HomeMy WebLinkAbout7.1 General Fund User Fee Study
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: JANUARY 17,2006
CITY CLERK
File # D[?je~-[ZJOJ
)( GoO ":0
SUBJECT:
Preliminary General Fund User Fee Study and
Full Cost Allocation Plan
Report Prepared by Joni Pattillo, Assistant City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:
1.
General Fund User Fee Study Findings
RECOMMENDATION:
/'7.kl.
r'(/" V' 2.
Receive the report
Provide any supplementary direction to Staff
FINANCIAL STATEMENT:
The costs for consultant services used for completion of this study
were included as part of the Fiscal Year 2004-2005 and Fiscal Year
2005-2006 budgets.
DESCRIPTION:
Back2round:
At the November 16, 2004 meeting, the City Council awarded a contract to Public Resource Management
Group (PRM) to prepare a Cost Allocation Plan and a User Fee Study. This was an item originally
established by the Council as a high priority goal for Fiscal Year 2004-2005; Council carried it forward as
a High Priority Goal for Fiscal Year 2005-2006. The purpose of the Cost Allocation Plan and Fee Study
was to ensure that the City is utilizing the overhead rates, and accurately accounting and charging for the
true cost of providing City services. The City last updated its overhead rates in 1992.
Local governments are responsible for providing a variety of services to citizens. These services range
from public safety services, such as police patrol services, to building related services, such as the
issuance of building permits. The methods of funding local government services range from tax revenues
to user fee charges. Services that support the public good and public safety are typically tax supported,
while services that are more elective in nature are supported by user fee charges. User fee related services
are provided by many city departments, but tend to be more heavily concentrated in the Planning,
Building, Engineering and Parks and Community Services.
California local governments are permitted by law to charge the full cost of providing user fee related
services to those who receive the benefit of the particular service. Full cost is defined as including both
the indirect or administrative cost and the direct cost of the service.
COPIES TO:
Page 1 of 11
J. Bradley Wilkes, PRM
Chamber of Commerce
ITEM NO.-2L
G: IConsultan ts\PRM\PRMreport 14- agendastmt.doc
\Y
Methodolo2:Y:
The key for an accurate full cost calculation is two-fold. First, the indirect costs of a city government must
be identified and calculated. These costs include support divisions such as City Manager, Central
Services, non development related Legal Services, Administrative Services, Building Management, and
Insurance. The cost allocation plan is an accounting document that uses generally accepted allocation
principles to spread the administrative costs of a City to all departments that benefit. The cost plans
prepared by PRM are developed using federally approved guidelines, and provide the best method for
calculating and allocating the indirect costs of a city.
Once the indirect costs are calculated, they are added to the direct costs of each user fee service to
formulate the full cost of that service. Direct costs include salary, benefits and supply and service costs of
each City and contract employee, who is directly providing the service to the customer. Of the total costs
analyzed by PRM, 35% relate to fee related services. The other 65% relate to costs for other services,
which include Code Enforcement, counter time and other questions, long range and advance planning,
police patrol and public safety and City directed projects for Planning, Engineering and Housing.
At the conclusion of developing a cost plan and user fee study, each layer of cost is defined and
calculated. Once the full cost is known, it can be used to make decisions regarding the establishment of
fees for various City services.
The end result of this analysis is the allocation of all indirect costs to all operating departments and
programs. The indirect costs are then added to the direct costs to determine the full cost of all City
programs, whether fee related or not. A basis similar to the above was used when the original overhead
rates of 25% for contract personnel and 36% for employees for fee related projects was established in
1992. It should be noted that since 1992, there has been a significant increase in personnel costs and an
increase of 42.7% in the Bay Area Consumer Price Index.
The Internal Process and Applications of the Methodolo2Y:
The study's primary objective is to provide the City's decision makers with the information needed for
setting fees. The attached report details the full cost of services, and presents proposed fees and projected
revenues based on recommended user fee cost recovery levels. Each City Department made its own
recommendations for fee levels based upon careful consideration ofthe results of the cost analysis, current
service levels, historical cost recovery levels, fees assessed for similar services in the Tri Valley area and
the market demand unique to each department's services.
In cooperation with City staff, PRM developed cost and revenue estimates based on Fiscal Year 2004-
2005 budget information for fees related to Planning, Building, Housing, Engineering, and Police. At the
time the data gathering began, the Fiscal Year 2004-2005 budget information was the best and most
current data available. Therefore. all calculations used in this study are based on Fiscal Year 2004-
2005 bud2:et information. It is recornmended that initial fee revisions be effective July 2006. It is
further recommended that the fees be updated every year with the next fee update to occur in July 2007,
which would be based upon the adopted 2007-2008 budget. Staff would also propose that an independent
study be performed by an outside consultant once every three years, similar to what is currently done for
the City's various development impact fees.
It should be noted that the Parks and Community Services Department is not included in this report as
they review the fees charged for their services on an annual basis. Fire Services are also excluded since
they also conduct periodic reviews of their fees. PRM has concluded that for the Building, Engineering,
Page 2 of 11
Planning and Housing Divisions and for Police Services, the General Fund is subsidizing fee activities by
approximately $1.8 million, primarily for services provided by the Planning and Engineering Divisions.
The adoption of the proposed cost recovery fees, as recommended by Staff in the attached report, would
increase the overall fee revenue by approximately $1.8 million on an annual basis beginning in Fiscal
Year 2006-2007 based on the Fiscal Year 2004-2005 projections, if these fees are approved by Council
based upon recommendations from Staff, of which approximately 80% is development related. Staff has
reviewed each Department's recommended fee changes and PRM has included their recommendations for
fees as part of their report.
Prior to soliciting further input from Council on this matter, Staff has also involved the City's independent
auditors in the process. They were consulted and have performed a limited review of the study and the
methodology used, however, it should be noted that no formal opinion was rendered. They have
determined that the results of the study are in compliance with generally accepted accounting principles
and government auditing standards.
The following discussion summarizes the proposed new fees or changes to existing service charges for
various City services.
Community Development:
The Planning, Building and Housing Divisions have followed the same methodology as outlined earlier in
this Report to develop the proposed modifications to the Fee Schedule:
Building Division
Service NameINew Fee Current PRM at Agency Recommended
Fee Full Cost A vera2e(a) Fee(b)
New Permit Fees
Green Building - Residential Plan Check No Fee $104 N/A $104
Green Building - Commercial Plan Check No Fee $630 N/A $630
Existing Permit Fees
Motors $40 $93 $67 $70
Electrical Circuits $40 $93 $64 $65 + $20 each
additional circuit
Electrical Meter Panel $90 $185 $84 $90
Temporary Power Poles $90 $185 $105(<:) $90 + $40 for each
additional panel(e)
Electrical Appliance $40 .$93 $67 $70
Dishwasher $40 $93 $57 $60
Garbage Disposal $40 $93 $57 $60
Plumbing Fixture $40 $93 $61 $60
Water Piping System $40 $124 $68 $70
Gas Piping System $40 $124 $60 $60
Lawn Sorinkler System (4 ControllerS) $40 $93 $82 $80
Heater Svstem $60 $124 $62 $60
Air Conditioning System $60 $124 $56 $60
Water Heater $40 $93 $47 $50(t)
Ventilation Fan $40 $93 $61 $60
Page 3 of 11
Service Name/New Fee Current PRM at Agency Recommended
Fee Full Cost A verage(a) Fee(b)
Fireplace Insert $40 $124 $141 (d) $60(1)
Hot Tub / Spa Portable $60 $124 $67 $70
Re-roofing(e) $160 $247 $236 $240
N/A - Not Available
(a) Agency average includes Cities of Pleasant on, Livermore, and San Ramon.
(b) Most of these fees approximate the agency average and were rounded up or down to the nearest $5.
(c) Agency average is a flat rate with average 3 to 4 drops per meter.
(d) Average of Cities of Livermore and San Ramon.
(e) 3,500 square feet of home / $10,000 valuation
(f) These fees have been proposed to be established at a level below the full cost to encourage people to
obtain permits for these activities
There are no changes in permit fees for construction of, or for addition or alteration to buildings or
structures, electrical or mechanical installations, except if the change in valuation is $500,001 and up, the
fee for each additional $1,000 change in valuation will increase from $5 to $6.
The Building Division uses approximately 12 of a contract building inspector to administer the City's
Construction and Debris Ordinance (i.e. Green Building) at a cost of approximately $117,000 per year.
This cost is currently being subsidized by the General Fund. Staff is recommending that two new fees be
developed to recover the cost of supplying this service. Based on the Building Division's 2004-2005
estimated actual and the projected 2005-2006 workload, Staff is recommending based upon the findings
of PRM that the City adopt a fee of $104 per residential unit and $630 per commercial permit issued
based on the [mdings of PRM. These charges have the potential to fully recover the administrative costs
associated with the program.
Planning Division (Fee Study Page Reference 12-13):
Current PRM at Agency Recommended Typical
Service Name Fee Full Cost A verae:e Fee Deposit
New Fees
Major Amendment to PD (CC) No Fee Varies $4,466 T&M $7,000-
$20,000
Minor Amendment to PD (PC) No Fee $1,939 $3,350 $1,920(3) N/A
Minor Amendment to PD (Admin) No Fee $517 $3,350 $512(3) N/A
Condominium Conversion No Fee Varies T&M T&M $15,000
Amend Master Sign Program No Fee Varies Varies T&M $5,000
CUP or SDR Time Extension No Fee $646 $605 $646 N/A
Request (PC)
CUP or SDR Time Extension No Fee $129 $185 $129(3) N/A
Request (Admin)
Appeal: General Public No Fee Varies $177 $175(b) N/A
Appeal: Applicant No Fee Varies $1,200 T&M N/A
Major Temporary Use Permit No Fee Varies $407 $200 + T&M Varies
Home Occupation Review No Fee $65 $100 $65 N/A
Page 4 of 11
Current PRM at Agency Recommended Typical
Service Name Fee Full Cost Average Fee Deposit
Provide 300' radius Labels for No Fee $65 Varies $65(3) N/A
Applicants as Requested
Document Research & Preparation No Fee Varies $52/hr T&M $100
Planning Review through Building No Fee Varies N/A T&M
Permit Process (New Development
Only)
Existin2: Fees
CEQA Categorical/Statutory $25 $259 N/A $259 N/A
Exemption for New Development
Initial Study and Neg Dec T&M Varies T&M T&M $25,000+
Initial Study and Mitigated Neg Dec T&M Varies T&M T&M $25,000+
Initial Study and EIR T&M Varies T&M T&M $50,000+
General Plan Amendment T&M Varies Varies T&M $10,000
Specific Plan Amendment T&M Varies N/A T&M $10,000
Standard Rezoning $60 Varies T&M T&M $10,000
Planned Development T&M Varies Varies T&M $10,000
Annual Review ofDA T&M $128-$256 N/A T&M $3,000
Tentative Subdivision Man T&M Varies N/A T&M $10,000
Tentative Parcel Map $100 Varies N/A T&M $10,000
Master Sign Program $105 Varies Varies T&M $7,000
Sign/Site Development Review $105 $129 $175 $129(3) N/A
BannerIBalloon Permit (Per sign $25 $65 $48 $251e) N/A
!balloon)
Site Development Review $140 Varies N/A T&M Varies
Site Development Review Waiver $50 $259 N/A $250(3)
Non-Residential CUP: PC $130 $1,939 $4,708 $1,OOOle)
Non-Residential CUP: ZA $130 $1,939 $1,343 $750(e)
Residential CUP: PC $50 $1,939 $440 $1,939
Residential CUP: ZA $50 $1,939 $440 $1,939
Daycare Center CUP (15+ children) $130 $2,585 $440 $500{d)
Large Family Daycare CUP (9-14 $50 $1,939 $440 $1001d)
children)
CUP Minor Amend. (Admin) $55 $646 $1,343 $646
Non-Residential Variance $72 $1,939 $1,500 $1,939
Residential Variance $25 $1,939 $600 $1,939
Minor Temporary Use Permit $25 $388 $407 $200(e)
Zoning Clearance $25 $65 N/A $50(e)
T &M = Time & Material
(a) These proposed fees represent the approximate full cost for these activities.
(b) These proposed fees approximate the average of fees charged by other agencies in the tri valley area.
(c) These fees have been proposed to be established at a level below the full cost to encourage people to
obtain permits for these activities
(d) These fees have been proposed to be established at a level below the full cost based on the City
Council's past policies to encourage child care facilities to locate in the community.
Page 5 of 11
Staff reviewed the existing fees against those of surrounding jurisdictions and also reviewed the time
estimates for the City of Dublin for actually processing the permit or request. Staff found that while the
information from surrounding jurisdictions was valuable, the costs associated with processing an
application could not be directly compared, because processes vary in each city. Therefore, Staff has
adjusted the fee schedule to provide for its processing requirements, keeping in mind the surrounding
market in order to remain competitive.
In addition, the fee schedule reflects the City's long-standing policy that all new development must pay
for itself. Therefore, the Planning Division Fee Schedule maintains many ofthe "time and material" types
of fees on new development applications, such as General Plan Amendments and Rezones. Charging full
time and material ensures that new development pays its full cost. Based upon the study performed by
PRM, Staff recommends adjusting the composite hourly rate to $129.27 per hour and the planning
overhead rate to 84.63%. Much of the increase over the current rates are due to higher personnel costs
and an increase of 42.7% in the Bay Area Consumer Price Index since 1992, when the overhead rates
were initially established.
Staff is also suggesting the addition of new fees in some areas when there is a permit or process required;
these new fees fall into the categories below:
· Condominium Conversion: Last year the City Council approved a process for converting rental units
to condominiums. At the time of approval for the amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, Staff noted
that a method for charging a fee would be developed and brought back for City Council approval.
Staff is therefore suggesting that the applicant pay the full cost incurred by the City for the conversion.
· Appeals (General Public and Applicant): Presently, there is no charge for anyone to file an appeal
of a Staff or Planning Commission action. Staff estimates that the time spent working on an appeal
action varies from ten to forty hours. Special studies may also be required, such as traffic or noise
studies. Appeals are generally made by either existing residents, businesses or by a developer.. Based
on the City's policy that developers should pay for the full cost of development and the public has a
general right to appeal projects that could potentially affect their "quality of life", Staff has developed
a two tiered fee approach. Existing residents or business owners would pay a set fee of $175, which
approximates the regional average of $177. The fee for an appeal for Applicants who are denied a
permit or approval would be the full cost of time and materials for processing the appeal. It is also
proposed that if a Council Member requests an appeal that no fee will be charged, since they are
representing the citizens.
· Temporary Use Permits: Presently, the City charges a fee for Temporary Use Permits (TUP). TUPs
are issued for outdoor sales, festivals and other similar events. The original assumption was that the
processing the application takes a minimal amount of Staff time. Therefore, the fee was initially set at
$25. It is now estimated that the actual cost for processing a TUP is closer to $200 for minor TUPs,
such as pumpkin and Christmas tree sales lots or outdoor sales for existing businesses. Staff is
therefore recommending an increase of the fee to $200 for a minor temporary use permit, which
approximates the regional average.
Staffhas also noted, however, that several times a year there are special events that require Temporary
Use Permits that require large amounts of Stafftime. These events sometimes involve street closures,
Police or Fire Department presence, or are events on public property. Staff is suggesting that a new
category of Temporary Use Permits be established with a new fee. These Major Temporary Use
Page 6 of 11
Permits would pay a flat fee of $200 plus time and materials for the permit and the Staff resources that
are necessary during the event itself
. Day Care Conditional Use Permits: Staff has made adjustments in the Conditional Use Permit
Section of the Fee Schedule. This includes creating a new category group of day care facilities. Staff
is suggesting that based on Council's Community Facilities Policy adopted in 2003, a category group
be added for large family day care (9-14 children) and day care centers (15+ children). This gives the
City Council the ability to adjust these fees separately from other non-community facility businesses.
Staff has also suggested a permit fee for these community facilities that is lower than actual cost.
. Conditional Use Permits Time Extension Requests: Many permits have a time period by which the
use or construction must begin; but frequently applicants have problems meeting the requirements,
thereby requ~sting an extension. Staff is proposing new fees for processing the different types of time
extensions. Although the fees do not completely recoup the cost of Staff time, the lesser cost should
encourage applicants to obtain the proper extension.
. Miscellaneous New Fees (i.e. Building Permit & Inspection Time and Document Research): Two
other new fees that are proposed include a time and materials charge for Staff review of building
permits and inspections of new development; and a fee for document and file research and
preparation. The Document File Research fee is designed to recover costs incurred when individuals,
other than the property owner, request Staff to perform specialized research relating to zoning or
permit information on a property that will take significant Staff time and will require a written
response from staff.
Housing Division (Fee Study Page Reference 26):
Ownershi Units
Rental Develo ments
Refinance Char e
No Fee
No Fee
No Fee
PRM at Full
Cost
$1,681
$867
$1,009
Agency
A verae:e
N/A
N/A
N/A
Recommended
Fee
$1,500
$500
$200
Service Name/New Fee
Current Fee
. Ownership Unit Fee: An Affordable Home Ownership Unit Fee of$I,500 fee is being recommended
for the administration of the "for sale" Inclusionary Units for the set time period (55 years) that the
units are under the Resale Agreement restrictions. This fee will apply when any of the following occur:
. The initial purchase, including all income review, loan document review, City document
preparation, and coordination with other entities in the buying process. The fee also comprises
the annual monitoring of each Inclusionary Unit.
. Any future loan that the City may provide through a future First Time Homebuyer Program
(covering the same kind of income verification, document preparation, etc.) and;
. Every time there is a change in ownership for an individual property. In all cases, the fee will
be added to the expenses that are part of the home purchase, and will be collected at escrow
closing.
. Rental Development Fee: A $500 per unit fee for Developers of apartment complexes (with
Inclusionary Units) is recommended - to be imposed at the issuance of building permits. Staff is
proposing this developer fee for the administration of the Inclusionary Units, for the 55-year period that
these units are restricted in rents. Staff time is involved in numerous administrative functions (i.e.
Page 7 of 11
contacting leasing offices; requesting completion of documents; providing information on type of units
and the occupants; spot-checking documents, as needed; etc.).
. Refinance Charge Fee: A $200 Fee for subordination of other document preparation, after purchase,
is also recommended. Refinancing of an Inclusionary Unit requires the City to subordinate the Resale
Agreement or, in the case of a First Time Homebuyer Loan, the loan. This fee is being recommended
for the Staff time involved in providing the subordination (since this task requires contact with a Title
Company/Escrow Officer, coordination with the firm and/or the lender, and often the homeowner).
The fee would be collected by the escrow firm at escrow closing.
Public Works:
The Public Works Department has developed the following proposed modifications to the Fee Schedule:
Engineering Division (Fee Study Page Reference 17):
Service Name
Current Fee
Recommended
Fee
New Fees
Building Div. Permit Referral- Residential
Building Div. Permit Referral- Non Residential
ADA Site Compliance Review
No Fee
No Fee
No Fee
$110
$220
$165
. Building Division Permit Referral - Residential: The Public Works Department currently
reviews referrals from the Building Division for input on building permit applications for
improvements made to the exterior of a building, not for interior improvements. The majority of the
referrals are for smaller building permit applications and, in these cases, Public Works has had no
means of charging for the time spent on the referral. In order to recoup some portion of these costs,
it is proposed to create a new fee for building permit review. The residential application review is
proposed as a flat fee, as opposed to actual costs. The large number of referrals (approximately 200
requests per year) and the relatively small amount of time spent on each (about one hour, usually by
an assistant engineer) would make it impractical to calculate and track actual costs. Therefore, the
cost for residential referrals is proposed at $110.
. Building Division Permit Referral - Non Residential: The Non-Residential building permit
application review is more time intensive and is based on the estimated time spent on this typed of
referral - a general estimate is approximately two hours of Staff time for a non-residential review;
the cost for a non-residential referral is proposed at $220.
. Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Site Compliance Review: This fee would cover the
review process for proposed improvements regarding conformance with ADA. Public Works
reviews a number of site plans submitted by property owners (generally commercial) who are
proposing changes to existing sites (i.e. parking modifications or pavement resurfacing). These
changes do not require building permits, but do require a site-work permit from Public Works.
As part of the site plan review, Public Works reviews the site, with special emphasis on ADA
compliance, or any required upgrades needed to bring the site into ADA conformance. It is
proposed that a flat fee of $165 be charged for this work, based on an estimated one and one half
hours in Staff Time spent on such a review.
Page 8 of 11
In addition, the fee schedule reflects the City's long-standing policy that all new development must pay
for itself. Therefore, the Engineering Division current fee schedule maintains many "time and material"
types of fees on new development applications, similar to the Planning Division. Based upon the study
performed by PRM, staff recommends adjusting the composite hourly rate to $128.16 per hour and the
engineering overhead rate to 59.64%. Much of the increase over the current rates are due to higher
personnel costs and an increase of 42.7% in the Bay Area Consumer Price Index since 1992, when the
overhead rates were initially established.
Police Services (Fee Study Page Reference 21-22):
The Police Department has also followed the same methodology already discussed in order to develop the
proposed modifications to their Fee Schedule.
Service Name Current PRM at Agency Recommended
Fee Full Cost A vera2e(a) Fee
New Fees
Live Scan No Fee $35 $30 $30
Non Resident Child Safety Seat Inspection No Fee $84 N/A $25
Taxicab Owner - Initial (e) No Fee $619 $300 $300
Fortune Teller Permit No Fee $224 $200 $200
Existinl! Fees N/A
Second Hand Goods/Junk Dealer $35 $201 $100 $100
Peddler Permit $50 $192 $150 $150
Parade Permit(b) $60 $181 N/A $90
Public Address Sound System(b) $60 $129 N/A $75
Dance Permit $60 $210 $100 $100
Taxicab Owner $30 $491 $250 $250
Taxicab Operator $30 $288 $150 $150
Massage Establishment - Initial (e) $60 $353 $275 $275
Massage Establishment - Yearly $50 $230 $125 $125
Massage Establishment - Tech $50 $209 $150 $150
Fingerprint Card $5 $30 State set fee $5
Visa Letter $10 $30 $30 $30
Bingo Permits $50 $206 $150 $150
Gun Dealer Permit $50 $273 $200 $200
Police Report/Inspection Verification $2 $13 Per law $2
Records Supoena (Supoena Duces Tecum) $15 $65 State set fee $15
1 Day Alcohol Beverage Control Permit(b) $25 $66 N/A $35
Misc. Non-Scheduled Permit(b) $10 $192 N/A $90
Towed/Stored Vehicle Release $25 $115 $115 $115
Fix It Ticket Sign Off $15 $45 $15 $15
Parking Citation - Admin Review $25 $61 State set fee $25
Repossessed Vehicle Release $15 $24 State set fee $15
(a) Agency average includes Cities of San Ramon, Walnut Creek, Danville, Livermore, Pleasanton,
Oakland, Orinda, Lafayette, and Moraga.
(b) Fees are recommended to be set at 50% of the full cost base on the factors considered that charging the
full fee would discourage business; service is provided on an infrequent basis; or majority of the service
users are non-profit organizations.
Page 9 of 11
(c) Additional costs are incurred during the initial application of a business for background checks and for
time spent by a sergeant in gathering the necessary information about the business
. Live Scan: This is a new service for DPS for the electronic submittal of fingerprints to the
Department of Justice (DO]). This program will commence sometime in Fiscal Year 2005-2006, and
will be offered to residents or those employed by a business within the City of Dublin. Livescan will
expedite the DOJ background check process, creating a faster method for obtaining information.
. Non Resident Child Safety Seat Inspections: Dublin Police Service (DPS) is recommending the
establishment of a fee for "non-resident child safety seat installations." DPS does not currently charge
for this service and the City is the only agency in the Tri-Valley Area that currently offers the service
to people on an appointment basis (other agencies only provide the service at planned events). A non-
resident only fee will assist in partially recovering the costs for providing this service.
. Fortune Teller Permits: Although this activity is currently regulated by Dublin Municipal Code
94.08; no fee was ever established for the processing of such permits. To date, no fortune telling
permits have ever been issued by DPS, but Staff have had inquiries from potential providers of such a
service; therefore, establishment of a fee would be appropriate at this time. This fee proposal is based
upon the fees charged by nearby cities for processing such a permit.
Economic & Policv Considerations
Calculating the true cost of providing city services is a critical step in the process of establishing user fees
and corresponding cost recovery levels. Although it is the most important factor, other factors must also
be given consideration. City decision-makers must also consider the effects that establishing fees for
services will have on the individuals purchasing those services, as well as the community as a whole. The
following economic and policy issues help illustrate these considerations.
. Public sector agencies have a monopoly on providing certain services within its boundaries,
such as development-related services. However, other services, such as taxi cab registration,
may be provided by neighboring communities, and therefore demand for these services can be
highly dependent on what else may be available at lower prices.
. Pricing services can encourage or discourage certain behaviors. An example of this would be
to establish a low fee for a water heater permit to encourage homeowners to ensure their water
heater is properly installed.
. It may be impractical to establish a cost recovery system for some services or the collection of
fees may be costly and difficult to administer. Some of the fees that are charged after a service
has been provided might fall under this category, for example, code enforcement violations.
Review of Studies with Development Community and Chamber of Commerce:
Staff is proposing to hold meetings with the development community and the Chamber of Commerce.
The purpose of these meetings will be to review the information in the attached studies and to address
questions regarding the proposed changes in the fees. Subsequently, Staff will return to Council, with a
report on the results from the meetings and a final recommendation on the fee and cost overhead studies.
This final report will include a Master Fee Resolution that will include all City Fees. It is recommended
Page 10 of11
that initial fee revisions be effective July 2006. It is further recommended that the fees be updated every
year with the next fee update to occur in July 2007, which would be based upon the adopted 2007-2008
budget. Staff would also propose that an independent study be performed by an outside consultant once
every three years, similar to what is currently done for the City's various development impact fees.
Recommendation
It is recommended that the City Council receive the reports and provide any supplementary direction to
Staff regarding the reports, the fee revisions proposed and the process.
Page 11 of 11
/ Db;) 0;
PRM
PUBLIC RE:SOERCF. l\rIAN:\(~E:Mr:;NT GROFP LLC
GENERAL FUND
USER FEE STUDY FINDINGS
CITY OF DUBLIN
NOVEMBER.,2005
1380 Lead Hili D1vd. Suit. 106. R,o;evillc, CA 95661 ~
wW\1'/.prmgroup.net
PROVIDiNG PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TO GOVERNMENT
Tel€; 916.677-4233
Fax: 916y677-2283
1.\ \-11-0(0
') ( ) :J.. ()
c:;r -/ h ~
1/'
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section
Page
I. Executive Summary
Introduction
Study Scope & Objectives
Study Findings
Methodology
Economic & Policy Considerations
1
1
1
2
4
5
II. Building Division
6
III. Planning Division
11
IV. Engineering Division
16
V. Police Department
20
VI. Housing Division
25
3 0/ d~
,~
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
Public Resource Management Group (PRM) is pleased to present the City of Dublin (City) with this summary of
findings for the cost of services study for fee-related activities.
The city has not undertaken a detailed cost of services study since 1992. Since that time. the City has made
some minor adjustments to the original calculations, but has largely maintained the fee structure that had been
adopted. The City is interested in accurately reporting the true cost of providing various fee-related services,
and exploring the possibilities of modifying current fees to better reflect the increasing cost of providing services
over time. In January 2005. the City contracted with PRM to perform this cost analysis using the adopted
2004-2005 fiscal year budget and staffing information. Additionally, all other staff information was provided
through the period ending February 2005. Fees should be reviewed on a regular basis and adjusted in
accordance with established city policies on user fee cost recovery.
This report is the culmination of the past eight months of work between PRM and City management and staff.
PRM would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge all city management and staff who participated on
this project for their efforts and coordination. Their responsiveness and continued interest in the outcome of
this study contributed greatly to the success of this study.
STUDY SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES
This study included a review of fee-for-service activities within the following divisions:
. Building
. Planning
. Engineering
. Police
. Housing
The fees charged by the Parks and Community Services Department for various recreation activities and the Fire
Division for fire services were not included as part of this study. as staff already performs reviews of these fees
on a periodic basis.
The study was performed under the general direction of the Assistant City Manager and the Administrative
Services Department with the participation of the above-mentioned divisions. The primary goals of the
study were to:
. Define what it costs the city to provide various fee-related services.
. Determine whether there are any opportunities to implement new fees.
. Identify service areas where the City might adjust fees based on the full cost of services and other
economic or policy considerations.
. Develop revenue projections based on recommended increases (or decreases) to fees.
The information summarized in this report addresses each of these issues and provides the City with the tools
necessary to make informed decisions about proposed fee adjustments and the resulting impact on general fund
revenues.
1
.,
t/ (\ f-: ;,). ':7
v'
STUDY FINDINGS
While the purpose of this study is to identify the cost of fee-related activities, one of the outcomes of the
analysis is to provide a complete picture of the full cost of all services offered. It is necessary to identify all
costs, whether fee-related or not, so that there is a fair distribution of all citywide and departmental overhead
costs (discussed in the following section of this report) across all activities, thereby ensuring a definitive
relationship between the cost of the service and the fee that is charged. No service should be burdened with
costs that cannot be directly or indirectly linked to that service.
Therefore, the first task in this study is to separate the fee-for-service activities from the non-fee activities. Some
non-fee related activities are appropriately funded by general fund monies (or other special revenue or impact
fee sources), such as most public safety services or capital improvement projects. The costs of these other
services are identified and set aside from the user fee services.
Exhibit I below displays the split of the total costs of each department (including citywide and departmental
overhead) into either user fee-related or other service costs. Of the $22 million in total costs analyzed, $7.8
million (or 35%) of that total is related to user fee services. It is this $7.8 million that is the focus of this study
and represents the total potential for user fee-related revenues for the City. Please note that while the Housing
Division is primarily funded by Housing In Lieu fees, accounted for separate from the general fund, it has been
included in the following charts for presentation purposes.
Exhibit I
Total Costs by User Fee Area
Source - Fiscal Year 2004-2005
Building $3,139,579 $3,016,057 96% $123,522 4%
Planning $3,341,133 $2,187,967 65% $1,153,166 35%
Engineering - Land Dev. $3,399,981 $2,217,737 65% $1,182,244 35%
Police $11,253,562 $141,293 1% $11,112,269 99%
Housin $908,559 $201,153 22% $707,406 78%
Total: $22,042,814 $7,764,207 35% $14,278,607 65%
*Note: Services in the "Costs, Other Services" column include activities such as:
- Code Enforcement (Planning, Building and Engineering)
- Counter time and public questions (Planning, Building and Engineering)
- Long Range/Advanced Planning
- Police patrol and public safety
- City directed projects (Planning, Engineering and Housing)
2
5 66 d 9
The next exhibit identifies the source of funds for the user fee services. Exhibit II breaks down the $7.8 million
in user fee services between costs that are currently recovered through user fee charges and the remaining
subsidy. Overall, the City is experiencing a 76% cost recovery level for its fee-related services. Within each
department, current cost recovery levels range from 0% for Housing (Le. being funded entirely by Housing in
Lieu Fees and General Fund subsidies) to 97% for Building. The information about individual fees may be
found in subsequent sections of this report.
Exhibit II
Source of Funds
- User Fee Activites -
Source - Fiscal Year 2004-2005
Building $3,016,057 $2,912,813 97% $103,244 3%
Planning $2,187,967 $1,491,259 68% $696,708 32%
Engineering - Land Dev. $2,217,737 $1,480,205 67% $737,532 33%
Police $141,293 $27,675 20% $113,618 80%
Housin $201 ,153 $0 0% $201,153 100%
Total: $7,764,207 $5,911,952 76% $1,852,255 24%
Exhibit II indicates that user fees recover 76% of full cost, leaving 24% or $1,852,255 to be funded by other
funding sources. This $1.9 million represents a "window of opportunity" for the city to increase fees and
general fund revenues, with a corresponding decrease in the subsidization of services by Housing In Lieu Fees
and the General Fund. While it is not likely (nor would PRM recommend) that the City completely recover all
costs through increased or new fees, it is possible for the City to implement moderate increases to current fees
and new fees for some services.
The study's primary objective is to provide the City's decision-makers with basic data needed for setting fees.
This report details the full cost of services, and presents proposed fees and projected revenues based on
recommended user fee cost recovery levels. Police made its own recommendations for fee changes based upon
careful consideration of the results of the cost analysis. historical cost recovery levels. and the elasticity of
demand unique to this department's services. Recommendations for the other departments were based upon
careful consideration of the results of the cost analysis, historical cost recovery levels, and market comparisons
of fees charged by cities in the Tri Valley area. Please note that because Planning and Engineering revenue is
based upon hourly rates, the potential revenue increase is an estimate. The actual number will differ and will
be based upon actual time spent by staff on new development.
3
/y tT C'
6
Exhibit III below summarizes the financial analysis of the City's user fee program performed by PRM. It is
estimated that adoption of the recommended cost recovery policy would increase the specified fee revenue by
$1,754.080 (a 30% increase over the revenue currently being collected for these activities by the City on an
annualized basis). This would bring the overall cost recovery level up to 99% for these activities. Since the
proposed new fees are not scheduled to be effective until January 2006, the expected increase for Fiscal Year
2005-2006 is estimated to be approximately $804.000.
Exhibit III
User Fee Revenue Analysis
- Recommended Revenues -
Source - Fiscal Year 2004-2005
Revenues
Building $3,016,057 $103,244 3% $2,912,813 97% $3,016,057 100% $103,244 4%
Planning $2,187,967 $696,708 32% $1,491,259 68% $2,187,967 100% $696,709 47%
Eng - Land Dev. $2,217,737 $737,532 33% $1,480,205 67% $2,217,737 100% $737,532 50%
Police $141,293 $113,618 80% $27,675 20% $92,270 65% $64,595 233%
Housing $201,153 $201,153 100% $0 0% $152,000 76% $152,000 100%
Total: $7,764,207 $1,852,255 24% $5,911,952 76% $7,666,031 99% $1,754,080 30%
METHODOLOGY
A cost of service study analyzes two components of costs: the direct costs associated with providing each fee-
for-service activity. and the indirect costs that support these activities. A brief discussion of each of these
components follows. (A complete. detailed report of calculations is provided as an attachment to this report).
Direct Costs. The direct costs associated with fee-for-service activities were analyzed in great detail in this
study. PRM worked with staff within each of the five divisions to develop the analysis that is summarized in
the following sections of this report. The fiscal year 2004-2005 adopted budget was used to identify direct
costs.
The first step in the process was to identify staff time spent directly on each of the user fee activities. Each staff
person involved in the user fee services identified time spent to complete each task associated with all user fee
services. Annual volume statistics were also gathered in order to develop total annual workload information.
Salary and benefit dollars were assigned to the time estimates to come up with the direct staff costs.
Indirect Costs. A proportionate share of other operating expenses and internal department administrative
costs were layered onto the direct costs as a departmental overhead. Citywide overhead costs coming from
the cost allocation plan (described below) were also added in as indirect overhead. These two items were
components of the indirect costs: 1) departmental overhead. and 2) citywide overhead. The cost of each
activity is then compared to the fee currently charged. and the extent of cost recovery is identified.
Cost Allocation Plan. Many of the costs that support all city programs and services are budgeted in
centralized activities such as 1) Administrative Services. which provides payroll, budgeting. accounting and
information systems support. 2) Building Management. which provides building maintenance and custodial
services, and 3) Central Services. which provides human resource and risk management services. The costs of
4
7 G /) .;.:<}
these activities and other centralized services are considered indirect overhead that support fee-for-service
activities, as well as other programs and functions within the city.
As part of this study. PRM developed an indirect cost allocation plan that identifies and distributes these
indirect costs to all operating programs and functions within the city's organizational structure. The cost
allocation plan takes a detailed approach to analyzing indirect costs. PRM interviewed staff and analyzed data
within each central activity to determine:
1. What indirect support functions are provided (e.g. payroll. legal services. civic center maintenance.
etc).
2. How to allocate centrally budgeted personnel and other operating expenses into these functions.
3. Which departments receive benefit from these services (e.g. payroll services benefit all departments
that have budgeted staff. Civic Center maintenance benefits all departments that are housed in the
Civic Center).
4. How to identify the best method of allocating these costs to the users (e.g. payroll services are
allocated based on the number of personnel in each department).
The end result of this analysis is the allocation of all indirect costs to all operating departments and programs.
The indirect costs are then added to the direct costs to determine the full cost of all city operations - whether
fee-related or not. This accounting exercise is important in that it can result in an increase in general fund
revenues for reimbursement of support for user fee services and state or federally funded programs.
ECONOMIC & POLICY CONSIDERATIONS
Calculating the true cost of providing city services is a critical step in the process of establishing user fees and
corresponding cost recovery levels. Although it is the most important factor. other factors must also be given
consideration. City decision-makers must also consider the effects that establishing fees for services will have on
the individuals purchasing those services. as well as the community as a whole. The following economic and
policy issues help illustrate these considerations.
. Public sector agencies have a monopoly on providing certain services within its boundaries. such as
development-related services. However, other services, such as taxi cab registration, may be provided
by neighboring communities. and therefore demand for these services can be highly dependent on
what else may be available at lower prices.
. Pricing services can encourage or discourage certain behaviors. 50me examples of this would be to
establish a low fee for a water heater permit to encourage homeowners to ensure their water heater is
properly installed. or setting false alarm response fees on an incremental scale to discourage multiple
false alarm calls.
. It may be impractical to establish a cost recovery system for some services or the collection of fees may
be costly and difficult to administer. 50me of the fees that are charged after a service has been
provided might fall under this category. for example. false alarm response fees and code enforcement
violations.
5
8 07J;;/1
II. BUILDING DIVISION
The Building Division provides inspection and plan checking services for all development within the city limits.
Inspection staff also performs some code enforcement services. The total cost of all services comes to
$3,139,579. Approximately 96% of these costs ($3,016,057) are associated with fee-related services.
Unlike most other fees charged by other departments, there are very few "fixed" or per-unit fees charged for
building permits. Instead, each permit fee is calculated based on the construction valuation and the square
footage of the project. Many local jurisdictions use valuation tables regularly published by Building Standards
to determine construction valuation (based on occupancy and type) and rate tables published in the Uniform
Building Code (UBe). The UBC rate tables are updated and published every three years.
Since the early 1990's local jurisdictions have been concerned with the issue of establishing a relationship
between the cost of service and the fees charged for those services, with particular emphasis on building permit
fees. In 1993 the State of California Office of the Attorney General issued an opinion (No. 92-506), addressing
both the question of whether local agencies may charge building permit fees which exceed the cost of
providing the service, and whether the UBC tables are a valid method of calculating fees. In essence the
Attorney General's opinion states that 1) local agencies are prohibited from charging fees in excess of cost unless
the fees are approved by a vote, and 2) the UBC tables may not be used unless the local agency can establish a
relationship between the fees charged and the cost of providing the service. PRM and the City are confident,
that the recommendations in this study create the appropriate relationship between the fees charged and the
services provided has been created. For every plan check and inspection category analyzed, the Building
Division has adjusted their fee structure with a goal of 100% recovery.
This cost analysis looks at the total annual costs of providing all inspection and plan checking services and
compares the costs to the revenues projected. The following page of this report provides a summary of this
analysis. Plan Check and inspection fees have been broken out into several different occupancy categories.
These categories reflect the most common types of construction in Dublin. Fee related code enforcement
services were calculated separately and a portion was then spread across all inspection services as an overhead.
In addition, a technology upgrade cost has been calculated and allocated across all service categories as an
overhead. This technology upgrade is needed so that the Building Division can more efficiently and accurately
perform their duties. The Building Division proposes the following recommendations:
. Creating a Green Building fee for all major residential and commercial plan checks (i.e. any project
with a valuation greater than $100,000). The fee would be $104 for each residential dwelling unit and
$630 for each commercial building permit issued. This fee would be designed to recover most of the
$117,100 in annual costs required to follow the Green Building standards, all of which is currently being
subsidized by the City General Fund. These standards were established to require maximum feasible
recycling at new construction sites and salvage and deconstruction for remodeling and demolition
projects. The administration of this program requires significant Staff resources, including educating
developers and contractors, reviewing and approving Waste Management Plans, and monitoring
project compliance through site visits and reviewing submitted documentation.
. Increasing the re-inspection fee from $40 to $124. The $124 rate is the average Building Division fully
burdened hourly rate calculated by PRM. Please note, the $124 rate was calculated using the Fiscal
Year 2004-2005 budgeted cost for this activity.
. Currently, the Building Division does not charge against any Engineering, Planning, or Housing projects
when their support is required for the public good and to expedite the initial processing of these
projects. This results in an annual subsidy of $102,012 by the General Fund for this support.
6
0; 61 -;:.- 7
1/
. If these recommendations are adopted, the Building Division could potentially generate an additional
$103,244 in revenue and increase their cost recovery rate for fee related services to approximately
100%.
PRM developed fully burdened hourly rates for all staff within this department. These hourly rates were
calculated to include staff salary and benefits, proportionate service and supply costs, internal departmental
administration. and citywide overhead costs. A blended or composite rate for this division is recommended for
two reasons; first. it helps the public/customer to understand the charges and second. it helps city staff to
record. report and estimate revenue. The rates on the following pages may be used to determine fees for
services that don't lend themselves to a fixed, or average, cost analysis, but are better charged on an actual
time-and-expense basis. They can also be used to determine fees for services or programs that may be
developed at a later date.
7
USER FEE STUDY SUMMARY SHEET
. TOTAL PROGRAM INFORMATION.
Agency:
Department:
Fiscal Year:
City of Dublin
Building
2004/05
Recommendations
Service Revenue @ Revenue @ 100% Recommended Revenue @ Increased
Service Name % of Full Cost Current Subsidy Revenue @
Tvoe Current Fee Full Cost Cost Recovery % Recomm Level Recomm level
1 Plan Check and Inspection Fee $2,912,813 97% $3,016,057 $103,244 100% $:),016,057 $103,244
2 Support to Planning Non fee $0 0% $61,515 $61,515 0% $0 $0
3 Support to Engineering Non fee $0 0% $29,229 $29,229 0% $0 $0
4 Support to Housing. Non fee $0 0% $11,268 $11,268 0% $0 $0
5 Code Enforcement Non fee $0 0% $21,510 $21,510 0% $0 $0
Total User Fees (line 1) $2,912,813 $3,016,057 $103,244 $3,016.057 $103,244
% of Full Cost 97% 100% 3% 100% 3%
Total Other Services (lines 2-5) $0 $123,522 $123,522 $0 $0
% of Full Cost 0% 100% 100% 0% 0%
Department Totals (lines 1-5) $2,912,813 $3,139,579 $226,766 $3,016,057 $103,244
% of Full Cost 93% 100% 7% 96% 3%
'-....
\)
\~~
~_:
co
.D
,"1
/ / (b ;;/1
CITY OF DUBLIN
BUILDING
FISCAL 2004/2005
Full Cost Hourly Rates
Position
Hourly
FTE Salary Benefits Overhead Total
1.00 $ 58.02 $ 28.60 $ 42.89 $ 129.51
1.00 $ 49.85 $ 24.57 $ 36.84 $ 111.26
0.30 $ 83.45 $ 41.14 $ 61.68 $ 186.26
2.38 $ 83.00 $ 41.09 $ 124.09
11.38 $ 75.00 $ 37.13 $ 112.13
I I 1$ 68.731 $ 13.891 $ 40.90 I $ 123.521
1 Building Official
2 Sr. Bldg Insp
3 Comm Dev. Director
4 Contract Plan Reviewer
5 Contract Bldg Insp
I Composite rate'
These hourly rates were calculated to include staff saiary and benefits, proportionate service and supply costs, internal
departmental administration, and citywide overhead costs.
Hourly salary rate is calculated by dividing annual salary by 1,800 productive hours.
Hourly benefit rate of 49.30% is applied to houriy salary rate and is wieghted to account for contract staff.
Hourly overhead rate of 49.51 % is applied to hourly salary plus benefits.
'Note: The composite rate is weighted by billable hours per position.
9
I' ~. Cl
/d OC) ~ /
CITY OF DUBLIN
BUILDING
FISCAL 2004/2005
Indirect Cost Rate Proposal
Allowable
TotalCosts Unallowable Allowable DireCt
DESCRIPTION OF COST Indirect
A) Personnel Analysis:
1 Salary and Wages (includes ContraCt staff) $ 2,326,706 $ 403,777 $ 1,922,929
Distribution %: 100.00% 17.35% 82.65%
2 Temporary & Overtime $ - $ -
3 Benefitsn (non contract staff) 49.30% $ 214,191 $ 37,171 $ 177,020
Subtotal: $ 2,540,897 $ 440,948 $ 2,099,949
B) Other Operating Expenses:
4 Office Supplies $ 4,200 $ 4,200
5 Internal Svc Charge $ 31,065 $ 31,065
6 Training $ 2,960 $ 2,960
7 All other materials & supplies $ 16,610 $ 16,610
8 Capital Outlay $ 9,250 $ 9,250
9 Vehicle $ 4,560 $ 4,560
10 Technology upgrade $ 84,761 $ 84,761
11 $ -
12 $ -
13!
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Subtotal: $ 153,406 $ - $ 153,406 $ -
Total DepartmentaFExllenditures: $ 2,694,303 $ - $ 594,354 $ 2,099,949
C) Cost Allocation Plan Allocations:
21 Information Technology $ 102,417 $ 102,417
22 Building use charge $ 26,444 26,444
23 City Council $ 28,452 28,452
24 City Manager $ 81,302 81,302
25 Finance $ 88,356 88,356
26 All other allocations $ 118,305 118,305
Total IndireCt Costs: $ 445.276 $ 44li,276
D) Total Costs $ 3,139,579 $ - $ 1,039,630 $ 2,099,949
Total IndireCt Costs: 1,039,630
Total DireCt SaF&Benes: 2,099;949 Calc:ulated IndireCt Cost Rate: 49.51%
11612006
Public Resource Management Group
Page 3
10
/3 C/j d?
v
[[I. PLANNING DIVISION
The Planning Division provides services related to land use within the City limits. This includes: processing of
all zoning and land use applications, preparation of special studies associated with long-range land use
objectives and working with the development community to facilitate new projects. The total cost of all
Planning services (including non-fee services and consultant costs) is $3,341,133.
For most fee services, the Planning Division collects deposits for each new development project and charges
actual staff time spent on each project against these deposit accounts. PRM has recommended that the City
adopt an average blended hourly rate for the entire division. For comparison purposes, the current average
hourly Planning rate is $90; PRM has calculated a new fully burdened hourly rate of $129.27, based upon costs
for Fiscal Year 2004-2005. A detailed calculation of the proposed hourly rate can be seen on the following
page.
The following is a review of findings and recommendations.
. Fee-for-service costs total $2,187,967 and are offset by current revenues of $1,491,259. This translates
into an overall user fee cost recovery rate of 68%. Please note, these numbers include consultant costs
and revenues.
. The Planning division recommends increasing the hourly rate and consultant overhead charge to 100%
of fully burdened costs. These adjustments could lead to a potential increase in revenue of $696,708
and increase their fee recovery level to 100%, which is consistent with Council's philosophy of new
development paying 100% of costs.
. The Planning Division closely reviewed and revised its current fee and development deposit schedule.
They have made adjustments to reflect the new hourly rate. Staff recommends that this revised
schedule be adopted.
. There are a few flat fee services still listed on the new fee and development deposit schedule. These
services are typically used by individuals and smaller local businesses; distinctions have been made
between community and personal (developer) benefit in terms of recommended increases.
. Currently an overhead rate of 25% is charged on all consultant and contract work. The Planning
Division proposes to increase that amount to 84.63%, based upon the analysis of indirect costs
performed by staff and PRM. The current rate does not cover the costs incurred by consultants
working at City Hall.
PRM developed fully burdened hourly rates for all staff within this division. These hourly rates were calculated
to include staff salary and benefits, proportionate service and supply costs, internal departmental
administration, and citywide overhead costs. A blended or composite rate for this division is recommended for
two reasons; first, it helps the public/customer to understand the charges and second, it helps city staff to
record, report and estimate revenue. The rates on the following pages may be used to determine fees for
services that do not lend themselves to a fixed, or average, cost analysis, but are better charged on an actual
time-and-expense basis. They can also be used to determine fees for services or programs that may be
developed at a later date.
11
CITY OF DUBLIN
PLANNING DIVISION - FEE/DEPOSIT SCHEDULE
c;~~J~-'~tegorical or Statutory Exemption for new development
Initial Study and Neg Dec
Initial Study and Mitigated NegDec
Initial Stud and EIR
General Plan Amendment
SJl~~if~c_f'lan Amendment----
Standard Rezolling
Planned Development
~ajo!3merldment to PO
Minor Amendment to PO (PC)
~irlorl\mendment to PO (Admin)
Annual review of DA
T&M
T&M
~-_._,_._-- -.--- - -
T&M
T&M
T&M
_._.--.._-~
__$1,_9J~_
$~12___ _
T&M
Te-.ll!~ti...e Subdivision Map
Tentative Parcel Map
Condominium Conversion-~
$1,000
$750
$1,939
$1,939
$500
$100
$646
$646
$129
I Lj Cri:,;l
V
Type of
charge
Flat fee
Deposit'
Deposit'
Deposit'
Deposit.
Deposit'
Deposit.
Deposit'
Deposit'
Flat fee
Flat fee
Deposit'
Deposit'
Deposit'
Deposit'
Deposit'
Deposit'
Flat fee
Flat fee
Deposit'
Flat fee
Flat fee
Flat fee
Flat fee
Flat fee
Flat fee
Flat fee
Flat fee
Flat fee
Flat fee
Flat fee
Flat fee
12
CITY OF DUBLIN
PLANNING DIVISION - FEE/DEPOSIT SCHEDULE
"Notes:
1. Deposits will be based all a Cill) pIMmer' s estimatioll of Iwurs llecessary to complete the project. The Planlling
divisioll hourly mte of $129.17 will be used to charge agaillst all deposits. Remainillg fimds from any appliamt
deposit will be refimded.
2. An additional 84.63 % administmtive fee will be added to all consultant services.
3. Fee estimates do Iwt illc/Ude Staff time for departments other than Plallnillg.
4. The Documellt/File Research fee is desiglled to recover cost illcurred whell illdividuals other
thall the property owner ask staff to perform specilaized research relating to zonillg or permit
information all a property that will take more than 1/2 hour of staff time and will require a writlell
respollse from staff.
$175
T&M
$200 + T&M
$200
$50
$65
$70
T&M
)5 ('V;;1.9
Type of
charge
Flat fee
Deposit"
Deposit"
Flat fee
Flat fee
Flat fee
Flat fee
Deposit'
Deposit'
13
/ u cFb ;)-/1
CiTY OF DUBLIN
PLANNING
FISCAL 2004/2005
Blended overhead rates
Full Cost Hourly Rates
Hourlv
Position FTE Salary Benefits Overhead Total
1 Comm Dev. Director 0.70 $ 83.45 $ 40.97 $ 105.28 $ 229.69
3 Planning Manager 1.00 $ 64.85 $ 31.84 $ 81.82 $ 178.51
4 Sr. Planner 3.00 $ 51.13 $ 25.10 $ 64.50 $ 140.73
5 Associate Planner 3.00 $ 40.83 $ 20.04 $ 51.51 $ 112.38
6 Assistant Planner 1.00 $ 40.04 $ 19.66 $ 50.52 $ 110.21
7 Code Enforcement Officer 1.00 $ 37.33 $ 18.33 $ 47.10 $ 102.75
IComposite Rate' I 1 1$ 46.96 1 $ 23.06 I $ 59.25 1 $ 129.271
These hourly rates were calculated to include staff salary and benefits, proportionate service and supply costs, internal
departmental administration, and citywide overhead costs.
Hourly salary rate is calculated by dividing annual salary by 1,800 productive hours.
Hourly benefit rate of 49.09% is applied to hourly salary rate.
Hourly overhead rate of 84.63% is applied to hourly salary plus benefits.
Blended overhead rate for both city staff and consultants. Consultant charges would have a 84.63% overhead charge.
'Note: The composite rate is weighted by billable hours per position.
14
1/0' ~)(?>
t
CITY OF DUBLIN
PLANNING
FISCAL 2004/2005
Indirect Cost Rate Proposal
Unallowable I Allowable
Total COsts Allowable. Direct
DESCRIPTION OF COST DirecrServices Indirect
A) Personnel Analysis:
1 Salary and Wages $ 1,071,340 $ 510,578 $ 560,762
Distribution %: 100.00% 47.66% 52.34%
2 Overtime $ 810 $ 810
3 Benefits 49.09% $ 525,950 $ 250,657 $ 275,293
Subtotal: $ 1,598,100 $ 761,235 $ 836,865
B) Other Operating Expenses:
4 Office Supplies $ 5,700 $ 5,700
5 Postage $ 6,500 $ 6,500
6 Communications $ 960 $ 960
7 Training $ 3,650 $ 3,650
8 Rentals & Leases $ 1,737 $ 1,737
9 Mileage & Auto Allowance $ 4,900 $ 4,900
10 Operating Supplies $ 1,250 $ 1,250
11 All Other Services & Supplies $ 71,684 $ 71,684
12 Contract Svcs - General $ 126,000 $ 126,000
13 Contract Svcs - Prof SVC5 Reimb $ 904,570 $ 904,570
14 Capital Outlay $ 6,250 $ 6,250
15
16
17
18 -
19 -
20 -
Subtotal: $ 1,133,201 $ - $ 102,631 $ 1,030,570
Total Departmental Expenditures: $ 2,731,301 $ - $ 863,866 $ 1,867,435
C) COst Allocation Plan Allocations:
21 Building Use $ 57,062 $ 57,062
22 City Manager/Clerk $ 94,706 $ 94,706
23 Legal $ 48,979 $ 48,979
24 Finance $ 149,352 $ 149,352
25 All Other Allocations $ 259,733 $ 259,733
26 -
Total Indirect Costs: $ 609,832 $ 609.832
D) Total Costs $ 3,341,133 $ - $ 1,473,698 $ 1,867,435
Total Indirect Costs: 1,473,698
T otarDirecl Sal & Benes + Reimb consultllnrcosts: 1,741,435 GalculaIedJl'1directCOstRate: 84,63%
15
/& ch
v
r-, (}
(~ l
IV. ENGINEERING DIVISION
The Engineering Division is responsible for overseeing the design and construction of both public improvements
and private development. Technical services provided by this division include: project development. design.
survey. inspection and contract administration. This division is also responsible for monitoring various city
capital improvement projects. The total costs of all engineering services (including non fee. capital projects and
consultant costs) are $ 3.399.981.
For most fee services. the Engineering Division collects a deposit for each new de'velopment project and
charges actual staff time spent on each project against these deposit accounts. PRM has recommended that the
City adopt an average blended rate for the entire division. For comparison purposes. the current average
Engineering rate is $98; PRM has calculated a new fully burdened rate of $128.16. based upon costs for Fiscal
Year 2004-2005. A detailed calculation of the proposed hourly rate can be seen on the following page.
The following is a review of findings and recommendations.
. Fee-for-service costs total $2.217.737 and are offset by current revenues of $1,480.205. This translates
into an overall user fee cost recovery rate of 67%. Please note. these numbers include consultant costs
and revenues.
. PRM has analyzed many Engineering Divisions in other cities and finds the City's cost recovery rate to
be on the middle to lower end of recovery rates.
. The Engineering division recommends increasing the hourly rate and consultant overhead charge to
100% of fully burdened costs. These adjustments could lead to a potential increase in revenue of
$737.532 and increase their fee recovery level to 100%.
. The Engineering division closely reviewed and revised its current fee and development deposit
schedule. They have made adjustments to reflect the new hourly rate. Staff recommends that this
revised schedule be adopted.
. There are a few flat fee services still listed on the new fee and development deposit schedule. These
services are typically used by individuals and smaller local businesses; distinctions have been made
between community and personal (developer) benefit. in terms of recommended increases.
. Currently an overhead rate of 25% is charged on all consultant and contract work. The Engineering
division proposes to increase that amount to 59.64%. based upon the analysis of indirect costs
performed by staff and PRM. The current rate does not cover the costs incurred by consultants
working at City Hall.
PRM developed fully burdened hourly rates for all staff within this division. These hourly rates were calculated
to include staff salary and benefits. proportionate service and supply costs. internal departmental
administration. and citywide overhead costs. A blended or composite rate for this division is recommended for
two reasons; first. it helps the public/customer to understand the charges and second. it helps city staff to
record. report and estimate revenue. The rates on the following pages may be used to determine fees for
services that do not lend themselves to a fixed. or average. cost analysis. but are better charged on an actual
time-and-expense basis. They can also be used to determine fees for services or programs that may be
developed at a later date.
16
ClTY OF DUBLIN
ENGINEERING DIVISION - FEE/DEPOSIT SCHEDULE
Service Name
Current Fee level
1
2
3
$10
G",~i"ll-,)ennit _
Grading PC/lnsp 151-1,000 C.y.
Grading PC/!nsp 1 k- 9,99_9C-}", _ _
Grading PC/lnsp 10k - lOOk c,y.
Gradi"g PC/lnsp >1 OOk C.y.
$O:?O:per cubic yard
$0.15 - per cubic yard
$O.O}..:.PE!r cubic yard
$0.01 - per cubic y~!:d._
$99.00
T&M
T&M
4
5
f-_~ra_dinll'pC/lnsp ~H
7 Grading PC/lnsp Subdivision
c-------!l.- Subdivision plan checking
9 Subdivisio_n Insp <~~Ok
7% of construction costs
6% of construction costs 6% of construction costs
10 Sub Insp $50-100k
11 Sub Insp $100-200k
12 Sub Insp $ 200-350k
13 Sub Insp $ 350-600k
14 Sub Insp $600-1mili
Recommended Fee Level
$10
$0.20. per cubic y,<1~d
$0.15_: per cubic yard
$0.03 - per cubic yard
$0.01 - per cubic yard
$100.00
T&M
T&M
7% of construction costs
Jq ") ,I)
t ;.. c;I- c.. J/
\./
Type of Charge
Flat fee
_____[)_e.P'O'~~
Deposit'
_ Depos~
Deposit'
Flat fee
Deposit'
Deposit'
Deposit'
Deposit'_ _.._
Deposit'
Deposit'
5% of construction costs 5% of construction costs
4 % of construction costs
4.5% of construction costs 4.5% of construction costs
Deposit'
3.5% of construction costs
3% of construction costs
..l5n__Sub Ills"p..":~l miliio..l1.......___
4% of construction costs
3.5% of construction costs _._.._..Depos~
3% of construction costs Deposit'
16 Street monument $500.00 $500.00
."-~-~-
17 Street excavation up to 500 1.1. $25.00 $25.00
.----..-
18 Street excavation 501.3k I.f. $0.05 $0.05
~--_.- - .-- -
19 Street excavation >3k I.f. $0.04 $0.04
U'___"_'__"_
20 Constr conc sdwlk, curb, gttr to 50 1.1. $25.00 $25.00
------~
21 Constr conc sdwlk, curb, gttr > 50 1.1. $0.15 $0.15
.---
22 .. _Constrctng con~ete ~i"",~ay $20.00 $20.00
-..
23 Constrctng drain inlet/manhoIEl_& connections $20.00 $20.00
f- 24 Moving largE! o~iects _ _ $25.00 $25.00
. '-.----------., ---.-
25 Building moving pennits $200.00 $200.00
26 Paving j~C)(;u..rb/gttr..to 5QO'_sl...____ $20.00 $20.00
e" n..
27 Paving (A.C.) curb/gttr >500 s.f. $0.04 $0.04
28 Building division pennit referral - residenital New fee $110.00
29 BuJlc:J!Ilg division pennit referral- non resdntl New fee $220.00
New fee -----
30 ADA site comoliance review $165.00
'Notes:
Deposit'
Flat fee
Fla!. file .:_p",rJi....
Flat fee:.. per..tL
Flat fee. per 1.1.
Flat fe.El . p~..~f...
Flat fee
Flat fee
Flat fee
Flat fee
Flat fee
Flat fee - per s.f.
Flat fee
Flat fee
-.-....--
Flat fee
1. Deposits wilt be based on a City engineer's estimation of hours necessary to complete the project. The Engineering division hourly rate of$128.16
will be used to charge against alt deposits. Remaining funds from any applicant deposit will be refunded.
2. An additional 59.64 % administrative fee will be added to all consultant services.
3. Fee estimates do not include Staff time for departments other tlran Engineering.
17
:JDc)I;)O;
(]
'-"""
CITY OF DUBLIN
ENGINEERING
FISCAL 2004/2005
I Blended overhead rates I
Full Cost Hourly Rates
HoUrlv
Position FTE Salarv Benefits Overhead Total
1 City Engineer 1.00 $ 71.86 $ 28.75 $ 60.01 $ 160.61
2 Sr. Civil Engineer 2.00 $ 60.84 $ 24.34 $ 50.80 $ 135.98
3 Sr. Transp Engineer 1.00 $ 59.98 $ 23,99 $ 50.08 $ 134.06
4 Associate Civil Engineer 1.00 $ 53.06 $ 21.23 $ 44.31 $ 118.60
5 Asst Civil Engineer 1.00 $ 47.23 $ 18.90 $ 39.44 $ 105.57
6 Engineering Tech II 1.00 $ 40.39 $ 16.16 $ 33.73 $ 90.29
7 Part time Engineer 0.60 $ 62.22 $ 24.89 $ 51.96 $ 139.07
8 Part time Engineer 0.75 $ 59.32 $ 23.73 $ 49.53 $ 132.58
9 Inspector 3.00 $ 57.23 $ 22.89 $ 47.79 $ 127.91
IComposite Rate' I I 1 1$ 57.341 $ 22.941 $ 47.881 $ 128.161
These hourly rates were calculated to include staff salary and benefits, proportionate service and supply costs, internal departmental
administration, and citywide overhead costs.
Hourly salary rate is calculated by dividing annual salary by 1,800 productive hours.
Hourly benefit rate of 40.01 % is applied to hourly salary rate.
Hourly overhead rate of 59.64% is applied to hourly salary plus benefits. This overhead rate includes a portion for Public Works administration
including the Public Works Director.
Blendedoverhead rate lorbothcitys18ffand consultants. Consultantchargeswouldhave a 59. 64% overhead charge.
*Note: The composite rate is weighted by billable hours per position.
18
I
I
I
CiTY OF DUBLIN :J/60;J. 9
ENGINEERING
FISCAL 2004/2005
Indirect Cost Rate Proposal
Unallowable! Allowable
Total Costs Allowable Direct
DESCRIPTION OF COST DirecrServices Indirect
A) Personnel Analysis:
1 Salary and Wages $ 1,165,872 $ 159,509 $ 1,006,363
Distribution %: 100.00% 13.68% 86.32%
2 Temporary & Overtime $ - $ -
3 Benefits 40.01% $ 466,415 $ 63,813 $ 402,602
Subtotal: $ 1,632,287 $ 223,321 $ 1,408,966
B) Other Operating Expenses:
4 Office Supplies $ 7,560 $ 7,560
5 Postage $ 4,045 $ 4,045
6 Communications $ 6,905 $ 6,905
7 Training $ 5,000 $ 5,000
8 Rentals & Leases $ 1,735 $ 1,735
9 Mileage & Auto Allowance $ 9,350 $ 9,350
10 Operating Supplies $ 3,400 $ 3,400
11 All Other Services & Supplies $ 60,143 $ 60,143
12 Contract Svcs - General $ 67,295 $ 67,295
13 Contract Svcs - General Eng $ 52,615 $ 52,615
14 Contract Svcs - Traffic Engr Svc $ 47,165 $ 47,165
15 Contract Svcs - Private Reimb $ 608,895 $ 608,895
16 Contract Svcs - Assess Dist Engr $ 11,500 $ 11,500
17 Capital Outlay $ 7,065 $ 7,065
18 -
19 -
20 -
Subtotal: $ 892,673 $ - $ 105,203 $ 787,470
Total DepsrtmentalExpenditures: $ 4;524,960 $ - $ 328,524 $ 2,196,436
C) Cost Allocation Plan Allocations:
21 City Manager/Clerk $ 84,422 $ 84 ,422
22 Finance 126,422 126,422
23 Building Use 48,712 48,712
24 PW Admin 346,448 346,448
25 All other allocations 269,017 269,017
26 -
T otallndirectCosts: 9; 875,021 $ 875,041
D) Total Costs $ 3,399,981 $ - $ 1,203,545 $ 2,196,436
TotaIJndirec:t Costs: 1,203,545
TolalDireclSal & Benes+ Reimbcollsultanlcosts: 2,017,861 calculated IndirectCostRate: 59;64%
19
JdOJ 'J 9
()
V. POLICE
The majority of costs incurred for Police services are not related to user fee services. $11.1 million of the $11.2
million total operating costs have been identified and set aside as "all other non-fee services". Service costs
related to fee activities totals $141,293 and are currently offset by $27,675 in revenue - an overall cost
recovery level of 20%.
A brief discussion of some of the services provided by Police that are recovered through user fees follows.
. The range of recommended cost of services recovery is from 15% to 100%.
. The market rate analysis for the Police Department indicates that their taxicab related fees are
extremely low, which has resulted in a higher number of taxicab operators and drivers registering in
Dublin. The Police Department recommends increasing owner and driver annual permits from $30
each to $250 and $150, respectively. Also, they propose an initial owner application fee of $300.
There is a great deal of administrative work involved with the initial issuance of owner permits. The
current fees are extremely low and only cover approximately 8% of the costs incurred.
. The single largest potential revenue source is the release fee for towed and stored vehicles. Currently, a
fee of $25 is being charged. This is recovering 22% of costs and resulting in a general fund subsidy of
$35,344. If the fee is raised to $115, an additional $35,190 in revenue could be generated.
. The Police Department has carefully reviewed the fee study results and has made separate
recommendations to each service.
. If all fee recommendations are adopted, a potential $92,270 in fee revenue could be realized. This
would be an increase of $64,595 or 233%.
The summary charts on the following pages show the results of this department's cost analysis. The first page
provides information on a "Per Unit" basis. The second page provides total annual information by multiplying
the per-unit fees and costs by the volume of activity in order to project out total annual costs and revenues.
20
USER FEE STUDY SUMMARY SHEET
- PER UNIT INFORMATION -
City of Dublin
Police
2004/2005
Recommendations
Annual 100% of Full Cost Recovery Fee@ Subsidy @
Service Name Service Type Current Fee % of Full Cost Current Subsidy Recommened Recommended Recommended
Volume Cost Level (% l Level Level
1 Second hand aoads/junk dealer Fee 2 $35 17% $201 $166 50% $100 ~- $101
-+
2 Peddler permit Fee 7 $50 26% $192 $142 78% $150 $42
3 Parade permit Fee 3 $60 33% $181 $121 50% $90 u__1~1
4 Public address sound system Fee 1 $60 46% $129 $69 58% $75 $54
5 Dance permit Fee 1 $60 29% $210 $150 48% $100 $110
7 Taxicab owner Fee 14 $30 6% $491 $461 51% $250 $241
8 Taxicab operator Fee 70 $30 10% $288 $258 52% $150 $138
9 Massage Establishment - initial Fee 1 $60 17% $353 $293 78% $275 $78
-----
10 Massage Establishment - yearly Fee 1 $50 22% $230 $180 54% $125 $105
----
11 Massage Establishment - tech Fee 30 $50 24% $209 $159 72% $150 u__ $59
12 Fingerprint card Fee 292 $5 17% $30 $25 17% $5 $25
~Visa Letter Fee 450 $10 33% $30 $20 100% $30 $0
u u
23 Binga permits Fee 1 $50 24% $206 $156 73% $150 $56
.----"
25 Gun dealer permit Fee 1 $50 18% $273 $223 73% $200 $73
u
e-2_6 Police report /Ins. Venctn Fee 785 $2 15% $13 $11 15% u~ ___uu~ $}}
27 Supoena duces tecum State set 7 $15 23% $65 $50 23% $15 $50
28 1 day ABC permit Fee 10 $25 38% $66 $41 53% $35 $31
29 Misc. non sched permit Fee 1 $10 5% $192 $182 47% $90 $102
32 Towed/stored vehicle release Fee 391 $25 22% $115 $90 100% $115 $0
33 Fix it ticket sian off Fee 12 $15 33% $45 $30 33% $15 $30
~
IN
"
\."'Y
'"
......
<'\ ,
'-'..,.,1
---D
USER FEE STUDY SUMMARY SHEET
- PER UNIT INFORMATION-
City of Dublin
Police
2004/2005
a)
b)
Recommendations
Annual 100% of Full Cost Recovery Fee@ Subsidy @
Service Name Service Type Current Fee % of Full Cost Current Subsidy Recommened Recommended Recommended
Volume Cost Level (%1 Level Level
f_:l~_fa_rking cite - admin review Fee 174 $25 41% $61 $36 41% $25 ______ $36
35 Live scan Fee 1 $0 0% $35 $35 85% $30 $5
--
36 False alarm response Fee 1 $0 0% $677 $677 0% $677
38 Child safelY seat insp. Fee 112 $0 0% $84 $84 30% $25 $59
39 Taxicab owner - initial Fee 4 $0 0% $619 $619 48% $300 $319
40 Repossessed Vehicle Release Fee 35 $15 62% $24 $9 62% _____t1~ --------~
41 Fortune Teller Permit New Fee 1 $0 0% $224 $224 89% $20() - $24
42 Private Property/Non-Injury Ace. New Fee - hourl~ 1 $0 0% $154 $154 0% $154
-. -
43 Jurisdictional Fix it Ticket sian off New Fee 1 $0 0% $45 $45 0% $0 $45
a) The first three false alarms are free. The 4th, 5th and 6th responses will be charged at $75, $250 and $325, respectively.
b) This fee will not be charged to residents of Dublin.
~
Z
~
P
--J:)
N
N
USER FEE STUDY SUMMARY SHEET
- TOTAL PROGRAM INFORMATION-
City of Dublin
Police
2004/2005
Recommendations
Revenue @ Revenue @ 100% Cost Recovery Revenue @ Increased
Service Name Service Type % of Full Cost Current Subsidy Recommended Recommended
Current Fee Full Cost Level (% 1 Level Revenue
1 Second hand goodsfJunk dealer Fee $70 17% $402 $332 50% $200 n$13Jl
- --
~ Peddler permit Fee $350 26% $1,341 $991 78% $1,050 $700
--...- --
3 Parade permit Fee $180 33% $543 $363 -. 50% $270 $90
4 Public address sound system Fee $60 46% $129 $69 58% $75 $15
5 Dance permit Fee $60 29% $210 $150 48% $100 $40
7 Taxicab owner Fee $420 6% $6,867 $6,447 51% $3,500 $3,080
8 Taxicab operator Fee $2,100 10% $20,177 $18,077 52% $10,500 $8,400
. I-
9 Massage Establishment - initial Fee $60 17% $353 $293 78% $275 $215
..!Q__fVIassage Establishment- vearlv Fee $50 22% $230 $180 54% $125 $75
11 Massaae Establishment -tech Fee $1,500 24% $6,266 $4,766 72% $4,500 $3,000
12 Fingerprint card Fee $1,460 17% $8,804 $7,344 17% $1,460 --- $0
13 Visa Leller Fee $4,500 33% $13,517 $9,017 100% $13,500 $9,000
---
23 Bingo permits Fee $50 24% $206 $156 73% $150 $100
25 Gun dealer permit Fee $50 18% $273 $223 73% $200 $150
26 Police report /Ins. Verfctn Fee $1,570 15% $10,521 $8,951 15% $1,570 $0
27 Supoena duces tecum State set $105 23% $458 $353 23% $105 $0
28 1 dav ABC permit Fee $250 38% $656 $406 53% $350 $100
29 Misc. non sched permit Fee $10 5% $192 $182 47% $90 $80
32 Towed/stored vehicle release Fee $9,775 22% $45,119 $35,344 100% $44,965 $35,190
I\,)
W
~
U\
~~~
\J~.
It)
,1':)
USER FEE STUDY SUMMARY SHEET
- TOTAL PROGRAM INFORMATION -
City of Dublin
Police
2004/2005
Recommendations
Revenue @ Revenue@ 100% Cost Recovery Revenue @ Increased
Service Name Service Type % of Full Cost Current Subsidy Recommended Recommended
Current Fee Full Cost Level (%) Level Revenue
33 Fix it ticket sign off Fee $180 33% $539 $359 33% $180 $0
--
34 Parking cite - admin review Fee $4,350 41% $10,585 $6,235 41% $4,350 $0
~~__m
35 Live scan Fee $0 0% $35 $35 85% $30 -~
-----
36 False alarm response Fee $0 0% $677 $677 0% $0 $0
38 Child safety seat insp. Fee $0 0% $9,453 $9,453 30% $2,800 $2,800
39 Taxicab owner - initial Fee $0 0% _ $2,478 $2,4 78 48% $1,200 $1,200
--
40 Repossessed Vehicle Release Fee $525 62% $842 $317 62% $525 $0
--
41 Fortune Teller Permit New Fee $0 0% $224 $224 89% $200 $200
42 Private Property/Non-Injurv Ace. New Fee - hourly $0 0% $154 $154 0% $0 ..!Q
43 Jurisdictional Fix it Ticket silln off New Fee $0 0% $45 $45 0% $0 $0
Total User Fees
% of Full Cost
$27,675
20%
$141,293
100%
$113,618
80%
$92,270
65%
$64,595
46%
~
~
\:':'1
\)-,
<-\J
......0
'"
~
:} r-, Cl
:J-16{)d I
VI. HOUSING DIVISION
The Housing Division is part of the Community Development Department and works with the Dublin Housing
Authority. Their goal is to help provide and assist with the financing of affordable housing units for City
residents. While most of the work associated with the Housing Division is non-fee related. there are a few
services for which a fee could be charged. We will highlight these fees below. The total cost of all Housing
services (including non-fee services) is $908,559.
The following is a review of findings and recommendations from the Housing division of new flat fees to be
establish for the processing of ownership units. rental developments and refinancing of units..
. Approximately 75 ownership units are being processed every year. The full cost of providing this
service is $1.681 per unit. This results in an annual subsidy of $126.075 (Note: the Housing In Lieu
Fund is absorbing this subsidy). The Housing division recommends adopting a flat fee of $1.500 for this
service. This new fee could create $112.500 in additional revenue and reduce the City subsidy of this
service to $13.575.
. Approximately 75 rental developments are being processed every year. The full cost of providing this
service is approximately $867 per unit. This results in an annual subsidy of $64.993. The Housing
Division recommends adopting a flat fee of $500 for this service. This new fee could create $37,500 in
revenue and reduce the City subsidy of this service to $27.525.
. Approximately 10 refinances are being processed every year. The full cost of providing this service is
approximately $1.009 per unit. This results in an annual subsidy of $10.085. The Housing Division
recommends adopting a flat fee of $200 for this service. This new fee could create $2,000 in revenue
and reduce the City subsidy of this service to $8.090.
. If all recommendations are adopted the Housing Division could potentially generate $152.000 in fee
related revenue.
The summary charts on the following pages show the results of this division's cost analysis. The first page
provides information on a "Per Unit" basis. The second page provides total annual information by multiplying
the per-unit fees and costs by the volume of activity in order to project out total annual costs and revenues.
25
USER FEE STUDY SUMMARY SHEET
- PER UNIT INFORMATION -
City of Dublin
Housing
2004/2005
Recommendations
Service Annual 100% of Full Current Cost Recovery Fee @ Recomm Subsidy @
Service Name Current Fee % of Full Cost Recomm Level
Tvoe Volume Cost Subsidv /Of,' Level Recomm Level
1 Ownership Units New fee 75 $0 0% $1,681 $1,681 89% $1,500 _ $18!
I----~- ---------- -
2 Rental Developments New fee 75 __I-_ $0 0% $867 $867 58% $500 ---..----..- $367
3 Refinance Charge New fee _!O $0 0% $1,009 $1,009 20% $200 ---- $809
---- ------~-
4 All other activity Non fee 1 $0 0% $707,406 $707,406 0% $0 $707,406
~"\
~
\Y
V
~^)
I\J
0)
USER FEE STUDY SUMMARY SHEET
- TOTAL PROGRAM INFORMATION-
City of Dublin
Housing
2004/2005
Recommendations
Service Revenue @ Revenue@ 100% Cost Recovery Revenue @ Increased
Service Name % of Full Cost Current Subsidy Recomm Level
Tvpe Current Fee Full Cost (%) Recomm Level Revenue
1 Ownership Units New fee $0 0% $126,075 $126,075 89% $112,500 $112,500
2 Rental Developments New fee $0 0% $64,993 $64,993 58% $37,500 $37,500
--..-.--
3 Refinance Charge New fee $0 0% $10,085 $10~Q85 20% $2.000 $2,000
-------- _ --- -
4 All other activity Non fee $0 0% $707,406 $707,406 0% $0 $0
Total User Fees $0 $201,153 $201,153 $152,000 $152,000
% of Full Cost 0% 100% 100% 76% 76%
Total Other Services $0 $707,406 $707,406 $0 $0
% of Full Cost 0% 100% 100% 0% 0%
Department Totals $0 $908,559 $908,559 $152,000 $152.000
% of Full Cost 0% 100% 100% 17% 17%
~
.....s:>
cY
\)J
-S:l
I\.)
.......