HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Bill 4.GPart2 11/15/2010CITY OF PE:TA'LUMA CALIFORNIA
Final Report on the Cost. of Services'(User Study
City were. to implement" a. fee for service to recover 1.00 percent of the cost of processing.
each `Escrow Agreement; it would recover approximately $848 per year in costs
associated with this activity.
2. COMMUNITV'DEVEL' OPMENT DEPARTMENT
The Community Development Department is comprised of- the Planning
Building Divisions.. The following sections present the results of .each .Division's cost of '
services analysis performed. by the 'Matrix Consulting Group.
(1) Planning Division
The Planning ,Division -.of the Community Development Department implements
public policy and provides project review for new development in Petaluma. Residential,
industrial, commercial, public'improvements, whether large or small, all require careful
consideration for compatibility with the City's land use / planning goals and objectives.
In recent years, the City has changed its service delivery model for Planning
i
application review services 'by incorporating the services of f contract planning services
firm. The contractor facilitates review of all applications 'received at the Community
Development public counter,,,and charges each applicant directly from their established
fee; structure. This fee structure is based on mixture of deposit based (time and
materials) and flat fees for service. 'Because planning application review services are
provided for the City by a third party, and these costs are passed directly to "each
applicant based on the contractor's rates, the Matrix Consulting Group did not analyze
the Planning Division's fee structure or fees for service.
However, the results of this cost of service analysis do conclude that the. City is
not recovering - administrative costs associated with hosting and supporting the Planning
Matrix Consulting Group
Page 16
6
CITY OF PETAL&MA, CALIFORNIA
'Final Report on the Cost: - of Services (User Fee) Study
Division's operations. These costs could be recovered through a "City Administrative"
percentage collected on top of each Planning Division fee for service. The following.
table presents a calculation of that percentage:
Cost Identified
Amount FY
09/10
Base Level Services - Pub lic.Counter Support. (includes , general.
application* p rocessing 'and ged er2d staffing of the ublic.counter )
$40,000
Citywide Overhead (costs established .through - the Full-Cost
Allocation Plan )
$$35,000
Subtotal Cit Administrative Costs
$75
Contractor Cost Recovery Billing for FY 09/10
$515
Total Cost of Planning Services
$590,000
City Administrative Overhead Rate
159/0
As shown in the table above, the City incurs approximately $40,000 per year in
cost associated with contractor services for public counter staffing and application
processing that is not recovered via the contractor's established fee structure.
Additionally, the results of the Full Cost Allocation Plan study performed by the Matrix
Consulting Group identified an additional $35,000 per year'in Citywide Overhead costs
associated with support of the planning services function. Citywide Overhead includes
support costs associated with the City Clerk, Finance, City Manager, and other
administrative functions.
To recover Citywide administrative costs associated with support of contracted
.Planning Division services, the City could adopt an administrative overhead rate. of up to
15% on top of the contractor's fees for service.
• (2) Building Division
The primary goal of the Building Division of the Community Development
Department is to provide quality services to the community in a manner that is
Matrix Consulting Group
Page 17
CITY OF.PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA
Final Report on the Cost of Services (User Fee) Study
comprehensive, efficient, knowledgeable and helpful to the .public. The Division is
responsible for:
• Plan review and permit issuance of all proposed construction to assure
compliance with all state and local building codes.
• Explaining codes, ordinances, requirements and regulations that apply to
individual building projects.
Assisting th& public with their concerns about .public - .safety within their homes or
places of business.
• Provides'b:uilding inspection services for all privatelyfunded
• Supports the City's Code Enforcement program.
The City of Petaluma currently assesses its building permit fees utilizing the
standard ICBO valuation table and. UBC sliding fee table method. The scope of work for
this Study did not propose to significantly modify the existing fee structure. Therefore,
the Matrix Consulting Group studied the overall correlation between revenue generated
from the Building Division's existing fees for service to the annual cost of providing
Building Division services for fiscal year 2009 -10.
The following table presents.a breakdown of the total costs of providing Building
permit processing, plan review, and inspection services for fiscal year 2009 -10:
Matrix Consulting Group
Page 18
CITY OF PETA;LUMA, CALIFORNIA
Final Report on: the Cost of Services (user, Fee) Study
Cost Cate o
F.Y'0940.Amount
Personnel
$305,0.00
Services and Supplies
$95,000
Int& overnmental. (ISF)
$74,000
Cit Overhead
$22,000
Permit Software Maintenance and Replacement,
Ariiortize'd over 5 Years
$100,000
Vehicle Replacement Amortized over 5 Years),
$14,000
Op eratin ,Resewe 15 %0 of Personnel Costs
$46,000
Total
$656,000
*Figures rounded to the nearest 1,000 dollars in the table above for'reporting purposes.
The City of Petaluma's Building Division is part of a self- sustaining special
revenue fund. Costs shown in the table above are attributable to the Building Division's
plan check, permitting, and inspection functions. It is common for self- sustaining
building permit funds to retain an operating reserve for fluctuations in workload and
multi -year project loads. Additionally, the costs of maintenance and replacement of the
Division's permitting software as well as vehicle replacements are necessary
infrastructure required for review.,and approval of project submittals. These three types .
of cost identified for the :Building Division should be set aside for their specific use.
Revenues collected via permit and plan check fees for service in fiscal year
20,09 -10 were approximately $722,000. The City is recovering approximately 11:0 %0 of
the total costs,associated with providing Building Division services.
(3) S=urcharges Applie d to Building Permits
It is common for jurisdictions in California to employ "surcharges" on top of their
fees for service to fund certain types of operational support costs. Popular surcharges
employed in the West include those for technology maintenance and replacement as
Matrix Consulting. Group
Page 19
3�
CITY OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA
Final Report on the'Cost of Services (User Fee) Study.
well as general plan maintenance and update. Surcharges are generally assessed as a
percentage of fees or some other metric such.as valuation, and are meant to recover .
costs from entire groups who receive overall benefit from services rather than individual
clients or customers.
(3.1) General Plan. Maintenance and Update Surcharge
The City of Petaluma 'updates its . general plan and related specific and
community plans on a. routine bases.. These plans help to guide the growth of the
community in a consistent manner. Government Code 66014 (b) allows local agencies
to, "...include the costs reasonably necessary to prepare and revise the plans and
policies that a local agency is required to adopt before it can make any necessary
findings and determinations." This section of the Government code supports inclusion
of general plan maintenance, and update costs ,in both planning and building fees for
service.
Currently, the City Charges a fee of .61 % of building permit valuation for General
Plan cost recovery. The following table presents the amount of revenue collected from
the existing surcharge over the past two fiscal years:
Fiscal Year
Amount $
2008 -09
$183,000
2009 -10
$186,000
The, City estimates it's costs for contract services related to a comprehensive
update of the General Plan at approximately $1.3 million, performed over a ten -year
cycle. Because a current General Plan document is needed to determine conditions of
approval, entitlements, and building permit approval, these costs are legitimate to
recover in the programs and fees it supports.
Matrix Consulting Group
Page 20
CITY OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA
Final Report on the Cost of Services (User Fee) Study
To ,im"plement a surcharge for recovery of General Plan maintenance and update
costs the City staff and .Council should agree upon a desired recovery target for
this program, to be captured on top of Building fees for service. It is typical to consider
funding a portion, but not all of, the costs associated with the General Plan cycle,
acknowledging that the General Plan is not only significantly' impacted by..and beneficial
to the development, community,.: but is also utilized by other City departments such as
Public Works and Public °'Safety to provide community: services, as well as
the general public for informational purposes. The following table presents the
calculation of a General Plan Maintenance and Update Surcharge as a percentage of
building permit revenue, based on 50, 80, and 100 percent cost recovery targets.
Cost Category
Tota
Annualized
Cost
100%
Recovery
80 %0
Recovery
50%
Recovery
Prime Contractor Costs
$130,000
$130,000
$1.04,000
$65,000
Annual Staff Support
$120,000
$120,000
$96,000
$60
Total
$250,000
$250,000
$200,000
$125,000
FY.09 /10 Building Permit. Valuation
$25,9Q0,000..
$25,900,00
$25
Surcharge
97 %0
0.77%
0.48%
Currently this surcharge is assessed on all building permits, including new
construction, smaller commercial and residential improvements, as well as stand -alone
mechanical, "plumbing, and electrical permits. The project team recommends applying
this, surcharge to new construction and large commercial and residential additions and
renovations only, as these types of projects have the most impacts on 'update,
maintenance, and implementation of the City's General Plan document. Minor
residential improvements such as re- roofing, pools, fences, small interior remodels,
water heaters, and the like have Tittle to no impact related to the General Plan. To
Matrix Consulting Group Page 21
1#
CITY OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA
Final_Report'on the Cost of Services (User Fee) Study
account for this factor, the. calculations of potential surcharges shown in the table above
exclude permit valuations of all .projects under $1.00,000 in value. .
At the existing fee of .61% of building permit valuation, the City recovers
approximately 74% of costs of General Plan maintenance and update considered in this
Study. The city could recover 80% of the General Plan maintenance and update costs
byraising the surcharge -to .77% of .valuation, or 100 %'by raising it to .97 %:
City staff. and Council can .use the information .in this section to either . validate, or
adjust the existing surcharge for General Plan cost recovery. The funds generated from
collection of this surcharge are, and should continue to be set aside for this specific use.
(3.2) Technology Surcharges
Permitting software and technology needs related to permit issuance, database
management and records management are significantly . 'impacted by on -going
development permit activity. Many jurisdictions have implemented a technology
surcharge on top of development permits to generate a fund to meet replacement and
maintenance needs.
Currently, the City Charges a fee of 6% on top of each building permit fee for
technology and records maintenance cost recovery. The following table presents the
amount of revenue collected from the existing surcharge over the past two fiscal years:
Matrix Consulting Group
Page 22
CITY OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA
Final Repo►t'on the Cost of Services (User Fee) Study
Fiscal Year
Amount. ($
2W&D9
$21,968
2009 -10
$ 9'5.,258,
The City estimates its costs for contract services. related to a technology
replacement at approximately; $500,000 over each 5 -year period ($100,000 per year).
Compared to the revenue sho'wn'in the #able above, the existing surcharges on building
permits is not recovering the' costs' associated with technology= needs and records
management. However, as discussed in the previous section- related to Building, Permit
fees, approximately $100,0.00 of building fund revenues are designated for this purpose.
Therefore project team recommends the City eliminate 'the existing technology and
records management surcharge.fees
3. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
This cost of services (user fee) study focused on updating and enhancing the
Department's fee schedule for provision of development review services and
encroachment permits. As such, the Matrix Consulting Group focused on the
Engineering and Traffic Divisions of Public Works, which provide the bulk of
development review and encroachment permitting activity. As shown in the table in
Attachment A, the results of the
analysis identified an, overall
annual
subsidy
of
approximately $85,000 provided to
fee payers for development,
review
services.
At
current."fee levels, the. Public Works Department is recovering approximately 54% of the
total'City costs associated with providing fee related services.
It should be. noted that most, development review services provided by
Engineering and Traffic to projects initiated via the Planning Division are recovered on a
time and materials basis. Engineering and Traffic staff track 'and bill their hours to
Matrix Consulting Group Page 23'
CITY OF PETAL UMA, CALIFORNIA
Final Report on the Cost of Services (User Fee) Study'.'
appropriate cost recovery project accounts. The results of this analysis identified that
the hourly rates utilized to bill for services are significantly lower than the total citywide
cost of providing services. Updated "full cost recovery" hourly rates are also shown in
Attachment A.
4. POLICE DEPARTMENT
The scope of this Cost of Study analyzed fees forservice.assessed by
the Police Department; which'.include both administrative.processind fees for Police
services, as well as Animal Services Department fees.
(1) Police Department
The Study focused on analysis and update of several permit processing activities
performed 'mostly by personnel in the Records Unit of this Department, with support
from Patrol staff as needed.-Fees analyzed include Special Events Permits, Clearance
Letters, Taxi Driver Permits, Solicitor Permits, and Fix -it Ticket Sign Off. As shown in
the table in Attachment B, the results of the analysis identified an overall annual subsidy
of approximately $32,000 provided to fee payers for these services. At current fee
levels, the Police Department is recovering approximately 30% of the total City costs
associated with providing their fee related services.
(2) Animal Services
Animal .Services is responsible for the sheltering and care of all stray, abandoned
and unwanted companion animals within the Petaluma City limits. Animal Services is
also responsible for the investigation of possible animal abuse and neglect as well as
the enforcement of all animal - related laws. Animal Services issues and maintains all
dog licenses. As shown in the table in Attachment C, the results of the analysis
Matrix Consulting Group Page 24
Vc/
CITYOFPETA'LUMA', CALIFORNIA
Final Report on the', Cost of j Services (User F ee) Stud
identified an overall,annual subsidy of approximately $28,000 provided to fee payers for
these services. At current fee levels, the Animal' 'Services Department is recovering
approximately -80 % of the total City costs associated with providing their fee related
services.
5. FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU
The Fire .Prevention' Bureau exists to provide the °highest Level of fire prevention.
through' public education, .inspection and code enforcement .and detailed` plan review to.
ensure that properties and' buildings are properly constructed in accordance with local
and state requirements. Under the direction of the Fire Marshal, the Fire Prevention
Bureau has five main responsibilities: .Fire Investigation, Code Enforcement and
Inspection, Plan Review, Public Education, and Weed Abatement.
It should be noted that the majority of services studied for the Fire Department
are for the Fire Prevention Bureau. However, the Study also analyzed the cost of
providing annual company inspections of local businesses and other occupancies as
provided by the Suppression unit. The resulting fee structure and cost results are shown
in Attachment D of this report. Th results identified an overall annual subsidy of
approximately$341',000, provided to fee payers for these services. At current fee levels,
the Fire Department is recovering approximately 51% of the total City costs associated
With. providing the fee related services studied in this report. The following table
displays cost recovery results for Fire Suppression and Fire. Prevention services
separately:
Matrix Consulting, Group_
Page 25
`�J
CITY OF PETALUMA .CALIFORNIA
Final R epo r t on the 'C of Services (User F ee) Study
As shown in the table' above,, the Fire Prevention. Bureau is recovering
approximately. 66% of :the citywide costs. associated -with .their fee- related activities,
while annual company inspections provided by the Fire Suppression unit are recovering
approximately 26% of costs.
6. RECREATION SERVICES
The Recreation Services. Division provides a variety. of recreation programs for
both youth and adults including sports leagues and instruction, aquatics, day camps and
after - school programs, and ra variety of recreational classes. This Division also
oversees the staffing, rental, and light maintenance of the Petaluma Marina.
Unlike other departmental analyses included in this report, the focus of the
Recreation Cost of Services analysis was performed largely at the "program" level,
rather than the individual fee -per -unit level for a number of reasons:
• Although it is useful to obtain information on the total citywide cost of recreation
services„ the setting of actual "prices" for services for recreation programs is
typically "market" driven, rather than "cost of service" driven. This means that
recreation programs often compete with others in their surrounding areas on
price and largely determine their fees with this fact in mind.
• Recreation programs rarely recover the full cost of providing services and are
considered largely as a "community benefit" rather than "private benefit" service,
as discussed previously in Chapter 2 of this report. Recreation programs tend to
be highly subsidized and funded more via general fund and other sources than
user fees for service.
Matrix Consulting Group Page 26
q , 6
CITYOF_PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA
Final Report on the Cost of Services (User Fee) Study
With the exception of several processing fees for Resident Photo .ID Cards,
Community. Gardens, and Marina Season Passes and Rental Fees,'the results shown in
Attachment E of this report present the cost calculation results on a "per program" basis,
where the annual cost of providing services is compared to the annual revenue
received.
The results identified' overall annual subsidy. of :approximately $1.3 million
provided to the community for these services. At 'current fee :levels, the Recreation
Services Division is recovering approximately 45% of the total City costs associated
with providing the fee related services studied in this report.
Additionally, the following table provides interpretation of the cost calculation
results for.Marina Slip Rates:
Slip
Size
Current Rate -
Monthly Rental
Charge
Option 1: Full
Cost Recovery
Rate - Monthly
Rental Charge
Option 2: Full
Cost Recovery
Rate. - Monthly
Rental Charge
22'
$113.5
$140.06
$204.56
26'
$134.2
$165.52
$241.76
30'
$154.8
$190.99
$278.95
35'
$180.6
$159.16
$325.44
The existing monthly rental charge shown in the "Current Rate" column above
equates to $5.16 per lineal - foot per boat or slip size, whichever is greater. The results of
this cost analysis identified that this fee is not recovering for the citywide cost of
providing Marina services from two perspectives:,
Option 1: Presents the full cost recovery slip rate, at $7.13 per lineal foot. This
option excludes the annual recurring debt service payments on the Marina's
facilities
• Option 2: Presents the full cost .recovery slip rate, at $10.06 per lineal foot. This
option includes annual recurring debt service payment6s due on the Marina's
facilities.
Matrix Consulting Group Page 27
Y7
CITY OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA
Final Report on the Cost of Services (User Fee) Study
S. . CONCLUSION
The City of Petaluma engaged the Matrix Consulting Group to determine the total
cost of services provided to its citizens and businesses for all City functions. To
calculate the total cost of each,.,Department or Divisions' services, Matrix Consulting
Group employed., both, -a' widely accepted and defensible methodology, as well .as the
experience and input of City staff to complete the. necessary *data. collection `and-.
discussion to complete the analysis. City leaders can now use this information to make
informed decisions and set its fees to meet the fiscal and policy goal objectives of the
City.
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 included in the analysis.
The project team recommends the City try to recover as much of the service
costs as is feasible. For most fee related services, the Matrix Consulting Group
recommends setting fees at 100% cost recovery. However, as discussed in Chapters 1
and 2 of this report, several policy factors often warrant adoption of fee levels at less
than 100 %.
Matrix Consulting Group
Page 28
�g
L
�
a
i
CL
0
as
y
O
U
�g
\{
\(
2/ LU
0
f
0
k
n
�
%
}
0
\ /
(
\ \
\ �
LL
/}
® ® «`//E
/.
\
§ƒ
.�
L z oi
e
�(
Q�
K5g%#7
cu
.0
j
\§
_
®°
- wouze�-a
wb«a?
C:L
\k
-Fu
-+/
C,
C:
-
\
a.
z
#
7
2
@z.
e,
R E
0
<
E
\\
§/
\W\wz00C
r
a\
:<
cC)
00k\
® ® «`//E
\
§ƒ
L z oi
e
�(
Q�
K5g%#7
cu
.0
\§
_
®°
- wouze�-a
wb«a?
C:L
-Fu
-+/
C,
C:
-
w
2 P U)
= =3u
@z.
E
® »u
ƒ\ \<
/
\W\wz00C
:<
cC)
00k\
a
°o uzo»
CT Q,
�
.0@§�
«
0
�`ww
<
§
�Xuaag
=��o
@44
®QQ
°��«
moo'
#)-
&�u�
mIL-
/kk \ c'3o0P
22<uwwzb�
uu
/or
�
»
%
/
(LCL
/
%em_
t
u®
10mlu
«7
« »��
wuwu§a-
.
IF—
«000
ob@=g
, c :
�Ifo
a
CL
u (m
o
oo »999wuwuwee=m@
www4»44w
=re
<
=f+£
« =.4(ao«
Euz�
:R\
333=p«mm«me«o&�o3g5o�r«z.
Via 711 " T ' T
o
� n4m»mew
r
�
W z
k-
-
I
\
\
/
£
�
i�
d
v
`O
a .
°'
.
W
~
0
a
m
�'
m
N
O
U
i�
� C
C m
O C
U �
m �
E m
@ U
mCL
a
`0
T
U
O
C
0
N
U
d
N
V
a)
A
m
d
w
d
T �
0
U �
o a)
O
o v
LL U y
m,0 �
m
m,o 0
�LL V
S
cy
F�
a)
E
A m
Z t6 • •T •U
U. -o E a ' E
N E N E U
m 0 0 w
w U Q� U H
0 ''`o o
c c f° 1° 0 <
2E _ cW °W
u, 0) n E E W f
c c c c Lm
U)LL j
L 1 J W W W o ° W. V
N a)�YW
N l9 6 <0 ` Q— �= 0 Q
. 6 . 6 J
a) a) m a) '� X Z.
(n C/5 U) U U z a
r
W O F
w Z Z, O
0
0
m
a
y
U
5�
�3
m
v
m
Q
I
UJ
N
O
.O
H
O '
d
O
V
d
N
O
U
�3
l0 y
�E
o Z
U0
'c
m Q
m
a
`o
U
T
c
O
N
m
U
(n
v
Y
m
m
d
d
LL
N
T �
� H
U Q.
O >
O O
U O
d
LL p
N
m O O
DLL U
a c 'c, 'c n E o"
•p aaa m 0
O - 6
co m ( N 3 3 7 N Z _
C C C N N N
E 06
m m'm m m m
Z 0 ° � c° � CU UU UU U E. 21 c E E �
o D CL
•� r
N L U Z 0 ,0 O O O O O O O �. J a m 3 C 'C >. N
LL o m���a E a 0) m m YY m E Q 7(°v0
a N 0 0 0 0 0 O U U c
° E(� mC ��_- c 000 �� $$ E a m.. a cm cm
� - N E ( u m E a a� a v - 'o a _0 ai a U c c 06 ( m o o n m
C C -.3 a a N 7 7 7 7 3 7 J J L 0 N m O m m .m .m m m m
- L) ',N 'N m C •2 Z O O O O O O O U E M 'y 'N • N • N • N • N
3 - 'C m QJ A) J :U 3 O• C d a a C- O O '0 3 'D J m m m m m m
L) o E J . ° I a� I E E E E 'E E(D LL LL a� o f c c c c c c
C . - A N C O Z m m -- -- m N `N ° U U m m m m m m
C C C C L N L U U N N m c c U p p .' . ., w
C O .0 = o m I LL I LL O. O O C 0 0 O C LL LL LL ' 30 O. 3 0 - _N N 3 3 3 3 3 3
o a o- p- U ° 2 c c c c c c c c c c = m N° W W W W W W
a° m o v N 'c m e m (D o 0 0 0 0 0 a) . p o .p E _(i E E > >' oS of oS 0 o3
CL V a m a �' a 0 0 E E E E E c E E E E I Co I I 0 0 0 0 0 0
a .p U C Y Y J J m N m N. Vi N N m 'N N N -N ,N. 'O R O O O
' • • •
7 N 0 a N « '6 'O 'O "O 'O 1] 'O 'D 'D m f4' m m (6 (0 O
O 'O m •N m O O m 0 m N N N N 7 m N U N 3 m N N O p 0 0 0 O N N N N N N
0<W a U0J0J����C/l �� ��tn��lYmmcamco D000000
N M U') (O t- a0 O) O N M :� l0 (O W m O N M V' (O
W O .- N N N N N N N N N N M M M M
LU
LL Z
0
o f
LO O LO
N (O
C N
V
C
c
p
0 0
.m .cu
0
Z,
O
C
a
N
N N
N
U U
U
C
O p
.
N
Cl CL
::, :1
a
3
O O
C
a N
Cl)
J
LOO^
CO Cl) Cl)
U
-p
-2
0
-
N
v m m
E E
m
E
O
° o
m m
E E
m Q Q
E
Q
U
Q
a c 'c, 'c n E o"
•p aaa m 0
O - 6
co m ( N 3 3 7 N Z _
C C C N N N
E 06
m m'm m m m
Z 0 ° � c° � CU UU UU U E. 21 c E E �
o D CL
•� r
N L U Z 0 ,0 O O O O O O O �. J a m 3 C 'C >. N
LL o m���a E a 0) m m YY m E Q 7(°v0
a N 0 0 0 0 0 O U U c
° E(� mC ��_- c 000 �� $$ E a m.. a cm cm
� - N E ( u m E a a� a v - 'o a _0 ai a U c c 06 ( m o o n m
C C -.3 a a N 7 7 7 7 3 7 J J L 0 N m O m m .m .m m m m
- L) ',N 'N m C •2 Z O O O O O O O U E M 'y 'N • N • N • N • N
3 - 'C m QJ A) J :U 3 O• C d a a C- O O '0 3 'D J m m m m m m
L) o E J . ° I a� I E E E E 'E E(D LL LL a� o f c c c c c c
C . - A N C O Z m m -- -- m N `N ° U U m m m m m m
C C C C L N L U U N N m c c U p p .' . ., w
C O .0 = o m I LL I LL O. O O C 0 0 O C LL LL LL ' 30 O. 3 0 - _N N 3 3 3 3 3 3
o a o- p- U ° 2 c c c c c c c c c c = m N° W W W W W W
a° m o v N 'c m e m (D o 0 0 0 0 0 a) . p o .p E _(i E E > >' oS of oS 0 o3
CL V a m a �' a 0 0 E E E E E c E E E E I Co I I 0 0 0 0 0 0
a .p U C Y Y J J m N m N. Vi N N m 'N N N -N ,N. 'O R O O O
' • • •
7 N 0 a N « '6 'O 'O "O 'O 1] 'O 'D 'D m f4' m m (6 (0 O
O 'O m •N m O O m 0 m N N N N 7 m N U N 3 m N N O p 0 0 0 O N N N N N N
0<W a U0J0J����C/l �� ��tn��lYmmcamco D000000
N M U') (O t- a0 O) O N M :� l0 (O W m O N M V' (O
W O .- N N N N N N N N N N M M M M
LU
LL Z
0
o f
LO O LO
N (O
h
c c
c
0 0
.m .cu
0
Z,
N N
N
U U
U
Cl CL
::, :1
a
3
O O
O
a
LOO^
CO Cl) Cl)
U
.C.
m
O', U
m )
U!r�
m
E C
l0 Q
m
a
o '
U
A
C
0
LL
d
U
01
N
d
A
N
d
d
d
a
R
F
� r
0
m a
U Q)
L
CD Z'
o O
o
U O
m
CD o
LL N
� o O
N
O
N
m
a
J
0
C7
c
U
m
c
O
c
a�
d
® L
CL
a)
LL
I
LLI
Rf
H
V
O
O
>
O
V
d
r
to
O
V
1 2
� C
o E
r
c0 G
U y
E
�LL
N
a
`o
D
U
T
C
0
N
d
U
Z
d
v
d
R
d
m
d
LL
ID
d
T �
R
� F-
� t'
O
a
U d
o >
o O
U V
N
a)
LL y
�o O
�LL U
N
O
R
a
7
0
a
c
U
G
`m
G y
O C
C) a
U �
E
@ LL
N
a
`o
T
WE
Ln
O M
r' In
M
T
c
O
a1
a7
V
d
m
a1
a)
d
w
m
T �
� H
O
a
2 N �
a O
o O
0 U
d
� o �
LL
o O
N
(D
m
7
0
Q)
t,
t
U
tz, C.
. c _
H @
g.
LL
c ai ai ai ai ai ai 4) a m a c
c o E cx m c c c Z;
c
O m m - m m@ m m m m D F.
d U H d Y 'O 'O Q'
L ° N l0
m ;7)',
O O CO .
U ° s Ca C
N
>�' in to ig in i� in in in cq io
U (U d
F- F- - p
y c o o o v ;o - a a� o
c c c c c c c c c c
o I- E
- o -o -o m = F F 1 - t
N C Y
N
O
7 7 7 7 "7 7 7 7 7
. C i 7 ` O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O U p
C c C (n (n uj -
a) 7 7 7 m 7 a=+
m N ~:.
> :@ ,0 a) N Z
..
U
o E
N > V3 n W
W
Q' .� ,C '{/y, C ��,. a
m 4) a) N a) a) N.. N
m m U '> E
> > > > > > > >
000000000 3
m a) a> > 0 0 a�
3pvoYoC�C�C�
�{�-
E °� W W' F
— c O EW,c E
a m e
N
U) o Q)
as m — cl
12 11,
a�
5
�� 'mmmmm "m mmmmmm
m'm mmmmmmm�F- ',a���a�
c
0.
m Q m �B o
222222
g�2"2 ����,0
z
Ev�Y 0 -o J
r E 2 N
I
Q
N N N 7J N 'N rJ N rV `N .N N
m m m m m ca m m m m@ m
N N N N N N N N N N
@ m m ca m m m m m m O
3 O D- a� -
o m a� — N 2 �
co
222222222G?U0Zam
-
OV
N M V LO r co O) O
_ C O O
o m E U @ C E O@
..
,W,,
C
@
i,?
LL
0
@ p m w Q
3
a
- 4
N
(D
m
7
0
Q)
t,
t
U
tz, C.
; C O C �a m m
U >
LL
c ai ai ai ai ai ai 4) a m a c
c o E cx m c c c Z;
c
O m m - m m@ m m m m D F.
d U H d Y 'O 'O Q'
L ° N l0
m ;7)',
O O CO .
U ° s Ca C
>�' in to ig in i� in in in cq io
U (U d
F- F- - p
y c o o o v ;o - a a� o
c c c c c c c c c c
o I- E
- o -o -o m = F F 1 - t
CD m P o c
E > 2- °� E
3 U
7 7 7 7 "7 7 7 7 7
. C i 7 ` O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O U p
C c C (n (n uj -
a) 7 7 7 m 7 a=+
m N ~:.
> :@ ,0 a) N Z
(�H
_ o n C�C7C�C7C�000 c
',.N '= D
c @ T
O C C C Q �r
N > V3 n W
W
Q' .� ,C '{/y, C ��,. a
m 4) a) N a) a) N.. N
m m U '> E
> > > > > > > >
000000000 3
m a) a> > 0 0 a�
3pvoYoC�C�C�
�{�-
E °� W W' F
— c O EW,c E
a)
m E V7 Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q d Z
a) C C C Nd
Z d N N N U
, m 2 dm
U N m a -C O a,
�� 'mmmmm "m mmmmmm
m'm mmmmmmm�F- ',a���a�
°- >E;2'222
u >D
222222
g�2"2 ����,0
z
Ev�Y 0 -o J
r E 2 N
I
N N N 7J N 'N rJ N rV `N .N N
m m m m m ca m m m m@ m
N N N N N N N N N N
@ m m ca m m m m m m O
3 O D- a� -
o m a� — N 2 �
O�S22 =2222x2222
222222222G?U0Zam
-
OV
M V'� f`aD O)O Nch�
7 V V V v
�['�cDrcO O)O�.NM� �cD,aO O>O, Ut r
LOLOu��U')w OCo w co: co OO cor .n�
r W
N
(D
m
7
0
Q)
t,
t
U
5
L
a
LLj
ca
L
V
d '
Lu c
L
0
0
V
N
V
5
U y
E
E
'o.
m
a c
0
m
U
N
C
c0
N
Y
l0
a
Z
C
0
N
d
V
4T
N
L
O
R
O
w
()
4)
LL
d
3
w
in O
U �
`o >
O
o u
(U d
0o
LL O V)
d N 0
N O r
f7 C7
W o - W W
co T
d « a
cc C
A o
W C V
O �
� a
Q
t O
`o
m
a
7
c
U
N
ATTACHMENT 1 C
EXHIBIT C PROPOSED NON RECREATION FEES'
Summary of Administration, Public Works, Police, Animal Services, and Fire Cost Recovery User FeeTables
Administration
1
Banner Permits (No fee all banners,are for non-,
profits)
M M 5a1
V, 229 TF „x. ? .71 679'
&
'
. 25,
�'
a
p
_ ,
In
25
2
F5
3
"0 ",
"
152 _ ,16;41x6'.
fi
X93 793,
Cuirrent
Total
Cost i'er
Annual,
Recovers
%
' a ?A
`Re enue
,
5
Dejiosi#
846;
ble
RecFee,
@2ec
FEE NO.
Fee Name
$
�nr#
$}
Volume.
"
� /,Unit ($)
A �
Fee
. ,
1 526.'
,
. n . 526
: .526
8
,. x
Administration
1
Banner Permits (No fee all banners,are for non-,
profits)
M M 5a1
V, 229 TF „x. ? .71 679'
&
'
. 25,
�'
a
p
_ ,
In
25
2
Film Permits, .
of
s z�2
152 _ ,16;41x6'.
fi
X93 793,
Encroachment Plan Review - Minor
6518
3
Escrow Contract Review (1.00�
/V Cost Recovery) .
SIDEWALK MINOR -RESIDENTIAL
,
5
SIDEWALK/DRIVEWAY- RESIDENTIAL
846;
TOTAL - ALL ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIVITIES
SIDEWALK/DRIVEWAY — COMMERCIAL AND���
1,522
Public Works
1
Encroachment Permit Processing AII`.Other
M M 5a1
V, 229 TF „x. ? .71 679'
Encroachment Permit Processing - Utility Co. Project
��
2
(100% Recovery Costs)
k108F '
of
152 _ ,16;41x6'.
3
Encroachment Plan Review - Minor
X73; 163
1fi .µ , 88 wfi
4
SIDEWALK MINOR -RESIDENTIAL
,
5
SIDEWALK/DRIVEWAY- RESIDENTIAL
SIDEWALK/DRIVEWAY — COMMERCIAL AND���
6
INDUSTRIAL�0
488
1, 408 408;
7S
LATERAL
510 �,.
. ,
1 526.'
.EWER/WATER
. n . 526
: .526
8
SEWER REPAIR (SLIP LINE),
6 "011
1 2137
, < ,1 1 112 x,112?
_<
9
SEWER REPAIR (PIPE'BURST)•2 receiving holes
10
SEWER REPAIR (On Property)
11
TRENCHING (Street to Main, Partial Trench)
25 -63
1307307
12
DUMPSTERS /SCAFFOLDINGITREE REMOVAL
54
13
OUTDOOR DINING - Initial
_�, 3w ,3 -4f,
tt..
14
OUTDOOR DINING Annual Renewal
103 39 1. 24 124
-
,
a
USA Service Required - add'I charge (100% Recovery
15
of Costs)
c X25
1, ��125 ,7251
DEVREVIEW P I, GOS'EHt3 R 1fRAT�S (1 °001 P.M. ON
43,U
tilRy Encroachment Permits - Inspection Hourly
v
k67 ;25
206,.1 "25 925;750
44
City'Enginee_r
_
171; 63;783'
45
PW Insp.11:
X67 MEMO
y..66..125.8;250
46
Traffic,Engineer Hourly
47
Sr Eng Tech Hourly'
61, 9 8 a „ _ ,; X 632;
NF
NON - USERFEE ACTIVITIES18�8
TOTAL - ALL PUBLIC WORKS ACTIVITIES
130,650
W
ATTACHMENT 1 C
EXHIBIT C PROPOSED NON RECREATION FEES
Summary of Administration, Public Works, Police, Animal Services, and Fire Cost.Recovery User FeeTables
Police
1
Special Events(Minor) - Residential"_
4.,
' 25
2
a ;.:
, , 'r, 6`” f`, �,_ , _,
„ 110 X76'
I� ._
3
Special Events Major - Residential
AM I at
Parakeets, Canaries, Finches /Other Small Bird
6
4
Special Events (Major)'- Commercial
T�ot�
Annual
�
fi
Ann al
Clearance Letter
_ , 25� _ , 1,5016
ee t
Cogtif'er
Recovera
Taxi Driver Permit
12evenu
f , 76,3;03Q`
Redemption for Impouded Dog or Cat - Intact Animal .gy
"ePas�t#��
�t�
lile� �tRec
Feed
@�Rec �
FEE NO.
Fee Name$($
.= 11 ,
Volume
fUni j$)
�'Fee�,
Police
1
Special Events(Minor) - Residential"_
4.,
' 25
2
Special Events (Minor) - Commercial •_ _
, , 'r, 6`” f`, �,_ , _,
„ 110 X76'
I� ._
3
Special Events Major - Residential
AM I at
Parakeets, Canaries, Finches /Other Small Bird
6
4
Special Events (Major)'- Commercial
312` X96 15
8
"U^5 625;
5
Clearance Letter
_ , 25� _ , 1,5016
Dog License — Neutered slim”, ;Z^F ` 6M ; .88
„`'
6
Taxi Driver Permit
^•,' 79 ":,. r7fi 40'
f , 76,3;03Q`
Redemption for Impouded Dog or Cat - Intact Animal .gy
7
Solicitor Permit
g 7 76, > 60 „��i576_��4,5,46'
Redemption for Impouded Dog or Cat - Intact Animal
14
9
Fix -it Ticket Sign Off
.= 11 ,
Redemption for Impouded Dog or Cat - Neuteredk .,
NF
NON -USER FEE ACTIVITIES
Redemption for Impouded Dog or Cat - Neutered r r
17
TOTAL - ALL POLICE ACTIVITIES
21,001
Animal Services
1
Dog Adoption (Including Microchip) 17� 1 TM, ; 23 9,47k1
§2 , , , .,,77
2
Adult Cat Adoption (Including Microchip)T,' 1;` 208. , 12325584
:;..
3
Rabbit Adoption (Includes Spay /Neuter)
4
Miscellaneous SmallAnimal Adoption
5
Kitten Adoption (Less Than 6 Months) 123�� 1,23
Parakeets, Canaries, Finches /Other Small Bird
6
Adoption
7
Cockatiels, Other Large Bird Adoption„
8
Dog License — Intact Animal_`
9
Late Penalty. '_ ,_ Fee — Intact Animal 2 20,,,140
10
Dog License — Neutered slim”, ;Z^F ` 6M ; .88
11
Fee — Neutered Animal
Y "A
Late Penalty 3"4813.
12
Replacement Tag
Redemption for Impouded Dog or Cat - Intact Animal .gy
13
(1st Incident) x X41,
Redemption for Impouded Dog or Cat - Intact Animal
14
(2nd Incident) #1
15
Redemption for Impouded Dog or Cat - Intact Animal
1 . 1 5
(3rd And Subsequent Incident)
Redemption for Impouded Dog or Cat - Neuteredk .,
16
Animal (1st Incident) „ 39, 188..3 ��41,7683'
Redemption for Impouded Dog or Cat - Neutered r r
17
Animal Incident) Mw
(2nd
Redemption for Impouded Dog or Cat - Neutered �'; )
18
Animal (3rd And Subsequent Incident X30: °�AAA 4a,.. 16, �41t��654'
,
19
Redemption Fee For Livestock (Small & Medium) W wi
20
Redemption Fee For Livestock (Large), 86'' 41 J
'igl Redemption Fee -- Other Small Animal -- Not Dog /Cats a
21
Or Livestock „ 23
40
ATTACHMENT 1 C
EXHIBIT C PROPOSED N RECREATION FEES
Summary of Administration, Public Works, Police, Animal Services, and Fire Cost Recovery User FeeTables
22
Board — Impounded Dog 1 " -, £ 1,�1, X101747
23
u 1 _
Board Bite Hold /Quarantine ��10
,�>�3,� �� '� s_� �10� _ �" ,• X02
24
Board — Impounded Ca_f ,1;74T.
1 171..
1 k k'l fg;
. a. ...
Board.- .Small Com anion.AnimaF: .
P'. ? ,..
26
Board Livestock (Small: &. Medium) °
27
Board - Livestock (Large) 29 NM IQ 9A 1,.61,0 1,0"
28
Disposal & Euthanasia (Small Animal 21,1
29
Disposal & Euthanasia Cat
P (Cat)
ee!
CosPer
Recovers
_(Dog
Disposal & Euthanasia (Dog (20 - 50lbs)) E$'c ; 41, ` 3 , , , , Al
Revenue
a e,y ka -
Disposal & Euthanasia (Dog (Over 50lbs)) �� 82
33
Dposit
Unit
ble
Rec Fee
@Rec
FEE NO.'
Fee Name
$
{$)
38
Group Cremation (100 - 1201bs)
2- ,
w 41, b V
Group Cremation (Over 120lbs) $ ;4 �
X'1 r ,,x
"
Private Cremation (0 - 24lbs)
41
;ee.
22
Board — Impounded Dog 1 " -, £ 1,�1, X101747
23
u 1 _
Board Bite Hold /Quarantine ��10
,�>�3,� �� '� s_� �10� _ �" ,• X02
24
Board — Impounded Ca_f ,1;74T.
1 171..
25
. a. ...
Board.- .Small Com anion.AnimaF: .
P'. ? ,..
26
Board Livestock (Small: &. Medium) °
27
Board - Livestock (Large) 29 NM IQ 9A 1,.61,0 1,0"
28
Disposal & Euthanasia (Small Animal 21,1
29
Disposal & Euthanasia Cat
P (Cat)
30
Disposal & Euthanasia (Under 201bs)) 8„ slow"
31
_(Dog
Disposal & Euthanasia (Dog (20 - 50lbs)) E$'c ; 41, ` 3 , , , , Al
32
a e,y ka -
Disposal & Euthanasia (Dog (Over 50lbs)) �� 82
33
Disposal & Euthanasia (Carcass Disposal) N aH ; 1 `, „ :• , • 1 „ ` °,4,,� ,•� , X41!
34
Group Cremation (0 - 24lbs)
35
Group Cremation (25 - 491bs)5 1 0tt A '` 1, 141
36
Group Cremation (50 - 74lbs) 125 „ „ 41 _ ,1 ,,•,. �`�. 41.1 -` ?" 411
37
Group Cremation (75 - 99lbs) 01 136 .,_U . 41
38
Group Cremation (100 - 1201bs)
39
w 41, b V
Group Cremation (Over 120lbs) $ ;4 �
,,, _ ti „•, ., ,1
40
Private Cremation (0 - 24lbs)
41
Private Cremation (25 - 49lbs) MOM 1 ; , 5.1 � 41 � 4
42
Private Cremation (50 - 741bs)u 154 �?4„ , ,, . 2'.
43
Private Cremation (75 - 99lbs) x�
44
Private Cremation (100 - 1201bs)`" x227`,,' `1,.. 41�Y X41
45
„, -, , ,,1..
Private Cremation (Over 120ibs) 41-
46
Release Of Wildlife From - trap n Private Property '
P P Y �..: ..,57 :. 05 ..:., ..1,:. �- i . •fib m 6 -$
Nuisance Wildlife Response To Euthanize On Private
47
Property
Surrendered Animal At Animal Control Facility (Adult
48
Intact)r gig, 61 89.,...61 . 5429
f u�
Surrendered Animal At Animal Control Facility (Adult
49
Sterilized)
50
Surrendered Animal At Animal Control Facility itter
Y ( )
Surrendered Animal At Animal Control Facility (Non-
51
Resident)
�i
52
Pickup Animal At Owner's Location To Be Surrendered
Animal Controll Officer Transportation Of Injured ` '
53
Animal To Vet (Bus. Hrs)
Animal Controll Officer Transportation Of Injured��`
54
Animal To Vet (Non -.Bus. Hrs)
55
',
Animal Control Officer Assist Animal Owner $6F F 238, F 155,103,1;545'
ATTACHMENT 1.0
EXHIBIT C PROPOSED NON RECREATION FEES "
Summary of Administration, Public Works, Police; Animal Services, and Fire Cost Recovery User FeeTables
FEE NO. Fee Name
JNF INON =USER FEE ACTIVITIES
TOTAL - ALL ANIMAL SERVICES ACTIVITIES .
983
G V-
ATTACHMENT 1 C
EXHIBIT C PROPOSED NON RECREATION FEES
Summary of Administration, Public Works, 'Police, Animal Services, and Fire Cost Recovery User FeeTables
N
/� I---- O 'S
ATTACHMENT 1 C .
EXHIBIT C PROPOSED NON RECREATION FEES
Summary of Administration; Public Works, `Police, Animal Services, and Fire Cost Recovery User FeeTables
ATTACHMENT 1 'C
EXHIBIT C PROPOSED NON °RECREATION FEES
Summary of Administration, Public Works, Police, Animal Services, and Fire Cost Recovery User FeeTables
X4 7,.
n
rren gta' Annualti A n nual
os �� Recovera s Revenue
tap
F Fee Name
EE NQ. Oi s Volume .j Uni# Pe
Exhibit D - M Group Cost Recovery 1
Community Development Department
11 English Street
s.
Petaluma, CA 94952
Phone: 707 -778 -4301 P E T A L U M A
Email: cdd(a�.ci.petaluma.ca.us
Build It
Web: www.city(jf1)ietaluma.net/cdd
1 g 5 g
Building o Geographic Information Svstems 4 Housing
Fee Schedule*
* All 11 F C..l, ' t t. 1 O/ D....... -.ds Aii.,,,.,...,.. e F & CO /_ T- ,..
* All Fees Subiect to 9% City Administrative Overhead Fee
Application Type
Ado ted Fee
The following application types are Fixed Fee:
Address Change
$170'
Fence Permit
$97
Heritage /Landmark Tree Designation
No Charge
Home Occupation Permit
$179$97
Sign Permit
$97
SPAR Review Cost Recover
$144
Street,Name Change
$170
Telecommunication Registration Fee
$652
Telecommunication Removal Agreement-
$6,556
Zoning Permit (Temporary Use Permit)
$227
The following application types are Cost
Recover (deposit plus time and. materials):
Deposit Amounts
Addition/Remodel in City-Approved Historic District
$964 plus time and materials. over
Annexation
$5,897 plus time and materials over $5,897
Appeal
$193
Building Permit
See Building Permit Fee Schedule
Certificate of Compliance
$3
Conditional Use Permit — Major
$4,254
Conditional Use Permit — Minor
$134 $1,620
Determination of Public Convenience & Necessity
$2,835 plus time and materials over $2,835
Environnemental Impact Report
C Fe 251 .,,, „ d
pl - er hea
the actual cost of s t a ff t:..,,. and materials— recovery
by M Group or City's hourly work order "rates
Exception
$1,077
Extension of Time
$335 plus time and materials over $335
Final Map Amendment
$5,671 plus, time and.materials over $5,671
Final Parcel Ma (.4 or fewer lots)
$2,211 + $2,578 Deposit for Engineering Tech Review
Final Subdivision Map (5 or more lots)
$2,893 + $2,578 Deposit for Engineering Tech Review
Flood Determination
$114 plus time and materials over $114
General Plan Map Amendment
$4,990 plus time and materials over $4,990
General Plan Text Amendment
$4,877 plus time and materials over $4,877
Initial Study
$2892-$5,000 plus time -,and materials over $24,8-92-$5,000
Lot Line Adjustment/Merger
$2,495 plus time and materials over $2,495
Mitigation Monitoring (Post Approval)
See Note Below"
Outside Sewer /Water
$567
Preliminary Review — Staff
$2,608 plus time and materials over $2,608
i
�a
Community Development Department City of Petaluma, California
Public Improvement/Public Construction &Inspection
<= $500 6 of engineers estimate or $2,143; whichever
is greater plus time and materials
>$500,000 but <_ $1,000,000: 4 %° of engineers estimate.
> $1,;000;000:.2% ofengineers estimate.
Reimbursement Agreement
$1,134 p lus time and materials over
Right of Way Abandonment
$1,134 plus time and materials over
Zoning, Amendment —Map
$5,388 .plus time and materials over $5,388
SPAR ,Review - -Major
$5,2.17
"Zoning Code Compliance Code Review for Business
License
$25 (New)
SPAR Review- -Minor
0"$1,620'
Specific Plan
$7,600 p lus time and materials over $7,600
Specific Plan Amendment
$7,600 lustime and materials over $7,600
Subdivision Ordinance Amendment
•
$4,480 plus time and materials over $4,480
Tentative Iola Amendment
$5,671
Tentative Subdivision Map
$7,315 plus time and materials over $7,315
Tentative Parcel Map
$2,950 plus time and materials over $2;950
Variance
$3,686 plus. time and materials over $3,686
Zoning Amendment -Minor Revision — PUD/PCD %SPPUD
$964 plus time
Note: All applications identified by "Deposit + Staff Time & Materials" mean that applicants will be billed for the
full cost of processing the application based on staff time and.materials
over and above the amount of the deposit.
Staff hourly rates shall be determined'by annual regular work order rates established by the City of Petaluma
Finance Department for the given fiscal year(s) in which the
application is processed. For applications requesting
multiple entitlements, the, deposit shall be the sum of the individual:
application fees'and/or deposits.
�If an applicant files for the Appeal, the $193.00 appeal fee shall be a deposit and the applicant shall be billed for
any additional costs of processing the appeal on a staff time
and materials basis. If a member of the public files an
appeal, the appeal fee shall be $193.00 and any additional
costs of processing the appeal shall be billed to the
applicant on a time and materials basis.
° "Mitigation Monitoring" fees shall be based on full cost
recovery (deposit plus staff time and materials) and
required as a condition of approval of every application requiring mitigation monitoring. The Community
Development Director shall determine the amount of the initial based on the nature and scope of the
mitigations.
S: /agenda /20.11/10 -18 -10 Planning Fees
and materials over $964
Zoning, Amendment —Map
$5,388 .plus time and materials over $5,388
Zoning Amendment —Text
$5,047 plus time and materials over $5,047
"Zoning Code Compliance Code Review for Business
License
$25 (New)
'Community Development Department • City of Petaluma, California
M -GROUP RATE SCHEDULE
Cost Recovery Services
JOB TITLE
HOURLY RATE
Planning Technician
$68
Assistant. Planner
$79
Associate Planner
$100
Senior Planner
$131
Deputy Planning Manager
$158
Planning Manager
$175
S: /agenda /2011/10 -18 -10 Planning Fees
70