Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
11/01/2011, PH2 - MASTER FEE SCHEDULE UPDATE
council j, agenba Rpm 1�N.b CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO FROM: Mary Bradley, Interim Director of Finance& Information Technology Prepared By: Jennifer Thompson, Revenue Supervisor Tim Girvin, Chief Building Official SUBJECT: MASTER FEE SCHEDULE UPDATE RECOMMENDATION Adopt the attached resolution authorizing changes to the Master Fee Schedule for review and approval of construction applications and inspection services related to construction permits.. REPORT IN BRIEF The transition to the new Energov land use and permitting software has resulted in several upcoming changes for the Building and Safety Division of the Community Development Department. Because implementing Energov will require changes to the Master Fee Schedule, and updates to the construction codes have been significant since the last cost of services study was prepared in 2006, a new analysis has been prepared. The City of San Luis Obispo hired NBS Government Financial Group (NBS) to conduct a cost of services study for the Building and Safety Division. The goal of the study was to make certain that cost recovery for Building and Safety Division activities is consistent with City policy and state laws and to establish user fees that reflect the costs incurred by the City to perform construction application review activities. The NBS report and proposed fee schedule was presented to Council at a Study Session in August 2011. Comments and changes from the August meeting were incorporated into an updated Master Fee Schedule (Attachment 1). In general, the proposed fees follow the full cost of service model recommended in the consultant report. In order to help further energy conservation efforts, staff is proposing a list of energy-related permit types at a reduced cost. Four new fees are being proposed for services which are part of the development review process and for which there is currently no cost recovery. DISCUSSION Background Current City Budget and Financial Policies for User Fee Cost Recovery Goals recommend that fees be reviewed and updated at least every five years to ensure that they keep pace with changes in the cost-of-living as well as in methods or levels of service delivery. In implementing this policy, the City has adopted the strategy of comprehensively analyzing service costs on a five year basis with interim adjustments annually based on changes in the consumer price index. The last cost of services analysis was"performed in 2006 and implemented in 2008. PH2-1 l\ Master Fee Schedule Update Page 2 When the Building and Safety services were implemented in 2008, it was decided to transition from a construction valuation based fee to a cost recovery model. As a result of implementing the Energov system, a need to update the cost of service study was identified. NBS was selected to conduct this study. NBS employed proven and objective methodologies to calculate the actual cost of services and used its experience to guide the City regarding the appropriate costs to be included in the development of its fees. Through this study, NBS determined the full cost of each of the services . for which user fees are currently being charged or could be charged under State guidelines and the City's user fee cost recovery policies. This cost includes all appropriate direct and indirect costs associated with providing each service, including direct support costs from other divisions. On August 16, 2011, the Council held a study session to review the results of the cost of services study prepared by NBS. In summary, the study identified that 56% of the cost of Building and Safety Division activities are recoverable through development review user fees and 44% of the cost can only be recovered from non-user fee related funding sources. The consultant concluded that the Building and Safety Division currently recovers .approximately 92% of total costs associated with providing user and regulatory fee related services. If the new fee schedule is adopted, it is expected that the City will meet the policy objective of 100% cost recovery, assuming current levels of construction activity. As a result of direction given by Council on August 16, 2011 staff and NBS have developed an updated fee schedule related to construction application review activities. The final report from NBS is included for Council information as Attachment 2. Fully Burdened Rate As indicated earlier, the NBS study determined the full cost of each of the services for which user fees are currently being charged or could be charged under State guidelines and the City's user fee cost recovery policies. The calculated cost includes all appropriate direct and indirect costs associated with providing each service. All labor related costs and organization wide overhead costs have been identified, as well as other direct and indirect non-labor costs. These include direct support costs from other divisions, replacement of vehicles used for inspection, and the amortized cost for replacing the permitting software and hardware. These calculations resulted in two different fully burdened hourly rates to be used in establishing the fees. The first rate of $204 will be applied to projects that have had Building and Safety review during the development review or planning application phase. A slightly reduced rate of $193 will be used for projects that have not been required to obtain land use approvals associated with their construction project. Use of this dual fully burdened rate structure will ensure that we only charge for services where the service has been delivered. At the August Study Session, Council requested additional information as to how the City's fully burdened rates compared with those used by other agencies. Staff worked with the consultant to identify agencies which have undergone a similar analysis and change to the square footage cost basis. Two examples were found: Mann County and San Jose. These agencies had hourly rates of$180 and $210 respectively. However, it is not possible to verify that these hourly rates are completely comparable, since it is unknown when their hourly rates were calculated and what the cost recovery objectives were for each of these agencies. Further discussions with the consultant PH2-2 0 Master Fee Schedule Update Page 3 indicated that the City's rate is consistent with the range of other hourly rates for jurisdictions that use the same methodology. Master Fee Schedule Update The building fee structure developed by NBS for the City of San Luis Obispo follows the same principles of cost-based structure as the current fee structure established by the 2006 cost of services study. Under this cost based fee methodology, all new construction, tenant improvements and remodel/addition project types are categorized and charged based on their square footage and fire rating. All minor residential and commercial projects, and stand-alone mechanical, plumbing and electrical (MPE)permits, are charged on a flat-fee basis. The proposed fees in the updated Master Fee Schedule will result in revenues equal to or slightly higher than those currently budgeted in the 2011-13 Financial Plan, assuming the same level of building activity occurs. The changes to the Master Fee Schedule will be effective 60 days after adoption, but will be implemented when the City goes live with the Energov permitting software in February 2012. The proposed schedule of fees is included with the Master Fee Resolution which is Attachment 1 of this report. Building Department Cost Recovery Fees In addition to updating the current fees for services provided by the Building and Safety Division, the study identified several functions occurring.for which no fee had yet been established. Because these services are part of the development review process and there is currently no cost recovery, staff is proposing that the following fees be added to the Master Fee Schedule. 1. Review of Code Modification Applications These applications include construction activity that may not conform to the prescriptive code requirements, yet the design professional submits documentation proving the alterative method will meet or exceed code requirements. The proposed fee of $193 per hour will cover the cost of these specialized reviews. Charging a fee for code modifications is similar to the planning application process for allowing exceptions to the Zoning Regulations. Z Board of Appeals Actions With the adoption of new construction codes, the City is getting closer to conforming to the Federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Changes in the codes may trigger the need to have more applications routed through the Construction Board of Appeals. For this reason the new fee schedule includes an application fee of$966 for requesting action by the Board of Appeals. This will become somewhat similar to the appeal process already established for planning applications; however this appeal fee is based on reasonable cost of providing the service. 3. Number of Plan Reviews In the past a single fee was accepted as payment in full for the plan review service. Often the review process resulted in up to five separate reviews of the construction documents. With the adoption of this fee schedule only the first three plan review fees will be provided. This PH2-3 Master Fee Schedule Update Page 4 means that if the design professional is unable to provide code complying plans within the first three attempts, then an additional plan review charge of$193 per hour will be assessed. " Staff is confident that use of revised checklists will help achieve a high percentage of complete applications which will help ensure approved plans within the proposed plan review threshold. 4. Separate Stormwater Fee-Again The construction site stormwater fee will show up as a separate fee again. Previously, there was a waterways management fee assessed with construction applications. Then, during the last cost of services study that fee was absorbed into the square foot fee structure. Now, due " to increasing changes in the regulations staff is recommending a fee for service for this state mandated function as a separate fee of$254, $1,595, or $3,383 for minor, moderate or major projects respectively. In the event future changes in storm water regulations affect staff effort required to follow up on this important objective, a separate evaluation will be easier to do than conducting an entirely new cost analysis of the construction fees again. In summary, this is not a new fee, just restructuring how the fee is identified and collected. A very conservative analysis was done in order to keep the fee as low as possible; however staff efforts have definitely increased since 2006 in this category. FEE COMPARISONS Background At the August 16, 2011 Study Session, Council asked staff to prepare an analysis regarding how the proposed fee schedule compared to the City's existing fees for these services. Council also requested information as to how San Luis Obispo's fees compared to other jurisdictions. A summary of the conclusions of these analyses is contained in the following sections. Internal Fee Comparison As the following comparison shows, the result of the study is that some fees will go up and some will go down. However, based on the current effort and level of activity the Building and Safety Division will achieve 100%cost recovery for the service provided. The table below shows existing and proposed fees for seven representative project types. EXISTING-NEW FEE COMPARISON EXISTING PROPOSED PROJECT TYPE _ FEE FEE INCREASE_ DECREASE Single Family Residence 2,000 s.f $10,989.40 8,993.00 18% Single-Family Residence 2,000 s.f. - Repeats 5,340.80 6,124.00 12% 4-Plex Condominium 6,000 s.f 18,254.10 19,943.00 9% 4-Plex Condominium 6,000 s.f.-Repeats 18,254:10_ 14,031.00. 23% Retail 10,000 s.f. 15,052.75 17,535.00 14% Industrial 50,000 s.f. 83,444.00 26,624.00 68% Tenant Improvement 2,000 s.f. 4,485.75 2,927.80 35% PH2-4 C Master Fee Schedule Update Page 5 Details of the fee comparisons for these seven project types are found in Attachment 3. The Attachment also includes the planning, engineering, and fire deferred service fees for Council's information. There are a few differences with the new fee structure that will be beneficial to the applicant and the City. • There are two different rates; the first rate will be applied to projects that have had Building and Safety review during the development review or planning application phase and a slightly reduced rate will be charged to projects that have not been required to obtain land use approvals associated with their construction project. This dual fee rate will result in lower charges for those projects that did not involve planning review. • There is now a reduced rate for multi-family type buildings with a duplicate floor plan. Past fee schedules did not provide for duplicate floor plans for other than single family residences. This was to accommodate for the development of Tract homes where a similar floor plan was duplicated throughout the development. Now there is a reduced rate for multi-farnily type buildings which will be used for apartment, condominium and townhouse types of projects in recognition of the fact that less time is required for plan review in these cases. Because this fee schedule is much simpler than the previous one with fewer categories to choose from it will be easier to maintain and update and should make it easy for the applicants to understand. Fee Comparisons with Other Agencies At the August Study Session Council also requested information regarding the City's new fees in relation to its surrounding jurisdictions and comparator cities. In order to perform this analysis, staff identified the agencies that have been included in prior benchmark performance and compensation studies. Staff also included appropriate cities in the immediate geographic area. The eight agencies that were identified were: Davis, Monterey, Paso Robles, Santa Barbara, Santa Cruz, Santa Maria, Ventura, and the County of San Luis Obispo. Staff called each of the eight agencies with four common development scenarios and requested building and safety fee information. Of these cities, six responded to the request for information, and two did not. The results of these comparisons are included in this report as Attachment 4. As staff was performing the analysis, it became apparent that there are certain fundamental problems with cost comparisons with other agencies. These are: • It is difficult to substantiate the type and methodology of the fees of other jurisdictions. • Factors such as their cost recovery objectives, the organizational structure of the agency or how recently their fee analysis has been done may account for differences in fee rates. • Some cities have adopted a cost recovery method of charging hourly rates for actual time for conducting the service. In those cases, staff was unable to include a charge PH2-5 Master Fee Schedule Update Page 6 in the fee comparison and therefore the total permit fees of the agency were understated. Comparing the Building and Safety fees only, the City of San Luis Obispo is again proposing fees at the top end of the comparisons. But in each different analysis type there are other jurisdictions with fees as high, or higher, than the proposed fees and some jurisdictions do not offer the reduced fees for duplicate plan submittals similar to our newly proposed fee. Minimum Permit Fee The consultant's report indicates that based on staff time and effort combined with the new fully burdened rate the minimum permit fee is recommended to increase from$133 to $209. Less than 100% Cost Recovery It has been the City's practice to offer reduced fees on a handful of permit types. This has been justified so the cost of permitting the work would not be a deterrent to obtaining the permit. These permits included electrical service upgrades, furnace upgrades, water heater replacements and residential solar systems. In the recent past, new initiatives have taken root to promote energy conservation. Some of the permits, for which reduced fees were offered, actually align with the objectives of AB 811, the State legislation which encourages energy efficiency upgrades. In order to help further these objectives and offer incentives to property owners wanting to achieve better energy conservation, staff is proposing a more robust list of permit types at a reduced cost. These recommendations are a result of studying the objectives of the energy conservation initiatives and a desire to position the City well when these energy conserving efforts increase. Currently the cost of the reduced permits is $63.00. Staff recommends a slight increase to the minimum permit cost to $65.00, which represents a cost recovery of between 11% - 50% on specific energy related projects. The list below illustrated the proposed fee reduction: RESIDENTIAL ENERGY UPGRADE PERMITS RECOMMENDED PROPOSED COST PROJECT TYPE FEE FEE RECOVERY Fireplace insert/upgrade $557 65 11% Non-structural window retrofits 338 65 19% Solar photovoltaic system 290 65 23% Electric service upgrade 209 65 31% Furnace/heater upgrade 209 65 31% Water heater replacement 209 65 31% Electric car charging system 209 65 31% Re-roof with added attic ventilation 201 65 33% Insulation/energy upgrade 201 1 65 1 33% Gray waters stem 129 65 1 50% PGI2-6 C Master Fee Schedule Update Page 7 NEXT STEPS Development Review Fees for Planning, Engineering, and Fire services The NBS report recommends that Planning, Engineering, and Fire development review services also be recovered on a cost of services basis. Staff believes that due to changes in staffing levels in each of these areas since 2006 it would be advisable to undertake a new cost of services study for determining the appropriate rate structures for planning, engineering, and fire development review services. NBS has provided the City with a proposal to conduct a full cost analysis of these three development review fees. The cost of the study is $24,660 and staff is moving forward immediately with the study since it is within the City Manager's contracting authority for consultant services. The existing fee methodologies for these services will remain in place until the results of the subsequent study are completed and the Master Fee Schedule can be amended. CONCURRENCES The Public Works, Fire, Community Development departments concur with the recommendations contained in this report and the Master Fee Schedule. FISCAL IMPACT Adoption of the Master Fee Schedule as attached will result in a 100% cost recovery except as noted within. ALTERNATIVES 1. Do not adopt a resolution authorizing changes to the Master Fee Schedule for review and approval of construction applications and inspection services related to construction permits. 2. Charge full cost recovery for all construction related permits and do not authorize reduced cost recovery for energy conserving projects as detailed above. 3. Make other adjustments to the Master Fee Schedule as Council desires. It should be noted that fees cannot be increased beyond full cost but may be reduced. Staff does not recommend these alternatives. ATTACHMENTS 1. Fee Resolution 2. Final Report: Building and Safety Division User and Regulatory Fee Analysis 3. Internal Fee Analysis 4. Multi-Agency Fee Comparison T:\Council Agenda Repons\Finance&R CAR\Finance\201 I\Building Division Fee Update 201 I/Master Fee Schedule Update 10_2011v4.docx PH2-7 C RESOLUTION NO. (2011 Series) Attachment 1 A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO UPDATING THE CITY'S MASTER FEE SCHEDULE WHEREAS, it is the policy of the City of San Luis Obispo to review service charges on an ongoing basis and to adjust them as required to ensure that they remain adequate to achieve adopted cost recovery goals; and WHEREAS, fees are adjusted as required to ensure they remain equitable and adequate to cover the cost of providing services; and WHEREAS, an analysis of the Building and Safety fees was performed for 2011-12 and presented to the Council for its consideration on August 16, 2011. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo that City service charges and rates for Building and Safety services are hereby updated as set forth in the Exhibit attached hereto, with an effective date for of January 1, 2012. Upon motion of seconded by and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing resolution was adopted on November 1, 2011. Mayor Jan Howell Marx ATTEST: Elaina Cano, City Clerk APPROV D AS TQ0 . sti ietrick, ey PH2-8 Attachment 1 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO MINOR&MISCELLANEOUS PERMITS The fees listed below are stand-alone fees._ Addltlonal,Developemnt Review or Stormwater fees-may_apply. Fee Activity - Fee Description Fee Unit Fee REDUCED FEES FOR SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL.ENERGY SAVING UPGRADES • - -- — Electrical service upgrade each $ 65 Electric car charging system each $ 65 Firepalce Insert/upgrade each $ 65 Fumacelheater replacement each $ 65 Graywater system each $ 65 Insulation/energy upgrade per project $ 65 Re-roof with added ventilation per project $ 65 Solar photovoltaic system per project $ 65 Water heater replacement each $ 65 Window retrofits(non-structural only) per project $ 65 MINOR COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL IMPROVEMENT:PROJECTS Balcony/Porch/Deck first 300 s.f. per project $ 951 ea add'I 100 s.f per project $ 97 Canopy/Awning per project $ 330 Cellular Tower/Antenna First Antenna/Tower each $ 782 each add'I antenna/tower each $ 85 Antenna/Tower w/Equipment Shelter each $ 570 Commercial Access Upgrade(ADA Compliance) Site-work such as Ramps or Exterior each $ 1,021 Upgrades such as reception counter,registers,signage,etc. each $ 817 Commercial Coach Installation each $ 1,356 Demolition Interior or garage-utlity building per project $ 387 Entire Building,residence or commercial per project $ 677 Dry rot/Termite Repair per project $ 201 Fence or Non-Engineered Wall per project $ 582 Fireplace Retrofit/Chimney Repair per project $ 557 Flag,Light,or Sign Pole- Install/Replace per project $ 692 Foundation Replace/New(includes piles,piers,or foundation-only systems under existing or partial construction) per project $ 1,160 Foundation Repair(includes piles,piers,or foundation-only systems under existing or partial construction) per project $ 580 Garage Conversion First 500 s.f. per project $ 773 Ea add'I 100 s.f. per project $ 97 Grading 1,000 CY or less per project .$ 677 1,001 -10,000 CY per project S 870 >10,001 CY per project $ 1,063 Paint Booth per project $ 870 Partition per project $ 647 Patio Cover Open per project $ 582 Enclosed per project $ 1,015 Pool/Spa-Commercial per project $ 966 Pool/Spa-Residential per project $ 773 Re-Roof-Residential per project $ 201 Re-Roof-Commercial First 300 s.f. per project $ 387 Ea add'I 100.0. per project $ 97 Roof Structure Replacement Misc Page lPH2-9 Attachment 1 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO MINOR&MISCELLANEOUS PERMITS The fees listed below are_stand-alone fees. Addltlonal,Developemnt_Review or Stormwater fees may_apply, - -_ Fee Description Fee Unit Fee First 300 s.f. per project $ 870 Ea add'I 100 s.f. per project $ 116 Retaining Wall Engineered per project First 100 Lf. per project $ 1,063 Ea add'I 100 l.f. per project $ 97 Non-Engineered per project $ 678 Stair Repair/Replace per project $ 870 Shear Wall/Steel Support Column-stand alone(not part of a building permit) per project $ 773 Siding/Stucco per project $ 367 Sign Wall per project $ 290 Monument per project $ 516 Solar/PV System-Commercial/Multi-family per project $ 677 Store Front/Fagade Alterations:Minor per project $ 870 T-Bbar Ceiling/Furred Ceiling-stand alone(not part of a building permit) per project $ 580 Trash Enclosure per project $ 966 Vapor Recovery Systems/Service Station Upgrades(up to 3) per project $ 483 Window/Door-Non-Structural First 10 windows/doors per project $ 338 each add'I 10 windows/doors per project $ 16 Window/Door-Structural First 10 windows/doors per project $ 499 each add'I 10 windows/doors per project $ 65 Minor Repairs(for items otherwise not listed,for the purpose of reconstruction,renewal,or maintenance of any part of an existing structure-requiring not more than two inspections) per project $ 265 Minor Code Corrections per project $ 201 Minor Lease Space Improvements Prior to Tenant Improvement per project $ 1,160 MECHANICAL,PLUMBING AND ELECTRICAL PERMITS(Not associated with an existing building permit) ADMINISTRATIVE AND MISC'FEES Minimum Permit Issuance(includes travel and documentation) $ 209 Appeal of Building Official Decision per project $ 966 Handicap Board of Appeals per project $ 966 Fire Permit Handling Fee per project $ 387 Supplemental Plan Check per project $ 193 Supplemental Inspection per project $ 193 After Hours Inspection(Scheduled,2 hour minimum) per project $ 387 Preliminary Project Consultation/Code Analysis(per hour) per project $ 193 MECHANICAL PERMIT FEES Stand Alone Mechanical Plan Check(per 1/2 hour) $ 97 UNIT FEES: A/C(Residential)-each $ 64 Furnaces(F.A.U.,Floor) $ 64 Heater(Wall) $ 64 Refrigeration Compressor/Condenser $ 81 Boiler $ 81 Chiller $ 81 Heat Pump(Package unit) $ 48 Heater(Unit,Radiant,etc.) $ 48 Misc Pag2_10 Attachment 1 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO MINOR&MISCELLANEOUS PERMITS The fees listed below are stand-alone fees. Additional Developemnt Review or Stormwaterfees may apply. Fee Activity- Fee ctivi Fee Description Fee Unit Fee Air Handler $ 48 Duct Work only $ 48 Evaporative Cooler $ 48 Make-up Air System $ 48 Vent Fan(Single Duct)-each $ 48 Exhaust Hood and Duct(Residential) $ 48 Exhaust Hood-Type I(Commercial Grease Hood) $ 97 Exhaust Hood-Type II(Commercial Steam Hood) $ 64 Walk-in Box/Refrigerator Coil $ 64 Miscellaneous Mechanical Items NOS(not otherwise specified) $ 64 Other Mechanical Inspections(per hour) $ 193 Mechanical Volume and Current Fee Analysis $ 59 PLUMBING/GAS PERMIT FEES Stand Alone Plumbing Plan Check(hourly rate) $ 193 UNIT FEES: Fixtures(each) $ 48 Gas System Replace/Repair/Extend(First Outlet) $ 48 Gas Outlets(Each Additional) $ 6 Building Sewer $ 64 Grease Trap $ 48 Water Heater(First Heater) $ 64 Water Heater(Each Additional Heater) $ 16 Water Pipe Repair/Replacement $ 48 Drain-Vent Repair/Alterations $ 48 Solar Water System Fixtures(solar panels,tanks,water treatment equipment) $ 64 Graywater Systems(each) $ 129 Miscellaneous Plumbing Items NOS $ 64 Other Plumbing and Gas Inspections(per hour) $ 193 Plumbing Volume and Current Fee Analysis $ 58 ELECTRICAL PERMITTEES Stand Alone Electrical Plan Check(per 1/2 hour) $ 97 Add/Replace Service(not over 200 amps) $ 64 Add/Replace Service(over 200 amps) $ 97 New/Altered Circuits 15 or 20 amp-Each 10 circuits(or fraction thereof) $ 48 25 or 40 amp circuits(each) $ 32 50 to 175 amp circuits(each) $ 39 200 amp and larger circuits(each) $ 48 Temporary Service(each) $ 48 Generator Installation(each) $ 74 Miscellaneous Electrical Items NOS $ 64 Other Electrical Inspections(per hour) $ 193 Misc PaIP _11 Attachment 1 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO MINOR&MISCELLANEOUS PERMITS The fees listed below are stand-alone fees. Additional Developemnt Review orStormwater fees may apply. FeeActivity Fee.Description Fee Unit Fee Electrical Volume and Current Fee Analysis $ 60 STORM WATER PLAN,REVIEW&INSPECTION Minor Projects: Non-structural commercial TI's,residential remodels and residential additions less $ 254 than 500 SF and U occupancies(Garages and storage sheds)all with minimal grading activity Moderate Projects: Structural Commercial TI's and additions up to 5,000 sf,Residential additions $ 1,595 over 500 SF,Change of Occupancy all with site grading work less than 1 acre Major Projects: New SFR's,New Commercial Buildings(additions over 5,000 SF),projects with $ 3,383 parcels of 1 acre or more Misc Pa12H2-12 Attachment 1 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO --- BUILDING DIVISION USER i REGULATORY FEES New Construction Fee Schedule-Plan Check Fees Fin Rating Type I II Fire Rating Type IIA,III FIro Ratin T UB P7 ve Occupancy Type and Class Fee Unit Cost Per S.F. Cort Per S.F. Cost Per S.F. Base Cost Batman Base Coat BatmanBase Coat Between Thresholds I Thresholds Thresholds LEVEL OF EFFORT 1.5 1.25 1 Commerce Uses-Swcwrz n constructed.aa .or structurally remodeled spam for non-residential occupancies classified u CBC Group A.B.E. F.H,I,M.or other cammercial occupancies not specifically addressed elsewhere in this Fee Schedule Square Footage: 500 per pmjom $ 2.441 S 1.63 S 2,035 $ 1.36 $ 1,628 S 1.09 5.000 perpMject $ 9.786 S 0.49 3 8.138 5 0.41 S 6,510 -S 0,33 10,000 per project $ 12.207 S 0.18 3 10.173 3 0.15 S 8,138 $ 0.12 50.000 per project $ 19,531 $ 0.10 $ 16.278 $ 0.08 $ 13,021 $ 0.07 100,000 per project $ 24.414 S 0.24 3 20.345 S. 0.20 .S 16,276 $ 0.16 Commercial Residential and MUWfemlly Residential sea-(All nevAy constructed. added.or sWdurally remodeled spam for residential occupancies classified as CBC Group R(except R-3),or other residential occupancies not specifically addressed elsewhere in this Fee Schedule Square Footage: 500 per protect S 2.686. S 1.79 3 2.238 $ 1.49 S 1.790 S 1.19 5.000 per project $ 10,742. S 0.54 $ B.952 $ 0.45 S 7,161 S 0.36 10,000 per protect S 13,428 S 0.20 S .11.190 S 0.17 S 8,952 S - 0.13 50,000 per protect S 21,484 $ 0.11 3 17,904 $ 0.09 $ 14,323 $ 0.07 100,000 per project S 26,856 S 0.271 3 22.380 S 0.22 S 17,904 S 0.18 Duplicate Floor Plan Review-Commercial Residential and Multifamily Residential Uses Square Footage: 500 per project $ 1,772 S 0.39 $ 1,477 S 0.33 $ 1,182 $ 0.26 5,000 per project It 3.545. $ 0.14 $ 2,9541$ 0.12 3 2,363 $ 0.09 10,000 per project S 4,254 S 0.03 S 3.545 $ 0.02 S 2,836 S 0.02 50,000 per project 3 5,317 $ 0.04 $ 4,431 $ 0.03 $ 3,545 $ 0.02 100.000 par roen $ 7,090 S 0.07 $ 5.908 $ 0.06 $ 4,727 $ 0.05 Low and Moderate Hmrd Storage-(All newly constructed.added,or structurally remodeled spam for storage occupancies dassi5ed as LBC Group S,or other storage occupancies not Specifically addressed elsewhere in this Fee Schedule) Square Footage: 500 per project S 2,"1 $ 1.63 S 2,035 $ 1.36 $ 1,628 $ 1.09 5,000 par Project $ 9.766 $ 0.49 5 8.138 S 0.41 S 6,510 $ 0.33 10,000 per project S 12.207 S 0.18 3 10,173 5 0.15 3 8,138 $ 0.12 50,000 per project S 19,531 $ 0.10 3 16,2761$ 0.08 $ 13,021 'S 0.07 100.000 per project S 24,414 S 0.24 $ 20,345 S 0.20 S 16.276 S 0.16 Attached Accessory andtilay Uses-(AII newly constmcted,aided.or stiYcture b remodeled spam for utility and accessory occupancies classified as CBC Group U, or other utility and accessory occupancies not specifically addressed elsewhere in this Fee Schedule Square Footage: 200 per project 'S 622 $ 1.41 $ 519 $ 1.18 $ 415 :S 0.94 400 per project S 905 S 1.32 5 754 $ 1.10 5 603 S 0.88 600 par protect 'S 1,168 $ 0.29 3 973 S 0.24 5 779 S 0.19 1.000 per project 5 1,2115 S 0.23 S 1,071 $ 0.19 $ 857 S 0.16 3.000 parpmen 'S 1.752 S 0.58 3 -1.460 $ 0.49 S 1.168 S 0.39 Detached Accessory and Utility Uses-(AB newly mnstuuaed.added.or structuralli remodeled spam for utility and accessory occupancies classified as CBC Group U. or other utility and accessory occupancies not specifically addressed elsewhere in this Fee Schedule Square Foots e: 200 per protect S 622 $ 1.41 S 519 S 1.18 S 415 S 0.94 400 per project $ 905 S 1.32 S 754 $ 1.10 S 603 $ 0.88 600 per project $ 1,168 $ 0.29 3 973 S 0.24 $ 779 S 0.19 1,000 par project S 1,285 $ 0.23. $ 1.071 $ 0.19 $ 857 S 0.18 3,000 per protect S 1,752 $ 0.58 $ 1,460 S 0.49 S 1,168 $ 0.39 Shall Buildings for all Commercial Uses-nWe enclosure for all navy constructed, added.or Mmurelly remodeled specs for non-residential occupancies classified as CBC Group A.B.E.F.H,1,M.or other commercial occupancies not specifically addressed maawhen in No Fee Schedule when the interior is not completed or occupiable) Square Footage; 500 per protect $ 1.465 $ 0.98 S 1.221 S 0.81 $ 977 $ 0,65 5.000 per pmjeci $ 5,859 $ 0.29 S 4,883 $ 0.24 S 3.906 S 0.20 10.000 perpmject 3 7,324 -S 0.11 S 6,104 S 0.09 5 4,883 S 0.07 50,000 per prinod S 11.719 $ 0.08 S 9,766 $ 0.05 S 7,813 5 0.04 100,000 per pmjecl S 14,648 $ 0.15 5 12.207 $ 0.12 S 9,766 5 0.10 Commercial Tarrant Improvement-Non Strvdural-(Non-s"Mrally remodeled space for non-residential occupancies classified as CBC Group A.B.E,F,H.I.M. or other commemiel occupancies not Specifically addressed elsewhere in this Fee Schedule whore the structure is not offered) Square Footage: 500 per project $ 1,221 $ 0.81 $ 1,017 $- 0.68 $ 814 $ 0.54 -5.000 per project S 4,883 .S 0.24. $ 4,069 $ 0.20 S 3.255 S 0.16 10,000 per project $ 6,104 $ 0.09 $ 5,086 S 0.08 $ 4.069 '.S 0.08 50.000 per project $ 9,766 3 0.05. S 8.138 5' 0.04 $ 6,510 S 0.03 100.000 parpmjact 5 12,207 S 0.12. 5 10.173 3 0.10 $ 8,138 $ 0.08 Commercial Residential and Multifamily Residential Rernadels-Non Structural- (NonStructurely remodeled spam for residential occupancies classified its CBC Group R(except R-3),or other residential ompancies not specifically addressed elsewhere In this Fee Schedule Square Footage: 500 per project $ 1,271 S 0.85 $ 1,059 S 0.71 3 847 3 0.56 5,000 per project S 5,083 '.5 0.25 S 4.236 3 0.21 S 3,389 $ 0.17 10,000 per projact $ 6,354 $ 0.10, S 5295 $ 0.08 3 4,236 S 0.06 50.000 par project S 10,166 '.S 0,05 $ 8,471 3 0.04 3 6,777 S 0.03 100.000 per proJect $ 12,707 $ 0.13 S 10.589 3 0.11 $ 8,471 $ 0.08 Single Famly Dwellings and Duplexes-(All newly constructed%pace for nsidentla occupancies classified as CBC Group R-3,including custom builds and madel homes for"a master plans,or other similar residential occupancies not specifically addressed elsewhere in this Fee Schedule) Square oomge: 1.000 per protect 1$ 2,911 $ 1.94 S 2,425 S 1.62 $ 1,940 SP 1.291 new ConswctRn rh.Y!I 1� Attachment 1 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO G -- BUILDING DIVISION USER 8 REGULATORY FEES Now Construction Fee Schedule-Plan Check Fees Fire Rating TyRo I II Fire Rating Type IIA 111. Fire Rahn T IIB,IV VB Occupancy Typo and Class Fee Unit Cost PerS. - - Can PerS. Coat Per S.F. Base Coat Between Base Cost Between Bead Cast Between Thresholds Thresholds Thresholds LEVEL OFEFFORT 1.5 1.25 1 2,500 or mad $ 5,821 S' 0.39 $ 4,851. 5 0.32. S - .3,881 $- 0.26 4,000 or ed $ .6,403 5. 0.44 '$ 5,336 $ 0.36 S 4,269 $ 0.29 6,000 -per project. $ 7,276 $ 0.73 $ 6,064 5 0.61 3 4,851 $ 0.49 8.000 per Project $. 8,732 S 1.09 :$ 7,276'. S 0.91 S 5,821 $ 0.73 Duplicate Floor Plan Review-Single Family Dwellings and Du ewes Square Foda e: 1,000 per project. $ .941 $ 0.63 $ 784 $ 0.52 S 627 S 0.42 2.500 per. roes. S 1,881 S 0.13 It 1,568. $ 0.10 5 1,254 5 0.08 4,000 par project. $ .2.069 $ 0.14 'S 1,724 S '0.12 5 1,379 $. 0.09 6,000 per project $ 2,351 $ 0.24. $ 1,960'. S -.020 $ 1.568 $ 0.16 8,000 Per Project. S .2.822 $ 0.35"$ 2,351 S 0.29 S 1,881 $ 0.24 Duplicate Floor Plan Review-Attached or Detached Accessory and Utility Uses Square Footage: 200 per project s '187 S 0.42 $ 156. S .0.35 $ 124 S 0.28 400 per project S. 271 S 0.39 'S 226 S 0.33 S 181 $ 0.26 600 per project' $ 350 S 0.09 $ 292 S .0.07. 5 234 $ 0.08 1.000 per Project S. -385 $' 0.07 '.S 321' $ 0.06 $ 257 $ 0.05. 3,000 per project $ .526 S 0.18 $ 438. S 0.15 5 350 $ 0.12 Structural Residential Remodels and Additions-(Al newt/constructed additions to or slmdumlly remodeled areas of.residential occupancies classified as CBC Group R-3,or other similar residential occupancies not specifically addressed elsewhere in this Fee Schedule) Square Footage: 100 per imijact $. 801 S - 1.93 '$ 867 5 1.51 $ 534 S 1.28 500 per project- S' 1,571 $ 3.14 It 1,310 5 2.62 S. 1,048 S 2.10 ..1,000 per aroject S .3,143 $ 0.63 $ 2,619 s 0.52 S 2.095 5 0.42' 1.500 per project $ 3,457 $ 0.63 $ 2.881 S 0.52 $ 2,305 $ 0.42. 2,000 per project $ 3,771 S 1.89 $ 3.143 S .1'.57 $" -2.514 S 1.26 Non-Structural Residential Remodels and Additions-(All newly constructed. additions to,or nun-structurally remodeled areas of,residential occupancies classified as CBC Group R-3,or other similar residential occupancies not spacifically addressed elsewhere in this Fee Schedule) Square Footage: 100 per project S 574 $ 0.41 S 479 S 0.34 S 383 $ 0.27 500 perproject $- 737 $ 1.28 S 614 $ 1.07. S- 491 $ 0.86 1,000 per project $. 1,379 :$ 0.28' $ 1,149 It 0.23 $ 919 $ 0.18 1,500 per project $ 1,517 S 0.28 S 1.264 s 0.23 S 1',071 It 0.16 2.000 per project $ 1,654 '.$ 0.63 S 1,379 $ 0.69 S 1,103 $ 0.55 Site Improvements-This includes substantial dewilopment of jen ate parking lots which ere processed separate of the structure and include any combination of the following:Underground utilities,parking tat lighting,accessible path of travel analysis,grading,drainage and compliance with the City's parking and drwaway standards. Square Footage: - 500 er roect E 823 .$ 0.55. $ 686 5 0.46 $ 549 1$ 0.37 5,000 - er mad S 3,294 It 0.16. $ 2.745 S 0.14 $ 2,196 S 0.11 10,000er 'ed S 4,117 I$ 0.06 $ 3,431 S' 0.05 $ 2,745 $ 0.04 50,000 ar ed $ 8,587 $ 0.03. S 5,489 $- 0.03 $ 4.391 S 0.02 100,000 per project 1 5 -8,234 $ 0.08 S 6,861. $ 0.07 $. 5,489 $ 0.05 Naw Coro[ru i!e'4'aaElyd..14, Attachment 1 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO --- BUILDING DIVISION USER 8 REGULATORY FEES Now Construction Fee Schedule-Inspection Fees Fire Ratln Type 111 Fire Rating Type IIA,III Fre Rat! T 118 IV VB Occupancy Type and Class Fes Unit Cost Per S.F. Cost Per S.F. Cost Per S.F. Base Cwt Batvwan Base Cost Batwean Base Cost Between Thresholds Thresholds Thresholds LEVEL OF EFFORT 1.5 1.25 1 Commemal Uses-Strupura(AII newly constructed,added,or structurally remodeled spam for non-residenual occupancies classified as CBC Group A.B.E. F.H.1.M.or other commercial occupancies not specifically addressed elsewhere in this Fee Schedule 5 uare Footage: 500 per project 3 1,965 $ 1.31 S 1.638 S 1.09 $ 1,310 S 0.87 5,000 per projact $ .7.862 $ 1.18 $ 6,551 'S 0.98 S 5,241 $ 0.79 10.000 per project S 13,758 $ 0.15 S 11,465 $ 0.12 $ 9.172 $ 0.10 50.000 per project $ 19,654 $ 0.16 S 16,378 S 0.13 $ 13,103 $ 0.10 100,000 per project 3 27,515 S 0.28 S 22,930 S 0.23 S 18,344 S 0.16 Constriermal Residentialand Multifamily Residential Uses-( newly mrtMeted, added,or structurally mmodeled space for residential occupancies classified as CSC Group R(except R-3),or other residential occupancies not specifically addressed elsewhere in this Fee Schedule Square Footage: 500 per project S 2,948 $ 197 S 2.457 $ 1.64 $ 1,965 S 1.31 5.000 per project $ 11,792 3 1.77 5 9,827 S 1.47 S 7.862 $ 1.18 10,000 per project S 20.637 $ 0.22 S 17.197 S 0.18 $ 13,758 $ 0.15 50,000 per project S 29.481 $ 0.24 S 24,567 -S 0.20 S 19,654 $ 0.16 100,000 per project S 41.273 $ 0.41 5 34,394 S 0.34 $ 27.515 $ 0.25 Duplicate Floor Plan Revistruf-Commercial Residential and MuWfamity,Residential Uses Square Footage: 500 per pritifect S 2.948 S 1.97 $ 2.457 S 1.64 S 1,965 S 1.31 5.000 parproject S 11,792 S 1.77 S 9,827 $ 147 S 7.862 S 1.18 10.000 perpmject S 20,637 S 0.22 $ 17.197 S 0.18 S 13,758 5 0.15 50.000 or to a S 29,481 S 0.24 S 24,567 $ 020 S 19.6541 5 0.16 100,000 er no am S 41,273 S 041 $ 34.394 $ 0.34 S 27.515 S 0.28 Low and Moderate Hazard Storage-(All newly constructed.added,or slmcWmly remodeled spam for storage occupancies ciusified as CBC Group S.or other store a occupancies not specifically addressed elsewhere in this Fee Schedule Square Footage: 500 er m of $ 1,965 $ 1.31 S 1,838 S 1.09 S 1.310 S 0.87 5,000 or a 5 7.862 $ 1.18 i 6.551 'S 0.98 S 5,241 S 0.79 10,000 per project $ 13,758 S 0.15 $ 11.465 S 0.12 S 9,172 S 0.10 50,000 or mod S 19.654 3 016 $ 16,378 S 0.13 S 13,103 S 0.10 100.000 er room $ 27,515 S 0.28 S 22,930 $ 0.23 $ 18.344 S 0.18 Attached Accessory and Utility Uses-(Al ne•My constructed,added.or stnummrafif remodeled space for utility and accessory occupancies classified as CBC Group U, or other utility and accessory occupancies not specifically addressed elsewhere in this Fee Schedule Square Foots e: 200 er matt 3 1,535 S 0.75 $ 1,279 $ 0.62 $ 1,023 3 0.50 400 or 'ac: S 1,684 $ 4.12 $ 1,403 S 3.43 S 1,123 S 2.74 600 er 'act S 2,507 S 1.23 $ 2.089 $ 1.03 S 1,672 S 0.62 1.000or mad $ 3.001 $ 1.00 1 S 2.501 'S 0.83 S 2.001 S 0.66 3,000 per project 1$ 4,995 S 1.67 S 4,163 S 1.39 S 3.330 S 1.11 Detached Accessory and U914 Uses-(All newt'constructed,added.or innucturafti remodeled spam for utility and accessary occupancies classified as CBC Group U. or other utility and accessory occupancies not specifically addressed elsewhere in this Fee Schedule Square Footage: 200 per Project S 1,407 3 0.58 $ 1,172 S 0.49 1 S 938 S 0.39 400 per project 5 1,523 S 3.87 $ 1,269 $ 3.22 $ 1,016 $ 2.58 600 per pmjom 5 2.297 S. 1.15 S 1,914 S 0.96 S 1,531 S 0.77 1,000 per pmjom 5 2.756 S 0.92 $ 2,297 $ 0.77 S 1.837 $ 0.61 3.000 per ami S 4,593 3 1.53 $ 3.828 S 1.28 S 3.062 $ 1.02 Shell Buildings for all Commercial Uses-(The enclosure for all newt'mnstru added.or strvmurelly remodeled spam for non.residential occupancies Wssified as CBC Group A,B.E,F.H.I,M,or other mmmermal occupancies not spadfim0y addressed aleewhvre in this Fee Schedule where the interior is not completed of ata iaole Square Footage: 500 par project S 1,260 S 0.77 S 1,050 $ 0.64 S 840 1 3 0.51 5,000 perproject S 4,717 $ 0.71 $ 3.931 $ 0.59 $ 3,145 1 5 0.47 10,000 PC,project S 8,255 3 0,09 3 6,879 $ 0.07 S 5,503 S 0.06 50.000 parprojem S 11,792 S 0.09 $ 9.827 $ 0,08 $ 7,862 $ 0.06 10IMI) per project $ 18.509 3 0.17 3 13,758 S 0.14 S 11,006 S 0.11 Commercial Tenant Improvement-Non Structural-(Non-structurally rerlodeled spam for non-msidential occupancies classified as CBC Group A.B.E.F.H.1,M. or other commercial occupancies not specifically addressed elsewhere in this Fee Schedule where the structure is not offered) Square Fanta e: 500 or m ct $ 934 S 0.67 $' 779 :S 0.55 $ 623 $ 0.44 5,000 er to am $ 3,931 S 0.59 $ 3,276 $ 0.49 $ 2,621 S 0.39 10,000 r matt S 6,879 S OW S 5,732 'S 0.06 S 4,588 S 0.05 50.000 er mem $ 9,527 S 0.08 $ 8,189 S 0.07 $ 6,551 S 0.05 100,000 er rm cl S 13,758 S 0.14 S 11,465 $ 0.11 S 9,172 S 0.09 Commercialesidential and Multifamily Residential Remodels-Non Strvctuml- (NonStructurelly remodeled spam for residential occupancies classified as CBC Group R(azcept R3),or other residential occupancies not specifically addressed elsewhere in this Fee Schedule Square Footage: 500 per Project S 943 S 0.63 S 786 '3 0.52 $ 829 S 0.42 5,000 er to m S 3,773 3- 0.57 5 3,144 S 0.47 $ 2,515 S 0.38 10.000 er m a 5 6.603 3 0.07 $ 51502 $ 0.06 S 4.402 3 0.05 50,000 or men S 9,432 S 0.08 S 7,860 $ 0.06 $ 6288 S 0.05 100.000 or cl' 3 13.205 3 0.13 S 11,004 $ 0.11 $ 8,803 S 0.09 Single Family Dwellings and Duplexes-(AD newly constructed spam for rasalentia occupancies classified as CBC Group R-3,including modem builds and model homes fm from nester plana,or other similm residential occupancies not specifically addressed elsewhere In this Fee Schedule S uam Foote e: 1.000 er. rod S 2,947 S 1.96 3 2.456 S 1.64 S 1,965 5 11.311 Naw[onstrunlan Feefantgtt,l ala CIN OF SAN LUIS OBISPO - } Attachment 1 BUILDING DIVISION USER 8 REGULATORY FEES New Construction Fee Schedule-Inspection Faea Fire Rating Type 1 II Fire Rating Type IIA III Fin Rain T e 118 IV VB Occupancy Type and Class jUn.11, Cost Per S.F. Coat Per S.F. Cost Par S.F. Base Coat Between Base Cost Between Base Coat Between Thresholds Thresholds Thresholds LEVEL OF EFFORT 1.5 1.25 1 2,500 per $ 5,695 $ 0.98 E 0,912 5 O.B2 E 3.930. S 0.85 0000 l S 7,358 S 2.21 S 8,140 S 1.54 S 4,912 E 1.47 6,000 E 11.789 E 2.95 S B 824 E 2.46 E 7,860. S 1.96 8,000 E 17,684 S 2.21 E 14,737 S 1.84 S 11,789. S 1.47 Du licate Floor Plan Review-Sin le Famil Dwellin s and Du loses E uare Foote e: 1,000 S 2.947 S 1.98 S 2,456 S 1.64 S 1,965, S 1.31 2.500 E 5.895 S '0.98 S 4,912 S 0.82 $ 3,930' S 0.65 4.000 S 7,358 S .2.21 S 6.140 S 1.54 S 4,912 S 1.47 8.000 m $ 11,789 S 2.95 S 9,824 'S 2.46 S 7,860 E 1.96 8.000 m S 17,684 $ 2.21 $ 14,737 $ 1.84 $ 11,789 $ 1,47 Duplicate Floor Plan Review-Attached or Detached Accessory and Utility Uses Square Footage: 200 per pnijact S 1,407 S 0.58 $ 1.172 $ 0.49 $ 938 $ 0.39 400 per project S 1,523 S 3.87 S 1,269 $ 3.22 $ 1,016 5 2.58 600 per pmjad E 2,297 S 1.15 $ 1,914 $ 0.96 $ 1.531. S .0.77. 1.000 per prtjact $ 2,756 $ 0.92 S 2,297 5 0.77 S 1.537 $ 0.61 3.000 per pirliject S 4,593 S 1.53 $ 3,828 $ 1.28 $ 3.062 $ 1.02 SWomre Residents]Remodels and Additions-W newly commucted a one to or stmmuraly remodeled areas of.residential occupancies classified as CBC Group R-3.or other similar residential occupancies not specifically addressed elsewhere in this Fee Schedule are Foote e: 100 per Project S 1,166 S :Z66 S 972 'S 2.22 'S 778 E 117 500 per. 'ed S 2.231 E 2.23 S 1.659 $ 1.86 S 1.458. E 1.49 1,000 per project S 3,347 S .2.23 S 2.789 E 1.86 S 2.231 S 1.49 1,500 per pmjem $ 4,463 5 2.23 S 3,719 S 1.86 S 2.975 E 1 49 2.000 per project S 5,578 S '.2.79 S 4,649 S 232 S 3,719 S -1.86 Non-Structural Residential Remodels and Additions-(All newly censtrumed additions W.or non-structurally remodeled areas of,residential occupancies classified as CBC Gmup R-3,or other similar residential occupancies not specifically addressed elsewhere in this Fee Schedule Square Footage: 100 per project E 1,061 $ .2.65 It .884 $ 2.21 $ 707 $ 1.77 500 per project 5 2,122 5 2.12 S 1,788 $ 1.77 S 1,415 S 1.41 1,000 per project S 3,163. 5 2.12 S 2.853 E 1.77 S 2,122 S 1.41 1,500 par project E 4,244 5 2.12 $ 3,537 $ 1.77 $ 2,829 E 1.41 2,000 par Project E 5,305 S 2.65 $ 4,421 $ 2.21 S 3,537 $ 1.77 Site Improvements-This Includes substan al development of private parking lata which am processed separate of the slrac0m,and include any combination of the following:Underground utilities.parking lot lighting,accessible path of traval analysis,grading,drainage and compliance with the Cilys parking and driveway standards. Square Footage: 500 per project S 651 1 S 0.43 1 S 543 S 0.36 S 434 E 0.29 5,000 per project E 2,604' S 0.39 S 2,170 E 0.33 $ 1,736 S 0.26 10.000 erd S 4,557 $ 0.05 S 3,798 S 0.04 $ 3,038 $ 0.03 50.000par eat 'S 6,510'i S 0.05 $ 5.425 S 0.04 S 4,340 'S 0.03 100,000 er 'amS 9,115.I s 0.09 IS 7,596 S 0.08 5 6,076 5 0.08 raw Wmau3on.Tnrpaci,1011 NBS helping communities fund tomorrow CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO Community Development Department— Building and Safety Division User and Regulatory Fee Analysis Final Report October 7, 2011 Main Office 32605 Temecula Parkway, Suite 100 Temecula, CA 92592 Toll free: 800.676.7516 Fax: 951.296.1998 Regional Office 870 Market Street, Suite 1223 San Francisco, CA 94102 Toll free: 800.434.8349 Fax: 415.391.8439 PH2-17 Attachment 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section 1 . Executive Summary 1.A. Purpose..................:............................................... 1-1 1.B. Summary of Outcomes........................................... 1-1 1.C. Findings.................................................................. 1-2 Section I Framework 2.A. Analysis Origination and Scope.............................. 2-1 2.B. Legal Foundation.................................................... 2-1 2.C. Analytical Foundation............................................... 2-2 2.D. Data Sources.......................................................... 2-6 Section 3. Building Costs of Service Results 3.A. Cost of Service Analysis......................................... 3-1 3.B. Cost Recovery Analysis.......................................... 3-4 3.C. Proposed Building Fee Structure............................ 3-4 Section 4. Development Review Surcharges 4.A. Planning ................................................................. 4-1 4.B. Engineering ............................................................ 4-2 4.C. Fire Surcha.rge........................................................ 4-4 Section 5. Conclusions................................................... 5-1 Attachments A. Cost of Services Analysis B. Fully-Burdened Composite Hourly Rates C. Scaled Fee.Tables D. Updated Planning Fees Matrix User and Regulatory Fee Analysis—Building and Safety Division TOC Prepared by NBS for the City of San Luis Obispo PH2-18 i Attachment 2 SECTION 1 EXECUTIVE. SUMMARY 1.A. Purpose The goal of this Study is to assist in the establishment of user and regulatory fees for service, for the City of San Luis Obispo's Building and Safety Division. These fees will be assessed either in response to the individual's request for application approval or in reaction to a condition subject to the City's regulation. User fees are intended to reflect the costs incurred by the City to perform the individual service or activity. .The City has authorization to establish these fees through Article XIIIB, Section 8 of the California State Constitution, which limits fees to the estimated, reasonable cost of the service. The scope of this Study did not evaluate fines, penalties, or other monetary charges imposed as a result of a violation of law. 1 .13. Summary of Outcomes This Analysis ultimately compares the approximate annual revenues generated at current fee levels to the estimated total annual cost of providing services. NBS concludes that, on average, the Building and Safety Division currently recovers approximately 92% of the total annual Citywide costs associated with providing the user and regulatory fee related services studied. Total($) Annual Estimated Revenues at Current Fees 855,429 Annual Estimated Revenues at Full Cost Recovery Fees 922,017 The proposed schedule of fees can be viewed as part of the City staff report and recommendation for adoption of its Master Fee Schedule. Attachment A to this report details the calculation of the full cost of service for each activity studied. The amounts listed in the "Total Cost of Service per Activity" column represent the total cost of providing each service identified by the study, and does not necessarily reflect City staff's or Council's ultimate recommended fee (price) amount for each service/activity. Recommended fee.amounts are should be equal to or less than the full cost of service quantified by this study. The full cost of service represents the maximum fee amount allowed, at or beneath which, the City must determine its policy position. All of the fees presented in Attachment A may be set with the sole approval of the City Council. Proposed fee amounts represent an implicit policy position regarding City cost recovery. When a fee is set equal to its full cost of service, the recommended fee implies that no general City revenues will be used to subsidize the provision of that individual service. When a fee is set less than the full cost of service, a judgment has User and Regulatory Fee Analysis—Building and Safety Division 1-1 Prepared by NBS for the City of San Luis Obispo PH2-19 Attachment 2 been made that the use of general City revenues to pay for a portion of that individual service is warranted and/or necessary. Attachment B details the derivation of fully-burdened hourly rates for the Building and Safety Division. As discussed in subsequent sections of this report, fully-burdened hourly rates are the main component of each potential fee calculation. 1.C. Findings This study submits the following findings which are substantiated and quantified by the balance of this report document and its attachments: • The purpose of a user The is to enable the City to recover costs it incurs to provide a specific service to an individual or entity in response to that individual's request or regulated action. Collection of user fees reduces the burden on general City revenues that otherwise would be used to fund that individual service, releasing those general revenues for services of greater at-large need. • User fees are only collected from individuals requesting or causing a service listed on the master schedule of fees. Fees are avoided by refraining from the service or action subject to regulation. Fees are not imposed on the community without that underlying service or regulation triggering activity by City personnel. • Fee amounts are derived from the organizational and cost structure of the City, as established most significantly by the City Budget adopted by the City Council. • Resultant fee amounts are greatly influenced by the amount of time spent by City personnel and/or contractors to provide service. , • Categories of fees are structured to closely align the resulting fee amount to the individual service provided. User and Regulatory Fee Analysis—Building and Safety Division 1-2 Prepared by NBS for the City of San Luis Obispo PH2-20 Attachment 2 SECTION 2 FRAMEWORK 2.A. Analysis Origination and Scope In approaching any study, NBS assesses the unique conditions of the agency with which we work, applies a core philosophy, and selects methodologies fitting the requirements of the current situation of that individual agency. Given diversity and ambiguities in many aspects of city finance and policy, this is a necessary strategy: one- size-fits-all methods are not sustainable once they become owned by the agency served. A core philosophy of NBS in the execution of this type of work is fundamentally: there is a legal foundation in place that provides the. City with the authority to impose fees for the discretionary services and regulatory activities it provides. The cost of providing these services and activities can be reasonably calculated and fees can be structured that allow the City to recover all, or part, of the cost of providing these services. The calculation of the cost of providing requested services is an analytical effort that involves adopted and expected cost information, and estimates of time required to perform a service or activity. Determining the targeted level of cost recovery from a new or increased fee is not an analytical exercise. It involves agency-specific judgments linked to a variety of factors, such as existing City policies, agency-wide or departmental revenue objectives, economic goals, community values, market conditions, level of demand, and others. As long as the adopted fee is set at an amount that does not exceed the estimated, reasonable, full cost of providing the service or activity requested, the City is complying with the legal framework currently in place. 2.13. Legal Foundation It is generally accepted in California that cities are granted the authority to impose user fees and regulatory fees for services and activities they provide through provisions of the State Constitution. First, cities are granted the ability to perform broad activities related to their local policing power and other service authority as defined in Article XI, Sections 7 and 9. Second, cities are granted the ability to establish fees for service through the framework defined in Article XIIIB, Section 8. Under this latter framework, a fee may not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of providing the service or performing the activity. For a fee to qualify as such, it must relate to a service or activity under the control of the individual/entity on which the fee is imposed. For example, the individual/entity requests service of the municipality or his or her actions specifically cause the municipality to perform additional activities. In this manner, the service or the underlying action causing the municipality to perform service is either discretionary and/or is subject to regulation. As a discretionary service or regulatory activity, the user fees and regulatory fees considered in this study fall outside requirements that must otherwise be .followed by the City to impose taxes, special taxes, or fees imposed as incidences of property ownership. User and Regulatory Fee Analysis—Building and Safety Division 2-1 Prepared by NBS for the City of San Luis Obispo PH2-21 Attachment 2 2.C. Analytical Foundation Cost of Service Analysis and Fee Establishment A cost of service analysis is a quantitative effort which compiles the full cost of providing governmental services and activities. There are two primary types of costs considered: direct and indirect costs. Direct costs are those which specifically relate to the activity in question, including the real-time provision of the service. Indirect costs are those which support the provision of services but cannot be directly or easily assigned to the activity in question. An example of a direct cost is the salary and benefit expense associated with an individual performing a service. In the same example, an indirect cost would include the expenses incurred to provide an office and equipment for that individual to perform his or her duties, including (but not exclusive to) the provision of the service in question. Components of the full cost of service include direct labor costs, indirect labor costs, specific direct non-labor costs where applicable, allocated non-labor costs, and allocated organization-wide overhead. Definitions of these cost components are as follows: • Direct labor costs — These are the salary/wage and benefits expenses for City personnel specifically involved in the provision of services and activities to the public. • Indirect labor costs — These are the salary/wage and benefits expenses for City personnel supporting the provision of services and activities. This can include line supervision and departmental management, administrative support within a department, and staff involved in technical activities related to the direct services provided to the public. • Specific direct non-labor costs — These are discrete expenses incurred by the City due to a specific service or activity performed, such as contractor costs, third-parry charges, and very specific materials used in the service or activity. (In most fee types, this component is not used, as it is very difficult to directly assign most non-labor costs at the activity level.) • Allocated indirect non-labor costs — These are expenses other than labor for the departments involved in the provision of services. In most cases, these costs are allocated across all services provided by a department, rather than directly assigned to fee categories. Throughout the cost of service analysis used in this study, many non- labor expenses have been excluded from allocation if they can be directly attributable to a service not under review in this study. For example, expenses wholly related to the provision of general police patrol and investigation services have been excluded, as those User and Regulatory Fee Analysis—Building and Safety Division 2-2 Prepared by NBS for the City of San Luis Obispo PGI2-22 - Attachment 2 expenses would be entirely recovered by the General Fund or other funding sources not covered by this study. • Allocated indirect organization-wide overhead — These are expenses, both labor and non-labor, related to the City's agency-wide support services. Support services includes general administrative services provided internally across the City's departments such as human resources, payroll, financial management, information technology, and other similar business functions. These cost components were expressed using annual (or annualized) figures, representing a twelve-month fiscal year cycle of budgeted expenses incurred by the City in the provision of the services studied. The Building and Safety Division's User and Regulatory fees under review in this study require specific actions on the part of City staff to provide the service or conduct the activity. Because labor is an underlying factor in these activities, the full cost of service was most appropriately expressed as a fully burdened cost per available labor hour. This labor rate — expressed as an individual composite rate for each department or division of the City's organization involved in provision of services studied — served as the basis for further quantifying the average full cost of providing individual services and activities. NBS derived a fully burdened labor rate for the major functional divisions and activities of the Building and Safety Division. To derive the fully burdened labor rate(s), two figures were required: the full costs of service and the number of hours available to perform those services. The full costs of service were quantified generally through the earlier steps described in this analysis. The number of hours was derived from a complete listing of all personnel employed by the Building and Safety Division and reflected in the labor expenses embedded in the full cost of service. Each employee was assigned a full-time equivalent factor. An employee working full- time would have a factor of 1.0; an employee working exactly half-time would have a factor of 0.5. For purposes of analysis, all full-time employees (swom and non-swom) are considered as paid for 2,080 hours per year of regular time, depending on their status. Using this as an initial benchmark of labor time, each employee's full-time equivalent factor was applied to this amount of hours to generate the total number of regular paid hours in the department. Next, each employee's annual paid leave hours were approximated. Paid leave included holidays, vacation, and sick leave. Once quantified for the entire department, annual allowable paid leave hours were removed from the total number of regular paid hours to generate the total number of available labor hours for the department. These available hours represent the amount of productive time during which services and activities can be performed. User and Regulatory Fee Analysis—Building and Safety Division 2-3 Prepared by NBS for the City of San Luis Obispo PH2-23 Attachment 2 The productive labor hours were then divided into the annual full costs of service to derive a composite fully burdened labor rate for each division. This schedule of composite labor rates was used in this fee study to quantify costs at an individual fee level. It should be noted, however, that the composite labor rates may also be used by the City for other purposes when the need arises to calculate the full cost of general services. For nearly all services and activities in a governmental agency — not just those reflected in a fee schedule — labor time is the most accessible and reasonable underlying variable. Once fully burdened labor rates were developed, they could be used at the individual fee level to estimate an average full cost of providing each service or activity. This step required the development of staff time estimates for the services and activities listed in the master fee schedule. Interviews and questionnaires were used to develop the necessary data sets describing estimated labor time. In most cases, the Department was asked to estimate the average amount of time (in minutes and hours) it would take to complete a typical occurrence of each service or activity considered. It should be noted that the development of these time estimates was not a one-step process: estimates and time tracking data received was carefully reviewed by both consultant and departmental management to assess the reasonableness of such estimates. Based on this review, some time estimates were reconsidered until all parties were comfortable that they reasonably reflected average workload required by the City. Once finalized, the staff time estimates were then applied to the fully burdened labor rate to yield an average full cost of the service or activity. The average full cost of service is just that: an average cost at the individual fee level. The City does not currently have the systems in place to impose fees for every service or activity based on the actual amount of time it takes to serve each individual. Moreover, such an approach is almost universally infeasible without significant — if not unreasonable — investments in costly technology. The resulting proposed fee schedule is composed primarily of "flat' fees, which by definition, are linked to an average cost of service; thus, use of this average cost method was the approach. Flat fee structures based on average costs of service are widely applied among other California municipalities, and it is a generally accepted approach. The complete fully burdened hourly rate analysis developed for this study is included in this report as Attachment B. Cost Recovery Evaluation Determining the targeted level of cost recovery from a new fee is not an analytical exercise. Instead, targets reflect agency-specific judgments linked to a variety of factors, such as existing City policies, agency-wide or departmental revenue objectives, economic goals, community values, market conditions, level of demand, and others. User and Regulatory Fee Analysis—Building and Safety Division 2-4 Prepared by NBS for the City of San Luis Obispo PH2-24 Attachment 2 A general means of selecting an appropriate cost recovery target is to consider the public and private benefits of the service or activity in question: • To what degree does the public at large benefit from the service? • To what degree does the individual or entity requesting, requiring, or causing the service benefit? When a service or activity completely benefits the public at large, it can be argued reasonably that there should be no cost recovery from fees (i.e., 0% cost recovery): that a truly public-benefit service is best funded by the general resources of the City, such as General Fund revenues (e.g., taxes). Conversely, when a service or activity completely benefits an individual or entity, it can be argued reasonably that 100% of the cost should be recovered from fees collected from the individual or entity. Under this approach, it is often found that many governmental services and activities fall somewhere between these two extremes, which is to say that many activities have a mixed benefit. In the majority of those cases, the initial cost recovery level targeted may attempt to reflect that mixed public and private benefit. For example, an activity that seems to have a 40% private benefit and a 60% public benefit would yield a cost recovery target from fees of 40%. In some cases, a strict public-versus-private benefit judgment may not be sufficient to finalize a cost recovery target. Any of the following other factors and considerations may influence exclusively or supplement the public/private benefit of a service or activity: • If optimizing revenue potential is an overriding goal, is it feasible to recover the full cost of service? • Will these fees result in non-compliance or public safety problems? • Are there desired behaviors or modifications to behaviors of the service population that could be helped or hindered through the degree of pricing for the activities? • Could these fees adversely affect City goals, priorities, or values? Additionally, even more specific questions may influence ultimate cost recovery targets: • Is there a good policy basis for differentiating between type of users (e.g., residents and non-residents, residential and commercial, non- profit entities and business entities)? • Are there broader City objectives that inform a less than full cost recovery target from fees, such as economic development goals and local social values? User and Regulatory Fee Analysis—Building and Safety Division 2-5 Prepared by NBS for the City of San Luis Obispo PGI2-25 Attachment 2 Because this element of the study is subjective — despite the above attempts to provide structure for consistent decision-making — the consultant in charge of the analytical outcomes of this study has provided the full cost of service information and the framework for considering fees, while those closest to the fee-paying population — the City's staff and City Council, will need to recommend appropriate cost recovery levels at or below that full cost. 2.D. Data Sources The following City-published data sources were used to support the cost of service analysis and fee establishment phases of this study: • The City of San Luis Obispo Adopted Budget for Fiscal Year 2011-12. • Various correspondences with Building and Safety Division and City administrative staff supporting the adopted Fiscal Year 2011-12 budget. • A complete listing of all Building and Safety Division budgeted personnel, salary/wage rates, regular hours, paid benefits, and paid leave amounts. The City's adopted budget is the most significant source of information affecting cost of service results. It should be noted that consultants did not conduct separate efforts to audit or validate the City's financial management and budget practices, nor was cost information adjusted to reflect different levels of service or any specific, targeted performance benchmarks. This study has accepted the City's budget as a legislatively adopted directive describing the most appropriate and reasonable level of City spending. Consultants accept the City Council's deliberative process and ultimate acceptance of the budget plan and further assert that through that legislative process, the City has yielded a reasonable expenditure plan, valid for use in setting cost-based fees. Beyond data published by the City, original data sets were also developed to support the work of this study: estimated staff time at various levels of detail, and volumetric information for building plan review and permitting activity for Fiscal Years 2009 and 2010. To develop these data sets, consultants prepared questionnaires and conducted interviews with the Building and Safety Division. In the fee establishment phase of the analysis, departmental staff provided the average time to be spent providing a service or activity corresponding with each new fee. Consultants and departmental management reviewed and questioned responses to ensure the best possible set of estimates. The final sets of labor time estimates and volumetric data used in this study are reflected throughout the cost of service analysis included as Attachment A of this report. User and Regulatory Fee Analysis—Building and Safety Division 2-6 Prepared by NBS for the City of San Luis Obispo PH2-26 Attachment 2 SECTION 3 COST OF SERVICE RESULTS The City of San Luis Obispo's Building & Safety Division is responsible for enforcing various land use, property development, building and sign regulations. 3.A. Cost of Service Analysis Exhibit 3-A displays a breakdown of the estimated total annual costs of providing Building and Safety Services. Exhibit 3-A Total Estimated Annual Costs Established for the Building and Safety Division Percentage Program Cost Type Total Cost of Total Costs Labor $ 677,217 41% Recurring Non-Labor $ 73,948 4% Periodic/Amortized Non-Labor $ 8,335 0% Department and Citywide Overhead $ 259,459 16% Allocated Common Activities $ 649,633 39% Total j $1,668,590 j 100% 11 Exhibit 3-B on the following page categorizes the Building and Safety Division's costs across both fee related and non-fee related services, as well as the resulting fully- burdened hourly rate applicable toward establishing the "full" or "maximum" charge for fee related services. User and Regulatory Fee Analysis—Building and Safety Division 3-1 Prepared by NBS for the City of San Luis Obispo PH2-27 Attachment 2 Exhibit 3-B Cost Calculations for Fee and Non-Fee Related Building and Safety Activities Targeted Percent Amount Percent Amount Hourly Requiring Requiring Functional Cost Allocation Non-Fee Non-Fee Component of Costs Recoverable Recoverable Rate for Related Related In Fees In Fees Direct Services Funding Funding Sources Sources Direct Fee Related 605 100%$559, ° Activities $559,605 $123.00 0% $ Indirect Services Activities: Review Planning 49,871 100% 49,871 0% Phase of Application 10.96 Public Counter Duty 95,372 80% 76,298 16.77 20% 1.9,074 Building Related 243,477 100% 243,477 0% - Code Enforcement 53.52 Non-Fee Funded Services Zoning Related Code 243,228 0% 0 0 100% Enforcement 243,228 Nuisance Abatement /Other Code 477,036 0% 0 0 100% 477,036 Enforcement Total $1,668,590 1 929,252 $204 $739,338 Direct Hours 4,550 Differential Rate Adjustment $(49,871) $193 The "Percentage Recoverable in Fees" column identifies all service areas that NBS recommends as justifiable components of the fully-burdened hourly rate applied toward establishing user/regulatory fee recovery limits. All subsequent cost of service calculations at the individual fee level assumes a fully-burdened hourly rate of $204, with a goal to recover approximately $929,000 in costs from fees for service. NBS also calculated a differential rate of $193, to exclude the Division's costs associated with review of planning applications. In the subsequent fee analysis, the differential rate is applied to minor projects generally not requiring a planning application approval. The "Percent Requiring Non-Fee Related Funding Sources" column above identifies service areas that NBS generally recommends as best funded via alternate revenue sources than fees for service, as noted in the following paragraphs. Significant analytical and policy decisions often revolve around inclusion of categorized activity costs in the fully-burdened hourly rate. The decision whether to include or exclude some or all of a particular cost category in user/regulatory fees for service is User and Regulatory Fee Analysis—Building and Safety Division 3-2 Prepared by NBS for the City of San Luis Obispo PH2-28 Attachment 2 guided by basic fee setting parameters offered by the California State Constitution and Statues, which requires that any new fee levied or existing fee increased should not exceed the estimated amount required to provide the service for which the charge is levied. Cost category nomenclature shown in the table above was adapted and summarized from interviews conducted with the Building and Safety Division about the nature of service activities provided. To assist the City in understanding the underlying costs and assumptions used to calculate the fully-burdened hourly rate, summaries of the cost categories are provided as follows: • Direct Fee Related Activities — Work performed on active plan review or inspection projects. • Indirect Services Activities — Groups of tasks that benefit all Division activities and operations. These costs are subsequently determined either as eligible for full funding from user/regulatory fees, or as partially requiring funding from other revenue sources, depending on their "nexus" to the population of fee payers served: — Review of Planning Phase of Application — Staff time for providing initial comments and conditions of approval during the planning application approval process. Costs apply to new commercial, multifamily, and residential projects only. — Public Counter Duty — Staff time devoted to responding to phone calls and public inquiries not specifically associated with an active permit or plan review. Typically, some portion of costs for provision of general public information and assistance are not linked for recovery from fees for permit applications. Here a reasonable assumption was made that 80% of costs associated with public counter services are linked to an existing or near future application request, 20% are associated with provision of general information that may not pertain to a specific project or building and safety related inquiry. — Building Related Code Enforcement — Work activities in response to a complaint received by the Division related to violation of a City ordinance or State building code. Includes general complaint follow up and investigation activities, many of which result in the application for a building permit to meet compliance. • Non-Fee Funded Services — Work performed by Division staff for services not eligible for recovery in a building user/regulatory fees for service, such as enforcement of the City's zoning code, or code enforcement actions for nuisances, parking issues, etc. User and Regulatory Fee Analysis—Building and Safety Division 3-3 Prepared by NBS for the City of San Luis Obispo PH2-29 Attachment 2 3.B. Cost Recovery Analysis The results of this Cost of Services Analysis conclude that the Building and Safety Division is eligible to recover approximately 56% of its annual costs of providing services from user/regulatory fees for service. 44% of its annual costs are not associated with fee-related activities and therefore require identification of alternate revenue sources. Amount Reco%erable In Fees $ 929,252 56% Amount Requiring Non-Fee Related Funding Sources 739,338 44% Total 1,668,590 1000/0 Attachment A presents the results of the detailed cost recovery analysis for fee recoverable services. The "Total Cost of Service per Activity Column" establishes the legal maximum at which a fee could be charged for the corresponding service identified in the "Fee Description" list. NBS worked extensively with Division staff to gather estimates of time required to perform each service identified in the Attachment. Time estimates were independently evaluated on separate occasions by staff members and also analyzed by NBS to determine whether. the time estimates provided seemed reasonable when compared against the numerous fee studies NBS staff have performed. When the Cost of Service per Activity is compared to the Department's "Current Fee", some fees will appear to under recover their costs, some will come close to 100% recovery, and some will appear to collect more than the their cost of providing services. This is a typical outcome of any Cost of Service Analysis. Revenue estimates discussed in this report or shown in the accompanying attachments should be relied upon conservatively. The premise of this analysis utilizes allocations of current cost data, labor effort and workload to establish the estimated and reasonable cost of providing services, and compares the annualized figures to revenue reports, available staffing hours, and other indicators considered by NBS as cross-checks for a defensible analysis. However, because studies of this nature often induce changes to fee structures, and rely upon time and workload estimates as well as allocation statistics, they do not provide an "exact" measure, but rather a reasonable projection of costs, subsidies, and revenue impacts associated with provision of services. 3.C. Proposed Building Fee Structure Over the past decade, several challenges and questions to calculating building fee amounts based on valuation multipliers have been raised in California. Common challenge statements to this methodology include: • Value of a construction project has no real "nexus" to the cost of providing services for processing, plan review, and inspection of a building project User and Regulatory Fee Analysis—Building and Safety Division 3-4 Prepared by NBS for the City of San Luis Obispo PH2-30 C' Attachment 2 • As value of a construction project increases per the type of materials used, etc., level of effort associated with project approval does not necessarily increase accordingly • The true basis for establishment of the valuation multipliers is unknown, and relies on economic, rather than cost of service assumptions for the local jurisdiction • The fee tables applied toward final plan check and inspection fee calculations are structured to recover subsidies for smaller projects from larger developments For this reason, many jurisdictions across the State have moved away from the valuation based fee setting methodology in recent years. The City of San Luis Obispo has attempted a similar change over the past several years, but has not successfully implemented a fully automated and successful cost-based fee structure to date. The building fee structure developed by NBS for the City of San Luis Obispo follows the same principles of a cost-based structure developed for the City by another consulting firm about three years ago. NBS re-evaluated and simplified the structure based on its experience with implementation of cost based building fee structures across the State. Under a cost based fee setting methodology, all New Construction, Tenant Improvements, and Additions project types are categorized and charged based on their square footage and fire rating. All minor residential and commercial projects, and stand- alone Mechanical, Plumbing, and Electrical (MPE) permits, are charged on a flat-fee (itemized) basis. The resulting scaled fee tables for New Construction, Tenant Improvements, and Additions are provided in Attachment C to this report, while the flat fees for minor residential and commercial projects and stand-alone MPE's are displayed in the latter half of the results shown in Attachment A. User and Regulatory Fee Analysis—Building and Safety Division 3-5 Prepared by NBS for the City of San Luis Obispo PH2-31 C Attachment 2 SECTION 4 DEVELOPMENT ;REVIEW SURCHARGES NBS reviewed the City's existing approach to collecting the total costs of planning, engineering, and fire development review services. The existing approach is documented below: • Planning: 44% on top of Building permits that required a planning approval (mostly new development and major additions and remodels) • Engineering: 15% on top of Building permits that required an Engineering review of a planning application. Also, the estimated annual Engineering costs related to building plan review were factored into the Building plan check fees. • Fire: 21.5% on top of building permits requiring fire plan review and inspection. 4.A. Planning The results of a 2006 third-party fee study concluded that planning fees for service were significantly under-recovering costs associated with providing services, as is typical of many current planning functions in local government. Historically, the Council has adopted a policy targeting 100% recovery of development review costs. In order to soften the impact to the applicant of collecting 100% of the full cost recovery planning application fee during the initial stages of a project's feasibility, the Council adopted a policy to split the collection of each planning application fee to 45% upon submittal of the planning application, and 55% at the building permit stage. The resulting method of implementation reflected in the City's adopted fee structure pooled the costs associated with the delayed collection of 55% of planning fees into one surcharge of 44% on top of building permits. The surcharge was applied to building permits that typically require planning application approval. NBS notes the following risks and issues associated with the 44% surcharge: • The surcharge is global in nature, and does not link the specific project from the planning phase to the charge that is incurred on the building permit. • Application of a surcharge runs the risk of implementation on projects where no planning approval was actually required, such as single family residences. • Some projects approved in the planning application process never pull a building permit. The current method recovers costs of projects that fall out of the process within the surcharge to active building permit applicants. Charging some User and Regulatory Fee Analysis—Building and Safety Division 4-1 Prepared by NBS for the City of San Luis Obispo PH2-32 Attachment 2 applicants a higher fee to recover for costs of customers who do not pay their fee does not comply with the government code, most recently Proposition 26. NBS recommends the collection approach for splitting planning application fees be modified to 45% at the planning application phase, and 55% collection at the building permit phase, based on the exact fee required per project type. Implementing a split charge system at the individual fee level requires additional consideration regarding the point of collection for each Planning fee for service. For example, some planning applications will always result in a building permit. For these projects, the split collection method is appropriate. For projects that will never result in a building permit, the collection method requires 100% payment at the time of planning application. Finally, some projects may or may not require a building permit, depending on the scope and nature of the project. For these items, the collection approach should attempt to collect full payment either way. Additionally, a certain number of projects will fall out of the process after planning approval, and never apply for a building permit. If the full cost recovery fee for planning review was not collected at the time of application, the City will not recover these costs. Attachment D to this report presents an updated table of Planning application fees, as well as a recommended collection method for each type of application. NBS used the following approach to develop the adjusted fees: • Interviewed Planning staff regarding the nature of each type of application. If the application was 100% associated with a future building permit, a collection method of 45% at the planning application submittal and 55% at the building permit was applied. For applications never associated with a future building permit, a collection method of 100% at the time of application submittal applied. For applications with an unknown future building permit, the 45% and 55% collection method was also applied. • Adapted the full cost recovery fee amounts from the 2006 study to 2011 levels using a CPI increase factor. This is a common practice for the City of San Luis Obispo in updating user and regulatory fees on an annual basis. • Noted any recommended fee amounts provided by Planning staff that reflected amounts less than 100% full cost recovery (intentional subsidy), or that were not included in the 2006 study • Showed a comparison between the current planning application fee and the new planning application fee under the revised collection method 43. Engineering The Engineering Division provides support to both the planning and building application processes. The results of the 2006 Fee Study identified approximately $238,000 in User and Regulatory Fee Analysis—Building and Safety Division 4-2 Prepared by NBS for the City of San Luis Obispo PH2-33 Attachment 2 costs associated with planning application review and approximately $137,000 in costs associated with support to the building plan check process. Council adopted a policy to implement a 15% surcharge on top of building permits to recover for the costs of planning application review, while the $137,000 was included as an overhead cost component within the building fee structure. The same risks and issues associated with the Planning Surcharge are applicable to the Engineering Surcharge. The 2006 Fee Study results included a list of fees that could be charged on a per project basis for planning application review, as shown in Exhibit 4-A on the following page. Exhibit 4-A 2006 Fee Study.Potential Fees for Engineering Review of Planning Applications Potential Fee Fee or Service Name -2006 Stud Sidewalk Use Fee Sidewalk Cafe (per sq.ft. per month $ 81 ARC Development Project $ 557 ARC Minor or Incidental $ 282 Lot Line Adjustment $ 651 Planned Development- Plan Amendment $ 30 Planning Commission Use Permit $ 81 Specific Plan Amendment $ 216 Tentative Subdivision Ma -4 lots or less $ 4,759 Tentative Subdivision Ma - 5 or more lots $ 5,617 Variance $ 60 Zoning Map Amendment $ 43 Zoning Text Amendment $ 43 Condo Conversion $ 1,589 Street Abandonment $ 1,181 Certificate of Compliance $ 266 Time Extension $ 441 Environmental Impact Determination $ 1,883 Environmental Impact Report $ 2,326 ARC Review-Time Extension $ 30 General and Specific Plans- Ma $ 598 General and Specific Plans-Text $ 120 Annexations $ 1,010 User and Regulatory Fee Analysis— Building and Safety Division 4-3 Prepared by NBS for the City of San Luis Obispo PH2-34 Attachment 2 NBS recommends the City revisit these Fee Study results, and consider implementing a fee structure according .to the type of planning application incurring support from Engineering. For cost recovery of support to the building plan check process, NBS recommends the Engineering Division develop a schedule of flat fees for various types of building plan review projects, and charge on a per project basis. The results of the Building Fee Analysis shown in Attachments A through C of this report do not include the $137,000 in costs identified in the 2006 Fee Study. The impact of implementing the revised building fee structure will have a negative revenue:impact for Engineering's cost recovery in this area until an alternate collection method is established. 4.C. Fire Surcharge For plan review and inspection of building permits, the 2006 Fee Study established fee tables under the cost based methodology discussed in Section 3.3 of this report for Building and Safety. These tables were not implemented as part of the Master Fee Schedule adopted by City Council in 2009. Instead, the City adopted a 21.5% surcharge on top of building permits requiring fire prevention review. A surcharge cost recovery method is a common approach State-wide for cost recovery of fire prevention support to the building permit process. In NBS' opinion, it is a best management practice to implement a cost based fee structure that mirrors the building department's cost-based approach by project type and size. However, this could be done at a later date within the context of a larger Citywide fee study. In the interim, the City should focus first on effective transition of the building department to the cost based methodology. User and Regulatory Fee Analysis—Building and Safety Division 4-4 Prepared by NBS for the City of San Luis Obispo PH2-35 Attachment Z SECTION 5 CONCLUSIONS As discussed throughout this report, the proposed fee schedule includes fees intended to recover City costs incurred to provide individual services. The NBS project team notes that while on an individual fee basis, some fees were recovering more than the average total cost of providing services; others were not recovering their true costs. Overall, the Building Division is under-recovering City costs of providing fee related services by approximately 7%. NBS also recommends the elimination of existing surcharges on top of building permits. While the surcharges are intended to capture delayed recovery of development review costs incurred in the planning and engineering application phases of development, fees based on specific project types, charged as close as possible to the time at which the work is performed, is a more defensible approach. The fee schedule should continue to remain a living document that is handled with care: • A fundamental purpose of any fee schedule is to provide clarity and transparency to the public and to staff regarding fees imposed by the City. Once adopted by the City Council, the fee schedule is the final word on the amount and manner in which fees should be imposed. • The City should consider adjusting these user fees and regulatory fees on an annual basis to keep pace at least with cost inflation. A common practice in California is to apply an annual Consumer Price Index adjustment. Conducting a user fee study is not an annual requirement; it becomes worthwhile only over time as significant shifts in organization, local practices, legislative values, or legal requirements change. As a final note in this study, it is worth acknowledging the path that fees in general have taken in Califomia. The public demands ever more precise and equitable accounting of the basis for governmental fees and a greater say in when and how they are imposed. It is inevitable in the not-too distant future that user fees and regulatory fees will demand an even greater level of analysis and supporting data to meet the public's evolving expectations. Technology systems will play an increased and significant role in an agency's ability to accomplish this. As the City proceeds in the years to come, specifically in the update, replacement, or acquisition of new financial and data management systems, it is recommended that some attention be paid as to how new systems might also help the City in its fee related responsibilities, in areas such as: • The tracking of staff time at a project or case level User and Regulatory Fee Analysis—Building and Safety Division 5-1 Prepared by NBS for the City of San Luis Obispo PH2-36 Attachment 2 • The tracking of volumes at a service/activity category level • Access to data by multiple departments collaborating on the same or similar services and activities. User and Regulatory Fee Analysis—Building and Safety Division 5-2 Prepared by NBS for the City of San Luis Obispo PH2-37 U Q C7 a� E O R Q C O .N 0 a N w O O O C a Co y O):a C O ._ CO J N .N •- > O R Q a a CD Z Q LL Win o0 u � co m owCD CCD ho. 0 0 PH2-38 9r a»E . .ate . $ . 9 fill . oo, 0 00000 00000 00000 veva° aaaoo novo° e �' fa� f ffoaf fffff fffff fffff fffff ff:fff ffff mffff �f !k e » 3 u� 88n 88 8_ 8 8 VY -F aF Awga� �aece -fi�$n A»=c� A�$ax �:g�n axac ^eta :da x.; �g F Pi F T_!; .1� aC € xa-$$ as ». :$na$ Aa &8 a:$$s aaaz- a� a aaa$ u�4 SFE�� SGE�� 7p 28 mA$°o :aa ^93C2 =A 9 a3 I Hill II d E86 ja§ _»e '82= 93r� -»a 53.3 am38a -93:a "m '�aa �a'�c�€ =iza �xaa3 aax pias _ _ _-Raa _Nae i F F F 8 e pp 88B�� C � Aypug 2ad � dGd Sp$Q Nila Sf �is a @ '4 egg aai �`i Sg tl&Z �� � �3�p8 $E 3 3�� •�yF •§F iFtl ��g ��. ��F ptIPI has s 4 PH2-39 .� «y T! . F . . . _ | � jt ' � ! | ! sit |! - - / _ . � . . . , . . : 40§! , . } ! , !! || | | sit § PH2-42 m N 0 U < U CL C O .N 0 d w H O C � N ��. C p :2 N O 7 7 2 mJ � C N U) N O 0 c r � m a Z L W o° � m CO cu = Z Of V Q as y m PH2-43 � ) � � U � � |f ; gym ! ■ @ !ee # F ; , - a : ■ § ! !t)) ■ ! § ! � . F!! - pr � , !� ■ ; . } ) • E a ; � § @ - ' ! ! !■ ! ® r! ! !} ! § |) � ■ | sa FL * , PH2-4 y �T N N h N d P m Yf N _tea N •� N N p N m N p N N N N N p N p N N N Np N N N N o N N N U N N M a yyppY m m O^m W SOS YI 88O�rmrIpppp 8S8 O P qP 8S8 m O Opp!.P.pp�NIyy pS8 O pp0 2 W N N N N U N N W N N N N N N N N rrpp pm N N N _ \^: �yy� m�Np I•'!r CpI tN0 Or �p N p1 N h M A � O � d e•!m S N S m ��N N O N m O as �� N r € N w N M N N N N N'N N N N N N w M N N N N w M N N M N 9 KW wNNNNNNwN«N wmwm„mv1-w'�, E $� yyQ 1 N N U N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N O N Y c v 8 C }po� y,o NwNwwNwwwwNwwwww«pw w««www « + Y p C O O C pN 4PNf a O�p�p •C'-m m O � V N Y �j qq Vp ho N N N 0 VNi N P VPl P,O Uh,PO� N h V N m N N N N N p N U m N N N N N N N N N W N N N N N N NI N N Id ' 1.1 qr N IGmp p C4 N N 4 Nm U INd H m N w N N N N N N N N N N W N N N M N N N N N M N N 'a �sC NgdNi Ns.N��,4mv c � m O C O m Z 18 N M N M N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Y p • . . O p . . i. . . . . . . • r E Cm m a N N N M M N N............... N N N n . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . I . . . eE pCC m k aE 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 Na N N N M M N W N M M N N M N N'M N M N N M N �Ek O yl C C N aGSa W w W C a ZO 0 W Z W Q N N U 2 j o K p S $Q W Z Z K ZW Z�Z 4 6 K 6 i C m N W Z a w O w J m a LL a N N m o m u S uz ' er UU7ga o�� $ yzzosi000 J2 a a ea 55.za� o wo �oUo 00� 3 www x 0 a z Y'3 w w'” .w x x o $ e z < mmw Oza aat� zN mm ww Z a � � m �YUUU�z� aza0LLW<G<OoQs�Ny�� z o � m '�`, o.; 9.�¢azrO�NOWo¢52 QWw a aq . - z 9 Q p F Tt>'z>'I�E<zz aLLar`n m3 a0o3 W wa s Z W y 0 0 0 U m W 3 0 6 N U N 6 m W s a a N u Y G b 1' m) o i � a L oo i.ryN qSNNN��r i.NNqq^^IrI+�+�� hlPqq ti 3` PH2-45 m � M tp } m N N » a m< ry �ryryEy c 2 n CI G 66 � E g d mE v w E°i6 € � n a�$ m Nm 3� 0 ri ei 00 N RR W »N» N 0 K W N N M o g'6E iD � 5 m m � E LN O 10 N Q 0 C M 0 O qy d O N N» N ]U W N N N a m m N m n O Y p] y A vT c N V W w»N N V »» N 0 r m Uqq m$ m g m 6 8 p p QN ^N Y a a N M w O N 6 r C r O tl1 pQU Y m W N N ° w � o O i 3 c a $ E o 0 J PH2-46 \ � � � � � \2 §®!; R � k§^# - � C3&� . \ r,l2 § �\|i .... . ! / q§ k� - ) $ ]|/l ; ; ; ; ) gm go ` (!f! \\ !0 �,! a ! IL - - , qA@ - � / E) � \ {§{ \)( ( § . - w . v � ; , ■ < �!!! ■��; . , ) ti |! m■,§ � |! §.a � ! � ---- - � --- - ! � ! ! / § | | ` ` . # § / k k ) ! | f ` ! 0 § | # § 0 to i � ! z ; .! f )\ ( ) \ {{ / \ t . ! � \ � ) PH2-47 N { � � � � CIZ3 we � R«§■■ # ;a ; "! ■ !" ; E� n! ■ ! §! ! -■ !, §§!!k ■ ■\ | § � - ,� � ; ----- - - ! !�$| |■®w, � ° � � !�!|l ..... . i i! | | {_� | /77■� k �� � k� !- : �ƒ ----- - - -. •- ! #«■f| ) 8'9t #; . $| _ ! ,|| wE2:■ ( _;; _( " ! � • - � ( )$ { \) \ || ®{ 2$) / • E t }] ; . ■ , ld� \! ! } Lr £ | ! § !§! \| ■ . ) § 2 -Q | ! § » | - § § k PH2-4§ U c m E r cc CC3 c 0 .N O T Ol w W C O C IV y_ 03� c 0 � N 7 7 [0 J I cc y,N > 0 � O c V aU d LL L k,l Lo m p) m Z V ti Q) a c a L a d m Q H CL PH2-49 CITY of SAN LUIS oetspo Attachment 2 BUILDING DMSION USER 8.REGULATORY FEE ANALYSIS New Construction Fee Schedule-Plan Check Fees Fire Rating Type I II. Fire Rating Type IA 111. Fire Rotln T e IIB N VB Ocici awry Type and Clan Fee Unit Cost Por S.F. Coat Per S.F. Cost Per S.F. Bus,Cost Between Base Cwt Between Base Goat Setwaen Thresholds Thresholds Thresholds LEVEL OF EFFORT 1.5 1.25 1 Commorde ses-Structural All nary construdell.a ed,or structurally remodeled space fpr non-residoccal oempancles classified as CBO Group A.S.E. F.H.I.M.or other commercial occupancies not specifically addressed elsewhere in this Fee Schedule Square Feelings: Sao per project $ 2,441 $ 1.63 S .2.035 S 1.36 S 1,628. $ 1.09 5.000 per Project $ 9.766 $ 0.49 S 8,138 $ 0.41 $ 6,510. S 0.33 10,000 par project I 12,207 $ 0.18 $ 10.173 $ 0.15 $ 8,138 S 0.12 50,000 per projecti $ 19,531 $ 0.10 $ 16,276 $ 0.08 S .13.021 S 0.07 100,000 par pmjod $ 24,414 $ 0.24 S 20,345 S 0.20 $ 16,278 S 0.16 commercial Residentiala utiamy Residential Uses-( rawly consW added.or stmcumlily remodeled space for residential arupancies classified as CBC Group R(ascent Rd),Or other resldenital occupancies not specifically addressed elsewhere in this Fee Sdwduia S upm Foam e: 500 per project S 2,688 4 1,79 S .2.238 $ 1.49 $ 1,790. E 1,19 S.D00 per project S 10,742 3 0.54 $ 8.952 $ 045 f-7 161 f0.36 70,000per. roed S 13,428 S 0.20 I 11,190 $ 0.17 $ 8,952 $ 0.13 50.000 per project S 21,484 S 0.11 $ 17,904 S 0.09 $ .14,323 $ 0.07 100.000 per project S 2$856 S 0.27 S 22.380 $_0 M $ 17,904 $ 0.18 Duplimm Floor Plan Review-Canmortlal Resmdantla artd Mulslamlly Rdonna Uses Square Footage: 500 per proed '$ 1,772 S 0.39 S 1,477 f 0.33 $ 1,182 $ 0.26 5.000 par project $ -3.545 S-0 14 S 2.954 $ 0.12 $ 2,383 $ 0.09 10.000 at rood $ 4,254 S 0.03 1$ 3.545 S 0.02 $ 2,536 $ 0.02 50.000 per project S 5,317 f 0.04 $ 4,431 S 0.03 $ 3.545 f 0.02 100,000 per Project f 7,090 $ 0.07 $ 5.908 $ 0.08 $ 4,]27 S 0.05 Low and Moderate Hazard Storage-(All newly constructed,added,or structurally remodeled space for storage accupancles classified as CSC Group S,or other storage occupancies rtat specifically addressed elsewhere In this Fee Schedule Square Footage: 500 im,pmjw f .2.411 $ 1.63 S .2,035 $ 1.38 3. 1,628 S 1.09 5.000 par project $ 9.766 S 0.49 $ 8,136 S 0.41 S 6,510 $ 0.33 10,000 par rood S 12.207 $ 0.18 $ 10.173 S 0.15 S 8,138 $ 0.12 50,000 per project $ 19,531 S 0.10 $ 16.276 S 0.06 $ 13.021 S 0.07 100.000 per project $ 24,414 S D24 S 20.345 $ 0.20 $ 15,276 f 0.16 Attached Accessory and Utility Uses- newly constructed,aed,Or structurally remodeled apace ler utility and accessory occupancies classified as CBC Group U. or other utility and accessary occupancies not specifically addressed elsewhere in this Fee Schedule Square Footage: 200 per project S 622 $ 1,41 $ 519 f 1.18 $ 415 S 0.94 400 per Project 905 $ 1.32 E 754 S 1.10 S 603 - 0.88 800 par pj.d S 1,168 S 0.29 $ 973 S 0.24 $ 779 C-0 19 .1.000 par proper S 1,285 $ 0.23 $ 1,071 $ 0.19 S 857 I 0.16 3.000 Par PMJ.d $ '1,752 $ 0.58 $ 1,460 $ 0.49 S 1.158 $ .0.39. Detached Accessory and Utility Uses-(All newly constructed, ,_swpture ly remodeled apace far utility and accessory occupancies classified as CBC Group U. or a nor dillyana accessary compancies not specifically addrossed elsewhere In anis Fee Schedule Square Footage: 200 per. road $ .622 E 1.41 $ 519- $ 1.18 $ 415 $ 0.94. 400 per project $ 905 $ 1.32 f 754 _f_1 10 S 603 S 0.88 600 per proect $ 1,168 S 0.29 $ 973 $ 0.24 I 779 S 0.19 1000 per Project S 1,285 $ 0.23 S 1,071 $ 0.19 $ '857 f 0.16 3.000 per project $ 1.752 $ 0.58 S 1,460 f 0.49 $ 1,168 $ 0.39 Shell Buildings fora merdal Uses- eenclawre for a9 newly mnstrudad. added.or structurally remodeled spam for rmn sdentiol occupancies class itat as CBC Group A,B,E.F.H,I,M,or other commercial occupancies not specifically addressed elsewhere in anis Fee Schedule where the interior Is not completed or orsu ishle Squaw Fmm e: 500 per. roped $ 1,465 $ 0.98 $ 1,221 $• 0.81 $ 977 $ 0.85 5.000 Far. m S 5,859 S 0.29 $ 4,8&1 f 024 3 3.906 $ 020 10.000 par. m'act S 7,324. C-0 11 S 6,104 $ 0.09 S 4,883 S 0.07 50.000 per proci $ 11.719 $ 0.06 $ 9,766 $ 0.05 S 7.813 S 0.04 100.000 par. coed $ 14,648 S 0.15 $ 12.207 S 0.12 S 9.786 S- 0.10 Commercial Tenant Improwement-Non Structural-(Nor-strucNrolly remodeled spam Its non-resldental and panel"dssaded as CBC Group A,B.E.F.H.I,M. or other commercial occupancies not specifically addressed elsewhere in this Fee Schedule where the structure Is not altered) Squam Fcom e: 500 per Project $ 1,221 $ 0.81 S 1,017 90'2 614 S 0.54 5.000 per react $ 4,893. f 0.24 $ 4,069 3,255S 0.18 10,000 er roed $ 6,104 S 0.09 S 5,066 4,069 E 0.06 50.000 er pmect $ 9,766 $ 045 S 8,138 6.510 $ 0.03 100,000 er project $ 12.207 I 0.12 $ 10,173 8,138 $ 0.08 Commercial Rasideardal and MUIdamly Reel a ora ¢-NonStructural- (Non-Strudumly remodded spam for residents!Occupancies classified as CBC Group R(except R3),or Omer residential occupancies not specifically addressed elsewnera in this Fee Schedule Square Fmta s: 500 per project $ 1,271. S 0.85 $ 1,059 $ 0.71 $ 847 $ 0.56 5.000 per Imiject $ 5,083 $ 0.25 $ 4,236 $ 0.21 f 3.389 $ 0.17 10.000 peramed S 6,354 $ 0.10 S 5,295 $ 0.08 f 4.238 S 0.08 50.000 per project $ 10,166 $ 0.05 T-8 471 $ 0.04 S 6.777 S 0.03 100,000per project $ 12,707 f 0.13 S 10,589 $ '0.11 $ 8,471 $ 0.08 Single Family Dwellings and Duplexes-(As newly constructed spam for residential Occupancies classified pit CBC Group R-3.Including custom Dullaa acct modal homes for tract matter plans,or other similar residential occupancies not specifically addressed otsewhore in this Fee Schedule) Nes coca:wmw.naulan,.TO114.e00.676.7516 New enmuvnlss FceFy{FpeFleyl_50 Attachment 2 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO BUILDING DIVISION USER®ULATORY FEE ANALYSIS New Const snore Fee Schedule-Plan Check Fon Fire Ratln III Fire Rating Typs 110,111 Fln Rating IIB N VB Occupancy Type and Class Foe Unit Cost Par S.F. Cast Per S:F. Con Per S.F. Baa Cost Between Base Cwt Between Base Cast Between Thresholds Thresholds Thresholds LEVEL OF EFFORT 1.5 1.25 1 Square Footn e: - 1,000 Par. roan $ 2,911 $ 1.94 $ 2,425 f 1.62 f 1,940 $ 129 2,500 par project E 5,821. $ 0.39 $- 4,851. $ 0.32 5 3,881 E 026. 4,000 - per roan 4 BaW. $ OA4 $ 5,336 0.36 S 4,269 $ 0.29 6,000 per Project IS 7,276 $ 0.73 $ 6,064 S 0.61 f 4,851 $ 0.49 8,000per Project $ 8.732 $ 1.09 f 7,276 f 0.91 3 5,821 $ 9.73 Duplicate Floor Plan Rmlew-Single Family Dwallln s and Cupolas Square Footage: 1,000 Par proan f 941 $ 0.63 S 784 $ 0.52 S 627 S 0.42 2.500 perproect f 1,881 $ 0.13 3 1,566 E 0.10 3 1.254 $ 0.08 4,000 per Proect f 2,069 f 0.14 E. 1.724 $ 0.12 S 1,379 $ 0.09. 8,000 per project $ 2,351 _$ 0.24 S 1,960 f 0.20 3 1,568 $ 0.16 8,000 per projed 3 2.822 $ 0.35 f 2.351 $ 0.29 S 1,881 S 0.24 Duplicate Floor Plan Rovlew-Amstrad or Detached Accalawry and Utility Uses Square Foo e: 200 Par Prp ect $ 187 $ 0.42 $ 156. $ 0.35 3 124 $ 0.28' 400 per projoct $ 271. E 0.39 $ 226 $ 0.33 5 181 S 0.26 600 per project $ 350 $ 0.09 E 292 $ 0.07 S 234 E 0.06 1,000 Par. react S 385 $ 0.07 5 321 $ 0.06 5 '257 $ 0.05 3.000 per project $ 526 $ 0.18 S 438 $ 0.15 $ 3505 0.12 Structural Residenhal Remodels and it es- Iramly constructed additiorm to, or structurally remodeled areas of reslden0al occupancies classified as CBC Group R-3,or other similar resWonaal occupancies has spacificalty addressed ammmerem mis Fee Schedule) Square Footage: 100 par Project $ 801-T-1 93 $ 667 f 1.61 f 534 $ 129 500 per project $ 1.571 $ 3.14 $ 1,310. $ 2.62 S 1,048 $ 2.10 1,000 per. roect $ 3,143 $ 0.63 $ 2.619 $ 0.52 T-2 095 $ 042 1,500 per Project $ 3,457 E 0.63 S 2.881 $ 0.52 $ 2.305 f '0.42 2,000 pe,pmj.a $ 3.771. $ 1.89 $ 3.143 E 1.57 $ 2.514 f 1126 Non-StrucWml Residential Rnmaduls and Additions-(AII newly constmctud additions to.or non-structurally r arson ed areas of residential occupancies caal0ed as CBC Group R-3.or Omar similar reskten0al ocamanges not specifically addressed smashers In this Fee Schedule) Square Footage: 100 par Project $ 574. $ O.41 $ 479 $ 0.34 $ 383 f 0.27 500 per project $ 737' $ 1.28 S 814 $ 1.07 $ 491 $ 0.86 1,000 per project $ 1,379 $ 0.28 $ 1,149 f 0.23 f 919 S 0.18 1.500 per Project $ 1.517 $ 0.28 $ 1.264 $ 0.23 S 1,011 f 0.18 2.000 per proan f 1,854 $ 0.83 $ 1,379 S 0.69 S 1,103 $ 0.55. 51W Improvements-Thism udes subsmnwl development n private mrsing lam which are processed separate of the structure and include any mmbinnhan of Me follmwing:Underground utilities,parking In lighting,accessible path of travel analysis.grading,drainage and compliance with the Cly's Making and dnvoway standards. Square Foote o: 500 er react S 823 S 0.55 S 888 $ '0.46 S 549 f 0.37 5.000 er. roan f 3,294 $ 0.16 S 2.745 S 0A4 $ 2.198 f 0.11 10.000 r meet 3 4,117 S 0.06 $ 3,631 $ 0.05 S 2.745 $ 0.04 50,000 1 per project Is 8.561.$ 0.03 1 f. 5,489.1 f 9.03 3 4,391 f. 0.02 100,000 1 per. roan S 8.234 1 f 0.08 3 8.861 is 0.07 f 5.489 f 0.05 Nay Wes:-nbg .wn TO Fee2110.676.7516 Nw(Maass.hti-0bnOerY.2 at PH2-51 Attachment 2 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO BUILDING DMSION USER 8 REGULATORY FEE ANALYSIS New Construction Fee Sdredule-Inspection Fess Fire Rath T I II Fire Rating IIA III Fire Rating a IIB IV,VB Occupancy Type and Class Fee Unit Cast Per S.F. Cost Per S.F. Coat Per S.F. Baas Coat Between Base Cost Between Base Coat Between Thresholds Thresholds Threshold& LEVEL OF EFFORT 1.5 1.25 1 Commercial Uses-SMMMI(All newly consmicmd,added,or strudurelly remodeled spaw for non-residonual ocwpandas classified as CBC Group A,B.E. F.H.I,M.or other commercial occupancies not specifically addressed elsewhere In this Fee Schedule Square Footage: 500 Par Project $ 1,965 '$ 1.31 S 1,638 $ '1.09 $ 1.310 S 0.87 5.000 per project S 7,862 $ 1.18 S 6.551 $ 0.98 S 5.241 $ 0.79 10,000 per Project S 13,758 S 0.15 S 11.465 $ 0.12 S 9,172 $ 0.10 50.000 per projec, $ 19.654 $ 0.16 $ 16,378 $ 0,13 S 13,103 S 0.10 100,000 per project $ 27.515 $ 0.28 $ '22,930 $ 0.23 $ 18,344 S 0.18 Commercial Residential and Mulidamily Residermat Uses-(All newly constructed, added.or structurally remodeled space for residential occupancies classified as CBC Group R(except R-3),or other resdenual occupancies me specifically addressed elsewhere in this Fee Schedule) Square Footage; 500 par project S 2,948 $ 1.97 E 2,457 $ 1.64 $ 1,985 E 1.31 5,000 per prlja.1 $ 11,792 $ 1.77 E 9,827 $ 1.47 $ 7,862 E 1.18 10.000 par project E 20.637 S 0.22 -$-17 197 $ 0.18"$ 11758 E 0.15 50.000 par project $ 29,481 $ 0.24 $ $4,567 $ 0.20 $ 19,654 S 0.16 100,000 per proed $ 41.273 $ .0.41 S .34,394 $ 0.34 S 27,515 $ 0.28 Duplicate Floor Plan Rpvlew-Commercial Residential and Multifamily Residential Uses Square Footage; 500 par project S 2,948 $ 1.97 S 2,457 $ 1.64 $ 1.965 $ 1.31 5.000 par project $ 11.792 $ 1.77' $ 9,827 $ 147 S 7,862 $ 1.18 10.000 per project S '20,637 $ 0.22 $ 17,197 $ 0.18 S 13,758 S 0.15 50,000 per project S 29481 $ 0.24 $ .24,567 $ 0.20 S 19.654 $ 0.16 100,000 par project S 41.273 6. 0.41- 34,394 $ 0.34 $ 27.515 $ 0.26 Low and Moderate Harard Storage-(All newly constructed.added.or structurally remodeled space for storage occupancies classified as CBG Group S,or other storage occupancies M specifically addressed elsewhere m Mis Fee Schedule Square Footage: 500 per Innjecl $ 1,985 $ 1.31 $ 1,638 S 1.09 $ '1,310. $ - 0.87. 5.000 per project $ 7.882 $ 1.18 $ 6,551 $ 0.98 $ 5,241.. E 0.79 70,000per pmjKt $ 13,758 S. - 0.15..$ 11,465 $ 0.12 $ 9,172 $ 0.10 50.000 Par Project $ 19,654 $ 0.16 $ 16,378 S 0.13 $ 13,103 'E 0.10 100.000 Per enact $ 27,515 0.26 S 22.930 $ 8.23 $ 18,344 $ 0.18 ACached Accessory and Utility Uses-(Ali newly constructed,added.as structurally remodeled spew for utility and accessory a mandes classified as CBC Group U. or other utility and accessory occupancies not specifically addressed elsewhere in this Fee Schedule Square Footage: 200 per project. S 1,535 $ 0.75. $ 1,279 $ 0.62 $ 1,023 $ 0.50 400 par pject $ 1.686 S 4.12 S 7,403 $ 3.43 E 1,123 S 2.74 800 par Impact $ 2,507 $ 1.23 $ 2,089 S 1.03 $ 1,672 S 0.82 1,000 par mad $ '3.001 S 1.00 $ 2.501 S 0.83 -f-2 001 S '0.66 3.000 per pmjecl $ 4,995 $ 1.67 $ 4,183 $ 1.39 $ 3,330 $ 1.11 Detached Accessory and Utility Uses-(All newly constructod,added.or structural y remodeled spew for utility and accessary occupandes classified as CBC Group U, or other utility and accessory occupancies nm specifically addressed elsewhere in this Fee Schedule) Square Fcom e: 200 par Imject $ 1.407 $ 0.58 $ 1,172 S 0.49 $ 938 $ 0.39 400 per project i 1,523 T-3 87 $ 1,269 S 3.22 $ 1.016 S. 2.58 600 per pmjad $ 2,297 S 1.15 $ 1,914 S 0.96 $ 1.531 '.$ 0.77 1,000 per pjIct -S-2.7M $ 0.92 $ 2,297 $ 0.77 $ 1,837 $ 0.61 3.000 par projinct $ 4.593 $ 1.53 $ 3.828 $ 1.28 17 3.062..5 102 Shell uil ings for all Commercial Uses-(The enclosure fora newyconshu added,or structurally remodeled space for nar-msidential occupancies classified as CSC Group A,8.E.F.H.I.M,or miter commercial occupancies not specdcally addressed elsewhere in this Fee Schedule where the interior is not completed or pcwplable Square Footage: 500 per project '$ 1.260 E 0.77 $ 1,050 E 0.64 S 840 $ 0.51 5,000 per. roed $ 4,717 S 0.71 $ 3.931 $ 0.59 $ 3.145 $ 0.47 10.000 par. roect $ 8.255 S 0.09 E 6.879 S 0.07 $ 5,503 S 0.06 50.000 perpIpjact E 11.792 S 0.09 $ 9.827. S 0.08 S 7,862 $ 0.06 100,000 per project $ 16,509 -S-0 1] 5 13,758 $ 0.14 S 11,006 $ 0.11 Commercial Tenant Improvement-Non Structural-(Nonabucturally remodeled spew for noo-msidenfial occupancies classified as CBL Group A,B.E,F.H.I,M. or other commercial occupancies not specifically addressed elsewhere In this Fee Schedule where the structure is not plterpd) Square Footage: 500 par. med $ 934 E 0.67 S 779 $ 0.55 $ 623 S 0.44 5,000 per project S 3,931 E 0.59 E 3276 S 0.49 $ 2,621 $ 0.39 10,000 par. med IS. 6,8]9 S 0.07 $ 5,732 $ 0.06 $ 4,586 $ 0.05 50,000 per Droject 1$ 9.827' E 0.08 $ 8,189 E 0.07 -S-6 551 $ 0.05 100.000 per project $ 13,758 S-0.14 $ 11,465 $ 0.11 $ 0,172 $ 0.09 Commusucal Residential and Multifamily Residential Remodels-NonStructural- (NonSouc urally remodeled spew for residenbal occupancies dasslfied as CBC Group R(except R-3),mother residential occupancies not specifically addressed elsewhere In Mie Fee Schedule Square Footage: 500. per project $ 943 $ 0.63 S. 786 $ 0.52 $ 629 Is .0.42. 5,000 par project S 3,773 $ 0.57 $ 3,144 $ 047 S 2,515 $ 0.38 10,000 perprojoct $ 6,603 $ O07 S 5,502 S - 0.06 S 4,402 E 0.05 50,000 per project $. 9.432 $ 0.08. $ 7,860 $ '0.06 T-6 2118 $ 0.05. 100,000 per pmjed $' 13,205 0.13 E 11,004 S 0.71 S .8,803 $ 0.09 Single Family Dwellings and Duplexes-(AII newly constructed space for msidantial occupancies classified as CBC Group R3,including custom builds and model Mines for tract master plans,or Mar similar residential occupancies not specifically addressed elsewhere in Mis Fee Schedule) N&S Wee;www.ebs4w.ca„Toll4sve ep.676.7516 N!w CONauNO,l p5p�n�)y1=52 ' Attachment 2 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO BUILDING DIVISION USER 8 REGULATORY FEE ANALYSIS New Construdlon Fee Schedule•Inspection Feu Fire Rating Time 1 0. Fire Ralmia TyW IIA,01 Fin Rating TM 118 IV VB Occupancy Type and Class Fee Unit Cast Par S.F. Coat Per$-F. Cost Per S.F. Base Cost Between Base Cost Betwsen Base Co., Between Thresholds Thresholds Thresholds LEVEL OFEFFORT 1.5 1.25 1 Square Footage: 1,000 per phject $ 2,947 $ 1.96 S 2,456 $ 1.84 $ 1,965 $ 191 2.500 per Project $ 5,895 $ 0.98 S 4,912 $ 0.82 'S 3,930 $ 0.65 4,000 per Project S 7,368 S-2.21 6,140 f 1.94 S 4.912 S 1.47 6.000 Par Phelan. $ 11,789 s 2.95 $ 9,824 $ 2.46 S 7,660 S 1.96 8,000 par projerct S 17,684 $ 2.21 S 14,737 f 1.84 S 11,789 3 1.47 Du IiCJia Floor Plan Review-Single Fami Dwellings and Duplexes Square Footage: 1.000 Per Project S 2,947. $ 1.96 S 2.466 S 1.64 S 1,985 $ 1.31 2.500 per prujact S 5.895 $ 0.98 S 4,912 $ 0.82 S 3,930 S 0.65 4,000 per project $ 7.368 $ 211 $ 6,140 $ 1.84 S 4,912 f 1.47 6.000 per jami S 11.789 $ .2.95 $ 9,824 S 2.46 S 7,860 $ 1.96 8.000 par project f 17,684 $ 2.21 $ 14.737 S 1,89 $ 11,789 S 1.47 Du II®te Flow Plan Review-Attached or Detached Accessory and Utility Uso; Square Footage: .200 ar rood $ 1.407 S 0.58 1,172 $ 0.49 -f-938 f 0.39 400 PC,project $ 1.523 S 3.87 S 1,269 S 3.22 $ -1.016 $ 2.58 600 PC,project $ 2,297 $ 1.15 S 1,914 f 0.96 'S 1.531 $ 077 1,000 par Project S 2,756 $ 0.92 S 2.297 $ 0.77 S 1,837 S 0.61 3.000 per pri S 4,593 E 1.53. 3,828 1.28 $ 3.062 S 1.02 Structural Rinidortal Remodels and Additions-(All n-m-ly-w-nsmuctod eddi0ons to, or structurally mmopolo i arca;of,residential occupancies classified as CBC Group R-3,or other similar residential occupandes not specifically addressed elsewhere in this Fee SOWuld Square Footage: 100 per protect 1$ 1.166 S 2.88 $ 972 $ 2.22 $ 776 1 S 1.77 Soo par pj.0 E 2.231 $ 2.23 $ 1.859 S 1.86 S 1,488 S 1.49 1.000 par plw S-3 347 $ 2.23 $ 2,789 $ 1.86 $ 2.231 $ 1.49 1.500 per pmj.c f 4,463 $ 2.23 '$ 3.719 3 1.86 '$ 2.975 $ 1.49 2.000 per inject $ 5.578 S 2.79 f 4.649 S 2.32 $ 3,719 S 1.88 NonShucluml Residential Remodels and Additions-1.411 newly constructed ad0luons M.or non-slnn]uenlry remodeled areas of.resulenall dccupanties compiled u CBC Group R-3,or other similar residential occupancies not s2eactficalty addressed elsewhere in this Fee Schedule Square Footage: to par pmjw $ 1.081 S 2.65 S a" 2.21 $ 707 E 1.77 500 par project $ 2.122 S 2.12 $ 1.768 S 1.77 $ 1.415 S 1.41 1,000 PC,Project $ 3,183 $ 2.12 S 2,653 S 1.77 $ 2,122 $ 1.41 1,500 par Project $ 4.244 S 2.12 S 3.537 S 1.77 $ 2,829 S 1.41 2.000 per project $ 5,305 $ 2.65 $ 4,421 E 2.21 $ 3,537 S 1.77 Site improvements-Thisin udes substantial development of privars,parking lots which am preca66ad separate e1 the sftMm and InGUde any combination of me following:Undsryround utilities,parking lot lighting,accessible path of Pavel analysis,gentling,drainage and compliance with the Llys parking and dhveway standards, Square Footage 500 per project $ 651 $ 0.43 $ 543 $ 0.36 S 434 0.29 5.000or mod S 2.804 S 0.39 f 2.170 S 0.33 $ 1,736 $ 0.26 10.000 er meG S 4,551 S 0,05 $ 3.798 $ 0.04 $ 3.036 $ 0.03 50,000 ar. rodtt 6.510 3 0.05 1 f 5,425 $ 0.04 1$. 4.MU ii 0.03 100.000 er ro'ect f 9.115 3 0.09 1 S 7,588 3 0.08 1 S 6.076 f 0.06 MIS wee:www.neyw.wm Taiarll:803a76a514 New cornlnatian Fen- ,44r-53 CITY of SAN tins oelsPo Attachment 2 BUILDING DIVISION USER d REGULATORY FEE ANALYSIS New Construction Fee Schedule-Total Fees(Plan Check and Inspection) Fire Rating Type I II Fin Retinal Type1111,III Rm Rain IIB N VB Occupancy Type and Clore Fee Unit Cost Per S.F. ConPd S.F. Cont Pv S.F. Base Coat Between Base Con Beween Base Cost Between Thresholds Thresholds Thresholds LEVEL OFEFFORT-PLAN CHECK 1.5 1.25 1 LEVEL OF EFFORT-INSPECTION 1.5 1.2S i Commercial Uses-Swcturai newly constructed.added.or swcWmly remodeled space far non-resideritlal accupancioa actua l0etl as CBC Group A.B,E. F.H.1,M.or other commercial occupancies not specifically addmased elsewhere In this Fee Schedule Square F e: 500 per project $ 4,407 $ 2.94 S-3 672 S 2.45 f 2.938 $ 1.96 5.000 per project S 17,627 $ 1.67 S 14,689 S 1.39 f 11.751 $ 1.11 10.000 per project S 25,985 $ 0.33 E 21,637 $ 0.28 S 17,310 $ 0.22 50.000 per Project f 39,185 $ 0.25 E 32,654 S 0.21 f 26.123 $ 0.17 100,000 per map 51,930 0.52 f 43,275 S 0.43 34,620 9.35 ommeroal Residential and Multifamily Residential Uscs-(At newly mnsuticted, added.or structurally remodeled space for residan0al occupancies classified as CBC Group R(.coot R41),or oder rasidendzl ocwPOW"trot sped9[ally addressed elsewhere In this Fee Schodule Square Footage: 500 par Project S 5.634 S 3.76 $ 4.695 $ 3.13 S 3,756 S 2.50 5.000 per onsact $ 22.535 f 2.31 S 16.779 S 1.92 $ 15,023 $ 1.54 10.000 per Project $ 34.064 S 0.42 S 25.387 $ 0.35 S 22.710 S 0.28 50,000 per prqoct $ 50.965 $ 0.34 S 42.471 $ 0.29 S 33,977 S 0.23 100.000 per project E 68,129 $ 0.68 $ 56,774 S D.57 S 45,419 $ 0.45 Duplicate Floor Plan Revlew-COmmopal Readerml and Multifamily Residenbal Uvea Square Fcotu e: 500 par Project $ 4,721 $ 2.36 -$ .3,934 S 1.97 f 3,147 $ 1.57 5.000 per project f 15.337 S 1.91 $ 12,781 S 1.59 $ 10,225 S 1.27 10.000 par project f 24,890 $ 0.25 $ 20,742 S 0.21 $ 16,594 $ 0.11 50,000 par project S 34.798 S 0.27 $ 28.999 S 023 23,199 $ 0.18 100.000 par propan f 45.363 E 0.48 $ 40.302 f 0.40 f 32242 $ 0.32 Low and Moderate Hazard Starege-(All newly comWped,carded,of structurally remodeled Spam for storage occupancies classified m CBC Group S,or other storage Occupancies not specifically addressed elsewhere in this Foe Schedule Square Footage: 500 per pmj.m $ 4,407 $ 2.94 $ '3,672 E 2.45 $ 2,938 E 1.96 5,000 per onjact $ 17,627 $ 1.67 $ 14,889 E 1.39 $ 11,751 $ 1.11 10.000 per Project S 25,965 f 0.73 S. 21,637 S 0.28 $ 17,310 S 0.22 50,000 par project $ 39,185 S 0.25 S 32,654 $ 0.21 E 26.123 $ 0.17 100,000 per pralact $ 51,930 $ 0.52 $ 43,275 S 0.43 $ 34.620 $ 0.35 Attached Accessary and Utility Less-( newly comes ,or structurally remodeled space for udllty and accossory occupancies classified as CBC Group U. W after u0dy and accessary occupancies not specifically addressed elsewham in MIS Fee SpiedWa Square Fool 200 per Project f 2,157 $ 2.16 $ 1,798 $ 1.80 $ 1,438 'S 1.44 400 per Project $ 2,589 $ 5.43 $ 2,157 $ 4.53 E 1,728 S 3.62 S00 per project '$ .3,675 S 1.53 S. 3,063' $ 1.27 S 2,450 $ 1.02 1,000 per Project $ 4,286 S 1.23 $ 3,572. S 1.03 3 2,857 $ '0.82 3,000 per projoct S 6,747 S 2.25 $ 5,623 S 1.87 S 4,498 S 1.50. Detached Accessory arid Why Uses-(All no"co,istruchad,added.or swpure ly remodeled spew far ublly and accessory occupancies classlfeC as CBC Group U, or other udlly and accessory Occupancies not specifically addressed elsewhere in MIS Fee Sch ckde So..Fcotaga: 2.0 200 er roep $ Mill S 0 $ 1,891 S 1.88 $ 1.357 S 1.33 400 per pmj= S 2.425 S 5.18 $ 2,023 -r-4 32 f 1,619 $ 3.46 800 per project $ 3.4&5 $ 1.44 $ 2,887 -T-i20 S 2,310 E 0.96 11000 per poJect S 4.041 $ 1.15 S. 3.367 '$ 0.96 S 2,694 f 0.77 3,000 per project $ 6.345 E 2.12 S 5,288 $ 1.76 S 4,230 S 1.41 Shall oars nga for all Cnnnuarcelsee- e en .u,S far.11 newly tronatmp added,or structurally remodeled spew for nori-repden0al occupancies classified as CBC Group A.S.E.F.H.I,M.or other commercial Occupancies rot Specifically addressed elsewhere in this Fee Schedule where the Intedor Is not complatea or occupiable Square Footage: 500 par. roep S 2,725 S 1.74 $ 2.270 f 1.45 $ 1,816 S 1.16 5,000 per project S 10.576 $ 1.00 S 8.814 $ 0.83 5 7,051 S 0.67 10.000 per pro et $ 15.579 f 0.20 S 12,982 0.17 $ 10,286 S 0.13 50.000 per project f 23.511 S 0.15 S 19,593 $ 0.13 S 15,674 S 0.10 100.000 par pj.d f 31,158 $ 0.31 S 25,965 $ 0.26 S 20.772 S 0.21 Commercial Tenant Improvement-Non Ssuciurel-(Non-structurally remodelatl spew for non-residential occupancies classified as CBC Group A;B,E.F,H.I,M. or other commercial occupancies not specifically addmmad elsewhere in this Fee Schedule where the sill is not ateretl Square Facings: _ 500 err roep E 2.155 -$ 1.48 $ 1.798 $ 1.23. E 1,431 f 0.99 5,000 per Protect S 8,814 S 0.63 f 7,345 $ 0.69 $ 5.876 $ 0.56 10,000 per pm eel S 12.982 $ 0.17 S 10.519 $ 0.14 $ 8,855 $ 0.11 50,000 Par PMIW $ 19.593 $ 0.13 $ 16,327 -S-0.11 $ 13,062 $ 0.08 100.000 per PMjW f 25,965 $ 0.28 21,637 $ 0.22 S 17,310 $ 0.17 Cornmeal Residandal and Mulisfainly Residential Rem a s-Non Strucmm- (NornSwpurelly remodeled Spam for residential amepancies clesslfed m CBC Group R(except R-3),or other residents[omfpanpes not specifically addressed elsewhere In this Fee Schedule Square Festa v: 500. er ro'ect $ 2214 E 1.48 $ 1,845 f 123 f 1,476 $ 0.88' 5,000 erroep $ 8,856 $ 0.62 $ 7,380 f 2.88. f 5,904 $ 0.55 10,000 perproject Il12,956 'S 0.17 S 1!197 f 0.14: S 8.877 0.11 50.000 or mad f 19,598S 0.13 S 18,332 f 0.11 f 13,OB5 $ 0.08 100,000 - err ro p S 251912 S 0.28 5 "..14 0.22 1 S 17,275 1 S 0.17 N8s Wab:ww'.nby,rFom i011FrN:ew.6)4.7516 NpW fgnflNQl9�r!(}TQ_I$S 1_54 Attachment 2 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO BUILDING DIVISION USER 8 REGULATORY FEE ANALYSIS New Construction Fss Schedule-Total Fees(Plan Check and Inspection) Fire Retina Type,I II Fire Reale Type IIA III. Fire Rath T p e 118 IV VB Occupancy Type and Class Fee Unit Cast Per S.F. -Coet Per S.F. Cast Par S.F. Base Cost Bo wesn Base Cast Botwesn Base Cast Between Thresholds Thresholds Threshold, LEVEL OF EFFORT-PLAN CHECK 1.5 1.23 1 LEVEL OF EFFORT-INSPECTION 1.5 1.25 1 ug a hnl y e Ings a up aces- new y con spacelornauderdial occupancies classified as CBC Group R3,including custom builds and model homes for batt master plans,or other similar residential occupancies not specifically addressed elsewhere In this Fee Schedule Sauara Footage: 1.000 per Project $ 5.858 $ 3.91 $ 4,882 E 3.25 $ 3,905 E 2.60 2,500 per pnijact $ 11,716 $ 1.37 $ 9,783 $ 1.14 $ 7,810 E 0.91 4.000 per mect E 13,771 $ 2.65 11,476 $ 2.21 E 9,181 S 1.78 6.000 par pmjact E 19,068 S 3.67 '$ 15,888 S 3.06 $ 12,710 f 2.45 8.000 par phject f 28,416 S 3.30 $ 22,013 S 2.75 $ 17,610 $ 2.20 Duplicate Floor Plan Review-Sm Ie Family Dwellings and Outlines Square Footage: 1.000 per project $ 3.888 $ 2.59 f 3,240 2.16 E 2.592 $ 1.73 .2.500 per project $ 7.776 $ 1.11 $ 6,480 $ 0.92 $ 5,184 E 0.74 4,000 per project $ 9,438 S 2.35 E 7,885 3 1.96 $ 6.292 E 1.57 6.000 per project $ 14,141 S 3.18. $ 11,784 S 2.65 E 9.427 $ 2.12 8.000 per phI f 20,506 $ 2.56 f 17,088 3 2.14 E 13,670 S 1.71 Duplicate Flom Plan Review-Attached or Detached Acaesso and Utility Uses Square Footage: 200 per project $ 1.593 S ID1 f 1.328 $ 0.84 $ 1.062 $ 0.67 400 per project $ 1,795 $ 4.26 $ 1.496 S 3.55 $ 1.196 $ 2.84 600 p.,pmjact E 2,647 S. 1.24 $ 2,206 3. 1.03 $ 1.765. $ 0.82 1.000 fir react $ 3,141 S 0.99 S 2,818 S 0.82 $ 2.094 E 0.66 3.000 per project $ 5,119 $ 1.71 'S 4,266 E 1.42 E 3.413 E 1.14 Structural Residential Remodels and Additions-(All newly constructed additmes to, or structurally remodeled areas of,residential aceupancas clasalfiad as CSC Group R-3,or other similar residential occupancies not specifically addressed elsewhere In this Fee Schedule) Square Foo e: 100 Pat project $ 1,967 $ 4.59 $ 1,639 $ 3.82 S 1.312 E 3.06 500 per Project $ '3,803 $- 5.37 $ .3,169 $. 4.48 S 2,535 E 3.58 1.000 per protect $ 6.490 $ 2.88 f .5,408 $ 2.38 S 4,327 E 1.91 1.500 per Project $ 7.920 $ 2.86 $ 6.600 $ 2.38 $ 5380 $ 1.91 2.000 per project $ 9,350 4,67 . 7,791 3.90 $ 6.233 $ 3.12 NonStnrcturW Residential Remodels and Additions-(All newly commucted additions to,or nonstractu ally remodeled am"of,resldeneal occupant" classified as CBC Group R3.or other similar residential occupancies not Specifically addressed elsewhere in his Fee Schedule Square Footage: 100 per pmect $ 1,635 $ 3.00 $ 1,363 S 2.55 $ 1,090 S 2.04 500 per Project 2,859 3.41 S 2,383 2.84 S 1,906 5 2.27 1.000 a.,Project S 4,562 $ 2.40 S 3,801 S 2.00 $ 3.041- f 1.60 1.500 per project $ 5,761 $ 2.40 $ 4,801 f 2.00 $ 3.840. f 1.60 2,000 par ennjW E 6.960 $ 3.48 $ 5,800 $ 2.90 $ 4,640' $ 2.32 Site Improvements-This Includes substantial development of private parking lob which are processed separma of me structure and include any camblcadon of the following:Underground utilities.parking IW Hinting.accessible path of travel analysis,grading.drainage and compliance with me City's harking and driveway standan4, Square Footage: '500fir roost E 1,474 $ 0.98 1,229 $ 0.82 $ 993.$ 0.86 5.000 fir ro tic[ E 5,898 $ 0.56 i$ 4.915 $ 0.46 $ 3.932 S 0.37 10.000 par Protect E 8,674 $- 0.11 S 7,229 $ UN $ 5383 1$ 0.07 50,000 par Project It 13,097 $ 0.09 1$ 10.915 1111 0.07 $ 81732 1 S 0.06 100,000 PC,Project $ 17,348 $ 0.17 $ '14,457 15 0.14 $ 11,566 1$ 0.12 Net Was www .mm lauFn*200,676.7516 Naw Canitrvniw Fear Toil 6of6 PH2-55 Q� O c L U ca CIZ3 a 4--A c 0 Z >1 N w � O cc C O w rna c0 a N k mJ L it a N � Nf m r = LLL S� = O O G 7 m = 4 0'Z U Xa Q a a Q > > a PH2-56 g � t•J � �° O � � � • O A m •m N m � �� N JI � � • • N m • b `T�Ia Al O OI O O yl P Y ] �m m n , EE E i i E eP O_ O H O � ^ �� R O m b lN•1 N �.n � 1 j� b b C 0 N N v N N ry N v� f° N b Cn L° 4 S M$ d O gq P ' O m b ^ N Y1 Im Q N N N m q q fppmm O N' !� F O yb� q y m N m m W O 1.1 lm O N P P N N N N ` `• N S 9 m nS O P N O P V N ry N P —y CLL E C P, L L l US l O g3 16 {g Ol f q N O� � � I° P r 1� n O• � N ' �D � ry N q p yT� O N ml n 0 O 1Nm 10 T O A 17 Im M1.•�I A O ic 16 ] �E o � Nxg� xN xxxg XXX , xx x Xxrxxgeg� XxXXX � b x b x b S o c XLmn x x x x x x x V a 8 8 8x Esg�Si"• - gm : ti x�a S-S N N pm pN p qry 8 p ° m N N O py L O D n N P y NP N yp yp A q p NP b A N A O a ] g N 9 ] U N O O O O �O G m1 h 1� N N N fp O � N Oi Y N N a e e 10 � •- P•. W N p N fV M- � N O el l7 1`I � ry O F` o rs g� x x x x S�m6 a 's xx x x x x x x x x z »»LL 0 4 Q e e m Xa"5' e� o yy5 € x x xxx x x xx x x x x x x x x x x x iL ]y a,m g s m r g � LL rc 3 h A ffi ° a rc p 0 6 p 7 � .$ ii .s S r� t �.�2• g a 8 � `u ° 8 c •°e ._g'w g ee E � lY .ffi .E E E aaE rc �L W E' & ffi m U $ E E N m $ o E �i € =gg � umZ2Sw � g un � c mu4s u F pga d d ti b s O� p �O w w w a N u LL > ¢ m U V1 U $3 6 6 PH2-57 |f � ®�I !$z as - �_ i �E . �. ! KK < ■ ! < t2 _ \ f k ■ $ !}/ x x x x § | ) ! ! � ! k I ! PH2-S§ nrn ",cn'n? -nm -VW, vOcnWm �yl ,�Ic o.•e�� �Ic.I � K 5. x. gi CD EL �I C�piWaO� N 7�7 CD C0 I� f0 < (n CD Co to- < c U3 i ITV Cp ? 1,01°03100c � a cheTD 'm o 'n' t�3 fD ffI n `�� !min A'��T -0 �i CD 0 10' 01CD � o 301 CD wI oI= y < 3 = - iQlli ;o �I 'to CD CD A !3 TQ CD Im 0 10 CD loi CD f I of CL 0., .M ... I 1 I Ip -I i j I 11 ! CD i, ry CT? OLtC�N � A40 CJI (T. Ip rcca fO31.! i O+�WA VAOIV tb lt00 V to CJI W A - 0O N A CD)1CO O O :.4 O Oo ;D I;P,dp O O CAJ �1 N nl of lea a) o am rn,Olo o O O ;d 0 NnI tn -n -nm - WvOtoco -a {CD i0 m m 10• Mlc = CD g S. ,ml m CD 5 � CL moo =I X CD 1 < � CD <o m CD (m co 3.0 CD Cp =1 I f�i CD. C ] tl -,0,1 Z i0 'I Rev � < (;c;f a A Ni G1 I� o -'�i'� 3 CD iii to CD w m: �1-. m < o o' _n o. z O CD �N01 CD 7 ICj C w < 3 I m m CD�• < !c .o�. CD i n . 'a 0 < l CLCD d y m < f I y p CD Icas), C:)CTW04YO -- W :-4,in Cn O A CA;OIO O O O oo'00 .9A O O A1Qj C) CD 0 0 0 p I � I 40 N I A o I 0 CD 00 CD CD CD V-1m. PH2-59 I • I / INio �;snTvnm ; Tm �m,-v m- wlc °E.0 m' (u Co °' iS,m m �_ E. x ;m' CD T 0; j < ° �O' T 3'' -n U M I^. CD 'p ry O '�' j0 CCD �`NI� v° 3 CD 'o CD U) %< 3 �' f jm CD CD CD 0 Irt�� < � E O 1 < f i. i A' CD CD' fB l ,p :E j (D < C) CD CD I N ;CA; O;A;� Ntl1l� W Ol N COI...� Ut V W W V U1 W ICA, 1fl OYA W (D W A O N Co; O• W'O A CA W�O V -1 CA 0; W!NW C G7 CA!OD CT O O W ¢D LOQ tlCIClC -� O V VLOIOOOO Q� O� OI 0 -lj(n,T T m -a 03 -a O cn W -0 y l m w!CD Imo. 0 cn � I'a�' m a 0 )6)i cn )101 cl)'� 3'� o 3 co cD a w Ai O m $ ^'i Q0 B 0 CD it 3 C D < z CD (p m _ CD A .�.. (D V 1" fD O �C O COD C h O CD -0 3 j.�i CD O ;.d. T 0 CAP'7 �N < 3 �� i i.7� m p NCD j ;0; Ic CD I p', O cCD fD 4 iol CL �a < � : I 'CD a i� CD I I 01 A ff I 0 < I I Z O i I �� r fCri �C11, NiG)1A INI Cn'A W LICO O goo NOD O W V UD - N O-• -� CA CA000 e i o I C7 D O 0 n cc �r m I CD W PH2-60 NO -40MMMTWTOWWM W ° CD CD CQ y' 'O CD n 7 7. O. CD CL .� CD "CD �_ .0 0 0 < CD = 3 N K cn � � U2 CD m M. �' COW 5 - o c o co yco m g a N O -n 3 O CD ? co n o CD m CD 0 0LO 3 m CD > o m CD CD 3 y <. 3 ° cn CD m X c » CD m E a c CD Oc = o < c CD CLCD to m Q 40 p CDO Cn W (n W N �I co m r O V Q> W CD �! V 0 N -I tj co CD cn O ?. N co C7IA W co Co O 0) NO CDNA W NOC7D C)O ? i4 LT, O W 6 -a m O O cn O CO W Ln O N N 00000 Of O CD O ° . .(D CD c m CD m E. a WCDm N 0 7 :3 CL CD � G_'p X CD CD CD C/) 0 3t° ofD oCO) nQ' z = ° 3 CO CD c -n c p !: Qe a y < -p A O p o 3 0 ?pCD -n m CD M T CDD " ° m p mC O CA N < CD 'pp N CD = G :3 0 < 3 7 T o co) CD _ m a < n 4 CD CD 0 CL m °y^' CD CL — f D D ';— o cn < O CD Z m W CD A N co w co V 0 V N V w V w A w co cn O A v N A Cn co 00 V O ? W 00 A CA W m N O w O <O 10 rn O CA CA O O O O O O CT us rn OCn A 00000 0 7 C! CD CO 41 o CD 0 0 r� CD CA N CD W PH2-61 '0N) c o c � � � d W d 9 CO x m a CD CD CD m c we a > > a ' CD � a � CD � " < CD S' p yam as 3Ao3CcMC :Ea N0 N m o T 3 `� p cto CD © a O T CD 7 < 0 0 T •-• '6 m 0 CD �' N � 0 3 ° CD x (A O' N C•(DD 3 �• C ti .�•. CD 0 .y' 0 Q A S 3 C O < f 3 a CD CD 61 O C CL � ani O CA mo CA CD 0 0 o = w CD o. CW .a CT W CA W N V co -a) -� m -J 0 W CD V -I CD N V W N X 000 cn O A N 00 CA A W O CD O y' O 0) N000NA W CD OD O =' C A W & O W CT :a m O O Cn O w CTO N N00000 ccCD N CD (D CII -• CD -' O O N v CD >' 0Cn � �, C. I a� Cp Z CD 'G d m `< CD 3 Oen O N Cn CD CO CD CD y CD :3 cc <. 07 O Z CD c0 3go'a (n o 0 � cf C o - a m ai N A T CD CD 0 :' O T CO T T N � M �• a D CD 0' m T o CD rn y � o 3 °t m m M CD CD c CD c0 CD f mCD p °—' O m Z CT O CD Cfl CCA N N CA A N -� N W W W v O O v OD CIO C71 CD A OO N W W W CD (b O W N N W -I A M N O 4h- 6 O V V Cr O Co W O 6 66 6 O CO to W OCP0 00000 0 7 A l4 �. y CD o l v w N d M--� W CO !� W PH2-62 mac) -4mmmm -_oaomoomm M N C 0 c N fD CO O @ K C X T CD 0d Cl .�. 0 d < N fD CD > > N cc O i (n CQ CDD �p R.O O <. W O O n=i 0 3 R,'0 N c_° C c L v m o 3 CD c° CD to o CD (a M ' 2 .00 ° m 0CD to <. 3 O N CD 7 T C Cl) n a 5 0 AO CD CD 3 C 0 < f m CD CL °1 CDo m o v o 0 0 CD N i i A V N W N O O O co N OD-4 Co N Cn O V C) coOV N A A N W O CO A O O W O O s N V V 6 6 6 CD -CO A. V OONLin OOO m X ACS —1cnmmm _vCom_ Ocnao -a N O cN N cc O C O CD 7 < m a .Zl � � � O (!J T M < 0 m coo < W O A to (D CD 7 C, 7 CL CZ p= 0 CD j 0 �p"00 N O v C 'O A < m 0 m m 3 CD co 0 W o W C ? m v0 CD 0 m o CD y y � o 3 °_' CD m m CD 0 CD v. 3a O c f ? (D �v c0i a < D :. CD CD m CL 0 CD CD O Z 0- 0 m W A N A W N V V CD CO N N V V O M O cn —� —• —� O CD A N O 0 W W W W N i Q� � N N m 01 O Cn W O CD N O N fT O O CT : 0 6 6 6 6 O N O O 0 C 0 0 0 O CD0 0 O 1 A 2)cn o O SID 0 m C N D m W PH2-63 jan � cnTTmvoo -aOcnaom g N O N C d �_ �, K C. Er CC) CD CD d CD %< CD j 3 N 7� _ C/) CD N '•' O O 5. Ca of m 0 'n -tl N CD r: (O �_ O A O CD C A ._•. CD CD O O O N ;o 0 3 °—' CD = N N CDCD O C f a CD d = 6 n < _E 16 CD d CL O < * C CL 7 a CU IV < O CD O O O N N 0) co W A > O V �I N O ,Wp CT -I O m N W 01 A w A OD co N (A O CJI " N N - 07A CD OO m O CO CO COO6 W 00000 }ao -1dJT -nm -p W -_ G) fnm -a m N a O c Ncn CD t= ID C d N K C• O X C 3 C CL O 3 CO � _ * d N v o ;w po*0 N v < a m I Z m 4 'n -n CD ca a cc a m o m CD o =- mv° CD o ° CD w � � v° m CD = m = y <. 3 m 0 CD CD (D O 0 c ;o <. E m, f y CD _ A CL m U) o O O Z CD N A N > N > > -� cc � Cr W > C" W W O �W 0 m 0 A W S A O Cl O (b > M > c0 N O Co N N O Ul 0) N O A A W O O > O CO CO 6) 6 0) CT C O 6 6 0 O ,NN (P OO CA O O OOO e 3 A W Cl N CD v SID CDrn (b N CD T W PH2-64 G z0oc � cnmTmvoo � G� cnaom c C < m co m 10 C/) � U2 CD CD Co <. 5 T o Q 3 a0 3 Qo ° � C � c � a �' eo a O _ m v, < C g CD O CD 0 0 o N O CD N M fD - d CD 0 3 ao N � o 3 CD m � � y CD <. 3 a R co CD N > > r tr f CD o < o — o ;o (DO o a o < �+ o CD d m m D01 0 CD V N A N N A•0 c0 co A A O N U1 O Co O CT O A co A CA On A CA CD 4.1 41 CS) CT V O O co CO O CJI V CD Cn Ln C) 00 w CD CD CM C fD C• O CD m CD 3 0 Cl) o CS ; C1 0 < N (D c O CD Co (a N �• Cn SCO fD = � O 5. 0 CD a ? CC CD y � o o Z o°_ � T3 �' OcD Q co Ta m a � a� N o3 °' cD m 3 CD m a � y < m ca R.CD 0 v � a x < o C o < CD D o CD ni o z CD co w a) N i0 CD N W ON V NN SCD " A CT co V A A CA w Cb O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CD 7 Cf S1 CD �� 0 v :=3CD CD El CA 0 tl1 (D CD o u PH2-65 to m O c - - 3 C m �. 3 O c -; -; 7 n� M �. D ? 0 r �* W (D CC) 7 a n �* � N fD fQ = 3 o ao O0 m d o O — ? 0G7p � Cz 3 eD — SpCD CL > > rD rD 01 O Z < W < (= < W y D) 0) (D 7 3 < W 00 d H m o C CO m m - - % < < m rfl �• 3 o m' m 3 �D :l7m ;UpG7 � g- ID � m SOCA * a N 3 CD c Ln c 3 �D c Ln CD < CD o o -0 p :: N W to N rD :' GA < m _< < O' co n z O O 7 O �D a * �• m O A O V CCD a � �. 0)CD CD ~ '•r `-" O V 7 A fD 7 :E 0 O, V 7 � a 3 �. CD 0) in �. CD D) n o v m CD `L m 3 CD N n N W < O 0) (D O O N - Vf Ln -+. 0J cu m O n CD < 0 r r y 01 CD N i/1 ih N in Vf V* in 1-A io V* IA Vf Vf V1 Vs in• O Oo m Q N F+ to r to to N 01 N AA.01 �I F y, i- w 00 A A O O G7 = U1 -A.. w U7 l0 n 'p- N 41 4.n. 00 CT v V l0 U1 W l0 w O to V! l0 p- C) 01 �O U7 W O W N V N 00 N N O w A N W A A UJ O N N A d Of 00 A 00 A W 00 A t-+ F-+ Q1 01 01 W U1 A W O W O " 01 V v O O v O O N 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ln V7 In O A m 0 0 0 6 6 0 00 T W W O O U1 00 O O O O O 00 00 A O O A 0 0 0 0 0 (0 93 = CD I CD f0 a 0) ° m aN LA O1 m 0 O < j V? to to 4j, V1 !7 V1 V� 4A. V). V} O O 0) 3 A N iA VT V* W HCD M N O Vt N Vf to V1 A ~+ N C 7 f W N W A ih N N O iR F+ C 01 N W U7 iA N W w V1 U7 r�•n4-4 1 O lD O J W 01 W w ko 3 F+ A LO w Ni w 01 H w N 0 co 00 00 to f+ 00 O O . O N ,C N W tO 01 00 O 00 W O V '� -I O O O O O V O 00 io in 0 0 0 0 0 u1 �4 bo i0 © O CD W O O O O O W O W O �-` 0 0 0 0 0 " 0 W O C 7 (p N V1 7 3 o m m D C ,07„ ^' V> V? t to o V1 V> t to to to o 4j-, to ^ CL G7 CD W �y W A F+ N O) l0 W � to W Un N N 0) z CNf m3 . w W v-, W F-+ A D0 Vf V1 01 f"1 O ID W V1 W N I--� A to i? 01 n Z CD < j N N J A W V w O N N A W N J A W J O N N N A< V A V U1 O N N 01 F+ rn t0 N N A V 0 O N V O F+ 1 O N 0 :E -0 00 w LO O O O U) N O O V O O l0 O O O O W O O V T J In U1 O O O N A N A-! 0 0 U1 0 0 0 0 w 0 0 w m m f1 :3 < x £ C (O ? 00 4A. t/1 t/? V N A � 7 3z (D N O N 01 N 00 t/f W N CD (D I W 00 w W W N J fD O CD •G 00 00 W - U7 O W 01 N `< Z 7 00 U1 W F+ W N Q l0 O N 00 w 00 O go v n m A 0 fDAA A to A . V� V1 Z4 N A 001 N W in V? N 0QN A n Vf V1 W w lO to A W F+ N W to l0 A A O O r N 01 N N N 01 W W 01 O V w (D N O J W 1--+ < O V A tcn O O O O O 0 6 0 In 0 0 0 rD C O O m O O O O O O O O 1 O O O O O -;� O O O 0 f a) y N OJ � N .3•. a 0 Vf V? iR O) Vf VT V/ i^OI :n iA 4-11. Vn V A 01 V., � U1 N A O0 W W W O J to N N W W 00 A V1 W 6i c F+ O O N W N N V O O V V N V �• ry 00 O O 00 J 01 N N O O N N 01 r•+ d OO O O O 0 0 O O O O O O O O D O O O O O O O O O O O O O O a o 2. Q jlto to to ry p1N io to O .� u1 tip LA cCD w i-+ 1+ Vi w F+ O A V* F+ A W I OW tDD W N O N S w 0 0 0 0 0 to O O to 'p PH2-66 G e — =�' ._,•i, mmmwm c, �+ w a =i'o. �' _nmv;W 'v ci x+ 07 A .___A cn -0 cn 0 c - � sv c o, ; E. c 0 = 3 v = °7 m _• c c N j 0) r it 0 N N f0 .. 7 t2 7. . 1 0I fD CD �. 3 fD t1 '7.. '.3J m o —' spfnp � a' � 3 : plAp : 'C � R m 3 ;1 0 �' IIt 0) 0) 7 3 < m Oct Oi CD `< N 7 3 < m 01 00 C CD � < C < f0 :m ro S. .3' C f-4 < < t0 �p �• �. ° m 0 ¢ 3 m CD c v, m m m CD c cn fD O -0 _ < y < < � O7 .moi A �' � < 0 < < � O a o c 0 N C N N �1 w H N ' t0+ N <<< o d f�D 7 -, CD ,+ O . 1 0 CD m CD j r n <• N -- - - •� N m N _ _ 0) m CD 4A 4ji. y • SM 0? Z N NN W V O N O V Vf V? F+ i Ny V* uti'F+ to i � G, OAO N 0 A N mm A m. r-j W V VA V/ W U) 7• t0 m O A Do N W W W 00 00 to F+ 01. A V N A N w 00 V O' 01 M O .� tD W w w V A F+ to N O A '0 A' F+ w 00 A L n .W w N O w 0 @ y Q° j tD tD V O 0o w 'C 0 0 0 0 tD, tD . . . . .. w i -n N N .O O N 01 :0 O O O O. C Vt'..V1...a1 O to ACO-O 0 0 0 ?0 ; 07 =;- 7 1pmm 0) 1D o0 .n.. dQO a to r- 0 0�; m c. �_ O v► � opo I CD to H V►'V> v+ n. f.• 4A .to V> V* n o m 3 V! V? Vt O, iA Vf iA %. c O I cD N O C1 w A VT V W: 00 Vf A c A'O W Q1 to V Vf VT A OI c. O N V1 tD O V V V W 0) 0) "7jf �p Y1 l0 k0 A V V A lD m WD O O' O O �• m A w r 00 01 N tD V to ,f A N 00 01 to N V O < O � Ln O O O O O V1 V O V N O' 0 0 0 6 N0 O O CD m O VI O O O O 0 ,Vf.to 11•n In .- A:O.;O O O O :A:O In tD D < �o CD V ( I 7 7 {A 1A iA O �i/l i/► i!f' O .3 D m ,4 CD .Ai ra :N N V' T VT 7C'41� IN V1 N i0 A 4A V). Imz7 , m 10Vw v m w 1^ r0 + m ED V� DDJ 1-+ 00 in c Gl N <. 7 V m W tD 00 01 FA IV W 01 00 .0 tD m W W 00 01 N A W m 00 00 N N O O O m 01 N Do w N F-+ N F-` 0 0 0 tD O N 00 t0 N < o f r- �! O O O V W O O v (T) V �I 0 0 0 to F+ O O V m 7 vi.V1 U'i O O O O lP O O In w N ,w O O O A w O O to - n CD ? O m 0 O V► V> to O v m : Z O N Vs N {n• f+t-V• r z CD _. i D N0 A O1 P-j c N 00 , i O 0) A A W E+ I O m (M V fD CCD D 01 W N F-+ W O 00 to < Z m >• V W O N W 1-+ O N lD' (0 _ N_N..A 00 .W 00 O CL go N Ncu n cv N 0 Z z wlyn : A 0 O D Q N• Ln N N l m i n V1 V� Ln m co t0 O WO W V V fD H m V1;0' O O 111;0 O to O ON O w 0 0 O CD O 11 Vl � A N N m y, �, m W N ' CM V1 to H+ 1D A^ V1 to u• O Do vt t+ d co VO O V i-+ 00 00 O O O 00 N 00 00 '�• C V O O V O O V O V O O N O O V CD CIO O C O 0 0 G- O O G O O O O y _ O-O. O .O.O O O ___ O O. O O O 0 0 0 n IN to V' m ' m ,1ND' go � 0) D c to V> . in v+ c W N N Ln N N O'01 Vf A00 0 -� V N V 01 LO W 1n Cn O O tN Ln O O C to 00 O O 00 'p O O.O Cl 0 0 0:0 O O PH2-67 CJ ® © O —1C _1 --fit _ -0W - C) LM m ; �+ C C m O Zy Ll fD fD (0 j �' O N O. LI Dl CL z - - obi o c 0 N 0 (p (p 2. <• co o=o > >• Q = ' FD 0 d y Q 3 CD ; 3 ; 0 COC � N a o CD p < < < o -yO m (D (D M (D A O. CD C �. o -0 0) o 7C' <, W OC7 to trCD O O _ �l C (C CD r� 0 0) m 0) O G o to N O y O pcn o m w CD O N N CDD W N to trL i/f N t? VT C go O m N A WN V v W in O 7 _ N V V 00 In 01 U9cn `< � 01 N N 01 01 N 00 01 to N S m o° in in 61 o in a o O o 0 0 0 T 2 — U'1 (1'1 U'1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W 007 CD (D n 'O 4o CD N T d m a r0 to N _ 'a (gyp i/f 4-4 i/f ih V). iA NW O lO V V 00 VA N N O F+ LO 7 O (MN 01 OV O 00 N 01 m kD N *< m V O O O O O V Ln 0 rn .G CD = In O O O O O U7 O V 00 m C 0 CO N r 3 V _( to .OD.. N h+ 411, N N iA {/} �' (1i CL (p V N !-+ yn O A Ql V 0) m to 1-+ A n Z n O O ,p V 01 N l0 M W 01 AW W to ;- C (1 01 S. O A 01 p O O V 01 W lD W N '< O F �A V V 0 0 0 01 iD C O V In m A U1 O a 0 lD A N 0 0 A CD O F c 0 w w N r � 14 I D z vOi f= N U1 U1 lD 01 00 00 lD (0 N N N U1 V 00 N U'1 lD N `< Z O D N N A 00 to 00 O N N � a go N T /7 d m0 O ' N to to `' in• A CD n {n. tn• to M N ONO lDD ONO A O W 0000 FN-+ M N O A 01 N < 01 W V H w O O 0 0 0 < 0 C 0 O N S O g m m w o a te, yn w w o d oi oo o O 0 0 0 O Lo � fli D 00 a n a ? 15 to to to < 3 3 CD 01 W N U'1 N W N m N A N 01 V 01 ON 00 m U'1 w N O O O O O O O O O O PH2-68 CCNm 9) 21 co W : S. 1118 N W 3 3 o d o o �_ a a' F m ° C) 0 `< CD �' fD 0702. o m CDD � O tl1 :E a irr p, N iiN (D (D C (p in rp O N O 'p C < V1 < < W R C CCDM 6t 0) , O' N .0C� .� � A p C N ,7oT 7 0 CDS CD 0 V 7 N m O 3 N C (D lD. m W ., 0 CD ca M CD W CD A 001'I 0 0 m 01 O o m m N GN -./A v1 V). y/T of W C O y' 0) 0) d A ,N 'tA ^ H N 1-? N N• O I O I W 0) m W = - m l0 A cn N v} A0 >00 S �[ Ln 0) N 0000 A A Ow O O F- N O 07wi QD Z3 00 'oo m O m Ln O O O O W T fD m 7 ry m d (p O . N mv 7 p_ vf: N CD, m 3 ,w w v* v* o car+ a c Co 01 Ln N V to vT A A A 00 F+ 7 O tG o W A W .D V O UAi im+ -0 O O O O O V O bo l0 E) 7 .� 00 W l0 O. O O O O to O In A ?. -- H CD 7 Ln 3 u* v* v* v! v* I D CL N A N N o .N m N A 3 'N N 00 V* 00 A N A v1 A W n Z f0CD N+ N Ln to 00 O •to w 00 N0) Cl N 5. .=7.. O N i F+ O O O ,,00 O O O 00 N < o m 6V V O O O 'rip F+ O C V T 7 to w Ln O O O ,A to O O Qn i m rn ° 0 in to v* v* o IV M w 4A;li" to:w �-+ N 7 D Z ph W CD �O V'm O NJ. A A O N 7 �I W, 0) V W N N to m (D m 0014:- A ,V O O V < Z d7Ln NJ z .,N A 00 .lo: 00 O N CL go - rn 0�+ N CD m v* to," vi- z. 00 Ln, r1i n O 00 w 00 N O w A O m m co O A m t0 G O N V �+ j CD 6 (D N O o �2-O O O O 0 Ln y 7 0) fD W v? Ol O O-N 00 (va N O O N O O N m ID :zt O O O O O O O O n a = o 3 'Ut rD m 7 .7 00 'C0 00 N VN cu m A W O to m A O LD O N to 00 N U9 d lD 00 V m V 00 F±;V1 O m ' 0 0 0 0 0 0 -0 O O O Q-0 O O O O.O O Cl PH2-69