HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution 2010-206 N.C.S. 11/15/2010Resolution No. 2010 -206 N.C.S.
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 XI,
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,
Resolution No. 2010 -206 N.C.S. Page 1
.
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,
WHEREAS, fees adopted pursuant to Government Code Sections 66014, 65104, 65456,
65909.5, and 66451.2, and Health and Safety Code Sections 17951, 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,
Resolution No. 2010 -206 N.C.S. Page 2
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,
Resolution No. 2010 -206 N.C.S. Page 3
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 and 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).
D. 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 reasonable estimates of
the cost of providing such services, and that the revisions recommended to existing fees for such
services are necessary to recover the 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 materials 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 authority to modify or waive staff time and
material costs when circumstances warrant.
Resolution No. 2010 -206 N.C.S. Page 4
® 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 charges 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.
Section 7. Annual Adjustment The fees and charges set forth in Exhibit "A" shall be
adjusted by the City Manager on July 1 st of every year 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,
Resolution No. 2010 -206 N.C.S. Page 5
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.
Under the power and authority conferred upon this Council by the Charter of said City.
REFERENCE: I hereby certify the foregoing Resolution was introduced and adopted by the IT s to
Council of the City of Petaluma at a Regular meeting on the 15` day of November,
2010, by the following vote:
AYES: Vice Mayor Glass, Healy, Rende, Mayor Torliatt
NOES: None
ABSENT: Barrett, Harris, Rabbitt
ABSTAIN: None
ATTEST:
Deputy City Clerk
City Atto)
Resolution No. 2010 -206 N.C.S. Page 6
2009 Annual SF Bay Area CPI - 224.395 CITY O
OF PETALUMA F
FEES
2008 Annual SF Bay Area CPI - 222.767 E
EXHIBIT A
increase 0.73%
FY 2010 Fee
(7/1/09) P
Proposed FYl l %
% Change
rADMINISTRATIVE;F•EES
Increased fee takes effect 60 days after adoption, Resolution NO. 20 -206 N.C.S. Page 7
2009 Annual SF Bay Area CPI - 224.395
2008 Annual SF Bay Area CPI - 222.767
increase 0.73%
KAYAK STORAGE RENTAL
CITY OF PETALUMA FEES
PUBLIC WORKS
% Change
* ENCROACHMENTghPLbAN REV IEW MINOR'
125
* ENCROACHMENT- SIDEWALK MINOR -RESIDENTIAL
$ 73
* 'ENCROACHMENT " - 'ISIDEWALK /DRIVEWAY - RESIDENTIAL r „ r , r l
20%
* ENCROACHMENT - SIDEWALK/ DRIVEWAY — COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL
$ 340
* ENCROACHMENT- SEWER /WATER LATERAL;,,
$;. ,'
ENCROACHMENT - SEWER REPAIR (SLIP LINE)
$ 93
ENCROACHMENT_ -SEWER REPAIR (PIPE BURST)2 eceivi g holes`'
$ 256
ENCROACHMENT - SEWER REPAIR (On Property)
$ 93
* 'vENCROACHMENTLTRENCHING (Street to Main Partidl Trench) : `
-
r.
54 ;256
* ENCROACHMENT PERMIT PROCESSING - ALL OTHER
$ 47
i UTILITY CO'F'ROJEET(100 %RECOVERY OF COSTS)_ .,,;,;;
r $,� ",$: -;" 1 J 3,
* ENCROACHMENT - TREES, DUMPSTERS /SCAFFOLDING
$ 45
ENCROACHMENT-� OUTDOO,RDINING INITIAL r T�a'sal "T "" T a 7
340
» FEE
.,
ENCROACHMENT - OUTDOOR DINING ANNUAL. RENEWAL FEE
$ 103
iUSA SERVICEIREQUIRED, atld l =`charge O Recovery of Costs) ,
, x , L F1Na kl
' DEV.REVIEW FULL COST HOURLYiRATES (,100% Cost Recoveryl k �,
„r $5QOb
FILMCPERMAI ", °' ,. .,.
EXHIBIT A
Proposed FYI
% Change
21%
125
$ 80
4%
$ 525
20%
$ 5.50
7%
$
88
21%
125
87%
$
408
20%
$
112
20%
$ 1IFI � , 307u
k "; X20%;
$
112
20%
$ 125
.-
307
�20 %`
$
51
9%
$ s s ,, t 152
=� !, ,-,87%
$
54
20%
$
346
2%'
$
124
-20 %
* Utility Encroachment Permits Inspection Hourly
$ 67
125
87%
*,CitylEngineer
I$ 99
IT �. ire, �r x rrT dam
* Public Works Inspector II
$ 67
$ 125
.-
87%
.........- .......
* '.Traffic r
Er ineer ,1nTu
_ Y _ B "(.F _.
KIN,
uas rzen,
€
" Sr. Eng Tech Hourly
$ 61
$ 79
30%
„r $5QOb
FILMCPERMAI ", °' ,. .,.
_
dx�d,4d 1 d I r, 3
'ktd s &P � ....
9
$- , . , 3
, r:557
Cost of Employee Services
Work order rate + 15% administrative fee•, deposit required,
no change
0%
Barncades T irl F§
w � $21" `;t
r
per unit viper day ., Tre"v
no change
0 %.
m� try
Public Works Equipment
.:
a,. -
Department rate
no change
0%
.N m... Ohl,
Pollee Venlcle,Fee (on camera) ' u
$, „ T19
per hour man and equipment'' L rbT tgi
WMi
pno'ct ange
a- 0%
Other City Vehicles (on cameral
Department rate
no change
0%
IN s `
or as determined by'Clty Manager necessary.wor "k- charged at
Cleanup /Security Deposit x9 +s4 H �r
"1s
$ 1031;p
$
» - ^-
work order rate + 15% admlrns}rat efee + maYenais r c
nochange
`
0%
_- f rsf(i fi� apt ;
�
" E a
Street Closure
$ 516
per day
no change
0%
Street @losure.A teriol . "„ & ti
per "days.: . ^Nra .sad. w w4talFag7u °a^ s r
r
- no ch' e aiy
g
S ° 0%
4
L re ru
iPOIICE�DEPARTINENTFEES d . � sin, n�.!rI . 1FSY %r r
wrTs"a
,� -
�t:u v -
tl tl,Lx d .. �r'a ,< re ar p rTUi
c
€r *� AIIriS
�t9 rluSr�'
BOOKING FEE RESTITUTION
$ 256
plus cost of booking fee
no change
0%
POLICE FALSE ALARM RESPONSE - Commercial
s�
"prs
C
TAXI DRIVER PERMIT
SOLICITOR PERMIT, iii.
FIX -IT TICKET SIGN
$ 63 Commercial
Residenhal7�
$ 312 Commercial
First three In a calendar year -- No
^ra $,µ ' , x; ' Fourth "false alarm ihi;calendar yec
Audible -- $68
r'r•, , r', Silent_= ":$114 rr`�i
Fifth false alarm in calendar year:
Silent -- $227
5 i .
Each - additional False alarm'in a'o
A, Aihia - -'ORA
$ 13
$:I.rv'x. v., s, ,rss �:: No Char - ge , fsr? �aI,
$ Under 10 pages -No Charge
per-, page ten` pages or more;
$ 79
$.$_';
$ 10
$5' , , Under 10 pages ;NoCharge,(
$ 0.15 per page- ten pages or more
$ 76 21%
$ 375 20%
no change 0%
no change 0%
no change 0 %
no
no
16 23%
no`change `- 0%
no change 0%
76 -4%
- 76 ,
10 0%
no chap e` 0 %.
g
no change 07.
* Increased fee takes effect 60 days after adoption. Resolution No. 20 - 206 N.C.S. Page 8
2009 Annual SF Bay Area CPI - 224.395
2008 Annual SF Bay Area CPI - 222.767
Increase 0.73%
* `FIRE PLAN.'CHEGKWIN_ SPEC
* New Commercial
* 1 ffiNew,Resldentl'I
* New Tenant Improvements
* "glllOtherg(Excluding CUPA "r
* Inspection Hourly Rate
* kef�iCO .e»^L.ieln..mer}:Oc.nou,a
PUBLIC ASSISTANCE.CALL
m ffi
J $
„A1IABULANCE CALLS ,s
Ambulance fees are separately set
d Tr
ALS1N fA 66'cedsGfepSuport p Inte ventlon an ansportj(senous) RESINT $
- G p , *i ,an Via, nap' DE
s) . R „ . ..
ALS1 (serious) NON-RESIDENT $
". s
ALS2 - NON- RESIDENT $
BLSESfBasiclUfe Support Care'and,Transporflr, RESIDENT ° ` %. ,,,, q$
BLSE - NON - RESIDENT $
MILEAGE'. R 0L'�.0 =5 +, .v $
MILEAGE - NON - RESIDENT $
aye t'
ALS M,('Mboacil;Afd)'= _RESIDENT;, _ $
ALS M (Medical Aid) NON-RESIDENT $
BLS .M (Medical AidY, :RESIDENT - , w ....M . _... . , . A ffi$
BLS M (Medical Aid) - NON- RESIDENT $
ASSESSIv1ENT :RESIDENTa, r( i,r� "r, ,,; _
i
ASSESSMENT - NON - RESIDENT $
MEDIC_ ALSUPPLIES AND MEDICATIONS
PENALTIES
FAILURE TO OBTAIN FIRE,OR,HAZARD.MATERIALS, PERM IT
FAILURE TO PAY FIRE OR HAZ. MAT, PERMIT FEES WITHIN 90 DAYS OF INVOICING
UNIFORM FIRE CODE (UFC) FEES:
UF.GAEROSOL P,§60 C qW F - .t "' f Wl� *; n , - Affi iffin T i$
UFC - AIRCRAFT REFUELING VEHICLE $
UFC- AIRERAFT $
UFC- AUTO.FIRE SPRINKLER /7 -20 HEADS $
UFC AUTO SP.RiNKLER % >2Q_H,EADS ,
plus $
UFC- COMBUSTIBLE FIBER STORAGE $
UFC C01viBUSTIBLE`tv1ATERIAL5TORAGE , , ^� ,, � „ , ,.•" �$
UFC -DAY CARE - COMMERCIAL $
UFCDAYCARE .RESIDEJTIAL�,�ssr.A,.,_>'„ .. F ,x r
UFC -DRY CLEANING PLANT $
Ui_ D T'PRODUGINC OPERATIONS' ` , t ,
UFC -FIRE ALARM SYSTEM INSTALLATION $
plus$
UFC -FIRE ALARM SYSTEM REPAIR /MODIFICATION $
UFCFIRErPROTECTION
UFC- FIREWORKS /PYRO.DISPLAY $
UF,GFIREVJ,ORKSBOOTHZ�` f e % F F aV8,,, I$
UFC- FIREWORKS DISTRIBUTOR $
UFC REPAIR
UFC- COMBUST.STORAGE: HIGH-PILED $
UFC- INSTITUTIONAL OCCUPANCY: >50 $
UFC- INSTITUTIONALFOCCUPANCY 650 „$
UFC -JUNK YARD $
UFC L P.G`:' INSTALLATION $
UFC L/G FUELED VEH.IN ASSEMBLY BLDG $
UFC;LUMBER YARD „ F$
UFC - MAGNESIUM WORKING $
UFC- 'MEDI,CALGAS;NSTgLLATION, .1 & Tt x„ pp 6 re X$$
UFC- ORGANIC COATINGS $
10 ,, WRWN�" I u ,; s _' , .e P h;u J9 ,,$ 86 r ew
85+ I Mf
First reinspection No Charge no change 0%
. a,,a�k.w ..av�a
91 Second,gnd subsequent reinspectlons $ 110 21 %
fig,„ Pr, , <g Fl st two false 6larms'in calendar year, ' ° � ffi r o „chtinge;
125 Third false alarm in calendar year no change 0%
T„ „s F227 Fourfh`Sfalse,alarm IncalencJaryear mr °3 nowcf '0%
567 Fifth and subsequent false alarms in calendar year no change 0%
I'll w' Chargee,calls to reside�hal address in calendar year No Yfno ch'ange 11 0% : „y
79 Fourth and subsequent calls to residential address in calendar no change 0%
1 016
1T01'6T ,,,t f
1,196
'675 �t �
�. �r��oA.a �T;;�d'. :
789
16
448
335
278
� , Three tlnies,e
)OQ% of
50% of permit fee
3 per head over 20
213
213' r , .
239
1 57
213
2131 k ,..
161
3 perinitlatlIn vj
136
479
692
213r4it€ 4I a
256
266
266'
426
T."W'1R
320
372
106
213
no change 0%
an
no change 0%
u
no change 0%
no change , ffiIi.- O%
no change 0%
no`'change ^ P1L O%
no change 0%
no change 0%
no change' _ ; 09 ;
no change 0%
noctrange, , -,0 %`'
In change,
no change 0%
319 20%
`20 '
324 20%
324
5 67%
.. 256F' , ' pA
256 20%
256 S s?2�?
287 20%
256 20%
.x '20 ' .
193 20%
5, ; z 67%
163 20%
'a” 575 i U20 %
830 20%
awa 86725,6
307 20%
287 ,. . : '�O%'
320 20%
320' _ ' : 20%
511 20%
' 0" 84 LM
384 20%
446 '.,.._ .20%`
127 20%
6mg�'�ITxa;aPj287 i20%
255 20%
767 20 %'
384 20%
. Increased fee takes effect 60 days after adoption. Resolution NO. 20 -206 N.C.S. Page 9
2009 Annual SF Bay Area CPI - 224.395 CITY OF PETALUMA FEES
2008 Annual SF Bay Area CPI - 222.767 EXHIBIT A
increase 0.73%
FY 2010 Fee
(7 Proposed FYI I % Change
UFC -PLACE OF ASSEMBLY: 300 OR GREATER (except Churches) $ 320 $ 384 20%
UFCRLACEOF "A LESS THAN 300" &Churches ., <., m Ys<a z i $r ir,. mu1u238,.:ti 20% u'
UFC -PLACE OF ASSEMBLY: SCHOOL $ Exempt no change 0%
dri o-b !6 r« amFTvbhz�;S r:" �ro "qn xmr wa « a- - 'm.. i c ., Lit " , ea :.,
UFC-RES'L,CARE:FACILIT Y ELDERLY, $ + ?+ )4° t i new r �:-
UFC- SPRAYING & DIPPING $ 266 m $ 319 20%
UFC- TENUCANOPY /AIR- SUPPORTEDSTRUCTUREij,'4 s'F " a is r �£26 a b s &�. l�� ':
UFC TIRE STORAGE $ 483 $ 579 20%
gUFC, UNDRGRND:FIREaMAIN1INSTALL,4TION� -� '�. �
UFC WASTE MATERIAL HANDLING $ 454 $ 368 19%
FT,aYN m T"umym. a.s :fd.$� " .1. '4 T , s . $' 162 20%
HYDRANTF „LOW.., ,
HAZARD M
OUS' ATERIALS'(HAZMAT).FEES.u'r :,.. pu v . < „., rk, +d + is i. "nti.c `. '& aR, w +! "I, } - "I 7> m,xi +dllZLTT?i,
HAZ MAT SITE CLOSURE $ 506 $ 607 20%
HAZ MAT�ABOUE ° GRgUND.STORAGE -RANGE 1 .' - '? $•'. , 198 =V $ _ 238 2 0 %, .
HAZ MAT ABOVE GROUND.STORAGE. RANGE 2 $ 454 $ 545 20%
HAZ. MAT - ABOVE GROUND. STORAGE: RANGE.3, s 't. - a i, w ..m sm , . ,$,m s rd 595, a wk,r 6 , F iT $` )I �m �s,t l" 0 r,, 1 6 $101"M T dllrll TM77.14 IiV1wi r 20 %al
" .. M$., "`�t
HAZ.MAT -ABOVE GROUND.STORAGE: RANGE 4 $ 709 $ 851 20%
HAZ MAT ABOVEGROUND.STORAGE Y RANGErS.` °A 1 it " .. F TL Z $.. tr 772 €.A $ - 926. -
HAZ.MAT -ABOVE GROUND.STORAGE: RANGE 7 $ 198 $ 238 20%
HAZ. MAT- ABOVE.GROUND'STORAGE:,RANGE 8 , 238 20%,
HAZ MAT ABOVE GROUND STORAGE RANGE 9 (Green Policy) Reduce above fees for ranges 1-8 and 10 by 10% no change 0% ;
a " m 198 „. K f4kTSFF(Li a w $ x. '238 X20 % + §Y
w n a « �m
HAZMATPBR O
MIT R OPERATE O UNDERG OU E 10 „.,T},,'' 9$�Y awmaE�. W °� '”' m. <.:.
ND TANK SYSTEM $ 852 $ 1,022 20%
ll
HAZ W -
. MAT' NEUNDERGROUND TANKINSTACCATION. ,” $� -. ,�' 852m Firsttank . „ ,. $ '` 736 - 14 %--<
$ 426 Second and subsequent tanks $ 511 20%
HAZ.Iv1AT. UNDERGROUND .TANKJ,PIPING /APP,LIANCE.REPAIR �= „ ,$ 426 ", persrfe ,: "', ,x i , +� . ", "m :T4.. , , ` $ 511
HAZ.MAT UNDERGROUND TANK CLOSURE /REMOVAL $ 1,021 application fee $ 1 20%
HAZ. MAT - UNDERGROUND TANK TEMPORARY CCOSUI?E "' _$ s t im T ` 1 454 pe to k for 1 yearr p nod ''"
_545 tali ,m
HAZ.MAT.RISK MANAGEMENT PREVENTION PLAN /CAL -ARP $ 170 plus $102 per hour $ 204 20%
"" , r
u
a
NO tlwm�
HAZ.MAT -ABOVE GROUND TANK INSTALLATION $ 567 $ 6 8 1 20%
HAZ,WASTE GEN O:S:T CONDITI'ONAL,EXEMP
HAZ.WASTE GEN. - O.S.T.- CONDITIONAL AUTHORIZATION TIER $ 772 $ 92 6 20%
w" , H Yx °. �( 6 a :, ..... a ." mfr 6a few v r d iiu r $,'
HAZ:WASTE GEN O.StT P.B.R: TIER WAIVER ;„ ^ P $Gilt 4 1,51 °7 ='-�L sSs 4 r 4a f9 L Sr', T € T a 1 820s ,, si 20% a
HAZ. MAT CUPA Hourly Rate $ 129 one hour minimum $ 155 20%
'
ANNUAL STATE SURCHARGE Shall be added to aikCUPA Peirnits State ;� ' .,.T' %P m ? tim wr,7a
n yam California Environmental Prote
s w a fOki
surcharges � T
jare establishe�dLannuallyiby the ction �'
AoencVECal /EPAI.'!- €r am= . e «m , .�,r ,,, , r.. ,.-, ..�; :r;
All CUPA Permitted Sites (Fee per Permuted Location Site) Per Cal /EPA no change 0%
,m ,. .- .:. w 1'a Zt al /EPA i. a b 4 m
HazardouSMate alsMdnagerr ens "Plan i.. , - rt .. F o 9 ,, r ails Per Ca no change' 0
Cal -ARP (Acct #CAL -ARP) Per Cal /EPA no change 0%
re based emergency fees for non-residents are separately set
Basle- Ergine.Response ,4. Tm r.., tby t?R�r ='T$
.1195
$ 250
per "''rm m =f'
per hour for 3 personnel
nochonge
no change
"0%
0%
30- '
Per event dispatet tee ; r.4 „ . ,
du
..hdef ange
.
51 25
oer event report writina and archival fee
no change
0%
$ 60 per incident Environmental cleanup no change 0%
per Vehicle Fire.. i 31 a�aTTr. �,..nochange T O %'
$: r 435- charg s for Basic Engine Response plus no change„
$ 125 per hour for a 100 foot Aerial no change 0%
$r= 150 per hdu�Command Und.witt Officer no change, 0%
$ 75 per hour for additional Battalion Chief /Chief Officer no change 0%
95', per hou�rper additional ; Type' Jaengl e� ,, , .,, . , no change 0%
$ ; 100 per Rescue Boat no change _ 0%
$';'§"w' 425 per of:Containment Boom`'(Feusablejs�."
$ 625 per incident for Extrication no change 0%
$'L o"375 incidentMr,"Helicopiei la ding,zone operat)ons_ i a r o change. a 0 %'
,� '' ` 1 1,z ,'7 . :
rz_e = u.bm �E T'k.. ;'^
$ 95 per Engine - type I no change 0%
fa "Z�R�
Aenal100 nocha ge�
n 0%
OF
$ 75 Rescue (Light) - Brush Truck no change 0%
Rescue Medium t a(ler' p no changeA;r 4
$ 150 Batt. Chief /Shift Commander no change 0%
75 Othef,Chief Officer, i ..., ;i le ” no change 07
$ 100 Rescue Boat no change 0%
35 - -_;, per., with eqbipm en t i1TFi i ” no'change 0%
$ 195 per hour Ambulance with equipmant and personnel no change 0%
* Increased fee takes effect 60 days after adoption. Resolution No. 20 - .206 N.C.S. Page 1
2009 Annual SF Bay Area CPI - 224.395 C
CITY OF PETALUMA FEES
2008 Annual SF Bay Area CPI - 222.767 E
EXHIBIT A
increase 0.73%
FY 2010 Fee
(7/1/09) P
Proposed FY11 % Change
) $5 a� per5 GaL AFPF foorr 1
1r no cF ange
$ 375 Landing Zone Setup per incident no change 0%
A,a'syyct ,�-c' °± YT ,', .;"T'„ r ).7 1i;,_ � . u x .,. w a �, t 1 ,��r Sgt , b , Wval �"{4?bER'rl�nae,
Hazardous Material Supplies /Consumables $ 30 each Absorbent bag ,?" no change 0%
Note Based on Ur»t of Measureandmy.be based on Yh`e minimum `i; 'F ;,$,r4 W '<ti 2.50 °. each Absorbent pad _ , _ ,. GG..,. d.`N norchange"
$ 45 each Absorbent Boom no change 0%
l a SrrTka�r ! A5Top ®So s.„ , . _ nochonge f�� ka
$ 35 each - Disposable Coveralls no change 0%
h$_Yr %& X25;) each „,Ne6pr66e „61 oves.,,
a $ y 9 each - Latex Gloves no change 0%
,.'S; '` 1 - B .. a .. n
X11145
..7 30 _ each„ Q B sJ'as , ,. , ch'onge 0%a
$ 25 each disposable Goggles no change 0%
1,a T$ 7_SIa eachpoGas Plug Krt , r =?a ,' �no�clhange 0%. '
. a
$ 75 each Plug & Dike no change 0%
tk3 a (0 9R 9 7
$ , . 250 : - each Overpdck_Drum, `� .,1 , ;i. �.,p� no cfian9e
$ 13 each Drum Liners no change 0%
s ; VZ7 l ° 2 5 each Bamcade Tape .. Tr51tp) norctiange" ., ,,fi , , 0% r,.l
$ 65 each Poly Sheeting no change 0%
r24 $ Ms i .. _° 85'- per'ir cicJent Gas Multimeter 2§5 t ' 9,, A a r1 x;,a.f, ,y no,change 0
$ 85 per incident CO Meter no change 0%
B "SultzMyq, A TO( no change . 0% "
$ 60 per par of Chemical Boots no change 0%
250 Turnout Gear Decor"'.— Ii 9 i o change 0% .
�yy R (,9S dt k(m°, n�9�p�pil i ,�
r ,^ ,
ANIMAL CONTROL FEES
DOG" ADOPTI' fINCLUDI "JG "Iv11CRO,CHIPI6'a °id 6 107 ` " 4 +_+ km $
ON 123 15% m
ADULT CAT ADOPTION (INCLUDING MICROCHIP) $ 107 $ 123 15%
RA ° ADOP.TION 6 CLUDESSS,AY /NEUTER) „ "'t $ r:_u 521 ,I,s 4+ U :.'E't 6MIA MISCELLANEOUS SMALL SMALL ANIMAL ADOPTION $ 20 $ 24 20%
KITTENSADOPTION,ILE$STHRN 6MONTHSI:` t$ r.d� „ >,aP� 107 a „�. , „,� , ,. $ v °123„ kaa X15 %', <,r
PARAKEETS, CANARIES, FINCHES /OTHER SMALL BIRD ADOPTION $ 29 $ 35 21%
COCKATIELS * 07HER;lARGEBIRDADOFTION, ", „ (t 3.iW& t, Ira ..aywk:lau "ma
DOG LICENSE - INTACT ANIMAL $ 38 $ 20 -47%
LATE PENALLY fEE . tz; 38
DOG LICENSE NEUTERED $ $ 15 36%
�
LATE PENALTYgFEE� .NEUTEREDrANIMAL „,Yro m4.cg�ui'htxmT „ a uxx.x x X $.. ; ). $ 15h i ti,
REPLACEMENT TAG $ 5 _ $ 6 20%
REDEMPTION FORIIMPOUNDEb DOG -OR CAT " = INTACT,ANIMAL ` T.' ,,,, a 9 S$ 7,9 FIrsT,incldeni �, , . w ( }; i � a f, i ,lam, gn;d +. „,. ,,,.,. , , $ 41 487-
$ 131 Second incident $ 41 69%
age owo,r1.xhFrilGrr'k°P�7� 6TTTa. ±$l, .s .,428 Third, and "subsequertlncidents'...,.,. $ a al4.zL86 %i
REDEMPTION FOR IMPOUNDED DOG OR CAT - NEUTERED ANIMAL $ 39 First incident $ 41 5%
Second:ncldenl 44 %._
$ 130 Third and subsequent incidents $ 41 68%
REDEMPTI ON FEE'sFORILIVESTOCK a 1 57.?! Small.adimedium ° , „ $ 28%
el n
W
$ 86 Large $ 41 -52%
REDEMPTION FEE,, OTHER.SIvA ,kNI ":-T46T,DOG(CAT:OR`LIVESTOCK;r $. -.
BOARD - IMPOUNDED DOG $ 21 per day $ 10 -52%
BOARD HOLD /,QUARANTINE ", s * „' � y $ i & « "32'; per. a
BOARD - IMPOUNDED CAT $ 21 per day $ 10 -52%
BOARD "$MALL;COlv1PANION�P'NIMAL ''' " _ w _
-_. ... a ...._.. a= ,., ... .;..„ ? xr.A...,�. n}rsrxs* a$' I” . r't9 6 , ” `rar i .x "kn , 1(I) .s . " w. p,au:: �. $. i�.:= .. 7 , ; 17 % ,, ' <
BOARD LIVESTOCK $ 23 Small and medium per day $ 10 57%
�.$.., 29 Large per daY”
DISPOSAL AND EUTHANASIA $ 21 Small animal $ 25 19%
$ L^u`"''`�52�!.CaTr.a..,Tr` u e .w,x ,wcrs�,."mm ! $_.41e>R.ti D.41- "P'"G°F..21 %'
w .
$ 52 Dog (under 20 pounds) $ 41 21%
:(20..ta SO,Pound519Lw aF,. * r$ 41 ' ,' - -40% ' y
$ 97 Dog lover 50 pounds) $ 41 -58%
a��i' g ", coss. ,1. T3'�°
.s, s $''iut�ii sa° WIN Car Disposol
GROUP CREMATION $ 107 0 -24 pounds $ 41 -62%
E $;x12025 49 $ :" 41..:. _ "66 % "
$ 125 5010 74 pounds $ 41 -67%
I3iS" 75 99 pounds .. : ° $ .. , -,. ., 41 .!. 70% "
$ 159 100 -120 councils $ 41 -74%
* Increased fee takes effect 60 days after adoption. Resolution NO. 20 - 206 N.C.S. Page I I
* Increased fee takes effect 60 days after adoption. Resolution NO. 20 - 206 N.C.S. Page I I
2009 Annual SF Bay Area CPI - 224.395
2D08 Annual SF Bay Area CPI - 222.767
Increase 0.73%
PRIVATE CREMATION
RELEASE OF WILDLIFE FROM TRAP ON PRIVATE
NUISANCE WILDLIFE RESPONSE¢TO ' HAi,
SURRENDERED ANIMAL AT ANIMAL CONTROL
POLICE ASSIST FOR DUI /ANIMAL IN VE
PARK „AND: RECREATION: - FEES; ”'
Resident Photo ID card / Golf - Initial
FITNESS SWIMMING
SWIM LESSONS - PUBLIC
SWIM LESSONS - PRIVATE
�Y �ll w "PI
PRIVATE PARTY POOL RENTAL
SWIM TEAM POOL RENTAL
`.POOL CLASSROOM RENTALS e'R. ; ;.'
SPECIAL EVENT - CRAFT FAIRE
CITY OF PETALUMA FEES
FY 2010 Fee
(7/1/09)
$ 131 0-24 poi
25, 49p
$ 154 50 to 74
$ ,?1 7599 p<
$ 227 100 -120
$ 23 Litter - charge per animal
�'�6 Non Resident � �$
$ 57 plus surrender fee above
$ 86 Dunng Business Hours
V
$ 142 After Business Hours
2 Youth
4 r uF b xT, "a
,..47Senlor /Diiabied,�
5 Adult
�umzn
X 42 '. fora 12- swlm Youth /Senior /E
52 for a 12 swim pass - Adult
6 per <sessiori , ». _
wm
;
105 8lessons
X55 4 lessons k
31 1/2 hr lesson
x,93;; Four71' %2 lessons „ " ; °;�°�
93 1 -100 people cost x hour
113'; 101 ± ` l Lt
people`�cost
10 per lone /hour - min $40 /hr, to max.
186 pr booth
696` _ " 366 Vvball -oer team
EXHIBIT A
ProposedFYll %Change
$
41
-69%
$
41
73%
$ ..m. ... , 41a
$
41
-82%
$
68
19%
$
61.
17%
m
$
28
22%
rub P "e ;
68
19%
170
]03
103
no change 0%
no change " r„ w 0%
no change 0%
no cngngea .rz „ (I
no change 0%
atAP
no.change�� 4��0%
no change 0%
no'change; 07.'
no change 0%
no�c"hange"
no change 0%
no changed `L,g 0%
100 8%
7 1257, ire 1.1
no change 0%
no cfiange l +i 0 %"
no change 0%
no ct angem; `) :-.Z 0%
395 8%
no ",change,! 0 0%
no change I 0%
e 0%
SENIOR P
P
COMMUNITY GARDEN PLOTS
Recreational staff sets the fee depending on program costs
491 Klds Klub-z`week "a. z
T - 1
Ai
P
Kids Qua x day
Kids Klub eztendedicare x;day'_
06 X -2 Summer Camp" x week
°! K -2 Summer - Camp" x daY._
1 Explorers Camp - Trip Program
29 CampSun "shineTT 'per week `5 /days /week , "ful
L
7 Cam ESunshine l
per week 5 /days /week half day
IN Camp;Sunshine. °per weekz
Como Sunshine - oer week - x half day
$ 170 cost x month Tiny Tc
$ $AF}' , 217 ii costlx'rrmonth Tny„Tc
Parent Night Out 1
'Parent Night Out; -;E
$ Youth employment
$ 26 per plot per year
-No
35 new
20 new
new
60 5%
15 2%4
no change 0%
15 new
f „10 new
no change 0%
10 y new
no change 0%
* Increased fee takes effect 60 days after adoption. Resolution NO. 2010 -206 N.C.S. Page 12
2009 Annual SF Bay Area CPI - 224.395
2008 Annual SF Bay Area CPI - 222.767
increase 0.73%
Per 200 people - Petaluma Non - Profit (no fee
Per 200 people, PetalumabNon Frofi�(f e etc
Per 200 people - Petaluma Resident
I?er200speopleNon�Resident'. "' ,
Per 200 people - Commercial
Per "Zo people Government jSchools ,
BALL FIELDS
PRIUATE_BALL FIELD;RENTAL SHORTTERMrd
PRIVATE BALL FIELD TURF RENTAL -SHORT TERM
PRIVATE BALL FIELD RENTAL -LONG TERM
BUILDING ATTENDENT EXTRA SERVICE - All
CANCELLATION FEE ALL BUILDINGS
(Non" Profit /No Fe
ASSEMBLY ROOM
;ACTIVITY;ROO , CRAFT.1; CLUB; CONF,4z
KITCHEN - FLAT FEE
MEETING `ROOMS : A =q ,
MEETING ROOM
jCONFERENCE #3; ",CRAfT2 , ,
LOBBY /FLAT FEE
,,, (Non- Proflf %Fees
ASSEMBLY ROOM
ACTIVITY ROOM; CRAFT 1, CLUB',CONF..
KITCHEN - FLAT FEE
iMEEJING -D jai. dt ^j°?+ %�WL , .`� "��
MEETING ROOM
CONFERENGE'ROOM 43t CRAFT 2 .. ,.e
LOBBY /FLAT FEE
ASSEMBLY ROOM
ACTIVITY ROOM, CRAFT;I;,:CLUB' CONF {
KITCHEN - FLAT FEE
MEETING "ROOMS A' =D a_rpj
MEETING ROOM
CONFERENCE ROOM CRAFT 2
LOBBY /FLAT FEE
(PilLate "• No
ASSEMBLY ROOM
`ACTIV.ITY ROOM;)CRAF.T I;CLUB' CONE:€
KITCHEN - FLAT FEE
:MEETINGAROOtv1S;�A`;Q ,
%. MEETING ROOM
CONF.ERENCE.ROOM #3 GRAFT
LOBBY /FLATFEE
ASSEMBLY ROOM
f "
;ACTIUITYjROOM;CRAFT I;:CLUBCONF�r.
ICITr'HFN _ FI AT FFF
RECREATION
COMBUTER, °.POOL ;,
r' ARF1FNI - FI AT FFF
CITY OF PETALUMA FEES
FY 2010 Fee
(
$ 103 No
A0;
$ y � 516 over
% 103 pert
to 500 people per event
46'500'peo016 per even
perevent
93.� per hr'. Non,Resld en
fs
26 per hr Youth leagues
,2K per fir,', Additional;lighisfee
6 per Little League member
0 0 , 6 pe "r'Soc _WL' cr`osse /Other,
6 per Girl's softball member
with alcohol
rte,: no,alcohol3i {aAbf(^ �°°"� la I
21 per hour
per hour Holidays " >;New Yet
Less than two weeks notice
52 per hour
129 flat fee
21 per hour
21 pet hour. L.ufr
62 flat fee
y I ,,,w a -
62 per hour
s31 per<hour
134 flat fee
31 per hour
26� per hour..
72 flat fee
67 per hour
36 ! per,hour ' ,a TBL uta i`a
129 flat fee
41 per hour
31'W:perhour, rG
77 flat fee
82 per hour
41 per
139 flat fee
41 Iflat fee
no cna
n "o cha
no cha
s1,';Ln �t�aa
no cha
no cha
no!'
no cho
n6chc
no cha
�� wl c
no clip
no cha
no cha
0%
0%
0%
no
no
Po
no
no
no cnange ur
no cflange- 0%
no change 0%
nos "ckangeF`��� ° a `0%
no change , aTO%
no change 0%
no chance 0%
Increased fee takes effect 60 days after adoption. Resolution NO. 2010 -206 N.C.S. Page 13
EXHIBIT A
oposedFY11
% Change
no change
0%
no change
0%
^fir A"
no change
0%
no change
6%
no change
0%
no cna
n "o cha
no cha
s1,';Ln �t�aa
no cha
no cha
no!'
no cho
n6chc
no cha
�� wl c
no clip
no cha
no cha
0%
0%
0%
no
no
Po
no
no
no cnange ur
no cflange- 0%
no change 0%
nos "ckangeF`��� ° a `0%
no change , aTO%
no change 0%
no chance 0%
Increased fee takes effect 60 days after adoption. Resolution NO. 2010 -206 N.C.S. Page 13
2009 Annual SF Bay Area CPI - 224.395
2008 Annual SF Bay Area CPI - 222.767
increase 0.73%
Private- Resident
GARDEN - FLAT FEE
eLOBBY /FLAT FEE >L�*� „„� , r cay�y 5i ; °,�rr •`T ' TF°A�,s ... � B `?_hr
Private - Non Resident
BART', CLASS LIBRARY °'LOUNGE; BBY v"1TG� p - "°
RECREATION
COMPUTER,
GARDEN - FLAT FEE
LOBBY /FLAT FEE
Commercial
ART, CLASS;§LIBRARY,'LOUNGE,1LOBBY,
RECREATION
CMPUTER, POOL3L'„ . �.:TErlll
O x .
GARDEN - FLAT FEE
(Non - Profit /No Fees to
GYM
MEETING ROOM
Private - Resident
GYM
Private Noilrftesl
MEETING ROOM
GYM'.
Commercial
MEETING ROOM ` y, g
GYM
KENILWORTH REGCENTER
Main Room
Cleaning fee
Ke de osit
Long Term Storage
DISPLAWADVERTISINM 1
Display Case Rental
WaII Space RentaI "fi e, r ”!
i ' " .
Electronic Reader Board
Activity Guide �z< '
Activity Guide Discount
CITY OF PETALUMA FEES
FY 2010 Fee
(7/1/09)
TA ,. 31. pen, our.
$. 52 per hour
per.houn.
$ 41 flat fee
,$ „. . "-31 fl�f
36! per dour';
$ 67 per hour
$�W ;m< . .. 77 per hour
$ 41 flat fee
fiat „fee
PerhoUry
82 oer hour
$ 15 per hour
e '
$ 15 per hour
26 per hour
26 < per hour
$ 36 per hour
W'�`� '{y„
per hour - Resident
'' y ����r 4 � 9 1� per hour < , NonaResident .�
per service
p per event;,
per month
per week
-
ae
per week
for 3 consecutive issues
for no rprofits
Government Rate x hour **
fIt, Non Profit zihour -
Commercial x hour
These are separately set.
All other fines set by the California Vehicle Code
PARKING `ENFORCEMENT- Vanous /72iho [ ` � c < -$45 $90
HANDICAPPED PARKING VIOLATION $ 600
* *Government Rate: 25% reduction in lowest fee category on Room Rates only - all buildings
* Increased fee takes effect 60 days after adoption. Resolution No. 20 -206 N.C.S.
EXHIBIT A
Proposed FYI I % Change
no ch
no change 0%
no change.
no change 0%
noct'ange
no chance 0%
0%
No
0%
0%
no
no change 0%
no change 0%
no change
0%
no change
0%
no change, T
” 0 %
no change
0%
$ 31
new
$ _ 36
new
$ 65
new
°
$ 250
new
oq
$ 25
new
$ F II :25”
...
new
$ 50
new
ew
10%
new
r:20%a
anew;
$ 20
new
$ 45
new
no change 1 0%
Page 14
matn o 'k-1.
consulting group
August 10, 2010
Resolution No. 2010 -206 N.C.S. Page 15
TABLE OF CONTENTS
July 29, 2010
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Page
1
2. LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS 6
3. USER FEE METHODOLOGY 10
4. RESULTS BY DEPARTMENT / 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
Resolution No. 2010 -206 N.C.S. Page 16
CITY OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA
Final Report on the Cost of Services (User Fee) Study
The report, which follows, presents the results of the 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
Department included in this Study:
Matrix Consulting Group
Page 1
Resolution No. 2010 -206 N.C.S. Page 17
CITY OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA
Final Report on the Cost of Services (User Fee) Study
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 costs such as payroll, human
resources, budgeting, City management, etc. These costs are established
through the Cost Allocation Plan performed by the Matrix Consulting
Group (provided under separate cover).
Supporting (Cross)
Where applicable, direct and indirect costs associated with external
Department Review
departmental 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
Resolution No. 2010 -206 N.C.S. Page 18
CITY OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA
Final Report on the Cost of Services (User Fee) 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 included in the analysis. The
table below presents a summary of results by Department for the City of Petaluma:
Department
Revenue at
Current Fee
-Annual $
Total Cost -
Annual $
Surplus /
(Deficit) -
Annual $
Current
Cost
Recovery
Percentage
Administration
1,000
2,000
1,000)
50%
Building
722,000
656,000
66,000
110%
Planning City Administrative Costs Only)
-
75,000
(75,000)
0%
Public Works
98,000
183,000
(85,000 )
54%
Police
14,000
46,000
32,000
30%
Animal Services
111,000
139,000
(28,000)
80%
Fire
353,000
694,000
341,000
51%
Recreation
1,078,000
2,386,000
1,308,000
45%
TOTAL
1 2,377,000
1 4,181,000
1 (1,794,000)
57%
`Note: Figures shown above are rounded 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 with input from City staff
and the community.
Matrix Consulting Group
Page 3
Resolution No. 2010 -206 N.C.S. Page 19
CITY OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA
Final Report on the Cost of Services (User Fee) Study
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:
Department
Typical Cost Recovery %
Administration
Varies
Building
80-100%
Planning City Administrative Costs Only)
40-80%
Public Works
Land Development — 80 -100 %,
Encroachment Permits 40 - 80%
Police
20-40%
Animal Services
20-40%
Fire
Building Plan Review / Sprinkler & Alarm — 80- 100 %,
Uniform Fire Code Permits - 20 — 60%
Annual Company Inspections 0 - 50%
Recreation
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
Resolution No. 2010 -206 N.C.S. Page 20
CITY OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA
Final Report on the Cost of Services (User Fee) Study
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 periodic basis. In general, 3 to 5 years for fee and rate studies
is considered a best management 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 living raises. The latter 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
Resolution No. 2010 -206 N.C.S. Page 21
CITY OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA
Final Report on the Cost of Services (User Fee) Study
2. LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND POLICY
CONSIDERATIONS
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, 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
Resolution No. 2010 -206 N.C.S. Page 22
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
Resolution No. 2010 -206 N.C.S. Page 22
CITY OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA
Final Report on the Cost of Services (User Fee) 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 approved 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
Resolution No. 2010 -206 N.C.S. Page 23
CITY OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA
Final Report on the 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, minimum, 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. Sometimes 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 service 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
Resolution No. 2010 -206 N.C.S. Page 24
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
Resolution No. 2010 -206 N.C.S. Page 25
CITY OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA
Final Report on the Cost of Services (User Fee) Study
l •• 6
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
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:
Cost Component
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
performed 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 for review 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
separate fee items chargeable by Public Works.
Plan, Policy, and Systems
Examples often include: General Plan Update, code enforcement,
Update and Maintenance
and technology costs.
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
Resolution No. 2010 -206 N.C.S. Page 26
CITY OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA
Final Report on the Cost of Services (User Fee) Study
reasonable estimate of the actual cost of 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 since 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
Resolution No. 2010 -206 N.C.S. Page 27
CITY OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA
Final Report on the 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 and staff needs using
standardized time estimates and anticipated permit volumes.
Situations arise where the size and complexity of 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 to individual services in the Study.
Matrix Consulting Group
Page 12
Resolution No. 2010 -206 N.C.S. Page 28
CITY OFPETALUMA, CALIFORNIA
Final Report on the 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 results 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 current 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
Resolution No. 2010 -206 N.C.S. Page 29
CITY OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA
Final Report on the Cost of Services (User Fee) Study
Council and City staff should rely conservatively upon 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 Section 22300 of
the Public Contract Code. If the City were to implement 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
Resolution No. 2010 -206 N.C.S. Page 30
Total
Estimated
Cost of
Number of
Providing
Permits
Average
Surplus /
Services -
Issued
Cost / Unit -
Current Fee /
(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
Resolution No. 2010 -206 N.C.S. Page 30
CITY OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA
Final Report on the Cost of Services (User Fee) 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 $93 per permit in
order for this fee to reflect the 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
$177
0.10
$18
Risk Manager
$85
0.10
$9
Finance Director
$125
0.10
$13
City Attorney (actual invoice amount per agreement)
$80
n/a
$80
Admin Asst - CM
$62
0.10
$6
Admin Asst - Risk
$47
0.10
$5
Admin Asst - Finance
$55
0.10
$5
Admin Asst - City Attny
$61
0.10
$6
Tota 1
$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
Resolution No. 2010 -206 N.C.S. Page 31
CITY OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA
Final Report on the Cost of Services (User Fee) Study
City were to implement a fee for service to recover 100 percent of the cost of processing
each Escrow Agreement, it would recover approximately $848 per year in costs
associated with this activity.
2. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
The Community Development Department is comprised of the Planning and
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
application review services by incorporating the services of a 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
Resolution No. 2010 -206 N.C.S. Page 32
CITY OF PETALUMA, 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 - Public Counter Support (includes general
application processing and general staffing of the public counter)
$40,000
Citywide Overhead (costs established through the Full Cost
Allocation Plan )
$35
Subtotal City Administrative Costs
$75,000
Contractor Cost Recovery Billing for FY 09/10
$515
Total Cost of Planning Services
$590,000
City Administrative Overhead Rate
15%
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
Resolution No. 2010 -206 N.C.S. Page 33
CITY OFPETALUMA, 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 the public with their concerns about public safety within their homes or
places of business.
• Provides building inspection services for all privately funded development.
• 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
Resolution No. 2010 -206 N.C.S. Page 34
CITY OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA
Final Report on the Cost of Services (User Fee) Study
Cost Category
FY 09 -10 Amount
Personnel
$305,000
Services and Supplies
$95,000
Intergovernmental (ISF)
$74,000
Citywide Overhead
$22,000
Permit Software Maintenance and Replacement
Amortized over 5 Years
$100,000
Vehicle Replacement - (Amortized over 5 Years )
$14,000
Operating Reserve (15% 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
2009 -10 were approximately $722,000. The City is recovering approximately 110% of
the total costs associated with providing Building Division services.
(3) Surcharges Applied 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
Resolution No. 2010 -206 N.C.S. Page 35
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
Resolution No. 2010 -206 N.C.S. Page 36
CITY OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA
Final Report on the Cost of Services (User Fee) Study
To implement a surcharge for recovery of General Plan maintenance and update
costs the City staff and Council should agree upon a desired cost 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 accessed by
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
Total
Annualized
Cost
100%
Recovery
80%
Recovery
50%
Recover
Prime Contractor Costs
$130,000
$130,000
$104,000
$65,000
Annual Staff Support
$120,000
$120,000
$96,000
$60,000
Total
$250,000
$250,000
$200,000
$125,000
FY 09/10 Building Permit Valuation
$25,900,000
$25,900,00
$25,900,000
Surcharge
.97%
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 little to no impact related to the General Plan. To
Matrix Consulting Group Page 21
Resolution No. 2010 -206 N.C.S. Page 37
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 $100,000 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
by raising 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
Resolution No. 2010 -206 N.C.S. Page 38
CITY OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA
Final Report on the Cost of Services (User Fee) Study
Fiscal Year
Amount $
2008 -09
$21,968
2009 -10
$15,258
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 shown in the table 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 $100,000 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
Resolution No. 2010 -206 N.C.S. Page 39
CITY OF PETALUMA, 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 Service Study analyzed fees for service assessed by
the Police Department, which include both administrative processing 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
Resolution No. 2010 -206 N.C.S. Page 40
CITY OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA
Final Report on the Cost of Services (User Fee) Study
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. The 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
Resolution No. 2010 -206 N.C.S. Page 41
CITY OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA
Final Report on the Cost of Services (User Fee) 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 a 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
Resolution No. 2010 -206 N.C.S. Page 42
Current
Revenue at
Surplus /
Cost
Current Fee
Total Cost -
(Deficit) -
Recovery
Department
- Annual ($)
Annual ($)
Annual ($)
Percentage
Fire Prevention
284,902
431,690
$(146,788)
66%
Fire Suppression (company inspections )
68,255
261,907
$(193,652)
26%
TOTAL
353,157
693,596
$ (340,440)
51%
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 a 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
Resolution No. 2010 -206 N.C.S. Page 42
CITY OF 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 an 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
Resolution No. 2010 -206 N.C.S. Page 43
CITY OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA
Final Report on the Cost of Services (User Fee) Study
5. 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
Resolution No. 2010 -206 N.C.S. Page 44
C N
O C
m Co
U a)
(a �
E c
c0 a
cu aD
a
o c
w
u
2
c
O
N
0)
V
O)
N
a
w
(0
m
a
d
a
F-
t
O
O_
CD
o:
Z
d
O
4)
m
N
O
U
Resolution No. 2010 -206 N.C.S.
Q
0
rn
0
U
c
C6
Page 46
a0
V
N00
N�
W
a
IA
COM
MV
Rz0I
_
' fR
CO
O
O
M
d'
r
rn
M
M
0
r
M
N
l0
rn
W
0� "T
V
w
a V 7
tD
tD
CD
".
T
N
M
N �
Go
7
N � Q
'
M
W
M
Il-
W.
W
W
r-
h
to
M
M
(0
M
LO
W
O
to
to
M
O
O
N fR
-'t
rn
O
V
(0
r
W
N
w
V
w
V
N
to
W
N
W
N
N
N
t0
M
(D
r
V
M
M
N
N
r
rn
0
rn
.+
(D
(�
N
N
M
N
M
(0
(O
00
V j
rn
M
LO
m
OO
r
,,
N
(O
00
H Q
_
(�
M
t0
M
(-
co
(.-
(0
to
O
"t
O
l0
M
rn
(0
to
M
rn
O
In
N
tD
It
O
t
CO
co
O
r
'
0
V
N.
00
rn
(0
'.
?
(0
CO
W
M
N
W
rn
It
00
CO
�'-
co
CO
M
h
Oft
(D
N
M
N
#` _yxy
"
U-
C
O
O
(-
&
M
(0
'M
V'
r
N
T
C_
>
4) 3 Q
U
_ d
N
o
r
INN n
O�
((00
N
W
1p `
N
N
M
C > 7
Q 09
- pr
(Qrn
[�00(0(O(n
€MNLOrn
0000
rNt�d'00
tOImo.tp
t�
tAF
N y
-,
cc �
r
b
ra -;
v
t
m
i
t L y g�a
2
w'»
N
'
M,
rye
(
EO
5
W
W
.'
W
W
(0
N
,-
'0
'4^
00
5�
«7
i N
b
M
O
--
M
(D
#
(D
v
a4
rn
M
f'
t(i
N
.mow
0o
rn
w"g'.Y
(0
rn
( ' " TNT
�6sx
in
h
N
O
h
t(}
as
N
N
M
M
N.
O
h
I
*
�
e
d
0)
n�MM,�ooMCDM�u�_oM��oo�
v
iu
r
'r
� N
'
M d
'�-
r
rn
torn
(n
>
r v�
o
rr
rn
mmWrnr�
(D
rn
tD
rn
cD
*v 'C0.�'
O
� r
J
Q
a�i
p
rn
U
N
o
U
t,
O
a
Z
(D
J
E
�o
p
Z
L
r0
>
~
~w
w
L_
0.
U
Q
Q
c
5;
02
m
w
j
c
(6
C
'F ° ,
�-
_
c
O
J
—�
mw
a'
c
c
(EaQj
J
N
t
3
a'
(D
d
LL
c
. N
c
.y�Zp�
c
H
W
2
U)
3 1
N
CL
C�7
0)
L)
a�
N
>0.-
�� `.
C
3
w (n
WC
°'
c
�p.�
Z
��
—
CL
U)
Of
w
CL
c
c
a
QQw
a
W
a
o
O
Q
o
m
U;O
c�°a
a
>
E
E
:C
wp
—a
a 0�a a) )Qzz
a-
�
0
��
a
o
TQ
a�a
>
>��_�_�_w
L)
LL
E
_
�w
y
w
Z
Q'
Ef
wQQQ��
Z
Z�UU
>LL. -.:U
a)
�_
0Lu
a
L
L)
aci
L
aci •1�� Q
L
W
W
W
Z
=
V-
H
Of�.�
O
O
Z
m
a
mW`o
a
>
w'w'c
U
C
c
N
w
>
U
a
mQa¢
w
Ww
Ucn00
(u
c
cam;
(LWrcn
Q
o
2
0
2
o���w
2
W
W
W
����
W
�HH0>
Q'
-0=
.
W
T
wZ
J
c
c
c
0-
0
W
W
W
W
W
D
D
D
(n
2
:,
iu
=
3:
m
O
Q
w
w
w
(n
cn
(n
(n
(n
(n
(n
F-
a
010
D
0
03
p' �
�
U
a
�
in
Z
W O
r
N
M
V
((')
(0
I'
00
rn
O
r
N
c
V
l(7
r
N
N}
N
M
a
q
-
LO
P
(D
V
r
C
J
LL z
Z
O
Resolution No. 2010 -206 N.C.S.
Q
0
rn
0
U
c
C6
Page 46
� C
C �
O E
m a
U �
_7
U
N O
N d
a
O
_T
U
T
C
y
d
V
.
N
N
a�
T �
a
t
O
U Q
r
o O
0 d
do �
- w
�o O
Z) LL V
_
' !R
In
co
W
L
O
O
O
CO
0;:
(D
(O
r
It
CL w 3
N
M
N � a
O
O
O
O
(O
r
(0
'
N
r
1-
O
-
t0
U 0=
M
M
d
N
L
� c
o c
Q
f.
CD
00
OD
LO
QO
00
w
fA
'
(O
�
.-
M
M
N
7 LL -
't
r
V
lC
� Q
U
°�
v
�nOOOo
to
It
(0
0
" E
c j 3
C
Q v >.
d
NEW
r
r�,N
M
C7
O
CVO
(D{
Q.
n
s
Q
Oar c 1A
ST
to
N
tm
N
t�
R
(h
(Oy
00;
V
�
�
k
3.,�E�m.+
Oy -
:.
r (O
to
OM
C O i
p
d
E
m
Z
m
.T
m
_m
N
U
2
LL
E
E
Ul
E
'y
E
N
O
N
O
W
Oc
C
O
c�
O
co
U
O
c
Q
w
N
w
w
H
c
c
c
c
Z
J
0
E
in
"
>
>
>
>
>
a)
d
0
H
W
w
W
W
(
>
v
U
U
a
U
CL(AC�UH(�iiOZ
U
U
cu
U=
Z
Q
W
LL Z
Z
O
Resolution No. 2010 -206 N.C.S.
O
N
a
0
U
Page 48
M 0
C V
N
U U
co �
C
l0 Q
d
L1
O
U
c
O
In
0)
V
t
d
d
N
d
d
T �
7
O 0)
7
O
U U
(i7
mo �
d
LL N
� O �
�y U
Resolution No. 2010 -206 N.C.S.
c�
O
U
C
Page 50
to
N
O
N
V
(D
Cn
LO
O
LO
t
M
W
co
.-.
(n
W
N
W
V
n
O
V
W
M
O
O
N
N
O
(D
(D
O
h
d'
00
to
O
N
N
N
N
V
O)
-
rl
M
M
r
(D
M
n
W
N
N
CL
� y C
'
N V1
O
V
O
W
(D
r-
M
M
N
W
M
M
N
W
t-
M
_M
W
N
O
M
(D
V
(D
W
N
W
M
W
W
�t
W
V
V
V
O
t-
V
N
C)
I`
'IT
O
O
O
-
V
V
O
W
M
N
N
W
�7
V
V
V
V
"*
M
W
CO
W
tf)
�-
M
h
W
O
N
W
M
W
W
P-
f`
V
r
V @
7
lO
N
N
O
�a
d
O
M
(D
tf)
(D
tO
O
V
O
U)
t-
V
r
IT
Q)
W
(D
Mrl-
'C
O
to
(M
N
I`
W
(O
N
M
N
(O
O
W
1-
(O
(D
W
h
M
O
O
N
O
W
M
N
M
N
N
N
LO
IT
N
'R
O
a
O
V
t-
O
O
N
W
N
(O
M
N
N
N
-q
-
O
N
W
V-
00
O)
Lo
M
n
O
W
N
M
to
(D
N
d LL
M
W
N
N
N
W
V
N
p
N
M
M
> ` C
� U Q
d
.�
W
O
M
N
N
W
h
N
M_
r--
m
W
r-
M
t-
N
m
O
h
N
W
W
tt
N
W
M
M
f`
O
n
N
M
N
(
N
N
N
C >
N
a` 0 >
d
d
t0
W
MW
r
N
1
W
W
CAM
s
p
m
CO
CO'
O
O)
,M
d'
N
^''N
t
N
O
W
W
OF N
?w�`
r
1 1 pRrdi,
N
,
N
W
W
f`
N I T
W
OS
i
�
a
k>
MMSM
yMMMMM
'NNNN_N
-00000
CD
NNNNN
"..dr"e
S
1v 0
.e:'
a1'+o4
I A M
d
y tYq
__
3
ry
a.
"
gk�
4'�b%
Ma
OW
6
tlf°h
"l4
i
'@
�.
�,
�
�-M
�C
'�
�.2
..r l,*,.
h
7.
d) .
N
tONONto
O
h
N
f`
W
M
M ,�t�M
�' DA
•
.
�,`
00
- M
RI
rW iP :Fl,'
('!)tO
ty,
W
NN
. �
up
'
MN�NNN(O
r�'�
i
:
.
C
@O
C
d
'O
C
N
U
U
U
C
Y
U
O
U
C
U
C
Q
U
y
N
C
Q
-
N
M
J
��
@
@
@
O
g
E
E
E
m
E
m
E
m
E
Q
Q
o
Q
U
Q
C
'c
'c
E
o
O
m
U
Co
U
@@
U
7
7
7
O
O
Z
O
m
c
CE
N
Z
d
Z
N
Z
I
(n
N
E
@
a�
L
C
V)
E
C
f0
@
@
f6
(0
f0
°�
@
@
o
N
U
O
'
Z
_p
�
° L
@
UUU
UU
U
E
cm
E
E
`mom
U)
n
�
U
UZ
O
'O
O
0
O
'O
@
Q
O
O
O
O
O
O
�JQ
@
C
@
'O
_E
C
Q
�C
ON
>�
N
LL
o
@
Q
20
n
Q
E
o
0
O)
0
0
tT
0
m
o
Y
U
Y -
U
(0
• E
c
a)
—
O
@
2
cm
CL
Cn
f6
C:
-C
�_
(6
Qc
a)
N
N
(n
m
- O
Er
C
cm.E
N
C
L>
o
7
a�
'O
a)
- O
m
- 0
a)
- D
o
"O
m
>
>
o
C_
CCO
C
O—
o Un 000C)C)
V
V
V
C
U
C
7
Q
H
LL
Q
@ @
N
7
7
7
7
7
7
J
J
L
O
L7
N
Q
C@
@
E
CO
@@@@@
N
i
7
V
y
N
U
E
Z
0
0
0
a C
O
O
a
O
a C
O
O
0
'6
7
J
@
@
@
@
@@
O
N
vv
C
C
C
C
E
J
N
C
J
@
C
I
N
N
Z
I
N
E
E
E N
U
E
E
E N
U
LL
LL
i
Q)
C
N
C
E
U
0
0
C
c
c
w
c
-
c
C
L...
0
0
0
0
c:
0
O
(�
7
C
-
@
U
L_
O
I
LL
I
LL
c
O
O
O C
O
O
O C
N
IL
O)
LL
d
LL
7
0
7-
@
--�
7
W
-
7
W
7
W
7
W
7
W
7
W
O
CL "Q
L
°
0
c
o
v
N
N
c @
..
O
c@
...
o
c
o
: C
c
"
c
o
c
0
c
0
c
0 �
' a
c
c
c
c.
E
_
E
E >
(U
J
O
>os�s�sxsasos
J
E
m
E
m
E
E
O
M
U
Q
co
�
N
.�
0)
J
C
a
U
J
N
a
N
E
CL
a 7
E a))
�'
E
a
E @
7
E
I
m
'2
'2
"O
"O
m
(0
(d
N
(6
(0
U
U
U
U
Q
IM
d
.a
N
N
C
Y
2
Y
U
O
m
f0
N
U_0
d
U L
U
�
N N
"O L
N@
'O
N-p
"O
@@@@@@
-p
0
0
0
0
0
0
O-
O
O
O
O
O
O<w
"O
@
•-
.-
ya.U�J0
(0
0
0
(p
O
(p
-jWc
N
O)
0)
LYw(n
N 7
0)
CL
N U
N 7
of
N
N
N
0
0
0
0
0
o
.T
N
N
N
N
.N
(D
W O
N
M
W
W
W
O
O
N
M
�t
tO
(D
W
O
O
N
N
N
N
M
N
N
to
N
(D
N
t�
N
W
N
Cn
N
O
M
M
N
M
M
M
V
M
U)
M
(D
M
I'-
M
LU
Z
LL
Resolution No. 2010 -206 N.C.S.
c�
O
U
C
Page 50
m
E
O
co
E
9
_T
C
0
U) t
0
CL
0)
U)
0 0 0
C) 4)
a;
LL
o 0
0
D LL
Resolution No. 2010-206 N.C.S.
W
2-
Page 51
r- LO
Z;
c
w
N
r-
w
m
"T
to
N
i3-
m
LO
N
LO
I--
I-
w
w
co
N
r—
N
(D
04
It
CO
N.
M
cli
rz
r
c')
(0
V
04
00
0)
CC)
(D
CD
0
0')
IT
a)
V)
0
U")
C�
oc�
"i
CI)
L Q
cc �
L)
LO
r--
CI4
I
m
00
0)
L
CO
�D
'.1-
N
1�
00
C)
CC)
m
r—
CN
"T
w
t—
In
C)
m
OD
N
LO
m
.0)
N
(D
Wm
00
CO
w
C14
0
m
N
tn
4)
LO
m
—
N
C
It
(0
CY)
LO
1--
04
c)
U.
cl�
—
>
.0 (D
'It
r
04
—
—
—
—
U)
M
00
Ln
M
04
C2
Cc
O " E
(D
>
0 4 3
cam
I
t —!,M
P, v
5
o
, IN
'a
111Z
'i
t
5�1
1
1
0i
I ;Z,
N&$
041
'm
NAO
_
40
ky
. T"
1"R
O NE
61
!6-m
N
04�
P
U'>
Sy
B—,
ON
5
=5
0
(D
C:
>
a- 0
��.L
a)
M
a)
FJ5
(1)
=
'.
C
a)
E
'F-
E
'E
=,
a)
d
(D
CL
- 0
- 0
0
C:
>,
>,
=,
D
fn
'E'
'E'
N
E
>
C
UL
—
U-
—
U-
—
U-
M
0
Z
a-
2
—
—
—
P
-
2
- 2
- (p
W
0
0
0
0
0
.
.
E
LL
0
()
U
0
0
i
0
0
C:
C
�
C:)
C)
0
E
E
E
E
0
C
C
Z5
U)
LLJ
Cj
0)
E
c c
<c
c
c
<
- 2 )
>
N
O
�
N
LO
r-
0
>
0
2
L
M
(D
<
—
<
<
<
'FU
U
U
0
Z,
c
C:
0
-0
7 E
76
E
'E
76
E
. E
E
E
O
<
o
4--
o
0
<
w
U)
LLI
2
-Z6
2
-Z5
—
m
E
. 0
—
m
E
. 0
—
m
E
. 0
—
m
E
. 0
m
E
. 0
m
E
3—:
<
<
<
<
-
E
—
75
—
- 5
-6
w
LL
p
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
(1)
- 0
- 0
- 0
- 0
0
0
0
LLI
0
(1)
a)
a)
0
c
N
2
2
M
2
M�
CO
CU
.1
CO
-�
M
N
=3
7
7
Y
2
'CL
E
r-
E
c =1
E
Z
<
0�
z
cf)
U)
U)
U)
<
< m
<
z
w d
00�M
CI)
CI)
0
I-
04
"t
I�
;t X
- �O
w
m
0
N
m
U')
-q
LO
0
LO
Ui z
LL
LL
0
z
Resolution No. 2010-206 N.C.S.
W
2-
Page 51
c c y
6 E
- r
c0 D
U �
E m
LL
m
d
a
T
A
>^
c
O
N
N
V
w
N
d
l6
N
w
0)
T �
l0
U a
`o 4)
0 0
U U
d
a) o
a)
LL N
O O
DL V
(!l
e
Lz
h
LZ
rD
0
R;0)
M
N
O
LO
LO
M
M
(D
CO
D1
V
L(')
tO
1p
M
N
a0
;3
N
V
V
M
lO
U)
M
M
D1
V
h
M
r
r
(p
O
M
_
In
_
N
N
M
U!7
r
N
O
M
W
cc
O
N
M
Q1
00
S
lO
V
M
N
d'
N
V
'T
r
M
N
M
N
r
N
N
r
3 � C
D c
.
609'
'
O
O
0)
O
(D
r-
M
N
LO
(0
M
W
O
1-
N
�
r-
O
00
CD
(D
LO
N
I-
LO
LO
M
N
(O
M
O
O
M
(D
O
n
LO
M
V
N
V
O
00
N
I-
(D
00
V
M
h
h
r
O)
M
00
V
O
O —
0)
0)
N
O
V
L-
M
M
LO
LO
OD
(D
L
LO
O
00
N
M
00
M
V
W
(D
(D
(n
(O
00
M
M
(n
r
V
V @
>
O
(O
O
LO
N
N
N
N
r
r
(0
N
O
M
00
O
r
r�
(D
LO
r
N
LO
M
r
C
H Q
-
N
M
N
M
O
N
O
00
CO
N
(O
N
M
(D
M
LO
0
M
M
r-
N
N
(D
0)
r-
N
0)
O
CD
_N
(O
M
00
O
V
LO
V
M
O
CD
O
N
N
(D
O
W
N
LO
O
00
LO
N
(0
O
It
41
fy
.
'
LO
Ln
M
V
O
It
N
'
1-
OD
'T
r
M
M
C
(D
N
LO
N
r
O
M
M
'
M
(M.
00
LO
00
'
V
M
LL
V
(O
M
LO
LO
O
tO
M
r
N
-'
N
M
r
> C
y C
» :i
y
N
N
(D
N
V
N
r
N
U)
r'-
I--
r
n0
(D
r
r
N
N
(
M
0)
0)
M
r
O
M
N
(D
f.-
M
I.-
M
M (D
N
C > 7,v
Q U
d
d�
Q)
.000OD
0
L(')
r
U
LOIN
U'>
LO
Lr)
LO
to
'fin
N
t z
M
LO
to0
c
00
cr
N
(V
Oh'.d`LO
N
00
M
.M
LO
lO
O
�thMO
N
�Y
lO
r
N
....
M
NN
N
N
�_
O)
a0
x
N
t'•LONN
N
O�
(D
N
rt
r
NLO
N
ti'
N
aO.
00
(00000;
M
O)
:
tO'
lU
co
UO
tO
LO
tO
tO
aD
M`
m
:W
�-
00,'00
M
M
�h
O
M'
LO
m
n
1'�
'M
(i'i
` rn'"F
LO
00�
"
CO
O
O
Lb
CO
d'
M
i�#
[t
�iO�
° a,00
D
01
<1'
(D
M
N
LO
N
LO
tO
N;
Cr
N�.
00
CD
9
LO
t0
If
Lt i
LOS
OD..
O'.
fi
„ 25
.,
I
ggj
4.�5..
y
a^
v
- Q)
v 't17
O
M
r.
N
�
tD
O'
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
M
L p
r
�
M
N
M
s re
N
M
-Mtnr
N
O)
N
h
(Y)
M
y r
CO
M
--
..
CD
M1�'M
)
D1N
M
(D
LOMOaONNNf
"NC
CD
��
tD
•�”
(D
O
:M1
.e�
O,(V
M
it
M
O
aM
r
Q1
N
(!'>,
N
P :,)
Q)
MNNNOM
CO
O
M
L,
ice,
CV
M
r
},
,t
Q
(D)(D;
N
N'
�.,
,C+O'.
d'
�
�
e
pp .+
V
v
r�
rf
rn
U
3
)
_0
>
N
>
N
3
N
N
a
_
C
c
@
U
a
Q
E
10
� _
�
'LJ
Q
'E
c
0.
(D
- 0
N
x
L
L
U
06
Z
"'
C6
—
.
7
O
7
0
LL
»
N
_0
N
N
LL
w
'0
U
C
m
U
@
C)
C
U
`
a^.
N
_
@@
()
0)
- 2
N
0
@
U
O
O
N
C)
LO
CO
.O
L
H
M
"0
3z
T-
c
@
@
a
>
n
(D
—
(D
Wi
-E
@
n
n
m
O
N @
@
N
N
0
E@
_
X
U
U
N
N
O
C
C)
J
�
.Qa
4)
C
.@
`
.@
C
C
�
N
N
—
N
6
2
lL
@
@
N
Q
C
@
co
..
LL
7
Ux
C=
@
0)
Y
0)
Y
@
Y
V
@
d
@
N
E
'O
C
@
O
E
d
E
Q)
E
a)
(0
D
N
d]
X
U
O
U
C
O
C
`
°
w
0
N
m
@
E
_
—
C
(n
a
?
@
C
C
c
C
LL
E
°
N
°)
d
C
to
N
N
C
°
O`
p
°
N
0)
m
@
o
IL
U
O
U
O
f
�
>
o
C
y
E-:
.N
N
N
3
U
Q
N
N
(n
N
(n
N
(n
N
a�
a)
U
d
Q�
C
c
7
(n
E
(n
E
(n
E
U
a�
d
w
m
co
w
N@
(n
7
p
f0
c
fa
c °
:r
-O
m}
LO
E @
U
p
U
O
y
Q
N
Q
O
LL
a(f
CL
°@
°
��.
' 01 ,
O
0=
Q
EnnUUULL
7
7
@@
N
2
@
@@
6
�
3
3
�
° 3
7
o6
.O
O
Y�jli�
c
N
.�
(�
c
@
U
S
O
O
C
mU
C@
>
O
AN
m
@i�iiii
QQQd
m�
°w
m
c
(D
°
w
QQQ
Q
QQQUU010DO
LL
LL
LL
LL
LL
LL'
U
2
CMJ�J��
=�(n
W O
LO
W
0)
O
r
N
M
a
to
O
n
W
O
r
O
N
N
N
N
M
N
V
N
LO
N
O
N
N
W
N
N
Dllllm
M
d'
M
LOO
M
M
M
N
M
O)
M
O
V
LU
LL Z
� 'O
Resolution No. 2010 -206 N.C.S.
a
rn
3
0
U
Page 53
E C
E E
O �
c0 a
U �
E d
, LL
d
O
U
>,
c
O
N
d
V
O)
U)
d
� a
N O
CD
a
r
O d
o 0
U V
LL d o �
LL
0 0
y r U
DLL
_
' IA
o
r
rZ
(0
m
(n
O
(fl
O
O
ao
V
ca
m
M
,v
a0
rZ
M
(n
O
r
N
(o
CO
i
v >T
: ;
N
&
N
0)
CO
a
d
N
i
1-
W' N
't0
Iw
o
CO
0
It
y w ^,
117
'� '
(O
O
V.
CO
O'.
O' .m
v.
(h
r
O
M
LO
O_
-.. v_
M
I
(O
M
�.
v
LO
I-
V
N
LL)
-
V
M
O
V
N C
M
' -
•''.
O
..
O
LO
C)
'm
00
K
CO
N
N
r-
't
M
O
m
N
N
I-
CO
M
00
N
O
CO
O
M
n
M
f�
OD
'd
V
00
00
O
O
M
r�
I-
f-
r-
.: O
x'R
�„
(0
(0
T
0
i6
N
'i, '
M
(9
O
7
r
00
In
O
M
co
W
co
'
r
N
L!)
O
'
U)
O
-'T
(A
c
r--
V
V
r"
A M
f-
'O
V
O
(n
O
'
CO.
"C)
N
M
IC C
CO
N
N
'k
N
M
{" N
�.
O)
(0
N tiH
O
'M
(0
'
N
O
CO
N
C
m
f-_
f-
f�
N
00
(D
CO
O
00
M
O
W
O'
(O
00
M
CO
00
'
(O
N
V
M
(O
O
N
(O
CO
C)
r--
N
O
O
N
M�
O
r O
N
V
Imo.
LO
O
s-
c0
N
LO
U7
O
00.
t--
Ln
= LL
O
M
N
O
r
O
M
r
M
O
0N,).
v
O 00
O,
UMj
C = 0
M
d N C
CI)
H
M
M
M
r
O.
r
°: L!')
N�
r
COO
CI)
(MO
@ @ (D
CO
C
p p
a V >
yA
CD
f� �
MCI
'rl�
O
CO
[�
aD
a t0�
OO m O�"h.9)
�m
M
O
.-
OO
N
i N
O
tp
W
cM
M
Q
(D
l0
W
N
O
t0LO�'
tf')
aD
N
M
N
x
,
�--
M
r
�-
�
p
„
s'
���
yyvv
.e*
�
y »
r
l O
W
$SSk
M
OO
M
M
O
M
O
Y' ➢
i0
6y
M
w b
9
IM
W
CO
M
O
NCO
M
b9"?,
M
cY
Px
`(!9
XOMMf+00
's
C4
(O
C4
M
N
N�!+
} 6
M
,bdxw
�'
NCOO m L`0D
" "'a
of
O
sm
O
M
..,«.r
"" q
CO
aP -
CG
NN
C4
' }
Ns
-
i�'
at
E�
Ot0
N
M
(O
M
��
i0Oa0h
(O
O
O
d
M'
M
P
f`
lA
ti
h,
O
a
dY
4
Y
-
1
10�
In
O
If�'.{
W
00
O�
N
f t0
N
t0
CO
N
(D
47,
r
O
t�
(O
N
tz
O
m
O
tfy
AMR
-
kvV
fi . ^,
s
W
all
C
1
C
C
c
`
N
`
C
Y
z
O
>
a)
C
w
d
a)
c
y�
'm
-
-
a)
LU
G.
a)
N
�
p
>
@
F
«s
H
Y
m
„k
O
Y
o
v
N@
0)
vs
*
F
O
>
N
C
Cn
(a
.
N
M
V
LO
r-
COO
.O
O
N
O
_O
_@
E
CO
s
co
Il
CD
a)
0
a)
0
m
a)
m
0
a)
c
<a
(a
-
U
o
a)
?
Q
06
f-
a"
c
c
m
c
m
c
m
c
c
m
c
m
c
m
c
p,
c
p @
w
x
W
n@
Q >
W
a
5
OR
3
N
P !
-D
7
0
N@
N
Q'.
6)
LL
C
=.
a)
a)
mm
a)
a)
m
mmm
N
a)
a)
N
C
G
C
- . 0
O
E
C
'�_
'�_
F-,
"�]
_�
7
N
7
-
a
J.
wCc
00(t
0
0
0
w(A!n!4!a
0
0
0
41
'O
c
'O
c
c
Y
c
Y
c
c
@
O
O
m
0
L)
W
N
N
c
o
r
C
h
C_
5
g'
�'
'O
C
-0
C
-0-0
C
C
'O
C
'O
C
a
C
- 0
C
'O
C
N
p
O
7 HHH
O
'O
- O
E
E
N
- O DU d��'
cHHF=
0=
-
C
N
E
"�
3
a)
C
O
E
N
O
@
7
7
7
7
0
a)
C
C
C
o
(n
(n
Cn
� C:
W
3
a)�
@
>
a)
Z U
3
p a)
mZ<
E".
c �
@
@"
a �C�C7C7C7 C7C7000H
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
oO
>
2
>
0
>@
0
�(�OO
o
WQ
y
m
y U
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
a)
a)
a)
O
>
C
a)
C
a)
C
0
Q
d
Of
cl
E
�'
c
o
C
m
,v7.�
y! C
W
'��
W
C
0
E
W
H
=.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
3
p
0
0
x
w.0
o
U
U0
�
V
-
m=
E
c
CD
i�.�
O' (n
�a
Q
Q
n
Q
-0
Q
-0
Q
-0a
Q
Q
-0-
Q
Q
p
Cl-
p
Z
a)
Z
c
c
c
R-'.
Q
N
U
�, .l
(p
d.
C
O
a i @
w
ma
@
F
@
@
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
E
I
0U
N
3
O
@
W ' N
�:
�Gi
a)
W
N
-j
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
O
m
m
-
'-
a)
a
zzzzzszzzzzz
zzszsxzzzzu,UXZ<
a-
LLLLLL
,
N
d
M
V
L()
V
(D
7
tt
'CY
d
O
l0
N
N LO
M
(n
V
Ln
LO
(n
In
CO
In
h
LO
COO
Lf)
U7
O
CO
(D
N
(D
M
O
V'
CO �'
Lf)
g: (O
(O
CO
I-
(D
W
CD
O
CO
O'
f�
f�
lC)+'n',.^.
I�
h
�
J
ly
O
Resolution No. 2010 -206 N.C.S.
0
U
x
Page 54
C
m
C
O
a�
a
c
co
Y
`m
a
O
Q1
V
d
d
m
a�
0)
F�
O
fl
d
Q'
O
v
N
O
U
Q7
O
O
L
o
O
C
O
C
D
O
O
L
O
O
o
0
o
O .'C
O
O
4 M r'r
rr inO�O
W
C)
1*
MOO
OON
'N
C
C.
Ln(O
V'
00
0)
4'(000
Lr)
(0
NN
d'
�.
O
O
U � `
� d
a
'IT
OLO
m
(.0mNr
o
r
M
_
' fA
r
r
O
'O
't
O
r
m
"M
N
(0
O
0)
N
-
aV
U)
O
LA
�N
M
r
V
r
O
O
M
O
O
r
O
N
00
O
(O
O
N
ONN
- O
to
�'M
N
00c
0)(O
00
W
r
M
r
M
M
O
r
N
O
M
d C
'
0)
LA
M
(O
(0
N
N
O
V
LO
M
V
st
N
r
CI)
N
r
y60
O -
LA
NNNOMOM0M
CO
.-
MON007n
r M. r
V
LA
N000
rrn
NL'i
W
(O
() (C
7
LA
�'-•
N
O
N
M
N
M
r
M
(D
0)
0)
0)
r
M
t
.N
N
N
O,
-
00
r
00
(M
O
N
Ln
M
00
r
M
00
N
0)
Lc)
00
c0 C
(O
V
M
C
Q
N
H
LA
V'
LA
LA
0)
N
O
O
In
N
N
M
O
O
LA
M
(0
M
(0
0)
N
LA
O
O
O
O
O
-
M
00
0)
m
(O
(A
N
d VTNN
V'N�
'
r.
N.Ln
00
M
M
O"00
'
d(A
0
M
CO
r
M
LA
O)
O
O
00
00
C C 7
O
r
00
V'
N
O
N
-
(M
N
O
O
> d C
r
a)
U Q
m y
M
00
lA
-'N
Lo
lA
A E
N
N
C >
C
Q U>
LL
`LA
l�
GLoj
O
W
N
t:
d'00
o
N
N
.��•
M
a
M
r�
d'
O(dOdi�
In
}
N
00
00'
t�
O
R
'O
CO
�N
fA -
F
(Ot
O
d7�
N
O
N
DV
A
t0
to
lA
O
.M
c0
d7
(O'lA
• W
O)
CO
r
N
r,
YQ. V = V►
: Fa
O
LA
00
N
s-
M
r
:N
dZ
�•
lA
r
^
to
r
:'LA
N
cel
a0
r
M
�
M
t0
W
ti'
er'.
' rNN
-O !)"
COIe}•
00M d'
d"d'.r
rM
.,581O
x
M
O
M
O
07
In
d)
LA
M
N
r
:0)
.-
LA
N
N
O
N'.
� '
"°�
N
O
'M
'CI)
r
O
O
N
'd'
N
a0
'OD
EO
Ln
"00
f M
N:
d
,,.!
b
st..
"• '
iA
Ln
Cb
O
Lf)
'N
O
L(7
'c0
O
O
-O
ao
gae"'x
%
a'
O
M
'
O
emu
(O
'
+
1 1
:d
`d �+
LL=y1
r
�,
5
C,
N
:W
N
cN
N
•
'
M
- r�
(O
c)::
�
M.'M
M'
-LAO
O
N
:O
ti0
�-'"
"
O
Oi,
O
��YI
LA
�-
.++ O
rc
'�
A GO
.��
�
- €
r~�
00
�
°N
O°
,�
s
; rt ..,
�,O
r-�
M
.
M�
•-.
..
�
,
N
W
V
a)
0
O
ns
CL
CL
a
u,
ur
E
c
-
(D
(o
.E
@
N
@
a)
N
-
•
-
•@
c
N
O
m
o
0
a
Z U 0
a)
o
U0
o
ti
E
CL
N
E
B
N
N
c
C
@
E
�,
O
(
O
-
:U
=g
:
7
LL
(C
(0
@
O
U
s
a
N
2
LL
0
U
D
U
a s
0
c
m
-0
c
a
N
E
_
0
0_
-
E
a�i
E
o
o
a
co
E
m
U)
M
c
c
0@
W
H
O
O
M
U
ti
Y
U
T
0
0
o
c
m
a`>
U
U
is
C
a
a
t
a)
N
U
N
N
a) CL
d>
O
y.
L
p
H
D
o
m
N
YYU
EO(q�
()
c
0
a)
Q
-
(n
COO
.
L
L
:
C
C
7
•
O
O
E
0
J
N
N
7
5
7
7
0
7
7
7
E
L '
-0
N
C
C
E
i
J
0
m
-0
a
a
a
o
0
0
o
c
0
ns
m
a
v
a
0
o
m
.o
Q
fy
<<<<U
}rrF���a(n(ncnUU�c�
U
)
�-
N
CO
V
LA
CO
r
W
0)
N
M
V
LA
O
r
00
0)
O
!
N
N
N
N
N
W
LL Z
O
H
Resolution No. 2010 -206 N.C.S.
N O <
CD 0 m �
> L a
0 O
E
00 O
w Lq c
°u w (°
m m
� y
c c
m
w CL
en v>
Z
� � n
O
m
0_
Q
0
C7
J
0
k
Page 56
EXHIBIT C PROPOSED NON RECREATION FEES
Summary of Administration, Public Works, Police, Animal Services, and Fire Cost Recovery User FeeTables
Arlministratinn
Public Works
1
Banner Permits (No fee - all banners are for non-
51
1"1;679
-
45
1p rof i ts)
2
25,:
Film Permits - - - - 212, X 93
25
0
25'
7
93'
651
-
3
J Escrow Contract Review (100% Cost Recovery) 141
,`' 6
141
, 846
TOTAL - ALL ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIVITIES
1
1,522
Public Works
1
Encroa Per mit Processing - All Othe l' "! `47 „51 ` 229
Encroachment Permit Processing - Utility Co. Project
ip
51
1"1;679
-
45
2
3
(100% Rec of Costs) _ - -t �� 152':, 108
Enc roac h ment Plan Review - Mi nor 73 ¢x163,, 1
_15
88
1`6,416'
`88
_
4
_
SIDEWALK MIN - R
_
88f
88
5
- 3„
SIDEWALK/DRIVEWAY- RESIDENT " 256, , ;�"
_
30 7'
' 36
NON -USER FEE ACTIVITIES :, _ X188;557
SIDEWALK/DRIVEWAY - COMMERCIAL AND
°. '. .
TOTAL - ALL PUBLIC WORKS ACTIVITIES
6
INDUSTRIAL ,� ,+ 340 ' k - 488 �i 1
408-
408
-- -
7
-
S LATERAL � i�510 F�526 -_ 1
528
. 526.
__ _
8
-
_ _
SEWER REP AIR (SLIP LINE) 93 287 1
- --
_
112
—
® 112
-
9
S EWER REP AIR (PIPE BURST) 2 receiving holes 256 „�287,�, 1
;` 307
., 307
10
SE R ( On Propert 93 ;225' 1
T (Street to Mai Pa rtial Tren 256 363 1
X1;12,
X 3071
1 °1�2
X 30 7
11
12
DUMPSTERS / REMOVAL X4'5 163 1
54
54
13
OUTDOOR DIN - Initial °'r 340 34,6 1
„ 346
:; ; 346,
- -
14
OUTDOOR DINING - Annual Re r X1' 03 F 239 1
Al2 4j
= 124
ry
USA Service Required - add'I charge (100% Recove .
15
of Costs) (. „E 125''' 1
125
' a ' 125
43
44
44
Utility Encroachment Permits - Inspection Hourly 67 ' 1 ,25 206
City Engineer 99 171 373
_ 12525,750:
-
45
-
PW Insp II 67 66
12 5
8,250.
-
46
47
.
�,`
Traffic Engineer Hourly ., X 99 i, „ 103 12
Sr En g Te Hou rly 61 #" ; 79 8
79
a6 32
,
,
NF
NON -USER FEE ACTIVITIES :, _ X188;557
°. '. .
TOTAL - ALL PUBLIC WORKS ACTIVITIES
130,650
Resolution No. 2010 -206 N.C.S. Page 57
EXHIBIT C PROPOSED NON RECREATION FEES
Summary of Administration, Public Works, Police, Animal Services, and Fire Cost Recovery User FeeTables
Police
1
Sp ecial Events ( Minor) - Residential
FEE NO.
Fee Name
Current
Fee / ,
Deposit
($),,,,
`Total
: CostPer
Unit
$
Annual
'Recovera
ble
Volume
Rec. Fee
/ Unitr($)
Annual'
Revenue.
@`Rec •;
Fee_
Police
1
Sp ecial Events ( Minor) - Residential
342 4
." 25,
�0
2
Special Events (Minor) - Commerc ,� 63
a 151 -
76
0
3
Spe cial Events (Major) - Residential 63
124 -
76_
4
Special Events (Major) - Commer 312
z3 , . 496 1 5
3 75. °
_
. 5,625
5
Clearance Letter .
150
16
' ' .`2,40 0
6
Ta xi Driv Permit "' 9
°.; 7&
76,. 40
�76
-. 030
7
Solicitor Permit X73
60
76
4,546
9
Fix -it Ticket Sign Off
— -- --
900
.6
5,4 00
NF
NON -USER FEE ACTIVITIES „ k•
88,030
8, 62 -
TOTAL - ALL POLICE ACTIVITIES
21,001
Animal Services
Resolution No. 2010 -206 N.C.S. Page 58
EXHIBIT C PROPOSED NON RECREATION FEES
Summary of Administration, Public Works, Police, Animal Services, and Fire Cost Recovery User FeeTables
x ya
Current ' Annual rinual
Fees / Cosrrer' Recovera Revenue
Depos t � t Uni ble Rec. Fee,
FEE NO. Fee Name ($), ($)_;, ; Volume l Unit °,($) Fee -
22 Board — Impou Dog_
23 Board Bite Hold /Quarantine
24 Board — Impounded Cat
25 Board — Small Compa A nimal
26 Board - Livestock (Small & Medium)
27 Board - Livestock (Large)
28 Disposal & Euthanasia (_Small Animal)
29 Disposal & Eu (C
30 D isposal & Euthanasia (Dog (Under 20lbs))
31 Disposal & Euthanasia (Dog (20 - 50lbs))
32 Disposal & Euthanasia (Do (Ov er 50lbs))
33 Disposal & Euthanasia (Carcass Disposal)
34 Group Cremation (0 - 24lbs)
35 Grou Cremation (25 - 49lbs)
36 Group Cremation (50 - 74lbs)
37 Group Cremati (75 - 99lbs)_
38 Group Cremation (1 - 120lbs)
39 Group Cremation (Over 1201b
40 Private Cremation (0 - 24lbs)
41 Priva C remati o n (2 5 - 49lbs)
42 Private Cr ( - 74lbs
4 P rivate Cremation (75 - 9_9lb
44 Private C (100 - 12_0lbs)
45 P Cremation (_Over 1 20l b s) _
46 Release Of Wildlife From Tr On Pr ivate Pr
Nuisance Wildlife Response To Euthanize On PrN
47 Property
Surrendered Animal At Animal Control Facility (Ad
48 Intact)
Surrendered Animal At Animal Control Facility (Ad
49 Sterilized)
50_ Surrendered Animal At Animal Control Facility (Litt
Surrendered Animal At Animal Control Facility (Nc
51 Resident)
52_ Pi cku p Ani At Ow Location To Be Surrenc
Animal Controll Officer Transportation Of Injured
53 An imal To Vet (Bus. Hrs)
Animal Controll Officer Transportation Of Injured
54 Animal To Vet (Non -Bus. Hrs)
55 Animal Control Officer Assist Animal Owner
Resolution No. 2010 -206 N.C.S. Page 59
EXHIBIT C PROPOSED NON RECREATION FEES
Summary of Administration, Public Works, Police, Animal Services, and Fire Cost Recovery User FeeTables
NF NON -USER FEE ACTIVITIES 726;;624;
TOTAL - ALL ANIMAL SERVICES ACTIVITIES 110,983
Resolution No. 2010 -206 N.C.S. Page 60
EXHIBIT C PROPOSED NON RECREATION FEES
Summary of Administration, Public Works, Police, Animal Services, and Fire Cost Recovery User FeeTables
Fire
Resolution No. 2010 -206 N.C.S. Page 61
EXHIBIT C PROPOSED NON RECREATION FEES
Summary of Administration, Public Works, Police, Animal Services, and Fire Cost Recovery User FeeTables
39 Tent/Canopy/Air-Supported_ Structure 266: 455 7
40 Tire Storage 483 X 498 3
41 Undrgrnd. Fire _M In 639
42 Waste Material Handling �,. 45A, =I• ;368 -
65 Commercial
66 Residential
67 New Tenant Improvement
All Other Plan Review (Excluding CUPA and Sprinkler
68 Review)
5
.40
R
2 ,035
22
514
11,308,
74
290_
21,4
1
61,
� .
61
Current
Total -rr
Per
Annual
'Recovera
Annual
Cost
Revenue
Deposit :
Uni
ble
Rec. Fee
@'Rec.
FEE NO.
Fee Name,
($),
($);. .•��
Volume
/Unit ($)
Fee
39 Tent/Canopy/Air-Supported_ Structure 266: 455 7
40 Tire Storage 483 X 498 3
41 Undrgrnd. Fire _M In 639
42 Waste Material Handling �,. 45A, =I• ;368 -
65 Commercial
66 Residential
67 New Tenant Improvement
All Other Plan Review (Excluding CUPA and Sprinkler
68 Review)
5
.40
2 ,035
22
514
11,308,
74
290_
21,4
1
61,
61
Resolution No. 2010 -206 N.C.S. Page 62
EXHIBIT C PROPOSED NON RECREATION FEES
Summary of Administration, Public Works, Police, Animal Services, and Fire Cost Recovery User FeeTables
69 Inspection. Hourly Rate I 121 173 j 1 145 > 1
70 Pre - development Reviews (hourly) „ 8,6.� 6686, �5;E
t
BiFIRESPP ESSION`�' ` 1
< , ..
74 Fire Company Ins pe c tions 85 326, 803 102 _81
75 Fire corn
oanv Reinsoections - 2nd
77 1 Weed Abatement Admin (Initial Review & Final Abate) ;f 160 X12 63 172 10,836
TOTAL - ALL FIRE ACTIVITIES 412,936
TOTAL - ALL OF REVISED NON RECREATION FEES 677,092
LESS CURRENT NON RECREATION FEES 578,220
NET INCREASE IN NON RECREATION FEES 98,872
Resolution No. 2010 -206 N.C.S. Page 63
m M
9
Exhibit D - M Group Cost Recovery
Community Development Department
11 English Street
Petaluma, CA 94952
Phone: 707 - 778 -4301
Email: cdd(a,ci. petal uma.ca.us
Web: www.cityofpetaluma.net /cdd
Buildine o Geoeraahic Information Svstems ® Housing
G
Fee Schedule*
*— All Fees Subject to 9% City Administrative Overhead Fee
Application Type
Adopted Fee
The following application types are Fixed Fee:
Address Change
$170'
Fence Permit
$97
Heritage /Landmark Tree Designation
No Charge
Home Occupation Permit
S M$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
Recovery (deposit plus time and materials):
Deposit Amounts
Addition /Remodel in City-Approved Historic District
$964 plus time and materials over $964
Annexation
$5,897 plus time and materials over $5,897
Appeal
$193'
Building Permit
See Building Permit Fee Schedule
Certificate of Compliance
$3,402
Conditional Use Permit — Major
$4,254
Conditional Use Permit — Minor
$1,4-34 $1,620
Determination of Public Convenience & Necessity
$2,835 lus time and materials over $2,835
Environnemental Impact Report
C onsu lt an t F_ , 25" and
ad o
th ae tual eost of s t a ff time nd ° +° als Cost 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 Ma (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 lus time and materials over $4,990
General Plan Text Amendment
$4,877 plus time and materials over $4,877
Initial Stud
$2-,892,- plus time and materials over S24, M22- $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
Community. Development Department • City of Petaluma, California
Public Improvement/Public Construction & Inspection
<= $500,000: 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% of engineers estimate.
Reimbursement Agreement
$1,134 plus time and materials over
Right of Way Abandonment
$1,134 plus time and materials over
SPAR Review — Major
$5,217
SPAR Review — Minor
$964$1,620
Specific Plan
$7,600 plu s time and materials over $7,600
Specific Plan Amendment
$7,600 plus time and materials over $7,600
Subdivision Ordinance Amendment
$4,480 plus time and materials over $4,480
Tentative Map Amendment
$5,671
Tentative Subdivision Ma
$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 and materials over $964
Zoning Amendment — Ma
$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)
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.
i 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.
ji "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 deposit based on the nature and scope of the
mitigations.
S:/agenda/2011/10-18-10 Planning Fees
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