The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutItem No. 29 Fees and Cost Alloc PlanText File City of Lake Elsinore 130 South Main Street Lake Elsinore, CA 92530 www.lake-elsinore.org File Number: TMP-2822 Agenda Date: 6/12/2018 Status: Public HearingVersion: 1 File Type: ResolutionIn Control: City Council / Successor Agency Agenda Number: 29) Page 1 City of Lake Elsinore Printed on 6/7/2018 REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL To:Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From:Grant Yates, City Manager Prepared by:Jason Simpson, Assistant City Manager Date:June 12, 2018 Subject:Adopt User Fees and Cost Allocation Plan(Continued Public Hearing) Recommendation adopt A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING THE USER FEES AND COST ALLOCATION PLAN Background The City of Lake Elsinore engaged Willdan Financial Services (Willdan) to determine the full costs incurred by the City to support the various activities for which the City charges user fees. Due to the complexity and the breadth of performing a comprehensive review of fees, Willdan employed a variety of fee methodologies to identify the full costs of individual fee and program activities. This report and the appendices herein identifies 100% full cost recovery for City services and the recommended level of recovery as determined through discussion with departmental staff. The reality of the local government fee environment is that significant increases to achieve 100% cost recovery can often not be feasible, desirable, or appropriate depending on policy direction, particularly in a single year. The recommended fees identified herein are either at or less than full cost recovery. Discussion A Cost Allocation Plan is a comprehensive study to determine the fair and equitable allocation of the cost of City's central administrative functions; City Administration, Finance, Human Resources, City Clerk and City Attorney. The study will analyze each individual function, determine its cost and develop the appropriate allocation bases necessary to distribute costs to the receiving operating departments within the City. The City currently does not employ a Cost Allocation Plan to spread administrative costs. A User Fee Study is conducted to accurately, fairly and reasonably determine the full cost for City departments to provide services to the individuals and businesses within the community, such as plan check, inspection, permitting and other development-related services. As part of a general cost recovery strategy, local governments adopt user fees to fund programs and services thatprovide limited or no direct benefit to the community as a whole. As cities struggle User Fee Study and Cost Allocation Plan June 12, 2018 Page 2 to maintain levels of service andvariability of demand, they have become increasingly aware of subsidies provided by the General Fund and haveimplemented cost-recovery targets. Unlike most revenue sources, cities have morecontrol over the level of user fees they charge to recover costs, or the subsidies they can institute. The recent trend for municipalities is to update their fee schedules to reflect the actual costs of certain public servicesprimarily benefitting users. User Fees recover costs associated with the provision of specific services benefiting theuser, thereby reducing the use of General Fund monies for such purposes. In addition to collecting,the direct cost of labor and materialsassociated with processing and administering userservices, it is common for local governments to recover support costs. Support costs are those costs relating to alocal government’s central service departments that are properly allocable to the local government’s operatingdepartments. Central services support cost allocations were derived from the City’s Cost Allocation Plan. As labor effort and costs associated with the provision of services fluctuate over time, a significant element in the development of any fee schedule is that it has the flexibility to remain current. Therefore, it is recommended thatthe City include an inflationary factor in the resolution adopting the fee schedule to allow the City Council, byresolution, to annually increase or decrease the fees. The most commonly used inflator is the ConsumerPrice Index (CPI) as it is widely well known and accepted. It is also recommended that every three to five years a comprehensive review of the models utilized to develop the Cost Allocation Plan and User Fee Study be reviewed, modified and updated as appropriate. These comprehensive studies should be conducted to identify direct and indirect costs to ensure the City is not overcharging for services in compliance with Proposition 218, aswell as Government Code 66016; or undercharging for services rendered. Additionally, an approved Cost Allocation Plan is required in order to allocate overhead costs to projects/programs, whichare Federal and/or Stategrant funded. Building Department Fees-Residential Thestudyalsoincluded a comprehensive review of building department user fees and staff is proposing to combine mechanical, plumbing, and electrical permits fees (MPE) into a flat fee amount based upon typical 2,805 sq.ft.single-family residence(SFR)to streamline the issuance of the permit. In addition, a feemethodologyestablishing feesfor new development tract homes for both the model home as well as a separate calculation for productions units within a development. To illustrate the impact on costs to developers of new homes (SFR/MFR), the fee study suggested an 8.7% increase for full cost recovery. With the utilization of the MPE flat fee, the increase is approximately 3.4%. Furthermore, the Tract Model home fee represents a 3.4% increase, while production units will yield a 15.63% decrease over current building permit fees, primarily due to the elimination of the building plan check fee on production units(See Table 1 below and Exhibit D to this report). User Fee Study and Cost Allocation Plan June 12, 2018 Page 3 Table 1 Building Department Fees –Commercial The study also included a comprehensive review of building department user fees and staff is proposing to combine mechanical, plumbing, and electrical permits fees (MPE) into a flat fee amount based upon $.40 sq.ft.for a typical 2,805 sq.ft.commercial property development to streamline the issuance of the permit. To illustrate the impact on costs to developers of new commercial (SeeTable 2 below and Exhibit D to this report). Table 2 Building Industry Association, Riverside County Chapter (BIA) City staff has metwith Building Industry Association (BIA) representativesand respondedto voluminous record requests under the Public Records Act (PRA)to listen to their concerns. They shared comments regarding the proposed update of building permit fees by the City of Lake Elsinore (City) as a result of the review documented in the Comprehensive User Fee Study Report(User Fee Study)prepared by Willdan Financial Services (Willdan), that forms the basis for the City’s proposed update of building permit fees. In general, the comments submitted by the BIA seek to challenge the methodology and calculations used by Willdan and the City to determine the proposed update of building permit fees. While the City issues dozens of various building permits, the BIA’s comments are exclusively focused on the methodology and cost of building permits for single-family residences. The following is a summary of what appears to be the basic assertions and questions raised by the BIA: 1.The BIA asserts the City has collected net excess building permit revenue during the current and prior fiscal years; DESCRIPTION CURRENT FEES STUDY SUGGESTED FEES NON-TRACT SFR FEES MODEL HOME SFR FEES PRODUCTION UNITS - TRACT HOMES SFR FEES Total Building Permit Fees (SFR)4,265.77$ 4,635.96$ 4,412.29$ 4,412.29$ 3,599.16$ % Increase/(decrease) from Current Fees 8.68%3.43%3.43%-15.63% *Based upon a 2,805 sq ft single family residence example PROPOSED FEES PROPOSED FEES DESCRIPTION CURRENT FEES STUDY SUGGESTED FEES COMMERCIAL PERMIT FEES Total Building Permit Fees (COMMERCIAL)5,296.16$ 6,135.84$ 5,892.53$ % Increase/(decrease) from Current Fees 15.85%11.26% *Based upon a 2,805 sq ft commercial property example User Fee Study and Cost Allocation Plan June 12, 2018 Page 4 City Staff comments: The following are some of the errors contained in BIA’s analysis that lead to its incorrect assertion: The BIA begins with a baselineassumption that evidences a failure to understand the City’s true cost of reviewing, issuing and inspecting building permits. The BIA erroneously assumes the annual expenses for the Building & Safety Department (including Fire Preventionservices) should be equivalent to the annual building permit fee revenues, and that any positive difference demonstrates that excess building permit fee revenues were collected by the City. The primary error is the BIA’s assumption the only expenses incurred by City when reviewing, issuing and inspecting building permits are the direct costs contained in the departmental expenses for Building & Safety and Fire Preventionservices. As explained in the User Fee Study (pp. 6 and 27), direct departmental costs (salaries, benefits and operating expenses) are only one component of calculating the City’s cost to provide a municipal service. Other indirect cost components include city-wide overhead (costs associated with central services that support departmental operations such as administration, finance, human resources, legal, fleet, information technology, etc.), cross-departmental support (costs incurred by other departments/staff associated with review or assistance in providing the service), and off-budget items (additional capital costs associated with providing the service, such as technology acquisition, enhancement and replacement for building permit services). Each of these cost components are determined and calculated using a cost-allocation methodology commonly known and accepted as the “bottom-up” approach to establishing building permit fees. The result of these allocations provides detailed documentation of the City’s reasonable estimate of the actual full cost of providing each service. The standard-unit cost build-up approach is widely utilized and accepted as industry- standard throughout cities and counties in California and across the nation. Based on the foregoing, the BIA’s misunderstanding of how building permit expenses are determined leads to flawed calculations and erroneous conclusions by the BIA that there have been over-or under-collections by the City for building permit fees in the current or prior fiscal years. 2.The BIA questions the City assigning fifty percent of the Community Development Director’s time to work dealing with the Department of Building and Safety; CityStaffComments: As discussed in User Fee Study, in determining how to allocate employee time and City costs, Willdan conducted an extensive time and materials survey and review of City functions and employee activities, including receiving time estimates to complete tasks, staffing structures, direct and indirect work hours and other pertinent information. One of the key study assumptions utilized in a “bottom up” approach to developing user fees is the use of time estimates for the provision of each fee related service. Utilization of time estimates is a reasonable and defensible approach, especially since these estimates are developed by experienced staff members who understand service levels and processes unique to the City. Also, given that the Community User Fee Study and Cost Allocation Plan June 12, 2018 Page 5 Development Director oversees major functions with generally equivalent budgets and staffing (Planning & Zoning and Building & Safetyfor example), it is intuitively logical and rational that the Director’s time would generally be split equally between the functions. The City’s current year budget discusses this allocation which is based on the extensive data collection and analysis performed by Willdan in the User Fee Study. The BIA presents no data or evidence to the contrary. 3.The BIA asserts the City has over-estimated the hours required for building permit review, issuance and inspection services; and City StaffComments: In an attempt to demonstrate the City has over-estimated the hours required for permit issuance and inspection services, the BIA attempts to construct a contorted correlation of employee hours with a combinedFully Burden Hourly Rate(FBHR)for all employees and building permit fee costs to derive an average number of hours required to review, issue and inspect a building permit for a single-family residence. The BIA then extrapolates this data to conclude a minimum departmental staffing required to annually provide building permit services. The flaws in this attempted analysis are plentiful and we have limited our response to two criticalareas. First, the BIA’s analytical process once again utilizes the erroneous assumption of 2080 hours per employee(the study utilized 1,680 hours). Second, because the FBHR of employees are derived from a full- cost accounting of the service (see discussion under Section I), it’s erroneous to use the FBHR to calculate staffing hours. The amount of an FBHR is calculated and established to ensure the City recovers all expense inputs for the service which are spread across a myriad of departments and employees, not just the employees providing the direct service. 4.The BIA asserts the City should employ a deposit-based system for building permit fees that requires all staff track and assign their time per project and permit. City Staff Comments: While the BIA is correct that some jurisdictions have sought to implement a deposit-based building permit fee process, many jurisdictions throughout the state and nation continue to establish and collect building permit fees based on time estimates and valuation tables. Typically, a deposit-based user fee is appropriate for services for which time and material estimates are difficult, or there is little correlation between the time and materials and project scale/size. As explained in the User Fee Study, for building permit services, not only are good time and material estimates available for various tasks, it also widely accepted that time and materials required for building permits correlate strongly with project valuation. In other words, project valuation is a good proxy for measuring the amount of time and materials required for the associated building permit review, issuance and inspection. The State of Oregon, in fact, mandates cities and counties use of the permit valuation methodology (see OregonAdministrative Rules s. 918-050-0100). User Fee Study and Cost Allocation Plan June 12, 2018 Page 6 This strong correlation has been aided by the Building Valuation Data (BVD) Table produced and regularly updated by the International Code Council (ICC), which provides an average construction cost per square footthat can be used to scale base building permit fees. Use of the ICC’s BVD is widely-accepted by jurisdictions throughout the state and nation as a reasonable and rationale basis for scaling building permit fees. The alternative methodology proposed by the BIA presents technological and management requirements, as well as additional costs, to ensure accurate time-keeping by every employee and continuing administration of the record-keeping and billing system. The multiplier used is as follows: The calculations support staff use of the multiplier and ICC valuation tables since the City’s costs are not being fully recoveredeven after the study takes into account a 10% increase. Notwithstandingthe analysis for full cost recovery including an applied 10% increase in the model, staff is proposing streamlining (no changes to initial approach) on building permits for residential which demonstrate decreases/reductions and fixed amounts as shown in the exhibit illustrated for an example 2,805 sq.ft single family unit (noted above). For other increases for the most was a blend approach department by department to step into getting full cost recovery including some that are full cost recovery. Fiscal Impact The user fee study and proposed rates and relatedfees represent a fair and reasonable fee structure with many fees not a full cost recovery, including focused review on building permit fees. The study will also adopt Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers-Los Angeles- Riverside-Orange County, CA (CPI) as of December of the preceding and made effective for July 1 each fiscal year allowing for automatic annual adjustments, including increases and decreases. Exhibits DESCRIPTION REF ID Multiplier Used for the Study 0.02210358 A/B Permit Valuation (Average Annual)101,465,100$ B FY2016-17 Expenditure Budget 1,847,551$ Cost Allocation Plan obligation %21.3900% FY2016-17 Fully Burdened Expenditure Budget 2,242,742$ A FY 2014 -17 Average Building Permit Revenue 1,761,553$ C Current Cost recovery 78.54461%C/A % of Building that should be recovered by Fees 100.0000% Revenue surplus/(deficiency)(481,189)$ C - A % fee change needed to obtain full cost recovery 27.3162%(C-A)/C % change applied to table 10.0000%D New cost recovery level 86.3991%(C/A) x (1+ D) User Fee Study and Cost Allocation Plan June 12, 2018 Page 7 A Resolution A-1 Staff Proposed Fees Tables to Resolution B User Fee Study Report C Cost Allocation Plan D Building Permit Example E Letter to BIA RESOLUTION NO. 2018 –_______ RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A CITY-WIDE COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY, ADOPTING A COMPREHENSIVE FEE SCHEDULE ESTABLISHING AND AMENDING CERTAIN SERVICES RELATED FEES FOR CITY SERVICES, ADOPTING THE COST ALLOCATION PLAN Whereas, it is the intent of the City Council (Council) to require the ascertainment and recovery of costs reasonably borne from fees and charges levied therefor in providing the regulation, products or services; and, Whereas, the City of Lake Elsinore (City) Municipal Code Section 3.40.030 defines thecosts reasonably borne as: (a)All applicable direct costs including, but not limited to, salaries, wages, overtime, employee fringe benefits, services and supplies, maintenance and operation expenses, contracted services, special supplies, and any other direct expense incurred. (b)All applicable indirect costs including, but not restricted to, building maintenance and operations, equipment maintenance and operations, communications expenses, computer costs, printing and reproduction, and like expenses when distributed on an accounted and documented rational proration system. (c)Fixed asset recovery expenses, consisting of depreciation of fixed assets, and additional fixed asset expense recovery charges calculated on the current estimated cost of replacement, divided by the approximate life expectancy of the fixed asset. A further additional charge to make up the difference between book value depreciation not previously recovered and reserved in cash and the full cost of replacement, which also shall be calculated and considered a cost so as to recover such unrecovered costs between book value and cost of replacement over the remaining life of the asset. (d)General overhead, expressed as a percentage, distributing and charging the expenses of the Council, City Manager, Finance Department, City Clerk, City Treasurer, City Attorney’s Office, Community Promotion, Personnel Office, and all other staff and support service provided to the entire City organization. Overhead shall be prorated between tax-financed services and fee- financed services based onsaid percentage so that each of the taxes, fees and charges shall proportionately defray such overhead costs. (e)Departmental overhead, expressed as a percentage, distributing and charging the cost of each department head and his or her supporting expenses as enumerated in subsections (a), (b), and (c) of this section. (f)Debt service costs, consisting of repayment of principal, payment of interest, trustee fees and administrative expenses for all applicable bond, certificate, or securities issues or loans. Any required coverage factors of added reserves beyond basic debt service costs also shall be considered a cost if required by covenant within any securities ordinance, resolution, indenture or general law applicable to the City. [Ord. 790§3, 1987. Code 1987 §3.32.030]; and, Whereas, the Council has conducted an extensive analysis of its services, the costs reasonably borne by the City in provided those services, the beneficiaries of those services, and the revenues produced by those paying fees and charges for special services; and, (a)TheCouncil has determined that City staff provides many types of services (Services) involving requests by City customers (Applicants); Reso. No. 2018- Page 2of 5 (b)The City currently imposes service fees (Service Fees) upon Applicants to recover the costs of staff time, copying costs, and other expenses related to providing these Services (c)Current userfees charged for the City's Services do not adequately recoup the City's costs of providing certain Services and thus, a significant amount of these costs are currently paid out of the City's general fund and, therefore, borne by the general public (d)The Council finds that providing these services is of special benefit to Applicants both separate and apart from the general benefit to the public; and therefore, in the interests of fairness to the general public, the City desires to better recover the costs of providing these Services from Applicants who have sought the City's Services by revising its schedule of City-Wide User Fees (e)The proposed user fees are initially based upon the information contained in a document by City staff and Consultant (Consultant) entitled "City of Lake Elsinore Comprehensive User Fee Study Report" (Fee Study), dated December12, 2017, and updated by staff to reflect current costs of the City to provide the Services (f)Based upon the Fee Study and the updated information, the City (i) identifies the purpose of the proposed fees, (ii) identifies the use to which the fees will be put, (iii) demonstrates a reasonable relationship between the fees' use and the types of projects on which the fees are imposed, and (iv) demonstrates a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fees and the cost of the City's services attributable to the applications on which the fees are imposed (g)Pursuantto state law, the City may impose service feesservices. (h)Pursuant to Government Code Section 66000, et seq., the City is empowered to impose UserFees covering up to 100 percent of the actual costs of providing Services to Applicants (i)The City desires to adjust certain fees up to the actual costs incurred by the City in providing these Services (j)Section 3.40.030 of the Lake ElsinoreMunicipal Code (LEMC) provides that the City may set fees to recoup costs reasonably borne by the City by means of adopting a resolution of the City Council, after compliance with the requirements of state law (k)Government Code Section 66014 et al. allows local agencies to charge fees for various activities as long as those fees do not exceed the estimated reasonable costs of provided the service for which the fee is intended (l)Pursuant to Government Code Sections 66014, 66017 and 66018 and the LEMC, the specific fees to be charged for certain regulations, services and products must be adopted by resolution, following notice and public hearing (m)Notice of public hearing has been given pursuant to Government Code Section 6062a, and written notice has been provided to interested parties who filed written requests for mailed notice of meetings on new or increased service charges (n)The Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing on March 13, 2018, at which time the public was invited to make oral and written presentations as part of the regularly scheduled meeting prior to the adoption of this Resolution (o)At least 15days prior to the public hearing referenced above, the City made available for public inspection information required under Government Code Section 66006, et seq. (p)The City published notice of the public hearing as described above in accordance with Reso. No. 2018- Page 3of 5 Government Code Sections 6062(a), 66014, 66016, 66017 and 66018 for the various service fees; and, theestablishment and increase of service feesis statutorily and categorically exempt from the requirements of the CaliforniaEnvironmental Quality Act becausesetting Service Fees and Development Fees fits within the statutory exemptions for local agency decisions involving rates, tolls or other charges pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080(b)(8) and Section 15273 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines this Resolution is not "an essential step culminating in action which may affect the environment” NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The Council of the City adopted Ordinance No. 790 on April 14, 1987, providing for Fee and Service Charge Revenue/Cost Comparison System; and, Section 2. The Council amended the user fees by Resolution No. 94-25a on May 10, 1994,to incorporate lake use fees. Section 3. The Council amended the user fees by Resolution No. 95-8 on February 28, 1995,to incorporate fees for nuisance abatement. Section 4.The Council modified the fee structure and amended the user fees by Resolution No. 97-6 on February 1, 1997,and repealing Resolution No. 94-25a. Section 5.The Council amended the user fees for nuisance abatement by Resolution No. 97-14 on March 11, 1997,and repealing Resolution No. 95-8. Section 6.The Council modified the fee structure and amended the user feesby Resolution No. 2000-52 on December 7, 2000,and repealing Resolution No. 97-6. Section 7. The City Council amended the user fees by Resolution No. 2008-50 on May 8, 2008, to incorporate fees for registration of abandoned residential properties. Section 8. Adoption of the Report and Methodology. The Council hereby approves “City of Lake ElsinoreComprehensive User Fee Study Report”, dated December 12, 2017, and updated by staff to reflect current costs of the City to provide the Services and adopts the methodology for calculating and collecting the fees and charges established therein. Section 9. Adoption of Fees and Charges. The Council hereby adopts the "City of Lake Elsinore City-Wide User Fee Schedule" as set forth in attached Exhibit "A"to this resolution and incorporated by this reference. Unless otherwise stated in the Fee Schedule, all Service Fees shall be paid to the City by the Applicant prior to the City's performance of the requested Services. Section 10. Annual Increase. As recommended in the "City of Lake Elsinore City-Wide User Fee Schedule", user fees shall be subject to an automatic annual adjustment on July 1st of each year based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI) –All Urban Consumers –Los Angeles, Riverside, and Orange County –CA for the 12 month period prior to April 1st of the year in which the change will be effective. Section 11. Repeal of Conflicting Resolutions or Executive Orders. It is the desire of the City Council that all fees and charges for services, programs or products be set forth in one document Reso. No. 2018- Page 4of 5 for ease of reference. Accordingly, any and all provisions of prior Resolutions of the Council or Executive Orders establishing or modifying fees for the services, programs or products set forth in Exhibit “A,” are hereby repealed and replaced as of the effective date of this Resolution in the manner set forth in Exhibit “A;” provided, however, that such repeal shall not excuse or affect the failure of any person or entity to pay any fee heretofore imposed upon such person or entity. The Council desires to clarify that in adopting this Resolution, it is taking action only on those fees for the services, programs or products set forth in Exhibit A, which have been modified,from prior Resolutions of the Council or Executive Orders. The remaining fees that have not been modified from prior Resolutionsor Executive Ordersshall remain in full force and effect and are hereby restated for convenience so that all fees are set forth in one document. Section 12. Environmental Exemption. The adoption of this Resolution is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq.), because it approves and sets forth a procedure for determining fees for the purpose of meeting the operating expenses of City departments, as set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21080(b)(8)(A). Section 13. Severability. If any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this Resolution or any part hereof is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Resolution or any part thereof. The Council hereby declares that it would have passed each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase hereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase be declared invalid or unconstitutional. Section 14. The City of Lake Elsinore Comprehensive User Fee Study and Cost Allocation Plan is hereby approved and adoptedas attached per Exhibit A to thisResolution. Section 15. A copy of the City of Lake Elsinore Comprehensive User Fee Study and Cost Allocation Plan hereby adopted and certified by the City Clerk shall be filed with the City Manager or a designated representative, and a further copy so certified shall be placed and shall remain on file in the Office of the City Clerk where it shall be available for inspection. Copies of the Comprehensive User Fee Study and Cost Allocation Plan shall be made availablefor the use of departments, offices and agencies of theCity. Section 16. This Resolution shall take effect 30 daysupon its adoption. Passed and Adopted on this 12th day of June 2018. Natasha Johnson Mayor Attest: Susan M. Domen,MMC City Clerk Reso. No. 2018- Page 5of 5 STATEOFCALIFORNIA ) COUNTYOFRIVERSIDE ) ss. CITY OFLAKEELSINORE ) I, Susan M. Domen, MMC, City Clerk of the City of Lake Elsinore, California, do hereby certify that Resolution No. 2018-_____was adopted by the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore, California, at the Regular meeting of June 12,2018,and that the same was adopted by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ______________________________ Susan M. Domen, MMC City Clerk City Clerk Fees Co_ies_Black &White ffjjxLjUq llxl7 Per Pa e____ -___ Variable S Variable S Copies__ Color_(8.Sx11_to 11x17 * Per_Page _ Variable S Copies - Black & White (Larger than 11x17)" Per Page Including Blue Prints, Maps, _ »�_ -- -- --- ---•-•--- ------- - - - -° -- - "--- - - -- - -- Plotter--------------- 75.00 $ 40.42 S _ Media - CD's $ - 25.00 40.42 ............ . Media - Flash drive .......... ------ °_ _ _ NA Municipal Code_ Books _ _ _ �� _Available on Website Only________ NA Municipal Code - Supplements Quarterly _.., .................. ................._......-...-• Building Plan Duplication - Processing Fee •--................._.......... MustobtainArchitect /Engi nee r $ 40.42 approval; Plus actual cost of _ .............• ......................... por /media _ _.__... NA S FPPC Documents (as statutory defined, Per Page Set by the Fair Political Practices Includes Forms 700, 501, 460) - - - --- -- -- ----- -- - - -- ...... - Commission NA g . . - - - FPPC Documents (as statutory defined, Set by the Fair Political Practices Includes Forms 700, 501, 460) - Research for Commission documents iiveyears or older - - - - --------- -- - - -- -- - - -- -- -----• -------------- NA S - FPPC Documents (as statutory defined, Per Day Set by the Fair Political Practices Includes Forms 700, 501, 460) - Late Filings Commission (Up to$100 Maxi muml..... NA Notice of Intent to Circulate Petition Per Day Fee is refunded ifwithin one (1) year of the date of filing the Notice of Intent, the City Clerk certifies the sufficiency of the petition per Elections Code _ _ -- - -------- ... ---- - -•- -- --- --- - -- NA Subpoena Fees- Subpoenaed StaITas Witness Per Day NA Subpoena Fees - Subpoena for Records Per Day - ---- - -- - -- --- - - - -- - -- ---- -- -- --__ Recorded_Documents _ -- - - - - - -- xtheCountyRecorder_ -_ Variable Variable Mailm dacumei3fa Cost ofPosta a S 42.59 Cart€ficat €an of Doctamenls _ _ �{ _ _ _ �~ _ NA S Candidate Nomination Filing Per Election Code Section 10228, $25 max $ 433.78 Appeals to City Council -Any 0.1.5 1 $ 2.00 Staff Recommendation Chan $ 0.25 $ 0.34 U $ 2.00 1 70( 5.00 $ 10.00 1 -33%1 S 10.00 NA NA NAI NA NA Per Page NA Per Page Copy Fee Copv Fee NA $ 10.00 NA $ 10.00 0.10 1 $ 0.101 0%1 $ 0.10 5.00 I $ 5.00 0% $ 5.00 fo.00 I $ 10.001 0 %1 $ 10.00 NA 1 $ 200.001 NAI $ 200.00 1 NA NA ! $ 250.001 NAI $ 250.00 NA 1 $ 15.00 NA $ 15.00 NA New I Actual Cost i NAI Actual Cost I NA New $ 15.00 NA S 15.00 NA 75.00 $ 25.00 _ 0% $ - 25.00 0% New $ 200.00 NA $ 200.00 NA 'Electronically Stored Records or Data Except as specifically listed in this Fee Schedule, the department may charge duplication costs of producing an electronic copy of a non- exempt public record including: All programming and computer services costs where production of the record requires data compilation, extraction or programming for all such productions, the charges shall be based on the compensation for the actual employee performing the production multiplied by the amount of time spent programming, etc, Time shall be billed in fifteen (15) minute increments with no minimum grace period fl Planning Fees Abandonment Review - - •- ----- - - - -.. - ----- -- - - Annexation Building Permit (Planning Division review for _conditions CUP.: Ma_ jor CUP - Minor Design Review - Commercial & Industrial Proj Design Review - Residential Projects -D e-:'-'R Aipn_eyiew_Minor - --- - - - - -- - - - - -- - --_. Modification - Commercial & Industrial Modification Residential W - Mod- i_ication - Minor Design _Re_v_iew ..... Modification _CUPMa)or__T____ ____ ___ ______ Modification - CUP Minor Development Agreem . ent _ City Staff Review Development Agreement - City_ Attornex Revie _Development A- greement - Amend__me_nt_ __ Enviornmental Review- Initial Study[ND[M ND fStafF Prepared]_ ..... . T Enviornmental Review - Initial P Study[N D1M ND LConsultant Pre _pared)...... C Enviornmental Review - Environmental Impac 7_... ...... .......... - ---------- ...... - -------- Enviornmental Review - P Environmental Impact Report (Consultant Preparedl --------------- Enviornmental Review - Other CEQA P Review _ _ Enviornmental Review - Mitigation P Monitoring Enviornmental Review - 3rd Party P Review - •- --- ._._ - ----- ---..-__. ---------- -------- Enviornmental Review - LEAPS /JPR (Lake P Elsinore Acquisition Process/joint Project Review) ............... Dept. of Fish & Wildlife -Negative Declaration Declaration .. ............. .... °-- -------------- - • -------- Dept of Fish & Wildlife -Environmental Impa - - ---- - - --• -- -••------ -- - - ---- - - - - --- Dept. of Fish & Wildlife -Exemption (Categoric ------ ---------------------- - ----------- General Plan Amendment Landscape Plan Check including Ins Pectiog M _Landscape Plan Check _includ ng,Inspection_. Landscape Plan Check including Inspection. Sp Pre,liminAryApphcation_(Pre Application Revi Reversion to Acreage Review of Technical Studies Fiscal Impact Re Review of Technical Studies Hydrolopy_and_H Review o f Technic tI Studies - Solls Rcpart__ -- _ Be-view of Technical Studies - Traffic Study Review of Technical Studies - Other Studies Temporary9gnsfPerLEMC §1719.6160) Change of Face.(PreviouslyApproved_Sjgns) ,Counter Rev iew (New Signs) Staff Review- (wh -en further. Sign Review is re_q, Freestanding SjgnReyiew ......... Center Identification Sign -- -- - - ---- ------------ -- Uniform,SigRProgram Specific Plan (Including Amendments) Specific Plan (Including Amendments) - Subs[ Determination -- - - - Su.pplemental ABC App lication_ _ Surface Mining / Reclamation Plan P Staff % Full rest Cu rr v i i I F ev Suggested Fee Change Recomntcndation Chan e & Environmental Clearance $ 5,103.12 3,000.00 $ 5,103.00 70% $ 5,000.00 67% - ------- - --- -------- -- - -------- ____ _ $ 8181.73 � 6,00[1.00 $ 8181.00 36% 80011.00 33% compliance with Variable 7.. %oi Building , 20% of Building NA 20% of Building NA Permit Fee Permit Fee Permit F e - -_�_ -- -- _.- $ 8181.73 5 5.601.00 $ 8,101.00 46% 01000.00 43 °/ _. $ 4 693 -56 S 3.401.00 $ 4 693.00 38% 4 000.00 18° ects $ 8,879.15 $6,760+ $ 8,879.00 NA $ 8,879.00 NA 5120 /acre _ - $ 8,569.81 $.5,200+ S-3/unit, $ 8,569.00 NA $ 8,569.00 NA -- -- ------- - -- --- --•- -- --- -- ---- -- $ 4,693.56 S 3,910.00 4693.00 20% $ _ 4,301,00 10% $ 4,439.58 53300 * �S55 /acre $ 4,439.00 NA $ 4,439.00 NA 4 $ 4,284.91 54,060 , $2 /unit $ 4,284.00 NA $ 4,284.00' NA f. R - $ 2,346.78 S 1,900.00 S 2,346.00 23% S 2.346.00 23% 4 090.87 $ 2 018.00 $ 4.090,00 103% $ 3.000,00 49% ------------ ---- - ----- - $ 2,346.78 S 2.018.00 $ 2,346.00 16 %u $ 2,219,80 10% NA- S 15,500100 $ 15 500.00 0% $ 1S 500.00 0% w- _ NA S 3 ,000,00 $ 2000.00 0% 2000.00 114 /° ....... ---- -- ---- ----- NA S i 000.00 $ 41000.00 0% $ 4,000.00 0 % With Applicant supplied $ 19,467.76 S 8,500.00 $ 19,467.00 129% $ 17,000.00 100% echnical Studies [us Actual Cost Of $ 12,404.81 S 1,500.00 $ 12,404.00 126% $ 11,000.00 100% onsultant t Report (Staff Prepared) $ 61,832.28 Fee Negotiated' $ 61,832.00 NA Fee negotiated On NA On A Project By�i A Project By Pro erl Basis ProlectBasis' ]us Cost 0 f Consultant $ 20,450.97 I').000mo $ 20,450.00 8% $ 20,450.00 8% ]us Cost Of Consultant $ 1,837.72 ,500.00 $ 1,837.00 22% $1,650 +3rd NA Party Cost ]us Cost OfConsultant� $ 12,544.38 S fioowo(i $ 12,544.00 57% $9,000 +3rd NA Par Cost lus Cost OfConsultant Variable S 2,001,00 3rd Party Cost NA $2,000+3rd NA Party Cost his $1,500dolwsit for JPR NA 1,.00.1)0 $ 1,500.00 0% $ 1,500.00 0% /MitigatedNegative NA Serr,yDept.ou Set by Dept. of NA Set byDepto NA fish cmd Wildiile Fish and Wildlife Fish and Wildlife ct Report NA Set by Dept. of Set by Dept. of NA Set by Dept. of NA Fish andWildhie Fish and Wildlife Fish and Wildlife al /Statutory) NA Set b'VOel l ni Set by Dept. of NA Set by Dept o NA "isle <uul Wildlife Fish and Wildlife Fish and Wildlife 8,879.15 1ut,.0ii $ 8,879.00 20 % 8,146.60 10% inor - -._ - _ $ 1,860.66 S 2 : '/2.00 1,860.00 -57% $ 1860,00 -57°1 Major_____ - $ 3,537.13 0 86; .. n0 $ 5,537.00 -67% -$ 3,537.00 -67% ecial Variable S 3.0:38 00 3rd Par Cost NA 3rd Party Cost NA. ew) ........ - .... S 5,329.81 7'600.00 $ 5 329.00 90% $ 3,500,00 25% $ 3 548.89 > i 'Jm Ore $ 3 548.00 121% 3,548,00. 121% port ..... .... Variable > 1 !ML0!) 3rd Par Cost NA 3rd Par Cost NA draulicRe- ort Variable s 2,:3(19.00 3rd Par Cost NA 3rd Par Cost NA Variable S lw) tit! 3rd Par Cost NA 3rd Par Cost NA __ _ _ _ Variable 'G 3./30.110 3rd Par Cost NA 3rd Par Cost NA -� Variable .5 1.2 sii 00 3rd Par Cost NA 3rd Party Cost NA $ 70.30 5 +!f) $ 70.00 40% 70.00 40% ................................ $ 70.30 $ 70.00 40 % $ 70,00 40% $ 94.55 $ 94300 25% $_ 94.00 25% uired] $ 220.73 $ 220.00 10% 220.00 10% $ 360.43 $ 360.00 11% $ 360.00 11% $ 4,693.56 $ 4,693.00 NA $ 4,693.00 NA 4,693.56 / h! ' S 4,.693.00 74% $ 3,250.00 20% $ 25131.81 $ 25,131.00 16 %n $ 25.000.00 150! antial Conformance $ 2,297.84 $ 2,297.00 153% $ 2,297.00 153% - -- - --..- -.. $ 97.01 $ 97.00 143% $ 97.00 143% PI review of technical udy revs - -. $ 12,404.81 $ 12,404.00 24% $ 12,404.00 24% Planning Fees NOTE: Additional fees may be required for County Flood Control and County Fire Department Review plus fees for septic system permits 3 Staff % Fee Description Recommendation Chan e Surface Mining[ Reclamation Plan_ Fiscal Assurance Re- port----------- NA S 1,230.00 $ 1230.00 0 °/n $ 1 230.00 0% $ 3984.74 S 2.(_,77.00 $ 3984.00 49r/° $ 2944.70 10° ___ TPM Devised Map {meludipgVgstlnRj. - - - -, $ 9,545.711 5 8,963.00 $ 9,545.00 6% 9 545.00 6° Tentative Parcel Ma $ 24 904.60 S 12063.00 $ 24 904.00 31% 1 22 000.00 15° f°ntativr TraeC twSa�r.(lncluding Vesting]. $ 9,961.84 S 7,066,00 $ 9,961.00 41% 9,000.00 27 � Tentative Tract _Map Vestln�y) Revisions __ $ 70.30 5 75.00 $ 70.00 -7% $ 70.00 -7 TUP Short Term_j3 dais or less]__ $ 188.66 5 150.011 $ 188.00 25% $ 188.00 250A __ ______ - - - - - - -- - --- -- - - -- - - - - --- TUP - Extended (4 to 30 days) Flat Fee, plus $500 refundable security deposit TUP - Seasonal (120 days) Plus $500 refundable $ 952.67 5 800.00 $ 952.00 19% $ 952.00 194/ securi de osit $ 4,284.91 .5 2.829.00 $ 4,284.00 51% $ 4 000.00 41° /i Variance $ 8,879.15 ,851.00 $ 8,879.00 52% $ 7,000,00 200/1 Zone Change �.._ _._ Variable New 1/4 of the NA 1/4 of the original NA Further Review Applied at the City's discretion as needed after 4 original application fee Cvcle Review application fee Variable New $ 500.00 NA $ S00.00 NA Additional Meeting Applied at the City's discretion as needed after 5 - meeting._ 1/4 of the 1/4 of the 1/4 of the original NA Extension of Time original application original application fee application fee fee $ 56.22 New $ 56.00 NA 56.00 NA Planning BLDG Permit Plan check Minor__ ___- ______- ____- _________ ___ _ _ __ __ $ 112.44 New $ 112.00 NA 112.00' NA Planning BLDGPermit PlancheckMaor deposit in the above amount is required atthe time the application is filed. where the -- __ _______ _ _ __ Unless otherwise noted, the above fees are deposit -based fees and an Initial initial deposit is insufficient to cover the costs of processing the application, the Planning Division shall request an additional deposit to cover the estimated cost of additional permit review. Refunds will be made on any accounts with a balance of $50.00 or more upon completion of the application process. _S ecial Service Letter _ ....._. L? ---- -- -- ------ --- - - - -- --------------- S 69.85 S Zb.00 $ 69,00 176% $ 69.00 176 NA 5422.00 ist 10 Set by Riverside NA Set by Riverside NA Review of Fault Hazard Report $587.00 max, set by (Geologic Report) by Riverside Riverside County acres +S 15. 00 for County County C..RUM_Geologist------------------------------------- ra ddd'l acre NA a i •000.00 $ 1,000.00 0% $ 1,000.00 0% -------- Clean -up Deposit for Sales & Construction Trailers, Signage, Landscape, etc Variable Actual Cost Actual Cost NA Actual Cast NA Shipping or Mail in g._______r __._.. $ 424.09 1 New I $ 424,00 1 NAI S 424.00 1 NA _____ _.__-- Preoarntion of Notification Packave NOTE: Additional fees may be required for County Flood Control and County Fire Department Review plus fees for septic system permits 3 Code Enforcement Fees I.Irst Investigation Fulluw till Invcstegat an - -�� -- NuisanceAlia(ementHrarin Warrant f'r��p;Iratton Warrant signaturt�tyaurihciuse —' ^'- 4Varran[rehirn� caurthnuse .i 9ctu- Abatement Graffiti Abatement costs a fter NOV has been issued Penalty Illegal Dumping Plus 3rd party cost as needed S 272.85 s 1.11:3,QII a Z72,00 •,4'Au 1 $ s50:0Fl S 1,796.22 $ 2,466.00 S 1,796.00 270/n $ 1 S6;Qfi $ 597.81 3."i4.f111 $ 597.00 8% 'S S97,vtj S 597.81 54 -0f) $ 597.00 Bryn S 597.00 $ 597.81 5 S54.R0 $ 597.08 80/0 '$ 5 +3loo S 2,216.85 S 2,168.00 S 2,216.00 -S% $ 2,2'.00.(1(f $ 199,27 S 1.99.04 S 199.00 001n 5 f 9e1 F'fns I'c•n,d {��; S 149.45 a 3139.110 S 149.00 480% S 1 14 Plti ;t :3rd P.i r t, ©w Vehicle Abatement Fees Fire Prevention Fees Residential Tract Water 1------ -atlan 1'erApproved Perm_ it Applicat)on STD 850 Per Inspection Fire Safety School Inspection Per Inspection Private Schools Only Cell Tower Review & ins ectlan Per lns�ion 8u11dmg Perm it (New) <SOK - l3nildin Permit (New)- each additional S0K 4 8ud�in Permit rl <5,000ft 8tritding Permit (TI) x 000 Gf - WaferSystemPlans y _ Fire S rinkler New r Riser ' <100 heads FireSprinl !jr ewperRiser ):100 +11(Iser >1_ -�� T� Fire Sprinkler (TI)_ <20 Heads _..... 0 --- --- - r------ -° ° _ Tire 5prinkler_(TI)_ 21 _ 100 Heads Fire Sprinkler (Tl)_ 100+ /Riser >1 Residential Fire Sprinkler _4.._.. - ---- - -- - -- ---------.------•---------°------- Fire Il drams On Site I ^ire Alarm System: 1 -10 Ini. Dev Fire Alarm System 11.20 im- Dev �- - Fire Alarm System: 20<Im. Dev_ - -y --------- Sprinklel_Manitoring Fire Su 7re5.stnp S stems pl -y Fuel Tank Fuel Tank - Each Additional Tank High Pile or Rack Storage �_-- ------- � � _ T Technical Report Spun,Yl Inspection �� 2 Hour Minimum Single Family Site Plan After hour Inspections 2 Hour Minimum palled Piton Check/ Inspection _...... PeISOmittal Records Retention Technical Report Resubmittal Per Resubmittal lk- t Dccupancy - <25 units 1r.HaGtlsf fotcls R -1 Occupancy 26 50 umts _ -�,�» r� j e Ht>tE S Mpteks ____- R -1 Occupancy 51_75 units t.2. IlnteEs, Motels R- IOCcupancy -76 -100 units i.2. Hotels, Motels _ - - R -1 Occupancy - > 100 units i.e, Hotels, Motels R-2 Occupancy _ Per Unit i.e- Res Permanent 3 + R -2 Occupancy- Care Facility Residential Per lhiii i.e. Res Permanent 3 + State licensed - 6orless Pre-inspec'tioil fee _.__ -.. _. ..._.. .. _..... .- .__. _... . ......_ - -..._ ... R•2 occupancy care Facility Commercial 0.50 State Licensed -_ - - -�W I(2 Occu anc Care Facili Commercial 51 -99 State Licensed P..e_._y __. ..___nty_._ .- -. --._. .__._ - _. _.._w_....- R- 2 Occupancy Care Facility Cnmmercial 100 -150 State Lice 3lsed ^ f R -2 dccupan(y Care Farility Commercial >151 State 1.icen9Mi R4(3cc'upancy Day Care I aciitties Residential8 14 Fire Clearance I.4 Occupancy- Day Care Facib4es Commercial 0 50 t- 40ccupancy- Day Care Facilities Commercial 51 -99 1 -4 Occupancy- Day Care Facilities Commercial 100 -150 f -4 Occupancy • Day Carr Facilities Commercial >151 S 122.08 New Suggested $ 122.00 % NA Staff Recommendation % Change $ 122.00 NA $ 223.28 S 1b8.00 $ 223.00 33% $ 223.00 33% $ 1,339.68 New $ 1,339.00 NA Based on Actual Rate from Coun NA $ 285.94 S 348.00 $ 285.00 -18% S 285.00 -18% $ 1,036.70 i L056,011 $ 1,036.00 -2% S 1,036.00 .2% $ 678.96 S ';28.00 $ 678.00 28% $ 580.80 10% $ 402.15 5 148.00 $ 402.00 16% $ 382.80 10% $ 804.29 S 696.00 $ 804.00 16% $ 765.60 10% S 741.63 $ 614.00 $ 741.00 21% $ 675.40 30% $ 697.21 S 614.00 $ 697.00 14% S 675.40 10 % $ 974.03 5 921.00 $ 974.00 6% $ 974.00 6% $ 348.61 30% 00 $ 348.00 13% $ 337.70 10% $ 581.01 9 614.00 $ 581.00 -5% $ 581.00 -5% $ 857.83 S 921.00 $ 857.00 -7% $ 857.00 .7% $ 375.98 S 454.00 $ 375.00 -17% $ 375.00 -17% $ 201.50 Rv Valuation By Valuation NA By Valuation NA $ 697.21 5 572.00 $ 697.00 4% $ 697.00 4% $ 983.16 5 1.,008.00 $ 983,00 -2% $ 983.00 .2% $ 1,269.10 S 1,344.00 $ 1,269.00 -6% S 1.269.00 -6o /a $ 455.68 w 454.00 $ 455.00 0% $ 455.00 0010 $ 464.$1 5 454.00 $ 464.00 2% S 464.00 20/0 $ 590.14 S 584.00 $ 590.00 10 /n $ 590.00 1% $ 232.40 S 168.00 $ 232.00 38% $ 184.80 10% $ 411.27 S 348.00 $ 411.00 18% $ 411.00 189/0 $ 894.33 S 1,008,00 $ 894.00 -11% $ 894.00 -110/3 $ 223.28 S 168,Of1 $ 223.00 33% $ 184.80 10% $ 94.00 $ 75.00 $ 93.00 24% $ 82.50 10% $ 334.92 5 338.00 $ 334.00 •1% $ 334.00 •1% $ 167.46 S 168,00 $ 167.00 -1% S 167.00 -1% $ 19.37 )$•061.9/5.2.6 sin $ 19.00 NA See City Clerk NA $ 313.32 i 336.00 $ 313.00 -7% $ 313.00 .7% $ 375.98 3 16(1.00 $ 375.00 134% $ 176.00 100 /a $ 469.98 S 160.00 $ 469.00 193% $ 176.00 100 /a $ 563.98 1.60.00 $ 563.00 252% $ 176.00 10 °/a $ 657.97 5 160.00 $ 657.00 31]010 $ 176.00 10% $ 751.97 t60,00 $ 751.00 - 369% $ 176.00 - 10% $ 31.33 s 36.00 S 31.00 -14% $ 31.00 IT% $ 125.33 1� 89.30 $ 125.00 40% $ 97.90 10% S 250.66 5 89.00 $ 250.00 181% $ 97.90 10% $ 313.32 S 134,00 $ 313.00 134% $ 147.40 10% $ 375.9$ S 134.110 $ 375.00 1800 /a $ 147.40 100 /a $ 501.31 S 134.00 $ 501.00 274% S 147.40 10% $ 125.33 5 89.00 $ 125.00 1 40% $ 125.00 40% $ 125.33 5 i i- 00 $ 125.00 7% $ 125.00 •7% $ 187.99 134.0(3 $ 187.00 40% S 147.40 10% $ 250,66 5 134.00 $ 250.00 87% 1 $ 147.40 10%% $ 313.32 s 1 3,1.00 $ 313.00 134% $ 147.40 1 10% L Weed Abatement Fees Fee Tractor Mor�vinL___' Fixed F". Single Parcel _Less Than 1 Acre Tractor Mowing__ Per At-re Single Parcel - Over 1 Acre i)iscinp,- Fixed Fee Single Parcel_ I.ctis l han 1 Acre_ 0isetn Ile Acre Sin Ie Parcel - flvei 1 Acre b. -- - Hand Labor Per 5 Irt of Area AlratEd TM Trimming I'cr cubk Yard ofofXatenW ._ � �... 0ozer-4; tton I'ev- Iluur -- .............. . .......... .... Dozer ppratlon MpVC on Fee -�� - Debris /Rubbish Removal Per Cubic Yard &, Ilaulin [lehris / Rubbish Removal Dump Fees & Llaulln -- --••---- - - - - -- - -- - -- - - -- - - - - - -- Excavator Brush Cutting Per Square foot Machine Ski Ioader0 ration Per-Hour Aajmmi�tra -we vec Pealai . Appeal tiling Fee RBfu�tided ifAppeal IsGrnnted i ate ree Pe- nal!X for Non -Pa men! Suggested Staff Recnmanendation % [ Itan c $155.25 $155.25 $155.25 0% $155.25 0% 315525 5155.25 $155.00 0% $155.00 0% $138.00 $138.00 $138.00 0% $138.00 0% $138.00 $138.00 $138.00 0% 5138.00 0010 $0.12 $0.12 $0.12 0% $0.12 00/0 $51.75 $51.75 $51.75 0% 551.75 00/0 $575.00 $575.00 $575.00 0% $575.00 0% $143.75 $143.75 $143.00 .1% '$143.00 •1% $143.75 $143.75 $143.00 .1% $143.00 -1% $0.00 Actual Cost $0.00 NA Actual Cost NA $0.58 $0.50 $0.58 0% $0.58 0% $115.00 $115.00 $115.00 0% $115.00 0174 $541.32 $350.00 $350.00 0% $350,00 0% $50.00 $50.00 $50.00 0% 550.00 0010 10% 30% 10% 0% 10% ONO Engineering Fees All Grading Plan Check Rough & Percise Grading/ Drainage Inspection 100 Cubic Yards or Less: Rough & Percise Grading/ Drainage Inspection - 101 - 1,000 Cubic Yards ---- -- ----- -- - --- -- - - -------------- - Rough & Percise Grading/ Drainage Inspection - 1,001 - 10,000 Cubic Yards: Rough & Percise Grading/ Drainage Inspection - 10,001 - 100,000 Cubic Rough & Percise Grading/ Drainage Inspection - 100,001- 400,000 Cubic Yards: Rough & Percise Grading/ Drainage Inspection -Over 400,000 Cubic Yards: Retnspectiolr fee erhtlur ..................... _ .!h .........._ . Inspection for which no fee is specifically per hour Min 1/2 hr indicated /One time inspection Additional Plan Review, required by changes, perhour Min 4firs, additions or revisions to approved plans Subdivisions/ Commercial - Final Tract Map Plus GIS Fee Subdivisions/ Commercial - Parcel Map Plus GIS Fee Subdivisions/ Commercial - Redesigned per sheet ]'fact /Parcel ,Maps in Process Staff % Subdivisions/ Commercial - Revised Approved per sheet Plus GIS Fee tr,act/Parcel Maps. . k Recommendation Chan e Subdivisions,/ Commercial - Public Works Improvement Based on Plans - 0450,000 Engineer's 7_�,_ Estimate; Plus Permit Fee GIS Fee Subdivisions/ Commercial - Public Works Based on Improvement Plans - $50,000- $300,000 Engineers $ 265.00 Estimate: Plus Variable GIS Pee 5ubdtvislons/ Commercial - Public Works Improvement fused oft Plans - $300,000 4700,000 linglneers Fstimatc, I'lus first 100 GIs Ftv 8 Staff % k Recommendation Chan e viw� Grading 91% Grading NA 91% Grading NA 7_�,_ Permit Fee Permit Fee Permit Fee Y,U.uO $ 265.00 _ 20% $ 265.00 20% Variable $220 Ioi the Ih +i $265 for the NA $265 for the first NA 1100cublcyards. , first 100 100 cubic yards,+ 550 for ea. add 'I cubic yards, + $60 for ea add'] 100 cubic Vard. $60 for ea 100 cubic yards or or fraction add'I 100 fraction thereof thercoi cubic yards or fraction thereof Variable $670 top llle llrst $807 for the NA $807 for the first NA t,000 cubic yarns. first 1,000 1,000 cubic yards, 550 rot ea. Add ' I cubic yards, + + $60 for ea add'1 1100 cubic yard:. $60 for ea 1,000 cubic yards or Iractloa, add'11,000 or fraction thereof thrrrecil cubic yards or fraction tb reo Variable St. 120 fur Chi- $1349 for the NA $1349 for the first NA first 10,000 eijWo first 10,000 10,000 cubic vards, > $190 top cubic yards, + yards, + $229 for e4 add '1 10.0110 $229 For ea ea add'110,000 cnhtc vtarda or add'] 10,000 cubic yards or II jictIoIi thetcoI cubic yards or fraction thereof fraction thereof Variable $2,030 for for $3409 for the NA $3409 for the first NA fir,ri 100,01191 first 100,000 100,000 cubic comic yards, , cubic yards, + yards, + $133 for 110 for car. adti '1 $133 for ea ea add'l 10,000 it) 000 culn add'1 10,000 cubic yards or y n'ds or fractlau cubic yards or fraction thereof therein fraction thereof $ 458.94 %.130 for tbt $7384 for the NA $7384 for the first NA Ilm 4011,0011 first 400,000 400,000 cubic cubic yards, . cubic yards,+ yards, +$133 for Silo for ear. add '1 $133 for ea ea add'l 10,000 1,0,000 culih add1 10,000 cubic yards or a:+rds or lractloo cubic yards or fraction thereof thercol fraction o thereof $ 392.76 $ 120.00 26% $ 120.00 26% $ 392.76 r 10.00 $ 120.00 9% $ 120.00 9% $ 173.88 i 111).0(1 $ 173.00 57% $ 173.00 57% $2941 +$95 's 1,700 +j57, per $2941 +$95 NA $2941 +$95per NA It, Perlot lot $2941 +$83 51,6011 + 345 pe, $2941+$83 NA $2941 + $83 per NA lo, per lot lot $ 1,605.22 S 450.00 $ 450.00 0% $ 450.00 0% $ 1,605.22 1,50 -00 $ 450.00 0% $ 450.00 0% 5.4% 3.. i(% 5.4% 20% 5.4% 20% 4.8% 4.8% 20.5% 4.8% 20.5% 4.2% 4.2% 20.5% 4.2% 20.5% 8 Engineering Fees Subdivisions/ Commercial - Public Works Improvement Based on Plans - $700,000 - $1,000,000 Engineer's Staff % Change RecommendatioT 20.5% 3.620.5% Estimate; Plus - ----------------------- FPO ------ Subd3vislons/Commercial - Public Works Improvement Based on Plans - $1,000,000 and greater Engineers 15IJ 10 Estimate. Plus ----------------- __ - - - - - -- -------- - -•--- ----------- ----------- ga r" . ..._ Subdivisions/ Commercial - Revised or per sheet Plus GIS Fee Redesigned Public Works Improvement Plans 9.0% SFR•Non Subdivision - Public Works Based on Improvement Plans Engineer's 600.010 Estimate; Plus -._.- -. . .............. - ------ GIS -Fee -.- AdmitllstrntiostCklase Per Plan Check Lnt Lme Adjustments -Two Lots Only S 600.00 Lot Line Adjustment-More than two lots $ 600.00 R_ . thin Easement_Rkghtof Way «{ $735 +$81 .0 xrtl hcate of t;om nllance $600 +$81 erlaf. Parcel Merger $600 +$81per lot . ._. .. ..... .. ...... ... . ........ _ ............... Street Abandonment /Vacation ......................... ......... Plus cost of 440.00 publication & - '. _.._ _.._._. - - osta e - p g °° Certiflrate of Curreetinn S 735.27 WQMPPIanCheck - Preliminary and /or, final per report EP - 0450,000 ^ Based on 33% Engineer's ;,)00 -SZ5 per loi Estimate EP - $50,000 - $300,000 Based on NA Engineer's _ Estimate________ EP - $300,000 - $700,000. Based on 107% Engineer's ---- ---- -.--..._._._-_�___ -_ - -_ - - --------------------- Estimate ..•_. EP - $700,000 - $1,000,000 Based on 33% Engineer's 5 1.750,00 Estimate EP - $1,000,000 AND UP Based on 43% Engineer's - - -- ........_., ...- -....-.- _.- _.v_._... Estimate -.- - __......._ -.. --.. LP Driveway _Residential &Commercial -_ EPCurb &Gutter 6.6% 'i_ ewa-I---- --- -- -- -- - -- - -- ------------ EP idewalk 6.6% - -- -• ------- --- -- -- ._- �..._-- EP Paving _.-- ._...r _ .................... - -•- ----- . •----- - -- - -- YEP One time Inspection 6.0% EP Road Closure Permit 6.0% Transportation Permit. Annual Permit limited _T-_- 5.4o /a ransportation Permit: Per Trip Permit limited ._... __ - - -_.. _....---- --- - .. ---- .- ..._-•----- •---• --- by CA DoT.,. EP Less than 200 linear feet Per Linear Feet EP 200 - 1000 1mear Feet Per Linear Feet EP Over 1000 linear feet Per Linear Feet EP One time Inspection -,Le., potholes, bellhales, splice pits, etc Any application not covered by adopted fees - - ----- -- -- - - - - -- - - ° - EP Traffic Control Inspection per hour - - -- ---- ------- -- ----- ------ - -- --- -- --- ---- - -- --- --- - -- - - - -- Overtime Inspections (Holiday's, weekends, after hours) - ----- - •----------- --- ----------- ---- -- ----- ----- -- ---- --- -- --- --- Work started without permit: Valuation $0 to $200 penalty Full Cost 3.6% Current Fee i.04ro Suggp3ted Fee 3.6% Staff % Change RecommendatioT 20.5% 3.620.5% 3.0% s 3.0% 20.5% 3.0% 20.5% $ 1,159.20 15IJ 10 $ 450.00 0 % $ _ 460.00 0% 9.0% 9.0% 20.5% 9.0% 20.5% $ 297.80 600.010 $ 200.00 0% $ _ 200.00 0% $ 735.27 1 400.00 S 600.00 50% $ 600.00 _ 50% $735 +$81 6500 • X55 ,er lot $600 +$81 erlaf. NA $600 +$81per lot NA $ 935.65 440.00 $ 600.00 36% $ 600.00 36% S 735.27 vw.00 $ 600.00 33% $ 600.00 33% $735+$46 ;,)00 -SZ5 per loi $600+$81 er lot NA $600 + $81 per lot NA $ 2,273.85 S 1,100.00 $ 2,273.00 107% $ 2,273.00 107% $ 778.72 S 1. UOJ 1 $ 600.00 33% $ 600.00 1 33% $ 3,287.14 5 1.750,00 $ 3,287.00 88% $ 2,500.00 43% 7.8% 6, 5;% 7.8% 20.5% 7.2% 10.0% 6.6% 5.51% 6.6% 20.5% 6.1% 10.0% 6.0% S.1p% 6.0% 20.5% 5.50/. 10.0% 5.4o /a _'% 5.4% 20.5% 5.0% 10.0% 4.8% tJ)u /o 4.8% 20.5% 4.4% 10.0% $ 433.02 i t I u.on $ 120.00 9% $ 120.00 9% $93 +$4 0,f. $93 +$41f. NA $93 +$41f, NA $93+$Z 5 1 10.0(I S.70 Ii. $93 + $2 If. NA $93 + $2 If. NA $93+$0.43 y w 1 o -011 i. 10 1t, $93+$0.43 If. NA $93 + $0.43 If. NA $ 262.86 116.011 S 110.00 0% $ 110.00 0% $ 303.42 1 110.00 $ 120.00 9% $ 120.00 9% NA f qg %o0 $ 90.00 0% $ 90.00 0% NA 16:00 $ 16.00 0% $ 16.00 0% Variable 532S.n0 • S.^. If $391 +$0.66 If. NA $391 +$0.66 If. NA Variable 4'ii11.00.S.4!;I1 $663 +$0.54 If. NA $663 +$0.54 IL NA Variable _ )677,00 $813+$0.42 If. NA $813 +$0.421f. NA $ 247.41 110 -0, S 120.00 0% $ 120.00 0% Variable , o,utl oisl . $1, Fully Burdened Hourly Rates of.Sfaff NA Fully Burdened Hourly Rates of Staff NA $ 455.22 _ $ 455.00 NA $ 455.00 NA $ 371.12 $ 371.00 NA $ 371.00 NA NA 4 times normal fee NA 4 times normal fee NA 9 Engineering Fees Staff % Recommendation Chan Work started without a permit: Valuation $200 or over penalty A"utit Fee Per Plan Set - ---- ••---• ------- ------------°.. ..---- --------------- ------- � ^-• Bond Release Per Review (50% discount if developer submits all ,. ---------- - -- Eequired_support)............. NPDES Business Inspection Fee - Initial Applicable to inspection in accordance with the current - --- . ----- ° WW MS4 NPDES Permit Inspertiar£ nee:_Construrtlon _ _ _ __ Inspection Fee: Commercial - Restaurant, Retail, Hazmat As mandated by MS4 Permit Inspection Fee: Industrial As mandated by MS4 Permit Inspection Fee: Home Based Businesses As mandated by MS4 Permit_ Re- inspection Fee As needed NPDES Incident Response - -�T- � 4_w NPDi;S•BuilcinKPerzu!i rr view Inrcnmpli?me Building Permit (Engineering Division review for compliance with conditions - includes T.1, retaining walls, pools, etc.) ---- -- - ---- ----- ------- -- -- --- -- -- -- FEMA Community Official Review - Elevation Certificate, CLOMR, LOMR, etc. '-•-----..........-- --- ° -.. ----- •-- -- ------ ----- --- --- _- -- -- --- - -- ----- -.. Traffic Control Plan Checks Fee Plus 3rd party ._.-....._. _.__._.�_ »----- •---•_._...R.ti.� - ..costs __. CIS Fee Applies to all Public Ship�ir£g.Cit ®eke for Flan Checks Pee Inspecklon a0tside of norm"al husiness hours per hour Min 4 hrs. __ ..... . Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) per report FINAL Review (Fee for combined Prelim. & C {nal_regiew is $3,500.0[i] •, . - -- - - -, -„ • _ Dedicatlon/EasementPlanChe-ckFee erhour Min4hrs. _... ...._.._ _. ----------------- - --- -- - ---°- -hrs Developer Meeting Fee, charge after 2 meeting per hour NA 3 limes, normal fee 3times normal fee NA 3 times normal fee $ 591.19 S 720.00 $ 59L00 -18% $ 500.00 .3 $ 591.19 New $ 591.00 NA $ 500.00 $ 231.76 S 2B'2.00 $ 231.00 -180/o $ 200.00 -2 $ 21.24 New $ 21.00 NA $ 20.00 $ 154.51 5 16.()(1 $ 16.00 0% $ 20.00 2 $ 154.51 S 90.00 $ 90.00 0% $ 75.00 -1 $ 154.51 S 16.00 $ 16.00 0% $ 20.00 2 $ 77.25 5 90.00 $ 77.00 -14% $ 75.00 -1 $ 309.02 $ 376.00 $ 30900 •I8% $ 300.00 -2 $ 77.25 S 94.00 $ 77.00 -18% $ 75.00 -2 $ 154.51 New $ 154.00 NA $ 150.00 $ 154.51 5 18800 $ 154.00 -18% $ 150.00 -2 Actual Cost Actual Cus( Actual Cost NA Actual Cost Time based New Time Based NA Time Based Actual Cost Actual Cost Actual Cost NA Actual Cost $ 432.84 5 120.00 $ 432.00 260% $ 432.00 26 $ 1,750.90 n (.''50.00 $ 1,750.00 0% $ 1,750.00 $ 227.20 s ll0.u0 $ 227.00 106% $ 12L00 ___ 1 I per hour I S I Actualswithl NA $ 250.00 0 Community Services Fees Fee DeSCrIPlJUu Unit Notes Lap Swim/ ExerclseClasses PerPartictpant Swim Lessons per Partin nt Per Da Open Swim Per Child 0 -12 Years Old (7pen Swim Per Adult 12 Years and Older Ope!j wim_Punch Pass - _______ 12 Punches For Adult or Child - -- °_ - ..._. - - - ---- AdultSoftballLeapzue_HostedbyCit Per Team Plus Materials /Supplies - - AdultKickballLeagueHostedbyCity _ .............. _?erTeam ........ Plus Materials(Supplies Adult Basketball League Hosted by Clty Per Team Plus Materials(Supplies Adult Frisbee League Hosted by City Per Team PlusMaterials(Supplies ___ e_. ___ .......... _ Adult Football _Leag ie_ oc ed_byCity .............. Per Team _ __Plus Mate rials(Supplies Adult Sport League HostedbyCity __ Per Team _PlusMaterlals /Supplies Adult Sport League HostedbyOutside League Per Team Plus Materlals(Supplies ---- ContractClass Registration Setup _. Charge Class Instructor -° -- - -- - Contract Class: Participant (On City Property) Contract Class: Participant (OffCity Property) Evaluated Yearly Application Fee for Palm Tree Retgoval. Military Banner Program Per Banner Full Cost $ 13.92 Current Fee Neat Suggested Fee $ 4.00 % Change NA Staff l(eCOM111Cnda110n % Chan $ 4.00 $ 98.48 5 45.00 $ 45.00 0% $ 45.00 $ 11.20 S 2.00 $ 4.00 100% $ 2.00 $ 11.20 q, 3.00 $ 5.00 67% $ 3.00 $ 23.49 20.00 $ 20.00 0% $ 20.00 S 526.69 }511.011 $ 526.00 17% 5450.00•$526.011 0.1i $ 526.69 New $ 526.00 NA $300.00 - $526.00 $ 526.69 New $ 526.00 NA $300.00 - $526.00 S 526.69 New $ 526.00 NA $300.00.5526.00 $ 526.69 New $ 526.00 NA $300.00- $526.00 $ 526.69 New $ 526.00 NA $ 526.00 $ 732.38 New $ 732.00 NA $ 732.00 $ 485.66 No Cost $ 485.00 NA $ 25% of class fee 2 S% of class lee 25% of class fee NA 25% of class fee 15% of class fee 250 /u of class fee 15% of class fee NA 15% of class fee NA S 100.00 $ 100.00 0% $ 100.00 l NA S 150,00 $ 150.00 0% $ 150.00 1 if Park Fees etball C ss Rental Area Soccer /Football Baseball/ Softball Tc Baseball/ Softball Tc Light,, Baseball/ Softball Tc Profit - WithoutLigt Baseball/ Softball Tc Profit- With Lights Baseball/ Softball Tc i,tghts _ Baseball/ Softball Tc lights Baseball/ Softball Tc Profit - Without Llgk Baseball/ Softball T+ Profit - With Lights Soccer FootbaIIT01 Soccer/ Foothail Tot Snack Bar Rental Snack-Bar Non -Emei Storage Container R Field Lighting Charg RCSP - All Fields (Ex RCSP - Blue Field RCSP - Softball Field RCSP - Main Champi RCSP - Lights RCSP - Snack Bar RCSP -Snack Bar Re RCSP Snack Ber tLc RCSP - Canceltati,)n l RGSP • i:ancelIaeiast 1 R {:SP • (:anoet3atian 1 RCSP [ anceIlatlatl RCSP - Cancellation RCSP - lake Elsinore Youth Teams RCSP - Lake Elsinore Youth Teams - All 0 RCSP - Lake Elsinore Youth Teams - Snacl RCSP - Lake Elsinore Yoath'feams - Light RCSP - Tournament RCSP - Tournament 12 Suggested % Staff % scrIptlan Recommendation Chan e Per Season 1 Day /Week For 10 Weeks S 139.74 New $ 104.00 NA $ 104.00 NA ourt Per Reservation 2 llr. Reservation $ 27.77 New $ 5.00 NA $ SAO NA $ 82.69 New $ 41.00 NA $ 41.00 NA ----------- _-^___ -_Per Use_( 1Day )__ReseryationChae__________ Per Season 6 U P To 5 Hrs. Week Team / / $ 97.70 New $ 100.00 NA $ 100.00 NA $ 97.70 New $ 100.00 NA $ 100.00 NA Per Season 6 Up To 5 Hrs. /Week /Team T $ 97.70 New $ 100.00 NA $ 100.00 NA Per Season 6 Up To 5 Hrs. /Week /Team --------------------------- mqllmm $ 142.21 New $ 30.00 NA $ 30.00 NA )urnament- Without Per Hour Plus PW StaffTime )urnament- With Per Hour Plus PW StaffTime $ 155.21 New $ 40.00 NA $ 40.00 NA --------- - - - - -- -- -- -- - - ---. iurnament- Local Non- Per Hour _ Plus PW StaffTime $ 142.21 $ 20.00 NA $ 20.00 NA tt4 )urnament- Local Non- Per Hour Plus PW StaffTime $ 155.92 New $ 30.00 NA $ 30.00 NA >urnament- Without Per Day Plus PW StaffTime $ 187.39 New $ 190.00 NA $ 190.00 NA wrnament- With Per Day Plus PW StaffTime $ 222.39 New $ 225.00 NA $ 225.00 NA )urnament- Local Non- Per Day Plus PW StaffTime $ 187.39 New $ 165.00 NA $ 165.00 NA its $ 222.39 New $ 185.00 NA $ 185.00 NA )urnament- Local Non- Per Day Plus PW StaffTime irnament Per Hour Plus StaffTime $ 142.21 New $ 28.00 NA $ 28.00 NA ... . .... -- - t _ Per Day_______ .... Plus PW StaffTime $ 187.39 New $ 168.00 NA $ 168.00 NA $ 225.67 s 75,00 $ 112.00 49% $ 82.50 10% - Per Season ----------------------- $ 89.87 New $ 89.00 NA $ 89.00 NA genryCallOut Per Call Out ental Per Mo .... ............. $ 66.42 S 1-0.00 $ 49.00 23% $ 66.00 65% $ 60.66 $ 12Ao $ 18.00 50% $ 16.00 33% e Per Hour .......... $ 186.91 S [U0.00 $ 100.00 0% $ 100.00 0r /a cept Blue) 4 Hr Block 8am- 12pm,12pm -4pm, 4pm-8pm- ----------------- $ 186.91 S t25.00 $ 125.00 0% $ 125.00 0% 4 Hr. Block 8am -12pm, 12pm -4pm, $ 186.91 5 1 15.00 $ 175.00 0% $ 180.00 3% s Per Field /Day $ 186.91 i ?00-00 $ 199.00 -1% $ 225.00 13% ooshlp Field (Btne) Per Field ll)ap Per Hour Y rt� $ 109.55 S 13.00 $ 16.00 23% $ 16.00 23% Jer-Day $ 96.55 a 20000 $ 200.00 0% $ 200.00 0% $ 96.55 Q 100.00 $ 100.00 00/0 $ 150.00 50% serva[lprl C €eanrri Ae oSit f]c u $ 96.55 .$ 25.00 $ 48.00 92% $ 48.00 92% Fee - More Than 14 Oa s Notice $ 34.85 0% of Fee $ 34,00 NA $ NA $ 71.15 20% of Fee $ 71.00 NA $ 70.00 NA Fee - MAre Than 7 Da Ntatice But Less Than 14 Da s Notice y- ...... ... .........- ... _ Fee- Between 2 Days and 7 Days Netlre -- - - -- $ 101.28 5006 of Fee $ 101.00 NA S 100.00 NA $ 101.28 80% of Fee $ 101.00 NA $ 100.00 NA fee less 2 Days Notice _ Fee - Due to Weather /City Closing Park Refund or Credit Provided $ 198.74 04/0 of Fear $ 198.00 NA $ NA $ 191.64 S 300 00 $ 300.00 0% $ 300.00 0% e Non- Profit League Per Schedule Required. Seasons Season /Team Consists oflan1 -June 30th, July 1- Dec 31st or Per League Season /Schedule, Under 1 Team, Teams Are Allowed No More Than (Or Max Of) Two 2 Hr. Practices /Week and One 2 Hr. Game /Week. ----------------------- Non - Profit League Per -- ------- ------ •-- - --- - -_ Schedule Required $ 191.64 5 100.00 $ 99.00 -1% $ 100.00 0% her Sports Fields -__ Season /Tears $ 191.64 i 200 00 $ 199.00 -10/0 $ 200.00 0% Non- Profit League Per Day .Fee 11 ------------- --------- •------- ._ »..__. $ 191.64 13.0O $ 28.00 115% $ 16.00 23% Non- Profit League Per Hour Metered Usage 5 $ 5,947.51 l i10 $ 2,141.00 2% $ 2,200.00 5% Facility Fee Per Tournament Friday, Saturday, and Sunday Tournaments. Noon Friday until 10pm Sunday. - Lig htsinclucled. --- -_ - - -_- $4,822.56 $2,025.00 1% $ 2,100.00 5% Facility Fee Per Tournament Saturday and Sunday Tournaments (Two Day Tournaments). 7am Saturday until 10pm s. 12 Special Event Fees 13 °r° Staff Recomnicndation Chan c Permit Fee :Administration $ 661.27 a 200.00 $ 230.00 15% $ 250.00 29% Permit Fee: Small "" ___.._ ,.._. R P „. $ 1.705.84 i !.00.00 $ 500.00 150 %° $ 250.00 25% _ Permit 1 ee: Medlu3a V -� $ 2,877.85 !UO.t)D $ 1,000.00 400% $ 250.00 25% Permit Fee: Large �Y — $ 4,092.20 5 200.00 $ 1,500.00 650% $ 250.00 25% Deposit(s) As Required NA s 1,000.()0 Determined NA Determined By Size o NA By Scope of Event and /or Location Event Variable Determined By Determined NA _ _ Determined By Size of NA leaning Fee As Required Size of F:venl By Size of Event and/or Location and /or location Eventand /or -.... Location — .......... _ ----- ... �...-- ._.� ... n_ ................... ._ _... ity of Lake Elsinore Business License As Required Variable See Business See Business NA - See Business License NA . ....... Urense Fv,: ---Fee Variable Deternned By Determineill NA Determined By Fire NA Fire Department Fees As Required Fire DepartmenL By Fire Department Variable Determined By FBHRof NA NA Fire Prevention Fees Per Hour 2 Hr. Minimum FBHR of Personnel as Fire Department Personnel as Determined by Fire Determined Dept Fire 3 Variable Determined Rv Determined NA Determined By iherriffsDepartmentFees As Required Sherriff's BySherriffs� SberriffsDepartment De artmeru De artment INA Variable Determined BY Determined NA Determined By Size o kdditional Fees or City Staff As Required 5izeof Even L By Size of Eventand /or Location and /orLocalion Eventand /or load Closure As Required NA New $ 100.00 NA $ 50.00 NA ....... W_.._ �_. — Von -Pro Bt With Activity $ 129.46 35.00 $ 35.00 0% $20to$55 NA ,;W Pr fUo S Particyts Per Vendor $ 129.46 S 35.00 $ 64.00 83% S30475 $75 NA $ 210.71 S 45 -00 $ 105.00 133% $70 to $ISO NA For Profit Over-5,000 Participants Per Vendor $ 129.46 New $ 50.00 NA $ 25.00 NA Von Sale Vendor ............ __ ......... ....... ._ -------- ------- Film Permit $ 600.18 New $ 250.00 NA $ 50.00 NA ikate Park Rental $ 313,71 t, 7500 $ 156.00 160% $ 100.00 1 6701. 13 Lake Fees Fee DeScriptlon Daily !Ra SUse Pass ... _ Annual bake Use Pass (Resident) ^ -� Annual Lake Usc Pass (Itcsidcnt +5enlnr /Military) ti _r »� .».» Annual Lake. Use Pass (Nan Resddenl) WTV_Tr Annual lakg Ube Pass�Nnn Reslden� +Senior Milifaty _ __w� - Annual Lakefront Use Pass Resident _•__ Annual Lakefront Use Pass (Residers € +SenioribliUta ]_ Notes Day Use Only » - -- w ^µ„ ��- FullCost NA Current Fee 5 10.00 $ Fee 10.00 Change 0% Staff Recommendation $ 10.00 % Chan e 0% NA 100.00 $ 100.00 0% $ 100.00 0% NA S 90.00 $ 90.00 0% $ 90.00 _ OWn NA s 1511.00 $ 150.00 0% $ 150.00 0% NA a 135.00 $ 135.00 00/0 $ 135.00 0% NA $ 100,00 $ 100.00 0% $ 100.00 0% NA 5 90.00 $ 90.00 0% $ 40.00 0% Annual Lakefront Use Pass N ©n Resident Annual I lkci oal Uss Pass( Nan - Resident +Semor/luiiliraryj Annul Commercial lake Use Pass Resident Business _ Annual Cumtnercial lake I l e• 3'ass (Non•residcrnl 13usin48$ � _ Tow Vessel paddy Lstunrh Pass (ffarmerrly ia_kv or launch fee) Day Use f3nF �F Annual launch Pass Resident Annual launch Pass fResident +5enior/Military) _ Annual launch Pass,(Nan- iQeSid !tV _ A[klttr 11l14nC15 Pass �'NOtI Residont +Senior /Mtlit: try). __ -_ - _-- Y� - -•- Daily Resort Use Pass Per Motorized Vehicle) A _ Day Use Only AnnuaI Resort Pass [Per Wehtcle, Resident) Annual. Resort Pass (Per Vehicle, Resident + Senior /Military) ^ �^ _ .... . _ Annual Resort Pass PerVohtcle Nan- RetiiOelrtj _ -_.. ...__._. s Ann_ualResolYPassPerVehi lexMt�n Resident +Sernor�Miiitary) - Adult Resort Use Fee -_Additional Passenger_(Per Person, 17 +- Yearsj- __ Day Use Only. Youth Daily Resort Use Fee - Add'I Pass (Per Person, Under 16 Years) Day Use Only ... _. Adult Daly Resort Use Pass wa11c-in Ter Person i7w Years) Uay Use Only Youth l7 ly Resatt Usq Pass - Walk -ih (Per Person, Un.ier 16 Years) Day Use Only_ Adulr Daly Resort Plshing Pass (Per Perwnn, 17 Years] Day Use Only Adult rtnmt7l Resort Fish ing Pass (Per Person, 17 Years) Day Use Only Youth Daily /Annual Resort Fishing Pass (Per Person, Under 16 Years) Day Use Only Adult Night Fishing Piss [Per Peta+�)s 17+ Yearsj-- wD2y UseOnly •- Yuuih Nlyh! Fishing Pass (Per Person Under 161!enr5 } 4_ !Say Use$ply - -t d _ Long-Term RV Site Rental (4 Mo Max) Per Month Full Ilooktrps RV Yite Rental _ Iler Week •fentCamprtg 4 �- - Per Week - Full Ilookups RV S1ty Rental Per Night thyc'unlung Per Night Group Site Rental Per Night Late Cheek vut (4pm Check -slut) Website Reservation Tratasactlon Fee Rxtra Vclncle (2 Vehicles Included In Camp Fee) 4 Max Extra Tent (2 tents included in camp fee,max 4) Requires RV On -Site RV Space Rent Per Month Rnnr RV Etc. Stora a Fee De endent on the size of RV Per. Month 11unq)StalinnFee Prrewnnd Per Bundle Pet Fee Yurt Rental Per Night Trailer Rental Per Night NA ± 150.00 $ 150.00 0% $ 150.00 0% NA 135.00 $ 135.00 0% $ 135.00 0% NA 3 350.00 $ 350.00 0% $ 350.00 Oa /o NA S ;00.00 $ 500.00 0% $ 500.00 0% $ 607.50 New $ 175.00 NA $ 175.00 NA NA `0 10.00 $ 10.00 0% $ 10.00 0% NA S 100.00 $ 100.00 0% $ 100.00 0% NA 90.00 $ 90.00 0% $ 90.00 0% NA S 150.00 $ 150.00 0% $ 150.00 0% NA S 135100 $ 135.00 0% $ 135.00 F.I. NA 5 10.00 $ 10.00 0% $ 10.00 0% NA S 100.00 $ 100.00 0% $ 100.00 p% NA 90.00 $ 90.00 0% $ 90.00 0% NA 150.00 $ 150.00 0% $ 150.00 0% NA S 13 :;.00 $ 135.00 0% $ 135.00 0% NA S $ 5.00 NA $ 5.00 NA NA S $ NA $ NA NA y $ 2.00 NA $ 5.00 NA NA 5 _ $ NA $ NA NA ± 10'oo $ 10.00 0% $ 10.00 0% NA S $ 100.00 NA $ 100.00 NA NA S $ NA $ NA NA 1 s 0o $ 15.00 0% $ 15.00 0% NA - $ NA S NA NA 5 350.00 $ 700.00 100% $ 900.00 157% NA S i1 0.00 $ 250,00 19% $ 200.00 33% NA S $ 1,000.00 NA $ 1,000.00 NA NA S 35.00 $354100 NA $35 -$100 NA NA 150 $ 150.00 500% $ 150.00 500% NA $300 -$3000 NA $300 -$3000 NA NA I sr S 1;r S 0 5 1. $ 20.00 100% $ 20.00 100% NA $ 5.00 -38% $ 5.00 -38% NA $ 5.00 -so% $ 5.00 -50% NA $ 20.00 100% $ 20.00 100% NA $350- $2,000 NA $350- $2,000 NA NA NA $150 -400 NA $150 -400 NA $ 15.00 250/0 $ 15.00 25% NA S 7.00 0% $ 7.00 0% NA $ 2.00 0% $ 5.00 150% NA NI $75 -$500 NA $754500 NA NA New 1 $99 -$500 1 NA $99 -$500 NA 14 Facility Fees Community Center - Gym (Weekdays) - Non Profit For 1st Hr., Plus Cost( - ° °---- -- ---- ----- --- ---- --- - --- - --- --_-Clean-Up-------------- CommunityCenter -Gym (Weekdays) - Public Use For 1st Hr., Plus Cost( --- - - ---- -- • °_ -_ Clean-0p------_------ Community Center - Gym (Weekdays) - Non Resident For 1st Hr., Plus Cost i °-°_----- ________ _____n ___.__.____....__ - Clean- Up-_--_ - °__ u Commnity enter- Gym�Weekends� -Non Profit 3Hr Rental P]usCostofClean_Up Community Center - Gym (Weekends) - Public Use 3 Hr. Rental Plus Cost of Clean -Up Community Center - Gym (Weekends) -Non __- ---- - - - - -- 3 Hr. Rental Plus Cost of Clean -Up Resident Resident - -- -- -- Community Center- Gym -Non Profit - ___--- __- __- _- - -- - --- ° - __ ° °____ -___ PerAdditionalHr. __.._ CommunityCenwr - Gym - PublIL Use Per Additional Hr. LmulnuWyCenter Gym. Non Residenr Per Additional Hr Cultural Center - Any Rental Non Profit Per Hour Currently Only Public Senior Center - Memorial Hall (Weekends) - Public Meetinig Reservations Cultural Center- Any Rental Public Use Per Hour Currently Only Public 69% - Meeting Reservations Cultural Center- Any Rental Non Resident Per Hour Currently Only Public _._„ -_• Meeting Reservations Community Center - Dance Room (Weekdays) - Non Profit For 1st Hr, Plus Cost i 34% glean -Ilp Community Center - Dance Room (Weekdays) - Public Use For 1st Hr., Plus Cost i --------------------------------------------------------------- Cfean_Up-------------- Community Center - Dance Room (Weekdays) - Non Resident For 1st Hr., Plus Cost i Served or With Clean_ Community Center -Dance Room (Weekends) -Non 3 Hr. Rental Plus Costof Clean -Up Profit ----- ---- ------ - -----°--- ......_...........---- °- ---..., ---- -- ---- - ---- -- ----- Community Center - Dance Room (Weekends) - 3 Hr. Rental Plus Cost of Clean -Up Public Use Served Community Center -Dance Room (Weekends) - Non _ 3 Hr. R ental Plus Cost of Clean -Up Resident Chairs ComnmmnyConter -Dance Room -,Non Profit_ Additional Hr Community Center -Dance Room - Public flee, Per Additional Hr. ComnnmgCentL r - Dance Room - Non Resident _ Per Additional Hr. Senior Center- Main Room(Weekends) - NonProfit Per Hour Plus Cost of Clean -Up ... . ... .------------- .............. Senior Center - Main Room (Weekends)- Public Use Per Hour Plus Cost of Clean -Up Senior Center - Main Room (Weekends) - Non Per Hour Plus Cost of Clean -Up Resident - -- -- -- staff % Recommendation Change -10% $ 36.00 -10% ....... ...... - -....- -.._ - - - -- - - Senior Center - Memorial Hall(Weekends) - Non ...... Per Hour Plus Cost of Clean -Up Profit $ 72.00 .4% Senior Center - Memorial Hall (Weekends) - Public Per Hour Plus Cost of Clean -Up Use 69% $ 93.50 Senior Center- MemorialHall(Weekends) - Non Per Hour Plus Cost of Clean -Up Resident 161.00 34% Security Contract Review Per Rental Any Rental IF; Alcoho y 2.25.00 Served or With 33% $ 247.50 Attendance of200± Alcohol- For Extra Costs Incurred Due To Alcohol Per Rental Only When Alcohol Is Usage and Permitting 44% Served Tables Chairs Set Up Any_Rental __ if $ 362.27 S 40.00 $ 36.00 staff % Recommendation Change -10% $ 36.00 -10% f $ 362.27 %5.00 $ 72.00 -4% $ 72.00 .4% if $ 362.27 i 8S.00 $ 144.00 69% $ 93.50 10% S LLO.00 161.00 34% $ 132.00 10% _ -__ y 2.25.00 $ 299.00 33% $ 247.50 10% A460.99 S 255.00 $ 368.00 44% $ 280.50 10% n 40.00 $ 41.00 2% S 40.00 0% S 75.00 $ 76.00 1% $ 75.00 0% S 85.00 $ 94.00 11% $ 93.50 10% $ 342.91 $ 35.00 $ 120.00 243% $ 50.00 43% $ 342.91 S 70.00 $ 222.00 217% $ 90.00 29% $ 342.91 S 80.00 $ 274.00 243% $ 125.00 56a/a )f $ 362.27 New $ 36.00 NA $ 36.00 NA )f $ 362.27 New $ 72.00 NA $ 72.00 NA )f° $ 362.27 New $ 144.00 NA $ 144.00 NA $460.99 New $ 161.00 NA $ 161.00 NA $460.99 Ne, $ 299.00 NA $ 299.00 NA $460.99 New $ 368.00 NA $ 368.00 NA $ 118.19 New $ 41.00 NA $ 41.00 NA $ 118.19 New S 76.00 NA $ 76.00 NA $ 118.19 New $ 94.00 NA $ 94.00 NA $ 403.35 S 25.00 $ 40.00 60% $ 27.50 10% $ 403.35 S 50.00 $ 80.00 60% $ 55.00 10% $ 403.35 5 6u.00 $ 161.00 168% $ 66.00 10% $ 403.35 5 1.5.00 $ 40.00 60% $ 27.50 10% $ 403.35 S S0.0o $ 80.00 60% $ 55.00 10% $ 403.35 S 00.00 $ 161.00 168% $ 80.00 33% Its $ 90.37 New $ 67.00 NA $ 67.00 NA $ 90.37 New $ 67.00 NA $ 67.00 NA $ 59.80 New $ 44.00 NA $ 44.00 NA $ 55.80 New $: 41.00 NA $ 41.00 NA 15 Building Fees Building Permits not listed Recommendation Chan Variable I V:40'able I Refer Ta NA Refer To [CC ICC Valuation Fee Building Without Permit Double Permit At the discretion of Cost the Building Official Trash Enclosure $1500 Valuation base fee ___ -------- -•- _____--- Ittdu- ;trieij Commercial - Occupancy Permit base fee Atuutawood Patio Covers $7 sq. ft for base fee valuation All Other Patio Covers $8410 sq. ft for base Fee Valnatlell l3eCk" $12 sq. It. for base fee valuation Concrete Block Walls & Retaining Walls $22 If for Base fee up 50 If valuation $25 ea. add'I 50 If Pilaster $500 Valuation base fee M, nufactured Housing: On Permanent Slab $5 sq, ft for valuation Manufactured Housing: Seismic Bracing $2,000 base base fee valuation - ----- --- --- --- - -- - - - -- Pools /Spas: Gunite $30 sq. ft for 4Inspection Base fee valuation Pools /Spas: Vinyl $27 sq. ft for 2 Inspection Base fee valuation Pools /Spas: Manufactured /Above Ground $500 Valuation 1 Inspection Base fee Stucco $2 sg, k_ -_.. base fee Complete Solar System - Per Panel Amount is based on the remaining balance of the permit fee not to exceed $ 450--------------- ----- --- -- --- ----- - - - - -- Access Rump Al S ales Tia[l�r t Y » $1,000 Valua_ti_on_^ $1,2.00 Va_I_uation Monopole /Cellular _ » » Itereohn $3 R» base fee Boat Docks $1500 Valuation base fee Meter Reset °__ _ __.... __m_______________•--_-.______- base fee Septa Tank Removal base fee - - - - ............. -• , _. ... Demolition [31,000 base fee Valuation/ U-nit)_. Sales Office Conversion ($ 500.00 base fee Valuation / - -- -- - - • .._ ... ....... issuano- Unity aFee .- . . ^ m Professional Deveio meet Fee - L1_•• - - --- -- ---- ---- ---- -------- - - - - -- - - ---- Building Plan Check Fee Assessed on all permits that require a plan check -- -- - --- - - ---- - - - ° - DnpHrate Permit & l o_Io isstlanre Inspections Outside Normal Business Hours Per Hour 4 hr min. Re- Inspection Fee Per Hour $120 Base Fee Plus _.,__... °,............... ...... _...... •. Penalty Inspection For Which No Fee Is Specifically Per Hour 1/2 hr min, indicated Additional Plan Review Required By Change, Per Hour 1/2 hr min. Additions, or Revisions To Approved Plans_ -- _- _- _- v________ Accessibility Inspection Per Hour Special Inspection Per Hour Light Standards Per Valuation Double Permit Cost Doiinl . Permit 0,o 1 Double Permit Cost NA Double Permit Cast S 132.13 72.531 S 132.00 82% S 132,00 S 158.40 y '311,00 $ 4S.00 50% $ 40.00 $ 132.13 S 83. 111 $ 132.00 58% $ 13100 $ 175.00 4 95.00 $ 175.00 84% S 175,00 $ 226.00 5 t OO.00 $ 226.00 126% S 226,00 $ 201.50 5400 $ 201.00 272% S 150.00 $ 201.50 1 45.00 $ 201.00 347% $ 50.00 S 201.50 9 1 95.611 $ 225.60 15% S6 sq. ft for valuation $ 201.50 S 86.25 $ 150.00 74% S 150.00 $ 306.57 225.60 $ 306.00 360/0 $ 306.00 $ 201.50 L2U.00 $ 201.00 -9% $ 201.00 $ 158.40 S 45.01) $ 158.00 251% $ 54.00 $ ZU 1.50 s •10.00 $ Z01,00 403% 7SO) $ 450.00 s ?50 .00 $ 450.00 0% S 450.00 $ 201_SD 5 S8.7 ; $ 77.10 31 !n 5 77.10 $ 201.50 By Valuariou By Valuation NA By Valuation S 201.50 60.061 $ 201.50 236% $ 120.00 $ Z01 SO 72.511 S Z61,00 177%al S 201.00 S 99.86 Lf tlil $ 67.00 490/9 $ 67.00 S 126.13 5 25.00 $ 37.00 48% S 37:00 $ 126.13 5 SB. i $ 75.00 28% S 75.00 $ 181.27 S }5.00 $ 67.00 49% $ 67.00 $ 53.50 i 30.00 S 45,00 50% '$ 45.00 NA 5 5.110 $ 5.00 001/a $ 5.00 75% or base ermit fee 71i% o.t rase ijui nnitte-^ 75% of base per alit f e NA 75%of base permitfee New Vew $ 25.00 NA 25.00 S 236.41 17.0 ,00 $ 157.00 310/0 157.00 S 198.80 S 1.20.00 $ 157.00 31% S 157.00 $ 157.61 120 oft $ 157.00 31% $ 157.00 $ 301.79 6 7 i 00 $ 112.00 49% $ 75.00 $ 229.70 15:; 00 $ 229.00 500/5 S 157.00 5 630.44 . ";liar $ 187.00 so% S 157,00 By ValuaIioil r !Icahuuimi By Valuation NA ByValuatlon 1 3 Addressing _ Per Hour Records Retention - Small Sheet - - - « _ Records Retention • Large Sheet Electrical permits Issuance Fee T I'rolessinnal Development Fee Mcclianical, Ptutnbing, Eiech ;cal (MPE) .0. Flat Fee on all new Residential Mechanical, Plumbing, Electrical (MPE) $ 40 per sq. ft On all new Coninivocial S 239.11 ti7.:;1i $ 239,00 520Ja _$ 157.00 01 S 273.67 0 2i $ 0.52 10001a S 0.52 1001 $ 273.67 �✓ S 2.12 100% S 2,12 10Di S 53.50 $ 45.00 50% S 45.00 501 NA S 5.00 0% S 5.00 01 New S 7S0,00 NA $ 750.00 0i New $.40 per sq. ft. NA $.40 per sq. ft. 01 The following fees shall include all wiring and electrical equipment in or on each building, or other electrical equipment on the same premises constructed at the im Building Fees 17 Staff % KMMI e Recommendation Change New multifamily residential buildings Per Sq. Ft Units Of 4 $ 0.49 0,V $ 0.06 50% $ 0.05 25% (apartments and condo - minimums) having three or more living units not includingthe area of garages, carports and other noncommercial automobile storage areas constructed at the same.tine __-,_.----- - --- -- - - - - -- - ---• - --- --- ...... $ 0.36 S OAS $ 0.08 50% $ 0.06 20% New single and two family residential buildings Per Sq. Ft not including the area of garages, carports, and other minor accessory buildings constructed at Other types ofresidential occupancies and alterations additions and modifications to exisdnfl residential buildings, use the UNIT FEE SCHEDULE New private, residential, in ground, swimming Each $ 701.42 2, $ 66.38 50% $ 53.10 20% pools for single family and multifamily occupancies including a complete system of necessary branch circuit wiring, bonding, grounding, underwater lighting, water pumping and other similar electrical equipment directly Other typeus ofswimmingpooJs, therapeutic whirlpools, spas and alterations to existin swimmin pools, use the UNIT FEE SCHEDULE Temporary service power pole or pedestal Each $ 76.20 2*' 00 $ 33.00 50% $ 33.00 50% including all pole or pedestal mounted receptacle outlets and appurtenances -, -„ $ 128.73 w t i 00 $ 16.50 50% $ 16.50 50% Temporary distribution system and temporary Each lighting and receptacle outlets for construction sites, decorative light, Christmas tree sales lots, Unit Fee Schedule: Receptacle, Switch and Li letin Outlets which current Is used or controlled exce t services. feeders and meters First 20 Each Multioutlet $ 3.81 S 1.00 $ 1.50 50% $ 1.25 25% assemblies, each S feet or fraction thereof considered ------------ ---- -- - $ 3.81 O.0 $ 0.98 50% $ 0.85 31% Additional Outlets Each Multioutlet assemblies, each 5 feet or fraction thereof considered one outlet For II&MIng fixtures sockets or other lamp holding devices First 20 Each $ 3.81 i. {u $ 1.50 50% $ 1.25 25% Additional Fixtures Each $ 3.81 O- 5 $ 0.98 50% $ 0.85 31% Pole or Platform Mounted Lighting Fixtures Each $ 4.47 s JC $ 1.50 50% $ 1.50 50% Theatrical Type Lighting F ixtures Or Assemblies Each $ 5.12 u f $ 1.50 50% $ 1.50 50 % $ 89.33 $ 6.38 50% $ 4.68 10% Fixed residential appliances or receptacle outlets Each for same, Including wall mounted electric ovens; counter mounted cooking tops; electric ranges, .self contained room, console, or through wall air conditioners; space heaters; food waste grinders; dishwashers; washing machines; water heaters; clothes dryers or other motor operated ,appliances not exceeding one horsepower (HP) in rating Fixed nonresidential appliances and self Each For other types of air $ 89.33 $ 6.38 50% $ 4.68 10% ,contained factor Wired, nonresidential conditioners and ,appliances notexceedingone horsepower (HP), other motor driven kilowatt (KW), or kilovolt ampere (KVA) in appliances having rating including medical and dental devices; larger electrical food, beverage, and ice cream cabinets; ratings, see POWER illuminated show cases; drinking fountains; APPARATUS vending machines; laundry machines; or other similar types of equipment For motors, generators, transformers, rectifiers, synchronous converters, capacitors, industrial heating, air conditioners and heat pumps, cooking or baking equipment and other apparatus, as follows: Rating in horsepower HP kilowatts K kilovolt am eres KVA ar kilovolt amperes reactive KVAR Up To and Including 1 Each Includes all switches, $ 112.99 $ 6.38 50% $ 6.38 50% circuit breakers, contractors, thermostats, relays and other directly related control equipment 17 Building Fees Aver l But Less Than 10 Each Includes all switches, circuit breakers, contractors, thermostats, relays and other directly related control equipment ------- --- ----- -- - - - - -- - - _____•. - - ..._.._ -. iivo, 10 But Less Than 50 Each Includes all switches, circuit breakers, contractors, thermostats, relays and other directly related control equipment »' ,F 50 But Less Than 100 Each Includes all switches, circuit breakers, contractors, thermostats, relays and other directly related control equipment . - -q P Dye - ... r100 Each E ui mentor appliances having more than 1 motor, transformer, heater, etc., the sum ofthe combined ratings may be used. Includes all switches, circuit breakers, contractors, thermostats, relays and other directly related control equipment .-- ---- --- Trolley and Plug -In Type Busways 100 Ft Each �.----- ----- ---- ----- --- -- Additional fee will be % Clumige 50% Staff Recommendation required for lighting $ 13.20 20% fixtures, motors and $ 33.00 other appliances that $ 26.40 20% are connected to t4.2 $ 66.38 trolley and plug in $ 53.10 20% type busways. No h6.511 $ 99.75 fee is required for $ 79.80 20% portable tools Signs, Outline Lighting Systems Or Marquees Each Supplied From 1 ...................__-e --___---- ._.._.._- _____- ___�_ -. -- _.- Branch Circuit __.e - -- -a- - - --_ Addltigna] Branch Circuits Within The Same Each 50% S ,,Qutllne Llght[siG System Or Marquee_____ 20%la $ 126.13 Services Of 600 Volts Or Less and Not Over 200 Each 50% Amos In .__. -. ___- - 20% $ 165.53 Services Of 600 Volts Or Less and Not Over 200 Each 50% Ii ups- TOA{tQATus In_ Rating. _.-.-------.-.-----------....._.. .........- .-..._ ............... Services Over 600 Volts Or Over 1,000 Amps In Each 50% $ 66.60 20% _- ----------- Electrical apparatus, conduits and conductors for Each This fee is not which a permitis required but for which no fee is 20% applicable when a fee herein set forth $ 24.38 is paid for one or $ 19.50 20% more services, $ 165.00 outlets, fixtures, S 157.00 43% appliances, power $ 103.00 apparatus, busways, $ 157.00 162% sign or other _.......... ._.._..,_.__._ ................. ................. .... .... .... .... .__ ._enn.i.nrnrnt Rnspe 6t s Outside Normal Business Hours Per Hour $ 301.79 Reinspection Fees Assessed Under Provisions Of Per Hour Per Inspection After The Code 36% 2 Inspection For Which No Fee Is Specifically Per Hour 1/2 hr min. Indicated Addittonal Plan Review Required By Change, Per Hour 1/2 hr min. Addition%ur Revisions To Approved Plans 18 Full[Cost $ 126.13 Current Fee S 11.00 Suggested Fee $ 16.50 % Clumige 50% Staff Recommendation Chang $ 13.20 20% $ 126.13 $ 33.00 50% $ 26.40 20% $ 126.13 t4.2 $ 66.38 50% $ 53.10 20% $ 402.14 h6.511 $ 99.75 50% $ 79.80 20% $ 1.66 > 6.50 $ 1.66 -75% $ 1.66 -75% $ 165.53 S 22.00 $ 33.00 50% $ 26.40 20%la $ 126.13 3 F.2 s $ 6.38 50% $ 5.10 20% $ 165.53 $ 27.,'.!-1 $ 40.88 50% $ 32.70 20% $ 216.76 ` 5.5.50 $ 83.25 50% $ 66.60 20% $ 216.76 S 3 i,dtl $ 166.50 50% $ 133.20 20% $ 204.93 3 Y6. ".S $ 24.38 50% $ 19.50 20% S 236.41 $ 165.00 50% S 157.00 43% $ 198.80 $ 103.00 72% $ 157.00 162% $ 157.61 S $ 67.50 50% $ 157.00 249% $ 301.79 5 $ 82.50 50% $ 75.00 36% Building Fees Suggested % Staff % Fee DescriptionRecommendation Change Mechani al Perniits Issuance Pee $ 53.50 311.!)0 $ 45.00 50% $ 45.00 50% Professional6evelo wentrec NA c 5.00 $ 5.00 0% $ 5.00 0% Mechanical, Plumbing, Electrical (MPE) - - Flat Fee on all now Residential Housing New `i -v $ 750.00 NA $ 750.00 0% New c"v $.40 per NA $.40 per sq. ft 0% Mechanical, Plumbing, Electrical (MPE) $40 per sq. ft On all new Commercial sq. ft. $ 78.80 /. F, $ 19.88 50% $ 15.90 20% Installation or relocation of forced air or gravity Each type furnace or burner, including ducts and vents attached to such appliance, up to and including .lilQIMATILIJ11. ---- - ---- - - - - - -- - --------------------------- - $ 137.96 b - -. $ 24.38 50% $ 19.50 20% Installation and relocation of forced air or gravity Each type furnace or burner, including ducts and vents attadted to such appliance over 100,000 BTU /H •- -- ------- -- --•--- --- --- --- .-- ._ - - - - -. - ----•-•--- .- Installation or relocation of floor furnace, __�- ._..._ _ Each - $ 165.53 13.21> $ 19.88 50% $ 15.90 20% incgliy inpdent- _•..__ -_ $ 165.53 1:, 5 $ 19.88 50% $ 15.90 20% Installation or relocation of suspended heater, Each recessed wall heater or floor mounted unit header . - ---- ---- -- $ 126.13 srf $ 9.75 50% $ 7.80 20% Installation, relocation or replacement of Each appliance vent installed and not included in an app -1iagcc. Omit .... _________------------- $ 204.93 S 1225 $ 18.38 50% $ 14.70 20% Repair, alteration, or addition to heating Each appliance, refrigeration unit, cooling unit, absorption unit, or heating cooling, absorption, or evaporative cooling system, including installation of controls regulated by code - .... .................. - -------------------------- Installation or relocation of boiler or compressor ___._------- Each $ 126.13 $ 19.88 50% $ 15.90 20% including three horsepower, or absorption system including 1000,000 BTU /H Installation or relocation -of boiler or compressor Each $ 165.53 $ 36.38 50% $ 29.10 20% over three horsepower including 15 horsepower, or absorption system over 100,000 BTU /H and including 500,000 BTU /H Installation or relocation of boiler or compressor Each � $ 165.53 $ 49.88 50% $ 39.90 20% over 15 horsepower including 30 horsepower, or absorption system over 500,000 BTU /H to and including 1,000,000 BTU /H Installation or relocation oFboiler or compressor Each $ 204.93 >! + $ 74.25 50% $ 59.40 20% over 30 horsepower including 50 horsepower, or absorption system over 1,000,000 BTU /H to and including 1,750,000 BTU /H - ....--- - - ---•- .--•- --•-•- _._.._ - - Installation or relocation of boiler or compressor ------- Each --- - -------- (Note: 12,000 BTU = $ 204.93 $ 124.13 50% $ 99.30 20% over 50 horsepower, or absorption system over 1 ton) L7SitQTXI FLU.-- ._____._ -_ -_ $ 204.93 $ 14.25 50% $ 11.40 20% Air handling unit up to and including 10,000 Each This fee shall not cubic feet per minute, including ducts attached apply to an air handling unitwhich is a portion of a factory assembled appliance, cooling unit, evaporative cooler or absorption unit for which a permit is required by code Air hand[inh unit over 10,00_0 CFM� 13arh $ 204,93 $ 24.38 50% $ 19.50 20% $ 165.53_ $ 14.25 50% $ 11.40 20% Gvaporalive cooler other that portable type Each _ S 126.13 $ 9.75 SO °/n $ 7.80 20% Ventihitio?i fin connected to a single duct Each 5 126.13+ $ 14.25 50% $ 11.40 20% Ventilation system which is nota portion ofany Each heating or air conditioning system for which a permn,is requiredbycode• . ................. . ....... ........._.... $ 228.59 ; k $ 14.25 50% $ 11.40 20% Installation of a hood which is served by Each mechanical exhaust, including the ducts for such hood S 177.36 $ 24.38 50% $ 19.50 20% _._.-...._-----._..--------•------_. ___. .... Installationnrreloeation ofalireplaee Gach Installation or relocation of commercial or Each $ 386.20 S fa.' ;n! $ 99.75 50% $ 79.80 20% Indmtrial type incinerator . _ - - -- - - -- - - -- - $ 12.76 i.;0 $ 9.75 50% $ -- 7.80 20% Registers Faeh - CEre Dampers .- . --- Each - .. $ 216.76 n $ 14.25 50% $ 11.40 20% 19 Building Fees 20 staff ILRecommendation than e Inspections Outside Normal Business Hours _.. Per Hour $ 236.41 S 110.00 $ 165.00 50% $ 157.00 43% $ 198.80 5 60.00 $ 103.00 72% $ 157.00 162% �_....,.......-•-- - - - -------- - ----- - -- -- Reinspection Fees Assessed Under Provisions Of Per Hour Per Inspection After The Ca de__._._..___..�_.. Inspection For Which No Fee Is Specifically Per Hour 1/2 hr min $ 157.61 .S 45.00 $ 67.50 50% $ 157.00 249% Indicated Ac4dl[ional Plan Review Required By Change, Per Hour _ 1/2 hr min. $ 301.79 S .S.0C $ 82.50 50% $ 75.00 36% Additions or Revisions ToApproved Plans Plumbin Permits Issuance lee $ 53.50 S '30.00 $ 45.00 50% $ 45.00 50v1n Professional Development Fee NA 5.00 $ 5.00 0% $ 5.00 0% k"an!9d, Plumbing, F ectrical (MPE) Flat Fee on all new Residential Housi' New New $ 750.00 NA $ 750.00 Os /a New Nei+; $.40 per NA $.40 per sq. ft 0% i4-1 echanical, Plumbing, Electrical (MPE) $.40 per sq. ft On all new Commercial s . ft. $ 88.03 S 8 75 $ 13.13 50% $ 10.50 20% Plumbing Fixture Or Trap Or Set Of Fixtures On Each Including water, One Trap drainage piping, and backflow protection $ 99.86 5 22.110 $ 33.00 _ 50 0l, $ 26.40 20% Buildin Sewer and Trailer Park Sewer Csath $ 51.23 8.75 $ 13.13 50% $ 10.50 20% Rainwater Systems Per Drain (Inside Building) Each Pripatr Sewage Q #s srsa l System Each $ 124.82 S.()0 $ 112.50 50% $ 90.00 20% ^ `. _ _ WaterHeateeand arVont Each $ 101.16 S 11.00 $ 16.50 50% $ 1320 20% $ 124.82 t 17 -25 $ 25.88 50% $ 20.70 20% Industrial waste pretreatment interceptor Each including its trap and vent, excepting kitchen type grease interceptors functioning as fixture traps - _- _ -_____ $ 165.53 4 -25 $ 6.38 50% $ 5.10 20% Installation, Alteration, Or Repair Of Water Each Piping and�or Water Treating --------------------------------------------------- $ 152.40 4.25 $ 6.38 50% $ 5.10 20% Repair Or Alteration Of Drainage Or Vent Piping Each ------- - -- ----------- ---- _•- ------ Lawn sprinkler system on any one meter, -------- Each • - -. _ $ 88.03 11_00 $ 16.50 50% $ 13.20 20% including backflow protection devices therefor Backhow protective device other than Each $ 88.03 1 7.00 $ 16.50 50% $ 13.20 20% atmospheric type Vacuum breakers: 2" and smaller - --_._ ----------------- ------- -- •- ..�_..._�_��.... __��. _ _ �.�. $ 114.30 S tR -7.5 $ 19.88 50% $ 15.90 20% Backflow protective device other than Each atmospheric type Vacuum breakers_ over Z "_ _ $ 28.57 S 11.00 $ 16.50 50% $ 13.20 20% Ga sjjyinpSystemOfl- 4Outlets Each Gas Piping System Of 5 Or More Outlets Each ............. $ 22.86 i 2.00 $ 3.00 50% $ 2.40 20% $ 198.80 N -j $ 103.00 NA $ 103.00 NA Reinspection Fees Assessed Under Provisions Of Per Hour Per Inspection After 'The Code _....._ ._._.. - - - -- --- - - - - -- - -- - - -- - -- 2 $ 12.00 S 10,00 $ 12.00 20% $ 12.00 20% - °� Industrial/ Commercial - Interior Alteration (no Per Sq. Ft suspendedceilinyl----------------- $ 18.00 S 15.00 $ 18.00 20% $ 18.00 20% Industrial/ Commercial - Interior Alteration Per Sq. Ft .(incl _suspended celllnyl, ____ -. _ -_- _ Variable 13vValuatlon By NA By Valuation NA Industrial /Commercial - Sign Per Sq. Ft _ Valuation $ 15.60 S 13.00 $ 15A0 15%1 $ 15.00 15% Residential -CaI _qqZ torage w _ _ W� ^s� � $ 28.80 $ 24.00 $ 28.00 17% $ 28.00 170/n ____ Residential Laundry Rooms__ _ -------------- __- PerSq, F_t.... . !Outside plan checker ! Variable Nesa 75% of NA 75% of Plan NA Plan Check Check Fee Fee 20 FT& Chart of Building Permit Fees LAi�L Based on Valuation of Project 21 500.00 $ 54.00 $ Seismic All Valuation Amount Base Permit Fee Plan Check Fee Plan Review Fee Seismic Group R 0.50 $ 600.00 $ 57.30 $ Others $ Based on ICC 75% of Building 20% of Building Set by State Set by State $ Valuation Permit Permit $ 41.82 21 500.00 $ 54.00 $ 40.50 $ 10.80 $ 0.50 $ 0.50 $ 600.00 $ 57.30 $ 41.15 $ 11.45 $ 0.50 $ 0.50 $ 700.00 $ 60.60 $ 41.82 $ 12.12 $ 0.50 $ 0.50 $ 800.00 $ 63.90 $ 47.92 $ 12.77 $ 0.50 $ 0.50 $ 900.00 $ 67.20 $ 50.40 $ 13.44 $ 0.50 $ 0.50 $ 1,000.00 $ 70.50 $ 52.87 $ 14.09 $ 0.50 $ 0.50 $ 1,100.00 $ 73.80 $ 55.34 $ 14.76 $ 0.50 $ 0.50 $ 1,200.00 $ 77.10 $ 57.82 $ 15.41 $ 0.50 $ 0.50 $ 1,300.00 $ 80.40 $ 60.30 $ 16.08 $ 0.50 $ 0.50 $ 1,400.00 $ 83.70 $ 62.77 $ 16.74 $ 0.50 $ 0.50 $ 1,500.00 $ 87.00 $ 65.24 $ 17.40 $ 0.50 $ 0.50 $ 1,600.00 $ 90.30 $ 67.73 $ 18.06 $ 0.50 $ 0.50 $ 1,700.00 $ 93.60 $ 70.20 $ 18.72 $ 0.50 $ 0.50 $ 1,800.00 $ 96.90 $ 72.67 $ 19.38 $ 0.50 $ 0.50 $ 1,900.00 $ 100.20 $ 75.14 $ 20.04 $ 0.50 $ 0.50 $ 2,000.00 $ 103.50 $ 77.63 $ 20.70 $ 0.50 $ 0.50 $ 3,000.00 $ 90.60 $ 67.94 $ 18.12 $ 0.50 $ 0.60 $ 4,000.00 $ 105.60 $ 79.20 $ 21.12 $ 0.50 $ 0.84 $ 5,000.00 $ 120.60 $ 90.44 $ 24.12 $ 0.50 $ 1.05 $ 6,000.00 $ 135.60 $ 102.14 $ 27.12 $ 0.60 $ 1.26 $ 7,000.00 $ 150.60 $ 112.94 $ 30.12 $ 0.70 $ 1.47 $ 8,000.00 $ 165.60 $ 124.20 $ 33.12 $ 0.80 $ 1.68 $ 9,000.00 $ 180.60 $ 135.44 $ 36.12 $ 0.90 $ 1.89 $ 10,000.00 $ 195.60 $ 146.70 $ 39.12 5 1.00 $ 2.10 $ 11,000.00 $ 210.60 $ 157.94 $ 42.12 $ 1.10 $ 2.31 $ 12,000.00 $ 225.60 $ 169.20 $ 45.12 $ 1.20 $ 2.52 $ 13,000.00 $ 240.60 $ 180.44 $ 48.12 $ 1.30 $ 2.73 $ 14,000.00 $ 255.60 $ 191.70 $ 51.12 $ 1.40 $ 2.94 $ 15,000.00 $ 270.60 $ 202.94 $ 54.12 $ 1.50 $ 3.15 $ 16,000.00 $ 285.60 $ 214.20 $ 57.12 $ 1.60 $ 3.36 $ 17,000.00 $ 300.60 $ 225.44 $ 60.12 $ 1.70 $ 3.57 $ 18,000.00 $ 315.60 $ 236.70 $ 63.12 $ 1.80 $ 3.78 $ 19,000.00 $ 330.60 $ 247.94 $ 66.12 $ 1.90 $ 3.99 $ 20,000.00 $ 345.60 $ 259.20 $ 69.12 $ 2.00 $ 4.20 $ 21,000.00 $ 360.60 $ 270.44 $ 72.12 $ 2.10 $ 4.41 $ 22,000.00 $ 375.60 $ 281.70 $ 75.12 $ 2.20 $ 4.62 $ 23,000.00 $ 390.60 $ 292.96 $ 78.12 $ 2.30 $ 4.83 $ 24,000.00 $ 405.60 $ 304.21 $ 81.12 $ 2.40 $ 5.04 $ 25,000.00 $ 420.60 $ 315.47 $ 84.12 $ 2.50 $ 5.25 $ 26,000.00 $ 433.20 $ 324.90 $ 86.64 S 2.60 $ 5.46 $ 27,000.00 $ 444.00 $ 333.00 $ 88.80 $ 2.70 $ 5.67 $ 28,000.00 $ 454.80 $ 341.70 $ 90.96 $ 2.80 $ 5.88 $ 29,000.00 $ 465.60 $ 349.20 $ 93.12 $ 2,90 $ 6.09 $ 30,000.00 $ 476.40 $ 357.30 $ 95.28 ; 3.00 $ 6.30 $ 31,000.00 $ 487.20 $ 365.40 $ 97.44 $ 3.10 $ 6.51 $ 32,000.00 $ 498.00 $ 373.50 $ 99.60 S 3.20 $ 6.72 $ 33,000.00 $ 508.80 $ 381.60 $ 101.76 3.30 $ 6.93 21 LA SINO[kL Chart of Building Permit Fees " - -rl "' Based on Valuation of Project $ 34,000.00 $ 519.60 $ Seismic All Valuation Amount Base Permit Fee Plan Check Fee Plan Review Fee Seismic Group R 7.14 $ 35,000.00 $ 530.40 $ Others $ Based on ICC 75% of Building 20% of Building $ 7.35 Set by State Set by State Valuation Permit Permit $ 34,000.00 $ 519.60 $ 389.70 $ 103.92 $ 3.40 $ 7.14 $ 35,000.00 $ 530.40 $ 397.80 $ 106.08 $ 3.50 $ 7.35 $ 36,000.00 $ 541.20 $ 405.90 $ 108.24 $ 3.60 $ 7.56 $ 37,000.00 $ 552.00 $ 414.00 $ 110.40 $ 3.70 $ 7.77 $ 38,000.00 $ 562.80 $ 422.10 $ 112.56 $ 3.80 $ 7.98 $ 39,000.00 $ 573.60 $ 430.20 $ 114.72 $ 3.90 $ 8.19 $ 40,000.00 $ 584.40 $ 438.30 $ 116.88 $ 4.00 $ 8.40 $ 41,000.00 $ 595.20 $ 446.40 $ 119.04 $ 4.10 $ 8.61 $ 42,000.00 $ 606.00 $ 454.50 $ 121.20 $ 4.20 $ 8.82 $ 43,000.00 $ 616.80 $ 462.60 $ 123.36 $ 4.30 $ 9.03 $ 44,000.00 $ 627.60 $ 470.70 $ 125.52 $ 4.40 $ 9.24 $ 45,000.00 $ 638.40 $ 478.80 $ 127.68 $ 4.50 $ 9.45 $ 46,000.00 $ 649.20 $ 486.90 $ 129.84 $ 4.60 $ 9.66 $ 47,000.00 $ 660.00 $ 495.00 $ 132.00 $ 4.70 $ 9.87 $ 48,000.00 $ 670.80 $ 503.10 $ 134.16 $ 4.80 $ 10.08 $ 49,000.00 $ 681.60 5 511.20 $ 136.32 $ 4.90 $ 10.29 $ 50,000.00 $ 692.40 $ 519.30 $ 138.48 $ 5.00 $ 10.50 $ 51,000.00 $ 703.50 $ 527.62 $ 140.70 $ 5.10 $ 10.71 $ 52,000.00 $ 711.00 $ 533.24 $ 142.20 $ 5.20 $ 10.92 $ 53,000.00 $ 718.50 $ 538.87 $ 143.70 $ 5.30 $ 11.13 $ 54,000.00 $ 726.00 $ 544.50 $ 145.20 $ 5.40 $ 11.34 $ 55,000.00 $ 733.50 $ 550.12 $ 146.70 $ 5.50 $ 11.55 $ 56,000.00 $ 741.00 $ 555.74 $ 148.20 $ 5.60 $ 11.76 $ 57,000.00 $ 748.50 $ 561.37 $ 149.70 $ 5.70 $ 11.97 $ 58,000.00 $ 756.00 $ 567.00 $ 151.20 $ 5.80 $ 12.18 $ 59,000.00 $ 763.50 $ 572.62 $ 152.70 $ 5.90 $ 12.39 $ 60,000.00 $ 771.00 $ 578.24 $ 154.20 $ 6.00 $ 12.60 $ 61,000.00 $ 778.50 $ 583.87 $ 155.70 $ 6.10 $ 12.81 $ 62,000.00 $ 786.00 $ 589.50 $ 157.20 $ 6.20 $ 13.02 $ 63,000.00 $ 793.50 $ 595.12 $ 158.70 $ 6.30 $ 13.23 $ 64,000.00 $ 801.00 $ 600.74 $ 160.20 $ 6.40 $ 13.44 $ 65,000.00 $ 808.50 $ 606.37 $ 161.70 $ 6.50 $ 13.65 $ 70,000.00 $ 846.00 $ 634.50 $ 169.20 $ 7.00 $ 14.70 $ 75,000.00 $ 883.50 5 662.63 $ 176.70 $ 7.50 $ 15.75 $ 80,000.00 $ 921.00 $ 690.76 $ 184.20 $ 8.00 $ 16.80 $ 85,000.00 $ 958.50 $ 718.87 $ 191.70 $ 8.50 $ 17.85 $ 88,000.00 $ 981.00 $ 735.76 $ 196.20 $ 9.00 $ 18.48 $ 90,000.00 $ 996.00 $ 747.00 $ 199.20 $ 9.50 $ 18.90 $ 95,000.00 $ 1,033.50 $ 775.12 $ 206.70 $ 10.00 $ 19.95 $ 100,000.00 $ 1,071.00 $ 803.24 $ 214.20 $ 10.50 $ 31.00 $ 105,000.00 $ 1,104.00 $ 828.00 $ 220.80 $ 11.00 $ 21.97 $ 110,000.00 $ 1,134.00 $ 850.50 $ 226.80 $ 11.50 $ 23.10 $ 120,000.00 $ 1,194.00 $ 895.50 $ 238.80 $ 12.00 $ 25.20 $ 125,000.00 $ 1,224.00 $ 918.00 $ 244.80 $ 12.50 $ 26.20 $ 130,000.00 $ 1,254.00 $ 940.50 $ 250.80 $ 13.00 $ 27.30 $ 135,000.00 $ 1,284.00 $ 963.00 $ 256.80 $ 13.50 $ 28.30 22 .�. Chart of Building Permit Fees C, ti KC 1.51T T )-RI ` " -- " -, Based on Valuation of Project $ 140,000.00 $ 1,314.00 Seismic All Valuation Amount Base Permit Fee Plan Check Fee Plan Review Fee Seismic Group R 14.00 $ 29.40 $ 145,000.00 Others Based on ICC 75% of Building 20% of Building $ 268.80 $ 14.50 $ Set by State Set by State Valuation Permit Permit $ 1,030.50 $ 140,000.00 $ 1,314.00 $ 985.50 $ 262.80 $ 14.00 $ 29.40 $ 145,000.00 $ 1,344.00 $ 1,008.00 $ 268.80 $ 14.50 $ 30.50 $ 150,000.00 $ 1,374.00 $ 1,030.50 $ 274.80 $ 15.00 $ 31.50 $ 155,000.00 $ 1,404.00 $ 1,053.00 $ 280.80 $ 15.50 $ 32.55 $ 160,000.00 $ 1,434.00 $ 1,075.50 $ 286.80 $ 16.00 $ 33.60 $ 165,000.00 $ 1,464.00 $ 1,098.00 $ 292.80 $ 16.50 $ 34.65 $ 170,000.00 $ 1,494.00 $ 1,120.50 $ 298.80 $ 17.00 $ 35.70 $ 175,000.00 $ 1,524.00 $ 1,143.00 $ 304.80 $ 17.50 $ 36.75 $ 180,000.00 $ 1,554.00 $ 1,165.50 $ 310.80 $ 18.00 $ 37.80 $ 185,000.00 $ 1,584.00 $ 1,188.00 $ 316.80 $ 18.50 $ 38.85 $ 190,000.00 $ 1,614.00 $ 1,210.50 $ 322.80 $ 19.00 $ 39.90 $ 200,000.00 $ 1,674.00 $ 1,255.50 $ 334.80 $ 20.00 $ 42.00 $ 210,000.00 $ 1,734.00 $ 1,300.50 $ 346.80 $ 21.00 $ 44.10 $ 220,000.00 $ 1,794.00 $ 1,345.50 $ 358.80 $ 22.00 $ 46.20 $ 230,000.00 $ 1,854.00 $ 1,390.50 $ 370.80 $ 23.00 $ 48.30 $ 240,000.00 $ 1,914.00 $ 1,435.50 $ 382.80 $ 24.00 $ 50.40 $ 250,000.00 $ 1,974.00 $ 1,480.50 $ 394.80 $ 25.00 $ 52.50 $ 260,000.00 $ 2,034.00 $ 1,525.50 $ 406.80 $ 26.00 $ 54.60 $ 270,000.00 $ 2,094.00 $ 1,570.50 $ 418.80 $ 27.00 $ 56.70 $ 280,000.00 $ 2,154.00 $ 1,615.50 $ 430.80 $ 28.00 $ 58.80 $ 290,000.00 $ 2,214.00 $ 1,660.50 $ 442.80 $ 29.00 $ 60.90 $ 300,000.00 $ 2,274.00 $ 1,705.50 $ 454.80 $ 30.00 $ 63.00 $ 310,000.00 $ 2,334.00 $ 1,750.50 $ 466.80 $ 31.00 $ 65.10 $ 320,000.00 $ 2,394.00 $ 1,795.50 $ 478.80 $ 32.00 $ 67.20 $ 330,000.00 $ 2,454.00 $ 1,840.50 $ 490.80 $ 33.00 $ 69.30 $ 340,000.00 $ 2,514.00 $ 1,885.50 $ 502.80 $ 34.00 $ 71.40 $ 350,000.00 $ 2,574.00 $ 1,930.50 $ 514.80 $ 35.00 $ 73.50 $ 360,000.00 $ 2,634.00 $ 1,975.50 $ 526.80 $ 36.00 $ 75.60 $ 370,000.00 $ 2,694.00 $ 2,020.50 $ 538.80 $ 37.00 $ 77.70 $ 380,000.00 $ 2,754.00 $ 2,065.50 $ 550.80 $ 38.00 $ 79.80 $ 390,000.00 $ 2,814.00 $ 2,110.50 $ 562.80 $ 39.00 $ 81.90 $ 400,000.00 $ 2,874.00 $ 2,155.50 $ 574.80 $ 40.00 $ 84.00 $ 410,000.00 $ 2,934.00 $ 2,200.50 $ 586.80 $ 41.00 $ 86.10 $ 420,000.00 $ 2,994.00 $ 2,245.50 $ 598.80 $ 42.00 $ 88.20 $ 430,000.00 $ 3,054.00 $ 2,290.50 $ 610.80 $ 43.00 $ 90.30 $ 440,000.00 $ 3,114.00 $ 2,335.50 $ 622.80 $ 44.00 $ 92.40 $ 450,000.00 $ 3,174.00 $ 2,380.50 $ 634.80 $ 45.00 $ 94.50 $ 460,000.00 $ 3,234.00 $ 2,425.50 $ 646.80 $ 46.00 $ 96.60 $ 470,000.00 $ 3,294.00 $ 2,470.50 $ 658.80 $ 47.00 $ 98.70 $ 480,000.00 $ 3,354.00 $ 2,515.50 $ 670.80 $ 48.00 $ 100.80 $ 490,000.00 $ 3,414.00 $ 2,560.50 $ 682.80 $ 49.00 $ 102.90 $ 500,000.00 $ 3,474.00 $ 2,605.50 $ 694.80 $ 50.00 $ 105.00 $ 510,000.00 $ 3,483.00 $ 2,612.24 $ 696.60 $ 51.00 $ 107.10 $ 520,000.00 $ 3,540.00 $ 2,655.00 $ 708.00 $ 52.00 $ 109.20 $ 530,000.00 $ 3,597.00 $ 2,697.74 $ 719.40 $ 53.00 $ 111.30 $ 540,000.00 $ 3,654.00 $ 2,740.50 $ 730.80 $ 54.00 $ 113.40 23 LA ItE LSIIiC7itiJ_: Chart of Building Permit Fees Based on Valuation of Project $ 550,000.00 $ 3,711.00 $ Seismic All Valuation Amount Base Permit Fee Plan Check Fee Plan Review Fee Seismic Group R 115.50 $ 560,000.00 $ 3,768.00 $ Others $ Based on ICC 75% of Building 20% of Building Set by State Set by State $ Valuation Permit Permit $ 2,868.74 $ 550,000.00 $ 3,711.00 $ 2,783.24 $ 742.20 $ 55.00 $ 115.50 $ 560,000.00 $ 3,768.00 $ 2,826.00 $ 753.60 $ 56.00 $ 117.60 $ 570,000.00 $ 3,825.00 $ 2,868.74 $ 765.00 $ 57.00 $ 119.70 $ 580,000.00 $ 3,882.00 $ 2,911.50 5 776.40 $ 58.00 $ 121.80 $ 590,000.00 $ 3,939.00 $ 2,954.24 $ 787.80 $ 59.00 $ 123.90 $ 600,000.00 $ 3,996.00 $ 2,997.00 $ 799.20 $ 60.00 $ 126.00 $ 610,000.00 $ 4,053.00 $ 3,039.74 $ 810.60 $ 61.00 $ 128.10 $ 620,000.00 $ 4,110.00 $ 3,082.50 $ 822.00 $ 62.00 $ 130.20 $ 630,000.00 $ 4,167.00 $ 3,125.24 $ 833.40 $ 63.00 $ 132.30 $ 640,000.00 $ 4,224.00 $ 3,168.00 $ 844.80 $ 64.00 $ 134.40 $ 650,000.00 $ 4,281.00 $ 3,210.74 $ 856.20 $ 65.00 $ 136.50 $ 660,000.00 $ 4,338.00 $ 3,253.50 $ 867.60 $ 66.00 $ 138.60 $ 670,000.00 $ 4,395.00 $ 3,296.24 $ 879.00 $ 67.00 $ 140.70 $ 680,000.00 $ 4,452.00 $ 3,339.00 $ 890.40 $ 68.00 $ 142.80 $ 690,000.00 $ 4,509.00 $ 3,381.74 $ 901.80 $ 69.00 $ 144.90 $ 700,000.00 $ 4,566.00 $ 3,424.50 $ 913.20 $ 70.00 $ 147.00 $ 710,000.00 $ 4,623.00 $ 3,467.24 $ 924.60 $ 71.00 $ 149.10 $ 720,000.00 $ 4,680.00 $ 3,510.00 $ 936.00 $ 72.00 $ 151.20 $ 730,000.00 $ 4,737.00 $ 3,552.74 $ 947.40 $ 73.00 $ 153.30 $ 740,000.00 $ 4,794.00 $ 3,595.50 $ 958.80 $ 74.00 $ 155.40 $ 750,000.00 $ 4,851.00 $ 3,638.24 $ 970.20 $ 75.00 $ 157.50 $ 760,000.00 $ 4,908.00 $ 3,681.00 $ 981.60 $ 76.00 $ 159.60 $ 770,000.00 $ 4,965.00 $ 3,723.74 $ 993.00 $ 77.00 $ 161.70 $ 780,000.00 $ 5,022.00 $ 3,766.50 $ 1,004.40 $ 78.00 $ 163.80 $ 790,000.00 $ 5,079.00 $ 3,809.24 $ 1,015.80 $ 79.00 $ 165.90 $ 800,000.00 $ 5,136.00 $ 3,852.00 $ 1,027.20 $ 80.00 $ 168.00 $ 810,000.00 $ 5,193.00 $ 3,894.76 $ 1,038.60 $ 81.00 $ 170.10 $ 820,000.00 $ 5,250.00 $ 3,937.50 $ 1,050.00 $ 82.00 $ 172.20 $ 830,000.00 $ 5,307.00 $ 3,980.24 $ 1,061.40 $ 83.00 $ 174.30 $ 840,000.00 $ 5,364.00 $ 4,023.00 $ 1,072.80 $ 84.00 $ 176.40 $ 850,000.00 $ 5,421.00 $ 4,065.76 $ 1,084.20 $ 85.00 $ 178.50 $, 860,000.00 $ 5,478.00 $ 4,108.51 $ 1,095.60 $ 86.00 $ 180.60 $ 870,000.00 $ 5,535.00 $ 4,151.27 $ 1,107.00 $ 87.00 $ 182.70 $ 880,000.00 $ 5,592.00 $ 4,194.02 $ 1,118.40 $ 88.00 $ 184.80 $ 890,000.00 $ 5,649.00 $ 4,236.78 $ 1,129.80 $ 89.00 $ 186.90 $ 900,000.00 $ 5,706.00 $ 4,279.54 $ 1,141.20 $ 90.00 $ 189.00 $ 910,000.00 $ 5,763.00 $ 4,322.29 $ 1,152.60 $ 91.00 $ 191.10 $ 920,000.00 $ 5,820.00 $ 4,365.05 $ 1,164.00 $ 92.00 $ 193.20 $ 930,000.00 $ 5,877.00 $ 4,407.80 $ 1,175.40 $ 93.00 $ 195.30 $ 940,000.00 $ 5,934.00 $ 4,450.56 $ 1,186.80 $ 94.00 $ 197.40 $ 950,000.00 $ 5,991.00 $ 4,493.32 $ 1,198.20 $ 95.00 $ 199.50 $ 960,000.00 $ 6,048.00 $ 4,536.07 $ 1,209.60 $ 96.00 $ 201.60 $ 970,000.00 $ 6,105.00 $ 4,578.83 $ 1,221.00 $ 97.00 $ 203.70 $ 980,000.00 $ 6,162.00 $ 4,621.58 $ 1,232.40 $ 98.00 $ 205.80 $ 990,000.00 $ 6,219.00 $ 4,664.34 $ 1,243.80 $ 99.00 $ 207.90 $ 1,000,000.00 $ 6,276.00 $ 4,707.10 $ 1,255.20 $ 100.00 $ 210.00 24 City of Lake Elsinore Comprehensive User Fee Study Report March 30, 2018 CITY OF LAKE � A DREAM EXTREME 1W TM iLLDAN Financial Services Corporate Office: Office Locations: 27368 Via Industria Anaheim, CA New York, NY Suite 200 Oakland, CA Orlando, FL Temecula, CA 92590 Sacramento, CA Tel: (951) 587 -3500 Tel: (800) 755 -6864 Fax: (951) 587 -3510 www.wilidan.com W WI LLDAN Financial Services Executive Summary ................................... ............................... .......................... ..............................1 User Fee Background ............................................................................................ ............................... 2 Background............................................................................................................................. ..............................2 CaliforniaUser Fee History ..................................................................................................... ..............................2 Additional Policy Considerations ............................................................................................ ..............................3 StudyObjective ..................................................................................................... ............................... 4 Scopeof the Study .................................................................................................................. ..............................5 Aimof the Report ................................................................................................................... ..............................5 Project Approach and Methodology ...................................................................... ............................... 6 ConceptualApproach ........................................................_.................................................... .................._....,......6 FullyBurdened Hourly Rates .................................................................................................. ..............,.,.,.,,........6 SummarySteps of the Study ................................................................................................... ..............................7 AllowableCosts ....................................................................................................................... ..............................7 Methodology.......................................................................................................................... ..............................8 QualityControl /Quality Assurance ......................................................................................... ..............................8 Reasons for cost increases /decreases over current fees ........................................................ ..............................9 CityStaff Contributions ........................................................................................................... ..............................9 LakeElsinore User Fees ......................................................................................... .............................10 CostRecovery ........................................................................................................................ .............................10 Subsidization................................................................................................................ ............................... ....10 Impacton Demand ( Elasticity) ............................................................................................... .............................11 Summary............................................ ....... .......................................... ................................................................ 11 CityClerk ............................................................... .............................12 Fire....................................................................................................................... .............................14 CommunityServices ....................................................................................... ............................... 18 Building............................................................................................................. .............................27 Planning............................................................................................................ ............................... 41 City of Lake Elsinore Comprehensive User Fee Study ii '+VII I LLDAN Financial Services Engineering......................................................................................................... ............................... 46 VehicleAbatement ............................................................................................. ............................... 50 CodeEnforcement .............................................................................................. ............................... 51 Appendix A — Total Allowable Cost to be Recovered ........................................... ............................... 52 Appendix B — Fully Burdened Hourly Rates .......................................................... ............................... 53 City of Lake Elsinore Comprehensive User Fee Study W 1'wILLDAN Financial Services EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City of Lake Elsinore engaged Willdan Financial Services (Willdan) to determine the full costs incurred by the City to support the various activities for which the City charges user fees. Due to the complexity and the breadth of performing a comprehensive review of fees, Willdan employed a variety of fee methodologies to identify the full costs of individual fee and program activities. This report and the appendices herein identifies 100% full cost recovery for City services and the recommended level of recovery as determined through discussion with departmental staff. The reality of the local government fee environment is that significant increases to achieve 1000A cost recovery can often not be feasible, desirable, or appropriate depending on policy direction, particularly in a single year. The recommended fees identified herein are either at or less than full cost recovery. City of Lake Elsinore Comprehensive User Fee Study WILLDAN Financial Services BACKGROUND As part of a general cost recovery strategy, local governments adopt user fees to fund programs and services that provide limited or no direct benefit to the community as a whole. As cities struggle to maintain levels of service and variability of demand, they have become increasingly aware of subsidies provided by the General Fund and have implemented cost - recovery targets. To the extent that governments use general tax monies to provide individuals with private benefits, and not require them to pay the full cost of the service (and, therefore, receive a subsidy), the government is limiting funds that may be available to provide other community -wide benefits. In effect, the government is using community funds to pay for private benefit. Unlike most revenue sources, cities have more control over the level of user fees they charge to recover costs, or the subsidies they can institute. Fees in California are required to conform to the statutory requirements of the California Constitution, Proposition 218, and the California Code of Regulations. The Code also requires that the City Council adopt fees by either ordinance or resolution, and that any fees in excess of the estimated total cost of rendering the related services must be approved by a popular vote of two - thirds of those electors voting because the charge would be considered a tax and not a fee. CALIFORNIA USER FEE HISTORY Before Proposition 13, California cities were less concerned with potential subsidies and recovering the cost of their services From individual fee payers. In times of fiscal shortages, cities simply raised property taxes, which funded everything from police and recreation to development - related services. However, this situation changed with the passage of Proposition 13 in 1978. Proposition 13 established the era of revenue limitation in California local government. In subsequent years, the state saw a series of additional limitations to local government revenues. Proposition 4 (1979) defined the difference between a tax and a fee: a fee can be no greater than the cost of providing the service; and Proposition 218 (1996) further limited the imposition of taxes for certain classes of fees. As a result, cities were required to secure a supermajority vote in order to enact or increase taxes. Since the public continues to resist efforts to raise local government taxes, cities have little control and very few successful options for new revenues. Compounding this limitation, the State of California took a series of actions in the 1990's and 2000's to improve the State's fiscal situation —at the expense of local governments. As an example, in 200405, the Educational Revenue Augmentation Funds ( "ERAF" ) take -away of property taxes and the reduction of Vehicle License Fees have severely reduced local tax revenues. In addition, on November 2, 2010, California voters approved Proposition 26, the "Stop Hidden Taxes Initiative ", which is aimed at defining "regulatory fees" as a special tax rather than a fee, thus requiring approval by two- thirds vote of local voters. These regulatory fees are typically intended to mitigate the societal and environmental impacts of a business or person's activities. Proposition 26 contains seven categories of exceptions. The vast majority of fees that cities would seek to adopt will most likely fall into one or more of these exemptions. City of Lake Elsinore Comprehensive User Fee Study )N/WILLDAN Financial Services ADDITIONAL POLICY CONSIDERATIONS The recent trend for municipalities is to update their fee schedules to reflect the actual costs of certain public services primarily benefitting users. User Fees recover costs associated with the provision of specific services benefiting the user, thereby reducing the use of General Fund monies for such purposes. In addition to collecting the direct cost of labor and materials associated with processing and administering user services, it is common for local governments to recover support costs. Support costs are those costs relating to a local government's central service departments that are properly allocable to the local government's operating departments. Central services support cost allocations were derived from the City's Cost Allocation Plan. As labor effort and costs associated with the provision of services fluctuate over time, a significant element in the development of any fee schedule is that it has the flexibility to remain current. Therefore, it is recommended that the City include an inflationary factor in the resolution adopting the fee schedule to allow the City Council, by resolution, to annually increase or decrease the fees. The City may employ many different inflationary factors. The most commonly used inflator is some form of the Consumer Price Index (CPI) as it is widely well known and accepted. A similar inflator is the implicit price deflator for GDP, which is much like the CPI except that while the CPI is based on the same "basket" of goods and services every year, the price deflators' "basket" can change year to year. Since the primary factor for the cost of a City's services is usually the costs of the personnel involved, tying an inflationary factor more directly to the personnel costs can be suitable if there is a clear method for obtaining said factor. Each City should use an inflator that they believe works the best for their specific situation and needs. It is also recommended that the City perform this internal review annually with a comprehensive review of services and fees performed every three to five years, which would include adding or removing fees for any new or eliminated programs /services. City of Lake Elsinore Comprehensive User Fee Study r WILLDAN Financial Services As the City of Lake Elsinore seeks to efficiently manage limited resources and adequately respond to increased service demands, it needs a variety of tools. These tools provide assurance that the City has the best information and the best resources available to make sound decisions, fairly and legitimately set fees, maintain compliance with state law and local policies, and meet the needs of the City administration and its constituency. Given the limitations on raising revenue in local government, the City recognizes that a User Fee Study is a very cost - effective way to understand the total cost of services and identify potential fee deficiencies. Essentially, a User Fee is a payment for a requested service provided by a local government that primarily benefits an individual or group. The total cost of each service included in this analysis is based on the full cost of providing City services, including direct salaries and benefits of City staff, direct departmental costs, and indirect costs from central service support. This study determines the full cost recovery fee for the City to provide each service; however, each fee is set at the City's discretion, up to 100% of the total cost, as specified in this report. The principle goal of the study was to help the City determine the full cost of the services that the City provides. In addition, Willdan established a series of additional objectives including: • Developing a rational basis for setting fees • Identifying subsidy amount, if applicable, of each fee in the model • Enhancing fairness and equity • Ensuring compliance with State law • Developing an updatable and comprehensive list of fees • Maintaining accordance with City policies and goals The study results will help the City better understand its true costs of providing services and may serve as a basis for making informed policy decisions regarding the most appropriate fees, if any, to collect from individuals and organizations that require individualized services from the City. City of Lake Elsinore Comprehensive User Fee Study 4 W 1 LLDAN Financial Services SCOPE OF THE STUDY The scope of this study encompasses a review and calculation of the user fees charged by the following Lake Elsinore departments and fee groups: • City Clerk • Fire • Community Services • Building • Planning • Engineering • Vehicle Abatement • Code Enforcement The study involved the identification of existing and potential new fees, fee schedule restructuring, data collection and analysis, orientation and consultation, quality control, communication and presentations, and calculation of individual service costs (fees) or program cost recovery levels. AIM OF THE REPORT The User Fee Study focused on the cost of City services, as City staff currently provides them at existing, known, or reasonably anticipated service and staff levels. This report provides a summary of the study results, and a general description of the approach and methods Willdan and City staff used to determine the recommended fee schedule. The report is not intended to document all the numerous discussions throughout the process, nor is it intended to provide influential dissertation on the qualities of the utilized tools, techniques, or other approaches. City of Lake Elsinore Comprehensive User Fee Study 5 WILLDAN Financial Services PROJECT APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY CONCEPTUAL APPROACH The basic concept of a User Fee Study is to determine the "reasonable cost" of each service provided by the City for which it charges a user fee. The full cost of providing a service may not necessarily become the City's fee, but it serves as the objective basis as to the maximum amount that may be collected. The standard fee limitation established in California law for property- related (non - discretionary) fees is the "estimated, reasonable cost" principle. In order to maintain compliance with the letter and spirit of this standard, every component of the fee study process included a related review. The use of budget figures, time estimates, and improvement valuation clearly indicates reliance upon estimates for some data. FULLY BURDENED HOURLY RATES The total cost of each service included in this analysis is primarily based on the Fully Burdened Hourly Rates (FBHRs) that were determined for City personnel directly involved in providing services. The FBHRs include not only personnel salary and benefits, but also any costs that are reasonably ascribable to personnel. The cost elements that are included in the calculation of fully burdened rates are: • Salaries & benefits of personnel involved • Operating costs applicable to fee operations • Departmental support, supervision, and administration overhead • Internal Service Costs charged to each department • Indirect City -wide overhead costs calculated through the Cost Allocation Plan An important factor in determining the fully burdened rate is in the calculation of productive hours for personnel. This calculation takes the available workable hours in a year of 2,080 and adjusts this figure to accountfor calculated or anticipated hours' employees are involved in non - billable activities such as paid vacation, sick leave, emergency leave, holidays, and other considerations as necessary. Dividing the full cost by the number of productive hours provides the FBHR. The FBHRs are then used in conjunction with time estimates, when appropriate, to calculate a fees' cost based on the personnel and the amount of their time that is involved in providing each service. City of Lake Elsinore Comprehensive User Fee Study VW I LLDA'N Ftnanc!W Sefvices SUMMARY STEPS OF THE STUDY The methodology to evaluate most User Fee levels is straightforward and simple in concept. The following list provides a summary of the study process steps: Department Interviews Time Estimates Labor Costs Cost Allocation Plan ALLOWABLE COSTS Direct Services Indirect Services Department Overhead City -Wide Overhead Define the Full Cost of Services Set Cost Recovery Policy This report identifies three types of costs that, when combined, constitute the fully burdened cost of a service jAppendix A). Costs are defined as direct labor, including salary and benefits, departmental overhead costs, and the City's central services overhead, where departmental and central service overhead costs constitute support costs. These cost types are defined as follows: is Direct Labor (Personnel Costs): The costs related to staff salaries for time spent directly on fee - related services. Departmental Overh ead: Aproportional allocation of departmental overhead costs, Including operation costs such as supplies and materials that are necessary for the department to function. Central Services Overhead: These costs, detailed in the City's Cost Allocation Plan, represent services provided by those Central Services Departments whose primary function is to support other City departments, City of Lake Elsinore Comprehensive User Fee Study 7 WILLDAN Financial Services 'METHODOLOGY The three methods of analysis for calculating fees used in this report are the: Case Study Method (Standard Unit Cost Build -Up Approach): This approach estimates the actual labor and material costs associated with providing a unit of service to a single user. This analysis is suitable when City staff time requirements do not vary dramatically for a service, or for special projects where the time and cost requirements are easy to identify at the project's outset. Further, the method is effective in instances when a staff member from one department assists on an application, service or permit for another department on an as- needed basis. Costs are estimated based upon interviews with City staff regarding the time typically spent on tasks, a review of available records, and a time and materials analysis. Programmatic Approach: The standard Case Study approach relies upon the detailed analysis of specific time estimates, salaries and benefits, expenditures, and overhead costs. In many instances, the underlying data are not available or vary widely, leaving a standard unit cost build -up approach impractical. In addition, market factors and policy concerns (as opposed to actual costs) tend to influence fee levels more than other types of services. With these general constraints, and to maximize the utility of this analysis, Willdan employed a different methodology where appropriate to fit the programs' needs and goals. Valuation Based Fees: This manner of collection is used when the valuation of the improvement can be used as a proxy for the amount of effort it would take for City staff to complete the service provided. More specifically, this approach is commonly used for certain User Fees in Building. QUALITY CONTROL /QUALITY ASSURANCE All study components are interrelated, thus flawed data at any step in the process will cause the ultimate results to be inconsistent and unsound. The elements of our Quality Control process for User Fee calculations include: • Involvement of knowledgeable City staff • Clear instructions and guidance to City staff • Reasonableness tests and validation • Normalcy /expectation ranges • FTE balancing • Internal and external reviews • Cross - checking City of Lake Elsinore Comprehensive User Fee Study WO'WILLDAN Priancial Services. REASONS FOR COST INCREASES /DECREASES OVER CURRENT FEES Within the fee tables, the differences identified between the full costs calculated through the study and the fee levels currently in effect. The reasons for differences between the two can arise from a number of possible factors including: • Previous fee levels may have been set at levels less than full cost intentionally, based on a policy decisions • Staffing levels and the positions that complete fee and service activity may vary from when the previous costs were calculated • Personnel and materials costs could have increased at levels that differed from any inflationary factors used to increase fees since the last study • Costs that this study has identified as part of the full cost of services may not have been accounted for in a previous study • Departmental overhead and administration costs • Indirect overhead from the Cost Allocation Plan • Changes in processes and procedures within a department, or the city as a whole CITY STAFF CONTRIBUTIONS As part of the study process, Willdan received tremendous support and cooperation from City staff, which contributed and reviewed a variety of components to the study, including: • Budget and other cost data • Staffing structures • Fee and service structures, organization, and descriptions • Direct and indirect work hours (billable /non - billable) • Time estimates to complete work tasks • Frequency and current fee levels • Review of draft results and other documentation A User Fee Study requires significant involvement of the managers and line staff from the departments —on top of their existing workloads and competing priorities. The contributions from City staff were critical to this study. We would like to express our appreciation to the City and its staff for their assistance, professionalism, positive attitudes, helpful suggestions, responsiveness, and overall cooperation. City of Lake Elsinore Comprehensive User Fee Study 9 Financial Services LAKE ELSINORE USER FEES COST RECOVERY The cost recovery models, by department /division fee type, are presented in detail in this report. Full cost recovery is determined by summing the estimated amount of time each position (in increments of minutes or hours) spends to render a service. Time estimates for each service rendered were predominately determined by Willdan and City Staff through a time and materials survey conducted for each department /division fee included in the study. The resulting cost recovery amount represents the total cost of providing each service. The City's current fee being charged for each service, if applicable, is provided in this section, as well, for reference. It is important to note that the time and materials survey used to determine the amount of time each employee spends assisting in the provision of the services listed on the fee schedule is essential in identifying the total cost of providing each service. Specifically, in providing services, a number of employees are often involved in various aspects of the process, spending anywhere from a few minutes to several hours on the service. The principle goal of this study was to identify the cost of City services, to provide information to help the City make informed decisions regarding the actual fee levels and charges. The responsibility to determine the final fee levels is a complicated task. City staff must consider many issues in formulating recommendations, and the City Council must consider those same issues and more in making the final decisions. City staff assumes the responsibility to develop specific fee level recommendations to present to the City Council. Unfortunately, there are no hard and fast rules to guide the City, since many of the considerations are based on the unique characteristics of the City of Lake Elsinore, and administrative and political discretion. However, in setting the level of full cost recovery for each fee, one should consider whether the service solely benefits one end user or the general community. SUBSIDIZATION Recalling the definition of a user fee helps guide decisions regarding subsidization. The general standard is that individuals (or groups) whom receive a wholly private benefit should pay 100% of the full cost of the services. In contrast, services that are simply public benefit should be funded entirely by the general fund's tax dollars. Unfortunately, for the decision makers, many services fall into the range between these two extremes (i.e., Library and Recreation services). The graphic on the following page illustrates the potential decision basis. Further complicating the decision, opponents of fees often assert that the activities subject to the fees provide economic, cultural, "quality of life," or other community benefits that exceed the costs to the City. It is recommended the City consider such factors during its deliberations regarding appropriate fee levels. City of Lake Elsinore Comprehensive User Fee Study 10 W"W I LLDAN Financial Services Of course, subsidization can be an effective public policy tool, since it can be used to reduce fees to encourage certain activities (such as compliance inspections to ensure public safety) or allow some people to be able to afford to receive services they otherwise could not at the full cost. In addition, subsidies can be an appropriate and justifiable action, such as to allow citizens to rightfully access services, without burdensome costs. 100% 0% General Fund (Subsidy) General Fund (Subsidy) 100'% Some Some General Fund (Subsidy) 100.0 Despite the intent, it is important for the Private Public Private Public City and public to understand that Benefit Benefit Benefit Benefit subsidies must be covered by another revenue source, such as the General Fund. Therefore, the general taxpayer will potentially help to fund private benefits, and /or other City services will not receive funds that are otherwise directed to cover subsidies. IMPACT ON DEMAND (ELASTICITY) Economic principles of elasticity suggest that increased costs for services (higher fees) will eventually curtail the demand for the services; whereas lower fees may spark an incentive to utilize the services and encourage certain actions. Either of these conditions may be a desirable effect to the City. However, the level of the fees that would cause demand changes is largely unknown. The Cost of Service Study did not attempt to evaluate the economic or behavioral impacts of higher or lower fees; nevertheless, the City should consider the potential impacts of these issues when deciding on fee levels. SUMMARY If the City's principal goal of this study were to maximize cost recovery from user fees, Willdan would recommend setting user fees at 100% of the full cost identified in this study. However, we understand that full cost recovery and revenue enhancement is not the only goal of a cost of service study, and sometimes full cost recovery is not needed, desired, or appropriate. Other City and departmental goals, City Council priorities, policy initiatives, past experience, implementation issues, and other internal and external factors may influence staff recommendations and City Council decisions. In this case, the proper identification of additional services (new or existing services) and creation of a consistent and comprehensive fee schedule was the primary objective of this study. City staff has reviewed the full costs and identified the "recommended fee levels" for consideration by City Council. The attached appendices exhibit these unit fees individually. The preceding sections provide background for each department or division, results of this study's analysis of their fees, and the full list of each fee's analysis. City of Lake Elsinore Comprehensive User Fee Study 11 I LLDAN Financial Services CITY CLERK The City Clerk is the local official who administers democratic processes such as elections, access to City records, and all legislative actions ensuring transparency to the public. The City Clerk acts as the Compliance Officer for Federal, State and local statutes including the Political Reform Act, the Brown Act and the Public Records Act. The City Clerk's department manages public inquiries and relationships and arranges for ceremonial and official functions. ANALYSIS Willdan individually reviewed the services provided by the City Clerk. The review also consisted of an evaluation of existing services in an effort to update the fee schedule. The analysis of City Clerk services relied primarily upon a standard unit cost build -up approach, whereby we determined the reasonable cost of each fee occurrence using staff time to recover the direct cost of staff and pro - rata share of departmental costs, including indirect costs for City Central Services. The majority of services that fall under the City Clerk are governed by their own codes and regulations. Of the remaining fees, it is recommended that they are set at the cost recovery levels. City of Lake Elsinore Comprehensive User Fee Study 12 p� x � U m �0 C% 1� 1� U `o W � � o � c u W � d m 3 � t � a ^ c W v V C V C O C W W m Y J Z c T c 'E CL O O j V C C O W O d $ L 4 D C c — � � W fN � — C O � u w W J c 0 E o z E bo O eO W 0 F o a . U u c o v o c tD o c u E n m E J x m W ED m e O o n m U o c W T 'd f1 E V E c Y •- W t m O dv 0 7 W v E W N m � W J >' w .0 W O L W W u � $ a li O 7 o E � u O O 7 Y n � 0 _ W n L W u 3 4 to N CU o E a � v V N m 'j (1 d U W u W O W W CL Y O. E m E 0 0 m u _0 Y`o N C W m m 00 W o c_ Y w E ° 'o /YJ O N d > a c u W m u a E m c 6b o E o u J U :3 .tW W V C o N N W LL `v D W N E O u v O C -Ln a N& m O u ;R g ;e a aaaaaae a¢ o to 0 n en z z Z 0 o O z Z Z z z Z 0 z z m 0 n m m o oo ¢ W W em 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O o . e�a o. en o o N o N O o z W a LL o O o en O O o Ln °° U U w w o O V1 V1 Vb N 14 CL N N V} O m N rl N O O in a a W a W m m a a a a a a a a a o o 'n a a a N Z Z z z z z z Z Z O ci o N m Z z z v�N N 1ra 00¢ o O a d 0 e'; 0 O O Z Z Z Z 0 0 0 1+i ui z z z O N o W Z W Z O W Z W Z N N 41 N N -1 4^ VT V! N N N W' W W N N a Q N ¢ a a a Q Q N 71 0¢ O Go Z Z C z Z Z Z Z Z cL0 m N Z Pt M M IO O O a i M >vaiN N i> Z Vti 7 d c O c O c O W W > E E E E E E L Y o o m E o CL 0 u 0 u o u a u c n ,Nn v V N 00 W V V V ~ W 0 N C 7 Q1 O m m m m m r cc 'i C w �i el a c N O O p m E u c u u 'o C •- W T+ :t 4+ 3 Z 4= O U v1 a m o ri 0 a 0 a W u y W v W 3 �i +L' W o U 7 m O _0 C W i+ C ho W J w V a 0 'O L L V Y aL+ aL+ c W 7 m = m �0 T a T n T a v1 O u 0 ° a m O c ¢ g m v Y VV) vii 'n LLu CX W W W m T T m m n n m b Ol (u Ol (U W G) d' 1z a a 0 0 C) m o O O O o O 0 C 0 n n n - E a N U 0 U R 7 7 O J y U 0 C u C u N C u C ac. O - y LL 00 rl N ? L 7 E C cai c m 0 > W Q c Oo a 'c — x x W a = i'' w 'c N W 'm o m V ° o ° E c 'u u .°1 L x L O n 7 V N U D L u j7 7-2 7.. x 3 > m n a =°- =°- ° =° 0 N o0 `o a co O L C E O EO to �_' E u° �.. p N L N O U O U C m d E N i E m N =_ E. LL N C u V U C Z _ m, 0 m — a 7 J° J LL LL O °- o 0 m V m'— U lLL m d 0 u0 C O O m CW m L �° V y C o a 6. t,4 m N h ri a, a m? .0 .0 v o 0 u o 5v a 5 a . J J _ a o a o a o O n r,,� 9I Ul c a'� J CL O u O u O u 2 2 7 m Il w LL v el Lo w R Il lD w a z J en J v. 3 u m u �-0 `o W � � o � c u W � d m 3 � t � a ^ c W v V C V C O C W W m Y J Z c T c 'E CL O O j V C C O W O d $ L 4 D C c — � � W fN � — C O � u w W J c 0 E o z E bo O eO W 0 F o a . U u c o v o c tD o c u E n m E J x m W ED m e O o n m U o c W T 'd f1 E V E c Y •- W t m O dv 0 7 W v E W N m � W J >' w .0 W O L W W u � $ a li O 7 o E � u O O 7 Y n � 0 _ W n L W u 3 4 to N CU o E a � v V N m 'j (1 d U W u W O W W CL Y O. E m E 0 0 m u _0 Y`o N C W m m 00 W o c_ Y w E ° 'o /YJ O N d > a c u W m u a E m c 6b o E o u J U :3 .tW W V C o N N W LL `v D W N E O u v O C -Ln a N& m O u Financial Services The Fire Department maintains the highest levels of fire and disaster preparedness, prevention, and community involvement in order to ensure the safety of both our residents and visitors. The City contracts with the Riverside County Fire Department for Fire services. Emergency Operations provides comprehensive emergency services utilizing a highly trained work force, progressive technology, and modern equipment to provide Fire and Paramedic services. The Lake Elsinore Fire Department is dedicated to protecting life, property, and the environment throughout the City, accomplished by a comprehensive emergency service response program utilizing responsible fiscal management, a highly trained work force, progressive technology, and modern equipment. The Fire Prevention Division is to preserve and enhance the quality of life for the citizens of Lake Elsinore through the application of a comprehensive fire and hazard program. ANALYSIS Willdan individually reviewed the services and programs associated with the Fire Department. The review also consisted of an evaluation of existing services in an effort to update the fee schedule. The analysis of Fire services relied primarily upon a standard unit cost build -up approach, whereby we determined the reasonable cost of each fee occurrence using staff time to recover the direct cost of staff and pro -rata share of departmental costs, including indirect costs for City Central Services. Willdan then compared the calculated full cost against the current fee amount to determined, if charged, whether the current fee would recover the costs associated with the requested service. The suggested fees represent 100% cost recovery which would result in an average fee increase of 200/x. On an individual fee basis, there would be an increase for 27 fees, a decrease for 16 fees, 3 fees would remain as currently set, and 14 new fees will be added. A majority of the Weed Abatement fees are provided from a 3'd parry and it is recommended that the City set Weed Abatement services at 1000A cost recovery for those 12 fees. City of Lake Elsinore Comprehensive User Fee Study 14 U ryQ Z IJ J ro C N Al � W } L4 1-1 a a a a a a a a a e e e e e e e e e e e e Ie o e a e a e e e e e e 2 Z Z Z 2 Z 2 Z 2 O N O M 4 N O M N N M N T 1� 0a N M M tD 0 2 0 00 M Z N N N M. w N a N r4 .1 N N N N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O 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 c/ a N N N N Of N P C O Ln 01 01 r, M W l0 r, m m M h N m N l0 r4 0a m N KT M m w O 01 N" N e4 N N N N H in M M N N 00 N M O P w M M M N M P M w LO 01 V M rl Ln Ln 0o n M Oi w rl 01 w N w a r0 a 0a m M N O R 0a w N N N .-1 m Vf M M 00 r4 VI N N V1 V) VI ry OF N '.j VI V► in N in V1 N VI. M 4A 4A 4n rj VI Vl 4A <A V1 V1 iA VF N M VI VI M P O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O. O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O q O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O c C3 4a` O C`, c i� o CJ a 5 :t a a '� C:} U a is 0 « !A G: C» C, •°' CJ p C? .""s. O ",,.a' C`. C? 12 G C CJ G7 O 00 00 U3 11 C'.' 4 C' "T W, OU R!' L!4 [Y�l e4 0 E -d CV 12'1 t, 0 ;'' tti CY"t ?£? C, EY: 2Ll 1- !+? ELF ID 01 14 N V C In Ln V1 lD lA O N M rl M M n 0� 1� O In O �O l0 M �D N Q1 1� C? M P w Ln to h 10 O O Q N 1A M Dl N O1 Ca Li M' lD kC P� O 01 M f� O N N 09 N C1 M O lD d' O Cl! M r1 r1 N N 01 N 1� a 0 m m m h m 00 w fl M M M N N M N 1G rl co T N� M M lD 14 M r� w M N 01 01 M 01 to a N M n 01 h 1D w w as M O w N N m M O N IA H a-I N N M N O w M r� n W M M' Ln 0a M W M N a' Q M N V' 0a N H N M rl VI V) VI. JA V1 VA � M• V/ 4 VI VT Ul VA V1 U< V) Vt Vp VI Un -0 �..� N V} AA /A V1 'A V/ VI VF V} V1 VA VI 7 N a) a1 LL a) al C N L al L CQ C O U a) O C .N w v Y J 4- O V y 'y as ai :LL FOR � W 1.4 r1� a ¢ . o Z 2 n O P Z M N O (n P d 0) O N 00 N 01 n 01 w N M M N Or �••I G N O M O M N M rA �••� M �••� P �"� P N M M 00 O O O O O r•' y O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 O N 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O 01 N lD = N M P O P a-1 m a-I M 00 d O m ` O N ei N O C P to O M O M N d ri P m N N 00 R N VF M a-1 H m C_ 0/ U. M d O O P V/ H N M M d 14 N N N VI in VI -A O E V) -0 VI -A Ln in Vl Ar� N iA VF V! in V6 LL ar of " a ar 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 O 0 a as C7 T 6T. M M .-•i 0 rs v:, Fw "C rf u1 o-1 10 r� to �. m a: rG m «-! try w rn v-•i -0 M .-^1 M -i rn r-. M O 00 M 00 Ol O P M N O O M P 00 O M M M Ln P M N O O a cn M OD M 00 'i lD N Ln 01 N l0 l0 01 N O 0 e4 * O N M P O d f\ N V 01 11 M 00 Cr O m O 11 N N O 1 P O O M d M N d �4 P m N N 00 d 'i VI M N N m M C M O P V1 H N M M d rr It 1 N V< VF in VI• > V1 Vr VT in Vr N VF VF 4^ L4 A d N v Gl CL 0 7 a� o: 0 O CL al OC U u F- fa U al CL Ln ai ai E E c E � C L j N W 7 O L U/ CL al CL 7 O E v v r0 E .Y W O Y O CL ai ai Y Y C j W W �- O a7 a) aa) o CL U LA 1n m c ar C E crv a v al C 7 b CL N O Ln a7 ra N O 14 Y U 0 Vl 1-1 A a/ a7 a7 f0 f0 ,0 0 y E •y •U U U U o aj W� u E E E E O •� C E E E E v a) O O O O O +-' 0: U U V U — — — LL LL LL LL •U LL a� lC" � U •U U U � � � a) LL li LL LL U U U V `7 O. i T T T T V U U U U O C D O O 9 y T T T y T C T T u T Ln T u o u -� u u a) u 'o u u o u ,� u C C C y C U C a) C O C— C_ G f0 l0 r0 y m U N ] f0 y f0 10 la fa m m CL n a o n v n C n u CL •U n •� n U U O V V U V O V U N U y U U U V U Y U- u u U V o c o° O y o N o Y o d o E o E o N u N N O N Ln N y N rl N o N O N K 1!r 01 K li V7 K 00 K U C U K "6 7 i-� N LL L al N N c v t v a E O U a! O C W ai Y J O U ZM C) (D J m J 'v C 0f A` L W N f0 �U O1 E E 0 U �U LL (V L f0 V M U C rtl CL 7 u O -t N to A. C. f0 L N uU m ar O_ v � CO y C C In O ai O1 LL v X LL IV C O O v U [1 Ol t0 0 C � rt y� Q C1 C m L N ai U N O [L N L rt r_ 0 C � Fn c Ol S x X LL v C O O1 O ar U LL N m v c u Vf m N O 1 C 4 N 1 O m r c U Q c O1 4 d C1 L L } - U f I I � a ur N 4 I CL 7 O 2 I O1 I CL v d C O al O U U N Z Z 2 Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z O O M C C m C tio C N O O C i O O O O O O O N M O O O O 00 O O O 00 O O O O C C_ u u a-I Ln LA 00 d O t0 Ln M M O O L" C7 O r4 Ln Ln m M iA V► N a a +n V). .•t In In M 'i '•1 'i rl Ln N N N m V> u} V) VF to VF V! N VF V} to O O O O O O O O O O O O O Ln 00 O O O O O O O O O O O O O ID M ra ca a .es x>> —0 > .� ,. T x a. a v a a n a r y CL fy 0- CL fl « fo -a ;J f ra a 0 Lt u r C, C- I Q1 a. ra l!3 c lei ty1 'n .Z} -0 'G9 -2 ••�. M 'y "p � Ti .O •Li ,� 2 "g a "9 rf� f+l sn €rl 2 fn O rt7 > O fN p m > O rr >a O 2 q p 00 1n M O O N N O In M O 00 O h Ot Vi N N O O r•1 n O n n O 1n O n O -4 In M 00 00 0 l0 m M m O O 1+1 �••I �••� rl In In m m A. in n a a +A .A 't a m M rl 14 14 'i M .••I '•I 14 Ln N t/L to V4 VL to Ln to in to to to f0 �U O1 E E 0 U �U LL (V L f0 V M U C rtl CL 7 u O -t N to A. C. f0 L N uU m ar O_ v � CO y C C In O ai O1 LL v X LL IV C O O v U [1 Ol t0 0 C � rt y� Q C1 C m L N ai U N O [L N L rt r_ 0 C � Fn c Ol S x X LL v C O O1 O ar U LL N m v c u Vf m N O 1 C 4 N 1 O m r c U Q c O1 4 d C1 L L } - U f I I � a ur N 4 I CL 7 O 2 I O1 I CL v d C O al O R } U u O1 d to c 2 N O E 01 W L 7 N O Y O O QI rt7 Q N N CL v i C U I C to C Y i 7 U • L I � 7 m I I O 1 u U LLI 7 O L Ol d v v 0 LL N Cu aj LL 7 O C u O1 O Y c N a C () E v m L 7 LL' W C O m 0 u bD 0) U 4 7 O u � C to �E N la -c 2 < N OJ a a 4- � D C + c d f � L C W E ar a ¢ L L fi W C O I 00O L ol s 7 O � I I N I to 2 T O 7 Y LL LL L v 1= v s ar L Q E O U O C In W v Y J O U U U f0 f0 H F- C C m C tio C O U O O C i O O L 2 2 -0 E a a 00 00 O O O O C C_ u u •u "u C N N O I^ H rt7 O O O R } U u O1 d to c 2 N O E 01 W L 7 N O Y O O QI rt7 Q N N CL v i C U I C to C Y i 7 U • L I � 7 m I I O 1 u U LLI 7 O L Ol d v v 0 LL N Cu aj LL 7 O C u O1 O Y c N a C () E v m L 7 LL' W C O m 0 u bD 0) U 4 7 O u � C to �E N la -c 2 < N OJ a a 4- � D C + c d f � L C W E ar a ¢ L L fi W C O I 00O L ol s 7 O � I I N I to 2 T O 7 Y LL LL L v 1= v s ar L Q E O U O C In W v Y J O U U111 LLDAN Financial Servsces COMMUNITY SERVICES The Community Services Department provides a variety of programs that educate, entertain, and enrich the community. The Department delivers special events for all ages. They arrange for services and programs that are needed by those with special needs, teens, and seniors. The Departments provides professional leadership through recreational programs, services, and events that enhance the quality of life in the community. Included in this sections' analysis is the Lake Division. Lake Elsinore is ideal for motor boating, jet skiing, waterskiing, wakeboarding, kayaking, and fishing. It boasts public beaches with picnic and shade features, plenty of safe easy - access parking, a three -mile levee for hiking, nature watching, and fishing, and a tournament channel for professional ski instruction and club and pro competitions. ANALYSIS Willdan individually reviewed the services and programs associated with Community Services. The review also consisted of an evaluation of existing services in an effort to update the fee schedule. The analysis of Community Service programs encompassed special events, facility rentals, park rentals, other community services, and the Lake. The analysis for most service groups involved using a combination of programmatic methods and the case study method so that the estimated cost per participant in a given program could be determined. The fees under the Lake Division are determined by market forces for the use of publicly owned land. As a whole the Lake Division is only at around a 20% cost recovery level, and the suggested fees are not intended to achieve cost recovery. The analysis found that the City was recovering less than full cost for most Community Services. It is generally accepted that some Community Service programs provide a measure of public benefit to the residents and City as a whole. In addition, cities generally want to ensure that their programs and services remain affordable to the community at large, and that the programs remain competitive with surrounding jurisdictions. With those factors in mind, the department has provided two recommendations for cost recovery levels. The first is the optimal recovery level, which acknowledges the points described above, but provides a greater level of cost recovery for services that the department would like to work towards as a goal. The second is the suggested cost recovery level, which, while it includes increases in fees as a whole, the increases are more modest than the optimal cost recovery goal of the department. Please refer to the tables after this section for the cost recovery level detail for both the optimal and suggested recovery levels for each individual service. City of Lake Elsinore Comprehensive User Fee Study 18 § Q - 2 , u «« A zo k § z z z ! , § Q - § , -M «« A A z § z z z ! , § m 0 ; m m! ! \ k k § ; ) { ; ch 14 � ■ K } \ / .4Z // \ \ Is! IR \k � 2 \ k ( t � fr m 2 -� =¥ ;� kkm\k t f i2 a : § - ■ -$ w: / } _ e_ - ) � f i i `�! m ± �® # � J f E -ak r� =ok 2 #!o�$■ea:a i / !2 ! \\ \, E #, In ; q; 2 e ƒ \ k $ \3 A t � V) } \ / a / \ E u a) § \ % » 0 Z� J � � .may cz W .0 O 0 a z a d� Z 0 0 a 3 0 N Q) LL LnL N D N C N L v L CL E 0 u 0 w v J U 0 a A ac x ae ae "I < a a a a a¢¢ ae ae ae x aQ x ¢ a a¢ VI M N Q o W z z 2= 2 2 2 Z 2-- m — - — 2 2 2 2 Q Y•1 O Q �p li • ocl 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 o 0 °o a 0 o 0 0 0 LO T 1� Ir V1 T r N M f� M Q Q-- rl O O� N- O� Y1 T m n h t2 1� fJ M V 00 O V �O [D fV - rVf V �C 00 N - µ n1f 00 Vl ,y VF N r-1 Vf N N N 4/T iI} N N V} V1 H M'' L1 M JA 1/f iIk 1/f g ag a° a°. ;,° • o 0 .e o 3 .�° o ae a. a° , l o a-I 0 e- 0 ,o 0 , ° 0 ae. 0 a°. a` �n e ZIP O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 6 O O O 8 O 1� 1D Q Op N 1p M Q lD Ot f� l0 Q N lO Q 1p l0 01 ut l0 V1 n Q O 1� V! � H � N !� T� Ot lD N Q� V! N r1 � r•1 1•+ N �O M' I� H � ti Q N 1•+ M 01 Q �O VI 01 N N 00 Vf N ."� ti N W Y/1 ti N O^l V} 01 iA 1p N �O VI 0P ap 0 0 0 0 0 0 a, as N N N COM O 6M 6 0 0W W N N N lQ O M Q Q �Q G 4 i .4 - - � M O l0 - M - M - O OQ � Q Vf N �••1 M 'N-I M 'N-1 l0 N O Vf M Q N OQ � l/l OQ l H/1 'N-1 .--I N N M of M N T Vf — Vl M yA Q N .0 O 0 a z a d� Z 0 0 a 3 0 N Q) LL LnL N D N C N L v L CL E 0 u 0 w v J U Z� Q Din � N W C L x ^^Cd h�l a s a a a a d a a a a a a a a a* z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z N m z 0NO m .. 0 0 0 0 0 o a o o 0 0 0 o a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o g o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O 0 O m N m 0 N N 01 O O1 C0 m i 0N 1 a O O N O H m -T N N H N L0 I e0 i m w N H N 0o N K m V0 M 1 O K K K K K a O O M M M p V W V � N di 0 0 0 0 0 0 Vl O V h N v1 O O O N N .-1 Ot C>1 00 h N N v u'1 111 � h M 1+1 0 o o 0 0 0 0 o a o 0 0 0 o o o 0 0 o a 0 a o 0 0 o q o 0 0 0 o q o 0 0 0 o g o 0 o q o 0 0 O O,, O m 00 m 00 01 N 10 VI K n K 01 K M K m K V K m K K O N m N 00 N rl N m o N N o 14 N N m 00 H K n m K K O N yl K K K K K K 1/l N K a a o o o u� I 7 �9F n N O n n n m rn n a a fo m v a m O 0 $b GO m 00 m b m n N h 1V n M N C 1 01 O m 111 N 00 01 O1 01 m f0 N ffl O N m N O N m N 111 O H N m an m m d m N K n b. iA V' O N yl K K K K K K K K V7 41 K K K K Y L u 'c `w O O`a0 L U m � I N Ol j Ol n 0 °w m rr 1 E d v `a a N O n I i fn f 1 al A v s v z 2 E d a v 3 n a O n 10 0 1 O 1 R 1 1 l F 0 m a a m [C v LL E W a a CL Ol O n E 10 C I - I C o E O O w v fe v LL O 0 O O O O o t D D v_P- O n Ol d W N d 105 % YI W a 0 a a 3 a a 3 a d d 3 c 0 v v > > > > > > F! 2 2 2 c cQ c C C C E C o o o C C C C Ci t C C a H is v o1 m `m E E o O O O O o 0 o O O L N C v a v v v v m v x� v u oo d C C Y o a m a o Z � m a $ a > > o o L L L L W d G1 d d d 41 d a W L L d. 01 Of W L e L o a t Y O U L L h fA a J C a N a d W Gs C rC O E E E E E E W N W N oc m la m L la n c c la E E E E E E E E F F o O 7 3 O S> > 7 b 3 .c., F c c a r F- H F N Ip 8j O -9c - m a a a m VE x b n. n la a� c a u v a X o 3� 3 D o n a d w a a ux v°1 v°l 1101 „ vai ln N 19i -h h ej C C c c m `m. !p ��yy ry p ry tqp a n c c a R m 3 m O m 2 m Z m� m f%7 Z wA it In N C u u Q o m f v v v a aci v rA � el a� f0 10 m m a L s fe fe z fe s x a fG s° a Y � Y00� L° Ia_ LL LL LL LL 1y a w c c. a m1 O - i'i LL ul vs N v. w a fe N cu N LA_ Q) In D N v ..c Ca C O U v O c w v Y J 0 U J ld FBI a * 9 el eF de X X Q Q Q a a 9 X X � w w w m w w wo 2 2 Z 2 Z w n n m N ti o 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 ui m fo n ui ro N n o w w m v n v o M N w r1 N N N 1R N N O r1 N M M N n H O .-1 O rl N N N M O "C N N M N N 1/1 M N V1 N 14 N N H N ae a \ oz a c II O 0 O � I I O O O O O O o b O O O O O O O o O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O w w 0 M O N O N H N N iR H N O rl O N VL +/1 H ei N M N N N N W N N Vf N N 1M1 N YF N N O O 0 O C n � .`F ✓f 01 O1 O1 M M M M N N >C to N N N N N w w m O O O O M -i n n n f0 IL b fO ri v e v n 1c w w M .c fo 1c fo O N O N O N N N O N O N O H M K n VF O N O H .y N O N O N O N O N O E n O C C O c c 0 W O Y O .O T m a 5 v a~ m C � ao 94 Y L 01 a v a w n v 3 _o a Owll O l7 a LL �o N o C � c SSo O 1 lY L V O1 a v a a v m a L C n E U T C U c r i d a a w `w n L T U I0' T jjlll � a 0 0 C W c a 2 m m Y Y U U m m C C N L7 C 1 C T 1 > Il O O f `` V K U 0 O Y m Y U N C m U 1 . o i !C L v N L v i O w 1 U 4. c 7 10 i L C . I Cj I L w u 0 C i f0 Y ` a o �yy t LL r C ; O A C m r wi I U • cctp V - L T U it lY C n c w U o C N C CTp N m ti Ca C C O U O m a ro U � U L Y �Cryp U L 1.1 C C T T C ` C A o a o K VIA CY L v 0 a v U `o v C z `w 3 w 0 u C O a� U' C � ryC , I U C O 1 I K L w O O w C W N pl o v i v o m U u w L—" a c E E 3 y Yy11 N C o Y �O W UI C o> > O e a; Nu °1n E m �I `w c v y$ u a L. u E w o ar v01i m o E n m E v w C 0 m a L 0 v m is 0 a O Z 2 oc W Y (0 � Fw- C Y a w 0 v z W L V1 C 0 m E w Ol 1 C 0 T n n L L m � m - Y w 0 n 0 a a c c a O `w O Z 3 Z d o ` I O O � a C- L Y +d d F � F C C 6 � C K YA ll' L hw0 E 0 L n L 0 m a C W `o I Y I I q F C I � � i o I I � � N N T Y N N LL V) D N .0 ai CL E O U cu O LU v J CJ ZFUs J � J c N LL n OR Cd a.a m � v e � � vii � c � IL N � L D m T D � N Z v s m � c � E � m � E � j a a ryryC Ij N v n C d E c E m � m v o r � H � v a c a c v o v ' o `o C y m v°, a v v C 3 4J o v v LL ul D C Ul L v a E O U v O C W v Y J O CU z� [7 J � m CL c� •U W aR;e�ae v a a a c a a a<*!*< W W x m Ol�l O o Z Z Z Z Z Z Z'. Z m ZI Z N u a, VI N m Val O O O O O d o0 0 °oo aw•= 8 ' �'p E E d N omtoomut N VI VI N VI N N N 4A VI O 4 rj N a-1 1A > p .O N d F d vLi A q d VI vl �A H y O C Pi C d d 9 M C a c O p o 0 o O 0 m N O O O U O Z- N Vl O - M - o 0 0 O c O d m d d d d o O 0 o Q O a a O O o O O m N h N m.O 0 N a W $ Y d y ly r d E N C ei N VI Ll VI b to .-1 41 H a h �y nOj` C A. rn A N V1 to d e� al c E v� m mp d � d G y p d m d � p d G O 00 0 0 0 w ' a N N VI 2 O rl o H d N O N o .y ZI 0 0 0 0 ✓1 0 Vl n C G ^ y � '.'9 O w n m m o Z a a a Z n n o n vi o lD m v O n �' 00 m m m m m J o o M M ri o N m .� 0 w n CG N M O Vl N p IE N > N > .-1 .r VF N N .ti H Vl 10 N 7 F EI ut� . lid u .E E I a a d .j yW Q O a i o N G1 J J yN �yy Q Q d C d u 7 C 7 d C w N d Y dl C 'c o u U d yd Q E E `m O u N J J yd Q W 13 C U E o a � v OLL O � G `w II v v v v v a v w f W W W W W w• W W W W m IO IO 10 .0 10 A d 10 N u a, VI N m Val a . a VI , Vl O � c i z° J7i 1 .0 1 L'IJ lL L C 1 W � > o � E `d � o - i Q; -Z-y u d� d 0i 0� LPL c' c v� N 7 N Ul LL Ili U1 c O1 t a) O_ C O U v O c W v J O CJ J � C �w F� G/1 .rr .ry A a aea`aea` a a'vexaeaaeaeaee CD00 a: x a a a a 0 a a CD a ae�a O O O O O O O O O O b Z 0 0 0 0 CD 6 0 0 0 0 0 Z 2 Z Z O Z Z O Z G� N 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O ci 0 0 0 V1 0 0 0 Vi O 0 ul O O O O ut O O O O 2 Yl 1A O Z N O O O O VI O 0 0 0 S/1 O N m S/1 N N M rl O. N v! VI N M rl w M O' ut r� H rl H O N cn H m N M N ."� VI O N Ot Y! 'i M N V? .A O N LF n N O O i/1 iI� L1 N VI L 1 V1 Vl i? i/1 V1 4/1 V) V} YF L! VI H N H d d I 4 Q¢ a d Q Q¢ Q 0 0 0 Q ¢ d Q Q Q Q ¢ ¢ Q Q Q Q Q ¢ Q Q Q Q 1 Z Z Z Z 'L Z Z Z Z Z Z N 2 2 Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z L Z Z L Z Z Z C d C] ci ..J rat C[: :% z� L: ::? C;t ^J r G1 c C:J fj ci G: C.? G C.� E.2 ('> t/: �..• Q ri l � (::3 C:1 � :�? � 4 "> n C_: C7 " i'� if1 CJ J U (J �:S C> v.+ in, £J 6 J +9 Ca Q7 �.A n"f G'a O! V: Vl :'J [5 ' C: L S'f '.n '� V1 ✓i 'V> V: rP .-1 Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q¢ 4 Q Q d Q Q Q d Q Q Q Q Q 4 0 0 0¢ Q Q a a a a Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z R Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z 2 Z Z N 0 O Y A Ln N T 7 4J 41 LL i v N D N J C U1 L 41 CL E O U a1 O C w U m J � A aoR<aRel Z i o 0 z o o m m aRaRaa*eo o v+ o o z z vi N o o dd z z 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 �n o 0 C. m o 0 0 O o 4D 0 o 0 1n 0 w o O o .� N o l!1 0 n 0 N o rn 0 N M �"� O N VI Y1 4!f Yt M VI m 1/1 O� 01 N O M M 4/1 N Y/1 i/1 M a a a a a a a a a a a a a f z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z :h a a a a a a a a a a a a a c z z z z z z z z z z z z z z V) v v LL Q) Q) D v in c v L v Q E O U a O c w v m J O CJ "W I LLDAN Fwancial Services The Building Division is responsible for enforcing the California Building and Safety codes along with State laws; performing plan checks on construction documentation to ensure that project proposals meet City codes; distributing plans for review by other agencies or City departments; issuing building permits after plans are completed and corrected; completing final inspections; and issuing certificates of occupancy. The Division also performs special inspections; implements certain State Laws such as the California Disabled Access Regulations; is responsible for updating Building and Fire codes required by the State of California; provides guidance to the general public and development community regarding the Uniform Building Codes and project applications. ANALYSIS Willdan individually reviewed the services and programs associated with the Building Division. The review also consisted of an evaluation of existing services in an effort to update the fee. schedule. The analysis of Building relied primarily upon a standard unit cost build -up approach, whereby we determined the reasonable cost of each fee occurrence using staff time to recover the direct cost of staff and pro -rata share of departmental costs, including indirect costs for City Central Services. It is recommended that the City set Building and services at 100% cost recovery. On an individual fee basis, there would be an increase for 83 fees, a decrease for 10 fees, b fees would remain as currently set, and 5 new fees are added. In addition to the fees listed under Building, the Building Permit fees are also provided by this department. For the Building Permit fees, valuation is used as a proxy for measuring the amount of effort needed to provide services. This method is an industry standard and is widely used by other jurisdictions to evaluate the cost of providing service. It is generally understood that the larger and more complex a project is, more time and effort that is required to provide the service. Project valuation also follows that trend, and so by using a combination of either project valuation or historical revenue figures along with a multiplier or cost recovery analysis for historical and anticipated future trends, current cost recovery along with variability in charges due to project type and scale is determined. It is recommended the department implement the most up to date valuation tables, and perform the same update on an annual basis to keep up with the changes in construction costs. In order to reach full cost recovery, it is estimated that there would need to be a 43% increase in the fee amounts listed in the modified fee table. Staff is recommending a 10% increase to the Building Permit tables which would bring the cost recovery level for these services to 76%. City of Lake Elsinore Comprehensive User Fee Study 27 Zg Q cu �U) a J W W _J n to c .■ LL a a ¢ < < < C ( x < < * < a, a, a a a 9 * ap st * * A e, 4 a, a x a a a ae 2I z z z z z z z o z z a+ z a o z z z. m W o 0 0 0 o z o a z o z z o a o� ai a n n V d 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 R R 0 0 R R 0 R O 0 g R 0 0 R R 0 0 R? 0 O 4 R O C o, o C 0 O O o g q q o 0 o q o o y o o q a`_ q .n y LL Vl VI N H N N N 4IY N N VI' N N, N M M VF N?? N N VI VI N N 7 H A e a K e ae J x a � � Y e o ae o ;e o ae o Q x x o el �� 0 o 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 a o 0 0 o n 0 a o z o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 V. ^_i "1 1, - n l0 h d 1G n l0 LD m M M M. M In m M °, M m M O M M � n 1'e� n en M M W lfl 1� y V1 N h° z z m N d M .O O �O N 1h N O M M !i � H el � � VI VI Yf �f1 Y1 N W ✓I �/1 ."� W W C � O C] n � N W M CO W 7 N.. H 1A M N �F N l/. i/�.. H N VI N N VI VI Vt VF i/1. N N N V1 M N H H H Yl 1/r N VI M Vi N 1/1 Vi c �E d m 'v m a O O Vl K 0 E E c �E O E N 0 d v E 0 u O E E x N N `o c 0 v v a n c 0 v a Y 41 N LL v D N L a E 0 u O W v m O 'v cu icy � l 11 V 'Ma I�1 0 N 0 0 N 0 N 0 N 0 N 0 N 0 N O U1 VI O Ul O O O O M3 b O IYI N � M YI N � N Z N �lF i/F CO E 8' `w v � � c 1 � a"3 �" W o 0 —o � E � LL u m o N a a C � O' � Q L L l u u v a+ C j c v y m °u a' IS 3 .0 m y o d w o Ul U m w n c c ."i� C 3 a O �° te+ V o t ° u r— c ,,; 'a5 o E c o N a J E 4T 'N d ai O N v w v > w Eo Q E� a c �;. c E 'A` a J b'i N w a u o Z E ._ '3 u C O �.., H— U � t 'Si n m rs Y ct01. — n m a �"v v > E a m v $ 2' .. c r u E E t. v m L ° ui ° o J L LN m v `LE _ E A m m -4 u n ti ti 'ayi p A n u m m � v v 8 C C J L J L m m H J GI LL LL N it v E E E « « o `o t u 6 d U>1 UTI lA d d a F H C M A 7 N cu a1 al D a) •C a1 L a1 L CQ C U a) O C W v Y J O d u, Gi is ^C GQ N N N N N W OI O O N N W O� O O N O W M M W M O N O O O O U O O O O 1� 1 N N H O T ? N Eo O O N O W o w o z� •� 3 �� v � -_ v E .Qi LL a 4 v i w a o v y .0 E v n zo ou .no '� u « p1 v is L L L L L L L L L L u w C bo C o a N E m E m L W N E= O_ z m L O n } 0 c N c E v r o o �' A o v L v n :e m L n a v oo a9 N c N? w °X' E•• v v N — a m Y t o E m w m ._ uw o "- '" y m iC o'o E —' u .n `w v w E o C a- o 6 O L d C L ` n q N y m j L 3 N mu E' N o u ,"j 3 5 O p U y vOi O N E E L io O d r �^ — E ;,; o m °c O d v o u 2 vi p w O O 7s E o m c n c v 3 .v. 2 v w c? u 3 L? o E o a a 3 v D OD N o d t W= V H C a w 3 C m p Y t O N W N — LL v ti c E �`v, c a b0 - L `o LL t lei o H ¢ `p `° LL 'o E° r E o f0 «moo. - .+ w t K o 3 o 3 m v= > v > J a = v > v K v 6 a< 60 v d v ao v O L v L L L L u L L L c L L L a a' t �' `� U E '� U T U y V W c � � 7 N Q) 0) L N D N V) N t N a E 0 u O) O C W v Y f0 0 O lJ Z © sn OJ lG w bja N �I n.i Ir 153 0 N 0 N o N a 1� o N 0 N 0 0 N 0 N 0 N o N N M1 o N 0 N O ' N M �p �p H Oa'1 N ;D N N O HI M N M 10 N W O V N N M W N l0 N m O N VF O O O O N M �D N N N N O Ll N p p 0 0 0 O 0 o 0 0 o O � O 0 0 a 0 o Z � o o P 0 p0 N y� W IA p� N O m N N M1 CO N N N t0 Y' N M1 W Vl M Ol O N OI O V� M1 W W 1? Y1 N OI M D D N 1M1 � lD O V1 O b M1 W u y O ? W t. O A� 'S $ a`o E my `w�? a u E v a j E v a w u a u E d` ? o �+ 3 Fc .� w ._ o w °q c o a u t w u£ a z° r «« u .3 m z° 2 m ou a° z o m o m a o o O > > L Q L w L Q L u y L u w u y L u Q L u y L u Q L y O O o L L `w a n O L `w n O o L n v , n O�J " O V C o 0 L > o N n E c �^ o > a� E u y C ° p °u c � L N L H L 7 Q N W O o C u ? y j > j m U ry N L> O O O O N G N L t` W ° o a a u •V o Q o 1O a 3 c n U U L 0 > a c N c °o c - z = > 0 0 0 i° u 0 E LL - �° ° u° �° �° H N V y H N .k N o N N ti M i r4 3 '4 N M a 0 d 0 0 0 3 c m •> «° v v v v a a n ° m y n c •'-� v N vi vai vi ° n� m' m m m ai ai ai ai 5i 5i 5i ai 5i ai n c C L L U U m L Leo U L L u W q 6 n n `w a —c n � 4 c nn D a 'c > 'c > o 'c n 0 c > .c > c > c o > i u +� o 0 $ 0 o. -1 m T UJ 41 LL 41 C v L N L CQ C O U v Y J O CJ L fib CU 0) 0t w 1 r� J � W N Iii y�l iL V MM 1�1 VI Vf tllt Yl VI N 4l1 � O O vl O W O O; Oi W M Q W 00 Oi W W O1 VI OI W W W O1 W T Im M W W OI Q N O M ti Q ti N o o G o z o ti o 0 O 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 o 0 a 0 o Y 0 o 0 0 0 a T o M 0 H N 0o N W N N oc eN'I N m oo N N u1 eN'1 N n ad N N n W eWl N W 10 N N O^0 au N N g C O 11 m O N d O z L 'ai L b°i L `ai L v L `a9 t ai L a'4 L � L ai L v L a u m m « E g O C E: C G O O U1 0 0 0 0 �° a« 0 C? a O O C F C u O 1 � o o 0 O 0 O o n o{= E O GI N 0 E h O O O n o0 G v E �+ a q y ° o c -6.2 o` c a o x o E ` w 0 0 0 b o C 0 3 co O O a0+ m O t L C b vl L A O W 9 O O O 12 a o« o ti N 0 .9 a .o. « v O A °5> ,'9 xi 'S ^ .Q u c c c N �i c `o v c v o °1 E a V`OI o io `o o o `o �F E H N LL `tlp N m LL CO !11 LL L d LL N O U 1� A L m U m Ol U L m H L m N U N C C O1 d d Tu d d d O! W T H N LL a; UI U1 LL LL W �W UI ~ ry a y s C 7 E D C M E I 7 C 7 C > C > C 7 C 7 a) ai LL. a) D aJ a) I L Q E Q U L O V) W Q) Y 0 0 Z" U � —j— W 2 m � J L L "C �1 o N ag at a o VI N 0 o N N e 0 N �t 0 0 N o N a o N N N N n o N a 0 N N a N N IvF N as N H N N n N of v N N N 7 N W M a N N n m N N e N N 1� ry m a K N O O O O m IG O K K N n 1D N N m O d 0 O O O O O 0 0 0 Z O S? r fe n oq m O N K .y m n m ao O IG N rl K VI irk N m ao N � N K K m N ri M N K n n o W .-I K is 01 M K o m ai N V K M o m m o rl N UI N K cp m m 0 0 a O N N K K a io � N K �o n O M K o f v o E L L c u E E YO L > J c r o p m o m z m o L L L L L L L a a P L Jo L 0 0 L ai w w w v v api v v a n n n o w m O O 'G v c_ N T o I u N t H u o m ° c p N N M C W d W ? C « d o p L m OU — UO •W J wwff G w C C C w N Y 2 O C � O N O O C N L W Y) O N N o U O o p o O U c aLi n L N J M R N lD m m m v i fn in vi �u �n yi �n iii w a n n n LL UZ u =F O O O O c �n m v` m J 0 w O ✓ai O n b `o d X _ m E J O d `w c d d n S c v LL l0 d tl0 v L Y C u v 9 m m v J m m 7 N Q) 41 LL v C v t N L CQ C O U O C W v Y J O V qF� W O Y� O eft O Ifi O 1/1 O V1 O O �fl O lY1 Z ID o l0 H N d b N N OI N N N a o 40 M N N N m M IO N o o M O N N 0 O O O O 0 U O o O O a O O oe O O O eP O 0o N vi N of N o. N Ot �u N N N O ai eri N N O m �••I N o N E E 'c E N o N o � ,y an c o - r o n E > n t v L a`i L ai L a L v L a� L ai a a n 5 ° L n a m L G O a •p m a c c � - Eo o a c 3 w c a r r 2 o 0 u n o - w O n. o N W L O1 '� & N •G E o E °. u u n m y 3 >: c _E e N� o o> a o> 52 f0 N N,, Lry !�Lpp U u L y U � LL O LL O LL OFF LL LL� v°I C •N `O `O a c Ly Lyy A VWI a pu a d p/ a a pub p} W N - > > > 7 Fa 7 7 > 0 m 7 N N v v D N C N L a E U cu O C W N Y f0 O WILLDAN Financial Services ( :! i Y U1 LAKE ►LsInc--)izI. uiii nn, rxr «I "E Chart of Building Permit Fees Based on Valuation of Project $ 500.00 $ 49.50 $ Seismic All Valuation Amount Base Permit Fee Plan Check Fee Plan Review Fee Seismic Group R Others $ Based on ICC 75 %of Building 20 %of Building $ 37.72 $ 10.49 $ 0.50 Set by State Set by State $ Valuation Permit Permit $ 38.34 $ 500.00 $ 49.50 $ 37.13 $ 9.90 $ 0.50 $ 0.50 $ 600.00 $ 52.53 $ 37.72 $ 10.49 $ 0.50 $ 0.50 $ 700.00 $ 55.55 $ 38.34 $ 11.11 $ 0.50 $ 0.50 $ 800.00 $ 58.58 $ 43.92 $ 11.70 $ 0.50 $ 0.50 $ 900.00 $ 61.60 $ 46.20 $ 12.32 $ 0.50 $ 0.50 $ 1,000.00 $ 64.63 $ 48.47 $ 12.91 $ 0.50 $ 0.50 $ 1,100.00 $ 67.65 $ 50.73 $ 13.53 $ 0.50 $ 0.50 $ 1,200.00 $ 70.68 $ 53.00 $ 14.12 $ 0.50 $ 0.50 $ 1,300.00 $ 73.70 $ 55.28 $ 14.74 $ 0.50 $ 0.50 $ 1,400.00 $ 76.73 $ 57.54 $ 15.35 $ 0.50 $ 0.50 $ 1,500.00 $ 79.75 $ 59.81 $ 15.95 $ 0.50 $ 0.50 $ 1,600.00 $ 82.78 $ 62.08 $ 16.56 $ 0.50 $ 0.50 $ 1,700.00 $ 85.80 $ 64.35 $ 17.16 $ 0.50 $ 0.50 $ 1,800.00 $ 88.83 $ 66.62 $ 17.77 $ 0.50 $ 0.50 $ 1,900.00 $ 91.85 $ 68.88 $ 18.37 $ 0.50 $ 0.50 $ 2,000.00 $ 94.88 $ 71.16 $ 18.98 $ 0.50 $ 0.50 $ 3,000.00 $ 83.05 $ 62.28 $ 16.61 $ 0.50 $ 0.60 $ 4,000.00 $ 96.80 $ 72.60 $ 19.36 $ 0.50 $ 0.84 $ 5,000.00 $ 110.55 $ 82.91 $ 22.11 $ 0.50 $ 1.05 $ 6,000.00 $ 124.30 $ 93.63 $ 24.86 $ 0.60 $ 1.26 $ 7,000.00 $ 138.05 $ 103.53 $ 27.61 $ 0.70 $ 1.47 $ 8,000.00 $ 151.80 $ 113.85 $ 30.36 $ 0.80 $ 1.68 $ 9,000.00 $ 165.55 $ 124.16 $ 33.11 $ 0.90 $ 1.89 $ 10,000.00 $ 179.30 $ 134.48 $ 35.86 $ 1.00 $ 2.10 $ 11,000.00 $ 193.05 $ 144.78 $ 38.61 $ 1.10 $ 2.31 $ 12,000.00 $ 206.80 $ 155.10 $ 41.36 $ 1.20 $ 2.52 $ 13,000.00 $ 220.55 $ 165.41 $ 44.11 $ 1.30 $ 2.73 $ 14,000.00 $ 234.30 $ 175.73 $ 46.86 $ 1.40 $ 2.94 $ 15,000.00 $ 248.05 $ 186.03 $ 49.61 $ 1.50 $ 3.15 $ 16,000.00 $ 261.80 $ 196.35 $ 52.36 $ 1.60 $ 3.36 $ 17,000.00 $ 275.55 $ 206.66 $ 55.11 $ 1.70 $ 3.57 $ 18,000.00 $ 289.30 $ 216.98 $ 57.86 $ 1.80 $ 3.78 $ 19,000.00 $ 303.05 $ 227.28 $ 60.61 $ 1.90 $ 3.99 $ 20,000.00 $ 316.80 $ 237.60 $ 63.36 $ 2.00 $ 4.20 City of Lake Elsinore Comprehensive User Fee Study 35 WILLDAN Financial Services City of Lake Elsinore Comprehensive User Fee Study 36 L14 - Chart of Building Permit Fees LAILE LSI�4� ?ICE g 1 1 1 1 1 T a i ' Xi k' N i l , Based on Valuation of Project Seismic Al I Valuation Amount Base Permit Fee Plan Check Fee Plan Review Fee Seismic Group R Others Based on ICC 7S %of Building 20% of Building Set by State S Set by tate Valuation Permit Permit $ 21,000.00 $ 330.55 $ 247.91 $ 66.11 $ 2.10 $ 4.41 $ 22,000.00 $ 344.30 $ 258.23 $ 68.86 $ 2.20 $ 4.62 $ 23,000.00 $ 358.05 $ 268.54 $ 71.61 $ 2.30 $ 4.83 $ 24,000.00 $ 371.80 $ 278.86 $ 74.36 $ 2.40 $ 5.04 $ 25,000.00 $ 385.55 $ 289.18 $ 77.11 $ 2.50 $ 5.25 $ 26,000.00 $ 397.10 $ 297.83 $ 79.42 $ 2.60 $ 5.46 $ 27,000.00 $ 407.00 $ 305.25 $ 81.40 $ 2.70 $ 5.67 $ 28,000.00 $ 416.90 $ 313.23 $ 83.38 $ 2.80 $ 5.88 $ 29,000.00 $ 426.80 $ 320.10 $ 85.36 $ 2.90 $ 6.09 $ 30,000.00 $ 436.70 $ 327.53 $ 87.34 $ 3.00 $ 6.30 $ 31,000.00 $ 446.60 $ 334.95 $ 89.32 $ 3.10 $ 6.51 $ 32,000.00 $ 456.50 $ 342.38 $ 91.30 $ 3.20 $ 6.72 $ 33,000.00 $ 466.40 $ 349.80 $ 93.28 $ 3.30 $ 6.93 $ 34,000.00 $ 476.30 $ 357.23 $ 95.26 $ 3.40 $ 7.14 $ 35,000.00 $ 486.20 $ 364.65 $ 97.24 $ 3.50 $ 7.35 $ 36,000.00 $ 496.10 $ 372.08 $ 99.22 $ 3.60 $ 7.56 $ 37,000.00 $ 506.00 $ 379.50 $ 101.20 $ 3.70 $ 7.77 $ 38,000.00 $ 515.90 $ 386.93 $ 103.18 $ 3.80 $ 7.98 $ 39,000.00 $ 525.80 $ 394.35 $ 105.16 $ 3.90 $ 819 $ 40,000.00 $ 535.70 $ 401.78 $ 107.14 $ 4.00 $ 8.40 $ 41,000.00 $ 545.60 $ 409.20 $ 109.12 $ 4.10 $ 8.61 $ 42,000.00 $ 555.50 $ 416.63 $ 111.10 $ 4.20 $ 8.82 $ 43,000.00 $ 565.40 $ 424.05 $ 113.08 $ 4.30 $ 9.03 $ 44,000.00 $ 575.30 $ 431.48 $ 115.06 $ 4.40 $ 9.24 $ 45,000.00 $ 585.20 $ 438.90 $ 117.04 $ 4.50 $ 9.45 $ 46,000.00 $ 595.10 $ 446.33 $ 119.02 $ 4.60 $ 9.66 $ 47,000.00 $ 605.00 $ 453.75 $ 121.00 $ 4.70 $ 9.87 $ 48,000.00 $ 614.90 $ 461.18 $ 122.98 $ 4.80 $ 10.08 $ 49,000.00 $ 624.80 $ 468.60 $ 124.96 $ 4.90 $ 10.29 $ 50,000.00 $ 634.70 $ 476.03 $ 126.94 $ 5.00 $ 10.50 $ 51,000.00 $ 644.88 $ 483.65 $ 128.98 $ 5.10 $ 10.71 $ 52,000.00 $ 651.75 $ 488.81 $ 130.35 $ 5.20 $ 10.92 $ 53,000.00 $ 658.63 $ 493.97 $ 131.73 $ .5.30 $ 11.13 $ 54,000.00 $ 665.50 $ 499.13 $ 133.10 $ 5.40 $ 11.34 City of Lake Elsinore Comprehensive User Fee Study 36 W I LLDAN Financial Services City of Lake Elsinore Comprehensive User Fee Study 37 C' ('I 1, t'3 r ..r.., LAKE , I SiNC-) R, - Chart of Building Permit Fees " "`AM I-XI `'h" Based on Valuation of Project Sei s mi c AI I Valuation Amount Base Permit Fee Plan Check Fee Plan Review Fee Seismic Group R Others Based on ICC 75 %of Building 20 %of Building Set by State Set by State Val uati on V Permit Permit $ 55,000.00 $ 672.38 $ 504.27 $ 134.48 $ 5.50 $ 11.55 $ 56,000.00 $ 679.25 $ 509.43 $ 135.85 $ 5.60 $ 11.76 $ 57,000.00 $ 686.13 $ 514.59 $ 137.23 $ 5.70 $ 11.97 $ 58,000.00 $ 693.00 $ 519.75 $ 138.60 $ 5.80 $ 12.18 $ 59,000.00 $ 699.88 $ 524.90 $ 139.98 $ 5.90 $ 12.39 $ 60,000.00 $ 706.75 $ 530.06 $ 141.35 $ 6.00 $ 12.60 $ 61,000.00 $ 713.63 $ 535.22 $ 142.73 $ 6.10 $ 12.81 $ 62,000.00 $ 720.50 $ 540.38 $ 144.10 $ 6.20 $ 13.02 $ 63,000.00 $ 727.38 $ 545.52 $ 145.48 $ 6.30 $ 13.23 $ 64,000.00 $ 734.25 $ 550.68 $ 146.85 $ 6.40 $ 13.44 $ 65,000.00 $ 741.13 $ 555.84 $ 148.23 $ 6.50 $ 13.65 $ 70,000.00 $ 775.50 $ 581.63 $ 155.10 $ 7.00 $ 14.70 $ 75,000.00 $ 809.88 $ 607.41 $ 161.98 $ 7.50 $ 15.75 $ 80,000.00 $ 844.25 $ 633.19 $ 168.85 $ 8.00 $ 16.80 $ 85,000.00 $ 878.63 $ 658.97 $ 175.73 $ 8.50 $ 17.85 $ 88,000.00 $ 899.25 $ 674.44 $ 179.85 $ 9.00 $ 18.48 $ 90,000.00 $ 913.00 $ 684.75 $ 182.60 $ 9.50 $ 18.90 $ 95,000.00 $ 947.38 $ 710.52 $ 189.48 $ 10.00 $ 19.95 $ 100,000.00 $ 981.75 $ 736.31 $ 196.35 $ 10.50 $ 31.00 $ 105,000.00 $ 1,012.00 $ 759.00 $ 202.40 $ 11.00 $ 21.97 $ 110,000.00 $ 1,039.50 $ 779.63 $ 207.90 $ 11.50 $ 23.10 $ 120,000.00 $ 1,094.50 $ 820.88 $ 218.90 $ 12.00 $ 25.20 $ 125,000.00 $ 1,122.00 $ 841.50 $ 224.40 $ 12.50 $ 26.20 $ 130,000.00 $ 1,149.50 $ 862.13 $ 229.90 $ 13.00 $ 27.30 $ 135,000.00 $ 1,177.00 $ 882.75 $ 235.40 $ 13.50 $ 28.30 $ 140,000.00 $ 1,204.50 $ 903.38 $ 240.90 $ 14.00 $ 29.40 $ 145,000.00 $ 1,232.00 $ 924.00 $ 246.40 $ 14.50 $ 30.50 $ 150,000.00 $ 1,259.50 $ 944.63 $ 251.90 $ 15.00 $ 31.50 $ 155,000.00 $ 1,287.00 $ 965.25 $ 257.40 $ 15.50 $ 32.55 $ 160,000.00 $ 1,314.50 $ 985.88 $ 262.90 $ 16.00 $ 33.60 $ 165,000.00 $ 1,342.00 $ 1,006.50 $ 268.40 $ 16.50 $ 34.65 $ 170,000.00 $ 1,369.50 $ 1,027.13 $ 273.90 $ 17.00 $ 35.70 $ 175,000.00 $ 1,397.00 $ 1,047.75 $ 279.40 $ 17.50 $ 36.75 $ 180,000.00 $ 1,424.50 $ 1,068.38 $ 284.90 $ 18.00 $ 37.80 City of Lake Elsinore Comprehensive User Fee Study 37 Al WILLDAN Financial Swvfces c :i r-v ur n. LAKE LSINC)RJU. �. 11icrn+N r -.xI Romr Chart of Building Permit Fees Based on Valuation of Project $ 185,000.00 $ 1,452.00 $ Seismic All Valuation Amount Base Permit Fee Plan Check Fee Plan Review Fee Seismic Group R Set by State Others $ Based on ICC 75 %of Building 20 %of Building Set by State 1,109.63 Valuation Permit Permit 19.00 $ $ 185,000.00 $ 1,452.00 $ 1,089.00 $ 290.40 $ 18.50 $ 38.85 $ 190,000.00 $ 1,479.50 $ 1,109.63 $ 295.90 $ 19.00 $ 39.90 $ 200,000.00 $ 1,534.50 $ 1,150.88 $ 306.90 $ 20.00 $ 42.00 $ 210,000.00 $ 1,589.50 $ 1,192.13 $ 317.90 $ 21.00 $ 44.10 $ 220,000.00 $ 1,644.50 $ 1,233.38 $ 328.90 $ 22.00 $ 46.20 $ 230,000.00 $ 1,699.50 $ 1,274.63 $ 339.90 $ 23.00 $ 48.30 $ 240,000.00 $ 1,754.50 $ 1,315.88 $ 350.90 $ 24.00 $ 50.40 $ 250,000.00 $ 1,809.50 $ 1,357.13 $ 361.90 $ 25.00 $ 52.50 $ 260,000.00 $ 1,864.50 $ 1,398.38 $ 372.90 $ 26.00 $ 54.60 $ 270,000.00 $ 1,919.50 $ 1,439.63 $ 383.90 $ 27.00 $ 56.70 $ 280,000.00 $ 1,974.50 $ 1,480.88 $ 394.90 $ 28.00 $ 58.80 $ 290,000.00 $ 2,029.50 $ 1,522.13 $ 405.90 $ 29.00 $ 60.90 $ 300,000.00 $ 2,084.50 $ 1,563.38 $ 416.90 $ 30.00 $ 63.00 $ 310,000.00 $ 2,139.50 $ 1,604.63 $ 427.90 $ 31.00 $ 65.10 $ 320,000.00 $ 2,194.50 $ 1,645.88 $ 438.90 $ 32.00 $ 67.20 $ 330,000.00 $ 2,249.50 $ 1,687.13 $ 449.90 $ 33.00 $ 69.30 $ 340,000.00 $ 2,304.50 $ 1,728.38 $ 460.90 $ 34.00 $ 71.40 $ 350,000.00 $ 2,359.50 $ 1,769.63 $ 471.90 $ 35.00 $ 73.50 $ 360,000.00 $ 2,414.50 $ 1,810.88 $ 482.90 $ 36.00 $ 75.60 $ 370,000.00 $ 2,469.50 $ 1,852.13 $ 493.90 $ 37.00 $ 77.70 $ 380,000.00 $ 2,524.50 $ 1,893.38 $ 504.90 $ 38.00 $ 79.80 $ 390,000.00 $ 2,579.50 $ 1,934.63 $ 515.90 $ 39.00 $ 81.90 $ 400,000.00 $ 2,634.50 $ 1,975.88 $ 526.90 $ 40.00 $ 84.00 $ 410,000.00 $ 2,689.50 $ 2,017.13 $ 537.90 $ 41.00 $ 86.10 $ 420,000.00 $ 2,744.50 $ 2,058.38 $ 548.90 $ 42.00 $ 88.20 $ 430,000.00 $ 2,799.50 $ 2,099.63 $ 559.90 $ 43.00 $ 90.30 $ 440,000.00 $ 2,854.50 $ 2,140.88 $ 570.90 $ 44.00 $ 92.40 $ 450,000.00 $ 2,909.50 $ 2,182.13 $ 581.90 $ 45.00 $ 94.50 $ 460,000.00 $ 2,964.50 $ 2,223.38 $ 592.90 $ 46.00 $ 96.60 $ 470,000.00 $ 3,019.50 $ 2,264.63 $ 603.90 $ 47.00 $ 98.70 $ 480,000.00 $ 3,074.50 $ 2,305.88 $ 614.90 $ 48.00 $ 100.80 $ 490,000.00 $ 3,129.50 $ 2,347.13 $ 625.90 $ 49.00 $ 102.90 $ 500,000.00 $ 3,184.50 $ 2,388.38 $ 636.90 $ 50.00 $ 105.00 $ 510,000.00 $ 3,192.75 $ 2,394.56 $ 638.55 $ 51.00 $ 107.10 City of Lake Elsinore Comprehensive User Fee Study 38 V%/WILLDAN Financial Services City of Lake Elsinore Comprehensive User Fee Study 39 Chart of Building Permit Fees Based on Valuation of Project Sei s mic AI I Valuation Amount Base Permit Fee Plan Check Fee Plan Review fee Seismic Group R' Others Based on ICC 75% of Building 20% of Building Set by State Set by State Valuation Permit Permit $ 520,000.00 $ 3,245.00 $ 2,433.75 $ 649.00 $ 52.00 $ 109.20 $ 530,000.00 $ 3,297.25 $ 2,472.93 $ 659.45 $ 53.00 $ 111.30 $ 540,000.00 $ 3,349.50 $ 2,512.13 $ 669.90 $ 54.00 $ 113.40 $ 550,000.00 $ 3,401.75 $ 2,551.31 $ 680.35 $ 55.00 $ 115.50 $ 560,000.00 $ 3,454.00 $ 2,590.50 $ 690.80 $ 56.00 $ 117.60 $ 570,000.00 $ 3,506.25 $ 2,629.68 $ 701.25 $ 57.00 $ 119.70 $ 580,000.00 $ 3,558.50 $ 2,668.88 $ 711.70 $ 58.00 $ 121.80 $ 590,000.00 $ 3,610.75 $ 2,708.06 $ 722.15 $ 59.00 $ 123.90 $ 600,000.00 $ 3,663.00 $ 2,747.25 $ 732.60 $ 60.00 $ 126.00 $ 610,000.00 $ 3,715.25 $ 2,786.43 $ 743.05 $ 61.00 $ 128.10 $ 620,000.00 $ 3,767.50 $ 2,825.63 $ 753.50 $ 62.00 $ 130.20 $ 630,000.00 $ 3,819.75 $ 2,864.81 $ 763.95 $ 63.00 $ 132.30 $ 640,000.00 $ 3,872.00 $ 2,904.00 $ 774.40 $ 64.00 $ 134.40 $ 650,000.00 $ 3,924.25 $ 2,943.18 $ 784.85 $ 65.00 $ 136.50 $ 660,000.00 $ 3,976.50 $ 2,982.38 $ 795.30 $ 66.00 $ 138.60 $ 670,000.00 $ 4,028.75 $ 3,021.56 $ 805.75 $ 67.00 $ 140.70 $ 680,000.00 $ 4,081.00 $ 3,060.75 $ 816.20 $ 68.00 $ 142.80 $ 690,000.00 $ 4,133.25 $ 3,099.93 $ 826.65 $ 69.00 $ 144.90 $ 700,000.00 $ 4,185.50 $ 3,139.13 $ 837.10 $ 70.00 $ 147.00 $ 710,000.00 $ 4,237.75 $ 3,178.31 $ 847.55 $ 71.00 $ 149.10 $ 720,000.00 $ 4,290.00 $ 3,217.50 $ 858.00 $ 72.00 $ 151.20 $ 730,000.00 $ 4,342.25 $ 3,256.68 $ 868.45 $ 73.00 $ 153.30 $ 740,000.00 $ 4,394.50 $ 3,295.88 $ 878.90 $ 74.00 $ 155.40 $ 750,000.00 $ 4,446.75 $ 3,335.06 $ 889.35 $ 75.00 $ 157.50 $ 760,000.00 $ 4,499.00 $ 3,374.25 $ 899.80 $ 76.00 $ 159.60 $ 770,000.00 $ 4,551.25 $ 3,413.43 $ 910.25 $ 77.00 $ 161.70 $ 780,000.00 $ 4,603.50 $ 3,452.63 $ 920.70 $ 78.00 $ 163.80 $ 790,000.00 $ 4,655.75 $ 3,491.81 $ 931.15 $ 79.00 $ 165.90 $ 800,000.00 $ 4,708.00 $ 3,531.00 $ 941.60 $ 80.00 $ 168.00 $ 810,000.00 $ 4,760.25 $ 3,570.19 $ 952.05 $ 81.00 $ 170.10 $ 820,000.00 $ 4,812.50 $ 3,609.38 $ 962.50 $ 82.00 $ 172.20 $ 830,000.00 $ 4,864.75 $ 3,648.56 $ 972.95 $ 83.00 $ 174.30 $ 840,000.00 $ 4,917.00 $ 3,687.75 $ 983.40 $ 84.00 $ 176.40 $ 850,000.00 $ 4,969.25 $ 3,726.94 $ 993.85 $ 85.00 $ 178.50 City of Lake Elsinore Comprehensive User Fee Study 39 rWILLDAN Financial Services C1 I v LAK�E psi N c i r: Dftrnnr IXrrxEMl• Chart of Building Permit Fees Based on Valuation of Project $ 860,000.00 $ 5,021.50 $ 3,766.14 $ 1,004.30 $ 86.00 $ Seismic All Valuation Amount Base Permit Fee Plan Check Fee Plan Review Fee Seismic Group R Others $ Based on ICC Valuation 75 %of Building Permit 20 %of Building Permit Set by State Set by State $ 860,000.00 $ 5,021.50 $ 3,766.14 $ 1,004.30 $ 86.00 $ 180.60 $ 870,000.00 $ 5,073.75 $ 3,805.33 $ 1,014.75 $ 87.00 $ 182.70 $ 880,000.00 $ 5,126.00 $ 3,844.52 $ 1,025.20 $ 88.00 $ 184.80 $ 890,000.00 $ 5,178.25 $ 3,883.72 $ 1,035.65 $ 89.00 $ 186.90 $ 900,000.00 $ 5,230.50 $ 3,922.91 $ 1,046.10 $ 90.00 $ 189.00 $ 910,000.00 $ 5,282.75 $ 3,962.10 $ 1,056.55 $ 91.00 $ 191.10 $ 920,000.00 $ 5,335.00 $ 4,001.29 $ 1,067.00 $ 92.00 $ 193.20 $ 930,000.00 $ 5,387.25 $ 4,040.49 $ 1,077.45 $ 93.00 $ 195.30 $ 940,000.00 $ 5,439.50 $ 4,079.68 $ 1,087.90 $ 94.00 $ 197.40 $ 950,000.00 $ 5,491.75 $ 4,118.87 $ 1,098.35 $ 95.00 $ 199.50 $ 960,000.00 $ 5,544.00 $ 4,158.07 $ 1,108.80 $ 96.00 $ 201.60 $ 970,000.00 $ 5,596.25 $ 4,197.26 $ 1,119.25 $ 97.00 $ 203.70 $ 980,000.00 $ 5,648.50 $ 4,236.45 $ 1,129.70 $ 98.00 $ 205.80 $ 990,000.00 $ 5,700.75 $ 4,275.65 $ 1,140.15 $ 99.00 $ 207.90 $ 1,000,000.00 $ 5,753.00 $ 4,314.84 $ 1,150.60 $ 100.00 $ 210.00 City of Lake Elsinore Comprehensive User Fee Study 40 W W I LLDAN Financial Services PLANNING The Planning & Zoning Division provides a variety of planning services to the community, including reviewing and processing of development proposals for conformance with City policies and regulations. In addition, staff provides support to the Planning Commission and City Council and assists the general public and development applicants regarding planning information and application process. ANALYSIS Willdan individually reviewed the services and programs associated with the Planning Division. The review also consisted of an evaluation of existing services in an effort to update the fee schedule. The analysis of services in Planning fees relied primarily upon a standard unit cost build -up approach, whereby we determined the reasonable cost of each fee occurrence using staff time to recover the direct cost of staff and pro - rata share of departmental costs, including indirect costs for City Central Services. Willdan then compared the calculated full cost against the current fee amount to determine, if charged, whether the current fee is recovering the costs associated with the requested service. The analysis has shown that in general Planning services are currently under recovering the cost of proving services. The suggested fees represent 100% cost recovery which would result in an average fee increase of 44 %. The result would be an increase in 39 fees, decrease for 1 fee, 24 fees would remain as currently set, and 5 new fees would be added. City of Lake Elsinore Comprehensive User Fee Study 41 L � ca LEI CJ7 J o..J'ca _ bD Q+ N n X m d M n X a d Z 2e 2e N N d a Z a dR z M N a a 2 Z 2� 3e N O N 2m� dF .-I O a: e`e O O m X T N a Z N e N 2� b a = z 2 a Z d O. O ° O o O O O o 0 0 q o O °q o O O g q O O q o O O 00 b 6 V N V� UI N _C UI H VI UI N UI N UI N N N N N N N N u O H ° a O N I 'd' s - N h l M Iq Oq ti N "'€ Y z Z h L z Z feryll Vr N H o > w~ C 9 u u u w w E u 1 C L °�� °— — mco38 o ry -- LL .2 — — _ —° o 0 0: o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o LL 3 3 � v � � o � E° � � o o _ _ u :... in '� a... E E 8 W m v A y c E_ ra E 9 C p o Q CC EE W Z a u° E is E E E E E E E E E E LT i cl � j al loao� o � uw o on i;2Mo 2 io 6 w w w w w w w w it 7 V) LLDl O1 i v ®1 C U1 L v CL E O u N O C .Ln w v Y J O U z o ,r—� 2 0 8 . ". MI .. �.� bjD 3:1 ¢ ® X X a Z X X m X d 2 ¢ 2 ¢ 2 d 2 a 2 X 9. Z O 1 e M Z N Q aTl Q M N Q M .-1 .�+ n N N N a ; a u v ; a a ; °o °o °o °a °o, °o o °o, °o a °o o °o Q N N M b O� b O U 6' M T O yy 10 Y O d Y. 0 C O a O ryry �pp 6 n n H M 01 M YI N N N d m N 00 H N O U iE d � ti A d t A L �pp m 6 �E d N b N O a a a a a a a: � � o: a: � ;t, � a r � .., I .° az a° � a; �� a° � :� �' ae �� .`• y; �e r I n y. aq d u w m� m n N Q N a N N N N N N i/1 N N N C � = ;g t w IM o" 3 E 0 3 s yy yy p yy WW WW WW vv11 y y LL LL O LL LL LL - O O O O D LL -- LL - O O LL E o o v z u° F � vi m ;1 p LL s c n a a a a wK a o u m d d a E E m .o E _u n a a 15 _, a a o Em o u `� `0 01 n _ c � � v V v V J E .1 u A A c n c o n a a g w LL w 3 = 9 3 s z s in -.9 in u vi a v� 7 N v LL L Ln Ln D U1 C L UJ L Q E U ZU) U �in J ro bD �LL a z z m z H z z z z z z m Y d m N B YY J z B u V, J — G u 9 u° G J 3 uo C J n t N C a o 6 o 6 a 6 r Yo a y o N N Q 4 Q Q N b N N Q N VI N vY ul W x ae x ze x � aE °o :� v � 0 <N °— .iE 0 0 X o a' 0 o 0 0 0 o L 3 m r T' a N i Yn m r; � 1d. N VI N r N M N h T N Vf M Y0 c .°a z O a v a a m a A ^ vNi ry m m m - a ,ro c a or„ a ° o ' x a a E Q 8 La. c 0 = n 5. E o a E c o c u c '^ O �• O go - 0 0 0. 0 E i.8 r •: ° 0 E n O0 ° a O d > j c 9 � C a a c o m mu V ,y N a w l9 l7 L O C L W a m $ E a a 6 C d 2 m - C d i v ° ra OppY yy C $ c E E E a o6 ca as �a et m oa « o ' o a _ — _ _ u 9 G Y A •te 9 _m 6 6 Yn 6 z d d d z z m z H z z z z z x `o c c Oap n y a q p c o f a C C °o, °o, N B YY J B u G B u V, J — G u 9 u° G J 3 uo C J n t N C a o 6 o 6 6 6 6 .o ra Je E ° Q 4 Q Q N b N N Q 4 �• x ae x ze x � aE °o :� ;e 0 <N °— z z° •E L 3 JT r; • � _ c z ii a m a A ^ vNi ry m m m - a ,ro D C C C N E � o E E n o. 0 <N °— z z° •E L 3 JT c � o n 6 c a or„ a ° o ' x a a E Q 8 La. c 0 = n i N J c c o E E o a E c o c u c '^ O �• O go - E i.8 r •: ° m E n O0 ° a oo c o m o — O L O C L W $ E a a 6 W d i v ° $ c o6 ca as �a et m oa « o ' o a _ — _ _ u 9 G Y A •te 9 _m 6 6 Yn 6 z d d d 6 n 6 n a z 0 a ca 0 q 6 4 T 7 N Ul Gl LL N an 41 C v t 41 a E 0 u v 0 c w v J 0 u L T !.M a a z Q z d z Q z ¢ z d z Q z Q z o a, a z z ��rr11 'tf U U C U C U O U O ij U O U O d U O d O d O d O y O ¢ O � O L a a a a a a a U O O U O O O O O U O U _ 5 c A N 7 7 7 7 7 7 > R p 7 N a Ex u° d o v r `w d s d d d d W d d LL LL LL LL -5 LL� LL LL LL F W O F 2 O a �p d t� i� 2 a� d V No W C O i 0 O No W O m ct a u O No N O p 2 `o m I n 'F Q v N V f `o S c `o a v r= 0 N U p 2 O U 9 a 0 z 'en 0 l7 If Z o w o Q o olJ W 'A a W ai$ O .1 T 7 N U1 v LL L v En t E O U a) O C W J U )N%WILLDAN Financial Services The Engineering Division is responsible for the development of public infrastructure and all physical improvement within the public right -of -way. These improvements include the development of public streets (roadways, curbs, gutters, and sidewalks), traffic controls including: signal, striping, signage, sewer systems, and storm drains. The division provides public counter support, development review for grading, drainage, traffic issues, and timely inspections of Capital Improvement and private development Projects. ANALYSIS Willdan individually reviewed the services and programs associated with the Engineering Division. The review also consisted of an evaluation of existing services in an effort to update the fee schedule. The analysis of Engineering services relied primarily upon a standard unit cost build -up approach, whereby we determined the reasonable cost of each fee occurrence using staff time to recover the direct cost of staff and the pro -rata share of departmental costs, including indirect costs for City Central Services. This analysis has shown that most of the fees are not currently achieving full cost recovery. It is recommended that Engineering fees be set at a 100% cost recovery levels. On an individual fee basis, there would be an increase for 37 fees, a decrease for 3 fees, 17 fees would remain as currently set, and 17 new fees are added. City of Lake Elsinore Comprehensive User Fee Study 46 L cA �y U ir" C � W 7 N a) a) LL a) D Q) C L N Q E u v O c W v Y J O lU 2 -L K tS zi "'3 ° d �ti 3 es3 esa ae� 5 A°q f x 1S 5 'z N W i I we alb .9 s.5 c L 4 Y. ° a 4 S u a $ 2 3 bn - $ E E E E m IS d E E E E EE aj Z F. ymEy E c c 9L � 96 91 E E, E E E1 NCI �I _-' it - A A b r k y, t t !I E y�tt bd lu i e u 6 E tci �i 7 N a) a) LL a) D Q) C L N Q E u v O c W v Y J O lU Z� U �CO J ro 2 ld J LL y a) cu W aJ aJ W Z E °d C3 5 £1ti i o p o 5 cy d 3 f 3 g 8 00 T 7 i-� N Q) Cl) LL a1 N Z) CU c a1 t a) E O U a) O C .N w as Y J O U i y � a g Y 4 i I W ,5 u5 c ES.Eg r c F, A o € E E .E c- pd GL L O S u Pi _ - U - gry 9 O 3 p p as E E E E E .E E E E E E E m & E E E E E E E 1 E E E E E E E 8 u�5 O o SE L' L m m a Si M e a E — E E — — — — e E E E E E E E- E E E E E E E E E E F F 2£ ��j 0$o 00 T 7 i-� N Q) Cl) LL a1 N Z) CU c a1 t a) E O U a) O C .N w as Y J O U z U CDC/! J , J 'v C LL W a� w On i.. d aJ r~r W a s 0 'o %I g Gl °z 0 3 Aci 8i .. m E u a s� E o E a m' 3 fT T 7 V) LLa1 aJ a) v C aJ L aJ t.. CL E O U a) O C .N w v Y J O l.J z z z z z z z z z z _ 9 E E L F a s 0 'o %I g Gl °z 0 3 Aci 8i .. m E u a s� E o E a m' 3 fT T 7 V) LLa1 aJ a) v C aJ L aJ t.. CL E O U a) O C .N w v Y J O l.J W I LLDAN financial Seryfces VEHICLE ABATEMENT Vehicle Abatement is a program within Code Enforcement. The programs provides for the removal of vehicles that are abandoned or stored in the public right -of -way, unregistered, or inoperative. ANALYSIS Willdan individually reviewed the services and programs associated with Vehicle Abatement. The review also consisted of an evaluation of existing services in an effort to update the fee schedule. The analysis of Vehicle Abatement fees relied primarily upon a standard unit cost build -up approach, whereby we determined the reasonable cost of each fee occurrence using staff time to recover the direct cost of staff and the pro -rata share of departmental costs, including indirect costs for City Central Services. This analysis has shown that most of the fees are not currently achieving full cost recovery. It is recommended that all fees be set to full cost recovery. Vehicle Abatement Initial Cornplaint First Inspection Subsequent fol I ow-Up Inspection each Tow Vehicle Abatement Hearing City of Lake Elsinore Comprehensive User Fee Study 50 WILLDAN Financial Services CODE ENFORCEMENT — - - - Code Enforcement Division provides a variety of services to the community, including monitoring regional agencies and programs, and coordinating with outside agencies to protect the quality of life within the community. The Division provides commercial and residential neighborhood preservation to ensure a high quality standard of living and sustainability in communities. The Code Enforcement Division identifies substandard housing to promote life, health and safety standards. ANALYSIS Willdan individually reviewed the services and programs associated with Code Enforcement. The review also consisted of an evaluation of existing services in an *effort to update the fee schedule. The analysis of Code Enforcement services relied primarily upon a standard unit cost build -up approach, whereby we determined the reasonable cost of each fee occurrence using staff time to recover the direct cost of staff and the pro -rata share of departmental costs, including indirect costs for City Central Services. All fees listed are identified as new fees, and it is recommended that all services be set at full cost recovery. Code Enforcement Fees Initial Complaint First Investigation Fallow up Investigation NulsanceAbatement bring Warrant Preparation Wa rra nt signature /courthouse Warrant return / courthouse Structure Abatement Graffiti Abatement costs after NOV has been issued. Illegal pu+nping Penalty Plus 3rd party cost as needed Ful I Cost S156.20 Cur rent Fee FY 2016/17 New Cost Recovevy Level (%) 0% Suggested Percent Fee Change No Charge NA $278,03 F4vw 0% No Chwge NA S278.03 Now 100% 5278 .00 NA $1,83031 Now 100% $1,830.00 NA $609.15 New 100% 5609.00 NA $609.15 Neu 100% $609.00 NA $609.15 New 100% $604.00 _ _ NA $2,259.16 Now 100% $2,259DO NA $203.05 New 100% $203.00 NA $1S2.29 New 100% 152,00 NA City of Lake Elsinore Comprehensive User Fee Study 51 % /W I LLDAN Financial Services APPENDIX A - TOTAL ALLOWABLE COST TO BE RECOVERED Below are the total allowable costs that may be recovered through User Fees; however, only a percentage of the total allowable cost is realized as staff not only works on services related to User Fees, but also works on an array of other City functions during the operational hours of the City. Lake Elsinore - User Fee Indirect Cost Allocation Summary Building & Safety Campground City Clerk City Council City Manager Code Enforcement Community Center Community Support Economic Development /Gis Engineering Finance Fire Services Graffiti Maintenance Human Resources Information Systems Lake Administration Park Maintenance Planning & Zoning Police Services PW Administration Recreation Administration Senior Center Personnel Costs 965,260 Operating Administrative Costs 882,291 Direct Overhead% 91.4% Cap Allocation 21.4% - 278,100 0.0% 8.8•% 388,020 189,790 48.9% 0.0% 82,390 51,410 62.4% 0.0% 744,530 37,160 5.0% 0.0% 602,920 216,634 35.90A 23.3% 386,655 264,100 68.3% 51.1% 17,500 2,500 14.3% 11.9% 113,164 33,932 30.0% 7.8% 1,233,320 829,403 67.2% 21.5% 1,016,130 502,241 49.4% 0.0°% 321,816 207,893 64.6% 4.8% 93,920 48,588 513% 31.6% 286,660 160,489 56.0% 0.0% 580,220 139,575 24.1% 0.0%. 171,660 109,780 64.0% 8.8% 836.320 324,057 383% 11.1% 915,750 349,578 3.8.2% 32.4% 12,488,167 522,079 4.2% 4.4% 1,292,4901 893,997 69.2% 18.8% 609,690 524,697 86.1% 18.2% 137,630 126,449 91.9% 27.0% City of Lake Elsinore Comprehensive User Fee Study 52 W I LLDAN Financial Services Below are fully burdened hourly rates of staff positions that provide for the services detailed in the sections above. The FBHRs were used to determine the full cost of each service. They include the salary and benefit costs for each position as well as all applicable overhead amounts for each position. For positions in central service departments, such as the City Clerk and Finance, the hourly rates do not include central service overhead, as the overhead of central service departments is recovered through the cost allocation plan, of which they are a part. When a central service department position works on a fee or project in the purview of an operating department, the overhead rates of the operating department (shown in Appendix A) will be applied to that central service positions' salary and benefit rate for full cost recovery. For any user fee service request that is outside the scope of the fees detailed in in the sections above, or for services for which there is no fee currently set, the City can charge up to the full cost of the FBHR for personnel involved, as well as any third party or material cost involved. City of Lake Elsinore Comprehensive User Fee Study 53 %WILLDAN Financial Services Lake Elsinore - User Fee Fully Burdened Hourly Rate Calculation Department Building & Safety Building & Safety Building & Safety Building & Safety Building & Safety Building & Safety Campground City Clerk City Clerk City Clerk City Manager City Manager City Manager City Manager Code Enforcement Code Enforcement Code Enforcement Code Enforcement Community Center Community Center Community Center Community Center Community Center Engineering Engineering Engineering Engineering Engineering Facilities Finance Position Building & Safety Manager Building Inspector Building Inspector - Pt Community Development Technician Office Specialist I Sr. Community Development Technician Recreation Leader - Pt City Clerk Deputy City Clerk Office Specialist II Assistant City Manager City Manager Executive Assistant Senior Management Analyst Code Enforcement Officer I Code Enforcement Officer II Code Enforcement Supervisor Community Development Technician Recreation Aid - Pt Recreation Leader - Pt Recreation Specialist - Pt Recreation Supervisor Water Safety Instructor - Pt City Engineer Engineering Inspector Office Specialist Senior Engineer Sr. Engineering Technician Maintenance Worker II Account Specialist II Fully Burdened Hourly Rate 307.60 160.64 130.98 144.70 128.57 179.81 22.40 194.31 88.07 61.21 199.11 207.58 62.65 95.29 101.53 122.05 188.78 114.57 47.84 53.45 62.87 195.71 56.87 269.96 171.65 39.42 189.26 155.87 44.93 74.16 City of Lake Elsinore Comprehensive User Fee Study 54 W W I LLDAN Financial Services Department Finance Finance Finance Finance Finance Finance Fleet Fleet Graffiti Human Resources Information Systems Information Systems Information Systems Information Systems Lake Maintenance Lake Maintenance Park Maintenance Park Maintenance Park Maintenance Planning & Zoning Planning & Zoning Planning & Zoning Planning & Zoning Planning & Zoning Planning & Zoning Planning & Zoning Planning & Zoning PW Administration PW Administration PW Administration PW Administration PW Administration PW Administration PW Administration PW Administration Recreation Recreation Recreation Recreation Recreation Senior Center Senior Center Senior Center Senior Center City of Lake Elsinore Position Accountant 1 Assistant City Manager Executive Assistant Finance Administrator Finance Manager Fiscal Officer Chief Mechanic Mechanic Graffiti Technician Hr Management Analyst Business Process Analyst Information Technician 1 Information Technology Database Analyst Information Technology Manager Maintenance Worker 1 Maintenance Worker II Lead Worker Maintenance Worker 1 Maintenance Worker II Associate Inspector Community Development Technician Director Of Community Development Office Specialist III Planning Commissioner Planning Manager Planning Analyst - Pt Senior Planning Administrative Assistant Equipment Operator General Services Manager Maintenance Worker 1 Maintenance Worker II Office Specialist IIII Public Works Superintendent Senior Lead Worker Director Of Community SeNces Management Analyst Office Specialist 111 Special Events Coordinator Volunteer Coordinator - Pt Community Services Coordinator Recreation Aide - Pt Recreation Leader - Pt Recreation Specialist /Bus Driver - Pt Comprehensive User Fee Study Fully Burdened Hourly Rate 82.02 283.38 86.17 161.66 180.12 139.34 85.69 56.11 55.58 121.33 108.33 69.58 108.72 141.65 43.70 56.11 124.78 67.82 86.06 146.14 101.48 275.08 91.19 2.89 213.23 23.87 168.50 113.22 132.77 239.49 87.58 110.88 113.33 247.39 172.22 141.89 78.69 50.27 65.46 25.93 146.03 42.68 46.05 50.85 55 CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE COST ALLOCATION PLAN FINAL REPORT DECEMBER 11, 2017 Corporate Office: Office Locations: 27368 Via Industria Anaheim, CA New York, NY Suite 200 Oakland, CA Orlando, FL Temecula, CA 92590 Sacramento, CA Tel: (951) 587-3500 Tel: (800) 755-6864 Fax: (951) 587-3510 www.willdan.com i Table of Contents Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................ i List of Tables ............................................................................................................................... ii Executive Summary................................................................................................................... 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 1 Methodology ............................................................................................................................ 2 Central Service Departments .............................................................................................. 2 Distribution Bases ................................................................................................................. 3 Allocable Cost and First Step Allocation ............................................................................ 4 Allocable Cost ......................................................................................................................... 4 First Step .................................................................................................................................. 5 Section 1: City Attorney ....................................................................................................... 5 Section 2: City Clerk ............................................................................................................ 7 Section 3: City Council ........................................................................................................ 9 Section 4: City Manager .................................................................................................... 10 Section 5: Finance ............................................................................................................. 12 Section 6: Human Resources .......................................................................................... 14 Section 7: Non-Departmental ........................................................................................... 16 Second Step and Close Out .................................................................................................. 19 ii List of Tables Table E1: Allocable Cost Summary ...................................................................................... 4 Table 1: City Attorney Cost Allocation ................................................................................. 6 Table 2: City Clerk Cost Allocation ....................................................................................... 8 Table 3: City Treasurer Cost Allocation ............................................................................. 11 Table 4: Finance Cost Allocation ......................................................................................... 13 Table 5: Human Resources Cost Allocation ..................................................................... 15 Table 6: Non-Departmental Cost Allocation ..................................................................... 17 Table E2: Step-One Cost Allocation ................................................................................... 18 Table E3: Step-Two Indirect Cost Allocation .................................................................... 20 Table E4: Final Step – Close-Out Allocation .................................................................... 21 Table E5: Allocated Costs to Recipient Departments and Final Department Indirect Cost Percentages ..................................................................................................... 22 1 Executive Summary This Cost Allocation Plan (“CAP”) summarizes a comprehensive analysis completed for the City of Lake Elsinore, California (the “City”) to determine the appropriate allocation of costs from City central service departments to the departments that provide services directly to the community (operating departments). The primary objective is to allocate costs from departments that provide services internally to departments that conduct the day-to-day operations necessary to serve the community. These internal service costs are those: (a) incurred for a common or joint purpose benefiting more than one cost objective, and (b) not readily assignable to the cost objectives specifically benefitted, without effort disproportionate to the results achieved. The term "indirect costs," as used herein, applies to costs of this type originating in the central service departments. Typical central service departments include City Administration and Finance, whereas, typical operating departments include Public Works, Community Services, and enterprise funds. To ensure central service department costs are appropriately allocated to the operating departments, we analyzed and identified expenditures to determine which costs are allowable versus unallowable in accordance with Office of Management and Budget (OMB) cost principles. Costs that are typically considered to be unallowable include, but are not limited to: General Advertising Award Ceremonies Bad Debt Contingencies Debt Service Entertainment Capital Improvements Lobbying Legislative Body (City Council) Promotional Items As such, these types of unallowable costs were excluded from this CAP. Introduction In the early 1970s, the cost allocation plan concept was introduced to many government agencies. A typical cost allocation plan identifies costs related to rendering services and allocates those costs to programs that received the services in a fair and equitable manner. Before indirect costs and central support service charges may be claimed for reimbursement by an operating department, there must be some formal means of accumulating and identifying these types of costs to all benefiting departments. Regardless of whether or not an agency has a formal comprehensive cost accounting system, the best method of accumulating and identifying indirect costs and any distribution of costs is a cost allocation plan prepared in accordance with the cost principles set forth in OMB Omni Circular. In general, cities have administrative and general management central service departments, such as Finance and the City Manager, that provide services to operating departments, such as Public Safety and Public Works, which render services directly to the community. Through the cost allocation plan process, a city may allocate a portion of the costs of central service departments to the operating departments to 1) account for “all” costs, direct and indirect, for each operating, and 2) accurately calculate the fully burden cost of providing services to the public. 2 Methodology The purpose of this study is to identify the allocable costs of the City’s central service departments and distribute those costs to operating departments in a fair and equitable manner. Per OMB guidelines, a cost is reasonable if, in its nature and amount, it does not exceed that which would be incurred by a prudent person under the circumstances prevailing at the time the decision was made to incur the cost. The question of reasonableness is particularly important when governmental units or components are predominately federally funded. The methodology used for this CAP is the double-step-down method, which is considered the most accurate and equitable method for allocating costs from central services to operating departments. The double-step-down method utilizes two steps to allocate indirect costs. In the first step, the allocable costs of central service departments are identified and distributed to all departments including the central service departments themselves. Table E1 (pg.4) summarizes the allocable cost of each central service department and Table E2 (pg. 18) summarizes the first step distribution. The second and final steps allocate indirect costs incurred by central service departments to the operating departments in order to close out the central service departments. Table E3 (pg.20) summarizes the second step allocation of indirect costs and Table E4 (pg.21) provides a summary of the final steps and central service departments close out. Table E5 (pg. 22) summarizes the distribution of the final total allocable cost to each recipient as well as the final indirect cost percentages for each department. Central Service Departments There are seven departments/divisions that comprise the City’s central service departments:  City Attorney  City Clerk  City Council  City Manager  Finance  Human Resources  Non-Departmental 3 Distribution Bases Distribution bases are the allocation factors that may be used to distribute the allocable costs to all departments and funds. As discussed previously, distribution bases are measurable and readily available data that are utilized to represent activities or functions, and which are then used to distribute costs matching that activity or function. Below are the bases that were analyzed in this study and used to allocate Central Services costs to operating departments.  City Council Agenda Frequency – City Council agendas spanning a 12-month period were used to determine the number of times each department and fund had matters brought before the City Council.  Number of Positions – The number of full-time equivalent personnel for each department and fund.  Total Allocable Costs – The total allowable expenditure budgeted for each department and fund.  Total Salary & Benefits Costs – The total salary & benefit expenditures for each department and fund.  Number of Purchase Orders – The number of purchase orders processed in the most recent fiscal year for each department and fund.  Total Revenues – The total revenue budgeted for each department and fund. 4 Allocable Cost and First Step Allocation Allocable Cost Table E1 identifies the allocable cost of each central service department, with the total allocable cost of $4,328,605. The $4,328,605 was distributed to the operating departments including the central services departments themselves by distribution factor(s) that best represents the functions of each central service department and the demand placed on that central service by all City departments. Table E1: Allocable Cost Summary 5 First Step The first step of the double-step-down method is to distribute the allocable cost of a central service department to other central service departments and operating departments. Each succeeding section includes: 1. A description of the central service department. 2. A description of the allocation methods that were used to distribute the departmental allocable costs. 3. A detailed distribution of the departmental allocable costs to all departments. Following the department sections is Table E2 (pg. 18) which summarizes the first step distribution. Section 1: City Attorney The mission of the City Attorney’s Office is to provide the City with the highest quality, responsive and preventative legal services and to identify legal options and strategies for implementing and achieving the City Council’s goals, objectives and policies. The City Attorney’s office provides a wide range of professional legal services from complex and sophisticated transactions and litigation to general matters of municipal law, including open meeting laws, conflicts of interest, public records, planning and zoning, public contracts, real property, redevelopment dissolution, water and environmental laws, mining, and election laws. The City Attorney’s Office strives to provide effective analysis and preparation/review of resolutions, ordinances, contracts and other legal documents necessary to the accomplishment of the City’s municipal functions and City Council goals. The City Attorney is appointed by the Lake Elsinore City Council. The City Attorney serves as legal advisor to the City Council, Successor Agency, City Commissions and Committees, City Manager, City Clerk and City Departments. City Attorney services are performed under contract with the law firm of Leibold McClendon & Mann. Allocation Method Based on the assessment of the duties of the City Attorney it is reasonable to distribute the allocable cost of the City Manager by using the methods described below. 1. A third (33%) of the allocable cost is distributed to other departments based on the number of items that each department had on Council agendas in the past year. 2. A third (33%) of the allocable cost is distributed to other departments based on total allocable expenditures of each department. 3. A third (33%) of the allocable cost is distributed to other departments based on total number of positions in each department. City Attorney Cost Allocation Table 1 shows a detailed distribution of the allocable cost to other central service departments and operating departments/divisions. 6 Ta b l e 1 : C i t y A t t o r n ey C o s t A l l o c a t i o n Bu r e a u / Di v i s i o n A g e n d a It e m s $ 1 3 3 , 3 3 3 Nu m b e r of Po s i t i o n s $ 1 3 3 , 3 3 3 To t a l Al l o c a b l e Bu d g e t $ 1 3 3 , 3 3 3 T o t a l Allocation Di s t . Ba s e De p t . % Al l o c a t i o n Di s t . Ba s e De p t . % Al l o c a t i o n Di s t . Ba s e Dept. %Allocation 400,000 Su m m a r y 29 8 10 0 . 0 % 13 3 , 3 3 3 10 6 10 0 . 0 % 13 3 , 3 3 3 41 , 1 5 1 , 0 6 7 100.0% 133,333 400,000 Ce n t r a l S e r v i c e - - - - GE N E R A L - - - - 10 0 - C I T Y A T T O R N E Y 8 2 . 7 % 3 , 5 8 2 - 0 . 0 % - 4 0 0 , 0 0 0 1 . 0 % 1 , 2 9 6 4,878 10 0 - C I T Y C L E R K 6 1 2 0 . 5 % 2 7 , 3 1 1 3 2 . 8 % 3 , 7 7 4 5 5 3 , 4 4 9 1 . 3 % 1 , 7 9 3 32,878 10 0 - C I T Y C O U N C I L - 0 . 0 % - 5 4 . 7 % 6 , 2 8 9 - 0 . 0 % - 6,289 10 0 - C I T Y M A N A G E R 4 5 1 5 . 1 % 2 0 , 1 4 8 4 3 . 8 % 5 , 0 3 1 7 1 6 , 8 4 2 1 . 7 % 2 , 3 2 3 27,502 10 0 - F I N A N C E 90 3 0 . 2 % 4 0 , 2 9 6 1 1 1 0 . 4 % 1 3 , 8 3 6 1 , 6 4 9 , 2 2 3 4 . 0 % 5 , 3 4 4 59,476 10 0 - H U M A N R E S O U R C E S 1 0 . 3 % 4 4 8 1 0 . 9 % 1 , 2 5 8 2 9 3 , 1 8 5 0 . 7 % 9 5 0 2,656 10 0 - N O N - D E P A R T M E N T A L - 0 . 0 % - - 0 . 0 % - 8 0 4 , 4 0 0 2 . 0 % 2 , 6 0 6 2,606 Op e r a t i n g D e p a r t m e n t - - - - GE N E R A L - - - - 10 0 - A N I M A L S E R V I C E S - 0 . 0 % - - 0 . 0 % - 5 3 9 , 7 0 0 1 . 3 % 1 , 7 4 9 1,749 10 0 - B U I L D I N G & S A F E T Y 9 3 . 0 % 4 , 0 3 0 7 6 . 6 % 8 , 8 0 5 1 , 2 0 8 , 9 2 1 2 . 9 % 3 , 9 1 7 16,752 10 0 - C A M P G R O U N D - 0 . 0 % - - 0 . 0 % - 3 3 7 , 6 3 0 0 . 8 % 1 , 0 9 4 1,094 10 0 - C O D E E N F O R C E M E N T 9 3 . 0 % 4 , 0 3 0 4 3 . 8 % 5 , 0 3 1 6 2 1 , 2 2 8 1 . 5 % 2 , 0 1 3 11,074 10 0 - C O M M U N I T Y C E N T E R - 0 . 0 % - 1 8 1 7 . 0 % 2 2 , 6 4 2 8 3 4 , 7 7 3 2 . 0 % 2 , 7 0 5 25,346 10 0 - C O M M U N I T Y S U P P O R T - 0 . 0 % - - 0 . 0 % - 8 9 , 2 0 0 0 . 2 % 2 8 9 289 10 0 - E C O N O M I C D E V E L O P M E N T 4 1 . 2 % 1 , 6 1 2 - 0 . 0 % - 3 5 7 , 8 9 6 0 . 9 % 1 , 1 6 0 2,771 10 0 - E N G I N E E R I N G 4 3 1 4 . 4 % 1 9 , 2 5 2 9 8 . 5 % 1 1 , 3 2 1 1 , 7 9 9 , 2 2 4 4 . 4 % 5 , 8 3 0 36,403 10 0 - F I R E P R E V E N T I O N - 0 . 0 % - - 0 . 0 % - 3 1 7 , 6 0 5 0 . 8 % 1 , 0 2 9 1,029 10 0 - F I R E S E R V I C E S - 0 . 0 % - - 0 . 0 % - 7 , 5 9 7 , 6 3 7 1 8 . 5 % 2 4 , 6 1 7 24,617 10 0 - G R A F F I T I 4 1 . 2 % 1 , 6 1 2 1 0 . 9 % 1 , 2 5 8 1 2 4 , 6 9 8 0 . 3 % 4 0 4 3,274 10 0 - L A K E M A I N T E N A N C E 4 1 . 3 % 1 , 7 9 1 2 1 . 9 % 2 , 5 1 6 1 , 3 7 6 , 0 6 9 3 . 3 % 4 , 4 5 9 8,765 10 0 - P A R K M A I N T E N A N C E 4 1 . 3 % 1 , 7 9 1 5 4 . 7 % 6 , 2 8 9 2 , 0 4 1 , 6 3 1 5 . 0 % 6 , 6 1 5 14,695 10 0 - P L A N N I N G & Z O N I N G 9 3 . 0 % 4 , 0 3 0 1 5 1 4 . 2 % 1 8 , 8 6 8 1 , 2 4 3 , 4 1 8 3 . 0 % 4 , 0 2 9 26,926 10 0 - P O L I C E S E R V I C E S - 0 . 0 % - - 0 . 0 % - 1 2 , 4 3 1 , 4 1 0 3 0 . 2 % 4 0 , 2 7 9 40,279 10 0 - P W A D M I N I S T R A T I O N 4 1 . 2 % 1 , 6 1 2 1 3 1 2 . 3 % 1 6 , 3 5 2 2 , 0 9 2 , 6 6 8 5 . 1 % 6 , 7 8 0 24,744 10 0 - R E C R E A T I O N 4 1 . 3 % 1 , 7 9 1 5 4 . 7 % 6 , 2 8 9 9 2 6 , 8 0 6 2 . 3 % 3 , 0 0 3 11,083 10 0 - S E N I O R C E N T E R - 0 . 0 % - 3 2 . 8 % 3 , 7 7 4 3 0 1 , 8 4 4 0 . 7 % 9 7 8 4,752 GA S T A X - - - - 11 0 - G A S T A X - 0 . 0 % - - 0 . 0 % - 3 9 9 , 0 0 0 1 . 0 % 1 , 2 9 3 1,293 LI G H T I N G , L A N D S C A P E , M A I N T E N A N C E D I S T - C I T Y W I D E - - - - 13 0 - L I G H T I N G , L A N D S C A P E , M A I N T E N A N C E D I S T - C I T Y W I D E - 0 . 0 % - - 0 . 0 % - 1 , 4 1 6 , 4 1 0 3 . 4 % 4 , 5 8 9 4,589 LI G H T I N G , L A N D S C A P E , M A I N T E N A N C E D I S T - N O . 1 - - - - 13 5 - L I G H T I N G , L A N D S C A P E , M A I N T E N A N C E D I S T - N O . 1 - 0 . 0 % - - 0 . 0 % - 3 7 7 , 6 8 0 0 . 9 % 1 , 2 2 4 1,224 NA T I O N A L P O L L U T A N T D I S C H A R G E E L I M I N A T I O N S Y S T E M - - - - 15 5 - N A T I O N A L P O L L U T A N T D I S C H A R G E E L I M I N A T I O N S Y S T E M - 0 . 0 % - - 0 . 0 % - 2 9 8 , 5 2 0 0 . 7 % 9 6 7 967 7 Section 2: City Clerk To compile and maintain the official records of the City and to make them readily accessible to all; to conduct fair and impartial municipal elections; to prepare, certify, and/or adhere to public notice requirements with regard to legal documents, ordinances, resolutions, public hearings, to codify and disseminate the City’s Municipal Code; to promote public awareness of the processes of government; to provide meeting, administrative, and legislative support to the Mayor, City Councilmembers, and its Commissions and Committees. Allocation Method Based on the assessment of the duties of the City Clerk, it is reasonable to distribute the allocable cost of the City Manager by using the methods described below. 4. A third (33%) of the allocable cost is distributed to other departments based on the number of items that each department had on Council agendas in the past year. 5. A third (33%) of the allocable cost is distributed to other departments based on total allocable expenditures of each department. 6. A third (33%) of the allocable cost is distributed to other departments based on total number of position in each department. City Clerk Cost Allocation Table 2 shows a detailed distribution of the allocable cost to other central service departments and operating departments/divisions. 8 Ta b l e 2 : C i t y C l e r k C o s t A l l o c a t i o n Bu r e a u / Di v i s i o n A g e n d a It e m s $ 1 8 4 , 4 8 3 Nu m b e r of Po s i t i o n s $ 1 8 4 , 4 8 3 To t a l Al l o c a b l e Bu d g e t $ 1 8 4 , 4 8 3 T o t a l Allocation Di s t . Ba s e De p t . % Al l o c a t i o n Di s t . Ba s e De p t . % Al l o c a t i o n Di s t . Ba s e Dept. %Allocation 553,449 Su m m a r y 29 8 10 0 . 0 % 18 4 , 4 8 3 10 6 10 0 . 0 % 18 4 , 4 8 3 41 , 1 5 1 , 0 6 7 100.0% 184,483 553,449 Ce n t r a l S e r v i c e - - - - GE N E R A L - - - - 10 0 - C I T Y A T T O R N E Y 8 2 . 7 % 4 , 9 5 6 - 0 . 0 % - 4 0 0 , 0 0 0 1 . 0 % 1 , 7 9 3 6,749 10 0 - C I T Y C L E R K 6 1 2 0 . 5 % 3 7 , 7 8 9 3 2 . 8 % 5 , 2 2 1 5 5 3 , 4 4 9 1 . 3 % 2 , 4 8 1 45,491 10 0 - C I T Y C O U N C I L - 0 . 0 % - 5 4 . 7 % 8 , 7 0 2 - 0 . 0 % - 8,702 10 0 - C I T Y M A N A G E R 4 5 1 5 . 1 % 2 7 , 8 7 7 4 3 . 8 % 6 , 9 6 2 7 1 6 , 8 4 2 1 . 7 % 3 , 2 1 4 38,052 10 0 - F I N A N C E 90 3 0 . 2 % 5 5 , 7 5 4 1 1 1 0 . 4 % 1 9 , 1 4 4 1 , 6 4 9 , 2 2 3 4 . 0 % 7 , 3 9 4 82,292 10 0 - H U M A N R E S O U R C E S 1 0 . 3 % 6 1 9 1 0 . 9 % 1 , 7 4 0 2 9 3 , 1 8 5 0 . 7 % 1 , 3 1 4 3,674 10 0 - N O N - D E P A R T M E N T A L - 0 . 0 % - - 0 . 0 % - 8 0 4 , 4 0 0 2 . 0 % 3 , 6 0 6 3,606 Op e r a t i n g D e p a r t m e n t - - - - GE N E R A L - - - - 10 0 - A N I M A L S E R V I C E S - 0 . 0 % - - 0 . 0 % - 5 3 9 , 7 0 0 1 . 3 % 2 , 4 2 0 2,420 10 0 - B U I L D I N G & S A F E T Y 9 3 . 0 % 5 , 5 7 5 7 6 . 6 % 1 2 , 1 8 3 1 , 2 0 8 , 9 2 1 2 . 9 % 5 , 4 2 0 23,178 10 0 - C A M P G R O U N D - 0 . 0 % - - 0 . 0 % - 3 3 7 , 6 3 0 0 . 8 % 1 , 5 1 4 1,514 10 0 - C O D E E N F O R C E M E N T 9 3 . 0 % 5 , 5 7 5 4 3 . 8 % 6 , 9 6 2 6 2 1 , 2 2 8 1 . 5 % 2 , 7 8 5 15,322 10 0 - C O M M U N I T Y C E N T E R - 0 . 0 % - 1 8 1 7 . 0 % 3 1 , 3 2 7 8 3 4 , 7 7 3 2 . 0 % 3 , 7 4 2 35,070 10 0 - C O M M U N I T Y S U P P O R T - 0 . 0 % - - 0 . 0 % - 8 9 , 2 0 0 0 . 2 % 4 0 0 400 10 0 - E C O N O M I C D E V E L O P M E N T 4 1 . 2 % 2 , 2 3 0 - 0 . 0 % - 3 5 7 , 8 9 6 0 . 9 % 1 , 6 0 4 3,835 10 0 - E N G I N E E R I N G 4 3 1 4 . 4 % 2 6 , 6 3 8 9 8 . 5 % 1 5 , 6 6 4 1 , 7 9 9 , 2 2 4 4 . 4 % 8 , 0 6 6 50,368 10 0 - F I R E P R E V E N T I O N - 0 . 0 % - - 0 . 0 % - 3 1 7 , 6 0 5 0 . 8 % 1 , 4 2 4 1,424 10 0 - F I R E S E R V I C E S - 0 . 0 % - - 0 . 0 % - 7 , 5 9 7 , 6 3 7 1 8 . 5 % 3 4 , 0 6 1 34,061 10 0 - G R A F F I T I 4 1 . 2 % 2 , 2 3 0 1 0 . 9 % 1 , 7 4 0 1 2 4 , 6 9 8 0 . 3 % 5 5 9 4,530 10 0 - L A K E M A I N T E N A N C E 4 1 . 3 % 2 , 4 7 8 2 1 . 9 % 3 , 4 8 1 1 , 3 7 6 , 0 6 9 3 . 3 % 6 , 1 6 9 12,128 10 0 - P A R K M A I N T E N A N C E 4 1 . 3 % 2 , 4 7 8 5 4 . 7 % 8 , 7 0 2 2 , 0 4 1 , 6 3 1 5 . 0 % 9 , 1 5 3 20,333 10 0 - P L A N N I N G & Z O N I N G 9 3 . 0 % 5 , 5 7 5 1 5 1 4 . 2 % 2 6 , 1 0 6 1 , 2 4 3 , 4 1 8 3 . 0 % 5 , 5 7 4 37,256 10 0 - P O L I C E S E R V I C E S - 0 . 0 % - - 0 . 0 % - 1 2 , 4 3 1 , 4 1 0 3 0 . 2 % 5 5 , 7 3 1 55,731 10 0 - P W A D M I N I S T R A T I O N 4 1 . 2 % 2 , 2 3 0 1 3 1 2 . 3 % 2 2 , 6 2 5 2 , 0 9 2 , 6 6 8 5 . 1 % 9 , 3 8 2 34,237 10 0 - R E C R E A T I O N 4 1 . 3 % 2 , 4 7 8 5 4 . 7 % 8 , 7 0 2 9 2 6 , 8 0 6 2 . 3 % 4 , 1 5 5 15,335 10 0 - S E N I O R C E N T E R - 0 . 0 % - 3 2 . 8 % 5 , 2 2 1 3 0 1 , 8 4 4 0 . 7 % 1 , 3 5 3 6,574 GA S T A X - - - - 11 0 - G A S T A X - 0 . 0 % - - 0 . 0 % - 3 9 9 , 0 0 0 1 . 0 % 1 , 7 8 9 1,789 LI G H T I N G , L A N D S C A P E , M A I N T E N A N C E D I S T - C I T Y W I D E - - - - 13 0 - L I G H T I N G , L A N D S C A P E , M A I N T E N A N C E D I S T - C I T Y W I D E - 0 . 0 % - - 0 . 0 % - 1 , 4 1 6 , 4 1 0 3 . 4 % 6 , 3 5 0 6,350 LI G H T I N G , L A N D S C A P E , M A I N T E N A N C E D I S T - N O . 1 - - - - 13 5 - L I G H T I N G , L A N D S C A P E , M A I N T E N A N C E D I S T - N O . 1 - 0 . 0 % - - 0 . 0 % - 3 7 7 , 6 8 0 0 . 9 % 1 , 6 9 3 1,693 NA T I O N A L P O L L U T A N T D I S C H A R G E E L I M I N A T I O N S Y S T E M - - - - 15 5 - N A T I O N A L P O L L U T A N T D I S C H A R G E E L I M I N A T I O N S Y S T E M - 0 . 0 % - - 0 . 0 % - 2 9 8 , 5 2 0 0 . 7 % 1 , 3 3 8 1,338 9 Section 3: City Council The City Council is elected by the voters of Lake Elsinore to establish and adopt overall policies, legislative and otherwise, to give direction to the City Manager, to ensure effective and efficient operation of the City, and to identify the types and levels of programs and services to be provided to its residents. The Mayor and City Council serves to provide an overall quality of life in the City of Lake Elsinore by enhancing security, recreation, and neighborhoods, delivering quality public services, preserving and enhancing the City’s economic prosperity, and embracing the diversity of the citizens. Allocation Method Based on the assessment of the duties of the City Council, it is reasonable to distribute the allocable cost of the City Council by using the methods described below. 1. A third (33%) of the allocable cost is distributed to other departments based on the number of items that each department had on Council agendas in the past year. 2. A third (33%) of the allocable cost is distributed to other departments based on total allocable expenditures of each department. 3. A third (33%) of the allocable cost is distributed to other departments based on total number of position in each department. Although the City Council is an internal service department, in accordance with OMB guidelines, direct costs and indirect costs are not allocable costs and have been excluded from this CAP. 10 Section 4: City Manager The City Manager is appointed by the City Council to serve as the Chief Administrative Officer of the organization. The City Manager’s Office coordinates the implementation of policy and programs established by the City Council. The City Manager provides overall direction to the administration of City programs and services; coordinates economic development and marketing activities; intergovernmental relations, lobbying, and public relations efforts; oversees interdepartmental programs for strategic planning, emergency preparedness and animal control. The City Manager’s Office is committed to the policy of providing extreme customer services to the community, and promoting overall safety to the staff and citizens of Lake Elsinore. Allocation Method Based on the assessment of the duties of the City Manager, it is reasonable to distribute the allocable cost of the City Manager by using the methods described below. 4. A third (33%) of the allocable cost is distributed to other departments based on the number of items that each department had on Council agendas in the past year. 5. A third (33%) of the allocable cost is distributed to other departments based on total allocable expenditures of each department. 6. A third (33%) of the allocable cost is distributed to other departments based on total number of position in each department. City Manager Cost Allocation Table 3 shows a detailed distribution of the allocable cost to other central service departments and operating departments/divisions. 11 Ta b l e 3 : C i t y T r e a s u r e r C o s t A l l o c a t i o n Bu r e a u / Di v i s i o n A g e n d a It e m s $ 2 3 8 , 9 4 7 Nu m b e r of Po s i t i o n s $ 2 3 8 , 9 4 7 To t a l Al l o c a b l e Bu d g e t $ 2 3 8 , 9 4 7 T o t a l Allocation Di s t . Ba s e De p t . % Al l o c a t i o n Di s t . Ba s e De p t . % Al l o c a t i o n Di s t . Ba s e Dept. %Allocation 716,842 Su m m a r y 29 8 10 0 . 0 % 23 8 , 9 4 7 10 6 10 0 . 0 % 23 8 , 9 4 7 41 , 1 5 1 , 0 6 7 100.0% 238,947 716,842 Ce n t r a l S e r v i c e - - - - GE N E R A L - - - - 10 0 - C I T Y A T T O R N E Y 8 2 . 7 % 6 , 4 1 9 - 0 . 0 % - 4 0 0 , 0 0 0 1 . 0 % 2 , 3 2 3 8,742 10 0 - C I T Y C L E R K 6 1 2 0 . 5 % 4 8 , 9 4 5 3 2 . 8 % 6 , 7 6 3 5 5 3 , 4 4 9 1 . 3 % 3 , 2 1 4 58,921 10 0 - C I T Y C O U N C I L - 0 . 0 % - 5 4 . 7 % 1 1 , 2 7 1 - 0 . 0 % - 11,271 10 0 - C I T Y M A N A G E R 4 5 1 5 . 1 % 3 6 , 1 0 7 4 3 . 8 % 9 , 0 1 7 7 1 6 , 8 4 2 1 . 7 % 4 , 1 6 2 49,286 10 0 - F I N A N C E 90 3 0 . 2 % 7 2 , 2 1 4 1 1 1 0 . 4 % 2 4 , 7 9 6 1 , 6 4 9 , 2 2 3 4 . 0 % 9 , 5 7 6 106,587 10 0 - H U M A N R E S O UR C E S 1 0 . 3 % 8 0 2 1 0 . 9 % 2 , 2 5 4 2 9 3 , 1 8 5 0 . 7 % 1 , 7 0 2 4,759 10 0 - N O N - D E P A R T M E N T A L - 0 . 0 % - - 0 . 0 % - 8 0 4 , 4 0 0 2 . 0 % 4 , 6 7 1 4,671 Op e r a t i n g D e p a r t m e n t - - - - GE N E R A L - - - - 10 0 - A N I M A L S E R V I C E S - 0 . 0 % - - 0 . 0 % - 5 3 9 , 7 0 0 1 . 3 % 3 , 1 3 4 3,134 10 0 - B U I L D I N G & S A F E T Y 9 3 . 0 % 7 , 2 2 1 7 6 . 6 % 1 5 , 7 8 0 1 , 2 0 8 , 9 2 1 2 . 9 % 7 , 0 2 0 30,021 10 0 - C A M P G R O U N D - 0 . 0 % - - 0 . 0 % - 3 3 7 , 6 3 0 0 . 8 % 1 , 9 6 0 1,960 10 0 - C O D E E N F O R C E M E N T 9 3 . 0 % 7 , 2 2 1 4 3 . 8 % 9 , 0 1 7 6 2 1 , 2 2 8 1 . 5 % 3 , 6 0 7 19,845 10 0 - C O M M U N I T Y C E N T E R - 0 . 0 % - 1 8 1 7 . 0 % 4 0 , 5 7 6 8 3 4 , 7 7 3 2 . 0 % 4 , 8 4 7 45,423 10 0 - C O M M U N I T Y S U P P O R T - 0 . 0 % - - 0 . 0 % - 8 9 , 2 0 0 0 . 2 % 5 1 8 518 10 0 - E C O N O M I C D E V E L O P M E N T 4 1 . 2 % 2 , 8 8 9 - 0 . 0 % - 3 5 7 , 8 9 6 0 . 9 % 2 , 0 7 8 4,967 10 0 - E N G I N E E R I N G 4 3 1 4 . 4 % 3 4 , 5 0 2 9 8 . 5 % 2 0 , 2 8 8 1 , 7 9 9 , 2 2 4 4 . 4 % 1 0 , 4 4 7 65,238 10 0 - F I R E P R E V E N T I O N - 0 . 0 % - - 0 . 0 % - 3 1 7 , 6 0 5 0 . 8 % 1 , 8 4 4 1,844 10 0 - F I R E S E R V I C E S - 0 . 0 % - - 0 . 0 % - 7 , 5 9 7 , 6 3 7 1 8 . 5 % 4 4 , 1 1 6 44,116 10 0 - G R A F F I T I 4 1 . 2 % 2 , 8 8 9 1 0 . 9 % 2 , 2 5 4 1 2 4 , 6 9 8 0 . 3 % 7 2 4 5,867 10 0 - L A K E M A I N T E N A N C E 4 1 . 3 % 3 , 2 1 0 2 1 . 9 % 4 , 5 0 8 1 , 3 7 6 , 0 6 9 3 . 3 % 7 , 9 9 0 15,708 10 0 - P A R K M A I N T E N A N C E 4 1 . 3 % 3 , 2 1 0 5 4 . 7 % 1 1 , 2 7 1 2 , 0 4 1 , 6 3 1 5 . 0 % 1 1 , 8 5 5 26,336 10 0 - P L A N N I N G & Z O N I N G 9 3 . 0 % 7 , 2 2 1 1 5 1 4 . 2 % 3 3 , 8 1 3 1 , 2 4 3 , 4 1 8 3 . 0 % 7 , 2 2 0 48,255 10 0 - P O L I C E S E R V I C E S - 0 . 0 % - - 0 . 0 % - 1 2 , 4 3 1 , 4 1 0 3 0 . 2 % 7 2 , 1 8 4 72,184 10 0 - P W A D M I N I S T R A T I O N 4 1 . 2 % 2 , 8 8 9 1 3 1 2 . 3 % 2 9 , 3 0 5 2 , 0 9 2 , 6 6 8 5 . 1 % 1 2 , 1 5 1 44,345 10 0 - R E C R E A T I O N 4 1 . 3 % 3 , 2 1 0 5 4 . 7 % 1 1 , 2 7 1 9 2 6 , 8 0 6 2 . 3 % 5 , 3 8 2 19,862 10 0 - S E N I O R C E N T E R - 0 . 0 % - 3 2 . 8 % 6 , 7 6 3 3 0 1 , 8 4 4 0 . 7 % 1 , 7 5 3 8,515 GA S T A X - - - - 11 0 - G A S T A X - 0 . 0 % - - 0 . 0 % - 3 9 9 , 0 0 0 1 . 0 % 2 , 3 1 7 2,317 LI G H T I N G , L A N D S C A P E , M A I N T E N A N C E D I S T - C I T Y W I D E - - - - 13 0 - L I G H T I N G , L A N D S C AP E , M A I N T E N A N C E D I S T - C I T Y W I D E - 0 . 0 % - - 0 . 0 % - 1 , 4 1 6 , 4 1 0 3 . 4 % 8 , 2 2 5 8,225 LI G H T I N G , L A N D S C A P E , M A I N T E N A N C E D I S T - N O . 1 - - - - 13 5 - L I G H T I N G , L A N D S C AP E , M A I N T E N A N C E D I S T - N O . 1 - 0 . 0 % - - 0 . 0 % - 3 7 7 , 6 8 0 0 . 9 % 2 , 1 9 3 2,193 NA T I O N A L P O L L U T A N T D I S C H A R G E E L I M I N A T I O N S Y S T E M - - - - 15 5 - N A T I O N A L P O L L U T A N T D I S C H A R G E E L I M I N A T I O N S Y S T E M - 0 . 0 % - - 0 . 0 % - 2 9 8 , 5 2 0 0 . 7 % 1 , 7 3 3 1,733 12 Section 5: Finance The Administrative Services Department responsibilities include cash and investment management, financial reporting, coordination and preparation of the Annual Operating Budget and Capital Improvement Plan, internal audit, payroll, accounts receivable, financial oversight, business licensing, purchasing and contracting, financial management of Police, Animal Control and Fire contracts, and administration of all city funds and accounts. The Department is comprised of Finance and Human Resources. through the maintenance of budgeting, accounting and investments to other City divisions and Funds Allocation Method Based on the assessment of the duties of the Finance division, it is reasonable to distribute the allocable cost of the Finance Management division by using the methods described below. 1. Fifty percent (50%) of the allocable cost is distributed to other departments based on total allocable expenditures of each department. 2. Twenty percent (20%) of the allocable cost is distributed to other departments based on salary and benefits for each department. 3. Fifteen percent (15%) of the allocable cost is distributed to other departments based on number of purchase orders processed for each department. 4. Fifteen percent (15%) of the allocable cost is distributed to other departments based on the total revenues for each department. Finance Cost Allocation Table 4 shows a detailed distribution of the allocable cost to other central service departments and operating departments/divisions. 13 Ta b l e 4 : F i n a n c e C o s t A l l o c a t i o n Bu r e a u / Di v i s i o n To t a l Al l o c a b l e Bu d g e t $ 8 2 4 , 6 1 1 Sa l a r y & Be n e f i t s $ 3 2 9 , 8 4 5 P u r c h a s e Or d e r s $ 2 4 7 , 3 8 3 T o t a l Revenues$247,383Total Allocation Di s t . Ba s e De p t . % Al l o c a t i o n Di s t . Ba s e De p t . % Al l o c a t i o n Di s t . Ba s e De p t . % Al l o c a t i o n Dist. Base Dept. %Allocation 1,649,223 Su m m a r y 41 , 1 5 1 , 0 6 7 10 0 . 0 % 82 4 , 6 1 1 1, 4 4 9 , 1 0 0 10 0 . 0 % 32 9 , 8 4 5 4, 4 4 1 10 0 . 0 % 24 7 , 3 8 3 43,303,784 100.0% 247,383 1,649,223 Ce n t r a l S e r v i c e - - - - - GE N E R A L - - - - - 10 0 - C I T Y A T T O R N E Y 4 0 0 , 0 0 0 1 . 0 % 8 , 0 1 5 - 0 . 0 % - 2 6 0 . 6 % 1 , 4 4 8 - 0 . 0 % - 9,464 10 0 - C I T Y C L E R K 5 5 3 , 4 4 9 1 . 3 % 1 1 , 0 9 0 - 0 . 0 % - 1 0 5 2 . 4 % 5 , 8 4 9 - 0 . 0 % - 16,939 10 0 - C I T Y C O UN C I L - 0 . 0 % - - 0 . 0 % - 9 4 2 . 1 % 5 , 2 3 6 - 0 . 0 % - 5,236 10 0 - C I T Y M A N A G E R 7 1 6 , 8 4 2 1 . 7 % 1 4 , 3 6 5 - 0 . 0 % - 7 9 1 . 8 % 4 , 4 0 1 - 0 . 0 % - 18,765 10 0 - F I N A N C E 1 , 6 4 9 , 2 2 3 4 . 0 % 3 3 , 0 4 8 - 0 . 0 % - 2 6 9 6 . 1 % 1 4 , 9 8 4 - 0 . 0 % - 48,033 10 0 - H U M A N R E S O U R C E S 2 9 3 , 1 8 5 0 . 7 % 5 , 8 7 5 - 0 . 0 % - 9 5 2 . 1 % 5 , 2 9 2 - 0 . 0 % - 11,167 10 0 - N O N - D E P A R T M E N T A L 8 0 4 , 4 0 0 2 . 0 % 1 6 , 1 1 9 1 , 1 3 0 , 2 0 0 7 8 . 0 % 2 5 7 , 2 5 6 4 2 0 . 9 % 2 , 3 4 0 3 1 , 5 5 1 , 6 0 5 7 2 . 9 % 1 8 0 , 2 4 6 455,961 Op e r a t i n g D e p a r t m e n t - - - - - GE N E R A L - - - - - 10 0 - A N I M A L S E R V I C E S 5 3 9 , 7 0 0 1 . 3 % 1 0 , 8 1 5 3 1 8 , 9 0 0 2 2 . 0 % 7 2 , 5 8 8 3 2 0 . 7 % 1 , 7 8 3 1 7 3 , 0 4 0 0 . 4 % 9 8 9 86,174 10 0 - B U I L D I N G & S A F E T Y 1 , 2 0 8 , 9 2 1 2 . 9 % 2 4 , 2 2 5 - 0 . 0 % - 3 3 3 7 . 5 % 1 8 , 5 5 0 2 , 0 4 5 , 5 0 0 4 . 7 % 1 1 , 6 8 5 54,460 10 0 - C A M P G R O U N D 3 3 7 , 6 3 0 0 . 8 % 6 , 7 6 6 - 0 . 0 % - 1 7 4 3 . 9 % 9 , 6 9 3 4 4 3 , 5 3 1 1 . 0 % 2 , 5 3 4 18,992 10 0 - C O D E E N F O R C E M E N T 6 2 1 , 2 2 8 1 . 5 % 1 2 , 4 4 9 - 0 . 0 % - 6 0 1 . 4 % 3 , 3 4 2 1 , 1 4 1 , 8 8 0 2 . 6 % 6 , 5 2 3 22,314 10 0 - C O M M U N I T Y C E N T E R 8 3 4 , 7 7 3 2 . 0 % 1 6 , 7 2 8 - 0 . 0 % - 1 5 6 3 . 5 % 8 , 6 9 0 8 4 , 2 0 0 0 . 2 % 4 8 1 25,899 10 0 - C O M M U N I T Y S U P P O R T 8 9 , 2 0 0 0 . 2 % 1 , 7 8 7 - 0 . 0 % - 9 7 2 . 2 % 5 , 4 0 3 - 0 . 0 % - 7,191 10 0 - E C O N O M I C D E V E L O P M E N T 3 5 7 , 8 9 6 0 . 9 % 7 , 1 7 2 - 0 . 0 % - 5 8 1 . 3 % 3 , 2 3 1 - 0 . 0 % - 10,403 10 0 - E N G I N E E R I N G 1 , 7 9 9 , 2 2 4 4 . 4 % 3 6 , 0 5 4 - 0 . 0 % - 1 2 1 2 . 7 % 6 , 7 4 0 1 , 1 4 1 , 2 7 0 2 . 6 % 6 , 5 2 0 49,314 10 0 - F I R E P R E V E N T I O N 3 1 7 , 6 0 5 0 . 8 % 6 , 3 6 4 - 0 . 0 % - 1 1 0 . 2 % 6 1 3 3 5 0 , 6 1 1 0 . 8 % 2 , 0 0 3 8,980 10 0 - F I R E S E R V I C E S 7 , 5 9 7 , 6 3 7 1 8 . 5 % 1 5 2 , 2 4 6 - 0 . 0 % - 2 9 1 6 . 6 % 1 6 , 2 1 0 3 , 9 1 8 , 9 9 5 9 . 1 % 2 2 , 3 8 8 190,845 10 0 - G R A F F I T I 1 2 4 , 6 9 8 0 . 3 % 2 , 4 9 9 - 0 . 0 % - 6 1 1 . 4 % 3 , 3 9 8 - 0 . 0 % - 5,897 10 0 - L A K E M A I N T E N A N C E 1 , 3 7 6 , 0 6 9 3 . 3 % 2 7 , 5 7 5 - 0 . 0 % - 1 3 5 3 . 0 % 7 , 5 2 0 3 5 5 , 8 6 8 0 . 8 % 2 , 0 3 3 37,128 10 0 - P A R K M A I N T E N A N C E 2 , 0 4 1 , 6 3 1 5 . 0 % 4 0 , 9 1 2 - 0 . 0 % - 3 6 2 8 . 2 % 2 0 , 1 6 5 - 0 . 0 % - 61,077 10 0 - P L A N N I N G & Z O N I N G 1 , 2 4 3 , 4 1 8 3 . 0 % 2 4 , 9 1 6 - 0 . 0 % - 1 2 7 2 . 9 % 7 , 0 7 4 5 6 2 , 2 0 0 1 . 3 % 3 , 2 1 2 35,203 10 0 - P O L I C E S E R V I C E S 1 2 , 4 3 1 , 4 1 0 3 0 . 2 % 2 4 9 , 1 0 9 - 0 . 0 % - 2 6 6 6 . 0 % 1 4 , 8 1 7 9 2 6 , 4 4 0 2 . 1 % 5 , 2 9 3 269,218 10 0 - P W A D M I N I S T R A T I O N 2 , 0 9 2 , 6 6 8 5 . 1 % 4 1 , 9 3 4 - 0 . 0 % - 3 2 9 7 . 4 % 1 8 , 3 2 7 - 0 . 0 % - 60,261 10 0 - R E C R E A T I O N 9 2 6 , 8 0 6 2 . 3 % 1 8 , 5 7 2 - 0 . 0 % - 1 9 1 4 . 3 % 1 0 , 6 4 0 2 3 5 , 0 4 4 0 . 5 % 1 , 3 4 3 30,554 10 0 - S E N I O R C E N T E R 3 0 1 , 8 4 4 0 . 7 % 6 , 0 4 9 - 0 . 0 % - 7 6 1 . 7 % 4 , 2 3 4 1 0 , 3 0 4 0 . 0 % 5 9 10,341 GA S T A X - - - - - 11 0 - G A S T A X 3 9 9 , 0 0 0 1 . 0 % 7 , 9 9 5 - 0 . 0 % - 2 8 2 6 . 3 % 1 5 , 7 0 9 - 0 . 0 % - 23,704 LI G H T I N G , L A N D S C A P E , M A I N T E N A N C E D I S T - C I T Y W I D E - - - - - 13 0 - L I G H T I N G , L A N D S C A P E , M A I N T E N A N C E D I S T - C I T Y W I D E 1 , 4 1 6 , 4 1 0 3 . 4 % 2 8 , 3 8 3 - 0 . 0 % - 1 5 6 3 . 5 % 8 , 6 9 0 - 0 . 0 % - 37,073 LI G H T I N G , L A N D S C A P E , M A I N T E N A N C E D I S T - N O . 1 - - - - - 13 5 - L I G H T I N G , L A N D S C A P E , M A I N T E N A N C E D I S T - N O . 1 3 7 7 , 6 8 0 0 . 9 % 7 , 5 6 8 - 0 . 0 % - 3 7 7 8 . 5 % 2 1 , 0 0 1 3 6 3 , 2 9 6 0 . 8 % 2 , 0 7 5 30,644 NA T I O N A L P O L L U T A N T D I S C H A R G E E L I M I N A T I O N S Y S T E M - - - - - 15 5 - N A T I O N A L P O L L U T A N T D I S C H A R G E E L I M I N A T I O N SY S T E M 29 8 , 5 2 0 0 . 7 % 5 , 9 8 2 - 0 . 0 % - 3 6 0 . 8 % 2 , 0 0 5 - 0 . 0 % - 7,987 14 Section 6: Human Resources The Human Resources division is part of the Administrative Services Department, which also includes the Finance Division. Our focus is on meeting the personnel and support needs of the City according to all applicable employment standards and labor laws. Developing and managing a diverse and skilled workforce is our goal. The City of Lake Elsinore is an equal opportunity employer. The division functions include recruitment, benefits, job descriptions, salary surveys, training, performance evaluations and labor relations. We serve both the City’s employees and you, the prospective employee. Allocation Method Based on the assessment of the duties of the Human Resources it is reasonable to distribute the allocable cost of the Human Resources division by using the methods described below. 1. Fifty percent (50%) of the allocable cost is distributed to other departments based on total number of positions in each department. 2. Fifty percent (50%) of the allocable cost is distributed to other departments based on the total salary and benefits of each department. Human Resources Cost Allocation Table 5 shows a detailed distribution of the allocable cost to other central service departments and operating departments/divisions. 15 Ta b l e 5 : H u m a n R e s o u r c e s C o s t A l l o c a t i o n Bu r e a u / Di v i s i o n Nu m b e r of Po s i t i o n s $ 1 4 6 , 5 9 3 Sa l a r y & Be n e f i t s $ 1 4 6 , 5 9 3 T o t a l Allocation Di s t . Ba s e De p t . % Al l o c a t i o n Di s t . Ba s e De p t . %Allocation 293,185 Su m m a r y 10 6 10 0 . 0 % 14 6 , 5 9 3 1, 4 4 9 , 1 0 0 10 0 . 0 % 146,593 293,185 Ce n t r a l S e r v i c e - - - GE N E R A L - - - 10 0 - C I T Y A T T O R N E Y - 0 . 0 % - - 0 . 0 % - - 10 0 - C I T Y C L E R K 3 2 . 8 % 4 , 1 4 9 - 0 . 0 % - 4,149 10 0 - C I T Y C O U N C I L 5 4 . 7 % 6 , 9 1 5 - 0 . 0 % - 6,915 10 0 - C I T Y M A N A G E R 4 3 . 8 % 5 , 5 3 2 - 0 . 0 % - 5,532 10 0 - F I N A N C E 11 1 0 . 4 % 1 5 , 2 1 2 - 0 . 0 % - 15,212 10 0 - H U M A N R E S O U R C E S 1 0 . 9 % 1 , 3 8 3 - 0 . 0 % - 1,383 10 0 - N O N - D E P A R T M E N T A L - 0 . 0 % - 1 , 1 3 0 , 2 0 0 7 8 . 0 % 1 1 4 , 3 3 2 114,332 Op e r a t i n g D e p a r t m e n t - - - GE N E R A L - - - 10 0 - A N I M A L S E R V I C E S - 0 . 0 % - 3 1 8 , 9 0 0 2 2 . 0 % 3 2 , 2 6 0 32,260 10 0 - B U I L D I N G & S A F E T Y 7 6 . 6 % 9 , 6 8 1 - 0 . 0 % - 9,681 10 0 - C A M P G R O U N D - 0 . 0 % - - 0 . 0 % - - 10 0 - C O D E E N F O R C E M E N T 4 3 . 8 % 5 , 5 3 2 - 0 . 0 % - 5,532 10 0 - C O M M U N I T Y C E N T E R 1 8 1 7 . 0 % 2 4 , 8 9 3 - 0 . 0 % - 24,893 10 0 - C O M M U N I T Y S U P P O R T - 0 . 0 % - - 0 . 0 % - - 10 0 - E C O N O M I C D E V E L O P M E N T - 0 . 0 % - - 0 . 0 % - - 10 0 - E N G I N E E R I N G 9 8 . 5 % 1 2 , 4 4 7 - 0 . 0 % - 12,447 10 0 - F I R E P R E V E N T I O N - 0 . 0 % - - 0 . 0 % - - 10 0 - F I R E S E R V I C E S - 0 . 0 % - - 0 . 0 % - - 10 0 - G R A F F I T I 1 0 . 9 % 1 , 3 8 3 - 0 . 0 % - 1,383 10 0 - L A K E M A I N T E N A N C E 2 1 . 9 % 2 , 7 6 6 - 0 . 0 % - 2,766 10 0 - P A R K M A I N T E N A N C E 5 4 . 7 % 6 , 9 1 5 - 0 . 0 % - 6,915 10 0 - P L A N N I N G & Z O N I N G 1 5 1 4 . 2 % 2 0 , 7 4 4 - 0 . 0 % - 20,744 10 0 - P O L I C E S E R V I C E S - 0 . 0 % - - 0 . 0 % - - 10 0 - P W A D M I N I S T R A T I O N 1 3 1 2 . 3 % 1 7 , 9 7 8 - 0 . 0 % - 17,978 10 0 - R E C R E A T I O N 5 4 . 7 % 6 , 9 1 5 - 0 . 0 % - 6,915 10 0 - S E N I O R C E N T E R 3 2 . 8 % 4 , 1 4 9 - 0 . 0 % - 4,149 GA S T A X - - - 11 0 - G A S T A X - 0 . 0 % - - 0 . 0 % - - LI G H T I N G , L A N D S C A P E , M A I N T E N A N C E D I S T - C I T Y W I D E - - - 13 0 - L I G H T I N G , L A N D S C A P E , M A I N T E N A N C E D I S T - C I T Y W I D E - 0 . 0 % - - 0 . 0 % - - LI G H T I N G , L A N D S C A P E , M A I N T E N A N C E D I S T - N O . 1 - - - 13 5 - L I G H T I N G , L A N D S C A P E , M A I N T E N A N C E D I S T - N O . 1 - 0 . 0 % - - 0 . 0 % - - NA T I O N A L P O L L U T A N T D I S C H A R G E E L I M I N A T I O N S Y S T E M - - - 15 5 - N A T I O N A L P O L L U T A N T D I S C H A R G E E L I M I N A T I O N S Y S T E M - 0 . 0 % - - 0 . 0 % - - 16 Section 7: Non-Departmental The Non-Departmental Division is a cost center for general administrative expenditures such as retiree medical premiums, sales tax agreements, property tax administration fee, and miscellaneous banking fees. Allocation Method Based on the assessment of the duties of Non-Departmental, it is reasonable to distribute the allocable cost of Non-Departmental by using the methods described below. 1. Fifty percent (50%) of the allocable cost is distributed to other departments based on total number of positions in each department. 2. Fifty percent (50%) of the allocable cost is distributed to other departments based on the total salary and benefits of each department. Non-Departmental Cost Allocation Table 6 shows a detailed distribution of the allocable cost to other central service departments and operating departments/divisions. 17 Ta b l e 6 : N o n - D e p a r t m e n t a l C o s t A l l o c a t i o n Bu r e a u / Di v i s i o n Nu m b e r of Po s i t i o n s $ 4 0 2 , 2 0 0 Sa l a r y & Be n e f i t s $ 4 0 2 , 2 0 0 T o t a l Allocation Di s t . Ba s e De p t . % Al l o c a t i o n Di s t . Ba s e De p t . % Allocation 804,400 Su m m a r y 10 6 10 0 . 0 % 40 2 , 2 0 0 1, 4 4 9 , 1 0 0 10 0 . 0 % 402,200 804,400 Ce n t r a l S e r v i c e - - - GE N E R A L - - - 10 0 - C I T Y A T T O R N E Y - 0 . 0 % - - 0 . 0 % - - 10 0 - C I T Y C L E R K 3 2 . 8 % 1 1 , 3 8 3 - 0 . 0 % - 11,383 10 0 - C I T Y C O U N C I L 5 4 . 7 % 1 8 , 9 7 2 - 0 . 0 % - 18,972 10 0 - C I T Y M A N A G E R 4 3 . 8 % 1 5 , 1 7 7 - 0 . 0 % - 15,177 10 0 - F I N A N C E 11 1 0 . 4 % 4 1 , 7 3 8 - 0 . 0 % - 41,738 10 0 - H U M A N R E S O U R C E S 1 0 . 9 % 3 , 7 9 4 - 0 . 0 % - 3,794 10 0 - N O N - D E P A R T M E N T A L - 0 . 0 % - 1 , 1 3 0 , 2 0 0 7 8 . 0 % 3 1 3 , 6 8 9 313,689 Op e r a t i n g D e p a r t m e n t - - - GE N E R A L - - - 10 0 - A N I M A L S E R V I C E S - 0 . 0 % - 3 1 8 , 9 0 0 2 2 . 0 % 8 8 , 5 1 1 88,511 10 0 - B U I L D I N G & S A F E T Y 7 6 . 6 % 2 6 , 5 6 0 - 0 . 0 % - 26,560 10 0 - C A M P G R O U N D - 0 . 0 % - - 0 . 0 % - - 10 0 - C O D E E N F O R C E M E N T 4 3 . 8 % 1 5 , 1 7 7 - 0 . 0 % - 15,177 10 0 - C O M M U N I T Y C E N T E R 1 8 1 7 . 0 % 6 8 , 2 9 8 - 0 . 0 % - 68,298 10 0 - C O M M U N I T Y S U P P O R T - 0 . 0 % - - 0 . 0 % - - 10 0 - E C O N O M I C D E V E L O P M E N T - 0 . 0 % - - 0 . 0 % - - 10 0 - E N G I N E E R I N G 9 8 . 5 % 3 4 , 1 4 9 - 0 . 0 % - 34,149 10 0 - F I R E P R E V E N T I O N - 0 . 0 % - - 0 . 0 % - - 10 0 - F I R E S E R V I C E S - 0 . 0 % - - 0 . 0 % - - 10 0 - G R A F F I T I 1 0 . 9 % 3 , 7 9 4 - 0 . 0 % - 3,794 10 0 - L A K E M A I N T E N A N C E 2 1 . 9 % 7 , 5 8 9 - 0 . 0 % - 7,589 10 0 - P A R K M A I N T E N A N C E 5 4 . 7 % 1 8 , 9 7 2 - 0 . 0 % - 18,972 10 0 - P L A N N I N G & Z O N I N G 1 5 1 4 . 2 % 5 6 , 9 1 5 - 0 . 0 % - 56,915 10 0 - P O L I C E S E R V I C E S - 0 . 0 % - - 0 . 0 % - - 10 0 - P W A D M I N I S T R A T I O N 1 3 1 2 . 3 % 4 9 , 3 2 6 - 0 . 0 % - 49,326 10 0 - R E C R E A T I O N 5 4 . 7 % 1 8 , 9 7 2 - 0 . 0 % - 18,972 10 0 - S E N I O R C E N T E R 3 2 . 8 % 1 1 , 3 8 3 - 0 . 0 % - 11,383 GA S T A X - - - 11 0 - G A S T A X - 0 . 0 % - - 0 . 0 % - - LI G H T I N G , L A N D S C A P E , M A I N T E N A N C E D I S T - C I T Y W I D E - - - 13 0 - L I G H T I N G , L A N D S C A P E , M A I N T E N A N C E D I S T - C I T Y W I D E - 0 . 0 % - - 0 . 0 % - - LI G H T I N G , L A N D S C A P E , M A I N T E N A N C E D I S T - N O . 1 - - - 13 5 - L I G H T I N G , L A N D S C A P E , M A I N T E N A N C E D I S T - N O . 1 - 0 . 0 % - - 0 . 0 % - - NA T I O N A L P O L L U T A N T D I S C H A R G E E L I M I N A T I O N S Y S T E M - - - 15 5 - N A T I O N A L P O L L U T A N T D I S C H A R G E E L I M I N A T I O N S Y S T E M - 0 . 0 % - - 0 . 0 % - - 18 Ta b l e E 2 : S t e p - O n e C o s t A l l o c a t i o n Total First Allocation Su m m a r y 10 0 ‐ FI N A N C E 10 0 ‐ CI T Y MA N A G E R 10 0 ‐ CI T Y CL E R K 10 0 ‐ CI T Y A T T O R N E Y 10 0 ‐ CI T Y CO U N C I L 10 0 ‐ NO N ‐ DE P A R T M E N T A L 100 ‐ HUMAN RESOURCES $ 4,417,099 Am o u n t to Al l o c a t e 1, 6 4 9 , 2 2 3 71 6 , 8 4 2 55 3 , 4 4 9 40 0 , 0 0 0 ‐ 80 4 , 4 0 0 293,185 4,417,099 Al l o c a t e d Am o u n t 1, 6 4 9 , 2 2 3 71 6 , 8 4 2 55 3 , 4 4 9 40 0 , 0 0 0 ‐ 80 4 , 4 0 0 293,185 4,417,099 Ce n t r a l S e r v i c e GE N E R A L 10 0 - F I N A N C E 48 , 0 3 3 1 0 6 , 5 8 7 8 2 , 2 9 2 5 9 , 4 7 6 - 4 1 , 7 3 8 1 5 , 2 1 2 353,337 10 0 - C I T Y M A N A G E R 1 8 , 7 6 5 4 9 , 2 8 6 3 8 , 0 5 2 2 7 , 5 0 2 - 1 5 , 1 7 7 5 , 5 3 2 154,315 10 0 - C I T Y C L E R K 1 6 , 9 3 9 5 8 , 9 2 1 4 5 , 4 9 1 3 2 , 8 7 8 - 1 1 , 3 8 3 4 , 1 4 9 169,762 10 0 - C I T Y A T T O R N E Y 9 , 4 6 4 8 , 7 4 2 6 , 7 4 9 4 , 8 7 8 - - - 29,832 10 0 - C I T Y C O UN C I L 5 , 2 3 6 1 1 , 2 7 1 8 , 7 0 2 6 , 2 8 9 - 1 8 , 9 7 2 6 , 9 1 5 57,385 10 0 - N O N - D EP A R T M E N T A L 45 5 , 9 6 1 4 , 6 7 1 3 , 6 0 6 2 , 6 0 6 - 3 1 3 , 6 8 9 1 1 4 , 3 3 2 894,866 10 0 - H U M A N R E S O UR C E S 1 1 , 1 6 7 4 , 7 5 9 3 , 6 7 4 2 , 6 5 6 - 3 , 7 9 4 1 , 3 8 3 27,433 Op e r a t i n g D e p a r t m e n t - - - - - - - - GE N E R A L - - - - - - - - 10 0 - A N I M A L S E R V I C E S 8 6 , 1 7 4 3 , 1 3 4 2 , 4 2 0 1 , 7 4 9 - 8 8 , 5 1 1 3 2 , 2 6 0 214,248 10 0 - B U I L D I N G & S A F E T Y 5 4 , 4 6 0 3 0 , 0 2 1 2 3 , 1 7 8 1 6 , 7 5 2 - 2 6 , 5 6 0 9 , 6 8 1 160,651 10 0 - C A M P G R O U N D 1 8 , 9 9 2 1 , 9 6 0 1 , 5 1 4 1 , 0 9 4 - - - 23,560 10 0 - C O D E E N F O R C E M E N T 2 2 , 3 1 4 1 9 , 8 4 5 1 5 , 3 2 2 1 1 , 0 7 4 - 1 5 , 1 7 7 5 , 5 3 2 89,265 10 0 - C O M M U N I T Y C E N T E R 2 5 , 8 9 9 4 5 , 4 2 3 3 5 , 0 7 0 2 5 , 3 4 6 - 6 8 , 2 9 8 2 4 , 8 9 3 224,929 10 0 - C O M M U N I T Y S U P P O R T 7 , 1 9 1 5 1 8 4 0 0 2 8 9 - - - 8,398 10 0 - E C O N O M I C D EV E L O P M E N T 1 0 , 4 0 3 4 , 9 6 7 3 , 8 3 5 2 , 7 7 1 - - - 21,975 10 0 - E N G I N E E R I N G 4 9 , 3 1 4 6 5 , 2 3 8 5 0 , 3 6 8 3 6 , 4 0 3 - 3 4 , 1 4 9 1 2 , 4 4 7 247,917 10 0 - F I R E P R EV E N T I O N 8 , 9 8 0 1 , 8 4 4 1 , 4 2 4 1 , 0 2 9 - - - 13,277 10 0 - F I R E S E R V I C E S 1 9 0 , 8 4 5 4 4 , 1 1 6 3 4 , 0 6 1 2 4 , 6 1 7 - - - 293,639 10 0 - G R A F F I T I 5, 8 9 7 5 , 8 6 7 4 , 5 3 0 3 , 2 7 4 - 3 , 7 9 4 1 , 3 8 3 24,744 10 0 - L AK E M A I N T E N A N C E 3 7 , 1 2 8 1 5 , 7 0 8 1 2 , 1 2 8 8 , 7 6 5 - 7 , 5 8 9 2 , 7 6 6 84,083 10 0 - P A R K M A I N T E N A N C E 6 1 , 0 7 7 2 6 , 3 3 6 2 0 , 3 3 3 1 4 , 6 9 5 - 1 8 , 9 7 2 6 , 9 1 5 148,327 10 0 - P L A N N I N G & Z O N I N G 3 5 , 2 0 3 4 8 , 2 5 5 3 7 , 2 5 6 2 6 , 9 2 6 - 5 6 , 9 1 5 2 0 , 7 4 4 225,299 10 0 - P O L I C E S E R V I C E S 2 6 9 , 2 1 8 7 2 , 1 8 4 5 5 , 7 3 1 4 0 , 2 7 9 - - - 437,412 10 0 - P W A D M I N I S T R A T I O N 6 0 , 2 6 1 4 4 , 3 4 5 3 4 , 2 3 7 2 4 , 7 4 4 - 4 9 , 3 2 6 1 7 , 9 7 8 230,892 10 0 - R E C R E A T I O N 3 0 , 5 5 4 1 9 , 8 6 2 1 5 , 3 3 5 1 1 , 0 8 3 - 1 8 , 9 7 2 6 , 9 1 5 102,721 10 0 - S E N I O R C E N T E R 1 0 , 3 4 1 8 , 5 1 5 6 , 5 7 4 4 , 7 5 2 - 1 1 , 3 8 3 4 , 1 4 9 45,714 GA S T A X - - - - - - - - 11 0 - G A S T A X 23 , 7 0 4 2 , 3 1 7 1 , 7 8 9 1 , 2 9 3 - - - 29,102 LI G H T I N G , L A N D S C A P E , M A I N T E N A N C E D I S T - C I T Y W I D E - - - - - - - - 13 0 - L I G H T I N G , L A N D S C AP E , M A I N T E N A N C E D I S T - C I T Y W I D E 3 7 , 0 7 3 8 , 2 2 5 6 , 3 5 0 4 , 5 8 9 - - - 56,237 LI G H T I N G , L A N D S C A P E , M A I N T E N A N C E D I S T - N O . 1 - - - - - - - - 13 5 - L I G H T I N G , L A N D S C AP E , M A I N T E N A N C E D I S T - N O . 1 3 0 , 6 4 4 2 , 1 9 3 1 , 6 9 3 1 , 2 2 4 - - - 35,754 NA T I O N A L P O L L U T A N T D I S C H A R G E E L I M I N A T I O N S Y S T E M - - - - - - - - 15 5 - N A T I O N A L P O L L U T A N T D I S C H A R G E E L I M I N A T I O N SY S T E M 7 , 9 8 7 1 , 7 3 3 1 , 3 3 8 9 6 7 - - - 12,026 Fi r s t Al l o c a t i o n 19 Second Step and Close Out As part of the first step, costs of central services were allocated to all departments, including central services based on the most fair and equitable distributions factor(s) selected for each respective central service department or fund. As a result, each department and fund identified as Central Services within the CAP were allocated costs attributable to their demand on central services. Therefore, the costs that remain within each central service after the application of Step One are the indirect costs attributable to each central service. The next two steps described below takes the allocable indirect costs and apportion them amongst all departments and then close out each central service department or fund in order to shift all allocable costs to the City’s operating departments. Before we close out each central service, we first take the indirect costs charged to each central service from Step One and apportion these costs based on the same distribution factor(s) used in Step One for each central service. Doing so results in a reduced amount of indirect costs that will be allocated to the operating departments and minimizes the significance of which central service is closed out first. Table E3 provides a summary of the indirect cost allocation. The reduced amount of remaining indirect costs charged to each central service after Step Two must now be apportioned to all departments except for the central service whose indirect costs are being allocated. Essentially, the allocation of indirect costs for the first central service to be closed out is over all departments less itself as all indirect costs have been shifted. The distribution basis utilized in the final “close-out” step is equal to the percentage of total costs allocated to each department/division from the previous steps. As each central service is closed, the remaining indirect costs are apportioned to all departments less all previously closed central services. Through this process, all allocable costs are shifted to the operating departments/divisions. An additional $88,494 was excluded during this process from the allocable cost total of $4,417,099 (excluded are the costs allocated to City Council of $57,385 in the second step and $31,108 in the third step to ensure OMB compliance) for a final allocation of $4,328,605. Table E4 provides a summary of the final close out. 20 Ta b l e E 3 : S t e p - T w o I n d i r e c t C o s t A l l o c a t i o n Total Second Allocation Su m m a r y 10 0 ‐ FI N A N C E 10 0 ‐ CI T Y MA N A G E R 10 0 ‐ CI T Y CL E R K 10 0 ‐ CI T Y AT T O R N E Y 10 0 ‐ CI T Y CO U N C I L 10 0 ‐ NO N ‐ DE P A R T M E N T A L 100 ‐ HUMAN RESOURCES $ 1,629,544 Am o u n t to Al l o c a t e 35 3 , 3 3 7 15 4 , 3 1 5 16 9 , 7 6 2 29 , 8 3 2 57 , 3 8 5 894,866 27,433 1,686,929 Al l o c a t e d Am o u n t 35 3 , 3 3 7 15 4 , 3 1 5 16 9 , 7 6 2 29 , 8 3 2 ‐ 894,866 27,433 1,629,544 Ce n t r a l S e r v i c e GE N E R A L 10 0 - F I N A N C E 10 , 2 9 1 2 2 , 9 4 5 2 5 , 2 4 2 4 , 4 3 6 - 4 6 , 4 3 2 1 , 4 2 3 110,768 10 0 - C I T Y M A N A G E R 4 , 0 2 0 1 0 , 6 1 0 1 1 , 6 7 2 2 , 0 5 1 - 1 6 , 8 8 4 5 1 8 45,755 10 0 - C I T Y C L E R K 3, 6 2 9 1 2 , 6 8 4 1 3 , 9 5 4 2 , 4 5 2 - 1 2 , 6 6 3 3 8 8 45,770 10 0 - C I T Y A T T O R N E Y 2 , 0 2 8 1 , 8 8 2 2 , 0 7 0 3 6 4 - - - 6,343 10 0 - C I T Y C O U N C I L 1 , 1 2 2 2 , 4 2 6 2 , 6 6 9 4 6 9 - 2 1 , 1 0 5 6 4 7 28,439 10 0 - N O N - D E P A R T M E N T A L 9 7 , 6 8 7 1 , 0 0 5 1 , 1 0 6 1 9 4 - 3 4 8 , 9 6 7 1 0 , 6 9 8 459,659 10 0 - H U M A N R E S O U R C E S 2 , 3 9 2 1 , 0 2 4 1 , 1 2 7 1 9 8 - 4 , 2 2 1 1 2 9 9,092 Op e r a t i n g D e p a r t m e n t - - - - - - - - GE N E R A L - - - - - - - - 10 0 - A N I M A L S E R V I C E S 1 8 , 4 6 2 6 7 5 7 4 2 1 3 0 - 9 8 , 4 6 5 3 , 0 1 9 121,494 10 0 - B U I L D I N G & S A F E T Y 1 1 , 6 6 8 6 , 4 6 3 7 , 1 0 9 1 , 2 4 9 - 2 9 , 5 4 7 9 0 6 56,942 10 0 - C A M P G R O U N D 4 , 0 6 9 4 2 2 4 6 4 8 2 - - - 5,037 10 0 - C O D E E N F O R C E M E N T 4 , 7 8 1 4 , 2 7 2 4 , 7 0 0 8 2 6 - 1 6 , 8 8 4 5 1 8 31,980 10 0 - C O M M U N I T Y C E N T E R 5 , 5 4 9 9 , 7 7 8 1 0 , 7 5 7 1 , 8 9 0 - 7 5 , 9 7 9 2 , 3 2 9 106,283 10 0 - C O M M U N I T Y S U P P O R T 1 , 5 4 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 2 2 - - - 1,796 10 0 - E C O N O M I C D E V E L O P M E N T 2 , 2 2 9 1 , 0 6 9 1 , 1 7 6 2 0 7 - - - 4,681 10 0 - E N G I N E E R I N G 1 0 , 5 6 5 1 4 , 0 4 4 1 5 , 4 4 9 2 , 7 1 5 - 3 7 , 9 9 0 1 , 1 6 5 81,928 10 0 - F I R E P R E V E N T I O N 1 , 9 2 4 3 9 7 4 3 7 7 7 - - - 2,834 10 0 - F I R E S E R V I C E S 4 0 , 8 8 7 9 , 4 9 7 1 0 , 4 4 8 1 , 8 3 6 - - - 62,668 10 0 - G R A F F I T I 1, 2 6 3 1 , 2 6 3 1 , 3 8 9 2 4 4 - 4 , 2 2 1 1 2 9 8,510 10 0 - L A K E M A I N T E N A N C E 7 , 9 5 4 3 , 3 8 2 3 , 7 2 0 6 5 4 - 8 , 4 4 2 2 5 9 24,411 10 0 - P A R K M A I N T E N A N C E 1 3 , 0 8 5 5 , 6 6 9 6 , 2 3 7 1 , 0 9 6 - 2 1 , 1 0 5 6 4 7 47,840 10 0 - P L A N N I N G & Z O N I N G 7 , 5 4 2 1 0 , 3 8 8 1 1 , 4 2 8 2 , 0 0 8 - 6 3 , 3 1 6 1 , 9 4 1 96,623 10 0 - P O L I C E S E R V I C E S 5 7 , 6 7 9 1 5 , 5 3 9 1 7 , 0 9 5 3 , 0 0 4 - - - 93,316 10 0 - P W A D M I N I S T R A T I O N 1 2 , 9 1 1 9 , 5 4 6 1 0 , 5 0 2 1 , 8 4 5 - 5 4 , 8 7 4 1 , 6 8 2 91,360 10 0 - R E C R E A T I O N 6 , 5 4 6 4 , 2 7 6 4 , 7 0 4 8 2 7 - 2 1 , 1 0 5 6 4 7 38,104 10 0 - S E N I O R C E N T E R 2 , 2 1 5 1 , 8 3 3 2 , 0 1 7 3 5 4 - 1 2 , 6 6 3 3 8 8 19,471 GA S T A X - - - - - - - - 11 0 - G A S T A X 5, 0 7 8 4 9 9 5 4 9 9 6 - - - 6,222 LI G H T I N G , L A N D S C A P E , M A I N T E N A N C E D I S T - C I T Y W I D E - - - - - - - - 13 0 - L I G H T I N G , L A N D S C A P E , M A I N T E N A N C E D I S T - C I T Y W I D E 7 , 9 4 3 1 , 7 7 0 1 , 9 4 8 3 4 2 - - - 12,003 LI G H T I N G , L A N D S C A P E , M A I N T E N A N C E D I S T - N O . 1 - - - - - - - - 13 5 - L I G H T I N G , L A N D S C A P E , M A I N T E N A N C E D I S T - N O . 1 6 , 5 6 5 4 7 2 5 1 9 9 1 - - - 7,648 NA T I O N A L P O L L U T A N T D I S C H A R G E E L I M I N A T I O N S Y S T E M - - - - - - - - 15 5 - N A T I O N A L P O L L U T A N T D I S C H A R G E E L I M I N A T I O N S Y S T E M 1 , 7 1 1 3 7 3 4 1 0 7 2 - - - 2,567 Se c o n d Al l o c a t i o n 21 Ta b l e E 4 : F i n a l S t e p – C l o s e - O u t A l l o c a t i o n Step‐Down Total Allocation Summary Su m m a r y 10 0 ‐ FI N A N C E 10 0 ‐ CI T Y MA N A G E R 10 0 ‐ CI T Y CL E R K 10 0 ‐ CI T Y AT T O R N E Y 10 0 ‐ CI T Y CO U N C I L 10 0 ‐ NO N ‐ DE P A R T M E N T A L 10 0 ‐ HU M A N RESOURCES $ 674,718 4,328,605 Am o u n t to Al l o c a t e 11 0 , 7 6 8 47 , 0 5 3 51 , 8 8 4 8, 6 3 5 31 , 1 0 8 49 2 , 1 5 8 15,468 757,074 Al l o c a t e d Am o u n t 11 0 , 7 6 8 47 , 0 5 3 51 , 8 8 4 8, 6 3 5 ‐ 49 2 , 1 5 8 15,468 725,966 Ce n t r a l S e r v i c e GE N E R A L 10 0 - F I N A N C E 10 0 - C I T Y M A N A G E R 1 , 2 9 8 10 0 - C I T Y C L E R K 1 , 1 7 2 4 , 9 4 2 10 0 - C I T Y A T T O R N E Y 6 5 5 7 3 3 9 0 3 10 0 - C I T Y C O U N C I L 3 6 2 9 4 5 1 , 1 6 5 1 9 7 10 0 - N O N - D EP A R T M E N T A L 3 1 , 5 4 3 3 9 2 4 8 3 8 2 - 10 0 - H U M A N R E S O UR C E S 7 7 3 3 9 9 4 9 2 8 3 - 4 , 6 2 9 Op e r a t i n g D e p a r t m e n t - - - - - - - - - GE N E R A L - - - - - - - - - 10 0 - A N I M A L S E R V I C E S 5 , 9 6 1 2 6 3 3 2 4 5 5 - 1 0 7 , 9 7 5 3 , 4 2 6 1 1 8 , 0 0 3 453,744 10 0 - B U I L D I N G & S A F E T Y 3 , 7 6 7 2 , 5 1 8 3 , 1 0 2 5 2 5 - 3 2 , 4 0 1 1 , 0 2 8 4 3 , 3 4 2 260,936 10 0 - C A M P G R O U N D 1 , 3 1 4 1 6 4 2 0 3 3 4 - - - 1 , 7 1 5 30,312 10 0 - C O D E E N F O R C E M E N T 1 , 5 4 4 1 , 6 6 5 2 , 0 5 1 3 4 7 - 1 8 , 5 1 5 5 8 7 2 4 , 7 0 9 145,954 10 0 - C O M M U N I T Y C E N T E R 1 , 7 9 2 3 , 8 1 0 4 , 6 9 4 7 9 5 - 8 3 , 3 1 7 2 , 6 4 3 9 7 , 0 5 1 428,263 10 0 - C O M M U N I T Y S U P P O R T 4 9 7 4 3 5 4 9 - - - 6 0 3 10,797 10 0 - E C O N O M I C D E V E L O P M E N T 7 2 0 4 1 7 5 1 3 8 7 - - - 1 , 7 3 6 28,393 10 0 - E N G I N E E R I N G 3 , 4 1 1 5 , 4 7 2 6 , 7 4 2 1 , 1 4 2 - 4 1 , 6 5 8 1 , 3 2 2 5 9 , 7 4 7 389,592 10 0 - F I R E P R E V E N T I O N 6 2 1 1 5 5 1 9 1 3 2 - - - 9 9 9 17,110 10 0 - F I R E S E R V I C E S 1 3 , 2 0 2 3 , 7 0 0 4 , 5 5 9 7 7 2 - - - 2 2 , 2 3 4 378,541 10 0 - G R A F F I T I 40 8 4 9 2 6 0 6 1 0 3 - 4 , 6 2 9 1 4 7 6 , 3 8 5 39,639 10 0 - L AK E M A I N T E N A N C E 2 , 5 6 8 1 , 3 1 8 1 , 6 2 3 2 7 5 - 9 , 2 5 7 2 9 4 1 5 , 3 3 5 123,829 10 0 - P A R K M A I N T E N A N C E 4 , 2 2 5 2 , 2 0 9 2 , 7 2 2 4 6 1 - 2 3 , 1 4 4 7 3 4 3 3 , 4 9 5 229,661 10 0 - P L A N N I N G & Z O N I N G 2 , 4 3 5 4 , 0 4 8 4 , 9 8 7 8 4 5 - 6 9 , 4 3 1 2 , 2 0 3 8 3 , 9 4 8 405,869 10 0 - P O L I C E S E R V I C E S 1 8 , 6 2 4 6 , 0 5 5 7 , 4 6 0 1 , 2 6 3 - - - 3 3 , 4 0 2 564,131 10 0 - P W A D M I N I S T R A T I O N 4 , 1 6 9 3 , 7 2 0 4 , 5 8 3 7 7 6 - 6 0 , 1 7 3 1 , 9 0 9 7 5 , 3 3 0 397,581 10 0 - R E C R E A T I O N 2 , 1 1 4 1 , 6 6 6 2 , 0 5 3 3 4 8 - 2 3 , 1 4 4 7 3 4 3 0 , 0 5 8 170,883 10 0 - S E N I O R C E N T E R 7 1 5 7 1 4 8 8 0 1 4 9 - 1 3 , 8 8 6 4 4 1 1 6 , 7 8 5 81,971 GA S T A X - - - - - - - - - 11 0 - G A S T A X 1, 6 4 0 1 9 4 2 3 9 4 1 - - - 2 , 1 1 4 37,439 LI G H T I N G , L A N D S C A P E , M A I N T E N A N C E D I S T - C I T Y W I D E - - - - - - - - - 13 0 - L I G H T I N G , L A N D S C AP E , M A I N T E N A N C E D I S T - C I T Y W I D E 2 , 5 6 5 6 9 0 8 5 0 1 4 4 - - - 4 , 2 4 8 72,488 LI G H T I N G , L A N D S C A P E , M A I N T E N A N C E D I S T - N O . 1 - - - - - - - - - 13 5 - L I G H T I N G , L A N D S C AP E , M A I N T E N A N C E D I S T - N O . 1 2 , 1 2 0 1 8 4 2 2 7 3 8 - - - 2 , 5 6 9 45,971 NA T I O N A L P O L L U T A N T D I S C H A R G E E L I M I N A T I O N S Y S T E M - - - - - - - - - 15 5 - N A T I O N A L P O L L U T A N T D I S C H A R G E E L I M I N A T I O N SY S T E M 5 5 3 1 4 5 1 7 9 3 0 - - - 9 0 7 15,501 St e p ‐Do w n Al l o c a t i o n 22 Table E5 summarizes the distribution of the total allocable cost of $4,328,606 to each recipient as well as the final indirect cost percentages for each department. Table E5: Allocated Costs to Recipient Departments and Final Department Indirect Cost Percentages Allocated Cost Summary ‐ Operating DepartmentsFiscal Year 2016‐2017 FY 16‐17 ADOPTED BUDGET Indirect Allocation Indirect Rate (%) Summary40,059,693$ 4,328,606$ 10.8% Operating Department GENERAL 100 - ANIMAL SERVICES839,200 453,744 54.1% 100 - BUILDING & SAFETY1,208,921 260,936 21.6% 100 - CAMPGROUND337,630 30,312 9.0% 100 - CODE ENFORCEMENT621,228 145,954 23.5% 100 - COMMUNITY CENTER834,773 428,263 51.3% 100 - COMMUNITY SUPPORT89,200 10,797 12.1% 100 - ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT357,896 28,393 7.9% 100 - ENGINEERING1,799,224 389,592 21.7% 100 - FIRE PREVENTION317,605 17,110 5.4% 100 - FIRE SERVICES7,597,637 378,541 5.0% 100 - GRAFFITI 124,698 39,639 31.8% 100 - LAKE MAINTENANCE1,376,069 123,829 9.0% 100 - PARK MAINTENANCE2,041,631 229,661 11.2% 100 - PLANNING & ZONING1,243,418 405,869 32.6% 100 - POLICE SERVICES12,431,410 564,131 4.5% 100 - PW ADMINISTRATION2,092,668 397,581 19.0% 100 - RECREATION926,806 170,883 18.4% 100 - SENIOR CENTER301,844 81,971 27.2% GAS TAX 110 - GAS TAX 3,084,340 37,439 1.2% LIGHTING, LANDSCAPE, MAINTENANCE DIST - CITYWIDE 130 - LIGHTING, LANDSCAPE, MAINTENANCE DIST - CITYWIDE1,676,410 72,488 4.3% LIGHTING, LANDSCAPE, MAINTENANCE DIST - NO. 1 135 - LIGHTING, LANDSCAPE, MAINTENANCE DIST - NO. 1 377,680 45,971 12.2% NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM 155 - NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM379,405 15,501 4.1% DESCRIPTION REF ID Multiplier Used for the Study 0.02210358 A/B Permit Valuation (Annual)101,465,100$ B FY2016-17 Expenditure Budget 1,847,551$ Cost Allocation Plan obligation %21.3900% FY2016-17 Fully Burdened Expenditure Budget 2,242,742$ A FY 2014 -17 Average Building Permit Revenue 1,761,553$ E % of Permit fee that is base Permit (weighted for all valuation amounts)87.4160% Building Permit Revenue Budgeted 1,539,878$ C Current Cost recovery 68.66051%C/A % of Building that should be recovered by Fees 100.0000% Revenue surplus/(deficiency)(702,864)$ C - A % fee change needed to obtain full cost recovery 45.6441%(C-A)/C % change applied to table 10.0000%D New cost recovery level 75.5266%(C/A) x (1+ D) CITY OF LAKE LSINOKE DREAM EXTREME June 4, 2018 Mr. Clint Lorimore Director of Government Affairs BIA of Southern California - Riverside County Chapter Via email SUBJECT: CITY USER FEE STUDY Dear Mr. Lorimore: Thank you for your input, for meeting with us, and for your questions and concerns regarding your review of the User Fee Study and the Cost Allocation Plan for the City of Lake Elsinore. The shared comments primarily focused on the proposed update of building permit fees by the City of Lake Elsinore (City) as a result of the review documented in the Comprehensive User Fee Study Report (User Fee Study) prepared by Willdan Financial Services ( Willdan), that forms the basis for the City's proposed update of building permit fees. In general, the comments submitted seek to challenge the methodology and calculations used by Willdan and the City to determine the proposed update of building permit fees. While the City issues dozens of various building permits, the comments are exclusively focused on the methodology and cost of building permits for single - family residences. The following is a summary of what appears to be the basic assertions and questions raised: The BIA asserts the City has collected net excess building permit revenue during the current and prior fiscal years; City Staff comments: The following are some of the errors contained in BIA's analysis that lead to its incorrect assertion: The BIA begins with a baseline assumption that evidences a failure to understand the City's true cost of reviewing, issuing and inspecting building permits. The BIA then assumes the annual expenses for the Building & Safety Department (including Fire Prevention services) should be equivalent to the annual building permit fee revenues, and that any positive difference demonstrates that excess building permit fee revenues were collected by the City. The primary error in the BIA's assumption is that the only expenses incurred by City when reviewing, issuing and inspecting building permits are the direct costs contained in the departmental expenses for Building & Safety and Fire Prevention services and does not include overhead costs. As explained in the User Fee Study (pp. 6 and 27), direct departmental costs (salaries, benefits and operating expenses) are only one component of calculating the City's cost to provide a municipal service. Other indirect cost components June 4, 2018 Mr. Clint Lorimore, BIA of Southern California Page 2 include city -wide overhead (costs associated with central services that support departmental operations such as administration, finance, human resources, legal, fleet, information technology, etc.), cross - departmental support (costs incurred by other departments /staff associated with review or assistance in providing the service), and off - budget items (additional capital costs associated with providing the service, such as technology acquisition, enhancement and replacement for building permit services). Each of these cost components are determined and calculated using a cost - allocation methodology commonly known and accepted as the "bottom -up" approach to establishing building permit fees. The result of these allocations provides detailed documentation of the City's reasonable estimate of the actual full cost of providing each service. The standard -unit cost build -up approach is widely utilized and accepted as industry- standard throughout cities and counties in California and across the nation. Based on the foregoing, the BIA's misunderstanding of how building permit expenses are determined leads to flawed calculations and erroneous conclusions by the BIA that there have been over- or under - collections by the City for building permit fees in the current or prior fiscal years. 2. The BIA questions the City assigning fifty percent of the Community Development Director's time to work dealing with the Department of Building and Safety; City Staff Comments: As discussed in User Fee Study, in determining how to allocate employee time and City costs, Willdan conducted an extensive time and materials survey and review of City functions and employee activities, including receiving time estimates to complete tasks, staffing structures, direct and indirect work hours and other pertinent information. One of the key study assumptions utilized in a "bottom up" approach to developing user fees is the use of time estimates for the provision of each fee related service. Utilization of time estimates is a reasonable and defensible approach, especially since these estimates are developed by experienced staff members who understand service levels and processes unique to the City. Also, given that the Community Development Director oversees major functions with generally equivalent budgets and staffing (Planning & Zoning and Building & Safety for example), it is intuitively logical and rationale that the Director's time would generally be split equally between the functions. The City's current year budget discusses this allocation which is based on input from departments and analysis performed by Willdan in the User Fee Study. The BIA presents no data or evidence to the contrary. 3. The BIA asserts the City has over - estimated the hours required for building permit review, issuance and inspection services; and City Staff Comments: In an attempt to demonstrate the City has over - estimated the hours required for permit issuance and inspection services, the BIA attempts to construct a contorted correlation of employee hours with a combined Fully Burden Hourly Rate (FBHR) for all employees and building permit fee costs to derive an average number of hours required to review, issue and inspect a building permit for a single - family residence. The BIA then extrapolates this data to June 4, 2018 Mr. Clint Lorimore, BIA of Southern California Page 3 conclude a minimum departmental staffing required to annually provide building permit services. The flaws in this attempted analysis are plentiful and we have limited our response to two critical areas. First, the BIA's analytical process once again utilizes the erroneous assumption of 2080 hours per employee (the study utilized 1,680 hours). Second, because the FBHR of employees are derived from a full -cost accounting of the service (see discussion under Section 1), it's erroneous to use the FBHR to calculate staffing hours. The amount of an FBHR is calculated and established to ensure the City recovers all expense inputs for the service which are spread across a myriad of departments and employees, not just the employees providing the direct service. 4. The BIA asserts the City should employ a deposit -based system for building permit fees that requires all staff track and assign their time per project and permit. City Staff Comments: While the BIA is correct that some jurisdictions have sought to implement a deposit -based building permit fee process, many jurisdictions throughout the state and nation continue to establish and collect building permit fees based on time estimates and valuation tables. Typically, a deposit -based user fee is appropriate for services for which time and material estimates are difficult, or there is little correlation between the time and materials and project scale /size. As explained in the User Fee Study, for building permit services, not only are good time and material estimates available for various tasks, it also widely accepted that time and materials required for building permits correlate strongly with project valuation. In otherwords, project valuation is a good proxy for measuring the amount of time and materials required for the associated building permit review, issuance and inspection. The State of Oregon, in fact, mandates cities and counties use of the permit valuation methodology (see Oregon Administrative Rules s. 918 - 050 - 0100). This strong correlation has been aided by the Building Valuation Data (BVD) Table produced and regularly updated by the International Code Council (ICC), which provides an average construction cost per square foot that can be used to scale base building permit fees. Use of the ICC's BVD is widely- accepted by jurisdictions throughout the state and nation as a reasonable and rationale basis for scaling building permit fees. The alternative methodology proposed by the BIA presents technological and management requirements, as well as additional costs, to ensure accurate time - keeping by every employee and continuing administration of the record - keeping and billing system. June 4, 2018 Mr. Clint Lorimore, BIA of Southern California Page 4 The multiplier used is as follows: DESCRIPTION Multiplier Used for the Study REF ID 0.02210358 A/B Permit Valuation (Average Annual) $ 101,465,100 The calculations support staff use of the multiplier and ICC valuation tables since the City's costs are not being fully recovered even after the study takes into account a 10% increase. Notwithstanding the analysis for full cost recovery including an applied 10% increase in the model, staff is proposing streamlining (no changes to initial approach) on building permits for residential which demonstrate decreases /reductions and fixed amounts as shown in the exhibit illustrated for an example 2,805 sq. ft single family unit (noted above). For other increases for the most was a blend approach department by department to step into getting full cost recovery including some that are full cost recovery. The user fee study and proposed rates and related fees represent a fair and reasonable fee structure with many fees not a full cost recovery, including focused review on building permit fees. Again, thank you for your input and comments regarding the City's User Fee Study. Sincerely, Grant es City anager FY2016 -17 Expenditure Budget $ 1,847,551 Cost Allocation Plan obligation % 21.3900% FY2016 -17 Fully Burdened Expenditure Budget $ 2,242,742 A FY2014 -17 Average Building Permit Revenue $ 1,761,553 C Current Cost recovery 78.54461% C/A % of Building that should be recovered by Fees 100.0000% Revenue surplus /(deficiency) $ (481,1897 C -A % fee change needed to obtain full cost recovery 27.3162% (C -A) /C % change applied to table 10.0000% D New cost recovery level 86.3991% (C/A) x (1+ D) The calculations support staff use of the multiplier and ICC valuation tables since the City's costs are not being fully recovered even after the study takes into account a 10% increase. Notwithstanding the analysis for full cost recovery including an applied 10% increase in the model, staff is proposing streamlining (no changes to initial approach) on building permits for residential which demonstrate decreases /reductions and fixed amounts as shown in the exhibit illustrated for an example 2,805 sq. ft single family unit (noted above). For other increases for the most was a blend approach department by department to step into getting full cost recovery including some that are full cost recovery. The user fee study and proposed rates and related fees represent a fair and reasonable fee structure with many fees not a full cost recovery, including focused review on building permit fees. Again, thank you for your input and comments regarding the City's User Fee Study. Sincerely, Grant es City anager