Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/05/1999, C3 - REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL FOR COST OF SERVICES STUDY council �dft D° 109-5--, j acEn& Report 1�N� CITY OF SAN LU I S O B I S P O FROM: Bill Statler,Director of Finance Prepared By: Linda Asprion, Revenue Manager SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL FOR COST OF SERVICES STUDY CAO RECONEWENDATION Approve the request for proposals (RFP) for preparing a comprehensive cost of services study; and authorize the CAO to award the contract if the best overall proposal is within the approved budget of$47,500 for this project. DISCUSSION Background Under the City's user fee cost recovery policy (pages B-6 through B-10 of the 1999-01 Financial Plan), we should review and update service charges on an ongoing basis to ensure that they keep pace with changes in the cost-of-living as well as changes in service levels and delivery methods. In implementing this policy, the City has adopted the strategy of comprehensively analyzing service costs at least every five years ("benchmark analysis"), with interim adjustments annually based on changes in the consumer price index. David M. Griffith & Associates (DMG) completed our last "benchmark analysis" in 1995. Accordingly, it is time to prepare a comprehensive evaluation of service costs and related revenues. The Council approved this work effort in the 1999-01 Financial Plan, and appropriated $47,500 for this purpose. Project Workscope The purpose of this project is to answer four basic questions: ■ What does it cost the City to provide various services? ■ Are these costs reasonable? ■ What are current cost recovery levels? ■ What fee changes are necessary to achieve adopted cost recovery policies? This study focuses on General Fund services (such as public safety, development review and recreation); however, we have also included in the workscope selected services and related charges in our enterprise operations (such as setting meters, starting new accounts and disconnecting service for non-payment)that reduce general-purpose rate requirements. CM Council Agenda Report—RFP for Cost of Services Study Page 2 --In most studies of this type, preparing a"cost allocation plan" that distributes indirect costs (like legal services, personnel, accounting and insurance) to direct cost programs (like police protection and street maintenance) in order to determine "total' service costs would be a major (and expensive) part of the workscope. However; we prepare our cost allocation plan in-house, and we plan to use it in preparing this study. Tins will result in lower costs and quicker project . completion. Asset forth.in the attached excerpt from the RFP, specific consultant tasks include: ® Reviewing existing policies, plans and cost of service information; and recommending improvements as appropriate. ■ Identifying :the total cost of providing various City services at the lowest reasonable activity level. In preparing this analysis, the consultant will use existing.policies, plans and service cost information to the maximum extent feasible. 8 Forming an opinion of the reasonableness of City costs in light of our service levels and policies as well as practices in other agencies in California. III Comparing these costs with existing recovery levels. 'this.should.include service areas where the City'is-currently charging for services as well as areas where we do not but perhaps should:in light of our cost recovery policies and practices of other cities. ® Evaluating rate structures and making recommendations as appropriate: ® Comparing existing and proposed fees in key benchmark areas with those charged by other agencies in San Luis Obispo County as well as comparable cities outside of the County. M Recommending appropriate fees and charges based on this analysis in order to achieve adopted cost recovery levels. ® Developing and presenting findings in a manner that ensures understanding, confidence and credibility by operating.staff, interested community members and policy-makers in the overall work product. INK Reporting on other matters that come to their attention in the course of their evaluation that in their professional opinion the City should consider. Evaluation and Selection Process Proposal Review. A review-team composed of representatives from Administration, Finance and the operating departments will consider the following factors in evaluating proposals and making their contract award recommendation to the CAO: ® Understanding of the work required by the City: is Quality, clarity and responsiveness of the proposal. C3-2 Council Agenda Report—RFP for Cost of Services Study page 3 11 Demonstrated competence and professional qualifications necessary for successfully performing the work.required by the City. 13 Recent experience in successfully performing similar services. 11 Proposed approach in completing the work. ❑ References. ❑ Background and experience of the specific individuals to be assigned to this project. ❑ Proposed compensation. As reflected above, we will-not award the contract based solely on price,but on a.combination of factors that represent the best overall value in completing this work. Proposal review and award schedule. The following summarizes our anticipated schedule for proposal review and contract award: ® Issue RFP 10/6 Q Hold pre-proposal conference 10/18 11 Receive proposals 11/1 0 Complete"desk top"proposal evaluation 11/5 ❑ Conduct finalist interviews 11/9 ❑ Finalize staff recommendation 11/15 ❑ Award contract 11/19 1 Execute contract 1.1/29 ❑ Start work 12/1 Based on a 90-day timeframe for completing this project, we plan to present the study findings and recommendations to the Council in April.2000. Prospective Bidders In addition to publishing a forinal notice requesting proposals, we will mail the RFP to a limited number of firms :specializing in this type of _review. who have .indicated their interest in performing this work. A list of'prospective bidders is attached. FISCAL IMPACT The projected cost for this work is $47,500. The Council has already approved funding for this study in the 1999-01 Financial Plan.(page D-142): C3-3 Council Agenda Report—RFP for Cost of Services Study Page 4 ALTERNATIVES The Council considered the following alternatives as part of the 1999-01 Financial Plan process: ■ Do nothing. We can continue using the existing 1995 DMG cost analysis as the basis for our current fees as modified by changes in the consumer price index. Based on our current policy that we should perform a comprehensive review at least every five years, we do not recommend this alternative. ■ Use in-house staff resources. Although we possess the staff capabilities to perform this type of analysis in-house, this would be a major staff project consuming considerable resources. As such, basic day-to-day core services would suffer as well as our ability to achieve other major goals and objectives. Additionally, it would take longer to complete the analysis. Lastly, there are significant advantages from a "credibility" perspective in preparing this type of analysis by an independent, third party. An option would be preparing an analysis with in-house staff that would not be as detailed or comprehensive as one prepared by a cost accounting firm,but would provide a reasonable, updated basis for setting fees. This would also require a significant investment in staff resources, but at a lower level than trying to match the caliber of the 1995 report. Either approach will require evaluating and reprioritizing existing activities, internal control procedures and objectives in order to take on this project. Based on existing staff resources and commitments—and the need for confidence in the findings of this study by operating staff, community groups and policy makers—we recommend preparing this study by an independent firm specializing in this type of analysis. ATTACHMENT ■ Workscope excerpt from the RFP for cost of services study ■ Proposers list AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW IN THE COUNCIL OFFICE RFP for cost of services study C3-4 Section A DESCRIPTION OF WORK 1. OVERVIEW Under the City's user fee cost recovery policy, the City reviews and updates service charges on an ongoing basis to ensure that they keep pace with changes in the cost-of-living as well as changes service levels and delivery methods. In implementing this policy,the City has adopted a strategy of comprehensively analyzing service costs and related revenues every five years, with interim adjustments annually based on changes in the consumer price index. David M. Griffith and Associates prepared our last "benchmark" analysis under this approach in 1995. Accordingly, it is time to prepare a comprehensive evaluation of service costs and related revenues. 2. PROJECT GOALS The primary purpose of this project is to answer four basic questions: a. What does it cost the.City to provide various services? b. Are these costs reasonable? C. What are current cost recovery levels? d. What fee changes are necessary to achieve adopted cost recovery policies? 3. GENERAL FUND FOCUS—OPERATING PROGRAMS Rate setting for our enterprise operations (water, sewer, parking, transit and golf) is not part of the workscope of this project; its primary focus is on General Fund operating services - public safety, development review, parks & recreation, and other General Fund operations. However, selected services and related charges in our enterprise operations(such as setting meters, starting new accounts, disconnecting service for non-payment), which reduce general-purpose rate requirements, are included m the workscope. Since the focus is on cost recovery for ongoing services,evaluating development impact fees related to capital improvement financing is not part of this workscope. 4. WORK ALREADY PERFORMED BY THE CITY a. User fee cost recovery policy. The City has adopted a comprehensive user fee cost recovery policy, which sets forth an overall framework for evaluating cost recovery factors, and establishes specific user fee goals. Although we want the consultant's review and comments on this policy, we expect it to form the primary foundation for determining cost recovery levels. The policy for user fees and enterprise fund charges is provided in pages B-6 through B-10 of the enclosed 1999-01 Financial Plan. b. Cost allocation plan. The City has developed an in-house model for allocating organization-wide indirect costs to direct costs. Again, although we want the consultant's review and comments on this plan,we anticipate continuing to use this plan in allocating indirect costs in the future and expect it to be used in identifying service LJ J -1- costs as part of this study. The 1997-99 cost allocation plan is enclosed. City staff will update this for 1999-01 by the time this project starts. C. Labor rates. Provided in Appendix A is a comprehensive listing of labor rates for all City positions based on salary,benefits,and indirect costs. d. Comprehensive fee listing. As part of our Revenue Manual, we have compiled a comprehensive listing of City service charges. Current fees are provided in Appendix B. e. Program and activity costs. As part of the 1999-01 Financial Plan, the City has identified direct costs for over 70 programs and approximately 600 activities. Operating program goals and costs are comprehensively set forth in Section D of the enclosed 1999-01 Financial Plan. 5. CONSULTANT WORKSCOPE a. Review existing policies, plans and cost of service information, and offer comments and recommendations for improvement as appropriate. b. Identify total cost of providing various City services at the lowest reasonable activity level. As discussed above, the primary focus of this analysis is on General Fund fees, although selected enterprise fund charges will be included. In preparing this.analysis, the consultant should use existing policies, plans and service cost information to the maximum extent feasible. C. Form an opinion of the reasonableness of City costs, given City service levels and policies as well as practices in other agencies in California. d. Compare these costs with existing recovery levels. This should include service areas where the City is currently charging for services as well as areas where we do not but perhaps should in light of our cost recovery policies and practices of other cities. C. Recommend appropriate fees and charges based on this analysis in order to achieve adopted cost recovery levels. f. Evakiate rate structures and make recommendations as appropriate. g. Compare existing and proposed fees in key benchmark areas with those charged by other agencies in San Luis Obispo County as well as comparable cities outside of the County. Comparable Cities San Luis Obispo County Agencies Davis Arroyo Grande Monterey Atascadero Napa Grover Beach Palm Springs Morro Bay Petaluma Paso Robles Santa Barbara Pismo Beach Santa Cruz County of San Luis Obispo Santa Maria Ventura Visalia -2- h. Develop and present findings in a manner that ensure understanding, confidence and credibility by operating staff, interested community members and policy-makers in the overall work product. i. Produce a final report that summarizes key results and findings; describes each service; identifies its cost, key cost components and current cost recovery level; recommends new fees based on this analysis and the City's cost recovery goals; assesses the reasonableness of City costs; and compares current and recommended fees with benchmark fee areas in identified agencies. j. Report on other matters that come to your attention in the course of your evaluation that in your professional opinion the City should consider. In summary, we expect a final product that reflects technical excellence as well as a strong policy orientation. 6. PROJECT COMPLETION We would like to complete this project—including presentation of findings and recommendations to the Council—within 90 days after contract execution. Assuming a contract award date of December 1, 1999, policy recommendations would be presented to Council in April 2000. 7. PROJECT BUDGET The City has budgeted$47,500 for consultant assistance in completing this work. s -3- PROPOSERS LIST COST OF SERVICES STUDY SPECIFICATION NO. 90036 Arthur Anderson David Taussig&Associates Mr.David Azevedo 425 University Ave. Suite 110 1 Market Plaza Sacramento,CA 95825 San Francisco,CA 94105 Phone No. 916-920-1109 Phone No: 415-546-8701 Contact: Susan Goodwin Fax No: 415-546-8701 Economic Research Associates KPMG Peat Marwick 964 Fifth Avenue, Suite 214 Mr.Tom Snow San Diego,CA 92101 725 Figueroa Street Phone No. 619-544-1402 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Contact:Bill Andersen Phone No: 213-972-4000 Fax No: 213-955-8858 Reiter Lowry Consultants 11417 W. Bernardo Court Price,Coopers&Lybrand San Diego,CA 92127-1639 Mr.Lynn Edelson Phone No.619-675-4400 350 S.Grand Avenue Contact: Gregg Lowry Los Angeles,CA 90071-3405 Phone No: 213-356-6000 MBIA MuniFinancial Fax No: 213-356-6363 28765 Single Oak Drive Temecula,CA 92590-3361 Deloitte&Touche Phone: 800-755-6864 60 S.Market Street Contact: Bob Spencer San Jose, CA 95113-2303 Phone No: 408-998-4000 Revenue Cost Specialists, LLC Fax No: 408-998-3083 2545 E.Chapman, Suite 103 •Fullerton,CA 92831 Phone No. 714-992-9020 DMG-Maximus,Inc. Contact: Scott Thorpe 4320 Auburn Blvd., Suite 2000 Sacramento, CA 95841 Kosmont&Associates Phone No.916-485-8102 601 South Figueroa Street, Suite 4895 Contact: Joe Colgan or Erin Payton Los Angeles,CA 90017 Phone No. 213-623-8484 Fax No.213-623-8288 C3-8 IMUSte COST RECOVERY STUDY FINDINGS . i CITY OF SAN.LUIS O.BISPO;.CAUFORNIA NOVEMBER, 2000 1 . 430 Fifth Stieet,.Ste. F + Lake Oswego, OR 97034 503.534.0463 Faz: 503.534.0.465 • . . - • - �. _ - ' -. . . �. ' , . . � �. -. � .' 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE Executive Summary Project Scope and Objectives i Summary of Findings 2 Copies of Public Records 7 Cost Recovery Policy Issues 8 Economic Considerations 9 Methodology 12 Report Organization 12 ' Public Safety II. Police Protection 13 III. Fire and Environmental Safety 16 Public Utilities IV. Water 21 Wastewater 21 Leisure,Cultural,&Social Services V. Parks and Recreation 30 Vl. Tree Maintenance 34 Community Development VII. Planning 37 VIII. Building&Safety 41 ' IX Engineering 43 Appendix A CUPA Fees 46 Appendix B Comparison Statistics q Appendix C Reasonableness of Service Costs 6o Appendix D Copies of Public Records-Calculations 67 Appendix E Planning Fees—Optional Recoveries 68 Appendix F city of San LUIS OBISpo User Fee Cost Recovery Policy 69 SECTI01`I I EXECUTIVE. SUMMARY i 1 1 � . i f DMG MAXIMUS, Inc is a subsidiary ofMNUMUS, Inc and a nationwide consulting firm offermg a wide array of services for state and local government. A sample of the services offered include cost analysis, revenue enhancementstudies,executive searches;performance measurement and managementstu&es PROJECT SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES DMG-MAXIMUS was engaged by the City of San Luis Obispo to conduct a detailed user fee cost recovery ' study. A similar study was undertaken in 1995 and the information contained in this report provides some information as to how the city has progressed in its desire to achieve stated cost recovery goals. The scope of the project is defined by the following questions: What does it cost the city to provide various fee-related services? ' ° Are these costs reasonable? What are current cost recovery levels? ° What fee changes are necessary to achieve recommended cost recovery levels? ° What changes to current revenues can the city expect if recommended fees are implemented? ' DMG-MAXIMUS,with direction and coordination from the Finance Department,performed the following tasks in order to address these issues: • Interview departments that currently provide or could potentially provide user fee activities. ■ Assess service costs with revenues currently received for these activities, and identify any subsidies. • Identify service areas where the city might increase fees based on the full cost of services and ' other economic or policy considerations. Present selected comparisons showing what other cities and counties are charging for similar ' services. Analyze organizational issues that could impact the reasonableness of the city's cost of tproviding services. The study provides the City of San Luis Obispo with cost-of-service information that it can consider, ' together with existing city policy for fee-setting purposes. The results will show both an increase in user tee revenues and a corresponding decrease in the general fund (or public utilities fund) subsidization of these services. However, some fees may be decreased, thus reducing the user fee ' revenues. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS This report summarizes our findings on cost recovery and other considerations for the city's user fee services. Detailed discussions cover the following functions and programs: Public Safety Police Protection Fire and Environmental Safety Public Utilities Water 1 Wastewater Leisure,Cultural,&Social Services Parks and Recreation Tree Maintenance Community Development Planning Building&Safety Engineering A brief discussion on the cost of providing copies of public records, which has minimal impact on general fund revenues, is found in the next section of this Executive Summary and cost calculations are included in Appendix D. Also, an additional discussion of the city's Hazardous Material United ' Program Agency (CUPA) fees is provided in Appendix A. CUPA fees combine costs from the Fire and Wastewater Pretreatment departments. Exhibit I. The first task in this study was to separate fee-for-service activities from non-fee activities within the functions and programs surveyed. Not all activities are recoverable from user fees: fire suppression or police patrol services, for example. These activities and their corresponding costs are identified and excluded. Further, this report does not address other revenue sources such as development impact fees (as defined under AB 1600),franchise fees,fines, or taxes (such as transient occupancy or business taxes). The distribution of total operational or program costs is displayed in I Exhibit I (page 4). The focus of this analysis is on the information under the column heading, "Costs, User Fee Services." Exhibit II. In cooperation with city staff, DMG-MAXIMUS developed cost and revenue estimates based on fiscal 1999-oo budgets for zoo fee and non-fee services. The results of the analysis show that for activities typically supported by fees,the city is expending$5.0 million while recovering$2.9 million in related revenue, resulting in a subsidy of $2.1 million. Exhibit II (page 5) presents the source of funds for user fee services. The cost recovery levels at the program level range from 267 for Wastewater Pretreatment, up to 1077 for Building. Within each program, individual fee recoveries range from o% (there is no fee currently charged), to a slight over-recovery of costs for selected fees. The information about individual fees may be found in subsequent sections of this report. Overall, the city is experiencing a recovery level of 577 for all user fees. 2 1 The city has experienced measurable increases in its cost recovery levels since the 1995 study. In 1995, the overall cost recovery level for the general fund was 38%and in 2000 that recovery rate increased to 55%. The utility fund cost recovery level (for user fee services only;this does not address basic utility rate revenues)was 51%in 1995 and increased to 68% in 20oo. The combined cost recovery level for the two funds has increased from 4076 to 5776. Exhibit III. The study's primary objective is to provide the city's decision-makers with basic data needed for setting fees. This report details the full cost of services and presents proposed fees and projected revenues based on previously established city policy on user fee cost recovery levels. In some instances, this report is recommending modifications to the city's policies, which will have an effect on cost recovery levels. This will be discussed further in the Cost Recovery Policy Issues of this Executive Summary. Exhibit III (page 6) summarizes the report's financial analysis of the city's user fee program. It is estimated that adoption of city policy on cost recovery would increase the specified fee revenue by $412,768 (a 14% increase over the current revenue total). The general fund's portion of this increased revenue is$263,307 and the utility fund's portion is$149.461• In 1995 the potential increase in user fee revenue was $1,448,871 which was an 82% increase over the current revenues. The decrease in potential revenues in 2000 reflects the fact that the city is coming much closer to achieving its cost recovery goals. 3 1 Exhibit I ' City of San Luis Obispo TOTAL COSTS BY FUNCTION Total Costs, User Costs, Other O eration/Pro ram Costs Fee Services services tCiFNFRAL FUND POLICE PROTECTION $8,851,103 $186,495 z% $8,664,6o8 98% FIRE-EMERGENCY RESPONSE $5,982,970 $33,639 1% $5.949,331 99% FIRE-HAZARD PREVENTION $527,489 $204,746 39% $322,743 61% PARKS AND RECREATION $2,691,502 $2,039,983 76% $651,519 24% I TREE MAINTENANCE $357.782 $33,467 9% $324,315 91% DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 51,667,333 $1,025,315 61% S642,o18 39% BUILDING&SAFETY $875,362 $821,735 94% $53,627 6% ENGINEERING $1,355,o86 $233-747 17% $1,121,340 83% Subtotal General Fund $22,3o8,628 $4,579,127 21% $17,729,501 79% WATER Ar SEWER F INDS UTILITIES CONSERVATION OFFICE $509,391 $72,126 14% $437,265 86% WATER DISTR&CUSTOMER SVCS $1,208,502 S2o4,98o 17% $1,003,522 83% WASTEWATER COLLECTION $7o8,144 $2,659 0.38% $705,485 99.62% WASTEWATER PRETREATMENT $248,094 5186, o8 % $61,386 25% Subtotal Water&Sewer Funds $2,674,131 $466,473 17% $2,207,658 83% Grand.Total: $24, 82. $ ,04 ,600 20% $1 ji5o 8o%hu City of San Luis Obispo 0Costs.User Fee Services ®Costs,Other Services POLICE PROTECTION FIRE-EMERGENCY RESPONSE FIRE-HAZARD PREVENTION ' PARKS AND RECREATION TREE MAINTENANCE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BUILDING&SAFETY ENGINEERING UTILITIES CONSERVATION OFFICE ' WATER DISTR&CUSTOMER SVCS WASTEWATER COLLECTION ' WASTEWATER PRETREATMENT so $1.500,000 $3,000,000 $4,500,000 $6,000,000 $7.500,000 $9.000,000 4 City of San Luis Obispo Exhibit II 1 SOURCE OF FUNDS - User fee Activities - Costs,User funded by . Opera Non/Pro ram Fee Services User fees Subsidy GENERAL FUND POLICE PROTECTION $186,495 $144.080 77% $42,415 23% FIRE-EMERGENCY RESPONSE $33.639 $28,505 85% $5.134 15% FIRE-HAZARD PREVENTION $204,746 $136,266 67% $68,48o 3376 PARKS AND RECREATION $2,039.983 $858,675 42% $1,181,3o8 58% TREE MAINTENANCE $33.467 $10,137 30% $23,330 70% DEVELOPMENT REVIEW $1,025.315 $321.240 31% $704,075 69% 1 BUILDING&SAFETY $821,735 $875.209 107% ($53474) -7% ENGINEERING $233,747 $209,802 o% $23.945 10% Subtotal General Fund $4,579.127 $2,583.914 56% $1,995,212 44% ' WATER Sr SEWER FUNDS UTILITIES CONSERVATION OFFICE $72,126 $63,000 87% $9,126 13% WATER DISTR&CUSTOMER SVCS $2o4,98o $203,4o6 99% $1.574 1% WASTEWATER COLLECTION $2.659 $2,604 98% $55 2% WASTEWATER PRETREATMENT $186,708 $48,002 26% $138,7o6 74% Subtotal Water&Sewer Funds $466,473 $317,012 68% $149.461 32% Grand Total: $ ,04 ,600 $2,900,226 % 52,144.6 4 1 City of San Luis Obispo D Funded by User Fees 0 Subsidy 1POLICE PROTECT] N FIRE-EM - EMERGENCY RESPO E FIRE-HAZARD PREVENT] IN y PARKS AND RECREATIC N - - TREE MAINTENAN E 1 _ mow DEVELOPMENT REVI BUILDING&SAFE ENGINEERING 1 UTILITIES CONSERVATION OFF] E WATER DISTR&CUSTOMER SV S WASTEWATER COLLECTION _ WASTEWATER PRETREATME T ' ($54,000) S446,000 $946,000 $1.446,000 $i.946,000 5 Exhibit III City of San Luis Obispo USER FEE REVENUE ANALYSIS Revenues @ Increased/ . Costs, User Current City (Decreased) O erasion/Proram : fee.Services Subsidy fees Polic Level. Revenue GFNFRAL FUND POLICE PROTECTION $186,495 $42.415 $144,080 5186,495 $42.415 FIRE-EMERGENCY RESPONSE $33.639 $5.134 $28,505 $33.639 $5.134 FIRE-HAZARD PREVENTION $204,746 $68,48o $136,266 $204,746 $68,48o PARKS AND RECREATION $2,039.983 $1,181.3o8 $858.675 $858.675 $0 TREE MAINTENANCE $33.467 $23.330 $10,137 $23.384 $13,247 � DEVELOPMENT REVIEW $1,025,315 $704.075 $321,240 $477.78o $156,540 . BUILDING&SAFETY $821,735 ($53474) $875.209 $828,756 ($46,453) ENGINEERING $233,747 $23,94S $209.802 $233,747 $23,945 Subtotal General Fund $4.579.127 $1,995,212 $2,583.914 $2,847,221 $263,307 WAT R&r W R FUNDS UTILITIES CONSERVATION OFFICE $72,126 $9,126 $63,000 972,126 $9,126 WATER DISTR&CUSTOMER SVCS $204,98o $1.574 $203,4o6 $204,98o $1,574 WASTEWATER COLLECTION $2,659 $55 $2,604 $2.659 $55 WASTEWATER PRETREATMENT $186,7o8 $1 8, o6 $48,002 $186,7o8 $138,706 Subtotal Water&Sewer Funds $466,473 $149.461 $317.012 $466.473 $149,461 Grand Total: $5,045,600 $2,144,6 $z; oo; 26 $3.313.694 $412; 68 CURRENT FEES 0 1 NCREASE/DECREASE-GEN FD 0I NCREASE/DECREASE-UTI L CURRENT FEES $2,900,926 87.5% INCREASE-GENERAL FD 1 $263,307 8.07 SJIWCREASE-PUBLIC UTILITY FD $149.461 4.57 USER FEE REVENUE @ CITY POLICY LEVEL: $3,313,694 6 COPIES OF PUBLIC RECORDS The city is currently charging a copying fee of $0.30 per page. Government Code Section 6257 provides ' that a public agency may charge only for the "direct costs of duplication of public records." The term "direct costs" has been determined to mean the cost of running the copy machine, including staff costs (salary and benefits) to make the copy, the cost of equipment maintenance and repair, equipment depreciation,and the cost of apiece of paper. It does not allow for any overhead costs associated with the staff time, nor does it allow for time associated with researching and locating the record, replacing the record back in the file or archive,or collecting the fee. As part of this study,we did a time and motion study to determine the amount of time necessary to make a single copy. We developed three different options for cost recovery for copies of public records,which consider three different scenarios for actual time spent on this service. The cost of equipment maintenance and repair and a per-page price for paper remains the same in the three scenarios(please see Appendix D of this report for a display of the calculations). DMG-MAXIMUS recommends that the city adopt a fee of $0.35 per page,which is a$0.05 increase over the current fee. 1 This fee should also carry forward to the Police Protection operation's fee schedule to cover the cost of providing copies of reports. The current fee charged for document reproduction in the Police Protection ' operation includes all of the disallowed components described above, and therefore DMG-MAXIMUS recommends that the city replace that fee with the fee charged for copies of public records. 7 COST RECOVERY POLICY ISSUES 1 The city's user fee cost recovery policies and objectives are published annually in the financial plan. A copy of this policy is included in this report as Appendix F. The majority of proposed fee increases in this study reflect adherence to this policy. However,there are some instances where DMG-MAXIMUS and city staff are proposing fee increases(or new fees)that fall outside of the guidelines described in the financial plan. We are also proposing some modifications to the policy document. The following section highlights some of these changes,together with other study findings of note. ' ■ Police Protection. As discussed in the section above, we are recommending that the document reproduction fee (currently set at a base fee of$11.20) be replaced with a$0.35 per page copying fee,in order to comply with the California Public Records Act. We are also recommending that the false alarm ' fee be increased to cover the cost of the alarm company who handles the city's billings. • Fire and Environmental Safety. There are several findings of note for this operation. First,we are ' recommending that the false alarm fee be increased to cover the cost of the alarm company who handles the city's billings. Second,DMG-MAXIMUS notes that the city is not currently charging fees for emergency medical responses or engine company inspections. The cost of emergency medical responses is partially offset by revenues transferred from the city's ambulance companies, but DMG- MAMMUS recommends the city consider undertaking a study to determine the feasibility of charging its own fees,as many other public agencies do. We also recommend the city consider charging fees for engine company inspections, as other agencies do. Finally,we are presenting new fee proposals for the city's CUPA program. ■ Public Utilities_ The new CUPA fee proposals will also have an impact on this fund's revenues as the ' Wastewater Pretreatment program participates in these services. Within the Water program there is one fee activity that is currently recovering significantly less than t00%of cost- unlimited account set- up fees charged to housing management companies. The city negotiated a reduced price to be ' charged to the two management companies in town,with the understanding that these agencies would "bundle"their requests for new accounts-ideally reducing city staff time to process the requests. The analysis shows that the fee should be set considerably higher in order to recover t00% of cost. City staff may want to re-negotiate this fee, but they will likely negotiate a fee that continues to under- recover cost. ' ■ Parks and Recreation. This report is recommending some revisions to the language in the city's cost recovery policy with respect to recreation programs. The city's cost recovery policy sets a number of goals for recreation programs and provides specific goals for each program area City staff is proposing a modification to this policy. They recommend eliminating the assignment of cost recovery goals to each individual program area Rather,they would like to group programs within each targeted range (high-, mid-, and low-range) and allow the revenues to fluctuate, but stay within the assigned range. This would better allow them to be able to assign the programs to the ranges,based on market- driven factors,and the cost recovery policies that are outlined in the financial plan. City staff is also recommending that the council consider implementing alternatives to fee increases (described in detail in Section V)that may have a positive impact on revenues. 8 ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS 1 User fee services are those performed by a governmental agency on behalf of a private citizen or group. ' The assumption underlying most fee recommendations is that the costs of services benefiting individuals, and not society as a whole, should be borne by the individual receiving the benefit. Setting user fees, therefore,is essentially equivalent to establishing prices for services. Making a profit is not an objective of local government in providing services to the general public It is commonly felt that fees should be established at a level which will recover the cost of providing each service-no more,no less. ' There are circumstances, however, in which it might be regarded as a reasonable policy to set fees at a level that does not reflect the full cost of providing the service. This results in the costs of service being subsidized,or paid for by the general fund,while the user receives benefits for which he or she does not ' fully pay for. The following factors underlie such policies: Elasticity-of-Demand. The price charged for a service can affect the quantity demanded by potential users. In many instances, increasing the price of a service results in fewer units of the service being purchased Whether total revenue goes up, goes down or stays the same can be correlated to the magnitude of the fee change and resulting shift in volume demanded. EconomicJn.cewiNtesLDisincentiv_es. In some cases it maybe desirable to use fees as a means of encouraging or discouraging certain activities. As an example,higher fees for increased water usage may promote better water conservation. 1 Competitive-Restraints. Although a city may have a monopoly on providing certain services within its boundaries, citizens or businesses may choose private sector services with lower fees. For example, demand for park or recreation services is highly dependent on what else may be available at lower prices. Subsidization-Policy. Subsidies are usually provided for two purposes: to permit an identified group to ' participate in services that they might not otherwise be able to afford,or the benefit that activity provides extends to the community,as well as the individual purchasing the service. Many activities, by their nature, provide additional societal benefits beyond those provided to the immediate recipient. Therefore,it may be appropriate to spread the cost of certain services over the large base of potential beneficiaries,not only to direct purchasers. ' The decision matrix on the following page helps to illustrate the analysis used when comparing user benefit versus appropriate taxpayer subsidies. The four rows identify different activities that have varying levels of individual and public benefit. Row one lists the characteristics of an activity that is appropriately funded by ' taxpayers. Row four lists the characteristics of a user fee for which the individual benefiting from the service should pay. The two middle rows show varying levels of cost and benefit between the two extremes. The matrix does not provide absolute answers-there may be many activities that fail somewhere ' between classifications. It is intended to assist in the determination of the economic and political viability of setting user fees. ' 10 1 General Fund Subsidy vs. User Fees Decision-making flow Chart ' 1NH0 TYPE OF TAX v.s. FEES BENEFITS SERVICE POLICY MIX ' (i) Community Public t00% Taxes Primarily the Communis Mostly Taxes (2) with less Individual Public/Private & Some Fees Benefits Primarily the Individual Mostly Fees (3) with less Community Private/Public & Some Taxes Benefits 1 (4) Individual Private t00% Fees Benefit Only ' Examples of service that fall under each category: ' (i) - Police Patrol Services (z)-Code Enforcement Activities . (3)-Youth Sports or Senior Services (4)- Development-Related Fees u 1 METHODOLOGY The user fee activity costs developed in this study were generated through a proprietary DMG-MAXIMUS computer model designated as the FASTR System Tee And Service Iechnical Review). In addition to ' producing the costs of fee-for-service activities, FASTR provides significant management information relative to the operational efficiency of the departments. 1 The costing methodology followed by DMG-MAXIMUS is rigorous and complete. In the first step, centrally budgeted costs such as city administration, finance and data processing service are allocated to the users of the services provided. These users include the programs in which fee-for-service activities are ' carried out as well as all other city functions. The city's Finance Department developed the citywide cost allocation plan. Next, DMG-MAXIMUS along with city personnel develops time estimates within operations where fee- based services are provided. Based upon these estimates,a model of operational activities is developed which is reviewed extensively with the staff. The model is then analyzed for each fee area. This includes development of direct labor costs, benefits, services and supplies, and the appropriate allocation of citywide and operational overhead(all based on fiscal year i999/oo budget figures). The results identify fully supported costs for providing user fee-related services. Costs are then compared with revenues,and tfee increases,if appropriate,are recommended REPORT ORGANIZATION Following are report sections II through IX presenting findings and recommendations for each department ' analyzed Each section contains a summary showing current fees,total costs and recommended fees on a per-unit basis, total program costs, revenues and subsidy data for each departmental activity. Additional revenues,based on the study's recommendations,are calculated Sections II-IX are structured using the following format. i. Findings and Recommendations. This is a brief overview of the results of the cost analysis. Any findings of note(recommendations that fall outside of stated city policy,limitations on what the city can charge,new fee proposals,etc)are discussed here. i Per Unit Information. This summary sheet provides information about each fee area analyzed within each department. The comparison of current fee to full cost is made,together with recommendations for changes to the current fee structure. 3. Total Program Information. This summary sheet reviews the same tee information and recommendations identified in the per unit information sheet, but annualizes the cost/revenue ' projections by multiplying that information by the annual volume of activity. Appendices A through F follow Section IX. 12 1 SECTION II PUBLIC SAFETY POLICE PROTECTION POLICE PROTECTION FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS The total cost of the Police Protection operation (including all overhead costs)is$8,85i,1o3. The majority of the services provided by this operation are not fee-related and are set aside in the "Other Services" ' category. (A small portion of the other services is identified as support to Planning and is re-distributed to that analysis) ' DMG-MAXIMUS analyzed 22 fee services for a total cost of$186,495 and a cost recovery rate of 77%. This is more than double the cost recovery level of 3576 that was calculated in 1995. Revenues have also increased—from$8o,417 in 1995 up to$144,o8o in 2000. ' Most of the individual fee activities within this department are at a cost recovery level of 6o%or better. Five fees—massage technician initial permit(N41),massage facility license (N4 3),adult entertainment permits(N' ' 4), administrative investigations (N912), and alarm permits (N4 21) exceed i00% cost recovery. DMG- MAXIMUS recommends that these fees be adjusted downward to reflect l00%cost recovery. ' Document reproduction is a fee that is currently listed in this operation's fee schedule,but this activity was not included in this analysis. After discussion with the City Attorney's office, it was determined that this service falls under the definition of providing a public record Government Code Section 6257 provides that a public agency may charge only for the "direct costs of duplication of public records." The term "direct costs" has been determined to mean the cost of running the copy machine, including staff costs (salary and benefits) to make the copy, the cost of equipment maintenance and repair, equipment depreciation,and the cost of apiece of paper. It does not allow for any overhead costs associated with the staff time, nor does it allow for time associated with researching and locating the record, replacing the record back in the file or archive, or collecting the fee. The current fee charged for document reproduction in the Police Protection operation includes all of these components, and therefore DMG- t MAXIMUS recommends that the city replace that fee with the fee charged for copies of public records. We have developed a number of options for cost recovery for copies of public records and recommend that the city adopt a fee of$0.35 per page. There is an item of note with regard to the cost analysis for false alarm responses. The cost includes$39.20 per response to cover the fee that the city's alarm company collects for handling the billings. The alarm ' company keeps 40%of each response billed. Presently,the company keeps$14.84 out of the$37.10 current fee,leaving the city with$22.6o. This translates into a cost ratio of o.667: $14.84 7$22.26=o.667 Applying this ratio to the city's newly calculated cost of$58.75(as identified in the false alarm response non- billable category)yields a cost of$39.20: $58.75 x o.667=$39.20 ' Therefore, the proposed fee is $97.95, with the city keeping $58.75 and the alarm company keeping $39.20• t 13 1 ' o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 'o o 0 0 J g 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ^ O C' 4, o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m CO0 V N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N CAO V 21 OQ p\1 w N NN NN OVO� yOnVj nOp NON= NNni NF, NO `T On Ori.pD. O P O O O PH O hY O T Oa0PTn ^ Mo .o .D m O N N H P N N N N N N N 6c lz ' O 1 ot vG� Q�t 0 v 0 v v v 9 w 0 ot N tc oc ot 9 4t v v O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O SO O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O v 0 O , 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o g 0 0 0 �_ 0 0 0 4 0 0 V 10 N v �n O W vi ap N d Q v n Y T t0 T N Oo n OO Y O T N N N P N N N ^ N V� N N N v N N N N N m W O1 N v N N N N V N N N v N N N 01 U co ' � N t ^ N O O o 0 0 L N n O v 0 0 p� NO NP O •D O MN O O O O P f O 0 � O Y G N P vn � T tm NPN N ' N o h o T E 1 •� v 6t00 v N 9 Est 9 by v v G� ;Itv 6t 009 w v 0 �n O v O n T n T O. �+ v .n P CO M,p T p .O S O h O .D �!1 Y O in vi O L•%.D O .p T.D .D i0 O O O V y > ti 0 O O _ O.p n ^' n �* ^.OD O .o a n.vD O NZ CV O n n O O C O {z �` O V Q C y 0! M O OO ^' vO. OO O .p ,T On m0 0 0 T O O v 0 0 O O O O IF •o O O '^ NO T OQ 0 •? O O O O n .O 0 O P T °� 0 N .r ^ O O G V1 P N N T QI VI 4 W N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N C E V m 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O_ O O_ 1 O -k O - C 0 0 0 N O N O N O G O 1� �^u .n �n .n = ry v v N p v J m , c c � w 2ID W P ZW d d PIA ? J CI CL z LA 4 V W Z Z w 0 ¢ W W w Z } Z ¢ 7 m O W �p 0LA ¢ W Q2 > U � ¢ Oa0 ~ = 8 U V Z Q w r ,Vq Z 0 W D j FQ Z Q Z V a xxw Q � w � V U V O jZ � OU7wv� m � � w w Q w a p w w 0 0 0 U w W i 2 Z a W W W ~ ¢ J V Q 0 N W � N Z W � � _ } O ¢ ¢ ¢ �:: QQCL w CL Q Q O LA 0 CL U G 7 ¢ ¢ ¢ Z ¢ ¢ JQ W O O w u' Z Qj N to v+ �n7 � Z �Q 00 � � � 0 W W a V ¢ ON OU V 2 ¢ Q 2 w v� a .p n co P O = ry V N_ .p n m P O ry N _ N N N ry N ry O t 14 e p i. .n N V V N.p m �+m m' u+ v o. y� p ^ p ^ �p P P N V P V N V N.0 P N n .O N V yy w y�j N N N fit m m O N N V1 N N N N N V OV W v N v N N N N N N N r jA N N N N O 1 ^� vN P O NP P P m O N O WNm o O A N!� 16 O m2 N N W O W iff:S: (' " "',' 6O " ,''," 6C 606060b�° �° 60606040' 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ' •� 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O C C C O O O O O C O O O O O O o o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 �. W Q o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 t0 O O - - - - - - - - - 1 tja � .my: p n V. N V V ^ m m N V Q. N « P0 m m m T a P .O p N la: N N N N N In ymj O y.v N N N v N N v N N ^ .O N V: 0 T lil V C, U q W N N .0 .o rl 5 t 0 R -Q2 m N M .:a: W N N NN O .NO V .O yjNN y N N N T WO NO mn v 0 O .0 om co.O O O O V11 0 N O t O Li .o .0 m p ' O .0 m ap p O n N p c E p .p m �+ P IT 0 M �^. O N.p O .0 .O C, m O O O O l V a N H 0 N m P p H.0 v 0 v P v n v O n 'D o n 0 0 0 0 O V G! Lk. O o 0 n n 0 0 0 P n 0 0 - - " YOj 1 m 0 n O n .n .n p m n u+ p p n pn P rvv O n P m O O O O O W .O0 N 10 n N N N ry m O V_ N O N .p/1 N m m N N $ ry N N N N N $ 10 � p d N N N N N N N N N n N N O j ~ W N N b q U d w m w a ........... a 3W q C C Zcr w W Z W r d Fa- V1 2 J y>j S ro ' �" ¢ ti ¢ N N 1 a w 1' W Q l7 ¢ ZZj "Z' u+ Q S Y V r F• V a Z r q -0 O 4 Q W Z Z W O ¢ W W w Z y Z ¢ 0'] m 0 W N Z N 0 a W O v ¢ wax > U ¢ O a 05 z ``- v :1 CL U Z 0 w w Z Q W w 2 2 of O > Q ¢ J w 0 0 F 5 C ¢ wG U u UO '�' za a OUS 'L M Z O e ai 3w2 ¢ q ¢ C7 � U � � � W f m ti Wl w � � d2Z g � C � � d l O G c 0 V: www � Ow U � v� �nw � inZw � � O � O W ¢ d VUw N V ¢ yi ZOO ¢ 0 0w ¢ V1 ¢ in 0. � N Z2 F Q CL w .l Q z � Z a- zwO 00 � � 0uw �( up 00uw vw q qS a 00Ow � wwOOw � aQ22 ¢ z � 0 CL Q V� U V ¢ ¢ w Q ¢ w �n r d d ry w 1. W �i d d q L 15 t = ! 1 1 SECTION.-III PUBLIC SAFETY FIRE AND ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY 1. . i ' FIRE AND ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY FINDINGS&RECOMMENDATIONS ' This study analyzed two programs within this operation — Emergency Response and Hazard Prevention. The total cost of all fee-related services for both programs is $238,385. User fee revenues are currently ' estimated at $164,771 and recover approximately 69% of cost. This is actually a reduction in revenues from our 1995 study and reasons for that are discussed below, in the Hazard Prevention section. However,the cost recovery level has increased from the 1995 level of 19%. This report does recommend implementing increases to current fees,potentially decreasing one fee, and the addition of new fees to I recover l00% of cost. Should these recommendations be approved, the city can expect to increase user fee revenues by$73,614. Findings for each program are as follows. ' Emergency Response. Two user fee activities were analyzed for this program. The current fee for stand-by services (N'0 is $232 and reflects a 9o%cost recovery level. The fee should be raised to $257 in order to recover l00% of cost. The current fee for a false alarm response is $329 for the fourth and subsequent response. This reflects an 84% cost recovery level. Implementing a $390 fee to recover t00%of cost would net an additional$5,000 in revenue annually. As with the Police Protection cost analysis for false alarm responses, the cost includes the fee that the city's alarm company collects for handling the billings. The alarm company keeps 40%of each response billed. Presently, the company keeps $131.6o out of the $329 current fee, leaving the city with $197.40. This translates into a cost ratio of 0.667: $131.60/$197.40= 0.667 Applying this ratio to the city's newly calculated cost of $234 (as identified in the false alarm response non-billable category) yields a cost of$156: $234 x o.667= $156 Therefore,the proposed fee is$390,with the city keeping$234 and the alarm company keeping$156. ' Hazard Prevention. Most of the services provided by this division fall under the city's Certified Unified Program Agency (COPA), in cooperation with San Luis Obispo County. In 1995 we performed a cost analysis for these services, but recommended that no fees be modified (or new fees implemented) because the program was going to undergo some significant organizational changes (affecting both city and county). The recommendation was to wait until further study was made before any fees were ' charged for this program. This study was completed in September 1999 and the findings were presented to both the city and county. Management in Finance, Fire, and Public Utilities (the Sewer Pretreatment program also participates in this area) are recommending that the city adopt the revised fee structure ' developed in this 1999 study. Appendix A of this report describes the study and provides the recommended fee structure. Implementing this new fee structure would increase Fire's revenues by approximately$33,1o6. ' In addition to CUPA fees,this division provides four other fee-related services(N"'s 1,and 20— 22 on the following page). One of the four fees is actually over-recovering cost and should be reduced. One ' service has no fees currently charged. Setting fees to recover i00% of cost of all four activities would increase revenues by$35.374• 16 ' - V 0 0 n m'D 00 co 6^ 0 q m o cq N o N N V R 10 N C4 0 0 0 0 0 0 N 0 0 a o o q q o q q 0 L LA4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O q q q q q q q q q CC 0 o 0 LQ U W4 Ln O 0 A T n m 6'� q 0 0 0 0 Ct CQ ft 001 r*�co v1 0 ;Aih q g % ci 0 6 tn co Fi Ck 0 0 0 o 0 0 q q q q q q Q 0CO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W- 0 0 0 0 00,00' 0°'0 ' ° ° 88 0 0 0 q 0 q 0 q 0 0 0 0 . . 9 0 1 1q a d Al 0' o o LLJ CC tt 0. 0 0 0, 0, q Q 10 0. LL, q, E 06 O IR Z 0 AQ a: U 0 z U z :) tz z z Z, Vl 0 0 1y VI @ 1 0" z T: dN CL7J -4 am 0 O U Zt CL 0 U A Z 0 0 Z Z CL U cr X z cc 0 0 Z u C9 cc cc w cc V, LL 4L W C�o 2 w zL 0 m W co 0% 17 o 10 co Pt. rl Ot4iN " N N v C .Z5 N r V ' N. Z a a O < CO T O .Qi N 10 9i .Qi .9i 10 O O �^ �o O LA 0 LA R A •L O 2 V V N N M O N /� 10 kQ N N N >: Cc W k Q .K ?E40° G0° 6060° SC 0 0 a `C C O O C O O C 0 0 0 0 0 Otj LU — — Cc y \. Mco .A N P 0 IY m V d n NIn Td M LA N CO 'o V N /NA V P V P Q N N O, ry N N N P N P y� N N b N w V � 0 y Lz'' m P oe N N T V p .o T p .0 O co m *'T O .mo_ rte. .o T p O d O b ep: W N �'i In p ^ Try n vry C mLy � a tinNomm seotoc0 0000 i 14 80o, 00g00o, 0o. � y 0 C7 h O.CO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a _ W mp « N N N N ypj p JW N ry N N O _ = N � O a b O \ a r N y C t 'E Ct y O ' d C Q V Z w v as G5: V O (LZa� W S N V � m mzww � zON � 0) y c Z r ¢ ¢ V Z M sm. Wg M O � rrva^ Zz ' v Q m m M Z z Z Q p N o 1icr Z� N Z Q J p JQ z N 4QL 1� a 4� W m � S W 1 IA 1� O Qe ll d n m P O_ y � " � �0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ,0 O v 0 4� 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O `o P'� P `^ 0 W LU 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o `� n m P �* 0, 1. N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N �D P m N V N N N N N V m m U N ^V \ t h a Z v+ nTv P nT 0v T N 0 b 0 N0 N0 N0 N0 N0 N0 N0 v vT N N d G N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0vc0 S v m D 6 CO m o A CD q NPN O O O o o 6 6 0 O Le ` G N U c. c. sc. ss. s. 0vctNv. ws. vKs0c. 0N °p W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cw C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0`C 0 0 0 O O O O 0 O O 0 0 O 0 0 0 O 0 O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o o 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 ° d o 0 0 0 0 0 0 p j 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o bv` U o V W - - - - - - - - - Q V R U Q O p o R U � .N U O v v v M v v �Tn, 0 n ry n N %O O n n n O N E C 00 T�D P 'v^ v 00 \ CP v v v m v v m :� P v " u� p, 0 �^ QP 0 ^ P ry .; n'n P v 0 00 N N N N N N V GQZ N N N N co E UI N y b UG ro Q o R a IS d p W 1 Y1 N n T V P n T0 V 0 N N n T V V� N Ifs V 0 N O %o �p o V Ln o G q v T o N N i. .D O T fn N N 0 v� G l O '0 P P �^ 0 0 ri v v v m v S m T P v ^� �D P m �p m o A m O ,[N. n V 1�m P J N N o1 N N N N N N m ,T Vl O V q N l Qa y elb ` Opi ` to ss0s0 c 0c0c0 � css� sss� 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 v D o o o o o o o o o o o o o T N P ^ o o L+cl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ro O P O O C O O O O O C C O 0 0 D T _ N _ 0 0 u 0A, C O o 0 0 0 0 o b r N e O vi v L v o 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 --Z h 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 h 00 o 6 6 6 6 6 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o Q $ 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 m J ti m O C G G O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N o. a N a 0 O a j m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 h W Lai N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N ` O N N N N N GO V 1 Q ' q 01 ' \ q 0 W m n 0T 0 �n m 0T 0 0 0 0 0ry 0 0T 0n 0 0 0 T 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 6 6 ^4 a S 6 5 Jn S n S S S 6 6 p 0 0 0 �m o - q v��O O m ry m \ Z ti - ' , O d •O O � J m e" b r b 01 c q a C7 = t , J Z a V O } Uk Y h E Z O ~ z ¢ .G�' l V O M OU z0cr. Z N a y O m Q d 1 2 W O ¢ yVj Q O F LL Z G Q ¢ W 30 p w � NN ¢ 0 za e E - O wZ oe W w � ¢ U NX � O ? 0 u¢aZ ¢ w7 ecq' a ~ z W � O 0. 0 ra. W ¢ �' a W J Y Y V _ O_ O Z Z O J W O v V ` = O O y�j z N Z h ¢ ¢ W ¢ J J Z Z \ Q f W O N CI Q V O W 1 1 O Z O O W N Q Q Q J ~ : J Y � > W m IA a R .�o (7 ¢ Q v = ¢ N ZZ > < gOQ J f' L ¢ QTw lb 1 v� n � wrOOv~iv~i zJ ¢ zwa0 < x 0 m ¢ � � w OQQQwv� Q � � LLLL � ON w zwQ .L � N ; h Q > Zw ¢ WZx h _ W F V Z ¢ ¢ q ` C W z Z W J ¢ Q¢ O N W1� N 3 N H ¢ Y < V W Q Q Q 3 V1`O O O N (7 t~/1 O N z o g W A W = d q a ¢ Q O =co 0 J P OSSS _ _ A U l.1 � QxQ77QdZH3 � x W 3 h u- � h- VawSQ zi m P O = T v �n.D M m P O ry n 'o n co P O 4 - - - - ry n � ? ry ry ry n ry ry ry T 0 0 9 0 0 0 e e e 0 0 0 e e e e e 0 • 0 0 O O 19 I V T N p N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 T ul77 n ^ m pv O ONO m P DLA N ^N mV W WW O J � N ynj N N y 2 OJ N ry ^ N _0 J N J T T V d 1� N P J T�D V O O N N N N N N N O co O V N N O N N N N N N P N V, I� O V1 Lo n fD O V V V O N N N m N N N N N N N N J p O N N T W 41 ' 60 60 60 60 40 60 60° 60 60 40 b0 60 60 60 60 60 60° 60 60 G 60 60 60 60 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N. 0W 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 G G O C O C O C O O O O O O O C O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 y� ] � 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O Q � g Li m n 1co T0 T v N T V1 in n 1�n V1 p °� N T.p T N n N P T T Croc P N N 5, p N _ J V1 V p V �(O V m 1� V Ili�p m V O N�D P O O P V V N ^ ° N J 0.. p K N N O- N N � N N O N N J n N N ^ n ^ N O W O N N N N N N N N N N ~ N �O T N N P N Y1 N N N T N T N N N N G ti E V h Q1Ch l y 0 � t Q P `T ry n VO•/\� a`� ~t WW �W' NO NN NV N NmmN N � N N NN N NNp N N n N N oJ vN O O -�NV Na LA 'i N04ll 0Y� a v O v pv _ na OO O N NN10NLe n LQ NN N OO N p O O tyCQ N N O � !f d b o 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 Ott o 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 'd � O p o 0 o p o 0 0 0 0 0 0 ^ J ° °' ° 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N O V1 ^ a d d d o o d o 6 d o 0 0 0 m = co o N N o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o t o N O aw ; m P O O O O O O O O O O O O O v N v O O O 'O N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O t W P N N N N N N p �O y� N N N N N N N N N �O V N N N ll d W01 j � b N � Z ° W W Z a V t 2 V Y Z m N J W 2 O Op V O Z Q 0 Q w r v W~ U N O r z W u Q r 2 W V O 2 U Z_ ' W O O W Q 2 r Z 2 0 w v 3 0 O W ¢ N N O s w = O Z w -Z z N ° j W a! � x � � Z 'r^ x � Zir /�yV z0 � �' CL0 y $ C: S ` w Q J J Z Z N H O 0 Q Z O J W V V O F W O W Z d C r 0 ¢ 2 r a a a Q N H Z r = g w O N 2 r N W N O Q Z O W r V1 r r ¢ J g = J x (O d N } W Vl N G C ' S innr WrOOvri � > ZJQZwQO ¢ Ln0 l ° ¢ � Zw V Ir- °C v ° °i i a O Q rim V gwC7z = Z w v V m e Or rr W EON (� Ox �nwa .b0 N a > zw W zx $ E 4 N � QQQrQa00 `iW w � zw � Uz ¢ 2 J W ZzwU V 2r O q m 1N � n�� a33Z Z � N ¢ 0 p0Z zoo < ` � w OaJO W 00 �e '� 'G C OOtF �) z0gwawxa ° ° aacz0 = f >— o v ° a 9 r ; W � r U a w x ¢ p ti N P O = N T V _N d n m _P O N N N N N NM ry N T N t G 20 1 ' 1 SECTION IV PUBLIC UTILITIES WATER WASTEWATER 1 . 1 i 1 i PUBLIC UTILITIES FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS Public Utilities is responsible for providing water, wastewater, solid waste, and recycling programs. The solid waste and recycling services are provided by franchise. The city's enterprise fund programs,water and sewer operate using revenues coming primarily from usage rates charged to water and sewer utility users. However,these funds also participate in several fee-for-service activities. This report focuses on this area of responsibility only and does not address any other functions in the utility enterprise funds. rThe total cost of all user fee activities for the utility funds comes to $466,842. Offsetting revenue totals $317,012 and results in a 68%cost recovery rate. The remaining costs,$149.830 are therefore subsidized by the utility ratepayers. In 1995,revenues totaled$235.364 and the cost recovery rate was 69%. The fact that this fund's cost recovery level changed only slightly from 1995 is primarily because one of the major areas of fee services is related to CUPA fees. As discussed in the Fire and Environmental Safety analysis above,CUPA fees were reviewed but not adjusted in 1995 due to a significant restructuring of the program. Any fee increases or new fee proposals were put on hold until the program and proposed fee ' schedule was re-structured This effort was completed in 1999 and we are presenting proposed CUPA fees in Appendix A of this report. The following is a brief discussion of each program area included in this cost recovery analysis. ■ Utifities Conservation Office. One fee activity was reviewed— site authorized inspection services. This fee is currently set at$35. The full cost of providing this service is$4o. Raising the fee to recover i00%of cost will increase revenues by$9,125. ■ Water Distribution & Customer Services Ten fees were reviewed In 1995,the cost recovery level for these io fees was 75%. As a result of implementing city policy, fees were increased and are now recovering 99%. The only fee activity not currently recovering i00% of cost is account set up -- unlimited(N°8). Increasing this fee to i00%would generate an additional$2,700. r ■ Wastewater Collection. Two fees were reviewed for this division. As with Water Distribution, fees were increased as a result of the 1995 study and are currently recovering almost i00%of cost. The fees I are currently set at$186. Raising the fees to$igo would cover the remaining subsidized cost and would generate an additional$55. ■ Wastewater Pretreatment, CUPA fees are the primary service of this division. CUPA fees are discussed in the following section. Should the city adopt the revised fee schedule for CUPA fees,this division can expect to generate an additional$84238. This division also performs pretreatment inspections for industrial users. In 1995, fees for these inspections were recovering 45% to 89% of cost. In 2000, the fees are now recovering 297. to 112%. Adjusting fees to recover i00%of cost would increase revenues by$54,468. 21 0 0• 0 pp� � � � 0 V N Cd 4 CD T T v Ul V O V 0 0 Q W u0i ' 2 V W � V W cc `t O 0 0 O o O o 0 00 0 0 0 n ^ a' 0 o LA co N ro. O n a O C n 0 v N Q v V v T O O O O y f V V O 4z \ ` j 0, 0 0 0 0, 0, 0 0, 2 9 � 9 N j 2Ct W . n W �n W ;U u � s L � .O j N a Ws D CL 2 0 N Gr cc W 5 U x 0w ` a O W O 22 10 a ® g @ � ° � ® � � . LA culc ccLw iy a \ � ) � § CL cud um 44 0 0 0 0 0 0 CC d 6o o yq 2 0 c% io LO q 'R it . 19 cc CC Qll CC Co $ @ u 10 o 0,,o 10 IN I. q 20 PIZ 0 0 In to LW zi tn 0 0 0 @ � � \ 6 § 0 0 0 ° ° 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0- 0 co 10 i $Qc Lm- . � � / -12 0 u CAZI 'A dk \ ° k $ © o k k $ ■ ; An o I D CC < 5Q ij 0 z 0 vi u IQ- 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - � 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NNNNNNNN 0 N0 W 0 0 N V 0 V N N O ' 2 m 0 0 * 0 N0 ry N 0P OOGO `omO NQN m W P ... 2 �t 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 d d d d d d o d o d o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W : O V U CL o m ° ry rn o° 0 + a NrA N .ON. .NN. N N G j j N O_ 1 c� 0 0 y O 10 0 0 17 0 O co 0N ry N P N N N N N P N 4A 0 Q to y o N y E a v y a � �'0 � o � $ � 0 m 0 ° b h a oa°_ °o_ ° ° o a 0, ° o S tW LC \` v h 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 pO W W N N n N jLC : V 0. 0 0 0 0 W m n n vNTi O N 0 ° O ti j � 0 cr 1 , w w 2 W N s CC o W O W CaW n W w V ri Z V w w ¢ Q S m 'N f W a a a Q QW H H H O W W O W W W � 0 U U « � 1 O O U 4 2 ►� > 5 3 3 w z `z Z z 0 Qom. O02 = = o 1 ° w O O O O 3 V U U U V W W W Z Z 2 2 f0 P 0 2 I O 14 Cw cc 2 � CO :. n mo o N m o 0 ° ° O to ,,. m u, a - N a0 COp, o O :j O 0 .o LW N N O W K A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O OOOOOQO00 O 0 i'I Q 0 O O- V ° mn V CE N. ^ V� N P ^ �!v N N N N• :� '.roe N N N.. O T N m LLJW Q O O O 'o co A qy ` Om0 T.D O v N O . rmn ° O ^' n N O ; ak rt LaiN N N N `a N N M N O O O ° O O ro b e _ `o (JI � O Cl N m 0 co 00 N G0 L0 0 Y n.D onmN v1 0 N a o a °o_ ° °o c ^�' a s ° o a a m z ry O O .p O %0 V m J W N N N L a � U c E a � c ' w N m 2;W Cc o i V w - N � w N � V ww2 ZCS ti;R N E E w d a a cr 0 U V Q Q H N N N U u ° V C ° ~ s s 3 3 w z z z z m W ° V W Z , 7 H 0 3 O Q: ^ ^ O O x O O O u¢a W m 3 V ++ W W w W U U U N w Q Q 1 Z Z 2 S S 0 0 0 O - - N. m om ° y 25 t@r °o oo, o V N N tO O N V N 2 . •On O 0L44 Q V N W W \ N O ... LL aC O O O W O O O O O Otj Lai O 0 Q v a o N 2 o O m O CZ J N N rr Ql , Q Q1 0 O a- m_ m V L N O C ^� O 114 v` — V V V ' W m 0 ro C a o O a � j W mm c w N J W • v W � � V Z w 0 O V: H O Ct Q Z 3 = � w tn w 0 ..:.tn W W 0 g5 a ' 26 @ 0 ..: Vi4441 « 32 � $ � k & ( @ - ® «d � 2 . @ (IK 2 - _ � { \ ( � { ~ � . @ � ~ \ \ 0 % § - - ^ \ § ) co_ cos " 4Q - & Z § § o � ^ « - _ kE \ a " # 7 # & ;� � - \ Ll - k 1 , � � / . Ol § \ C % ® ) Uu ) C / CC 2» :Ct 7 . » ! $ / ■ ?� { 44 » a z «t f � Ll % k � � \ @ ) $ » ! ` « \ k . @ . 27 i p000000popooppoQooooe0e00pp0 oosaoaoo �. A N N A Ti dl V '0 0, N W P 0 Q V •J. n T T n ry p V P VI C i a N N N N N N N N O 2 > py �c Op, o aD •p '= 0 0 a 0 _ p$ 0 0 0 o0 o0 0 00, 2 W V N N C W y N 0 O L , O ceacec. seapQceceacec. cececeot9otp0ce 0 pppp0 S0. O . 0 p 0 ° 0- 22 ° ° opd o o d o o d d 0- 0- 0- o_ 0 2 oo pgQq V y N m Q N %: P P T N m V p yy 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 n a, 0 O 0m0 O 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 W O N h N N N In N N N ^ H IV11 P V ` G P ° ' N > 0 V C R N N N N N N N C ca N uY N N N 'a V h � m F' A I ti: o P P m J p m m P n O pp O C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 L �+ O v^'� Q Q 0 0 0 0 ?` �^ 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 S aD n N V v �_ P V P�0 v C T V O 0 T T O O W ;. 0 yryj N N N N N N N N N N N N N N p y N C' 1n N N o J tiJ ^ V -4C: p V a 6 N N N N N N N N Cl. C 0.. W ro 4v m O E N a m m o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 t Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ' •� h o P o 0 0 o Q o Q o Q Q o c� j Q Q o o Q Q Q - 5 W O N N = ^ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PU 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 V y O U 3 p m 1 O a, p p p o p o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 e S 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 p o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o Q e W N N^ N N a N a N s $ $ a a 1' O 3 a a a N N S Atr • u N N T4 L v v N 0 ' 0 0 0 0 Q C O 0 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 u ' - - - - - - - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 c 1� •O 7 T N m N b O $ m d - - O V• 0 - N Ui ri ZLLJ v ¢ q OV t3 Wm O y — 7 C ^ m l :>:[::: �n m LL d c : c N gg � w o � V V n ¢ m m » 7 7 U X.-447 cc ccLn Ln CA LA d 114 w cc cc ' »> zzzz � O a 0 d a d ��+ x . h� U V V V 2vf � 7 � � ad �oo ..\ H N N N ¢ C > > Y W W N U '::5 ¢ W aC W Z Y N `L z ¢ z IL � vaiCL0 0 Ar � 7Qf- 7d '� c w : wZ LA ' zzzz i _ Fu+ wzz ¢ � � pO c70 '�r' � O ¢ p .nANw � OO > viN �o V z 0 QF37 m ¢ O` _ w 3 ¢ ~ O 0 cc cr cc aWc2zaWc � '� � ; 3,•000 WqA m a a40z ± � W W O a a a a x x x _ A V V gL MQ V z d ¢ ¢ 0� 4 - N MJ lf1 c A m 0% 0 N f!1 V 4_fl m Ne T2 ry H N 8 W 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O Z O � C • 6 O V p pN N N N O N op pp pp Q (pp0 V 0% (O O O T CO N YP1 M T T P J� N VV Q: V1 N N ^ P O N m O N N O N ^ N N ^ V1 V V v N N n N N N V N ' VI N YI N N Cc h 0 N V N N - P Ve p o p 0t Q W N In r,: O' q 1%N N N m N N N O N ^ Cl J A N N ^ N Z V T N N N N N N N T N N m O 'coo N N N jCL W N N W 0 00 0'0 6060 CE 60606000 6060 00 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O o O O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o p o 0 0 o d d o d O O 2222 -00- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0 Sp000000- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0- oO O P O 0 .TOO% CO 0 O ^ m 0 0 0 ppO cry N p P n N o Nro T nPO �N Ct N O N N v Az- q) 1, O W ' CX. P O O CD O O T NM M 0 TP OT V OS N T 0 O p 10 O m O L m 0 0 H c \ yn - V 6� CE 6� 60 60 60 @L C; 060 60 60 0 0 60 0 60 60 60 0� 60 0� COa7 a0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 O � n O C C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O G O O C O 0 0 V � LOP •o V N 4 O p p e o 0 0 o N « 0 0 e goo 0 N m 'P JI YI N N N JI N N N p ^ g N N A l N o N N p T R O O C� N N T N N N m I W N N N L W j ¢ W � b ' _ _ 7 m n u LL Nw cc b c f C 1 :;:; '• � H H H J Q W T :.<S,- >i:.k7: > > > > ¢ s a 3 as Z z z Z w O a 0 O x ¢ m ..... r W f 2 a w U .m. :>.X. W �nin �nof20 '^ X � � CJ w � � U V V V W y w Q S ,...�' V'fQ. viyi ISR ¢ Y Y Y a Nu+CL 0 p r � QX7r � m r^ u+ FxWZ �' u� ' ZZZZ v - ¢ yf ZZ ¢ r W p �'nnNw � 00YvriCn y V = 0 ¢ x030 m V c "Q QQQQrrr ryf � � m ¢ ¢ � l7 V OAF @ y ZW 3 ¢ ¢ O Q 7 m W W W W Q Q Q N O O W 1/1 0 d O Z Q u0, °ui 0 0 4 aaaixxx3 i AUUo_ xQ QZ r V MZa ¢ ¢ m ti O 0! q) m P 0 = N M N m P O N mm m m - - N N N { ..:.:....... ti i �9 1 SECTION V LEISURE, CULTURAL, &.S.00IAL SERVICES 1 PARKS AND RECREATION 1 1 _ . 1 PARKS AND RECREATION 1 FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS The analysis for the Parks and Recreation operation looked at all program areas within the general fund Golf operations were not included in the scope of services for this study. Exhibit i (on page 4) identified a ' split between fee and non-fee related services and showed that fee-related programs comprised 76% of the total general fund recreation cost, which is a very good proportionate ratio of fee-to-non-fee services. Of the non-fee related services,this study identified approximately $12,000 worth of support to the Golf operations that could potentially be reimbursed to the general fund. The remaining other services are appropriately subsidized by the general fund It is important to note that the costs in this analysis include significant maintenance costs from the Parks & Landscape Maintenance and Swim Center Maintenance programs. This maintenance cost added over $3oo,000 to the operating costs. Citywide overhead added an additional$500,000. ' Fee-related programs cost $2,o39,983 and generate $858,675 in related revenue - a 427. cost recovery level. This recovery level is right in line with what we see in other communities. In 1995, this department collected approximately$7i5,000 in user fee revenue and recovered 38%of cost. ' The city's cost recovery policy sets a number of goals for recreation programs and provides specific goals for each program area City staff is proposing a modification to this policy. They recommend eliminating the assignment of cost recovery goals to each individual program area. Rather.they would like to group programs within each targeted range (high-, mid-,and low-range) and allow the revenues to fluctuate,but stay within the assigned range. This would better allow them to be able to assign the programs to the ' ranges, based on market-driven factors, and the cost recovery policies that are outlined in the financial plan. ' The summary chart on page 32 lists each program area and the current cost recovery level of each. The programs have been grouped into high-,mid-,and low-ranges. The city's financial plan currently has some small gaps between the percentages assigned to each range. This report recommends eliminating the gaps by assigning the ranges shown on page 32. The following compares the policy objectives to the results of the cost analysis: ' High-ra a cost recover ArfivideSix out of eleven programs are currently within this cost recovery range. One activity of note that isn't showing any current revenue is adult volleyball (N"5). Although the analysis provides information relative to the cost of this program, the city was unable to ' offer it this year,due to competition from other agencies that were able to provide better facilities for lower prices. A potential remedy for this is discussed below. The total cost recovery rate for all programs meets the low end of this range-6o%. ■ Mid-range cost recovery activities Five out of nine programs are currently within this cost recovery range. Three out of the four programs that are under the proposed range are within seven. percentage points of being within range. The total cost recovery rate for all programs is within one percentage point of being within range. ■ Law-range cost recover,activities All of the programs within this range are meeting or exceeding ' their goals. The total cost recovery rate for all programs is within the proposed range. 30 Although we have presented revenue targets and compared them to actual recoveries, we are not recommending anys_hanges to recreation fees at this time. This operation has recently completed a revenue enhancement study and is proposing that the city council consider the following recommendations that resulted from that study. REVENUE ENHANCEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS ' City staff recommends the following fee policies based on the premise that more significant increases in revenue can come from filling existing programs than by raising fees. City staff recommends authorizing the Parks and Recreation Director to: ' i. Reduce or eliminate non-resident fees when it can be demonstrated that the fee is reducing attendance and that there are no appreciable expenditure savings from the reduced attendance. In programs such as swim lessons, the non-resident fees established in 1995 reduced attendance in classes by an average of one to two participants per class. This was not enough to cancel or reduce ' the number of classes. The result then,was a loss of revenue. It should be noted that in most cases,the non-resident fee does not reduce revenue. Therefore this strategy would be implemented only rarely. z. Charge fees that are closer to full cost recovery for certain activities that are heavily used at peak times and include a majority of non-resident users. For example,during the weekend of Cal Poly graduation,all city picnic areas are rented out months in advance for graduation celebrations. The vast majority of the attendees are from out of town. Even with a doubling of the fee,which would still only be 4576 of cost,all of the areas would be rented 3. Offer reduced fees such as introductory rates,family discounts,and discount coupons on a pilot basis to promote new recreation programs,or resurrect existing ones. Incentives and discounts can be very effective in promoting new recreation activities. If a discount or reduced fee is available,people are likely to try new things. The recent revenue enhancement study commissioned by the Parks and Recreation Department noted several cities that have used this strategy to increase program attendance and revenue numbers. Over time, as the programs become established,fees will be raised to achieve adopted recovery levels. ' DMG-WX[MUIS concurs with these recommendations 1 31 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o o o o o o o 0 0 OO V T n 0 , v ,0 P P O O p O 10 p IT O Q G n T O N N N �O V N m O N y N N N N N N N ry V T N N N N N P N n V `IS, ppN N N N N N N N N N N O - co 44 o � ryO .O P N n.j `t VP1 a co .4 m 0 In 0, m o O m 0 N N oT C, O m tj O V 0 m y in .n O O O ^`.D v m p O m N P CO v ry N n N O P O .0 m p v N �, Mv v K CO .6 ANNQ % ^ N .try 0rv .0m v, P T n nm v � Pv v n O 0� 2 Q N N O N N T N T N N N N O. N.O n�} P T O N N T N N_ V_ Q V N T N N ynj Nct N N H N V m ' .10 1' II• `. UCO VI P N 0 N N .D O N v n O v V m V CO N T P m m g T n 0� U, O CE ro @1 W v T M O n ry 10 C6 av .n v� p v r� O Y `0 r07 P m m M ry 0 COr+ D 0% O O RI O j n T N N O N co w O O O n O T T m H V P O 10 0 p O .4; Q N z N u� sc� sc� sec5c. � srZ 'D � c�_ w 0c� t�_ �. 12 � ce � 0 cesc. c� c� c. `o 1. N N 0 CO 0 N L �O n P m P .O m O O. ' P m 0, .O m N .O N 'a z n m 0.,p P n V v v ui n ry N m _ T n N n n fVn. n P O m n n ' N O U ti ,� � W V 41 14 ' P O m P 0 P N O n 0 O @W 0 Pt: ' N P = V O � O CO m � CO P n m 0� v) .t P n n N r� T .0 .i N .n I� n v_ `0 ri O j ? P N N N O N N N N N N N M N N N N N m P N n N V m N 1• U 0 O Ll kA — O U 0 U vi w 0 U O cc i d3 = J 0 u VI uVl W O O F_ W W N J_ Q ¢ O G J m 2 Q H S N 7 W N � ¢ � V C w � N FmQ0 V wfwQ v1 OFz '" � � Y � LA � zCC CC = � O " O � Oaa � sO � zdz '�. wv=iv�iUUOj � ONU ¢ � d T OV °CO � OpOmvai V O V Qz � � OV V ' Z Z ¢ `N C OOO < QQQC/ � v ~ a � W 00O � GaO WwZZ u } } } Q Q Q Q Q z g O VI H U Y } Q Q in U H to (A N T V H ' .p n m P Li ry O N N N N N N N N 1 32 0 0 0 0 0 0 a a ] 0 � d § ) ( ° co co Cr4 om 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ct 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 / � � � 00Z X -0 6� CO Ct V) co cr Q�l - ® -0 o (bi 0 OD 0. L- 0 Ol o 0 Z�,o :T it LIL�j N w z � 5� oc F4 � ` ) lul 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 q q o o � a / _ " � ) � . / � ) ( a 2222 .0222 lo co 13 -W co ce CC 13 � � {\ Oj cr 0 qM, k0 0 c 0 S2 ) 0 \ / \ o W> 0 u U w 0 u \Br0:1 t Z � a� � t= 0 �,x ( 7 Qmc1 1 -P tQ�lWzZ 2 'm %. -Q 0 > g 0 ou (-D ou 0 m m o » 33 1 ' SECTION VI LEISURE, CULTURAL, & SOCIAL SERVICES TREE MAINTENANCE 1 1 � . 1 1 1 1 TREE MAINTENANCE FINDINGS &RECOMMENDATIONS ' This division has only two existing fee-related services - tree/shrub hazardous abatement and commemorative tree plantings. Tree/shrub hazardous abatement fees are charged on an actual cost recovery basis and the commemorative tree planting fee is currently set at$zoo. The hourly rate that the Finance Department generates for Tree Maintenance staff essentially recovers ' ioo7.of cost and we don't recommend any change to this fee structure. The cost analysis performed for commemorative tree plantings indicates that the fee should be increased from $zoo to $332 in order to recover i00% of cost. However, staff is recommending that the fee (which hasn't been increased since it was originally implemented in 1988) be raised to$300,which would recover 90?of cost. Increasing this fee would generate an additional$2,600 in annual revenue. tOne potential user fee service analyzed is for tree removal permits. Historically, the city has provided these permits free of charge,under the assumption that it the cost of a permit were too prohibitive,people would simply remove the tree without notifying the city. However,it was recently argued that it's likely that those citizens that would notify the city of their intent to remove a tree would probably not object to paying a fee for a permit,and those that would remove a tree without first notifying the city would probably do so even if there was no fee attached to the permit. Therefore, we are proposing the city consider implementing a fee for the permit that recovers 50% of cost. This permit tee would be $33.50 and would generate an additional$10,00o in revenue. 1 1 34 # ( ± � # � § ) � � d @Z\ § � 0 k . (ja o ; � % \ m b - ■ � ` § \ 0 o kit : \ � 7 - � % � . � � & q;$ CC co§ a 2 \ql IT 0 - \ ] � k reCL _ 0 2 ® mom § }} 0 / - � & m0v ) S 4L a 2 \ \ k C j : § ! � � { � « u \ d _ . £ � 2 2 . a � 2 . w � � k co / \ < 7 § \ / C, 6 / tJ4. / 2 / \ ! f X29 - cr- ( ( \ \ . / 35 se 0 0 0 0 m co rt CO 0 0 0 OCON r� m 0� Z 0 0 0 5z 0 0 0 C6 2 • o 6 ci 6 2 0 v act -1 L ZN N0 cr tn Ln 0 co 0 0 0 0 rA 6 A S w ON N N0 q�, :3X4 14 aj wvv w 9 � 0 0 0 0 U) o 0 0 Ln 0 ci 6 6 q) 0 0 0 0 @J WT o CO 'o o P 44 IS M 44 LQ cc -:! "%j cc m 0 CL t-LA D 02 :02 IS M cr 1p cc 70 go' 0 cc cc ;Q, 1%, OU 36 SECTION VI1 COMMUNITY .DEVELOPMENT PLANNING 1 � . 1 1 PLANNING FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS This analysis included the direct costs of both the Development Review and Long Range Planning programs within the Planning operation. It also included relevant portions of the Community Development Administration and Commissions&Committees programs as indirect administrative support. We looked at 33 user fee activities and six non-tee service categories. Non-fee service categories comprise approximately 397- of the total costs of this division. Once these costs are identified and set aside, a comparison of current user fee revenues to total user fee costs can be made. As displayed in Exhibit II earlier in this report, current user fee revenues are $32i,24o (based on volume of activity) and recover 3176 of the total user fee costs of $i,o25.315• In fiscal 1995, the city was collecting approximately $84,000 in tee-related revenue,recovering approximately 187.of cost. User fee revenues have increased nearly four-fold in the past five years,and the cost recovery rate has almost doubled. The city's cost recovery goal for planning services is to recover 457.of cost. Page 12 of this report provides cost recovery levels for each planning service,stated as a percentage of full cost. The majority of the fees are recovering between 2o% and 40%. Some fees are recovering more than 45% of cost and one fee — ' final parcel map time extension (N°12) is actually recovering more than l00% of cost. We are proposing a change to the city's cost recovery policy. The 45%cost recovery policy was initially developed as a more reasonable alternative to l00%cost recovery,because fees were recovering significantly less than full cost (on average, only 18%). Since that time, development review staff have increased fees to keep pace with the CPI, and made some adjustments in how they provided services, such that some fees are now set at greater than 45% cost recovery. We are recommending that the city revise this cost recovery policy to state that planning services should recover at least 45%,but not more than loo%. Therefore,those fees that are at greater than 457. cost recovery would not be decreased (with the exception of the one fee that is greater than ioo%). Adjusting fees to meet this proposed policy would increase revenues by 5156,54o and increase the overall cost recover level to 46.67.. Activities that are categorized as "Other Services" (or non-fee related) include appeal fees, long range planning, and support to Building & Safety, among others. Appeal fees are actually a potential user fee activity, except that the city's policy states that there will be no fee charged for appeals. Providing this service is currently costing the city almost S37000. Long range planning is typically an activity that is not directly funded through fees. Many of DMG- MAXIMUS clients opt to recover at least some,if not all of the cost of long range planning as part of the administrative overhead costs associated with providing development-related services. The argument for including these costs is that current development could not take place without an adopted and reviewed long range plan. These costs are commonly added to building inspection and plan checking costs for recovery through that fee structure. However, in the City of San Luis Obispo, the recommendation has been made to recover some of the cost of long range planning (2576 of the total) through the current planning fees. The remaining 75% of long range planning costs continue to be subsidized by the general fund Appendix E at the back of this report provides a comparison of current Planning fees to what the fees would be both including and excluding the 25%of long range planning costs. 37 Y P 0n„00uvni Vry nP,Tnp,, iO 0 O0 To 0 00 mT ,0v 0N 0 0 `0P? N0 V N l NPP0Tary 0VA ,N O0 V ^600ON` Om PA N N0Q` LA 'o y N N N N N Y1 N N N T N V N OTO ^ On Al mnh_ $P O O P O 0 0 m 0vP n hN P N N N N0 0 Q 0 0 0 0 OOO CO 0 , m 0 N0 '^ P O mmN m O m p m 0 ry o Q10 T N N N N W CJ N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N OV,60IA t0 0V1 600 V,60V,600N 60N 60N 60N 0N�OV,�O �O 00� 6YO e 0LYO 6Y0 4Y0 6Y0 6Y0 0 6Y0 0GPY 6Y0 60 0 0 602 0 6Y0 40 600 600 GY0 6Y0 O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O v v v v v v v v v v v O v v v v v v v v v v v v P v v v v v v 0 oc O ” V � N p ry ,N0 N NN T N N NP NO NOh 0 N0V 0h 0n m0 0 T NO0Tmm m m 0 0 0 m 0 0 - r� o, 00 0 0 0 O 0 $ 0h 0 N0 N0 0 0 0 m VT m P TTN CO h 00, V Q, VTV z 0 ,_ P m J 0 n m _vm P m V QC m N % NNh LA N N 2 J Ln vhw N IJhi1 N O' ^� O ^� `r O m 0 0 0 O O O N �^ O O M0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ^'� h O o �+ O 0 0 0 0 0 0 w •``� V m m d? '^ O R O O O m m 0 0 '^ ^ P O O "•� N 0 0 0 0 O '^`? ^• O m ^ O O .O O O O O y 1� V 0 lw N mN PN ,O� n^ p m .�: ^ _ O nN.po co T m CO N N O E 6Y 6� SY r�° 6Y 6� SY � 6; 6Y by 6� 6Y 6Y � 6Y 6Y 6Y 6� 6� 6Y 6Y 6Y 6Y 6Y 6_ se 6Y 6Y 0C 6Y 6Y � 6� 6Y 6Y 6� 6Y � ' ,\ �` T m � r p n n P n p Irl, %q O ,vo. ,D n p vP,,,�D, n i^m �^ P O ?`,0p. O� O 0 0 0 0 0 0 _ ,n P T m n, 0 �+ n p, O T v ,p v CO m,p O v ni �T ry ry H v,p O, T y D O T N ry N T v T T ry v O v ry n h T �" T T N '^ p, T �., T O 0 0 0 0 0 0 V y o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O o O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 v ,p �i, 1� O �^ ^� 7, O, ,O ri,O O, O �" P P O N T m n v n v, v, v, 0, O, O ^� 0 0 0 0 0 0 c ly ,G m h N T,C H1 T V 0 ,0 n m ,0 h V, n T N CO ,p N ,p O R W N V Py N CO N Q n ^ N N N _Y 1„1 T N N �. Y n P N In N N 0 P N N N N V U W y, N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N V L, \V a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0_ 0 0 0 0 0_ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W! ti < T m O y V O e cr b m O w J ti Z m dZ W J N w z a d Q 0 p 0. z a .............. O ¢' 2 vi OiZ z Z 3 ~ ZW Nw( wO zVOz ww � M O W H =WW CC zrzz a rZWM LL,<b¢NVC 9L Z 3: 3t ' ' O W4O z .V:Ml Z Z 7 Q Z W W r W ¢ Z m 2z � 2000 U � p � z0 M m diNi+ ""''' wwZUZ' QU w VQ1 C7z 0 Xad 0 0 a r `m > ww �Q4 � � = Qu] � � � QirifwJ � 7r( w ZO V ar W ¢ wawm M ' _ �_ ¢ O �_ r H J 1 >_ > O W J Z W J W N rQ Z m m W Z_ Z W W r W V r N Z W } d r r (;� O O y O r r r r r 3 C7 V U a 1 V 9 0 0 (7 (� r a a w W W Z w w Z Z 6 H N r W W W W QQ O Z W J V Wl O O V Z Z > > V Q W J w a ~ 0 U � � 4a O Z V QZ r ¢ U �n � U' J ¢ M r r r r r o = w w F Z Z r z Q Z_ 1i 0 W J r w w W ? Z Z Z Z Z Z W W Q Q Q Zm V7 ? W O Y m N w = 2 = _ 7 7 _ _ � Z V V U V ¢ Z ziZ Q � ZZ � 05 5N � wy' G 6wQZ2 az zwd CC,- 0 O Z z W W O W 1 H r W W < O a Q Q Q Q U U 0 w w u. U' C7 = w d d d ¢ ¢ ✓� H H r r > O ON 6 6 m a w _ 4 m O, O_ � N T V V1,p h m P ry N N N N n N N Gory T T T T T T T T T T Q W O O 38 cy� P .D p O n ry m n O n '� in `^ O u0i n vPi P v P u0i O� N n OP r, a n O @r n N 0, 0 m N N N N N N 0 N v OJ T N N A n V V N V N N N T N ~ W W N N N N O CA ml N N N N N N yTj N N N N N U W H T m O''O d P N N P m N N 0 P 0 co coCp T�0 '� I. N (0 10 �D 0 P t0 N N m `0 P m O P N - v T 0 `^ O_ V T P V 10 T A _? T�0^ N 1n T v N ry 1� p N N N W ;' O V N W LU >emom 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ,2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 A` O ON ON O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Ln 0 p 0 0 0 0 0 N N V1 N N H1 N N ✓� p V1 N V�m 6 N N N Y1 Lf� N y� VN 4I� N V� Vt N N 4%� lP 4A '[ V P I� V N T �0 P co T T p N T V V N �0 co V J N V V N V V N N 0 �0 .n�p �0 N P .n V T y� T � m P�0 m T P �0 !�w P v T P N N co �0 v� r., N m v m � T m m p f� n v N � m v 0 N 0 .0 _y. 2 m V N N N P N T O �O N T N N N m V m �0 R: 1 QZ L _ LT v P v 0 a. O� O ui m N`T p v - T CO T P J v N _ �n w P 0 �n m P ry T v� 0 P 1� N P .n J CO 1� T �D v �0 v I� O `0 07 m T O 0 Ql ;.'R. CaJ W v!.O <0 m O '^`? d � O `? O '^ Orn •n `4 N P O O P N v 0 '^ P ,n O n N v m 0 ,}� .:!\. W W m I� T N T N O ry N N a nW' N N N M N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N O O (� _ e\ N _ Q ro 'yamy CIZ QIZv KPv � V, ol! 00000 04tK 000 v ot v V, 9 6 9 5 6� 6� 6� G� N N V N N N N V d N N N J N V1 P m P m N O N N O� P M 0 �^ �' O V (/� 1� v m n n O T Q N p IP �'0 O .0 .0 N 0 L'+.0 1� �^ ^.� - p C`.0 0.` _ O n _ N V W O T P T M n, p 4R n O T V V T N D P T T T p p v� h tiv 0 0 N p N N P P v .p N J .0 O `T P O m .0 tO N aO n � D p v v O N 0 L CaJ W O! v N O ,.00 m O T v N No N v V p o {� 0 N v CO .p v _ Orn N ry I� n V N N V N P m N T V N P M I� N N J W N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N T V ` N 7z Cc a u H Z V W U w 2 w Z O 0 Z } O z o W O Z w Zz .;:'Z wzUZU00 � Mp0cc cc ww Za ¢ av� Q ¢ U3Zw W w W W Z Z Z 0 0 ~ H J W n, a www_ wo_ O w a � ww0 Zww � . N S 1 �! 1 Z 1? W W r a Z Z E IA w w G Z w {0 V V w W W W W O O W W Q N W ~ W Q O d W ¢ M a4 Q4 O �_ Z H J 7 1 O W Z O yA Q VI QI N Q' Z ¢ ¢ W Z W W 7 W V Z u } d w H p CO_ � � � � 4�Q 3 TUU uaa U � WQ ,0 ,c o• Ca¢�� � AL1 W pGwwZ u N ~ W W W W U O z W S1 J Q W 0 O Z Z Z V Q Z j V ti ¢ C0 M Z W S 2 2 = Q zcl ¢ W J J W W W j Z Z Z O O 3 V W W F H = N Z W 1 z u u u u ¢ z 3 S Z a a z z 5 n ni 0 w ¢ ¢ z z J a z rt p D Z ¢ ¢ ¢ w O O Z W Z Z w w 0 0 w w o. r w w Q O O U O Q Q Q Q Q 6 V V O W W W v= O O S J d 0. d ¢ ¢ V1 V1 VI N H 1 1 N T V D�p t�m P N T V N n m P O N T H N N N N N N N N N T T T T 39 @ @ ot § aaaaa § _ 'o � ktk zm - - - - 0 , - @ ■ ( � � t om Qm « q1t - - - 0 . « G o000o � k0 0 60 $ - - } 10 ) k � § § m § @tfT 0 0 coLO LA ; f \ / t / / - � % CC 44 e % \ 0 m 00000 . � \ } & % aaaaa ° . 0 - \\ k IN- % n 7%13 { zk 4 \ § ) ) ) ) § f \ } ! k (2 � z § § rg � 9 ± ■ J : � ] ■�\ \ k § k ) ! = � zu ! ; � � k� « . \\}\/� ..... ))a ) a@ 3 §G@ � 40 t SECTION VIII . COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BUILDING & SAFETY t t r . BUILDING & SAFETY r FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS The majority of costs within the Building & Safety program are user fee-related $821,734 (947) out of the total costs of$875,362 are directly associated with user fee services. And,of the costs that are identified as non-fee related, $20,643 are associated with services provided in support of other city operations and programs and can be recovered in a variety of ways, leaving only $32,984 to be subsidized by the general fund(tor fee-waived or city-initiated projects). The Building&Safety program is currently experiencing a very slight over-recovery of its user fee costs. Current user fee revenue is$875,209 while user fee costs are$821,735-an over-recovery of$54,474(6.5?)• In 1995,this program's user fee revenues totaled$448,693 and only recovered approximately 647.of cost. It is likely that adopting the 1994 UBC rate table to establish fees(the 1994 rates had just been adopted when we did the 1995 study and the impact had not yet been assessed) explains the improvement in revenues and associated cost recovery levels. Since the city's fees for building permits and inspections are essentially on target(within 17.of cost), DMG- MAMMUS does not feel that this very small difference (N°i on the following summary chart) is significant enough to warrant any action at this time. The plan checking category(N"z)is showing a 1127 cost recovery level. Staff recommends a reduction to the plan check fee in order to scale revenues back to equal cost. Plan check fees are calculated as a percentage of the project's permit fee. The standard percentage that is widely used is 657 of the permit fee. In 1995, the city's plan checking revenues were low enough to necessitate a plan check fee that was loo?of the permit fee. In order to scale back the plan check fee,the city should adopt a factor of 89? instead of 1007 ($376,671 of total cost / $423,124 of current revenue = 0.8902). r r 41 N 6; 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ca CO CR Zt co a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 060 40 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 rt 4% 0 N 0 OIR 0 0 0 T'Q ok O T 0O DO LA ro N 0 a o N 4% 0 Fj 2 co t op Ck 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 q q q q q q 0 0 0 o o o o o o o Cc q co t (ja WN co A C� LA 0 LA q� �E -Ql at cc ia 0 tn M Z 5; 0 z 0q" cc :Q & 0 %) Q 0 CA M Q6 UW 9L 7 0 o o 0 a = Z 7- KE cr E 0 41 O o m CC M CL 9L I 0L6 )L E3 mqL6 w D D t= W Om 0 w 1,02 CL cc (D —z U U w T N co P 0 = m 42 ' SECTION. IX COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERING I r ENGINEERING FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS The total cost of the Engineering program is $1.335.086. The majority of the services provided by this program,approximately 837,have been identified and set aside as non-fee related Most of these non-fee services are related to capital improvement projects. There are a number of planning applications listed— the cost of engineering staff review of these applications is calculated here and forwarded to the Development Review program for inclusion in that fee structure. There is also a component of cost related to building plan check review—this cost is forward to the Building&Safety analysis. With regard to user fee activities,this study identified current revenues of $209,802 for service costs that total $233,747. This results in a general fund subsidy of$23.945 and translates into a cost recovery level of just under 907. Recovery levels for individual fees range from a low of just under 237 for miscellaneous encroachment permits(fee activity N'6 on the following page) to a high of 2867 for curb/gutter/sidewalk encroachment permits(fee activity N4 7). The recommendations,summarized on page 18,have adjusted all fees to exactly meet the ioo7 cost recovery goal for all fees and would result in an increase of revenues of almost$24,000. This overall cost recovery level of 907 is more than double the 407 cost recovery level that was calculated in the 1995 study. Revenues have more than tripled—from $64,000 in 1995 to $210,000 in 2000. This significant increase reflects this program's success in raising fees to meet the city's cost recovery goal. 1 43 v , g 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N N m � 0 fO N O m O T T T IA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q m P C m 0 .o O •� 1. O •a Q Q` m `? R O O N N N N N N N N N N N N y� N N N N N N N N N N N T ' O 0 V p N O2 •n N O O 0 .D v� .n .n O T O •n N 0 N c0 0 �^ 0 co0 O O 0 T N q 1�m m 0• P coN 0 vc.o •o cq O• .F n I� m n q cn uc.o T T ry 0 G T v J• - O N m 0T_ ry N m V T V •� N V •O •O co m N N �T O Q v P N N N N N •O •O N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N `O t.AW , S O 1 W Cc `t 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O o O O O O O O O j O O O O O O O Q O O v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v 0 LQ W� tn m $ ^ Ory •-. vn00up m 0 � NN P -. - O OON CN m p (9 O N m V 0 N m m Z T V O N N.N.. v v N N N YI N N N N N Y1 ry N N N N N N O N m •1 , , N �: V y N O N N h O O V NO ON N^ 0 N0 N0 0 M0 0 0O 0 O •D 0 T o o v0 0 cLo 0 O O N T T C�o co V N ry MVo N N N OP N N T w` f�i• :�J. V N y T N N N N N N N T N C m N e m m T o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 'w 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Qj O ^c v ^ C C O O C C C O G C O O O O O 0' et m r h z 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 q 0 0 0 0 g 0 0 0 q 0 0 0 q 0 0 q 0 0 0 0 0 N 0• P.o e : P ; e 0 0 0 0 0 e 0 lz •� .�' W 1^•1 N N V N N V ^ N N N N N N JI N IA ICS W N N N N N N e 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 g 0 O g 0 0 0 0 O O O 0 0 0 0. 0. 0 0 0 0 0 W, 0 n �n•0 O 0 0 m n 0 0 T v n v m m v� - m m .i .i N - N_ - O O v d yAy Z � C W n ¢ O wzO z ppz � ,n z Q d z w d YZ �nQ1j � Z W N � y Zt U ¢ a O ~ g X Z O Q , ~ H Z Z z EA cc W W F IA t t4i Uw J � = 2u w aZSO0 W Oowt- � o > zYz � Z J Z i m U �w a Z D w z a vi W Q a W W Z = L o � � 0 Z o ? ? W W V Om 0 a z z O �" O ad a 2 O z s M W W a 2 � F ZZDcua zwU � � °d �cZzga .m Q w V f f ¢ O O w 0 2 m 0U a w w m f \ _ w a a a a O ~g +�+ z =O O o Z U Z aOcz V vas ¢ ¢ ¢ ^ Ou'S0 � ¢ wUzzu � � azzN a zz��.. zUpU, > z �- c� ZZZ W a o � O4aQ � zzI1 � 7daarcazW O a W wGOOO � 4 P �! N N U VI m V 4 — N T v 1A•p I�m P 0 = T v v.O N m P O ry T n •D N CD P L — — N n N N N v •N N N N N O W O 1 44 v K q P P S N N N m N O mjn W C V � N O 1� n V V N V T O•`� N T CI - V P _ N N V CO N m V O V ' T ^m qN _ N N N N N N N 1� N N N N P O ry N I� W W N ry Ncr r '^ '� N N m O N N �i N `^ `p v V V...r N N N N N r Wg _ N � O ` �. N co D) tN/1 N V V m V O N V A 1� m�p 10 10 0 co A 21 01 V V P v N N V[O N o Q V U Q) 0^m N N C6 N N N /off N N N N N N N N y^j N N N N O O N W W O W N N N N N N N N N S N N N v N N N N W a e. s. xe�etesseai � ae atssxsectssa. see� ceeees � st � aaoese ' oe 8888888888 8888888888888888888 ` O O O O O pp p p O VI N 1%1 N V1 IA VA uN Y1 N 4A 4%1 V1 NS 4%� V1 O O " N ). 0 0 0 0 0 0 $ 0 0 $ v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v 0 Q � _ .o S o lul •� ^co P P V 10 V V T T V N O O h � m N N 0 N N ! V V n (Q m ^ V N ^^ A^ N N N N m V 'o N p N N N m m v P N c N O' N ^ N N T N N N N N N N m T N N N .� W O N N.N. N` N v v ry O M N N N VI M V1 lC �O = N IQ R h N N 0. _ _V G o ^ N V N O �p W .0 v O O P P co o7 8 W W r. C t0 N P N 1� m�O N I� 11�� N N N N T e GI j A W. N N N N N N b N N N T N N N 1� N N N N N N N N N N 0 �O ry N O C �. 2 'c N N N N O lNi1 O V yc 0 W W _ 01 U awWWwctsw0Wwotoeotoenaotn� oaae00woee�evWNwv ro •• ON'No m -. °° ,o ^ aaa 8888888888888888888 a - y` W p �j t- rlo $ = O o O d d d d o 0 d d d d d d d d d d esqj N \V V odNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN � A M N 0 OP 2 O W N N N N N N N N N W a j cc N N V r ¢ 'c a a b J Z W � ¢a ~ •` � W 3 Z 7 W O O Z ¢ N a U p Q O z U' YZ NQ4> > O U Z W N o_ O 0 W O H ]Vy( H Q w W J d W a H Z ¢ ¢ N :a� I U ~ W Z O Q 3 H Z IJ4- U �w J ¢ O u"] ¢ ar W 00 W Opw � Z41 Z N Q W \ = p y ¢ H W W W \ N Z U U p p Z w W W o ° Z J z a m U W p ¢ Z y '^ W Q Z O Z U a z z4 ? z w 0 0 N o U Q Q O O a s Z E O U > ' a "� z 0- 64 v.w.. W W U H m Z Z Q W Z 1 1 a a p Z O We 41 wr 6 � � � OWI C ZZ OQwgZw OUg a ~ ZZ g a N c d = ate WUf � f ¢ U O0uJdOMM oV. awww aE L U `c d j ¢ J ¢ 4iaa0 N 4 N4'� ZZJ � pZU > ZVU' C70QZJ Z U U ¢ s ¢ ¢ ¢ N J p p s OU Z Z Q Q g Z Z p w o O tt e � O < aSzzzzs o o � zoVcsz WO55twu~w 00 o v tAt M W Qt li Q Q'Q W O J y D_ N r r > N N U 1A^^'fO W Q K v d V N m V N�p NCO P O _ N n P Q N N N N N N NGo N N N Du- r 45 r i ' APPENDIX A ■ CUPA FEES 1 f 1 j CUPA FEES In September 1999 DMG-MAXIMUS presented a report of findings with respect to the city's Certified Unified Program Agency fees. This study was undertaken in conjunction with San Luis Obispo County. The report has been provided to the city under separate cover. Excerpts from the report are included below. INTRODUCTION DMG-MAXIMUS is pleased to present the City of San Luis Obispo and San Luis Obispo County with this summary of findings for the Certified Unified Program Agency cost of service study. This study included a review of both the city and county's services as identified under the Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) guidelines. The results on the following pages reflect a significant effort on behalf of both city and county staff. This project was unique from DMG-MAXIMUS' perspective in that it was a cooperative effort that was undertaken in the desire to reach consensus about how CUPA services should be delivered and what fees should be charged for those services. BACKGROUND In late 1996 the City Council designated the'city as a Participating Agency (PA) under the county's umbrella CUPA program. The city then became responsible for providing CUPA services within the city limits,with the county being responsible for CUPA services in all other areas of the county. Prior to this designation, the city had been providing hazardous materials services using its existing fee schedule. In early 1998, a formal transfer of all PA responsibilities became effective and the city adopted an interim fee schedule including the county's hazardous waste generator fees. The city adopted the county's CUPA hazardous waste generator fee schedule with an understanding that a cost analysis would be undertaken jointly with the county to review and revise the fee schedule, as appropriate. In August 1998, the city and county contracted with DMG-MAXIMUS to perform this cost analysis. tSTUDY SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES The study was performed under the general.direction of the city's Department of Finance with the participation of the city's fire and utilities departments and the county's Division of Environmental Health (DEH). The county's Department of Agriculture also participated in a small portion of the ' study. The primary goal of the study was to produce proposed fee schedules for both the city and county that covered all CUPA programs and that were, hopefully, similar in terms of fees that were charged. 46 METHODOLOGY The first step in answering the questions above was to look at the current fee schedule to determine if the fee classifications were appropriate. Both city and county staff agreed that the current fee schedule was too complex and needed to be simplified. A revised list of fee classifications was developed, based on business categories as opposed to the number or quantity of hazardous material handled. This would result in a significant reduction in the number of different fee categories charged to each business. The logic used to make this revision is that all businesses that fall within each business category basically generate/store/handle a similar number or quantity of hazardous materials and thus all require the same type of permitting,inspection,or plan checking service. Then it becomes a simple matter to bundle all services together into each category. Once the CUPA fee categories were established, the next step in the process was to establish the processes involved in providing the services. Again, city and county staff worked together to define the tasks involved and estimate of staff time necessary to complete each task. This information was provided to DMG-MAXIMUS for development of a cost analysis for each proposed fee activity. The cost analysis began with a review of the hourly rate calculations that both the city and county prepare on an annual basis. DMG-MAXIMUS reviewed these rate calculations to ensure that both agencies included the same overhead factors, e.g. vacation/holiday/sick leave, service and supply ' overhead,departmental administration and clerical support,and agencywide (city or county) indirect overhead costs. While DMG-MAXIMUS noted slight differences between the two agencies, these differences were immaterial and incorporating changes in order to make an exact match between the two calculations would not result in significant changes to the hourly rates. We did note that neither agency incorporated "non-productive" time categories such as training and education or general administration (e.g. time keeping, staff meetings). These factors can have a significant impact on hourly rate calculations. However, both city and county staff have been given direction to exclude these factors from overhead cost calculations. The hourly rate calculations were then adjusted to account for overhead costs directly associated with the CUPA programs. Specifically, an annual license fee for dedicated software and CUPA administration costs were identified. Both these cost factors are encumbered by the DEH but should be shared by the city as well as the Department of Agriculture. These overhead costs were layered onto the hourly rates for all CUPA staff. Finally,.the hourly rates were applied to the time estimates to come up with proposed fees for each of the CUPA program areas. COST ANALYSIS RESULTS The proposed CUPA fee schedule immediately following this executive summary displays the results of the cost analysis. Reading across the first page of the spreadsheet, the business categories are listed in the first column, followed by fees the city is currently charging, the full cost to produce one unit of each service is displayed next,and the proposed fees are displayed in the middle two columns. Note that we show fee proposals for the city and county. The last two columns display the proposed recovery levels for both city and county. 47 The second page of this attachment displays the number of units of each program area the city and 1 county anticipates processing on an annual basis. These figures are used to estimate total annual costs, revenues and resulting subsidies. Looking towards the bottom of this page, it is estimated that the city's total annual cost of providing CUPA services is just under$99,5oo while the current revenue received for these services is$6o,600. This results in a subsidy of$38,9oo and could translate into an equivalent amount of additional revenue if fees were set to recover full cost. For the county, total annual costs are just under $310,000 with current revenues at $192,000. The resulting subsidy, $u8,000,could be considered additional county revenues if fees were set to recover full cost. A discount will be provided for two or more programs reviewed simultaneously. This discount is based on reduced travel time and will be applied at$62 for each program in excess of two. This is in compliance with the cost of services study. 1 STUDY FINDINGS The efforts of the study group in reviewing/establishing the CUPA program areas and associated cost analysis performed on these same activities provided the following results in response to the study's objectives: ' 1. Are the cost calculations comprehensive and similar between city and county? With the acknowledged exclusion of non-productive staff time, the hourly rates for both the city and county are comprehensive in that they include all components of direct and indirect costs. The actual cost calculations are slightly different between each agency, but these differences are marginal and immaterial. In fact,the hourly rates for city (fire and utilities) and county (DEH) staffs ' differ by less than$i.00. z. Are the fees reasonable? The initial efforts to redefine the CUPA program fee categories and develop time estimates required the study group to review each service provided. This ensured that there was no duplication of effort and that the processes were as streamlined as possible. 3. Are the processes for performing the services the same or similar? Yes. The task list and time estimates developed by the study group was used to calculate fees for both the city and the county. 4. Are the costs of services the same or similar? Because the hourly rates for each agency are almost identical (within $1.00), the proposed fees are roughly equivalent. The City Council and the County Board of Supervisors may want to consider adopting the fees that result from blending the two rates into an average. The services provided by the Department of Agriculture's staff are unique and thus no comparison can be made to the city. 48 novo o � 0 000 0000 00 0 G 0 0 O o o p o p p o o p 0 0 O o: o u:U <m: G � o a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O u b G3 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O p O m: V r x m d N O, N %D ON V1 (r7 N N V N N N ro CD CD p m p v N V r` m%D m m %D %D N O E V! N N N N N N N N � d.: O G L U ro b: U y ,f4; u :f4: C\ t\ O� N ^ Ln V N N In N N N V 00 G 'o: CD aD .r - N W V = v n - %D m CT %D %D N C O y N N K N N N fn N N % Ln N N D i0 L N o.. VI d N vi 0 co G1 ' > %D %D CD O N %D CD V CD N O N CT D% N N O 0. b CO CO N N N co CM 7 N N +n D% Ln H h H N N VF b O U O U O u G co c0 — v mop Cl aD — r` v m 77 %0 m m m p Q Co CO N m `D 41 N N N m C` aD O1 aD %D N ro 0 N K N N m N K N Lll N N %D U E G E 3 U > L — O ro u m c d ro O O N (7� O ^ V � T CD L L L CO L b f\ V N m N =$ :2w p N ^ N N V: k H m 0 0 0 O O U Ll: L L L N L U OP. — b v V v C CL cx a CL- 10 m a a� ^y EL d a� b `p v 79 b d p b d E a a y to 0 ON tco EL roE E b c U to � LILi1 L E ro ro O b y coN - N -VN p ro d E p '� ro O CO to 0 O G � C d C m n a d E y s v ° E x b ro LL. 0o d a G b v Q ro o E E E (7 �' ro ro ami ro L `� ro % Ci s ' p y 3 3 2 Y s 0_ U E E v w 10 to d b w Q `� u G G `m u 2 u u to y = = N m V 3 N AlH N ml D -: N I Al41 Q N U .: U) o7 Q m ° U w i O a O L i49 co CD 0%OD Z7 CO OD N � 'D 'o Ln 17 0 N 17 1*- 17 %0 C)% ZT 0 � \ Mt m N m rn LA %Q P,� en LA ly Ln o N N % N m U) 0 Ln 17 17 CM Ln r� 00 co, 0, Ln r� %0 Ln LM q r� 17 N ON Ln P� N co r� CO CD fn %D CCCO) Q 'i 0 ro P.Z r, co :a) M ° &ƒ\ 00 0 :�7 17 OD 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 %D N --L 0 r-: r*�! CL o r� N �n Ln 0% 0 cm ri LA 17 17 N 0 .C.c D 0 Ln ON 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 0 0 00 0 CCD 0 CO rn 04 Ln N- OD en C; c'; 0220 cr� CC)OD Ln aD Go N N M 17 0 %D N %0 D Lr N 17 r" N CO �z %D 0% cm 00 CN M W, cj �n CO N Zoe cm Z7 0 0 @ \ _ Z7 ON OD ON co FP 0 0 %0 17 N vi N co 'D %0 Ln N N (n co fn Ln 0 N (7, Ln N N N 0% P, 0 CO -,L 0 _ QCD # � _ ® ao 2 » Q % mOLn £ 5 0 N ro 'n 17 ro b Ln m N m &3a %0 0 17 17 fn N 0 %0 fn N Ln 0 u '0 V) 0 E E 0 QE IA LL. to 0 0 to C= Ic -T ;; = 0 o co 0 CL. 0 r to « « ) k2 p 04 to zi r- cc co (D E coW to CO 0 F= 0 EU , » »vu u u ro E 0 u IT co 'o 10 co 7 + 4) J: LP + I u u Ln Ln = (� — — %D CD 0 CO IV 0 < = r� 4 t=n) U P- 0 co < co LU 5 APPENDIX B COMPARISON STATISTICS . ; @ 0 32 a! k ! -A- �] §� !/!! !%! � � ! - ` {, � 00 00 � �� • ; Z} ■ !!� !| ` {2� ` � ° �®: - .��f . ) @ ! f 00. a .] 3 ; y }. @ / k ƒ) OF 2 E .! \ § .r> � � | @ , ° ! E - - e t - , §2! - � � \§!8¥ ; / ■\! k " ±L 2 ;{! !z - !® of=l: � . § f i . _. @ _46 ! ! T b w E N LL } ' q 'J C 0 m 0 O O L LL V_ V CN a N V J1 A N \ p E N O Z w O ?p » g O 4 e w E l7 0 V Z < O 8C�\n 8 � S O 0, T 6 qP P 8 Q 8 00 J E Y $ O O » Uy Z$ O + `b Q • m V m \ L V P � E � N N� 6 f � ♦ � \ p < Y1 N v J „ v S O w E E V b o $ m Z x N V LL Z xO b r r f � � d O i z t m Pc V a 0 x < < Z p O w Q E m yV9 H N b � av L d � 'SNN V � w G n �O o Lo w a P u Co _ O P V N O 0. F' E = v EOt ZILLV. LL O NS 0O W 8 E U d `r ty LL z Z < 30$ z •VO ; U <\ r 2 _ _w ' p E < N O y N Z L b N u Q W d S O v 0 F + r E < O V b y _ s s \ m lL Q Q E O E m GFU O,b U .E- W �b -J x < b 2 m E :n Z V O £A tO O L U d Y G C M= 1 6 r 0 n y LL m I00 y m 1a r a m m i m 0 N d y S c w 0 V 4 V m 7 N V » b }M LL W o .s .V < 0 d< bO Z 0 Z v S L Z U F V a d V -N U OV b n a-Ny d a LL O `m OO O Q U _< o = z V ^Pw LP»F � 0 V O vVi V O LL e < b D 3 m O E O V M N c p w Y V 1 q C Q Z V C V r O O Y E _ O » m 0 6 r< N c V V c V m c c c w C y < 0 a C v L N ~ < t n m ` $ 40 a 0 0 E mm4 2 V 3 cy O O 52 0 0 O 3 a < aU� f za as a b� dui » COO IR .. N 0 O 'Sy F CA �p U Ol v p a E ^ E %o L d d C7%� '^ w E E ' LL o 0% LIX 17 rn (D N F d _1 A F n ip O� iy N E N O a ° 3 O1 O M ro O r? ^ Oo N o .n ,n ° amo rl v > ECL G 3 n + IT - , E%0 LnN N co p `o aNn `n '^ E N NLA 0 M O + ; O =' u F O ,n cW E F _v I d 17 N N ° ++ a)) b N 90N ` H F Q L m N \ :N E CO u ro v N -m m O O N ro 3 �O ,� E O O m O —r� to O� co 0 � ' E `1 47 N V O n n! N N Ln ro r'J `N 47 N .v +n m N F .o ,d E Y ri :' E In \ 3 n v `N N N H L L �1 > 0 V ro 3 O rn N N N p �' ` 3 �•,� ro e u v d Ln b v p u u `y L O , N CL 170 -V Irli 3 E O3O roa) ai O E o c t (/) Z m H Z _ O K ` N N in •L CO v +n F N 0. H ' %o a to .v p — E y 3 + O p ti Q 3 a � %0 3 E E v N rn d Z ,n = N d ap ` L O E N N H N U W _N r" m O b L b y a0CL to3 0 V Q GoN G L > E � ro O Ln NF u > ro v ,n •L LL H U w E ,n rn w 3 ro m m b E E u LLF d > Q O to rob o Q a ro E E m a) O Z u O m Z Z Z y E E y ro roy , E E LL. 3 cr °o a o E O N Q a, 7 b P- I I m N w b d d 7i to o CL W J O O � Q ro — F b v+ O L 7 Z �, '^ W OU '�^ O Q +^ +o an d G 7 r Q 0O U E ° J V L Q G d N ro 3 u U Q Q ? — N ro ro � v 06 CLO O a u Q 0 N } O J U Nh 00 b L L J ro F U N y L ro ro N y N .r F aroi ,d F M N 7 ro O C7 N m y m ° ro o ro � ro ro N Oro N m `w O ,n ¢ E O m ro ro ro O c > L. ro o ro e _ Q Q10 po 10 'o v) LA0 cc » UU 53 b w � u IV Z; Y w y OF O b N 0 0 V b ro p d roG a y "' a v40 c F o G Z E +n N Z O O t0 r 0 co U N O rn Z d N CL Z N b . N J Z e� N N L O O O 0 O u) O .L N N E W U b _U W j o o N �, N O N I^ N �!, ro + p ro Ln a % p O Q ti a Q F �. �p y) O c Z 7 '� Z. Z Z Z O d ON E +^ v m � _ ro 6 o .� uj O C. U v O N '^ Z 93. rlO LL ctm N v) O N N O CL 0 O a a O s ? W m J U b L ro G 1 w ro 0 ro `^ t b to _a to oa r m ro G -5 0 ro Q C7 d t ro d ro c ro . n p O b N co d a) O v) � 7 p ro ro ro 7 ro O G O a j O C ro E m '! E G F c F b _ Q Q � C70 0zaaroaaVnvivroi » UU i 54 §! ! 7! §• �|fi! E !�, i | | | ° | go 1 5 | | _ ® ! ! | • � � 02. �- �§ || � - } \ ! �) §| | !£, . , � 0\ , !■ \ - k § k, @ ( ) f ; ; ; | ; _ ! ; ■ f| ■ ! |- � . . ,! | ' !■ i as ! ƒ�� | !)| |l} �!!31 • _ kr ■| !!}�!!t ll�� |i i |{!! ! � � �' ! ! ± {\` � . !•!! | § � . ! @ | | | 55 + c n E G A -Co ;OF POE m a 0 d ° =Q w m E $ 6.n rmn O E J, 0 9 $ m F - o E F V O g U O ¢ ± og O up F F 0 y S d E 0 E + o y< y 0 O E < w •'if fr - w ° _ m« - 'n 4° O0 t° w n ° O u v > _ 8 0. Fe � U cbv L � 3 E w„ °� VA w .p .. m p o d mE + E a Z m e `w �m ry d ~ p o 0 w1 d t 9 ZP O mn wO t WE E F 7E E eJ.= a g € E N .E 0 c Oa a •�Er, v ¢ m « < ry cl y u 0 ,'� ° W aY ffi O¢ »3 s 8 SS ; 3 a m d s u 0. P = w O \ e m V V a N V V � - .°n= � p � - if m m .°n y _ O 8 N y< L >> x w �_ 1 N T n O• N w O 1 w kkb n ^' 0. d E n :5o ° °, S � '7_-`o,L'c « L �,�E M, ° 1! p , o sU° O u °c + ° E F 2 8 „ O a Q w b N 0. .� •G d p •` � d' Y1 N Y T N 1 1 T F ¢ � ¢ < N pp V 8n "^ w N p m L J V S ^ A 4 = 1 d N Y w Yss: m S � ; � �m �A p � bE F ¢ wTs x < ¢ > a m Z E E _ '^ �.Y �= � ¢ Z GE¢ v c m Na 8 p e c ;Aa d a S T ¢ .�w~ _ C 0 Q q M - a O. a m U OC Q rt F r ° E w S A V m 0 3 p T v 0 a S s La cE.€ �m a a < _ a 0 d E e a E Q c `'F m O E F' E EE > 0 0 7 02 p = ° �8 m O d W m O 8 M W ^ 0. i E _ p ;; g V a F m » is0 > V J O O < 8oe � „ 9 D F E L d 6 Z' 9 9 E a = v 0 U .E U a dd m - n E E u m m O 7 - < U OO ° m OZ e- U 0 0 a 0 O u x m O u o r w J c m 2 y p a o O w E E O (73 2 ii (A 56 � � � § { ! �) § • ! � � \ } f 3 > 0e 678 8 8 - ] 8 \ � > k } az - !- - - - - . - - - \ \ } - 01 2 ! }2 i \a ^ 0 - 2 \ - : \ It \ I �£ {f � u ) §I O ■ ,; ■ , !! ! f | .�1 ��= _ . _ \ \ s ! | = E! ! � d) / ) ° 2 i\) | �\) ({ . ` § 00,. \ _ ) ` ■ k ! Zr ; § )| - | 2 § ft - § ° r = j / k � 9 \ o ) | ) J ! ) k � ) ,! ) } ) k k \ k > \ ) 57 � � / S ) § CO � 10 _ 2 0 5 - 2 i . ; u _ i ; u . 2 J - § ) - 0 ) vIV - @ to ` �_ ° ` � o � o Q § u a 0 / § k ) " 05 § u � ) ° � � J co> > U CA to : u CL ! ) � / a- ; � � Q k $ § % 6 OD E § t o ■ o t . $ a . ) u ƒ to / 10 '0 to -ca :60 04- > w 0 ° co u j u \ CL � k � ) § ) « co \ k k � E7 Go p § o $ ) rg � F 2 ) � ) ¥ § k / � 2 2 < 0 U) 2 J Cl) CbU 0 2 u = cr- ) / 2- - @ - \ \ � � . E - k § 5 =rn . O 0 / k - - � - ] k $ 04rj .0 E @ ) / � 0 ° / k ° ° V ° § ® } ) ) � R ° / ) ) E 2 LL. v u u u ] - u ) ; _ u J § g q § u _ ; / \ e g § � Me 17° ol i2 § - to ¥ ; 10 \ \ . 0 § . o CL o 0 @ 0 - \ v - . ) 8 2 F ] o k , . § ) 2 ( ° ; ) R � " ° e0 $ 0 El 777 ! ] F ] 5 ■ m o o . ; & gy 'VI ; a e ® - G 4k3o � � z � � � � � > > O u . 58 - ° 0 .n .E o _ G L u 0 £ N is 0 O O ro ° $ L uN W N ° y O o u uZN w 0 cq O \F OA ri U V N O7 N N % ' N �i o: 3 N + N W `y M G 0 m n W U O .L G , Y N N N 0, u M L 3 a b 0. QjL ♦ N .a n 0 L L .E �' 0 .n b � = ° s � � LoP g � o 2 —0pC, N ` C d V w co $ $O _GqG Qqv€N0 3uS v$• NQ NO mL. N �_$ NN Ou. WEq M ° E + a .V L � cc CI ° p O �T G N Eu'S - O C WZI 'Jiy = L � 3 C + + rc ro = u » m o o ° .°,. U GJ U 3a. O a N Y a A i L O g A p J uPi pQ E L O 7! L p o v � d C V ry pp .� E e0 t y W t u0 - 3 u uW0O1 =y NN mN E `01 YNp�., AZy O C O � y i y NOmE No ECW O EJron ` CL u CL + mN Nv OL bl f +q NNU yNT Sa N NG r u J v N 0 .•LQ C' ua0.q " OCG o O a O N O d N E y 9 0 ° U co + + 0 0 0/ + m 0 U + ° W m 8 Oo U LCNAo Z V N M Q — ° QRQ ° ° N Z LL m '^ V 0. N \O E � p. n n N L W O GJ p 00 Y U � O 0 ry ° N U O b m E bU q q N N + N N ~ p 00Q11 YUI 7 .b 'J Q + O Q a co r £ 0 $ - o a CL Q r N Q N ° N N det a & $ 0 ri 0 o E Y .£ '� + ti a p y �' 0 0 .p Q g O a O E + 6�n u O �j P U 'n L G G N v 0 g t o�« 8 v E� i .� ° 0 8 $ C » O a .ui '� $ O 0 E « G A O E v G d E O p .°n n 7� .Ni. E o p $ F Q Qg � Q IS c; c ° N u �`' ,� E C N ° L N N P V U u Od - N N 4 c ry �( B - wo E V G in G - L Y G - x NLi O E 0 0 n .r 0 ;i u N u°-i r _ 0..b O ry ^ �+ $ 0 N G E p .n h N N O d U � N N J c u L n p N a (7 m q L q p N G 9 m 0 E m m U 2 y O c O ro > O u1 2 0p .a ' Q b > O G41 p E N E G c c �_ - o a s U Z S a d d q N N 1 J U U APPENDIX C' REASONABLENESS. OF SERVICE COSTS t REASONABLENESS OF SERVICE COSTS 1 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS As part of this cost-of-services study, DMG-MAXIMUS was asked to update from our previous study an analysis of organizational issues affecting the reasonableness of costs for fee-supported services. ' The 1995 study found that in most of the departments studied,organization,operational practices,and staffing were appropriate for the cost-effective provision of services,and that there were no notable instances in which such factors appeared to contribute to unreasonable fees. Indeed, that study found that the Police and Fire departments and the Public Works Department had some staffing deficiencies that could interfere with their ability to provide the level of service desired by the community. This update found that some progress has been made in eliminating those staffing ' deficiencies, and that, in general, the organization, operations and staffing of the departments examined is consistent with reasonable costs for fee-supported services. Rather than starting from scratch to analyze these issues,we simply updated the analysis performed in 1995 study by interviewing staff from the departments involved, and by examining changes in staffing and organization that have occurred since that time. The next section reviews the approach taken in that study. THE 1995 ANALYSIS The cost-of-services study prepared for the City of San Luis Obispo by DMG-MAXIMUS in 1995 contained an analysis of organizational issues impacting the reasonableness of the city's costs for fee-supported services. The nature of that analysis is described below. Functions Addressed. In general, the reasonableness analysis in the 1995 cost-of-services study focused on issues such as operating efficiencies and staffing levels that determine, to a large extent, the cost of providing fee-supported services. The departments listed below are those that directly provide fee-supported services. ■ Police Protection ■ Fire and Environmental Safety ° Parks and Recreation • Community Development Public Works ' ° Public Utilities Central service and support functions that contribute indirectly to service costs were not assessed in detail, but some observations and comparisons were made regarding staffing and operational characteristics of those functions. ' Approach. In arriving at an assessment of issues relevant to the reasonableness of city costs, the 1995 analysis used information obtained through the following activities: 1 6o ■ Interviews with the city administrative officer, the assistant city administrative officer, and all department heads and selected division heads in the departments listed above. • Review of various descriptive and analytical documents including budgets and internal and t consulting studies of several departments, including management audits and operational reviews done previously by members of the DMG-MAXIMUS project team. • Distribution and analysis of a self-diagnostic appraisal of operations, staffing, and services to assess a variety of performance measures against "best practices" used in many progressive and cost-effective communities. Conclusions of the j995 Analysis. The general conclusions reached in the 1995 reasonableness ' assessment are summarized below. ■ Administrative and support functions in the city appeared to be staffed at proportionately tower levels than in many comparably sized cities. ' • Public safety services were operating at or below staffing levels required to provide "above average"service. • As a result of an earlier organizational study,the Parks and Recreation Department was taking a number of steps to become more cost effective and also more responsive to the recreation ' needs of the community. • The Community Development Department was making organizational and operating changes ' in response to recommendations of a previous management audit. Those changes included a flatter organizational structure,use of working managers,process streamlining and improved project management techniques. • The Public Works Department was also making organizational and operating changes as a result of the previous management audit. In fact, our review found that the organization may ' be understaffed in some areas and that outside contractors were being used effectively. Overall,then,the 1995 assessment found no significant operational or staffing issues that would result ' in unreasonably high costs to the public for fee-supported services in San Luis Obispo. CONCEPT OF "REASONABLENESS" Under California law, service fees charged by local agencies may not exceed the "estimated ' reasonable cost" of providing the service for which the fee is charged. At a minimum, in that legal context, "reasonable" means not exceeding the actual cost of providing the service. However, it can also be taken to mean that the underlying costs that drive the fees are not artificially inflated somehow. The cost-of-service analysis contained in this study addresses the former issue. This assessment of"reasonableness"addresses the latter. ' 61 1 It is important to note that the City of San Luis Obispo has established cost recovery policies to guide decisions as to what percentage of total cost for various services should be recovered through fees. Those policies take into account a range of considerations, such as whether the community at large benefits from the service, how pricing wilt affect the demand for a service,whether the fee is intended ' to discourage undesirable activities (such as false alarms) and the cost effectiveness of collecting a fee. The city's targeted cost recovery for various types of service ranges from o% (for some teen and senior recreation services) to t00% (for building and safety fees). Fees for many city recreation services are set below 5o%of actual cost. ' It might seem that another way to assess the reasonableness of a city's fees would be to compare them with fees charged by other agencies. For several reasons,we believe such comparisons are of limited usefulness. ' As part of both the 1995 and 2000 City of San Luis Obispo cost-of-service studies, DMG-MAXIMUS surveyed fees for a number of other central coast cities, and for comparable cities in other parts of 1 the state. We have done similar surveys in connection with many other cost of service studies, and while such data may show whether particular fees are higher or lower from one city to another, we do not believe fee surveys shed much light on whether or not a city's fees are reasonable. To begin with, it is very difficult to make useful, broad-based fee comparisons among agencies. Different agencies structure their fees in different ways. Where one agency may charge a flat fee for a particular service,another may charge on the basis of actual time spent providing the service,and a third may use a sliding scale based on project size,etc. ' Even where it is possible to compare fees, such comparisons don't necessarily reveal much about the reasonableness of fees because of differences in factors such as actual component costs (e.g., staffing costs) and cost recovery policies. What this analysis can add to the discussion is an ' assessment of factors that influence the reasonableness of costs underlying user fees in San Luis Obispo. The most efficient way to accomplish that assessment is to update the 1995 analysis of issues that influence efficiency in the delivery of fee-supported services by the city. ' ADMINISTRATIVE AND SUPPORT FUNCTIONS tThe 1995 analysis concluded that administrative and support functions in the city appear to be staffed at proportionately lower levels than in many comparably sized cities. (The estimated population San Luis Obispo increased somewhat less than 17.per year from 41,300 in January 1995 to 43,050 in January, ' 2000.) Those functions are discussed individually,below. Administration. The 1995 report noted that Administration staff included three professional positions ' and 2.5 support positions, for a total of 5.5 FTE. Staffing at that level was judged to be in the middle of the range commonly seen in cities of around 4o,000. According to the FYoo-oi budget, Administration staff now consists of three professional positions and 1.4 regular support positions, ' plus a o.6 FTE temporary support position. Thus, the current Administration staff is actually o.5 FTE smaller than in 1995• ' 62 1 � 1 City Clerk. The 1995 report noted that the City Clerk staff had been reduced by 1.o FTE to 3.5 FTE, 1 which is in the middle of the range for cities of 40,000-50,000. In the FYoo-o1 budget, that staff has increased to 4.o regular positions plus a 0.3 FTE temporary position—an increase of o.8 FTE. At the current staffing level,the City Clerk staff is still within the normal range for cities of this size. CityAtter The 1995 report noted that staffing in the City Attorney's Office consisted of two professional positions and one support position for a total of 3.o FTE. That staffing level is unchanged in the FYoo-o1 budget. At the current staffing level, the City Attorney staff is still within the normal range for cities of this size. Human Resources. The 1995 report noted that this department handles human resources activities (i.e. recruitment,classification, labor negotiations,benefits administration, and training) as well as risk management. Staffing in 1995 included a combined staff of 4.5 FTE for both functions. Current staffing, according to the FYoo-o1 budget is 5.o regular positions and o.6 FTE temporary positions. It was noted in 1995 that this department had a relatively high ratio of human resources staff to employees, although that is expected for a relatively small city like San Luis Obispo. Both staffing and employment have increased since 1995, and the ratio is considerably higher now than in the earlier study. However, given the small size of the department, the addition of one position has a considerable effect on such ratios, and the relationship between human resources staffing and total city employment is likely to normalize over the next few years if city employment continues to grow as it has in the past. Finance. The 1995 report noted that the Finance Department, in addition to z positions in Administration, had 6.o positions in accounting, 6.o positions in revenue management, and 3.0 positions in information systems. That level of staffing was judged to be in the middle of the range for similarly sized communities. Since that time, the only change has been the addition of 1.o FTE in information systems, not surprising, given the increasing use and complexity of technology in city governments. Relative to population,budget,and other indicators of the city's size, staffing in Finance can be said to have decreased slightly over the last five years. ' Conclusion. Our conclusion regarding staffing in the administrative and internal support functions is that,overall, staffing levels in those areas have increased only slightly,and those increases are in line 1 with increases in population and the city's budget. We see no reason to conclude that the cost of these functions contributes to unreasonable overhead costs for fee-supported programs. POLICE PROTECTION At the time of the 1995 report,the total regular staffing of the Police Department was 8o FTE, of which 55 were sworn officers. The FY o0-01 budget provides for a total of 86.5 FTE,with 59 sworn officers. The increase in sworn personnel included four police officers. Other added personnel included a support services manager, a o.5o FTE records clerk, a field services technician, and a neighborhood services manager. The latter position was transferred from Community Development. The 1995 report noted that the Police Department was operating at or below the staffing levels typically required to provide "above average" service. The report indicated that the department was making ' good use of its resources and complying with best management practices in all but a few areas. 1 63 Overall staffing increases of about 8% since 1995 are more than justified by increases of 15-167o in major workload indicators such as calls for service and total arrests. The number of top managers remains at or below the number found in comparable departments,and it appears that overall staffing in the Police Department remain somewhat below expected levels for a community that has 1 traditionally targeted a relatively high level of service. We would conclude that nothing in the staffing of the Police Department would contribute to unreasonably high costs for fee-supported services. FIRE AND ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY ' The 1995 report noted that Fire Department staffing was lean,and that some service deficiencies were identified - among those, some 2-person engine companies and first response staffing capability below recommended levels. It was also noted that the Fire Department maintained good response times and a high rate of paramedic availability. Engine companies were actively involved in hazard prevention inspections, and the department had implemented a self-inspection program for businesses. Total staffing in 1995 was 48.o FTE for the entire department. Since that time, total staffing has increased to 54.o regular FTE with the addition of 4.0 firefighter positions, a fire marshal, and a radio communications technician. The department has also added 1.1 temporary FTE in clerical support positions. All other positions remain unchanged. Significantly, since 1995, both fire suppression responses and medical responses have increased by more than 50?., indicating that the Fire Department is absorbing a greatly increased workload with relatively minor increases in staffing. rWhile the added firefighter positions have helped to reduce the deficiencies noted in the 1995 report, the Fire Department continues to operate efficiently and to make good use of available staffing. We find no issues to be addressed in the Fire Department relative to the reasonableness of city fees. PARKS AND RECREATION The 1995 report noted that the Parks and Recreation Department had seen reductions in management staff and program coordinators, with a shift to more part-time program staff to reduce costs and increase flexibility. The report also noted that the department had just completed a new master plan, and was in the process of implementing some changes recommended in that plan. At that time, the 1 department had 14.o FTE regular employees. As is common with agencies that operates recreation programs,the department uses a large number of part-time,temporary positions. Since 1995, the total regular staff of the Parks and Recreation Department has increased by one, to 15.0, with the addition of a full-time ranger to patrol parks, provide security for special events, and carry out open space maintenance. However, one office assistant position has been eliminated and replaced by a professional position and there has been some upgrading of professional positions. In 1995, the department had a director, three recreation supervisors (including the golf course supervisor) and five recreation coordinators. Today, in addition to the director, the department has two recreation managers, five recreation supervisors (including the golf course supervisor), and two recreation coordinators. The number of temporary positions has also increased by 1.1 FTE. 64 The addition of program supervisors (recreation supervisors or coordinators) has allowed one regular staff member to be assigned to each program area (e.g.,aquatics,children's services). Except for the golf course, the recreation supervisor or coordinator is the only regular employee assigned to a program area. The number of temporary part-time FTE employees assigned to each program ' ranges from two to 23. The 1995 study noted that the number of program supervisors had been reduced to the point where the department could be facing a significant loss of program oversight and accountability. The recent changes should alleviate that concern. Overall, the staffing of the Parks and Recreation Department has not increased at all, except for the addition of a full-time ranger position. At the same time, participation has increased only modestly in most programs. The position upgrades accomplished 1 since 1995 give the department a fairly high percentage of supervisory personnel. Further increases in regular staff should not be necessary unless programs and participation increase significantly. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT The 1995 report noted that the Community Development Department had seen reductions in administrative/management staffing and improvements in line staff productivity, current planning processes and turnaround times, and customer service within the prior two-year period. No issues relevant to the reasonableness assessment were identified. In 1995. the Community Development had 19.6 FTE regular employees. Since that time, staffing in the functions that existed in the department at that time have been reduced to 1g.o FTE,with the elimination of 1.8 FTE in clerical positions, the conversion of associate planners from 1.8 to z.o FTE's, and the addition of a planning technician that formerly was a contract position. In the meantime, construction activity has increased, as measured by permits and inspections. Development review volumes have not increased substantially, although there is evidence that the projects being reviewed are more complex and involve more public participation. That is not surprising in a community where relatively little development is occurring on open land and major redevelopment projects have generated intense interest in the community. Considering the overall slight decrease in staffing levels and moderate increases in the volume ' and/or complexity of projects being reviewed, we can conclude that there are no reasonableness issues to address in the Community Development Department. PUBLIC WORKS ' The 1995 report noted that the Public Works Department had accomplished some effective reorganization measures,was providing a high level of service, and was adhering to a wide range of best management practices. The report also noted,however, that in some areas, the department was ' understaffed (in part due to vacancies) at the management level. At that time, the department had a total of 66.o FTE regular employees. For comparable functions, that number has increased to a current level of 76.5. The added positions include a deputy director. The addition of that position ' addresses some of the concerns expressed in the 1995 report about management of this department being spread too thin. Other added positions include more clerical support and more CIP project engineers, as well as more field personnel. Although some workload indicators have remained relatively stable since 1995, it is notable that the estimated dollar value of construction projects designed by the department have increased from $3 million to$8 million. 65 Given the fact that the department was considered to be somewhat understaffed in 1995, and that a key workload indicator has more than doubled since that time, the increase in staffing appears to be well within reasonable limits and we see nothing in the current staffing of this department that would contribute to unreasonable fees. PUBLIC UTILITIES The Public Utilities Department was not evaluated in our 1995 analysis, so this review focuses on the reasonableness of current cost components. Public Utilities provides water and wastewater services ' directly,and manages solid waste and recycling franchise operations. The water utility is responsible for water supply,treatment,and distribution functions,including administration,planning,engineering, maintenance and conservation, as well as customer service activities such as service turn-on and meter reading. The wastewater utility is responsible for wastewater collection, reclamation, and disposal functions, including administration,planning, engineering, maintenance, and industrial waste compliance activities. The solid waste and recycling programs involve administration, program ' development,implementation,and monitoring. Administrative and engineering staff for the public utilities programs are shared among programs. The department director, one utilities engineer, one administrative analyst, one telemetry technician, one administrative secretary and a half-time office assistant make up the department wide staff for this 59- person department. Each of the two major divisions (water and wastewater) has a division manager ' who shares support staff with the department director. The overall ratio of managers and supervisors to other employees in the department is 1:6.4 which is in a reasonable range for this type of operation. ' Each of the larger programs, such as water distribution or wastewater collection is the responsibility of a supervisor. In most cases,spans of control for those supervisors range from six to eight,which is reasonable. In one program,water reclamation facilities,the supervisor has a span of control of 12.8, which is quite broad, but appears reasonable for a 24-hour operation. The water supply supervisor in reservoir operations has a span of only 2.4. However,subordinate staff alone is indicative of the level of responsibility of responsibility in that position. Smaller programs, such as water customer service, conservation, and waste pretreatment are directed by a coordinator or have no designated supervisor. We did not find any areas of Public Utilities where staffing appears to be excessive. Indeed, total staffing in this department has decreased slightly over the last four years, and in every area appears to be near the minimum level required to operate and maintain these critical services effectively. 66 APPEN-OIX D COPIES OF: PUBLIC RECORDS COPIES OF PUBLIC RECORDS Allowable costs,including only the direct cost of duplication 1. Labor costs-Administrative Secretary @ $27.24 per hour (includes only salary and benefits,no overhead) z. Equipment maintenance costs @ $0.013 per page 3. Paper costs @ $0.017 per page Option A- Best Case Scenario(no interruptions,copier within 10 feet): 30 seconds staff time: $0.23 equipment maintenance: $0.01 paper cost $0.02 So'z6 ' Option B-Worst Case Scenario (interruptions,copier within 30 feet): ' 6o seconds staff time: $0.45 equipment maintenance: $0.01 paper cost: $0.02 Option C-Average of A&B: 45 seconds staff time: $0.34 equipment maintenance: $0.01 paper cost: $0.02 67 1 APPENDIX E PLANNING FEES OPTIONAL RECOVERIES 1 ti V q � 7 m l N f0 m N p .n N N O rD O O `^ '^ O '^ O O : p ^O O f0 n p en P 't% O O N . m p N$ p O P f� 'n, 'o N NN N OjN 2 LA as o � � u a N C � a F O OnO VV fD Pr NQ bv N N V n oVN N C A N n -T qrf N O E a cz (D m mmM d yMO 10 m LM 16 2 iOa � a s b o VCCu 3 V w y^ F 1 ro 1* b d C ~ O 3 a Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O V 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N 2 n S fn u, v� P P O ^� �o n .n ry �^ .O ry fo O N r, b N fp N p fi n N N N _V fn m N H ? m N m N N O P N N N a O N N N N N N N N N N N N N N f C VN\ Lu � ` v c a E cLQ 00 � � � � � � � � 000 � � 99v009 � � � � � � � � � 9v9 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - O O O P O 0 0 0 0 0 s i QZ O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O m O 0 0 0 0 0 v 0 0 0 ,^ C Q M V1 V� N V1 N Vf 4A V1 N Yf 0 V1 V1 Vf ^ V1 V1 N1 Vf N N N Vl V, N Vf V1 N Vf 4!1 N ro '° b 2 1 ra v„ O N N N N � a a N N ' � Z ZZ O O — — i � oO D a� c °WWC O z z W^ f w o 0 w 0 Z fn ZH w w V a u u i a N Z O O z ~ Wt Z Z a 1 W W Z gggg C F 0 w W W W W E ? z S a W fid' Q a uzi w 0 Z Z U w W ¢ a c �o ¢ a�cawcuU � ¢...fXUXF ~ � � 2OO � a�dr¢ra � z7d �q � idv c c ' JQ JQ Q J LL S N.J �' f Z a = ; J O y w J Z O V � � W N q0 pp Q� z O Z S W g 7 Q W V H � S Z W } d G � C F t[ O Z W C7 V U a d U a C �Qm] ¢ w w z O O r V U V U 4 O Z W Q J V 0 O O Z Z J U V Z > U H ¢ C7 G C N H H H V O H O 'j Qa Q O z W W z z a fi H H H r Z Z z W Z LL Z W 11'' W Z Z Z 3 W W Q Q Q VI W C O ON� O W V W W f' T. u 7 Z V V U V ¢ O O Z W Z Z W W O O W W O L H W W Q O '�`,' O O O Z ¢ ¢ cc�� ¢ W sl Q Q Q W 6 W V U a w LL v. fi C7 C7 S J D_ d ¢ ¢ Vf N N of '- > > N Q w ux+ O N m ry m J V� 1O I� fa P O_ N m D N f\ fO P N N N N N n N N N N m m m 0 O O ' 68 APPENDIX F city. of san lois .ostspo COST'RECOVERY POLICY city of san tUls OBISPO User Fee Cost Recovery Policy ' USER FEE COST RECOVERY GOALS the City is providing services for which there "" = L9 is genuinely a market that is not overly- `: ' stimulated by artificially low prices. A. Ongoing Review Conversely, high levels of cost recovery will negatively impact on the delivery of services Fees will be reviewed and updated on an ongoing to lower income groups. This negative basis to ensure that they keep pace with changes feature is especially pronounced, and works in the cost-of-living as well as changes in against public policy, if the services are ' methods or levels of service delivery. specifically targeted to low income groups. B. User Fee Cost Recovery Levels 4. Feasibility of Collection and Recovery. ' Although it may be determined that a high In setting user fees and cost recovery levels, the level of cost recovery may be appropriate for following factors will be considered: specific services, it may be impractical or too ' costly to establish a system to identify and 1. Community-Wide Versus Special Benefit charge the user. Accordingly, the feasibility The level of user fee cost recovery should of assessing and collecting charges should ' consider the community-wide versus special also be considered in developing user fees, service nature of the program or activity. especially if significant program costs are The use of general purpose revenues is intended to be financed from that source. appropriate for community-wide services, while user fees are appropriate for services C. Factors Favoring Low Cost Recovery Levels that are of special benefit to easily identified ' individuals or groups. Very low cost recovery levels are appropriate under the following circumstances: 2. Service Recipient Versus Service Driver. After considering community-wide versus 1. There is no intended relationship between the special benefit of the service, the concept of amount paid and the benefit received. service recipient versus service driver Almost all "social service" programs fall into should also be considered. For example, it this category as it is expected that one group could be argued that the applicant is not the will subsidize another. beneficiary of the City's development review ' efforts: the community is the primary 2. Collecting fees is not cost-effective or will beneficiary. However, the applicant is the significantly impact the efficient delivery of driver of development review costs, and as the service. ' such, cost recovery from the applicant is appropriate. 3. There is no intent to limit the use of (or entitlement to) the service. Again, most 3. Effect of Pricing on the Demand for "social service" programs fit into this Services. The level of cost recovery and category as well as many public safety related pricing of services can significantly (police and fire) emergency response affect the demand and subsequent level of services. Historically, access to services provided. At full cost recovery, this neighborhood and community parks would has the specific advantage of ensuring that also fit into this category. -1- User Fee Cost Recovery Policy E. General Concepts Regarding the Use of 4. The service is non-recurring, generally Service Charges delivered on a "peak demand" or emergency basis, cannot reasonably be planned for on The following general concepts will be used in 1 an individual basis, and is not readily developing and implementing service charges: available from a private sector source. Many public safety services also fall into this 1. Revenues should not exceed the reasonable ' category. cost of providing the service. 5. Collecting fees would discourage compliance 2. Cost recovery goals should be based on the with regulatory requirements and adherence total cost of delivering the service, including is primarily self-identified, and as such, direct costs, departmental administration failure to comply would not be readily costs, and organization-wide support costs detected by the City. Many small-scale such as accounting, personnel, data licenses and permits might fall into this processing, vehicle maintenance and category. insurance. ' D. Factors Favoring High Cost Recovery Levels 3. The method of assessing and collecting fees should be as simple as possible in order to ' The use of service charges as a major source of reduce the administrative cost of collection. funding service levels is especially appropriate under the following circumstances: 4. Rate structures should be sensitive to the "market" for similar services as well as to 1. The service is similar to services provided smaller, infrequent users of the service. through the private sector. 5. A unified approach should be used in 2. Other private or public sector alternatives determining cost recovery levels for various could or do exist for the delivery of the programs based on the factors discussed service. above. ' 3. For equity or demand management purposes, F. Low Cost-Recovery Services it is intended that there be a direct 1 relationship between the amount paid and the Based on the criteria discussed above, the level and cost of the service received. following types of services should have very low cost recovery goals. In selected circumstances, ' 4. The use of the service is specifically there may be specific activities within the broad discouraged. Police responses to scope of services provided that should have user disturbances or false alarms might fall into charges associated with them. However, the ' this category. primary source of funding for the operation as a whole should be general purpose revenues, not 5. The service is regulatory in nature and user fees. ' voluntary compliance is not expected to be the primary method of detecting failure to 1. Delivering public safety emergency response meet regulatory requirements. Building services such as police patrol services and ' permit, plan checks, and subdivision review fire suppression. fees for large projects would fall into this category. 2. Maintaining and developing public facilities ' that are provided on a uniform, community- wide basis such as streets, parks and general purpose buildings. -2- 1 User Fee Cost Recovery Policy special events) 50% ' 3. Providing social service programs and g. Youth track 40% economic development activities. h. Minor league baseball 30% i. Youth basketball 30% ' G. Recreation Programs j. Swim lessons 30% k. Outdoor facility and The following cost recovery policies apply to the equipment rentals 30% City's recreation programs: Low-Range Cost Recovery Activities 1. Cost recovery for activities directed to adults (0 to 25%) ' should be relatively high. ° 1. Public swim 25% 2. Cost recovery for activities directed to youth in. Special swim classes 15° o. Youth STAR 0% % ' and seniors should be relatively low. In n. Community garden 10 those circumstances where services are Teen services 0% similar to those provided in the private q, Senior services 0% ' sector, cost recovery levels should be higher. 4. For cost recovery activities of less than Although ability to pay may not be a concern 100%, there should be a differential in rates ' for all youth and senior participants, these are desired program activities, and the cost of between residents and non-residents. determining need may be greater than the 5. Charges will be assessed for use of rooms, cost of providing a uniform service fee pools, gymnasiums, ball fields, special-use structure to all participants. Further, there is areas, and recreation equipment for activities a community-wide benefit in encouraging not sponsored or co-sponsored by the City. high-levels of participation in youth and senior recreation activities regardless of Such charges will generally conform to the fee guidelines described above. financial status. 6. A vendor charge of at least 10 percent of 3. Cost recovery goals for specific recreation gross income will be assessed from activities are set as follows: individuals or organizations using City High Range Cost Recovery Activities facilities for moneymaking activities. (67%to 80%) 7. The Parks & Recreation Department will a. Classes (Adult &Youth) 80% consider waiving fees only when the City b. Day care services 75% Administrative Officer determines in writing c. Adult athletics (volleyball, that an undue hardship exists. ' basketball, softball, lap swim) 67% H. Development Review Programs d. Facility rentals (Jack House, other in-door facilities except The following cost recovery policies apply to the ' the City/County Library) 67% development review programs: Mid-Range Cost Recovery Activities 1. Services provided under this category ' (30% to 50%) include: e. City/County Library ' room rentals 50% a. Planning (planned development permits, f. Special events (triathlon, tentative tract and parcel maps, other City-sponsored -3. User Fee Cost Recovery Policy t rezonings, general plan amendments, 2. However, fee surveys should never be the variances, use permits). sole or primary criteria in setting City fees as b. Building and safety (building permits, there are many factors that affect how and structural plan checks, inspections). why other communities have set their fees at their levels. For example: c. Engineering (public improvement plan a. What level of cost recovery is their fee checks, inspections, subdivision intended to achieve compared with our ' requirements, encroachments). cost recovery objectives? d. Fire plan check. b. What costs have been considered in computing the fees? ' 2. Cost recovery for these services should generally be very high. In most instances, c. When was the last time that their fees the City's cost recovery goal should be were comprehensively evaluated? 100%. Exceptions to this standard include d. What level of service do they provide planning services, as this review process is compared with our service or clearly intended to serve the broader performance standards? ' community as well as the applicant. In this e. Is their rate structure significantly case, the general level of cost recovery is set different than ours and what is it at 45%, except for appeals, where no fee is intended to achieve? ' charged; and environmental impact reports, where the goal is full cost recovery. 3. These can be very difficult questions to 3. However, in charging high cost recovery address in fairly evaluating fees among levels, the City needs to clearly establish and different communities. As such, the articulate standards for its performance in comparability of our fees to other ' reviewing developer applications to ensure communities should be one factor among that there is "value for cost." many that is considered in setting City fees. ' I. Comparability With Other Communities ENTERPRISE FUND FEES AND RATES ... ,. ' .. eF:wkn}"F; 76;ai';i�.;ksaLK.y"n^,a,',:��1?.:-=lz...-.::y� In setting user fees, the City will consider fees charged by other agencies in accordance with the A. Water, Sewer and Parking. The City will set ' following criteria: fees and rates at levels which fully cover the total direct and indirect costs—including operations, ' 1. Surveying the comparability of the City's capital outlay, and debt service--of the following fees to other communities provides useful enterprise programs: water, sewer and parking. background information in setting fees for several reasons: B. Golf. Golf program fees and rates should fully cover direct operating costs. Because of the a. They reflect the "market" for these fees nine-hole nature of the golf course with its focus and can assist in assessing the on youth and seniors, subsidies from the General ' reasonableness of San Luis Obispo's Fund to cover indirect costs and capital fees. improvements may be considered by the Council as part of the Financial Plan process. ' b. If prudently analyzed;they can serve as a benchmark for how cost-effectively San C. Transit. As set forth in the Short-Range Transit Luis Obispo provides its services. Plan, the City will strive to cover at least thirty ' percent of transit operating costs with fare revenues. -4- Use,Fee Cost Recovery Policy D. Ongoing Rate Review. The City will review and adjust enterprise fees and rate structures as required to ensure that they remain appropriate and equitable. E. Franchise and In-Lieu Fees. In accordance with long-standing practices, City will treat the water and sewer funds in the same manner as if they were privately owned and operated. In addition to setting rates at levels necessary to fully cover the cost of providing water and sewer service, this means assessing reasonable franchise and property tax in-lieu fees. 1. Franchise fees are based on the state-wide standard for public utilities like electricity 1 and gas: 2% of gross revenues from operations. The appropriateness of charging the water fund a reasonable franchise fee for t the use of City streets is further supported by the results of recent studies in Arizona, California, Ohio and Vermont which concluded that the leading cause for street resurfacing and reconstruction is street cuts and trenching for utilities. ' 2. For the water fund, property tax in-lieu fees are established under the same methodology used in assessing property tax in-lieu fees to ' the Housing Authority under our 1976 agreement with them. Under this approach, water fund property tax in-lieu charges are ' about$29,000 annually, and grow by 2%per year as allowed under Proposition 13. -5- 1111111illlllllll lu► � city of 100110111111 san LUIS OBISp0 990 Palm Street ■ San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 Notice Requesting Proposals for COST OF SERVICES STUDY The City of San Luis Obispo is requesting sealed proposals for a cost of services study pursuant to Specification No. 90036. All proposals must be received by the Department of Finance by 3:00 P. M. on Thursday, October 28, 1999, when they will be opened publicly in the City Hall Council Chambers, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo,CA 93401. Proposals received after said time will not be considered. To guard against.premature opening, each proposal shall be submitted to the Department of Finance in a sealed envelope plainly marked with the proposal title, specification number, proposer name, and time and date of the proposal opening. Proposals shall be submitted using the forms provided in the specification package. A pre-proposal conference will be held at City Hall in the Council Hearing Room on Monday, October 18, 1999 at 10:00 A. M. to answer any questions that the prospective proposers may have regarding the City's request for proposals. Specification packages and additional information may be obtained by contacting Linda Asprion at(805) 781-7126. MEETING _ AGENDA G3 DATE -L ITEM # ® The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to Including disabled persons in all of our services,programs and activities. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805)781-7410. Specification No. 90036 TABLE OF CONTENTS KYQ. .X tr�. a!S}!'-i,�Jn.P.- lrlu i .• ; `f - •},.� 'Yj:? 3rk-q'x •h.'- �'Y.G a:� Ys.. �� to _ .✓!, ti• �S' s0 A. Description of Work 1 B. General Terms and Conditions 4 Proposal Requirements Contract Award and Execution Contract Performance C. Special Terms and Conditions 9 Proposal Content. Proposal Evaluation and Selection Proposal Review and Award Schedule Pre=Proposal Conference Ownership of Materials Release of Reports and Information Copies of Reports and Information Required Deliverable Products Attendance at.Meetings and Hearings Alternative Proposals D. Agreement 12. E. Insurance Requirements 14 F. Proposal Submittal Forms 16. Proposal Submittal Summary References. State of Past Contract Disqualifications APPENDICES A. Labor Cost Rates B. Summary of City Fees C. Resolution No. 8433 Adopting a Master Fee Schedule for City Services ENCLOSURES O 1999-01 Financial Plan 0 1997-99 Cost Allocation Plan Section A DESCRIPTION OF WORK 1. OVERVIEW Under the City's user fee cost recovery policy, the City reviews and updates service charges on an ongoing basis to ensure that they keep pace with changes in the cost-of-living as well as changes service levels and delivery methods. In implementing this policy,the City has adopted a strategy of comprehensively analyzing service costs and related revenues every five years, with interim adjustments annually based on changes in the consumer price index. David M. Griffith and Associates prepared our last "benchmark" analysis under this approach in 1995. Accordingly, it is time to prepare a comprehensive evaluation of service costs and related revenues. 2. PROJECT GOALS The primary purpose of this project is to answer four basic questions: a. What does it cost the City to provide various services? b. Are these costs reasonable? C. What are current cost recovery levels? d. What fee changes are necessary to achieve adopted cost recovery policies? 3. GENERAL FUND FOCUS—OPERATING PROGRAMS Rate setting for our enterprise.operations (water, sewer, parking, transit and golf) is not part of the workscope of this project; its primary focus is on General Fund operating services - public safety, development review, parks & recreation, and other General Fund operations. However, selected services and related charges in our enterprise operations(such as setting meters, starting new accounts, disconnecting service for non-payment), which reduce general-purpose rate requirements, are included in the workscope. Since the focus is on cost recovery for ongoing services, evaluating development impact fees related to capital improvement financing is not part of this workscope. 4. WORK ALREADY PERFORMED BY THE CITY a. User fee cost recovery policy. The City has adopted a comprehensive user fee cost recovery policy, which sets forth an overall framework for evaluating cost recovery factors, and establishes specific user fee goals. Although we want the consultant's review and comments on this policy, we expect it to form the primary foundation for determining cost recovery levels. The policy for user fees and enterprise fund charges is provided in pages B-6 through B-10 of the enclosed 1999-01 Financial Plan. b. Cost allocation plan. The City has developed an in-house model for allocating organization-wide indirect costs to direct costs. Again, although we want the consultant's review and comments on this plan, we anticipate continuing to use this plan in allocating indirect costs in the future and expect it to be used in identifying service _1_ costs as part of this study. The 1997-99 cost allocation plan is enclosed. City staff will update this for 1999-01 by the time this project starts. C. Labor rates. Provided in Appendix A is a comprehensive listing of labor rates for all City positions based on salary,benefits,and indirect costs. d. Comprehensive fee listing. As part of our Revenue Manual, we have compiled a comprehensive listing of City service charges. Current fees are provided in Appendix B. e. Program and activity costs. As part of the 1999-01 Financial Plan, the City has identified direct costs for over 70 programs and approximately 600 activities. Operating program goals and costs are comprehensively set forth in Section D of the enclosed 1999-01 Financial Plan. 5. CONSULTANT WORKSCOPE a. Review existing policies,plans and cost of service information, and offer comments and recommendations for improvement as appropriate. b. Identify total cost of providing various City services at the lowest reasonable activity level. As discussed above, the primary focus of this analysis is on General Fund fees, although selected enterprise fund charges will be included. In preparing this, analysis, the consultant should use existing policies, plans and service cost information to the maximum extent feasible. C. Form an opinion of the reasonableness of City costs, given City service levels and policies as well as practices in other agencies in California. d. Compare these costs with existing recovery levels. This should include service areas where the City is currently charging for services as well as areas where we do not but perhaps should in light of our cost recovery policies and practices of other cities. e. Recommend appropriate fees and charges based on this analysis in order to achieve adopted cost recovery levels. f. Evaluate rate structures and make recommendations as appropriate. g. Compare existing and proposed fees in key benchmark areas with those charged by other agencies in San Luis Obispo County as well as comparable cities outside of the County. Comparable Cities San Luis Obispo County Agencies Davis Arroyo Grande Monterey Atascadero Napa Grover Beach Palm Springs Morro Bay Petaluma Paso Robles Santa Barbara Pismo Beach Santa Cruz County of San Luis Obispo Santa Maria Ventura Visalia -2- h. Develop and present findings in a manner that ensure understanding, confidence and credibility by operating staff, interested community members and policy-makers in the overall work product. i. Produce a final report that summarizes key results and findings; describes each service; identifies its cost, key cost components and current cost recovery level; recommends new fees based on this analysis and the City's cost recovery goals; assesses the reasonableness of City costs; and compares current and recommended fees with benchmark fee areas in identified agencies. j. Report on other matters that come to your attention in the course of your evaluation that in your professional opinion the City should consider. In summary, we expect a final product that reflects technical excellence as well as a strong policy orientation. 6. PROJECT COMPLETION We would like to complete this project—including presentation of findings and recommendations to the Council—within 90 days after contract execution. Assuming a contract award date of December 1, 1999, policy recommendations would be presented to Council in April 2000. 7. PROJECT BUDGET The City has budgeted $47,500 for consultant assistance in completing this work. -3- Section 6 GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS 1. Requirement to Meet All Provisions. Each individual or firm submitting a proposal (proposer) shall meet all of the terms, and conditions of the Request for Proposals (RFP) specifications package. By virtue of its proposal submittal, the proposer acknowledges agreement with and acceptance of all provisions of the RFP specifications. 2. Proposal Submittal. Each proposal must be submitted on the form(s) provided in the specifications and accompanied by any other required submittals or supplemental materials. Proposal documents shall be enclosed in an envelope, which shall be sealed and addressed to the Department of Finance, City of San Luis Obispo, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA, 93401. In order to guard against premature opening, the proposal should be clearly labeled with the proposal title, specification number, name of proposer, and date and time of proposal opening. No FAX submittals will be accepted. 3. Insurance Certificate. Each proposal must include a certificate of insurance showing: a. The insurance carrier and its A.M. Best rating. b. Scope of coverage and limits. C. Deductibles and self-insured retention. The purpose of this submittal is to generally assess the adequacy of the proposer's insurance coverage during proposal evaluation; as discussed under paragraph 12 below, endorsements are not required until contract award. The City's insurance requirements are detailed in Section E. 4.' Year 2000 Compliance Strategy. Each proposal must include a description of the proposer's Year.2000 compliance strategy(or statement of why this is not relevant to the purchase). 5. Proposal Quotes and Unit Price Extensions. The lump sum prices quoted by the proposer must be entered in figures in the spaces provided on the Proposal Submittal Form(s). Any lump sum bid shall be stated in figures. The Proposal Submittal Form(s)must be totally completed. 6. Proposal Withdrawal and Opening. A proposer may withdraw its proposal, without prejudice prior to the time specified for the proposal opening, by submitting a written request to the Director of Finance for its withdrawal, in which event the proposal will be returned to the proposer unopened. No proposal received after the time specified or at any place other than that stated in the "Notice Requesting Proposals" will be considered. All proposals will be opened and declared publicly. Proposers or their representatives are invited to be present at the opening of the proposals. -4- 7. Submittal of One Proposal Only. No individual or business entity of any kind shall be allowed to make or file, or to be interested in more than one proposal, except an alternative proposal when specifically requested; however, an individual or business entity which has submitted a sub-proposal to a proposer submitting a proposal, or who has quoted prices on materials to such proposer, is not thereby disqualified from submitting a sub-proposal or from quoting prices to other proposers submitting proposals. 8. Cooperative Purchasing. During the term of the contract, the successful proposer will extend all terms and conditions to any other local governmental agencies upon their request. These agencies will issue their own purchase orders, will directly receive goods or services at their place of business,and will be directly billed by the successful proposer. 9. Communications. All timely requests for information submitted in writing will receive a written response from the City. Telephone communications with City staff are not encouraged, but will be permitted. However, any such oral communication shall not be binding on the City. CONTRACT AWARD AND EXECUTION 10. Proposal Retention and Award. The City reserves the right to retain all proposals for a period of 60 days for examination and comparison. The City also reserves the right to waive non-substantial irregularities in any proposal,to reject any or all proposals,to reject or delete one part of a proposal and accept the other, except to the extent that proposals are qualified by specific limitations. See the "special terms and conditions" in Section C of these specifications for proposal evaluation and contract award criteria. 11. Competency and Responsibility of Proposer. The City reserves full discretion to determine the competenceand responsibility, professionally and/or financially, of proposers. Proposers will provide, in a timely manner,all information,which the City deems necessary to make such a decision. 12. Contract Requirement. The proposer to whom award is made (Contractor) shall execute a written contract with the City within ten (10) calendar days after notice of the award has been sent by mail to it at the address given in its proposal. The contract shall be made in the form adopted by the City and incorporated in these specifications. 13. Insurance Requirements. The Contractor shall provide proof of insurance in the form, coverages and amounts specified in Section E of these specifications within 10 (ten) calendar days after notice of contract award as a precondition to contract execution. 14. Business Tax. The Contractor must have a valid City of San Luis Obispo business tax certificate prior to execution of the contract. Additional information regarding the City's business tax program may be obtained by calling(805)781-7134. CONTRACT PERFORMANCE 15. Ability to Perform. The Contractor warrants that it possesses, or has arranged through subcontracts, all capital and other equipment, labor, materials, and licenses necessary to carry out and complete the work hereunder in compliance with any and all federal, state, county, city, and special district laws,ordinances,and regulations. -5- 16. Laws to be Observed. The Contractor shall keep itself fully informed of and shall observe and comply with all applicable state and federal laws and county and City of San Luis Obispo ordinances,regulations and adopted codes during its performance of the work. 17. Payment of Taxes. The contract prices shall include full compensation for all taxes, which the Contractor is required to pay. 18. Permits and Licenses. The Contractor shall procure all permits and licenses, pay all charges and fees,and give all notices necessary. 19. Safety Provisions. The Contractor shall conform to the rules and regulations pertaining to safety established by OSHA and the California Division of Industrial Safety. 20. Public and Employee Safety. Whenever the Contractor's operations create a condition hazardous to the public or City employees, it shall, at its expense and without cost to the City, furnish, erect and maintain such fences, temporary railings, barricades, lights, signs and other devices and take such other protective measures as are necessary to prevent accidents or damage or injury to the public and employees. 21. Preservation of City Property. The Contractor shall provide and install suitable safeguards, approved by the City, to protect City property from injury or damage. If City property is injured or damaged as a result of the Contractor's operations, it shall be replaced or restored at the Contractor's expense. The facilities shall be replaced or restored to a condition as good as when the Contractor began work. 22. Immigration Act of 1986. The Contractor warrants on behalf of itself and all subcontractors engaged for the performance of this work that only persons authorized to work in the United States pursuant to the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 and other applicable laws shall be employed in the performance of the work hereunder. 23. Contractor Non-Discrimination. In the performance of this work, the Contractor agrees that if will not engage in,nor permit such subcontractors as it may employ, to engage in discrimination in employment of persons because of age, race, color, sex, national origin or ancestry, sexual orientation,or religion of such persons. 24. Work Delays. Should the Contractor be obstructed or delayed in the work required to be done hereunder by changes in the work or by any default, act, or omission of the City, or by strikes, fire, earthquake, or any other Act of God, or by the inability to obtain materials, equipment, or labor due to federal government restrictions arising out of defense or war programs, then the time of completion may, at the City's sole option, be extended for such periods as may be agreed upon by the City and the Contractor. In the event that there is insufficient time to grant such extensions prior to the completion date of the contract,the City may, at the time of acceptance of the work, waive liquidated damages which may have accrued for failure to complete on time, due to any of the above, after hearing evidence as to the reasons for such delay, and making a finding as to the causes of same. 25. Payment Terms. The City's payment terms are 30 days from the receipt of an original invoice and acceptance by the City of the materials, supplies, equipment, or services provided by the Contractor(Net 30). -6- 26. Inspection. The Contractor shall furnish City with every reasonable opportunity for City to ascertain that the services of the Contractor are being performed in accordance with the requirements and intentions of this contract. All work done and all materials furnished, if any, shall be subject to the City's inspection and approval. The inspection of such work shall not relieve Contractor of any of its obligations to fulfill its contract requirements. 27. Audit. The City shall have the option of inspecting and/or auditing all records and other written materials used by Contractor in preparing its invoices to City as a condition precedent to any payment to Contractor. 28. Interests of Contractor. The Contractor covenants that it presently has no interest, and shall not acquire any interest direct, indirect or otherwise, which would conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of the work hereunder. The Contractor further covenants that, in the performance of this work, no subcontractor or person having such an interest shall be employed. The Contractor certifies that no one who has or will have any financial interest in performing this work is an officer or employee of the City. It is hereby expressly agreed that, in the performance of the work hereunder, the Contractor shall at all times be deemed an independent contractor and not an agent or employee of the City. 29. Hold Harmless and Indemnification. The Contractor agrees to defend, indemnify, protect and hold the City and its agents, officers and employees harmless from and against any and all claims asserted or liability established for damages or injuries to any person or property, including injury to the Contractor's employees, agents or officers which arise from or are connected with or are caused or claimed to be caused by the acts or omissions of the Contractor, and its agents, officers or employees, in performing the work or services herein, and all expenses of investigating and defending against same; provided, however, that the Contractor's duty to indemnify and hold harmless shall not include any claims or liability arising from the established sole negligence or willful misconduct of the City, its agents, officers or employees. 30. Contract Assignment. The Contractor shall not assign,transfer,convey or otherwise dispose of the contract, or its right, title or interest, or its power to execute such a contract to any individual or business entity of any kind without the previous written consent of the City. 31. Year 2000 Compliance. The Contractor warrants that the goods or services provided to the City, including those provided through subcontractors, are "Year 2000 compliant." For the purpose of this contract, "Year 2000 compliant" means that goods or services provided to the City will continue to fully function, fault-free, before, at.and after the Year 2000, without interruption or human intervention; and if applicable, any data outside of the date range 1990- 1999, including leap years, will be correctly processed in any level of computer hardware or software, including,but not limited to,microcode, firmware,application programs, files and data bases. This warranty supersedes all warranty disclaimers or limitations, and all limitations on liability,otherwise provided by the Contractor. 32. Termination. If, during the term of the contract, the City determines that the Contractor is not faithfully abiding by any term or condition contained herein, the City may notify the Contractor in writing of such defect or failure to perform; which notice must give the Contractor a 10 (ten) calendar day notice of time thereafter in which to perform said work or cure the deficiency. -7- If the Contractor has not performed the work or cured the deficiency within the ten days specified in the notice, such shall constitute a breach of the contract and the City may terminate the contract immediately by written notice to the Contractor to said effect. Thereafter, neither party shall have any further duties, obligations, responsibilities, or rights under the contract except, however, any and all obligations of the Contractor's surety shall remain in full force and effect, and shall not be extinguished, reduced, or in any manner waived by the termination thereof. In said event, the Contractor shall be entitled to the reasonable value of its services performed from the beginning date in which the breach occurs up to the day it received the City's Notice of Termination, minus any offset from such payment representing the City's damages from such breach. "Reasonable value" includes fees or charges for goods or services as of the last milestone or task satisfactorily delivered or completed by the Contractor as may be set forth in the Agreement payment schedule; compensation for any other work, services or goods performed or provided by the Contractor shall be based solely on the City's assessment of the value of the work-in-progress in completing the overall workscope. The City reserves the right to delay any such payment until completion or confirmed abandonment of the project, as may be determined in the City's sole discretion, so as to permit a full and complete accounting of costs. In no event, however, shall the Contractor be entitled to receive in excess of the compensation quoted in its proposal. -8- Section C SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS 1. Proposal Content. Your proposal must include the following information: Submittal Forms a. Proposal submittal summary. b. Certificate of insurance. C. Description of your firm's Year 2000 compliance strategy (or statement why this is not relevant to the purchase). d. References from at least three firms for whom you have provided similar services. e. Statement of any past contract disqualifications. Qualifications f. Experience of your firm in performing similar services. g. Resumes of the individuals who would be assigned to this project, including any sub- consultants. h. Standard hourly billing rates for the assigned staff, including any sub-consultants. Work Program i. Description of your approach to completing the work. j. Tentative schedule by phase and task for completing the work. k. Estimated hours for your staff in performing each major phase of the work, including sub-consultants. 1. Services or data to be provided by the City. in. Any other information that would assist us in making this contract award decision. Compensation n. Proposed compensation and payment schedule tied to accomplishing key tasks. Proposal Length and Copies o. Proposals should not exceed 15 pages, including attachments and supplemental materials. p. Seven(7)copies of the proposal must be submitted. 2. Proposal Evaluation and Consultant Selection. Proposals will be evaluated by a review committee based on the following criteria: a. Understanding of the work required by the City. b. Quality,clarity and responsiveness of the proposal. C. Demonstrated competence and professional qualifications necessary for successfully performing the work required by the City. d. Recent experience in successfully performing similar services. e. Proposed approach in completing the work. f. References. -9- g. Background and experience of the specific individuals to be assigned to this project. h. Proposed compensation. As reflected above, contract award will not be based on price, but on a combination of factors that represent the best overall value for completing the workscope as determined by the City. After evaluating the proposals and discussing them further with the finalists or the tentatively selected contractor, the City reserves the right to further negotiate the proposed workscope and/or method and amount of compensation. 3. Proposal Review and Award Schedule. The following is an outline of the anticipated schedule for proposal review and contract award: a. Issue RFP 10/6 b. Conduct pre-proposal conference 10/18 C. Receive proposals 11/1 d. Complete proposal evaluation 11/5 e. Conduct finalist interviews 11/9 f. Finalize staff recommendation 11/15 g. Award contract 11/19 h. Execute contract 11/29 i. Start work 12/1 4. Pre-Proposal Conference. A pre-proposal conference will be held at the following location, date,and time to answer any questions that prospective proposers may have regarding this RFP: Monday,October 18, 1999 10:00 A.M. City Hall,Council Hearing Room 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo 5. Ownership of Materials. All original drawings, plan documents and other materials prepared by or in possession of the Contractor as part of the work or services under these specifications shall become the permanent property of the City,and shall be delivered to the City upon demand. 6. Release of Reports and Information. Any reports, information, data, or other material given to, prepared by or assembled by the Contractor as part of the work or services under these specifications shall be the property of City and shall not be made available to any individual or organization by the Contractor without the prior written approval of the City. 7. Copies of Reports and Information. If the City requests additional copies of reports,drawings, specifications, or any other material in addition to what the Contractor is required to furnish in limited quantities as part of the work or services under these specifications, the Contractor shall provide such additional copies as are requested, and City shall compensate the Contractor for the costs of duplicating of such copies at the Contractor's direct expense. 8. Required Deliverable Products. The Contractor will be required to provide: a. Thirty (30) copies of the final report, which addresses all elements of the,workscope. City staff will review any documents or materials provided by the Contractor and,where -10- necessary, the Contractor will be required to respond to staff comments and make such changes as deemed appropriate. b. One camera-ready original, unbound, each page printed on only one side, including any original graphics in place and scaled to size,ready for reproduction. C. When computers have been used to produce materials submitted to the City as a part of the workscope,the Contractor must provide the corresponding computer files to the City, compatible with the following programs whenever possible unless otherwise directed by the project manager: • Word Processing Word • Spreadsheets Excel • Desktop Publishing CorelDraw,PageMaker e Computer Aided Drafting(CAD) AutoCAD Computer files must be on 31/2," high-density, write-protected diskettes, formatted for use on IBM-compatible systems. Each diskette must be clearly labeled and have a printed copy of the directory. 9. Attendance at Meetings and Hearings. As part of the workscope and included in the contract price is attendance by the Contractor at up to three (3) public meetings to present and discuss its findings and recommendations. Contractor shall attend as many "working" meetings with staff as necessary in performing workscope tasks. 10. Alternative Proposals. The proposer may submit an alternative proposal (or proposals) that it believes will also meet the City's project objectives but in a different way. In this case, the proposer must provide an analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of each of the alternatives, and discuss under what circumstances the City would prefer one alternative over the other(s). If an alternative proposal is submitted, the maximum length of the proposal may be expanded proportionately by the number of alternatives submitted. -11- Section D FORM OF AGREEMENT AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into in the City of San Luis Obispo on this day of , by and between the CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, a municipal corporation,hereinafter referred to as City,and[ ],hereinafter referred to as Contractor. WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, on October 6, 1999, City requested proposals for the preparation of a comprehensive cost of services study per Specification No.90036. WHEREAS, pursuant to said request, Contractor submitted a proposal, which was accepted by City for said study. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of their mutual promises, obligations and covenants hereinafter contained,the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. TERM. The term of this Agreement shall be from the date this Agreement is made and entered, as first written above,until acceptance or completion of said study. 2. INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE. City Specification No. 90036 and Contractor's proposal dated October 28, 1999,are hereby incorporated in and made a part of this Agreement. 3. CITY'S OBLIGATIONS. For providing services, as specified in this Agreement, City will pay and Contractor shall receive therefore compensation in a total sum not to exceed[$ ]. 4. CONTRACTOR'S OBLIGATIONS. For and in consideration of the payments and agreements hereinbefore mentioned to be made and performed by City, Contractor agrees with City to do everything required by this Agreement and the said specifications. 5. AMENDMENTS. Any amendment, modification or variation from the terms of this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be effective only upon approval by the Director of Finance of the City. 12 6. COMPLETE AGREEMENT. This written Agreement, including all writings specifically incorporated herein by reference, shall constitute the complete agreement between the parties hereto. No oral agreement, understanding, or representation not reduced to writing and specifically incorporated herein shall be of any force or effect,nor shall any such oral agreement, understanding, or representation be binding upon the parties hereto. 7. NOTICE. All written notices to the parties hereto shall be sent by United States mail, postage prepaid by registered or certified mail addressed as follows: City Director of Finance City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 Contractor [ ] [ ] 8. AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE AGREEMENT. Both City and Contractor do covenant that each individual executing this agreement on behalf of each party is a person duly authorized and empowered to execute Agreements for such parry. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this instrument to be executed the day and year first above written. ATTEST: CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO,A Municipal Corporation By: Lee Price,City Clerk John Dunn,City Administrative Officer APPROVED AS TO FORM: CONTRACTOR By: Jeffrey G.Jorgensen,City Attorney -13- Section E INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS: Consultant Services The Contractor shall procure and maintain for the duration of the contract insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder by the Contractor, its agents,representatives,employees, or subcontractors. Minimum Scope of Insurance. Coverage shall be at least as broad as: 1. Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability coverage(occurrence form CG 0001). 2. Insurance Services Office form number CA 0001 (Ed. 1/87)covering Automobile Liability, code 1 (any auto). 3. Workers'Compensation insurance as required by the State of California and Employer's Liability Insurance. 4. Errors and Omissions Liability insurance as appropriate to the consultant's profession. Minimum Limits of Insurance. Contractor shall maintain limits no less than: 1. General Liability: $1,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage. If Commercial General Liability or other form with a general aggregate limit is used, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this project/location or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit. 2. Automobile Liability: $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and property damage. 3. Employer's Liability: $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury or disease. 4. Errors and Omissions Liability: $1,000,000 per occurrence. Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions. Any deductibles or self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the City. At the option of the City, either: the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self-insured retentions as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers; or the Contractor shall procure a bond guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claim administration and defense expenses. Other Insurance Provisions. The general liability and automobile liability policies are to contain,or be endorsed to contain,the following provisions: 1. The City, its officers, officials, employees,agents and volunteers are to be covered as insureds as respects: liability arising out of activities performed by or on behalf of the Contractor; products and completed operations of the Contractor; premises owned, occupied or used by the Contractor; or automobiles owned, leased, hired or borrowed by the Contractor. The coverage shall contain no special limitations on the scope of protection afforded to the City, its officers, official, employees, agents or volunteers. 2. For any claims related to this project, the Contractor's insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the City, its officers, officials, employees, agents or volunteers shall be excess of the Contractor's insurance and shall not contribute with it. 3. Any failure to comply with reporting or other provisions of the policies including breaches of warranties shall not affect coverage provided to the City, its officers,officials,employees, agents or volunteers. -14- 4. The Contractor's insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought,except with respect to the limits of the insurer's liability. 5. Each insurance policy required by this clause shall be endorsed to state that coverage shall not be suspended, voided, canceled by either party, reduced in coverage or in limits except after thirty (30) days' prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, has been given to the City. Acceptability of Insurers. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best's rating of no less than ANLL Verification of Coverage. Contractor shall furnish the City with a certificate of insurance showing maintenance of the required insurance coverage. Original endorsements effecting general liability and automobile liability coverage required by this clause must also be provided. The endorsements are to be signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. All endorsements are to be received and approved by the City before work commences. -15- PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL- SUMMARY .. ' The undersigned declares that she or he has,.carefully examined Specification No. 90036,which is hereby made a part of this proposal; is thoroughly familiar with.its contents; is authorized' to represent the proposing firm-, and agrees to perform the specified work.for the following cost quoted in full: COST OF SERVICES STUDY $ O Certificate of insurance attached; insurance company's A.M.Best rating: 0 Description of your firm's Year 2000 compliance strategy (or.statement why this is not relevant• to the purchase)attached. Firm Name and Address Contact - _ - - Phone Signature of Authorized Representative Date -16-. REFERENCES Number of years engaged in providing the services included within the scope of the specifications under the present business name: Describe fully the last three contracts performed by your firm, which demonstrate your ability to provide the services included with the scope of the specifications. Attach additional pages if required. The City reserves the right to contact each of the references listed for additional information regarding your firm's qualifications. Reference No. l Customer Name Contact Individual Telephone&FAX number Street Address City,State,Zip Code Description of services provided including contract amount,when provided and project outcome Reference No.2 Customer Name Contact Individual Telephone&FAX number Street Address City,State,Zip Code Description of services provided including contract amount,when provided and project outcome IL- Reference No.3 Customer Name Contact Individual Telephone&FAX number Street Address City,State,Zip Code Description of services provided including contract amount,when provided and project outcome -17- STATEMENT OF PAST CONTRACT DISQUALIFICATIONS The proposer shall state whether it or any of its officers or employees who have a proprietary interest in it,has ever been disqualified, removed, or otherwise prevented from bidding on, or completing a federal, state, or local government project because of the violation of law, a safety regulation, or for any other reason, including but not limited to financial difficulties, project delays, or disputes regarding work or product quality, and if so to explain the circumstances. ® Do you have any disqualification as described in the above paragraph to declare? Yes ❑ No ❑ ■ If Yes, explain the circumstances. Executed on at under penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of California,that the foregoing is true and correct. Signature of Authorized Proposer Representative -18- PARKS & RLr,2REATION SERVICES F.L..,, SCHEDULE EFFECTIVE JULY 19 1999 ACTIVITY 1999-00 FEES Special Events Triathlon $56.90/person Triathlon Team $101.60/3 person team Pumpkin Run 5K $16.40/person Mile $13.10/person 4' of July Craft $54.70/day Food $49.25/day Info $43.75/day Games $43.75/day Christmas in Plaza Craft $121.90 to $142.25/2 days/size Food $101.60/2 days Info $91.45/2 days Indoor Facilities Rec Center ABCD Non-Profit $17.25/3 hours Commercial $27.45/3 hours Gym Non-Profit $60.95/hr Commercial $121.90/hr Senior Center Main Room Non-Profit $30.50/hr Commercial $60.95/hr Kitchen Non-Profit $13.20/hr Commercial $22.35/hr Senior Side Non-Profit $24.40/hr Commercial $49.80/hr Meadow Park Non-Profit $17.25/3 hours Commercial $27.45/3 hours 9-- AY PARIS & RECREATION SERVICES FEE SCHEDULE EFFECTIVE JULY 19 1999 ACTIVITY 1999-00 FEES Outdoor Facilities Softball Fields Daytime Non-Profit $16.40/hr Commercial $21.90/hr Evening Non-Profit $21.90/hr Commercial $24.60/hr Baseball Stadium Daytime use $52.35/use Evening use $75.20/use Open Concession/press box building $10.15/use Outdoor Basketball Courts $3.30/hr Tennis & Sand Volleyball court $5.50/courUbr BBQ,s/Picnic areas Laguna, Islay, Santa Rosa, Mitchell, Johnson, Laguna Lake Pavilion, French, Sinsheimer(Lions), Sinsheimer Stadium $43.70/day Mission Plaza $103.65/day Adobe $27.45/day Parks-Full Use French, Meadow, Mitchell, Laguna Lake, Mission Plaza, Santa Rosa $328.15/day Jack House Wedding only $328.15/day Wedding & Reception or Party $437.90/day Library Conference Room Non-Profit $17.25/3 hours Commercial $27.45/3 hours Community Room Non-Profit $43.70/3 hours Commercial $109.75/3 hours BUILviNG AND SAFETY FEE SCHL JLE EFFECTIVE JULY 19 1999 All construction permit fees are subject to a minimum of $35.00. Whenever Work is started Without first obtaining a permit, an investigation fee equal to the amount of the permit fee required, may be collected. Plan Review Fees When submittal documents are required by Section 302 of the Uniform Administrative Code (UAC), a plan review fee shall be paid at the time of submitting the submittal documents for plan review. Said plan review fee for buildings or structures shall be 100 percent of the total of all building, plumbing, mechanical and electrical permit fees, including applicable energy consumption compliance, accessibility compliance, and fire safety surcharges. For building permit applications submitted for residential projects where the same plans are being used for more than one unit, the full plan check fee shall be required for the first identical unit, but shall be 50 percent of the full plan check fee for all other identical units. The 50 percent plan review fee reduction shall only be applicable to all permit applications submitted at the same time with the first identical unit. The plan review fees are separate fees from the permit fees specified below and are in addition to the permit fees. When submittal documents are incomplete or changed so as to require additional plan review, an additional plan review fee may be charged at an hourly rate as determined by the Director of Finance, with a minimum charge of$35.00. When additional plan review of deferred submittal items as defined in UAC Section 302 is required, or when additional plan review is required by changes, additions,or revisions to approved plans, an additional plan review fee shall be charged at an hourly rate as determined by the Director of Finance,with a minimum charge of$35.00. Permit Fees-General Application A single all inclusive combination permit shall be issued for each construction permit application. When electrical, mechanical, and plumbing work is involved, the fees therefor shall be determined by increasing the building permit fee by 40% for the cost of electrical, mechanical, and plumbing inspection. A. BUILDING PERMIT FEES Total Valuation Fee 1. $1 to $500.00 $23.00 2. $501.00 to$2,000.00 $23.00 for the first $500.00 plus $3.00 for each additional $100.00 or fraction thereof, to and including$2,000.00 3. $2,001.00 to$25,000.00 $68.00 for the first $2000.00 plus $13.70 for each additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof, to and including$25,000.00 �/6 4. $25,001.00 to $50,000.00 $383.10 for the first $25,000.00 plus $9.85 for each additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof, to and including$50,000.00 5. .$50,001.00 to $100,000.00 $629.35 for the.. first $50;000.00 plus $6.80 for each additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof, to and.including,$100,000.00 6. $100,001.00 to $500,000.00 $96935 for the first $100,000.00 plus $5.50 for each additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof,to and including $500,000.00 7. $500,001.00 to $1,000,000.00 $3,169.35 for the first$500,000:00 plus $4.65 for each additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof,to and including$1,000,000.00 8. $1,000,001.00 and Up $5;494.35 for the first $1,000,000.00 plus $3.00 for each additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof 9. Energy Consumption Compliance Surcharge A surcharge of 10%shall be added to the permit fees for projects required to comply with State of California Energy Conservation Standards. 10. Accessibility Compliance Surcharge A surcharge of 6.5% shall be added to the permit fees for projects required to comply with State of California Accessibility Standards. 11. Fire Safety Surcharge A surcharge of 17.5% shall.be added to the permit fees for projects that require review by the Fire Department. B. ELECTRICAL PERMIT FEES 1. System Fee Schedule a .Private Swimming Pools For new private, residential, in-ground; swimming pools for single family and multi-family occupancies including a complete system of necessary branch circuit wiring; bonding; grounding, underwater lighting, water pumping and other similar electrical equipment directly related to the operation of a swimming pool,.each $48.50 For other types of swimming pools, therapeutic whirlpools, spas, and . alterations to existing swimming pools, use the Unit Feb Schedule. — b. Carrs..els,Circuses,or Exhibitions Utiltzmn , ansportable-type Rides, Booths, Displays and Attractions For electric generators and electrically driven rides, each $24.15 For mechanically driven rides and walk-through attractions or displays having electric lighting, each $ 7.10 For a system of area and booth lighting, each $ 7.10 For permanently installed rides, booths, displays, and attractions, use the Unit Fee Schedule. C. Temporary Power Service For a temporary service power pole or pedestal including all pole or pedestal-mounted receptacle outlets and appurtenances, each $24.15 For a temporary distribution system and temporary-lighting and receptacle outlets for construction sites, decorative light, Christmas tree sales lots, firework stands,etc.,each $12.05 2. Unit Fee Schedule a. Receptacle,Switch and Lighting Outlets For receptacle, switch, lighting or other outlets at which current issued or controlled,except services, feeders and meters First 20, each $ 1.20 Additional outlets, each $ .75 Note: For multi-outlet assemblies, each 5 feet (1524mm) or fraction thereof may be considered as one outlet. b. Lighting Fixtures For lighting fixtures, sockets or other lamp-holding devices First 20, each $ 1.20 Additional fixtures, each $ .75 For pole or platform-mounted lighting fixtures, each $ 1.20 For theatrical-type lighting fixtures or assemblies,each $ 1.20 C. Residential Appliances For fixed residential appliances or receptacle outlets for same, including wall-mounted electric ovens; counter-mounted cooking tops; electric ranges, self-contained room or through-wall air conditioners; space heaters; food wasrc grinders; dishwasher;washing machines; water heaters; clothes dryers; or other motor-operated appliances not exceeding one horsepower (HP) (746 V) in rating, each $ 4.65 Note: For other types of air conditioners and other motor-driven appliances having larger electrical ratings, see Power Apparatus. d. Nonresidential Appliances For residential appliances and self-contained factory-wired nonresidential appliances not exceeding one horsepower (HP), kilowatt (KV), or kilovolt- ampere (KVA), in rating including medical and dental devices; food beverage, and ice cream cabinets; illuminated show cases; drinking fountains; vending machines; laundry machines; or other similar types of . equipment, each $ 4.65 Note: For other types of air conditioners and other motor-driven appliances having larger electrical ratings, see Power Apparatus. e. Power Apparatus For motors, generators, transformers, rectifiers, synchronous converters, capacitors, industrial heating, air conditioners and heat pumps, cooking or baking equipment and other apparatus, as follows: Rating in horsepower (HP), kilowatts (KV), kilovolt-amperes (KVA), or kilovolt-amperes-reactive(KVAR): Up to and including 1, each $4.65 Over 1 and not over 10, each $12.05 Over 10 and not over 50, each $24.15 Over 50 and not over 100,each $48.40 Over 100,each $72.75 Note: For equipment or appliances having more than one motor, transformer,heater,etc., the sum of the combined ratings may be used. Fees include all switches, circuit breakers, contractors, thermostats, relays and other directly related control equipment f. Busways For busways, each 100 feet or fraction thereof $ 7.10 Note: An additional fee is required for lighting fixtures, motors and other appliances that are connected to trolley and plug-in-type busways. No fee is required for portable tools. g. Signs,Outline Lighting and Marquees For signs, outline lighting systems or marquees supplied from one branch - circuit,each $24.15 For a. ,itional branch circuits within the sam. in, outline lighting system or marquee, each $ 4.65 h. Services For services of 600 volts or less and not over 200 amperes in rating, each $29.85 For services of 600 volts or less and over 200 amperes to 1000 amperes in rating, each $60.85 For services over 600 volts or over 1000 amperes in rating, each $121.45 i. Miscellaneous Apparatus,Conduits and Conductors For electrical apparatus, conduits and conductors for which a permit is required but for which no fee is herein set forth $17.85 Note: This fee is not applicable when a fee is paid for one or more services, outlet, fixtures, appliances, power apparatus, busways, signs or other equipment. C. MECHANICAL PERMIT FEES Unit Fee Schedule a. Furnaces For the installation or relocation of each forced-air or gravity-type finmace or burner, including ducts and vents attached to such appliance, up to and including 100,000 Btu/h(29.3 kW) $14.55 For the installation or relocation of each forced-air or gravity-type furnace or burner, including ducts and vents attached to such appliance over 100,000 Btu/h(29.3 kVA $17.85 For the installation or relocation of each floor furnace,including vent $14.55 For the installation or relocation of each suspended heater, recessed wall heater or floor-mounted unit heater - $14.55 b. Appliance Vents For the installation, relocation or replacement of each appliance vent installed and not included in an appliance permit $ 7.10 C. Repairs or Additions For the repair of, alteration of, or addition to each heating appliance, refrigeration unit, cooling unit, absorption unit, or each heating, cooling, absorption, or evaporative cooling system, including installation of controls regulated by the Mechanical Code $13.40 d. Boilers,Compressors and Absorption Systems For the installation or relocation of each boiler or compressor to and including three horsepower (10.6 kW), or each absorption system to and including 100,000 Btu/h(29.3 kW) $14.45 For the installation or relocation of each boiler or compressor over three horsepower to and including 15 horsepower(52.7 kW),or each absorption system over 100,000 Btu/h(29.3 kW)to and including 500,000 Btu/h(146.6 kV) $26.55 For the installation or relocation of each boiler or compressor over 15 (52.7 kW) horsepower to and including 30 horsepower (105.5 kW), or each absorption system over 500,000 Btu/h (146.6kW) to and including 1,000,000 Btu/h(293.1 kV) $36.45 For the installation or relocation of each boiler or compressor over 30 horsepower (105.5 kV) to and including 50 horsepower (176kW), or for each absorption system over 1,000,000 Btu/h (293.1 kW) to and including 1,750,000 Btu/h(512.9 kVA $54.30 For the installation or relocation of each boiler or compressor over 50 horsepower (176 kW), or each absorption system over 1,750,000 Btu/h (512.9 kVA $90.55 e. Air Handlers For each air-handling unit to and including 10,000 cfm (4719Us), including ducts attached thereto $10.35 Note: This fee does not apply to an air-handling unit which is a portion of a factory-assembly appliance, cooling unit, evaporative cooler or absorption unit for which a permit is required elsewhere in the Mechanical code. For each air-handling unit over 10,000 cfm(4719Us) $17.75 f. Evaporative Coolers For each evaporative cooler other than portable type $10.35 g. Vent.__don and Exhaust For each ventilation fan connected to a single duct $ 7.10 For each ventilation system which is not a portion of any heating or air- conditioning system authorized by a permit $10.35 For the installation of each hood which is served by mechanical exhaust, including the ducts for such hood $10.35 h. Incinerators For the installation or relocation of each domestic-type incinerator $17.85 For the installation or relocation of each commercial or industrial-type incinerator $72.75 i. Miscellaneous For each appliance or piece of equipment regulated by this code but not classed in other appliance categories, or for which no other fee is listed in this table $10.35 D. PLUMBING PERMIT FEES Unit Fee Schedule a. Fixtures and Vents For each plumbing fixture, trap or set of fixtures on one trap (including water,drainage piping,and blackflow protection therefor) $ 9.60 For repair or alteration of drainage or vent piping,each fixture $4.65 b. Sewers,Disposal Systems and Interceptors For each building sewer and each trailer park sewer $24.15 For each cesspool(where permitted) $36.45 For each private sewage disposal system $72.75 For each industrial waste pretreatment interceptor including its trap and vent, excepting kitchen-type grease interceptors functioning as fixture traps$19.45 Rainwater systems-per drain inside building $ 9.60 C. Water Piping and Water Heaters For installation, alteration, or repair of water piping or water-treating equipment, each $ 4.65 For each water heater including vent $12.05 d. Gas Piping- For ipingFor each gas piping.system of one to four outlets $ 6.05 For each gas piping system of five or more outlets, per outlet $1.10 c. Lawn Sprinklers,Vacuum Breakers& Backflow Protection Devices For each lawn sprinkler systeih on any one inter, including blackflow protection devices-therefor $14.55 For atmospheric-type vacuum breakers not included in.Item a:: 1 to 5 $12.05 over 5,each $2.20 For each backflow protective device other than atmospheric-type vacuum breakers: 2 inches.(50.8 mm) and smaller $12.05 overt inches(50.8 mm) $24.05. E. FEES FOR PERMIT TO MOVE.A BUILDING'' 1. For issuance of each permit to move a building $56.10 2: Inspection of a building within the City. (minimum charge-one hour) $55.05 per hour 3. Inspection of a building outside the.City (minimum charge-two hours) $55:05 per hour F. DEMOLITION PERMIT FEES. 1. For issuance of each permit when pedestrian protection is required $120:35 2. For issuance of each permit without pedestrian protection $60.30 G. GRADING PLAN REVIEW FEES 1. 50 cubic yards(38.2 m')or less No Fee 2. 51 to 100 cubic yards(40 to 76.5-m3) $24.15 3. 101 to 1,000 cubic yards(77.2 to 764.6 m') $36.1`5 _. du 4. 1,001 to 10,6x., cubic yards(765.3 to 7,645.5 m') $48.25 5. 10,001 to 100,000 cubic yards (7,646.3 to 76,455 m') - $48.25 for the first 10,000 cubic yards (7,645.5 m') plus $24.15 for each additional 10,000 cubic yards (7,645.5 m')or fraction thereof. 6. 100,001 to 200,000 cubic yards (76,456 to 152,911 m') - $265.60 for the first 100,000 cubic yards (76,455 m'),plus $14.30 for each additional 10,000 cubic yards (7,645.5 m')or fraction thereof. 7. 200,001 cubic yards (152,912 m') or more - $408.60 for the first 200,000 cubic yards (152,911 m'), plus $7.10 for each additional 10,000 cubic yards (7,545.5 m') or fraction thereof. H. GRADING PERMIT FEES 1. 50 cubic yards(38.2 m)or less $24.15 2. 51 to 100 cubic yards (40 to 76.5 m') $36.15 3. 101 to 1,000 cubic yards (77.2 to 764.6 m')- $36.15 for the first 100 cubic yards (76.5 m) plus $17.00 for each additional 100 cubic yards (76.5 m') or fraction thereof 4. 1,001 to 10,000 cubic yards(765.3 to 7,645.5 m')-$189.15 for the fust 1,000 cubic yards(764.6 m'),plus $14.30 for each additional 1,000 cubic yards(764.6 m')or fraction thereof 5. 10,001 to 100,000 cubic yards (7,646.3 to 76,455 m')- $317.85 for the first 10,000 cubic yards (7,645.5 m'), plus $64.65 for each additional 10,000 cubic yards (7,645.5 m')or fraction thereof 6. 100,001 cubic yards(76,456 m') or more- $899.70 for the first 100,000 cubic yards (76,455 m'), plus $35.65 for each additional 10,000 cubic yards (7645.5 m') or fraction thereof Note: The fee for a grading permit authorizing additional work to that under a valid permit shall be the difference between the fee paid for the original permit and the fee shown for the entire project. I. SIGN PERNUT FEE 1. For issuance of each permit for free standing signs $81.15 2. For issuance of each permit for signs other than free standing signs $59.25 C ay J. MICROFILM FEE° . Fee assessed with permit to defray the cost of-microf lming construction documents filed with penrtit; per page/sheet (does not apply to..page/sheet size less than i 1 inches by 17 inches) $7.40 . K: OTHER INSPECTION FEES 1. .Inspections outside of normal business-hours (minimum charge-two hours) $55.05 per hour 2. Reinspection fees assessed under provision of UAC Sectiori 305 (minimum charge-one hour) $55.05 per hour 3. Inspections for which no fee is specifically indicated (minimum charge-one-half hour) $55.05 per hour . PLANING SERVICES FEE SCHE- _JLE EFFECTIVE AUGUST 15, I ZONING SERVICES Sidewalk Sales Permit .$86.00 Home Occupation Permit $ 97.00 Administrative Use Permit $ 452.00 Planning Commission Use Permit $1,577.00 Downtown Housing_ Conversion Permit $2.,677.00 Variance .$ 540.00 Planned Development Rezoning $4,342.00 Plan Amendment $1,051.00 Rezoning Map Amendment $3,634.00 Text.Amendment 45%of full cost of time&materials Time Extension 25%of current filing fee SUBDIVISION SERVICES Lot Line Adjustment $ 743.00 Tentative Subdivision Map 4 or less lots $4,932.00 5 or more lots $4,932.00+$164.00/Lot. Certificate of Compliance $1,028.00 Time Extension 25%of current filing fee OTHER PLANNING.SERVICES Environmental Impact Determination $1,177..00 Environmental Impact Report. Consultant contract plus 30%for administrative&review services Architectural Review Signs $ 743.00 Development Projects $1,339.00 Minor-Incidental $ 416.00 Plan Revision. $ 808.00 Time Extension 25%of current filing fee Christmas TreelPumpkin Lot Permit $38.00 Fence Height Exception $157.00 Voluntary Merger $155.00 Agreements $158.00 Bonds No Charge Street Name Change 45%of full cost of time&materials Street Abandonment 45%of full cost of time&materials Condominium Conversion $2,660.00 Appeals No Charge ,�-a6 GENERAL&SPECIFIC PLANS General Plan Amendment Map(includes rezoning) 45% of fall cost of time&materials Text 45%of full cost of time-&materials Specific Plan Amendment 45%of full cost of time&materials ANNEXATIONS Annexation 45%of full cost of time&materials NOTE: All fees include costs for applicable notification•requirements to adjacent property owners.. Public Arris exempt from all fees. . ENGINEERING FEE SCHEDULE EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 1999 Improvement Plan Check $299.00+ 1.5% of Construction Costs* Construction Inspection $1,422.00+6.1% of Construction Costs* Tract Map (Final) $.1,048.00+$71.00/lot Parcel Map(Final) $1,048.00 Certificate of Compliance or Lot Line Adjustment Agreement 1 to 9 Parcels $403.00 10 or more Parcels $558.00 Encroachment Permits $62.00 Minimum Charge $1,237.00/yr for Blanket Permit $62.00+$5.05/lin ft. For New&Replacement Installation $382.00+$0.90/lin ft for Excavation Transportation Permit** Single trip permit $16.00 Annual permit $90.00 * An estimate is required from the applicant for verification of the public improvement costs. ** Fee amount established by Department of Transportation and is not subject to CPI increases. FEES FOR MAPS AND PUBLICATIONS EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 1999 . The Tee schedule for General Plan Elements, Other Publications, and Ordinances will be evaluated annually; with the fee adjusted to reimburse the reproduction/printing cost plus 30% to cover the overhead/administration costs. DIAZO PRINTS OF MAPS Aerial Photo only $ 2:35 Counterbook Page $ 1.80 Photo=Topo Combo $ 3.25 Topo Map Only $ 2.35 1000'City Map (3'x 3') S-4.65 800' City Map(42" x 42") $ 6.40 500' City Map (2 pieces) $14.00 ALL OTHER MAPS.&.COPIES Blueline $ .60/sq. ft. Sepia $1:25/sq. ft. Photo Copies: Standard or legal $ .25/page 11"x 17" $ .60/page Microfiche Copies: 8=1/2" x 11" (in house) $ :25/page 8-1/2" k l l" (50 copies or more) $ .60/page 11" x 17" $2:35/page 18" x 24" $4.65/page minimum charges for rushes $9.35 Microfiche Duplicates: $1.25/page minimum charge $4.65 RESOLUTION NO. 8167 (1993 SERIES) RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO SETTING LATE FEES ON DELINQUENT ACCOUNTS WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo bills customers for a variety of services and fees.; and WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo has determined that customers who do not pay their invoices within.30 days of the due date are delinquent in making their payment. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo finds and. resolves that: SECTION 1. Effective July 1, 1993, monthly late fees in the amount of$10 or 1.5% on the balance outstanding, whichever is greater; will be charged and added to the balance of delinquent accounts which have not been paid within 30 days of the due date. SECTION 2. Effective July 1, 1993, Municipal Code Section 4.20.110; adopted by Resolution 6447, will be rescinded. Upon motion of Council Member Ranpa , Secorided by .Counci-1..Member Romero , and on the following roll call vote: AYES: Council Members Rappa, Romero, Roalman; and Mayor Pinard NOES: Council Member Settle ABSENT: None the foregoing resolution was adopted this 4th - day of May 1993. Mayor PQ Pinard ATTEST: Clerk D ane G dwell APPROVED: i tto ey - - Section 662 FEES FOR PHOTO COPIES AND FAXES EFFECTIVE JULY-19 1999 Photo Copies: _ Standard or legal $ .25/page 11" x 17'` $ .60/page Fazes: $ 2.20/page BANNER FEES. EFFECTIVE JULY 19 1999 Application processing/equipment& labor to'hang banner $131:00. RESOLUTION NO. 8858 (1998 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO TO ESTABLISH FEES AND COSTS TO BE PAID BY SPONSORS OF SPECIAL EVENTS WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo welcomes non-commercial special events, as defined in Ordinance No. 1345 (1998), providing cultural, educational, recreational and entertainment opportunities which can be appreciated by both residents and visitors; and WHEREAS, it is important that such events be planned and carred out in a careful and consistent way with equitable treatment of event sponsors; and WHEREAS, the City must assure that the community does not assume a disproportionate share of the costs of non-commercial special events; and r WHEREAS, the City also allows commercial special events, as defined in Ordinance No. 1345 (1998) and must assure that the community does not assume any costs of such events. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. All special event sponsors, commercial and non-commercial, will pay an event permit fee of$50.00 to partially cover the administrative costs of issuing the permit. This fee may be adjusted periodically by the Council as part of the City's Master Fee Schedule. SECTION 2. The City of San Luis Obispo will assume the cost for all services listed as "City Provided Services(no cost to sponsor)" in Exhibit A for all non-commercial special events. SECTION 3. All applicable costs indicated as "Sponsor Paid Costs" in Exhibit A will be charged to each non-commercial special event. SECTION 4. The amount of "Sponsor Paid Costs" for non-commercial special events will be determined as follows: a. Regular Employees. The hours worked multiplied by the labor rates as established by the Director of Finance and set forth in Section 500 of the City's Revenue Management Manual b. Temporary Employees. The hours worked multiplied by labor rates based on the current salary,plus any appropriate benefit costs. c. Non-City Employees. Labor rates charged by any outside agency contracted to provide assistance,,(e.g. the San Luis Obispo County Sheriffs Department.) d. Other charges. Other direct costs for rentals, supplies or services incurred by the City. �. R8658 Resolution No. 8858 (1,Y8) SECTION 5. The City will absorb the first $1,000 of all "Sponsor Paid Costs" for each non-commercial special event. Sponsors will be required to pay any "Sponsor Paid Costs" in excess of$1,000. This deductible may be adjusted periodically by the Council as part of the City's Master Fee Schedule SECTION 6. If the total "Sponsor Paid Costs" for a non-commercial special event exceed $10,000, those costs will be capped at $10,000. This provision will remain in effect for three (3) years from the passage of this resolution. At the end of that time, the.City Council will reassess the cap to determine if the level is still appropriate. SECTION 7. Commercial special event sponsors, as defined in Ordinance No. 1345 , will pay 100% of all City services costs. A vendor charge of 10%will be assessed for non-commercial sponsors using City facilities for money-raising activities. City staff will provide all event sponsors with a detailed budget of the amount of Sponsor Paid Costs the sponsor must actually pay as soon as possible after the special event application is received. This budget will become a fixed cost, and will not be subject to revision. Actual final costs are unlikely to be different from this budget, as it will be the basis for scheduling resources; and event sponsors will not be surprised by any last minute cost changes. This practice will provide the City with reasonable cost recovery, while providing cost predictability to event sponsors. Payment in full of this cost is due to the City ten days before the event. SECTION 8. The terms of this resolution shall become effective sixty (60) days after its passage. Upon motion of Council Member Williams, seconded byVice Mayor Romero and on the following roll call vote: AYES: Council Members Williams, Romero, Schwartz, Mayor Settle NOES: None ABSENT: Council Member Roalman the foregoing resolution was adopted this 20 day of October , 1998. Mayor Allen ettle ATT T: Lee P ce, City Clerfc J i Resolution No. 8858 k1998 Series) Page 3 APPROVED AS TO FORM: J rge- C... Attorney .Attachment*- Exhibit A r.nniDii t� Resolution 8858 1998 Series CITY-WIDE SPECIAL EVENTS COSTS and SERVICES City Provided Services (no cost to sponsor) Event review and processing Insurance and risk review Fire Inspection Basic police services Monitor training Public Works Maintenance required serice review Barricades self-pickup/setup w/$100 deposit Parking review and fee losses Engineering route reiew Transit route review Sponsor Paid Costs (charged against the deductible) le- >W W LL F- O = Q W W, > p W O WLL LL W H O Ud W OU. } to D p}p O: ru (n V)U) Z Z. y Q 0 V N W W W a Ou. CV d O 4, W' Q FC-� p W Q: W W .� H m U ~ # TYPE Q O > > W m rn o_ o a W a n0 1 Parade X C/O X• X X X C/O CIO 2 Mission Plaza X C/O X' X X X N/A C/O 3 Park Event N/A C/O X• X C/O X N/A C/O 4 Street Closure AIC C/O X- X C/O X N/A C/O 5 Walk/Run X C/O X` X NIA X N/A C/O 6 Multi-Facility A/C C/O X` X C/O X N/A N/A 7 Rolling Road Block WA C/O X• X NIA I X NIA NIA X= Sponsor must pay Need will be determined by City Staff C/O= City provided or approved Outside resource may be used (sponsor must pay) NIA= Not Applicable in most cases A/C= Actual Cost @@ Portable restrooms available for City sponsored or co-sponsored events only Appendix C RESOLUTION NO. 8433 (1995 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ADOPTING A MASTER FEE. SCHEDULE FOR CITY SERVICES WHEREAS, the City's municipal code authorizes establishing various fees for the delivery of municipal services; and WHEREAS, the cost of providing a broad range of City services has been comprehensively reviewed by David M. Griffith and Associates (DMG) in their report dated March 1995; and WHEREAS, the fees for public safety, development review, parks and recreation, utilities and other City services as set forth in Exhibit 1 are consistent with the user fee cost recovery policies established in the 1995-97 Financial Plan; and WHEREAS, the Council held a noticed public hearing concerning these proposed fees on June 6, 13 and 20, 1995; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo that: SECTION 1. The master fee schedule for City services provided in Exhibit 1 attached hereto is hereby adopted effective August 28, 1995. SECTION 2. Consistent with adopted cost recovery policies, all City fees will be reviewed and updated on an ongoing basis. Accordingly, the fees set forth in Exhibit 1 will be adjusted annually on July 1 of each year by the annual percentage change in the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (or successor agency) consumer price index for all urban consumers (CPI-U) all-cities average for the prior calendar year; and a comprehensive analysis of City fees similar to that prepared by DMG in March of 1995 should be made at least every five years. - SECTION 3. To ensure cost recovery for services not specifically referenced in Exhibit 1 for supplemental or additional services as may be required, charges will be based on actual labor, material, equipment, and indirect costs. In determining labor costs, hourly billing rates will be established by the Director of Finance which appropriately reflect salary, benefit, and overhead costs. In determining equipment usage costs, the- equipment rental schedule developed by the California Department of Transportation (CALTRANS) or similar authoritative source for equipment costs will be used. For services provided by the City through private contract not specifically set forth in Exhibit' 1, the contract price plus 10% for City contract administration will be used in establishing the service charge. SECTION 4. If any charge set forth in this resolution or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held to be invalid, such invalidity will not affect any other charge or application thereof, and to this end the charges established in this Resolution are declared to be severable. 601-1 R-8433 Resolution No. 8433 Page 2 SECTION 5. Refunds of any portion of fees for withdrawn or partially completed services shall be determined by the appropriate Department Head based on her or his appraisal of the cost of the staff work already performed. On motion of Council Member Roalma>leconded by Mayor Settle and on the following roll call vote: AYES: Council Member. Roalman, Mayor Settle & Council Members Romoer & Williams NOES: Council Member Smith ABSENT: None the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this 20th day of ,lune 1995. ATTEST: A Glad Il, i y Jerk Am, Allen Settle APPROVED: Aef6Gjoge ,JQ �Att=y GAFEESI 601-2 Appendix A LABOR COST RATES The following schedules identify hourly labor rates for all regular City positions based on five key factors: ■ Annual salary(based on the top of the salary range) ® Benefits (retirement, workers compensation,medicare,unemployment and group insurance) ■ Productive Hours (annual regular hours - generally 2080 except for sworn fire staff - less vacation,sick leave, holidays and break hours) ■ Citywide indirect costs for services such as legal services, accounting, personnel, insurance and building maintenance ® Departmental and program administration costs Each schedule summarizes the specific factors used in calculating hourly labor rates. TABLE OF CONTENTS Regular City Positions by Functional Area Page Public Safety Police A-1 Fire A-2 Public Utilities A-3 Transportation A-4 Leisure,Cultural& Social Services A-5 Community Development A-6 General Government A-8 .9 vNienW) n%%gn vMo °M—oma- 4) n °o\o U M r- %0 00 0 C\ %00000\ v1\O CT'R MMMM MMM N M O y 'O V Y O D O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 O Cl O O O U U 00 00 00 00 00 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 O co O O O O O O D O n FnnnF 000000000 O CT � r0 RO ^ M 14O ,0 N nnr Fn r; OC C OO C C 00 E Vl NOO 4 ^ O�CiO O iy w �O MM M MM M r- O MSO v1�0 MM O� M7 F \O OO It r- `-'o ^ p N .-+ rn it .-. �p C v Q w O m d \ \\\° \ \ \ \\\° \\°O V p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o c o 0 0 0 o p 0 M d •- nrrnrn nnrrnrnrr w `0 o �+ � M f+1MM I+1M MMMMe�1 MMM R � V 00 00 00 00 OD 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 V U U U N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N O •• -f3• O C O ou r u v i a u o � � � � � � • Goc y ~ u Q v "' •° V aU bU � a ^ w ty0 N C% ^ Vl 00 O N F a F� � F (J ti K c0�.. •lu y yr •O m C p O O�M 00 N N W O ^ O N O 0\h CT N y y d .y �' V .EO A O V 0. viC% ownO�oO N \600vo0o0\6M7 u o i) 42 u E.E ° `" x MNT \O V'1NM rMNNNNNNN V •j 4 7 p � •p C �•�iy A O F[ ca P6. � -C v<w o a d b M M M M M M M M M M.M �. 7 ... .•. .•+ .-. 00 000000000 y o 00000000t- tr Fr�FnFFc^r, n 0 4 (S.n C O O v2 N� \O Q 0 o 0 0 0 o cc t0 N cs N V O C, Q F V Q C F ^ V Q \ \ \ \\ \ \ O NGIN MMC. CN RT NMN00 G1N N ^ ^ `-'~ ^'�- Ov1000 V' _ N SDR MCS �/•��I�M ['� M •-- F M `�v 00^' MO Ct 'S0 = F C v1 01 0 C CT v0 N r - F 0% W1 0 ..i 0` C; ^r N %0 00 O .Cr S O c R t -�r V V � ^ O 0 3 U c W o o o c c c c c c c o 0 0 c L O \ \ \ \ \ \ \ o o en c \r c c e c \n 'o e e u N v �O V ° O Vl O O O � m d M M M MV ti M V' V V^ V' V^ V' 'V O ^ 0. CLQ 00 co 0000 rt- cont- FF - �•^ r- V C N vv o0v MOIL C 0 %C n N V V' l0O V O O C C M M M .4 V ^ O .^ ^ N I M M M M N t V M N N N N N N N N nF N O C Y L w N N c _ m t0 oo r M O M a N V N M %D -IT R E L � V'I N O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a O O OtefO M MN 00 C%f, V v100 N N_ F 3 CD tn 0 CD N vv� 00 MO �t � OOV 00 Com+ m %0 'n F e'NN '/1NN ^ NO %O ^ W ` car W-;OMfTN Gp Ol 06 M 000 %DM M 3 m N O •-+ 0� V U � acn %O 00n M Vl 00 v MMMR:rMM'M u M Fy 0 O O c ca o ` C u nO �, .•-. •� C •C m 7 N �, U �.. O o •C7 O in ryn L) y 4f N W U y N y E c 00 H L bn A d J >, a c a Cd dm•5 udv �. .� W � � > a CN a, v, a (.� w u d t9 Y u d m en u 0.�F o u CIS E C� V p a N e CO �• H a " E'i�n v a,A o > >e0n > I� .~p.Ov�U.a o euipA o Q� eLi e0i•• e�i MR71 c°i cui cui uv a O'" £F�. E o o E y o d >^ m o `ivvv o . m 8 u .. x o._ ao 0 0 0 d> >�e G o u u u 0 z m o o !? p p E m u o u c . a W 00. 0.0. 0. ww v� VUU9'4xFav� ., • w SF > x� rpa aa3ac� a Ar� Y C o U � H v N O co Tn0" Nok 00(7%%n r. ^ h^ 4 0 0 0 0000 d 00 00000 O a C �4 M of O OC r+0i M N N O.N . . . 0 . 0 O O O O O O O O ? 00 .•• %n 00�e{{ OD 00 et 00 %O O M%0 O\ O �O o0 00 O v1 U xi CO h� M�MM�ORR W) IT OOh� MN 0o u'1 CI M 10 W0 Y A h N M N 0 O M IT Cd Y O G Y O O O O O D O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U Cd a O:O:O!O,O! O: O O O O O L N N C4 N N N N N N N N O O O O O 0 A .r .-+ ... .•- .-+ ... .-+ .-+ .•. .-. .-- V y C O C U R O o U v A UU te' 0.) C p U y (y! 0 O v ry • G Y %p U U w U V3 ID 0. 601 Q .L V 'd 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 o e o o 0 0 o V d d ,aV. w y G V N V:p ��+ C O M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M y .0 ..r .••i .-�.r r..-� ..+w+r+ .r .-. ....r r+ .-n 601 � G � ��A ~ '�O m� vii a� A �+ C MMMMMMMMMMM MMMMM � .� Wrri p CQFFAA A .. p v 0. A y �'.v-. O��OOOt� Ir OON NO N N W1 kn to A o0 00 -T00 Rr X1`1` Mf` 00 N n OL` a" 0001/'100 M%OMNN I: N v'100 N 00 N M M N N N N C M M M M %0 M M N N 12 y /��••� O> en Cl N N N N N N N N N N N %0 00 V 0O oO e oO �.Io oO O •U G en N vM1 vM1 N 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O 00 C C'4 Q\ M O R R 0 0 0 NN CIF NNCIF - --7 ^ ^ ^ �z- ^ N 0 00 .-4 C; SOC O 0. C.. r.% 00 .••. D o e o 0 o D o ;d = N 000^ -Y on r4 'V � t- C\ Nee•1 en 0\p. U 00 0000 o_ o Lno C) 0 0 H•G O V•1 M 00 V 0 �CT P t- %q N 0 r- r- R 0 W � ��^ M 0 'T 11- 0 0 0 y 00 � h^ O1z'In hh Mh Nhe/•11z00 � N ^ O 00 n � tn ^ .ov, vM ^ a 0 z U c .r..0� o c c o e o 0 W v o 0 0 o c e c c c c c o c o c O O �O o0 C o o e o o e t 0 61 M M M M M M V % O % 0 M V V %D%Z 00 N O\ -IT — 0 0 O 0. CCL 00NNNN Nl- I- 1l- 1^ (- 00 800 %0 W v NRR C V R D %6 O 6 %6 N6 O O M F M M M M M M N N N N N M M M M N v ca C +0., 000 N O N 0000000 0000 " V' N E NoO h I� � �o o e e e � — F L" m 00 ['- V M N L•1 Q Q f- � M O� N 00 00 O —'4 0 � � l- O V l O O O O =boo v00Zoin00PV C�GwOP enm00 V3 en 3 0; �" Movv, oc %? vcd el C in st �h �� X0en'1'7 00 en Men V] N N � ^ G ^ a n V_ PC U V u O H r. o T 1�1 0 e0 �" m Y e n 0 a.0 .o .o y ~ _ 2 y .F.i 0. 0 .L' 'e0 v 0 7 r .y dQ v F o p 0 rz d 6] Y 0 4) ,.a1 >rx ao w 1 xow ho\ EISO .y;. ua�'' y pkw^ cc u ^ 0U Ap.Caee " •�p ca fs+ Oa1wP.iWR.il. v 0.tl Q . p SF> z'w- M . a wcK3 ] C7 ] P—� o a C e o en Q - r en a, e v N .-•� 00 �N ODS OO r N vl rm Nen end O1.�N N O%en NNO��O eT O\0 Orb C 00 00= O O c w ^ R� p rm�D t�1 r W) O,%O%ON•"'O�T r M OO�ON1�NN r mQ p 00 OOC O O MI 00-,O o0 fV N1 O�G1�O OO f`i Ni O t,i O� V v1 Oh%O%D�o%C v1%D m ��i? vt Q.G �O Q M �,Q r V1NQ eelNQ %O fel til Q W)Q�O Qv1 f�f COQ refQ t�1QQ QQQ E ONDr www-%own •%n W r m Q In m v N N 00 Y e o e e e e o O e o e e e e e e e e o e e o o e-.*t e e W e e o e e o e e e e o o e e o e e o 0 0 o e e e �e 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q O O O O O O O Nen V1 en en en en eA hen N Nen en en en en en en en 0000000 Q�t7�<QQQQ � Q QQ �Q � QQQQ Y m Y y O C y o e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e o e e o o e e e o e o O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U '.Ur en h N en en h� V'1 en h h N en en en en eA en eA en en en en en V'1 en en y [� r h r I-i-(-r O �D eO eO�Db 6 y V' 6 .6 6 6 6,D%Db%O V bbbbbeD e. . y N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N V'C c aui E O y � ❑Q y r _ WO 0❑ �_ U` ° e0 ODO G1 en--^m m Rn en enrr 0 enm N OD eD eDO h u y .. m v,en VfeneDhen oenenmoenoorD� oonooenmmv,eno < e G Qui CO rV eb GD N e'i � r` r C c\�OD b 'V Q-• n '-•-j...� .•.fV'? in� �..Y �u C7QQ enNN'm N N enQN NenN Qm N m N m M en mmO C EV �U M y D d 1.. eel CL m m m m m m rn m m m en en en en en eef en m eel eel en en en en m m > 0000000 0000000000 0000000000 p rrrrhrr rrerr;r%r-r- - c-,r-c: rr- rt-,1<rrr,r^r O O a .y hQ O\ O M r rO N e+l C1m Q m '- r0 mOOQen m G =h N VIN CDQ eo e e o e �.� mrnh On Q G1 V^ PC1mQ N V QO V G�O+m mm PC\O O `d CD rmen rnm Co - nv QN N m P r<CO C, Ory N^N Nen G10 `-"-' Nm- OQCC ^ y -dr.6 Nenmmr Q V 6 0 CT rN en Wna m .r Q en ReD C OrrbQtn en hQQen CDhhQ COQ r-- CL -t V1 V'1hh u e"1 a 0 O U e e e e e e e a e e o o e e e e o e o 0 0 0 ^ r \\\\ \ .� {r, .O.• o e o 0 o e e e e e - o c e o�o a e o e e o 0 o e e o V -en N�N V^ Q o e a o_e a oe V' VVC7V V' V' V C v.... Nm^ L n Vf en rn h e-. C C 0 0 C O C C Oen en 0 0 0 0 0 0 en en W; (^,' NN N N NNe1 1^l e'^.ennen e1 e•1 e•1 N N Mel en mmol m N N V L %0 C) Q Q - N en V' Q V I= OQ Q-It-It•d' N Or Cul -e!1N�NV Q_ ee a e c O N e n m Q CN N N C e'�. m P m N m r V N O N O O N Q Q - v v O V l=0 �: Fel � C W OOmO %r- m C% hrrre% en�o%? uvi r- r r- r- Nm�- OQQO - E„y C vi epi r r7 C ^ en r.n h^ N m r%6 O V r O V1^en-^ N en V 7 r' v m Vl V1 r"f e^, 7 vl e'l n Q Y1 e^t Vl r� vl fn en Q m Q e�f Q Q Q Q Q - N O d • V U to C `V m .. <cn 'C y p m•� u CjJ C 'V N_ �. 0 � t . U ' G O r C ° O •= c d y O h U F 1 N m T C � au °� rn uvmmZvoo �iu `o ° �O� boa c o o j.) m F m c u c crap+ 6 d'm m u €- r x c o 5 U s $e•. oa� ma�'ia >- �� 3ucr'ndW u u °'m'� eueDa Popo c.`�ay > > � 1° .c yy 2 n�,F3 0 . p > W o5 035 a c c Sp` eQJ -•- u u € -a-& - F 7 E E C"a y u W e- •�'_' x..•- v a&C C d `yY v v:9`ra Yn33Y1 y�W >.❑= ES. E E �° Fel c � }} W m o c e ❑ muuo mu " c o _ y ?. Ti1 O C d d �Q e+ .V. C O C V >e^ V V y r-a �❑�� ` " bin 3 „ m � OaV " 4o3e�dmu �i mmr cmc v > >en > e N �+ oc y u Ea eu O w `FFrn v1uv 3z .cy .cu 0.'0.' c m❑ ° N =,uUy V ` u n'n W °v W YL+C.: m C.-:.EO a�U,+, e+ W m= m m N W W W-y-+ yyW •Z m m?'O'O ee O W O!� Q'Q` OT orWW YFeo53aarnoa5333: X3 .2 m9.LO r)- 12 G U 0 I� M 00 D6 M00 !� - « ... 007 mC%V* l- 0 N r- wm00 ••• �O G OO O O0 > 0 0 0 .-Jr' �q [�v1 .•• SON �' 000�0 .-• M 7 O » > 00 0 ^' 0 M Pi O W) %6 00 Vl vi N r-:v1 c�PN 1 V1 O �••� O O V1 M %° 7 7 7 v1 %1 M N H1 en 7 1n M E o M 0 N li- lt 07 M 0 M .-:.. r + 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0000 0 0 0 Y O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O � O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O C O 0 0 0 0 0 'O C 0 0 0 0 O C d A A O Q m O + .y. �O„ -gyp 00 000 0 0 0 0000 0 0 0 y C y 'O 000 [Oh% ID to MMMM M r 0000 Q C. �' w '0 w c NNN V^. . . 'V O .-. .... . .en m en rn f+. �. ~ ~ O ci � 1: J O ° O .� ° .-. .••� 00 00 cnM� rc�rcrr 77777I� • •• a � J JJ � J d ° A V Y lO d Y ttl 00 4n N oo — �ooN o7 J ►. -9 c 7 a E a inco%n G,oV 0m 00C% 00C;rl%0 vv� p,v yC E :9 b0d E ° � v E o0 V vO O O 7 O M N%6 N %6 c ? �p c ?? �0 77N MNNNM 7NNNNN 7N r d m0 O c� 000 4 J CJs N M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M O O O 00000 0 0 0 0 0 O. O O D O nnr nnnnr [w1�h �I'[� nn 'O O 4. a C m ^^ n ° \o \o �� o O M7 - - G1NNv � O V' 7G1N 'ct ••� C Y1N �D N �D7 > > > > H •Y x[-- 00 G17 - - O OOM0�7 �•^ 0000 O �� N _ 0 V ":tq o0 �t- o0 r-1 r!r1%0 -,:r 7 -'t l- %OM 00'••' 0- C I� � 7 J7 RRVI �7M7M7 l� 7 � •• O E U c o o c eo c a c c c o ^^ r ^ e o o c o \ \0000 0 �+ m C �nN �N ..! [Y \ \ \ \ G Q> CJC L'� � �DV v � � Vv � � \J V V � � O -L' C " ^ N �O � v: 7 m riv r o000o r, v vi.- .- o vir c - C N N N en r n r n M N N N N N M N N '3 y ^ u �I o FNMy a io • 70 M 00 0 0 o0 ^ -0770 V0 07 V^ 00 00 `o u v^iN�N N - N %n Ot0 - C%l 00 Nr- 00 - �+ N �••� ••� 0 v1 0 0 0 C A %:'�V'10 M� DO 000 700 t'1 - 00 � �•••• 00 - 0 V 70 O Pi G A om Oo R R G1 en N fel- en P)eO "• •-•�-+ 0.--. ¢ V] m0%nV1 M 7 en M M M M wl�/'1 M N M M M VIM a . c u ci o = z 3W Y F C a c t y �L •O' C ami O O O m c@ p o A O ao ° F ey ° t d W m C �., o c 'c a h y d A ai t:— ° o e o " E o w E o w w Y a c ° O r ea' = ° 3 w tou ¢ c3 ° � � � E w ma m a Ao •ao a o a a A •5 o d in. c A moo m �.� p o o.e aCi �A .a,'� x e, r c c �&g'm 0 X =a 4 H �; 10 pn3 a°, >.a � > > M > ecv S+� C o W cn W is.�n m � ¢ E „ 51 t° .� _ E a,° .".. V c 00 C fs. fe d a' w y .n N '0 C a `�' �c G - d o w °_ gg°nEa �8 c10i� st� � ASJ9 .. v o R '� Ai° y °' � Frooc � o �ao� QQ �' Qnv ° °' G , 4�FFwtnwx �nFaaa °.3U3o FFw . S=+ > x�s q- y w 000 O u w v W� cNn y a 4 m V O, rr C, M %n -T h h ? �--� C O O O O O O O N v1 Q M O O� N 000 en 000 MN h D\ M N N xPO 00 %nkn MM knM Invhva h en . v a 0`00 M w N � to d U + o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 D o o A i. O O O O O O O O O O O C C: O O O O O .O O O O O O d O O O O O O O C O L O •£ m Oq y d 4t O q C o a.i o O O O o O o O o o O O O Cl •a U o O e p p d ^ %0 \0 b \0 00 00 00 00 00 00 0o O O -V '7 -V + C p %O %6 ,O %6 �O �O N N V1 Wn Vi V1 O U v E O y 01 ao y O y U eaU U bO� uY U u U .61 y Q L S V - 9 U p r d t~.1 T Nr N b b O+ O t� O O+ O� y Q'.o v O C w O 'O w O d o0 O 7 Mc� 00 00 %C kn ,ovO o C e..• F a F F .C. 0 a \6 00 --� ,o ,c cli o; r r � rn C m � E c' a! Vl M M M M N N M N M N M N ` d y y E 00 zp W r 0p O ` 'Z O0 O �. C Lo 00 r � u ... EC � •� oP. o .., Via. + .. 1% u duct > M M M M M Mm M M M M M M a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O Occ O O M N O 00 ',^ \ h ",a N O %0 f- f- 01 %D O, M N vl O O 00 Q F, • M vi v t N V1 d 00 n MnIT � O ON CO\ % % V1 V C M 0 � V C V' V O N CL 0 W CLo U U A ~ e e c e e e c 0 c c e e e b .��.. O e c c c c (-4 N �N O, G\ C\ 00 C% O1 C\ 00 0o C, 00 00 00 to U., N N -� -- O V O �n O O D\ F�1 G C LY. ..• � ••• G1 G� -- G1 G� of G1 G1 Ol U �� 00 .-• t% M C 7 C O �n WQ� -ti 4 V 'ct Ni -i r Q Q ? O ^ C N WN N N M M N N M M N M M M � � F A Q NM N C DD b b h N N ,ORM a e o e o V vi 00 00 .M. 00 o00 o 00 U 4: N N !f C NM ^ ' 00 l� V' M fn N 00 U o L)) C m 00 O\ N O, vi V .-• O 7 O Q 0\ O O C .-• O v CC Q V] O n R h M -cr M M h M kn M C M r B „y C 1 "S� C a a o IN Eo r_ C t0 G y N C U H C30 it r c 3 4 R e _ �y >, p E e G H = a`"i a m a`i 96 a c O g ►.. o doccl cn . oci e V o oci � pa C) yap+ C _ = 4y3ca 0 o co � Soaoea' a C) � 42 u cc a,A '.I: E .'�' � Ep d dO u da 0 0 O F y .� �+ F. �0 U l7 O) >1 {/l'O > > M > C Cy.i VUJ y �.n Ir GI zi -r.., Z .y Q p `V a G N ern u E GQ 0 TN a -� ��p 61 y ^ H S. d o a i�v Co S a> U :: a :: .� F .. d A t� % a �� � � Eg e E W o ami �'a U a�'i uz7 � o o cd W a � A � a+x R o �o� Q ? muo� � o a 04Aa: cLw0009C74 > xv�awWawc� 3 �OC7 V 00 ° 00 00 06 ri M r %0 Q N M 00 T 00 r-%.D 00 N t,h V1 t- O 0 [l: 00 IO 00 [l� hCD O�O O G M %0[y M v O v0Y O cr. 00 .� , V•1 1, .� %nM [, v1 O eyWh�l I.ra7l 00 Q _ O\t, m t,V1 V1 b .-• 0i V1 �-• V1 00 Vt .Or 1° W) V-Q b Q o 0 0 o o 0 0 c o 0 0 00 00 00 r,e-to t, NW O O O Q Q Q M M M M E A a oA e 00 0000 00 0000 \ .0-+ \\ R O H N o V•;Vi W, InWiW! t� nrn c U c .1;.0 ° *n Vl h hV1 V1 MMr1 M Q Q Q Q Q Q N N N N a c`j O V y U V O V V >+«' . n�oM ooaooQ V 00 � s'" A aS oo �° p= A E v is O1, %O O% %O. 00 h Q•M h N u = 'O •� C p ~ O W M V1 n M Q M N V1 r= w 00�'O 00 x %0 N N Q M Q Q Mm M C S 00'O 00 ,� a bA'O 00 rC.iPaUM a MUa a M M M M M M M M M M a O O O O O O O O O O tl- t't'tntn ° 0. « O CD — 00 00 N 00 M %0 rn 0 C V1 N �N�O � 0 0X0/1 0 0 0 . IR OMO+ V1 t` N a, C% m O 0 t- 00 r- t- N V' 00 C% O:Vl `•-'`••' 00 . rn O Q '7 O OOD IzQ V1 'V QO y C ... W MM •-+ O•^ . c 07 -It t` NOt` hhviV y G. d O U c c o c c a o o e e .••.�-. .-. o o c o 0 e e o c �o � e V1Na" o� �� �1 d CK V' V V' V l7 %0 %D VCD 0 CD 40 o _ \J C v..i N 00.•+ OQQ O v M M M M M M M M V 1 W•. C 1 v r 1 O) m N N N N N N N N N N y /Oyu Q O M O Q 00 = [- Q 0 0 00 V V1 N �ry �O Q 0 \ \X \ o C m OM [- G1 N 000Q v N ^ O -100 10 N C%0 O M V 1 V 00 C 1. M m.— _ o a Q o < tn 000nen %0 1 D % vev v p a z It, o A 2 d to AAC4 'y « CS >A CC 0 N T u CO G .W F U c } ot0 O ca0 0 O 42 r 1-3 v Wopo :g) oca C.Sam d o o: T ma . °?3 ^� a� °e c Hq �Ax E c c r7 ►. M ��,. F r O 00 00 O v p t0 C N �'F+ e a gy c04. c cw.5 cpc �,A-22 Z. v Cam a� G O hod uQ c c h 9' u ^° m fs ��xvv bye. E u U a` oa�� w m�ia',oz SH > xFnaai Caai3 ]� t�-6 C o 0 0 w N ^ t+1 m TOO amu, m00%r enQ en ^ I� On G OI O 000 O O m i• . �5 ..00 'AR^ Q %D ^ [� Qv1 p Oi vi08 TONP4 ,� p,Cp Oo...xne�nQ QN V1 fel pVV) ccc Om Q 011 NO [-. ^ F .0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0-.0- t. :. 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 (D O O O 0 0 0 0 6 0 O O O O d � a c d O 0 A u V 0 o 0 0 0 0 o e o e o O I3 O S3 d d 0 0 0 0 O O O « h 1 N %o o %o a oT Q Q 1 u ow b o 9 p, o o o ao o rna IT'T °O 00 oU WO vi U�U t ud uU_ M epi en en u U N N N N N N ^^ U �d-• W V O O U O N d0'O O d'D Y O T,d•, rn .- m N r. 0\ N _ N0CNV) oa eno xa e6n . v %ori vri et en e to Q en en N en Q N Q N b� OA �. O O C OR. 0 Z, 0 CL, at ... � 0.. WUa WUa ZUw d en MMM en rn Men Men a 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O o �nc�nn � nc_ nn 0 a m C r- t- 00 QO [� Q Q C hN�C ,4 0000 0 0 O CD \0 r4 ;1 On vpi 1� vv �'`� ^ v Oin 00 F ^. oo — oaQ, o c al m %o vn Q v, r Q n Q n u a 0 U cn oe o e e o e o c eo .••.�•. r n o o e e o 0 c o 0 0 c A hN �N,OQ e � � o N ... Ov100 m — O -ttQO c04 Q p N rn M N N en N N N N V — e�1 O ^ a c d L' a 0 e 00Q00 JO ^ � uQ E U hN�ryuQ 00000 0 Nl- mmQ Neq NN v1OO O r- C3 V\: mC4 0GN OTKO Q t t7 O V men O M Orn 3 _ Q \9D %n Q r1Q %Oen 0m u z e 4 a oy e V ti d e _ C " u Q 4 C +, � m a .. c c . o a c - •C 00 a O .p d C c U_ u 'C E E a E o v (� u a c s o H tl0 a" b4.2 O d N c h r rd. N t va V C b d ;, ►• v E• E opo eat >,a ° GQ C �>. a. H N ... 1C > > O � e +3 0 yr m O— O C ppdV °u' to CQ¢ Fae SAA w .oc ' dim a,Ax Ex " E d 0 C F m Q C C p y u d O C y A d d d 0 d aCi U vi u a s c 3 °i T > > en > c d o d �� G � d3 EE " u ra � QENzzv•Ld O C W �.W C K Q 0 0 f9 v.-. .f0.. d A.p � v 7 a Y 7 ?C � 7 oFn�,aSo'mp o°oo � i ac�ir .uo � c� Fod V R` WUv�UWW 0.WW' xxv� ; S do > o � Q g.' Qad c .aF > xv� a�raaaoG3 ��� A Do >, 00 Oo000, 00 'ef v10�D eF tf N o0 O en O, eT tn ^ Q �O 00.+ V ��O° •-• •-• •-•�O h O ^ P4 t-%0 en k° OMOO NOON %00� o0^ NN v100 %0 vi e+l N oo .+00 h? M 0%%C) rI %D v r1M oO N h el v rl h v hhMM :. O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O � O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O C C O C C C 0 0 0 0 C O O O C C O 0 0 0 0 0 0 C', d w ^ 0 i O O O O O O O O G O O D O D 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 O O O O 00000 O O C 0000 0000000 0 C. 0000 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N r.. %6 %6%6 %6%6 %6%6%6 %6 %6%6 %6 %6 �6%6 %6 %O%6 %D %6%6 %6 %6 V r1 r1 Mr1 M M r1 r1 M en rl rl m mm mm mmmM MM M M qqtN NN of "Mm m Os tY%D r1^h 000 %0 ^ h qcr 00 hbr1 e e e e o 0 e/'1O h %0h en O� of o0 r1O O. ^ Oen OO 0 t-4 cr c %6 %6o6 vid%ori ririri6 ^ri6v; %o vici4r-: rnOveto 00 %0 e, r1 N %D tt N tt N N N b v tY M e1 N of e1 N h e1 N N C�^ ^C •-+ 7 O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O tz o 0 Y' o, F O C ° e0 tn cr,mC0 ^ h Mh NN .-. R bh tn C\of Def 1,- %0 ^ rl tt O +0+ w NON000a0 hN r1 00000 Q\ °� Oq °t el -�°� CP O oo et O v1 v1 E° v'f O'O 0o ^ NNh Ort ^ h O� v'f et rl ^ hD�O OHO G1 en �! G. G 0 0 w ri O� o0 o0'6 v1 0 h et r .i r1 0 oo 0 en ri h O h +. E w A y Q r- in -T ^ h V r- in tY et Ohh,.n %n•:r %6 bQ O% %o m et Y E ^ pEd `tlp^ o d o a �3 � �c7 D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D« o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 o o 0 c G V_ O V_ U %0 %0 %0 VV' 0 0 V 0 O V%M VVO 0 �LJ 0 _ _ _ _ �:. 777 r, r1 e+1 r1 t+l r) en m m m m M m m r1 M m m m m M m m m m m N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N ^ R e- N %D %D 0 rl 00 N V Y N V et O h r1 Ch -IT O tf o O tt et 0 �n v1 N 0 N l^J eh N' OOI� O w oNle h DaN C, r- r- NNNNN W 00 C:- FSM �O.L C w ... V1%0 [_%0 C.r1 v1 en Cs %0 � W, NOI eh 00 r-en V ^ ReT f"iO V M r- C,ON . Mrl IDOO V �o of r1= ® a W '+ 00 h et r1 CT%0 rl 0 et Mm 00 %D V1Q of r1 in et m r.-%n rl r. C . r o c c N O U z e, _o UD O C W UO to.- L ..fir e'.1 .°�y AJ ^ 0. c >o = C T CD 0 � y ° > 0 u Cd vo�0 Q a u°A � 0.w eaOd w0O 4. fW Eew�o.Q�' V�Oai 3�m p�v � ►c. < �Cw�a.VU �w'ci ��' a � �maci Q� owm i oev %x�Uv gq ' u -d° C!2 t 0 - t �r0 TN Avp dpv�.seD�> w 0 0eq7w c 000o « oD D c 4bu u uuca t.) o � o, _. d • v x r. o m o .� C7 a�aawaa�aa �� a�� caaa�iaa cg a 04 0.a.r H > xv� aa, oaa. ;;r-8 N N 4 00 N .... O M01N 0% r- D\ ^ %0 00 ^ Y1 M M N M sf ? M M R 0 0 0 0 0 %010 o 0 0 o e o 0 0 0 0'0 0 0 0 000 00 ... 0 0 0 0 0 O O O OO O Cl O C O O O O O O O O O O O O O GMd 0 0 0 0 0 C O C 66 L C C L is O A U 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 'O O Co O O O O O O O O O O O N N N N N N N N N N N N N b b %O b %6 �O �O �6 b b b b b U M M M M M M M M M Cl) M M M 4 v O h 00 %O V1 I, 00 .-• N N •V 00 M M %O m in W) O M %0 M 00 M C4 4 0 M N N N N M M N N M M U M M M M M M M M M M M M M > A O O O O O O O O O O O O O '� 0 0 a A C O 00 .-. V v %D N M v � C v1 N �D 40 G .� P N O M C% 00 C N O ^ �--� O O "'� 00 .^+ O O rl �O 00 r %0 G7 R l0 en O �o v G 00 ^ O ^ a E U o c o 0 0 0 a 0 o e o 0 ^^^ ^ o 0000 c 00 0000 00 V to � V Ov100 a O a O O O . V O O 'm O O O l0 ^ ... ... ... G N O! p O - - — .-. .-. C v.... 00 .-. O V Q O conw MriMMM OC v 000 06 U M O � p N N N N N N M M M M M V �Q F+I nisi V V R O Q — 00 O C qcr 00 O. O kl O O O C as M Coo r -4 '-T V O V W o0 %C 00 O R O (n QN % Vl M M M � 7 M M M 'T M C a c m G R m 0 ci d c V C w G n 1/ a T Oy aJ d En rz cs cc 03 F u F O C = 0 G u E e o tr cc °tiE" aO. Wo.., .3s"� •.�': '-vFi y'Lbo. C6 ca C = F, c{ei cR 9 . o� 3 P ` c]a'ro1." rc> Ht° ccd e w G > 0O a7 0 j@ 'E ` m > M > p o o — ao l CooG A DQ OQ C O d C7 a` wQ aN � C7 C7oaw •, > v� :v a4H > xrnc�c�CE9 aw3 �:95102 �- 9 Appendix B SUMMARY OF CITY FEES The following schedules summarize current fees for City services. Most of these fees focus on services provided through the General Fund, although selected water service fees that reduce general-purpose rate requirements are also included. These schedules reflect fees charged by the City to recover costs for ongoing services; evaluating development impact fees related to capital improvement financing is not part of the workscope of this cost of services study, and as such, they are not included. TABLE OF CONTENTS Public Safety Fire services 13=1 Police services B-8 Public Utilities Selected water service charges B-10 Leisure, Cultural & Social Services Children's services B-11 Aquatics B-12 Teens& Seniors B-12 Adult athletics B-12 Youth athletics B-13 Instructional classes B-13 Special events B-14 Indoor facilities B-14 Outdoor facilities B-15 Community Development Building fees B-16 Planning fees B-26 Engineering fees B-28 Maps&publications B-29 General Government Delinquent account late fees B-30 Fees for photo copies and faxes B-31 Banner fees B-32 Parade and special event fees B-33 FIRE SERVICES FEE SCHEDULE EFFECTIVE JULY 11 1999.__ UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK FEE SCHEDULE Initial Inspection/AdministrationFee $296.00 Annual Permit Renewal Additional Tank Fee $ 96.00 Owner/Operator Transfer.Fee $ 51.00 Plan-Check Fee $ 77•00 New Installation Permit - Field Review $118.00 Plan submittal required for permit! includes a minimun of 3 site visits per tank.. Additional site.visits subject to additional fee. Tank Removal Permit $ 77.00 Plan submittal required for permit; includeds a minimum of 2.site visits per tank. Addition site visits subject to additional fee. Phase II Vapor Recovery Modification $ 77.00 Excavation Above or r_ Near Flammable Liquids Pipeline $ 77.00 Monitoring Well-Drilling Permit Contact County Plan submittal required_. Health Department State Surcharge Permit Fee $ 59.00(per tank) (Fee set by State) Third and Subsequent Fire Safety Inspections $107.00 Additional Site Inspection Fee As determined by the Director of Finance (Per hour-one hour minimum) HAZARDOUS OCCUPANCY PERMIT FEE St,K DULE (Renewable Annually) EFFECTIVE JULY 19 1999 1. Aircraft Refueling Vehicles $ 77.00 2. Aircraft Repair Hangar 77.00 3. Automobile Wrecking Yard 77.00 4. Bonfire or Rubbish Fires 77.00 5. Bowling Pin or Alley Refinishing 77.00 6. Burning in Public Place 77.00 7. Candles or Open-Flames in Assembly Areas 77.00 8. Cellulose Nitrate Storage (handle/store over 100 cubic ft.) 77.00 9. Combustible Fiber Storage (handle/store over 100 cubic ft.) 77.00 10. Compressed Gases: A) Non-flammable: More than 6,000 cubic feet 77.00 B) Flammable: More than 200 cubic feet 77.00 11. Cyrogens: A) Inside Building 1) Flammable - over 1 gallon 77.00 2) Oxidizer (includes oxygen) over 50 gallons 77.00 3) Corrosive or Highly Toxic - over 1 gallon 77.00 4) Non-Flammable -over 60 gallons 77.00 B) Outside Building 1) Flammable - over 60 gallons 77.00 2) Oxidizer (includes oxygen) 77.00 3) Corrosive or Highly Toxic - over I gallon 77.00 4) Non-flammable - over 500 gallons 77.00 12. Dry Cleaning Plant 77.00 A) Using Flammable Liquids 77.00 B) Using Non-flammable Liquids 77.00 13. Dust Producing Operation 77.00 14. Explosives or Blasting Agents 77.00 A) Engine Standby 205.00 hr 15. Fireworks 77.00 16. Flammable/Combustible Liquid Pipeline Operation/Excavation 77.00 17. Flammable or Combustible Liquids A) Inside- Class I (over 5 gallons) 77.00 Class lI & III (over 25 gallons) 77.00 B) Outside - Class I (over 10 gallons) 77.00 Class H & III (over 60 gallons) 77.00 18. Fruit Ripening - Ethylene Gas Process 77.00 19. Fumigation or Thermal Insecticidal Fogging 77.00 20. Garages - Repair 77.00 PERMIT FEE SCHEDULE - continued 21. Hazardous Chemicals: A) Cyrogenics (any amount) $ 77.00 B) Highly Toxic Materials (any amount) 77.00 C) Hypergolic Materials (any amount) 77.00 D) Organic Peroxides (over 10 lbs.) 77.00 E) Poison Gas (any amount) 77.00 F) Pyrophoric Materials (any amount) 77.00 G) Any combination of amounts stated above 200.00 H) Hazardous Materials Business Plan (fee includes any hazardous materials fees) See Table I 22. Highly Toxic Pesticides (storage of any amount) 77.00 23. High-Piled Combustible Stock- exceeding 2,500 sq. ft. 77.00 24. Junk Yards 77.00 25. Liquified Petroleum Gas' A) Containers more than 119 gallons water capacity 77.00 B) Tank Vehicles for Transportation of LP Gas 77.00 26. Lumberyard - Storage in excess of 100,000 board feet 77.00 27. Magnesium Working - Process more than 10 lbs daily 77.00 28. Mall (covered) A) Place or construct temporary kiosk, display booths, concession equipment or the like, in the mall 77.00 B) Use the mall as a place of assembly 77.00 C) Use open-flames or flame-producing device 77.00 D) Display any liquid or gas-fueled power equipment 77.00 E) Use liquified petroleum gas, liquified natural gas and compressed flammable gas in a mall 77.00 29. Matches - Manufacture/Store in excess-of 60 matchman gross (14,004 each gross) 77.00 30. Nitrate Film- Store, handle, use or display 77.00 31. Oil and Natural Gas Wells (drill, own/operate or maintain) 77.00 32. Open Flame Devices in Marines A) Use open-flame devices for maintenance or repair of boats, slips or wharfs 77.00 B) Use a portable barbecue, brazier or working device on any boat, slip or wharf 77.00 33. Organic Coatings -manufacture over 1 gallon a day 77.00 34. Ovens - Industrial, Baking and Drying 77.00 35. Places of Assembly 77.00 36. Radioactive Material (store or handle - see UFC for amounts) 77.00 37. Refrigeration Equipment - Mechanical refrigeration(see UFC for most common refrigerants) 77.00 38. Spraying or Dipping 77.00 39. Tank Vehicles for Transportation of Flammable and Combustible Liquids 77.00 40. Tents and Air-supported Structures - excess of 200 sq. ft. 77.00 B-3 PERMIT FEE SCHEDULE - continued 41. Tire Re-capping $ 77.00 42. Underground Storage Tanks A) Facility Inspection/administration fee - 1 tank 297.00 B) Additional Tank Fee 96.00 C) Transfer Fee (owner) 51.00 D) Plan-Check Fee (new facility) 77.00 E) Site Inspection/test fee (new facilities) 118.00 F) Tank Removal Permit (plan submittal required) 77.00 G) Monitoring Well Drilling (obtain from County Health N/A Department) H) Phase II Vapor Recovery 77.00 I) Excavation, Flammable-liquid pipeline 77.00 J) Additional Site Inspection Fee 40.00 hr 43. Waste Material Plant 77.00 44. Welding and Cutting Operations - Any Occupancy 77.00 NOTE: Any combination of the above permits shall not exceed $200.00 except for permits requiring apparatus and personnel stand-by time, permits for underground hazardous material storage and permits for Business Release Response Plans and Inventory. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS BUSINESS PLAN FEE SCHEDULE Table 1 QUANITIY 1-5 CHEMICALS 6 OR MORE CHEMICALS Category 1 2 3 4 5 6 SOLID- 500-1000 1001-5000 5001&up 500-1000 1001-5000 5001&up Pounds LIQUID- 55-1000 1001-10,000 10,001 &up 55-1000 1001-10,000 10,001&up GaUm s GAS-Cubic. 200-1000 1001-5000 5001&up 500-1000 1001-5000 5001 &up FL Fees $1#00 $279.00 $389.00 $200.00 $333.00 $389.00 i a- y 1 FALSE ALARMFEES EFFECTIVE JULY 1. 1999 False alarms.from an alarm system which are excessive as described in this section shall be grounds for suspension or revocation of the alarm users permit:. In each case, the responsible department shall conduct an investigation and keep accurate records-as to the cause of the alan:n. 1. False fire alarms shall be considered excessive when they meet or exceed the following number: a. Two false alarms in any thirty-day period;. b: Three false alarms in-any three-hundred=sixty-day period,. 2. False alarms exceeding the number indicated in the corresponding time period shall be subject to a service charge of three hundred twenty dollars ($320.00), to be charged to the alarm user of the alarm system. Charges are payable to the finance director within sixty days of notification that such charges are due. Failure to pay'the`assessment within the prescribed time' period -shall result in .the suspension of the alarm user permit and disconnecting of.services. DEVELOPMENTAL REVIEW FEES EPAC TIVE_JULY 1;,1999 A 11:5% fire protection surcharge shall be:added to all construction permit and plan check fees collected by the Building and Safety Division that require Fire Department review. FIRE EQUIPMENT AND PERSONNEL STAND-BY FEES EFFECTIVE JULY 11 1999 Fire Engine/Ladder Truck $226.00 per hour Squad or Lieut Rescue.Enuipment $194.00 per hour Fire InvestiQation/Fire Prevention As Determined-by Finance Director Firefighter Standby As Determined by Finance Director Administrative/Clerical As Detennined by Finance Directoi POLICE SERVICES FEE SCHEDULa EFFECTIVE JULY 19 1999 1. Charges for reproduction of certain documents and/or reports, including those specified in the California Vehicle Code: ■ Minimum charge(includes first four pages) $10.90 ■ Each page thereafter $1.20 2. Departmental fingerprint service charges: (Plus any mandated State or Federal fees) ■ Per card(fee set by State Penal Code) $12.45/card 3. Charges for information as required by Government code section 6254(0(i) and(2): ■ Forms completion $15.90 ■ Archival searches-per hour(1 hour minimum) As determined by the (Includes computer searches) Director of Finance 4. Handling charges for return of reproduced document and materials: ■ Less than 4 ounces $2.80 ■ More than 4 ounces $5.60 5. Processing charge for return of property taken for safekeeping: N Processing&maintenance fee $17.60 6. Clearance letters: $9.85 7. Duplication of photographs: ■ In-house duplication costs plus processing fee(first sheet) $23.00 (proof sheet) $23.00 ■ Duplication costs(contractor)plus fee $8.75 8. Concealed weapons permits: ■ F.P.S.processing(fee set by State Penal Code) $12.45/card ■ Investigative costs and permit processing $209.35 9. Massage license processing/investigation: ■ F.P.S.processing(fee set by State Penal Code) $12.45/card ■ Investigative costs and permit processing $128.20 ■ Administrative/Inspection Fee $21.20 10. Massage Technician license processing/investigation: ■ F.P.S.processing(fee set by State Penal Code) $12.45/card ■ Investigative costs and permit processing $49.35 ■ Administrative/Inspection Fee $21.20 11. Miscellaneous charges: ■ Local record information(13322 P.C.) $26.30 ■ Impound vehicle releases $112.95 ■ Stored vehicle releases $ 0.00 ■ Record sealings (851.8 P.C.) $123.65 ■ Administrative Investigations(per hour 1 hour minimum) As determined by the Director of Finance 12. Solicitor permits: ■ Initial investigations $31.80 ■ Follow-up required(per hour I hour minimum) As determined by the Director of Finance 13. Adult entertainment permit(per 5.40.050 SLOMC) ■ Investigative costs/Inspection/Permit Processing $195.15 14. Cost recovery programs: A. DUI cost recovery: ■ Officer costs-per hour As determined by the ■ Vehicle costs Director of Finance B. Nuisance abatement(per 9.25.150 SLOMC)(Actual Costs): ■ Officer costs-per hour As determined by the ■ Unit costs Director of Finance ■ Plus Administrative costs C. Alarm permits(per 15.12.060 SLOMC): ■ Permit $34.00 ■ Renewal $34.00 ■ Excessive alarms 4th- $36.10 5th- $72.40 All others- $142.50 D. Second response cost recovery (per 9.21.030-050 SLOMC) ■ Officer costs-per hour As determined by the ■ Vehicle costs Finance Director E. Taxi permit(per 5.20.010/5.20.210 SLOMC) ■ FPS processing(fee set by State Penal Code) $12.45/card ■ Permit fee $49.30 A Permit Renewal Fee $24.55 ■ Plus any state mandated fees F. Electronic game center permit(per 5.52.020 SLOMC) ■ Investigative costs/Inspection/Permit Processing/Renewal $104.10 G. Public Dance Permit(per 5.64.010 SLOMC) ■ Permit Processing $38.40 ** Does not include any mandated state/federal fees,unless otherwise noted. UTILITY SERVICES FEE SCHEDULE EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 1999 WATER SERVICES Install water meter (5/8" - 1" meter) Meter Cost + $45.00 Install water meter (1 1/2" - 2" meter) Meter Cost + $135.00 Install water meter (larger than 2" meter) Time and Materials Remove water meter (5/8" - 1" meter) $45.00 Remove water meter (1 1/2" - 2" meter) $135.00 Remove water meter (larger than 2" meter) Time and Materials Retirement of service $149.00 Retirement of service (larger than 2" meter) Time and Materials Account set-up $30.00 Account set-up same day ($30.00 + $91.00) $121.00 Account set-up after hours/weekends ($30.00 + $122.00) $152.00 Account set-up (unlimited) $548.00 Disconnect service (for non-payment) $45.00 Meter lock-off(for continuing non-payment and illegal use) $89.00 Retrofit inspection $34.00 Water System.Access Charges $23.00/month Schedule of Meter Costs Schedule of Meter Adaptor Costs Service size Meter size Cost per pair 5/8" x 3/4" $39.00 1• 5/8"x3/4• $9.00 3/4" $67.00 1. 3/4" $9.00 I" $94.00 11/2• 1• $47.00 11/2" $215.00 2" 1" $48.00 2" $325.00 2" 11/2" $61.00 3" and larger Time and materials SEWER SERVICES Lateral installation $181.00 Lateral abandonment $181.00 Pretreatment inspection services Industrial User Class II $71.00 Industrial User Class I $230.00 Industrial User Significant User $744.00 Industrial User Reinspection $53.00 PARKS & RECREATION SERVICES FEE SCHEDULE EFFECTIVE JULY 19 1999 ACTIVITY 1990-0.0 FEES.-_ Children's Services Sun-n-Fun $26.50/reg%fee/child school yr. $2.40/hr/child_-__ _ Winter Break Camp 16 Full Days $196.05/child' Single Full Day $24.10/child Spring Break Camp — _ 6 Days $142.25/child Single Full Day $24.10/child:.. Summer Fun Day Camp $16.45/Reg Fee/child . $2.40/hr/child_ Adventure Day Camp -$T8.65/reg/fee/child (all.fees/child) 5 ays $96.30 . 4 Days $84.30 3 Days$65.70 2 Days$49.25 1 Day$26.2-5 $2.46/hr drop in PARKS & RECREATION SERVICES FL hi SCHEDULE EFFECTIVE JULY 19 1999 ACTIVITY 1999-00 FEES Aquatics Lap Swim Adult $2.00/swim Youth/Senior $1.50/swim Passcard Adult $40.65/month Youth/Senior $30.50/month Recreational Swim Adult $2.00/swim Youth/Senior $1.50/swim Swim Scrip Adult $18.30/10 swims Youth/Senior $13.70/10 swims Lessons Adult/Youth/Senior $38.45/session Special Classes Springboard diving $43.70/session Pool rental Swim Club $10.90/hr/life guard Teens & Seniors Girls Volleyball $21.90/person Teen Track $16.40/person Golf $32.80/session Skateboard $2.00/time Adult Athletics Adult Softball (8games) $393.90/team Adult Softball (10games) $448.55/team Adult 3 ON 3 Basketball $81.30 Softball Tours $218.80/team Adult Volleyball $191.00/team 5 on 5 Basketball $486.85/team Flag Football I $486.85/team PARKS & RECREATION SERVICES FEE SCHEDULE EFFECTIVE JULY 1.) 1999 ACTIVITY 1999-00 FEES Youth Athletics Little Tracksters $16.25/child Little Sluggers $16.25 to $30.50/child/use Youth Volleyball $17.55/child Youth Basketball $40.65/child Minor League $28.45/child Junior Olympics $16.25/child Golf $20.30/child Ultimate Play Cam $39.65/child Instructional Classes Tennis Adult $43.75 to $87.55/month Youth $54.70 to $109.45/month Fitness $21.90 to $43.75/month Dance Adult $21.90 to $30.65/month Youth $21.90 to $25.20/month Cultural Art Adult $35.05 to $60.00/month Youth $21.90 to $60.00/month Martial Arts Adult $32.85 to $37.75/month Youth $21.90 to $38.35/month Computers $65.70 to $100.00/month