HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-18-2017 Item 01 Public Hearing - Review of the Cost of Service Fee Study Prepared to Inform a Proposed Update of Citywide User and Regulatory Fees Meeting Date: 4/18/2017
FROM: Derek Johnson, Assistant City Manager
Xenia Bradford, Interim Finance Director
Prepared By: Marcus Carloni, Special Projects Manager
SUBJECT: REVIEW OF THE COST OF SERVICE FEE STUDY PREPARED TO
INFORM A PROPOSED UPDATE OF CITYWIDE USER AND
REGULATORY FEES.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the draft Resolution (Attachment A) updating the master fee schedule’s user and
regulatory fees as shown in the draft fee schedule (Exhibit 1 within Attachment A) including the
recommendation regarding revised appeal fees. The resolution also includes adjustments to Parks
and Recreation cost recovery policies (Exhibit 2 within Attachment A) and an increase to 100%
cost recovery for state-mandated multi-dwelling inspections for the Fire Department.
DISCUSSION
Background
In September 2016, the City contracted with NBS Government Finance Group (NBS) and
initiated the process to review and update the City’s user and regulatory fees (Planning,
Development Review Engineering, Public Works, Fire, Police, Utilities, Parks & Recreation, and
General administrative services like business license processing).
Summary of Fee Study Findings and Recommendations
The fee study prepared by NBS is provided in Attachment D. NBS’s study methodology is
discussed in detail in section 1 and department by department discussions are provided in
sections 2 through 9. A draft fee schedule showing existing fees compared to fees at staff
recommended fee levels is provided as Exhibit 1 within Attachment A to this report. The
following is a summary table from the report of results for each service area studied:
Department / Division
Estimated
Annual
Current Fee
Revenue
Estimated
Annual Full
Cost Recovery
Fee Revenue
Current
Cost
Recovery
%1
Estimated
Annual
Recommended
Fee Revenue
Recommended
Cost Recovery
%
Finance $ 442,998 $ 440,289 101% $ 439,240 100%
Development Review (Planning) $ 1,243,660 $ 1,234,476 101% $ 1,170,708 95%
Development Review (Engineering) $ 585,979 $ 957,380 61% $ 942,263 98%
Public Works $ 747,631 $ 655,905 114% $ 654,365 100%
Utilities $ 316,722 $ 773,277 41% $ 769,215 99%
Fire Prevention $ 828,777 $ 971,760 85% $ 861,641 89%
Police $ 90,825 $ 135,311 67% $ 110,037 81%
Total $ 4,256,592 $ 5,168,397 82% $ 4,947,470 96%
1. Recovery at greater than 100% generally indicates a change in time spent on a project in previous years vs. time spent on
the same type of project currently; less time spent on a given task reduces the cost of providing that service. Example:
process improvements or computer system enhancements make certain tasks faster.
Packet Pg 9
1
Note: The Parks & Recreation Departments’ fee review estimates $1,810,000 in annual revenues at recommended fee
levels. An additional $170,000 is costs could be recovered, bringing the total estimated revenues at recommended fee to
$5,117,470.
As shown, the City is recovering approximately 82% of costs associated with providing user and
regulatory fee related services. At the February 21, 2017 study session, the City Council
indicated support for the recommended fee levels. If the City Council elects to adopt these fee
levels (Exhibit 1 within Attachment A), $691,000 in additional revenue could be recovered, for a
total of $4,947,470 which is a 96% cost recovery outcome for services provided. Additionally,
$170,000 in estimated revenues could be recovered when including Parks and Recreation
projections; totaling $861,000 in additional revenues. Furthermore, an additional $167,165 in
costs could be recovered with inclusion of the Information Technology Surcharge discussed
below, totaling $1,028,165 in additional revenues; bringing the total estimated yearly fee revenue
to $5,284,635.
City Council Direction (February 21, 2017 Study Session)
On February 21, 2017, the City Council held a study session (for detailed background
information and discussion see Attachment C, Study Session Staff Report) and ultimately
supported the recommended cost recovery levels/fee amounts with some adjustments (see
discussion in “Response to City Council Direction” below). The City Council also indicated
support for the cost recovery policy changes proposed by Parks and Recreation and the change to
100% cost recovery for annual state-mandated multi-dwelling fire and life safety inspections
proposed by the Fire Department. Council also indicated support for the continued use of the
“split fee” calculation for planning entitlements. Discussion focused on appeal fees with Council
directing staff to explore alternatives (see appeal fee discussion below).
Response to City Council Direction
1. Mills Act Participation Fee (current fee: $3,984)
Direction: Look at raising the cost recovery amount for the subject fee since participation
in the Mills Act program results in savings to the applicant via property tax reductions for
preservation of historic resources (previous recommendation was 25% recovery with a
fee of $693, Council expressed interest in closer to 50% recovery).
Response: 50% cost recovery for the Mills Act Participation fee would result in a fee of
$1,385 which is within the range of sampled communities.1
2. Appeal Fee (current fee: $281)
Direction: Explore alternatives to the 25% recovery amount for the appeal fee, especially
at Tier 1. Goals: an appeal fee amount 1) should not overly encourage nor discourage
appeals, 2) should not unnecessarily distribute costs to the City, and 3) should not
discourage housing or other important City goals.
Response: Based on Council discussion, staff moved forward with a higher fee for
1 Staff sampled 20 communities resulting in an average fee of $1,193. The highe st application fees were around
$3600 (Berkeley and Riverside) and the lowest application fees ranged from “no fee” to $100 (Napa).
Packet Pg 10
1
applicant appeals (shown in green) and a lowered fee for non-applicant appeals (shown in
blue) as illustrated in the below table (cost recovery range shown in yellow).
Staff included the above table in outreach efforts. The amounts shown above in the non-
applicant and applicant fee columns represent staff’s current recommendation to Council.
In general, feedback from the resident group included general support for the
applicant/non-applicant fee structure illustrated above, with a specific request to further
lower the fee for non-applicants to the 10-15% range. Residents, in public testimony and
during subsequent meetings continue to perceive the higher appeal fee as a deterrent to
filing an appeal.
Feedback from the development group indicated frustration with the appeal process in
general, and concern about the recommended applicant/non-applicant appeal fee
structure. While the development group understands the proposed cost recovery structure,
and is not specifically opposed to the recommended fee amount for applicant appeals
(50% of the cost of service), they did express concern about the lower fee that would be
assessed for non-applicant appeals. The development group wanted staff and City
decision makers to understand that when an appeal is filed, it results in significant costs
to the developer both in terms of the time delay and uncertainty associated with the
appeal process, as well as the direct costs for consultants and additional materials needed
for another public hearing. For these reasons, the development group was opposed to the
lower cost recovery structure for non-applicant appeals.
It appears the highlighted fee amounts in the table are at a point that do not overly
encourage nor discourage appeals, as detrimental concerns were not provided during
outreach efforts. Currently, the suggested appeal fee amounts are included in the draft fee
schedule.
Other Key Changes
1. Information Technology Surcharge (Energov)
Situation: Further staff evaluation found that City costs (program purchase, maintenance,
Non-
Applicant
Fee
Applicant
Fee 10%15%20%25%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
Cost of
Service
(100%)
Tier 1 623$ 1,557$ 311$ 467$ 623$ 779$ 934$ 1,246$ 1,557$ 1,868$ 2,180$ 2,491$ 2,803$ 3,114$
Tier 2 346$ 865$ 173$ 260$ 346$ 433$ 519$ 692$ 865$ 1,038$ 1,211$ 1,384$ 1,557$ 1,730$
Tier 3 303$ 303$ 121$ 182$ 242$ 303$ 363$ 484$ 606$ 727$ 848$ 969$ 1,090$ 1,211$
Tier 4 130$ 130$ 52$ 78$ 104$ 130$ 156$ 208$ 260$ 311$ 363$ 415$ 467$ 519$
Tier 1
Appeals to the City Council
Architectural Review (ARC)
Subdivision (>5 lots)
Planning Commission Use
Permits
Tier 2
Administrative Use Permit
Minor Architectural
Review
Subdivision (<5 lots)
Lot Line Adjustment
Tier 3
Fence Height
Exception
Administrative
Approval
Tier 4
Home Occupation Permit
Non-Profit Special Events
Sidewalk Sales Permit
Packet Pg 11
1
and staff costs) associated with the Energov Land Use Management Computer System2
were not included in the consultant’s fee model.
Recommendation: Apply Information Technology Surcharge of 2.65% to recover costs
associated with the Energov Computer System. The Energov Computer System has a
useful life of 15 years and staff analysis indicates the yearly costs associated with the
system total $167,165.18. Estimated revenues associated with fees/work being performed
in the system total $6,300,012 per year which yields a surcharge amount of 2.65%. The
surcharge will be applied to fees associated with work being performed in the Energov
Computer System and the surcharge will be applied prior to the addition of impact fees.
The calculation and collection methodology is illustrated in Attachment B (Breakdown
Fee Schedule) and the final application and permit fees are included in Exhibit 1 within
Attachment A.
2. Split Fee Collection Timing
Situation: As discussed at the study session, approximately 20-25% of planning projects
that would require a building permit3 do not materialize (i.e. stop moving forward after
planning approvals). As a result the City does not recover actual costs to process a
planning application (55% of planning’s costs & 75% of other departments costs. Staff
estimates that approximately $122,000 is not be recovered per year (see more detailed
discussion in the study session staff report, Attachment C, “cost recovery for planning
entitlements”). There are three options for planning fee collection:
1) collect 100% of costs at time of planning application submittal,
2) collect a portion of costs at application submittal and collect the remaining
costs upon final decision on the entitlement (with a six-month window to pay), or
3) collect a portion of costs at application submittal and collect the remaining
costs with the building permit (status quo). The percentage to be collected at
application submission could be increased to improve cost recovery by the City.
Recommendation: Option 2. Collect a portion of costs at planning application submittal
and collect the remaining costs within six months of the final decision on a planning
entitlement. An invoice will be attached to the final decision letter and pertinent
documentation that staff provides to the applicant. The remaining amount to be collected
is noted on the draft fee schedule (Exhibit 1 within Attachment A).
The six-month timeframe affords an applicant some additional time to continue moving
forward with securing financing and preparing the project for a building permit. Members
of the development community indicated a preference in having collection of this
2 Hardware and software used by the City to manage planning projects, engineering projects, building permits,
inspections, records and property research.
3 For certain planning entitlements (Administrative Use Permit, Planning Commission Use Permit, Variance,
Affordable Housing Incentive Request, ALUC Review, Architectural Reviews), fee collection is a two -step process
with a portion of staff time spent during the planning phase of the project recovered at time of planning application
submittal and the other portion collected at time of building permit issuance.
Packet Pg 12
1
remaining fee placed as close to building permit submittal as possible, staff recommends
six months as a reasonable amount of time.
Note: revisions and corrections to the draft fee schedule, not specifically highlighted in this
report, were performed.
CONCURRENCES
All appropriate City departments have been extensively involved in providing information
including budget information, staffing information, and time estimates to the consultant. All
requisite departments have also performed extensive review of draft fee models provided by the
consultant and have reviewed and commented upon the final report.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The act of updating cost of service fees is not subject to the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it is not a project as defined in CEQA Guidelines
Section 15378 (Definitions – Project).
PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT
Public engagement efforts were conducted consistent with the City’s Public Engagement and
Noticing Manual. The below graphic highlights outreach efforts. The Open City Hall web page
(http://www.slocity.org/opencityhall) is still “live” and feedback received through the web page
will be distributed to the City Council via agenda correspondence before the hearing.
FISCAL IMPACT
At recommended fee levels, an additional $1,028,165 in costs would be recovered yearly;
totaling $5,284,635 in estimated fee revenue per year across all departments included in the
study.
Packet Pg 13
1
Attachments:
a - Draft Resolution
a - Exhibit 1 Draft Fee Schedule
a - Exhibit 2 Amended Cost Recovery Goals (Recreation)
b - Breakdown Fee Schedule
c - City Council Study Session Staff Report February 21, 2017
d - NBS Fee Study (appendices in council reading file)
e - Council Reading File - Master Fee Schedule with Percent Change Column
f - Council Reading File - NBS Fee Study with Appendices
Packet Pg 14
1
R ______
Attachment A RESOLUTION NO. _______ (2017 SERIES)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE CITY’S MASTER FEE
SCHEDULE WITH UPDATED USER AND REGULATORY FEES BASED
ON THE FEE STUDY PREPARED BY NBS GOVERNMENT FINANCE
GROUP, AS REPRESENTED IN THE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
AND ATTACHMENTS DATED APRIL 18, 2017
WHEREAS, it is the City’s policy (User Fee Recovery Goals - Financial Plan Section H)
to review and update service charges approximately every five years to adjust to changes in the
cost-of-living and changes in methods/levels of service delivery; and
WHEREAS, on June 16, 2009 the City Council last amended the master fee schedule with
updated cost of services fees; and
WHEREAS, on June 23, 2015 the City Council adopted Resolution No. 10640 (2015
Series) authorizing the City Manager to update the City’s Master Fee Schedule to reflect increases
based on the annual change in the Consumer Price Index; and
WHEREAS, a User and Regulatory Fee Study was prepared by NBS Government Finance
Group dated March 30, 2017; and
WHEREAS, on February 8, 2017 the Jack House Committee recommended updated
facility use charges associated with the Jack House; and
WHEREAS, on February 21, 2017, the City Council held a study session to review and
discuss the results of the Fee Study, receive public input, and provide guidance to staff regarding
recommended fees and any changes to current policies or practices; and
WHEREAS, on April 6, 2017 the Parks and Recreation Commission recommended the
Parks and Recreation fees, including the Jack House fees, be adopted as provided in Exhibit A;
and
WHEREAS, public outreach was conducted throughout the months of February, March,
and April pursuant to the City’s Public Engagement and Noticing Manual, which consisted of ten
engagement meetings including an Open City Hall web page; and
WHEREAS, on April 18, 2017, the City Council held a public hearing to review the Fee
Study and response to City Council direction provided at the City Council Study Session.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo
as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. The City Council makes the following findings:
Packet Pg 15
1
Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 2
R ______
Attachment A
1. That the above recitals are true and correct.
2. That the updated user and regulatory fees are consistent with the City’s user fee
recovery goals (Financial Plan Section H) and that the established fees, including an
increase to 100% cost recovery for multi-dwelling fire and life safety inspections, do
not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of providing the service or performing the
activity for which the fee is imposed.
3. That the cost recovery adjustments associated with certain Parks and Recreation
programs (e.g. Triathlon, Golf, Summer and Spring Break Camps, Parks and
Recreation Sponsored Events) are consistent with the factors used for setting cost
recovery levels (Financial Plan Section H – Subsection B), such as subsection B.1
“Community-Wide vs. Special Benefit” which indicates that the use of general-purpose
revenues is appropriate for community-wide services.
SECTION 2. Action. The City Council takes the following actions:
1. The City’s Master Fee Schedule is hereby amended to include updated user and
regulatory fees as provided in Exhibit 1 attached hereto. All prior resolutions
inconsistent herewith are hereby superseded. The updated fees shall take effect on July
1, 2017.
2. A 2.65% Information Technology Surcharge is hereby authorized and imposed on all
User and Regulatory Fees as provided in Exhibit 1 attached hereto. A 2.65%
Information Technology Surcharge is also hereby imposed on all Building and Safety
Divisions User and Regulatory Fees as set forth in Resolution No. 10313 (2011 Series)
and later amended for Consumer Price Index by Resolution No. 10640 (2015 Series).
3. The City’s User Fee Recovery Goals for Recreation Programs (Financial Plan Section
H – Subsection G) are hereby amended as provided in Exhibit 2 attached hereto.
4. Unless suspended by the City Manager, the Master Fee Schedule is to be automatically
updated to reflect annual changes in the Consumer Price Index.
Upon motion of _______________________, seconded by _______________________,
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was adopted this _____ day of _____________________ 2016.
Packet Pg 16
1
Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 3
R ______
Attachment A
____________________________________
Mayor Heidi Harmon
ATTEST:
____________________________________
Carrie Gallagher
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________________
J. Christine Dietrick
City Attorney
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City
of San Luis Obispo, California, this ______ day of ______________, _________.
____________________________________
Carrie Gallagher
City Clerk
Packet Pg 17
1
Fee No.Fee Description
Planning Application
Fee/Deposit
(45% planning + 25% Other Depts +
*IT Surcharge)
Remaining Planning
Application Fee to be
Collected*
(55% Planning +75% Other
Depts)
PLANNING APPLICATION FEES
Zoning Services
1 Sidewalk Sales Permit $274.69 *
2 Home Occupation Permit [1]$159.95 *
Home Occupation Permit (Reduced version)$159.95 *
3 Administrative Use Permit $1,092.05 *$2,023.54
4 Planning Commission Use Permit $2,498.24 *$3,979.96
6 Variance $1,146.51 *$1,824.16
7 Planned Development [2]
Rezoning $15,773.24 *
Plan Amendment $4,379.41 *
8 Rezoning [2]
Map Amendment $11,812.38 *
Text Amendment $8,384.69 *
10 Time Extension 25% of current filing fee
11 Non-profit Special Event Fee $211.43 *
12 Affordable Housing Incentive Request $471.10 *$763.57
13 Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) Plan Review Fee
Reviews Requiring ALUC Hearing $825.01 *$952.20
14 Subdivision Services
Lot Line Adjustment $3,021.91 *
Tentative Subdivision Map
1-4 Lots $6,377.71 *
5-10 Lots $11,058.95 *
11-20 lots $14,805.05 *
21+ lots (deposit of $20,000)$24,785.55 *
15 Certificate of Compliance $2,313.07 *
Other Planning Services
18 Environmental Impact Determination [4]$6,146.00 *
19 Environmental Impact Report [2,
4]
Consultant Contract plus 30%
for administrative & review
services (No Change)*
20 Environmental Impact Report Monitoring Program, Deposit [2,
4]
$0.00
21 Architectural Review
Signs $2,174.18 *$2,811.86
Conceptual Review $2,295.17 *$3,654.15
Development Projects $4,680.03 *$7,551.55
Development Projects - Major
(e.g. 25 residential units, or 35,000 s.f., or 60 hotel units)
$6,344.50 *$10,000.95
Minor-Incidental $1,688.29 *$2,522.34
Plan Revision $1,978.83 *$2,796.19
Time Extension 25% of current filing fee
22 Christmas Tree/Pumpkin Lot Permit $357.61 *
23 Fence Height Exception $569.35 *
24 Voluntary Merger $776.13 *
Attachment A - Exhibit 1
Packet Pg 18
1
25 Agreements $850.75 *
26 Bonds/Guarantees (voluntary) $850.75 *
27 Change of Address $247.65 *
28 Street Name Change $4,711.30 *
29 Street Abandonment $13,259.47 *
30 Condominium Conversion $14,886.38 *
31 Appeals [7]
Tier 1: e.g. Appeals to the City Council Applicant Appeal: $1,557
Non-Applicant Appeal:$623 *
Tier 2: e.g. Minor/Incidental Arch Review, Administrative Use
Permit, Variance, Subdivisions <5 lots
Applicant Appeal: $865
Non-Applicant Appeal:$346 *
Tier 3: e.g. Fence Height Exception, Administrative Approval
Application
Applicant Appeal: $303
Non-Applicant Appeal:$303 *
Tier 4: e.g. Home Occupation permit, Non-Profit Special Event Applicant Appeal: $130
Non-Applicant Appeal:$130 *
32 Mills Act Participation Application $1,421.75 *
33 Administrative Approval Applications $836.28 *
34 Land Use Documentation Request $425.37 *
36 General Plan Amendment [2]
Map (includes rezoning), Deposit $16,706.95 *
Text $16,223.77 *
37 Specific Plan Amendment, Deposit [2]$16,017.69 *
38 Annexation, Deposit [2]$22,994.18 *
39 Sidewalk Cafes
Sidewalk Café User Permit $819.66 *
Sidewalk Café Use Fee per square foot per month [3]$1.00
40 Pre-Application $896.96 *
With site visit $1,128.05 *
41 Blue Card Inspection [6]$266.58 *
42 Development Agreement Application Fee [2]$15,010.52 *
43 Reimbursement Agreement [2]$15,010.52 *
BULIDING PLAN REVIEW SUPPORT
Residential
Minor $177.72 *
Moderate $355.44 *
Major [2]$2,843.52 *
Commercial
Minor $266.58 *
Moderate $444.30 *
Major [2]$2,843.52 *
[Notes]
[1]A location change for a Home Occupation Permit is 25% of the
regular fee.
*The remaining planning fee is
to be paid within 6 months of
final decision on the entitlement
[2]Fees will be set on a Deposit basis and debited by the amount
of staff time and other materials required to provide services or
Consultant Fee plus 30% Admin Fee .
[3]Sidewalk rental charge not included in fee analysis.
Placeholder for Master Fee Schedule
[4]Separate Fish and Game fees may apply, as set by the State
of California
[5]Modifications to applications are charged at 25% of the original
fee amount, per Department policy
[6]See Final Inspection Approval/Bluecard Signoff (item 16)
[7]Refer to City's Master Fee Schedule for tier definitions.
Note: A 2.65% Information Technology Surcharge is included in fees
associated with work in the Energov Computer System
Attachment A - Exhibit 1
Packet Pg 19
1
Fee #Fee Description Fee/Deposit
(*with IT Surcharge)
ENGINEERING SUBMITTAL FEES
1 Improvement Plan Check
Plan check fees are based on Estimated Construction Cost (ECC)
$10,000 flat fee up to $10,000 $1,559.04 *
each add'l $10,000 $1,145.07 *
$100,001 base fee @ $100,001 $11,864.70 *
each add'l $10,000 $118.02 *
$500,001 base fee @ $500,001 $16,585.36 *
each add'l $10,000 $143.25 *
$1,000,001 base fee @ $1,000,001 $23,747.95 *
each add'l $10,000 $62.56 *
$3,000,001 base fee @ $3,000,001 $36,643.31 *
each add'l $10,000 $122.14 *
2 Construction Inspection
Inspection fees are based on Estimated Construction Cost (ECC)
$10,000 flat fee up to $10,000 $539.61
each add'l $10,000 $914.34
$100,001 base fee @ $100,001 $8,768.74
each add'l $10,000 $640.79
$500,001 base fee @ $500,001 $34,400.45
each add'l $10,000 $283.30
$1,000,001 base fee @ $1,000,001 $48,565.34
each add'l $10,000 $269.81
$3,000,001 base fee @ $3,000,001 $102,526.82
each add'l $10,000 $342.00
3 Final Maps
Parcel Map - Residential Zone (4 lots or Less)$6,444.86 *
Parcel Map - Commercial Zone (4 lots or less)$9,242.23 *
Plus per lot or common interest unit $48.82 *
Tract Map (base fee)$14,251.57 *
Plus per lot or common interest unit $153.72 *
4 Certificate of Compliance or Final Lot Line Adjustment Agreement
Lot Line Adjustments $2,797.37 *
Certificates of Compliance $699.34 *
Additional Document Review/Certificates of Correction $279.74 *
5 Encroachment Permits
Curb and Gutter (base fee)$674.49 *
plus per linear foot $9.72 *
Sidewalk (base fee)$605.24 *
plus per linear foot $5.57 *
Attachment A - Exhibit 1
Packet Pg 20
1
Driveway Approach/Curb Ramp (base fee)$882.21 *
plus per linear foot $9.72 *
Trenched or Bored Excavation (base fee)
Water Service/Recycled Service(base fee)$695.19 *
plus per linear foot $19.42 *
Sewer (base fee)$556.70 *
plus per linear foot (Bore)$5.57 *
plus per linear foot (Trench)$9.72 *
Fire Lateral/Hydrant/Water and Recycled Main Extension (base fee)$1,526.09 *
plus per linear foot $23.57 *
Other (base fee)$625.95 *
plus per linear foot (Bore)$5.57 *
plus per linear foot (Trench)$9.72 *
Monitoring Well $208.42 *
Other Minor Encroachment Permits not Listed $208.42 *
Time Extension for Encroachment Permit $139.87 *
Unpermitted Encroachments $697.96 *
Encroachment Permit - Plan Review fee (if required)$279.74 *
Annual Encroachment Permit for Utility Companies $19,015.29 *
6 Transportation Permit
Single Trip Permit $139.87 *
Annual Permit $139.87 *
Maximum fee amount established by Department of Transportation and is not subject to CPI increases
7 Fiber Infrastructure Protection Fee (per Call) $268.16 *
8 Traffic Control Plan Review
Minor $183.75 *
Moderate $297.69 *
Major [2]$525.59 *
9 Traffic Control Plan Inspection
Minor - first day $69.29 *
each additional day $69.29 *
Moderate - first day $138.58 *
each additional day $69.29 *
Major - first day $277.16 *
each additional day $69.29 *
10 4th and subsequent plan review (per submittal)
Public Improvement Plans $1,465.19 *
Building Plans $348.98 *
Maps / Additional Documents $400.98 *
11 Design Exception $279.74 *
BUILDING SUPPORT
1
Site Improvements - This includes substantial development of
private parking lots which are processed separate of the structure
and include any combination of the following: Underground utilities,
parking lot lighting, accessible path of travel analysis, grading,
drainage and compliance with the City's parking and driveway
standards.
Square Footage of Site Disturbance:
Non-Single Family Residential
Attachment A - Exhibit 1
Packet Pg 21
1
0-2499 $279.74 *
2500-4999 $419.61 *
5000-14999 $699.34 *
15000-21999 $1,118.95 *
22000-43559 $1,398.68 *
43560+$1,678.42 *
Single Family Residential
0-2500 $279.74 *
2501+$839.21 *
2 Final Inspection Approval / Bluecard Signoff
Square Footage of Site Disturbance:
Non-Single Family Residential
0-2499 $139.87 *
2500-4999 $139.87 *
5000-14999 $139.87 *
15000-21999 $279.74 *
22000-43559 $419.61 *
43560+$559.47 *
Single Family Residential
0-2500 $139.87 *
2501+$279.74 *
3 Flood Zone Analysis
Minor - Verificatoin only $139.87 *
Major - New/Substantial Remodel Analysis/Documentation $559.47 *
4 Post Construction Requirements / Stormwater / Inspection
Impervious Square Footage:
Non-Single Family Residential
0-2499 $139.87 *
2500-4999 $279.74 *
5000-14999 $559.47 *
15000-21999 $559.47 *
22000-43559 $839.21 *
43560+$1,118.95 *
Single Family Residential
0-2500 $139.87 *
2501+$559.47 *
5 Drainage Report/Flood Study - Breadth of Study
Minor $279.74 *
Major $699.34 *
[Notes]
[1]A location change for a Home Occupation Permit is 25% of the
regular fee.
[2]Fees will be set on a Deposit basis and debited by the amount of
staff time and other materials required to provide services or
Consultant Fee plus 30% Admin Fee .
[3]Sidewalk rental charge not included in fee analysis. Placeholder for
Master Fee Schedule
Note: A 2.65% Information Technology Surcharge is included in fees
associated with work in the Energov Computer System
[4] Separate Fish and Game
fees may apply, as set by the
State of California
[5] Modifications to
applications are charged at
Attachment A - Exhibit 1
Packet Pg 22
1
PUBLIC WORKS SUBMITTAL FEES
TREE MAINTENANCE
2 Tree/Shrub Hazardous Abatement Actual Cost
3 Commemorative Tree Planting [2]$283.72
4 Tree Removal Permit $153.68
BUILDING PLAN REVIEW $0.00
1
Site Improvements - This includes substantial development of
private parking lots which are processed separate of the structure
and include any combination of the following: Underground utilities,
parking lot lighting, accessible path of travel analysis, grading,
drainage and compliance with the City's parking and driveway
standards.
Square Footage of Site Disturbance:
Non-Single Family Residential
0-2499 $0.00
2500-4999 $0.00
5000-14999 $0.00
15000-21999 $0.00
22000-43559 $0.00
43560+$0.00
Single Family Residential
0-2500 $0.00
2501+$0.00
2 Final Inspection Approval / Bluecard Signoff
Square Footage of Site Disturbance:
Non-Single Family Residential
0-2499 $235.57 *
2500-4999 $235.57 *
5000-14999 $235.57 *
15000-21999 $374.05 *
22000-43559 $512.53 *
43560+$651.02 *
Single Family Residential
0-2500 $235.57 *
2501+$235.57 *
3 Flood Zone Analysis
Minor - Verificatoin only $0.00
Major - New/Substantial Remodel Analysis/Documentation $0.00
4 Post Construction Requirements / Stormwater / Inspection
Impervious Square Footage:
Non-Single Family Residential
0-2499 $0.00
2500-4999 $0.00
5000-14999 $0.00
15000-21999 $0.00Fee #Fee Description Fee/Deposit
(*with IT Surcharge)
Attachment A - Exhibit 1
Packet Pg 23
1
22000-43559 $0.00
43560+$0.00
Single Family Residential
0-2500 $97.08 *
2501+$97.08 *
5 Drainage Report/Flood Study - Breadth of Study
Minor $0.00
Major $0.00
6 Review of Mitigation Measures, Conditions, and TIFs $228.38 *
[Notes]
[1] Amounts are set by 2010 Ordinance, NBS did not review
[2] Cost of tree and plaque are separate fees in addition to this fee, at $50 and $20 respectively
[3] Refer to City's Master Fee Schedule for tier definitions.
Note: A 2.65% Information Technology Surcharge is included in fees
associated with work in the Energov Computer System
Attachment A - Exhibit 1
Packet Pg 24
1
UTILITIES SERVICES FEE SCHEDULE [1]
[2]
1 Meter Services [3]
Install Water Meter (3/4" - 1") [4]$128.29 *
Install Water Meter (1.5" - 2")[4]$256.59 *
Install Water Meter (larger than 2")[4]Time & Materials
Remove Water Meter (5/8" - 1")$124.98
Remove Water Meter (1.5" - 2")$249.95
Remove Water Meter (larger than 2")Time & Materials
Retirement of Service $749.86
Retirement of Service (larger than 2")$749.86
Account Set-up $83.32
Account Set-up After Hours/Weekends
Minimum 2 hours service fee $291.20
Each Additional Hour [7]$145.75
Property Management (first 25 set-ups)$1,126.49
Each Additional 25 set-ups $1,126.49
Disconnect Service for Non-Payment $110.40
2 Lateral Installation $513.17 *
3 Lateral Abandonment $513.17 *
BUILDING PLAN REVIEW / INSPECTION SUPPORT
1 Per Plan Review Submittal
New Meter, trash enclosures, landscape plans $513.17 *
RH20 $513.17 *
C&D Recycling $64.15 *
[Notes]
[1] Water And Sewer Service Rates Are Adopted By Council
[2] 1 Unit = 748 Gallons
[3] Fees for hardware Charged at Actual Cost
[4] Plus Meter Cost
[5] Set by City Ordinance. NBS did not evaluate
[6] Fees will be set on a Deposit basis and debited by the amount of
staff time and other materials required to provide services
[7] Calculated at OT rate for each additonal hour of service required
ft lb i h b d2h
[8] Refer to City's Master Fee Schedule for tier definitions.
Note: A 2.65% Information Technology Surcharge is included in fees
associated with work in the Energov Computer System
Percent Change
Fee/Deposit
(*with IT Surcharge)Fee Description
Fee #Attachment A - Exhibit 1
Packet Pg 25
1
FIRE DEPARTMENT
HAZARDOUS OCCUPANCY PERMITS [1]
1 Aircraft Refueling Vehicles $144.92 *
2 Aircraft Repair Hangar $289.85 *
3 Automobile Wrecking Yard $362.31 *
4 Bonfire or Rubbish Fires $144.92 *
5 Burning in Public Place $144.92 *
6 Candles or Open-Flames in Assembly Areas $144.92 *
7 Combustible Fiber Storage (handle/store over 100 cu ft)$362.31 *
8 Compressed Gases $144.92 *
9 Cryogens $289.85 *
10 Dry Cleaning Plant $289.85 *
11 Dust Producing Operation $289.85 *
12 Explosives or Blasting Agents $579.70 *
13 Fireworks $579.70 *
14 Flammable or Combustible Liquids (Unless in the CUPA Program)$289.85 *
15 Fruit Ripening - Ethylene Gas Fogging $289.85 *
16 Garages - Repair $289.85 *
17 Hazardous Chemicals (Unless in the CUPA Program):$362.31 *
18 High-Piled Combustible Stock - exceeding 2500 sq ft $362.31 *
19 Junk Yards $362.31 *
20 Liquefied Petroleum Gas $217.39 *
21 Lumberyard - Storage in excess of 100,000 board feet $362.31 *
22 Magnesium Working - Process more than 10 lbs daily $289.85 *
23 Mall (covered)$362.31 *
24 Organic Coatings - manufacture over 1 gallon a day $362.31 *
25 Ovens - Industrial, Baking and Drying $144.92 *
26 Places of Assembly $289.85 *
27 Refrigeration Equipment - Mechanical refrigeration (see UFC for
most common refrigerants)
$434.77 *
28 Spraying or Dipping $289.85 *
29 Tents and Air-supported Structures - excess of 200 sq ft $289.85 *
30 Tire Re-capping $289.85 *
31 Waste Material Plant $362.31 *
32 Welding and Cutting Operations - Any Occupancy $217.39 *
33 Additional Permitted Use (per permit)[1]$72.46 *
NON-MANDATED / REQUIRED INSPECTIONS
34 Commercial Business Inspections (Up to 3 stories)
0 – 5,000 sq. ft.
5,001 – 40,000 sq. ft.
40,001 – 120,000 sq. ft.
120,001 – 150,000 sq. ft.
150,001 – or more sq. ft.
35 Mid Rise Inspections (4 -6 stories)
Percent Change
Fee #Fee/Deposit
(*with IT Surcharge)Fee Description
Attachment A - Exhibit 1
Packet Pg 26
1
36 New Business Inspection [9]
FIRE FALSE ALARM FEES
37 Initial Permit and Renewal Registrations - see Police
38 False fire alarms shall be considered excessive when they meet or
exceed the following number:
Two false alarms in any thirty-day period
Three false alarms in any three-hundred-sixty day period
39 False alarms exceeding these numbers
CERTIFIED UNIFIED PARTICIPATING AGENCY FEES [3]
40 Hazardous Materials Handlers
Remote utility (1-time fee)$542.31
1 - 4 Materials handled $312.20
5 - 10 Materials handled $356.17
11+ Materials handled $426.52
41 Waste Generators
1 Waste stream (professional or medical)$209.60
1 - 5 Waste streams (all others)$312.20
6+ Waste streams $420.66
Waste Stream (DeMinimus)$101.13
42 Tiered Permitting
CE $662.50
CA $1,043.59
PBR $2,465.33
43 Underground Storage Tanks (general model)
First tank $1,801.36
Each additional tank
Tank installation $5,878.99
Tank removal $4,551.05
Minor Modification $1,706.09
Major Modification $5,308.82
44 Above Ground Storage Tanks
One Tank $197.87
Two Tanks $395.74
Three Tanks $473.43
45 CALARP
New Stationary Source Facility $2,597.25
Existing Annual Facility Inspection $404.54
46 Site Remediation Oversight $202.27
Soil Remediation $202.27
Temporary Closure Permit $1,689.97
47 Closures
Temporary Closure $1,801.36
Closure in Place $2,276.26
48 Late Fee [4]
Annual permit fees received 31-60 days after original invoice day 25% Penalty
Annual permit fees received 61 + days after original invoice day an additional 25% penalty
Attachment A - Exhibit 1
Packet Pg 27
1
FIRE EQUIPMENT AND PERSONNEL STAND-BY FEES
49 Fire Engine/Ladder Truck [5]$419.00
50 Squad or Light Rescue Equipment [5]$261.00
51 Third & Subsequent Fire Inspection Fee $168.56
52 Additional Site Inspection Fee (one hour min.)Determined by Finance
Director
53 Fire Investigation/Fire Preventions Determined by Finance
Director
54 Firefighter Standby Determined by Finance
Director
55 Administrative/Clerical Determined by Finance
Director
6] [7]
56 Administrative Fee [8]
Processing per facility $86.51 *
Each Additional Owner $10.27
*
57 Apartment Houses
Fees are waived for units that are built, owned and managed by the
San Luis Obispo Housing Authority, other government agencies or
not-for-profit housing organizations
Up to 10 units $346.06 *
11 - 20 Units $519.09 *
21 - 50 Units $692.12 *
51 - 100 Units $865.15 *
101 - 200 Units $1,384.24 *
Every additional 100 Units over 200 $346.06 *
58 Hotels, Motels, Lodging Houses, Bed & Breakfast Facilities,
Youth Hostel Facilities, Senior Facilities, Sororities, Fraternities
and Other Congregate Residences
Hotel, Motel, Bed & Breakfast
1 - 20 Units $346.06 *
21 - 50 Units $519.09 *
51 - 100 Units $865.15 *
101 - 200 Units $1,384.24 *
Sorority and Fraternity $692.12 *
Condominiums
Up to 10 Units $346.06 *
11 - 20 Units $519.09 *
21 - 50 Units $692.12 *
51 - 500 Units $1,038.18 *
OTHER FIRE FEES
59 Hydrant Flow Test (First Hydrant) $173.03 *
60 Hydrant Flow Test (Each Additional Hydrant) $86.51 *
61 Reinspection Fee (construction) $173.03 *
62 Board of Appeals $173.03 *
63 Emergency Call-Out (Non-Scheduled) $674.49 *
64 After Hours Call-Out (Scheduled) $168.62 *
[Notes]
[1] For Locations with multiple required permits, fee is calculated at
highest permit fee, plus 1/2 hour of inspection per additional
permitted use.
MULTI-DWELLING FIRE AND LIFE SAFETY INSPECTION FEE
SCHEDULE
Attachment A - Exhibit 1
Packet Pg 28
1
[2] Penalty for excessive false alarms set by City Ordinance - not
required for review in this study
[3] A discount of $79.00 will be provided for two or more programs
reviewed simultaneously.
[4] Fees are punitive in nature and do not require a cost of service
analysis.
[5] Placeholder for Master Fee Schedule, NBS did not study
[6] Fees are waived for units that are built, owned and managed by the
San Luis Obispo Housing Authority, other government agencies or
not-for-profit housing organizations.
[7] These fees are applicable to all multi-dwelling units in the City based
on the definitions set forth in the 2007 California Building Code
[8] Administrative fee applies to both Apt Houses and Hotels, Motels,
etc. Total processing fee calculated will be divided equally amongst
all owners.
Note: A 2.65% Information Technology Surcharge is included in fees
associated with work in the Energov Computer System
Fire - Development Services
NEW CONSTRUCTION, ADDITIONS, AND MAJOR REMODELS
1
Commercial Uses - Structural (All newly constructed, added, or
structurally remodeled space for non-residential occupancies
classified as CBC Group A, B, E, F, H, I, M, or other commercial
occupancies not specifically addressed elsewhere in this Fee
Schedule)
Square Footage:
500 (base cost) $942.00 *
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.27 *
5,000 (base cost) $2,173.86 *
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.26 *
10,000 (base cost) $3,478.17 *
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.07 *
50,000 (base cost) $6,304.19 *
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.05 *
100,000 (base cost) $8,985.28 *
per s.f. >100,000 s.f. (increment)$0.09 *
2
Commercial Residential and Multifamily Residential Uses - (All
newly constructed, added, or structurally remodeled space for
residential occupancies classified as CBC Group R (except R-3), or
other residential occupancies not specifically addressed elsewhere
in this Fee Schedule)
Square Footage:
500 (base cost) $942.00 *
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.27 *
5,000 (base cost) $2,173.86 *
Fee/Deposit
(*with IT Surcharge)
Percent Change
Fee #Fee Description
Attachment A - Exhibit 1
Packet Pg 29
1
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.26 *
10,000 (base cost) $3,478.17 *
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.07 *
50,000 (base cost)
$6,304.19
*
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.05 *
100,000 (base cost) $8,985.28 *
per s.f. >100,000 s.f. (increment)$0.09 *
3 Duplicate Floor Plan Review - Commercial Residential and
Multifamily Residential Uses
Square Footage:
500 (base cost) $362.31 *
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.08 *
5,000 (base cost) $724.62 *
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.12 *
10,000 (base cost) $1,304.31 *
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.03 *
50,000 (base cost)
$2,536.17
*
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.04 *
100,000 (base cost) $4,347.71 *
per s.f. >100,000 s.f. (increment)$0.04 *
4
Low and Moderate Hazard Storage - (All newly constructed,
added, or structurally remodeled space for storage occupancies
classified as CBC Group S, or other storage occupancies not
specifically addressed elsewhere in this Fee Schedule)
Square Footage:
500 (base cost) $797.08 *
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.24 *
5,000 (base cost) $1,884.01 *
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.09 *
10,000 (base cost) $2,318.78 *
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.03 *
50,000 (base cost)
$3,405.71
*
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.03 *
100,000 (base cost) $4,927.41 *
per s.f. >100,000 s.f. (increment)$0.05 *
Attachment A - Exhibit 1
Packet Pg 30
1
5
Attached Accessory and Utility Uses - (All newly constructed,
added, or structurally remodeled space for utility and accessory
occupancies classified as CBC Group U, or other utility and
accessory occupancies not specifically addressed elsewhere in
this Fee Schedule)
Square Footage:
200 (base cost) $362.31 *
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.00
400 (base cost) $362.31 *
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.00
600 (base cost) $362.31 *
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.00
1,000 (base cost)
$362.31
*
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.00
3,000 (base cost) $362.31 *
per s.f. >100,000 s.f. (increment)$0.12 *
6
Detached Accessory and Utility Uses - (All newly constructed,
added, or structurally remodeled space for utility and accessory
occupancies classified as CBC Group U, or other utility and
accessory occupancies not specifically addressed elsewhere in
this Fee Schedule)
Square Footage:
200 (base cost) $362.31 *
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.00
400 (base cost) $362.31 *
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.00
600 (base cost) $362.31 *
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.00
1,000 (base cost) $362.31 *
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.00
3,000 (base cost) $362.31 *
per s.f. >100,000 s.f. (increment)$0.12 *
7
Shell Buildings for all Commercial Uses - (The enclosure for all
newly constructed, added, or structurally remodeled space for non-
residential occupancies classified as CBC Group A, B, E, F, H, I, M,
or other commercial occupancies not specifically addressed
elsewhere in this Fee Schedule where the interior is not completed
or occupiable)
Square Footage:
500 (base cost) $942.00 *
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.27 *
5,000 (base cost) $2,173.86 *
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.12 *
10,000 (base cost) $2,753.55 *
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.03 *
50,000 (base cost) $3,985.40 *
Attachment A - Exhibit 1
Packet Pg 31
1
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.02 *
100,000 (base cost) $4,927.41 *
per s.f. >100,000 s.f. (increment)$0.05 *
8
Commercial Tenant Improvement - Non Structural - (Non-
structurally remodeled space for non-residential occupancies
classified as CBC Group A, B, E, F, H, I, M, or other commercial
occupancies not specifically addressed elsewhere in this Fee
Schedule where the structure is not altered)
Square Footage:
500 (base cost) $507.23 *
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.31 *
5,000 (base cost) $1,884.01 *
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.20 *
10,000 (base cost) $2,898.48 *
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.03 *
50,000 (base cost) $4,275.25 *
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.05 *
100,000 (base cost) $6,956.34 *
per s.f. >100,000 s.f. (increment)$0.07 *
9
Commercial Residential and Multifamily Residential Remodels -
Non Structural - (Non-Structurally remodeled space for residential
occupancies classified as CBC Group R (except R-3), or other
residential occupancies not specifically addressed elsewhere in this
Fee Schedule)
Square Footage:
500 (base cost) $507.23 *
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.31 *
5,000 (base cost) $1,884.01 *
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.20 *
10,000 (base cost) $2,898.48 *
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.03 *
50,000 (base cost) $4,275.25 *
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.05 *
100,000 (base cost) $6,956.34 *
per s.f. >100,000 s.f. (increment)$0.07 *
10
Single Family Dwellings and Duplexes - (All newly constructed
space for residential occupancies classified as CBC Group R-3,
including custom builds and model homes for tract master plans, or
other similar residential occupancies not specifically addressed
elsewhere in this Fee Schedule)
Square Footage:
1,000 (base cost) $362.31 *
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.00
2,500 (base cost) $362.31 *
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.00
4,000 (base cost) $362.31 *
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.00
6,000 (base cost) $362.31 *
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.00
8,000 (base cost) $362.31 *
Attachment A - Exhibit 1
Packet Pg 32
1
per s.f. >100,000 s.f. (increment)$0.05 *
11 Duplicate Floor Plan Review - Single Family Dwellings and
Duplexes
Square Footage:
1,000 (base cost) $289.85 *
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.00
2,500 (base cost) $289.85 *
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.00
4,000 (base cost) $289.85 *
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.00
6,000 (base cost) $289.85 *
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.00
8,000 (base cost) $289.85 *
per s.f. >100,000 s.f. (increment)$0.04 *
12 Duplicate Floor Plan Review - Attached or Detached Accessory
and Utility Uses
Square Footage:
200 (base cost) $289.85 *
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.00
400 (base cost) $289.85 *
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.00
600 (base cost) $289.85 *
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.18 *
1,000 (base cost) $362.31 *
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.00
3,000 (base cost) $362.31 *
per s.f. >100,000 s.f. (increment)$0.12 *
15
Site Improvements - This includes substantial development of
private parking lots which are processed separate of the structure
and include any combination of the following: Underground utilities,
parking lot lighting, accessible path of travel analysis, grading,
drainage and compliance with the City's parking and driveway
standards.
Square Footage:
500 (base cost) $362.31 *
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.00
5,000 (base cost) $362.31 *
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.06 *
10,000 (base cost) $652.16 *
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.01 *
50,000 (base cost) $942.00 *
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.01 *
100,000 (base cost) $1,521.70 *
per s.f. >100,000 s.f. (increment)$0.02 *
FIRE SPRINKLER AND SUPPRESSION SYSTEMS
(Issued by Building and Safety)
16 Fire Sprinkler Systems (New Installation)
1-25 Heads $942.00 *
26-50 Heads $1,304.31 *
51-100 Heads $1,449.24 *
101-200 Heads $1,956.47 *
Attachment A - Exhibit 1
Packet Pg 33
1
Every 200 Heads above 200 $579.70 *
17 Fire Alarm System (New Installation)
1-50 Devices $942.00 *
51-100 Devices $1,594.16 *
Every 50 Devices above 100 $579.70 *
Sprinkler Monitoring System $362.31 *
18 Fire Sprinkler Systems (Tenant Improvement)
1-25 Heads $507.23 *
26-50 Heads $652.16 *
51-100 Heads $1,014.47 *
101-200 Heads $1,304.31 *
Every 200 Heads above 200 $579.70 *
19 Fire Alarm System (Tenant Improvement)
1-50 Devices $942.00 *
51-100 Devices $1,594.16 *
Every 50 Devices above 100 $652.16 *
Sprinkler Monitoring System $362.31 *
20 Other Suppression Systems
Insert Gas Systems $1,014.47 *
Dry Chemical Systems $579.70 *
Wet Chemical/Kitchen Hood
$434.77
*
Foam Systems $1,811.55 *
Paint Spray Booth $652.16 *
OTHER MISCELLANEOUS FEES
37 Alternative Method and Material Review $579.70 *
38 Expedited Plan Review Fee [7]
[Notes]
[1]1/2 hour of inspection per additional permitted use.
[2]A discount of $79.00 will be provided for two or more programs
reviewed simultaneously.
[3]
Fees are waived for units that are built, owned and managed by the
San Luis Obispo Housing Authority, other government agencies or
not-for-profit housing organizations.
[4]
These fees are applicable to all multi-dwelling units in the City based
on the definitions set forth in the 2007 California Building Code
[5]Penalty for excessive false alarms set by City Ordinance - not
required for review in this study
[6]Includes average cost for vehicle staffing. Equipment rates will be
added separately by department
[7]Expedited fees set on a City policy basis at overtime rate for City
staff or outsourced consultant costs as needed
[8]Refer to City's Master Fee Schedule for tier definitions.
Note: A 2.65% Information Technology Surcharge is included in fees
associated with work in the Energov Computer System
Attachment A - Exhibit 1
Packet Pg 34
1
POLICE DEPARTMENT
1 Processing charge for return of property taken for safekeeping
Processing & maintenance fee $11.00
2 Clearance Letters [1]$25.00
3 Civil SDT [2]$15.00
4 Criminal SDT [3]$0.00
5 Civil Subpoena [4]$275.00
6 Concealed Weapons Permit (set by penal code 26190)
Investigative costs and permit processing $100.00
Renewal $25.00
7 Massage Facility Permit $294.08
8 Massage Technician Initial Permit $203.56
9 Massage Technician Permit Renewal $178.92
10 Local Record Information [5]$26.00
11 Impound Vehicle Release (30-day impound)$138.21
12 Vehicle Tow Release Fee $78.47
13 Record sealing fee set by penal code (851.8)Determined by Finance
Director
14 Property Damage-Only Collisions Investigations
per party per non-injury traffic collision investigation report $113.15
15 Administrative Investigations Determined by Finance
Director
17 Administrative Citations [6]
Noise Violation, Urination in Public and/or Open Alcohol Container
First citation for each such violation (except open container)$350.00
First citation (open container)$100.00
Second citation for each such violation $700.00
Third citation for each such violation $1,000.00
Cost Recovery Programs
18 DUI Cost recovery Determined by Finance
Director
19 Nuisance abatement Determined by Finance
Director
20 Alarm Permits (City processing cost, net of contractor
payment)
[8]
Permit $37.73
Renewal $37.73
Excessive alarms [6]
Third $82.00
Fourth $137.00
Fifth $226.00
Sixth $406.00
Seventh & More $619.00
21 Second Response Cost Recovery Determined by Finance
Director
22 Taxi Permit
Recommended
Fee/DepositFee #Fee Description
Percent Change
Attachment A - Exhibit 1
Packet Pg 35
1
Permit fee $223.27
Permit Renewal fee $228.20
23 Electronic Game Center Permit $411.36
24 Public Dance Permit $98.40
25 Tobacco License Fee - per location $693.90
27 Mobile Food Vendor License $154.28
PLANNING SUPPORT
28 Administrative Use Permit (bars/nightclubs)$271.56
[Notes]
[1]Fee set by penal code (13322), Dept did not wish to undergo time or
cost of service analysis
[2]Fee set by CA evidence code 1563, Dept did not wish to undergo
time or cost of service analysis
[3]Access through the Discovery Order process, Dept did not wish to
undergo time or cost of service analysis
[4]Fee set by statute (GC 68097.2). Statute increased fee in 2013-14,
Dept did not wish to undergo time or cost of service analysis
[5]Fee limited b penal code (13322), Dept did not wish to undergo time
or cost of service analysis
Fee #Fee Description Fee/Deposit
2017-18
Fee/Deposit
2018-19
Youth Services
Sun-N-Fun
Registration Fee $60.00 $60.00
School Year - hourly option $4.50 $5.00
Teacher Work Day
Teacher Work Day $50.00 $55.00
Late Reg TWD
Weekly Rate + $10 Weekly Rate + $10
Spring Break Camp
Weekly Option $180.00 $185.00
Late Reg Spring Break Weekly
Weekly Rate + $10 Weekly Rate + $10
Daily Option $50.00 $55.00
Late Reg Spring Break Daily Weekly Rate + $10 Weekly Rate + $10
Summer Camp
Registration Fee $5.00 $5.00
Full week Care Option $175.00 $175.00
Summer School Option TBD*TBD*
Day Rate Option $44.00 $45.00
Field Trip Sign Ups $5.00 - $20.00 $5.00 - $20.00
SLO Teens Annual Fee
School Year Teen Program $15.00 $20.00
Late Registration Fee $10.00 $10.00
Youth Services Special Events $0.00 - $20.00 $0.00 - $20.00
Aquatics
PARKS AND RECREATION
[6] Set by
Municipal Code,
punitive in nature
and excluded
from cost
analysis.
[7] City fee only.
DOJ fee charged
Attachment A - Exhibit 1
Packet Pg 36
1
Lap Swim
Adult per use $3.00 $3.00
Adult Monthly $45.00 $45.00
Youth/Senior per $2.50 $2.50
Youth/Senior monthly $35.00 $35.00
Recreational Swim
Adult per use $3.50 $4.00
Youth/Senior per $3.00 $3.50
Swim Script
Adult per use $27.00 $27.00
Youth/Senior per $22.50 $22.50
Recreational Swim Script
Adult per use $31.50 $37.00
Youth/Senior per $27.00 $31.50
Lessons
Lessons $75.00 $100.00
Private Lessons $145.00 $172.00
Special Classes
Lifeguard $200.00 $200.00
Warm Water Exercise $100.00 $100.00
$50/day + $19.40/LG $50/day +
$20.40/LG
$200.00 $200.00
Recreational Sports
Adult Softball
Teams (15 per team)$500.00 $550.00
Instructional Classes
Instructional Classes
$8.00 - $142.00 $8.00 - $142.00
$4.00 - $393.00 $4.00 - $393.00
Spectial Events
Triathlon
Individual $80.00 $80.00
Team $145.00 $145.00
P&R Events
Parks and Recreation Sponsored Events $0 - $60.00 $0- $60.00
Special Application Fees
Special Event Application
$100 park only/$160
encroachment
$100 park only/$160
encroachment
Banner Permit Application/Installation $200.00 $200.00
Film Application Fee
Still Photography $95.00 $100.00
Commercial $126.00 $131.00
Non-Profit $37.00 $40.00
Destination Marketing $0.00 $0.00
Permit Fee
Permit Processing Fee $15.00 $15.00
Junior Lifeguard Program
Adult/Senior
Youth
Facility Use
Attachment A - Exhibit 1
Packet Pg 37
1
Full Park Use $460.00 $460.00
Half Park Use $230.00 $230.00
Mission Plaza
Full Plaza $560.00 $560.00
Full Plaza (Non-Profit/Communtiy Event)$460.00 $460.00
Indoor Facilities
Ludwick Community Center
Assembly Room (Non-Profit)$28.00 $30.00
Assembly Room (For-Profit)$60.00 $63.00
Gymnasium (Non-Profit)$36.00 $38.00
Gymnasium (For-Profit)$64.00 $67.00
Kitchen (Non-Profit)$12.00 $13.00
Kitchen (For-Profit)$17.00 $18.00
Floor Covers $75.00 $80.00
Full Facility Use (14 Hours)$1,480.50 $1,554.00
Senior Center
Main Room (Non-Profit)$28.00 $30.00
Main Room (For-Profit)$60.00 $63.00
Conference Room (Non-Profit)$15.00 $16.00
Conference Room (For-Profit)$20.00 $21.00
Meadow Park Building
Non-Profit $15.00 $16.00
For-Profit $20.00 $21.00
City/County Library
Community Room (Non-Profit)$28.00 $30.00
Community Room (For-Profit)$60.00 $63.00
Conference Room (Non-Profit)$15.00 $16.00
Conference Room (For-Profit)$20.00 $21.00
Outdoor Facilities
$65.00 $68.00
Wedding and Reception N/A N/A
Full Day WEEKEND (Resident)$2,000.00 $3,000.00
Full Day WEEKEND (non-resident)$2,400.00 $3,400.00
Full Day WEEKDAY (Resident)$1,800.00 $2,800.00
Full Day WEEKDAY (non-resident)$2,000.00 $3,000.00
Party (1-50) Attendance (4 hour)N/A N/A
Under 50 Per Hour $100.00 $100.00
Under 50 Per Hour (Non-Profit)$45.00 $45.00
50-100 Per Hour $200.00 $200.00
50-100 Per Hour (Non-Profit)$90.00 $90.00
100+ Per Hour $300.00 $300.00
100+ Per Hour (Non-Profit)$135.00 $135.00
Security Deposit $500.00 $500.00
Table/Chair Rental Included Included
Softball Fields
Hourly Field Use $24.00 $24.00
Light Fee $22.00 $22.00
BBQ/Picnic Areas
Jack House Gardens
Attachment A - Exhibit 1
Packet Pg 38
1
Multi-Use Courts
Hourly Use $5.50 $6.00
Light Fee $11.00 $11.00
Tennis & Volleyball Courts
Full Use Facility (Day)$8.50 $9.00
Damon-Garcia
Full Use Facility (Day)$444.00 $444.00
Full Use Facility (Hour)$72.00 $72.00
Full Use Light Fee (Hour)$43.00 $43.00
Maintenance Fee $24.00 $24.00
Concession Stand Rental $120.00 $120.00
Lower Fields Facility Use (Day)$295.00 $295.00
Lower Fields Facility Use (Hour)$48.00 $48.00
Lower Fields Light Fee $22.00 $22.00
Single Field Facility Use (Day)$151.00 $151.00
Single Field Facility Use (Hour)$24.00 $24.00
Single Field Light Fee $22.00 $22.00
Baseball Stadium
Hourly Field Use $24.00 $24.00
Lights $22.00 $22.00
Press box Rental $16.00 $16.00
Field prep $41.00 $41.00
Concession Stand Rental $23.00 $23.00
Mission Plaza
Full Plaza $560.00 $560.00
Full Plaza (Non-Profit/Communtiy Event)$460.00 $460.00
Film Application Fee
Still Photography $95.00 $100.00
Commercial $126.00 $131.00
Non-Profit $37.00 $40.00
Destination Marketing $0.00 $0.00
Permit Fee
Permit Processing Fee $15.00 $15.00
Full Park Use $460.00 $460.00
Half Park Use $230.00 $230.00
Other
$32.50 $34.00
$32.00 $34.00
Community Gardens
Community Gardens
$28/yr + $0.03 per sq ft $30/yr + $0.03 per
sq ft
Ranger Service
Junior Ranger Camp
Junior Ranger Camp $131.00 $137.00
Golf Course
Laguna Lake Golf Course
$8.00/person $8.00/person
$3.00/cart $3.00/cart
Cart Rental
Pull Carts
Bounce House
Portable BBQ
Attachment A - Exhibit 1
Packet Pg 39
1
Rounds
Monday-Thursday (Regular)$13.00 $13.00
Monday-Thursday (Snr/Yth/Stu/Mil)$10.00 $10.00
Friday-Sunday (Regular)$14.00 $14.00
Friday-Sunday (Snr/Yth/Stu/Mil)$11.00 $11.00
Replay $7.00 $7.00
Off Peak (M-Th 12-3 PM) (Regular)$11.00 $11.00
Off Peak (M-Th 12-3 PM) (Snr/Yth/Stu/Mil)$10.00 $10.00
Twilight (after 3 PM)$8.50 $8.50
Family Rate $25.00 $25.00
Super Twilight $5.00 $5.00
10-Play Cards (Regular)$115.00 $115.00
10-Play Cards (Snr/Yth/Stu/Mil)$87.50 $87.50
* Dependent Upon School District Offering a Summer School Program and
Needed Childcare Hours (partial day). Hourly Rates Would Apply.
Attachment A - Exhibit 1
Packet Pg 40
1
Fee #Fee Description Fee/Deposit
FEES
1 New Business License Processing Fee
Application $54.41
Zoning Fee
Planning Department Sign Off [4]
Building Department Sign Off [4]
Subtotal Zoning Fee $103.88
2 Annual Business License Renewal Processing Fee
$45.70
3 Home Occupancy Business
Renewal or New Application [7]
$32.64
4 Business License & Tax Certificate Replacement Fee $10.88
5 Change of Location Only [4]
Application $10.88
Zoning Fee
Planning Department Sign Off
Building Department Sign Off
Subtotal Zoning Fee $103.88
6 Special Requests for GIS services [6]$105.51
7 Returned Check Fee [1]
Initial returned check $25.00
Each subsequent returned check $35.00
TAXES [8]
8 Annual Business Minimum Tax Fee
$0.00
or 0.5%, whichever is greater
9 Annual Downtown Assessment -for locations within Downtown
$0.00
or 0.5%, whichever is greater
10 SB1186 State Fee - Disability Access [5]$0.00
[Notes]
[1]Set by Section 1719 of the Civil Code
[4]Businesses within the City of San Luis Obispo
[5]Added to new licenses and renewals - does not increase
[6]New fee item
[7]Consult Planning Fee table for additional Home Occupation Permit
fee
[8]NBS did not evaluate taxes as part of Study
FINANCE DEPARTMENT
Attachment A - Exhibit 1
Packet Pg 41
1
BUDGET REFERENCE MATERIALS
BUDGET AND FISCAL POLICIES
G. Recreation Programs
The following cost recovery policies apply to the City's recreation programs:
1.Cost recovery for activities directed to adults should be relatively high.
2.Cost recovery for activities directed to youth and seniors should be relative ly low. In those
circumstances where services are similar to those provided in the private sector, cost recovery levels
should be higher.
Although ability to pay may not be a concern for all youth and senior participants, these are desired
program activities, and the cost of determining need may be greater than the cost of providing a uniform
service fee structure to all participants. Further, there is a community-wide benefit in encouraging high-
levels of participation in youth and senior recreation act ivities regardless of financial status.
3.Cost recovery goals for recreation activities are set as follows:
High-Range Cost Recovery Activities - (60% to 100%)
a.Adult athletics
b.Banner permit applications
c.Child care services (except Youth STAR)
d.Facility rentals (indoor and outdoor; excludes use of facilities for internal City uses)
e.Triathlon
f.Golf
Mid-Range Cost Recovery Activities - (30% to 60%)
e.Triathlon
f.Golf
g.Summer and Spring Break Camps
g.h. Classes
h.Holiday in the Plaza
i.Major commercial film permit applications
Low-Range Cost Recovery Activities- (0 to 30%)
j.Aquatics
Batting cages
k.Community gardens
l.Junior Ranger camp
m.Minor commercial film permit applications
n.Skate park
o.Parks and Recreation sponsored events Special events (except for Triathlon) and Holiday in the
Plaza)
p.Youth sports
Youth STAR
q.Teen services
r.Senior/boomer services
2-11
Attachment A - Exhibit 2
Packet Pg 42
1
0.026534105
Fee No.Fee Description Current Fee/
Deposit Fee/Deposit IT Surcharge
(2.65%)
Planning Application
Fee/Deposit
(45% planning + 25% Other Depts +
IT Surcharge)
Remaining Planning
Application Fee to be
Collected*
(55% Planning +75% Other
Depts)
Total Fee
Collected (with
IT Surcharge)
PLANNING APPLICATION FEES
Zoning Services
1 Sidewalk Sales Permit $123 $267.59 $7.10 $274.69 $274.69
2 Home Occupation Permit [1]$141 $155.81 $4.13 $159.95 $159.95
Home Occupation Permit (Reduced version)$35 $155.81 $4.13 $159.95 $159.95
3 Administrative Use Permit $879 $3,035.06 $80.53 $1,092.05 $2,023.54 $3,115.59
4 Planning Commission Use Permit $3,348 $6,310.74 $167.45 $2,498.24 $3,979.96 $6,478.19
6 Variance $959 $2,893.88 $76.79 $1,146.51 $1,824.16 $2,970.66
7 Planned Development [2]
Rezoning $9,075 $15,365.53 $407.71 $15,773.24 $15,773.24
Plan Amendment $1,878 $4,266.21 $113.20 $4,379.41 $4,379.41
8 Rezoning [2]
Map Amendment $6,808 $11,507.05 $305.33 $11,812.38 $11,812.38
Text Amendment $9,518 $8,167.96 $216.73 $8,384.69 $8,384.69
9 Secondary Dwelling Units $1,138 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
10 Time Extension 25% of current
filing fee
$0.00 $0.00 25% of current filing fee
11 Non-profit Special Event Fee $64 $205.96 $5.47 $211.43 $211.43
12 Affordable Housing Incentive Request $261 $1,202.76 $31.91 $471.10 $763.57 $1,234.67
13 Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) Plan Review Fee
Reviews Requiring ALUC Hearing $495 $1,731.26 $45.94 $825.01 $952.20 $1,777.20
14 Subdivision Services
Lot Line Adjustment $1,525 $2,943.80 $78.11 $3,021.91 $3,021.91
Tentative Subdivision Map
1-4 Lots $7,119 $6,212.86 $164.85 $6,377.71 $6,377.71
5-10 Lots $10,638 $10,773.09 $285.85 $11,058.95 $11,058.95
11-20 lots $12,753 $14,422.37 $382.68 $14,805.05 $14,805.05
21+ lots (deposit of $20,000) $0 $24,144.88 $640.66 $24,785.55 $24,785.55
15 Certificate of Compliance $1,659 $2,253.28 $59.79 $2,313.07 $2,313.07
Other Planning Services
17 Environmental Impact Study for Historic Resources [4]$546 $0.00
18 Environmental Impact Determination [4] $2,633 $5,987.14 $158.86 $6,146.00 $6,146.00
19 Environmental Impact Report [2,
4]
Consultant
Contract plus
30% for
administrative &
review services
(No Change)
Consultant
Contract plus 30%
for administrative
& review services
(No Change)
Consultant
Contract plus 30%
for administrative
& review services
(No Change)
Consultant Contract plus 30%
for administrative & review
services (No Change)
20 Environmental Impact Report Monitoring Program,
Deposit
[2,
4]
$0 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
XX Transportation Impact Study [2]$0 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
21 Architectural Review
Signs $1,497 $4,857.16 $128.88 $2,174.18 $2,811.86 $4,986.04
Conceptual Review $1,463 $5,795.54 $153.78 $2,295.17 $3,654.15 $5,949.32
Development Projects $2,924 $11,915.41 $316.16 $4,680.03 $7,551.55 $12,231.58
Development Projects - Major
(e.g. 25 residential units, or 35,000 s.f., or 60 hotel units)
$0 $15,922.95 $422.50 $6,344.50 $10,000.95 $16,345.46
Minor-Incidental $1,138 $4,101.80 $108.84 $1,688.29 $2,522.34 $4,210.64
with Cultural Heritage Commission Hearing $1,138 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Plan Revision $1,587 $4,651.59 $123.43 $1,978.83 $2,796.19 $4,775.02
Time Extension 25% of current
filing fee
25% of current filing fee 25% of current
filing fee
22 Christmas Tree/Pumpkin Lot Permit $316 $348.37 $9.24 $357.61 $357.61
23 Fence Height Exception $515 $554.63 $14.72 $569.35 $569.35
24 Voluntary Merger $521 $756.07 $20.06 $776.13 $776.13
25 Agreements $412 $828.76 $21.99 $850.75 $850.75
26 Bonds/Guarantees (voluntary)$665 $828.76 $21.99 $850.75 $850.75
27 Change of Address $117 $241.25 $6.40 $247.65 $247.65
28 Street Name Change $5,677 $4,589.53 $121.78 $4,711.30 $4,711.30
29 Street Abandonment $11,065 $12,916.74 $342.73 $13,259.47 $13,259.47
30 Condominium Conversion $9,846 $14,501.59 $384.79 $14,886.38 $14,886.38
31 Appeals [7]
Tier 1: e.g. Appeals to the City Council $281 n/a Applicant Appeal: $1,557
Non-Applicant Appeal:$623
Tier 2: e.g. Minor/Incidental Arch Review, Administrative Use
Permit, Variance, Subdivisions <5 lots
$281 n/a Applicant Appeal: $865
Non-Applicant Appeal:$346
Tier 3: e.g. Fence Height Exception, Administrative Approval
Application
$281 n/a Applicant Appeal: $303
Non-Applicant Appeal:$303
Tier 4: e.g. Home Occupation permit, Non-Profit Special
Event
$281 n/a Applicant Appeal: $130
Non-Applicant Appeal:$130
(Breakdown Fee Schedule) Attachment B
Packet Pg 43
1
Fee No.Fee Description Current Fee/
Deposit Fee/Deposit IT Surcharge
(2.65%)
Planning Application
Fee/Deposit
(45% planning + 25% Other Depts +
IT Surcharge)
Remaining Planning
Application Fee to be
Collected*
(55% Planning +75% Other
Depts)
Total Fee
Collected (with
IT Surcharge)
32 Mills Act Participation Application $3,984 $1,385.00 $36.75 $1,421.75 $1,421.75
33 Administrative Approval Applications $314 $814.67 $21.62 $836.28 $836.28
34 Land Use Documentation Request $187 $414.38 $11.00 $425.37 $425.37
36 General Plan Amendment [2]
Map (includes rezoning), Deposit $16,576 $16,275.11 $431.85 $16,706.95 $16,706.95
Text $17,325 $15,804.41 $419.36 $16,223.77 $16,223.77
37 Specific Plan Amendment, Deposit [2] $15,170 $15,603.66 $414.03 $16,017.69 $16,017.69
38 Annexation, Deposit [2] $22,094 $22,399.82 $594.36 $22,994.18 $22,994.18
39 Sidewalk Cafes
Sidewalk Café User Permit $314 $798.47 $21.19 $819.66 $819.66
Sidewalk Café Use Fee per square foot per month [3]$1 $1.00 $1.00
40 Pre-Application $563 $873.77 $23.18 $896.96 $896.96
With site visit $1,125 $1,098.89 $29.16 $1,128.05 $1,128.05
41 Blue Card Inspection [6]$279 $259.69 $6.89 $266.58 $266.58
42 Development Agreement Application Fee [2] Time & Materials $14,622.53 $388.00 $15,010.52 $15,010.52
43 Reimbursement Agreement [2] Time & Materials $14,622.53 $388.00 $15,010.52 $15,010.52
BULIDING PLAN REVIEW SUPPORT
Residential
Minor $0 $173.13 $4.59 $177.72 $177.72
Moderate $0 $346.25 $9.19 $355.44 $355.44
Major [2]$0 $2,770.02 $73.50 $2,843.52 $2,843.52
Commercial
Minor $0 $259.69 $6.89 $266.58 $266.58
Moderate $0 $432.82 $11.48 $444.30 $444.30
Major [2]$0 $2,770.02 $73.50 $2,843.52 $2,843.52
[Notes]
[1]A location change for a Home Occupation Permit is 25% of
the regular fee.
*The remaining planning fee is
to be paid within 6 months of
final decision on the
entitlement
[2]Fees will be set on a Deposit basis and debited by the
amount of staff time and other materials required to provide
services or Consultant Fee plus 30% Admin Fee .
[3]Sidewalk rental charge not included in fee analysis.
Placeholder for Master Fee Schedule
[4]Separate Fish and Game fees may apply, as set by the State
of California
[5]Modifications to applications are charged at 25% of the
original fee amount, per Department policy
[6]See Final Inspection Approval/Bluecard Signoff (item 16)
[7]Refer to City's Master Fee Schedule for tier definitions.
(Breakdown Fee Schedule) Attachment B
Packet Pg 44
1
0.026534105
Fee #Fee Description Current Fee/
Deposit Fee/Deposit IT Surcharge
(2.65%)
Recommended
Fee/Deposit (with IT
Surcharge)
ENGINEERING SUBMITTAL FEES
1 Improvement Plan Check
Plan check fees are based on Estimated Construction Cost (ECC)
$10,000 flat fee up to $10,000 $2,215 $1,518.75 $40.30 $1,559.04
each add'l $10,000 $180 $1,115.47 $29.60 $1,145.07
$100,001 base fee @ $100,001 $4,015 $11,558.02 $306.68 $11,864.70
each add'l $10,000 $180 $114.97 $3.05 $118.02
$500,001 base fee @ $500,001 $11,200 $16,156.66 $428.70 $16,585.36
each add'l $10,000 $180 $139.55 $3.70 $143.25
$1,000,001 base fee @ $1,000,001 $20,200 $23,134.11 $613.84 $23,747.95
each add'l $10,000 $180 $60.94 $1.62 $62.56
$3,000,001 base fee @ $3,000,001 $56,200 $35,696.14 $947.17 $36,643.31
each add'l $10,000 $180 $118.98 $3.16 $122.14
2 Construction Inspection
Inspection fees are based on Estimated Construction Cost (ECC)
$10,000 flat fee up to $10,000 $4,205 $539.61 $539.61
each add'l $10,000 $1,290 $914.34 $914.34
$100,001 base fee @ $100,001 $17,105 $8,768.74 $8,768.74
each add'l $10,000 $1,290 $640.79 $640.79
$500,001 base fee @ $500,001 $68,705 $34,400.45 $34,400.45
each add'l $10,000 $1,290 $283.30 $283.30
$1,000,001 base fee @ $1,000,001 $133,205 $48,565.34 $48,565.34
each add'l $10,000 $1,290 $269.81 $269.81
$3,000,001 base fee @ $3,000,001 $391,205 $102,526.82 $102,526.82
each add'l $10,000 $1,290 $342.00 $342.00
3 Final Maps
Parcel Map - Residential Zone (4 lots or Less)$8,135 $6,278.27 $166.59 $6,444.86
Parcel Map - Commercial Zone (4 lots or less)$8,135 $9,003.33 $238.90 $9,242.23
Plus per lot or common interest unit $102 $47.55 $1.26 $48.82
Tract Map (base fee)$12,226 $13,883.19 $368.38 $14,251.57
Plus per lot or common interest unit $102 $149.74 $3.97 $153.72
4 Certificate of Compliance or Final Lot Line Adjustment Agreement
Lot Line Adjustments $2,876 $2,725.06 $72.31 $2,797.37
Certificates of Compliance $2,876 $681.27 $18.08 $699.34
Additional Document Review/Certificates of Correction $0 $272.51 $7.23 $279.74
5 Encroachment Permits
Curb and Gutter (base fee)$594 $657.05 $17.43 $674.49
plus per linear foot $5 $9.47 $0.25 $9.72
Sidewalk (base fee)$592 $589.60 $15.64 $605.24
plus per linear foot $5 $5.42 $0.14 $5.57
Driveway Approach/Curb Ramp (base fee)$594 $859.41 $22.80 $882.21
plus per linear foot $5 $9.47 $0.25 $9.72
Trenched or Bored Excavation (base fee)
Water Service/Recycled Service(base fee)$592 $677.22 $17.97 $695.19
plus per linear foot $2 $18.91 $0.50 $19.42
Sewer (base fee)$592 $542.31 $14.39 $556.70
plus per linear foot (Bore)$2 $5.42 $0.14 $5.57
plus per linear foot (Trench)$2 $9.47 $0.25 $9.72
Fire Lateral/Hydrant/Water and Recycled Main Extension (base fee)$592 $1,486.64 $39.45 $1,526.09
plus per linear foot $2 $22.96 $0.61 $23.57
Other (base fee)$592 $609.77 $16.18 $625.95
plus per linear foot (Bore)$2 $5.42 $0.14 $5.57
plus per linear foot (Trench)$2 $9.47 $0.25 $9.72
Monitoring Well $981 $203.03 $5.39 $208.42
Other Minor Encroachment Permits not Listed $113 $203.03 $5.39 $208.42
(Breakdown Fee Schedule) Attachment B
Packet Pg 45
1
Time Extension for Encroachment Permit $113 $136.25 $3.62 $139.87
Unpermitted Encroachments $113 $679.92 $18.04 $697.96
Encroachment Permit - Plan Review fee (if required)$0 $272.51 $7.23 $279.74
Annual Encroachment Permit for Utility Companies $8,541 $18,523.78 $491.51 $19,015.29
6 Transportation Permit
Single Trip Permit $84 $136.25 $3.62 $139.87
Annual Permit $84 $136.25 $3.62 $139.87
Maximum fee amount established by Department of Transportation and is not subject to CPI increases
7 Fiber Infrastructure Protection Fee (per Call)$145 $261.23 $6.93 $268.16
8 Traffic Control Plan Review
Minor $28 $179.00 $4.75 $183.75
Moderate $290.00 $7.69 $297.69
Major [2]$113 $512.00 $13.59 $525.59
9 Traffic Control Plan Inspection
Minor - first day $0 $67.50 $1.79 $69.29
each additional day $0 $67.50 $1.79 $69.29
Moderate - first day $0 $135.00 $3.58 $138.58
each additional day $0 $67.50 $1.79 $69.29
Major - first day $0 $270.00 $7.16 $277.16
each additional day $0 $67.50 $1.79 $69.29
10 4th and subsequent plan review (per submittal)
Public Improvement Plans $0 $1,427.31 $37.87 $1,465.19
Building Plans $0 $339.96 $9.02 $348.98
Maps / Additional Documents $0 $390.61 $10.36 $400.98
11 Design Exception $0 $272.51 $7.23 $279.74
BUILDING SUPPORT
1
Site Improvements - This includes substantial development of
private parking lots which are processed separate of the structure
and include any combination of the following: Underground utilities,
parking lot lighting, accessible path of travel analysis, grading,
drainage and compliance with the City's parking and driveway
standards.
Square Footage of Site Disturbance:
Non-Single Family Residential
0-2499 -$ $272.51 $7.23 $279.74
2500-4999 -$ $408.76 $10.85 $419.61
5000-14999 -$ $681.27 $18.08 $699.34
15000-21999 -$ $1,090.02 $28.92 $1,118.95
22000-43559 -$ $1,362.53 $36.15 $1,398.68
43560+-$ $1,635.04 $43.38 $1,678.42
Single Family Residential
0-2500 -$ $272.51 $7.23 $279.74
2501+-$ $817.52 $21.69 $839.21
2 Final Inspection Approval / Bluecard Signoff
Square Footage of Site Disturbance:
Non-Single Family Residential
0-2499 -$ $136.25 $3.62 $139.87
2500-4999 -$ $136.25 $3.62 $139.87
5000-14999 -$ $136.25 $3.62 $139.87
15000-21999 -$ $272.51 $7.23 $279.74
22000-43559 -$ $408.76 $10.85 $419.61
43560+-$ $545.01 $14.46 $559.47
Single Family Residential
0-2500 -$ $136.25 $3.62 $139.87
2501+-$ $272.51 $7.23 $279.74
3 Flood Zone Analysis
Minor - Verificatoin only -$ $136.25 $3.62 $139.87
Major - New/Substantial Remodel Analysis/Documentation
-$ $545.01 $14.46 $559.47
4 Post Construction Requirements / Stormwater / Inspection
Impervious Square Footage:
Non-Single Family Residential
0-2499 -$ $136.25 $3.62 $139.87
2500-4999 -$ $272.51 $7.23 $279.74
5000-14999 -$ $545.01 $14.46 $559.47
(Breakdown Fee Schedule) Attachment B
Packet Pg 46
1
15000-21999 -$ $545.01 $14.46 $559.47
22000-43559 -$ $817.52 $21.69 $839.21
43560+-$ $1,090.02 $28.92 $1,118.95
Single Family Residential
0-2500 -$ $136.25 $3.62 $139.87
2501+-$ $545.01 $14.46 $559.47
5 Drainage Report/Flood Study - Breadth of Study
Minor -$ $272.51 $7.23 $279.74
Major -$ $681.27 $18.08 $699.34
[Notes]
[1]A location change for a Home Occupation Permit is 25% of the
regular fee.
[2]Fees will be set on a Deposit basis and debited by the amount of
staff time and other materials required to provide services or
Consultant Fee plus 30% Admin Fee .
[3]Sidewalk rental charge not included in fee analysis. Placeholder
for Master Fee Schedule
PUBLIC WORKS SUBMITTAL FEES
TREE MAINTENANCE
2 Tree/Shrub Hazardous Abatement $271 Actual Cost Actual Cost
3 Commemorative Tree Planting [2] $460 $283.72 $283.72
4 Tree Removal Permit $91 $153.68 $153.68
BUILDING PLAN REVIEW $0.00
1
Site Improvements - This includes substantial development of
private parking lots which are processed separate of the structure
and include any combination of the following: Underground utilities,
parking lot lighting, accessible path of travel analysis, grading,
drainage and compliance with the City's parking and driveway
standards.
Square Footage of Site Disturbance:
Non-Single Family Residential
0-2499 $0 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
2500-4999 $0 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
5000-14999 $0 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
15000-21999 $0 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
22000-43559 $0 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
43560+$0 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Single Family Residential
0-2500 $0 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
2501+$0 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
2 Final Inspection Approval / Bluecard Signoff
Square Footage of Site Disturbance:
Non-Single Family Residential
0-2499 $0 $229.48 $6.09 $235.57
2500-4999 $0 $229.48 $6.09 $235.57
5000-14999 $0 $229.48 $6.09 $235.57
15000-21999 $0 $364.38 $9.67 $374.05
22000-43559 $0 $499.28 $13.25 $512.53
43560+$0 $634.19 $16.83 $651.02
Single Family Residential
0-2500 $0 $229.48 $6.09 $235.57
2501+$0 $229.48 $6.09 $235.57
3 Flood Zone Analysis
Minor - Verificatoin only $0 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Major - New/Substantial Remodel Analysis/Documentation $0 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
4 Post Construction Requirements / Stormwater / Inspection
Impervious Square Footage:
Non-Single Family Residential
Fee/Deposit IT Surcharge
(2.65%)
Recommended
Fee/Deposit (with IT
Surcharge)Fee #Fee Description Current Fee/
Deposit
[4] Separate Fish and Game fees may apply, as set by the State of California
[5] Modifications to applications are charged at 25% of the original fee amount, per
Department policy
[6] See Final Inspection Approval/Bluecard Signoff (item 16)
[7] Refer to City's Master Fee Schedule for tier definitions.
(Breakdown Fee Schedule) Attachment B
Packet Pg 47
1
0-2499 $0 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
2500-4999 $0 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
5000-14999 $0 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
15000-21999 $0 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
22000-43559 $0 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
43560+$0 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Single Family Residential
0-2500 $0 $94.57 $2.51 $97.08
2501+$0 $94.57 $2.51 $97.08
5 Drainage Report/Flood Study - Breadth of Study
Minor $0 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Major $0 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
6 Review of Mitigation Measures, Conditions, and TIFs $0 $222.48 $5.90 $228.38
[Notes]
[1] Amounts are set by 2010 Ordinance, NBS did not review
[2] Cost of tree and plaque are separate fees in addition to this fee, at $50 and $20 respectively
[3] Refer to City's Master Fee Schedule for tier definitions.
(Breakdown Fee Schedule) Attachment B
Packet Pg 48
1
UTILITIES SERVICES FEE SCHEDULE [1]
[2]
1 Meter Services [3]
Install Water Meter (3/4" - 1")[4]$85 $124.98 $3.32 $128.29
Install Water Meter (1.5" - 2")[4]$171 $249.95 $6.63 $256.59
Install Water Meter (larger than 2")[4] Time & Materials n/a Time & Materials
Remove Water Meter (5/8" - 1")$85 $124.98 $124.98
Remove Water Meter (1.5" - 2")$171 $249.95 $249.95
Remove Water Meter (larger than 2")Time & Materials n/a Time & Materials
Retirement of Service $509 $749.86 $749.86
Retirement of Service (larger than 2")Time & Materials $749.86 $749.86
Account Set-up $61 $83.32 $83.32
Account Set-up Same Day $184 n/a
Account Set-up After Hours/Weekends
Minimum 2 hours service fee $263 $291.20 $291.20
Each Additional Hour [7]$0 $145.75 $145.75
Property Management (first 25 set-ups)$1,048 $1,126.49 $1,126.49
Each Additional 25 set-ups $0 $1,126.49 $1,126.49
Disconnect Service for Non-Payment $100 $110.40 $110.40
2 Lateral Installation $384 $499.91 $13.26 $513.17
3 Lateral Abandonment $353 $499.91 $13.26 $513.17
BUILDING PLAN REVIEW / INSPECTION SUPPORT
1 Per Plan Review Submittal
New Meter, trash enclosures, landscape plans $0 $499.91 $13.26 $513.17
RH20 $0 $499.91 $13.26 $513.17
C&D Recycling $0 $62.49 $1.66 $64.15
[Notes]
[1] Water And Sewer Service Rates Are Adopted By Council
[2] 1 Unit = 748 Gallons
[3] Fees for hardware Charged at Actual Cost
[4] Plus Meter Cost
[5] Set by City Ordinance. NBS did not evaluate
[6] Fees will be set on a Deposit basis and debited by the amount of
staff time and other materials required to provide services
[7] Calculated at OT rate for each additonal hour of service required
ft lb i h b d2h[8] Refer to City's Master Fee Schedule for tier definitions.
Fee/Deposit IT Surcharge
(2.65%)
Recommended
Fee/Deposit (with IT
Surcharge)Fee #Fee Description Current Fee/
Deposit
(Breakdown Fee Schedule) Attachment B
Packet Pg 49
1
FIRE DEPARTMENT
HAZARDOUS OCCUPANCY PERMITS [1]
1 Aircraft Refueling Vehicles $343 $141.18 $3.75 $144.92
2 Aircraft Repair Hangar $343 $282.36 $7.49 $289.85
3 Automobile Wrecking Yard $343 $352.94 $9.37 $362.31
4 Bonfire or Rubbish Fires $343 $141.18 $3.75 $144.92
5 Burning in Public Place $343 $141.18 $3.75 $144.92
6 Candles or Open-Flames in Assembly Areas $343 $141.18 $3.75 $144.92
7 Combustible Fiber Storage (handle/store over 100 cu ft)$343 $352.94 $9.37 $362.31
8 Compressed Gases $343 $141.18 $3.75 $144.92
9 Cryogens $343 $282.36 $7.49 $289.85
10 Dry Cleaning Plant $343 $282.36 $7.49 $289.85
11 Dust Producing Operation $343 $282.36 $7.49 $289.85
12 Explosives or Blasting Agents $343 $564.71 $14.98 $579.70
13 Fireworks $343 $564.71 $14.98 $579.70
14 Flammable or Combustible Liquids (Unless in the CUPA Program)$343 $282.36 $7.49 $289.85
15 Fruit Ripening - Ethylene Gas Fogging $343 $282.36 $7.49 $289.85
16 Garages - Repair $343 $282.36 $7.49 $289.85
17 Hazardous Chemicals (Unless in the CUPA Program):$343 $352.94 $9.37 $362.31
18 High-Piled Combustible Stock - exceeding 2500 sq ft $343 $352.94 $9.37 $362.31
19 Junk Yards $343 $352.94 $9.37 $362.31
20 Liquefied Petroleum Gas $343 $211.77 $5.62 $217.39
21 Lumberyard - Storage in excess of 100,000 board feet $343 $352.94 $9.37 $362.31
22 Magnesium Working - Process more than 10 lbs daily $343 $282.36 $7.49 $289.85
23 Mall (covered)$343 $352.94 $9.37 $362.31
24 Organic Coatings - manufacture over 1 gallon a day $343 $352.94 $9.37 $362.31
25 Ovens - Industrial, Baking and Drying $343 $141.18 $3.75 $144.92
26 Places of Assembly $343 $282.36 $7.49 $289.85
27 Refrigeration Equipment - Mechanical refrigeration (see UFC for
most common refrigerants)
$343 $423.53 $11.24 $434.77
28 Spraying or Dipping $343 $282.36 $7.49 $289.85
29 Tents and Air-supported Structures - excess of 200 sq ft $343 $282.36 $7.49 $289.85
30 Tire Re-capping $343 $282.36 $7.49 $289.85
31 Waste Material Plant $343 $352.94 $9.37 $362.31
32 Welding and Cutting Operations - Any Occupancy $343 $211.77 $5.62 $217.39
33 Additional Permitted Use (per permit)[1]$343 $70.59 $1.87 $72.46
NON-MANDATED / REQUIRED INSPECTIONS
34 Commercial Business Inspections (Up to 3 stories)
0 – 5,000 sq. ft. $0 $0.00
5,001 – 40,000 sq. ft.$0 $0.00
40,001 – 120,000 sq. ft.$0 $0.00
120,001 – 150,000 sq. ft.$0 $0.00
150,001 – or more sq. ft.$0 $0.00
35 Mid Rise Inspections (4 -6 stories)$0 $0.00
36 New Business Inspection [9]$0 $0.00
FIRE FALSE ALARM FEES
37 Initial Permit and Renewal Registrations - see Police
38 False fire alarms shall be considered excessive when they meet or
exceed the following number:
Two false alarms in any thirty-day period no charge no charge
Three false alarms in any three-hundred-sixty day period no charge no charge
39 False alarms exceeding these numbers $548 $548.00
CERTIFIED UNIFIED PARTICIPATING AGENCY FEES [3]
40 Hazardous Materials Handlers
Remote utility (1-time fee) $370 $542.31 $542.31
1 - 4 Materials handled $213 $312.20 $312.20
5 - 10 Materials handled $243 $356.17 $356.17
Fee/Deposit IT Surcharge
(2.65%)
Recommended
Fee/Deposit (with IT
Surcharge)Fee #Fee Description Current Fee/
Deposit
(Breakdown Fee Schedule) Attachment B
Packet Pg 50
1
11+ Materials handled $291 $426.52 $426.52
41 Waste Generators
1 Waste stream (professional or medical)$143 $209.60 $209.60
1 - 5 Waste streams (all others)$213 $312.20 $312.20
6+ Waste streams $287 $420.66 $420.66
Waste Stream (DeMinimus)$69 $101.13 $101.13
42 Tiered Permitting
CE $452 $662.50 $662.50
CA $712 $1,043.59 $1,043.59
PBR $1,682 $2,465.33 $2,465.33
43 Underground Storage Tanks (general model)
First tank $1,229 $1,801.36 $1,801.36
Each additional tank
Tank installation $4,011 $5,878.99 $5,878.99
Tank removal $3,105 $4,551.05 $4,551.05
Minor Modification $1,164 $1,706.09 $1,706.09
Major Modification $3,622 $5,308.82 $5,308.82
44 Above Ground Storage Tanks
One Tank $135 $197.87 $197.87
Two Tanks $270 $395.74 $395.74
Three Tanks $323 $473.43 $473.43
45 CALARP
New Stationary Source Facility $1,772 $2,597.25 $2,597.25
Existing Annual Facility Inspection $276 $404.54 $404.54
46 Site Remediation Oversight $138 $202.27 $202.27
Soil Remediation $138 $202.27 $202.27
Temporary Closure Permit $1,153 $1,689.97 $1,689.97
47 Closures
Temporary Closure $1,229 $1,801.36 $1,801.36
Closure in Place $1,553 $2,276.26 $2,276.26
48 Late Fee [4]
Annual permit fees received 31-60 days after original invoice day 25% Penalty n/a 25% Penalty
Annual permit fees received 61 + days after original invoice day an additional 25%
penalty
n/a an additional 25% penalty
FIRE EQUIPMENT AND PERSONNEL STAND-BY FEES
49 Fire Engine/Ladder Truck [5] $419 $0.00 $419.00
50 Squad or Light Rescue Equipment [5] $261 $0.00 $261.00
51 Third & Subsequent Fire Inspection Fee $127 $168.56 $168.56
52 Additional Site Inspection Fee (one hour min.) Determined by
Finance Director
$0.00 Determined by Finance
Director
53 Fire Investigation/Fire Preventions Determined by
Finance Director
$0.00 Determined by Finance
Director
54 Firefighter Standby Determined by
Finance Director
$0.00 Determined by Finance
Director
55 Administrative/Clerical Determined by
Finance Director
$0.00 Determined by Finance
Director
6] [7]
56 Administrative Fee [8]
Processing per facility $65 $84.28 $2.24 $86.51
Each Additional Owner $0 $10.00 $0.27 $10.27
57 Apartment Houses
Fees are waived for units that are built, owned and managed by the
San Luis Obispo Housing Authority, other government agencies or
not-for-profit housing organizations
Up to 10 units $140 $337.11 $8.95 $346.06
11 - 20 Units $420 $505.67 $13.42 $519.09
21 - 50 Units $980 $674.23 $17.89 $692.12
51 - 100 Units $2,100 $842.79 $22.36 $865.15
101 - 200 Units $4,200 $1,348.46 $35.78 $1,384.24
Every additional 100 Units over 200 $2,800 $337.11 $8.95 $346.06
58 Hotels, Motels, Lodging Houses, Bed & Breakfast Facilities,
Youth Hostel Facilities, Senior Facilities, Sororities, Fraternities
and Other Congregate Residences
Hotel, Motel, Bed & Breakfast
MULTI-DWELLING FIRE AND LIFE SAFETY INSPECTION FEE
SCHEDULE
(Breakdown Fee Schedule) Attachment B
Packet Pg 51
1
1 - 20 Units $200 $337.11 $8.95 $346.06
21 - 50 Units $200 $505.67 $13.42 $519.09
51 - 100 Units $300 $842.79 $22.36 $865.15
101 - 200 Units $400 $1,348.46 $35.78 $1,384.24
Sorority and Fraternity $400 $674.23 $17.89 $692.12
Condominiums
Up to 10 Units $200 $337.11 $8.95 $346.06
11 - 20 Units $200 $505.67 $13.42 $519.09
21 - 50 Units $300 $674.23 $17.89 $692.12
51 - 500 Units $400 $1,011.34 $26.84 $1,038.18
OTHER FIRE FEES
59 Hydrant Flow Test (First Hydrant)$356 $168.56 $4.47 $173.03
60 Hydrant Flow Test (Each Additional Hydrant)$138 $84.28 $2.24 $86.51
61 Reinspection Fee (construction)$149 $168.56 $4.47 $173.03
62 Board of Appeals $138 $168.56 $4.47 $173.03
63 Emergency Call-Out (Non-Scheduled)$553 $657.06 $17.43 $674.49
64 After Hours Call-Out (Scheduled)$138 $164.27 $4.36 $168.62
[Notes]
[1] For Locations with multiple required permits, fee is calculated at
highest permit fee, plus 1/2 hour of inspection per additional
permitted use.
[2] Penalty for excessive false alarms set by City Ordinance - not
required for review in this study
[3] A discount of $79.00 will be provided for two or more programs
reviewed simultaneously.
[4] Fees are punitive in nature and do not require a cost of service
analysis.
[5] Placeholder for Master Fee Schedule, NBS did not study
[6] Fees are waived for units that are built, owned and managed by the
San Luis Obispo Housing Authority, other government agencies or
not-for-profit housing organizations
[7] These fees are applicable to all multi-dwelling units in the City based
on the definitions set forth in the 2007 California Building Code
[8] Administrative fee applies to both Apt Houses and Hotels, Motels,
etc. Total processing fee calculated will be divided equally amongst
all owners.
Fire - Development Services
NEW CONSTRUCTION, ADDITIONS, AND MAJOR REMODELS
1
Commercial Uses - Structural (All newly constructed, added, or
structurally remodeled space for non-residential occupancies
classified as CBC Group A, B, E, F, H, I, M, or other commercial
occupancies not specifically addressed elsewhere in this Fee
Schedule)
Square Footage:
500 (base cost) $682 $917.66 $24.35 $942.00
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.45 $0.27 $0.01 $0.27
5,000 (base cost) $2,726 $2,117.67 $56.19 $2,173.86
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.26 $0.25 $0.01 $0.26
10,000 (base cost) $4,016 $3,388.27 $89.90 $3,478.17
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.05 $0.07 $0.00 $0.07
50,000 (base cost) $6,061 $6,141.23 $162.95 $6,304.19
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.04 $0.05 $0.00 $0.05
100,000 (base cost) $8,032 $8,753.02 $232.25 $8,985.28
per s.f. >100,000 s.f. (increment)$0.08 $0.09 $0.00 $0.09
2
Commercial Residential and Multifamily Residential Uses - (All
newly constructed, added, or structurally remodeled space for
residential occupancies classified as CBC Group R (except R-3), or
other residential occupancies not specifically addressed elsewhere
in this Fee Schedule)
Square Footage:
500 (base cost) $871 $917.66 $24.35 $942.00
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.58 $0.27 $0.01 $0.27
5,000 (base cost) $3,485 $2,117.67 $56.19 $2,173.86Fee #Fee Description Current Fee/
Deposit
Recommended
Fee/Deposit (with IT
Surcharge)
IT Surcharge
(2.65%)Fee/Deposit
(Breakdown Fee Schedule) Attachment B
Packet Pg 52
1
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.36 $0.25 $0.01 $0.26
10,000 (base cost) $5,269 $3,388.27 $89.90 $3,478.17
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.07 $0.07 $0.00 $0.07
50,000 (base cost)
$7,883 $6,141.23 $162.95 $6,304.19
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.05 $0.05 $0.00 $0.05
100,000 (base cost) $10,537 $8,753.02 $232.25 $8,985.28
per s.f. >100,000 s.f. (increment)$0.11 $0.09 $0.00 $0.09
3 Duplicate Floor Plan Review - Commercial Residential and
Multifamily Residential Uses
Square Footage:
500 (base cost) $548 $352.94 $9.37 $362.31
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.12 $0.08 $0.00 $0.08
5,000 (base cost) $1,097 $705.89 $18.73 $724.62
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.04 $0.11 $0.00 $0.12
10,000 (base cost) $1,316 $1,270.60 $33.71 $1,304.31
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.01 $0.03 $0.00 $0.03
50,000 (base cost)
$1,645 $2,470.61 $65.56 $2,536.17
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.01 $0.04 $0.00 $0.04
100,000 (base cost) $2,193 $4,235.33 $112.38 $4,347.71
per s.f. >100,000 s.f. (increment)$0.02 $0.04 $0.00 $0.04
4
Low and Moderate Hazard Storage - (All newly constructed,
added, or structurally remodeled space for storage occupancies
classified as CBC Group S, or other storage occupancies not
specifically addressed elsewhere in this Fee Schedule)
Square Footage:
500 (base cost) $408 $776.48 $20.60 $797.08
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.52 $0.24 $0.01 $0.24
5,000 (base cost) $2,726 $1,835.31 $48.70 $1,884.01
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.26 $0.08 $0.00 $0.09
10,000 (base cost) $4,016 $2,258.84 $59.94 $2,318.78
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.05 $0.03 $0.00 $0.03
50,000 (base cost)
$6,061 $3,317.68 $88.03 $3,405.71
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.04 $0.03 $0.00 $0.03
100,000 (base cost) $8,032 $4,800.04 $127.36 $4,927.41
per s.f. >100,000 s.f. (increment)$0.08 $0.05 $0.00 $0.05
5
Attached Accessory and Utility Uses - (All newly constructed,
added, or structurally remodeled space for utility and accessory
occupancies classified as CBC Group U, or other utility and
accessory occupancies not specifically addressed elsewhere in
this Fee Schedule)
Square Footage:
200 (base cost) $333 $352.94 $9.37 $362.31
per s.f between tiers (increment) 0.34$ $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
400 (base cost) $401 $352.94 $9.37 $362.31
per s.f between tiers (increment) 0.84$ $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
600 (base cost) $568 $352.94 $9.37 $362.31
per s.f between tiers (increment) 0.24$ $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
(Breakdown Fee Schedule) Attachment B
Packet Pg 53
1
1,000 (base cost)
$663 $352.94 $9.37 $362.31
per s.f between tiers (increment) 0.19$ $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
3,000 (base cost) $1,044 $352.94 $9.37 $362.31
per s.f. >100,000 s.f. (increment) 0.35$ $0.12 $0.00 $0.12
6
Detached Accessory and Utility Uses - (All newly constructed,
added, or structurally remodeled space for utility and accessory
occupancies classified as CBC Group U, or other utility and
accessory occupancies not specifically addressed elsewhere in
this Fee Schedule)
Square Footage:
200 (base cost) $314 $352.94 $9.37 $362.31
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.31 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
400 (base cost) $376 $352.94 $9.37 $362.31
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.80 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
600 (base cost) $536 $352.94 $9.37 $362.31
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.22 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
1,000 (base cost) $625 $352.94 $9.37 $362.31
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.18 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
3,000 (base cost) $981 $352.94 $9.37 $362.31
per s.f. >100,000 s.f. (increment)$0.33 $0.12 $0.00 $0.12
7
Shell Buildings for all Commercial Uses - (The enclosure for all
newly constructed, added, or structurally remodeled space for non-
residential occupancies classified as CBC Group A, B, E, F, H, I, M,
or other commercial occupancies not specifically addressed
elsewhere in this Fee Schedule where the interior is not completed
or occupiable)
Square Footage:
500 (base cost) $421 $917.66 $24.35 $942.00
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.27 $0.27 $0.01 $0.27
5,000 (base cost) $1,636 $2,117.67 $56.19 $2,173.86
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.15 $0.11 $0.00 $0.12
10,000 (base cost) $2,410 $2,682.38 $71.17 $2,753.55
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.03 $0.03 $0.00 $0.03
50,000 (base cost) $3,636 $3,882.39 $103.02 $3,985.40
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.02 $0.02 $0.00 $0.02
100,000 (base cost) $4,819 $4,800.04 $127.36 $4,927.41
per s.f. >100,000 s.f. (increment)$0.05 $0.05 $0.00 $0.05
8
Commercial Tenant Improvement - Non Structural - (Non-
structurally remodeled space for non-residential occupancies
classified as CBC Group A, B, E, F, H, I, M, or other commercial
occupancies not specifically addressed elsewhere in this Fee
Schedule where the structure is not altered)
Square Footage:
500 (base cost) $333 $494.12 $13.11 $507.23
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.23 $0.30 $0.01 $0.31
5,000 (base cost) $1,363 $1,835.31 $48.70 $1,884.01
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.13 $0.20 $0.01 $0.20
10,000 (base cost) $2,008 $2,823.56 $74.92 $2,898.48
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.03 $0.03 $0.00 $0.03
50,000 (base cost) $3,030 $4,164.74 $110.51 $4,275.25
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.02 $0.05 $0.00 $0.05
100,000 (base cost) $4,016 $6,776.53 $179.81 $6,956.34
per s.f. >100,000 s.f. (increment)$0.04 $0.07 $0.00 $0.07
9
Commercial Residential and Multifamily Residential Remodels -
Non Structural - (Non-Structurally remodeled space for residential
occupancies classified as CBC Group R (except R-3), or other
residential occupancies not specifically addressed elsewhere in this
Fee Schedule)
Square Footage:
500 (base cost) $342 $494.12 $13.11 $507.23
(Breakdown Fee Schedule) Attachment B
Packet Pg 54
1
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.23 $0.30 $0.01 $0.31
5,000 (base cost) $1,370 $1,835.31 $48.70 $1,884.01
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.13 $0.20 $0.01 $0.20
10,000 (base cost) $2,004 $2,823.56 $74.92 $2,898.48
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.03 $0.03 $0.00 $0.03
50,000 (base cost) $3,031 $4,164.74 $110.51 $4,275.25
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.02 $0.05 $0.00 $0.05
100,000 (base cost) $4,008 $6,776.53 $179.81 $6,956.34
per s.f. >100,000 s.f. (increment)$0.04 $0.07 $0.00 $0.07
10
Single Family Dwellings and Duplexes - (All newly constructed
space for residential occupancies classified as CBC Group R-3,
including custom builds and model homes for tract master plans, or
other similar residential occupancies not specifically addressed
elsewhere in this Fee Schedule)
Square Footage:
1,000 (base cost) $906 $352.94 $9.37 $362.31
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.60 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
2,500 (base cost) $1,812 $352.94 $9.37 $362.31
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.21 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
4,000 (base cost) $2,130 $352.94 $9.37 $362.31
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.41 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
6,000 (base cost) $2,949 $352.94 $9.37 $362.31
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.57 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
8,000 (base cost) $4,086 $352.94 $9.37 $362.31
per s.f. >100,000 s.f. (increment)$0.51 $0.04 $0.00 $0.05
11 Duplicate Floor Plan Review - Single Family Dwellings and
Duplexes
Square Footage:
1,000 (base cost) $601 $282.36 $7.49 $289.85
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.40 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
2,500 (base cost) $1,203 $282.36 $7.49 $289.85
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.17 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
4,000 (base cost) $1,460 $282.36 $7.49 $289.85
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.36 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
6,000 (base cost) $2,187 $282.36 $7.49 $289.85
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.49 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
8,000 (base cost) $3,171 $282.36 $7.49 $289.85
per s.f. >100,000 s.f. (increment)$0.40 $0.04 $0.00 $0.04
12 Duplicate Floor Plan Review - Attached or Detached Accessory
and Utility Uses
Square Footage:
200 (base cost) $246 $282.36 $7.49 $289.85
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.16 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
400 (base cost) $278 $282.36 $7.49 $289.85
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.66 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
600 (base cost) $409 $282.36 $7.49 $289.85
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.19 $0.18 $0.00 $0.18
1,000 (base cost) $486 $352.94 $9.37 $362.31
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.15 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
3,000 (base cost) $791 $352.94 $9.37 $362.31
per s.f. >100,000 s.f. (increment)$0.26 $0.12 $0.00 $0.12
15
Site Improvements - This includes substantial development of
private parking lots which are processed separate of the structure
and include any combination of the following: Underground utilities,
parking lot lighting, accessible path of travel analysis, grading,
drainage and compliance with the City's parking and driveway
standards.
Square Footage:
500 (base cost) $228 $352.94 $9.37 $362.31
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.15 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
5,000 (base cost) $912 $352.94 $9.37 $362.31
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.09 $0.06 $0.00 $0.06
10,000 (base cost) $1,341 $635.30 $16.86 $652.16
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.02 $0.01 $0.00 $0.01
50,000 (base cost) $2,026 $917.66 $24.35 $942.00
(Breakdown Fee Schedule) Attachment B
Packet Pg 55
1
per s.f between tiers (increment)$0.01 $0.01 $0.00 $0.01
100,000 (base cost) $2,683 $1,482.37 $39.33 $1,521.70
per s.f. >100,000 s.f. (increment)$0.03 $0.01 $0.00 $0.02
FIRE SPRINKLER AND SUPPRESSION SYSTEMS
(Issued by Building and Safety)
16 Fire Sprinkler Systems (New Installation)
1-25 Heads $576 $917.66 $24.35 $942.00
26-50 Heads $506 $1,270.60 $33.71 $1,304.31
51-100 Heads $576 $1,411.78 $37.46 $1,449.24
101-200 Heads $715 $1,905.90 $50.57 $1,956.47
Every 200 Heads above 200 $138 $564.71 $14.98 $579.70
17 Fire Alarm System (New Installation)
1-50 Devices $300 $917.66 $24.35 $942.00
51-100 Devices $369 $1,552.96 $41.21 $1,594.16
Every 50 Devices above 100 $162 $564.71 $14.98 $579.70
Sprinkler Monitoring System $231 $352.94 $9.37 $362.31
18 Fire Sprinkler Systems (Tenant Improvement)
1-25 Heads $576 $494.12 $13.11 $507.23
26-50 Heads $506 $635.30 $16.86 $652.16
51-100 Heads $576 $988.24 $26.22 $1,014.47
101-200 Heads $715 $1,270.60 $33.71 $1,304.31
Every 200 Heads above 200 $138 $564.71 $14.98 $579.70
19 Fire Alarm System (Tenant Improvement)
1-50 Devices $300 $917.66 $24.35 $942.00
51-100 Devices $369 $1,552.96 $41.21 $1,594.16
Every 50 Devices above 100 $162 $635.30 $16.86 $652.16
Sprinkler Monitoring System $231 $352.94 $9.37 $362.31
20 Other Suppression Systems
Insert Gas Systems $369 $988.24 $26.22 $1,014.47
Dry Chemical Systems $231 $564.71 $14.98 $579.70
Wet Chemical/Kitchen Hood
$300 $423.53 $11.24 $434.77
Foam Systems $369 $1,764.72 $46.83 $1,811.55
Paint Spray Booth $300 $635.30 $16.86 $652.16
OTHER MISCELLANEOUS FEES
37 Alternative Method and Material Review $0 $564.71 $14.98 $579.70
38 Expedited Plan Review Fee [7]
[Notes]
[1]1/2 hour of inspection per additional permitted use.
[2]A discount of $79.00 will be provided for two or more programs
reviewed simultaneously.
[3]
Fees are waived for units that are built, owned and managed by the
San Luis Obispo Housing Authority, other government agencies or
not-for-profit housing organizations
[4]
These fees are applicable to all multi-dwelling units in the City based
on the definitions set forth in the 2007 California Building Code
[5]Penalty for excessive false alarms set by City Ordinance - not
required for review in this study
[6]Includes average cost for vehicle staffing. Equipment rates will be
added separately by department
[7]Expedited fees set on a City policy basis at overtime rate for City
staff or outsourced consultant costs as needed
[8]Refer to City's Master Fee Schedule for tier definitions.
(Breakdown Fee Schedule) Attachment B
Packet Pg 56
1
POLICE DEPARTMENT
1 Processing charge for return of property taken for safekeeping
Processing & maintenance fee $11 $11.00
2 Clearance Letters [1] $25 $25.00
3 Civil SDT [2] $15 $15.00
4 Criminal SDT [3] $0 $0.00
5 Civil Subpoena [4] $275 $275.00
6 Concealed Weapons Permit (set by penal code 26190)
Investigative costs and permit processing $100 $100.00
Renewal $25 $25.00
7 Massage Facility Permit $402 $294.08
8 Massage Technician Initial Permit $126 $203.56
9 Massage Technician Permit Renewal $115 $178.92
10 Local Record Information [5] $26 $26.00
11 Impound Vehicle Release (30-day impound)$137 $138.21
12 Vehicle Tow Release Fee $79 $78.47
13 Record sealing fee set by penal code (851.8) Determined by
Finance Director
Determined by
Finance Director
14 Property Damage-Only Collisions Investigations
per party per non-injury traffic collision investigation report $61 $113.15
15 Administrative Investigations Determined by
Finance Director
Determined by
Finance Director
16 Solicitor Permits
Initial Investigations $187 $139.80
Follow-up required Determined by
Finance Director
$0.00
17 Administrative Citations [6]
Noise Violation, Urination in Public and/or Open Alcohol Container
First citation for each such violation (except open container) $350 $350.00
First citation (open container)$100 $100.00
Second citation for each such violation $700 $700.00
Third citation for each such violation $1,000 $1,000.00
Cost Recovery Programs
18 DUI Cost recovery Determined by
Finance Director
Determined by
Finance Director
19 Nuisance abatement Determined by
Finance Director
Determined by
Finance Director
20 Alarm Permits (City processing cost, net of contractor payment)[8]
Permit $37 $37.73
Renewal $37 $37.73
Excessive alarms [6]
Third $82 $82.00
Fourth $137 $137.00
Fifth $226 $226.00
Sixth $406 $406.00
Seventh & More $619 $619.00
21 Second Response Cost Recovery Determined by
Finance Director
Determined by
Finance Director
22 Taxi Permit
Permit fee $119 $223.27
Permit Renewal fee $93 $228.20
23 Electronic Game Center Permit $385 $411.36
24 Public Dance Permit $89 $98.40
25 Tobacco License Fee - per location $540 $693.90
26 Livescan [7]$0.00
City Processed $0 $0.00
Volunteer Processed $0 $8.18Fee #Fee Description Current Fee/
Deposit
Recommended
Fee/Deposit
(Breakdown Fee Schedule) Attachment B
Packet Pg 57
1
27 Mobile Food Vendor License $187 $154.28
PLANNING SUPPORT
28 Administrative Use Permit (bars/nightclubs)$271.56
[Notes]
[1]Fee set by penal code (13322), Dept did not wish to undergo time or
cost of service analysis
[2]Fee set by CA evidence code 1563, Dept did not wish to undergo
time or cost of service analysis
[3]Access through the Discovery Order process, Dept did not wish to
undergo time or cost of service analysis
[4]Fee set by statute (GC 68097.2). Statute increased fee in 2013-14,
Dept did not wish to undergo time or cost of service analysis
[5]Fee limited b penal code (13322), Dept did not wish to undergo time
or cost of service analysis
Fee #Fee Description Current Fee/
Deposit
Fee/Deposit
2017-18
Fee/Deposit
2018-19
Youth Services
Sun-N-Fun
Registration Fee $60 $60.00 $60.00
School Year - hourly option $4 $4.50 $5.00
Teacher Work Day
Teacher Work Day $40 $50.00 $55.00
Late Reg TWD
$50 Weekly Rate + $10 Weekly Rate + $10
Spring Break Camp
Weekly Option $175 $180.00 $185.00
Late Reg Spring Break Weekly
$185 Weekly Rate + $10 Weekly Rate + $10
Daily Option $41 $50.00 $55.00
Late Reg Spring Break Daily
$43 Weekly Rate + $10 Weekly Rate + $10
Summer Camp
Registration Fee $5.00/week $5.00 $5.00
Full week Care Option $160 $175.00 $175.00
Summer School Option $115 TBD*TBD*
Day Rate Option $40 $44.00 $45.00
Field Trip Sign Ups $5 - $20 $5.00 - $20.00 $5.00 - $20.00
SLO Teens Annual Fee
School Year Teen Program $10 $15.00 $20.00
Late Registration Fee $10 $10.00 $10.00
Youth Services Special Events $0 - $20 $0.00 - $20.00 $0.00 - $20.00
Aquatics
Lap Swim
Adult per use $3 $3.00 $3.00
Adult Monthly $45 $45.00 $45.00
Youth/Senior per $2.50 $2.50 $2.50
Youth/Senior monthly $35 $35.00 $35.00
Recreational Swim
Adult per use $3 $3.50 $4.00
Youth/Senior per $2.50 $3.00 $3.50
Swim Script
Adult per use $27 $27.00 $27.00
Youth/Senior per $22.50 $22.50 $22.50
Recreational Swim Script
Adult per use $27 $31.50 $37.00
PARKS AND RECREATION
[6] Set by Municipal Code, punitive in nature and excluded from cost analysis.
[7] City fee only. DOJ fee charged separately.
[8] City's current fee is $36. Amount reduced to evaluate City cost of providing
services. Per contract agreement, additional 15% should be added to City fee
as a pass through to the contractor.
[*] Unless set by Statue or Penal Codes, fees are increased annually by CPI
(done by Finance dept.)
(Breakdown Fee Schedule) Attachment B
Packet Pg 58
1
Youth/Senior per $22.50 $27.00 $31.50
Lessons
Lessons $53 $75.00 $100.00
Private Lessons $108 $145.00 $172.00
Special Classes
Lifeguard $200 $200.00 $200.00
Warm Water Exercise $75 $100.00 $100.00
$30/day +
$16.40/LG
$50/day +
$19.40/LG
$50/day +
$20.40/LG
$200 $200.00 $200.00
Recreational Sports
Adult Softball
Teams (15 per team)
$465 $500.00 $550.00
Instructional Classes
Instructional Classes
$8 - $142 $8.00 - $142.00 $8.00 - $142.00
$4 - $393 $4.00 - $393.00 $4.00 - $393.00
Spectial Events
Triathlon
Individual $75 $80.00 $80.00
Team $135 $145.00 $145.00
P&R Events
Parks and Recreation Sponsored Events $15 $0 - $60.00 $0- $60.00
Special Application Fees
Special Event Application
$70 $100 park
only/$160
encroachment
$100 park
only/$160
encroachment
Banner Permit Application/Installation $181 $200.00 $200.00
Film Application Fee
Still Photography $90 $95.00 $100.00
Commercial $120 $126.00 $131.00
Non-Profit $35 $37.00 $40.00
Destination Marketing $0 $0.00 $0.00
Permit Fee
Permit Processing Fee $10 $15.00 $15.00
Full Park Use $460 $460.00 $460.00
Half Park Use $230 $230.00 $230.00
Mission Plaza
Full Plaza $460 $560.00 $560.00
Full Plaza (Non-Profit/Communtiy Event)$460 $460.00 $460.00
Indoor Facilities
Ludwick Community Center
Assembly Room (Non-Profit)$26 $28.00 $30.00
Assembly Room (For-Profit)$57 $60.00 $63.00
Gymnasium (Non-Profit)$34 $36.00 $38.00
Gymnasium (For-Profit)$61 $64.00 $67.00
Kitchen (Non-Profit)$11 $12.00 $13.00
Kitchen (For-Profit)$16 $17.00 $18.00
Floor Covers $70 $75.00 $80.00
Full Facility Use (14 Hours)$1400 $1,480.50 $1,554.00
Senior Center
Main Room (Non-Profit)$26 $28.00 $30.00
Main Room (For-Profit)$57 $60.00 $63.00
Conference Room (Non-Profit)$14 $15.00 $16.00
Conference Room (For-Profit)$19 $20.00 $21.00
Meadow Park Building
Non-Profit $14 $15.00 $16.00
For-Profit $19 $20.00 $21.00
City/County Library
Community Room (Non-Profit)$26 $28.00 $30.00
Junior Lifeguard Program
Adult/Senior
Youth
Facility Use
(Breakdown Fee Schedule) Attachment B
Packet Pg 59
1
Community Room (For-Profit)$57 $60.00 $63.00
Conference Room (Non-Profit)$14 $15.00 $16.00
Conference Room (For-Profit)$19 $20.00 $21.00
Outdoor Facilities
$62 $65.00 $68.00
Wedding and Reception $757 N/A N/A
Full Day WEEKEND (Resident)NA $2,000.00 $3,000.00
Full Day WEEKEND (non-resident)N/A $2,400.00 $3,400.00
Full Day WEEKDAY (Resident)N/A $1,800.00 $2,800.00
Full Day WEEKDAY (non-resident)N/A $2,000.00 $3,000.00
Party (1-50) Attendance (4 hour)$186 N/A N/A
Under 50 Per Hour N/A $100.00 $100.00
Under 50 Per Hour (Non-Profit)N/A $45.00 $45.00
50-100 Per Hour N/A $200.00 $200.00
50-100 Per Hour (Non-Profit)N/A $90.00 $90.00
100+ Per Hour N/A $300.00 $300.00
100+ Per Hour (Non-Profit)N/A $135.00 $135.00
Security Deposit N/A $500.00 $500.00
Table/Chair Rental $180 Included Included
Softball Fields
Hourly Field Use $24 $24.00 $24.00
Light Fee $22 $22.00 $22.00
Multi-Use Courts
Hourly Use
$5 $5.50 $6.00
Light Fee N/A $11.00 $11.00
Tennis & Volleyball Courts
Full Use Facility (Day)$8 $8.50 $9.00
Damon-Garcia
Full Use Facility (Day)$444 $444.00 $444.00
Full Use Facility (Hour)$72 $72.00 $72.00
Full Use Light Fee (Hour)$43 $43.00 $43.00
Maintenance Fee $24 $24.00 $24.00
Concession Stand Rental $120 $120.00 $120.00
Lower Fields Facility Use (Day)$295 $295.00 $295.00
Lower Fields Facility Use (Hour)$48 $48.00 $48.00
Lower Fields Light Fee $22 $22.00 $22.00
Single Field Facility Use (Day)$151 $151.00 $151.00
Single Field Facility Use (Hour)$24 $24.00 $24.00
Single Field Light Fee $22 $22.00 $22.00
Baseball Stadium
Hourly Field Use $24 $24.00 $24.00
Lights $22 $22.00 $22.00
Press box Rental $16 $16.00 $16.00
Field prep $41 $41.00 $41.00
Concession Stand Rental $23 $23.00 $23.00
Mission Plaza
Full Plaza $460 $560.00 $560.00
Full Plaza (Non-Profit/Communtiy Event)$460 $460.00 $460.00
Film Application Fee
Still Photography $90 $95.00 $100.00
Commercial $120 $126.00 $131.00
Non-Profit $35 $37.00 $40.00
Destination Marketing $0 $0.00 $0.00
Permit Fee
Permit Processing Fee $10 $15.00 $15.00
Full Park Use $460 $460.00 $460.00
Half Park Use $230 $230.00 $230.00
Other
$31 $32.50 $34.00Bounce House
BBQ/Picnic Areas
Jack House Gardens
(Breakdown Fee Schedule) Attachment B
Packet Pg 60
1
$31 $32.00 $34.00
Community Gardens
Community Gardens
$25/yr + $0.03 per
sq ft
$28/yr + $0.03 per
sq ft
$30/yr + $0.03 per
sq ft
Ranger Service
Junior Ranger Camp
Junior Ranger Camp $125 $131.00 $137.00
Golf Course
Laguna Lake Golf Course
$7.00/person $8.00/person $8.00/person
$3.00/cart $3.00/cart $3.00/cart
Rounds
Monday-Thursday (Regular)$11 $13.00 $13.00
Monday-Thursday (Snr/Yth/Stu/Mil)$9 $10.00 $10.00
Friday-Sunday (Regular)$12 $14.00 $14.00
Friday-Sunday (Snr/Yth/Stu/Mil)$10 $11.00 $11.00
Replay $6.75 $7.00 $7.00
Off Peak (M-Th 12-3 PM) (Regular)$10 $11.00 $11.00
Off Peak (M-Th 12-3 PM) (Snr/Yth/Stu/Mil)$9 $10.00 $10.00
Twilight (after 3 PM)$8.25 $8.50 $8.50
Family Rate $20 $25.00 $25.00
Super Twilight $5 $5.00 $5.00
10-Play Cards (Regular)$97.50 $115.00 $115.00
10-Play Cards (Snr/Yth/Stu/Mil)$82.50 $87.50 $87.50
* Dependent Upon School District Offering a Summer School Program and Needed Childcare Hours (partial day). Hourly Rates Would
Apply.
Cart Rental
Pull Carts
Portable BBQ
(Breakdown Fee Schedule) Attachment B
Packet Pg 61
1
Fee #Fee Description Current Fee/
Deposit
Recommended
Fee/Deposit
FEES
1 New Business License Processing Fee
Application $47.00 $54.41
Zoning Fee
Planning Department Sign Off [4]
Building Department Sign Off [4]
Subtotal Zoning Fee $97.00 $103.88
2 Annual Business License Renewal Processing Fee
$47.00 $45.70
3 Home Occupancy Business
Renewal or New Application [7]
$47.00 $32.64
4 Business License & Tax Certificate Replacement Fee $43.00 $10.88
5 Change of Location Only [4]
Application $47.00 $10.88
Zoning Fee
Planning Department Sign Off
Building Department Sign Off
Subtotal Zoning Fee $97.00 $103.88
6 Special Requests for GIS services [6]$0.00 $105.51
7 Returned Check Fee [1]
Initial returned check $25.00 $25.00
Each subsequent returned check $35.00 $35.00
TAXES [8]
8 Annual Business Minimum Tax Fee
$25.00 $0.00
or 0.5%, whichever is greater
9 Annual Downtown Assessment -for locations within Downtown
$150.00 $0.00
or 0.5%, whichever is greater
10 SB1186 State Fee - Disability Access [5]$1.00 $0.00
[Notes]
[1]Set by Section 1719 of the Civil Code
[4]Businesses within the City of San Luis Obispo
[5]Added to new licenses and renewals - does not increase
[6]New fee item
[7]Consult Planning Fee table for additional Home Occupation Permit
fee
[8]NBS did not evaluate taxes as part of Study
FINANCE DEPARTMENT
(Breakdown Fee Schedule) Attachment B
Packet Pg 62
1
Meeting Date: 2/21/2017
FROM: Derek Johnson, Assistant City Manager
Prepared By: Marcus Carloni, Special Projects Manager
SUBJECT: STUDY SESSION TO REVIEW A COST OF SERVICE FEE STUDY
PREPARED TO INFORM A PROPOSED UPDATE OF CITYWIDE USER
AND REGULATORY FEES.
RECOMMENDATION
1. Hold a study session and receive a presentation on the draft results of the user and
regulatory fee study prepared by NBS Government Finance Group; and
2. Receive public input and provide guidance to staff regarding recommended fees and any
changes to current policies or practices; and
3. Direct staff to perform outreach to interested parties consistent with the Public
Engagement and Noticing Manual; and
4. Return on April 18, 2017, with a resolution to implement new cost of service fees as
directed by the City Council.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF
The Fiscal Responsibility and Responsibility Goal adopted in the 2015-2017 Financial Plan
include an action to update the City’s user and regulatory fees 1. Additionally, the City’s user fee
recovery goals (Financial Plan Section H) call for the City to review and update service charges
approximately every five years to adjust to changes in the cost -of-living and changes in
methods/levels of service delivery (Attachment A, Cost Recovery Goals). As such, the City
contracted with NBS Government Finance Group to review and update the City’s user and
regulatory fees (commonly known as cost of service fees) which include development review,
inspection and approval fees as well as fees charged for recreational classes, sport programs, and
public safety services. The study does not include review of development impact fees (AB 1600
Fees) which are under review in a separate effort.
The City’s user and regulatory fee recovery goals indicate cost recovery amounts dependent
upon types of projects/programs. Based on the current policy, Development Review related
programs (e.g service fees in planning, building and safety, engineering, fire departments) should
generally have very high cost recovery (100% in most instances) and programs in Parks and
Recreation are divided into tiers (low, mid, high) dependent on the activities and users (see
discussion in “cost recovery goals” below). All fees are recommended to recover up to 100% of
costs, per current cost recovery goals, with the exception of Parks and Recreation fees, fees
established by statute or applicable administrative code, and some of the planning fees associated
with entitlements that are commonly requested by homeowners as well as those with potential
community-wide benefit (see “key changes” below). The draft fee schedule with staff
recommended cost recovery levels is provided in Attachment B.
1 Adjust existing fees per Council policy and in accordance with User Cost Recovery Goals
Attachment C
Packet Pg 63
1
The draft results of the user and regulatory fee study are provided in Attachment C, NBS Fee
Study. The study indicates that, currently, the City is recovering approximately 82% of costs
associated with providing user and regulatory fee related services and that if the City Council
adopts all fees at 100% cost recovery, $912,000 in additional revenue could be recovered for a
total of $5,168,397. Staff is not recommending 100% cost recovery. If the City Council adopts
fee levels at staff’s recommended cost recovery rates, $691,000 in additional revenue could be
recovered for a total of $4,947,470; a 96% cost recovery outcome for services provided. This
total increases to $5,117,470 when including the Parks and Recreation Departments estimated
recovery of $170,000 in costs if the City Council adopts fees at staff recommended fee levels
(see Attachment D, Parks and Recreation Agenda Report). The “cost recovery and recommended
fee changes” section of this report provides further detail about why 96% and not 100% of cost
recovery is recommended. Attachment B includes a draft fee schedule showing existing fees
compared to fees at staff recommended fee levels. At recommended levels, approximately 205
fees are shown to increase (147 increasing by less than 50%), 64 fees are shown to decrease, and
47 fees are shown to remain the same.
This report includes questions to facilitate City Council discussion and direction regarding the
recommended fees and changes to current policies or practices (fee recovery percentage and
timing of collection of Planning application fees are two examples). The direction provided by
the City Council and ultimate adoption of a revise d fee schedule will inform budget development
for the 2017-19 Financial Plan.
DISCUSSION
Background
The City’s user fee recovery goals (2015-17 Financial Plan Section H), call for the City to
review and update service charges on an ongoing basis to ensure that they keep pace with
changes in the cost-of-living and changes in methods or levels of service delivery2. State law
generally provides that fees for services cannot exceed the reasonable actual costs for providing
services. In implementing this provision, the City has adopted the goal of comprehensively
analyzing service costs at least every five years, with interim adjustments annually based on
changes in the consumer price index. Building Department cost of service fees were last updated
in 2011 and will be updated as part of a separate study in the future. The last comprehensive cost
of services study was performed in 2006 and implemented in 2008.
In September 2016, the City contracted with NBS Government Finance Group and initiated the
process to review and update the City’s user and regulatory fees (Planning, Development Review
Engineering, Public Works, Fire, Police, Utilities, Parks & Recreation, and General
administrative services like business license processing).
User and Regulatory Fee Study - Overview
The focus of the study is on fees charged for service (User and Regulatory fees) and does not
include review of development impact fees (AB 1600 Fees) which are also under review in a
separate effort. User fees are charges collected for a service provided or required due to the
request or voluntary action of an individual/entity, while regulatory fees are imposed to recover
2 Implementation of a specific Other Important Objective of the 2015/17 Financial Plan which indicates to complete
a comprehensive analysis of city costs and fees every five years.
Attachment C
Packet Pg 64
1
costs associated with a local government agency’s power to govern certain activities. Examples
of common types of regulatory fees charged include: development review; inspection, and
approval (planning, engineering, fire, and building). User fees are recreational classes and
community sports programs; and public safety services, such as fingerprinting or a California
Fire Code or hazardous materials permit. User and regulatory fees may not exceed the estimated
and reasonable costs incurred to provide the service for which the fee is charged with the
exceptions as provided in the attached NBS report.
Project Scope
The following is a summarized list of fees for each City department or program studied:
1. General administrative services, including:
a. Business License processing and renewal
b. Returned check processing
c. Special requests for GIS services.
2. Community Development services, including:
a. Planning & Zoning - entitlement and permit approvals,
b. Engineering plan review and encroachment permit processing
c. Support to Building plan review
3. Public Works Department services, including
a. Tree maintenance and removal
b. Support to Planning entitlement review
c. Support to Engineering plan review and encroachment permit processing
d. Construction field inspection for improvements projects
4. Utilities services, including:
a. Meter installation and removal, account set up and disconnect
b. Lateral installation and abandonment
c. Support to Planning entitlement review
d. Support to Engineering plan review and construction inspection
e. Support to Building plan review
5. Fire Prevention services, including:
a. Hazardous occupancy permits
b. Non-mandated and required inspections
c. Certified Unified Participating Agency fees (CUPA)
d. Multi-dwelling fire and life safety inspection
e. Support to Planning entitlement review
f. Support to Engineering plan review
g. Support to Building plan review and field inspection
h. Fire sprinkler and suppression systems
6. Police services, including:
a. Various administrative processing fees such as vehicle impound and
release, alarm permits, taxi permits, etc.
b. Support to Planning Entitlement Review
7. Recreational facilities, services, classes, programs and permits
Attachment C
Packet Pg 65
1
Cost Recovery Goals (Attachment A, Cost Recovery Goals)
The City’s user fee cost recovery goals (2015-17 Financial Plan Section H) provide cost recovery
levels for Parks & Recreation Activities as well as Development Review Programs. Adopted
Council cost recovery goals for recreation activities (Subsection G) indicate that cost recovery
for activities directed to adults should be relatively high, and those directed to youth/seniors
should be relatively low (except that cost recovery should be higher where services are similar to
those provided in the private sector). Cost recovery goals for Parks & Recreation activities are
provided below.
Currently Adopted Parks and Recreation Cost Recovery Goals
Low Range
0 to 30%
Mid-Range
30-60%
High-Range
60-100%
Aquatics
Community Gardens
Junior Ranger Camp
Minor Film Permits
Skate Park
Special Events
Youth Sports
STAR
Teens
Senior/Boomer Services
Contract Classes
Major Film Permits
Adult Sports
Banners
Child Care
Facility Rentals
Triathlon
Golf
Development Review Programs include review from planning, building and safety, engineering,
and fire and the policy indicates cost recovery for development review programs should
generally be very high; 100% cost recovery in most instances.
Additionally, adopted cost recovery policy goals include factors to be considered in setting user
fees and cost recovery levels which include 1) community-wide versus special benefit, 2) service
recipient (e.g. the community) versus service driver (e.g. the applicant), 3) effect of prici ng on
the demand for services, 4) feasibility of collection and recovery (more detail provided in
subsection B of Attachment A, Cost Recovery Goals).
The goals also include circumstances favoring high cost recovery and low cost recovery levels,
and indicates the importance of considering the fees charged by other agencies to aid in assessing
the reasonableness of fees.
Summary of Findings and Recommendations
To determine the maximum estimated/reasonable cost eligible for recovery as a fee, the study
identifies the full cost of service eligible for recovery and those costs are translated into a fee
structure for various programs and services. Determination of the full cost of service uses
expenditure and organizational information with time-tracking data, time estimates, and
workload information. The full cost of service is derived for each service or activity, and
includes labor, services or supplies, and various types of operational overhead costs.
The user and regulatory fee study prepared by NBS is provided in Attachment C. NBS’s study
methodology is discussed in detail in section 1 and department by department discussions are
provided in sections 2 through 9. A draft fee schedule showing existing fees compared to fees at
staff recommended fee levels is provided in attachment B. At recommended levels,
Attachment C
Packet Pg 66
1
approximately 205 fees are shown to increase (147 increasing by less than 50%), 64 fees are
shown to decrease, and 47 fees are shown to remain the same. The following is a summary table
from the report of results for each service area studied:
Department / Division
Estimated
Annual
Current Fee
Revenue
Estimated
Annual Full
Cost Recovery
Fee Revenue
Current
Cost
Recovery
%1
Estimated
Annual
Recommended
Fee Revenue
Recommended
Cost Recovery
%
Finance $ 442,998 $ 440,289 101% $ 439,240 100%
Development Review (Planning) $ 1,243,660 $ 1,234,476 101% $ 1,170,708 95%
Development Review (Engineering) $ 585,979 $ 957,380 61% $ 942,263 98%
Public Works $ 747,631 $ 655,905 114% $ 654,365 100%
Utilities $ 316,722 $ 773,277 41% $ 769,215 99%
Fire Prevention $ 828,777 $ 971,760 85% $ 861,641 89%
Police $ 90,825 $ 135,311 67% $ 110,037 81%
Total $ 4,256,592 $ 5,168,397 82% $ 4,947,470 96%
1. Recovery at greater than 100% generally indicates a change in time spent on a project in previous years vs. time spent on the
same type of project currently; less time spent on a given task reduces the cost of providing that service. Example: process
improvements or computer system enhancements make certain tasks faster.
Note: The Parks & Recreation Departments’ fee review estimates $1,810,000 in annual
revenues at recommended fee levels. An additional $170,000 is costs could be recovered,
bringing the total estimated revenues at recommended fee to $5,117,470.
As shown, the City is recovering approximately 82% of costs associated with providing user and
regulatory fee related services. Should the Council elect to adopt fee levels at 100% of the full
cost recovery amounts determined by this study, an additional $912,000 in costs could be
recovered for a total of $5,168,397.
As discussed above, the City has cost recovery goals, which guide decisions about the ultimate
fee amounts adopted. All fees are recommended to recover at 100% per cost recovery goals with
the exception of Parks and Recreation, fees established by statute or applicable administrative
code, and some of the Planning fees as discussed in the next section. As such, staff has provided
initial recommended fee amounts for consideration. If Council elects to adopt fee levels at staff’s
initial recommendations, $691,000 in additional revenue, above current recovery levels, could be
recovered, for a total of $4,947,470; a 96% cost recovery outcome for services provided. The
total increases to $5,117,470 when including the Parks and Recreation Departments estimated
recovery of $170,000 in costs at recommended fee levels.
Attachment C
Packet Pg 67
1
Key Changes
Approximate Number of Fee Increases/Decreases by Range
1. Cost Recovery and Recommended Fee Changes
The proposed fee schedule is provided in Attachment B and shows for each fee the total cost
of service, the current fee, and the staff recommended fee. All fees are recommended to
recover at 100% per cost recovery goals with the exception of Parks and Recreation
(discussed below), fees established by statute or applicable administrative code (mainly the
Police Department), and some of the Planning fees. Staff is recommending less than 100%
cost recovery for planning entitlements commonly requested by homeowners (e.g. fence
height exceptions, administrative approvals) as well as those with potential community-wide
benefit (e.g. historic preservation projects). The rationale is that this fee level will promote
objectives such as historic preservation and general compliance with applicable development
standards.
Cost Recovery for Parks and Recreation
As noted above, Parks & Recreation user fees are guided by adopted policy, actual costs,
and market comparisons. Section 9 of the fee study report discusses NBS’s methodology
for reviewing Parks & Recreation department fees based on Proposition 26. For
Recreation fees, NBS performs a high-level cost analysis to assist in understanding cost
recovery performance and in developing cost recovery policy, rather than an analysis at
+
Each bubble represents the approximate number of proposed fee changes within each
department by range; bubble size corresponds to number of fee changes (i.e. for Planning, 13
fees are proposed to increase within the 0 to 20% range and 14 fees are proposed to increase
within the 75-100%+ range. In Parks and Recreation, 32 fees are proposed to remain the same).
Finance
Planning
Engineering
Utilities
Fire
Police
Parks & Rec
+
Attachment C
Packet Pg 68
1
the individual fee level. As such, Recreation Supervisor, Devin Hyfield, lead an analytic
exercise in developing detailed costs for Parks and Recreation activities based on the
number of users, number of hours of use, and other details to derive specific costs
associated with Parks & Recreation activities.
In reviewing the City’s rates of cost recovery for parks and recreation fees, most were
found to be in or near the adopted policy range (discussed in “cost recovery goals”
above). Overall, the proposed adjustments to these fees are reflective of multiple inputs
including anticipated increased costs associated with California’s upcoming increases to
minimum wage, consistency with existing policy, and market tolerances. The results of
these efforts are discussed in detail in the attached Parks and Recreation Commission
Agenda Report (Attachment D). The Parks and Recreation Department estimates
$1,810,000 in annual revenues at recommended fee levels; recovering an additional
$170,000 in costs.
On February 1, 2017 the Parks & Recreation Commission held a study session on this
topic. The Commission reviewed the costs of services for Parks & Recreation user fees.
The Commission supported, as presented, the proposed adjustments to the Parks &
Recreation user fees and cost recovery policies. Last, the Commission supported staff
returning at a future meeting date with a project plan regarding how to analyze costs
associated with club sports using City facilities for youth activities. A few policy
adjustments were supported by the Commission as well and they are reflected in
bold/orange below.
On February 8, 2017 the Jack House Committee reviewed in a study session the facility
use charges associated with the Jack House. The Committee is recommending a change
to the Jack House Gardens wedding and reception fee to make it comparable with the
Dalidet Adobe (current fee: $757, proposed fee: up to $3,400). The Jack House
Committee’s discussion is summarized in Attachment F.
Cost Recovery for Planning Entitlements and “Split Fee” calculation (also see
“removal of development review surcharge” below)
Implementation of the City’s 100% cost recovery objective for planning entitlements is
currently a two-step process. A 100% cost recovery fee is calculated, with 45% collect ed
at time of planning application submittal and the other 55% expected to be collected at
Attachment C
Packet Pg 69
1
the time of building permit issuance. This “split fee” collection process has been used for
many years and has helped projects defer costs until the building permit stage when there
is a more tangible, financeable project. This methodology is recommended to remain in
place and is illustrated in the below tables.
The “removal of development review surcharge” section below discusses NBS’s
recommendation to remove an Engineering, Fire, and Planning surcharge that is currently
placed on construction permits to recover costs associated with each departments’ time
spent reviewing planning projects and engineering/building permits. These costs are now
recommended to be more directly accounted for/recovered in the specific application fee
in which the cost was incurred (e.g. Engineering’s service cost associated with an
architectural review planning application is added to the total cost of the architectural
review application fee). The proposed collection methodology is to recover 25% of each
departments’ service costs during the planning entitlement phase of the project and to
recover the remaining 75% when the project is submitted for a construction permit; a cost
recovery of 100% of the cost of service as shown below.
Cost Recovery for Fire Department
In 2005 the City Council passed an ordinance that authorized the City to collect fees to
cover the costs of the State mandated inspections of multi-family dwelling units
(apartments, hotels, fraternity/sorority). At that time the Council recommended less than
Architectural Review (Minor)
Planning (100%) $ 2,770
Other Depts. (100%) $ 1,333
Engineering $ 273
Building $ 281
Fire $ 212
Utilities $ 250
Transportation $ 222
Arborist $ 95
Total Cost of Service $ 4,103
Note: The table at left indicates the total cost of
service for a Minor Architectural Review Project:
$4,103.
Planning Entitlement Phase
Planning (45%) $ 1,247
Other Depts. (25%) $ 333
Engineering $ 68
Building $ 70
Fire $ 53
Utilities $ 63
Transportation $ 56
Arborist $ 24
Arch Review (Minor) Fee $ 1,580
Note: The above table indicates the
recommended total planning application fee
for a Minor Architectural Review Project:
1,580 (45% of Planning’s cost of service and
25% of the Other Departments’ cost of
service)
Building Permit Phase
Planning (55%) $ 1,524
Other Depts. (75%) $ 1,000
Engineering $ 205
Building $ 210
Fire $ 159
Utilities $ 188
Transportation $ 167
Arborist $ 71
Collected with Building Permit $ 2,523
Note: The above table indicates the remaining
planning application fee recommended to be
collected when the example project is submitted for a
building permit: $2,523 (remaining 55% of Planning’s
cost of service and 75% of the Other Departments’
cost of service)
Attachment C
Packet Pg 70
1
full cost recovery for hotels/motels, fraternity/sorority, and no fees for public or
subsidized housing units. This resulted in an approximate 75% cost recovery of about
$300,000 in 2006. In 2007, after input from apartment owners, the Council further
reduced the recovery rate, dropping the per unit fee from $50/unit to the current $28/per
unit fee, while letting stand the $65/property administrative fee (see Attachment G,
Resolution No. 9889 (2007 Series)). There were no provisions made for annual cost
increases. The Fire Department currently recovers approximately $194,000 from this
program. Had there been an annual cost adjustment, as there are with other fees, the fee
recovery would be close to what the proposed Fee Study recommends.
As such, the Fire Department recommends that the fee be adjusted consistent with City
policies to provide for full cost recovery. The rationale that hotels, motels, fraternity and
sorority house don’t take as long because, in most instances, they have maintenance staff
on duty has shown over the last 10 years not to be the case. The fees established in this
proposed study is based on the actual time it takes to complete an inspection and assure
that all violations are corrected.
2. Removal of Development Review Surcharge
The current fee schedule includes a surcharge on building permits to recover costs associated
with services provided by certain departments during the planning entitlement and
construction permitting phases of a project (e.g. Engineering reviews and conditions projects
during Planning entitlement review and also reviews plans during the construction permit
phase; the surcharge recovers the costs associated with Engineering’s time spent during these
phases). These surcharges, collected by the Building Department, are added to all
construction permit and plan check fees that require Engineering Division, Planning
Division, and Fire Department review and inspection (surcharges are 15%, 44%, and 21.5%
respectively).
NBS has advised staff that this surcharge methodology does not directly associate costs
collected with a building permit to the same project that received a planning entitlement.
NBS recommended this methodology be replaced by direct cost accounting associated with
all departments that provide support to Planning during the entitlement phase and
Engineering/Building during the permitting phases of the project. Staff provided time
estimates by entitlement and permit type and the consultant calculated fees based on each
divisions hourly rate.
3. Appeal Fees
Appeals of planning entitlements such as architectural review, use permits, and subdivision
applications are set at a flat fee of $281. The cost recovery goals do not specifically address
cost recovery levels associated with appeals except that development appeals are associated
with development review projects which are generally cost recovered at 100% in most
instances. Additionally, it appears the appeal fee was established in 2009 with the previous
user and regulatory fee study. The Council Agenda Report at that time indicated an intention
to establish an appeal fee such that potentially meritorious appeals were not discouraged.
Attachment C
Packet Pg 71
1
Staff worked with NBS to revise the flat fee methodology and create a tiered approach to
better associate an appeal fee with the labor time spent per project. As such, appealable
projects were divided into four tiers by project type and staff labor time estimates were
assigned to each tier, yielding a cost of service per tier as shown below. The Planning
Division recommends a 25% cost recovery rate which is within the range of appeal fees
charged by compared agencies (Davis, Santa Barbara, Santa Maria, Paso Robles, and the
County of San Luis Obispo appeal range from $200 to $850). Staff seeks Council guidance
on this new fee structure for appeals.
Current
Appeal
Fee
TOTAL Cost
of Service
Recommended
Appeal Fee
Recommended
Cost Recovery %
Tier 1 e.g. Tentative Tract Map/Arch Review $ 281 $ 3,114 $ 779 25%
Tier 2 e.g. Variance/Use Permits $ 281 $ 1,730 $ 433 25%
Tier 3 e.g. Fence Height Exception $ 281 $ 1,211 $ 303 25%
Tier 4 e.g. Home Occupation Permit $ 281 $ 519 $ 130 25%
4. Comparative Fee Survey
The City’s user fee cost recovery goals (2015-17 Financial Plan Section H) indicate the need
to consider fees charged by other agencies (subsection I). Subsection I.1 indicates that these
comparisons provide useful background information in setting fees because they reflect the
“market” to assist in assessing reasonableness of fees and can serve as a benchmark for how
cost-effectively San Luis Obispo provides its services. Additionally, subsection I.2 goes on to
note that comparative fee surveys should never be the sole/primary criteria in setting City
fees due to factors such as dissimilar levels of service/performance standards, differing costs
considered in computing fees, and different cost recovery goals.
Appendix B of NBS’s fee study report provides a comparative review of the City’s
recommended fees compared to current fees in five other communities (Davis, Santa
Barbara, Santa Maria, Paso Robles, and the County of San Luis Obispo). Review of the
comparative study indicates that recommended fees are generally within the average of fees
charged for similar services in the other communities, as summarized in the below table.
San Luis Obispo
Davis, Santa Barbara, Santa
Maria, Paso Robles, SLO County
Current Fee Recommended Fee High Range Low Range
Administrative Use Permit $ 879.00 $ 1,012.00 $ 1,936.00 $1035 +$550 per
exception
Tentative Tract Map
(Subdivision) $9,228 +$235/lot 5-10 lots: $10,773
11-20 lots: $14,422 $ 18,405.00 $ 4,242.00
Architectural Review (ARC) $ 2,924.00 $ 4,364.00 $ 9,220.00 $ 3,050.00
Final Map (Tract Map) base
fee $ 12,226.00 $ 13,883.00 Time &
Materials $ 1,372.00
Construction Inspection
($100k - $500k value) base
fee
$ 17,105.00 $ 8,769.00 $ 9,800.00 $ 2,514.00
Attachment C
Packet Pg 72
1
CONCURRENCES
All appropriate City departments have been extensively involved in providing information
including budget information, staffing information, and time estimates to the consultant. All
requisite departments have also performed extensive review of draft fee models provided by the
consultant and have reviewed and commented upon the final report.
PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT
The Parks and Recreation Fees were reviewed at a public Parks and Recreation Commission
hearing on February 1, 2016. As part of public engagement for that meeting public notice posters
were emailed, placed on the City’s website and social media pages, and hard copies were posted
in public locations.
On February 16, 2017, staff will be presenting the fee study to the Developers Round Table to
discuss proposed fee changes and obtain feedback.
As indicated in “next steps” below, staff will perform additional outreach at the end of February
and through March in order to review and discuss the proposed fee changes and obtain additional
feedback from interested parties including but not limited to Residents, Neighborhood Groups,
Chamber of Commerce, Economic Vitality Corporation, Homebuilders Association, and other
interested public parties. Outreach will be in the form of in-person meetings and an Open City
Hall page on the City’s website.
FISCAL IMPACT
There are no direct fiscal impacts associated with this review of the study findings. As discussed
in the summary section above, the City is currently recovering 82% of costs associated with
providing user and regulatory fee related services. If the City Council elects to adopt initial
recommended fee amounts by staff an additional $691,000 in costs could be recovered (96% cost
recovery); totaling $4,947,470 and increasing to $5,117,470 when including the Parks and
Recreation Departments estimated recovery of $170,000 in costs at recommended fee levels. If
the City Council elects to adopt fee levels at 100% of the full cost recovery amounts determined
by the study, $912,000 in costs could be recovered; totaling; $5,168,397.
NEXT STEPS
Upon receiving direction from the City Council, staff will perform additional outreach to
interested parties in order to review and discuss the proposed fee changes and obtain additional
public feedback, consistent with the Public Engagement and Noticing Manual. Outreach will
include in-person meetings as well as an Open City Hall page including a narrated PowerPoint
presentation and opportunity for written feedback.
On March 2, 2017, the Parks and Recreation staff will return to the Parks and Recreation
Commission to review a project plan regarding how to analyze recreational costs associated with
club sports using City facilities for youth.
Attachment C
Packet Pg 73
1
On April 18, 2017 staff will return to the City Council in response to direction provided on
February 21, 2017 with a resolution to adopt an updated fee schedule.
FOCUS QUESTIONS FOR CITY COUNCIL DIRECTION
Staff has provided the following focused questions to facilitate City Council direction to help
guide the City Council in their deliberations:
Questions for City Council direction
Yes No
Are cost recovery levels appropriate? Are recommended fees
reasonable?
1. Are proposed cost recovery policy changes (Parks and Recreation)
supported?
2. Are applications (other than Parks and Recreation) that collect at less
than 100% supported? (e.g. “homeowner fees” or community benefit
fees: administrative approvals, fence height exceptions, non-profit events,
historic preservation projects)
3. Is the Fire Departments recommended 100% cost recovery for multi-
family dwelling unit inspections supported?
Is split fee calculation supported?
1. Continued “split fee” calculation for Planning entitlements (45% collected
with planning entitlement + 55% collected with building permit submittal)
2. Use of modified “split fee” calculation for departments providing support
on Planning entitlements (25% collected with planning entitlement + 75%
collected with building permit submittal)
Is appeal fee methodology supported?
3. Tiered methodology with 25% cost recovery
Attachment C
Packet Pg 74
1
Attachments:
a - City Cost Recovery Goals (2015-17 Financial Plan Section H)
b - Draft Fee Schedule
c - NBS Draft Fee Study (appendices in council reading file)
d - Parks and Recreation Agenda Report – February 1, 2017
e - DRAFT Minutes – Parks and Recreation Hearing – February 1, 2017
f - Jack House Committee Summary Recommendation
g - Resolution No. 9889 (2007 Series)
h - Council Reading File - NBS Fee Study with Appendices
Attachment C
Packet Pg 75
1
%8'*(75()(5(1&(0$7(5,$/6
BUDGET AND FISCAL POLICIES
C.Current Revenues for Current Uses.The City will make all current expenditures with current revenues,
avoiding procedures that balance current budgets by postponing needed expenditures, accruing future
revenues, or rolling over short-term debt.
D.Interfund Transfers and Loans.In order to achieve important public policy goals, the City has established
various special revenue, capital project, debt service and enterprise funds to account for revenues whose use
should be restricted to certain activities. Accordingly, each fund exists as a separate financing entity from
other funds, with its own revenue sources, expenditures and fund equity.
Any transfers between funds for operating purposes are clearly set forth in the Financial Plan, and can only
be made by the Director of Finance & Information Technology in accordance with the adopted budget.
These operating transfers, under which financial resources are transferred from one fund to another, are
distinctly different from interfund borrowings, which are usually made for temporary cash flow reasons, and
are not intended to result in a transfer of financial resources by the end of the fiscal year.
In summary, interfund transfers result in a change in fund equity; interfund borrowings do not, as the intent is
to repay the loan in the near term.
From time-to-time, interfund borrowings may be appropriate; however, these are subject to the following
criteria in ensuring that the fiduciary purpose of the fund is met:
1. The Director of Finance & Information Technology is authorized to approve temporary interfund
borrowings for cash flow purposes whenever the cash shortfall is expected to be resolved within 45 days.
The most common use of interfund borrowing under this circumstance is for grant programs like the
Community Development Block Grant, where costs are incurred before drawdowns are initiated and
received. However, receipt of funds typically occurs shortly after the request for funds has been made.
2. Any other interfund borrowings for cash flow or other purposes require case-by-case approval by the
Council.
3. Any transfers between funds where reimbursement is not expected within one fiscal year shall not be
recorded as interfund borrowings; they shall be recorded as interfund operating transfers that affect
equity by moving financial resources from one fund to another.
E.Revenue Enhancement Oversight.The Essential Services Transactions and Use Tax ordinance includes
specific citizen oversight and fiscal accountability provisions. They include creation of a Revenue
Enhancement Oversight Committee, accounting and tracking expenditures, an independent annual financial
audit, integration of the use of funds in the City’s budget and goal setting processes, an annual community
report, and an annual citizen oversight meeting.
USER FEE COST RECOVERY GOALS
A.Ongoing Review.Fees will be reviewed and updated on an ongoing basis to ensure that they keep pace with
changes in the cost-of-living as well as changes in methods or levels of service delivery.
In implementing this goal, a comprehensive analysis of City costs and fees should be made at least every five
years. In the interim, fees will be adjusted by annual changes in the Consumer Price Index. Fees may be
H-6
Attachment C
Packet Pg 76
1
%8'*(75()(5(1&(0$7(5,$/6
BUDGET AND FISCAL POLICIES
adjusted during this interim period based on supplemental analysis whenever there have been significant
changes in the method, level or cost of service delivery.
B.User Fee Cost Recovery Levels.In setting user fees and cost recovery levels, the following factors will be
considered:
1.Community-Wide Versus Special Benefit. The level of user fee cost recovery should consider the
community-wide versus special service nature of the program or activity. The use of general-purpose
revenues is appropriate for community-wide services, while user fees are appropriate for services that are
of special benefit to easily identified individuals or groups.
2.Service Recipient Versus Service Driver. After considering community-wide versus special benefit of
the service, the concept of service recipient versus service driver should also be considered. For
example, it could be argued that the applicant is not the beneficiary of the City's development review
efforts: the community is the primary beneficiary. However, the applicant is the driver of development
review costs, and as such, cost recovery from the applicant is appropriate.
3.Effect of Pricing on the Demand for Services. The level of cost recovery and related pricing of services
can significantly affect the demand and subsequent level of services provided. At full cost recovery, this
has the specific advantage of ensuring that the City is providing services for which there is genuinely a
market that is not overly-stimulated by artificially low prices.
Conversely, high levels of cost recovery will negatively impact the delivery of services to lower income
groups. This negative feature is especially pronounced, and works against public policy, if the services
are specifically targeted to low income groups.
4.Feasibility of Collection and Recovery. Although it may be determined that a high level of cost recovery
may be appropriate for specific services, it may be impractical or too costly to establish a system to
identify and charge the user. Accordingly, the feasibility of assessing and collecting charges should also
be considered in developing user fees, especially if significant program costs are intended to be financed
from that source.
C.Factors Favoring Low Cost Recovery Levels. Low cost recovery levels are appropriate under the
following circumstances:
1. There is no intended relationship between the amount paid and the benefit received. Almost all "social
service" programs fall into this category as it is expected that one group will subsidize another.
2. Collecting fees is not cost-effective or will significantly impact the efficient delivery of the service.
3. There is no intent to limit the use of (or entitlement to) the service. Again, most "social service"
programs fit into this category as well as many public safety (police and fire) emergency response
services. Historically, access to neighborhood and community parks would also fit into this category.
4. The service is non-recurring, generally delivered on a "peak demand" or emergency basis, cannot
reasonably be planned for on an individual basis, and is not readily available from a private sector source.
Many public safety services also fall into this category.
H-7
Attachment C
Packet Pg 77
1
%8'*(75()(5(1&(0$7(5,$/6
BUDGET AND FISCAL POLICIES
5. Collecting fees would discourage compliance with regulatory requirements and adherence is primarily
self-identified, and as such, failure to comply would not be readily detected by the City. Many small-
scale licenses and permits might fall into this category.
D.Factors Favoring High Cost Recovery Levels. The use of service charges as a major source of funding
service levels is especially appropriate under the following circumstances:
1. The service is similar to services provided through the private sector.
2. Other private or public sector alternatives could or do exist for the delivery of the service.
3. For equity or demand management purposes, it is intended that there be a direct relationship between the
amount paid and the level and cost of the service received.
4. The use of the service is specifically discouraged. Police responses to disturbances or false alarms might
fall into this category.
5. The service is regulatory in nature and voluntary compliance is not expected to be the primary method of
detecting failure to meet regulatory requirements. Building permit, plan checks, and subdivision review
fees for large projects would fall into this category.
E.General Concepts Regarding the Use of Service Charges.The following general concepts will be used in
developing and implementing service charges:
1. Revenues should not exceed the reasonable cost of providing the service.
2. Cost recovery goals should be based on the total cost of delivering the service, including direct costs,
departmental administration costs and organization-wide support costs such as accounting, personnel,
information technology, legal services, fleet maintenance and insurance.
3. The method of assessing and collecting fees should be as simple as possible in order to reduce the
administrative cost of collection.
4. Rate structures should be sensitive to the "market" for similar services as well as to smaller, infrequent
users of the service.
5. A unified approach should be used in determining cost recovery levels for various programs based on the
factors discussed above.
F.Low Cost-Recovery Services.Based on the criteria discussed above, the following types of services should
have low cost recovery goals. In selected circumstances, there may be specific activities within the broad
scope of services provided that should have user charges associated with them. However, the primary source
of funding for the operation as a whole should be general-purpose revenues, not user fees.
1. Delivering public safety emergency response services such as police patrol services and fire suppression.
2. Maintaining and developing public facilities that are provided on a uniform, community-wide basis such
as streets, parks and general-purpose buildings.
H-8
Attachment C
Packet Pg 78
1
%8'*(75()(5(1&(0$7(5,$/6
BUDGET AND FISCAL POLICIES
3. Providing social service programs and economic development activities.
G.Recreation Programs.The following cost recovery policies apply to the City's recreation programs:
1. Cost recovery for activities directed to adults should be relatively high.
2. Cost recovery for activities directed to youth and seniors should be relatively low. In those
circumstances where services are similar to those provided in the private sector, cost recovery levels
should be higher.
Although ability to pay may not be a concern for all youth and senior participants, these are desired
program activities, and the cost of determining need may be greater than the cost of providing a uniform
service fee structure to all participants. Further, there is a community-wide benefit in encouraging high-
levels of participation in youth and senior recreation activities regardless of financial status.
3. Cost recovery goals for recreation activities are set as follows:
High-Range Cost Recovery Activities - (60% to 100%)
a. Adult athletics
b. Banner permit applications
c. Child care services (except Youth STAR)
d. Facility rentals (indoor and outdoor; excludes use of facilities for internal City uses)
e. Triathlon
f. Golf
Mid-Range Cost Recovery Activities - (30% to 60%)
g. Classes
h. Holiday in the Plaza
i. Major commercial film permit applications
Low-Range Cost Recovery Activities- (0 to 30%)
j. Aquatics
k. Batting cages
l. Community gardens
m. Junior Ranger camp
n. Minor commercial film permit applications
o. Skate park
p. Special events (except for Triathlon and Holiday in the Plaza)
q. Youth sports
r. Youth STAR
s. Teen services
t. Senior/boomer services
4. For cost recovery activities of less than 100%, there should be a differential in rates between residents
and non-residents. However, the Director of Parks and Recreation is authorized to reduce or eliminate
non-resident fee differentials when it can be demonstrated that:
H-9
Attachment C
Packet Pg 79
1
%8'*(75()(5(1&(0$7(5,$/6
BUDGET AND FISCAL POLICIES
a. The fee is reducing attendance.
b. And there are no appreciable expenditure savings from the reduced attendance.
5. Charges will be assessed for use of rooms, pools, gymnasiums, ball fields, special-use areas, and
recreation equipment for activities not sponsored or co-sponsored by the City. Such charges will
generally conform to the fee guidelines described above. However, the Director of Parks and Recreation
is authorized to charge fees that are closer to full cost recovery for facilities that are heavily used at peak
times and include a majority of non-resident users.
6. A vendor charge of at least 10 percent of gross income will be assessed from individuals or organizations
using City facilities for moneymaking activities.
7. Director of Parks and Recreation is authorized to offer reduced fees such as introductory rates, family
discounts and coupon discounts on a pilot basis (not to exceed 18 months) to promote new recreation
programs or resurrect existing ones.
8. The Parks and Recreation Department will consider waiving fees only when the City Manager
determines in writing that an undue hardship exists.
H.Development Review Programs.The following cost recovery policies apply to the development review
programs:
1. Services provided under this category include:
a. Planning (planned development permits, tentative tract and parcel maps, rezonings, general plan
amendments, variances, use permits).
b. Building and safety (building permits, structural plan checks, inspections).
c. Engineering (public improvement plan checks, inspections, subdivision requirements,
encroachments).
d. Fire plan check.
2. Cost recovery for these services should generally be very high. In most instances, the City's cost
recovery goal should be 100%.
3. However, in charging high cost recovery levels, the City needs to clearly establish and articulate
standards for its performance in reviewing developer applications to ensure that there is “value for cost.”
I.Comparability With Other Communities.In setting user fees, the City will consider fees charged by other
agencies in accordance with the following criteria:
1. Surveying the comparability of the City's fees to other communities provides useful background
information in setting fees for several reasons:
a. They reflect the "market" for these fees and can assist in assessing the reasonableness of San Luis
Obispo’s fees.
H-10
Attachment C
Packet Pg 80
1
%8'*(75()(5(1&(0$7(5,$/6
BUDGET AND FISCAL POLICIES
b. If prudently analyzed, they can serve as a benchmark for how cost-effectively San Luis Obispo
provides its services.
2. However, fee surveys should never be the sole or primary criteria in setting City fees as there are many
factors that affect how and why other communities have set their fees at their levels. For example:
a. What level of cost recovery is their fee intended to achieve compared with our cost recovery
objectives?
b. What costs have been considered in computing the fees?
c. When was the last time that their fees were comprehensively evaluated?
d. What level of service do they provide compared with our service or performance standards?
e. Is their rate structure significantly different than ours and what is it intended to achieve?
3. These can be very difficult questions to address in fairly evaluating fees among different communities.
As such, the comparability of our fees to other communities should be one factor among many that is
considered in setting City fees.
ENTERPRISE FUND FEES AND RATES
A.Water, Sewer and Parking. The City will set fees and rates at levels which fully cover the total direct and
indirect costs—including operations, capital outlay, and debt service—of the following enterprise programs:
water, sewer and parking.
B.Transit. Based on targets set under the Transportation Development Act, the City will strive to cover at least
twenty percent of transit operating costs with fare revenues.
C.Ongoing Rate Review.The City will review and adjust enterprise fees and rate structures as required to
ensure that they remain appropriate and equitable.
D.Cost of Service Fees.The City will treat the water and sewer funds in the same manner as if they were
privately owned and operated. This means assessing reasonable cost of service fees in fully recovering
service costs.
The purpose of the cost of service fee is reasonable cost recovery for the use of the City’s services such as
street rights-of-way and public safety. The appropriateness of charging the water and sewer funds a
reasonable cost of service fee for the use of City streets is further supported by the results of studies in
Arizona, California, Ohio and Vermont which concluded that the leading cause for street resurfacing and
reconstruction is street cuts and trenching for utilities.
H-11
Attachment C
Packet Pg 81
1
)HH1R)HH'HVFULSWLRQ &XUUHQW)HH
'HSRVLW
5HFRPPHQGHG
3ODQQLQJ
$SSOLFDWLRQ
)HH'HSRVLW
;ϰϱйƉůĂŶŶŝŶŐͬϮϱй
KƚŚĞƌĞƉƚƐͿ
3/$11,1*$33/,&$7,21)((6
=RQLQJ6HUYLFHV
6LGHZDON6DOHV3HUPLW
+RPH2FFXSDWLRQ3HUPLW >@
+RPH2FFXSDWLRQ3HUPLW 5HGXFHGYHUVLRQ
$GPLQLVWUDWLYH8VH3HUPLW
3ODQQLQJ&RPPLVVLRQ8VH3HUPLW
9DULDQFH
3ODQQHG'HYHORSPHQW >@
5H]RQLQJ
3ODQ$PHQGPHQW
5H]RQLQJ >@
0DS$PHQGPHQW
7H[W$PHQGPHQW
6HFRQGDU\'ZHOOLQJ8QLWV
7LPH([WHQVLRQ RIFXUUHQW
ILOLQJIHH
1RQSURILW6SHFLDO(YHQW)HH
$IIRUGDEOH+RXVLQJ,QFHQWLYH5HTXHVW
$LUSRUW/DQG8VH&RPPLVVLRQ $/8& 3ODQ5HYLHZ)HH
5HYLHZV5HTXLULQJ$/8&+HDULQJ
6XEGLYLVLRQ6HUYLFHV
/RW/LQH$GMXVWPHQW
7HQWDWLYH6XEGLYLVLRQ0DS
/RWV
/RWV
ORWV
ORWV GHSRVLWRI
&HUWLILFDWHRI&RPSOLDQFH
3HUFHQW&KDQJH
Attachment C
Packet Pg 82
1
2WKHU3ODQQLQJ6HUYLFHV
(QYLURQPHQWDO,PSDFW6WXG\IRU+LVWRULF5HVRXUFHV >@
(QYLURQPHQWDO,PSDFW'HWHUPLQDWLRQ >@
(QYLURQPHQWDO,PSDFW5HSRUW >
@
&RQVXOWDQW
&RQWUDFWSOXV
IRUDGPLQLVWUDWLYH
UHYLHZVHUYLFHV
1R&KDQJH
&RQVXOWDQW&RQWUDFW
SOXVIRU
DGPLQLVWUDWLYH
UHYLHZVHUYLFHV 1R
&KDQJH
(QYLURQPHQWDO,PSDFW5HSRUW0RQLWRULQJ3URJUDP'HSRVLW >
@
;;7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ,PSDFW6WXG\>@
$UFKLWHFWXUDO5HYLHZ
6LJQV
&RQFHSWXDO5HYLHZ
'HYHORSPHQW3URMHFWV
'HYHORSPHQW3URMHFWV0DMRU
UHVLGHQWLDOXQLWVRUNVIRUKRWHOXQLWV
0LQRU,QFLGHQWDO
ZLWK&XOWXUDO+HULWDJH&RPPLVVLRQ+HDULQJ
3ODQ5HYLVLRQ
7LPH([WHQVLRQ RIFXUUHQW
ILOLQJIHH
&KULVWPDV7UHH3XPSNLQ/RW3HUPLW
)HQFH+HLJKW([FHSWLRQ
9ROXQWDU\0HUJHU
$JUHHPHQWV
%RQGV*XDUDQWHHV YROXQWDU\
&KDQJHRI$GGUHVV
6WUHHW1DPH&KDQJH
6WUHHW$EDQGRQPHQW
&RQGRPLQLXP&RQYHUVLRQ
$SSHDOV >@
7LHU
7LHU
7LHU
7LHU
0LOOV$FW3DUWLFLSDWLRQ$SSOLFDWLRQ
$GPLQLVWUDWLYH$SSURYDO$SSOLFDWLRQV
/DQG8VH'RFXPHQWDWLRQ5HTXHVW
*HQHUDO3ODQ$PHQGPHQW >@
0DS LQFOXGHVUH]RQLQJ 'HSRVLW
7H[W
6SHFLILF3ODQ$PHQGPHQW'HSRVLW >@
$QQH[DWLRQ'HSRVLW >@
6LGHZDON&DIHV
6LGHZDON&DIp8VHU3HUPLW
6LGHZDON&DIp8VH)HHSHUVTXDUHIRRWSHUPRQWK >@
3UH$SSOLFDWLRQ
:LWKVLWHYLVLW
%OXH&DUG,QVSHFWLRQ >@
'HYHORSPHQW$JUHHPHQW$SSOLFDWLRQ)HH >@ 7LPH 0DWHULDOV
Attachment C
Packet Pg 83
1
5HLPEXUVHPHQW$JUHHPHQW >@ 7LPH 0DWHULDOV
%8/,',1*3/$15(9,(:6833257
5HVLGHQWLDO
0LQRU
0RGHUDWH
0DMRU >@
&RPPHUFLDO
0LQRU
0RGHUDWH
0DMRU >@
[Notes]
>@ A location change for a Home Occupation Permit is 25% of the regular fee.
>@ Fees will be set on a Deposit basis and debited by the amount of staff time and
other materials required to provide services or Consultant Fee plus 30% Admin Fee
.
>@ Sidewalk rental charge not included in fee analysis. Placeholder for Master Fee
Schedule
>@ Separate Fish and Game fees may apply, as set by the State of California
>@ Modifications to applications are charged at 25% of the original fee amount, per
Department policy
>@ See Final Inspection Approval/Bluecard Signoff (item 16)
>@ Refer to City's Master Fee Schedule for tier definitions.
Attachment C
Packet Pg 84
1
(1*,1((5,1*68%0,77$/)((6
,PSURYHPHQW3ODQ&KHFN
Plan check fees are based on Estimated Construction Cost (ECC)
IODWIHHXSWR
each add'l $10,000
EDVHIHH#
each add'l $10,000
EDVHIHH#
each add'l $10,000
EDVHIHH#
each add'l $10,000
EDVHIHH#
each add'l $10,000
&RQVWUXFWLRQ,QVSHFWLRQ
Inspection fees are based on Estimated Construction Cost (ECC)
IODWIHHXSWR
each add'l $10,000
EDVHIHH#
each add'l $10,000
EDVHIHH#
each add'l $10,000
EDVHIHH#
each add'l $10,000
EDVHIHH#
each add'l $10,000
)LQDO0DSV
3DUFHO0DS5HVLGHQWLDO=RQH ORWVRU/HVV
3DUFHO0DS&RPPHUFLDO=RQH ORWVRUOHVV
3OXVSHUORWRUFRPPRQLQWHUHVWXQLW
7UDFW0DS EDVHIHH
3OXVSHUORWRUFRPPRQLQWHUHVWXQLW
&HUWLILFDWHRI&RPSOLDQFHRU)LQDO/RW/LQH$GMXVWPHQW$JUHHPHQW
/RW/LQH$GMXVWPHQWV
&HUWLILFDWHVRI&RPSOLDQFH
3HUFHQW&KDQJH&XUUHQW)HH
'HSRVLW)HH5HFRPPHQGHG)HH)HH'HVFULSWLRQ
Attachment C
Packet Pg 85
1
$GGLWLRQDO'RFXPHQW5HYLHZ&HUWLILFDWHVRI&RUUHFWLRQ
(QFURDFKPHQW3HUPLWV
&XUEDQG*XWWHU EDVHIHH
SOXVSHUOLQHDUIRRW
6LGHZDON EDVHIHH
SOXVSHUOLQHDUIRRW
'ULYHZD\$SSURDFK&XUE5DPS EDVHIHH
SOXVSHUOLQHDUIRRW
7UHQFKHGRU%RUHG([FDYDWLRQ EDVHIHH
:DWHU6HUYLFH5HF\FOHG6HUYLFH EDVHIHH
SOXVSHUOLQHDUIRRW
6HZHU EDVHIHH
SOXVSHUOLQHDUIRRW %RUH
SOXVSHUOLQHDUIRRW 7UHQFK
)LUH/DWHUDO+\GUDQW:DWHUDQG5HF\FOHG0DLQ([WHQVLRQ EDVHIHH
SOXVSHUOLQHDUIRRW
2WKHU EDVHIHH
SOXVSHUOLQHDUIRRW %RUH
SOXVSHUOLQHDUIRRW 7UHQFK
0RQLWRULQJ:HOO
2WKHU0LQRU(QFURDFKPHQW3HUPLWVQRW/LVWHG
7LPH([WHQVLRQIRU(QFURDFKPHQW3HUPLW
8QSHUPLWWHG(QFURDFKPHQWV
(QFURDFKPHQW3HUPLW3ODQ5HYLHZIHH LIUHTXLUHG
$QQXDO(QFURDFKPHQW3HUPLWIRU8WLOLW\&RPSDQLHV
7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ3HUPLW
6LQJOH7ULS3HUPLW
$QQXDO3HUPLW
Maximum fee amount established by Department of Transportation and is not subject to CPI increases
)LEHU,QIUDVWUXFWXUH3URWHFWLRQ)HH SHU&DOO
7UDIILF&RQWURO3ODQ5HYLHZ
5HJXODU
&RPSOH[>@
7UDIILF&RQWURO3ODQ,QVSHFWLRQ
0LQRUILUVWGD\
HDFKDGGLWLRQDOGD\
0DMRUILUVWGD\
HDFKDGGLWLRQDOGD\
WKDQGVXEVHTXHQWSODQUHYLHZ SHUVXEPLWWDO
3XEOLF,PSURYHPHQW3ODQV
%XLOGLQJ3ODQV
0DSV$GGLWLRQDO'RFXPHQWV
%8,/',1*6833257
6LWH,PSURYHPHQWV7KLVLQFOXGHVVXEVWDQWLDOGHYHORSPHQWRISULYDWH
SDUNLQJORWVZKLFKDUHSURFHVVHGVHSDUDWHRIWKHVWUXFWXUHDQGLQFOXGHDQ\
FRPELQDWLRQRIWKHIROORZLQJ 8QGHUJURXQGXWLOLWLHVSDUNLQJORWOLJKWLQJ
DFFHVVLEOHSDWKRIWUDYHODQDO\VLVJUDGLQJGUDLQDJHDQGFRPSOLDQFHZLWK
WKH&LW\
VSDUNLQJDQGGULYHZD\VWDQGDUGV
6TXDUH)RRWDJHRI6LWH'LVWXUEDQFH
Attachment C
Packet Pg 86
1
1RQ6LQJOH)DPLO\5HVLGHQWLDO
6LQJOH)DPLO\5HVLGHQWLDO
)LQDO,QVSHFWLRQ$SSURYDO%OXHFDUG6LJQRII
6TXDUH)RRWDJHRI6LWH'LVWXUEDQFH
1RQ6LQJOH)DPLO\5HVLGHQWLDO
6LQJOH)DPLO\5HVLGHQWLDO
)ORRG=RQH$QDO\VLV
0LQRU9HULILFDWRLQRQO\
0DMRU1HZ6XEVWDQWLDO5HPRGHO$QDO\VLV'RFXPHQWDWLRQ
3RVW&RQVWUXFWLRQ5HTXLUHPHQWV6WRUPZDWHU,QVSHFWLRQ
,PSHUYLRXV6TXDUH)RRWDJH
1RQ6LQJOH)DPLO\5HVLGHQWLDO
6LQJOH)DPLO\5HVLGHQWLDO
'UDLQDJH5HSRUW)ORRG6WXG\%UHDGWKRI6WXG\
0LQRU
0DMRU
[Notes]
>@ A location change for a Home Occupation Permit is 25% of the regular fee.
>@ Fees will be set on a Deposit basis and debited by the amount of staff time and
other materials required to provide services or Consultant Fee plus 30% Admin Fee
.
>@ Sidewalk rental charge not included in fee analysis. Placeholder for Master Fee
Schedule
[4] Separate Fish and Game fees may apply, as set by the State of
California
[5] Modifications to applications are charged at 25% of the original
fee amount, per Department policy
[6] See Final Inspection Approval/Bluecard Signoff (item 16)
[7] Refer to City's Master Fee Schedule for tier definitions.
Attachment C
Packet Pg 87
1
38%/,&:25.668%0,77$/)((6
75((0$,17(1$1&(
7UHH6KUXE+D]DUGRXV$EDWHPHQW ĐƚƵĂůŽƐƚ
&RPPHPRUDWLYH7UHH3ODQWLQJ >@
7UHH5HPRYDO3HUPLW
%8,/',1*3/$15(9,(:
6LWH,PSURYHPHQWV7KLVLQFOXGHVVXEVWDQWLDOGHYHORSPHQWRISULYDWH
SDUNLQJORWVZKLFKDUHSURFHVVHGVHSDUDWHRIWKHVWUXFWXUHDQGLQFOXGHDQ\
FRPELQDWLRQRIWKHIROORZLQJ 8QGHUJURXQGXWLOLWLHVSDUNLQJORWOLJKWLQJ
DFFHVVLEOHSDWKRIWUDYHODQDO\VLVJUDGLQJGUDLQDJHDQGFRPSOLDQFHZLWK
WKH&LW\
VSDUNLQJDQGGULYHZD\VWDQGDUGV
6TXDUH)RRWDJHRI6LWH'LVWXUEDQFH
1RQ6LQJOH)DPLO\5HVLGHQWLDO
6LQJOH)DPLO\5HVLGHQWLDO
)LQDO,QVSHFWLRQ$SSURYDO%OXHFDUG6LJQRII
6TXDUH)RRWDJHRI6LWH'LVWXUEDQFH
1RQ6LQJOH)DPLO\5HVLGHQWLDO
6LQJOH)DPLO\5HVLGHQWLDO
)ORRG=RQH$QDO\VLV
0LQRU9HULILFDWRLQRQO\
0DMRU1HZ6XEVWDQWLDO5HPRGHO$QDO\VLV'RFXPHQWDWLRQ
3RVW&RQVWUXFWLRQ5HTXLUHPHQWV6WRUPZDWHU,QVSHFWLRQ
,PSHUYLRXV6TXDUH)RRWDJH
1RQ6LQJOH)DPLO\5HVLGHQWLDO
)HH&XUUHQW)HH
'HSRVLW 5HFRPPHQGHG)HH 3HUFHQW&KDQJH)HH'HVFULSWLRQ
Attachment C
Packet Pg 88
1
6LQJOH)DPLO\5HVLGHQWLDO
'UDLQDJH5HSRUW)ORRG6WXG\%UHDGWKRI6WXG\
0LQRU
0DMRU
5HYLHZRI0LWLJDWLRQ0HDVXUHV&RQGLWLRQVDQG7,)V
[Notes]
[1] Amounts are set by 2010 Ordinance, NBS did not review
[2] Cost of tree and plaque are separate fees in addition to this fee, at $50 and $20 respectively
[3] Refer to City's Master Fee Schedule for tier definitions.
Attachment C
Packet Pg 89
1
87,/,7,(66(59,&(6)((6&+('8/(>@
>@
0HWHU6HUYLFHV >@
,QVWDOO:DWHU0HWHU >@
,QVWDOO:DWHU0HWHU >@
,QVWDOO:DWHU0HWHU ODUJHUWKDQ >@ 7LPH 0DWHULDOV QD
5HPRYH:DWHU0HWHU
5HPRYH:DWHU0HWHU
5HPRYH:DWHU0HWHU ODUJHUWKDQ 7LPH 0DWHULDOV QD
5HWLUHPHQWRI6HUYLFH
5HWLUHPHQWRI6HUYLFH ODUJHUWKDQ 7LPH 0DWHULDOV
$FFRXQW6HWXS
$FFRXQW6HWXS6DPH'D\QD
$FFRXQW6HWXS$IWHU+RXUV:HHNHQGV
0LQLPXPKRXUVVHUYLFHIHH
(DFK$GGLWLRQDO+RXU >@
3URSHUW\0DQDJHPHQW ILUVWVHWXSV
(DFK$GGLWLRQDOVHWXSV
'LVFRQQHFW6HUYLFHIRU1RQ3D\PHQW
/DWHUDO,QVWDOODWLRQ
/DWHUDO$EDQGRQPHQW
%8,/',1*3/$15(9,(:,163(&7,216833257
3HU3ODQ5HYLHZ6XEPLWWDO
1HZ0HWHUWUDVKHQFORVXUHVODQGVFDSHSODQV
5+
& '5HF\FOLQJ
[Notes]
[1] Water And Sewer Service Rates Are Adopted By Council
[2] 1 Unit = 748 Gallons
[3] Fees for hardware Charged at Actual Cost
[4] Plus Meter Cost
[5] Set by City Ordinance. NBS did not evaluate
[6] Fees will be set on a Deposit basis and debited by the amount of staff time and
other materials required to provide services
[7] Calculated at OT rate for each additonal hour of service required after normal
business hours beyond 2 hours
[8] Refer to City's Master Fee Schedule for tier definitions.
),5('(3$570(17
+$=$5'2862&&83$1&<3(50,76 >@
$LUFUDIW5HIXHOLQJ9HKLFOHV
$LUFUDIW5HSDLU+DQJDU
)HH&XUUHQW)HH
'HSRVLW 5HFRPPHQGHG)HH 3HUFHQW&KDQJH)HH'HVFULSWLRQ)HH&XUUHQW)HH
'HSRVLW 5HFRPPHQGHG)HH 3HUFHQW&KDQJH)HH'HVFULSWLRQ
Attachment C
Packet Pg 90
1
$XWRPRELOH:UHFNLQJ<DUG
%RQILUHRU5XEELVK)LUHV
%XUQLQJLQ3XEOLF3ODFH
&DQGOHVRU2SHQ)ODPHVLQ$VVHPEO\$UHDV
&RPEXVWLEOH)LEHU6WRUDJH KDQGOHVWRUHRYHUFXIW
&RPSUHVVHG*DVHV
&U\RJHQV
'U\&OHDQLQJ3ODQW
'XVW3URGXFLQJ2SHUDWLRQ
([SORVLYHVRU%ODVWLQJ$JHQWV
)LUHZRUNV
)ODPPDEOHRU&RPEXVWLEOH/LTXLGV 8QOHVVLQWKH&83$3URJUDP
)UXLW5LSHQLQJ(WK\OHQH*DV)RJJLQJ
*DUDJHV5HSDLU
+D]DUGRXV&KHPLFDOV 8QOHVVLQWKH&83$3URJUDP
+LJK3LOHG&RPEXVWLEOH6WRFNH[FHHGLQJVTIW
-XQN<DUGV
/LTXHILHG3HWUROHXP*DV
/XPEHU\DUG6WRUDJHLQH[FHVVRIERDUGIHHW
0DJQHVLXP:RUNLQJ3URFHVVPRUHWKDQOEVGDLO\
0DOO FRYHUHG
2UJDQLF&RDWLQJVPDQXIDFWXUHRYHUJDOORQDGD\
2YHQV,QGXVWULDO%DNLQJDQG'U\LQJ
3ODFHVRI$VVHPEO\
5HIULJHUDWLRQ(TXLSPHQW0HFKDQLFDOUHIULJHUDWLRQ VHH8)&IRU
PRVWFRPPRQUHIULJHUDQWV
6SUD\LQJRU'LSSLQJ
7HQWVDQG$LUVXSSRUWHG6WUXFWXUHVH[FHVVRIVTIW
7LUH5HFDSSLQJ
:DVWH0DWHULDO3ODQW
:HOGLQJDQG&XWWLQJ2SHUDWLRQV$Q\2FFXSDQF\
$GGLWLRQDO3HUPLWWHG8VH SHUSHUPLW
>@
&(57,),('81,),('3$57,&,3$7,1*$*(1&<)((6 >@
+D]DUGRXV0DWHULDOV+DQGOHUV
5HPRWHXWLOLW\ WLPHIHH
0DWHULDOVKDQGOHG
0DWHULDOVKDQGOHG
0DWHULDOVKDQGOHG
:DVWH*HQHUDWRUV
:DVWHVWUHDP SURIHVVLRQDORUPHGLFDO
:DVWHVWUHDPV DOORWKHUV
:DVWHVWUHDPV
:DVWH6WUHDP 'H0LQLPXV
7LHUHG3HUPLWWLQJ
&(
&$
3%5
8QGHUJURXQG6WRUDJH7DQNV JHQHUDOPRGHO
Attachment C
Packet Pg 91
1
)LUVWWDQN
(DFKDGGLWLRQDOWDQN
7DQNLQVWDOODWLRQ
7DQNUHPRYDO
0LQRU0RGLILFDWLRQ
0DMRU0RGLILFDWLRQ
$ERYH*URXQG6WRUDJH7DQNV
2QH7DQN
7ZR7DQNV
7KUHH7DQNV
&$/$53
1HZ6WDWLRQDU\6RXUFH)DFLOLW\
([LVWLQJ$QQXDO)DFLOLW\,QVSHFWLRQ
6LWH5HPHGLDWLRQ2YHUVLJKW
6RLO5HPHGLDWLRQ
7HPSRUDU\&ORVXUH3HUPLW
&ORVXUHV
7HPSRUDU\&ORVXUH
&ORVXUHLQ3ODFH
/DWH)HH >@
$QQXDOSHUPLWIHHVUHFHLYHGGD\VDIWHURULJLQDOLQYRLFHGD\3HQDOW\QD
$QQXDOSHUPLWIHHVUHFHLYHGGD\VDIWHURULJLQDOLQYRLFHGD\DQDGGLWLRQDO
SHQDOW\
QD
),5((48,30(17$1'3(56211(/67$1'%<)((6
)LUH(QJLQH/DGGHU7UXFN
>@
6TXDGRU/LJKW5HVFXH(TXLSPHQW
>@
7KLUG 6XEVHTXHQW)LUH,QVSHFWLRQ)HH
$GGLWLRQDO6LWH,QVSHFWLRQ)HH RQHKRXUPLQ
'HWHUPLQHGE\
)LQDQFH'LUHFWRU
)LUH,QYHVWLJDWLRQ)LUH3UHYHQWLRQV
'HWHUPLQHGE\
)LQDQFH'LUHFWRU
)LUHILJKWHU6WDQGE\
'HWHUPLQHGE\
)LQDQFH'LUHFWRU
$GPLQLVWUDWLYH&OHULFDO
'HWHUPLQHGE\
)LQDQFH'LUHFWRU
08/7,':(//,1*),5($1'/,)(6$)(7<,163(&7,21)((6&+('>@>@
7KHVHIHHVDUHVHWE\0XQLFLSDO&RGH
$GPLQLVWUDWLYH)HH>@
3URFHVVLQJSHUIDFLOLW\
(DFK$GGLWLRQDO2ZQHU
$SDUWPHQW+RXVHV
8SWRXQLWV
8QLWV
8QLWV
8QLWV
8QLWV
(YHU\DGGLWLRQDO8QLWVRYHU
+RWHOV0RWHOV/RGJLQJ+RXVHV%HG %UHDNIDVW)DFLOLWLHV
<RXWK+RVWHO)DFLOLWLHV6HQLRU)DFLOLWLHV6RURULWLHV
)UDWHUQLWLHVDQG2WKHU&RQJUHJDWH5HVLGHQFHV
,ŽƚĞů͕DŽƚĞů͕ĞĚΘƌĞĂŬĨĂƐƚ
Attachment C
Packet Pg 92
1
8QLWV
8QLWV
8QLWV
8QLWV
^ŽƌŽƌŝƚLJĂŶĚ&ƌĂƚĞƌŶŝƚLJ
ŽŶĚŽŵŝŶŝƵŵƐ
8SWR8QLWV
8QLWV
8QLWV
8QLWV
27+(5),5()((6
+\GUDQW)ORZ7HVW )LUVW+\GUDQW
+\GUDQW)ORZ7HVW (DFK$GGLWLRQDO+\GUDQW
5HLQVSHFWLRQ)HH FRQVWUXFWLRQ
%RDUGRI$SSHDOV
(PHUJHQF\&DOO2XW 1RQ6FKHGXOHG
$IWHU+RXUV&DOO2XW 6FKHGXOHG
[Notes]
[1] For Locations with multiple required permits, fee is calculated at highest permit fee,
plus 1/2 hour of inspection per additional permitted use.
[2] Penalty for excessive false alarms set by City Ordinance - not required for review in
this study
[3] A discount of $79.00 will be provided for two or more programs reviewed
ilt l[4] Fees are punitive in nature and do not require a cost of service analysis.
[5] Placeholder for Master Fee Schedule, NBS did not study
[6] Fees are waived for units that are built, owned and managed by the San Luis
Obispo Housing Authority, other government agencies or not-for-profit housing
organizations.
[7] These fees are applicable to all multi-dwelling units in the City based on the
definitions set forth in the 2007 California Building Code[8] Administrative fee applies to both Apt Houses and Hotels, Motels, etc. Total
processing fee calculated will be divided equally amongst all owners.
)LUH'HYHORSPHQW6HUYLFHV
1(:&216758&7,21$'',7,216$1'0$-255(02'(/6
&RPPHUFLDO8VHV6WUXFWXUDO $OOQHZO\FRQVWUXFWHGDGGHGRU
VWUXFWXUDOO\UHPRGHOHGVSDFHIRUQRQUHVLGHQWLDORFFXSDQFLHV
FODVVLILHGDV&%&*URXS$%()+,0RURWKHUFRPPHUFLDO
RFFXSDQFLHVQRWVSHFLILFDOO\DGGUHVVHGHOVHZKHUHLQWKLV)HH
6FKHGXOH
6TXDUH)RRWDJH
EDVHFRVW
SHUVIEHWZHHQWLHUV LQFUHPHQW
EDVHFRVW
SHUVIEHWZHHQWLHUV LQFUHPHQW
EDVHFRVW
SHUVIEHWZHHQWLHUV LQFUHPHQW
EDVHFRVW
SHUVIEHWZHHQWLHUV LQFUHPHQW
EDVHFRVW
Attachment C
Packet Pg 93
1
SHUVI!VI LQFUHPHQW
&RPPHUFLDO5HVLGHQWLDODQG0XOWLIDPLO\5HVLGHQWLDO8VHV $OO
QHZO\FRQVWUXFWHGDGGHGRUVWUXFWXUDOO\UHPRGHOHGVSDFHIRU
UHVLGHQWLDORFFXSDQFLHVFODVVLILHGDV&%&*URXS5 H[FHSW5 RU
RWKHUUHVLGHQWLDORFFXSDQFLHVQRWVSHFLILFDOO\DGGUHVVHGHOVHZKHUH
LQWKLV)HH6FKHGXOH
6TXDUH)RRWDJH
EDVHFRVW
SHUVIEHWZHHQWLHUV LQFUHPHQW
EDVHFRVW
SHUVIEHWZHHQWLHUV LQFUHPHQW
EDVHFRVW
SHUVIEHWZHHQWLHUV LQFUHPHQW
EDVHFRVW
SHUVIEHWZHHQWLHUV LQFUHPHQW
EDVHFRVW
SHUVI!VI LQFUHPHQW
'XSOLFDWH)ORRU3ODQ5HYLHZ&RPPHUFLDO5HVLGHQWLDODQG
0XOWLIDPLO\5HVLGHQWLDO8VHV
6TXDUH)RRWDJH
EDVHFRVW
SHUVIEHWZHHQWLHUV LQFUHPHQW
EDVHFRVW
SHUVIEHWZHHQWLHUV LQFUHPHQW
EDVHFRVW
SHUVIEHWZHHQWLHUV LQFUHPHQW
EDVHFRVW
SHUVIEHWZHHQWLHUV LQFUHPHQW
EDVHFRVW
SHUVI!VI LQFUHPHQW
/RZDQG0RGHUDWH+D]DUG6WRUDJH $OOQHZO\FRQVWUXFWHG
DGGHGRUVWUXFWXUDOO\UHPRGHOHGVSDFHIRUVWRUDJHRFFXSDQFLHV
FODVVLILHGDV&%&*URXS6RURWKHUVWRUDJHRFFXSDQFLHVQRW
VSHFLILFDOO\DGGUHVVHGHOVHZKHUHLQWKLV)HH6FKHGXOH
6TXDUH)RRWDJH
EDVHFRVW
SHUVIEHWZHHQWLHUV LQFUHPHQW
EDVHFRVW
SHUVIEHWZHHQWLHUV LQFUHPHQW
EDVHFRVW
SHUVIEHWZHHQWLHUV LQFUHPHQW
EDVHFRVW
SHUVIEHWZHHQWLHUV LQFUHPHQW
EDVHFRVW
SHUVI!VI LQFUHPHQW
Attachment C
Packet Pg 94
1
$WWDFKHG$FFHVVRU\DQG8WLOLW\8VHV $OOQHZO\FRQVWUXFWHG
DGGHGRUVWUXFWXUDOO\UHPRGHOHGVSDFHIRUXWLOLW\DQG
DFFHVVRU\RFFXSDQFLHVFODVVLILHGDV&%&*URXS8RURWKHU
XWLOLW\DQGDFFHVVRU\RFFXSDQFLHVQRWVSHFLILFDOO\DGGUHVVHG
HOVHZKHUHLQWKLV)HH6FKHGXOH
6TXDUH)RRWDJH
EDVHFRVW
SHUVIEHWZHHQWLHUV LQFUHPHQW
EDVHFRVW
SHUVIEHWZHHQWLHUV LQFUHPHQW
EDVHFRVW
SHUVIEHWZHHQWLHUV LQFUHPHQW
EDVHFRVW
SHUVIEHWZHHQWLHUV LQFUHPHQW
EDVHFRVW
SHUVI!VI LQFUHPHQW
'HWDFKHG$FFHVVRU\DQG8WLOLW\8VHV $OOQHZO\FRQVWUXFWHG
DGGHGRUVWUXFWXUDOO\UHPRGHOHGVSDFHIRUXWLOLW\DQG
DFFHVVRU\RFFXSDQFLHVFODVVLILHGDV&%&*URXS8RURWKHU
XWLOLW\DQGDFFHVVRU\RFFXSDQFLHVQRWVSHFLILFDOO\DGGUHVVHG
HOVHZKHUHLQWKLV)HH6FKHGXOH
6TXDUH)RRWDJH
EDVHFRVW
SHUVIEHWZHHQWLHUV LQFUHPHQW
EDVHFRVW
SHUVIEHWZHHQWLHUV LQFUHPHQW
EDVHFRVW
SHUVIEHWZHHQWLHUV LQFUHPHQW
EDVHFRVW
SHUVIEHWZHHQWLHUV LQFUHPHQW
EDVHFRVW
SHUVI!VI LQFUHPHQW
6KHOO%XLOGLQJVIRUDOO&RPPHUFLDO8VHV 7KHHQFORVXUHIRUDOO
QHZO\FRQVWUXFWHGDGGHGRUVWUXFWXUDOO\UHPRGHOHGVSDFHIRUQRQ
UHVLGHQWLDORFFXSDQFLHVFODVVLILHGDV&%&*URXS$%()+,0
RURWKHUFRPPHUFLDORFFXSDQFLHVQRWVSHFLILFDOO\DGGUHVVHG
HOVHZKHUHLQWKLV)HH6FKHGXOHZKHUHWKHLQWHULRULVQRWFRPSOHWHG
RURFFXSLDEOH
6TXDUH)RRWDJH
EDVHFRVW
SHUVIEHWZHHQWLHUV LQFUHPHQW
EDVHFRVW
SHUVIEHWZHHQWLHUV LQFUHPHQW
EDVHFRVW
SHUVIEHWZHHQWLHUV LQFUHPHQW
EDVHFRVW
SHUVIEHWZHHQWLHUV LQFUHPHQW
EDVHFRVW
SHUVI!VI LQFUHPHQW
Attachment C
Packet Pg 95
1
&RPPHUFLDO7HQDQW,PSURYHPHQW1RQ6WUXFWXUDO 1RQ
VWUXFWXUDOO\UHPRGHOHGVSDFHIRUQRQUHVLGHQWLDORFFXSDQFLHV
FODVVLILHGDV&%&*URXS$%()+,0RURWKHUFRPPHUFLDO
RFFXSDQFLHVQRWVSHFLILFDOO\DGGUHVVHGHOVHZKHUHLQWKLV)HH
6FKHGXOHZKHUHWKHVWUXFWXUHLVQRWDOWHUHG
6TXDUH)RRWDJH
EDVHFRVW
SHUVIEHWZHHQWLHUV LQFUHPHQW
EDVHFRVW
SHUVIEHWZHHQWLHUV LQFUHPHQW
EDVHFRVW
SHUVIEHWZHHQWLHUV LQFUHPHQW
EDVHFRVW
SHUVIEHWZHHQWLHUV LQFUHPHQW
EDVHFRVW
SHUVI!VI LQFUHPHQW
&RPPHUFLDO5HVLGHQWLDODQG0XOWLIDPLO\5HVLGHQWLDO5HPRGHOV
1RQ6WUXFWXUDO 1RQ6WUXFWXUDOO\UHPRGHOHGVSDFHIRUUHVLGHQWLDO
RFFXSDQFLHVFODVVLILHGDV&%&*URXS5 H[FHSW5 RURWKHU
UHVLGHQWLDORFFXSDQFLHVQRWVSHFLILFDOO\DGGUHVVHGHOVHZKHUHLQWKLV
)HH6FKHGXOH
6TXDUH)RRWDJH
EDVHFRVW
SHUVIEHWZHHQWLHUV LQFUHPHQW
EDVHFRVW
SHUVIEHWZHHQWLHUV LQFUHPHQW
EDVHFRVW
SHUVIEHWZHHQWLHUV LQFUHPHQW
EDVHFRVW
SHUVIEHWZHHQWLHUV LQFUHPHQW
EDVHFRVW
SHUVI!VI LQFUHPHQW
6LQJOH)DPLO\'ZHOOLQJVDQG'XSOH[HV $OOQHZO\FRQVWUXFWHG
VSDFHIRUUHVLGHQWLDORFFXSDQFLHVFODVVLILHGDV&%&*URXS5
LQFOXGLQJFXVWRPEXLOGVDQGPRGHOKRPHVIRUWUDFWPDVWHUSODQVRU
RWKHUVLPLODUUHVLGHQWLDORFFXSDQFLHVQRWVSHFLILFDOO\DGGUHVVHG
HOVHZKHUHLQWKLV)HH6FKHGXOH
6TXDUH)RRWDJH
EDVHFRVW
SHUVIEHWZHHQWLHUV LQFUHPHQW
EDVHFRVW
SHUVIEHWZHHQWLHUV LQFUHPHQW
EDVHFRVW
SHUVIEHWZHHQWLHUV LQFUHPHQW
EDVHFRVW
SHUVIEHWZHHQWLHUV LQFUHPHQW
EDVHFRVW
SHUVI!VI LQFUHPHQW
Attachment C
Packet Pg 96
1
'XSOLFDWH)ORRU3ODQ5HYLHZ6LQJOH)DPLO\'ZHOOLQJVDQG
'XSOH[HV
6TXDUH)RRWDJH
EDVH FRVW SHUVIEHWZHHQWLHUV LQFUHPHQW
EDVHFRVW
SHUVIEHWZHHQWLHUV LQFUHPHQW
EDVHFRVW
SHUVIEHWZHHQWLHUV LQFUHPHQW
EDVHFRVW
SHUVIEHWZHHQWLHUV LQFUHPHQW
EDVHFRVW
SHUVI!VI LQFUHPHQW
'XSOLFDWH)ORRU3ODQ5HYLHZ$WWDFKHGRU'HWDFKHG$FFHVVRU\
DQG8WLOLW\8VHV
6TXDUH)RRWDJH
EDVHFRVW
SHUVIEHWZHHQWLHUV LQFUHPHQW
EDVHFRVW
SHUVIEHWZHHQWLHUV LQFUHPHQW
EDVHFRVW
SHUVIEHWZHHQWLHUV LQFUHPHQW
EDVHFRVW
SHUVIEHWZHHQWLHUV LQFUHPHQW
EDVHFRVW
SHUVI!VI LQFUHPHQW
6LWH,PSURYHPHQWV7KLVLQFOXGHVVXEVWDQWLDOGHYHORSPHQWRI
SULYDWHSDUNLQJORWVZKLFKDUHSURFHVVHGVHSDUDWHRIWKHVWUXFWXUH
DQGLQFOXGHDQ\FRPELQDWLRQRIWKHIROORZLQJ 8QGHUJURXQGXWLOLWLHV
SDUNLQJORWOLJKWLQJDFFHVVLEOHSDWKRIWUDYHODQDO\VLVJUDGLQJ
GUDLQDJHDQGFRPSOLDQFHZLWKWKH&LW\
VSDUNLQJDQGGULYHZD\
VWDQGDUGV
6TXDUH)RRWDJH
EDVHFRVW
SHUVIEHWZHHQWLHUV LQFUHPHQW
EDVHFRVW
SHUVIEHWZHHQWLHUV LQFUHPHQW
EDVHFRVW
SHUVIEHWZHHQWLHUV LQFUHPHQW
EDVHFRVW
SHUVIEHWZHHQWLHUV LQFUHPHQW
EDVHFRVW
SHUVI!VI LQFUHPHQW
),5(635,1./(5$1'68335(66,216<67(06
,VVXHGE\%XLOGLQJDQG6DIHW\
)LUH6SULQNOHU6\VWHPV 1HZ,QVWDOODWLRQ
+HDGV
+HDGV
Attachment C
Packet Pg 97
1
+HDGV
+HDGV
(YHU\+HDGVDERYH
)LUH$ODUP6\VWHP 1HZ,QVWDOODWLRQ
'HYLFHV
'HYLFHV
(YHU\'HYLFHVDERYH
6SULQNOHU0RQLWRULQJ6\VWHP
)LUH6SULQNOHU6\VWHPV 7HQDQW,PSURYHPHQW
+HDGV
+HDGV
+HDGV
+HDGV
(YHU\+HDGVDERYH
)LUH$ODUP6\VWHP 7HQDQW,PSURYHPHQW
'HYLFHV
'HYLFHV
(YHU\'HYLFHVDERYH
6SULQNOHU0RQLWRULQJ6\VWHP
2WKHU6XSSUHVVLRQ6\VWHPV
,QVHUW*DV6\VWHPV
'U\&KHPLFDO6\VWHPV
:HW&KHPLFDO.LWFKHQ+RRG
)RDP6\VWHPV
3DLQW6SUD\%RRWK
27+(50,6&(//$1(286)((6
$OWHUQDWLYH0HWKRGDQG0DWHULDO5HYLHZ
([SHGLWHG3ODQ5HYLHZ)HH >@
[Notes]
>@ 1/2 hour of inspection per additional permitted use.
>@ A discount of $79.00 will be provided for two or more programs reviewed
simultaneously.
>@
Fees are waived for units that are built, owned and managed by the San Luis
Obispo Housing Authority, other government agencies or not-for-profit housing
organizations.
>@ These fees are applicable to all multi-dwelling units in the City based on the
definitions set forth in the 2007 California Building Code
>@ Penalty for excessive false alarms set by City Ordinance - not required for review in
this study
>@ Includes average cost for vehicle staffing. Equipment rates will be added separately
by department
>@ Expedited fees set on a City policy basis at overtime rate for City staff or
outsourced consultant costs as needed
[8]Refer to City's Master Fee Schedule for tier definitions.
Attachment C
Packet Pg 98
1
32/,&('(3$570(17
3URFHVVLQJFKDUJHIRUUHWXUQRISURSHUW\WDNHQIRUVDIHNHHSLQJ
3URFHVVLQJ PDLQWHQDQFHIHH Ϭй
&OHDUDQFH/HWWHUV >@ Ϭй
&LYLO6'7 >@ Ϭй
&ULPLQDO6'7 >@
&LYLO6XESRHQD >@ Ϭй
&RQFHDOHG:HDSRQV3HUPLW VHWE\SHQDOFRGH
,QYHVWLJDWLYHFRVWVDQGSHUPLWSURFHVVLQJ Ϭй
5HQHZDO Ϭй
0DVVDJH)DFLOLW\3HUPLW ͲϮϳй
0DVVDJH7HFKQLFLDQ,QLWLDO3HUPLW ϲϮй
0DVVDJH7HFKQLFLDQ3HUPLW5HQHZDO ϱϲй
/RFDO5HFRUG,QIRUPDWLRQ >@ Ϭй
,PSRXQG9HKLFOH5HOHDVH GD\LPSRXQG ϭй
9HKLFOH7RZ5HOHDVH)HH Ͳϭй
5HFRUGVHDOLQJIHHVHWE\SHQDOFRGH 'HWHUPLQHGE\
)LQDQFH'LUHFWRU
'HWHUPLQHGE\)LQDQFH
'LUHFWRU
3URSHUW\'DPDJH2QO\&ROOLVLRQV,QYHVWLJDWLRQV
SHUSDUW\SHUQRQLQMXU\WUDIILFFROOLVLRQLQYHVWLJDWLRQUHSRUW ϴϱй
$GPLQLVWUDWLYH,QYHVWLJDWLRQV 'HWHUPLQHGE\
)LQDQFH'LUHFWRU
'HWHUPLQHGE\)LQDQFH
'LUHFWRU
6ROLFLWRU3HUPLWV
,QLWLDO,QYHVWLJDWLRQV ͲϮϱй
)ROORZXSUHTXLUHG 'HWHUPLQHGE\
)LQDQFH'LUHFWRU
$GPLQLVWUDWLYH&LWDWLRQV >@
Noise Violation, Urination in Public and/or Open Alcohol Container
)LUVWFLWDWLRQIRUHDFKVXFKYLRODWLRQ H[FHSWRSHQFRQWDLQHU Ϭй
)LUVWFLWDWLRQ RSHQFRQWDLQHU Ϭй
6HFRQGFLWDWLRQIRUHDFKVXFKYLRODWLRQ Ϭй
7KLUGFLWDWLRQIRUHDFKVXFKYLRODWLRQ Ϭй
&RVW5HFRYHU\3URJUDPV
'8,&RVWUHFRYHU\'HWHUPLQHGE\
)LQDQFH'LUHFWRU
'HWHUPLQHGE\)LQDQFH
'LUHFWRU
1XLVDQFHDEDWHPHQW 'HWHUPLQHGE\
)LQDQFH'LUHFWRU
'HWHUPLQHGE\)LQDQFH
'LUHFWRU
$ODUP3HUPLWV &LW\SURFHVVLQJFRVWQHWRIFRQWUDFWRU
SD\PHQW
>@
3HUPLW Ϯй
5HQHZDO Ϯй
([FHVVLYHDODUPV >@
7KLUG Ϭй
)RXUWK Ϭй)HH&XUUHQW)HH
'HSRVLW 5HFRPPHQGHG)HH 3HUFHQW&KDQJH)HH'HVFULSWLRQ
Attachment C
Packet Pg 99
1
)LIWK Ϭй
6L[WK Ϭй
6HYHQWK 0RUH Ϭй
6HFRQG5HVSRQVH&RVW5HFRYHU\'HWHUPLQHGE\
)LQDQFH'LUHFWRU
'HWHUPLQHGE\)LQDQFH
'LUHFWRU
7D[L3HUPLW
3HUPLWIHH ϴϴй
3HUPLW5HQHZDOIHH ϭϰϱй
(OHFWURQLF*DPH&HQWHU3HUPLW ϳй
3XEOLF'DQFH3HUPLW ϭϭй
7REDFFR/LFHQVH)HHSHUORFDWLRQ Ϯϴй
/LYHVFDQ >@
&LW\3URFHVVHG
9ROXQWHHU3URFHVVHG
0RELOH)RRG9HQGRU/LFHQVH Ͳϭϳй
3/$11,1*6833257
$GPLQLVWUDWLYH8VH3HUPLW EDUVQLJKWFOXEV
[Notes]
>@ Fee set by penal code (13322), Dept did not wish to undergo time or cost of service
analysis
>@ Fee set by CA evidence code 1563, Dept did not wish to undergo time or cost of
service analysis
>@ Access through the Discovery Order process, Dept did not wish to undergo time or
cost of service analysis
>@ Fee set by statute (GC 68097.2). Statute increased fee in 2013-14, Dept did not
wish to undergo time or cost of service analysis
>@ Fee limited b penal code (13322), Dept did not wish to undergo time or cost of
service analysis
>@ Set by Municipal Code, punitive in nature and excluded from cost analysis.
>@ City fee only. DOJ fee charged separately.
>@ City's current fee is $36. Amount reduced to evaluate City cost of providing
services. Per contract agreement, additional 15% should be added to City fee as a
pass through to the contractor.
Unless set by Statue or Penal Codes, fees are increased annually by CPI (done by
Finance dept.)
Attachment C
Packet Pg 100
1
<RXWK6HUYLFHV
6XQ1)XQ5HJLVWUDWLRQ)HH 7%'
6FKRRO<HDUKRXUO\RSWLRQϭϯй
7HDFKHU:RUN'D\Ϯϱй
/DWH5HJ7:' :HHNO\5DWH
6SULQJ%UHDN&DPS:HHNO\2SWLRQ ϯй
/DWH5HJ6SULQJ%UHDN:HHNO\ :HHNO\5DWH
'DLO\2SWLRQ ϮϮй
/DWH5HJ6SULQJ%UHDN'DLO\ :HHNO\5DWH
6XPPHU&DPS5HJLVWUDWLRQ
)HH
ZHHN
)XOOZHHN&DUH2SWLRQ ϵй
6XPPHU6FKRRO2SWLRQ7%'
'D\5DWH2SWLRQ ϭϬй
)LHOG7ULS6LJQ8SV
/DWH5HJLVWUDWLRQ)HH Ϭй
6/27HHQV$QQXDO)HH ϱϬй
6SHFLDO(YHQWV
$TXDWLFV
/DS6ZLP$GXOWSHUXVH Ϭй
$GXOW0RQWKO\Ϭй
<RXWK6HQLRUSHU Ϭй
<RXWK6HQLRUPRQWKO\Ϭй
5HFUHDWLRQDO6ZLP$GXOWSHUXVH ϭϳй
<RXWK6HQLRUSHU ϮϬй
6ZLP6FULSW$GXOW
SHUXVH
Ϭй
<RXWK6HQLRUSHU Ϭй
5HFUHDWLRQDO6ZLP6FULSW$GXOWSHUXVH ϭϳй
<RXWK6HQLRUSHU ϮϬй
/HVVRQV ϰϮй
3ULYDWH/HVVRQV ϯϰй
6SHFLDO&ODVVHV/LIHJXDUG Ϭй
:DUP:DWHU([HUFLVH ϯϯй
)DFLOLW\8VH GD\/* GD\ /*
-XQLRU/LIHJXDUG3URJUDP Ϭй
5HFUHDWLRQDO6SRUWV
$GXOW6RIWEDOO
7HDPV
ϴй
,QVWUXFWLRQDO&ODVVHV
3HUFHQW&KDQJH5HFRPPHQGHG)HH
)HH&XUUHQW)HH
'HSRVLW
3DUNVDQG5HFUHDWLRQ
)HH'HVFULSWLRQ
Attachment C
Packet Pg 101
1
$GXOW6HQLRU
<RXWK
6SHFLDO(YHQWV
7ULDWKORQ
,QGLYLGXDO
ϳй
7HDP ϳй
3DUNVDQG5HFUHDWLRQ6SRQVRUHG(YHQWV
6SHFLDO(YHQW$SSOLFDWLRQ SDUNRQO\
HQFURDFKPHQW
%DQQHU3HUPLW$SSOLFDWLRQ,QVWDOODWLRQ ϭϬй
)LOP$SSOLFDWLRQ)HH6WLOO3KRWRJUDSK\ ϲй
&RPPHUFLDO ϱй
1RQ3URILW ϲй
'HVWLQDWLRQ0DUNHWLQJ
3HUPLW)HH ϱϬй
0LVVLRQ3OD]D)XOO
3OD]D
ϮϮй
)XOO3DUN8VH Ϭй
+DOI3DUN8VH Ϭй
,QGRRU)DFLOLWHV
/XGZLFK&RPPXQLW\&HQWHU$VVHPEO\5RRP 1RQ3URILW ϴй
$VVHPEO\5RRP )RU3URILW ϱй
*\PQDVLXP 1RQ3URILW ϲй
*\PQDVLXP )RU3URILW ϱй
.LWFKHQ 1RQ3URILW ϵй
.LWFKHQ )RU3URILW ϲй
)ORRU&RYHUV ϳй
)XOO)DFLOLW\8VH +RXUV ϲй
6HQLRU&HQWHU0DLQ5RRP QRQSURILW ϴй
0DLQ5RRP )RU3URILW ϱй
&RQIHUHQFH5RRP 1RQ3URILW ϳй
&RQIHUHQFH5RRP )RU3URILW ϱй
0HDGRZ3DUN%XLOGLQJ1RQ3URILW ϳй
)RU3URILW ϱй
&LW\&RXQW\/LEUDU\&RPPXQLW\5RRP 1RQ3URILW ϴй
&RPPXQLW\5RRP )RU3URILW ϱй
&RQIHUHQFH5RRP 1RQ3URILW ϳй
&RQIHUHQFH5RRP )RU3URILW ϱй
2XWGRRU)DFLOLWLHV
%%43LFQLF$UHDVϱй
-DFN+RXVH*DUGHQV:HGGLQJDQG5HFHSWLRQ ϯϰϵй
3DUW\ $WWHQGDQFH KRXU 1$
8QGHU3HU+RXU 1$
3HU+RXU 1$
3HU+RXU 1$
7DEOH&KDLU5HQWDO ,QFOXGHG
6RIWEDOO)LHOGV+RXUO\)LHOG8VH Ϭй
Attachment C
Packet Pg 102
1
/LJKW)HH Ϭй
0XOWL8VH&RXUWV+RXUO\8VH ϭϬй
/LJKW)HH 1$
7HQQLV 9ROOH\EDOO&RXUWV)XOO8VH)DFLOLW\ 'D\ ϲй
'DPRQ*DUFLD)XOO8VH)DFLOLW\ 'D\ Ϭй
)XOO8VH)DFLOLW\ +RXU Ϭй
)XOO8VH/LJKW)HH +RXU Ϭй
0DLQWHQDQFH)HH Ϭй
&RQFHVVLRQ6WDQG5HQWDO Ϭй
/RZHU)LHOGV)DFLOLW\8VH 'D\ Ϭй
/RZHU)LHOGV)DFLOLW\8VH +RXU Ϭй
/RZHU)LHOGV/LJKW)HH Ϭй
6LQJOH)LHOG)DFLOLW\8VH 'D\ Ϭй
6LQJOH)LHOG)DFLOLW\8VH +RXU Ϭй
6LQJOH)LHOG/LJKW)HH Ϭй
%DVHEDOO6WDGLXP+RXUO\)LHOG8VH Ϭй
/LJKWV Ϭй
3UHVVER[5HQWDO Ϭй
)LHOGSUHS Ϭй
&RQFHVVLRQ6WDQG5HQWDO Ϭй
)DFLOLW\3HUPLW3URFHVVLQJ)HH ϱϬй
%RXQFH+RXVH ϱй
3RUWDEOH%%4 ϯй
&RPPXQLW\*DUGHQV \U
SHUVTIW
\USHUVT
IW
5DQJHUV
-XQLRU5DQJHU&DPS ϱй
*ROI
&DUW5HQWDO SHUVRQ SHUVRQ
3XOO&DUWV FDUW FDUW
5RXQGV0RQGD\7KXUVGD\ 5HJXODU ϭϴй
0RQGD\7KXUVGD\ 6QU<WK6WX0LO ϭϭй
)ULGD\6XQGD\ 5HJXODU ϭϳй
)ULGD\6XQGD\ 6QU<WK6WX0LO ϭϬй
5HSOD\ϰй
2II3HDN 07K30 5HJXODU ϭϬй
2II3HDN 07K30 6QU<WK6WX0LO ϭϭй
7ZOLJKW DIWHU30 ϯй
)DPLO\5DWH Ϯϱй
6XSHU7ZOLJKW Ϭй
3OD\&DUGV 5HJXODU ϭϴй
3OD\&DUGV 6QU<WK6WX0LO ϲй
Attachment C
Packet Pg 103
1
City of San Luis Obispo, Council Agenda Report, Meeting Date, Item Number
Parks and Recreation Commission
Agenda Report
SUBJECT: PARKS AND RECREATION FEE STUDY SESSION
Prepared by: Devin Hyfield, Recreation Supervisor
Marcus Carloni, Special Projects Manager
RECOMMENDATION
1. Review the costs of Parks and Recreation user fees that is based on the draft citywide user
fee analysis by consulting firm NBS.
2. Provide feedback on proposed adjustments to Parks and Recreation user fees to be
considered by Council for the 2017-2019 Financial Plan.
3. Identify any areas of further study and discussion.
DISCUSSION
Background
Best practices and City fiscal policy calls for a comprehensive review of service costs every five
years. Further, the ongoing review and updates to City service charges is completed on a regular
basis to ensure that they keep pace with changes in the cost-of-living as well as changes in service
delivery. State law provides that fees for services need to be roughly proportional to the actual
costs for providing said services. Due to the Great Recession and other internal operational factors
the City’s most recent comprehensive cost of services study was performed in 2006 and
implemented in 2008. NBS Government Finance Group (NBS) has been retained by the City to
conduct a cost of services study.
Parks and Recreation user fees are guided by adopted policy, actual costs, and market comparisons.
The City’s adopted Budget and Fiscal Policies (Section H of the 2015-17 Financial Plan,
Attachment 1) provide specific policies about cost recovery goals. Recreation Programs are
specifically discussed in subsection G. Subsection I is also applicable to Parks and Recreation
services as it discusses comparability with other communities.
Highlights of the City’s Adopted Parks and Recreation Service Cost Recovery Goals
1.Adults. Cost recovery should be relatively high.
Meeting Date: February 1, 2017
Item Number:_________
2-1
Attachment C
Packet Pg 104
1
Parks and Recreation Fee Study Session Page 2
2.Youth and Seniors. Cost recovery should be relatively low.
3.Specific Activities have articulated cost recovery goals.
Low Range
0 to 30%
Mid-Range
30-60%
High-Range
60-100%
Aquatics
Community Gardens
Junior Ranger Camp
Minor Film Permits
Skate Park
Special Events
Youth Sports
STAR
Teens
Senior/Boomer Services
Contract Classes
Major Film Permits
Adult Sports
Banners
Child Care
Facility Rentals
Triathlon
Golf
NBS Draft Cost of Services Study
User fees are charges collected for a service provided or required due to the request or voluntary
action of an individual/entity. Common types of fees charged by municipalities include
development review; inspection, and approval (planning, engineering, and building); recreational
classes and community sports programs; and public safety services. User fees may not exceed the
estimated and reasonable costs incurred to provide the service for which the fee is charged. NBS,
and Parks and Recreation have worked together to determine the costs of parks and recreation
services that are eligible to be user fees. NBS, using time and workload information has provided
the department with costs for service associated with staffing, operational and maintenance costs,
and administrative and overhead costs.
Parks and Recreation fees may be more discretionary in nature (since users are choosing to
participate in these activities) than other City fees. NBS in evaluating the costs of services for the
City’s Parks and Recreation activities has not delved in the detailed costs associated with each
departmental fee. In order to arrive at those conclusions, Recreation Supervisor, Devin Hyfield,
has lead a further analytic exercise in using NBS’s costs for Parks and Recreation activities along
with the number of users, number of hours of use, and other details to derive more specific costs
associated with Parks and Recreation Activities.
Parks and Recreation Cost of Services Analysis
In reviewing the City’s rates of cost recovery for parks and recreation fees most were found to be
in or near their adopted policy range. Staff discusses several fees more specifically following this
table. Overall many of the proposed adjustments reflect a multitude of inputs including anticipated
operational cost increases along with State of California increases to minimum wage as many
employees in this department work at our near this rate. On January 1, 2017 minimum wage was
increased to $10.50 per hour. On January 1, 2018, it will go to $11.00 and it will continue to
increase in the future until it reaches $15.00 in 2022.
2-2
Attachment C
Packet Pg 105
1
Parks and Recreation Fee Study Session Page 3
2-3
Attachment C
Packet Pg 106
1
Parks and Recreation Fee Study Session Page 4
Youth Services – High Range Cost Recovery Range for Child Care
Youth services provides after school enrichment at five school sites as well as all day activities
during teacher work days, spring break, and summer. Cost recovery for youth services should be
high which it currently is at the 90% range. Staff suggests considering increasing this fee to
directly correlate to minimum wage increases that have been approved during the next two year
financial plan given that most employees in this division work at our near that rate. The hourly
base has been applied to fees for teacher workdays, spring break and summer camps. Those
activities costs significantly more than after school activities due to the length of time, number of
attendees, number of staff required. However, significant increases to these activities are
anticipated to not be sustainable by the customers.
Teens – Low Range Cost Recovery.
At this time Teen is at extremely low (1%) cost recovery for after school enrichment and noon
activities offered at Laguna Middle School which is consistent with policy. This is a challenging
group to create interest with and the activities that are provided reach youth who benefit the most
and are often diverted from activities that are not positive in nature. Consistent with the adopted
Strategic Plan for the Department which suggests exploring the recasting of the Ludwick
Community Center staff recommends further study of the teen program to determine its long-term
sustainability and possible repurposing toward the LCC. At this time, a fee increase to $15 in 2017
and $20 in 2018 is proposed.
Aquatics - Low Range Cost Recovery for All Ages
2-4
Attachment C
Packet Pg 107
1
Parks and Recreation Fee Study Session Page 5
By policy, Aquatics is low cost recovery for all ages. The primary activities at the SLO Swim
Center include lap swimming, recreational swimming, lessons (group and private) and aqua
aerobics and warm water exercise.
1.Lap Swim. At this time, no change is recommended for lap swim because the cost
recovery is currently in the medium range, which is greater than the adopted policy level.
However, during the two year financial plan if it stays the same it will quickly return to the
low cost recovery range due to anticipated increased costs in minimum wage, utilities, and
other operational costs.
2.Rec Swim. Recreational swim is a very specialized program during the summer time and
the costs are significantly higher than lap swim (many more lifeguards must be on deck).
A slight increase to this fee is suggested to keep pace with the known minimum wage
increases and continue this as a low cost recovery activity.
3.Lessons, Group and Private. Group swim lessons currently are at an extremely low cost
recovery amount of about 10%. They are recommended to increase each year to increase
cost recovery to 13% and 18% to reflect a higher rate of cost recovery and to be more
competitive with other jurisdictions. Private lessons are at a higher rate to reflect the
increased costs of one on one lessons and are low cost recovery even with the proposed
increase.
4.Exercise Class. Warm water exercise is extremely low cost recovery. The increase
proposed takes it from a rate of 5% cost recovery to 7% cost recovery. This was selected
for a modest increase to keep this activity affordable for the predominately-senior based
attendees.
5.Lifeguard Training. Lastly, the lifeguard certification program is low cost recovery. It
is at market rate and recommended to stay there so that the City’ workforce can continue
be developed.
Recreational Sports - High Range Cost Recovery
Softball is a three season five day a week program, that sees 215 teams play. This is a high cost
recovery program. The current cost of $465 per team per season represents 53% cost recovery just
shy of the minimum policy level of 60% cost recovery for this program. Over the two-year period,
cost increases are proposed to increase the cost recovery to 60%. Those rates per season would be
$500 in 2017 at a 55% cost recovery and $550 in 2017 at a 60% cost recovery.
Special Events – Cost Recovery Varied by Event Type
1. SLO Triathlon - High Range Cost Recovery is an adult activity with a policy cost
recovery level of high. At this time the current cost recovery level is 32% and is
therefore in the lower end of the mid cost recovery range. Staff recommends changing
the policy for this cost recovery because it is a family oriented beginner triathlon, which
2-5
Attachment C
Packet Pg 108
1
Parks and Recreation Fee Study Session Page 6
competes with many other events. The proposed increase in fee represents continued
mid-range cost recovery.
2. Special Events Produced by the Department – Low Range Cost Recovery. These
include events such as the Gobble Wobble fun run at the golf course, which are geared
toward intergenerational participation. It is recommended that these events be at the
mid level of cost recovery. This would be an addition to this category of cost recovery
and staff will calculate fees for these events based on the costs that now know from the
NBS and fee study.
3. Banners - High Range Cost Recovery. Banners are currently at mid-range cost
recovery. An increase is recommended to put it in high cost recovery.
4. Minor Commercial Film Permits - Low Range Cost Recovery. Presently very few
occur. They are currently in the low range cost recovery. A 5% increase in 2017 and
again in 2018 is recommended to keep them low range cost recovery.
Indoor Facility Rentals - High Range Cost Recovery
At this time, excluding the costs of city uses, the cost recovery is in the High Range at 62%. Aside
from City programs, the primary users of these facilities are for profit businesses, individuals, and
non-profits. The City’s indoor facilities offer an affordable solution for family events and for
businesses who require a regular meeting space. To cover projected increases to staffing and
operational costs and increase to these fees approximately 5% in 2017 and 2018 to retain the rate
of high range cost recovery.
Outdoor Facility Rentals Should Be High Range Cost Recovery
By policy, outdoor facility rentals should be high range cost recovery. Unfortunately, at this time,
in the totality they are at low range of cost recovery of 21%. However, this number is lowered
because 59% of outdoor facility rentals (predominately diamond fields and Damon-Garcia) do not
have high range cost recovery because they are either youth based or have longstanding past
practices of not charging because of “old agreements”. Case in point diamond fields in recognition
of the groups’ former contributions to the City (building the SLO Stadium) or their status as a
nonprofit youth organization. AYSO and Club Soccer are similarly situated. Staff is seeking
guidance from the PRC regarding how it would like this past practice to be further analyzed and
potentially revised. More specifically, it is recommended that the field and Damon Garcia fee be
further analyzed following PRC direction.
SLO Stadium is cost recovering at 83% for the majority of the users since they are adult oriented.
No change is recommended at this time as the aging facility presents unique rental by tolerant
users (the Blues often do repair works themselves).
With the exception of the Jack House and Mission Plaza, for all other outdoor facilities staff
recommends an approximately 5% increase in 2017 and again in 2018 to reflect increased costs in
staffing, operations, and maintenance.
2-6
Attachment C
Packet Pg 109
1
Parks and Recreation Fee Study Session Page 7
1. Jack House is an Outdoor Facility and should be High Cost Recovery Range. The Jack
House rental fee will be considered by the Jack House Committee at its February 8th
meeting. The Committee has been desirous of setting the rental fee to be at the market rate
and directly competitive with the Dallidet Adobe. The Jack House Committee is trying to
balance the use with the historic nature and fragility of the house and gardens. The fee for
2017 and 2018 is proposed to be $3,400 for a full day wedding. For an event of less than
50 people at $50 an hour; for 50-100 people at $200 per hour; and for an event of up to 200
people at $300 per hour. This is an unprecedented increase and the public may be stunned.
Staff is suggesting these changes in anticipation of direction from the Jack House
Committee based on prior discussions.
2.Mission Plaza is an Outdoor Facility and should be High Cost Recovery Range.
Mission Plaza is costing more and more to maintain due to its extensive use for community
events and aging nature of its infrastructure. A $100 increase to its use is recommended to
account for the wide range of unexpected maintenance costs (which often run in the
thousands of dollars – i.e. replacing electrical outlets after an event that damages them)
arising from its use that are not accounted for in the operational costs study.
Community Gardens are Low Range Cost Recovery. The current cost recovery is in the low
range at 5% cost recovery. Staff proposes keeping this a low range cost recovery because of the
community building and food orientation of this activity. It is recommended that the base rate be
increased by about 5% in each of the next two years which will result in closer to 10% cost recovery
in the end.
Laguna Lake Golf Course - High Range Cost Recovery
The Golf Course is currently recovering at the mid range cost recovery, below policy level. It is
an activity that is subject to market influences and multiple competitors. The change in cost
recovery reflects a full understanding of all costs associated with this activity combined with the
change in supervisorial structure and the now known added costs associated with overhead and
management shown in the NBS study. Notably, the users are predominately youth and seniors;
two groups that traditionally are in the low cost recovery range. Price sensitivity by users has been
a concern in the past. The following fees are proposed as this time to keep these activities within
the mid cost recovery range and staff recommends considering a policy change to this cost
recovery range.
Special Event Permits.
This is a fee for service. It should recover 100%. Those events with encroachments onto streets,
sidewalks and right of ways are more costly than those for parks only. So a fee of $100 for park
only special event permits is recommended and one of $160 for events which also have
encroachments. Separate charges will be applied for the actual park use and/or encroachment
related activities.
Study Session Discussion
At the February 1, 2017 PRC meeting, staff suggests a review of the current user fee costs
associated with parks and recreation activities followed by feedback on this Agenda Report and
2-7
Attachment C
Packet Pg 110
1
Parks and Recreation Fee Study Session Page 8
Presentation. Staff has provided notification of this meeting to all users identified as having a
potential impact as a result in a change in fees. Following staff’s power point presentation, will be
public input on this information. Discussion and consensus feedback by the Commission will
conclude the study session.
Next Steps
Following the PRC meeting of February 1, 2017, the Jack House Committee will discuss the Jack
House Use fees at its meeting of February 8th. Council will hold a Study Session on all City User
Fees at its Meeting of February 21st. The PRC meeting of March 1, 2017 will include consideration
of the proposed Parks and Recreation Fees for recommendation to Council for adoption in April.
The March meeting will also address items identified by the PRC at the February 1, 2017 meeting
for further review and discussion.
ATTACHMENTS
1. BUDGET AND FISCAL POLICIES – SECTION H USER COST RECOVERY GOALS
2. PROPOSED CHANGES TO BUDGET AND FISCAL POLICIES SECTION H
2-8
Attachment C
Packet Pg 111
1
BUDGET REFERENCE MATERIALS
BUDGET AND FISCAL POLICIES
G. Recreation Programs
The following cost recovery policies apply to the City's recreation programs:
1.Cost recovery for activities directed to adults should be relatively high.
2.Cost recovery for activities directed to youth and seniors should be relatively low. In those
circumstances where services are similar to those provided in the private sector, cost recovery levels
should be higher.
Although ability to pay may not be a concern for all youth and senior participants, these are desired
program activities, and the cost of determining need may be greater than the cost of providing a uniform
service fee structure to all par ticipants. Further, there is a community-wide benefit in encouraging high-
levels of participation in youth and senior recreation activities regardless of financial status.
3.Cost recovery goals for recreation activities are set as follows:
High-Range Cost Recovery Activities - (60% to 100%)
a.Adult athletics
b.Banner permit applications
c.Child care services (except Youth STAR)
d.Facility rentals (indoor and outdoor; excludes use of facilities for internal City uses)
e.Triathlon
f.Golf
Mid-Range Cost Recovery Activities - (30% to 60%)
g.Classes
h.Holiday in the Plaza
i.Major commercial film permit applications
Low-Range Cost Recovery Activities- (0 to 30%)
j.Aquatics
k.Batting cages
l.Community gardens
m.Junior Ranger camp
n.Minor commercial film permit applications
o.Skate park
p.Special events (except for Triathlon and Holiday in the Plaza)
q.Youth sports
r.Youth STAR
s.Teen services
t.Senior/boomer services
4.For cost recovery activities of less than 100%, there should be a differential in rates between residents
and non-residents. However, the Director of Parks and Recreation is authorized to reduce or eliminate
non-resident fee differentials when it can be demonstrated that:
2-9
Attachment C
Packet Pg 112
1
BUDGET REFERENCE MATERIALS
BUDGET AND FISCAL POLICIES
a.The fee is reducing attendance.
b.And there are no appreciable expenditure savings from the reduced attendance.
5.Charges will be assessed for use of rooms, pools, gymnasiums, ball fields, special -use areas, and
recreation equipment for activities not sponsored or co-sponsored by the City. Such charges will
generally conform to the fee guidelines described above. However, the Director of Parks and Recreation
is authorized to charge fees that are closer to full cost recovery for facilities that are heavily used at peak
times and include a majority of non-resident users.
6.A vendor charge of at least 10 percent of gross income will be assessed from individuals or organizations
using City facilities for moneymaking activities.
7.Director of Parks and Recreation is authorized to offer reduced fees such as introductory rates, family
discounts and coupon discounts on a pilot basis (not to exceed 18 months) to promote new recreation
programs or resurrect existing ones.
8.The Parks and Recreation Department will consider waiving fees only when the City Manager
determines in writing that an undue hardship exists.
2-10
Attachment C
Packet Pg 113
1
BUDGET REFERENCE MATERIALS
BUDGET AND FISCAL POLICIES
G. Recreation Programs
The following cost recovery policies apply to the City's recreation programs:
1.Cost recovery for activities directed to adults should be relatively high.
2.Cost recovery for activities directed to youth and seniors should be relative ly low. In those
circumstances where services are similar to those provided in the private sector, cost recovery levels
should be higher.
Although ability to pay may not be a concern for all youth and senior participants, these are desired
program activities, and the cost of determining need may be greater than the cost of providing a uniform
service fee structure to all participants. Further, there is a community-wide benefit in encouraging high-
levels of participation in youth and senior recreation act ivities regardless of financial status.
3.Cost recovery goals for recreation activities are set as follows:
High-Range Cost Recovery Activities - (60% to 100%)
a.Adult athletics
b.Banner permit applications
c.Child care services (except Youth STAR)
d.Facility rentals (indoor and outdoor; excludes use of facilities for internal City uses)
e.Triathlon
f.Golf
Mid-Range Cost Recovery Activities - (30% to 60%)
e.Triathlon
f.Golf
g.Summer and Spring Break Camps
g.h. Classes
h.Holiday in the Plaza
i.Major commercial film permit applications
Low-Range Cost Recovery Activities- (0 to 30%)
j.Aquatics
Batting cages
k.Community gardens
l.Junior Ranger camp
m.Minor commercial film permit applications
n.Skate park
o.Parks and Recreation sponsored events Special events (except for Triathlon) and Holiday in the
Plaza)
p.Youth sports
Youth STAR
q.Teen services
r.Senior/boomer services
2-11
Attachment C
Packet Pg 114
1
BUDGET REFERENCE MATERIALS
BUDGET AND FISCAL POLICIES
4.For cost recovery activities of less than 100%, there should be a differential in rates between residents
and non-residents. However, the Director of Parks and Recreation is authorized to reduce or eliminate
non-resident fee differentials when it can be demonstrated that:
a.The fee is reducing attendance.
b.And there are no appreciable expenditure savings from the reduced attendance.
5.Charges will be assessed for use of rooms, pools, gymnasiums, ball fields, special-use areas, and
recreation equipment for activities not sponsored or co-sponsored by the City. Such charges will
generally conform to the fee guidelines described above. However, the Dire ctor of Parks and Recreation
is authorized to charge fees that are closer to full cost recovery for facilities that are heavily used at peak
times and include a majority of non-resident users.
6.A vendor charge of at least 10 percent of gross income will be assessed from individuals or organizations
using City facilities for moneymaking activities.
7.Director of Parks and Recreation is authorized to offer reduced fees such as introductory rates, family
discounts and coupon discounts on a pilot basis (not to exceed 18 months) to promote new recreation
programs or resurrect existing ones.
8.The Parks and Recreation Department will consider waiving fees only when the City Manager
determines in writing that an undue hardship exists.
2-12
Attachment C
Packet Pg 115
1
TOGETHER
WE CAN
PLAN OUR
FUTURE
Visit slocity.org for more
information
(Government>Advisory Bodies:
Agendas>Parks and Recreation
Commission)
Questions? Contact Melissa
Mudgett at (805) 781-7296
WEDNESDAY
February 1, 2017
5:30 p.m.
City Hall
Council Chambers
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo
Parks and Recreation Commission Study Session:
Review of Fees
Join the Parks and Recreation Department at our next Parks
and Recreation Commission Meeting. The Commission will
be reviewing the results of the cost of service fee study which
includes recommendations on the amount charged for Parks
and Recreation Programs. We are inviting you to provide
input on the results of the study.
2-13
Attachment C
Packet Pg 116
1
Minutes - DRAFT
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
1 February 2017
Regular Meeting of the Advisory Body Committee Commission
CALL TO ORDER
A Regular Meeting of the Parks and Recreation Commission was called to order on the 1st day of
February 2017 at 5:31 p.m. in the City Council Chambers located at 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo,
California, by Chair Whitener.
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Greg Avakian, Susan Olson, Keri Schwab, Douglas Single, Rodney Thurman,
Vice Chair Susan Updegrove and Chair Jeff Whitener
Absent: None
Staff: Parks and Recreation Director Shelly Stanwyck, Recreation Manager Melissa Mudgett, Special
Projects Manager Marcus Carloni, Recreation Supervisor Facilities Devin Hyfield, Recreation
Supervisor Youth Services Meghan Burger, Recreation Supervisor Community Services Dave
Setterlund, Recreation Supervisor Sports Rich Ogden, Recreation Supervisor Ranger Doug
Carscaden, Administrative Analyst Lindsey Stephenson, Recreation Coordinator Golf Chris
Woods
PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
None
CONSENT AGENDA AND CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES
ACTION: APPROVE THE REGULAR MEETING MINUTES OF JANUARY 4, 2017 AS
AMENDED, MOTION BY THURMAN, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER OLSON.
1. Consideration of Minutes
CARRIED 7:0:0:0 to approve the minutes of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Body for the
meetings of 1/4/2017.
AYES: AVAKIAN, OLSON, SCHWAB, SINGLE, THURMAN, UPDEGROVE, WHITENER
NOES: NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
PUBLIC HEARINGS AND BUSINESS ITEMS
2. Study Session of the Parks and Recreation Fees:
Attachment C
Packet Pg 117
1
DRAFTDRAFT Minutes – Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting of Feburary 1, 2017 Page 2
Director Shelly Stanwyck opened the public study session by explaining that best
practices and City fiscal policy calls for a comprehensive review of service costs every
five years. The last citywide fee study occurred in 2006. She added that Parks and
Recreation user fees are guided by adopted fiscal policy, actual costs, and market
comparisons. Director Stanwyck reiterated that tonight’s Study Session is the first step
in reviewing the proposed fees and receiving public input. The City’s Special Projects
Manager, Marcus Carloni, and Recreation Supervisor, Devin Hyfield, provided a
presentation for the Commission of the Parks and Recreation Fee Analysis and
proposed fee and policy changes. Staff Hyfield reminded the Commission that adopted
fiscal policies specify the current cost recovery levels for adults, youth/seniors and
specific recreational activities. Staff Carloni provided a summary of the citywide fee
study process and the overall analysis provided by the consultant. Parks and Recreation
staff was available in the audience to answer any questions. Staff Carloni shared the
next steps in the process would be for the Jack House Committee review on February
8th, City Council Study Session on February 21st, returning to the Parks and Recreation
Commission on March 1st for recommendation and final adoption of the proposed fees
by the City Council at its April 18, 2016 meeting.
Public Comment
None
Commission Comments followed.
Commission Avakian asked if Childcare Services was considered as a low range cost recovery
activity. Director Stanwyck said that even in the high cost recovery range, the City childcare
fees are below market rate with conservative increases proposed. Commission Avakian asked
about resident versus non-resident rates and suggested that contractual facility rentals could be
analyzed for potential non-resident fees.
Commissioner Olson about non-profit discounts. Staff Hyfield responded that the impact on the
parks/facilities/and other City Departments remain the same level regardless of profit/non-profit
status, but that there are reductions for indoor facilities.
Vice Chair Updegrove asked about Community Gardens. Staff indicated that this community
activity reflects a proposed moderate cost recovery increase to 10%. Vice Chair Updegrove
spoke about housing prices increasing and families having less discretionary income and
expressed support for lower, to no, cost recovery for youth sports.
Commissioner Schwab asked about Damon Garcia Sports Field rates. Director Stanwyck said
that staff is seeking the Commission’s guidance in further analysis of rates for this facility use
by recreational and club organizations.
Commissioner Single asked about the return on investment (ROI) for Parks and Recreation
services and facilities. Director Stanwyck responded that the adopted fiscal policies allow for
cost recovery based upon a variety of factors which vary by activity and user group.
Commissioner Thurman asked for clarification of fiscal policies and where Parks and
Recreation revenues are deposited. Director Stanwyck said all Parks and Recreation fees
collected are a part of the City’s General Fund.
Attachment C
Packet Pg 118
1
DRAFTDRAFT Minutes – Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting of Feburary 1, 2017 Page 3
Chair Whitener expressed support for not charging fees for recreational youth sport groups for
use of fields. He supported exploring fees associated with sports clubs.
By consensus the Parks and Recreation Commission provided feedback and guidance to staff.
1. The costs of services for Parks and Recreation user fees was reviewed.
2. The proposed adjustments to Parks and Recreation user fees and cost recovery policies
were supported by the Commission as presented and no further changes were proposed
3. The Commission supported staff returning at a future meeting date with a project plan
regarding how to analyze recreational costs associated with club sports using City
facilities for youth.
3. Presentation of Open Space Annual Report
Recreation Supervisor Ranger Service, Doug Carscaden, presented the City of San Luis Obispo
2016 Annual Report for Open Space detailing progress in trail maintenance activities, trailhead
amenities, volunteer hours, fuel reduction, trash removal activities, new trail constriction, staff
training, public education and enforcement occurring in this past year. Staff Carscaden said
that there was a total of 1,461.5 volunteer hours recorded in 2016, which equated to a value of
$33,716. A new trail at Reservoir Canyon was completed in 2016 creating a loop and the “M”
Trail loop has begun construction and is anticipated to be open for public use by summer. Staff
Carscaden provided a summary of annual enforcement activities designed to curb poor
behaviors in the open space. He added that ongoing creek maintenance and clean-up days
resulted in the removal of approximately 21.87 tons of trash from the creeks.
Public Comment
None
Commission Comments followed.
Commissioner Thurman asked about garbage cans. Staff Carscaden said there are garbage cans
located at all trailheads.
Commissioner Single asked about the Police Department’s patrol of City Parks. Director
Stanwyck responded that Police has a Neighborhood Policing program and provide regular
patrols of City parks.
Chair Whitener expressed his support of the fuel reduction project. He added that the Open
Space Maintenance Plan was a result of a Major City Goal and asked for staff to comment
about the future for this work effort. Director Stanwyck said that funds from the City’s revenue
enhancement measure were allocated by the Council for added ranger resources and anticipates
this allocation will continue in the next budget cycle. Chair Whitener asked about the average
costs of the five annual contracted creek clean-up services and added he would like to see more
creek clean-ups added. Staff Carscaden responded $1,000 - $1,800 and resulted in 26,360 of
trash removal.
The Parks and Recreation Commission thanked staff for their commitment in expanding and
maintaining the trails.
Attachment C
Packet Pg 119
1
DRAFTDRAFT Minutes – Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting of Feburary 1, 2017 Page 4
ACTION: RECEIVE AND FILE OPEN SPACE ANNUAL REPORT.
COMMITTEE COMMUNICATIONS
4. Director’s Report
Director Stanwyck provided a brief update of current Parks and Recreation programming and City
updates:
The Wadell Property in the Irish Hills open space is now owned by the City – kudos to
Bob Hill.
There is a dramatic uptick in free speech/right to assemble events. Currently City staff
are discussing the balancing of protecting the right to assemble and engage in free
speech with operations of the City.
#RockAroundSLO kicked-off on February 1st. #RockAroundSLO is a social media
campaign to paint and place painted rocks in City parks. The community is encouraged
to post pics on Instagram and share with the hashtag.
LIAISON REPORTS
5. Subcommittee Liaison Reports
Adult and Senior Programming: Commissioner Single said adult softball registration
opens February 6th. The Senior Center will have a Magic Show in March. The Senior
Center is in need of volunteers to manage office records. The Senior Center Membership
Appreciation luncheon is in a few weeks.
Bicycle Advisory Committee: Commissioner Olson said she was unable to attend the last
meeting. No Report.
City Facilities (Damon Garcia, Golf, Pool & Joint Use Facilities): Commissioner
Avakian reported that the rain has helped the Course. There were 13 rain-out days this
last month. The Golf Course “Groupon” promotion is underway. Night Golf will be held
on February 9th. The SLO Swim Center locker-room heaters were repaired.
Tree Committee: Commissioner Thurman said that recently the Committee was asked by
the City to provide input on commercial development projects. Commissioner Thurman
will continue to provide the Commission with updates as this topic of discussion
progresses.
Jack House Committee: Vice Chair Updegrove added that the Jack House Committee
has been pushing for a facility rate increase for events at the Jack House for a long time.
There is a Special Meeting tomorrow night to develop a Mission Statement that will be in
alignment with the Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan and City policies. Art After Dark
is the first Friday of the month and this event has helped to double attendance/visitors to
the Jack House.
Youth Sports: Commissioner Schwab said YSA talked about the update to the Parks and
Recreation Element and scholarship requests for youth baseball as a way to retain
players.
Commission Communications
Chair Whitener asked about the Sinsheimer Park Sign kiosk that may be in need of some repairs.
Director Stanwyck responded that she would reach out to Parks Maintenance, as they are responsible for
maintenance of parks facilities and amenities.
Attachment C
Packet Pg 120
1
DRAFTDRAFT Minutes – Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting of Feburary 1, 2017 Page 5
Chair Whitener said at a recently Mayor’s Meeting, Matt Ritter, spoke about Damon Garcia Sports Field
as in the most geographical challenged area in the state (serpentine rock).
He said he attended the Council Goal Setting meeting on January 26, 2017 and was initially encouraged
about the Commission’s goal for the update of the Parks and Recreation Element being a Major City
Goal. As it was not adopted as a Major City Goal Chair Whitener wanted to continue to advocate as an
advisory body support for the funding of this work effort. Chair Whitener asked if the Commissioners
would like to consider a letter to this effect at its March meeting. Chair Whitener also discussed including
in the letter a recommendation to Council that it use funds from the Park Land Fund that were placed
there during the 2016-17 budget adoption for potential park acquisition in the area North of Broad Street
as updating the element and having a master plan makes sense to come first. Given the unanimous
support for this, a letter will be presented to the Commission for consideration at its March 1 meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 7:36 p.m. to the regular Parks and Recreation Commission scheduled for
01, March 2017 at 5:30 p.m., in the City Council Chambers, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo,
California.
APPROVED BY THE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION: 03/01/2017
Attachment C
Packet Pg 121
1
Jack House Committee Fees
February 8, 2017 Discussion
On February 8, 2017 the Jack House Committee held a study session to review the facility
use charges associated with the Jack House. The Committee recommended the following
changes:
1) General rentals by week-end and week-day (not by wedding non-wedding)
2) Institute a resident and non-resident fee
3) Keep the hourly rates but specify a 4-hour maximum limit and for non-wedding
events only (they wanted to encourage smaller corporate event rentals)
4) Add Security Deposit of $500.
The below table is an excerpt from the table attached to the February 1, 2017 Parks and
Recreation Commission meeting. Items in red are suggested modifications by the Jack
House Committee
Attachment C
Packet Pg 122
1
u
RESOLUTION NO. 9889 (2007 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
AMENDING THE CITY'S MASTER FEE SCHEDULE AND MODIFYING THOSE
FEES FOR THE RECOVERY OF COSTS RELATED TO FIRE AND LIFE SAFETY
INSPECTIONS OF ALL MULTI- DWELLING PROPERTIES
CONTAINING THREE OR MORE DWELLING UNITS
WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo is required by California Health & Safety Code
Section 17921 to annually inspect multi - dwelling rental properties containing three or more
dwelling units, including apartments, hotels, motels, lodging houses and congregate residence;
and
WHEREAS, a typical fire and life safety inspection at these facilities would include, but
not be limited to, checking fire alarm systems, fire sprinkler systems, fire extinguishers, common
areas for fire hazards, exiting and fire access issues; and
WHEREAS, California Health & Safety Code Section 13146 authorizes cities to charge
property owners in recovering the reasonable costs of providing these annual inspections; and
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, such service charges and fees are set forth in the master fee schedule,
adopted and amended by the City Council from time to time; and
WHEREAS, the Council considered amendments to the master fee schedule at a public
hearing on May 17, 2005, based on a detailed analysis of costs and funding requirements to meet
adopted cost recovery goals, and adopted Resolution No. 9684 (2005 Series) setting fees
providing for 94% cost recovery for state - mandated fire and life- safety inspections; and
WHEREAS, on July 5, 2005, the Council held a public hearing and subsequently by its
Resolution No. 9706 (2005 Series) modified fees applicable to sororities and fraternities and very
low and low income households; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was conducted on April 3, 2007, to consider amending the
fee schedule to reduce certain multi - dwelling property fire and life safety inspection fees and
increase fees for the third and additional inspections in the event of non - compliance.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. The City's master fee schedule is hereby amended as follows:
A. The Multi- Dwelling Property Fire and Life Safety Inspection Fee Schedule shall
include the following new fees in place of the existing ones, and all other provisions
of that fee schedule shall remain in effect:
Attachment C
Packet Pg 123
1
O
Resolution No. 9889 (2007 Series)
Page 2
Apartments
28.00 per unit per year
Administrative Fee of $65.00 /year per facility (County billing fee not included)
10,000 maximum per property
Fees are waived for units that are built, owned; and managed by the San Luis Obispo Housing Authority,
other governmental agencies, or not - for - profit housing organizations.
Hotels, Motels, Lodging House, Bed & Breakfast Facilities, Youth Hostel Facilities and Senior
Facilities, Sororities, Fraternities and Other Congregate Residences
1 to 30 units $200 /year per facility (County billing fee not included)
31 to 80 units $300 /year per facility (County billing fee not included)
More than 80 units $400 /year per facility (County billing fee not included)
B. The "Third & Subsequent Fire Safety Inspections" fee as provided in portion of the Master
Fee Schedule entitled "Fire Equipment and Personnel Stand -by Fees Effective July 1, 2006"
is changed from $62.00 to $112.50.
SECTION 2. These fees shall be effective immediately.
On motion of Council Member Settle, seconded by Vice Mayor Mulholland, and on the
following roll call vote:
AYES: Council Member Settle, Vice Mayor Mulholland and Mayor Romero
NOES: Council Members Brown and Carter
ABSENT: None
The foregoing resolution was adopted this
3rd day of April 2007.
elm
Mayor David F. Romero
ATTEST:
Audrey Hoo¢kr
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Jo
2e'
P. Lowell
City Attorney
Attachment C
Packet Pg 124
1
32605 Temecula Parkway, Suite 100
Temecula, CA 92592
Toll free: 800.434.8349 Fax: 951.296.1998
City of San Luis Obispo
Citywide User Fee and Rate Study
Final Report
March 30, 2017
Attachment D
Packet Pg 125
1
User Fees and Charges Study – City of San Luis Obispo
Prepared by NBS
TOC
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................... 1
Purpose .................................................................................................................................................... 1
Outcomes ................................................................................................................................................ 1
Report Format ......................................................................................................................................... 2
Section 1 – Introduction and Fundamentals .......................................................................................... 3
Scope of Study ....................................................................................................................................... 3
Methods of Analysis ............................................................................................................................... 4
Cost of Service Analysis.................................................................................................................... 4
Fee Establishment ............................................................................................................................. 6
Cost Recovery Evaluation ................................................................................................................. 7
Comparative Fee Survey ...................................................................................................................... 8
Data Sources .......................................................................................................................................... 8
Section 2 – Finance Administrative Fees ............................................................................................. 10
Cost of Service Analysis ...................................................................................................................... 10
Fee Establishment................................................................................................................................ 10
Cost Recovery Evaluation ................................................................................................................... 10
Section 3 – Community Development – Planning Division Fees ...................................................... 12
Cost of Service Analysis ...................................................................................................................... 12
Fee Establishment................................................................................................................................ 13
Cost Recovery Evaluation ................................................................................................................... 14
Section 4 – Community Development – Engineering Development Review Fees ........................ 15
Cost of Service Analysis ...................................................................................................................... 15
Fee Establishment................................................................................................................................ 16
Cost Recovery Evaluation ................................................................................................................... 16
Section 5 – Public Works Fees .............................................................................................................. 18
Cost of Service Analysis ...................................................................................................................... 18
Fee Establishment................................................................................................................................ 19
Cost Recovery Evaluation ................................................................................................................... 19
Section 6 – Utilities Fees ......................................................................................................................... 21
Cost of Service Analysis ...................................................................................................................... 21
Fee Establishment................................................................................................................................ 21
Cost Recovery Evaluation ................................................................................................................... 22
Attachment D
Packet Pg 126
1
User Fees and Charges Study – City of San Luis Obispo
Prepared by NBS
TOC
Section 7 – Fire Department – Fire Prevention Fees ......................................................................... 23
Cost of Service Analysis ...................................................................................................................... 23
Fee Establishment................................................................................................................................ 24
Cost Recovery Evaluation ................................................................................................................... 24
Section 8 – Police Fees ........................................................................................................................... 26
Cost of Service Analysis ...................................................................................................................... 26
Fee Establishment................................................................................................................................ 26
Cost Recovery Evaluation ................................................................................................................... 26
Section 9 – Parks & Recreation Department ....................................................................................... 28
Impacts of Proposition 26 on Recreation Fees Analysis ................................................................ 28
Fee Establishment................................................................................................................................ 29
Section 10 – Conclusion ......................................................................................................................... 30
Appendices
Cost of Service Analysis (Fee Tables)
Finance Appendix A.1
Community Development - Planning Appendix A.2
Community Development - Engineering Appendix A.3
Public Works Appendix A.4
Utilities Appendix A.5
Fire – Hazardous Occupancy Permits and Annual Inspections Appendix A.6
Fire – Development Review Appendix A.7
Police Appendix A.8
Development Review – Comprehensive Cost and Recommended Fee Chart Appendix A.9
Comparative Fee Survey
Finance Appendix B.1
Development Review - Planning Appendix B.2
Development Review - Engineering Appendix B.3
Public Works Appendix B.4
Utilities Appendix B.5
Fire – Hazardous Occupancy Permits and Annual Inspections Appendix B.6
Fire – Development Review Appendix B.7
Police Appendix B.8
Attachment D
Packet Pg 127
1
User Fees and Charges Study – City of San Luis Obispo 1
Prepared by NBS
Executive Summary
Purpose
NBS performed a User Fees and Charges Study (Study) for the City of San Luis Obispo (City). The purpose
of this report is to describe the Study’s findings and recommendations, which intend to defensibly update
and establish user and regulatory fees for service for the City of San Luis Obispo, California.
California cities impose user fees and regulatory fees for services and activities they provide through
provisions of the State Constitution. First, cities may perform broad activities related to their local policing
power and other service authority as defined in Article XI, Sections 7 and 9. Second, cities may establish
fees for service through the framework defined in Article XIIIC, Section 1. 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 indivi dual/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 for imposition of taxes, special taxes, or fees imposed as incidences
of property ownership.
The City’s chief purposes in conducting this Study were to ensure that existing fees do not exceed the costs
of service and to provide an opportunity for the City Council to re-align fee amounts with the adopted cost
recovery policies.
Outcomes
This Study ex amined user and regulatory f ees m anaged by the following City departm ents and program s:
Finance, Development Services, Public Works, Utilities, Fire Prevention, and Police. The Study
identified approxim ately $4.3 million currently collected per year from f ees f or service, versus $5.2 million
of eligible costs f or recov ery f rom f ees f or serv ice. The following table provides a summ ary of results for
each service area studied:
As shown, the City is recovering approximately 82% of costs associated with providing user and regulatory
fee related services. Should the Council elect to adopt fee levels at 100% of the full cost recovery amounts
determined by this Study, an additional $912,000 in costs could be recovered. However, as discussed in
Section 1 of this report, there are reasons for adopting a fee at less than the calculated full cost recovery
Department / Division
Estimated
Annual Current
Fee Revenue
Estimated Annual
Full Cost
Recovery Fee
Revenue
Current Cost
Recovery %
Estimated
Annual
Recommended
Fee Revenue
Recommended
Cost Recovery %
Finance $ 442,998 $ 440,289 101% $ 439,240 100%
Development Review (Planning) $ 1,243,660 $ 1,234,476 101% $ 1,170,708 95%
Development Review (Engineering) $ 585,979 $ 957,380 61% $ 942,263 98%
Public Works $ 747,631 $ 655,905 114% $ 654,365 100%
Utilities $ 316,722 $ 773,277 41% $ 769,215 99%
Fire Prevention $ 828,777 $ 971,760 85% $ 861,641 89%
Police $ 90,825 $ 135,311 67% $ 110,037 81%
Total $ 4,256,592 $ 5,168,397 82% $ 4,947,470 96%
Attachment D
Packet Pg 128
1
User Fees and Charges Study – City of San Luis Obispo 2
Prepared by NBS
amount. In addition, the City has an adopted Cost Recovery Policy, which guides decisions about the
ultimate fee amounts adopted. As such, City staff provided initial recommended fee amounts for
consideration. If Council elects to adopt fee levels at staff’s initial rec ommendations, an additional $691,000
in costs could be recovered, or a 96% cost recovery outcome for services provided.
Based on the project’s timeline and information available, the NBS analysis for the Parks and Recreation
Department established the total annual cost of the Department combined, rather than an analysis at the
individual recreational program or fee level. The Department performed their own analysis of costs at the
program level and individual fee level, and recently reviewed their recommendations for changes to various
fee amounts with the Parks and Recreation Commission. Refer to the Parks and Recreation Agenda
Report, February 1, 2017.
Report Format
This report documents analytical methods and data sources used throughout the Study, presents findings
regarding current levels of cost recovery achieve d from user and regulatory fees, discusses recommended
fee amounts, and provides a comparative survey of fees imposed by neighboring agencies for similar
services.
Section 1 of the report outlines the foundation of the Study and general approach.
Sections 2 through 9 discuss the results of the cost of service analysis performed, segmented by
category of fee and/or department. The analysis applied to each category/department falls into
studies of: the fully burdened hourly rate(s), the calculation of the costs of providing service, the
cost recovery policies of each fee category, and the recommended fees for providing services.
Section 10 provides the grand scope conclusions of the analysis provided in the preceding sections.
Appendices to this report include additional analytical details for each department or division
studied, and a comparison of fees imposed by neighboring agencies for similar services.
Attachment D
Packet Pg 129
1
User Fees and Charges Study – City of San Luis Obispo 3
Prepared by NBS
Section 1 – Introduction and Fundamentals
Scope of Study
The following is a summarized list of fees for each City department or program studied:
General administrative services, including:
o Business License processing and renewal
o Returned check processing
o Special requests for GIS services.
Community Development services, including:
o Planning & Zoning - entitlement and permit approvals,
o Engineering plan review and encroachment permit processing
o Support to Building plan review
Public Works Department services, including
o Tree maintenance and removal
o Support to Planning entitlement review
o Support to Engineering plan review and encroachment permit processing
o Transportation Planning and Engineering
o Construction field inspection for improvements projects
Utilities services, including:
o Meter installation and removal, account set up and disconnect
o Lateral installation and abandonment
o Support to Planning entitlement review
o Support to Engineering plan review and construction inspection
o Support to Building plan review
Fire Prevention services, including:
o Hazardous occupancy permits
o Non-mandated and required inspections
o Certified Unified Participating Agency fees (CUPA)
o Multi-dwelling fire and life safety inspection
o Support to Planning entitlement review
o Support to Engineering plan review
o Support to Building plan review and field inspection
o Fire sprinkler and suppression systems
Police services, including:
o Various administrative processing fees such as vehicle impound and release, alarm
permits, taxi permits, etc.
Attachment D
Packet Pg 130
1
User Fees and Charges Study – City of San Luis Obispo 4
Prepared by NBS
o Support to Planning Entitlement Review
Recreational services, classes, programs and permits
The fees examined in this Study specifically excluded utility rates, development impact fees, and special
assessments, all of which fall under distinct analytical and procedural requirements different from the body
of user/regulatory fees analyzed in this effort. Additionally, this Study and the resultant master fee schedule
excluded facility and equipment rental rates, as well as most of the fines and penalties that may be imposed
by the City for violations to its requirements or code. (The City is not limited to the costs of service when
charging for entrance to or use of government property, or when imposing fines and penalties.)
Methods of Analysis
There are three phases of analysis completed for each City department or program studied:
1) Cost of service analysis
2) Fee establishment
3) Cost recovery evaluation
Cost of Service Analysis
A cost of service analysis is a quantitative effort that compiles the full cost of providing governmental
services and activities. There are two primary types of costs considered: direct and indirect co sts. Direct
costs are those that specifically relate to the activity in question, including the real-time provision of the
service. Indirect costs are those that support provision of services in general, but cannot be directly
assigned to the fee for 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 City-wide overhead. Definitions of
these cost components are as follows:
Labor costs – Salary, wages and benefits expenses for City personnel specifically involved in the
provision of services and activities to the public.
Indirect labor costs – Personnel expenses 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 – Discrete expenses incurred by the City due to a specific service or
activity performed, such as contractor costs, third-party 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 – 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.
Allocated indirect organization-wide overhead – These are expenses, both labor and non-labor,
related to agency-wide support services. Support services include general administrative services such
Attachment D
Packet Pg 131
1
User Fees and Charges Study – City of San Luis Obispo 5
Prepared by NBS
as City Council, City Manager, City Clerk, City Attorney, Human Resources, Finance, and Information
Services, as well as cost burdens for building and equipment use and maintenance. An agency’s
support services departments assist the direct providers of public service. The amount of costs
attributable to each department or program included in this Study were sourced from a separate Cost
Allocation Plan, prepared by the City’s Finance Department.
All cost components in this Study use annual (or annualized) figures, representing a twelve-month cycle of
expenses incurred by the City in the provision of all services and activities agency-wide.
Nearly all of the 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 the primary underlying factor in these activities, the
Study expresses the full cost of service as a fully burdened cost per labor ho ur. NBS calculates a
composite, fully burdened, hourly rate for each department, division, program, or activity, as applicable to
the specific organization and needs of each area studied. The rate serves as the basis for further quantifying
the average full cost of providing individual services and activities.
Deriving the fully burdened labor rate for each department, and various functional divisions within a
department, requires two figures: the full costs of service and the number of hours available to perform
those services. The full costs of service are quantified through the earlier steps described in this analysis.
NBS derives the hours available from a complete listing of all personnel employed by the City.
A full-time employee equates to 2,080 hours per year of regular time. Using this as an initial benchmark of
labor time, the Study removes the average employee’s eligible annual leave from the total number of regular
paid hours to generate the total number of available labor hours for each City department or program .
These available hours represent the amount of productive time available for providing both fee-recoverable
and non-fee recoverable services and activities. The productive labor hours divided into the annual full
costs of service equals the composite fully burdened labor rate. Some agencies also use the resulting rates
for other purposes than setting fees, such as when the need arises to calculate the full cost of general
services, or structure a cost recovery agreement with another agency or third party.
Fully burdened labor rates applied at the individual fee level 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 City’s fee schedule. In some fee programs, the City’s time tracking records were useful in
identifying time spent providing general categories of service (e.g. plan review, inspec tion, public
assistance, etc.). However, the City does not systematically track activity service time for all departments
or all fee services provided. Consequently, interviews and questionnaires were used to develop the
necessary data sets describing estimated labor time. In most cases, City staff estimated the average
amount of time (in minutes and hours) it would take to complete a typical occurrence of each service or
activity considered. Every attempt was made to ensure that each department having a direct rol e in the
provision of each service or activity provided a time estimate.
It should be noted that the development of these time estimates was not a one -step process: estimates
received were carefully reviewed by both consultant and departmental management to assess the
reasonableness of such estimates. Based on this review, the City reconsidered its time estimates until both
parties were comfortable that the fee models reasonably reflected the average service level provided by
the City. Then, staff’s time estimates were applied to the appropriate fully burdened labor rate to yield an
average full cost of the service or activity.
Attachment D
Packet Pg 132
1
User Fees and Charges Study – City of San Luis Obispo 6
Prepared by NBS
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. Much of the City’s fee schedule is
composed of flat fees, which by definition, are linked to an average cost of service; thus, use of this average
cost method is the predominant approach in proceeding toward a schedule of revised fees. Flat fee
structures based on average costs of service are widely applied among other California municipalities, and
it is a generally accepted approach. (Refer to the subsection below regarding “Fee Establishment” for
further discussion.)
Subsequent chapters and the appendices of this report discuss the completed cost of service analysis
developed for each department or division.
Fee Establishment
Because most of the City’s fees are flat fees, they correspond directly to the average full cost of service
result. For the few activities where estimating an average was impossible – due to the highly variable
nature of the service – use of fully burdened hourly rates coupled with time tracking is the preferred fee
structure. (In other words, the City would impose a fee per hour of staff time, requiring some degree of time
estimation or outright time-tracking at the case level.)
Establishing fees also includes a range of considerations, as described below:
Addition to and deletion of fees – The Study’s process provided each department the opportunity
to propose additions and deletions to their fee schedules, as well as rename, reorganize, and clarify
fees imposed. Many such revisions better conform fees to current practices, as well as improve the
calculation of fees owed by an individual, the application of said fees, and the collection of revenues.
In other words, as staff is more knowledgeable and comfortable working with the fee schedule, the
accuracy achieved in both imposing fees on users and collecting revenues for the City is greater.
Beyond this, some additions to the fee schedule were simply identification of existing services or
activities performed by City staff for which no fee is currently charged.
Revision to the structure of fees – In most cases, the current structure of fees did not change; the
focus is to recalibrate the fee amount to match the costs of service. In several cases, however, fee
categories and fee names were simplified or re-structured to increase the likelihood of full cost
recovery, or to enhance the fairness of how the fee applies to various types of fee payers.
Documentation of tools to calculate special cost recovery – The City’s fee schedule should
include the list of fully burdened rates developed by the Study. Documenting these rates in the fee
schedule provides an opportunity for the City Council to approve rates for cost recovery under a “time
and materials” approach. It also provides clear publication of those rates, so fee payers of any
uniquely determined fee can reference the amounts. The fee schedule should provide language that
supports special forms of cost recovery for activities and services not contemplated by the adopted
master fee schedule. These rare instances use the published rates to estimate a flat fee, or bill on an
hourly basis, at the discretion of the director of each department.
Attachment D
Packet Pg 133
1
User Fees and Charges Study – City of San Luis Obispo 7
Prepared by NBS
Cost Recovery Evaluation
The NBS fee model compares the existing fee for each service or activity to the average full cost of service
quantified through this analysis. A cost recovery rate of 0% identifies no current recovery of costs from fee
revenues (or insufficient information available for evaluation). A rate of 100% means that the fee currently
recovers the full cost of service. A rate between 0% and 100% indicates partial recovery of the full cost of
service through fees. A rate greater than 100% means that the fee exceeded the full cost of servic e.
User fees and regulatory fees examined in this Study should not exceed the full cost of service. In other
words, the cost recovery rate achieved by a fee should not be greater than 100%. In most cases, imposing
a fee above this threshold could require the consensus of the voters.
NBS also assists with modeling the “recommended” or “targeted” level of cost recovery for each fee, always
established at 100%, or less, than the calculated full cost of service. Targets and recommendations always
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.
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, there is generally little to no recommended
fee amount (i.e., 0% cost recovery), reflecting 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, there is generally closer to or equal to 100% of cost recovery
from fees, collected from the individual or entity. An example of a completely private benefit service may
be a request for exemption from a City regulation or process.
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 or supplement the
public/private benefit perception of a service or activity:
If optimizing revenue potential is an overriding goal, is it feasible to recover the full cost of service?
Will increasing fees result in non-compliance or public safety problems?
Are there desired behaviors or modifications to behaviors of the service population helped or
hindered through the degree of pricing for the activities?
Does current demand for services support a fee increase without adverse impact to the citizenry
served or current revenue levels? (In other words, would fee increases have the unintended
consequence of driving away the population served?)
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)?
Attachment D
Packet Pg 134
1
User Fees and Charges Study – City of San Luis Obispo 8
Prepared by NBS
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?
Because this elem ent of the Study is subjective, NBS provides the full cost of service calculation information
and the framework for considering fees, while those closest to the fee -paying population – the City
departments and programs – have considered appropriate cost recovery levels at or below that full cost for
the Council’s review.
Comparative Fee Survey
Often policy makers request a comparison of their jurisdiction’s fees to surrounding or similar communities.
The purpose of a comparison is to provide a sense of the local market pricing for services, and to use that
information to gauge the impact of recommendations for fee adjustments.
Appendix B presents the results of the Comparative Fee Survey for the City of San Luis Obispo. NBS
worked with the City to choose five comparative agencies: Cities of Davis, Santa Barbara, Santa Maria,
Paso Robles, and the County of San Luis Obispo.
NBS notes the following about the approach to, and use of, comparative survey data:
Comparative surveys do not provide information about the cost recovery policies or procedures inherent
in each comparison agency.
A “market based” decision to price services below the full cost of service calculation, is the same as
making a decision to subsidize that service.
Comparative agencies may or may not base their fee amounts on the estimated and reasonable cost
of providing services. NBS did not perform the same level of analysis provided for this Study on the
comparative agencies’ fees.
Comparative fee survey efforts are often non-conclusive for many fee categories. Comparison agencies
typically use varied terminology for provision of similar services.
In general, NBS reasonably attempts to source each comparison agency’s fee schedule from the Internet,
and compile a comparison of fee categories and amounts for the most readily comparable fee items that
match the client’s existing fee structure.
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’s Adopted Budget for Fiscal Year 2016-17.
A complete listing of all City personnel, salary/wage rates, regular hours, paid benefits, and paid leave
amounts – provided by the Finance Department.
Attachment D
Packet Pg 135
1
User Fees and Charges Study – City of San Luis Obispo 9
Prepared by NBS
Various correspondences with the City staff supporting the adopted budgets and current fees, including
budget notes and expenditure detail not shown in the published document.
Prevailing fee schedules provided by each involved department.
Annual workload data from the prior fiscal year provided by each involved department.
The City’s adopted budget is the most significant source of information affecting cost of service results .
NBS did not 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.
Original data sets also support the work of this Study: primarily, estimated staff time at various levels of
detail. To develop these data sets, consultants prepared questionnaires and conducted interviews with
individual departments. In the fee establishment phase of the analysis, departmental staff provided
estimates of average time spent providing a service or activity corresponding with an existing or new fee.
Consultants and departmental management reviewed and questioned responses to ensure the best
possible set of estimates.
Attachment D
Packet Pg 136
1
User Fees and Charges Study – City of San Luis Obispo 10
Prepared by NBS
Section 2 – Finance Administrative Fees
The Finance Department processes City Business Licenses. The City may charge a fee to recover for the
cost of issuing a license as well as renewing that license on an annual basis.
Cost of Service Analysis
At the time of Study, the Finance Department included both general finance and accounting duties, as well
as the City’s internal information technology support staff. As such, NBS developed one composite fully-
burdened blended hourly rate for Finance Services, and one for IT services. The details of this rate
calculation are presented below:
*Citywide Overhead for IT services is included in the Division Administration line
Section 1, Cost of Service Analysis, of this report describes the types of expenditures and allocated costs
considered in the development of these rates. All subsequent fee calculations will incorporate the fully
burdened hourly rate of $131 for Finance Services and $106 for IT Services.
Fee Establishment
The list fees shown in Appendix A.1 to this report did not incur many significant changes, deletions, or
additions from the City’s prior fee schedule. Processing fees for Business License activities are inclusive of
support from the Planning and Building departments, and Returned Check fees are regulated (capped) by
the State at $25 for the first check, and $35 for each subsequent check.
Cost Recovery Evaluation
Appendix A.1 presents the results of the detailed cost recovery analysis for the City’s general administrative
fees. The “Cost of Service per Activity” column establishes the maximum adoptable fee amount for the
corresponding service identified in the “Fee Description” list.
Cost Element Finance
Services IT Services
Labor 1,132,178$ 1,055,849$
Recurring Non-Labor 451,759 146,300
Citywide Overhead 251,607 -
Division Administration 740,147 484,743
Department Total 2,575,691$ 1,686,893$
Fully Burdened Hourly Rate $ 131 $ 106
19,726 15,987 Reference: Direct Hours Only
Attachment D
Packet Pg 137
1
User Fees and Charges Study – City of San Luis Obispo 11
Prepared by NBS
The City’s general administrative fees currently recover approximately 101% of the cost of providing
services. As shown in the following table, the City collects approximately $443,000 per year in revenues at
current fee amounts. At full cost recovery, the same demand for these services would generate
approximately $440,000.
NBS provided the full cost of service information and the framework for considering fees, while those closest
to the fee-paying population, the City departments, considered appropriate cost recovery levels at or below
that full cost. The “Recommended Fee” column in Appendix A.1 displays the City staff’s initially
recommended fee amounts. These recommended fee amounts adjust several fees downward from current
fee amounts to equal the calculated full cost of service, while two fees for business license processing
activities propose to increase. Returned Check fees, which are regulated (capped) by the State,
recommend no change because existing fees are already at the State’s maximum allowed amount.
These initial recommendations for adjusted fee amounts decrease revenue by approximately $3,700. Fees
would continue to recover approximately 100% of the total costs of providing fee related services.
Department /
Division
Estimated
Annual Current
Fee Revenue
Estimated Annual
Full Cost
Recovery Fee
Revenue
Current Cost
Recovery %
Estimated
Annual
Recommended
Fee Revenue
Recommended
Cost Recovery %
Finance $ 442,998 $ 440,289 101% $ 439,240 100%
Attachment D
Packet Pg 138
1
User Fees and Charges Study – City of San Luis Obispo 12
Prepared by NBS
Section 3 – Community Development – Planning Division Fees
The City has adopted laws that regulate the use of land and the design of most commerc ial and housing
projects. The purpose of these laws is to protect the health, safety and welfare of community residents and
visitors. Laws, such as the Zoning Regulations, architectural review requirements, and Subdivision
Regulations, require that people submit applications for project approval to the Community Development
Department. The Development Review Division evaluates development proposals for consistency with the
City's General Plan and all other applicable plans and regulations. Staff from this Division also prepare and
oversee reports that study the environmental effects of development projects and identify ways of avoiding
environmental damage. This work is required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Planning actions are those taken by the City Council, Planning Commission, Architectural Review
Commission, or the Administrative Hearing Officer. Actions cover a wide range of activities from the City
Council's approval of a housing subdivision to the Hearing Officer's appro val of a permit for a six-foot fence
in the front yard of a house. The Development Review Division serves the residents, property owners, and
businesses of the City of San Luis Obispo by administering a variety of City regulations relating to physical
development of the community. Additionally, the department manages the development of City-wide and
neighborhood plans and programs including adoption and maintenance of the General Plan.
Cost of Service Analysis
The following categorizes the Planning 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 cost of
providing fee related services.
All subsequent cost of service calculations at the indiv idual fee level assume a fully burdened hourly rate
of $191, with approximate recovery of $1.6 million in costs from fees for service.
The cost category columns shown in the table above were adapted and summarized from Division staff
interviews. To assist the reader in understanding the underlying costs and assumptions used to calculate
the fully burdened hourly rate, the following provides summary descriptions of each cost category:
Cost Element Public
Information
CIP Review
and Support
Direct (Fee-
Related)
Services
Total
Labor 164,057$ 1,965$ 494,799$ 660,822$
Recurring Non-Labor - - - -
Citywide Overhead 141,154 1,691 425,722 568,567
Allocated Common Activities 142,667 1,709 430,286 574,662
Department Total 447,879$ 5,365$ 1,350,808$ 1,804,051$
Cost Recovery Targeted from Fees 60%0%100%90%
Amount Targeted for Consideration in Billings/Fees 268,727 - 1,350,808 1,619,535
Amount Requiring Another Funding Source 179,151 5,365 - 184,516
Fully Burdened Hourly Rate $ 32 $ - $ 159 $ 191
Reference: Direct
Hours Only 8,494
Attachment D
Packet Pg 139
1
User Fees and Charges Study – City of San Luis Obispo 13
Prepared by NBS
Public Information – Activities associated with responding to phone calls and supporting both active
permits and the development review process in general. Typically, some portion of costs for provision
of general public information and assistance do not apply toward recovery from fees. Planning staff
estimated that approximately 60% of these costs support land use application review activities, while
the remaining costs should be not be considered in the calculation of fees for services. The remaining
40% of the costs of providing public information services requires funding from sources other than fees.
CIP Review and Support – Development Review Division staff support the review and implementation
of various City capital improvement projects. These costs do not apply toward recovery from Planning
and Zoning review fees.
Direct (Fee-Related) Services – Development review and approval comprises the majority of this
Division’s work efforts. 100% of these costs apply toward recovery from Planning and Zoning fees for
service.
Significant analytical and policy decisions revolve around inclusion of categorized activity costs in the fully
burdened hourly rate. The decision of whether to apply or exclude certain costs toward recovery in fees
for service stems from the basic fee setting parameters offered by the California State Constitution and
Statutes, 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.
Fee Establishment
This Study addressed several key fee-setting issues for the Development Services Division.
First, the Division wanted to change the method of cost recovery for complex application review services
from flat fees to a deposit based system. NBS worked with the Division’s manager to identify the fee
categories that best suited for a deposit based fee structure. Selected fee categories include Planned
Development, Rezoning, Appeals, General Plan Amendments, Specific Plan Amendments, Annexation,
Development Agreement Application, and Reimbursement Agreement.
Second, the City wanted to update its Development Review Surcharge, and evaluate whether there was a
better way of accomplishing the surcharge’s objective. The City’s policy for recovery of development review
costs is 100%. To achieve this objective, the City implemented a policy and collection procedure of
recovering 45% of selected planning and zoning development application fees at the time of submittal to
the Planning Division, with the remaining 55% of the fee collected through a 44% general surcharge
established on all building permits. After much review and discussion about the strengths and opportunities
for improvement regarding this method of collection, NBS recommended that the City proceed with a project
specific collection method; meaning, any particular fee selected for phased collection between the planning
and building phases of a project be charged specific to that project. The City has made significant
technological advancements since the initial surcharge was implemented, and is now able to track and
charge on a project-by-project basis.
The City also wanted to quantify the total estimated costs of development review incurred not only by the
Planning Division, but also by departments outside of the Division. E ngineering, Public Works, Building,
Fire, Police, and Utilities may all receive routed copies of planning applications for review and comment.
As such, NBS structured the City’s fee model to quantify support costs for each of these departments,
where applicable.
Attachment D
Packet Pg 140
1
User Fees and Charges Study – City of San Luis Obispo 14
Prepared by NBS
Finally, the City wanted to quantify the total estimated costs of support provided by the Planning Division
to Engineering project review and Building plan check. NBS structured the City’s fee model to quantify
these support costs for Engineering, and also recommended separate fee categories for Building Plan
Review Support based on the type of project.
Cost Recovery Evaluation
Appendix A.2 presents the results of the detailed cost recovery analysis for the City’s Planning and Zoning
fees. The “Cost of Service per Activity” column establishes the maximum adoptable fee amount for the
corresponding service identified in the “Fee Description” list.
The City’s Planning and Zoning fees currently recover approximately 94% of the Planning Division’s cost
of providing services. As shown in the following table, the City collects approximately $1.2 million per year
in revenues at current fee amounts. At full cost recovery, the same demand for these services would also
generate approximately $1.2 million.
NBS provided the full cost of service information and the framework for considering fees, while those closes t
to the fee-paying population, the City departments, considered appropriate cost recovery levels at or below
that full cost. The “Recommended Fee” column in Appendix A.2 displays the City staff’s initially
recommended fee amounts. These initial recommendations for adjusted fee amounts would decrease the
Planning Division’s revenues by approximately $73,000. Recommended fees are projected to recover
approximately 95% of the total costs of providing fee related services.
The cost recovery evaluation described above evaluates only the costs of the Development Review
Division’s services as compared to the City’s current fees for Planning and Zoning r eview. For many fees
in the table, the amounts shown in the “Current Fee / Deposit” column of the Appendix reflect approximately
45% of the full fee amount actually charged by the City. The additional Development Review Surcharge
currently attempts to recover the remaining 55% of the City’s full cost recovery fee amount on top of building
permits. The estimated annual surcharge revenue amount displays in the Appendix under the “Annual
Estimated Revenues at Current Fee” column (see Development Review Surcharge category near the
bottom of the table). However, it was not possible to translate this lump sum revenue reasonably to the
individual fee categories in order to provide a better sense of the Existing Cost Recovery percentage for
each fee item. Also, a comparison of the City’s existing fee amount to the total cost of providing services,
inclusive of supporting departments such as Engineering, Public Works, Fire, etc. is a vailable as Appendix
A.9.
Department /
Division
Estimated
Annual Current
Fee Revenue
Estimated Annual
Full Cost
Recovery Fee
Revenue
Current Cost
Recovery %
Estimated
Annual
Recommended
Fee Revenue
Recommended
Cost Recovery %
Development Review
(Planning) $ 1,243,660 $ 1,234,476 101% $ 1,170,708 95%
Attachment D
Packet Pg 141
1
User Fees and Charges Study – City of San Luis Obispo 15
Prepared by NBS
Section 4 – Community Development – Engineering Development Review Fees
The Engineering Development Review Division provides reviews for planning entitlements and building
permit plans for grading, drainage, floodplain management, Stormwater regulations, compliance with City
Engineering Standards, and the Parking and Driveway Standards. The Division is the lead for processing
parcel and final maps to recordation along with the approval of any requisite subdivision improvement plans.
The Division issues encroachment and transportation permits.
Cost of Service Analysis
The following table categorizes the Engineering Development Review 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 cost of providing fee related services.
All subsequent cost of service calculations at the individual fee level assume a fully burdened hourly rate
of $136, with approximate recovery of $1 million in costs from fees for service.
The cost category columns shown in the table above were adapted and summarized from Division staff
interviews. To assist the reader in understanding the underlying costs and assumptions used to calcul ate
the fully burdened hourly rate, the following provides summary descriptions of each cost category:
Public Information – Activities associated with responding to phone calls and supporting both active
permits and the development review process in general. Typically, some portion of costs for provision
of general public information and assistance do not apply toward recovery from fees. Engineering staff
estimated that approximately 60% of these costs support permits and plan submittal activities, while
the remaining costs should be not be considered in the calculation of fees for services. The remaining
40% of the costs of providing public information services requires funding from sources other than fees.
Floodplain Management, Engineering Inspection Support (CIP), and Stormwater Management –
Staff from the Engineering Department participate in other City projects and programs that are not part
of development review approval and regulation. None of these apply toward recovery in fee related
services.
Direct Services – Development review and approval comprises the majority of this Division’s work
efforts. 100% of these costs apply toward recovery from Engineering development review fees for
service.
Cost Element Public
Information
Floodplain
Management
Engineering
Inspection
Support (CIP)
Stormwater
Management
Direct
Services Total
Labor 19,818$ 6,864$ 13,729$ 13,729$ 487,368$ 541,508$
Recurring Non-Labor 319 111 221 221 7,849 8,721
Citywide & Department Overhead 11,776 4,079 8,158 8,158 289,605 321,776
Allocated Common Activities 8,707 3,016 6,032 6,032 214,118 237,904
Department Total 40,621$ 14,070$ 28,139$ 28,139$ 998,940$ 1,109,909$
Cost Recovery Targeted from Fees 60%0%0%0%100%92%
Amount Targeted for Consideration in Billings/Fees 24,372 - - - 998,940 1,023,313
Amount Requiring Another Funding Source 16,248 14,070 28,139 28,139 - 86,596
Fully Burdened Hourly Rate $ 3 $ - $ - $ - $ 133 $ 136
Reference: Direct
Hours Only 7,510
Attachment D
Packet Pg 142
1
User Fees and Charges Study – City of San Luis Obispo 16
Prepared by NBS
Significant analytical and policy decisions revolve around inclusion of categorized activity costs in the fully
burdened hourly rate. The decision of whether to apply or exclude certain costs toward recovery in fees
for service stems from the basic fee setting parameters offered by the California State Constitution and
Statutes, 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.
Fee Establishment
This Study addressed several key fee-setting issues for the Engineering Development Review Division.
NBS recommended restructuring of the City’s fees for Improvement Plan check to include additional tiers
for various project sizes, and a method of scaling the fee amount in between tiers. The City’s current fee
structure includes a base fee amount plus a flat 1.8% applied to the construction value of the project.
Migrating to tiered fee structure reflects a better economy of sc ale in the effort (and therefore cost or fee
amount) for smaller versus larger projects.
The City also wanted to quantify the total estimated costs of providing services to engineering development
review fees by departments outside of the Division. Planning, Building, Fire, Utilities, and Public Works may
all receive routed copies of improvement plans and final map submittals for review and comment. In
addition, the Public Works Department participates in issuance and inspection of various encroachme nt
permits. As such, NBS structured the City’s fee model to quantify support costs for each of these
departments, where applicable.
Finally, the City wanted to quantify the total estimated costs of support provided by the Engineering
Development Review Division to Planning project review. NBS structured the City’s fee model to quantify
these support costs. NBS also recommended changing the method of cost recovery for this Division’s
support to the Building plan review process. Currently the City charges a 15% surcharge on building plans
to recover for the costs of Engineering review. The Division created an itemized fee schedule in response
to NBS’ recommendation, and will have the ability to charge fees based on the type and size of the project
reviewed, as well as for consideration of the scope of review involved.
Cost Recovery Evaluation
Appendix A.3 presents the results of the detailed cost recovery analysis for the City’s Engineering
Development Review fees. The “Cost of Service per Activity” column establishes the maximum adoptable
fee amount for the corresponding service identified in the “Fee Description” list.
The City’s Engineering fees currently recover approximately 61% of the Division’s cost of providing
services. As shown in the following table, the City collects approximately $586,000 per year in revenues at
current fee amounts. At full cost recovery, the same demand for these services would generate
approximately $957,000.
Attachment D
Packet Pg 143
1
User Fees and Charges Study – City of San Luis Obispo 17
Prepared by NBS
NBS provided the full cost of service information and the fram ework for considering fees, while those closest
to the fee-paying population, the City departments, considered appropriate cost recovery levels at or below
that full cost. The “Recommended Fee” column in Appendix A.3 displays the City staff’s initially
recommended fee amounts. These initial recommendations for adjusted fee amounts recover an additional
$356,000 of the Engineering Development Review Division’s costs annually. Fees at recommended
amounts would recover approximately 98% of the total costs of providing fee related services.
The cost recovery evaluation described above evaluates only the costs of the Engineering Development
Review Division’s services. A comparison of the City’s existing fee amount to the total cost of providing
services, inclusive of supporting departments such as Planning, Public Works, Fire, etc. is available as
Appendix A.9.
Department /
Division
Estimated
Annual Current
Fee Revenue
Estimated Annual
Full Cost
Recovery Fee
Revenue
Current Cost
Recovery %
Estimated
Annual
Recommended
Fee Revenue
Recommended
Cost Recovery %
Development Review
(Engineering) $ 585,979 $ 957,380 61% $ 942,263 98%
Attachment D
Packet Pg 144
1
User Fees and Charges Study – City of San Luis Obispo 18
Prepared by NBS
Section 5 – Public Works Fees
The Public Works Department performs a wide variety of tasks from planting and trimming City trees,
inspecting development, maintaining City parks, designing our utilities infrastructure, repairing sidewalks
and streets, building bike trails, improving traffic safety, maintaining bridges, swimming pools and stadium s,
managing downtown and neighborhood parking, and providing transit service, to repairing City vehicles and
maintaining City buildings.
Cost of Service Analysis
The Public Works Department’s divisions of Capital Improvement / Development inspection,
Transportation, and Tree Maintenance, either charge fees for their discipline -specific services, or support
the review and implementation of fee for service activities in the City’s Community Development
department. As such, NBS calculated one composite fully burdened blended hourly rate for each division.
Public Works – Capital Improvement / Development Inspection
Public Works – Transportation Engineering
Cost Element
Development
Review /
Permitting
CIP / Other
Duties Total
Labor 280,770$ 1,285,624$ 1,566,394$
Recurring Non-Labor 13,791 63,146 76,937$
Department and Citywide Overhead 128,163 586,850 715,013$
Allocated Common Activities 114,080 522,362 636,442$
Department Total 536,803$ 2,457,982$ 2,994,785$
Fully Burdened Hourly Rate $ 135 n/a n/a
Reference: Direct Hours Only 3,979 n/a n/a
Cost Element
Development
Review /
Permitting
CIP / Other
Duties Total
Labor 68,991$ 564,200$ 633,190$
Recurring Non-Labor 4,384 35,852 40,236$
Department and Citywide Overhead 9,657 78,971 88,627$
Allocated Common Activities 19,005 155,420 174,425$
Department Total 102,036$ 834,442$ 936,478$
Fully Burdened Hourly Rate $ 111 n/a n/a
Reference: Direct Hours Only 917 n/a n/a
Attachment D
Packet Pg 145
1
User Fees and Charges Study – City of San Luis Obispo 19
Prepared by NBS
Public Works – Tree Maintenance
Section 1, Cost of Service Analysis, of this report describes the types of expenditures and allocated costs
considered in the development of these rates. The total estimated cost of Public Works’ fee related activities
(Development Review and Permitting), is approximately $679,000 annually. All subsequent fee calculations
will incorporate the fully burdened hourly rate of $135 for Construction Inspection services, $111 for
Transportation and $95 for Tree Maintenance.
Fee Establishment
Public Works has a few Tree maintenance fees charged for Tree/Shrub Abatement, Commemorative Tree
Planting, and Tree Removal permits. NBS assisted the Department with clarifying the purpose and structure
of these fees. The bulk of fees charged by this department are for inspection of improvement projects and
encroachment permits, which initiate in the Engineering Development Review Division. In addition, NBS
quantified the costs of the Public Works Department’s support to Planning applic ation review.
NBS also recommended restructuring of the City’s fees for Construction Inspection to include additional
tiers for various project sizes, and a method of scaling the fee amount in between tiers. The City’s current
fee structure includes a base fee amount plus a flat 12.9% applied to the construction value of the project.
Migrating to tiered fee structure reflects a better economy of scale in the effort (and therefore cost or fee
amount) for smaller versus larger projects.
Cost Recovery Evaluation
Appendix A.4 presents the results of the detailed cost recovery analysis for the City’s Public Works fees.
The “Total Cost of Service per Activity” column establishes the maximum adoptable fee amount for the
corresponding service identified in the “Fee Description” list.
The City’s Public Works fees currently recover approximately 114% of the Department’s cost of providing
services. As shown in the following table, the City collects approximately $748,000 per year in revenues at
current fee amounts. At full cost recovery, the same demand for these services would generate
approximately $656,000.
Cost Element
Development
Review /
Permitting
Other
Programs and
Activities
Total
Labor 29,455$ 353,076$ 382,531$
Recurring Non-Labor (5,638) 16,321 10,682$
Department and Citywide Overhead 11,983 143,644 155,627$
Allocated Common Activities 4,240 60,757 64,996$
Department Total 40,039$ 573,798$ 613,836$
Fully Burdened Hourly Rate $ 95 n/a n/a
423 n/a n/a Reference: Direct Hours Only
Attachment D
Packet Pg 146
1
User Fees and Charges Study – City of San Luis Obispo 20
Prepared by NBS
NBS provided the full cost of service information and the framework for considering fees, while those closes t
to the fee-paying population, the City departments, considered appropriate cost recovery levels at or below
that full cost. The “Recommended Fee” column in Appendix A.4 displays the City staff’s initially
recommended fee amounts. These initial recommendations for adjusted fee amounts would decrease
annual fee revenue for this Department by approximately $93,000. Fees at recommended amounts would
recover approximately 100% of the total costs of providing fee related services.
The cost recovery evaluation described above evaluates only the cos ts of the Public Works Department
services. A comparison of the City’s existing fee amount to the total cost of providing services, inclusive of
supporting departments is available as Appendix A.9.
Department /
Division
Estimated
Annual Current
Fee Revenue
Estimated Annual
Full Cost
Recovery Fee
Revenue
Current Cost
Recovery %
Estimated
Annual
Recommended
Fee Revenue
Recommended
Cost Recovery %
Public Works $ 747,631 $ 655,905 114% $ 654,365 100%
Attachment D
Packet Pg 147
1
User Fees and Charges Study – City of San Luis Obispo 21
Prepared by NBS
Section 6 – Utilities Fees
The Utilities Department serves the residents, property owners, and businesses of the City of San Luis
Obispo by providing both water and sewer services.
Cost of Service Analysis
NBS developed one composite fully burdened blended hourly rate for the Utilities Department.
Section 1, Cost of Service Analysis, of this report describes the types of expenditures and allocated costs
considered in the development of this rate. All subsequent fee calculations will incorporate the fully
burdened hourly rate of $125.
Fee Establishment
SLO’s Utilities Department recovers the majority of its costs through water and wastewater rates, which are
not subject to the parameters and scope of this Study. Utility rates are subject to Proposition 218 stipulation
and proceedings and require a separate type of analysis and adoption procedure. However, the Department
does provide several services, which should be recovered by user fees or regulatory, namely meter
services, account set up fees, lateral installation and abandonment, etc. The Departme nt actively charges
for these services. Pre-treatment Inspection Services, which are set separately by City Ordinance, were
excluded from the Study.
A primary goal for the Utilities Department’s involvement in the Study was to quantify the costs of the
Department’s support to development review approval and inspection activities. NBS worked closely with
the Department to quantify the costs of support to the Planning and Zoning application review process, as
well as review of Engineering’s improvement plan submittals. For Construction Inspection of improvements,
as well as support to Building plan review, NBS assisted the Department in establishing a customized list
of fees that reflected the Department’s service level.
Cost Element W / WW Ops Fee for Service
Activities
Labor 5,253,142$ 445,691$
Recurring Non-Labor 3,696,066 26,745
Citywide Overhead 1,904,063 168,386
Dept/Division Administration/Dispatch 3,991,856 235,696
Department Total 14,845,126$ 876,517$
Fully Burdened Hourly Rate n/a $ 125
n/a 7,013 Reference: Direct Hours Only
Attachment D
Packet Pg 148
1
User Fees and Charges Study – City of San Luis Obispo 22
Prepared by NBS
Cost Recovery Evaluation
Appendix A.5 presents the results of the detailed cost recovery analysis for the Utilities Department’s fees.
The “Cost of Service per Activity” column establishes the maximum adoptable fee amount for the
corresponding service identified in the “Fee Description” list.
Fees currently recover approximately 41% of the cost of providing services. As shown in the following table,
the City collects approximately $317,000 per year in revenues at current fee amounts. At full cost recovery,
the same demand for these services would generate approximately $773,000.
NBS provided the full cost of service information and the framework for considering fees, while those closes t
to the fee-paying population, the City departments, considered appropriate cost recovery levels at or below
that full cost. The “Recommended Fee” column in Appendix A.5 displays the City staff’s initially
recommended fee amounts. The Department recommended fees at 100% cost recovery, with the exception
of support to Community Development applications for Administrative Approval Applications. For these
applications, the City’s Community Development Director recommended no fee. These initial
recommendations for adjusted fee amounts increase cost recovery by approximately $452,000 annually.
Department /
Division
Estimated
Annual Current
Fee Revenue
Estimated Annual
Full Cost
Recovery Fee
Revenue
Current Cost
Recovery %
Estimated
Annual
Recommended
Fee Revenue
Recommended
Cost Recovery %
Utilities $ 316,722 $ 773,277 41% $ 769,215 99%
Attachment D
Packet Pg 149
1
User Fees and Charges Study – City of San Luis Obispo 23
Prepared by NBS
Section 7 – Fire Department – Fire Prevention Fees
The scope of this Study for the Fire Department focused predominantly on fire prevention services
provided by the Fire Prevention and Education Division. This Division has a staff of five professionals who
perform plan review, fire inspections, fire investigations, and public education coordination.
Cost of Service Analysis
The following table categorizes the Fire Prevention 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
cost of providing fee related services.
All subsequent cost of service calculations at the individual fee level assume a fully burdened hourly rate
of $141, with approximate recovery of $1 million in costs from fees for service.
The cost category columns shown in the table above were adapted and summarized from Division staff
interviews. To assist the reader in understanding the underlying costs and assumptions used to calculate
the fully burdened hourly rate, the following provides summary descriptions of each cost category:
Public Education, Community Outreach, Code Enforcement, Weed Abatement, Fire
Investigations, Fuel Management, and Hydrant Maintenance – Staff from the Prevention Division
participate in a variety of regulatory programs and services that do not apply toward recovery from fee
revenues. These services are funded through a variety of sources, including the General Fund,
penalties, hourly billings, or enterprise fund revenues.
Direct Permitting Services – Inspection and permitting services comprise the majority of this
Divison’s work efforts. 100% of these costs apply toward recovery from Fire Prevention fees for
service.
Significant analytical and policy decisions revolve around inclusion of categorized activity costs in the fully
burdened hourly rate. The decision of whether to apply or exclude certain costs toward recovery in fees
for service stems from the basic fee setting parameters offered by the California State Constitution and
Statutes, which requires that any new fee levied or existing fee increased should no t exceed the estimated
amount required to provide the service for which the charge is levied.
Cost Element
Public
Education /
Community
Outreach
Code
Enforcement
/ Complaint
Response
Weed
Abatement
Fire
Investigations
Fuel
Management
Program
Utility Fund -
Hydrant
Maintenance
Direct
Permitting
Services
Total
Labor 25,853$ 12,010$ 4,522$ 19,568$ 15,710$ 8,609$ 484,379$ 570,651$
Recurring Non-Labor 618 6,487 1,608 468 375 206 43,678 53,440
Citywide Overhead 11,305 5,252 1,977 8,556 6,869 3,765 211,809 249,533
Allocated Common Activities 14,498 9,115 3,112 10,973 8,810 4,828 283,960 335,296
Department Total 52,274$ 32,864$ 11,219$ 39,565$ 31,764$ 17,408$ 1,023,826$ 1,208,920$
Cost Recovery Targeted from Fees 0%0%0%0%0%0%100%85%
- - - - - - 1,023,826 1,023,826
52,274 32,864 11,219 39,565 31,764 17,408 - 185,094
Fully Burdened Hourly Rate $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 141 $ 141
Reference: Direct
Hours Only 7,252
Amount Targeted for Consideration
in Billings/Fees
Amount Requiring Another Funding
Source
Cost Allocation to Each Function / Activity
Attachment D
Packet Pg 150
1
User Fees and Charges Study – City of San Luis Obispo 24
Prepared by NBS
Fee Establishment
The Fire Prevention Division’s fee program is generally comprised of two types of regulatory activities:
1. Permits that are required by the Fire Code for one-time events or annual activities, and inspections
of existing businesses which are either mandated by the State, or required by the City’s oridnances
and policies:
Hazardous occupancy permits
Non-mandated and required inspections
Certified Unified Participating Agency fees (CUPA)
Multi-dwelling fire and life safety inspection
2. Development review services
Support to Planning entitlement review
Support to Engineering plan review
Support to Building plan review and field inspection
Fire sprinkler and suppression systems plan review and inspection
NBS assisted the Division in restructuring many of the City’s existing fees. The City also wanted to quantify
the total estimated costs of providing services to development review application approval. As such, NBS
structured the Fire Prevention fee model to quantify support costs for Planning and Zoning application
review and Engineering Improvement Plan Review. NBS also assisted the Fire department in updating its
customized fee structure associated with cost recovery for plan review and inspection services initiated
through the Building Division.
Cost Recovery Evaluation
Appendix A.6 presents the results of the detailed cost recovery analysis for the Division’s non-development
related permitting and inspection activities (Category 1 above). Appendix A.7 presents the results for the
Division’s development related costs and fees. The “Cost of Service per Activity” column in each appendix
establishes the maximum adoptable fee amount for the corresponding service identified in the “Fee
Description” list.
The City’s Fire Prevention fees currently recover approximately 85% of the cost of providing services. As
shown in the following table, the City collects approximately $829,000 per year in revenues at current fee
amounts. At full cost recovery, the same demand for these services would generate approximately
$972,000.
Department /
Division
Estimated
Annual Current
Fee Revenue
Estimated Annual
Full Cost
Recovery Fee
Revenue
Current Cost
Recovery %
Estimated
Annual
Recommended
Fee Revenue
Recommended
Cost Recovery %
Fire Prevention $ 828,777 $ 971,760 85% $ 861,641 89%
Attachment D
Packet Pg 151
1
User Fees and Charges Study – City of San Luis Obispo 25
Prepared by NBS
NBS provided the full cost of service information and the framework for considering fees, while those
closest to the fee-paying population, the City departments, considered appropriate cost recovery levels at
or below that full cost. The “Recommended Fee” column in appendices A.6 and A.7 display the City staff’s
initially recommended fee amounts. These initial recommendations for adjusted fee amounts recover an
additional $33,000 in costs annually. Fees at recommended amounts would recover approximately 89%
of the total costs of providing fee related services.
Attachment D
Packet Pg 152
1
User Fees and Charges Study – City of San Luis Obispo 26
Prepared by NBS
Section 8 – Police Fees
The scope of this user and regulatory fee analysis for Police focused almost exclusively on various
administrative processing fees such as records copies, business regulatory fees, and vehicle impound or
release.
Cost of Service Analysis
The majority of services provided by the Police Department are not recoverable in user/regulatory fees for
service. For the Police Department, the NBS fee model derived fully burdened labor rates for several
specific categories of personnel. The table below illustrates the fully burdened hourly rate for Sworn versus
Non-Sworn personnel classifications in the Police Department.
*Citywide Overhead costs are included in the Division Administration line for the non-sworn rate
All subsequent cost of service calculations at the individual fee level assume the applicable fully burdened
hourly rates as shown above.
Fee Establishment
The list fees shown in Appendix A.8 to this report did not incur many significant changes, deletions, or
additions from the City’s prior fee schedule. In addition, because many fees available for police
departments to charge are set by various sections of the State’s governmental codes, NBS did not
evaluate many of the Department’s existing fees.
Cost Recovery Evaluation
Appendix A.8 presents the results of the cost recovery analysis for the City’s Police Department. The
“Cost of Service per Activity” column establishes the maximum adoptable fee amount for the
corresponding service identified in the “Fee Description” list.
Cost Element Sworn Direct
Services
Non-sworn
Direct Services
Labor 8,927,006$ 344,076$
Recurring Non-Labor 180,143 725
Citywide Overhead 1,860,618 -
Dept/Division Administration/Dispatch 5,478,962 115,915
Department Total 16,446,729$ 460,715$
Fully Burdened Hourly Rate $ 181 $ 99
90,846 4,675 Reference: Direct Hours Only
Attachment D
Packet Pg 153
1
User Fees and Charges Study – City of San Luis Obispo 27
Prepared by NBS
Police Department fees currently recover approximately 67% of the cost of providing services. As shown
in the following table, the City collects approximately $91,000 per year in revenues at current fee amounts.
At full cost recovery, the same demand for these services would generate approximately $110,000.
NBS provided the full cost of service information and the framework for considering fees, while those
closest to the fee-paying population, the City departments, considered appropriate cost recovery levels at
or below that full cost. The “Recommended Fee” column in Appendix A.8 displays the City staff’s initially
recommended fee amounts. These initial recommendations for adjusted fee amounts increase cost
recovery by approximately $19,000 annually. Fees would adjust to recover approximately 81% of the total
costs of providing fee related services.
Department /
Division
Estimated
Annual Current
Fee Revenue
Estimated Annual
Full Cost
Recovery Fee
Revenue
Current Cost
Recovery %
Estimated
Annual
Recommended
Fee Revenue
Recommended
Cost Recovery %
Police $ 90,825 $ 135,311 67% $ 110,037 81%
Attachment D
Packet Pg 154
1
User Fees and Charges Study – City of San Luis Obispo 28
Prepared by NBS
Section 9 – Parks & Recreation Department
The Parks & Recreation Department offers a wide variety of recreation services and programs serving
San Luis Obispo’s youth, seniors and adults. The expenses of administering, operating, and maintaining
the City’s parks and recreation programs and facilities are funded in part by fees collected from various
users, as well as resources from the General Fund.
Impacts of Proposition 26 on Recreation Fees Analysis
In November 2010, nearly 53% of the electorate affirmed Proposition 26 (P26), which essentially cr eated
new law. P26 mandates a 2/3 approval by registered voters before a public agency may impose any
“regulatory fee.” Regulatory fees are fees imposed on an individual or entity through a public agency’s
regulatory or police power. Examples of regulatory fees could include land development approval,
building inspection, water quality inspections, business registrations, health/safety monitoring, etc. In all
but a few cases, the regulatory action is “imposed” and the local agency expends effort due to the specific
action or request of an individual or entity.
It is generally accepted that the intention of P26 was to cover regulatory actions of broad public
benefit. Example of this are: a “fee” on a can of paint to pay for air quality mitigation; a “fee” on a bottle
of wine to pay for substance abuse programs; or a “fee” on sugary beverages to pay for public health
programs. Notice in all of these examples, the “fee” applies to every user, regardless of whether that user
individually mitigated their effect on the environment or avoided burdening the public health system. P26
labels these types of fees as “taxes,” which are subject to the pre -existing approval threshold of 2/3 of
the electorate.
Most of the regulatory fees NBS studies fall under one or more of seven noted exceptions within P26,
and are therefore not subject to P26’s definition of a tax. This means existing law and approval
thresholds apply. The local legislative body may approve the fees based on a majority vote of the body
alone, so long as the fee does not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of providing the service for
which the fee is charged. As the new law is tested inevitably in court, this position may change, but we
believe the text of P26 is clear in most cases. In summary:
Regulatory fees linked to a specific individual are not affected
User fees are also not affected
Any fee or charge already covered by Proposition 218 is not affected (utility rates and property
related fees, which are not within the scope of a typical user fee study).
However, recreation fees and facility rental fees do fall into an area of concern. Under the guidance of
P26, recreation fees fall under one of these two P26 exceptions:
Exception No. 2: Section 1 (e)(2) Exception for Fees for Services a nd Products Provided – this
category includes fees imposed for a service, like lessons, transportation, child care, etc. The fee for
services exception requires that such fees be limited to “the estimated costs to the local government of
providing the service.”
Exception No. 4: Section 1 (e)(4) exception for fees for use of government property – this category
includes fees imposed for services such as admission to parks, rental of government property
(recreational equipment) and for rental of fields and m eeting rooms. The language of this exception does
not include the “reasonable costs” limitation. However, a general law city is subject to the constraint on
the amount of a fee charged under either category imposed by Government Code SS 50402.
Additionally, based on the League of California Cities Implementation Guide (April 2011), there is
reasonable agreement that a charge for a lesson, class, program and other participation is not “imposed”
within the meaning of P26 if:
a) Participants have meaningful private market options, and
Attachment D
Packet Pg 155
1
User Fees and Charges Study – City of San Luis Obispo 29
Prepared by NBS
b) Participation is meaningfully voluntary
We have changed our approach to recreation program fees and facility rental fees analysis since P26
passed. NBS performs a high-level cost analysis by program area to assist local communities in
understanding cost recovery performance and in developing cost recovery policy, rather than an analysis
at the individual fee level.
We also recommend that a local government document the private or public -private market options
available to consumers. We include this information in the final report to demonstra te that participation
in the recreational program or facility rental is meaningfully voluntary and to support determination that
charges for recreational, cultural and educational programs are not “imposed.” Therefore, they are not
subject to P26’s requirement to limit these fees for recreational program participation or facility rentals to
the cost of providing service.
NBS’ provides this professional opinion on Proposition 26 for informational purposes, and as background
to support this Study’s results. NBS does not intend their interpretation of the law as a definitive legal
opinion, and recommends each agency consult with their legal counsel for additional support in this area.
Fee Establishment
The expenses of administering, operating, and maintaining the City’s parks and recreation programs and
facilities are funded by a mixture of fees collected from various recreation programs and facility rentals, as
well as resources from the General Fund. Based on the project’s timeline and information available for
analysis, the NBS analysis for the Parks and Recreation Department established the total annual cost of
the Department combined, rather than an analysis at the individual recreational program or fee level. The
Department performed their own analysis of costs at the program level and individual fee level, and
recently reviewed their recommendations for changes to various fee amounts with the P arks and
Recreation Commission. Refer to the Parks and Recreation Agenda Report, February 1, 2017
Attachment D
Packet Pg 156
1
User Fees and Charges Study – City of San Luis Obispo 30
Prepared by NBS
Section 10 – Conclusion
Based on the Cost of Service Analysis, Cost Recovery Evaluation, and Proposed Fee phases of analysis
in this Study, the proposed master schedule of fees formatted for implementation has been prepared and
included in the City’s accompanying staff report.
As discussed throughout this report, the proposed fee schedule includes fee increases intended to greatly
improve the City’s recovery of costs incurred to provide individual services, as well as to adjust fees
downward where fees charge exceed the average costs incurred.
Predicting the amount to which any adopted fee increases will affect Department revenues is difficult to
quantify. For the near-term, the City should not count on increased revenues to meet any specific
expenditure plan. Experience with these fee increases should be gained first before revenue projections
are revised. However, unless there is some significant, long -term change in activity levels at the City,
proposed fee amendments should – over time – enhance the City’s revenue capabilities, providing it the
ability to stretch other resources further for the benefit of the public at large.
The City’s Master Fee Schedule should become a living document but handled with care:
A fundamental purpose of the fee schedule is to provide clarity and transparency to the public and
to staff regarding fees imposed by the City. Once adopted by the Council, the fee schedule is the
final word on the amount and manner in which fees should be imposed by the departments. O ld
fee schedules should be superseded by the new master document. If the master document is
found to be missing fees, those fees need eventually to be added to the master schedule and
should not continue to exist outside the consolidated, master framework .
The City should consider adjusting these user fees and regulatory fees on an annual basis to keep
pace at least with cost inflation. For all fees and charges, the City could use either a Consumer
Price Index adjustment or a percentage of Labor Cost increase, and that practice would be well
applied to the new fee schedule. Conducting a comprehensive 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. In NBS’ experience, a comprehensive
analysis such as this should be performed every three to five years. It should be noted that when
an automatic adjustment is applied annually, the City is free to use its discretion in ap plying the
adjustment; not all fees need to be adjusted, especially when there are good policy reasons for
an alternate course. The full cost of service is the City’s only limit in setting its fees.
As a final note in this Study, it is worth acknowledging the path that fees in general have taken in California.
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. Continuous improvement and refinement of time tracking abilities will greatly
enhance the City’s ability to set fees for service and identify unfunded activities in years to come.
In preparing this report and the opinions and recommendations included herein, NBS has relied on a
number of principal assumptions and considerations with regard to financial matters, conditions and events
that may occur in the future. This information and assumptions, including the City’s budgets, time estimate
Attachment D
Packet Pg 157
1
User Fees and Charges Study – City of San Luis Obispo 31
Prepared by NBS
data, and workload information from City staff, were provided by sources we believe to be reliable;
however, NBS has not independently verified such information and assumptions.
While we believe NBS’ use of such information and assumptions is reasonable for the purpose of t his
report, some assumptions will invariably not materialize as stated herein and may vary significantly due to
unanticipated events and circumstances. Therefore, the actual results can be expected to vary from those
projected to the extent that actual future conditions differ from those assumed by us or provided to us by
others.
Attachment D
Packet Pg 158
1