Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 1991 1218 CC REG ITEM 11C ill, 57/a)Mt 1771 I /7(1. • -';‘41.1111111P. .44 v9 MOORPARK el , 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 (80529.6864 � \�°o'� � PARK, CAL!r'ORNIA °4?- ° �,. City Co ncll Meeting 1 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT of ,y 199 STAFF REPORT ACTION: 51 i TO: The Honorable City Council / i •i By FROM: Patrick J. Richards, Director of Community Development DATE: December 17 , 1991 (CC meeting of 12/18/91) SUBJECT: A REPORT REGARDING POSSIBLE FEE INCREASE & SERVICES ADJUSTMENT FOR BUILDING & SAFETY SERVICES I . Introduction • Fees for Building and Safety services must be adjusted from time to time in order to assure that the cost of these services is borne by the beneficiary of the services . The cost of these services increases gradually and continuously. Fees should be adjusted on a regular basis in order to maintain effective programs and an appropriate level of service to the community. Currently the Building and Safety service provider has reduced staffing in response to the reduction in building activity. Inasmuch as supporting revenue is also being reduced; there is a need to consider the level of service provided to the public by Building and Safety at this time. II . Fee Discussion A. Status of Current Fees - Building and Safety Fees were last adjusted on May 31, 1988 when they were set at 40% above the County Fee Schedule. As of July 1, 1991 the Consumer Price Index has increased by 16 . 5% since the fees were last adjusted. Attachment No. 1 is a Building and Safety Fee comparison which demonstrates that building permit fees are currently slightly higher than neighboring jurisdictions and much lower than other cities . Currently, fees are collected and a certain percentage of the fees are set aside in an account or "cap" . The contract service provider bills against this cap. The extreme reduction in building activity has reduced revenue below the level that will support the Building and Safety program. The City is currently not covering CRL-12:16:91-12:25pm C:\WP51\PJR\B&512.18 PAUL W. LAWRASON JR. JOHN E.WOZNIAK SCOTT MONTGOMERY BERNARDO M. PEREZ ROY E.TALLEY JR. Mayor Mayor Pro Tern Councilmember Councilmember Councilmember Printed On Recycled Paper The Honorable City Council December 17, 1991 Page -2- the costs of this service from the level of activity fr being experienced either on a monthly or an extended monthly average basis . B. Recent History Regarding Fee Collected/Cost for Service - The average monthly cost of the Building and Safety service program for the past eight ( 8) months is $13, 794 . The average monthly revenue for the past eight months is $23, 158 . If the larger peak from the month of July is removed; the average for a seven month period is only $8,773 . Currently a variety of tasks are being accomplished by the contract service provider which has been charged against the "cap" or carryover amount each month. These activities include the following: 1 . Assemble and maintain such records as are customarily maintained by a City Building Department. Such records shall at all times be the property of the City and shall be open for City inspection. 2 . Assist with preparation of annual building and safety budgets . 3 . Maintain copies of the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) in the building and safety office for the convenience of the public . 4 . Report public nuisances to the City. 5 . Prepare State required Strong Motion Instrumentation Fund (SMIF) reports and submit same to City to allow for timely submission to the State. 6 . Prior to permit issuance, calculate and ensure payment of the police facilities, fire facilities and SMIF fees . In the future the City will need to be very careful in differentiating the type of charges inasmuch as they may not be connected with a fee and will further erode the "cap" or carryover amount. These additional types of tasks should be authorized only under a specific work request approved by the City. CRL-12:16:91-12:25pm C:\WP5I\PJR\B&S12.18 The Honorable City Council December 17, 1991 Page -3- C. Financial Structures - Building and Safety staff has contacted neighboring jurisdictions and inquired about the structure of Building and Safety program finances . The trend among neighboring cities and the County is to expect that Building and Safety programs be 100% self supporting. Other jurisdictions, however, do not recognize that administrative overhead is a cost of running a Building and Safety program. Their programs are, for the most part, self supporting but they do not pay for an appropriate share of the indirect costs associated with the administration of the City. Moorpark's Building and Safety program runs on a fee schedule that is roughly equivalent to neighboring jurisdictions . The direct costs of the program are covered by approximately 61% of the fees collected. (The contractor provides Plan Check review for 66 . 67% of fees collected and Inspection for 58 . 33% of fees collected. 61% is the weighted average of these two figures . ) Approximately 39% of fees collected are available to support other Community Development activities, principally planning. It is also needed for "extra" work related to Building and Safety activity when no fee is collected. An example is the various new State law changes such as the unreinforced masonry building requirements . D. The Recession - All neighboring jurisdictions that were contacted are in the process of coping with the recent downturn in construction activity. (Reduction accomplished by the elimination of one inspector and reduced hours by the Building Official. ) Two jurisdictions indicated that their Building and Safety programs are being subsidized from the general fund in order to retain in-house staff during the recession. Moorpark's Building and Safety program has been scaled back by approximately 50% in response to the recent downturn in activity. Certain economies have been available due to the integration of this program with the City Engineering program. The City Engineering contract currently requires the following: 1. Provide an office within the City. 2 . The office is to be open to the public between the hours of 8:30 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. CRL-12:16:91-12:25pm C:\WP51\PJR\B6512.18 The Honorable City Council December 17, 1991 Page -4- Although a discussion regarding fee adjustments during a period of recession may be questioned, all fees should be appropriately raised at any time so that those who benefit from the service are paying for it. E. Regular Review - Fees should be reviewed on a regular basis in order to assure smooth continuity of the program. Long delays between fee adjustments necessitate increases which appear higher. Regular review assures very modest adjustments . Fee schedules that keep up with inflation will help to avoid drastic adjustments in the future. For these reasons several neighboring jurisdictions have adopted fee resolutions which require regular annual review of fees . The City of Moorpark has recently adopted a resolution setting valuations for building permits and this resolution mandates an annual review of this aspect of the fee structure. F. Suggested New Fees and Surcharges 1 . Geology and Soils Review Fee - The City has recently been faced with problems associated with geology and soil failures . More problems of this type may be anticipated as the number of ideal building sites dwindle. Many of these problems may be traced to inadequate grading control and review. Major jurisdictions in Southern California who have accumulated similar experience have established geology and soil review systems to assure that geology and soil engineering reports are reviewed by qualified geologists and soil engineers who are specialists in these fields . They are also best qualified to advise grading inspectors and building inspectors on matters relating to grading compaction and control and foundation design when problems are discovered during construction. A fee should be collected to provide this service. Although the fee is collected by Building and Safety the amount is determined by the City Engineer as a provision of the Subdivision Final Processing Fee Schedule. This proposed fee is related to the construction within a certified pad only and is not the same fee chargeable by the City Engineer for Tract or Parcel Map geology review. CRL-12:16:91-12:25pm C:\WP51\PJR\B&S12.18 The Honorable City Council December 17, 1991 Page -5- The City of Moorpark has six conditions that suggest the value of establishing a geology and soil review mechanism. a. The City is in a hillside environment with future development occurring in steeper areas. b. Settlement problems have recently been identified. c . Typical development in the City involves extensive grading operations with homes being built on compacted fill. d. The City contains an area of high water table and granular soil that makes structures located within it more susceptible to severe damage in earthquakes due to liquefaction. e. Known geologic faults traverse the City. f. The City has a wide range of soil conditions from granular to highly expansive clays . 2 . Building Permit Surcharges - Currently there is a State-mandated building permit surcharge available which relates to the State-adopted handicap access regulations. The State allows the City to recover the cost of enforcement of this State-mandated program. The State Codes allow a five percent (5%) surcharge to be applied to permit and plan review fees where compliance with handicapped regulations is required. This fee surcharge is not currently being collected and it is proposed to be collected at this time. It will impact only commercial and industrial developers . 3 . Proposed Changes in Determining Value - Building permit and plan review fees are based upon the Building Official 's estimate of the cost of the construction. This estimate is called the "valuation" . Recent action of the Council has fixed the per- square-foot estimate to the average construction costs published in the technical journal of the International Conference of Building Officials for Good Quality Residential Construction. Currently, CRL-12:16:91-12:25pm C:\WP51\PJB\B6512.18 The Honorable City Council December 17, 1991 Page -6- all residential construction is being valued at $71 . 80 per square foot. No change is proposed to this value at this time for the referenced good quality construction. The City has recently approved two subdivisions in hilly areas of large parcels suitable for large luxury custom homes . Large custom homes often involve highly engineered and complex framing systems which require more time to plan check and inspect. The repeated use of the same plan that allows building inspectors to memorize plans and move efficiently does not exist with custom homes . When large homes are built in hilly areas they often involve complex foundation systems and large retaining walls . Such foundation systems consume more plan check and more inspection time. Typical large luxury homes in other hilly areas are actually costing between $100 - $150 per square foot, not $72 per square foot. Attachment No. 2 is a comparison which demonstrates that Moorpark's fee schedule for large luxury home development is very low. ( If we assume that the actual cost of construction for large luxury home development is $125 per square foot then the percentage of cost due to Building and Safety fees is only four-tenths of one percent. For example a 3600 sq. ft. dwelling unit at $125 per sq. ft. construction value would provide a $450, 000 dwelling unit. An average permit cost for a 3600 sq. ft. home would be approximately $2,000; the permit would be about four-tenths of one percent of the homes value. ) Two adjustments are suggested: a. That a two-tier valuation schedule be adopted that includes typical costs for good construction and very good (custom) construction. Large custom homes with certain characteristics will be valued at $90 per square foot. Good quality construction would continue to be valued at $71 . 80 per square foot in accordance with Council 's recent action. b. That the valuation of homes that are built on complex caisson and grade beam foundations or that involve large retaining walls typical of CRL-12:16:91-12:25pm C:\WP51\PJR\B&512.16 The Honorable City Council December 17, 1991 Page -7- hillside construction be increased by five to twenty percent. Exhibit "B" of the attached draft resolution (Attachment No . 5 ) outlines the characteristics that will be used to differentiate between classes of construction. III. Service Level - The Building and Safety service provider has reduced staffing of the Building and Safety program in response to the downturn in building activity. These reductions in staffing have reduced the average monthly cost of the Building and Safety program by approximately forty- three percent. Average costs for service through May 1990 was $25,000 per month. From April 1990 through February 1991 the average monthly cost of Building and Safety services was $15,000 . From March 1991 through October 1991 the average cost is about $13,000 . The average costs include both plan check and inspection plus any extra costs that have been billed against the "cap" . Such as the fireplace shroud and substandard building matters . Savings are also being experienced because City Engineering is being provided by the same provider and certain personnel and overhead costs are being shared by both programs . These savings are demonstrated by Attachment No. 2 . However, the building activity level has reduced to a level where the average monthly fees collected will not support the minimum program as defined in the contract with the serviceprovider. Currently, the contract with the service provider requires that the program be provided with a public service counter open eight hours a day, five days a week and a next day inspection guarantee. It should be noted that inasmuch as the Building and Safety contractor is providing engineering services; the engineering contract requires that an office be open eight hours a day, five days a week. Building and Safety and City Engineering share the same office and some of the coordination activities with outside public and private utility agencies are accomplished by the same person. Some clerical, counter, minor plan check and quasi- administrative functions for both departments can be accomplished by one person. CRL-12:16:91-12:25pm C:\WP51\PJR\B&512.18 The Honorable City Council December 17, 1991 Page -8- A. Options - After reviewing this matter it was determined that options were characterized as being of two types . The first centered on how to retain the existing service level and the second at what level was a "minimum" service acceptable. To consider the first option there needs to be an understanding that the current level of permit revenue is not sufficient to carry the service without a subsidy from the Community Development Fund or General Fund. Caution should be noted on the use of such funds inasmuch as they are not unlimited and reductions from such will reduce future options for other programs and services provided by such funds . The current 91/92 Budget does not provide the ability for the City to sustain such an activity for any length of time. The second option is a consideration towards a minimum level of service as follows: 1. Counter Hours The current contract requires that the inspector be available in the office a minimum of two hours per day. The Building and Safety office is currently staffed by a building inspector and a clerical person. Consider the elimination of the inspector at the counter freeing up this position to do inspection. Note that the inspector would more than likely be in the office and not completely unavailable. No change to office hours is considered inasmuch as this must remain open under the City Engineering contract. As a matter of fairness the clerk's responsibilities could be split with the primary counter person between the two offices . 2 . Inspection Hours Currently the Building and Safety office retains an inspector for eight hours, five days a week. Consideration could be made to retaining an inspector for only two hours per day, five days a week. With the integration of the City Engineers office this same inspector should be made available to accomplish those tasks . 5 days x $48 x 2 hrs . /day = $1920/mth. CRL-12:16:91-12:25pm C:\WP51\PJR\B&S12.18 The Honorable City Council December 17, 1991 Page -9- 3 . Clerk/Permit Technician Hours With the integration of Building and Safety and city engineering services this position could be supported by a 50/50 share in the cost of this position. 5 days x $29 x 4 hr/day = $2320/mth. 4 . Building Official Hours With the reduction in work load it would be expected that the amount of time needed for administration should be reduced. 4 weeks x $70 x 1 hr/week = $280/mth. Total $4520 per month With this reduced level of service there may not be the ability to guarantee next day inspection service. Consideration should be made in adjusting this matter also. The above is a suggested absolute minimum level of service which this office could provide. There are opportunities to consider various options between current service levels and this minimum level . However, it should be recognized that even the suggested minimum level of service may require some form of subsidy from the Community Development Fund or General Fund to support the service. This cost could be up to $4,520 per month if no revenue is generated to support the service. IV. Staff Recommendation A. That the City Council concur with the need to: 1 . Increase to Building and Safety fees; 2 . Establish new fees regarding geology and soils reviews; 3 . A two-tier range of valuations for residential construction; 4 . And the establishment of a valuation surcharge for complex foundation systems; and 5 . Direct staff to set this matter of Building and Safety Fee Increase for public hearing on January 8, 1992 . CRL-12:16:91-12:25pm C:\WP5I\PJR\B&S12.1B The Honorable City Council December 17, 1991 Page -10- B. That the City Council consider the establishment of a minimum level of Building and Safety service and direct staff as deemed appropriate. Attachments : 1 . Fee Comparison November 1991 2 . Moorpark Building & Safety Costs 3 . March 1, 1991 - October 31, 1991 Billing 4 . Annual Construction Costs 5. Resolution CRL-12:16:91-12:25pm C:\WP51\PJR\86512.18 FEE COMPARISON NOVEMBER 1991 QPRO\MOORCOM CITY TYPICAL VALUATION STRUCTURAL PLAN CK TOTAL PROJECT FEE FEE FEE MPK 11102 BROADVIEW $279 ,256 $1 ,308 . 63 $832 .00 $2 , 140 . 63 SIMI $280, 000 $1, 170 .90 $761 . 09 $1 , 931 .99 THOU $251, 066 $1 , 075. 10 $698 .88 $1 , 774 .08 COUN $257 ,680 $1 , 192.50 $775. 13 $1 , 967 .63 RPV $279 ,256 $1 , 500 .00 $1, 200.00 $2 ,700 .00 PV$ $407 ,248 $3 ,774 .00 $2 , 830 . 50 $6 , 604 .50 HH $279, 256 $4 ,304 .70 $3 , 635 . 19 $7 , 939 . 89. MPK 4165 KINGSVIEW $290,364 $1, 349 . 66 $858 . 43 $2 ,208.09 SIMI $291, 140 $1, 204 . 20 $782. 53 $1, 986 . 73 THOU $260,294 $1 , 104.90 $718. 19 $1 ,823.09 COUN $267,860 $1 , 227 . 50 $797 . 88 $2 ,025.38 RPV $290,364 $1 , 522 .00 $1 , 217 .60 $2,739 . 60 PVE $423 ,447 $3 , 918 . 00 $2 , 938. 50 $6 ,856. 50 HH $290,364 $4 ,430.30 $3,741. 02 $8, 171 .32 AlTiet OA .c ' 2- MOORPARK BUILDING AND SAFETY COST 40 AVERAGE raw WY 1900 38- `, AWRAGC ARL 1990 71171110L1011 MAW 1001 30- ii.CD aO 28— •{••uw• �in•A. Awn EU DialaTANO U MKT J I r20- • 1 1 e 1 1 • O 16- e . Oyu •�•u• • picots ocupe , • 10— , a- , , 0 rrrr' rrr1rrr ( rrrrrrre- rrr (rrr r ( ler rrrerrr JASONDJFMAMJJASONDJFMAMJJASONDJFMAMJJASON MONTHS, JULY-88 THROUGH NOV-91 ill I I TIL.TI r'l i:•rV I %ma H •v to to 44 N to in N 'C •c' .11 iv 'C _ O •t 0 C D K C •'. (D h '1 t0 t0 (L h O n to.. N . .-. < 7 0 r• •t ••( H 4+ .0 .... r r. u. 0 t•• r• r. .r 0 f0 Cl O 0 O A 7 r H ' W (moi C O, h n r" f].G. 0. x (O 0 A rt I. 7 to .r .0 3O O •1 O0 7 El) DI S Z x 0 •s r• K 0. 10 0 0 0 0 y W 41 r 0 I-. O C ^1 n .1 IA •• .}' O •t' O 4-. .0 )( I n M .0 rn (D 7 N 1. 7' n A C o oO (00 Cl i6-- fl 0 n r. .1 r• 0.0 - O. 0 ✓ 0 Vi H r . rs el ..0 .o 'I I . Y. .. I H 0 7 n 1 et ' N N R 0 y N ID 7 1t^�T (\ N a to -.I -I CO CO . O d'....3N t1 V .0 O v 0 0 0 ca• a CO r - ‘,.1h W N 4s w Oo 0 0 0 . 0 d . a5 0' CO 0 ' 0 r COO O LI. r (V 0' Cl 4.' Cl CO N N N O 1 w r «+. r tUD i II • .lJ A r co a 4n 4n Orn* ail \ w J 0 COD O V•N to co O O O O 0 O d 0 a O N o• to O O 0 7 0 O Co O O N 0 C. O V. O O O O O O o 0 Mr r in to of r v u 1 0 . Cl[1\ ' j A, t(' w -4 4»4" N W N in iA N N 7 • LV (1 r a• N an p 0 too O O O O 0 A r O r kVA 00 O U'• 0• 0 0 O » C. an - O' O V. O v O v 0 0 0 0 Co 0 0 r r N •° r r 0 0 O A O'CO 0 0 tr ] o 40 to 44 0 tto w n C Do i/�/(,J V. a 164 CA • 14 o 0 o v a go C' Co 0 O to C. 0 N Od O O Ot+' OO 0 00 00 COW \ / 40 \�/ 0 Co r a �� 40 A'C 0 W `O O• N 0 • d 0 . 0 0 0 C.64 W IT •-• �\.1 0 V. Cl.• 0 0 U• 0 0 0 r 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (D - • k 40 4.0 0. 10 W U. • N r r Co co -4 KO tel N '0 V' 4'7 0' -4 O 4+ N CDN th N in CO O A P N N V.�I d 0 0 CD O' • La • 0 • +I V' N..... 0 W 00 O• V•• 0• 0 01`4 0 LA • 0 ..0 Cl00V' 0 U' 0V' 00 O'P 00 0tr . N C N v w w� r e w I,-..0-7 .1 to co 0' to 4.1 a Or v' O 0 14 0 to O 0 14 et.0 0 N 0 V. ON 0 ON O 0 co co Co co O a 0 LT O LO OA 00 O A co 0 O O PA 7 n•. 7 VP • N (0 N in N M 10 {� 0'rt t�J' v W 0'a O 0 0 �0 0 0 O t-• 0 • o 0• 0 O O 0 O coa' 0 co 04+ OV' C.0 d0 00 00 00 0 0 ♦t r .0 N 1.1•U C0' 4-, w A V1 0 i/1 in Ll CDCO u.n r w N a O co a• 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 .- N N O O O 0• 0 O 0 N+1 'T"' V' V' 0 0' 0w 0 0 OV' 00 00 00 OV' 1n . 1•••r V) N t/1 4./1 0 0 N UI i/I 4. r H .0.o v w r v (•1 0'v' aN. J A IN•• a (d W .•I 4+ Cl.C''' r•r Co CO N 0 CO CO 4• CO O. Co A V' {/f CA 4) CD CD O' co Co a.A V. C. N A .O.0 0 CO C.' V LIw N V' . ON 0 N 0.... 71V Ch w 0 SDN NU 14 0 V' 0V' 0�I 0w CI or 0 4 00 co co W E- H O O . H H to V] O w W U OG Q ' W Z ooa mH CS U oC x dr (0 • co co gr (-4 CC aLn '• Z H • • • • Cal in .40 - 0 Z C4 o .. U v► a.. C.? d 4 Z • ►-a a) H S 4 co h7 CO w 4 w V4. in in CT ch .1 r a cn to v-4 CO 0 c - S. • H o a r+ !rf 44 -N M Z oaamm O ata M mininln E• ism en VI VI O r+ .tiri ICC 444*v►M 0 0 0 0 F to to do 4 W r r N ao in in in In CZ a at C4 e m a) H w 40 H tG O to > cn0a) moa O a a co 4 H Cal aSSC >- a E• 0 Z 4 ►-� tnSwa U 0 U 0IX 04 Zoo aa. tit 4z = —47 4fr 4 c • RESOLUTION NO. 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOOR- PARK, CALIFORNIA ADOPTING A REVISED FEE SCHEDULE FOR SERVICES RENDERED PURSUANT TO THE MOORPARK CITY CODE RELATING TO BUILDING AND SAFETY SERVICES. WHEREAS, state law and the Moorpark City Code require the performance of certain plan review, inspection and other services by the Building Official for the purpose of safeguarding the public health, safety and welfare; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Moorpark deems it appropriate for the cost of such services to be borne by the users and beneficiaries of same; and WHEREAS, the fee schedules for to these services must be revised from time to time to assure the complete recovery of costs associated with rendering such services; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1 . That fees for Building and Safety permits, plan review and other services shall be as set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. SECTION 2. That the Building Official shall determine valuation of construction projects using the multipliers set forth in Exhibit "B" attached hereto. SECTION 3. That fees specified herein shall take effect immediately. SECTION 4 . That resolution number 88-477 relating to fees for land use and development services is hereby rescinded provided, however, if it is determined that the rates, fees and charges set forth herein are wholly or partially invalid by virtue of any statutory or constitutional provisions, then the repeal of resolution 88-477 and adoption of this resolution as to any such rate, fee or charge is void.. SECTION 5. That the fees established in this resolution do not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of providing the service for which the fee is imposed. SECTION 6 . The Director of Community Development shall report to the City Council on the cost of development services and the adequacy of the fee schedule to recover these costs and shall make such report during the first quarter of each calendar year. SECTION 10. The City clerk shall certify to the adoption of this resolution and shall cause this resolution and its cer- tification to be filed in the office of the City Clerk of the City of Moorpark. APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of 1991 . Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk DJB;djb ws2000\0moor\fees23 EXHIBIT "A" , BUILDING PERMIT FEES CURRENT PROPOSED FEE FEE TOTAL VALUATION 1-500 $18.00 $18. 00 FROM 501 TO 1000 FIRST 500 $18.00 $18.00 EACH ADDITIONAL 100 OR FRACTION $2 . 16 $2 . 16 FROM 1001 TO 5000 FIRST 1000 $28. 80 $28 .80 EACH ADDITIONAL 1000 OR FRACTION $9 .60 $9 .60 FROM 5001 TO 10000 FIRST 5000 $67. 20 $67 . 20 EACH ADDITIONAL 1000 OR FRACTION $7 .92 $9. 25 FROM 10001 TO 50000 FIRST 10000 $106.80 $113 .45 EACH ADDITIONAL 1000 OR FRACTION $6.72 $9 . 10 FROM 50001 TO 100000 FIRST 50000 $375 .00 $477 .45 EACH ADDITIONAL 1000 OR FRACTION $3.96 $6 .30 FROM 100001 TO 500000 FIRST 100000 $503 .60 $792 .45 EACH ADDITIONAL 1000 OR FRACTION $3.30 $4 .50 FROM 500001 TO 1000000 FIRST 500000 $1,893 .60 $2,592 .45 EACH ADDITIONAL 1000 OR FRACTION $3 .12 $4 . 20 FROM 1000001 UP FIRST 1000000 $3,453 . 60 $4,692.45 EACH ADDITIONAL 1000 OR FRACTION $2 .76 $3 .45 PLAN REVIEW: THE PLAN REVIEW FEE SHALL BE 65% OF THE PERMIT FEE ENERGY CONSERVATION: PLAN REVIEW AND PERMIT FEES SHALL BE INCREASED BY 10% WHERE COMPLIANCE WITH CALIFORNIA ENERGY CONSERVATION LAWS IS REQUIRED HANDICAPPED ACCESS: PLAN REVIEW AND PERMIT FEES SHALL BE INCREASED BY 5% WHERE COMPLIANCE WITH CALIFORNIA ACCESS LAWS IS REQUIRED STRONG MOTION: PERMIT FEES SHALL BE INCREASED BY AMOUNTS AS REQUIRED BY STATE LAW TO SUPPORT THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA STRONG MOTION INSTRUMENTATION AND SEISMIC HAZARD MAPPING PROGRAM MISCELLANEOUS FEES: FOR ISSUANCE OF A SINGLE BUILDING, PLUMBING, ELECTRICAL, MECHANICAL, DEMOLITION, COMBINATION OR GRADING PERMIT $18.00 $21 .00 FOR ANY PERMIT, THE TOTAL FEE SHALL NOT BE LESS THAN $30.00 $35 .00 DEMOLITION WORK WHERE INSPECTION IS REQUIRED $30.00 $112 .00 PREMANUFACTURED BUILDING SET-UP $84 . 00 $224 .00 APPEALS HEARING $120.00 $805 . 00 OCCUPANCY INSPECTION $45. 60 $109.20 PHOTO COPY FIRST PAGE $0. 50 $0.70 EACH ADDITIONAL PAGE $0.25 $0.35 BUILDING RELOCATION $60.00 $109.20 RECORDS UPDATE $25.00 $36.40 REINSPECTION $28.80 $54 .60 OTHER: TOTAL COST TO THE CITY INCLUDING OVERHEAD GEOLOGY AND SOIL REPORT REVIEW: SEE THE SUBDIVISION FINAL PROCESSING FEE SCHEDULE. EXHIBIT "A" , ELECTRICAL PERMIT FEES CURRENT PROPOSED FEE FEE PERMIT ISSUANCE $18. 00 $21 .00 SYSTEMS PER SQUARE FOOT: FOR ONE AND TWO FAMILY DWELLINGS $0 .0300 £0.06 FOR MULTI FAMILY RESIDENTIAL $0.0300 $0.06 MANUFACTURING $0 . 0432 $0.06 COMMERCIAL $0.0396 $0. 10 BUSINESS AND ASSEMBLY $0 . 0360 $0 .06 AGRICULTURAL $0. 0072 $0.01 PRIVATE SWIMMING POOLS $28 .80 $42.00 PUBLIC POOLS $57 . 60 $70 .00 TEMP SERVICE: UP TO 200A $14 .40 $28.00 OVER 200A $28 . 80 $36 .00 UNIT FEE SCHEDULE: SERVICES: FOR 600V UP TO 200A $21 .60 $28.00 FOR 600V OVER 200A TO 1000A $36 . 00 $112.00 FOR OVER 600V OR OVER 1000A $56.00 $200.00 RECEPTICAL, SWITCH OR OUTLET $0.42 $0.70 LIGHTING OUTLET OR FIXTURE $0.42 $0.70 RESIDENTIAL APPLIANCES $5 . 70 $5 . 60 NONRESIDENTIAL APPLIANCES $11 .40 $14 . 25 POWER APPARATUS RATED IN HP , KW, KVA OR KVAR • UP TO 1, EACH $5. 70 $14 .00 OVER 1, UP TO 10 $5. 70 $42 . 00 OVER 10, UP TO 50 $36 . 00 $42 . 00 OVER 50, UP TO 100 $36 .00 $42 . 00 OVER 100 $36 . 00 $42 .00 BUSWAYS, EACH 100 FT OR FRACTION $7 . 20 $14 .00 SIGNS AND MARQUEES $28 . 80 $8.40 MISC APPARATUS, CONDUITS AND CONDUCTORS $7 . 20 S14 . 00 ANNUAL ELECTRICAL MAINTENANCE $57 . 60 $70 . 00 PLAN REVIEW: 50% OF PERMIT FEE OTHER: ACTUAL COST TO THE CITY INCLUDING OVERHEAD EXHIBIT "A" , PLUMBING PERMIT FEES CURRENT PROPOSED FEE FEE PERMIT ISSUANCE $18 . 00 $21 . 00 SYSTEM FEES: SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING $57 . 60 $67 . 20 SWIMMING POOL $30.00 $72 .80 SOLAR WATER HEATING $36.00 $42 . 00 UNIT FEES: FIXTURE OR TRAP $3.60 $4 . 20 WATER SERVICE PIPING $4 .80 $9 .80 GAS SYSTEM TO 4 OUTLETS $8 .40 $9 . 80 EACH OUTLET OVER 4 $2. 10 $2 .45 FUEL OIL PIPING SERVING A SINGLE APPLIANCE $8.40 $9 .80 WATER HEATER $8.40 $9 . 80 WATER TREATMENT EQUIPMENT $3 . 60 $4 . 20 BUILDING SEWER $8 .40 $56 .00 PRIVATE SEWAGE SYSTEM: CONTACT HEALTH DIVISION MISC REPAIRS $3.60 $4 .20 LAWN SPRINKLER SYSTEM RESIDENTIAL $4 .20 $4 . 90 LAWN SPRINKLER NONRESIDENTIAL $16 . 80 $35 . 00 VACUUME BREAKER OR BACKFLOW PREVENTOR $7 .20 $8 .40 INTERCEPTORS AND CLARIFIERS $7 . 20 $63 . 00 STORM WATER DRAINS INSIDE BUILDING $7 .20 $8 .40 ANNUAL MAINTENANCE $57 .60 $70 . 00 PLAN REVIEW: 50% OF PERMIT FEE OTHER: ACTUAL COST TO THE CITY INCLUDING OVERHEAD EXHIBIT "A" , MECHANICAL PERMIT FEES CURRENT PROPOSED FEE FEE PERMIT ISSUANCE $18 . 00 $21 .00 SYSTEM FEES: RESIDENTIAL COMFORT HEATING SYSTEMS PER SQUARE FOOT OF CONDITIONED AREA $0.0216 $0 . 03 UNIT FEES: HEATING APPLIANCE $14 .40 $16 . 80 SINGLE FLUE OR VENT SERVING AN APPLIANCE $7 . 20 $8.40 DUCT SYSTEMS FOR HEATING OR COOLING PER SQUARE FOOT OF AREA SERVED $0.0072 $0. 01 COMBINATION HEATING/COOLING UNIT $16 . 80 $25 .20 COMFORT COOLING UNIT $10.80 $16 .80 COOLING TOWER AND RELATED PIPING $8.40 $9.80 EVAPORATIVE COOLING UNIT WITH DUCTS $8.40 $9.80 INCIDENTAL GAS PIPING OR ELECTRICAL WIRING $8.40 $9.80 AIR HANDLING OR VENTILATING UNIT $7 . 20 $8.40 RESIDENTIAL EXHAUST FAN AND DUCT $4 .20 $4 . 90 COMMERCIAL KITCHEN HOOD $36 . 00 $56 . 00 REFRIGERATION UNIT UP TO 25 HP $7 .20 $8 .40 OVER 25 HP $28.80 $33 .60 BOILER $36 . 00 $70 .00 METAL BOILER CHIMNEY $7 . 20 $8.40 COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL INCINERATOR $36 .00 $77 . 00 INCINERATOR CHIMNEY $14 .40 $16 . 80 FIRE DAMPER 1-10 DAMPERS EACH $7 . 20 $18 . 20 OVER 10 $3. 00 $5 . 60 OTHER APPLIANCES AND EQUIPMENT $7 . 20 $8 .40 ANNUAL MAINTENANCE PERMIT $57 . 60 $70 . 00 PLAN REVIEW: 50% OF THE PERMIT FEE OTHER: ACTUAL COST TO THE CITY INCLUDING OVERHEAD NOTE : SEE THE UNIFORM ADMINISTRATIVE CODE FOR DETAILED CATAGORY DISCRIPTIONS. QPRO\MORFEE.WQ1 EXHIBIT "B" VALUATION PER SQ FT DWELLINGS, DETACHED,WOOD FRAME, GOOD QUALITY $71 .80 DWELLINGS, DETACHED,WOOD FRAME, VERY GOOD QUALITY $90.00 GARAGES,PRIVATE, ATTACHED $35 .90 GARAGES, PRIVATE, DETACHED $25 .35 BALCONIES AND COVERED PORCHES AND PATIOS ONE-THIRD OF THE DWELLING VALUE OPEN TRELLISES $ 8 . 00 DECKS MORE THAN 30" ABOVE GRADE $16 .00 RETAINING WALLS, CONVENTIONAL FOOTING $12.00 RETAINING WALLS, CAISSON & GRADE BM $24 . 00 BLOCK WALLS REQUIRING PERMIT $ 6 . 00 WINDOW CH OUT $24 .00 REROOF $ 2 .00 SKYLIGHTS $24 .00 SWIMMING POOLS & SPAS, GUNITE $29 .40 SWIMMING POOLS & SPAS, MANUFACTURED $20 .00 DEMOLITION OF ENTIRE BUILDINGS $ 5 . 00 OTHER OCCUPANCIES SEE BUILDING STANDARDS DTD JAN 1991 OTHER WORK SHALL BE VALUED BY THE BUILDING OFFICIAL BASED UPON HIS OR HER ESTIMATE OF THE COST OF THE CONSTRUCTION AND HIS OR HER ESTIMATE OF THE COST OF INSPECTION AND PLAN REVIEW. NOTES 1 . THE VALUATIONS ABOVE SHALL BE MODIFIED AS INDICATED FOR: A. HILLSIDE FOUNDATIONS INCREASE 5-20% B. SHELL ONLY DECREASE 20% C. TENANT IMPROVEMENT, GENERAL 20% D. TENANT IMPROVEMENT, RESTAURANTS 40% 2 . THE DETERMINATION OF VALUATION UNDER ANY OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE CODE SHALL BE MADE BY THE BUILDING OFFICIAL AND SHALL IN- CLUDE THE VALUE OF ALL CONSTRUCTION WORK INCLUDING FINISH WORK ROOFING ELEVATORS ETC. SEE SEC 304 OF THE UBC. VALUATION PAGE 2 3 . THE DETERMINATION OF QUALITY OF RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION IS BASED ON THE FOLLOWING CHARACTERISTICS: GOOD VERY GOOD 3-4 BEDROOMS 4+ BEDROOMS 2-3 CAR GARAGE 3+ CAR GARAGE TILE OR SHAKE ROOF TILE, OR SHAKE ROOF CONY. FRAME W/ EXPOSED CUSTOM FRAMING BEAMS 2 STORY MULTI LEVELS/STORIES FIREPLACE MULTI FIREPLACES MASONRY FIREPLACES COMBO. EXTERIOR SIDING COMBO. EXTERIOR MATERIALS SIDING MATLS. BRICK SIDING COMPLEX SHAPE COMPLEX SHAPE UPGRADE INT FINISH CUSTOM INT FINISH VAULTED CEILINGS VAULTED CEILINGS LOFT LOFT PATIO/DECK PATIO/DECK SKYLIGHTS SKYLIGHTS CIRCULAR/WINDING STAIR CIRCULAR/WINDING STAIRWAYS VIEW LOT MARBLE/TILE FLOORS COMMERCIAL GRADE KITCHENS BRIDGES ELEVATED FRAME GAR- AGE FLOOR ELEVATOR/DUMBWAITER SCULPTURED STONEWORK ADDITIONAL USES SUCH AS: LIBRARY MAID QTRS GYM SPA/JACUZZI THEATER INDOOR SPORTS COURTS & POOLS MUSIC ROOM DISCO/BAR CHAPLE STUDIO GATE HOUSE POOL HOUSE WS2\0moor\Fees24 ,- EXH PAGE #3 t •,... Valuation Data al me neoism m numnan 0000414 pi.CIais.Sunda", 11.HOTELS ANO MOTELS: I5.WAREHOUSES:•• •1anoaros burs me auowtne bonding vawauon Oita 'TYpe t or H i R 79.80 Type a ee II f R. !lt :0 rensenime average cons ape most°unam . &Kbyte TypeHI_I.r.nu, 68.90 Nog. V1..6.6.:40•. ".xl evOeMUl tAniatnes are the non cornrrton lot many en. Noy v1�N 60.10 'Noe 11 or 1 Y 11.60 30 Tvpe v_l.l.oa.. 1h0.10 True HI.-.l.rsprr 2L.lU es.two general classes ore coa»aoereo 10r mew.One for • Type v_-ru . 57.30 Tree lit-N :5.10 'overage'cohnruct.p"ono throttler for"good."Adjust. 12.INO VSTRIAI PLANTS: EQUI PMEN T rents would be mux Lor sorctat archwecsural at IOW.. Tvpe I or 41 F.R. 44.20 NDITG: ural seatur a arra►ocalwn d the prefect.Oben Ingner a Type IF.-I.Hour 30.40 Commercial AIR CONDITIONONIN3.!0 ower Hiss cons trim rerun. True 11--aSIOCI0 28.60 Ra ul 2.80 y with The unit casts are.nteroeo to Complth the deform. True u1...l.hlpyr .. .... 3 2.30 SPRINKLER SYSTEMS I.60 .on or"wlwtron'.n S¢Caton 423 04 the UrrIOnn Sind- True 116.44 ... 21.40 rllrno 22.40 ng Code- and thus inchoate archnati zal. $UUCMai. TypeV-I.11our 30.00 •.ectrrcal. plumbing. and mechanical work,wept as Type 4.4.-N 28.40 Regional Modifiers soecttiully listed Oetow.H aim)InCludel the contra eon's 13.MILS: xot14 which should not Pe om.ued. Type I or li F.R. 124.80 The Ioilowtn9 modifiers are recommended for use to Type 111-I.Hwr 113.50 cornunctsenw,mtheaunain/valwnondata.lnad0ason. The deienmi"atre"of plan check lees for projects re- T.role V-i.►,aotr. 81.60 cant focal COPPOIG n May WW1, twiner modiltca• .ie+.ed 6,the Miernataanal Conlerenc,oaf$s I g Of- ie.u$RARIES: lions. To use these mootuers.merely muhiplr lie Laser iciab will be bassi on•alumbo%cornvwed front Oen Type 1 or H F.R. 91.40 Coss per swan foot by the appropriate regronol moonier. I igure/which were cempiild in Type H+I.1idr 63.90 Forample: TypeI4.-N b0.70 To anus mit of a Type Ht-I.Hour betel building 01 April 994. Type H1.-1.liour 69.60 a cvtslrtxtton for me Iowa area.sent"Relttonal Cort oar Type IIs•.-N 66.20 Mata ler 0.80 and inn cost jrom va+uuaon data.568.90. Swan Foot Type V N 59.40 0.80 o 568.90 w555.10 Occupancy a ld Type Good IS.MEDICAL OFFICES: • ladwsted cost per Innen i00t1 T.APARTMENT HOUSES: 'hue'or 11 F.R. 93.40 •Tyge 1 or H F.R. 564.40 69.40 Type t1.-.i.Hour 69.50 Ewe n united Slates Modifier Type V-r wasonn Type 44-N 66.20 . COnnsciicvi 0.95 la Type 1111 68.70 55.10 Type 411-I.4o.0 76.00 Delaware 0.84 Type V.-vtfopo Frame 62.00 49.00 Type 01-N .72.50 0.87 Type I-Sasemer4 Garage.... 29.10 Type Vw�i.Hour 70.70 Fiends al Columbia � 0.74 2.AUDITORIUMS: Type VAN 4 66.90 Georgia 0.68 Tape 1 or 11 F.R. 84.40 16.OFFICES:"" Mauve 0.81 Type 14,-1-Hour 57.70 •Type l or ii F.R. 83.60 Maryland 0.79 Type 14.-N 54.90 Type la-l.a•%we • 54.20 massachinatIS 0.94 TypeNl-1.Mgrr 61.80 Type 14-e4 • 51.60 Marnpanire 0.82 Type III--N 58.90 Type Ill-1.159.60 NNew Tenet em0.91 Type V-I-Mout 56.60 Type 64,.. N ' 56.60 York Type V- r N 53.90 Type V-1.-Pleur 55.20 " New York Gip, 1.16 I.RANICSI Type V--N 52.60 Other 0.87 'Type lot II F.R. 116.40 17.PRIVATE GARAGES: Nam Cardw 0.70 Type ll-I-Hour 83.60 Wood frame 18.00 Type 0.-N 79.70 Masonry 21.40 Ptirwstyivsma 0.96 Type 116-I.rlour.. 94.90 Open Carports 12.90 Philadelphia.. 0.83 Troia H- Typ690.50 18.PUBLIC BUILDINGS: Isiand Othfr 0 94 • Type V-i.►bw 83.60 Type I or 11 F.R. 97.40 SouthCadry •L, 0.70 Type V-.43 79.60 Type ll-I.rsour 72.70y Vermont 0.80 N' 4.8OUNG ALLEYS: Type u-.N 69.50 Virginia 0.73 Type 11-1•Hour 38.90 Type 411•..1.4+our 81.40 Wen Virginia 0.82 Type 11- N 37.10 Type 44-N 77.70 Typelll-I-Hour 42.70 Type V-1.19ow12.00 CentralUnited atted Sutra Type 141-N 40.70 Type V-N 68.90 Alabama 0.72 Type V-1.$ipa.... .. .... 39.00 19.PIJSEIC GARAGES: Arkansas 0.70 S.CHURCHES: 'TAO or 1i F.R. 38.40 Illinois 0.87 Tree.or li P.R. 76.80 Type 41.-N 22.60 Indiana 0.82 Type 14-I•Mw+ 57.40 Type 111--1.11wr • 2:.10 Iowa 0.50 Type II--N 54.60 Type Ill-id 25.90 Kansas 0.74 Type HI-Latour 61.70 Type 110. 1• jour 22.50 Kentucky 0.77 Type H1P1 58.70 20.RISTAURANTS: Lowsiana 0.78 Type V-l.rlow.... ....... 56.10 Type id-I-Hour 72.60 M.CIMRan 0.84 .... 53.40 Type MI-N • 69.I0 Mnrsesaa 0.86 Trtxv�t ........ 6.CONVALESCENT HOSPITALS: Type Vl.ltour 64.30 minium/Po owns ••Type 1 a$i F.R. ... 109.00 • Type V.-N 61.20 Milson" 0.75 Type H4-I.Mdx . . . ..... 77.20 24.SCHOOLS: Nebraska 0.75 70.00 Tree 1 or 41 F.R. • 87.40 Norsk Dakota 0.80 7.1DWELUNGS: • hug ll-1.4-00ur 62.30 Olio 0.80 Type V-%aline ry 75.70 59.00 Type ill-I.riour 62.30 Oklahoma 0.71 Type V-wood Foam+e 71.80 50.70 Type Ill-N . 59,S0 South Dalian.. 0.78 basements- Type V-I.rlour 57.40 Tennessee 0.72 Sentr.i.ntsntd. 17.90 15.80 Type V-P. 54.40 regal 0.74 U"nl"ashed .. .. . 13.90 11.80 22.SERVICE STATIONS: Wisconsin 0.85 IL FIRE STATIONS: Type It--N. 51.80 Western United Stales Type 1 or HP R . .. 89.10 Type 114-1.Hour 52.00 1.30 Tyne ll-I.Hbor 57.70 Type V-I.Hpur 45.70 Alaska Type 1I--•N .... 54.90 Canopies.. 20.00 Anon, 0.82 Type Hl-I.liow 64.20 23.STORES: California 1.00 TyT,eui-N 61.00 •Tvpelalif.R. ..... Arteries 65.40 tOs1.13 Type V..l•Hour $7.40 Type H-1.Hour.... ..... 39.50 San Francisco Noe v Other 0.94 9.HOMES FOR THE ELDERLY: 54.b0 Type Hi--I•Hour .. .. . pie.0 Colorado ... 0.81 • T.•0ela1If R 80.40 TypeHl-N .. .. .. 45.40 Hewau .... 1 14 Type II-1.1elm, 64.40 Tvue V...I.Hour... 38.40 Idaho.... • 0.80 Tyne t!v • b1.40 Tye Vv 36.00 mansion 0.79 Nevada..... 0 89 1.ueHi-4.1t0.n 67.40 24.THEATERS: Newada...p 0 76 Type Ill....'. 44.20 Type I of H f R . . 85.20 0.76 1.-pe v-I.ty.,u, 64.00 Type Hi-I-mai ... 61.80 Oregon 0.75 3 58.80 Utah o as r,SP 1_.S 60.90 Type o1 ... Was/ism/ton.. 10.HOSPITALS: Type V-I-Puha... 55.70 Wine.. .. 0.80 •1.•ne tin 1!1 R 127.70 sync V 53.20 t.noll_i.Pstir 106.20 r.yr\'-la1..w Y8 at) • .4.40O 5 to t cni 4n44.44.14.nu.01,.h FUN V,o.rr lhh`e. •• 'vd.,cl I• tat••<e••i.rn.n.n. a.Novve. ••• OaduCI 20 psN<eM for shill.Wmy buiktevel.