ - 0.1447 $ 14,470 $ - 3.2787 $ 3,279 $ 5,054 0.9977 $ 4,989 $ 8,214 0.5843 $ 5,843 $ 9,896 0 .3791 $ 7,582 $ - 0.2178 $ 10,890 $ - 0.1447 $ 14,470 $ - 3.2787 $ 3,279 $ - 0.9977 $ 4,989 $ . 0.584 3 $ 5,843 $ - 0.3791 $ 7,582 $ - 0.2178 $ 10,890 $ - 0.1447 $ 14.470 $ - 3.2787 $ 3,279 $ - 0.9977 $ 4,989 $ - 0 .5843 $ 5,843 $ . 0.3791 $ 7,582 $ . 0 .2 178 $ 10,890 $ - 0.1447 $ 14,470 $ - 2.0085 $ 2,009 $ 722 0 .6071 $ 3,036 $ 1,588 0 .3 555 $ 3,555 $ . 0.2302 $ 4,604 $ . 0 .1316 $ 6,580 $ - 0.0870 $ 8,700 $ 0.0000 $ . $ - 0.0000 $ -$ - 0.0000 $ -$ - 0.0000 $ -$ - 0.0000 $ -$ - 0.0000 $ -$ - Technical Appendix F 4-9 t<t:vcl'IUE uv1r'AI.. I::; Surplus/ Annual Annual (Subsidy) Actual Revenue@ General Fund Each Fee Annual Cost Current Fee Subsidy Subtotal $ (5,843) $ -$ -$ - $ 1,329 $ 7,582 $ 8,911 $ 1,329 $ (10.890) $ -$ -$ - $ (14 ,470) $ -$ -$ -$ 1,329 $ (3 ,279) $ -$ . $ - $ (4 ,989) $ . $ -$ - $ (5.843) $ -$ -$ - $ (7,582) $ $ -$ - $ (10,890) $ -$ -$ - $ (14,470) $ -$ $ -$ . $ 1.775 $ 3,279 $ 5,054 $ 1,775 $ 3,226 $ 4,989 $ 8,214 $ 3,226 $ 4,053 $ 5,843 $ 9,896 $ 4,053 $ (7 ,582) $ . $ -$ - $ (10,890) $ -$ $ - $ (14.470) $ -$ -$ -$ 9,054 $ (3,279) $ . $ $ - $ (4,989) $ -$ . $ - $ (5,843) $ . $ -$ - $ (7,582) $ . $ $ - $ (10,890) $ . $ -$ - $ (14 ,470) $ . $ $ $ . $ (3,279) $ -$ -$ $ (4,989) $ -$ -$ - $ (5,843) $ -$ -$ . $ (7,582) $ $ . $ . $ (10,890) $ . $ -$ $ (14,470) $ -$ . $ -$ . $ (1 ,287) $ 2 ,009 $ 722 $ (1 ,287) $ (1,448) $ 12,142 $ 6 ,352 $ (5,790) $ (3,555) $ . $ . $ . $ (4,604) $ -$ . $ . $ (6,580) $ -$ -$ - $ (8,700) $ . $ -$ -$ (7,077) $ -$ . $ -$ - $ -$ . $ -$ - $ -$ -$ -$ - $ -$ -$ -$ - $ -$ . $ -$ - $ -$ . $ -$ . $ . Printd: 9/29/2008 L__ City of SAN LUIS OBISPO Community Development Department-Building Division New Construction Fees FEE AND REVENUE COMPARISONS Annual SF Volume of Class 0ccupimcy Type Standard Activity u Accessory-Barn or Shed 200 0 --1 ,000 0 -. 2,000 0 . -4,000 0 --10,000 0 . -20,000 0 u Accessory-Priva te Garage 200 0 . -1,000 0 2,000 0 --4,000 0 . -10,000 0 --20,000 0 u Accessory-Other 1,000 0 . 5,000 0 --10,000 0 --20,000 0 -. 50,000 0 --100,000 0 -Other Tenant Improvements 1,000 0 . 5,000 0 . -10,000 0 . -20,000 0 --50,000 0 --100,000 0 SHELL BUILDINGS -All Shell Buildings 1,000 0 . -5,000 0 . -10,000 0 -. 20,000 0 -. 50,000 0 --100,000 0 MAXIMUS , Inc . U NI J 1.,u;:,1;:, Average Actual Cost per Unit Current SF Cost Fee 0.0000 $ -$ - 0.0000 $ -$ - 0.0000 $ . $ - 0.0000 $ -$ - 0 .00 00 $ -$ - 0 .0000 $ -$ - 0 .0000 $ -$ - 0.0000 $ -$ - 0.0000 $ -$ - 0.0000 $ -$ - 0.0000 $ -$ - 0.0000 "$ . $ - 0.000 0 $ . $ - 0.0000 $ -$ - 0,0000 $ -$ - 0.0000 $ -$ - 0.0000 $ -$ - 0.0000 $ . $ - 0.0000 $ -$ - 0 .0000 $ -$ - 0.0000 $ -$ - 0.0000 $ -$ - 0 .0000 $ -$ - 0 .0000 $ . $ - 3 .8673 $ 3,867 $ - 1,1845 $ 5,923 $ - 0.6938 $ 6,938 $ - 0.4508 $ 9,016 $ - 0 .2602 $ 13,010 $ - 0.1735 $ 17,350 $ - Technical Appendix F 4 -10 __J ru:;vcf\lUt: I Mr"M,\, I ;:, Surplus/ Annual Annual (S ubsid y) Actual Revenue@ General Fund Each Fee Annual Cost Current Fee Subsidy Subtotal $ -$ . $ -$ - $ -$ -$ -$ . $ -$ -$ -$ . $ -$ . $ -$ - $ . $ -$ -$ - $ -$ -$ -$ -$ - $ -$ -$ -$ $ -$ -$ -$ - $ -$ -$ . $ - $ -$ -$ -$ - $ -$ -$ -$ - $ -$ . $ -$ . $ . $ -$ -$ -$ - $ -$ -$ -$ - $ -$ -$ -$ - $ -$ -$ -$ - $ -$ -$ . $ . $ -$ . $ -$ -$ - $ -$ -$ . $ . $ $ -$ -$ - $ -$ -$ -$ - $ -$ -$ -$ - $ -$ -$ -$ - $ -$ -$ -$ -$ - $ (3,867) $ -$ -$ - $ (5,923) $ -$ -$ - $ (6,938) $ -$ -$ . $ (9,016) $ -$ -$ - $ (13,010) $ -$ -$ - $ (17 ,350) $ -$ -$ -$ . Total Revenues : I $ 1,266,4131 s 886 ,029 l S (380 ,384)! $ (3 80,384)! Printd: 9/29/2008 City of SAN LUIS OBISPO · Community Development Department-Building Division New Construction Fees FEE AND REVENUE COMPARISONS , - ' ·Sf" Class Occupancy Type ~nd~i'd A-1 Assembly-Fixed Seating 1,0 00 . Theater, Concert Hall 5,000 . -10,000 --20,000 . -50 ,0 00 -. 100,000 A-2 Assembly-Food & Drink 1,000 . Restaurant, Night Club, Bar 5,000 . . 10,000 -. 20,000 . -50,000 . -100,000 A-3 Assembly-Workshop, Amusement 500 . Arcade, Church, Community Hall 2,500 -. 5,000 . -10,000 . . 25 ,000 --50 ,000 A-4 Assembly-Indoor Sport Viewing 500 . Arena, Skating Rink, Tennis Court 2,500 . . 5,000 . -10,000 . -25,000 . -50 ,000 A-5 Assembly-Outdoor Activities 1,500 -Amusement Park, Bleacher, Stadium 7,500 . 15,000 . -30,000 --75 ,000 --150,000 A A Occupancy Tenant Improvements 500 -2,500 --5,000 --10,000 --25,000 --50,000 B Business-Animal Hospital 500 . -2 ,500 --5,000 --10 ,000 MAXIMUS , Inc . RECOMMENDED FEES Annual Volume of Recommended Percent Public Subsidy Activity Fee Recovery Per Unit 0 $ 4,833 0 $ 7,503 0 $ 8,792 0 $ 11 ,462 0 $ 16,700 0 $ 22,460 0 $ 4,6 56 0 $ 7,185 0 $ 8,417 0 $ 10,958 0 $ 15,900 0 $ 21,310 0 $ 3,589 0 $ 5,511 0 $ 6,457 1 $ 8,396 0 $ 12,138 0 $ 16 ,215 0 $ 3,662 0 $ 5,607 0 $ 6,569 0 $ 8,536 0 $ 12,315 0 $ 16,425 0 $ 4,656 0 $ 7,184 0 $ 8,418 0 $ 10,959 0 $ 15,900 0 $ 21,315 0 $ 2,585 0 $ 3,930 11 $ 4,604 0 $ 5,972 0 $ 8,573 0 $ 11 ,380 0 $ 3,371 0 $ 5,223 0 $ 6,120 0 $ 7,975 Technical Appendix F 4 -11 100.00% $ - 100.00% $ . 100.00% $ - 100.00% $ . 100.00% $ - 100.00% $ - 100.00% $ . 100.00% $ . 100.00% $ - 100.00% $ 100.00% $ - 100.00% $ - 100.00% $ . 100.00% $ . 100.00% $ - 100.00% $ . 100.00% $ . 100.00% $ - 100.00% $ - 100.00% $ . 100.00% $ . 100.00% $ . 100.00% $ . 100.00% $ - 100.00% $ . 100.00% $ . 100.00% $ - 100.00% $ - 100.0 0% $ . 100.00% $ - 100.00% $ . 100.00% $ . 100.00% $ - 100.00% $ - 100.00% $ . 100.00% $ . 100.00% $ - 100.00% $ - 100.00% $ - 100 .00% $ - RECOMMENDED REVENUE Annual Actual Annual Revenue@ Annual Public Cost Rec'd Fee Subsidy $ -$ -$ . $ -$ -$ - $ -$ . $ - $ -$ -$ . s -$ -$ - $ . $ -$ - s . $ -$ - $ . $ -$ - s . $ -$ - $ . $ . $ - $ . $ . $ - $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ - $ . $ -$ - $ . $ -$ . $ 8,396· $ 8,396 $ - $ . $ -$ - $ -$ . $ - $ -$ . $ . $ -$ -$ - $ . $ -$ . $ . $ . $ . $ -$ . s . $ . $ . $ - $ . $ . $ - $ . $ -$ . $ -$ -$ - $ -$ -$ . $ -$ -$ - $ -$ . $ - $ -$ -$ - s . $ . $ . $ 50,639 $ 50,639 $ - $ . $ -$ - $ . $ -$ - $ -$ -$ . $ -$ -$ - $ . $ . $ - $ -$ -$ - $ . $ . $ . Printd : 9/29/2008 City of SAN LUIS OBISPO Community Development Department-Building Division New Construction Fees FEE AND REVENUE COMPARISONS . - SF Class Occupancy Type Standard . . 25 ,000 . -50 ,000 B Business-Bank 500 . -2,500 . . 5,000 . . 10,000 . . 25 ,000 . -50 .000 B Business-Barber Shop/Beauty Shop 500 . . 2 ,500 . . 5,000 . . 10,000 . -25 ,000 . -50,000 B Business-Car Wash 500 . . 2 ,500 . -5,000 -. 10,000 . . 25 ,000 . -50,000 B Business-Clinic, Outpatient 500 . -2,500 . . 5,000 . . 10,000 . 25,000 . . 50 ,000 B Business-Dry Cleaning 500 . . 2 ,500 . . 5,000 . 10,000 . . 25,000 . -50 ,000 B Business-Laboratory 500 . -2 ,500 . -5 ,000 --10,000 . -25,000 -50 ,000 B Business-Motor Vehicle Showroom 500 . 2,500 MAXIMUS , Inc . RECOMMENDED FEES Annual Volume of Recommended Percent Public Subs idy Activity Fee Recovery Per Unit 0 $ 11,603 0 $ 15,585 0 $ 3,371 0 $ 5,223 0 $ 6,120 7 $ 7,975 0 $ 11,603 0 $ 15,585 0 $ 3,371 0 $ 5,223 0 $ 6,120 0 $ 7 ,975 0 $ 11,603 0 $ 15 ,585 0 $ 3,371 0 $ 5,223 0 $ 6,120 0 $ 7,975 0 $ 11,603 0 $ 15 ,585 0 $ 3,371 0 $ 5,223 0 $ 6,120 0 $ 7,975 0 $ 11,603 0 $ 15 ,585 0 .$ 3 ,371 0 $ 5,223 0 $ 6 ,120 0 $ 7,975 0 $ 11,603 0 $ 15,585 0 $ 3,371 0 $ 5,223 0 $ 6 ,1 20 0 $ 7,975 0 $ 11,603 0 $ 15,585 0 $ 1,765 0 $ 2,332 Technical Appendix F 4 -12 100.00% $ - 100.00% $ . 100.00% $ . 100.00% $ . 100.00% $ - 100.00% $ - 100 .00 % $ . 100.00% $ . 100.00% $ . 100.00% $ . 100.00% $ . 100.00% $ . 100 .00 % $ . 100.00% $ - 100.00% $ . 100.00% $ - 100.00% $ . 100.00% $ . 100.00% $ . 100 .00% $ - 100 .00% $ . 100.00% $ - 100.00% $ - 100.00% $ . 100.00% $ . 100.00% $ . 100.00% $ . 100.00% $ . 100.00% $ . 100.00% $ . 100.00% $ 100.00% $ . 100.00% $ - 100.00% $ . 100.00% $ . 100.00% $ . 100.00% $ - 100.00% $ . 100.00% $ . 100.00% $ . _j RECOMMENDED REVEN UE Annual Actual Annual Revenue@ Annual Public Cost Rec'd Fee Subsidy $ . $ -$ . s . $ . $ - $ . $ -$ . $ -$ . $ - $ -$ . $ - $ 55,825 $ 55.825 $ . $ -$ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ -$ . $ - $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ -$ . $ . $ . $ -$ . $ . $ -$ . $ -$ -$ ,. $ . $ -$ . $ . $ . $ . $ -$ -$ . $ . $ -$ - $ . $ -$ - $ . $ -$ . $ . $ . $ - $ -$ . $ - $ -$ . $ . $ -$ . $ $ -$ -$ . $ . $ -$ . $ -$ . $ - $ . $ -$ . s -$ -$ . $ -$ . $ - $ -$ . $ . $ . $ -$ . $ . $ . $ . s -$ . $ - $ -$ -$ . $ -$ . $ . $ -$ . $ . $ . $ -$ . $ . $ . $ . Printd: 9/29/2008 City of SAN LUIS OBISPO Community Development Department-Building Division New Construction Fees FEE AND REVENUE COMPARISONS RECOMMENDED FEES I . SF Class Occupancy Type Standard . . 5 ,000 . . 10,000 . -25,000 . -50,000 B Business-Professional Office 500 . . 2 ,500 . . 5,000 . . 10,000 . . 25,000 . . 50,000 B B Occupancy Tenant Improvements 500 . . 2 ,500 . . 5,000 . . 10,000 . . 25,000 -. 50 ,000 E Educational-Group Occupancy 500 . 6+ persons, up to the 12th Grade 2 ,500 -. 5 ,000 . -10,000 . . 25,000 -. 50 ,000 E Educatio nal-Day Care 500 -5+ children, o lder t han 2 1 /2 yrs 2,500 . . 5,000 . -10,000 . -25,000 -. 50,000 E E Occupancy Tenant Improvements 500 -. 2 ,500 . -5,000 -. 10,000 . . 25,000 -. 50 ,000 F-1 Factory In du strial-Moderate Hazard 1,000 . . 5,000 . . 10,000 . . 20,000 . . 50,000 . . 100,000 MAXIMUS , Inc . Annual Volume of Recommended Percent Activity Fee Recovery 0 $ 2J 25 0 $ 3,405 0 $ 4,335 0 $ 5,095 0 $ 3,144 0 $ 4,815 0 $ 5,640 0 $ 7,329 0 $ 10,575 0 $ 14,105 14 $ 2,232 0 $ 3,372 105 $ 3,950 0 $ 5,116 0 $ 7,310 0 $ 9,665 0 $ 3,662 0 $ 5,607 0 $ 6,569 0 $ 8,536 0 $ 12,315 0 $ 16 ,425 0 $ 3,662 0 $ 5,607 0 $ 6,569 0 $ 8,536 0 $ 12,315 0 $ 16 ,425 0 $ 2 ,458 0 $ 3,762 0 $ 4,407 0 $ 5,726 0 $ 8,260 0 $ 11,010 0 $ 4,791 0 $ 5.457 0 $ 6,054 0 $ 6,976 0 $ 8,530 0 $ 10,260 Technica l Appendix F 4 -13 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00 % 100 .00 % 100 .00%, 100.00 % 100.00% 100 .00% 100.00% 100 .00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00 % 100.00 % 100.00 % 100 .00 % 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00 % 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100 .00 % 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100 .00 % 100.00% 100 .00% Public Subsidy Per Unit $ . $ . $ - $ - $ - $ . $ . $ . $ . $ - $ . $ - $ . $ . $ . $ . $ - $ . $ - $ - $ $ - $ . $ . $ . $ $ . $ - $ . $ . $ .· $ . $ - $ . $ $ $ $ $ $ . RECOMMENDED RE.VEN UE Annual Actual Annual Revenue@ Annual Public Cost Rec'd Fee Subsidy $ -$ -$ . s . $ . $ - $ . $ . $ - s . $ . $ . s . $ . $ - $ -$ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . s . $ -$ . $ . $ . $ . $ 31 ,244 $ 31,244 $ - $ . $ . $ . $ 414,698 $ 414 ,698 $ . s . $ . $ . $ . s -$ - $ . $ . $ . s -$ . $ - $ . $ . $ - s -$ $ . $ . $ . $ - $ . $ -$ . $ -$ . $ - $ . $ -$ - $ -$ . $ - $ . $ . $ . $ -$ -$ - s . $ . $ - $ . $ -$ - $ -$ . $ - $ -$ -$ - $ . $ . $ - $ . $ $ . $ -$ . $ . $ -$ • . $ . s . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ - $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ -$ . $ . $ . $ . $ . Printd: 9/29/2008 ..._ City of SAN LUIS OBISPO Community Development Department-Building Division New Construction Fees FEE AND REVENUE COMPARISONS SF Class Occupancy Typ·e Standard F-2 Factory Industrial-Low Hazard 1,000 -. 5,000 --10,000 -. 20 ,000 . . 50.000 --100,000 F F Occupancy Tenant Improvements 1,000 . -5,000 --10.000 . . 20,000 -. 50,000 --100,000 H-1 High Hazard Group H-1 500 -Pose a detonation hazard 2,500 . 5 ,000 --10,000 --25,000 --50,000 H-2 High Hazard Group H-2 500 -Pose a deflagration hazard 2,500 --5,000 --10,000 -. 25,000 --50,000 H-3 High Hazard Group H-3 500 -Readily support combustion 2,500 --5,000 --10,000 -. 25,000 --50 ,000 H-4 High Hazard Group H-4 250 -Pose health hazards 1,250 . . 2,500 --5,000 --12,500 . -25,000 H-5 High Hazard Group H-5 250 -Semiconductor Fabrication, R&D 1,250 -. 2,500 -. 5 ,000 MAXIMUS, Inc. RECOMMENDED FEES Annual Volume of Recommended Percent Public Subsidy Activity Fee Recovery Per Unit 0 $ 3,283 1 $ 4,994 1 $ 5,850 0 $ 7,590 0 $ 10,900 0 $ 14 .480 0 $ 2,277 0 $ 3,439 0 $ 4,027 0 $ 5.216 0 $ 7.450 0 $ 9,850 0 $ 3.635 0 $ 5,541 0 $ 6,490 0 $ 8,425 0 $ 12.118 0 $ 16,115 0 $ 3,635 0 $ 5,541 0 $ 6,490 0 $ 8,425 0 $ 12,118 0 $ 16,115 0 $ 3,635 0 $ 5,541 0 $ 6,490 0 $ 8.425 0 $ 12,118 0 $ 16,115 0 $ 3.635 0 $ 5,541 0 $ 6.490 0 $ 8,425 0 $ 12,116 0 $ 16,113 0 $ 3,147 0 $ 4,664 0 $ 5.460 0 $ 7,038 Technical Appendix F 4 -14 100.00% $ 100.00% $ 100.00% $ - 100.00% $ . 100.00% $ 100.00% $ . 100.00% $ - 100.00% $ - 100.00% $ - 100.00% $ . 100.00% $ - 100.00% $ - 100.00% $ - 100.00% $ - 100.00% $ - 100.00% $ - 100.00% $ - 100.00% $ - 100.00% $ - 100.00% $ - 100.00% $ 100.00% $ - 100.00% $ - 100.00% $ . 100 ,00% $ - 100.00% $ - 100.00% $ - 100.00% $ - 100.00% $ - 100.00% $ - 100.00% $ - 100.00% $ - 100.00% $ - 100.00% $ - 100.00% $ - 100.00% $ . 100.00% $ - 100.00% $ . 100.00% $ - 100.00% $ - RECOMMENDED REVENUE Annual Actual Annual Revenue@ Annual Public Cost Rec'd Fee Subsidy $ -$ $ - s 2,49 7 $ 2.497 $ - $ 2,925 $ 2,925 $ - $ -$ -$ s . $ -$ - $ -$ $ - s . $ . $ - $ -$ -$ - s -$ -$ - $ . $ . $ - $ -$ . $ - s . $ -$ - $ -$ -$ - $ -$ -$ - s -$ . $ - $ -$ -$ s -$ -$ - $ -$ -$ $ -$ -$ - $ -$ -$ - $ -$ -$ - $ -$ . $ s -$ . $ - $ . $ -$ - $ -$ -$ - $ -$ -$ . s -$ $ - $ -$ -$ - $ -$ -$ . s . $ -$ . $ -$ -$ . $ . $ . $ - $ . $ -$ - $ . $ . $ - $ -$ -$ . $ . $ . $ . $. . $ . $ - $ -$ . $ $· . $ . $ - $ -$ . $ - Printd: 9/29/2008 City of SAN LUIS OBISPO Community Development Department-Building Division New Construction Fees FEE AND REVENUE COMPARISONS R ECOMM E NDED FEES r . SF Class Occupancy Type Standard . . 12.500 . . 25,000 H H Occupancy Tenant Improvements 250 . . 1,250 . . 2,500 . . 5,000 . . 12,500 . . 25.000 1-1 lnstitutional-17+ persons, ambulatory 1,000 . . 5,000 . . 10,000 . . 20,000 . . 50,000 . . 100,000 1-2 lnstitutional-6+ persons, non-ambulatory 1,000 . . 5,000 . . 10,000 . . 20 ,000 . . 50,000 . . 100 ,000 1-3 lnstitutional-6+ persons, restrained 1,000 . . 5,000 . . 10,000 . . 20,000 . . 50,000 . . 1 DO .ODO 1-4 lnsUtutiona l-6+ persons, day care 1,000 . . 5,000 . . 10,000 . . 20,000 . . 50,000 . . 100,000 I I Occupancy Tenant Imp rovements 1,000 . . 5 ,000 . . 10 ,000 . . 20,000 . . 50,000 . . 100,000 L Labs (California ONLY) 2,000 . . 10,000 MAXIMUS , In c. Annual Volume of Recommended Percent Activity Fee Recovery 0 $ 9,911 0 $ 12.930 0 $ 2,858 1 $ 4,407 0 $ 5,163 0 $ 6 ,721 0 $ 9,745 0 $ 13.053 0 $ 4,508 0 $ 6,919 0 $ 8,106 0 $ 10 ,540 0 $ 15,230 0 $ 20,340 0 $ 4.50 8 0 $ 6,919 0 $ 8,106 0 $ 10,540 0 $ 15,230 0 $ 20,340 0 $ 4,508 0 $ 6,919 0 $ 8,106 0 $ 10,540 0 $ 15,230 0 $ 20,340 0 $ 4,508 0 $ 6,919 0 $ 8,106 0 $ 10,540 0 $ 15,230 0 $ 20 ,340 1 $ 2,865 1 $ 4,416 0 $ 5,173 0 $ 6.734 0 $ 9,760 0 $ 13.070 0 $ . 0 $ . Technical Appendix F 4 -15 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100 .00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100 .00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100 .00% 100.00% 100.00% 100 ,00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% Public S ubsi dy Per Unit $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ - $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ - $ . $ . $ . $ - $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . RECOMMENDED REV ENU E Annual Actual Annual Revenue@ Annual Public Cost Rec'd Fee Subsidy $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ $ . $ 2,204 $ 2,204 $ . $ . $ $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ -$ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ "' $ . s· . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ .. $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . s $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ -$ . $ . $ . $ . $ -$ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ 2,865 $ 2,865 $ . $ 2,208 $ 2,208 $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . Printd : 9/29/200 8 ~ L.. City of SAN LUIS OBISPO Community Development Department-Building Division New Construction Fees FEE AND REVENUE COMPARISONS - Annual SF Volume ot Class Occupancy Type ~ Standard Activity --20 ,000 0 . . 40 ,000 0 --100,000 0 --200 ,000 0 M Mercantile-Department & Drug Store 2,500 0 . -12,500 0 --25,000 0 --50,000 0 --125,000 0 . -250,000 0 M Mercantile-Market 2,500 1 . -12,500 0 --25,000 0 --50,000 1 . -125,000 0 --250 ,000 0 M Mercantile-Motor fuel-dispensing 400 0 --2,000 0 --4.000 0 --8,000 0 -20,000 0 . 40 ,000 0 M Mercantile-Retail or wholesale store 2,500 0 --12,500 0 , -25,000 0 --50,000 0 -. 125,000 0 --250,000 0 M M Occupancy Tenant Improvements 1,000 0 --5,000 0 . . 10,000 31 . . 20,000 0 . . 50,000 0 . . 100,000 0 R-1 Residential-Transient 2,500 0 . Boarding Houses , Hotels, Motels 12,500 0 . -25,000 0 . -50,000 0 . . 125,000 0 . . 250,000 0 RECOMMENDED FEES Recommended Percent Public Subsidy Fee Recovery Per Unit $ -$ . $ -$ - $ . $ . $ . $ . $ 5,647 100.00% $ - $ 8,874 100.00% $ . $ 10,400 100.00% $ - $ 13 ,600 100.00% $ . $ 19,975 100.00% $ . $ 27,075 100.00% $ - $ 5,647 100.00% $ . $ 8,874 100.00% $ . $ 10 ,400 100.00% $ . $ 13,600 100.00% $ - $ 19,975 100.00% $ . $ 27 ,075 100.00% $ . $ -$ . $ -$ - $ -$ - $ -$ - $ . $ . $ -$ - $ 5,647 100.00% $ - $ 8,874 100.00% $ . $ 10,400 100.00% $ . $ 13,600 100.00% $ . $ 19,975 100 .00% $ - $ 27 ,075 100 .00% $ . $ 2,932 100.00% $ . $ 4.499 100.00% $ - $ 5,271 100.00% $ . $ 6,854 100.00% $ - $ 9,905 100.00% $ . $ 13 ,230 100.00% $ - $ 8,408 100.00% $ . $ 13,496 100.00% $ . $ 15,823 100.00% $ . $ 20,790 100.00% $ . $ 30,975 100.00% $ . $ 42,450 100.00% $ - MAXIMUS, Inc. Technical Appendix F 4 -16 RECOMMENDED REVENUE Annual Actual Annual Revenue@ Annual Public Cost Rec'd Fee Subsidy $ -$ . $ - $ -$ -$ . $ . $ . $ . $ -$ . $ . s . $ -$ . $ -$ . $ - $ -$ -$ . $ . $ -$ . $ . $ . $ . s . $ -$ . $ 5,647 $ 5,647 $ . s -$ -$ . $ . $ -$ . $ 13 ,600 $ 13,600 $ - $ -$ -$ - $ . $ -$ . s -s -$ . $ -$ -$ . $ -$ . $ - $ -$ -$ . $ . $ -$ . $ . $ . $ - $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ -$ -$ - $ . $ . $ . $ . $ -$ . $ -$ . $ . $ . $ . $ - $ . $ -$ - $ 163,40 1 $ 163,401 $ . $ . $ -$ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ -$ - $ . $ . $ - $ . $ . $ - s -$ . $ . $ . $ -$ . $ . $ -$ . $ $ . $ . Printd: 9/29/2008 City of SAN LUIS OBISPO Community Development Department-Building Division New Construction Fees FEEANDREVENUECOMPARIBONS I - Annual SF Volume of Class Occupancy Type Standard Activity R-1 Residential-Transient, Phased Permit 2,500 0 . Boarding Houses, Hotels, Motels 12,500 0 . . 25,000 0 . . 50,000 0 . . 125,000 0 . . 250 ,000 0 R-2 Residential-Permanent, 2+ Dwellings 1,000 0 . Apartment, Dormitory, Timeshare 5,000 4 . . 10,000 4 . . 20,000 0 . . 50 ,000 0 . . 100,000 0 R-2 Residential-Permanent, 2+, Phased 1,000 0 . Apartment, Dorm itory, Timeshare 5,000 0 . . 10,000 1 . . 20,000 0 . . 50,000 0 . . 100,000 0 R-3 Dwellings-Custom Homes 500 12 . . 1,000 10 . . 2,500 14 . . 4,000 12 . . 6,000 2 . . 8,000 0 R-3 Dwellings-Models, First Master Plan 500 0 . . 1,000 0 . -2,500 0 . -4,000 0 . -6,000 0 . . 8.000 0 R-3 Dwellings-Production Phase 500 0 . of Master Plan (repeats) 1,000 0 . . 2,500 6 . . 4,000 34 . . 6,000 0 . -8.000 0 R-3 Dwellings-Alternate Materials 500 0 . . 1,000 0 . . 2,500 0 . . 4,000 0 RE€OMMENDED FEES Recommended Percent Public Subsidy Fee Recovery Per Unit $ 8,408 100.00% $ . $ 13,496 100 .00% $ . $ 15,82 3 100.00% $ . $ 20 ,790 100.00% $ . $ 30 ,975 100.00% $ . $ 42,450 100.00% $ - $ 5,809 100.00% $ . $ 9,244 100.00% $ - $ 10,835 100 .00% $ . $ 14,210 100 .00% $ . $ 21 ,050 100.00% $ $ 28,720 100 .00% $ . $ 5,202 100.00% $ - $ 8,152 100.00% $ . $ 9,553 100.00% $ - $ 12,482 100.00% $ . $ 18 ,305 100.00 % $ . $ 24,760 100.00% $ $ 2,768 100.00% $ . $ 3,536 100.00% $ . $ 4,708 100.00% $ . $ 5,639 100.00% $ $ 7,088 100.00% $ - $ 8,946 100.00% $ . $ 2,307 100 .00% $ . $ 2.953 100.00% $ . $ 4,708 100.00% $ . $ 4,718 100 .00% $ . $ 5,946 100.00% $ $ 7,514 100.00% $ $ 1,230 100.00% $ $ 1,657 100.00% $ . $ 2,610 100.00% $ . $ 2,773 100.00% $ $ 3,707 100.00% $ . $ 4,818 100.00% $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . MAXIMUS , Inc. Technical Appendix F 4 -17 RECOMMENDED REVENUE Annual Actual Annual Revenue@ Annual Public Cost Rec'd Fee Subsidy $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ •. $ . $ . $ .. $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ 36,974 $ 36,974 $ . $ 43,340 $ 43,340 $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ 9,553 $ 9,553 $ - $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ 33,220 $ 33,220 $ . $ 35,355 $ 35,355 $ . $ 65,909 $ 65,909 $ . $ 67,670 $ 67,670 $ . $ 14,176 $ 14,176 $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ - $ . $ -$ - $ . $ . $ - $ . $ . $ - $ -$ -$ - $ . $ . $ - $ -$ . $ . $ 15,657 $ 15,657 $ . $ 94,289 $ 94,289 $ . $ -$ . $ - $ . $ . $ . $ . $ $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . Printd: 9/29/2008 City of SAN LUIS OBISPO Community Development Department-Building Division New Construction Fees FEE AND REVENUE COMPARISONS - SF Class Occupancy Type Standard . -6,000 -. 8,000 R-3 Dwellings-Hillside -Custom Homes 500 . . 1,000 -. 2,500 -. 4,000 . -6,000 . -8,000 R-3 Dwellings-Hillside -Models, First Master 500 . Plan 1,000 -. 2,500 . -4 ,000 --6,000 --8,000 R-3 Dwellings-Hillside -Production Phase 500 -of Master Plan (repeats) 1,000 --2,500 . -4 ,000 -. 6,000 . -8,000 R-3 Dwellings-Hillside -Alternate Materials 500 . . 1,000 --2,500 --4,000 -. 6,000 --8,000 R-4 Residential-Assisted Living (6-16 persons) 1,000 -. 5,000 --10,000 -. 20,000 -. 50 ,000 -. 100 ,000 R R Occupancy Tenant Improvements 500 --2,500 . -5,000 -. 10 ,0 00 --25,000 -. 50,000 S-1 Storage-Moderate Haza rd 1,000 . -5,000 MAXIMUS , Inc . RECOMMENDED FEES Annual Volume o1 Recommended Percent Public Subsidy Activity Fee Recovery Per Unit 0 $ - 0 $ . 0 $ - 0 $ . 0 $ - 0 $ . 0 $ . 0 $ . 0 $ . 0 $ . 0 $ . 0 $ - 0 $ . 0 $ - 0 $ . 0 $ - 0 $ . 0 $ . 0 $ - 0 $ . 0 $ - 0 $ . 0 $ . 0 $ . 0 $ 0 $ . 0 $ 5,990 0 $ 9,484 0 $ 11,116 0 $ 14,560 1 $ 21,495 0 $ 29,240 9 $ 3,483 1 $ 5,441 0 $ 6,376 0 $ 8,325 0 $ 12,180 0 $ 16 ,445 0 $ 3,279 0 $ 4 ,989 Techni cal Appendix F 4 -18 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ . $ - $ . $ . $ - $ . $ - $ . $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ . $ - $ - $ . $ - $ - $ . $ - $ - 100.00% $ . 100.00% $ - 100.00% $ - 100.00% $ . 100.00% $ - 100.00% $ . 100.00% $ - 100.00% $ . 100.00% $ - 100.00% $ 100.00% $ . 100.00% $ - 100.00% $ - 100.00% $ - RECOMMENDED REVENUE Annual Actual Annual Revenue@ Annual Public Cost Rec'd Fee Subsidy $ -$ . $ . $ -$ . $ . $ -$ $ . $ . $ -$ - $ -$ -$ . $ . $ . $ . $ -$ -$ - $ -$ -$ . $ -$ . $ . $ $ -$ . $ -$ . $ . $ -$ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ -$ -$ - $ . $ -$ . $ . $ -$ - $ . $ -$ - $ . $ -$ . $ . $ -$ . $ -$ -$ . $ -$ -$ . $ -$ -$ . $ -$ -$ . $ . $ -$ . $ . $ -$ - $ . $ -$ . $ -$ . $ - $ -$ -$ - $ . $ . $ . $ 21,495 $ 21,495 $ . $ -$ . $ - $ 31,345 $ 31,345 $ - $ 5,441 $ 5,441 $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ -$ . $ . $ . $ . $ -$ -$ - $ . s -$ - $ . $ -$ - Printd: 9/29/2008 City of SAN LUIS OBISPO Community Development Department-Building Division New Construction Fees FEE AND REVENUE COMPARISONS . SF Class Occupancy Type Standard . . 10,000 . . 20 ,000 . -50 ,000 . 100,000 S-1 Storage-Moderate Hazard , Repair Garage 1,000 . Motor Vehicles (not High Hazard) 5,000 . . 10,000 --20 ,000 . . 50,000 . . 100,000 S-2 Storage-Low Hazard 1,000 . . 5,000 . . 10,000 . . 20 ,000 . . 50,000 -. 100,000 S-2 Storage-Low Hazard, Aircraft Hangar 1,000 . 5,000 --10 ,000 . 20 ,000 . . 50,000 . . 100,000 S-2 Storage-Low Hazard , Parking Garages 1,000 . Open or Enclosed 5,000 . . 10,000 -. 20 ,000 -. 50,000 . . 100,000 s S Occupancy Tenant Improvements 1,000 . . 5,000 . -10,000 . . 20 ,000 . . 50,000 . . 100,000 u Accessory-Agricultural Building 600 . -3,000 . . 6,000 . . 12,000 . . 30,000 . . 60,000 MAXIMUS, Inc. RECOMMENDED FEES Annual Volume-of Recommended Percent Public Subsidy Ac~ivlty Fee Recovery Per Unit 0 $ 5,843 1 $ 7,582 0 $ 10,890 0 $ 14 ,470 0 $ 3,279 0 $ 4 ,989 0 $ 5 ,843 0 $ 7,582 0 $ 10,890 0 $ 14,470 1 $ 3,279 1 $ 4,989 1 $ 5,843 0 $ 7,582 0 $ 10,890 0 $ 14,470 0 $ 3,279 0 $ 4,989 0 $ 5,843 0 $ 7,582 0 $ 10,890 0 $ 14,470 0 $ 3,279 0 $ 4,989 0 $ 5,843 0 $ 7,582 0 $ 10,890 0 $ 14.470 1 $ 2,009 4 $ 3,036 0 $ 3,555 0 $ 4,604 0 $ 6.580 0 $ 8,700 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ . 0 $ . 0 $ . 0 $ . Technical Appendix F 4 -19 100.00% $ . 100.00% $ . 100.00% $ 100.00% $ . 100.00% $ . 100.00 % $ . 100.00% $ . 100.00% $ . 100.00% $ . 100 .00% $ - 100.00% $ . 100.00% $ . 100.00% $ . 100 .0 0% $ . 100.00% $ - 100.00% $ - 100.00% $ . 100.00% $ . 100.00% $ . 100.00% $ - 100.00% $ . 100.00% $ . 100.00% $ - 100.00% $ . 100.00% $ - 100.00% $ . 100.00% $ - 100.00% $ . 100.00% $ . 100.00% $ . 100.00% $ . 100.00% $ . 100.00% $ - 100.00% $ . $ . $ - $ . $ . $ . $ . RECOMMENDED REVENUE Annual Actual Annual Revenue@ Annual Public Cost Rec'd Fee Subsidy s . $ . $ . $ 7,582 $ 7,582 $ - $ . $ -$ . $ . $ . $ - $ . $ . $ . $ -$ . $ . $ -$ . $ . $ . $ . $ - $ . $ . $ . $ . $ -$ . $ 3,279 $ 3,279 $ . s 4 ,989 $ 4,989 $ . s 5,843 $ 5,843 $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ -$ . $ $ -$ -$ - s. -$ . $ . s . $ . $ . $ . $ -$ - $ . $ . $ . $ -$ . $ . s -$ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ - $ -$ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ 2,009 $ 2,009 $ . s 12,142 $ 12,142 $ - $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ $ . $ - $ . $ . $ - $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ $ . $ . $ . $ -$ . $ . $ $ . $ . $ . $ . Printd : 9/29/2008 City of SAN LUIS OBISPO Community Development Department-Building Division New Construction Fees FEE AND REVENUE COMPARISONS RECOMM EN DE D F EES -----. SF Class Occ upa ncy Type Standard u Accessory-Barn or Shed 200 -. 1,000 . . 2,000 --4 ,000 . . 10,000 -. 20,000 u A ccessory-Private Garage 200 --1,000 -. 2,000 -. 4,000 -. 10,000 . . 20,000 u Accessory-Other 1,000 --5.000 . . 10,000 -. 20,000 . . 50 ,000 -. 100,000 . Other Tenant Improvements 1,000 . . 5 ,000 . . 10,000 . . 20 ,000 . . 50,000 . -100 ,000 SHELL BUILDINGS . All Shell Buildings 1,000 . . 5,000 . -10.000 . -20 ,000 . . 50,000 . . 100 ,000 MAXIMUS , Inc . Annual Volume of Rec omm ended Percent Activity Fee Recovery 0 $ - 0 $ . 0 $ . 0 $ . 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ . 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ . 0 $ - 0 $ 0 $ . 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ . 0 $ . 0 $ - 0 $ . 0 $ - 0 $ . 0 $ 3,867 0 $ 5,923 0 s 6 ,938 0 $ 9,016 0 $ 13,010 0 $ 17,350 Technical Append ix F 4 -20 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% Public Subsidy Per Unit $ . $ - $ - $ . $ . $ - $ . $ - $ . $ . $ - $ - s . $ . $ - $ - $ - $ - $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . s . $ . $ . ----- RECOMMENDED REVENUE Annual Actual Annual Revenue@ Annual Public Cost Rec'd Fee Subsidy $ -$ $ . s . s . s . $ . $ -$ - $ . s -s - $ . $ -s . s -$ . $ . $ . $ -s - $ -$ -s - s . $ -$ - $ -$ . s - s -$ . $ . $ . s . s . $ . $ . $ . $ -s . $ . $ . $ . s - s -$ -$ . $ . s . s - $ -$ . s - $ . $ $ . $ . s . s . $ -$ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . s . $ . $ - $ -$ . $ . ·S . $ . $ . $ . s . $ . $ -s . s . Total Rev enue s: , s 1,266,4131 s 1,266,413 I s Printd: 9/29/2008 City of SAN LUIS OBISPO Community Development Department-Building Division MECHANICAL, ELECTRICAL & PLUMBING PERMIT FEES --- -Estlmat edTfme FY 05-06 (In Volume UNI I 1,;1:1:;i:s FY 05-06 m i nutes (# of ·Actu,;il Un it Average FEE TYPES l Units) Cost Current Fee $ 1.85 AD MIN ISTRATIVE AND MISC . FEES Tra ve l and Do cumentation Fee s : $ Simple Project (1 trip) $ . Moderate Proj ect (2 trips) $ . Complex Project (3 trips ) $ - $ - Permit Issuance 65 $ 119.95 Supplemental Permit Issuance $ . MECHANICAL PERMIT FEES Stand Alone Mechanical Plan Check (per 1!2 hour) 30 .00 $ 55.36 $ - UNIT FEES : $ . $ A/C (R esidential) -each 15 $ 27.68 Furnaces (F.A.U .. Floor) 15 $ 27 ,68 Heater (Wall ) 15 $ 27 68 Refridg era ti on Compressor/Condenser 25 $ 46,13 Boil er 25 $ 46.13 Chille r 25 $ 46.13 Heat Pump (Package Unit) 15 $ 27 ,68 Heater (Unit, Radiant, etc.) 15 $ 27.68 Air Handler 15 $ 27 .68 Duct Work only 15 $ 27.68 Evap orative Cooler 15 $ 27.68 Make-up Air System 15 $ 27 .68 Vent Fan (Sing le Du ct) -each 15 $ 2768 Exhaust Ho od and Duct (Residential ) 15 $ 27 .68 Exhau st Hood -Type I (Commercial Grease Hood) 30 $ 55 36 Exha ust Hood -Type II (Commercia l Steam Hood) 20 $ 36 ,91 Walk-in Box/ Refrigerator Coil 20 $ 36 ,91 Miscellaneous Mechanical Items NOS ('not otherwise specified } 20 $ 36 .91 $ . Other Mechanical Inspections (per hour) 60 .00 $ 110.72 $ . Mechanical Volume and Current Fee Analysis 18_33 42 $ 33 .83 $ 29 .00 PLUMBING I GAS PERMIT FEES MAXIMUS, Inc. REVENUE IMPACTS Surplus/ (Subsidy) Actual Per Unit Annual Cost $ -$ . $ . $ . $ -$ . $ -$ . $ -$ - $ (119 95 $ . $ . $ . $ (55 .36) $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ - $ (27.68 $ . $ (27.68 $ . $ (27 66 ) $ . $ (46 .13 $ . $ (46.13) $ - $ (46 .13 $ - $ (27 .68 $ - $ (27.68 $ . $ (27 .68 s . $ (27.68 ) $ . $ (27 68 s . $ (27 68) $ . $ (27.68 $ . $ (27.68 $ . $ (55.36 $ . $ (36 91 $ . $ (36 91 $ . $ (36.91 $ . $ . $ . $ (110.72 $ . $ . $ . $ (4 .83) $ 1,421 Tecnical Appendix F 5-21 Annual Revenue@ Annual Genera l Current Fee Fund Subsidy $ . $ . $ $ . $ . $ $ $ $ s . $ .. s . $ -$, . $ . $ $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . S. . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ $ . $ . $ $ . $ . $ $ . $ $ . $ - $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . s $ . $ . $ . $ $ . $ $ . $ $ . $ . $ -s . $ . $ . $ . $ - $ . $ . $ . $ . $ 1,218 $ (203) RECOMMENDE D FE E_S Public Rec ommend-Percent Subsidy Per ed Fee Recovery Unit $ -$ - $ -$ $ . $ $ $ . $ $ . $ 119.95 100 .00% $ s . $ . $ 55 .36 100.00 % $ $ . $ . $ -$ - $ . $ $ 27 .68 100.00% $ - $ 27 .68 100.00 % $ $ 27 .68 100.00% $ . $ 46 .13 100.00% $ . $ 46 .13 10 0.00 % $ . $ 46.13 10 0.00% $ . $ 27 .68 100 .00% $ . $ 27 .68 100 ,00% $ . $ 27 .68 100.00% $ . $ 27 .68 100.00 % $ . $ 27 ,68 100.00 % $ . $ 27 .68 10 0.00 % $ - $ 27 .68 100 .00% $ $ 27 .68 100,00 % $ . $ 55 .36 100.00 % $ . $ 36 .91 100.00% $ . $ 36,91 100.00 % $ . $ 36 ,91 100.00% $ . $ $ . $ 110.72 100.00% $ - $ $ . $ 33 .83 100.00 % $ . Printed: 9/29/2008 City of SAN LUIS OBISPO Community Development Department-Building Division MECHANICAL, ELECTRICAL & PLUMBING PERMIT FEES , Estlmat edTlme FY 05-06 (In Volume UJ',111 \,!,l->1 -> FY 05-06 minutes (#of Actual UnJt Average FEE TYPES ) Units) Cost Current Fee $ 1.85 Stand Alone Plumbing Plan Check {hourly rate) 60 .00 $ 110.72 $ . UNIT FEES : $ . $ Fixtures (each) 15 $ 27 ,68 Gas System Replace/Repair/Extend (First Outlet) 15 $ 27 .68 Gas Outlets (Each Additional) 2 $ 3.69 Building Sewer 15 $ 27.68 Grease Trap 15 $ 27 .68 Water Heater (First Heater) 15 $ 27 .68 Water Heater (Each Additional Heater) 5 $ 9 .23 Water Pipe Repair/ Replacement 15 $ 27.68 Drain•Venl Repair/ Alterations 15 $ 27.68 Solar Water System Fixtures (solar panels , tanks, water treatment equipment) 20 $ 36.91 Graywater Systems (each) 40 $ 73 .82 Miscellaneous Plumbing Items NOS 20 $ 36 ,91 $ . Other Plumbing and Gas Inspections (per hour) 60 .00 $ 110.72 $ Plumbin_g Volume and Current Fee Analysis 16 ,00 195 $ 29 .53 $ 29 .00 $ . ELECTRICAL PERMIT FEES Stand Alone Electrical Plan Check (per 1 /2 hour) 30 .00 $ 55 .36 $ . Add/Replace Service (not over 200 amps) 20 $ 36.91 Add/Replace Service (over 200 amps) 30 $ 55 36 $ . New/Altered Circuits $ . 15 or 20 amp -Each 10 circuits (or fraction thereof) 15 $ 27.68 25 to 40 amp circuits (each ) 10 $ 18.45 60 to 175 amp circuits {each) 12 $ 22.14 200 amp and larger circuits (each) 15 $ 27 68 MAXIMUS, Inc. REVENUE IMPA<::TS Surplus/ (Subsidy) Actual Per Unit Annual Cost $ (110-7~) $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ $ (27 66) $ . $ (27 6f) $ . $ (3 .6S $ $ (27 6E $ . $ (27.6E $ . $ (27.6E1) $ . $ (9 23} $ . $ (27 .6E I $ - $ (27.6E $ . $ (36.91 ) $ . $ (73.8« $ . $ (3691 ' $ . $ . $ . $ (110.72 $ . $ . $ - $ (0.53) $ 5,758 $ . $ . $ (55 3(;,' $ . $ . $ . $ (36.91 $ . $ (55 ,36) $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ (27.68') $ . $ (18.45,\ $ . $ (22.14 $ . $ (27 ,68J $ . Tecnical Appendix F 5-22 Annual Revenue@ Annual Genera l Current Fee Fund Subsidy $ . $ . $ . $ . $ $ . $ . $ . $ . $ - $ . $ . $ . $ $ . $ . $ . $ $ . $ . $ $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ $ . $ . $ . $ $ . $ . $ $ . $ . $ 5 655 $ (103 s . $ . $ $ . $ -$ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ $ . $ . RECOMMENDED FEES Public Recommend• Percent Subsidy Per ed Fee Recovery Unit $ 110.72 100 .00% $ . $ $ . $ $ . $ $ . $ 27.68 100 .00 % $ . $ 27 .68 100.00% $ . $ 3.69 100 .00% $ . $ 27 .68 100 .00% $ $ 27 .68 100.00% $ . $ 27 .68 100 .00 % $ . $ 9.23 100 .00 % $ . $ 27.68 100.00 % $ $ 27 .68 100.00 % $ . $ 36 .91 100 .00% $ . $ 73 .82 100 .00% $ . $ 36 .91 100 .00% $ $ . $ $ 110 .72 100.00 % $ $ $ . $ 29 .53 100 .00% $ $ $ . $ 55 .36 100 .00% $ . $ $ . $ 36 .91 100 ,00% $ $ 55 .36 100 .00% $ $ $ $ -$ $ 27 .68 100 ,00% $ . $ 18.45 100 .00% $ . $ 22 .14 100.00 % $ $ 27 .68 100.00% $ Printed: 9/29/2008 City of SAN LUIS OBISPO Community Development Department-Building Division MECHANICAL, ELECTRICAL & PLUMBING PERMIT FEES -., Estlmat edTI!Tl\! FY 05-06 : (In Volume UNI I'.,..,_,.,;::, FY 05-06 minutes (# of Actual Unit Average FEE TYPES l Units) Cost Current Fee $ ,.~. $ . Temporary Service (each) 15 $ 27 68 Generator Installation (each) 23 $ 42.44 Residential Photovoltaic System (each ) 25 $ 46,13 Commercial Photovolta ic System (each 20 arrays up to 100) 90 $ 166.09 Commercial Photovoltaic System ( over 100 arrays) 450 $ 830.43 Miscellaneous Electrical Items NOS 20 $ 36.91 Other Electrical Inspections (per hour) 60 $ 110.72 $ Electrical Volume and CurrenfFee Analysis 64 .09 89 _$ 118,27 $ 29 .00 OTHER INSPECTIONS AND FEES Inspections outside of normal business hours, 0- 2 hours (minimum charge) $ . Each additional hour or portion thereof $ . Reinspection Fee (per hour) $ . Inspections for which no fee is specifically indicated, per hour (minimum charge= 1/2 $ . Additional Plan Review required by changes, additions, or revisions to approved plans, per hour (minimum charge = 1 /2 hour) $ - Minutes Consumed:j 9,5941 Hours Consumed: 159.9 Productive Hours per FTE ; 1.208 FTE Consumed : 0.1 MAXIMUS , Inc. REVENUclMPACTS Surplus/ (Subsidy) Actual $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Per Unit Annual Cost $ . (27 ,68! $ - (4244) $ . (46 ,13 $ - (166.09) $ - (830.43 ) $ . (36.91 ) $ - (110.72 $ - $ {89.27 $ 10,526 . $ -. $ -. $ . . $ . $ . $ 17,705 Tecnical Appendix F 5-23 Annual Revenue@ Annual General Current Fee Fund Subsidy $ . $ - $ . $ . $ -$ . $ . $ - $ $ - $ $ - $ -$ - $ $ - $ . $ . $ 2,581 $ (7,945) $ . $ . $ . $ - $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ - Total Revenue $ 9,454 s (8 ,251)1 REC0MMENOED FEES Public Recommend-Percent Subsidy Per ed Fee Recovery Unit $ $ $ 27 .68 100.00% $ . $ 42.44 100.00 % $ . $ 46.13 100.00% $ . $ 166.09 100,00% $ $ 830.43 100.00 % $ - $ 36 .91 100,00% $ . $ 110.72 100,00 % $ . $ . $ $ 118.27 100 ,00o/q $ - $ . $ . $ -$ . $ . $ . $ . $ - $ . $ Printed : 9/29/2008 MAXIMUS, Inc. City of SAN LUIS OBISPO Community Development Department- MECHANICAL, ELECTRICAL & PLUME RECOMMENDED REVENUE ,. Annual Actual Revenue@ FE~rt:PES Annual Cost Rec'd Fee ADMINISTRATIVE AND MISC. FEES Travel and Documentation Fees: $ -s - Simple Project (1 trip) $ -s . Moderate Projeet (2 trip,;) s -s . Complex Proj eol {3 trips ) s -s . $ -s - Permit Issuance $ . $ . Supp lemental Permit Issuance :5 -s . MECHANICAL PERMIT FEES Siand Alone Mechanical Plan Check (per 1/2 hour) $ -s - $ . s - UNI T FEES: s $ - s · -$ - ·A/C (Residentlaf) -each $ -$ . Furnaces (F.A .U., Floor) s . $ . Heater (Wall ) s -s . Refrldgeration Compressor/Condenser s -s - Boiler s . s . Chiller $ . s . Heat Pump (Package Unit) s . s . Heater (Unl l, Rad ian~ etc ,) s . s - Air Handler $ -$ . Duct Work only s . $ . Evaporative Cooler $ s - MaKe--up Air System 'S -s - Vent Fan {Sing le Duct) -each s -s . Exhaust Hood and Duct {Residen~al) $ -s - Exhaust Hood -Type I (Commercial Grease Hooo ) s -S· Exhaust Hood -Type II (Commerci al Stea m Hood ) s s Wa lk-i n Box/ Refrigerator Coil $ -$ - Misc,,Jl aneous Mechanical Items NOS (not olherwise specified ) $ . $ - s . s . Olher Mechanical Inspections (per hour) s -s 'S -$ . rv1ec/wrilcal Volume afl!! Cu rrent Fee ~~1s s 1,421 s 1,421 PLUMBING I GAS PERMIT FEES Tecni::al Appendix F 5 -24 Annual Public Subsidy s - s - s . s - s . $ . s - $ - s - $ $ - $ - $ . s -s - $ - s - $ - s - $ $ - s - $ - s - s - s - ,s - s - s - s s -s . s - Printed: 9/29/2008 MAXIMUS, Inc. City of SAN LUIS OBISPO Community Development Department- MECHANJCAL, ELECTRICAL & PLUME RECOMMENDED REVENUE -Annual Actual Revenue@ ' FEE TYPES An nuaJCost . Sland Alone Plumbing Plan Check (h ou~y rate) s . $ s . s UNIT FEES: ,$ . s S· s FIX1ures (each) s . s Gas System Replace/Repalr/Extend (Firs t Outlet ) $ . s Gas Outlets (Each Additlonal) s s Bulldlng Sewer s $ Grease Trap $ . $ Water Heater (Rrsl Heater) $ . s Water Heater (Each Additional Heater) $ . s Water Pipe Repair I Replacement s s Drain-Vent Repai r / Alteratiqns s . $ Solar Water System Fixtures (solar panels, tanks , water treatment equipment) s s Graywater Systems {each) s, . s Ml scellaneol!s Plumbing Items NOS s s s, . s Other Plu mbing and Gas Inspections (per hour) $ . $ s s Pll)(T)blng Volume'aful CujTl!tll Fee ~IVSIJ; s 5,758 $ s . s ELECTRICAL PERMIT FEES Stand Alone Electrical Plan Check (per 1/2 hour) s . s s . s Add/Replace Service (not over 200 amos) $ . s Add/Re~ lace Service (over 200 amps) s . s s . s New/Altered Circu its $ . s 15 or 20 amp • Each 10 circuits ( or fraction thereof) s . s 25 to 40 amp circuits (each) s . s 50 to 175 amp clrcults (each) s . s 200 amp and larger circuits (each) -$ . s Tecnical Appendix F 5 -25 Rec!d Fee- - . . . . . . . . . . 5,758 . . -. . . . . . . . Annual Publi c Subs idy $ . s . ·s . s s . s . s $ . $ $ s s . s s s $ s s s s . $ . s . s . s . s . s s . $ s . $ . s . Printed: 9/29/2008 L__ ~ t...:......: ~ ~ MAXIMUS , Inc. L..:....: c·--·--L....: --:.........J :...._J ~ City of SAN LUIS OBISPO Community Development Department- MECHANICAL, ELECTRICAL & PLUME FEETYP~ Temporary Service (each) Generator Installation (each) Residential Photovoltaic System (each} Commercial Photovoltaic System ( each 20 arrays up to 100} Commercial Photovoltaic System ( over 100 arrays) Miscellaneous Elecbical Items NOS Other Eleclrical Inspections (per hour) l:learl cal Volume and '¢urren l Fee1Analy.sis · OTHER INSPECTIONS AND FEES Inspections outside of normal busi nes s hours, 0- 2 hours (minimum charge) Each addttional hour or portion thereof Relnspectlon Fee (per hour) Inspections for which no fee is speclffcally indlcaled; per hour (min imum cha rg e= 1/2 Additiona l Plan Review required by ci,anges, a<jdilions, or revis ions lo approved ptans . per hour {minimum charge = 1/2 hour) RECOMMENDED R.EVE NUE Annual A~nual ~ctu;il Revenuii@ Public; AnnuaJ•Cost Rec'd Fee Subsi dy s s . $ . :s s . s s . s . s . s s . s ·S -s . s . s s. -$ . s s -s . ·s . S· -s - $ s -s - s 10,526 s 10,526 $ - s . s . s . s -s . $ . s . s s . s . .$ . $ . $ . s -s . Total Recommended Revenue Minutes c4 s 11,1 os I s 11 ,1 0s I s I HoursCor Productive Hours FTECor Tecnical Appendix F 5-26 _J _J :........J :__J ~ __:,] Printed: 9/29/2008 City of SAN LUIS OBISPO Community Development Department-Building Division MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS PERMIT FEES . TIME ESTIMATES .. Intake and Work Item Unit Processing Standard Hourly Rate Add ition/Alteration/Remodel -Residential Up to 300 s.f. up to 300 s.f. 2 Additional room addition each 100 s.f. 0 Antenna each 2 Equipment Shelter each 0 Awning/Canopy (supported by buildir,g ) each 1 Balcony/Porch/Deck -Covered up to 300 s.f. 2 Balcony/Porch/Deck each 100 s.f. 0 Balcony/Porch/Deck -Uncovered up to 300 s.f. 2 Balcony/Porch/Deck each 100 s.f. 0 Carport each 2 Commercial Coach (per unit) each unit 2 Demol ition Interior each 1 Entire Building each 2 Doors & Windows -New/Replace Non-Structural first 5 1 Non-Structural ea add'l 5 0 Structural first 5 1 Structural ea add'l 5 0 Fence or Freestanding Wall (non-masonry) Over 6 feet in height up to 100 I.I. 2 Each additional 100 If each 100 l.f. 0 Fence or Freestanding Wall (masonry) (3-6 feet high ) up to 100 l.f. 1 Each additional 100 If each 100 l.f. 0 (>6 feet high) up to 100 I.I. 2 Each additional 100 If each 100 l.f. 0 Firep lace Pre-Fabricated w/ structure each 1 Masonry each 1 Flag pole each 2 Grading each <1000 CY each 2 1001 -10000 CY each 2 >10001 CY each 2 Manufactured Homes each 2 Partition• Commerclal, Interior (up to 30 l.f.) up to 30 l.f. 1 Additional partition each 30 l.f. 0 MAXIMUS , Inc . Average Plan Check Process Hours 0.5 0,167 0.5 0.67 0.167 0.5 0,167 0.33 0.167 0.5 1.5 0.25 0.75 0.25 0.083 0.33 0.167 0,25 0 0.2 5 0 0.5 0 0.25 0.25 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 1.5 0.167 0.083 Average Inspection FY 05-06 Process Total Time Volume Hours (hours) (#of Units) . 0.000 7.4 9.900 119 0.25 0.417 1.33 3.834 2.12 2.791 0.54 1.711 0 2.42 4 .922 2 0.083 0 .250 1.80 4.128 23 0.083 0.250 2.42 4 .920 2 3.14 6 .635 0.000 0.5 1.750 0.5 3.250 18 0.000 0.5 1.750 6 0.083 0 .166 1.25 2.584 2 0.167 0.334 0.000 0.63 2.877 0.083 0.083 b.ooo 2,37 3.617 0 ,67 0.670 2.89 5.385 1 1.000 0 .000 1,63 2 .881 5 2.89 4 .135 1.08 3 .584 0.000 1 3.500 5 2 4.500 3 5.500 0.000 3.14 6 .635 0.000 2.18 3.345 0.083 0.166 Technical Appendix F 6 -27 UNIT COSTS Intake & FY 05-06 Surplus/ Plan Check Inspection Total Actual Average (Subsidy) Actl.!al Cost Actual Cost Cost Current Fee Per Unit $· 110.72 $ 110.72 $ 110.72 $ (110.72) $" . $ . $ -$ . $ 276.81 $ 819.35 $ 1,096.16 $ 987.00 $ (109.16) s 18.49 $ 27.68 $ 46.17 $ (46 .17) $ 276.81 $ 147.71 $ 424.51 $ (424.51 ) $ 74.18 $ 234 .84 $ 309.03 $ (309.03) $· 129.21 $ 60.23 $ 189.45 $ . $ (189.45) S-276.81 $ 268.17 $ 544.98 $ 571 .00 $ 26.02 s 4 8.49 $ 9.19 $ 27.68 $ (27.68) $ 257.99 $ 199.08 $ 457.07 $ 282.00 $ (175.07] $ 18.49 $ 9.19 $ 27.68 $ (27.68 ) $ 276.81 $ 267.95 $ 544 .76 $ 193.00 $ (351.76) '$, 387.53 $ 347.12 $ 734.65 $ (734.65) $ . $ . $ . $ - s 138.40 $ 55.36 $ 193.77 $ (193 .77) $ 304.49 $ 55 ,36 $ 359.85 $ 94.60 $ (265 25) $ . $ -$ . $ - $ 138.40 $ 55.36 $ 193.77 $ 112.00 $ (81.77) $ 9.19 $ 9 .19 $ 18.38 $ (18.38) $ 147,26 $ 138.85 $ 286.11 $ 76.00 $ (2 10.11 ) $ 18.49 $ 18.49 $ 36.98 $ (36 98) $ . $ -$ -$ - $ 249.13 $ 69.42 $ 318.55 $ {318.55) $ -$ 9.19 $ 9.19 $ (9 19) $' -$ . $ -$ . $ 138.40 $ 262,03 $ 400.43 $ (400.43) $.. $ 74.18 $ 74.18 $ (74 .18) $: 276.81 $ 319.44 $ 596.25 $ (596.25) $ . $ 110.72 $ 110.72 $ (110.72) $ . $ . $ . $ . $ 138.40 $ 180.59 $ 318.99 $ 88 .00 $ (230.99) $ 138.40 $ 319.44 $ 457.84 $ (457 .84) $ 276.8 1 $ 120.02 $ 396.83 $ (396 .83) $ . $ . $ . $ . $ 276.81 $ 110.72 $ 387.53 $ 243 .87 $ (143 .66) $ 276.81 $ 221.45 $ 498.26 $ (498.26) $ 276,81 $ 332.17 $ 608.98 $ (608 .98 $ . $ . $ -$ . $ 387.53 $ 347.12 $ 734.65 $ (734 .65) s . $ . $ . $ . $ 129.21 $ 241.16 $ 370.37 $ (370.37 $ 9.19 $ 9.19 $ 18.38 $ (18 .38) Printed : 9/29/2008 City of SAN LUIS OBISPO Community Development Department-Building Division MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS PERMIT FEES TIME ESTIMATES ' " Intake and Work Item Unit Processing Standard Hourly Rate Partition -Residential, Interior (up to 30 l.f.) up to 30 l.f. 1 Additional partition each 30 l.f. 0 Patio Cover Wood frame up to 300 s.f. 1 Other frame up to 300 s.f. 1 Additional patio each 100 s.f. 0 Enclosed, wood frame up to 300 s.f. 1 Enclosed, other frame up to 300 s.f . 1 Additional enclosed patio each 100 s.f. 0 Stucco/Siding up to 400 s.f. 1 Additional Stucco/Siding each 400 s.f. 0 Retaining Wall (concrete or masonry) up to 5 ft high up lo 50 l.f. 1 each 50 l.f. 0 >5 ft lo 10 ft high up to 50 l.f. 1 each 50 l.f. 0 >10 ft high up to 50 l.f. 2 Signs Free-Standing each 1 Wall Mounted each 1 Free-Standing Illuminated each 1 Wall Mounted Illuminated each 1 Skylight each 1 Spa or Hot Tub (Pre-fabricated} each 1 Stairs -First Flight firstfiight 1 Each additional fl igh t per flight 0 Storage Racks 0-8' high (up to 100 If) first 100 If 1 each additional 100 If each 100 If 0 over 8' high (up to 100 If) firs! 100 If 2 each additional 100 If each 100 If 0 Swimming Pool / Spa -Residential each 1 Swimmi ng Pool / Spa -Comme rcial <800 s.f 2 Swimming Pool / Spa -Commercial >800 sf 2 U Occupancies up to 500 sf 1 501-1000sf 1.5 >1000 sf 2 t,linor Permits Minor Repairs (Water Damage , Termite, Et c) each 0.5 Driveway each 0.5 MAXIMUS , Inc . Average Plan Check Process Hours 0.167 0,083 0.75 0.5 0.083 0.75 0.5 0.083 0 0 0.25 0 0.33 0 0.5 0.167 0.167 0,167 0.167 0.167 0.5 0.33 0 0.167 0 0.33 0 0.5 0.5 0.67 0.33 0.75 1 0 0.33 Average Inspection FY 05-06 Process Total Time Volume Hours (hours) (#.of Units) 1.63 2.798 1 0.083 0.166 0.000 1.72 3.465 1 1.17 2.671 0.083 0.166 2.26 4.009 11 1.17 2.671 0.083 0.166 0.90 1.900 4 0.083 0.083 0.000 2.26 3.509 12 0.75 0.750 2.89 4216 1 1.000 3.34 5 .843 0.000 1.09 2255 33 0.54 1.711 1.09 2.255 0.54 1.711 44 1.09 2.255 1 1.09 2.588 1 1.09 2.418 0.167 0.167 0 .000 0.54 1.707 0.083 0 .083 1.09 3.420 0.167 0.167 2.50 3.998 2 2.50 4.998 3.50 6.170 1 0.000 6.3 7,630 5 7,3 9.550 1 8.30 11.300 0.000 0.000 0.54 1.044 24 0.54 1.374 6 Technical Appendix F 6 -28 UNIT COSTS Intake & FY 05-06 Surplus/ Plan Cflecek Inspection Total Actual Average (Subsidy) Actual Cost Actual Cost Cost Current Fee Per Unit $ 110;12" $ 110.72 $ 110.72 $ (11 0.72) s 129.21 $ 180.59 $ 309.80 $ 49.00 $ (260.80 $ 9 .1 9 $ 9.19 $ 18 .38 $ (18 .38) ·$ -$ -$ -$ - S · 193.77 $ 189.89 $ 383.66 $ 135.00 $ (248.66) $ 166.09 $ 129.66 $ 295.74 $ (295.74 $ 9.19 $ 9.19 $ 18.38 $ (18 .38) $ 193.77 $ 250.12 $ 443.89 $ 207 .00 $ (236.89) $ 166.09 $ 129.66 $ 295 .74 $ (295 .74) ;$ 9 .19 $ 9.19 $ 18.38 $ (18.38' $ 110.72 $ 99.60 $ 210.32 $ 292 .00 $ 81.68 $ -$ 9.19 $ 9.19 $ (9 .19) s -$ -$ -$ - ,$ 138.40 $ 250.12 $ 388 .53 $ 224 .00 $ (164 .53) $ . $ 83.04 $ 83.04 $ (83.04) $ 147.26 $ 319.55 $ 466.81 $ (466.81) $ -$ 110.72 $ 110.72 $ (110 .72) $ 276.81 $ 370 .15 $ 646,96 $ (646 .96 ) $ -$ . $ . $ - $ 129.21 $ 120.47 $ 249 .68 $ 71 .94 $ (177.74) s 129.21 $ 60.23 $ 189.45 $ (189.45) $ 129.21 $ 120.47 $ 249.68 $ (249.68) s 129.21 $ 60.23 $ 189.45 $ 100.46 $ (88 .99 ) $ 129.21 $ 120.47 $ 249.68 $ 77 .00 $ (172 .68) s 166.09 $ 120.47 $ 286.55 $ 446 .00 $ 159.45 $ 147.26 $ 120.47 $ 267.73 $ (267.73 $ . $ 18.49 $ 18.49 $ (18.49) $ $ -$ . $ - $ 129.21 $ 59.79 $ 189.01 $ (189.01) $ . $ 9.19 $ 9.19 $ (9.19) $ 257 ,99 $ 120.69 $ 378.67 $ (378.67) $ . $ 18.49 $ 18.49 $ (18.49 s 166.09 $ 276.59 $ 442.67 $ 593 .00 $ 150.33 $ 276.81 $ 276.59 $ 553.40 $ (553.40 ' $ 295.63 $ 387.53 $ 683 .16 $ 554.00 $ (129 .16 ) $ -$ -$ . $ . $ 147.26 $ 697.56 $ 844 .82 $ 923 .00 $ 78 .18 $ 249.13 $ 808.28 $ 1,057.41 $ 1.453.00 $ 395.59 s 332.17 $ 919 .01 $ 1,251 .1 8 $ {1.251 .18 $ . $ . $ -$ . $ . $ . $ -$ - $ 55.36 $ 60.23 $ 115.60 $ 40.00 $ (75.60 $ 91.90 $ 60.23 $ 152.13 $ 40.00 $ (1 12 .13 Printed: 9/29/2008 City of SAN LUIS OBISPO Community Development Department-Building Division MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS PERMIT FEES . TIME ESTIM,6;TES ·-----. .. . . Ave~ge Average Plan Check Inspection FY05--06 ln~ke and Proce~s Procels Total Time Volume Work Item Unit Processing • Hours Hours (hours) (# of Units) Standard Hourl_y Rate Minor Code Corrections each 0.5 0 0.54 ·. 1.044 17 Roof With Sheathing each 0.5 0 0.54 1.044 34 Foundation Repairs each 0.5 0.167 1.09 1.757 0.000 0.000 Deferred Submittals / Revision to Existing Permits each 0.75 0.75 0 1.500 0.000 Fire Permit Handling Fee (Sprinkler & Alarm Retrofit) each 2 0 0 2.000 0.000 Supp le mental Plan Check Fee hourly 1 1.0 00 Supplemental Inspection Fee (first 1/2 hour) hourly 1 1.000 0.000 After Hours Call-Out (Scheduled) 2 Hours 2 2.000 NOtr-BUIUIING R:E:RELATEDISUFIPORTTO-·omeR i>EPTS --. ··,":"lliif_t~:..-,i~ ... O.OQO annual 0.000 0 .000 OJHER.NO"N-FEErACTMTIES -----.... ~ --. -.. CIP/City-lnitiated Project Support annual hours 0 1 Code Enforcement annual hours 594 594 1 Public Information Programs annual hours 0 1 Other annual hours 0 1 Other annual hours 0 1 Hours Consumed :! 510 I 120 I 1,766 I 2,396 I 391 i MAXIMUS, Inc . Technical Appendix F 6-29 UNITCO~TS Intake & FY 05-06 Surplus/ FHl~n Check Inspection Total Actual Average (Subsidy) Actua l Cqst Actual Cost Cost Current Fee Per Unit s ,110.72 $ 110.72 $ 110.72 $ (110 .72 ) $ 55 .36 $ 60 .23 $ 115.60 $ 26 .50 $ {89 .10) s 55.36 $ 60.23 $ 115.60 $ 48.50 $ (67 .10 ) $ 73.85 $ 120.69 $ 194.54 $ (194 .54' s -$ -$ . $ - $ -$ -$ -$ - $ 166.09 $ . $ 166.09 $ (166.09) s -$ -$ . $ . $ 221.45 $ . $ 221.45 $ (221.45 ' $ -$ -$ -$ - $ 110 .72 $ . $ 110.72 $ (110 .72 ) s: -$ 110.72 $ 110.72 $ (110.72) $ . $ -$ . $ . $ . $ 221 .45 $ 221.45 $ (221.45) $ . $ . s . $ . $, . $ . $ . $ $ . $ . s . $ . ~ -s. -$ -$ -$ . $ -$ 65,769.77 $ 65,769.77 $ (65 ,769.77 $ -$ -$ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ -s . $ . $ . Printed : 9/29/2008 City of SAN LUIS OBISPO Community Development Department-Bi MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS PERMIT FEES - Work Item . Unit Standard Hourly Rate Addition/Alteration/Remodel -Residential Up to 300 s.f. up to 300 s.f. Additional room addition each 100 s.f, Antenna each Equipment Shelter each Awning/Canopy (supported by building) each Balcony/Porch/Deck -Covered up to 300 s.f. Balcony/Porch/Deck each 100 s.f. Balcony/Porch/Deck -Uncovered up to 300 s.f. Balcony/Porch/Deck each 100 s.f. Carport each Commercial Coach (per unit) each unit Demolition Interior each Entire Building each Doors & Windows -New/Replace Non-Structural first 5 Non-Structural ea add'I 5 Structural first 5 Structural ea add'l 5 Fence or Freestanding Wall (non-masonry) Over 6 feet in height up to 100 l.f. Each additional 100 If each 100 l.f. Fence or Freestanding Wall (masonry) (3-6 feet high) up to 100 l.f. Each additional 100 If each 100 l.f. (>6 feet high) up to 100 l.f. Each additional 100 If each 100 l.f. Fireplace Pre-Fabricated w/ structure each Masonry each Flag pole each Grading each <1000 CY each 1001 -10000 CY each >10001 CY each Manufactured Homes each Partition -Commercial, Interior (up to 30 l.f.) up to 30 l.f. Additional partition each 30 l.f. MAXIMUS, Inc. REV:.ENUE, IMPACTS RECOMMENDED FEES . Actual Annual Annual Revenue@ Cost Current Fee s $ . $ 130,443 $ 117,453 $ -$ - $ -$ - $ . $ - $ . $ . $ 1,090 $ 1,142 $ -$ . ~· 10,513 $ 6,486 $ . $ . $ 1.09D $ 386 $ -$ - $ . $ - ~ . $ - $ s:411 $ 1,703 $ $ -s 1,163 $ 672 $ -$ - $ 572 $ 152 $ . $ . $ -$ - $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ $ - $ $ - s -$ . $ -$ . $ . $ . $ 1,595 $ 440 $ . $ . $ $ - $ -$ . $ 1,938 $ 1,219 $ . $ . $ -$ . $ -$ - $ . $ . $ $ . $ -$ - $ . $ - Annual General Public Fund Recom-Percent Subsidy Sub~lcfy mended Fee Recovery Per Unit $ 110.72 100.00% s - ·s -$ -$ - $ (12,990 $ 1,096.16 100.00% $· - $ -$ 46.17 100.00% $ - :s -$ 424 .51 100.00% $ - $ -$ 309 .03 100.00% $ . '$ -$ 189,45 100 .00% s - IS 52 $ 544.98 100.00% $ . $ -$ 27.68 100.00% $ - $ 14.027 $ 457.07 100.00% $ . $ -$ 27.68 100.00% $ - s (,°(04 • $ 544.76 100.00% $ - 'S'l . $ 734 .65 100.00% $ . $ -$ . $ - $ -$ 193.77 100.00% ,s . - $ C4 ,TT5) $ 359 .85 100.00% $ - $' -s -,$ - $ {491 $ 193.77 100 .00% s - $ . $ 18.38 100.00% .S - -$ lil~ll) s 286.11 100.00% $ - $ . $ 36 .98 100.00% s - $ . $ -_$ - $ -$ 318 .55 100.00% $ - $ -$ 9.19 100 .00% $ . $ . $ . $ - $' -$ 400.43 100.00% $ - $ . $ 74.18 100.00% S . $, -$ 596 .25 100.00% $ - $ . $ 110.72 100 .00% $ - $ -$ $ - .; ,(1, 155) $ 318 .99 100.00% $ - $ -$ 457 .84 100 .00% $ - s -s 396 .83 100.00% $ - $ . $ -$ - $ <716 $ 387.53 100 .00% $ - $ . $ 498.26 100 .00% $ . $ -$ 608.98 100 .00% $ . ·s -$ . $ - $ . $ 734.65 100 .00% $ . $ . $ . $ . ,$ -$ 370.37 100 .00% $ - $ -$ 18.38 100 .00% $ - Technical Appendix F 6-30 RECOMMENDED REVENUE Actual Annual Annual Annual Revenue@ Public Cost Rec'd Fee Subsidy $ -$ -$ - $ 130 ,443 $ 130,443 $ - $ -$ -$ - $ -$ -$ - $ -$ . $ - $ -$ . $ - $ 1,090 $ 1,090 $ . $ . $ -$ - $ 10 ,5 13 $ 10,513 $ . $ -$ -$ - s 1,0 90 $ 1,090 $ - $ -$ -$ - $ -$ -$ - $ -$ -$ - $ 6,477 $ 6,477 $ - $ -$ -$ . $ 1,163 $ t 163 $ - $ . $ . $ . $ 572 $ 572 $ - $ -$ -$ - $ -$ . $ - s -$ . $ - $ -$ . $ - $ -$ -$ -- $ . $ . $ - $ -$ -$ - $ -$ . $ - $ -$ -$ - $ -$ . $ - $ 1,595 $ 1,595 $ - $ -$ -$ - $ -$ -$ . $ -$ . $ . $ 1,938 $ 1,938 $ - $ . $ . $ . $ -$ . $ . $ . $ . $ - $ -$ -$ . $ -$ -$ . $ . $ . $ - $ -$ -$ - Printed: 9/29/2008 City of SAN LUIS OBISPO Community Development Department-Bi MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS PERMIT FEES r -- r I Work Item Unit Standard Hourly Rate Partition -Residential . Interior (uo to 30 l.f.) uoto 30 l.f. Additiona l partition ea ch 30 l.f. Patio Cover Wood frame up to 300 s.f. Other frame upto 300 s.f. Add itiona l patio each 100 s.f. Enclosed . wood frame upto 300 s.f. Enclosed , other frame up to 300 s.f. Additional en closed patio each 100 s.f. Stucco/Siding up to 400 s.f. Additional Stu cco/Siding each 400 s.f. Retaining Wall (concrete or masonry) up to 5 ft high up to 50 l.f. each 50 l .f. >5 ft to 10 ft high Up to 50 l,f. each 50 l.f. >10 ft high up to 50 l.f. Signs Free-Standing each Wall Mounted each Free-Standing Illuminated each Wall Mounted Illuminated each Skylight each Spa or Hot Tub (Pre-fabricated) each Stairs • First Fl ight first night Each addition al fiight per ffight Storage Racks 0-8' high (up to 100 If) first 100 If ea ch addition al 100 If ea ch 100 If over 8' high (up to 100 If) first 100 If each add itional 100 If ea ch 100 If Swimming Pool / Spa • Residential ea ch Swimming Pool / Spa • Commercial <800 s.f Swimming Pool /Spa• Commercial >800 sf U Occupancies up to 500 sf 501 -1000 sf >1000 sf Minor Permits Minor Repairs (Water Damage , Termite , Etc) each Drive way each MAXIMUS , Inc . REVENUE IMPACTS ., RECOMMENDED FEE~ Actual Annual Annual Revenue@ Cost Current Fe e $ 310 $ 49 $ s -$ -s s -$ . $ $ 384 $ 135 s s . $ . $ $ -$ . $ $ 4,883 $ 2,277 $ s~ -$ -s $ -$ -s s 841 $ 1,168 $ $ . $ -s $ -$ -$ s 4,662. $ 2,688 $ s . s . $ $ -$ -$ s . $ -$ $ -$ . $ '$, -$ -$ $ 8,2.39, $ 2,374 s $ . $ . $ $ -$ -$ $ 8,336 $ 4,420 $ $ 250 $ 77 $ $ 287 $ 446 $ s -$ -$ $ . s . s $ -$ . $ $ . $ -$_ $ -$ -$ $ -$ -s $ . $ . $ $ 885 $ 1,186 $ $, . $ . $ $ 683 $ 554 $ '$ -$ -$ $ 4,224 $ 4,615 $ $ 1,0 57 s ) 1,453 $ ·$ . $ . s $ -$ -$ $ -$ . $ $ 2 ,774 $ 960 $ $ 913 $ 240 $ Annual General Fund Recom-Percent S.JJ bsldy mended Fee Recovery $ 110.72 100.00 % $ (261 $ 309.8 0 100.00% $ . $ 18.38 100.00% $ . $ -$ (249 s 383.66 100.00% $ . $ 295 .74 100.00% $ . $ 18.38 100.00 % $ cz soe,J $ 443.89 100.00% s . $ 295.74 100 .00 % $ -$ 18.38 10 0 .0 0% $ 327 $ 210 ,32 100.00% $ . $ 9.19 100.00% $ . $ . $ {1,974 $ 388 .53 100.00% $ . $ 83.04 100.00% $ . $ 46 6 .81 100 .0 0% $ . $ 110.72 100.00% $ -$ 646.96 100.00% $ -$ -$ (-',i,!!6~ s 249.68 100.00 % $ -$ 189.45 100 .00 % $ -$ 249.68 100.00% $ (3,91 5: $ 189.45 100.00 % $ .(1 73 $ 249.68 100.00 % $ 159 $ 286.55 100.00% $ . $ 267.73 100,00% $ -$ 18.49 100.00% $ -$ -$ -$ 189.01 100.00% $ -$ 9 .19 100.00% $ -$ 378 .67 100 .00% $ -$ 18.49 100.00% $ 301 $ 442.67 100.00% $ . $ 553.40 100.00% $ {129) $ 683 .16 100.00% $ . $ . $ 391 $ 844.82 100.00% $ 396 $ 1,057.41 100.00% $ . s 1,25 1.18 100.00% $ . $ -$ . $ . $ (1 ,814' $ 115.60 100.00% $ (67-3) $ 152.13 100.00% $ Te chnical Appendix F 6 -31 Public Subsidy Per Unit - - - . - •'. -. - .. - -. . -. -. - -. - --. -. - - -. . -. . --. . - - - RECOMMENDED REVENUE Actual Annual Annual Annual Revenue@ Public Cost Rec'd Fee Subsidy s 310 $ 3 10 $ - $ -$ . $ . s . $ -$ . $ 384 $ 384 $ - $ -$ . $ . $ -$ . $ - $ 4,883 $ 4,883 $ - $ . $ . $ . $ -$ -$ - $ 841 $ 841 $ . $ -$ . $ . $ -$ . $ - $ 4,662 $ 4,662 $ . $ . $ . $ . $ -$ . $ . $ -$ . $ - $ . $ -$ - $ . $ . $ - $ 8,239 $ 8,239 $ - $ . $ . $ - $ -$ -$ - $ 8,336 $ 8,336 $ . $ 250 $ 250 $ - $ 287 $ 287 $ - $ . $ -$ - $ -$ -$ . $ -$ -$ . $ -$ . $ - $ -$ . $ - $ . $ -$ . $ -$ . $ . $ 885 $ 885 $ - $ . $ . $ . $ 683 $ 683 $ -· $ . $ . $ - $ 4,2.24 $ 4 ,224 $ - ·s 1,057 $ 1,057 $ . $ -$ . $ . $ -$ -$ - $ . $ . $ . $ 2,774 $ 2 ,774 $ . $ 913 $ 913 $ . Printed : 9/29 /200 8 L_ L_ L_ L__ L_ L_ City of SAN LUIS OBISPO Community Development Department-Bi MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS PERMIT FEES L___ ----' REVENUE IMPACrS RECOMMENDED FEES Annual Actual Annual General ,Annual 'Revenue@ Fund Recom• Percent Work It.em Unit-Cost Current Fee Sub_sldy, mended Fee Recovery S!andard Holli'IY Rale $ 110.72 100 .00% Minor Code Corrections each s 1,965 -s 451 S· (1,515 $ 115.60 100 .00% Roof With Sheathing each $ 3,930 s 1,649 $ (2,281) $ 115 .60 100 .00% Foundation Repairs each $ -$ -$· -$. 194.54 100 .00% $ -$ -s~ .. $ . s -s -S, . $ . Deferred Submittals / Revision to Existing Permits each $ . $ . S· . $ 166.09 100 .00% $ . s . s •· $ . Fire Permit Handling Fee (Sprinkler & Alarm Retrofit) each $ . :s . s $ 221.45 100.00% s $ . $•l .. $ - Supplemental Plan Check Fee hourly s . :s -s -$ 110.72 100.00% Supplemental Inspection Fee (first 1/2 hour) hourly $ . $ -s . $ 110.72 100.00% s . s . s . $ . After Hours Call-Out (Scheduled ) 2 Hours $ -s . $ -$ 221.45 100.00% NON-8-UILDING FEE RELATED/SUPPORT TO OTlfER DEPTS $ . $ -s . $ - annual $ . s . ,S -$ . s -$ -S· . $ . GIHER NON•fEE)~CJIVJTJ~ - GIP/City-Initiated Project Support annual hours $ -s . $ -$ - Code Enforcement annual hours $ 6~,770 $ -s: {65 ,770) $ 65,769.77 100.00% Public Information Programs annual hours s -$ -,$ -$ - Other annual hours s s -$, . $ - Other annual hours s . $ . .s -$ . Total Revenues: Hours Consumed: ! $ 265,274 ! $ 154,395 ! S (110,879)! MAXIMUS, Inc. Technical Appendix F 6 -32 Public Subs idy Per Unit s - $ - $ - s - s - s . s . s . s .. $ s . $ . s . s . s s . s . .. $ - s . $ . s . $ - -----i __J __J __J __J RECOMMENDED REVENUE Actual Annuai Annual Annual Revenue@ Public Cost Rec'd Fee Subsidy $ 1,965 s 1,965 s . $ 3,930 s 3,930 $ . s -$ . $ . s . s . s . $ -$ . s . s . $ -$ . s -$ . s . $ -$ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . $ . s . $ . $ . $ - s . $ -$ - s . $ -$ - s . $ . $ . $ -$ . s . $ . s -$ - s . $ -$ . $ '65 ,77 0 $ 65,770 s . s . $ -s . s . $ -s - $ . $ -s - Total Revenues: 1 $ 2s5,274 I s 26s,274 I s • I Printed: 9/29/2008 Fee or Service Name / Description Annual Fee# Q~ Final Maps Parcel Map: Four Lots or Eng #1 Less 6 $ Eng #2 Tract Map: More Than Four Lots 2 $ Plus per lot or common interest Eng #3 subdivision unit 60 $ Certificate of Compliance or Final Lot Line Adjustment Agreement: 1 to 9 Eng #4 Parcels 3 $ Certificate of Compliance or Final Lot Line Adjustment Agreement:10 or more Eng #5 Parcels (DELETE) 1 $ Encroachment Permits: Curb, Gutter, and Eng #6 Sidewalk 105 $ Encroachment Permits: plus per lineal Ena #7 foot 5000 $ Eng #8 Encroachment Permits: Trenched 90 $ Eng #9 plus per lineal foot 6000 $ Annual Encroachment Permit for Utility Eng #10 Comoanies 1 $ Eng #11 All Other Encroachment Permits (Each) 55 $ Eng #12 Transportation Permit** Single trip permit 100 $ Eng #13 Transportation Permit** Annual permit 1 $ Fiber Infrastructure Protection Fee (Per Eng #14 Call\ 1 $ MAXIMUS, Inc. City of San Luis Obispo USER FEE STUDY ACTUAL COST RES UL TS Eng! neerfl}Q UNITCO~TS REVENUE IMPACTS Actua1 Actual -Annua1 Unit Cost/ Per Unit Annual Annual Cost I Revenue Current Potential Surplus/ Revenue at Potential Surplus/ Fee Fee (Subsidy) Current Fee Revenue (Deficit) 2,824 $ 6,553 $ (3,729) $ 16,944 $ 39,317 $ (22,373) 2,824 $ 9,850 $ (7,026) $ 5 ,648 $ 19,700 $ (14,052) 7.:1 $ 81 $ (7) $ 4,440 $ 4,882 $ (442) 549 $ 2,315 $ (1,766) $ 1,647 $ 6,944 $ (5,297) 759 $ -$ 759 $ 759 $ -$ 759 199 $ 477 $ (278) $ 20,895 $ 50,100 $ (29,205: 1:2 $ 4 $ 8 $ 58,750 $ 17,980 $ 40,770 1,076 $ 477 $ 599 $ 96,840 $ 42,943 $ 53,897 2 $ 2 $ 0 $ 15,300 $ 13,665 $ 1,635 6,881 $ . $ 6 ,881 $ 6,881 $ -$ 6,881 345 $ 790 $ (445) $ 18,975 $ 43,440 $ (24,465) 16 $ 80 $ (64) $ 1,600 $ 8,004 $ (6,404 9:2 $ 80 $ 12 $ 92 $ 80 $ 12 121 $ -$ 121 $ 121 $ -$ 121 Technical Appendix G -1 I] RECOMMENDED FEES Annual Revenue Rec.Fee (Subsidy) $ 6 ,553 $ 39,317 $ 9,850 $ 19,700 $ 81 $ 4,882 $ 2,315 $ 6,944 $ -$ - $ 477 $ 50,100 $ 4 $ 17,980 $ 477 $ 42,943 $ 2 $ 13,665 $ . $ - $ 790 $ 43,440 $ 80 $ 8,004 $ 80 $ 80 $ -$ - Printed : 9/29/2008 [I Fee or Service Name / Description Annual Fee# Q~ Basic Engineering Geographic Data Set Eng #15 (DELETE) 0 $ Enhanced Engineering Geographic Data Eng #16 Set 6 $ Enhanced Plus Engineering Geographic Eng #17 Data Set 1 $ Eng #18 Administrative Use Permit 77 $ Sidewalk Use Fee (Sidewalk Cafe) (per PL#1 sq . ft . per month) 1 PL #31 ARC Development Project 45 PL #32 ARC Minor or Incidental 75 PL# This space intentionally left blank 1 PL#23 General Plan Amendment (GPA)-Text 1 PL#20 Lot Line Adjustment 8 Planned Development -Plan PL#9 Ammendment 4 PL#5 Planning Commission User Permit 9 PL#27 Specific Plan Amendment 1 Tentative Subdivision Map 4 or less lots PL #21 (parcel map) 17 Tentative Subdivision Map 5 or more PL #22 lots (tract map) 15 MAXIMUS, Inc. City of San Luis Obispo USER FEE STUDY ACTUAL COST RESULTS Engineering UNIT COSTS REVENUE IMPACTS Actual Actual Annua1 Unit Cost/ Per Unit Annual Annual Cost , Revenue Current Potential Surplus/ Revenue at Potential Surplus/ Fee Fee (Subsidy) Current Fee Revenue {Deficit) 227 $ -$ 227 $ -$ -$ - 396 $ $ 396 $ 2,378 $ -$ 2,378 453 $ $ 453 $ 453 $ -$ 453 708 $ 30 $ 678 $ 54,516 $ 2 ,303 $ 52 ,213 $ $ 81 $ (81) $ -$ 81 $ (81) $ $ 557 $ (557) $ -$ 25 ,045 $ (25 ,045) $ $ 282 $ (282) $ -$ 21,180 $ (21,180) $ $ $ -$ -$ -$ - $ $ $ -$ -$ -$ - $ $ 651 $ (651) $ -$ 5,205 $ (5,205) $ $ 30 $ (30) $ -$ 120 $ (120) $ $ 81 $ (81) $ -$ 732 $ (732) $ $ 216 $ (216) $ -$ 216 $ (216) $ $ 4 ,759 $ (4 ,759) $ -$ 80 ,906 $ (80,906) $ -$ 5,617 $ (5,617) $ -$ 84 ,254 $ (84 ,254 Technical Appendix G -2 RECOMMENDED FEES Annual Revenue Rec. Fee (Subsidy) $ -$ - $ -$ - $ -$ - $ 30 $ 2 ,303 $ 81 $ 81 $ 557 $ 2 5,045 $ 282 $ 21,180 $ -$ - $ -$ - $ 651 $ 5,205 $ 30 $ 120 $ 81 $ 732 $ 216 $ 216 $ 4 ,759 $ 80,906 $ 5 ,617 $ 84 ,254 Printed : 9/29/2008 Fee or Service Name / Description Fee# PL#? Variance PL #10 Zoning Map Amendment PL #11 Zoning Text Amendment PL#42 Condo Conversion PL#41 Street Abandonment PL#35 Space intentionally left blank Eng #36 Improvement Plan Check (Base Fee) Eng #37 Plus % of construction costs En_g #38 Construction Inspection (Base Fee) Eng #39 Plus % of construction costs Eng #40 Encroachment Permits: Bored Excavation Encroachment Permits: Bored Excavation Eng #41 (per lineal foot) Eng #42 Flood Zone Determination Eng #43 Plan check for Building (bldg support) Eng #44 Grading plan check (bldg support) PL #24 Certificate of Compliance MAXIMUS, Inc. City of San Luis Obispo USER FEE STUDY ACTUAL COST RESULTS Engineering --UNIT COSTS REVENUE IMPACTS -Actua1 AClUal ~nnual Unit Cost I Per Unit Annual Annual Cost I Revenue Annual Current Potential Surplus/ Revenue at Potential Surplus/ Qtv Fee Fee (Subsidy) Current Fee Revenue (Deficit) 6 $ $ 60 $ (60'. $ -$ 359 $ (359) 1 $ $ 43 $ (43'. $ -$ 43 $ (43) 1 $ $ 43 $ (43) $ -$ 43 $ (43) 3 $ $ 1,589 $ (1,589) $ -$ 4,767 $ (4,767) 1 $ $ 1,181 $ (1,181) $ -$ 1,181 $ (1,181) 1 $ $ $ -$ -$ -$ - 4 $ 434 $ 599 $ (165) $ 1,736 $ 2,397 $ (661) 1 $ 30,175 $ 28,898 $ 1,277 $ 30,175 $ 28,898 $ 1,277 5 $ 3,360 $ $ 3,360 $ 16,800 $ -$ 16,800 1 $ 173,156 $173,724 $ (569) $ 173,156 $ 173,724 $ (569) 47 $ $ 446 $ (446) $ -$ 20,955 $ (20,955 4000 $ $ 8 $ (8) $ -$ 33,723 $ (33,723) 100 $ $ 392 $ (392) $ -$ 39,176 $ (39,176) 1 $ $132,843 $(132,843) $ -$ 132,843 $ (132,843) 1 $ $ 4,107 $ (4,107) $ -$ 4,107 $ (4,107 3 $ $ 266 $ (266) $ -$ 797 $ (797) Technical Appendix G -3 ~ RECOMMENDED FEES Annual Revenue Rec. Fee (Subsidy) $ 60 $ 359 $ 43 $ 43 $ 43 $ 43 $ 1,589 $ 4,767 $ 1,181 $ 1,181 $ -$ - $ 599 $ 2,397 $ 28,898 $ 28,898 $ -$ - $ 173 ,724 $ 173 ,724 $ 446 $ 20 ,955 $ 8 $ 33,723 $ 392 $ 39 ,176 $ 132,843 $ 132,843 $ 4 ,107 $ 4 ,107 $ 266 $ 797 Printed: 9/29/2008 [ '--- Fee# PL#12 PL#26 PL#28 PL#33 PL#34 PL#51 PL#52 PL#49 BLDG #54 Fee #55 Non-Fee L_ Fee or Service Name / Description Time Extension (25% of current filing fee) Environmental Impact Determination Environmental Impact Report ARC Plan Revision ARC Review -Time extension General and Specific Plans : Map (includes rezoning) 100% of full cost of time & materials General and Specific Plans: Text 100% of full cost of time & materials Annexations Support to Building Fee 55 Non-User Fee Activities LEGEND: Fee# Fee or Service Name / Description Annual Quantity MAXIMUS, Inc. City of San Luis Obispo USER FEE STUDY ACTUAL COST RESULTS EngTne-eri ng UNIT COSTS REVENUE IMPACTS Annual Current Qb Fee 8 $ 1 $ 1 $ 1 $ 1 $ 5 $ 1 $ 2 $ 1 $ 1 $ 1 $ AcruaI Unit Cost/ Per Unit Potential Surplus/ Fee (Subsidy) $ 441 $ (441' $ 1,883 $ (1,883) $ 2,326 $ (2,326) $ $ - $ 30 $ (30) $ 598 $ (598) $ 120 $ (120 ) $ 1,010 $ (1,010 ) $ $ - $ $ - $ $ - Annual Totals Engineering Totals Planning Support Totals Building Support Totals A reference number to facilitate discussion Annual Revenue at Current Fee $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 528,106 $ 528 ,106 $ - $ - The services and/or fees included in the MAXIMUS study AClUal Annual Cost i Potential Revenue $ 3 ,531 $ 1,883 $ 2 ,326 $ - $ 30 $ 2,99 1 $ 120 $ 2 ,019 $ - $ - $ - $ 923,011 $ 548 ,232 $ 237,829 $ 136,950 The annual number of each service provided , as reported by the City Technical Appendix G -4 Annua1 Revenue Surplus/ (Deficit) $ (3,531) $ (1,883 ) $ (2,326) $ - $ (30 ) $ (2 ,991 ) $ (120 ) $ (2 ,019) $ - $ - $ - $ (394,906) $ (20,127) $ (237,829) $ (136,950) _J ' __,J RECOMMENDED FEES Annual Revenue Rec.Fee (Subsidy) $ 441 $ 3 ,531 $ 1,883 $ 1,883 $ 2 ,326 $ 2,326 $ -$ - $ 30 $ 30 $ 598 $ 2 ,991 $ 120 $ 120 $ 1,010 $ 2,019 $ -$ - $ -$ - $ -$ - $ 923 ,011 Printed : 9/2 9/2008 [I Fee or Service Name I Description Fee# Actual Unit Cost/ Potential Fee Current Fee Per Unit Surplus / (Subsidy) I Uldl /-\GlUcll l"\111 luo, '-'v<>l / I v,,;,, llldl --------,,,... Annual Revenue at Current Fee TOlcll /-\I IUc:11 r'\<:,v,::,1 IUl::l .:>UqJIU:S I ,,.... ., ..... , * Non-User Fee Activities MAXIMUS , Inc. City of San Luis Obispo USER FEE STUDY ACTUAL COST RES UL TS Engineering .. UNITGOSTS ' REVENUE IMPACTS Ac1uaI Actual Annual Unit Cost I Per Unit Annual Annual Cost J Revenue Annual Current Potential Surplus/ Revenue at Potential Surplus/ Qh Fee Fee (Subsidy) Current Fee Revenue (Deficit) The actual cost of each service, as calculated by MAXI MUS The current fee charged by the City for each service, if applicable The difference between the Actual Unit Cost and the Current Fee for each service Quantitv for that service (Unit Cost x Annual Quantity) Quantity for that service (Current Fee x Annual Quantity) Current Fee. This figure represents the annual subsidv (based on actual cost), the City These costs have been excluded from the estimated potential revenue totals. Technical Appendix G -5 ~ RECOMMENDED FEES Annual Revenue Rec.Fee (Subsidy) Printed : 9/29/2008 [__ L_ Fee or Service Name / Description Fee# Tree/Shrub Hazardous Abatement (per hour) Commemorative Tree Planting Tree Removal Permit Banner Permit City of San Luis Obispo USER FEE STUDY ACTUAL COST RESULTS Banner and Tree MaJnt~nance Fees • ~ Fees calculated by the City of San Luis Obispo I ,. UNIT COST S REVENUE IMPACTS -"'C1UaI ""nnua1 ""c1uaI Unit Cost Revenue Annual Annual ! Per Unit at Cost/ Revenue Annual Current Potential Surplus/ Current Potential Surplus/ Qty Fee Fee (Subsidy} Fee Revenue (Deficit} 167 .00 241.00 (74.00) 0.00 0.00 0.00 376 .00 2,080.00 (1,704.00 ) 0.00 0.00 0.00 43.00 81 .00 (38.00) 0 .00 0.00 0.00 169 .00 276 .00 (107 .00) 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 Technical Appendix G-6 __J _J ~cv't:NUt: ""' RECOMMENDED FEES Annual Revenue Rec. Fee (Subsidy} $ 241 $ - $ 2,080 $ - $ 81 $ . $ 276 $ - I s Fee or Service Name / Description Fee# Annual QtJ Business License-New 501 Business License-Renewal 6,50( Zoning Fee 10( Returned Check Fee 50( Photocopies Audiotapes CDs City of San Luis Obispo USER FEE STUDY ACTUAL COST RES UL TS General Governement Fees calculated by the City of San Luis Obispo -. .. _,_ UNITCOST.S REVENUEJMPAC'TS Actual Actual Annual Unit Cost Per Unit Annual Annual Cost Revenue Current / Potential Surplus/ Revenue at / Potential Surplus/ Fee Fee (Subsidy) Current Fee Revenue (Deficit) 40.00 42.00 (2 .00) 20,000.00 21,000.00 (1,000.00) 34.00 38.00 (4.00) 221,000.00 247 ,000.00 (26 ,000.00) 79.00 86.00 (7 .00) 7,900.00 8,600 .00 (700 .00) 18.75 39.00 (20.25) 9,375 .00 19 ,500 .00 (10 ,125 .00) 0 .35 0.38 (0.03) 13.11 5.00 8.11 7.19 3.40 3 .79 $ 258,275 $ 296,100 $ 37,825 Techn ical Appendix H-1 m:: vt:N Ut: A I RECO MMEN D ED FEES Annual Revenue Rec.Fee (Subsidy) $ 42 $ 21,000 $ 38 $ 247,000 $ 86 $ 8,600 s 39 $ 19,500 $ .38 $ 13 $ 7 1 s 296,100 1 l 7 l l I I l l J COPIES OF PUBLIC RECORDS The following is an except from the "Cost Recovery Study" prepared by DMG-Maximus for City of San Luis Obispo in 2000 regarding the methodology for preparing charges for "hard copy" reproduction of City public records: The city is currently charging a copying fee of $0.30 per page. Government Code Section 6257 provides that a public agency may charge only for the "direct costs of duplication of public records." The term "direct costs" has been determined to mean the cost of running the copy machine, including staff costs (salary and benefits) to make the copy, the cost of equipment maintenance and repair, equipment depreciation, and the cost of a piece of paper. It does not allow for any overhead costs associated with the staff time, nor does it allow for time associated with researching and locating the record, replacing the record back in the file or archive, or collecting the fee. As part of this study, we did a time and motion study to determine the amount of time necessary to make a single copy. We developed three different options for cost recovery for copies of public records, which consider three different scenarios for actual time spent on this service. The cost of equipment maintenance and repair and a per-page price for paper remains the same in the three scenarios (please see Appendix D of this report for a display of the calculations). DMG- MAXIMUS recommends that the city adopt a fee of $0.35 per page, which is a $0.05 increase over the current fee. This fee should also carry forward to the Police Protection operation's fee schedule to cover the cost of providing copies of reports. The current fee charged for document reproduction in the Police Protection operation includes all of the disallowed components described above, and therefore DMG-MAXIMUS recommends that the city replace that fee with the fee charged for copies of public records. Based on the 2000 report recommendations, the City continues to charge for copies of police reports on a per page basis. City staff has prepared an update of the cost of "hard copy" reproduction of public records using the same methodology used by DMG-Maximus in 2000. Based on this analysis, the "mid-range" cost increased from 35 cents per page to 38 cents per page. It continues to be the City's policy to provide electronic copies of documents (where they already exist in electronic form) at no charge via the City's web site or email. Technical Appendix H-2