Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Agenda Bill 4.GPart1 11/15/2010
p' j85 DATE: November 15, 2010 ,4ge*�Itevw # 4.C� TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council through City Manager FROM: Marc Puckett, Finance Directo Prepared By: Sandra Sato, Int rim Finance Director SUBJECT: Public Hearing on Resolution approving changes to the Master Fee Schedule RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council hold a Public Hearing on proposed changes to the Master Fee Schedule to ,implement the recommendations of the Cost of Services Study ( "User Fee Study "), take public input, provide direction to staff and adopt a Resolution establishing a schedule of fees and charges for City services and repealing previously adopted and conflicting fees and charges for such services. BACKGROUND This action updates what are generally known as "user" fees, or charges for services provided by the City to an individual, business or group. User fees were last updated by the City in 2007. Building Division user fees and a fee assessed for General Plan implementation as a percentage of Building Division fees are not being modified at this time. Development impact fees which mitigate the impacts of development•projects on City infrastructure and facilities were separately adopted in 2008 and are not included in this fee update. Water and wastewater capacity and connection fees which were also :updated in 2008, housing in -lieu fees, the public art fee and other miscellaneous fees which are not user fees are similarly not included in this fee update. The City contracted with Matrix Consulting to perform a User Fee Study. A presentation on this study , was made by Nicole Kissam of Matrix. Consulting at the November 1, 2010 meeting. As required by law, :a Notice of Public was published on November 4 and November 11. The data showing the :estimated cost of various services, sources of revenue to fund the services and proposed changes to the Master. Fee Schedule were made available to the public on November 4, 2010. Agenda Review: City Attorney Finance Director 1 W City Manager V i f DISCUSSION The study reviewed the City's fees and made recommendations based upon the costs necessary to support the 'various user fee services identified in the FY 2010 -11 budget. The study concluded that certain fees are too low to recover costs, while some fees require adjustment to avoid over - recovery of costs. There are also new fees proposed at levels designed to fully recover the costs of providing the related services. Based upon the study results, staff is recommending the following policy for recovery of costs: 1. Non Recreation Services: Administration, Police, Animal Services, Fire and Public Works Fees Staff is generally recommending 100% cost recovery phased in at no more than 20% annual increases, except in a few cases where the amounts were small or the circumstances otherwise warrant. Where current fees are determined to be recovering more than the cost of service, the fees are reduced to the cost recovery amounts. For example, the license fee for intact dogs is being recommended for reduction from $38 to $20, more closely reflecting costs of that-service. The license fee for neutered dogs is being recommended for an increase from $11 to $15, a 35% increase, which is still substantially less than the cost of providing this service. Last year, the City subsidy for services related to neutered dog licenses was $19,464. 2. Building Division Services to Community Development Building Division Services are not recommended for changes at this time from the fees set by Resolution No. 2007-193, based on the analysis in the User Fee Study, except that additional services to Community Development by the Building Division not covered in Resolution 2007 -193 will be billed at 100% cost recovery hourly rates for Building Division personnel. 3. Recreation Fees and other fees not based on. staff time Recreation and certain other fees not based on direct cost recovery of staff time were analyzed in the User Fee Study on a program basis. Because many recreation services are considered to provide community benefit, the fees typically recover less than 100% of the costs of services. The User Fee Study estimates that the Recreation Services Division is currently recovering approximately 45% of the cost of providing its services to the community. The changes to recreation service fees and rental rates are shown in the Master Fee Schedule, and are based upon competitive market factors. Most rental fees are unchanged, except for additional damage deposits, cancellation fees, new rental fees for the Kenilworth Recreation Center and City Hall Chambers. Marina fees are recommended for increase, including a split rate intended to account for the utility use of larger vessels. The proposal is consistent with how other facilities in the region assess moorage charges and is the only efficient method available to recover these costs. While these increases are less than what would be needed .for full cost recovery they will maintain at least the status quo for recovery of costs through fees. 4. Development Services Fund Fees The City currently out- sources its planning function to: M- Group. To recover the costs of providing these services, M -Group charges applicants on a time and materials basis,, billed against deposits collected for various projects. The hourly rates for M -Group services are :contained in.Attachment l.d. M -Group has recommended increases in the deposit amounts for minor use permits and CEQA initial studies, based on recent experience and as detailed in Attachments La and 1.d. A small number of services are provided for flat fees. The User Fee Study supports a decrease from $170 to $97 for processing a Home Occupation permit, and a new $25 Zoning Compliance .Fee to check zoning on business license applications in commercial districts, as shown in Attachments La and l .d. It is recommended that business license application and renewal fees be eliminated, to more closely reflect staff time spent on these tasks. The remaining flat fee amounts are unchanged. Because EIRs prepared, to satisfy CEQA are often, complex and require work by departments other than Community Development, City Manager, Clerk and Finance; work by City staff on EIRs, other than M- Group and general administration services, will be charged to "the project on a cost recovery basis based on the City's hourly work order rates for involved personnel. The User Fee Study establishes that an administrative charge added to the M -Group cost recovery rates would be appropriate to recover departmental and Citywide costs which support planning program activities needed to process development applications. The User Fee Study esiimated that an administrative charge of up to 15% would include the costs of. both general departmental support by M -Group not , paid through individual application fees shown above, e.g., public counter support and general administrative duties, and Citywide overhead costs established through the Matrix Consulting Group's Cost.Allocation Plan for costs associated with the City °Clerk Finance, City Manager, and other administrative functions. However, not all of these departmental and Citywide overhead costs are attributable to development project processing.. Therefore,, an administrative charge for cost recovery fees is .recommended.. at 9 %, after deducting a portion of the departmental and City overhead attributable to general counter service and other services which do not.result in development applications. The existing 1% Records Management and 5 1 /o Technology Fee are eliminated. 5. Effective Date of Fee Adjustments. Adjustments to development related fees, which are indicated by asterisks on Exhibit A to the proposed resolution, will take effect 60 days after adoption of the resolution in accordance with section 660 17 of the Mitigation Fee .Act and all other fees become effective immediately upon adoption. 3 Similar to prior fee resolutions, the. proposed "resolution provides 'for annual fee -adjustments at the beginning of each fiscal year, based upon the percentage increase or decrease in the Consumer Price Index (San Francisco- Oakland -San Jose). FINANCIAL IMPACTS: If the new Master Fee Schedule: is adopted, General Fund revenue will increase by an estimated $150,166 annually. Revenue to the Development Services Fund for Planning and Building Permits will vary based upon development activity, and is expected to remain at the 100% cost recovery level. Revenue for Recreation and other services and fees is expected to remain at the same level, but is dependent on seasonal activity and the economy. Revenue from Marina mooring fees are expected to increase and will .offset operating expenditures, but will not be sufficient to pay the debt service. on the Marina Loan. ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution adopting a revised Master Fee Schedule a. Exhibit A. to the Resolution: Master Fee Schedule b. Exhibit B to the Resolution: Final Report on the Cost of Services Study (User Fee Study), Matrix Consulting Group, August 10, 2010 C. Exhibit C to "the Resolution: Summary of Proposed Non - Recreation Fees d. Exhibit D to the Resolution: M -Group Cost Recovery (Community Development Department) Fees, and M -Group hourly rates a ATTACHMENT 1 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL.OF THE CITY OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING A SCHEDULE OF FEES AND CHARGES FOR CITY SERVICES AND REPEALING PREVIOUSLY ADOPTED AND CONFLICTING FEES AND CHARGES FOR SUCH SERVICES WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Petaluma ( "City ") has previously established fees and charges for City services, with the intent of recovering up to the City's estimated actual and reasonable costs to provide such services; and WHEREAS, the City wishes to comply with both the letter and the spirit of provisions of law applicable to local government fees and charges, including applicable provisions of the California Constitution; and WHEREAS, in adopting the fees and charges for City services as set forth in this Resolution, the City Council of the City of Petaluma is exercising its powers under Article XL Sections 5 and 7 of the California Constitution, Section 66014 of the California Government Code, and other applicable law; and WHEREAS, the City has a policy of recovering up to the full cost of providing voluntary services from those persons utilizing them so that general taxes are not diverted from general services to unfairly or inequitably subsidize voluntary services; and WHEREAS, none of the fees and charges set forth in the schedule of fees and charges adopted by this resolution is a "tax" as defined in Section 1, paragraph (e) of Article XIIIC of the California Constitution, because: such fees and charges are imposed for a specific government service or product provided directly to the payor that is not provided to those not charged, and which does not exceed the reasonable cost to the local government of providing the service or product; and /or such fees and charges are imposed for the reasonable regulatory costs to a local .government "for issuing licenses and permits, performing investigations, inspections and audits enforcing agricultural marketing orders and the administrative enforcement and adjudication thereof, and/or such fees and charges are imposed as a condition of property development; and WHEREAS, the fees and charges set forth in the schedule of fees and charges adopted by this Resolution are not subject to the requirements of Article XIII D of the California Constitution concerning property related assessments and fees pursuant to Apartment Association of Los Angeles County v. City of Los Angeles (2001) 24 Cal. 4th 830, in that such fees are not applicable to incidents of property ownership, but rather to actual use of City services; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Government Code Section 50076, fees and charges that do not exceed the reasonable cost of providing the service or regulatory activity for which the fees are charged and which are not levied for general revenue purposes are not special taxes as defined in Article 3.5 of the Government Code; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Government Code Section 66014, local agency fees for: zoning variances, use permits, building inspections, building permits, filing and processing applications and petitions filed with the local agency formation commission or conducting proceedings filed under the Cortese -Knox Local Government Reorganization Act of 1985 (Government Code § 56000 et seq.), processing maps under the Subdivision Map Act (Government. Code § 66410 et seq.), or planning services shall not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of providing the service for which the fee is charged; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Government Code Section 65104, fees to support the work of planning agencies shall not exceed the reasonable cost of providing the service for which the fee is charged; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Government Code Section 65456, legislative bodies may, after adopting a specific plan, impose a specific plan fee upon persons seeking governmental approvals which are required to be consistent with the specific plan, and, such fees shall, in the aggregate, defray but not exceed the cost of preparation, adoption and administration of the specific plan; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Government Code Section 65909.5, reasonable city fees for the processing of use permits, zone variances, or zone changes shall not exceed the amount reasonably required to administer the processing of such permits, zone variances or changes; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Government. Code Section 66451.2, reasonable local agency fees for the processing of tentative, final and parcel maps shall not exceed the amount reasonably required by the agency; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Health and Safety Code Section 17951, city governing bodies may prescribe fees for permits, certificates or other documents required or authorized concerning implementation and enforcement of the California Building Standards Code, and such fees shall not exceed the amount reasonably required to administer or process those permits, certificates or other forms or documents, and shall not be levied for general revenue purposes; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Health and Safety Code Section 19132.3, city governing bodies may adopt fees for filing building permit applications, and such fees shall not exceed the amount reasonably required for the.local enforcement agency to issue such permits, and shall not be levied for general revenue purposes; and WHEREAS, in accordance, with Health and Safety Code Section 19852, city governing bodies may prescribe such fees as will pay the expenses incurred by the building department in maintaining the official copy of the plans of buildings .for which building permits have been issued, but such fees shall not exceed the amount reasonably required in maintaining the official copy of the plans for which building permits have been issued; and I WHEREAS, fees :adopted pursuant to Government Code 'Sections 66014, 65104, 65456, 65909.5, and 66451.2, and, Health and Safety Code Sections 1795.1, 19132.3, and 19852, are to be imposed pursuant to Section 66016 of the Government Code, which imposes certain procedural requirements prior to levying a new fee or service charge,, or prior to approving an increase in an existing fee or service charge; and WHEREAS, in accordance with the Government Code Section 66016, the cost analysis and support for a fee or service charge which will be increased pursuant to this Resolution was available for public review and comment for ten days prior to the public hearing at which this Resolution was adopted; and WHEREAS, in accordance with California Government Code Section 66016, at least 14 days prior to the public hearing at which the City Council first considered adoption of the fees established by this Resolution, notice of the time and place of the hearing was mailed to eligible interested parties who files written requests with the City for mailed notice of meetings on new or increased fees or service charges; and WHEREAS, 10 days advance notice of the public hearing at which this Resolution was adopted was given by publication in accordance with Section 6062a of the Government Code; and; WHEREAS, it is the intention of the City Council to adopt a schedule of fees and charges, which updates certain existing fees and charges, and/or establishes certain new fees and charges based on the City's budgeted and projected costs of services; and WHEREAS, the schedule of fees and the total amounts thereof, described in Exhibit "A," which is attached to and made a part of this resolution, are hereby determined to be reasonable in that the amounts thereof do not exceed of the estimated reasonable costs of providing the services for which the charges and fees are made; and WHEREAS, with respect.to fees and charges to be increased, the City has analyzed its fees and charges, the costs of providing services, the beneficiaries of the services, and the revenues produced by those paying charges for such services, and such analysis is contained in the Final Report on the Cost of Services Study dated August 10, 2010 ( "Study ") which is attached to and made a part of this resolution as Exhibit B; and WHEREAS, the Study data and analysis is supported by and consistent with the data, analysis and conclusions contained in the departmental User Fee Tables ( "Tables ") and M Group Cost Recovery Fee Schedule ( "Schedule "), which Tables and Schedule are attached to and made a part of this resolution as Exhibits C and D, respectively; and WHEREAS, Study data and analysis is also supported by and consistent with the Full Cost Allocation Plan ( "Plan "), which Plan is incorporated into this resolution by reference as if set forth at length ; NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Petaluma resolves as follows: Section 1. -Findings. The following findings are true and correct and adopted as the findings of the City Council: A. The purpose of the fees and charges set forth in Exhibit "A" of this Resolution is to recover up to the full, lawfully recoverable costs incurred by the City in providing various; City services, and such fees and charges not levied for general revenue purposes. B. After consideration of the data and information regarding the costs of providing services relating to all fees and charges subject to this Resolution, including the Study, Tables; Schedule and Plan, all testimony received orally or in writing at or before the noticed public hearing, the agenda report and the background documents to the agenda report (together, "Record "), the City Council of the City of Petaluma approves and adopts the cost analysis contained in the Study'(Exhibit B), and the supporting data, analysis andI conclusions contained in the Tables (Exhibit C) the Schedule (Exhibit D), and the Plan. C. Adoption of the fees and charges set forth in- Exhibit "A" of this Resolution is intended to recover costs necessary to maintain. such services within the City within existing :service areas and is not a "project" within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act ( "CEQA ") pursuant to 14 California Code of Regulations ("CEQA Guidelines ") section 15378(b)(4) (the creation of ;government funding mechanisms or other government fiscal, activities which do. not involve any specific commitment to any specific project which may result in a potentially significant impact on the environment); and/or CEQA Guidelines section 15273 (statutory exemption for rates, tolls, fares and charges within an existing service area); and/or CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3) ('common sense' general exemption where there is no possibility the activity in question may have a significant .effect on the environment). E. The Record establishes that the costs listed in the fee schedule, the Study and other exhibits to this resolution for those fees and charges which are. to be increased, and/or established as costs incurred by the City in providing City services are freasonable estimates of the cost of providing such services, and .that the revisions recommended to existing fees for such services are necessary to recover reasonable, estimated.cost of providing such services. Section 2. Fee Schedule Adoption and Repeal of Prior Inconsistent Fees and Charges. The schedule of fees and charges'set forth in Exhibit "A ", of this Resolution are hereby directed to be computed by and_ applied by the various City departments, and to be collected by the City Finance Department for the herein listed special services when provided by the City or its designated contractors. Section 3. Separate, Fee for Each Process. All fees set by this Resolution are for each identified process or service; additional fees shall be required for each additional process or service that is requested or required. Where fees are indicated on a per unit of measurement basis, the fee is for each identified unit or portion thereof within the indicated ranges of such units. • Added Fees and Refunds. Where additional fees need to be charged and collected for completed staff work, or where a refund of excess deposited monies is due, and where such charge or refund is ten dollars ($10.00) or less, a charge or refund need not be made, pursuant to California Government Code Sections 29373.1 and 29375.1 and amendments thereto. • Deposits Plus: Staff Time and Materials. This means that the applicants will be billed for the full cost of processing the application - based on the cost of staff time and material's .in excess of the amount of the deposit. Staff hourly rates shall be fully burdened and be determined by regular work rates established by the City of Petaluma Finance Director for the given fiscal year(s) in which the application is processed. For applications requesting multiple entitlements or services, the deposit shall be the sum of the individual amounts. The City Manager shall have the authorityto modify or waive staff time and material costs when circumstances warrant. • Flat Fee Applications. This is an application fee that does not include staff time and materials. • Full Cost Recovery Applications. This includes a deposit amount and the actual costs of the staff time and required materials. Section 4. Interpretation. This Resolution may be interpreted by the several City department directors in consultation with the City Manager and, should there be a conflict between two fees or that may apply to a service, the higher in dollar amount of the two fees or charges shall be applied. Section 5. Use of Fee, Revenue The revenues raised by payment of the fees and charges established by this Resolution shall be used to fund the estimated reasonable cost of providing the services for which. the fees are charged, and the revenues from such fees and charges shall not be used for general revenue purposes. Section 6. Subsequent Analysis and Revision of the Fees The fees and charges set herein are adopted and implemented by the City Council in reliance on the Record identified above. The City may continue to conduct further study and analysis to determine whether the fees and charges for City services should be revised. When additional information is available, the City Council may review the fees and charges to determine that the amounts do not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of providing the services for which the fees and charges are charged. I Section 7. Annual Adjustment The fees and charges set forth in Exhibit "A" shall be adjusted by the City Manager on July lst of every by the percentage increase or decrease in the Consumer Price Index —All Items Index (San Francisco- Oakland -San Jose). Section 8. Effective Date This Resolution shall become effective immediately. In accordance with Government Code Section 66017, all new and /or increased fees and charges upon a development project, as defined in Government Code Section 66000, which apply to the filing, accepting, reviewing, approving, or issuing of an application, permit, or entitlement to use shall be effective no sooner than 60 days following the effective date of this Resolution. Those fees and charges upon a development project are identified with an asterisk in the attached Exhibit A. All other new and /or increased fees and charges not subject to. Government Code Section 66017 that are set forth in Exhibit A shall become effective immediately. Section 9. Repealer: These fees and charges shall supersede the corresponding fees previously established and adopted by the City Council. All previously adopted and conflicting fees and charges and all Resolutions and other actions of the City Council are hereby repealed to the extent they conflict with the contents of this Resolution. Section 10. Severability The individual fees and charges set forth in Exhibit "A" of this Resolution and all portions of this Resolution are severable. Should any of the fees or charges or any portion of this Resolution be adjudged to be invalid and unenforceable by a body of competent jurisdiction, then the remaining fees, charges and/or Resolution portions shall be and continue in full force and effect, except as to those fees, charges, and/or Resolution portions that have been adjudged invalid.. The City Council of the City of Petaluma hereby declares that it would have adopted each of the fees and charges set forth in Exhibit "A" of this Resolution, and this Resolution and each section, subsection, clause, sentence, phrase and other portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that one or more of the fees, charges, or sections, subsections, clauses, . sentences, phrases or other portions of this Resolution may be held invalid or unconstitutional. 1544411.5 �O 2009�Annual,SF Bay Area CPI - 224:395 2008-Annual SF Bay'Area CPI - 222.767, increase 0.73% M a s CITY OF PETALUMA FEES e, �F 2010;Fee_ -- .. (711109) ATTACHMENT'1 A EXHIBIT A Proposed FYI I 9 Change .. ' MIPIISRATtYE FEES �. u: ;Convenience Fee for Credit Cards opplies' to' all City charges 250 no change 09 rPkSS OR PRQ « ..ESSINC FEE`' UTom, � "�� _,�,u<�_ � � , W r MM ER)"R �•IJ P,t af PASSPORT PHOTO FEE $ 10, no change 0% Jh r5c' F,"`" 3 gyp ' 1 '�c'7°'�` 4€E :; >Y -3R' X25 ne,W� ESCROW CONTRACT REVIEW $ 141 cA�..,. .. new C ©NtMU1JlT1! BEUELMEN SERVICES ur y ° r^ ,.x ex.. City Administrative Overhead - applies to all Plannnq fees, 9% new `Ewttling D x157 nand Builder {rrelated ar se ea alb t p _ �',G�`..5.va ff %• - `sx 5z a.�..,.$;;�e VARIANCE" $ :3;686 plus time and matendls over $3686 no change 0% � USE PERMIT MAJOR $ 4 254 plus time and materials over $4254 no change 0 M; ZONING AMENDMENT MAP $ 5,388 plus time and materials over $5,388 no change 0% $.. PA7`:' us fihTe and rya „eri?�Is , i �3� 21 _ . ; . �Fipr 4� �T fl� ZONING AMENDMENT MINOR REVISION PUD /PCD /SPPUD $- 964_r plus time'and materials over $967 no change 07. S8DIV €StOP1ORi3fFtAtCEA'ENDMEfITr�' w max' 1 Y1dnS t�� �� f $ 33 >_ P'� {Er ie cvttl stTa der $d d80 no _,. _. _.... TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP $ 7,315' plus hmeiand materials over $7,'315 no change 0% I'tN n z `�.$ 2Q t�lt�sts! nzdsaVer,$2:S50 ME a!�: MM ,._ ._ a _.�4�lar?ne FINAL PARCEL MAP $ 2 211 plus $2578 for engineenng technical review no change 0 %: FtNALSUBiJIVIS30NIP x 1� lus$ "2578Yreneerm t� p� Ire3rew - ,tiC; ..,......�..�....,,E .,._.....,...- ,,._......«....., .____ :,. f1dlSGle� r, y -' TENTATIV E`;MAP.'AMENDM ENT z $ 5 671 plus time.pnd materials over $5,671 no change 0% F,t AL MAPS ME NT 3.' $ 3 �S�Y,f�rl.. 4 $ zd Pius br3g4 T?� w _ ., HOME OCCUPATION I $ 170 $ 97 43% _ EO ADJUSTttNTf „I ASR ,_` Yd s$µ 2;A sting aria rrJRienats 2445 r ' `' CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE $ 3,402 plus time and materials over $3A02 , no change 0% « EN TEXI�AMENA? __ ,...,.ate 7 RRMGEN�Lc � m� a h_ . _ GENERAL PLAN MAP AMENDMENT $ 4,990 plus time and materials over $4;990 no change 0% t$PEC�_iF[CPtAN� & � �' x> , ✓f =:A � �, �.' �� 3 $ 6f� : >. lUs tunt3 andsm e als fl�Ve 7, d00� s � g "� i � non ` «sw, .� _,a SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 7, Pl time and materials over $7 600 no change 0% 111 ALT�1n (3NtvfEN7 L c r $ r I V 7 H�t A v ivs time a ela s r%ez s fe P_. 7 a5. c _ s ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Consultant fee plus actual cost of staff time and materials no change 0% .CA OC}�ICA TtON,r .. � ,; �> � �'>^ _ �fiA ngcFa T_ P s r ._ .,<., .> ..� c�_� � � „- nge.a�- o -. '..`�,�' ma=r`'• , _ STREET NAME CHANGE $ _ 170 no thane 0% ANNEXATION + . $ 5,897 plus .time) and materials over $5;897. no change, .. 0% SIf .PLAN'& ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW MAJOR '$ 5,217 plus time'and mgterials•over $5;21=7 no change 0% liDD1TIC3NlRE IODEE It i APFRtSVE 7aNt5TORfC DfSTRI T ? AR , us tlrne and, mate: s a of 4dA ` n r t a 4 0 PRELIMINARY REVIEW STAFF $ 2;608' plus time and materials over $2,608 no change 0% FL000 DE7ERMkhIATiON � F �1 4 us Jim aiid erio s fiver 5> � 06 ZONING PERMIT (LU,P.) $ 227 no change 0% ;ZONt G COQ£ COMTjL1ANCE REVtE1N? T ` �� x� 25 s u HERITAGE(LANDMARK'3REE DESIGNATION No Cfiargg no change ^ 0% `'DEVELC?PtvIENT.AtSPE•A`L � a :. s RM t _ t'fij eaRt3f+1 flier$f4y"tPR'salfeewflfea':v ..`. s 001 th �ppBaanT lj b ddit cosl5T :. any ript .� , fr a ti de �W rid W pQ. o �� 4 l ,z„ of ocess tk�e €at7 al or{ a af(i me a rnatenalS btls 1f' �Y `.. r g 193r a nr ' , beta I o change rr 6c fi crr- appeal the oppeal fee shall be g �, f3% `f ; „ ` t r <93 a c on addit t a ts,of oc 'ssi , e'a ” £at st]C7I be r<: � d ,andtYiaterlalsbgsts • - .� >.«.x,.�. .< _.,s+«•.� s «.._.,.�, ;. a-_. ..._<:.�s��,. «a�s «,t';,..._" ,,..w'`7•.�..X�'.,�,, - .,..,. «' „:« i �r s > „ >, F.ENCE,PERMIT $._.:... 97.. _, no change E k z EXTENSION OF TIME. _ " $_ _ 335' _ plus Time and materials over$335' no change 0 % _ DETERMtNAT10NO E}BLfG GOt IVENiENC fl i4EGE5S a , c ` f 5 '' ius e and mdtene is o�v r 2838 `n c an e t Less tha6l$500,000; 6% of estimated cost'.or $2,143 whichever is` PUBIIC:IMPROV,EMENT P.C' &,INSP. no change 0 % . ” > _. ,. greater Plus staff time and materi s E . , �'a y Greaterfhan $500anc�3tesshan$10000C)b 4 %ofes mat fi e PUBLI MP OVEtYtEN7 ] C S fNSP no chan� 0% cast us s ff tfm d Tttateradls� � GreateG;thdhr$1;000,000, 2 %of eshmdt6d cost plus staff time P.& PUBUCJMPROVEMENT G. INSP. no change 0% _ _ andmaferials TELECOMMUNICATIONS REMOVAL AGREEMENT $ 6,556 no change 0% la,t?ig*s gg RIGHT OF WAY ABANDONMENT $ 1 134` plus time and materials no change 0% REIMBURSEMENTgAGR €EMEEN7 ,.�.,, F < ,.,:< t wwm 1 S3d; P t1 entl mntenol v x „ y �, z l nochar ge �w, Based on;full cost recovery (deposit plus staff time and materials) and required as a condition of approval of every MITIGATION; MONITORING application requiring mitigation monitoring. The ,Community no change 0% D evelopment;Directorshall determine the amount of the initial deposit based on the nature and scope of mitigation *'Increased fee takes effect 60 days after adoption. /''/ 1'0f8 2009 Anhucil SF Bay Area CPI - 2 24'.395 - i 2008 Annual SF Bay Area CPI - 222-767 increase 0.73% CITY OF P ETALWXA;I`EtS FY 201 Fee FUBLICV0RKS M .116 NO, '1Z a - NAN &I Imawm * ENCROACHMENT ; SIDEWALK MINOR RESIDENTIAL $ 73, _2 MMI m ENCROACHMENT- SIDEWALK/ DRIVEWAY - COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL, $ 340. ENCROACHMENT- SEWER REPAIR (SLIP LINE), 93 - ENCROACHMENT.- SEWER. REPAI R,:(On Property) $ 93. ?- MECR , L7 Affl A1W_R9JCj ENCROACHMENT PERMIT. PROCESSING ALL OTHER 47 G, 0A ENCROACHMENT TREES, DUMPSTERS/SCAFFOLDING $ 45 _V ENCROACHMENT- OUTDOOR DINING ANNUAL RENEWACAC 463 MAN 5Uj_R_ Z! NZ 1, , � �,,Na am 0 ufiiity�Encroachment Permits - Inspection, Hourly 67 i',T WE 251 LEE �i Public Works Inspector Ii $ 67 T 0112-3 S r - Fna Tech Hourly 1 61 partment(die ATTACHMENT I A EXHIBIT A d %Chan& 1K 1 1201- 7 $ 408 20% T T iffi—IREA 111- iff $ 112 207 I _0 EM $ .112 20% n I El $ 51 .9% $ 54 20% H $ 124 20% 3 $ 877. $ 125 87% 1 1 , Mm $ 79 30% NE! - qeposit required. no change 0% mffpa �x". MOEN mmom no chance 0% ARN _F fid NVE MWOMmUH W w MR BOOKING FEE RESTITUTION 256 plus cost of booking fee, no change 07. I plus of 63 C $ 76 21% 312 C ommercial - $ 375 209. POLICE FALSEALARM'RESPQNSE -Corrimerclal First ihree.in a calendar ryear— No�Charge no change 0%, 5T1'I_"�'111,_1,m, =mvvm m ALidible< - no change .0% TAXI DRIVER PERMIT $ '79 $ 76 4% Momd I il 00 ME a ' i 76 %7 FIX -IT TICKET SIGN OFF (Parking Permit Display) $ 10 $ 10 0% ttv11 STATISTICS REPORT; Now, ce der 10ages�o barge `✓ $ 015 erb6cie-4eiV cle 0%, P pages or�rnore no "Increased fee takes effect 60 days after adoption. I 2 of 8 -7 2009 Annual SF Bcr/'Area CPI - 224.395 2068 SF Bay Area CPI -222.70 increase 0.73% CITY OF PETALumA FEES FY 2010 Fee ATTACHMENT TA -EXHIBIT A Increased fee -takes effect, 60 days after adoption. 3 of 8 1,.3 2009. AnnuaFSF'Bgy Area CPI - 224.395 2008, Annual lSFBay Area CPI - 222.767 increase 0.73% ZE 1. R I HAZ:NIAT , HAZ.MAT -, FOE HAZ.MAT =1 CITY OF PETALUMA FEES ATTACHMENT "1 A EXHIBIT,A . FY2010.Fee - (7/7/09) ., Prop lurches) $ 320 $ a txt&' .Wv- ., k.':�v '� ::0..3.'F.1wu., Nt�l.' ..aY� ..:i. "a�.��.. no $ 483 $ $ 454 MIME M . z.. a.3��:au. aa' s. „ - 2 ,tom x S .506 _....._ $, . ]ZE, r�t'a�a,. a -;� llR; `��- �= 454 $ F ".' $ 709 x $ 611 . 1� � . , $ M-7 $" 198$ Policy) I Reduce above fees,for ranges .1-8 and 10 by 10% • no Aim STEM $'_ 852. $• Flrs7 j-�� .$ m.;. , $ 426' Second and subseqent tanks $ A. __974. pooslte_ w ',�, $ 1,021 application fee ARP $ 170 plus $102 per;hour $ n �� �`�% �� `sue 1�.:���'�' �.:�i «,. � ....� x 4 ' 851 .20%. 942b 238 hange 0 %' . 1,022. ,: -20% 7,36. I.r .? o 511 _ 20% HAZ. MAT- ABOVE =GROUND TANK. INSTALLATION $ ' 567 $. _ 681 1 20% Cal ARP (Acct #CAL ARP) Per Cal /EPA no change 0% tIrtdergro dTorzk5,5ttechar47Q, Tf � �.' . ; Pe0 PA $ 125 pe 75 Pe if � 7. 5 -1 fd 651 $' 100 pe m` m , 625 pc z rf "FM $.., _.. , > pe Apparatus /Personnel $ 95 PE ot�e""Thairrp m�US4ghar9ea Yem1lhl s lst<Isor�iefiavrarrdfoarly�,„i: t��1d i5hak hoor porbo s thereof ih chid ge xnit be prornfadin�tf4avr a� rsC[ements5 s nh $ 12 AE $ 75 Re $ I5bw Bc _. $ 100 RE gy m. _.. mow ... $ 195 PE *.Increased fee takes effect 60 days after adoption. no change _ -. 07, n hange NA raO nge ' . M a��� * nolchange ,x 0% fta�cha Ge "710 no change 0% f , €., .,�i • no change 0 %, no e 7 o no change 0 %- v no change 0% na change , �� fl % „ • no;change 07 nachange� �( "0 ^ y, no,change 0% na chd 6 fl . no change 017 / y 4of8 '2009,AnnLidl SF Boy Area CPI - 224.395 2008 Annual SF Bay Area CPI - 222.767 increase 0.73% CITY OF'PETALUMA FEES FY 201 Fee (7/11/09) ATTACHMENT A EXHIBIT,A. ProposedIFY111 %Chanae 1- fr$,_� TERM 1W I Pe � $ 'M OWN 70 Note: Price is based on unitot Measure and may be based on minimum usage charge $ 70 per 5 Gal. Class :A Foam no change 0% N EINSIMMY � jg 24 H'd1I Runner - per incident no change 07. R ; IBM. Rescue Equipment M ORE —W _e ED RE�_#. on U�ixot RGRR �w_WMM. e" no cET 9e 1 � 1/ ff ROO = $ 185 C utters -;per incident no change 0% M,- =_U89 0 $ 300 Air Bags - Per incident no change 0% Miscellaneous MM 375 - Landing Zone Setup -.per Inc Ident no a change CMF/. i MIR I Me M NET Hazardous Material Supplies/ConsurnobI6S $ 30,. each'.- Absorbent b I no'chanqe 017 � WN �Ge.-dEffiff—MIRRea ure �dn6GQ�Qe%qsed on �Iiq-KRfg�u I OWRER e8b_'qW b no Y a $ 3 45 each y Absorbent Boom no change .07. % 1 Sb 35 ea ch Di, no change qe 1 7o M_3Mh $ 9 each - Latex Gloves no change 0% MFIM M 25 each'; i p sa $ di a bleGoggles no change 097 M A ME K M _0 M 3 �0 % $ 75 each - Plug & Dike no change 0% M $�Mo 1 13 each, Drum Liners no change 0 PR B co � ZMM���� ZMERM $ 65 each Poly Sheeting no change 0% F$��AEI — r,% ft $ 85 p er incident - CO Meter no change 0% 110 M I Me �Rsw - T �-� $ 60 per par .of,Chemical B , oots-, no change 0% ME 15W ear" fie 0 ANIMAL CONTROL FEES 71� qC H Gp) 307 1 �7771 QQ&DOFTL0N _1NCqLQ_1NGTR_jC� ADULT CAT AboPTION'(INCLUDING MICROCHIP) 107 123 1'5% kA Ti _ �_ 10= 5 MISCELLANEOUS SMALL ANIMAL ADOPTION $ 20 $ 24 .20% j ', Qt_4TH_5LW-Z JRJEN _M_�,O __ [K A_ "TOMME 577"W T Mi H .PARAKEETS, CANARIES,IFINCHES/OTHER SMALL BIRD ADOPTION'- 29 $ 35 21% �R 7 63 ifflS N 7Q 5i R DEAN 1 IMPOSREff U DOG L ICEN SE - INTACT ANIMAL $ 38 $ 20 -47% 1n;ig::2; gil LT � A, 112TE'PLENA101 _gffl ,,. �L, � & 11 12W I —I J DOG LICENSE - NEUTERED $ 11 $ 15 36% j1 71` j aT RED Iq7_15=A_L F$�Lggj g :67Mo .REPLACEMENT TAG $ 5- $ 6 20% f $ 131 Second iniciceht: $ .41 -69% N�W, 5 w' �an _D "7 4 REDEMPTION FOR IMPOUNDED DOG OR CAT � NEUTERED ANIMAL . $ 39 First incident $ 41, . ..5%, $ 130 Third and subsequent incidents $ 41 -68% O!W- �_N jL0,RIL 7_E$L_ 4:717_ Wy- $ 86 Large ,_N FF_FkT� %fRtSWO =ANIM BOARD - IMPOUNDED DOG $ 21 per day $ 10 -52% OEM $ �,,M MORMSO&T, BOARD _' IMPOUNDED ,CAT $ 21 per day 10 L� -(�&6 10 W1 I _�7 4 L70 _R�Qm C M N M N1 ffi 3 12 -52 offl'XilEff BOARD - LIVESTOCK $ 23 Small and medium per day $ 10 -57% 7-V MON Wn,_-`b TNKW5 DISPOSAL AND EUTHANASIA Small animal $ 25 19% ER MMINIUA 91 ir $ 52 Dog (under 20 pounds) $ 41 -21% [$'X_M�,, MR2 XM 2111WIMM. r 97 Dog I over, 50 pounds) $ 41 _9 VENOMS =1110 -58% GROUP CREMATION $ 107 0-24 pounds $ 41 -62% I N T - 1 7 > 20 25 WifflWEIA - ME $ 125 50 to 74 pounds $ 41 r `NMAM .p_nd 67% -67% $ 159 100 -120 pounds $ 41 -74% -, 0-T-11-MMIRIPW W N, E NET Increased fee takes effect 60 days after adoption. 501`8 2009 Annual SF Bay Area CPI - 224.395 2008,Annual SF Bay Area CPI - 222.767 increase 0 :73% RELEASE OF WILDLIFE FROM TRAP NUISANCE WILDLIFE RESPONSETO SURRENDERED ANIMAL AT ANIMAL Resident Photo ID cord / Golf - PUBLIC - PRIVATE POOL REN )OLRENTAL 366 696 3 Kids Klub x Kids Kl b, 1 06, "K- 2Summl �"� K 2 Summa 1 Emloreis C - min on program costs 103 20% no change 0% no change ' 0% r ha r<R no change 0% no cha no change 0% no change 0% no change no change 0% no change 0% no change 0 no change 100 8% no change 0% no change 07 60 5% 115 2%' no change 0% A' '15 new N OW 10 • new no change 0% l0 new no change 0% ',increased :fee takes effect 60 days after adoption. 16 6 of 8 Incre`ased fee;takes effect 60 days after adoption. / 7 of 8 200WAnnuaIISF.13ay Area,CPI - 224:395 CITY OFPETALUMA FEES ATTACHMENT T A 2008'Annual SF'Bay Area CPl - 222.767 EXHIBIT_ A increase 0.73% FY; 2010 Fee 2009 Annual SF Bay Area CPl - 224.395 CITY OF PETALUMA'FEES ATTACHMENT I A 2008 Annual SF Bay Area CPI - 222.767 EXHIBIT A increase 0.73% FY 2010 Fee (7/1/09) Proposed FY11 7. Change. Private - Resident. RTT G A ` BLt�RAR L0UNGf "00 B,Y 'fG .._<.- �..�..... . RECREATI $ 52 per hour no thane 0% ° QMP TER 1 QQ1 e , 7 _ ,mow ... Ef s 1 PS.ri� tom ,• ),' t« A hUn�7e ° RUM , GARDEN ,n FLAT FEE .. $ 41 flat fee no change 0% Private - Non Resident A.> �SS _�L(B�A,- ,�Y�rC°� �,,�•r'.; rs� �ea� 9s .• a w �� • � „� $ 36 penhaur rn�-���, T"= ,a.n� � h9e- �, � , RE LL CREATION $ 67 per hour $ , E I MMper hour ; no change 0% s= ° " na charge 0% GARDEN FLAT FEE $ 41 fla fee no change 0% F tfl � fL RT r r $ g ( �. 36 flot ee Commercial Tta RUT YWR'QU G 'lt ,BAY �11 Wt eS N a na 0% RECREATION $ ` 82 per hour .aperh§,IWW> no change. 0% n tlancl?:, p% GARDEN FLAT FEE $ 41 flat fee €(J8 YB�,jf LAl NMWMI ,. ' $ � 46,6 Ia e no change 0% ;,, w ono qe 0% = ;a . IR CAVANAUGH CENTER ROOM RENTAL B�OYSg& jRt:S jCL B a` r : ,;. U Ilt�ies (Non-Profit/No Fees to Attendees) lNG'RpOM kv �$i1 tOh pip our , ` rao cttange Co% .: GYM : $ 15 - per hour • ., change % �r c 5 ". a MEETING ROOM $ 15 per hour �.��� no change 0% $ r p a: i I ¢..no ch°-ng Private - Resident EETING�RpOM _ �t � � %,- -$ r 2fT , pe hour '� , = } GYM � $ 26 per hour no change 0% Private ' No '•Reside'nt �'• .ix«x::::.ea'sraaraa�sr �..4.3�,�._a.'d' -mss.. z.''`- :,a;.- -z:: «r,»z...t*.s�.._,. >.u¢..�a... `a<"iJ.?+.a....-- ....,,_, }�'��. .,'�^N ,�,, --.w-,�': MEETING ROOM $ 26 per hour no change 07. Commercial )vIEE TiNGRQOM : ° z g3 per hour , �- = . ff W ,,. nochang 17%' A .: GYM 36 per hour no change 0% t ENfWURTH RAG CENTER , sit %� x 31.E -� Main Room per hour - Resident. $ 31 new Cleaning fee i per service $ 65 new tc' �@ OSiT: .,e fir: `. �``:_ .�y;� ., � .?a - e3 a / - -. ' s` ik ` •.3 g `eTA Long Term Storage _ per month $ 250 new Dt 5 yr E z s, ; ,e3 3 ;; �WY;ADVERTI Display Case Rental per week $ 25 new �,,,., � � � � � � week , �:. "�, � � w 25 �. RW s c 'Ren ai a, ��,!>H.p. ,�..�..� fi�' _ �,- �aa�.,. �,�• ,_�s:��,��<, �,. �.�<� ne.. Electronic Reader Board per week $ 50 new depercl ,,g ahs¢9 "�i2�5 $800 w�.. Activi Guide Discount, i for :3 consecutive issues 10% 'new KP > x � F 2 . .5r���v t , R r .� fix. "Far rof(ts � '' ` 20� , � CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS Government Rate x hour" $ 20 new t l � � '7r r Nan Prof 606 r 4 tr,. ' N : i - $ X30 new r :,.txa ='� -vas x.. s:�..=m "..- .ns,,.s'u�as �:�,r'.s=. , .� __..::..s�... Commercial x hour $_ a5 new 311 on�Res�ide�niM �F� a Lion � . � �, , I, '1- : � - - L'' OGALFI These are separately AII'other'fines'set'by'Tfie California Vehicle Code HANDICAPPED PARKING VIOLATION $ 600 no change 0% — Government Rate: 25% reduction in lowest fee category on Room Rates only - all buildings `'Increased fee takes effect -60 days after adoption. / 8 of 8 j9 '2-0 July 2010 Page 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2. LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS 6 3. USER FEE METHODOLOGY 10 4 iRESULTS BY DEPARTMENT 7 DIVISION STUDIED 13 Administration 14 Community Development,(Planning & Building) 16 Public Works 23 Police (Police &.Animal Services) 24 Fire Prevention 25 Recreation Services 26 5. CONCLUSION 28 ATTACHMENTS: COST RECOVERY REPORT TABLES A: Public Works B! Police C: Animal Services D Fire E: Recreation '2-0 C/T Y OF' PETAL UMA; `CAt YFQRNIA Final'Report"on t he Cost ofServices•(Use Study All The report, which follows, presents the results of the4. Cost of Services (User Fee) Study conducted by the. Matrix Consulting Group for the City of Petaluma. 1. ` PROJECT BACKGROUND AND SCOPE OF WORK The Matrix Consulting Group analyzed the cost of service 'relationships that exist between fees . for ..service , activities in the following departments: Administration Community Development, Public Works, Police, Animal Control, Fire, and Recreation. The results of this Study provide a'tool for understanding current service levels, the cost and demand for those services, and what fees for service can and should be charged. 2. GENERAL PROJECT APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY The methodology employed by the Matrix Consulting Group is a widely known and accepted "bottom up approach to cost analysis, where time spent per unit of fee activity is determined for each position within a department: Once time spent for a fee activity-is determined, all applicable City costs are then considered in the calculation of the "full' cost of providing each service. The following table provides an overview of types of costs applied in establishing the "full' cost of services provided by each D:epartment'included in this Study: Matrix Consulting Group Page 1 2, CITY OF PETAL UMA,. CALIFORNIA Rhal''Report,o i the Cost of °Services (User Fee Stu Cost Component Description Direct . Fiscal Year 2009/10 budgeted salaries, benefits and allowable . expenditures. Departmental: Overhead Division and departmental administration / management and clerical support Citywide Overhead City costs associated with central service co"sts,such as payroll, human resources, budgeting, City management, etc. These costs are established thro ugh 'the Cost Allocation Plan performed by the Matrix Consulting Group' rovided under separate cover Supporting (Cross) Where applicable, direct.and indirect costs associated .with external Department Review de artmenta1.assistance. . Together, the cost components in the table above comprise the calculation of the total "full" cost of providing any particular service, whether a fee for that service is charged or not. The work accomplished by the Matrix Consulting Group in the analysis of the proposed fees for service `involved the following steps: • Departmental Staff Interviews: The project team interviewed staff in each department regarding their needs for clarification to the structure of existing fee items, or for addition of new fee items. • Data Collection, Data was collected for each item, including, time estimates and volume of activity. In addition, all budgeted costs and staffing levels for the FY 2009/10 fiscal year were entered into the Matrix Consulting Group's analytical software model, • Cost Analysis: The full'cost of providing each service included ;in the analysis was established. Cross - checks such as revenue reports and allocation of not more than 100 %, of staff resources to both fee and non =fee related activities assured the validity of the data used in the Study. • Review and Approval of Results with City Staff: Departments and City Management have reviewed and approved these documented results. A more detailed description of user fee methodology, as well as legal and policy considerations are provided in subsequent chapters of this report. Matrix Consulting Group Page 2 CITY OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA Final Repo o n the C of S =(U Study 3. SUMMARY OF RESULTS Overall, this Cost of Services Study concluded' that 'the "City under - recovers its costs by approximately $1:8 million per year providing its fee - related services. While the detailed documentation of the Study will show an over - collection in some departments or certain fees (on a per unit 'basis), and an undercharge for others, overall, the City is providing an annual subsidy to fee payers for all services Includ6d. in the analysis. The table below presents a:summary of results by.Department for the City of Petaluma: 'Note: Figures shown above are2rounded`to the nearest thousand for reporting purposes. The display of the cost recovery figures shown in this report are meant to provide a basis for policy development discussions among City staff and Council members, and do not represent a recommendation for where or how the Council' should take action. The setting of the "rate” or "price" for services, whether at 100 percent full cost' recovery or lower, is a decision to be made only by the Council, often wit4 input from City staff and the community. Matrix Consulting Group Page 3 a3 Current Revenue at Sur lus / Cost. _ Current FeeTatal C ost f (pecrt) Recovery �r $ Annuaal '' , „Percents a Administration 1,000 .2,000 1,000 50% Building 722,000 656,000 66,000 110% Planning (City Administrative Costs Only) - 75 ,75,000 0% Public Works 98,000 183,000 85,000 54% Police 14,000 46,000 32,000 30% Anima( Services 11.1,000 139,000 28,000 80.% Fire 353,000 694 341,000 51% Recreation 1,,078,000 2,386,000 1,308,000 45% TOTAL 2,377,000 4;1;81,000 (1,,794,000) 57% 'Note: Figures shown above are2rounded`to the nearest thousand for reporting purposes. The display of the cost recovery figures shown in this report are meant to provide a basis for policy development discussions among City staff and Council members, and do not represent a recommendation for where or how the Council' should take action. The setting of the "rate” or "price" for services, whether at 100 percent full cost' recovery or lower, is a decision to be made only by the Council, often wit4 input from City staff and the community. Matrix Consulting Group Page 3 a3 CITY OF�PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA Final 'Report on the Cost of Services (Us Fee) S 4. CONSIDERATIONS FOR COST RECOVERY.POLICY AND UPDATES* The Matrix Consulting Group strongly recommends that the City use the. information contained `in this report to discuss, adopt, and implement a formal' Cost Recovery Policy for the City, and also to implement a mechanism for the annual update of fees for service. . (1) Adopt `a Formal Cost. Recovery Policy "The Matrix Consulting -Group, strongly. recommends that the Council adopt a formalized, individual cost recovery policy for each department included in this Study. Whenever a cost recovery policy is established at less than 100% of the full cost of providing services, a known gap in funding is recognized and may then potentially be recovered through other 'revenue sources. The following table presents typical cost .recovery percentages seen in other jurisdictions: Administration Varies Building 80-100% Planning (City Administrative, Costs Only) 40-80% Land Development — 80 =100 %, Public Works Encroachment Permits 40 - 80% Police 20-40% Animal Services. 20-40% Building Plan Review / Sprinkler & Alarm =$0 -100 %, Uniform Fire Code Permits - 20 60 %. Fite Annual Companv Inspections 0 - 50% 20-60 Information presented in the table above is based on the Matrix Consulting Group's experience in analyzing local government's operations across the United States, and reflects the typical results of cost recovery analysis, not typical policy Matrix Consulting Group Page 4 a Cf ;CITY,OF'PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA Final Report on the Cost, of 'Services { User Fee) S tudy decisions made by local adopting authorities. In fact, very few, jurisdictions have adopted 'formal cost recovery policies at the ;department / service level. The Matrix Consulting Group 'considers a formalized cost recovery policy for various fees for service an industry Best Management Practice. (2) Adopt an Annual Fee Update Increase Mechanism The Matrix:Consulting'Group recommends the City perform a complete update of its User Fee Study on a penodic..basis..ln general, :3 to: 5 years for fee.'and. 'ate. studies is considered a best practice. The purpose of a comprehensive update is to completely revisit the analytical structure, service level 'estimates and assumptions applied in the previous study, and to account for any major shifts in cost components or organizational structures. In between comprehensive updates, the City could utilize published industry economic factors such as CPI Or other regional factors to update the cost calculations established in the Study on an annual basis. Alternatively, the City could also consider the use of its own anticipated' labor cost increases such as step increases, benefit enhancements, or cost of diving raises. The lafter example provides a more realistic reflection than a CPI, given the fact that labor costs generally comprise the majority of cost' calculations for a jurisdiction. Use of an automatic increase. mechanism based on the City's own labor costs also provides a factor that 'is specific, to it' and its .operations, rather than one that 'is. specific to a region or industry as a whole. Utilizing an annual increase mechanism would ensure that the City receives appropriate fee and revenue increases that reflect growth in costs. Matrix Consulting Group Page 5 ZS CITY OF PE.TALUMA, CALIFORNIA' Final Report owth Cost of.SerVices (UserFee) Study 2. LEGALFRAMEWORKAND POLICY ORATIONS A "user fee" is a charge for services provided by a governmental agency to a public citizen or group. In California, several constitutional laws such as Propositions 13, 4 and 218, State Government Codes 66014 and 66016. ;1.and more recently the Attorney General's Opinion 92 -506 :set the parameters under; which the. user fees typically administered by local government are established and administered. Specifically, California State Law, Government Code 66014(a), stipulates that user fees charged by local agencies "...may- not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of providing the service for which the fee is charged ". 1. ' GENERAL PRINCIPLES AND PHILOSOPHIES REGARDING USER FEES Local governments . are providers of many types of general services to their communities. While all services provided by local government are beneficial to constituents, some services can be classified as globally beneficial to all citizens, while others provide more of a direct benefit to a specific group or individual. The following table provides examples of services provided by local government within a continuum of the degree of community benefit received: Matrix Consulting Group Page 6 -,)-b Services that Provide Both Services that Provide a. "Global" Benefit and also a Primary Benefit to an Services that Provide General Specific Group or Individual Individual or Group, with less "Global" Community Benefit Benefit "Global' Community Benefit • Police • Recreation /Community • Building Permits • Park Maintenance Services • Planning and Zoning • Fire Suppression / Prevention Approval • Site Plan Review • Engineering Development Review Matrix Consulting Group Page 6 -,)-b CITY OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA Final Report on th e'Cos t of-Service ( F ee) Study Funding for local government is obtained from a myriad of revenue sources such as taxes, fines, grants, special charges, user fees, etc. In recent years, alternative tax revenues, which typically offset subsidies for services- provided to the community, have become increasingly limited. These limitations have caused increased attention on user fee activities as a revenue source that can offset costs otherwise subsidized (usually) by the general fund: In the table. above, services in the "global benefit" section tend --to '.be. funded primarily through voter, appr' ved.:tax revenues. In the middle. of the table, -- one.- typically finds a mixture of taxes, user fee, and other funding sources. Finally, in the "individual / group benefit" section of the table, lie the services provided by local government that are typically funded almost entirely by user fee revenue. The following are two central concepts regarding the establishment of user fees: • Fees should be assessed according to the degree of individual or private benefit gained from services. For example, the processing and approval of a land use or building permit'will, generally result in monetary gain to the applicant, whereas Police services and Fire Suppression are examples of services that are essential to the safety of the community at large; and, • A profit making objective should not be included in the assessment of user fees. In fact, California laws require that the charges for service be in direct proportion to the costs associated with providing those. services. Once a charge for service is assessed .at a level higher than the actual cost of providing a service,, the term "user .fee" no longer applies. The charge then becomes a tax subject to voter approval Therefore, 'it is commonly accepted that user fees are established at a level that will recover up to, and not more than, the cost of providing a particular service. 2. GENERAL POLICY CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING USER FEES Undoubtedly, there are programs, circumstances, and services that justify a subsidy from a tax based or alternative revenue source. However, it is essential that Matrix Consulting Group Page 7 CITY OF PETALUMA', CALIFORNIA: . Final Report on 1he'Cost of Services (User,Fee) .Study jurisdictions prioritize the use of revenue sources for the provision of services based on the continuum of benefit received. Within the services that are typically funded by user fees, the Matrix Consulting Group recognizes several reasons why City staff or The Council may not advocate the full cost recovery of services. The following factors are key, policy considerations in setting fees at less than 100 percent of cost recovery: Limitations posed by - an external - agency..The" State 'or ,.other agency will. occasionally'set a maximum', minimurri,.or limit the jurisdiction '.s ability to charge a fee at all. Examples include Transportation Permits commonly issued by Public Works departments, many types of Police records and processing fees, as well as charging for time `spent copying and retrieving public documents in the City Clerk's office. Encouragement of desired behaviors. Keeping fees for certain services below full cost recovery may provide better compliance from the community. For example, if the cost of a 'permit for changing a water heater in a residential home is higher than the cost of the water heater itself, many citizens will avoid pulling the permit. Affect on demand for a particular service. Sornetimes raising the "price" charged for services might reduce the number of participants in a program. This is largely the case in Recreation programs such as aquatics or sports leagues, Where participants often compare the City's fees to surrounding jurisdictions or other options for leisure activities. Participation for individuals or groups that typically cannot afford services. Policy makers may decide to: fully subsidize or set fees at a level that will allow participation for certain segments of the community, such as Senior programs. Benefit received by user of the servicei and ,the community at large is mutual'. Many services that directly benefit a group or individual equally' benefit the community as a Whole: Examples, include Recreation programs, 'Planning Design Review, historical dedications and'' certain types of special events, to name a few. The Matrix Consulting Group recognizes the need for policy that intentionally subsidizes certain activities. The primary goals of a User Fee Study are to provide a fair Matrix Consulting Group Page 8 CITY OF PETALUMA CALIFORNIA Final Report: on. the Cost of Services (User Fee) Study and equitable basis for determining the costs of providing .services, and assure that the City is in compliance with State law.. Once the full cost of providing services is known, the next step is to determine the "rate" or "price" for services at a level which is up to, and not more than the full cost amount. The Council is responsible for this decision, which often becomes a question of balancing - service levels and funding sources. The 'placement..of a service or activity within the continuum of benefit received may require extensive discussion and at times fall into a "grey area ". However, with the resulting cost of services information from a User Fee Study, the Council can be assured that the adopted fee for service is - reasonable, fair, and legal. Matrix Consulting Group Page 9 a9 CITY OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA Final Report on the Cost of'Services;(User Fee) Study 3• USER FEE STUDY METHODOLOGY The Matrix .Consulting Group utilizes a cost allocation methodology, commonly known and accepted as .the "bottom -up" approach to establishing User Fees. The term means that several cost components are calculated for each fee or service. These - Cost Com onent Description Direct Salaries, benefits and allowable departmental expenditures. Departmental Overhead Division, Program, or Departmental administration / management and clerical support. Citywide Overhead City costs associated with central service costs such as payroll, human resources, budgeting, City management, etc. Established for this Study through a separate Cost Allocation Plan analysis p erformed by the Matrix Consulting Group. Cross - Departmental Support Costs associated with review or assistance in providing specific services. For example, costs .established via study of the Public Works Department forreview of Planning applications and Building permits are either'included as an applicable cost toward the Planning and /or Building fees for service, or are listed as .se agate fee items chargeable,by Public Works. Plan, Policy, and Systems Examples often include: General.Plan Update, code enforcement, Update and Maintenance. and technology costs. components then build upon each. -other to comprise the total cost for providing the service. The, components.of a full cost calculation are. typically as follows: The general steps utilized by the project team to determine allocations of cost components to a particular fee or service are: Develop time- estimates for each service included in the study; • Calculate the direct cost attributed to each time estimate; • Utilize the comprehensive allocation of staff time to establish an allocation basis for'the other cost components; and, • Distribute •the appropriate amount of the other cost components to each fee or service based on the staff time allocation basis, or other reasonable basis. The result of these allocations provides detailed documentation for the Matrix Consulting Group Page 10 3v CITY OF PETA'LUMA, CALIFORNIA :- Final Report on the 'Cost.of Services (User Fee) Study reasonable estimate •of the actual, cost lof providing each service'. The following are critical points about the use of time estimates and the validity of cost allocation models. 1. TIME ESTIMATES ARE A MEASURE OF SERVICE LEVELS REQUIRED TO PERFORM A PARTICULAR SERVICE One of the key study assumptions utilized in the "bottom up" approach 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 these estimates were developed by experienced staff -. members who understand, service levels and processes unique to City of "Petaluma. The project team worked closely with each Department's staff in developing time estimates with the following criteria` • Estimates are representative of average times for providing service. Extremely difficult or abnormally simple projects are excluded from the analysis; • Estimates provided by staff are reviewed and approved by the department, and often involve multiple iterations before a Study is finalized; • Estimates are reviewed by the project team for "reasonableness" against their experience with other agencies. The Matrix Consulting Group agrees that while the use of time estimates is not perfect, it is the best alternative available for setting a standard level of service for which to base a jurisdiction's fees for service, and it meets the requirements of California law. The ,alternative to time estimating is actual time tracking, often referred to billing on a "time and materials" basis. Except for in the case of anomalous or sometimes very large and complex projects, the Matrix Consulting Group believes this approach not to be cost effective or reasonable for the following reasons: • Accuracy in time tracking is compromised .by the additional administrative burden required to track, bill, and collect for services in this manner; Matrix Consulting Group Page 11 31 CITY OF PE,TA'LUMA, CALIFORNILI Final Report -orrthe Cost of Services (User Fee)' Study • Additional costs are associated with administrative staff's billing,: refunding, and monitoring deposit accounts; • Customers ;often prefer to know the fees for services in advance of applying for permits or participating in programs; • Applicants may begin to request assignment of faster or less expensive personnel to their project, • Departments can better predict revenue 'streams . staff needs using standardized time.estimates and anticipated. permit volumes. Situations arise wher6 the size and complexity bf a'given:project warrants time tracking and billing on a "time and materials" basis. However, the Matrix Consulting Group discourages this practice whenever possible. 2. CROSS CHECKS ENSURE THE VALIDITY OF OUR ANALYTICAL -MODEL In addition to the collection of time estimate data for each fee or service included in the User Fee Study, annual' volume of activity data assumptions are also a critical component. By collecting data on the estimated volume of activity for each fee or service, a number of analyses are performed which not only provide useful information to departments regarding allocation of staff resources, but also provide valuable cross checks that ensure the validity of each cost allocation model. This includes assurance that 100% of staff resources are accounted for and allocated to a fee for service, or "other ;non 'fee related category. Since there are no objectives to make a profit in establishing user fees, it is very important to ensure that services are not estimated at a level that exceeds budgeted resource capacity. If at least and not significantly more than 100% of staff resources are accounted for, then no more than 100% of costs associated with providing services will be allocated individual services in the Study. Matrix Consulting Group Page 12 3Z_ CITY OF PETALUMA .CALIFORNIA . Final. Report on 1he Cost of 'Services (User Fee) Study The motivation behind a cost of services (User Fee) analysis is for the City Council and City Staff to maintain services at a level that is both- accepted and effective for the community, and..also to maintain control over the policy and management of these services. Discussion of, each department's results in this chapter is intended as a.-summary of extensive and voluminous cost allocation documentation produced during the Study. The; full analytical results were,. provided to City staff 'under separate cover from this summary report. In addition, appendices A through E to this report also include more detailed cost calculation result's for each Department from two perspectives: • First, on a "Per Unit" Basis: comparing the. full cost of providing each unit of service to the current fee for each unit of service (.where applicable). • ! Second, on an annualized :basis: the project team utilized volume of activity estimates to project annual' subsidies and revenue impacts associated with the implementation of each fee for service at full cost recovery levels. It should be noted that the results presented in this report are not a precise measurement. In general, the a cost of service analysis takes a "snapshot in time where the most fiscal year of adopted budgeted cost information is compared to the most current,complete fiscal year of revenue and workload data available. Workload data , may then be- adjusted to reflect "reasonable: and defensible'' estimates for purposes of analysis. Changes to the structure of fee names, along with the use of time estimates allow only for a reasonable projection of subsidies and revenue. Consequently, the Matrix Consulting Group Page 13 33 CITY OF PETAL UMA CALIFORNIA Final Report on tiie Cost: of'Services (User Fee). Study Council and City staff should rely conservatively iupon these estimates to gauge the impact of implementation going forward. 1. ADMINISTRATION The Matrix Consulting Group analyzed the costs associated with several services provided by administrative departments, including 'the, processing of film and banner permits, and the handling - of'Escrow- Agreements issued pursuant to Section22300 of the .Public Contract Code. if the.Clty -were t(oimplement fees for service described in the following subsections at 100 percent of their cost, an additional $971 in revenue could be achieved. (1) Film and Banner Permit Fees Unlike the other fees for service analyzed throughout this report, the total cost of providing film and banner permitting services was identified via the Full Cost Allocation Plan analysis performed by the Matrix Consulting Group, the results of which were provided to the City under separate cover from this report. The following table presents the calculation of the total cost per unit for these two services` As shown in the table above, the City currently does not charge a fee for the processing of banner permits. However, the total estimated cost of processing each banner permit is approximately $25 per permit. If the City were to implement a fee for Matrix Consulting Group Page 14 -3, Total Estimated Cost of Number of - Providing Permits Average Surplus Services - Issued Cost I Unit - Current Fee I (Subsidy) Fee Name Annual Annual Potential Fee Unit Per Unit Banner Permits $884 35 $25, $- $ 25 Film Permits $653 7 $93 $212 $119 TOTAL $1,537 42 As shown in the table above, the City currently does not charge a fee for the processing of banner permits. However, the total estimated cost of processing each banner permit is approximately $25 per permit. If the City were to implement a fee for Matrix Consulting Group Page 14 -3, CITY OF PETA'L'UMA, CALIFOPNIA Final Report o the : C o st of Serv ices (User Fe e) Study service to recover 100% of the cost of processing a banner. permit; it would recover approximately $864 per year in costs associated with this activity. The City currently charges $212 for processing a film permit. The total estimated cost of processing each film permit is approximately $93 per permit. The City should lower their processing fee for 'film permits to a maximum charge of $9.3 per permit in ..Order for this ,fee to reflect reasonable and 'estimated -:cost of providing film permit processing services: (2) Escrow Contract Handling Fees The City Manager, Risk Manager, City Attorney and Finance departments must review, sign, and retain each'. Escrow Contract agreement submitted by a contractor. The following table presents the. calculation of the total cost per unit of providing these services: Classification Fully Loaded. . Work Order Rate per Hour . Time Per Unit Hours Cost Per Unit City Manager $1W7 0.10 $18 Risk Manager $85 0.10 $9• Finance Director $125 _ 0.10 $13 City Attorney (actual invoice amount per agreement) .$80 Na • $80 Admin Asst - CM $62 0.10 $6 Admin Asst -:Risk $47 0:10 $5 Admin Asst -- Finance $55 0.10 $5 Admin Asst -.Cfty Attn $.61 0.10 $6>., Total $141 Each City staff 'member shown in the .table above spends an average of 6 minutes or (.10 hour) per Escrow Contract agreement. With the exception of the City Attorney, which is a contract service provider, the project team calculated fully burdened hourly rates for each position and determined the total cost per unit as approximately $141 per agreement. The City processes approximately six agreements per year. If the Matrix Consulting Group Page 15