HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.1 Master Fee Schedule `,q Orfi
14101'�'—e� t STAFF REPORT CITY CLERK
CITY COUNCIL File #390-10
DATE: September 18, 2012
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM: Joni Pattillo, City Manager( ' e� . rad ,
SUBJECT: Adoption of Master Fee Schedule
Prepared by Kevin W. Harper, Consulting Project Manager
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
On September 4, 2012 the City Council received a report on a comprehensive user fee study
and adopted a policy related to User Fees. Based on the information presented, the City
Council concurred with proceeding with a public hearing to consider adoption of the fees on
September 18, 2012. The City's current fee and cost recovery model was adopted by the City
Council in April 2006 using budgetary data from Fiscal Year 2004-05. The proposed Master
Fee Schedule is based on a study completed by Capital Accounting Partners.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
The financial impact will be based on the activity levels after the new fees are adopted and in
place. There are both fees that will increase as well as fees that will decrease based on the
new methodology and the comprehensive analysis. Based on the activity levels included in the
Fiscal Year 2012-2013 adopted budget, an additional $400,000 would be recovered from user
fees each year if the proposed fees were adopted and in effect for the entire Fiscal Year. The
recommendations do not establish all fees at 100% recovery and the City would continue to
subsidize some services in accordance with the adopted policy. The actual increase in user fee
revenue for Fiscal Year 2012-13 will be less than $400,000 based on Staffs recommended
effective date of December 1, 2012 for the new fee schedule.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council conduct the public hearing, deliberate and adopt the
Resolution establishing a new Master Fee Schedule which will be effective December 1, 2012.
twig ,
Submitted By Reviewed By
Administrative Services Director Assistant City Manager
Page 1 of 4 ITEM NO. 6.1
DESCRIPTION:
The purpose of this report is to present the proposed Master User Fee Schedule for adoption by
the City Council.
Background
At the City Council meeting on September 4, 2012 the City Council received an informational
report related to the results of a comprehensive User Fee Study. The City Council at that time
also adopted a User Fee Policy as Resolution No.160-12. Attached to this Staff Report are the
following background documents: Attachment 1: The September 4, 2012 Staff Report;
Attachment 2: Comments from the July 11, Stakeholder Meetings; Attachment 3: Resolution No.
160-12 Establishing a User Fee Cost Recovery Policy; Attachment 4: User Fee Study
completed by Capital Accounting Partners, as presented at the City Council public meeting on
September 4, 2012. A correction of a typographical error in the September 4, 2012 Staff Report
is discussed below. These supporting attachments are part of the record for the public hearing.
Overview of Current Fees and Recommendation
The City's current fee and cost recovery model was developed using budgetary data from Fiscal
Year 2004-05 and was adopted by the City Council in April 2006. The fees have only been
updated since then to address the establishment of new fees.
The objectives of the User Fee Study and Cost Allocation Plan included the development of a
cost allocation plan and detailed calculations to determine the full cost of services. This
information was used by Staff to develop recommended fees.
In the September 4, 2012 report, Staff indicated that the last time a comprehensive fee study
was conducted it was completed based on 2004/2005 Budget data. Therefore, it is
understandable that the current study will have different results. In addition to expected
changes, with the current proposed overhead rates, Staff worked with the Consultants to
develop further refinements of the methodology. This required gathering data at a lower level
and segregating the estimated costs associated with Consultants outside the organization from
those who may receive additional support from City facilities. The reason for the additional
focus was to identify whether a methodology could be developed which would allow the City to
capture full costs and also be responsive to Developer comments regarding the use of a single
overhead rate for each department used for all consulting services.
The result of the proposed methodology is that overall, the overhead added to all contract
services is less, while the Staff hourly rates have increased. The new structure also allows for
the application of different overhead rates depending on whether the Consultant is working from
City facilities or has a remote presence. For those Consultants working from City facilities
additional overhead related to support functions has been provided. Having Consultants at City
facilities improves responsiveness to applicants and it allows for more efficient processing of the
work.
Attachment 5 is a proposed Resolution which, if adopted, will establish the new fees. As noted
earlier some fees increase while other fees are reduced. The proposed effective date for the
new fees is December 1, 2012.
Page 2 of 4
Correction of Table Showing Overhead (September 4, 2012 Staff Report)
On page 6 of the September 4, 2012 Staff Report was a Summary Table which was inconsistent
with the data in the proposed Master Fee Schedule and the Fee Study conducted by Capita'
Accounting Partners. The corrected schedule has been presented below. The proposed
overhead rate for Planning Services was incorrectly shown as 41% and it should have been 44
percent. This appears at the bottom of page 10 of the Report prepared by Capital Accounting
Partners (Attachment 4) and it also appears on page 14 of 25 on the proposed Master Fee
Schedule (Exhibit A - Attachment 5). The 41% rate only applies to the proposed outside
Engineering rates.
PERCENTAGE CITY OVERHEAD RATES APPLIED TO
COST OF SERVICES PROVIDED BY CONTRACT SERVICE PROVIDERS (Non City Staff)
CATEGORY CURRENT FULL COST PROPOSED
(Based on Fee Study)
PLANNING
Off Site — Consultants (New) 84.63% 44% 44%
On Site - Consultants 84.63% 54% 54%
BUILDING 49.51% 46% 44%
ENGINEERING
Off Site — Consultants (New) 59.64% 37% 37%
On Site - Consultants 59.64% 41% 41%
CITY ATTORNEY 84.63% or 44% 25%*
59.64%
CITY-WIDE GENERAL (New) N/A 44% 44%**
* Note Fee Schedule proposes to reduce the City Attorney overhead and phase in
an annual escalation over a four year period to bring it up to the full city-wide rate
of 44% (see further discussion below).
** Prior to the conduct of this Study, the City did not develop a City-wide overhead
rate. In this study, the City-wide overhead rate was calculated by Capital
Accounting Partners at 44% and will be used when new fees are developed before
the next user fee study is conducted and for overhead on other services not shown
in the Master Fee Schedule.
Timing of Proposed Fee Adjustment
As directed by the City Council on September 4, 2012, Staff did review options available for the
implementation of the new fees. Staff recommends the fees take effect on December 1, 2012.
The basis for this recommendation is twofold. First, with the new fees, there will a need for
additional set-up in the City computer system. Staff wants to have adequate time to insure the
set-up is efficient and to involve new Staff in the system changes in order to build an
understanding of the design of some of the newer fees and charges.
Page 3 of 4
The second reason for the date selected relates to requirements in State Law for changes in
Development Project related fees and charges. California Government Code Section 66017
provides in part:
"Any action adopting a fee or charge, or increasing a fee or charge adopted, upon a
development project, ... which applies to the filing, accepting, reviewing, approving, or issuing of
an application, permit, or entitlement to use shall be ... effective no sooner than 60 days
following the final action on the adoption of the fee or charge or increase in the fee or charge."
The adoption of the Master Fee Schedule is arranged to provide for a comprehensive listing of
fees in a single document and to have the fees managed as a single program. Segregating
selected fees will require duplicated staff time to implement fees on different dates. As noted in
the proposed Resolution (Attachment 5), Staff has made significant efforts to consolidate
multiple fees into a single document.
NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:
An informational notification was mailed in advance of the September 4, 2012 City Council
meeting advising Stakeholders of the Fee Study review and adoption schedule and the
availability of documents on the City website.
A published Notice was available in the Newspaper on September 7 and September 12, 2012.
The City mailed notices to a total of thirty-eight "Interested Parties" who have notified the City
Clerk of their interest in receiving notices regarding fee changes. In addition the City extended
the mailing to other contacts distributing a total of 97 Notices.
ATTACHMENTS: 1. September 4, 2012 Staff Report without attachments
2. Comments from July 11, 2012 public meetings on User Fee Study
and Cost Allocation Plan
3. Resolution 160-12 Establishing a User Fee Cost Recovery Policy
4. User Fee Study Completed by Capital Accounting Partners
5. Resolution Adopting a Master Fee Schedule, Including Exhibit A
"Master Fee Schedule"
Page 4 of 4
or
19 82
/ii � 111
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL
September 4, 2012
Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
Joni Pattillo City Manager""'
CITY CLERK
File #390 -10
Adoption of Proposed User Fee Policy and Review of User Fee Study Results
Prepared by Kevin W. Harper, Consulting Project Manager
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
This item will allow the City Council to adopt a policy related to User Fees and also provides
information on the User Fee Study results. The City Council has not previously had an
established formal policy related to User Fees. The City's current fee and cost recovery model
was adopted by the City Council in April 2006 using budgetary data from Fiscal Year 2004 -05.
Capital Accounting Partners recently completed a comprehensive analysis of City's costs
related to fees collected. Staff has provided an opportunity for review and input by stakeholder
groups. The City Council will be presented with the results of the Study for discussion prior to
considering adoption of changes in the fees. A public hearing is tentatively scheduled for
September 18, 2012.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
The financial impact will be based on the activity levels after the new fees are adopted and in
place. Based on the activity levels included in the Fiscal Year 2012 -2013 adopted budget, an
additional $400,000 would be recovered from user fees each year if the proposed fees were
adopted and effective for the entire Fiscal Year. The actual increase in user fee revenue for
Fiscal Year 2012 -13 will be less based on Staff's recommended effective date of December 1,
2012 for the new fee schedule.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council: 1) receive Staff's presentation on the study results; 2)
provide comments on the study and draft Proposed Master Fee Schedule; 3) adopt the
Resolution establishing a user fee cost recovery policy; and 4) Confirm the proposed public
hearing ate o e p tem September , 012.
Submitted By Reviewed By
Administrative Services Director Assistant City Manager
Page 1 of 8 ITEM NO. 7.1
DESCRIPTION:
The purpose of this report is to present a proposed User Fee Cost Recovery Policy, which
establishes general goals and practices to be followed for establishing fees for services
provided by the City. In addition the Staff Report will provide an overview of the comprehensive
fee study conducted for the City. The study resulted in the development of a Draft Master Fee
Schedule.
Proposed Policy Considerations
The City Council has not previously considered the adoption of an overall policy regarding user
fees. It is a best practice in public finance to establish certain key policies that can provide a
framework for the administration of financial matters. Based on standards used by other
agencies, a proposed new City policy for management of user fees is presented as Exhibit A of
Attachment 1.
A summary of the key elements of the policy are:
A. A comprehensive study of the City's costs and fees should be made at least every five
years.
B. Between comprehensive fee studies, most general fees will be adjusted annually by
changes in the Consumer Price Index (Bureau of Labor Statistics, San Francisco -
Oakland Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers). The index measuring the change
from the previous December shall be used. The adjusted fees will be effective the
following July 1. As discussed later in this report, some fees are proposed to remain
static and the overhead rates will not change.
C. Fees as calculated annually shall be rounded down to the nearest $1.
D. Cost recovery will generally be established at 100% of related costs, except that the City
Council can establish lower rates if considered appropriate to enhance:
• Health and safety
• Economic development
• The use of renewable energy
E. When City employees or contractors provide services to other governments, businesses
or individuals, their time should be charged at direct labor cost, including benefits
provided to City employees, plus a mark -up percentage representing City administrative
overhead. The markup percentage shall be calculated during each comprehensive fee
study and remain the same until the next such study.
F. When new fees become desired or necessary before the next comprehensive fee study,
they will be established at a level based on estimated direct labor cost, including benefits
provided to City employees, plus a markup representing City administrative overhead.
The markup percentage shall be calculated during each comprehensive fee study and
remain the same until the next such study.
G. The City Manager may exempt or reduce fees where it is in the City's best interest to do
so, and in accordance with business need.
Page 2 of 8
It is recommended that the policy be adopted by resolution in order to guide key decisions
related to user fee structures.
Fee Study Background
The City's current fee and cost recovery model was developed using budgetary data from Fiscal
Year 2004 -05 and was adopted by the City Council in April 2006. The fees have only been
updated since then to address the establishment of new fees. At the June 7, 2011 meeting, the
City Council authorized the City Manager to execute an agreement with Capital Accounting
Partners to provide an updated User Fee Study and Cost Allocation Plan. The updated User
Fee Study and Cost Allocation Plan will allow the City to establish fees based on true costs,
which ensures fairness and equity of fees based on relationship to payer, and ensures fee
amounts are defendable from a cost basis. Capital Accounting Partners completed and
submitted their report to the City in June 2012.
California local governments are permitted by State law to charge no more than the full cost of
providing the fee - related services to those who receive the benefit of the particular service. Full
cost is defined as including both the indirect (i.e., administrative cost) and the direct cost of
service.
The User Fee Study and Cost Allocation Plan did not include the parks and recreation program
fees and facility rental fees. The City Council previously adopted a Parks and Community
Services Pricing Policy on September 21, 2010, which guides the establishment and adjustment
of recreation program fees and charges. City -wide indirect cost information developed in the
2011 User Fee Study and Cost Allocation Plan will be available to evaluate future adjustments
of Parks and Community Services fees.
The User Fee Study and Cost Allocation Plan focused on service related costs. Capital impact
and mitigation fees are established based on the cost of capital improvements attributable to
new development and were outside the scope of the study.
Comprehensive Fee Study Project Overview
The objectives of the User Fee Study and Cost Allocation Plan were to:
• Develop a Cost Allocation Plan;
• Determine the full cost of services provided;
• Obtain an independent recommendation of cost recovery strategies that should take into
consideration Proposition 26 requirements and the complexities and demands of each
department and /or program area;
• Identify any fees or cost categories that are not currently covered;
• Prepare a concise and clear explanation of the recommended fees and methodology that
can be understood by City Council, customers, the general public, and City staff; and
• Develop a model that can be updated annually and maintained by City staff
Page 3 of 8
Overview - Fee Study Results
In its final User Fee Study and Cost Allocation Plan report (Attachment 2), Capital Accounting
Partners listed the current recovery rate for each major category of fees. It is important to
understand that the protocol for the fee study used the adopted Fiscal Year 2011/2012 Budget
for estimating costs and activity levels for services provided. Therefore the identification of cost
recovery levels is a snapshot based on the data from that specific year. If costs are not fully
recovered from the fees collected, then the difference would be a subsidy from the City General
Fund. A summary of costs compared to fees recovered is shown below.
SUMMARY OF USER SERVICE COSTS COVERED BY FEES COLLECTED
(Based on Capital Accounting Partners June 2012 Fee Study
Using Fiscal Year 2011/2012 Budget Data)
MAJOR CATEGORY OF FEES
COSTS
CURRENT FEE
LEVELS
SUBSIDY FROM
THE GF
CURRENT
RECOVERY
PERCENTAGE
Planning
2,060,369
1,398,764
661,605
68%
Building
2,078,358
2,005,995
72,363
97%
Development Engineering
1,187,815
689,646
498,169
58%
Fire Prevention
280,920
166,609
114,311
59%
Police
111,426
70,642
40,784
63%
Affordable Housing
66,245
57,100
9,145
86%
Business Registration
246,816
182,664
64,152
745/o
Total
6,031,949
4,571,420
1,460,529
76%
The table above shows that, based on the data reflected at the time of the study, the City's full
costs for fee - related services is approximately $6.03 million. Projected fee recovery is
approximately $1.46 million lower than the City's underlying costs. All seven of the main
categories of fees are under - recovering costs, requiring an annual General Fund subsidy of
approximately $1.46 million. The table indicates that, if the City increased fees to fully recover
its underlying costs, it could justify a net increase of approximately $1.46 million in fees each
year. As discussed in the policy section there may be legitimate reasons why the City would
choose to recover less than full cost. However, those situations are typically limited.
Proposed Application of Fee Study Results (Draft Proposed Master Fee Schedule)
A list of all the City's fees is shown in the Draft Proposed Master Fee Schedule (Attachment 3).
The Draft Proposed Master Fee Schedule shows, for each of the City's fees, the current fee, the
full cost of providing the related service (as calculated by the 2012 Capital Accounting Partners'
fee study), and the proposed new fee. The "2011 Full Cost" column is not applicable for new
services and for services that are billed at "time and materials ". New fees being proposed as a
result of this study are denoted as "New" in the current fee column. In some cases, the new
fees are proposed to simplify the administration and collection of fees for both the City and its
customers.
One example of fees being less than the actual cost is the business registration fee, which is
currently a maximum of $50 per year. Since the City pro -rates the cost of the license based on
Page 4 of 8
the portion of the year it is active, the average fee collected is only $42. The City's related costs
to process a business license average $72 per license. There are approximately 3,400
business licenses processed each year. The processing cost exceeds the amount of fees
currently charged, which means that the General Fund is subsidizing this service by $102,000.
Staff recommends maintaining the business license fee at $50 to encourage compliance and
support economic development. This was also supported by Chamber of Commerce
representatives that attended the Stakeholder session.
Time and Material Billing Rates
The City charges hourly rates for its employees performing services on a time and material
basis. Some of the services are provided by external contractors. In the case of a contractor,
the customer is paying the cost incurred by the City plus an overhead mark -up. The majority of
this type of work consists of permit application processing and plan reviews.
The following table shows the hourly rates currently being charged for City Staff work, as well as
the full cost of providing the related services, and the proposed new hourly rates.
COMPOSITE CITY STAFF HOURLY RATES (INCLUDING OVERHEAD COSTS)
FOR DEVELOPMENT USER FEES BILLED BASED ON TIME EXPENDED
CLASSIFICATION
CURRENT
FULL COST
(Based on Fee Study)
PROPOSED
PLANNING
$128
$213
$213
BUILDING
$123
$164
$164
ENGINEERING
$129
$215
$213
New- ENGINEERING INSPECTION
$129
$151
$151
The per -hour rates in the table above include allocated indirect costs, such as accounting,
information systems, City Council and other central support costs applicable to each of the
departments. Although the full cost of Engineering Staff is slightly higher than Planning, a single
rate is proposed at the lower of the two rates. This will improve both clarity to the public and
ease of administration. Capital Accounting Partners also prepared a separate rate for
Engineering / Public Works inspection. This new rate is lower than the composite rate for
professional engineering staff.
The billing for services provided by City contractors varies based on the classifications used by
the vendor. The City uses a variety of firms and the agreements for those services are
approved by the City Council. This allows the City to respond to service requests without the
timing being controlled solely by available staff hours. As noted earlier, the City bills the
applicant the "actual contract cost" plus an overhead factor. The following table shows the
overhead rates applied to work performed by Contractors under both the cost recovery model
utilized in the 2006 Study and the proposed new model.
Page 5 of 8
PERCENTAGE CITY OVERHEAD RATES APPLIED TO
COST OF SERVICES PROVIDED BY CONTRACT SERVICE PROVIDERS (Non City Staff)
CATEGORY
CURRENT
FULL COST
PROPOSED
(Based on Fee Study)
PLANNING
Off Site — Consultants (New)
84.63%
41%
41%
On Site - Consultants
84.63%
54%
54%
BUILDING
49.51%
44%
44%
ENGINEERING
Off Site — Consultants (New)
59.64%
37%
37%
On Site - Consultants
59.64%
41%
41%
CITY ATTORNEY
84.63% or
44%
25 %*
59.64%
CITY -WIDE GENERAL (New)
N/A
44%
44%**
* Note Fee Schedule proposes to reduce the City Attorney overhead and phase in
an annual escalation over a four year period to bring it up to the full city -wide rate
of 44% (see further discussion below).
** Prior to the conduct of this Study, the City did not develop a City -wide overhead
rate. In this study, the City -wide overhead rate was calculated by Capital
Accounting Partners at 44% and will be used when new fees are developed before
the next user fee study is conducted and for overhead on other services not shown
in the Master Fee Schedule.
As stated previously the last time a comprehensive fee study was conducted it was completed
based on 2004/2005 Budget data. Therefore, it is understandable that the current study will
have different results. In addition to expected changes, with the current proposed overhead
rates, Staff worked with the Consultants to develop further refinements of the methodology.
This required gathering data at a lower level and segregating the estimated costs associated
with Consultants outside the organization from those who may receive additional support from
City facilities. The reason for the additional focus was to identify whether a methodology could
be developed which would allow the City to capture full costs and also be responsive to
Developer comments regarding the use of a single overhead rate for each department used for
all consulting services.
The result of the proposed methodology is that overall, the overhead added to all contract
services is less, while the Staff hourly rates have increased. The new structure also allows for
the application of different overhead rates depending on whether the Consultant is working from
City facilities or has a remote presence. For those Consultants working from City facilities
additional overhead related to support functions has been provided. Having Consultants at City
facilities improves responsiveness to applicants and it allows for more efficient processing of the
work.
As part of the overall recommendation, the proposed overhead rate for City Attorney is
recommended to be temporarily reduced below the full cost. The current hourly contract cost for
cost recovery activities conducted by the City Attorney is $252. (Cost recovery activities consist
primarily of work on projects that is paid for by developers and other applicants.) In the current
Page 6 of 8
fee structure the City adds 84.63% of overhead for Planning activities or 59.64% for Engineering
activities. Instead of using the Planning and Engineering overhead rate for City Attorney hours,
Staff recommends dropping the overhead rate to 25% for Fiscal Year 2012 -13, and escalating
incrementally over a three -year period to the new City -wide overhead rate of 44% for Fiscal
Year 2015 -16. This accommodation is presented as a means to allow the customers to plan for
the eventual full cost, since the billable rate for legal services are higher than other disciplines.
Overview — Comparison to Other Agencies
As part of its services to the City, Capital Accounting Partners conducted a survey of
neighboring jurisdictions to compare a number of common user fees. The complete comparison
can be found on pages 29 to 31 of Attachment 2. The comparison shows, that for virtually all
the fees included in the survey, the City is comparable to neighboring jurisdictions.
Implementation / Future Adjustments
The adoption of the Draft Proposed Master Fee Schedule will require a public hearing which has
been noticed for September 18, 2012. Once adopted, Staff is proposing that the new fees be
made effective on December 1, 2012. This will allow time to adjust the City billing and
accounting systems and to prepare customers for the adjustments. As noted in the User Fee
Cost Recovery Policy, it is proposed that fees be adjusted annually based upon a CPI factor and
a comprehensive evaluation be conducted each five years. The automatic adjustment will only
be applied to certain fees as shown in the Draft Proposed Master Fee Schedule. Some of the
fees noted with a single asterisk are proposed to remain unchanged until reviewed with the next
fee study. Based on the proposed policy, the Draft Proposed Master Fee Schedule will be
effective December 1, 2012 and the first automatic CPI adjusted rates will be effective July 1,
2013. During the stakeholder discussions, participants noted that incremental adjustments
makes budgeting their costs easier than a larger adjustment every few years.
Stakeholder Input
Staff met with business and development representatives on July 11, 2012 to review the User
Fee Study and Cost Allocation Plan. Two sessions were conducted in order to provide
convenient options. A total of 95 contacts were notified of the meeting and 6 individuals
attended. The comments from the meeting, as well as Staff's responses, are included as
Attachment 4.
Staff and the Consultants will be available for any questions or clarifications. Due to advance
noticing requirements a Public Hearing is currently scheduled for September 18, 2012 to
consider the adoption of the updated Master Fee Schedule.
NOTICING REQUIREMENTS /PUBLIC OUTREACH:
Notices of Stakeholders Meeting were sent to 95 representatives. A follow -up notification was
mailed in advance of the City Council meeting advising Stakeholders of the Fee Study review
and adoption schedule and the availability of documents on the City website.
Formal notices will also be made in accordance with the Public Hearing requirements.
ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution Establishing a User Fee Cost Recovery Policy (Exhibit A
— User Fee Cost Recovery Policy)
Page 7 of 8
2. 2012 User Fee Study Prepared By Capital Accounting Partners
(August 2012)
3. Draft Proposed Master Fee Schedule for Services Provided by City
Departments
4. Comments from July 11, 2012 public meetings on User Fee Study
and Cost Allocation Plan
Page 8 of 8
STAKEHOLDER INPUT AND STAFF RESPONSES
Input From Stakeholder Sessions conducted July 11, 2012
Dated: August 10, 2012
Stakeholder meetings on the preliminary Fee Study results were conducted on July 11,
2012. An invitation was distributed to: Development Application Processing Account Holders;
Interested Parties Listing; and Representatives of the Chamber of Commerce. A total of 95
contacts were sent invitations. Two sessions were scheduled with one starting at 7:00 a.m.
and the second one at 6:30 p.m.
ATTENDEES
Dean Mills, DR Horton
Stuart Cook, Alameda County Surplus Property Authority
Marshall Torre, Kingsmill Group
Rick Sanciangco, Nothing Bundt Cakes (Chamber of Commerce Committee Chair)
Nancy Feeley, Dublin Chamber of Commerce — Executive Director
Mark McClellan, Mackay & Somps
The following is a summary of the feedback from the sessions along with a response to the
item. The listing is grouped by topic and limited to items related to Fees and Charges for
services. There were comments related to fees levied by other agencies as well as impact
fees, which were not part of this study.
SUMMARY INPUT RECEIVED
A) Why are Multi- Family Fees going up and Single Family Building Permit rates going
down?
Staff Response: The comprehensive fee study looked at the time involved and the
classifications typically involved with completing different types of work. The results reflect
the analysis of the work required by type of permit. In the example of Building Permit fees
provided, on a strictly per unit basis the multi - family continue to be less on a per unit basis,
than a single family permit.
B) In addition to residential processing fees the City should also make sure that commercial
development fees are reasonable.
Staff Response: As noted in item (A) the comprehensive fee study looked at the time
involved with different types of applications. Therefore, fees for commercial projects reflect
the work effort required for them, which may be different from residential projects. The fees
are established to only recover costs based on the type of permit.
Page 1 of 4
STAKEHOLDER INPUT AND STAFF RESPONSES
Input From Stakeholder Sessions conducted July 11, 2012
Dated: August 10, 2012
C) Questions were asked about the CalGreen Building Permit Surcharge as well as other
"surcharges" for State Fees that are noted in the Building Permits section of the Draft Master
Fee Schedule.
Staff Response: The Building Official explained that the CalGreen code imposes additional
local plan and inspection review, however, this requirement does not apply across the board
to all building permits. Therefore, it was decided to treat the cost should be reflected as a
local surcharge that is only applied to permits subject to this code. The Master Fee Schedule
also lists the California Strong Motion Instrumentation Surcharge and the California Building
Standards Commission Green Building Valuation Surcharge. These surcharges are imposed
by State agencies and are a part of the current fees collected. The Master Fee Schedule is
all inclusive including these fees.
D) Would all of the local fees be subject to the annual CPI adjustment? Would the overhead
rates be subject to a CPI adjustment?
Staff Response: The Draft Master Fee Schedule presented at the meeting with
Stakeholders was formatted to have all local fees increase by the annual change in CPI. This
excludes "local fees" established as a specific dollar amount by ordinance (i.e. the Business
License / Registration Fee is established by Ordinance). In some cases fees are
recommended at a lower than the actual cost. The overhead percentages would not increase
until an update to the fee study is prepared, which is recommended on a 5 year cycle.
Following the Stakeholder meeting, Staff modified the proposed Master Fee Schedule and
included footnotes on which items are subject to the automatic annual CPI adjustment. The
recommendation does propose that for certain items currently subsidized that the fees would
not be subject to an annual adjustment. For example, a Water Heater Replacement Building
Permit is established at $60 and the full cost is $96. In the Recommended Proposed Fee
Schedule this will be noted as exempt from an annual adjustment.
(Note: A water heater permit has been typically established at less than the full cost. The
reason is due to public safety interests and encouraging compliance, which is consistent with
proposed fee establishment policies.)
E) One of the participants commented that an annual CPI adjustment will help to normalize
the cost increases over time.
Staff Response: Staff concurs that the administration of small incremental increases will be
an improvement over the process of holding rates entirely flat for multiple years. This should
also capture in a more timely fashion the increase of City costs over time.
Page 2 of 4
STAKEHOLDER INPUT AND STAFF RESPONSES
Input From Stakeholder Sessions conducted July 11, 2012
Dated: August 10, 2012
F) Explain the basis for the new Non - Residential flat fees for Building Permits.
Staff Response: The proposed Master Fee Schedule now includes a flat fee for common
activities that may arise for a commercial property owner. For example, a water heater
replacement in the current fee schedule is based on valuation. Having a set flat fee is
desirable for the contractors and their customers to be able to easily determine what the fee
amount is as they make arrangements for the work to be completed. After receiving the
explanation the attendees felt this was a good approach and was proactive.
G) Can you discuss the changes in composite hourly rates?
Staff Response: The composite hourly rates represent the composite costs based on
productive hours. This includes direct costs of salary and benefits plus indirect costs based
on budgeted salaries for 2011/2012. The current rates were based on 2004/2005 salary and
benefit data. The change in composite rates is also reflective of changes in the staffing within
the City.
Following the Stakeholder meeting Staff also worked with the Consultant to further refine the
methodology for the composite rates. Included in the Recommended Master Fee Schedule is
a new rate for Public Works Inspection, which would be lower than just using a single rate for
all Engineering/ Public Works functions.
H) What components go into an overhead rate?
Staff Response: The overhead rate incorporates both direct and indirect cost components.
At the City wide level it is a means to allocate department support services to the overall cost
of activities (i.e. City Council, City Manager, Finance, Human Resources, Facility operating
costs; insurance; etc.). At the Department level the overhead rate also incorporates
department management and support elements, general customer services elements and
related costs that are not billed directly. Comparisons from agency to agency are difficult
because of the large variance in several base factors (i.e. when did the agency last update
their fees; what is their policy on cost recovery; what are the levels they may be billing directly
in lieu of capturing as an overhead factor.) The overhead rates presented are based on the
City of Dublin policies and practices.
Page 3 of 4
STAKEHOLDER INPUT AND STAFF RESPONSES
Input From Stakeholder Sessions conducted July 11, 2012
Dated: August 10, 2012
1) Should the cost of review exceed the Developer's cost to prepare the information?
Staff Response: As noted previously the City Costs were reviewed based on the time and
involvement of specific Staff. The fees reflect the City's allocated full cost based on the study
methodology. If the work is being completed by third party City contractors the cost is the
contracted rate plus overhead. This will also be impacted by industry practices where a
Developer may pay a discounted rate to have a specific item produced, however it is just one
component of a much larger engagement.
J) Were overhead costs evaluated separately for work is performed by third party consultants
operating from their own office and not City Offices?
Staff Response: The initial study was completed using a methodology similar to the
2004/2005 study which developed a single overhead rate based on either Planning or
Engineering related contract services. Following the Stakeholder presentations Staff worked
with the Consultant to further analyze an alternate methodology which accounts for
consultant services differently if they are provided by contractors working from City Offices
versus those working off -site. Staff incorporated in the proposed Master Fee Schedule the
alternate overhead rates being presented to the City Council. The modification also had a
small incremental change in the City Staff composite hourly rate increasing it from $207 to
$213. This new methodology is slightly more complex to administer, however, Staff believe
that it responds to the concerns of the Stakeholders and can be accommodated within the
City finance billing systems.
Page 4 of 4
RESOLUTION NO. 160 - 12
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
ESTABLISHING A USER FEE COST RECOVERY POLICY
WHEREAS, on June 7, 2011, the City Council authorized the City Manager to execute an
agreement with Capital Accounting Partners to conduct a User Fee Study and a Cost Allocation Plan;
and
WHEREAS, the purpose of the User Fee Study and Cost Allocation Plan was to determine the
full cost of providing fee - related services, including City -wide indirect costs; and
WHEREAS, the User Fee Study and Cost Allocation Plan were prepared and submitted to the
City Manager by Capital Accounting Partners in June 2012; and
WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to establish a general policy for establishment of general
fees and recovery of related costs and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to have within its policy procedures for the regular
updating of general fees and charges.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin does
hereby adopt the User Fee Cost Recovery Policy attached hereto as Exhibit A,
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 4th day of September 2012, by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Biddle, Hart, Hildenbrand, Swalwell, and Mayor Sbranti
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
j
Mayor
ATTEST:
/� , Lj��
City Clerk
Rosa No. 160 -12, Adopted 9 -4 -12, Item 7.1 Page 1 of 1
City of Dublin
User Fee Cost Recovery Policy
(Resolution — Exhibit A)
Measuring the cost of government services is useful for a variety of purposes, including setting user
fees and performance measurement/benchmarking.
Ongoing Review
It is planned that a comprehensive user fee study should be conducted at least every five years to
assure that user fees reflect the City's underlying costs. The last such study was completed in fiscal
year 2411 -12.
Annual Increase
User fees established as part of a Master Fee Schedule will be increased each July 1 to keep pace with
increases in the City's costs. In years between comprehensive user fee studies, the increase should be
calculated based on changes in the preceding December Consumer Price Index (Bureau of Labor
Statistics, San Francisco - Oakland Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers). The resulting
calculation for each fee shall be rounded down to the nearest whole dollar.
Applicability
This User Fee Cost Recovery Policy applies to all general user fees and charges for services
established in accordance with an adopted Master Fee Schedule. Parks & Community Services shall
establish its program related fees in accordance with the Parks & Community Services Pricing Policy
as originally adopted September 21, 2410 and as may be subsequently amended. Impact Fees which
fund capital improvements are not covered by this policy.
Cost Recovery Levels
Costs should not be the sole consideration in determining how much the City will charge for services it
provides. However, absent reasons to the contrary, the City will set user fees at a level to recover the
total cost of delivering the related services, including direct costs, departmental administration costs,
and City -wide indirect costs. Offsetting revenues should be considered when determining the total
cost.
Revenue from each user fee should not exceed the related reasonable total cost of providing the related
services.
It is appropriate for certain user fees to be established at a level below the related total cost of
delivering the related services. The following factors will be considered when determining the
appropriate cost recovery level:
• Community -wide vs. special benefit - The use of general purpose revenue is appropriate for
community -wide services while user fees are appropriate for services that are of special benefit
to individuals or groups. Full cost recovery is not always appropriate for special benefits.
• Service recipient vs. service driver - Particularly for services associated with regulated
activities (development review, code enforcement), from which the community primarily
benefits, cost recovery from the "driver" of the need for the service (applicant, violator) is
appropriate.
City of Dublin
User Fee Cost Recovery Policy
(Resolution — Exhibit A)
• Consistency with City public policies and objectives - City policies and Council goals focused
on long term improvements to community quality of life may impact desired fee levels as fees
can be used to change community behaviors, promote certain activities or provide funding for
pursuit of specific community goals (e.g., health and safety, environmental stewardship,
renewable energy, economic development).
• Impact on demand (elasticity) - Pricing of services can significantly impact demand. At full
cost recovery, for example, the City is providing services for which there is a genuine market
not over - stimulated by artificially low prices. Conversely, high cost recovery may negatively
impact lower income groups and this can work against public policy outcomes if the services
are specifically designed to serve particular groups.
• Discounted rates and surcharges - Rates may be discounted to accommodate lower income
groups or groups who are the target of the service, such as senior citizens or residents. Higher
rates are considered appropriate for non - residents to further reduce general fund subsidization
of services.
• Feasibility of collection - It may be impractical or too costly to establish a system to
appropriately identify and charge each user for the specific services received. The method of
assessing and collecting fees should be as simple as possible in order to reduce the
administrative cost of collection
For fees that are established at a level less than full cost recovery, the City Council may desire to
examine the rationale for these deviations, and direct Staff to explore the appropriateness.
Contractor Hourly Rates
When City contractors provide services to other governments, businesses or individuals, their time
should be charged at direct labor cost, including benefits, phis a mark -up percentage representing City
administrative overhead. The markup percentage(s) shall remain in effect until the next comprehensive
fee study.
Definitions
Direct costs — those costs that can be specifically identified with a particular cost objective, such as
street maintenance, police protection.
Indirect costs — those costs not readily quantifiable with a direct operating program, but rather, are
incurred for a joint purpose that benefits more than one cost objective. Common examples of indirect
cost functions include accounting, purchasing, legal services, personnel administration and building
maintenance. Although indirect costs are generally not directly linked with direct cost programs, their
cost should be included as part of the total cost of providing specific services.
Administration and Billing
The method of assessing and collecting user fees should be as simple as possible in order to minimize
inconvenience to the users and to minimize the City's administrative cost of collection.
The cost recovery level established by the City for each fee should be sensitive to the "market" rate for
such services provided by other governments, non - profit organizations, companies and individuals.
Exhibit A — Page 2
USER FEE STUDY
FINAL DRAFT REPORT
CITY OF DUBLIN
2012
August 2012
Capital Accounting
Partners
TABLE OF CONTENTS
IntroductionAnd Scope .................................................................................................. ............................... 1
Summary of Costing Methodologies ............................................................................... ...............................
3
Summary of Results For Community Development ........................................................ ...............................
7
PlanningFees ...................................................................................................... ..............................7
CostAnalysis ........................................................................................................... ...............................
7
CostRecovery Analysis ............................................................................................ ...............................
8
Relationship with Public Works fees ....................................................................... .............................10
BuildingFees ................................................................................................... ...............................
11
Costof Service Analysis ......................................................................................... ...............................
11
CostRecovery Analysis .......................................................................................... ...............................
12
Summary of Results for Development Engineering ....................................................... ...............................
15
Costof Service Analysis ......................................................................................... ...............................
15
CostRecovery Analysis .......................................................................................... ...............................
16
Summary of Results For Fire Prevention Services .......................................................... ...............................
20
FirePrevention Services ........................................................................................... .............................20
Costof Service Analysis ........................................................................................... .............................20
CostRecovery Analysis .......................................................................................... ...............................
21
Summaryof Results For Police ...................................................................................... ...............................
23
PoliceFees ............................................................................................................... .............................23
Costof Service Analysis ........................................................................................... .............................23
Summary of Results for Affordable Housing ................................................................. ...............................
24
AffordableHousing ................................................................................................. .............................24
Costof Service Analysis ........................................................................................... .............................24
CostRecovery Analysis .......................................................................................... ...............................
24
Summary of Results for Business License Fees ............................................................... ...............................
27
Summary of Results for Selected Administration Fees ................................................... ...............................
28
ComparisonReview ........................................................................................................ .............................29
Observations and Recommendations ............................................................................... .............................32
Comprehensive User Fee Study
GeneralObservations ....................................................................................... ............................... 32
Recommendations — Policy Development ........................................................ ............................... 32
Adjustingthe Fee Schedule .............................................................................. ............................... 33
BuildingFees ........................................................................................................... .............................33
Planning and Engineering Fees .............................................................................. ............................... 33
General Recommendation on Adjusting Fee Schedules ......................................... ............................... 33
SectionV: Appendices ..................................................................................................... .............................34
City of Dublin, California Comprehensive User Fee Study
August 2012 Page 7
INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE
As part of its effort to manage its financial resources wisely, the City of Dublin engaged Capital Accounting
Partners to prepare an indirect cost allocation plan and conduct a detailed cost analysis of its user fees. The
City's objectives for the study were to ensure that the City is using comprehensive overhead rates and to
accurately account for the true cost of providing the City's various services.
The indirect cost allocation plan provides a method to assign Citywide overhead costs to direct service
departments and their services so that the full cost of service, including City administrative overhead, can be
recovered through the fees charged for services. The methodology used to assign Citywide overhead costs has
been designed by the Federal Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and has been approved by the
Federal Government to assign overhead to grants. Because of this, it is recognized as the universal method of
allocating overhead cost within the public sector. For the City of Dublin, Capital Accounting Partners
developed two cost allocation plans. The first plan uses the same methodology as described above but includes
certain costs that cannot be allocated within an OBM compliant plan. The second is an OMB compliant plan
and will be used to assign overhead costs to State and Federal Grants. The difference between the two plans is
that costs that occur as part of the general operation of government, such as the cost of the City Council, is
excluded in the OMB compliant plan while it is included in the "Full Cost" plan.
To develop the Indirect Cost Allocation plan we worked with City Staff to develop allocation measures that
reflect the level of effort and energy that is used in specific functions within the government. For example,
number of FTE's and part time employees per department was used to allocate the cost of payroll support. As
an additional example, the number of personal computers (PCs) per department was used to allocate the cost
of supporting the network.
The results of the full cost Indirect Cost Allocation Plan are contained in the planning document which has
been provided as a separate document. The cost of service and cost recovery analysis establishes the full cost
of such fee services, including Planning, Building, and Engineer services, as well as Police, Fire Prevention,
Affordable Housing, and business license services. The cost recovery analysis provides the City with
information regarding the current level of cost recovery and will assist City management and the City Council
in determining the appropriate cost recovery policies for the various fees it charges.
The scope of this study included the following:
Reviewing the City's current fee schedules;
Interviewing key City staff from indirect and direct service departments;
Calculating the total cost of fee generating services;
Analyzing cost recovery levels for fee generating services;
City of Dublin, California Comprehensive User Fee Study
August 2072 Page 2
Surveying other cities;
Developing a fee schedule that fully accounted for the range of services that the City provides; and
Providing recommendations or methodologies on how to adjust fees annually.
The process used for collecting and analyzing the data required active participation by the City's management
and staff. We want to take this opportunity to recognize their participation, time, and effort to collect the
data and discuss the analysis, results, and recommendations.
City of Dublin, California Comprehensive User Fee Study
August 2072 Page 3
SUMMARY OF COSTING
METHODOLOGIES
The detailed costing methodology is based on the principles of activity based costing. This approach seeks to
calculate costs at an operational level by considering the time staff invests in core business processes to provide
fee and non -fee services. This provides the ability to understand staff time and cost as each staff position
participates in providing fee services. Graphically, Figure 1 illustrates this methodology in the following
manner.
Figure 1: Cost of Service and Fee Setting Methodology
• • • Service Cost
Labor (including OH) Application Intake Lot line adjustment
Proc & notification
DRC meetina
Tentative decision
Project mgt
Planned unit dev
Site dev review
Minor CUP
Zoning clearance
Step 1: Collect Data — This first step involves discussions with staff to identify those positions within each
department that provide and support direct services. It also involves collecting departmental budget and
expenditure data, identifying the salary and benefits for each position, and identifying non - personnel
expenditures, as well as any departmental and Citywide overhead. Specifically, the steps involve the
following:
♦ Identifying staff positions — This includes identifying both position titles and names.
♦ Calculating the number of productive hours — For each position, vacation time, sick leave, paid
holidays, professional development (training), routine staff meetings, and daily work breaks are deducted
from the standard 2,080 annual hours. The result is a range of hours available for each position on an
annual basis. This range is typically 1,250 to 1,600 hours. Factors that influence this range are length of
service with the jurisdiction and local policies for holiday and personal leave time.
City of Dublin, California Comprehensive User Fee Study
August 2072 Page 4
♦ Identifying and allocating non - personnel costs — Costs for materials and supplies are allocated to the
salary and benefits for each position.
♦ Assigning any other expenses that are budgeted in other areas — There are often expenses that should
be included with the total cost of services. Examples of such costs might include amortized capital
expenses for vehicles and technology.
♦ Identifying core business processes or activities — This step also involves discussions with staff to
understand, at an operational level, the work of the operating unit. Core business processes used to
provide services are identified and then defined by the tasks that are involved. Processes are also organized
by direct and indirect categories:
■ Direct processes and activities — Those processes that directly contribute to the processing of an
application or permit are first identified. Examples of a direct activity are electrical building
inspection, application intake, and pre - application review.
Indirect processes and activities — Those processes that support, but do not directly apply to the
processing of a specific application or permit. An example of an indirect activity is customer service or
staff training to maintain certifications. Most jurisdictions highly value customer service, but it is
difficult to assign a specific cost or unit of time to an individual service.
Step 2: Building cost structures — This second step involves significant interaction with staff and the
development of time estimates for both direct and indirect processes in each department. Specifically, this step
is at the core of the analysis. There are three processes that comprise this step:
♦ Gathering time estimates for direct processes — By interviewing staff in individual and group meetings,
an estimate of time was assigned to each service by the process that is indicated. For example, in
processing planning fees the following specific steps are involved in the processing of these fees:
• Application intake;
• Application completion review; and
• Setting conditions of approval.
In this analysis, staff time is estimated and assigned to each step. The sum of all the process steps is the
total time that is required to provide that specific service.
♦ Assigning indirect and annual process time — An annual time estimate is gathered from staff for those
indirect or support processes in which they are involved. Some of these costs are assigned to the direct
cost of a service on an allocated basis. Some might not be assigned at all. For example, in the case of
planning fees, the costs associated with advanced planning have been identified but not allocated to the
fees. Advanced planning has its own fee category, consistent with the current fee structure.
♦ Calculating fully loaded hourly rates and the cost of service — Once the total time for each direct and
indirect service is estimated, the cost of service is calculated by using the fully loaded hourly rates for each
staff member or position that is involved with the service. The fully loaded hourly rate for each employee
is based on the employee's salary and benefit costs plus a share of non - personnel and City overhead costs
divided by the employee's available work hours (i.e. 2,080 hours minus all leave hours). Thus, the direct
and indirect cost by activity also includes departmental and citywide overhead as well as non -labor costs.
For this study, fiscal 2011 -2012 budget expenses were used in all of the calculations.
The change to this was with the business license processing fee. For this fee, we calculated the annual
costs for processing business licenses as part of the preparation for the indirect cost allocation plan. Then
City of Dublin, California Comprehensive User Fee Study
August 2012 Page 5
based on interviews with staff we determined the approximate amount of annual time that is spent
processing new business license compared to a business license renewal. We then assigned an annual cost
based on these total time estimates.
♦ Gathering activity or volume data — A critical element in the analysis is the number of times a given
service is provided on an annual basis. This is critical data for three reasons:
It allows a calculated projection of current revenue based on current prices. This is compared with actual
revenue to see if there is a close match, as the data should match.
■ It allows for a calculated projection of revenue at full cost. This is compared to actual expenditures to see if
there is a close match, as the data should match.
■ It allows for a calculation of total hours consumed. Hours consumed must closely match actual hours available.
If any of the three calculations do not approximate actual numbers, then time estimates and /or volume
data need to be re- evaluated. These are critical quality checks for costing accuracy.
Step 3: Calculating the full cost of services — This third step calculates the full cost of service for each direct
service in a department. In the previous step, the cost of service was calculated for each direct and indirect
service. In this step the cost layers are brought together to establish the full cost of service for a specific direct
service, program, or activity. As previously mentioned the cost of each direct service is calculated. To
determine the full cost of service, the cost of indirect services is allocated to each direct service. The indirect
services costs are allocated to each direct service based on each direct services proportion of labor spent
processing each permit and application. By summing the direct and allocated indirect costs and multiplying
that by the activity data, a total cost of service is calculated for both an individual service and the operating
unit as a whole.
Figure 2. demonstrates an example of these calculations. This same process was used for planning fees, land
development /environmental fees, building fees, and police fees.
Figure 2: Example of a Fee Calculation
Application or Fee 7
in
Assigning Staff Cost and Time
Signing Programs (Five or More Signs)
Community
Development
Director
Planning
Manager
Associate
Planner
Executive
Assistant
Totals
Pre - submittal meeting
0.5
0.5
1
Land Use Application Intake
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.75
Application Review
1
6.5
7.5
Development Review Committee (DRC)
0.5
2
2.5
Prepare for decision
Public hearing
Plan Check of accepted plans — post entitlement
0.5
1.25
5
1
7.75
0.33
0.33
2
0.33
2.99
1.25
0.5
1.75
Total Time by Position
0.83
3.83
17.50
2.08
Calculated Full Loaded Hourly Rate
203.67
169
183.96
152.38
128.66
3,808
Total Direct Cost by Position
705
2,667
268
Total support or indirect costs assigned
$ 574
Total Cost Assigned
4,382
Step 4: Set cost recovery policy — Once the full cost of service is calculated for each direct service in a
department, the cost of service for that direct service is then compared to the revenue generated by the fee
charged for the service. This cost recovery analysis identifies the cost recovery level for that direct service.
Depending on City policies and other considerations, the level of cost recovery is a decision that should be
made for each type or group of direct services. For example, the City might want to recover the full cost for
building related permits, but might only want to recover 80% for planning permits.
City of Dublin, California Comprehensive User Fee Study
August 2072 Page 6
Step 5: Set fees
Based on any new, existing, or revised cost recovery policies, the recommended fees can be established. The
recommended fees will be established based on City staff recommendations and Council discussion in the
future. The fee analyses in this report are based on full cost recovery.
City of Dublin, California Comprehensive User Fee Study
August 2012 Page 7
SUMMARY OF RESULTS FOR
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
The Community Development Department is responsible for all current and advanced planning,
redevelopment, code enforcement, building plan review, building inspection, and other development - related
activities. User fees that were reviewed for this department include the current planning fees, and building
related fees.
PLANNING FEES
The total costs that have been calculated are the costs for the City to process and administer the services
within the schedule of planning fees. To calculate these fees the methodology described in Section II was used
along with extensive staff input. Figure 3 outlines the costs that have been included in the planning fees.
Figure 3: Fiscal 2012 Budgeted Expenses Included
Consumption of Financial Resources
Cost /Expense Recap
Planning
Total budgeted personnel expenses
$
1,305,256
Total budgeted non - personnel expenses
$
185,904
Total Reimbursable Contract Exp
$
648,400
Total department and city/county wide indirect
costs
$
868,773
Totals
3,008,333
Certain adjustments to the budget have been made to establish the cost of services and calculate individual
fees. For example, "General Contract Services" of $437,110 were excluded from the fee calculations as these
are budgeted project specific costs.
Cost Analysis
To calculate the full cost of services, we included all salary, benefits, an allocated share of non - personnel
expenses, and an allocated share of Citywide overhead expenses. Based on the cost of service methodology
Figure 4 shows the Planning Department's costs identified by the categories of: direct, indirect, and overhead.
City of Dublin, California Comprehensive User Fee Study
August 2072 Page 8
After converting budgeted expenses into processes we arrived at the following table of budgeted costs as they
are consumed within the Planning function.
Figure 4: Full Cost of Services
Cost Recovery Analysis
Not all costs are consumed in the processing of planning applications. Excluded costs are those that support
the business license program, long range planning, code enforcement, and housing. These costs are outlined
in the graphic below (Figure 5). Total costs and sources of revenue for processing planning applications are
shown in Figure 6.
Figure 5: Planning Division Service Cost
Planning Service Costs
Business License Program
Long Range Planning
Assist Code Enforcement
Support to Housing
$
$
$
$
90,170
238,426
573,628
20,133
Annual Cost Components
$
Total Budgeted
Total Planning Fees
$
Dublin Planning
Total Planning Division
$ 3,008,333
Costs
Labor Costs
Non -Labor Costs
Direct Planning
284,415
39,181
323,596
M
U
Budgeted Reimbursable Contract Exp
648,400
648,400
A
Project Management
222,684
23,751
246,435
Subtotal Direct Costs
$
1,155,499
1 $
62,932
r $
1,218,431
Business License Program
46,919
9,568
56,487
C
Long Range Planning
171,655
13,627
185,282
U
Assist Code Enforcement
322,054
55,087
377,141
U
°t'
Support to Housing
15,981
982
16,963
b
Dept Management & Administration
130,244
23,238
153,482
Customer Service
111,305
20,471
131,775
Subtotal Indirect Costs
$
798,157
1 $
122,972
r $
921,129
x
v
City and Department Overhead
868,773
868,773
O
U
Subtotal City and Department Overhead Costs
$
-
1 $
868,773
$
868,773
Total Costs Dublin Planning
$
1,953,656
$
1,054,677
$
3,008,333
Cost Recovery Analysis
Not all costs are consumed in the processing of planning applications. Excluded costs are those that support
the business license program, long range planning, code enforcement, and housing. These costs are outlined
in the graphic below (Figure 5). Total costs and sources of revenue for processing planning applications are
shown in Figure 6.
Figure 5: Planning Division Service Cost
Planning Service Costs
Business License Program
Long Range Planning
Assist Code Enforcement
Support to Housing
$
$
$
$
90,170
238,426
573,628
20,133
Totals
$
922,358
Total Planning Fees
$
2,085,976
Total Planning Division
$ 3,008,333
City of Dublin, California
August 2012
Comprehensive User Fee Study
Page 9
Figure 6: Cost Recovery Analysis for Planning Fee Services
Cost and Revenue Comparison
$2,200,000
City Overhead, Planning Support
$1,700,000 $471,684 from GF, $687,212
Indirect Activity
Costs, $395,861
$1,200,000
Direct Costs of
DI —;h rn
Revenues from
Planning Fees,
$1,398,764
Source of Revenues
Our analysis shows that the Planning functions are under recovering expenses by $687,212. This is due, in
large part, because the City is under recovering when it charges the hourly rate $129.27. Our calculations
show that the fully loaded hourly rate, with the support activities of division management & administration
and customer service included, should be $213.30.
Figure 7: Composite Hourly Rate Calculation
Composite Rate Breakdown % of Total
Salary, Benefits, Non - personnel $118.43 56%
City Indirect Costs $48.12 23%
Division Management & Administration $24.88 12%
Customer Service $21.87 10%
Totals $213.30 100%
The Citywide indirect costs can be further understood by the analysis found within the Full Cost Allocation
Plan prepared by Capital Accounting Partners.
67.1% Cost
Recovery
City of Dublin, California Comprehensive User Fee Study
August 2012 Page 10
Figure 8: Breakdown of Citywide Indirect Costs
Sources of City Indirect Cost
1001 -1101 City Council
$10.19
1001 -1601 Finance
$4.53
1001 -1201 City Manager/ City Clerk
$11.17
1001 -1302 Elections
$0.01
1001 -1401 Central Services/ HR
$1.83
1001 -1402 Insurance
$1.57
1001 -1501 City Attorney
$9.58
1001 -1602 InformationSystems
$4.45
100 1 -1801 Building Management
$4.79
Totals
$48.12
Charging Overhead to External Consultants
The City utilizes consultants to process many of its Planning applications. After substantial discussions with
staff it was determined that these consultants function in two different roles.
1. Contract staff. These consultants function much like staff in that they operate within the facility of
the Planning Department, they are provided office space, use City IT systems, and require
supervision like any other staff person.
2. External consultants. These consultants provide expertise that is not available within the City but that
the City occasionally needs to process complex applications.
The assignment of overhead to the contract staff (consultants) was handled in exactly the same way as City
employees. In other words, in the assignment of overhead there was no distinction of work performed by City
employees or contract staff. However, distinctions were made for external consultants who provide project
specific expertise and who's costs are passed on to the customer plus an administrative overhead charge. It is
this overhead charge that was calculated separately.
In discussions with staff it was determined that just the prorated cost of Finance, the City Manager, the City
Council, the City Attorney, and the support activities of M&A and customer service should be included
within this rate. Thus, the costs of elections, central services, insurance, information systems, and building
management were excluded. In addition, a prorated amount of support activities were included in this rate as
well. Based on the estimate of total external consultant hours this rate follows.
Figure 9: External Consultant Overhead Calculation
xternal Consultant Overhead Calculation
e Overhead
$
131,239
7City
Activities
$
36,934
$
168,174
Estimate of total external consultant hours
3,768
Cost recovery per consultant hour
$
44.63
Based on $100/ consultant Cost
44.63%
City of Dublin, California Comprehensive User Fee Study
August 2012 Page 77
Relationship with Public Works Fees
The engineering division of the Public Works department reviews selected planning applications. The costs
for these reviews have been included in the Planning fee schedule so that the reader can see the total costs.
However, the revenue projection these reviews have been assigned to the Public Works operating unit.
A detailed schedule of fees showing unit costs, current cost recovery rates, and annual revenue impacts can be
found in Appendix A.
BUILDING FEES
The building inspection program for the City of Dublin is a division within the Community Development
Department. It is responsible for reviewing building plans for compliance to City codes and inspecting
building construction.
Cost of Service Analysis
The total budget for the calculation of Building fees is $2,236,888. For the purpose of these calculations, the
cost for contract Building contract plan check engineers and inspectors ($865,440) has been added to the cost
personnel or labor. In the published budget, this cost is listed under non - personnel, contract expenses). In
addition, the allocated share of Citywide overhead has also been included in these calculations. Figure 10
outlines the breakdown of costs between personnel, non - personnel, and City overhead.
Figure 10: Full Cost of Services
Consumption of Financial Resources
Cost /Expense Recap
irr
Building
Total budgeted personnel expenses
$ 1,818,514
Total budgeted non - personnel expenses
$ 60,580
Total department and city /county wide indirect
costs
$ 357,794
Totals
M 2,236,888
These costs have been reallocated to reflect the operations of the division by the activities and processes
performed in the various functions. The following graphic provides the breakdown of cost by activity.
City of Dublin, California
August 2012
Figure 11: Full Cost of Services
Comprehensive User Fee Study
Page 12
Cost Recovery Analysis
Our analysis calculated the cost for the building program and shows that there is approximately 96.5% cost
recovery for the building fees. Figure 12 illustrates the relationship between expenses and revenues for the
building division.
Annual Cost Components
Total Budgeted
Dublin Building
Costs
Labor Costs
I Non -Labor Costs;_AM
U
Direct Building & Safety
1,190,328
40,896
1,231,224
Subtotal Direct Costs
$
1,190,328
1 $
40,896
r $
1,231,224
Site developent review (building review of planning
19,274
384
19,658
C
Support to Housing
16,203
291
16,494
U
Business License
64,879
3,027
67,906
U
Management Administration
297,568
7,105
304,673
b
Customer service
230,395
8,744
239,138
Subtotal Indirect Costs
$
628,319
$
19,551
r $
647,870
City and Department Overhead
357,794
357,794
x
v
Subtotal City and Department Overhead Costs
$
-
I $
357,794
$
357,794
O
Total Costs Building
$
1,818,647
$
418,241
$
2,236,888
Cost Recovery Analysis
Our analysis calculated the cost for the building program and shows that there is approximately 96.5% cost
recovery for the building fees. Figure 12 illustrates the relationship between expenses and revenues for the
building division.
City of Dublin, California
August 2012
$2,500,000 T_
Comprehensive User Fee Study
Page 13
Figure 12: Cost Recovery Analyses for Building Fee Services
Cost and Revenue Comparison
$2,000,000 City Overhead,
$242,070
Indirect Activity
$1,500,000 Costs, $605,064
Revenues from
$1,000,000 t Building Fees,
$2,005,995
Direct Costs of
Building Fees,
$500,000 $1,231,224
Budgeted Costs
r I
Source of Revenues
Figure 13 below further summarizies the cost of bulding fees by broad categories.
Figure 13: Cost Recovery by Fee Categories
FEE CATEGORIES
TOTAL VALUATION - BUILDING PERMIT FEES
RESIDENTIAL FLAT FEES
COMMERCIAL FLAT FEES
CORRECTIONS AND VIOLATIONS
OTHER FEES SERVICES
CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLATION COMPLIANCE FEES
TOTALS
96.5% Cost
Recovery
Our analysis also calculated a blended hourly rate for Building personnel. Based on our calculations this rate is
$164.07. Figure 14 shows the breakdown of costs.
Figure 14: Composite Hourly rate
Current
Current Fee
Annual Surplus
Recovery
Full Cost
Rate as a
Levels
(subsidy)
Percentage of
Total Cost
$1,779,024
$1,815,252
$36,227
102%
$141,083
$77,253
($63,830)
55%
$37,056
$0
($37,056)
0%
$51,896
$42,428
($9,468)
82%
$5,373
$4,010
($1,363)
75%
$63,927
$67,0521
$3,125
1050/(
$2,078,358
$2,005,995
($72,364)
97%
Our analysis also calculated a blended hourly rate for Building personnel. Based on our calculations this rate is
$164.07. Figure 14 shows the breakdown of costs.
Figure 14: Composite Hourly rate
City of Dublin, California
August 2012
Comprehensive User Fee Study
Page 14
Composite Rate Breakdown
Salary, Benefits, Non - personnel $ 98.71
City Indirect Costs $19.47
Division Management & Administration $24.55
Customer Service $21.34
Totals $ 164.07
The Citywide indirect costs can be further understood by the analysis found within the Full Cost Allocation
Plan prepared by Capital Accounting Partners.
Figure 15: Breakdown of Citywide Indirect Costs
Sources of City Indirect Cost
100 1 -110 1 City Council
$
1.04
1001 -1601 Finance
$
2.40
100 1 -1201 City Manager/ City Clerk
$
4.26
1001 -1302 Elections
$
0.01
1001 -1401 Central Services/ HR
$
0.52
1001 -1402 Insurance
$
0.91
1001 -1501 City Attorney
$
0.97
1001 -1602 InformationSystems
$
4.67
1001 -1801 Building Management
$
4.70
Totals
$
19.47
A detailed schedule of fees showing unit costs, current cost recovery rates, and annual revenue impacts can be
found in Appendix B.
City of Dublin, California Comprehensive User Fee Study
August 2012 Page 15
SUMMARY OF RESULTS FOR
DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERING
Development Engineering is a division within the Public Works Department. Its functions are to process land
development applications and provide plan review and inspection services. It works closely with the Planning
Division of the Community Development Department. As such, it often provides plan reviews as part of the
plan review associated with specific Planning applications. For this reason, we identified those Planning fees
that Development Engineering routinely reviews and added these to the engineering fee schedule. In this way,
the City will be able to recover these costs.
Cost of Service Analysis
The cost of service for Development Engineering is based on the Division's 2011 -2012 budget and its share
of the Citywide overhead costs from the indirect cost allocation plan. This totals:
Figure 16: Engineering Budgeted Costs
Consumption of Financial Resources
Cost /Expense Recap
ML
Public Works
Engineering
Total budgeted personnel expenses
$
$
1,441,111
366,050
Private development external consultant expenses
Total budgeted non - personnel expenses
$
78,829
Total department and city/county wide indirect
costs
$
659,235
Totals
$
2,545,225
To calculate the full cost of services, we included all salary, benefits, an allocated share of non - personnel
expenses, and an allocated share of Citywide overhead expenses. Figure 17 outlines the calculated expenses
included in the final cost numbers. As the graphic indicates, not all costs associated with Development
Engineering are for private development. There are substantial costs from this division for other services
involving capital improvement projects, support to the administrative division of Public Works, and regional
transportation planning.
City of Dublin, California Comprehensive User Fee Study
August 2012 Page 16
Figure 17: Full Cost of Engineering Services
Cost Recovery Analysis
Development Engineering has a goal of recovering its costs related to private development. We understand
this is based on the user fee cost recovery polices established by the Council. The following graphic illustrates
the current relationship between revenues and costs.
Annual Cost
Components
Total
Budgeted
EM
Engine :ring
L abor Costs
NOMENEL-
on -Labor Costs d
Costs
Direct Engineering
941,605
32,321
973,926
0
U
Records management
4,544
558
5,101
U
ti
Q
-
Subtotal Direct Costs
$
946,148
1 $
32,879
r $
979,027
General City engineering
77,074
6,467
83,541
v
Support to facilities
9,050
446
9,496
U
Support regional transportation planning
19,695
971
20,665
Support to Public Works Administration
110,480
8,566
119,046
Support to CIP projects
411,640
18,608
430,248
Management & Administration
174,622
7,385
182,007
Customer service
58,456
3,505
61,960
Subtotal Indirect Costs
$
861,016
$
45,947
$
906,963
x v
City and Department Overhead
659,235
659,235
O U
Subtotal City and Department Overhead Costs
$
-
$
659,235
$
659,235
Total Costs Engineering
$
1,807,164
$
738,061
$
2,545,225
Cost Recovery Analysis
Development Engineering has a goal of recovering its costs related to private development. We understand
this is based on the user fee cost recovery polices established by the Council. The following graphic illustrates
the current relationship between revenues and costs.
City of Dublin, California
August 2012
Comprehensive User Fee Study
Page 17
Figure 18: Cost Recovery Analysis for Engineering Services
Cost and Revenue Comparison
$1,700,000
$1,500,000 City Overhead, Engineering
$348,484 Support from GF,
$1,300,000 $465,417
Indirect Activity
$1,100,000 Costs, $283,240
$900,000
$700,000 Revenues from
Direct Costs of Engineering Fees,
$500,000 - Engineering Fees, $1,145,119
$979,027
$300,000 1
$(100,000) 1 Budgeted Costs Source of Revenues
71.1% Cost
Recovery
As stated earlier, during the analysis it was determined that Engineering does substantial work supporting the
Planning function. In this way they often review Planning applications without cost recovery. The graphic
below will detail the source and opportunities to increase cost recovery for the Engineering function.
Figure 19: Opportunity for Additional Cost Recovery
FEE CATEGORIES
!ering Fees
fining Fees
TOTALS
Full Cost
Current Fee
Levels
Annual Surplus
(subsidy)
$1,587,398
$1,145,119
($442,278)
$23,210
$0
($23,210)
$1,610,607
$1,145,119
($465,488)
As with Planning, Engineering also calculates the majority of its fees based on a time and materials fee
structure. As part of this study we calculated a blended composite productive hourly rate for the division that
City of Dublin, California
August 2012
Comprehensive User Fee Study
Page 18
includes all labor, non - labor, division overhead, customer service, and a component to reimburse the division
for records management. Current fee structure is based on this model. The following graphic illustrates the
full components of cost that were included.
Figure 12: Blended Productive Hourly Rate
Composite Rate Breakdown
jb�
% of Total
Salary, Benefits, Non - personnel
$110.88
60%
City Indirect Costs
$39.25
21%
Division Management & Administration
$23.12
13%
Customer Service
$9.22
5%
Records management
$1.07
1 %
Totals
$183.54
100%
However, it is our understanding that staff is recommending separate rates for engineering inspection time
and engineering plan check time. These additional composite rates follow.
Figure 21: Composite Engineering Productive Hourly Rate
NEEffro—m-posite Engineering Plan Check Rate Breakdown
jb�
% of Total
Salary, Benefits, Non - personnel
$130.30
86%
City Indirect Costs
$46.12
30%
Division Management & Administration
$27.17
18%
Customer Service
$10.84
7%
Records management
$1.26
1 %
Totals
$215.69
100%
Figure 22: Composite Inspection Productive Hourly Rate
Composite Inspection Rate Breakdown ° of Total
Salary, Benefits, Non - personnel $91.68 60%
City Indirect Costs $32.45 21%
Division Management & Administration $19.12 13%
Customer Service $7.63 5%
Records management $0.88 1 %
Totals $151.76 100%
Charging Overhead to External Consultants
The City utilizes consultants to process many of its private development engineering applications. After
substantial discussions with staff it was determined that these consultants function in two different roles.
1. Contract staff. These consultants function much like staff in that they operate within the facility
of the Engineering Department, they are provided office space, use City IT systems, and require
supervision like any other staff person.
2. External consultants. These consultants provide expertise that is not available within the City but
that the City occasionally needs to process complex applications.
City of Dublin, California Comprehensive User Fee Study
August 2012 Page 19
The assignment of overhead to the contract staff (consultants) was handled in exactly the same way as City
employees. In other words, in the assignment of overhead there was no distinction of work performed by City
employees or contract staff. However, distinctions were made for external consultants who provide project
specific expertise and who's costs are passed on to the customer plus an administrative overhead charge. It is
this overhead charge that was calculated separately.
In discussions with staff it was determined that just the prorated cost of Finance, the City Manager, the City
Council, the City Attorney, Public Works Department administrative overhead, and the support activities of
M8,--A and customer service should be included within this rate. Thus, the costs of elections, central services,
insurance, information systems, and building management were excluded. In addition, a prorated amount of
support activities were included in this rate as well. Based on the estimate of total external consultant hours
this rate follows.
Figure 23: External Consultant Overhead Calculation
External Consultant Overhead Calculation i
From City Wide Overhead
$
41,454
From Support Activities
$
2,353
Total
$
43,807.08
Estimate total external consultant hours
$
1,075
Cost recovery per consultant hour
$
40.75
Based on $109/ consultant Cost
37.23%
Appendix C outlines the cost of service and the cost recovery totals and rates for each fee.
City of Dublin, California Comprehensive User Fee Study
August2012 Page 20
SUMMARY OF RESULTS FOR FIRE
PREVENTION SERVICES
Fire Prevention Services
The City's fire prevention services are provided under the master contract with Alameda County. The specific
services included those associated with the plan review and inspection of new development as well as the
annual inspection of permitted occupancies.
Cost of Service Analysis
The analysis of cost for Fire Prevention services included all personnel, non - personnel, and an allocated
amount of Citywide overhead. The Citywide costs were calculated in the indirect cost allocation plan. In
total, these represent all costs of the City to provide fire prevention services.
The following figure summarizes the sources of costs used in the analyses. The actual budget for Fire
Prevention Services does not reflect the two contract staff that are hired as part of the contract with Alameda
County. These costs were calculated by multiplying their applicable hourly rate times the annual hours the
cost model shows they are required. The figure below calculates these costs as well as the actual budget costs.
Figure 24: Cost of Fire Prevention Services
City of Dublin, California Comprehensive User Fee Study
August2072 Page 27
Our analysis reconfigured the budget into the core business processes and activities of the division. This took
into account the direct cost of providing fire prevention inspections as well as the other functions it provides
such as weed abatement, responding to citizen complaints, travel time, and re- inspection.
Figure 25: Full Cost of Fire Prevention Services By Activity
Cost Recovery Analysis
The analysis of the cost of providing fire prevention services included all labor, non - personnel costs, and a
prorated share of management & administration, customer service, and Citywide overhead. Our analysis
shows that in total $280,920 of the $326,686 is being consumed by fire prevention fee generating activities.
The following graphic illustrates the relationships of total costs, broken down by direct, indirect, and
Citywide overhead, and revenues.
Annual Cost Components
Total Budgeted
FT
Urban Growth Planning
Costs
Labor Costs
Non -Labor Costs
Application intake
28,710
2,287
30,997
U
Fire Prevention Review / Inspection
78,261
7,411
85,672
U
A
Fire prevention plan review
32,620
2,485
35,105
Ca
Reinspection
33,057
3,211
36,268
Subtotal Direct Costs
$
172,648
1 $
15,394
r $
188,042
Inspector travel rime
12,839
1,185
14,024
v
Weed abatement
3,268
391
3,659
U
Cash register /business license
16,809
1,339
18,148
Complaints
3,540
265
3,804
Q
Support to business license
4,902
587
5,489
Management & Administration
51,673
4,115
55,788
Customer service
6,205
494
6,699
Subtotal Indirect Costs
$
99,236
$
8,376
$
107,612
x v
City and Department Overhead
31,032
31,032
O �j
Subtotal City and Department Overhead Costs
$
-
$
31,032
$
31,032
Total Costs Urban Growth Planning
$
271,884
$
54,802
$
326,686
Cost Recovery Analysis
The analysis of the cost of providing fire prevention services included all labor, non - personnel costs, and a
prorated share of management & administration, customer service, and Citywide overhead. Our analysis
shows that in total $280,920 of the $326,686 is being consumed by fire prevention fee generating activities.
The following graphic illustrates the relationships of total costs, broken down by direct, indirect, and
Citywide overhead, and revenues.
City of Dublin, California
August 2012
Comprehensive User Fee Study
Page 22
Figure 26: Cost Recovery Analysis for Fire Prevention
Cost and Revenue Comparison
$350,000
-
$300,000
Current
Recovery Rate
as a Percentage
of Total C t
$0
City Overhead,
$250,000
$20,042 Fire Prevention _
$53,607
Indirect Activity Support from GF,
$28,645
Costs, $66,688 $114,311
$200,000
-
Direct Costs of Fire
$100,000 Prevention Fees, Revenues from Fire
$194,190 Prevention Fees,
$166,609
$50,000
$-
Budgeted Costs Source of Revenues
A further breakdown and comparison of costs can be seen by reviewing the individual fee categories. This
analysis shows that there is under recovery of costs in all Fire Prevention fee categories.
Figure 27: Fire Prevention Fee Categories
FEE CATEGORIES
Ia WW0617C4Caa] fig FAIR
PLAN REVIEW AND INSPECTION
FIRE ALARM SYSTEMS
FIXED FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEMS
FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEMS - Commercial
FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEMS - Residential
FIRE REGULATED ACTIVITIES
MASTER PLAN CHECK
FIRE SELF INSPECTION
BUILDING PLAN REVIEWS
FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEMS (Commercial)
TOTALS
Full Cost
Current Fee
Annual Surplus
(subsidy)
OL
Current
Recovery Rate
as a Percentage
of Total C t
$0
$0
$0
($9,857)
0%
82%
$53,607
$43,750
$28,645
$2,075
($26,570)
7%
$4,936
$3,600
($1,336)
73%
$3,029
$1,950
($1,079)
64%
$50,724
$51,383
$659
101%
$93,649
$37,950
($55,699)
41%
$9,031
$8,250
($781)
91%
$17,388
$6,534
($10,854)
38%
$512
$350
($162)
68%
$19,398
$10,767
($8,631)
560/(
$280,920
$166,609
($114,311)
A complete schedule of Fire Prevention fees can be viewed in the appendix D.
59.3% Cost
Recovery
City of Dublin, California Comprehensive User Fee Study
August2012 Page 23
SUMMARY OF RESULTS FOR POLICE
Police Fees
Police fees were calculated in much the same ways as planning, building, and engineering services, but with
some minor modifications. Salary, benefits and non - personnel cost data were supplied by the City to calculate
a fully loaded labor rate for each position that contributes to processing police fees. Staff was interviewed in
focus group style settings to estimate how much time each service requires. During this process, several new
fees were identified and several outdated fees were identified for deletion.
Cost of Service Analysis
In total there are fifty two police fee services within the City. To calculate the costs a simple productive hourly
rate was calculated for each staff position or in some cases we used the hourly rate that has already been
calculated by the City. This rate was then used to calculate the cost of service based on the contribution of
time each staff member provided in processing Police fees. Our calculations show that the total cost to the
City for providing police fee services is $111,426. This compares with the current cost recovery of $70,642.
A detailed schedule of police fees showing unit costs, current cost recovery rates, and annual revenue impacts
can be found in Appendix E
City of Dublin, California
August 2012
Affordable Housing
Comprehensive User Fee Study
Page 24
SUMMARY OF RESULTS FOR
AFFORDABLE HOUSING
Affordable Housing services provide a variety of services to the citizens of Dublin. In summary the
organization enforces the Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance Regulations, manages the First Time Home Buyer
Loan Program, and works closely with regional housing programs.
Cost of Service Analysis
Our analysis included all labor costs, non - personnel costs, and an allocated share of Citywide overhead. In
total we calculated $362,310 of total costs to operate the program. The following graphic illustrates the
breakdown of each cost category.
Figure 28: Housing Budget
Consumption of Financial Resources
Cost /Expense Recap
Housing
Total budgeted personnel expenses
$ 306,840
Total budgeted non - personnel expenses
$ 12,080
Total department and city/county wide indirect
costs
$ 43,390
Totals
k 362,310
Cost Recovery Analysis
During discussions and interviews with staff, several business processes were identified that supported the
organization's output of services. Not all of these processes directly supported the fee based services of which
there are five. They include:
♦ Below Market Ownership Units;
♦ Below Market Rate Secondary Rentals Unit;
♦ Below Market Rental Developments;
♦ Refinance Charges; and
♦ First time home loan program - admin fee.
City of Dublin, California
August 2012
Comprehensive User Fee Study
Page 25
As in previous discussions, our analysis first reconfigured the budget into expenditures by core business
process. These included those that directly support the fee based services and those that support the program.
The following graphic illustrates this conversion.
Figure 29: Affordable Housing Costs By Activity
The expenditures that are directly associated with the processing of Affordable Housing fees total $66,245. Of
this, $57,100 is currently being recovered. This means that the City is contributing $9,145 to support the
processing of these fees. The following graphic illustrates the direct, indirect, and City Overhead costs that
correlate to the processing of Affordable Housing Fees.
Figure 30: Cost Recovery Analysis for Affordable Housing
Cost and Revenue Comparison
$75,000
$65,000
$55,000
$45,000 Indirect Activity
Costs, $28,818
$35,000
Revenuesfrom
Housing Fees,
$25,000 $57,100
Direct Costs of
$15,000 House Fees,
$29,852
$5,000
$(5,000)
86.2% Cost
Recovery
Annual Cost Components
Total Budgeted
ordable Housing
Costs
Labor Costs
Non -Labor Costs
Process first time home buyer loan application
$
2,882
$
102
2,984
C
Annual review of below market rental development
$
12,523
$
448
12,972
U
,d
Process Below Market Ownership Units
$
4,976
$
183
5,159
Processs refinance requests
$
7,961
$
294
8,254
Q
Process surveys
$
455
$
28
$
483
Subtotal Direct Costs
$
28,797
1 $
1,055
r $
29,852
Support regional social services programs
$
107,821
$
4,211
112,032
v
U
Support to planning
$
22,602
$
1,390
23,992
Marketing and assisting developers with affordable
$
118,409
$
4,370
122,779
Management & Administration
15,900
528
16,428
Customer service
13,311
525
13,836
Subtotal Indirect Costs
$
278,043
1 $
11,025
r $
289,068
v
City and Department Overhead
43,390
43,390
O
Subtotal City and Department Overhead Costs
$
-
$
43,390
$
43,390
Total Costs Affordable Housing
$
306,840
1 $
55,470
$
362,310
The expenditures that are directly associated with the processing of Affordable Housing fees total $66,245. Of
this, $57,100 is currently being recovered. This means that the City is contributing $9,145 to support the
processing of these fees. The following graphic illustrates the direct, indirect, and City Overhead costs that
correlate to the processing of Affordable Housing Fees.
Figure 30: Cost Recovery Analysis for Affordable Housing
Cost and Revenue Comparison
$75,000
$65,000
$55,000
$45,000 Indirect Activity
Costs, $28,818
$35,000
Revenuesfrom
Housing Fees,
$25,000 $57,100
Direct Costs of
$15,000 House Fees,
$29,852
$5,000
$(5,000)
86.2% Cost
Recovery
City of Dublin, California
August 2012
The complete fee schedules are listed in Appendix F
Comprehensive User Fee Study
Page 26
City of Dublin, California Comprehensive User Fee Study
August2012 Page 27
SUMMARY OF RESULTS FOR
BUSINESS LICENSE FEES
Cost from business license processing comes from three primary sources:
• Planning Division;
• Building Division; and
• Fire Prevention. These groups provide code review and inspection services in support of processing
Business License Fees. Our analysis indicates the following contributions to the business licensing
costs.
Figure 31: Business License Cost Analysis
Business Licens
Incoming Costs
Planning
Building
Fire Prevention
$
$
$
90,170
129,665
29,533
Total Costs
$
249,368
Annual business License Applications
3,423
Unit Cost for a Business License
$
72.85
Current Cost for a Business License
$
50.00
Current Annual Revenue *
145,148
Estimated Annual Revenue at Full Cost
211,464
Additional Cost Recovery at Full Cost
66,316
* due to prorating the business license tee the average
was $42.40.
Based on this analysis and the current $50.00 fee for a business license it would appear that the City is under
recovering for these permits by $22.11. However, the city prorates the cost of the business license as
applications are made throughout the year. Therefore, the average business license fee is actually $42.40.
Based on this analysis the City could expect to recover $66,316 if it determined that full cost recovery was in
its best interest.
City of Dublin, California Comprehensive User Fee Study
August2012 Page 28
SUMMARY OF RESULTS FOR
SELECTED ADMINISTRATION FEES
The City processes selected user fees. These include fees pertaining to the administration of impact fees. To
calculate the fees, staff that processes these fees provided estimates of time that is required to administer the
services. These time estimates were then multiplied by a productive hourly rate that included labor, benefits,
and an overhead rate.
Figure 32: Administrative Service Fees
Unit Cost Summary
,Administrative Service Fees
Escrow Retention Fee
Per a
Actual
$23
$ 100
Unit
Per app
Total Cost
Current
Fee Name
Unit
Work
Surcharge or
Park Land
Assigned
Fee /Revenue
Volume
$546
(Subsidy)
,Administrative Service Fees
Escrow Retention Fee
Per a
1
$23
$ 100
$77
Per app
Impact Fee Credit Agreement Original —
Park Land
1
$546
($546)
Impact Fee Credit Agreement Original —
Per app
Improvements / Right of Way
Per app
1
$714
($714)
Impact Fee Credit Transfer Agreement —
Park Land
Per app
1
$224
($224)
Impact Fee Credit Transfer Agreement —
Improvements / Right of Way
1
$407
($407)
City of Dublin, California Comprehensive User Fee Study
August2012 Page 29
COMPARISON REVIEW
As part of this analysis, a survey was conducted of comparative fees and projects. To increase value and
relevance staff identified individual services (fees) that provide a reasonable basis of comparison and selected
projects. The combination of the two should provide the Council with an opportunity to see where Dublin's
fees are in relation to its neighbors. The selection of benchmark municipalities was made in conjunction with
staff. The following municipalities were selected:
♦ Pleasanton;
♦ Livermore;
♦ Danville
♦ Alameda County; and
♦ San Ramon
The selection criteria were primarily municipalities that had similar social /economic demographics and
communities with similar terrain and customers. In addition, our focus was on comparing highly relevant
projects that are common to the City as well as selected fees that have significant volume. This approach
maximizes value and provides the city with a higher level of comparison.
Fee by fee comparisons are notoriously difficult. The following are some reasons why individual fee
comparisons are challenging and should be approached with caution:
♦ Differences in service levels can change fee structure;
♦ Jurisdictions will often combine services so one fee with the same descriptions can have radically
different costs;
♦ Differences in cost recovery policy;
♦ Differences in cost recovery objectives;
♦ Flat fees vs time and material fees;
♦ Cost vs price. This comparison looks at the cost of the City of Dublin with the published prices of
the benchmark communities; and
♦ Length of time since the last fee update. We routinely find that local agencies may go 5, 10, or even
15 years between fee updates.
Given these differences we caution against setting fees based on benchmark municipal agencies. However, we
do find value in knowing the general trends in fees for setting cost recovery policy. Setting appropriate policy
with regard to local economic and social values is an important consideration for any local municipal agency.
City of Dublin, California
August 2012
Comprehensive User Fee Study
Page 30
Figure 33: Building Plan Review and Inspection Fees Comparison
This analysis shows that the current fees for a 2500 SF track home with a 400 sf garage is slightly lower than
the average but within the range of other jurisdictions. On balance, the City's building fees show close
approximation to the average of the five benchmark jurisdictions.
The following chart shows the comparisons by line item. The reader will note several missing data. This is
because the benchmark jurisdiction does not list a similar fee in their fee schedule, they do not provide the
same or equivalent service, or they did not respond to inquiries.
Building Fee Comparison
$100,000
$90,000
$80,000
$70,000
■ Current Fee levels
$60,000
■ Full Cost
$50,000
■ Pleasanton
$40,000
■ San Ramon
■ Livermore
$30,000
■ Danville
$20,000
■ Alameda County
$10,000
■ Average
2500 SF SFR
10,000 20,000 SF 100,000 SF 5,000 SF
Track home
Multifamily commercial commericial commerical
(with 400 sf
home, six units mercantile bldg mercantile bldg tenant
attached
improvement
garage)
(office bldg)
This analysis shows that the current fees for a 2500 SF track home with a 400 sf garage is slightly lower than
the average but within the range of other jurisdictions. On balance, the City's building fees show close
approximation to the average of the five benchmark jurisdictions.
The following chart shows the comparisons by line item. The reader will note several missing data. This is
because the benchmark jurisdiction does not list a similar fee in their fee schedule, they do not provide the
same or equivalent service, or they did not respond to inquiries.
City of Dublin, California Comprehensive User Fee Study
August 2012 Page 31
Figure 34: Selected Planning Fee Comparison
Dublin
Current Fee
Pleasanton
San Ramon
Livermore
Danville
Alameda County
Average
Planning Fees /Projects J&
levels
Full Cost
Pleasanton
San R�
Livermore
Danville
Alameda County
Average
Minor Temporary Use Permit
$
200
$ 741
$ 25
1 $
25
$
500
$
330
$1609 Plus T &M
$750 deposit Plus
Minor Use Permit
$
600
$ 3,451
$ 150
T &M
$
2,130
$330 -$660
$1609 Plus T &M
$3000 deposit Plus
$1320 (large
Non - Resident Conditional Use Permit
$
1,000
$ 11,240
$ 150
T &M
$
10,590
family child care)
Nothing listed
$5610 + $1101hr
Residential Site Development Review (60
after 51 hours of
Unit detached)
$
22,109
$ 35,500
$ 25,000
$
30,000
$
9,810
stafftime
T &M
$2,500 depost plus
Appeals
$
175
$ 14,714
$ 25
T &M
$
350
$
220
$250 or T &M
Current Fee
Engineering Fees /Permits
levels
Full Cost
Pleasanton
San on
Livermore
an e
Alameda
e
$25 permit,
Encroachment Permit- Telephone Utility
$90 -$110 for
1.9%: $5,001 -
$
99
$ 182
inspection
$80 11ir
$25,000
$
157
Residential Site Development Review (60
$1,000 then $80
Unit detached)
T &M
$ 15,000
$ 15,000
Hr
$
25,000
T &M
Ting
easanton
Sa
anville
County
Average
2500 SF SFR Track home (with 400 sf
attached garage)
$
4,460
$ 3,750
$ 4,844
$
4,213
$
3,574
$
5,480
$ 5,238
$ 4,210
10,000 Multifamily home, six units
$
12,640
$ 22,950
$ 13,781
$
7,692
$
17,248
$
16,850
$ 13,381
$ 12,907
20,000 SF commercial mercantile bldg
$
12,640
$ 22,950
$ 20,910
$
11,629
$
19,066
$
21,257
$ 18,103
$ 17,202
100,000 SF commericial mercantile bldg
$
52,000
$ 95,110
$ 88,385
$
41,451
$
31,236
$
81,105
$ 77,686
$ 53,691
5,000 SF commerical tenant improvement
(office bldg)
$
4,130
$ 6,909
$
3,272
$
6,235
$
6,222
$ 3,759
$ 4,754
(1) $280.00 to
replace a FAU +
A /C, a nccv FAU, or
a new Package Unit;
HVAC residential replacement (1st unit)
(2) $210.00 for a
new AIC; (3)
$420.00 for a new
$
60
$ 174
$ 38
$
152
$
123
$
83
FAU + AlC.
Residential water heater
$
50
$ 96
$ 36
$
52
$
37
$
83
$ I40
$ 42
Residential reroof
$
$ ]72
$ 212
$
173
$
246
$
275
$ 427
$ 210
Residential photovoltaic system
$
�24
$ 327
$ 174
$
50
$
246
$
300
$ 280
$ 157
Commercial photovoltaic l oOKVA system
$
$ 1,451
$ 3,024
$
50
$
246
$
1,000
Nothing listed
Police Fees
nt eel
Full Cost
Pleasanton
San
Livermore
Danville
Alameda County
Live scan
$
30
$ 44
$ 25
$
25
Actual cost
$
30
$ 20
$ 25
Finger print card
$
5
$ 44
$
15
Actual cost
$
10
$ 15
Taxi cab operator
$
150
$ 191
$ 150
$
157
$
205
$ 171
Visa letter
$
30
$ 50
$ 10
$
30
$
71
$
25
$ 37
Towed I stored vehicle release
$
115
$ 39
$ 100
$
loo
$
282
$
110
$ 161
Danville
(San
San Ramon Valley
Ramon Valley
Fire Prevention Fees
Current Fee 1
Full Cost
Pleasanton
Fire Protection
Livermore
Alameda County
Average
District
Fire Protection
District)
Plan review and inspection TI: <= 5000sf
$
250
$ 274
$
504
$
870
$
504
$ 120
r$ 687
One fire sprinkler TI: < =20 heads
$
190
$ 218
$
321
$
690
$
321
$ 200
$ 506
One residential sprinkler (NFPA 13 R)
$
390
$ 274
$
482
$
850
$
482
$ 280
r$ 666
The cryogenics
$
100
$ 215
$
132
$
510
$
132
$ 80
$ 321
The flammable combustible liquids
$ 251
$
132
$
330
$
132
$ 80
$ 231
Repair garages
$
100
$ 88
$
66
$
340
$
66
$ 80
$ 203
Places of assembly
$
25
$ 142
$
132
$
160
$
132
$ I60
$ 146
City of Dublin, California
August 2012
GENERAL OBSERVATIONS
Comprehensive User Fee Study
Page 32
OBSERVATIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
We note that the City of Dublin provides a high level of service to its development clients and
partners. We see this in the process that has been established for new development projects and how
the City works hard to become a partner with the developer.
We also note a highly educated and experienced staff that is committed to the City's objectives as
well as being service oriented to the clients and citizens they serve.
High reliance on time and material fees. Planning and engineering utilizes time and material fee
structure for the majority of its fees. It is our observation that this structure is successful in the City
because of it experienced staff and internal processes. While the logic of a time and material fee is
sound, it is often difficult to administer. Many California cities have not been successful with time
and material fee structures. It appears that the City of Dublin has the systems, the staff, and the
experience to be successful in a schedule of fees that is reliant on time and material fees.
RECOMMENDATIONS - POLICY DEVELOPMENT
The scope of this project included recommending strategies to maintain and update fee schedules.
Our first recommendation is to establish policies governing the recovery of cost from fees. These policies
should include:
♦ What costs should be recovered, if any. These costs can include:
• Direct costs;
• Indirect activity costs such as customer service at the public counter;
• Department overhead costs; and
• Citywide indirect costs.
♦ We recommend that city councils set cost recovery targets for those departments and
divisions that generate substantial revenues from fees. For example, many cities set a goal that
development "should pay for its self'. Our understanding is that the City of Dublin has a
policy that says "'new development should pay for itself'. Our recommendation is that this
should be defined for each department. For example, many cities would want Building and
Safety to pay for itself. However, there are often services within this work unit where full cost
recovery is of less importance than compliance or innovation. The new technologies and
code requirements for "green" building are prime examples of this. Because of this we
recommend the City Council define what costs should be recovered for each work unit.
City of Dublin, California Comprehensive User Fee Study
August2012 Page 33
Once the cost recovery levels are established, the City has a number of different options for designing fees that
will meet the cost recovery targets. The City might simply increase existing fees so that in total, all fees will
recover the targeted amount. Additionally, the City might also review each service and bring some to full cost,
and others to something less than full cost so that in total, they generate the targeted cost recovery rate.
Other considerations in fee - setting besides the analytical cost recovery objectives include key questions such
as:
♦ Is it feasible to set fees to the full cost recovery level?
♦ Will increasing fees result in compliance or public safety problems?
♦ Do adjustments in fees adversely affect other City goals?
♦ Are there other opportunities or changes that might bring costs into better balance with
revenues?
ADJUSTING THE FEE SCHEDULE
Building Fees
The State of California is very clear in that fees must have a clear nexus with cost. In other words, charges for
services can be set at cost but no higher than cost. Given this we recommend adjusting fees to reflect what has
been calculated for cost. However, we would also urge caution with regard to Building fees. Activity levels in
these services tend to be volatile. In addition, permits and applications that are submitted to the division late
in the fiscal year generate fee revenue but the actual inspection work is often done in the following year. This
can skew revenues in one year to look higher than they should and yet show lower revenues in year two.
Planning and Engineering Fees
Both of these divisions generate substantial fees by charging for time and material. As stated earlier, the City is
successful in this fee structure whereas many California jurisdictions are not. In our analysis we did discover
that Engineering routinely reviews selected Planning applications. This is fairly common throughout the
Western region. Over the last several years, the regulatory environment has required greater input from
engineering services in support of planning applications. To ensure full cost recovery we identified and
included those Planning applications that Engineering routinely provides input. Then we built these fees into
the Engineering fee schedule. This will allow the City to include these costs if it so desires.
General Recommendation on Adjusting Fee Schedules
We recommend annual adjustments to fees wherever possible. We also recommend a complete review of costs
for fee services every three to five years. With the annual update of fees we recommend using a simple CPI
increase. For example, if the labor cost for the City goes up by 2% then adjust each fee by 2 %. This is the
simplest and most common method of adjusting fees annually. It is our observation that the regulatory
requirements change enough within a three to five year time frame that a comprehensive review of costs is
then warranted.
City of Dublin, California Comprehensive User Fee Study
August2012 Page 34
SECTION V: APPENDICES
APPENDIX A. PLANNING
City of Dublin - Planning Fees
City of Dublin - Planning Fees
G� 2
141t���1
Fee Name
Service /
Fee Status
A ctu al
Work
Volume
Planning Fees
Major Amendmentto PD (CC) ($7,000- $2QCODdeposit
plus T& M)
Current
Unit
Such arge or
(Subsidy)
Minor Amendmentto PD (PC)
Current
2
Minor Amendmentto PD (Admin)
u«ent
2
Condominium Conversion ($15,ODDdeposit plus T &M)
Current
0OD /o
Master Sign Program -Amend existing ($5 deposit
plus T& M)
Current
CUP or SID R Time Extension Request(PC)
Current
9 3M
CUP or SID R Time Extension Request (Admin)
Current
1,018
Appeal: General Public
Current
2
Appeal: Applicant (T & M)
Current
$
CUP or SD R Time Extension Request (PC) (base fee plus
T &M)
Current
$0
$0
0OD /o
Provide 3GO radius Labels for Applicants asRequested
DELETE
Document Research & Preparation ($1GDdeposit)
Current
$0
Planning Reviewthrough Building Permit Process
Projectwith no Dev Deposit Acct
Current
2 482
Planning Reviewthrough Building Permit Process
Projectwith Dev Deposit Acct (T &M)
Current
$ 646
CEQA Categorical /Statutory Exemption for New
Development
DELETE
463
Initial Study and Negative Declaration (deposit$25,COD
plus T& M)
Current
17 063
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (deposit
$2-50DDplusT &M)
Current
1225%
Initial Study and FIR (deposit$EQODDplus T& M)
Current
General Plan Amendment (deposit $1QOOD plus T &M)
DELETE
($14,,539)
Specific Plan Amendment (deposit $1QODOplus T& M)
Current
$0
Standard Rezoning (deposit $1QOOD plus T & M)
DELETE
Planned Development (deposit $1QOODplus T& M)
Current
$
Annual ReviewofDA (deposit $3ODDplusT &M)
Current
$0
Tentative Subdivision Map (deposit $1QOODplus T& M)
Current
0OD%
Tentative Parcel Map (deposit $1QOODplus T& M)
Current
Master Sign Program -New (deposit $7,GDDplusT &M)
Current
$0
Sign /Site Development Review
Current
$0
Banner/Balloon Permit (Per sign /balloon)
Current
217
Site Development Review (basefee$140plusT &M)
Current
23
Site Development Review Waiver
Current
55
Non - Residential CUP: PC
Current
9
Non - Residential CUP: ZA
Current
1
Residential CUP: PC
Current
0
Residential CUP: ZA
Current
0
Daycare Center CUP (15+ children)
Current
1
CUP Minor Am end. (Admin)
Current
0
Zoning Clearance for Indoor Recreational Facilities
Current
7
Minor Use Permit
Current
4
Minor Amendmentto a Minor Use Permit
Current
0
Major Am endm ent to a Minor U se Form it
Current
0
Large Earn ily D ay Care H om e Z onin g Clearance
Current
5
Large Family Day Care Home Conditional Use Permit
Current
1
Non - Residential Variance
Current
0
Residential Variance
Current
0
MinorTemporary Use Permit
Current
35
Unit Cost Summary
Direct Unit
Cost
Indirect Unit
Allocated
Costs
ProjjectMgtand
Engineering
Costs
Total Cost
Assigned
Current
Fee /Revenue
Unit
Such arge or
(Subsidy)
Current
Recovery
Rate as
Percentage of
Total Cost
$
$0
$0
$0
0OD /o
6240
$4, 999
$11,240
$ 1,920
9 3M
17.
1,270
1,018
2288
$ 512
1,776
22
$
$0
$0
$0
0OD /o
$ -
$0
$0
$0
0OD /o
309B
2 482
210
5 790
$ 646
,144
11.1 0
463
375
210
17 063
$ 129
924
1225%
8169
F 545
14, 714
$ 175
($14,,539)
1-1-97.
$ -
$0
$0
$0
0OD /o
$
$0
$0
$ 20D
$2OD
0OD%
$
$0
$0
$0
0OD /o
$
$0
$0
$ 65
$65
0OD /o
$
$0
$0
$0
0OD' /o
$
$0
$0
$
$0
aOD /o
$
$0
$0
$0
0OD /o
$
$0
$0
$ 259
$2591
0OD110
$
$0
$0
$0
0OD' /o
$
$0
$0
$0
0OD' /o
$
$0
$0
$0
0OD /o
$
$0
$0
$01
0OD /o
$
$0
$0
$0
0OD /o
$
$0
$0
$0
0OD /o
$
$0
$0
$0
0OD /o
$
$0
$0
$0
0OD /o
$
$0
$0
1 $0
0OD /o
$
$0
$0
$0
0OD /o
$
$0
$0
$0
0OD /o
$ 1,842
$1,476
$3318
$ 129
($3,189)
$ 32
$25
$58
$ 25
($33)
43.27°%
$ -
$0
Pus EngT &M
$0
$ 140
$140
DOD /o
$ 454
$364
$210
$1,029
$ 250
($779)
24.30%
$ 6240
$4,999
PlusEngT &M
$11,240
$ 1,O0D
($1Q240)
890'/0
$ 5,855
$4,691
$653
$11,199
$ 750
($1 Q 449)
6 70/
$ 6,240
$4,999
$210
$11,450
$ 1,939
($9,511)
1693%
$ 5,855
$4,691
$210
$1 Q 757
$ 1,939
M1 818)
1803%
$ 6,240
$4,999
PlusEngT &M
$11,240
$ 9DD
($1Q740)
445%
$ 454
$364
$105
$924
$ 646
($278)
6995%
$ 451
$351
$210
$1,022
$ 250
($7-72)1
24.46°%
$ 1,8D,D
$1,442
$210
$3451
$ ODD
($2,851)
17.3B%
$ 454
$364
$105
$924
$ 129
($795)
1397%
$ 1, 80D
$1,442
$210
$3451
$ ODD
($2,851)
17.33%
$ 451
$351
$853
$1,6751$
10D
($1,575)
597%
$ 6240
$4,999
$853
$12103
$ 650
($11,453)
5.37°%
$ 6240
$4,999
$210
$11,450
$ 1,939
($9,511)
1693%
$ 6 240
$4,9991
$105
$11,345
$ 1,9391
($N 406)
17. W%
$ 288
$231
1 $221
$741
$ 2200
1 ($541)1_
27.00%
Capital Accounting Partners Page 1 of 4 Planning Unit Cost Calcs
City of Dublin - Planning Fees
City of Dublin - Planning Fees
Of
G� T✓2
141t���1
Unit
Cost Summary
Current
Actual
Indirect Unit
ProjjectMgtand
Unit
Recovery
Fee Name
Service /
Work
Direct
Unit
Allocated
Engineering
Total Cost
Current
Surcharge or
Rate asa
Fee Status
Cost
Assigned
Fee /Revenue
Volume
Costs
Costs
(Subsidy)
Percentage of
IL
Total Cost
Zoning Clearance
Current
$
225
$18D
$105
$510
$
($4670)
9� /o
SDR Residential Additions >�f
Current
$
1,842
$1,476
$3318
($3,318)
aOD /o
Heritage Tree Rom ovel
Cu« ent
$
235
$188
$423
($423)
0OD /o
Z on in g Clearance: Reasonable Accom od ati on for persons
w /disabilities
Current
$
451
$351
$812
($812)
0OD /o
Review of building plan check applications (non FCN)
Current
20D
$
85
$68
$154
($154)
0OD' /o
FCN project time allocation
Current
1
$
145,987
$116954
$262,941
$ 151,464
($111,477)
57.ffY/o
Estimate of contract time
Current
1
$
64$400
$519450
$335287
$1,M3 138
$ 1,197,141
($305997)
7964%
_77—ren,
0
0
Hourly and Overhead Rates
ow
CommunityDevelopm cut Director
Current
$
222
$177
$399
$ 1ffi
($213)
46 69'/
Current
$125
$ 179
($103)
63 3B%
Planning Manager
$
$
156
121
$282
Senior Planner
Current
$97
$217
$ 141
($77)
64.76°/
Principal Planner
$ 112
Current
$
136
$109
$246
($133)
4573%
Assistant Planner
$ 110
Current
$
85
$68
$154
($44)
71.61%
Code EnforcementOfficer
$ 103
$
85
$68
$153
$ 129
($51)
67. W/o
Composite H oudy Rate
Current
$
118
$95
$21330
($84)
x.61%
Capital Accounting Partners Page 2 of 4 Planning Unit Cost Calcs
City of Dublin - Planning Fees
City of Dublin -Planning Fees
or
G� y
ivl --7M s7,
l � J
�LlF
I Om Fee Name
Service /
Fee Satus
Actual Work
Volume
Planning Fees
MajorAmendmentto PD (CC) ($7,0DD-$2QODDdeposit plus T &M)
Current
0
Minor Amendmentto PD (PC)
Current
2
Minor Amendmentto PD (Admin)
Current
2
Condominium Conversion ($15,0DDdeposit plus T &M)
Current
0
Masher Sign Program -Amend existing ($ deposit plus T &M)
Current
0
CUPor SDRTimc Extension Request(PC)
Current
0
CUPor SDRTimc Extension Request(Admin)
Current
0
Appeal: General Public
Current
2
Appeal:Applicant(T &M)
Current
0
CUPorSDRTimc Extension Request (PC)(bascfceplusT &M)
Current
0
Fee
0
0
Provide 3CD radius Labels for Applicants as Requested
DELETE
0
Document Research & Preparation ($10Ddeposit)
Cu« ent
0
Planning Review through Building Permit Process - Project with no Dev
Deposit Acct
Cu« ent
0
Planning Review through Building Permit Process - Project with Dev
DepositAcct(T &M)
Current
0
CFQA Categorical /Statutory Exemption for New Development
DELETE
0
Initial Study and Negative Declaration (deposit $25,00D plus T &M)
Current
0
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (deposit $25,00D plus
T &M)
Current
0
Initial Study and FIR (deposit $EQOOD plus T & M)
Current
0
General Plan Amendment (deposit$1Q00Dplus T& M)
DELETE
0
Specific Ran Amendment (deposit $1QOODplusT &M)
Current
0
Standard Rezoning (deposit$1QODDplusT &M)
DELETE
0
Ran nedDevelopment (deposit$1QOODplusT &M)
Current
0
Annual Review ofDA (deposit$3 ODD plusT &M)
Current
0
TontativeSibdivision Map (deposit$1QOODplusT &M)
Current
0
Tentative Parcel Map (d eposit$1 QOOD plu s T &M)
Cu« ent
0
Masher Sign Program - New(deposit$7, ODD plusT &M)
Current
0
Sign /SteDevelopmentReview
Current
0
Ban n or/Balloon Perm it (Per sign/balloon)
Current
217
Site Development Review (base fcc$140plusT &M)
Current
23
Site Development Review Waiver
Cu« ent
55
Non - Residential CUP: PC
Cu« ent
9
Non - Residential CUP: ZA
Current
1
Residential CUP: PC
Current
0
Residential CUP: ZA
Current
0
Daycare Center CUP (15+children)
Current
1
Fee
Current
0
CU P Minor Am end. (Adm in)
Current
0
Zonin g Clearance for I ndoor Recreational Facilities
Current
7
Minor Use Permit
Current
4
Minor Amendmentto a Minor Uso Permit
Current
0
Major Amendmentto a Minor Uso Permit
Current
0
Large Fam ily D ay Care H om c Z onin g Clearance
Current
5
Large Family Day Care Homc Conditional Use Permit
Current
1
Non - Residential Variance
Current
0
Residential Variance
Current
0
Minor Temporary Use Permit
Current
35
Zoning Clearance
Current
0
SD R Residential Additions >9DDf
Current
0
Heritage Tree Removel
Current
0
Zoning Clearance: Reasonable Accom odations for persons w/d isabili ties
Current
0
Review of building plan check applications (non FCN)
Current
20D
Annual Recoverable Cost /Revenue at Full Cost
aaa
aaa
aaa
000
aaa
aaa
aaa
000
aaa
Capital Accounting Partners Page 3 of 4 Planning Annual Calcs
City of Dublin - Planning Fees
City of Dublin -Planning Fees
or
G� y
ivl --7M s7,
l � J
�LlF
Fee Name Service / Actual Work
Fee Status Volume
FCN project time allocation Current 1
Estimate ofcontracttime Current 1
Hourly and Overhead Rates
Community Development Director
Current
0
Panning Manager
Current
0
Senior Planner
Current
0
Principal Planner
Current
0
Assistant Fanner
Current
0
Code Enforcement Officer
0
0
Composite Hourly Rate
Current
0
Annual Recoverable Cost /Revenue at Full Cost
FuII Cost
$1,503,138
Current Fee Levels
$151,464
$1,197,141
Annual Surplus
(subsidy)
(111,477)
(305 997)
$0
$0
$0
0
$O
0
$O
$0
0
$O
$0
0
$O
$0
0
$0
$O
0
$0
$0
0
Annual Totals
$2 065, 976 1 $1, 39R 764 1 ($687,212)
"The Engineering portion of these costs have been included
in the Engineering revenue projection and therefore excluded
from the Fanning revenue projection.
Capital Accounting Partners Page 4 of 4 Planning Annual Calcs
APPENDIX B. BUILDING
a
a�
� V
0 � o r_i ✓_ ���
CU m
O
p
o
0
0
C
C
0
0
0
0
o
M
o
0
0
0
0
C
0
0
O
M
6i
M
O
6i
N
O
O
O
0
0
0
0
0
N
U O
O
> U
)
r—
co
O-i
�
M
00
N
Ln
00
M-4
00
M
M
CD
N
I�
LO
x
CD
0
0
CD
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Co
'z�-
O-)
co
M
O U
c0
00
I�
r
C9
N
L
N
C-)
M
C
C
C
U U
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
U U
C�
W
N
U
U U
U C2 o
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
C
O
C
O
C
O
C
O
C
O
C
O
C
O
C
O
C
O
C
O
C
O
C
O
C
O
C
O
C
O
C
O
C
O
C
O
C
O
C
O
C
O
W
W
d
cz�
C
M
L
N
O
co
O
O
co
J
c
o
o
00
N
O-)
M
O
o
�
00
64
M
64
b4
b4
N
0-)
&4
b4
O T
b4
L
64
M
b4
0-)
C9
I�
W
d
O
O
O
C tp �
� L
U
'�
O
O
b4
64
O
O
O
O
CD
-OO
CD
O
CD
CD
CD
sv
_
s4
_
s4
CD
N
_
s4
O
m
Z
®
fy
O
c
O
�
O
O
O
O
O
b4
o
O
000
L
`°
O
0000
E3
b4
m
O
O
O
CV
0
0
0
CO
m
O
O
O
_
O
O
O
CO
Z�-
6i
M
r
O
00
Ln
Ln
M
O
N
O
O
O
O
o
O
O
Q
_O
O
b4
O
O
°
E
`�
D
O
v4
_O
N
N
N
m
N
c0
c0
._
-O
Ln
Ln
°
L
c0
°
c0
C U
�
�
O
Ln
'O
Ln
Ln
U
CD
CD
O
O
O
O
O
O
a
a
El
Y
0
CD
a
s
O
O
O
O
CD
O
CD
O
CD
O
CD
O
O
O
O
O
L
O
O
U O
O
CD
CD
CD
CD
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
a
U
O
Ln
O
Ln
T
O
Q
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
Ln
�
&4
b4
c
c
O
4
b4
c
�
�
&4
s4
s4
s4
s4
s4
s4
s4
s4
s4
s4
s4
s4
s4
s4
s4
0
s4
s4
s4
s4
E
CO
0
M
CO
�
N
N
M
N
C",
E
co
O
�
O
64
O�
N
O
64
O
b4
O
b4
O
b4
N
N
co
b4
O
M
b4
O
b4
E
Q
N
0
0
0
0
�
EA
�
o
C9
M
u
X00
o
0
0000
O
O
O
o
0
0
0
0
N
O
0
0
0
0
Ln
O
U C
OOOO
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
b4
b4
b4
0
0
0
b4
b4
�
�4
�4
�4
m
�4
Ln
�4
�4
Ln
�4
�4
�4
Ln
�4
Ln
�4
�4
�4
Ln
�4
Ln
�2
�2
U C
U 0
U
N O
J
U
o Q
C
� U
U
U � C
Y U
_ � d
® C X
G
W
_
r—
O
C9
O)
Q
00
'Z�-
O
Co
O
O
O
O
CV
M
L
O
O
bl�
I--
EA
DO
O)
64
N
C9
b4
c
�
64
N
64
64
O
I--
64
64
64
64
CO
C9
b4
C9
64
64
� Y
b4
s4
�
s4
s4
N
U U 0
s4
s4
s4
� ° U
� Q
C
N
Ln
M
O)
C9
O)
�
C9
N
�
N
O
O)
O
CU
N
O_
Ln
O)
m
CU
M
O
� U
0
&4
b4
b4
b4
b4
b4
b4
b4
b4
b4
b4
b4
b4
b4
b4
b4
b4
b4
b4
b4
a
a�
� V
0 � o r_i ✓_ ���
CU m
O
0-)
0-)
O
M
M
O
O
M
O
C9
M�
U O
N
�
M
C9
M
-
Ln
Q >
N
L
U
> N
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
U U
C�
W
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
C
O
C
O
C
O
C
O
C
O
C
O
C
O
C
O
C
O
C
O
C
O
C
O
C
O
C
O
C
O
C
O
C
O
C
O
C
O
C
O
C
O
W
W
C
�
J
�
C
cl
O
C
c
O
L
�
W
d
O
O
O
'�
O
O
O
O
O
O
CD
-OO
CD
O
CD
CD
CD
sv
_
s4
_
s4
CD
_
s4
O
m
Z
®
fy
O
c
O
�
O
O
O
O
O
b4
o
�'
L
`°
O
CD
O
m
o
E3
b4
m
J
m
O
O
O
_
�
_
O
00
c
_
O
00
c
°
O
o
O
°
-o
Q
_O
O
b4
_O
,,
°
E
`�
D
O
v4
_O
°
W
m
o
O
._
-O
°
Ln
64
°
L
o
Ln
°
�
O
Ln
'O
CD
CD
O
O
O
O
O
O
a
a
El
Y
0
CD
a
s
O
O
O
O
CD
O
CD
O
CD
O
CD
O
O
O
O
O
L
O
O
O
CD
CD
CD
CD
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
a
U
O
Ln
O
Ln
Q
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
Ln
�
&4
b4
c
c
O
4
b4
c
c
>
O
Ln
s4
s4
efl
efl
0
°o
°o
°o
°o
a
Q
CD
0
0
0
0
o
u
X00
o
0
0000
O
O
O
o
0
0
0
0
°
0
0
0
0
0
O
O
OOOO
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
El°
o
0
0
0
�4
�
�4
�4
�4
m
�4
Ln
�4
�4
Ln
�4
�4
�4
Ln
�4
Ln
�4
�4
�4
Ln
�4
Ln
�2
�2
U C
U 0
U
N O
J
N
O
U
m
a
W
N
0)
(0
O
U
Q
.Q
U
W
V
a
CO
0 ut o r_i ✓_��f� \ \]���9
p = r
CU m
4
U)
0
U
c
m
00
0
N
N
(0
m
N
C
0
U
Q
.Q
U
E
oo
CCD
N
W
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
m
C
E
o
�
�
Z
cn
W
C
°_
�
c
°
C
Q
L
E
�
W
°
T
N
w
W
cn
T
t
E
E
m
_
C
O
Q
L
�
m
d
U
U
=
°
d
CD
a
(-3
J
_>
� C
U °
U
N O
J
4
U)
0
U
c
m
00
0
N
N
(0
m
N
C
0
U
Q
.Q
U
a
CO
JOE
CU m
_ O
p o
o
0
o
0
Q
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
0
0
>,
L
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O Ln
j U
Ln
CO
O-)
O
O
CD
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
M
M
r
CD
Q �
,2 o
d
N
CD
CO
I
M
N
N
O
O
CD
CD
N
I—
LO
a
a
N
M &4
CO
a
a
a a
U T
b4
64
b4
a
a
Lo
&'i
N
a
CO
CO
p) �
64
b4
b4
b4
b4
a a
b4
b4
b4
b4
� L
d
d
d
d
d
d
� N
d
d
d
d d
Q Q
Q
Q
^
C
N
O
O
C
O
O
O
O
00
�
COO
N
N
Q
C �
�
U
O
N
C
O
O
>
>
L
p
C
O
O
�
C
O
E
C
U O
Y
C
T
O
->
`�
O
O
E
ID
M
N
I�
O
64
N
�?
U
Lo
O
O
N M 64
CO
>
Ln
CD
E
U
N
0
_
O
M
L
O
p
C
O
EA
N
CO
C
CD
�
b4
b4
b4
N
b4
b4
iY/1
C
b4 b4
b4 b4
b4
b4
O
U
�
cl
o Q
O
O
C
O
W
O
E
d
O
-
O
L
iy
U
�t
O
O
O
S
L
U
� � C
Ul
Ul
¢
tp
m
d
® C X
G
p
C
C
El
o
W
O
w
E
>
CD
w
O
m
L
O
O
6i
CD
Ln
N Ln O
O CD CD
r
I�
O
Lo
EA
r
64
&4
M
MD
CD
N
N
b4
07 Lo &4
b4 b4
CD
M b4 b4
CD
N
'�
b4
l
b4
b4
O
b4
b4
U U 0
d
z,
�
E
d
d
S
� � U
U
U
C
C
Y
N
S
� Q
C
Y
.o
.o
C
00
EO
O
N
M
CO
O
M 07
I-- r
r
CO
O
d
07
O
N
'wit
M I—
N CD CD
oo
O
O
p
O
O
c
O
L U
O
p
U
U
d
w
S
O
�
d
( n
O
�
I
CD
'-
Y
0 64
&4
b4
b4
b4
b4
b4
b4
b4 b4 b4
b4 b4 b4
b4
_ O
o
O
N
O-)
O
N
O
Ln
U O
CD
M
CD
Q �
N
W
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a a
a a
a
a
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d d
Q Q
Q
Q
^
C
O
O
C
O
O
�
-
d
Q
�
U
O
N
C
O
O
>
>
L
p
C
O
O
�
C
O
E
C
O
Y
C
-
�
->
`�
O
O
�?
U
�
O
>
U
O
_
O
L
O
p
C
O
C
U
E
N
iY/1
C
.Y
O
cl
O
O
O
W
O
E
d
O
-
O
L
iy
U
�t
O
O
O
S
L
Ul
Ul
¢
tp
m
d
N
p
C
C
El
o
O
w
E
>
CD
w
O
m
O
cl
MD
l
E
O
d
z,
�
E
d
d
S
U
U
C
C
Y
N
S
Y
.o
.o
C
00
EO
O
El
d
O
O
'wit
>
O
O
p
O
O
c
O
O
p
U
U
d
w
S
O
�
d
( n
O
�
O
(n
CD
'-
Y
�
�
O O
(n
L
L
O
C
U O
U
N O
J
4
N
O
U
D
m
00
O
Cl)
N
(0
a_
(n
N
C
O
U
Q
(B
.Q
(B
U
T
E
E
N
U
a
CO
0 � o r_i ✓_
Um
p o
0
C
0
C
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L ° O
O
O O
O O
r
c0
N
N
O
O
O
6i
CO
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
> O
O O
O
O
N
O
O
O
O
O
O O
00
z7D
U
N
O
U
o co
M
co
D7
r
co n CD
M N N
n
N
O
&4
O
b4
_
O
n
CD 'E
O T
b4 b4
N
�
b4 b\4 b4
N
CD
C tp 'n
b4
N
N
m
°
O
O
O
C
C �
� �
U °
CD
CD
c0
O
O
O
M
D7
0-) r
M
N
&4
b4
O
CD
OfA
64
N
b4
I
N
ID
� 64
N &4
b4 b4
b4 b4
b4
b4
U C
bq
m
o Q
U
� � C
® C X
G
W
c0
}' 'n
0) CD
In N
N M
O
ZD
O
CD
O EA
M s4
64
M
D7
D7
CD CD
&4 b4 b4
0
CD 0-)
b4 b4
&4
&4
lz�-
N
CD
b4
b4
b4
b4
U U 0
� � U
� Q
C
0-)
O r 0-)
r
N O 0-)
O
CD
00 Ln
C
Ln
M
CO
N
N 0-) 00
0-) M
Ln
M
0-)
O
I
U h
api
pp
0
O
N
E
O
° O
ON
O
O
Ln
M
O
CD
O
Q �
N
W
d
C
O
d
d
d
d
C
C
d
d d
d
d
Q
Q Q
Q
Q
d
d d
d
d
d
d
d
d
�
O
C
vj
C
Y
L
O
-
p
0
O
C
O
>
U
d
O
O
>
-O
td
C/�
C
C
C
L
U
O
W
O
O
C
-
T
2
O
N
_
O
_�
OC
U
- U
LL
O O
>
U
W
p
-O
X X
O
N
O
°
-
z
-
Cn
O
12
m
m
0
o OU
O
O
L
W
O
O
O
O O
E
O
U
O
U
d
O
U
O O
O
C
Y
~
N _Q
Q
O O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
C
O d
N
U
o
E
C
U °
U
N O
J
d
a
a�
CO
CU m
4
U)
O
U
c
m
00
O
LO
(1)
0)
m
m
U)
co
7
O
U
Q
.Q
U
E
o
CD
U ?) O
> (n
N
U
W
N
W
d
�
W
d
U
z
d
d
d
a
0
U
O
J
O
E
t°
w
z
z
¢
�
C
z
�
°
CD
C
C
O
�O
U
~
N
C
O
O
O
C
U O
U
N O
J
4
U)
O
U
c
m
00
O
LO
(1)
0)
m
m
U)
co
7
O
U
Q
.Q
U
O
U
W
�
a
N ._
C �
C
Q
W
,v^
V!
M
M
M M
- r
O
_
O
M
r
c0
O
M
N
O
M
CD
N
M
CO
N
CD
6)
N
r
CO
M
r
N
N
r
O7
CD
CD
N
M
c0
N
O
O
M
c0
O
O7
CD
N
M
N
N O O
N
O7
C
�
E
r
r
M
M
M
O
O
`�
0
0
0
CD
°
J
O O
O
O
O
O
O
O
M
O
N
CD
M
�
O O
CD
O
O
O
O
N
00
Or
O
0i
O
N
ID M
�
N
6)
6)
M
N
N
O
O
CD
r�
c0
O O
w
r
N
M
l
07
CD
D
r
N
64
b4
b4
b4
C
M
&4 b4
CD
M
r
Ln
M
C9
M
r
CD
CCD
M
C
C
b4 b4
b4
b4
b4
EA
&4
64
b4
b4
&4
b4
�
&4
b4
N
In
M
U
O
'L N
b4
b4
b4
b4
O
.
.
.
.
.
.
�
U
C/�
LL
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
0
C
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
U
O
O
O
O
d
d d
O
N
co
�
0
m
M
c0
°
M
M
O
r
co
O
2
co
CD
O
M
t6
Ln
t6
r
t6
t6
t6
t6
t6
O
In
t6
t6
t6
U
r r
00 N
CD
In
M
N
M
cN
0-1
N
O
°�
CD
M
c0
O
O
O
O
O
CD
O O
N
CD
r
CO
°�
CD
In
�
N
CD
�_
Ln
64
64
b4
M
r
�
M
07
M
b4 64
C
=
C
b4 b4
b4
b4
b4
b4
M
b4
&4
CD
&'i
N
64
64
b4
00
b4
N
r
&4
&'i
N
Q
W
W
W
s�
s4
s4
s4
s4
s4
C
�
Y
0 �
W
,v^
V!
LL
Um
Y
0 �
E
r
r
M
M
M
O
O
`�
0
0
0
CD
M
r
O O
O
N
M
N
N
M
O�
M
CD
M
>
N
�
U
Q
'L N
.
.
.
.
.
.
C/�
LL
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
C
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
d
d d
t6
t6
t6
t6
t6
t6
t6
t6
t6
t6
t6
t6
t6
t6
t6
t6
t6
t6
t6
t6
<6
N
N N
W
W
W
C
�
�
C
C
�
O
L
�
O
d
CD
O
Z
00
O
O
bq
`°
o
C-)
O
0
bq
`°
O
E
J
t°
O
°
O
O
-
O
O
-
O
�
-
_
E
°�
O
0
-
O
o
tp
o
O
O
O
°
>
O
p
0
O
°
c0
w
O
.�'
-°
00
O
b4
L
Lo
-O
N
_�
L
Ln
W
Z
L
L
u
&i
m
&i
m
O
-
U
-
-
O
O
O
O
O
O
a
a
E
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
L
O
O
t°
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
0
0
-°
-°
°
U
O
Ln
C
Q
Q
O
O
O
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
a
Y
Ln
Ln
>
O
o
cv
c-5 i
�
Ln
O
O
Ln
sv
Ln
s4
efl
sv
s4
s4
C
°
O m
c
�
s4
s4
z
°
~
O
O
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
°
O
O
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
E
°
°
0
0
Cc
cD
°
E C
N
O
�
O
ss
Ln
ss
ss
N
ss
M
ss
ID
ss
Ln
ss
Ln
ss
ss
ss
Ln
ss
Ln
ss
ss
ss
Ln
ss
Ln
ss
°�
p
°
�
°
w
�
ss
ss
Ln
ss
ss
w
¢ a
W'
C
cl
N O
J
U)
U
m
U
m
c
c
Q
c
m
co
0
N
m
N
m
C
0
U
Q
(0
.Q
m
U
O
U
w
�
a
N
_ O
�
C
Q
N
O
M
CD
�
c
O"J
c0
CD
O
L
cD
M
O
M
O
N
I�
p-�
�_
N
N
O
O
O
O"J
O
O
M
CD
�
M
cO
cO
C
�
E O
M
O
cV
Ln
O
O
M
M
O
N
N
0
0
O
O
O
N
O
O
J
cD
O
cD
O
O
M
O
c0
O
cD
U
O
Lo
Q
O,
W &4
I-
O
&4
O
O
N
O
b4
cD
O
I_
CD
N
c0
c0
0
b4
(D
(D
0
N
0
b4
O
64
O
b4
O
b4
O
b4
O
b4
O
b4
O
b4
O
b4
O
b4
O
b4
O
b4
O
c,
c"j
&i
U
U
C
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
CD
CD
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
�
U
.
.
.
.
.
.
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
O U
N
W
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
C
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
o
U
�
O
0
NO
co
d
d
N
d
�_
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
M
-
N
O
N
N
O
�
O7
c0
O
N
N
O
N
N
N
O
0
0
fl-
o)
N
0
0
O
�
cD
O
O
CM9
U
s4
O
-
s4
CD
&4
c0
M
-
o,
-
�_
Ln
&4
0-)
&4
-
N
M
�
&4
&4
&4
CD
�
�_
co
co
C
O
�
c-,j
c9
D7
O
O
Y
W
,,c^,i
v!
LL
��,4
Um
Y
0 �
E O
M
O
cV
Ln
O
O
M
M
O
N
N
0
0
O
O
O
N
O
O
cD
cD
cD
M
cD
U
Q
U
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
CD
CD
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
O U
N
W
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
C
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
fl-
fl-
fl-
fl-
C
O
O
O
-
d
�
U
O
N
C
O
O
>
>
L
p
C
O
O
O
E
C
O
Y
C
-
�
U
M
O
>
U
p
L
O
C
O
C
U
Y
O
\
N
C
O
>
W
Im
d
¢
U
m
N
p
CD
-
C
�t
T
N
W
d
O
YO
.
O
O
O
O
Q
J
N
>>
O
E
x'
d
m
O
O
E
O
O
S
Q
U
T
C
m
C
C
Y
_
p_
p_
m
O
O
O C
U
U
d
CD
d
U
S
S
ol-
Qf�
m
Y
CD
U
d
w
w
w
w
w
J
W
(n
(n
(n L
(n
W
w
w
� C
U O
U
N O
J
U)
U
M
U
m
c
c
Q
c
m
00
O
N
0)
C
O
U
Q
.Q
U
O U
W
�
a
T
N O00
C
C
Q
d
fl-
Q
�
06
O
d
fl-
Q
O
o-)
N
cO
00
O
O
CD
M
O
d
L1
t6
N
d
L1
t6
N
° n L O IO O
C O
�
d
L1
t6
N
d
L1
t6
N
d
L1
t6
N
a_ CD
C
C
O
E
CD
J
0
O
CD
0
0
O
O
r
M
O
O
O O
O
_
O
O O
C9
L
N
c
O
>
M
Ln
U
O
W
O
0
0
0
0
N
0
C9
L
O
O
O
O
O O O
0 0
y
&4
b4
b4
b4
b4
b4
&4
CO
64
64
b4
b4
b4 I b4
00 � &4
O
O
Z
t°
-o
Ib4
m
m
m
p
U >
>
>
>
C
C
>
�
U
CD
CD
CD
Cn
LL
L
U
U
U
U
U
U
3:
O
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
O
CD
W'
O
co
c9
Q
2
U
O
Cv
c9
M
O
Cv
co O
U O
co
O
O
O
O
M
O
O
O
0 0
0 0
64
M
Of
b4
b4
b4
b4
b4
b4
b4
b4 b4
N M I� 64 64
Q
Y �
�
d
fl-
Q
d
fl-
Q
d
fl-
Q
d
fl-
Q
d
fl-
Q
C
7
N
C
7
N
O
L
N
d
L1
t6
N
d
L1
t6
N
d
L1
t6
N
d
L1
t6
N
d
L1
t6
N
d
L1
t6
N
d
L1
t6
N
d
L1
t6
N
d
L1
t6
N
a_ CD
C
O
E
CD
O
0
O
CD
0
0
0
O
r
M
O
O
C9
O
_
O
O O
C9
L
N
0 0
O
>
M
_
O
O
U
F
C
O
-
Q
C
O
Z
t°
-o
m
m
m
p
U >
>
>
>
C
C
>
CD
CD
CD
Cn
LL
L
U
U
U
U
U
U
3:
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
0
C
Q
In
U
m
U
m
c
c
Q
c
m
co
0
00
N
0)
m
a_
to
N
m
7
O
U
Q
.Q
m
U
�
d
fl-
Q
d
fl-
Q
d
fl-
Q
d
fl-
Q
d
fl-
Q
C
7
N
C
7
N
O
L
N
d
L1
t6
N
d
L1
t6
N
d
L1
t6
N
d
L1
t6
N
d
L1
t6
N
d
L1
t6
N
d
L1
t6
N
d
L1
t6
N
d
L1
t6
N
a_ CD
C
O
O
0
O
_
O
O
F
C
O
-
C
O
Z
t°
-o
m
m
m
p
O
C
C
L
U
O
N
-O
3:
12
CD
O
Q
2
U
d
G
O
c
-
T
C
O
2
O
IA
O O
Z W
O
O
jf
Y
N
C
C
a
W
N
O
O
-O
C
O
O CO
N
O W
— W
O
O
W
O
Z
O
O
O
_
-O �
W
°
C,
N
O
o
o
O
O C
O
O
U
~
a Q
O O
O
O
Um
3:
a�
ae
U
O
O
O
°
O
O
O O
cn L
aa�
cn U
U Ua�
U
U
O
N o
J
0
C
Q
In
U
m
U
m
c
c
Q
c
m
co
0
00
N
0)
m
a_
to
N
m
7
O
U
Q
.Q
m
U
APPENDIX C. PUBLIC WORKS - ENGINEERING
City of Dublin
Public Works - Fees
os
G� 2
�Llt
Service
Type
Fee Name
Service /
Fee Status
Actual
Work
Volume
FN G ENGINEERING FEES
FNG_
Site work / grading permit calculated fixed fee)
Site work / grading perant
N ew
3C
FNG_
u «ent
FNG_
ENCROACHMENT PERMITS
FNG_
Permit processing fee
C u «ent
70
FNG_
Plan checking
urrent
$0
FNG_
Resurfacing surcharge
C u«ent
$ 52
FNG_
Resurfacing surcharge
C u«ent
($76)
FNG_
Storage / Garbage contain
C u«ent
so
FNG_
Inspection Fees - Encroachment Fees
Transfers and longitudinal tranches, road cuts, etc: 1 -
100 LF
Current
FNG
FNG
Transfers and longitudinal tranches, road cuts, etc:
1 >100 LF
Current
0.00%
FNG -
Construction concrete sidewalk, curb, and gutter 1- 50
LF
Current
1
FNG_
Construction concrete sidewalk, curb, and gutter > LF
Current
0
FNG_
Constructing concrete driveways: residential
C u «ent
0.00%
FNG_
Constructing concrete driveways: commercial
C u Trent
FNG -
Constructing drain inlets, manholes, and connections to
same
Current
$455
FNG
Asphalt concrete paving, curb, and gutter tie -in, etc I-
100 SF
Current
$0
FNG -
Asphalt concrete paving, curb, and gutter tie-in, etc >100
SF
Current
65.90%
FNG_
Temporary street or lane closure
Current
$ 80
FNG_
Miscellaneous work (or for services not listed)
Current
$1
FNG_
Banner signs (attached to street and lighting posts)
Current
6.59%
FNG_
Banner signs (Crossing the road)
Current
$ 50
FNG
Transportation / Oversized Vehicle Permits: Annual
Current
$180
FNG_
Transportation / Oversized Vehicle Permits: Single trip
Current
5
FNG_
House / Building relocation
Current
$ 80
FNG_
1131ock party / street closure
Current
$60
FNG_
Film / Photography - Basic fee
Current
52.72%
FNG_
1 $0
$1
$ 0
FNG_
Bonds - as required (deposit only)
Current
$30
FNG_
Building division permit referral - residential
Current
50
FNG_
Building division permit referral - non residential
Current
147
FNG_
ADA site compliance review
D F L F T F
10
FNG_
Newsrack Permit
Total Encroachment Permits
lCapital Improvement Projects (CIP)
Total time assigned to FCN projects
Current
20
FNG_
D F L F T F
Current
C u «ent
1
1
FNG_
FNG_
PLANNING FEES (cost of these fees have been
included in the Planning fee schedule
PL_
CUP or SDR Time Extension Request (PC)
C u rrent
$ 16
PL_
CUP or SDR Time Extension Request (Admin)
Current
PL_
Site Development Review
Current
($38)
PL_
Site Development Review Waiver
Current
55
PL_
Non - Residential CUP: PC
Current
9
PL_
Non - Residential CUP: ZA
Current
1
PL_
lResidential CUP: PC
Current
0
PL_
Residential CUP: ZA
Current
0
PL_
Daycare Center CUP (15+ children)
Current
1
PL
CUP Minor Amend. (Admin)
Current
0
PL_
Zoning Clearance for Indoor Recreational Facilities
C u«ent
7
PL
Minor Use Permit
Current
4
U nitCost Summary
Direct U n it
Cost
Indirect Unit
Allocated
Costs
To al Cost
Assigned
Current
Fee /Revenue
Unit
Surcharge or
(Subsidy)
C u rrent
Reco very
Rate asa
Percentage of
Total Cost
0
0
0
000.
0
0
$ 10
10
0.00%
$
$0
$0
$0
0.00%
$ 52
$34
$86
$ 10
($76)
11.69%
0
so
$ 128
128
0.00 0
0
0
$ 50
50
0.00%
0
0$
1
1
0.00%
0
0
$ 35
35
0.00%
$
$ 275
$0
$0
$0
($375)
0.00%
1 $180
$455
$ 80
17.57%
$ 0
$0
$1
$ 1
($0)
65.90%
$ 275
$180
$455
$ 80
($375)
17.57%
$ 1
$1
$2
$ 0
($1)
6.59%
$ 183
1 $120
$303
$ 50
($253)
16.47%
$ 275
$180
$455
$ 100
($355)
21.97%
$ 367
$240
$607
$ 80
($527)
13.18%
$ 92
$60
$152
$ 80
($72)
52.72%
$ 0
1 $0
$1
$ 0
($1)
13.18%
$ 46
$30
$76
$ 25
($51)
32.95%
$ -
$0
$0
$ 128
$128
0.00%
$ 275
$180
$455
$ -
($455)
0.00%
$ -
$0
$0
$ -
$0
0.00%
$ 39
$25
$64
$ 16
($48)
24.95%
$ 77
1 $51
$128
$ 90
($38)
70.17%
$ -
$0
$0
$ 128
1 $128
0.00%
$ 39
$25
$64
$ 35
($29)
54.57%
$ 116
$76
$192
$ 90
($102)
46.78%
$
$0
$0
$0
$ -
$0
$0
$ 0
$0
0.00%
$ 107
$70
$178
$ 110
($68)
61.90%
$ 215
1 $141
$355
$ 220
($135)1
61.90%
$ 161
$106
$267
$ 165
($102)
61.90%
$ -
$0
$0
$ 180
$180
0.00%
$ -
$0
$0
$ 49,614
$49,614
0.00%
$ -
$0
$0
1 $0
0.00%
$ 550,375
$360,626
$911,001
1 $ 672547
($238,454)
73,83%
Capital Accounting Partners Page 1 of 4 Public Works Unit Calcs
City of Dublin
Public Works - Fees
os
G� 2
UnitCostSummary
$60
$152
Actual
Service
C u rrent
Service /
Indirect Unit
$ 128
Unit
Work
Type
Allocated
Fee S aws
Current
Fee /Revenue
Surcharge or
Rate asa
Volume
PL_
MinoxAmendmenttoaMmorl'_ r "
Current
0
0
PL
Major Amendment to a Minor Use Permit
Current
PL_
Large Family Day Care Home Zoning Clearance
Current
5
PL_
Large Family Day Care Home Conditional Use Permit
_
($89)
700%
0.00%
$89
$ 107
Current
1
PL_
Non - Residential Variance
Current
0
PL_
Residential Variance
Current
0
PL_
Minor Temporary Use Permit
Current
35
PL_
Zoning Clearance
Cutrout
$70
$178
u«ent
0.00%
$ 54
Estimate of contract time
Current
1
($89)
0.00%
Current
$74
Hourly Rates
E N G _
Commposit Inspector Rate
$ 54
$35
$89
Current
1
E N G
Composite Hourly Rate
0
_
5557.
Current
1
E N G _
Composit Engineering Rate
($177,868)
70.64%
$
$0
Current
1
UnitCostSummary
$ 92
$60
$152
$ 12E
($24)
C u rrent
Indirect Unit
$ 128
Unit
Recovery
Direct Unit
Cost
Allocated
Total Cost
Assigned
Current
Fee /Revenue
Surcharge or
Rate asa
Costs
$ 128
(Subsidy)
Percentage of
$ 130
$85
$216
($88)
Total Cost
$ 54
$35
_
($89)
700%
0.00%
$89
$ 107
$70
$178
($178)
$ 441
$289
$730
($730)
0.00%
$ 441
$289
$730
($730)
0.00%
$ 107
$70
$178
($178)
0.00%
$ 54
$35
$89
($89)
0.00%
$ 113
$74
$187
($187)
0.00%
$ 54
$35
$89
($89)
0.00%
0
0
so
5557.
$ 366,050
1 $239,850
$605,900
$ 428,032
($177,868)
70.64%
$
$0
$0
$0
1 0,00%
$ 92
$60
$152
$ 12E
($24)
84.29%
$ 128
$ 111
$73
$184
($55)
69.83%
$ 128
$ 130
$85
$216
($88)
59.35%
Capital Accounting Partners Page 2 of 4 Public Works Unit Calcs
City of Dublin
Public Works - Fees
Service
Type
Fcc N am
Actual
Work
Volume
ENGINEERING FEES
ENG _
Site work/ grading permit (calculated fixed fee)
0
ENG —
Site work/ grading permit
30
ENG_
ENCROACHMENT PERMITS
0
ENG _
Perm it processing fee
70
ENG _
Plan checking
0
ENG _
Resurfacing surcharge
0
ENG _
Resurfacing surcharge
0
ENG _
Storage /Garbage contain
0
ENG_
Inspection Fees - FncroachmentFees
0
ENG _
Transfers and longitudinal tranches, road cuts, etc: 1 - 100 L
0
ENG _
Transfers and longitudinal tranches, road cuts, etc: 1 >1 00 L
0
ENG _
Construction concrete sidewalk, curb, and gutter 1 - 50 L
0
ENG_
C onstruction concrete sidewalk, curb, and gutter> L F
0
ENG _
Constructing concrete driveways residential
0
ENG_
C onstructing concrete driveways commercial
0
ENG_
Constructing drain inlets, manholes, and connectionsto same
0
ENG _
Asphalt concrete paving, curb, and gutter tic -in, etc 1 -100 SF
0
ENG _
Asphalt concrete paving, curb, and gutter tic -in, etc >100 SF
0
ENG _
Temporary street or lane closure
0
ENG_
M iscellaneous work(orfor services not listed)
0
ENG _
Banner signs (attached to street and lighting posts)
0
ENG_
Banner signs (Crossing the road)
0
ENG_
Transportation /Oversized Vehicle Permits: Annual
0
ENG_
Transportation /Oversized Vehicle Permits: Singletrip
5
ENG _
H oust /Building relocation
0
ENG _
Block party /street closure
0
ENG _
Film /Photography - Basic fee
0
ENG_
Fee
0
ENG_
Bonds - asrequired(depositonly)
0
ENG _
Building division permit referral - residenti al
50
ENG _
Building division permit referral - non residential
147
ENG_
ADA site compliance review
10
ENG_
N ewsrack Perm it
23
0
ENG_
Total FncroachmentPermits
CapitalImprovement Projects (CIP)
Total time assigned toFCN projects
ENG_
1
ENG_
1
0
PLANNING FEES (cost of th ese fees have been included in the
Planning fee schedule)
$672,547
$0
PL_
CUPorSoRTimeFxtension Request (PC)
0
0
PL_
CUP or So R Time Fxtension Request (Admin)
PL_
CUP or So R Time Fxtension Request (PC)
PL_
CUP or So R Time Fxtension Request (Admin)
0
0
PL_
Site D evclopm ent Review
PL_
Site D evclopm ent Review Waiver
55
PL_
N on- Residential CU P: PC
9
PL_
N on- Residential CU P: ZA
1
PL_
Residential CUP: PC
0
PL_
Residential CU P: ZA
0
PL_
DaycareCenterCUP(15 +children)
1
PL_
CUP Minor Am end. (Admin)
0
PL_
Z oning Clearance for l ndoor Recreational Facilities
7
PL_
M inor U so Perm it
4
PL_
MinorAmendmenttoaMinorUso Perm it
0
PL
MajorAmendmenttoaMinorUso Perm it
0
Annual Recoverable Cost /Revenue at Full Cost
FuII Cost
Current Fcc Levels
Annual Surplus
(subsidy)
$0
$0
0
$0
$300
300
$0
$0
0
$5,989
$700
(5,289)
$0
$0
0
$0
$0
0
$0
$0
0
$0
$0
0
$0
$0
0
$0
$0
0
$0
$0
0
$0
$0
0
$0
$0
0
$0
$0
0
$0
$0
0
$0
$0
0
$0
$0
0
$0
$0
0
$0
$0
0
$0
$0
0
$0
$0
0
$0
$0
0
$0
$0
0
$641
$450
(191)
$0
$0
0
$0
$0
0
$0
$0
0
$0
$0
0
$0
$0
0
$8,885
$5,500
(3,385)
$52,245
$32,340
(19,905)
$2,666
$1,650
(1,016)
$0
$3,600
3,600
$0
$0
0
$0
$0
0
$911,001
$0
$672,547
$0
(238,454)
0
$0
$0
0
$0
$0
0
$0
$0
0
$0
$0
0
$9,774
$0
(9,774)
$0
$0
0
$552
$0
(552)
$0
$0
0
$0
$0
0
$0
$0
0
$0
$0
0
$1,244
$0
(1,244)
$711
$0
(711)
$0
$0
0
$0
$0
0
Capital Accounting Partners Page 3 of 4 Public Works Annual Calcs
City of Dublin
Public Works - Fees
�oeq,
Current Fee Levels
JOIL.
$0
Annual Surplus
(subsidy)
(3,649)
Service
$0
(730)
FceNamc
Type
0
IL
Large Family Day Care Home Zoning Clearance
PL_
PL_
Large Family Day Care Home Conditional U se Permit
PL_
N on- Residential Variance
PL_
Residential Variance
PL_
Minor Temporary U se Perm it
PL_
Zoning Clearance
ENG/PL
Estimate of contract time
H ourly Rates
ENG_
Commposit Inspector Raw
ENG_
Composite H ourly Rate
ENG
Com posit EnginceringRaw
Actual
Work
c
5
1
0
0
35
0
1
Annual Recoverable Cost /Revenue at Full Cost
Fun Cost
$3,649
Current Fee Levels
JOIL.
$0
Annual Surplus
(subsidy)
(3,649)
$730
$0
(730)
$0
$0
0
$0
$0
0
$6,550
$0
(6,550)
$0
$0
0
$605,900
$428,032
(177,868)
$152 I $128 (24)
1 $184 $128 (55)
1 $216 $128 (88)
Annual Totals
$1,610,536 1 $1,145,119 ($465,417)
Capital Accounting Partners Page 4 of 4 Public Works Annual Calcs
APPENDIX D. FIRE PREVENTION
i
m
E
E
O
U
c
0
U
N I0-) I0 I O)
N 'j- 0) N m 03 M
EA EA EA EA EA EA EA
9 O O O
O c9 m
EA
EA EA
C9 07 61 N O Ln
I O O O
6i c� N 6i O 6i O co ��� O
EA M 64 N N m 'j-
b! EA EA EA EA 65 Ef3 EA I I fig
w I r-- IQ I� to I� I O I IC I� I� I I ICD
tl,�I t,,�It,,�It,,�It,,�It,,� tl,�I Itl,�Itl,�Itl,�Itl,�Itl,�
O
°
O
r
O
O
O
a) °>' m m U
co
m
O
O
�
03
b
'j-
cD
O
c9
O
O
9
O�
N
E
O
m
Ln
0)
'j-
O
o
0
O
O
L9
�
O
O
Liz
O
m
O
O
0i rn
61
6)
O T
O,
N
Ln
O-)
c `m
N
U �
N
N
Q �
O
O
Ln O O O O
r I Ln O Ln QC
c U
O >
U O
N
N
O7
N
r M
07
C9
07 �4
j-
c�
m
m
O �
EA
EA EA
U c
m
o ¢
o m
b
� E
O
W
m a ¢
U
(U
O
O
O
O
O
O
O O
Ln
U
0 0 �
n n n O r--
O�
U
CD
Ln
U
c
N
O
CD
N
u
� U
N
m
N
N I0-) I0 I O)
N 'j- 0) N m 03 M
EA EA EA EA EA EA EA
9 O O O
O c9 m
EA
EA EA
C9 07 61 N O Ln
I O O O
6i c� N 6i O 6i O co ��� O
EA M 64 N N m 'j-
b! EA EA EA EA 65 Ef3 EA I I fig
w I r-- IQ I� to I� I O I IC I� I� I I ICD
tl,�I t,,�It,,�It,,�It,,�It,,� tl,�I Itl,�Itl,�Itl,�Itl,�Itl,�
O
m
'j-
co
m
'j-
�
Ln
co
O
c9
O
O
N
c�
O
m
m
Ln
0)
'j-
O
L9
O
O
L9
�
O
O
Liz
O
m
O
O
0i rn
61
6)
CD
O,
N
Ln
O-)
N
N
N
Q �
O
U
N
N
O7
N
r M
07
C9
07 �4
j-
c�
O �
N
O
W
U
(U
O
O
O
O
O
O
O O
Ln
U
0 0 �
Ln
O�
U
CD
Ln
U
c
N
CD
N
O
N
m
N
N I0-) I0 I O)
N 'j- 0) N m 03 M
EA EA EA EA EA EA EA
9 O O O
O c9 m
EA
EA EA
C9 07 61 N O Ln
I O O O
6i c� N 6i O 6i O co ��� O
EA M 64 N N m 'j-
b! EA EA EA EA 65 Ef3 EA I I fig
w I r-- IQ I� to I� I O I IC I� I� I I ICD
tl,�I t,,�It,,�It,,�It,,�It,,� tl,�I Itl,�Itl,�Itl,�Itl,�Itl,�
O
O O
N
61
61
O
U
N
N
N
Q �
U
O
W
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
c
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m m
m
m
m m
cn
m
c
T
Ul
Ul
LL
�
�
W
n
n
0
°
s
0
E
O
°�
N
`"
U
O
s
�f7
C
1
O
W
W
m
.-
O
B
T
Z
O
o
N
03
N
P.
�
O
O
s
c
c
O
0
n
E
CD
o
Ln
o
O
O
O
a
..
V]
>
o
O
O
O
O
�+
O
O
��"�
a
>
U
aL'I
U
LL
y�I
o
0
0
0
0
o
0
CD
O
a
Ln
Lri
O
a
o >
O
Ln
c
n
O
Q
o c
c
Ln
n
n
c
,
c
-
II
v
Ln
n
n u
Q
U E
E
E
E
E
E
,r
O
},
rn
O
U
O
U
O
_
O
W
:>
0
O
O
U
O
O
>
O
m
C
n
n
N
O
N
Q
C
C
C
C
C
W
U
�+
�+
�+
a
s
w
p3
o
0
0
0
0
m o
0
0
o
E
E
n
u
E
E
a
m o
E
E
E
E
E
c T
U
U
U
E
Q y°°
O E
G
m
�
°U' o
` U
O
J
In
N
C
a�
c
7
O
U
U
Q
.Q
m
U
r
N
i�
m
d
1
0
APL
off;
L � � Gr
U
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
C
0
0
0
0
0
0
N
O
c9
O
CD
'j-
Ln
O
O
O
c�
N
O
N
CD
j-
O
Ln
cm
r
oo3
6)
°>'
O
�
O
O
6)
c�
m
�
O
O
O
�
6)
�
O
�
O
6)
O
�
o3
O
6)
�
o3
m m m N
O
W
O
O
Li)
X
0
0
0
0
o3
N
N
m
m
CD
'j-
O
6)
r
6)
Q �
6)
O
O
i O O r
'j-
O
CD
03
r
f
Ln
03
N
CD
'j-
Ul
M
r
Ln
C
O u O
U
0
0
n
O
O
�D
�D
o
�D
O
O
'j-
o)
o
on
on
O
m
n
�
�D
Ln
n
r-
0 o3
�
�
Ln
64
64
-
�
�
�
w
�
o
r
o
o
w
n
�
�
U T 64
N
N
64
N
v
64
64
64
64
64
M
v
E1T
EA
m v
�
CD
CD
O
O
O
O
4J
4J
4J
4J
4J
4J
4J
4J
4J
4J
4J
4J
4J
4J
m
m
a`J W
4J W
4J
4J
4J
4J
4J
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
Ln
Ln
O
O
O
O
O
O
�
O
'j-
'j-
'j-
'j-
07
6)
Ln
'j-
'j-
07
6)
6)
0)
—
6)
6)
Ln
O
O
O
� C
N
N
N
N
N
m
O
m
N
m—
m
Ln
O
N
0
C O
U
m
O
p
U
N
m
U
O
O
d
T
>
� m
E
a
a
s
�
o
�
c
m
� �
0
U
O
W
\
N
�--�
E
°U
�
U
°
m
m
m
a
o
�^
E
�
m
a
�
O
U
w"
W
E1T
EA
64
64
�,
64
64
64
O
U
64
64
64
64
64
64
64
64
64
64
64
64
64
64
6)
CD
'j-
Ln
O
O
ON
cD
cD
O
O
6)
�
o3
o3
O
N
O
�
cD
cD
m
r
0
U
y�
�n .O
N
M
64
o3
M
6)
64
64
r
N
O
C9
blT
bl3
ll3
o3
M
N
M
r
N
Ln
M
cD
64
o
64
r
N
O
C9
blT
Ln
N
�
6)
�,
O O
64
64
64
Q
64
64
64
o
64
64
64
64
64
m
64
m
64
64
m
64
64
64
�
U c
m
ami
E
E
m
o
o
w
c
a
m
0
U
w
c
,�
E
,a;
m
.c
a
¢
E
�
�
�
o ¢
v"i
c
Y
u
O
Y
u
m
E
>
O
>
O
m
Cn
Cn
Z
—
b
N
O
+'
c—
b
a
c
T
cn
c
a
c
°-
°-
c
(J
.0
m"
u
m 6)
O
r
f
0
0
O
r
C"l
O
O
r
6)
6)
Ln
O
cD
O
O
N
W
a O
64
N
CD
64
64
61
O
m
64
64
64
N
O
61
0
E
Ln
64
m
64
6)
O
64
o
o
L
64
N
64
64
64
N
64 64 64
� 64
— O .
64
64
0
m
64
64
64
64
64
64
64
C7
> a
_
_
=
cn
W
z
cn
cn
LL
m a ¢
U °
m
U
� O
J
O
r
m
cD
-t
r
O
m
O
M
CD
m
cD
j-
o3 Ln N
N
O
r
Ln
N
O�
r
O�
O
CD 6) m
C
N
N
c'')
N
N
N
c'')
N
O
u
� U
d
1
0
APL
off;
L � � Gr
U
O
m " E
O O Ln
o0
o3
M
M
N
C9
N
U O
n
D
6
Q �
Ul
U
W
CD
CD
O
O
O
O
4J
4J
4J
4J
4J
4J
4J
4J
4J
4J
4J
4J
4J
4J
m
m
a`J W
4J W
4J
4J
4J
4J
4J
C
m
y^�
�
O
O
U
m
O
p
U
N
m
U
O
O
d
E
a
a
s
�
o
�
c
o
0
U
O
W
N
�--�
E
°U
m
°
m
m
m
a
o
�^
m
a
�
O
U
w"
U
O
m
-
oc
.�
�,
T
O
O
U
c
ON
O
LL
a
>
E
c>
a
c
m
m
y
°-
u=
v
cn
c
o
n
o
o
n
m
n
Q
o
U
m
m
m
m
m
ami
E
E
m
o
o
w
c
a
m
0
U
w
c
,�
E
,a;
m
.c
a
¢
E
�
�
�
v"i
c
Y
u
O
Y
u
m
E
>
O
>
O
m
Cn
Cn
Z
—
b
N
O
+'
c—
b
a
c
T
cn
c
a
c
°-
°-
c
(J
.0
m"
u
U
o
cC
N
cC
c
m
o
E
E
W
W
0
0
o
o
m
w
n
v
v
n
°
o
E
w
u)
v
O
0
E
0
E
°
E
E
o
o
L
0
0
0
m
_
_
=
cn
W
z
cn
cn
LL
U °
m
U
� O
J
C
7
O
U
U
Q
.Q
m
O
O
U
D
c
O
N
N
N
LL
O
I
N
m
d
LL
� O
U
u
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
r
r-
O
O
�? p
O
O
'"' i O
a0i > m m
CNO
r
O
co
07
0i
C9
Cd
C9
CD
0-Ln )
07
6)
o0-)
CD
O
O
CD
Ln
CD
O
m
07
O
m
t p O
M
N
M
'j-
'j-
Lf)
N
'j-
CD
o3
O m
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
j Cn
C9
N
W
if,
N
N
N
O
N
07
N
�f7
O
CD
O
Lf7
Ln
M
N
a� T
bl3
Lf)
LL
N
N
EA
N
EA
EA
EA
EA
c
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
c
O
uf)
if)
O
O
O
Lf)
if)
O
Lf)
if)
if)
if)
O
O
O
LL
U
T
c >
� �
m
C
�
�
�
m
? �
Ul
�
\
C
E
U
E
c
U
a
C9
07
Ln
Ln
a
M
C9
N
b
Lf)
o3
N
O�
s
N
N
o
N
N
CD
N
E2
EA
EA
�
EA
�,
O O
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
u
EA
�
U c
m
LL
a
>
c
o ¢
o
a
o
o
m
a
Ln
c
s
O
0
0-)
N
EA
N
Ln
64
o3
bl3
I�
64
r
1
�
EA
OJ
Ef3
M
bl3
o3
bl3
M
EA
N
64
N
bl3
M
bl3
N
EA
C c
{A
a CD a
m a ¢
m
u
`-'
u
.>
T
C
U
O
LL
6)
o3
j
j
o3
O
o3
In
6)
Lf)
07
Lf)
07
in
c�
c9
o
c9
c9
�
Ln
r-
Ln
r-
Ln
c
X°
�
O
o
U O
u
m U
U
u
u
�p Y
�? p
O
u
Q
M
Lf)
N
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
j Cn
LL
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
U
c0
0
-
LL
U
m
C
�
�
�
Ul
�
C
U
a
a
O
a
O
s
o
z
m
u
c
o
u
LL
a
>
c
o
a
o
o
m
c
m
u
`-'
u
.>
T
C
U
O
LL
a
o
c)
o
0
o
X°
O
U O
U
u
� O
J
C
O
U
U
Q
.Q
O
U
D
C
O
N
N
N
LL
O
y
N
d
LL
i
0
U
C
7
O
U
U
Q
.Q
7
O
O
U
D
C
O
N
LL
O
G
N
m
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
03
r
CD
O
CO
�
O0
�
r
r
r
O
o
a) °>' m m U
O
O
Ln
O
O
6i
O
cri
cd
6i
m
O
o3
O
Ln
�
W
Ln
O
O
O
6i
cri
i
OU
I—
M
I�
LC7
N
M
I—
CD
I—
r
r
O)
E
O � �
°U m
~
~
M
M
C9
C9
N
W
07
61
61
M
N
C9
M
M
M
C9
U
U
U
m
Ln
O
N
0)
N
EA
U T
£4
EA
EA
EA
EA
N
M
£4
EA
EA
EA
EA
I
�
U
m
c
a
_T
O O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
Ln
O
O
Ln
O
LC7
Ln
O
Ln
O
O
O
O
m
C
c
�
O
C U
d
m
T
� U
\
�
U
E
O
w
I
M
M
CD
CD
o3
o3
O)
6)
f1
m
b
CD
M
M
M
CD
U
N
N
{
EA
M
M
I�
LC7
O
�,
O �
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
�
U c
m
o
a
u
n
O
m
U
o ¢
a
a
m
c
>
O
_
`o
m
.-
o
n
-°-
4J
I-
r
N
N
07
6i
6i
6i
fi
o
u
�
EA
EA
EA
EA
N
EA
N
EA
�
m
Lf7
EA
N
EA
EA
EA
EA
M
EA
>
m
.0
m
>
_
_
U
O
O
O
U
u
U
� O
m a ¢
J
y,
LC7
co
co
6)
6)
O
O
6)
07
�
07
07
61
O�
O�
LC7
LC7
�
�
�
0)
07
c�
LC7
0-)
07
61
0-)
61
0-)
r
C
N
N
O
u
� U
C
7
O
U
U
Q
.Q
7
O
O
U
D
C
O
N
LL
O
G
N
m
m ' E
O
03
�
O
U o
JO
¢
°U m
~
~
L
U
U
U
U
O
U
U
U
U
O
LL
I
m
c
a
_T
E
m
C
c
�
O
O
d
m
o
a
u
n
O
m
U
a
a
a
m
c
>
O
_
`o
m
.-
o
n
-°-
4J
O
c
m
w
U
w
o
u
c
c
m
c
m
v'
m
>
m
.0
m
>
_
_
U
O
O
O
U
u
U
� O
J
C
7
O
U
U
Q
.Q
7
O
O
U
D
C
O
N
LL
O
G
N
m
d
1
0
U
O
°
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
C
0
0
0
w
r-
"j-
03
U O O
O
o3
r
C9
M
N
N
CD
C9
u O
°>' m m U 0
O
6i
ern
O
cD
O
O
O
O
O
i -
O U
Ln
N
I�
N
r
r
r
r
07
6i
6i
w
w
w
> Cn
U
U
U
J
J
J
m
O
O
U
U
O
07
O
'j-
'j-
'j-
'j-
'j-
'j-
'j-
O
N N
N
U T EA
EA
N
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
'Al EA
64
U�
�
U
m
m
m o
O
a
0
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O O
O O
O
O O
O
Ln
O
Ln
O
O
O
O O
Lf7 Lf7
Lf7
C
U
c
O
c
U
N N
N
T
C
� U
a �
m
a
o
\
�
a o
�
U
E
�
m o
E
o
u
z
°
U
�
o
Lcn
o
c
o
64
�,
O �
EA
N
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
N N
EA EA
N
EA
�
U c
m
E
a
E
m
O
m
o ¢
U
f
Ln
�
m
�
� O
-C
o3
LD
'j-
CD
EA
6i 6i
6i
cn
� E
a
m a ¢
c
O)
0
0
°
m E
E
E
�, Ln
N
O
N
Ln
I—
Ln
Lf7 Lf7 Lf7
M M
M
61
C
M
r
M
07
N
61
61 6) 6)
FF
s,
u O
� U
O
m " E
U O O
o3
C9
M
N
N
CD
C9
u O
w
w
w
> Cn
U
U
U
J
J
J
LL
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
O
O
O
U
I
U�
m
m
m o
O
a
0
O
o
n
A
c
c
O
c
U
u
U
a �
m
a
o
�
a o
m o
E
o
u
z
u
LL
c
O
m
E
a
E
m
O
U
cn
c
O)
0
0
°
m E
E
E
E
EC
FF
s,
C
O
U
U
Q
.Q
7
O
O
U
D
C
O
N
LL
O
T
N
m
� O
U
C
0
0
0
Q
.Q
m
0
U
c
0
0
0
0
U-
0
,T;
0
�p Y
¢
LC7
_
�
U
d d
a a �
C
b
O
N
�
z
0
0 W
o
O
N
N
N
V h
E
E
a
E E
J
C
0
0
0
Q
.Q
m
0
U
c
0
0
0
0
U-
0
,T;
0
U
>
w
m
p
N n
>
�
¢ v
OI O O
0
0
0
0 0
co
U
�
O
N
N
O
M
O
a7
Ln M 0 0 0
M N
r
O M_
0
0
0
J
0
ON
0
O
L�
OI O O
0
0
0
O O
�
N
co
'-c'
0
C
0) 0 0 0 0
O Qo
O
O OI
y
69 69 69
69
69
69
69 69
I
O O O
0
0
cn v9
- 69 69 69 69
69 cn
v9
v9 v9
°
C
O
0
0
0
w CG
�
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
U
p1
o �
E
-
�
U
O O O
0
0
0
O Oj-
N
I O
0-) l O 0 0 0
O
0
0
0
0
U
0
U
Q
o)
�o
M
N O
U �
Dl
Dl
r
Dl
Dl
Dl
—
U
Dl
Dl
OI O O
0
0
0
Dl
O I O
co
U
W
��i7
Mil cNo 0
W
4 0 0 0
al
O oMj
0
0
0
69 69 69
69
69
69
69 69
_-
M
dj
M M 69
(") v9 v9 v9
v9
v9
v9
v9
C
al
U
U
U
�
69
69
69
69 69
U
69 �
U
69
U
U
U
Q
Li
Z
U
W
W
U
U
W
U
U
st
C
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
a-
Q
Q
Q
N
d
d
� O
o L o�
U
U
C
> °>' E
O O O
0
0
0
O O
N
O
X 0 0 0 0
O
0
0
0
w CG
o �
E
-
O O O
0
0
0
O Oj-
N
I O
0-) l O 0 0 0
O
0
0
0
0
U
Q
U �
Dl
Dl
Dl
Dl
Dl
Dl
Dl
Dl
Dl
Dl
Dl
Dl
Dl
Dl
Dl
�
Dl
W
W
al
al
W
al
al
> (n
O
W
al
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
Z
U
W
W
U
U
W
U
U
st
C
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
a-
Q
Q
Q
Q Q
Q Q
Q Q
Q Q
Q a-
Q
Q
Q-Q
-
Q
Q
a-
0-
A
0 A
0 A
0 A
0
A
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
m
m
m
m
m
m
O
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
T
LL
Q1
C
{�
T
l0
O
D_
t
t
t
o
z
w
O
o
E
w
E
N
N
cn
O
w
O
U-�
+�
*'
N
z
NO
w
w
O
N
CO
N
O
N
v
L�
ED
o
n
w
O
O
O
O
O
�
o
z
`o
Q-
a
a
a
s
Un
O
o
0
�
0
O
O
}
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
CC)
Lrj
N
O a
o~
C)
Ln
n
Lrn O
o
d
n
-
-
-
-
-
z
c
o
a
L(J
n
n
�+
c
�+
c
>'
=
N
II L(J
v n
A
o
o
¢�
c
c
c
L)
°1
0
0
0
E
N
EE
a`0i
E
E
z
n
ID
a
a
>
aEi
a¢
o
0
o
a
a
U E
c
c
c
E
E
n
¢
E E
m
o
E
O
LO
O
w
w
E
E
E
E
E
z
cc
cc
m
m
m
m
m¢
o
cc
¢¢
L
a
a>
a
p1 0 U
� U
N O
J
rn
c
0
0
U
Q
Q
(6
U
O
U
to
Dl
a
N
m
¢
co
0 0 0 0
0
O M
�o
M
O
O
O
r
M
oN�
O
CD 0 0
0
0
0
0
o)
O
O
>
J
Ln
O O
O
o U
O
p1
C
O I O o� O O
O
0
0
0
Co
O
0 0 0
0
0
0
0
Ln
cn
cn
0
0
I I I
0 0 Ln 0 0
O Co co
cn
O
O
O
M
N
O
N I O O
O
O
O
O
M
�n
O
Qo
o-o)
�
U
cf! CG
o �
�
0
cf! U
U
0 0 0 0 0
IIII CQ
co
O I Q O
Ln
N
O
O
O
co
O
Q� M O
0 0 0
cOO
O
O
O
N
Q
O
-
O�
I:
E»
E»
E»
O
E»
�„� N Ln
M
Ln I E» E»
O
E»
E»
E»
r--:
c75
O
Ln
M
¢
Li
N
d
d
i�
a
O
>+ a
U
U
o E
0 0 Ln 0 0
O Co co
cn
O
O
O
M
N
O
N I O O
O
O
O
O
M
�n
O
Qo
o-o)
cf! CG
o �
�
� E
-
0 0 Ln 0 0
O I CO
O
O
O
M
O
O O
O
O
O
Ln
M
O
0
U
U
Dl
Dl
Dl
Dl
Dl
Dl
Dl
W
W
W
W
W
W
C
Dl
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
LL
LL
+t
O
O
O
O
a
a
a
a
C
y^�
O
�
O
Q
�
_
C
O
U
O
L
c
U
=
C)
N
cn
z
'-
a
a
-c
,�
�'
w,
ID
7D
ID
W
a
o
O
cn
°U'
:�
O
O
is
ID
U
-°
Y
a
2
O
U
v
o
w
w
a
-
Q-
II
N
0
o
m
t
=
-
0
0
ID
ID
ID
o ID
x
ID
ID
a
_
a
>>
J
J
c
O
c
°_
E
°-
°-
a
°-
o
o
°-
-
m
a
-
J
C7 m~
o
i N
i
°-
a
a
L7
,�
ID
-o c
a
z
v�
z
c
u)
c
c
c
w
E
<°
Z
u�
c
�
= V
N
n
O
CC
M
O
M
O
O
O
CC
d
O
O
d
O
O
E¢
E
m
E
--
�+
�+
E
-
E
-
O
cn
U E
E
E
m
O¢�¢
w
m
a
m
m
a
o m
`m
E
E o
E
cc
cc
a
w
E
a
o
o L i
o
x
z u-)
u-)
�
o
z z¢
z
z
O
¢¢¢
O
1 v
v
v
v v o
v
w
p1 0 U
� U
N O
J
rn
c
7
O
U
Q
m
U
0
O
00
U
tO
Q
O
O
CO
M
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
C
D
0
0
0
0
N
O
M
N
N
p1
0
0
p E
o °�'
O
O
M
O
Li
O j
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Ln
0
0(o
CO
0
0
0
0
0
-
0
O O
y
v9
v9
v9
v9
v9
Ln
v9
v9
v9
v9
v9
v9
v9
v9
v9
oo
by
69
v9
v9
O
v9
v9
v9
v9
69
v9
oo M
69 69
p
C
6N9
E
j
U
O
p1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
CO
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
CO
O
Qo
M
� o
U
�
O
U
Q
cf!
cn
Co
N
Qo
Qo
N
M
U
Ln
NEA
O
69
cn
0
69
0
69
0
69
�
0
v9
0
v9
0
v9
0
v9
0
v9
0
v9
0
v9
0
v9
0
v9
Co
O
v9
O
v9
O
v9
O
v9
O
v9
O
v9
O
Q
C
-
M
69
Ln
69
N
69
69
Li
�
_-
69
M 6�9
69
Q
Li
N
d
d
i�
a
O
�+ d
U
F72- O
O
O
O
O
O O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
>
p E
o °�'
O
O
M
O
O
O j
N
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
CO
0
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
CO
O
M
U w
w of! >
O O
E
j
N
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
CO
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
CO
O
Qo
M
� o
U
�
Q
Li
C
U
D
C
Q
Q
U
U
U
U
U
U
Q
Q
Q
U
U
U
U
Q
Q
U
U
U
Q
Q
U
U
U
U
U
l0
l0
Vl
Vl
� Vl
Vl
Vl
�
Vl
l0
l0
l0
Vl
Vl
Vl
Vl
�
�
l0
l0
Vl
Vl
Vl
l0
l0
Vl
Vl
Vl
Vl
U
Vl
U
U
U
U
U U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U t
U
Q1
U
C
-
[r
o
a
>
O
-
-
a
O
-
a
ID
>
D
a
n
°
a
m
.�
.�
E
o
ID
ID
E
a
o
m
c
a
z
a
a
U
a
-
ID
a
'�
ID
c
.�
m
c
J
U
J
CL
E
LO
ID
0
0
Q
ID
U
i
I
,-
°1
o
CT
7D
c
ID
w
>
�
-
m
a
t
w
o
U)
i
w
ID
I
ID
Y
7D
E
fl-
a
m
ID
a
c
a
m
m
U
m
Q
a
a
7D
m
7D
m
E>
a
a
U
-
E
7D
m
Y
ID
7D
o
L
o
o
o
c
I
i
c
ID
a
ID
m
>
a
>1
J¢
o
n
o
>
-°
-ID
J
m
m
0
x
m
T
a
oe�
a
E
E
o-
E
a
m
�?
=
E
o
o
->
m
a
a�
m
U>
o
o
m
o
E
o
L
o
o
m
a
s
a
m
o
o
o
o
o
p1 0 U
� U
N O
J
rn
3
O
U
Q
Q
m
U
0
N
d
d
0 a ��'�
OQ
L
ao
U�
T
° N O CO N N Ln N U cn
° n 0 0 0 0 M N UO O O-) O
w
to ¢
Dl >
D J
O Ln 0 0 L Ln O� OO M N
O O O r Ln Ln N N Ln O N M N
p 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 Ln 69
U p1
m
O
U
c O CO N N N CO Ln
U 0 0 0
cn
¢ Li
C
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
> E O N O N `n co co �n I O N� M
o > Ln N
o �
E Ln
o O N O N `n co co �n I o-) O N N
M
U
(n z J J J J J J J J J J
Q
C
U
� a �
Q Q �
st
c2 o E
� N
U � �
cf! O —
w a o o w N 0
cn
c 1 U 3 333
c
U
v = m ID D � Vl NVl Vl I- Lf-) N al N
¢ E E E E E
U
� U
N O
J
C
3
O
U
Q
(6
Q
m
U
0
APPENDIX E. POLICE
City of Dublin
Police - Fees
Service
Location
Fee Name
UniL
Service /
Fee Slaws
Acwal
Work
Vommc
Recovered
Reven tic
Volume
MMIW
PF
Police Fces
Live Scan
Pc'App
Ln,,cnL
M
113
PF
Non Residen L C hi Id SaeLy SeaL InspecHon
Per
enL
PF
Ta,icab Owner Inaial
Per
enL
PF
Forwn c T el ler Perm i L
Per App
C —en L
PF
Secon d H an d G oods /h n k D eal er(pl u s cerLIeLLer)
Per pp
C —en L
2
2
PF
Led dl cr Perm iL
Per pp
C —en L
8
8
PF
Parade PermiL
Per pp
C —en L
1
1
PF
IP,blic Address Sound$som
Per op
DELETE
PF
Dance Perm iL
Per App
C —en L
PF
Ta,icab Owner renewal
Per App
C —en L
12
12
PF
Ta,i cab Driver
Per App
C —en L
42
42
PF
Massage EsLablishmenL Initial
Per App
C —en L
PF
Massage EsLablishmenL Yearly
Per App
C —en L
2
2
PF
Massage EsLablishmenL Tech
Per App
C —en L
17
17
PF
FingerprinLCard
Per App
C —en L
345
345
PF
Visa LeLwr
Per App
C —en L
I 41
41
PF
Bingo Pcrmils
Per App
C —en L
PF
Gun Dealer PermiL
Per App
C —en L
PF
Pol ice R eporLA n specu on V eri rca Lion
Per App
C —en L
551
551
PF
R ecord s Su bpoen a(So bpoen a D u ces T mu an
Per App
C —en L
6
6
PF
1 D ay A lcohol Beverage C on lrol Perm i L
Per App
C —en L
17
17
PF
I M isc. N on Schedu led Perm i L
Per App
DELETE
PF
T— d/SLOrm V eh icle Release
Per App
C —en L
393
393
PF
R, IL T ickeL Sign 0rr(N on DPS)
Per App
Cu «enL
20
20
PF
Parking Cilauon Adm in Review
Per App
C —en L
PF
Rep. —d V eh icle R el ease
Per App
C —en L
35
35
PF
Auctions& Auctioneers
Per App
DELETE
PF
Applican L, Pu blic E m ploym en L(PIus SIao Fee)
Per App
DELETE
PF
C oncealed W eapon License(PIus SIao Fm)
Pcrapp
DELETE
PF
N on C eru red School E en ployce(PIus SLaLc Fee)
Perapp
DELETE
PF
M ace (chem ical) Agen L(PIus SLaLe Fee)
Perapp
DELETE
PF
C rim in al l n form aeon H isLory R ecord
Perapp
DELETE
PF
C rim in al l n form aeon H iswry R ecord
Perapp
DELETE
PF
Privafc Pa Lrolman/Wawhman
Perapp
DELETE
PF
Tear Gas
Perapp
DELETE
PF
Recordssupoena: records
Perapp
New
PF
Recordssupoena: phowssaved Lo CD
Perapp
New
PF
IDUI iniuryaccidenLresponse police
T &M
New
PF
CPTED indusLrial
Perapp
New
PF
CPTED retail
Perapp
New
PF
CPTED muliL family housing
Perapp
New
PF
CPTED single ram ily residen Hal
Perapp
New
PF
Alarm regisrrauon?
Perapp
New
PF
False alarm (1 3 no charge)
Per app
N ew
PF
False alarm (4m)(plus cerurm leuer$3.00)
Perapp
New
PF
1Falsc a larm (51LIL)(si Le visi0
Perapp
New
PF
Fake alarm(6Hm)(pI u s cerLi r ed Ieuer$3. 00)
Pcrapp
New
PF
T cm porary U se Perm i L(T U P) review
Lapp
New
PF
For services over and above what i slisLed, ra Leswill be
charged aL Lhe applicable hourly ra Le
H o,rly RaLcs
per app
N ew
Sher.I.1 -miaan
Time &
N ew
Sher. Dup, Ly
Timc &
N ew
Sher. SergeanL
Tim c &
New
Captial Accounting Partners Page 1 of 2 Police Unit Cost Calcs
City of Dublin
Police - Fees
r e Annul Recoverable Cost /Revenue aLFDu Cost
Service Service / Acwal Work Recovered Car —L Fee Annual S,rpws
Fee Name Unit Revenue F.11 Cost
LDCaHOn Fee Slaws Volume Volume Levels (subsidy)
Annual Totals
$111,426 1 $70,642 1 ($40,784)
Captial Accounting Partners Page 2 of 2 Police Annual Calcs
Police Fees
$4,956
$3,390
(1,566)
PF-
Scan
Per App
Cu «enL
113
113
PF -
N on Resid-L Child Sarety ScaL lnspecHon
Per App
C.,,on L
0
0
$0
$0
0
PF-
Ta.icab Owner Inival
Per App
Cu «enL
6
6
$1,573
$1,800
227
PF-
Forwne Teller Perm iL
Per App
Cu «enL
0
0
$0
$0
0
PF-
Secon d H an d G Dods /h n k D eal er(pl u s cerLIeuer)
Per App
Cu «enL
2
2
$523
$200
(323)
PF-
Peddler Perm iL
Per App
Cu «enL
8
8
$1,848
$1,200
(618)
PF-
Parade Perm iL
Per App
Cu «enL
1
1
$147
$90
(57)
PF-
Public Address Sound System
Per App
DELETE
0
0
$0
$0
0
PF-
Dance Perm iL
Per App
Cu «enL
0
0
$0
$0
0
PF-
Ta.icab Owner renewal
Per App
Cu «enL
12
12
$1,759
$3,000
1,241
PF-
Ta.icab Driver
Per App
Cu «enL
42
42
$7,997
$6,300
(1,697)
PF-
M assage E slabush an on L IniHal
Per App
Cu «enL
4
4
$1,334
$1,100
(231)
PF-
M assagc E slabush an on L Yearly
Per App
Cu «enL
2
2
$334
$250
(81)
PF-
M assage E slabush an on L Tech
Per App
Cu «enL
17
17
$5,668
$2,550
(3,118)
PF-
Fingerprin L Card
Per App
Cu «enL
345
345
$15,133
$1,725
(13,108)
PF-
Visa LeLlcr
Per App
Cu «enL
41
41
$2,043
$1,230
(813)
PF-
Bingo Pm-mils
Per App
Cu «enL
0
0
$0
$0
0
PF-
G u n D cal or Perm i L
Per App
Cu «enL
0
0
$0
$0
0
PF-
Police ReporLAnspecuon Verircauon
Per App
Cu «enL
551
551
$10,797
$1,102
(9,695)
PF-
Records Subpoena (Subpoena D u cee Tocum)
Per App
Cu «enL
6
6
$509
1 $90
(419)
PF-
1 D ay A lcohol Beverage C on-ol Perm iL
Per App
Cu «enL
17
17
$2,491
$595
(1,896)
PF-
M isc. N on Schedu led Perm i L
Per App
DELETE
0
0
$0
$0
0
PF -
Towed/Swred Vehicle Release
Per App
C.,,,n L
393
393
$53,431
$45,195
(8,236)
PF-
F i. I L T ickeL Sign O rr(N on D PS)
Per App
Cu «enL
20
20
$197
$300
103
PF-
Parking CilmHon Aden in Review
Per App
Current
1 0
0
$0
$0
0
PF -
Reposscsmd Vehicle Release
Per App
C.,,on L
35
35
$686
$525
(161)
PF-
Aucuons &A— Lioncers
Per App
DELETE
0
0
$0
1 $0
0
PF-
Appucan L, Public EmploymcnL(Plus Swtc FDD)
Per App
DELETE
0
0
$0
$0
0
PF-
Concealed Weapon License (Plus Sww Fee)
Per app
DELETE
0
0
$0
$0
0
PF-
Non Cerured School Employee (Plus Sww Fce)
Per app
DELETE
0
0
$0
$0
0
PF-
Mace (chemical) AgenL(Plus Sww Fee)
Per app
DELETE
0
1 0
$0
$0
0
PF-
Criminal lnrormauon Hiswry Record
Per app
DELETE
0
1 0
$0
$0
0
PF-
Criminal lnrormauon Hiswry Record
Per app
DELETE
0
0
$0
$0
0
PF-
Private Patrolman/Walchman
Per app
DELETE
0
0
$0
1 $0
0
PF-
Tear Gas
Per app
DELETE
0
0
$0
1 $0
0
PF-
Recordssupoena: records
Per app
New
0
0
$0
$0
0
PF-
Recordssupoena: phowssaved Lo CD
Per app
New
0
0
$0
$0
0
PF-
D U l injury acciden L response police
T &M
New
0
0
$0
$0
0
PF-
C PTE D industrial
Per app
New
0
1 0
$0
$0
0
PF-
CPTED retail
Per app
New
0
0
$0
$0
0
PF-
CPTED an HL ram ily housing
Per app
New
0
0
$0
$0
0
PF-
CPTED single ram ily residen Hal
Per app
New
0
0
$0
$0
0
PF -
Alarm rogislra Lion ?
Per app
New
0
0
$0
$0
0
PF -
False alarm F 3 n charge)
Per app
New
0
0
$0
$0
0
PF-
False alarm (4Hm)(pins cerured teuer$3.00)
Per app
New
0
0
$0
$0
0
PF-
F also alarm (5Hm)(si he visi Q
Per app
New
0
1 0
$0
$0
0
PF-
False alarm (6Hm)(pins cerured teuer$3.00)
Per app
New
0
0
$0
$0
1 0
PF
I T em porary U se Perm i L(T U P) review
Per app
New
0
0
$0
$0
0
PF -
L
FD r services over and above what is l istcd, ra Les will be
charged aL Lhe applicable hourly rate
Per app
New
0
0
$0
$0
0
Annual Totals
$111,426 1 $70,642 1 ($40,784)
Captial Accounting Partners Page 2 of 2 Police Annual Calcs
APPENDIX F. AFFORDABLE HOUSING FEES
r_
D
w m
o �
U X
r_
D LL -�
U x°
RESOLUTION NO. XX - 12
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
* * * * * * * * * **
ADOPTING A MASTER FEE SCHEDULE FOR SERVICES PROVIDED BY CITY
WHEREAS, the California Constitution authorizes local government to recover the
reasonable costs of providing services; and
WHEREAS, the City processes various permits, applications, reviews, licenses, approvals
and procedural processes; and
WHEREAS, a User Fee Study and Cost Allocation Plan were prepared and submitted to the
City Manager by a consultant, Capital Accounting Partners, that shows the full cost of the
various services provided by the City; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing regarding the adoption of user fees on
September 18, 2012; and
WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearing was given in all respects as required by law;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council previously adopted various resolutions related to fees and
charges and it will enhance the fee administration to consolidate fees and charges into a
comprehensive document; and
WHEREAS, Fees and charges for Recreation programs are adopted by Commissions in
accordance with City policies including a Parks and Community Services Pricing Policy on
September 21, 2010 and therefore will not be reflected in the Master Fee schedule; and
WHEREAS, Fees and charges for Facility Rental and Use are adopted separately by the
City Council and are therefore excluded from the Master Fee Schedule; and
WHEREAS, Data collected related to City overhead and in- direct costs may be incorporated
in future updates to the Facility Rental Fees; and
WHEREAS, the City has not increased most fees in the last six years; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to implement the proposed changes in a manner that is
reasonable and allows for future adjustments.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin adopts the
Master Fee Schedule attached hereto as Exhibit A.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the new fees identified in said Master Fee Schedule shall
be effective beginning December 1, 2012. For those items billed as "time and materials," the
fees and overhead rates shown in Exhibit A shall be applicable to services provided
beginning December 1, 2012.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that effective December 1, 2012, this Resolution shall
supersede the following Resolutions previously adopted by the City Council: Resolution 96-
84 (Adopting Fees, Charges, and Bond Amendments For Certain Municipal Services);
Resolution 12 -92 (Amending Fees For Certain Municipal Services / General Fees For
Service); Resolution 102 -92 Adopting Fees For Certain Municipal Services — Zoning
Clearance; Photocopies; and Certification of City Records; Resolution 54 -93 Approving
Revisions to the Fee and Bond Schedules For Encroachment Permits and Oversize Vehicle
Permits; Resolution 192 -99 (Amending Fees For Fire Permits, Plan Reviews, Inspection, and
Fire Services); Resolution 17 -01 Adopting Fees For Police Reports and Returned Check
Charges); Resolution 71 -01 (Establishing Estoppel Certificate Fee); Resolution 112 -04
Amending Fees For Fire Permits, Plan Review and Inspection Services; Resolution 49 -06
(Revised Fee Schedule For Community Development, Engineering, and Fire Divisions);
Resolution 190 -06 (Amended Fees for Residential Solar Photovoltaic Systems); Resolution
203 -07 (Amending Building Permit Valuations Used To Calculate Building Permit Fees);
Resolution 160 -09 (Amending Fees For Indoor Recreational Facility Approvals and Minor
Use Permits); Resolution 188 -09 Adding a Fee For A City Owned Newsrack; and Resolution
07 -10 (Adding a Fee For Large Family Day Care Permits).
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that except as otherwise designated in Exhibit A, the fees
therein shall be automatically adjusted annually using the adjustment methodology in
Resolution No. 160 -12 Establishing a User Fee Cost Recovery Policy adopted by the City
Council on September 4, 2012.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 18th day of September, 2012, by the following
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
�0F,Q" EXHIBIT A - MASTER FEE SCHEDULE
19 f. Fez Adopted September 18, 2012
Resolution No. ## - 12
Section 1.0: General & Administrative
#
Fee
Description / Unit
2011 Full
Cost (info
Current
Effective
12/01 /2012
Only)
120
Photocopies — (First Page or 1
Reproduction of documents /
$ 1.00
$ 1.00*
page document)
Cost for first page
121
Photocopies — (Each additional
Reproduction of documents /
$ 0.10
$ 0.10*
Page)
Cost per page after first page
Documents where a physical
Actual
122
Mailing of Photocopies
copy is requested to be mailed. /
New
Postage
Per mailing
((Info only - Established by State
No Charge —
No Charge —
123
Retrieval of public documents.
Law) Costs incurred for locating
Is included in
Is included in
or collecting records / Staff Time
per page cost
per page cost
Copies of Political Reform Act
((Info owy Established by State
124
1974 Documents (Ca Govt Code
Law) Any related documents /
$ 0.10
$ 0.10*
81008)
Perpage
((Info owy Established by State
Political Reform Act Retrieval
Law) Retrieval of documents
125
(Ca Govt Code 81008)
over 5 Years old / Per request
New
$ 5.00 **
includes multiple documents
requested at the same time
Not to exceed
General documents which shall
actual cost —
126
Bound documents, reports
not exceed the combined cost if
$5.00 per
As determined
including Budget; CAFR; etc.
the per page rate in #120 is
Copy
by City
used. / Per document
Manager or
designee
Special Copies:
Not to exceed
• Plans and Specifications
Construction project plans and
actual cost —
127
For Construction
specifications; maps; may
Cost
As determined
• Maps
include oversized pages. / Per
by City
• Aerial Photographs
Document
Manager or
designee
Unless defined elsewhere
General City Overhead to be
128
General Overhead
used for developing equivalent
New
44.0 %*
fees and charges / Applied to
actual costs
As determined
Fees for services or costs not
by City
explicitly listed in any section in
Manager or
the Master Fee Schedule / Case
designee
129
Equivalent Fees and Charges
by case basis, may include: staff
New
based on
costs; contractor/ consultant
actual costs
costs; reimbursable expenses;
and rates plus
general overhead.
general
overhead.
Page 1 of 25
* Local Fees and Charges that are not subject to annual adjustment based on Consumer Price Index (CPI).
** Fees and charges established by separate ordinance, State Law, or another agency and not subject to CPI adjustment.
�0F,Q" EXHIBIT A - MASTER FEE SCHEDULE
19 4- Fez Adopted September 18, 2012
Resolution No. ## - 12
Section 1.1: Finance / Business License
#
Fee
Description / Unit
2011 Full
Cost (info
Current
Effective
12/01 /2012
Only)
((Info owy Established by State
160
First Returned Check Fee (Ca.
Law) Payments received via
check when the payment is
$20.00
$25.00 Set by
**
Civil Code 1719 (a)(1)
declined is declined by the bank.
State Law
/ Per check
((Info owy Established by State
161
Subsequent Returned Check
Law) Payments received via check when the payment is
$20.00
$35.00 Set By
**
Fee (Ca. Civil Code 1719 (a)(1)
declined is declined by the bank.
State Law
/ Per check after first
Annual Business Registration
((Info owy Established by City
162
(License) Dublin Municipal Code
Ord /Code) Annual Business
$72.11
$50.00
$50.00 **
Chapter 4.04.250(A)
License / Per Business
(Info only Established by City
Prorated Annual Business
Ord /Code) Code provides for
163
Registration (License) Dublin
less than a full calendar year,
Per Code
Per Code **
Municipal Code Chapter
registration fee shall be prorated
4.04.260
on a monthly basis / Varies
based on months remaining
Itinerant Business Registration
((Info owy Established by City
$10.00 day —
$10.00/ day —
164
(License) Dublin Municipal Code
Ord /Code) Daily to a maximum
May $50.00
Max. $50.00
Chapter 4.04.250(8)
of 5 days / Per Day
per year
per year **
Temporary Business
((Info owy Established by City
165
Registration (License) Dublin
Ord /Code) Temporary places of
$10.00/ day
$10.00/ day **
Municipal Code Chapter
sale / Daily
4.04.250(C)
Master Business Registration
((Info owy Established by City
166
(License) Dublin Municipal Code
Ord /Code) Master license for
$72.11
$50.00
$50.00 **
Chapter 4.04.250(D)
organizer / Per permitted event
((Info only Established by City
Business License Transfer
Ord /Code) Transfer is
167
Dublin Municipal Code Chapter
substantially similar to the
$5.00
$5.00 **
4.04.280
ownership existing before the
transfer / per transfer
Duplicate Business License
((Info owy Established by City
168
Dublin Municipal Code Chapter
Ord /Code) Replace any license
$5.00
$5.00 **
4.04.290
previously issued license
Contractors may elect to have
169
Contract Retention Escrow Fee
retention amounts paid to a third
$23.00
$100.00
$23.00
party escrow . / Per Payment
Page 2 of 25
* Local Fees and Charges that are not subject to annual adjustment based on Consumer Price Index (CPI).
** Fees and charges established by separate ordinance, State Law, or another agency and not subject to CPI adjustment.
�0F,Q" EXHIBIT A - MASTER FEE SCHEDULE
19 4- Fez Adopted September 18, 2012
Resolution No. ## - 12
Section 1.2: Administrative Fees - Impact Fee Credit Agreement Administration
#
Fee
Description / Unit
2011 Full
Cost (info
Current
Effective
Only)
12/01 /2012
Developers who dedicate excess
401
Original Agreement to Establish
park land and receive a Credit
$546.00
$989.00
$546.00
A Park Land Credit
against future fees. / Per
Agreement
Transfer Agreement For Park
Transfers the rights to all or a
402
Land Credits
portion of the credits to a
$224.00
$849.00
$224.00
different party. / Per Agreement
Developers who dedicate excess
Original Agreement to Establish
street right of way and /or
403
A Traffic Impact Fee Credit
construct improvements and
$714.00
$989.00
$714.00
receive a Credit against future
fees. / Per Agreement
Transfer Agreement For Traffic
Transfers the rights to all or a
404
Impact Fee Credits
portion of the credits to a
$407.00
$849.00
$407.00
different party. / Per Agreement
Page 3 of 25
Local Fees and Charges that are not subject to annual adjustment based on Consumer Price Index (CPI).
** Fees and charges established by separate ordinance, State Law, or another agency and not subject to CPI adjustment.
�0F,Q" EXHIBIT A - MASTER FEE SCHEDULE
19 f. Fez Adopted September 18, 2012
Resolution No. ## - 12
Section 2.0: Police Services- General (Fingerprints / Records / Vehicles/ Development)
#
Fee
Description / Unit
2011 Full
Cost (info
Current
Effective
12/01 /2012
Only)
201
Livescan (Fingerprints)
Fingerprinting / Per Application
$44.00
$30.00
$44.00
202
Fingerprint Card
Card non electronic prints
$44.00
$ 5.00
$44.00
$ 2.00 — first 8
203
Police Report/ Inspection
Authorized release of a copy of a
$20.00
pages +$0.25
$5.00 Flat*
Verification
Police Report / Per Report
per ea.
additional pg.
Records Subpoena (Subpoena
((Info owy Established by State
204
Duces Tecum) Ca. Govt Code
Law) Response to subpoena /
$ 15.00
$15.00 **
6254(f) (1) and (2)
Per Supoena
205
Records subpoena: photos
Duplication of photo records. /
$61.00
New
$61.00
saved to CD
Per CD
Preparation of a Visa letter
206
Visa Letter
requested for foreign travel. / Per
$50.00
$30.00
$50.00
Letter
Child Safety Seat Inspection
Inspection of the installation of
$25.00
(Police Chief
207
(Non- Resident)
child safety Seat for non-
$104.00
$25.00
may waive if part
residents. /Per Inspection
p
of regional event).
Sign -off on ticket not issued by
208
Fix -It Ticket Sign -Off
Dublin Police Services. / Per
$10.00
$15.00
$10.00*
Citation
209
Repossessed Vehicle Release
Process and provide release
$20.00
$15.00
$20.00
document. / Per Release
Provide release documentation
210
Towed / Stored Vehicle Release
for towed / stored vehicle./ Per
$136.00
$115.00
$136.00
Vehicle.
Page 4 of 25
* Local Fees and Charges that are not subject to annual adjustment based on Consumer Price Index (CPI).
** Fees and charges established by separate ordinance, State Law, or another agency and not subject to CPI adjustment.
�0F,Q" EXHIBIT A - MASTER FEE SCHEDULE
19 f. Fez Adopted September 18, 2012
Resolution No. ## - 12
Section 2.1: Police Services- Permits
#
Fee
Description / Unit
2011 Full
Cost (info
Current
Effective
12/01 /2012
Only)
$147.00
Alcohol Beverage Control (ABC)
Issuance of documents required
(Police Chief
220
- One Day Permit
for an application to ABC. / Per
$147.00
$35.00
may waive for
Application.
Dublin Based
Non-Profit).
Bingo Permit (Dublin Municipal
Annual license issuance per the
221
Code Chapter 5.44)
Municipal Code. / Per
$156.00
$150.00
$156.00
application
222
Dance Permit (Dublin Municipal
Processing of a dance permit per
$146.00
$100.00
$146.00
Code Chapter 5.52)
the municipal code. / Per permit
Fortune Teller Permit (Dublin
Processing of a fortune teller
223
Municipal Code Chapter 4.08)
permit per the municipal code. /
$282.00
$200.00
$282.00
Per permit
224
Gun Dealer Permit
Processing of a Gun Dealer
$259.00
$200.00
$259.00
Permit / Per Permit
Massage Establishment - Initial
Processing of a massage
225
(Dublin Municipal Code Chapter
establishment permit per the
$333.00
$275.00
$333.00
4.20)
municipal code. / Per location
Massage Establishment -Yearly
Annual permit after initial
226
(Dublin Municipal Code Chapter
massage establishment permit. /
$167.00
$125.00
$167.00
4.20)
Per permit
Massage Technician -Yearly
Processing of a massage
227
(Dublin Municipal Code Chapter
establishment permit per the
$333.00
$150.00
$333.00
4.20)
municipal code. / Per year
$147.00
Parade Permit (Dublin Municipal
Processing f a parade permit
g p p
(Permit only -
228
Code Chapter 5.12)
per the municipal code. / Per
$147.00
$90.00
Service Charges
event
per 5.12.100
additional
Peddler Permit (Dublin Municipal
Processing of a peddler permit
229
Code Chapter 4.16)
per the municipal code. / Per
$231.00
$150.00
$231.00
application
Secondhand Dealer Permit
Processing of a secondhand
230
(Dublin Municipal Code Chapter
dealer permit per the municipal
$262.00
$100.00
$262.00
4.12)
code. / Per permit
Taxi Company (Owner) Permit -
Processing of a taxi company
231
Initial (Dublin Municipal Code
(owner) permit per the municipal
$262.00
$300.00
$262.00
Chapter 6.76)
code. / Per initial permit
Taxi Company (Owner) Permit -
Annual permit after initial Taxi
232
Renewal (Dublin Municipal Code
Company (owner) permit. / Per
$147.00
$250.00
$147.00
Chapter 6.76)
permit
Taxi Driver (Operator) Annual
Annual permit Taxi Driver
233
Permit - (Dublin Municipal Code
(operator) permit. / Per permit
$190.00
$150.00
$190.00
Chapter 6.76)
Page 5 of 25
Local Fees and Charges that are not subject to annual adjustment based on Consumer Price Index (CPI).
** Fees and charges established by separate ordinance, State Law, or another agency and not subject to CPI adjustment.
�°F ° °, EXHIBIT A - MASTER FEE SCHEDULE
19 4- Fez Adopted September 18, 2012
Resolution No. ## - 12
Section 2.2: Police Services- Hourly Rates
Page 6 of 25
Local Fees and Charges that are not subject to annual adjustment based on Consumer Price Index (CPI).
** Fees and charges established by separate ordinance, State Law, or another agency and not subject to CPI adjustment.
2011 Full
Effective
#
Fee
Description / Unit
Cost (info
Current
12/01 /2012
Only)
PS1
Sheriffs Technician
Hourly rate for special services
$58.24
New
$58.00
not otherwise defined./ Per Hour
PS2
Sheriff's Deputy
Hourly rate for special services
$107.85
New
$107.00
not otherwise defined. / Per hour
PS3
Sheriffs Sergeant
Hourly rate for special services
$126.27
New
$126.00
not otherwise defined. / Per hour
Page 6 of 25
Local Fees and Charges that are not subject to annual adjustment based on Consumer Price Index (CPI).
** Fees and charges established by separate ordinance, State Law, or another agency and not subject to CPI adjustment.
�0F,Q" EXHIBIT A - MASTER FEE SCHEDULE
19 f. Fez Adopted September 18, 2012
Resolution No. ## - 12
Section 4.1 : Fire Prevention Services Plan Review & Inspection
Note: The fees for all plan review and inspection, fire alarm systems, fixed fire systems, and automatic
fire sprinkler systems include one inspection and one re- inspection for each inspection type (e.g. weld,
hydro, rough, pre -pour, functional, final, etc.). If a permit applicant elects to split inspections into small
pieces such as by floor or by system; additional inspection fees will be due based upon the hourly rate.
#
Fee
Description / Unit
2011 Full
Cost (info
Current
Effective
12/01 /2012
Only)
PLAN REVIEW & INSPECTION
240
Construction up to 5000 sq.
Per application
$274.00
$250.00
$274.00
flew
241
New Construction 5000 sq. ft. to
Per application
$412.00
$400.00
$412.00
45,000 sq. ft.
242
New Construction >45,000 sq. ft.
Per application
$994.00
$600.00
$994.00
243
Tenant Improvement up to 5000
Per application
$274.00
$250.00
$274.00
a
244
Tenant Improvement 5000 sq. ft.
Per application
$329.00
$400.00
$329.00
to 45,000 sq. ft.
245
Tenant Improvement >45,000
Per application
$883.00
$450.00
$883.00
a
246
Custom Single Family Residence
Per application
$329.00
$300.00
$329.00
FIRE ALARM SYSTEMS - (New
or Tenant Improvements)
250
Fire Alarm System <= 50 devices
Per application
$606.00
$215.00
$606.00
251
Fire Alarm System >50 devices
Per application
$1,160.00
New
$1,160.00
252
High -rise System
Per Building
$1,437.00
$340.00
$1,437.00
FIXED FIRE PROTECTION
SYSTEMS
260
Medical Gas System
Per System
$301.00
$240.00
$301.00
261
Hood Duct System
Per System
$329.00
$240.00
$329.00
262
Halon or Clean Agent
Per System
$384.00
$240.00
$384.00
263
Spray Booth per booth
Per System
$495.00
$240.00
$495.00
AUTOMATIC FIRE SPRINKLER
SYSTEMS COMMERCIAL -
(New or Tenant Improvements)
New Construction
270
System <= 20 heads
Base Fee Per System
$274.00
$290.00
$274.00
Tenant Impvts.
$190.00
271
System >20 heads
Base Fee Per System
$606.00
$390.00
$606.00
Plus amount per head in excess
Per Head
New (Current
272
of 100 heads
$6.00
is $0.50 over
$6.00
20 heads)
273
Underground Water Supply
Per system / tap
$412.00
$515.00
$412.00
AUTOMATIC FIRE SPRINKLER
SYSTEMS RESIDENTIAL -
(New and Alterations)
275
NFPA 13 D master plan check
per System
$384.00
$340.00
$384.00
and inspection
276
Additional permits for already
per Application
$329.00
$240.00
$329.00
approved master plan
Page 7 of 25
Local Fees and Charges that are not subject to annual adjustment based on Consumer Price Index (CPI).
** Fees and charges established by separate ordinance, State Law, or another agency and not subject to CPI adjustment.
�0F,Q" EXHIBIT A - MASTER FEE SCHEDULE
19 4- Fez Adopted September 18, 2012
Resolution No. ## - 12
Section 4.2: Fire Prevention Services Regulated Activities
#4.2
Fire Prevention Services
Regulated Activities
Description / Unit
2011 Full
Current
Effective
#
Fee
Description / Unit
Cost (info
Current
12/01 /2012
301
Aviation Facilities
Per site
Only)
$100.00
$143.00
277
NFPA 13R system (per unit, per
per Unit
$274.00
$390.00
$274.00
303
building)
Per application
$76.00
$100.00
$76.00
278
NFPA 13 System
Per Unit
$468.00
$390.00
$468.00
279
Underground Water Supply
Per system / tap
$412.00
$515.00
$412.00
Section 4.2: Fire Prevention Services Regulated Activities
#4.2
Fire Prevention Services
Regulated Activities
Description / Unit
2011 Full
Cost '(ynfo
Current
Effective
12/01 /2012
300
Aerosol
Per site
$251.00
$100.00
$251.00
301
Aviation Facilities
Per site
$143.00
$100.00
$143.00
302
Amusement Buildings
Per site
$197.00
New
$197.00
303
Open Flames and Candles
Per application
$76.00
$100.00
$76.00
304
Carnivals and Fairs
Per event
$644.00
$100.00
$644.00
305
Cellulose Nitrate Film
Per site
$179.00
New
$179.00
306
Combustible Fiber Storage
Per site
$251.00
$100.00
$251.00
307
Compressed Gases
Per site
$215.00
$50.00
$215.00
308
Cryogenics
Per site
$215.00
$100.00
$215.00
309
Dry Cleaning Plants
Per site
$251.00
$100.00
$251.00
310
Combustible Dust Producing
Operations
per site
$251.00
$100.00
$251.00
311
Exhibits and Trade Shows
Per event
$197.00
New
$197.00
312
Explosives
Per application
$253.00
$50.00
$253.00
313
Fire Hydrants and Valves
Per application
$106.00
$50.00
$106.00
314
Flammable or Combustible
Liquids
Per site
$251.00
Varies based
on type of
storage
$251.00
315
Floor Finishing
Per site
$112.00
New
$112.00
316
Fruit and Crop Ripening
Per bus
$88.00
$50.00
$88.00
317
Fumigation & Thermal
Insecticidal Fogging
per site
$75.00
New
$75.00
318
Repair Garages and Motor Fuel-
Dispensing Facilities
per site
$88.00
$100.00
$88.00
319
Hazardous Materials
Per site
$112.00
$100.00
$112.00
320
HPM Facilities (Hazardous
Production Materials)
per facility
$88.00
$100.00
$88.00
321
High Piled Storage
Per site
$143.00
New
$143.00
322
Hot Work Operations
Per application
$143.00
New
$143.00
323
LP -GAS
Per application
$126.00
New
$126.00
324
Liquid or Gas Fueled Equipment
in assembly buildings
Per application
$126.00
$100.00
$126.00
325
Lumberyards and Woodworking
Plants
per site
$88.00
$100.00
$88.00
326
Wood products
Per site
$88.00
New
$88.00
327
Magnesium
Per facility
$179.00
$50.00
$179.00
Page 8 of 25
Local Fees and Charges that are not subject to annual adjustment based on Consumer Price Index (CPI).
** Fees and charges established by separate ordinance, State Law, or another agency and not subject to CPI adjustment.
�0F,Q" EXHIBIT A - MASTER FEE SCHEDULE
19 4- Fez Adopted September 18, 2012
Resolution No. ## - 12
Page 9 of 25
* Local Fees and Charges that are not subject to annual adjustment based on Consumer Price Index (CPI).
** Fees and charges established by separate ordinance, State Law, or another agency and not subject to CPI adjustment.
Fire Prevention Services
2011 Full
Effective
#4.2
Regulated Activities
Description / Unit
Cost
Current
12/01 /2012
'(info
328
Miscellaneous Combustible
per facility
$143.00
New
$143.00
Storage
329
Open Burning
Per application
$58.00
New
$58.00
330
Open Flames and Torches
Per application
$76.00
New
$76.00
331
Organic Coatings
Per site
$143.00
New
$143.00
332
Industrial Ovens
Per site
$143.00
$100.00
$143.00
$100.00 (50-
333
Places of Assembly
Per site
$143.00
299) and $200
$143.00
(300 +)
334
Pyrotechnical Special Effects
per application
$143.00
$100.00
$143.00
Material (non display)
335
Pyroxylin Plastics
Per site
$197.00
New
$197.00
336
Refrigeration Equipment
Per site
$253.00
$50.00
$253.00
337
Spraying and Dipping Operations
Per site
$197.00
$50.00
$197.00
338
Rooftop Heliports
Per site
$143.00
New
$143.00
$50.00 (200-
339
Temporary Membrane Structures
per structure /tent
$190.00
4,199sf)
$190.00
and Tents >400 sq. ft.
$100.00
( >4,200)
340
Waste Handling
Per site
$143.00
$100.00
$143.00
341
Cutting and Welding
Per site
$143.00
$100.00
$143.00
342
Storage of Scrap Tires and Tire
per site
$143.00
New
$143.00
Byproducts
As determined
Fees for services or costs not
by City
explicitly listed in any section in
Manager or
the Master Fee Schedule / Case
designee
343
Equivalent Fees and Charges
by case basis, may include: staff
New
based on
costs; contractor/ consultant
actual costs
costs; reimbursable expenses;
and rates plus
general overhead.
general
overhead.
ANNUAL NOTICE OF
INSPECTION (Self Inspection)
Annual notice of inspection
Collected as supplement to the
(Waived if business is subject to
Annual Business Registration
344
Annual Regulated Activity
imposed under Dublin Municipal
$29.00
$11.00
$20.00*
Permit)
Code Chapter 4.04.250 / Per
year
Page 9 of 25
* Local Fees and Charges that are not subject to annual adjustment based on Consumer Price Index (CPI).
** Fees and charges established by separate ordinance, State Law, or another agency and not subject to CPI adjustment.
�0F,Q" EXHIBIT A - MASTER FEE SCHEDULE
19 f. Fez Adopted September 18, 2012
Resolution No. ## - 12
4.3 Fire Works Displays & Sales
Section 4.4: Fire Prevention Services- Hourly Rates
2011 Full
Effective
#
Fee
Description / Unit
Cost (info
Current
12/01 /2012
Only)
FR1
FIRE WORKS DISPLAYS
Hourly rate for special services
New
$137.00
350
Display Aerial Base Fee
Per event
$145.00
New
$145.00
351
Additional amount per shell
If applicable added to base fee.
$367.00
$175.00
$411.00
group 60 Shells
not otherwise defined. / Per hour
352
Additional amount per shell
If applicable added to base fee.
$367.00
$250.00
$367.00
group 61 -120 Shells
353
Additional amount per shell
If applicable added to base fee.
$367.00
$300.00
$367.00
group 121 -181 Shells
354
Additional amount per shell
If applicable added to base fee.
$478.00
$450.00
$478.00
group 181 -240 Shells
355
Additional amount per shell
If applicable added to base fee.
$443.00
$560.00
$443.00
group >241 Shells
FIRE WORKS SALES
Fireworks Stand Application
((Info only - Established by City
356
Dublin Municipal Code Chapter
Ord /Code) Processing and
$150.00
$150.00 **
5.24.070(8)
administration of fireworks
stands
357
Fireworks Stand Inspection
Cost to inspect sales locations.
$137.00
$100.00
$137.00
Section 4.4: Fire Prevention Services- Hourly Rates
Page 10 of 25
* Local Fees and Charges that are not subject to annual adjustment based on Consumer Price Index (CPI).
** Fees and charges established by separate ordinance, State Law, or another agency and not subject to CPI adjustment.
2011 Full
Effective
#
Fee
Description / Unit
Cost (info
Current
12/01 /2012
Only)
FR1
Deputy Fire Marshall
Hourly rate for special services
New
$137.00
not otherwise defined./ Per Hour
FR2
Fire Code Compliance Officer
Hourly rate for special services
New
$98.00
not otherwise defined. / Per hour
Page 10 of 25
* Local Fees and Charges that are not subject to annual adjustment based on Consumer Price Index (CPI).
** Fees and charges established by separate ordinance, State Law, or another agency and not subject to CPI adjustment.
�°F ° °, EXHIBIT A - MASTER FEE SCHEDULE
19 4- Fez Adopted September 18, 2012
Resolution No. ## - 12
Section 5.1: Housing Services Program Fees
#
Fee
Description / Unit
2011 Full
Cost (info
Current
Effective
Only)
12/01 /2012
Administration of the "For Sale"
501
Below Market Ownership Units -
Inclusionary units. / Per Unit per
$2,323
$1,500.00
$1,500.00*
change in Ownership — Including
Initial
Administration of the "Second
Units" designated to meet
502
Below Market Rate Secondary
Affordable Program
$872
$1,500.00
$872.00*
Rentals Unit
requirements / Per Unit per
change in Ownership — Including
Initial
Below Market Rental
Rental developments with
503
Developments
Inclusionary units / per unit with
$1,026
$500.00
$826.00*
restricted rent.
Administrative cost for document
504
Refinance Charges
preparation and research when
$2,290
$200.00
$200.00*
an inclusionary unit requires City
approval / per request
First time home loan program -
Administrative charge for review
505
administrative fee
and approval of first time home
$2,208
$1,500.00
$1,500.00*
buyer loan / per loan approved
Page 11 of 25
* Local Fees and Charges that are not subject to annual adjustment based on Consumer Price Index (CPI).
** Fees and charges established by separate ordinance, State Law, or another agency and not subject to CPI adjustment.
�0F,Q" EXHIBIT A - MASTER FEE SCHEDULE
19 f. Fez Adopted September 18, 2012
Resolution No. ## - 12
Section 6.1 : Planning Division
Note: For all activities noted as Time and Materials (T &M), the cost shall be determined using composite
City Staff rates and designated overhead factors. Overhead shall also be applicable to any work
contracted by the City. An initial deposit shall be made by the applicant as determined by City Staff
based on the scope and complexity of the project. Additional deposits shall be collected as necessary
during processing. Any applicant funds remaining after completion of the project shall be refunded to
the applicant.
#6.1
Planning Division Fees
Description / Unit
2011 Full
Cost (info
Current
Effective
12/01/2012
Only)
USE PERMITS (TUP /CUP)
550
Minor Use Permit
Per application
$3,327
$600.00
$600.00*
551
Minor Use Permit— Minor
Per Application
$891
$129.00
$129.00*
Amendment
552
Minor Use Permit — Major
Per Application
$3,327
$600.00
$600.00*
Amendment
Non - Residential Conditional Use
553
Permit(CUP) /(Approval
Per Application
$10,880
$1,000.00
$1,100.00*
considered by Planning
Commission)
Non - Residential Conditional Use
554
Permit(CUP) /(Can be
Per Application
$10,875
$750.00
$1,100.00*
approved by Zoning
Administrator)
Residential Conditional Use
555
Permit (CUP) / (Approval
Per Application
$11,091
$1,939.00
$1,939.00*
considered by Planning
Commission)
Residential Conditional Use
556
Permit (CUP) / (Can be
Per Application
$10,443
$1,939.00
$1,939.00*
approved by Zoning
Administrator)
557
Conditional Use Permit(CUP) —
per Application
$10,880
$500.00
$1,100.00*
Daycare Center (15+ children)
558
Conditional Use Permit (CUP) —
per Application
$11,743
$650.00
$650.00*
Large Family Daycare Home
Conditional Use Permit — Minor
559
Amendment (Administrative
Per Request
$891
$512.00
$225.00*
Determination)
Conditional Use Permit —Time
560
Extension (Administrative
Per Request
$1,032
$646.00
$225.00*
Determination)
Conditional Use Permit —Time
561
Extension (Planning Commission
Per Request
$5,593
$646.00
$1,125.00*
Determination)
562
Temporary Use Permit - Minor
Per Application
$720
$200.00
$200.00*
563
Temporary Use Permit — Major
Per Application
$200 +T &M
T &M
Page 12 of 25
* Local Fees and Charges that are not subject to annual adjustment based on Consumer Price Index (CPI).
** Fees and charges established by separate ordinance, State Law, or another agency and not subject to CPI adjustment.
�0F,Q" EXHIBIT A - MASTER FEE SCHEDULE
19 f. Fez Adopted September 18, 2012
Resolution No. ## - 12
#6.1
Planning Division Fees
Description / Unit
2011 Full
Cost (info
Current
Effective
12/01/2012
Only)
ZONING CLEARANCE
570
Accommodations for persons
Per Application
$781
$25.00
No Fee
with disabilities Review
571
Banner/ Balloon
Per sign / balloon
$55
$25.00
$55.00*
572
Indoor recreational Facilities
Per Application
$991
$250.00
$250.00*
573
Large Family Day Care Home
Per application
$1,644
$100.00
$100.00*
574
Zoning Clearance - General
Per Application
$494
$50.00
$50.00*
VARIANCE
580
Non - Residential Variance
Per Application
$1,939
T &M
581
Residential Variance
Per Application
$1,939
T &M
SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
(SDR)
590
Site Development Review -
Per Application
$140 +T &M
T &M
General
Site Development Review —
591
Residential Additions > 500 sq.
Per Application
$500.00
T &M
ft.
Site Development Review —
592
Single Sign (Master Sign
Per Sign
$3,191
$129.00
$325.00*
Program is handled as a Site
Development Review - General)
593
Site Development Review
Per Request
$996
$250.00
$250.00*
Waiver
Site Development Review —
594
Time Extension (Administrative
Per Request
$1,032
$646.00
$225.00*
Determination)
Site Development Review —
595
Time Extension (Planning
Per Request
$5,593
$646.00
$1,125.00*
Commission Determination)
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
(PD) PROCESSING
600
Planned Development
Per Application
T &M
T &M
Application (Stage 1 / Stage 2)
Planned Development Minor
601
Amendment — (Administrative
Per Application
$2,228
$512.00
$512.00*
Determination)
Planned Development Minor
602
Amendment — (Planning
Per Application
$1,920.00
T &M
Commission Determination)
Planned Development Major
603
Amendment — (City Council
Per Application
T &M
T &M
Determination)
Page 13 of 25
* Local Fees and Charges that are not subject to annual adjustment based on Consumer Price Index (CPI).
** Fees and charges established by separate ordinance, State Law, or another agency and not subject to CPI adjustment.
�0F,Q" EXHIBIT A - MASTER FEE SCHEDULE
19 f. Fez Adopted September 18, 2012
Resolution No. ## - 12
Section 6.2: Other Planning Fees
#6.1
Planning Division Fees
Description / Unit
2011 Full
Cost (info
Current
Effective
12/01/2012
#
Fee
Description / Unit
Only)
Current
12/01 /2012
OTHER CHARGES
Only)
610
Appeal of Action by Applicant
Per Appeal
$14,278
T &M
T &M
611
Appeal of Action by member of
per Appeal
$14,278
$175.00
$200.00*
public (non - applicant)
PL2
Estoppel Certificate —
Per certificate prepared when
44.0%
84.63%
44.0 %*
612
Development Agreement
requested by entity not a party to
$519
$200.00
$250.00*
expenses billed under T &M
the Development Agreement.
613
Heritage Tree Removal Permit
Per Tree
$407
$25.00
$25.00*
614
Preparation of Mailing Address
per set of labels
54.0%
$65.00
$65.00*
Labels (Noticing Requirements)
expenses billed under T &M
As determined
Fees for services or costs not
by City
explicitly listed in any section in
Manager or
the Master Fee Schedule / Case
designee
615
Equivalent Fees and Charges
by case basis, may include: staff
New
based on
costs; contractor/ consultant
actual costs
costs; reimbursable expenses;
and rates plus
general overhead.
general
overhead.
Section 6.3: Planning Composite Hourly Rates & Overhead
Page 14 of 25
* Local Fees and Charges that are not subject to annual adjustment based on Consumer Price Index (CPI).
** Fees and charges established by separate ordinance, State Law, or another agency and not subject to CPI adjustment.
2011 Full
Effective
#
Fee
Description / Unit
Cost (info
Current
12/01 /2012
Only)
PL1
Composite City Planning Staff
Per Hour for T &M Activities
$213.00
$128.00
$213.00
Hourly Rate (Includes Overhead)
Off -Site Overhead Rate —
PL2
Applied to actual costs incurred
percentage applied to City Costs
44.0%
84.63%
44.0 %*
for consultant services and
expenses billed under T &M
On -Site Overhead Rate —
PL3
Applied to actual costs incurred
percentage applied to City Costs
54.0%
84.63%
54.0 %*
for consultant services and
expenses billed under T &M
Page 14 of 25
* Local Fees and Charges that are not subject to annual adjustment based on Consumer Price Index (CPI).
** Fees and charges established by separate ordinance, State Law, or another agency and not subject to CPI adjustment.
�0F,Q" EXHIBIT A - MASTER FEE SCHEDULE
19 4- Fez Adopted September 18, 2012
Resolution No. ## - 12
Section 7.1 : Building and Safety Division - Building Permits (Total Valuation)
Building Permits which are not established as fixed fee shall be determined using the total valuation. In
this case the fee due is based on: Occupancy and Construction Type; estimated cost of services and the
Building, Residential, Mechanical, Plumbing, Electrical, Cal Green and Energy codes as adopted by the
City Council including any amendments.
Calculation of the Building Permit fee to be collected shall be in accordance with the Table below. The
determination of the valuation and annual adjustments to the valuation shall be made by the Building
Official as authorized in Dublin Municipal Code section 7.28.430(E).
#7.1
Building Permits Based on
Description / Unit
2011 Full
Cost (info
Current
Effective
Valuation Formula /$ Valuation
12/01/2012
700
$0 -$500
Per calculated valuation.
$134
$40.00
$50.00*
701
$501 - $1,000
Per calculated valuation.
$134
$90.00
$100.00*
702
$1,001 - $2,000
Per calculated valuation.
$141
$130.00
$141.00
703
$2,001 - $3,000
Per calculated valuation.
$189
$170.00
$189.00
704
$3,001 - $4,000
Per calculated valuation.
$219
$210.00
$219.00
705
$4,001 - $5,000
Per calculated valuation.
$271
$250.00
$271.00
706
$5,001- $10,000 (first $5000)
Per calculated valuation.
$271
$250.00
$271.00
Per calculated valuation.
$30.00 for ea.
$42.00 for ea.
707
$5,001- $10,000 (each additional
$42
$1,000 or
$1,000 or
$1000)
fraction
fraction
thereof
thereof
708
$10,001 - $50,000 (first $10,000)
Per calculated valuation.
$483
$400.00
$483.00
Per calculated valuation.
$20.00 for ea.
$25.00 for ea.
709
$10,001- $50,000(each additional
$25
$1,000 or
$1,000 or
$1000)
fraction
fraction
thereof
thereof
710
$50,001 - $100,000 (first $50,000)
Per calculated valuation.
$1,532
$1,200.00
$1,481.00
Per calculated valuation.
$12.00 for ea.
$22.00 for ea.
711
$50,001- $100,001 (each
$22
$1,000 or
$1,000 or
additional $1000)
fraction
fraction
thereof
thereof
712
$100,001 - $500,000 (first
Per calculated valuation.
$2,715
$1,800.00
$2,581.00
$100,000)
Per calculated valuation.
$10.00 for ea.
$18.00 for ea.
713
$100,001- $500,001 (each
$18
$1,000 or
$1,000 or
additional $1000)
fraction
fraction
thereof
thereof
714
$500,001 and up (first $500,000)
Per calculated valuation.
$10,410
$5,800.00
$9,781.00
Per calculated valuation.
$6.00 for ea.
$11.00 for ea.
715
$500,001 and up (each
$11
$1,000 or
$1,000 or
additional $1000)
fraction
fraction
thereof
thereof
Calculate using valuation factors
50%
50%
716
Demolition permits and removal
above.
$1,729
of the fee
of the fee
of underground tanks
calculated based
calculated based
on valuation
on valuation
Page 15 of 25
* Local Fees and Charges that are not subject to annual adjustment based on Consumer Price Index (CPI).
** Fees and charges established by separate ordinance, State Law, or another agency and not subject to CPI adjustment.
�OF,Q" EXHIBIT A - MASTER FEE SCHEDULE
19 f. Fez Adopted September 18, 2012
Resolution No. ## - 12
Section 7.2: Building and Safety Division — Master Plan Check / Green Building
#7.2
Building Permits Based on
Description / Unit
2011 Full
Cost
Current
Effective
Valuation Formula /$ Valuation
'(ynfo
12/01/2012
Single Family detached tract
housing. (When using a
Master Plan Check.)
720
$100,001 - $500,000 (first
Per calculated valuation.
$1,622
$1,800.00
$1,622.00
$100,000)
Per calculated valuation.
$10.00 for ea.
$8.00 for ea.
721
$100,001 - $500,001 (each
$8
$1,000 or
$1,000 or
additional $1000)
fraction
fraction
thereof
thereof
722
$500,001 and up (first $500,000)
Per calculated valuation.
$5,301
$5,800.00
$5,301.00
Per calculated valuation.
$6.00 for ea.
$3.00 for ea.
723
$500,001 and up (each
$3
$1,000 or
$1,000 or
additional $1000)
fraction
fraction
thereof
thereof
CalGreen Building Permit
Surcharge
Percentage is applied to Building
New (costs
724
Surcharge applicable to permits
Permit Fees if the application is
being collected as
8 %*
subject to CalGreen Standards
subject to the CALGreen
part of T &M
Building Standards Code.
processing costs)
Building Permit State
Surcharges
California Building Standards
(info only) State fee required to be
$1.00
$1.00 **
725
Commission Green Building
collected based on permit
N/A
for each $25,000
for each $25,000
Valuation Surcharge
valuation.
of valuation or
fraction thereof
of valuation or
fraction thereof
Residential - California Strong
(info only) State fee required to be
$0.10
$0.10 **
726
Motion Instrumentation Program
collected based on permit
N/A
per $1,000 of
per $1,000 of
(SMIP) Surcharge
valuation.
valuation
valuation
Non - Residential - California
(info only) State fee required to be
$0.21
$0.21 **
727
Strong Motion Instrumentation
collected based on permit
N/A
per $1,000 of
per $1,000 of
Program (SMIP) Surcharge
valuation.
valuation
valuation
Page 16 of 25
* Local Fees and Charges that are not subject to annual adjustment based on Consumer Price Index (CPI).
** Fees and charges established by separate ordinance, State Law, or another agency and not subject to CPI adjustment.
�°F ° °, EXHIBIT A - MASTER FEE SCHEDULE
19 4- Fez Adopted September 18, 2012
Resolution No. ## - 12
Section 7.3 : Building and Safety Division - Residential Flat Fees
The provisions for residential flat fees may be applied when the specific work involved is for a single
dwelling unit and /or appurtenant accessory structures where there is no other work except the item
listed herein. "Service Explanations" follow the Table.
#7.3
Residential Building Permits -
Description / Unit
2011 Fuu
Cost (info
Current
Effective
Flat Fees
12/01/2012
730
Bathroom Remodel or Repair
Per bathroom.
$413
New
$350.00
Per Appliance - Installation of
731
Electrical Appliances
electrical appliances. Per
$106
$60.00
$80.00*
"Service Explanation" #1.
732
Electrical Circuits (first)
First or single circuit. Per
"Service
$98
$65.00
$75.00*
Explanation" #2.
733
Electrical Circuits (each
Fee for each additional circuit.
$38
$20.00
$30.00*
additional)
Per "Service Explanation" #2.
734
Electrical Panels (first)
First or single panel. Per
"Service
$136
$90.00
$136.00
Explanation" #3.
735
Electrical Panels (each
Fee for each additional panel.
$38
$40.00
$38.00
additional)
Per "Service Explanation" #3.
736
Fireplace Insert
Per single installation.. Per
"Service
$174
$60.00
$174.00
Explanation" #4 and #5.
737
Garbage Disposal
Per single installation. Per
"Service
$96
$60.00
$60.00*
Explanation" #1.
738
Gas Piping System
Per single installation. Per
"Service
$136
$60.00
$136.00
Explanation" #6.
739
Hot Tub / Spa Portable
Per single installation. "Service
$136
$70.00
$136.00
Explanation" #7.
740
HVAC System
Per system.. "Service
$174
$60.00
$100.00*
Explanation" #8.
741
Kitchen Remodel or Repair (w /o
Per permit limited to one kitchen.
$554
New
$554.00
structural modifications)
742
Lawn Sprinkler System
Per system for any lawn sprinkler
$58
$80.00
$58.00
or irrigation system.
743
Motors
Per "Service Explanation" #9.
$136
$70.00
$136.00
744
Plumbing Fixture
Per "Service Explanations" #1
$96
$60.00
$60.00*
and #2.
745
Roofing Replacement
For re- roofing a single family
$172
$240.00
$172.00
(Residential)
dwelling.
746
Shower / tub replacement only
Per Unit
$134
New
$134.00
747
Solar Panel - Residential
Per Permit
$327
$250.00
$250.00*
Rooftop Photovoltaic
748
Solar Pool Heating System
Per system (when not included
$149
$100.00
$100.00*
with original pool permit)
749
Solar Water Heaters
Per Application
$224
New
$100.00*
750
Ventilation Fan
Per "Service Explanation" #10.
$58
$60.00
$58.00
751
Water Heater
Per "Service Explanation" #8.
$96
$50.00
$60.00*
752
Water Piping System
Per single installation. Per
"Service
$136
$70.00
$136.00
Explanation" #6.
753
Window Replacements (first 5
Per Application containing 1 -5
$172
New
$172.00
windows)
windows.
Page 17 of 25
* Local Fees and Charges that are not subject to annual adjustment based on Consumer Price Index (CPI).
** Fees and charges established by separate ordinance, State Law, or another agency and not subject to CPI adjustment.
�0F,Q" EXHIBIT A - MASTER FEE SCHEDULE
19 4- Fez Adopted September 18, 2012
Resolution No. ## - 12
#7.3
Residential Building Permits —
Description / Unit
2011 Fuu
Cost
Current
Effective
Flat Fees
2.
'(info
12/01/2012
3.
Window Replacements (each
Additional per window charge
or service upgrades (includes all necessary circuits, outlets, switches, receptacles, fixtures).
4.
For the installation, relocation or replacement of each vent or factory-built chimney
754
additional window)
added to base 1 -5 window
$12
New
$12.00
piping system or portion thereof where fixtures or appliances are not installed.
charge on same application
For the installation, relocation or replacement of any spa / hot tub; includes all necessary outlets,
receptacles, gas piping (only for spas supported on a slab. See Valuation Table for spas located on
SERVICE EXPLANATIONS FOR RESIDENTIAL FLAT FEES
#
Service Explanation
1.
For installation, relocation, or replacement of any electrical appliance which requires plumbing
installation such as garbage disposal, dishwasher, etc., (includes all necessary circuits, outlets,
switches, receptacles, fixtures, water piping, and waste and vent piping).
2.
For installation, alteration or replacement of an electrical circuit (includes all necessary outlets,
switches, receptacles, and lighting fixtures).
3.
For installation, relocation or replacement of temporary power poles, power pedestals, subpanels
or service upgrades (includes all necessary circuits, outlets, switches, receptacles, fixtures).
4.
For the installation, relocation or replacement of each vent or factory-built chimney
5.
For the installation of a solid burning fuel appliance (includes all necessary electrical circuits,
outlets, fixtures, switches, receptacles factory-built chimney).
6.
For each installation or alteration of each water piping system, gas piping system, or refrigerant
piping system or portion thereof where fixtures or appliances are not installed.
7.
For the installation, relocation or replacement of any spa / hot tub; includes all necessary outlets,
receptacles, gas piping (only for spas supported on a slab. See Valuation Table for spas located on
decking).
8.
For the installation, relocation or replacement of each heating, cooling or refrigeration appliance
(includes all necessary electrical circuits, outlets, fixtures, switches, receptacles, gas piping
vents, water piping and duct work). OR (a) For the installation, relocation or replacement of each gas
fired water heater (includes all necessary water and gas piping and vents). OR (b) For the installation
relocation or replacement of each electrical water heater (includes all necessary water piping, electrical
circuits, outlets, fixtures, receptacles, and switches).
9.
For installation, relocation or replacement of any motor (not an integral part of an integral part of an
electrical appliance, fan, heating appliance, cooling appliance), generator, heater, electrical furnace,
welding machine, transformer, and rectified (includes all necessary circuits, outlets, fixtures, switches,
controls).
10.
For the installation, relocation or replacement of ventilation fans connected to a single duct or outlets,
switches, receptacles, fixtures and duct work).
Page 18 of 25
Local Fees and Charges that are not subject to annual adjustment based on Consumer Price Index (CPI).
** Fees and charges established by separate ordinance, State Law, or another agency and not subject to CPI adjustment.
�0F,Q" EXHIBIT A - MASTER FEE SCHEDULE
19 f. Fez Adopted September 18, 2012
Resolution No. ## - 12
Section 7.4: Building and Safety Division — Non - Residential Flat Fees
#7.4
Non - Residential Building
Description / Unit
2011 Full
Cost (Info
Current
Effective
#7.5
permits — Flat Fees
Description / Unit
Cost (info
Current
12/01/2012
760
Solar Systems (Base)-
Includes one inverter and up to
$881
New
$881.00
770
Photovoltaic systems
ten panels.
$114
$104.00
$114.00
761
Solar Systems - Each additional
Per each additional inverter.
$114
New
$100.00
771
inverter
time as the permit for the original
Zero
$104.00
Zero
762
Each additional 100 panels
For each additional 100 panels
$114
New
$114.00
772
Commercial - bonded
or fraction thereof.
$757
$630.00
$757.00
763
Replacement in - kind Heating
Per unit.
$654
New
$654.00
and or Air conditioning units
764
Water heaters - standard
Per water heater.
$136
New
$136.00
765
Reroof Base (Initial square)
Per initial square (1 Oft X 1 Oft)
$96
New
$96.00
area
766
Reroof —Additional beyond base
Each additional square (1 Oft x
$15
New
$15.00
1 Oft) area or fraction thereof.
Section 7.5 : Building and Safety Division — Construction Debris & Demolition
Section 7.6: Building & Safety- Composite Hourly Rates & Overhead
#
Fee
Description / Unit
2011 Full
Current
Effective
#7.5
Fees
Description / Unit
Cost (info
Current
12/01 /2012
BS1
Staff Hourly Rate (Includes
Per Hour for T &M Activities
Only)
$123.52
$164.00
770
Residential
Per Unit
$114
$104.00
$114.00
Residential Second Unit
Per Unit — Provided at the same
771
(Attached to single family home)
time as the permit for the original
Zero
$104.00
Zero
consultant services and
unit
772
Commercial - bonded
Per Application
$757
$630.00
$757.00
773
Commercial - non -bond
Per Application
$303
$630.00
$303.00
Section 7.6: Building & Safety- Composite Hourly Rates & Overhead
#
Fee
Description / Unit
2011 Full
Cost (info
Only)
Current
Effective
12/01 /2012
Composite City Building & Safety
BS1
Staff Hourly Rate (Includes
Per Hour for T &M Activities
$164.07
$123.52
$164.00
Overhead)
Overhead Rate — Applied to
BS2
actual costs incurred for
Percentage applied to City Costs
46%
49.51%
44.0 %*
consultant services and
expenses billed under T &M
Page 19 of 25
* Local Fees and Charges that are not subject to annual adjustment based on Consumer Price Index (CPI).
** Fees and charges established by separate ordinance, State Law, or another agency and not subject to CPI adjustment.
�0F,Q" EXHIBIT A - MASTER FEE SCHEDULE
19 f. Fez Adopted September 18, 2012
Resolution No. ## - 12
Section 7.6 : Building and Safety Division — Other Fees
For all activities noted as Time and Materials (T &M), the cost shall be determined using composite City
Staff rates and designated overhead factors. Overhead shall also be applicable to any work contracted
by the City. An initial deposit shall be made by the applicant as determined by City Staff based on the
scope and complexity of the project. Additional deposits shall be collected as necessary during
processing. Any applicant funds remaining after completion of the project shall be refunded to the
applicant.
#7.6
Fees
Description / Unit
2011 Full
Cost (info
Current
Effective
12/01 /2012
Only)
Additional plan checking,
780
alternate means and methods
T &M
T &M
applications, or plan revisions.
781
Certified Accessibility Specialist
Initial meeting and review. All
$601
New
$601.00
(CASp)- Meeting
other work is T &M
782
Code compliance survey
Initial 100 sq. ft.
$474
$20.00
$474.00
783
Code compliance survey
Each additional 100 sq. ft. or
$38
$20.00
$38.00
fraction thereof
If inspection is required at a
784
In -plant inspections
fabrication facility outside
T &M
T &M
jurisdiction.
785
Moved building inspection fee:
Per building.
$2,294
$20.00
$2,294.00
Applies to plans required to be
786
Plan storage fee
prepared by a professional
$10
$10.00
$10.00
engineer or architect.
Per each re- inspection. On
787
Re- inspection fee.
Multi - Family fee is calculated per
$151
$124.00
$150.00
unit.
Review geologic reports required
Per application request
788
by the Alquist- Priolo Special
T &M
T &M
Studies Zones Act
Service requested outside of
Per hour with a four hour
789
regular working hours / business
minimum.
$247
$186.00
$247.00
days (4 hour min)
Special Investigations (Code
Per investigation. Cost of
compliance survey lockout
investigation shall be in addition
790
,
,
inspection or other special
to the fees for any new
$124.00
T &M
investigation.)
installation made as part of the
correction.
As determined
Fees for services or costs not
by City
explicitly listed in any section in
Manager or
the Master Fee Schedule / Case
designee
791
Equivalent Fees and Charges
by case basis, may include: staff
New
based on
costs; contractor/ consultant
actual costs
costs; reimbursable expenses;
and rates plus
general overhead.
general
overhead.
Page 20 of 25
Local Fees and Charges that are not subject to annual adjustment based on Consumer Price Index (CPI).
** Fees and charges established by separate ordinance, State Law, or another agency and not subject to CPI adjustment.
�0F,Q" EXHIBIT A - MASTER FEE SCHEDULE
19 f. Fez Adopted September 18, 2012
Resolution No. ## - 12
Section 8.1 : Engineering / Public Works — Other Fees
For all activities noted as Time and Materials (T &M), the cost shall be determined using composite City
Staff rates and designated overhead factors. Overhead shall also be applicable to any work contracted
by the City. An initial deposit shall be made by the applicant as determined by City Staff based on the
scope and complexity of the project. Additional deposits shall be collected as necessary during
processing. Any applicant funds remaining after completion of the project shall be refunded to the
applicant.
#8.1
Engineering Fees
Description / Unit
2011 Full
Cost (info
Current
Effective
12/01/2012
Only)
800
Permit processing fee
Includes cost of processing
$101
$10.00
$100.00
grading or encroachment permit
801
Plan checking
Per hour.
T &M
T &M
Trenching / Road Cuts — Base
Base Permit cost up to 100
802
Transfers and longitudinal
square feet
$538
$25.00
$207.00
tranches, road cuts, 1 - 100 SF
Trenching / Road Cuts — Over
Additional permit cost per
803
100 SF Transfers and
additional square foot in excess
$1
$0.05
$1.00
longitudinal tranches, road cuts,
of 100 square feet
>100 SF
804
Construction concrete sidewalk,
Base Permit cost up to 50
$538
$25.00
$207.00
curb, and gutter 1- 50 SF
square feet
Construction concrete sidewalk,
Additional permit cost per
805
curb, and gutter greater than 50
additional linear foot in excess of
$2
$ 0.15
$2.00
SF
50 square feet
806
Constructing concrete driveways:
Per Driveway - Residential
$359
$50.00
$359.00
residential
807
Constructing concrete driveways:
Per Driveway - Commercial
$538
$100.00
$538.00
commercial
Constructing drain inlets,
Connection of inlet
808
manholes, and connections to
$718
$80.00
$414.00
same
Encroachment Permit
Per each permit where roadway
809
Resurfacing Surcharge — 50
asphalt is cut impacting 50
surcharge
$50.00
$50.00*
square feet or less
square feet or less of roadway.
Encroachment Permit
In addition to base charge for up
$1.00
$1.00
810
Resurfacing Surcharge — Per
to 50 square feet — an additional
surcharge
per square ft.
per square ft.
Square Foot after 50 sq ft.
per sq ft
811
Transportation / Oversized
(Info Only State Limits Max. Fee Per
Calif. Vehicle Code 35795 (b)(1)) Per
$76
$16.00
$16.00 **
Vehicle Permits: Annual
annual permit application
812
Transportation / Oversized
(Info Only State Limits Max. Fee Per
Calif. Vehicle Code 35795 (b)(1)) Per
$152
$90.00
$90.00 **
Vehicle Permits: Single trip
single trip application
813
Block party / street closure
Per application
$76
$35.00
$76.00
Per Application
$227.00 (Permit
814
Filming / Photography Within
$227
$80.00
Service Public
es
Public Right of Way - Basic fee
At Cost may
apply)
Page 21 of 25
* Local Fees and Charges that are not subject to annual adjustment based on Consumer Price Index (CPI).
** Fees and charges established by separate ordinance, State Law, or another agency and not subject to CPI adjustment.
�OF,Q" EXHIBIT A - MASTER FEE SCHEDULE
19 4- Fez Adopted September 18, 2012
Resolution No. ## - 12
#8.1
Engineering Fees
Description / Unit
2011 Full
Cost (info
Current
Effective
12/01/2012
Only)
815
Building division permit referral -
Per Application
$210
$110.00
$210.00
residential
816
Building division permit referral -
Per Application
$420
$220.00
$420.00
non residential
817
ADA site compliance review
Per application
$315
$165.00
$315.00
818
Newsrack Permit
Per application / single space in
$274.10
$180.00
$180.00*
City Owned Newsrack
Inspection: Public improvements
Per Hour
819
construction; grading;
T &M
T &M
encroachment permits
820
Subdivision and Development
Per Hour
T &M
T &M
Plan Checking
As determined
Fees for services or costs not
by City
explicitly listed in any section in
Manager or
the Master Fee Schedule / Case
designee
821
Equivalent Fees and Charges
by case basis, may include: staff
New
based on
costs; contractor/ consultant
actual costs
costs; reimbursable expenses;
and rates plus
general overhead.
general
overhead.
Page 22 of 25
* Local Fees and Charges that are not subject to annual adjustment based on Consumer Price Index (CPI).
** Fees and charges established by separate ordinance, State Law, or another agency and not subject to CPI adjustment.
�OF,Q" EXHIBIT A - MASTER FEE SCHEDULE
19 4- Fez Adopted September 18, 2012
Resolution No. ## - 12
Section 8.2: Engineering- Cash Bond Required For Encroachment Permit (If No Surety Bond)
Page 23 of 25
* Local Fees and Charges that are not subject to annual adjustment based on Consumer Price Index (CPI).
** Fees and charges established by separate ordinance, State Law, or another agency and not subject to CPI adjustment.
2011 Full
Effective
#
Fee
Description / Unit
Cost (info
Current
12/01 /2012
Only)
Transverse and longitudinal
Per Application — Deposit to
850
trenches, road cuts, and other
insure completion. See
N/ A
$500.00
$500.00*
street excavation work — 50
Conditions — Cash Bond
Deposit
square feet of less
Transverse and longitudinal
Per Application — Deposit to
$500.00+
$500.00+
851
trenches, road cuts, and other
insure completion. See
N/ A
$5.00/ sq. ft.
$5.00/ sq. ft.
street excavation work — in
Conditions — Cash Bond
Deposit
in excess of
in excess of
excess of 50 square feet
50 sq. ft.
50 sq. ft.*
Concrete Sidewalk 50 square
Per Application — Deposit to
N/ A
852
feet or less
insure completion. See
Deposit
$500.00
$500.00*
Conditions — Cash Bond
Per Application — Deposit to
$500.00+
$500.00+
853
Concrete Sidewalk more than 50
insure completion. See
N/ A
$5.00/ sq. ft.
$5.00/ sq. ft.
square feet
Conditions — Cash Bond
Deposit
in excess of
in excess of
50 sq. ft.
50 sq. ft.*
Concrete Curb and / or gutter of
Per Application — Deposit to
A
854
30 linear feet or less.
insure completion. See
Deposit
$500.00
$500.00*
Conditions — Cash Bond
Per Application — Deposit to
$500.00+
$500.00+
855
Concrete Curb and / or gutter
insure completion. See
N/ A
$20.00/ linear
$20.00/ linear
more than 30 linear feet.
Conditions — Cash Bond
Deposit
ft. in excess of
ft. in excess of
30 linear ft.
30 linear ft.*
Per Application — Deposit to
N/ A
$500.00
$500.00
856
Residential Concrete Driveway
insure completion. See
Deposit
Minimum
Minimum*
Conditions — Cash Bond
Per Application — Deposit to
N/ A
$1,000.00
$1,000.00
857
Commercial Concrete Driveway
insure completion. See
Deposit
Minimum
Minimum*
Conditions — Cash Bond
Drop inlets, manholes and
Per Application — Deposit to
N/ A
$1.000.00
$1.000.00
858
connections to same
insure completion. See
Deposit
Minimum
Minimum*
Conditions — Cash Bond
Temporary street or lane
Per Application — Deposit to
No Deposit /
No Deposit /
859
closures
insure completion. See
Bond
Bond
Conditions — Cash Bond
Required
Required
N/ A
Amount to be
Deposit
Amount to be
determined by
determined by
the Public
Miscellaneous encroachment
Per Application — Deposit to
the City in
Works
860
work
insure completion. See
accordance
Director in
Conditions — Cash Bond
with the
accordance
nature and
with the
scope of work
nature and
scope of work
Page 23 of 25
* Local Fees and Charges that are not subject to annual adjustment based on Consumer Price Index (CPI).
** Fees and charges established by separate ordinance, State Law, or another agency and not subject to CPI adjustment.
�0F,Q" EXHIBIT A - MASTER FEE SCHEDULE
19 f. Fez Adopted September 18, 2012
Resolution No. ## - 12
Section 8.2(A) : Conditions: -Cash Bond Required For Encroachment Permit
Conditions For Release: Cash bonds shall be released six months after the work has been accepted
by the City, provided there are no defects in the work.
Surety Bonds: Where surety bonds are submitted for a permit in lieu of cash bonds the amount of the
bond shall be double the amount specified for a cash bond.
Annual Bonds: A minimum annual cash deposit of $2,000.00 or a surety bond of $5,000.00 may be
posted in lieu of a cash or surety bond for each permit. The City may require additional bonds or cash
deposits when the nature of the work is such that the amounts hereinbefore provided are insufficient to
cover expenses that may be incurred in restoring the right -of -way to its former condition.
Section 8.3: Engineering- Composite Hourly Rates & Overhead
Page 24 of 25
* Local Fees and Charges that are not subject to annual adjustment based on Consumer Price Index (CPI).
** Fees and charges established by separate ordinance, State Law, or another agency and not subject to CPI adjustment.
2011 Full
Effective
#
Fee
Description / Unit
Cost (info
Current
12/01 /2012
Only)
Composite City Engineering Staff
EN1
(Excludes Inspectors) Hourly
Per Hour for T &M Activities
$215.00
$128.00
$213.00
Rate (Includes Overhead)
Composite City Public Works /
EN2
Engineering Inspectors Rate
Per Hour for T &M Activities
$151.00
$128.00
$151.00
(Includes Overhead)
Off -Site Overhead Rate —
EN3
Applied to actual costs incurred
percentage applied to City Costs
37%
59.64%
37 %*
for consultant services and
expenses billed under T &M
On -Site Overhead Rate —
EN4
Applied to actual costs incurred
percentage applied to City Costs
41%
59.64%
41 %*
for consultant services and
expenses billed under T &M,
Page 24 of 25
* Local Fees and Charges that are not subject to annual adjustment based on Consumer Price Index (CPI).
** Fees and charges established by separate ordinance, State Law, or another agency and not subject to CPI adjustment.
�0F,Q" EXHIBIT A - MASTER FEE SCHEDULE
19 4- Fez Adopted September 18, 2012
Resolution No. ## - 12
Section 9.1 : City Attorney — Development Application Processing
For all development related activities noted as Time and Materials (T &M), the cost of the City Attorney
shall be determined by applying the designated overhead factor to the Cost for City Attorney services
incurred by the City. An initial deposit shall be made by the applicant as determined by City Staff based
on the scope and complexity of the project. Additional deposits shall be collected as necessary during
processing. Any applicant funds remaining after completion of the project shall be refunded to the
applicant.
#
Fee
Description / Unit
2011 Full
Cost (info
Only)
Current
Effective
12/01 /2012
(59.64% or
Overhead Rate — Applied to City
84.63 %)
depending on
12/1/12 25 %*
*
CA1
Attorney Costs associated with
percentage applied to City Costs
44%
Engineering
7/1/13 3 o
Planning and Engineering
or Planning —
%*
7/1/14 38/0
*
Applications
most activity
7/1/15 44/0
is Planning.
As determined
Fees for services or costs not
by City
explicitly listed in any section in
Manager or
the Master Fee Schedule / Case
designee
CA2
Equivalent Fees and Charges
by case basis, may include: staff
New
based on
costs; contractor/ consultant
actual costs
costs; reimbursable expenses;
and rates plus
general overhead.
general
overhead.
Page 25 of 25
* Local Fees and Charges that are not subject to annual adjustment based on Consumer Price Index (CPI).
** Fees and charges established by separate ordinance, State Law, or another agency and not subject to CPI adjustment.