The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About6.2 General Fund User Fee Study CITY CLERK File # D[3]~~-[ZJ~ AGENDA STATEMENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: APRIL 18,2006 SUBJECT ATTACHMENTS RRCOMMENDATION /lul>" 1 . V" 2. 3 4 If FINANCIAL STATEMENT DESCRIPTION Public Hearing: General Fund User Fee Study and Full Cost Allocation Plan Report Prepared by Joni Pattillo, Assislant City Manager, Fred Marsh, Finance Manager and Lisa Hisatomi, Administrative 4 nalyst II 1 Staff Report Dated January 17,2006 regarding the Preliminary Generall<und User Fee Study and Full Cost Allo"ation Plan Revised Fee SdJedule li)r Community Development, Engineering and Police Resolution adopting a Revised Fee Schcdule for Commumty Development, Enginecring and Police 2. 3 Open public hearing Re"eive Staff Rcport and pubh" testimony Close public hearing and deliberate Adopt the resolution establishing a revised fee schedule for Community Development, Engineenng and Police Services (exeluding impact fees and housing in lieu fees charged on new development I, and provide additional direction to Staff regarding whether modili"ations should be made to the fce schedule I"r the following: a. Implementing the fee schedule on a phased basis b. Establishing whether the housing lees should be paid for by the buyer or seller The adoption or the proposed cost recovery lees, as recommended by Staff in the attached report, would result in additional tees being collected by the City on an annual basis beginning in Fiscal Year 2006-2007, or whi"h approximately 80% are development related. The costs for consultant services used f(lt completion of tllis study werc ineluded as part of the Fiscal Year 2UU4-2005 and Fiscal Year 2005-2006 budgets. ______________________~~__~_.____________________________________w~__________________________~___~___________ COpy TO: .J. Bradley Wilkes, PRM, Chamber of Commerce, Developers Page I of5 (i:\{ ..IIn!>ullllnh\PRM\PRMrt:port 16- agendastl11t.doc fo.Z ITEM NO. At the November 16, 2UU4 meeting, the City Council awarded a contract to Public Resourcc Management Group (PRM) to prepare a Cost Alloeal1on Plan and a User Fee Study This was an item originally establishcd by the Council as a high priority goal for Fiscal Year 2UU4-2U05, Council earned It forward as a High Priority Goal for Fiscal Y car 2005~2006. The purposc of thc Cost Allocation Plan and Fee Study was to ensure that the City is utilizing thc overhead rates, and accurately accounting and ehargmg for the true cost (If providing City serviecs. The City last updated 1ls overhead rates 1JJ 1992. It should be noted that the Parks and Community Services Department is not ineluded in this report since the Department's fees are revlewed on an annual basis. Fire Services are also exeluded for the same reason. Staff previously presented a draft version of the General Fund User Fee Study and Full Cost Allocation Plan to City Council on January 17, 20U6, which is ineluded as Attachment I At that Council meeting, Staff indicated three meetings would be held wIth the public on February 9,2006, February 16,2006 and March 2, 2006 to review the fee study and cost allocation plan. The last meeting occurred dunng the regular meeting of the Dublin Chamber of Commerce Economic Development Committee. A total of two persons attended the two meetings held on February 9th and February 16th (e~c1uding Starf in attendance at those meetings), and sixteen were III attendance at the meeting held with the Chamber of Commerce. For the most part, the persons in attendance wcre supportive of tile methodology used and the justifications providcd by the report and Staff for the changes III the fees charged by Community Development, Engineering and Police. However, a few queshons were raised by the attendants and addressed hy Staff as dlseussed below General Questions Raised bv the Attendants Question I - Are the fees charged to taxI cab operators and owners in tile City of Pleasanton and Livermore comparable to the proposcd new fees to be chargcd by the City of Dubllll? Staff Response - Stafr indicated that thc fccs chargcd by P\easanton and Livermore are comparable and in some cases higher than the proposed new fees to be charged III the City of Dublin. Staff also indicated that Staff from the three cll1es are currently looking into the possibility of drafting unifonn regulatIOns related to taxi cab operations, whIch was S(Lpporled by Council dunng its discussion of the fee study at the January 17'h, 2006 Council Mceting. Question 2 - Has the City kept current wIth tile fees charged for actIVities rclatcd to new development? Staff Response - Most of tile fees collected by the City related to new developmcnt result from the ISsuance of building perrmts (which are based on tlJe CIUTcnt building code) and from engmeenng plan check and planning zoning and subdivision fees, both of which are based on current salary and benefit rates. Some of the fees m thIS study and the overhead related to indirect costs assessed on new developmcnt have been updatcd to better reflect costs actually incurred by the City and the avcrage fees assessed by cities in the tri valley area for these activIties. Staff also explained that an update oftllese fees would be presented to Council for Its adoption on an annual basis. Question 3 - Why are fees charged for replacement of my dishwashcr and garbage disposal? Staff Response - Staff explained tbat these fees are only charged if someone is actually mstallmg a new dishwasher or garbage disposal, not replacing an existing one, due to Staff time in checking electrical Page 2 of5 connections and other construction work rcquired when installing a dishwasher or garbage disposal for the first time in a building. Question 4 - Are the Tcmporary Use Permit fees applicable for permits pullcd by vendors for fireworks booths and City Special Events such as St. Patrick's Day and Day on the Glen? Staff Response - Separate fees are assessed by Fire Services and the Parks and Community Services Department for these activlties. Question 5 - How has the public been nolified ofthe proposed changes to fees charged for services? Staff Response - Staff has provided public notices to the public and the major developers working within the City regarding the proposed changes for both the preliminary draft of the fee study and tile final fee schedule for Community Development, Engineering and Police. Question 6 -In what cases would fees assessed for an appeal be waived? Staff Response - Staff indicatcd that Council had discussed thiS issue when this was originally presented at the January 17'\ 2UU6 meeting under what elreuulstanees the fees for an appeal could be walVed. Council agreed with the general concept of charging a fee for an appeal, due to the costs ineurred by the City for pro"essing an appcal. Howcver, the Council also agreed With the idca that a person with a financial hardship could contact a Couneilmemher and ask thcm to appeal on their behalf WIthout a lee bemg charged_ Question 7 - Are planned condomimum "onversions which were approved PRIOR to the adoption ofthe City's new condominium convcrsion ordinance subject to the new condominium convcrsion fee? Staff Response - No, they would be exempt from this fee. This fee would only apply f(lr new eondomimuul conversion proJects- Question 8 - How will the changes in the valuation used for the assessmcnt of building permit fees affect the buildmg permit fees charged for new smgle family and multi family projects? Staff Response - For Single Family dwelhng umts, the valuation used per square foot of Iivmg area would change from $115.50/squarc foot to $1l5/square foot and the valuation used per square foot of garage area would change from $3U.38/square foot to $35/square foot. For Multi Fanlily dwelling units, the valuahon used per squarc foot of living area would change from $115.50/square foot to $140/squarc foot and the valuation used per square foot of garage area would change from $3U.38/square foot to $61. 13/square foot. For Residential Square Footage Additions, the vaJuahon would change from $8413/square foot to $80/square foot. For all other projects that are not resldenhal, the only change in the method used for valuahon would be on those projects where the change in valuation is $50U,UUl and up, the fee for each additional $1,UUU change in valuation would increase from $5 to $6. Smce the largest change In building permit fees would be for Multi Fanlily prOJects, Staff has prepared below estimates of what the building pemlit fees would be for condominiums with garages under the current fee structure and the proposed new fee stTuct(Lre. Page 3 of5 8 Unit Condo 26 Unit Condo 300 Unit Condo .- ..--.,....- -.".. Currcnt Building Pcrmit Fce $1U,895 $29,550 $372,680 Proposed Building Permit Fee $14,170 $42,148 $519,438 $ Increase $3,275 $12,598 $146,758 0/0 Increase 300% 42.7% 394% Staff and Public Resource Management Group, the consultant used in the preparation of thIs study are confident that the reeommendations for changes to the building pemllt fees in this study crcate the appropriate relationship between the costs inelUTed and the fees charged for these services, as the proposed fee structure has been adjusted wIth a goal of 100% rccovery of costs incurred by the City The adjustments to the fees reflecting the City's actual costs are consistent wIth the City's Specific Plan for Eastern Dublin, which statcs that any proposed development will not present a financial drain to the City PoIicv Questions for Council Consideration and Dircction Question 9 - Can the fee changes be implemented on a phased basIs, where for example 5U% of the increase would become effective July 1", 2006 and the entire increase would become effective July 1", 2U07? Staff Response Staff and Public Resource Management Group researched this item and found only one instance where a city had adopted a phased m approach in implementing any fee changes that were development related. All of the other cIhes researchcd made the fee changes effective on one date, which IS what Staff also recommends. Council Direction to Staff - Ills requested that Council can eitller implement all of the fee changes effectlVe July 1st, have the fee study implemented on a phased basIs, sImilar to or different from the proposal discussed in Qucstion 9 above or provide additlOnal direction to Staff. Question 10 - Who is rcsponsible for paying the new fees proposed by thc Housing Division, the buyer or scHer of the propcrty? Can housing in lieu fees be used to cover the cost of these fees? Staff Response - Staff recommends that thc seller be responsihle for the payment of tlJesc lees. Staff is not recommending the use of Housing m LIeu fees to pay for these fees as this would reduce the funds available in the future to provide for additional affordable housing m the City Council Direction to Staff - Council IS request<;d to provide direction to Staff as to how these fees should be paId, i.e. by eIther the seller of thc property or the buyer of the property, or providc additional direction to Stall: Page 4 of5 Recommendation It is recommended that the City Council take the following actions 1 Open pubhc heanng 2. Reccive Staff Report and public tcstimony 3 Close public hearing and deliberate 4 Adopt the resolutIOn establishmg a revised fee schedule for Community Development, Engmeering and Police Services (excluding impact fccs and housing in lieu fees charged on new development), and provide additional direction to Staff regardmg whether modifications should be made to the fee schedule for the following: a. Implementing the fee sehcdule on a phased basis b. Establishing whether the housing fees should be paid for by the buyer or seller Page 5 of5 CITY CLERK File # DODD-DO AGENDA STATEMENT I Dt)5L CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: JANUARY 17, 2006 SUBJECT Preliminary General Fund User Fee Study and Full Cost AllocatIon Plan Rep()rt Prepared hy J()ni Pattillo, Assistant Ci(v Manager ATTACHMENTS I General Fund User Fee Study Findings RECOMMENDATION I 2. Receive the report Provide any supplementary dircetion to Staff FINANCIAL STATEMENT The costs for consultant servIces used for completion of tllis study were mcluded as part of the Fiscal Year 2U04-2005 and Fiscal Year 2005-2006 hudgets. DESCRIPTION Backeround: At the November 16,2004 meetmg, the City Council awardcd 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. Tbe purpose orthe Cost Allocation Plan and Fee Study was to ensure that the City is utilizmg the overhead rates, and accurately accounting and ehargmg for the true cost ofprovldmg City serVlces. The City last updated its overhead rates in 1992. Local governments are responsihle for providing a variety of services to citizens. These servlces range from public salety services, such as police patrol services, to building related services, such as the issuance of huilding penn its. The methods of Jhnding local government services range from tax revenues to user lCc charges. Serviecs that support the public good and pubhc safety are typically tax supported, while services tllat are more electIve ln nature are supported by uscr fee charges. User fee related services are proVided bv many city departments, hut tend to be more heavily concentrated m the Planning, Buildmg, Engmeellng and Parks and Community Services. California local goveT!l11lents are permItted by law to charge the full cost of providmg user fee related services to those who reccive the benefit of the particular service. Full cost is defined as including both tile indirect or administrative cost and the direct cost 0 f the service. L\-I'B-Olo A TT ACIIMENT 1 lo,L Methodolol!v: 2 i) J.-. ~ 7_ The key for an accurate full cost calculation is two-fold. First, the indirect costs of a cIty govermrM1t must be identified and calculated. Thcsc costs inelude support divisions such as City Managcr, Ccntral Services, non development related Legal Services, Admllllstratlve Services, Building Management, and Insurance. The cost allocation plan IS an accountmg document that uscs generally accepted allocation principles to spread the admllllStrallVe 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 Imhreet 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 inelude salary, benefits and supply and service costs of each City and contract cmployee, who is directly providing the servlce to the customer. Of the total costs analyzed by PRM, 35% relate to fee related services. The othcr 65'% relate to costs for other serVlces, whIch mclude Code Enforcement, countcr time and other questions, long range and advance planning, police patrol and public safety and City directed projects for Planmng, Engineering and Housing. At the conclusIon of developing a cost plan and user fec study, each layer of cost IS defined and ealculatcd. Onec the full cost is known, it can be used to mal\e decisions regarding the establishment of fees for various City services. The end result of tllis analysis is the allocallon of all indirect costs to all operating departments and programs. The mdireet costs are then added to the direct costs to determine the full cost of ,lll City programs, whether fee related or not. A basis similar to the above was used when the onginal overhead rates of 25% for contract personnel and 36% for employees for fee related projects was established in 19')2. It should be noted that smCe 1992, there has been a significant increase in personnel costs and an mcreasc of 42. 70;;, in the Bay Area Consumer Price Index. The Internal Process and Applications ofthe Methodolol!v: The study's primary objcctive is to provide the City's decisIOn mal\ers wIth the information nccded for sctting fees. The attached report details the full cost of servIces, and presents proposed fees and projected revenues based on recommended user fee "ost recovery Icvels. Each City Department nlade its own recommendations for fee lcvels based upon careful consideration ofthe results of the cost analysis, enrrent servIce levels, hlSloncal cost recovery Icvcls, fees assessed for similar services in the Tn Valley area and the market demand uniquc to each department's services. Tn cooperatwn wIth City stan; PRM developed cost and revenue estimates based on Fiscal Year 2UU4- 2UU5 bndget information for fees related to Planning, BuIidmg, Housmg, Engincering, and Police. At the time the data gathering began, the Fiscal Year 2004-2005 bndget information was the best and most current data available. Therefore, all calculations used in this study are based on I<'iseal Year 2004- 2005 budeet information. It is recommended that mltJal fee revisions be effective July 2006. It is further recommended that the fecs be updated evcry year with tile next fee update to occur in July 2UU7, which would bc bascd upon the adopted 20U7-20U8 budget. Staff would also propose that an independent study be performed bv an outside consultant once every three years, similar to what is currently done f()r the CIty's vanous development Impact fees. It should be noted that the Parks and Community Services Department IS not includcd in this report as thcy rcvicw thc fecs charged for their services on an allllual basis. Fire Services arc also exeluded since they also conduct periodic reviews of thelf fees_ PRM has concludcd that for the Building, Engmeeting, Page 2 of 11 Planning and Housing Divisions and for Police Services, the General Fund IS subsidizing fce activities by approximately $1.8 million, primarily for services provided by the Plaumng and Engineering Divisions. _ c:2, - 61Sb -.) The adoptlOn of the proposed cost recovery fees, as recommended by Staff in the attached report, would mcrease the overall lee revenue by approximately $1.8 million on an annual basis beginning in Fiscal Year 20U6-2U07 based on the Fiscal Year 2U04-2005 prOJections, if these fees are approved by Council based upon recommendations from Staff, of which approximately 8U% is development related. Staff has reviewed each Department's recommended fee changes and PRM has included their recommendations for fees as part of tbeir 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 OpllllOn was rendered. They have determined that the results of the study are in comphance with generally accepted accounting principles and govemment audltmg standards. The following discussion summarizes the proposed new fees or changes to existing service charges for various City services. Communitv Development: The Plannmg, Buildmg and Housing Divisions have followed the same methodology as outlined earlier in this Rcport to develop the proposed modifications to the Fee Schedule: Building Division --. ...'~-"-"""'--'--- -...... .. Service Name/New Fee Current PRM at Agency Recommended Fee Full Cost A veral!e1a) Fee(hl -.-- .-...-..... New Permit Fees ._. ._n .._." Grecn Building Residcntial Plan Check No Fee $104 N/A $104 ... '".'_., ..u_. Green Building - Commercial Plan Chcek No Fcc $630 N/A $63U ..--... .--..". Existing Permit Fees .-.-..,.... '-"''''''' Motors $40 $93 $67 $70 1---_____ -- Electrical Circuits $40 $93 $64 $65 + $2U each additlOnal circuit ---.... .-..-.. -. -. ........"",,.- Electrical Meter Panel $()U $1R5 $84 $90 .._n'_._...u. .--.".--.-- $105(0) -~..,,"~,- '~ Temporary Power Poles $9U $IR5 $90 + $4U for each additional nanel1c\ _..___..,.,n .~'"" - Eledrical ApplIance $4U $93 $67 $7U -.,..",^.' "".._-""------ DIshwasher $4U $93 $57 $6U ------- _.- Garbage Disposal $40 $93 $57 $60 --,.,~ ,..- .. Plumbing Fixture $40 $93 $61 $60 ..~,~., .-'--~- _ W aterPipiJ:lgSysten~__._ $40 $124 $68 $70 Gas Piping System $40 $124 $60 $6U Lawn Spnnkler System (4 Controllers)......_.-- $4U $93 $R2 $80 -~-, ~,ft. '_.U'_'_"__ Heater System $60 $124 $62 $60 -.............. .--....-... --- Air Conditioning System $6U $124 $56 $6U -~--~ -,,~.,-._.,-. $5ii'n Water Heater $4U $93 $47 .~. ,. Ventilation Fan $40 $93 $61 $60 .. ,.~~ Page 3 of 11 Service Name/New Fee Current Fee $40 $60 $16U PRM at Full Cost $124 $124 $247 Agency Avera1~~:!_ $141 $67 $236 Recommended Fee(bi $6U $70 $24U N/A - Not Availahle (a) Agcncy averagc includes Cities of Pleasanton, Livermore, and San Ramon. (b) Most of these fees approximate the agency average and were roundcd up or down to the nearest $5 (c) Agency average is a flat rate wIth average 3 to 4 drops per metcr (d) Average of Cities of Livermore and San Ramon. (e) 3,500 square feet of home / $lO,OOU valuation (f) These fees have been proposed to be estabhshed at a level below the full cost to encourage people to obtam permIts for these activities There are no changes in pennit fees for construelion of, or for addition or alteration to buildmgs or structures, electrical or mechanical installations, except if the change in valuatlOn IS $500,001 and up, the fee for each additional $1,UUU change in valuation will increase from $5 to $6. The Building Division uses approximately If, of a contract building inspector to administer the City's Construction and Debris Ordinance (i.e. Green Buildmg) at a cost of approximately $117,UUO per year This cost is currently being suhsldized by the General Fund. Staff is reeonunending that two new fees be developed to recover the cost of supplying this service. Based on the Building Division's 20U4-2UU5 estimated actual and the projected 2UU5-200l'l workload, Staff is recommending based upon tile findings of PRM that the City adopt a fee of $104 pcr residenl;al unit and $630 per commercial permit issued based on the 11ndings of PRM These chargcs have the potential to fully recover the administrativc costs associated with the program. Planning Division (Fee Study Page Reference 12-13): ~"".~,.,._,".._, ----'"...'". Currcnt PRM at Agency Recommended Typical Scrvice Namc Fee Full Cost Averae:c Fee Denosit . .",~_._--,~. ,. ,. -~,.,.._- . --, New Fees ---....,....-- Major Amendlllent to PD (CC) No Fee Varies $4,466 T&M $7,UOU- .-.-.. ''''...~" _~~U,UOU Minor Amendment to PD (PCl No Fee $1,~39 $3,350 $1,920(') N/A -.". Minor Amendment to PD (Admin) No Fee $517 $3,3?Y. $512(') N/A Condominium Conversion No Fee Vanes T&M T&M $15,000 .. Amend Master SIgn Program No Fcc Varies Varies T&M $5,UUU - CUP or SDR Time Extension No Fee $646 $605 $64l'l N/A Request (PC) .~~._-~.~~ .~~~.,~"'~- CUP or SDR Time ExtenSIOn No Fee $129 $185 $129(') N/A Request (Admin) _~p.E~a1. Gen.~~1!U)~blie.. No Fee Varies $177 $175(b) N/A ._~. '_n_____ Appeal Apphcant No Fcc Varies $1,200 T&M N/A ----..--. Major Temporary Use Pemlit No Fee Varies $4U7 $2UO + T&M Varies _. Home Occupal1on Revle\\; No Fcc $65 $100 $65 N/A ~.~~- ~...',. Page 4 of 11 u ,,_..~.,.~,~ s'l'r'ypical Current PRM at Agency Recommended Service Name Fee Full Cost Averaee Fee ;:; fi Deposit ,.,~~.-"" $65(0) Provide 300' radius Labels for No Fee $65 Varies 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 Pernut Process (New Development Only) ". ~''"'~,-_. Existinl!: 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+ rpitial Studvand Mitigated Neg Dec T&M Varies T&M T&M $25,UOU+ Initial_gl!s!x...ll!l?_ EIR T&M Varics T&M T&M $50,000+ General Plan Amendmcnt T&M Vanes Varies T&M $10,000 .. I-~pe~.!fic Plan Amendment T&M Varies N/A T&M $1U,UUU Standard Rezoning $60 Vari es T&M T&M $10,000 ..u......~. Planned Development T&M Varies Vanes T&M $1U,OOO -.- Ammal ReView ofDA T&M $128-$256 N/A T&M $3,UUU ,- Tentative Subdivision Map T&M Vaties N/A T&M $10,000 ~..._...,~--_...~..,.. --~.",,~ - Tentative Parccl.M~p_._~___~ $100 Vanes N/A T&M $10,000 ..- Master Sign Program $105 Vanes Varies T&M $7,000 . -_.~"'''''.-..._. $12 9(')"-~- Si@lISlte Development Revle\\; $105 $\29 $175 N/A ~_._~. ~~.'" $25(0) -_. Banner/Balloon Permit (Pcr sign $25 $65 $48 N/A !balloon) --...,...,.". ~,,~-,. SIte Development Review $14U Vanes NlA T&M Vanes . $2501') --..- .. ,-_.. ~ite Qevelopment ReView WaIver $50 $259 N/A -.... Non-Residential cup. PC $13U $1,939 $4,708 $\,UUU(cI .-.....".". "",". $75(/" Non-Residential cup. ZA $13U $1,939 $1,343 .~....'. -. -~ ..~ . Residential CUp. PC $50 $\,939.... $440 $1,939 _._.~.,,"_.. .~.. Rcsidcntial CUp. ZA $50 $1,939 $44U $1,939 .~..__.W'''''___' ""-i5Udd) Daycare Center CUP (15+ children) $13U $2,585 $440 - --- $100101 ~-- -".."..- Large Family Daycare CUP (9-14 $50 $\,939 $440 children) --- . -. ..~. ., ... .. -.. CUP Minor Amend. (Admin) $55 $646 $1,343 $646 -."" _"...._..w,"_'_ Non-ResIdential Vanallce $72 $\ ,93?.. $1,500 $1,939 ...-........-.-".,..... Residential Variance $25 $1,939 $6UU $1,939 --..--....... ~-"_.__..".-._..~ $2UU(o' Minor Tcmporary Use Permit $25 $388 $407 -...---- ~$~;'O(C) Zomng Clearance $25 $65 N1A ._~"~-~- T&M = Time & Matenal (a) Thcse proposed fecs represent tile approximate full cost for thesc activities. (b) These proposed fees approximate tile average of fees chargcd by other agencies III the tn valley area. (c) These fees have heen proposed to be established at a level below the full cost to encourage people to obtain permits ror these activitics (d) These fees havc bcen proposed to be established at a level below the full cost based on the City Council's past policics to encourage child care faeihl1es to locatc in thc community Page 5 of II S aff d h "' h f d'" d" d I . dlohtJ t../~.L t revlewe t e eXlstmg lees agamst t ose 0 surroun mg .1uns letlOns an a so revlewe t e .tnne estimates for thc City of Dublin for actually processing the permit or request. Starr 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 caeh city Therefore, Staff has adjusted the fee schedule to provide for Its processmg requirements, keeping in mind tile surrounding market m order to remam competitive. In addition, the fee schedule reflects the City's long-standing policy that all new development must pay for itself. Therefore, the,Planmng DIvIsIOn Fee Schedule maintains many of the "time and matenal" 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 Arca Consumer Price Index smee 1992, when the overhead rates were initially established. Starr 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 eategones helow' . Condominium Conversion: Last year tile 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 chargmg a fee would be dcveloped and brought back for City Council approva1. Staff is thereforc suggesting that the applicant pay the full cost mcurred by the City for the conversion. . Appeals (General Puhlic and Applicant): Prcsently, there is no charge for anyone to file an appcal of a Staff or Planning Commission action. Staff estimates tllat the time spent working on an appeal action varies from ten to forty hours. SpecIal studies may also be required, such as traffic or nOlse 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 app"al projects that could potentially affect thelf "quality of life", Staff has developed a two tIered fee approach. EXlstmg reSIdents or busincss 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 pennit or approval would be the f(lll C(lst of time and materials for processing the appeal. IllS also proposed that If a Council Member requcsts an appeal that no fee will he charged, sincc they are representing tile citizens. . Temporary Use Permits: Presently, the City charges a fee for Temporary Use Permits (TUP). TUPs are issued for outdoor sales, festivals and other snnilar events. The original assumption was that the processmg the apphcahon takes a minimal amount of Staff time. Therefore, the fee was imtlally set at $25 It is now estimated tllat the actual cost for processing a TUP IS closer to $2UU for minor 'fUPs, sueh as pumpkin and Christmas tree sales lots or outdoor sales for existing businesses. Staff is therefore recommendmg an mcrease of the fee to $200 for a minor temporary use penmt, which approximates the regional average. Staff has also noted, however, that severaltnnes a year there are special events tllat requlfe Temporary Use Permits that require large amounts of Staff time. These evcnts sometimes involve street closures, Pohce Or Fire Dep'lrtment presence, or arc events on publie property Staff IS suggesting that a new category of Temporary Use Permits be established WIth a new fee. These Major Temporary Use Page 6 ofll . Permits would pay a Hat fee of$2UO plus time and materials for the permit and the Staff resources that are necessary during the event ltself "11:"- S L... Day Carc Conditional Use Permits: Staff has made adjustments in tile Conditional Use permiP Section of the Fee Schedule. This ineludes 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 largefamilv dav care (9-14 children) and day care centers (15+ children). ThIS gives the City Council the abihty to adjust these fees separately from other non-eomrnunlty facility busincsses. Staff has also suggested a permit fee for these community facilities that IS lower than actual cost. Conditional Use Permits Time Extension Reqnests: Many permits have a time period by which the use or construction must begin; but frequently applicants have problems meeting the requirements, thereby requesting an extension. Staff is proposmg 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 inelude a time and materials charge f(lr 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 wnllen response from stalT. Housing Division (Fee Study Page Reference 26): Service Name/New Fee - ...-....---.-.---...... Current Fec OwnershIp Units --, " -.--- Rental Developments Refinance Charge .-. ,- No Fee No Fee No Fee PRM at Full Cost $1,681 $R67 $1,OU9 Agency Averal!c N/A N/A N/A Recommended Fee $1,500 $5UU $2UU . Ownership Unit Fee: An Affordable Home Ownership Umt Fee of $1,500 lee is being recommended for the administration of the "for sale" hlelusJOnary Um Is for the set time period (55 years) that the umts are under the Resale A)"oreement restrictions. This fee will apply when any of the followmg occur' . The initL\!l purchase, including all income reVIew, loan docum"nt review, City document preparation, and coordination with other entitics in the buying process. The fee also comprises the annual monitoring of each Inelusionary Unit. . Any future loan thai the City may provide through a luture First Time Homehuyer Program (covering the samc kind of income verification, document preparation, etc.) and; . Every time there is a change m ownershIp for an individual property In all cases, tile fee will be added to the expenses that are part of the home purchase, and will be collected at escrow closmg. . Rental Development Fcc: A $500 per umt fee for Developcrs of apartment complexes (with InelusJOnary Umts) IS recommendcd to bc imposcd at the issuance of huildmg permits. Staff is proposing this developcr fee for the administration of the IneluslOnary Units, for thc 55-year period tllat thesc units arc restricted in rents. Staff time is mvolved m numerous administrative functions (I.e. Page 7 of 11 eontaetmg leasmg offices; requesting completion of documents; provldmg information on type of units and thc occupants; spot-chceking documents, as needed; etc.). L1~. "52- o lJb . Refinance Charge Fee: A $200 Fee for subordination of other document preparation, after purchasc, is also recommended. Refinanclllg of an Inclusionary Unit requires the City to subordinate the Resale Agreement or, III the case of a First Time Homebuyer Loan, the loan. ThIs fee is being recommended for the StalTtimc involved in providing the subordination (smce this task requires contact with a Tille Company/Escrow Officer, coordination wIth the firm and/or the lender, and often the homeowncr). The fee would be collected by the escrow firm at escrow elosing. Public Works: Thc Public Works Department has developed the following proposcd modifications to the Fee Schedule: Engineering Division (Fee Study Page Reference 17): Service Name Current Fee Recommended Fee New Fees .!!l!i1d}ng Div Permit Referral - Residential Building Div Permit Rcferral- ..r-I.<:m R.5:sidential _ADA SIte ComplIance RevIew No Fcc No Fee No Fee $I1U -,~.. $22U $165 . Building Division Permit Referral - Residential: The Public Works Department currently reviews referrals from the Building Division for input on building penmt applications for Improvements made to thc cxterior of a building, not for mtenor Improvements. Thc majority of the referrals arc for smaller building permit applicatIons and, in these cases, Public Works has had nO means of charging for the hme spent on the referral. In ordcr to recoup some porhon ofthesc costs, It IS proposed to create a new ree for building pcrmit review The resIdential application rcview is proposed as a flat fee, as opposed to actual costs. The large number of referrals (approximately 200 requcsts pcr ycar) and thc relatively small amount oftllne spent on each (about one hour, usually by an assistant engineer) would make It ImpractIcal to calculatc and track actual costs. Therefore, the cost for residential referrals is proposed at $11 U . Building Division Permit Referral - Non Residential: The Non-Residential building pemllt application review is more time intensive and IS based on the estimated time spent on Ihls typed of referral - a general eshmate is approximately two hours of Staff time for a non-residential review; the cost lor a non-residcntial referral is proposed at $220 . Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Site Compliance Revicw: This fee would cover the review process for proposed improvements regardmg eonformanee with ADA. PublIc Works reviews a number of site plans submitted by property owners (generally commercial) who are proposmg 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 thc sitc, with special emphasis on ADA compliance, or any requIred upgrades needed to bring the site into ADA conformancc. It is proposed that a flat fee of $165 be charged for this work, based on an estimated onc and one half hours in Stall Time spent on such a review. Page 8 of 11 In addition, the fee schedule rellects the City's long-standing policy that all new development must pay for itself Thererore, the Engineering Division current fee schedule maintains many "time and matenal'ql152-- types of fees on new development applications, similar to the Planmng Division. Based upon the study -D performed by PRM, staff recommends adjusting the composIte hourly ratc to $128.16 per hour and the engineering overhead rate to 5964%_ 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 21-12): The Police Department has also followed the same methodology already discussed in order to develop the proposed modifications to their Fcc Schedule. Service Name Current PRM at Agency Recommended Fee Full Cost A veral1eCa) Fee - New Fees .. ~.,"~,,,.. ,. Live Scan No Fee $35 $30 $3U .~..- Non Resident Child Safety Seat InsvectlOn No Fee $84 N/A $25 Taxlc~h'O~;;~;=-.fu-;i,al (e) No Fee $619 $3UU $300 -,._,~ - Fortunc Teller Permit No Fee $224 $2UO $200 -,,~,~.,"."~'."'. - Existinl! Fees NlA .-.....".- -. -". Second Hand Goods/Junk Dealer $35 $2UI $100 $100 ,-_. ..-.. Peddler Permit $50 $192 $150 $150 r---'-' --, .- .....~._. Parade Pemllt(hl $60 $181 N/A $90 .~ .., . -- -- Public Address Sound Systcm1h) $60 $129 N/A $75 -..------."',.,.,..---.. ~.." Dance Perrlllt $6U $210 $100 ~} UU_ " Taxicab Owner $30 $491 $250 $250 ~.. ".. !,axISC,!b Op~~,!~~_ $3U $288 $150 $15U ---.. Massage Estabhshment - Initial (e) $60 $353 $275 $275 -... Massage Establishment - Yearly $50 $23U $125 $125 m... -... _Ma_s_sag~J~_stablishlll~nt - J'eeh $50 $2U9 $150 $150 Fingerprint Card $5 $30 State set fee $5 ..._"'.",. ' - Visa Letter $10 $30 $30 $3U Bingo Pemlits $50 $206 $150 $15U --- -. ",'--- Gun Dealer Pemlit $50 $273 $200 $2UO __."w. Pohce RellorllInspection Veri Ilcation $2 $13 Per law $2 Records Supoena (Supoena D(lCeS Tecum) -....,&,. $15 $65 State set fee $15 I Day Alcohol Bcvcrage Control Permitl~) ---.-",. ...,-.- $25 $66 N/A $35 Misc. Non-Scheduled Pemlit(hl $10 $192 N/A $90 .....-.- Towed/Stored Vehicle Relcase $25 $115 $115 $115 ,,~~~ Fix It Ticket S,gJJ Ofr $15 $45 $15 $15 --. X'!fking Citation - Admin RevlCw $25 $61 State set fee $25 ._..'w~~ .~.-. Repossessed Vehiclc Release $15 $24 State set fee $15 ... ~,.."~- ,,~~ (a) Agency average ineludes Cities of San Ramon, Walnut Creek, Danville, LlvemlOre, Pleasanton, Oaldand, Onnda, Lafayette, and Moraga. (hI Fees are recommended to be set at 500;;, ofthe full cost base on the factors considered that ehargmg the lull H:e would discourage business; service is provided on an infrequent basis; or majonty of the service users are non-profit organizations. Page 9 of II (<. Additional costs are incurred dunng the imhal application of a business for background checks and for hme spent by a sergeant in gathering the necessary information about the business ~__ c..:-z... \O\.ler' . Live Scan: This IS a new service for DPS for the electronic submittal of fingcrprints to the Dcpartmcnt of Justice (DOl). 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 proccss, 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 mstallahons." DPS docs not currently charge for this service and the City is the only agency in tbe Tri-Vallcy Area that currently offers the service to people on an appomtment basis (other agencies only provide the service at planned events). A non- resident only fce will assist in partially recovering the costs for providing this scrvice. . Fortune Teller Permits: Although tills activity is currently regulated by Dublin Municipal Code 94 U8, no fec was ever established for the proeessiJJg of such permits. To date, no fortune telling permits have ever been issued by DPS, but Staff bave had inquiries from potential proVIders of such a service; therefore, establishment of a fee would be appropriate at thIs hme. This fee proposal is based upon the fees charged by nearby cities for processmg such a permit. Economic & Policv Considerations Caleulahng the true COSt of providing city scrviecs is a critical step in the process of establishing user fees and eorresponding "ost recovcry levels. Although it is the most Important ractor, othcr factors must also be givcn consideration. City decision-makers must also consider thc effects that establishing fees for services will have on tile individuals purchasmg those services, as well as the community as a whole. The followlllg economIc and policy issues help illustrate these eonsiderahons_ . Public sector agencies have a monopoly (JI1 providing ccrtain services within its boundanes, such as development-related services. However, other services, such as taxi cab registration, may bc provided by neighboring eOlnnlunlhes, and therefore demand for these services can be illghly dependent on what else may be availahle at lowcr priecs. . Pricing scrviecs can encourage or discourage certalll behaviors. An cxample of this would be to estahhsh a low fee for a water heater pennit to encourage homeowners to ensure their water heater is propcrly 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 admimster Some ofthc fees that are charged after a service has been provided might fall under this category, for example, code enforcement violations. Rcvicw of Studics with Development Community and Chamber of Commerce: Staff is proposing to hold meetings with the development community and the Chamber of COlllmerce. The purpose of these meetmgs will he to reVIew the information in the attached studIes and to address queshons regardmg the proposed ehangcs in thc fees. Subsequently, Staff will return to Council, with a report on the rcsults from thc meetings and a final recommendation on the fee and cost overhead studIes. This final rcport will inelude a Master Fee ResolutlOn thal will include all City Fees. It IS recommended Pagc 10 ofl1 that initial fec revisions be effective July 2006. It is further recommendcd that the fees be updated every year Witll the next fee update to oCcur In July 2007, which would be based upon the adopted 2007-2UU8 budget. Starr would also propose that an indcpcndent study be performed by an outside consultant once /2- evcry three years, similar to what is currently done for the City's various development impact fees. \ \ llb':::l Recommendation It is recommcnded that the City Council receive tile reports and provide any supplementary direction to Staff regarding the reports, the fee revisions proposed and the process. Page II of II I t".;d HI~' f.lhJ(j. PRM PUBLIC RESOURCE MANAGEMENT GROUP LLC GENERAL FUND USER FEE STUDY FINDINGS CITY OF DUBLIN NOVEMBER,2005 ,& 4rn: $u', :',.,\ I: l,'!. I~, ')({l.!, ': l(o~. _ ,~ (,; ": ~'I'; ) W\'''''!,~!r'l"..lg('-,u]:-.~,,:! H~C\:ID:Nr,_ j'J1;,uF':.:~~I~.".lAI,. ;UNIC[;. TC r-nV~,:,r~NM'''.r'' "i'i~k!' 'I,'". 774'., F:'nc 9'II',.o',77..;..!=l:! I?- r}"'-':. 2.- : I I-~ Def 'Z- TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page 1_ Executive Summary Introduction Study Scope & Objectives Study Findings Methodology Ewnomk & Polky Considerations 1 1 1 2 4 5 II. Building Division 6 Ill. Planning Division 11 IV Engineering Divi,ion 16 V Polke Department 20 VI. Housing Division 25 \ Lt l' ,,'52.. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INTRODUCTION Public Resource Management Group (PRM) is pleased to pre,ent the City of Dublin (City) with this summary of findings for the cost of services ,tudy for fee-rebted activities. The city has not undertaken a detailed cost of servkes study since 1992. Since that time. the City has ma.de some minor adjustments to the original calculations. but has larg@ly maintained the fee structure that had been adopted. The City is Int@re,ted in accurat@ly reporting the true cost ot providing various fee-related ,@rvic@s. and exploring the possibilities of modifying curr~nt 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 'taffing information. Additionaily, all other <taff information wa, provided through the period ending February 2005 Fees should be reviewed on a regular basis and adjusted in accordance with established city policies on us~r fee cost recovery This report is the culmination of the pa<t eight months of work betwe~n PRM and City management and <taff PRM would like to take this opport1mity to acknowl~dg@ all city management and <tatf who participated on thiS projec:t for their efforts and coordinatioh. Their responsiveness and continued interest in the outcome of this <tudy contribut~d greatly to the success of this study STUDY SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES This study induded a. rE!view of fee-for~service activities within the following division5. . Building . Planning . Engineering . Police . Hou~ing 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 thi5 5tudy. as staff already performs reviews of these fees on a periodic: basis. The study was performed under the general direction of the A"i,tant City Manager and the Administrative Services Department with the participation of th~ abov~-m~ntioned divisions. The primary goal, of the study were to. . Defirv~ what it costs the city to provide variom fee-relJted services. . Determine whether there are any opportunities to implement new fees. . Identify service areas where the City might adjust fees based on the fuil co,t of service, and other cconomk or policy considerations. . Develop revenue projections based on recommended increases (or decreases) to fees. The information summarized in this report addre"~' ~.ch of these i"u~s and provides the City with the tool, necessary to make informed decisions about proposed fee adjustment5 and the resulting impact on general fund revenues. 1 I ~5 (\;- S 2.. STUDY FINDINGS While the purpo,e of this study is to identify the cost of fee. related activities. one of the outcomes of the analysis is to provide a eomplete picture at the full eost of all ,ervice, offered. It is necessary to identify all eosts, whether fee-related or not. so that there i, a fair di,tribution of all citywide and departmental overhead co,t, (diICussed in the following ,ection of this report) acroSS all activitie,. thereby emu ring a definitive relation, hip between the cost of the service and the fee that is charged. No service ,hould be burdened with costs that cannot be directly Or indirectly linked to that ,ervice. Therefore, the first task in thi, study i, to 'eparate the fee.for.service activities from the non-fee activities. Some non-fee related activitie, are appropriately funded by general fund monies (or other ,pecial revenue or impact fee sources). such as most public safety service~ or capital improvement projects_ The costs of these other services are identified and set a~ide 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 u,er fee.related or other service eosts. Of the $22 million in total co,t, analy,ed. $7.8 million (or 35%) of that total i, related to user fee services. It i, thi, $7.8 million that is the focus of this study and represents the lOtal potential for u,er 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 met'lt Building Planning Engineering - Land Dev, Police Housi n Tot"l: iil< ..1 ~!! l"oIilieSei'Yt. $3.139,579 $3,016,057 96% $123,522 4% $3.341,133 $2,187,967 65% $1,153,166 35% $3,399,981 $2,217,737 65% $1,182,244 35% $11,253,562 $141,293 1% $11,112,269 99% $908,559 $201,153 22% $707,406 78% $22,042,814 $7,764,207 35% $14,278,607 65% SoUrce - Fiscal Year 2004-2005 "Note: Services in the "Costs, Other Servkes" (oll,lmn 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 \ Lo t;-/_5L The next exhibit identifies the murce of funds for the user fee service,. Exhibit iI breaks down the $7_8 million in user fee servkes b~twe~n 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 (i.e. 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 sectiom of this report. Exhibit II Source of Funds - User Fee Activites - Source - Flscat 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 indicate, that user fees recover 76% of full cost. leaving 24% or $1.852,255 to be lunded by other funding ,0urceS, This $1.9 million repres"nts a window of opportunity" lor the city to in<rea,e fe.s 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 fer some services. The study's primary objective is to provide the City's deci~ion~n.,aker~ with bask data needed for setting f~es. This report details the full cost of services. and present~ proposed fees and projected revenues based on recommendl?d user fee cost recovery levels. Police made its oWh recommendations for fee changes based upon careful consideration of the results of the cost analysi5, historical cost recovery levels, and the elasticity of demand unique to this department's ~ervices. Recommendations for the other departments were based upon car~ful consideration of the rp.~~Jlts of the cost analysis. historical cost recovery levels. and market cornparisom of fees charged by cities in the Tri Valley area. Plea~e note that because Planning and Engineering revenue is based upon hourly rates, the potential revenue increase is an estimate. The actual number wll\ differ and will be based upon actual time spent by staff on new development. 3 \1 DbS2- Exhibit III below ,ummarize, the financial anaiy,i, of the City', uSer fee program performed by PRM. It i, estimated that adoption of the recommended cost recovery pel icy would increase the specified fee revenue: by $1.754.080 (a 30% increase over the revenue currently being collected for the,e activitie, by the City on an annualized ba,i,). Thi, would bring the overall co,t recovery level up to 99% for the,e activitie,. Since the propmed new fees are nol scheduled to be effective until January 2006. the expected increase for Fis{;;;ll Year 2005.2006 i, estimated to be approximately $804.000. Exhibit III User Fee Revenue Analysis - Recommended Revenues - Source - Ftscal 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 co,t of ,ervice ,tudy analyzes two component' of eost,. the direct eo,t, associated with providing each fee- for-service activity and the indirect costs that support these activities. A brief discussion of each of the~e components follows. (A complete. detailed report of calculations is provided a~ an attachment to this report)_ Direct Costs_ The direct cos!s associated With fee~for.service ac:tivitie5 were analyzed in great detail in this study PRM worked with staff within each of the five divisions to develop the analy,i, thai is summarized in the following ,ections of thi, report. The fiscal year 2004.2005 adopted budget was used to identify direct cosh. The first step in the process was to identify staff time spent directly crl eac:h of the user fee activttie~. Each staff pe-rson involved in the wer fee setvIc:es ide-ntifie-d time spent to romplete each task associated with all user fee services. Annual volume statistks were also ;satherlQd in order to develop total annual workload information. Salary and benefit dollars were assigned to the time eslimates to come up with the direct staff costs. Indired 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 t::osts coming from the cost allocation plan (described below) were also added in "' indirect overhead. The,e two item, were components of the indirect co,ts: 1) departmental overhead, and 2) citywide overhead. The cost of each activity is then compared to the fee currently charged. and the extent of c:oH rec:overy is identified. Cost Allocation Plan. Many of the costs that support all city programs and ,ervices are budgeted in centralized activities such as 1) Administrative Service" which provide, payroll. budgeting, accounting and information systems support, 2) Building Management, which provide; building maintenance and custodial servic~s, and 3) C~ntral Services. which provides human resource and ri5k management services. The costs of 4 \ C r<- eL..- L L 0-' these actlvltles and other centralized services are l;onsidered indirect overhtoad that support fee-for-service Bctiviti@s. as well as other programs and functions within the dty A, part of this 'tudy. PRM developed an indirect cost allocation plan that identifie, and di,tribute, the,. indirect costs to all operating program~ and functions within the city's organizational structure. The cost allocation plan takes a detailed approach to analyzing indirect co,t,. PRM interviewed staff and analyzed data within each central activity to determine; 1. What indirect ,upport function, are provided (e.g. payroll. legal service,. civic center maintenance. etc). 2. How to allocate centrally budgeted personnel and other operating expenses into the,e functions. 3 Which department, receive benefit from the,e service' (e.g. payroll 'ervices 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 be,t method of allocating these co,ts 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 ex~rdSG is important in that it call re~ult in an increase in gen€r~l fund revenu€'~ for reimbursement of support for user fee services and Hate or federally funded programs_ ECONOMIC & POLlCY CONSIDERATIONS Calculating the true cost of providing city ,ervices is a "itlcal step in the process at establishing u,er fees and corresponding eost recovery levels. Although it is the most important factor. other factors must al,o be given ,omideration. City ded~ion-makers must also consider the effects that establishing fees for services will have on the individuals purcha.sing 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 price,. . Pricing service) can encourage or discourage certain behaviors_ Some examples of this would be to establish a low fee for a water heater permit to em:ourage homeowner~ to ensure their water heater is properly in~talled, or setting false alarm response fee5 on an incremental scale to discourage multiple false a.larm call5. . It may be impractical to e~tablish a C05t recovery system for SorTIe services or the collection of fees may be costly and difficult to administer SorTIe of the fees that are charged after a service has been provided might fall under thi, category, for ex.mpl~. false alarm response fees and code enforcement viotatiom. 5 \ q C-crz... II. BUILDING DIVISION The Building Divi<ion provide< in<pection and plan checking ,ervice, for all development within the city limit<. Inspection staff al,o performs some code enforcement ,ervice,. The tot.1 co,t of all <ervice, come< to $3 139,579 Approximately 96% of the,e costs ($3,016,057) are a<<ociated with fee. related service,. Unlike most other fee, charged by other department', there are very few "fixed" or per-unit fees charged for building permits. Instead, each permit fee is calculated ba,ed on th" construction valuation and the 'quare footage of the project. Many local jurisdictions use valuation table< regularly publi,hed by Building Standard, to determine construction valuation (based on occupancy and type) and rate tables publi,hed in the Uniform Building Code (UBC). The UBC rate table, are updated and published ""ery three year;. Since the early 1990'< local jurisdictions have been concerned with the i<<ue of establishing a relationship between the co,t of ,ervice and the fee, chorged for those services. with particular emphasi, on building permit fees. In 1993 the State of California Office of the Attorney General i<<ued an opinion (No. 92-506). addre<<ing both the question of whether local agencies may charge building permit fees which exceed the cost of providing the sflrvice, and whether the use tables are a valid method of cakulating fees. In essence the Attorney General's. opinion states that 1) local agendes are prohibited from charging fees in excess of cost unless the feel are approved by a vote, and 2) the UBC tables may not be u,ed unless the local agency can establi<h a relationship between the fees charged and the cost of providing the service. PRM and the City are confident, tha.t the recommendations in this ~tudy aeate the a.ppropriate relationship between the fees charged and the servkes provided has been created. For every plan check and inspection category ana.lyzed. the Building Division ha~ adjusted their fee structure with a goal of 1000/0 recovery Thi~ cost analysis looks at the tetal annual c:osts ef providing all inspection and plan checking services and compares the C0sts tu the revenues projected. The following page of this report provides a summary of thi~ analysis. Plan Check and insper.tion fees have been hroken out into several different occupancy categories. These categories reflect the most common type~ 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 tl2chnology upgrade cost has been calculated and allocated across all service categories as an overhead. This technology upgrade is needed <0 that the Building Division can more efficiently and accurately perform their duties. The Building Divi,ion propose' 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 $100000). The fee would be $104 for each residential dwelling unit and $630 for each commercial building permit issued, Thi< fee would be de,igned to recov"r most of the $117100 in annual costs required to follow the Green Building standards. all of which is currently being sub5idized by the City General Fund, These 5landards were establi,hed 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 edu(ating developers and contractors. reviewing and approving W~Hte Managem€nt 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 Hou<ing project< when their support IS. required for the public good and to expedite the initial processing of these projects. This results in an annual ,ubs;dy of $102,012 by the General Fund for this ,upport. 6 dO 0 rf2- . If the~e recommendations are adopted. the Building Divl5ion could potentially gen~rat@ an additional $103.244 in revenue and increa.se their cost recovery rate for fee related servic:es to approximately 100%. PRM developed fully burdened hourly ratel for all staff within thi, department. The'e hourly rate, were calculated to include staff ,alary and benefit" proportionate service and ,upply costs, internal departmental administration. and citywide overhead costs. A blended or romposite rate for this division is recommended for two rea'om; first. it help, the public/cu,tomer to understand the charge, and ,econd, it help' city ,taff to record. report and estimate reVenUE. The rateS on the following pages may be used to determinE fees for services thar 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 serviLe~ or program~ that may be developed at a later date. 7 USER FEE STUDY SUMMARY SHEET - TOTAL PROGRAM [NFORMA TION- AgellCV. Department: Fiscal "'year' City ofDubli n Building 2004/05 Recommendations Service Rever.ue.@ Re'l'ellue @ 100% R erommended Revenue @ II"ICre.Bsed Serv ice Name ~.~ or Full Cust Current Subsidy Re'lsmJe@ Tv"" CurrenlFee Full Cost Cosl RecO'lerv % Recomm Level ReCClrrvnle...el 1 Plan Check .arnllllStlectioo Fee $2.,912,::::'3 97% $3,015,057 $103,244 100% $3,016,057 $103,244 - 2 Suooort to Plannina NOll fee $0 0% $62,5:15 561,515 0% $0 $0 ~- -- ----- --- -- ~- - --- - - - r2-S_1Jppo_~~_~n!linee ring Noo fee $0 0% 529,= 5;1g,=_ 0% $0 $0 4 S uppor< to Housing Non fee $0 0% 511,26..8 S11,2~ 0% -- $0 SO 5 Code Enforcement Non fee $0 0% 521,51-0 S21,510 0% $0 SO Total User Fei:ls (Jine If $2,912,813 53,1J16,C157 $103,244 $3,016.D57 $10J,244 %ofFu!'lCoo.t 97% 100% 3% 100% 3% T ollil Other Set ~ icss- (line:; 2.s) 50 $123,522 $123,522 $0 !i<l % of Full Gost 0'% 100% 100% 0% 0% Departrr.ent Totals ( tin8S 1-5) S2,912:,813 $3,139.5]9- t226,76fi $3,016,057 $103.244 % of FLJlI Cost 9"3% 100% 7% 96% 3% Q) 01 ~, , CD 0, ~ erN OF DUBLIN BUILDING FISCAL 2004/2005 Full Cost Hourly Rates Position Ii~~~. FTE Sala", Benefits Overhead 1.00 $ 58.02 $ 28.60 $ 42.89 $ 1.00 $ 49.85 $ 24.57 $ 36.84 $ 0.30 $ 83.45 $ 4114 $ 61.68 $ 2.38 $ 83.00 $ 41.09 $ 11 J8 t 75.00 $ 371J $ I II $ 68.731 $ 13.891 $ 40.90 I $ 1 Building Official 2 Sr. Bldg Inop 3 Gomm De... Director 4 Contract Plan Reviewer 5 Contract Bldg Insp ic""""""'I\>"'I\>' Thes~ hourly tCltel:> ware calculated to include staff salary and benefits. proportionste a.el'vice alid supply custs, internal departmental anrninistration, and citywide overhead Gosh;. Hourly saltlry rate is c<llculated by dividing annual salary by 1 ~80{J prnductive hours, Ilourly benefit rate of 49.31l% is I;lpplied to hourty salary rata .<:Ind is wieghted to account for contract !'Itl'lff. Hourly uvelhead r.ate uf ~9.51 % is applied to hourly salary plus benefit!'!, JNote: The composite rate IS weighted by blllablf7 hDU~ per posltlUtl. 2-d c. -,. , ~O'- Total J29.5J 111.<6 186.26 124.09 112.13 123.521 9 d 3 (\r"P d- ,- CITY OF DUBLIN BUILDING FISCAL 2004/2005 Indirect Cost Rate Proposal Allowable Total CoslS Unallowable AllowsbleDirecl DESCRIPTION OF COST Indirecl A) Personnel Analysis: 1 Salary and Wages (includes Contract staff) $ 2,326,706 $ 403,777 $ 1 ,922,929 Distribution %... 700,00% 77.35% 82.65% 2 Temporary 8. Overtime $ - $ - :i Benefilsn (non contf1JC/s/8ff) 49.30% $ 214,191 $ 37,171 $ J77,020 Sublot.l; $ 2,540,897 $ 440,948 $ 2,099,949 B) Other Operaling Expenses, 4 offiGa Supplies $ 4.200 $ 4,200 5 Internal SVG Cha~ge $ 31065 $ 31,065 6 Training $ 2.960 $ 2,960 7 All otller material~ & su~p1il\'s $ 16.610 $ 10.610 8 Capital Outlay $ 9,?50 $ 9.250 Y Vehicle $ 4,560 $ 4,500 10 T €Ichnology upgrade $ 84.761 $ 84.761 11 $ - 12 $ - 131 14 15 15 17 18 19 20 Subtutal: $ 153,406 $ - $ 153.406 $ - Total Deparbnental Expenditures: $ 2 694 303 $ - $ 594,354 $ 2 099 949 C) Cost Allocation Plan Allocations: 21 InfnrrnstiDl"1 Ter.hhology $ 102,411 $ 102,417 22 Building ~J~e ch.;:Jt'ge $ 26,444 ,6,444 23 City CO~lndl $ 28,452 ~8,452 24 Cily Manager $ 81,302 81,302 25 Financ:e $ 88,356 88,356 26 All other allocations $ 118,305 1) 8.305 T otallndireot COOlS. $ 445,276 $ 445,276 OJ Total COOIO $ 3,J39.579 $ - $ 1,039.630 $ 2,099,949 Total Indirect Costs: 1,039,630 Total DI",ct Sal 80 Benos: 2.099,949 Calculated Ihdlrect Coot Rate; 49.51% 116/20u6 Publk; Re$uUI'/":Q Management Group Page 3 10 ....,. I., 1---, ol..--f t. (:_1 CT Ill. PLANNING DIVISION Th@ Plc.nning DivIsion provides servicEs related to land use within the City limits. This includes. processing of all zoning and land use applications, preparation of ,pecial ,tudie, associated with long-range land use objectives and working with the development community to facilitate new projects. The total cost of all Planning ,ervices (including non-fee ,ervices and consultant ,ost,) is $3,341,133 For most fee services. the Planning Divhioh collecH depo~iH for each new development project and charges a'tual staff time spent on ea,h proje<:t against th.,. deposit account,. PRM ha, recommended that the City adopt an average blended hourly rate for the entire division. For comparison purp05es. the current average hourly Planning rate is $90: PRM has calculated a new fuliy burdened hourly rate of $129.27. ba,ed upon costs for Fiscal Year 2004-2005 A detailed cakulation of the propo.ed hourly rate can be .een on the following page. The following i, a review of finding, and r.commondatiom. . Fee-for-,ervice co.t. total $2.187.967 and ar. off.et by current revenUe' of $1.491.259 Thi. tramlate, into an overall user fee cost recovery rate of 680/0. Please note. these number$ include consultant costs and r~venucs. . The Planning division recommends increa~ing the hourly rate and cOh~ultant overhead charge to 100D/o of fully burdenod co,t.. The.e adjustments could lead to a potential increa.e in revenue of $696,708 and increa~e their fee recovery level to 100D/o. which is consistent with (oundl's philosophy of new development paying 100% of eo.t.. . The Planning Division Llosely reviewed and revised its current fee and development deposit schedule. They have made adju.tment. to reflect the new hourly rat.. Staff recommend. that this revised sch.dule be adopt.d. . There are a few flat fee service. still li.ted on the new fe. and d.velopment deposit schedule. The.e servke~ are typically used by lndividua\~ and smaller local bus[n~sses~ distindiom h8ve been made between community and personal (developer) b~nefit in terms of recommended increases. . Currently an overhead rate of 25% i. charged on all consultant and contract work. The Planning Divi.ion propose' to increa,e that amount to 84.63%, ba.ed upon the analysi. of indire<:t costs performed by staff and PRM. The current rate does not Lover the costs incurred by consultants working at Cily Hall. PRM developed fully burdened hourly rates for all staff within this division. These hourly rates were calculated to include staff .alary and benefit', proportionate ,ervie. and .upply costs. internal departmental administration. and citywide overhead costs. A blended or composite rate for this division is recommended for two reasom~ first. it help~ the publiC/rustomer to understand the charges and second. it helps city staff to record, report and estimate revenue. The rate. on the following page. may be used to determine fee. for services that do not lend themselves to a fixed. or average. cCst a.nalysis. but are better charged on an actual tlme.and-expeme basIs. They ta.n. C11~o be used to determine fees for services or programs that may be developed at a later date. 11 ~~ ~""2.- Ci-b (1---' CITY OF DUBLIN PLANNING DIVISION - FEE/DEPOSIT SCHEDULE st'TIEi:, , Site Development Review Site Develo ment Review Wai"ver ""QI"'MENm+1REVlEW: III! Type of charge Flatfe. Deposit'" Depo6it* Deposit+ T&M Deposit. T&M Deposit* T&M Deposit" ---.,.-.------ T&M Depo6it* T&M Deposit" $1,92.Q__n__ Rat fee $5t2 Ratfoo T&M Deposit" T&M Deposit'" T&M Deposltilr T&M Depo6it* T&M Deposit* T&M Deposit"" $128 Flat fee $25 Flat fee T&M Deposiflr $250 Flat fee $1,000 Flat fee $750 Flat fee $1,939 Fla.t fee $1,939 Flat fee $500 Flat fee $100 Flat fee -$646 Flat fee $646 Flat fee $129 Flat fee $1,!iJ;?9 Flat fee $1,939 Flat lee \!'''.'.''''I,:X'::,,~lHI "8', : ' I, '.., CEqA.g~tegoric~/ o..f_~~~t~~9fl::: Exemption for new development Initial Stud and Neg Dee: Initial Study and Mitigated Neg Dee Initial Stlid and Ef"R""-""'.'.--'-.'-. General Plan Amendment Specific Plan Amend-meir-- .St~_nda~.~,~_~,~_r1~~JL ,._ ____ ..._____..___._".._. Planned Development Ma "Dr Amendment to PD Mino!_~!"endment !"F:DJE'.C) Min"r. ,Il,!"endment to F'Q(Ad!"in.) Annu81 review of DA PARC:EL, Tentative Subdivision Map Tentative Parcel Map Condominium Convetsion 'i,l,\Nri.$l.lli!DIVli$lIQfu$"li " iii' /; 'liStSNIFERMITSC<'" Ma.ter Sign Program ,Il,1J.1~nd Mas!.~r~jg-'lProg!.m SIgn/Site Development Review Banner/Baloon Permit ( er si n/baloon Non-Residential CUp. Non-Residential CUP- Residential CUP- PC Residential CUP' ZA Daycare Center CUP (15+ children) LarQ,,-.!'~"!iIy__~~yc~reClJ_P (9-14 ctiiidren) CUP Minor Amend. (Admin,) CUP Dr SOR time extension request (PC) CUP or SDR time extension re u~st Admin cON.iiiihfu PC ZA , i'ilA:l..:i'UsEIP-li:IRMI'T'E!' " Non-Residential Variance Residential Variance 12 CITY OF DUBLIN PLANNING DIVISION - FEE/DEPOSIT SCHEDULE A eaJ: General Public A ale A icant -II ,~~: 1111 i~,~ Temp,?r.~.ty Use P~fJI!!t~ M~jor (I, e street clo$uros, police, events on public propL Tern ora Use Permit: Minor Zo"i_".9__C;:Jearan~~______ Home Occu ation Review Provide 300' radius labels for Applicants as ~qu..stii,{- Documenflfjle research, document fe ration $200 + T&M $200 $50 $65 __EO T&M !d::!.:i::::::: P/annin review throu *Notes: 1. D{~PI!SlIS will bl~ bu~d {In ~I ('.i/.1/ rlla/"!wr'~ 1~~litJ'tllli()tL ot'l1ours 'JJ:Ir.f'SllFY to complete tile ~lr(11cd. 171(' PIllnnm~ i./h!I;;illn 1lI111rl,1f rl4/(~ 1)1 $:/'"'9, "I 71J!ill hI! /..I.";.o!d ll) dILlr!?,.: ll~tllJ'l.~t all dq05i1S. ROll11iningfimds from any Ilpplmml Ikpl}$ll will bi~ rr.(undr..I, 2. 4.1l1U1diliDMIlI ~4,l03';~ ~ulminisb.ldi'(!(~ Ii:e will be IIdd{~~lllIlll/ n)~:tjltlltll ~~~r7)if"l-:5. .1. rt.I': ~~tittllllt-~... dll nllt i~lf~Iudt-~ ';;;/aj} time for dqll1rtments other tll/m Plfmnmg 4. Thp. I )ol:llmnltjFile. Research ~,~ in dcsigtlcd to reCCWC1- cosf incUlT!'d WhL'll mdiuidw"::; {lIlWT that! the rrQpaly OWtll.'T ask staff to p~'1"furm ::;pcnllllZ('u. 1"(';:;t.'I~TCI11~~lid1l1g III ~!)rtil'J!? or tlerlHi! in{ilrl'J'ltllirltll!fl tl pYi1r~~rllf t}ZIII wiII trl~ mm.e thlltL J/2 JJozlr oj 5t4/ timt: /md will n'lfl.dn: Il wnllL'll n:sponsc f,WIl :; Iliff ~LO Ur.'S"2- f .l Type of charge Flatfee Deposit'" Depcsit~ Flat fee Flatfeo Flat fee Flatfa. Deposit... Deposit'" 13 9-1 GQ5L CITY OF DUBLIN PLANNING FISCAL 2004/2005 Blended overhead tates Full Cost Hourly Rates Hourlv Position FTE Salarv Ben9fits Overhead Total 1 COtTllT1 Dev Director 0.70 $ 83.45 $ 40.97 $ J05.28 $ 229.69 3 Plannin9 M .n.g.r 1.00 $ 64.85 $ 31.84 $ 81.82 $ 178.51 4 Sr. Plclnher 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 Enfort::ernent Officer 1.00 $ 37.33 $ 18.33 $ 4710 $ 102.75 Icomposite Rate. 1 1 1 $ 46.96 1 $ 23.06 I $ 59.25 I $ 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 5alary t'~~te. Hourly overhead rate of 84.63% is applied to hourly salary plus benefits. Blended overhead rate for bath city staff Bod consultants. Consultant cfuJ!f%1s w~/d have a 84. 63% overhead charge. "Noto. The composite rato IS weighted by bIllable hours per position. 14 Jt- (j ..-52- , -...... CITY OF DUBLIN PLANNING FISCAL 2004/2005 Indirect Cost Rate Proposal Unallowable I Allowabla Total CoellO Allowable Direot DESCRIPTION OF COST Direct Services lndlraot A) Po",onnol Anolyois: 1 SCllcuy and Wages $ 1,071,340 $ 510,578 $ 560,762 Distribution %. 10000% 47.66% 52.34% 2 Overtime $ 810 $ 810 3 Benefits 49,W'li $ 525,950 $ 250.657 $ 275,293 Subtotal: $ 1,598,100 $ 761,235 $ 836,865 B} Other Operating Expenses: 4 Office Supplie. $ 5,700 $ 5,700 5 Postage $ 6,500 $ 6,500 6 Communications $ 960 $ 960 I I raining $ 3,65U $ 3,6'0 8 Rentals & Leases $ 1,7:17 $ 1,737 9 Mileage & Auto Allowam::e $ 4,900 $ 4190U 10 Operating Suppli~::;. $ 1,250 $ 1,250 11 All Other Sa/vices & SupplieQ $ 7J,084 $ 71,684 12 Contract Svcs. General $ 126,000 $ 126,000 13 Contract Svcs. Prof SVt;S Heimb $ 9U4,570 $ 904.570 14 Capital Outlay $ 6,250 $ 6,250 15 16 17 18 - 19 - 20 - Subtotal: $ 1,133,201 $ . $ 102,631 $ 1,030.57U 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 2:J Legal $ ~8,979 $ 48,979 24 Finance $ 149,352 $ 149,352 25 All Other Allucations $ 259,733 $ 259,733 26 - Total Indirect CosllO: $ 609 832 $ 609,832 D) Total Co.110 $ 3,341,133 $ . $ 1,473,698 $ 1 ,867,435 T olallndirect Coats: 1,473,698 Totl;:\1 Oirect Sal & 6enSB + Reimb consulWnl COBI:8~ 1,741,435 Calculated Indirect Cost Rate: 84.63% 15 ;),C) -.., j~,1 '-" IV. ENGINEERING DIVISION The Engineering Division is responsible for overseeing the qe~ign and construction of both public improvements and private development. T echnkal services provided by thi, division include: project development, de,ign, survey. inspection and contract administration. This division is also responsible for monitoring various city capital improvement project,. Th.. total costs of all engineering servkes (induding non fee, capital projects and consultant costs) are $3,399.981. For most fee services, the Engineering Division collects a deposit for each new development project and charge, actual staff time spent on each project against these deposit accounts. PRM ha' r..commended 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 ,....n on the following page. The following is a review of findings and re(otnmendation~. . Fee-for-service co,t, total $2.217.737 and ar.. offset by current revenue, of $1,480.205 This translat..s Into an overall user fee cost recovery rate of 670/0. Please note, these numbers include consultant costs and revenues. . PRM has analyzed many Engineering DivLsiom in other dties and finds the City's cost recovery rate to be on the middle to lower end of recovery rate~. . The Engineering division recommends increasing the hourly rate and consultant overhead charge to 100% of fully burdened cost,. The,e adjmtment, could lead to a potential increa,e in revenuo of $737.532 and increase their fee recovery ievei to tOO%. . -l'he Engineering division closely reviewed and revised its current fee and development deposit srhedule. They hJve made adjustments to reflect the new hourly rate. Staff recommends that this revised schedule be adopted. . There are a few flat f€!1? servk€~ 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 increas€~. . Currently an overhead rate of 25% i, charged on all consultant and contract work. The Engineering division proposes to increase that amount to 59 640/0. based upon the analysis of indirect costs performed by staff and PRM. The current rate does not cover the costs incurred by consultants wurking at City Hall. PRM dev..lcped fully burdened hourly rate, tor all staff within this division. Thele hourly rates were calculated to indude staff salary and benefit" proportionate service and supply COlt" internal departmental administration. and citywide overhead co~ts. A blended or composite rete for this divi~ion i~ recommended for two r..a'ons: fint. it helps the public/cu,tomer to understand th.. charge, and second. it help, city ,taff to rewrd, report and estimate revenue. The rate, on thE following pagel may be wed to determine fEes for services that do not lend themselves to a fixed. or average. cost analysis. but are beth;r ,harged on an actual tim€-and-expense basis. They can also be u~ed to determine fees for servkes or progra.ms that may be developed at a later date. 16 *Notes; 30 Ot~5 (.... GITI OF DUBLIN ENGINEERING DIVISION" FEE/DEPOSIT SCHEDULE $arvicEli Name Currant F'l;lEli Leval Recommended Fee Level TyFJe' of Charge 2 Gr~.9.i.'~g..petll1it..... Gradin Pellna 151-1,000 c. Gradin PCllns 1 k. 9.999 c. . grading pcnnsp 1 Ok. 1 OOk c,y,_ Gradrn PCllna ;lo100kc. $10 $10 Flat fee .-..-.-...---.......-...-...-----.- ,,-_... $0.20 ~ er cubic erd $0.15 w er cubic ard $0.03 - 'p'~r I?~.~i.~. .Y.~rd $0.01. r cubic arel $100.00 T&M De ait:ir De osir . .._...P.~p~~.Lr._._.__. De oBit:ir Flat fee Deposit:ir De OBit'" 3 $0.20 - er cubic ard $0.15 - er cubic ard $0.03 - per cubic yard $0.01 - ar cubic ard T&M 7D~ ~(C;()~~!~.~~..~t.?~!?!_____..Q.l?pos.it.... 6% of construction costs 5% of construction costs D. it'" De ir Dc sir o. sir"" De sW Deposit" 4 5 B $99,00 T&M 11 5% of wnstruction costs 4.5% of constructiun custs 4.5% of t:onstruction costs .- ...-.--,,------.- 4 % of constructioh Gosls 3.5% of construction costs 3% of constructioh c.osls ..!~Oo.OO _------.!2..ep9.~r...._ $25.00 Flat fee $0.05 $0.04 $>5.00 $0,10 Flat fer.; . orl.f. Flat fee - per 1.1- ..__.._EI~!_~~~:.~:...~:~". f-Ietfee- er I.f, Gradin PCllns SFH Grading PCllnsp Subdivision Subdivision Ian chackin 7 8 9 10 T&M $20,00 FILltfea $20.00 Flat feB $~f.t.OO f-IRtfP.P. $200.00 FI8t fBB $20.00 Hfltfee $0.04 Flat fee ~ ers.f. $110,00 Flat fee ....". -. $220.00 Flat feB $165.00 Flat fee I 1)/1ro~it.~ will hI! 1J1l~:t!d un il City O/<;;il"tr:/11", t!;;litljatioit f1rhl!LjY.~ TIf;I'I;';t>sary Iv ct!mphde: Ihe prf!iel'l. Ill/;! FJ1<;;itJ~t!yjJ'Jg di7)i.~jOlt 1i00lrly rlltt! f1j$.I2il. 'If:, will b.:.- used [IJ I..:hl~1S(' flguinsf all dl:posit~, Rl:mfiinmg h.mds fiw71 {my [lppliL'ullt dl:posl/ wzll be ndrmdl:d 2, All aMitwm~1"i91i4~~ 1~.lmmisI1"liliv{~ fee will ~ IU/lkd tv ul/ cum;ullllnl seT/11l"t'S. 3 Ff:t' t'~rim.llt!.S do twt include StaJ! time tar dl'pllrfmcnls other {him LflgmU1"ltlg. Subdivi.~.i~n 1~.sJ~,,<$50k Sub Ins $50-'100k Suh In~ $100-200k Sub Ins $ 200-3501< Sub It1S $ 350-6uOk Sublns $GOO-1mill Sub Itl::;P ;-$1 miUi,?h 7% of cotlstructiotl costs 6% ot construction coats 12 13 It % or construction cosls 14 3.5% of construction costs 15 16 17 18 19 3% of construction costs StrA~t mOnlJment $500.00 Street excavation u to 500 I.f. $,5.00 $0.05 $0.04 $2b.OO $0.15 Street excavation 501-3k 1.1. .....---.. Street eXcaviJtion >~k I.L 20 21 Conatr con.~.~.~~k, curb, Ht~r ~~,,~.~ u. Congtr cone: gdwll<, CI,rb, ttr"l> 501.t. 22 23 c..?~~.~~.~tr1g ~()tlC:~8IB dt'ivl:1~~Y.___ Constrctng drain ~~~.~.~<:,~.~.ole & c,?~~~clions Mavin IF.llr e oh"ects $20.UO $20.00 $25.00 $200.00 $20.00 $0,04 24 25 Builditlg moving I:~~~t.:s_ f)F.llvin A.C curb/. ttr to fiOO s.f. 26 27 Pavin A.G. curbl ttr >500 s.f. 7.8 .....~IJildin9 division . permit refe~~~.! .:!.e~i.denital New fee 29 B.~~!dins..~ivision permit referral- non resdntl ADA site com liF.lnce review New fee 30 New fee 17 310t5;-2- CITY OF DUBLIN ENGINEERING FISCAL 2004/2005 I Blended oV'srhsl;ld rates I Full Cost Hourly Rates Hourtv Position FTE Salary Benefit. OvemsEld Totlll 1 City Engineer 1.00 $ 71.86 $ 28.75 $ 60.01 $ 160.61 2 Sr Civil Enginee.r 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 A550ciate 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.S7 6 Engineering T Bch II 1.UO $ 40.39 $ 16.16 $ 33.73 $ 90.29 7 Part tit'T1e EtlgitIBBt' 0.60 $ 62.22 $ 24.89 $ 51.96 $ 139.07 8 Part time Engineer 0.75 $ 59.32 $ 23.73 $ 49.53 $ 132.5R 9 Inspector 3.00 $ 5'1.23 $ 22.89 $ 47.79 $ 177.91 ICumposite Rate/ 1 1 II $ 57.341 $ 22.94 I $ 47.881 $ 128.161 These hourly rates were calculated to include 5taff salary and benefits. proportionate servke and 5upply costs, internal departmental arlrnini5tration, and citywide overhead C:O!;l.ts. Hourly salary rate is calculated by dividing anmlal 5alary by "I ,ROO prnductive hours. Hourly benefi1 rate of 40,01 % is applied to hourly 581ery ratE!, Hourly overhsF.ln rate of 59,64% is applied to hourly salf::lry pillS bsnef!tR, This overhead rate includes a portion for Public Wurks Cldtl1inistmtion including the Public Works. Director Blond&d ovolfwad rate for both CIty staff and consultants. Consultant chargos would have 8 59,64% overhead charge, 'lfNoIB. The compos/It;! r~/t;J ifiJ ws/ghlsd by billable hours per pCJSItIOn. 18 31- U- r- ':; 2.- , CITY OF DUSL.IN ENGINEERING FISCAL. 2004/2005 Indirect Cost Rate Proposal Unallowablel Allowable TOlaICo... Allowable Di....ot DESCRIPTION OF COST Direct Services Indintct A) Pe,,"onnel Anelysl.: 1 Salary and Wages $ 1,165,872 $ 159,509 $ J ,006,363 Distribution %. 100.00% 13.68% 86.32% 2 Temporary & Overtime $ - $ - 3 Benefits 4n,OI96 $ 466,415 $ 63,813 $ 402.602 Subtotal: $ 1,632,287 $ 223,321 $ 1,408,966 B) Other Operating Exp@nses; 4 OfficE;! Supplil;!5 $ 7,560 $ 7,560 5 Pustage $ 4,045 $ 4,045 6 Communications $ 6,905 $ 6,905 7 Training $ 5,000 $ 5,000 8 Rentals & Les!3es $ 1,735 $ 1,7'35 9 Mileage & Auto Allowanr:e $ 9,350 $ 9,350 10 Opet'atitlg Suppli~5 $ 3,400 $ 3,400 11 All Other Servicas & Supplies $ 60,143 $ 60,143 12 Contract Svcs - Ganeml $ 67,295 $ 67,295 13 Contract Svcs: - Gcncrall:::ng $ 52,515 $ 52,615 14 Contract Bves - Traffic Engr Svc $ 47,165 $ 47155 15 (;nnlr~d Svr:s - Private Rp.iITIb $ 608,895 $ 60R,R~5 16 Contract SVcs ~ Assess Oist F.ngr $ lJ,500 $ 11,500 17 Capitcal Outlay $ 7,065 $ 7,065 J8 - 19 - 20 - Subtotal: $ 892,673 $ - $ 105,203 $ 78/,4/0 T ctal Depenmental Expenditu'e.: $ 2,524,960 $ - $ 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 Admih 346,448 346,448 25 All other allucations 269,017 269,017 26 - T otall ndirect Costs: $ 875 021 $ 875,02J D) Total Co.t. $ 3,399981 $ . $ 1,203,545 $ 2,196436 T otall ndi....ct Cost.. 1,203,545 Total Direct Ssl & Bensa + Reimb Gonl;luttant coats~ 2,017,861 Calculated Indirect Cost Rate. 59.64% 19 '7? ...J-' r\- ,-:': 2... v.J. ~ , , V POLlCE The majority of com incurred for Police ,ervice, are not related to u,er fee ,ervice,. $11.1 million of the $11.2 million total operating costs have beEl'n identified and set aside as "all other nonrfee ~ervices" Service costs related to fee activitie, total, $141.293 and are currently offset by $27,675 in revenue - an overall cost recovery level of 20%. A brief discussion of ,orne of the services provided by Police that are recovered through u,er fee, follow" . The range of recommended cost of services recovery is from 150/0 to 100010. . The market rate analy,is for the Police Department indicate, that their taxicab related fees are extremely low. whkh 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 Al,o, 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 80/0 of the costs incurred. . The single largest potential revenue source is the release fee for towed and stored vehlcle~. Currently. a fee of $25 is being charged. This is recovering 22Q/o 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 <auld be generated, . The Police Department has carefully reviewed the fee study results and has made SEparate recommendations to each service. . If all fee re<ammendations are adopted. a potential $92.270 in fee revenue could be realized. This would be an increase of $64,5YS or 2330/0. The summary chart, on the follOWing pages show the result' of thi, department', cost analysi" The firit page provid€s inform<;l.tion on a "Per Unit" basis. The second page provide~ total annual information by multiplying tIle 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 olD ublin Police 200412005 Recommendations A.nrmal 100% cf Full Cast Reoovf! ry Fee@ Subsidy @ S at)' ice Name Ser"ic-e Type Current f as- %- of Full Cost Currellt Subsid'f Recommened Recomme-Ilded Recommended ....olume Cost level {% l Le...el le...el 1 Second hand [JO(lds,'T unk deale r Fe. 2 S35 17% $201 $160 50% $100 $101 2 Peddler oermit Fee -- .- 7 S50 260/0 $192 $142 78% $150 $42 - ---- - 3 Parade permit Fee 3 $60 33% $161 $121 50% $90 $91 4 Public address sound s," slam Fee 1 S60 4&% $129 $6~ 58% $75 $54 ~ 5 Dance Ilermit Fee 1 $60 29% $2W $15D 48% $100 $1\0 .. 7 Taxicab owner Fee 14 $30 6% $491 $461 51% $250 $241 8 Taxicab ope-rator Fee 70 S30 10% $28~ $258 52% $150 $138 .. .. 9 M assaae Establish.ment . initial Fee 1 S60 ~ $353 $293 78% $275 $78 - 10 M ass.age__~~_tablisllme-n! . vearl... Fee 1 S50 22% $230 $180 54% $125 $105 11 Mass.aae Establistlmenl - lecn Fee 30 .50 24% $209 $159 72% $150 --~ ---~~- 12 Finqerprint card Fee 2112 S5 17% $30 $25 17% $5 $25 - ---- 13 V'lSa Letter Fee 450 $10 33% $30 $20 100% $30 $0 23 B irtQO permits Foo 1 $50 24% $206 $156 73% $150 $56 -- - 25 GUll dealer oormLt Foe 1 $5U 18% S273 $223 73% $200 $73 26 Police report I Ins_ \I-a-rfctn F.. 78.5 $2 15% $13 $11 15% $2 $11 --. 27 S Ilooena duoes tee:um State sel 7 $15 23% $65 $50 23% $15 S50 28 1 day ABC pemt F.. W $25 38% $66 $41 53% $3.5 $.31 29 Mise:. non schoo Dermit F.. 1 $10 5% 5192 $182 47% $90 $102 - J2 Towed/stored ...ehicle release F.. 391 $25 22% .115 $90 100% $115 $0 33 Fix if ticket sian off Fe. 12 $15 33% 145 $30 33% $15 $30 N ~ l~ J::-. '~l 'J l'\ ~ USER FEE STUDY SUMMARY SHEET . PER UNIT INFORMATION. City of Dublin Police 200412005 a) b) Recommendations Allnual 100% of Full Cost Recovery F..@ Sub,Kly @ Service Name SelO'Jr:e Type Curre nt Fee % of Full Gust Curre nt Subsid~ Reoommer\€d Reoommende<l Recommended ....olume Cost Lo,ell%) Level Le...el .~~~ P ark:l...~ cite - admln review F.e 174 $25 41% $61 $36 410/0 $25 $35 35 Li...e scan Fe, I $0 0% $35 $35 8.50/0 $30 S5 36 False alarm resoonse Fee 1 $0 0% 5077 $677 00/0 $677 38 Ch~ld safe~ seat jt)SP. Fe. 112 $0 0% 184 $84 300/0 $25 $59 ---~~-- 39 Taxicab OWrte r - initial F.e 4 $0 0% S619 $619 480/0 $300 $319 40 RelJossesse<! Vehicle Release Fee 35 $15 62% $24 $9 620/0 $15 $9 41 Fortune Teller Pennit New Fee I $0 0% $224 1224 &90/0 $2QO $24 42 Pri'/affi PropertylNon-lni'UJ'V Ace. New Fee - hourty I $0 0% $154 1154 00/0 $154 43 JurisdictioMl Fix it Ticket sion off New Fee- I $0 0% $45 $45 0% $(l $45 a) The firsf three false aknms are free. The 4th, Sth and 6th responses will be charged af $75. $250 and $325. respecrively b) Tros fee will not be ch8rgP.d to residents of Dublin. N N rj! U\ I) ry U\ ('.l USER FEE STUDY SUMMARY SHEET -TOTAL PROGRAM INFORMATION- City of Dubl i n Police 200412005 Recommendations Revenue @ Re'ler.LJe @ 1{10% Cost Reco...ery Reven ue @ I ",creased Se lVi-ce Name Servi-C8 T 'fpe % of Fu11 Cost CUlTS nt Subsidy Recommended Recommended CUlTe nt Fee FultCosl Level 1% ) Le'/el R avenue 1 Seoond hand (]oodSI~ u nk dealer Fee S70 17% $402 $3J2 50% $2(J0 $130 -- 2 Peddler De rmit Fee S350 26% $1.341 $991 73% _. $1,050 1----- $700 J Parade nennit Fee S180 3J~'i:. $543 $363 50% 11270 $00 ~u~i_c address soulld s\'stem Fee $60 46% $129 $69 5&% $75 $15 5 Daoce oo-rmit Fee $60 29'% $21" $150 43% S100 $40 7 T axic.ab owne r FoRe 5420 6% $6,367 $6,447 51% $3,SOO $3,030 -- ..-- g T axic.ab ODerato..- Fee 112,100 10% $20 1 77 $18,G77 52% $10,500 $8.400 --- -. 9 Mass.aqa Establishment - initial Fee $60 17% $353 $2ll3 78% 11275 $215 - 10 Massaae Establishment. "eariy" _ ~ Fee $50 22~"o $2J() $180 54% .125 --~ r1-~_MasSllQe E:stablishmer.t - tech Fee $1,5()O 24% $6,266 $4,766 72% $4,500 $3,000 12 Finaervri nt CBrd Fee $1,460 17%. $8,804 $7,344 17% $1,460 ~ ----- 13 Visa Letter Fee $4,5()0 33% $13,517 $9,017 100% $13,5()0 t9 ,000 23 B inlE DefTT'lits Fee 550 24% $206 $1511 73% $150 $100 .-- -- t--~--- 25 Gun deale r oe rmit Fee $50 18% $273 $223 73% $200 $150 -- 26 Police reoort 1 IllS. VerFdn Fe. $1.570 15% S10,521 $8,951 15% $1,570 $0 --- 27 SlJooena duces lecum State set $105 23% $458 $353 23% $1ll5 $0 - 28 1 da... lI..BC oe rmit Fee $25() 38% $656 $400 53% $35() .100 - 29 Misc;. non sched permit Fe. $10 5% $192 $182 47% $00 $80 32 T o'h'Sdlstored vehide release Fee $9,775 22% 545,119 $35,344 100% $44 ,965 $35 190 l>> S- J 0- N l'\ w C'"' USER FEE STUDY SUMMARY SHEET - TOTAL PROGRAM [NFORMA TION- City ofDublin Police 200412005 Recommendations Revenue Ig Re\' I:! nue @ 100a,.'D Cost .R eco'le'1' R e'lenLJe @ Increased Service Name Set'\' ice Type % of Full Cost C urrenl S ubsicly Recommended Recommet1ded Ourrenl Fee Full Cost La,el!%) Level Reveflue 33 Fix it ticket sian off Fee $180 33% $539 $359 33% $180 $0 -- ~~aTk~g cite - admin review Fe. S4,350 41% _$lo,~_ $6,235 41% $4,350 $0 35 Live scan Fee $0 0% $35 $35 85% $30 $30 -- ~ ~~~8 alarm response Fee $0 0% $677 $677 0% $0 $0 38 Chikl safet'J' seat insD. Foe $0 0% $9,453 $9,453 30% $2,800 $2,800 39 Taxicab owner - initia.l Fe. $0 0% $2,478 $2.473 48% $1,200 $1,200 .---- 40 R e-possessed Vehickl Re-lease Fee $525 02"" 5842 $317 62% $525 $0 41 Fortuf)8 T elklr Pe-rmit New Fee $0 0% $224 $224 89% $200 $200 u 42 Private PrQ-.DertviNon.l111 ury~cc. New Fee 4 hourl~ $0 0% $154 $154 0% $0 $0 43 J uris.dictiollal Fix it Ticket stan off New Fee- $0 0% $45 $45 0"" $0 $0 ---- Total User Fees % of Full Cost $27,675 20'4 $141,293 100% $113,618 80% $92,270 1>5% $64,595 46% l~ I '-J CJ \J ~ N L'\ "'" rJ 3~ D-b'52- 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 a<<i't with the financing of affordable hou,ing unit, for City re,idents. While molt of the work a<<ociated with the Housing Divl,ion i, non-fee related, there are a few ,ervice, for which a fee could be charged_ W. 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 e'tablish for the processing of ownership unit<, rental development' and refinancing of unit,,. . Approximately 75 ownership unit< are being processed every year The full co,t of providing this service is $1,681 per unit. Thi, re,ult, in an annual ,ub,idy of $126.075 (Note, the Hou'ing In Lieu Fund i, absorbing this subsidy)_ The Housing division recommend, adopting a flat fee of $1.500 for thi, ,ervice. Thi' neW fee could create $112.500 in additional revenue and reduce the City ,ub,idy of thi, service to $13,575. . Approximately 75 rental developments are being processed every year The full Lost of providing this service is approximately $867 per unit. This re,ult, in an annual ,ubsidy of $64,993 Th. Housing Division recommend, adopting a flat fee of $500 for thi, service. Thi, now f.e 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 rost of providing this service is approximately $1.009 per unit. This results in an annual subsidy of $10.085. The Hou,ing Division recommends adopting a flat fee of $200 for thi, ,ervice. Thi, new fee could create $2,000 in revenue and reduce the City subsidy of this service to $8,090. . If all rel;ommendatiom arc adopted the Housing Division could potentially generate $152.000 in fee rela.ted revenue. The summary <:harts on the Following pages show the results of this division's cost analysis. The firH page provide, information on a 'Per Unit" basis. The second page provide, total annual information by multiplying the per-unit fees and co>ts by the volume of activity in order to project out total annual co~H and revenues. 25 USER FEE STUDY SUMMARY SHEET - PER UNIT TNFORMA TION - City of 0 u blin Housing 20M/200S Recommendations ServicE! Annua.l 100% of Full CUlTellt Cosl Recovery Fee @ R e<:omm Subsidy @ Sarv.ice Name Current Fee % of Full CiloSt Reoomm Le'/e~ hne Volume Cast Subsidv '''''' Level R ecomm Level 1 Ownership Units New Fee 75 $0 0% $1,681 $1.631 89% $1,500 $181 2 Rental Develo[]ments f'..IAwfAe 75 $0 0% SIl67 $367 58% $500 $307 -~---- 3 Refi nance Cha.rQe I\Iswfee 10 $0 0% $1,009 $1,1lOO 20% $200 $009 4 All other activity NonfeP. 1 $0 0% $707,Ml6 $707,400 0% $0 $707,Ml6 (),} S' ,-., N 0) 'Iy /''-, _'1 [0 USER FEE STUDY SUMMARY SHEET "TOTAL PROGRAM INFORMATION- City of Dublin H DUsing 200412005 Recommenda#ons Set\'lr.e R 8'/enUE! @ R avenue @ 1 OD~'D Cost Recov 131)' Rev-entle @ Increased Service Na.me % of Full Cost Currant S UbSLOY Racomm Leval T"pe Current Fee Full Cast (~I Recomm Leval Re'/enue 1 Ownershio Units New fe~_ $0 f- 0% $126,075 $126,075 89% $112,500 $112,500 --------"" 2 Rental Deve IODITIent::; New fee $0 0% $04,993 $64.9~3 58% $37,500 $37,500 3 Refillance C harae New fee $0 0% $1 G,085 $10,08.5 20% $2,000 $2,000 4 All ather activit)' Non fee $0 0% $707,4()6 $707.405 0% $0 $0 Total User Fees $0 $201,153 $201,153 $152,000 $!52,DOO % of Full Cost 11% 100~ 100% 76% 76~ T ami Other Services $0 $707,4()6 $707,406 SO $0 % of Full Cost II~ 100% 100% 0% 0% Department T omls $0 $908.559 $908,559 $152,000 $152,000 % of Ful! Cast 0% 100% 100% 17'1> 17% .L Q a 0---' c\ t'-' N ...., L\ \ D-,"~ L. CITY OF DUBLIN FEE SCHEDULE FOR: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERING POLICE (Excluding Development Impact Fees and Housing In Lieu Fees) EFFECTIVE DATE- JULY 1,2006 ATTACHMENT 2 --.. ---- For More Infornlatl A. Building Pc at the time Detcrminahon (If t occupancy, type of Codes, 2000 Unifo National Electrical I. For Sing living ar 11- For MuJ living ar Ill. For Resl IV For All ( -- Total V $0-$50 $501-$ $I,UUI- $2,UUI- $3,OUI- ~..._._. $4,001- ----..,., $5,001- $10,00 $50,00 $IUU,UU $5UU,UU m~",",.~ 'The determination Y2 o b '=-, L BUILDING DIVISION on on the Rates and Fees Listcd below, Contact the Building Division at 833-6620 rmit Fees (See the City's "Permit and Impact Fee Schedules" for other fees due of building permit) he total valuation used for calculating thc building pcrmit fce due is based on construction and estimated cost of services, the 1997 Uniform Building and Housing nn Plumbing and Mechanical Codes (witb 2001 California Amendments), and 2002 Code (with 2UU4 California Amendments) Ie-Family Rcsidenccs (Type V - Wood Frame), the rate IS $115 OO/square foot of ea and $35.00/square foot of garage tl-Family Residences (Type V Wood Frame), the rate is $140.00/square foot of ea and $61 13/square foot of garage 'dential Additions (Type V - Wood Frame), the current rate IS $80.00/square foot lther Projects ._.-._.....__..._....._~- aluation of Residence Buildin~ Permit Fee .-...-".-..- 0 $4U ~.."" _..~...,,-~ 1,000 $<)0 ._c...... _...~_..._-- - ~_... $2,UUU $130 ~~ -~.,.~~,...~_._. -~.,,,~~,.~_... . -- $3,UUU $170 ._._--~ ~... .--~.._.._..._._"-,, -- $4,UUU $210 ---...---.- -~~,QQQ-_. $25U $10,000 $25U for thc first $5,00U plus $3U for each $1,000 or li-achon thereoflo and mcluding $10,000 ".. 1-$5U,UUU $400 [or the first $10,000 plus $20 for each $1,000 ,--_....~-~-_..........-.. or fraction thereofto and ineluding $50,000 1-$100,000 $1,2UU for the first $5U,OUO plus $12 for each $I,UUU _ o~.f~lteti~I!_t!!~~of t~~tl.il1.e.1~~!!1~J 1 UU,UUU 1-$5UU,OUU $1,800 for the first $100,000 plus $10 for each $1,000 or fraction thereof to and in eluding $500,000 ... 1 and up $5,800 for the first $500,000 plus $6 for each $1,000 or fraction thereof of the valuatiollshall he made by the Building Official. BUILDING DIVISION (Continued) L\~ DD-'-~L For Demolition pemlits and rcmoval (If underground tanks thc Icc shall be 50% of the fee calculated based on the valuation of thc work. For reroofing other than smgle-family dwellings the fee shall be 50% of the fee calculated based on the valuation oflhe work. B. Other Building Division Fees The provISIons of this part supersede the provisions of Part A for the specific work involved in single- family dwellings and appurtenant accessory structures where there IS no other construction work except the item listed hercin. Motors Electrical Cir ---~ Scrvice Name Fee Service _~.'m~.. Explanation Codes $70 1 -....... ,. cuits $65 + $20 each 2 addihonal cIrcuit -.-.... ",,' pliances $60 3 ."",',. els $9U, plus $4U for 4 each additional nanel ._..",,~.,.. _.__"~'..n osal $6U 3 - ..- -.---- ture $6U 3,4 --- --- System $70 6 - "._..~. ystem $6U 6 -_.,- ler ~~tem $8U 7 ~._.'.,'--_... rr $60 8 -. ning System $60 8 ..'" "..~ $50 8 -.~~ --.- ._".'.,~-,- an $60 9 ..,~ ..,.--.....-..--.- ert $6U 10,11 ".._- a Portable $7ll 12 ~""" $240 13 -_..'_.~..~~ '11 gatlOns $124 14 -,~.'".~.. ..~~ Electrical Ap Electneal Pan . Garbage Disp Plum~ing hx Water Plpi~g Gas PI m1;;_S Lawn S nnk Heater S)::sl\!. Air Conditio Water Heater Ventilation F Fire lace Ins Hot Tub I S Re-rooJ1n S ecial Tnves 1 For installation, rcloeation or replacement of any motor (not an integral part of an integral part of an electrical appliance, fan, heating applianec, cooling appliance), generator, heater, electrical furnace, welding machine, transformer, and rectified (mdudes all necessary circuits, outlcts, fixtmes, sWItches, controls). 2. For mstallatlOn, alteration or replacement of an electrical circuit (includes all neeessary outlets, switches, rcecptacles, and hghtmg fixtures). 3 For installatIon, relocation or rcplacement of any electrical appliance which requires plumbmg installal10n such as garbage disposal, dishwasher, etc., (ineludes all nceessary circuits, outlets, sWItches, reeeptaeles, fixturcs, water plpmg, and waste and vent piping). 4 For installation, reloeatwn or replacement oftcmporary power poles, power pedestals, subpanels or scrvice upgrades (meludes all ncccssary circuIts, outlets, switches, receptaeles, fixtures). BUILDING DIVISION (Continued) Y4 o-b~L 5 For lTIstallation, relocation or replacement of each plumbing fixture or trap (includes all necessary watcr, drainage and vent piping). 6. For each installation or alteration of each water piping system, gas plplllg system, or refrigerant pipmg system or portion thereof where fixtures or appliances arc not installed. 7 For any lawn spnnkler or Imgation sprinkling system. 8. For the installation, relocation or replacement of each heating, cooling or refrigeration appliance (includes all necessary electncal ClfCUltS, outlets, fixtures, switches, receptacles, gas piping vents, water piping and duct work). (a) For the installatJon, relocation or replacement of each gas fired water heater (includes all necessary water and gas piping and vents). (b) For the lllstallation, rcloeation or replacement of each electrical water heater (includes all necessary water piping, clcctrical circuits, outlets, fixtures, receptacles, and sWitches). 9 For the installation, relocation or replacement ofventilatu)n fans connected to a single duct or outlcts, sWItches, reeeptaeles, fixtures and duct work). 10. For the lllstallation, relocation or replacement of each vent or factory-built chimney II For the installation of a solid burnlllg fuel appliance (ineludes all necessary electrical circuits, outlets, I1xtures, sWitches, receptacles, factory-built chimney). 12. For the lllstallation, relocation or replacement of any spa/hot tub; ineludcs all necessary oul1ets, receptaeles, gas piping (only for spas supported on a slab see Part A for spas located on decking) 13 For rerool1ng a smgle-fanlily dwelling. 14 Additional fees may apply for correction of violatIOns m any electrical, plumbing, or mechanical installation which is required as the result of a code compliance survey, lockout inspection, or other special investigation. This fcc shall be m addition to tile fees for any new installation made as part of the correction. Where the proposed work is not covered by the items listed in this schedule, or where special lllvestigations, cvaluations or mspeetions are requestcd or required, the fee shall be based upon the estimated time for processlllg, checking and inspecting set forth III this schedule. 1 For moved building inspection fee: $2U.00 for each 100 square feet. 2. For code comolianee survev: $20 00 for each I UU square feet or portion thereof. 3 Reinspeetion fee: $124.00 for each reinspeetion. For multi-family buildings the fee IS $124 UU per unit. BUILDING DIVISION (Continued) 4 '5 ('" J-- ~. 2- , 4 Fee for additional plan checking and for plan revisIOns: Actual cost rounded to the nearest dollar. 5. For servieS's where therc is no speci fic fee: Actual cost rounded to the nearest dollar. When services arc rcquested outside of regular working hours there sball be a 4~hour minimum. Ii In vlant insveetions: Actual costs ineluding mcals, lodging, and transportation % rounded to the nearest dollar 7 Plan storage fee: $1000 (applies to plans required to be prcpared by a profeSSIOnal engineer or arehitcct). 8. Fees to review geologic reoorts required by the AloUlst-Priolo Soeeial Studies Zones Act: Actual cost roundcd to the nearest dollar C. Hourly and Overhead Rates Position Communit Develo ment Director Buildin OtTieial SeI.llor Building Ins eetor Semor Plan Checker Contract Plan Reviewer Contra"t Buildin Ins eetor HourI Rate $186.26 $129.51 $111.26 $111.26 $124 U9 $112.13 Com oSlte HourI Rate Indirect Cost Rate $123.52 49.51%, D. Construction and Demolition Compliance Fees Service Name Construction and Demolition Compliance Fee - Residential Plan Check ConstructIon and Demolition Compliancc Fee -,- Commercial Plan Check Fee $104 $630 .'.'..-.."-~..,...,- PLANNING DIVISION Y ls c:cb"3 L- For More Infomlation on the Rates and Fees Listed below, Contact the Plunmng D,vIsIOn at ~33-66IU A. Fees .."~ '"-.- Service Name Fee !ypical Deposit* Major Amendmen!.t?_PD (CC) T&M $7,0..00-$20,UUU -'~~ Minor Amendment to ~p (PC) $1,920 N/A .- Minor AmendmenU.~ PD (Admin) $512 N/A --- Condominium Conversion T&M $15,000 ~,--_.,.., -'''''..',,".. - '~..._..- .--.. -.. ~!"l1d ~aster Sign Program _,,___ T&M $5,000 CUP or SDE Time Extension Request (PC:L $646 N/A ... CUP or SDR.:Time Extension Request (AdrJ!!~) $129 N/A -. Aooeal General Public $175 N/A Appeal. Apolicant"c,,- ~..- _. T&M N/A -'~~-- ..........-.-- .M~or Temporary Use Penn!!.__..... $2UU + T&M Vanes ,,~,. Home Oe5:upation Review $65 N/A Provide 30q'..ra_dius Labels Jor Appheants asg",Cjuested $65 N/A "~_._.- Document ResearE~ & Preparation T&M $ IOU ~_. .-.. Planning RevIew through Building Permit Process T&M N/A (New Devel'?pment Only) .--...... n'. CEQA Categorical / Statutory Exemphon for $259 NlA Ne\\; Development -"''''''",.,~ -"~"'''~~ Inihal Stu~y and Negative Declaration.. ._. T&M $25,UUU+ w... Initial Stud>:~l~ Mitigated Ncgative Declara~!on T&M $25,UOU+ ... Initial Study and ETR T&M $50,000 I. ~'n",_ '-'-"--"" _q",I!.eral Plan Amendment T&M $10,000 ". Sneclfie Plan Amendment T&M $10,000 .,,",~ ....m..<l!l~ar~Rezoning T&M $10,000 .- c_ :planned Development T&M $10,000 ~-~~"" ~.."----, . Annual Review ofDA T&M $3,000 --,.,.-. -'",' Tentative SuhdlV1Sio!! Map T&M $1O,0~_l!.. "...'.... .I",ntative Parcel Map T&M $10,000 ~""',,._. --'.--..,. Master Siln! ProgranJ T&M $7,OUO -~~" ~~"" Sign/Site Development Review $129 N/A .~--._._- 13armer/Balloon PermIt ~!:_~Ign /balloon) $25 N/A .. .. SIte Development RevIew $14U + T&M Van es ---""....--.-- Site Development RevIew Waiver $25U N/A .c..._ ~'~,~ l..ljon-Residential CUP' PC __-. $I,UUU N/A .--- .-,~'- ~!!~8esidential CUp. ZA $75U N/A ,..- ~-"'''~'''.,-- ResIdentIal CLIP' PC $1,.~}2,,_.__ N/A "".'- ReSIdential CUP. ZA $1,939 N/A Davcure C..!;'nter CUP (15+ children) "..,"".". ..~.~. $500 N/A ..",,,,~ - -,.~.__. Large F~ily Dayeare CUP ( 9-14 el~!I.dTen) $100 N/A CUP Minor Amend. (Admin) $646 N/A .--. .~_._,,_..,.~, PLANNING DIVISION (Continued) L\-l Ub~'?..... -- _ _~~,._w ,..., -.- Service Name Fee Typical Deposit n__ ....W"....n B~Il:Resldential Variance $1,939 N/A ,...._,.'.. .-.- ResldentJal Variance $1,939 N/A --- --- Minor Temporary Use Pcrmit $200 N1A _0_'.".,.--- "N__ ZOlllng Clearanec $50 N/A .~.._'- ,~.,..-- --.".. ".~. '_W". *Note: Deposits will be based on a City planner's initial estimate of hours necessary to complete the project. However, additional deposits may be requlred from tile developer at a later date. Any remaining funds from an l;lJ>2Iieant will be refunded after the e~l!-.!Eletion ofthc project. B. Hourly and Overhead Rates -'""'"~ Position HourIv Rate -- Community Development DIreet?r $186.26 Phuming Manager $178.51 ~.._~ Senior Planner $140.73 ~",. Associate Plarmer $112.38 ... ,.~-- Assistant Planner $110.21 Code Enforcement Officer $102.75 ~.~,,,~,. ~. ,,-~-,~.,_.__. ._~'.,"" _G?ll.!p()_site Hourly Rate $129.27 .. --- Indirect Cost Rate S4 63 'Yo -- ! , HOUSING DIVISION Y t Ob":.J-"Z- For More Information on the Fees Listed below, Contact the Housmg DlVlSlOn at 833-6610 Fees Service Name Ownership Units Rental Developments Refinance Charge Fee $I,50U $5UO $2UU · Ownership Unit Fee: All Affordable Home Ownership Umt Fee of $1,50U fee is being recommended for the adnllmstrahon of the "for sale" Inelusionary lTmts for the set time period (55 years) that the units are under the Resale Agrecment restrichons. ThIs fee will apply when any of the following occur: . The 1l1lhal purchase, including all mcome review, loan document review, preparation, and coordinahon wIth other entities in the buying process. comprises the annual momtonng of each Inclusionary Unit. City document The fee also . Any Juture loan that the City may provide through a future First Time Homebuyer Program (<;ovenng the same kind of income verificatIOn, document preparation, etc.) and; . Every time thcrc is a change m ownership for an individual property Tn all cases, the fee will be added to the expenses that arc part of the home purchase, and will be eollectcd at cscrow closmg. · Rental Development Fee: A $500 per unit fec for Developers of apartment complexes (with TncluslOnary Units) is recommended - to be imposed at thc issuance of building pcmlltS. Staff is propOSll1g this developer fee for the administration of the Inelusionary Umts, for the 55"year period that these units are restncted m rents. · Refinance Charge Fee: A $200 Fee for subordination of other document preparabon, after purchase, is also rccommcnded. Refimmemg of an Inelusionary Unit requires the City to subordinate the Resale Agreement or, m the case of a First Timc Homebuyer Loan, the loan. This fee is being reeommendcd [or the Staff tnue involved in providing the suhordmatlOll (smce this task requires contact with a Title CompanylEscrow Officer, coordination with the firm and/or the lender, and often the homeowner). The fce would be collected by the escrow firm at escrow c1osmg. ENGINEERING DIVISION yq Gt~ 2. For Information on the Rates and Fees Listed below, Contact the Engmeering Division at 833-6630 A. Fees ~."'-,.,~. ..."~,- Service Name Fee Type of Fee ~,., --- Grading permit $10 UU Flat fee Grading Plan Check (PC)/Inspeetion(lnspl 151-1,000 cubic vards (e.y 1 $U.2U - ocr cubic vard Deposit'" --, ...,.,.-- SJradmg PC/lnsp Ik- 9,99.9.~c.-y .JQ_15 - per cubic yard Deposit'" M_n Gradu"!g PC/lnsp 10k - lOOk e.y $0 03 - oer cubic yard Deposit'" "'" Grading PC/iI1s.r. >100k c.y $0.01 - per cubIc vard e-- Deposit'" -", ~.~" Jk.~<!!ng PC/Insp SFH $IUO UO Flat fee ....,. ,-~" Grading PC/lnsp Subdivision T&M Dcposit'" Subdivision plan ehee~ing T&M Deoosit'" ....- ~~I':'}SIOn lnsp <$50k 7% of construction costs Deposit'" . .. "._-~.,~ Sub Tnsp $50-1 UUk 6% 0 l' constructIOn costs Deposit'" ., "' Sub Tnsp $100-2UUk SOl" or construCl1on costs Deposit'" .',".....-- .~-'''. ~ Sub lnsp $ 200-350k 4.5')'0 of construction costs Deposit'" .~ YW. 1>_":~.~JSp $ 35U-600k 4% of construction costs Deposit'" ..'".''' Sub Tnsp $6UUK -$ 1 million 3.5% of constructIon costs Deposit'" Sub lnsp ~$1 milhon 3% of construction costs q!,pO~!t'" Street monument $500.UU DepOSIt'" "^,_.,~~ ,,~~ '..".n_.'_ Street.!"xeavation up to 500 hnearfeet (1.f). $25 UO Flat fee Street excavation 5UI-3k 1.f. $005 Flat fee - per 1.f. .... - Street excavation >3k I.f $UU4 Flat lee - per I.f ,. ConstructmgE.oncrete sidewalk, curh, gutte.r to 5U 1.f. $25 00 ~,~.. 1:!:it fee - per 1.f Constructing concrete ~I<!e:valk, curb, gutter;' 50 Lf. $015 Flat fee - ner I. f. .~.'._.- Constructing concrete drivewav $2000 Flat fee Constructing dram inlet/manhole & connectIons $20.00 Flat fee -~"., ',.- .. . ~_..m _ .J\Joving large objects $25 UU Flat fee --."- "',. ,... Buildmg m?ving permits $200 00 Flat fee -~,.~" -,. Paving IA.c:') curb/gutter to SOU s.t: $20 00 Flat fee --..",," -'-",~ ,.. Paving (A.C ) "ur~/gutter -"5UU s.f. $U.U4 Flatfe~_rer s.f. ... Building division pemut referral- residcntial $llU UO Flat fee -_.~ .... . _."~ Building division permIt referral - non residenl1al $22U.UU Flat fee .""'"'..".--- -..---.... . ..ci[lA site compliance revIew $1650U Flat ree __.n. -----., "'Note: Deposits will be based On a City plaJJller's initial estimate (lfhours necessary to complete the pro) ect. However, additional depOSIts may be required from the developer at a later date. Any remaining llmds Iro,:" an applicant will be rerund!,~l after tile completion of the project. n... -- ENGINEERING DIVISION (Continued) '::Jb [ b'52- B. Hourly and Overhead Rates Position Hourly Rate . Cit):'}~l~g,l!~<:~.__." $16U.61 '_n..__ Semor Civil Engmeer $135.98 Senior Transportation Engineer $134.U6 Associate Civil Engineer $118.60 Assistant Ci vii Engil1~er $IU5.57 r?n~.!.I1",.':'!:l~Ig.!!"EhIllelaIlJL $9U.29 Part Time Engmeer $132.58-$139 U7 _."_.,~-,,--,.,~,,.,,- ....'''~".".".''''".,,' .,.~, .. Inspector $127 91 Composite Hourly Rate $128.16 Indirect Cost Rate 59.64% POLICE SERVICES - I r=:- -, '=:l CC"-' '-- For Information on thc Fces Listcd below, Contact Police ServIces at 833-6670 Fees Service Name Fee $30 $25 $300 $20U $100 $150 $9U $75 $100 $250 $150 $275 $125 $150 -- .,._~-,-_.,~~---- $5 '""......~~,...,' ..~. $30 $150 -"","'"~-'-"-""-~-~"""".. -~,..~ $200 $2 $15 $35 $<JU $115 $15 $25 $15 Livc Scan Non Resident Child Safet Taxicab Owner -- Initial Fortune Teller Pem11t Second Hand Goods/Junk Dealer Peddler Permit Parade Penmt ~~_._'.~-~.."- Public Address Sound S stem Dance Pcrmit Taxicab Owner Taxicab 0 erator _M.ass,,~~ Establishment - Initial Massa e Establishment::._'(early Massa (; Estabhshment - Tech Fin e rint Card Visa Letter Bin 0 Pcrmits Gun Dcaler Pcrmit Police Re orVlns ection Vcrification R~Eords Subpoena (Sub oena Duccs Tccum) I Da Alcohot Beverage Control Pennit Misc. Non-Scheduled Pem11t Towcd/Stored Vehicle Release Fix It Ticket Si n Off Parkin Citation - Admin Review Re ossessed Vehicle Release RESOLUTION NO. - 06 f::"'", (' ~ L. ....-J '-" "b A RESOLUTION O}' THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN ********* EST ABLISHING A REVISED FER SCHEDULE FOR THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, ENGINEERING AND FIRE DIVISIONS WHEREAS, At the November 16, 2U04 mceting, thc City Council awarded a contract to Public Rcsouree Managcment Group (PRMl to prepare a Cost Allocation Plan and a User Fee Study and WHEREAS, The purpose ofthe Cost Allocation Plan and Fee Study was to ensure that the City is utilizing thc overhcad rates, and accurately accounting and charging for the true cost of providing City services; and WHEREAS, Staff has developed a fee schedule for Commumty Development, Enginecring and Police based upon thIS study (excluding impact fees and housing in lieu fees charged on new development); and WHEREAS, The fec revisions contained in this fee schedule will be effeehve July 1,2006, and WHEREAS, the fees conlamed m thIS fee schedule shall be updatcd cvcry year with the next fee update to become effectIVe lJJ July 2007, and WHEREAS, an independent study of the City's Cost AllocallOn Plan and Fee Study shall be perfoillJed hy an oulslde consultant once every three years, Slmilar to what is currently done for tile City's ,anOLLS development mlpact fees" NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin adopt the revised fee schedule for Community Development, Engineenng and Pohcc_ PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 18th day of April, 1UU6, by the following vote' AYES NOES ABSENT ABST ATN Mayor ATTEST City Clerk G'\Consultants\PRM\Resolution for Fcc Schedule.doe ATTACHMENT 3