Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Res 04-84 Nexus Study - Zucker Systems
REQUEST: CITY OF PALM DESERT DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF REPORT Approval to accept the Cost of Services Study, (i.e. nexus study, conducted by Zucker Systems), to serve as the City's model and policy for all service fee adjustments. SUBMITTED BY: Homer Croy, Assistant City Manager for Development Services DATE: July 8, 2004 CONTENTS: Cost of Services Study for Development Processes, Volumes I & II Resolution No. 04-84 Table 1- Fee Comparisons Exhibit "A" Fee Adjustment Process Recommendation: Waive further reading and adopt: 1. Adopt Resolution No. 04-84 , approving the Development Services fees for service tables within the Cost of Services study, excluding the landscape fees with the Public Works Department. 2. Accept the Cost of Services Study, conducted by Zucker Systems to serve as the City's model and policy for all future service fee adjustments that are collected by Development Services Departments. 3. Require a resolution to be submitted at least every two years to verify any future fee adjustments. Executive Summary: The City of Palm Desert's Development Services Departments provide plan review and inspection services for all construction projects. The permit fees collected by the Building and Safety, Community Development, Public Works/Engineering and Fire Resolution No. 04-84 Staff Report Cost of Service Study / Zucker Systems Page 2 of 13 July 8, 2004 Departments have remained unchanged for over twenty years. Local jurisdictions throughout the State have been increasing their service fee rates every year, in an effort to supplement their General Fund accounts. The result of this action has lead to the creation and approval of the California Fee Mitigation Act. This Act become part of Government Code Section 66016 in an effort to ensure that service fees collected by local government do not exceed the true cost of providing services. Under this Act, local jurisdictions are required to conduct a fee analysis, or nexus study, in order to determine the direct and indirect costs of providing services such as development application review, construction plan review and inspections. The City of Palm Desert's permit fees to cover the cost of operations for the Development Services departments have remained un-modification for over twenty years. State law allows for the collection of reasonable service fees for services rendered, therefore, it is time to re -visit the City's position on development review and inspection fees. For over 20 years this City has not recovered the actual costs of providing these services. Therefore, it is important that the City recuperate actual cost of providing these costs, and avoid impacting other City programs and activity's. In January of 2003, the City Council authorized staff to proceed with a request for qualifications to conduct an independent fee study. A selection panel was formed and included several City department heads and one member of the Building Industry Association (BIA). The panel selected Zucker Systems as the best qualified to meet the City's needs in establishing a fee study for the City of Palm Desert. On April 10, 2003, the City Council awarded a contract in the amount of $30,000.00 to Zucker Systems. In their study, Zucker Systems reviewed and determined all direct and indirect costs to provide services within the Development Services Departments. The results of the study indicate that the City's current fee schedule is insufficient to cover actual costs of providing development review and inspection services. The study provides a recommendation to adjust fees for in all Development Services Departments. A summary of the results and fee comparisons for typical projects are summarized in the attached Table 1. The fee adjustments proposed are in compliance with the California Fee Mitigation Act and will assist in the City in recuperating actual costs of providing plan check and inspection services. Based on the study's results staff recommends that the City Council accept the findings of the fee study and adopt the attached resolution approving development review/ service fees for the Building and Safety, Planning, Public Works / Engineering (excluding landscaping fees) and Fires Departments. It was determined by staff that the landscape fees charged for plan review and inspections are out of proportion with other fees for services. Staff will continue to review these fees and a separate recommendation and resolution will be provided to the City Council at a later date. G:\DevServices\Homer Croy\Word files\feestudychgmal .doc Resolution No. 04-84 Staff Report Cost of Service Study / Zucker Systems Page 3 of 13 July 8, 2004 For future fee adjustments, staff is recommending a resolution be submitted at least every two years for consideration by the City Council to adjust fees according to actual costs for providing services. Background: The City of Palm Desert was incorporated in November of 1973. At the time of incorporation, the City adopted the following ordinances and resolutions establishing service fees for development review, plan checking and inspections within the Development Services departments. d�� i�, � y � qf.'n ' No ,i�t2. � ,� °l i 1 P„., I,• ,.I a'I- + fl wb a,. ` , Dete ' ,a � 1 14!,, i3O ,4 jr�J.II t ^ ,r w. t, •'� ! f I � Ordinance No. 1 November 27, 1973 Ordinance No. 25 April 11, 1974 Ordinance No. 125 1976 Resolutions No. 81-112 August 27, 1981 Ordinance No. 440 1985 The Development Services Departments includes the Building and Safety Department, Community Development/Planning, Public Works/Engineering and Fire protection services provided by Riverside County Fire. Historical data maintained by the City clearly indicates that these departments have not adjusted service fees for over twenty years. Escalating costs and recent state funding shortages have lead to the City reanalyzing its fee for services and ability to recover the cost. Building and Safety Resolution No. 81-112 established service fees for the Building and Safety Department. This resolution has not been adjusted or modified since 1981 and such does not reflect actual costs of services within this department. The department conducts plan review and inspections for compliance with the Uniform Building Code (UBC). Its current fees have been established through a comparison of surrounding jurisdictions of comparable workload and population, and building valuations found in Table 3-A of the Uniform Building Code. The use of UBC fee tables has been under scrutiny by private -sector fee challengers for the last twenty (20) years. Fee challengers hold that there is no relationship between the valuation of construction for which a permit is issued, and the cost of plan review and inspection services rendered by local jurisdictions. Accordingly, fee challengers believe that fees based upon the UBC permit fee table often exceed the costs of the plan review and inspection services rendered. This theory has been supported by the State of California that resulted in new laws prohibiting said practices. G:\DevServices\Horner Croy\Word files\feestudychgrnal .doc Resolution No. 04-84 Staff Report Cost of Service Study / Zucker Systems Page 4 of 13 July 8, 2004 Community Development / Planning Subdivision processing fees are collected in accordance with City of Palm Desert Ordinance No. 125, adopted in 1976, and Ordinance No. 440, adopted in 1985. While the Municipal Code Section 26.36.010 states that fees collected are to cover the City's expenses in processing subdivision applications and documents, our current fee structure is insufficient to offset actual expenses. We are also aware that these fees in neighboring agencies are much higher than in Palm Desert. Public Works/Engineering Departments The Public Works Depart Department provides plan review and inspections for grading, street improvements and right -or -way encroachments. Encroachment Permit processing and inspection fees that are charged and collected were established under City of Palm Desert Ordinance No. 1 on November 27, 1973. Ordinance No. 1 incorporated all of the Ordinances of the County of Riverside including County of Riverside Ordinance No. 499 relating to encroachments on County Highways. On April 11, 1974, City Ordinance No. 25 was adopted to clarify the question as to the applicability of Riverside County Ordinance No. 499 to roads, streets and highways within the City of Palm Desert. Our current fees are based on the County of Riverside's amended Ordinance No. 499.4 dated May 30, 1978. Over the last twenty-four (24) years no adjustments or modifications have been made to the City's cost of services schedule, while actual costs have increased dramatically. The fees represented in the County's current amended Ordinance 499 are more than 10 times that of our current fees established in 1978. Fire Department Fire Prevention Services are provided to the City of Palm Desert through the Cove Communities section of the Riverside County Fire Department. The Cove Communities Fire Service provides fire protection to the Cities of Rancho Mirage, Palm Desert, and Indian Wells. They have and continue to enforce provisions of the California Fire Code and parts of the California Building Code that are fire safety responsibilities as delegated by the State Fire Marshal. All commercial and multi -family construction plans are plan checked and inspected for fire safety requirements by the Fire department, and must be approved before the Certificate of Occupancy can be issued. Fire service fees related to construction plans have never been established as part of the City's service fee schedule. The Cove Communities fire services has been charging its three Cities a fee to provide plan review and inspections for construction projects as part of its fire protection program, but the City has not recovered user fees for these services. G:1DDevServices\Homer Croy'Word filesVeestudychgmal.doc Resolution No. 04-84 Staff Report Cost of Service Study / Zucker Systems Page 5 of 13 July 8, 2004 The City's Development Services Departments fees for service have not kept up with the escalating costs of providing plan review and inspections services. As a result, other City operations have subsidized the costs of providing these services. Fee Mitigation Act / Case Studies: The Fee Mitigation Act was passed by the State and placed in Government Code under Section 66016, in an effort to ensure that fees collected do not exceed the cost of services rendered. This new law states that each local agency must conduct its own fee analysis (i.e. nexus study) to determine the direct and indirect cost of providing services like construction plan review and inspections. Therefore, a review of the current operating costs is necessary to establish a fee structure that will allow for the collection of user fees for providing department services. In recent years there have been two specific studies that have affected how and what fees Cities can charge for services rendered. The League of California Cities in 1989 and the local Building Industry Association conducted separate studies. League of California Cities The City Manager's Department of the League of California Cities developed a task force in order to identify workable proven methodologies to determine the optimum levels of staffing and delivery of city services, including the establishment of standards of service. The task force published its findings in a report entitled A "How To: Guide for Assessing Effective Service Levels in California Cities" (League of California Cities, 1991). That task force developed sample performance measures and service levels that matched most municipal services, including Building and Safety and Public Works Department services. It was noted that it was not practical to develop a single service level that would be "right" for every City, so the task force developed a service spectrum. At the top of the spectrum is the level of service "one might expect on Disneyland's Main Street." At the bottom of the spectrum is a minimal level of service "below which it would make little sense to provide the service at all." In a survey of 800 cities conducted by the United States Conference of Mayors and Arthur Young and Company (1987), frequent comments from city officials centered on the need to be certain that cost calculations consider a wide range of applicable indirect, as well as direct charges. "The real costs of municipal services involves substantially more than the direct salary and fringe benefit costs associated with delivering a service. Cost calculations might also include such indirect costs as departmental overhead and administration, municipal overhead and administration, fixed asset replacement, capital depreciation and debt service and retirement". The use of full -cost pricing is similarly supported by Kory and Rosenbery (1982) who argue that government services cost data should include direct costs such as personal G:1DevServices\Homer Croy\Word files\feestudychgmal .doc Resolution No. 04-84 Staff Report Cost of Service Study / Zucker Systems Page 6 of 13 July 8, 2004 services, materials and supplies, as well as indirect costs such as fringe benefits, pensions, and central support services like administration and finance. Setting the appropriate amount of user fee requires identifying the costs of the services rendered has not been done for this City. Finally, the Legislative Council of California was asked to discuss whether a city may include within the fees it charges for building permit and inspections, the costs associated with plan checks, inspections, building code enforcement, zoning enforcement, document filing fees, counter and telephone assistance, office maintenance, and employee training. In an opinion letter dated July 21, 1997, entitled Building Inspection and Permit Fees--#12478, the Legislative Council stated that, in the opinion of that office, California statutes authorize local building departments to include those costs within the fees it charges for building permits and inspections, which could be expanded to include all development fees and charges as well. Building Industry Association Study The BIA contracted with the Rose Institute of State and Local Government at Claremont McKenna College to conduct a residential development fee study of the Coachella Valley. This study was performed in order to assess the differences in building fees that cities, and unincorporated Riverside County areas in the Coachella Valley charge for new development projects. Each city was thoroughly researched as to their individual building permit, impact, planning and zoning, environmental, and engineering fees. After an initial visit to each City to acquire fee schedules and data, the information was processed through the study criteria. Results of the fee estimates were returned to each city to revise and/or adjust any discrepancies and/or errors, and to replace figures that had changed due to recent policy changes. The study was based upon a hypothetical model subdivision consisting of 50 detached units, situated on a ten acre parcel of land valued at $75,000 per acre, unimproved. In figuring the total per unit cost for each city, they calculated the total fees for an entire 50-unit subdivision and then divided that total by 50. Some of the fees were figured on a per -unit basis while other units were considered on a flat fee for the entire development. While each city has a different fee level for its services there are fees that were consistently charged by all cities in the study. Therefore, the valuation for subdivision building rates for each city is provided at the top of each city's fee schedule page. It was also determined that plan check fee methodology's were calculated different by each city. For example, in one city they may charge the full plan check fee multiplied by all 50 units, even though there are only three sets of plans to be checked. While other cities charged the full plan check fee for each of the three model units and then some fraction of that amount on the remaining 47 units. G:1DevServices\Homer Croy\Word fileslfeestudychgmal.doc Resolution No. 04-84 Staff Report Cost of Service Study / Zucker Systems Page7of13 July 8, 2004 All of the figures within this report represent full -price non-refundable fees in every city except for Riverside County's unincorporated areas. Riverside County runs a deposit - based fee schedule system. Everything but mitigation (impact) fees are deposit based, charging direct costs and hourly rates. The actual cost was determined by the difficulty of the site, the cleaner a project is design, the higher the cost savings. Refunds or additional charges may occur based on the progression of development. Although the results of the Rose study reaches no conclusion or makes no recommendations, it does outline the development fees charged by each jurisdiction and provides several bar graphs for several areas for comparison. Analysis: The City of Palm Desert's fees for service have not been adjusted for over twenty years. Actual cost for service have not been recovered. On April 10, 2003, the City Council authorized staff to proceed with a contract for professional services to perform a cost of services study. An ad -hoc committee was established for the consultant selection review. The selection panel included several City department heads and one member of the Building Industry Association (BIA). The panel selected Zucker Systems as the best qualified to perform an independent study of our costs for service. The goals of the study were three fold: 1. To analyze our current fees for service; 2. To establish a nexus between the fees City charges and what is actually charged for services in order to comply with the State's Fee Mitigation Act; and 3. To establish a model and policy for all future fee adjustments. Zucker Systems reviewed and considered several issues during the collection of data, in order to maintain and/or improve the level of services to the public. Careful analyses of service levels expected and required were ascertained through observation of operations, review of records, surveys and questionnaires. The levels of service that are needed were reviewed for direct and indirect relationships and the cost of those services provided. The public's expectations regarding the level of service that should be provided by local government, is of course one major point of consideration. In example, what is the appropriate amount of time required to complete the review of construction plans for the issuance of inspection permits, or how long of a delay is acceptable from the time an inspection request is made until the inspector arrives at the site. Answers to these questions, and other related questions, were reviewed that would identify an acceptable level of service that would be desired, expected and needed. This information was analyzed to determine the human and fiscal resources that are required to provide that level of service. G:\DevServices\Homer Croy\Word files Veestudychgma 1.doc Resolution No. 04-84 Staff Report Cost of Service Study / Zucker Systems Page 8 of 13 July 8, 2004 State law requires that fees for permits shall not exceed the estimated reasonable costs of providing the service for which the fee is charged. It is also recognized that the method of estimating cost be reasonable. However, determining reasonable costs is not as easy as it sounds. In reality, actual costs vary throughout the course of the year. Deciding on what numbers should be used in a fee study often depends on the period of time during which the fee study is being conducted. The first issue to be considered is what method should be used to determine the cost of services (i.e. Actual Cost or Budget), and which one should be recommended. Let's analyze both: • Actual Cost: Some suggest that only actual costs should be used. For most governments, actual costs are not available until sometime after the close of the fiscal year (FY), often three months later. If a new fee study begins as soon as the actual cost, assume FY 02/03, are available, it would normally be another three to six months before new fees are calculated and adopted. This means that the fees are based on data that is at least six months old. By the end of the fiscal year, assume FY 03/04, the data used will be 12 months old, and by the time the next round of fees are calculated and ready for adoption, roughly six months after the close of the fiscal year, 18 months will have transpired. Twelve months of this time will be on a new city budget, assume FY 03/04, and six months on yet an additional new City budget, assume FY 04/05. This is the best -case scenario. If the fee study is not started as soon as actual costs are available, the lag is even greater. The effect of this approach is to undercharge for grant funding and the actual costs for fee setting. This situation is even worse in growth cities that may need the resources to keep current with development activity. • Budget: Another approach that is often used is the use of the current city budget. Some argue that most government departments never spend their entire budget even though this is not always the case. Some functions actually spend more than their budget through quarterly and/or mid -year adjustments. The relationship of budget to actual costs will depend on which budget is selected for any given analysis. For example, the City of Palm Desert study was based on the FY 02/03's budget. However, the actual expenditures will be made under the FY 03/04 budget as well as the FY 04/05 budget. The effect of using budget could be to overcharge for grant funding and the actual costs, depending on which budget is used and the duration of time. For this study the fees on the Fiscal Year (FY) 2002/2003 budget was utilized. The study began in April so actual costs for FY 02/03 were not available. To use actual cost the consultant would have had use figures from FY 01/02, which would have made the G \DevServices\Homer Croy\Word files lfeestudychgmal.doc Resolution No. 04-84 Staff Report Cost of Service Study / Zucker Systems Page 9 of 13 July 8, 2004 study substantially out of date by the completion of the study. In order to check the possible impact of this approach we prepared a variety of calculations after the fee work had been completed. Table B-1 compares the actual vs. budget expenditures for the three primary fee departments. Direct vs. Indirect Costs Zucker Systems also conducted an analysis of the City's Direct and Indirect costs for providing services. These two analyses are explained in detail below. The purpose of the Indirect Cost Allocation analysis is to determine the full Indirect Costs, External Overhead, for all the City's line programs as well as the Direct Costs for each line program. A "Line" program is a program that delivers direct services to external customers, for example, Animal Control, Building Permits or Streets. The line programs are supported by a variety of "staff' programs, for example, the City Council, Finance and Human Resources. This approach distributes the costs of all the staff programs to the line programs. To determine the Indirect Costs and the "Line" program costs a computer Model was created which is described in Volume II of this study. The Model has been designed so that updates can be done in future years if necessary. The Direct, Indirect and total line item program costs for 37 programs are shown in Table 6. There are two different ways to think about Direct and Indirect costs. Some communities simply calculate by department or division. Everything within the department or division's budget is considered Direct and everything outside the department or division's budget is considered Indirect. For example, using this approach the City Attorney's cost working on Planning permits would be considered Indirect. It was decided that the approach described above was not workable for the City of Palm Desert since most departments and divisions are a mixture of Direct and Indirect charges. The approach that was used was to develop a list of line programs and calculate total program costs across all City functions. Under this approach, expenditure items were entered as Direct program charges whenever possible. The Indirect cost then became the result of subtracting the direct charges from the total program costs. Results of this methodology resulted in somewhat lower Indirect cost percentages than often found in studies of this kind. The City of Palm Desert's Building and Safety Department includes all the normal functions associated with issuing building permits, plan check and inspections plus a separate Code Enforcement division. The current fee schedule being used by the City of Palm Desert has not been adjusted since the 1980's and is out of date. This has resulted in low fees that do not recover actual costs. Additionally, using valuation tables such as those contained in the model building codes have no relationship to actual costs of providing plan checks and inspections. With the method currently being used, valuations on projects are set using an outdated table published by the International G:\DevServices\Horner Croy\Word files \feestudychgrnal .doc Resolution No. 04-84 Staff Report Cost of Service Study / Zucker Systems Page 10 of 13 July 8, 2004 Conference of Building Officials. Valuations are issued with a conversion chart to establish permit fees for square footage. There is concern that valuations set to determine fees often are different than actual construction costs. The truth of the matter is that they do not have any cost relationship to recovering actual costs. Recent litigation in a variety of communities has also called this methodology into question. Zucker's approach is to establish a reasonable estimate of time the City takes to conduct various building plan checks and inspections, and to establish fees based upon an hourly rate, which include direct and indirect costs. They provided a recommended fee system based on square footage and combined item fee charges by using actual costs by square feet or individual job. Using this method, a true estimate that complies with State law can be realized. The Community Development staff suggested revised fee categories and estimated the amount of professional staff time for each activity. A few minor revisions were made in consultation with the consultant. Staff also estimated the total amount of time each staff person typically spends on fee -related activities. In addition to the hours shown below in Table 21, each employee spends roughly 20% to 25% of their time on general public information, much of this related to development and permitting activities. Some communities choose to include this time as an overhead to the specific permits. We chose not to do so for this study in order to be conservative with the fee estimates. However, if the City wishes to do so, these extra costs could be included. Fee Categories and Fees The suggested fee categories, estimated staff time per permit, full cost per permit and current fee category is shown in Table 21. Proposed fee categories are shown in bold type. Non -bold categories will no longer be used. Full costs as shown are for the Community Development staff. Where appropriate, costs are also shown for Fire and Public Works. These costs should be added to the Community Development Costs and charged as one uniform fee at the time of application. The Public Works Department includes the following functions: ■ Right-of-way street improvements plan review and inspections. in Landscaping improvements plan review and inspection. • Right-of-way encroachments to include driveways, curb and gutters, right-of-way excavations and related plan review and inspections. ■ Grading plan review and inspections. G:'DevServices\Homer Croy\Word files\feestudychgma t.doc Resolution No. 04-84 Staff Report Cost of Service Study / Zucker Systems Page 11 of 13 July 8, 2004 The Public Works Department currently uses an outdated County of Riverside fee schedule that has no nexus to direct costs in Palm Desert. This results in low fees that do not recover actual costs. Our approach has been to establish a reasonable estimate of time and establish fees based upon an hourly rate that includes direct and indirect costs. We suggest fees based on lineal footage of property frontage for half and full streets, cost by lot for grading, acreage volumes for landscaping, and flat fees for processes that are Public Works Department responsibilities. There are also some fees mandated by the County for drainage and land areas that we have incorporated into the recommended fee schedule. Time estimates have been accomplished through staff interviews, data review, our experience and review of methods used elsewhere. Currently, traffic, storm drain, and traffic fees for plan check and inspections are all consolidated and collected as part of the street improvement fees. Using this method, there is no identity or accountability by function. We have reviewed each function and recommended separate fees for each item. Each can be monitored for full -cost recovery if the data is adequately collected. With exception of the landscape fees, staff is recommending the City Council adopt the new fees for service with in this department. Staff will continue to review the landscape fees for plan check and inspections. The current fees proposed by the study are not in line with the other fees for services the City provides. A separate resolution will be brought back to the City Council in the fall of 2004. Fire Fees Included in the City's annual cost for fire protection services, the City pays the Riverside County Fire Department for plan check and inspection services. These services are for the review of new construction related to fire protection codes. The current City fee schedule does not charge a fee for these services and has not recover any costs. The financial staff of the City of Indian Wells administers financial coordination and billing of Cove Communities fire protection services. According to the City of Indian Wells budget documents, the City of Palm Desert is billed 52% of the Cove Communities cost for fire services. Part of this fee study is to provide for analyze of Fire Prevention costs related to new construction and recommends incorporation of a fee schedule for the full cost recovery. The following procedure was used to analyze Fire services fees for the City of Palm Desert. ■ Interviewed Fire Prevention staff to determine plan check and inspection categories and average labor used to complete their responsibilities. • Examined available records. • Compared Fire Prevention time estimates with other studies we have completed for Fire Service. G:1DevServices\Homer CroyMWord f les'feestudychgma l .doc Resolution No. 04-84 Staff Report Cost of Service Study / Zucker Systems Page 12 of 13 July 8, 2004 • Established a recommended fee spreadsheet for each category of plan check and inspection. • The Billable Rates Per Hour used in this analysis was provided to Zucker by Riverside County Fire Department. Updating fees for any new Billable Rates can be entered into Table 1, which will then update the Fire fee table. After reviewing the current workload, costs for plan check and inspections services related to fire codes, shown in the City 2002-03 budget, could be recovered if the recommendations provided in this report are utilized, and development similar to the current activity continues. The City of Palm Desert is participating in, and approving the budget for the Cove Communities through service on a Cities coordinating committee. The City Manager and two Council persons participate on this committee. The City of Palm Desert is the largest of the three Cities in the Cove Communities. The City Manager actively reviews and participates in the budget process. Data Monitoring performance will be critical in adjusting future fees. The logical way to do this is use of the City HTE computer program. HTE programs can be set up to track and record how much time is spent by plan checkers and inspectors on each task. The current permit computer program is not capable of performing these functions. When implemented in the future, each engineer and technician will have to enter the time spent on computer project file. Inspectors will submit time spent to the clerical staff person and they can enter the data. The future HTE program can maintain and sort the construction categories listed in the fee schedule and use them to determine whether times used in the fee schedules are occurring or need adjustment. Until the HTE program can be implemented an effective manual system must be created and verified. This will require a separate review and analysis apart from this study. Fiscal Impact / Future Fee Adjustments: If the City Council approves the fee adjustments based on this study, the fees for service can recover actual cost to provide the services with the Development Services Departments. Each year fees can be adjusted based on the budget costs. The various Department fee tables have been given to the City in Excel format. The tables are interlocked and make the various calculations automatically. Each year data can be updated and fee schedules can be modified according to the cost of services. Attached to this report is Exhibit A, which provides a detail description of the steps that each Department would follow to update fees annually. Using this information, a G:1DevServlces\Homer Croy1W ord files\feestudychgma 1.doc Resolution No. 04-84 Staff Report Cost of Service Study / Zucker Systems Page 13 of 13 July 8, 2004 comprehensive update would be every two years by the Finance Department, together with each department director. Conclusion: The fee for service study conducted by Zucker System provides a complete analysis of our current fees and actual cost for services. The study also provides a nexus for the City to establish its fees for service and complies with the Fee Mitigation Act. Based on the study's results it is recommended by staff that the City Council accept the fee study and adopt the attached resolution approving development service fees for the Building and Safety, Planning and Engineering Departments. Every two years a resolution can be considered by the City Council to adjust fees according to actual costs for providing services. By implementing the fee adjustments based on this study, the City will recover its costs for providing services within the Development Services Departments. Submitted By: Horyier Croy Assistant City Concurred By: ger/Development Services Paul Gibson Director of Finance/City Treasurer Approval: Carlos L. Orteg City Manager Dave Erwin City Attorney G:\DevServices\Homer Croy\W ord files\feestudychgrna 1.doc RESOLUTION NO.04-84 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AND INSPECTION SERVICE FEES. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, Califomia, did hold a public hearing to consider approving development review and inspection service fees for the Building and Safety, Community Development/Planning, Engineering/Public Works and Fire Departments. WHEREAS, there are a number of services provided by the City when processing applications, reviewing plans and providing inspection services for the development of property in the City that are of primary benefit to the applicant; and WHEREAS, the cost of these services should be bome primarily by the applicant receiving benefit from such services and so as to insure the timely and effective delivery of services. The City can account for the actual costs of these services provided to the applicants as described on the Cost of Services Study, Volume I and II conducted by Zucker Systems, March 2004. NOW, THEREFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Processing Fees The processing fees for development proceedings in the City of Palm Desert shall be based on actual in-house processing costs, which are defined as the direct cost required to review, check, and inspect development applications submitted to the City for approval. All costs for consultant services, inclusive of any applicable in-house administrative costs, for development applications which cannot be processed in-house shall be bome by the applicant. Applicable fees are detailed in the attached Fee Schedule incorporated herein by this reference as it sets forth in full. Flat Fees — Where applicable, flat fees have been established for certain services where the average cost is subject to minimum fluctuation. These flat fees are included in the fee schedules incorporated into this resolution. Hourly Charges — Where applicable, hourly charges shall be accumulated for development processing activities and the applicant shall pay all such costs prior to final action on the related project or as soon thereafter as such costs may be finally determined. The payment of such costs may be a condition of approval for any such application. If payment is not received within 7 working days after the invoice due date, all development processing activities will be terminated until payment is received. Resolution No. 04-84 Fees shall be charged according to the Cost of Services Study, Volume I and II conducted by Zucker Systems, dated March 2004 and on the attached Fee Schedule, referred to as Exhibit "A". SECTION 2. Deposits In cases where an hourly rate is being charged, as opposed to a flat fee, each applicant shall place on deposit with the City the sum detailed by case type in the attached Fee Schedule. Deposits have been estimated to represent the minimum amount required to process each case type. The costs of an individual case may be significantly more than the initial deposit amount. Costs will be charged against the deposit up to the minimum deposit amount on account until the development case is closed and all costs have been paid. Any charges incurred in excess of the initial deposit on a monthly basis. The department Director or the designee may approve, on a case -by -case basis, a lower deposit for cases requiring a public hearing. However, the initial deposit may not be less than the required minimum balance for the case type as specified in Fee Schedule. SECTION 3. Refunds If the amount on deposit pursuant to Section 2 exceeds all accumulated costs at the time of the final action on subject application, the excess deposit shall be refunded to the applicant. WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said City Council approves the development review and inspection service fees and becomes effective 30 days after this approval. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert City Council, held on this day of , 2004, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ROBERT A. SPIEGEL, Mayor City of Palm Desert ATTEST: RACHELLE D. KLASSEN, City Clerk City of Palm Desert, Califomia 2 Resolution No. 04-84 EXHIBIT "A" CITY OF PALM DESERT FEE SCHEDULE Building and Safety Department: Item ' Current Fees Hours Per Sq Ft or Item Factor Position Billable Rate Per Hour Proposed Flat Fee Proposed Fee Per Sq Ft 1 Permit Issuance 0.53 B�sPS. $120 563 60 EDEN SJNGL AM1WA_WELt GS , 5, ram. . ': _c... r « w r o__� x w =s _ z,. :,, � `.. :N 2. 1-2,500 sq ft Single Family Dwelling Custom or Tract Model Plan Check Architectural $0.23 0.003 PE $135 50.41 Plan Check, Structural 0.001 SPE $120 $0.12 Inspection 0.007 BI $130 $0.91 3. 1-2,500 sq ft Tract Production Model Revised Plan Check. Architectural 0.001 PE $135 $0.14 Plan Check, Structural 0.0018 SPE $120 S0.22 Inspection 0.007 BI $130 $0.91 4. 1-2,500 sq ft Production Model Unchan ed Plan Check, Architectural 0.0008 PE $135 50.11 Inspection 0.007 BI $130 $0.91 5. 2,501sq ft or Larger Custom or Tract Model Single Famil Dwelling Plan Check, Architectural S0.29 0.0023 PE $135 $0.31 Plan Check, Structural 0.0007 SPE $120 $0.08 Inspection 0.0046 BI $130 $0.60 6. 2,501 sq ft or Larger Model Production Revised Plan Check, Architectural 0.001 PE $135 $0.14 Plan Check. Structural 0.0003 SPE $120 $0.04 Inspection 0.0046 BI $130 S0.60 7. 2,501 sq ft or Larger Single Family Production Unchanged Plan Check, Architectural 0.0019 PE $135 $0.26 Plan Check, Structural 0.00005 SPE $120 50,01 Inspection 0.0046 BI $130 $0.60 8. Residential Remodel Plan Check, Architectural $318.00 0.0014 PE $135 $0.19 Inspection 0.004 BI $130 $0.52 9. Residential Alteration per $3,000 value Plan Check, Architectural 0.5 PE $135 $67.50 lns•ection 0.5 BI $130 $65.00 ittglra"FtMi Y VVOIIN.GS _vim , 10. Up to 15,000 sq ft Multiple Famly Dwell 'k ng z j . �. �''%{ e : ... Plan Check, Architectural $0.19 0.0011 PE $135 $0.15 Plan Check, Structural 0.0005 SPE $120 S0.06 Inspection $0.30 0.0023 BI $130 $0.30 11. 15,001 sq ft and Larger Mulitple Family Dwelling Plan Check. Architectural $0.19 0.0009 PE $135 $0.12 Plan Check, Structural 0.0004 SPE $120 $0.05 lns•ection 0.29 0.00196 BI $130 $0.25 R R4�(AtANCI 'tYkiAL r� ..s,x vR,.: -, ti 12. 130,000 sq ft Concrete Improved Plan Check, Architectural $0.13 0.0013 PE $135 $0.18 Plan Check, Structural 0.0004 SPE $120 50.05 Inspection 0.0008 SBI $139 $0.11 13. 1-30,000 sq ft Concrete Shell (Less %15 Improved Fee) 14. 30,001 sq ft and Larger Concrete Improved Plan Check. Architectural $0.13 0.00128 PE $135 S0.17 Plan Check, Structural 0.0003 SPE $120 $0.04 Inspection 0.001 SBI $139 $0.14 15. 30,001 sq ft and Larger Concrete Shell (Less %15 Improved Fee) 16. 1-30,000 sq ft Masonry Improved Plan Check, Architectural S0.13 0.001 PE $135 $0.14 Plan Check, Structural 0.0005 SPE $120 $0.06 Inspection 0.0015 SBI $139 $0.21 3 Resolution No. 04-84 Building and Safety Fees Continued: Item Current Fees Hours Per Sq Ft o Item Factor Position Billable Rate II Proposed Flat Per Hour Fee Proposed Fee Per Sq Ft 17. 1-30,000 sq ft Masonry Shell (Less 15 % Improved Fee) 18. 30,001 sg ft and Larger Masonry Im roved Plan Check, Architectural Plan Check, Structural Inspection 0.0015 0.00036 0.003 PE SPE SBI $135 $120 $139 $0.20 $0.04 $0.42 19. 30,001 sq ft and Larger Masonry Shell (Less 15% Improved Fee) 20. 1-30,000 sq ft Wood Frame Improved Plan Check, Architectural $0.13 0.0012 PE $135 $0.16 Plan Check, Structural Inspection 0.0005 0.0018 SPE SBI $120 $139 $0.06 $0.25 21. 1-30,000 sq ft Frame Shell (Less %15 Improved Fee) 22. 30,001-50,000 sq ft and Larger Wood Frame Plan Check, Architectural 0.0012 PE $135 $0.16 Plan Check, Structural 0.0003 SPE $120 $0.04 0.0015 Inspection 23. 30 00150 000 s • ft Wood Frame Shell Less %15 Im roved Fee G to ErSTRUG7`URES9 SBI $139 $0.21 24. 0-500,000 sq ft and Larger Plan Check, Architectural Plan Check, Structural Ins • TE IT I11 P VtMENT'S ection 25. 5 000 sq ft Tenant Improvement Plan Check, Architectural Plan Check, Structural Inspection 26. 15,000 sq ft Tenant Improvement Plan Check, Architectural Plan Check, Structural $45,843.75 $61 125.00 $0.08 $0.01 0.00012 0.00006 PE SPE 0.00012 SBI 0.0008 0.0002 0.0016 0.0007 0.0002 PE SPE SBI PE SPE $135 $120 S139 $135 $120 $139 $135 $120 $0,02 $0.01 $0.02 $0.11 $0.02 $0.22 $0.09 $0.02 Inspection 27. 15,001-25,000 sq ft Tenant Improvement Plan Check, Architectural $0.11 $0.08 0.0014 0.0006 BI PE $130 $135 $0.18 $0.08 Plan Check, Structural Inspection $0.11 0.0002 0.0012 SPE BI $120 $130 $0.02 $0.18 28. 25,001-50,000 sq ft and Larger Tenant Improvement Plan Check, Architectural $0.08 Plan Check, Structural 29. Residential Re -roof Inspection 30. Commercial/Industrial Re -roof 551 0.0005 0.0002 0.5 PE SPE BI $135 $120 $130 $65.00 $0.07 $0.02 31. Each Plumbing Fixture Inspection 32. Plumbing Re -pipe or Repair Residential Inspection 33. Plumbing Re -pipe or Repair Commercial Inspection 34. Water Service Replacement $4 $7.50 I $7.50 0.5 1 1 BI BI FSI $130 $130 1 $65.00 $72 $130.00 $72.00 Inspection S4 1 BI $130 $130.00 35. Water Heater Each Inspection 36. Gas Pipe Each 50 ft or Fraction Thereof $5 0.75 BI $130 1 $97.50 Inspection $5 I 1 1 BI I $130 11 $130.00 1 4 Resolution No. 04-84 Building and Safety Fees Continued: Current Fees 37. Mechanical Appliances Each Residential Inspection $4.50 38. Mechanical Appliances Each Commercial/industrial Inspection $44.50 39. Mechanical Ducts Each 50 ft or Fraction Thereof Hours Per Sq Ft o Item Factor 1 1.5 Position BI BI Billable Rate Per Hour Proposed Flat Fee $130 II $130.00 $130 $195.00 Proposed Fee Per Sq Ft Inspection 40. Mechanical Outlets or Inlets Each 0.75 Inspection 41. HVAC Replacements Residential Inspection 42. HVAC Replacements Commercial/lndustrial $11 0.3 1 43. Electrical Plug, Switch or Similar Outlet - Five Each or Fraction Thereof Inspection 44. Electrical Appliance Each Inspection 45. Motors/Device $1 $2 0.5 0.5 BI $130 BI I $130 BI BI BI $97.50 S130 $130 $130 Inspection 46. Busway Each 50 ft or Fraction Thereof Inspection 47. Conduct Each 50 ft or Fraction Thereof S2-$5 $1.50 0.5 0.7 BI BI $130 $39.00 $130.00 $65.00 $65.00 1 $65.00 $130 II $91.00 Inspection 48. Electric Service Up to 200 Amps Inspection 49. Electric Service 201-400 Amps Inspection 50. Electric Service 401.600 Amps Inspection 51. Electric Service Over 600 Amps $1.50 $10 $25 $25 0.7 1 1 1.5 BI 81 BI SBI $130 $91.00 $130 II $130.00 5130 $139 $130.00 $208.50 Ins action or eRtIk�NIS 52. Over Submittal and Two Corrections $50 1.5 SBI $139 1 $208.50 Plan Check 2 PE $135 $270.00 53. Inspections After One Inspection Inspection 54. Building Official Variance Consideration Plan Check 1 3 BI DBS $130 II $130.00 $125 $375.00 55. Appeals Board Application Plan Check 5 DBS $125 $625.00 56. Parking Lot Re -striping Plan Check 5 PE $135 $675.00 Inspection 57. Minimum Fee Plan Check Inspection 4 1 1 BI $130 8520.00 PE l $135 $135.00 BI II $130 $130.00 'This fee is based on valuations. Over 5,000 sq ft recommended costs be same as 5,000 sq ft measurements (see narrative notes). BI = Building Inspector BPS = Building Permit Specialist DBS = Director of Building & Safety FSI = Fire Safety Inspector PE = Plans Examiner SBI = Senior Building Inspector SPE = Supervising Plans Examiner 5 Resolution No. 04-84 Community Development Department Fees: Permit Type Annual Number of Applications Average Time Cost per Hour Total Time Full Cost per Permit Current Fee Adjustments $234.75 $30.00 Planner (blended rate) 12 2.25 $79 27 $177.75 Clerical Staff (blended rate) 12 1 $57 $57.00 Amendments Combined with GPA, C/Z $50.00 Appeals ? 2.5 $79 ? $197.50 $50.00 Architectural Review, Single Fam. (OTC) 100 0.5 $79 50 $39.50 $15.00 Architectural Review, Single Fam. (ARC) $103.14 $15.00 Planner (blended rate) 40 0.75 $79 30 $59.25 Clerical Staff (blended rate) 40 0.77 $57 $43.89 Architectural Review, Commercial (ARC) $299.93 $50.00 Planner (blended rate) 7 2.57 $79 18 $203.03 Clerical Staff (blended rate) 7 1.7 $57 $96.90 Building Permits, Exterior Reviews 6600 0.25 $79 1,650 $19.75 New category Certificate Of Use Review* 2500 0.1 $79 250 $7.90 New category $325.00 Change of Zone Combined with C/Z, GPA Change of Zone/General Plan Amendment $1,586.40 $325.00 to $500.00 Planner (blended rate) ** 9 12 $79 108 $948.00 Clerical Staff (blended rate) 9 11.2 $57 $638.40 Conditional Use Permit or Precise Plan Combined with C/Z, GPA 6 Resolution No. 04-84 Permit Type Annual Number of Applications Average Time Cost per Hour Total Time Full Cost per Permit Current Fee 1 acre or less Combined with C/Z, GPA $140.00 1 acre or more Combined with C/Z, GPA $250 + $10/acre Conditional Use Permit, Precise Plan, Tentative Tract Map, Variance $4,053.90 New category $50 to $450 Planner (blended rate) 50 34.5 $79 1,725 $2,725.50 Clerical Staff (blended rate) 50 11.2 $57 $638.40 Fire Safety Supervisor 2 $85 $170.00 ? Public Works Senior Engineer 4 $130 $520.00 ? EIR Review Consultants cost + 10% $550.00 Environmental Assessments $118.50 Categorical Exemptions 0, part of other permits $0.00 Negative Declaration ? 1.5 $79 $118.50 $30.00 Freedom Of Information Act Requests 10 1 10 plus copy costs of .10 New category General Plan Amendment Combined with C/Z, GPA $500.00 Parcel Map $604.00 $50.00 Planner (blended rate) 8 6 $79 48 $474.00 Public Works Senior Engineer 1 $130 $130.00 ? Parcel Map Waivers $3,224.72 Planner (blended rate) 27 0.77 $79 $60.83 Clerical Staff (blended rate) 27 0.77 $57 $43.89 Public Works Senior Engineer 24 $130 $3,120.00 ? 7 Resolution No. 04-84 Permit Type Annual Number of Applications Average Time Cost per Hour Total Time Full Cost per Permit Current Fee Precise Plan (PR Zone) With Zone Change New combined fee $450 + $2/du ($1,000 max.) Without Zone Change New combined fee $325 + $2/du ($1,000 max.) Redevelopment Plan Amendment ? $79 ? $500.00 Signs (OTC) $103.52 $10.00 Planner (blended rate) 165 1.13 $79 $89.27 Clerical Staff (blended rate) 165 0.25 $57 $14.25 Signs (ARC) $251.66 $15.00 Planner (blended rate) 60 2.63 $79 $207.77 Clerical Staff (blended rate) 60 0.77 $57 $43.89 Specific Plan Amendment Combined with C/Z, GPA $500.00 Temporary Use Permit $84.33 $10.00 Planner (blended rate) 92 0.75 $79 $59.25 Clerical Staff (blended rate) 92 0.44 $57 $25.08 Temporary Use Permit, Non- profit Organization N/A N/A Tentative Tract Map New combined fee $250 + $2.50/lot Variance, Other New combined fee $150.00 Variance, Residential New combined fee $50.00 Zoning Confirmation Letters 50 2 $79 $158.00 New category TOTAL TIME COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROF. TIME 3,915.99 8 Resolution No. 04-84 '� 1 d �i i-: � ° °?<,S'vi �� 11 6+i. �rs�t k }:,+f..,,.-:a,.F.��....Y.�.�.<. f45s �f-s r g c,y �..-�„'.�y�4�Y,�''�.� �':+S.,a f g: � s `. ti f 'e a b ;Y .�3�i t , 'r ,� � Zoning Map *** $5.00 Zoning Ordinance *** $10.00 General Plan Map *** $3.00 General Plan Text *** $30.00 Copy Machine .10/page .10/page *Collected by Finance as part of Business License. **This fee assumes that the C/Z or GPA is combined with a CUP, PP, TT or VAR if the C/Z or GPA is processed as a separate application, the fee shall be the same as the fee for CUP,PP,TT or VAR. ***To be set at actual cost from the latest printing. Public Works / Engineering Fees: Item Current Fees Hours Per Sq Ft or Item Factor Position Billable Rate Per Hour Proposed Flat Fee 3 pp x .�k ,� E ..3E E'3.''ee I 1. Faithful Performance Labor and Materials $199.00 Plan Check 0.5 SE $130 $65.00 Plan Check 1 AE $134 $134.00 2. Subdivisions Entitlement $1,507.00 Plan Check 1 EM $139 $139.00 Plan Check 4 ATP $142 $568.00 Plan Check 1 THE $134 $134.00 Plan Check 4 AE $134 $536.00 Plan Check 1 SE $130 $130.00 3. Final Map Per Lot $682.50 Plan Check $200+$6 5.25 SE I $130 $682 50 ' x � � �}5 ff $.ryl�' a }°a 4 i (�'t�'D ... �a `--.� N .nC.N=.. . i �... . S 5fE1 j°Y}rl'. ;�. vr�;.i�, � 5 a�a� . . 4d'..�� yi' 4i, }�� z 'f. 3r• I'. '15. F.¢. $2,764.00 4. Half Streets per Each 1,000 Lineal ft or Fraction Thereof Plan Check $200-$400 6 SE $130 $780.00 Inspection 16 PWI $124 $1,984.00 5. Full Streets per Each 1,000 Lineal ft or Fraction Thereof $4,016.00 Plan Check 8 SE $130 $1,040.00 Inspection 24 PWI $124 $2,976.00 6. Streets Minimum Fee $3,184.00 Plan Check 4 SE $130 $520.00 9 Resolution No. 04-84 Item Plan Check Current Fee Hours per Sqft or Item Factor 16 Position TNE Billable Rate/Hr. $134 Flat Fee $2,144.00 Ins•ection 7. Traffic Counts Per Day 8. Signage and Striping Plan Check -8 ** 4 6 SE TNE $130 $134 $520.00 $1,176.00 $804.00 Inspection 9.Traffic Signal Plan Check ** 3 8 PWI $124 TNE $134 $372.00 $5,672.00 $1,072.00 Inspection 10. Traffic Control per Day Inspection Signalization Residential per Dwelling 11. Unit 40 TST $115 1 PWI $124 $4,600.00 $124.00 $124.00 $50.00 Plan Check I $50 1 12. Signalization Commercial per 1,000 sq ft Building Area Plan Check 13. Signalization Industrial per Acre $500 1 Plan Check $500 14. Storm Drain Up to 1,000 Lineal ft Plan Check ** 10 AE $134 $50.00 $500.00 $500.00 $500.00 $3,200.00 $1,340.00 Inspection 15 PWI $124 $1,860.00 15. Drainage South of Whitewater Plan Check 0.5 SE $130 $98.50 $65.00 Plan Check 0.25 AE $134 $33.50 16. Drainage Between Whitewater and Ridge Line per Acre Plan Check $1,500 0.25 AE $134 $66.00 $33.50 Plan Check 0.25 SE $130 $32.50 17. Drainage Between Ridge Line and South 1-10 Freeway per Acre Plan Check $1,000 0.25 AE $134 $66.00 $33.50 Plan Check 0.25 SE $130 $32.50 18. TUMP Paid Prior to Building Permit (will be administered by Public Works) Plan Check 19. Fringe Toad Lizard Fee per Acre Plan Check Processin. Fee $600 0.25 0.25 1 SE I $130 SOA • • • . lt';;IE., 4tA $100 04y1T $32.50 $32.50 $625.00 $600.00 $25.00 10 • Resolution No. 04-84 Hours per Sqft or Item Billable Item Current Fee Factor Position Rate/Hr. Flat Fee 20. Hydrology per Acre $195.00 Plan Check 1.5 SE $130 $195.00 21.0-8 Lots $2,580.00 Plan Check $100-$190 10 AE $134 $1,340.00 Inspection $10-$375 10 PWI $124 $1,240.00 22. Over 8 Lots $67.00 Plan Check 0.5 AE $134 $67.00 Plan Check SE $130 $0.00 23. Grading Not Including Lot Development 1-8 Acres + .10 per Lot or Fraction Thereof $67.00 Plan Check 0.5 AE $134 $67.00 24. Grading Not Including Lot Development Over 8 Acres Each $67.00 Plan Check 0.5 AE $134 $67.00 Plan Check SE $130 $0.00 ': t "' 25. Permit Issuance Fee $75.00 Plan Check $6 0.75 SOA $100 $75.00 26. Residential Driveways*"`* $381.00 Plan Check $16 1 SPWI $133 $133.00 Inspection 2 PWI $124 $248.00 27. Commercial Driveways $771.00 Plan Check $21 3 SPWI $133 $399.00 Inspection 3 PWI $124 $372.00 28. Excavation Per 100 Lineal ft or Fraction Thereof $762.00 Plan Check $40 2 SPWI $133 $266.00 Inspection 4 PWI $124 $496.00 29. Curbs and Gutters for Each 300 Lineal ft or Fraction Thereof $514.00 Plan Check $60 2 PWI $124 $248.00 Inspection 2 SPWI $133 $266.00 30. Sidewalks Per Each 100 ft $514.00 Plan Check $16 2 SPWI $133 $266.00 Inspection 2 PWI $124 $248.00 31. Overlay Per 1,000 sq ft $24.80 Inspection 0.2 PWI $124 $24.80 32. Standard Slurry Seal Per 1,000 sq ft $12.40 Inspection 0.1 PWI $124 $12.40 33. Oversize Load $55.00 0.5 ET $110 $55.00 34. Valet Parking $550.00 Plan Check $50 1 ET $110 $110.00 11 Resolution No. 04-84 Item Current Fee Items per Sqft or Item Factor Position Billable Rate/Hr. Flat Fee Inspection 4 ET $110 $440.00 35. Easements Deeds, Lot Merger, Lot Line Adjustments $268.00 Plan Check 2 AE $134 $268.00 36. PM10 $536.00 Plan Check 2 AE $134 $268.00 Inspection 2 AE $134 $268.00 37. SWPP $556.00 Plan Check 2 EM $139 $278.00 Inspection 2 EM $139 $278.00 38. NPDES Processing $1,056.00 Plan Check 2 AE $134 $268.00 Plan Check 4 SE $130 $520.00 Ins ection 2 AE $134 $268.00 u� :'y'' � .�/' ::3" F +�.... - w �, � .. F('i �. £c { n ts"'. f (x�:;"k£eSF`I �?�p. �j 4 � f 3� . ,�I� '� is K 39. Commercial, Industrial, Hotels and Similar Buildings $2 per sq ft Gross Building Area or Not to Exceed $3, 500 per Building Permit/Project 40. Residential Building Permits $35 per Residential Unit; Accessory Buildings Exempted 41. All Residential Remodeling Building Permits Exempted 42.Tenant Improvements Commercial/Industrial Buildings and Similar Buildings/Projects Under 10,000 sq ft Gross Building Area Exempt; 10,000 sq ft and over .06 per sq ft Not to Exceed $1,188 per Each Buildin • Permit/Pro'ect _cam : _ka¢ g • '' S * £s+E F �j�' 1 d_`m4 � "i_.�' is4 4' } + _ .. _. ._ .. .�_..._... .. _....:.: .ter, ...„. .....:._�.. .... .. .._ - .�..--.; 47. Abandonments $1,056.00 Plan Check 4 SE $130 $520.00 Plan Check 4 AE $134 $536.00 48. City Engineer Variance $695.00 Plan Check 5 EM $139 $695.00 49. Plan Submittals Exceeding Original and One Correction $268.00 Plan Check 2 AE $134 $268.00 50. Temporary CIO $646.00 Plan Check 2 AE $134 $268.00 Plan Check 1 SE $130 $130.00 Inspection 2 PWI $124 $248.00 51. Record Documents $65.00 Plan Check 0.25 SE $130 $32.50 Inspection 0.25 SE $130 $32.50 *Based on Engineer's cost estimate. 12 Resolution No. 04-84 **Included with Streets fee. ***Circular Driveways considered as two approaches. SOA = Senior Ll = Landscape Office AE = Assistant Engineer Inspector Assistant SPWI = LS = Senior Public ATP = Assistant Transportation Landscape Works Planner Specialist Inspector PWI = Public Works EM = Engineering Manager Inspector SE = Senior ET = Engineering Technician Engineer Fire Fees: THE = Transportatio n Engineer TST = Traffic Signal Technician Item Hours Per Sq Ft or Item Factor Position Billable Rate Per Hour Proposed Flat Fee Proposed Fee Per Sq Ft 1. Fire Permit Issuance Plan Check 0.5 BPS , $120 $60.00 2.1-15,000 sq ft Multi Family Plan Check 0.0002 FSS $85 $0.0170 Inspection 0.0006 FSI $72 $0.0432 3.15,001-30,000 sq ft Multi Family Plan Check 0.00015 FSS $85 $0.0128 Inspection 0.0004 FSI $72 $0.0288 4. Up to 30,000 sq ft Commercial or Industrial - Improved Plan Check 0.0001 FSS $85 $0.0085 Inspection 0.0001 FSI $72 $0.0072 5.30,001-70000 and Higher Multi Family Plan Check 0.00007 FSS $85 $0.0060 Inspection 0.0007 FSI $72 $0.0504 6.1-5,000 sq ft Tenant Im rovements Plan Check 0.0002 FSS $85 $0.0170 Inspection 0.0002 FSI $72 $0.0144 7.5,001-15,000 sq ft Tenant Improvements Plan Check 0.00013 FSS $85 $0.0111 Inspection 0.00013 FSI $72 $0.0094 8.15,001-25,000 sq ft Tenant Improvements Plan Check 0.00008 FSS $85 $0.0068 Inspection 0.0002 FSI $72 $0.0144 9.25,001-50,000 sq ft Tenant Improvements 13 Resolution No. 04-84 Item Hours/Sqft or Item Factor Position Billable Rate/Hour Flat Fee Fee/Sgft Plan Check 0.00006 FSS $85 $0.0051 Inspection 0.00008 FSI $72 $0.0058 10.1-30,000 sq ft Commercial/Industrial Building Plan Check 0.0001 FSS $85 $0.0085 Inspection 0.00013 FSI $72 $0.0094 11.30,001-80,000 sq ft and Higher Plan Check 0.00006 FSS $85 $0.0051 Inspection 0.00006 FSI $72 $0.0043 12. Parking Garage Plan Check 0.000012 FSS $85 $0.0010 Inspection 1 FSI $72 $72.00 13. Fire Sprinkler Systems up to 10 Heads Plan Check 1 FSS $85 $85.00 Inspection 1 FSI $72 _ $72.00 14. Fire Sprinkler Systems up to 100 Heads or Fraction Thereof Plan Check 1.5 FSS $85 $127.50 Inspection 2 FSI $72 $144.00 15. Fire Sprinkler Systems 101-299 Heads Plan Check 3 FSS $85 $255.00 Inspection 2 FSI $72 $144.00 16. Fire Sprinkler Systems 300-700 Heads Plan Check 6 FSS $85 $510.00 Inspection 6 FSI $72 _ $432.00 17. Fire Sprinkler Systems over 700 Heads Plan Check 8 FSS $85 $680.00 Inspection 8 FSI $72 _ $576.00 18. Residential Fire Sprinklers Plan Check 2 FSS $85 $170.00 Inspection 2 FSI $72 $144.00 19. Fire Alarms Tenant Improvements 1-24 Plan Check 3 FSS $85 $255.00 Inspection 2 FSI $72 $144.00 20. Fire Alarms Tenant Improvements - Over 24 Plan Check 6 FSS $85 $510.00 Inspection 5 FSI $72 $360.00 21. Fire Alarms - New Systems Under 24 Devices Plan Check 3 FSS $85 $255.00 Inspection 2 FSI $72 $144.00 22. Fire Alarms - New System 24-100 Devices 14 Resolution No. 04-84 Item Hours/Sqft or Item Factor Position Billable Rate/Hour Flat Fee Fee/Sgft Plan Check 6 FSS $85 $510.00 Inspection 6 FSI _ $72 $432.00 23. Fire Alarms - Over 100 Devices Plan Check 8 FSS $85 $680.00 Inspection 8 FSI $72 $576.00 24. Stand Pipe Systems Plan Check 2 FSS $85 $170.00 Inspection 2 FSI $72 $144.00 25. Private Fire Hydrant System Plan Check 3 FSS $85 $255.00 Inspection 2 FSI $72 $144.00 26. Fire Pump Installation Plan Check 8 FSS $85 $680.00 Inspection 10 FSI $72 $720.00 27. Fire Alarm Control/Monitor Plan Check 3 FSS $85 $255.00 Inspection 4 FSI $72 $288.00 28. Underground Storage Tank Plan Check 4 FSS $85 $340.00 Inspection 4 FSI $72 $288.00 29. Above Ground Storage Tank Plan Check 4 FSS $85 $340.00 Inspection 4 FSI $72 $288.00 30. Hoods - Suppression Plan Check 2 FSS $85 $170.00 Inspection 1.5 FSI $72 $108.00 31. Residential Care Facilities Plan Check 4 FSS $85 $340.00 Inspection 5 FSI $72 $360.00 32. Tents and Canopies Plan Check 1 FSS $85 $85.00 Inspection 2 FSI $72 $144.00 33. Private Schools Plan Check 2 FSS $85 $170.00 Inspection 2 FSI $72 $144.00 34. Special Inspections Plan Check 2 FSS $85 $170.00 Inspection 2 FSI $72 $144.00 35. Site Plans - Conditions of Approval 15 Resolution No. 04-84 Item Hours/Sqft or Item Factor Position Billable Rate/Hour Flat Fee Fee/Sqft Plan Check 2 FSS $85 $170.00 Inspection 2 FSI $72 $144.00 36. Fire Works Plan Check 2 FSS $85 $170.00 Inspection 2 FSI $72 $144.00 37. Plan Check Submittals Exceeding Original and One Correction Plan Check 2 FSS $85 $170.00 Inspection 1 FSI $72 $72.00 38. Minimum Fee Plan Check 1 FSS $85 $85.00 Inspection 1 FSI $72 $72.00 BPS = Building Permit Specialist FSI = Fire Safety Inspector FSS = Fire Safety Supervisor 16 CITY OF PALM DESERT FEE COMPARISON TABLE 1 PLANNING CURRENT FEE DIRECT & INDIRECT COSTS Signs (Over the Counter) $10.00 $103.52 Adjustments $30.00 $234.75 Parcel Map $50.00 $507.00 Temporary Use Permit $10.00 $84.33 Conditional Use Permit $50-$450 $4,053.90 ENGINEERING / PUBLIC WIORKS CURRENT FEE DIRECT & INDIRECT COSTS Encrochment Permit $6 $75.00 Final Map Review $200 + $6/Lot $682.50 Grading PermiUlnspection (0-8 Lots) $100 - $190 $2,580.00 PROJECT EXAMPLES CURRENT FEE DIRECT COST DIRECT & INDIRECT COSTS . iliE• re,,f �ingle mr:�'llH 2,500 S .Ft.,�Sfay�;o't 8, �€ a"6n 000 Sq.Ft. Lot Planning $15.00 $104.66 $104.66 Building Dept. (Plan Check / Inspection) $1,442.93 $2,575.00 $3,700.00 Public Works (Plan Check / Inspection) $110.00 $1,360.00 $1,360.00 Fire Dept. (Plan Check/ Inspection) $0.00 NA N/A $1,567.93 $4,039.66 $5,607.59 Planning esidentia•l Ad•ditio6 f Rep•nod•el'" $0.00 $20.00 $20.00 Building Dept. (Plan Check / Inspection) Public Works (Plan Check / Inspection) $394.35 N/A $382.50 N/A $532.50 N/A Fire Dept. (Plan Check/ Inspection) N/A N/A N/A $394.35 $402.50 $796.85 l� E E(� j ( _� � _ _ 155,000 iiFt Mo ti=Family, Building onOne-Acre Parcel IJ . _ .a. Planning $330.00 $3,952.33 $3,952.33 Building Dept. (Plan Check / Inspection) $7,397.78 $5,400.00 $7,650.00 Public Works (Plan Check / Inspection) $719.00 $1,245.40 $1,242.40 Fire Dept. (Plan Check/ Inspection) $0.00 $903.00 $903.00 $8,446.78 $11,500.73 $19,947.51 1 CITY OF PALM DESERT FEE COMPARISON TABLE 1 PROJECT EXAMPLES CURRENT FEE DIRECT COST DIRECT & INDIRECT COSTS iF{': €A ,{,,..; i3 ff t{j �E e i3f d p � i t• i} � 'i 30,000,Sq.Ft. Induetria BOliding ,F ., {# 'i'.. { f;# � F lj. { � 3 'E#} r. on 2-acre parcer, Planning Dept. $330.00 $3,952.33 $3,952.33 Building Dept. (Plan Check / Inspection) $13,090.88 $8,100.00 $14,700.00 Public Works (Plan Check/Inspections) $986.00 $1,713.80 $1,713.80 Fire Dept. (Plan Check/ Inspection) $0.00 $471.00 $471.00 $14,406.88 $14,237.13 $28,644.01 DEPARTMENT CURRENT FEE DIRECT COST_ COSTP INDIRECT OSTS &COSTS 0{ 00Sq.FCm€merc'l /Y�penrDIRECT HdiF#ofini€©ne`Are{, ' .fF #N PliI# {€ rEf {i jF Planning $330.00 $3,952.33 $3,952.33 Building Dept. (Plan Check / Inspection) $1,300.00 $3,400.00 Public Works (Plan Check/Inspections) $986.00 $2,406.40 $3,360.00 Fire Dept. $0.00 $157.00 $157.00 $2,616.00 $6,515.73 $9,131.73 {=_':.. .# ' E i# E E /j # �R /1 F j� i �# { 9 { { .:I FP E ,OY0 Sq.Ft 3Cointtiei.. at Office TenantJr prov`,ement r{ � 1. Planning $0.00 $20.00 $20.00 Building Dept. (Plan Check / Inspection) $916.13 $1,200.00 $1,800.00 Public Works (Plan Check / Inspection) N/A N/A N/A Fire Dept. (Plan Check/ Inspection) $0.00 $157.00 $157.00 $916.13 $1,377.00 $2,293.13 E z{} i:,. E€ ..#. 4, ,. i{ n ■wry'/ m rc a {: 9 j�'3 MO�ES�giFt�3�V Vr,�„1�1p.r�91 €���a�t:�11��r}���)T��#�` � Planning $0.00 $20.00 $20.00 Building Dept. (Plan Check / Inspection) $366.45 $480.00 $720.00 Public Works (Plan Check / Inspection) N/A N/A N/A Fire Dept. (Plan Check/ Inspection) $0.00 $40.80 $40.80 $366.45 $540.80 $907.25 tt 3,F f (J7 000_Sq Ftt',Com :ercial=Tenant{.Immpro verrww ent Planning $0.00 $20.00 $20.00 Building Dept. (Plan Check / Inspection) $1,800.00 $2,400.00 $3,600.00 Public Works (Plan Check / Inspection) N/A N/A N/A Fire Dept. (Plan Check/ Inspection) $0.00 $205.00 $205.00 $1,800.00 $2,625.00 $4,425.00 2 EXHIBIT A Fee Adjustment Process Building Department Fee Adjustments: 1. Check Table 7 to see if any of the Billable Hours have changed. Insert any new data into the table. 2. Update the Salary & Fringe numbers on Table 8. 3. Check the Total Management Overhead on Table 8 and insert new numbers where appropriate. 4. Insert new dollar amounts for Supplies, Other Services, and Capital Outlay into Table 9. 5. Insert new dollar amounts for Indirect External Costs into Table 10. 6. Check the average time numbers for each permit shown on Table 13 and change as appropriate. 7. Manually insert new billable hours into Table 1. 8. Table 1 is linked to Table 11, which will calculate the new billable rates per hour. 9. New fees will appear in Table 13. Planning Department Fee Adjustments: 1. Check Table 15 to see if any of the Billable Hours have changed. Insert any new data into the table. 2. Update the Salary & Fringe numbers on Table 16. Check the percent of time by employee spent on planning fee activities and insert new numbers where appropriate. 3. Check the Total Management Overhead on Table 17 and insert new numbers where appropriate. 4. Insert new dollar amounts for Supplies, Other Services, and Capital Outlay into Table 18. 5. Check the average time numbers for each permit shown on Table 21 and change as appropriate. Manually insert new billable hour rates into Table 1. Public Works/Engineering Fee Adjustments: 1. Check Table 24 to see if any of the Billable Hours have changed. Insert any new data into the table. 2. Update the Salary & Fringe numbers on Table 25. 3. Check the Total Management Overhead on Table 25 and insert new numbers where appropriate. 4. Insert new dollar amounts for Supplies, Other Services, and Capital Outlay into Table 26. 5. Insert new dollar amounts for Indirect External Costs into Table 27. 6. Check the average time numbers for each permit shown on Table 33 and change as appropriate. 7. Insert new billable hours into Table 1. Landscaping Fee Adjustments: 1. Check Table 29 to see if any of the Billable Hours have changed. Insert any new data into the table. 2. Update the Salary & Fringe numbers on Table 30. 3. Check the Total Management Overhead on Table 30 and insert new numbers where appropriate. 4. Insert new dollar amounts for Supplies, Other Services, and Capital Outlay into Table 31. 5. Insert new dollar amounts for Indirect External Costs into Table 32. Fire Department Fees: 1. Check with the Riverside County Fire Department to see if any of the Billable Rates Per Hour has changed. Insert any changes into Table 1. 2. Check the average time numbers for each permit shown on Table 14 and change as appropriate. 3. Check the average time numbers for each permit shown on Table 33 and change as appropriate. 4. Insert new billable hours into Table 1. 2 July 8, 2004 PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING Note: City Councilmembers were provided with original copies of the Bound "Cost of Services Study for Development Processes & Indirect External Cost Analysis Volumes I & II." In the interest of saving paper and time, your packet does not contain these volumes. Please let the City Clerk's Office know if you wish to obtain a copy of this information for your use. XVII. PUBLIC HEARINGS E. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF THE COST OF SERVICES STUDY (NEXUS STUDY) CONDUCTED BY ZUCKER SYSTEMS AND ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION MODIFYING THE CITY'S FEES FOR SERVICES. Rec: 1) Waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 04-84, approving the Development Services Fees for Service Tables within the Cost of Services Study, excluding the Landscape Fees with the Public Works Department. 2) By Minute Motion, accept the Cost of Services Study conducted by Zucker Systems to serve as the City's model and policy for all future Service Fee adjustments that are collected by the Development Services Departments. 3) By Minute Motion, require that a resolution be submitted at least every two years to verify any future fee adjustments. Action: