HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/16/2011, SS 6 - STUDY SESSION REGARDING COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT COST OF SERVICES ANALYSIS O
council
A AQen0A nEpont
CITY O F SAN LUIS O B I S P O
FROM: Doug Davidson, Acting CommunityDe�'velopment DirectorDjp
Prepared By: Tim Girvin, Chief Building Official i
SUBJECT: Study Session Regarding Community Development Department Cost of Services
Analysis
RECOMMENDATION
Receive a report and provide general direction to staff regarding the Community Development
Department construction application fee analysis.
REPORT IN BRIEF
The transition to the new Energov land use and permitting software has resulted in several
upcoming changes for the Building and Safety Division of the Community Development
Department. Because implementing Energov will require changes to the Master Fee Schedule,
and updates to the construction codes have been significant since the last cost of services study
was prepared in 2006, a new analysis has been prepared. Staff hired a consultant to do the cost
analysis to ensure that the City is meeting cost recovery objectives for this program. This recent
cost study relied primarily on the data that was collected in 2006, with staff identifying the
significant changes in codes that effect delivery of service and providing updated operational
information as needed.
As a result of the cost study some fees are proposed to go up and others are proposed to go down
to more accurately reflect the actual cost of providing the service. Several examples are provided
in this report. There are also new fees proposed for activities involved in the processing of
construction applications which are needed to meet City goals for cost recovery but for which the
City has never had a fee for in the past. Some examples of the changes in fees are included in this
report; however more detailed information will be presented to Council at the October 18`h
Council Meeting when the changes to the Master Fee Schedule will be introduced.
DISCUSSION
Background
In preparation for the transition to the new Energov land use and permitting system, the Building
and Safety Division of the Community Development Department has conducted a cost of
services study. The last study was conducted in 2006. Current City Budget and Financial
Policies for User Fee Cost Recovery Goals recommend that fees be reviewed and updated at least
every five years to ensure that they keep pace with changes in the cost-of-living as well as in
methods or levels of service delivery. In addition, the City has experienced increased code
requirements and other changes in Law since 2006 which potentially could have an impact on fee
for service activities. The new cost of services study will help guide the City of San Luis
SS6-1
l j
Community Development Cost of Services Analysis Page 2
Obispo's decisions regarding upcoming changes in fees and ensure fee for service activities
related to construction applications comply with all regulations and can be implemented well into
the Energov system which is currently under development.
The purpose of this study session is to review the methodology used in the cost of services study,
verify the proposed cost recovery objectives as reflected in current Council policy, and provide
an update regarding transitioning into the Energov system.
Cost of Services Study
The City has hired NBS Government Financial Group to conduct a cost of services study for the
Building and Safety Division. NBS is under contract for $17,600 to provide up to date
information related to establishing appropriate user fees for construction application and
permitting activities. This new cost analysis was less expensive than typically encountered
because it is based largely on data provided in the 2006 cost of services study. In addition, staff
updated relevant information to reflect the changes in codes that impact staff time and changes in
law that regulate collection of user fees. The goal of the cost of services study is to make sure
cost recovery for Building and Safety Division activities is consistent with policy and state laws
and to establish user fees that are intended to reflect costs incurred by the City to perform
development review activities. The City is authorized to establish these fees through Article
XIIIB, Section 8 of the California State Constitution, which limits the fees to the reasonable cost
of providing the service. The analysis includes three elements which are substantiated and
quantified in the study report: defining the purpose of a user fee; verifying that the fees are
derived from the organizational cost structure; and ensuring that the collection of fees will reduce
the burden on general City revenues.
Development Review Cost Recovery Goal
The cost of providing the service is calculated by reviewing expected costs and estimated time to
provide the requested service. Determining a target level of cost recovery involves agency
specific decisions. As long as the adopted fee is set at an amount that does not exceed the
estimated reasonable cost of providing the service or activity the City will remain in compliance
with the legal framework currently in place. City Budget and Fiscal Policies on User Fee Cost
Recovery Goals for Development Review Programs state that cost recovery for these services
should in most instances be 100%. The Master Fee Schedule which is being prepared as a result
of this cost of services study will be based on this goal unless Council provides other direction.
Methodology
In order to establish the full cost of providing the service the City is entitled to consider direct
labor costs, indirect labor costs, specific direct non-labor costs, allocated non-labor costs and
allocated organization-wide overhead costs. These terms are defined in more detail in the
attached cost of services report. These cost components were analyzed using 2011-12 fiscal year
budget information. Building and Safety Division and,Finance Department staff also provided
other necessary financial and operational data in order to calculate the cost of providing service.
This cost analysis provides the City of San Luis Obispo with fully burdened labor rates in two
separate categories. One rate is for projects where the Building and Safety Division is involved
in the review of planning applications associated with the construction project, and the other
SS6-2
Community Development Cost of Services Analysis Page 3
labor rate will be used for projects not requiring planning application review. This is slightly
changed from the single labor rate currently used, which does not differentiate whether a
planning application review was done by Building and Safety Division staff. This change is
needed due to clarifications in law that requires a relationship between staff effort and
assessment of a user fee.
An additional analysis was completed by the Chief Building Official which identified the time
staff utilizes to perform the service. For instance, a time analysis was completed to assess the
time taken to provide a typical plan review for different types of buildings and a separate analysis
for the building inspection activities. Each of these included relevant tasks such as application
intake, structural and non-structural reviews, fire and life safety elements and disabled access
compliance, to name a few.
Report Results
Because there are several programs that are operated within the Building and Safety Division,
some of the activities are eligible for full cost recovery and others are not. Staff efforts to
administer the construction and housing codes are eligible while zoning related code enforcement
and nuisance .abatement activities related to the Neighborhood Wellness goal are not. The
consultant has identified that 56% of the cost of Building and Safety Division activities are
recoverable through development review user fees and 44% of the cost can only be recovered
from non-user fee related funding sources. The consultant concludes that the Building and Safety
Division currently recovers approximately 93% of total costs associated with providing user and
regulatory fee related services. When the new Fee Schedule is adopted, it is expected that we
will meet the policy objective of'100% cost recovery, assuming current levels of construction
activity. The table below contains examples of some potential changes.
Currentfd-d Proposed Fee Increase/Decrease
5,000 SF Commercial $8,293 $11,735 $3,442
50,000 SF Commercial $38,309 $26,087 $12,222
500 SF Commercial TI $1,649 $1,435 $214
500 SF Mixed Use $584 . $1,474 $890
1,000 SF Residence $6,2261 $3,900 $2,326)
Based on the cost of services analysis, the study has identified the fact that some current fees may
result in higher than required fees for some types of projects and lower than required for others.
This does not mean that the current fees are wrong, however, a current analysis of the staff time
required for these separate functions indicates that fee changes are needed to achieve full cost
recovery of the specific activity. Changes such as these are routine as fee analyses are refined.
Staff is reviewing the recommendations of the consultant and will highlight significant changes
when they bring forward proposed changes to the Master Fee Schedule in late October for
Council review and approval.
Additional Fees Proposed
In performing the recent service categorization process utilized during development of the 2011-
13 Financial Plan, the Chief Building Official analyzed the plan review and inspection services
provided by the Building and Safety Division. This analysis determined that several functions
were occurring for which no fee had yet been established. Examples of services for which no
SS6-3
0 0
Community Development Cost of Services Analysis Page 4
fees have been established include the following; Review of code modification applications;
Construction Board of Appeals actions; plan reviews in excess of three. Because these services
are part of the development review process and there is no cost recovery at this point staff's
intent is to add these fees to the Master Fee Schedule.
1. Review of Code Modification Applications
These applications include construction activity that may not conform to the prescriptive code
requirements, yet the design professional submits documentation proving the alternative method
will meet or exceed code requirements.. These applications take special review by the Chief
Building Official and the Fire Marshall. Once approved the construction project can proceed
with the alternative design so long as field verification and permanent documentation is
maintained. The proposed fee will cover the cost of these specialized reviews. Charging a fee
for code modifications is similar to the planning application process for allowing exceptions to
the Zoning Regulations.
2. Board of Appeals Actions
With the adoption of new construction codes, the State of California and subsequently the City of
San Luis Obispo is getting closer to conforming to the Federal Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA). Changes in the codes may trigger the need to have more applications routed through the
Construction Board of Appeals. For this reason the new fee schedule includes an application fee
for requesting action by the appeals board. This will become somewhat similar to the appeal
process already established for planning applications; however this appeal fee is based on
reasonable cost of providing the service..
3. Number of Plan Reviews
Regarding the issue of how much service is provided for the application fees paid there will be a
distinction that has not shown up in past fee schedules. This relates to the number of plan
reviews that will occur for each construction application. In the past a single plan review was
accepted as payment in full for the plan review service. Often the review process resulted in up
to four or five separate reviews of the construction documents. With the adoption of this fee
schedule the assumption is that only three plan reviews are provided. This means that if the
design professional is unable to provide code complying plans within the first three attempts,
then additional plan review charges will be assessed. Staff is confident that use of the revised
checklists will help achieve a high percentage of complete applications which will help ensure
approved plans within the proposed plan review threshold.
4. Separate Stormwater Fee-Again
Additionally, the construction site stormwater fee will show up as a separate fee again.
Previously, there was a waterways management fee assessed with construction applications.
Then, during the last cost of services study that fee was absorbed into the square foot fee
structure. Now, due to increasing changes in the regulations staff is recommending identifying
this activity as a separate fee in the event future changes affect the staff effort required to follow
up on this important objective. A separate evaluation will be easier to do than conducting an
entirely new analysis of the construction fees again. In summary, this is not a new fee, just
restructuring how the fee is identified and collected. A very conservative analysis was done in
SS6-4
Community Development Cost of Services Analysis Page 5
order to keep the fee as low as possible; however staff efforts have definitely increased since
2006 in this category.
Development Review and Fire Department Surcharges
The consultant was also asked to review the use of surcharges that are assessed in conjunction
with the processing of a construction permit. In order to recover costs associated with Planning
Division and Public Works Department review of planning applications, a surcharge is assessed
and payment required at the time of building permit issuance.
1. Planning Development Review Fees
Implementation of the City's cost recovery objectives for planning application review is currently
a two-step process. A 100% cost recovery fee is calculated, with 45% collected at time of
planning application submittal and the other 55% expected to be collected at the time of building
permit issuance. This process has been utilized in the City of San Luis Obispo for many years
and it has helped projects defer costs until the construction project was ready to be permitted.
In order to collect the deferred 55%, this amount is converted into a surcharge on the
construction application plan review and inspection fees.
There are risks associated with the current process. First, some projects approved in the planning
process may never advance to a building permit, which means that the full cost of planning
development review is not recovered. Additionally, based on current law the consultant
concluded that it is not appropriate to assess the surcharge on projects that are not required to
participate in the planning review process.
As a result of the study, it is proposed that more types of planning applications will pay 100% of
the cost of providing the planning service at the time of application. Currently the City charges
100% cost recovery for home occupation permits and business license approvals. Proposed
planning activities paying full cost at time of application will now also include administrative
reviews, projects requiring an Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) hearing, Sidewalk Cafe
reviews and others.
The study also recommends that the collection approach for splitting the remaining planning
application fees be modified to 45% at the planning application phase and 55% at the building
permit phase, based on the exact fee required per project types rather than on the surcharge. Staff
agrees with the consultant's recommendation, but proposes to defer implementation of this
approach until a full study of planning activities and fees is conducted. In the meantime, the
proposed Master Fee Schedule will reflect a new surcharge amount to be applied only to those
projects requiring planning review.
Z Engineering Development Review Fees
Similar to the approach used in planning review, a surcharge is assessed to recover the costs
associated with the Engineering Division's review of the planning applications, yet it is not
-collected until the issuance of a building permit. This also comes with the inherent risks
identified above. However these charges are not applied globally so there is no need to change
the practices regarding the assessment of the fee.
SS6-5
0
Community Development Cost of Services Analysis Page 6
3. Fire Department Review Surcharge
The previous cost of services analysis that was conducted in 2006 proposed plan review and
inspection fees formatted very similar to the building division fees. However, when the fees
were implemented a surcharge methodology was used. The consultant is recommending
returning to the separate fees based on a time analysis. Because code changes and staffing levels
impact the cost of providing service, it is recommended that another fee analysis be done to
establish user fees for the Fire Department activities related to their development review, plan
review and construction inspection services. Until this is complete the surcharge methodology
will continue.
Subsequent Analysis Recommended
Because the past revenue philosophy of assessing a surcharge is similar for the development
review activities in Public Works Engineering and Fire, the consultant is recommending further
analysis of the cost recovery efforts for those departments. This will be done in conjunction with
the Planning review discussed above. It is anticipated that these analyses will be completed in the
Spring, with the resulting fee recommendations subsequently incorporated into the Master Fee
Schedule when it is next reviewed by the Council
During the cost study process, the consultant noted the absence of a general plan surcharge for
recovery of costs associated with the routine update and implementation of the City's general
plan document. Recovery of a portion of these costs in user and regulatory fees for service is
allowable under the Government Code. General plan surcharges are common practice in many
California jurisdictions, applied as a percentage of the building permit fee or project valuation.
This surcharge is not currently included in the recommendations of the consultant's report, but
staff will pursue the calculation of a general plan surcharge for the Council's review as part of
the subsequent analysis.
Developer's Roundtable
Staff has scheduled another Developer's Roundtable meeting to discuss these and other issues
related to the processing of planning and building applications. Cost recovery and fee collection
objectives were discussed at the roundtable meeting held on January 27, 2011, and will be
discussed in more detail on August 10, 2011. Staff will provide an update regarding comments
or issues that are discussed at this meeting in the form of a Council Memorandum in advance of
the August 16th meeting.
Energov Update
City staff has completed two phases of the project plan for our transition into the new Energov
land use and permitting system. Staff from many departments participated in the Assess/Define
and Configuration phases of the plan. During these development phases of the project, staff has
identified changes that may be necessary to limit the impacts of the transition. Several of these
changes may have impacts on the development community, therefore a Developer's Roundtable
meeting was convened on August 10, 2011, to alert potential applicants to the changes and seek
feedback from this group. Some minor processing changes include the need to take deposits for
application submittals and use of revised application submittal checklists. By implementing
these changes staff will be able to limit the impacts to the construction application process and
provide for a seamless transition to the Energov program. This transition to Energov will also
SS6-6
Community Development Cost of Services Analysis Page 7
afford the City of San Luis Obispo the opportunity to better track staff efforts regarding
stormwater regulation compliance for construction projects and other activities.
Because the user fees are integral with the transition to implementation of the new programming,
the activation date for Energov will coincide with the effective date of the new fees.
CONCURRENCES
Finance & IT concurs and Interim Finance Director assisted with the preparation of this report.
FISCAL IMPACT
Adoption of fees consistent with the recommendations of staff and the consultant will result in
revenues that will achieve the City Council's cost recovery goals. Staff estimates that the
proposed fees will result in revenues equal to or slightly higher than those currently projected in
the 2011-13 Financial Plan, depending upon Council action. The Master Fee Schedule, including
the proposed fees, will be considered by Council in October and will be effective 60 days after
adoption.
ALTERNATIVES
Alternatives will be included in the report to revise the Master Fee Schedule that will be
presented to Council in October.
ATTACHMENTS
1. NBS Government Financial Group, Final Report
2. City Budget and Fiscal Policies on User Fee Cost Recovery Goals for Development Review
Programs
T:\Council Agenda Reports\Community Development CAR\2011\COS Study Session CAR.doc
SS6-7
4Z) NBS
helping communities
fund tomorrow
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
Community Development Department— Building and Safety Division
User and Regulatory Fee Analysis
Final Report
August 1, 2011
Main Office
32605 Temecula Parkway, Suite 100
Temecula, CA 92592
Toll free: 800.676.7516 Fax: 951.296.1998
Regional Office
870 Market Street, Suite 1223
San Francisco, CA 94102
Toll free: 800.434.8349 Fax: 415.391.8439
SS6-8
Attachment 1
SECTION 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
I.A. Purpose
The goal of this Study is to assist in the establishment of user and regulatory fees for
service, for the City of San Luis Obispo's Building and Safety Division.These fees will be
assessed either in response to the individual's request for application approval or in
reaction to a condition subject to the City's regulation.
User fees are intended to reflect the costs incurred by the City to perform the individual
service or activity. The City has authorization to establish these fees through Article
XIIIB, Section 8 of the California State Constitution, which limits fees to the estimated,
reasonable cost of the service. The scope of this Study did not evaluate fines, penalties,
or other monetary charges imposed as a result of a violation of law.
1 .B. Summary of Outcomes
This Analysis ultimately compares the approximate annual revenues .generated at
current fee levels to the estimated total annual cost of providing services. NBS
concludes that, on average, the Building and Safety Divisioncurrently recovers
approximately 93% of the total annual Citywide costs associated with providing the user
and regulatory fee related services studied.
Total (s)
Annual Estimated Revenues at Current Fees 865,429
Annual Estimated Revenues at Full Cost Recovery Fees 923,654
The proposed schedule of fees can be viewed as part of the City staff report and
recommendation for adoption of its Master Fee Schedule. AttachmentA to this report
details the calculation of the full cost of service for each activity studied. The amounts
listed in the "Total Cost of Service per Activity" column represent the total cost of
providing each service identified by the study, and does not necessarily reflect City
staff's or Council's ultimaterecommended fee (price) amount for each service/activity.
Recommended fee amounts are should be equal to or less than the full cost of service
quantified by this study. The full cost of service represents the maximum fee amount
allowed, at or beneath which, the City must determine its policy position. All of the fees
presented in Attachment A may be set with the sole approval of the City Council.
Proposed fee amounts represent an implicit policy position regarding City cost
recovery. When a fee is set equal to its full cost of service, the recommended fee
User and Regulatory Fee Analysis— Building and Safety Division 1-1
Prepared by NBS for the City of San Luis Obispo c c6_n
0
Attachment 1.
implies that no`general City revenues will be used to subsidize the provision of that
individual service. When a fee is set less than the full cost of service, a judgment has
been made that the use of general City revenues to pay for a portion of that individual
service is warranted and/or necessary.
Attachment B details the derivation of fully-burdened hourly rates for the Building and
Safety Division. As discussed in subsequent sections of this report, fully-burdened
hourly rates are the main component of each potential fee calculation.
I.C. Findings
This study submits the following findings which are substantiated and quantified by the
balance of this report document and its attachments:
• The purpose of a user fee is to enable the City to recover costs it
incurs to provide a specific service to an individual or entity in response
to that individual's request or regulated action. Collection of user fees
reduces the burden on general City revenues that otherwise would be
used to fund that individual service, releasing those general revenues
for services of greater at-large need.
• User fees are only collected from individuals requesting or causing a
service listed on the master schedule of fees. Fees are avoided by
refraining from the service or action subject.to regulation. Fees are not
imposed on the community without that underlying service or
regulation triggering activity by City personnel.
• Fee amounts are derived from the organizational and cost structure of
the City, as established most significantly by the City Budget adopted
by the City Council.
• Resultant fee amounts are greatly influenced by the amount of time
spent by City personnel and/or contractors to provide service.
• Categories of fees are structured to closely align the resulting fee
amount to the individual service provided.
User and Regulatory Fee Analysis—Building and Safety Division 1-2
Prepared by NBS for the City of San Luis Obispo
SS6-10
SECTION 2 Attachment 1
FRAMEWORK
2.A. Analysis Origination and Scope
In approaching any study, NBS assesses the unique conditions of the agency with
which we work, applies a core philosophy, and selects methodologies fitting the
requirements of the current situation of that individual agency. Given diversity and
ambiguities in many aspects of city finance and policy, this is a necessary strategy: one-
size-fits-all methods are not sustainable once they become owned by the agency
served.
A core philosophy of NBS in the execution of this type of work is fundamentally: there is
a legal foundation in place that provides the City with the authority to impose fees for
the discretionary services and regulatory activities it provides. The cost of providing
these services and activities can be reasonably calculated and fees can be structured
that allow the City to recover all, or part, of the cost of providing these services. The
calculation of the cost of providing requested services is an analytical effort that involves
adopted and expected cost information, and estimates of time required to perform a
service or activity. Determining the targeted level of cost recovery from a new or
increased fee is not an analytical exercise. It involves agency-specific judgments linked
to a variety of factors, such as existing City policies, agency-wide or departmental
revenue objectives, economic goals, community values, market conditions, level of
demand, and others. As long as the adopted fee is set at an amount that does not
exceed the estimated, reasonable, full cost of providing the service or activity
requested, the City is complying with the legal framework currently in place.
2.13. Legal Foundation
It is generally accepted in California that cities are granted the authority to impose user
fees and regulatory fees for services and activities they provide through provisions of
the State Constitution. First, cities are granted the ability to perform broad activities
related to their local policing power and other service authority as defined in Article XI,
Sections 7 and 9. Second, cities are granted the ability to establish fees for service
through the framework defined in Article XIIIB, Section B. Under this latter framework, a
fee may not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of providing the service or
performing the activity. For a fee to qualify as such, it must relate to a service or activity
under the control of the individual/entity on which the fee is imposed. For example, the
individual/entity requests service of the municipality or his or her actions specifically
cause the municipality to perform additional activities. In this manner, the service or the
underlying action causing the municipality to perform service is either discretionary
and/or is subject to regulation. As a discretionary service or regulatory activity, the user
fees and regulatory fees considered in this study fall outside requirements that must
otherwise be followed by the City to impose taxes, special taxes, or fees imposed as
incidences of property ownership.
User and Regulatory Fee Analysis—Building and Safety Division 2-1
Prepared by NBS for the City of San Luis Obispo
SS6-11
U
Attachment 1
2.C. Analytical Foundation
Cost of Service Analysis and Fee Establishment
A cost of service analysis is a quantitative effort which compiles the full cost of providing
governmental services and activities. There are two primary types of costs considered:
direct and indirect costs. Direct costs are those which specifically relate to the activity in
question, including the real-time provision of the service. Indirect costs are those which
support the provision of services but cannot be directly or easily assigned to the activity
in question. An example of a direct cost is the salary and benefit expense associated
With an individual performing a service. In the same example, an indirect cost would
include the expenses incurred to provide an office and equipment for that individual to
perform his or her duties, including (but not exclusive to) the provision of the service in
question.
Components of the full cost of service include direct labor costs, indirect labor costs,
specific direct non-labor costs where applicable, allocated non-labor costs, and
allocated organization-wide overhead. Definitions of these cost components are as
follows:
• Direct labor costs — These are the salary/wage and benefits expenses
for City personnel specifically involved in the provision of services and
activities to the public.
• Indirect labor costs — These are the salary/wage and benefits
expenses for City personnel supporting the provision of services and
activities. This can include line supervision and departmental
management, administrative support within a department, and staff
involved in technical activities related to the direct services provided to
the public.
• Specific direct non-labor costs — These are discrete expenses incurred
by the City due to a specific service or activity performed, such as
contractor costs, third-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 — These are expenses other than
labor for the departments involved in the provision of services. In most
cases, these costs are allocated across all services provided by a
department, rather than directly assigned to fee categories.
Throughout the cost of service analysis used in this study, many non-
labor expenses have been excluded from allocation if they can be
directly attributable to a service not under review in this study. For
example, expenses wholly related to the provision of general police
patrol and investigation services have been excluded, as those
User and Regulatory Fee Analysis—Building and Safety Division 2-2
Prepared by NBS for the City of San Luis Obispo
SS6-12
U
iittachment 1
expenses would be entirely recovered by the General Fund or other
funding sources not covered by this study.
• Allocated indirect organization-wide overhead — These are expenses,
both labor and non-labor, related to the City's agency-wide support
services. Support services includes general administrative services
provided internally across the City's departments such as human
resources, payroll, financial management, information technology, and
other similar business functions.
These cost components were expressed using annual (or annualized) figures,
representing a twelve-month fiscal year cycle of budgeted expenses incurred by the City
in the provision of the services studied.
The Building and Safety Division's User and Regulatory fees under review in this study
require specific actions on the part of City staff to provide the service or conduct the
activity. Because labor is an underlying factor in these activities, the full cost of service
was most appropriately expressed as a fully burdened cost per available labor hour.
This labor rate — expressed as an individual composite rate for each department or
division of the City's organization involved in provision of services studied — served as
the basis for further quantifying the average full cost of providing individual services and
activities.
NBS derived a fully burdened labor rate for the major functional divisions and activities
of the Building and Safety Division. To derive the fully burdened labor rate(s), two
figures were required: the full costs of service and the number of hours available to
perform those services. The full costs of service were quantified generally through the
earlier steps described in this analysis. The number of hours was derived from a
complete listing of all personnel employed by the Building and Safety Division and
reflected in the labor expenses embedded. in the full cost of service.
Each employee was assigned a full-time equivalent factor. An employee working full-
time would have a factor of 1.0; an employee working exactly half-time would have a
factor of 0.5. For purposes of analysis, all full-time employees (sworn and non-sworn)
are considered as paid for 2,080 hours per year of regular time, depending on their
status. Using this as an initial benchmark of labor time, each employee's full-time
equivalent factor was applied to this amount of hours to generate the total number of
regular paid hours in the department.
Next, each employee's annual paid leave hours were approximated. Paid leave
included holidays, vacation, and sick leave. Once quantified for the entire department,
annual allowable paid leave hours were removed from the total number of regular paid
hours to generate the total number of available labor hours for the department. These
available hours represent the amount of productive time during which services and
activities can be performed.
User and Regulatory Fee Analysis—Building and-Safety Division 2-3
Prepared by NBS for the City of San Luis Obispo
SS6-13
ttacnent 1
The productive labor hours were then divided into the annual full costs of service to
derive a composite fully burdened labor rate for each division. This schedule of
composite labor rates was used in this fee study to quantify costs at an individual fee
level. It should be noted, however, that the composite labor rates may also be used by
the City for other purposes when the need arises to calculate the full cost of general
services. For nearly all services and activities in a governmental agency not just
those reflected in a fee schedule — labor time is the most accessible and reasonable
underlying variable.
Once fully burdened labor rates were developed, they could be used at the individual
fee level to estimate an average full cost of providing each service or activity. This step
required the development of staff time estimates for the services and activities listed in
the master fee schedule. Interviews and questionnaires were used to develop the
necessary data sets describing. estimated labor time. In most cases, the Department
was asked to estimate the average amount of time (in minutes and hours) it would take
to complete a typical occurrence of each service or activity considered.
It should be noted that the development of these time estimates was not a one-step
process: estimates and time tracking data received was carefully reviewed by both
consultant and departmental management to assess the reasonableness of such
estimates. Based on this review, some time estimates were reconsidered until all
parties were comfortable that they reasonably reflected average workload required by
the City. Once finalized, the staff time estimates were then applied to the fully burdened
labor rate to yield an average full cost of the service or activity.
The average full cost of service is just that: an average cost at the individual fee level.
The City does not currently have the systems in place to impose fees for every service
or activity based on the actual amount of time it takes to serve each. individual.
Moreover, such an approach is almost universally infeasible without significant — if not
unreasonable — investments in costly technology. The resulting proposed fee schedule
is composed primarily of "flat' fees, which by definition, are linked to an average cost of
service; thus, use of this average cost method was the approach. Flat fee structures
based on average costs of service are widely applied among other California
municipalities, and it is a generally accepted approach.
The complete fully burdened hourly rate analysis developed for this study is included in
this report as AttachmentB.
Cost Recovery Evaluation
Determining the targeted level of cost recovery from a new fee is not an analytical
exercise. Instead, targets reflect agency-specific judgments linked to a variety of
factors, such as existing City policies, agency-wide or departmental revenue objectives,
economic goals, community values, market conditions, level of demand, and others.
User and Regulatory Fee Analysis—Building and Safety Division 2-4
Prepared by NBS for the City of San Luis Obispo
SS6-14
attachment 1
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 theindividual or entity requesting, requiring, or
causing the service,benefit?
When a service or activity completely benefits the public at large, it can be argued
reasonably that there should be no cost recovery from fees (i.e., 0% cost recovery): that
a truly public-benefit service is best funded by the general resources of the City; such as
General Fund revenues (e.g., taxes). Conversely, when a service or activity completely
benefits an individual or.entity, it can be argued reasonably that 100% of the cost should
be recovered from fees collected from the individual or entity.
Under this approach, it is often found that many governmental services and activities fall
somewhere between these two extremes, which is to say that many activities have a
mixed benefit. In the majority of those cases, the initial cost recovery level targeted may
attempt to reflect that mixed public and private benefit. For example, an activity that
seems to have a 40% private benefit and a 60% public benefit would yield a cost
recovery target from fees of 40%.
In some cases, a strict public-versus-private benefit judgment may not be sufficient to
finalize a cost recovery target. Any of the following other factors and considerations
may influence exclusively or supplement the public/private benefit of a service or
activity:
• If optimizing revenue potential is an overriding goal, is it feasible to
recover the full cost of service?
• Will these fees result in non-compliance or public safety problems?
• Are there desired behaviors or modifications to behaviors of the
service population that could be helped or hindered through the degree
of pricing for the activities?
• Could these fees adversely affect City goals, priorities, or values?
Additionally, even more specific questions may influence ultimate cost recovery targets:
• Is there a good policy basis for differentiating between type of users
(e.g., residents and non-residents, residential and commercial, non-
profit entities and business entities)?
• Are there broader City objectives that inform a less than full cost
recovery target from fees, such as economic development goals and
local social values?
User and Regulatory Fee Analysis—Building and Safety Division 2-5
Prepared by NBS for the City of San Luis Obispo
SS6-15
Attachment
Because this element of the study is subjective — despite the above attempts to provide
structure for consistent decision-making — the consultant in charge of the analytical
outcomes of this study has provided the full cost of service information and the
framework for considering fees, while those closest to the fee-paying population — the
City's staff and City Council, will need to recommend appropriate cost recovery levels at
or below that full cost.
2.D. Data Sources
The following City-published data sources were used to support the cost of service
analysis and fee establishment phases of this study:
• The City of San Luis Obispo Adopted Budget for Fiscal Year 2011-12.
• Various correspondences with Building and Safety Division and City
administrative staff supporting the adopted Fiscal Year 2011-12
budget.
• A complete listing of all Building and Safety Division budgeted
personnel, salary/wage rates, regular hours, paid benefits, and paid
leave amounts.
The City's adopted budget is the most significant source of information affecting cost of
service results. It should be noted that consultants did not conduct separate efforts to
audit or validate the City's financial management and budget practices, nor was cost
information adjusted to reflect different levels of service or any specific, targeted
performance benchmarks. This study has accepted the City's budget as a legislatively
adopted directive describing the most appropriate and reasonable level of City
spending. Consultants accept the City Council's deliberative process and ultimate
acceptance of the budget plan and further assert that through that legislative process,
the City has yielded a reasonable expenditure plan, valid for use in setting cost-based
fees.
Beyond data published by the City, original data sets were also developed to support
the work of this study: estimated staff time at various levels of detail, and volumetric
information for building plan review and permitting activity for Fiscal Years 2009 and
2010. To develop these data sets, consultants prepared questionnaires and conducted
interviews with the Building and Safety Division. In the fee establishment phase of the
analysis, departmental staff provided the average time to be spent providing a service
or activity corresponding with each new fee. Consultants and departmental
management reviewed and questioned responses to ensure the best possible set of
estimates.The final sets of labor time estimates and volumetric data used in this study
are reflected throughout the cost of service analysis included as Attachment A of this
report.
User and Regulatory Fee Analysis— Building and Safety Division 2-6
Prepared by NBS for the City of San Luis Obispo
SS6-16
Attachment 1
User and Regulatory Fee Analysis—Building and Safety Division 2-7
Prepared by NBS for the City of San Luis Obispo
SS6-17
Attachment 1
SECTION 3
COST OF SERVICERESULTS
The City of San Luis Obispo's Building & Safety Division is responsible for enforcing
various land use, property development, building and sign regulations.
3.A. Cost of Service Analysis
Exhibit 3-A displays a breakdown of the estimated total annual costs of providing
Building and Safety Services.
Exhibit 3-A
Total Estimated Annual Costs Established for the Building and Safety Division
Percentage
Program Cost Type Total Cost of Total
Costs
Labor $ 677,217 41%
Recurring Non-Labor $ 73,948 4%
Periodic/Amortized Non-Labor $ 8,335 0%
Department and Citywide Overhead $ 259,459 16%
Allocated Common Activities $ 649,633 39%
Total $1,668,590 1000/0
Exhibit 3-B on the following page categorizes the Building and Safety Division's costs
across both fee related and non-fee related services, as well as the resulting fully-
burdened hourly rate applicable toward establishing the "full" or "maximum" charge for
fee related services.
User and Regulatory Fee Analysis—Building and Safety Division 3-1
Prepared by NBS for the City of San Luis Obispo
SS6-18
tachment 1
Exhibit 3-B
Cost Calculations for Fee and Non-Fee Related Building and Safety Activities
Targeted Percent Amount
Percent Amount Hourly Requiring Requiring
Functional Cost Allocation Non-Fee Non-Fee
Component of Costs Recoverable Recoverable Rate for Related Related
In Fees In Fees Direct Funding Funding
Services Sources Sources
Direct Fee Related 100%6
$559, 05 ° -
Activities $559,605 $123.00 0% $
Indirect Services
Activities:
Review Planning 49,871 100% 49,871 0%
Phase of Application 10.96
Public Counter Duty 95,372 80% 76,298 16.77 20% 19,074
Building Related 243,477 100% 243,477 0% -
Code Enforcement 53.52
Non-Fee Funded
Services
Zoning Related Code 243,228 0% 0 0 100%
Enforcement 243,228
Nuisance Abatement
Other Code 477,036 0% 0 0 100% 477,036
Enforcement
Total $1,668,590 929,252 $204 $739,338
Direct Hours 4,550
Differential Rate
Adjustment $ (49,871) $193
The "Percentage Recoverable in Fees" column identifies all service areas that NBS
recommends as justifiable components of the fully-burdened hourly rate applied toward
establishing user/regulatory fee recovery limits. All subsequent cost of service
calculations at the individual fee level assumes a fully-burdened hourly rate of $204,
with a goal to recover approximately $929,000 in costs from fees for service. NBS also
calculated a differential rate of $193, to exclude the Division's costs associated with
review of planning applications. In the subsequent fee analysis, the differential rate is
applied to minor projects generally not requiring a planning application approval.
The "Percent Requiring Non-Fee Related Funding Sources" column above identifies
service areas that NBS generally recommends as best funded via alternate revenue
sources than fees for service, as noted in the following paragraphs.
User and Regulatory Fee Analysis—Building and Safety Division 3-2
Prepared by NBS for the City of San Luis Obispo
SS6-19
Aachment 1
Significant analytical and policy decisions often revolve around inclusion of categorized
activity costs in the fully-burdened hourly rate. The decision whether to include or
exclude some or all of a particular cost category in user/regulatory fees for service is
guided by basic fee setting parameters offered by the California State Constitution and
Statues, which requires that any new fee levied or existing fee increased should not
exceed the estimated amount required to provide the service for which the charge is
levied.
Cost category nomenclature shown in the table above was adapted and summarized
from interviews conducted with the Building and Safety Division about the nature of
service activities provided. To assist the City in understanding the underlying costs and
assumptions used to calculate the fully-burdened hourly rate, summaries of the cost
categories are provided as follows:
• Direct Fee Related Activities — Work performed on active plan review or
inspection projects.
• Indirect Services Activities Groups of tasks that benefit all Division activities
and operations. These costs are subsequently determined either as eligible for
full funding from user/regulatory fees, or as partially requiring funding from other
revenue sources, depending on their "nexus" to the population of fee payers
served:
— Review of Planning Phase of Application — Staff time for providing initial
comments and conditions of approval during the planning application
approval process. Costs apply to new commercial, multifamily, and residential
projects only.
— Public Counter Duty — Staff time devoted to responding to phone calls and
public inquiries not specifically associated with an active permit or plan
review. Typically, some portion of costs for provision of general public
information and assistance are not linked for recovery from fees for permit
applications. Here a reasonable assumption was made that 80% of costs
associated with public counter services are linked to an existing or near future
application request, 20% are associated with provision of general information
that may not pertain to a specific project or building and safety related inquiry.
— Building Related Code Enforcement — Work activities in response to a
complaint received by the Division related to violation of a City ordinance or
State building code. Includes general complaint follow up and investigation
activities, many of which result in the application for a building permit to meet
compliance.
• Non-Fee Funded Services — Work performed by Division staff for services not
eligible for recovery in a building user/regulatory fees for service, such as
enforcement of the City's zoning code, or code enforcement actions for
nuisances, parking issues, etc.
User and Regulatory Fee Analysis— Building and Safety Division 3-3
Prepared by NBS for the City of San Luis Obispo
SS6-20
Attachment 1
3.B. Cost Recovery Analysis
The results of this Cost of Services Analysis conclude that the Building and Safety
Division is eligible to recover approximately 56% of its annual costs of providing
services from user/regulatory fees for service. 44% of its annual costs are not
associated with fee-related activities and therefore require identification of alternate
revenue sources.
Amount Reco\erable In Fees $ 929,2521 56%
Amount Requiring Non-Fee Related Funding Sources 739,338 44%
Total . 1,66i},59U 100%
Attachment A presents the results of the detailed cost recovery analysis for fee
recoverable services. The "Total Cost of Service per Activity Column" establishes the
legal maximum at which a fee could be charged for the corresponding service identified
in the "Fee Description" list. NBS worked extensively with Division staff to gather
estimates of time required to perform each service identified in the Attachment. Time
estimates were independently evaluated on separate occasions by staff members and
also analyzed by NBS to determine whether the time estimates provided seemed
reasonable when compared against the numerous fee studies NBS staff have
performed.
When the Cost of Service per Activity is compared to the Department's "Current Fee',
some fees will appear to under recover their costs, some will come close to 100%
recovery, and some will appear to collect more than the their cost of providing services.
This is a typical outcome of any Cost of Service Analysis.
Revenue estimates discussed in this report or shown in the accompanying attachments
should be relied upon conservatively. The premise of this analysis utilizes allocations of
current cost data, labor effort and workload to establish the estimated and reasonable
cost of providing services, and compares the annualized figures to revenue reports,
available staffing hours, and other indicators considered by NBS as cross-checks for a
defensible analysis. However, because studies of this nature often induce changes to
fee structures, and rely upon time and workload estimates as well as allocation
statistics, they do not provide an "exact" measure, but rather a reasonable projection of
costs, subsidies, and revenue impacts associated with provision of services.
3.C. Proposed Building Fee Structure
Over the past decade, several challenges and questions to calculating building fee
amounts based on valuation multipliers have been raised in California. Common
challenge statements to this methodology include:
User and Regulatory Fee Analysis— Building and Safety Division 3-4
Prepared by NBS for the City of San Luis Obispo
SS6-21
G
lictachment 1
• Value of a construction project has no real "nexus" to the cost of providing
services for processing, plan review, and inspection of a building project
• As value of a construction project increases per the type of materials used, etc.,
level of effort associated with project approval does not necessarily increase
accordingly
• The true basis for establishment of the valuation multipliers is unknown, and
relies on economic, rather than cost of service assumptions for the local
jurisdiction
• The fee tables applied toward final plan check and inspection fee calculations are
structured to recover subsidies for smaller projects from larger developments
For this reason, many jurisdictions across the State have moved away from the
valuation based fee setting methodology in recent years. The City of San Luis Obispo
has attempted a similar change over the past several years, but has not successfully
implemented a fully automated and successful cost-based fee structure to date.
The building fee structure developed by NBS for the City of San Luis Obispo follows the
same principles of a cost-based structure developed for the City by another consulting
firm about three years ago. NBS re-evaluated and simplified the structure based on its
experience with implementation of cost based building fee structures across the State.
Under a cost based fee setting methodology, all New Construction, Tenant
Improvements, and Additions project types are categorized and charged based on their
square footage and fire rating. All minor residential and commercial projects, and stand-
alone Mechanical, Plumbing, and Electrical (MPE) permits, are charged on a flat-fee
(itemized) basis.
The resulting scaled fee tables for New Construction, Tenant Improvements, and
Additions are provided in Attachment C to this report, while the flat fees for minor
residential and commercial projects and stand-alone MPE's are displayed in the latter
half of the results shown in Attachment A.
User and Regulatory Fee Analysis—Building and Safety Division 3-5
Prepared by NBS for the City of San Luis Obispo
SS6-22
Attachment 1
SECTION 4
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SURCHARGES
NBS reviewed the City's existing approach to collecting the total costs of planning,
engineering, and fire development review services. The existing approach is
documented below:
• Planning: 44% on top of Building permits that required a planning approval
(mostly new development and major additions and remodels)
• Engineering:15% on top of Building permits that required an Engineering
review of a planning application. Also, the estimated annual Engineering
costs related to building plan review were factored into the Building plan
check fees.
• Fire: 21.5% on top of building permits requiring fire plan review and
inspection.
4.A. Planning
The results of a 2006 third-party fee studyconcluded that planning fees for service were
significantly under-recovering costs associated with providing services, as is typical of
many current planning functions in local government.
Historically, the Council has adopted a policy targeting 100% recovery of development
review costs. In order to soften the impact to the applicant of collecting 100% of the full
cost recovery planning application fee during the initial stages of a project's feasibility,
the Council adopted a policy to split the collection of each planning application fee to
45% upon submittal of the planning application, and 55% at the building permit stage.
The resulting method of implementation reflected in the City's adopted fee structure
pooled the costs associated with the delayed collection of 55% of planning fees into one
surcharge of 44% on top of building permits. The surcharge was applied to building
permits that typically require planning application approval.
NBS notes the following risks and issues associated with the 44% surcharge:
•...................................:................................................................................................
The surcharge is global in nature, and does not link the specific project from the
planning phase to the charge that is incurred on the building permit.
•
..................:.................................................................................................................
Application of a surcharge runs the risk of implementation on projects where no
planning approval was actually required, such as single family residences.
•.....................................................................................................................................
User and Regulatory Fee Analysis— Building and Safety Division 4-1
Prepared by NBS for the City of San Luis Obispo
SS6-23
attachment 1
Some projects approved in the planning application process never pull a building
permit. The current method recovers costs of projects that fall out of the process
within the surcharge to active building permit applicants. Charging some applicants a
higher fee to recover for costs of customers who do not pay their fee does not
comply with the government code, most recently Proposition 26.
NBS recommends the collection approach for splitting planning application fees be
modified to 45% at the planning application phase, and 55% collection at.the building
permit phase, based on the exact fee required per project type.
Implementing a split charge system at the individual fee level requires additional
consideration regarding the point of collection for each Planning fee for service. For
example, some planning applications will always result in a building permit. For these
projects, the split collection method is appropriate.For projects that will never result in a
building permit, the collection method requires 100% payment at the time of planning
application. Finally, someprojects may or may not require a building permit, depending
on the scope and nature of the project. For these items, the collection approach should
attempt to collect full payment either way. Additionally, a certain number of projects will
fall out of the process after planning approval, and never apply for a building permit. If
the full cost.recovery fee for planning review was not collected at the time of application,
the City will not recover these costs.
Attachment D to this report presents an updated table of Planning application fees, as
well as a recommended collection method for each type of application. NBS used the
following approach to develop the adjusted fees:
•......................................................................_.._.............._............_...............................
Interviewed Planning staff regarding the nature of each type of application. If the
application was 100% associated with a future building permit, a collection method
of 45% at the planning application submittal and 55% at the building permit was
applied. For applications never associated with a future building permit, a collection
method of 100% at the time of application submittal applied. For applications with an
unknown future building permit, the 45% and 55% collection method was also
applied.
•...................................... ..
... ...............................................................................................
Adapted the full cost recovery fee amounts from the 2006.study to 2011 levels using
a CPI increase factor. This is a common practice for the City of San Luis Obispo in
updating user and regulatory fees on an annual basis.
•........................................................................................:................................:..........
Noted any recommended fee amounts provided by Planning staff that reflected
amounts less than 100% full cost recovery (intentional -subsidy), or that were not
included in the 2006 study
•....................................................................................................................................
User and Regulatory Fee Analysis—Building and Safety Division 4-2
Prepared by NBS for the City of San Luis Obispo
SS6-24
Attachment 1
Showed a comparison between the current planning application fee and the new
planning application fee under the revised collection method
4.B.Engineering
The Engineering Division provides support to both the planning and building application
processes, The results of the 2006 Fee Study identified approximately $238,000 in
costs associated with planning application review and approximately $137,000 in costs
associated with support to the building plan check process. Council adopted a policy to
implement a 15% surcharge on top of building permits to recover for the costs of
planning application review, while the $137,000 was included as an overhead cost
component within the building fee structure.
The same risks and issues associated with the Planning Surcharge are applicable to the
Engineering Surcharge. The 2006 Fee Study results included a list of fees that could be
charged on a per project basis for planning application review, as shown in
Exhibit 4-A on the following page.
Exhibit 4-A
2006 Fee Study.Potential Fees for Engineering Review of Planning Applications
Potential Fee
Fee or Service Name -2006 Stud
Sidewalk Use Fee Sidewalk Cafa (per sq. ft. per month $ 81
ARC Development Project $ 557
ARC Minor or Incidental $ 282
Lot Line Adjustment $ 651
Planned Development-Plan Amendment $ 30
Planning Commission Use Permit $ 81
Specific Plan Amendment $ 216
Tentative Subdivision Ma -4 lots or less $ 4,759
Tentative Subdivision Ma -5 or more lots $ 5,617
Variance $ 60
Zoning Map Amendment $ 43
Zoning Text Amendment $ 43
Condo Conversion $ 1,589
Street Abandonment $ 1,181
Certificate of Compliance $ 266
Time Extension $ 441
Environmental Impact Determination $ 1,883
Environmental Impact Report $ 2,326
User and Regulatory Fee Analysis— Building and Safety Division 4-3
Prepared by NBS for the City of San Luis Obispo
SS6-25
A.Lachment
Potential Fee
Fee or Service Name -2006 Stud
ARC Review-Time Extension $ 30
General and Sloecific Plans- Ma $ 598 _
General and Specific Plans-Text $ 120
Annexations $ 1,010
NBS recommends the City revisit these Fee Study results, and consider implementing a
fee structure according to the type of planning application incurring support. from
Engineering.
For cost recovery of support to the building plan check process, NBS recommends the
Engineering Division develop a schedule of flat fees for various types of building plan
review projects, and charge on a per project basis. The results of the Building Fee
Analysis shown in Attachments A through C of this report do not include the $137,000 in
costs identified in the 2006 Fee Study. The impact of implementing the revised building
fee structure will have a negative revenue impact for Engineering's cost recovery in this
area until an alternate collection method is established.
4.C. Fire Surcharge
For plan review and inspection of building permits, the 2006 Fee Study established fee
tables under the cost based methodology discussed in Section 3.3 of this report for
Building and Safety. These tables were not implemented as part of the Master Fee
Schedule adopted by City Council in 2009. Instead, the City adopted a 21.5% surcharge
on top of building permits requiring fire prevention review.
A surcharge cost recovery method is a common approach State-wide for cost recovery
of fire prevention support to the building permit process. In NBS' opinion, it is a best
management practice to implement a cost based fee structure that mirrors the building
department's cost-based approach by project. type and size. However, this could be
done at a later date within the context of a larger Citywide fee study. In the interim, the
City should focus first on effective transition of the building department to the cost based
methodology.
User and Regulatory Fee Analysis— Building and Safety Division 4-4
Prepared by NBS for the City of San Luis Obispo
SS6-26
Attachment
1
SECTION '5
CONCLUSIONS
As discussed throughout this report, the proposed fee schedule includes fees intended
to recover City costs incurred to provide individual services.
The NBS project team notes that while on an individual fee basis, some fees were
recovering more than the average total cost of providing services; others were not
recovering their true costs. Overall, the Building Division is under-recovering City costs
of providing fee related services by approximately 7%.
NBS also recommends the elimination of existing surcharges on top of building permits.
While thesurcharges are intended to capture delayed recovery of development review
costs incurred in the planning and engineering application phases of development, fees
based on specific project types, charged as close as possible to the time at which the
work is performed, is a more defensible approach.
The fee schedule should continue to remain a living document that is handled with care:
• A fundamental purpose of any fee schedule is to provide clarity and
transparency to the public and to staff regarding fees imposed by the
City. Once adopted by the City Council, the fee schedule is the final
word on the amount and manner in which fees should be imposed.
• The City should consider adjusting these user fees and regulatory fees
on an annual basis to keep pace at least with cost inflation. A common
practice in California is to apply an annual Consumer Price Index
adjustment. Conducting a user fee study is not an annual requirement;
it becomes worthwhile only over time as significant shifts in
organization, local practices, legislative values, or legal requirements
change.
As a final note in this study, it is worth acknowledging the path that fees in general have
taken in 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. As the City proceeds in the years to come, specifically in the update,
replacement, or acquisition of new financial and data management systems, it is
recommended that some attention be paid as to how new systems might also help the
City in its fee related responsibilities, in areas such as:
• The tracking of staff time at a project or case level
User and Regulatory Fee Analysis—Building and Safety Division 5-1
Prepared by NBS for the City of San Luis Obispo
SS6-27
achment I
• The tracking of volumes at a service/activity category level
• Access to data by multiple departments collaborating on the same or
similar services and activities.
User and Regulatory Fee Analysis— Building and Safety Division 5-2
Prepared by NBS for the City of San Luis Obispo
SS6-28
Attachmen
t1
_0 n
na Jot, n
�
m
zcm
m � 3 �I
q �
m ro
y C
cnN �
r pi
c c ry
a 3
U Q fap
CA a
C a
N
0
o'
D
CDd
s
3
D
SS6-29
A g o 4:1Ment 1
a
pig I
a ,v, v a r
OR
r 3C
6PLYa YY9Y^ YYL^'. ;5? p
eSL SSggg
Y%Y• %L' -- gyz9Y --_ CS�a: 0CY9Y fit
_ a
aha
��L� �pd` a Y • e ...«v aa� N�w� � ..�
5ga s Y Fea_"a «YY�� Mea
: -o GYa t"�Jg Y X 'ad 3o=K 7Y«KCA .�a�& N5e=k
r$sr . "ser ' j
«8$r Mx86r d
p8o «686r
xrxx xxx xx �xx zz z�,x,�z xxxxx xm_m3 �.�K�x ��$
5 &
9
4
SS6-30
{gypp ${ a3}( pp �pp Ei+ y9C3' Qp C C Y yp9�y.p -§Y p QQ py FF
3a tlX $i M6X�$i3 EK� D E FiSSEXU.i15S Ba $o S.ag i8b S 844 Eg 8 = * g aF
6 q s e� 83 F gatl � 8Ctl QQ $ s5k�$`'=p
ip pp pp pp ��
- $a ��� g m �a� d 6fiS •� 9 •�
!$ 7fl� E = aa S m i13 FP
i. -S9 jgi £C d
IF e'€ 38€ } Few
yi+E e4; i ie .4 rig
29,
' c
$ a'a aaa a'aa a
SNg 88 88e uS.
rsa wGgbC S88 8 8 88888 „L& ""x nb1 E3 e���g�6
Jill
9 Ht 8
#..uuw .r.. LCS mwj _ _�♦ 6 � �� r
em6L ay$�Y S:Y Y 2ke�� L•Cr B� ��Y kY YeR 8: S �1��� �
8
. $
f .
y
8 $ $ 8
ri
i 1
��-6� SS6-31
n
GtE4g4_ S G G:YGa YEBE 8
pp
WWIgg
i I 'a IE 8
i Pg
4
. 8fi ' I ; ��1 ��
a �
a as 1 n gg c
S :kkSGSl Ix8 N$ S$kav $SSSS S 8 8 S BGESSS SSS 24:k :S S S¢8S •.B ki„8
$$ y gCC Y
8 88 N S8 w8 MZ M M8 8 8 8 8 8E-488 :88 GGG eEA a GCSS v5 $g i3
8 RRR
$ Y88S=E S8 SS ¢88?S SS
tkBS 8 8 8 8 SSc88 YEE =8k 8 :«�``
[I-
B 888888 88 8888 888888. 8 E B B 88i i eL� YYIIY Y &:
E :&9:F GL SG YEL.] F9898 -E "a:sz' Fe's nE"s fsE 5 'affair E5
8 YJu' m3 •C X��ae teS�o] E y E ® r SEC �7x F SCLSE g �Pa 't
E3
8 8 8 "8
--
--- - - - «« ..... .. _ .. ... « .. « «
¢8 $88 8 $ $ 88
8
�.x.
88 888 a a 8 88 a a 8 8 8 $
XKm�XX mX X X �Ym � XmmX X % mmP � m X } � X ➢�$ ,
XX 1
i6wF� Yi ~? $wF�. a '� E -&Nei «n iri _= tilt
e'e i5$ i NF `^`nS^ e" aN^3 s � r`B^ «y n-� £�I�E
a' � G .
e
SS6-32
> ! Cgs .
CD
� f �
e E! . a : a e! e e . e a. e e ■ \
� , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
lift| |
\ \ \ \, V. �a r / Ti <
.:. ..,. „
. . . . § ;
. . . ! . . . . . . . . . . . . ;. . . �| _
§M `
|
} \ \ \ \
Tw / . . §
. . . . . , .
! _ . .. .. . . . . . : .
. . RR6-J4
Attachment 1
10 C
n
ca n
CD
v � C
Z ° 3
C �
Fr on y
CD
m O
my �
� I
c W =
c
S to
'O j Q
O CL
fn
O
fD
V
in-*
o'
3
D
x
N
n
S
3
m
Co
SS6-35
W Ln | ` §
` § �
CID
! | �
�
` ■ ! _! s =
■ � ) (I_ !
. . .; ; ■§ ■ (�
` }
ƒ�\(
E �t
ssi ) { 1 (|
!
! .
RR6—J6
n
q A 8m ^
0 m0.s r V W[II N N y.y��O 4 N N+.0 N p.ONI N INI V V N C m Cl �y C <
y N V Y N b Ip V 41 r W W N 10 W i 1O O N C
ES /r z
A > F s o m
A $° �00`66°"mBoroAo���-D.°Ozg<"z 3 0 FNsp`--,
p FRyyypyNyTTR°yC�RmR�Ro�39 tiA zz ,
3
CO
G ^CNN2jN 2yN¢^yT -1TONOA O�;FO m m° m q� m yb
ST1-r 9AO.A •004)rOv�lTT D y �
i5 0 000 Z Z
NN .n2 R D• ONTA
y N SNN O 1tlm'f
O
CSLOn NT C
2z H S mmC
m =N N ZZ
ME O M0 m imyy
Y
A
m N v m y g CD
m w
+
N N N M M N w M N N N N N N M N N N N M N N N N N yp
m O
O O +W N m N+N N N a++ b J++N b p N
N N N N N N N N N N w N N a a N a N N»N»»»
3m
05
6
w waaNuiNa N a N N N'N p N a N N NNMwNa
M M N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N w N N N N N P m n
m,
M
w O N 0 N+N N w Y+ V+ N m m a
�8800�d�oSoS - 88 • 0 . 8��$ , ao�
N N N w N N N N N N N N M M N N M N M M M N N N w
y�H
YN d ml W N b W N N yNy yV V w �b_
N V � W N V A lap � +Imp V Y i d • � Y • O V • m • '
ADmi9
N r m2 8m
� o .
m
N N p NNN
..........N........ T •0 N
C
'a �m
V O N N N N Y N Y pY 1p A N V Up�i Y p u� D_
' w IOJ • m+N+a O • V 0 toil 01 • N � • INV • +W � 1p • � �'
» »N N N N N N N N
j A mG
j pN m pl m r IV.I NY N N m (N+ O N 9£ Y
YN � +++N Oml • + N a y � g • m � • + � a N • N • �M
M NMMNNNN Mtl1NNN.NNNN...NNNN mb
p 3
on
d
fmV O m N N N
45p O +a O O (D P Vy O C (pg]
V b m ml m N@ • J+IS . b N • N a w V U_
w NN....Nwwpwe+wN wNNNNNNNwN Al o
�M c
d m �
5�
o g u�ulu� Sm� m bt
�b u
N w p N w w w N N N N N N N N a N N N N N N N N N M N
q p 1f�p pq pI (,1 y?p
V W fWJ J a IG 4W1 W m IIWpp V N O +l 4m1 m r 3 g
- U P • OYbww • p1+p� � N • 4m1 • � m • OWN� • ' $
M N N N M M M N M N N N N N N N N N w w N N N w p MH
g =
yy ?o p tNf, UNpl�qf SH sj /J � �p.
N pW GO W T b pW N S b b,4pWi pO OI pO tWp OE
.�T N ml O(Nu
i w N a w w N w N N N N N N N N a a N N N N N N»a m
am Ipm y •p f! !� A�jqO
(ay pm O N N eN N a + pl u N mS• Y
` N Imp • a O N O y • O�N O i QI • • + • V N • Y �4
u
SS6-37
3 g 45 g
zz
c
ozm Gam ' e"oP
g
top °
i O n m
°m Ap z
0 z `
y" e 5
o zm c 3 3
m = z y z z
m •_ <
F m
6 w w g
Gl m w
y � `
m 1�
W g G VI + p
N M-M 3y
0 m
�3 aC6�
ppia -
W wb a � Nw OY Y� j
g , lee Im Yo
w w w w w w w Ow
qty
W O IPn O Y N 1 •' 0
M ««
no
[pf Aw
O � ^
y w m Im `REQ �,J W qp
P w O' O m N
w «« m « www g? g
g X6 gm pv
y
F Q Q v
o 3 N �•m m 'I
�nw ?p a^ w wN« m Z
w 6m °
y� a
w «« ; ? A w www ;
EF 2 O z
✓ M N N m N N N N y Q
g � OI ml N
Y « N« w
Q
SS6-38
owl
o z n i ° v
n
m m G
O O u m p z o p 0
m y G m G D
t a
mm m O P r <
N O
m
3: m C 20
C
n n
n m
u � y
n 'w
2
_ n
r N N w w aNNN ��
m m
pm-J p�p'm ry9ry y q y q q CD
Y , +•m F
Y • N O � Y W d N+ M
O W �
CI p m
NN O!1 N N+ gy0
ry >q qq .YF3 Y
O d O � p � N J W
LI .N N �t J pm A 0
X Y INiI A �. 10 A O N m
M NMN Tp � M MNMM T •�
N W o m Q^9
r p O W G W V fNJ AI 2
fJ
d[ Y u W r C 0 J W W Y J m
N MN T � M MN«N 9 m
O
N
J d ON N O+NINI1 l P� m
at
a
w «www
Z
M NNNN Jy O
6111@@@g111
3
SS6-39
10
MUM
5 gr' u n Y m i
E 2S! �•y �a mR
3. vole �r'J
` V
RaA w
C T
^ n 5 L
p COQ
P N O� _.•U
g^ »» ««a«
E mm
00
« «»» m e ff
0
w . � X ffiu'�SC'ou � •
>q&a
to u "uwm� <3s
M M Y N Y M
a
P
SS6-40
ATTACHMENT C Attachment 1
Scaled Fee Tables
User and Regulatory Fee Analysis— Building and Safety Division
Prepared by NBS for the City of San Luis Obispo
SS6-41
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO Attachment 1
BWWW G DIVISION USER S REGULATORY FEE ANALYSIS NOT,Construction Fee Schedule-Plan Cheek Fees
Input calls in blue foM formula based calla M blacir tons
Fire Rating Type I Fire period Type Ilk 111 Fin RaUM 4pe IIB TVVB
Occupancy Type and Class Fee Unit Cost Per S.F. Cost Per S.F. Cost Pat S.F..
Bus Cost Between Bell Coq Between Bess Cost Bslrvesn
Thresholds Thresholds Thresholds
LEVEL OFEFFORT 1.5 1.25 1
Commercial ses-Stimual(All nwly mlwtrxct00,added,of Structurally
remodeled so=few non-reelales0el orcupudu deselfieal as CBC Gnmp A.6,E.
F.H.I,All or Mar cernmerdal occuperacies On specifically addressed a4ewhen
In This Fee Schedule
Square Foga e:
500 er reactT777777441 3 1.63 $ 2,035 $ 1.36 f 1,628 $ 1.09
5.000 per pmart S 9,766 5 0.49 $ 8,138 S 0.41 f 8,510 I 0.33.
10,000 par Project $ 12,207 S 0.18 IS 10,173 S 0.15 $ 8,138 $ '0.12
50,000 par imilact S 19,531 5 0.10 S 16,276 S 0.08 S 13,021 $ 0.07
100,000 per Twolact S 24,414 I .0.24 IS- 20.345..5 0.20 S 18.278 S 0.16
Commanclal KatudereVeland MWkWarmly Residenuid Uses- newy constructed.
added.or structurally remodeled space for residential eccupanciea classified as
CBC Group R(except R-3),or other residential occupendes not specifically
addreaeed elsewhere in this Fu Schedule
Square Feelings:
500 per proact $ 2,686 S 1.79 $ 2,278 $ 1.49 3 1,790 S 1.19
5.000 par priTlecit $ 10.742 f 0.54 $ 8,952 $ 0.45 $ 7,161 S 0.36
10.000 r ro $ 13,428 $ 0.20 11,190 $ '0.17 I 8,952 0.13
50.000 per project $ 21,484. S 0.11 $ 17 904. $ 0.09 $ 14 323 $ 0.07
100.000 per pmjod $ 26.856 E 0.27 S 22,380 S 0.22 f 17,904 f 0.18
Re Plan Review-Commercial Residential and Multhwe Reslderl Uses
ware F a:
500 par. mod $ 1772 f 0.39 $ 1,477 $ 0.33 f 1,182 3 026
5.000 per promIt $ 3,545 f 0,14 $ 2,954 '$ 0.12 S 2.363 S 0.09
10.0110 - r proad S 4,254 6 0.03 $ 3,545 0.02 S 2,836 $ 0.02
50,000 per. reed $ 5,317 $ 0.04 $ 4,431 '$ 0.03 S 3,545 $ '0.02
100.000 per proiject $ 7,090. S 0.07 E 5.908 S 0.08 f 4,727 $ 0.05
Lw and Moderate Hazard Storage-WI ruwy constructed,added,or stncaln9y
remodeled apace for pan awe occupendw classified as CBC Group S,or other
storage occupancTes not specifically addressed saneness N this Fu Schedule
Downs Footage:
500 per pnoact $ 2,441 $ 1.63 3 2,035 . 1.36 1,628 $ 1.00
5.000 per project $ 9,788 S 0.49 S 8,138 $ 0.41 5 6,510 $ .0.33
10.000 per ixejod $ 12.207 $ 0.18 S 10,173 $ 0.15 S 8.138 S 0.12
50,000 par pmjact S 19,531 $ 0.10 S 18.278 S 0.08 S 13.021 S 0.07
100.000 p
erproject S 24,414. 3 0.24 S 20,345 f 0.20 18 278 S 0.16
Adachod Accessory e btiy, es-All y constructed.. orly
remodel"ape"for utility and accessory occuponcles classiU,or other utility end a®asory occupandw nal specifically aaldtics Fee Schedule)
200 er ro'wt S 822 $ 1.41 S 519 S 1.18 415 f 0.94
er roed $. 905 S1.32 754 1.10. 803 088
680 er mect S 1,168. S0.29 E 973 f 024 f 778 S019
TROD er mad $ 1,285 S 0.23 $ 1,071 $ 0.19 f 857 $ 016
3.000 er ro act S 1,752 S 0.58 S 1,450 S- 0.49.S 1,168 3 0.39
Draw Adassory anal Ud4y Uses-(AII new y constructed, , tiy
remodeled space for utility and acrosery,occupancies classified w CBC Group U.
or poor WIIty,and accessory occupancies not spacificelly,addressetl eiswhare In
IMs Fee Sdudule
Sgwn e:
200par project $ 622 $ 141 S 519 $ 1.18 $ 415 S 0.94
400 par project S 905 f 1,32 S 754 $ 1.10 $ 603 S 0.88
600 par mad 1,186 0.29' f 973 0.24 $ 779 0.19
1.000 per pmjad 1,285 $ O,2ff $ 1,071 f 0.19 f 857 3 0.16
3.000 per pmPins 3 1,752 S 0.58 5 1,480 f 0.49 $ 1.168 S 0.39
Shel Buildings foral Commercial Uses- oencosure for all n ycewtruded.
as roucAMY mmotl.1. sora for nen-n rce!m ommandes elwaifu it
as CBC Group A,B.E.F.H.I,M,or other cammerolsl accupanclw not epesmoally
addressed elsewhere in This Fee Schedule where the Interior is not completed or
ecce labia
an soca o:
500 per prpect $ 1,465 $ 0.98 $ 1,221 S 0.61 $ 977 f O.65
5.000 par P.1 t f 5.859 f .029 f 4,883 S. 0.24 S 3.906 f 0.20
10.000 per project S 7,324 $ 0.11 $ 6.104 3 0.09 $ 4.863 $ 0.07
50000 per pJW $ 11,719 $ 0.06 S 9,765 3 0.05 f 7,813 $ 0.04
100.000 par pled' f 14,848 f 0.15 '$ 12,207 $ 0.12 $ 9,756 IS 0.10
Commercial Tenant Improvement-Nan Structural-(Non-structurally remodeled
spare for mr-raaidon0 it ocurpeedes dessi0ed as CBC Group A.B.E.F.H,I,M.
or other commardel occuuncies not specifically addressed elsawhare In ties Fes a
Schedule where the structure Is Or altond
Square Footage:
500par prejact E 1,221 0.81 $ 1.017 $ 0.68 S 814 0.54
5.000 per PMJGO $ 4,883 $ 0.24 '$ 41,069 $ 0.20 $ 3,255 $ 0.16
10.000 par project f 8,104 $ 0.09 $ 5,088 3 O.OB $ 4,069 S 0.08
50000 per Pnoact $ 9,768 $ 0.05 $ 8,138 S 0.04 $ 6.510 E 0.03
100,000 per projact S 12,207 f 0.12 $ 10,173 $ 0.10 $ 8,138- IS 0.08
Com normal Residentiale Multifamily Residential Remodels-Non Structural-
(NomStructurally remodeled space for residendal oecupanciw classified as CBC
Group R(except Ill or Omar maidenbal occupancias hot specifically addressed
elsewhere in tris Fu Schedule
5 were Footage:500 er roed E 1,271 $ 0.85 $ 1,059 $ 0.71 E 647 S 0.58
5.000 Parprow f 5,083 3 0.25 S. 4,236 $ 0.21 $ 3,389 S 0.17
10.000 par pnovelt $ 6.354 f 0.10 f 5,295 f 0.08 f 4,236 S 0.06
50.000 per roed $ 10,188 $ 0.05 $ 8,471 5 0.04 $ 6,777 i 0.03
100,000 PC,preject f 12,707 $ 0.13 $ 10,589 S 0.11 $ 8,471 $ 0.08
Single Family Dwellings arca Duplexes-(All newly cons"clad space tar residential
adupenclos classified u CBC Group R-3.including custom builds and model
homes for sed master plans,or other similar residential occupanclas not
Openfically adalreeaetl skewhare in Nis Fee Sohetlule
NO
Webs .n5gov.nm T011 Free:800.676.7516 xe.comoumon ho-ry.O ar)es�
CITY OFBUILDING
IONU ER .. .Attachment- 1
BUILOWO OMSION USER 6 REGULATORY FEE ANALYSIS
Now Conahuction Fee Schedule-Plan Cheek Fees
Input calls In blue tont torula basad calla N black Ion
Fire Rating I_. Fire Round Type HA,BI. Fin Rating 4pe 118 IV VB
Accupaney Type and Claes Fee Unit Coat Par S.F. Cost Per S.F. Cost Per S.F.
Ban Cost Batwnn Ban Cost Between Ban Cost Batwean
Thresholds Thmehelde Thresholds
LEVEL OF EFFORT 1.5 1.25 1
Square Footage:
1,000 for project f 2,911 f 1.94 $ 2,425 S 1.62 f 1,940 1.29
2,500 parproject 5,921 0.39 4.851 0.32 3,881 f 0.26
4,000 per project 6,403 0.0 S 5.338 0.38 4,269. 0.29
9,000 per pmject S 7,278 $ 0.77 ORo,61 T 4,951 T 0.49
8,000 per prejecl 3, 8,732 S 1'.09 S 7,276 f. 0.91 5.621. 0.73
Re eat But Ing Plan Review-Single Family Dwellln s and Duplexes
Square Footage:
1,000 car mod S 941 f - 0.83 784 0.52 f 827 S 0.42
2,500 par prujact 1 1,881 '6 '0.13 f 1,568 0.10 f 1.254 S 0.08
4,000 per pmjW 3 2,069 0.14 $ 1,724 0.12 1,379 0.09
6,000 per pmjW 3 2,351 0.24 1,360 s 010 1.588. E 0.16
8,000 per project 2,822 0.35 T-2 3si 0.29 $ 1.881. S 0.24
Retreat Building Plan Review-Attached or Detached Accessory and Utility Uses.
Square Foots e: '
200 per pmiW S 87 S 0.42 158 0.35 f 124 0.28
400 par proed S 271 T-0 39 S .226 S 0.33 1 181 0.29
600 par project f 350 S 0.09 1 292 f 0.07 S. 214 11 0.06
1,000 per peed 3 385 '0.07 321 0A8 257 f 0.05
3,000 per project 528T-0 18 439 S 0.15 350 0.12
unctural HosidenfialRemodels and Addiumns- nmly constructed ad mons N.
or slmdurally remodeled areas of,residential omupanclm classified m CBC
Group RJ,or o0er sender residential occupancies not spedtcally addressed
siaewhere In this Fee -
StlenWa
Square F
100 car project S 801 1.93 667 1.81 574 S 1.26
500 par project 1,571 3.14 1,310 2.82 1,048 2.10
1,000 par project 5 3,147 -$-0 63 41119 0.52 2,095 0,42
I.Wb per project 5 3.457 S 0.63 $ -2,881 f 0.52 S 2,305 . 0.42
2,000 per project f 3,771 E '1.89 3,143. S 1.57 2.514 S 1.26
NorSI rel RmWen9el Remodels and Additions-(AB newly constructed
addltlwB ta,or non-struchn Ily remodeled areas of,residential occupan'dee _
intention as CBC Group R-3,or omar similar rtidadlnl oarmantlm not
sperelfically addressee elsewhere in mis Fee Schedule
Square o:
100 per project S 574 0.41 479 0,94 363 S 0.27
500 per project S 737 f 1.28 614 $ 1.61 S 491 S 0.86
1,000 Par pmj.d f 1,379 1 0.28 1,149 1 0.23 f 919 T 0.18
1,500 par project 1,517 S 0.28 S 11264 f 0.29 1.011 S 0.18
2.000 par project f 1,654 S 0.93 S 1,379 f 0.69 S 1,103 It 0.55
Site Impmements-This Includes substantial 2onlopment of private pammg ors,
hIch we processed sepamte of the sbucture and include any camblnation of the
follwring:Underground udiWm,parking lot ilght1q,accessible path of travel
analysis,grading,drainage and compliance with Na CINh parking and drivaway
standards.
Square Footage:
Par project823 f 0.55 686 $ 0.46 S. 549 1$ 0.37
5,000 r road S 3.294 0.16 S 2,745 S 0.14 S 2. S 188 0.11
10,000 er road S 4,117 S 0.06 S 3,431 1 0.05 2,745 0.04
54000 I Per project 4 6.56] 0.07 .5,489 0.07 4,391 0.02
100.000 per rood' S 6,234 0.085 5.489 1 S .05
mm
wry;ww.nlneev.com T04rer 676.nls caeca earmrunlan FeuPWn m2e6
SS6-43
CrrY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO - Attachment- I
BUILDING DIVISION USER 8 REGULATORY FEE ANALYSIS
New ConaLucLon Fm Schedule-trajection Feu
Input calk in Nue fort formula based mils in black font
FireltathaTymi Fire FINn IIA 111 Fire Rrtin a IIB IV VB
Ooeupaney Type and Class Fee Unit Lost Per B.F. Coat Par S.F. Cwt Pm B.F.
Baa Cwt Batwam Sue Cost Beaaaen Baas Coat -Bety
Thresholds Thresholds Thresholds
LEVEL OFEFFORr 1.5 1.25 1
Commercial sm-Structural(Ail newly constructs;added,or structurally
remodeled Spam for noa.rvwderml occupancies oassl0ed at,CBC Group A.B.E.
F,H,I.M,a ether comma,dW ocoupancise rot apedOW y addressed emomero
In Bac Fm Schedule)
Square Footage:
500 ps,protect. $ 1,965 S 1.31 1,638 $ 1.09 $ 1.310 0.37
5.000 per Imijact. S 7,Bfi2 $ 1.18 $ 61551 $ 0.98 '$ 5241 f 0.79
10,000 per project $ 13,758 $ 0.15 S-1 1 465 f 0.12 S 9,172 f 0.10
50,000 per protect. t 18,654 S 0.16 t 16,378 $ 0.13 13;103 f 0.10
100.000 per pmj.ct f 27515 $ 0.28 $ 22,830 S 0.27 $ 18.344 S 0.18
Commercial ential ard Multifamily Residential Uses;- newly constru
added,or structurally remodeled apace for residential occupancies classified as
CBC Group R(except Rd),or other residential occupancies not speoOWy,
addrma, elsewhere In this Fm Schedule
Fao a:
5a0 per prujact S 2,948 $- 1.97 $ 2,457 $ 1.84 $ 1,985 $ 1,31
5,000 per project S 11,792 1.77 f 9,827 3 1.47 T-7 662 $ 1.18
10,000 per roed f -20,637 f 0.22 .S 17,197 1-5.1 a S 13,753 0.15
50.000 par project f 28,481 S 0.24 $ 24,567 S . 0.20 $ 19,854 $ 0.16
100.000 Par Project f 41,273 T' 0.41 $ 34,394 S 0.34 S 27,515 $ 028
Remain Plan Ravlew-Commercial Residemtial and Multifamily Residential Uses
Square Footage:
500 par ribNIA WA 'NIA WA NIA N/A
5,000 par project NIA WA NIA WA WA WA
10.000 per project' N/A WA2NUA WA WA. WA
50.000 per project NIA NIA WA WA WA
100.000 a ed WA NIA NIA WA WA
Lw and Moderate Hauer Storage-(A0 newly mruWcted,addremodeled Spam fa Storage paupancies desameo os CBC Group S.or other
e dcctt ncies rota Bort addressed elsewhere In this Fm Scheduleuare F e:500 r mem S 1965 $ 131 ftOg S. A310 S 0.87
5.000 ar roect f 7.882 S1.18 $ 0.98 S 5241 S 0.79
10000 ar erect $ 13.758 f 0.15 S 0.12 S 9.172 S 0.10
50.000 of mem S 19,854 S 0.15 . . $ 0.13 S. 13,103 .S 0.10
100,000 PW project $ 27,515. f 0.28 $ 22.930 S 0.23 $ 18.344 $ 0.18
Affachext Accessory and Utility Uses- I new y constructed. ,or strudur
rare g Sol spam for WilyI and accessory occupancies classified as CBC Creep U.
or other utility and accessory occupancies not specifically addressed elsewhere in
this Fm Schedule
Footage:
.200 erroed $ 1535 S 0.75 S 1,279 $ 0.82 $ 1023 S 0.50.
400 Pal mem S .1,684 S 4.12 S 1,003 S 3.43 S1,123 t 2.74
600 par protectf 2.507 S 1.23 S 2 089 $ 1.03 S 1,672 $ 0.82
1.000 par promet $ 3,001 f IM S 2,501 S 0.83 f 2,001 S 0.66
3.000 parproject S 4,995 $ 1.67 S 4.163 S 1.39 f 3.330 S. 1.11-
Detached Accessory am Liddy UU,- I newly constructed.added.or atiucum0y
remodete l apace for ubliy,and accessory occupancies classified as CBC Group U,
W mire uti0y anti acee ary,xwpane=rot apeci8caly wdrosse d elsewhere in
this I==)
200 per projecl S 1,407 f 0.58 f 1,172 f 0.49. S 933 S 0.39
400m roed S 1,523 S-3 87 f1,269 S 3.22 $ 1.016 S 2.58
600 par mem S 2,297 $ 1.15 $ 1,914 S' 0.96 $ 1,531 $ 0.77
1,000 per protect S 2.756 S 0.92 S 2.287 $ 0.77 S 1,637 $ 0.61
3,000 par Project f 4,593 $ 1.53 $ 3,828 1.28' $ 3,062 1.02
Shag Buildings for all Commercialsew-(The enclosure for oil newly mnstruded,
adtletl.or strucurady remodeled apace for non-maidemal occupancies ckssifiad
as CBC Group A,B.E.F.H,1,M.a other commercial occupancies not spedflWly
addraaaed elaawmre in this Fm Schedule where the imeda is not completed or
Samdcouplabla
re Footn a:
500 per project S 1,26D $ D.77 f 1,050 T-0.64 f 540 f 0.51
5,000 par prequel $ 4,717 f 0.71 $ 3,931 f. .0.59. 5 .3,145 S 0.47
10=0 per pJW f 11,255 $ 0.09 S 6.879 S 0.07 $ 5,503 $ 0.06.
50,000 Par prifiect S. 11,792 f 0.09 S 9.827 S 0.03 S 7.862 S 0.06
100.000 pm PhIjact S 16.509 S 0.17 S 13,758 f 0.14 $ 11,508 S 0.11
Commercial Tenant Improvement-Non Structural-(NmfMmWratly telecasted
spam for non-tesidenfiol ocouponmes classified as CBC Group A.S.E.F.H.1,M,
or Mier commercial occupancies not spastically addressed elsewhere In this Fm
Smedule where the Structure,is not S0arad
Square Facings:
Sm per project It '934 $ 0.67' $ 779 S. 0.55 3 623 $ 0.44
5,950 par imjact S 3,931 f 0.59 $ 3,276 3 0.49 f 2,621 S 0.39
10,00 par project S 8,679 S 0.07 S 5.732 f 0.06 S 4.586 f 0.05
50.000 par project f 9,827 $ 0.08 '$ 5,189 $ O.07 S. 6,551 f 0.05
100.000 per project $ 13,758 S 0.14 f 11.465 f 0.11 f .8,172 S D.09
Commemal F?Osldertfiel and Multifamily Residential Ramon s-Non Strumuml-
(No Sfi cumlly remodeled spam for residential occupancies Classified as CBC
Group R(ucapt R-3),or other residents:occupancies not Specifically addressed
elsewhere In WS Fee Schedule
Footage!
500 per paijact S 943 $ 0.63 S 706 $ 0.52 It 629 S 0.42
5,000 per proem S 3,773 S 0.57 S 3;144 S 0.47 S 2,515 $ 0.38
10,000 per project f 6,603 3. 0.07 $ 5,502 $ 0.08 4.402 S 0.05
50,000 par project S 9,432 L 0.08. S 7 BBO f 0.06 S-6268 f 0.05
100,000 per project I S 13,205 f 0.13 $ 11,004 f 0.11 S 8803 $ 0.09
Single Family Dwellings and Duplexes-(All newly coemucted spam far resWenhel
ocdpancies classl0ed as CBC Group Rd,including custom builds and model
homes for tract master plena,or other almllar residential occupanclas not
spee,cadly addressed aisewham in this Fee Smedu:e
Nay
WeS:wsw.nbasov.cam Ta11beee9ae.4)MM, saw Ciinnrmtlon feva4p)pSoj♦._44
AttachmentCITY OF saN LUIS
1s oetspo
BUILDING DIVISION USER S REGULATORY FEE ANALYSIS
Nw Conabuctlon FN Schedule-Inspection Fees
Input calls in blue land;formula based cella in black font
Fin Rating;Type I Fin Rahn Tad Fin Rating TM UB.IVVB
Occupancy Type and Class FN Unit Cost Per B.F. Cost Per S.F. Cort Per S.F..
am Cam - Sammie am Call Semen Base Cost Belwwe
Threshold& Thnahold&. Thresholds.
LEVEL OFEFFORT 1.5 1.25 1
Square e:
1,000 ar roperT-2- .947 t 1.98 $ 2,456 f -1164 E 1,965 1,31
2.500 er roect $ .5,895 T-0 US E 4,912 $ 0.82 3,930 0.65
4.000 per pmjed 7,368 2.27 ,14 1.44 4,912RMA
6,000 per m p S 11769 S 2.95 $ 9,824 $ 246 7,880
.000 par mop $ 17,884 f 2.21 $ 14,73] 1:84 11,769
R NI Building Plan Rww-Single FamilyOwellings one Duplexes
Square Foc e:
.7,000 ar matt NIA NIA N/A N/A NIA
2.500 per project N/A N/A 'WA NIA WA
4,000 per project WA WA WA WA WA
6.000 e' ro tl WA WA WA WA WA8,000 er. mop N/A N/A N/A .N/A N/A
Rapist Building Plan Reviw-Ailsched or.Detached Accessory and Utility Uses -
SFootage:
k per project N/A NIA 'N/A N/A NIA NIA
400 per project WA N/A WA WA _ WA WA
800 per pmjad WA NIA WA WA WA WA
1.0w map WA N/A WA WA WA NIA
3000 or. roes N/A WA WA WA WA WA
trucNro Residential amp ea and dons- n yconstru ed ons fo,
or swpurally remodeled areas of.residential occupancies classified as CBC
Group R-3,or other similar residential occupancies not specifically addressed
alsawnem N this FN
Scr-de
SIuaeF r.
100 per project 1,186 2.66 S 972 $ 2.22 $ 778 f 1.77
Soo Far project 2,23 2.23 1,659 s 1.68 1,488 1.49
1,000 per project $ 3,747 $ 227 f 2,789 1.86 2,231 S 1.49
7,500 per project 3 4,463 $ 2.23 f 3.719 1.88 t 2975 f 1.49
2•ma0 per Groep $ 5,578 $ .2.79 S 4.6,19 S- 232 . 3.719 S 1.66
Non-Structural Realden0ai Remodala and Additions-(All rarely oarntrucled
additions W.or man-structurally remodeled areas of,residential occupancies
clauffied as CBC Group R.3,or other similar resldentud aecupenpes net
specifically addressed elsewhere in ads FN Schedule
use F e:
7 ar mac 1,081 E 2.65 f 884 $ 2.21 f TO] 1.77
'500 per project $ 2,122 $ 2.12. S 1.768. $ 1.17 L .1,415. L 1.41
1,000
or rood S 3,167 f 2.12 f 2.653 $ 1.77 E 2.122 f 1A7
.500 or map 4,2M 2.12. 3,537 4 1.77 2,829 1.41
2.000 per proect S 5,305 $ 2.85. S 4.421 S 221 f 3,537 L 1.77
pmvemerdc-This includes subsorntial demlopmam of pnaeb parlwg Ims
which ere processed separate of W structure and include any combination of the
foao":UndargmuM utilities,paMng lot 4ghting,accesslelo path of treval
analyl grading•drainage end compliance adth the Clly's parking and driveway
standards.
Square Footage:
500 per would $ 851 0.47 S 543 0.38 43,1 029
5.000 pw etl f 2,804 $. 0.39 2,170 0.33 S 1,738 0.26
10.000 per project S 4,557 $ 0.05 i$ 3,]96 S 0.0,1 S 3,038 $ 0.03
50,000 perpro 6,510 0.05 E Sd25 E 0.0,1 4,340 0.03
100,000per project 1 5 V.1151 5 0.09 1$ 7,586S 0.08 f 8,076 1f 0.08
v
Was:www.nbs4wrtam Laa4ne20i).676.I$16 Nvw conf<rvcuon Fvn-imgq•N a
SS6-45
CfTy INGDI LUIS DIVISION
_Attachment 1
BUILBwc omsloN USER a REGULATORY FEE aHALrs1s
New Conitrudblr Fee Schedule-Taal Fees(Plan Check and Inspecdon) '
Input calk In blue lord:formula based cells In black font
Fire Rnbi I Fire Patirm Type IM,III Fin Raft IIB N VB
Oeeuponcy Type sed Close Fee UnaCost Per S.F. Coat Per S.F. Coal Par S.F.
Beer Con Between ' Bsse Cast Bentsen Bass Coet Between.
Thresholds Thresholds Thresholds
LEVEL OFEFFOR7-PLAN CHECK 1.5 1.25 1
LEVEL OF EFFORT•94SPEC77ON 1.5 1.25 1
Commercial Uses-Suu=m nwly constructed.added.or Structurally.
remodeled apace for non-residonlial occupancies dassl0atl as CBC Group A.B,E,
F.H.I,M,w other commercial occupancies not specifically addressed elsewhere
In this Fee Schedule
Square Footage:
500 a 'ed S 4,407 $ .2.94 S 3 872 f 2.45 S 2.838 T-1 96
5,000 a rood. S 17,827 1.67 L 16,889 1.39 T-1 1 751 1.11
10.000 par project S 25,965 S 0.33 '$ 21,837 $ 038 S 17,310 f 0.22.
,000 a d f 39,185 S 0.25 32,654 $ 0.21 S 28.123 f-0 17
150,-0 r mad $ 51,930 A.52 .43275 0.43 -%,620 0.35
Comm el avdan an am ry est sea- n canstru
added.a structurally remodeled space for residential occupancies classified as
CBC Group R(accept R-3),or Mor residential occupancies not specifically
addressed elsewhere In this Fee Schedule)
Vane Footage:
500 er reed S 5,834 S-3 76 S 4.895 S 3.13 S 3.756 S 2.50
5.000' - a ect $ 22.535 $ 2.31 S 10,779 f. 1.92 $ 15,023 S 1.54
10,000 a ed S 36084 f 0.42 S 28,38] S 0.35 22.710 S 0.28
50.000 per mad $ 50,985 -3-0 34 42,471 T-0 29 $ 33.977 $ 0.23
.100,000 car mad S 68,129 $ 0.68 f 56,776 0.57 $ 45419 $ 0.45
Repeat Plan Rovlaw-Commercial Residential aed Multifamily Rssidluetw Uses
Square Footage:
500 - r lo'ecl $ 1.772 S. 0.39 S 1,477 S 0.33 1,182 0.26
5.000 car mad $ 3,545 S, 0.14 S .2,954 $ 0.12 S 2.363 f 0.09
10.000 ar pm ed $ 4.254 f OM 5 3.545 $ 0.02 E 2,636 f 0.02
50.000 car road 5.317 f 0.04 S 4,431 $ 0.03 3,545 802
100,000 per ro S 7.090 S 0.07 $ 5.908 $ 0.06 S 4,727 $ 0.05
Low ant Moderate Hazard Sm,"a-(All rrewy construdad added.or structurally
remodeled game for garage occupancies classified as CSC Group S.or other
Storage ommancies not specifically addressed elsewhere in MIs Fee Schedule
Square Footage:
500 r ro d 4,407 S 2.94 $ 3.672 E 2.45 $ 2,938 S 1.98
5.000 go,pmjw f 17,627 T-1 eir li14,809. f 1.39 11.751 1.11
10,000 per plead S 25,965 S 0.33 $ 21.637 f 0.26 $ 17310 f 0.22
50.000 S 39,185 S 0.25 $ 32,654 f 0.21 26,123 S 0.17
100,000 per project j-51 930 E 0.52 $ 43.275 S 0.43 $ 34,620 S 0.35
Attached Accessary and ti iry Uses- new y constructed. ,w strata y
remodeled space for Wily and accessary occupancies dasa0ed as CBC Croup U.
or o0wr Wlly and necessary omaancies n o somatically addressed elsewhere In
this Fee Schedule
0o a e:
200 per project S 2.157 $ 2.16 S 1,798 $ 1.80 S 1.438 'S 1144
400 per project $ 2.569 E 5.43 $ 2,157 $ 4.53 f 1,728 $ 3.62
800 r rod f 7.875 i 1.57 3.003 S 1.27 S 2,450 t 1.02
1.000 par project S 4,286. f 1.23 T-3 572 'E 1.03 f 2,857 3 0.62
3A00 per pja S 6.747 S 2.25 S 5.823 S 1.87 E 4.498 E 1.50
Oeacned Amemy and Utility Uses- noely ertstradeo,atlant.or structursury
remodeled spaces for Wliry entl accessory adoaandea classified as CBC Group U.
or other utilly and accessory accrpencles not specifically eddrmaed elaewhere in
this Fee Scnatlae
uaro e:
200 erProd S 2.029 T-2 00 f1,891 1.66 S 1,353 $ 1.33
400 por protect S 2.428 f 5.18 S 2.023 $ 4.32 S 1,619 f 3.46
600 per project f 3.485 $ 1.44 S 2.887 $ 130 S 2.310 $ 0.96
1.000 per roed $ 4,041 $ 1.15 S 3.367 E 0.96 $ 2,694 $ D.7]
3,000 Par project $ 8,345 $ 2.12 S 5.288 $ 1.76 S 4,230 T-1 41
Shoil rqµfor all Cornmerauxsec- e andas.far oil roorty candrnd
added,or afmalure0y remodeled spam for nom-roeklemial mxuoarmles classified
as CBC Group A.B.F F.H.I,M,or other commemlal occupancies,not spedficully
admaated.1gomere In Mle Fee Schedule vmare mw interfor k int caimptax i at
1801!
S Fap o:
500 per proloct $ 2.725 S 176 $ 2,270 S 1.45 $ 1,816 -1:16
5.000 par project S10.578 4-I00 E 0,616 $ 0.83 E 7,051 $ 0.87
10.000 per project S 15,579 i 0.20 S 12,982 $ 0.17 f 10,388 S 0.13
50,050 Per project $ 23,511 t 0.15 S 19,593 S 0.13 $ 15,674 f 0.10
100.000 per pmjw 5 31,150 E .0.31 S 35965 E 0.26 20,772 S 0.21
Commercial Tenont Improvement-Non Structural-(Non-structufelly remadeled
space for non-resldentlal occupancies dasstned as CBC Group A,B.E.F.H,I,M,
or other commercial occupancies not specifically addressed ekewhore In MIs Fee
Schedule where the structure is not altered)
Souse Foot e:
500per roed S 2,155 $ 148 S 1,796 $ 1.23 E 1,437 S 0.99
5.000 per project t 8,814 t. .0.83. S 7.345 E 0.69 5.876 E 0.56
10,000 per project S 12,982 f 0.17 E 10,819 E 0.14 6,855 $ 0.11
50.000 per project f 19,593 E 0:13 $ 16,327 $ 0.11 S 13,082 $ 0.08
100.000 per project E 25.965 $ 0.26 t 31.637 S. 0.22 17.310 S 0.17
Commercial Residential and MuMamily Residential Remodels•Non Structural
(Non-Structurally remodeled space for residents]occupancies dassl5ed as CBC
Gaup R(except R•3),or other residential occupanoes not specifically atloressea
elsewhere in this Foe Schedule)
Square Footage:
500 er Project S 2,214 S 148 S 1,845 f 1.23 1476 S 0.98
5,000 or project f 8856 $ 0.82 $ 7,380 $ 0.68 f .5.904 f 0.55
10.000 par mad E 12,958 $ 0.17 t 10.787 S 0.14 $ 6,637 E 0.11
50.000 per reject S 19598 $ 0.13 S 16,332 S 0.11 $ 13,065 S 0.06
1ro,OW car pmect S 25.U121 f a26 $ 21,593 13 0.22 1$ 17,23 S 0.17
Mea
We6:www.mtuaw.mm TOAirred800.676.7S16 erwrbmeunMn19
9
6
-46
CRY OF SANLu15OB78PO Attachme.
BUILDING DIVISION!USER®ULATORY FEE ANALYSIS n
Naw Construction Fee Schedule-Total Fees(Plan Chock and Inspection)
Inow Celle in blue form formula based calls In black fore
Fin Rating Type 1 Fire Rating Type IIA 111 its Rating a IIB IVVB
Occupancy Type and Class Fee Unit Coll Co
P,.III Per S.F: Cost Per S.F.
Base Cost 9alwaenF.- Bess Cost Between Base Cost Betty .
Thresholds Thresholds Thresholds
LEVEL OFEFFORT-PLAN CHECK 1,5 1.25 1
LEVEL OF EFFORT.D7SPEC11ON 1.5 115 1
Single Family Ummilings;an upeaes- newycona space mr teLsdenhal
occupancies dsa8led as GBG Group R-3,Including custom builds and model
homes for trap master plans,or other almllar resdeMal ottuponde not
spectlicalty addressed slsawbere In this Fee Shcadds
Square Footage:
1,000 par pinject S 5.858 3.91 f 4,882 S 3.25 $ 3.905 S 2.60
2.500 Pat Project S 11718 1.37 8,783 1.1d 7,810 S 0.91
4.000 per project it 13,771 2.85 E - 11,478 2.21 .8,181 S 1.76
8.000 per pmject 3 19,086 f 3.67 S 15,888 3.08 S 12.710 2.45
8.000 par PMJW S- 28,416 T-3 30 22,017 2.75 17,810 220
R BWm an Ravlaw-Single Farnfly Dwellings and Durplexas -
uara F e:
1.000 per project f 941 f .0.63 f 784 0.52 . 627 S 0.42
2.500 per pmtect It 1,881 $ 0.13. 1568 f 54.0.18 S 120.08
4.000 per mod $ 2,069 0.14 1,724 0.12 1,379 0.09
6.000 porprol.ct S 2,351 f 0.24 1,960 S 0.20 f 1,568 E 0.16.
8.000 per pri $ 2,821 $ 0.35 S 2.351 f - 0.29 f 1,881 f 0.24
R eat BWldln Plan Review-Attached or Detached Accur and UOII Use
S tare F e:
200 - per PMJW S 187 f .109 S 156 $ 2.57 124 T 2.05
400 per Project S 221 T-2 63 2 $ 2.19 -S-181 1.75
0 per pored 350 272 29292 $ 1.93 27234 1.55
1.
5.000 per project S 385 2.30 S 321 f 1.92 -S-2v .5 1.53
8,000 par project f 528 E 0.35 S 138 S 0.29 f 350 0.24
truduml Residential Remodels and Additions- newly conetru ions m.
or structurally romodaletl area:of.mddondal occuyaades classified is c6C
Group R-3.W Other SMnar residential occupancies not specifically addressed
elsewhere In this Fee
Schedule
Square Footage:
100 parpm op 1,967 4.59 1,639 f 3.82 S 1,312 3.06
500 per project S 3,803 E 5.37 .3,169 f 4.48 f 2.535 S 3.58
1,000 Farpro'ect S 6,490 f 2.86 S 5,408 S 2.38 S 4.327 E 1.91
1,500 Per proect s 7,920 2.88. f 6.600 T-2 35 5,280 1.91
2.000 pare road 5 9.750 4.67 7,791 3.90 8.237 3.12
NonSWtlurel Raalderdel Remodels and Additions-(All newly croslmctetl .
additions W.in rlonatmmmly remodeled eros of.hoodenmi occupancies
ciassl8ed as CBC Gmup R-3,or other similar residential occupandas not
=-,
atl8rTi-107
ll addreead elsawharo In this Fes Schodula
tan oo e:
100 perproect $ 1.835 T-308 1,383 .2.55 f 1,090 s 2.04
Par projeca S 2,859 f 701 T 2,383 -S-2.0 1, S 2.27
1.0
1,000 Par Project 4,582 -f-2 40 7,801 f 2.00 S 3,041 S 1.80
1,500 per pmjact s 5,761 5 2.40 It 4,801 S - 200 f 3,840 f 1.60
2.000 par project f 6.960 f 3.48 5,800 f .2.90 If 4,640 .2.32
Site tmpronaments-This includes substantial davelopment of private parking lots
wtbtll aro procaswil sapamh of the sWrave and Include"combination of the .
ldlowing!Underground utilities,parking let Ighbng,accessible path of Bi l
anaysts,gentling,drainage rend Compliance with the Cltys parking and ddvewey
standards.
Square Footage:
OVU per project f 1.474 f 0.98 S 1.719 S 0.82 S .983 $ .0.86
TO-DO er map f 5,898 f 0.56 S 4,815 f 0.46 S 93
3, 2 S 0.37
10.000
par
pm 8,57d 0.11 3 7,229 S 0.09 S 5,787 0.07
50.000per Project f 13,097 S 0.09 3 10.915 0.07 S .8,732 S. .0.08.
100.000per Project f 17,368 f 0.17 f 14,157 S 0.14. $ 11,568 It 0.12
x6
VM:www.nbraw.[am iOAiree:eW.6)6.]St6 New f:enarvetlo fja>7ptrl yJ_47
Attachment 1
as
C n
zC a
3
Cn
1 `•
Fr
m
vD p
O N
�y
r
r oo k
c_ c
U1 O.
05,
17.
t�
N
O Q
Cl)
d
(D
v
0
D
2
d
3
CD
M
v
SS6-48 .
- aCg3g gnw oSSo � n � S" 5n S'. n R' Zai A gm g � m �.� Syn
C �
n �,
0
x x x x xxxxxx x' x xxx x x x x x xx � nx
m =T5R = F
X % % x X % X % % x x X X X % % X x X
6 Q'e
x x x
me'3g
a
'x n 148a 3Rgg�
Pa mO �N �+ P mO
SL
"1 D93x
^ n o
a S S N S S S S A S S a N Y + s \ O \ a a
rsxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxx x xx ",$e $r x S $ x5 xx instxx ``
2
n
sg'o
� xx � � fxxx.� xxxx � xxxxx x "xNx - x xxxs � xx xxa": x � � x xacx � xx � � a�
3
n 4) a 5Y��vo. off
N " �uru
£ �P.\ Na 't,�
' � SmM W S $ $ N 9SD' No � m
v
E 2 }J E a
- 1
G vn
tr
U + 0
SS6-49
Attachm' cnt 1 m a N
a � $ fia
N a
F
o � a �
eu
R n
A
s
s
z_
8
a
e
8
a
x x x x
3
z
a
v x x x x
a
9
e
c
c
e
z
a
E eo o ee o c �, _
& m n m m Y m
a azo
m � g
b N +
a
8
N r +
O W N
N Y N m m e m
N + +
O 0 N
m
Y N yN
V + O
SS6-50
POLICIES AND OBJECTIVES
tachment 2
BUDGET AND FISCAL POLICIES
Low-Range Cost Recovery Activities introductory rates, family discounts and
(0 to 30%) coupon discounts on a pilot basis (not to
j. Aquatics exceed 18 months) to promote new
k. Batting cages recreation programs or resurrect existing
1. Community gardens ones.
in. Junior Ranger camp
n. Minor commercial film permit 8. The Parks and Recreation Department will
applications consider waiving fees only when the City
o. Skate park e e es in writing that an undue
p. Special events(except for Triathlon and hardship exists..
Holiday in the Plaza)
q. Youth sports H. Development Review Programs
r. Youth STAR
s. Teen services The following. cost recovery policies appl
t. Senior/boomer services the development review programs:
4. For cost recovery activities of less than 1. Services provided under this category
100%, there should be a differential in rates include:
between residents and non-residents.
However, the Director of Parks and a. Planning (planned development permits,
Recreation is authorized to reduce or tentative tract and parcel maps,
eliminate non-resident fee differentials when variances, general plan amendments,
it can be demonstrated that:
variances, use permits).
b. Building and safety (building permits,
a. The fee is reducing attendance. structural plan checks,inspections).
b. And there are no apprecia le c. Engineering (public improvement plan
expenditure savings from the reduc checks, inspections, subdivision
attendance. requirements,encroachments).
5. Charges will be assessed for use of rooms, d. Fire plan check.
pools, gymnasiums, ball fields, special-use 2. Cost recovery for these services should
areas,and recreation equipment for activities
not sponsored or co-sponsored by the City generally be very high. In most instances,
Such charges will generally conform to e the oCity's cost recovery goal should be
fee guidelines described above. Howev r, 100/o.
the Director of Parks and Recreation is 3. However, in charging high cost recovery
authorized to charge fees that are closer o levels, the City needs to clearly establish
full cost recovery for facilities that az and articulate standards for its performance
heavily used at peak times and include a in reviewing developer applications to
majority of non-resident users. ensure that there is"value for cost."
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
B-10
SS6-51
council mcmomnaum
DATE: August 15, 2011
RED FILE
TO: City Council MEETING AGENDA
DATE /& //ITEM
VIA: Katie Lichtig, City Manage
r
FROM: Doug Davidson, Acting Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Cost of Services Analysis—Council Meeting August 16, 2011 (Item # SS6)
Community Development Department staff held a Developer's Roundtable meeting on August
10, 2011. This was the 7`I' Roundtable to bring a cross-representation of the development
community together to discuss the City's development review process. This latest Roundtable
was convened to gather input on the cost of services analysis to be presented to the City Council
on August 16''. The following is a summary of the key points discussed at the Roundtable:
■ Agreement on cost recovery policy/strategy — the members of the Roundtable appreciate
the need to recover costs for services provided.
■ Agreement and understanding on the use of surcharges
■ General agreement on proposed new fees for specialized service. Concerns over
charging additional fees for more than 3 plan checks for engineering improvement plans.
■ Continued caution on fee increases, however minor, during these economic times
The staff presentation on August 16th will include a summary of the Roundtable and can offer
more information as needed.
hard couv., enafl:
o COUNCIL o CDD DIR
o CITY MGR o FITDIt
O ASSrCM O FIRECHMF
o ATTORNEY o PWDIR
o CLERKIORIG o POLICE CHIEF
a PIE G PARKS 6 REC DDR
G TRIBUNE c UTD.DIR
a NEWTDM c HRDIR
o SLOCITY NEWS o COUNCIL
o CITY MGR
0 CLERK