HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 7.1 User Fee Policyor
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
RESOLUTION NO. XX - 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-
NOES-
ABSENT-
ABSTAIN-
ATTEST-
City Clerk
Mayor
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 2011 -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, 2010 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.
Exhibit A — Page 1
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, plus 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
City of Dublin
User Fee Cost Recovery Policy
(Resolution — Exhibit A)
However, the rates charged by others will not be the primary criteria for setting City user fees because
there are many factors affecting how other communities and organizations set their rates, including:
• Planned cost recovery level
• What costs are included in calculated total cost
• The last time a comprehensive user fee study was performed
• The level of service provided
Fees should be charged to all entities using City services including Federal, State and County
jurisdictions unless exempt by law.
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.
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, plus a markup
representing City administrative overhead, which will be calculated as part of each comprehensive fee
study and remain in effect until the next such fee study. The new fees shall be added to the City's
Master Fee Schedule.
The City Council will approve the Master Fee Schedule each year prior to its July 1 effective date. It
will then be made available to the public on the City's website.
Exhibit A — Page 3
iql:l Mill 1:11
otljl�
AugusL 2012
Oily of Ill����l�i��llll�llluiur�,� alHi cii! °uu��llil r� °iii Ill�uisllV�msui�suu s� Uss�uu° III ee Shady
Atagiias l 2212
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
Oily o Illi�i�Illltllluiur�, 2asHii ciii °uu�liii
Atagiast 2212
t�uislll uisi�msui�suu s� seiir eeShady
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
i tlilily of CalHi cii! Uss�uu° III ss Shady
tagiasi 20 12 Page
11;1�111�rlllii !1, 1 1 11 �� 111K*J #
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;
Oily of alHi cii! Uss�uu° III ss Shady
ta ias,i 2012 Page
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.
�lil it of alHi cii! Uss�uu° III ss Shady
Atagias i 2212 Page 2
WE
1161 we
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 I illustrates this methodology in the following
manner.
Figure 1: Cost of Service and Fee Setting Methodology
Application Intake
Proc & notification
DRC meeting
Tentative decision
Project mgt
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.
Aoufy of CalHiifcii! Useiir III ee Ati,�a2y
Atagias,f 2212 Page A
to 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.
to 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. Mast 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
Qity of allIiifcii! Usno,uir III ss Shady
Atagits 1 2012 Bags 2
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.
to 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
/a00 l %atic3n
in
`4t Cast
antl,T „irfie,,,,,,,,,
,,,,,
Community
Planning
Associate
Executive
Signing Programs (Five or More Signs)
Development
Manager
Planner
Assistant
Totals
Director
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
0.5
1.25
5
1
7.75
Public hearing
0.33
0.33
2
0.33
2.99
Plan Check of accepted plans — post entitlement
1.25
0.5
1.75
Total Time by Position
0.83
3.83
17.50
2.08
24.24
Calculated Full Loaded Hourly Rate
203.67
183.96
152.38
128.66
Total Direct Cost by Position
169
705
2,667
268
3,808
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 cr 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.
Oily o alHi cii! Useuu° III ee Shady
Atagiast 2012 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.
Oily of Ill����l�i��lllltllluiur�,� alHi cii! °uu��llil t� °iii Ill�uisllV�msui�suu s� Uss�uu° III ss, Shady
Atagias,1 2012 Page. 1
0�
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.
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 11 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
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.
r c
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.
out of Ill����l�i�tlllltllluiurt,� CalHiifcii!uu�tllil Ot� °iii Ill�uisllV�msui�suuvs� 13seiir III ee Sti,�tdd
Atagits12052 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
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
. Pl�attrt infcc cwss
,90,170
Business License Program
$,,,,,,,.
Long Range Planning
$ 238,426
'T`cttE�1 �dg�t�`
$ 573,628
Support to Housing
I1uiltu ;IIutYntn ,,,,
Totals
$ 922,358
Total Planning Fees
$ 2,085,976
Total Planning Division
$ 3,008,333
accr,rsts,,,
Direct Planning
284,415
39,181
323,596
0
Budgeted Reimbursable Contract Exp
648,400
648,400
Q
Project Management
222,684
23,751
246,435
Subtotal Direct Costsl
$
1,155,499
1 $
62,932
$
1,218,431
Business License Program
46,91.9
9,568
56,487
c
Long Range Planning
171,655
13,627
185,282
U
Assist Code Enforcement
322,054
55,087
377,1.41.
U
°E'
Support to Housing
15,981
982
16,963
Dept Management & Administration
130,244
23,238
153,482
Customer Service
11.1,305
20,471
131,775
Subtotal Indirect Costs
$
798,1.57
$
122,972
$
921,1.29
x
v
City and Department Overhead
868,773
868,773
O
C
Subtotal City and Department Overhead Costs
$
-
$
868,773
$
868,773
Total Costs Dublin Planning
$
1,953,656
$
1,054,677
$
3,008,333
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
. Pl�attrt infcc cwss
,90,170
Business License Program
$,,,,,,,.
Long Range Planning
$ 238,426
Assist Code Enforcement
$ 573,628
Support to Housing
$ 20,133
Totals
$ 922,358
Total Planning Fees
$ 2,085,976
Total Planning Division
$ 3,008,333
Oily of Illl�i�IlllrIIIuiurt, CaIIIofireui °uutliii
Atagias,1 2212
Ct�uislll uisi�msui�suuvs� seiir ee Stiady
Page 2
Figure 6: Cost Recovery Analysis for Planning Fee Services
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
�smj%�si�ee`lt „edla;;; %u "csf 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
oily of alHi cii! °uu�tllil t� °iii Ill�uisllV�msui�suuvs� 13ss�uu° III ss, Bti,�a2y
tagias,i 2212 Page 10
Figure 8: Breakdown of Citywide Indirect Costs
100 1 -110 1 City Council
$10.19
1001 -1601 Finance
$4.53
100 1 -1201 City Manager/ City Clerk
$11.17
1001 -1302 Elections
$0.01
100 1 -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
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
t ,Coxrvllar��e; , ;irlrct1 etlatt,,;,,,,,
From,,,,,,,,,
City Wide Overhead $ 131,239
From Support Activities $ 36,934
Total $ 168,174
Estimate of total external consultant hours 3,768
Cost recovery per consultant hour $ 44.63
Based on $100/ consultant Cost 44.63%
�lilily of alHi cii! Uss�uu° III ss Shady
Atagias i 2012 Page
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.
0 [�`SU *l
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.
■ Mo 1
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
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.
Oily of 1111�itlllltllluiurt, CaIHiifciii °uutliii
Atagias,i 2012
Figure 11: Full Cost of Services
Ot�uislll uis i�msui�suuvs� seiir ss, Strad'
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.
Direct Building & Safety
1,190,328
40,896
1,231,224
Subtotal Direct Costs
$ 1,190,328
1 $
40,896
$
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
U
t
Management Administration
297,568
7,1.05
304,673
b
Customer service
230,395
8,744
239,1.38
Subtotal Indirect Costs
$ 628,319
$
19,551
$
647,870
City and Department Overhead
357,794
357,794
x
Subtotal City and Department Overhead Costs
$ -
$
357,794
$
357,794
O
C
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.
Oily of Ill i�i� Illlt 111 ui urt, 2 as Hii c iii ut liii
Atagi1s 1 2212
t�uislll uisi�msui�suuss ss,uu°' I eeShady
Page 13
Figure 12: Cost Recovery Analyses for Building Fee Services
Figure 13 below further summarizies the cost of bulding fees by broad categories.
Figure 13: Cost Recovery by Fee Categories
TOTAL VALUATION-BUT LDING PERMIT FEES
RESIDENTIAL FLAT FEES
COMMERCIAL FLAT FEES
CORRECTIONS AND VIOLATIONS
OTT IER FEES SERVICES
CONSTRUCTION AND DF,MOLATION 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
Srpls
dull�stunxe��������
...
Cea ,
.
S
,,,,,,,,
,,,
.�; ,
..e.g.o .
$1,779,024
$1,815,252
$36,227
102/0
$141,083
$77,253
...................
8 iU
55%
$37,056
$0
(',�.S /.0 (jf)
0%
$51,896
$42,428
82%
$5,373
$4,010
1.;rO
75%
$63 >927
$67,052
$3,125
105%
$2,078,358
$2,005,995
($12,164)
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
Oily of Illl�itlllltllluiurt, alHi ciii °uutliii
tagiast 2012
t�uislll uis i�msui�suu s� seiir ss, Strad
Page
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
100 1 -1401 Central Services/ HR
$
0.52
1001-1402 Insurance
$
0.91
1001 -1501 City Attorney
$
0.97
1001 -1602 InformationSystems
$
4.67
100 1 -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.
Oily eel Ill����li� lllltllluiurt, alHi cii!uutllile e °111eIII uiellV�meui�suu e� Useuu° III ee Shady
tagias l 2212 Page 12
11 Jill
` III, 1A L `
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.
ITM
a a
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
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.
ou fy of Ill����l�i�t llllt 111 ui urt,� Ca lHii fc ii! uu�t llil Ot� °iii Illy ui c llV�m c ui � uuvc� Us e iir III e e Stiady
Atagitsf ddfd Page fd
Figure 17: Full Cost of Engineering Services
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.
l�inual Cott CCfrhpctent
1'nx�l 1uL
t
i�erriMlrahnr `Cct�es,,, ,
Direct Engineering,,,t
941,605
32,321
973,926
0
U
Records management
4,544
558
5,101
U
N
Q
-
Subtotal Direct Costs
$
946,1.48
1 $
32,879
$
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
11.0,480
8,566
119,046
Support to CIP projects
41.1,640
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
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.
Oily of Illl�i�Illlrllluiurt, 0asHii ciii °uutliii
Atagiias l 0010
r�uislll uistsui�suuvs� seiir ee Stiady
Page
Figure 18: Cost Recovery Analysis for Engineering Services
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
!ering Fees
-ining Fees
TOTALS
F11 Ccssrcenr
Fed
Animal�u.rpu�
$1,587,398
$1,145,119
($ 44 2,278)
$23,210
$0
($2 3,210)
$1,610,607
$1,145,119
($4� 5,488)
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
Oily of Illl�i�Illlrllluiurt, I asHii ciii °uutliii
Atagiias l 2212
t�uislll uisi�msui�suuvs� seiir ee Stiady
Page IS
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
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
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
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 r to External t is
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.
I. 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.
Qity of alHi cii! Uss�uu° III ss, Shady
Atagias,122 2 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
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 23: External Consultant Overhead Calculation
;E ,f1 +rasia�lanvrlaaraltlari
�
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.
•. ,•. 19 4
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.
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
Qity of CalHii csii! Useiir III ee Stiady
Atagias i 2212 Page 2
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
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.
,. .....
Atirxuil Castaiip9zirra1
�fdtd
., ,,aft
, ....
,
„ ,,,,,, ,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,
°sr;,;,,,,,,,.1rn;f�tCfc+i
,
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,...... ,
Application intake
28,71.0
2,287
30,997
U
Fire Prevention. Review/ Inspection
78,261
7,411
85,672
Fire prevention plan review
32,620
2,485
35,105
Rcinspcction
33,057
3,211
36,268
Subtotal Direct Costs
$
172,648
1 $
15,394
$
188,042
Inspector travel time
12,839
1,185
14,024
Weed abatement
3,268
391
3,659
U
Cash register /business license
16,809
1,339
18,148
v
Complaints
3,540
265
3,804
Support to business license
4,902
587
5,489
Management & Administration
51,673
4,1.15
55,788
Customer service
6,205
494
6,699
Subtotal Indirect Costs
$
99,236
1 $
8,376
$
1.07,612
Z U
City and Department Overhead
31,032
31,032
O °
U
Subtotal City and Department Overhead Costs
$
-
$
31,032
$
31,032
Total Costs Urban Growth Planning
$
271,884
$
54,802
$
326,686
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 $326,686 is being consumed by fire prevention fee generating activities.
The following graphic illustrates the relationships of total costs, broken down by direct, indirect, and
Citywide overhead, and revenues.
Oily o Ill i i Illlr III ui urt, s III of c ui° uut liii
Aw'ww'ti2w'asi 2212
t�uislll uistsui�suuvs� seiir ee Shady
Page 22
Figure 26: Cost Recovery Analysis for Fire Prevention
A further breakdown and comparison of costs can be seen by reviewing the individual fee categories. This
analysis shows that there is under recovery of costs in all Fire Prevention fee categories.
Figure 27: Fire Prevention Fee Categories
A complete schedule of Fire Prevention fees can be viewed in the appendix D.
59.3% Cost
Recovery
�zrfcne�..
,,,,,,,, ...........,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Arixtix =$urpl[lfi
lie ov ty 1 `
$0
$0
$0
0%
$53,607
$43,750
(S- ti
82%
$28,645
$2,075
(V1
7%
$4,936
$3,600
(",1.35(.)
73%
11
$3,029
11
$1,950
�1 71 1
64%
$50,724
$51,383
$659
101'Yo
$93,649
$37,950
(S, "y 101 9)
41%
$9,031
$8,250
1 }...
91'Yo
$17,388
$6,534
0,1 0,8i 4
�.,,.
38%
11 $512
$350
31 fr21
68 /o
$19,3981
$10,7671
0,8 6 51 )1
56/0
$280,9201
$166,609
° 1 H 31 )
1 59.3%
A complete schedule of Fire Prevention fees can be viewed in the appendix D.
59.3% Cost
Recovery
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.
ITM
a a
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
Oily of Illi�i�Illltllluiur�, alHi ciii °uu�liii
tagias,i 2212
11 Jill
... a
t °ui 111 uiei�meui�suuve seiir ee Shady
Page 22
`' v, - I I I �1111 ''JJJJJ 1111i;111111 111111111
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.
El�ifillillillillri .;
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
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.
ou fy of 111����1�i�t llllt 111 ui urt,� O Ill of fc ii! uu�t llil Ot� °iii Illy ui c llV�m c ui � n uuvc� Us e fir ll e e Stiady
Atagias f 2012 Rage 20
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
86.2% Cost
Recovery
AfJyrdahletsuiYv;
A%i iu 1 Ca:f CG`tiiIPOLiVrii.&
.
.. .
`..
C�i�t�;;,,,
........:
......... ..,,,,,1,
b Cby.....', ,,,,,,,,,!,,,
o abtsr
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
u
Process Below Market Ownership Units
$
4,976
$
183
5,159
V
Process refinance requests
$
7,961.
$
294
8,254
Q
Process surveys
$
455
$
28
$
483
Subtotal Direct Costsl
$
28,797
1 $
1,055
$
29,852
v
Support regional social services programs
$
107,821
$
4,211
112,032
U
Support to planning
$
22,602
$
1,390
23,992
Marketing and assisting developers with affordable
$
11.8,409
$
4,370
122,779
Management & Administration
15,900
528
16,428
Customer service
13,31.1
525
13,836
Subtotal Indirect Costs
$
278,043
1 $
11,025
$
289,068
City and Department Overhead
43,390
43,390
O U
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
86.2% Cost
Recovery
Oily o alHi ciii °uu�liii
ta ias,i 2012
The complete fee schedules are listed in Appendix F
t�uislll uisi�msui�suu s� seiir eeShad
Page 26
iit of alit fir °iu��llil t� °iiinlll�iisllV�msii�siivs� Useiiir III ss, Btw'w,�add
Aw'ww'ti2w'ast 2212 Page 2
11 Jill
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 License
Incoming Costs
Planning
$
90,170
Building
$
129,665
Fire Prevention
$
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.
Oily of Ill����l�i�tllllrllluiurt,� alHi cii! °uu�tllil t� °iii Ill�uisllV�msui�suu s� Uss�uu° III ee Stiady
Atagiias 1 2212 Page 22
11 Jill
1 71
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
lministrative Service Fees
Unit Cost Summary
Escrow Retention Fee
Per app
1
$23
$ 100
$77
Per app
Impact Fee Credit Agreement Original —
Park Land
1
$546
($516)
Impact Fee Credit Agreement Original —
Per app
Improvements / Right of Way
1
$714
($7
Per app
Impact Fee Credit Transfer Agreement —
Park Land
1
$224
(,^, 22/2 )
Per app
Impact Fee Credit Transfer Agreement —
Improvements / Right of Way
1
$407
($4107)
Oily of alHiie�ur Useuu° III ee Shady
tagia i 2012 Page
F, 1110 11111!!11 0 F.3r-
L Fie
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.
ou'f of Ill i l Illy III u1 urn, Ca III u1 fry u1° uu� lili
ffw'wlw'ti2w'wasf 2212
r�llsllllls l�ms11�s11vs ss,1u° ss,fiw dy
Page 22
Figure 33: Building Plan Review and Inspection Fees Comparison
Building Fee Comparison
$100,000
....
$90,000
....
$80,000
....
$70,000
....
IIIIIIII Current Fee levels
$60,000
....
....
IIIIIIII Full Cost
$50,000
....
IIIIIIIII Pleasanton
$40,000
....
1111111 San Ramon
1111111111 Livermore
$30,000
....
iT, Danville
$20,000
..........................................................
.....................................................
1111111 Alameda County
$10,000
ILL_ NNNNN�� ....
�I+ +���IIIIIIIIIU����II��������...
..
.....
� I1 ....
f f
(IIIIIIIII
1111111 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.
Oily o CaIHifcil Use ill, III c e Shady
ullw'ti Mast 2012 Page 3
Figure 34: Selected Planning Fee Comparison
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 1111111111116���������M��� ifi�������Hj��i �����r � nn�� k�����liil"'�V"�hl���°m���9� ������M�HV'��i���� ������i�H��l � m'°
$
Current Fee
$ 35,500
$
25,000
ring FeeslProjects
levels Full Cost
Pleasanton San Ramon Livermore
Danville
Alameda County Average
r Temporary Use Permit
$ 200 $ 741
S 25 $ 25 $
500 $ 330
$1609 Plus T &M
$750 deposit Plus
$2,500 depost plus
r Usc Permit
$ 600 $ 3,451
S 150 T &M $
2,130 $3304660
$1609 Plus T &M
Appeals
$
$3000 deposit Plus
$1320 (large
.$
Resident Conditional Use Permit
$ 1,000 $ 11,240
$ 150 T &M $
10,590 family child care)
Nothing listed
$
220
.$250 -T &M
$5610 +$110 /hr
enrial Site Development Review (60
after 51 horns 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 -T &M
Current Fee
Engineering FeeslPermits
levels
Full Cost
Pleasanton
San Ramon
Livermore
Danville
Alameda County Average
$25
permit,
ro
Encroachment Permit- Telephone Utility
$90 -$110
for
1.9 %: $5,001
-
$
99
.$ 182
inspection
$80/hr
.$25,000
$
157
Residential Site Development Rcvicw (60
$1,000 then
$80.
Unit detached)
T &M
$ 15,000
$
15,000
Hr
$
25,000
T &M
Building
Current Fee 1
Full Cost
Pleasanton
San Ramon
Livermore
Danville
Alameda 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 commerieial mercantile bldg
$
52,000
$ 95,110
.S
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 new FAU, or
a new Package Unit;
I -IVAC residential replacement (1st unit)
(2) $210.00 for a
newAIC; (3)
$420.00 for a new
$
60
$ 174
$
38
$
152
$
123
$
83
FAU + A/C.
Residential water heater
$
50
$ 96
$
36
$
52
$
37...
$
83
$ 1/10 $
42..
Residential reroof
$
....240
$ .....172
.$
212 ' $.......
....173 "
$
246...
$
275
$... .........427 $........
210..
Residential photovoltaic system
$
...250
$ 327
S
174
$
50
$
246..° $
300
.$... ........280 $ .........157
Commercial photovoltaic 100KVA system
$
1,680
$ 1,451
$
3,024
$
50
$
246 $
1,000
Nothing listed.
Police Fees
Current Fee 1
Full Cost
Pleasanton
San Ramon
Livermore
Danville
Alameda County Average
Live scan
$
30
$ 44
$
25
$......
25
Actual cost
$
30
$.... 20 $........
25.
Finger print card.....
$
5
$ 44
$......
15
Actual cost
$
10
$
1.7..
Taxi cab operator
$
150
$ 191
$
150
$
157
$
205
$
171
Visa letter
$
_.30
$ 0
$
10
$
_.30
$
71....
$
05
"$
37..
Towed /stored vehicle tekase.....
$
....115
$ 39
$
100
$.......
.....100
$
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
u,
$ 120 $
687
One fire sprinkler Th -20 heads
$
190
$ 218
$
321
$
690
$
321
$ 200 "$
506
One residential sprinkler (NFPA 13 R)
$
390
$ 274
$
482
$
850
$
482
$.... 280 "$
666
The cryogenics.........
$
....100
$ ......215
$.......
132
$
510....
$
132
$.... 80 "$___..
321..
The flammable mmbustihlc liquids
$ 251
$
132
$
330
$
132
$ 80 '$
231
Repair garage
$
100
$ 88
$
66
$
340
$
66
$ 80 "'$
203
Places of assembly
$
25
$ 142
$
132
$
160
$
132
$.... 160 "$
146
Oily of yaeHii ciii °uutliii
yea ias,i 20 12
..
t °ui 111 uie i�meui�suu e seiir ee Shady
Page yy
Ri 4 014 R_1 3414'hAT/= i C410 '
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.
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.
tlil ily of alHi cii! Uss�uu° III ss Shady
Atagias i 2212 Page 22
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?
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.
FO . r r�
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.
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.
("Ity of CWHfoinilida Useiii, III!!!!!'ee
August 20 1age 34
111WROMM, iiiii'll
111,1' AMI� 13111,11,11,11,71, 31,11,71, 1,11911,11", 1
City of Dublin - Planning Fees
City of Dublin - Planning Fees
Unit Cost Summary
.,
�� C � am'o-
vx%
i4riG
I Foe�tat�is
(rrdrre�llnat
�ra1(¢ctigt�nci
Planning Fees
Major Amendmentto PD (CC) ($7,033- $20033deposit
5
�eea�ery
Crre�tUnaT
plusT &M)
Current
,,.
Minor Amendmcntto PD (PC)
urgent
n argcar
....
Minor Amendmentto PD Admin
,,,,,
urrent
,.
2
Condominium Conversion ($15033depositplusT &M)
Current
,5'CL#
c M:4gi
Master Sign Program Amend existing ($5033 d ep osit
1.11.1,
plusT &M)
Current
o
CUPorSDRTimcExtensian Re uest PC)
%1111,,
urrent
.11.11.,, .,,e „e...
CUPorSDRTimeExtensionReque st(Admin)
e „e,
Current
�rleneral Public
A P P, „� , G
a „
urr� nt
.11.11.
2
Appeal', Applicant (T &M)
Total Gasf
C u rren t
11 I
CU P or SD R Tim e Extension Request (PC) (base fee plus I'll
T &M)
Current
�.
Provide 303 ridlus Labcls for Appllcants is Rcquestcd
DELETE
..............................
...
u
DocmcntResearch & Preparation ($103dcposit)
Current
. ,
Planning Reviewthrough Building Permit Process
r;
Projectwith no Dev Deposit Acct
Current
Planning Review through Building Permit Process
$ 7 923
Prof cot with DevDepasit Acct (T &M)
Current
Oeor cal /Stet I U tory Exem ptlon for New
OEQA m g
Development
DELETE
,,,,,,,,, 1111,,
Initial Study and Negative Declaration (deposit $25033
$0
plusT &M)
Current
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (deposit
(r)
$25033pIusT &M)
Current
InitialStudyandEIR (depasit$50,033pIusT &M)
Current
$0
GcncralPiinAmcndmcnt (dcposit$1Q03DPIusT &M)
DELETE
Specific Plan Amendment (deposit $1Q03DPIusT &M
C u rren t
Standard Rezoning (deposit$1Q033pIusT &M)
DELETE
11$129
w,,,,,.. .
Pi inncdDevclopmcnt (dcposit$1Q033pIusT &M)
, .
Current
. ,
..
...
AnnualPc vicwofDA(dcposit$3,033pIusT&M)
Current
.........
TcntrtivcSubdivision Map (dcposit$1Q033plusT &M
175
.............................. ,�:,
C.. rren t
Ten rtiveParcel Map (deposit$1Q033pIusT &M)
Current
$0
Master Sign Program - New (deposit$7, ODD PIusT &M
$0
f)
C u rren t
eI ,. ,,, ,„,,,, 1111,,, 1111,,, ,,,,,I.
SgniSlte Development Revlew
1111,,,
Current
$ 23D
Banner /Balloon Permlt(Per sign / balloon)
Current
217
Ste DevclopmcntRcvlcw (basefee$140pIusT &M)
.,,,,,,,,, .,,,,,.....
Current
23
Ste Development Review Waiver
. Current
,...............
55
a,,, ,,. ,„ 1111,,, 1111,,, 1111,,, ,,,,,.
Non Residential CUP', PC
, 1111,,,
Current
,,,,,,,,,
9
.,,,,,,,,, .,,,,,,,,, .,,,,,.....
Non Residential CUP', ZA
Current
..
Residential CUP', PC
Current
0
Residential CUP', ZA
Current
0
DaycareCenterCUP(15 +child ren)
Current
1
m en "I'll I
CUPMInorAd, (Admin)
Current
0
1111,, 1111,,,
Z oning Clearance for Indoor Recreational Facilities
Current
7
1111 Plc �
Minor Use Permit
"I In t",
Current
1111,,
4
I,
Mlno m m
rAendenttoaMlnorUsePermlt
.
Current
0
MajorAmendmenttoaMlnorUsePermlt
Current
0
.,,,,,,,, .1111,, .,,,,,.....
Large Family Day Care HomeZoning Clearance
Current
..
5
Large FamllyDay Care Home CandltianalUse Permlt
Current
$0
1 1I ,,,, 1111,,, 1111,,, ,,,,,I,
Non Residential Variance
. InItI',
Current
0
Residential Variance
Current
0
Minor TemporaryUsePermit
. 1111,,,
Current
..............................
35
Capital Accounting Partners Page 1 of 4 Planning Unit Cost Calcs
Unit Cost Summary
(rrdrre�llnat
�ra1(¢ctigt�nci
/trill
Unf4
5
�eea�ery
Crre�tUnaT
fl4cafddn0
'
ccr n
lof CASs
�
c6rronti
n argcar
,
(f
,5'CL#
c M:4gi
Foci��Em
o
cost”
# sgr f,
Total Gasf
$0
$0
$0
r;
0,240.
49
77 240
$ 7 923
512
$0
$0
$0
(r)
$0
$0
$0
(r)
053
11$129
(F9
343.
4714.
175
.............................. ,�:,
$0
$0
$0
f)
$ 23D
$
$0
$0
$203
1)
$0
$0
$0
f)
$
$0
$0
$ 65
$65
$
$0
$0
$0
1)' ,
$
$
-
$0
$0
$0
1)
$0
$0
$0
f)
$
$0
$0
$ 259
$259
1)
$0
$0
$0
f)
$0
$0
$0
f)
$
$0
$0
$0
1)
$0
$0
$0
f)
$0
$0
$0
f)
$
$0
$0
$0
1;
$
—
$0
$0
$0
1' %,
$
$0
$0
$0
1)'�
$
$0
$0
$0
...
$0
$0
$0
f)
e.,
$
..,..,
1, 842
$1,476
$3,318
$ 129
.. .
�., ..1..1..11..
$
32
$20
$58
$ 25
Plus
E g T & M
$0
$ 140
$140
1)
$
454
$364
$210
$1,029
$ 250
$
6,240
$4990 Plus
Eng T &M
$11,240
$ 030
..
LF >,
$
6, 855
$469( .,
, $653
$11,199
$ 750
$
6,240
$4999
$210
$11,450
$ 1,939
_ P
,,,,,e ...............
$
.....
5,855
„ „
$4,691
$210
$10 757
$ 939
$
6, 240
$4999 Plus
Eng T & M
$11,240
$ 50D
..........................................
.
$
454
$�,
, $105
$924
$ 646
$
451
$361
$210
$1,022
$ 250
........
$
1, am
$1,442
$210
$3,451
$
e,
$
454
$364,
$105
$924
$ 129
f „r
$
7 8'00
$1, 442
. $210
$3,451
$ CM
$
„45
$863
$1,675
$ 703
$
6, 240
$4909
$863
$12103
$ 650
..................... ...
......................
$
6, 240
14 9
$210
$11 450
$ 939
$,,
C 240
4 9 ,, . 1111,
$105
11 345
,, ,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,939
J„
$
288
$231
$221
$741
$ 23D
Capital Accounting Partners Page 1 of 4 Planning Unit Cost Calcs
City of Dublin - Planning Fees
City of Dublin - Planning Fees
Unit Cost Sum to ary
Zoning Clearance
Current
$
225
$180
$105
$510
$ 50
-4,j"
§6'k-k� .. ................................................ f ................................................................
.. C U rr c'n' t ......
... ..............................
-$" .......................
1,842 .... ...
............... $ 1 476 ...
... ...........................................
... .............. $3318 " ....
.....................................................
..... .........
f
......... ... ..........
H cri tig T r' cc P c n o—
Current
f)
"l '
— ' , 'o n a " ri a f a "
CI caran c c: P cas dc A c c a d a ti a n a persons
...........
...
...............
... . . .......
. .....................
. ....
... .2.3.5 ...
... . . ...$...1..8...8 .
........... .....
.........................
.. .
......... . . . ...
...............
... .. . .$...423 . ..
.......................................... 1111
..
. .
w /disabilitics
Current
451
$361
$812
e.,,.,,.....,,.,,.,,... ............
.... ... . ...... ....... ............
.... ...... ... ...
Review of building plan check applications (non FCN
Current
1-11111111'""'l""-
$ ,. ,11,11,11,
85
l
l""I'l""l"lI
$68
"I'.. l.
- "Il""Il""Ill""I'l""I"-
'..
'.l. l...'ll..
$154
""I'll""I'll'll""I'll""I'll
1111111
... ......... ...................
1..1..'�
....... ...................................................................(....
..
. .......... ........ ... ... ..
.. ..... ....
P proiccttinc al location
. .........
.. . .
Current
....
. .... ..
1
. .......
$
..
...
145987
..........
$11 d954
....
.............
.
... ........ ... ......-.. ........... ..
$2E1 941
...
...................................... ................................
$ 151,464
......1........1....1..1..,
.........
.
...... ..: ..�
..,
. ..f......)
.. ..
.......
. .
... ......... ....... ........... ........... ..........
Estimate of contract time
FA4 IM
$519450
$335287
$1, E
.
i 4 1
.
.
')f,,,,,f
. .
...................................................................
current
..........................
—
..... .........................................
I ..... .........
....................................... .............
I ..... ......................
zi
... .................
Hourly and Overhead Rates
Community DcvclopmcntDircctor
Current
$
222
$177
$399
$ 186
. . .... . ... . .
Planning Manager
Current
156
$125
$282
$ 179
U
Scnior Planner
Current
121
$97
$217
$ 141
Principal Planner
$ 112
Current
136
$109
$246
Assistant Planner
$ 110
Current
85
$68
$154
Code E n to rccm cn t 0 ffi ccr
$ 103
85
$68
........
... ...........................................
$153
..... ..............................
.....................................................
..... ..............................
..... .... ...........
Co ni posi tc, H OU ri y Patc,
$ 129
Current
1
$21330
(,j"
Capital Accounting Partners Page 2 of 4 Planning Unit Cost CaIcs
City of Dublin - Planning Fees
City of Dublin -Planning Fees
w
Annual Recoverable Cost /Revenue at Full Cost
vice /'-
Acs al aAt
too, Pain'n'
FstatG,%
4f,un(e,,,,,,,
Banning Fees
Major ALL endmentto PD (CC) ($7,033- $2QO33depositplusT &M)
Current
0
Minor Amendmentto PD (PC)
Current
2
Minor Amendmentto PD (Admin)
Current
2
Condominium Conversion ($15033depositplusT &M)
Current
0
MasaxSgn Program -Amend existing ($=depa sit plusT &M)
Current
0
CUPor SID RTImeExtensianPcquest (PC)
Current
0
CU ParSDRTim cExtenslonPcquest(Admin)
Current
0
w,,,,,, .,,,,,,,,, .,,,,,,,,,
Appal, Gcncrcl Public
Cerrcnt
2
-, ,,,,,, ,,,,,,, .,,,,,,,,, .,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,, .....
Appal', Applicant (T &M)
..... ...... ,
Current
. ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
0
CUPorSDRTImeExtensian Request(PC) (bas feeplusT &M)
Current
0
.,,,,,,,,, .,,,,,,,,, .,,,,,,,,,
Fcc
.,,...... ,
0
.
0
Provide 30D radius Labels for Applicants as Requested
DELETE
0
w,,,, .,,,,,,,,
Document Rcscarch & Pr partition ($103deposit)
.,,,,,,, .,,,,,,,,, ......
Current
0
w,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,, ,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,
Planning Review through Building Perm it Process Project with no Dev
........................... ..
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Deposit Acct
Current
0
Planning Revlewthrough Building Perm it Process Project with Dev
$0
DepasitAcct(T &M)
Current
0
CEQA Categorical /Statutory Exemption for New Development
DELETE
0
InItialStudyandN cg ativcD�cIirinan (depasit$25,033pIusT &M)
Current
0
.
w,,,,,,,, ...... ,,,,,,, ,,,,,,, ,,,,,,, .,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,, .....
Initial Study and Mltigatcd Negative Declaration (deposit $25,033p1us
..... ......... .
. ,,,,,,,,,,,,......
T &M)
Cerrcnt
0
nItialStudyandEIR (depasit$50,033pIusT &M)
Current
0
GcncriIPIinAmendment (depasit$1Q033pIusT &M)
DELETE
0
Sp cc l fi c PI a n A m en d m en t(d ep asi t$1 Q 033 p I u s T &M)
Current
0
Standard Rezoning (depasit$1Q033pIusT &M)
DELETE
0
RanncdDeveladment (depasit$10033pIusT &M)
Current
0
Annual Review of DA (dcposit$3,033pIusT &M)
Current
0
Tentative8ibdIvIsian Map (dcpasit$1Q033pIusT &M)
Current
0
TcntctivePircci Map (depasit$10033pIusT &M)
Current
0
MasaxSgn Program - New(deposit$7,033pIusT &M)
Current
0
Sgn /S te Development Review
Current
0
Banncr/Balloon Permit (Per sign /balloon)
Current
217
SteDeveladmentPcvIcw (basefee$140pIusT &M)
Current
23
Ste Development PcvIcw Waiver
.,,e .,,e
Current
55
„e „e „e „e
Non Residential CUP', PC
,, ...
Current
.........
9
Non Residential CUP', ZA
Current
Residential CUP', PC
Current
0
Residential CUP', ZA
Current
0
DaycarcCenterCUP(15 +children)
Current
1
Fee
Current
0
CUP MI nor Amend, (Admin)
Current
0
Z oning Clearanccfor Indoor Recreational Facilities
Current
7
Ml nor Use Permit
Current
4
Minor Amendmcnttoa Minor UsePermit
Current
0
MajorAmendmcnttoa Minor UsePermit
Current
0
Large. Family Day Care Home Zoning Clearance
Current
5
Lergc FamiIyDeyCereHameCcnditi anal Use Perm It
Current
7
Non Residential Variance
Current
0
Rcsidential Variance.
Current
0
MInarTcmporaryUse Perm It
Current
35
Zoning Clearing.
Current
0
SDR Residential Additions --5 2sf
Current
0
HcrItageTree Rom avcl
Current
0
Zoning Clearance', Reasonable Accom editions for persons w /disabilities
Current
0
Review of building plan check applications (non FCN)
Current
203
Annual Recoverable Cost /Revenue at Full Cost
5rene- fee - Levels'
„
$0
$0
0
$22 480
$3,840
$4,576
$1,024
$0
$0
0
$0
$0
0
$0
$0
0
$0
$0
0
$29,429
$350
.,,............
$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
$0
$0
0
$12,539
$5425
$0
$3,220
3,220
$45,019
$13,750
._ $101,159
$9, 033
$1 Q 546
$750
„e „e „e „e „e „,.
.......,....
$0
$0
0
$0
$0
0
$11,240
..,,,.,,, .
$500
,,.,,.,,.
$0
$0
0
$0
$0
0
$5634
$1,750
.,,e
$1 2 965
, „,,,.. „e,,.
$2,40D
.... ,-
J: ;r
$0
$0
0
$0
$0
0
$4,050
$500
$11,240
$650
$0
$0
0
$0
$0
0
$18,182
$7,033
f
$0
$0
0
$0
$0
0
$0
$0
0
$0
$0
0
$30,779
`60,,,,,,
Capital Accounting Partners Page 3 of 4 Planning Annual Calcs
City of Dublin - Planning Fees
City of Dublin -Planning Fees
w
rviCe, f%% Actual o/yi'i,
Fe��tatus Ud3ume,,,
. ;,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,;,,,,,,,,,
FCN projecttimeallocation Current 1
Estim ate of contract tim e Current 1
Hourly and Overhead Rates
$151,464
Community Development Dlrector
$1,603,133
Current
0
Ranning Managcr
Current
0
„ .,,,,,,,,, .,,,,,,,,,
O.n for Planner
Current
0
Principal Planner
$0
Current
0
„ ,,, .,,,,,,,,, .,,,,,,,,,
As istant Planner
$0
Current
0
CadeEntorcement0fficer
0
0
0
CcmposlteHourly Rate
$0
Current
0
Annual Recoverable Cost /Revenue at Full Cost
$262,941
$151,464
$1,603,133
$0
$0
0
$0
$0
0
$0
$0
0
$0
$0
0
$0
$0
0
$0
$0
0
60 1
$0 1
0
Annual Totals
$2 035 976 1
$1, 39R 764
The Engineering portion of these costs have been Included
In the Engineering revenue
projection and therefore
excluded
from the Planning revenue
projection,
Capital Accounting Partners Page 4 of 4 Planning Annual Calcs
E
E
0
I-- r f f �� � I-- � 12 � ID � 0-) � 0-) � CO 1 � I � ID � C-) [ C-)
I-- I)o C)
CD CQ r—
C-) C-) C-)
C-)
C-)
co)
4)
a
u!)
CD CD ICD CD CD
CQ M CQ 07
Lo Lo M
0
C"i
Um
i 0 0 i C-) i — C-)
I-- r f f �� � I-- � 12 � ID � 0-) � 0-) � CO 1 � I � ID � C-) [ C-)
I-- I)o C)
CD CQ r—
C-) C-) C-)
C-)
C-)
Q C-,J QC-) Q
CD CD ICD CD CD
CQ M CQ 07
Lo Lo M
C-)
C"i
C-) C-) i — C-) i
i 0 0 i C-) i — C-)
C"i C"i
0Oi
CO CO
Lo Lo i 00 00
Ni
LO
Li
Lo
C',J
07 C9
CD
0
0
O C-)
CO
)o
C"j C"j
Lo
lo-) FC-T
� �C)
—
7 1
I-- r f f �� � I-- � 12 � ID � 0-) � 0-) � CO 1 � I � ID � C-) [ C-)
I-- I)o C)
CD CQ r—
a
W
N
to
O
07 C-) iO LO
CQ
LO
CQ M CQ 07
CO
m
O� Ln C9
C,J iCD iCD iNi
0Oi
Q C-) iL
Ni
LO
C',J
07 C9
CD
0
Ln
CD C-0 0�
......................
0�
0�
Ln
. . . . .
.
. .
. . . . . .
ED
m m m
C,
C,
CD CD
O
OD
OD
C,
CD
1 18 ME I
I'D
11:1D I'D lu::,D OiOi
14
CD
CD
IS
CD
CD CD CD CD CD
CD
-0 CD CD CD CD
CD
ID CD c5 c5 c5
c5
CD CD CD CD
C5
C5 C5 C5 C5 C5
CD
c5 c5 CD CD CD
CD
CD CD CD
Oil[
C"i m Ln Ln
Ln
Ln
Ln
a
W
N
to
O
E
E
0
iQ 110
b4 M 07
CD
a
CO)
U!
0
4— 0),
,—
0
Oco
iQ 110
b4 M 07
CD
00
O
Oi oo Oi clIj r-- r-- i Oi CD m CD
clIj
Qo
CO
clIj
u
u
i oo
oo
m
CO
.........
0-)
CD
CD
CD
CO
CD
CD ';Ln ';
CD
iQ 110
b4 M 07
CD
Oi oo Oi clIj r-- r-- i Oi CD m CD
clIj
Qo
CO
clIj
u
u
i oo
oo
m
CO
.........
..............
Qo
.......................... ..............
......... I
o
c/
cl
O
N
N
C)
C)
O
u
c/�
t
t
t
t
t
O
T
E
E
N
O
U
a
co
d
0 .
cm,
uV
Um
UZI.l
O I O O i O O
Co � € io
N N
CD CO
b4 64 [ 64 64 [ 64 [ 64 64 [ 64 i 64 [ 64 i 64 64 64
Lll O? O' ? o1 [ Co O? �' N �? OI I Oi Co' Co'
r[ CO[ NIA[ �( 07 Ln &4 c9 �i �i CO
�j �[ �j �[ M i 64 64 N
&4 [ &4 [ &4 [ &4 ( &4
O N ' M `' [ CD ;N [ r' M 07 ' I I r' r' r
C0; O[ � [ �[ N O[ M2 r[ N c9 c9 C0
4
U)
O
U
c
m
co
O
Cl)
N
(0
a_
N
C
O
U
Q
.Q
U
Q
Y
Y
Y
i Y Y
.,U[
a[
a
( a
[ a
( a [ a[ a
[ a
[ a[
a
( a
( a
a
a
a
a
^
C O
O
C
O
d
�
{
d
i
�
U
O
sN
C
u
O
>
>
{ L
m
O
C
O
O
im
C
O
�
Y
C
d
>
0
C
O
p
L
Ul
Ul
¢
y
�
w
C[
N
C
c
[ O[
El
O
(
C
C
p
[[
O
c
CD
O
d
(n
O [ O[
i a� [N [
m
{ O O{
L
L
d
O
J
4
U)
O
U
c
m
co
O
Cl)
N
(0
a_
N
C
O
U
Q
.Q
U
T
E
E
0
U
a
O
d
a�
V
0)
d
s
0 .
N
p
TT�iVV� /1r%/
co
O
c9 c9 � �[ -71771 O OO[ O; F[�
M j 0-) 07 [ I� M � j O[ CO
b4 ; b4 N [ b4 C9 [
� N[
64[
a.J
O
- ; I
0)
I�
[
N
[ O
0)
O
[
c9
N U
OO
d,,,,,
i
O
64
64
b4
b4
[ b4
b4
[ b4
b4
b4
[
b4
b4 64 [ 64 64
[ b4
N
45
[
N
O
CD
( ON
O[
( O[
r
M
O[
c 9
_
O [
7
t C
[ C
t 0
d
[ d
t d [ d€ d { d€
�
O
O
C
L
O
0
0
O
O
O
a
m
-
Y
O
's
�
N
C
J�
L
N
Y
O
C
O
O
-
O
\�
p
L
U U
C,
i
C
CD
O
O
N
m
€
N
U
O
-
i C
O�
a
a
i
(p
w
L
'aim mi
0
O
L
E
E
C
O OU
O
O
O
j-O Y
W
U
C [( U U
[= U
0
0
o
o
a0
O
OL
C
t O Y
>
C
d [[ > O t N
[ O �-
Qf�
Qf�
U
w
w
i w
[a�
iw
O
w[
(n
E
i [a [Qf� C/ O[
m U
d
a
a�
U!
0
a�
3 m
4
U)
O
U
c
m
00
O
LO
(1)
0)
m
m
U)
C
0
O
U
Q
.Q
U
N
7
cv
W
V
cn,
0
�~rsA
Um
U
w
CD
0
�j
rj
ri
Mi
�M
i
Oj
Oj
Lni�[
O
O(O
Qo
M
i�
�
O
O
[
CD CD
CD
CD CD
CD
cNj
CD
CD
CD
W.
CD
O
O(
O€
0 0, O, 0 0
�iLn
0; N
6)
0 U'
O;
O
O
CD
6) ;
O
r
CO
\
ID
M'.
�'.
o�
N %6) [c0 �
M;
0 cD
0`;M
O(I�
[
N[ N O O
I— ;�
O[ O
u
L.Ly
;
[N [� 0-)
[CO
; �
[r
N [
�[� 64 a64jN
CD
0�
Ln
(bq( bq
a,l
b4
_
64
CD
�
M
�
I� e CD
�� aMj [�
I�
Mj
Lnj�[CO(�[
t C
t C
t C
6)
CD %
N
M
Lo
M
M
C
O
U
G
q5 ;
C
t C
C
C [
C[
[64j� [6464
i64j�
i64j �
;b4
[64164
a
[
t C
164
164 j64
164
j
( ......
O
O
U
O
107
CD
co
it
1110
N
i
'.
=Co co
Qo 0
mi
U
r--
co
r--
N
�i
CD j
Ln
M
�iM cN[`�
N [ 0�- � CD
0) i �
� o
M €
co[O,O CD
0
0
cD
CD
O[ O
N
cD
i [
cD [� [cD
Ln :
� ? N
CD
Ln
-
[ 64 64 [ 64
i M
%0
M
[ M
7
1 64 [ 64
� r
r [M;O� [cD N
�(
c0 �
_
i
(r
Q
Q
N
7
W
V
cn,
0
�~rsA
Um
U)
U
m
U
m
c
c
Q
c
m
co
O
N
m
m
C
7
O
U
Q
.Q
m
U
�j
rj
ri
Mi
�M
i
Oj
Oj
Lni�[
O
O(O
Qo
M
i�
�
O
O
[
G]f
C
t C
t C
t C
t C
C[
C
C[
C
C
C
t C
C
t C
C
C [
C[
C
>>
t C
C
t C
C t
C[
>
� r
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q[
Q
Q[
Q
Q
Q
Q[
Q
Q[
Q
Q[
Q
[ Q
Q[
Q
Q
1-�
-
-
-
-
-
[ -
-
[ -
-
[ -
-
[ -
-
[ -
- [
-
CD CD
W
W
Yp
[ C
E
O
I COD
0
O(
[-o
_
C
>
L
i O
sU
O
�i0
O(
0,0O
i O
o
O
0
O€
O
[
DiO
0
w
�
Lo
Ln
U
�
U
U
i O
i O
i O
i0
i0
Oi0
i0
O
O
Oi0
Oi0
L;O
I'D
t°
J
CD
"O
"O
O;O
O;O
-p-pi
°�
[L
U
=0
-p
-p(
Q
0
i 0
i 0
i 0
O
O
j O
N
M
Ln
i O
O
i Ln
Ln
64
(64
i
i o;
64
64
CD
_
CD
Q
O
64
[ O
O
O
i 0
O
i 0
O
O i
i 0
O
i 0
O
~
Ln
64
i0
i0
i0
O[O
O[0
CD
C5
CD
U
C
(O
i0
i0
CD
CD
O[0
O
c5
c5
CD
CD
O
Oi
°
�O
CD
CD
O
N
CD
O
t Ln
t
t N
t M
�[
Ln
Ln
[
Ln
t Ln
E
Ln
Ln [
U
[ U
U
t Ln
Ln E
U[
-o
W
a� G
U)
U
m
U
m
c
c
Q
c
m
co
O
N
m
m
C
7
O
U
Q
.Q
m
U
W
v! ,V^
LL
1
O
Um
o
o
o
�.o
o
O O€
O
o €o
O[
€
C
N
N=
` O
O
O [
O
O[
N
O
Ln
R1
c9
c9 a
[CO
M
c9 a
j
C
>
L
O;
CD
O
CD
CD CD
€ O
�€ O
O;
° O
0
0(
O
O i
c9 O (�
� i Co [ 00
O
i c9
; E r O
O i
O i
0 O i
O
i 0
i 0 i 0 i
O
i 0 i 0
O
N
b4(
a r i 00
N i
b4
[C9
{ € C9 N
N a
ab4(
64jb4
ab4(
64jb4
€b4jb4 €
b4jb4
jb4
a&4(
O
G
[b4
(
[b464 [b4(M
(bq
[&4
[&4
U
o
(
[
O
O
[
Uy`�fUU[U
U.UU.UU.UU
O
O
U
U
O
O
N
N
L i
i I[
i 6)
0
[O(
c0 [i6l ik
M
r
I\
Oi
co;coi
�
&4
[ D7
&4 [ N
Z4
69
C9
[ 64 64 [
i
'
b4,'D
N
_
64jC9
i
W
v! ,V^
LL
1
O
Um
L
M
M;
O[
€
C
N
N=
` O
O
O [
O
O[
N
O
Ln
R1
c9
c9 a
[CO
M
c9 a
j
U
[
O
O
[
Uy`�fUU[U
U.UU.UU.UU
UU[UU[UU[U
U
-
Q[
a
a;
a(
a;
a(
a;
a(
a
a(
a[
a(
a[
a(
a[
a
a;
a(
a
a;
a(
a
a[
C
i
O
p
s
O
i
d
> t
L
CC
Y
[
C
[
O
o
O
-o
C {
C
U
},
[
C
O
O
E
CD
O
O[`(
E[
i
C i
T
N
d[
t
t d
d(
S
U[
t
U
C t
C
C[
C
N``[
S
t
t[[
O
O
C t
E
C
d
�-'
c/,
i
U t
[ C t
[
C
O
O t
C
t>
> E
-m-
E i
C
t°
i
m[
a
of
i o
oi
> [
G
[
O
i
j
O i
0[
Y
w[
w
w
w
w
U
d
U
J
{[
S[
w
S[
O j
;
d[
c/ [�
O
O a
N
m(
Y
j
i
O
N
L; N [
w;
U
d a
w j
w
a
m
U)
U
m
U
m
c
c
Q
c
m
co
O
N
0)
m
m
LL
0)
O
U
Q
.Q
m
U
O _ M
O;� [ CD;O
CD CD
C O
{ O
0
?
[ O
o
O
O
Of
CD
i
?
O
Z
C
�
CD
J
O
i
i
i 0[
N O i 0
� [ L
N
CD
CD i
CD
CD iO;O [�
O,c-o
�;0,
O;
O CD
[
O iO
-o
l:
,
=�;0
[O
&�i
[ &�i (
&�i [ &�i
(
&�i [ &�i
oo [ Lo
U
O
O
U
i
i
i
i
O
c�0?
i
Oi
�(
i
M
i
O [
r¢� [O,
U 'O
¢� [
cO [
[�
;O [OO [r
O
c'")
€O
O
O(O
O [O
L €r [LO
iO
/ 64
M [
co
64 [ 64 b4 [
b4
[
U
j 64
64 '
a 64
64 [ b4
N M [ I
&4 [b4
&�i
&�i
Ln
?
[
O[O
O _ M
O;� [ CD;O
CD CD
Q
U)
U
m
U
m
c
c
Q
c
m
00
O
00
N
0)
m
a_
N
m
a_
O)
7
O
U
Q
.Q
m
U
C O
{ O
0
?
[ O
O
O
i
?
O
Z
CD
iU
iO
-o
l:
i
iO
w
[
C t
IA
v^,I
L
[
O[O
14—
E
O
E
O¢
O
O[
O[
m (n
U[
U
O
O O [
0
Oi�O[O
iw'
EiL
O
di0
�jW
OjU
�i
�[O
Ui
dN
€(nZ�
O
E[Ei
Ei
Ei
O(CD
O(O
O
Oi0
{~
O?
CD CD
O(€UO
U m
cl�
?
?
O
wn
C
� nU
�
,U
,wO[ i
Q
U)
U
m
U
m
c
c
Q
c
m
00
O
00
N
0)
m
a_
N
m
a_
O)
7
O
U
Q
.Q
m
U
�� IIi"
City of Dublin
Public Works - Fees
� -)L r .
1FfFl4!7v"'
U nit Cost Sum mary
T
t N
t
tu
tu
tu
E N G
Site work ad�n errmt
,% ., F
Current
30
10
a.
ENG _
ENCROACHMENT PERMITS
$
...
$0
$0
$0
ENG
Permit processing fee
Current
70
$
52
$34
$86
10
E N G
Plan check .
C urrent
E N G
Resuxfacm suxchax e
C u rrrn t
0
0,,,
50
50
ENG
Resuxfacm suxchax e
C urrrnt
$
E N G
Stoxa e Gaxba e contain
Crren
U t
�
� 0
0,,,
�
35
35
ENG
Inspection Fees - Encroachment Fees
_
$
$0
$0
$0
ENG
Transfers and longitudinal tranches, road cuts, etc 1
80
100 LF
Current
$
275
$180
$455
ENG
Transfers and longitudinal tranches, road cuts, etc:$
1
1>100 LF
Current
$
0
$0
$1
ENG
Construction concrete sidewalk, curb, and gutter 1 50
$ 80
LF
Current
$
275
$180
$455
ENG _
Construction concrete sidewalk, curb, and gutter > LF
Current
$
1
$1
$2
$ 0
ENG
Constmcnng concrete driveways residential
C u rrent
$
183
$120
$303
$ 50
.• )
., 4
ENG
Constmcnng concrete driveways: commercial
Current
$
275
$180
$455
$ 100
ENG
Constructing drain inlets, manholes, and connections to
$ 80
same
Current
$
367
$240
$607
ENG
Asphalt concrete paving, curb, and gutter tie in, etc 1
$ 80
100 SF
Current
$
92
$60
$152
ENG
Asphalt concrete paving, curb, and gutter tie in, etc >100
$ 0
SF
Current
$
0
$0
$1
ENG
p oxa ....................... , ... ., ... ... ., ... ... ...
e street or lane closure
Tm
Current
$
46
$30
$76
$ 25
.• 1
i,ti,• ;
ENG
Miscellaneous work (ox for services not listed)
C u rrent
$
-
$0
$0
$ 128
$128
ENG
.,,.,,., .,,.,g g ,,.,,.,,.,, .
Banner signs attached to street and lighting posts)
; ,., , ..
C urrent
$
275
.,,.,
$180
.,,.,,.
$455
$
.,,
L•.•1
ENG
Banner signs (Crossing the road)
C u rrent
$
-
$0
$0
$
$0
ENG
Transportation / Oversized Vehicle Permits Annual
C urrent
$
39
$25
$64
$ 16
ENG _
Transportation / Oversized Vehicle Permits: Single trip
C u rrent
5
$
77
$51
$128
$ 90
ENG
House /Building relocation
C u rrent
$
-
$0
$0
$ 128
$128
ENG
Block party / street closure
C u rren t
$
39
$25
$64
$ 35
�)
.• i
,a.,,..,,,
ENG
Film / Photography Basic fee
C urrent
$
116
$76
$192
$ 90
ENG
$
$0
$0
$0
........
ENG
.,,,
Bonds as required (deposit only)
C urrent
$
-
$0
$0
$ 0
$0
,a.,,..,,,
ENG
, „
Building division permit referral residential
C u rren t
50
$
107
$70
$178
$ 110
a �)
........
ENG
Building division permit referral non residential
C u rren t
147
$
215
$141
$355
.e
$ 220
,a.,,..,,,
ENG
..
ADA site compliance review
DELETE
10
$
161
$106
$267
$ 165
�)
ENG _
Newsxack Permit
$ 180
Current
20
$
$0
$0
$180
ENG
Total Encroachment Permits
DELETE
$
$0
$0
$ 49,614
$49, 614
ENG
......,,. ......., ......., ......... ......... .........
Capital ImprovementProjects(CIP)
........
Current
..............................
1
.
......
$
-
$0
$0
$0
ENG
Total time assigned to FCN projects
C u rren t
$
550 375
$360, 626
$911, 001
$ 672 547
U i 1
PL-
PLANNING FEES (cost of these fees have been
included in the Planning fee schedule
PL
CUP or SDR Time Extension Request (PC)
C urrent
$
107
$70
$178
PL
CUP or SDR Time Extension Request (Admin)
C urrent
$
107
$70
$178
PL_
Site Development Review
Current
$
-
$0
$0
$0
PL_
Site Development Review Waiver
............ ....
Current
...
55 ..
$
107
$70
$178
.
,a.,,..,,...
PL
,.,,, . > ............... ............................... .
Non Residential CUP. PC
>, ,.,,.,, ....
C urrent
,.,,.,,.,
9
, ,,.,,.,,.....,,.,,......
$
-
,.,,.,,,,
$0
,.,,.,,....
$0
,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
,,.,,...
$0
PL
Non Residential CUP. ZA
C urrent
1
$
333
$219
$552
�1
PL_
Residential CUP PC
Current
0
$
107
$70
$178')
PL
Residential CUP ZA
Current
0
......
$
107
......., .......,,.
$70
................................
$178
...............................
PL
Daycare Centex CUP 15+ children
C urrent
1
$
$0
$0
$0
PL
CUP Minor Amend. Admin)
Current
0
$
54
$35
$89
PL_
Zoning Clearance for Indoor Recreational Facilities
C u rrent
7
$
107
$70
$178,'
a -
PL
Minor Use Permit
C u rrent
4
$
107
Capital Accounting Partners Page 1 of 4 Public Works Unit Calcs
City of Dublin
Public Works - Fees
1FfFl4!7v"'
U nit Cost Sum mary
PL
Minor Amendment to a Minor Use Permit
C u rren t
0
$
54
$35
$89
PL_
„, „, „, „ „„
Majox Amendment to a Mmox Use Permit
..,,,,,,,..
C u rren t
..............................
0
,......,,..
$
107
........, ........,,...
$70
$178)
......... ...............................
.....
:. C
PL_
Large Family Day Care Home Zoning Clearance
C u rrent
5
$
441
$289
$730:''
PL_
Large Family Day Care Home Conditional Use Permit
Current
1
$
441
$289
$730
PL_
Non- Residential Variance
C urrent
0
$
107
$70
$178,'
a -
PL_
Residential Variance
C urrent
0
$
54
$35
$89
`
PL_
Minor Temporary Use Permit
C u rrent
35
$
113
$74
$187
PL_
Zoning Clearance
Current
$
54
$35
$89
`
,a.,,..,,...
,.,,, . > ....... ......... .... ......... .... ...............................
. >, ... ,.,,.,,......
C urrent
,.,,.,,., .
., ., , ,,,,
....,,.,,.......
,.,,.,,.,
$000
.,,.,,.,,...
....
.....
Estimate of contract t me
Current
1
$
366,050
$239, 850
$605, 900
$
428, 032
J ,
Current
$
$0
$0
$0
Hourly Rates
E N G _
Commposit Inspector Rate
$
128
Current
1
$
92
$60
$152
` -i)
�r1
E N G _
Composite Hourly Rate
C u rren t
1
$
111
$73
$184
$
128
E N G _
Composit Engineering Rate
$
128
Current
1
$
130
$85
$216
Capital Accounting Partners Page 2 of 4 Public Works Unit Calcs
City of Dublin
Public Works - Fees
ovf� u=
7+y5�i
ySw�y
Annual Recoverable Cost /Revenue at Full Cost
.
ko,taa4 „
. ,,,,,r,,,,,,,
4nrfci�el SGr'p1fV
; , ,,
��b -N dim "O�"
var'k
�ufl
FNGVNFFRVNG FEES
E N G _
Site work /grading perm it (calculated fixed fee)
0
$0
$0
0
ENG
Slte work / grading permlt
30
$0
$300
300
ENG
ENCROACHMENT PERMITS
0
$0
$0
0
ENG
Perm It processing fee
70
$5,989
...
$700
ENG
..,,. ,,.,,....,,.,,.,,.....,,.,,.,,,
Plan checking
0
..,.,,.,,....,.,, .,,.,......,,.,,.,....,,.,,.,,,
$0
$0
.......................................
0
ENG
.............
Rcsurfacing surcharge
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
0
,,,,,,,,,,
$0
................................................
$0
,,,,,.......
0
.............................................
E N G
Rcsurfacing surcharge
0
$0
$0
0
E N G
Storage /Garbage, ccntrin
0
$0
$0
0
E N G
I n sp ccti a n F ccs E n croach m cn t F ccs
0
$0
$0
0
E N G
T ransftxs and longltudinal tranchcs road cuts etc', 1 - 100 L
0
$0
$0
0
E N G
T ransftxs and longltudinal tranchcs road cuts etc', 1 >100 L
0
$0
$0
0
E N G
Construction ccncretesidcwalk, curb and gutter 1 50 L
0
$0
$0
0
E N G
,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,
Construction ccncretesidcwalk, curb and gutter > L
0
$0
$0
0
E N G
Canstructingccncrctedrivcways ;residcntiat
0
$0
$0
0
E N G
Canstructingccncrctedrivcways ;ccmmcrciat
0
$0
$0
0
E N G
Constructihedrain Inhxs manholes and conncctions to sam c
0
$0
$0
0
E N G
Asphalt ccncrtxe paving curb, and gutter ti n, etc 1 -100 SF
0
$0
$0
0
E N G
Asphalt ccncrtxe paving curb, and gutter ti n, etc >100 SF
0
$0
$0
0
E N G
T cm parary strcct or lane closure
0
$0
$0
0
E N G
M IsccllaneOUS work (or for services not listed)
0
$0
$0
0
E N G
Banncr signs (attached to strcct and lighting posts)
0
$0
$0
0
E N G
Banncr signa (C rossing thy, road)
0
$0
$0
0
E N G
T ran sportitian/ 0vcrslzcdVchicicPcrmlts',Annual
0
$0
$0
0
E N G
T ran sportitian/ 0vcrslzcdVchlcicPcrmlts ',Singlctrip
5
$641
$450
E N G
H Ouse /Building relocation
0
$0
$0
0
E N G
Block party /street closure
0
$0
$0
0
E N G
Film / Photography - Basic fcc
0
$0
$0
0
E N G
Fee
0
$0
$0
0
E N G
Bonds - asrcqulrcd(dcpositonly)
0
$0
$0
0
E N G
Building division perm it rcferral - r sidential
50
$8,885
$5,500
E N G
BUildi he division perm it rcfcrral - non residcntial
147
$52,245
$32,340
E N G
AD A site com liance r view
10
$2,666
$1,650
E N G
N cwsrack Perm it
20
$0
$3,600
3,600
ENG
Tstall EncroachmcntPcrmits
0
$0
$0
0
E N G
CapltallmprovcmcntProjccts(CIP)
1
$0
..... ..., ......
$0
0
E N G
Total time assigned to F C N projects
1
$911,001
$672,547
U4i
PL- PLAN N FIN G FFFS(cost of these fees have been included in the
Planning fee schedule)
PL
CUPorSDRTImcEatcnslonRcquest (PC)
0
$0
$0
0
PL
CUP orSDRTImcExtcnslonRcquest (Admin)
0
$0
$0
0
PL
CUP orSDRTimcExtcnsionRcquest(PC)
0
$0
$0
0
PL
CUP orSDRTImcExtcnslonRcquest (Admin)
0
$0
$0
0
PL
SlteDevclapmentRevlew
0
$0
$0
0
PL
Sltc. D wclo p m cnt Rwicw W alvcr
55
$9,774
$0
it
PL
Non Residential CUP: PC
9
$0
$0
0
PL
NonResidcntial CUP: ZA
1
$552
$0
PL
Rcsidcntial CU P, PC
0
$0
$0
0
PL
Rcsidcntial CUP: ZA
0
$0
$0
0
PL_
DaycareCenterCUP(15 +children)
1
$0
$0
0
PL_
CUP MinorAmcnd,(Admin)
0
$0
$0
0
PL
Zoning Clcaranccfor Indoor RecrcationalFacilities
7
$1,244
$0
1 fii)
PL
Mina - UscPcrmlt
4
$711
$0
PL
MlnorAmcndmcnttoa Minor UscPcrmlt
0
$0
$0
0
PL_
MajorAmcndmcnttaa Minor UscPcrmlt
0
...,.,,, ....,...
$0
......,......
$0
......................... . ... .....
0
Capital Accounting Partners Page 3 of 4 Public Works Annual Calcs
City of Dublin
Public Works - Fees
Annual Recoverable Cost /Revenue at Full Cost
PL_ L
Largc Family Day CarcHomc Zoning Clcarancc 5
5 $
$3,649 $
$0 .
.,Li)
,.... „.„ .
...,. „.,,.....,. „.,,.. ..,. „.,,........ „.,,.. ... „.„ ....... „.„ ...... „.,,..... „
„. „.,,, .
...,,,,.,,....,. „.,,,,, .
...... „.,...... .
..,,
PL N
N an Resldcntial Variancc 0
0 $
$0 $
$0 0
0
...................... ., >
>,.....,. „.,,.. ...„.,,.. ... „. „.,,..... „. „.,,........ „.„ ....... „.„ ...... „.... .
.. „. „.,,, .
................................................ ,, .
...... „.,...... .
..................................
PL_ M
... ..... ................„.,,.. ...,. „.,,..... „. „.,,........ „.„ ....... „.„ ...... „.,,......................
., .
................................................
... „. .,......
PL_ 7
7aningCI car ancc 0
0 $
$0 $
$0 0
0
.. .
... ri �„�„.....,c,
.... - � „�,,, .
...,6„�
8"'....,,
H ourly Rates
L N _ C
C”.
m m posit 1 nspector Rate 1
1 $
$152 $
$128 1
174) 1
e.,,..,,.... „.... .
11 e
Annual Totals
$1,610,536 1 $1,145,119 1 $465,417)
Capital Accounting Partners Page 4 of 4 Public Works Annual Calcs
E
E
O
LnI CD ICD CD
In �CD In
clIj m 'j-
6uej 6� jb�Jb�
EA
Ln
U- Ft
ICD
it
I
TI TJ
L)
LnI CD ICD CD
In �CD In
clIj m 'j-
6uej 6� jb�Jb�
EA
Ln
U- Ft
ICD
it
I
LnI CD ICD CD
In �CD In
clIj m 'j-
6uej 6� jb�Jb�
EA
Ln
'j- 1 0-)
0-) r-- C111 co cl�j
'j- 0) c"ll m co m
1�? ' it"Ji it,71 I il I
'I l'i'l,
(-C I CD CD I CD
ELT CD C-0
t,,T j t,,T
7 r-- bl� bl�
CD CD
IC11 co m 'j-
I'll�3 c"I CD r-- c-0 CD
Ic-oll(LIC111,11collEll coll F-0i I I � I � I I 'c"'ll
CO)
0
CD
CD CD
CD CD 0
0
0 0
CD
Ln CD
Ln Ln CD CD �ol
CD
1 1
'j- 1 0-)
0-) r-- C111 co cl�j
'j- 0) c"ll m co m
1�? ' it"Ji it,71 I il I
'I l'i'l,
(-C I CD CD I CD
ELT CD C-0
t,,T j t,,T
7 r-- bl� bl�
CD CD
IC11 co m 'j-
I'll�3 c"I CD r-- c-0 CD
Ic-oll(LIC111,11collEll coll F-0i I I � I � I I 'c"'ll
0
O
jo
E
-T) CD
c"i
co j- Ln
c"',
CD
c"ll i co c"ll
P.
U)
=
CD
c CD
D�
0
I
So
CD
A
LA A
0
Ln
A
C.6
1 A
-A
E E
E E
0
0
50)
0
E
E E
E E
0
E E
E E E
c)
c)
c)
>
0 E
LL
w
n- a-
d
0
U
C
7
O
U
U
Q
.Q
m
O
U
c
0
0
0
0
LL
0
I
0
r S'�
Ln
[
OJ
j o3 M
m
c "j
N
,
U
O
O
iO
iO
cn,cn
�O [
Oo
Oco (
i m
�[
f
;
-
i -
-m [ -
i
[
d
d Cw n
d
Cw n
d d
d-n
[
E
m
0
U
c
O;
O O
c
[O
W
... ,,,,
�,�
T
m[ s
o;
w
�°
O
� w
m,y
U
i a
a
x �
o.
u
u
E
o
x
o
°Ji
�; O[
�i
O
E
E
a[
¢
a[
E;
O
O
t
O
° -
_
i +�[
NO
O
E
E11
V
n
°
E n
c
O O
o E[ E[
m
O
E
o
Ei
E[
E
Oi o[
>
( E
_ _ =
n w
z[n;cn[w,w;w
z;zi¢
z n- n-
�;w
�[w
k.
U
C
7
O
U
U
Q
.Q
m
O
U
c
0
0
0
0
LL
0
I
0
E
E
O
U
c
CD CD
O
Y 1
O i
0
O i
0 O
O O
O
O i
i 0
O i
0
U
0
CD CD
LC7i i Lni c oi coi�7i ci mi of m�6)i Oi 6)i mi 6)
N � LC7 [ co � I� [ r j� [ � C9 [ co M [ O3 M CV EA [ N c'') [ N
EA N 64 [ E1T EA [ EA jEA [ EA jEA [ EA EA [ EA EA EA E1T EA [ EA
O
O
O i
0
O i
0 O
O O
O
O i
i 0
O i
0
O i
0
���� �
O
LC7
LC7
O
O
O LC7 i
LC7 O ;
LC7
LC7
LC7
LC7
O
O
O
CD
U
U
U(
't �
U',
� � [ �
U U[ UU[
t � [
�
U(
't �
U[
[ �
U(
t
[
Oo
N [
Oo
�
EA[
LC7i i Lni c oi coi�7i ci mi of m�6)i Oi 6)i mi 6)
N � LC7 [ co � I� [ r j� [ � C9 [ co M [ O3 M CV EA [ N c'') [ N
EA N 64 [ E1T EA [ EA jEA [ EA jEA [ EA EA [ EA EA EA E1T EA [ EA
C
C
O
U
U
Q
�6
.Q
U
to
O
U
D
C
O
N
N
N
LL
O
I
N
CD
U
U(
't �
U',
� � [ �
U U[ UU[
t � [
�
U(
't �
U[
[ �
U(
t
;:d
id
id
[d
id
[d
id[d
id[d
id
[d
id
[did
[d
id
[d
[ U
[ t0
[ C
"
c
i
{ U
[ U
a
Q3 Ul
i
[ 4J
U
�
�
o
o
" i
E
i E
T E
[ E
i o
Nm
C)
w �
p
i
C
C
O
U
U
Q
�6
.Q
U
to
O
U
D
C
O
N
N
N
LL
O
I
N
F
EA EA [ EA EA EA [ EA EA EA (�4 t EA (�4 t EA [ EA t EA [ EA t EA t F
O
V
<
o
i
Ni
6)[
i
6)i
6) 6)i
r 07€
Li)[
rt
r[r
i
U
cc
EA i
64 "E
EA 64 "E
EA [
cyj
EA [
EA
0
mr
U
03 [
N
1
''
N
w
y�
Q
64
64 [
E1T
64
N
O O
O
O
O O O i0
O i0
O i 0
O i 0
O
L�)sl�)
F
EA EA [ EA EA EA [ EA EA EA (�4 t EA (�4 t EA [ EA t EA [ EA t EA t F
O
V
<
1
i
Ni
6)[
i
6)i
6) 6)i
r 07€
Li)[
rt
r[r
i
U
cc
EA i
64 "E
EA 64 "E
EA [
EA
EA [
EA
mr
03 [
03
''
w
y�
Q
64
64 [
E1T
64
64 i
64 �
64
E1T
EA [
EA
64
175'
F
EA EA [ EA EA EA [ EA EA EA (�4 t EA (�4 t EA [ EA t EA [ EA t EA t F
O
V
1
Ni
Ni
6)[
6)i
6)i
6) 6)i
r 07€
Li)[
rt
r[r
i
U
F
EA EA [ EA EA EA [ EA EA EA (�4 t EA (�4 t EA [ EA t EA [ EA t EA t F
O
V
r[
Ni
Ni
6)[
6)i
6)i
6) 6)i
r 07€
Li)[
rt
r[r
i
Li)i
cc
EA i
64 "E
EA 64 "E
EA [
EA
EA [
EA
w
F
EA EA [ EA EA EA [ EA EA EA (�4 t EA (�4 t EA [ EA t EA [ EA t EA t F
O
V
N
C
Z
C
C
O
U
U
J
w
Ui U
i m
i C
a
T
i m
i c
s m
Q
O
j
i W
i 0
0
~
T
0
[Cn
0
0
�(
m'L:
[ U
[ O
i
0
i
[ O
m
i 0
mi
a s
,
;O O
[O
w �U
N
C
Z
C
C
O
U
U
J
T
m
E
E
0
U
C
N [ N [ N N
EA [ EA [ EA
lf7 [ � [ lf7 I� [ M [ I� [ r [ r [ r i O I I
EA [ EA [ EA i 64 [ E1T [ EA [ EA [ EA [ EA i. 64 [ E1T i. 64
N N "' "' "' I I I
M[ r[ M 07[ N[ 07[ 07[ 07[ 61 W [ Off; -
1
U
N [ N [ N N
EA [ EA [ EA
lf7 [ � [ lf7 I� [ M [ I� [ r [ r [ r i O I I
EA [ EA [ EA i 64 [ E1T [ EA [ EA [ EA [ EA i. 64 [ E1T i. 64
N N "' "' "' I I I
M[ r[ M 07[ N[ 07[ 07[ 07[ 61 W [ Off; -
O
U
jai
co
M
[
N
C9
CO
t t
U h�
0
w[
0
0 0€
o€
o
o€
o
o€
o€
0
0
0
0€
0
0
U
LL
N [ N [ N N
EA [ EA [ EA
lf7 [ � [ lf7 I� [ M [ I� [ r [ r [ r i O I I
EA [ EA [ EA i 64 [ E1T [ EA [ EA [ EA [ EA i. 64 [ E1T i. 64
N N "' "' "' I I I
M[ r[ M 07[ N[ 07[ 07[ 07[ 61 W [ Off; -
to
N
C
m
C
O
U
U
Q
�6
.Q
U
O
T
N
jai
co
M
[
N
C9
CO
t t
U h�
w[
U
d
S
d
d
[ m
m
s
T
0
a
c;
c
M;
a
m
[ o
a
o
a
[�
d U
[
U
F
c
m
c
[ m
m
E
E
E
o
[Cn
W'
[H
[H
[�
[U
[cn
W'
w �U
to
N
C
m
C
O
U
U
Q
�6
.Q
U
O
T
N
N
d
LL
U
c
0
0
0
Q
.Q
0
U
c
0
0
0
0
LL
0
I
0
m
rn
c
3
O
U
Q
Q
m
U
w
O
f 3 ii
` �Ln
O
O
i O
i O
i 0 i
0
O i
0 i -i-
i 0 i
i 0
i 0 i
0 i
0
O i i
O i
0 i 0 i
..
w
C
J
O iO €�iOiaOi[
O
�=
O i
O
O
O
O
O
O[ [
-o N
N co O
co
0= O
M
M 0
0
0
0
O[ [
M
[
[
M i
6O9[
60 9 [ 60
9[ [
�
[69[69
(69a
U
O
U
[a7
- [(N
[
Qo
[
O
�
_
MN
O
�[p�
[ O
O[O
M
O[[
[[6O9[
.
69
69[
69[
69[69[69
69[691
M Ln i
cO
M
'
;
6OcO
9[[6O
9 [
C
71
[ 6_ 9
[€ 6a9[M
[O
M
[
69 € N
€
[69[
[69 [6M9
S
O
i O
i O
i O
i 0 i
0
O i
0 i 0 i 0 i
0 i 0 i 0
i 0 i 0
O i 0
i 0 i
0 i
0
O i 0 i
0 i
0 i 0 i
Oi
Oi
Oi
OiOiO
cD
cD j—
c), j-
iO
o-) CD
1010
Oi`ni
OiO
iOi
''.
O
i O
i O
i O
i 0 i
0
O i
0 i j€ N
iol ij-
i i 0
o) [ C[
O i
0 i
0
O i i
0 i
0 i 0 i
SS
Si
al
E al
E al
E al
E al E
al
E
al E al E al E
al E al E al
E al E al
al [ �
[ � [
W [
W
al E al (
W [
al [ al E
,,,viii /.
a
[ a
[ a
[ a
[ a[
a
[
a[ a[ a[
a[ a[ a[
a[
T
E
m
m
c
T
�
E
m
a
[�
[- [
[O
E
w
[
c[
s [
�
[o
[o
A n
w
�
E
[O
[o=
_ 0i�n[o[o€
N
w
[ a
[ a
[ a
[ a [
a
cn
[
O [ Yo ' O `
0 [
O
[
c
d
z
o[
[
a[-A [-[
n[ n[
�+[ �+a
N
A[
o[
o
N[[[[
c[ c[
v[ n[
O
cn
L
o[ o[ o
E[ E =
ID 'D
m[
N
E[ E[
o-
ID
L
cc
o[ E[
E_
¢ �[
E
o)
cc
o
a [
€n'�;
cc
o [ uo)
� €
O
E[
[
E [
m[
[ [
[
L
O
E
[ E
[ E
[ E[
E
z
c
a[
o[ o[ O[
E
€
E[
¢
w
m[ mi
[ [
C [
o
O
E
[ O
a
[U
°>[
[U [U[
�€
m
x
�) 7
ID
o[
L
w
w
[
[
[
o[
[ o [
o
J
d
� €
a) € a) € a)
5 5 5
�[
[
w
[
[ °1
a
o
'-`
a[ o[
°' = O [
o[
O [
m[
[ [ [ o
[ [
w .I
rn
c
3
O
U
Q
Q
m
U
w
rn
c
3
O
U
Q
(6
Q
(6
U
O
O
W
N
O
(6
d
cn
CD
CD
O [ O
[ [
O
[ O
O [
[ M [
O [ O [
O [
M
[
[ O
[ O
[ O [ [
O [
O [ O [
[
O [
w
v7t
C
at
>
N n
[ O[
[CD
[ O[
N [I� [
[�[
i 0[ O[
O[
C°
O€
[ O[
[
0[
OL
0[
0[
0
v
O [ O
[ [
169
O
[ O
(69
O [ r [
69a [
o- _ L [
M [ (69[69
O [ O [
(69a
O [
o
[ Co [ O [
i s
—
O
a69
O
N
[ O
(69
[ O [ Q [
(691 169[69
O [
O [ O [
(69a
[ cn [
i
N[
[ O [
N[
O [
69 [
[
69
a
U
O
U
°
[CO €CO[Ln
[
[CO
o-)
[CO[M[N
—
.
[
[
N
[
7
M
[ [
(I� 0 [
OOO
[69[
O
nn
[ N
N
f
N
[ O O € [
[
p
69[69[6M
M
60 9
60 9
60 9
M
[
9
69[69
a7 [
60
9[
9 [
[69
[
6f 9
[ [69 [
6N 9 [
SS
O i 0
i 0 i
0
i 0
O i 0 i
0 i 0 i
0 i 0 i
0 i
0
i 0 i 0 i
0 i
0
i 0
O
i 0
i 0 i 0 i
0 i
0 i 0 i
0
O
O
O[O[�n[O
O
o[
[
O
[
[
�
�r[�[O
[
b
Lr
O�
M
5�
L`C
� /i 1111111;
'
O [ O
[ Ln [
O
[ O
O [ Co [ aCLna
[CM O
O O
O a�
[�[ � a
- a
o�
O
O
O O
O
O O
M
M
Ln
� [
O [
i z
[w [w[
[O [O
[
aD
ID
[ a, [
[
ID
€
ID
€
ID ID ID ID ID
ID ID ID ID ID [ i [ ID [ ID [ [ [
ID
ID
o' o[
_
v[
E[ m[
c ; i a i
0
ID i
[ w
ID
p1
[O
aci
o[
[ c[
€N[
O
m[
.........
o
U
_[
m [
[
a`0i
[ w
i m i
m i ID
ID
dw
�`
o[N
U
iaDi
[mow
[NO[c[
N
U[ �[
€
v��
ami
cn
�[ °��
`� €•_•€
u€ €
u�
��
u€ c[
c[
m[
€cn[
v�[�;
v[�[
a0[
fl
w
J
°� w°
v( °€
�[ �[
ID
a[ ° [
a0[
a[�[
m[
,[
fl(a['o[
J
Y[m[
m[1=
m[w
c[
°`
Q �•IY/�S�
z
v"i[
`O[
c[
°
z
�[O[
�[�[
°[c% [
�[
�[
°` a[
a€
c[
w
[ m€
�[ E['o[Z[�[
aai
u
°[�[a[
'� `1
w
E[
O[M [
E
O[
E
�[
[ O[
E
[
O
°[
�[w'
°[�[
�a
U E[
E[
m
U[
°[
m[
>'
U,
ID
m[
�['[
L=
E[
E
o
L[
E,�
V
I
ID
�_
�[
>[
E[ °[
m['[
o[
o
L
o
x[
LL
w[ z[ w[[ w[[[ w[ O
¢[¢[¢[ O[ U[ U[ U[ U U o[ U[ w[
d„
cs'
w„ '
ua p
rn
c
3
O
U
Q
(6
Q
(6
U
O
O
W
N
O
(6
d
rn
c
3
O
U
Q
m
(6
U
O
N
O
(6
d
O [ O [ O
O [ O [
O [
O [
O
[ O [ O [
O
[ O
O [ O
%;
O [
O [
O [
O [
[ O [
�
;
-[
; M ; ;
;
LL
C
at
>
O [
O [
O [ [
O [ O [
O
O
[
[
= O [ O [
i CD
i
[ O
[
O [ O
-O [
O
[ O [ O [ O
r
M O
oo
O [ O [
O [
O [
O
[ O [ O [
O
[ O
[ O - -O [ O
o
[ C°
[ O [
O [
O [
O [ O
[ O [
O [ O [
(O
(t�9 iE»iE»
iE»i
�
iE»i
CO i M i
U
�
O
O
U
O
00
Q0
O
(\j
M
—
L
co
O
0
,CO 0[0
coQ
O
CD
CD
O
[
CD
[€CNON
M [ [
Ln
O
M
[69[
SS
y 0
i 0 i
0
i 0 i 0 i 0
O i
O i O i
O
i O i O i
O i
O i
O
i 0 i 0 i
0
i 0
i 0 i 0 i 0 i 0
i 0
i 0 i
0 i
0 i
0 i 0
i 0 i
O
> wt
[ O i
c
M
i O [ O [ O
L `M
�f7 [N[
` `CO
[tea
[ O [ O [
O [
O [
O
[ O [ O [
O
[ O
[ CO [ [ O [ O
i O
i O [
O [
O [
O [ Ca
[ O [
[ M [
L`C
m
r
O O
� � [
MN [ [�
COO
[ O
O
O
O
O O
O
O
Ca O O
O
O
O
O
O Ca
O
Co a M [
v
a %
z [
z [
w [
z
[ z
[ [ z [
w
[
z [
[ z
n
[ [
[ [
ci
c' iiiiii%
[ w
o €
�[
i
m[
[
[
U [
[ l0 [
[
f 1 [
[
7T
n
a[D
€�[miiic[�
,'
CT
[a[
€
m
w[
U[
U[
w [
o[
[ m[
L=
[>
`0€
[ ID i
�[�[
°[
[a[
�[
m
c[
0
ID
a a�[a[
m[
[�[
[ c€
[
di
t
[ m[
o
ID[
ID
CT
L
U L[OI
=[ =[
=[
=[w [wiw[�[�[U[�[�O[O
[
[0_[w[wi0:�IV)
Qe [�
wiw[w[w[w
wig[
IE
�[
w,
rn
c
3
O
U
Q
m
(6
U
O
N
O
(6
d
N
d
d
LL
0 a ��
O> C ('',,, `III
L
(L f `17 OVII
U�
rn
c
3
0
U
Q
(6
U
O
N
O
(6
d
City of Dublin
Police - Fees
U niL COSL Summary
Police Fees
ff
L
$
30
............. .
....
.......................
SU .. ... .............................
. .....................
fl,ff,
.................
PF
...........
..
. .....................
S'�T'
.................
PF
.......................................................................
F.rL,Iil o T al or Pari, I L
Par A pp
.... .
Currant
.......
S
282
$o
$282
$
200
PF
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. .. . . . .
. .0 i. l.
. 2 .
2 . . .
S
261
so
3262
$
.. .
100
. . ..
. .. . .. . ......
.
. . .
.. . 8
S
.
M
. . .
. . . . .. .
. . . . . . ..
. . . . .
........................
'-6 ...
i5
...
.
. . . .
PF
. .. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . .. ... ... ... ... ...
Parade Pcrm L
. ..
Par,App
C ifffe, L
I
I
S
1,6
so
31,7
$
90
PF
. . . . ..
P, b I
Par,A,pp
.. .. . .
,DELETE
.. ..
.. .... .
. ..
. ... . . . . .
. .
S
. .
1 '6
so
31d6
$
7,
PF
Dan Is Penn I L
Par A pp
C ilffel, L
$
1,16
$o
Sid6
$
100
PF
Tax ab 0 s,n or ton—al
Par A pp
C i-al, L
12
12
S
116
so
3117
$
250
3103
PF
T ari,ab D tiser
Par A pp
C i-1, a L
12
y2
$
190
$o
$190
$
150
4 .................
Massage ..................................................... .........................................................
... ..................
... ...... QrranL ........ .
...........................
... .........................
. .............................
... ...............................
. . ..............................
. . ................................
..........................................
E,°
. ...............................
. .
PF
21111,11,
..............
... .................
.
1E
... ........................
... . . ..............................
. ....................
.........................
..
125
. ....................
.....
......... .........
........................
... 11,
.........
...
........
... .........
.. . ...............
.
. ...... . . ...
...
...
...............
50
.........
PF .
. ...
Fnyorpfn-Cafd
i ............ ............. . .
........................
—s'a
Par App
C-a1L
315
315
$
dd
$o
add
$
5
P F
Vi o
L
P r A
op p
C
Sso
$
30
PF,,,
ParApp
]'Ie�
1�2
>,,,, .........
PF.................
..............
ParApp
11 11
QrranL
—
"S"11,111,111,
.
... ........................
.. . . ..............................
. ....................
.........................
..
222
. ...............
PF
................................................................................
.... .
.......
.
... ........................
.. . . ..............................
. ....................
.........................
..
2
. ....................
,,, >,,,, ............
PF.................
..........
ParApp
QrranL
...........
... ....................
.
... ........................
.. . . ..............................
. .......................
$BS
.............
$
PF
.........................
I Day Ai,ot,i Bovorayi,C- L�oi Por—L
......
P or A p p
... . .... .
C i, all L
..........
17
.........
17
... ....................
$
.
1,16
... ........................
.. . . ..............................
$o
. ........................
S1 d 7
$
35
4 .................
'B�� ..... .............................................................................................................
... ..................
Por,A��
... ...................... .
...........................
... .........................
I . ...................
20
..........................................................
... ............................
... .........................
... .................
.
... ........................
.. . . ..............................
. ....................
EBBe
............................
..
115
. .................
20
$
10
$o
$io
..........................
$
15
. ..............................
as
....................................................
ParApp
QrranL
1,30
$2
. ......................
.................
PF
R op , ssessed V ai i, I o R of case
P or A p p
.... ............................
C i, i-1 L
35
... .........................
35
... .................
$
.
20
... ........................
.. . . ..............................
$o
. ....................
$20
............................
$
..
15
. .................
4 .................
W .. .................................................................
PIIFIEj,111
222
$2
PFAppl,.a..n..-
I n p I l y t o n - ( P 1 1 1 s S L a L o F e e )
P or A p p
—
D E L E T E
—
.................
$
.
... ........................
.. . . ..............................
$o
. ....................
$o
............................
$
6
.....
....P..,..,.b..i., .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.. . . .... ........ .............
.
. . .
.......
. . .
... ..........
.... ....
DELETE
..............
................
I .
...........
...........
. . . ........
......... . ...
................
j
. .......4
....................
PF
. . . . . . . . ...............................
Parapp
. .
P,IF,EH
......................................
... ...................................
... .................................
... ..........................
.. . . ....................................
. ..........................
...............................
...
. ......................
.................
PF.................
...................
.......
Parapp
... ... ............................
... .........................
... ...........................
... ........................
.. . . ..............................
. ..........................
...............................
..
. ......................
PF.................
......................................
Parapp
...... .
...........................
... .........................
... ...........................
... ........................
.. . . ..............................
. ..........................
............................
..
. ...................
PF.................
.............
Parapp
.......
... ...........................
... ........................
.. . . ..............................
. ..........................
............................
..
i
. ...................
PF.................
.............
Pr oa La Patrolman NVaicnman
Parapp
.......
... ...........................
... ........................
.. . . ..............................
. ..........................
...............................
...
. ......................
PF.................
..........................................................
TearGas
Parapp
...... .
...........................
... .........................
... ...........................
... ........................
.. . . ..............................
. ..........................
............................
..
. ...................
PF
......................................................................................................
...... .
...........................
... .........................
... ...........................
... ........................
.. . . ..............................
. ..........................
$e2
............................
..
. ...................
,,, >,,,, ............
PF.................
...........
Racord poem. phnws saoed Lo
Parapp
.. ......
"S"11,111,111,111,111,111,11
T
............ .. . . ..............................
. ..........................
.
..........................................
. ......................
..................
..........................................
.........................................
......
...........
... .... . . ... . .. .
... .... . .. ...... . ... . ... .
...........................
...........................
... .........................
... ..........................
... ....................
... ............................
.
... ........................
... ........................
.. . . ...........................
.. . . ..............................
. . .......................
. ..........................
..
$2 ..
..........................................
.....................
ff
SEIR 'ndrsLrai
P orapp
.. ......
$201
..................
ff
...............................................................................
SEIR
.......
... .... . . ... . ... .
...........................
... ..........................
... .................
...
... ........................
.. . . ..............................
. .....................
.............
$201
.....................
..................
ff ..................
SEIR ......................................................
P ora�� .......
... .... . .. ...... . ... . ... .
...........................
... ..........................
... .................
...
...
... ........................
... ........................
.. . . ..............................
.. . . ..............................
. . .................................
. .....................
$201
.............
.....................
..........................................
PF
SEIR
.. ......
$201
..................
ff.................
Alarm rey sUaLon ....................................................................................
......
. . ... . ... .
... .... . .. ...... . ... . .. .
...........................
...........................
... ..........................
... .........................
... .................
... ...........................
...
... ........................
... ........................
.. . . ..............................
.. . . ..............................
. ....................
. ..........................
...
$2 .
.....................
..........................................
. ......................
(1 3 n
.. ......
11Z
��J,!
,,, >,,.., ............
ff
....................... ...............................................................
......
P
... .... . . ... . .. .
.. ......
...........................
... .........................
... .................
..
... ........................
.. . . ..............................
. ....................
..
$16
.....................
Para
. ... . .. .
.. ......
...........................
... .........................
...
.........
..........................................
. ....................
.................
PF.................
...............................................................
......
Parapp
... .... . . ... . .. .
.. ......
...........................
... .........................
... ....................
.
... ........................
.. . . ..............................
. .......................
.
..........................................
. ....................
PF
............................
T isir p.—y U so Perm' I L (T U P) toviev,
......
Par app
... .... . . ... . .. .
N a,,
...........................
... .........................
... ....................
$ ....................
.
3
... ........................
.. . . ..............................
. ...........
. .......................
.
$39
..........................................
. ....................
PF
sery os ever an it above v,haL is I isLed tai-es vii I I be
Per app
pla�,,d 2L_�t,, app h—dy taLe
, a
N a,,
S
so
$o
$o
Hours ; Rams
T 1,
Stier. Tociiiii-an
A NS .. ... ... ...
... ... . N a,,
S
so
58 21
SIB 21
Sti or. D Ly
T ma &
$o
107.8
. ..........
.
.........
Sri, SaryaaiIL
T iiii
Nan,-
$
$o
126.27
$12627
Captial Accounting Partners Page 1 of 2 Police Unit Cost Calcs
City of Dublin
Police - Fees
Poiicc Fces
L ioe Scan P
Per A p p
C � 1
113 1
113
Nnn RcSd en r C hi d SarcrySar I n sp ccL o n P
Per App C
C rrr enr 0
0 0
0
Ta— an0w,er I11 1bal P
Per App C
Current 6
6 6
6
ForLrncTciicr PcnnIL P
Per App C
Crrrenr 0
0 0
0
Second Hand G ,ds/J „n k D cal or (p it s ce(uerrer) P
Per App C
CuYenr 2
2 2
2
P
.,,,,,, cdmer P ,e n,n, r ,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,, P
P , er
'C' L ... .
............... 8 8
8 „
Paradc Pcnnr '
'S e” Q
Qrrenr 1
1 1
1
Pr bic A dd less Sornd System P
PerApp D
DELETE 0
0 0
0
6 ........... „. „.,,.....,,. „. „.....,,. „..... p
pp .
...,,. .
...„. „.,,.. .
.........0
T tab 0w,or r wai P
Per App Q
Qrrenr 1
12 1
12
T xtab Drocr P
Per Q
Qrrenr 1
12 1
12
..... .... ....................................................... , ,
, p p .
...... .
... .. . ...,,.. .
.........d
. ... .......... ............. .............. .
. ...... .
...,,.
I Annul Reco,crable C osL /Rc,cn — IL 11 CosL I
$1,956 $3,390
SO SO 0
S1 573 51800 227
$0 SO 0
S523
$1.818 $1 200
$117 $90
..,,.,,.,,. .,.. ,,.,,.,,........... ... ................
$0 SO 0
so so 0
. „e „e „e .....
$1.759 $3.000 1211
e ........ ..........
$7.997 $6.300
$1.331 S1100
........ ... ..............
.,,.;,.,.
$331 $250
55.668 $2 550
..,e „e . „e....
515.133 $1 725
$2013 $1 230
$0 SO 0
. e „e .,.. „e „e „e....,e,.....,,...,e „e „e,.
$0 SO 0
e „e .............. ....,e ........ ..........
$10.797 $1.102
.... ,e ........ ......e,.
$509 S90
............. ....1.,, ,........
$2191 8595
$0 SO 0
$53.131 $15195
$197 8300 103
........... .... ............. ...... . ............
.
$0 50 0
e „e ....... ... ....
$686 5525
$0 SO 0
. e „e .,.. „e „e „e....,e,.....,,...,e „e „e,.
so So 0
.................. „e „e „e .....
o so 0
$0 SO 0
. .,.. „e „e „e....,e,.... ...............
e „e „e,.
$0 SO 0
$0 SO 0
. e „e .,.. „e „e „e....,e,.....,,...,e „e „e,.
$0 SO 0
. e „e .,.. „e „e „e....,e,.....,,...,e „e „e,.
$0 SO 0
so So 0
. e „e .,.. „e „e „e....,e,.....,,...,e „e „e,.
$0 SO 0
. e „e .,.. „e „e „e....,e,.....,,...,e „e „e,.
$0 SO 0
. e „e .,.. „e „e „e....,e,.....,,...,e „e „e,.
so So 0
. e „e .,.. „e „e „e....,e,.....,,...,e „e „e,.
$0 SO 0
. e „e .,.. „e „e „e....,e,.....,,...,e „e „e,.
so So 0
. e „e .,.. „e „e „e....,e,.....,,...,e „e „e,.
$0 SO 0
. e „e .,.. „e „e „e....,e,.....,,...,e „e „e,.
$0 SO 0
. e „e .,.. „e „e „e....,e,.....,,...,e „e „e,.
$0 SO 0
. e „e .,.. „e „e „e....,e,.....,,...,e „e „e,.
$0 SO 0
e „e .,.. „e „e „e....,e,.....,,...,e „e „e,.
so So 0
.................. „e „e „e .....
so So 0
.................. „e „e „e .....
so So 0
. e „e .,.. „e „e „e....,e,.....,,...,e „e „e,.
$0 SO 0
SO SO 0
Annul Totals
$111,126 1 $70,612
Captial Accounting Partners Page 2 of 2 Police Annual Calcs
Annul Totals
$111,126 1 $70,612
Captial Accounting Partners Page 2 of 2 Police Annual Calcs
„ €r €
r_
VAN
Ga
X
r_
Q LL
W �
N
i+ 7
U x°
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
OF Dp���2
19 V V_iN),82
O�LIFOR��
DRAFT PROPOSED MASTER FEE SCHEDULE
Section 1.0: General & Administrative
Adopted MMMM DD, 2012
Resolution No. ## -12
#
Fee
Description / Unit
2011 Full
Cost (info
Current
Effective
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 only Established by State
124
1974 Documents (Ca Govt Code
Law) Any related documents /
$ 0.10
$ 0.10*
81008)
Perpage
((Info only 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.
OF Dp���2
19 V I_iN),82
O�LIFOR��
DRAFT PROPOSED MASTER FEE SCHEDULE
Section 1.1: Finance / Business License
Adopted MMMM DD, 2012
Resolution No. ## -12
#
Fee
Description / Unit
2011 Full
Cost (info
Current
Effective
## / ## / # # ##
Only)
((Info only 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 only 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 only 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 only 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(B)
of 5 days / Per Day
per year
per year **
Temporary Business
((Info only 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 only 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 only 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.
Of Dp���2
19 V V_iN),82
O�LIFOR��
DRAFT PROPOSED MASTER FEE SCHEDULE
Adopted MMMM DD, 2012
Resolution No. ## -12
Section 1.2: Administrative Fees - Impact Fee Credit Agreement Administration
#
Fee
Description / Unit
2011 Full
Cost (info
Current
Effective
## / ## / # # ##
Only)
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.
Of Dp���2
19 V I_iN),82
O�LIFOR��
DRAFT PROPOSED MASTER FEE SCHEDULE
Adopted MMMM DD, 2012
Resolution No. ## -12
Section 2.0: Police Services- General (Fingerprints / Records / Vehicles/ Development)
#
Fee
Description / Unit
2011 Full
Cost (info
Current
Effective
## / ## / # # ##
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 only 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.
Of Dp���2
19 V V_iN),82
O�LIFOR��
DRAFT PROPOSED MASTER FEE SCHEDULE
Section 2.1: Police Services- Permits
Adopted MMMM DD, 2012
Resolution No. ## -12
#
Fee
Description / Unit
2011 Full
Cost (info
Current
Effective
## / ## / # # ##
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.
Of Dp���2
19 V V_iN),82
O�LIFOR��
DRAFT PROPOSED MASTER FEE SCHEDULE
Section 2.2: Police Services- Hourly Rates
Adopted MMMM DD, 2012
Resolution No. ## -12
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
## / ## / # # ##
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.
OF Dp���2
19 V I_iN),82
O�LIFOR��
DRAFT PROPOSED MASTER FEE SCHEDULE
Adopted MMMM DD, 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
## / ## / # # ##
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.
OF Dp���2
19 V I_iN),82
O�LIFOR��
DRAFT PROPOSED MASTER FEE SCHEDULE
Adopted MMMM DD, 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
## / ## / # # ##
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
## / ## / # # ##
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.
Of Dp���2
19 V V_iN),82
O�LIFOR��
DRAFT PROPOSED MASTER FEE SCHEDULE
Adopted MMMM DD, 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
## / ## / # # ##
'(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.
OF Dp���2
19 V V_iN),82
O�LIFOR��
DRAFT PROPOSED MASTER FEE SCHEDULE
4.3 Fire Works Displays & Sales
Adopted MMMM DD, 2012
Resolution No. ## -12
Section 4.4: Fire Prevention Services- Hourly Rates
2011 Full
Effective
#
Fee
Description / Unit
Cost (info
Current
## / ## / # # ##
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(B)
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
## / ## / # # ##
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.
Of Dp���2
19 V V_iN),82
O�LIFOR��
DRAFT PROPOSED MASTER FEE SCHEDULE
Section 5.1: Housing Services Program Fees
Adopted MMMM DD, 2012
Resolution No. ## -12
#
Fee
Description / Unit
2011 Full
Cost (info
Current
Effective
## / ## / # # ##
Only)
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.
°F ° DRAFT PROPOSED MASTER FEE SCHEDULE
19I�_r )82 Adopted MMMM DD, 2012
DRAFT 6.2 Dated 8/22/2012 Resolution No. ## -12
O�LIFOR��
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
## / ## / # # ##
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.
OF Dp���2
19 V I_iN),82
O�LIFOR��
DRAFT PROPOSED MASTER FEE SCHEDULE
Adopted MMMM DD, 2012
Resolution No. ## -12
#6.1
Planning Division Fees
Description / Unit
2011 Full
Cost (Info
Current
Effective
## / ## / # # ##
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.
Of Dp���2
19 V V_iN),82
O�LIFOR��
DRAFT PROPOSED MASTER FEE SCHEDULE
Section 6.2: Other Planning Fees
Adopted MMMM DD, 2012
Resolution No. ## -12
#6.1
Planning Division Fees
Description / Unit
2011 Full
Cost (Info
Current
Effective
## / ## / # # ##
#
Fee
Description / Unit
Only)
Current
## / ## / # # ##
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
## / ## / # # ##
Only)
PL1
Composite City Planning Staff
Per Hour for T &M Activities
$213.00
$128.00
$213.00
Hourly Rate (Includes Overhead)
Off -Site Overhead Rate —
PL2
Applied to actual costs incurred
percentage applied to City Costs
44.0%
84.63%
44.0 %*
for consultant services and
expenses billed under T &M
On -Site Overhead Rate —
PL3
Applied to actual costs incurred
percentage applied to City Costs
54.0%
84.63%
54.0 %*
for consultant services and
expenses billed under T &M
Page 14 of 25
* Local Fees and Charges that are not subject to annual adjustment based on Consumer Price Index (CPI).
** Fees and charges established by separate ordinance, State Law, or another agency and not subject to CPI adjustment.
Of Dp���2
19 V I_iN),82
O�LIFOR��
DRAFT PROPOSED MASTER FEE SCHEDULE
Adopted MMMM DD, 2012
Resolution No. ## -12
Section 7.1 : Building and Safety Division - Building Permits (Total Valuation)
Building Permits which are not established as fixed fee shall be determined using the total valuation. In
this case the fee due is based on: Occupancy and Construction Type; estimated cost of services and the
Building, Residential, Mechanical, Plumbing, Electrical, Cal Green and Energy codes as adopted by the
City Council including any amendments.
Calculation of the Building Permit fee to be collected shall be in accordance with the Table below. The
determination of the valuation and annual adjustments to the valuation shall be made by the Building
Official as authorized in Dublin Municipal Code section 7.28.430(E).
#7.1
Building Permits Based on
Description / Unit
2011 Full
Cost (Info
Current
Effective
Valuation Formula /$ Valuation
## / ## / # # ##
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.
$1,729
of the fee
of the fee
of underground tanks
calculated based
calculated based
on valuation
on valuation
Page 15 of 25
* Local Fees and Charges that are not subject to annual adjustment based on Consumer Price Index (CPI).
** Fees and charges established by separate ordinance, State Law, or another agency and not subject to CPI adjustment.
Of Dp���2
19 V I_iN),82
O�LIFOR��
DRAFT PROPOSED MASTER FEE SCHEDULE
Adopted MMMM DD, 2012
Resolution No. ## -12
Section 7.2: Building and Safety Division — Master Plan Check / Green Building
#7.2
Building Permits Based on
Description / Unit
2011 Full
Cost
Current
Effective
Valuation Formula /$ Valuation
'(ynfo
## / ## / # # ##
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.
Of Dp���2
2
O�LIFOR��
DRAFT PROPOSED MASTER FEE SCHEDULE
Adopted MMMM DD, 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
## / ## / # # ##
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.
Of Dp���2
19 V I_iN),82
O�LIFOR��
DRAFT PROPOSED MASTER FEE SCHEDULE
Adopted MMMM DD, 2012
Resolution No. ## -12
#7.3
Residential Building Permits —
Description / Unit
2011 Fuu
Cost
Current
Effective
Flat Fees
2.
'(info
## / ## / # # ##
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.
OF Dp���2
19 V V_iN),82
O�LIFOR��
DRAFT PROPOSED MASTER FEE SCHEDULE
Adopted MMMM DD, 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
## / ## / # # ##
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
## / ## / # # ##
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
## / ## / # # ##
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.
Of Dp���2
19 V V_iN),82
O�LIFOR��
DRAFT PROPOSED MASTER FEE SCHEDULE
Section 7.6 : Building and Safety Division — Other Fees
Adopted MMMM DD, 2012
Resolution No. ## -12
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
## / ## / # # ##
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.
OF Dp���2
19 V I_iN),82
O�LIFOR��
DRAFT PROPOSED MASTER FEE SCHEDULE
Section 8.1 : Engineering / Public Works — Other Fees
Adopted MMMM DD, 2012
Resolution No. ## -12
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
## / ## / # # ##
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 Dp���2
19 V V_iN),82
O�LIFOR��
DRAFT PROPOSED MASTER FEE SCHEDULE
Adopted MMMM DD, 2012
Resolution No. ## -12
#8.1
Engineering Fees
Description / Unit
2011 Full
Cost (Info
Current
Effective
## / ## / # # ##
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 Dp���2
19 V V_iN),82
O�LIFOR��
DRAFT PROPOSED MASTER FEE SCHEDULE
Adopted MMMM DD, 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
## / ## / # # ##
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.
Of Dp���2
19 V V_iN),82
O�LIFOR��
Section 8.2(A)
DRAFT PROPOSED MASTER FEE SCHEDULE
Adopted MMMM DD, 2012
Resolution No. ## -12
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
## / ## / # # ##
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.
OF Dp���2
19 V V_iN),82
O�LIFOR��
DRAFT PROPOSED MASTER FEE SCHEDULE
Adopted MMMM DD, 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
## / ## / # # ##
(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.