Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1001-1500 Emails and Calendars Batch 2683 From:Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com> Sent:Monday, September 18, 2023 6:16 PM To:Cruce, Greg; Bernstorff, Rebecca Cc:Felt, Chris Subject:RE: [EXTERNAL]FW: PD - False Alarms Thanks Greg. Any assistance is welcome. Cindy Sconce (she/her/hers) Director, Performance Solutions Group 3600 American River Drive, Suite 150 Sacramento, CA 95864 Cell: 916.276.8807 Email: csconce@mgtconsulting.com The information contained in this electronic communication is intended only for the use of the addressee, and may be a confidential communication. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this transmittal in error; any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this transmittal is strictly prohibited. From: Cruce, Greg <gcruce@slocity.org> Sent: Monday, September 18, 2023 6:09 PM To: Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org>; Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com> Cc: Felt, Chris <cfelt@slocity.org> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL]FW: PD - False Alarms Hi Cindy, Fleet does not do charge backs for general fund programs. I’m sure we have a per vehicle cost, although it’s changing because we’re unable to get new vehicles. I’ll be in touch with a total cost. Thanks Greg Cruce Deputy Director - Maintenance Operations Public Works Department 805.781.7264 gcruce@slocity.org From: Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org> Sent: Monday, September 18, 2023 5:19 PM To: Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com> Cc: Felt, Chris <cfelt@slocity.org>; Cruce, Greg <gcruce@slocity.org> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL]FW: PD - False Alarms CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. 684 Hi Cindy, Yes, including Chris, our Fleet Supervisor, and Greg, our Maintenance Operations Deputy Director about fleet charging for PD. Thanks! Rebecca Bernstorff pronouns she/her/hers Business Services and Administrative Manager Administration – Community Services Group E rbernstorff@slocity.org T 805.781.7203 C 805.540.0219 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com> Sent: Monday, September 18, 2023 4:45 PM To: Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org> Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL]FW: PD - False Alarms Hi Rebecca Melissa from Police is asking about vehicle maintenance charges so they can apply costs to their false alarm permits. Does fleet charge their costs out to the departments? Based on what Melissa is saying below, it doesn’t sound like the Police department gets charged directly. Do you have a contact over in Fleet that I can ask whether they have a calculated per vehicle cost for Police? Cindy From: Ellsworth, Melissa <mellswor@slocity.org> Sent: Monday, September 18, 2023 3:59 PM To: Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com> Cc: Rachel King <rking@mgtconsulting.com> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL]FW: PD - False Alarms The police department doesn’t budget for vehicle maintenance costs, all of that is in Fleet’s budget (Public Works). From: Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com> Sent: Monday, September 18, 2023 3:38 PM To: Ellsworth, Melissa <mellswor@slocity.org> Cc: Rachel King <rking@mgtconsulting.com> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL]FW: PD - False Alarms CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. 685 Hi Melissa Which line item on the ICRP would include your vehicle maintenance costs? It looks like fuel is currently being listed under the indirect column so that is part of the overhead costs already. This cost could be pulled out and placed as direct and we could develop an addiƟonal direct charge to apply to the false alarms if we think that would be beneficial. You are correct, we did already incorporate the 20% vendor costs into the fee. We did not include the False Alarm #1 or #2. Let me know about the vehicle maintenance costs and whether you would like to keep these costs as indirect, which adds to the overhead, or as direct so that it can be directly applied to the false alarm fees. Cindy From: Ellsworth, Melissa <mellswor@slocity.org> Sent: Monday, September 18, 2023 2:17 PM To: Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com> Cc: Rachel King <rking@mgtconsulting.com> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL]FW: PD - False Alarms Hello, I took a look at this document and updated some information that you were looking for under the ICRP tab. Also, wanted to ask if the costs for us to respond to a false alarm can also included vehicle related costs like maintenance and fuel costs as well (looks like you already added the 20% vendor fee)? Also, should the fee incorporate costs from False Alarms #1 and #2 that are not charged? From: Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2023 10:22 AM To: Ellsworth, Melissa <mellswor@slocity.org> Cc: Rachel King <rking@mgtconsulting.com> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL]FW: PD - False Alarms Ok, done. I also added the language within a twelve month period to the false alarms. Cindy From: Ellsworth, Melissa <mellswor@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2023 10:04 AM To: Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com> Cc: Rachel King <rking@mgtconsulting.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL]FW: PD - False Alarms Hi Cindy, Hope all is well. Just getting back to you on the False Alarm fees for PD. After consulting with our Attorney’s office, they are recommending that we calculate the fees based on a cost recovery model. Please see her comments below. CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. 686 Additionally, based on the information that Rachel provided from other agencies - I reached out to Monterey, Santa Barbara, Ventura and SLO County to find out how their fees were calculated. I only heard back from two agencies; one had no idea how their fees were calculated and the other was time based/cost recovery. Let me know if you still need additional information. If you can update the matrix and send it to me again so I can review, that would be appreciated! Thanks, Melissa From: Symens, Sadie <ssymens@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2023 9:45 AM To: Ellsworth, Melissa <mellswor@slocity.org>; Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org> Subject: RE: PD - False Alarms From: Ellsworth, Melissa <mellswor@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2023 8:38 AM To: Symens, Sadie <ssymens@slocity.org> Subject: RE: PD - False Alarms . 87 From: Symens, Sadie <ssymens@slocity.org> Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2023 1:48 PM To: Ellsworth, Melissa <mellswor@slocity.org> Subject: RE: PD - False Alarms Sadie Symens pronouns she/her/hers Deputy City Attorney City Attorney's Office E ssymens@slocity.org slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the CONFIDENTIAL use of the designated addressee named above. The information transmitted is subject to the attorney-client privilege and/or represents confidential attorney work product. Recipients should not file copies of this email with publicly accessible records. If you are not the designated addressee named above or the authorized agent responsible for delivering it to the designated addressee, you received this document through inadvertent error and any further review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication by you or anyone 88 else is strictly prohibited. IF YOU RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY TELEPHONING THE SENDER NAMED ABOVE AT (805) 781-7140. Thank you. From: Kersten, Markie <mkersten@slocity.org> Sent: Friday, September 8, 2023 4:08 PM To: Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org>; Ellsworth, Melissa <mellswor@slocity.org> Cc: Symens, Sadie <ssymens@slocity.org> Subject: RE: PD - False Alarms From: Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org> Sent: Friday, September 8, 2023 3:09 PM To: Ellsworth, Melissa <mellswor@slocity.org> Cc: Kersten, Markie <mkersten@slocity.org> Subject: RE: PD - False Alarms Hi Melissa, Thanks for touching base and for providing the context, I appreciate it and apologize for the delay in my reply. I can see how it may be perceived more as a fine than a fee and why the approach to that may require some legal perspective. I’m including Markie in to weigh in on if we should move forward with time-based cost analysis for false alarms (which was my original thought) or if we should take a different approach based on any legalities to it? The comparative analysis is interesting (attached so Markie could take a look) as it looks like the others may be doing a flat fee approach. I’m happy to defer to legal/PD expertise on the best path forward. Thanks! Rebecca Rebecca Bernstorff pronouns she/her/hers Business Services and Administrative Manager Administration – Community Services Group E rbernstorff@slocity.org T 805.781.7203 C 805.540.0219 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications 689 From: Ellsworth, Melissa <mellswor@slocity.org> Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2023 4:07 PM To: Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org> Subject: PD - False Alarms Hi Rebecca, I just wanted to follow up with you on PD’s False Alarm analysis. The reason why I’m a little confused on this is because the last Fee Study (2015/16 time frame) indicated the consultant didn’t change any of the excessive alarm fees because they were “punitive” in nature. All I really want to know is whether or not we can adjust those and if the reason that was given in 2015/16 still stands or if Christine D. has other thoughts. We have the time calculations for responding to these false alarms, so that’s not an issue. I asked Cindy Sconce about this and she really didn’t have an answer. When these fees were actually created back before my time (like in 2005), they were time based so I’m not sure why the consultant didn’t analyze them last time. At this time, is your recommendation to just have MGT move forward with the time based cost analysis for the false alarms? As reference, I’ve included a screenshot from the 2015/16 fee study, specifically the Alarm Fees and notes, which are also in the attached document. 690 Thanks for your help, Melissa From: Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com> Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2023 4:34 PM To: Ellsworth, Melissa <mellswor@slocity.org> Cc: Rachel King <rking@mgtconsulting.com> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL]RE: SLO UF: Police - revised model Melissa I did find this in one of my other emails from Rebecca: In regard to the police fee schedule I think including it in the comparison survey would be really helpful. I can also include this caveat in my email to the Leadership Team. We can include it in the comparison survey and see what other agencies are charging for these. Cindy From: Ellsworth, Melissa <mellswor@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2023 3:06 PM To: Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com> Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL]RE: SLO UF: Police - revised model Hi Cindy, Just checking in to see if you were able to connect with Rebecca yet so we can figure out next steps on the Alarm and Tobacco fees. Thanks, Melissa CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. 691 From: Ellsworth, Melissa Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2023 3:24 PM To: Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL]RE: SLO UF: Police - revised model Great, thank you From: Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com> Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2023 3:15 PM To: Ellsworth, Melissa <mellswor@slocity.org> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL]RE: SLO UF: Police - revised model You got it. Let me talk to her first and then circle back with you. I also am going to walk her through the Tobacco fee based on your other email. Cindy From: Ellsworth, Melissa <mellswor@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2023 3:14 PM To: Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL]RE: SLO UF: Police - revised model Yes, please discuss with Rebecca and then let me know. I just want everyone to be on the same page. Thank you! From: Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com> Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2023 3:11 PM To: Ellsworth, Melissa <mellswor@slocity.org> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL]RE: SLO UF: Police - revised model I’m happy to jump on a meeƟng with them if you think that would be helpful. It really is about how they view these fees and them agreeing that as a penalty they can change it to what is reasonable as a deterrent. Let me know what you decide. I can also run this by Rebecca and see how she wants to approach this if you think that would be beƩer. Cindy From: Ellsworth, Melissa <mellswor@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2023 3:04 PM To: Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL]RE: SLO UF: Police - revised model Cindy – do you think it would be best if you were part of this meeting as well? Let me know. From: Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2023 11:13 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. 692 To: Ellsworth, Melissa <mellswor@slocity.org> Subject: SLO UF: Police - revised model This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Melissa Here is the updated model with the 20% added to the alarm permit and false alarm costs. Let me know when you have spoken with the Chief and AƩorney and how you want to proceed with those fees. Thanks! Cindy Sconce (she/her/hers) Director, Performance Solutions Group 3600 American River Drive, Suite 150 Sacramento, CA 95864 Cell: 916.276.8807 Email: csconce@mgtconsulting.com The information contained in this electronic communication is intended only for the use of the addressee, and may be a confidential communication. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this transmittal in error; any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this transmittal is strictly prohibited. 693 From:Bernstorff, Rebecca Sent:Monday, September 18, 2023 6:10 PM To:Loew, Michael Cc:Tway, Timothea (Timmi) Subject:RE: Fee Study Update Hi Mike, I understand; when would be the best time to schedule the meeting? My intent was to help solve any questions in a meeting setting to save you time; apologies if it didn’t come across that way. Thanks, Rebecca Rebecca Bernstorff pronouns she/her/hers Business Services and Administrative Manager Administration – Community Services Group E rbernstorff@slocity.org T 805.781.7203 C 805.540.0219 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Loew, Michael <Mloew@slocity.org> Sent: Monday, September 18, 2023 6:08 PM To: Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org> Cc: Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org> Subject: Fee Study Update Hi Rebecca, I am not going to have anything new to provide as an update for the fee study on Wednesday afternoon. I already have a full schedule on Wednesday and will not have time to complete our assessments until Friday since Neema does not anticipate being able to get us the data we need until Wednesday morning. Thanks for understanding, Mike Loew Deputy Director Chief Building Official 694 Community Development E Mloew@slocity.org T 805.781.7157 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications 695 From:Cruce, Greg Sent:Monday, September 18, 2023 6:09 PM To:Bernstorff, Rebecca; Cindy Sconce Cc:Felt, Chris Subject:RE: [EXTERNAL]FW: PD - False Alarms Hi Cindy, Fleet does not do charge backs for general fund programs. I’m sure we have a per vehicle cost, although it’s changing because we’re unable to get new vehicles. I’ll be in touch with a total cost. Thanks Greg Cruce Deputy Director - Maintenance Operations Public Works Department 805.781.7264 gcruce@slocity.org From: Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org> Sent: Monday, September 18, 2023 5:19 PM To: Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com> Cc: Felt, Chris <cfelt@slocity.org>; Cruce, Greg <gcruce@slocity.org> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL]FW: PD - False Alarms Hi Cindy, Yes, including Chris, our Fleet Supervisor, and Greg, our Maintenance Operations Deputy Director about fleet charging for PD. Thanks! Rebecca Bernstorff pronouns she/her/hers Business Services and Administrative Manager Administration – Community Services Group E rbernstorff@slocity.org T 805.781.7203 C 805.540.0219 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com> Sent: Monday, September 18, 2023 4:45 PM To: Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org> Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL]FW: PD - False Alarms 696 Hi Rebecca Melissa from Police is asking about vehicle maintenance charges so they can apply costs to their false alarm permits. Does fleet charge their costs out to the departments? Based on what Melissa is saying below, it doesn’t sound like the Police department gets charged directly. Do you have a contact over in Fleet that I can ask whether they have a calculated per vehicle cost for Police? Cindy From: Ellsworth, Melissa <mellswor@slocity.org> Sent: Monday, September 18, 2023 3:59 PM To: Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com> Cc: Rachel King <rking@mgtconsulting.com> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL]FW: PD - False Alarms The police department doesn’t budget for vehicle maintenance costs, all of that is in Fleet’s budget (Public Works). From: Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com> Sent: Monday, September 18, 2023 3:38 PM To: Ellsworth, Melissa <mellswor@slocity.org> Cc: Rachel King <rking@mgtconsulting.com> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL]FW: PD - False Alarms Hi Melissa Which line item on the ICRP would include your vehicle maintenance costs? It looks like fuel is currently being listed under the indirect column so that is part of the overhead costs already. This cost could be pulled out and placed as direct and we could develop an addiƟonal direct charge to apply to the false alarms if we think that would be beneficial. You are correct, we did already incorporate the 20% vendor costs into the fee. We did not include the False Alarm #1 or #2. Let me know about the vehicle maintenance costs and whether you would like to keep these costs as indirect, which adds to the overhead, or as direct so that it can be directly applied to the false alarm fees. Cindy From: Ellsworth, Melissa <mellswor@slocity.org> Sent: Monday, September 18, 2023 2:17 PM To: Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com> Cc: Rachel King <rking@mgtconsulting.com> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL]FW: PD - False Alarms Hello, I took a look at this document and updated some information that you were looking for under the ICRP tab. Also, wanted to ask if the costs for us to respond to a false alarm can also included vehicle related costs like maintenance and fuel costs as well (looks like you already added the 20% vendor fee)? Also, should the fee incorporate costs from False Alarms #1 and #2 that are not charged? CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. 98 From: Ellsworth, Melissa <mellswor@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2023 8:38 AM To: Symens, Sadie <ssymens@slocity.org> Subject: RE: PD - False Alarms . From: Symens, Sadie <ssymens@slocity.org> Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2023 1:48 PM To: Ellsworth, Melissa <mellswor@slocity.org> Subject: RE: PD - False Alarms Sadie Symens pronouns she/her/hers 699 Deputy City Attorney City Attorney's Office E ssymens@slocity.org slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the CONFIDENTIAL use of the designated addressee named above. The information transmitted is subject to the attorney-client privilege and/or represents confidential attorney work product. Recipients should not file copies of this email with publicly accessible records. If you are not the designated addressee named above or the authorized agent responsible for delivering it to the designated addressee, you received this document through inadvertent error and any further review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication by you or anyone else is strictly prohibited. IF YOU RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY TELEPHONING THE SENDER NAMED ABOVE AT (805) 781-7140. Thank you. From: Kersten, Markie <mkersten@slocity.org> Sent: Friday, September 8, 2023 4:08 PM To: Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org>; Ellsworth, Melissa <mellswor@slocity.org> Cc: Symens, Sadie <ssymens@slocity.org> Subject: RE: PD - False Alarms Hi Rebecca and Melissa, I’m looping Sadie in who can take a look at this next week. Thanks, Markie From: Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org> Sent: Friday, September 8, 2023 3:09 PM To: Ellsworth, Melissa <mellswor@slocity.org> Cc: Kersten, Markie <mkersten@slocity.org> Subject: RE: PD - False Alarms Hi Melissa, Thanks for touching base and for providing the context, I appreciate it and apologize for the delay in my reply. I can see how it may be perceived more as a fine than a fee and why the approach to that may require some legal perspective. I’m including Markie in to weigh in on if we should move forward with time-based cost analysis for false alarms (which was my original thought) or if we should take a different approach based on any legalities to it? The comparative analysis is interesting (attached so Markie could take a look) as it looks like the others may be doing a flat fee approach. I’m happy to defer to legal/PD expertise on the best path forward. Thanks! 700 Rebecca Rebecca Bernstorff pronouns she/her/hers Business Services and Administrative Manager Administration – Community Services Group E rbernstorff@slocity.org T 805.781.7203 C 805.540.0219 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Ellsworth, Melissa <mellswor@slocity.org> Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2023 4:07 PM To: Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org> Subject: PD - False Alarms Hi Rebecca, I just wanted to follow up with you on PD’s False Alarm analysis. The reason why I’m a little confused on this is because the last Fee Study (2015/16 time frame) indicated the consultant didn’t change any of the excessive alarm fees because they were “punitive” in nature. All I really want to know is whether or not we can adjust those and if the reason that was given in 2015/16 still stands or if Christine D. has other thoughts. We have the time calculations for responding to these false alarms, so that’s not an issue. I asked Cindy Sconce about this and she really didn’t have an answer. When these fees were actually created back before my time (like in 2005), they were time based so I’m not sure why the consultant didn’t analyze them last time. At this time, is your recommendation to just have MGT move forward with the time based cost analysis for the false alarms? As reference, I’ve included a screenshot from the 2015/16 fee study, specifically the Alarm Fees and notes, which are also in the attached document. 701 Thanks for your help, Melissa From: Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com> Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2023 4:34 PM To: Ellsworth, Melissa <mellswor@slocity.org> Cc: Rachel King <rking@mgtconsulting.com> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL]RE: SLO UF: Police - revised model Melissa I did find this in one of my other emails from Rebecca: 702 In regard to the police fee schedule I think including it in the comparison survey would be really helpful. I can also include this caveat in my email to the Leadership Team. We can include it in the comparison survey and see what other agencies are charging for these. Cindy From: Ellsworth, Melissa <mellswor@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2023 3:06 PM To: Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com> Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL]RE: SLO UF: Police - revised model Hi Cindy, Just checking in to see if you were able to connect with Rebecca yet so we can figure out next steps on the Alarm and Tobacco fees. Thanks, Melissa From: Ellsworth, Melissa Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2023 3:24 PM To: Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL]RE: SLO UF: Police - revised model Great, thank you From: Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com> Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2023 3:15 PM To: Ellsworth, Melissa <mellswor@slocity.org> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL]RE: SLO UF: Police - revised model You got it. Let me talk to her first and then circle back with you. I also am going to walk her through the Tobacco fee based on your other email. Cindy From: Ellsworth, Melissa <mellswor@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2023 3:14 PM To: Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL]RE: SLO UF: Police - revised model Yes, please discuss with Rebecca and then let me know. I just want everyone to be on the same page. Thank you! From: Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com> Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2023 3:11 PM To: Ellsworth, Melissa <mellswor@slocity.org> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL]RE: SLO UF: Police - revised model CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. 703 I’m happy to jump on a meeƟng with them if you think that would be helpful. It really is about how they view these fees and them agreeing that as a penalty they can change it to what is reasonable as a deterrent. Let me know what you decide. I can also run this by Rebecca and see how she wants to approach this if you think that would be beƩer. Cindy From: Ellsworth, Melissa <mellswor@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2023 3:04 PM To: Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL]RE: SLO UF: Police - revised model Cindy – do you think it would be best if you were part of this meeting as well? Let me know. From: Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2023 11:13 AM To: Ellsworth, Melissa <mellswor@slocity.org> Subject: SLO UF: Police - revised model This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Melissa Here is the updated model with the 20% added to the alarm permit and false alarm costs. Let me know when you have spoken with the Chief and AƩorney and how you want to proceed with those fees. Thanks! Cindy Sconce (she/her/hers) Director, Performance Solutions Group 3600 American River Drive, Suite 150 Sacramento, CA 95864 Cell: 916.276.8807 Email: csconce@mgtconsulting.com The information contained in this electronic communication is intended only for the use of the addressee, and may be a confidential communication. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this transmittal in error; any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this transmittal is strictly prohibited. CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. 704 From:Loew, Michael Sent:Monday, September 18, 2023 6:08 PM To:Bernstorff, Rebecca Cc:Tway, Timothea (Timmi) Subject:Fee Study Update Hi Rebecca, I am not going to have anything new to provide as an update for the fee study on Wednesday afternoon. I already have a full schedule on Wednesday and will not have time to complete our assessments until Friday since Neema does not anticipate being able to get us the data we need until Wednesday morning. Thanks for understanding, Mike Loew Deputy Director Chief Building Official Community Development E Mloew@slocity.org T 805.781.7157 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications 705 From:Bernstorff, Rebecca Sent:Monday, September 18, 2023 5:19 PM To:Cindy Sconce Cc:Felt, Chris; Cruce, Greg Subject:RE: [EXTERNAL]FW: PD - False Alarms Hi Cindy, Yes, including Chris, our Fleet Supervisor, and Greg, our Maintenance Operations Deputy Director about fleet charging for PD. Thanks! Rebecca Bernstorff pronouns she/her/hers Business Services and Administrative Manager Administration – Community Services Group E rbernstorff@slocity.org T 805.781.7203 C 805.540.0219 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com> Sent: Monday, September 18, 2023 4:45 PM To: Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org> Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL]FW: PD - False Alarms Hi Rebecca Melissa from Police is asking about vehicle maintenance charges so they can apply costs to their false alarm permits. Does fleet charge their costs out to the departments? Based on what Melissa is saying below, it doesn’t sound like the Police department gets charged directly. Do you have a contact over in Fleet that I can ask whether they have a calculated per vehicle cost for Police? Cindy From: Ellsworth, Melissa <mellswor@slocity.org> Sent: Monday, September 18, 2023 3:59 PM To: Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com> Cc: Rachel King <rking@mgtconsulting.com> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL]FW: PD - False Alarms CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. 706 The police department doesn’t budget for vehicle maintenance costs, all of that is in Fleet’s budget (Public Works). From: Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com> Sent: Monday, September 18, 2023 3:38 PM To: Ellsworth, Melissa <mellswor@slocity.org> Cc: Rachel King <rking@mgtconsulting.com> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL]FW: PD - False Alarms Hi Melissa Which line item on the ICRP would include your vehicle maintenance costs? It looks like fuel is currently being listed under the indirect column so that is part of the overhead costs already. This cost could be pulled out and placed as direct and we could develop an addiƟonal direct charge to apply to the false alarms if we think that would be beneficial. You are correct, we did already incorporate the 20% vendor costs into the fee. We did not include the False Alarm #1 or #2. Let me know about the vehicle maintenance costs and whether you would like to keep these costs as indirect, which adds to the overhead, or as direct so that it can be directly applied to the false alarm fees. Cindy From: Ellsworth, Melissa <mellswor@slocity.org> Sent: Monday, September 18, 2023 2:17 PM To: Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com> Cc: Rachel King <rking@mgtconsulting.com> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL]FW: PD - False Alarms Hello, I took a look at this document and updated some information that you were looking for under the ICRP tab. Also, wanted to ask if the costs for us to respond to a false alarm can also included vehicle related costs like maintenance and fuel costs as well (looks like you already added the 20% vendor fee)? Also, should the fee incorporate costs from False Alarms #1 and #2 that are not charged? From: Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2023 10:22 AM To: Ellsworth, Melissa <mellswor@slocity.org> Cc: Rachel King <rking@mgtconsulting.com> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL]FW: PD - False Alarms Ok, done. I also added the language within a twelve month period to the false alarms. Cindy From: Ellsworth, Melissa <mellswor@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2023 10:04 AM To: Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com> Cc: Rachel King <rking@mgtconsulting.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL]FW: PD - False Alarms CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. 707 Hi Cindy, Hope all is well. Just getting back to you on the False Alarm fees for PD. After consulting with our Attorney’s office, they are recommending that we calculate the fees based on a cost recovery model. Please see her comments below. Additionally, based on the information that Rachel provided from other agencies - I reached out to Monterey, Santa Barbara, Ventura and SLO County to find out how their fees were calculated. I only heard back from two agencies; one had no idea how their fees were calculated and the other was time based/cost recovery. Let me know if you still need additional information. If you can update the matrix and send it to me again so I can review, that would be appreciated! Thanks, Melissa From: Symens, Sadie <ssymens@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2023 9:45 AM To: Ellsworth, Melissa <mellswor@slocity.org>; Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org> Subject: RE: PD - False Alarms From: Ellsworth, Melissa <mellswor@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2023 8:38 AM To: Symens, Sadie <ssymens@slocity.org> Subject: RE: PD - False Alarms . CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. 08 From: Symens, Sadie <ssymens@slocity.org> Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2023 1:48 PM To: Ellsworth, Melissa <mellswor@slocity.org> Subject: RE: PD - False Alarms Sadie Symens pronouns she/her/hers Deputy City Attorney City Attorney's Office E ssymens@slocity.org slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the CONFIDENTIAL use of the designated addressee named above. The information transmitted is subject to the attorney-client privilege and/or represents confidential attorney work product. Recipients should not file copies of this email with publicly accessible records. If you are not the designated addressee named above or the authorized agent responsible for delivering it to the designated addressee, you received this document through inadvertent 709 error and any further review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication by you or anyone else is strictly prohibited. IF YOU RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY TELEPHONING THE SENDER NAMED ABOVE AT (805) 781-7140. Thank you. From: Kersten, Markie <mkersten@slocity.org> Sent: Friday, September 8, 2023 4:08 PM To: Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org>; Ellsworth, Melissa <mellswor@slocity.org> Cc: Symens, Sadie <ssymens@slocity.org> Subject: RE: PD - False Alarms Hi Rebecca and Melissa, I’m looping Sadie in who can take a look at this next week. Thanks, Markie From: Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org> Sent: Friday, September 8, 2023 3:09 PM To: Ellsworth, Melissa <mellswor@slocity.org> Cc: Kersten, Markie <mkersten@slocity.org> Subject: RE: PD - False Alarms Hi Melissa, Thanks for touching base and for providing the context, I appreciate it and apologize for the delay in my reply. I can see how it may be perceived more as a fine than a fee and why the approach to that may require some legal perspective. I’m including Markie in to weigh in on if we should move forward with time-based cost analysis for false alarms (which was my original thought) or if we should take a different approach based on any legalities to it? The comparative analysis is interesting (attached so Markie could take a look) as it looks like the others may be doing a flat fee approach. I’m happy to defer to legal/PD expertise on the best path forward. Thanks! Rebecca Rebecca Bernstorff pronouns she/her/hers Business Services and Administrative Manager Administration – Community Services Group E rbernstorff@slocity.org T 805.781.7203 C 805.540.0219 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications 710 From: Ellsworth, Melissa <mellswor@slocity.org> Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2023 4:07 PM To: Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org> Subject: PD - False Alarms Hi Rebecca, I just wanted to follow up with you on PD’s False Alarm analysis. The reason why I’m a little confused on this is because the last Fee Study (2015/16 time frame) indicated the consultant didn’t change any of the excessive alarm fees because they were “punitive” in nature. All I really want to know is whether or not we can adjust those and if the reason that was given in 2015/16 still stands or if Christine D. has other thoughts. We have the time calculations for responding to these false alarms, so that’s not an issue. I asked Cindy Sconce about this and she really didn’t have an answer. When these fees were actually created back before my time (like in 2005), they were time based so I’m not sure why the consultant didn’t analyze them last time. At this time, is your recommendation to just have MGT move forward with the time based cost analysis for the false alarms? As reference, I’ve included a screenshot from the 2015/16 fee study, specifically the Alarm Fees and notes, which are also in the attached document. 711 Thanks for your help, Melissa From: Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com> Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2023 4:34 PM To: Ellsworth, Melissa <mellswor@slocity.org> Cc: Rachel King <rking@mgtconsulting.com> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL]RE: SLO UF: Police - revised model Melissa I did find this in one of my other emails from Rebecca: In regard to the police fee schedule I think including it in the comparison survey would be really helpful. I can also include this caveat in my email to the Leadership Team. We can include it in the comparison survey and see what other agencies are charging for these. Cindy From: Ellsworth, Melissa <mellswor@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2023 3:06 PM To: Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com> Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL]RE: SLO UF: Police - revised model Hi Cindy, Just checking in to see if you were able to connect with Rebecca yet so we can figure out next steps on the Alarm and Tobacco fees. Thanks, Melissa CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. 712 From: Ellsworth, Melissa Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2023 3:24 PM To: Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL]RE: SLO UF: Police - revised model Great, thank you From: Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com> Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2023 3:15 PM To: Ellsworth, Melissa <mellswor@slocity.org> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL]RE: SLO UF: Police - revised model You got it. Let me talk to her first and then circle back with you. I also am going to walk her through the Tobacco fee based on your other email. Cindy From: Ellsworth, Melissa <mellswor@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2023 3:14 PM To: Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL]RE: SLO UF: Police - revised model Yes, please discuss with Rebecca and then let me know. I just want everyone to be on the same page. Thank you! From: Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com> Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2023 3:11 PM To: Ellsworth, Melissa <mellswor@slocity.org> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL]RE: SLO UF: Police - revised model I’m happy to jump on a meeƟng with them if you think that would be helpful. It really is about how they view these fees and them agreeing that as a penalty they can change it to what is reasonable as a deterrent. Let me know what you decide. I can also run this by Rebecca and see how she wants to approach this if you think that would be beƩer. Cindy From: Ellsworth, Melissa <mellswor@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2023 3:04 PM To: Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL]RE: SLO UF: Police - revised model Cindy – do you think it would be best if you were part of this meeting as well? Let me know. From: Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2023 11:13 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. 713 To: Ellsworth, Melissa <mellswor@slocity.org> Subject: SLO UF: Police - revised model This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Melissa Here is the updated model with the 20% added to the alarm permit and false alarm costs. Let me know when you have spoken with the Chief and AƩorney and how you want to proceed with those fees. Thanks! Cindy Sconce (she/her/hers) Director, Performance Solutions Group 3600 American River Drive, Suite 150 Sacramento, CA 95864 Cell: 916.276.8807 Email: csconce@mgtconsulting.com The information contained in this electronic communication is intended only for the use of the addressee, and may be a confidential communication. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this transmittal in error; any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this transmittal is strictly prohibited. 714 From:Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com> Sent:Monday, September 18, 2023 4:45 PM To:Bernstorff, Rebecca Subject:FW: [EXTERNAL]FW: PD - False Alarms Hi Rebecca Melissa from Police is asking about vehicle maintenance charges so they can apply costs to their false alarm permits. Does fleet charge their costs out to the departments? Based on what Melissa is saying below, it doesn’t sound like the Police department gets charged directly. Do you have a contact over in Fleet that I can ask whether they have a calculated per vehicle cost for Police? Cindy From: Ellsworth, Melissa <mellswor@slocity.org> Sent: Monday, September 18, 2023 3:59 PM To: Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com> Cc: Rachel King <rking@mgtconsulting.com> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL]FW: PD - False Alarms The police department doesn’t budget for vehicle maintenance costs, all of that is in Fleet’s budget (Public Works). From: Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com> Sent: Monday, September 18, 2023 3:38 PM To: Ellsworth, Melissa <mellswor@slocity.org> Cc: Rachel King <rking@mgtconsulting.com> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL]FW: PD - False Alarms Hi Melissa Which line item on the ICRP would include your vehicle maintenance costs? It looks like fuel is currently being listed under the indirect column so that is part of the overhead costs already. This cost could be pulled out and placed as direct and we could develop an addiƟonal direct charge to apply to the false alarms if we think that would be beneficial. You are correct, we did already incorporate the 20% vendor costs into the fee. We did not include the False Alarm #1 or #2. Let me know about the vehicle maintenance costs and whether you would like to keep these costs as indirect, which adds to the overhead, or as direct so that it can be directly applied to the false alarm fees. Cindy From: Ellsworth, Melissa <mellswor@slocity.org> Sent: Monday, September 18, 2023 2:17 PM To: Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com> Cc: Rachel King <rking@mgtconsulting.com> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL]FW: PD - False Alarms CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. 16 . From: Symens, Sadie <ssymens@slocity.org> Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2023 1:48 PM 717 To: Ellsworth, Melissa <mellswor@slocity.org> Subject: RE: PD - False Alarms Sadie Symens pronouns she/her/hers Deputy City Attorney City Attorney's Office E ssymens@slocity.org slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the CONFIDENTIAL use of the designated addressee named above. The information transmitted is subject to the attorney-client privilege and/or represents confidential attorney work product. Recipients should not file copies of this email with publicly accessible records. If you are not the designated addressee named above or the authorized agent responsible for delivering it to the designated addressee, you received this document through inadvertent error and any further review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication by you or anyone else is strictly prohibited. IF YOU RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY TELEPHONING THE SENDER NAMED ABOVE AT (805) 781-7140. Thank you. From: Kersten, Markie <mkersten@slocity.org> Sent: Friday, September 8, 2023 4:08 PM To: Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org>; Ellsworth, Melissa <mellswor@slocity.org> Cc: Symens, Sadie <ssymens@slocity.org> Subject: RE: PD - False Alarms Hi Rebecca and Melissa, I’m looping Sadie in who can take a look at this next week. Thanks, Markie From: Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org> Sent: Friday, September 8, 2023 3:09 PM To: Ellsworth, Melissa <mellswor@slocity.org> Cc: Kersten, Markie <mkersten@slocity.org> Subject: RE: PD - False Alarms 718 Hi Melissa, Thanks for touching base and for providing the context, I appreciate it and apologize for the delay in my reply. I can see how it may be perceived more as a fine than a fee and why the approach to that may require some legal perspective. I’m including Markie in to weigh in on if we should move forward with time-based cost analysis for false alarms (which was my original thought) or if we should take a different approach based on any legalities to it? The comparative analysis is interesting (attached so Markie could take a look) as it looks like the others may be doing a flat fee approach. I’m happy to defer to legal/PD expertise on the best path forward. Thanks! Rebecca Rebecca Bernstorff pronouns she/her/hers Business Services and Administrative Manager Administration – Community Services Group E rbernstorff@slocity.org T 805.781.7203 C 805.540.0219 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Ellsworth, Melissa <mellswor@slocity.org> Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2023 4:07 PM To: Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org> Subject: PD - False Alarms Hi Rebecca, I just wanted to follow up with you on PD’s False Alarm analysis. The reason why I’m a little confused on this is because the last Fee Study (2015/16 time frame) indicated the consultant didn’t change any of the excessive alarm fees because they were “punitive” in nature. All I really want to know is whether or not we can adjust those and if the reason that was given in 2015/16 still stands or if Christine D. has other thoughts. We have the time calculations for responding to these false alarms, so that’s not an issue. I asked Cindy Sconce about this and she really didn’t have an answer. When these fees were actually created back before my time (like in 2005), they were time based so I’m not sure why the consultant didn’t analyze them last time. At this time, is your recommendation to just have MGT move forward with the time based cost analysis for the false alarms? As reference, I’ve included a screenshot from the 2015/16 fee study, specifically the Alarm Fees and notes, which are also in the attached document. 719 Thanks for your help, Melissa From: Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com> Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2023 4:34 PM To: Ellsworth, Melissa <mellswor@slocity.org> Cc: Rachel King <rking@mgtconsulting.com> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL]RE: SLO UF: Police - revised model Melissa I did find this in one of my other emails from Rebecca: 720 In regard to the police fee schedule I think including it in the comparison survey would be really helpful. I can also include this caveat in my email to the Leadership Team. We can include it in the comparison survey and see what other agencies are charging for these. Cindy From: Ellsworth, Melissa <mellswor@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2023 3:06 PM To: Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com> Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL]RE: SLO UF: Police - revised model Hi Cindy, Just checking in to see if you were able to connect with Rebecca yet so we can figure out next steps on the Alarm and Tobacco fees. Thanks, Melissa From: Ellsworth, Melissa Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2023 3:24 PM To: Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL]RE: SLO UF: Police - revised model Great, thank you From: Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com> Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2023 3:15 PM To: Ellsworth, Melissa <mellswor@slocity.org> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL]RE: SLO UF: Police - revised model You got it. Let me talk to her first and then circle back with you. I also am going to walk her through the Tobacco fee based on your other email. Cindy From: Ellsworth, Melissa <mellswor@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2023 3:14 PM To: Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL]RE: SLO UF: Police - revised model Yes, please discuss with Rebecca and then let me know. I just want everyone to be on the same page. Thank you! From: Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com> Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2023 3:11 PM To: Ellsworth, Melissa <mellswor@slocity.org> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL]RE: SLO UF: Police - revised model CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. 721 I’m happy to jump on a meeƟng with them if you think that would be helpful. It really is about how they view these fees and them agreeing that as a penalty they can change it to what is reasonable as a deterrent. Let me know what you decide. I can also run this by Rebecca and see how she wants to approach this if you think that would be beƩer. Cindy From: Ellsworth, Melissa <mellswor@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2023 3:04 PM To: Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL]RE: SLO UF: Police - revised model Cindy – do you think it would be best if you were part of this meeting as well? Let me know. From: Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2023 11:13 AM To: Ellsworth, Melissa <mellswor@slocity.org> Subject: SLO UF: Police - revised model This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Melissa Here is the updated model with the 20% added to the alarm permit and false alarm costs. Let me know when you have spoken with the Chief and AƩorney and how you want to proceed with those fees. Thanks! Cindy Sconce (she/her/hers) Director, Performance Solutions Group 3600 American River Drive, Suite 150 Sacramento, CA 95864 Cell: 916.276.8807 Email: csconce@mgtconsulting.com The information contained in this electronic communication is intended only for the use of the addressee, and may be a confidential communication. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this transmittal in error; any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this transmittal is strictly prohibited. CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. 722 From:Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com> Sent:Monday, September 18, 2023 4:41 PM To:Ellsworth, Melissa Cc:Rachel King Subject:RE: [EXTERNAL]FW: PD - False Alarms Ok, let me ask Rebecca about Fleet charges then. Cindy From: Ellsworth, Melissa <mellswor@slocity.org> Sent: Monday, September 18, 2023 3:59 PM To: Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com> Cc: Rachel King <rking@mgtconsulting.com> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL]FW: PD - False Alarms The police department doesn’t budget for vehicle maintenance costs, all of that is in Fleet’s budget (Public Works). From: Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com> Sent: Monday, September 18, 2023 3:38 PM To: Ellsworth, Melissa <mellswor@slocity.org> Cc: Rachel King <rking@mgtconsulting.com> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL]FW: PD - False Alarms Hi Melissa Which line item on the ICRP would include your vehicle maintenance costs? It looks like fuel is currently being listed under the indirect column so that is part of the overhead costs already. This cost could be pulled out and placed as direct and we could develop an addiƟonal direct charge to apply to the false alarms if we think that would be beneficial. You are correct, we did already incorporate the 20% vendor costs into the fee. We did not include the False Alarm #1 or #2. Let me know about the vehicle maintenance costs and whether you would like to keep these costs as indirect, which adds to the overhead, or as direct so that it can be directly applied to the false alarm fees. Cindy From: Ellsworth, Melissa <mellswor@slocity.org> Sent: Monday, September 18, 2023 2:17 PM To: Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com> Cc: Rachel King <rking@mgtconsulting.com> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL]FW: PD - False Alarms CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. 723 Hello, I took a look at this document and updated some information that you were looking for under the ICRP tab. Also, wanted to ask if the costs for us to respond to a false alarm can also included vehicle related costs like maintenance and fuel costs as well (looks like you already added the 20% vendor fee)? Also, should the fee incorporate costs from False Alarms #1 and #2 that are not charged? From: Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2023 10:22 AM To: Ellsworth, Melissa <mellswor@slocity.org> Cc: Rachel King <rking@mgtconsulting.com> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL]FW: PD - False Alarms Ok, done. I also added the language within a twelve month period to the false alarms. Cindy From: Ellsworth, Melissa <mellswor@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2023 10:04 AM To: Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com> Cc: Rachel King <rking@mgtconsulting.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL]FW: PD - False Alarms Hi Cindy, Hope all is well. Just getting back to you on the False Alarm fees for PD. After consulting with our Attorney’s office, they are recommending that we calculate the fees based on a cost recovery model. Please see her comments below. Additionally, based on the information that Rachel provided from other agencies - I reached out to Monterey, Santa Barbara, Ventura and SLO County to find out how their fees were calculated. I only heard back from two agencies; one had no idea how their fees were calculated and the other was time based/cost recovery. Let me know if you still need additional information. If you can update the matrix and send it to me again so I can review, that would be appreciated! Thanks, Melissa From: Symens, Sadie <ssymens@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2023 9:45 AM To: Ellsworth, Melissa <mellswor@slocity.org>; Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org> Subject: RE: PD - False Alarms CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. 725 Sadie Symens pronouns she/her/hers Deputy City Attorney City Attorney's Office E ssymens@slocity.org slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the CONFIDENTIAL use of the designated addressee named above. The information transmitted is subject to the attorney-client privilege and/or represents confidential attorney work product. Recipients should not file copies of this email with publicly accessible records. If you are not the designated addressee named above or the authorized agent responsible for delivering it to the designated addressee, you received this document through inadvertent error and any further review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication by you or anyone else is strictly prohibited. IF YOU RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY TELEPHONING THE SENDER NAMED ABOVE AT (805) 781-7140. Thank you. From: Kersten, Markie <mkersten@slocity.org> Sent: Friday, September 8, 2023 4:08 PM To: Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org>; Ellsworth, Melissa <mellswor@slocity.org> Cc: Symens, Sadie <ssymens@slocity.org> Subject: RE: PD - False Alarms Hi Rebecca and Melissa, I’m looping Sadie in who can take a look at this next week. Thanks, Markie From: Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org> Sent: Friday, September 8, 2023 3:09 PM To: Ellsworth, Melissa <mellswor@slocity.org> Cc: Kersten, Markie <mkersten@slocity.org> Subject: RE: PD - False Alarms Hi Melissa, Thanks for touching base and for providing the context, I appreciate it and apologize for the delay in my reply. I can see how it may be perceived more as a fine than a fee and why the approach to that may require some legal 726 perspective. I’m including Markie in to weigh in on if we should move forward with time-based cost analysis for false alarms (which was my original thought) or if we should take a different approach based on any legalities to it? The comparative analysis is interesting (attached so Markie could take a look) as it looks like the others may be doing a flat fee approach. I’m happy to defer to legal/PD expertise on the best path forward. Thanks! Rebecca Rebecca Bernstorff pronouns she/her/hers Business Services and Administrative Manager Administration – Community Services Group E rbernstorff@slocity.org T 805.781.7203 C 805.540.0219 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Ellsworth, Melissa <mellswor@slocity.org> Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2023 4:07 PM To: Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org> Subject: PD - False Alarms Hi Rebecca, I just wanted to follow up with you on PD’s False Alarm analysis. The reason why I’m a little confused on this is because the last Fee Study (2015/16 time frame) indicated the consultant didn’t change any of the excessive alarm fees because they were “punitive” in nature. All I really want to know is whether or not we can adjust those and if the reason that was given in 2015/16 still stands or if Christine D. has other thoughts. We have the time calculations for responding to these false alarms, so that’s not an issue. I asked Cindy Sconce about this and she really didn’t have an answer. When these fees were actually created back before my time (like in 2005), they were time based so I’m not sure why the consultant didn’t analyze them last time. At this time, is your recommendation to just have MGT move forward with the time based cost analysis for the false alarms? As reference, I’ve included a screenshot from the 2015/16 fee study, specifically the Alarm Fees and notes, which are also in the attached document. 727 Thanks for your help, Melissa From: Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com> Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2023 4:34 PM To: Ellsworth, Melissa <mellswor@slocity.org> Cc: Rachel King <rking@mgtconsulting.com> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL]RE: SLO UF: Police - revised model Melissa I did find this in one of my other emails from Rebecca: 728 In regard to the police fee schedule I think including it in the comparison survey would be really helpful. I can also include this caveat in my email to the Leadership Team. We can include it in the comparison survey and see what other agencies are charging for these. Cindy From: Ellsworth, Melissa <mellswor@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2023 3:06 PM To: Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com> Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL]RE: SLO UF: Police - revised model Hi Cindy, Just checking in to see if you were able to connect with Rebecca yet so we can figure out next steps on the Alarm and Tobacco fees. Thanks, Melissa From: Ellsworth, Melissa Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2023 3:24 PM To: Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL]RE: SLO UF: Police - revised model Great, thank you From: Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com> Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2023 3:15 PM To: Ellsworth, Melissa <mellswor@slocity.org> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL]RE: SLO UF: Police - revised model You got it. Let me talk to her first and then circle back with you. I also am going to walk her through the Tobacco fee based on your other email. Cindy From: Ellsworth, Melissa <mellswor@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2023 3:14 PM To: Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL]RE: SLO UF: Police - revised model Yes, please discuss with Rebecca and then let me know. I just want everyone to be on the same page. Thank you! From: Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com> Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2023 3:11 PM To: Ellsworth, Melissa <mellswor@slocity.org> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL]RE: SLO UF: Police - revised model CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. 729 I’m happy to jump on a meeƟng with them if you think that would be helpful. It really is about how they view these fees and them agreeing that as a penalty they can change it to what is reasonable as a deterrent. Let me know what you decide. I can also run this by Rebecca and see how she wants to approach this if you think that would be beƩer. Cindy From: Ellsworth, Melissa <mellswor@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2023 3:04 PM To: Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL]RE: SLO UF: Police - revised model Cindy – do you think it would be best if you were part of this meeting as well? Let me know. From: Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2023 11:13 AM To: Ellsworth, Melissa <mellswor@slocity.org> Subject: SLO UF: Police - revised model This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Melissa Here is the updated model with the 20% added to the alarm permit and false alarm costs. Let me know when you have spoken with the Chief and AƩorney and how you want to proceed with those fees. Thanks! Cindy Sconce (she/her/hers) Director, Performance Solutions Group 3600 American River Drive, Suite 150 Sacramento, CA 95864 Cell: 916.276.8807 Email: csconce@mgtconsulting.com The information contained in this electronic communication is intended only for the use of the addressee, and may be a confidential communication. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this transmittal in error; any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this transmittal is strictly prohibited. CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. 730 From:Kazemi, Neema Sent:Monday, September 18, 2023 4:33 PM To:Taylor, Brent; Bernstorff, Rebecca; Nichols, Vanessa Subject:RE: Building Permit Report (adding # of units) I’m not sure what else can be done on my end, garbage in equals garbage out. If no one is entering the fields, we can’t pull information on fields that haven’t been filled. Neema Kazemi System Application Specialist - Energov Information Technology 919 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E nkazemi@slocity.org slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Taylor, Brent <btaylor@slocity.org> Sent: Monday, September 18, 2023 4:29 PM To: Kazemi, Neema <nkazemi@slocity.org>; Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org>; Nichols, Vanessa <vnichols@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Building Permit Report (adding # of units) Hi Neema – unfortunately, this data is not providing what we are looking for. Still seeing 4023 permits on this report with no square footages listed and other fields provided to try and capture the missing data is either “0” or “NULL” or just not usable as the figure provided does not seem to make sense in context of what we are seeking. I would expect some of the work classes to have zero square foot such as the ones below, but that is only accounting for 337 of the 4023 permits with 0 listed. - Block/ retaining wall - Re-Roof - Foundation only - Alt/Addition where property owner added no sq footage (those would have to be manually sorted through to determine if sq ft was added) Not seeing a way to use these alternate fields on this report to capture the square footage data that is being requested. Brent Taylor pronouns he/him/his Financial Analyst 731 Community Services Group E btaylor@slocity.org T 805.781.7091 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Kazemi, Neema <nkazemi@slocity.org> Sent: Monday, September 18, 2023 11:01 AM To: Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org>; Taylor, Brent <btaylor@slocity.org>; Nichols, Vanessa <vnichols@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Building Permit Report (adding # of units) Hi Brent, This report should have everything you’ve requested from that tab. The database names are relatively straight forward so let me know if you have any trouble associating a field name to the additional info field on the permit. Let me know if I need to add anything else. Best, Neema Kazemi System Application Specialist - Energov Information Technology 919 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E nkazemi@slocity.org slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Kazemi, Neema Sent: Monday, September 18, 2023 8:04 AM To: Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org>; Taylor, Brent <BTaylor@slocity.org>; Nichols, Vanessa <vnichols@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Building Permit Report (adding # of units) Good morning, I’ll update the fields of the report and have it sent over by this afternoon. Best, Neema Kazemi System Application Specialist - Energov Information Technology 919 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E nkazemi@slocity.org slocity.org 732 Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org> Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2023 4:43 PM To: Taylor, Brent <btaylor@slocity.org>; Nichols, Vanessa <vnichols@slocity.org>; Kazemi, Neema <nkazemi@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Building Permit Report (adding # of units) Importance: High Hi Neema, Just following up on this request. I think it’s also going to help make progress in the user fee side of the fee study as well, so we are really excited to get this report! Thanks so much! Rebecca Rebecca Bernstorff pronouns she/her/hers Business Services and Administrative Manager Administration – Community Services Group E rbernstorff@slocity.org T 805.781.7203 C 805.540.0219 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Taylor, Brent <btaylor@slocity.org> Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 4:49 PM To: Nichols, Vanessa <vnichols@slocity.org>; Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org>; Kazemi, Neema <nkazemi@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Building Permit Report (adding # of units) @Kazemi, Neema, can we try the report based on Vanessa’s suggestions below. I think everything is same as you previously pulled, except for the square footage data which Vanessa indicated can be pulled from the Square Feet tab under Additional Info. Screenshot below… 733 Brent Taylor pronouns he/him/his Financial Analyst Community Services Group E btaylor@slocity.org T 805.781.7091 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Nichols, Vanessa <vnichols@slocity.org> Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 3:17 PM To: Taylor, Brent <btaylor@slocity.org>; Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org>; Kazemi, Neema <nkazemi@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Building Permit Report (adding # of units) Hi, 734 So, yes you can pull the square footages from the square footage tab which also has it by construction type. The Number of Units would come from the Dwelling Units field on the general tab. Permit Number, Issue Date and Work Class are just fields to add to report. You will have to do the average of square footage after you get number of units and total square footage. Happy to help by showing which fields I am referencing. Let me know if you have any other questions. Vanessa Nichols Building Permit Services Supervisor Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E vnichols@slocity.org T 805.781.7588 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Taylor, Brent <btaylor@slocity.org> Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 8:14 AM To: Nichols, Vanessa <vnichols@slocity.org>; Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org>; Kazemi, Neema <nkazemi@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Building Permit Report (adding # of units) Hi Vanessa – Thanks for the clarification and information. The data that we are trying to gather for impact fee consultant is: ALL Permits in last 5 years (1/1/2018 – current). Data points for those permits need to include the following: - Permit Number - Issue Date - Type of Construction/ Work Class (SFR, MFR, Commercial, etc) - Square Footage - Number of Units - Multifamily Permits – Average Square Footage per unit Final data point for the Multifamily properties is to calculate the average sq ft of each unit, so will need to manually apply calculation (square footage/ # of units) to produce the average for those. The issue we are having with the reports that Neema helped generate is that for a lot of the Multifamily units, the square footage is “0” and therefore unable to calculate the average square footage per unit. Any ideas or suggestions on alternate fields from Energov that we could try in capturing this data would be appreciated as we are currently unable to provide the data needed to calculate impact fees. Brent Taylor pronouns he/him/his Financial Analyst Community Services Group E btaylor@slocity.org T 805.781.7091 735 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Nichols, Vanessa <vnichols@slocity.org> Sent: Friday, September 8, 2023 8:14 AM To: Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org>; Kazemi, Neema <nkazemi@slocity.org>; Taylor, Brent <btaylor@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Building Permit Report (adding # of units) Hi Rebecca, Currently I would say most of our impact fees are based off square footages. The only ones that I can think of that aren’t are Park Improvement, Park Impact, Fire Citywide, Police Citywide and the Transportation add-on fees for specific areas, which are all on per unit basis. Commercial Water/Wastewater Impact fee is based off Water Meter size currently. Square footages are captured in several different areas in Energov. It depends on the data you are trying to obtain as to where the square footages should be pulled from. The square footage field located in “Detail” workflow tab is one area that square footage is captured and if appropriate for scope of work we do try to make sure this square footage field is completed. I would say that this field is completed most of the time (there was a window of time when this field was not keeping the data). All the fees are calculated on the back end but for fees to populate a manual input must happen. The square footage field is not connected to fee generation, so by human error it can be missed. However, only for new single-family residences would this square footage field generate accurate information. If you ran a report for only single-family residence and included permit number and this square footage field any that produced zero in the square footage field on the report could be easily corrected so report was complete. Pulling square footage from this field for Mixed-Use and Multi-Family projects is not as straightforward as residence and commercial square footages are combined. We also currently capture square footages (in ranges) through the Water, Wastewater and Transportation Citywide impact fees that are charged. You could get number of units, by workclass within each square footage range. Commercial impact fees can be capture through square footage inputs by type on the Transportation tab and the water meter sizes under the Water/Wastewater tab under Commercial. I do believe we have square footage inputs in Energov that would be helpful in your information gathering. I am happy to assistance in figuring out the best avenue of getting the information you are seeking out of Energov. Nothing about Energov or our current fee is straightforward. Hope this long explanation was at least a little helpful! Vanessa Nichols Building Permit Services Supervisor Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E vnichols@slocity.org T 805.781.7588 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org> Sent: Thursday, September 7, 2023 10:25 AM To: Kazemi, Neema <nkazemi@slocity.org>; Taylor, Brent <btaylor@slocity.org> 736 Cc: Nichols, Vanessa <vnichols@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Building Permit Report (adding # of units) Thanks for stopping by earlier this week, Vanessa. Talking through with Brent I now recall why sqft is something we need to capture, and may not have been capturing before because we usually only care about units. As a part of the Fee Study, we are working to be in compliance with AB 602, a new law requiring that nexus studies adopted after July 1, 2022 must calculate the amount of fees based on square footage of proposed units of the housing development project. Is this sqft info something that we have been inputting into Energov? If not, I totally understand why but wondering if/how we do capture that data going forward… Rebecca Bernstorff pronouns she/her/hers Business Services and Administrative Manager Administration – Community Services Group E rbernstorff@slocity.org T 805.781.7203 C 805.540.0219 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Bernstorff, Rebecca Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2023 10:27 AM To: Kazemi, Neema <nkazemi@slocity.org>; Taylor, Brent <BTaylor@slocity.org> Cc: Nichols, Vanessa <vnichols@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Building Permit Report (adding # of units) Thanks for pulling this together, Neema. Why would 0 be getting put in? I’m having a hard time following why this would happen and how we get the data to the fee study consultant when it now doesn’t exist in Energov? In the future, can we have this field be required to include the sqft at the time of adding in the permit to Energov?? Such as a mandatory number that can’t be 0? Rebecca Bernstorff pronouns she/her/hers Business Services and Administrative Manager 737 Administration – Community Services Group E rbernstorff@slocity.org T 805.781.7203 C 805.540.0219 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Kazemi, Neema <nkazemi@slocity.org> Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2023 9:12 AM To: Taylor, Brent <btaylor@slocity.org> Cc: Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Building Permit Report (adding # of units) Hi Brent, This report has the added School fee square footage listed as SQFTInfoNewResidential and SQFTInfoNewCommercial. If anything, it just creates more questions. But, let me know if that helps! Best, Neema Kazemi System Application Specialist - Energov Information Technology 919 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E nkazemi@slocity.org slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Taylor, Brent <btaylor@slocity.org> Sent: Monday, August 28, 2023 9:03 AM To: Kazemi, Neema <nkazemi@slocity.org> Cc: Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Building Permit Report (adding # of units) Issue date looks good now but questioning the Sq Ft field again. I see lots of “0” listed. Even on Multifamily where there is 13 units, still showing 0 sq footage. I checked a few permits and square footage is not input to the “Details” screen, but is showing on the “additional details” screen under school fees section. This is what I was talking about before, where the square footage is not consistently input to the details screen and not capturing the data needed. I see it on all types of permits – multifamily, SFR, etc. Example below. 738 Brent Taylor pronouns he/him/his Financial Analyst Community Services Group E btaylor@slocity.org T 805.781.7091 739 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Kazemi, Neema <nkazemi@slocity.org> Sent: Monday, August 28, 2023 8:38 AM To: Taylor, Brent <btaylor@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Building Permit Report (adding # of units) Sorry, forgot to format on excel after exporting. This should be better! Neema Kazemi System Application Specialist - Energov Information Technology 919 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E nkazemi@slocity.org slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Taylor, Brent <btaylor@slocity.org> Sent: Monday, August 28, 2023 8:32 AM To: Kazemi, Neema <nkazemi@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Building Permit Report (adding # of units) Hi Neema, the issue date is not pulling correctly, can you fix that? Otherwise looks good. Brent Taylor pronouns he/him/his Financial Analyst Community Services Group E btaylor@slocity.org T 805.781.7091 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Kazemi, Neema <nkazemi@slocity.org> Sent: Monday, August 28, 2023 8:25 AM To: Taylor, Brent <btaylor@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Building Permit Report (adding # of units) Hey Brent, Try this out! Best, 740 Neema Kazemi System Application Specialist - Energov Information Technology 919 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E nkazemi@slocity.org slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Taylor, Brent <btaylor@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2023 4:15 PM To: Kazemi, Neema <nkazemi@slocity.org> Cc: Parzanese, Joe <jparzanese@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Building Permit Report (adding # of units) Importance: High Hi Neema – can you please provide ETA for this report adding in the Dwelling Units (i.e. # of units for each permit). Brent Taylor pronouns he/him/his Financial Analyst Community Services Group E btaylor@slocity.org T 805.781.7091 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Taylor, Brent Sent: Monday, August 14, 2023 11:14 AM To: Kazemi, Neema <nkazemi@slocity.org> Cc: Parzanese, Joe <jparzanese@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Building Permit Report Hi Neema – our consultant is requesting additional field be added to this report. Need to provide the number of units associated with each Permit. Thinking we can use the “Dwelling Units” field on the Additional Info Screen to capture and add this to report you previously created. Let me know if this is something we can do. Thanks. 741 Brent Taylor pronouns he/him/his Financial Analyst Community Services Group E btaylor@slocity.org T 805.781.7091 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Kazemi, Neema <nkazemi@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, August 9, 2023 11:25 AM To: Taylor, Brent <btaylor@slocity.org> Cc: Parzanese, Joe <jparzanese@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Building Permit Report Hi Brent, I did a quick audit of like ten permits with 0 sq footage and they were all for window retrofits or door replacements. One was a commercial which was for a hood replacement. It looks like I misspoke, seems like our users in the front are pretty good about entering square footage if its applicable. Best, Neema Kazemi System Application Specialist - Energov 742 Information Technology 919 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E nkazemi@slocity.org slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Kazemi, Neema Sent: Wednesday, August 9, 2023 9:37 AM To: Taylor, Brent <BTaylor@slocity.org> Cc: Parzanese, Joe <jparzanese@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Building Permit Report Permits have the SQ footage as a default field on the main details, so it totally depends on users filling it out during input. But, there may be SQ footage fields in the additional info that we may fill out as well. Let me see what we got! Best. Neema Kazemi System Application Specialist - Energov Information Technology 919 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E nkazemi@slocity.org slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Taylor, Brent <btaylor@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, August 9, 2023 8:51 AM To: Kazemi, Neema <nkazemi@slocity.org> Cc: Parzanese, Joe <jparzanese@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Building Permit Report Hi Neema – no other data needed at this time. Looks good as is, except the blank sq ft fields. Is there any other Sq Ft fields in Energov which we can try to see if it will capture the ones showing 0 sq. ft.? I know it defaults to using this one, but front counter doesn’t always input to that field. Brent Taylor pronouns he/him/his Financial Analyst Community Services Group 743 E btaylor@slocity.org T 805.781.7091 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Kazemi, Neema <nkazemi@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, August 9, 2023 8:14 AM To: Taylor, Brent <btaylor@slocity.org> Cc: Parzanese, Joe <jparzanese@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Building Permit Report Hi Brent, Getting a report with those data points took a few minutes, but is there any fee data you’d like added? Or currently, there is no address information either. I can probably get this finished this morning. For now, the only filters I have are BLDG permit and issuedate after 1/1/2018. Best, Neema Kazemi System Application Specialist - Energov Information Technology 919 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E nkazemi@slocity.org slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Taylor, Brent <btaylor@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, August 9, 2023 7:42 AM To: Kazemi, Neema <nkazemi@slocity.org> Cc: Parzanese, Joe <jparzanese@slocity.org> Subject: Building Permit Report Hi Neema, hoping you can help me with putting together a report out of Energov for data that is needed for the Impact Fee Study project which will update our impact fee amounts. Consultant is requesting a report on building permits for time range of 1/1/2018 – current. Main data points needed are issue date, type of construction (SFR, MFR, etc) and the square footage. This would be for building permits only. Is this something you would be able to help me with? Would like to provide the report by Friday if possible. Brent Taylor pronouns he/him/his Financial Analyst Community Services Group 744 E btaylor@slocity.org T 805.781.7091 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications 745 From:Taylor, Brent Sent:Monday, September 18, 2023 4:29 PM To:Kazemi, Neema; Bernstorff, Rebecca; Nichols, Vanessa Subject:RE: Building Permit Report (adding # of units) Hi Neema – unfortunately, this data is not providing what we are looking for. Still seeing 4023 permits on this report with no square footages listed and other fields provided to try and capture the missing data is either “0” or “NULL” or just not usable as the figure provided does not seem to make sense in context of what we are seeking. I would expect some of the work classes to have zero square foot such as the ones below, but that is only accounting for 337 of the 4023 permits with 0 listed. - Block/ retaining wall - Re-Roof - Foundation only - Alt/Addition where property owner added no sq footage (those would have to be manually sorted through to determine if sq ft was added) Not seeing a way to use these alternate fields on this report to capture the square footage data that is being requested. Brent Taylor pronouns he/him/his Financial Analyst Community Services Group E btaylor@slocity.org T 805.781.7091 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Kazemi, Neema <nkazemi@slocity.org> Sent: Monday, September 18, 2023 11:01 AM To: Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org>; Taylor, Brent <btaylor@slocity.org>; Nichols, Vanessa <vnichols@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Building Permit Report (adding # of units) Hi Brent, This report should have everything you’ve requested from that tab. The database names are relatively straight forward so let me know if you have any trouble associating a field name to the additional info field on the permit. Let me know if I need to add anything else. Best, Neema Kazemi System Application Specialist - Energov 746 Information Technology 919 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E nkazemi@slocity.org slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Kazemi, Neema Sent: Monday, September 18, 2023 8:04 AM To: Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org>; Taylor, Brent <BTaylor@slocity.org>; Nichols, Vanessa <vnichols@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Building Permit Report (adding # of units) Good morning, I’ll update the fields of the report and have it sent over by this afternoon. Best, Neema Kazemi System Application Specialist - Energov Information Technology 919 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E nkazemi@slocity.org slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org> Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2023 4:43 PM To: Taylor, Brent <btaylor@slocity.org>; Nichols, Vanessa <vnichols@slocity.org>; Kazemi, Neema <nkazemi@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Building Permit Report (adding # of units) Importance: High Hi Neema, Just following up on this request. I think it’s also going to help make progress in the user fee side of the fee study as well, so we are really excited to get this report! Thanks so much! Rebecca Rebecca Bernstorff pronouns she/her/hers Business Services and Administrative Manager 747 Administration – Community Services Group E rbernstorff@slocity.org T 805.781.7203 C 805.540.0219 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Taylor, Brent <btaylor@slocity.org> Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 4:49 PM To: Nichols, Vanessa <vnichols@slocity.org>; Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org>; Kazemi, Neema <nkazemi@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Building Permit Report (adding # of units) @Kazemi, Neema, can we try the report based on Vanessa’s suggestions below. I think everything is same as you previously pulled, except for the square footage data which Vanessa indicated can be pulled from the Square Feet tab under Additional Info. Screenshot below… 748 Brent Taylor pronouns he/him/his Financial Analyst Community Services Group E btaylor@slocity.org T 805.781.7091 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Nichols, Vanessa <vnichols@slocity.org> Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 3:17 PM To: Taylor, Brent <btaylor@slocity.org>; Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org>; Kazemi, Neema <nkazemi@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Building Permit Report (adding # of units) Hi, 749 So, yes you can pull the square footages from the square footage tab which also has it by construction type. The Number of Units would come from the Dwelling Units field on the general tab. Permit Number, Issue Date and Work Class are just fields to add to report. You will have to do the average of square footage after you get number of units and total square footage. Happy to help by showing which fields I am referencing. Let me know if you have any other questions. Vanessa Nichols Building Permit Services Supervisor Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E vnichols@slocity.org T 805.781.7588 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Taylor, Brent <btaylor@slocity.org> Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 8:14 AM To: Nichols, Vanessa <vnichols@slocity.org>; Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org>; Kazemi, Neema <nkazemi@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Building Permit Report (adding # of units) Hi Vanessa – Thanks for the clarification and information. The data that we are trying to gather for impact fee consultant is: ALL Permits in last 5 years (1/1/2018 – current). Data points for those permits need to include the following: - Permit Number - Issue Date - Type of Construction/ Work Class (SFR, MFR, Commercial, etc) - Square Footage - Number of Units - Multifamily Permits – Average Square Footage per unit Final data point for the Multifamily properties is to calculate the average sq ft of each unit, so will need to manually apply calculation (square footage/ # of units) to produce the average for those. The issue we are having with the reports that Neema helped generate is that for a lot of the Multifamily units, the square footage is “0” and therefore unable to calculate the average square footage per unit. Any ideas or suggestions on alternate fields from Energov that we could try in capturing this data would be appreciated as we are currently unable to provide the data needed to calculate impact fees. Brent Taylor pronouns he/him/his Financial Analyst Community Services Group E btaylor@slocity.org T 805.781.7091 750 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Nichols, Vanessa <vnichols@slocity.org> Sent: Friday, September 8, 2023 8:14 AM To: Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org>; Kazemi, Neema <nkazemi@slocity.org>; Taylor, Brent <btaylor@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Building Permit Report (adding # of units) Hi Rebecca, Currently I would say most of our impact fees are based off square footages. The only ones that I can think of that aren’t are Park Improvement, Park Impact, Fire Citywide, Police Citywide and the Transportation add-on fees for specific areas, which are all on per unit basis. Commercial Water/Wastewater Impact fee is based off Water Meter size currently. Square footages are captured in several different areas in Energov. It depends on the data you are trying to obtain as to where the square footages should be pulled from. The square footage field located in “Detail” workflow tab is one area that square footage is captured and if appropriate for scope of work we do try to make sure this square footage field is completed. I would say that this field is completed most of the time (there was a window of time when this field was not keeping the data). All the fees are calculated on the back end but for fees to populate a manual input must happen. The square footage field is not connected to fee generation, so by human error it can be missed. However, only for new single-family residences would this square footage field generate accurate information. If you ran a report for only single-family residence and included permit number and this square footage field any that produced zero in the square footage field on the report could be easily corrected so report was complete. Pulling square footage from this field for Mixed-Use and Multi-Family projects is not as straightforward as residence and commercial square footages are combined. We also currently capture square footages (in ranges) through the Water, Wastewater and Transportation Citywide impact fees that are charged. You could get number of units, by workclass within each square footage range. Commercial impact fees can be capture through square footage inputs by type on the Transportation tab and the water meter sizes under the Water/Wastewater tab under Commercial. I do believe we have square footage inputs in Energov that would be helpful in your information gathering. I am happy to assistance in figuring out the best avenue of getting the information you are seeking out of Energov. Nothing about Energov or our current fee is straightforward. Hope this long explanation was at least a little helpful! Vanessa Nichols Building Permit Services Supervisor Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E vnichols@slocity.org T 805.781.7588 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org> Sent: Thursday, September 7, 2023 10:25 AM To: Kazemi, Neema <nkazemi@slocity.org>; Taylor, Brent <btaylor@slocity.org> 751 Cc: Nichols, Vanessa <vnichols@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Building Permit Report (adding # of units) Thanks for stopping by earlier this week, Vanessa. Talking through with Brent I now recall why sqft is something we need to capture, and may not have been capturing before because we usually only care about units. As a part of the Fee Study, we are working to be in compliance with AB 602, a new law requiring that nexus studies adopted after July 1, 2022 must calculate the amount of fees based on square footage of proposed units of the housing development project. Is this sqft info something that we have been inputting into Energov? If not, I totally understand why but wondering if/how we do capture that data going forward… Rebecca Bernstorff pronouns she/her/hers Business Services and Administrative Manager Administration – Community Services Group E rbernstorff@slocity.org T 805.781.7203 C 805.540.0219 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Bernstorff, Rebecca Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2023 10:27 AM To: Kazemi, Neema <nkazemi@slocity.org>; Taylor, Brent <BTaylor@slocity.org> Cc: Nichols, Vanessa <vnichols@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Building Permit Report (adding # of units) Thanks for pulling this together, Neema. Why would 0 be getting put in? I’m having a hard time following why this would happen and how we get the data to the fee study consultant when it now doesn’t exist in Energov? In the future, can we have this field be required to include the sqft at the time of adding in the permit to Energov?? Such as a mandatory number that can’t be 0? Rebecca Bernstorff pronouns she/her/hers Business Services and Administrative Manager 752 Administration – Community Services Group E rbernstorff@slocity.org T 805.781.7203 C 805.540.0219 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Kazemi, Neema <nkazemi@slocity.org> Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2023 9:12 AM To: Taylor, Brent <btaylor@slocity.org> Cc: Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Building Permit Report (adding # of units) Hi Brent, This report has the added School fee square footage listed as SQFTInfoNewResidential and SQFTInfoNewCommercial. If anything, it just creates more questions. But, let me know if that helps! Best, Neema Kazemi System Application Specialist - Energov Information Technology 919 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E nkazemi@slocity.org slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Taylor, Brent <btaylor@slocity.org> Sent: Monday, August 28, 2023 9:03 AM To: Kazemi, Neema <nkazemi@slocity.org> Cc: Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Building Permit Report (adding # of units) Issue date looks good now but questioning the Sq Ft field again. I see lots of “0” listed. Even on Multifamily where there is 13 units, still showing 0 sq footage. I checked a few permits and square footage is not input to the “Details” screen, but is showing on the “additional details” screen under school fees section. This is what I was talking about before, where the square footage is not consistently input to the details screen and not capturing the data needed. I see it on all types of permits – multifamily, SFR, etc. Example below. 753 Brent Taylor pronouns he/him/his Financial Analyst Community Services Group E btaylor@slocity.org T 805.781.7091 754 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Kazemi, Neema <nkazemi@slocity.org> Sent: Monday, August 28, 2023 8:38 AM To: Taylor, Brent <btaylor@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Building Permit Report (adding # of units) Sorry, forgot to format on excel after exporting. This should be better! Neema Kazemi System Application Specialist - Energov Information Technology 919 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E nkazemi@slocity.org slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Taylor, Brent <btaylor@slocity.org> Sent: Monday, August 28, 2023 8:32 AM To: Kazemi, Neema <nkazemi@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Building Permit Report (adding # of units) Hi Neema, the issue date is not pulling correctly, can you fix that? Otherwise looks good. Brent Taylor pronouns he/him/his Financial Analyst Community Services Group E btaylor@slocity.org T 805.781.7091 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Kazemi, Neema <nkazemi@slocity.org> Sent: Monday, August 28, 2023 8:25 AM To: Taylor, Brent <btaylor@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Building Permit Report (adding # of units) Hey Brent, Try this out! Best, 755 Neema Kazemi System Application Specialist - Energov Information Technology 919 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E nkazemi@slocity.org slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Taylor, Brent <btaylor@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2023 4:15 PM To: Kazemi, Neema <nkazemi@slocity.org> Cc: Parzanese, Joe <jparzanese@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Building Permit Report (adding # of units) Importance: High Hi Neema – can you please provide ETA for this report adding in the Dwelling Units (i.e. # of units for each permit). Brent Taylor pronouns he/him/his Financial Analyst Community Services Group E btaylor@slocity.org T 805.781.7091 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Taylor, Brent Sent: Monday, August 14, 2023 11:14 AM To: Kazemi, Neema <nkazemi@slocity.org> Cc: Parzanese, Joe <jparzanese@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Building Permit Report Hi Neema – our consultant is requesting additional field be added to this report. Need to provide the number of units associated with each Permit. Thinking we can use the “Dwelling Units” field on the Additional Info Screen to capture and add this to report you previously created. Let me know if this is something we can do. Thanks. 756 Brent Taylor pronouns he/him/his Financial Analyst Community Services Group E btaylor@slocity.org T 805.781.7091 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Kazemi, Neema <nkazemi@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, August 9, 2023 11:25 AM To: Taylor, Brent <btaylor@slocity.org> Cc: Parzanese, Joe <jparzanese@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Building Permit Report Hi Brent, I did a quick audit of like ten permits with 0 sq footage and they were all for window retrofits or door replacements. One was a commercial which was for a hood replacement. It looks like I misspoke, seems like our users in the front are pretty good about entering square footage if its applicable. Best, Neema Kazemi System Application Specialist - Energov 757 Information Technology 919 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E nkazemi@slocity.org slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Kazemi, Neema Sent: Wednesday, August 9, 2023 9:37 AM To: Taylor, Brent <BTaylor@slocity.org> Cc: Parzanese, Joe <jparzanese@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Building Permit Report Permits have the SQ footage as a default field on the main details, so it totally depends on users filling it out during input. But, there may be SQ footage fields in the additional info that we may fill out as well. Let me see what we got! Best. Neema Kazemi System Application Specialist - Energov Information Technology 919 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E nkazemi@slocity.org slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Taylor, Brent <btaylor@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, August 9, 2023 8:51 AM To: Kazemi, Neema <nkazemi@slocity.org> Cc: Parzanese, Joe <jparzanese@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Building Permit Report Hi Neema – no other data needed at this time. Looks good as is, except the blank sq ft fields. Is there any other Sq Ft fields in Energov which we can try to see if it will capture the ones showing 0 sq. ft.? I know it defaults to using this one, but front counter doesn’t always input to that field. Brent Taylor pronouns he/him/his Financial Analyst Community Services Group 758 E btaylor@slocity.org T 805.781.7091 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Kazemi, Neema <nkazemi@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, August 9, 2023 8:14 AM To: Taylor, Brent <btaylor@slocity.org> Cc: Parzanese, Joe <jparzanese@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Building Permit Report Hi Brent, Getting a report with those data points took a few minutes, but is there any fee data you’d like added? Or currently, there is no address information either. I can probably get this finished this morning. For now, the only filters I have are BLDG permit and issuedate after 1/1/2018. Best, Neema Kazemi System Application Specialist - Energov Information Technology 919 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E nkazemi@slocity.org slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Taylor, Brent <btaylor@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, August 9, 2023 7:42 AM To: Kazemi, Neema <nkazemi@slocity.org> Cc: Parzanese, Joe <jparzanese@slocity.org> Subject: Building Permit Report Hi Neema, hoping you can help me with putting together a report out of Energov for data that is needed for the Impact Fee Study project which will update our impact fee amounts. Consultant is requesting a report on building permits for time range of 1/1/2018 – current. Main data points needed are issue date, type of construction (SFR, MFR, etc) and the square footage. This would be for building permits only. Is this something you would be able to help me with? Would like to provide the report by Friday if possible. Brent Taylor pronouns he/him/his Financial Analyst Community Services Group 759 E btaylor@slocity.org T 805.781.7091 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications 760 From:Ellsworth, Melissa Sent:Monday, September 18, 2023 3:59 PM To:Cindy Sconce Cc:Rachel King Subject:RE: [EXTERNAL]FW: PD - False Alarms The police department doesn’t budget for vehicle maintenance costs, all of that is in Fleet’s budget (Public Works). From: Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com> Sent: Monday, September 18, 2023 3:38 PM To: Ellsworth, Melissa <mellswor@slocity.org> Cc: Rachel King <rking@mgtconsulting.com> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL]FW: PD - False Alarms Hi Melissa Which line item on the ICRP would include your vehicle maintenance costs? It looks like fuel is currently being listed under the indirect column so that is part of the overhead costs already. This cost could be pulled out and placed as direct and we could develop an addiƟonal direct charge to apply to the false alarms if we think that would be beneficial. You are correct, we did already incorporate the 20% vendor costs into the fee. We did not include the False Alarm #1 or #2. Let me know about the vehicle maintenance costs and whether you would like to keep these costs as indirect, which adds to the overhead, or as direct so that it can be directly applied to the false alarm fees. Cindy From: Ellsworth, Melissa <mellswor@slocity.org> Sent: Monday, September 18, 2023 2:17 PM To: Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com> Cc: Rachel King <rking@mgtconsulting.com> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL]FW: PD - False Alarms Hello, I took a look at this document and updated some information that you were looking for under the ICRP tab. Also, wanted to ask if the costs for us to respond to a false alarm can also included vehicle related costs like maintenance and fuel costs as well (looks like you already added the 20% vendor fee)? Also, should the fee incorporate costs from False Alarms #1 and #2 that are not charged? From: Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2023 10:22 AM To: Ellsworth, Melissa <mellswor@slocity.org> Cc: Rachel King <rking@mgtconsulting.com> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL]FW: PD - False Alarms CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. 761 Ok, done. I also added the language within a twelve month period to the false alarms. Cindy From: Ellsworth, Melissa <mellswor@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2023 10:04 AM To: Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com> Cc: Rachel King <rking@mgtconsulting.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL]FW: PD - False Alarms Hi Cindy, Hope all is well. Just getting back to you on the False Alarm fees for PD. After consulting with our Attorney’s office, they are recommending that we calculate the fees based on a cost recovery model. Please see her comments below. Additionally, based on the information that Rachel provided from other agencies - I reached out to Monterey, Santa Barbara, Ventura and SLO County to find out how their fees were calculated. I only heard back from two agencies; one had no idea how their fees were calculated and the other was time based/cost recovery. Let me know if you still need additional information. If you can update the matrix and send it to me again so I can review, that would be appreciated! Thanks, Melissa From: Symens, Sadie <ssymens@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2023 9:45 AM To: Ellsworth, Melissa <mellswor@slocity.org>; Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org> Subject: RE: PD - False Alarms CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. 762 . From: Symens, Sadie <ssymens@slocity.org> Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2023 1:48 PM To: Ellsworth, Melissa <mellswor@slocity.org> Subject: RE: PD - False Alarms Sadie Symens pronouns she/her/hers Deputy City Attorney City Attorney's Office 763 E ssymens@slocity.org slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the CONFIDENTIAL use of the designated addressee named above. The information transmitted is subject to the attorney-client privilege and/or represents confidential attorney work product. Recipients should not file copies of this email with publicly accessible records. If you are not the designated addressee named above or the authorized agent responsible for delivering it to the designated addressee, you received this document through inadvertent error and any further review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication by you or anyone else is strictly prohibited. IF YOU RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY TELEPHONING THE SENDER NAMED ABOVE AT (805) 781-7140. Thank you. From: Kersten, Markie <mkersten@slocity.org> Sent: Friday, September 8, 2023 4:08 PM To: Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org>; Ellsworth, Melissa <mellswor@slocity.org> Cc: Symens, Sadie <ssymens@slocity.org> Subject: RE: PD - False Alarms Hi Rebecca and Melissa, I’m looping Sadie in who can take a look at this next week. Thanks, Markie From: Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org> Sent: Friday, September 8, 2023 3:09 PM To: Ellsworth, Melissa <mellswor@slocity.org> Cc: Kersten, Markie <mkersten@slocity.org> Subject: RE: PD - False Alarms Hi Melissa, Thanks for touching base and for providing the context, I appreciate it and apologize for the delay in my reply. I can see how it may be perceived more as a fine than a fee and why the approach to that may require some legal perspective. I’m including Markie in to weigh in on if we should move forward with time-based cost analysis for false alarms (which was my original thought) or if we should take a different approach based on any legalities to it? The comparative analysis is interesting (attached so Markie could take a look) as it looks like the others may be doing a flat fee approach. I’m happy to defer to legal/PD expertise on the best path forward. Thanks! Rebecca Rebecca Bernstorff pronouns she/her/hers Business Services and Administrative Manager 764 Administration – Community Services Group E rbernstorff@slocity.org T 805.781.7203 C 805.540.0219 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Ellsworth, Melissa <mellswor@slocity.org> Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2023 4:07 PM To: Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org> Subject: PD - False Alarms Hi Rebecca, I just wanted to follow up with you on PD’s False Alarm analysis. The reason why I’m a little confused on this is because the last Fee Study (2015/16 time frame) indicated the consultant didn’t change any of the excessive alarm fees because they were “punitive” in nature. All I really want to know is whether or not we can adjust those and if the reason that was given in 2015/16 still stands or if Christine D. has other thoughts. We have the time calculations for responding to these false alarms, so that’s not an issue. I asked Cindy Sconce about this and she really didn’t have an answer. When these fees were actually created back before my time (like in 2005), they were time based so I’m not sure why the consultant didn’t analyze them last time. At this time, is your recommendation to just have MGT move forward with the time based cost analysis for the false alarms? As reference, I’ve included a screenshot from the 2015/16 fee study, specifically the Alarm Fees and notes, which are also in the attached document. 765 Thanks for your help, Melissa From: Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com> Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2023 4:34 PM To: Ellsworth, Melissa <mellswor@slocity.org> Cc: Rachel King <rking@mgtconsulting.com> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL]RE: SLO UF: Police - revised model Melissa I did find this in one of my other emails from Rebecca: In regard to the police fee schedule I think including it in the comparison survey would be really helpful. I can also include this caveat in my email to the Leadership Team. We can include it in the comparison survey and see what other agencies are charging for these. Cindy From: Ellsworth, Melissa <mellswor@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2023 3:06 PM To: Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com> Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL]RE: SLO UF: Police - revised model Hi Cindy, Just checking in to see if you were able to connect with Rebecca yet so we can figure out next steps on the Alarm and Tobacco fees. Thanks, Melissa CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. 766 From: Ellsworth, Melissa Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2023 3:24 PM To: Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL]RE: SLO UF: Police - revised model Great, thank you From: Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com> Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2023 3:15 PM To: Ellsworth, Melissa <mellswor@slocity.org> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL]RE: SLO UF: Police - revised model You got it. Let me talk to her first and then circle back with you. I also am going to walk her through the Tobacco fee based on your other email. Cindy From: Ellsworth, Melissa <mellswor@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2023 3:14 PM To: Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL]RE: SLO UF: Police - revised model Yes, please discuss with Rebecca and then let me know. I just want everyone to be on the same page. Thank you! From: Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com> Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2023 3:11 PM To: Ellsworth, Melissa <mellswor@slocity.org> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL]RE: SLO UF: Police - revised model I’m happy to jump on a meeƟng with them if you think that would be helpful. It really is about how they view these fees and them agreeing that as a penalty they can change it to what is reasonable as a deterrent. Let me know what you decide. I can also run this by Rebecca and see how she wants to approach this if you think that would be beƩer. Cindy From: Ellsworth, Melissa <mellswor@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2023 3:04 PM To: Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL]RE: SLO UF: Police - revised model Cindy – do you think it would be best if you were part of this meeting as well? Let me know. From: Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2023 11:13 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. 767 To: Ellsworth, Melissa <mellswor@slocity.org> Subject: SLO UF: Police - revised model This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Melissa Here is the updated model with the 20% added to the alarm permit and false alarm costs. Let me know when you have spoken with the Chief and AƩorney and how you want to proceed with those fees. Thanks! Cindy Sconce (she/her/hers) Director, Performance Solutions Group 3600 American River Drive, Suite 150 Sacramento, CA 95864 Cell: 916.276.8807 Email: csconce@mgtconsulting.com The information contained in this electronic communication is intended only for the use of the addressee, and may be a confidential communication. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this transmittal in error; any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this transmittal is strictly prohibited. 768 From:Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com> Sent:Monday, September 18, 2023 3:38 PM To:Ellsworth, Melissa Cc:Rachel King Subject:RE: [EXTERNAL]FW: PD - False Alarms Hi Melissa Which line item on the ICRP would include your vehicle maintenance costs? It looks like fuel is currently being listed under the indirect column so that is part of the overhead costs already. This cost could be pulled out and placed as direct and we could develop an addiƟonal direct charge to apply to the false alarms if we think that would be beneficial. You are correct, we did already incorporate the 20% vendor costs into the fee. We did not include the False Alarm #1 or #2. Let me know about the vehicle maintenance costs and whether you would like to keep these costs as indirect, which adds to the overhead, or as direct so that it can be directly applied to the false alarm fees. Cindy From: Ellsworth, Melissa <mellswor@slocity.org> Sent: Monday, September 18, 2023 2:17 PM To: Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com> Cc: Rachel King <rking@mgtconsulting.com> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL]FW: PD - False Alarms Hello, I took a look at this document and updated some information that you were looking for under the ICRP tab. Also, wanted to ask if the costs for us to respond to a false alarm can also included vehicle related costs like maintenance and fuel costs as well (looks like you already added the 20% vendor fee)? Also, should the fee incorporate costs from False Alarms #1 and #2 that are not charged? From: Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2023 10:22 AM To: Ellsworth, Melissa <mellswor@slocity.org> Cc: Rachel King <rking@mgtconsulting.com> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL]FW: PD - False Alarms Ok, done. I also added the language within a twelve month period to the false alarms. Cindy From: Ellsworth, Melissa <mellswor@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2023 10:04 AM To: Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. 770 . From: Symens, Sadie <ssymens@slocity.org> Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2023 1:48 PM To: Ellsworth, Melissa <mellswor@slocity.org> Subject: RE: PD - False Alarms Sadie Symens pronouns she/her/hers Deputy City Attorney City Attorney's Office E ssymens@slocity.org slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the CONFIDENTIAL use of the designated addressee named above. The information transmitted is subject to the attorney-client privilege 771 and/or represents confidential attorney work product. Recipients should not file copies of this email with publicly accessible records. If you are not the designated addressee named above or the authorized agent responsible for delivering it to the designated addressee, you received this document through inadvertent error and any further review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication by you or anyone else is strictly prohibited. IF YOU RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY TELEPHONING THE SENDER NAMED ABOVE AT (805) 781-7140. Thank you. From: Kersten, Markie <mkersten@slocity.org> Sent: Friday, September 8, 2023 4:08 PM To: Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org>; Ellsworth, Melissa <mellswor@slocity.org> Cc: Symens, Sadie <ssymens@slocity.org> Subject: RE: PD - False Alarms Hi Rebecca and Melissa, I’m looping Sadie in who can take a look at this next week. Thanks, Markie From: Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org> Sent: Friday, September 8, 2023 3:09 PM To: Ellsworth, Melissa <mellswor@slocity.org> Cc: Kersten, Markie <mkersten@slocity.org> Subject: RE: PD - False Alarms Hi Melissa, Thanks for touching base and for providing the context, I appreciate it and apologize for the delay in my reply. I can see how it may be perceived more as a fine than a fee and why the approach to that may require some legal perspective. I’m including Markie in to weigh in on if we should move forward with time-based cost analysis for false alarms (which was my original thought) or if we should take a different approach based on any legalities to it? The comparative analysis is interesting (attached so Markie could take a look) as it looks like the others may be doing a flat fee approach. I’m happy to defer to legal/PD expertise on the best path forward. Thanks! Rebecca Rebecca Bernstorff pronouns she/her/hers Business Services and Administrative Manager Administration – Community Services Group E rbernstorff@slocity.org T 805.781.7203 C 805.540.0219 slocity.org 772 Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Ellsworth, Melissa <mellswor@slocity.org> Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2023 4:07 PM To: Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org> Subject: PD - False Alarms Hi Rebecca, I just wanted to follow up with you on PD’s False Alarm analysis. The reason why I’m a little confused on this is because the last Fee Study (2015/16 time frame) indicated the consultant didn’t change any of the excessive alarm fees because they were “punitive” in nature. All I really want to know is whether or not we can adjust those and if the reason that was given in 2015/16 still stands or if Christine D. has other thoughts. We have the time calculations for responding to these false alarms, so that’s not an issue. I asked Cindy Sconce about this and she really didn’t have an answer. When these fees were actually created back before my time (like in 2005), they were time based so I’m not sure why the consultant didn’t analyze them last time. At this time, is your recommendation to just have MGT move forward with the time based cost analysis for the false alarms? As reference, I’ve included a screenshot from the 2015/16 fee study, specifically the Alarm Fees and notes, which are also in the attached document. 773 Thanks for your help, Melissa From: Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com> Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2023 4:34 PM To: Ellsworth, Melissa <mellswor@slocity.org> Cc: Rachel King <rking@mgtconsulting.com> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL]RE: SLO UF: Police - revised model Melissa I did find this in one of my other emails from Rebecca: In regard to the police fee schedule I think including it in the comparison survey would be really helpful. I can also include this caveat in my email to the Leadership Team. We can include it in the comparison survey and see what other agencies are charging for these. Cindy From: Ellsworth, Melissa <mellswor@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2023 3:06 PM To: Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com> Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL]RE: SLO UF: Police - revised model Hi Cindy, Just checking in to see if you were able to connect with Rebecca yet so we can figure out next steps on the Alarm and Tobacco fees. Thanks, Melissa CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. 774 From: Ellsworth, Melissa Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2023 3:24 PM To: Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL]RE: SLO UF: Police - revised model Great, thank you From: Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com> Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2023 3:15 PM To: Ellsworth, Melissa <mellswor@slocity.org> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL]RE: SLO UF: Police - revised model You got it. Let me talk to her first and then circle back with you. I also am going to walk her through the Tobacco fee based on your other email. Cindy From: Ellsworth, Melissa <mellswor@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2023 3:14 PM To: Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL]RE: SLO UF: Police - revised model Yes, please discuss with Rebecca and then let me know. I just want everyone to be on the same page. Thank you! From: Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com> Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2023 3:11 PM To: Ellsworth, Melissa <mellswor@slocity.org> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL]RE: SLO UF: Police - revised model I’m happy to jump on a meeƟng with them if you think that would be helpful. It really is about how they view these fees and them agreeing that as a penalty they can change it to what is reasonable as a deterrent. Let me know what you decide. I can also run this by Rebecca and see how she wants to approach this if you think that would be beƩer. Cindy From: Ellsworth, Melissa <mellswor@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2023 3:04 PM To: Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL]RE: SLO UF: Police - revised model Cindy – do you think it would be best if you were part of this meeting as well? Let me know. From: Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2023 11:13 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. 775 To: Ellsworth, Melissa <mellswor@slocity.org> Subject: SLO UF: Police - revised model This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Melissa Here is the updated model with the 20% added to the alarm permit and false alarm costs. Let me know when you have spoken with the Chief and AƩorney and how you want to proceed with those fees. Thanks! Cindy Sconce (she/her/hers) Director, Performance Solutions Group 3600 American River Drive, Suite 150 Sacramento, CA 95864 Cell: 916.276.8807 Email: csconce@mgtconsulting.com The information contained in this electronic communication is intended only for the use of the addressee, and may be a confidential communication. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this transmittal in error; any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this transmittal is strictly prohibited. 776 From:Ellsworth, Melissa Sent:Monday, September 18, 2023 2:17 PM To:Cindy Sconce Cc:Rachel King Subject:RE: [EXTERNAL]FW: PD - False Alarms Attachments:Copy of San Luis Obispo Police UF FY24_09-13-23 sworn vs non sworn.xlsm Hello, I took a look at this document and updated some information that you were looking for under the ICRP tab. Also, wanted to ask if the costs for us to respond to a false alarm can also included vehicle related costs like maintenance and fuel costs as well (looks like you already added the 20% vendor fee)? Also, should the fee incorporate costs from False Alarms #1 and #2 that are not charged? From: Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2023 10:22 AM To: Ellsworth, Melissa <mellswor@slocity.org> Cc: Rachel King <rking@mgtconsulting.com> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL]FW: PD - False Alarms Ok, done. I also added the language within a twelve month period to the false alarms. Cindy From: Ellsworth, Melissa <mellswor@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2023 10:04 AM To: Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com> Cc: Rachel King <rking@mgtconsulting.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL]FW: PD - False Alarms Hi Cindy, Hope all is well. Just getting back to you on the False Alarm fees for PD. After consulting with our Attorney’s office, they are recommending that we calculate the fees based on a cost recovery model. Please see her comments below. Additionally, based on the information that Rachel provided from other agencies - I reached out to Monterey, Santa Barbara, Ventura and SLO County to find out how their fees were calculated. I only heard back from two agencies; one had no idea how their fees were calculated and the other was time based/cost recovery. Let me know if you still need additional information. If you can update the matrix and send it to me again so I can review, that would be appreciated! Thanks, Melissa CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. 777 From: Symens, Sadie <ssymens@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2023 9:45 AM To: Ellsworth, Melissa <mellswor@slocity.org>; Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org> Subject: RE: PD - False Alarms From: Ellsworth, Melissa <mellswor@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2023 8:38 AM To: Symens, Sadie <ssymens@slocity.org> Subject: RE: PD - False Alarms . 78 From: Symens, Sadie <ssymens@slocity.org> Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2023 1:48 PM To: Ellsworth, Melissa <mellswor@slocity.org> Subject: RE: PD - False Alarms Sadie Symens pronouns she/her/hers Deputy City Attorney City Attorney's Office E ssymens@slocity.org slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the CONFIDENTIAL use of the designated addressee named above. The information transmitted is subject to the attorney-client privilege and/or represents confidential attorney work product. Recipients should not file copies of this email with publicly accessible records. If you are not the designated addressee named above or the authorized agent responsible for delivering it to the designated addressee, you received this document through inadvertent error and any further review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication by you or anyone 779 else is strictly prohibited. IF YOU RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY TELEPHONING THE SENDER NAMED ABOVE AT (805) 781-7140. Thank you. From: Kersten, Markie <mkersten@slocity.org> Sent: Friday, September 8, 2023 4:08 PM To: Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org>; Ellsworth, Melissa <mellswor@slocity.org> Cc: Symens, Sadie <ssymens@slocity.org> Subject: RE: PD - False Alarms Hi Rebecca and Melissa, I’m looping Sadie in who can take a look at this next week. Thanks, Markie From: Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org> Sent: Friday, September 8, 2023 3:09 PM To: Ellsworth, Melissa <mellswor@slocity.org> Cc: Kersten, Markie <mkersten@slocity.org> Subject: RE: PD - False Alarms Hi Melissa, Thanks for touching base and for providing the context, I appreciate it and apologize for the delay in my reply. I can see how it may be perceived more as a fine than a fee and why the approach to that may require some legal perspective. I’m including Markie in to weigh in on if we should move forward with time-based cost analysis for false alarms (which was my original thought) or if we should take a different approach based on any legalities to it? The comparative analysis is interesting (attached so Markie could take a look) as it looks like the others may be doing a flat fee approach. I’m happy to defer to legal/PD expertise on the best path forward. Thanks! Rebecca Rebecca Bernstorff pronouns she/her/hers Business Services and Administrative Manager Administration – Community Services Group E rbernstorff@slocity.org T 805.781.7203 C 805.540.0219 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications 780 From: Ellsworth, Melissa <mellswor@slocity.org> Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2023 4:07 PM To: Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org> Subject: PD - False Alarms Hi Rebecca, I just wanted to follow up with you on PD’s False Alarm analysis. The reason why I’m a little confused on this is because the last Fee Study (2015/16 time frame) indicated the consultant didn’t change any of the excessive alarm fees because they were “punitive” in nature. All I really want to know is whether or not we can adjust those and if the reason that was given in 2015/16 still stands or if Christine D. has other thoughts. We have the time calculations for responding to these false alarms, so that’s not an issue. I asked Cindy Sconce about this and she really didn’t have an answer. When these fees were actually created back before my time (like in 2005), they were time based so I’m not sure why the consultant didn’t analyze them last time. At this time, is your recommendation to just have MGT move forward with the time based cost analysis for the false alarms? As reference, I’ve included a screenshot from the 2015/16 fee study, specifically the Alarm Fees and notes, which are also in the attached document. 781 Thanks for your help, Melissa From: Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com> Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2023 4:34 PM To: Ellsworth, Melissa <mellswor@slocity.org> Cc: Rachel King <rking@mgtconsulting.com> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL]RE: SLO UF: Police - revised model Melissa I did find this in one of my other emails from Rebecca: In regard to the police fee schedule I think including it in the comparison survey would be really helpful. I can also include this caveat in my email to the Leadership Team. We can include it in the comparison survey and see what other agencies are charging for these. Cindy From: Ellsworth, Melissa <mellswor@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2023 3:06 PM To: Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com> Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL]RE: SLO UF: Police - revised model Hi Cindy, Just checking in to see if you were able to connect with Rebecca yet so we can figure out next steps on the Alarm and Tobacco fees. Thanks, Melissa CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. 782 From: Ellsworth, Melissa Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2023 3:24 PM To: Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL]RE: SLO UF: Police - revised model Great, thank you From: Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com> Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2023 3:15 PM To: Ellsworth, Melissa <mellswor@slocity.org> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL]RE: SLO UF: Police - revised model You got it. Let me talk to her first and then circle back with you. I also am going to walk her through the Tobacco fee based on your other email. Cindy From: Ellsworth, Melissa <mellswor@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2023 3:14 PM To: Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL]RE: SLO UF: Police - revised model Yes, please discuss with Rebecca and then let me know. I just want everyone to be on the same page. Thank you! From: Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com> Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2023 3:11 PM To: Ellsworth, Melissa <mellswor@slocity.org> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL]RE: SLO UF: Police - revised model I’m happy to jump on a meeƟng with them if you think that would be helpful. It really is about how they view these fees and them agreeing that as a penalty they can change it to what is reasonable as a deterrent. Let me know what you decide. I can also run this by Rebecca and see how she wants to approach this if you think that would be beƩer. Cindy From: Ellsworth, Melissa <mellswor@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2023 3:04 PM To: Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL]RE: SLO UF: Police - revised model Cindy – do you think it would be best if you were part of this meeting as well? Let me know. From: Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2023 11:13 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. 783 To: Ellsworth, Melissa <mellswor@slocity.org> Subject: SLO UF: Police - revised model This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Melissa Here is the updated model with the 20% added to the alarm permit and false alarm costs. Let me know when you have spoken with the Chief and AƩorney and how you want to proceed with those fees. Thanks! Cindy Sconce (she/her/hers) Director, Performance Solutions Group 3600 American River Drive, Suite 150 Sacramento, CA 95864 Cell: 916.276.8807 Email: csconce@mgtconsulting.com The information contained in this electronic communication is intended only for the use of the addressee, and may be a confidential communication. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this transmittal in error; any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this transmittal is strictly prohibited. 784 From:Bernstorff, Rebecca Sent:Monday, September 18, 2023 11:07 AM To:Loew, Michael Subject:FW: Building Permit Report (adding # of units) Attachments:Allpermitsafter2018TransportationTab.xlsx FYI Rebecca Bernstorff pronouns she/her/hers Business Services and Administrative Manager Administration – Community Services Group E rbernstorff@slocity.org T 805.781.7203 C 805.540.0219 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Kazemi, Neema <nkazemi@slocity.org> Sent: Monday, September 18, 2023 11:01 AM To: Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org>; Taylor, Brent <btaylor@slocity.org>; Nichols, Vanessa <vnichols@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Building Permit Report (adding # of units) Hi Brent, This report should have everything you’ve requested from that tab. The database names are relatively straight forward so let me know if you have any trouble associating a field name to the additional info field on the permit. Let me know if I need to add anything else. Best, Neema Kazemi System Application Specialist - Energov Information Technology 919 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E nkazemi@slocity.org slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications 785 From: Kazemi, Neema Sent: Monday, September 18, 2023 8:04 AM To: Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org>; Taylor, Brent <BTaylor@slocity.org>; Nichols, Vanessa <vnichols@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Building Permit Report (adding # of units) Good morning, I’ll update the fields of the report and have it sent over by this afternoon. Best, Neema Kazemi System Application Specialist - Energov Information Technology 919 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E nkazemi@slocity.org slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org> Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2023 4:43 PM To: Taylor, Brent <btaylor@slocity.org>; Nichols, Vanessa <vnichols@slocity.org>; Kazemi, Neema <nkazemi@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Building Permit Report (adding # of units) Importance: High Hi Neema, Just following up on this request. I think it’s also going to help make progress in the user fee side of the fee study as well, so we are really excited to get this report! Thanks so much! Rebecca Rebecca Bernstorff pronouns she/her/hers Business Services and Administrative Manager Administration – Community Services Group E rbernstorff@slocity.org T 805.781.7203 C 805.540.0219 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications 786 From: Taylor, Brent <btaylor@slocity.org> Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 4:49 PM To: Nichols, Vanessa <vnichols@slocity.org>; Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org>; Kazemi, Neema <nkazemi@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Building Permit Report (adding # of units) @Kazemi, Neema, can we try the report based on Vanessa’s suggestions below. I think everything is same as you previously pulled, except for the square footage data which Vanessa indicated can be pulled from the Square Feet tab under Additional Info. Screenshot below… Brent Taylor pronouns he/him/his Financial Analyst Community Services Group E btaylor@slocity.org 787 T 805.781.7091 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Nichols, Vanessa <vnichols@slocity.org> Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 3:17 PM To: Taylor, Brent <btaylor@slocity.org>; Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org>; Kazemi, Neema <nkazemi@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Building Permit Report (adding # of units) Hi, So, yes you can pull the square footages from the square footage tab which also has it by construction type. The Number of Units would come from the Dwelling Units field on the general tab. Permit Number, Issue Date and Work Class are just fields to add to report. You will have to do the average of square footage after you get number of units and total square footage. Happy to help by showing which fields I am referencing. Let me know if you have any other questions. Vanessa Nichols Building Permit Services Supervisor Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E vnichols@slocity.org T 805.781.7588 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Taylor, Brent <btaylor@slocity.org> Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 8:14 AM To: Nichols, Vanessa <vnichols@slocity.org>; Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org>; Kazemi, Neema <nkazemi@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Building Permit Report (adding # of units) Hi Vanessa – Thanks for the clarification and information. The data that we are trying to gather for impact fee consultant is: ALL Permits in last 5 years (1/1/2018 – current). Data points for those permits need to include the following: - Permit Number - Issue Date - Type of Construction/ Work Class (SFR, MFR, Commercial, etc) - Square Footage - Number of Units - Multifamily Permits – Average Square Footage per unit Final data point for the Multifamily properties is to calculate the average sq ft of each unit, so will need to manually apply calculation (square footage/ # of units) to produce the average for those. The issue we are having with the reports that Neema helped generate is that for a lot of the Multifamily units, the square footage is “0” and therefore unable to calculate the average square footage per unit. Any ideas or suggestions on alternate fields from Energov that we could try in capturing this data would be appreciated as we are currently unable to provide the data needed to calculate impact fees. 788 Brent Taylor pronouns he/him/his Financial Analyst Community Services Group E btaylor@slocity.org T 805.781.7091 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Nichols, Vanessa <vnichols@slocity.org> Sent: Friday, September 8, 2023 8:14 AM To: Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org>; Kazemi, Neema <nkazemi@slocity.org>; Taylor, Brent <btaylor@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Building Permit Report (adding # of units) Hi Rebecca, Currently I would say most of our impact fees are based off square footages. The only ones that I can think of that aren’t are Park Improvement, Park Impact, Fire Citywide, Police Citywide and the Transportation add-on fees for specific areas, which are all on per unit basis. Commercial Water/Wastewater Impact fee is based off Water Meter size currently. Square footages are captured in several different areas in Energov. It depends on the data you are trying to obtain as to where the square footages should be pulled from. The square footage field located in “Detail” workflow tab is one area that square footage is captured and if appropriate for scope of work we do try to make sure this square footage field is completed. I would say that this field is completed most of the time (there was a window of time when this field was not keeping the data). All the fees are calculated on the back end but for fees to populate a manual input must happen. The square footage field is not connected to fee generation, so by human error it can be missed. However, only for new single-family residences would this square footage field generate accurate information. If you ran a report for only single-family residence and included permit number and this square footage field any that produced zero in the square footage field on the report could be easily corrected so report was complete. Pulling square footage from this field for Mixed-Use and Multi-Family projects is not as straightforward as residence and commercial square footages are combined. We also currently capture square footages (in ranges) through the Water, Wastewater and Transportation Citywide impact fees that are charged. You could get number of units, by workclass within each square footage range. Commercial impact fees can be capture through square footage inputs by type on the Transportation tab and the water meter sizes under the Water/Wastewater tab under Commercial. I do believe we have square footage inputs in Energov that would be helpful in your information gathering. I am happy to assistance in figuring out the best avenue of getting the information you are seeking out of Energov. Nothing about Energov or our current fee is straightforward. Hope this long explanation was at least a little helpful! Vanessa Nichols Building Permit Services Supervisor Community Development 789 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E vnichols@slocity.org T 805.781.7588 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org> Sent: Thursday, September 7, 2023 10:25 AM To: Kazemi, Neema <nkazemi@slocity.org>; Taylor, Brent <btaylor@slocity.org> Cc: Nichols, Vanessa <vnichols@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Building Permit Report (adding # of units) Thanks for stopping by earlier this week, Vanessa. Talking through with Brent I now recall why sqft is something we need to capture, and may not have been capturing before because we usually only care about units. As a part of the Fee Study, we are working to be in compliance with AB 602, a new law requiring that nexus studies adopted after July 1, 2022 must calculate the amount of fees based on square footage of proposed units of the housing development project. Is this sqft info something that we have been inputting into Energov? If not, I totally understand why but wondering if/how we do capture that data going forward… Rebecca Bernstorff pronouns she/her/hers Business Services and Administrative Manager Administration – Community Services Group E rbernstorff@slocity.org T 805.781.7203 C 805.540.0219 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Bernstorff, Rebecca Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2023 10:27 AM To: Kazemi, Neema <nkazemi@slocity.org>; Taylor, Brent <BTaylor@slocity.org> Cc: Nichols, Vanessa <vnichols@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Building Permit Report (adding # of units) 790 Thanks for pulling this together, Neema. Why would 0 be getting put in? I’m having a hard time following why this would happen and how we get the data to the fee study consultant when it now doesn’t exist in Energov? In the future, can we have this field be required to include the sqft at the time of adding in the permit to Energov?? Such as a mandatory number that can’t be 0? Rebecca Bernstorff pronouns she/her/hers Business Services and Administrative Manager Administration – Community Services Group E rbernstorff@slocity.org T 805.781.7203 C 805.540.0219 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Kazemi, Neema <nkazemi@slocity.org> Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2023 9:12 AM To: Taylor, Brent <btaylor@slocity.org> Cc: Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Building Permit Report (adding # of units) Hi Brent, This report has the added School fee square footage listed as SQFTInfoNewResidential and SQFTInfoNewCommercial. If anything, it just creates more questions. But, let me know if that helps! Best, Neema Kazemi System Application Specialist - Energov Information Technology 919 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E nkazemi@slocity.org slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Taylor, Brent <btaylor@slocity.org> Sent: Monday, August 28, 2023 9:03 AM To: Kazemi, Neema <nkazemi@slocity.org> Cc: Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Building Permit Report (adding # of units) 791 Issue date looks good now but questioning the Sq Ft field again. I see lots of “0” listed. Even on Multifamily where there is 13 units, still showing 0 sq footage. I checked a few permits and square footage is not input to the “Details” screen, but is showing on the “additional details” screen under school fees section. This is what I was talking about before, where the square footage is not consistently input to the details screen and not capturing the data needed. I see it on all types of permits – multifamily, SFR, etc. Example below. Brent Taylor pronouns he/him/his Financial Analyst 792 Community Services Group E btaylor@slocity.org T 805.781.7091 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Kazemi, Neema <nkazemi@slocity.org> Sent: Monday, August 28, 2023 8:38 AM To: Taylor, Brent <btaylor@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Building Permit Report (adding # of units) Sorry, forgot to format on excel after exporting. This should be better! Neema Kazemi System Application Specialist - Energov Information Technology 919 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E nkazemi@slocity.org slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Taylor, Brent <btaylor@slocity.org> Sent: Monday, August 28, 2023 8:32 AM To: Kazemi, Neema <nkazemi@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Building Permit Report (adding # of units) Hi Neema, the issue date is not pulling correctly, can you fix that? Otherwise looks good. Brent Taylor pronouns he/him/his Financial Analyst Community Services Group E btaylor@slocity.org T 805.781.7091 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Kazemi, Neema <nkazemi@slocity.org> Sent: Monday, August 28, 2023 8:25 AM 793 To: Taylor, Brent <btaylor@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Building Permit Report (adding # of units) Hey Brent, Try this out! Best, Neema Kazemi System Application Specialist - Energov Information Technology 919 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E nkazemi@slocity.org slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Taylor, Brent <btaylor@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2023 4:15 PM To: Kazemi, Neema <nkazemi@slocity.org> Cc: Parzanese, Joe <jparzanese@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Building Permit Report (adding # of units) Importance: High Hi Neema – can you please provide ETA for this report adding in the Dwelling Units (i.e. # of units for each permit). Brent Taylor pronouns he/him/his Financial Analyst Community Services Group E btaylor@slocity.org T 805.781.7091 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Taylor, Brent Sent: Monday, August 14, 2023 11:14 AM To: Kazemi, Neema <nkazemi@slocity.org> Cc: Parzanese, Joe <jparzanese@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Building Permit Report Hi Neema – our consultant is requesting additional field be added to this report. Need to provide the number of units associated with each Permit. Thinking we can use the “Dwelling Units” field on the Additional Info Screen to capture and add this to report you previously created. Let me know if this is something we can do. 794 Thanks. Brent Taylor pronouns he/him/his Financial Analyst Community Services Group E btaylor@slocity.org T 805.781.7091 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Kazemi, Neema <nkazemi@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, August 9, 2023 11:25 AM To: Taylor, Brent <btaylor@slocity.org> Cc: Parzanese, Joe <jparzanese@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Building Permit Report Hi Brent, I did a quick audit of like ten permits with 0 sq footage and they were all for window retrofits or door replacements. One was a commercial which was for a hood replacement. It looks like I misspoke, seems like our users in the front are pretty good about entering square footage if its applicable. 795 Best, Neema Kazemi System Application Specialist - Energov Information Technology 919 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E nkazemi@slocity.org slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Kazemi, Neema Sent: Wednesday, August 9, 2023 9:37 AM To: Taylor, Brent <BTaylor@slocity.org> Cc: Parzanese, Joe <jparzanese@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Building Permit Report Permits have the SQ footage as a default field on the main details, so it totally depends on users filling it out during input. But, there may be SQ footage fields in the additional info that we may fill out as well. Let me see what we got! Best. Neema Kazemi System Application Specialist - Energov Information Technology 919 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E nkazemi@slocity.org slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Taylor, Brent <btaylor@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, August 9, 2023 8:51 AM To: Kazemi, Neema <nkazemi@slocity.org> Cc: Parzanese, Joe <jparzanese@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Building Permit Report Hi Neema – no other data needed at this time. Looks good as is, except the blank sq ft fields. Is there any other Sq Ft fields in Energov which we can try to see if it will capture the ones showing 0 sq. ft.? I know it defaults to using this one, but front counter doesn’t always input to that field. Brent Taylor pronouns he/him/his Financial Analyst 796 Community Services Group E btaylor@slocity.org T 805.781.7091 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Kazemi, Neema <nkazemi@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, August 9, 2023 8:14 AM To: Taylor, Brent <btaylor@slocity.org> Cc: Parzanese, Joe <jparzanese@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Building Permit Report Hi Brent, Getting a report with those data points took a few minutes, but is there any fee data you’d like added? Or currently, there is no address information either. I can probably get this finished this morning. For now, the only filters I have are BLDG permit and issuedate after 1/1/2018. Best, Neema Kazemi System Application Specialist - Energov Information Technology 919 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E nkazemi@slocity.org slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Taylor, Brent <btaylor@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, August 9, 2023 7:42 AM To: Kazemi, Neema <nkazemi@slocity.org> Cc: Parzanese, Joe <jparzanese@slocity.org> Subject: Building Permit Report Hi Neema, hoping you can help me with putting together a report out of Energov for data that is needed for the Impact Fee Study project which will update our impact fee amounts. Consultant is requesting a report on building permits for time range of 1/1/2018 – current. Main data points needed are issue date, type of construction (SFR, MFR, etc) and the square footage. This would be for building permits only. Is this something you would be able to help me with? Would like to provide the report by Friday if possible. Brent Taylor pronouns he/him/his Financial Analyst 797 Community Services Group E btaylor@slocity.org T 805.781.7091 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications 798 From:Kazemi, Neema Sent:Monday, September 18, 2023 11:01 AM To:Loew, Michael Cc:Bernstorff, Rebecca; Nichols, Vanessa Subject:RE: Fee study Data Hi Michael, I’m hoping to have this report ready by Wednesday morning at the latest and will provide an update then. Best. Neema Kazemi System Application Specialist - Energov Information Technology 919 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E nkazemi@slocity.org slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Loew, Michael <Mloew@slocity.org> Sent: Monday, September 18, 2023 8:45 AM To: Kazemi, Neema <nkazemi@slocity.org> Cc: Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org>; Nichols, Vanessa <vnichols@slocity.org> Subject: Fee study Data Hi Neema, I know you were out last week and are just getting back to work, so I apologize for the inconvenience of this urgent request. In order for the Building and Safety Division to complete our assessment of fees we need some critical data. Can you please help us pull the following data from Energov related to projects assigned consolidated plan check/inspection fees:  Number of project with consolidated plan check fee o Filtered by work class  Overall square footage of projects with consolidated plan check fee o Filtered by work class  Number of inspections conducted on projects with consolidated inspection fee o Filtered by work class Can you please let me know if this is something that you can quickly pull for us, and if so when do you think you can have it? Feel free to give me a teams call to discuss. Thanks, Mike Loew Deputy Director 799 Chief Building Official Community Development E Mloew@slocity.org T 805.781.7157 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications 800 From:Kazemi, Neema Sent:Monday, September 18, 2023 11:01 AM To:Bernstorff, Rebecca; Taylor, Brent; Nichols, Vanessa Subject:RE: Building Permit Report (adding # of units) Attachments:Allpermitsafter2018TransportationTab.xlsx Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Completed Hi Brent, This report should have everything you’ve requested from that tab. The database names are relatively straight forward so let me know if you have any trouble associating a field name to the additional info field on the permit. Let me know if I need to add anything else. Best, Neema Kazemi System Application Specialist - Energov Information Technology 919 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E nkazemi@slocity.org slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Kazemi, Neema Sent: Monday, September 18, 2023 8:04 AM To: Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org>; Taylor, Brent <BTaylor@slocity.org>; Nichols, Vanessa <vnichols@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Building Permit Report (adding # of units) Good morning, I’ll update the fields of the report and have it sent over by this afternoon. Best, Neema Kazemi System Application Specialist - Energov Information Technology 919 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E nkazemi@slocity.org slocity.org 801 Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org> Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2023 4:43 PM To: Taylor, Brent <btaylor@slocity.org>; Nichols, Vanessa <vnichols@slocity.org>; Kazemi, Neema <nkazemi@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Building Permit Report (adding # of units) Importance: High Hi Neema, Just following up on this request. I think it’s also going to help make progress in the user fee side of the fee study as well, so we are really excited to get this report! Thanks so much! Rebecca Rebecca Bernstorff pronouns she/her/hers Business Services and Administrative Manager Administration – Community Services Group E rbernstorff@slocity.org T 805.781.7203 C 805.540.0219 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Taylor, Brent <btaylor@slocity.org> Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 4:49 PM To: Nichols, Vanessa <vnichols@slocity.org>; Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org>; Kazemi, Neema <nkazemi@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Building Permit Report (adding # of units) @Kazemi, Neema, can we try the report based on Vanessa’s suggestions below. I think everything is same as you previously pulled, except for the square footage data which Vanessa indicated can be pulled from the Square Feet tab under Additional Info. Screenshot below… 802 Brent Taylor pronouns he/him/his Financial Analyst Community Services Group E btaylor@slocity.org T 805.781.7091 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Nichols, Vanessa <vnichols@slocity.org> Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 3:17 PM To: Taylor, Brent <btaylor@slocity.org>; Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org>; Kazemi, Neema <nkazemi@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Building Permit Report (adding # of units) Hi, 803 So, yes you can pull the square footages from the square footage tab which also has it by construction type. The Number of Units would come from the Dwelling Units field on the general tab. Permit Number, Issue Date and Work Class are just fields to add to report. You will have to do the average of square footage after you get number of units and total square footage. Happy to help by showing which fields I am referencing. Let me know if you have any other questions. Vanessa Nichols Building Permit Services Supervisor Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E vnichols@slocity.org T 805.781.7588 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Taylor, Brent <btaylor@slocity.org> Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 8:14 AM To: Nichols, Vanessa <vnichols@slocity.org>; Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org>; Kazemi, Neema <nkazemi@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Building Permit Report (adding # of units) Hi Vanessa – Thanks for the clarification and information. The data that we are trying to gather for impact fee consultant is: ALL Permits in last 5 years (1/1/2018 – current). Data points for those permits need to include the following: - Permit Number - Issue Date - Type of Construction/ Work Class (SFR, MFR, Commercial, etc) - Square Footage - Number of Units - Multifamily Permits – Average Square Footage per unit Final data point for the Multifamily properties is to calculate the average sq ft of each unit, so will need to manually apply calculation (square footage/ # of units) to produce the average for those. The issue we are having with the reports that Neema helped generate is that for a lot of the Multifamily units, the square footage is “0” and therefore unable to calculate the average square footage per unit. Any ideas or suggestions on alternate fields from Energov that we could try in capturing this data would be appreciated as we are currently unable to provide the data needed to calculate impact fees. Brent Taylor pronouns he/him/his Financial Analyst Community Services Group E btaylor@slocity.org T 805.781.7091 804 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Nichols, Vanessa <vnichols@slocity.org> Sent: Friday, September 8, 2023 8:14 AM To: Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org>; Kazemi, Neema <nkazemi@slocity.org>; Taylor, Brent <btaylor@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Building Permit Report (adding # of units) Hi Rebecca, Currently I would say most of our impact fees are based off square footages. The only ones that I can think of that aren’t are Park Improvement, Park Impact, Fire Citywide, Police Citywide and the Transportation add-on fees for specific areas, which are all on per unit basis. Commercial Water/Wastewater Impact fee is based off Water Meter size currently. Square footages are captured in several different areas in Energov. It depends on the data you are trying to obtain as to where the square footages should be pulled from. The square footage field located in “Detail” workflow tab is one area that square footage is captured and if appropriate for scope of work we do try to make sure this square footage field is completed. I would say that this field is completed most of the time (there was a window of time when this field was not keeping the data). All the fees are calculated on the back end but for fees to populate a manual input must happen. The square footage field is not connected to fee generation, so by human error it can be missed. However, only for new single-family residences would this square footage field generate accurate information. If you ran a report for only single-family residence and included permit number and this square footage field any that produced zero in the square footage field on the report could be easily corrected so report was complete. Pulling square footage from this field for Mixed-Use and Multi-Family projects is not as straightforward as residence and commercial square footages are combined. We also currently capture square footages (in ranges) through the Water, Wastewater and Transportation Citywide impact fees that are charged. You could get number of units, by workclass within each square footage range. Commercial impact fees can be capture through square footage inputs by type on the Transportation tab and the water meter sizes under the Water/Wastewater tab under Commercial. I do believe we have square footage inputs in Energov that would be helpful in your information gathering. I am happy to assistance in figuring out the best avenue of getting the information you are seeking out of Energov. Nothing about Energov or our current fee is straightforward. Hope this long explanation was at least a little helpful! Vanessa Nichols Building Permit Services Supervisor Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E vnichols@slocity.org T 805.781.7588 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org> Sent: Thursday, September 7, 2023 10:25 AM To: Kazemi, Neema <nkazemi@slocity.org>; Taylor, Brent <btaylor@slocity.org> 805 Cc: Nichols, Vanessa <vnichols@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Building Permit Report (adding # of units) Thanks for stopping by earlier this week, Vanessa. Talking through with Brent I now recall why sqft is something we need to capture, and may not have been capturing before because we usually only care about units. As a part of the Fee Study, we are working to be in compliance with AB 602, a new law requiring that nexus studies adopted after July 1, 2022 must calculate the amount of fees based on square footage of proposed units of the housing development project. Is this sqft info something that we have been inputting into Energov? If not, I totally understand why but wondering if/how we do capture that data going forward… Rebecca Bernstorff pronouns she/her/hers Business Services and Administrative Manager Administration – Community Services Group E rbernstorff@slocity.org T 805.781.7203 C 805.540.0219 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Bernstorff, Rebecca Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2023 10:27 AM To: Kazemi, Neema <nkazemi@slocity.org>; Taylor, Brent <BTaylor@slocity.org> Cc: Nichols, Vanessa <vnichols@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Building Permit Report (adding # of units) Thanks for pulling this together, Neema. Why would 0 be getting put in? I’m having a hard time following why this would happen and how we get the data to the fee study consultant when it now doesn’t exist in Energov? In the future, can we have this field be required to include the sqft at the time of adding in the permit to Energov?? Such as a mandatory number that can’t be 0? Rebecca Bernstorff pronouns she/her/hers Business Services and Administrative Manager 806 Administration – Community Services Group E rbernstorff@slocity.org T 805.781.7203 C 805.540.0219 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Kazemi, Neema <nkazemi@slocity.org> Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2023 9:12 AM To: Taylor, Brent <btaylor@slocity.org> Cc: Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Building Permit Report (adding # of units) Hi Brent, This report has the added School fee square footage listed as SQFTInfoNewResidential and SQFTInfoNewCommercial. If anything, it just creates more questions. But, let me know if that helps! Best, Neema Kazemi System Application Specialist - Energov Information Technology 919 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E nkazemi@slocity.org slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Taylor, Brent <btaylor@slocity.org> Sent: Monday, August 28, 2023 9:03 AM To: Kazemi, Neema <nkazemi@slocity.org> Cc: Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Building Permit Report (adding # of units) Issue date looks good now but questioning the Sq Ft field again. I see lots of “0” listed. Even on Multifamily where there is 13 units, still showing 0 sq footage. I checked a few permits and square footage is not input to the “Details” screen, but is showing on the “additional details” screen under school fees section. This is what I was talking about before, where the square footage is not consistently input to the details screen and not capturing the data needed. I see it on all types of permits – multifamily, SFR, etc. Example below. 807 Brent Taylor pronouns he/him/his Financial Analyst Community Services Group E btaylor@slocity.org T 805.781.7091 808 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Kazemi, Neema <nkazemi@slocity.org> Sent: Monday, August 28, 2023 8:38 AM To: Taylor, Brent <btaylor@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Building Permit Report (adding # of units) Sorry, forgot to format on excel after exporting. This should be better! Neema Kazemi System Application Specialist - Energov Information Technology 919 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E nkazemi@slocity.org slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Taylor, Brent <btaylor@slocity.org> Sent: Monday, August 28, 2023 8:32 AM To: Kazemi, Neema <nkazemi@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Building Permit Report (adding # of units) Hi Neema, the issue date is not pulling correctly, can you fix that? Otherwise looks good. Brent Taylor pronouns he/him/his Financial Analyst Community Services Group E btaylor@slocity.org T 805.781.7091 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Kazemi, Neema <nkazemi@slocity.org> Sent: Monday, August 28, 2023 8:25 AM To: Taylor, Brent <btaylor@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Building Permit Report (adding # of units) Hey Brent, Try this out! Best, 809 Neema Kazemi System Application Specialist - Energov Information Technology 919 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E nkazemi@slocity.org slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Taylor, Brent <btaylor@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2023 4:15 PM To: Kazemi, Neema <nkazemi@slocity.org> Cc: Parzanese, Joe <jparzanese@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Building Permit Report (adding # of units) Importance: High Hi Neema – can you please provide ETA for this report adding in the Dwelling Units (i.e. # of units for each permit). Brent Taylor pronouns he/him/his Financial Analyst Community Services Group E btaylor@slocity.org T 805.781.7091 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Taylor, Brent Sent: Monday, August 14, 2023 11:14 AM To: Kazemi, Neema <nkazemi@slocity.org> Cc: Parzanese, Joe <jparzanese@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Building Permit Report Hi Neema – our consultant is requesting additional field be added to this report. Need to provide the number of units associated with each Permit. Thinking we can use the “Dwelling Units” field on the Additional Info Screen to capture and add this to report you previously created. Let me know if this is something we can do. Thanks. 810 Brent Taylor pronouns he/him/his Financial Analyst Community Services Group E btaylor@slocity.org T 805.781.7091 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Kazemi, Neema <nkazemi@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, August 9, 2023 11:25 AM To: Taylor, Brent <btaylor@slocity.org> Cc: Parzanese, Joe <jparzanese@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Building Permit Report Hi Brent, I did a quick audit of like ten permits with 0 sq footage and they were all for window retrofits or door replacements. One was a commercial which was for a hood replacement. It looks like I misspoke, seems like our users in the front are pretty good about entering square footage if its applicable. Best, Neema Kazemi System Application Specialist - Energov 811 Information Technology 919 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E nkazemi@slocity.org slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Kazemi, Neema Sent: Wednesday, August 9, 2023 9:37 AM To: Taylor, Brent <BTaylor@slocity.org> Cc: Parzanese, Joe <jparzanese@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Building Permit Report Permits have the SQ footage as a default field on the main details, so it totally depends on users filling it out during input. But, there may be SQ footage fields in the additional info that we may fill out as well. Let me see what we got! Best. Neema Kazemi System Application Specialist - Energov Information Technology 919 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E nkazemi@slocity.org slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Taylor, Brent <btaylor@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, August 9, 2023 8:51 AM To: Kazemi, Neema <nkazemi@slocity.org> Cc: Parzanese, Joe <jparzanese@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Building Permit Report Hi Neema – no other data needed at this time. Looks good as is, except the blank sq ft fields. Is there any other Sq Ft fields in Energov which we can try to see if it will capture the ones showing 0 sq. ft.? I know it defaults to using this one, but front counter doesn’t always input to that field. Brent Taylor pronouns he/him/his Financial Analyst Community Services Group 812 E btaylor@slocity.org T 805.781.7091 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Kazemi, Neema <nkazemi@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, August 9, 2023 8:14 AM To: Taylor, Brent <btaylor@slocity.org> Cc: Parzanese, Joe <jparzanese@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Building Permit Report Hi Brent, Getting a report with those data points took a few minutes, but is there any fee data you’d like added? Or currently, there is no address information either. I can probably get this finished this morning. For now, the only filters I have are BLDG permit and issuedate after 1/1/2018. Best, Neema Kazemi System Application Specialist - Energov Information Technology 919 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E nkazemi@slocity.org slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Taylor, Brent <btaylor@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, August 9, 2023 7:42 AM To: Kazemi, Neema <nkazemi@slocity.org> Cc: Parzanese, Joe <jparzanese@slocity.org> Subject: Building Permit Report Hi Neema, hoping you can help me with putting together a report out of Energov for data that is needed for the Impact Fee Study project which will update our impact fee amounts. Consultant is requesting a report on building permits for time range of 1/1/2018 – current. Main data points needed are issue date, type of construction (SFR, MFR, etc) and the square footage. This would be for building permits only. Is this something you would be able to help me with? Would like to provide the report by Friday if possible. Brent Taylor pronouns he/him/his Financial Analyst Community Services Group 813 E btaylor@slocity.org T 805.781.7091 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications 814 From:Loew, Michael Sent:Monday, September 18, 2023 8:45 AM To:Kazemi, Neema Cc:Bernstorff, Rebecca; Nichols, Vanessa Subject:Fee study Data Hi Neema, I know you were out last week and are just getting back to work, so I apologize for the inconvenience of this urgent request. In order for the Building and Safety Division to complete our assessment of fees we need some critical data. Can you please help us pull the following data from Energov related to projects assigned consolidated plan check/inspection fees:  Number of project with consolidated plan check fee o Filtered by work class  Overall square footage of projects with consolidated plan check fee o Filtered by work class  Number of inspections conducted on projects with consolidated inspection fee o Filtered by work class Can you please let me know if this is something that you can quickly pull for us, and if so when do you think you can have it? Feel free to give me a teams call to discuss. Thanks, Mike Loew Deputy Director Chief Building Official Community Development E Mloew@slocity.org T 805.781.7157 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications 815 From:Kazemi, Neema Sent:Monday, September 18, 2023 8:04 AM To:Bernstorff, Rebecca; Taylor, Brent; Nichols, Vanessa Subject:RE: Building Permit Report (adding # of units) Good morning, I’ll update the fields of the report and have it sent over by this afternoon. Best, Neema Kazemi System Application Specialist - Energov Information Technology 919 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E nkazemi@slocity.org slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org> Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2023 4:43 PM To: Taylor, Brent <btaylor@slocity.org>; Nichols, Vanessa <vnichols@slocity.org>; Kazemi, Neema <nkazemi@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Building Permit Report (adding # of units) Importance: High Hi Neema, Just following up on this request. I think it’s also going to help make progress in the user fee side of the fee study as well, so we are really excited to get this report! Thanks so much! Rebecca Rebecca Bernstorff pronouns she/her/hers Business Services and Administrative Manager Administration – Community Services Group E rbernstorff@slocity.org T 805.781.7203 C 805.540.0219 slocity.org 816 Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Taylor, Brent <btaylor@slocity.org> Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 4:49 PM To: Nichols, Vanessa <vnichols@slocity.org>; Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org>; Kazemi, Neema <nkazemi@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Building Permit Report (adding # of units) @Kazemi, Neema, can we try the report based on Vanessa’s suggestions below. I think everything is same as you previously pulled, except for the square footage data which Vanessa indicated can be pulled from the Square Feet tab under Additional Info. Screenshot below… Brent Taylor pronouns he/him/his Financial Analyst 817 Community Services Group E btaylor@slocity.org T 805.781.7091 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Nichols, Vanessa <vnichols@slocity.org> Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 3:17 PM To: Taylor, Brent <btaylor@slocity.org>; Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org>; Kazemi, Neema <nkazemi@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Building Permit Report (adding # of units) Hi, So, yes you can pull the square footages from the square footage tab which also has it by construction type. The Number of Units would come from the Dwelling Units field on the general tab. Permit Number, Issue Date and Work Class are just fields to add to report. You will have to do the average of square footage after you get number of units and total square footage. Happy to help by showing which fields I am referencing. Let me know if you have any other questions. Vanessa Nichols Building Permit Services Supervisor Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E vnichols@slocity.org T 805.781.7588 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Taylor, Brent <btaylor@slocity.org> Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 8:14 AM To: Nichols, Vanessa <vnichols@slocity.org>; Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org>; Kazemi, Neema <nkazemi@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Building Permit Report (adding # of units) Hi Vanessa – Thanks for the clarification and information. The data that we are trying to gather for impact fee consultant is: ALL Permits in last 5 years (1/1/2018 – current). Data points for those permits need to include the following: - Permit Number - Issue Date - Type of Construction/ Work Class (SFR, MFR, Commercial, etc) - Square Footage - Number of Units - Multifamily Permits – Average Square Footage per unit 818 Final data point for the Multifamily properties is to calculate the average sq ft of each unit, so will need to manually apply calculation (square footage/ # of units) to produce the average for those. The issue we are having with the reports that Neema helped generate is that for a lot of the Multifamily units, the square footage is “0” and therefore unable to calculate the average square footage per unit. Any ideas or suggestions on alternate fields from Energov that we could try in capturing this data would be appreciated as we are currently unable to provide the data needed to calculate impact fees. Brent Taylor pronouns he/him/his Financial Analyst Community Services Group E btaylor@slocity.org T 805.781.7091 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Nichols, Vanessa <vnichols@slocity.org> Sent: Friday, September 8, 2023 8:14 AM To: Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org>; Kazemi, Neema <nkazemi@slocity.org>; Taylor, Brent <btaylor@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Building Permit Report (adding # of units) Hi Rebecca, Currently I would say most of our impact fees are based off square footages. The only ones that I can think of that aren’t are Park Improvement, Park Impact, Fire Citywide, Police Citywide and the Transportation add-on fees for specific areas, which are all on per unit basis. Commercial Water/Wastewater Impact fee is based off Water Meter size currently. Square footages are captured in several different areas in Energov. It depends on the data you are trying to obtain as to where the square footages should be pulled from. The square footage field located in “Detail” workflow tab is one area that square footage is captured and if appropriate for scope of work we do try to make sure this square footage field is completed. I would say that this field is completed most of the time (there was a window of time when this field was not keeping the data). All the fees are calculated on the back end but for fees to populate a manual input must happen. The square footage field is not connected to fee generation, so by human error it can be missed. However, only for new single-family residences would this square footage field generate accurate information. If you ran a report for only single-family residence and included permit number and this square footage field any that produced zero in the square footage field on the report could be easily corrected so report was complete. Pulling square footage from this field for Mixed-Use and Multi-Family projects is not as straightforward as residence and commercial square footages are combined. We also currently capture square footages (in ranges) through the Water, Wastewater and Transportation Citywide impact fees that are charged. You could get number of units, by workclass within each square footage range. Commercial impact fees can be capture through square footage inputs by type on the Transportation tab and the water meter sizes under the Water/Wastewater tab under Commercial. I do believe we have square footage inputs in Energov that would be helpful in your information gathering. I am happy to assistance in figuring out the best avenue of getting the information you are seeking out of Energov. Nothing about Energov or our current fee is straightforward. Hope this long explanation was at least a little helpful! 819 Vanessa Nichols Building Permit Services Supervisor Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E vnichols@slocity.org T 805.781.7588 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org> Sent: Thursday, September 7, 2023 10:25 AM To: Kazemi, Neema <nkazemi@slocity.org>; Taylor, Brent <btaylor@slocity.org> Cc: Nichols, Vanessa <vnichols@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Building Permit Report (adding # of units) Thanks for stopping by earlier this week, Vanessa. Talking through with Brent I now recall why sqft is something we need to capture, and may not have been capturing before because we usually only care about units. As a part of the Fee Study, we are working to be in compliance with AB 602, a new law requiring that nexus studies adopted after July 1, 2022 must calculate the amount of fees based on square footage of proposed units of the housing development project. Is this sqft info something that we have been inputting into Energov? If not, I totally understand why but wondering if/how we do capture that data going forward… Rebecca Bernstorff pronouns she/her/hers Business Services and Administrative Manager Administration – Community Services Group E rbernstorff@slocity.org T 805.781.7203 C 805.540.0219 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications 820 From: Bernstorff, Rebecca Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2023 10:27 AM To: Kazemi, Neema <nkazemi@slocity.org>; Taylor, Brent <BTaylor@slocity.org> Cc: Nichols, Vanessa <vnichols@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Building Permit Report (adding # of units) Thanks for pulling this together, Neema. Why would 0 be getting put in? I’m having a hard time following why this would happen and how we get the data to the fee study consultant when it now doesn’t exist in Energov? In the future, can we have this field be required to include the sqft at the time of adding in the permit to Energov?? Such as a mandatory number that can’t be 0? Rebecca Bernstorff pronouns she/her/hers Business Services and Administrative Manager Administration – Community Services Group E rbernstorff@slocity.org T 805.781.7203 C 805.540.0219 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Kazemi, Neema <nkazemi@slocity.org> Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2023 9:12 AM To: Taylor, Brent <btaylor@slocity.org> Cc: Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Building Permit Report (adding # of units) Hi Brent, This report has the added School fee square footage listed as SQFTInfoNewResidential and SQFTInfoNewCommercial. If anything, it just creates more questions. But, let me know if that helps! Best, Neema Kazemi System Application Specialist - Energov Information Technology 919 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E nkazemi@slocity.org slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications 821 From: Taylor, Brent <btaylor@slocity.org> Sent: Monday, August 28, 2023 9:03 AM To: Kazemi, Neema <nkazemi@slocity.org> Cc: Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Building Permit Report (adding # of units) Issue date looks good now but questioning the Sq Ft field again. I see lots of “0” listed. Even on Multifamily where there is 13 units, still showing 0 sq footage. I checked a few permits and square footage is not input to the “Details” screen, but is showing on the “additional details” screen under school fees section. This is what I was talking about before, where the square footage is not consistently input to the details screen and not capturing the data needed. I see it on all types of permits – multifamily, SFR, etc. Example below. 822 Brent Taylor pronouns he/him/his Financial Analyst Community Services Group E btaylor@slocity.org T 805.781.7091 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Kazemi, Neema <nkazemi@slocity.org> Sent: Monday, August 28, 2023 8:38 AM To: Taylor, Brent <btaylor@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Building Permit Report (adding # of units) Sorry, forgot to format on excel after exporting. This should be better! Neema Kazemi System Application Specialist - Energov Information Technology 919 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E nkazemi@slocity.org slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Taylor, Brent <btaylor@slocity.org> Sent: Monday, August 28, 2023 8:32 AM To: Kazemi, Neema <nkazemi@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Building Permit Report (adding # of units) Hi Neema, the issue date is not pulling correctly, can you fix that? Otherwise looks good. Brent Taylor pronouns he/him/his Financial Analyst Community Services Group E btaylor@slocity.org T 805.781.7091 slocity.org 823 Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Kazemi, Neema <nkazemi@slocity.org> Sent: Monday, August 28, 2023 8:25 AM To: Taylor, Brent <btaylor@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Building Permit Report (adding # of units) Hey Brent, Try this out! Best, Neema Kazemi System Application Specialist - Energov Information Technology 919 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E nkazemi@slocity.org slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Taylor, Brent <btaylor@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2023 4:15 PM To: Kazemi, Neema <nkazemi@slocity.org> Cc: Parzanese, Joe <jparzanese@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Building Permit Report (adding # of units) Importance: High Hi Neema – can you please provide ETA for this report adding in the Dwelling Units (i.e. # of units for each permit). Brent Taylor pronouns he/him/his Financial Analyst Community Services Group E btaylor@slocity.org T 805.781.7091 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Taylor, Brent Sent: Monday, August 14, 2023 11:14 AM To: Kazemi, Neema <nkazemi@slocity.org> Cc: Parzanese, Joe <jparzanese@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Building Permit Report 824 Hi Neema – our consultant is requesting additional field be added to this report. Need to provide the number of units associated with each Permit. Thinking we can use the “Dwelling Units” field on the Additional Info Screen to capture and add this to report you previously created. Let me know if this is something we can do. Thanks. Brent Taylor pronouns he/him/his Financial Analyst Community Services Group E btaylor@slocity.org T 805.781.7091 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Kazemi, Neema <nkazemi@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, August 9, 2023 11:25 AM To: Taylor, Brent <btaylor@slocity.org> Cc: Parzanese, Joe <jparzanese@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Building Permit Report Hi Brent, 825 I did a quick audit of like ten permits with 0 sq footage and they were all for window retrofits or door replacements. One was a commercial which was for a hood replacement. It looks like I misspoke, seems like our users in the front are pretty good about entering square footage if its applicable. Best, Neema Kazemi System Application Specialist - Energov Information Technology 919 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E nkazemi@slocity.org slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Kazemi, Neema Sent: Wednesday, August 9, 2023 9:37 AM To: Taylor, Brent <BTaylor@slocity.org> Cc: Parzanese, Joe <jparzanese@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Building Permit Report Permits have the SQ footage as a default field on the main details, so it totally depends on users filling it out during input. But, there may be SQ footage fields in the additional info that we may fill out as well. Let me see what we got! Best. Neema Kazemi System Application Specialist - Energov Information Technology 919 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E nkazemi@slocity.org slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Taylor, Brent <btaylor@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, August 9, 2023 8:51 AM To: Kazemi, Neema <nkazemi@slocity.org> Cc: Parzanese, Joe <jparzanese@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Building Permit Report Hi Neema – no other data needed at this time. Looks good as is, except the blank sq ft fields. Is there any other Sq Ft fields in Energov which we can try to see if it will capture the ones showing 0 sq. ft.? I know it defaults to using this one, but front counter doesn’t always input to that field. 826 Brent Taylor pronouns he/him/his Financial Analyst Community Services Group E btaylor@slocity.org T 805.781.7091 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Kazemi, Neema <nkazemi@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, August 9, 2023 8:14 AM To: Taylor, Brent <btaylor@slocity.org> Cc: Parzanese, Joe <jparzanese@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Building Permit Report Hi Brent, Getting a report with those data points took a few minutes, but is there any fee data you’d like added? Or currently, there is no address information either. I can probably get this finished this morning. For now, the only filters I have are BLDG permit and issuedate after 1/1/2018. Best, Neema Kazemi System Application Specialist - Energov Information Technology 919 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E nkazemi@slocity.org slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Taylor, Brent <btaylor@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, August 9, 2023 7:42 AM To: Kazemi, Neema <nkazemi@slocity.org> Cc: Parzanese, Joe <jparzanese@slocity.org> Subject: Building Permit Report Hi Neema, hoping you can help me with putting together a report out of Energov for data that is needed for the Impact Fee Study project which will update our impact fee amounts. Consultant is requesting a report on building permits for time range of 1/1/2018 – current. Main data points needed are issue date, type of construction (SFR, MFR, etc) and the square footage. This would be for building permits only. Is this something you would be able to help me with? Would like to provide the report by Friday if possible. 827 Brent Taylor pronouns he/him/his Financial Analyst Community Services Group E btaylor@slocity.org T 805.781.7091 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications 828 From:Garcia, Tavy Sent:Friday, September 15, 2023 3:05 PM To:Kuan-Ting Ko Subject:Revenue follow up Attachments:Copy of AllFeesWSchedule.xlsx; CPITypes.xlsx; Revenue open items follow up.xlsx Hi Tim, Sorry for the delay, after meeting with CDD a few times, I was able to recalculate the permit fees you selected. In order to do so, I asked the team for an export of all Energov fees by year as well as the CPI/CCI annual increase factors for the “vested selections; ”which was the other missing piece of the puzzle. From what they explained, Energov performs the calculations automatically based on the parameters entered. There is just one permit fee that I asked Vanessa to take a look at, as I wasn’t able to recalc, but got close. PS – I uploaded copies of these file to the engagement organizer. Sincerely, Tavy F. Garcia Senior Accountant Finance 990 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E tgarcia@slocity.org T 805.781.7079 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications Column Labels Row Labels Baseline FY 2016 CCPI -All Urban Nationwide ENR CCI MCI SLR Vested Vested CPI Grand Total 2019-20 2.6 2019-2020 3.2 2020-2021 1.75 2020-21 2.28 2021-2022 10.88 2021-22 10.88 CCI 2020-21 1.75 CCI 2021-22 10.88 CCI 2022-23 24.52 CCI 2023-24 1.38 (blank) 0.7 1.38 1.75 2 2.3 2.79 3.2 3.3 3.6 3.8 7.9 10 10.88 24.52 Grand Total Name description startdate enddate cpivalue Type 2015-2016 7/1/2015 6/30/2016 2.3 Baseline FY 2016 2016-2017 7/1/2016 6/30/2017 0.7 Baseline FY 2016 2017-2018 7/1/2017 6/30/2018 2 Baseline FY 2016 2018-2019 7/1/2018 6/30/2019 2.79 Baseline FY 2016 2019-2020 7/1/2019 6/30/2020 3.3 Baseline FY 2016 2020-2021 7/1/2020 6/30/2021 0.7 Baseline FY 2016 2021-2022 7/1/2021 6/30/2022 3.6 Baseline FY 2016 2022-2023 7/1/2022 6/30/2023 7.9 Baseline FY 2016 2023-24 7/1/2023 6/30/2024 3.8 Baseline FY 2016 2023-24 7/1/2023 6/30/2024 1.38 CCPI -All Urban Nationwide 2022-23 7/1/2022 6/30/2023 24.52 CCPI -All Urban Nationwide 2021-22 2021-22 7/1/2021 6/30/2022 10.88 CCPI -All Urban Nationwide 2020-21 2020-21 7/1/2020 6/30/2021 2.28 CCPI -All Urban Nationwide 2022-23 7/1/2022 6/30/2023 24.52 ENR CCI 2023-24 7/1/2023 6/30/2024 1.38 ENR CCI 2019-2020 2019-2020 7/1/2019 6/30/2020 3.2 ENR CCI 2021-2022 2021-2022 7/1/2021 6/30/2022 10.88 ENR CCI 2020-2021 2020-2021 7/1/2020 6/30/2021 1.75 ENR CCI 2021-2022 CCI 2021-22 7/1/2021 6/30/2022 10.88 MCI 2023-24 CCI 2023-24 7/1/2023 6/30/2024 1.38 MCI 2020-21 CCI 2020-21 7/1/2020 6/30/2021 1.75 MCI 2019-20 2019-20 7/1/2019 6/30/2020 2.6 MCI 2022-23 CCI 2022-23 7/1/2022 6/30/2023 24.52 MCI 2016-17 7/1/2016 6/30/2017 0.7 SLR Vested 2017-18 7/1/2017 6/30/2018 2 SLR Vested 2018-19 7/1/2018 6/30/2019 2.79 SLR Vested 2019-20 7/1/2019 6/30/2020 3.2 SLR Vested 2020-21 7/1/2020 6/30/2021 1.75 SLR Vested 21 Increase 11/19/2021 11/18/2022 10 SLR Vested 22 Increase 11/19/2022 6/30/2023 10 SLR Vested 2021-22 7/1/2021 11/18/2021 10.88 SLR Vested 23 Increase 11/19/2023 6/30/2024 10 SLR Vested 2023-24 7/1/2023 11/18/2023 1.38 SLR Vested 2017-18 7/1/2017 6/30/2018 2 Vested CPI 2018-19 7/1/2018 6/30/2019 2.79 Vested CPI 2016-17 7/1/2016 6/30/2017 0.7 Vested CPI 2019-20 7/1/2019 6/30/2020 3.2 Vested CPI 2020-2021 7/1/2020 6/30/2021 1.75 Vested CPI 2021-2022 7/1/2021 6/30/2022 10.88 Vested CPI 2022-23 7/1/2022 6/30/2023 24.52 Vested CPI 2023-24 7/1/2023 6/30/2024 1.38 Vested CPI 29 From:Jackson, Emily Sent:Friday, September 15, 2023 8:00 AM To:Bernstorff, Rebecca Cc:Malicoat, Debbie; Nunez, Jacob Subject:Re: SLO - Credit Card Fee Hi Rebecca, Thanks Emily Jackson pronouns she/her/hers Finance Director Finance 990 Palm St, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3934 E ejackson@slocity.org T 805.781.7125 slocity.org The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and l The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and l The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and l Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org> Sent: Friday, September 8, 2023 3:03 PM To: Jackson, Emily <ejackson@slocity.org> Cc: Malicoat, Debbie <dmalicoa@slocity.org>; Nunez, Jacob <jnunez@slocity.org> Subject: RE: SLO - Credit Card Fee 830 Thanks! Rebecca Rebecca Bernstorff pronouns she/her/hers Business Services and Administrative Manager Administration – Community Services Group E rbernstorff@slocity.org T 805.781.7203 C 805.540.0219 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com> Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2023 3:44 PM To: Jackson, Emily <ejackson@slocity.org>; Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org> Subject: SLO - Credit Card Fee This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Hi Rebecca and Emily As a follow up to our conversation regarding credit card fees, one of my colleagues said that they recently did a comparison survey for one of their clients in Southern California to see what other agencies were doing. Here is what she was able to find out: 831 In addition, she mentioned that she’s finding that many cities do not charge any fee and the ones that do use a third party vendor to process the payments so they get the fee directly. Counties seem to charge fees more than cities but they have more agencies that interface with the public. Most agencies are a bit cautious about layering in the credit card fees to all of their fees since they do offer cash, check or other forms of payment. There also doesn’t seem to be any issues with charging the consumer this fee legally since it is considered a pass through fee. Please let me know if you have any additional questions and if we need to address a change on the fee schedule to accommodate a new charge. Cindy Sconce (she/her/hers) Director, Performance Solutions Group 3600 American River Drive, Suite 150 Sacramento, CA 95864 Cell: 916.276.8807 Email: csconce@mgtconsulting.com The information contained in this electronic communication is intended only for the use of the addressee, and may be a confidential communication. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this transmittal in error; any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this transmittal is strictly prohibited. 832 From:Bernstorff, Rebecca Sent:Thursday, September 14, 2023 4:43 PM To:Taylor, Brent; Nichols, Vanessa; Kazemi, Neema Subject:RE: Building Permit Report (adding # of units) Importance:High Hi Neema, Just following up on this request. I think it’s also going to help make progress in the user fee side of the fee study as well, so we are really excited to get this report! Thanks so much! Rebecca Rebecca Bernstorff pronouns she/her/hers Business Services and Administrative Manager Administration – Community Services Group E rbernstorff@slocity.org T 805.781.7203 C 805.540.0219 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Taylor, Brent <btaylor@slocity.org> Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 4:49 PM To: Nichols, Vanessa <vnichols@slocity.org>; Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org>; Kazemi, Neema <nkazemi@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Building Permit Report (adding # of units) @Kazemi, Neema, can we try the report based on Vanessa’s suggestions below. I think everything is same as you previously pulled, except for the square footage data which Vanessa indicated can be pulled from the Square Feet tab under Additional Info. Screenshot below… 833 Brent Taylor pronouns he/him/his Financial Analyst Community Services Group E btaylor@slocity.org T 805.781.7091 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Nichols, Vanessa <vnichols@slocity.org> Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 3:17 PM To: Taylor, Brent <btaylor@slocity.org>; Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org>; Kazemi, Neema <nkazemi@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Building Permit Report (adding # of units) Hi, 834 So, yes you can pull the square footages from the square footage tab which also has it by construction type. The Number of Units would come from the Dwelling Units field on the general tab. Permit Number, Issue Date and Work Class are just fields to add to report. You will have to do the average of square footage after you get number of units and total square footage. Happy to help by showing which fields I am referencing. Let me know if you have any other questions. Vanessa Nichols Building Permit Services Supervisor Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E vnichols@slocity.org T 805.781.7588 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Taylor, Brent <btaylor@slocity.org> Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 8:14 AM To: Nichols, Vanessa <vnichols@slocity.org>; Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org>; Kazemi, Neema <nkazemi@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Building Permit Report (adding # of units) Hi Vanessa – Thanks for the clarification and information. The data that we are trying to gather for impact fee consultant is: ALL Permits in last 5 years (1/1/2018 – current). Data points for those permits need to include the following: - Permit Number - Issue Date - Type of Construction/ Work Class (SFR, MFR, Commercial, etc) - Square Footage - Number of Units - Multifamily Permits – Average Square Footage per unit Final data point for the Multifamily properties is to calculate the average sq ft of each unit, so will need to manually apply calculation (square footage/ # of units) to produce the average for those. The issue we are having with the reports that Neema helped generate is that for a lot of the Multifamily units, the square footage is “0” and therefore unable to calculate the average square footage per unit. Any ideas or suggestions on alternate fields from Energov that we could try in capturing this data would be appreciated as we are currently unable to provide the data needed to calculate impact fees. Brent Taylor pronouns he/him/his Financial Analyst Community Services Group E btaylor@slocity.org T 805.781.7091 835 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Nichols, Vanessa <vnichols@slocity.org> Sent: Friday, September 8, 2023 8:14 AM To: Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org>; Kazemi, Neema <nkazemi@slocity.org>; Taylor, Brent <btaylor@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Building Permit Report (adding # of units) Hi Rebecca, Currently I would say most of our impact fees are based off square footages. The only ones that I can think of that aren’t are Park Improvement, Park Impact, Fire Citywide, Police Citywide and the Transportation add-on fees for specific areas, which are all on per unit basis. Commercial Water/Wastewater Impact fee is based off Water Meter size currently. Square footages are captured in several different areas in Energov. It depends on the data you are trying to obtain as to where the square footages should be pulled from. The square footage field located in “Detail” workflow tab is one area that square footage is captured and if appropriate for scope of work we do try to make sure this square footage field is completed. I would say that this field is completed most of the time (there was a window of time when this field was not keeping the data). All the fees are calculated on the back end but for fees to populate a manual input must happen. The square footage field is not connected to fee generation, so by human error it can be missed. However, only for new single-family residences would this square footage field generate accurate information. If you ran a report for only single-family residence and included permit number and this square footage field any that produced zero in the square footage field on the report could be easily corrected so report was complete. Pulling square footage from this field for Mixed-Use and Multi-Family projects is not as straightforward as residence and commercial square footages are combined. We also currently capture square footages (in ranges) through the Water, Wastewater and Transportation Citywide impact fees that are charged. You could get number of units, by workclass within each square footage range. Commercial impact fees can be capture through square footage inputs by type on the Transportation tab and the water meter sizes under the Water/Wastewater tab under Commercial. I do believe we have square footage inputs in Energov that would be helpful in your information gathering. I am happy to assistance in figuring out the best avenue of getting the information you are seeking out of Energov. Nothing about Energov or our current fee is straightforward. Hope this long explanation was at least a little helpful! Vanessa Nichols Building Permit Services Supervisor Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E vnichols@slocity.org T 805.781.7588 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org> Sent: Thursday, September 7, 2023 10:25 AM To: Kazemi, Neema <nkazemi@slocity.org>; Taylor, Brent <btaylor@slocity.org> 836 Cc: Nichols, Vanessa <vnichols@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Building Permit Report (adding # of units) Thanks for stopping by earlier this week, Vanessa. Talking through with Brent I now recall why sqft is something we need to capture, and may not have been capturing before because we usually only care about units. As a part of the Fee Study, we are working to be in compliance with AB 602, a new law requiring that nexus studies adopted after July 1, 2022 must calculate the amount of fees based on square footage of proposed units of the housing development project. Is this sqft info something that we have been inputting into Energov? If not, I totally understand why but wondering if/how we do capture that data going forward… Rebecca Bernstorff pronouns she/her/hers Business Services and Administrative Manager Administration – Community Services Group E rbernstorff@slocity.org T 805.781.7203 C 805.540.0219 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Bernstorff, Rebecca Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2023 10:27 AM To: Kazemi, Neema <nkazemi@slocity.org>; Taylor, Brent <BTaylor@slocity.org> Cc: Nichols, Vanessa <vnichols@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Building Permit Report (adding # of units) Thanks for pulling this together, Neema. Why would 0 be getting put in? I’m having a hard time following why this would happen and how we get the data to the fee study consultant when it now doesn’t exist in Energov? In the future, can we have this field be required to include the sqft at the time of adding in the permit to Energov?? Such as a mandatory number that can’t be 0? Rebecca Bernstorff pronouns she/her/hers Business Services and Administrative Manager 837 Administration – Community Services Group E rbernstorff@slocity.org T 805.781.7203 C 805.540.0219 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Kazemi, Neema <nkazemi@slocity.org> Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2023 9:12 AM To: Taylor, Brent <btaylor@slocity.org> Cc: Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Building Permit Report (adding # of units) Hi Brent, This report has the added School fee square footage listed as SQFTInfoNewResidential and SQFTInfoNewCommercial. If anything, it just creates more questions. But, let me know if that helps! Best, Neema Kazemi System Application Specialist - Energov Information Technology 919 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E nkazemi@slocity.org slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Taylor, Brent <btaylor@slocity.org> Sent: Monday, August 28, 2023 9:03 AM To: Kazemi, Neema <nkazemi@slocity.org> Cc: Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Building Permit Report (adding # of units) Issue date looks good now but questioning the Sq Ft field again. I see lots of “0” listed. Even on Multifamily where there is 13 units, still showing 0 sq footage. I checked a few permits and square footage is not input to the “Details” screen, but is showing on the “additional details” screen under school fees section. This is what I was talking about before, where the square footage is not consistently input to the details screen and not capturing the data needed. I see it on all types of permits – multifamily, SFR, etc. Example below. 838 Brent Taylor pronouns he/him/his Financial Analyst Community Services Group E btaylor@slocity.org T 805.781.7091 839 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Kazemi, Neema <nkazemi@slocity.org> Sent: Monday, August 28, 2023 8:38 AM To: Taylor, Brent <btaylor@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Building Permit Report (adding # of units) Sorry, forgot to format on excel after exporting. This should be better! Neema Kazemi System Application Specialist - Energov Information Technology 919 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E nkazemi@slocity.org slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Taylor, Brent <btaylor@slocity.org> Sent: Monday, August 28, 2023 8:32 AM To: Kazemi, Neema <nkazemi@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Building Permit Report (adding # of units) Hi Neema, the issue date is not pulling correctly, can you fix that? Otherwise looks good. Brent Taylor pronouns he/him/his Financial Analyst Community Services Group E btaylor@slocity.org T 805.781.7091 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Kazemi, Neema <nkazemi@slocity.org> Sent: Monday, August 28, 2023 8:25 AM To: Taylor, Brent <btaylor@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Building Permit Report (adding # of units) Hey Brent, Try this out! Best, 840 Neema Kazemi System Application Specialist - Energov Information Technology 919 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E nkazemi@slocity.org slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Taylor, Brent <btaylor@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2023 4:15 PM To: Kazemi, Neema <nkazemi@slocity.org> Cc: Parzanese, Joe <jparzanese@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Building Permit Report (adding # of units) Importance: High Hi Neema – can you please provide ETA for this report adding in the Dwelling Units (i.e. # of units for each permit). Brent Taylor pronouns he/him/his Financial Analyst Community Services Group E btaylor@slocity.org T 805.781.7091 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Taylor, Brent Sent: Monday, August 14, 2023 11:14 AM To: Kazemi, Neema <nkazemi@slocity.org> Cc: Parzanese, Joe <jparzanese@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Building Permit Report Hi Neema – our consultant is requesting additional field be added to this report. Need to provide the number of units associated with each Permit. Thinking we can use the “Dwelling Units” field on the Additional Info Screen to capture and add this to report you previously created. Let me know if this is something we can do. Thanks. 841 Brent Taylor pronouns he/him/his Financial Analyst Community Services Group E btaylor@slocity.org T 805.781.7091 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Kazemi, Neema <nkazemi@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, August 9, 2023 11:25 AM To: Taylor, Brent <btaylor@slocity.org> Cc: Parzanese, Joe <jparzanese@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Building Permit Report Hi Brent, I did a quick audit of like ten permits with 0 sq footage and they were all for window retrofits or door replacements. One was a commercial which was for a hood replacement. It looks like I misspoke, seems like our users in the front are pretty good about entering square footage if its applicable. Best, Neema Kazemi System Application Specialist - Energov 842 Information Technology 919 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E nkazemi@slocity.org slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Kazemi, Neema Sent: Wednesday, August 9, 2023 9:37 AM To: Taylor, Brent <BTaylor@slocity.org> Cc: Parzanese, Joe <jparzanese@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Building Permit Report Permits have the SQ footage as a default field on the main details, so it totally depends on users filling it out during input. But, there may be SQ footage fields in the additional info that we may fill out as well. Let me see what we got! Best. Neema Kazemi System Application Specialist - Energov Information Technology 919 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E nkazemi@slocity.org slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Taylor, Brent <btaylor@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, August 9, 2023 8:51 AM To: Kazemi, Neema <nkazemi@slocity.org> Cc: Parzanese, Joe <jparzanese@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Building Permit Report Hi Neema – no other data needed at this time. Looks good as is, except the blank sq ft fields. Is there any other Sq Ft fields in Energov which we can try to see if it will capture the ones showing 0 sq. ft.? I know it defaults to using this one, but front counter doesn’t always input to that field. Brent Taylor pronouns he/him/his Financial Analyst Community Services Group 843 E btaylor@slocity.org T 805.781.7091 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Kazemi, Neema <nkazemi@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, August 9, 2023 8:14 AM To: Taylor, Brent <btaylor@slocity.org> Cc: Parzanese, Joe <jparzanese@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Building Permit Report Hi Brent, Getting a report with those data points took a few minutes, but is there any fee data you’d like added? Or currently, there is no address information either. I can probably get this finished this morning. For now, the only filters I have are BLDG permit and issuedate after 1/1/2018. Best, Neema Kazemi System Application Specialist - Energov Information Technology 919 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E nkazemi@slocity.org slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Taylor, Brent <btaylor@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, August 9, 2023 7:42 AM To: Kazemi, Neema <nkazemi@slocity.org> Cc: Parzanese, Joe <jparzanese@slocity.org> Subject: Building Permit Report Hi Neema, hoping you can help me with putting together a report out of Energov for data that is needed for the Impact Fee Study project which will update our impact fee amounts. Consultant is requesting a report on building permits for time range of 1/1/2018 – current. Main data points needed are issue date, type of construction (SFR, MFR, etc) and the square footage. This would be for building permits only. Is this something you would be able to help me with? Would like to provide the report by Friday if possible. Brent Taylor pronouns he/him/his Financial Analyst Community Services Group 844 E btaylor@slocity.org T 805.781.7091 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications 845 From:Pringle, Brendan Sent:Thursday, September 14, 2023 2:19 PM To:Panchal, Krishna Subject:FW: Past Due MGT Invoice 52817 for City of San Luis Obispo Attachments:INV_52817.pdf Brendan Pringle Business Analyst Parks & Recreation 1341 Nipomo St, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E bpringle@slocity.org slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org> Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2023 7:46 AM To: Derrick Sheng <dsheng@mgtconsulting.com> Cc: Threisy Paredes <tparedes@mgtconsulting.com>; arinv <arinv@mgtconsulting.com>; Lee Lein Onn <lonn@mgtconsulting.com>; Patrick Dyer <PDyer@mgtconsulting.com>; Pringle, Brendan <bpringle@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Past Due MGT Invoice 52817 for City of San Luis Obispo Derrick, The payment has been sent. There was a delay in receiving your W-9, so we only recently were able to get you set up as a vendor in our financial system. Thanks for your patience, Rebecca Rebecca Bernstorff pronouns she/her/hers Business Services and Administrative Manager Administration – Community Services Group E rbernstorff@slocity.org T 805.781.7203 C 805.540.0219 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications 846 From: Derrick Sheng <dsheng@mgtconsulting.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2023 6:36 AM To: Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org> Cc: Threisy Paredes <tparedes@mgtconsulting.com>; arinv <arinv@mgtconsulting.com>; Lee Lein Onn <lonn@mgtconsulting.com>; Patrick Dyer <PDyer@mgtconsulting.com> Subject: Past Due MGT Invoice 52817 for City of San Luis Obispo This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Hello, We hope that you are all doing well. Our records show that we haven’t received payment for invoice 52817, which is overdue. If the payment has already been sent, please disregard this notice. If you require anything from us, please let me know and I’ll be happy to assist. Thank you kindly for your attention to this important matter. Sending our best, Derrick Sheng AR Specialist 4320 West Kennedy Blvd. Tampa, Florida 33609 Email: dsheng@mgtconsulting.com The information contained in this electronic communication is intended only for the use of the addressee, and may be a confidential communication. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this 847 transmittal in error; any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this transmittal is strictly prohibited. Invoice 52817 Date:08/02/2023 Payment Terms:Net 30 Due Date:09/01/2023 PO number: Bill To:Remit To: City of San Luis Obispo 919 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 MGT of America Consulting, LLC P.O. Box 17780 Clearwater, FL 33762-0780 813-327-4717 arinv@mgtconsulting.com Project: FSG | FY23 | City of San Luis Obispo | User and Impact Fee Stud | CA Description Quantity Rate Amount Project Management 1 $1,755.00 $1,755.00 MGT - User Fee Design 1 $11,670.00 $11,670.00 MGT - User Fee Analysis 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 DTA - Impact Fee Study (subcontractor)1 $4,520.00 $4,520.00 SubTotal:$19,945.00 Tax:$0.00 Total:$19,945.00 Company Confidential 848 From:Jamie Radcliff <jradcliff@mgtconsulting.com> Sent:Thursday, September 14, 2023 2:08 PM To:Kersten, Markie; White, Kelly Cc:Cindy Sconce; Rachel King; Bernstorff, Rebecca Subject:RE: [EXTERNAL]RE: User Fee Study- Cross Support for Attorney Hi Markie: I understand! Friday the 22nd will be great. Thank you, Jamie Radcliff Manager Performance SoluƟons Group 432-208-8194 jradcliff@mgtconsulƟng.com Impacting Communities for Good The informaƟon contained in this electronic communicaƟon is intended only for the use of the addressee, and may be a confidenƟal communicaƟon. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby noƟfied that you have received this transmiƩal in error; any review, disseminaƟon, distribuƟon, or copying of this transmiƩal is strictly prohibited. From: Kersten, Markie <mkersten@slocity.org> Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2023 11:47 AM To: White, Kelly <kwhite@slocity.org>; Jamie Radcliff <jradcliff@mgtconsulting.com> Cc: Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com>; Rachel King <rking@mgtconsulting.com>; Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL]RE: User Fee Study- Cross Support for Attorney Thanks. I am out of the office today through Tuesday the 19th, so EOD Wednesday is not realistic for me. Could I complete my review by EOD Friday the 22nd? From: White, Kelly <kwhite@slocity.org> Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2023 9:26 AM To: Jamie Radcliff <jradcliff@mgtconsulting.com>; Kersten, Markie <mkersten@slocity.org> Cc: Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com>; Rachel King <rking@mgtconsulting.com>; Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org> Subject: RE: User Fee Study- Cross Support for Attorney Jamie, CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. 849 I’ve copied the attorney in our office who is lead for Public Works and Utilities Engineering (Markie – the draft for you to edit is here). Can you answer a few questions before Markie spends time on this task?  What does the yellow shading indicate?  Did Engineering believe legal assistance is provided for all these services or just a few? I was expecting to see an “X” where Engineering believe legal support is provided but there were none until I unhid all the columns but I’m guessing those are indicating a contribution by those departments/divisions.  Should zero be entered if no assistance is provided for some of the services listed?  Custom Agreements already has two hours entered. Was that an intentional contribution meant to limit our answer or just a typo? Kelly White Senior Legal Analyst City Attorney's Office E kwhite@slocity.org T 805.781.7060 From: Jamie Radcliff <jradcliff@mgtconsulting.com> Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2023 7:53 AM To: White, Kelly <kwhite@slocity.org> Cc: Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com>; Rachel King <rking@mgtconsulting.com>; Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org> Subject: User Fee Study- Cross Support for Attorney This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Good Morning Kelly: I have gathered informaƟon from Engineering, and they report that the AƩorneys (Legal) spend Ɵme on several of the Engineering inspecƟon fees. Engineering noted an “X” on the permits with their involvement. They need to replace the “X” with the Ɵme the posiƟon spends on the permit (in hours or minutes, please indicate which). Please return to me by COB on Wednesday, September 20th. If you have any quesƟons don't hesitate to reach out. Thank you! Jamie Radcliff Manager Performance SoluƟons Group 850 432-208-8194 jradcliff@mgtconsulƟng.com Impacting Communities for Good The informaƟon contained in this electronic communicaƟon is intended only for the use of the addressee, and may be a confidenƟal communicaƟon. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby noƟfied that you have received this transmiƩal in error; any review, disseminaƟon, distribuƟon, or copying of this transmiƩal is strictly prohibited. 851 From:Jamie Radcliff <jradcliff@mgtconsulting.com> Sent:Thursday, September 14, 2023 2:02 PM To:White, Kelly; Kersten, Markie Cc:Cindy Sconce; Rachel King; Bernstorff, Rebecca Subject:RE: [EXTERNAL]RE: User Fee Study- Cross Support for Attorney Hi Kelly- It was just the one fee that Engineering reported for the AƩorney. I apologize – I did use the word several in my email and I can see where that was misleading. If Markie notes other fees the aƩorney posiƟon touches, please document with a Ɵme esƟmate. Thank you, Jamie Radcliff Manager Performance SoluƟons Group 432-208-8194 jradcliff@mgtconsulƟng.com Impacting Communities for Good The informaƟon contained in this electronic communicaƟon is intended only for the use of the addressee, and may be a confidenƟal communicaƟon. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby noƟfied that you have received this transmiƩal in error; any review, disseminaƟon, distribuƟon, or copying of this transmiƩal is strictly prohibited. From: White, Kelly <kwhite@slocity.org> Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2023 2:42 PM To: Jamie Radcliff <jradcliff@mgtconsulting.com>; Kersten, Markie <mkersten@slocity.org> Cc: Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com>; Rachel King <rking@mgtconsulting.com>; Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL]RE: User Fee Study- Cross Support for Attorney So, Markie just needs to look at one number? I know this is an infinitesimally small part of a huge project but that was not clear from your original email. Markie - it’s just the very bottom row (the Custom Agreement) that you need to input or confirm (where it currently says two hours). If you scan the list and anything else pops out as something you contribute to, please enter the amount of time. I’ve hid again all the columns that don’t apply to you so you should just see “A” and then from “AC” on. Kelly White Senior Legal Analyst CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. 852 City Attorney's Office E kwhite@slocity.org T 805.781.7060 From: Jamie Radcliff <jradcliff@mgtconsulting.com> Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2023 10:45 AM To: White, Kelly <kwhite@slocity.org>; Kersten, Markie <mkersten@slocity.org> Cc: Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com>; Rachel King <rking@mgtconsulting.com>; Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL]RE: User Fee Study- Cross Support for Attorney Hi Kelly: Please see my answers below. Thanks. Jamie Radcliff Manager Performance SoluƟons Group 432-208-8194 jradcliff@mgtconsulƟng.com Impacting Communities for Good The informaƟon contained in this electronic communicaƟon is intended only for the use of the addressee, and may be a confidenƟal communicaƟon. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby noƟfied that you have received this transmiƩal in error; any review, disseminaƟon, distribuƟon, or copying of this transmiƩal is strictly prohibited. From: White, Kelly <kwhite@slocity.org> Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2023 11:26 AM To: Jamie Radcliff <jradcliff@mgtconsulting.com>; Kersten, Markie <mkersten@slocity.org> Cc: Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com>; Rachel King <rking@mgtconsulting.com>; Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL]RE: User Fee Study- Cross Support for Attorney Jamie, I’ve copied the attorney in our office who is lead for Public Works and Utilities Engineering (Markie – the draft for you to edit is here). Can you answer a few questions before Markie spends time on this task?  What does the yellow shading indicate? These are new fees- they wanted them broken down into two categories of document processing. I highlighted because they are new.  Did Engineering believe legal assistance is provided for all these services or just a few? I was expecting to see an “X” where Engineering believe legal support is provided but there were none until I unhid all the columns but I’m guessing those are indicating a contribution by those departments/divisions. The custom agreement is the only fee Engineering thought you would be working on. They estimated two hours. Please edit for accuracy. CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. 853  Should zero be entered if no assistance is provided for some of the services listed? No need. Just enter the time on the fees you provide services to.  Custom Agreements already has two hours entered. Was that an intentional contribution meant to limit our answer or just a typo? Estimate from Engineering. You may revise as needed. Kelly White Senior Legal Analyst City Attorney's Office E kwhite@slocity.org T 805.781.7060 From: Jamie Radcliff <jradcliff@mgtconsulting.com> Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2023 7:53 AM To: White, Kelly <kwhite@slocity.org> Cc: Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com>; Rachel King <rking@mgtconsulting.com>; Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org> Subject: User Fee Study- Cross Support for Attorney This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Good Morning Kelly: I have gathered informaƟon from Engineering, and they report that the AƩorneys (Legal) spend Ɵme on several of the Engineering inspecƟon fees. Engineering noted an “X” on the permits with their involvement. They need to replace the “X” with the Ɵme the posiƟon spends on the permit (in hours or minutes, please indicate which). Please return to me by COB on Wednesday, September 20th. If you have any quesƟons don't hesitate to reach out. Thank you! Jamie Radcliff Manager Performance SoluƟons Group 432-208-8194 jradcliff@mgtconsulƟng.com Impacting Communities for Good The informaƟon contained in this electronic communicaƟon is intended only for the use of the addressee, and may be a confidenƟal communicaƟon. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby noƟfied that you have received this transmiƩal in error; any review, disseminaƟon, distribuƟon, or copying of this transmiƩal is strictly prohibited. 854 855 From:Scott, Shawna Sent:Thursday, September 14, 2023 1:54 PM To: Subject: Attachments:Comprehensive Fee Schedule 23-24.pdf Hi John, Pursuant to the current City fee schedule, meter costs are as follows (per meter, starting at the ¾ meter size): Water Meter Cost: $211.79 Install Water Meter: $164.13 Adapter: $32.09 Account set up: $43.00 Min. 2-hour service fee: $372.07 Lateral installation: $656.53 Application and plan review fees would also apply; please check with the City Community Development Building Division regarding applicable fees, which may include: Meter Plan Review: $656.53 Trenched or Bored Excavation – Water Service base fee: $894.37 Plus per linear foot: $24.18 Minor Encroachment permit: $268.13 Encroachment permit plan review: $359.89 Thank you, Shawna Shawna Scott Special Projects Manager Public Utilities 879 Morro Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E sscott@slocity.org T 805.781.7176 C 805.431.0108 From: City of San Luis Obispo, CA <slocitywebmaster@enotify.visioninternet.com> Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 3:13 PM To: Boerman, Mychal <mboerman@slocity.org> Subject: This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. 856 Message submitted from the <City of San Luis Obispo, CA> website. Site Visitor Name: Hi Mychal, I'm the owner of has four 2 bedroom/1.5 bath units and a 1 bedroom/1 bath unit, plus a laundry room. Currently there is one water line to the building. My question is will the City allow me to have six meters such that each unit pays it's own water bill while I pay for the laundry room? This year I've spent over $2,000 above the average water bill due to tenants not reporting water issues, which is wasteful and costly. I've had a plumber visit but the first step is to check to see if the City will allow us to have separate meters. Regards, Comprehensive FEE SCHEDULE Fiscal Year 2023-2024 Planning Services…………………………………………………………... 2 Engineering Services……………………………………………………….. 6 Public Works Services……………………………………………………... 11 Cannabis Fees…………………………………………………………….....13 General Government……………………………………………………... 14 Fire Development Fees…………………………………………………......16 Other Fire Fees……………………………………………………..............22 Utilities Services…………………………………………………………… 26 Building Plan Check Fees………………………………………………… 27 Building Inspection Fees………………………………………………….. 30 Impact Fees………………………………………………….......................33 35 37 Parks & Recreation Fees…………………………………………………… Police Department Fees…………………………………………………….. The City' s adopted fee schedule is adjusted by 3.8% which reflects the All Urban Consumer Price Index, Los Angeles area — based on the change from April 2022 – April 2023. (Resolution No. 11017, Section 4) A 3.05% Information Technology Surcharge is included in fees associated with work in the EnerGov Computer System. Impact fees are adjusted annually by the CCCI rate, California Construction Cost Index. 44 Additional Building Fees…………………………………………………… 1 Fee Number FootnoteFee Description FY 2023-24 Application Fee It Surcharge* (if applicable) First Payment (Application Fee + IT Surcharge FY 2023-24 Completion Fee (if applicable) Total Fee (Aplication, Completion, and IT Surcharge) 1 Sidewalk Sales Permit $342.24 $10.44 $352.68 $0.00 $352.68 2 Home Occupation Permit $198.62 $6.06 $204.68 $0.00 $204.68 3 Minor Use Permit (Admin)$1,291.89 $115.97 $1,407.87 $2,510.57 $3,918.43 4 Conditional Use Permit (Planning Commission)$2,976.25 $241.38 $3,217.63 $4,937.84 $8,155.47 5 Variance $1,365.54 $110.68 $1,476.21 $2,263.20 $3,739.41 [1]Planned Development 6 Rezoning $19,604.00 $597.92 $20,201.92 $0.00 $20,201.92 7 Plan Amendment $5,443.01 $166.01 $5,609.02 $0.00 $5,609.02 [1]Rezoning 8 Map Amendment $14,681.19 $447.78 $15,128.96 $0.00 $15,128.96 9 Text Amendment $10,425.62 $317.98 $10,743.60 $0.00 $10,743.60 10 Time Extension 11 Non-profit Special Event Fee $263.32 $8.03 $271.35 $0.00 $271.35 12 Affordable Housing Incentive Request $559.70 $45.96 $605.66 $947.34 $1,553.01 Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) Plan Review Fee 13 Reviews Requiring ALUC Hearing $2,268.58 $105.22 $2,373.80 $1,181.36 $3,555.16 Subdivision Services 14 Lot Line Adjustment $3,764.37 $114.81 $3,879.18 $0.00 $3,879.18 Tentative Subdivision Map 15 1-4 Lots $7,940.68 $242.19 $8,182.87 $0.00 $8,182.87 16 5-10 Lots $13,767.32 $419.90 $14,187.23 $0.00 $14,187.23 17 11-20 lots $18,447.36 $562.64 $19,010.01 $0.00 $19,010.01 18 [1]21+ lots (deposit of $20,000)$30,869.55 $941.52 $31,811.07 $0.00 $31,811.07 19 Certificate of Compliance $2,878.73 $87.80 $2,966.53 $0.00 $2,966.53 20 [2]Environmental Impact Determination $7,658.35 $233.58 $7,891.93 $0.00 $7,891.93 21 [1,2]Initial Study/Environmental Impact Report 30% + Contract Cost PLANNING FEES Planning Fees Continued on next page 25% of Filing Fee 2 Fee Number FootnoteFee Description FY 2023-24 Application Fee It Surcharge* (if applicable) First Payment (Application Fee + IT Surcharge FY 2023-24 Completion Fee (if applicable) Total Fee (Aplication, Completion, and IT Surcharge) Architectural Review 22 Signs $2,607.75 $185.94 $2,793.68 $3,488.61 $6,282.30 23 Conceptual Review $2,732.96 $221.63 $2,954.59 $4,533.62 $7,488.21 24 Development Projects - Moderate $5,572.33 $455.71 $6,028.05 $9,369.04 $15,397.09 25 Development Projects - Major $7,559.87 $609.02 $8,168.89 $12,407.96 $20,576.85 26 Development Project - Minor $2,016.42 $156.95 $2,173.37 $3,129.42 $5,302.79 27 Plan Revision $2,367.13 $178.01 $2,545.14 $3,469.18 $6,014.31 28 Time Extension/Modification 25% of Filing Fee 29 Christmas Tree/Pumpkin Lot Permit $446.58 $13.62 $460.20 $0.00 $460.20 30 Fence Height Exception $706.96 $21.56 $728.52 $0.00 $728.52 31 Voluntary Merger $964.21 $29.41 $993.62 $0.00 $993.62 32 Agreements $1,057.97 $32.27 $1,090.24 $0.00 $1,090.24 33 Bonds/Guarantees (voluntary)$1,057.97 $32.27 $1,090.24 $0.00 $1,090.24 34 Change of Address $308.27 $9.40 $317.67 $0.00 $317.67 35 Street Name Change $5,852.77 $178.51 $6,031.28 $0.00 $6,031.28 36 Street Abandonment $16,516.56 $503.75 $17,020.31 $0.00 $17,020.31 37 Condominium Conversion $18,520.89 $564.89 $19,085.78 $0.00 $19,085.78 PLANNING FEES Planning Fees Continued on next page 3 Fee Number FootnoteFee Description FY 2023-24 Application Fee It Surcharge* (if applicable) First Payment (Application Fee + IT Surcharge FY 2023-24 Completion Fee (if applicable) Total Fee (Aplication, Completion, and IT Surcharge) Appeals 38 Tier 1: e.g. Appeals to the City Council - Applicant $1,933.55 $58.97 $1,992.53 $0.00 $1,992.53 39 Tier 1 Appeal - Non Applicant $773.67 $23.60 $797.27 $0.00 $797.27 40 Tier 2: e.g. Minor/Incidental Arch Review, Administrative Use Permit, Variance, Subdivisions <5 lots - Applicant $1,074.20 $32.76 $1,106.96 $0.00 $1,106.96 41 Tier 2 Appeal - Non Applicant $429.68 $13.11 $442.79 $0.00 $442.79 42 Tier 3: e.g. Fence Height Exception, Administrative Approval Application - Applicant $376.29 $11.48 $387.76 $0.00 $387.76 43 Tier 3 Appeal - Non Applicant $376.29 $11.48 $387.76 $0.00 $387.76 44 Tier 4: e.g. Home Occupation permit, Non-Profit Special Event - $161.44 $4.92 $166.37 $0.00 $166.37 45 Tier 4 Appeal - Non Applicant $161.44 $4.92 $166.37 $0.00 $166.37 46 Mills Act Participation Application $1,765.60 $53.85 $1,819.45 $0.00 $1,819.45 47 Director's Action Applications $1,043.97 $31.84 $1,075.81 $0.00 $1,075.81 48 Land Use Documentation Request $528.99 $16.13 $545.12 $0.00 $545.12 Fee Number FootnoteFee Description FY 2023-24 Application Fee It Surcharge* (if applicable) First Payment (Application Fee + IT Surcharge FY 2023-24 Completion Fee (if applicable) Total Fee (Aplication, Completion, and IT Surcharge) 1 Sidewalk Sales Permit $342.24 $10.44 $352.68 $0.00 $352.68 2 Home Occupation Permit $198.62 $6.06 $204.68 $0.00 $204.68 3 Minor Use Permit (Admin)$1,291.89 $115.98 $1,407.88 $2,510.57 $3,918.44 4 Conditional Use Permit (Planning Commission)$2,976.25 $241.38 $3,217.63 $4,937.84 $8,155.47 5 Variance $1,365.54 $110.68 $1,476.21 $2,263.20 $3,739.41 [1]Planned Development 6 Rezoning $19,604.00 $597.92 $20,201.92 $0.00 $20,201.92 7 Plan Amendment $5,443.01 $166.01 $5,609.02 $0.00 $5,609.02 [1]Rezoning 8 Map Amendment $14,681.19 $447.78 $15,128.96 $0.00 $15,128.97 9 Text Amendment $10,425.62 $317.98 $10,743.60 $0.00 $10,743.60 10 Time Extension 11 Non-profit Special Event Fee $263.32 $8.03 $271.35 $0.00 $271.35 12 Affordable Housing Incentive Request $559.70 $45.96 $605.66 $947.34 $1,553.00 Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) Plan Review Fee 13 Reviews Requiring ALUC Hearing $2,268.58 $105.22 $2,373.80 $1,181.36 $3,555.16 Subdivision Services 14 Lot Line Adjustment $3,764.37 $114.81 $3,879.18 $0.00 $3,879.18 Tentative Subdivision Map 15 1-4 Lots $7,940.68 $242.19 $8,182.87 $0.00 $8,182.87 16 5-10 Lots $13,767.33 $419.90 $14,187.23 $0.00 $14,187.23 17 11-20 lots $18,447.37 $562.64 $19,010.02 $0.00 $19,010.02 18 [1]21+ lots (deposit of $20,000)$30,869.55 $941.52 $31,811.07 $0.00 $31,811.07 19 Certificate of Compliance $2,878.73 $87.80 $2,966.53 $0.00 $2,966.53 20 [2]Environmental Impact Determination $7,658.36 $233.58 $7,891.94 $0.00 $7,891.93 21 [1,2]Initial Study/Environmental Impact Report Planning Fees Continued on next page PLANNING FEES PLANNING FEES 25% of Filing Fee 30% + Contract Cost 4 Fee Number FootnoteFee Description FY 2023-24 Application Fee It Surcharge* (if applicable) First Payment (Application Fee + IT Surcharge FY 2023-24 Completion Fee (if applicable) Total Fee (Aplication, Completion, and IT Surcharge) Architectural Review 22 Signs $2,607.75 $185.94 $2,793.68 $3,488.61 $6,282.30 23 Conceptual Review $2,732.96 $221.63 $2,954.59 $4,533.62 $7,488.21 24 Development Projects - Moderate $5,572.33 $455.71 $6,028.05 $9,369.04 $15,397.09 25 Development Projects - Major $7,559.87 $609.02 $8,168.89 $12,407.96 $20,576.85 26 Development Project - Minor $2,016.42 $156.95 $2,173.37 $3,129.42 $5,302.79 27 Plan Revision $2,367.13 $178.01 $2,545.14 $3,469.18 $6,014.31 28 Time Extension/Modification 29 Christmas Tree/Pumpkin Lot Permit $446.58 $13.62 $460.20 $0.00 $460.20 30 Fence Height Exception $706.95 $21.56 $728.51 $0.00 $728.51 31 Voluntary Merger $964.21 $29.41 $993.62 $0.00 $993.62 32 Agreements $1,057.97 $32.27 $1,090.24 $0.00 $1,090.24 33 Bonds/Guarantees (voluntary)$1,057.97 $32.27 $1,090.24 $0.00 $1,090.24 34 Change of Address $308.28 $9.40 $317.68 $0.00 $317.68 35 Street Name Change $5,852.77 $178.51 $6,031.28 $0.00 $6,031.28 36 Street Abandonment $16,516.55 $503.75 $17,020.30 $0.00 $17,020.30 37 Condominium Conversion $18,520.90 $564.89 $19,085.79 $0.00 $19,085.79 Fee Number FootnoteFee Description FY 2023-24 Application Fee It Surcharge* (if applicable) First Payment (Application Fee + IT Surcharge FY 2023-24 Completion Fee (if applicable) Total Fee (Aplication, Completion, and IT Surcharge) Appeals 38 Tier 1: e.g. Appeals to the City Council - Applicant $1,933.56 $58.97 $1,992.54 $0.00 $1,992.54 39 Tier 1 Appeal - Non Applicant $773.67 $23.60 $797.27 $0.00 $797.27 40 Tier 2: e.g. Minor/Incidental Arch Review, Administrative Use Permit, Variance, Subdivisions <5 lots - Applicant $1,074.20 $32.76 $1,106.96 $0.00 $1,106.96 41 Tier 2 Appeal - Non Applicant $429.68 $13.11 $442.79 $0.00 $442.79 42 Tier 3: e.g. Fence Height Exception, Administrative Approval Application - Applicant $376.29 $11.48 $387.76 $0.00 $387.77 43 Tier 3 Appeal - Non Applicant $376.29 $11.48 $387.76 $0.00 $387.77 44 Tier 4: e.g. Home Occupation permit, Non-Profit Special Event - Applicant $161.44 $4.92 $166.37 $0.00 $166.36 45 Tier 4 Appeal - Non Applicant $161.44 $4.92 $166.37 $0.00 $166.36 46 Mills Act Participation Application $1,765.60 $53.85 $1,819.45 $0.00 $1,819.45 47 Director's Action Applications $1,043.97 $31.84 $1,075.81 $0.00 $1,075.81 48 Land Use Documentation Request $528.99 $16.13 $545.12 $0.00 $545.12 PLANNING FEES Planning Fees Continued on next page PLANNING FEES 25% of Filing Fee 5 Fee Number Fee Description FootnoteFY 2023-24 Rate *IT Surcharge (if applicable)Total 1 Plan check fees are based on Estimated Construction Cost (ECC) $10,000 flat fee $1,941.19 $59.21 $2,000.40 each add'l $10,000 $1,419.16 $43.28 $1,462.44 $100,000 base fee $14,713.68 $448.77 $15,162.45 each add'l $10,000 $146.59 $4.47 $151.06 $500,000 base fee $20,576.96 $627.60 $21,204.56 each add'l $10,000 $177.48 $5.41 $182.89 $1,000,000 base fee $29,450.74 $898.25 $30,348.99 each add'l $10,000 $77.91 $2.38 $80.29 $3,000,000 base fee $45,507.70 $1,387.99 $46,895.69 each add'l $10,000 $151.68 $4.63 $156.30 2 Inspection fees are based on Estimated Construction Cost (ECC) $10,000 flat fee $683.81 N/A $683.81 each add'l $10,000 $1,134.41 N/A $1,134.41 $100,000 base fee $11,112.03 N/A $11,112.03 each add'l $10,000 $795.02 N/A $795.02 $500,000 base fee $43,593.36 N/A $43,593.36 each add'l $10,000 $351.48 N/A $351.48 $1,000,000 base fee $61,543.56 N/A $61,543.56 each add'l $10,000 $334.75 N/A $334.75 $3,000,000 base fee $129,925.29 N/A $129,925.29 each add'l $10,000 $424.31 N/A $424.31 ENGINEERING FEES Improvement Plan Check Construction Inspection Engineering Fees Continued on Next Page 6 Fee Number Fee Description FootnoteFY 2023-24 Rate *IT Surcharge (if applicable)Total 3 Parcel Map - (up to 4 parcels)$7,966.25 $242.97 $8,209.22 4 Parcel Map - Commercial Zone (5 or more parcels) $11,536.62 $351.87 $11,888.48 Plus per parcel or common interest unit $60.75 $1.85 $62.60 5 Tract Map (base fee)$17,493.55 $533.55 $18,027.11 Plus per lot or common interest unit $188.68 $5.75 $194.44 6 Lot Line Adjustments $3,453.28 $105.33 $3,558.61 7 Certificates of Compliance $863.33 $26.33 $889.66 Additional Document Review/Certificates of Correction $345.33 $10.53 $355.87 8 Curb and Gutter (base fee)$836.78 $25.52 $862.30 plus per linear foot $12.11 $0.37 $12.48 9 Sidewalk (base fee)$751.32 $22.92 $774.23 plus per linear foot $6.72 $0.21 $6.93 10 Driveway Approach/Curb Ramp (base fee) $1,093.23 $33.34 $1,126.57 plus per linear foot $11.75 $0.36 $12.11 11 Water Service/Recycled Service(base fee) $867.89 $26.47 $894.37 plus per linear foot $23.46 $0.72 $24.18 12 Sewer (base fee)$695.00 $21.20 $716.20 plus per linear foot (Bore)$11.75 $0.36 $12.11 plus per linear foot (Trench)$11.75 $0.36 $12.11 13 Fire Lateral/Hydrant/Water and Recycled Main Extension (base fee) $1,905.20 $58.11 $1,963.31 plus per linear foot $28.49 $0.87 $29.35 14 Other/Dry Utilities (base fee)$781.45 $23.83 $805.29 plus per linear foot (Bore)$6.72 $0.21 $6.93 plus per linear foot (Trench)$11.75 $0.36 $12.11 15 Monitoring Well $260.19 $7.94 $268.13 ENGINEERING FEES Final Maps Certificate of Compliance or Final Lot Encroachment Permits Trenched or Bored Excavation (base fee) Engineering Fees Continued on Next Page 7 Fee Number Fee Description FootnoteFY 2023-24 Rate *IT Surcharge (if applicable)Total 16 Other Minor Encroachment Permits not Listed $260.19 $7.94 $268.13 17 Time Extension for Encroachment Permit $174.61 $5.33 $179.94 18 Unpermitted Encroachments $871.35 $26.58 $897.93 19 Encroachment Permit - Plan Review fee (if required) $349.24 $10.65 $359.89 20 Annual Encroachment Permit for Utility Companies $10,945.76 $333.85 $11,279.60 21 Single Trip Permit $16.61 N/A $16.61 22 Annual Permit $93.42 N/A $93.42 Maximum fee amount established by Department of Transportation and is not subject to CPI increases 23 Fiber Infrastructure Protection Fee (per Call) $335.99 $10.25 $346.24 24 Minor $222.33 $6.78 $229.11 25 Moderate $360.55 $11.00 $371.55 26 Major $636.56 $19.42 $655.98 27 Minor - first day $85.54 $2.61 $88.15 each additional day $85.54 $2.61 $88.15 28 Moderate - first day $171.07 $5.22 $176.28 each additional day $85.54 $2.61 $88.15 29 Major - first day [1]$342.15 $10.44 $352.59 each additional day $85.54 $2.61 $88.15 30 Public Improvement Plans $1,798.49 $54.85 $1,853.34 31 Building Plans $428.37 $13.07 $441.43 32 Maps / Additional Documents $492.20 $15.01 $507.21 33 Design Exception $343.39 $10.47 $353.86 ENGINEERING FEES Transportation Permit Traffic Control Plan Review 4th and subsequent plan review (per Traffic Control Plan Inspection Engineering Fees Continued on Next Page 8 Fee Number Fee Description FootnoteFY 2023-24 Rate *IT Surcharge (if applicable)Total 34 0-2499 $350.33 $10.69 $361.02 2500-4999 $525.49 $16.03 $541.52 5000-14999 $875.82 $26.71 $902.53 15000-21999 $1,401.30 $42.74 $1,444.04 22000-43559 $1,751.63 $53.42 $1,805.06 43560+$2,101.96 $64.11 $2,166.07 35 Single Family Residential 0-2500 $350.33 $10.69 $361.02 2501+$1,050.98 $32.05 $1,083.04 36 Square Footage of Site Disturbance: Non-Single Family Residential 0-2499 $175.16 $5.34 $180.50 2500-4999 $175.16 $5.34 $180.50 5000-14999 $175.16 $5.34 $180.50 15000-21999 $350.33 $10.68 $361.01 22000-43559 $525.49 $16.03 $541.52 43560+$700.66 $21.37 $722.03 37 Single Family Residential 0-2500 $175.16 $5.34 $180.51 2501+$350.33 $10.68 $361.01 ENGINEERING FEES Final Inspection Approval / Bluecard Site Improvements - This includes Engineering Fees Continued on Next Page 9 Fee Number Fee Description FootnoteFY 2023-24 Rate *IT Surcharge (if applicable)Total Flood Zone Analysis 38 Minor - Verification only $174.77 $5.33 $180.10 39 Major - New/Substantial Remodel Analysis/Documentation $699.08 $21.32 $720.40 Impervious Square Footage: 40 Non-Single Family Residential 0-2499 $175.16 $5.34 $180.51 2500-4999 $350.33 $10.68 $361.01 5000-14999 $700.65 $21.37 $722.02 15000-21999 $700.65 $21.37 $722.02 22000-43559 $1,050.98 $32.05 $1,083.03 43560+$1,401.31 $42.74 $1,444.05 41 0-2500 $175.16 $5.34 $180.51 2501+$700.66 $21.37 $722.03 42 Minor $350.33 $10.68 $361.01 43 Major $875.82 $26.71 $902.54 * Fee is subject to a 3.05% It Surcharge ENGINEERING FEES [1] Fees will be set on a Deposit basis and debited by the amount of staff time and other materials required to provide services or Consultant Fee plus 30% Admin Fee . Post Construction Requirements / Single Family Residential Drainage Report/Flood Study - Breadth 10 1 Tree/Shrub Hazardous Abatement Actual Cost 2 Commemorative Tree Planting $357.50 N/A $357.50 3 Tree Removal Permit $182.37 N/A $182.37 Final Inspection Approval / Bluecard Signoff Square Footage of Site Disturbance: Non-Single Family Residential 4 0-2499 $289.15 $8.82 $297.97 5 2500-4999 $289.15 $8.82 $297.97 6 5000-14999 $289.15 $8.82 $297.97 7 15000-21999 $459.14 $14.00 $473.14 8 22000-43559 $629.13 $19.19 $648.31 9 43560+$799.11 $24.37 $823.48 Single Family Residential 10 0-2500 $289.15 $8.82 $297.97 11 2501+$289.15 $8.82 $297.97 12 Review of Mitigation Measures, Conditions, and TIFs $280.33 $8.55 $288.88 Parking in-Lieu Fees [1] New Construction: 13 Standard (Fee Per Space)$30,794.37 N/A $30,794.37 14 Community Partners (50% Reduction)$15,394.96 N/A $15,394.96 15 Additions to Existing Buildings: 16 Standard (Fee Per Space)$30,794.37 N/A $30,794.37 17 Community Partners (50% Reduction)$15,394.96 N/A $15,394.96 Change in Occupancy Requiring Additional Parking: [1] 18 Standard (Fee Per Space)$7,698.22 N/A $7,698.22 19 Community Partners (50% Reduction)$3,850.60 N/A $3,850.60 FY 2023-24 Rate IT Surcharge* (if applicable)TotalFee Number Fee Description Public Works Fees 11 Parking Fees 10-Hour Meter Permit 20 Monthly Rate $60.00 N/A $60.00 21 Quarterly Rate $180.00 N/A $180.00 22 Residential 10-hour Meter Permit $20.00 N/A $20.00 23 Residential Parking District Permit $20.00 N/A $20.00 24 Replacement Fee, Initial $20.00 N/A $20.00 25 Replacement Fee, Subsequent $30.00 N/A $30.00 26 Commercial Loading Zone Permit $60.00 N/A $60.00 27 Parking Garage Access Card (Billed Quarterly)$255.00 N/A $255.00 28 Downtown Residential Overnight Parking Program Parking Garage Access Card (Billed Quarterly) $375.00 N/A $375.00 29 Parking Garage Hourly Rate $3.00 N/A $3.00 30 Parking Garage Max Daily Rate $12.00 N/A $12.00 31 Parking Garage Overnight Rate $15.00 N/A $15.00 32 Parking Garage Lost Ticket Rate $6.00 N/A $6.00 33 Parking Garage Validation Program Hourly Rate $2.00 N/A $2.00 Electric Vehicle Charging Hourly Rate 34 1st four hours $1.50 N/A $1.50 35 Any additional time thereafter $4.00 N/A $4.00 36 Reserved Parking Space Program Rate $20.00 N/A $20.00 Fees are subject to a 3.05% It Surcharge [1] Per vehicle space required by zoning regulations and not otherwise provided. The number of spaces required by the change shall be the difference between the number required by the new use and the number required by the previous occupancy. FY 2023-24 Rate IT Surcharge* (if applicable)TotalFee Number Fee Description Public Works Fees 12 Fee Number Fee Description FY 2023-24 Rate One Time Application Fee 1 Total One Time Application Fees $27,713.42 All Commercial Cannabis Business Applicants 2 Initial Application Fee $5,903.19 3 Final Application fee when permit issues $21,810.23 Cannabis Yearly License Fee [1] 4 Retail $45,993.29 5 Manufacturing $45,993.29 6 Cultivation $45,993.29 7 Other Business $45,993.29 [1] Prorated on Fiscal Year Cannabis Fees 13 General Government Fees Fee Number Fee Description FY 2023-24 Rate GENERAL GOVERNMENT Photo Copies 1 Two sided copies should be charged as two pages. 2 Standard or legal $0.47 3 11" x 17"$0.82 Microfiche Copies 4 Standard $0.63 5 11'' x 17''$3.24 6 18'' x 24''$3.93 7 Photographs $6.73 Audio Recordings 8 CD $8.72 9 Tape $17.44 10 Video Recordings $36.13 11 Faxes $3.74 Electronic Documents These are PDF documents, which the City intends to publish. Via the City's Web Site of e-mail 12 CD-Counter Pickup $4.99 13 CD-Mail $4.99 14 Late Fee (or 1.5%, whichever is greater)$17.60 Appeals to Advisory Bodies Following Administrative (non- Planning) Decisions 15 Tree Committee $140.80 16 Construction Board of Appeals $1,339.57 17 Administrative Review Board $350.12 18 All Other Appeals $350.12 19 Community Service Worker Registration Fee $65.46 Finance Front Counter Fees continued on next page 14 General Government Fees Fee Number Fee Description FY 2023-24 Rate FINANCE DEPARTMENT New Business License Processing Fee 20 Application $67.78 21 Zoning Fee $129.79 22 Annual Business License Renewal Processing Fee [1]$56.94 Home Occupancy Business 23 Renewal or New Application [3]$40.67 24 Business License & Tax Certificate Replacement Fee $13.55 Change of Location Only [1] 25 Zoning Fee $129.79 Returned Check Fee 26 Initial returned check $25.00 27 Each subsequent returned check $35.00 28 Annual Business Minimum Tax Fee $25.00 or 0.5%, whichever is greater 28 Annual Downtown Assessment -for locations within Downtown $150.00 or 0.5%, whichever is greater 29 SB1186 State Fee - Disability Access [2]$4.00 CREEK & FLOOD PROTECTION Stormwater Connection Fee 30 Single Property $26.06 31 Larger Developments $68.24 [1] Businesses within the City of San Luis Obispo [2] Added to new licenses and renewals - does not increase [3] Consult Planning Fee table for additional Home Occupation Permit fee 15 Square Footage: 1 500 (base cost) $1,156.29 $35.27 $1,191.56 per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.34 $0.01 $0.35 2 5,000 (base cost) $2,668.38 $81.39 $2,749.76 per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.32 $0.01 $0.33 3 10,000 (base cost) $4,269.39 $130.22 $4,399.61 per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.08 $0.00 $0.08 4 50,000 (base cost) $7,738.28 $236.02 $7,974.30 per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.07 $0.00 $0.07 5 100,000 (base cost) $11,029.27 $336.39 $11,365.67 per s.f. >100,000 s.f. (increment)$0.11 $0.00 $0.11 Square Footage: 6 500 (base cost) $1,156.29 $35.27 $1,191.56 per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.34 $0.01 $0.35 7 5,000 (base cost) $2,668.38 $81.39 $2,749.76 per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.32 $0.01 $0.33 8 10,000 (base cost) $4,269.39 $130.22 $4,399.61 per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.08 $0.00 $0.08 9 50,000 (base cost) $7,738.28 $236.02 $7,974.30 per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.07 $0.00 $0.07 10 100,000 (base cost) $11,029.27 $336.39 $11,365.67 per s.f. >100,000 s.f. (increment)$0.11 $0.00 $0.11 Fire- Developmental Fee Number Fire Development Fees continued on next page... Fee Description FY 2023-24 Rate IT Surcharge* (if applicable)Total Commercial Uses - Structural (All newly constructed, added, or structurally remodeled space for non-residential occupancies classified as CBC Group A, B, E, F, H, I, M, or other commercial occupancies not specifically addressed elsewhere in this Fee Schedule) NEW CONSTRUCTION, ADDITIONS, AND MAJOR REMODELS Commercial Residential and Multifamily Residential Uses - (All newly constructed, added, or structurally remodeled space for residential occupancies classified as CBC Group R (except R-3), or other residential occupancies not specifically addressed elsewhere in this Fee Schedule) 16 Square Footage: 11 500 (base cost) $444.73 $13.56 $458.30 per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.09 $0.00 $0.10 12 5,000 (base cost) $889.45 $27.13 $916.58 per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.14 $0.00 $0.14 13 10,000 (base cost) $1,601.03 $48.83 $1,649.86 per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.04 $0.00 $0.04 14 50,000 (base cost) $3,113.10 $94.95 $3,208.05 per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.05 $0.00 $0.05 15 100,000 (base cost) $5,336.74 $162.77 $5,499.51 per s.f. >100,000 s.f. (increment)$0.06 $0.00 $0.06 Square Footage: 16 500 (base cost) $978.41 $29.84 $1,008.25 per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.29 $0.01 $0.30 17 5,000 (base cost) $2,312.59 $70.53 $2,383.12 per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.11 $0.00 $0.11 18 10,000 (base cost) $2,846.26 $86.81 $2,933.07 per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.04 $0.00 $0.04 19 50,000 (base cost) $4,180.45 $127.50 $4,307.95 per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.04 $0.00 $0.04 20 100,000 (base cost) $6,048.31 $184.47 $6,232.79 per s.f. >100,000 s.f. (increment)$0.06 $0.00 $0.06 Square Footage: 21 200 (base cost) $444.73 $13.56 $458.30 per s.f between tiers (increment) 22 400 (base cost) $444.73 $13.56 $458.30 per s.f between tiers (increment) 23 600 (base cost) $444.73 $13.56 $458.30 per s.f between tiers (increment) 24 1,000 (base cost) $444.73 $13.56 $458.30 per s.f between tiers (increment) 25 3,000 (base cost) $444.73 $13.56 $458.30 per s.f. >100,000 s.f. (increment)$0.15 $0.00 $0.16 Fire Development Fees continued on next page... Attached Accessory and Utility Uses - (All newly constructed, added, or structurally remodeled space for utility and accessory occupancies classified as CBC Group U, or other utility and accessory occupancies not specifically addressed elsewhere in this Fee Schedule) Fire- Developmental Fee DescriptionFee Number Low and Moderate Hazard Storage - (All newly constructed, added, or structurally remodeled space for storage occupancies classified as CBC Group S, or other storage occupancies not specifically addressed elsewhere in this Fee Schedule) FY 2023-24 Rate IT Surcharge* (if applicable)Total Duplicate Floor Plan Review - Commercial Residential and Multifamily Residential Uses 17 Square Footage: 26 200 (base cost) $444.73 $13.56 $458.30 per s.f between tiers (increment) 27 400 (base cost) $444.73 $13.56 $458.30 per s.f between tiers (increment) 28 600 (base cost) $444.73 $13.56 $458.30 per s.f between tiers (increment) 29 1,000 (base cost) $444.73 $13.56 $458.30 per s.f between tiers (increment) 30 3,000 (base cost) $444.73 $13.56 $458.30 per s.f. >100,000 s.f. (increment)$0.15 $0.00 $0.16 Square Footage: 31 500 (base cost) $1,156.29 $35.27 $1,191.56 per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.34 $0.01 $0.35 32 5,000 (base cost) $2,668.38 $81.39 $2,749.76 per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.14 $0.00 $0.14 33 10,000 (base cost) $3,379.94 $103.09 $3,483.02 per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.04 $0.00 $0.04 34 50,000 (base cost) $4,892.02 $149.21 $5,041.23 per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.02 $0.00 $0.02 35 100,000 (base cost) $6,048.31 $184.47 $6,232.79 per s.f. >100,000 s.f. (increment)$0.06 $0.00 $0.06 Square Footage: 36 500 (base cost) $622.62 $18.99 $641.61 per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.37 $0.01 $0.39 37 5,000 (base cost) $2,312.59 $70.53 $2,383.12 per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.25 $0.01 $0.25 38 10,000 (base cost) $3,557.83 $108.51 $3,666.35 per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.05 $0.00 $0.05 39 50,000 (base cost) $5,247.80 $160.06 $5,407.86 per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.07 $0.00 $0.07 40 100,000 (base cost) $8,538.79 $260.43 $8,799.23 per s.f. >100,000 s.f. (increment)$0.08 $0.00 $0.08 Fire Development Fees continued on next page... Fee Description FY 2023-24 Rate IT Surcharge* (if applicable)Total Detached Accessory and Utility Uses - (All newly constructed, added, or structurally remodeled space for utility and accessory occupancies classified as CBC Group U, or other utility and accessory occupancies not specifically addressed elsewhere in this Fee Schedule) Shell Buildings for all Commercial Uses - (The enclosure for all newly constructed, added, or structurally remodeled space for non-residential occupancies classified as CBC Group A, B, E, F, H, I, M, or other commercial occupancies not specifically addressed elsewhere in this Fee Schedule where the interior is not completed or occupiable) Commercial Tenant Improvement - Non Structural - (Non-structurally remodeled space for non-residential occupancies classified as CBC Group A, B, E, F, H, I, M, or other commercial occupancies not specifically addressed elsewhere in this Fee Schedule where the structure is not altered) Fire- Developmental Fee Number 18 Square Footage: 41 500 (base cost) $622.62 $18.99 $641.61 per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.37 $0.01 $0.39 42 5,000 (base cost) $2,312.59 $70.53 $2,383.12 per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.25 $0.01 $0.25 43 10,000 (base cost) $3,557.83 $108.51 $3,666.35 per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.05 $0.00 $0.05 44 50,000 (base cost) $5,247.80 $160.06 $5,407.86 per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.07 $0.00 $0.07 45 100,000 (base cost) $8,538.79 $260.43 $8,799.23 per s.f. >100,000 s.f. (increment)$0.08 $0.00 $0.08 Square Footage: 46 1,000 (base cost) $444.73 $13.56 $458.30 per s.f between tiers (increment) 47 2,500 (base cost) $444.73 $13.56 $458.30 per s.f between tiers (increment) 48 4,000 (base cost) $444.73 $13.56 $458.30 per s.f between tiers (increment) 49 6,000 (base cost) $444.73 $13.56 $458.30 per s.f between tiers (increment) 50 8,000 (base cost) $444.73 $13.56 $458.30 per s.f. >100,000 s.f. (increment)$0.06 $0.00 $0.06 Square Footage: 51 1,000 (base cost) $355.78 $10.85 $366.63 per s.f between tiers (increment) 52 2,500 (base cost) $355.78 $10.85 $366.63 per s.f between tiers (increment) 53 4,000 (base cost) $355.78 $10.85 $366.63 per s.f between tiers (increment) 54 6,000 (base cost) $355.78 $10.85 $366.63 per s.f between tiers (increment) 55 8,000 (base cost) $355.78 $10.85 $366.63 per s.f. >100,000 s.f. (increment)$0.05 $0.00 $0.05 Fee Description Fire Development Fees continued on next page... Fee Number Commercial Residential and Multifamily Residential Remodels - Non Structural - (Non-Structurally remodeled space for residential occupancies classified as CBC Group R (except R-3), or other residential occupancies not specifically addressed elsewhere in this Fee Schedule) Single Family Dwellings and Duplexes - (All newly constructed space for residential occupancies classified as CBC Group R-3, including custom builds and model homes for tract master plans, or other similar residential occupancies not specifically addressed elsewhere in this Fee Schedule) FY 2023-24 Rate IT Surcharge* (if applicable)Total Duplicate Floor Plan Review - Single Family Dwellings and Duplexes Fire- Developmental 19 Square Footage: 56 200 (base cost) $355.78 $10.85 $366.63 per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.00 $0.00 57 400 (base cost) $355.78 $10.85 $366.63 per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.00 $0.00 58 600 (base cost) $355.78 $10.85 $366.63 per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.00 $0.00 59 1,000 (base cost) $444.73 $13.56 $458.30 per s.f between tiers (increment) 60 3,000 (base cost) $444.73 $13.56 $458.30 per s.f. >100,000 s.f. (increment)$0.15 $0.00 $0.16 Square Footage: 61 0-2499 $444.73 $13.56 $458.30 62 2500-4999 $444.73 $13.56 $458.30 63 5000-14999 $800.51 $24.42 $824.93 64 15000-21999 $888.33 $27.09 $915.43 65 22000-43559 $1,110.42 $33.87 $1,144.29 66 43560+$1,510.18 $46.06 $1,556.24 (Issued by Building and Safety) 67 1-25 Heads $1,156.29 $35.27 $1,191.56 68 26-50 Heads $1,601.03 $48.83 $1,649.86 69 51-100 Heads $1,778.91 $54.26 $1,833.17 70 101-200 Heads $2,401.54 $73.25 $2,474.79 71 Every 200 Heads above 200 $711.57 $21.70 $733.27 Fire Development Fees continued on next page... Fee Number Fee Description Fire- Developmental FY 2023-24 Rate IT Surcharge* (if applicable)Total Duplicate Floor Plan Review - Attached or Detached Accessory and Utility Uses Site Improvements - This includes substantial development of private parking lots which are processed separate of the structure and include any combination of the following: Underground utilities, parking lot lighting, accessible path of travel analysis, grading, drainage and compliance with the City's parking and driveway standards. FIRE SPRINKLER AND SUPPRESSION SYSTEMS Fire Sprinkler Systems (New Installation) 20 Fire Alarm System (New Installation) 72 1-50 Devices $1,156.29 $35.27 $1,191.56 73 51-100 Devices $1,956.81 $59.68 $2,016.49 74 Every 50 Devices above 100 $711.57 $21.70 $733.27 75 Sprinkler Monitoring System $444.73 $13.56 $458.30 Fire Sprinkler Systems (Tenant Improvement) 76 1-25 Heads $622.62 $18.99 $641.61 77 26-50 Heads $800.51 $24.42 $824.93 78 51-100 Heads $1,245.25 $37.98 $1,283.23 79 101-200 Heads $1,601.03 $48.83 $1,649.86 80 Every 200 Heads above 200 $711.57 $21.70 $733.27 Fire Alarm System (Tenant Improvement) 81 1-50 Devices $1,156.29 $35.27 $1,191.56 82 51-100 Devices $1,956.81 $59.68 $2,016.49 83 Every 50 Devices above 100 $800.51 $24.42 $824.93 84 Sprinkler Monitoring System $444.73 $13.56 $458.30 Other Suppression Systems 85 Insert Gas Systems $1,245.25 $37.98 $1,283.23 86 Dry Chemical Systems $711.57 $21.70 $733.27 87 Wet Chemical/Kitchen Hood $533.68 $16.28 $549.95 88 Foam Systems $2,223.64 $67.82 $2,291.46 89 Paint Spray Booth $800.51 $24.42 $824.93 OTHER MISCELLANEOUS FEES 90 Alternative Method and Material Review $711.57 $21.70 $733.27 91 Expedited Plan Review Fee $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Fee Description Fire- Developmental * Fee is subject to a 3.05% It Surcharge Fee Number FY 2023-24 Rate IT Surcharge* (if applicable)Total 21 Other Fire Fees Hazardous Occupancy Permits [1] 1 Aircraft Refueling Vehicles $175.50 2 Aircraft Repair Hangar $351.00 3 Automobile Wrecking Yard $438.75 4 Bonfire or Rubbish Fires $175.50 5 Burning in Public Place $175.50 6 Candles or Open-Flames in Assembly Areas $175.50 7 Combustible Fiber Storage (handle/store over 100 cu ft)$438.75 8 Compressed Gases $175.50 9 Cryogens $351.00 10 Dry Cleaning Plant $351.00 11 Dust Producing Operation $351.00 12 Explosives or Blasting Agents $702.00 13 Fireworks $702.00 14 Flammable or Combustible Liquids (Unless in the CUPA Program)$351.00 15 Fruit Ripening - Ethylene Gas Fogging $351.00 16 Garages - Repair $351.00 17 Hazardous Chemicals (Unless in the CUPA Program):$438.75 18 High-Piled Combustible Stock - exceeding 2500 sq ft $438.75 19 Junk Yards $438.75 20 Liquefied Petroleum Gas $263.25 21 Lumberyard - Storage in excess of 100,000 board feet $438.75 22 Magnesium Working - Process more than 10 lbs daily $351.00 23 Mall (covered)$438.75 24 Organic Coatings - manufacture over 1 gallon a day $438.75 25 Ovens - Industrial, Baking and Drying $175.50 26 Places of Assembly $351.00 27 Refrigeration Equipment - Mechanical refrigeration (see UFC for most common refrigerants) $526.50 28 Spraying or Dipping $351.00 29 Tents and Air-supported Structures - excess of 200 sq ft $351.00 30 Tire Re-capping $351.00 31 Waste Material Plant $438.75 32 Welding and Cutting Operations - Any Occupancy $263.25 33 Additional Permitted Use (per permit) [1]$87.75 Other Fire Fees continued on next page… Fee DescriptionFee Number FY 2023-24 Rate 22 Other Fire Fees NON-MANDATED / REQUIRED INSPECTIONS Commercial Business Inspections (Up to 3 stories) 0 – 5,000 sq. ft. 5,001 – 40,000 sq. ft. 40,001 – 120,000 sq. ft. 120,001 – 150,000 sq. ft. 150,001 – or more sq. ft. Mid Rise Inspections (4 -6 stories) New Business Inspection FIRE FALSE ALARM FEES Initial Permit and Renewal Registrations - see Police False fire alarms shall be considered excessive when they meet or exceed the following number: Two false alarms in any thirty-day period Three false alarms in any three-hundred-sixty day period 34 False alarms exceeding these numbers $681.23 CERTIFIED UNIFIED PARTICIPATING AGENCY FEES Hazardous Materials Handlers 35 Remote utility (1-time fee)$674.16 36 1 - 4 Materials handled $388.10 37 5 - 10 Materials handled $442.76 38 11+ Materials handled $530.22 Waste Generators 39 1 Waste stream (professional or medical)$260.55 40 1 - 5 Waste streams (all others)$388.10 41 6+ Waste streams $522.94 42 Waste Stream (DeMinimus)$125.72 Tiered Permitting 43 CE $823.57 44 CA $1,297.31 45 PBR $3,064.71 Underground Storage Tanks (general model) 46 First tank $2,239.31 47 Each additional tank 48 Tank installation $7,308.29 49 Tank removal $5,657.50 50 Minor Modification $2,120.88 51 Major Modification $6,599.50 Above Ground Storage Tanks 52 One Tank $245.98 53 Two Tanks $491.96 54 Three Tanks $588.52 CALARP 55 New Stationary Source Facility $3,228.69 56 Existing Annual Facility Inspection $502.89 57 Site Remediation Oversight $251.45 Other Fire Fees continued on next page… Fee Number Fee Description FY 2023-24 Rate 23 Other Fire Fees 58 Soil Remediation $251.45 59 Temporary Closure Permit $2,100.84 Closures 60 Temporary Closure $2,239.31 61 Closure in Place $2,829.66 Late Fee Annual permit fees received 31-60 days after original invoice day Annual permit fees received 61 + days after original invoice day FIRE EQUIPMENT AND PERSONNEL STAND-BY FEES 62 Fire Engine/Ladder Truck $506.73 63 Squad or Light Rescue Equipment $315.64 64 Third & Subsequent Fire Inspection Fee $209.54 Additional Site Inspection Fee (one hour min.) Fire Investigation/Fire Preventions Firefighter Standby Administrative/Clerical Multi-Dwelling Fire and Life Safety Inspection Fee Schedule [2] [3] Administrative Fee [4] 70 Processing per facility $104.76 71 Each Additional Owner $12.43 Apartment Houses Fees are waived for units that are built, owned and managed by the San Luis Obispo Housing Authority, other government agencies or not-for-profit housing organizations 72 Up to 10 units $419.07 73 11 - 20 Units $628.61 74 21 - 50 Units $838.15 75 51 - 100 Units $1,047.69 76 101 - 200 Units $1,676.30 77 Every additional 100 Units over 200 $419.07 Hotels, Motels, Lodging Houses, Bed & Breakfast Facilities, Youth Hostel Facilities, Senior Facilities, Sororities, Fraternities and Other Congregate Residences Hotel, Motel, Bed & Breakfast 78 1 - 20 Units $419.07 79 21 - 50 Units $628.61 80 51 - 100 Units $1,047.69 81 101 - 200 Units $1,676.30 82 Sorority and Fraternity $838.15 Condominiums 83 Up to 10 Units $419.07 84 11 - 20 Units $628.61 85 21 - 50 Units $838.15 86 51 - 500 Units $1,257.22 Other Fire Fees continued on next page… Fee Number Fee Description FY 2023-24 Rate 24 Other Fire Fees OTHER FIRE FEES 87 Hydrant Flow Test (First Hydrant)$209.54 88 Hydrant Flow Test (Each Additional Hydrant)$104.76 89 Reinspection Fee (construction)$209.54 90 Board of Appeals $209.54 91 Emergency Call-Out (Non-Scheduled)$816.80 92 After Hours Call-Out (Scheduled)$204.20 [4] Administrative fee applies to both Apt Houses and Hotels, Motels, etc. Total processing fee calculated will be divided equally amongst all owners. [3] These fees are applicable to all multi-dwelling units in the City based on the definitions set forth in the 2007 California Building Code [2] Fees are waived for units that are built, owned and managed by the San Luis Obispo Housing Authority, other government agencies or not-for-profit housing organizations. [1] For Locations with multiple required permits, fee is calculated at highest permit fee, plus 1/2 hour of inspection per additional permitted use. Fee Number Fee Description FY 2023-24 Rate 25 Fee Number Fee Description FY 2023-24 Rate IT Surcharge* (If applicable)Total Meter Services 1 Water Meter Cost (.75")$205.52 $6.27 $211.79 2 Water Meter Cost (1")$224.21 $6.84 $231.05 3 Water Meter Cost (1.5")$587.51 $17.92 $605.43 4 Water Meter Cost (2")$742.17 $22.64 $764.81 1 Install Water Meter (3/4" - 1")$159.27 $4.86 $164.13 2 Install Water Meter (1.5" - 2")$318.54 $9.72 $328.26 3 Install Water Meter (larger than 2")Time & Materials 4 Remove Water Meter (5/8" - 1")$159.27 $4.86 $164.13 5 Remove Water Meter (1.5" - 2")$318.54 $9.72 $328.26 6 Remove Water Meter (larger than 2")Time & Materials 7 Adapter Cost (1" Service/.58"x.75" Meter)$31.14 $0.95 $32.09 8 Adapter Cost (1" Service/.75" Meter)$18.48 $0.56 $19.04 9 Adapter Cost (1.5" Service/1" Meter)$180.61 $5.51 $186.12 10 Adapter Cost (2" Service/1" Meter)$139.09 $4.24 $143.33 11 Adapter Cost (2" Service/1.5" Meter)$265.73 $8.10 $273.83 12 Adapter Cost (2" /1" + 1"/.75" Combo Meter)$208.64 $6.36 $215.00 7 Retirement of Service $955.64 N/A $955.64 8 Retirement of Service (larger than 2")$955.64 N/A $955.64 9 Account Set-up $43.00 N/A $43.00 10 Account Set-up After Hours/Weekends 11 Minimum 2 hours service fee $372.07 N/A $372.07 12 Each Additional Hour $180.03 N/A $180.03 13 Disconnect Service for Non-Payment $50.00 N/A $50.00 14 Lateral Installation $637.09 $19.43 $656.53 15 Lateral Abandonment $637.09 $19.43 $656.53 Per Plan Review Submittal 16 New Meter, trash enclosures, landscape plans $637.09 $19.43 $656.53 17 RH20 $637.09 $19.43 $656.53 18 C&D Recycling $79.64 $2.43 $82.07 19 Class I (ex: Automotive Repair, Photo processors)$394.93 N/A $394.93 20 Class II (ex: Restaurant, Bakery)$212.66 N/A $212.66 21 Significant Industrial User (ex: Chemical Manufacturing, Electro-plating)$2,058.80 N/A $2,058.80 22 Industrial User Re-Inspection $95.81 N/A $95.81 * Fee is subject to a 3.05% It Surcharge Utilities Fees 26 base addtl base addtl base addtl 1-399 $862.41 $1.95 $718.45 $1.64 $574.51 $1.26 400-599 $1,253.12 $1.81 $1,044.92 $1.51 $836.70 $1.17 600-999 $1,619.42 $0.40 $1,349.52 $0.34 $1,079.62 $0.26 1,000-2,999 $1,781.36 $0.32 $1,484.47 $0.27 $1,187.57 $0.21 3,000-Unlimited $2,429.14 $0.81 $2,024.28 $0.67 $1,619.42 $0.51 1-4,999 $2,030.71 $1.34 $1,692.68 $1.12 $1,353.37 $0.88 5,000-9,999 $8,126.67 $0.40 $6,772.01 $0.34 $5,417.35 $0.26 10,000-49,999 $10,157.38 $0.15 $8,464.69 $0.12 $6,772.01 $0.09 50,000-99,999 $16,252.06 $0.08 $13,544.02 $0.06 $10,834.70 $0.04 100,000-Unlimited $20,314.75 $0.21 $16,929.39 $0.16 $13,544.02 $0.12 1-4,999 $1,692.68 $1.13 $1,409.93 $0.92 $1,128.46 $0.74 5,000-9,999 $6,772.01 $1.80 $5,643.56 $0.27 $4,513.82 $0.22 10,000-49,999 $8,464.69 $0.64 $7,053.48 $0.09 $5,643.56 $0.08 50,000-99,999 $13,544.02 $0.36 $11,287.11 $0.05 $9,028.92 $0.04 100,000-Unlimited $16,929.39 $0.89 $14,106.97 $0.13 $11,287.11 $0.11 1-4,999 $3,385.37 $2.24 $2,821.14 $1.88 $2,256.91 $1.45 5,000-9,999 $13,544.02 $0.67 $11,287.11 $0.55 $9,028.92 $0.43 10,000-49,999 $16,929.39 $0.25 $14,106.97 $0.21 $11,287.11 $0.16 50,000-99,999 $27,088.04 $0.13 $22,572.94 $0.11 $18,057.84 $0.08 100,000-Unlimited $33,860.06 $0.34 $28,216.50 $0.27 $22,572.94 $0.22 1-4,999 $1,760.80 $1.17 $1,467.76 $0.96 $1,174.72 $0.78 5,000-9,999 $7,049.62 $0.35 $5,873.62 $0.28 $4,698.90 $0.23 10,000-49,999 $8,811.72 $0.12 $7,342.67 $0.11 $5,873.62 $0.08 50,000-99,999 $14,097.97 $0.06 $11,748.52 $0.05 $9,399.07 $0.04 100,000-Unlimited $17,623.42 $0.18 $14,685.34 $0.13 $11,748.52 $0.11 1-4,999 $3,724.67 $2.48 $3,103.89 $2.06 $2,483.12 $1.60 5,000-9,999 $14,897.40 $0.75 $12,415.57 $0.62 $9,932.45 $0.48 10,000-49,999 $18,622.07 $0.27 $15,518.18 $0.23 $12,415.57 $0.18 50,000-99,999 $29,796.08 $0.15 $24,829.85 $0.12 $19,863.62 $0.09 100,000-Unlimited $37,246.71 $0.36 $31,038.93 $0.30 $24,829.85 $0.23 Building Plan Check Fees Attached Accessory/Utility Uses Commercial Shell Commercial Tenant Improvements Commercial Uses Commercial/Multi-Family Residential Remodel - Non-Structural Commercial/Multi-Family Residential Uses FY 2023-24 Rate IA, IB IIA, IIIA, VA IIB, IIIB, VB, IV 27 base addtl base addtl base addtl 1-399 $862.41 $1.95 $718.45 $1.64 $574.51 $1.26 400-599 $1,253.12 $1.81 $1,044.92 $1.51 $836.70 $1.17 600-999 $1,619.42 $0.40 $1,349.52 $0.34 $1,079.62 $0.26 1,000-2,999 $1,781.36 $0.32 $1,484.47 $0.27 $1,187.57 $0.21 3,000-Unlimited $2,429.14 $0.81 $2,024.28 $0.67 $1,619.42 $0.51 1-399 $258.33 $0.57 $215.93 $0.49 $172.23 $0.39 400-599 $375.29 $0.54 $312.31 $0.44 $250.62 $0.36 600-999 $484.54 $0.12 $403.57 $0.09 $322.60 $0.08 1,000-2,999 $534.67 $0.09 $444.70 $0.08 $356.01 $0.05 3,000-Unlimited $728.74 $0.25 $607.93 $0.21 $484.54 $0.16 1-4,999 $2,457.41 $0.54 $2,048.69 $0.44 $1,638.70 $0.35 5,000-9,999 $4,916.10 $0.19 $4,096.11 $0.16 $3,277.40 $0.12 10,000-49,999 $5,899.32 $0.02 $4,916.10 $0.02 $3,932.88 $0.01 50,000-99,999 $7,373.51 $0.04 $6,146.09 $0.04 $4,916.10 $0.02 100,000-Unlimited $9,832.20 $0.09 $8,193.51 $0.08 $6,554.81 $0.05 2,500-3,999 $2,607.78 $0.16 $2,173.36 $0.13 $1,738.95 $0.11 4,000-5,999 $2,869.98 $0.19 $2,391.86 $0.16 $1,912.46 $0.12 6,000-7,999 $3,259.41 $0.32 $2,717.03 $0.27 $2,173.36 $0.22 8,000-Unlimited $3,913.60 $0.49 $3,259.41 $0.40 $2,607.78 $0.32 1-4,999 $3,385.37 $2.24 $2,821.14 $1.88 $2,256.91 $1.45 5,000-9,999 $13,544.02 $0.67 $11,287.11 $0.55 $9,028.92 $0.43 10,000-49,999 $16,929.39 $0.25 $14,106.97 $0.21 $11,287.11 $0.16 50,000-99,999 $27,088.04 $0.13 $22,572.94 $0.11 $18,057.84 $0.08 100,000-Unlimited $33,860.06 $0.34 $28,216.50 $0.27 $22,572.94 $0.22 1-499 $795.57 $0.55 $664.48 $0.47 $530.81 $0.36 500-999 $1,021.78 $1.78 $850.84 $1.47 $681.18 $1.18 1,000-1,499 $1,912.46 $0.37 $1,592.43 $0.30 $1,273.69 $0.25 1,500-1,999 $2,102.67 $0.37 $1,751.80 $0.30 $1,402.21 $0.25 2,000-Unlimited $2,294.18 $1.15 $1,912.46 $0.95 $1,529.46 $0.76 Duplicate Commercial/Multi-Family Residential Duplicate Single-Family/Duplex Residential Building Plan Check Fees Low & Moderate Hazard Storage Residential Remodel/Addition - Non- Structural Detached Accessory/Utility Uses Duplicate Accessory/Utility FY 2023-24 Rate IA, IB IIA, IIIA, VA IIB, IIIB, VB, IV 28 base addtl base addtl base addtl 1-499 $1,109.18 $2.66 $925.38 $2.22 $739.02 $1.78 500-999 $2,178.51 $4.35 $1,814.78 $3.62 $1,452.34 $2.89 1,000-1,499 $4,358.30 $0.86 $3,632.13 $0.72 $2,905.97 $0.57 1,500-1,999 $4,794.00 $0.86 $3,994.57 $0.72 $3,195.15 $0.57 2,000-Unlimited $5,229.70 $2.61 $4,358.30 $2.17 $3,485.61 $1.73 1-2,499 $4,035.70 $2.23 $3,363.52 $2.23 $2,690.04 $1.79 2,500-3,999 $8,072.69 $0.44 $6,727.03 $0.44 $5,382.65 $0.35 4,000-5,999 $8,879.83 $0.50 $7,400.51 $0.50 $5,919.89 $0.39 6,000-7,999 $10,090.54 $0.83 $8,409.42 $0.83 $6,727.03 $0.65 8,000-Unlimited $12,109.68 $1.25 $10,090.54 $1.25 $8,072.69 $1.00 1-4,999 $1,141.30 $0.76 $951.09 $0.63 $760.87 $0.50 5,000-9,999 $4,567.80 $0.22 $3,805.65 $0.19 $3,044.77 $0.15 10,000-49,999 $5,709.10 $0.08 $4,756.74 $0.06 $3,458.62 $0.05 50,000-99,999 $9,134.31 $0.04 $7,611.28 $0.02 $6,090.83 $0.02 100,000-Unlimited $11,418.21 $0.11 $9,516.03 $0.09 $7,611.28 $0.06 Building Plan Check Fees Site Improvements Residential Remodel/Addition - Structural Single-Family/Duplex Residential FY 2023-24 Rate IA, IB IIA, IIIA, VA IIB, IIIB, VB, IV 29 base addtl base addtl base addtl 1-399 $2,128.38 $0.69 $1,773.65 $0.86 $1,418.92 $0.69 400-599 $2,335.30 $3.81 $1,945.88 $4.76 $1,557.73 $3.81 600-999 $3,477.90 $1.15 $2,898.26 $1.43 $2,318.60 $1.15 1,000-2,999 $4,161.66 $0.91 $3,468.90 $1.16 $2,774.87 $0.91 3,000-Unlimited $6,928.82 $1.54 $5,773.37 $1.93 $4,619.21 $1.54 1-4,999 $1,746.66 $1.06 $1,456.20 $0.89 $1,164.44 $0.70 5,000-9,999 $6,541.96 $0.98 $5,452.05 $0.82 $4,360.87 $0.65 10,000-49,999 $11,449.06 $0.13 $9,540.45 $0.11 $7,631.85 $0.08 50,000-99,999 $16,354.88 $0.13 $13,628.85 $0.11 $10,902.82 $0.08 100,000-Unlimited $22,896.84 $0.23 $19,080.91 $0.19 $15,264.98 $0.16 1-4,999 $1,295.54 $0.92 $1,079.62 $0.77 $863.69 $0.62 5,000-9,999 $5,452.05 $0.82 $4,543.38 $0.68 $3,634.70 $0.54 10,000-49,999 $9,540.45 $0.11 $7,950.59 $0.09 $6,359.45 $0.06 50,000-99,999 $13,628.85 $0.11 $11,357.80 $0.09 $9,086.76 $0.08 100,000-Unlimited $19,080.91 $0.19 $15,901.18 $0.15 $12,720.18 $0.12 1-4,999 $2,724.74 $1.81 $2,271.05 $1.51 $1,817.35 $1.17 5,000-9,999 $10,902.82 $1.64 $9,086.76 $1.37 $7,268.12 $1.06 10,000-49,999 $19,080.91 $0.21 $15,901.18 $0.18 $12,720.18 $0.13 50,000-99,999 $27,257.70 $0.22 $22,715.61 $0.18 $18,172.23 $0.13 100,000-Unlimited $38,161.81 $0.37 $31,801.08 $0.32 $25,441.64 $0.25 1-4,999 $1,308.39 $0.88 $1,091.19 $0.74 $872.69 $0.57 5,000-9,999 $5,232.27 $0.78 $4,359.58 $0.65 $3,489.47 $0.53 10,000-49,999 $9,157.45 $0.09 $7,630.56 $0.08 $6,104.97 $0.06 50,000-99,999 $13,081.33 $0.11 $10,901.54 $0.08 $8,721.75 $0.06 100,000-Unlimited $18,313.61 $0.19 $15,261.12 $0.15 $12,208.64 $0.12 1-4,999 $4,089.68 $2.72 $3,407.21 $2.28 $2,724.74 $1.76 5,000-9,999 $16,354.88 $2.45 $13,630.14 $2.04 $10,902.82 $1.59 10,000-49,999 $28,621.36 $0.30 $23,850.48 $0.26 $19,080.91 $1.59 50,000-99,999 $40,887.84 $0.32 $34,072.13 $0.27 $27,257.70 $0.22 100,000-Unlimited $57,242.72 $0.57 $47,702.27 $0.48 $38,161.81 $0.37 Attached Accessory/Utility Uses Commercial Shell Commercial Tenant Improvements Commercial Uses Commercial/Multi-Family Residential Remodel - Non-Structural Building Inspection Fees Commercial/Multi-Family Residential Uses FY 2023-24 Rate IA, IB IIA, IIIA, VA IIB, IIIB, VB, IV 30 base addtl base addtl base addtl 1-399 $1,951.02 $0.81 $1,625.84 $0.67 $1,300.68 $0.54 400-599 $2,112.96 $5.36 $1,759.51 $4.48 $1,408.64 $3.59 600-999 $3,184.86 $1.59 $2,654.05 $1.33 $2,123.24 $1.06 1,000-2,999 $3,822.36 $1.29 $3,184.86 $1.06 $2,547.37 $0.85 3,000-Unlimited $6,371.01 $2.16 $5,309.39 $1.76 $4,246.49 $1.41 1-399 $1,951.02 $0.81 $1,625.84 $0.67 $1,300.68 $0.54 400-599 $2,112.96 $5.36 $1,759.51 $4.48 $1,408.64 $3.59 600-999 $3,186.15 $1.59 $2,654.05 $1.33 $2,123.24 $1.06 1,000-2,999 $3,822.36 $1.29 $3,186.15 $1.06 $2,547.37 $0.85 3,000-Unlimited $6,371.01 $2.14 $5,309.39 $1.76 $4,246.49 $1.41 1-4,999 $2,458.70 $0.55 $2,048.69 $0.47 $1,638.70 $1.76 5,000-9,999 $4,916.10 $0.21 $4,097.40 $0.16 $3,277.40 $1.59 10,000-49,999 $5,900.61 $0.04 $4,916.10 $0.02 $3,932.88 $0.21 50,000-99,999 $7,374.80 $0.05 $6,146.09 $0.04 $4,916.10 $0.22 100,000-Unlimited $9,833.49 $0.09 $8,193.51 $0.08 $6,554.81 $0.37 1-2,499 $4,088.40 $2.72 $3,407.21 $2.28 $2,724.74 $1.81 2,500-3,999 $8,174.23 $1.37 $6,813.14 $1.13 $5,450.77 $0.90 4,000-5,999 $10,219.06 $3.07 $8,514.82 $2.56 $6,813.14 $2.04 6,000-7,999 $16,351.02 $4.09 $13,625.00 $3.40 $10,900.25 $2.72 8,000-Unlimited $24,525.25 $3.07 $20,439.42 $2.56 $16,351.02 $2.04 1-4,999 $2,726.03 $1.81 $2,271.05 $1.52 $1,638.70 $1.76 5,000-9,999 $10,902.82 $1.64 $9,086.76 $1.37 $3,277.40 $1.59 10,000-49,999 $19,080.91 $0.21 $15,901.18 $0.16 $3,932.88 $0.21 50,000-99,999 $27,258.99 $0.22 $22,715.61 $0.18 $4,916.10 $0.22 100,000-Unlimited $38,161.81 $0.39 $31,801.08 $0.32 $6,554.81 $0.37 1-499 $1,471.62 $3.68 $1,226.13 $3.07 $981.94 $2.45 500-999 $2,943.24 $2.94 $2,452.27 $2.45 $1,961.30 $1.96 1,000-1,499 $4,414.85 $2.94 $3,678.40 $2.45 $2,943.24 $1.96 1,500-1,999 $5,885.19 $2.94 $4,905.82 $2.45 $3,923.88 $1.96 2,000-Unlimited $7,356.81 $3.68 $6,131.95 $3.07 $4,905.82 $2.45 1-499 $1,616.85 $3.69 $1,348.23 $3.08 $1,078.33 $2.47 500-999 $3,094.89 $3.10 $2,578.22 $2.58 $2,062.83 $2.06 1,000-1,499 $4,641.06 $3.10 $3,868.61 $2.58 $3,094.89 $2.06 1,500-1,999 $6,188.50 $3.10 $5,157.74 $2.58 $4,125.67 $2.06 2,000-Unlimited $7,737.24 $3.87 $6,446.84 $3.21 $5,157.74 $2.58 Duplicate Commercial/Multi-Family Residential Duplicate Single-Family/Duplex Residential Low & Moderate Hazard Storage Residential Remodel/Addition - Non- Structural Residential Remodel/Addition - Structural Detached Accessory/Utility Uses Duplicate Accessory/Utility Building Inspection Fees FY 2023-24 Rate IA, IB IIA, IIIA, VA IIB, IIIB, VB, IV 31 base addtl base addtl base addtl 1-2,499 $4,088.40 $2.72 $3,407.21 $2.28 $2,724.74 $1.81 2,500-3,999 $8,174.23 $1.37 $6,813.14 $1.13 $5,450.77 $0.90 4,000-5,999 $10,219.06 $3.07 $8,514.82 $2.56 $6,813.14 $2.04 6,000-7,999 $16,351.02 $4.09 $13,625.00 $3.40 $10,900.25 $2.72 8,000-Unlimited $24,525.25 $3.07 $20,439.42 $2.56 $16,351.02 $2.04 1-4,999 $903.53 $0.61 $903.53 $0.61 $601.50 $0.40 5,000-9,999 $3,611.57 $0.54 $3,611.57 $0.54 $2,407.29 $0.36 10,000-49,999 $6,320.89 $0.06 $6,320.89 $0.06 $4,213.07 $0.04 50,000-99,999 $9,030.21 $0.06 $9,030.21 $0.06 $6,020.14 $0.05 100,000-Unlimited $12,641.77 $0.12 $12,641.77 $0.12 $8,427.42 $0.08 Single-Family/Duplex Residential Site Improvements Building Inspection Fees FY 2023-24 Rate IA, IB IIA, IIIA, VA IIB, IIIB, VB, IV 32 Transportation (Citywide)(1) Transportatio n (San Luis Ranch Subarea) Transportatio n (LOVR Subarea) Citywide Transportation (Orcutt Specific Plan Area Vested) Prior to 7/1/2018 Transportation (LOVR Add on Fee- Avila Ranch) Transportation (LOVR Add on Fee- All other Areas) [4] Citywide Transportation (Orcutt Specific Plan Area Add on) After 7/1/2018 Transportation (Orcutt Specific Plan Area Add on) [1] Transportation (Orcutt Specific Plan Area Add on Vested) Prior to 7/1/2018 [1] Residential Single Family ≥ 1,400 sq. ft. (fees are per unit)$15,244.19 $11,847.94 $13,825.31 $5,585.82 $3,239.34 $3,091.70 $12,387.79 $23,821.07 $25,258.54 700 to 1,399 sq. ft. (fees are per sq. ft.)$10.90 $8.46 $9.87 N/A N/A N/A $7.98 N/A N/A ≤ 699 sq. ft. (fees are per unit)$7,622.10 $5,923.97 $6,912.65 $5,585.82 $3,239.34 $3,091.70 $6,193.90 $23,821.07 $25,258.54 Multifamily ≥ 1,100 sq. ft. (fees are per unit)$11,843.85 $9,205.17 $10,741.46 $4,962.14 $1,520.77 $2,071.15 $11,984.55 $16,641.10 $17,644.97 550 to 1,099 sq. ft. (fees are per sq. ft.)$10.77 $8.37 $9.77 N/A N/A N/A $7.90 N/A N/A ≤ 549 sq. ft. (fees are per unit)$5,921.93 $4,602.57 $5,370.72 $4,962.14 $1,520.77 $2,085.50 $5,992.28 $16,641.10 $17,644.97 Non-Residential Office (fees are per sq. ft.)$14.71 $11.44 $13.35 $11.21 $4.39 $4.39 $11.96 N/A N/A Service (fees are per sq. ft.)$14.71 $11.44 $13.35 $4.39 $4.39 $4.39 $11.96 N/A N/A Retail (fees are per sq. ft.) [2]$21.38 $15.74 $19.38 $11.77 $34.63 $27.52 $17.37 N/A N/A Industrial (fees are per sq. ft.)$8.56 $7.02 $8.20 $2.44 $2.44 $6.96 N/A N/A Institutional (fees are per sq. ft.)$17.32 $13.46 $15.69 $1.89 $1.89 $14.06 N/A N/A Lodging (fees are per room)$6,150.38 $4,780.12 $5,577.90 $1,886.26 $1,886.26 $4,997.93 N/A N/A Specialty (fees are per ADT) (2)$937.67 $728.32 $850.04 $520.46 $3,091.70 $3,091.70 $761.97 $2,620.56 $2,778.70 Per PM Trip Per PM Trip [1] The Orcutt Area Specific Plan Transportation Fee is in addition to Citywide Transportation Impact Fees. See Council Agenda Report dated 10-16-2018 [2] All OASP retail Transportation "Add On" fees are paid for via residential land uses (There is no OASP fee for retail). However, Retail is responsible for paying "Citywide" transpoartion ees as well as safety impact fees. Office is shown in Work/Live units are porposed within the [3] Fees shown are subject to an addiional 1.75% administrative charge when special calculations are required. [4] The LOVR interchange Fee is in adition to the Citywide Transportation Impact Fee. The last update of the fee occurred in 2019. See Council Agenda Report dated 7-2-21019 Transportation Impact Fees FY 2023-24 Rate 33 Parkland Fees Quimby Act Parkland In-Lieu Fee Parkland Impact Fee Park Improvement Impact Fee Parkland Development Fees (Orcutt Area) Residential Subdivision Single Family (per Dwelling Unit)n/a $4,634.12 $4,235.56 $10,161.07 Multifamily Condominium (per Dwelling unit)n/a $3,336.98 $3,050.19 $7,559.15 Residential, No Subdivision Single Family (per Dwelling Unit)n/a $4,634.12 $4,235.56 Multifamily Apartment (per Dwelling unit)n/a $2,142.78 $3,050.20 $7,559.15 Land Use Category Water Development Impact Fee(Citywide)Wastewater Development Impact Fee (Citywide) Single Family & Multifamily (per Dwelling Unit Size) ≥ 1,201 sq. ft. (fees are per unit)$17,379.27 $16,140.81 801 to 1,200 sq. ft. (fees are per unit)$13,903.42 $12,988.46 451 to 800 sq. ft. (fees are per unit)$12,165.49 $11,365.82 ≤ 450 sq. ft. (fees are per unit)$5,244.28 $4,841.08 Mobile/Manufactured Home (per Dwelling Unit) Mobile/Manufactured Home $10,488.53 $9,685.08 Non-Residential (by Meter Size) 3/4" meter $17,480.88 $16,140.81 1" meter $29,716.93 $27,439.08 1.5" meter $59,435.34 $54,878.18 2" meter $94,397.13 $87,159.81 3" meter $185,957.51 $172,706.41 4" meter $290,233.08 $269,551.28 6" meter $580,467.62 $539,102.58 Police (Citywide)Fire (Citywide) Residential Single Family Per unit $1,003.14 $854.46 Multifamily Per unit $722.31 $615.69 Non-Residential Office (fees are per sq. ft.)$0.66 $0.57 Service (fees are per sq. ft.)$0.36 $0.31 Retail (fees are per sq. ft.)$0.36 $0.31 Industrial (fees are per sq. ft.)$0.27 $0.23 Institutional (fees are per sq. ft.)$0.35 $0.34 Lodging (fees are per room)$199.72 $169.70 Specialty (fees are per ADT) (2)Requires Calculation Requires Calculation FY 2023-24 Rate Land Use Category FY 2023-24 Rate Emergency Services Impact Fees FY 2023-24 Rate 34 Police Fees Fee Number Fee Description POLICE DEPARTMENT 1 Processing charge for return of property taken for safekeeping 2 Clearance Letters 3 Civil SDT 4 Criminal SDT 5 Civil Subpoena Concealed Weapons Permit (set by penal code 26190) 6 Investigative costs and permit processing 7 Renewal 8 Massage Facility Permit 9 Massage Technician Initial Permit 10 Massage Technician Permit Renewal 11 Local Record Information 12 Impound Vehicle Release (30-day impound) 13 Vehicle Tow Release Fee 14 Record sealing Property Damage-Only Collisions Investigations 15 Per party per non-injury traffic collision investigation report 16 Administrative Investigations Administrative Citations (Noise Violation, UIP, Open Alcohol Container) 17 First citation for each such violation (except open container) 18 First citation (open container) 19 Second citation for each such violation 20 Third citation for each such violation 35 Police Fees Fee Number Fee Description Cost Recovery Programs 21 DUI Cost recovery 22 Nuisance abatement False Alarms and Alarm Permits 23 Permit 24 Renewal 25 Excessive alarms 26 Third 27 Fourth 28 Fifth 29 Sixth 30 Seventh & More 31 Second Response Cost Recovery Taxi Permit 32 Pedicab Fee 33 Pedicab Renewal Fee 34 Permit fee 35 Permit Renewal fee 36 Electronic Game Center Permit 37 Public Dance Permit 38 Tobacco License Fee - per location 39 Mobile Food Vendor License PLANNING SUPPORT 40 Administrative Use Permit (bars/nightclubs) 36 Fee Number FY 2023-24 Rate Youth Services Sun-N-Fun 1 Registration Fee 72.50$ 2 School Year - hourly option 5.80$ Teacher Work Day 3 Teacher Work Day 64.00$ 4 Late Reg TWD Spring Break Camp 5 Weekly Option 200.00$ 6 Late Reg Spring Break Weekly 7 Daily Option 62.00$ 8 Late Reg Spring Break Daily Summer Camp 9 Registration Fee 6.25$ 10 Full week Care Option 190.00$ 11 Summer School Package* 12 Day Rate Option 50.00$ 13 Field Trip Sign Ups 14 Late Registration Fee 10.00$ 15 Youth Services Special Events *Fluctuates per school district schedule Fee Description Parks and Recreation Fees 37 Fee Number FY 2023-24 Rate Aquatics Lap Swim 16 Adult per use*4.25$ 17 Adult Monthly*63.75$ 18 Youth/Senior per*3.75$ 19 Youth/Senior monthly*56.25$ Recreational Swim 20 Adult per use*4.75$ 21 Youth/Senior per*4.25$ Swim Script 21 Adult per use*38.25$ 22 Youth/Senior per*33.75$ Recreational Swim Script Adult per use*42.75$ Youth/Senior per*38.25$ Lessons 23 Lessons 118.00$ 24 Private Lessons 204.00$ Special Classes 25 Lifeguard 257.00$ 26 Warm Water Exercise*55.75$ 27 Facility Use $66/day + $23/LG 28 Junior Lifeguard Program 249.00$ Recreational Sports Adult Softball 29 Teams (15 per team)664.00$ *Fees to increase following summer session. Effective August 14th. Rate remains the same as previous Fiscal year prior to this date. Parks and Recreation Fees Fee Description 38 Fee Number FY 2023-24 Rate Instructional Classes Instructional Classes * 30 Adult/Senior $8.30-$166.00 31 Youth $4.15-$440.00 Special Events Triathlon 32 Individual 33 Team P&R Events 34 Parks and Recreation Sponsored Events $0-$71.00 Special Application Fees 35 Special Event Application $122/$195 36 Banner Permit Application/Installation 252.00$ Film Application Fee 37 Still Photography 123.00$ 38 Commercial 156.00$ 39 Non-Profit 49.00$ 40 Destination Marketing Permit Fee 41 Permit Processing Fee 18.25$ 42 Full Park Use 575.00$ 43 Half Park Use 287.00$ Mission Plaza 44 Full Plaza $698.00 45 Full Plaza (Non-Profit/Community Event)$585.00 * Fees vary depending on class and class frequency Parks and Recreation Fees Fee Description 39 Fee Number FY 2023-24 Rate Indoor Facilities Ludwick Community Center 46 Assembly Room (Non-Profit)35.00$ 47 Assembly Room (For-Profit)73.50$ 48 Gymnasium (Non-Profit)44.50$ 49 Gymnasium (For-Profit)78.50$ 50 Kitchen (Non-Profit)15.25$ 51 Kitchen (For-Profit) 52 Floor Covers 93.00$ 53 Full Facility Use (14 Hours)1,826.00$ Senior Center 54 Main Room (Non-Profit)35.00$ 55 Main Room (For-Profit)73.50$ 56 Conference Room (Non-Profit)18.50$ 57 Conference Room (For-Profit)24.25$ Meadow Park Building 58 Non-Profit 18.50$ 59 For-Profit 24.25$ City/County Library 60 Community Room (Non-Profit)35.00$ 61 Community Room (For-Profit)73.50$ 62 Conference Room (Non-Profit)18.50$ 63 Conference Room (For-Profit)24.25$ Parks and Recreation Fees Fee Description 40 Fee Number FY 2023-24 Rate Outdoor Facilities 64 Outdoor Seating Areas 82.75$ Jack House Gardens 65 Wedding and Reception 66 Full Day WEEKEND (Resident)3,529.00$ 67 Full Day WEEKEND (non-resident)3,999.00$ 68 Full Day WEEKDAY (Resident)3,293.00$ 69 Full Day WEEKDAY (non-resident)3,529.00$ 70 Party (1-50) Attendance (4 hour) 71 Under 50 Per Hour 120.75$ 72 Under 50 Per Hour (Non-Profit)54.00$ 73 50-100 Per Hour 241.75$ 74 50-100 Per Hour (Non-Profit)108.25$ 75 100+ Per Hour 362.75$ 76 100+ Per Hour (Non-Profit)163.25$ 77 Security Deposit 604.00$ 78 Table/Chair Rental Softball Fields 79 Hourly Field Use 29.50$ 80 Light Fee 26.75$ Multi-Use Courts 81 Hourly Use 6.50$ 82 Light Fee 13.00$ Tennis & Volleyball Courts 83 Full Use Facility (Hour)10.50$ Parks and Recreation Fees Fee Description 41 Fee Number FY 2023-24 Rate Damon-Garcia 84 Full Use Facility (Day)547.00$ 85 Full Use Facility (Hour)88.00$ 86 Full Use Light Fee (Hour)53.00$ 87 Maintenance Fee 29.50$ 88 Concession Stand Rental 147.50$ 89 Lower Fields Facility Use (Day)363.50$ 90 Lower Fields Facility Use (Hour)59.00$ 91 Lower Fields Light Fee 26.75$ 92 Single Field Facility Use (Day)185.75$ 93 Single Field Facility Use (Hour)29.50$ 94 Single Field Light Fee 26.75$ Baseball Stadium 95 Hourly Field Use 29.50$ 96 Lights 26.75$ 97 Press box Rental 19.50$ 98 Field prep 50.25$ 99 Concession Stand Rental 28.00$ Other 100 Bounce House 39.50$ 101 Portable BBQ 39.50$ Community Gardens 102 Community Gardens $35/year + .03 per square ft Fee Description Parks and Recreation Fees 42 Fee Number FY 2023-24 Rate Ranger Service Junior Ranger Camp 103 Junior Ranger Camp 167.00$ Golf Course Laguna Lake Golf Course 104 Cart Rental 10.75/Person 105 Pull Carts 5.25/Cart 106 Club Rentals (Regular)$6.25 107 Club Rentals (SnrYth/Stu/Mil)$4.25 108 Alternative Programming Uses $11.00 109 Spectator Fee*5.25$ Tournament Use 110 Shotgun Fee $279.00 111 Daily Use for 39 or Under $13.00 112 Daily Use for 40 or Over $11.00 Rounds 113 Monday-Thursday (Regular)*15.50$ 114 Monday-Thursday (Snr/Yth/Stu/Mil)*12.00$ 115 Friday-Sunday (Regular)*16.50$ 116 Friday-Sunday (Snr/Yth/Stu/Mil)*13.00$ 117 Replay*8.75$ 118 Off Peak (M-Th 12-3 PM) (Regular)*12.00$ 119 Off Peak (M-Th 12-3 PM) (Snr/Yth/Stu/Mil)*12.00$ 120 Twilight (after 3 PM)*11.00$ 121 Family Rate*30.00$ 122 Super Twilight*7.75$ 123 10-Play Cards (Regular)$134.00 124 10-Play Cards (Snr/Yth/Stu/Mil)$103.00 *Fees to increase following summer session. Effective August 1st. Rate remains the same as previous Fiscal year prior to this date. Parks and Recreation Fees Fee Description 43 Additional Building Fees Fee Number Fee Description FY 2023-24 Rate 1 A/C Residential - BLDG $88.70 2 After Hours Call Out (Building) - BLDG $536.07 3 Air Handler - BLDG $66.85 4 Antenna/Tower w/ Equipment Shelter - BLDG $790.63 5 Appeal of Building Official Decision - BLDG $1,339.56 6 Awning/Canopy - BLDG $457.66 7 Boiler - BLDG $111.86 8 Building Sewer - BLDG $88.70 9 Balcony/Porch/Deck - BLDG (increases with Sq. ft)$1,300.56 9 Cell Tower/Antenna - BLDG $1,068.07 10 Cell Tower/Antenna - BLDG - add on $116.43 11 Chiller - BLDG $111.86 12 Code Enforcement Fee $428.19 12 Commercial Access Upgrade - Site work - BLDG $1,416.69 13 Commercial Access Upgrade - Upgrades - BLDG $1,133.87 14 Commercial Coach Installation - BLDG $1,882.07 15 Construction Tax - BLDG $183.92 16 Deferred Submittal (Building)$267.40 17 Demolit - Interior or Garage/Utility Build - BLDG $536.08 18 Demolition - Entire Building - BLDG $938.47 19 Doors/Windows- Box Structural $682.11 20 Doors/Windows- Box Non-Structural $461.95 21 Drain Vent Repair/Replace - BLDG $66.85 22 Driveway $221.17 23 Dry Rot / Termite Repair - BLDG $278.98 24 Duct Work Only - BLDG $66.85 25 Electric Car Charging System -BLDG $145.27 26 Electric Service Upgrade (up to 200 amp) -BLDG $145.27 27 Electrical Volume & Current Fee Analysis - BLDG $82.27 28 Evaporative Cooler - BLDG $66.85 29 Exhaust Hood - Type I - BLDG $134.99 30 Exhaust Hood - Type II - BLDG $88.70 31 Exhaust Hood & Duct - Residential - BLDG $66.85 32 Fence or Non-Engineered Wall - BLDG $807.34 33 Fire Permit Handling Fee - BLDG $536.07 34 Fireplace Insert Upgrade -BLDG $386.97 35 Fireplace Retrofit / Chimney Repair - BLDG $771.34 Additional Building Fees Continued on Next Page 44 Additional Building Fees Fee Number Fee Description FY 2023-24 Rate 36 Fireplace: Masonry $664.82 37 Fixtures - BLDG $66.85 38 Flag, Light, or Sign Pole - BLDG $960.32 39 Foundation New/Replace - BLDG $1,609.53 40 Foundation Repair Only - BLDG $803.48 41 Furnace/Heater Replacement -BLDG $145.27 42 Furnaces - BLDG $88.70 43 Gas System Repair/Replace/Extend - BLDG $63.70 44 Generator Installation - BLDG $102.85 45 Graywater Systems - BLDG $178.70 46 Graywater/Rainwater Harvesting System -BLDG $88.70 47 Grease Trap - BLDG $66.85 48 Guest Quarters Permit $1,385.55 49 Handicap Board of Appeals - BLDG $1,339.56 50 Heat Pump - BLDG $66.85 51 Heater - BLDG $66.85 52 Heater - Wall - BLDG $88.70 53 Inert Gas Systems $1,245.54 54 Inspection Fee $226.84 55 Insulation/Energy Upgrade -BLDG $140.12 56 Make-Up Air System - BLDG $66.85 57 Manufactured Homes $1,010.35 58 Mechanical Volume & Current Fee Analysis - BLDG $82.27 59 Minor Code Corrections - BLDG $278.97 60 Minor Lease Space Improvements - BLDG $1,609.53 61 Minor Repairs - up to 2 inspections - BLDG $367.67 62 Misc Electrical Items NOS - BLDG $88.71 63 Misc Mechanical Items NOS - BLDG $88.70 64 Misc Plumbing Items NOS - BLDG $88.71 65 New/Altered Circuits - 15 or 20 amp - BLDG $66.85 66 New/Altered Circuits - 200+ amps - BLDG $66.85 67 New/Altered Circuits - 25 to 40 amp - BLDG $45.00 68 New/Altered Circuits - 50 to 175 amp - BLDG $53.98 69 Other Electrical Inspections - BLDG $267.40 70 Other Mechanical Inspections - BLDG $267.40 71 Other Plumbing & Gas Inspections - BLDG $267.40 72 Paint Booth - BLDG $1,207.14 73 Partition- BLDG (Per Project)$883.31 74 Patio - Enclosed - BLDG $1,407.69 75 Patio Cover - Open - BLDG $807.34 76 Permit Issuance - BLDG $289.25 77 Photovoltaic Systems (residential roof mount)$190.06 78 Photovoltaic Unit Installation - Residential $82.12 79 Plumbing Volume & Current Fee Analysis - BLDG $80.98 80 Pool/Spa Commercial - BLDG $1,339.56 81 Preliminary Project Consult/Code Analysis - BLDG $267.40 82 Refrigeration Compressor/Condenser - BLDG $111.86 83 Re-Roof Residential - BLDG $278.98 84 Re-roof with Added Ventilation -BLDG $140.12 85 Residential Photovoltaic System $200.55 86 Residential Pool/Spa - Site Built - BLDG $1,072.16 87 Retaining Wall Engineered 1-100 Linear Feet $1,451.53 88 Retaining Wall Engineered each additional linear foot $1.31 89 Retaining Wall Non-Engineered - BLDG $941.03 90 Roof Structure Replacement - BLDG $1,142.34 90 School Tenant Permit $1,070.44 Additional Building Fees Continued on Next Page 45 Additional Building Fees Fee Number Fee Description FY 2023-24 Rate 91 Secondary Dwelling Units $1,462.86 92 Seismic Strengthening of URM Bldg $55.17 93 Shear Wall / Steel Support Column - BLDG $1,072.16 94 Site Work- Grading 1-1000 Cubic Yards $923.80 95 Each Additional 10,000 Cubic Yards $264.48 96 Sign - Monument or free standing - BLDG $716.06 97 Sign - Wall - BLDG $411.88 98 Skylight $362.86 99 SMIP (Commercial)$32.49 100 SMIP (Residential)$15.08 101 Solar / PV System - Commercial -BLDG $964.19 102 Solar Photovoltaic - Commercial/Multifamily - BLDG $938.46 103 Solar Water System Fixtures - BLDG $88.70 104 Stairs - Repair/Replace - BLDG $1,207.14 105 Stand Alone Electrical Plan Check - BLDG $269.97 106 Stand Alone Mechanical Plan Check - BLDG $134.99 107 Stand Alone Plumbing Plan check - BLDG $267.40 108 Store Front / Facade Alterations: Minor - BLDG $1,207.14 109 Stormwater - Major Project - BLDG $4,692.32 110 Stormwater - Minor Project - BLDG $350.97 111 Stormwater - Moderate Project - BLDG $2,212.47 112 Stucco/Siding - BLDG $509.09 113 Supplemental Inspection (Building) - BLDG $267.40 114 Supplemental Plan Check (Building) - BLDG $267.40 115 T-Bar Ceiling - BLDG $803.48 116 Temporary Service - BLDG $66.85 117 Trash Enclosure - BLDG $1,339.56 118 URM Seismic Strengthening - BLDG $49.05 119 Vapor Recovery - BLDG $671.07 120 Vent Fan (Single Duct) - BLDG $66.85 121 Water Heater - BLDG $87.32 122 Water Heater - BLDG - additional $22.78 123 Water Heater Replacement -BLDG $143.00 124 Walk-in Box/Refrigerator Coil - BLDG $88.70 125 Water Pipe Repair/Replace - BLDG $66.85 126 Window Retrofits (non-structural) -BLDG $233.97 127 Temporary Certificate of Occupancy $997.88 *Fees may be subject to a 3.05% IT Surcharge 46 858 From:White, Kelly Sent:Thursday, September 14, 2023 12:42 PM To:Jamie Radcliff; Kersten, Markie Cc:Cindy Sconce; Rachel King; Bernstorff, Rebecca Subject:RE: [EXTERNAL]RE: User Fee Study- Cross Support for Attorney So, Markie just needs to look at one number? I know this is an infinitesimally small part of a huge project but that was not clear from your original email. Markie - it’s just the very bottom row (the Custom Agreement) that you need to input or confirm (where it currently says two hours). If you scan the list and anything else pops out as something you contribute to, please enter the amount of time. I’ve hid again all the columns that don’t apply to you so you should just see “A” and then from “AC” on. Kelly White Senior Legal Analyst City Attorney's Office E kwhite@slocity.org T 805.781.7060 From: Jamie Radcliff <jradcliff@mgtconsulting.com> Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2023 10:45 AM To: White, Kelly <kwhite@slocity.org>; Kersten, Markie <mkersten@slocity.org> Cc: Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com>; Rachel King <rking@mgtconsulting.com>; Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL]RE: User Fee Study- Cross Support for Attorney Hi Kelly: Please see my answers below. Thanks. Jamie Radcliff Manager Performance SoluƟons Group 432-208-8194 jradcliff@mgtconsulƟng.com Impacting Communities for Good The informaƟon contained in this electronic communicaƟon is intended only for the use of the addressee, and may be a confidenƟal communicaƟon. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby noƟfied that you have received this transmiƩal in error; any review, disseminaƟon, distribuƟon, or copying of this transmiƩal is strictly prohibited. From: White, Kelly <kwhite@slocity.org> Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2023 11:26 AM To: Jamie Radcliff <jradcliff@mgtconsulting.com>; Kersten, Markie <mkersten@slocity.org> Cc: Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com>; Rachel King <rking@mgtconsulting.com>; Bernstorff, Rebecca 859 <rbernstorff@slocity.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL]RE: User Fee Study- Cross Support for Attorney Jamie, I’ve copied the attorney in our office who is lead for Public Works and Utilities Engineering (Markie – the draft for you to edit is here). Can you answer a few questions before Markie spends time on this task?  What does the yellow shading indicate? These are new fees- they wanted them broken down into two categories of document processing. I highlighted because they are new.  Did Engineering believe legal assistance is provided for all these services or just a few? I was expecting to see an “X” where Engineering believe legal support is provided but there were none until I unhid all the columns but I’m guessing those are indicating a contribution by those departments/divisions. The custom agreement is the only fee Engineering thought you would be working on. They estimated two hours. Please edit for accuracy.  Should zero be entered if no assistance is provided for some of the services listed? No need. Just enter the time on the fees you provide services to.  Custom Agreements already has two hours entered. Was that an intentional contribution meant to limit our answer or just a typo? Estimate from Engineering. You may revise as needed. Kelly White Senior Legal Analyst City Attorney's Office E kwhite@slocity.org T 805.781.7060 From: Jamie Radcliff <jradcliff@mgtconsulting.com> Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2023 7:53 AM To: White, Kelly <kwhite@slocity.org> Cc: Cindy Sconce <CSconce@mgtconsulting.com>; Rachel King <rking@mgtconsulting.com>; Bernstorff, Rebecca <rbernstorff@slocity.org> Subject: User Fee Study- Cross Support for Attorney This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Good Morning Kelly: I have gathered informaƟon from Engineering, and they report that the AƩorneys (Legal) spend Ɵme on several of the Engineering inspecƟon fees. CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. 860 Engineering noted an “X” on the permits with their involvement. They need to replace the “X” with the Ɵme the posiƟon spends on the permit (in hours or minutes, please indicate which). Please return to me by COB on Wednesday, September 20th. If you have any quesƟons don't hesitate to reach out. Thank you! Jamie Radcliff Manager Performance SoluƟons Group 432-208-8194 jradcliff@mgtconsulƟng.com Impacting Communities for Good The informaƟon contained in this electronic communicaƟon is intended only for the use of the addressee, and may be a confidenƟal communicaƟon. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby noƟfied that you have received this transmiƩal in error; any review, disseminaƟon, distribuƟon, or copying of this transmiƩal is strictly prohibited. 861 From:Avakian, Greg Sent:Thursday, September 14, 2023 12:42 PM To:Smith, Kate Subject:RE: special event permits Kate- Yes, P&R leads the City for outside community special events. Our department manages the permits, insurance, etc. process and acts in the role of facilitator with the other City departments (streets, police, fire, etc.). We have a formalized City Special Events Committee that meets monthly (pending impacts and needs) that is made up of key department representatives such as: Public Works (streets, parks maintenance), Fire (food inspections, fire codes), Travel/Tourism, Police, Parking, etc. that our Rec Manager is in the role of meeting facilitator to review all upcoming event permits, as well as evaluate post events (SWOT analysis). At this time, we do not collect any “Deposits” but we are assessing a fee study to hopefully incorporate this into the reservation permit process in order to hold groups more accountable. As of now, we only have two options: 1. If a violation occurs during the event and staff respond, they can shut down the event (e.g., Fire or Police code issue, or significant noise or alcohol violation). 2. Post event assessment determines violations (no ABC license, major violation in crowd control or facility damage), then the Committee can recommend that the group is prohibited from hosting a future event. This has only happened once or twice in the past 10+ years. Very rare. Our biggest challenge is weddings having violations for alcohol, noise, facility damage and no repercussions as they are a “one and done” event and not a reoccurring annual or quarterly event. My recommendation is (if you don’t have it in place already) is to work with City Attorney and Finance Dept to develop an Event Deposit that states failure to adhere to all City event guidelines and policies will result in forfeiture of deposit funds, up to and including payment for fines and/or facility damage. This includes potential of future events being prohibited. This has been on my radar since I started but was sidelined during the past 3 yrs with the pandemic and hoping to institute new policies by June 30 to institute come July 1. Keep me updated as I’d like to know what other agencies are doing as we also move forward. Thanks, -G Greg Avakian pronouns he/him/his Director of Parks and Recreation Parks & Recreation 1341 Nipomo Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3934 E gavakian@slocity.org T 805.781.7120 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Smith, Kate <kates@cityofwestsacramento.org> Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2023 12:30 PM 862 To: Avakian, Greg <gavakian@slocity.org> Subject: special event permits This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Hi Greg- Does your department oversee city wide special event permits? If so, do you have a policy or pracƟce in place if a group violates their special event permit during the event? (i.e. does not abide by site layout, does not provide medical tent, does not follow ABC requirements, etc.) We have had two violaƟons this past year to 2 notable groups, and we do not have a clear policy as to what ramificaƟons there are when this occurs. I appreciate any feedback you have on this! Thanks, KATE SMITH pronouns she/her/they/them Director of Parks and Recreation 1110 West Capitol Avenue West Sacramento, CA 95691 Telephone: (916) 617-4865 kates@cityofwestsacramento.org www.cityofwestsacramento.org This message may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, or believe that you have received this communication in error, please do not print, copy, re-transmit, disseminate, or otherwise use the information. Also, please indicate to the sender that you have received this email in error, and delete the copy you received. The sender does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. E-mail correspondence with the City, including attachments, may be subject to the California Public Records Act, and as such may be subject to public disclosure unless otherwise exempt by the Act. 863 From:ParksRec Accounts Payable Sent:Thursday, September 14, 2023 12:03 PM To:Pringle, Brendan Subject:FW: Emailing - MGT Consulting Inv 52817 PO 617413.pdf Attachments:MGT Consulting Inv 52817 PO 617413.pdf It looks like there is something going on with the address….can you follow up with the vendor. The address given on the W-9 is different from the one provided on the invoice. From: Accounts Payable <ap@slocity.org> Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2023 11:49 AM To: ParksRec Accounts Payable <pr_ap@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Emailing - MGT Consulting Inv 52817 PO 617413.pdf Hello PR_AP, I hope this email finds you well. The attached invoice’s remit to address does not match the one in Oracle. If you can, please contact your supplier and obtain an updated W-9 or Proof of remittance so that Purchasing can update the address. Please let me know if you have any questions, comments, or concerns. Thank you, Timothy Holt Accounting Assistant Finance 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3668 E tholt@slocity.org T 805.781.7448 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: ParksRec Accounts Payable <pr_ap@slocity.org> Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 11:08 AM To: Accounts Payable <ap@slocity.org> Subject: Emailing - MGT Consulting Inv 52817 PO 617413.pdf Invoice 52817 Date:08/02/2023 Payment Terms:Net 30 Due Date:09/01/2023 PO number: Bill To:Remit To: City of San Luis Obispo 919 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 MGT of America Consulting, LLC P.O. Box 17780 Clearwater, FL 33762-0780 813-327-4717 arinv@mgtconsulting.com Project: FSG | FY23 | City of San Luis Obispo | User and Impact Fee Stud | CA Description Quantity Rate Amount Project Management 1 $1,755.00 $1,755.00 MGT - User Fee Design 1 $11,670.00 $11,670.00 MGT - User Fee Analysis 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 DTA - Impact Fee Study (subcontractor)1 $4,520.00 $4,520.00 SubTotal:$19,945.00 Tax:$0.00 Total:$19,945.00 Company Confidential 864 From:Accounts Payable <ap@slocity.org> Sent:Thursday, September 14, 2023 11:49 AM To:ParksRec Accounts Payable Subject:RE: Emailing - MGT Consulting Inv 52817 PO 617413.pdf Attachments:MGT Consulting Inv 52817 PO 617413.pdf Hello PR_AP, I hope this email finds you well. The attached invoice’s remit to address does not match the one in Oracle. If you can, please contact your supplier and obtain an updated W-9 or Proof of remittance so that Purchasing can update the address. Please let me know if you have any questions, comments, or concerns. Thank you, Timothy Holt Accounting Assistant Finance 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3668 E tholt@slocity.org T 805.781.7448 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: ParksRec Accounts Payable <pr_ap@slocity.org> Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 11:08 AM To: Accounts Payable <ap@slocity.org> Subject: Emailing - MGT Consulting Inv 52817 PO 617413.pdf 1 Subject:Fee Study Check-In - B&S Location:Microsoft Teams Meeting Start:Thu 9/14/2023 3:30 PM End:Thu 9/14/2023 3:55 PM Show Time As:Tentative Recurrence:(none) Meeting Status:Not yet responded Organizer:Bernstorff, Rebecca Required Attendees:Loew, Michael; Cindy Sconce; Ruben Rivas Optional Attendees:Keller, Erin; Nichols, Vanessa ________________________________________________________________________________ Microsoft Teams meeting Join on your computer, mobile app or room device Click here to join the meeting Or call in (audio only) + Find a local number | Reset PIN Learn More | Meeting options ________________________________________________________________________________ 1 Subject:Touch Base - Fee Study Numbers Location:Microsoft Teams Meeting Start:Thu 9/14/2023 3:00 PM End:Thu 9/14/2023 3:25 PM Recurrence:(none) Meeting Status:Accepted Organizer:Pringle, Brendan Required Attendees:Harvey, Billy ________________________________________________________________________________ Microsoft Teams meeting Join on your computer, mobile app or room device Click here to join the meeting Or call in (audio only) + Find a local number | Reset PIN Learn More | Meeting options ________________________________________________________________________________ 1 Subject:Fee Study Check-In - Planning Location:Microsoft Teams Meeting Start:Thu 9/14/2023 1:00 PM End:Thu 9/14/2023 1:30 PM Show Time As:Tentative Recurrence:(none) Meeting Status:Not yet responded Organizer:Bernstorff, Rebecca Required Attendees:Cindy Sconce; Corey, Tyler; Cohen, Rachel; Leveille, Brian ________________________________________________________________________________ Microsoft Teams meeting Join on your computer, mobile app or room device Click here to join the meeting Or call in (audio only) + Find a local number | Reset PIN Learn More | Meeting options ________________________________________________________________________________ 1 Subject:Fire & B&S Fee Study Check-In Location:Microsoft Teams Meeting Start:Wed 9/20/2023 4:30 PM End:Wed 9/20/2023 4:55 PM Recurrence:(none) Meeting Status:Accepted Organizer:Bernstorff, Rebecca Required Attendees:Cindy Sconce; Ruben Rivas; Loew, Michael; Maggio, Rodger Quick check-in on deliverables for the Fire and B&S teams. Thanks! ________________________________________________________________________________ Microsoft Teams meeting Join on your computer, mobile app or room device Click here to join the meeting Or call in (audio only) + Find a local number | Reset PIN Learn More | Meeting options ________________________________________________________________________________ 1 Subject:Fee Study Location:Mike's Office Start:Thu 9/21/2023 1:00 PM End:Thu 9/21/2023 1:50 PM Recurrence:(none) Organizer:Loew, Michael Call Handling Mode 2:2 To discuss the next steps on the fee study. We will need to schedule time on Thursday afternoon or Friday morning to complete a few more spreadsheets. -Mike 1 Subject:Fee Study Check-In Location:Whitney's Office Start:Mon 10/9/2023 11:00 AM End:Mon 10/9/2023 12:00 PM Show Time As:Tentative Recurrence:(none) Meeting Status:Not yet responded Organizer:Bernstorff, Rebecca Required Attendees:Bernstorff, Rebecca; McDonald, Whitney; Jackson, Emily Optional Attendees:Tway, Timothea (Timmi) Call Handling Mode 2:2 Hi there, This was the soonest date I could find for us to meet to discuss (I will provide all materials closer to our meeting):  Fee Study update and schedule for Council (study session, public hearing, adoption)  Communications plan  Credit card surcharge pass through  Business Roundtable Initiative impacts on Fee Study (and other processes) 1 Subject:Park Impact Fee Calculations Location:Microsoft Teams Meeting Start:Tue 10/17/2023 3:00 PM End:Tue 10/17/2023 4:00 PM Show Time As:Tentative Recurrence:(none) Meeting Status:Not yet responded Organizer:Taylor, Brent Required Attendees:Bernstorff, Rebecca; Pringle, Brendan; Avakian, Greg Purpose of meeting is to discuss the Park Impact Fee calculation provided by DTA and to discuss: See attached spreadsheet (Parks tab) for calculation and notes from DTA. Additional Notes from DTA on the fee: ________________________________________________________________________________ Microsoft Teams meeting Join on your computer, mobile app or room device 2 Click here to join the meeting Download Teams | Join on the web Learn More | Meeting options ________________________________________________________________________________ I. Inventory of Existing General Government Facilities Facility Facility Units Quantity Buildings Square Feet 16,825 Land Acres 1.28 Vehicles Vehicles 48 Equipment Integrated Unit 1 II. Existing General Government Facilities EDU Calculation Land Use Type Number of Persons Served Number of Units/ Non-Res 1,000 SF Residents per Unit/ Persons Served per 1,000 Non-Res. SF EDUs per Unit/ per 1,000 Non-Res SF Total Number of EDUs Residential 47,788 22,845 2.09 1.00 22,845 Subtotal Residential 47,788 22,845 22,845 Hotel 999 1,598 0.63 0.60 955 Commercial Retail 8,609 6,261,332 1.38 1.31 8,231 Office 5,618 3,745,250 1.50 1.43 5,371 Industrial 3,325 4,433,036 0.75 0.72 3,179 Institutional / Other 723 482,104 1.50 1.43 691 Subtotal Non-residential 19,274 NA NA NA 18,428 Total 67,062 41,273 III. Existing Facility Standard Facility Units per Facility Type [3]Facility Units Quantity 1,000 Persons Served Buildings Square Feet 16,825 251 Land Acres 1 0.019 Vehicles Vehicles 48 0.716 Equipment Integrated Unit 1 0.015 IV. Future General Government Facilities EDU Calculation Land Use Type Number of Persons Served Number of Units/ Non-Res 1,000 SF Residents per Unit/ Persons Served per 1,000 Non-Res. SF EDUs per Unit/ per 1,000 Non-Res SF Total Number of EDUs Residential 9,379 4,483 2.09 1.00 4,483 Subtotal Residential 9,379 4,483 NA NA 4,483 Hotel 87 140 0.63 0.60 83 Commercial Retail 753 547,476 1.38 1.31 720 Office 491 327,476 1.50 1.43 470 Industrial 291 387,614 0.75 0.72 278 Institutional / Other 63 42,154 1.50 1.43 60 Subtotal Non-Residential 1,685 757,244 NA NA 1,611 Total 11,064 NA NA 6,095 V. Future Facility Standard Facility UnitsFacilities Units Funded Facility Type Facility Units per 1,000 Persons Served by New Development Buildings Square Feet 251 2,776 Land Acres 0.019 0.211 Vehicles Vehicles 0.716 7.919 Equipment Integrated Unit 0.014912 0.165 VI. General Government Summary Cost Data Facility Units Funded Total Facility Cost for Cost Facility Type Facility Units by Future Development Cost Per Unit Future Development per EDU Buildings Square Feet 2,776 $750 $2,081,835 $342 Land Acres 0.211 $1,577,093 $333,041 $55 Vehicles Vehicles 7.919 $62,146 $492,133 $81 Equipment Integrated Unit 0.165 $4,176,289 $689,002 $113 Offsetting Revenue $0 Total $3,596,011 $590 VII Land Use Fees Units / Sq. Ft Costs Financed by DIF Residential $590 4,483 $2,645,321 Hotel $353 140 $49,264 Commercial Retail $776 547,476 $424,658 Office $846 327,476 $277,103 Industrial $423 387,614 $163,996 Institutional / Other $846 42,154 $35,670 $3,596,011 VIII Land Use Fees Units / Sq. Ft Costs Financed by DIF Residential $0.39 4,483 $2,645,321 Hotel $353 140 $49,264 Commercial Retail $0.78 547,476 $424,658 Office $0.85 327,476 $277,103 Industrial $0.42 387,614 $163,996 Institutional / Other $0.85 42,154 $35,670 $3,596,011 IXI Land Use Fees APPENDIX A-1 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA POLICE FACILITIES FACILITIES FEE CALCULATION Single Family (per SF)$0.39 Multi-Family (per SF) $0.39 Mobile Home (per SF)$0.39 Hotel (per room) $353 Commercial Retail (per SF) $0.78 Office (per SF)$0.85 Industrial (per SF)$0.42 Institutional / Other (per SF) $0.85 Table I - Inventory of Existing Facilities This table contains the inventory numbers provided to DTA by the City Note: Since the Equipment and Property Total of $4,176,289 is not divided by any units - it is described as one integrated unit Table II - Existing Facilities EDU Calculations These are the current Demographics and land use numbers generated by DTA This is how Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDUs) are calculated Table III - Existing Facility Standards - This table calculates the Level of Service (LOS) DTA uses the information from Table 1 to determine the existing facility standards per 1,000 residents This is the basis for calculating the Level of Service (LOS) which is the basis of this methodology Current 2023 level of service standards are as follows For every 1,000 persons served there are 251 square feet of building space. For every 1,000 persons served there are .019 acres of land For every 1,000 persons served there are .716 vehicles For every 1,000 persons served there are .015 units of equipment Persons Served Assumption (example) 1,000 residents = 1000 persons served 1000 employees = (1,000 x 50%) = 500 persons served Table IV - Existing Facility Standards These are the projected Demographics and land use numbers (Growth) out to 2043 generated by DTA This is the "Delta" in growth between 2023 and 2043 Table V - Future Facility Standards This table presents the new development that must be added to maintain the same level of service calculated in Table III. Maintain 2043 level of service standards are as follows For every 1,000 persons served there are 251 square feet of building space. For every 1,000 persons served there are .019 acres of land For every 1,000 persons served there are .716 vehicles For every 1,000 persons served there are .015 units of equipment Table VI - Future Facility Standards This table calculates the total facility costs for new development and the EDUs. Table VII- Land Use Costs This table presents calculated residential fees per unit and non-residential per square foot and room Table VIII- Land Use Costs This table presents calculated residential fees per square foot using information from the table below and non-residential fees per square foot and room Average Square Feet (Per Building Permit Information) Single Family Residential 1,847 Multi Family Residential 1,000 Combined Ave Square Feet 1,531 Calculated Fee per Sq. Ft.$0.39 Table IX- Land Use Costs This Table presents the development Impact Fees as they are presented in this study. I. Inventory of Fire & Rescue Facilities Facility Facility Units Quantity Buildings Square Feet 26,822 Land Acres 4.14 Vehicles Vehicles 31.0 Equipment Integrated Unit 1.0 II. Existing Fire & Rescue Facilities EDU Calculation Land Use Type Number of Persons Served Number of Units/ Non-Res 1,000 SF Residents per Unit/ Persons Served per 1,000 Non-Res. SF EDUs per Unit/ per 1,000 Non-Res SF Total Number of EDUs Residential 47,788 22,845 2.09 1.00 22,845 Subtotal Residential 47,788 22,845 NA NA 22,845 Hotel 999 1,598 0.63 0.60 955 Commercial Retail 8,609 6,261,332 1.38 1.31 8,231 Office 5,618 3,745,250 1.50 1.43 5,371 Industry 3,325 4,433,036 0.75 0.72 3,179 Institutional / Other 723 482,104 1.50 1.43 691 Subtotal Non-Residential 19,274 14,923,320 18,428 Total 67,062 NA NA 41,273 III. Existing Facility Standard Facility Units per Facility Type [3]Facility Units Quantity1,000 Persons Served Buildings Square Feet 26,822 400 Land Acres 4.14 0.062 Vehicles Vehicles 31 0.462 Equipment Integrated Unit 1 0.015 IV. Future Fire & Rescue Facilities EDU Calculation Land Use Type Number of Persons Served [1] Number of Units/ Non-Res 1,000 SF Residents per Unit/ Persons Served per 1,000 Non-Res. SF] EDUs per Unit/ per 1,000 Non-Res SF Total Number of EDUs Residential 9,379 4,483 2.09 1.00 4,483 Subtotal Residential 9,379 4,483 NA NA 4,483 Hotel 87 140 0.63 0.60 83 Commercial Retail 753 547,476 1.38 1.31 720 Office 491 327,476 1.50 1.43 470 Industry 291 387,614 0.75 0.72 278 Institutional / Other 63 42,154 1.50 1.43 60 Subtotal Non-Residential 1,685 1,304,859 NA NA 1,611 Total 11,064 NA NA 6,095 47,367 V. Future Facility Standard Fire Existing Funds Balance Facility UnitsFacilities Units Funded Facility Type Facility Units per 1,000 Persons Served by New Development Buildings Square Feet 400 4,425 Land Acres 0.062 0.682 Vehicles Vehicles 0.462 5.114 Equipment Integrated Unit 0.014912 0.165 VI. General Fire & Rescue Summary Cost Data Facility Units Funded Total Facility Cost for Facility Type Facility Units by Future Development Cost Per Unit Future Development Cost per EDU Buildings Square Feet 4,425 $1,000 $4,425,081 $726 Land Acres 0.682 $1,577,093 $1,076,138 $177 Vehicles Vehicles 5.114 $480,560 $2,457,760 $403 Equipment Integrated Unit 0.165 $4,584,337 $756,322 $124 Ofsetting Revenue $0 Total $8,715,300 $1,430 VII Land Use Fees Units / Sq. Ft Costs Financed by DIF Residential $1,430 4,483 $6,411,205 Hotel $855 140 $119,395 Commercial Retail $1,880 547,476 $1,029,201 Office $2,051 327,476 $671,588 Industry $1,025 387,614 $397,460 Institutional / Other $2,051 42,154 $86,450 $8,715,300 VIII Land Use Fees Units / Sq. Ft Costs Financed by DIF Residential $0.93 4,483 $6,411,205 Hotel $855 140 $119,395 Commercial Retail $1.88 547,476 $1,029,201 Office $2.05 327,476 $671,588 Industry $1.03 387,614 $397,460 Institutional / Other $2.05 42,154 $86,450 $8,715,300 IX Land Use Fees Single Family (per SF) $0.93 Multi-Family (per SF)$0.93 Average Square Feet Mobile Home (per SF) $0.93 Single Family Residential 1847 Hotel (per room)$855 Multi Family Residential 1000 Commercial Retail (per SF)$1.88 Office (per SF)$2.05 Industry (per SF)$1.03 Institutional / Other (per SF)$2.05 Combined Ave Square Feet 1531 Calculated Fee per Sq. Ft.$0.93 APPENDIX A-1 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA FIRE FACILITIES FEE CALCULATION Table I - Inventory of Existing Facilities This table contains the inventory numbers provided to DTA by the City Note: Since the Equipment and Property Total of $4,584,337 is not divided by any units - it is described as one integrated unit Table II - Existing Facilities EDU Calculations These are the current Demographics and land use numbers generated by DTA This is how Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDUs) are calculated Table III - Existing Facility Standards - This table calculates the Level of Service (LOS) DTA uses the information from Table 1 to determine the existing facility standards per 1,000 residents This is the basis for calculating the Level of Service (LOS) which is the basis of this methodology Current 2023 level of service standards are as follows For every 1,000 persons served there are 400 square feet of building space. For every 1,000 persons served there are .062 acres of land For every 1,000 persons served there are .462 vehicles For every 1,000 persons served there are .015 units of equipment Persons Served Assumption (example) 1,000 residents = 1000 persons served 1000 employees = (1,000 x 50%) = 500 persons served Table IV - Existing Facility Standards These are the projected Demographics and land use numbers (Growth) out to 2043 generated by DTA This is the "Delta" in growth between 2023 and 2043 Table V - Future Facility Standards This table presents the new development that must be added to maintain the same level of service calculated in Table III. Maintain 2043 level of service standards are as follows For every 1,000 persons served there are 400 square feet of building space. For every 1,000 persons served there are .062 acres of land For every 1,000 persons served there are .462 vehicles For every 1,000 persons served there are .015 units of equipment Table VI - Future Facility Standards This table calculates the total facility costs for new development and the EDUs.1 2 Table VII- Land Use Costs 3 This table presents calculated residential fees per unit and non-residential per square foot and room4 5 Table VIII- Land Use Costs 6 This table presents calculated residential fees per square foot using information from 7 the table below and non-residential fees per square foot and room 8 9 Average Square Feet (Per Building Permit Information)10 Single Family Residential 11 Multi Family Residential 12 Combined Ave Square Feet 13 Calculated Fee per Sq. Ft.14 15 16 Table IX- Land Use Costs 17 This Table presents the development Impact Fees as they are presented in this study.18